No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
What Is a Systems Approach?
Abstract
What is a systems approach? The first step towards answering this question is an understanding of the history of the systems movement, which includes a survey of contemporary systems discourse. In particular, I examine how systems researchers differentiated their contribution from mechanistic science - but also from holistic doctrines; and identify the similarities and sharpest differences between complex systems and other systems approaches. Having set the scene, the second step involves developing a definition of 'system' consistent with the spirit of the systems approach.
... "A System is a set of variables sufficiently isolated to stay discussable while we discuss it." W. Ross Ashby, cited in Ryan (2008) We open the discussion on systems with Ashby's quote, which introduces several important concepts, some of which are implied rather than stated. Systems are part of the larger whole. ...
... Prior to 1950s, the analytic, deterministic and mechanistic world view prevailed in science (Ryan 2008). People seemed comforted by the idea that everything was ticking over like clockwork, operating under immutable rules, and that given enough time, clever people would be able to measure all the gears, time the cycles, link up the actions and understand how it all worked. ...
... If we saw a different pattern, we might define the system as a slightly bigger or smaller whole, or if we had already defined a different whole system, we might see a different pattern. The circularity of this definition can be a little boggling, so we will adapt a definition from Ryan (2008) We are getting closer, but these points need a little more elaboration to be sure we all agree on what systems are. ...
This chapter introduces and explains the main concepts that provide the theoretical background on how to model the ubiquitous socio-technical systems that are so important to modern life. First the notions of systems, adaptation and complexity are discussed as individual concepts before addressing complex adaptive systems as a whole. This is followed by a discussion on generative science and agent-based modelling, with special attention paid to how these concepts relate to socio-technical systems. Throughout the text examples of how the theories can be applied to real systems are provided. Armed with a solid understanding of concepts such as observer-dependence, evolution, intractability, emergence and self-organisation, the reader will have the right foundation for moving on to the practical aspects of building and using agent-based models for decision support in socio-technical systems.
... Ryan wrote that Descartes "described a scientific method, the adherence to which he hoped could provide privileged access to truth" adding "the second rule of analytic reduction, and the third rule of understanding the simplest objects and phenomena first, provided the view of scientific explanation as decomposing the problem into simple parts to be considered individually, which could then be reassembled to yield an understanding of the integrated whole." (Ryan, 2008) Rebovich wrote: ...
... His second precept, analytic reduction, was to "divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many parts as possible, and as might be necessary or its adequate solution." (Ryan, 2008) INCOSE wrote that, "the best way to understand a complicated system is to break in down into parts recursively until the parts are so simple that we understand them" warning that "this approach does not help us to understand a complex system, because the emergent properties that we really care about disappear when we examine the parts in isolation." (INCOSE SEH, 2015, p. 9) Sheard noted the limitation to this approach stating, "Decomposition necessarily reduces emphasis on the aspects of the system that cannot be broken into small pieces -how the system becomes a whole that is more than the sum of its parts." ...
... His third precept, understanding the simplest objects and phenomena first, was to "conduct my thoughts in such order that, by commencing with objects the simplest and easiest to know, I might ascend by little and little, and, as it were, step by step, to the knowledge of the more complex; assigning in thought a certain order even to those objects which in their own nature do not stand in a relation of antecedence and sequence." (Ryan, 2008) In the Handbook of Systems Engineering and Management, Shenhar and Sauser wrote, "a simple way to define various levels of complexity is to use a hierarchical framework of systems and subsystems." (Shenhar & Sauser, 2009, p. 126) Simon wrote: By a hierarchic system, or hierarchy, I mean a system that is composed of interrelated subsystems, each of the latter being, in turn, hierarchic in structure until we reach some lowest level of elementary subsystem. ...
... This may provide the system's structure. Understanding the parts of that structure in isolation does not say anything about the whole (Ryan, 2008). Taking this into consideration, it is not useful to speak of systems in terms of simplistic and general causal relationships. ...
... Defining a 'desired goal' is obviously not a straightforward matter; it depends on the interpretation of the different actors involved. Management problems involve people possessing unique knowledge and ways of interpreting situations that form conditions for their response (Ryan, 2008). This is represented in a mental model: language, words, maps and calculations (Meadows, 2009). ...
