set9set9 = home of Stephen Edmund Tanghe
  • Home
  • Background
  • CV
  • Movies
  • Secrets to Success
  • Travel
  • Contact

Modelling Process in Systems Thinking, Part 1

15/7/2012

1 Comment

 
With an interest to develop my systems thinking skill set, I'm taking an archived four session Introduction to the Modeling Process course from isee systems.

As insight to Session 1, I learned that the principles to building effective models are:
  1. Explicitly set boundaries, developing reference behaviour patterns (RBP). Eg, 'The purpose of this model is to…'
  2. Map out the initial stocks (ie nouns; think of bathtubs) and flow structures (ie verbs; think of words ending in 'ing').
  3. Generate one or more flows using the set of generic templates (five to choose from). Simulate.
  4. Develop the model, challenging and revisiting assumptions.
  5. Iterate until the model is credible and you are confident.

First impressions? I like the practical and grounded approach of the teacher, Chris Soderquist of Pontifex Consulting. The white papers provided as additional resources are very helpful. 

Will this be of value to me? No question. My previous experience in this area (as I now understand) was limited to exploring causal relationships of single elements within a system. From this first session, I think I already better understand the value and power of taking these separate elements and integrating them together.

If you are keen to see my notes, please look at the below PDF. (Generated through FreeMind.) 

systemsthinking_introtobuildingmodels.pdf
File Size: 1513 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

1 Comment

What is the Likelihood the CEO Will Reply to My E-Mail?

18/3/2011

0 Comments

 
In fact, this is not an impossible question to answer.

For clarity, please note these definitions:
• “reply to my e-mail”: generates any type of action; most basic example is the Receiver sending a reply e-mail; also can include Receiver talking in person to the Sender, or Receiver talking to a third person, or any other action that would not have occurred otherwise
• “not reply to my e-mail”: generates no action; most basic example is the e-mail sitting unactioned in the Receiver’s Inbox; also can include ignoring or deleting of an e-mail, whether intentional or unintentional  

First, we need to determine what the relevant factors are. Once this is established, we can then analyse each variable to estimate the probability.

Actors:
(1) Sender
(2) Receiver

Variables, ranked in importance (highest to lowest):
• i = importance of, or interest in, the subject to the Receiver (highest importance)
• I = importance of, or interest in, the Sender to the Receiver
• n = number of e-mails the sender has sent previously on the same subject
• t = time management skills of the Receiver
• N = number of other demands on the Receiver
• q = frequency in which the sender sends e-mails (lowest importance)

Putting these together, we have the following equation:
• f(probability of reply) = i + I + n + t + N + f + q

The next step is to assign a weight to each variable. This will likely vary from case to case, but in general the more important the variable the greater the weight it should have. As an example:
• f(probability of reply) = 0.3i + 0.25I + 0.15n + 0.15t + 0.1N + 0.05q

Consider two e-mails, one sent by me (a graduate) and the second Andy Green (CEO). Andy will likely generate a higher score for “I”. Consider further that Andy’s e-mail is to a senior manager and advises of an interesting article on cricket, while my e-mail is to my project manager and contains the final draft of a document for a project deliverable due in two hours. I will likely generate a higher score for “i”.

When generating a “score”, we must assign a percentage to each variable between 0 and 100.

Now we are in a position to bring this all together. Consider an e-mail that I send under the following conditions:
• subject = proposed dinner during my return to Minnesota for a holiday in May
• receiver = one of my best friends Brian
• this is the first e-mail I have sent advising that I’m returning for a visit
• Brian is extremely efficient worker
• Brian is getting married in May, and together with work, has many demands on his time
• Brian and I communicate on average once a month

Calculations to estimate the probability of a reply from Brian might look as follows:
= f(probability of reply) = 0.3i + 0.25I + 0.15n + 0.15t + 0.1N + 0.05q
= 0.3(.80) + 0.25(.9) + 0.15(.5) + 0.15(.8) + 0 .1(.2) + 0.05(.7)
= 0.72

Thus, we can conclude there is a 72% chance Brian will reply to my e-mail.

So, what does this all mean? I suggest that as we now better understand the factors determining whether or not we receive replies to our e-mails, we can focus our efforts on activities that will likely increase the score we generate for each variable.
0 Comments

    BCS: A Way of Life

    Promoting a Best-in-Class Service approach to life! All views are my own...

    Archives

    November 2012
    July 2012
    January 2012
    October 2011
    September 2011
    July 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011

    Categories

    All
    Analytics
    Apm
    Applied Customer Insight
    Art Of Non-Conformity
    Association Of Project Management
    Aveva
    Big Data
    Business Intelligence
    Career Search
    Causality
    Causal Modelling
    Cause And Effect
    Ceo
    Cgi
    Chris Guillebeau
    Cloud Computing
    Cobb's Paradox
    Collaboration
    Communication
    Criticality
    David Allen
    Ecosystem
    Edinburgh Business School
    E-mail Communication
    E-mails
    Eureqa
    Getting Things Done
    Governance
    Graduate
    Green It
    Gtd
    Heriot-watt
    Ipad
    Isee Systems
    Ithink
    Job Search
    Kate Laws
    Logica
    Mark Cuban
    Marketing
    Ogilvy
    Pac
    Paul Tanghe
    Performance
    Pierre Audoin Consultants
    Standard Life
    Steve Jobs
    Strategic Alliance
    Strategy
    Students
    Success
    Sustainability
    Uk Propositions
    Value

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.