Podcasts about bertalanffy

Todays guest is Dr. Erica Thompson who wrote the excellent book "Escape from Model Land", which I strongly recommend for reading. Dr. Thompson is Associate Professor of Modelling for Decision Making at UCL's Department of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy. She is also a Fellow of the London Mathematical Laboratory, where she leads the research programme on Inference from Models, and a Visiting Senior Fellow at the LSE Data Science Institute. She is working on the appropriate application of mathematical modelling in supporting real-world decisions, including ethical and methodological questions. For instance, what is the best use of models in climate change, public health and economics.  Making and using models in the real world is — as it turns out — quite a tricky business and in our conversation we go deep into the question: what constitutes model land and how can we escape model land to achieve good results for our society from what we learned in model land. I covered similar topics in other podcast episodes, because this question can be tackled from a number of different perspectives.  The first question I ask Dr. Thompson is the obvious one: What is model land? “Nobody actually cares at all about what happens in your model. […] unless you make a claim that what happens within that model land has some relationship to what happens in the real world. So, how to transfer your judgement about the model to the judgement about the real world, is the key question?” What does Steven Wolfram mean with irreducibility of nature? Why do we have to treat different types of models differently? What is the difference between interpolation and extrapolation, and why is this crucially important? Many models of complex systems incorporate significant amounts of expert judgement, especially when models are extrapolating. How should we deal with such models? “All of these decisions about model construction imply value judgements about what we think to be important.” Value judgements per se are not the problem — but are they shared by the people affected by the model? How did you get to those judegements? Are the transparent enough? Do the decision makers know and agree with these judgements? Under what conditions can we assess the reliability of a model? In which category do models that are discussed in public fall, for instance climate models? What are the butterfly and hawkmoth effect? What is the difference between data driven vs. “expert driven” models and what role does data quality play in practice? Most models also are partial models. What is incorporated in a model? What is left out? What conclusions are we allowed to draw from complex models? Do they highly successful data driven models distort our expections in the more assumption driven ones? “The model is then very much part of the story. It is not just a prediction engine.” There are models that influence the world and the world feeds back opposed to models that “just” describe the world, and performative models that actually create the reality they describe and counter-performative models. Why is it important to distinguish among these different types?  “Those [counter-performative models] were not made with the aim to be accurate models and correctly predicting the future. They were made with the aim of showing what could happen if we didn't action which would then avoid these worst case scenarios.” What is the difference between a (conditional or unconditional) prediction and a scenario? Models are tools and cannot replace judgement. But did we use these tools accordingly? Or did models in the recent past (e.g. Covid) inflict more harm than good on our society? “This is exactly what models are for—to serve as working hypotheses for further research.”, Ludwig von Bertalanffy and “Build a society that is resistant to model errors”, Nassim Taleb Is this true? Models as narrative generating devices and communication tools and collective thinking — do we want that? Under what conditions — like flatten the curve? And, how to avoid group think and be captured by models? “Plans are worthless but planning is everything”, Dwight D. Eisenhower “Kein Plan überlebt die erste Feindberührung”, Helmuth Graf von Moltke So, there is a significant amount of expert judgement in building models, but do people know that and which expert do we trust? “Trust is a social process and expertise is socially determined. […] You must follow the science is saying you must agree with my value judgements.[…] A decision can never be science based.” Thus, science is never value free. Finally we talk about regulation in complex systems and how those relate to models, the long and short term perspectives and what skin in the game means. Is Niall Ferguson right when he says:  “Surely, once we have written a regulation for every possible misdeed, then good behaviour will ensue. This is just an amazing illustration of our ability as  human beeings to keep doing the wrong thing in the face of all experience. […] the big players are actually protected by complex regulation. […]  Regulation is the disease of which it pretends to be the cure.” Then, how should we regulate complex systems? Should every politician be a scientist in the Platonic sense? »Ultimately the definition of an expert is somebody who's judegements you are willing to accept as your own.« References Other Episodes Episode 68: Modelle und Realität, ein Gespräch mit Dr. Andreas Windisch Episode 67: Wissenschaft, Hype und Realität — ein Gespräch mit Stephan Schleim Episode 53: Data Science und Machine Learning, Hype und Realität — Teil 1 Episode 54: Data Science und Machine Learning, Hype und Realität — Teil 2 Episode 39: Follow the Science? Episode 37: Probleme und Lösungen Episode 2: Was wissen wir? Dr. Erica Thompson Personal Website of Dr. Thompson UCL's Department of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy London Mathematical Laboratory LSE Data Science Institute Other References Erica Thompson, Escape from Model Land, Basic Books (2022) Lex Fridman #376 in conversation with Steven Wolfram (2023) Ludwig von Bertalanffy, General Systems Theory (1969) Cathy O'Neil, Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy, Penguin (2017) Niall Ferguson on Regulation in conversation with John Anderson (2023)

Often, risk and reward collide. Corporate giants and high-stakes gamblers unknowingly walk parallel paths. Their worlds may seem separate to outsiders, although fate has a way of intertwining their destinies. Both are driven by ambition, chasing triumph. But as their desires for success grow, a hidden truth begins to reveal itself. LLMs, like the roll of Snake Eyes in a dice game, hold the power to shape kismet and shatter dreams. The line between success and ruin is as fragile as the edge of a dice. As corporate entities collide with the ultimate risktakers, a new game emerges.Allen Woods served as a soldier in the British Army, primarily with Infantry battalions. Afterwards, he made a pivotal decision to enter into the world of computing. He devoted himself to studies, and eventually reached the esteemed level of a degree . He is a Charter member of the British Computer Society, and has extensive experience in building information management frameworks. He stops by BarCode to share his incredible journey of transformation, risk, and lifelong pursuit of knowledge. We focus on software development, Cybernetics, LLMs and fragility within data relationships.TIMESTAMPS:0:06:12 - Military IT Career and Knowledge Sharing0:12:43 - The Value of Connecting Databases0:17:45 - Incorporating Cybernetics in Software Development0:21:02 - Technological Economy's Low Equilibrium State0:27:01 - Importance of Due Diligence0:32:03 - Exploiting Relationships in Network Science0:38:59 - The UK Post Office's Horizon System0:42:47 - Limits of Probability Testing in AI0:48:28 - LLMs in Small BusinessesSYMLINKSLinkedInBritish Computer SocietyLudwig von Bertalanffy's “General Systemology”"Autopoiesis and Congition: The Realization of the Living"  by Humberto Maturana"Brain of the Firm" by Stafford Beer "The Heart of Enterprise" by Stafford Beer"Living Systems" by James Greer Miller Stephen Wolfram WritingsCommon Crawl DatasetProject GutenbergNetwork Science by BarabásiUK Post Office Horizon Case"The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" by Shoshana ZuboffDRINK INSTRUCTIONTHE LAST MECHANICAL ART3/4 Oz Mezcal3/4 Oz Cynar3/4 Oz Sweet Vermouth3/4 Oz CampariStir all ingredients in an ice-filled mixing glass and strain into a chilled coupe.  Optionally garnish with an Orange twist.INTERVIEWERSChris GlandenRohan LightMike ElkinsEPISODE SPONSORTUXCARECONNECT WITH USBecome a SponsorSupport us on PatreonFollow us on LinkedInTweet us at @BarCodeSecurityEmail us at info@barcodesecurity.com

