T306
Managing Complexity:
A system approach
Block 3
The Viable System Model:
Supporting autonomy to manage complexity
Dr. Albadri A. Ali, Ph.D. SMA & TPS Member
Business Administration
Emails: [email protected] or [email protected]
Introduction:
1.
In this block the focus is on organizations. How they can
be structured to manage complexity.
2.
Organizations= all commercial enterprises involve
numbers of people engaged in a purposeful activity.
3.
Sole trader –he/she is example of a viable system- here is
excluded due to he/she is not an organization…
4.
In block 2 you were introduced to HSM & SSM. In this
block you will be introduced to another systemic approach:
it is Viable System Model (VSM) originally from
cybernetics.
Introduction:
5. Application of this method require you to continue
juggle all BECM.
6.
Very detailed and thorough method for using VSM
is called Viplan VSM method (it is presented in yr
Viplan CD-ROM)
7. One aspect of the VSM can be employed in several
different ways to assist in understanding how an
organization is, or is NOT working effectively.
The Aims of This Block: is to:
1. Introduce the Viable System Model (VSM),
including its theoretical basis in cybernetics and its
use as a tool for diagnosing organizational structure.
2. Introduce the principles of autonomy and related
these to VSM, variety management, learning cycles
and personal development.
3. Set out the core skills required of a systems
practitioner in facilitating the development of
autonomy.
4. Show how these skills depend upon the general
action-learning cycle (ALC)
Part 1:
Viable System &
Autonomy
Block III
1)
2)
3)
4)
Organizations, viability, and VSM
Products units
Variety
Ashby’s law (The larger the variety of actions available
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Autonomy
Power
Recursion (math. term Repeating)
Basic VSM method
Viplan VSM method
to a control system, the larger the variety of
perturbations (disturbances) it is able to compensate),
or( the variety in the control system must be
equal to or larger than the variety of the
perturbations in order to achieve control)
1-The Viable System Model (VSM) and
Devolution of Autonomy
The
Viable System Model (VSM) uses support for
devolved (transfer) autonomy to maximize an
organization's viability.
Viability=
is the ability of a thing (a living organism,
an artificial system, and idea, etc..) to maintain itself or
recover its potentialities.
Viability
Viable
fetal, viability of cells,….etc.
System Model= a scientific model of the
organization of a viable or autonomous system.
1-1 Organizations, viability & the VSM
Organizations can be perceived from a range of
perspectives as the wide range of management
techniques and theories demonstrate.
1. Organization is a network of relationships among
people.
2. Organization is a mechanism for handling, or
distributing, power amongst those in the
organization.
3. Organization is a system for accomplishing some
transformation
1-1 Organizations, viability & the VSM
4.Viability in organization: one of the
purposes whether that is implicit or
explicit, but in most organization is their
continued survival.
5.There are organizations established with a
finite life (limited life), for example: the
project team assembled to oversee the
development of a new product.
1-1 Organizations, viability & the VSM
1) The Viable System Model (VSM) is a summary and culmination
(conclusion) of the main thrust of the work of Stafford Beer (a
leading advocate of the use of operations research, cybernetics
and the VSM in the management of complexity)
2) Cybernetics is the study of communication and control,
typically involving regulatory feedback in living organisms,
machines and organizations, as well as their combinations)
3) The core model from which the VSM emerged was based upon
an analogy (similarity) with a human being; The insight was
that a great deal could be understood by regarding the
organism as three interacting parts:
-the muscles and organs (Operations in the VSM);
-the brain and nervous system (Management in the VSM);
-the external environment (Environment in the VSM)
2- The Basic Viable System Model:
The Three Parts of the VSM
1)
Operations: the primary activity of the
System in focus
2)
Management: the part of the System in
focus that ensures that the parts within
operations work harmoniously together and
operate as an integrated whole
3)
Environment: it is everything outside the
System in focus (in the case of the organism,
it is everything outside the body)
The VSM Representation of the Three Elements
Operations, Management, and Environment
Management
Environment
Operations
The Three Parts of the VSM
1)Operations, Management, and
Environment: these three basic components
form the core of the VSM, though the full model
is a great deal more detailed
2)The Operations and Management parts are
further sub-divided into five internal systems,
again using a close analogy with the functioning
of the human organism
The Five Internal Systems of the VSM
System#
VSM Description
Human Organism
System 5 Policy: ultimate authority, identity
Higher brain functions
System 4 Planning: adaptation, strategy
Input from the senses,
forward planning
System 3 Cohesion: internal regulation,
optimization
Internal regulation and
optimization
System 2 Stability: conflict resolution
Stabilization of the activity
of muscles and organs
System 1 Primary activities: ‘Operations’
Muscles and organs
It is not cleared yet to what degree the neurophysiologic model was the
inspiration for the VSM.
Beer describes evolution of VSM as follows:
By
time his 1st book was published he had also mapped a set-theoretic model
of the brain onto a company producing steel rods (bar).
Set-theoretic
model was difficult for people to understand, a streamlined
(modernized/rationalized) appeared called (brain of the firm) using
neurophysiological terminology instate of math.
Some
commentators were offended (insulted).. Despite his denials and
explanation.
Another
version of VSM was developed called (The Heart of Enterprise
(Beer, 1989, p 12)
What
is clear from the Beer’s model & language, is that, his work has a basis
in a deep understanding of cybernetic principles, of the operation of human
organism and mathmatic. He makes use of math principles called
(recursion)= a recursive procedure is one that operates upon itself until
some prescribed termination condition is encountered)
Recursion
- Recursion (recursive) term used by Prof. Beer
which means
- A recursive procedure is one that operates upon
itself until some prescribed termination
condition is encountered.
- Every viable system contains, and is contained
in, a viable system= every sub system within a
viable system is itself a viable system.
- They all have the same generic VSM structure.
VSM can be used to see broadly what is
occurring in an organization and what is
needed for its viability by identifying
whether the following parts are present:
1- The Operations parts (System 1) – the
interacting parts that engage in the primary
activities which produce the actual
goods/services by which the organization
makes its living.
2- The Management Meta-system (Systems 2-5) – the parts
that guide and support the Operations parts – and in particular:
2-1 Stability part (System 2) - that looks inside the organization
and resolves conflicts among the Operational units.
2-2 Cohesion part (System 3) - that looks inside the
organization and seeks to maximize co-operation among the
Operational units.
2-3 Planning part (System 4) - that looks outside the
organization and makes long term plans for the org. as a whole.
2-4 Policy part (System 5) that develops overall policy for the
organization as a whole.
Production Units
1)Within the Operations unit of the VSM there
are likely to be a number of separate
production units. For example, in the Open
University there are units producing course books, TV
programmers, research papers and so on.
2)According to the VSM, each of these subsystems should be itself a viable system. Thus
each of these sub-systems can be represented
within the overall diagram as viable systems with
their own Operations and Management. They also
have their own environments within the
Environment
Example of the VSM method



