Upload
enrico
View
64
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Toward A Systems Thinking Maturity Model Strawman v.2. by Jack Ring dba Innovation Management [email protected]. Value Proposition. A Systems Thinking Maturity Model is proposed. to classify the capabilities of SE practitioners, PSE’s, to motivate PSE evolution to more effective levels. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
11/29/2005 [email protected] 1
Toward A Systems Thinking
Maturity Model
Strawman v.2
byJack Ring
dba Innovation [email protected]
11/29/2005 [email protected] 2
Value Proposition• A Systems Thinking Maturity Model is proposed.
– to classify the capabilities of SE practitioners, PSE’s, – to motivate PSE evolution to more effective levels.
• Concerned with thinking styles and learning styles of PSE’s. – should not be confused with any process maturity model.
• Expected to improve SE projects and Sys Realization projects as well as Operational Systems Effectiveness by 3X to 10X.
• Based on research findings regarding the brain, the mind, knowledge production and utilization, dissolution of cultural inhibitors and the impact of semantic network technology.
• This strawman version has seven levels of distinction across seven factors.
• Must yet be subjected to vetting of its embedded knowledge claims. • This presentation seeks to motivate dialogue and trial usages
toward that end.
11/29/2005 [email protected] 3
The Reach of SE
CommunitySituationProblem Discerned
Problem System Understood
Solution EffectEnvisioned
Intervention Strategy
PSS S><R Specified
PSS Envisioned
PSS Designed& Architected Components
Specified - Developed - Assembled
PSS Tested
Operational Readiness
PSS Activated
POSIWID Known
OperationalResults
Context Adapted
Value of System QuantifiedEffects on Problem Known
Focus on System
Focus on Purpose
Focus on ValueEvaluate
Engineer
Discover
System CharacterizedBoK Updated
S = Stimulus R = Response PSS = Problem Suppression System
11/29/2005 [email protected] 4
•Control•Educing•Discovery
& Description
SE Field of Discourse
Problematique
Kinds of Systems
Kinds of SE
Kinds of Practitioners
H
M
LExtentVariety Ambiguity
•Prescient•Pursuit•Generative
Kinds ofTechnologies
ThermodynamicInformaticsTeleonomicsSocial Dynamics
Kinds ofInfrastructures
I&D AutomationPSE’s MediationeLearningValue Generated
•Cut/Paste•PSE’s•Critics
FixedAdaptableAutocataly
tic
FixedAdaptableAutocataly
tic
• = Endogenous, class, property = Exogenous, type, characteristic
PerformCollaborat
eCo-learn
BallisticIOP SystemsAdaptive AgileAutocatalytic
11/29/2005 [email protected] 5
Work Program of Complexity
Discovery
Diagnosis
Resolution
Design ImplementationDescription
composed of
SCI = (N/7) (V/5) (K/10) = (1/350) NVKWhere: N is Miller Index, V is Spreadthink index and K = DeMorgan index
Staley, S. M. 1995, “Complexity Measurements in System Design” in Integrated Design and Process Technology, A. Ertes, et al, Editors, IDPT Volume 1, Austin, TX, 153-161
SCI > 100 indicates Not Ready for Engineering
Situation Complexity Index
11/29/2005 [email protected] 6
Systems Thinking Maturity Model, STMMstrawman version
0. Attendee: The ‘Cut and Paste’ SE
1. Intern: Student gaining supervised, situated experience
2. Apprentice: Learning by doing in a variety of situations
3. Practitioner: Engaged in reflective learning while doing
4. Mentor: Collaborating in reflective learning
5. Master: Educating the reflective practitioner
6. Fellow: Co-educating reflective practitioners
11/29/2005 [email protected] 7
Seven Key Attributes
• Field of discourse: spectrum of useable knowledge.• Dimension: the variety in the situation, e.g., Situation
Complexity Index, SCI.• Style: interpersonal, learning, risk aversion, etc.• Requisite Attitude: pessimist vs. optimist, future vs. past• Ethics: Quality, Productivity, Innovation:• EDAC: Error Detection and Correction behavior• Performance Improvement Potential, PIP: Ratio of
Exemplar Worth to Subject Worth (c.f. “Engineering Worthy Performance” by Thomas Gilbert, HRD Press)
11/29/2005 [email protected] 8
0. Attendee
Field of discourse = not explicitDimension: 1 – 2Style: Reasoning (Analyze, Compare, Classify, Evaluate, Synthesize) X (Induction and Deduction)Requisite Attitude: Pessimism or OptimismEthics:
Quality = Close enoughProductivity = indifferentInnovation = n/a
EDAC: typo’sPerformance Improvement Potential, PIP = > 16
11/29/2005 [email protected] 9
1. InternAdvanced student gaining supervised, situated experience
• Field of discourse = Engineering; solve stated problems by foreseeing ways of pragmatically applying technologies.
