13 ms·

Systems Thinking and Quality

ggeorgovassilis 7y ago
> No part of the system or a collection of parts of the system has an independent effect on it. Therefore a system as a whole cannot be divided into independent parts.
jackhalford 7y ago
Very insightful, and as usual with systems thinking, I think that we don't understand the field well. I once found a comment on HN to read "The Systems Bible" by John Gall, this is a great occasion to relay the proverbial baton. If tou like this article I strongly recommend reading this book.
cjfd 7y ago
One area where this becomes apparent is that in complex and layered system at least some of the bahaviours of a single layer do not make sense in terms of the system as a whole. Often it is wrong to attempt to let a layer on its own do the thing that seems most logical because actually the output of that layer is the input of another one and the total result is an interplay between the two. Attempting to make each one separately more logical would make both layers a lot more complex and would essentially be duplicating the relevant concerns into multiple layers, if not outright introducing bugs by introducing speculative logic that often turns out to be wrong in yet unforeseen cases.
- LaundroMat 7y ago
  Communication between its elements is the source of a system's emergent behaviour. So yes, input/output streams (and where they originate and end up) are at least as important to the system as its discrete elements, if not more so.
- cutemonster 7y ago
  This is very abstract to me. It'd be nice with an example
crimsonalucard 7y ago
Is systems thinking the same epistemological BS that's heaped onto the industry like design patterns and all these acronyms I hear being thrown everywhere? Is there formal axiomatic basis for any of this stuff or is it just mumbo jumbo. This is the definition of quality: >The definition of quality has to do with meeting or exceeding the expectations of the customer or the consumer. Therefore, if their expectations are not met, it’s a failure. How is this a definition? It's a vague comparison. It tells me you don't really have clear definition in your own brain. Take a look at the definition of system: >A system is a whole that consists of parts each of which can affect its behavior or its properties. Each part of the system when it affects the system is dependent for its effect on some other part. In other words: The parts are interdependent. Is this for real? What is a whole and what is a part? No rigor and it's all mumbo jumbo that's obvious. Yes a system can be made up of modules and yes things can be interdependent. How is this new and innovative? Thanks for telling me something everybody on the face of the earth already knows. >The essential property of an automobile is that it can carry you from one place to another. No part of an automobile can do that. Mind blown. Just kidding. If you take the wheel of the car and balance on top of it like a circus artist then walk the wheel will carry you from one place to another. Boom. Guess what a car is not a system because one of the "parts" works independently. I guess I just blew apart what this persons' definition of a system because a car is obviously a system but under the articles' flawed definition it is not. >If we have a system of improvement that’s directed at improving the parts taken separately you can be absolutely sure that the performance of the whole will not be improved. Have you heard of the term "bottleneck"? It's when one "component" of the "system" slows the overall system down. >It’s a wrong concept of quality. Quality ought to contain a notion of value, not merely efficiency. That’s a difference between efficiency and effectiveness. Quality ought to be directed at effectiveness. You know what? "Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get." Clever right? Makes sense right? Two things most people miss when they read the quote above. First thing: it was said by someone who is mentally disabled. Second thing: The message is obvious. Life is spontaneous who doesn't know this? It's pointless wrapping this concept up in an analogy. Same with the "concept of quality" Quality ought to be directed at effectiveness? Who on the face of the earth isn't aware of this fact? In conclusion, this is not a good way to think. If you want a good systematic way to analyze the world and "systems" the way to do it is to have a very clear notion about the difference between science, logic and intuition. Know the strength of each pillar and know the weaknesses. The above article above is all just intuition with logical flaws due to lack of rigor or science to back up its points. Additionally, the main point is incredibly obvious.
omazurov 7y ago
> He says, that you should imagine having all cars available in a room and then ask a group of experts to identify the best engine, the best battery, the best transmission, and so on. Afterwards, you take all the parts identified and put them together. While we would expect to get the best car possible (we only use the best parts available), we do not even get an automobile because the parts do not fit. > This leads Ackoff to the conclusion: > | The performance of a system depends on how the parts fit, not how they act taken separately. Isn't it how we hire talent nowadays?
- asdff 7y ago
  Not at the entry level. A grad with a 3.5 GPA and one with a 4.0 GPA are applying to the same job, guess who gets hired every single time. Not always the best fitting part!
  - omazurov 7y ago
    Same thing: greedy algorithms. Mostly imposed by companies "living by algorithms".
npudar 7y ago
I worked with Ackoff. Brilliant man. An extremely important video to watch: https://vimeo.com/148192220 https://vimeo.com/148192220 29 minutes is a tiny investment for the returns.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
luord 7y ago
I recommend watching the actual video. In fact, I wish that it had been shared instead of the article.

