Blank
From [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.19.1204) ]
Purpose: Like Dr. King, I have a dream ( a hope, really ) that one day all the “systems thinking”, Action Science, System Dynamists, social scientists of all persuasions, etc, etc. will all be able to understand the importance and significance of the HPCT model. In this post I lay out why I think they might find it beneficial and what we might do to help.
I am focusing in on the systems thinking (ST), Action science (AS), and System Dynamics (SD) people first. As a good salesman I think that these people have both the greatest need and most willingness to look at new ideas. People in these areas cross all kinds of professional domains, from Psychologists, to physicists, to teachers. What is important here is not the educational background, but the mind set of the individuals.
All three groups start out on the right foot. They all believe humans are purposeful beings. Unfortunately it goes downhill from here very quickly. 
All three groups believe that human behavior can be explained by a simple input -> output model, with either the environment or “cognitive maps” as the input and behavior is the output. This kind of thinking has serious consequences for all three. ST & SD people believe that purpose is in the environment, and their models reflect this. If you want to “change” a human endeavor, change the environment. This we know is only partly true. The consequences of this kind of thinking is that SD model solutions are often either extremely difficult to implement and/ or are not accurate when it comes to individuals in their models. The implications are big. The entire basis of Action Science is Argyris’s and Schon’s Master Model I & II “behaviors”. Model I of course is a “control” model, with his 4 “governing variables” nothing more then 4 “principles or systems” level variables he has found consistently in all his research and work. The implications to AS people in “knowing” HPCT are huge, in my opinion. Right now Argyris and company are trying to get people to “learn” Model II “behavior”. Model II behavior being, in actuality, other “principle or system level” variables to Model I principles/system level variables. At first glance, these “governing variables” seemed to be at the “principle level”. That has been postulated by Bill. I think that might be right, I’m just not sure yet. Anyway…,; What AS people do understand is that Model I is the norm, and that it serves us quite well 95% of the time. What AS people are suggesting is that when people “take on” Model II variables they have a better time"satisfying" higher level goals. Control systems by their very nature are efficient systems. They are also generally very local and of short time duration. What I mean by this is, the longer in time and space something is being controlled the bigger the opportunity of disturbance, conflict and error occurring in and to the system. AS people do not understand this, or the implications of this. You can’t “unlearn” Model I anymore then you can “learn” Model I. Model I is about Control and Control is about Model I. It would make it a great deal easier, in my humble opinion, that in order to “learn” Model II, an understanding of what is “causing” Model I might be useful and helpful. I personally have found this to be the case. On the other hand ST and SD people are very aware of this problem. That is the reason for their thinking & modeling efforts. A slogan they have is; “Act locally think globally”. That is, do now what is needed, but always keep tomorrow and distance in mind. HPCT does not tell us this directly. Control in general is not concerned with either time or distance issues. It will “do” what is intended, and it will “correct” any mistakes faced in the quickest most expeditious manner, often “causing” conflict and problems elsewhere. We know this from HPCT directly. I believe that HPCT can help inform ST, SD, and AS. I also believe all three can help inform HPCT. Especially in looking at the upper levels of the hierarchy, and if not the model directly, then the phenomena it predicts.
I plan on attending the SD conference this year. It is in NYC at about the same time as the CSG conference, which I can’t attend because of travel restrictions I currently have. I would like to be able to talk PCT up at the conference, so toward that end I am working on a different kind of SD model that they are currently used to. If anyone has any ideas on this I’d like to hear from them. I am not planning on handing out any current PCT lit. I plan on developing some on my own.
Marc
(Attachment Blank Bkgrd24.gif is missing)