Dear Organlearners,
Winfried Dressler <winfried.dressler@voith.de> writes:
(Winfried's earlier statement)
>> Wholeness requires to strengthen the value chain, i.e. to leave habit of
>> functional thinking and to view internal supplier-customer relationships,
>> thus to associate the company into one whole.
(Don's Dwiggens' question)
> >Maybe I'm trying to apply At's lesson on wholeness too literally, but what
> >would be the X*Y*Z pattern here?
>
> X*Y*Z are any three elements of the value chain.
>
> For example: parts from supplier * production * delivery to customer
> or: production step 1 * production step 2 * production step 3.
>
> To achieve wholeness, any three elements of this value chain must be
> associated in such a way.
>
> The opposite of association (as I understand it) would be fragmentation,
> where all the process steps are fragmented. This is what I meant with
> "functional thinking". This may be depicted as "x / y / z" and means
> "impaired wholeness"
Greetings Winfried!
When I read your contribution, I was also a little perplexed by the
"functional thinking". But then I remembered that in German
literature the "actualisation of a job" is sometimes called the
"Funktionierung der Arbeit". But you will know better than me.
The term function is very general. Even in mathematics the term
function is very general. Mathematical functions can be represented
by graphs. A straight line is a function, but so is also a bent curve
or even a meandering curve.
I am now going to describe some mathematical activity in detail. I
have to do it to show you how an "umlomo" (mouthpiece) works.
Consider a bent curve. Make two marks on it. Three segments result.
The one segment is before the first mark. Call it the X-segment.
The next segment is between the two marks. Call it the Y-segment. The
last segment is after the second mark. Call it the Z-segment. Cut
(FRAGMENT) the curve at the two marks and take the Y-segment
away. A hole in the curve appears. How can we fill up the hole?
The one way is to ignore (fragementarism) the X-segment and
Z-segment. It is then possible to connect these two marks by ANY sort
of graph -- a straight line, bent curves and even meandering curves.
In other words, we can connect the two marks with any function. Now
let us draw ANY curve between the two marks.
However, observe what happens when we stop ignoring the X-segment and
Z-segment, i.e when we bring "wholess" (associativity-monadicty) into
play. The result is unpleasant. There is no harmony -- unless we
have managed to draw again one unique curve exactly equal to the
Y-segment which we have taken away. The probability for this unique
curve to happen is very slim.
The other way is now obviously not to ignore the X-segment and
Z-segment. What we then do, is to EXTRAPOLATE the X-segment into the
hole as far as possible. There are a number of extrapolation methods
available. (Use your intuition if you are not a mathematician.) None
of them (even your intuition) works so perfect that the extrapolated
curve will meet the second mark. So we also extrapolate the Z-segment
into the hole as far as possible. Again it will most probably not
meet the first mark.
However, if we look at the two extrapolated curves together,
"averaging" them, we begin to visualise how the original curve looked
like. But averaging the two curves will not produce the best result.
What we now have to do, is to INTERPOLATE the extrapolations. We
take the (say) first third (next to the first mark) of the first
extrapolated curve and the first third (next to the second mark) of
the second extrapolated curve. Then we use these two thirds to find
the middel third between them. Again there are a number of
interpolation methods available. (Again, if you are not a
mathematician, use your intuition to draw the middel third.)
The process can be refined to many extrapolation+interpolation
cycles. But even with the above one cycle the resulting curve will be
close to the original Y-segment.
This is what the "umlomo" Y in the associative pattern X * Y * Z
does. Y allows X an "open space" (hole) to extrapolate itself as far
as possible. Y also allows Z to do the same. Then Y takes the
extrapolation of X closest to X as well as the extrapolation of Z
closest to Z in order to interpolate them in terms of Y's own "open
space". The goal of Y is to joing these two extrapolations as its own
interpolation.
> It makes a big difference, whether e.g. a sales person defines himself
> restricted to the sales function, acquiring orders and throwing them into
> the rest of the organisation (fragmented from his sales function) or
> whether he is associated with the rest of the organisation, acting as an
> "umlomo" or "y" between the company and its customers.
>
> I hope this helps.
Winfried, I think you have made it very clear. Hopefully my lengthy
description, using a mathematical example, will not complicate the
issue.
Still, I think the word "functional" is not quite the correct word to
use here. I think you will agree with me because even my example of
extrapolation+interpolation is also a case of "functional" thinking.
(All mathematical methods, even extrapolation and interpolation, are
functions themselves.)
We also cannot call it "linear" thinking. As I have indicated above,
all sorts of curves (including a line) can be drawn in the hole as a
result of fragmentarism. Fragmentarism is merely the impairing of one
essentiality, namely wholeness. Should we also impair the
essentiality openness, i.e isolate the thinking, then it will become
"linear" thinking. I am sure you did not have "linear" thinking in
mind.
The best word I can come up with, is "unessential" thinking.
Your example of the sales-person reminds me what happened last week.
I had to buy some dog food (call the brand "London") at a farmer
business (call it "COOP"). Dog breeders have used London for many
years. In the beginning of this year the manufacturing of London was
stopped. The factory had been liquidated. Customers were disappointed
because London was not only one of the best foods, but also one of
the cheapest. (This gives a clue why the factory was liquidated.)
Then suddenly, three months ago London again appeared on the market,
still one of the cheapest brands available. Customers, including me,
switched back to London.
My dogs began to lose their condition. I began to suspect that the
"new" London was not up to the previous standard. Last week, when I had
to buy London again, I decided to air my doubts to the manager of COOP.
He assured me that I was the first customer to complain about London.
So I went to the purchaser of COOP to voice my doubts. She told me
that the manufacturers of London assured her about the continued
quality of London and that no other COOP customer complained about
it. I then went to the sales person for foods. He said the same and
would not believe my doubts.
By that stage I was very sure that the wholeness of COOP was at stake
and not only the quality (otherness) of London. I stood next to the
insecticides, took a bottle in my hand while trying to observe all
the personel of COOP. "Who the hell is still an umlomo here", I
asked myself. Even the salesperson for poisons became suspicious,
probably thinking I want to commit suicide. I assured her that I was
just thinking and I needed some time. After about 10 minutes I
spotted the lady at the till. She was new there, but very friendly.
She chatted with every customer, although her job was merely to make
invoices with a computer and receive payments.
I went to her, introduced myself and said I want to ask her just one
question. "What do the customers say to you when they place an order
for London?" She was surprised by the question. She refered me to the
manager, to the purchaser, the salesperson for foods and even the
delivery people. But in each case I persisted with a broad smile,
syaing "I have been to that person, but what do the customers say to
you?". Eventually she had to give up -- she knew she was cornered.
She said to me: "Sir, I am new here. I do not want to lose my job.
Please keep the information confidential. Some customers did mention
that their dogs are losing their condition. But none connected it to
London." I smiled, thanked her and promised not to mention her name.
I did not tell her that COOP sold more London than all the other
brands together.
I went to the purchaser and said to her: "Annatjie, we know each
other for many years now. I think that you, the manager and the
various salespersons will have to get together and find a means to
get feedback from your customers on the products which you sell. And
make sure you get the whole team together - also include the typist,
the lady at the till and the delivery people. I am now sure that
something is wrong with London. Yet nobody of you became aware of it.
Luckily we are not in the USA where people get sued for any possible
disfunction." She promised to go into the London issue.
But then she said a most interesting thing: "I have this deep desire
that we of the COOP should have dialogue among us." My answer to her
was: "Tell your colleagues about your desire." Next month I will see
what happened to her desire and to the dogfood London.
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 -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>