Systems Theory - Science topic

Dineo Sebolai Institutional theory, particularly its focus on isomorphism, provides a valuable lens for understanding monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices in local governments. This theory highlights how external pressures shape organizational behavior, often leading to similar practices across different contexts (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). These patterns can be explained by three types of isomorphism: coercive, mimetic, and normative.

Coercive isomorphism stems from legal, political, or funding pressures. For example, municipalities may adopt frameworks like the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to comply with donor requirements, even if these frameworks are not fully suited to local needs (Scott, 2001). Mimetic isomorphism arises from uncertainty, prompting organizations to imitate perceived best practices. A local government might replicate its neighbor's use of digital dashboards to improve service delivery efficiency (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Normative isomorphism is driven by professional standards and norms promoted by institutions and networks. For instance, municipalities often standardize performance evaluation methods based on guidelines from organizations like ISO or the Government Finance Officers Association (Meyer & Rowan, 1977).

These dynamics are evident in how local governments approach M&E. Many adopt digital platforms under coercive mandates for digital transformation or mimic other municipalities' successes. For example, Kenya’s Integrated Financial Management Information System (IFMIS) reflects both coercive and mimetic pressures. Similarly, adopting internationally recognized tools like the Logical Framework Approach (LogFrame) often aligns with funding agency requirements, such as those of the World Bank (Brammer, Jackson, & Matten, 2012). Normative pressures also shape M&E practices as professional training disseminates widely accepted methodologies, ensuring uniformity across organizations.

Institutional theory's strength lies in its ability to explain the homogenization of practices, driven by legitimacy concerns rather than solely by efficiency. It complements other frameworks mentioned by Félix Oscar Socorro Márquez, such as systems theory and governance theory, by emphasizing external pressures and cross-organizational trends. Together, these approaches provide a comprehensive understanding of M&E systems, enabling local governments to meet stakeholder expectations while fostering transparency, accountability, and improvement.

• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/10/28/information-comprehension-x-extension-comment-7-a/

Let's stay with Peirce's example of inductive inference a little longer and try to clear up the more troublesome confusions tending to arise.

Figure 2 shows the implication ordering of logical terms in the form of a lattice diagram.

Figure 2. Disjunctive Term u, Taken as Subject

• https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/ice-figure-2.jpg

Figure 4 shows an inductive step of inquiry, as taken on the cue of an indicial sign.

Figure 4. Disjunctive Subject u, Induction of Rule v ⇒ w

• https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/ice-figure-4.jpg

One final point needs to be stressed. It is important to recognize the disjunctive term itself — the syntactic formula “neat, swine, sheep, deer” or any logically equivalent formula — is not an index but a symbol. It has the character of an artificial symbol which is constructed to fill a place in a formal system of symbols, for example, a propositional calculus. In that setting it would normally be interpreted as a logical disjunction of four elementary propositions, denoting anything in the universe of discourse which has any of the four corresponding properties.

The artificial symbol “neat, swine, sheep, deer” denotes objects which serve as indices of the genus herbivore by virtue of their belonging to one of the four named species of herbivore. But there is in addition a natural symbol which serves to unify the manifold of given species, namely, the concept of a cloven‑hoofed animal.

As a symbol or general representation, the concept of a cloven‑hoofed animal connotes an attribute and connotes it in such a way as to determine what it denotes. Thus we observe a natural expansion in the connotation of the symbol, amounting to what Peirce calls the “superfluous comprehension” or information added by an “ampliative” or synthetic inference.

In sum we have sufficient information to motivate an inductive inference, from the Fact u ⇒ w and the Case u ⇒ v to the Rule v ⇒ w.

Reference —

Peirce, C.S. (1866), “The Logic of Science, or, Induction and Hypothesis”, Lowell Lectures of 1866, pp. 357–504 in Writings of Charles S. Peirce : A Chronological Edition, Volume 1, 1857–1866, Peirce Edition Project, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1982.

• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/10/10/information-comprehension-x-extension-selection-6-a/

Selection 1 opens with Peirce proposing, “The information of a term is the measure of its superfluous comprehension”, and it closes with his offering the following promise.

❝I am going, next, to show that inference is symbolization and that the puzzle of the validity of scientific inference lies merely in this superfluous comprehension and is therefore entirely removed by a consideration of the laws of information.❞

Summing up his account to this point, Peirce appears confident he's kept his promise. Promising on our own account to give it another pass, we'll let him have the last word — for now.

❝We have now seen how the mind is forced by the very nature of inference itself to make use of induction and hypothesis.

❝But the question arises how these conclusions come to receive their justification by the event. Why are most inductions and hypotheses true? I reply that they are not true. On the contrary, experience shows that of the most rigid and careful inductions and hypotheses only an infinitesimal proportion are never found to be in any respect false.

❝And yet it is a fact that all careful inductions are nearly true and all well-grounded hypotheses resemble the truth; why is that? If we put our hand in a bag of beans the sample we take out has perhaps not quite but about the same proportion of the different colours as the whole bag. Why is that?

❝The answer is that which I gave a week ago. Namely, that there is a certain vague tendency for the whole to be like any of its parts taken at random because it is composed of its parts. And, therefore, there must be some slight preponderance of true over false scientific inferences. Now the falsity in conclusions is eliminated and neutralized by opposing falsity while the slight tendency to the truth is always one way and is accumulated by experience. The same principle of balancing of errors holds alike in observation and in reasoning.❞

(Peirce 1866, pp. 470–471)

Reference —

Peirce, C.S. (1866), “The Logic of Science, or, Induction and Hypothesis”, Lowell Lectures of 1866, pp. 357–504 in Writings of Charles S. Peirce : A Chronological Edition, Volume 1, 1857–1866, Peirce Edition Project, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1982.

