1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
Developing a business flight simulator for learning organisations
Professor Clive Holtham
Bull Information Systems Professor of Information Management
City University Business School
Frobisher Crescent, Barbican Centre
London EC2Y 8HB, UK.
Tel: 071-477-8629
Fax: 071-477-8880
E-mail:sf329 @city.ac.uk
Abstract
The Business Flight Simulator is a major action h project involving academic and industrial
collaborators. Its central purpose is to support the creation and development of learning
organisations through the application of a wide variety of IT and software tools. The particular
influence of evolving systems dynamics thinking on the project is identified. The project also draws
on findings from a recent international study of the application of information technology to support
group working. The preoccupation of the Business Flight Simulator is with creating a physical and
networking envi for group decisions and their impl i Groups are supported by a
variety of software tools. Much of the emphasis during the last decade has been on the application of
single tools to support groups, or of tools with constrained functionality. The Business Flight
Simulator, by contrast, draws on a wide menu of tools to support group working. These range from
the highly quantitative to those which focus on more qualitative and inter-personal issues. The
research project involves applying combinations of tools to business processes across a variety of
industrial sectors, and preliminary conclusions in this area will be discussed.
Microworlds, page 54
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
The Concept Of Waste and Its Use in Information System Design
Introduction
Information system designers tend to use a very simplified model of the system to be produced, ie
INPUT ----> PROCESS ----> OUTPUT
(Data) (Process) (Information)
This lacks not only the cybernetic element of feedback but also makes no allowance for the fact that no
system is 100% efficient. To make allowance for this lack of complete efficiency the model should be
expanded to:
INPUT ----> PROCESS ----> OUTPUT + WASTE
The I-P-O model used by designers makes them concentrate on input data, the process logic and the
information output. It assumes that all of the input data is dto ion here is
defined as something which causes a change in the user's knowledge base. Hence, if the data being
processed does not add to the user's knowledge, it does not produce information. In this sense, how many
“information” systems are really "data" systems, ie data in and data (waste) out?
When the inputs are expanded to include such things as people's time, money, and equipment, the
presence of waste in the system becomes more apparent. In a system consisting of mostly physical
ega plant, the inputs, outputs and waste can easily be identified and
measured by such things as “heat and waste products. Because they can be identified, attempts can be
made to minimise them. In fe i Total Quality Management and Just In Time
hit ise waste minimisati Waste is, however, much more difficult to identify in
information systems and is rarely considered by designers.
Holistic thinking can greatly reduce waste. Concrete examples include power stations who use their
warm water "waste" for aquaculture, or, who make their generation less efficient so the waste warm
water becomes hot and is used to heat sur ding dwellings. ion systems desi also need to
integrate systems creatively and not treat each system as a separate entity.
What is waste?
There are many definitions of waste. It can be ‘any activity that adds to the cost but not to the value of a
product' (Maskell, 1989], or, ‘anything other than the mini) amount of equi ials, parts,
space, and worker's time, which are absolutely essential to add value to the product’ [Chase & Aquilano,
1992]. Sushil [1990] gives a much broader definition: ‘Waste is any ry input to, or any output
from any system’. The system model can therefore be expanded to include the possibility of waste being
input to the system as well:
INPUT + [WASTE] ----> PROCESS ----> OUTPUT + WASTE
The input waste can, theoretically, be eliminated by good design. The output waste can, however, only be
minimised (as no system is totally efficient).
Information Systems, page 31
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
Sushil further defines the WASTIVITY of a system as being:
WASTIVITY = WASTE (Unwanted system outputs)
INPUTS (Resources used by the system)
Wastivity's relationship with productivity can be defined as:
PRODUCTIVITY = 1 - WASTIVITY
In an organisational context, unwanted system inputs and outputs can come in many forms: excessive
staff numbers, shortage of staff, absenteeism, lack of worker skills, und
product defects, waiting time, redundant information output (ie low quality information or no informatior
at all according to the previous definition unless it adds some knowledge to the user sense), etc.
systems tend to on data and information as inputs and outputs
Although there can be waste here, the impact of a new information system can have waste implication:
far from this narrow perspective of what the system will actually consist of.
The problem definition stage
Many designers now recognise the importance of including all the pertinent views within th
organisation at an early stage in the definition of the required system. Checkland's Soft System:
Methodology - SSM - (see Checkland, 1984, Checkland & Scholes, 1991 and Wilson, 1990) is popula
for this approach. If SSM is used, the concept of waste can be utilised by the facilitator to highlight thr
paradigms, biases and priorities of the stakeholders. One person's waste can be another's benefit. SSN
uses "Rich" Pictures to set the scene and the inclusion of waste at this stage can be very illuminating
Exposing the negative side can show up differing fears, prejudices and p ions of the stakehold
regarding the present or a proposed system. Differing perspectives of the problem situation will give thx
designer an insight not only to the stakeholders’ ideas as to the nature of what is undesirable but the
extent and likelihood of the undesirable consequences of the system. Management and staff, fo
instance, can have totally different opinions as to the nature, extent and probability of undesirable systen
consequences. The definition of the ideal system (ie the Root Definition in SSM) can also include th
waste that will be produced by the system. This needs to be included as there will be waste and it
exposure can have a profound effect on the participants' thinking. At present, only the beneficial effect:
are considered and this can give an unrealistic impression of the system's desirability.
