Robert says,
> I am just banging my head trying to figure out to make my point clearer.
> The SYSTEM is a construct and is our human way of describing what we see
> as inter-relationships, structure, etc. The SYSTEM does not work, people
> do. The SYSTEM does not make decision, people do.
> Focusing energy ONLY on a construct and not on the people is nonsensical
> to me.
> Reifying a system is frought with danger.
Robert, I see and I like your point. While working with IntegriVu, I
helped develop a quality theory/methodology we called P3T: People,
Processes, Principles, and Technology.
The basic premise was that people bring life to a process (or to a
system), the processes and/or systems emerged from certain principles, all
of which, in our knowledge society, are facilitate by technology.
We get into problems when we don't realize that the system begins to take
on a life of its own, and moves beyond the jurisdiction and control/intent
of the original principles. That is why, IMO, system dynamics is so
important. It can help us identify the boundaries of a system, as well as
monitor how closely the system reflects the principles we want it to
reflect.
I think the "people" -- those who do the work, and who work within a
system -- should pay close attention to how the system is functioning, how
it is evolving, and how well it is or is not achieving the desired
results. This implies that the people must understand the
interrelationship of the parts, and look at the system as a whole, if they
are to have the type of influence they need to be competitive.
I'm assuming everyone already understood the last paragraph, but I
included it in case there are subscribers who are new to the idea of a LO.
--Benjamin B. Compton ("Ben") | email: bcompton@novell.com Novell, GroupWare Support Quality Manager | fax: (801) 222-6991
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>