C. West Churchman, The System Approach, 1968, 1979 [ ]
p.34, p.35, p.35, p.36, p.36
p.34
... The environment of the system is what lies “outside” of the system. This also is no easy matter to determine.
p.35
Perhaps, after all, the super-observer of the blind men trying to describe the elephant was himself rather blind. Does the skin of the elephant really represent the dividing line between the elephant and its environment? Maybe an understanding of the habitat of the elephant is essential, and perhaps the habitat should be regarded as part of the elephantine system.
p.35
Hence the scientist has to have a way of thinking about the environment of a system that is richer and more subtle than a mere looking for boundaries. He does this by noting that, when we say that something lies “outside” the system, we mean that the system can do relatively little about its characteristics or its behaviour. Environment, in effect, makes up the things and people that are “fixed” or “given,” from the system's point of view.
p.36
... But if by some organizational change, the system could influence the budget, then some of the budgetary process would belong inside the system.
p.36
Not only is the environment something that is outside the system's control, but it is also something that determines in part how the system performs. Thus, if the system is operating in a very cold climate so that its equipment must be designed to withstand various kinds of severe temperature change, then we would say that temperature changes are in the environment, because these dictate the given possibilities of the system performance and yet the system can do nothing about the temperature changes.
p.37
... often the systems fail to perform properly simply because their managers have come to believe that some aspect of the world is outside the system and not subject to any control.
( THE SYSTEMS APPROACH, by C. West Churchman, 1968, A Delta Book, (paperback), Eighth Printing, SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY, DELL PUBLISHING CO., INC./PRINTED IN U.S.A., HD 20. 5 C47, p.34, p.35, p.35, p.36, p.36)
____________________________________
look up blind mens groping the elephant story and put it here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
The parable of the blind men and an elephant is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and imagine what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the elephant based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true.[1][2] The parable originated in the ancient Indian subcontinent, from where it has been widely diffused.
The parable
The earliest versions of the parable of blind men and elephant is found in Buddhist, Hindu and Jain texts, as they discuss the limits of perception and the importance of complete context. The parable has several Indian variations, but broadly goes as follows:[7][2]
A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. The first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said, "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.
While one's subjective experience is true, it may not be the totality of truth.[4][7]
The parable has been used to illustrate a range of truths and fallacies; broadly, the parable implies that one's subjective experience can be true, but that such experience is inherently limited by its failure to account for other truths or a totality of truth.
At various times the parable has provided insight into the relativism, opaqueness or inexpressible nature of truth, the behavior of experts in fields of contradicting theories, the need for deeper understanding, and respect for different perspectives on the same object of observation. In this respect, it provides an easily understood and practical example that illustrates ontologic reasoning. That is, simply put, what things exist, what is their true nature, and how can their relations to each other be accurately categorized?
In the oldest version, four blind men walk into a forest where they meet an elephant. In this version, they do not fight with each other, but conclude that they each must have perceived a different beast although they experienced the same elephant.[5] The expanded version of the parable occurs in various ancient and Hindu texts. Many scholars refer to it as a Hindu parable.[7][2][8]
a reference, to the parable, appear in bhasya (commentaries, secondary literature) in the Hindu traditions. For example, Adi Shankara mentions it in his bhasya on verse 5.18.1 of the Chandogya Upanishad as follows:
etaddhasti darshana iva jatyandhah
Translation: That is like people blind by birth in/when viewing an elephant.
— Adi Shankara, Translator: Hans Henrich Hock[9]
Seven blind men and an elephant parable at a Jain temple
The medieval era Jain texts explain the concepts of anekāntavāda (or "many-sidedness") and syādvāda ("conditioned viewpoints") with the parable of the blind men and an elephant (Andhgajanyāyah), which addresses the manifold nature of truth. This parable is found in the most ancient Jain agams before 5th century BCE. Its popularity remained till late. For example, this parable is found in Tattvarthaslokavatika of Vidyanandi (9th century) and Syādvādamanjari of Ācārya Mallisena (13th century). Mallisena uses the parable to argue that immature people deny various aspects of truth; deluded by the aspects they do understand, they deny the aspects they don't understand. "Due to extreme delusion produced on account of a partial viewpoint, the immature deny one aspect and try to establish another. This is the maxim of the blind (men) and the elephant."[10]
Modern treatments
The story is seen as a metaphor in many disciplines, being pressed into service as an analogy in fields well beyond the traditional. In physics, it has been seen as an analogy for the wave–particle duality.[21] In biology, the way the blind men hold onto different parts of the elephant has been seen as a good analogy for the polyclonal B cell response.[22]
In the title cartoon of one of his books, cartoonist Sam Gross postulated that one of the blind men, encountering a pile of the elephant feces, concluded that "An elephant is soft and mushy."
An elephant joke inverts the story in the following way, with the act of observation severely and fatally altering the subject of investigation:
Six blind elephants were discussing what men were like. After arguing they decided to find one and determine what it was like by direct experience. The first blind elephant felt the man and declared, 'Men are flat.' After the other blind elephants felt the man, they agreed.
Moral:
We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.
