Blog Post #6, workshop synthesis

So here I am writing my 6th and last post as a part of Systems Thinking, Systems Design workshop. This workshop was short, yet, it feels longer than it really was, due to the volume and variety of methodologies, ideas and ways of thinking that I’ve encountered.

I feel, that more than learning about different methodologies, this workshop was about changing our mindset. It definitely changed mine.

I gained a new perspective and a new way of thinking to address issues and situations in life.

Awareness plays a great part in systems thinking. Awareness of what we’re dealing with (a system, a part of a system, many times both). Awareness of the interconnections within a system and between systems. There were many times in life when I was told to ‘look at the big picture’ but for the first time, during this workshop, I realized how complex this task really is and what could be the implications of ignoring the big picture while addressing an issue.

As an ISD student in the Master of Information program, I can see myself benefitting from systems thinking in the field of information. performing synthesis, capturing the boundaries of a system, and mapping its parts is an essential step before trying to design or fix any information system. Understanding that an information system is only a part (also, in a way, a reflection) of larger systems in an organization. Finding the interconnections between the different systems and between the information system and other systems would help design a better information system or improve an existing one, and eventually leverage the use of information and knowledge management within an organization.

From a different angle, I can look at information systems as an opportunity for value co-creation between different units in an organization, or between companies and clients, by sharing information, or by collaborating in creating knowledge etc.

The last class and infographics presented by the different groups were enlightening. I was amazed to see the different views regarding the methodologies as well as the wide range of implementations for each methodology and for systems thinking overall. The context itself, and creative system thinkers can change the way a methodology is being used.

I really liked the ‘Systems Thinking For Librarians’ infographic because it demonstrated a systemic way of thinking, and how by applying this way of thinking you can reveal so many different layers (dimensions) of a system and get a better grasp of the system and the interconnections within it and between it and other systems. This infographic demonstrated how systems thinking can serve as a great platform to systems design, to mapping issues and to solving problems within systems.

I’ve also learned that different methodologies would fit different systems based on the context and on the system’s characteristics. Sometimes it would be easy to tell whether a methodology is a good fit for a system. For instance, I feel I would be able to tell almost instinctively whether the object process methodology or dialogue mapping methodology would serve as a good describing tool for a system. But sometimes it would not be that obvious. As an example, applying the agile methodology on a system with a different mindset (for instance purpose oriented rather than process-oriented system) might fail, as it is not enough to technically follow the agile development process – it should be done in the right mindset, and therefore while this methodology could work for some systems (e.g for some clients, developers, projects), it would not work for others. Rather than using coaching techniques and try to change the system to better fit the agile methodology, it might be better to look for a different methodology that would be a better fit for the system.

Another experience that left its mark on me is the use of visual methodologies. It seems to be a very powerful tool in group discussions and in making a point especially when reality becomes complex. Though I have never tried to use this tool before, I intend to try.

The map isn’t the territory – reality will always be more complex and dynamic than the model, especially in our fast-paced world. Therefore, systems thinking is about constant learning. This is also why a system that is generative and has an internal learning mechanism would be more viable and more valuable. With information systems in mind, this is why the internet has become so central in our lives. In my next professional challenge, I hope I will be able to implement generativity in information systems design.

The last 6 weeks were a rewarding experience. I have learned many new ideas and methodologies, and a new way of thinking. I am curious to find out what challenges the future holds for me and how will I be able to apply systems thinking in new situations.

Post #5: Service Systems and Generative Pattern Language

This week’s presentations were about service systems and generative pattern language methodology (the latter presented by my group).

During the service systems presentation, there was one definition of service systems that captured my attention. It defines service systems as:

“dynamic value co-creation configurations of resources, including people, organizations, shared information (language, laws, measures, methods), and technology, all connected internally and externally to other service systems by value propositions.” (Spohrer, Vargo, Caswell, & Maglio, 2008)”.

