Discussion: View Thread

Jack,

Another stellar posting!

I was a member of the faculty for an Industrial Engineering and Management Systems department; on the management side of the department. I used a text by Babcock ("Engineering Administration") for teaching a course on Engineering Administration. In that course, I came across the idea of using system controls concepts in management applications. One of them was the idea of feedforward feedback, i.e. generating feedback from a predicted condition (subjectively developed or developed using formal techniques like formal forecasting).

In my work, I advocate to clients doing strategic work to develop a given strategy map using feedforward feedback. I offer to them that if they are using feedback - even concurrent feedback used for management dashboards - they are working with the past and not appropriately the future.

Again, scenario planning is the best approach to developing the connector pathways (strategic pathways connecting "now" to "future" and arraying that network in a way that promises synergism vs. dysfunction and orchestrated behaviors versus serendipitous organizational behaviors that invite structure-based conflict (as opposed to human relationship-based conflict).

It also generates a network of decisions. Each node in that decision network offers a source of feedforward feedback - not just the ultimate outcome. Such feedforward feedback generates the prequels and sequels of scenario planning.

I REALLY liked your sentence "strategy must anticipate the impediments yet to be
encountered and think in terms of the resources yet to appear."

As one flows thru scenarios and "react" to feedforward feedback generated by encounters with those impediments, both strategy and strategic planning have the chance to emerge as effective by-products.

Kind wishes

Ed
Drive On!







Retired Faculty
Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Department
University of Central Florida

Active Adjunct Faculty
Duquesne University
Florida Institute of Technology

407-588-1177


>>> Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG> 03/09/09 10:21 AM >>>
Romie,

Thanks for the post. Good thinking.

I suggest that you are really talking about feed-forward. Feedback is an
engineering term that ignores time. Many business people misinterpret the
term.

Findings from situation assessment of on-going operations and of effects
wrought on customers and suppliers can affect only what comes after.

This moves you away from the control theory model and closer to the brain
theory model in which synapses are preconditioned to process stimuli
differently than before. Strategy must anticipate the impediments yet to be
encountered and think in terms of the resources yet to appear.

Note that I am not taking issue with what you say, only suggesting a way of
saying it that will generate less ambiguity in the 'student.'

Onward,
Jack Ring

Jack:

I've been following this thread and I must confess to being a bit confused. I also happen to fancy myself as being a wee bit knowledgeable about feedback - in both a technical or engineering sense and in the greatly distorted ways so many people use the term.

So, I think it would be helpful to and further the conversation if you would say what you mean by feedback - especially in an engineering or technical sense.

'Cause, frankly, I just don't get what you're driving at.

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

"Assistance at A Distance"

