Connections: Possible, Necessary, Sufficient & Limiting
BFNow Self-Study Module 4 - Exploration 4
[This is part of BFNow Self-Study Module 4: Systems & Habits. For more about the overall Self-Study program, please look at About BFNow Self-Study and BFNow Self-Study Orientation.]
If you haven’t done so already, let me encourage you to pause, relax and release, perhaps with a big stretch or three deep breaths.
The goal of this lesson is for you to get a clearer sense of the different kinds of connections and the roles they play in systems.
Inputs, Converters and Outputs
In Exploration 1, I talked about the basic building blocks of a systems diagram, including
parts (or nodes)
the relationships among the parts (or connections)
Along the way I’ve been describing those relationships as influences. Today, I’d like to look more closely at how those relationships/connections/influences work in a system.
If we were working with a mathematically-based system, as in the System Dynamics models described in System Literacy Part 3, then a typical part would look like this:
where the incoming numbers would go into the equation within the part and the result from the equation would then be available (as the outgoing number) to serve as input to another equation in some other part.
In the non-mathematical, qualitative systems we are working with, these characteristics are generalized but the spirit is the same.
The inputs are generally information that comes from other parts of the system. The part itself converts/transforms/interprets the inputs into some kind of output.
Let’s use the simple habits diagram again as an example:
This diagram maps a situation where the Context and the Cue are aligned and positive.
In this case, the and sends a signal that starts the Routine part of the habit.
The Routine outputs Results of some kind.
The Results get interpreted, with some of the Results being seen as a Reward because of how they connect to Motivations.
There may be many Consequences that come out from the Results
The Reward and the Other Consequences bring associations to the Cue that make it either more or less likely to initiate the Routine the next time.
There are many different ways that the parts transform their inputs into outputs but everything still contributes to an overall process.
One way that this kind of system mapping is different from brainstorming or many forms of mind mapping is that a system diagram is meant to reflect the territory and not just be free associations. As you build up a system diagram, for each part ask yourself, “Is this an input into or output from another part in the territory, or is it just an association in my mind?”
Connections and Influences
I’m calling many of the connections influences because they can affect but not necessarily determine how any part will transform its inputs into outputs. Look again at
Without knowing any more detail about the inputs or the equation, the most we can say is that each of the input arrows has a possible influence on the output. This is the loosest, most generic type of input.
Sometimes, however, we know that a particular input is required. For example, you can’t drive a gasoline-powered car if the gas tank is empty. The gas is a necessary input for driving. So are wheels and spark plugs. (Plus many other things, but I’ll keep it simple for this illustration.)
When there are multiple necessary input it makes sense to group them into an and. They are like links in a chain. No one link does all the work; each is needed. Each has a necessary influence on the output
The formal terminology is necessary but not sufficient. This is the kind of mathematical/logical language that makes many people’s eyes glaze over, which is unfortunate because these really are important concepts. Fortunately, it is easier to understand when communicated visually.
We can also have inputs that are sufficient. For example,
In this case, you could take a car OR a bus OR a bike. Any of these modes would be sufficient to get you to your destination. Since there are multiple options, each is sufficient but not necessary – just the flip of what we had before. In a systems sense, each sufficient option has an influence on your ability to arrive at your destination.
What happens when there aren’t multiple inputs, like this?
With only one input into Results, that input is both necessary and sufficient. This is one place where it makes sense to go beyond influence and say that the Routine causes the Results.
That’s about as far as the logicians go but systems need one more important type of connection: the limiting connection. Let’s look at the car again:
If the wheels and spark plugs are in good shape but the car is almost out of gas, then gas becomes the limiting factor, the current constraint, the limiting connection. If you have plenty of gas but get a flat tire, the wheels become the limiting connection.
Among a set of necessary inputs, one of them is likely to be the limiting one. If you want to change the functioning of a system, look for the limiting connection – but don’t stop there. As soon as you handle one limiting connection (fill the tank with gas), the next limiting connection is always ready.
Limiting connections can also show up in a loop:
Imagine you are trying to strengthen your habit of exercising. Every time you do exercise, you get good results that feel rewarding but it’s seems hard to get a Cue that actually gets you started. In this case, the initiates connection may be your limiting connection.
Good system maintenance requires always being on the lookout for limiting connections wherever you find them.
I find that categorical thinking seems to encourage people to get confused in situations that involve multiple inputs, especially when they are necessary but not sufficient. There is a strong urge to make one of the inputs THE most important, simply because it is necessary. I find myself asking, rhetorically, which link in a chain holds it together, which leg of a three-legged stool holds up the stool?
Limiting connections are temporarily important, or at least first priority for attention, but that should not obscure the shared importance of all of the necessary inputs.
The Empire Era assumption that everything is in a hierarchy has a hard time with shared importance, so becoming at ease with necessary but not sufficient is all part of the transformation.
Experientials
Start these in the morning, let ideas come to you throughout the day and then return to it in the evening.
Find places in your system diagram where there are multiple inputs. Are these
○ necessary but not sufficient?
○ sufficient but not necessary?Look in your system diagram for limiting connections. Which one is currently providing the strongest constraint? How might you make it less limiting?
Look for examples in the culture where people are arguing over which necessary but not sufficient condition is THE important one. Politics often offers a rich supply of examples.
Thanks,
Robert
[Link back to the Module 4: Systems & Habits Overview page.]