Andrew Wong Hee Sing wrote:
>
> Could it be a language dilemma to express certain concepts :
> e.g. "LO" "IT" "BPR" and using different metaphors to describe,
> e.g. "the born" "the made" "structured-unstructured spectrum" etc.
> It appears that each "languaged concept" as above is separate
> part / entity / domain / compartment / fragment.....
> But one of the essence / discipline of LO is "SYSTEM THINKING"
> which deals with interrelationship, inter-depedency, inter-reaction
> of all these parts plus many more.
>
> What is the views of LO List members?
If we pay close attention to this matter, rather than praising our
preferences, we can see that IT, BPR, and even TQM are special cases of
the same methodology. The minor technical differences between the way we
draw pictures of the things we want or need to change and the language we
use to describe that methodology makes many people think these are
separate and very different approaches. They are, in general, Planning,
Execution, and Control methodologies. (I know, control is a bad word to
many of you, but in the sense of systems thinking, it means feedback and
calculated action on that feedback)
Whether you're trying to improve an activity, a process, or a larger
system, links and loops, stocks and flows, process diagrams, flow charts,
and other graphical analysis techniques are different view of the system.
None of them can be anything more than a snapshot, but all of them can
give a sense of understanding. Engineers, marketeers, mechanics,
butchers, and anyone else performing work in an open system can benefit
from understanding the system.
In another thread, (LO13870), Cesar asks:
>What are the real benefits of technologies like e-mail, Lotus
>Notes or Network introduction? How do you express those benefits that we
>perceive but are difficult to manage? Could you provide me some examples
>in these areas (notes, e-mail, networks)? For me, these are the primary
>tools that the people from a learning org could use to start.
This is where the users of BPR, IT, etc. get to differences. In many
early "reengineering" efforts, the ROI was calculated in terms of
short-term cash flow, not in things like "value to society", "strategic
value", "market share" and the like. The result was a systemic
depopulation of organizations. IT also things in terms of capital
projects and expense projects, with ROI as the bottom line. There are
others ways of calculating ROI, but they take longer to capture. Things
like 360 evaluation, where we can see the improvement of team performance
through aggregate scoring, annual Baldrige award self-assessments to align
strategic thinking with tactical needs. All of it is "management" and
management is the planning, control, and improvement of systems. If we
understand the theory of variation, apply that knowledge through
establishing (and reestablishing) feedback mechanisms and metrics upon
which we adjust the system to align with trends (or in the negative impact
case, curtail them) we are doing IT, BPR, TQM, and LO.
--John Zavacki <jzavacki@wolff.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>