Box 1 Page 27 (Story of Suma Company)
Read the case as VSM.
Using the internal five (5) systems
analyze the situation.
Variety, Autonomy & Power
Variety
The variety of a dynamic system is defined as
the number of distinguishable states that it
can take up. In practice it is never necessary
actually to count the states of a particular
system. What is necessary is to assess which of
two systems has the greater variety – i.e. the
greater number of possible states
Variety Management:
- It is a control and communication aspects
of the VSM
- Complex systems include many feedback
loops (rings/circle) which work together to
try to control a number of essential
variables within certain bounds. Example:
Within the human body there are several loops that operate to
keep the body temperature very close to 36.9 oC. Within a
commercial firm there will be control loops to keep the cash
flow within certain limits and a different set of controls to govern
overall profitability. The control loops have to maintain the essential
variables in the face of changes from the environment
Variety Management:
- The control loops have to maintain the essential
variables in the face of changes from the
environment – for example you go from inside the
house to outside and you (your body) have to make
compensations to keep your body temperature
constant.
- The variety of a dynamic system is defined as the
number of distinguishable states that it can take up.
- Example: traffic light (read, amber and green)
each light can be on or off there are 2X2X2= 8
different states of system
Ashby’s Law
1)Variety would probably not be used outside
cybernetics where it not for Ashby’s law of
Requisite Variety. This law used to develop VSM.
2)Ashby’s law states that only variety can
absorb variety.
3)In context of control system, the significance of
this law is that, the system undertaking the
controlling function needs to be able to
match the variety of the environmental
disturbances against which it is controlling
W. Ross Ashby
Born
6 September 1903)
London, England
Died
15 November 1972) (aged 69)
Fields
Psychiatry, Cybernetics, Systems theory
Known for
Cybernetics, Law of Requisite Variety, Principle of Self-Organization
Influenced
Norbert Wiener, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Herbert Simon, Stafford Beer
and Stuart Kauffman
Conclusion of Ashby’s Law
In order to control a system, the
controller must match or exceed the
variety which the system cannot
absorb itself and which is relevant to its
performance.
Activity 6
- Environment in which an
organization operates is more
complex, i.e. has more states and
hence more variety...than the
operational activity of the
organization.
- In most organizations the activity in
its operations is more complex, i.e.
has more states and hence more
variety than its management.
Espejo, 1989, p81 Equal Varieties
The response varieties of a viable
system and its management tend to
equate, respectively, (to) the residual
(remaining) varieties of the
environment and operations; they
should be designed to do so with
minimum damage to people and to
cost.
Response
Varieties
System &
its management
Environment &
Operations
Residual
Varieties
(Varieties) / Issues has forced
changes in managerial strategy:
Example:
Growing impact of environmental variety
This has taken many different forms, such like:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Demand for quality in products
Consumer rights
Litigation against organizations
Environmental concerns
Autonomy
The greatest potential source of variety within
operations is the people employed there. This
source of variety can be harnessed by:
-encouraging participation in policy and goals, rather
than controlling.
-Entering into resource bargains which require delivery
of certain outcomes in return for freedom to use
certain resources. And
- Generally fostering creativity, responsibility and
enthusiasm in the workforce.
Autonomy
1) The preceding mentioned strategy
provides the sub-systems with as much
autonomy as possible so that they
absorb as much environmental variety as
possible-leaving management with a
smaller residual variety to match, i.e., it
gives the sub-systems the autonomy they
need in order to solve their problems
2) Within the VSM, autonomy is a
superior mechanism for handling variety
Power
1) The VSM is an excellent tool for modeling the
network of relationships and the system itself
2) If an individual is autonomous then they decide
for themselves what they do; if someone else has
power over them then they are no longer free to
make their own decisions
3) Autonomy must always be limited within a system
4) No sub-system can be allowed to behave in such
a way as to threaten the viability of the larger
system
The complete Viable System Model Showing All Five Internal systems
Environment
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
cr
us
Management
Meta-system
5. Policy
4. Planning
2. Stability
3. Cohesion
Conflict
resolution
3 -5
The future
s
t
Market
o segment 1
m
e
r
s Market
1
3 -5
Primary activities
segment 2
1
Operation
2- The Basic VSM Method




