I think we should question our attitudes - closed systems/engineering bad, open systems/nature good. These are neither a pervasive distinction nor a context free definition.
The great thing about engineering/closed systems is the ability to 'control' of the yield, the great thing about an open system is adaptation and evolution. Nature is wonderful but hopelessly low yield.
It is a wise strategy, where possible, to partition and contain part of the situation so that it can be legitimately treated as a closed system. Life then is much simpler and the yield can be managed within the demand/resource envelope.
Of course it is a foolhardy strategy to treat an open system with the principles of and thinking behind a closed system.
Front-loading our thinking by an unnecessary dichotomy balkanises the options for progress and excludes valuable and productive design space from your repertoire of options.
-What kind of complexity am I dealing with here? (if all systems are complex systems, all problems will exhibit some form of complexity).
-What does the kind of complexity I am encountering mean for the way I want to influence the system/achieve a given outcome?
-Can I learn anything from previous experience attempting to influence similar dynamics in similar ways?
Recognising that the value of closure is a value-judgement (yours being 'yield', mine being 'system health', whatever we think those two terms mean), and we probably have different values. Our values are probably context-dependent too, which is an additional layer of complexity. Trying to shoehorn simplicity and closure into that space does more harm than good, in my view.
Hi Luke, ....All systems are open systems? Yes and no. Take for example the Toyota Production system. Yes this does interact with "external environment" and Toyota (structurally related). However it is essentially a closed deterministic systems work dealing with predefined inputs, outputs and control mechanisms. TPS is also constrained by the embedded production assets and current control mechanism (operational policies, procedures, methods and engineering standards). POSIWID applies. It can only produced, eg, red, blue and green cars. It cannot deal with as current configured to deal with an input of paper to output paper cars. In other words it is not adaptable unless the means of production is changed - a few $m. Comments/thoughts? Regards Geoff Elliott
PS member of a small group - meeting of minds on linkedin with Profs mike jackson, victor Newman, roger James. Members in Oz, Switzerland and Germany focussed at putting some sense into ST and challenging the many instant gurus
Hi Geoff, thanks for your comment. I think we try to hard to make production systems closed. Demand for cars rolling off the production line is part of a complex human system that almost certainly impacted the operation of the business, even if Toyota engineers weren't entirely aware of those impacts. Why are we so eager to say the "no" in "yes and no" when it's always a stretch at best?
I agree production line is part of a complex human system that almost certainly impacted the operation of the business. However, one of the role of the car show room is to act as a variety attenuation mechanism to direct the customer to what can be made – the illusion of choice. The other role is to act as an intelligence gathering mechanism to collect data/information about customer interests. This is inputs into, in VSM terms, S4 to enable S5 to be reset. But their is a time difference between reset policy and policy implementation at an operational level. While TPS (S1) is structurally couple to Toyota it is still a derministic and essentially a closed systems of work which cannot be easily changed. Toyota have basically implemented Ashbys double loop cybernetic model.
I think we should question our attitudes - closed systems/engineering bad, open systems/nature good. These are neither a pervasive distinction nor a context free definition.
The great thing about engineering/closed systems is the ability to 'control' of the yield, the great thing about an open system is adaptation and evolution. Nature is wonderful but hopelessly low yield.
It is a wise strategy, where possible, to partition and contain part of the situation so that it can be legitimately treated as a closed system. Life then is much simpler and the yield can be managed within the demand/resource envelope.
Of course it is a foolhardy strategy to treat an open system with the principles of and thinking behind a closed system.
Front-loading our thinking by an unnecessary dichotomy balkanises the options for progress and excludes valuable and productive design space from your repertoire of options.
Hi Roger, I cover some of this in a later post (https://pigontracks.substack.com/p/14-yes-theyre-all-complex), where I think there are some good contextually driven questions that people should ask as they encounter complexity:
-What kind of complexity am I dealing with here? (if all systems are complex systems, all problems will exhibit some form of complexity).
-What does the kind of complexity I am encountering mean for the way I want to influence the system/achieve a given outcome?
-Can I learn anything from previous experience attempting to influence similar dynamics in similar ways?
Recognising that the value of closure is a value-judgement (yours being 'yield', mine being 'system health', whatever we think those two terms mean), and we probably have different values. Our values are probably context-dependent too, which is an additional layer of complexity. Trying to shoehorn simplicity and closure into that space does more harm than good, in my view.
Hi Luke, ....All systems are open systems? Yes and no. Take for example the Toyota Production system. Yes this does interact with "external environment" and Toyota (structurally related). However it is essentially a closed deterministic systems work dealing with predefined inputs, outputs and control mechanisms. TPS is also constrained by the embedded production assets and current control mechanism (operational policies, procedures, methods and engineering standards). POSIWID applies. It can only produced, eg, red, blue and green cars. It cannot deal with as current configured to deal with an input of paper to output paper cars. In other words it is not adaptable unless the means of production is changed - a few $m. Comments/thoughts? Regards Geoff Elliott
geoff.elliott2@btopenworld.com
PS member of a small group - meeting of minds on linkedin with Profs mike jackson, victor Newman, roger James. Members in Oz, Switzerland and Germany focussed at putting some sense into ST and challenging the many instant gurus
Hi Geoff, thanks for your comment. I think we try to hard to make production systems closed. Demand for cars rolling off the production line is part of a complex human system that almost certainly impacted the operation of the business, even if Toyota engineers weren't entirely aware of those impacts. Why are we so eager to say the "no" in "yes and no" when it's always a stretch at best?
Hi Luke,
I agree production line is part of a complex human system that almost certainly impacted the operation of the business. However, one of the role of the car show room is to act as a variety attenuation mechanism to direct the customer to what can be made – the illusion of choice. The other role is to act as an intelligence gathering mechanism to collect data/information about customer interests. This is inputs into, in VSM terms, S4 to enable S5 to be reset. But their is a time difference between reset policy and policy implementation at an operational level. While TPS (S1) is structurally couple to Toyota it is still a derministic and essentially a closed systems of work which cannot be easily changed. Toyota have basically implemented Ashbys double loop cybernetic model.
Thoughts
Geoff Elliott