Suchergebnisse

PurposeThe study of anticipatory systems assumes the existence of two distinct types of systems in nature. Some systems anticipate the future and such anticipation forms part of the system itself, while other systems, however, do not anticipate and solely rely on past states. This article aims to argue that this distinction is inadequate given the current understanding of fundamental physics and it seeks to propose instead that all systems need to be considered fundamentally anticipatory.Design/methodology/approachThe analysis centers on showing how classical and quantum mechanics implies the concept of anticipatory system by showing how systems are relational and inherently anticipatory because of the potential interaction from a given reference frame of another system.FindingsThis article shows the fundamental relationship between the physical state of the system and its energy, first in classical mechanics and then in quantum mechanics. This serves, first, to remind that energy is arbitrary and so is the system, and second, that the role of potential energy is precisely one of anticipation of interaction with another system at the boundaries.Research limitations/implicationsThis article shows there is a fundamental concept of anticipation built in the concept of a closed system, but open systems can get around the analysis presented.Practical implicationsSystems engineering and decision theory fields may benefit from a renewed understanding of the role of anticipation in systems.Originality/valueThis analysis contributes to the fundamental understanding of the concept of anticipation, systems, and their fundamental role in physics.

PurposeThis article aims to be an expository introduction to Robert Rosen's anticipatory systems, the theory of which provides the conceptual basis for foresight studies.Design/methodology/approachThe ubiquity of anticipatory systems in nature is explained.FindingsCausality is not violated by anticipatory systems, and teleology is an integral aspect of science.Practical implicationsA terse exposition for a general readership, such as the present article, by definition cannot get into too many details. For further exploration the reader is referred to the recent book More than Life Itself by the author.Originality/valueThe topic of anticipatory systems in particular, and methods of relational biology in general, provide important tools for foresight studies. It is the author's hope that this brief glimpse into the world of relational biology piques the interest of some readers to pursue the subject further.

PurposeWhen coping with complex, but also possibly disruptive and open‐ended social dynamics, the anticipatory system idea, which was developed by Rosen in the realm of physical and biological system observation, remains a reference framework, but one that may need to be reinforced by other theoretical considerations. This paper aims at using a debate that took place in a specific foresight discussion arena on early detection and weak signal analysis, as a constructive epistemic detour to eventually contribute to such a reinforcement of Rosen's anticipatory system proposal.Design/methodology/approachThe author aims at revisiting Rosen's framework with stimulating inputs drawing upon the early detection debates, by first assessing the original concepts brought up by Ansoff in the 1970s and 1980s and its further enhancements by contemporary scholars. A rather constructivist approach is then developed to weak signal analysis, aiming at emphasising the need, in analytical situations involving social system features, for reflexive stages and capacities. Bearing this requirement in mind, the productive value of the "framing" and "meta‐framing" notions is explored, in order to apply them to Rosen's anticipatory systems and possibly contribute to enriching his original concept.FindingsHow effective the framing and meta‐framing couple can be for a series of anticipatory issues is described in a detailed manner and, then more specifically, Rosen's anticipatory system concept is revisited in the light of those inputs, aiming at putting into perspective new options for research and anticipation activities in general.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper is essentially conceptual and based on a rich but disputable detour by early detection and weak analysis issues so as to emphasise key reflexive references and method. However, most of this material is taken from domains rather untypical of Rosennean debates and in addition would need to be completed by a series of supportive cases, but that is beyond the scope and scale of this paper.Practical implicationsThe paper sets clear distinctions and boundaries for when and when not to apply reflexive steps in a foresight exercise, including in the context of rolling out a Rosen type of approach. Research decision making both in the corporate and policy‐making contexts can benefit from such clues and supportive framework conditions.Social implicationsSocial systems are typically complex and involve multiple perspectives and viewpoints; they concern a series of major challenges to be coped with locally or more globally, at environmental, political, cultural or technological level, and in that category of anticipatory endeavor, the framing/meta‐framing epistemic couple may be of great usefulness.Originality/valueAlthough rather conceptual, the detour proposed by the paper aims at creating a reflexive distance and enriched capability to evaluate one's potential biases and blind spots in anticipatory modelling activities.