— Werner Heisenberg[28]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
────────────────────────────────────
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
Seven blind men and an elephant parable at a Jain temple
The medieval era Jain texts explain the concepts of anekāntavāda (or "many-sidedness") and syādvāda ("conditioned viewpoints") with the parable of the blind men and an elephant (Andhgajanyāyah), which addresses the manifold nature of truth. This parable is found in the most ancient Jain agams before 5th century BCE. Its popularity remained till late. For example, this parable is found in Tattvarthaslokavatika of Vidyanandi (9th century) and Syādvādamanjari of Ācārya Mallisena (13th century). Mallisena uses the parable to argue that immature people deny various aspects of truth; deluded by the aspects they do understand, they deny the aspects they don't understand. "Due to extreme delusion produced on account of a partial viewpoint, the immature deny one aspect and try to establish another. This is the maxim of the blind (men) and the elephant."[10]
anekāntavāda (or "many-sidedness") and
syādvāda ("conditioned viewpoints")
anekāntavāda (or "many-sidedness") and
syādvāda ("conditioned viewpoints")
────────────────────────────────────
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada
Syādvāda is a theory of qualified predication, states Koller. It states that all knowledge claims must be qualified in many ways, because reality is many-sided.[4] It is done so systematically in later Jain texts through saptibhaṅgīnaya or "the theory of sevenfold scheme".[4] These saptibhaṅgī seem to have been first formulated in Jainism by the 5th or 6th century CE Svetambara scholar Mallavadin,[31] and they are:[30][32][33]
1. Affirmation: syād-asti—in some ways, it is,
2. Denial: syān-nāsti—in some ways, it is not,
3. Joint but successive affirmation and denial:
syād-asti-nāsti—
in some ways, it is, and it is not,
4. Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial:
syāt-asti-avaktavyaḥ—
in some ways, it is, and it is indescribable,
5. Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial:
syān-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—
in some ways, it is not, and it is indescribable,
6. Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial:
syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—
in some ways, it is, it is not, and it is indescribable,
7. Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial:
syād-avaktavyaḥ—
in some ways, it is indescribable.
────────────────────────────────────
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaina_seven-valued_logic
The Saptabhangivada, the seven predicate theory may be summarized as follows:[4]
The seven predicate theory consists in the use of seven claims about sentences, each preceded by "arguably" or "conditionally" (syat), concerning a single object and its particular properties, composed of assertions and denials, either simultaneously or successively, and without contradiction. These seven claims are the following.
1. Arguably, it (that is, some object) exists (syad asty eva).
2. Arguably, it does not exist (syan nasty eva).
3. Arguably, it exists; arguably, it doesn't exist (syad asty eva syan nasty eva).
4. Arguably, it is non-assertible (syad avaktavyam eva).
5. Arguably, it exists; arguably, it is non-assertible (syad asty eva syad avaktavyam eva).
6. Arguably, it doesn't exist; arguably, it is non-assertible (syan nasty eva syad avaktavyam eva).
7. Arguably, it exists; arguably, it doesn't exist; arguably it is non-assertible (syad asty eva syan nasty eva syad avaktavyam eva).
There are three basic truth values, namely, true (t), false (f) and unassertible (u).
────────────────────────────────────
Thich Nhat Hanh, The miracle of mindfulness : an introduction to the practice of meditation., translated by Mobi Ho, [1975, 1976]
p.46
five aggregates
1. bodily and physical forms
2. feelings
3. perceptions
4. mental functionings
5. consciousness
p.47
You are conscious of the presence of bodily form, feeling, perception, mental functionings, and consciousness. You observe these “objects” until you see that each of them has intimate connection with the world outside yourself: if the world did not exist then the assembly of the five aggregates could not exist either.
Consider the example of a table. The table's existence is possible due to the existence of things which might call “the non-table world”: the forest where the wood grew and was cut, the carpenter, the iron ore which became the nails and screws, and countless other things which have relation to the table, the parents and ancestors of the carpenters, the sun and rain which made it possible for the trees to grow.
If you grasp the table's reality then you see that in the table itself are present all those things which we normally think of as the non-table world. If you took away any of those non-table elements and returned them to their sources ── the nails back to the iron ore, the wood to the forest, the carpenter to his parents ── the table would no longer exist.
‘’•─“”
(The miracle of mindfulness./ Thích Nhāt Hanh., translation of Phép la cua su tinh thuc., isbn 978-0-8070-1239-0 (pbk.), 1. meditation (buddhism)
2. buddhist meditations., BQ5618.V5N4813 1987, 294.3'433, 87-42582,
copyright 1975, 1976 by Thích Nhāt Hanh.
preface and English translation copyright 1975, 1976, 1987 by Mobi Ho
afterword copyright 1976 by James Forest
artwork copyright by Vo-Dinh Mai, beacon press, boston, )
Consider the example of a[n elephant]. The [elephant]'s existence is possible due to the existence of things which might call “the non-[elephant] world”: the forest where the wood grew and was cut, the carpenter, the iron ore which became the nails and screws, and countless other things which have relation to the table, the parents and ancestors of the carpenters, the sun and rain which made it possible for the trees to grow.
If you grasp the [elephant]'s reality then you see that in the [elephant] itself are present all those things which we normally think of as the non-[human] world. If you took away any of those non-[elephant] elements and returned them to their sources ── the nails back to the iron ore, the wood to the forest, the carpenter to his parents ── the [elephant] would no longer exist.