The systems analysis stage
A Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) of the system lists out the inputs (costs) and outputs (benefits) of the nev
system. The other output - waste - is rarely included. As no-one deliberately includes waste in a systen
design, it can be politically expedient to ignore it. No system is perfect. The drawbacks of the proposec
system should be exposed. If the new system has less waste than the new then this is a benefit. Becausi
all systems have artificial boundaries drawn around them waste from one system will become an input t
another. A new system might cut the need for staff for one function but can it be assumed they can bi
productively used elsewhere? Because waste in one system will become the input to another system, i
needs to be lied. Unless it is a good idea in the narrow context of a single system wil
become a bad one when a holistic view is taken. In a practical sense, it is very difficult for managers t:
take this holistic approach because of lines of responsibility and power limitations but an attempt need
to be made to ensure waste does not multiply through the organisation. For example, waste output fron
Information Systems, page 32
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
one system in the form of unneeded reports, or, memos requiring answering can soon escalate its impact
around the organisation.
Information is a Tesource | and, as such, can be wasted. Ronen & Spiegler (1991) consider over-collected,
over p and ion as a waste. In fact, they go further and say that too much
information may be worse than having too much. This information has to be acted upon and generates
useless tasks which may not only cost the organisation money but also disrupt management decision
making. In this sense, information becomes system "noise". Designers need to take this into account and
not create low grade, "nuisance" information. This has become much more difficult to control as
microcomputer usage has spread around organisations and has become a management rather than a
design problem. The cliche that the paperless office produces more paper than a conventional one is not
without foundation. Whatever a designer does, of course, can be negated by organisational inertia eg
managers who insist their e-mail messages are printed out every morning.
In detailed design, the specification of particular data items rather than general ones eg Customer Details
will greatly assist the red of d data and i ion when the system is implemented. This
ensures only the data items required are input to and output from the system. An example: 60 fields were
included on one’screen for a system monitoring the activity on an oil rig. The user was only interested if
one of the field displays was flashing showing that a field's upper, or, lower parameter had been crossed.
In a “normal” situation, a blank screen would have carried as much information as one cluttered with 60
fields ie everything was within set limits. In a situation where a parameter had been crossed then that
field should have been displayed by itself. It would have attracted much more attention and would have
had less unwanted data (waste) on the screen. Think of the difficulties and system noise if 10 fields
started flashing on the cluttered display. In this case, waste had been created by bad human-computer
interface design.
Post Implementation Review
It is essential to review the system in terms of waste once it has been implemented. Detrimental
q should be i d as well as the benefits. These should include impacts on all facets of
the organisation eg staff morale, efficient use of staff skills, impacts on other departments, etc.
This helps build up the organisation's knowledge base for further system development. Discussion of
detrimental effects can be difficult in some organisational cultures because the instigators, developers
and owners of the system may have too much personal involvement in it. In some situations, it is
political suicide to admit there is waste. Management needs to create an environment where waste is
taken as inevitable but needs to minimised. Of course, it cannot be minimised if it is not recognised.
Principles of Waste Management
Ce ional waste is primarily d with physical waste disposal. However, some of
the principles stand out and are relevant to most situations:
1 If there is no cost to the person wasting a resource, there is no incentive to minimise this waste.
2: Disposal of waste is most efficient at source.
3. Prevention is cheaper than processing, removal, or, remedial action.
Information Systems, page 33
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
These principles imply a number of things for managers and system designers:
1 Personnel involved in any system need to have some ownership of that system, or, there is no
incentive to minimise waste.
2. Managers should control waste as soon as it is identified, or, it will cost the organisation (sadly,
sometimes not the individual manager) more in the long run.
3: System designers should recognise waste as a factor and attempt to minimise it in their design.
Conclusion
Waste is a cost to us all in one way or another. It isa concept which can be productively used i i
information system design. By ising waste i . By
detrimental effects of a system, the situation can be managed and perhaps the waste ‘form one can becom
auseful input to another. If it is ignored, it will multiply.
References
Chase R B & Aquilano N J (1992) ‘Production & Operations M - 6th edition’ [Irwin]
Checkland P B (1984) ‘Systems Thinking, Systems Practice - revised edition’ [Wiley]
Checkland P B & Scholes (1991) ‘Soft Systems Methodology In Action' [Wiley]
Maskell B H (1989) ‘Just In Time - Implementing the New Strategy’ [Hitchcock Publishing Co.]
Ronen B & Spiegler I (1991) ‘Information as Inventory’, iformation < Management, 21, 239-247
Sushil (1990) "Waste M. A Systems Persp > & Data Systems, vc
90, no 5
Wilson B (1990) ‘System Concepts: Methodologies and Applications - 2nd edition’ [Wiley]
Information Systems, page 34
