The Cyberntic Model

One of my more interesting college classes was feedback control. The class was based on differential equations, Laplace transforms, and a single model that looked like this:

Cyberntic Model

This model is the basis for most of the process control in the world. Basically the setpoint gets compared to the actual value. The error value goes to a controller, that then takes a corrective action. If the temperature is to hot, the corrective action might be to reduce the heat in the temperature jacket. After a while, things cool down. All processes have a time lag between the corrective action and when the change arrives at the output. I “borrowed” the “delay symbol” from Causal Loop Diagramming to show this. If it gets too cool, the controller will change the action and add more heat.

I didn’t realize at the time how powerful and versatile this diagram is.

Personal Problem Solving

With just a few word changes, the model can be used to describe how people can solve their problems.

Personal Problem Solving

A problem exists when a difference exists between what we want, and what we have. We can solve the problem by changing our actions, and seeing if the world at large responds with results that are closer to what we desire.

I’m trying to lose a few pounds. I can change what I eat (calories, fat, carbs, pick your favoite fad diet). I can change how often I exercise. If I continue with these changes, eventually I should lose the weight.

Project Management

Change a couple of more words, and now we have a project management tool.

In this drawing, I’ve used a dash line connection between the manager (in this case synonymous with leader) and the team. I made this distinction since managers don’t have a direct linkage to the team. Managers can ask, cajole, threaten, and perhaps fire team members who don’t perform the tasks they’ve been asked to do. But the team member always has a choice.

One Size Does Not Fit All

Like kitchen utensils, you also need to know a model’s limits. I don’t grab a chef’s knife when I want to mix butter with sugar and I don’t draw diagrams of effects when I’m dealing with personality differences. As useful as the Cybernetic Model is, there are situations where it doesn’t apply.

Got a favorite model you’d like to share? Send me an email.

A Fistful of Models

Along the way, I’ve accumulated several models and tools. So far I have the following explicit models and tools:

• the Cybernetic Model
• Diagrams of Effect
• Behavior Over Time Graphs
• the five system’s attributes (openness, purposefulness, multidimensional, emergence, counter intuitiveness)
• systems archetypes
• the Satir Interaction Model
• the Satir Transformation Models
• MBTI (and temperaments)
• abstracting (Korzybski)
• abstraction (Hayakawa) [for a comparision check out this article]
• the NLP Meta-Model
• logical levels
• meta-programs
• intake modalities
• the Rule of Three
• and a decision making model from Ackoff.

At least these are the models I thought of. I’m sure I have others.

Everyone Does It

We all model our world. I discussed some aspects of modeling in 2003 when I wrote Choosing Change. This results in your “world” being different from my “world.” But if the “worlds” overlap enough (and in general most models have sufficient overlap), most of the time the differences don’t create problems.

Is the Model Accurate?

In Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology David Levy discusses the “Reification Error.”

These constructs stand in comparison to concrete things. For example, a brain is a thing, the mind is a construct. If you’re not sure if something is a thing or a construct, use the wheelbarrow test. If you can put the “noun” in a wheelbarrow, it’s a thing, otherwise it’s a construct.

Constructs cannot be proven accurate. They exist at a higher logical level than things. Moving up the abstraction ladder (you did read the article didn’t you?) changes the question we need to ask. The real question becomes … Is this construct/model useful? In Getting to Language I chained a “logical level” model with the Satir Interaction Model. It may or may not be accurate, but I find the resulting model useful for trying to understand what’s happening when I’m having a conversation with someone.

Got a favorite model you’d like to share? Drop me a note.

Human systems such as companies, departments, teams, and even individuals experience the same environment boundary problem as they interact with customers, other departments, other teams and each other. The fact that these interfaces continuously change means problems can always arise.

Since information flow is one defining characteristic of a complex adaptive system, having a tool to help untangle interactions run amok will be immensely useful.