In this episode of I Thought You'd Like to Know, Dr. Robert Nicastro of Villanova University interviews Fr. Joe Bracken on his book Reciprocal Causality in an Event-Filled World (Dec 14, 2022)Given the current sense of helplessness in dealing with environmental change and other urgent issues, a new world view is needed that emphasizes the unique contribution that individual citizens can make to the common good as opposed to their individual needs and desires. In a recent encyclical on the environment, Pope Francis set forth reasons from Scripture and Church teaching for this shift in perspective, but he did not provide a philosophically based foundation for this change of heart. To fill that gap, Joseph Bracken examines key writings of process-oriented philosophers like Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead along with systems-oriented thinkers like Ludwig von Bertalanffy and Ervin Laszlo to create a systems-oriented understanding of the God-world relation.https://www.amazon.com/Reciprocal-Causality-Event-Filled-Joseph-Bracken/dp/1978709781About the InterviewerRobert Nicastro's research interests straddle many disciplines, namely, evolutionary theology, quantum physics, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, and the philosophical trends of post- and trans-humanism. Given the new science of relational holism, his work specifically explores the notion of divine emergence through the progressive integration of consciousness. Robert taught for two years as an adjunct lecturer at Gannon University in Erie, Pennsylvania. He presently lectures at the Center for Christogenesis, run by Ilia Delio, O.S.F., Ph.D., which is an online organization that seeks to deepen Teilhard de Chardin's unique integration of science and spirituality to realize new possibilities of religion and evolving life for the twenty-first century.

This episode I chatted with Jan Noga about systemic design thinking. There's a wealth of resources and information provided below! Contact information: Jan Noga Jan.Noga@pathfinderevaluation.com www.pathfinderevaluation.com About Jan Noga: Jan Noga is an independent evaluation consultant based in Cincinnati, Ohio. She holds a bachelor's degree from Stanford in developmental and counseling psychology with specialization in early and middle childhood and a master's degree from the University of Cincinnati in instructional design and technology. Jan has worked in the non-profit and public sectors in human services and education for more than 30 years in roles spanning teaching, research, policy, and program planning and evaluation. As a program evaluator, Jan has planned and conducted both large and small-scale evaluations and provided organizational consulting and capacity building support to clients. She has also taught courses and workshops on such topics as systems thinking, systemic design thinking, research methods and techniques, program planning and development, and survey design and analysis. Jan has been a member of AEA since 2000 and was one of the founding members of the Systems in Evaluation TIG, serving as program chair and then TIG chair from 2004-2012. She is particularly interested in the use of systems approaches as a foundation for design, planning, implementation, and evaluation of change efforts in the human service and education arenas. Systems Thinking Resources for Evaluators: Hands on resources: * Williams, Bob. 2020. Systemic evaluation design: A workbook. Available for download from https://bobwilliams.gumroad.com/ * Williams, Bob. 2021. Systems diagrams: A practical guide. Available for download from https://bobwilliams.gumroad.com/ Good for starting out * Anderson, V. & Johnson, L. (1997). Systems thinking basics: From concepts to causal loops. Waltham, MA: Pegasus Communications. * Meadows, D.H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing. * Ramage, M. & Shipp, K (2009). Systems Thinkers. New York: Springer. * Sweeney, L.B. & Meadows, D. (2010). The systems thinking playbook. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing. * Williams, B. & Hummelbrunner, R. (2011). Systems concepts in action: A practitioner's toolkit. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. * Williams, B. and Imam, I, eds. (2007). Systems concepts in evaluation: An expert anthology. Point Reyes, CA: EdgePress. * Williams, B. and Van't Hoft, S (2016). Wicked solutions: A systems approach to complex problems. Available at http://bit.ly/1SVoOH3 Good for more advanced reading: * Bamberger, M, Vaessen, J., & Raimondo, E. (eds.) (2016) Dealing with complexity in development evaluation: A practical approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. * Cabrera, D., Colosi, L., & Lobdell, C. (2008) Systems thinking. Evaluation and Program Planning, 31(3), 299-310. * Cabrera, D. & Cabrera, L (2015). Systems thinking made simple: New hope for solving wicked problems. Odyssean Publishing. * Capra, F & Luisi, PL (2016). The systems view of life: A unifying vision (6th printing). New York: Cambridge University Press. * Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Cunliff, E., (2002) Connecting systems thinking to action, The Systems Thinker, 15(2), 6-7. * Eoyang, G.H. & Holladay, R.J. (2013) Adaptive action: Leveraging uncertainty in your organization. Stanford: Stanford Business Books. * Karach, R, (1997) How to see structure, The Systems Thinker, 8(4), 6-7. * Patton M.Q. (2010). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York: Guilford Press. * Patton, M.Q., McKegg, K., & Wehipeihana, N., eds. (2015). Developmental evaluation exemplars: Principles in practice. New York: Guilford Press. * Senge, P. (1990) The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. * Stroh, DP (2015). Systems thinking for social change. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing. * Ulrich, W & Reynolds, M (2010). Critical systems heuristics. In: Reynolds, Martin and Holwell, Sue eds. Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide. London: Springer, pp. 243–292. * von Bertalanffy, Ludwig. (1950). The theory of open systems in physics and biology. Science, * 13, 23-29. * von Bertalanffy, Ludwig. (1968). General systems theory. New York: George Braziller, Inc. * Wolf-Branigin, M. (2013) Using complexity theory for research and evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Some other resources: * International Society for Systems Sciences * https://aea365.org/blog/systemic-design-thinking-for-evaluation-of-social-innovations-a-pd-for-intermediate-and-advanced-evaluators-by-jan-noga/ * http://www.epreconsulting.com/SETIG%202018%20Principles.pdf * https://systemic-design.org/ * https://modus.medium.com/what-the-is-systems-design-e005c1e9fef8 * https://rsdsymposium.org/ * Martin Reynolds Open University Music by Matt Ingelson, http://www.mattingelsonmusic.com/

