Dear Organlearners,
Fred Nickols <nickols@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>But there is a trap in all this and it has to do with learning.
>One of the things I've learned over the years is that apparently
>complex problems aren't really as complex as they seem.
>There is, in common parlance, the notion of "the heart of the
>matter." If you can get to the heart of the matter, without being
>sidetracked by all the surrounding complexity, many problems
>can be resolved without the aid of a tool like system dynamics.
Greetings Fred,
Wow, you have knotted some important threads into this one paragraph!
Your first observation on learning entails that problems become
"complicated" through a lack of learning. I prefer to use "complicate"
rather than "complex" in this case. Complicated problems are a particular
kind of complex problems. Even simple problems can become very complicated
if we do not know enough to solve them. The complication (complexity) is
not situated in the problem, but in the solver. The solver have not grown
up to match the complexity of the problem. These complicated problems
become easier to solve when the solver's own knowledge become more complex
as a result of learning.
But I actually wanted to get to your second observation which concerns
"the heart of the matter". You write that "If you can get to the heart of
the matter, without being sidetracked by all the surrounding complexity,
many problems can be resolved without the aid of a tool like system
dynamics". It means that knowing the heart of the matter does not require
system dynamics. In other words, system dynamics is incomplete with
respect to problem solving. It is incomplete because specifically it does
not explain "the heart of the matter". Furthermore, it does not explain
why, when knowing "the heart of the matter", the solver will not be side
tracked by all the surrounding complexity.
The systems thinking which I would like to embrace, should give a careful
account of problem solving. For example, it should clearly say when
something will function as a problem. In other words, what makes something
a problem and what distinguishes the solution from the problem? That which
makes something a problem and that which distinguish the solution from the
problem, should play central roles in the rest of systems thinking and not
be peculiar to problem solving itself.
>So, here's a suggestion, John. How about posing to the list
>a problem that could be addressed by system dynamics and
>then leading/facilitating/fostering/stimulating a discussion of
>that problem in SD terms? I'll happily participate.
I would like all of you to ponder over the following three problems:
What makes something a problem?
What distinguishes the solution from the problem?
What is "the heart of the matter" when solving any problem?
Best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>