You wrote on the CRM development mailing list forum:
"there are a few thoughts which creep up on me as I read your analysis of
metrics. One deals with something in which I refer to as the distance between
performance behavior and the metrics.
In his book The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge describes two kinds of
complexity. He says Systems thinking teaches that there are two types of
complexity -- the detail complexity of many variables and the dynamic
complexity when cause and effect are not close in time and space and obvious
interventions do not produce expected outcomes."
My take from Senge's thinking on systems is that systems analysis (or thinking)
is the fifth discipline of leadership. Begin by a review of the available
metrics which in turn begins to tell the story. The story then should
translate into the first steps of the systems analysis (a picture -- of how the
metrics effect each other).
Example -- As inter rater reliability (Agreement, Systematic Difference,
Congruence, Consistency, Sensitivity) goes up, the compliance rate of the line
pilot (to standard operating practice) goes up. -- A reinforcing relationship.
Example 2 -- As the repeat rate on VOR approaches goes up the repeat rate on
LOC approaches goes up. -- A balancing relationship. It is possible to have one
component go up while the other component goes down and for the relationship to
be balancing.
The systems analysis should define relationships between components as
balancing or reinforcing. The key to long lasting change is find relationships
which are balancing in nature and those dynamics are the ones that need to be
changed for meaningful change to the system. Without this step dynamic
complexities don't change with any degree of confidence -- because the cause
and effect are not close in time and space.
There are several archetypes that the analysis will reflect. There is plenty of
case history offered by systems thinkers on how to work with the archetypes.
I'm throwing out some red flags here.... (and agreeing with your thoughts) ...
changing components within the detail complexity -- without a skilled
understanding and analysis of the dynamic complexity could actually be harmful
(or even unsafe) in an aviation system.
Sytems thinking is a skill and therefore may be trained....
Happy Holidays,
Lou