In our 47th Deming Lens episode, host Tripp Babbitt shares his interpretation of wide-ranging aspects and implications of Dr. Deming's System of Profound Knowledge. This month he looks at the interaction of the parts of Dr. Deming's System of Profound Knowledge (SoPK). Show Notes [00:00:15] The Deming Lens - Episode 47 - SoPK: The Interaction of the Parts [00:02:29] Dr. Deming's US Prescription [00:04:08] My Journey through SoPK [00:05:58] Dr. Deming's SoPK and Learning [00:09:09] The Quotes of Dr. Deming [00:11:33] Developing Methods to Advance Knowledge on SoPK     Transcript [00:00:15] In the 47th episode of The Demming Lens, we'll discuss the system of profound knowledge and the interaction of the parts of it. Hi, I'm Tripp Babbitt, host of the Demming Institute podcast, and this month I wanted to talk about a lot of things that I've experienced over the years with regards to Dr. Deming and the Demming community and misconceptions about Demming and things of that sort. So I wanted to focus on what I'm calling the system of profound knowledge, interaction of the parts. And for those of you that may not be familiar with Dr. Deming's philosophy or this maybe is the first podcast episode you've listened to, System of Profound Knowledge is basically Dr. Deming's last thoughts. If I if I I'm going to put it in my words about. His work and he left us this philosophy, it's made up of appreciation for a system, knowledge about variation, theory of knowledge and psychology. And, you know, we get a lot of things on the social media channels about what Dr. Deming said. Some are right, some are wrong. But regardless, I thought maybe I'd start with my kind of my own personal history and then kind of have a conversation about what Dr. Deming said with regards to the system of profound knowledge. So for me, when I first came across Dr. Deming's work in the mid 80s and attended one of his four day seminars, actually multiple times I went through this phase, I'm going to call the prescription phase.   [00:02:29] And I think that that was from what I've read, I've gone to the Library of Congress and looked at Dr. Deming's notes. A lot of his focus was on being prescriptive to especially U.S. managers and executives. And that's what you got. And Out of the Crisis, his 14 points to transform the Western style of management, that was that was really the aim of out of the crisis. And matter of fact, it started at the beginning of the book. So there was this prescriptive thing, but it really went against a lot of the cultural norms here in the states. And that was one of the things that many in the Demming community were fighting for, was things. When you talk in terms of. Rewards and performance appraisals, that became kind of what we do Deming, but we don't do that. So I'm sure many in the community can can relate unless you are someone who owned their own company and were able to implement these things, which isn't many people, but. I as I went through and started getting deeper and deeper into Dr. Deming's work, talking with other people in the community, one thing that became very evident to me early on was even though I had been exposed to understanding variation because I sold Mitutoyo equipment to manufacturers, I didn't really understand it.   [00:04:08] And so I spent a lot of time in the 1990s getting deeper. I went I went to multiple seminars, weeklong seminars with Dr. Don Wheeler. I worked with Dr. Ward, a gentleman by the name of Tim Baer, a statistician, and they got me to a point where I felt comfortable enough in my knowledge or at least where to go to get help around variation. And so much as much of my life was the 1992 was spent getting deeper into that. Now, as I started to enter 2000 and going to say, 2012, a lot of my focus was on systems because then, you know, common cause variation things between the limits. It's down to the system that you work. And if you're going to change the system, things of that sort got deeper and deeper into different works of not only Bertalanffy, Peter Senge, Russell Ackoff, folks like that. And since 2009 to say 2012 to even present, most of my focus has been on getting deeper knowledge in psychology. And along with that, neuroscience has really been able to give me a deeper knowledge of psychology and how the brain works in neuroscience and then the theory of knowledge. Those have been more recent where I'm going deeper into it. But each time I've gone through this, I'm also thinking in terms of the other components of the System of Profound Knowledge.   [00:05:58] In other words, I didn't just scrap variation in descript systems. I just learned more about the other parts, as Dr. Deming would call them, parts of the system. And one of the things that you learn pretty quickly, and in fact, it's what Dr. Deming said in the new economics when he was was talking in terms of the system of profound knowledge, again, as a philosophy, was that not one is more important than the other. And so a lot of this comes out of the new economics. And when you look at the system of profound knowledge in the chapters associated with it and the new economics, which is the last book that Dr. Deming wrote, is its stated purpose was to start the reader on the road to knowledge, and that you don't need to be eminent in any part to use the system of profound knowledge, meaning you don't have to be an expert in variation. You don't have to be an expert in systems. You have to do is take all four pieces and look at it. Now, I think it is left to you on your own to get deeper into these types of things, as you know I did over the years or continue to do. And so, you know, it's it's one of those things that, you know, it's a personal responsibility for you to go deeper into.The other segments.   [00:07:41] Now stated in the new economics is that Dr. Deming wrote that various segments of the system are profound. Knowledge proposed here cannot be separated. They interact with each other. Thus, knowledge of psychology is incomplete without knowledge of variation and so on and so forth. It's the interaction of the parts of the system, profound knowledge that make, from my perspective, make it work. And insights gives you insights to improve, not one part is greater than the other. Now, you may have expertize in one part, but your gains will come, let's say, whether it's psychology, fine. But if you understood variation, it's going to give you new insights into how to use psychology. And I'm going to put neuroscience because I think it's there. There's so much learning there going on. So it's and theory of knowledge and systems and all of those types of things will really help advance to advance what your thinking is. And this is the power to me of the system, a profound knowledge.   [00:09:09] Now, like everybody else that listens to Dr. Deming, you cannot go a day without someone quoting on social media, something attributed to Dr. Deming. Now, I'd say probably, you know, 90 percent of them are actual quotes, quotes that Dr.Deming said usually associated with data. And the other 10 percent are wrong quotes. But regardless, it generates curiosity. And I think that as opposed to continuing arguments over, you know, what Deming said, that what we should do is devolve into conversations of the system of profound knowledge and all. Of its parts. So the appreciation for a system, the theory, you know, knowledge about variation theory, theory of knowledge and psychology, that those are all ways to to generate conversations with people on the Internet to help them along. OK, well, you like this thing on data, regardless of whether it was the right quote or not, I think matters little in that somebody thinks that what they said was good and you just start it. They're used to correct people on that. I've kind of gotten away from that. But focus on one, focusing on just the one part missing the power of what system of profound knowledge is. And I think those are better conversations to have. And I'm starting to have these conversations with executives around all of the components. But they have to it's one of those things that the system, profound knowledge is something that is best eaten in small bites. I mean, it's it's very broad and especially I think applying these things to the organization lacks a lot of method. And it's been a real focus of what I've been concentrating on is trying to give method as imperfect as it is.   [00:11:33] How do we develop methods to help people through advancing their knowledge and achieving really what the new economics was trying to do is start the reader on the road to knowledge and how we can get there. Now, there's probably a better way than the way I'm going about it. I haven't seen one yet, but there are certainly having a method and kind of going through a process of learning. Using your own organization is a very powerful I've found. So regardless, I just wanted to get out that the system, profound knowledge, the interaction of the parts is what's the power here? I know there's people with expert that are experts in variation and I know people that are experts in psychology and know that their people are experts in systems. And some of the things I say sometimes I'm sure make them cringe. But I've they've shown me different ways to look at an organization that helps that organization improve. And the using that power of the interaction of the parts of the system are profound. Knowledge is something I believe can help everyone and every organization and every individual. Hi, this is Tripp Babbitt, one way that you can help the Deming Institute in this podcast is by providing a reading on Apple podcast.