‘’•─“”
────────────────────────────────────
────────────────────────────────────
C. West Churchman, The System Approach, 1968, 1979 [ ]
p.44
As we shall see, this problem of measuring the performance of a component gets to be a very tricky and difficult one as we go deeper into the design of large systems.
p.44
... If some other part of the system changes, say because of the technological improvement, then it may become essential to change the measure of performance of the given component.
p.44
... The management of a system has to deal with the generation of the plans for the system, i.e., consideration of all the things we have discussed, the overall goals, the environment, the utilization of resources, and the components. The management sets the component goals, allocates the resources, and controls the system performance.
This description of management, however, creates something of a paradox for the management scientist. After all, it is he who has been scheming and plotting with his models and analyses to determine the goals, environment, resources, and components.
p.45
The truth of the matter is that he doesn't want to. He is not a man of action, but a man of ideas. A man of action takes risks, and if he fails, not only does he get fired but his organization may be ruined; the man of action is willing to risk fortunes besides his own. The management scientist is typically a single risk-taker: if he fails, he doesn't have to bear the responsibility of the whole organization's failure.
Hence, we've found one chink in the scientist's armor: he doesn't really understand how he himself is a component of the system he observes. He likes to think that he can stand apart, like the elephant observer, and merely recommend, but not act. How naïve this must appear to the politician is hard to say, but certainly the politician's appreciation of the situation is the more sophisticated one. “Mere” recommendation is a fantasy; in the management scientist's own terminology, it is doubtful whether the study of a system is a separable mission.
p.45
... Indeed, many control procedure operate by exception, so that the management does not interfere with the operations of a component except when the component gives evidence of too great a deviation from plan. However, control does not only mean the examination of whether plans are being carried out correctly; it also implies an evaluation of the plans and consequently a change of plans.
pp.45-46
... As we shall see, one of the critical aspects of the management of systems is the planning for change of plans, because no one can claim to have set down the correct overall objectives, or a correct definition of the environment, or a fully precise definition of resources, or the ultimate definition of the components. Therefore, the management part of the system must receive information that tells it when its concept of the system is erroneous and must include steps that will provide for a change.
( THE SYSTEMS APPROACH, by C. West Churchman, 1968, 1979, A Delta Book, (paperback), Eighth Printing, SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY, DELL PUBLISHING CO., INC./PRINTED IN U.S.A., HD 20. 5 C47, )
────────────────────────────────────
page 53/307 (pdf)
The map is not the reality (Alfred Korzybski)
... human being do not react to reality, but build their own mental model of reality.
... ... ...
Accepting this scientific fact has fundamental consequences: the mental models of individuals who meet and try to exchange information never match - virtually never! But people have the ability to widen their mental models through and understanding of other people's.
page 58/307 (pdf)
It goes without saying that many generalisations result in incorrect/erroneous judgments. This is one of the major traps of thinking. We are ready to accept information given to us without crosschecking, if it fits into our mental model.
page 61/307 (pdf)
At the start of a consultantcy assignment, the client usually focuses on his problems, often having deficit orientated perceptions of this working environment (such as team problems, etc.). As a result, adaptive behavioural patterns aren't explored.
page 61/307 (pdf)
An analysis of group processes reveals that hypnotic patterns are self-generating and that on an unconscious level all actors contribute to the problem state: they hypnotize themselves.
source:
The change management toolbook : a collection of tools, methods and strategies, by Holger Nauheimer
https://www.nccmt.ca/uploads/media/media/0001/03/1a75f61d353397066eb0e83a0da69d2fd8ee2ef4.pdf
1a75f61d353397066eb0e83a0da69d2fd8ee2ef4.pdf
was save as : change management toolbook.pdf
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZQYEwIfE7lzwHwa7jngoOLYQdA5QwGt2/view?usp=sharing
____________________________________
https://todayilearnreadingroom.blogspot.com/2023/06/johari-window.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johari_window
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_unknown_unknowns
https://todayilearnreadingroom.blogspot.com/2023/06/johari-window.html ____________________________________
The Elephant in the Boardroom
Sometimes after the March meeting of the board of directors of Sylvan Forest Products, an elephant came out of the forest and moved into the boardroom. Nobody noticed, until the September meeting when the managing director couldn't open the door. “There's something in there,” said the managing director, “and it's blocking the door.”
Peering under the door, the comptroller saw the shadow of the elephant's feet. “It looks as if some trees have grown inside. Better send for the silviculturist.”
The silviculturist managed to splinter the find oak door partway open with his peavey, but the elephant leaned to one side and slammed it shut again. “I don't think it's trees,” said the silviculturist. “It's huge gray monster--more like a whale.”
The board then sent for a cetaceanologist, who advised them to flood the boardroom so that the whale coudl swim out. But as the room filled with water, the elephant simply blew it out with her trunk through the broken door. Seeing the trunk, the cetaceanologist said, “No wonder it doesn't swim out. It's not a whale at all, but a large snake.”
Next, the board summoned an ophiologist, who advised, “Toss in some burning oily rags. That will drive out any snake.” But the elephant simply stamped out the flames as fast as the burning rags could be thrown through the door. The board decided to call the janitor to clear the anteroom of splintered wood, muddy water, and oily, smoked furniture.
The janitor asked about the mess. After the managing director told the story, he reached in his pocket and pulled out some peanuts. When he held one through the door, the elephant--which was by this time mightily hungry--grabbed it with her trunk. “Come on, Little One,” the janitor coaxed, holding out the other peanuts, and in a moment, the elephant lumbered out the door. After feasting a while on peanuts, she shyly retreated to the forest.
