Observations about Systems
Long ago I took a couple of Communications classes at U.Penn that changed my world view.
One was The Social Construction of Reality Through Language and the other was Social Cybernetics.
These classes described organizations, institutions, and systems in terms of living organisms. Years later, I finally found two books
that describes this in full detail, Fritjof Capra's Web of Life and The Hidden Connections. But before that I started to observe
many common patterns amongst different disciplines and structures. I noted that Religion and Operating Systems were very similar. Law
and Software seemed similar as well. (Larry Lessig's book Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace describes this).
Here are some observations:
1) All self-aware systems have survival mechanisms, or self-interest. (Occasionally this is trumped by Love, or Low Self Esteem, but that's another story).
2) Too much self-interest = greed, which causes all kinds of ecological problems.
3) Infinite, non-stop Growth is Impossible in any system, because of time and other dependencies. Systems often over-exploit resources though,
4) Systems have rules, procedures (algorithms), which may be called rules, or laws, or code. They may be biological, chemical, physical, social, computational, electronic, or mechanical. These rules may be changeable. They may be influenced internally by subsystems with their own rules, or externally by other systems, or by "conscious will."
5) Rules may encourage "greed" in systems (for example: it is now common for American investors to expect corporate profits to increase every quarter. If they don't, the corporation's survival is compromised (stocks sold, value reduced), and it will react to protect itself (Layoffs, Litigation, Lobbying, etc). So "greedy" investors (with unwritten rule "I want short term stock profit") trigger survival mechanisms in corporations, which would otherwise focus on innovation, long-term growth, and the well-being of their employees.
6) When systems collide (mergers, occupations, law-making) rules conflict with each other, triggering all kinds of self-defense mechanisms (even offensive ones!) When system-wide spaces encounter other spaces (for example, commerce & government, or commerce and Internet/communications, or media convergence), systems will work hard to enforce their rules over those of others. These may include legalities (what constitutes a violation), price structures, business models, protocols, standards, culture, intellectual properties, etc.
7) All systems have inertia, that slows down their ability to change direction, change internal structure, change rules. It takes flexible internal structure, forceful external change by another system or the environment, or revolution to radically change a system with high inertia. Larger
organisms tend to have higher inertia, but some small ones do also.
8) When faced with limited resources, systems may resort to dependence on violations. That is, a system will be more strict about penalties, adopt quotas to find more violations (rather than reduce them through problem-solving or investment), and penalize those attempting to solve the problem involved in the violation. For example: a city may have a parking problem. Not enough lots, or too many cars. Its government may adopt penalties for people parking too long in spots (i.e. parking meters) and pay people to enforce them. These agents now have a self-interest and will actively vote against solving the parking problem itself. The government may make it illegal to feed meters (an act of goodwill, not necessarily self-interest) because it cuts into their new found source of revenue. The will avoid solving the problem unless sufficient pressure from voters counteracts the gain from this dependence.
8) Accountability is often used to keep tabs on spending (a rule from commerce: don't spend more than you bring in) but it is easily abused or corrupted by self-interest of another system (with different rules). Measurement is nebulous because the counter has a self-interest too.
If you have a company with an internal survey with a point system, make certain that there is a process to actually improve the company! Otherwise, people will artificially inflate their ratings to get bonuses or avoid being axed. It's too easy for those looking at the results to remove the dissenters so that the number goes up (which in itself does nothing to improve the problem being addressed).
More to follow...
Long ago I took a couple of Communications classes at U.Penn that changed my world view.
One was The Social Construction of Reality Through Language and the other was Social Cybernetics.
These classes described organizations, institutions, and systems in terms of living organisms. Years later, I finally found two books
that describes this in full detail, Fritjof Capra's Web of Life and The Hidden Connections. But before that I started to observe
many common patterns amongst different disciplines and structures. I noted that Religion and Operating Systems were very similar. Law
and Software seemed similar as well. (Larry Lessig's book Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace describes this).
Here are some observations:
1) All self-aware systems have survival mechanisms, or self-interest. (Occasionally this is trumped by Love, or Low Self Esteem, but that's another story).
2) Too much self-interest = greed, which causes all kinds of ecological problems.
3) Infinite, non-stop Growth is Impossible in any system, because of time and other dependencies. Systems often over-exploit resources though,
4) Systems have rules, procedures (algorithms), which may be called rules, or laws, or code. They may be biological, chemical, physical, social, computational, electronic, or mechanical. These rules may be changeable. They may be influenced internally by subsystems with their own rules, or externally by other systems, or by "conscious will."
5) Rules may encourage "greed" in systems (for example: it is now common for American investors to expect corporate profits to increase every quarter. If they don't, the corporation's survival is compromised (stocks sold, value reduced), and it will react to protect itself (Layoffs, Litigation, Lobbying, etc). So "greedy" investors (with unwritten rule "I want short term stock profit") trigger survival mechanisms in corporations, which would otherwise focus on innovation, long-term growth, and the well-being of their employees.
6) When systems collide (mergers, occupations, law-making) rules conflict with each other, triggering all kinds of self-defense mechanisms (even offensive ones!) When system-wide spaces encounter other spaces (for example, commerce & government, or commerce and Internet/communications, or media convergence), systems will work hard to enforce their rules over those of others. These may include legalities (what constitutes a violation), price structures, business models, protocols, standards, culture, intellectual properties, etc.
7) All systems have inertia, that slows down their ability to change direction, change internal structure, change rules. It takes flexible internal structure, forceful external change by another system or the environment, or revolution to radically change a system with high inertia. Larger
organisms tend to have higher inertia, but some small ones do also.
8) When faced with limited resources, systems may resort to dependence on violations. That is, a system will be more strict about penalties, adopt quotas to find more violations (rather than reduce them through problem-solving or investment), and penalize those attempting to solve the problem involved in the violation. For example: a city may have a parking problem. Not enough lots, or too many cars. Its government may adopt penalties for people parking too long in spots (i.e. parking meters) and pay people to enforce them. These agents now have a self-interest and will actively vote against solving the parking problem itself. The government may make it illegal to feed meters (an act of goodwill, not necessarily self-interest) because it cuts into their new found source of revenue. The will avoid solving the problem unless sufficient pressure from voters counteracts the gain from this dependence.
8) Accountability is often used to keep tabs on spending (a rule from commerce: don't spend more than you bring in) but it is easily abused or corrupted by self-interest of another system (with different rules). Measurement is nebulous because the counter has a self-interest too.
If you have a company with an internal survey with a point system, make certain that there is a process to actually improve the company! Otherwise, people will artificially inflate their ratings to get bonuses or avoid being axed. It's too easy for those looking at the results to remove the dissenters so that the number goes up (which in itself does nothing to improve the problem being addressed).
More to follow...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home