En quête d'une réponse, un espace de réflexion est né avec des personnes issues de différentes entreprises et de divers contextes sociaux. Ce rapport est constitué des questions et des réflexions à ces questions ainsi que du résumé des interviews. Notre attitude face à une normalité détruite est illustrée par l'art céramique séculaire « Kintsugi ». La rupture est un moment de notre vie, la réparation avec la couleur dorée montre la manière dont nous surmontons cet événement. You can add up the parts You won't have the sum Forget your perfect offering There is a crack in everything That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen Pourquoi l’avons-nous lancé ? Trouverons-nous un moyen de faire les choses différemment à l'avenir ? Comment rompre avec les traditions, les schémas ancrés ? Comment expérimenter sans être dépassé par la résistance ? Comment préserver son humanité en testant les limites ? Ces questions sont notre motivation à échanger régulièrement avec des personnes qui nous inspirent. Nous sommes conscients que notre sélection n'est ni représentative ni complète. La diversité est nécessaire, car elle nous ouvre les yeux sur des solutions nouvelles et inattendues. Nous avons rapidement pris conscience que nous devions poser ces questions sur une plus longue période, peut-être davantage sous forme de dialogue que d’interview. Revenons à Leonard Cohen, qui nous interpelle : Forget your perfect offering There is a crack in everything Nous voulons suivre la lumière qui pénètre les fissures et les crevasses sans prétendre avoir une réponse définitive et ni proposer une « réparation ». Les médias regorgent de réponses, d'analyses, de chiffres et de statistiques. Cela ne correspond cependant pas à l'ensemble de la réalité. Naissance d’un espace de réflexion La série d’interviews a été initialement conçue dans l'idée de découvrir ce que les gens perçoivent et vivent dans leurs organisations, entreprises et institutions. Comment la crise se reflète-t-elle dans leurs manières de fonctionner ? Comment vivent-ils les changements et mesures soudaines, dont l'ampleur était encore inimaginable il y a peu de temps ? Dans quelle mesure les interdépendances entre culture, personnalité, objectifs, structure et processus sont-elles visibles ? Au cours des interviews, il s’est révélé que les questions offraient un espace de réflexion à certains des interlocuteurs, un espace dans lequel ils pouvaient laisser court à leurs pensées et réfléchir sur la situation en dehors de leur organisation et réfléchir sur ce qu'ils ont observé en eux-mêmes, dans leurs employés, leurs partenaires commerciaux, leurs clients et dans leur environnement personnel. Chapitre 1 Réflexion sur nous-mêmes Notre individualité vécue n'est-elle qu'une illusion ? Selon le Prof. Dr. Dirk Matten, professeur de Corporate Social Responsibility (Toronto, Université de York), nous ressentons et prenons à nouveau conscience du fait que nous dépendons les uns des autres et que malgré la distance sociale, nous sommes connectés et responsables les uns des autres. Et que nous ne pouvons pas y échapper. En quoi cette connexion est-elle constructive, permet-elle le renouveau et la croissance ? Ou est-elle destructrice, mortelle, menaçante et pathogène ? Est-ce qu’elle crée pour les uns un gain et pour les autres une perte ? L'interdépendance mutuelle et l’importance du contexte des phénomènes sont connues et discutées depuis longtemps dans la théorie générale des systèmes (von Bertalanffy). La nature rend parfois ces phénomènes clairement visibles, mais ils restent la plupart du temps invisibles. Ce qui est nouveau dans cette crise, c'est qu'elle touche le monde entier. Le lien entre la biologie, la santé et l'économie, l'éducation, la culture, les systèmes politiques, l'art, la nutrition et bien d'autres encore devient désormais évident. Il n'y a ni région ni domaine dans lequel on puisse ignorer la pandémie. Nous ne pouvons donc plus agir indépendamment les uns des autres. Cette illusion est terminée. Le monde est désillusionné. Dans cette crise, ne sommes-nous pas rejetés sur nous-mêmes en tant qu'individus ? Qui suis-je et qui veux-je être ? Comment façonner ma vie ? Dans quelle mesure puis-je choisir librement ? Ces questions sont adressées dans la même mesure aux organisations et aux entreprises : Qui sommes-nous et que voulons-nous être ? Quel est notre but, à quoi servons-nous ? Guérir des gens, réduire la maladie ? Donner une vie agréable ? Maximiser nos profits ? Et aussi aux institutions religieuses et politiques : Quelle est notre raison d’être ? Les gens ont-ils (encore) besoin de nous ? Si oui, dans quelle mesure ? Il est temps de réfléchir ensemble. Parfois dans nos rôles, mais surtout en tant qu'êtres humains. Réfléchir ensemble pour déterminer quelles sont les institutions dont nous avons besoin, quel est leur rôle. Et quel est le nôtre.

Neste episódio a aluna Gabriela D'Andrea conversa com Priscila Sena, doutora em ciência da informação pela UFSC, sobre startups e a ciência da informação. Dicas da convidada: FONSECA,Flavia de Souza Magalhães. Uso de fontes de informação por gestores de startups. 2017. Dissertação (Mestrado em Ciência da Informação) - Escola de Ciência da Informação, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, 2017. Disponível em: http://hdl.handle.net/1843/BUBD-AXWKTF . SENA, Priscila Machado Borges; BLATTMANN, Ursula; TEIXEIRA, Clarissa Stephani. Ecossistemas de Startups em Florianópolis: possibilidades para profissionais da biblioteconomia. Revista Brasileira de Biblioteconomia e Documentação. São Paulo, v. 13, n. esp. CBBD 2017, p. 2571-2588, 2017. Disponível em: https://rbbd.febab.org.br/rbbd/article/view/864 . - A Startup Enxuta - Eric Ries https://g.co/kgs/GSkhD6 - Guia de fontes de informação para startups http://www.livrosabertos.sibi.usp.br/portaldelivrosUSP/catalog/book/385 - VIA estação conhecimento https://via.ufsc.br/ - Associação Brasileira de startups https://abstartups.com.br/ - StartupRS http://startups.sebraers.com.br/ - ACE Startups https://acestartups.com.br/startups/ - Piratas do vale do silício https://g.co/kgs/oWMtWm - Teoria geral dos sistemas - Ludwig von Bertalanffy https://g.co/kgs/LZG3F6 - A organização do conhecimento - Chun Wei Choo https://books.google.com.br/books/about/A_organiza%C3%A7%C3%A3o_do_conhecimento.html?id=XNx6N55Qb9UC&redir_esc=y - ISO 37.120 http://www.abnt.org.br/noticias/5103-desenvolvimento-sustentavel-de-comunidades