Resources —

Inquiry Blog • Survey of Pragmatic Semiotic Information

• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03/01/survey-of-pragmatic-semiotic-information-8/

OEIS Wiki • Information = Comprehension × Extension

• https://oeis.org/wiki/Information_%3D_Comprehension_%C3%97_Extension

C.S. Peirce • Upon Logical Comprehension and Extension

• https://peirce.sitehost.iu.edu/writings/v2/w2/w2_06/v2_06.htm

I am just sharing about the mobile application for MCDA based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), the app is named Decision Mentor, designed to support decision making to Individuals, Decision Mentor is AI Integrated, to recommend Criteria contexitual to the Decision Problem Titled in the app !

Current version is connected with ChatGPT-4o !!

All interested are most welcome to try to use the Mobile App, available at:

Highly appreciated to know all the users experience.

~Shashi Bhattarai, Co-creator

The number of participants needed depends on the complexity of your research question, the number of assessments over time, and the desired statistical power. Typically, Latent Growth Curve Modeling (LGCM) is used in longitudinal studies with more than two assessments over time. In such cases, data from multiple time points such as baseline and follow-up at different intervals are required.

In Cross-Lagged Panel Analysis, like LGCM, the number of participants you need depends on your study design and research question. You should have data from at least two-time points for each participant.

It is important to remember that the exact number of participants and time points in both methods will vary depending on your research context, study design, and the data you have available.

Dear Qamar

NM- On May 11, 2023 I started reading and commenting RG published papers on MCDM, and today or tomorrow I expect to publish in RG the hundredth analysis and comments. All of them are in RG.

It has been a very nice surprise to receive you comments, and I thank you for that.

Do you know how many responses I have received out of 99? Only 2

Of course, there is no obligation to write or feed me back, but what really surprises me is that NOBODY defended or backed what he/she wrote, even when normally there are several authors. I believe that if a person writes something and somebody else refutes the writer, the normal procedure would be to answer and refute it or not. This happened in the 90s when Dyer commented on AHP, and Saaty and Harker published their refusal. The famous letters from both sides are in the Web

Nobody asked me to write and publish my comments on work of others, and I don’t ask or expect anything, just my desire to collaborate in the improvement of this discipline. I do it because I have dedicated the last 20+ years in studying and analysing MCDM, a fascinating subject for me, and in my opinion, this discipline is not pursued correctly. There are more that 200 MCDM methods, and all of them, are unable to address complex scenarios, with the possible exception of the grand dad of all methods, Linear Programming, created about 1940.

Qamar UI-Islam- Thank you for your detailed feedback and insightful observations on the "State-of-the-Art Review on the Analytic Hierarchy Process with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks" by Antonella Petrillo, Valerio Antonio Pamplona Salomon, and Claudemir Leif Tramarico. Your perspective sheds light on critical aspects of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the broader context of Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methodologies. Allow me to provide some clarifications and responses to the points you raised:

1- Classification Approach: I appreciate your agreement with the aggregation and outranking approach classification, emphasizing their relevance in the context of AHP and MCDM methodologies.

NM - AHP was a method created in the 50s., using a concept never employed before in decision-making, and that at said time worked well, because it uses the hierarchical structure that was been employed by enterprises since the Egyptians, or before. That is: “Do as I say, don’t argue”

Saaty developed his method when he was working for the US Army, and possibly adopted its hierarchical lineal and rigid structure for AHP.

Unfortunately, the method incorporates aspects that border the absurd when applied to MCDM, like the pair-wise comparison, developed by psychometrician L. L. Thurstone, in 1927.

You can apply it to decide which restaurant to go for dinner, or the place for your vacations, or, in the case of the military, considering different strategies and war equipment, but not in a problem like selecting the best location for an industry. Here, there are multiple aspects, all of them related, and on what the DM does not have any control, let alone authority.

Qamar UI-Islam- Choice of Method: Your insight into the selection of an appropriate method based on the problem's characteristics aligns with the practical considerations of matching the method to the specific nature of the decision problem.

NM - It is not mathematics, only common sense, like you don’t buy a suit if it does not fit you

Qamar UI-Islam- Mathematical Foundation of AHP: Your critical assessment of the mathematical underpinnings of AHP raises pertinent questions regarding the method's reliance on subjective pair-wise comparisons and the practical implementation of criteria trade-offs.

NM - I already commented about pair-wise comparisons. Regarding trade-offs, considered as criteria weights, it was only a Saaty assumption,as he described it in one of his writings. But trade-offs and weights have completely different meanings and use. The first one is a balance, while the second is a quantification of criteria. The fact that these weights, DETERMINED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ALTERNATIVES, is a fallacy. It can be easily demonstrated using entropy weights.

1. Qamar UI-Islam- BOCR Criteria: Your emphasis on the dynamic nature of criteria relationships and their potential for non-mutually exclusive interactions contributes to the discussion around the practical applicability of BOCR criteria and their role in decision-making processes.

NM- Thank you for your appraisal

2. Qamar UI-Islam- AHP Application Challenges: Your detailed evaluation of the constraints and limitations of applying AHP to complex decision problems underscores the need for a more comprehensive and adaptable approach, especially in scenarios with interconnected criteria.

NM- In reality, there are more than 100 researchers that addressed these issues in AHP, who I mention and identify by name in one of my books, and only a handful that are in favor of the method, also identified; therefore, they are not only my ideas; what I did is to enlarge and illustrate these fallacies

Regarding criteria interconnections, there are very few scenarios where criteria are independent. What really surprises me, after reading hundreds of published papers that ‘solve’ this type of problems using AHP, even in reputable journals, is that reviewers accept them. WHY?

