Great! these are very legitimate methodology questions. The reason I let my interest in the first serious attempts at system dynamics modeling to slide is because of their flaws.
Individual events represent processes with continually changing structure and all the models I know of, try to approximate that with fixed structures. It's very problematic. I'm not sure that my work is advanced enough to make a strong contribution to practical modeling efforts, but sometimes it's helpful to have someone on the team who's aware of previously unrecognized parts of the problem. BTW in that post I was probably voicing some frustration with not just FRIAM but also all the other really smart sophisticated people I've talked with over the past years about this really cool thing I found. The example of inexplicable organizational behavior I chose was meant to be recognizable, but not to suggest that I think that the tone of discussions here, on any subject, is trivial. Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore > Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 7:02 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Real Time Organizational Modeling > > > On Jan 21, 2007, at 1:08 PM, Phil Henshaw wrote: > > John, I'm not sure what your background is, but I've been > surprised by > > what high confidence people here put in modeling, and how little > > discussion of modeling strategies there is. > > Phil, we all realize you are disappointed in FRIAM for its lack of > understanding of your chosen area. But there is no need for snide > remarks such as this. John fully realizes who he is speaking to and > has realistic expectations. > > > I doubt there's any useful > > modeling method for organizations, since what animates them are the > > currents of human ideas, not rules. > > Nonsense. Organizations have been modeled at least since MIT's Jay > Forrester, and later, John Sterman, introduced their System > Dynamics. I've always been surprised at your not using System > Dynamic for studies of growth. It's eminently suited to flows, > feedback, high interaction rates and so on. > > > What distinguishes between an > > email addressing a critical issue that simply goes dead and > engages no > > one, and an email addressing trivial matters that becomes > everyone's > > reference for a while, is completely unknown. > > Gosh, I'm sorry we are such a lousy list and focused on such trivial > topics. > > If this forum has been unresponsive to your needs, perhaps > you should > search elsewhere. > > -- Owen > > Owen Densmore http://backspaces.net > > > On Jan 21, 2007, at 1:08 PM, Phil Henshaw wrote: > > > John, I'm not sure what your background is, but I've been > surprised by > > what high confidence people here put in modeling, and how little > > discussion of modeling strategies there is. I doubt there's any > > useful > > modeling method for organizations, since what animates them are the > > currents of human ideas, not rules. What distinguishes between an > > email addressing a critical issue that simply goes dead and > engages no > > one, and an email addressing trivial matters that becomes everyone's > > reference for a while, is completely unknown. > > > > > > Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > > NY NY 10040 > > tel: 212-795-4844 > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > >> Behalf Of John Hellier > >> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 7:58 PM > >> To: friam@redfish.com > >> Subject: [FRIAM] Real Time Organizational Modeling > >> > >> > >> Is anyone working on Real Time Organizational Modeling where the > >> model continually evolves based on changes in the > organization. All > >> members of the organization contribute to the changes even down to > >> the creation of an email, how the email contents affect the > >> organization and how the recipients respond to the email. > What I am > >> looking for is the encoding of an organization such that > as someone > >> creates an email, an observer can watch this happening in > the model > >> and see the effect. Maybe the email has little or no > impact or maybe > >> it has a growing ripple effect. > >> > >> This model should have a view of the entire organization including > >> tracking all actions performed. I realize that trying to capture > >> everything is a bit daunting but if possible it could yield > >> incredible insight into how organizations work. I > generally feel that > >> most decisions made in organizations are made with such limited > >> information that it is amazing that most organizations > don't fail. Or > >> is that they are a lot less brittle than one might imagine. > >> > >> I know that there is quite a bit of work done in more bit size > >> pieces. I'm mainly interested in the much larger task of taking a > >> company of 40K and tracking every action and interaction. > And then by > >> extension, actions connected outside of the organization. I know, > >> huge, maybe impossible. Is there a way to adapt social networking > >> concepts to an organization to help model it? > >> > >> Any ideas? > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> John Hellier > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
