Dear Organlearners,
Paul Meagher <meagher@cs.usask.ca> writes:
...snip...
> The
> dilemma I am currently facing is the following: if the process and
> specifications are spelled out in too much detail it may be disempowering
> and creativity inhibiting for the developers (not to mention unrealistic),
> if the process and specifications are spelled out in too little detail
> then it may be difficult to do good project management. Any ideas on how
> one might define the appropriate level of detail for a specification and a
> process?
Paul, I do not think that there is anyone of us who has not experienced
your dilemma.
Whereas it is fashion in present complexity studies to concentrate on what
happens far-from-equilbrium or he edge-of-chaos, I was intrigued by
self-organisation close to equilibrium where order abounds.
A typical model for what happens far from equilbrium is the Brusselator
(auto-catalytic, cylclic, chemical reaction) developed by Prigogine and
co-workers. This model is based on what is common to hundreds of
biochemical cycles producing all the minute, complex substances typical of
life such as hormones and ensymes. The model, for example, helped us to
perceive "strange attractors".
I eventually disovered a model for self-organisation close to equilibrium
based on the Ostwald digesting process for the crystallisation of a
precipitate. The model is called the Digestor. This model, among other
things, has helped me much to get insight on the dilemma which you have
described. I have even named your dilemma as "the intimidation of
complexity".
What happens is that the complexity of the surroundings may intimidate the
self-organising system into a state of apathy. Complexity in this model is
expressed by two factors. The one factor is m, the "horisontal breadth" of
an organisation, i.e the quantitative size of usually its base level. The
other factor is M, the "verical height" of an organisation, i.e. the
number of levels in its hierarchial makeup. The factor m can be measured
as the number of digestions close to equilibrium while the factor M can be
measured as the number of emergences far from equilbrium. The Digestor
then describes the nonlinear interaction between the system's m&M and the
m&M of the surroundings. (Surprise - nonlinear interaction even close to
equilbrium?)
Asssuming particular values for m&M of the system., the greater the value
of either m or M for the surroundings, the more the system becomes
nonspontaneous (fall into a state of apathy). By increasing the m of the
system (for any level in the system), the system will become spontaneous
(motivated) again. However, by increasing the M of the system, the system
will become much faster spontaneous than in the case of increasing m!
Now what did I say in this last sentence? The emergences far from
equilbrium (the "aha"s of life) have greater influence on spontaneous
self-organisation than the digestions close to equilbrium (the "hmm"s of
life). In other words, getting kicks out of life motivates us more than
mere eating and drinking.
Paul, let us get back to your dilemma. If you spell out the detail in one
session, you will never escape your dilemma. Only the fittests (fit in
both m and M) will be able to follow you without getting intimidated. If
you spell out the detail without taking into account its innate,
hierarchial organisation, your dilemma will persists, even through
successive spelling out stages.
You will have to arrange the detail (structure and process) in succesive
levels according to the principles of self-mastering. You will have then
have to let "them" master the detail in stages. Each stage will roughly
correspond to a level of the detail's arrangement. You will have to make
very sure that complete mastery learning takes place during each stage.
Paul, your description of your dilemma was not specific enough for me
to go into more detail - which is good thing at this stage. After all
what I have writen so far. I want to stress two things:
1) Cultivate a general culture of emergence in every walk of the
organisation. Emergent learning and thus mastery is very
difficult in a culture alien to emergences ("aha"s).
2) When having to make a choice, concentrate on TQM, i.e
concentrate on qualities and M rather than quantities and m.
...snip...
> I doubt that there is a universal answer but I would be interested in
> hearing about the experiences of others on this issue.
I think that the Digestor is a step in the right direction to develop a
universal answer. I have applied the Digestor to many diverse situations.
Each new situation surprises me with the insight this model affords.
Although the model itself may be considered to be novel, it brought for me
much more coherency and consistency in the for ages known bits and pieces
of self-mastery.
This model does not stand alone. It plays an important role in my general
theory/system of creativity. It complements what happens chaotically far
from equilbrium to what happens orderedly close to equilbrium.
Best wishes,
--At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>