• Dimensions: SCI: ≈ 50• Style: Level 0 + symbolic representation and manipulation • Attitude: Optimism or Pessimism• Ethics:
– Quality = Work passes acceptance tests– Productivity = Keep pace– Innovation = Self-assessed
• EDAC: PSS characteristics vs. Requirements• Performance Improvement Potential, PIP = < 16
11/29/2005 [email protected] 10
2. Apprentice Learning by doing in a variety of situations
• Field of discourse = Engineering, Adoption, Adaptation
• Dimensions: SCI < 100• Style: Level 1 + contrarian• Requisite Attitude: Optimism or Pessimism• Ethics:
– Quality = Customer Satisfaction– Productivity = Keep pace– Innovation = Claims for PSS, Self-assessed for SE
• EDAC: PSS properties vs. Requirements• Performance Improvement Potential, PIP = < 8
11/29/2005 [email protected] 11
3. PractitionerEngaged in reflective learning while doing
• Field of discourse = IDEAL of PS and PSS• Dimensions: SCI(PSS) < 200• SCI(SE) < 100• Style: Intuitive + Level 2 + Janusian• Requisite Attitude: Optimism• Ethics:
– Quality = Pursuit of Zero defects regarding MOE’s– Productivity = Set the pace– Innovation = Measure for both PSS and SE
• EDAC: Interpersonal style, LUC• Performance Improvement Potential, PIP = < 2
11/29/2005 [email protected] 12
4. MasterCollaborating in reflective learning
• Field of discourse • = IDEAL of PSS and SE • Dimensions: SCI(SE) < 200• Style: Level 3• Requisite Attitude: Drive to create the future• Ethics:
– Quality = Achieve Zero defects– Productivity = Kaizen– Innovation = Foster knowledge production and
utilization• EDAC: Groupthink, Clanthink, Spreadthink• Performance Improvement Potential, PIP = < 1.4
11/29/2005 [email protected] 13
• Field of discourse = IDEAL of BFC PSE
• Dimensions: SCI (SE) > 200• Style: Level 4 at tri-levels• Requisite Attitude: Drive to create the future• Ethics:
– Quality = Customer rate of growth– Productivity = JIT, minimum time, maximum retention– Innovation = Main focus
• EDAC: Magical thinking• Performance Improvement Potential, PIP = < 1.1
5. MentorEducating the reflective practitioner
11/29/2005 [email protected] 14
6. Fellow Co-educating reflective practitioners
• Field of discourse = IDEAL of Better, Faster, Cheaper SE and PSS
• Dimensions: SCI(PSS) > 200• Style: Multi-scope Conceptual Blending• Requisite Attitude: Drive to create the future• Ethics:
– Quality = Zero defects– Productivity = Exemplary– Innovation = Exemplary
• EDAC: Language of SE• Performance Improvement Potential, PIP = < 1.03
11/29/2005 [email protected] 15
To ParticipatePost your Questions or Discrepancy Reports
at:
• http://www.incose.org/practice/techactivities/seapplications/iewg.aspx