In the review of our 2010 Human Systems
Dynamics Certification course {ref. HSD 3}, F. and I continued our
discussion about tools to deal with each type of change.
For static or dynamic change,
traditional methods can be used to measure outcomes; e.g. statistical
methods from quality control like histograms, distribution curves,
etc. However, Project Management might work for static or dynamic
change but not dynamical change because for this type of change we
don't know what the interactions and interchanges between the agents
are, and might be, as the project progresses.
Another difficulty we recognized comes
up with stereotypical management activities such as the Board of
Directors asking for the forecast of profit results for the next
quarter without understanding that the results are actually due to
dynamical change. This situation requires management understanding of
dynamical change and comfort with the uncertainty of unknown
influences and with imprecise results. In other words, as F. noted: a
reduction in strategic planning replaced by strategic thinking.
We then began looking more deeply at
dynamical change.
With open boundaries around the system,
influencers are outside the system in question and are unknown. F.
pondered the possibility of attempting to determine the “openness /
closeness” of a system. Could we build a rating method that
categorizes systems on a scale from “closed” to “open”? My concern is that even
with such a rating there would be difficulties: a closed box in a
sealed room is subject to external influences some of which are
known, such as gravity, temperature, etc. but this situation is still
subject to unknowns.
I applied this difficulty to planning a
workshop. We can get all the details available about the
participants, the venue, the circumstances, etc. - in short, think
about all possibilities. However, there still will be surprises, and
unknowns that affect the outcome. Therefore, understanding the
dynamical nature of the situation leads to an approach which can use
the surprising, emergent elements successfully.
We agreed that the approach used in an
“Open Space Technology” workshop {Harrison Owen} comprehends that there will be unknowable
influences on the participants, and the workshop as a whole. This
knowledge allows the organizers and participants to use these
influences to achieve emergent and unexpected results. Accordingly,
the goal is not to seek a specific result but to use an approach that
allows a variety of unanticipated results.