« Stacey's "Complex Responsive Processes" meets Wenger's "Communities of Practice" | Main | Ralph Stacey and Etienne Wenger #2: On systems v processes »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Thanks for an excellent review on the characteristics of a "system".

Chris Rodgers

Hi Dancrissco,

Many thanks for the comment. I'm glad that you found the post helpful.

Cheers, Chris

Bas Reus

Chris, thanks for answering my question. This is a clear outline of why you think organizations are not systems. As I said earlier, I don't think they are sytems as well. (see http://basreus.nl/2009/11/03/systems-thinking/) On the other hand, I think that it can help to look at organizations as it were a system. There are some characteristics that are valid for both. But we have to be careful not to simplify the complexity of an organization. The most important assets of organizations are humans, both internal as their interplay with the outside world (such as customers). Thanks again, and I look forward to your next post on this subject!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)