In our 32nd "Deming Lens" episode, host Tripp Babbitt shares his interpretation of wide-ranging aspects and implications of Dr. Deming's theory of management. This week he looks at Dr. Deming and some of the thoughts and people involved in "appreciation for a system." Show Notes [00:00:14] Deming Institute Podcast - Deming Lens Episode #32 [00:01:30] History of Systems Thinking - General System Theory [00:06:23] Systems Thinking - Organizational Structure [00:12:05] Analytical vs. Synthetic Thinking - The Parts vs the Whole [00:14:17] The Aim and Systems Thinking     Transcript Tripp: [00:00:14] This is Deming Lens Episode 32 in this episode, we'll be talking about systems thinking some of the history and people involved in it and then some of the applications of it.   Tripp: [00:00:28] Hi, I'm Tripp Babbitt Host of the  Deming lens and in this episode I want to talk about systems thinking I have over the years read many books on the subject and it is the first of Dr Demings for components that make up his system, a profound knowledge which he talks about appreciation for a system. And I will start with a little bit of history. We'll talk a little bit about organizational structure from a systems thinking standpoint. We'll talk about how our minds are made up of analytical thinking. We'll talk also about Russell Ackoff as an architect. I think it's a great example that he would use. And then the last thing is I want to talk about systems thinking in terms of the aim of an organization.   Tripp: [00:01:30] So let's start with a little bit of history, which is the first of the five pieces of this and the people involved in it. And the original as far as I'm aware, the original thought around general systems thinking came from Ludwig von Bertalanffy Bertalanffy. He wrote a book actually called General Systems Theory. It's an interesting read. I do find it very interesting also that the concept of systems and general systems theory comes from his work in biology. So there was a lot of times I've talked to people over the years and they don't think science should mix with business and organizations and and things of that sort. But I disagree with that from the standpoint of we've learned a lot from science and it does shed light on the way that organizations are put together and how they interact. And as new theories develop, I'm sure that the advancement may come from science. So Bertalanffy may have actually done a seminar or presented a paper that W. Edwards Deming was in attendance.   Tripp: [00:02:54] Now, I have not been able to verify that someone had written that it was actually a professor and I reached out to him and he was not able to find his original notes on the crossover between Bertalanffy and Deming. But I would say since Dr. Deming was knowledgeable about systems thinking that there's a good possibility since the paper that he released was in or had been working on was in the late 1940s, and then he put it in the 50s. So he was presenting a paper, is most likely presenting it before it was put into a book format.   Tripp: [00:03:37] So Bertalanffy is one of those people that really started this this whole movement, at least as I said, as best as I could find. I don't know that you get a lot if you're working on an organization from Bertalanffy, but I will put links out so that you can get a hold of his book. Another person that I read her book was Donella Meadow's, which is Thinking and Systems, and I think it's a good general overview of systems thinking.   Tripp: [00:04:13] And then there is also Russell Ackoff and Peter singing and Russell a cough is probably makes up most of my thinking around systems thinking other than what Dr. Deming wrote as part of a system of profound knowledge. Now, I remember Dr. Deming basically said you don't have to be an expert in each one of the areas of his system or profound knowledge. So systems, thinking, variation, theory, variation, theory, knowledge and psychology. Or knowledge about variation and and psychology. But if you wanted to get deeper, which I enjoy doing, I like to go back. I liked understand the history. I like to understand how things moved over a period of years with regards to the thinking and how is it advancing what we're doing. But Russell Ackoff to me wrote in in a language that I could understand better. Peter Senge wrote some good stuff. And I know people that really get a lot out of his readings. I just didn't get what I needed from Peter Senge. Now, Russell Ackoff wrote a number of books. There's some things I agree with him on. There's some things I disagree with him on. One would be idealized redesign. I think that that systems are not scoped out and then you build to it because I think by the time you build it, it's it needs to be improved. So there has to be this component of almost a dynamic system that's constantly renewing itself as opposed to constantly building models that you have to build to.   Tripp: [00:05:54] But that could be a whole another Deming lens and maybe at some point in the future. So anyway, those are the players that there are many others that are out there have written in. And I apologize. I haven't read everyone's work, but I've read others works. But those people stand out in my mind as probably the most influential. From where I sit on the subject as systems thinking.   Tripp: [00:06:23] Now. The what's what's kind of go with the second part about organizational structure and let's think in terms of some of things I've talked about in the past, which is Frederick Taylor and Taylor ism and talk in terms of how we've built most of our organizations and for all of our technological advancements.   Tripp: [00:06:50] Most organizations are all designed in the same way. We've separated out the pieces that make up an organization like sales and operations and counting and things of that sort. But it's from one perspective, it is all one system that has to work together in order to achieve its optimal ability to work as a system.   Tripp: [00:07:21] So Taylor separated the parts he was working on and thinking in terms of optimizing each of the parts of an of an organization, and this kind of takes me back to something that Ackoff said, which is a system taken apart, loses its essential properties. So it's this whole thinking of if we add up the pieces, if we break them apart and we add them up, then we will get what the system is capable of doing. And we also know from Russell AcKoff, the system is greater than the sum of its parts. There's the interaction of them. And there's actually a good song out there. I was presented by someone who I thought was a systems thinker. It turned out later that they really weren't. But it was a good song, which is Johnny Cash had has a song about building a Cadillac and it called One Piece at a Time.   Tripp: [00:08:31] So taking each of the best parts of a Cadillac from year to year and building the Cadillac from apart from, you know, 1959, 1960 and so forth and trying to build a car from that, I actually put a link in to Johnny Cash's song One Piece at a time, because it's a great representation of the way that we've kind of built organizations in the way that we think about things and in our analytical thinking, which is this is a great Segway into the third part I wanted to talk about, which is systems thinking versus this analytical thinking that we break down things into pieces and it's a natural thing. It's innate. As children, we take things apart, you know, and that's just kind of the way it's built in to a human is breaking those things apart.   Tripp: [00:09:33] The product of analysis is how things work. Not why they work the way that they do. So one of the things I do as I was watching some old Russell Ackoff videos I found was, you know, why was does a car have the engine in the front instead of someplace else in the car? Well, if you break it down a car and you break it out in the different pieces, the door, the engine, and and so it's not gonna tell you why the engine is is in front. What what you have to know or what you have to think in terms of is the system is that the car was originally called a horseless carriage. And so where were horses? Horses were in front.   Tripp: [00:10:20] So we have to be able to take that and understand that that analysis takes you inside the system. But an explanation takes you. Outside the system.   