Interesting article that makes use of some Systems Thinking to represent dealing with Wicked Problems: Managing wicked problems: a primer | CSL4D.
Not sure this clarifies the thinking required for wicked problems, though
Reblog: Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we’re nearing collapse | Cathy Alexander and Graham Turner @systemsthinking
Want to read a good horror novella? Read the following article. Freakin’ terrifyin’!
Ballé did it again: an excellent blogpost on what Lean is all about: Michael Ballé’s Gemba Coach Column.
Making people think by themselves. Man is this terrifyingly difficult!!!
Yet, on other aspects, people do think by themselves when they really are interested in the thing they want thought through.
That they just don’t think about their work should trigger an alarm in management’s heads about what it to to be a leader and having their people be interested in the work they do.
You obviously can’t force interest. And the more we advance in time, the more the new generations of workers seek interesting, meaning making jobs.
And you can’t exactly know what someone will find meaning in, so my conclusion is:
Let people organize themselves and define meaning as what works best for them.
Strength-based Lean, eh?
Saw it years ago, won’t lose it this time.
A great link!
Interesting approach that grounds co-creation (but not only) into reality.
Stuff worth considering for the Labso…
Excellent article which I tihnk I’m going to refer to very often!
For the three components of Intrinsic Motivation in Self Determination Theory to express themselves, a social network to which the person feels belonging is a necessity:
- Autonomy is only possible when contrasted with belonging to a social network, otherwise, well, it’s just loneliness.
- Competence exists when compared to what others do (or don’t), and, again, this is an emergent property of someone deep into a social network.
- Relatedness, well, says it all: the belonging in itself is an attractive part of social networking.
So my conclusion is that, if Self Determination Theory has any relevance (and I’m convinced it has) then intrinsic motivation is tightly coupled with the intimate feeling of belonging to a social network.
And in case you feel that a social network can be a nuisance, try being alone. In that doesn’t appal to you either, then it might be time to experiment a Laboratory of Social Technologies, an co-created endeavour with a friend for teaching people how to leverage their social network to solve one or any kind of problem. Check it out at http://www.labso.org/!
The Club of Rome and “Limits to Growth” book have warned us since when I was born that without a drastic change, humanity is doomed. Indeed, a point of non-return was passed over in the 80s, so we I guess we all have to cross fingers and hope for an innovation to save us all.
Meanwhile, I was thinking out loud on LinkedIn/Systems Thinking World and happened to have posted the following, which I think might be of interest to readers of this blog.
I think there’s a system at play in humans on a second level that is absent in animals (and insects) [the discussion was about Insect Economies]
Animals interact on a ground level with their environment and are structurally coupled with it (Maturana). When there’s food available, they use it. When the resource is exhausted or below a *practical* level corresponding to their natural ability to gather/use it, they just stop, either through migrating to better places, which indeed let time for nature to rebuild itself or they breed less, or even they disappear altogether.
Humans on the contrary are able to adapt themselves to a higher level to their environment. When their usual way of using resources isn’t sufficient enough, they invent/innovate a new/different/better way of doing it, and exploit the resources further (usually through tools). The result is that nature goes beyond a point of being able to regenerate itself (overshoot and collapse? Mentioned here). When we achieve this point, we usually either move elsewhere (find a new oil natural tank) or innovate to use another kind of resource.
Indeed, it’s always a search for more, with (as far as I noted for now) more and more negative longer term consequences.
So, from a systemic perspective, I’d say that what allowed humanity to prosper up to now is its capacity to think at “upper” levels and have a new kind of adaptation to change, where animals are more limited. It might well be what will put humanity at risk in the longer term, unless we evolve one layer further up.
I thus see 3 tendancies for now:
- continue humankind as usual (the 90%)
- embrass decrease/frugal economy (ie, consume less and less, the 9%) – in which I place initiatives such as The Commons
- embrass thinking to a higher level (the 1%?): systems thinking, the human project (http://www.thehumanproject.us/) and similar.
Despite being attracted with the third option, I’m wondering whether this direction is the good one given that it showed such poor results to date (incredible progress but with an exhausted planet in the end).
I just stumbled upon this marvelous piece of read: Why projects don’t make sense.
Just spot on, I love this!
Moreover, when Allan says
Destroying team destroys knowledge – knowledge has value, knowledge exists in heads not documents
I would further add that knowledge exists in the interactions too (social constructionism). Destroy relationships, destroy knowledge.