RE: Challenges to systems thinking

["Bawn, Loren" <LBAWN@dhs.state.ia.us>]

Vic Forte, quoting David Kerridge quoting Deming, writes:

<begin metaquote>WED used to say "Every theorem is true in its own world.
The question is, which world are we in?"

<End metaquote, begin quote>I'm sorry, but I've never been able to
understand this. What does this actually mean?<end quote>

We also have a number of posts (some a bit too anthropomorphic for my taste)
attempting to reconcile the natural world with man-made organizations, and a
post from Del Nelson reminding us of the folly of doing so without profound
knowledge, and inquiring what guidance profound knowledge might provide
humans to cool Colorado, Arizona and Alaska.

In an earlier post, I suggested that perhaps many of our educational
organizations are in such disarray because we have many entities vying to be
management and few agreeing to cede or share power with the others.  I
argued that a definitive determination regarding who is management was
necessary so that an aim could be articulated.  Without such articulation, I
argued, improvement was not possible.  (On a side note, Ivan Webb posted a
thought-provoking instance where an elementary school apparently pulled it
off.)

To me, Deming's quote means, in part, that "survival of the fittest" may be
meaningful on the savanna, but "survival of the fittest" negates volition,
which is part of any human system capable of overcoming entropy. If "the
world we [my organization] are in" is the savanna, than my organization will
fight or flee in response to each new stimulus with no more "regard" to what
worked before than instinct has programmed into its being.   My organization
then lives or dies based on this nonvolitional act.  Wait a minute. . .
maybe we ARE on the savanna! <grin>

In order to act meaningfully upon a system we need to artificially bound it.
Drawing this boundary will result in suboptimization of the larger system of
which the system in question is a part.  Cooperation can minimize this
suboptimization, but will not eliminate it.  This bounding is necessary,
however, in order to allow management.  If I seek to manage the world (or
the solar system, or the universe), I will fail. I am not the boss, I don't
understand nearly enough to even try to be the boss, and we have seen the
results throughout history of some one or group trying to become the global
boss. Democracy is messy and inefficient, but planetary management, if it's
even possible, must involve more than efficiency.

I agree care must be taken in drawing the boundary, but I do not see an
alternative.  Also, drawing a boundary does not mean we can then ignore
everything that is outside the boundary.  That is where cooperation comes
in. We see this cooperation, to greater or lesser extents depending on the
specifics in question, in the form of trade associations, "summit meetings"
by business or political leaders, standards implementation, treaties, the
UN, and so on.   

In business, ignoring the "outside" for long enough will result in an
organization producing products or services for which the world no longer
values. In government, ignoring the "outside" for long enough will result in
"unelection" or overthrow.  These consequences can be delayed for quite some
time given enough money or guns, but they can't be denied.

Keep the Faith,
Loren Bawn
Executive Officer
Iowa Department of Human Services