When you talk about experience what do you mean?
Describe what was, for you, a new experience.
Experiences are circumstances that I’ve been through that I’ve remembered. They shape my perspectives and, eventually, my worldview. They are things that I may remember in the future during new experiences, and these prior experiences may shape how I act in the new ones.
I was in the RAF for 12 years and part of that time was spent with a tactical unit in Kuwait. I wasn’t running around in the desert or anything (thankfully!) but I did get to maintain the communications systems at the main airbase there. I’d seen the bombing of Iraq on the television – like everyone else – but had no direct experience of war until I got to Kuwait.
I only got to see some of the aftermath in Kuwait. The airbase had several reinforced concrete aircraft shelters and each of these had been bombed by the allies during the first gulf war. The concrete in these things was several meters thick and these bombs had somehow penetrated all the way through, no doubt destroying everything underneath. I’ve stood on top of one of these shelters and looked down the massive hole left by these bombs. The amount of energy released in these impacts must have been utterly immense.
You really don’t get an idea of how much damage can be done by modern weapons until you’ve seen it yourself. The television makes it look terrifying but you get a feel for how terrible when you can touch the results.
There were other war relics visible in the squash courts. These were used for executions by the Iraqis and the bullet holes were still there. The pragmatism of the British military meant that there was a special “let” rule so that balls ricocheting out of one of these holes would be replayed.
I’m not entirely sure where this one is going but here we go. The right column will be filled in later.
*Update* – after reading further down the course materials here is the right column material too. I’ve used definitions more suited to systems thinking that the generic meanings of the verbs. (updated 14/3/2012)
How I understand these activities now
How my understanding has/has not changed
||To start understanding or be aware of the existence of something
||Understanding my own perspectives and worldview, so that I can take these into account when experiencing something
||To look back at something and try and see if there are errors are ways of improvement
||Action learning – experience, thinking, decision action and back to experience again (and so forth). Iterate to find emergent properties
||To be thankful or be understanding of something
||Maybe related to the first one – knowing where I’ve come from and considering the history or traditions of situations in order to use systems practice to best effect
||To tell apart
||Understanding the difference between things, maybe between systemic and systematic thinking
||To take an idea and think about doing something with it
||Don’t know about this one
List the two contrasting ideas from Table 1 (page 66) that you find most challenging to, or supportive of, your current worldview. Explain why.
The table in the question lists “some contrasting features between the traditional Western conception of the disembodied person with that of an embodied person”. I’m not entirely convinced that the course notes have really explained what this means but I’m going to have a stab at a pair of contrasting ideas.
Western conception: The world has a unique category structure independent of the minds, bodies or brains of human beings (i.e. an objective world).
Embodied person: Our conceptual system is grounded in, neurally makes use of, and is crucially shaped by our perceptual and motor systems.
I do think that the world can be objectively understood – through science. It is science that defines how we understand reality, so perhaps this is what the traditional Western idea is stating. However, I also think that the embodied persion idea is also correct, in that as individuals we understand everything that goes on around us by our own perception. Our brains interpret everything that we see, hear and taste and the way we understand these signals is shaped by our prior experiences.
Looking at the list on the rest of the table I am more likely to agree with the “embodied person” side rather than the traditional western. This is probably due to my prior learning on T214
This activity requires me to look at a very large diagram showing some of the many building blocks of systems thinking. I’m not going to reproduce it here (my blog isn’t big enough to show it with any clarity, but I do need to search for some practices that I have never heard of or don’t know the definition.
So, here comes a list of stuff I don’t know. I have no idea if I’m going to revisit this but I guess this will be a good place to store some links to stuff that I might find useful later on. I’m going to try and not use Wikipedia for all these.
- General Systems Theory. You’d think I’d know something about this already but it must have slipped my memory when doing T214
- Critical Systems by Jackson, Ulrich and Flood
- Applied Systems Studies by Checkland. I’m not entirely sure what this is from the little oval in the diagram but it seems to relate to soft systems methodologies. I shall be covering these quite a bit in the course.
- Systems Agriculture by Spedding & Bawden. Something else I have no idea about, but my current client is working in agriculture and I might read this at some point.
- OR Management Science by Ackoff. I don’t know what they mean by this either but I have at least heard of Russell Ackoff.
- Management Cybernetics by Stafford Beer. This is related to the viable systems model that is covered later in T306
- Second-order Cybernetics. I’ve actually found a proper academic link for this. It talks about semiotics in the abstract and I have no idea what this is either.
- Biology of cognition by Varela. I think this is probably about attempting to understand how we understand things. I don’t understand this.
- Experimental Epistemology. This somehow leads into second-order cybernetics. I really hope I don’t have to actually know this stuff.
- Information Theory by Shannon, Weaver. The mother of all models, apparently
There have been some extremely clever people thinking about this stuff for a very long time. I do hope some of it rubs off.
Write down your own initial impressions to the metaphor of the systems practitioner as juggler.
What juggler? Oh, this one:
I’m going to be seeing a lot of this juggler, I can tell. My initial impressions of this are that the metaphor sounds pretty reasonable on the face of it. It is difficult to manage anything complex and it does sometimes feel that I’m a pretty poor juggler trying to keep lots of extremely uneven objects in the air all at the same time.