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
>
> Hi, Romie,
> I think this is an important distinction so indulge me one more time.
> Yes, I detected "engineer speak,"
> I do not claim you are wrong in the context of control engineering.
I only suggest that others not having the 'engineering ladder of inference' may
> not conceive what you intend to communicate by the term, feedback.
Many of them think in terms of both location and time. So when they read
'feedback' some think 'upstream' and others think 'earlier'. Others simply don't
> grok your message and drop out.
>
Further, I suggest that the control system archetype may not be as applicable to
proactive management as is the cognitive model which uses blocking or interrupt
masking rather than feedback. For example, you are not conscious of that
thump-thump-thump in the background because your nervous system has blocked its
effect at the periphery of your auditory function. This differs from the Bose
headphones that detect it, generate a counter thump-thump-thump and sum the two
> so that you hear silence. Fine line of difference but quite important if you
> are trying to educe an understanding of a Sense and Respond mode of leadership.
>
> Consider the following.
> Feedback or Feedforward?
>
> It depends on where you are standing, what you are observing and whether you are
> considering the territory or the map.
>
> by
>
> Jack Ring
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> #1 shows a collection of three entities, notably, Stimulus, Process, Response.
>
>
>
> #2 shows the three as an ordered set, Stimulus associated with Process
> associated with Response.
>
>
>
> #3 shows the three as an ordered set but with the relationship changed from â
> €˜associates’ to ‘causes’. Causes allows fewer degrees of freedom. Causes
> expresses precedence. Suddenly, the location on the page inserts meaning. We
> might speak of Stimulus being ‘upstream’ from Process and Response being
> downstream of process. In such instances are we talking about the set S, P, R or
> the diagram (the map)?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> #4 shows a chain. Stimulus1 triggers ProcessA produces Response1 which becomes,
> identically, Stimulus6 triggering ProcessB that produces Response6. These are
> two instances of the ordered set S-P-R comprising an ordered set.
>
> For ease of reference, the Stimuli are numbered and the Processes are lettered.
>
> This can be read as a logic expression, or, if a timeline is associated with it,
> as a chronologic expression. For the chronologic, let’s adopt a rule that
> Causes triggers Process at the instant Stimulus occurs. Then let’s adopt a
> convention that t(S) is an event and t(P) is a duration. Thus, t(S6) = t(S1) +
> t(PA) and t(R6) = t(S6) + t(PB) = t(S1) + t(PA) + t(PB).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> #5 depicts the foregoing chain with an additional Stimulus into ProcessA.
> Stimulus2 occurs when Response2 appears which is an output from ProcessA
> distinct from Response1. Stimulus 2 does not combine with Stimulus1. Rather,
> Stimulus2 conditions ProcessA, essentially changing the function it performs on
> Stimulus1. We can say that the R2/S2 is marked by both a) the point of origin,
> R2, and b) the point of effect, S2. In other words the feed is upstream in both
> the logic and the diagrammatic sense.
>
> However, we must acknowledge another option. Although Response1 can be a
> function of ProcessA acting on Stimulus1 under certain conditions Response 1 can
> be a function of ProcessA, as conditioned by Stimulus2, acting on Stimulus1
> under other conditions. For example, if Stimulus1 is an instantaneous change of
> state then Stimulus2 will occur after PA has completed action on Stimulus1 thus
> can have no affect on R1. However, if Stimulus1 is of duration longer than t(PA)
> on the leading edge of Stimulus1 then the part of Stimulus1 occurring subsequent
> to t(S1)+t(PA) may be affected and the part of R1 occurring after t(S1)+t(PA)
> may reflect the ProcessA as affected by Stimulus2.
>
>
>
> #5 also depicts Response 3 which becomes identically Stimulus 3 and conditions
> Process6 as soon as it appears, In the ‘all instantaneous’ Stimulus 2 and
> Stimulus 3 occur simultaneously thus Response6 is a function of S2, S3 and PB.
>
>
>
> In many real-world cases a time delay occurs on one S or the other thus PB may
> change character while processing S6 and R6 may be a result of P6 on S6 followed
> by P6 as conditioned by S3 on the rest of S6.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> #6 depicts 5 with the anticipatory feedforward, S3, replaced by a predictive
> Stimulus, S5. Note that in the previous cases the Response was used as the
> Stimulus. But to produce a predictive stimulus we must insert an additional
> process, one that predicts S5 based on S3. Of course this invokes an additional
> timeline consideration, t(PC) so R2 now becomes S6 as effected by PB until t(S3)
> + t(PC) then thereafter as effected by PB as conditioned by S5.
>
>
>
> Clearly, S3 and S5 occur downstream of PA, in logic, chronologic and map views.
> Shall these be called feedforward?
>
>
>
> Consider S6 in each of Cases 4, 5, and 6 if S1 is a) null, b) unary event if
> infinitesimally short duration, c) unary event in which P1 must start at onset
> of S1 but cannot finish until last bit of S1, d) ordered set of isochron events,
> each identical, e) ordered set of events, each identical in properties but