“But how did you know it was an elephant?” the astonished comptroller asked.
“Oh, I didn't know. I only suspected because it was partly like a forest, partly like a whale, and partly like a snake. It was only a theory, so I figured it would be better to risk one of my peanuts than to cause further damage to your boardroom.”
Out of Your Depth
If you had an elephant in your boardroom, which specialist would you call? The toughest problems don't come in neatly labeled packages. Or they come in packages with the wrong labels. That's why they're so tough.
Three times out of four, consultants find themselves asked to work on problems that aren't their “speciality.” The consultant just looks like a specialist to a nonspecialist. But good consultant can handle many of those problems anyway, because in addition to being specialists, they are problem-solvers. If you dig into their bag of tricks, you'll find that their best ones have nothing whatsoever to do with their specialties, but can be used by consultants in any field.
(The secrets of consulting, Gerald M. Weinberg, © 1985, pp.37-38)
____________________________________
Byzantine fault
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault
Characteristics
A Byzantine fault is any fault presenting different symptoms to different observers.[4] A Byzantine failure is the loss of a system service due to a Byzantine fault in systems that require consensus.[5]
The objective of Byzantine fault tolerance is to be able to defend against failures of system components with or without symptoms that prevent other components of the system from reaching an agreement among themselves, where such an agreement is needed for the correct operation of the system.
The remaining operationally correct components of a Byzantine fault tolerant system will be able to continue providing the system's service as originally intended, assuming there are a sufficient number of accurately-operating components to maintain the service.
Byzantine failures are considered the most general and most difficult class of failures among the failure modes. The so-called fail-stop failure mode occupies the simplest end of the spectrum. Whereas fail-stop failure mode simply means that the only way to fail is a node crash, detected by other nodes, Byzantine failures imply no restrictions, which means that the failed node can generate arbitrary data, including data that makes it appear like a functioning node. Thus, Byzantine failures can confuse failure detection systems, which makes fault tolerance difficult. Despite the analogy, a Byzantine failure is not necessarily a security problem involving hostile human interference: it can arise purely from electrical or software faults.
Caveat
Byzantine fault tolerance is only concerned with broadcast consistency, that is, the property that when one component broadcasts a single consistent value to other components (i.e., sends the same value to the other components), they all receive exactly the same value, or in the case that the broadcaster is not consistent, the other components agree on a common value. This kind of fault tolerance does not encompass the correctness of the value itself; for example, an adversarial component that deliberately sends an incorrect value, but sends that same value consistently to all components, will not be caught in the Byzantine fault tolerance scheme.
If all generals attack in coordination, the battle is won (left). If two generals falsely declare that they intend to attack, but instead retreat, the battle is lost (right).
In its simplest form, a number of generals are attacking a fortress and they must decide as a group whether to attack or retreat. Some generals may prefer to attack, while others prefer to retreat. The important thing is that all generals agree on a common decision, for a half hearted attack by a few generals would become a rout, and would be worse than either a coordinated attack or a coordinated retreat.
The problem is complicated by the presence of treacherous generals who may not only cast a vote for a suboptimal strategy, they may do so selectively. For instance, if nine generals are voting, four of whom support attacking while four others are in favor of retreat, the ninth general may send a vote of retreat to those generals in favor of retreat, and a vote of attack to the rest. Those who received a retreat vote from the ninth general will retreat, while the rest will attack (which may not go well for the attackers). The problem is complicated further by the generals being physically separated and having to send their votes via messengers who may fail to deliver votes or may forge false votes.
____________________________________
page 122/307 (pdf)
Planning and project management
The reason I have included planning and project management (PM) in a Change Management Toolbook is because Change Management originates in the crisis that classical PM faces right now. Originally developed as a sub-discipline of engineering, PM assumes that if you design a concise plan and put the resources right in place, you will achieve your predefined objectives.
Reality has proven this is rarely the case. More than 50% of projects fail in the sense that they:
1. do not achieve their objectives., or
2. do not deliver the promised results, or
3. sacrifice the predefined quality, or
4. are not completely in the given time schedule, or
5. use more resources than originally planned.
(For a more detailed description of the reasons for project failure, go to Risk Analysis).
However, I still believe that the classical PM tools have their merits and can help for example, aiding a team in structuring their tasks. In my work I have found out that many project teams are open to Change Management intervention, particularly if they have already started their journey and experienced the first flaws. They start to ask, "Why don’t we achieve what we want to achieve?", and "What can we do differently?" That is a perfect entrance point for a Change Management facilitator. Depending on the project, and on the limitations the team experiences, any of the tools described in this Toolbook might be applicable. There are, however, some general considerations (and some very specific tools) that should be applied at the beginning of a planning process:
source:
The change management toolbook : a collection of tools, methods and strategies, by Holger Nauheimer
https://www.nccmt.ca/uploads/media/media/0001/03/1a75f61d353397066eb0e83a0da69d2fd8ee2ef4.pdf
1a75f61d353397066eb0e83a0da69d2fd8ee2ef4.pdf
was save as : change management toolbook.pdf
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZQYEwIfE7lzwHwa7jngoOLYQdA5QwGt2/view?usp=sharing
____________________________________
──────────────────────────
p.34, p.35, p.35, p.36, p.36
p.34
... The environment of the system is what lies “outside” of the system. This also is no easy matter to determine.