> No part of the system or a collection of parts of the system has an independent effect on it. Therefore a system as a whole cannot be divided into independent parts.

jackhalford 7y ago

Very insightful, and as usual with systems thinking, I think that we don't understand the field well. I once found a comment on HN to read "The Systems Bible" by John Gall, this is a great occasion to relay the proverbial baton. If tou like this article I strongly recommend reading this book.

cjfd 7y ago

One area where this becomes apparent is that in complex and layered system at least some of the bahaviours of a single layer do not make sense in terms of the system as a whole. Often it is wrong to attempt to let a layer on its own do the thing that seems most logical because actually the output of that layer is the input of another one and the total result is an interplay between the two. Attempting to make each one separately more logical would make both layers a lot more complex and would essentially be duplicating the relevant concerns into multiple layers, if not outright introducing bugs by introducing speculative logic that often turns out to be wrong in yet unforeseen cases.

LaundroMat 7y ago
Communication between its elements is the source of a system's emergent behaviour. So yes, input/output streams (and where they originate and end up) are at least as important to the system as its discrete elements, if not more so.
cutemonster 7y ago
This is very abstract to me. It'd be nice with an example

crimsonalucard 7y ago

Is systems thinking the same epistemological BS that's heaped onto the industry like design patterns and all these acronyms I hear being thrown everywhere? Is there formal axiomatic basis for any of this stuff or is it just mumbo jumbo. This is the definition of quality: >The definition of quality has to do with meeting or exceeding the expectations of the customer or the consumer. Therefore, if their expectations are not met, it’s a failure. How is this a definition? It's a vague comparison. It tells me you don't really have clear definition in your own brain. Take a look at the definition of system: >A system is a whole that consists of parts each of which can affect its behavior or its properties. Each part of the system when it affects the system is dependent for its effect on some other part. In other words: The parts are interdependent. Is this for real? What is a whole and what is a part? No rigor and it's all mumbo jumbo that's obvious. Yes a system can be made up of modules and yes things can be interdependent. How is this new and innovative? Thanks for telling me something everybody on the face of the earth already knows. >The essential property of an automobile is that it can carry you from one place to another. No part of an automobile can do that. Mind blown. Just kidding. If you take the wheel of the car and balance on top of it like a circus artist then walk the wheel will carry you from one place to another. Boom. Guess what a car is not a system because one of the "parts" works independently. I guess I just blew apart what this persons' definition of a system because a car is obviously a system but under the articles' flawed definition it is not. >If we have a system of improvement that’s directed at improving the parts taken separately you can be absolutely sure that the performance of the whole will not be improved. Have you heard of the term "bottleneck"? It's when one "component" of the "system" slows the overall system down. >It’s a wrong concept of quality. Quality ought to contain a notion of value, not merely efficiency. That’s a difference between efficiency and effectiveness. Quality ought to be directed at effectiveness. You know what? "Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get." Clever right? Makes sense right? Two things most people miss when they read the quote above. First thing: it was said by someone who is mentally disabled. Second thing: The message is obvious. Life is spontaneous who doesn't know this? It's pointless wrapping this concept up in an analogy. Same with the "concept of quality" Quality ought to be directed at effectiveness? Who on the face of the earth isn't aware of this fact? In conclusion, this is not a good way to think. If you want a good systematic way to analyze the world and "systems" the way to do it is to have a very clear notion about the difference between science, logic and intuition. Know the strength of each pillar and know the weaknesses. The above article above is all just intuition with logical flaws due to lack of rigor or science to back up its points. Additionally, the main point is incredibly obvious.

omazurov 7y ago

> He says, that you should imagine having all cars available in a room and then ask a group of experts to identify the best engine, the best battery, the best transmission, and so on. Afterwards, you take all the parts identified and put them together. While we would expect to get the best car possible (we only use the best parts available), we do not even get an automobile because the parts do not fit. > This leads Ackoff to the conclusion: > | The performance of a system depends on how the parts fit, not how they act taken separately. Isn't it how we hire talent nowadays?

asdff 7y ago
Not at the entry level. A grad with a 3.5 GPA and one with a 4.0 GPA are applying to the same job, guess who gets hired every single time. Not always the best fitting part!
- omazurov 7y ago
  Same thing: greedy algorithms. Mostly imposed by companies "living by algorithms".

npudar 7y ago

I worked with Ackoff. Brilliant man. An extremely important video to watch: https://vimeo.com/148192220 https://vimeo.com/148192220 29 minutes is a tiny investment for the returns.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

luord 7y ago

I recommend watching the actual video. In fact, I wish that it had been shared instead of the article.