> occurring anisochronically, e) situation d) in which the time interval between
> certain instances in the S1 event is shorter than t(P1) [Note: In telephone
> systems the design issue is whether blocking or non-blocking. In blocking the
> P1 ignores any S1 occuring before P1 is finished. In non-blocking, P1 includes
> a buffering capability to accept S1 instances then present them when P1 is â
> €˜ready’ This is called Store and Forward], and f) S1 consists of a set of
> isochronic instances that differ from one another.
>
>
>
> One way to look at this is whether X can affect Y. If so and if Y precedes X in
> logic or chronologic then feedback may be an appropriate label. In all other
> cases it is less misleading to your constituency to use feedforward.
>
>
>
> One of the basic processes, the siphon, was understood and applied way back in
> B.C. days. Does it operate by feedback or feedforward or something else?
>
>
>
> OBTW, does the software engineer’s lack of understanding of temporal state
> changes give you any clue as to the cause of ‘memory leaks’ in the early
> days of C++ programming?
>
> +++++++++++++++
>
> Regarding the cognitive view I quote B. Merker ---
>
> Cortex, countercurrent context, and dimensional integration of lifetime memory.
> Merker B.
>
> Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. gyr64c@tninet.se
>
> The correlation between relative neocortex size and longevity in mammals
> encourages a search for a cortical function specifically related to the
> life-span. A candidate in the domain of permanent and cumulative memory storage
> is proposed and explored in relation to basic aspects of cortical organization.
> The pattern of cortico-cortical connectivity between functionally specialized
> areas and the laminar organization of that connectivity converges on a globally
> coherent representational space in which contextual embedding of information
> emerges as an obligatory feature of cortical function. This brings a powerful
> mode of inductive knowledge within reach of mammalian adaptations. It combines
> item specificity with classificatory generality, as embodied in "latent semantic
> analysis" algorithms. Its neural implementation is proposed to depend on an
> obligatory interaction between the oppositely directed feedforward and feedback
> currents of cortical activity, in countercurrent fashion. Direct interaction of
> the two streams along their cortex-wide local interface supports a scheme of
> "contextual capture" for information storage responsible for the lifelong
> cumulative growth of a uniquely cortical form of memory termed "personal
> history." This approach to cortical function helps elucidate key features of
> cortical organization as well as cognitive aspects of mammalian life history
> strategies.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Make sense?
>
> Jack Ring
>
> ps. And remember that when it comes to electronic feedback one microsecond is
> only about 0.3 meters long thus anything more than 0.3 meters away that is
> happening faster than once per microsecond cannot be influenced by feedback.
> Similarly, any governance oversight that meets once per year cannot 'control'
> any behavior that occurs more often. All they do is legislate new locks for the
> barn door long after the horse is gone.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Romie Littrell
> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:20 AM
> Subject: Re: Definition of strategy, strategy must be an adaptive feedback
> system
>
>
> I was a process engineer in a previous part of my life in the last
> century, so I have that cognitive bias. I'll look into "feed forward". If we're
> going to be semantically correct, we should say "feed-back-and-forward", as the
> actor perceives the stimulus, responds to it and sometimes changes the stimulus,
> and reacts to the changed stimulus.
>
> Maybe "The Divine Pattern of Infinite Repetition is The Universe" is The
> Way.
>
> Romie
>
>
> Do not accustom yourself to use big words for little matters.
> -Samuel Johnson
>
> Romie F. Littrell, BA, MBA,PhD, FIAIR, An fánaí fiáin
> AUT Business School N.Z., romie.littrell@aut.ac.nz
> http://www.romielittrellpubs.homestead.com/
> http://www.crossculturalcentre.homestead.com/
> Facilitator, Leadership & Management in Sub-Sahara Africa Conferences
> Contents copyright Romie F. Littrell
>
> --- On Tue, 10/3/09, Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG> wrote:
>
> From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
> Subject: Re: Definition of strategy, strategy must be an adaptive
> feedback system
> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Date: Tuesday, 10 March, 2009, 3:21 AM
>
>
> 
> Romie,
>
> Thanks for the post. Good thinking.
>
> I suggest that you are really talking about feed-forward. Feedback is
> an
> engineering term that ignores time. Many business people misinterpret
> the
> term.
>
> Findings from situation assessment of on-going operations and of
> effects
> wrought on customers and suppliers can affect only what comes after.
>
> This moves you away from the control theory model and closer to the
> brain
> theory model in which synapses are preconditioned to process stimuli
> differently than before. Strategy must anticipate the impediments yet
> to be
> encountered and think in terms of the resources yet to appear.
>
> Note that I am not taking issue with what you say, only suggesting a
> way of
> saying it that will generate less ambiguity in the 'student.'
>
> Onward,
> Jack Ring
>
>
>