1.
2.
The basic VSM method estimates viability roughly.
Complete VSM diagram is in place (previous slide)
It can be used to enable people to see broadly what is going
on in their organization and what is needed for viability.
Look at organization of interest (system in focus) and identify
the following:
Operations parts (system 1), i.e. the interacting parts that engage
in the primary activities which produce the actual goods or
services by which the organization makes its living.
Management parts (systems 2-5) i.e parts that guide and support
the operations parts, and in particular:
2-1 stability part (system 2) that looks inside the organization and
resolves conflicts among the operational units.
2-2 cohesion part (system 3) that looks inside organization and seeks
to maximize co-operation among the operational units.
2-3 planning part (system 4) that looks outside organization and
makes long term plans for organization as a whole.
2-4 policy part (system 5) that develops overall policy for the
organization as a whole.
Completion of the Basic VSM Method
System 1
See whether each of the Operations parts- i.e. the part associated
with each primary activity- has the autonomy that it needs in order to
solve its own problems and to create good procedures for itself
(subject to compatibility with the organization’s overall policy and
long-term plans)
System 2
See whether the Operations parts are operating in harmony with one
another, and in particular whether stop-go interruptions to work-flow
are prevented. See whether there is an information system in place
that will alert the Stability part if such unstable conditions arise.
System 3
See whether the Operations parts are working in co-operation with
one another. See whether there is an information system in place that
will alert the Cohesion part to any opportunities for such synergy.
System 4
See whether the Planning part I always aware not only of what’s
going on outside the organization but also of the capabilities of the
Operations parts, so that it can see opportunities into which the
organization can move.
System 5
See whether there is a Policy part which develops mission and vision
statements for the organization, and whether everyone in the
organization feels meaningfully involved in it.
Example
1)The author ran a small software company and the
programmers were given a great deal of
autonomy. They were given a very detailed
specification of what the software was required to
do, a date for completion and the freedom to
implement it however they saw fit
2)This is in stark (completely) contrast to large
software companies where the detailed design of
the program is completed by a senior analyst and
programmers are given small chunks (portion) of
3- The Viplan VSM Method
3-1 The Viplan VSM method assesses Viability in Depth
The
depth & accuracy it adds:
The Viplan VSM method (Espejo & Bowling
1990a) is a procedure for diagnosing
existing organizations in terms of the Viable
System Model and for designing viable
systems to improve them.
More definition of Viplan Software
Abstract The software Viplan learning system is an aid to learn about
Beer's viable system model (VSM) and its application. This is done with
the support of the Viplan method. The five activities of this method are
explained with examples:First, it offers an approach to understand
and discuss organizational identity through analysis of stakeholders.
Second, it describes structural modelling of activities, which is followed
by the crucial idea in the method of unfolding the organization's
complexity.
Fourth, it shows a tool for studying the distribution of resources
and discretion in an organization.
Fifth, and finally, it offers a form of relating these resources to
the VSM, thus allowing the development of diagnostic points.
More definition of Viplan Software

