Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  Definition of strategy, Systems of Systems Approach.

    Posted 03-11-2009 18:47
    Good Morning,

    I would like to propose the follow scenario.

    Lets say that the majority of our management understanding is wrong,
    because the majority of our viewpoints on how people, organizations,
    governments and even objects exist. The more modern theories seem to
    be pointing to the concepts that nothing is ever random, nothing is
    independent. Every action is in some way, a reaction to either a
    major or minor event. Every thing is to some extent interconnected,
    nothing operates in isolation, and hence every thing is linked.

    If we can accept for a few seconds that this might be true, then why
    do we realise it now, and not before. Perhaps we did not have the
    measurement instruments, the mathematics & statistics, as well as the
    computational power to investigate and model it. Finally, perhaps we
    did not have the mindset to, because we were trapped in a crisp
    mindset, rather than a fuzzy one.

    So perhaps why much of our strategy fails today, is because it falls
    short, because it was based on a concept of independence, rather than
    interdependence.

    Im working on a systems of systems approach modeling, which uses
    different types of maths, frameworks, and distance measures, to map
    decisions. But I am using a systems of systems approach. This is also
    adaptive to the level of observation, so I can explore the dynamic
    interactions of sideways, but also include the input of lower level
    systems into it, as well as its input into upper systems as well.
    Each system has the availability to be the primary focus or the
    secondary focus. And I use fuzzy logic to bring the whole system into balance.

    Even though I am just starting out, I am getting some interesting
    results, as I am refining the process, and the mathematics and
    software routine.

    Anyway, I feel that when we define strategy and feedback, cause and
    effect and independence vs interdependence, dynamic vs static, etc
    that strategy falls short, because of the underlying premise on our
    beliefs of just how much influence does our object have or exerts on
    other objects.

    Regards
    Tony Nolan


    --
    UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F
    DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain
    confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not
    read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If
    you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately
    and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the
    individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority,
    states them to be the views of the University of Technology Sydney. Before
    opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.

    Think. Green. Do.

    Please consider the environment before printing this email.


  • 2.  Definition of strategy, Systems of Systems Approach.

    Posted 03-11-2009 20:55
    Tony,
     
    We find that open system thinking is necessary to cope with discontinuous objects and events. Closed systems thinking worked fine for yesterday's environment, but today's and tomorrow's turbulence calls for open designs and strategies.  If the economic tsunami has not hit Oz, You're fortunate mate.
     
    Cheers,
     
    George Graen
     
    In a message dated 3/11/2009 6:33:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Tony.Nolan@UTS.EDU.AU writes:
    Good Morning,

    I would like to propose the follow scenario.

    Lets say that the majority of our management understanding is wrong,
    because the majority of our viewpoints on how people, organizations,
    governments and even objects exist. The more modern theories seem to
    be pointing to the concepts that nothing is ever random, nothing is
    independent. Every action is in some way, a reaction to either a
    major or minor event. Every thing is to some extent interconnected,
    nothing operates in isolation, and hence every thing is linked.

    If we can accept for a few seconds that this might be true, then why
    do we realise it now, and not before. Perhaps we did not have the
    measurement instruments, the mathematics & statistics, as well as the
    computational power to investigate and model it. Finally, perhaps we
    did not have the mindset to, because we were trapped in a crisp
    mindset, rather than a fuzzy one.

    So perhaps why much of our strategy fails today, is because it falls
    short, because it was based on a concept of independence, rather than
    interdependence.

    Im working on a systems of systems approach modeling, which uses
    different types of maths, frameworks, and distance measures, to map
    decisions. But I am using a systems of systems approach. This is also
    adaptive to the level of observation, so I can explore the dynamic
    interactions of sideways, but also include the input of lower level
    systems into it, as well as its input into upper systems as well.
    Each system has the availability to be the primary focus or the
    secondary focus. And I use fuzzy logic to bring the whole system into balance.

    Even though I am just starting out, I am getting some interesting
    results, as I am refining the process, and the mathematics and
    software routine.

