Which came first? LO20453

AM de Lange (amdelange@gold.up.ac.za)
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:58:38 +0200

Replying to LO20437 --

Dear Organlearners,

Winfried Dressler <winfried.dressler@voith.de> writes:

>My starting point was: Why should manager or decision maker
>model systems? The answer seems so obvious: To make better
>decisions. But why then is it so difficult to convince manager to
>participate in such a process? I think this is a question worth to
>think about also in this list.

Greetings Winfried,

I agree with you that it is a worthy question.

Why does it happen? I will not try to give a rich answer. But it reminds
me very much of reading a number of books on the same topic. The majority
of them leave me cold, except for bits and pieces. A few of the books are
delightful and keep me nailed right to the end. At first I was merely
aware of this phenomenon. Then I began to question why they leave me cold.
I now know that the majority of the books leave me cold because they do
some or other thing which inhibits my creativity.

How do they do it? For example, some of them dogmatise their model into a
fixed version. It means in terms of the essentiality liveness
("becoming-being") that they take the 'becoming" out of the model. Others
assume that their model, based om a small part of reality, can be applied
to a much greater part of the whole. It means in terms of the essentiality
wholeness ("associativity-mondaidity") that they deny the associative
pattern in jumping from the part to the whole.

I think it is the same with system's modeling. If it is ignorant of the
creativity of all those who will work with the model, then it will leave
them cold.

>What I wanted to express in my previous mail was, that a stable
>system may become unstable when different people with different
>individual attractors (goals, desirable ways of the systems
>development) develop their models and start to act according to
>their findings.

Stability depends on entropy production in the system and the
surroundings. The higher the entropy production, the less stable the
system. At the bifurcation point some stabilities actually gets
transformed into new stabilities.

>P.S.: By now, I think, that the main benefit of systems
>dynamics is not to gain knowledge on systems behaviour
>but to provide tools to educate or better to inspire peoples

Aha, what do we have here? The back action of learning on creativity! It
is the manager with the richer creativity which has the advantage. Thus
it becomes very important HOW we learn system dynamics. If the learning
was not in terms of the person's creativity, then the outcome of such
learning (in this case system dynamics) will have little back action on
the person's creativity. Can you now see how important creativity (first)
is to learning (second)?

Best wishes


At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>