We analysed how an improbable project of building a new river through a suburban area came to fruition after all. The project is called the ‘Blue Connection’. We deployed systemic causal diagrams as a tool to visually show the structure of a system. The diagrams were derived and synthesized from interviews with participants. They then reflected upon the results. As such, the diagrams served a dual purpose: to understand why the Blue Connection project gained momentum whilst simultaneously contributing to the momentum by providing a coherent diagram of the systemic whole beyond the bounded mental models of individual actors. We identified the mechanisms that enabled or restrained the project as a complex system. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
... It was Ludwig von Bertalanffy's theory of open systems that introduced the idea of a General Systems Theory (GST), which rose to prominence in the mid twentieth century and then helped to define the core principles of the systems approach along with the closely related field of cybernetics. 16 The basic methods of the systems approach are to treat the object under study as a system, analyze the structure and function of the system, and study the relationships between the system, its components and its environment. The objective of the systems approach is not only to understand the characteristics and laws of the system, but also to use them to control, manage, and transform the system; adjust the system structure; coordinate the relationships of various components; and make the system achieve the optimization targets. ...
... A system is defined as a complex whole that affects and is affected by its environment. 16 Modern holistic medicine treats the human body as a complex system, and emphasizes the organic connection within the system. The body's components are seen as interdependent parts of the complex whole; illness is viewed as a manifestation of a dysfunction of the whole person, rather than an isolated event. ...
... Prerequisite to systems approach is that every component must be interrelated and codependent with each other. This interrelation and dependency form a working and efficient systems (Ryan, 2008). For a systems to work smoothly, it must have a hierarchical order of subsystems. ...
... It also acts as a continuous measure of quality improvement through responses, either positive or negative feedbacks. Aside from the primary use of feedback, systems analysis is mainly independent of developments in systems theory (Ryan, 2008). In Figure 2, feedbacks are sought from internal as well as external sources through lead agencies, acting as the medium of information transfer. ...
Muslim-Friendly Hospitality (MFH) is considered a new trends in tourism and hospitality which has gained attention among industry player, locally and abroad. The attraction is due to the growing number of Muslim's who requires their faith-based needs, satiated when travelling and engaging in activities beyond their home. MFH adoption is far less strict than Shariah Compliance (SC), which commands to the adherence of Islamic teaching on every aspect of the hospitality operation and management. To ensure the integrity of MFH practices, a regulatory framework for MFH is proposed. Extensive literature and documents analysis were conducted as primary methodology for this paper. Data gathered, were coded and analysed qualitatively, to grasp the relationship between every element in the MFH regulatory framework. An MFH regulatory framework is then proposed and benchmarked upon the regulatory framework used in the Malaysian Halal industry. A systems based approach was chosen to be the illustrative apparatuses to explain better the regulatory framework as a continuous, robust systems that will be the core of the MFH ecosystems. The regulatory framework consists of Government Policy, Laws and Regulation, comprises of Implementation Guidelines, Manual procedures and Circulars and the lowest level, Quality Standards & Term of References. At the operational level, the MFH Management Systems will the guiding-governing tools, keeping the Muslim-Friendly practices intact. The adoption of MFH practices as a fully functioning and organised systems is still in its infancy, although some of its elements have been practices unintentionally over the years by industry player. Realigning of efforts and resources through creating comprehensive regulatory framework will ensure the sustainability of MFH practices, and ultimately will give Malaysia an added advantages as a premier destination for Muslim tourist.
... It was Ludwig von Bertalanffy's theory of open systems that introduced the idea of a General Systems Theory (GST), which rose to prominence in the mid twentieth century and then helped to define the core principles of the systems approach along with the closely related field of cybernetics Ryan [15]. The basic methods of the systems approach are to treat the object under study as a system, analyze the structure and function of the system, and study the relationships between the system, its components and its environment. ...
... Ludwig Von Bertalanffy's emphasis on flows of energy and information into and out of an open system also brought attention to the environment of the open system. A system is defined as a complex whole that affects and is affected by its environment Ryan [15]. Modern holistic medicine treats the human body as a complex system and emphasizes the organic connection within the system. ...
