<html>
<body>
Hi Marty,<br><br>
Interesting questions! The way I understand it, Kaufman does not refer to
an environment with abundant food supply. Neither does he mean an
environment where the food supply is constant. I have always taken it as
referring to an environment that provides at least a minimal level of
nutrition and is relatively stable, in the sense that it does not change
radically in a short time span. Of course the food supply, the number of
natural enemies, the weather conditions etc. will change over time. But
for a self organizing system to exist, there has to be a reasonable
amount of stability. If we look at a biological example: the Earth has an
atmosphere. The atmosphere provides not only an important part of the
necesarry nutrients, it also works as a buffer to eliminate radical
changes in temperature and radiation. On a planet without an atmosphere,
it is much more difficult for life forms (at least as we know them) to
develop, for lack of both nutrition and stability. But this does not mean
that the atmosphere never provides any challenges! It changes constantly
and does not always make us feel comfortable. But these changes have so
far been within acceptable limits.<br><br>
Now I am not sure how to translate that to organizational change. I gues
that it has something to do with the notion of Ilya Prigogine (Order out
of Chaos, 1984) that a system tries to adapt to a changing environment
untill it can no longer keep up with it using the old paradigm. There
will be a point where it discovers, as Harrison has put it in The Spirit
of Leadership, that it is not doing something wrong, but it is doing the
wrong thing. It will either die or reinvent itself. If it dies, another
system will take its place, which is essentially the same as when the
system would have reinvented itself. This will happen, whether or not we
mingle with the whole thing or not. The reason that we as consultants
find ourselves useful is that we may make the transition somewhat
smoother, by sewing the seeds of the new system while the old system is
still alive. The destruction/creation cycle will have to take place no
matter what. But by helping it a little bit, we may make the ride a
little less bumpy and we may limit the nubmer of casualties. If we want
to provide a suitable environment to help this destruction/creation
process along, we think of it in terms of an environment that is stable
and nutrient enough for the new system to emerge. The old system is still
there, in whatever shape it may be. So there is still an environment that
can suppport a system. The environment is slowly changing, and it is
probably time for our system to reinvent itself or die. But the
environment is still there and I tend to assume that it is stable and
nutrient enough. So I would not worry too much about it. I think our aim
would be to create room in (or close to) the old system for new sparks to
flare up. It is not that we have to tweak the environment at large, it is
that we have to create small environments, small pockets of nutritious
space where the seeds of the new system can be sewn and take root. Those
pockets have to be relatively stable and nutritious. This means that
people have to be safe there, the things they say and do there should not
backfire on them unexpectedly, they have to have the opportunity to learn
and grow, and of course there have to be food, drinks, toilets, beds and
what other practical things people need. I think it will look quite a bit
like an Open Space Technology meeting.<br><br>
Just my view. Very interested in what others have to say about
this.<br><br>
Koos<br><br>
<br>
At 17:23 20-1-2008, Martin Boroson wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<font face="Book Antiqua, Bookman">Dear all:<br>
<br>
I have a couple of philosophical questions about the concept of a “stable
nutrient environment.” According to Stuart Kauffman, as quoted by
Harrison, this is Condition #1 for self-organization.<br>
<br>
My questions:<br>
<br>
a. What does this mean scientifically? Presumably Kauffman is
talking primarily about biological systems, as he is a biologist.
Does he mean sufficient food supply? That would make sense – you
need sufficient food in order to do anything -- but on the other hand,
fundamental environmental challenges to a system (such as lack of food
supply) are surely one of the perturbations that can induce a
re-organization. <br>
<br>
b. I’m also curious to know how each of you would interpret “stable
nutrient environment” in terms of organizational change. What would
be the “stable nutrient environment” required? Abundant
coffee and cake at your conference? Lifetime job security for all
the organization’s employees? Or something in
between?<br><br>
;)<br>
<br>
Namaste <br>
<br>
Marty<br>
</font>* * ==========================================================
OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU ------------------------------ To
subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of
oslist@listserv.boisestate.edu:
<a href="http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html" eudora="autourl">
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html</a> To learn about
OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
<a href="http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist" eudora="autourl">
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist</a> </blockquote></body>
</html>
*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist@listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist