Organised by SCiO (Systems and Cybernetics in Organisations) a workshop concerning the modeling of organisations using theory drawn from managerial cybernetics took place at Manchester Business School (MBS) on 29th January 2010.

SCiO meets quarterly at MBS but the workshops are a recent innovation follow a decision at the 2009 AGM to offer workshops between regular events. The first workshop last autumn introduced modeling the structure of an organisation, and this one looked in more detail at how it changes over time.

The SCiO website gives more detail: “The attendees work together in groups to develop their model of a case study organisation and to diagnose weaknesses. The workshop follows a structured approach, with a series of steps that take the groups through a modelling process in (relatively !) easy stages. The groups will analyse complexity balances using amplifiers and attenuators. We will look at how Ashby’s law affects the organisation, and work through how specific complexity imbalances drive instability in the organisation, its operations, strategy and relationships and how these three drive one another.” The workshop did prety much that. Below I make some personal observations without getting into technical language.

Patrick Hoverstadt, a systems practice author and consultant was the day’s main workshop facilitator.  He started out by illustrating the day’s case study  with an animated simulation of an organisation using ten years of data taken from a real world consulting project. The animation did not fit any of the conventions of data representation that I have seen before.

His model is a 3D representation of Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model (VSM) which Beer originally presented as an  amalgam of Venn diagrams and electrical symbols.  Hoverstadt’s model retains the originals cloud like shapes representing the chaotic edges of this environment, squares representing management system and circles representing operational units but rather being than flat, the squares become stories in a skyscraper like tower surrounded by clouds.
Patrick Hoverstadt presents his visualisation of a dynamic system. Photo (C) 2010 Alex Hough

Representing investment, blocks move from a square central tower representing the management systems. As the capital starts to flows to operational units, smaller blocks — income — return. It becomes quickly apparent where slow payments are occurring highlighting areas of concern.  But there are more refined observations to be made. Other shapes on the model have their heights and width of their bases calculated from different performance ratios. These objects represent different aspects of the VSM: investment in future forecasting and co-ordination amongst others.

Curiously this non-standard visualisation of a model familiar to the participants was quite challenging to some of them.I am sure that a new comer to the model would have found it easier to read than the classical VSM diagram.

Stafford Beer’s representation of Viable System Model from Wikipedia

WORKSHOP REVEALS CHAOS IN SYSTEM

Familiarity with the appearance of a model does not mean one fully understands it. And going into the detail of what is required to bring science to the model surprised many participants who perhaps tend to use the model to without much concern for data especially its temporal nature. I still think  it is useful to use the model to gain an overview of a situation to see where problems exist the main but the thing I will take away from the workshop is the ease at which the situation drifts into chaos.

The work in the workshop involved working in groups of six.  Each participant had a separate management role and brief to consult before the session, each playing a role in satellite operations or the central hub. The first exercise was a seemingly simple scheduling task. Three members recorded the decisions of the managers as they allocated resources to fulfill four orders the firm had on its books. Even recording this activity proved to be more complicated and mentally taxing than anticipated. Working in teams generates complexity in its self.

The Ah-Ah moment for me was the exasperating huge potential for the generation of chaos and the amount of detail required begin to obtain a realistic view of the situation. More experienced practitioners familiar with this problem were surprised  by the orders of magnitude which existed between estimates and rough simple calculations. Quite profound and sobering.

The next dawning problem was  ‘how could you get anyone into a position where they would be prepared to listen to the diagnosis of the situation. This problem was ‘felt’ as participants reflected on the performance of the task. Although the participants roles were given to them mainly to share the load of understanding the scenario, it was evident that even in the exercise, participants staunchly defended the position of the view of the role they were playing. Stepping back, the participants, on my table at least could see how far they had been drawn into the situation, even while focusing on constructing an accurate model.

The next SCiO events are in April. Workshops cost £50, £20 for members. Open meetings occur quarterly on Mondays, members only development days are on Sundays and free to members. More details from the SCiO website.