Viplan is a method to support policy makers and managers in
their management of people's interactions.

It helps them to work out the necessary checks and balances in
between people that allow them to achieve organisational
adaptation and cohesion.

This method is more concerned with producing models for
people to understand their necessary interactions than with
producing a model of the organization.

As such it is trying to capture the interplay between the
meanings that people ascribe (attribute) to their organizations,
and the relations they develop to actually produce them.
Viplan VSM Method makes it possible to identify
with great precision (accuracy):
1.
The sequence of primary activities that the organization
carries out (using method’s TASCOI sequence of
perspectives)
2.
Which units of the organization are carrying out which
primary activities or sub-activities and at which level of
recursion (using the method’s recursion-function tables)
and
3.
Any possible swamping (flood pool) or bottlenecks within
the organizational (using the method’s analysis of variety
management)
3-1Comparison of the Basic & Viplan Methods
The steps of the Viplan VSM method can be arranged as
to make comparison with the basic VSM method easy.
These steps can be described into five points as:
1.
Establishing the organization’s identity and purpose.
Develop statement of what organization does.
2.
Technological and structural modeling.
3.
Modeling structural levels by unfolding the complexity.
4.
Modeling the distribution of discretion.
5.
Modeling the organizational structure.
Part 2: Supporting people in
creating viable systems
Part 2: Supporting people in creating viable systems
1- Supporting People’s Autonomy:



This requires three key communications skills which
forms interpersonal action-learning cycle (IALC).
As indicate in the introduction & Part 1, one of the core
principles used to manage variety is to encourage and
foster autonomy within organization. To do so, the
followings skills are required: 1- negotiating with clients
2- interview (dialogue) stakeholders.
In developed world there have been many movements &
management theories advocating more autonomy for
employees.
Activity 12, 13, & 14 p35
Review
your own experience of working in organization,
specially if you have worked in different cultures.
To what degree did you feel that you had AUTONOMY?
1-1 Interpersonal action-learning cycle
(IALC)

Each one has his own ways of foster autonomy
in his working relationships with others.
What can be done to foster autonomy, this
through:
Interpersonal action-learning (IALC)

1- Making “I” statements
2- Using “active listening”
3- Personal proscription (giving up
blame/prohibiting)
Supporting People in Creating Viable Systems
-Supporting people’s autonomy requires three key
communication skills:
- Interpersonal Action-Learning Cycle (IALC)
The IALC comprises three key communication skills, on
which support for autonomous people depends:
1- Offering my understanding to invite their receptiveness;
2- Offering my own reflections to invite their
understanding; and
3- Offering my receptiveness to invite their reflections
The Interpersonal action-learning cycle in
tabular form:
IALC
Receptiveness= having the quality
of receiving/ able or quick to
receive knowledge, ideas
Receptiveness
Offering my receptiveness to
invite reflection
Understanding
Offering my understanding to
invite connection & receptiveness
Reflection
Offering my own reflections to
invite understanding
1- Making “I” or “you” statements
As system practitioner

