#eavoices

Why information architecture needs systems thinking

by

If a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves … There’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding.

Source: Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, 1974

We who labor at the crossroads of structure and behavior have learned the hard way that content management is far messier than garbage collection and “the system always kicks back.”

Source: Peter Morville, Editorial: The System of Information Architecture (Journal of Information Architecture. Vol. 3, No. 2., 2012) 

Churchman’s interest in computing reaches extensively beyond the metaphor of inquiring systems. He addresses many issues with the state of MIS research of his time, including the tendency of IS researchers to focus on “safe” issues such as “structure of files, retrieval techniques, automatic abstracting, and the like” (Churchman 1968, p.111). He indicates that the majority of such research is not consistent with the systems approach as it focuses on transactions rather than the true goals or benefit of the system. Churchman is also quite visionary as he predicts the ubiquitous role of computers in everyday life. With the ability to “find facts” readily, Churchman predicted that information systems will actually work to reinforce a user’s Weltanschauung (world-view), as the user would screen information based on his Weltanschauung. In order to expand use MIS to expand the user’s view to one that is more holistic, Churchman envisioned a “deadly enemy” proposal for the design of an information system. The main role of this deadly enemy is for the system to propose information results based on assumptions that are opposite of the user’s information request, thereby revealing to the user his fundamental assumptions and at the same time questioning them (Churchman 1968, p. 122-123).

Source: Nicholas Berente, C West Churchman: Champion of the Systems Approach quoting Churchman, C.W. (1968) The Systems Approach, Dell Publishing Co.

See also Kristo Ivanov, The systems approach to design, and inquiring information systems (2001)

We Ought to Know the Difference

by

Is systems thinking really possible? Here’s one reason why it might not be.

One of the concerns of systems thinking is the need to avoid the so-called environmental fallacy – the blunder of ignoring or not understanding the effects of the environment of a system. This is why, when systems thinkers are asked to tackle a concrete situation in detail, they often hesitate, insisting that it is wrong to look at the detail before understanding the context.

The trouble with this is that there is always a larger context, so this hesitation leads to an infinite regress and inability to formulate practical inroads into a complex situation. Many years ago, I read a brilliant essay by J.P. Eberhard called “We Ought to Know the Difference”, which contains a widely quoted example of a doorknob. As I recall, Eberhard’s central question is a practical one – how do we know when to expand the scope of the problem, and how do we know when to stop.

C West Churchman went more deeply into this question. In his book The Systems Approach and its Enemies (1979), he presents an ironic picture of the systems thinker as hero.

If the intellect is to engage in the heroic adventure of securing improvement in the human condition, it cannot rely on “approaches,” like politics and morality, which attempt to tackle problems head-on, within the narrow scope. Attempts to address problems in such a manner simply lead to other problems, to an amplification of difficulty away from real improvement. Thus the key to success in the hero’s attempt seems to be comprehensiveness. Never allow the temptation to be clear, or to use reliable data, or to “come up to the standards of excellence,” divert you from the relevant, even though the relevant may be elusive, weakly supported by data, and requiring loose methods.

Like Eberhard, Churchman seeks to reconcile the heroic stance of the systems thinker with the practical stance of other approaches. But we ought to know the difference.

This is an extract from my eBook on Next Practice Enterprise Architecture. Draft available from LeanPub.

John P. Eberhard, “We Ought to Know the Difference,” Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and Planning, Gary T. Moore, ed. (MIT Press, 1970) pp 364-365

See extract here – The Warning of the Doorknob. The same extract can be found in many places, including Ed Yourdon’s Modern Structured Analysis (first published 1989).

See also

Nicholas Berente, C West Churchman: Champion of the Systems Approach

Jeff Lindsay, Avoiding environmental fallacy with systems thinking (December 2012)

Updated May 14 2013

Power, Process, Project, People – The Effect

by

Finally I find the time to write another post and continue my series about Power, Project, Process and People. As a small summary here a oneliner about each of the three forces:

  • Power is about control and authority which limits people.
  • Process is about faster, higher and stronger which spins people faster. 
  • Project is about moving which changes people.

All three forces together can have a quite severe impact on on people. Literally they force people to change faster and faster while limiting them.

 


So what is the chances to escape? Actually there is three typical ways to escape for each individual person:

  • Increase the power by climbing the hierarchy.
  • Forcing others to spin faster, higher and stronger by becoming process owner.
  • Forcing others to change by executing projects.

The easiest way to escape lies in executing projects, be it as internal or as external. Being good at project execution protects people against being forced to change themselves, because the methodology on how the project was executed can be used again and again and again without adapting much. Furthermore if implementing a specific solution that very same solution with small adaptions can also be implemented many times in a row allowing to not change while those who are affected by the project must change.

Being really strong in one methodology sometimes opens up for the chance to become process owner, which is great, because it allows to let other people spin faster (and higher and stronger), while the own speed more or less remains the same (except if the process owner of process management really makes process managers spin faster).

Rising in the hierarchy is the option in which typically the people are interested most. First of all it is the option which has the highest chance to increase income significant. And it is (and makes) attractive, because it gives direct power over others.

The interesting (and potentially relevant) observation I make in most cases is that one who is advancing either in Project, Process or Power terms is normally picking up the behaviour of who was leading him in respect to that particular force. It takes some time to free up and leave the old approaches behind and actually many who are in the position to control one of the forces never advance.