... Seriously adopting the sociotechnical systems perspective as the system idea for infrastructures implies an immense system scope which relates to a vast realm of knowledge domains, theories and tools to be used and integrated when we want to construct models. At the same time, we must understand " the real challenge posed by the systems idea: its message is not that in order to be rational we need to be omniscient but, rather, that we must learn to deal critically with the fact that we never are " (Ulrich, 1988; Ryan, 2008). So, even given this vast scope, we still must limit ourselves if only to deal with limited time, data, information and knowledge. ...
... The issue of knowledge management relates to how we integrate, connect and reuse information. This will be described much further in the next section and will focus on the fact that embracing a systems view means that we must deal critically with the fact that we cannot be omniscient about systems (Ulrich, 1988; Ryan, 2008). While we cannot be omniscient, we are finding better ways to aggregate information and foster a collaborative exploring of complex systems. ...
To support stakeholders involved in infrastructure development, we develop evolutionary models of these complex systems, which is a formidable task with respect to data requirements, information representation and knowledge management. Re-addressing a case on bio-electricity infrastructure evolution, we demonstrate first a series of visualisations of economic and ecologic system parameters as they change during infrastructure development over simulated decades. This setup allows us to demonstrate to stakeholders a means to anticipate the consequences of decisions on (dis)investment of power generation options available. In developing these tools, our approach needed to be expanded to better handle the complexity of infrastructure systems, due to the multiple relevant social and technical contexts from which these systems need to be considered. The second part of this paper describes our work on enabling collaborative mapping of our knowledge of infrastructure systems to help integrate diverse types of knowledge. Current internet-enabled developments such as Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web offer tremendous scope to lower the transaction cost of gathering and assembling data. Already, these are changing the ways scientific collaboration is conducted. Finally, we suggest to connect this to evolutionary models to elucidate the dynamics of these systems.
... That specific organization gives the system its structure. It is the structure or the whole with its interdependencies and not the discrete parts that determine a systems outcome (Ryan, 2008). While a bureaucratic approach seeks to control outcomes often through narrow performance metrics (Hoggett, 1996, Dieffenbach, 2009) a systemic approach seeks to understand outcomes which are often no more than symptoms of the underlying structure (Sterman, 2000) The understanding that outcomes or behavior are latent within the structure of a system, serves as a starting point for how the system works. ...
An important ability of institutions is their capacity to recognize new external knowledge so that they can revitalize outdated routines and stay clear of institutional lock in. However not much is known about what determines the absorptive capacity of institutions. By analyzing mental models of agents within an institution through Group Model Building. We contribute to literature on absorptive capacity and show how institutions could potentially increase absorptive capacity at the micro agent-level while circumventing problems of institutional lock-in. The experiment shows that Group Model Building provides an avenue for reflecting on the internal logic of the institution. It is able to show the limited applicability of the internal logic in producing a desired outcome for certain messy problems. Although the agents acknowledged the shortcomings of the internal logic, they also accepted them and found dealing with them too complex. The article also reflects on how the experiment can be made more effective for future endeavors.
... These parts can be individuals or even groups of individuals or non-human elements (Cilliers, 2004). As a dynamic network of many agents with multiple objectives (Dijkema et al., 2013;Van Dam et al., 2013), constantly acting and reacting, in non-linear relations (Augustinsson, 2006), in parallel to what other agents are doing, the control of a complex adaptive system (CAS) is highly dispersed and decentralized (Ryan, 2008). Coherence of behaviour in the system emerges from competition and cooperation among the agents themselves (Waldrop, 1992;Deming, 1994, p. 50). ...
Purpose
This paper aims to understand social entrepreneurship (SE) business model design to create values whilst undertaking public service delivery within the complex environments of local governments in South Africa.
Design/methodology/approach
Face-to-face semi-structured interview was conducted with 15 purposively selected social entrepreneurs in Gauteng and Western Cape provinces. The interview guide consisted of main themes and follow-up questions. Themes included SEs’ general history, the social business model; challenges faced and how these were overcome; scaling and growth/survival strategies. These enabled the evaluation of SEs in terms of identifying key criteria of affordability, availability, awareness and acceptability, which SEs must achieve to operate successfully in low-income markets. Social enterprise owners/managers within the electricity distribution, water reticulation and waste management services sectors were surveyed.
