Bringing hope to crisis: critical thinking, ethical action and social change

This paper departs from this point to consider whether and how crisis thinking contributes to practices of affirmative critique and transformative social action in late-capitalist societies. I argue that different deployments of crisis thinking have different ‘affect-effects’ and consequences for ethical and political practice. Some work to mobilize political action through articulating a politics of fear, assuming that people take most responsibility for the future when they fear the alternatives. Other forms of crisis thinking work to heighten critical awareness by disrupting existential certainty, asserting an ‘ethics of ambiguity’ which assumes that the continuous production of uncertain futures is a fundamental part of the human condition (de Beauvoir, 2000). In this paper, I hope to illustrate that the first deployment of crisis thinking can easily justify the closing down of political debate, discouraging radical experimentation and critique for the sake of resolving problems in a timely and decisive way. The second approach to crisis thinking, on the other hand, has greater potential to enable intellectual and political alterity in everyday life—but one that poses considerable challenges for our understandings of and responses to climate change...

Organisational learning - a critical systems thinking discipline

Original Paper European Journal of Information Systems (2001) 10, 135–146; doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000394 Organisational learning—a critical systems thinking discipline P Panagiotidis1,3 and J S Edwards2,4 1Deloitte and Touche, Athens, Greece 2Aston Business School, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham, B4 7ET, UK Correspondence: Dr J S Edwards, Aston Business School, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham, B4 7ET, UK. E-mail: j.s.edwards@aston.ac.uk 3Petros Panagiotidis is Manager responsible for the Process and Systems Integrity Services of Deloitte and Touche in Athens, Greece. He has a BSc in Business Administration and an MSc in Management Information Systems from Western International University, Phoenix, Arizona, USA; an MSc in Business Systems Analysis and Design from City University, London, UK; and a PhD degree from Aston University, Birmingham, UK. His doctorate was in Business Systems Analysis and Design. His principal interests now are in the ERP/DSS field, where he serves as project leader and project risk managment leader in the implementation of SAP and JD Edwards/Cognos in various major clients in the telecommunications and manufacturing sectors. In addition, he is responsible for the development and application of knowledge management systems and activity-based costing systems. 4John S Edwards is Senior Lecturer in Operational Research and Systems at Aston Business School, Birmingham, UK. He holds MA and PhD degrees (in mathematics and operational research respectively) from Cambridge University. His principal research interests are in knowledge management and decision support, especially methods and processes for system development. He has written more than 30 research papers on these topics, and two books, Building Knowledge-based Systems and Decision Making with Computers, both published by Pitman. Current research work includes the effect of scale of operations on knowledge management, interfacing expert systems with simulation models, process modelling in law and legal services, and a study of the use of artifical intelligence techniques in management accounting. Top of pageAbstract This paper deals with the application of critical systems thinking in the domain of organisational learning and knowledge management. Its viewpoint is that deep organisational learning only takes place when the business systems' stakeholders reflect on their actions and thus inquire about their purpose(s) in relation to the business system and the other stakeholders they perceive to exist. This is done by reflecting both on the sources of motivation and/or deception that are contained in their purpose, and also on the sources of collective motivation and/or deception that are contained in the business system's purpose. The development of an organisational information system that captures, manages and institutionalises meaningful information—a knowledge management system—cannot be separated from organisational learning practices, since it should be the result of these very practices. Although Senge's five disciplines provide a useful starting-point in looking at organisational learning, we argue for a critical systems approach, instead of an uncritical Systems Dynamics one that concentrates only on the organisational learning practices. We proceed to outline a methodology called Business Systems Purpose Analysis (BSPA) that offers a participatory structure for team and organisational learning, upon which the stakeholders can take legitimate action that is based on the force of the better argument. In addition, the organisational learning process in BSPA leads to the development of an intrinsically motivated information organisational system that allows for the institutionalisation of the learning process itself in the form of an organisational knowledge management system. This could be a specific application, or something as wide-ranging as an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) implementation. Examples of the use of BSPA in two ERP implementations are presented.

Thinking and acting strategically:new challenges for interrogating strategy

This paper takes a critical and evaluative stance toward micro-activity-based approaches to understanding strategy. It argues that such approaches bring with them important theoretical and empirical challenges. The paper argues against a tendency to reductionism without equal emphasis to the contextual influences that bound micro-strategising. Finally, the paper argues for a more international and comparative approach to micro-strategy studies than has currently been the case.

Thinking about a literature review...

Guest editorial

WASOP, a qualitative methodology for waste minimization: systems thinking, HAZOP principles and nuclear waste

Purpose – The international nuclear community continues to face the challenge of managing both the legacy waste and the new wastes that emerge from ongoing energy production. The UK is in the early stages of proposing a new convention for its nuclear industry, that is: waste minimisation through closely managing the radioactive source which creates the waste. This paper proposes a new technique (called waste and source material operability study (WASOP)) to qualitatively analyse a complex, waste-producing system to minimise avoidable waste and thus increase the protection to the public and the environment. Design/methodology/approach – WASOP critically considers the systemic impact of up and downstream facilities on the minimisation of nuclear waste in a facility. Based on the principles of HAZOP, the technique structures managers' thinking on the impact of mal-operations in interlinking facilities in order to identify preventative actions to reduce the impact on waste production of those mal-operations.' Findings – WASOP was tested with a small group of experienced nuclear regulators and was found to support their qualitative examination of waste minimisation and help them to work towards developing a plan of action. Originality/value – Given the newness of this convention, the wider methodology in which WASOP sits is still in development. However, this paper communicates the latest thinking from nuclear regulators on decision-making methodology for supporting waste minimisation and is hoped to form part of future regulatory guidance. WASOP is believed to have widespread potential application to the minimisation of many other forms of waste, including that from other energy sectors and household/general waste.