p.35
Perhaps, after all, the super-observer of the blind men trying to describe the elephant was himself rather blind. Does the skin of the elephant really represent the dividing line between the elephant and its environment? Maybe an understanding of the habitat of the elephant is essential, and perhaps the habitat should be regarded as part of the elephantine system.
p.35
Hence the scientist has to have a way of thinking about the environment of a system that is richer and more subtle than a mere looking for boundaries. He does this by noting that, when we say that something lies “outside” the system, we mean that the system can do relatively little about its characteristics or its behaviour. Environment, in effect, makes up the things and people that are “fixed” or “given,” from the system's point of view.
p.36
... But if by some organizational change, the system could influence the budget, then some of the budgetary process would belong inside the system.
p.36
Not only is the environment something that is outside the system's control, but it is also something that determines in part how the system performs. Thus, if the system is operating in a very cold climate so that its equipment must be designed to withstand various kinds of severe temperature change, then we would say that temperature changes are in the environment, because these dictate the given possibilities of the system performance and yet the system can do nothing about the temperature changes.
p.37
... often the systems fail to perform properly simply because their managers have come to believe that some aspect of the world is outside the system and not subject to any control.
( THE SYSTEMS APPROACH, by C. West Churchman, 1968, A Delta Book, (paperback), Eighth Printing, SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY, DELL PUBLISHING CO., INC./PRINTED IN U.S.A., HD 20. 5 C47, p.34, p.35, p.35, p.36, p.36)
____________________________________
look up blind mens groping the elephant story and put it here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
The parable of the blind men and an elephant is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and imagine what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the elephant based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true.[1][2] The parable originated in the ancient Indian subcontinent, from where it has been widely diffused.
The parable
The earliest versions of the parable of blind men and elephant is found in Buddhist, Hindu and Jain texts, as they discuss the limits of perception and the importance of complete context. The parable has several Indian variations, but broadly goes as follows:[7][2]
A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. The first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said, "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.
While one's subjective experience is true, it may not be the totality of truth.[4][7]
The parable has been used to illustrate a range of truths and fallacies; broadly, the parable implies that one's subjective experience can be true, but that such experience is inherently limited by its failure to account for other truths or a totality of truth.
At various times the parable has provided insight into the relativism, opaqueness or inexpressible nature of truth, the behavior of experts in fields of contradicting theories, the need for deeper understanding, and respect for different perspectives on the same object of observation. In this respect, it provides an easily understood and practical example that illustrates ontologic reasoning. That is, simply put, what things exist, what is their true nature, and how can their relations to each other be accurately categorized?
In the oldest version, four blind men walk into a forest where they meet an elephant. In this version, they do not fight with each other, but conclude that they each must have perceived a different beast although they experienced the same elephant.[5] The expanded version of the parable occurs in various ancient and Hindu texts. Many scholars refer to it as a Hindu parable.[7][2][8]
a reference, to the parable, appear in bhasya (commentaries, secondary literature) in the Hindu traditions. For example, Adi Shankara mentions it in his bhasya on verse 5.18.1 of the Chandogya Upanishad as follows:
etaddhasti darshana iva jatyandhah
Translation: That is like people blind by birth in/when viewing an elephant.
— Adi Shankara, Translator: Hans Henrich Hock[9]
Seven blind men and an elephant parable at a Jain temple
The medieval era Jain texts explain the concepts of anekāntavāda (or "many-sidedness") and syādvāda ("conditioned viewpoints") with the parable of the blind men and an elephant (Andhgajanyāyah), which addresses the manifold nature of truth. This parable is found in the most ancient Jain agams before 5th century BCE. Its popularity remained till late. For example, this parable is found in Tattvarthaslokavatika of Vidyanandi (9th century) and Syādvādamanjari of Ācārya Mallisena (13th century). Mallisena uses the parable to argue that immature people deny various aspects of truth; deluded by the aspects they do understand, they deny the aspects they don't understand. "Due to extreme delusion produced on account of a partial viewpoint, the immature deny one aspect and try to establish another. This is the maxim of the blind (men) and the elephant."[10]
Modern treatments
The story is seen as a metaphor in many disciplines, being pressed into service as an analogy in fields well beyond the traditional. In physics, it has been seen as an analogy for the wave–particle duality.[21] In biology, the way the blind men hold onto different parts of the elephant has been seen as a good analogy for the polyclonal B cell response.[22]
In the title cartoon of one of his books, cartoonist Sam Gross postulated that one of the blind men, encountering a pile of the elephant feces, concluded that "An elephant is soft and mushy."
An elephant joke inverts the story in the following way, with the act of observation severely and fatally altering the subject of investigation:
Six blind elephants were discussing what men were like. After arguing they decided to find one and determine what it was like by direct experience. The first blind elephant felt the man and declared, 'Men are flat.' After the other blind elephants felt the man, they agreed.
Moral:
We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.
