Slide 1

11/29/2005jring@amug.org1 Toward A Systems Thinking Maturity Model Strawman v.2 by Jack Ring dba Innovation Management jring@amug.org

Slide 2

11/29/2005jring@amug.org2 Value Proposition A Systems Thinking Maturity Model is proposed. to classify the capabilities of SE practitioners, PSEs, to motivate PSE evolution to more effective levels. Concerned with thinking styles and learning styles of PSEs. 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.

Slide 3

11/29/2005jring@amug.org3 The Reach of SE Community Situation Problem Discerned Problem System Understood Solution Effect Envisioned Intervention Strategy PSS S>

11/29/2005jring@amug.org5 Work Program of Complexity Discovery Diagnosis Resolution DesignImplementationDescription composed of SCI = (N/7) (V/5) (K/10) = (1/350) NVK Where: N is Miller Index, V is Spreadthink index and K = DeMorgan index 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 SCI > 100 indicates Not Ready for Engineering Situation Complexity Index

Slide 6

11/29/2005jring@amug.org6 Systems Thinking Maturity Model, STMM strawman 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

Slide 7

11/29/2005jring@amug.org7 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)

Slide 8

11/29/2005jring@amug.org8 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: typos Performance Improvement Potential, PIP = > 16

Slide 9

11/29/2005jring@amug.org9 1. Intern Advanced 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

Slide 10

11/29/2005jring@amug.org10 2. Apprentice Learning 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

Slide 11

11/29/2005jring@amug.org11 3. Practitioner Engaged 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 MOEs Productivity = Set the pace Innovation = Measure for both PSS and SE EDAC: Interpersonal style, LUC Performance Improvement Potential, PIP = < 2

Slide 12

11/29/2005jring@amug.org12 4. Master Collaborating 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

Slide 13

11/29/2005jring@amug.org13 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 5. Mentor Educating the reflective practitioner

Slide 14

11/29/2005jring@amug.org14 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

Slide 15

11/29/2005jring@amug.org15 To Participate Post your Questions or Discrepancy Reports at: http://www.incose.org/practice/techactivitie s/seapplications/iewg.aspxhttp://www.incose.org/practice/techactivitie s/seapplications/iewg.aspx