I think Jean-Marc points up an important distinction.
I am promoting not only the primer, systems thinking, but also the
practices of a) systems identification, b) design/architecting, c)
engineering, d) adapting and e) learning (characterizing the resulting
system regardless of the designer's original intent).
Jean-Marc highlights what I call Systems Identification (SID).
Attorneys call SID "the discovery phase of litigation" and the
physicians call SID the diagnosis and prognosis phase of treatment and
the Generals call SID Intelligence. Business Executives and other
explorers call it WTHAW, Where The Hell Are We? and most do not know how
to discern this until their dissatified customers and gleeful
competitors show them where they aren't. MBA's should know how to
discover their situatedness by interpreting their "GPS" readout on their
wrist-mounted Balanced Scorecard. First, of course, we have to improve
the latter. Unfortunately, most Balanced Scorecards show only the wake
but not the icebergs.
Learning how to do any one of "a" through "d" is aided by training but
must be preceeded by education. Each of these are practices in the
sense that attorneys, physicians, musicians, etc., practice -- although
a generic framework can be learned, each case differs from previous ones
and requires on-the-scene innovation.
There are more than 100 books on the Engineering topic but prescious few
on the other three. However, I am not suggesting that MBA candidates
spend time in the College of Engineering. They learn enough paralysis
by analysis as it is. What I am suggesting is an awakening in the
Business Schools of this important facet of an enterprise. Once an
enterprise is seen and treated as a system then all sorts of principles
and archetypes can be applied and beneficial outcomes enjoyed.
I echo Jean-Marc on the benefits of bringing in experienced managers as
faculty. There may be a better way. In the last decade I have observed
the tremendous education they get when professors of business become
entrepreneur CEO's.
cheers,
>
> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:04:22 -0500
> From: GUILLEMETTE Jean-Marc <
GUILLEMETJ@iata.org>
> Subject: Re: MG-ED-DV Digest - MBA's need N dimensions
>
> This discussion on the importance of system thinking brings up what is
> perhaps for me the central issue re: the direction of MBAs: is the MBA
not
> intended as a cross between training and education?
>
[...]what good is teaching our students
> about systems thinking if they can't afterwards find the heads or the
tails
> of the real, live system in which they work? [...] There are many good
"thinkers" out there, along with
> a good number of "doers", but there are surprisingly few who can build
the
> necessary bridges between theory and practice. MBA graduates should be
able
> to do that.
>
> Moving in this direction, however, requires that universities work
more and
> more closely with industry to bring in experienced managers as
faculty. Some
> are already there, many others resist. Are we back on the arrogance
issue?
>
> J-M. Guillemette