By ignorance, negligence, or vested interests, because some reviewers are only interested in being mentioned as reviewers of a journal and mentioned in ‘Publons’, which is good for their CV?

It is impossible to ignore essential points like a primordial condition in AHP, clearly established by Saaty, about the necessity to have only independent criteria, or trade-offs equivalent to weights, and other evident misconceptions.

3- Qamar UI-Islam- Risk-Benefit Trade-Offs: Your emphasis on the interconnectedness of risks, benefits, and compensatory mechanisms within decision matrices highlights the significance of holistic and systems-based considerations in decision-making frameworks.

NM- Again, it is only common sense. We are not talking on Quantum Mechanics

Qamar UI-Islam -Your insights provide valuable perspectives for further examination and exploration of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and its implications within the realm of Multiple Criteria Decision Making. I appreciate your engagement with the subject matter and your dedication to advancing the understanding of decision-making methodologies.

NM- Thank you for your words, which I deeply appreciate. Maybe this communication may encourage other researchers to publish and discuss their concerns and why not, support for AHP and other MCDM methods.

Regards

Nolberto

Systems theory is a theoretical framework that views social systems as complex and interconnected entities that are comprised of interdependent parts. In the context of conflict patterns, systems theory provides a lens through which to examine the ways in which these patterns are embedded in and influenced by larger social systems. According to systems theory, conflicts arise when there is an imbalance in the relationships between individuals, groups, or organizations within a larger system. This can occur when one group or individual has more power or resources than others, or when there is a lack of communication or understanding between different parts of the system. In systems theory, conflicts are viewed as a natural and inevitable part of the system, and they can be effective in bringing about change and growth. To apply systems theory to conflict patterns, one must first identify the different parts of the system involved in the conflict, including individuals, groups, organizations, or larger social systems. Then, they must examine the relationships between these parts, looking for factors that contribute to the conflict, such as power imbalances, communication breakdowns, or differing values or goals. Once these factors have been identified, systems theory suggests that interventions should focus on addressing the underlying systemic issues that are contributing to the conflict, rather than simply attempting to resolve the immediate problem. This might involve working to address power imbalances, improve communication, or promote greater understanding between different parts of the system.

It's important to note that no single management theory is universally effective in all situations. Different organizations and situations may require different management approaches, and the most effective management theory will depend on a variety of factors, including the organization's goals, culture, and environment.

Attached is an excerpt from my dissertation, Comparison of Four Midwest Congregations in Transition of Decision-Making on Same-Gender Marriage Using Bowen Family Systems Theory (Shawnee, KS: Central Theological Seminary, 2020)

Hello Clarence! I believe that your question is answered in the paper 'Minimal strong digraphs' by Garcia-Lopez and Marijuan. Here is a link:

Yes and No. It depends on which kind of the system you are dealing with. Some systems are just too huge to model them sufficiently accurately.

I will give you just one simple example. Human cell. Just one living cell has the number of functional parts approxiamtely equal to the number of living people on the Earth. Are we capable to predict the evolution of the humanity in the span of just a few years? Nope. Nada. Zilch.

It is same with a single cell! Not to speak about bodies!

With other systems, it gets even worse: human body, society, state, humanity, ecosystems, the whole Earth's nature, the Umiverse. Is there any escape from this trap made by our inability to evaluate all processes undergoing in the complex system simultaneously? Yes. There is.

By searching for emergent structures in complex systems, we can describe them at different levels. Seems to be easy, right. But it isn't. We have a Russian doll like structure of hard sciences each encompasing just one part of the complexity of the Universe: quantum fields, particles, atoms, molecules, materials, biomolecules, cells, tissues, bodies, ecosystems, the Earth, the Solar system, galaxies, and the Universe.

Scientific disciplines are here for a good reason. We are unable to go from the first principles and derive behavior of galaxies from them! We take as the baseline whole stars, gravity, and electromagnetism. We cannot go from quantum field theory to prove behavior of the galaxies!

Stars themselves are emergent structures originating in the lower level physics: electromagnetism, atomic interactions, fusion, etc. This physical ladder goes even lower.

Many scientists working in their field of research do not realize that they are working with emergents that exist only due to vast number of interactions of parts operating at the lover level of the physics ladder. Those who understand this can easily cross the borders of disciplines as they are putting ends correctly together.

Your question is fundamental in the proper understanding of a complex system. It is in detail answers in the paper

A brief explanation follows. The entropy of the constant system where everything achieves the same state is equal to zero following the equation

S = p * ln (p) where p = 1 .

In the other hand, the maximum entropy is achieved by the white noise where each state has the same probability to occur.

S = Sum_i (p_i * ln(p_i)) for p_i = const .

For N bins in the distribution you get p_i = 1/N.

S = N * (1/N * ln(1/N)) for 1/N = const .

It gives S = ln(1/N) .

The maximum entropy for given number N of bins is equal to the logarithm of 1/N.

The operational complex system is having entropy S lower that the maximum one. White noise is useless.

More details, examples, and citations are given in the shared paper. This aspect of complex systems is really fascinating.

Dear Tarek R. Khalifa

Lyapunov function is a point-wise measure of energy, whereas, cost-functional is an interval-based measure of energy. In this sense, you may connect them by assuming Lyapunov function as an explicit function in time which could get a negative decay-rate assuming V=x^2, and then a closed-form dissipation as; V_dot=-K*V(t) for stabilizing a system, see my pre-print at the URL:

Meanwhile, optimal quadratic cost functional, minimizes energy as a sum of the squared state and control signal during a time-interval as; J=int(x^2+u^2).dt, from zero to T. Please see the paper:

Nonlinear Optimal Control: A Control Lyapunov Function and Receding Horizon Perspective (1999)

The control performance could be different through the two scopes, and the energy consumption could be also different.