I found this definition particularly helpful. Putting the ‘value’ context on systems enables to capture various elements of the system by tracking the value associated with them. I can also say that value can be found in almost everything and it can be a useful tool in making connections within a system, between systems, and between service systems and other systems (like a production system and a service system).

On the presentation slides (slide# 9), under value co-creation there is a description of the customer contribution and the provider’s contribution to the process of ‘value co creation’. The customer’s contribution is described as ‘primarily social competence’. This definition suggests a very passive role for the customer if I understand it correctly. I believe that, especially in today’s world, the customer is able and even desires to play a more active role. As an example, Ikea is a company that recognized the process of value co-creation and chose to change the traditional pattern of value co creation by giving the customer the opportunity and the motive to add more value during the process. The Ikea example is a ‘win-win’ situation for both customer and provider. Ikea employed non-traditional thinking and had taken the bold move to have its customers actively engaged.

While doing some reading after the presentations I came across the ideas of ‘lean manufacturing’ developed by Toyota and the ‘lean services’ approach that followed.

The Toyota production system is renowned for its focus on reduction of the original Toyota ‘seven wastes’ (e.g. that do not add value) to improve overall customer value, but there are varying perspectives on how this is best achieved in other circumstances.

There were a few attempts to implement the lean manufacturing approach in service systems. One of the main distinctions between manufacturing and service systems is that manufacturing systems deal mainly with ‘hard’ products while service systems deal with more ‘soft’ products. As such, there are many more soft aspects / values in service systems than in manufacturing systems.  Some have argued that the application of lean manufacturing tools and techniques have seriously damaged the service organizations that the ‘lean’ approach has been applied to.

‘Value’ can be perceived very differently in a service system compared to a production system. A production system may, for example, highlight efficiency and speed while value in a service system may focus on the less tangible/measurable client satisfaction metric.

It also reminded me of recent trends in the travel industry. Lately there has been talk about ‘The return of the travel agent’. Online retailers such as Expedia and booking.com have reduced substantially the need and even desire by customers to use travel agents.  These digital platforms offer convenience, speed, comparability and other features; however, they lack a certain level of value that a human can provide. Travel often requires complex arrangements, preferences (which only a person can advise on) and troubleshooting before and after the fact. There may in fact be value in the very ‘feeling’ that there is a person behind the logistics.

The advent of chat bots and artificial intelligence may turn the tide back to the machines by potentially providing this ‘personal’ level of value.

This brings me to the second methodology: Generative Pattern Language: though I had no knowledge about it prior to choosing the topic, I connected very well with the method. I found this methodology quite clever and hope that Karen and I managed to get the main idea across to everyone. It is astounding that it evolved from an architect’s vision about the build environment and can be so versatile.

I like this methodology for its collaborative and empowering features.

From a professional perspective, I like this methodology because it is very flexible, and enables to create connections between multiple disciplines. This kind of tool is very much needed in our world, where systems often interconnect with each other, for instance socio ecological systems.

A good example for the implementation of this methodology can be found in the article “From Environmental Structure to Service Systems Thinking: Wholeness with Centers Described with a Generative Pattern Language” written by David Ing. The generative pattern language manual suggested in the article recognizes a variety of patterns that are relevant to the context of multi service centers. Interestingly, I can also see how this type of manual can be combined with a build manual to bring together the planning of hard aspects and soft aspects of service systems, discussed above. Such an approach could potentially achieve a holistic design and I think this is what Christopher Alexander meant when he talked about ‘the quality without a name’.

The public sector could benefit from applying such a methodology, to design and optimize its decision-making processes. Corporations can also benefit from applying it to create a set of business procedures based on context.

I believe that in order to take full advantage of the generative language pattern methodology a system designer should adopt a thought process that recognizes existing patterns and leverages other known patterns.

