1 / 15

Toward A Systems Thinking Maturity Model Strawman v.2

Toward A Systems Thinking Maturity Model Strawman v.2. by Jack Ring dba Innovation Management jring@amug.org. 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.

enrico
Télécharger la présentation

Toward A Systems Thinking Maturity Model Strawman v.2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Toward A Systems Thinking Maturity ModelStrawman v.2 by Jack Ring dba Innovation Management jring@amug.org jring@amug.org

  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. jring@amug.org

  3. System Characterized BoK Updated Community Situation Problem Discerned Value of System Quantified Problem System Understood Effects on Problem Known Focus on Value Context Adapted Solution Effect Envisioned Discover POSIWID Known Focus on Purpose Intervention Strategy Operational Results PSS S><R Specified PSS Activated Engineer Focus on System PSS Envisioned Operational Readiness PSS Designed & Architected PSS Tested Components Specified - Developed - Assembled The Reach of SE Evaluate S = Stimulus R = Response PSS = Problem Suppression System jring@amug.org

  4. = Exogenous, type, characteristic • = Endogenous, class, property H M L Extent Variety Ambiguity Kinds of Infrastructures Kinds of Technologies I&D Automation PSE’s Mediation eLearning Thermodynamic Informatics Teleonomics Social Dynamics Value Generated SE Field of Discourse Problematique Ballistic IOP Systems Adaptive Agile Autocatalytic • Control • Educing • Discovery & Description Kinds of Systems Kinds of SE • Prescient • Pursuit • Generative • Cut/Paste • PSE’s • Critics • Perform • Collaborate • Co-learn • Fixed • Adaptable • Autocatalytic • Fixed • Adaptable • Autocatalytic Kinds of Practitioners jring@amug.org

  5. Work Program of Complexity composed of Discovery Resolution Description Diagnosis Design Implementation Situation Complexity Index SCI = (N/7) (V/5) (K/10) = (1/350) NVK Where: N is Miller Index, V is Spreadthink index and K = DeMorgan index SCI > 100 indicates Not Ready for Engineering 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 jring@amug.org

  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 jring@amug.org

  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) jring@amug.org

  8. 0. Attendee • Field of discourse = not explicit • Dimension: 1 – 2 • Style: Reasoning (Analyze, Compare, • Classify, Evaluate, Synthesize) X (Induction and Deduction) • Requisite Attitude: Pessimism or Optimism • Ethics: • Quality = Close enough • Productivity = indifferent • Innovation = n/a • EDAC: typo’s • Performance Improvement Potential, PIP = > 16 jring@amug.org

  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 jring@amug.org

  10. 2. ApprenticeLearning 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 jring@amug.org

  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 jring@amug.org

  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 jring@amug.org

  13. 5. MentorEducating the reflective practitioner • 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 jring@amug.org

  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 jring@amug.org

  15. To ParticipatePost your Questions or Discrepancy Reports at: • http://www.incose.org/practice/techactivities/seapplications/iewg.aspx jring@amug.org

More Related