Tripp: [00:10:38] Now, what are the things I didn't know that I find very interesting was that apparently Russell, Ackoff, was an architect, and he said that architects are naturally systems thinkers. Which I thought was was interesting. And he gives us the example of that,  an architect drawls the house first or the building first, the whole. Then he adds the barrooms and the parts and things of that sort. And they go off of an architect would build off a systems principle of it, basically only improve a room in a way that improves the house.   Tripp: [00:11:17] So the house has to be better by virtue of improving a room. But if it takes away from the whole which is the house, then it's something you wouldn't do. In a matter of fact He makes the comment that if he can make a room worse and make the house better, that he would do it as an architect and that the objective was to build the best house, not the best rooms. And actually in this video, he gave a good example. Somebody who had to run up and down the stairs a lot in order to get to the kitchen and take things back upstairs and so forth. And they said, hey, I need a dumbwaiter so that, you know, you put the food in, I can get it up to the second floor without having to run back and forth down the stairs each time.   Tripp: [00:12:05] And with the understanding that that would take away room from the kitchen, making the kitchen worse. But for that system, it made it overall better. And I think these are some of the concepts that most organizations are still missing today is that we're not taking a good look at. These kind of counterintuitive, the counter intuitive nature of some of the things that you find in systems in order to make a hole better. Now, Russell, Ackoff talks in terms of, you know it with analysis that you're taking things apart. You explain the behavior of the part and then you try and aggregate, aggregate and understanding the parts to aggregate understanding of the whole. And this gets in to that. A system is greater than the sum of its parts and analysis does not get us there. What he's presenting instead is synthetic thinking is what is this system a part of? So, you know, one of some of Demings favorite favorite quotes were about buggy whips and carburetors and things of that sort. And in order to be able to look at what what system are you and what broader system are you in, your cars are not in the automobile business. They're in the transportation business. So there are things that can threaten, you know, maybe even drones nowadays that can threaten the way that people transport themselves from one location to another. So the synthetic thinking is what is this this system a part of? Explain that behavior. The second step is explaining the behavior, the containing whole. And then it is disaggregating the understanding of the containing whole. By identifying the role or function of what you're trying to explain in the whole.   Tripp: [00:14:17] So those are two different actually two different ways of thinking for between being an analytical thinker and a synthetic thinker. And the approach that you take on things. Now, this is a good Segue into this last last piece I wanted to talk about, which has to do with Aim. And this is one of the reasons that in what I'm building and what I believe needs to happen in order to understand Dr. Demings system, a profound knowledge is that, first of all, that it is a philosophy and it doesn't give you a step by step. And as I mentioned in the last Heming lens, it's very difficult to grasp some of the things in the Deming philosophy because they are very counterintuitive to belief systems. Two things that are going on in organizations to what you're being taught in your MBA program. I can tell you everything I learned in my MBA program, I had to unwind in my head once I started reading Dr. Demings works and applying some of thinking that's that's in it. So in order to do that, we have to become critical thinkers.   Tripp: [00:15:30] So part of what I'm building in separate activity that I'm doing away from the Deming Institute is how do we look at our organization and look at it as a system and taking you through. And to me, that's a primary step, is being able to look at our organization as a system. And first of all, conclude that at least over 50 percent of the performance you're and organization, whether it's fifty point one percent or 60 percent or whatever it is, comes from the system and not an individual or outside types of of things that are going on within an organization that it's this interaction of the parts that Dr. Deming talked about, the Russell a cough talked about to degree Bertalan he talked about and certainly Donella Meadow's and Peter Senge talk about AI in their teaching. So I don't know how you can write a name, which is the second part of the system that I'm building. And to you have a good understanding of the system and understanding the business that you're in, because if you're out there improving buggy whips and carburetors, you're out of business. You have to understand what business you're in. And by virtue of that, you have to understand the broader system in which you're contained and for automobiles. It is the transportation system. And to be able to write an aim, you've got to have that particular knowledge.   Tripp: [00:17:07] And I don't believe most organizations have enough systems, knowledge in many cases to put together a good purpose or what references aim, which I views mission, vision, values and key measurements as part of what makes up an aim. But it's the systems thinking component that allows you to get the critical thinking that you need. And it's one of things I'm building in order to come up with a way for people to be able to look at their own system and using neuroscience instead of things I've learned from neuroscience too. And ironically, neuro brains, even though phrenology and different types of things, Yale bumps on the head. We've gone through this evolutionary process of learning and neuroscience where, you know, people thought that a bump in the head meant something and was associated. Then we kind of went to this kind of functional orientation, same as Taylor actually breaking down the pieces and saying, oh, well, if you're afraid, it comes from this part of the brain and the fight or flight comes from the amygdala and those types of things. Well, the more that they've studied the brain, you more they there may be functions that are involved in it on a regular basis. But the more that the interaction with the parts of your brain go to go together and operate as a system. So I'm all of this kind of fits together.   Tripp: [00:18:46] And I think that said, there are some interesting other readings going on with regards to neuroscience. But it's the thing I talked about in the last Deming Lens, which is you can't. Argue you can't out logic somebody. They have to learn on their own and giving them experiences, crafting an experience for them to be able to go through so that they can kind of begin to see things differently. And this is just my view on it. Other people have other things. There are people that go to the Redbead experiment and get it right off. I think that they're most likely in the minority. I was one of those and thought everybody would just get it because the logic just kills you. But it's just not that way. And I think looking at your own organization and being able to to look at it and understand it as a system is is certainly a part of this critical thinking. That and crafting an experience for people to get this type of critical thinking will help them understand the Deming philosophy better. So that's really it. I just want to talk about systems thinking some random thoughts I had about how systems thinking is not only part of Dr. Deming's system, profound, profound knowledge, but potentially where maybe he got some of his initial thinking, maybe did sit in on Bertalanffy Seminars are preset presentation of a paper before his book on general systems theory came out, because there's certainly a lot of parallels between some of the things that Dr. Deming wrote and what's in General Systems theory by Bertalanffy. And I've always enjoyed and Russell Ackoff obviously has been in talks and and things with Dr. Deming in the past.   Tripp: [00:20:43] So that's it for this Deming Lens. Hopefully you learn something and if you have comments or something new, maybe you can correct me on which I am correctable. make no apologies for learning, as Dr. Deming would say, but you can reach me at Tripp@Deming.org.   Tripp: [00:21:06] Thank you for listening to the Deming Institute podcast. Stay updated on the latest blogs, podcasts, programs and other activities at Deming dot org.  

