GoodReason - for developing systems

Ajankohtaista

Draft for web-pages published 18.1

Julkaistu 17.1.2018

After three weeks period we are publishing the tentative pages to illustrate what meta thinking and meta learning could be. The four meta skills are: 1. Learning, 2. Analyzing, 3. Planning and  4. Meta vision.

Let’s start by clicking the picture (www.goodreason.fi)

We are making progress to reach a professional status for the layout and contents 🙂

 


Documenting GoodReason started…

Julkaistu 14.12.2017

We have decided to make documents about the main features of GoodReason in this platform (www.goodreason.fi, 14. December, 2017).

Metayliopisto is the creator and owner of the IPR. The main information about the technology, benefits and applications can then be found in the books and at www.metayliopisto.fi.

Welcome to the rules and methods of how to evaluate the system, and what to do in order to make it still better!


Background for the mission GoodReason

Julkaistu 20.11.2015

In order to make clear the highest level vision of GoodReason for customers and partners, I publish here its semantics and pragmatics as a drawing. The style is rich picturing combined with conceptual maps and intentionality as a self organized graph with eight (8) sectors. The description uses storytelling principles.

 

  • Number 2 describes theoretical approach, science, where systems theory here is very essential, because it opens us the multiple disciplinary world: reality and practical life in relation to best known concepts of science. System is here an architecture to keep information for explaining everything by means techinques of GoodReason. Social systems are soft including management, organization theory (Senge et al) and complex systems theory (Cynefin, Gharajedaghi). The main message here (topic 2) is that typical research themes and practical business situations can be expressed using some system formalism (business model canvas, enterprise architecture, SWOT…). When we have certain formalism and a way to store information to systems, it is possible for us to make analysis rigorously by going detailedly into deeper and deeper models of the area. By capturing deeper insights it is possible by means systems thinking technologies like (Checkland, SSM, GoodReason) to form outsights, synthesis and scenarios to the future.

Mission for GoodReason & Laitila

  • Number 3 describes input for the mission in real time. It is in the largest approach getting information about world wide problems and challenges like climate change and evaluating scenarios for them, but in the smaller approach solving typical problems caused by common sense of persons to cause problems to the society. Systems thinking is a way to rise higher to understand the big picture for business and political questions; not exactly to solve problems in the lowest level but to formulate them so that systems can better understand each other for getting success.

 

  • Considering point 4 Systems thinking is best used for making better future. It is theoretical, critical and creating thinking. There is a summary made by Waters Foundation. It has much in common with object-oriented programming and modeling in software development, but not so specific. When you understand what is a state in general and as a small model, you can use it into all countries of the world as a specific, platform independent model. The specific countries are instances of the main class state. You can then make influence models between countries either very lightly or very rigorously in a high granular way. The concept granular world is one theory for modeling multilayer models of systems.

 

  • Number 5 means how to organize in order to promote systems thinking personally to improve quality of own life and others, too. The larger approach is ecosystems in business and in systems in general: public sector, nature… There are some world wide societies for systems thinking to contact and create influence. Here a notice is needed: A this kind of theory as systems thinking should not be used to damage business and co-operation, but to create new emergence, a new kind of success using better knowledge about the whole. This approach is excellent everywhere where there are holes that nobody manages. One of them is the gap between governement and companies, to motivate coordination of the country to improve its growth in future.

 

  • Number 6 means practical work. It means research: personal activities and social co-operation and collaboration; projects and conferences and publishing results. There is an excellent learning curve by implementing system based projects, because the systemic model is a comprehensive way to carry information and knowledge in commercial tools (MS Office and specific tools).

 

  • Number 7 is output from the mission to produce results for a better stabile society. Output can be localized or it can be world wide depending on the partners of the community (number 5). Furthermore, from a certain systemic solution it is possible to inherit and derive new kind of solutions providing the the environment and systems are compatible in the assumed approach. It is one way to avoid inventing the wheel.

 

  • The overall contribution (number 8) from the mission is to produce emergence for any discipline, any area based on systems. It is directed both in a personal level as the society level. There are macro and micro levels to study and to make more comprehensive to further scenarios and decisions. There is a model for a data to wisdom transformation from Nonaka and others. Spiral dynamics is an interesting conceptual model to conclude this mission, because it defines two tiers for persons (organizations, too). The lowest six (6) levels concentrate to increase profit and success for themselves, but the seventh level (in the higher tier) is systemic having color yellow as its identification. Systems thinking needs us capabilities to rise to a higher level than the systems are in reality. It gives us, for example, possibilities to understand a country like Finland more objectively (than the parties) and the whole in general in business and politics with their wicked problems.

The mission succeeds if there is a plausible chain from 1 to 8 with necessary sub-steps. Step 1 is the opposite for step 8, and step 2 (theory) is the opposite of step 6 (practice). Step 3 is the opposite of step 7: input –> output, where the mission is a transformation, process between them. Step 4 is the opposite of step 5, because the former presents needs to open, to be creative for models and the latter means reaching an organization model: how to create a productive system to implement the needs and proposals and ideas and innovations in real life.

Now that we have a mission, and the eight (8) steps (with sub-steps), it is possible to start implementation, to activate research. Engeström’s activity model helps in it to create a context: the triangle. Subject is a person to apply systems thinking. Object is the part of his/hers discipline to be studied. Tolls and signs are systems thinking and GoodReason.

Engeström Activity TheoryObjective function here is division of labor, but it can be any. Rules are rules typical in that area, and new rules captured from a systems thinking process. Outcome is a better future to the object. Artifacts are here systems (system architecture..) to help in understanding actors in reality (community).

The picture (above) is to demonstrate how different kind of models and GoodReason – systems thinking techniques can be used turn by turn to connect information and knowledge: the worst problem in traditional systems thinking which lacks specific formalism.

Every model is a system and from every system multiple models can be created (Bezivin). Together they form a language for understanding anything.

We assume that problems of world wide economy cannot be solved in the same way as they first occurred (citation:Einstein). That is why we need systems thinking capabilities in order to understand what could a new platform be like — to give better possibilities for the companies and organizations and persons (unemployment) to communicate with each other to empower other systems, too. This kind of synergy, a new paradigm, should be very powerful to reach a more sustainable society, to decrease overlapping costs and to create products of better quality, and to use savings for developing new kind of success stories, where supply and demand meet perfectly.