Introduction & questions

[From Noel Dickover (960607 11:35)]

Greetings. I have just recently taken the time to begin
understanding PCT, and find it fascinating and possibly very useful.
I am hoping some of you will be able help me in understanding it.

Background: I have a B.A. in Anthropology and a M.S. in Cybernetics
and General Systems Theory. I work for a small government
contractor doing organizational change and information technology
implementation for various DoD activities. Currently I am applying
Goldratt's Theory of Constraints to help improve a manufacturing
process. In my work I often employ ideas from Beer's Viable Systems
Model, Miller's Living Systems Theory and John Warfield's
Interactive Management Workshops for diagnosing organizational
situations and developing actions to address them. I also employ
reengineering concepts, which is really where my current niche is. I
often use Integration Definition (IDEF0) methodology for modeling and
communicating processes and systems to customers.

Current knowledge in PCT: I have gotten virtually all my information
about PCT from the CSG website (http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/csg/). This
includes the introductory FAQ, online documents including "Posts on
Cybernetics and Systems Theory" (Joslyn, Marken et al.), PCT
Introduction and Resource Guide, The Hierarchical Behavior of
Perception (Marken) and the "Demo1" computer program. I will be
ordering and reading B:CP.

I am hoping to find practical ways of including PCT into my work. I
would like to ask some questions based on my very limited knowledge
of PCT. A perfectly useful and acceptable response would be, "Read
B:CP and then ask me later." On with the questions...

1) This seems at first glance to be a (very useful) refinement of 1st
order cybernetics. Is this an accurate way for me to view PCT?

2) There is a lot of discussion of the reference value (present goal)
as being something the system employs to notice difference to and
then to correct behavior to move towards over time (negative
feedback loop). Has there been any discussion of the possibility
that the reference value may be a value that the system wants to stay
away from (cockroaches and light, for example)?

3) I'm not sure I buy the presupposition that all of science has
ignored the possibility that living things are purposeful, and that
we as a society only think in terms of cause-effect. Is not the
(non-scientific) realization that "Outcome Orientation", currently
popular in the self-help and management science fields an
acknowledgment of people as living control systems?

4) What implications from a practical or theoretical standpoint has
PCT brought to social systems, and business organizations in
particular. For instance, does PCT give any guidance in terms of how
corporate information (formal or informal) systems should be
organized?

5) "Demo1" demonstrated convincingly that the environment does not
drive the resultant output (behavior), but does drive the actions
necessary to maintain the proper reference value. Again, in applying
this to an organizational context, can this be interpreted to mean
that as long as the organization has a coherent reference value (a
BIG assumption), the internal make-up of the organization (structure,
patterns of communication, infrastructure, built-in responses, etc.)
will determine how well (in terms of ability to maintain a reference
value and the total cost to do so) an organization can maintain the
proper reference value. If this is so, then its still clear that
various organizational structures will be better suited to various
environments (depending on the environment's stability level). This
seems to mean (assuming my logic isn't entirely convoluted at this
point) that the maintaining homeostasis with one's operating
environment over time is still the best strategy for maintaining
viability, n'est pas?

6) Finally, can I enlist the aid of a fellow systems scientist with
any thoughts they might have on how PCT relates to the VSM, Living
Systems Theory, double-loop learning, multi-perspcetive analysis,
Ackoff's stuff, etc?

I know these are a lot of questions. Please feel free to ignore any
part of this message. Thanks in advance...

Noel Dickover
LLD
Business Unit Leader - Organizational Change

[Avery Andrews 960608]
(Noel Dickover 960607)

>2) There is a lot of discussion of the reference value (present goal)
>as being something the system employs to notice difference to and
>then to correct behavior to move towards over time (negative
>feedback loop). Has there been any discussion of the possibility
>that the reference value may be a value that the system wants to stay
>away from (cockroaches and light, for example)?

Yes, remember that a reference level can be for any perception, and that
a perception is anything computable from sensory input. So if you
can build a boolean-valued circuit that outputs 1 when cockroaches
are present, 0 when they aren't, both 0 and 1 are possible reference
levels (there are however lots of open questions about how high-level
control systems of this kind would actually work). Also, the actual
controlled perceptions are probably almost never identical to the
verb formulations that people use to explain their goals to each other;
real work in PCT consists in finding out what the perceptions and
references actually are; these are not likely to be identical to the
semantics of a quickie English language description of the obvious
effects of the system. One might find for example a `one-sided'
contol system specifying a reference level for minimum distance
away from creatures with a certain roach-like appearance; this kind
of collision-avoidence machinery is illustrated in Bill Powers'
`crowd demo' for example.

>3) I'm not sure I buy the presupposition that all of science has
>ignored the possibility that living things are purposeful, and that
>we as a society only think in terms of cause-effect. Is not the
>(non-scientific) realization that "Outcome Orientation", currently
>popular in the self-help and management science fields an
>acknowledgment of people as living control systems?

I wouldn't buy it either, but it is quite clear that there is been
a remarkable amount of resistance to CT in psychology; in the
area of motor control this developed in the mid seventies for
various reasons, but seems to me to have been weakening since the
mid eighties; the book edited by Stelmach mentioned by Rick recently
gives some examples, there's also another one edited by him called
`Tutorials in Motor Behavior' (1978, I think) with the same sort of
material.

I'll leave it to others to speak to your other queries, there are people
who work in those areas.

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au

[from Jeff Vancouver 960613.13:55]

[From Noel Dickover (960607 11:35)]

Greetings. I have just recently taken the time to begin
understanding PCT, and find it fascinating and possibly very useful.
I am hoping some of you will be able help me in understanding it.

4) What implications from a practical or theoretical standpoint has
PCT brought to social systems, and business organizations in
particular. For instance, does PCT give any guidance in terms of how
corporate information (formal or informal) systems should be
organized?

The cites on the csg web will take some time to plow through. You also
might want to check out Robert Lord's stuff and what the action theory
people are doing in Germany (e.g. Freese). By the time you have emerged
form this information overload my Behavioral Science paper should be out.

Good luck.

Later

Jeff