More research from Berkeley and also University of Southern California creates a method to “protect” world leaders against deep fakes, by identifying, among other things, 17 Facial Action Units (such as subtle movements of eyebrows, cheeks, nose, etc, during speech). And research from MIT can take an audio clip and convert it to a generic human face. A report from RAND looks at Ethics in Scientific Research. Deakin University and Harvard provide a survey of deep reinforcement learning in cyber security. Another survey from Dublin University and Intel Labs looks at Generative Adversarial Networks and their taxonomy. Vishal Maini and Samer Sabri provide Machine Learning for Humans. Andy recommends Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s General System Theory from 1968. Matt Turek takes a look at the history of media forensics. The House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence and Counterterrorism holds a hearing on AI and Counterterrorism. And the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 2019 conference begins to post its tutorials, workshops, and its 80 page program guide.

Of the many barriers to a more robust presence for systems approaches in the academy, the relative scarcity of sufficient introductory textbooks in the field stands out as a particular irritant.  In the decades since the publication of von Bertalanffy’s General Systems Theory in 1968, a vast agglomeration of conceptual frameworks and methodological heuristics in the study of systemic phenomena has continued to accrue while the facilitation of entry points to the field combining both accessibility and thoroughness have largely failed to keep pace.  George E. Mobus and Michael C. Kalton have leapt bravely into that breach with their co-authored volume, Principles of Systems Science (Springer Verlag, 2015).  As the title indicates, Mobus and Kalton are firmly focused upon an approach to systems grounded in the traditional scientific method and, while by no means objective realists of any remotely naïve sort, their project most definitely leans towards more positivistic approaches to the study of systemic phenomena; clearly separating their work from the wider, and arguably “softer” field of Systems “Thinking”.  Leaning on Herbert Simon’s notion of the near-decomposability of hierarchical systems as well as the computational accounts of contemporary cognitive science, the book’s 700 plus pages are carefully and thoughtfully structured to guide the reader through an array of crucial systemic topics including notions of system boundary, dynamics, emergence, complexity and adaptation.  Of particular note is the thorough and rigorous treatment cybernetics receives within the overall scope of the systems sciences; something that makes this book something of a bridge builder between two fields with blurry boundaries between them that, too often, seem to jockey for the historical high-ground and supreme position of being “meta” to each other.  While clearly keeping cybernetics within the wider conceptual margins of Systems Science, the central role that it is given to the very notion of what constitutes a system is sure to satisfy many who straddle both sides of the debate but consider cybernetics their disciplinary, intellectual, and ethical home.  Carefully balancing scope with detail, this sweeping work of diligent scholarship does much to provide the kind of foundational textbook of which upper-level undergraduate and graduate students have long been in need. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Of the many barriers to a more robust presence for systems approaches in the academy, the relative scarcity of sufficient introductory textbooks in the field stands out as a particular irritant.  In the decades since the publication of von Bertalanffy's General Systems Theory in 1968, a vast agglomeration of conceptual frameworks and methodological heuristics in the study of systemic phenomena has continued to accrue while the facilitation of entry points to the field combining both accessibility and thoroughness have largely failed to keep pace.  George E. Mobus and Michael C. Kalton have leapt bravely into that breach with their co-authored volume, Principles of Systems Science (Springer Verlag, 2015).  As the title indicates, Mobus and Kalton are firmly focused upon an approach to systems grounded in the traditional scientific method and, while by no means objective realists of any remotely naïve sort, their project most definitely leans towards more positivistic approaches to the study of systemic phenomena; clearly separating their work from the wider, and arguably “softer” field of Systems “Thinking”.  Leaning on Herbert Simon's notion of the near-decomposability of hierarchical systems as well as the computational accounts of contemporary cognitive science, the book's 700 plus pages are carefully and thoughtfully structured to guide the reader through an array of crucial systemic topics including notions of system boundary, dynamics, emergence, complexity and adaptation.  Of particular note is the thorough and rigorous treatment cybernetics receives within the overall scope of the systems sciences; something that makes this book something of a bridge builder between two fields with blurry boundaries between them that, too often, seem to jockey for the historical high-ground and supreme position of being “meta” to each other.  While clearly keeping cybernetics within the wider conceptual margins of Systems Science, the central role that it is given to the very notion of what constitutes a system is sure to satisfy many who straddle both sides of the debate but consider cybernetics their disciplinary, intellectual, and ethical home.  Carefully balancing scope with detail, this sweeping work of diligent scholarship does much to provide the kind of foundational textbook of which upper-level undergraduate and graduate students have long been in need. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/systems-and-cybernetics

Of the many barriers to a more robust presence for systems approaches in the academy, the relative scarcity of sufficient introductory textbooks in the field stands out as a particular irritant.  In the decades since the publication of von Bertalanffy’s General Systems Theory in 1968, a vast agglomeration of conceptual frameworks and methodological heuristics in the study of systemic phenomena has continued to accrue while the facilitation of entry points to the field combining both accessibility and thoroughness have largely failed to keep pace.  George E. Mobus and Michael C. Kalton have leapt bravely into that breach with their co-authored volume, Principles of Systems Science (Springer Verlag, 2015).  As the title indicates, Mobus and Kalton are firmly focused upon an approach to systems grounded in the traditional scientific method and, while by no means objective realists of any remotely naïve sort, their project most definitely leans towards more positivistic approaches to the study of systemic phenomena; clearly separating their work from the wider, and arguably “softer” field of Systems “Thinking”.  Leaning on Herbert Simon’s notion of the near-decomposability of hierarchical systems as well as the computational accounts of contemporary cognitive science, the book’s 700 plus pages are carefully and thoughtfully structured to guide the reader through an array of crucial systemic topics including notions of system boundary, dynamics, emergence, complexity and adaptation.  Of particular note is the thorough and rigorous treatment cybernetics receives within the overall scope of the systems sciences; something that makes this book something of a bridge builder between two fields with blurry boundaries between them that, too often, seem to jockey for the historical high-ground and supreme position of being “meta” to each other.  While clearly keeping cybernetics within the wider conceptual margins of Systems Science, the central role that it is given to the very notion of what constitutes a system is sure to satisfy many who straddle both sides of the debate but consider cybernetics their disciplinary, intellectual, and ethical home.  Carefully balancing scope with detail, this sweeping work of diligent scholarship does much to provide the kind of foundational textbook of which upper-level undergraduate and graduate students have long been in need. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

PhD students Eszter Simor and Chantal Bertalanffy talk to Kat Zabecka and Dr David Sorfa about their  new film festival News From Home 2018. More about the News from Home Festival is available here: http://www.film.llc.ed.ac.uk/news-from-home-film-festival/

Dr. Eric Braverman joins me today to talk about achieving net-zero aging through technology, supplementation, and behavioral changes. He’s a physician, researcher, author, and the director of the PATH Medical Center and the PATH Foundation. While your body is aging and degrading over time, it’s becoming increasingly possible to reduce and even eliminate the functions of aging. If you want to stop aging and live your best, longest life, this is the episode for you! Find Out More About Dr. Eric Braverman Here: pathmedical@gmail.com Dr. Eric Braverman on Facebook @DrBraverman on Twitter Eric Braverman on Instagram Eric Braverman on Wikipedia PATH Medical Center PATH Foundation PATH Products In This Episode: [01:29] - Eric launches into talking about his early jobs working with the brain, and shares the names of some of the notable people he has worked with. [04:22] - How can listeners live long enough to live forever and achieve that longevity escape velocity? [07:47] - Eric relates what he has been saying about only being as young as your oldest part to sports, clarifying what he means. [11:02] - Since there isn’t yet a cascade that will make you 800 years old, Eric talks about what we do in the meantime. [14:19] - It’s difficult to be stable when you’re highly energetic, Eric points out. [17:42] - Eric talks about sneezing and the nose, explaining that the nose is critical. He discusses ways to clear the sinuses. [20:42] - Where do telomeres and their length come into play in everything that Eric has been talking about? [23:01] - Eric explains what he means when he talks about “breaking the aging barrier.” [26:19] - We learn about several different types of stem cells, and Eric shares his thoughts on how far we can go with stem cells. [29:23] - Eric talks about some things he was told at Harvard that have since been demonstrated to be untrue. [33:04] - The thyroid is an example of what Eric has been talking about, he explains, then talks more about a net-zero aging state. [35:44] - Eric lists three important principles from what he has been talking about in this conversation. [39:54] - We hear a metaphor involving an airplane to illustrate the points that Eric has been making. [45:24] - Ultimately, delusions and illusions regarding getting old have to be carefully dissuaded, Eric explains. [48:48] - Now that we’ve covered logistics and tactics, is there a third piece? Strategy, Eric points out, is what we talked about first. [51:53] - Eric digs into why the sinuses are so important to longevity and anti-aging. [53:19] - The average person gains two pounds a month when they don’t sleep enough, Eric explains. [55:27] - Eric shares his thoughts on neti pots. [58:17] - Why is it so important to eat fruits and vegetables that are a wide variety of different colors? Eric answers, then talks about how to counteract muscle loss. [60:52] - Eric talks about bone loss, and mentions that people are more concerned about their bank accounts than their bone density. [63:46] - What one thing would Eric recommend that all listeners do? [64:35] - Eric lists some places where people can find him online. Links and Resources: pathmedical@gmail.com Dr. Eric Braverman on Facebook @DrBraverman on Twitter Eric Braverman on Instagram Eric Braverman on Wikipedia PATH Medical Center PATH Foundation PATH Products The Edge Effect by Dr. Eric Braverman Younger You by Dr. Eric Braverman Younger Brain, Sharper Mind by Dr. Eric Braverman Peter Diamandis Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s General System Theory Progeria What Is a Telomere?