Fred,

Did the diagrams in my message come through? If not, I readily understand
the motivation for your follow-up. If you are interested I will send them to
you directly.

Anyway, rather than try to explain the former material (which I'll be glad
to do if you like) I shall respond anew.

Primarily, I am trying to raise our consciousness that the 'control theory'
archetype is only one way to look at management/leadership. The 'cognitive
theory' archetype is an alternative way. And an important way for MBA
students destined to run intelligent enterprises.

Secondarily, I am claiming that what the engineering mind calls 'feedback'
is not perceived that way by management practitioners who do not think like
engineers. Diagrams containing boxes connected by heavy lines running left
to right are interpreted as a flow (even cause-effect) whereas the light
lines running right to left simply do not communicate much of anything. Some
MBA'rs even think of those lines as 'thank you' acknowledgements.

Regarding my definition of feedback: one example of feedback is the cruise
control on an automobile. Once set, it will increase or decrease the engine
throttle opening to compensate for changes in road grade. When climbing a
hill the car tends to slow due to gravity so the throttle is opened to
increase the horsepower output in order to sustain the speed setting.
Cresting the hill, gravity now tends to increase vehicle speed so the
throttle can be closed somewhat in order to sustain the speed setting.

The important point for MBA students is to see that feedback arrangements
have limits. Sampling only 'what was' the feedback mechanism cannot handle
all situations. When the downgrade is too steep the car exceeds the speed
setting even when the throttle is completely closed. Exhorting the speed
control to work harder or work smarter won't sustain the desired speed.
Unionizing won't either. Some other way of sustaining desired speed is
needed, e.g., downshifting or brakes. Likewise, when you notice that you are
approaching another, slower vehicle from the rear then it is not useful to
let the cruise control sustain your speed. Feedforward, an anticipation
mechanism, advises the prudent to discontinue cruise control. The key, here,
is the anticipator which is not found in feedback. (For you engineer types,
that is why a PID form of control is preferred.)

The confusion I am suggesting we seek to avoid is rampant in the current
hysteria about Sustainability. Next time you get the chance ask one of the
Sustainability mavens, "Sustainability of what?" and notice the little black
+ signs that appear in their pupils. ;-)

It isn't as much about the phenomenon of feedback as it is about what the
term educes in the minds of students.

Did this increase, decrease or sustain the ambiguity of feedback vs.
feedforward? Else?

Onward,
Jack Ring
----- Original Message -----
From: <nickols@att.net>
To: "Management Education and Development Discussion"
<MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>; <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
Cc: "Jack Ring" <jring@amug.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: Definition of strategy, strategy must be an adaptive feedback
system


> Jack:
>
> I've been following this thread and I must confess to being a bit
> confused. I also happen to fancy myself as being a wee bit knowledgeable
> about feedback - in both a technical or engineering sense and in the
> greatly distorted ways so many people use the term.
>
> So, I think it would be helpful to and further the conversation if you
> would say what you mean by feedback - especially in an engineering or
> technical sense.
>
> 'Cause, frankly, I just don't get what you're driving at.

Nope; never saw any diagrams.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting LLC
nickols@att.net | www.nickols.us

"Assistance at a Distance"SM


-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:37 AM
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Definition of strategy, strategy must be an adaptive feedback system

Fred,

Did the diagrams in my message come through? If not, I readily understand
the motivation for your follow-up. If you are interested I will send them to
you directly.

Yes, they came through.

Jim
James G. S. Clawson
Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
Darden GSB, University of Virginia
Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906
100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903 USA
Tel: 434 924 7488 Fax: 434 243 7680
Web: http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 10:51 AM
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Definition of strategy, strategy must be an adaptive feedback system

Nope; never saw any diagrams.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting LLC
nickols@att.net | www.nickols.us

"Assistance at a Distance"SM


-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:37 AM
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Definition of strategy, strategy must be an adaptive feedback system

Fred,

Did the diagrams in my message come through? If not, I readily understand
the motivation for your follow-up. If you are interested I will send them to
you directly.

Try this. Remembering that the issue is "what will they conceive from your
words"
cheers,
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Nickols" <nickols@att.net>
To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: Definition of strategy, strategy must be an adaptive feedback
system


> Nope; never saw any diagrams.
>
> Regards,
>
> Fred Nickols
> Managing Partner
> Distance Consulting LLC
> nickols@att.net | www.nickols.us
>
> "Assistance at a Distance"SM
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Management Education and Development Discussion
> [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:37 AM
> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Definition of strategy, strategy must be an adaptive feedback
> system
>
> Fred,
>
> Did the diagrams in my message come through? If not, I readily understand
> the motivation for your follow-up. If you are interested I will send them
> to
> you directly.
>