The Satir Interaction Model

A simplified version of the Satir Interaction Model looks like

Willem has a better diagram showing how my response becomes your intake. (Go ahead and read the post. I mention it again.)

Willem also mentions speeding through the Interaction Model results in reactions, not responses. And there may be a natural reason for zipping through the steps: your Myers-Briggs Temperament. Jerry Weinberg mentions in QSM 3: Congruent Action

NTs & NFs should use the Rule of Three since they don’t usually actually perform the intake step.

Words Create Meaning in Other People

And we don’t get to choose what that meaning is, they do. We can say something innocuous (to us) and the other person will assign some meaning, significance, and respond in a way that totally surprises us. Jerry said “snow” at a client’s site, and a woman attacked him. They did resolve the issue (using here-now-us).

Rewinding and going over the conversation, preferably with the other person illuminates what happened, when, and where. This can increase understanding and trust.

Debugging

When using the Satir Interaction Model for debugging, an expanded version1,2 can be used:

1. Intake – sensory input, what you see or hear.
2. Meaning – how you interpret what you see or hear.
3. Feelings – what feelings you have about the meaning.
4. Feelings about those Feelings
5. Defenses – projecting, denial, ignoring
6. Rules for commenting – often learned as children at home or church
7. Response – the result (outcome) of all the above

And as Willem notes there needs to be a level of trust and openness before this will work with two people. While not as effective, reflection and discussion with another person may shed light on the interaction.

In Real Time

In spite of all the steps, we go through the entire model in fractions of a second. If you’re engaged in a downward spiraling conversation (and eventually you’ll start to notice this earlier and earlier) you may consider doing the following:

• Ask yourself “What can I do to change how this interaction is happening?”
• Slow things down. Breathe deeply and hold it for a few seconds when it’s your turn to speak.
• Use the rule of three to check your input (especially if you’re intuitive).
• Check your feelings to see if you’re responding congruently.
• Admit to the other person you’re confused by the interaction and ask if they’d like to go “meta” and have a discussion about the discussion.

1 The Satir Model: Family Therapy and Beyond, 1991 Science & Behavior Books, Inc. ISBN 8314-0078-1, Chapter 6
2 Becoming A Technical Leader Chapter 10

It’s understandable. We all know what change is. We’ve been involved with change all our lives. Thus we each have an idea what change means. However, as I mentioned earlier (Different But Useful), the map is not the territory. It’s quite likely that your definition varies from mine. Like the air we breath, we don’t notice it until something goes wrong.

So, what is change? Change is the transition in a system between two steady states.

Transitions requires time. Smaller less complex systems generally require less time to make transitions. As an independent consultant, I can implement changes much faster that Microsoft can. I don’t have empirical data but I’d guess by the time I’m finished with a change, they’d still be discussing it.

Transitions also require energy. Some energy is required to move the system from its stable state. If an external event creates a life and death response in the system, this energy probably isn’t hard to find. If the change “comes down from on high” and involves doing something differently (such as process improvement), the energy may not exist to get the transition started. Once the transition gets underway, more energy than normal gets expended as the system attempts to re-organize and find its new stable state.

Seem reasonable? Got a question or something to say? Let me know.

This thread started as software health, and wandered through project health and personal health. What do they have in common?

Shiny and New!

First, when starting with a healthy (or new) system, generally no single event causes great problem. The problem comes as the effects of the events accumulate. The sum of the coding choices creates software difficult to understand and maintain. Projects get late one day at a time. New smokers don’t get rushed to the emergency room with coronary or respiratory problems. This means we deal with chronic, not acute problems.

Local Optimization

Second, we tend to make local decisions in a global environment. Last week I spent two days helping the oldest son move, and another in the mountains with friends. All good decisions for THAT day. But the overall result was only making it to the gym one time. In the long run, I may have been better off to figure out how to get to the gym a couple of times. Maybe adding this member to the class isn’t quite right, but it’s quicker than creating a new class, and it’s not THAT bad of a fit. And how about managers who would love to do process improvement, but they don’t have time on this project. This is optimizing the sub-systems and having abysmal overall system performance.

