Systems thinking when team members dont want to

["James L. Ritchie-Dunham"]

Setup for my question
=====================
We are initiating work with a group at a state-run university in the former
East Germany, to help them look at their business more systemically through
system dynamics modeling. One of the key issues in the initial meetings
with our sponsor is that "systems thinking" seems to work best for groups
that are interested in having a shared vision; however, many of the
state-appointed director-level employees in the university seem to have
their own agenda, completely separate from group goals. In this particular
case, this goes to the extreme of the Rectorate planning "around" the
inefficiencies in a given department, since they cannot remove or replace
the given department head.

My questions
============
(1) Is it possible to develop a "shared" stock/flow model or causal loop
diagram when the expert over a certain key domain will not participate or
will not be honest about their section of the model?

(2) Has any work been done on this issue? Any bibliography that can be
recommended?


All of our experience has been with teams where the members were all at
least moderately interested in the overall group benefit, so we are lacking
in experience in this arena. Therefore, I thank you ahead of time for any
help you can offer.


James L. Ritchie-Dunham
SDSG, L.L.C.
The Strategic Decision Simulation Group
12100 Metric Boulevard, #212
Austin, TX 78758
(512) 832-6518 Voice
(512) 832-6530 Fax
E-mail: jimrd@sdsg.com
http://www.sdsg.com/

[Niall Palfreyman]

Hi,
My name is Niall Palfreyman, and Ive just joined this forum (its actually
my first ever forum, so Im not really sure "forum" is the right word).
My central interest is in defining the idea of health in systems, whether
the system be a body, an organisation or (in particular) a software system.
My work is in designing software systems which exhibit simple behaviour
arising from complex interactions between many software agents. And believe
me, such systems can get VERY unhealthy!

I dont know whether this is any use, James, but my first reaction
whenever there is conflict, disagreement or resistance in a group is to
ask the vital question:
What does your present goal X in this group achieve for you which is even
more important than X?

The idea of this question is to "chunk up" the members various goals to
a higher level on which they will (hopefully) agree. At some level they
will always find some high-level policy on which they agree, and the issue
then is to convince them that SD is the most effective implementation of
that policy. Only when the group has some area of agreement is there a way
of proceeding, in my opinion.

--
Have fun!

Niall Palfreyman
assyst GmbH, Henschelring 15a
85551 Kirchheim bei Muenchen
Germany.

Tel: ++49-89-90505-230
email: Niall.Palfreyman@assyst-intl.com

["JOSE PEREZ RIOS"]

James:

I would strongly recomend in your case to get the whole group, including the
people who only care about their particular interests, to play the BEER
GAME.

This will make evident how bad is the strategy of "only" trying to satisfy
each one goals forgetting the others4 goals and how the best strategy is the
one that considers the whole system.

The success of all the group is the prerequisite for the success of each
one.

Jose Perez Rios.
joperrio@offcampus.es
Universidad de Valladolid
Spain.

[Stephen Wehrenberg]

Though I can add nothing of great substance here (lord knows Ive
experienced it often enough, though!), I would be very interested in
hearing the replies ... James, if you get anything not posted to the
list, please share it if appropriate.

The moral high ground here is "If the organization is that political in
its processes, then no amount of cajoling or education will help such
members accept the benefits of thinking systemically. The system of
reinforcement that keeps this political thinking in action must be
changed ... not an easy task. Thus, the Doctor says youre going to
die."

>From a practical standpoint, I have actually created models where I have
had to declare key processes "outside the boundary" with appropriate
notes about assumptions, and whom to contact for further information
(the person you mention, of course!).

Sigh ... the real world is a lot messier than the theory one!

Steve

--
Stephen B. Wehrenberg, Ph.D.
Chief, Forecasts and Systems, US Coast Guard
Administrative Sciences, The George Washington University
wstephen@erols.com (202)267-0624
"Born empowered ... what happened?!?"

["Alan David"]

An approach that I have found helpful is the use of Soft Systems
Methodology (there are
several methodologies but easiest to use is Checkland "Soft Systems
Methodology
in Action, Wiley 1991" ) as an intervention method that explicitly takes
account of
different "worldviews" of stakeholders. Contact me for more detail.
Also the use of a "University Game Microworld" may allow the coming
together of
your sponsors into some sort of sharing of mental models. Again contact me
for details
on University game "microworlds". Hoe this is helpful.
Alan David
Lecurer and Consultant
Westminster Business School
University of Wesminster.
From: "Alan David" <Alan.David@btinternet.com>