Reflection Post, Week 9

The planning process for the systemigram depiction in class was both enlightening and overwhelming. It was enlightening because it showed the importance of being able to identify the components (people) of the system and conceptualize how they are connected to each other through both chain of command and flow of information (or resources). That bigger picture represents the system’s structure, and without an understanding of its structure, there would be great difficulty in pinpointing where in the system a problem is occurring or where a barrier is present that is impeding the flow of information, resources, or decision making. Planning and pre-research is everything in the analysis of a system.

However, while the exercise clearly showed the importance of planning the process, the resulting depiction on the whiteboard in the image below is overwhelming to look at. As a standalone image, it means nothing to me. I only understand what it depicts because I followed along during the exercise. My own thinking tends to be much more systematic. For me, the planning of my own system of interest will require a neater representation of the organizational structure of the system. Sketching it out on paper might be the beginning of the process, but I think that I will need to create the organizational structure in Systemitool first, then transfer it to a Word document and add bullets, comments, and so forth. Then, I will be able to print it out and study it, making additional changes as necessary.

 

 

Transforming the information in the image above into a story helped simplify the content into something that made sense. I am beginning to get the hang of that process. The second image below shows the results in systemigram form. To me, this is basically linear concept mapping that describes one aspect of the system in a long sentence. The aspect of the system that we discussed in class was the process that impacts course availability in the College of Information at the university. During class, we ended at the “departmental resources” node. I continued the sentence to the end by adding the nodes and links between “departmental resources” and “lack of course availability.” This made me realize how important it is to understand the inner workings of the system—not only how the general process of course enrollment works but also the barriers in the process that may result in lack of course availability. If I were developing this systemigram from scratch, I would need to interview the people in the system (from various perspectives) to get a good grasp of the process.

 

 

The systemigram above reveals that resources are the primary driver of course availability, and lack of resources in any area may negatively impact course availability. For example, if a faculty member leaves the department, he or she may take the only expertise available for a course, leaving a gap in course offerings. If student enrollment in any course is too low, that course may be dropped for the semester (that happened to me this semester). Budget drives the minimum enrollment rule. Constant threats to course availability may impact student enrollment. Students may drop out or transfer if they cannot enroll in the courses they need in a timely manner. This may lead to a poor reputation for the degree program, hampering student recruitment. Budget and expertise are the primary factors that impact course availability, so it would behoove the decision makers (e.g., administrators) to consider strategies for limiting the negative consequences of lack of course availability. For example, when hiring new faculty, care should be taken to match the real needs of the department with appropriate candidates. Additionally, the impact of a minimum enrollment rule should be evaluated within the department. What drives the number, and is it the norm at competing universities?