Findings
Most respondents focus on building a network of trust with stakeholders, through communication mechanisms that emphasize high-frequency engagements. There is also a strong focus on design-thinking and customer-centric approaches that strengthen value creation. The value creation process used both product value and service value mechanisms and emphasized quality and excellence to provide stakeholder, as well as societal value, within their specific contexts.
Practical implications
This study builds upon other research that emphasizes SEs’ customer-centric approaches to strengthen value creation and on building a network of trust with multiple stakeholders. It contributes to emphasizing the business paradigm shift towards bringing social values to the business practice.
Social implications
Social good, but resource providers are demanding more concrete evidence to help them understand their impact (Struthers, 2013). This is because it is intrinsically difficult for many social organizations to document and communicate their impact in more than an anecdotal way. The research has contributed to the understanding of how SEs can provide evidence of value creation.
Originality/value
This study contributes to the understanding of how business models are designed to create value within the context of the overwhelming complexity of local government services in South Africa.
... Here, the purpose or outcome is equivalent to the fulfilment of a specified function -for example, to enable the flow of a specific amount of water from A to B. In this, it is acknowledged that the designed system is nested in systems of governance or in a cultural setting, yet the latter are analyzed as external to the system that is being designed. Methodologies such as systems engineering of complex projects that were developed as a method to deal with engineering challenges that span multiple engineering disciplines (Ryan, 2008) but are well defined in their scope, fall into this category. ...
The necessity to recognize the subsurface or underground and all its current and potential uses as part of our urban environment, to integrate this into urban planning and governance, and to foster conscious allocation of subsurface space has been increasingly recognized over the last century. At the same time, systems thinking as a ‘buzz-word’ has gained relevance for approaching complex problem areas in all kinds of disciplines including those preoccupied with the subsurface.
This paper reviews the literature about urban underground planning through a systems-lens. To set this in context, it is outlined how organizational principles for the urban subsurface have evolved, and the main aspects of systems thinking are introduced followed by a discussion of how this thinking could be applied to the urban underground. Strategies and tools presented in the recent literature in the field are then reviewed based on this perspective, asking how systemic the proposed strategies and tools are when the local geology, as well as legal and institutional settings are accepted as a baseline for analysis or intervention. Systemic approaches built on this premise have the potential to capture existing and evolving complexities, foster a better understanding of the value of subsurface space for a city and ultimately enable an efficient and fair allocation of underground space. However, propositions for holistic solutions remain dispersed, interventions often remain based in an engineering mindset, and a shift in mind-set remains a challenge. More research in collaboration with local and regional administrations or authorities based on systems thinking frameworks could help to facilitate this shift.
... The systems perspective must take off when reductionist thinking gets stuck. Ryan [26] chronicles the development of "systems approaches" and the "systems movement" starting with the introduction of von Bertalanffy's General Systems Theory (GST) in the mid-twentieth century, the development of cybernetics, nonlinear dynamic systems, synergetics, complexity science and systems engineering. ...
Abstract. This paper investigates whether a superior perspective (out of two perspectives) for
management thinking in complex issues exists. Two prevailing thought-styles/perspectives are
contrasted: reductionist and holistic. Complex issues require the right management perspective
because wrong interventions informed by an inferior perspective may exacerbate complex problems.
Scholarly literature is reviewed that highlights the effectiveness of a superior perspective in the
management of complex phenomena ranging from business management to social policy. From the
literature it is discovered that although reductionist thinking has its benefits when dealing with
simpler phenomena, it has severe limitations and can be a blind-spot for managers when complex
issues are at stake. As the world we live in now is characterized by increasing complexity, managers
must switch from reductionist to holistic thinking (the superior perspective) in order to make the
right interventions in complex issues.
... This subsection presents basic system properties. These properties are idealization, multiple components, interdependent components, organized interactions, system environment, states, inputs, and outputs, time, actions, and non-trivial behavior [7, 8, 1, 2]. ...
