Information Processing - Systems thinking (I)
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 components by technology people processes is not giving the understanding what the information system is.
"When you apply analysis (reductionism) to a system you take it apart and it loses all its essential properties, and so do the parts. This gives you knowledge (know how) on how the part works but not what they are for. To understand what parts are for you need synthesis (holism) which considers the role the part has with the whole."
The question is how we can we create understandable systems?
When we have some model that explains the system by showing the details and how components are working together we can extend that. We have to abandon the technolog and organisational mindsets to see their interactions and see how they are functioning for some wanted defined functionality.
External perspectives for administration
We got outside perspectives for stacked floorplans for administration mediation and technology. Each of them is a world on their own, being connected from elsewhere for some purpose, got enablers for enabling the purpose. With indications what it is about the context is not lost in abstractions.
There are two important activities in the centre:
Instead of just showing floor-levels the organisation is mapped to the system categories used by the theory of viable systems. This gives another set of associations for interactions. Having the details not abstracted it also show cycles for a product good-driven (green cycle) approach or product service-driven (magenta cycle).
Other two worlds
Administration organisation, that is people guiding what they whish is done ("why") are stuck in the "why" not achieving the goals. They need the "how to" from technology.
What is enabling the interaction between the Organisation and Technology are Structure and processes. There are a lot of important activities by mediations for alignment. The variety in all options is too high for a simple representation. It is like the nervous system, blood circulation for a system as a whole.
领英推荐
Fractals: undercomplexity in viable systems
The usual presentation of a viable systemen is just showing one dimension with 5 systems in an environment, that are in total 6 area-s for a visual. The theorem tells it is not one dimension but it is structure that is repeats itself. How often it is repeated is not defined. Showing only one dimension is undercomplex when the repetition is the important factor. The most simple representation of a viable system is by 5 area's on a surface.s
In the understanding of a system we see two everlasting competing antipodes:
Can we build a visual representing the repetitions by those different types? An attempt using a rectangle and triangel for a split. The factor of repetitions is 4-5 to the edges and 2,3 in the depth for growth. The association is a natural structure.
These are just four components and we do not how they are interacting on what. That is very little to build something with more complexity. They are connected counterparts always binding something O-T and P-S. This is big step: when we order the rules what and how they are connecting those things there could be a helix seen. Nature has created a similar structure that created unbelievable variety and complexity.
Accepting that complexity with all related uncertainties gives another way in systems thinking. It is not about each of the components that builds a usable system it is the purpose of the system as a whole that makes the real difference.
What that implies:
More content (external)
A long brain dump for this set, an adjusted Zachman structure as the whole