Replying to LO26429 --
Good Now, Friends. Good post, Gavin.
There is a lot written in many different places about this. To me (and
this does not imply anything about Gavin's writing, it is my observation
of organizations commercial, nonprofit, social over time) there is
confusion between structure and system. When procedures are written and
policies published, and organizational charts hung, we here " aahh, now
we're building a system!"
Nothing could be farther from the truth. These things are objects within
the system. The system uses them to come to its aim. An organizational
chart, a ranking methodology to me are structural. The can support the
weight of a system but are not the system. The system is the
relationships among them. And so, an organization can be lean and
inefficient as well as efficient (but not optimized) and not lean. The
structure is determined by the objects and by their relationship to each
other. In manufacturing, these relationships are sometimes guessed at and
machines are placed farther apart than they ought to be and the human they
are related too is forced to travel and become inefficient, to expend more
energy than needs be expended. Not at all like the brown trout, eh?
> Energy is the primordial structure of the universe and "process
> -structures" in ever increasing complexity on top of the
> that. This is the
> fundamental premise of EKS. (Energy cybernetic Strategy). And
> exactly the
> same as LEP on LEC.
--"John Zavacki" <jzavacki@greenapple.com>
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.