|
|
What you choose to measure is like a choosing a one dimensional
slice. You would like more than one. You'd like some that cut
through all behaviors and some that localize others. The main thing
is just getting ones that don't change definition unexpectedly and are
easy to record.
People have been monitoring things by many means for a long time,
certainly, but not as autonomous systems for the purpose to reading
their feedback loops switches. The reason I say that is not just my
ignorance of many of the methods others have used. It's that the
principle that things that can't divert their positive feedbacks fail
internally, going turbulent or blowing apart, is still widely
unrecognized. That says nobody but me, apparently, has been watching
how and why that happens.
>
>
> The major concern in organizational real time monitoring is choosing
the
> correct and most useful indicators. At UNDP for whom I worked for
years we
> constantly monitored both organizations and projects.sometimes with
models,
> sometimes without. The choice of indicators clearly skews the
results and future
> decisions and developments.
>
> Actually systems biologists do use models to study natural systems
whether
> it be species, evolution of species or ecosystems. I seem to recall
a
> computer model programme called SAS (?) that was used to model
evolution of species.
> That was in the late 1980s. It was very cumbersome and slow.
>
> I am particularly interested in models applied to politics and how
to
> achieve progressive change and adaptive management strategies. Has
anyone used
> these kind of models?
>
> Paul Paryski
>
>
--
Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: sy at synapse9.com
explorations: www.synapse9.com
|
Locked
