Overview

I wanted to get a Hard-Systems view nailed down first, mainly because dealing with Falsification or High-Order Propositions maybe redundant. Furthermore, a method to define a Cause-Effect relationship could resolve some of the Logic arguments that have occurred, or that will occur.

On second thoughts. The relation that has been given as a rule of inference is of the form p->q (p implies/infers q). The problem is that the rules of inference, four of them I seem to recollect, of which I only know of two: Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens. So, p->System->q would be true with the proviso of p->System relationships. At least I think thats the assertion/idea.

While the block diagram below illustrates how the process is represented and filled in [as in (C)], it will also allow further expansion by adding other blocks.

Veracity Of Whistleblower claims

Recently there were two articles published in the Guardian newspaper giving an insight into the Home Office as a Process. I have instantly taken or believed it to be true, not as a product of a Malevolent Demon, but because events in the environment equate to a Cause-Effect pair.

Why query this? Well, not so long ago there was another hullabaloo involving whether the Windrush registry had been lost or destroyed with assurances that prior to its destruction it had been used. At the time this seemed plausible although, as the story unfolded, it no longer adds up.

The reason being if the registry had been used it would have resulted in no Windrush detentions or deportations prior to its destruction. One could say that there would have still of been a few errors, but instead half of those detained or deported from Windrush occurred prior to the Registry’s destruction/loss. In other words, the registry was not significant in the alteration of occurrences to the Windrush group. No turning point – graphically speaking.

Discernable Pathologies

One of the questions that arises is whether the organisation operates fractally or hierarchically. The reason is that the Effects (I’m not sure that its Emergence strictly speaking) suggest a simple rule of operation structure whilst making it clear that it should be considered an example of a Stovepiped Organisation. So, is this notion possible;

“…Top-down hierarchies are typically characterised by command-and-control systems of authority that often create harmful stress and internal competition for advancement within organisations. The pervading perception is of ‘limited room at the top’, where positions of authority become scarce resources. Members withhold or hoard information by focusing competition energy internally rather than externally, creating silos of information and causing negative stress that is reflected in absenteeism and higher healthcare costs. Voluntary turnover drains talent as creative individuals tire of the politics and seek harmonious work environments. ‘Change management’ is an issue, as members’ natural compulsion to provide feedback and insights is quashed by management dictates…”

Janna Raye – Fractal Organisation Theory

The Abstract compares Hierarchal Organisations, and their symptoms to Fractal Organisations. Its clear that the Fractal Organisation is not in use here, and I wonder whether the Fractal Organisation has principles similar to the Stovepiped Organisation remedies?

“….Creating Silos of Information…” I missed that the first read through.

Perhaps at this juncture the article for comparison:

‘Toxic atmosphere’: the Home Office unit everybody wants to leave. Whistleblowers say bullying culture is causing chaos in department that handles asylum claims.

Amelia Hill – Guardian

What is still coming up short are the Fractal effects without being a Fractal Organisation. Although it is very much a process thinking Organisation.

“….As our research related to sustainability has progressed, we have realized that knowledge is not the prime problem. We believe that the ruling paradigm of science, engineering and policy needs to be critically evaluated. This paradigm holds that everything can be reduced to the tiniest particles which interact in a clockwork-like fashion. However, new discoveries have lead to the concept of ‘systems thinking’. Systems thinking is particularly important in dealing with our environmental problems and other large-scale open-ended problems. But is systems thinking sufficient? We intend to show that systems thinking is a major step in the right direction, but it is insufficient in handling the increasing environmental problems of our planet. We believe that ‘process thinking’ is a better paradigm due to the profound importance of change and continuous improvement. The superficial understanding of change in science and engineering has, in our opinion, resulted in what we call the ‘Dogmas of Science and Engineering’ which are the main roots of our problems. A new paradigm must therefore violate these dogmas for mankind to overcome the problems we are facing. This new paradigm must permeate the whole of society as well, and hence both scientific and political leadership is crucial…”

Process thinking — a new paradigm for science and engineering
Author links open overlay panelJanEmblemsvåg^a BertBras^b
Show more
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(00)00013-6

“…a new paradigm must violate these dogmas..” violate as in Boundary Spanners or violate as in for the sake of poor statistical justification? The second Whistleblower article for comparison.

“…Home Office chaos and incompetence lead to unlawful detentions, claim whistleblowers..”

Amelia Hill – Guardian

It’s not difficult to elicit a set of Causes from these articles and begin to derive a process that is detached from the legitimate process as a ‘violation’. Which will then tend from hard-systems to soft-systems and coercive systems.

There is a further implication to System of Systems, namely that the underlying rules being put in place create similar Emergence across other Systems. Go figure.

Feedback Control Diagram

What would occur in a Hard-System would be that the Sensor deviations (“the difference that makes a difference”) would be fed back into the input, termed Measurements on the diagram. With the difference corrected at the Comparator (the minus sign indicates negative feedback).

It would seem that the Comparator sits in an Environment of its own making, and is therefore subject to other ‘positive’ feedback.

A Government that proclaims Minarchy, practices Interventionism. Should that go into an O.R. handbook, under the heading Bullshit Government?