Search results

AbstractThere is no well‐accepted, coherent language of systems science founded in correlated theoretical and empirical results that enables it to fill the requirements for people to work with complexity. A set of linguistic adjustments is proposed as a way of moving from the present state of the language toward a sorely needed, functional state of discursivity. The goal is to achieve a linguistic state of systems science that is commensurate with the needs of applications in many locales to redesign dysfunctional systems, both small and large, in society. A six‐component strategy for achieving this goal is described. The development of discursivity along the proposed lines is keyed to this strategy. Acceptance of these linguistic adjustments could do for systems science what Lavoisier did for chemistry over 200 years ago. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AbstractSystems science is not entirely characterized by a unique conception. Since it seems still to be in a formative stage, a proposal that looks to its future may be appropriate. Because systems science is commonly perceived to be very broad in its scope and far reaching in its implications for practitioners, it is not unreasonable to suppose that systems science can be seen as filling multiple scientific roles. In order to fulfill this common perspective, systems science ought to be able to appear in at least five roles: as a science of description—in which the original role of science, to describe the physical world and portray interactions among a few of its components, is enlarged to enable description of problematic situations, whatever the nature of these situations; as a science of generic design—in which those aspects of system design often left to intuition are no longer the prisoner of intuitive thought only, but rather become identifiable beneficiaries of methods that do not rely on specific disciplines, but rather stem from neutral sources that are clearly essential for the development of any science, thus serving a broad universe of design situations; as a science of complexity—in which systems science is extendible to the far reaches of human competence, enlarging the domain of demonstrable results in the service of humanity, relying on high discursivity and careful quality control; as a science of action—in which clear patterns of behavior essential to resolve problematic situations are identified, and the linguistic and infrastructure needs for carrying out such actions are clearly specified; as a science that is open to imports from other disciplines and incorporates means of identifying and integrating essential components of those disciplines, when clearly required in a problematic situation. It is proposed that systems science will fill all of these roles, being perceived by means of a hierarchical inclusion structure in which general concepts are applied to well‐specified purposes, reserving importation of methods from the specific disciplines to its applications arena. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AbstractExtended testing of the performance of small groups working with complex issues has revealed the pervasive existence of a phenomenon which is here named 'Spreadthink'. This phenomenon accounts for worldwide ineffectiveness of groups of people trying to work together to resolve complex issues under conditions that neither recognize nor compensate for Spreadthink.Since Spreadthink is an immobilizing phenomenon, it deserves widespread attention and appropriate compensatory action by leaders, managers and administrators wherever complex issues are under serious consideration in organizations.Concurrent with the testing that uncovered and documented Spreadthink, measures that can be taken to overcome the effects of Spreadthink have been tested. The evidence that would prove the effectiveness of these measures is equal in extent, but much less quantitative in nature than the evidence that supports the presence of Spreadthink. Nevertheless, a significant case can be made to the effect that if Spreadthink can be overcome in a particular situation, the system of management called interactive management provides the capability to overcome it in that situation.

AbstractIt is time that the related fields of cybernetics and systems science began to make a significant contribution to the design of organizations. A good place to begin is with the design of the Great University.The Great University does not presently exist, either in any institution or in a conceptual form. If it can be designed conceptually, the possibility exists that it may be realized in practice, and that it could serve as an example to existing institutions.The Great University represents a sufficiently sophisticated concept that its design and operation both can serve as tests of the quality and utility of concepts from systems science and cybernetics.The Great University is founded on the Leibniz Principle of Reason. In order to reflect this Principle, it is animated by and organized around three objectives of education set forth by Ralph Barton Perry, which are founded in the aim to prepare people for the exercise of citizenship in a free society.Evaluation of the Great University will lie in the performance of university graduates in society. The Great University will strive to create and implement exemplary practices that reinforce high quality performance of university graduates and correct the factors that promote low‐quality performance in university graduates.In creating an organization and programs that are responsive to the Leibniz Principle and the Perry Objectives, the Great University will set behavioral standards of the highest ethical quality, and its internal incentive system for faculty and student performance will be designed to promote balanced attention to the three objectives. In order to achieve this, a double infrastructure will be required to meet the vastly different requirements of subsumptive and supersumptive activity, both types being essential in the Great University."… the paradox is now fully established that the utmost abstractions are the true weapons with which to control our thought of concrete fact."Alfred North Whitehead

AbstractMuch systems thinking involves implicit aspects upon which the validity, credibility, and even the meaning of the products of the thought depend. The consequences of following misguided, implicit presuppositions vary in intensity according to the milieu in which such presuppositions govern. Two important areas in which the consequences can be very severe to society today are (a) large system design and operation and (b) management of organizations that produce or manage such systems.Division of a ConceptSeveral key notions can play a role in converting many of the implicit aspects into explicit features. Among these are the notions of:Integration of Component ConceptsDefinition by RelationshipGradation of Beliefall of which benefit by taking the mathematical Theory of Relations as an underlying language for expression.Much of the implicitness in science and in systems thinking derives from the failure to recognize explicitly three Universal Priors to all science: The human being, language, and reasoning through relationships. Recognition of a body of knowledge as a science ought to be conditional on the studied, relevant, and explicit incorporation of these three features in the science.Referential transparency, a key criterion for any science, is potentially greatly enhanced by replacing implicit or superficial recognition of the Universal Priors with explicit, detailed incorporation of them in the science.Through the combined impact of application of the key notions mentioned above; together with explicit recognition of the Universal Priors in the Foundations of a science or of systems thinking; along with the discipline, steering, and organization provided by measuring the science against the Domain of Science Model; it becomes feasible to upgrade substantially the quality of systems thinking, of science, and of applications of science.