Airspace command and control in the combat zone is becoming more complex due to the proliferation of unmanned aircraft, and the introduction of host nation and civilian aircraft. The ability to deconflict and integrate multiple airspace users continues to challenge commanders operating in a system that was designed during the Cold War and optimized for traditional warfare fought on a linear battlefield. The current airspace command and control system struggles to adapt to the nonlinear environments in Iraq and Afghanistan where near real-time coordination and constant surveillance is required to detect and defeat an asymmetric enemy. The purpose of this paper is to determine if the current airspace command and control system is optimized for the contemporary operating environment. The research examines airspace command and control organizations and structures, airspace control procedures and methods, and relevant equipment limiting air and ground operations. The problems highlighted in these areas will prove the research hypothesis that the current airspace command and control system is not optimized for the contemporary operating environment.
A common perspective among U.S. interagency partners today is that any step towards more effective and coordinated responses to contemporary security challenges requires an improved and shared understanding of the nature of the conflict and the environment in which it exists or may potentially emerge. They also agree that this requires both a joint interagency process for conducting the assessment and a common conceptual framework to guide the collection and analysis of information. In October 2008, an interagency committee officially adopted the Interagency Conflict Assessment Framework (ICAF) as the conceptual tool which informs interagency planning for conflict prevention, mitigation and stabilization. Because the Army is increasing its practice of deploying more planners to support interagency planning while also involving more interagency partners in its planning, this demonstrates the need to examine ICAF methodology in order to determine its compatibility with and utility within Army doctrinal planning processes. In March 2010, design was officially introduced into Army doctrine as a new conceptual planning component complementing detailed planning. It is a meta-perspective approach that provides military leaders with advanced cognitive tools to address complex, ill-structured problems common to contemporary conflict operations. By way of extensive literature reviews and comparative analysis, this study will establish that the ICAF and Army design have considerable differences but also share many similar systems thinking perspectives. The comparative analysis reveals that the ICAF, while compatible with design, is incomplete. This monograph will recommend that the two methodologies are compatible and integrating the ICAF with Army design can be advantageous in establishing a useful interagency approach to learning and understanding the nature of conflict and the context in which it exists or might emerge.
Industrial ecology (IE) is an ambitious field of study where we seek to understand systems using a wide perspective ranging from the scale of molecules to that of the planet. Achieving such a holistic view is challenging and requires collecting, processing, curating, and sharing immense amounts of data and knowledge.
We are not capable of fully achieving this due to the current state of tools used in IE and current community practices. Although we deal with a vastly interconnected world, we are not so good at efficiently interconnecting what we learn about it. This is not a problem unique to IE, and other fields have begun to use tools supported by the World Wide Web to meet these challenges.
We discuss these sets of tools and illustrate how community driven data collection, processing, curation, and sharing is allowing people to achieve more than ever before. In particular, we discuss standards that have been created to allow for interlinking of data dispersed across multiple Web sites. This is currently visible in the Linking Open Data initiative, which among others contains interlinked datasets from the U.S. and U.K. governments, biology databases, and Wikipedia. Since the types of technologies and standards involved are outside the normal scope of work by many industrial ecologists, we attempt to explain the relevance, implications, and benefits through a discussion of many real examples currently on the Web.
From these, we discuss several best practices, which can be enabling factors for how IE and the community can more efficiently and effectively meet its ambitions—an agenda for Industrial Ecology 2.0.
The application of the system concept to complex matters and, in particular, to complex engineering projects, is often understood in terms of a couple of intermediate processes, as shown in Table A5.1.
On a scale of “systemsness”, approaches to the understanding of, and dealing with failures and disasters range from non-systemic techniques and methods to full blown systems methodologies. This paper outlines the area of failures and disasters, and various approaches and classifications that have been adopted. The authors suggest a further approach to classification which is concerned with the systemic complexity of failures and which can therefore be useful in the choice of approach.