Also check https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1164580.pdf

Search RG for Ed Gerck. I'm sure he'd be glad to discuss this topic.

In addition to the answer above,

I advise that you adequately study the UTAUT2 model and see how it fits into your study. I am not sure of the constructs you are using. However, In addition to the construct relationships proposed in the original UTAUT, hedonic motivation and price value can determine behavioral intention. Habit can influence both behavioral intention and usage behavior. Again, facilitating conditions can affect behavioral intention.

For example, the model can be used to determine the intention of use (for mobile banking), by making these hypothesis:

Performance expectancy positively influences people’s behavioral intention to adopt mobile banking.

Effort expectancy positively influences people’s behavioral intention to adopt mobile banking.

Social influence positively influences people’s behavioral intention to adopt mobile banking.

Facilitating conditions positively influence people’s behavioral intention to adopt mobile banking.

Facilitating conditions influence people’s adoption of mobile banking.

Hedonic motivation positively influences people’s behavioral intention to adopt mobile banking.

Price value positively influences people’s behavioral intention to adopt mobile banking.

Read this article and adopt:

Regards

Interesting work, shall visit often, very much interested in infinite theory system

The advantage of the potentially infinite, to achieve the infinite by some limit of the finite, is that there would not be this abrupt break with properties of finite sets.

So finally it seems to me there can be two radically different approaches to infinite sets.

This is consistent with the view of many analysts, who say infinity as a number does not exist, potential infinity is just as large as needed in each step. This is the view of intuitionists also. Somehow this sets a limit to methods of induction.

Answer see parallel-topic. (Why two at the same time?). Please no answer here.

As strange as it may seem, automaton has innate rights according to the physical constructal law.

“Ethical issues” will surface during the evolution of automaton replacing humans in the work place. Society may develop a concept of redistributing automaton's generated wealth, by the state, as a guaranteed minimum income. This satisfies most of UN’s Article 25 human rights objectives at a “minimum” standard of living. If one desires a higher standard of living, get a job.

On the subject of evolution, perhaps, one day educational institutions may include the following discovery in their curriculum, enhancing reason and ethics in the evolution of the sciences, technology, economics, governance, philosophy, automaton, etc. embracing a civil society relative to the physical constructal law:

https://www.academia.edu/37021128/Scientific_Proof_of_Our_Unalienable_Rights

Okay, it is now clear to me... Actually I was missing the fact that if the observer also controls input, the investigation turns into an experiment, and hypotheses about cause and effect can be tested directly.

A more general book summarising underlying management concepts and paradigms may be a good starter, too:

Morgen Witzel: A History of Management Thought, 2nd ed. 2016.

I would recommend you the concept of the complex network developed by A-L. Barabasi. It is a very useful approach to the description of networked system expressing complexity.

On top of it, it might be interesting to study clustering algorithms known from machine learning.

Both concepts can help you a lot to define and quantify the subject if your study.

There is one related subject called agent-based modeling. You might find it interesting too.

PS Sone references can be found in my review paper on complex systems applications in medicine. The general ideas covered there can help you to penetrate into the complex system quickly.

I am afraid that science, as we know it today, will always lead to paradoxes and unprovable statements. It will always hit its impenetrable logical bottom.

We must remind a whole range of discoveries undermining the very foundations of perfect and consistent science.

- Bertrand Russell's paradoxes

- Kurt Gödels Incompleteness theorem

- Alan Turing's Halting problem (Russel's paradox used in the proof)

Explanation of Russell's paradox:

'The barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves." The question is, does the barber shave himself?'

Do not fry your brain while trying to solve this problem. To write down a table of logical outcomes is helpful.

It is a paradox that explains well all similar paradoxes. Untill science will be used on logic as we know it. We will always run into such paradoxes.

Those observations undermined attempts of mathematicians in the early 20th century led by David Hilbert to develop a unified and consistent mathematics going from the first principles. Instead we know that there will be patched of different disciplines that will cover just a part of mathematics and never one consistent theory of all mathematics.

This is my personal understanding: We will eventually find better explanations of quantum mechanics and that might lead to new mathematics that will be more suitable to describe the world from bottom-up.

Thank you dear Mr. Dennis Hamilton!

According to my studies, Zeno's great creation of “Achilles--Tortoise paradox” is not only a simple mistake but is a huge paradox family and its typical modern family member is the newly discovered Harmonic Series Paradox.

Let’s see following divergent proof of Harmonic Series which can still be found in many current higher mathematical books written in all kinds of languages:

1＋1/2 ＋1/3＋1/4＋．．．＋1/n ＋．．． （1）

=１＋1/2 ＋（1/3＋1/4 ）＋（1/5＋1/6＋1/7＋1/8）＋．．． （２） >1+ 1/2 ＋( 1/4＋1/4 )+（1/8＋1/8＋1/8＋1/8）＋．．． （3） =1+ 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 + ．．．------>infinity （4）

Because of not knowing what infinitesimals are, the unavoidable practical problem has been troubling us ever since is how many items (including infinitesimals of cause) in infinite decreasing Harmonic Series can be added up by “brackets-placing rule" to produce infinite numbers each bigger than 1/2?