    Anyway, I feel that when we define strategy and feedback, cause and
    effect and independence vs interdependence, dynamic vs static, etc
    that strategy falls short, because of the underlying premise on our
    beliefs of just how much influence does our object have or exerts on
    other objects.

    Regards
    Tony Nolan

     

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!


  • 3.  Definition of strategy, Systems of Systems Approach.

    Posted 03-11-2009 23:51
    Tony,
    When you are ready let's discuss some details.
    A small effort in the U.S. is concerned with Intelligent Enterprises and
    with Model-based systems identification, design/architecting,
    engineering/constructing, adopting/assaying/adapting and learning, IDEAL.
    Because of all the interaction that has to be represented we are using
    OpEMCSS devised by Dr. John Clymer, Cal State Fullerton for emulation of
    context-sensitive systems (rather like second order cybernetics except that
    I am trying to avoid channeling in the control paradigm).
    Onward,
    Jack Ring
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "tony nolan" <Tony.Nolan@UTS.EDU.AU>
    To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:47 PM
    Subject: Definition of strategy, Systems of Systems Approach.


    > Good Morning,
    >
    > I would like to propose the follow scenario.
    >
    > Lets say that the majority of our management understanding is wrong,
    > because the majority of our viewpoints on how people, organizations,
    > governments and even objects exist. The more modern theories seem to be
    > pointing to the concepts that nothing is ever random, nothing is
    > independent. Every action is in some way, a reaction to either a major or
    > minor event. Every thing is to some extent interconnected, nothing
    > operates in isolation, and hence every thing is linked.
    >
    > If we can accept for a few seconds that this might be true, then why do we
    > realise it now, and not before. Perhaps we did not have the measurement
    > instruments, the mathematics & statistics, as well as the computational
    > power to investigate and model it. Finally, perhaps we did not have the
    > mindset to, because we were trapped in a crisp mindset, rather than a
    > fuzzy one.
    >
    > So perhaps why much of our strategy fails today, is because it falls
    > short, because it was based on a concept of independence, rather than
    > interdependence.
    >
    > Im working on a systems of systems approach modeling, which uses different
    > types of maths, frameworks, and distance measures, to map decisions. But I
    > am using a systems of systems approach. This is also adaptive to the level
    > of observation, so I can explore the dynamic interactions of sideways, but
    > also include the input of lower level systems into it, as well as its
    > input into upper systems as well. Each system has the availability to be
    > the primary focus or the secondary focus. And I use fuzzy logic to bring
    > the whole system into balance.
    >
    > Even though I am just starting out, I am getting some interesting results,
    > as I am refining the process, and the mathematics and software routine.
    >
    > Anyway, I feel that when we define strategy and feedback, cause and effect
    > and independence vs interdependence, dynamic vs static, etc that strategy
    > falls short, because of the underlying premise on our beliefs of just how
    > much influence does our object have or exerts on other objects.
    >
    > Regards
    > Tony Nolan
    >
    >
    > --
    > UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F
    > DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may
    > contain
    > confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not
    > read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments.
    > If
    > you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
    > immediately
    > and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of
    > the
    > individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority,
    > states them to be the views of the University of Technology Sydney. Before
    > opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.
    >
    > Think. Green. Do.
    >
    > Please consider the environment before printing this email.
    >


  • 4.  Definition of strategy, Systems of Systems Approach.

    Posted 03-12-2009 08:21

    Wasn't open systems thinking always necessary? I started teaching it in 1975, to technology undergraduates who found the ideas of inter-relationships, environmental impacts, multi-causality and 'ideas as tools for thought experiments' particularly powerful. I still teach it, now as part of our MBA, and pretty much the same features seem important, thought hugely more so.

    Sheila

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George Graen
    Sent: 12 March 2009 00:55
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of strategy, Systems of Systems Approach.

     

    Tony,

     

    We find that open system thinking is necessary to cope with discontinuous objects and events. Closed systems thinking worked fine for yesterday's environment, but today's and tomorrow's turbulence calls for open designs and strategies.  If the economic tsunami has not hit Oz, You're fortunate mate.