One of insidious ways in our culture perpetuates (enable)
its authoritarian basis – (you are stupid, or no
good/unacceptable.
This statements used by parents /teachers..etc.
2- Using Active listening:
-
How actively you listen to others – to get their
perspective
There is technique of active listening (listen carefully,
repeat what you heard, invite to confirm or correct)
Autonomy-supporting conversation

To develop a visual understanding of autonomy
supporting conversation is an (absence of
interruption)
Attention of both is on A
Attention of both is on B
1-2 How power dynamics can push us out
of the interpersonal-action learning cycle
(IALC)


People’s reactions to having their
autonomy suppressed (by others or
themselves).
Blame or being blamed affecting yr
behavior then organizational culture.
Traditional Hierarchical V. Autonomy-supporting organization
The idealized
extremes
How they work
Advantages
Traditional hierarchical
organization
Autonomy-supporting
organization
The task is more important than the
person
The person is more important than
the task
Decisions are taken as high up as
possible
Decisions are developed as much as
possible
Everyone’s task is tightly defined
Staff at all levels are encouraged to
be creative
Staff are told what to do
Staff are asked
The boss makes decisions which are
passed down the tree
Decisions are taken co-operatively
by people involved
Reasons for decisions are private
Reasons for decisions are openly
shared
Everyone knows where they stand.
Disputes can be resolved by
reference to terms and conditions
and job descriptions
Staff feel appreciated and well
treated. People’s creativity and
enthusiasm is harnessed, so they
like what they do. Flow of
information between all staff is
excellent, so good decisions are
made.
Part 3:
Reflective Viable
Systems Practice
Part 3: Reflective Viablesystems practice
Reflective systems practice has two meanings:
-1 First: there is reflective practice in the sense of
questioning purpose, actions and beliefs. This is
critically reflective practice. It has nothing to do
with criticizing people, which inhibits (stops/hinders)
learning. It has everything to do with questioning what is
being done, how, and why?
2- secondly: there is reflective practice in the sense of
taking my own purpose, actions, and beliefs into account.
This can be called personally reflective practice.
There are large tables & detailed diagrams they are built up
cumulatively & they are same
Part 3: Reflective Viablesystems practice
Both of these forms of reflective practice have
been brought implicitly (completely) in the context
of the Viable System Model ….

