Contrasts LO21989

John Zavacki (
Fri, 25 Jun 1999 05:51:37 -0400

Replying to LO21968 --

DP speaks thusly:

>A little more complicated example is the co-ordination of
>communications. There does not seem to be a unique solution to this type of
>Linguistic solutions involve linguistic conventions, grammars,
>etc. More local solutions are available in the form of 'systems
>(e.g., soft systems methodology, SSM; critical systems heuristics, CSH;
>etc.), etc.
>The most complicated example of course is the co-ordination of
>actions. Again, there does not seem to be a unique framework to study
>this area. Many different approaches can be found in the contemporary
>literatures of action research, learning organisation, group research,
>cultural studies, etc., generally focussing on how certain types of
>collective emerge.

There is a large body of knowledge extant in project management. One of
the fundamental problems with the methodologies in effect today is the
linearity of the visual approach used by the GANTT method. One may,
however, switch views and look at the critical path, network view. This
is a rudimentary stock and flow diagram which takes into account
coordination of activities. In my view, the links and loops view of a
project would be most effective for determing integration requirements for
coordination of activities as well as determining the scope of the system.

Where many projects (anything from writing a letter to writing a doctoral
dissertation) fail is in the definition of the system and the measurement
of the levels of (here comes that word again) entropy. I'm toying with
the idea of multiple analysis of variance on project management learning
histories to try to understand the variation in the system and to create
an entropy metric which will key on recursive elements of the system
(which is typically where the time analysis fails).

John Zavacki


"John Zavacki" <>

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