This kind of “infinite-infinitesimals paradox” tells us:

1, in Harmonic Series, we can produce infinite numbers each bigger than 1/2 or 1 or 100 or 100000 or 10000000000 or… from infinite infinitesimals in Harmonic Series by “brackets-placing rule" to change an infinitely decreasing Harmonic Series with the property of Un--->0 into any infinite constant series with the property of Un--->constant or any infinitely increasing series with the property of Un--->infinity;

2, the “brackets-placing rule" to get 1/2 or 1 or 100 or 100000 or 10000000000 or… from infinite items in Harmonic Series corresponds to different runners with different speed in Zeno’s Paradox while the items in Harmonic Series corresponds to those steps of the tortoise in Zeno’s Paradox. So, not matter what kind of runner (even a runner with the speed of modern jet plane) held the race with the tortoise he will never catch up with it.

By the way, Robinson's non-standard analysis can do nothing to solve any of those suspended “infinite-infinitesimals paradoxes” either.

Sincerely yours,

Geng

This because if the control set is convex, it is possible to use convex optimization techniques in order to get the global minimum or maximum. Engineering problems that can be casted in this framework are very often solvable with efficient numerical solutions. An example is the least-squares solution in systems identification. If the linear system is convex, then the coefficient matrix is positive semidefinite and the global minima (only a point in the case of a strictly positive definite matrix) can be found in a reliable way, using the pseudoinverse. Convexity is important also in robust control techiques and H₂ optimal control theory.

For example, if the control set isn't convex in the robust identification and control framework, could be not possible to get the controller that minimizes the desired cost function (for example the H_inf norm for the robust stability) but another one (corresponding to a local minimum) would result from the optimization problem. That obviously would be a problem in controller synthesis.

In conclusion, it's important to know if the control set has this nice property called convexity, because this naturally lead to efficient and reliable numerical solution, that can be solved easily. If that isn't the case, other techniques can be applied but in general getting the global minimum isn't easy neither fast

As you have noted, the notion of socio-economic wealth underpins much of the family business literature. It is often articulated as the relative 'familiness' of the business. This however points to an important point, the extent and use of SEW varies within family businesses. A dichotomy or spectrum of the 'family in business' contrasts the 'family for business' captures the different engagements with SEW.

I am not persuaded that 'performance' is that important or useful. The concept of SEW deals with a quite different sort of performance; the relationships within the family. So key issues, if you want to retain a conceptually coherent framework, might be aspects such as satisfaction, enjoyment whilst working in the family firm. I am proposing psychic rewards and internal rather than extrinsic measures of say financial performance are more relevant and logical for this framework.

I am not familiar with Bowen's theory, so cannot comment on that. However, it is worth keeping in mind that family is the basic unit of social organisation. Moreover, it used to be the basic unit of economic organisation.

Finally, I think Leonadis' comment is wrong. In the family business and entrepreneurship literature emotions are an important part of what we study. Probably he has been looking in the wrong literature.

I believe that good starting point is

@ARTICLE{Sar:85,

author = {G.N. Saridis},

title = {An integrated theory of

intelligent machines by expressing the control performance as entropy},

journal = {Control Th.\ \& Advanced Technology},

year = {1985},

pages = {125-138},

number = {2},

}

and I hope that this paper is cited by its successors ... MK

Hi,

You can find the answer this is the Sterman's book "Business Dynamics."

Your boundary should be relevant to your research question(s). This means tha your system boundary can answer your questions properly.

wow, interesting question. My first suggestion would be to look at Hari Tsoukas' critique of critical systems thinking. He refers to a paper of Mike Jackson in systems practice (now called systemic practice and action research). As far as I remember people criticise a so called lack of rigour leading to fall into theoretical and methodological incommensurability. Perhaps because of this, John Mingers has developed a view of systems thinking based on critical realism. Gerald Midgley has criticised the work of Jackson by arguing that methodological pluralism in frameworks like Total Systems Intervention or TSI needs to be more dynamic and flexible, following the complexities of a situation. He also raised the issue of how ethical issues related to seeking improvements are to be dealt with, suggesting that improvement needs to be locally rather than normatively defined by stakeholders. Complexity theorists would follow this apparent lack of flexibility to argue that it is complexity, not systems thinking, which could then provide for such flexibility. However they could also be criticised by establishing some 'normative' principles as to how complex social systems or situations are to 'behave'. I guess this would be my answer. Good luck with your paper!

One approach for examining whether hydrologic systems have reached a threshold or tipping point is to apply the non-parametric Pettit test to any time series of data you are examining such as discharge, sediment loads, nutrient concentrations, etc. This will help identify whether there has been a shift in the mean and may indicate that the system is rapidly shifting towards a new state. Examining the geographic coherence of these tipping points can point towards regional drivers such as climate change, land use change, and other factors. These references are helpful if you want to perform a statistical exploration of tipping points:

Pettitt, A. (1979). A Non-Parametric Approach to the Change-Point Problem Published by : Wiley for the Royal Statistical Society Stable URL : http://www.jstor.org/stable/2346729 A Non-parametric Approach to the Change-point Problem, Applied Statistics, 28(2), 126–135.

Sagarika, S., Kalra, A., & Ahmad, S. (2014). Evaluating the effect of persistence on long-term trends and analyzing step changes in streamflows of the continental United States. Journal of Hydrology, 517, 36–53. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.05.002.

McCabe, G. J., & Wolock, D. M. (2002). A step increase in streamflow in the conterminous United States. Geophysical Research Letters, 29(24), 38-1-38–4. http://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL015999.

Demaria, E. M. C., Palmer, R. N., & Roundy, J. K. (2016). Regional climate change projections of streamflow characteristics in the Northeast and Midwest U.S. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, 5, 309–323. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2015.11.007.

Thanx all, my question has been answered! This is no longer a question. LH

From the perspective of system theory a system is always contextual and locally embedded. I am gratitude for the dialogue in this forum. System theory helps us to understand sytemic-dynamic processes of selforganized systems. Human beings are selforganized systems. System theory is based on natural sciences and applied in social sciences. System theory is a form of epistemology. What do you want to explore? On micro or macro level? The process of synlogisation between the subsystems? or.... ?