— Werner Heisenberg[28]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
────────────────────────────────────
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
Seven blind men and an elephant parable at a Jain temple
The medieval era Jain texts explain the concepts of anekāntavāda (or "many-sidedness") and syādvāda ("conditioned viewpoints") with the parable of the blind men and an elephant (Andhgajanyāyah), which addresses the manifold nature of truth. This parable is found in the most ancient Jain agams before 5th century BCE. Its popularity remained till late. For example, this parable is found in Tattvarthaslokavatika of Vidyanandi (9th century) and Syādvādamanjari of Ācārya Mallisena (13th century). Mallisena uses the parable to argue that immature people deny various aspects of truth; deluded by the aspects they do understand, they deny the aspects they don't understand. "Due to extreme delusion produced on account of a partial viewpoint, the immature deny one aspect and try to establish another. This is the maxim of the blind (men) and the elephant."[10]
anekāntavāda (or "many-sidedness") and
syādvāda ("conditioned viewpoints")
anekāntavāda (or "many-sidedness") and
syādvāda ("conditioned viewpoints")
────────────────────────────────────
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada
Syādvāda is a theory of qualified predication, states Koller. It states that all knowledge claims must be qualified in many ways, because reality is many-sided.[4] It is done so systematically in later Jain texts through saptibhaṅgīnaya or "the theory of sevenfold scheme".[4] These saptibhaṅgī seem to have been first formulated in Jainism by the 5th or 6th century CE Svetambara scholar Mallavadin,[31] and they are:[30][32][33]
1. Affirmation: syād-asti—in some ways, it is,
2. Denial: syān-nāsti—in some ways, it is not,
3. Joint but successive affirmation and denial:
syād-asti-nāsti—
in some ways, it is, and it is not,
4. Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial:
syāt-asti-avaktavyaḥ—
in some ways, it is, and it is indescribable,
5. Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial:
syān-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—
in some ways, it is not, and it is indescribable,
6. Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial:
syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—
in some ways, it is, it is not, and it is indescribable,
7. Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial:
syād-avaktavyaḥ—
in some ways, it is indescribable.
────────────────────────────────────
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaina_seven-valued_logic
The Saptabhangivada, the seven predicate theory may be summarized as follows:[4]
The seven predicate theory consists in the use of seven claims about sentences, each preceded by "arguably" or "conditionally" (syat), concerning a single object and its particular properties, composed of assertions and denials, either simultaneously or successively, and without contradiction. These seven claims are the following.
1. Arguably, it (that is, some object) exists (syad asty eva).
2. Arguably, it does not exist (syan nasty eva).
3. Arguably, it exists; arguably, it doesn't exist (syad asty eva syan nasty eva).
4. Arguably, it is non-assertible (syad avaktavyam eva).
5. Arguably, it exists; arguably, it is non-assertible (syad asty eva syad avaktavyam eva).
6. Arguably, it doesn't exist; arguably, it is non-assertible (syan nasty eva syad avaktavyam eva).
7. Arguably, it exists; arguably, it doesn't exist; arguably it is non-assertible (syad asty eva syan nasty eva syad avaktavyam eva).
There are three basic truth values, namely, true (t), false (f) and unassertible (u).
────────────────────────────────────
Thich Nhat Hanh, The miracle of mindfulness : an introduction to the practice of meditation., translated by Mobi Ho, [1975, 1976]
p.46
five aggregates
1. bodily and physical forms
2. feelings
3. perceptions
4. mental functionings
5. consciousness
p.47
You are conscious of the presence of bodily form, feeling, perception, mental functionings, and consciousness. You observe these “objects” until you see that each of them has intimate connection with the world outside yourself: if the world did not exist then the assembly of the five aggregates could not exist either.
Consider the example of a table. The table's existence is possible due to the existence of things which might call “the non-table world”: the forest where the wood grew and was cut, the carpenter, the iron ore which became the nails and screws, and countless other things which have relation to the table, the parents and ancestors of the carpenters, the sun and rain which made it possible for the trees to grow.
If you grasp the table's reality then you see that in the table itself are present all those things which we normally think of as the non-table world. If you took away any of those non-table elements and returned them to their sources ── the nails back to the iron ore, the wood to the forest, the carpenter to his parents ── the table would no longer exist.
‘’•─“”
(The miracle of mindfulness./ Thích Nhāt Hanh., translation of Phép la cua su tinh thuc., isbn 978-0-8070-1239-0 (pbk.), 1. meditation (buddhism)
2. buddhist meditations., BQ5618.V5N4813 1987, 294.3'433, 87-42582,
copyright 1975, 1976 by Thích Nhāt Hanh.
preface and English translation copyright 1975, 1976, 1987 by Mobi Ho
afterword copyright 1976 by James Forest
artwork copyright by Vo-Dinh Mai, beacon press, boston, )
Consider the example of a[n elephant]. The [elephant]'s existence is possible due to the existence of things which might call “the non-[elephant] world”: the forest where the wood grew and was cut, the carpenter, the iron ore which became the nails and screws, and countless other things which have relation to the table, the parents and ancestors of the carpenters, the sun and rain which made it possible for the trees to grow.
If you grasp the [elephant]'s reality then you see that in the [elephant] itself are present all those things which we normally think of as the non-[human] world. If you took away any of those non-[elephant] elements and returned them to their sources ── the nails back to the iron ore, the wood to the forest, the carpenter to his parents ── the [elephant] would no longer exist.
