Discussion: View Thread

The more prevalent problem in using the CAS analogy in organizational work
is the failure to include the system design/develop/evolve agent (humans)
inside the system. Humans are indeterminant devices which behave as second
order, implicit operators.
Scientists have their problem because they envision themselves as observers
of a quantum level system instead of as participants.
Also do most managers and OD specialists.

-----------original message -------------------
> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 06:48:54 -0500
> From: Bryn Parry <bryn.parry@SOLENT.AC.UK>
> Subject: Re: MG-ED-DV Complex, Adaptive Management
>
> The recent debate on CAOs has been very interesting and highlighted that
> much of relevance to CAOs goes by other names.

[...]
--- if you don't think of the the full system, you will build in flaws; but,
since this is too big a scale ((jring,or too long term))

Jack,

The irony for 'scientists / managers' may be that being active observing
participants within the system may limit (determine) and alter what can be
observed and they don't even know it...

Just like a placebos, expectations may become realities by the power of
belief... Thus the power of convincing storytellers that can focus efforts
to accomplish objectives and bring about visions... and the risk of Bona
fide 'experts' that maintain flawed notions (of course without knowing it).
You know the difference between a deception and a vision resides in the
nature of the illusion created. Knowledge of the facts destroys an
illusion created by deception unlike the illusion created by a vision that
remains even when the facts get known.

Cordially,

Esteban



____________________________________________________________________________
For your protection, this e-mail message has been scanned for viruses.
Visit us at http://www.neoris.com/

-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Ring [mailto:jring@amug.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 7:02 AM
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: Organizaion as CAS


The more prevalent problem in using the CAS analogy in organizational work
is the failure to include the system design/develop/evolve agent (humans)
inside the system. Humans are indeterminant devices which behave as second
order, implicit operators.
Scientists have their problem because they envision themselves as observers
of a quantum level system instead of as participants.
Also do most managers and OD specialists.

-----------original message -------------------
> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 06:48:54 -0500
> From: Bryn Parry <bryn.parry@SOLENT.AC.UK>
> Subject: Re: MG-ED-DV Complex, Adaptive Management
>
> The recent debate on CAOs has been very interesting and highlighted that
> much of relevance to CAOs goes by other names.

[...]
--- if you don't think of the the full system, you will build in flaws; but,
since this is too big a scale ((jring,or too long term))

Paul,

You identify a critical weakness of CAS theory - the failure to incorporate
the human intellect.

However, I wonder whether "second order implicit operators" does us
justice. We essentially consititute the system (they are not just operators
on the system) and engage with many broad-ranging integrative ideologies.
We also have extra-ordinary pattern processing capabilities that we have
very little understanding of. I see nothing in the physical or biological
basis for CAS theory that represents these issues in any way.

The CAS failure is analagous to the failure of economic, which also has
most inadequate theory of social behaviour.

Gray Southon

At 03:32 PM 9/24/02 -0700, you wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jack Ring [mailto:jring@amug.org]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 7:02 AM
>To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>Subject: Re: Organizaion as CAS
>
>
>The more prevalent problem in using the CAS analogy in organizational work
>is the failure to include the system design/develop/evolve agent (humans)
>inside the system. Humans are indeterminant devices which behave as second
>order, implicit operators.
>Scientists have their problem because they envision themselves as observers
>of a quantum level system instead of as participants.
>Also do most managers and OD specialists.
>
>-----------original message -------------------
>> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 06:48:54 -0500
>> From: Bryn Parry <bryn.parry@SOLENT.AC.UK>
>> Subject: Re: MG-ED-DV Complex, Adaptive Management
>>
>> The recent debate on CAOs has been very interesting and highlighted that
>> much of relevance to CAOs goes by other names.
>
>[...]
>--- if you don't think of the the full system, you will build in flaws; but,
>since this is too big a scale ((jring,or too long term)) ----
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gray Southon
Honorary Research Associate
University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Director, Southon Consulting.
15 Parthenia St., Caringbah NSW 2229
Ph 02 9524 7822, mobile: 0416 295 056 Fax 02 9531 0781
email: gsouthon@ozemail.com.au
Personal Web Site http://www.ozemail.com.au/~gsouthon/

On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 07:01:58 -0700, Jack Ring <jring@amug.org> wrote:

>The more prevalent problem in using the CAS analogy in organizational work
>is the failure to include the system design/develop/evolve agent (humans)
>inside the system. Humans are indeterminant devices which behave as second
>order, implicit operators.
>Scientists have their problem because they envision themselves as observers
>of a quantum level system instead of as participants.
>Also do most managers and OD specialists.
>
>-----------original message -------------------
>> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 06:48:54 -0500
>> From: Bryn Parry <bryn.parry@SOLENT.AC.UK>
>> Subject: Re: MG-ED-DV Complex, Adaptive Management
>>
>> The recent debate on CAOs has been very interesting and highlighted that
>> much of relevance to CAOs goes by other names.
>
>[...]
>--- if you don't think of the the full system, you will build in flaws;
but,
>since this is too big a scale ((jring,or too long term)) ----

Do we make this failure ?