Compensation
Third, systems compensate when trouble starts. Reporting doesn’t change because “I can make up the time,” or “A miracle will occur here.” Management ignores risks because “they’ve never happened before.” The body changes vascular constriction to increase (or decrease) blood pressure, or the heart beats faster to keep organs perfused. Eventually the system can no longer compensate, and collapses. When the system collapses, it leads to irreverseable shock. In general there are no great early indicators for shock since the system compensates for the problem. The best actions are to know what could cause the problem (shock), and start treating the problem before it manifests itself.

“The thought that disaster is unthinkable, leads to unthinkable disaster.” The Titantic Effect (Jerry Weinberg)

The discussion wouldn’t be complete without mentioning that denial of chronic problems creates emergencies. Perhaps this relates to the pain level. Someone with a compound fracture doesn’t need convincing a problem exists. But someone with “heart burn that makes my left arm tingle” may not see the need to do anything since “it went away last time.”

Stable by Existence

It was a fair assumption. After all, the topic was “Change and Stable Systems.” Unstable systems don’t exist very long. Like fire flies on June nights, they flash briefly, then go black.

First Things First

If the system is unstable, the first change to make is get stable. Being unstable violates the Law of Continued Existence. You have three intervention points to create stability: gain, energy, and degrees of freedom.

Gain

Technically system output divided by input. The higher the gain, the more the input gets amplified. A common example is putting a microphone in front of a speaker connected to the microphone, and turning up the volume. In organizations this tends to be the “rumor mill”. Information, real or imagined enters the rumor mill and gets amplified and re-transmitted. This makes it difficult to tell fact from fiction. To adjust the gain have meetings where you can learn what fictions are circulating. Then share the facts as simply as possible.

Energy

Energy comes in two forms:

• Potential energy – the ability to get work done.
• Kinetic energy – doing the work.

If the system is unstable, try changing the energy balance. Is everyone running around in panic mode? Slow things down and convert some kinetic energy to potential energy. The opposite situation, too little kinetic energy creates sluggish responses (if any), and prevents change from occurring.

Degrees of Freedom

Degrees of Freedom means flexibility of action. Normally we want this. However if we’re dealing with an unstable system, too much freedom creates a “loose cannon on a rolling deck”, and the ship we sink might be our own. Reigning the troops in won’t be popular, but it will reduce the number of ways to go wrong. It will also change the system gain and energy.

The Only Hard and Fast Rule

Unfortunately is, “There are no other hard and fast rules.” I can’t tell you which parameter to work with. But by manipulating gain, energy, and degrees of freedom, you can restore stability to your team, project, or organization.

The Buddy System

The first step in creating CLDs: find a buddy, friend or coworker with whom to share the diagram. When I started working with CLDs, I didn’t pay attention to this. It’s come to my attention lately that I add something to every diagram that comes my way, and every diagram I send out comes back with meaningful corrections or contributions. This happens because everyone’s world view is slightly different. Most world views overlap enough that we can understand each other, but are different enough that other people will think of things you don’t. If you’d like, you can send me your drawings for review and comment.

If one is necessary, two may be better. At some point adding people will create more “drag” on progress than contributing “thrust” towards completeness. In a work environment completeness counts more than speed, so make sure all view points get considered. For independent work, I prefer “mostly complete” and quickness.

When sharing with your buddy, consider how you’re going to present the CLD. I worked with a friend on the phone on time and tried to draw the CLD as he described his drawing. Unless you enjoy lessons in miscommunication, skip this and at least send some sort of a drawing (JPEG, GIF, PNG) they can view, print and mark up. I’ve found sending the actual drawing works best. For Windows users, I typically use Visio. I have a template for CLDs using Jerry Weinberg’s notation that my friend Brian Pioreck created. When I’m working with Mac users, I use Canvas to create the CLDs. In both cases, we can change the CLD and share the results via email.