It is also important to recognize the drawback of this methodology, being relatively time-consuming, and forcing its users to constantly re-examine patterns to account for the changing context and to add new ones when applicable.  With the said increase in the velocity of change in our world ’pattern generation’ may be increasingly challenging. In discussion with industry practitioners, some have suggested that technology in the form of sophisticated machine learning may hold the key to such pattern recognition and application. I feel the human touch is an important factor here, as only a human will be able to recognize relevant context, but it is definitely an intersting way of thinking. Time would tell.

References:

Blog Post #4, Viable System Model and Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems

Following the 4th class of this workshop below is my 4th post!

This week’s presentations were about the Viable System Model (VSM) and the Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems (RSES).

VSM deals with the organizational structure and through this prism on the improvement of an organization’s viability and sustainability. It draws its initial inspiration from the human body and the way it operates. The model is based on universal invariances in organizational management. Other key features of the VSM include the view about the systems’ learning process, reaching a balance within the system and between the system and its environment, and the fact that this model is recursive.

The VSM reminds me of the OPM Model. Both are about object – process relations. Both demonstrate a system and relevant components through visual illustrations and diagrams. I find them both to belong to the hard system approach. VSM seems to be much more convenient than OPM in showing the big picture, and mapping processes in large and recursive relationships like governmental organizations, large conglomerates, national or international communities, etc. The VSM appears to be a good tool to diagnose existing organizational structures and to design new ones. It can also help for mapping organizational resources, such as mapping knowledge flow in organizations.

The VSM addresses both horizontal and vertical relationships. However, I am curious as to the model’s application when the same person, or even unit, has both a horizontal and a vertical relationship in an organization? This is not rare in larger organization. For instance, in professional services firms where matrix structures are common. A particular manager may be a subject matter expert within a certain center of excellence whilst also reporting to a “regular” business line function. Could there be a conflict of interest? How would the VSM address this issue? The VSM does offer an answer which is that it is not about the individual but rather about the individual as a unit in the structure and his/her role in the organizational structure. Though this approach is aligned with the recursive nature of this model, I find this it to be an oversimplification. I believe that this model may have a weakness in that it does not address soft issues like the human factor in organizations, organizational culture, conflicts of interest, etc. A potential solution might be combining this model with another one that can address these other softer issues.

One last thought: the goals of each methodology we encountered so far are different.  The OPM is a descriptive model, it doesn’t aim to achieve a specific goal. The VSM contemplates the viability and sustainability of systems. The Idealized model aims to get the organization to where it should ideally be, right now, based on current constraints. As such, the Idealized model can be viewed as far more ambitious than the VSM.

The second model that was presented last Wednesday is Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems (RSES). It is an intradisciplinary methodology combining concepts from nature, the environment, social studies, geopolitical studies and more. It pays respect to cultural differences and to social equity. It also emphasizes the importance of the value of participation and promotes sustainability.  By doing so, it achieves an integrated view of hard systems and soft systems thinking.

This model does not provide a specific solution to a problem. It provides knowledge regarding typical processes that occur in a Social-Ecological environment, their stages, connections, major possible stakeholders and so on. Hence, professionals utilizing this model may be better prepared to anticipate issues in the system and intervene to solve potential problems therein.

This model reminded me of the current situation with the Dead Sea in Israel:

The Dead Sea represents a social-ecological system that has been under stress for several decades.

It is the lowest place on earth (minus 423 meters) and has a salinity of about 34.2%, makes it one of the world’s saltiest bodies of water.

Visitors continue to frequent the resorts around the Dead Sea, enjoying the medicinal qualities of the salt and the mud baths. They marvel at the ease of floating on its water.  The sea (which is actually a lake) has survived for many millennia thanks to a steady equilibrium between water flowing in from the Jordan River and water evaporating in the scorching heat which is typical of the region. This equilibrium was maintained as long as the region was sparsely settled. But the Dead Sea is drying up and changing due to both geopolitical, industrial as well as ecological factors. Certain areas of the Dead Sea are actually rising due to excess sediment deposited by some of the industrial plants around it, while others are drying up due to lack of natural water flowing from the Jordan River requiring better coordination between the countries in the region. Climate change and natural geological patterns are claimed by some to also be a contributing factor to the situation.