The word “sustainable” débuted in 1987 but has since become a hot topic issue, both for scientific research and wider society. Although sustainability may appear to be a thoroughly twenty-first century goal, sustainability science concepts and goals such as balance, endurance, order and change, reach back at least as far as the proto-scientific investigations of alchemy. Both alchemy and sustainability science can be understood as systems or strategies which individuals and societies can use to organise and manage themselves in a complex world filled with dynamic problems. Alchemy never created a panacea or transmuted base metals into gold because those goals proved to be based on fundamentally flawed theories and premises. Nevertheless, alchemy did succeed in helping adherents manage themselves and their societies in advantageous ways. Alchemy also positively and significantly influenced subsequent scientific development. Likewise, science helps humanity manage itself on multiple scales, from the individual to the international, and will certainly contribute to further scientific research and development. However, it is not yet known whether carbon neutrality, entirely renewable energy and other sustainability goals will be achieved or whether these goals will also come to be seen as based on flawed understandings and theories. For this reason, this article explores key features of alchemy, traces how they persisted through Enlightenment-era science and how they continue to be present and influential within scientific efforts today. The article goes on to reflect on how the history, development and continued use of concepts such as balance, endurance, order and change may be useful portents of how humans and human society will manage themselves in the future. Such reflections may also temper the zeal with which individuals that accept or reject sustainability goals treat each other, thereby offering a way for divergent groups to manage their interactions. Flawed theories prevented alchemy from achieving many of its primary stated goals. However, alchemy was very beneficial, both during its period of use and subsequently through its influence on subsequent development. This article identifies ideas from alchemy that were originally beneficial and that have persisted through Enlightenment-era science and into contemporary science. The article also explores how those ideas continue to influence scientific and sustainability goals today. Understanding and reflecting on alchemy’s successes and failures facilitates reflection on the potential successes and failures of sustainability and the human consequences of trying to manage a sustainable future.
With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the grip of superpower strictures loosened resulting in an increase in complexity and dynamism that marks today's security environment. The rapidly changing and uncertain environmental and strategic realities of the past fifteen years have compelled U.S. operational and strategic leaders to review their understanding of operational art, find extant operational voids, and fill them with new or renewed conceptual approaches. The aim of this monograph is to conduct an evaluation of the two most predominant experimental theoretical constructs - Effects-Based Approach to Operations (EBAO) and Design - and confront the challenge of integrating practical elements of the two constructs into the cyclic operations process: plan, prepare, execute, and assess. This research finds the two alternative conceptual approaches to operational thought - EBAO and Design - as having considerable irreconcilable differences. Whereas EBAO applies a systems perspective to develop solutions through center of gravity and nodal link analyses, Design focuses on deriving a deeper systemic understanding through heuristic thinking and learning. In practice, overly reductive and algorithmic additions to the original EBAO concept, such as System of Systems Analysis (SOSA) and Operational Net Assessment (ONA), discredited EBAO in the eyes of numerous U.S. Military senior leaders. Having fallen short on meeting its promise of predictivity, EBAO must return to its original principles to retain any relevancy in today's complex operational environment. Nevertheless, integration is possible considering the similarities in methodological techniques. Of the two approaches Design is the superior approach while operating in complex environments. Complimented by select EBAO elements and offering a broader holistic thinking and learning methodology, Design significantly enhances the commander-driven activities of the operations process. This paper suggests a recommended change to the operations process construct to improve operational praxis.
This paper reports the results of a survey intended to discover the extent to which Checkland's Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) is used in practice. Some 300 questionnaires were sent to people who had had some exposure to SSM and, surprisingly, nearly half were returned. The majority described in detail their uses of SSM and most felt that it had been successful. This paper describes the overall quantitative results from the survey as well as presenting a qualitative analysis of the experiences of using SSM.
We introduce MASON, a fast, easily extendable, discrete- event multi-agent simulation toolkit in Java. MASON was designed to serve as the basis for a wide range of multi- agent simulation tasks ranging from swarm robotics to ma- chine learning to social complexity environments. MASON carefully delineates between model and visualization, al- lowing models to be dynamically detached from or attached to visualizers, and to change platforms mid-run. We de- scribe the MASON system, its motivation, and its basic ar- chitectural design. We then discuss five applications of MA- SON we have built over the past year to suggest its breadth of utility.
