Foundations | about 40 minutes | free
Use a small disturbance-response model to test a claim about regulation.
Basic examples of requisite variety, feedback delay and whole-system effects. The SCiO row is broader; this page does not claim to cover every law in a systems-laws course.
This is original learning material, not a reproduced official course. Mechanical checks have determinate answers within the stated case. Worked comparisons for open judgements show defensible reasoning, not the only possible model. Specialist pedagogical review is not recorded.
Fictional case: a help desk receives four mutually exclusive request states: A password reset, B identity discrepancy, C accessibility support and D suspected fraud. Its safe responses are R1 an automated reset for A, R2 a trained identity investigation for B, R3 supported access for C and R4 a fraud investigation for D. Applying any other response to a state leaves an unacceptable outcome in this deliberately simplified exercise. The new portal can recognise only 'ordinary' and 'exceptional', and offers only R1 or 'send an email'. Replies to that email take five working days. Managers propose counting cases closed by the portal as success.
Use paper, your own drawing tool or the notes below. Attempt each step before opening its comparison. Describe a diagram in words when that is more accessible.
Produce: Four rows showing the necessary distinction, safe response and current gap.
A requires R1 and is handled. B requires R2, C requires R3 and D requires R4; the portal's email route does not itself supply those responses. Four labels alone do not solve the problem: recognition, authority, capability and timeliness must support the matching action. In this toy case the safe-response sets are disjoint, so a regulator restricted to two effective responses cannot meet all four requirements.
Produce: Two changes, each explaining what variety is changed.
An authorised upstream identity correction could prevent some B discrepancies arising: it changes the disturbance reaching the desk. Training and authorising an adviser to distinguish B, C and D and route them immediately increases effective response variety. Hiding fraud or accessibility requests from the report merely suppresses information; it does not attenuate the underlying need safely.
Produce: A failure mechanism and an observable warning signal.
People may resubmit while waiting, increasing workload before the original exception is resolved. Track unique people, repeated submissions, waiting age and unresolved risk, not just portal closures. A lagged weekly total can look reassuring while urgent exceptions accumulate. More frequent reporting helps only if someone can act on the signal.
Produce: One outcome measure and one counter-measure.
Measure safe resolution of the person's request end to end, with unresolved age and access exclusions as counter-measures. Portal closures may be retained as an operational count, but cannot substitute for resolution. The chosen definition of 'safe' and who can contest it must remain explicit.
These checks test the supplied case, not your overall competence. Open answers and model variants still need your judgement.
'The law of requisite variety proves that every customer needs a unique process and standardisation is always wrong.'
The law concerns necessary distinctions and effective regulation relative to desired outcomes. Several disturbances may share an adequate response. Standardise where differences do not matter to that outcome; preserve distinctions and discretion where they do. State the equivalence assumption and test it.
B and D can now be safely handled by the same authorised investigation team using one triage action. Does the four-response conclusion still follow?
No. The original disjoint-response assumption has changed. Three initial response classes may suffice if the investigation route actually distinguishes and handles the later differences in time. Count effective response capability across the relevant process, not merely the first screen's buttons.
A different model can be defensible when its purpose, assumptions and reasoning are explicit. A contradiction, incorrect unit, invented fact or unacknowledged change of purpose needs repair. Keep both your first attempt and revision.
No sign-in or submission is required. Notes are not sent by this practice tool. Use fictional information, not identifiable client or learner data. Saving stores this page's attempt only in this browser; clearing browser data can remove it. Export a copy to keep it elsewhere.
The complete original case above is free. Links below distinguish exercises from explanations, recordings, software and paid study. Reading a page or drawing in a tool is not itself a model check.
Further reading for each framework row, including the separate references associated with transposing theory.
Public sharing confirmed; approach and theory bibliography inspected. The presence of a reference does not establish that it contains self-check exercises.
Attempt SAQ 3 before opening its answer. Draw your own map for Activities 19-22, then compare the author's choices. Different justified boundaries need not match the example.
Tasks, defective maps, answer text and worked revisions inspected. Historic Child Support Agency case, not current policy guidance.
Choose the named introduction or core module matching your method. Check current price, access arrangements and feedback provision before paying.
Public listings inspected for VSM, SSM, CSH, SD, Patterns of Strategy, Mosaic and systems laws. Paid exercises and marking were not accessed.
Choose another practice area · Task-only version · Worked-answer version