Thomas Petzinger Jr. wrote, in a small part:
> The patches notion may not be ready for prime time, so to speak,
> because Kauffman does not address a few essential things like legacy
> boundaries in organizations, as your example would demand. But the
> concept is still worth thinking about. The nut of the problem, as he
> points out, deciding how large a patch should be.
I think the nut of the problem is much more complex. First, how is a patch
affected by other patches several or many steps removed from the patch
where the patch could be in the shipping dept and the influence comes from
somewhere in upper level management due to imperfect informaion flow.
Next, we have the possibility that the decision and action of a patch will
lead to a reorganization such that the patches are restructured or some of
them are and thus are in comppletely new environments due to he decision
and third enters the element of game theory, the old prisioners dilema
where a decision could lead to the resructuring wihout the consequences if
the playing field remained the same. And while we can create two or 3
dimensional patchworks, there is always some unrevealed dimensions or a
"warp" as in the game of clue or a worm hole in he star trek sense
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>