Replying to Leo Minnigh in LO30376 --
Leo write:
>Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the subject of energy balances in
>and around an organisation.
>
>You started with something else:
>
> > Fascinating, Leo. Years ago I created a rather large tree structure of
> > general energy equations that resonates with what you've just posted. To
> > my regret and chagrin, I misplaced them. I can see them still: little
> > tree charts scrawled on a small yellow note pad. Perhaps I'll try to
> > reconstruct them.
>
>Was what you had done in the past an example of Ew (Energy wasted)? ;-))
I hope not. Now that you've asked, I'll think of it as Es (Energy Stored
for later retrieval). :-))
...snip...
>For my own comprehension, I made a small list of your abriviations:
Some minor corrections follow, probably a matter of language more than
anything else.:
>Ep - Energy for expenditure
I defined Ep as Productive Energy Expenditure.
>Ee - Energy expended
>Ew - wasted energy
>Ea - available energy
>Er - energy reserves
>Et - Total energy
I defined Em as energy expended in maintenance and Epr as energy expended
in production.
>Em - Energy for maintanance
>Epr - Energy for production
Again, I'm probably picking a nit but I was thinking of these two as
categories to which energy was allocated. On second though, energy for
will probably do as well.
>Ew - Energy for work
>Eo - Energy for other purposes
>
>I think I got the main message, but I became a bit confused what the
>differences are between Ep, Ea, Er, and Et; betweee Epr and Ework (btw Ew
>was also Energy wasted; it could be humor, but I don't think it was ment
>to be ;-)).
Thanks for catching that, Leo. I'll change E for work to Ewrk. As for
the distinctions you ask about, the sum of Ea and Er equals Et. Ep refers
to that portion of Ee that is productive, whether it is expended in work
(Ewrk) in in other pursuits (Eo). I think the confusion might arise in my
not sorting out categories of energy allocation from categories of energy
expenditure. I'll work on that.
>Fred, pleasee think also of the wasted energy. You are right that in each
>process there is always some of the energy 'lost'. However, energy is in
>fact never wasted or lost. The only thing is that some of the energy is
>used for things which are concidered as waste, such as heat, noise, etc.
>For instance, a completely useless meeting in a company (are there useful
>meetings anyway in these days :-)), is not waste. At least it could create
>new relationships, (negative) exitement, etc. All are elements wich have
>to do with the maintanance, or survival, or internal structure of the
>organisation.
Granted, but the outcomes to which you refer are serendipitous or
incidental, they do not tie to the purpose of the meeting unless those are
indeed the purposes of the meeting. Thus, in relation to the purpose or
intended outcomes, the energy is wasted even if it produces productive
side effects.
>I hope you are able to 'reconstruct' your thoughts from the past, because
>I am curious and I think they might be of importance.
I'll take a crack at it.
Thanks for your interest.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net
--Fred Nickols <nickols@safe-t.net>
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.