Holonomics: the antidote to reductionism?


Originally posted on LIVE LONG AND PROSPER:

Come across a word like ‘holonomics’ (evocative as it is of systems thinking) and one might be forgiven for feeling a slight sense of scepticism. Fortunately, Simon and Maria Robinson, authors of Holonomics: Business Where People and Planet Matter, are very quick to dispel any whiff of ‘emperor’s new clothes’ surrounding their ideas. Holonomic thinking is not a “dogmatic annunciation” of a new methodology or toolkit, but rather a much more subtle and nuanced quest to expand our consciousness.

If all that sounds a tad esoteric, it really isn’t. It’s massively important, because our dominant mode of conceptualising the relationship between ‘parts’ and ‘wholes’ is broken – no longer fit for purpose in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.

Mainstream management and organizational approaches remain largely rooted in the industrial age, where reductionism made perfect sense. Physical tasks could be split into relatively independent parts, each optimised through the…

View original 692 more words

What is Systems thinking?


Originally posted on System Studies:

Systems thinking is a way of viewing the world. According to systems point of view, the world is built around varying kinds of systems. How can this perspective help us view our problems in a different way and help us solve some of the most difficult issues of our time?

Imagine you are living in the suburb of a large city. You go daily to work by taking the bus, which takes a lot of time and forces you to wake up very early in the morning. After some consideration you decide to buy a car in order to free up some time and to make the commute more tolerable. At the beginning you feel great: now you can sleep a little longer and there’s no more waiting in the bus stop! You also have more energy because of longer hours of sleep and more flexible timetable.

After a while…

View original 879 more words

Interaction design from multiple perspectives


Originally posted on Kanrawi's HCI Notes:

Dan Saffer introduced an interesting fact in interaction design in his book Design for interaction. The goal of interaction design is to design possible interactions for users to accomplish their goal or product or service. The interactions have to fit the time and context of the product.

Even the goal of interaction is the same, different designers might do it in many different ways depending on their experiences. One factor affecting their design is their perspective toward the design project.

Saffer suggested three perspectives.

1. Technology-centered view – designing interactions for the raw product created from software engineer or programmers in order to create good user experience.

2.Behaviorist view – designing the behavior and feedback of the product to serve the needs of the user. The focus is on the function and the feedback.

3.Social interaction design view – designing interaction between people that use the product regardless of the number of device or type of device they…

View original 9 more words

You don’t always know what you’re saying


Originally posted on SelfAwarePatterns:

If you think you know what you just said, think again. People can be tricked into believing they have just said something they did not, researchers report this week.

The dominant model of how speech works is that it is planned in advance — speakers begin with a conscious idea of exactly what they are going to say. But some researchers think that speech is not entirely planned, and that people know what they are saying in part through hearing themselves speak.

So cognitive scientist Andreas Lind and his colleagues at Lund University in Sweden wanted to see what would happen if someone said one word, but heard themselves saying another. “If we use auditory feedback to compare what we say with a well-specified intention, then any mismatch should be quickly detected,” he says. “But if the feedback is instead a powerful factor in a dynamic, interpretative process, then the…

View original 249 more words

Please Stop Ideating

Featured Image -- 3927

Originally posted on HBR Blog Network - Harvard Business Review:

Surely it makes sense that the more ideas we have, the better our innovation track record will be. Not true, it turns out.

Firms that hold ideation sessions − those in which a group guided by outside consultants generate ideas for new products and services − generate little additional revenue from new offerings compared to those that don’t. That was a finding of a study of consumer-package-goods companies that I led.

How could this be? Aren’t more ideas better?

Actually, coming up with an idea turns out to be relatively easy; refining a concept until it becomes an economic success is the hard part. Consider this example: The first known claim of inventing a hand-held mobile phone was made in 1906. Yet it took another 70 years of development before one that actually worked was produced.

In fact, most companies have an abundance of ideas. At one firm with a particularly dismal record…

View original 489 more words