Comments on: An Information Systems ‘face’ on System Thinking http://www.lithandbook.com/?p=41 A Handbook for Information Systems in the 21st Century Sat, 4 Sep 2010 20:42:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Erik Proper http://www.lithandbook.com/?p=41#comment-31 Erik Proper Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:20:53 +0000 http://www.lithandbook.com/?p=41#comment-31 Nigel, I agree on making a distinction between the communication issue and transformation. A large number of problems that occur during enterpise/software/... development and transformation are due to miscommunications. Ensuring we have good communication between all parties involved in what we (www.cs.ru.nl/tee) refer to as a ``system development community'', is paramount. Irrespective of whether one is concerned with analysing problems in a current situation, imaging future directions, translating this to plans/programs, or executing actual projects to transform the enterprise/software/..., one needs good communication between the members of the system development community. In our work we make a distinction between: understanding, agreement and commitment when communicating. Understanding focusses on the question if two people understand what the other is stating. I would expect VPEC-T to be really helpfull in creating understanding accross Business/IT borders (and more borders). (Ideally) once understanding has been established, the people involved can decide wether or not to agree to what has been stated. Agreement, however, is not necessarily enough. We all know about situations where people said "yes", but when it came to the crunch, they went for "no". In our research activities we are (amongst others) looking at techniques such as Group-Based Modelling (which originated from the art of creating system dynamics models with multiple stakeholders), the related field of collaboration engineering, and more advanced conceptual modelling approaches such as ORM, to develop approaches and theories (based on experiments) to support/enable better communication (understanding, agreeing, commitment). I would love to see if there is a way to collaborate on this, and also put the VPEC-T approach "in the Mix". Regards, Erik Proper Nigel,
I agree on making a distinction between the communication issue and transformation. A large number of problems that occur during enterpise/software/… development and transformation are due to miscommunications. Ensuring we have good communication between all parties involved in what we (www.cs.ru.nl/tee) refer to as a “system development community”, is paramount. Irrespective of whether one is concerned with analysing problems in a current situation, imaging future directions, translating this to plans/programs, or executing actual projects to transform the enterprise/software/…, one needs good communication between the members of the system development community.

In our work we make a distinction between: understanding, agreement and commitment when communicating. Understanding focusses on the question if two people understand what the other is stating. I would expect VPEC-T to be really helpfull in creating understanding accross Business/IT borders (and more borders). (Ideally) once understanding has been established, the people involved can decide wether or not to agree to what has been stated. Agreement, however, is not necessarily enough. We all know about situations where people said “yes”, but when it came to the crunch, they went for “no”.

In our research activities we are (amongst others) looking at techniques such as Group-Based Modelling (which originated from the art of creating system dynamics models with multiple stakeholders), the related field of collaboration engineering, and more advanced conceptual modelling approaches such as ORM, to develop approaches and theories (based on experiments) to support/enable better communication (understanding, agreeing, commitment).

I would love to see if there is a way to collaborate on this, and also put the VPEC-T approach “in the Mix”.

Regards,
Erik Proper

]]> By: Nigel Green http://www.lithandbook.com/?p=41#comment-24 Nigel Green Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:37:36 +0000 http://www.lithandbook.com/?p=41#comment-24 Richard, Thanks for the question, of course, you're correct that understanding does imply communication. The difference between a framework focused on communication versus change is indeed subtle. I would suggest, for example, the primary purpose of a SWOT Analysis would be to simplify and communicate ideas that might enable change. The change execution might then employ other techniques such as Six Sigma and/or (from an IS perspective) TOGAF and/or SOA/REST etc. My fascination is in how to make System Thinking accessible to people on both sides of the so- called business/technology divide. To do this we came up with a framework that is focused on describing information systems behaviour using natural every-day language. This framework does not compete with other communication or execution techniques – it augments them. Perhaps more importantly it seems to create a segue to tried-and-tested System Thinking appraoches. Richard,
Thanks for the question, of course, you’re correct that understanding does imply communication. The difference between a framework focused on communication versus change is indeed subtle. I would suggest, for example, the primary purpose of a SWOT Analysis would be to simplify and communicate ideas that might enable change. The change execution might then employ other techniques such as Six Sigma and/or (from an IS perspective) TOGAF and/or SOA/REST etc. My fascination is in how to make System Thinking accessible to people on both sides of the so- called business/technology divide. To do this we came up with a framework that is focused on describing information systems behaviour using natural every-day language. This framework does not compete with other communication or execution techniques – it augments them. Perhaps more importantly it seems to create a segue to tried-and-tested System Thinking appraoches.

]]> By: Richard Veryard http://www.lithandbook.com/?p=41#comment-23 Richard Veryard Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:44:49 +0000 http://www.lithandbook.com/?p=41#comment-23 Wikipedia describes Systems Dynamics as a way of understanding systems (and presumably therefore communicating this understanding). Could you say a little more about the relationship between techniques for understanding the world and techniques for changing it? Wikipedia describes Systems Dynamics as a way of understanding systems (and presumably therefore communicating this understanding). Could you say a little more about the relationship between techniques for understanding the world and techniques for changing it?

]]>