Doug Merchant wrote and quoted, in a small part:
> >>"It is far from clear that 'each part of the organization doing what is
> >>right for itself' is a bad thing. I think Stuart Kauffman, in "At Home In
> >>the Universe" describes the idea of "patches" as a way for an organization
> >>to adapt efficiently to a fitness landscape. [Nick Arnett ]
> >>
>
> >>How 'bout if the "patch" has selection mechanisms which change the
> >>populations of individual within the patch? [DougM]
> >
> >I'm not sure if you're asking if there is competition within a patch or if
> >the makeup of a patch changes. I haven't seen anything from Kauffman
> >looking at those twists. [Nick Arnett ]
>
> "Patches" remind me of a firm composed of semi-autonomous, P&L accountable
> business units where each Bu competes for Corporate Resources within a
> multi-divisional firm .
What we have forgotten here is that Kaufman's work is based on abstract
1's and 0's whereas the systems under consideration are composed of
humans.
We know what happened when Friedman's NAIRU model essentially decooupled
the human element from the Phillip's curve of unemployment/inflation. it
became very easy to build a model which set what appeared to be immutable
parameters. We won't discuss the socio/political consequences but just
point out that we will have severe problems when one tries to take an
economic system and reduce it to a set of mathematical models.
And, we then also reopen the entire philosophical arguement on
predestination.
This is the great issue- why worry about a learning organizaion if the
organization can be reduced to a model? This is more than intellectual
sophistry
thoughts?
tom abeles
--tom abeles <tabeles@tmn.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>