Fine question. Yes, GT meets DS on case study. Both depart from hypothetico-deductive approach:

Dear Vladimir A. Kulchitsky

I must thank you for your kind words and encouragement.

Dear Valentas,

It should be pointed out that the data structure technique belongs to the large domain of mathematical optimization, and combinatorial optimization is an element of this set. In addition, heuristics and metaheuristic techniques are part of this domain and are an extension for the resolution of multiobjective optimization. It is clear that these techniques can be used in a complementary manner or in hybridization.

For more information about this sbject, i suggest you to see links and attached file in topic.

How Autonomous Vehicles are Driving a Shift in Supply Chains

https://medium.com/self-driving-cars/how-autonomous-vehicles-ar...

Solving Combinatorial Optimization Tasks by Reinforcement Learning ...

www.cs.ubbcluj.ro/.../Optimization.../solving_combinatorial_optim...

Logistics 2050 A Scenario Study - DHL

big data in logistics - DHL

www.dhl.com/content/dam/.../g0/.../CSI_Studie_BIG_DATA.pdf

Best regards

Thank you, Bogdan!

I am very happy when I have found even one person from the world who understand symstems theory and systems thinking and even the fact that for understanding pedagogy and education - so many intensions and extensions at the same time - sustemic views are needed. Otherwise only a small details ase seen - and it means narrow way of thinking.

sincerely yours,

professor Ulla Härkönen

Finland

and parental gender role conservatism may be the important issue

Hi Marcus, The sources below may be of interest

Lichtenstein, B. B., & Plowman, D. A. (2009). The leadership of emergence: A complex systems leadership theory of emergence at successive organizational levels. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), 617-630.

Marchildon, G. P., & Fletcher, A. J. (2016). Systems thinking and the leadership conundrum in health care. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 12(4), 559-573.

Hazy, J. K. (2008). Toward a theory of leadership in complex systems: Computational modeling explorations. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 12(3), 281.

Schneider, M., & Somers, M. (2006). Organizations as complex adaptive systems: Implications of complexity theory for leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 351-365.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The leadership quarterly, 18(4), 298-318.

Regards,

Hamish

Thank you, I am grateful.

Thank you all for your contributions!

Thanks, David. Yes, that seems like a good option. 

I have a preliminary observation: are you referring to miroscopic scale (i.e. at the scale of the division of a single tumor cells) or at mesoor macro scales (i.e. at the scale of a population of tumor cells) ?

If you are referring at the tumor scale, my answer is: ** no **, for a series of reasons of various nature. First, seldom a tumor growth model is adequately described by a discete dynamical system (one exception is my paper: d'Onofrio and Tomlinson, J Theor Biol ,2007); Second, the chaotic bifurcation diagram of the logistic map is often the result of the discretization of a continuous model by adopting an excessively large time-step; Third (and main) reason: the tumor growth is (unfortunately) progressive and (apart some cases of highly immunogenic tumors) very seldom characterized by the wild oscillations that are a landmark of the vast majority of chaotic phenomena. 

There are some chaotic models of tumor growth, where, however, chaos stems from other biological processes (e.g. in some cases: the interplay with the immune system) mirrored by other mathematical propserties.

Kind regards,

Alberto d'Onofrio

Attachment or differentiation-of-self: Competing or complementary theoretical orientations in contemporary relational therapies. By Gingrich, Fred

Marriage & Family: A Christian Journal, Vol 7(1), 2004, 33-49.

Two popular theoretical concepts, attachment (Bowlby, 1969) and differentiation-of-self (Bowen, 1978), appear to be competitors in the arena of marital and family therapy. Attachment theory is the foundation of Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy (Johnson, 2004b), and differentiation is the core concept of Family Systems Therapy, represented by Schnarch (1991) and others. A review of these concepts and therapeutic models, along with reflections on how they are supported in Scripture, opens up the possibility that they may not be mutually exclusive. Both can be valuable resources for Christian counseling ministry to couples and families. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

What Predicts Marital Satisfaction? The Role of Attachment and Differentiation doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/e559492014-001

By Moini, Sara; Regas, Susan

2014 [American Psychological Association (APA)].

Attachment and differentiation are effective frameworks for helping couples achieve marital satisfaction. The application of Bowlby's (1969) attachment theory to adult relationships is the foundation of the empirically supported treatment, Emotionally-Focused Therapy (EFT; Greenberg & Johnson, 1988), which is widely used with couples. Johnson (2007) discusses secure attachment as the foundation for couples having satisfying marriages. She explains that when partners can listen to each other's emotions, offer and accept comfort from each other and turn to each other to feel safe, a secure bond is developed. Differentiation of self has been theorized as fundamental to long-term intimacy and mutuality in marriages (Bowen, 1978). Bowen (1978) explains that when partners are highly differentiated, spouses are able to maintain clear autonomy and at the same time they are able to maintain an emotional closeness that is both comfortable and non-threatening to them. This allows them to enjoy a full range of intimacy. Although there is debate over whether attachment or differentiation is the most effective framework for helping couples achieve marital satisfaction, there is also evidence suggesting that attachment and differentiation may be related to each other. Secure attachment involves the ability to access support from attachment figures, allowing the development of self-reliant behavior. Differentiation involves the ability to achieve an autonomous self in emotional connection to others. Therefore, although attachment security and differentiation tap into specific elements of the relational experience, they share two underlying components: the need for intimacy and autonomy (Skowron & Dendy, 2004). Research has primarily focused separately on attachment and differentiation as predictors of marital satisfaction. Fewer studies have also examined the relationship between attachment and differentiation. The purpose of this study is to examine attachment and differentiation as predictors of marital satisfaction and to investigate the relationship between the two variables. One hundred and fifty two married men and women (56% female; M years married = 10; M age = 40) completed the following measures online: The Experiences in Close Relationships Revised (ECR-R; Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000), Crucible Differentiation Scale (CDS; Schnarch & Regas, 2012), and the Marital Adjustment Test (MAT; Locke & Wallace, 1959). Participants were eligible to participate if they were a heterosexual, married man or woman, living in the United States and at least 22 years of age. A hierarchical regression was conducted and as hypothesized, attachment and differentiation explained significant variance in marital satisfaction. After correlation coefficients were computed between attachment and differentiation there was a significant negative correlation between attachment avoidance and differentiation r(148) = -.450, p < .01 (one-tail) and a significant negative correlation between attachment anxiety and differentiation r(148) = -.555, p < .01 (one-tail). That is, the lower one's level of attachment anxiety and avoidance, the higher one's level of differentiation. Results suggest that attachment and differentiation are both effective frameworks for helping couples achieve marital satisfaction and that secure attachment and differentiation share underlying components. (PsycEXTRA Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved)