Creating a CLD usually follows these steps:

1. Find some puzzling question.
2. Think about the question.
3. List some variables related to the question.
4. Connect the variables showing how one influences others.
5. Check the CLD by reading the story.
6. Repeat steps 2 – 5 as necessary and appropriate.

What was that?

This question usually starts my systems thinking mode. I recently read an email by an author who stated “I never sign a contract for a book until the book is written.” Why not? What’s bad about some “up front cash”? What might be true for him to feel that way?

Thinking

Sometimes when I think, things instantly pop into my mind. Sometimes I commit the problem to my subconscious and do something else. I have favorite activities that involve my body, but leave my mind free (like bush hogging). Other activities (like Aikido, hitting golf balls) occupy all of me. In the contract situation, I received the email late in the evening. I fired off a “let me think about this” email and went to bed.

Thinking about question the hopefully leads to a deeper understanding of the situation. If it doesn’t perhaps the question is too small or too big. Perhaps the question isn’t clearly stated. Try changing the question and see how it changes your thinking.

As I thought about the question, I eventually centered on writing’s financial and personal affects.

Variables

Now it’s time to list the variables you’ve discovered in your thinking. Choose things that can change. I use a laptop and word processor when I write. This doesn’t change, and doesn’t influence anything else. “Writing Time” changes and does influence other variables. I like to use variable names that work with “As ‘insert name’ goes up (or down), then ‘downstream name’ goes down (or up).” This verifies some constant doesn’t slip in, and starts the next step. For this example I chose the following variables:

• Writing Goal
• Pressure to write (added on second pass)
• Writing Completed
• Work Time
• Money for bills
• Writing Time
• Personal “pot” (how I feel about myself).

Getting all the variables in the first pass doesn’t happen often. The point here involves looking for hidden structures that create the observed dynamics. As the drawing takes shape, new variables appear, and old variables may not be needed. It depends on your point of view.

Which Comes First?

Since all the variables are related, and you can start reading a CLD at any point, it doesn’t matter which variable gets put in the drawing first. Pick one and get started telling the story. Once in a great while I do a hand sketch. Generally I head straight to the drawing package where I can cut, paste, drag and drop. When I finished, this is what my CLD for “Why not sign a publishing contract for an un-written book?” looks like:

And Back Through

As I draw the CLD, I find myself rethinking assumptions and conclusions. This restarts me iterating through the steps. Don’t be surprised if it takes several iterations to become comfortable witht the CLD. Eventually, I declare “Good enough” and quit.

The Never Ending Cycle

If you take the same variables and create a CLD you probably won’t get exactly the same drawing. That’s OK. I see where I can make a couple of changes. But at this time, this drawing closely represents what I think about the question.

Causal Loop Diagrams give us a method for revealing hidden system structure. Being able to read and create CLDs provides another path for sharing our current understanding.

Update 2010.1.28

I still create Diagram of Effects when I find sticky issues, those things that hang around, even when I try to fix them.

I now use Inkscape to create my diagrams. I have a template I’ll share if you ask. I still have the Visio template too.

Causal Loop Anatomy

Causal Loop Diagrams have four basic parts:

• Nodes (usually ellipses or circle) that contain values that can change
• Lines with an arrow show influence direction
• An inversion indicator
• Time delay indicator

These look like

Using all the parts, we can build a simple diagram.

Reading a Causal Loop Diagram

You can start reading a CLD on any node. I once sent a CLD to a friend who responded, “Don, I don’t understand what you’re trying to show.” I promptly started telling the story (via email), but noticed that I had to start at a specific node, and by the time I was 1/3 through the diagram, my explanation fell apart. I redrew the CLD, and got my point across.

We read the above figure as follows:

• As “B” gets bigger, after a time delay “A” gets bigger.
• As “A” gets bigger, “B” gets smaller.
• As “B” gets smaller, after a time delay “A” gets smaller.
• As “A” gets smaller, “B” gets larger.

