Replying to LO24890 --
Hi Joey
I had some after thoughts on this subject of using an energy theory or
model.
Many theorists talk about the point of energy release some in medicine (a
vaccine), others in biology and in fact in all fields of endeavor.
One of the many discussions in this chat room has been around Prigogine
and the bifurcation point (it is worth mentioning again). This is what EKS
does, the methodology allows one to navigate to the bottleneck or
bifurcation point and then unleashes the energy at that point to either
create a new structure to meet an certain demand (purely from a business
point of view). TOC is a lower order EKS methodology (those that swear by
it would not be happy with that statement). Every theory, model gets its
disciples.
If one looks at the basic EKS model (not easy to draw here, see what I
mention below) the levels are:
material processes and problems
technical processes and problems
economic processes and problems
financial processes and problems
informational processes and problems
psychological processes and problems
power and dependency processes and problems
energy processes and problems
The key in EKS is to navigate to the bottleneck or bifurcation point,
focus on it and release the energy.(eg trim tab in boating, wireless
communication, elevator in airplanes, combustion engine, the wheel,
vaccines, etc etc etc etc)
The basic EKS strategy is: Pointed, into the gaps, towards the depth of
the inter-related structures.
But to share the actual methodology would take up hours of my time ( and
this is not the place for it).
The structures (processes as mentioned above) actually look like the
Belousov-Zhabotin-skii reagent chemical reactions (see Being and Becoming
1980, Ilya Progogine) or like the Basins of attraction or field behaviour
of one random Boolean network (NK-Model) Stuart Kauffman (at Home in the
Universe 1995). In simple language spirals and inter-connecting networks
of energy.
As I mentioned before the key to using any methodology is to know what you
are trying to model or learn. Some are more elegant under some conditions
while others are more elegant under other conditions.
VSM does the same things just using different language, Stafford Beer
talks about attenuation and amplification, under inputs and outputs and
energy transformation (others call this entropy). This is such a huge
field on its own.
The secret is to understand the similarities, distinctions and differences
of the models that are out there where they fit (that is why I designed
the Problematic Paradigm Grid) a framework to make sense of all these
models. Some are theories, others models, others methodologies, using
different variables at differing levels of abstraction.(this is the key to
understanding when and where to use a specific model)
If this field is your passion there is so much out there, have fun reading
and applying. I hardly know which model to read next.
Happy learning.
Kindest
Gavin
Joey Chan wrote:
> Dear LO listers,
>
> I have a question for long about the methodology of systems thinking.
> Recently, I have read a book by Robert Flood, named Rethinking the Fifth
> Discipline, which is a deep reflection to Senge's work, and it's mainly
> talking about systems thinking. ST, as Flood noted, have various
> approaches, from Beer, Checkland to Ackoff, but their works rarely
> mentioned on MIT's Systems Dynamics approach.
>
> Why is it(Senge's work) so focus on SD's approach, when we are talking ST?
[...snip by your host... ]
--Gavin Ritz <garritz@xtra.co.nz>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.