Re: Challenges to systems thinking

[wayne.mack@pec.com]

Let me raise a couple of semantic quibbles, that I feel may turn out to be important.

First, Dr. Deming wrote of "A" system of profound knowledge not "The" system of profound knowledge, and second, Appreciation of Systems, Understanding of Variation, Psychology, and a Theory of Knowledge are components of Profound Knowledge, not components of a system of profound knowledge.

Why is this signficant?  Because if we had "The" system of profound knowledge, we would also require an aim, which is missing.  With "A" system of profound knowledge, the aim is to be defined in conjunction with the system.

My concern with using the components of profound knowledge as thte components of a system of profound knowledge is the missing element, people.  I believe one of the key points in Dr. Deming's diagram of "A System View of A Process" is the inclusion of people, suppliers and users, in addition to the process.  One of the key points of Dr. Deming's recommended aim is the list of specific people as part of the system.

So far, I have only found one case where Dr. Deming speaks of interactions between systems and that is between a system of profound knowledge and a system.  In all other regards, it appears that systems are oblivious to each other.  This obliviousness is what we call "suboptimization" or "competition."  In general, a business does not set out to harm a competitor; the business is simply unaware of its affect on others.  A business does not have an aim to go out of business, it is just without a system of profound knowledge, the business is unaware of how the outside world may affect it.

I believe a system of profound knowledge may be the answer to the initial paradox, but understanding the answer may take considerable time.


Message posting through the Clemson CQI Web Server.