Fred,
I am incapable of saying a 'little' more so stop reading when you tire.
BS is about as far from Fred Taylor's notion as one can get.
BS means to see a business as a system; its context, content, structure and,
when stimulated, its behavior.
Content includes the contained entities.
Structure includes the interrelationships among the entities and the
interrelationships among the interrelationships.
Behavior includes its stimulus<>response characteristic, an emergent
characteristic which no subset of entities and interrelationships can
exhibit.
A business is different than most systems because it is composed, partly, of
humans. Humans are not operators who sit outside the system and interact
with it. Humans are integral components of the system. Humans are not
resources. Humans are the sources of enthusiasm thus innovation.
Rule: If your system does not have at least one belly button it is not
innovative.
Devising a business entails application of systems thinking (including but
not limited to the Forrester/Roberts/Pugh/Senge Systems Dynamics) and
I-D-E-A-L practices ,
Identifying,
Design/Architecting,
Engineering/Constructing,
Adopting/Assaying/Adapting, and
Learning.
Because a business is composed partly of humans, its behavior is somewhat
unpredictable.
Because a) humans change and b) context changes then devising a business
must be a persistent activity else market relevance becomes unsustainable.
Once initialized a business must be continuously evolved throughout episodes
of stochastic shock. Ashby's law says that the intensity of evolving must
exceed the variety inherent in Context, Content and Structure else the
system dis-integrates. The techniques and tools of creative problem solving
are useful.
Taylor envisioned a repetitive physical operation (essentially the
Constructing phase of business as system with no Assaying and Adapting)
which inevitably visited the manifestations of change on the worker bees,
making their life miserable.
In spite of that folly the current craze is on Enterprise Architecture
wherein an architecture for the business is adopted without first deciding
whether the business is intended to be a home, hospital or hockey rink.
See, for instance, the Federal Enterprise Architecture, the DoD Architecture
Framework and the Zachman Architecture Framework. Although meant to be a
checklist to ensure completness of thought when initializing an enterprise
these 'Lists in lieu of Thinking' have become crutches for the lame and
lazy.
Compounding this error is the IT Merchandizing Monster which would have you
believe that businesses are composed only secondarily of people and
primarily of computer programs wherein the management challenge is to
execute them in the best order.
The systematized business can become an intelligent enterprise that; a) has
a goal, b) knows where it is and isn't, continuously, with respect to the
goal, c) has energy, d) directs the energy with knowledge when e) triggered
or stimulated, and f) reduces the gap between goal and situation even while
the situation is changing (nee adapting) or the goal is changing (nee
co-aligning).
One mark of a systematized business is its ability to model and simulate
itself. Any business not operating by examining alternatives with its
simulator before commiting its resources, is not very intelligent and is not
learning very fast. In the current era, he who learns fastest wins.
Accordingly, a key business management effectiveness measure is
Model/Simulation Fidelity which means that the business may encounter a
bunch of little surprises in the situaitons it actually encounters but not
Big surprises.
Hope this clarifies the idea.
cheers,
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: <
nickols@att.net>
To: <
MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 4:45 AM
Subject: Re: More than 70 percent of full-time MBA programs cite a decline
in operations this year when compared with 2004
> Earlier, Jack Ring wrote in part:
>
>> The MBA schools need to acknowledge that Administration is not the
>> name of the game today. Managers have needed and now want a Masters
>> of Business Systemization.
>
> Jack, could you say a little more about what you mean by "Business
> Systemization." What came to my mind was the old notion of Fred Taylor's
> of systemizing work (later known as "rationalizing"). Did you mean that
> or something else?
>
> Fred Nickols
>
>