‘’•─“”
────────────────────────────────────
────────────────────────────────────
C. West Churchman, The System Approach, 1968, 1979 [ ]
p.44
As we shall see, this problem of measuring the performance of a component gets to be a very tricky and difficult one as we go deeper into the design of large systems.
p.44
... If some other part of the system changes, say because of the technological improvement, then it may become essential to change the measure of performance of the given component.
p.44
... The management of a system has to deal with the generation of the plans for the system, i.e., consideration of all the things we have discussed, the overall goals, the environment, the utilization of resources, and the components. The management sets the component goals, allocates the resources, and controls the system performance.
This description of management, however, creates something of a paradox for the management scientist. After all, it is he who has been scheming and plotting with his models and analyses to determine the goals, environment, resources, and components.
p.45
The truth of the matter is that he doesn't want to. He is not a man of action, but a man of ideas. A man of action takes risks, and if he fails, not only does he get fired but his organization may be ruined; the man of action is willing to risk fortunes besides his own. The management scientist is typically a single risk-taker: if he fails, he doesn't have to bear the responsibility of the whole organization's failure.
Hence, we've found one chink in the scientist's armor: he doesn't really understand how he himself is a component of the system he observes. He likes to think that he can stand apart, like the elephant observer, and merely recommend, but not act. How naïve this must appear to the politician is hard to say, but certainly the politician's appreciation of the situation is the more sophisticated one. “Mere” recommendation is a fantasy; in the management scientist's own terminology, it is doubtful whether the study of a system is a separable mission.
p.45
... Indeed, many control procedure operate by exception, so that the management does not interfere with the operations of a component except when the component gives evidence of too great a deviation from plan. However, control does not only mean the examination of whether plans are being carried out correctly; it also implies an evaluation of the plans and consequently a change of plans.
pp.45-46
... As we shall see, one of the critical aspects of the management of systems is the planning for change of plans, because no one can claim to have set down the correct overall objectives, or a correct definition of the environment, or a fully precise definition of resources, or the ultimate definition of the components. Therefore, the management part of the system must receive information that tells it when its concept of the system is erroneous and must include steps that will provide for a change.
( THE SYSTEMS APPROACH, by C. West Churchman, 1968, 1979, A Delta Book, (paperback), Eighth Printing, SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY, DELL PUBLISHING CO., INC./PRINTED IN U.S.A., HD 20. 5 C47, )
────────────────────────────────────
page 53/307 (pdf)
The map is not the reality (Alfred Korzybski)
... human being do not react to reality, but build their own mental model of reality.
... ... ...
Accepting this scientific fact has fundamental consequences: the mental models of individuals who meet and try to exchange information never match - virtually never! But people have the ability to widen their mental models through and understanding of other people's.
page 58/307 (pdf)
It goes without saying that many generalisations result in incorrect/erroneous judgments. This is one of the major traps of thinking. We are ready to accept information given to us without crosschecking, if it fits into our mental model.
page 61/307 (pdf)
At the start of a consultantcy assignment, the client usually focuses on his problems, often having deficit orientated perceptions of this working environment (such as team problems, etc.). As a result, adaptive behavioural patterns aren't explored.
page 61/307 (pdf)
An analysis of group processes reveals that hypnotic patterns are self-generating and that on an unconscious level all actors contribute to the problem state: they hypnotize themselves.
source:
The change management toolbook : a collection of tools, methods and strategies, by Holger Nauheimer
https://www.nccmt.ca/uploads/media/media/0001/03/1a75f61d353397066eb0e83a0da69d2fd8ee2ef4.pdf
1a75f61d353397066eb0e83a0da69d2fd8ee2ef4.pdf
was save as : change management toolbook.pdf
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZQYEwIfE7lzwHwa7jngoOLYQdA5QwGt2/view?usp=sharing
____________________________________
https://todayilearnreadingroom.blogspot.com/2023/06/johari-window.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johari_window
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_unknown_unknowns
https://todayilearnreadingroom.blogspot.com/2023/06/johari-window.html ____________________________________
The Elephant in the Boardroom
Sometimes after the March meeting of the board of directors of Sylvan Forest Products, an elephant came out of the forest and moved into the boardroom. Nobody noticed, until the September meeting when the managing director couldn't open the door. “There's something in there,” said the managing director, “and it's blocking the door.”
Peering under the door, the comptroller saw the shadow of the elephant's feet. “It looks as if some trees have grown inside. Better send for the silviculturist.”
The silviculturist managed to splinter the find oak door partway open with his peavey, but the elephant leaned to one side and slammed it shut again. “I don't think it's trees,” said the silviculturist. “It's huge gray monster--more like a whale.”
The board then sent for a cetaceanologist, who advised them to flood the boardroom so that the whale coudl swim out. But as the room filled with water, the elephant simply blew it out with her trunk through the broken door. Seeing the trunk, the cetaceanologist said, “No wonder it doesn't swim out. It's not a whale at all, but a large snake.”
Next, the board summoned an ophiologist, who advised, “Toss in some burning oily rags. That will drive out any snake.” But the elephant simply stamped out the flames as fast as the burning rags could be thrown through the door. The board decided to call the janitor to clear the anteroom of splintered wood, muddy water, and oily, smoked furniture.
The janitor asked about the mess. After the managing director told the story, he reached in his pocket and pulled out some peanuts. When he held one through the door, the elephant--which was by this time mightily hungry--grabbed it with her trunk. “Come on, Little One,” the janitor coaxed, holding out the other peanuts, and in a moment, the elephant lumbered out the door. After feasting a while on peanuts, she shyly retreated to the forest.