Stuart Kauffman here presents a brilliant new paradigm for evolutionary biology, one that extends the basic concepts of Darwinian evolution to accommodate recent findings and perspectives from the fields of biology, physics, chemistry and mathematics. The book drives to the heart of the exciting debate on the origins of life and maintenance of order in complex biological systems. It focuses on the concept of self-organization: the spontaneous emergence of order widely observed throughout nature. Kauffman here argues that self-organization plays an important role in the emergence of life itself and may play as fundamental a role in shaping life's subsequent evolution as does the Darwinian process of natural selection. Yet until now no systematic effort has been made to incorporate the concept of self-organization into evolutionary theory. The construction requirements which permit complex systems to adapt remain poorly understood, as is the extent to which selection itself can yield systems able to adapt more successfully. This book explores these themes. It shows how complex systems, contrary to expectations, can spontaneously exhibit stunning degrees of order, and how this order, in turn, is essential for understanding the emergence and development of life on Earth. Topics include the new biotechnology of applied molecular evolution, with its important implications for developing new drugs and vaccines; the balance between order and chaos observed in many naturally occurring systems; new insights concerning the predictive power of statistical mechanics in biology; and other major issues. Indeed, the approaches investigated here may prove to be the new center around which biological science itself will evolve. The work is written for all those interested in the cutting edge of research in the life sciences.
While there is growing recognition of the importance of “Systems-of-systems,” there is little agreement on just what they are or on by what principles they should be constructed. This paper proposes a taxonomy of these super-systems and exhibits a basic set of architecting principles to assist in their design. While several heuristics are particularly applicable to systems-of-systems, the key insight is the central role played by communication standards. The enabling architecture of systems-of-systems is non-physical, it is set of standards that allow meaningful communication among the components. This is illustrated through existing and proposed systems.
Computational properties of use to biological organisms or to the construction of computers can emerge as collective properties of systems having a large number of simple equivalent components (or neurons). The physical meaning of content-addressable memory is described by an appropriate phase space flow of the state of a system. A model of such a system is given, based on aspects of neurobiology but readily adapted to integrated circuits. The collective properties of this model produce a content-addressable memory which correctly yields an entire memory from any subpart of sufficient size. The algorithm for the time evolution of the state of the system is based on asynchronous parallel processing. Additional emergent collective properties include some capacity for generalization, familiarity recognition, categorization, error correction, and time sequence retention. The collective properties are only weakly sensitive to details of the modeling or the failure of individual devices.
Systems as diverse as genetic networks or the World Wide Web are best described as networks with complex topology. A common property of many large networks is that the vertex connectivities follow a scale-free power-law distribution. This feature was found to be a consequence of two generic mech-anisms: (i) networks expand continuously by the addition of new vertices, and (ii) new vertices attach preferentially to sites that are already well connected. A model based on these two ingredients reproduces the observed stationary scale-free distributions, which indicates that the development of large networks is governed by robust self-organizing phenomena that go beyond the particulars of the individual systems.
It is clear why the contributions of physicists during World War II were central in the successes of radar, sonar, proximity fuses and atomic bombs. It is not so clear what they contributed to Operations Research (OR) and Systems Engineering (SE), and which of their skills were particularly relevant to these developments. This paper is an attempt to answer that question for OR. In the process, we look briefly at the history of OR and of Taylorism, and compare developments in the United States and Great Britain. We also discuss the relation of OR to SE. The paper can be considered as a study in how authority is appropriated, and how the differing contexts in the US and UK shaped the differing outcome in these two countries.
In this Introduction we shall sketch a profile of our field of inquiry. This is necessary because semantics is too often mistaken for lexicography and therefore dismissed as trivial, while at other times it is disparaged for being concerned with reputedly shady characters such as meaning and allegedly defunct ones like truth. Moreover our special concern, the semantics of science, is a newcomer - at least as a systematic body - and therefore in need of an introduction. l. GOAL Semantics is the field of inquiry centrally concerned with meaning and truth. It can be empirical or nonempirical. When brought to bear on concrete objects, such as a community of speakers, semantics seeks to answer problems concerning certain linguistic facts - such as disclosing the interpretation code inherent in the language or explaning the speakers' ability or inability to utter and understand new sentences ofthe language. This kind of semantics will then be both theoretical and experimental: it will be a branch of what used to be called 'behavioral science'.