When you combine hard switching and speed, you are unlikely to obtain reliable performance. This is because real systems have noise which can cause plenty of mistakes in switching. However, if you have high confidence/integrity detectors, and transitioned between hybrid modes smoothly, you could guarantee good performance.  Perhaps you could even analyze the overall system in an LMI framework, or SOSTOOLS framework (for nonlinear systems) as LPV controllers, gain scheduling controllers, etc are analyzed.

Hi Muhammad,

Bode plot is the simple way to analyze a linear time-invariant system when... the system is simple. Actually, we see how great it is when the lines are close to straight lines and can be approximated by their asymptotes.

In more complex cases, when the open loop is unstable, non-minimum phase, etc. or when you have oscillatory modes that make the amplitude and phase jump quite a bit, it is pretty difficult to use Bode and really understand its implications.

The "secret" of plot analysis is hidden in Nyquist criterion and Nyquist plots. However, because of the large scale, as the amplitude may move from 1 to 1000, if not infinity, it is difficult to follow.

Here, Nichols plots come to help us. Because they use logarithmic scale for the  amplitude, they give you a good picture. For started, just write

help nichols

in MATLAB and use their example, or write nichols(sys) in MATLAB, where sys is some simple system. In general, Nichols does not get confused. If the open-loop plot line goes below the center {0 dB ,-180 degrees} (the translation of the critical point -1), then the closed system is stable. Otherwise, it is unstable.

Hope it helps and, otherwise and in any case, please feel free to ask again, any questions any time.

Best regards,

Itzhak

Esther, i hope these two articles will be useful to you

Also, Management by Objectives is contrasting as it focuses on the individual and short-term goals while TQM focuses on long-term gain.

I found the following paper quite interesting and may help:

"Dense sets,nowhere dense sets and an ideal in generalized closure spaces". Chandan Chattopadhyay.

Sorry, but I don't see the two cases as being exactly the same and, therefore, the decision is not necessarily without logic.

While Task 2 is clearly based upon statistics, Task 1 is not exactly so.

If we talk about statistics, Task 1 should say that, based upon, say, 2000 cases, 100% of the 1000 who chose 3000$ got it, while only 80% of the 1000 who chose 4000$ got it. This way, the better chance still leaves room for some risk.

Instead, when you say "for sure," I think we all understand that, if we choose 3000$, we just get without any risk, so (unless we are addicted gamblers), we decide to just get it.

Dear Rolf,

Thank you for your answer. I have been studying and applying Bunge's ideas to Transportation and Urban studies. I have exchanged some emails with Bunge back in 2009-2010 about his ontology. Even before, I studied volumes 3 and 4 of his Treatise. Now, I am trying to articulate different research fields in Architecture and Urbanism Graduate Program.

I am quite convinced of the applicability of his perspective to a consistent interdisciplinar approach. 

That would be wonderful to exchange some experiences and thoughts, if you are available.

Phase transitions of many 2D systems are similar due to the universality behavior. You may start with a ferromagnetic system such as the Ising model. 

Dear Rupert,

I appreciate to a lot your suggestion, have a nice day

Regards

Here's what's available in RG.

Many thanks,

Debra

Dear Florence,

My view is that the answer is YES, but you should careful in performing your analysis. IT network is a system. It has a certain design and structure according to the initial requirements and the intelligence of the engineers who conceived the system. Now, you should make the difference between the concepts of "security" and "risk". Risks are associated with the uncertainties of the external environment while security is associated with the certainty of the internal environment. In other words, engineers conceive security systems for any IT network in order to withstand to potential risks coming from the external environment, or due to the poor functioning of some components of the IT network. The administrator's knowledge is related to the management of the given system, meaning that the administrator should be knowledgeable about the potential risks and the capacity of the security system built in to withstand them. Of course, an experienced administrator should be able to improve the capacity of the system to react to the possible risks. The administrator's knowledge should also be related to the complexity of the IT network.

The topic is very interesting but you should be careful in relating the variables you want to evaluate. I would suggest to investigate first the different classes of possible risks and the existing security systems to see how engineers already made correlations between them.

Wishing you good luck!