The B ball has been covered by T214 already and I think I have a reasonable grasp on what is expected of systems practitioners. The E ball is the bit I find hard – the engaging with the real world bit. I’m not entirely sure what the C ball is trying to tell me. I have a vague idea but I’m keeping a space in my brain free for that information. I am hopeless at managing anything, so I suspect that this is the bit I shall be finding most difficult.
In your Learning Album list some of the practices you engage in personally and professionally. Suggest some measures of performance for these practices, i.e. how do you know if you do them well?
So, this activity is trying to get me to think about being a practitioner of something, how I do things and how do I measure my success in those things. This isn’t something I’ve done much thinking about in the past but it’s something that sounds like I should have thought about.
Let’s take my current career: software testing. I am a software tester, someone who tests software. Test software for what purpose? Well, in order to make sure that software produced is fit for purpose perhaps, or that it doesn’t contain many bugs. There’s lots of discussion about this sort of thing out there but I haven’t really engaged with them. I like my job, I bugger about with software all day making sure that it works within a certain set of parameters.
How do I know that I’ve done it well? Is it if I’ve raised a few dozen defects and annoyed all the developers? Is it if the software is rolled out into the wild and accepted by the customer? Is it if I feel that I’ve made a positive influence on the development of the product or made some other contribution that’s been recognised by my management? It’s all of these things, and many other things. There are all sorts of ways I can measure success, and they’re not all related to the software I’m testing.
For instance, I could say that I’ve had a successful day if I’ve managed to avoid doing any work all day, drunk lots of coffee and spent large parts of an afternoon playing Bejewelled on Facebook without getting caught. I wouldn’t actually feel happy about that (of course!) but some people might find that to be quite a successful day.
I actually feel that I’ve done well if I’ve learned something new, applied it to my job and succeeded in something new. I feel successful if some tests I’ve written are reviewed by an analyst and I do not need to do any updates. I get a sense of satisfaction if a colleague requires help and I’m able to provide it. I think I’ve had a good day, and done well, if I’ve had a good day (if you see what I mean).
This question is not as easy to answer as I thought. There are so many ways of measuring success in my job. It’s just as well I’m doing a course in managing complexity…
As expected I have absolutely not chance at all of doing all these activities, not unless someone inserts an extra two days into each week between now and October. So, I’ve reluctantly had to skim read a bunch of notes and skip activities 18 to 30.
These activities take me through a lot of the same diagramming techniques that I did in T214, so I don’t think that missing them out will ruin my chances of getting a good mark or skew my understanding of the course materials for later on. If I don’t get my arse into gear and get my first assignment submitted this week I’m going to be a long way behind with block 2 too.
So, onwards with Part 3 of block 1. This includes an activity that is supposed to take 40 hours. Oh sweet Jesus…
What was the perceived problem (or opportunity) to which components in this situation seemed to offer a solution?
The problem was seen as absent parents not contributing to the raising of their children, while the parents left with the children struggled financially.
Identify at least two organizations, processes, activities or ideas in the situation that might be perceived as attempted solutions to some issue, problem or opportunity. Preferably, identify several more.
The CSA “formula” attempted to work out how much absent parents could realistically afford to pay to their former partners. Initially, it was rather crap at this.
The CSA workers attempted to facilitate these payments using the systems available to them. Initially, these systems were crap too.
The CSA itself was seen as a way of enforcing payments to lone parents from absent parents.
There were many forms that were required to be filled in by both absent and lone parents.
Identify the issues, problems or opportunities to which these might be said to be attempted solutions.
The forms were a way for the CSA to gather information about lone and absent parents. These figures were fed into the CSA systems and the magic formula spat out some figure that was supposedly fair.
I don’t think I’m responding to this question very well…
For each of these issues, suggest the person, persons, or organization that had the power to bring each of these attempted solutions into being.
The government itself – especially the relevant ministers – were ultimately responsible for the running of the CSA.
I may have answered other parts of this part of the question further up
Locate yourself in your rich picture.
Well, I did already draw myself in the rich picture – performing a nice :facepalm: – but I do wonder if the way I included myself is actually correct. My understanding is more nuanced than it suggests. I do despair about the whole thing, of course, but I could also have linked myself up as a tax-payer in there.
Identify traps that may arise from your initial evaluations of the situation, for example, traps set by stakeholdings or identification; the ‘core issue’ trap; the ‘unacknowledged feelings’ trap; the ‘gut-reaction solution’ trap, all discussed above.
T306 hasn’t really properly defined these “traps” as of yet, although I kind of guess what they’re on about. T214 did go into thinking traps quite a bit and I even made some notes on that at the time.
So, did I fall into some traps in the previous activities? Of course I did. I have a particular view and although my views do encompass more than one political viewpoint my initial analysis is always going to be led by my own experiences. I’ve certainly fallen for the “gut-reaction” trap of thinking I know what the problem is, or some of the causes.
I do think that these days I’m fairly self-aware and understand that my own perspectives can get in the way of forming a “true” picture of any situation. T214 gave me that. I’m just not that good at trying to look from alternative perspectives.