Site Logo

STPrism

Concepts - MOM

5 min read

How do the concepts of MOM compare and draw from the others what is unique in their work?

Based on the source materials, the Meeting of Minds (MoM) group functions as a synthesizing community (or “meta-school”) that aligns itself with Critical Systems Thinking and Second-Order Cybernetics.

They occupy a specific niche in the “Tower of Thought”: they are Radical Constructivists who rigorously defend the “Soft” and “Critical” lineages against what they perceive as the reductionism of modern business tools (like Lean/Six Sigma) and rival complexity theories (like Cynefin).

Here is the analysis of how MoM draws from others, how they compare, and what is unique to their work.

1. Lineage: Where MoM Draws from Others

MoM does not invent new primary methodologies; rather, they curate and integrate the “Reflective” and “Cybernetic” lineages.

• From Second-Order Cybernetics (Von Foerster/Maturana): The Observer is King

    ◦ Concept: MoM is anchored in the belief that “systems do not exist in the real world”; they are mental constructs used to make sense of reality[1].    ◦ Draws from: This is the “Epistemic Cut” found in Relational Biology and Roger James, pushed to its logical extreme. They cite that “anything said is said by an observer”[2].    ◦ Application: They rely on Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety, arguing that the variety of the system depends entirely on the observer’s distinction[2],[3]. • From Soft Systems (Checkland) & Critical Systems (Jackson/Ulrich)

    ◦ Concept: Systems thinking is about “learning” and “accommodation,” not engineering.    ◦ Draws from: They utilize Peter Checkland’s SSM[4] and Werner Ulrich’s Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) to question boundaries and ethics[4].    ◦ Application: They advocate for “Multi-methodology” (Critical Systems Thinking), selecting different tools (VSM, SSM, SODA) based on the context rather than adhering to one cult[5]. • From Stafford Beer: POSIWID and VSM

    ◦ **Concept:**POSIWID (The Purpose Of The System Is What It Does) is central to their analysis of organizational behavior[2].    ◦ **Draws from:**Stafford Beer and Management Cybernetics.    ◦ Application: They use the Viable System Model (VSM) to diagnose organizational structure and communication channels[5]. • From Russ Ackoff: The “Mess”

    ◦ Concept: Real-world issues are interacting systems of problems, or “Messes”[6].    ◦ **Draws from:**Russ Ackoff’s distinction between a “puzzle” (solvable) and a “mess” (manageable)[6]. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comparisons: Tensions and Debates

MoM defines itself largely through its critiques of other schools, specifically distinguishing “Systems Thinking” from “Process Thinking” and “Categorization.”

MoM vs. The “Systematic” (Lean/Six Sigma/Vanguard)

• The Conflict: MoM argues that methods like Lean or the “Vanguard Method” are “Systematic” (linear, step-by-step), not “Systemic” (holistic, circular)[7].

• Critique: They view these as “Producer-Focused Ideas” (PFI)—quick fixes sold by gurus that create a false sense of superiority without addressing the deep messiness of the ecosystem[8].

• Contrast: While TOC (Technicians) focuses on “Throughput,” MoM focuses on “Relationship Maintenance” and “Ethics.”

MoM vs. Cynefin (Dave Snowden)

• The Conflict: This is a sharp philosophical divide. MoM critiques Cynefin as a “categorization tool” that lacks a “rigorous scientific spine”[8].

• Epistemology vs. Ontology:

    ◦ Snowden views “Complex” and “Chaotic” as ontological states of reality (the system is complex).    ◦ MoM views them as states of the observer’s knowledge (the observer is confused). They argue Cynefin confuses the map with the territory[8].

MoM vs. DSRP (Derek Cabrera)

• The Conflict: MoM dismisses DSRP (Distinctions, Systems, Relationships, Perspectives) as “severe reductionism”[9].

• Critique: They argue that trying to strip the rich traditions of cybernetics and soft systems down to four abstract concepts ignores the deep theoretical foundations and “language games” of the field[9].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Unique Contributions: The “MoM Signature”

While MoM draws heavily from the “Reflective” lineage, they contribute unique heuristics for practice and a distinct ethical framework for the systems practitioner.

A. “Rigour and Vigour”

• Uniqueness: They introduce a dialectic between Rigour (theoretical purity/logic) and Vigour (practical application/wisdom)[6].

• Significance: Unlike academics (who may prioritize Rigour) or consultants (who prioritize Vigour), MoM argues a true systems thinker must maintain the tension between both[6].

B. The “4 E’s” of System Assessment

• Uniqueness: They extend the traditional “Efficiency/Effectiveness” metrics found in Ackoff and Checkland into a four-stage value ladder[10]:

    1. Efficacy: Does the system work?    2. Efficiency: How many resources does it use? (The focus of TOC).    3. Effectiveness: Does it create value? (The focus of Ackoff).    4. Ethics: Is it right? (The focus of Ulrich/CSH). • Significance: By explicitly placing Ethics at the top of the ladder, they integrate moral philosophy directly into systems analysis, distinguishing them from the value-neutral “Technicians” like David Abel or Triz.

C. The “3 A’s” of Communication

• Uniqueness: A heuristic for communicating systems concepts to non-experts:

    ◦ Accurate: Theoretically sound (Rigour).    ◦ Accessible: Understandable (Language).    ◦ Actionable: Useful in practice (Vigour)[6]. • Significance: This addresses the “Babel” problem in systems thinking, where jargon often alienates the user.

D. “Competence in Deployment” (Tool-Making vs. Tool-Using)

• Uniqueness: MoM emphasizes that a master practitioner is a “tool maker,” not just a user[10].

• Significance: While Dettmer advocates strictly following the TOC Logical Thinking Process, MoM advocates for Critical Systems Thinking (CST)—the ability to choose the right tool (or invent one) based on the specific context[10],[5].

Summary

The Meeting of Minds (MoM) group is unique because it acts as the “Conscience” of the Systems Field.

• They rely on the Constructivist lineage (Checkland, Beer, Von Foerster) to reject the idea that systems are “real things” to be engineered.

• They use Critical Theory (Ulrich, Jackson) to attack “functionalist” consultants who sell simplified maps as territory.

• Their unique contribution lies in their Heuristics of Practice (Rigour/Vigour, 4 E’s), which attempt to make the highly abstract world of Second-Order Cybernetics “Actionable” without losing its “Accuracy”[6].

Graph View