Deming and Senge Comparison LO9261

Marion Brady (mbrady@digital.net)
Tue, 20 Aug 1996 08:51:56 -0400 (EDT)

Replying to LO9242 --

Dale Emery, in a response to Rol, said,

"I think part what's happening in this conversation is that different people
think of the word "system" differently."

I see all systems as subsystems of sociocultural systems since, in
my view, sociocultural systems are the largest meaningfully integrated
systems of which we know. ("_Meaningfully_ integrated is a key idea.)
My approach to the description and analysis of systems and/or
subsystems-- large or small, simple or complex, extended in time or
momentary, etc. is always the same whether I'm studying an entire culture, a
neighborhood, a corporation, a segment of an assembly line, a mechanical
process, an athletic team, people in a stuck elevator--whatever. I use the
5-element approach implicit in our language and thought. All comprehensive
descriptions and analyses of aspects of reality merely elaborate, in varying
degrees and with varying precision, who/what/when/where/why.
Once you get past the initial reaction that no approach so familiar
and so mundane could possibly be a sophisticated tool for dealing with the
kinds of things talked about on this list, its true elegance (in the best
engineering sense) and power gradually become apparent. The approach is
all-encompassing, inherently systemic, and has the enormous advantage of
being familiar to and "natural" for all. (There is, however, the perceptual
difficulty presented by the "a fish would be the last to discover water"
phenomena.)
(For pedants, I never mention the conceptual categories who, what,
when, where, and why. I say something like "there is a perception of
coherence in the elements of a particular segment of reality sufficient to
warrant study when, in relation to that segment, data are presented that (1)
provide an image of a milieu sufficiently detailed to identify its component
elements' relationship to events or interactions occurring within it, (2)
identify actors on the basis of their action(s) and cognitive state(s)
within that segment of reality, (3) posit or imply actor cognitive state(s)
leading to meaningful actor action, (4) describe actual physical behavior
growing out of or consistent with actor cognitive state, and (5) fix the
whole in appropriate time parameters. The inclusion of any particular
element or characteristic of milieu, actor, cognitive state, or action in an
account of a particular segment of reality is the extent of that element's
or characteristic's systemic impact on other system elements, the question
being whether or not that relationship is sufficient to cause change , and
if so, to what degree, in one or more of those elements.")
That may hold them off long enough for me to point out that all the
academic disciplines--and all our other models of reality or parts of
reality--"fit inside" the above, their relationships are disclosed,
and--probably most importantly-- previously neglected but relevant elements
brought to attention.
If your kids' education isn't helping them make explicit the
culturally structured, implicit model of reality that underlies their every
thought and action (and it almost certainly isn't) they're being tragically
short-changed.

--
Marion Brady

Marion

<mbrady@digital.net> http://ddi.digital.net/~mbrady

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>