Marion,
I like your who/what/when/where/why approach to systems.
You wrote, "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."
Isn't it wonderful how the best tools are often the simplest?
You also wrote, "(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.")
Oh my! My brain locked up about six times while I was reading this. I very
much prefer the who, what, when, where and why.
Dale
--Dale H. Emery | 27 Tall Pine Road Consultant | Berwick, ME 03901 Relationship and Communication | (207) 698-1650 For Successful Organizations | 72704.1550@compuserve.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>