“But how did you know it was an elephant?” the astonished comptroller asked.
“Oh, I didn't know. I only suspected because it was partly like a forest, partly like a whale, and partly like a snake. It was only a theory, so I figured it would be better to risk one of my peanuts than to cause further damage to your boardroom.”
Out of Your Depth
If you had an elephant in your boardroom, which specialist would you call? The toughest problems don't come in neatly labeled packages. Or they come in packages with the wrong labels. That's why they're so tough.
Three times out of four, consultants find themselves asked to work on problems that aren't their “speciality.” The consultant just looks like a specialist to a nonspecialist. But good consultant can handle many of those problems anyway, because in addition to being specialists, they are problem-solvers. If you dig into their bag of tricks, you'll find that their best ones have nothing whatsoever to do with their specialties, but can be used by consultants in any field.
(The secrets of consulting, Gerald M. Weinberg, © 1985, pp.37-38)
____________________________________
Byzantine fault
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault
Characteristics
A Byzantine fault is any fault presenting different symptoms to different observers.[4] A Byzantine failure is the loss of a system service due to a Byzantine fault in systems that require consensus.[5]
The objective of Byzantine fault tolerance is to be able to defend against failures of system components with or without symptoms that prevent other components of the system from reaching an agreement among themselves, where such an agreement is needed for the correct operation of the system.
The remaining operationally correct components of a Byzantine fault tolerant system will be able to continue providing the system's service as originally intended, assuming there are a sufficient number of accurately-operating components to maintain the service.
Byzantine failures are considered the most general and most difficult class of failures among the failure modes. The so-called fail-stop failure mode occupies the simplest end of the spectrum. Whereas fail-stop failure mode simply means that the only way to fail is a node crash, detected by other nodes, Byzantine failures imply no restrictions, which means that the failed node can generate arbitrary data, including data that makes it appear like a functioning node. Thus, Byzantine failures can confuse failure detection systems, which makes fault tolerance difficult. Despite the analogy, a Byzantine failure is not necessarily a security problem involving hostile human interference: it can arise purely from electrical or software faults.
Caveat
Byzantine fault tolerance is only concerned with broadcast consistency, that is, the property that when one component broadcasts a single consistent value to other components (i.e., sends the same value to the other components), they all receive exactly the same value, or in the case that the broadcaster is not consistent, the other components agree on a common value. This kind of fault tolerance does not encompass the correctness of the value itself; for example, an adversarial component that deliberately sends an incorrect value, but sends that same value consistently to all components, will not be caught in the Byzantine fault tolerance scheme.
If all generals attack in coordination, the battle is won (left). If two generals falsely declare that they intend to attack, but instead retreat, the battle is lost (right).
In its simplest form, a number of generals are attacking a fortress and they must decide as a group whether to attack or retreat. Some generals may prefer to attack, while others prefer to retreat. The important thing is that all generals agree on a common decision, for a half hearted attack by a few generals would become a rout, and would be worse than either a coordinated attack or a coordinated retreat.
The problem is complicated by the presence of treacherous generals who may not only cast a vote for a suboptimal strategy, they may do so selectively. For instance, if nine generals are voting, four of whom support attacking while four others are in favor of retreat, the ninth general may send a vote of retreat to those generals in favor of retreat, and a vote of attack to the rest. Those who received a retreat vote from the ninth general will retreat, while the rest will attack (which may not go well for the attackers). The problem is complicated further by the generals being physically separated and having to send their votes via messengers who may fail to deliver votes or may forge false votes.
____________________________________
page 122/307 (pdf)
Planning and project management
The reason I have included planning and project management (PM) in a Change Management Toolbook is because Change Management originates in the crisis that classical PM faces right now. Originally developed as a sub-discipline of engineering, PM assumes that if you design a concise plan and put the resources right in place, you will achieve your predefined objectives.
Reality has proven this is rarely the case. More than 50% of projects fail in the sense that they:
1. do not achieve their objectives., or
2. do not deliver the promised results, or
3. sacrifice the predefined quality, or
4. are not completely in the given time schedule, or
5. use more resources than originally planned.
(For a more detailed description of the reasons for project failure, go to Risk Analysis).
However, I still believe that the classical PM tools have their merits and can help for example, aiding a team in structuring their tasks. In my work I have found out that many project teams are open to Change Management intervention, particularly if they have already started their journey and experienced the first flaws. They start to ask, "Why don’t we achieve what we want to achieve?", and "What can we do differently?" That is a perfect entrance point for a Change Management facilitator. Depending on the project, and on the limitations the team experiences, any of the tools described in this Toolbook might be applicable. There are, however, some general considerations (and some very specific tools) that should be applied at the beginning of a planning process:
source:
The change management toolbook : a collection of tools, methods and strategies, by Holger Nauheimer
https://www.nccmt.ca/uploads/media/media/0001/03/1a75f61d353397066eb0e83a0da69d2fd8ee2ef4.pdf
1a75f61d353397066eb0e83a0da69d2fd8ee2ef4.pdf
was save as : change management toolbook.pdf
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZQYEwIfE7lzwHwa7jngoOLYQdA5QwGt2/view?usp=sharing
____________________________________
──────────────────────────
No comments:
Post a Comment