[Paul George 940804 10:15]
A little something I extracted from my BPR list. If naught else, the references
may be useful. It is possible they might have application to levels 6-8.
{If you don't want this kind of stuff posted, let me know. However IMHO the
internet provides a mechanism for disseminating your ideas while bypassing the
conventional journal referee's (a.k.a. Guardians of TRVTH) ;-)}
···
==============================
From BPR-L digest #139
Concerning Bill Harris's query (in BPR-L Digest 94, Topic No. 6) and Ralf
Strauss's reply:
..has anyone read works on the so-called St. Gallen management
model (e.g., Knut Bleicher's "Integriertes Management")?
There may be more than one St. Gallen management model. The one I am familiar
with stems from the work of Marcus Schwaninger of the Management Institute.
His approach is based on Stafford Beer's (1985) Viable System Model (VSM) and
can be found in the special issue of Systems Practice (1990) and revised
version in Schwaninger (1993), both in English. Examples of applications of
the VSM to organizational design are provided in these books/journals.
Additional examples can be found in Esperjo and Harnden (1989).
For those unfamiliar with the VSM, it is based on a Cybernetic/Biological
model of self organizing and adapting systems. Very briefly, the viable system
model itself contains five systems in a particular configuration connected by
information links that carry the 'requisite variety' of information (after
Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety). As an aside, I prefer to use the words
'requisite or adequate categories' (after Edelman, 1992, who refers to the
human brain-body as a categorizing machine); if an organization (groups of
brains-bodies) makes a poor job of either categorizing its environments or its
products/services and/or moving the information to where it is needed for
decisions, it is somewhat less viable. The information-system linkages form
feedback loops that roughly equate to long, intermediate and short run
cybernetic continuous self-control/adjustment. If any of the systems or their
linkages are missing or substandard, then viability is in question. Finally,
each viable system needs to be embedded in a viable system at a higher level.
I read somewhere that the only person who looked up the inside of a tornado (a
self-organizing system) and lived, described it as lots of smaller twisters
lining and maintaining the shape of the tunnel). However, different
configurations have been observed (see, for example, Dickover's, 1994,
description of the San Francisco Zoo organization). There is a lot more to
this subject that is still developing.
As for its practicality, although it is mostly subjective (precise measures of
variety/categories may never be found) examples of implementation are
described in the literature referenced above ...
[discussion of applications to BPR ommitted]
References:
Beer, S. 1985.Diagnosing the System for Organizations. Wiley.
Burton, R. M. & B. Obel 1991. Organizational Consultant: an expert system.,
available from Borge Obel, Dept. of Management, Odense University, Campusvej
55, DK-5230 Odense M, Denmark
Dickover, N. 1994. Reflection-in-Action: modeling a specific organization
through the VSM, Systems Practice Vol. 7, No. 1: 43-62.
Edelman, G. M. 1992. Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: on the matter of the mind.
New York: Basic Books.
Espejo, R. & R. Harnden (eds.) 1989. The Viable System Model: interpretations
and applications of Stafford Beer's VSM. Wiley.
Schwaninger, M. 1990. Embodiment of Organizational Fitness: the VSM as a
guide. Systems Practice (special edition on VSM), Vol. 3, No. 3: 249-264.
Schwaninger, M. 1993. A Concept of Organisational fitness, in Espejo, R. & M.
Schwaninger, Organisational Fitness: corporate effectiveness through
management cybernetics. New York: Campus Verlag, pp.39-66.