PurposeThe paper aims to investigate what is the best ontological framework of anticipatory systems. Its aim is to argue the thesis that the ontology on which anticipatory systems are based should be a dynamic one: a kind of process ontology. It seeks to include a demonstration of the fruitfulness of such an ontological framework for the investigation of anticipatory systems.Design/methodology/approachThe methodology of the paper is a process ontological one. The objectives are achieved by a comparative analysis of the static and dynamic approaches to the ontological framework.FindingsA process ontological framework is a reliable basis for the substantiation of the thesis that there is no great gap between living and non‐living systems as far as anticipation is concerned.Practical implicationsAn example is represented of an anticipatory non‐living system that is artificially created and is programmed as a self‐control system. In this respect the paper has some practical implications.Originality/valueA new approach is suggested to the investigation of anticipatory systems. It could be of interest not only for philosophers, but also for scientists who work on ontology as technology.

In this paper, we investigated the relationship between anticipation and design. Through a case study, we analysed the role Design plays among the anticipation processes in regards to the development of a territory. The functional structure of anticipation is based on a three-part scheme: a normal part, a model of the normal part, a steering device able to steer the normal part according to the outcomes of the model. The case study represented the model whereby the possible evolution of the normal part is experienced. The aim was to test whether design could enable anticipatory systems by operating a steering device and by supporting its action through processes of prefiguration, vision and realization. The case study 'MakeinProgress' (MiP) was born from an opportunity in the territory — the architectural recovery of a former "Filanda", funded by local authorities with public financing. The MiP project started as an incubator and then converted with the intervention of design. To convert MiP we applied an action-research approach. In the case of MiP, the local community could be seen as an autopoietic system, whereas the tools, belonging to the Service Design and to the Design for Social Innovation, acted as a steering device. The paper presents the process whereby people were enabled to define new job opportunities out of their passions, to exploit the available space to the best of its potential, linking the territory to the national and international circuits. MiP is a concrete demonstration of the possible role of Design among anticipation mechanisms, thanks to the application of Service Design tools. MiP also acts as a support for the creation of models to be used to support the public system and governments and to support the community.

In this paper we investigated the relationship between anticipation and design. Through a case study, we analysed the role Design plays among the anticipation processes in regards to the development of a territory. The functional structure of anticipation is based on a three-part scheme: a normal part, a model of the normal part, a steering device able to steer the normal part according to the outcomes of the model. The case study represented the model whereby the possible evolution of the normal part is experienced. The aim was to test whether design could enable anticipatory systems by operating as steering device and by supporting its action through processes of prefiguration, vision and realization. The case study 'MakeinProgress' (MiP) was born from an opportunity in the territory — the architectural recovery of a former "Filanda", funded by local authorities with public financing. The MiP project started as an incubator and then converted with the intervention of design. To convert MiP we applied an action-research approach. In the case of MiP, the local community could be seen as an autopoietic system, whereas the tools, belonging to the Service Design and to the Design for Social Innovation, acted as steering device. The paper presents the process whereby people were enabled to define new job opportunities out of their passions, to exploit the available space to the best of its potential, linking the territory to the national and international circuits. MiP is a concrete demonstration of the possible role of Design among anticipation mechanisms, thanks to the application of Service Design tools. MiP also acts as support for the creation of models to be used to support the public system and governments and to support the community.Keywords: MakeinProgress, Anticipation, Service Design, Social Innovation.

AbstractEmerging energy systems are inherently different from their conventional counter-parts. To address all issues of these systems, comprehensive approaches of transdisciplinary and post-normal sciences are needed. This article tries to re-conceptualize emerging energy systems using Robert Rosen's theory of anticipatory system and introduces the concept of the anticipatory smart energy system (ASES). Three important features of an ASES are described and socio-technical considerations for realization of these features are discussed. The article also considers realization of such systems under society 5.0 paradigm and spime techno-culture. In ASESs, the identity of users evolves and new identities are created for energy users, based on the production, consumption, storage, and distributed management of energy. An Anticipatory energy system can manage a common pool of prosumaging.