This forms a balancing loop. The system may oscillate, but will stay within limits. Balancing loops provide stability in systems.

Suppose the influence between “A” and “B” wasn’t inverse. As “A” goes, so goes “B”. The above figure would then read:

• As “A” gets bigger, “B” gets bigger.
• As “B” gets bigger, after a time delay “A” gets bigger.

Or the in the opposite direction:

• As “B” gets smaller, after a time delay “A” gets smaller.
• As “A” gets smaller, “B” gets smaller.

Now we have a reinforcing loop. Reinforcing loops create growth (positive reinforcement) or decay (negative reinforcement). Some people refer to these as positive feedback and negative feedback loops. Since all loops in a CLD are feedback loops, I prefer the terms “balancing”, “positive reinforcement”, and “negative reinforcement”.

The example we’ve been using a simple diagram. These same basic diagramming parts can build complex diagrams. At the AYE 2004 Conference, attendees in Session 11 created a CLD for credit cards. For those wondering, Causal Loop Diagram and Diagram of Effects are the same drawing type. A CLD for credit cards could resemble

Balance seems to be in the middle of the drawing, so let’s “read” that part of the diagram.

• As Balance goes up, Fees & Charges go up
• As Fees & Charges go up, Balance goes up
• As Balance goes up, Available Credit goes down
• As Credit Card Purchases go up, Balance goes up
• As Payment goes up, Balance goes down

Take a minute to “read” the rest of the drawing. No wonder Albert Einstein said Compounding interest in the greatest mathematical discovery of all time.”

Some things to remember:

1. You can start reading a CLD at any point.
2. It would be equally valid to say the opposite of our list. (As Balance goes down, Fees & Charges go down)
3. A CLD is a map and should “map to the territory”. If the story you’re reading doesn’t match the events and patterns, the CLD needs to be changed.

Different notations exist for CLDs. Some notations use “+” and “-” at the line’s arrow end to show “same” or “inverse” links. Occasionally you’ll see a “B” or a “see-saw” in the middle of a loop indicating the loop balances. A “snowball” or “R” indicates a reinforcing loop. The variables may not be in an ellipse. These minor variations don’t change how the CLD gets read. No “UML” exists for CLDs.

Jerry Weinberg developed additional CLD notations to help understand software project management and development. These components add some richness (by showing the human part) and are:

In Jerry’s notation, these have the following meaning:

• A cloud indicates a subject measure. Something known and true, but unmeasurable (due to nature or expense)
• A white box means that a human intervention is making the receiving node move the same as the originating node
• A gray box means that a human intervention is making the receiving node move opposite from the originating node
• A half-white/half-gray box means that the receiving node may move same or opposite from the originating node base on the intervention

I recommend Jerry’s Quality Software Management: Vol. 1: Systems Thinking. The book builds a systems foundation for understanding software development and uses CLDs throughout the book.

Causal Loop Diagrams provide a to describe what happens in the real world. While notations differ slightly, the basics don’t change. Understanding how to read one notation enables us to understand other notations.

I want to recognize I’ve been using two words interchangeably: systems and organizations. In this context, I view an organization as a specific type of system.

Systems contain three basic components: reinforcing loops, balancing loops, and time delays. Reinforcing loops cause growth or decline. Balancing loops interact with reinforcing loops and create stability. Time delays separate cause and effect by days, months, possibly years. These delays determine how quickly a system responds to a change.

Delays occur in several places for organizations.

Transport delay involves the time required to move information around the organization. Information that development needs to know may enter the organization in customer support. “Oh no! The Frammin module appears to be broken! It’s reformatting the customers’ hard drives and displaying Elbonian profanities on their monitors!” The standard hierarchical organization communications path would be up the chain to the common node, then back down the development change to the managers who decide what should be done, and then to the programmers who actually do the work.