Which is done and shown in:
-How
critically reflective practices equates with two
forms of double-loop learning (Argyris & Schon)
-How
personally reflective practice equates in dealing
with other people with use of interpersonal actionlearning cycle (IALC)
-How
the two combine into a form of double-loop learning
in which I question my own purpose, actions & beliefs.
1- Engaging in reflective practice:
Reflective practice includes both the following:
1- Critically reflective practice, i.e.
questioning purpose, actions and beliefs,
and
2- Personally reflective practice, i.e. taking
my own purpose, actions and beliefs into
account.
1-1- Questioning purpose, actions and beliefs
This involves:
(what
-
Reflective practice involves questioning purpose
-
Actions (how things are being done), and
-
Questioning belief (why things are being
is being done), as well as:
done that way)
How does this work …..
see the following control model…
Critically reflective practice involves questioning purpose (what is being done,),
actions (how things are being done), purpose (why….)
Mapping general action-learning onto control model
Actuator will modifies
any difference
Sensor sense the output at
comparator
Sensor=senses out
(mechanic operator
output
Input
Transformation
Comparator
process
Any difference
go back to input
Goal
Does the output match the goal (comparing)
The control model
Naming the three positions around the feedback loop
sensing, checking, planning/Acting (SCPA)
Planning &
Acting
Sensing
output
Input
Transformation
process
Goal
Checking
Does the output match
the goal (comparing)
This shows how Kolb form of action-learning
cycle can be mapped onto general form
Kolb: Abstracting &
Experimenting
Kolb: Experiencing
Planning & Action
sensing
Input
Experimenting
Transformation
process
Abstracting
Experiencing
Reflecting
Goal
Checking
Kolb: Reflecting
Does the output match the goal
output
Showing similarity between
T205 & T306
T205 (SUDA)
T306 (SCPA)
Sensing
Understanding
Checking
Acting
Sensing
Checking
Planning
Acting
Single-loop learning: performance alone is questioned.
It is also called (classic single-loop learning)
The question being asked at comparator HOW ARE WE DOING
Performance
Resources
Input
Goal
achievement
Process
Goal
How are we doing
Double-loop learning or classic double-L:
Goal & Perf. are questioned- What….How
Resources
Performance
Goalachievement
process
Goal is questioned
Goal
Alternative
Goalchoosing
process
Policy
What are we doing
However well we may be doing it?
How are we doing?
Perf. is questione
Double-loop learning: Goal & Policy are questioned
What….Why……
Goal
Alternatives
Goalchoosing
process
Policy is questioned
Policy
Arguments
GoalJustification
process
Principles
Why are we doing
Whatever it is that we are doing?
What are we doing,
however well we
may be doing it?
Goal is questione
Questions corresponding
Question
Corresponding to
What are we doing?
Purpose
How are we doing?
Actions
Why are we doing it?
Beliefs
Relation between Reflective Practice SSM/VSM &
Asking above questions similar to questioning the efficacy
(is there something we are doing well?- efficiency (Are we
doing it economically?) and effectiveness (is it worth
doing?)
These questions turn up in any well-formulated SS-Method
Root Definition (A system to (what)…. By (how)…..in order
to (why)….) also it is for Viplan VSM.
For more information Please go to p. 79 – Coming slides
Continue: Questions corresponding
In the VSM, critically effective practice of this
kind is structurally built-in it appears in two ways:
1-Hierarchical systems that use control to reduce
variety are based on single-loop learning
structures, and VSM itself uses such control
systems in questioning & formulating policy (why),
goals (what).
2- VSM embodies double-loop learning between
adjacent recursive levels.
1-2 Taking my own purpose, actions and beliefs
into account

This is the second meaning of reflective practice, involves taking
my own purpose, actions, & beliefs into account which is called
personally reflective practice.

In interaction with other people, this kind of reflective practice is
equivalent to using interpersonal action-learning (IALC).
Consider the messages that are exchange during IALC between A & B
(speaker and listener), together with their meanings in terms of
what I, as practitioner, am perceiving:
- Receptiveness (offering my receptiveness to invite your reflection
-Understanding
-
reflection
(offering my understanding to invite correction& receptiveness
Continue:
Note:

All three messages are reflective.

All start with “I perceive…

It can be argued that, we perceive in according with our
purpose and beliefs, and our actions are for controlling
what we perceive (Powers, 1973).

All these messages implicitly take my own purpose,
actions, and beliefs into account.

This means that, my use of the IALC implies taking my
own purpose, actions, and beliefs into account.
2-Making VSM practice reflective
Facilitative VSM practice involves a form of doubleloop learning in which critically & personally
reflective practice combine.
This section will cover:
2-1 how the VSM methods exemplify (represent) the
action-learning cycle.
2-2 how facilitative practice with a VSM method embeds
(inserts) the VSM method in the IALC.
2-3 how this embedding creates a form of double-loop
learning in which critically & personally reflective
practice combine.
2-1 how the VSM methods exemplify (represent)
the action-learning cycle, by BECM
How to map the BECM components of systemic practice form an
action-learning cycle, onto which VSM can be mapped
Planning & acting=
Sensing=
Contextualizing the approach
& managing the complexity
Being systematically aware
Complexity
perceived
Natural process of
convergence
towards learning
what is going &
what to do, by the
beneficiaries of
the systemic
approach
Ideal of complexity
managed
Checking= Engaging with complexity
Is the complexity being
managed well enough
Complexity
managed
Saretter ici (18 May 2011)
2-2 how facilitative practice embeds (inserts) the VSM methods in the
IALC.
In order to discuss embedding a VSM method in the IALC, I first need to put
the IALC itself into a learning-loop format as per the following
IALC
Receptiveness
IALC mapped into
The action learning
Loop in tabular
Form
Examine relationship between the
word Sensing & offering my
receptiveness to invite reflection.
Offering my receptiveness to
invite reflection
Sensing:
Understanding
Offering my understanding to
invite correction & receptiveness
Checking:
Reflection
Offering my own reflections to
invite understanding
Planning & Acting
The three-step facilitative sequence mapped into the action-learning loop
in tabular form
IALC
Practical application: meetings for consultation
Meeting 1
Receptiveness 1
I welcome the group-and invite them to explore
Sensing
Offering my receptiveness to invite what they are trying to do, how it arises, why it
is important to them, whatever might be stopping
reflection
them, what they have tried and thought of doing so
far and how they will know when they are being
successful, so that, they can take collective
responsibility for achieving their own aim.

