Living System Audit Vocabulary LO29702

From: Chris Macrae (
Date: 12/16/02

To be frank, I am looking for system people who would like to be
linguistic guinea pigs - all help gratefully received!

which of the terms that follow have no meaning to LO people without a lot
of further explanation?

This is an intentionally-not-introduction-view to the architectural
principles of The Map pictured at
sincerely, chris macrae

Living System principles required in every trust-flow audit

 1) Conflict resolution across value demands of a company's stakeholders
needs to be appraised at the beginning of every audit cycle because this
is the most economical time to change-lead system. Culture of conflict
resolution extends to positively looping the loop- ie finding a higher
value connection between 2 entities that others treat as separate or in
direct conflict
 egs: valuing intangibles as activating human connectivity, energising
win-win emotional intelligence as distinct from win-losing, simplifying
higher value of Yin & Yang (eg economic and social capitals; branding and
responsibility), SWOT participation of whole community of value by turning
Weakness to Strength & Threat to Opportunity, learning architecture as
relationship feedback loops

 2) Stakeholders whose trust a company depends on must be openly pictured
as hub of all knowledge management, by continuously representing what are
the primary relationship promises that could break the trust of each
stakeholder segment. Openly see this as compiling the simplest but
complete list of human promises that the organisation as living system
must not abuse over time - because the transparency age dictates that the
value dynamics & integrity of trust-flow risk total breakdown if any
promise is broken and lies then compound period after period. Sustainable
communal value and innovative growth multiply in an unique relationship
pattern of such richness that 'need to know' strategizing becomes
redundant. A true living system cannot be me-tooed in an open networking

 3) Screening risks of broken knowledge links typically caused by silos,
hierarchy diseases lack of openness between professionals, breakdowns in
believing in values, wrongly focused rewards or budgets and any other
failures of the organisation's people to see horizontally (in addition to
hierarchically), and to take co-responsibility for each other's
behaviours, and in many intangibles markets for each other's learning. For
example, in service and knowledge markets, front facing servants of
stakeholders are best placed to listen and learn whether any of their
needs are changing or whether the company is failing to deliver any
serious aspects of its promise. They need a support system which
encourages passing this unwelcome information up the hierarchy. Current
accounting by numbers is prone to rewarding precisely the opposite
transactional behaviours and emotional ignorances. Ways forward: open
governance by trust-flow and new intelligence structures eg e-learning

 4) Open vision across boundaries and to networks - knowledgeably selected
to innovate preferred future leadership, as distinct to classical
planning/administration which accidentally compounds past lags

It is my view that we are not going to get the governance systems we who
wish to be valued as knowledge/learning workers deserve from
organisations, and must have to replace the numbers monopoly unless we are
prepared to get meta-disciplinary- and how one chooses an open mix of
different people's favourite vocabularies is something I know not how to
do without experiments such as these. Translation between verbal 1 to 4
above to The Map pictorially composed at bookmark:

confliction resolution = corresponds to the near right part of the map
where we analyses green win-wins (positively coupled trust flows) and red
win-loses (where one stakeholders demand conflicts with (the trust of)

stakeholder resolution = central (stakeholder family tree of map)

scanning broken knowledge links = left part of map , which is only an
indicator of horizontal and living systemisation work that knowledge
architecture should be doing - how do we connect all the people who are
currently separated as experts in intangibles or separated in which
stakeholder they serve

paragraph 4 only starts to be depicted on the far right of the map; the
idea becomes one of openly interfacing The Maps of all other organizations
or communities whose future interdepends with your knowledge and
trust-flow you


"Chris Macrae" <>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>

"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.