     

    Cheers,

     

    George Graen

     

    In a message dated 3/11/2009 6:33:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Tony.Nolan@UTS.EDU.AU writes:

    Good Morning,

    I would like to propose the follow scenario.

    Lets say that the majority of our management understanding is wrong,
    because the majority of our viewpoints on how people, organizations,
    governments and even objects exist. The more modern theories seem to
    be pointing to the concepts that nothing is ever random, nothing is
    independent. Every action is in some way, a reaction to either a
    major or minor event. Every thing is to some extent interconnected,
    nothing operates in isolation, and hence every thing is linked.

    If we can accept for a few seconds that this might be true, then why
    do we realise it now, and not before. Perhaps we did not have the
    measurement instruments, the mathematics & statistics, as well as the
    computational power to investigate and model it. Finally, perhaps we
    did not have the mindset to, because we were trapped in a crisp
    mindset, rather than a fuzzy one.

    So perhaps why much of our strategy fails today, is because it falls
    short, because it was based on a concept of independence, rather than
    interdependence.

    Im working on a systems of systems approach modeling, which uses
    different types of maths, frameworks, and distance measures, to map
    decisions. But I am using a systems of systems approach. This is also
    adaptive to the level of observation, so I can explore the dynamic
    interactions of sideways, but also include the input of lower level
    systems into it, as well as its input into upper systems as well.
    Each system has the availability to be the primary focus or the
    secondary focus. And I use fuzzy logic to bring the whole system into balance.

    Even though I am just starting out, I am getting some interesting
    results, as I am refining the process, and the mathematics and
    software routine.

    Anyway, I feel that when we define strategy and feedback, cause and
    effect and independence vs interdependence, dynamic vs static, etc
    that strategy falls short, because of the underlying premise on our
    beliefs of just how much influence does our object have or exerts on
    other objects.

    Regards
    Tony Nolan

     

     

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!

     

    ---------------------------------
    The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).


  • 5.  Definition of strategy, Systems of Systems Approach.

    Posted 03-12-2009 10:46
    In a message dated 3/12/2009 9:26:28 A.M. Central Daylight Time, S.Cameron@OPEN.AC.UK writes:

    Wasn't open systems thinking always necessary? I started teaching it in 1975, to technology undergraduates who found the ideas of inter-relationships, environmental impacts, multi-causality and 'ideas as tools for thought experiments' particularly powerful. I still teach it, now as part of our MBA, and pretty much the same features seem important, thought hugely more so.

    Sheila

    Sheila,
     
    You were before your time in using open systems problem solving. Now we need to teach top management teams to invent or copy such designs that permit their organizations to adapt. Their future is now.
     
    George Graen

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!


  • 6.  Definition of strategy, Systems of Systems Approach.

    Posted 03-13-2009 06:03
    In a message dated 3/13/2009 3:54:22 A.M. Central Daylight Time, Kim@strategydynamics.com writes:

    Hi George – from what I have seen, I think we are working in different but related parts of the forest. My impression is that you are challenging management to rethink fundamentally how things work and reconceptualise markets and their business. Clearly important. My focus is, first, on making much better decisions and performance out of what already exists – for which there is huge potential in most cases. The linkage is that – having imagined a new business model with your ideas – we can turn that into a defined structure that we can test 'on paper' before making it a reality, and then as it develops, continue checking how it is working and driving the best possible performance out of it.

    We could take a short look at a real case if you like.

    Hi Kim- I agree with your analogy of the forest to describe our foci. Clearly, both approaches will be need by top management to survive in the new undefined economy. A good example is the jerky responses of the government to the mixed signals of open systems that are poorly understood. I suggest that trial and error is a poor way to understand a systems change. My edited book describes both the needed strategies and analytical tools. Unfortunately, our wiz kid economists think they have the answers. Sorry, but it's a bit more than voodoo. What do you think?
     
    George Graen

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!