It seems that the Dead Sea system may have reached minimal levels of resilience. There are also signs that it has reached the limit of its threshold. For instance, lately, there are concerning numbers of sinkholes, that did not exist in the area before, caused by the changing equilibrium in the system.

Experts believe that without major intervention, the Dead Sea will continue shrinking and will eventually “die” (disappear). If this happens, the unique natural habitat in the area will also perish. Although the Dead Sea’s water is barren of most life, the surrounding ecosystem includes springs that support a surprisingly rich range of flora and fauna. It will likely have a negative impact on financial investments made by surrounding countries including industrial plants and tourism.  Major efforts are being made to prevent the Dead Sea from dying, to restore its resilience and bring it back to a similar equilibrium as it experienced before.  This is a great example of a social-ecological system in crisis, with various components, different stakeholders, and interconnecting impacts.

To conclude this post, I would offer the observation that whilst used for different systems, both the VSM and the SES address the interconnections between a system and its environment and those within a system. Both pay attention to the importance of keeping the balance within the system and between it and its environment. They also both deal with processes that maintain viability and sustainability within the system.

 

References:

Idealized Design and Soft Systems Methodology

This week’s presentations were about Idealized Design and Soft Systems Methodologies. I found Russel Ackoff’s videotaped lecture mentioned in the syllabus effective in explaining his philosophy behind Idealized Design. At the beginning of his lecture, Ackoff distinguishes between reformation (‘doing things right’) and transformation (‘doing the right thing’). Ackoff emphasizes the importance of doing the right thing over doing things right. Ackoff suggests that it’s better to be mistaken trying to do the right thing than to be mistaken trying to do things right. I find this idea as a fundamental piece of Idealized Design Methodology.

Encouraging transformation rather than reformation is an important pillar of Idealized Design Methodology. The ‘formulation of a mess’ technique, introduced in class, is used to design a system from scratch. In some ways, the ‘formulation of a mess’, can be viewed as a psychological tool. It is intended to help system leaders reflect upon their organization and to focus on a system’s weaknesses. It is also intended to create the motivation to move forward and implement change. Other aspects of this methodology include:

  • The meaning of Idealized Design: Idealized does not mean ideal. It means the determination of where the organization should ideally be, right now, based on current constraints.
  • The parts of the systems are valuable only to the extent that they contribute to the whole This principle is particularly important and even tricky to implement in large organizations, where each leader oversees a specific part (and function) of a system.

Though I find Ackoff’s ideas and methodology intuitive and appealing I think there are certain complexities it does not deal with. For instance, the focus of Idealized Design is with respect to current constraints rather than future ones. Yet sometimes focusing only on ‘today’ is not enough. An organization’s leaders should have insight and foresee tomorrow’s challenges. They should try to anticipate what’s next in the field, and get their organization ahead of the game.

Another methodology that was introduced in class was the Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). There are different Soft Systems Methodologies but they all share few things in common. They all consider the human factor as a part of the system in question. They are all intended to deal with complex systems and situations and offer simplifying ways to describe those systems. Therefore, those methodologies are popular when dealing with complex systems like environment, health, and eco-social systems. The SSM that was introduced in class was a visual methodology, meant to simplify describing the system, its parts, and players, their motives, interests, and relationships.

I found the tool introduced in class to be intuitive (if used without overthinking). From what I’ve learned till now, SSM offers mainly descriptive tools (for describing systems) and not design-oriented tools.