Decision delay results from the time required to decide what to do. I used to believe that inside every complex system, there was a simple system trying to get out. I still largely feel that way, but some software systems are complex, and that’s that. We’ve been writing software for 50 years. Most of the easy programs should be written. That leaves the difficult and complex programs. Quick decisions can spell disaster if the long and short term ramifications aren’t considered. When the development managers learn the Frammin module causes problems, it may take a while to determine the circumstances surrounding the problem event, exactly what part of the Frammin module causes the event, and what to do about it.

Implementation delay is the time required to do the work. The classic line here: “You can’t produce a baby in 1 month with 9 women.” Some work is separable and can be done in parallel by multiple workers. Some isn’t and must be done by a single person. Quick thinkers will try to create separable work. While work can proceed in parallel effort, communications (and gaps) and interfaces become issues. These issues are avoided when a single person does the work. So which answer is better?

Time delay relates to a system parameter called time constant. When the system output reaches 63.2% its next value, one time constant has passed. The following graph shows a system with a time constant of (approximately) 4.5.

By reducing any or all of the delays, we can achieve a result in a shorter time period as demonstrated by:

We’ve moved the time constant to (approximately) 3, or reduced the time it takes to respond by 1/3.

How do we remove delay from the system?

Transport Delay: All organizations have informal networks that pass information to where it should go. These networks are usually called “friends”. Some organizations explicitly encourage this by “cross assignment.” A developer works in customer service. A tester may spend time in development. Besides broadening the skills and creating an understanding of what the other person does, this creates the informal network that keeps information flowing.

Decision Delay: “Empowerment” bothers me. I actually think it’s a great idea, but in many situations the idea gets morphed into an evil double bind event. Nonetheless, we’re talking about empowerment. Move the decision making authority to the person closest to the information (reducing transport delay) and work effort (possibly also reducing implementation delay). The management problem resides in authority to make a decision can be delegated, responsibility for that decision can’t. Maybe this causes the standard empowerment double bind.

Implementation Delay: Better people make better products. I can’t put my hands on the data, but I seem to remember that Jerry Weinberg, Tom DeMarco, and Capers Jones have all released studies showing that individual performance varies by an order of magnitude. So get better people. Read Johanna Rothman’s book: Hiring the Best Knowledge Workers, Techies & Nerds. Improve the skills and abilities of the people where you work. Send them to the AYE Conference. Improved workers will impact Decision Delay by allowing true empowerment.

Can you think of other delay causes? How can we mitigate them?

Agree? Disagree? Add a comment.

Don’s Dismal Dilemma: How will I achieve my goals, when I’m not in charge or control?

Physical systems follow patterns established eons ago. Friends do what suit them. My clients determine when and where I’ll work with them.

As time progressed, I found the one thing in the universe I have complete control over: me. This lead me to

Don’s Delightful Discovery: I can’t control what happens to me, but I can control me, and how I respond to what happens to me.

As Virginia Satir said, “We can direct our efforts to change what we can and to work out creative ways to live with what we can’t change.” [New Peoplemaking, pg 7]

When we quit changing with our environment, we face extinction. We need to update our mental models so they conform current with reality. As we grow and mature, our realities change. Our mental models need to reflect the changes. Mental models formed in childhood and not updated make for interesting adult behavior. Dad warned me about getting “Hardening of the Attitudes”. (Notice the survival rule that affects my change quotient?)

Changing allows me to achieve my goals. If the goal doesn’t change, and external events (by definition beyond my control) change the situation, I need to change my actions (I control these) to bring the results in line with achieving my goal. Or perhaps my actions aren’t producing the results needed to achieve the goal. Again change becomes necessary to realign with my goal. If I don’t change what I’m doing, my actions will take me away from my goal.

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Albert Einstein

Occasionally I need to change my goals. As I learn more, what used to be important may not be important now. Changing goals allows me to work on what’s important to me.