Hi Chris,

Even management consultants can be relaxed about the word 'systems' :-).
I am! I had a lengthy debate once with Ralph Stacey on the use of the
word. I very often like to look at organisations as 'living systems'
because some insights that we can gain from that are very helpful.
I think that is very similar to your view.

For me, the metaphor breaks down if we assign a 'will' to that system.
Much like 'the system does not allow that to happen'. There Ralph's
theory of Complex Responsive Processes is much more helpful, since it
clearly puts the 'ethics' back to the individual. There is no hiding
behind 'the system'.
It works both ways. How to be 'inside' and 'observing' at the same
time?!

Regards,
 
Frank Smits
Symphoenix Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)1732 450 495
Mobile: +44 (0)7715 423 150
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Website: www.symphoenix.net
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Complexity and chaos theories applied to primary medical and
social care [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Chris Burton
Sent: 24 September 2002 15:27
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Stacey and Systems

At the Exeter conference Ralph Stacey was very wary of metaphors and
models of "systems" because of the origins of systems theory in
mechanical world models with external creators / controllers

It may be just me, but coming from a biomedical perspective, I think my
view of a "system" is more akin  to an organ system or eco-system than
machine-engineered organisation.

Can we (or at least those of us who aren't management consultants ;¬) )
carry on using "system" then (with a small s)?


Chris

--
Chris Burton,

Medical Director
WestNet: the West of Scotland Primary Care Research Network
4 Lancaster Crescent, Glasgow; 0141 211 1690

General Practitioner
Sanquhar Health Centre, Sanquhar DG4 6BT; 01659 50221

http://www.medicine21.com
 24/09/2002