I found the article: “Perspective changes everything: managing ecosystems from the inside out”, by Waltner-Toews, David, James J. Kay, Cynthia Neudoerffer, and Thomas Gitau, fascinating. I learned from it that the use of SSM has led to a change of perspective by managers and researchers regarding ecosystems. While environmental management has traditionally considered humans as external to “pristine” ecosystems, growing awareness of the complexity of eco-social systems showed this approach to be unrealistic. Gradually ecosystem managers realized that when management decisions are made, people must be considered as integral to ecological systems. This approach has also led to a different perspective on the definition of science and the role of scientists. Science traditionally is considered objective, and scientists as objective experts. But in post-normal science, and in eco-social systems, for instance, the expertise is a collective one. When it is applied to environmental and health issues, the eco-social system is central and is considered a complex reality about which many perspectives provide some truth. In this context, science becomes part of the system itself and not an external objective view of it.

Idealized Design (as its name suggests) offers designing tools, while SSM offers descriptive tools for systems (additional descriptive tools can be found in Dialogue mapping and Object Process Methodologies). Idealized Design is about transformation (designing a system from scratch) while SSM is reformation oriented (improving what we have). I find the last one to be more realistic and more practical.

As for my preferences, I find the SSM tools to be very user-friendly in starting a collective discussion about a system and in describing a system. It can serve as an icebreaker but also is a very good simplifying tool. SSM is also very flexible in nature, and with its interdisciplinary approach offers the ability to change/evolve according to a system’s orientation. I find Idealized Design less practical but more inspirational in nature. Trying to ‘do things right’ and focus on the function of the parts as a part of the whole are both great strategies for leaders. I believe any system, and any system leaders will benefit from using such strategies.

References:

  • Ackoff, Russell L. 2004. Keynote at ICSTM 2004. Web Video. International Conference on Systems Thinking in Management. University of Pennsylvania. https://vimeo.com/170334843.
  • Jones, Peter H. 2014. “Design Research Methods for Systemic Design: Perspectives from Design Education and Practice.” In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the ISSS. Washington, DC. http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings58th/article/view/2353.
  • Kish, Katie, Martin Bunch, and Beiyuan Xu. 2016. “Soft Systems Methodologies in Action: Environment, Health & Shanghai’s Elderly.” Systemic Practice and Action Research 29 (1):61–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-015-9353-4.
  • Bunch, Martin J. 2003. “Soft Systems Methodology and the Ecosystem Approach: A System Study of the Cooum River and Environs in Chennai, India.” Environmental Management 31 (2):0182–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-2721-8.
  • Waltner-Toews, David, James J. Kay, Cynthia Neudoerffer, and Thomas Gitau. 2003. Perspective changes everything: managing ecosystems from the inside out. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1, no. 1 (2): 23-30. http://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0023:PCEMEF]2.0.CO;2

Blog Post 2, Object Process Methodology and Dialogue Mapping using CCSAV

Last Wednesday, January,17, 2018, we explored 2 different methodologies: Object Process Methodology (OPM) and Dialogue Mapping Methodology, called: Collaborative Computer Supported Argument Visualization (CCSAV).

OPM was developed based on the general system theory – this theory suggests that everyone should be able to describe any system, no matter how complicated it is, using conventional concepts and principles. OPM was designed to create ‘universal’ visual symbols and verbal concepts that, ideally, enable its users to describe any system and will be understood by others, no matter what their personal or professional background is. It is a language for describing and discussing systems. I was pleasantly surprised by the practical nature of the model, and the ‘hands on’ experience in class was very useful. I spent some time at home reading relevant articles and thinking about them before class, yet, I got the real feel for the methodology, its advantages and disadvantages, only during the presentation. My general impression regarding this methodology is, that it is a good formal yet intuitive methodology for describing certain systems.

During the presentation in class I felt that it is a relatively ’easy to use’ methodology. It is true that one needs to gain some knowledge and experience to properly use it, but that can be said about almost every methodology.

