Takes Coordination and Integration
The image of workers framed by a steel lattice—particularly with the number painted on the beam in the upper left corner—calls to mind one of the many lessons learned from the Apollo space program. Whole systems management.
For this office building—system—to exist it had first to be envisioned. And then, for that vision to be realized, every part had to be specified. In this image we mostly see the steel girders, each of which had to be designed, specified, manufactured, and tested before it could be shipped to the site. Only then could the construction team be confident that the parts would fit together in all the right places.
In my television and video production classes, I cited the Apollo space program for its contribution to the significance of systems thinking. Unfortunately, the lesson that complex systems require coordination and integration cost the lives of three astronauts when the Apollo I command module burned during a test.
Over 10,000 people had worked on the project. After a year-long investigation it was discovered that a wire, not properly insulated, sparked, and ignited the cabin filled with 100% oxygen and highly flammable materials. According to the report, NASA failed to “overall coordinate and integrate” its systems.
Going forward with managers who understood what it takes to manage complex systems, NASA and Boeing created a “Technical Integration and Evaluation” (TIE) program to ensure that every part would, beyond functioning and fitting together properly, contribute to the overall success of the mission. Boeing, working with NASA in an advisory capacity, hired an additional 2,000 people who coordinated thousands of contractors and assessed the viability of each sub-system in relation to the functionality of the whole. Because people were now paying attention to the parts and “how they would relate to each other and the whole,” the space administration was able to fulfill President Kennedy’s dream of putting a man on the moon and returning them safely within the decade.
The systems strategy of paying close attention to each system’s parts, especially understanding how they relate to and as a whole, has enabled NASA to accomplish all that it has. (Have you seen the images from the James Web telescope?) At its peak, NASA employed 400,000 people and 20,000 contractors.
The lessons learned have transferred to many industries. The design and manufacturing of airplanes, ships, automobiles, televisions, smartphones, satellites, and rollercoasters occurs within a framework of whole systems because it minimizes failures and breakdowns. Of course, human error anywhere along the process can still affect the outcome.
Systems thinking has enjoyed outstanding success in the areas of technology, manufacturing, construction, commerce and socially with special interest groups, but there isn’t much evidence of it being used in government. The military, arguably, might be an exception. In large part I think it’s because we, as a nation, are struggling with issues of coordination and integration.
To know how the components of society—business, the arts, media, religion, health, economics, etc.—can fit and function together there must be a common and cohesive understanding of who we are as a people. Responsibility for this lies with our elected officials. For example, a significant part of the job of the President of the United States is to contribute to our national self-definition.
We’re not there yet. Only when we see ourselves as one whole, living system working toward a desirable and shared vision of the future can we move toward it. Engineer and systems scientist Buckminster Fuller was spot on when he identified humanity’s role as “stewards of spaceship Earth,” a species challenged with the task of “building a world that works for everyone.” In a similar vein and on a national scale, systems manager Richard C. Dorf wrote that “The task before us is to create a just, sustainable and compassionate society that works for all on a finite living planet.”
NASA has been able to accomplish its missions because it continuously addresses the fundamental systemic questions of identity, purpose, and vision before it gets into the practical tasks of coordination and integration. Another example is the motion picture industry. Movies could not be made—and surely would not succeed at the box office—were it not for individuals who have a clear vision of the whole—usually the writer, producer and director who are charged with effectively managing the coordination and integration of the parts. The ideal, is when the visionary and system’s manager is one and the same person. Woody Allen, George Lucas and James Cameron are examples.
It’s easy to see the need for coordination and integration in large systems. Their complexity is obvious. But unless we’re engaged in such systems, they are largely invisible and involve other people at a distance. We’re less likely to think of the various domains of our own lives as systems, but whenever and wherever we interact with others, effectiveness and satisfaction can be improved by considering the group as a whole system. Social systems include schools, churches, community gardens and a host of small group initiatives. They will all operate more smoothly and have a positive outcome when the leaders understand and champion the whole by ensuring that the parts function as they should in relation to each other and toward the realization of their common purpose.
A prerequisite for effective system’s management at every level requires consideration—at the outset and going forward—of the fundamental questions of identity, purpose, mission, and vision, applying it to the individuals and the group. Who am I? Who are we together? What part am I playing in this situation? Where are we—as a group, team, or family—going? What is the best strategy for getting us there? And how do we define success?
Coordination can begin once these questions are answered. Then comes the questions of integration. Who will lead us? Ideally, it will be the person who most clearly sees and takes responsibility for the vision as a whole. How will we work together? What roles are needed and who will assume them? What will we accomplish, and in what timeframe? How will we test the parts to insure proper function? Who and what will keep us motivated? And what will be the reward, individually and collectively?
When driving past a large construction site like the one pictured above, I often think about what the structure will be, and I marvel at the magnitude of considerations involved in the design and management of its sub-systems. In this regard I’m reminded of one of the tenants of the Buddha’s Eight-fold Path. Systems management is basically the task of establishing “right relationships” throughout the process.
The universe presents itself to us as a system composed of parts-within-wholes, of systems within systems, organized through time and evolution as interdependent levels of complexity. Each part, including you and me, is integral to the whole; and, in some holographic sense, each part is a microcosm of the greater macrocosm. Each part contains within itself the seed or template of the whole.
Christian de Quincy, American philosopher
Author, Radical Knowing: Understanding Consciousness through Relationship
_______________________-
My other sites—
Contemplative Photography 
I particularly love this contemplation. Large systems integration and coordination is such a complex topic and something I’ve studied with educational systems. I love the NASA example and think it’s powerfully hopeful that our government had an internal example of success. I notice though that it took a disaster what the threat of losing future lives that they scaled up efforts significantly to address the problem they had identified. We continue as a country to clearly define the problem – a critical first step in a vision. Fascinating reflections!!
LikeLike