C.W. Churchman (1913-2004) is probably the most influential philosopher of systems thinking thus far. A founding father of operations research and management science and NASA research philosopher, he never al-lowed himself to become absorbed by the main-stream of the fields he pioneered. Two out-standing qualities distinguish his academic life: intellectual honesty, and moral outrage.
While the phrase “system-of-systems” is commonly seen, there is less agreement on what they are, how they may be distinguished from “conventional” systems, or how their development differs from other systems. This paper proposes a definition, a limited taxonomy, and a basic set of architecting principles to assist in their design. As it turns out, the term system-of-systems is infelicitous for the taxonomic grouping. The grouping might be better termed “collaborative systems.” The paper also discusses the value of recognizing the classification in system design, and some of the problems induced by misclassification. One consequence of the classification is the identification of principal structuring heuristics for system-of-systems. Another is an understanding that, in most cases, the architecture of a system-of-systems is communications. The architecture is nonphysical, it is the set of standards that allow meaningful communication among the components. This is illustrated through existing and proposed systems. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Syst Eng 1: 267–284, 1998
At the outset of my remarks, I must apologize for appearing before you in this insubstantial form. We should expect that one important chapter in a theory of complexity, perhaps more than one chapter, will be devoted to describing the ways in which we may avoid complexity. Now the chief complexity in travel lies in the journey to and from the airport—threading your way through streets, highways, and airport ticket counters and passageways populated by other hu-man beings and their vehicles, each intent on his or her own mission; meanwhile managing to keep track of your baggage and other possessions. That complexity is best avoided by not traveling. Many years ago, when trains were the chief vehicle of inter-city travel, I had a fantasy of living in Cleveland, with an apartment in the city's main railroad terminal (which was, in fact, a combined terminal-hotel—perhaps still is). I would catch my train to New York, disembark in Penn Station, take a subway to my hotel or office destination, transact my business and return home: all without ever emerging into the open air of either city. Trips to Boston and many other cities could be managed in the same way. A truly ant-like, but quite simple, existence. Today I can realize my dream without moving to Cleveland, but with the help of PicTel, and the non-existent, hence simple, ether that transmits electromagnetic waves. True, I did have to walk to the Carnegie Mellon Campus, but that is only a half mile from my apartment, a pleasant leisurely trip, without baggage except for my lecture notes. But let me get on with the task. If my topic—the possibility of a science of complexity—has caused you any anxiety, let me relieve you of it immediately. I am going to argue that there can be such a science—that the beginnings of 4 one already exists—and I am going to try to sketch out some of its content, present and prospective. As you will see, the theory of complex systems is much concerned with the avoidance of complexity; or, to put the matter more precisely, the theory is concerned with how systems can be designed, by us or by nature, to be as simple as possible in structure and process for a given complexity of function. The task is to defeat complexity by removing it from mechanism.
The part that science and technology have played in influencing the economic, social and political patterns of western society and in enriching the lives of its people has steadily increased during the last century. The scope and character of this influence have varied widely from country to country. Traditions, mores, maturity, size, patterns of education, and many other factors have been elements in bringing about the variations. The influence has probably been most profound in the United States, principally, I believe, because of its youth, size, and patterns of education. Beginning some four or five decades ago, my country has been transformed at an increasingly rapid tempo from primarily an agricultural society to predominantly an industrial one under the driving force of an expanding body of science and technology. So completely have they dominated the pattern of our growth that when the man in the street speaks of ‘progress’, he usually means scientific and technological progress.
A number of proposals have been advanced in recent years for the development of “general systems theory” which, abstracting from properties peculiar to physical, biological, or social systems, would be applicable to all of them. We might well feel that, while the goal is laudable, systems of such diverse kinds could hardly be expected to have any nontrivial properties in common. Metaphor and analogy can be helpful, or they can be misleading. All depends on whether the similarities the metaphor captures are significant or superficial.
For much of its history management science had a quantitative and technical emphasis. More recently, there has been a move towards more subjective approaches such as 'soft OR' and 'soft systems'. Currently, there is interest in 'critical management science' drawing on critical theory, particularly the work of Habermas. This paper reviews developments in critical management science, in particular critiques of traditional and 'soft' management science; Jackson and Keys' system of systems methodology; critical management science methodologies and the problem of power in bringing about change; and the postmodernist critique.