Understanding
2
Checking
Offering my understanding to
invite correction & receptiveness
Reflection
3
Planning & acting
Planning my own reflections to
invite understanding
Meeting 2
I offer the group a summary of their aim and of the
kind of system they may need in order to achieve itand invite them to correct this summary until they
can confirm it, so that they can own it as theirs.
Meeting 3:
I identify possible ways for them to improve their
situation through elaboration of the suggested
system- and invite them to compare & contrast
these possibilities with whatever they already have
Loop Form
this loop shows how previous table looks when it is converted
into a learning loop diagram
Planning & acting
To create shared understanding:
3- offering my own reflections to
invite group members’
understanding
Individuals
in the group
Competing
Sensing
To create shared understanding:
1- offering my receptiveness to
invite group members own
individual reflections
Individuals in the
group sharing
understanding in
open
communication
Ideal of
support for
individuals
autonomy
Checking
To create share understanding
2- offering my understanding
of group members’ own reflections
to invite correction & receptiveness
What am I doing as a practitioner?
Am I engaging in facilitative
practice, providing understanding &
support for individual autonomy, so
that, the group can come to feel
safe enough with one another to
develop open communications.
Critically & Personally reflective VSM practice
combined:
Questioning purpose as well as actions:
-The questions are being asked at the two comparators in
Figure 25/p90 are essentially.
1- How am I doing as a practitioner?
2- What am I doing as practitioner?
Questioning beliefs as well as purpose:
3- Why am I doing this?
Integrating VSM practice with the SSmethod & HS-method
You might be wondering how use of the VSM
might fit in with SSM & HSM?
Answers can range from:
1- simple sequencing of methods
2- cross-linking of methods
3- full integration of methods
into a critically & personally reflective VSM-supported
methodology.
Integrating VSM practice with the SSmethod & HS-method
1- simple sequencing of methods:
-the three methods are powerful systems of inquiry that proceed from
different world-views & which can yield quite different insights in any
given situation.
-They
have different domains of applications.
-Their
different insights do not compete: they simply are different and
complement one another.
-They
are deigned for different contexts (as one has three lamps of
different colors, so that shining them onto the same scene brings out
different features.
Combining the SSM, VSM Methods & HSM
Given an apparently
complex,
unstructured
organizational
situation
The SSM can be very
useful for
Determining what is going
on, and what it might be
effecting (worthwhile) to
do about it.
Given some agreed
idea of what it may
be effective
(worthwhile) to do
The VSM methods can
be very useful for
Designing an efficacious
organizational structure
for doing it well
Given an efficacious
organizational
structure
The HSM can be very
useful for
Measuring & improving
the structure’s operational
efficiency.
-
Each of the methods can do all three of the things in the third column
-
SSM is ideally suited for making sense of unstructured situations taking multiple perspectives
and multiple purposes into account.
-
Once the possibility of an agreed organizational purpose emerges, the VSM is suitable.
-
Once an acceptable structure is in place the HSM is ideal.
Integrating VSM practice with the SSmethod & HS-method
2- cross-linking of methods:
-There
are some similarities between VSM
methods, SSM & HSM., example: overlap in
meaning between:
-Root
definition in SSM
-System Name in Viplan VSM method
-Top objective in HSM
Block 3 Summary:
Thank you
Wishing you
Great Expectation
Note: it is most welcomed to any inquiry or question