I found the group exercise to use OPM methodology to describe the process of building a snowman very interesting: I was really surprised to see how a simple system/process like this one led to a deep and somewhat philosophic group discussion. Using OPM, in this case, required initial agreement by the group about the object, its states, and process. The exercise showed me how complex reality is, and those models, who attempt to describe reality may never fully achieve this goal. It also got me to wonder: is building a snowman considered a system? Or just a process? I think it is the process. And if so, what is the system involved in this case? I suppose the system is the combination of the object, the process and the different states undergone throughout the process. Our group in class focused on this synthesis but with attention to the snow collection and stacking elements.  One could argue that we should have contemplated additional elements, like changes in weather, design features, location, etc. Interestingly, I was able to fine-tune my understanding of OPM by learning about the second methodology, CCSAV.

The second presentation was about Dialogue Mapping, using a technique called:  Collaborative Computer Supported Argument Visualization (CCSAV). CCSAV is a representation – centric platform that helps users in the identification and structuring of complex issues through the collaborative construction of argument maps. It is meant to be used for public debate, online large-scale conversation situations etc. Like the OPM methodology, it offers a symbol language, to map the content generated by the group and create an argument map. An argument map is meant to help recognize the different arguments, the underlying reasons for different opinions, and keep track of the whole argument system. It could also help in policy planning: in making an informed -policy decision (and keeping records of why was that decision made). Again, I feel I benefitted from the fact that the presentation was practical and included a ‘hands on’ experience. The CCSAV language itself seems easy to use and a good technique for public and collaborative online debate circumstances. It does seem to be helpful in dialogue mapping, though research suggests that it introduces some disruption in the way people communicate. This research indicates that there may be a lack of transparency and social visibility that can negatively influence users’ collaborative experience and performance.

The outcome of using this dialogue mapping technique is essentially the synthesis of a specific public/ online debate. Similarly to OPM methodology, CCSAV requires interpretation regarding the system in question, its parts (comments, reasonings) by the user.

A substantial difference between OPM and CCSAV is that the first one attempts to offer a universal methodology for all existing systems while the second one limits itself only to certain systems. I tried to imagine how I would use OPM for a public debate (or specific dialogue mapping) and I couldn’t think of a way to do so. Accordingly, I would argue that OPM is a good tool for certain systems, but not for all. I can see the benefit of using OPM for systems with a clear function, structure and predicted behavior. But, for example, I do not think I could use OPM to describe a system for public argument, or, more generally speaking, a more abstract system, with no certain outcome.

I will finish this post by saying, that comparing between the two methodologies was useful in better understanding each one of them. Another lesson might be that it may be beneficial to look at a system from different angles and to try to describe it using a few different methodologies. This may result a better-shared understanding of the system in question.

References:

  • Dori, Dov. 2006. “Modeling Knowledge with Graphics and Text Using Object-Process Methodology.” In Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management, 683–93.
  • Lavi, R., D. Dori, and Y. J. Dori. 2016. “Implementing an International Standard for Manufacturing System Lifecycle Management Using Object-Process Methodology.” In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Software Science, Technology and Engineering (SWSTE), 71–76.
  • Iandoli, Luca, Ivana Quinto, Anna De Liddo, and Simon Buckingham Shum. 2016. “On Online Collaboration and Construction of Shared Knowledge: Assessing Mediation Capability in Computer Supported Argument Visualization Tools.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67 (5):1052–1067
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_Process_Methodology

 

Systems Thinking, first post

 

This blog will be dedicated to my personal thoughts, impressions and learning process during the ‘Systems Thinking – Systems Design’ workshop taught by Dr. David Ing, at the University of Toronto’s, Faculty of Information. The first lecture was an introductory lecture and an orientation lecture, introducing main concepts and ideas in the field of Systems Thinking.

