Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
We are looking now at the methodology for dissolving systemic problems and we look at
the steps involved in ideal system redesign. First, framework for analysis and design.
What is the theoretical background of the frameworks? The theory of the frameworks is
really derived from Biomatrix systems theory itself. The theory in application gives rise
to different frameworks, so the arguments for the different frameworks are actually
argued by the theory itself. Different types of systems and different types of problems
require different frameworks for analysis and (re)design. That again has to do with
what we discussed in Biomatrix theory, that there are different types of systems and obviously
we need to look at those systems accordingly, how they are organised and how they function.
What is also often the case is that we are using a different framework for the analysis
of a system and another framework for the redesign of the system. We will explain that
as we go on in more detail. We can distinguish different types of frameworks:
co-factor analysis, the seven forces of systems organisation and the third one is the multi-dimensional,
multi-level web of the biomatrix. The co-factor analysis involves looking at
an issue or at a system and determining the co-producing factors that give rise to that
issue, that problem or that system. In application, it is useful in a situation where we have
localised issue analysis, for example in our weekly planning meetings in an organisation,
when we are asking what are the co-factors of the recent customer complaints we had,
or the breakdown of the production line, what co-caused it. Or in our personal situation,
what are the issues involved in my career development. It is used for starting brainstorming,
because it is very easy to start the free-flow and later on the information produced in the
free-flow of co-factor analysis can be integrated into other frameworks. And it is generally
useful to get a feel for a situation, for an issue or a system, as a starting point.
The seven forces of system organisation are those and we have briefly introduced them
in the first module. We said that every system exists within an environment, that every system
has substance, it has resources consisting of matter, energy, information, every system
has ethos, aims, process, structure and governance. These are the seven forces that organise how
a system unfolds and develops. We are using this framework in application to activity
system analysis and redesign. Our next module which has to do with systemic project management
and function design and redesign uses the seven forces of system organisation in application
to an activity system redesign. The other application is in entity system analysis and
redesign and we are using this application in our organisation transformation programme,
where we transform and redesign an organisation in terms of those seven forces.
Then we have the third type of framework, multi-level multi-dimensional web of the biomatrix.
Here we have the biomatrix with its multiple levels ranging from the planetary to the societal,
down to the atomic and subatomic level. Against it in a matrix fashion we plot the different
dimensions: psychological, cultural, economic up to the physical. Where do we apply this
framework? It is used in our societal transformation programme and we use it for societal problem
dissolving, for public policy design and for supply chain redesign, both vertical and horizontal
supply chains. In this module, we use mostly the co-factor
analysis and some variations thereof. The variations of the co-factor analysis could
be a free flow co-factor analysis, stakeholder based and dimensionality based.
Free flow means we are starting with an issue and we ask what are the co-factors that give
rise to that particular issue or that are involved in that particular issue. I have
mentioned before, the application is in localised issue analysis, the Monday morning planning
meeting etc., to start brainstorming and to get a feel for the issue. One can however
deepen the understanding of that issue and also widen the analysis if we are plotting
co-co-factors. That looks like this. We take our first round of co-factors and we ask what
are the co-factors of the first co-factor. What are the co-factors of the next one, next
one, next one and so on. One gets a really much wider and better understanding if one
goes into the second round and that second round also reveals circular causation. Some
of the co-factors in the second round are already co-factors that appear in the first
round. That indicates mutual impact. If we draw a systems dynamics model, this is then
circular causation or appears as circular causation in the systems dynamics model.
Then we can do a co-factor analysis where we are looking instead at co-factors we look
at stakeholders. We say here is an issue, who are our stakeholders, stakeholder one,
two, three, four, five and so on. What is the application? To identify the stakeholders
involved in the issue, those that need to be considered, maybe involved in a change
exercise and so on. We can again plot for each stakeholder specific co-factors. And
that could be during problem analysis, for example we say what are the problem co-factors
that each stakeholder experiences vis-a-vis the issue or the problem, co-factors that
a particular stakeholder contributes to the issue. We can also use that analysis during
ideal design when we ask what are the concerns, needs, wants of each stakeholder from the
issue. This is a very useful brainstorming exercise during system redesign. Because it
identifies what stakeholders want and we can then design the system in such a way that
it delivers what the stakeholders want or need.
We can also use multi-dimensionality, so we can say here is an issue, what are its dimensions:
psychological dimension, cultural, economic, political, technological, ecological, physiological,
biological, physical dimension of that issue. And identify then the co-factors concerned
with each issue. The application is to be more specific in the analysis. Sometimes it
is useful to start off with the free flow co-factor analysis, for example at the Monday
morning meeting when we have the breakdown of our production system, what are the co-factors
of the breakdown and we do a free flow. When no more ideas are forthcoming, then the facilitator
could ask well were there any psychological co-factors, cultural, economic, technological
and so on. So we can fill in detail. And then of course we can become more specific through
co-factor analysis in the second round. We can again take our different dimensions and
ask what are the co-factors of each dimension. One of the theoretical concepts of Biomatrix
systems theory is that systems are holographically configured. There would be dimensions within
dimensions. If we are looking at co-factors of for example economic dimension and we are
going in the second round, we can ask what are the cultural co-factors concerned. If,
for example, we are looking at economy, and we identify the finance crisis as one of the
co-factors to the problem of poverty for argument sake, then we can go in the second round and
ask what are the cultural co-factors that give rise to the finance crises, the economic,
the technological, the political, the psychological and so on. So we can gain a deeper understanding
and get much more detailed and can brainstorm a lot of co-factors that give rise to that
issue that we are considering. We can also mix and match those frameworks. We could say
well, here are the co-factors of an issue, or we can start with the stakeholders of an
issue or we can start with multi-dimensionality. Then in the second round whatever is in the
first round, we could say what are the co-factors of that or what are the stakeholders of that.
So we can have our co-factor of the finance crisis contributing to poverty and who are
the stakeholders of the financial crisis for example. Or look at the dimensionality of
whatever is in the first round. So different mixing and matching gives us different information.
I find it useful to vary those frameworks in the sense of asking questions. Could you
think of anything else as a facilitator and sometimes only one or two new ideas are coming
forwards when we apply another framework after we have already done another co-factor analysis.
Sometimes that is overkill, but sometimes it is important that one identifies those
one or two co-factors, additional ones, that one would not have thought of if one would
have only used one specific application of co-factor analysis.