Jackson's System of Systems Methodology (SOSM) framework presents a construct that enables one to begin to make sense of the broad array of approaches that claim to embrace the Systems Thinking paradigm.
Our actions are based on our beliefs and the results of those actions are the basis for our beliefs. The difficulty we create for ourselves is that we make assumptions as to how to interpret the results we select based on our beliefs. As a result we are often operating on a flawed perspective of reality.
One question that I seem to be getting more and more often is "Should I do this in Insight Maker or Kumu?" At one time that was an easy answer, and still is for certain things, for others it's becoming more and more difficult.
When endeavoring to develop an understanding of the nature of something it is generally useful to create a model of some type to aid in surfacing that understanding.
There are things we can influence and usually a broader array of things we are concerned about though can't influence. It's important to know the differerence otherwise we waste our energies trying to change things we have no influence over.
There exists a well defined set of possible ways to alter an existing set of interactions. Each of these alterations will produce a particular effect depending on the relations the change is relative to. Identifying which are possible and which will migrate the interactions to produce the desired situation is the essence of the strategy.
This is a template which one might use as a basis for creating Insight Maker Relationship models. Links have default style of the blue ones in the diagram. The easiest way to get the red dashed links is to CTRL+d to duplicate them and then connect where appropriate.
When the relevant interactions are identified it's appropriate to identify which elements are the responsibility of which stakeholders, which elements are part of the addressable interactions and which elements are part of the environment.
In addition to identifying the relevant stakeholders it is essential to understand which elements of the situation are relevant to which stakeholders. Often this is quite apparent and at times it's not so obvious.
An introduction to what seems to be our typical approach to dealing with problems that arise unexpectedly when we're focused on dealing with other immediate issues.
Eroding Goals shares a basic similarity with Shifting the Burden - the dynamic tension between a symptomatic solution and a fundamental one. In the case of Eroding Goals, managers are faced with performance that fails to meet a stated goal.
Developing a strategy for dealing with a situation begins with a description of the situation and the preferred state for today, not in some distant future, and the perceived implications of not doing anything.
Strategy is simply an idea as to how to move the current situation to the desired situation though it is seldom simple by any means. If the strategy is to be successful how numerous elements will be able support each other through the transition must be defined.
When we're trying to understand a situation it is often very helpful to have a sense of the historical trends of several dimensions relevant to the situation.
The situation Big Box Distribution considers to be a problem is an average accounts receivable period which is considered unacceptable as it is costing them money.
Now that we have some context for the situation it's appropriate to begin to investigate, though possibly not where you might think. And the investigation is actually a bit hindered because management fired the accounts receivables department. What I'm really interested in is trends as to how things have evolved over time.