For those of you who’ve read LiT you’ll know the authors are fans of System Thinking . It was always in the back of our minds as we developed the VPEC-T framework and described Externalization and Adoption Engineering. Our primary focus with LiT is the improvement of the communication between business and IT – not to introduce a comprehensive set of techniques for executing transformations. But what we’re finding is that some practitioners of VPEC-T are going on to consider how to apply native Systems Thinking techniques such analysis of feedback loops, stocks and flows, adopters/adapters and extended System Thinking techniques such as CATWOE (definition courtesy creatingminds.org) from Peter Checkland ’s Soft Systems Methodology .This relationship but separation between LiT concepts and Systems Thinking helps in a couple of ways. The separation helps prevent VPEC-T from being seen as a methodology for transformation rather than as a framework for communication – its enduring purpose. However, it seems the common root in Systems Thinking creates a useful bridge between Information System planning /development and organizational/process change techniques such as Systems Dynamics and Six Sigma .
My personal experience is that I’ve had more meaningful and innovative discussions with business transformation experts because of this shared foundation
.
(definitions & referneces courtessy of wikipedia unless other wise stated).
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?
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.
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