16.5 Where does the systems practitioner stand in relation to a system of interest? Systems practice may be carried out individually or as part of a team. In doing action research – which is a form of managing – an important question is: On us or with us? (Figure 47). This question seems pertinent to the process that led to the establishment of the Child Suppor
6.2 Modes of managing systemically Now I want to describe some of the possibilities I see as being available in the repertoire of an aware systems practitioner able to connect with the history of systems thinking and with the new theories of complexity. David Robertson, in a presentation to the Society for Research into Higher Education in late 1998 entitled ‘What employers really, really want’ reported that: ‘research on employers in a number of English-speaking countries (an elite survey with senior corporate peo
6.1 Perspectives on managing My focus in this section is on the M ball being juggled by a systems practitioner. My purpose is to enable you to appreciate the diversity of activities that might constitute managing. More specifically, I am concerned with the type of managing a systems practitioner might undertake. When you began Part 3, Section 4, I asked you to complete an activity (Author(s):
Systems dynamics In the 1950s, Jay Forrester, a systems engineer at MIT, was commissioned by the US company Sprague Electric to study the extreme oscillations of their sales and establish a means to correct them. From previous experience, Forrester knew the essence of the problem stemmed from the oscillations present in situations that contain inertia effects, or delays and reverse effects, or feedback loops as basic structural characteristics. Subsequently, in 1961, Forrester published his report on in
Open University systems failures method In their most recent book, Learning from Failure, Joyce Fortune and Geoff Peters describe the 20 years of experience, which has produced the systems failures method (SF-method). Their motivation was to discover the ways failures in organisations can best be understood. They observe that one of the best ways people learn is from their mistakes, yet few organisations foster attempts to learn from people's mistakes. They believe this absence of learning can be attributed to a blame cultur
5.8 Developing a soft systems method One of the more widely used systems methods is known by its originators as ‘soft systems methodology’ or SSM. The driving force behind its development and increasing application in the domain of information systems development has been Peter Checkland at the University of Lancaster in the UK (e.g. see Checkland and Holwell, 1997). SSM, or adaptations of it, has been used in many other domains as well. The experiences that have given rise to the development of what in this course I
5.6 Developing the Open University hard systems method When the writers of the course T301 Complexity Management and Change, the predecessor to T306 (the course from which this unit is taken), started in 1982 they had to decide what to include and what to leave out (just as we have). They started with the systems analysis approach of the engineers De Neufville and Stafford (1971), which had been developed in a civil engineering group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). De Neufville and Stafford defined systems analysis as â
4.6 Appreciating some implications for practice I think for most people, the CSA case study would be experienced as a complex situation. If so this would be a good example of perceived complexity. Remember though, if you engaged with it as if it were a difficulty, just as the government minister did in Activity 42, you would not
4.4 Where is the complexity and what is it? When I first described some of my experiences of the child-support case study above, I attributed the properties of mess, complex, or hard-to-understand to the situation. So, are mess, complex, and hard-to-understand the same thing? If they are, why is the unit called Managing Complexity, rather than, say, Managing Messes? A glib answer is you might not have been attracted to it because of the everyday meaning of mess. Yet another answer is that complexity is a rich term whose everyday meanin
4.3 Experiencing complexity as mess or difficulty In this section, I want to take the ideas of mess and difficulty and explore them in the context of complexity. I want to determine how these ideas are connected, how significant the connections are and what the differences illuminate. I shall draw on the ideas of three writers: Schön, whose central theme is practice (e.g. Schön, 1983; 1987); Ackoff, who explores the characteristics of mess; and Rosenhead, who shows how different approaches to practice may be contrasted in terms that illumi
4.2 Articulating your appreciation of complexity Initially, I would like you to notice whether and how your appreciation of the phrase ‘managing complexity’ has changed since you started the unit. As you work through Section 4 you will encounter a number of ways of thinking about complexity that may be new to you, so it becomes important to record your developing understanding. To help you with this, return to your notes on Author(s):
Part 3: 2 Systems practice – unpacking the juggler metaphor Systems practice, modelled in Figure 23, is a particular form of the general model of practice in Author(s):
1.1 Making sense of the metaphor The metaphor of the juggler keeping the four balls in the air is a powerful way for me to think about what I do when I try to be effective in my practice. It matches with my experience: it takes concentration and skill to do it well. But metaphors conceal features of experience, as well as calling them to attention. The juggler metaphor conceals that the four elements of effective practice often seem to be related. I cannot juggle them as if they were independent of each other. I can imagine
9.9 Perspectives review Just as you were completing your rich picture, I asked you to identify and record any stakeholdings, thinking, feelings, and views about what to do. In the next activity, I invite you to do a similar exercise based on where you are now. I then want you to re-examine the notes and compare the earlier perspective against your current perspective. Expect to spend about half an hour on this activity. 9.8 Diagramming a complex situation Diagrams are never an end in themselves. They have a purpose. They exist in relation to a situation and can be used to cast light upon aspects of that situation or to explain it to someone. So, the next step is to look at the diagrams you have drawn and to ask yourself what you have learned about the situation. This answer may be in terms of a deeper appreciation of the situation. It may also be in terms of pointers towards possible interventions and some idea of the likely effects of s 9.7 Control-model diagrams Perhaps, like me, you are beginning to form the view there were some ambiguities about purpose in the case-study situation. Control models are a useful way of investigating purpose and the means in place to achieve it. They address issues like ‘What is X trying to achieve?’ ‘How are they trying to do it?’ and ‘How will they know when they've done it?’ Control-model diagrams provide a structure for exploring these questions. The drawing of the model allows you to decide whet 9.6 Sign graphs Next, in the exercising of your diagramming skills, I want to look at sign graphs. Unlike the three diagram types you have already drawn, a sign graph is not usually used to structure the understanding of complexity. This means it is likely to be relatively less useful in the task of searching for system within the complex situation described in the case study. Sign graphs can, however, be useful once some elements of system have been identified. They can support the exploration of 5.5 Multiple-cause diagrams Multiple-cause diagrams are another way of using interconnectedness to structure a complex situation. In this case, the interconnectedness is that of causation. Multiple-cause diagrams represent both sufficient and contributory cause, without making a distinction between them. Drawing multiple-cause diagrams allows for the identification of systems of causation. Such a system can be pictured as an interconnected group of events or effects; the effect is of a system that behaves 9.3 Systems maps: Drawing systems maps The next step is to draw some systems maps. The art of drawing effective systems maps lies, I believe, in finding an appropriate balance. The balance lies somewhere between the learning, which comes from the process of drawing the maps, and the uses I might make of the end product. If you have already had some experience of drawing systems maps, you will know the process generates insights and understanding by itself. This comes from having to decide what to include and what to e 9.1 Making sense of complexity This section is about finding ways of thinking about complex situations – making sense of complexity. This is a process of discovery. It involves thinking about complexity in an orderly way that allows you to enter a deeper understanding of the complexity. It goes beyond immersion in, and representation of, complexity. The invitation I am making in this section is to move into the possibility of structuring complexity. Notice I am not suggesting there is structure in the
