Replying to LO27668 --
GIST OF MY RESPONSE: [Speaking conjecturally] In order to 'teach people
how to talk', you have to give alternative (new) vocabularies,
conversational structures, and conversational niches to those who will use
them to talk differently. However, these interventions in the
'conversational domain' must be in harmony with the organisation's
'operational domain' (that means, compensation systems are still
important).
*Systems and Strangeness*
The traditional task of systems engineering has been to design systems
that would fulfill pre-specified purposes. However, over the years, it was
found that even well-designed systems do not live up to the designers'
expectations because, typically, something goes wrong in the USE OF THE
SYSTEM. Most systems find that they have to function within environments
they were NOT DESIGNED FOR, i.e., in 'strange environments'. The strangest
of all strange elements in system environments seems to be the USERS! So
far, to the best of my information, no secure way has been found to ensure
that designed-systems would withstand 'user-produced strangeness' (my
term) and continue to perform as expected. However, there seems to be one
promising strand of thinking on how to solve the problem of user-produced
strangeness, elements of which I can sense in Roxanne's mail. I am putting
it forward for Roxanne's and others' scrutiny.
*Designers and Users: Role Mobility*
That promising thought is to create opportunities for designers and users
to move between these two roles, in such a way that the system they design
(and use) progressively improves and stabilises. Such a form of
interaction proves very difficult to conceive and implement. However,
there are instances of such interaction that can inspire new applications.
Example 1: Floating mass of fire-ants: Some fire-ants come together to
form a floating mass of fire-ants to collectively survive in flood
situations. While in the floating mass, each ant is producing (i.e.,
designing) the mass, but also using the mass (to survive). The two roles
are fused into one. Example 2: Design of a shop: In an experiment, Russell
Ackoff invited the users of a shop to help redesign the shop. They became
users again, after the shop was redesigned.
Mobility and fusing together of roles require a lot of support. In
organisational situations, it might even be resisted. People tend to get
used to one 'kind of talking' (to use the slant of Roxanne's message).
Using any other kind of talking has to be shown as not only feasible, but
also attractive and potentially beneficial. The best chance of achieving
this is by offering many alternatives that qualify as such, i.e., many
conversational modes.
*Conversational Modes*
A number of conversational modes can be identified. For example,
'conversations for action' and 'conversations for possibility' (the terms
are from Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores). Some other modes (that I am
still defining) are 'learning conversations', 'reflective conversations',
'generative conversations', and 'synectic conversations'. Each mode of
conversation can utilise different vocabularies and linguistic structures
(or rules). I visualise 'conversational niches' within an organisation,
which function as inviting venues for different kinds of talking. These
venues are stable and well-defined. People can move around from venue to
venue (as, for example, they move from stall to stall -- or room to room
-- in a museum). However, while inside a venue, one must abide by (or be
restricted to) the rules of that venue. If one wishes to deviate from
those, one can do so in another venue, not in that venue. Of course, the
venues themselves would change, learn, evolve, etc.
*Harmony between Domains*
In this kind of thinking, it is important to ensure a constructive
relationship between 'conversational' and 'operational' domains. Both
should be so developed and so managed that each becomes an impetus for the
other to develop. One way to achieve this is to provide for mechanisms
whereby each domain passess on its residual problems (i.e., problems it
cannot solve within itself) to the other. This of course implies that when
a solution is indeed proposed by the other domain, the former domain
should give it a chance within itself. This area of thinking is not very
well-developed in my mind.
DP
Dr. D. P. Dash
India
PS: The reader can see that my own vocabulary on this topic is not very
well-developed. I am still struggling with 'rules', 'structures', 'modes',
'niches', 'domains', ...
>... "You don't need a new compensation system, you just need to teach
>your people how to talk to each other." ...
--"D P Dash" <D_P_Dash@nts2.ximb.ac.in>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.