Information Processing - Systems thinking (II)

We are evolving into the information age but have a lot of challenges to understand in what it is about in information systems. Systems thinking: understanding the information system as a whole gives a structure to adapt to changing environment changing conditions the information system as a whole.

What is needed for all systems:

1. A clear goal, purpose. The problem in this is that: "the purpose of the system is what the system does". If we want to define our own purpose, mission, we should be clear about that.
2. We should be able to sense the system. The problem in this is that we must be able to measure what is relevant direct or indirect. The problem in this is that the measurement of indirect indicators is to be confused with the goal of why the measurements are done.
3. The ability to influence the system, change the system as a whole. The problem in this is that in complex chaotic situations there are not easy predictable controls for influencing progress toward a goal by a vision.

You cannot effectively influence a system without understanding its current state and underlying dynamics. The act of communicating is an attempt to shape the receiver’s mind, an act of control, however subtle. Cybernetics treats communication and control as inseparable.

The organisation Change Control

"Messy situations and their handling have been with us from immemorial times. However, it is more recently that scholarly attention has been given to how people approach these situations. ... One issue with such approaches concerns how the conditions for learning are created and maintained for the handling of the situation. For example, who are the stakeholders and how are they organised so that respective viewpoints can be expressed, outcomes negotiated and actions implemented. This draws attention to the organisational context within which a situation is made explicit, evaluated and negotiated. This is important because the structural aspects of how a situation is addressed, shapes what is addressed and the consequent outcomes. In other words, for example, if the wrong people are involved in dealing with a situation or there are poor communications, then the situation is unlikely to be appropriately diagnosed and handled, with the consequence of ongoing dissatisfaction of those affected by the situation."

Viability Planning (Espejo 2011) is using two loops for changing the organisation. For modelling there are 3 levels, using a 3*3 structure is appropriate.

A generic structure for an organisation.

All organisations are unique in the same way as all humans are unique. All humans have a similar design of their system so all organisations are likely to have a similar design for their system at least the must be many that are similar. The question is how would a model for a generic organisation system look like?

That modelling for a generic usable visualisation is difficult and something I have not found as available knowledge. It is not the organisational hierarchy of line of command. I did an attempt by analysing from what has found for the topic in Command&Control. The result reduced to two dimensions is the following figure.

It is a 3*3 layout with four for managing the organisation en four for managing technology supporting the product (good, service). It is based on a horizontal flow of the product (goods, services) and a vertical control on that flow. The diagonal l-IV is going for a focus to services to the customer (external), the diagonal III-II on the creation delivery of the product (internal). Technology an organisation are combined in the areas I and IV. That is a sensible when evaluating what should be the practice but it not the reality in information processing practice.

Influencing the system is easy by reorganizing the organisation that is changing the managers and the departments they are ordinating, but that is missing a goal for progress in the system.

Knowledge about the products(goods, service) is indispensable. There is a gap, a blue ocean gap, for information processing - information technology. The culture for describing documenting of attributes specifications and how to change is missing. A framework and the support by real products for that is the "Jabes" proposal.

Measuring sensing the system

Measuring a system is very difficult by all of what is assumed, missing ambiguous or even wrong stated. How a system is seen using a generic model is however doable. Using the Viable system theory there is a lot possible to classify for maturity and define indications for maturity. This is beyond the understanding of systems that are suffering from diseases.

Some quick possible pathologies:

1. Disassociation: no one responsible for the customer as a whole, many overlaps, little autonomy
2. Schizophrenia; sr management absorbed by operations, different non hierarchical segments
3. Cancer: major duplications, low exploitation of synergies, strategic shortsightedness
4. Dominance: concentration of functions, failing growth other segments
5. Bottle-neck: strong centralisation, cost reduction, strategic shortsightedness

Measuring sensible is using the complementary systems in their autonomy strength.

More content (external)

There is a long brain dump for this, an adjusted Zachman structure as the whole. It is not the result what is the most important of that but the journey what resulted into to result. https://metier.jakarman.nl/