The first two concepts that were introduced were the ‘containing whole’ (the relevant system) and its ‘parts’. Each part contributes a function or a role within the containing whole. I found the sentence: “Ask not What’s Inside Your Head but What Your Head’s Inside of” a thought provoking way to present these concepts. It suggests that one should first look at the whole rather than its parts, and identify the whole as it relates to the part of interest. Our inclination would typically be to focus and explore a specific highlighted issue that has changed or is ‘causing an issue’.  It would take most people some time to adapt and view the surrounding environment first. This idea resonates with me and I can find applications for it in different aspects of life, for instance:

In Antitrust Law, to conclude that an entity is a monopoly, one needs to first define the ‘relevant market’. A broader view needs to be considered regarding the business, the product, potential consumers, geographical boundaries, and so on, in order to define the relevant market. Only after the relevant market has been defined a conclusion can be made regarding the function of the business/ entity itself (the ‘part’) within the market (the ‘system’) and whether it is a monopoly in this market or not.

In an entirely different field, the transportation field, we can find examples of failed efforts to improve transportation due to a misunderstanding of the wider ecosystem – the ‘containing whole’ involved. A local and relatively recent example is the Union Pearson Express, which is the airport rail link running between Union Station in Downtown Toronto and Toronto Pearson International Airport. The UP Express was launched on June 2015, and has been criticized for its relatively high fares, the fact that it has only few stations and that those few stations are not easy to get to. Changes have been made to UP Express to help solve for those issues. This is an example showing the need to consider the implications and preferences of the user base as well as a more careful look at the total cost – benefit of the project.

Two complementary concepts to the concepts of the ‘containing whole’ and ‘parts’ that were introduced during the lecture: analysis (from whole to parts) and synthesis (from parts to the containing whole) and the idea that in systems thinking, synthesis precedes analysis.

The notion that synthesis should precede analysis also resonates with me. As an example, a professional Information Systems Designer will look at the whole (information) system – making sure all relevant parts of it are being identified and included and as such is performing synthesis in advance of analysis.  Thereafter, any data analysis will also be preceded by an understanding or synthesis of the relevant data fields or metadata.

Other concepts that were introduced as other fundamental parts of systems thinking were: structure (‘arrangement in space’) and process (‘arrangement in time’).  It was further noted that structure follows process.  While I can understand the basic idea of process before structure, I will likely need to see more examples to fully appreciate this concept. For now, I can present to myself the argument that the slightest movement initiated by process will create or change the structure of a system.

Another idea that was introduced during the first lecture was that: ‘fast gets all the attention but slow gets all the power’, meaning that for a meaningful, permanent change you need to move slowly.  A good example for the need for slower and deliberate action is while executing ‘change management’, facing the challenge where organizational culture lead to a ‘Complex Adaptive System’ behavior (CAS), and resistance to change.  One of the ways to reduce resistance and increase the chances of successful implementation, is introducing the change gradually and in a manner, that adapts the organization’s current values and goals.

Demographic changes serve too as a good reminder of fast vs. slow.  Short term political and military type moves may have some immediate results.  However, real changes in the demographics of a region/country will happen over time, based on underlying birth rate, quality of healthcare of various groups, and availability of economic opportunity.

To summarize this post, the main idea I’m taking with me from the first lecture is the importance of taking a broader view and defining the relevant content and the borders of the ‘containing whole’.  This initial step will impact the decisions about the steps to be taken towards a specific change, and will inevitably influence the outcome of a system review/change.

While writing this post, I also questioned the impact that one’s values, beliefs and potential preconceptions would have on the definition of a system. If so, when assessing a system’s containing whole and its parts, it may be advisable to consider different perspectives to avoid a personal bias.

References:

Ing, David. 2013. “Rethinking Systems Thinking:  Learning and Coevolving with the World.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 30 (5):527-47.

Gallivan, M. J. (2001). Organizational adoption and assimilation of complex technological innovations: Development and application of a new framework. Database of Advances in Information Systems, 32(3), 51-85.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Pearson_Express

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton’s_third_law