Topic: Join us as we have a spirited conversation on the subject of customer engagement with our guests Michele Battle-Fisher and Joe Dager.   Hosts: Joseph Paris, Founder of the OpEx Society & The XONITEK Group of Companies Benjamin Taylor,  Managing Partner of RedQuadrant. Guests: Michele Battle-Fisher, Joe Dager [caption id="attachment_323" align="aligncenter" width="187"] Michele Battle-Fisher[/caption] About Michele: Michele Battle-Fisher is an established health policy scholar and bioethicist. She is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Community Health at Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine in the U.S.. In 2013, she founded and continue to cultivate Orgcomplexity which focuses scholarship on applying systems science concepts to health policymaking, bioethics and governance. After a stint as a visiting scholar at the Hastings Center, she dedicated her scholarship to pushing the policy and ethics world into largely uncharted territories of systems thinking and systems science. She is a vetted member of the Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science, a think tank that follows the tenets established by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the father of general systems theory. She established the Orgcomplexity blog (orgcomplexity.wordpress.com) which was the basis of her book, Applications of Systems Thinking to Health Policy and Public Health Ethics- Public Health and Private Illness (Springer). As a contributing writer for HIPPO Reads, her work has been featured by the Huffington Post and the HIPPO Reads magazine. [caption id="attachment_325" align="aligncenter" width="166"] Joe Dager[/caption] About Joe: Joe Dager is president of Business901, a firm specializing in bringing the continuous improvement process to the sales and marketing arena. He takes his process thinking of over thirty years in marketing within a wide variety of industries and applies it through Lean Marketing Concepts. Joe put himself through college utilizing the GI Bill, the result of being a member of the 82nd Airborne Division, and as a welder at Asphalt Drum Mixers. This hands-on approach and an education in both in Electrical and Mechanical Engineering has served him well becoming President of that company and later leaving to own Barlow Marketing, re-start Burke Heating Systems and Asphalt Machinery Corporation. He has over 30 years in the process equipment field and still regularly consults on some of the more difficult issues encountered. He is a Lean Six Sigma Black Belt and has participated with companies involved in retail, manufacturing, software and professional services along their Quality Journey. In these companies, Joe developed and implemented sales and marketing strategies. Always being a process thinker, he attached Lean to the way of implementing sales and marketing and has advanced those practices through Design Thinking and Service Design concepts. The Business901 Blog and Podcast include many leading edge thinkers and been featured numerous times for its contributions to the Bloomberg’s Business Week Exchange. Joe has authored four books with the most recent published this year, The Lean Engagement Team.

En el programa de hoy, don Antonio ha desarrollado la diferenciación existente entre los conceptos "sistemático" y "sistémico", observando que el segundo fue introducido a principios de la década de 1930 con la publicación de la "Teoría general de sistemas", del biólogo y matemático austriaco Ludwig von Bertalanffy, quien vinculó el concepto de sistema al de organismo u organización, y empleó el adjetivo "sistémico" como algo propio y específico, distinto de sistemático. Este enfoque permitió combinar los análisis cuantitativo y cualitativo, así como visualizar los fenómenos a distintas escalas, haciendo posible el análisis macro y micro. Abordamos también la histórica noticia del restablecimiento de las relaciones diplomáticas entre los Gobiernos de EE.UU. y Cuba, concretamente la parte del discurso ofrecido por Raúl Castro, en la cual dicho dirigente se refiere a las facultades ejecutivas que el presidente de los EE.UU. posee para modificar las leyes que imponen el bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero sobre la isla de Cuba. Pedro M. González, nuestro invitado de hoy, ha comentado junto con don Antonio algunas de las noticias más relevantes del ámbito judicial, como el proyecto de ley que la Junta de Andalucía está desarrollando para limitar los movimientos bancarios a los enfermos terminales, las novedades en el procesamiento del clan Pujol y el malestar del juez Castro ante las presiones de los abogados de la infanta para expulsar a la hermana del rey. Ha presentado el programa Luis Díaz, con la colaboración técnica de Manu Ramos.

En el programa de hoy, don Antonio ha desarrollado la diferenciación existente entre los conceptos "sistemático" y "sistémico", observando que el segundo fue introducido a principios de la década de 1930 con la publicación de la "Teoría general de sistemas", del biólogo y matemático austriaco Ludwig von Bertalanffy, quien vinculó el concepto de sistema al de organismo u organización, y empleó el adjetivo "sistémico" como algo propio y específico, distinto de sistemático. Este enfoque permitió combinar los análisis cuantitativo y cualitativo, así como visualizar los fenómenos a distintas escalas, haciendo posible el análisis macro y micro. Abordamos también la histórica noticia del restablecimiento de las relaciones diplomáticas entre los Gobiernos de EE.UU. y Cuba, concretamente la parte del discurso ofrecido por Raúl Castro, en la cual dicho dirigente se refiere a las facultades ejecutivas que el presidente de los EE.UU. posee para modificar las leyes que imponen el bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero sobre la isla de Cuba. Pedro M. González, nuestro invitado de hoy, ha comentado junto con don Antonio algunas de las noticias más relevantes del ámbito judicial, como el proyecto de ley que la Junta de Andalucía está desarrollando para limitar los movimientos bancarios a los enfermos terminales, las novedades en el procesamiento del clan Pujol y el malestar del juez Castro ante las presiones de los abogados de la infanta para expulsar a la hermana del rey. Ha presentado el programa Luis Díaz, con la colaboración técnica de Manu Ramos.

A partir de la Teoría General de Sistemas desarrollada por Ludwig von Bertalanffy, se abre un paradigma desde el cual surge el concepto de sistema para entender muchos elementos de la realidad, y sentó las bases para una epistemología distinta en la psicoterapia. Un sistema podría definirse como un conjunto de elementos en interacción que pueden ser reales, ideales o modelos compuestos por diversos limites, elementos y red de comunicaciones que depende de su relación con el ambiente o su grado de aislamiento o informaciones funcionales, cuyo comportamiento global persigue normalmente algún tipo de objetivo y cuya cualidad esencial esta dada por la interdependencia de las partes que lo integran y el orden que subyace a tal interdependencia. Para este y otros conceptos relacionados, les recomendamos la lectura de Marcelo Arnold y Francisco Osorio "Introducción a los Conceptos Básicos de la Teoría General de Sistemas", publicada en Cinta de Moebio en 1998