The flock of birds example has been used to demonstrate how the system can
influence an individual - but, also, how it is possible for an individual to
influence the surrounding components of its system

This is not dissimilar from the recent findings that, if there is lull in
the game, 25 people can start a Mexican Wave in a stadium - if there are
only 20, or the game is exciting, it will peter out. Sociologists have
found that, in non-ticket stadia, established groups stand on different
levels of the stands and certain groups are exceptionally successful in
initiating chants, etc.

There is, also, a fair amount in the literature, e.g. Drama Theory and the
Austrian school of economics that helps us t
o address the individual's drive
and actions.

You are right to point out that it can be fatal flaw and many do ignore it,
but there is more hope than despair out there.

Gray

I wonder if the failure of any theory soley rests with its weakness, what
role corresponds on the proper application of it?



Indeed we "have extra-ordinary pattern processing capabilities that we have
very little understanding of" which often stops working the moment
we recognize and distinguish a pattern unless we keep wondering
about it and have the capability to incorporate many alternate
explanations ...

Cordially,



Esteban



To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: Organizaion as CAS


Paul,

You identify a critical weakness of CAS theory - the failure to incorporate
the human intellect.

However, I wonder whether "second order implicit operators" does us
justice. We essentially consititute the system (they are not just operators
on the system) and engage with many broad-ranging integrative ideologies.
We also have extra-ordinary pattern processing capabilities that we have
very little understanding of. I see nothing in the physical or biological
basis for CAS theory that represents these issues in any way.

The CAS failure is analagous to the failure of economic, which also has
most inadequate theory of social behaviour.

Gray Southon





____________________________________________________________________________
For your protection, this e-mail message has been scanned for viruses.
Visit us at http://www.neoris.com/

Esteban,

Certianly application is an important issue. However, if a discipline
claims to speak authoratively on a topic, it requires theory that
effectively represents the underlying issues of that topic. Physics, for
instance, cannot claim to address issues of politics or medicine.

I am not saying that there is any discipline that has any better
representation of complex social processes than CAS has, but we still need
to be very circumspect about what CAS claims to say until they develop a
theory that represents social dynamcs.

We need to be similarly circumspect about economics.

Gray Southon



At 08:23 AM 9/26/02 -0500, you wrote:
>Gray
>
>I wonder if the failure of any theory soley rests with its weakness, what
> role corresponds on the proper application of it?
>
>
>
>Indeed we "have extra-ordinary pattern processing capabilities that we have
> very little understanding of" which often stops working the moment
> we recognize and distinguish a pattern unless we keep wondering
> about it and have the capability to incorporate many alternate
> explanations ...
>
>Cordially,
>
>
>
>Esteban
>
>
>
>To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>Subject: Re: Organizaion as CAS
>
>
>Paul,
>
>You identify a critical weakness of CAS theory - the failure to incorporate
>the human intellect.
>
>However, I wonder whether "second order implicit operators" does us
>justice. We essentially consititute the system (they are not just operators
>on the system) and engage with many broad-ranging integrative ideologies.
>We also have extra-ordinary pattern processing capabilities that we have
>very little understanding of. I see nothing in the physical or biological
>basis for CAS theory that represents these issues in any way.
>
>The CAS failure is analagous to the failure of economic, which also has
>most inadequate theory of social behaviour.
>
>Gray Southon
>
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________________
>For your protection, this e-mail message has been scanned for viruses.
>Visit us at http://www.neoris.com/
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gray Southon
Honorary Research Associate
University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Director, Southon Consulting.
15 Parthenia St., Caringbah NSW 2229
Ph 02 9524 7822, mobile: 0416 295 056 Fax 02 9531 0781
email: gsouthon@ozemail.com.au
Personal Web Site http://www.ozemail.com.au/~gsouthon/

From: sylvia moritz sylvia.moritz@worldnet.att.net

What is CAS?

Great question, Sylvia! I just spent a while trying to find the first email in this series so I would know what "CAS" stands for! Drives me crazy.
Edryce
Charles Wankel wrote:From: sylvia moritz sylvia.moritz@worldnet.att.net

What is CAS?


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!

From: tr king [mailto:trking@postoffice.providence.edu]

Complex adaptive systems (CAS)
One overview: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/CAS.html

tom

-----Original Message-----

Great question, Sylvia! I just spent a while trying to find the first
email in this series so I would know what "CAS" stands for! Drives me
crazy.
Edryce

Gray,

Indeed we require to be very circumspect about theories and how best to
apply them... especially taking care to consider how effectively the theory
represents the underlying issues involved and the restrictions imposed.

Claims to speak authoritatively on a topic risk pausing the "extra-ordinary
pattern processing capabilities that we have" thus preventing further
inquiry.

Cordially,

Esteban





____________________________________________________________________________
For your protection, this e-mail message has been scanned for viruses.
Visit us at http://www.neoris.com/