Management is known to be the art, or science, of achieving goals and maintaining continuous improvement through people, by making sure an optimal exploitation of resources and people do what they are supposed to do. Management is also the process of designing and maintaining an environment in which people, working with resources and together in groups, efficiently accomplish selected aims. The environment (including all hardware, software, cyberware, and brainware resources) is a system that is purposefully created and dynamically maintained under varying conditions and contexts. The fundamental management functions,  planning, organizing, staffing, leading, and controlling, can be seen in the context of the organization of the embedding system. Contemporary management theories tend to explain the rapidly changing nature of today’s organizational environments. Contemporary systems sciences intend to explain systems on a cybernetical basis, considering the holism of systems and how they accomplish overall goals. Systems are interpreted as wholeness having (i) inputs (euipment, materials, money, technologies, people), (ii) processes (e.g. design, planning, organizing, motivating, and controlling), (iii) outputs (products, services, wastes ) and (iv) outcomes (e.g. productivity, revenue, well-being, sustainability). On the one hand, management theories have become more important in the perspective of systems as the complicatedness and complexity of real life systems increased. On the other hand, systems theories play a crucial role  in practical management since they help managers to look at the organization holistically and more broadly, and recognize the interdependencies among the parts and actors of systems. Based on this perhaps it is better to say that there is an interplay between management theories and systems theories, rather than that systems theory is a synthesis of management theories.

Here is (somebody else's) list of favourites:

I've used Peter Senge's 'The Fifth Discipline' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifth_Discipline) quite a bit

Physical laws(or knowledge model) give you an accurate model of the system but this model is generally complexe so we can simplify this model by reduction technics allowing to have an equivalent model more suitable to control (generally a 2nd order is satisfactory) . It's important to notice that one of the objectives of control is to accelerate slow dynamics (dominant poles) so we don't need to know with precision fast dynamics.

The control model can also be obtained by identification of an input output model (generally a second order). so both approaches can be used for control.

Hi Dumitru,

If you define the logistic map as x_n+1 = a x_n (1-x_n), then from 3  <  a <  3.5699 , we have periodic orbits of period 2^n and for values of 3.5699  <  a  <= 4, we find chaotic orbits and periodic orbits. This point a =  3.5699 is called the Feigenbaum point (do not confuse with the Feigenbaum constant 4.669). I do not know any definition of what you call "edge of chaos". Thus, if what you call "edge of chaos" is the Feigenbaum point, I would say it is unique. If you refer to transitions between a period region into a chaotic region, I guess there are infinitely many in the chaotic region 3.5699  <  a  <=  4.

Regards,

Miguel A. F. Sanjuán

Dear Chadwick, smack to your question: the rivals of GST are: Cartesian and Newtonian scince, i.e. determinism and reductionism. In other words, classical modern science - whether in the natural or in the social sciences.

Besides, the very distinction between the natural and social sciences is questioned by GST. From this standpoint GST stands out against the division of sciences into disciplines.

Manuel, I support many of the suggestions made already in this thread in relation to phenomenological interviewing  (Smith, Flowers and Larkin is good) and the hermeneutic processes.  

However, I am a little unclear about how phenomenological interviewing will help you.  Perhaps you could explain what you are trying to do there? You seem to want to explore brain activation patterns during cognitive tasks, presumably engaging both implicit thinking and explicit thinking (Kahneman infers all cognition has implicit elements).  That sounds like a very exciting topic and I can see synergies with theoretical phenomenology particularly with Schutz’s adoption of the concept of schemata as organising structures.

As an aside, I hope to publish something on schema and dual cognitive processes shortly. The strength of the schema concept is that it provides a link between System 1 thinking and System 2 thinking and explains some of the interrelationships.  It can also be used to explain phenomena such as the “mental shotgun” described by Kahneman. It also explains which schemata come to dominate at any one moment in time. In reference to your comment about control, I should say that I prefer the more organic models which don’t imply a need for ‘control’ but see conscious thought emerging from dynamic interplay of implicit processes.  For example

·       Norman, DA & Shallice, T 1986, 'Attention to Action: Willed and Automatic Control of Behavior ', in Richard Davidson, J., Gary E.  Schwartz and David Shapiro (eds), Consciousness and Self-Regulation: Advances in Research and Theory, Vol. 4, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 1-18.

·       Huesmann, LR 1998, 'The role of social information processing and cognitive schema in the acquisition and maintenance of habitual aggressive behavior', in Russell G. Geen and Edward Donnerstein (eds), Human Aggression: Theories, research and implications for social policy, Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 73-109.

Part of my question about your proposed use of phenomenological interviewing lies in what I believe it can tell you. My reading of the literature on phenomenological interviewing suggests the interviews may have different shapes. Some focus solely on non-directive, open-ended questions asking for descriptions (Smith et al) others encourage expressive methods of interviewing, eliciting art, poetry etc. that reflect lived experience (e.g. Janet Waters https://www.capilanou.ca/psychology/student-resources/research-guidelines/Phenomenological-Research-Guidelines/).

If you are trying to tease out some of the differences between System 1 and System 2 then using question-based interview may be a viable strategy. However, if you wish to explore underling cognitive processes using phenomenological interviewing there is an issue you might wish to consider.

I see a contradiction in the literature on phenomenological interviewing (one that goes back to Husserl himself) between the focus on lived experience and the idea that reflection is the means of obtaining data on lived experience.  If you accept there is a qualitative difference between System 1 and System 2 thinking you will understand my concern. Reflection is inherently System 2 thinking but experience is largely System 1 thinking.

Madelaine’s suggestion about ‘Think Aloud’ approaches will provide some useful data.  They are particularly useful in testing questionnaires but in my experience they largely capture only System 2 thinking and there is much System 1 thinking that is not revealed (see also)

·       Wilson, TdC & Nisbett, RE 1978, 'The Accuracy of Verbal Reports About the Effects of Stimuli on Evaluations and Behavior', Social Psychology, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 118-31.

·       Nisbett, RE & Wilson, TD 1977, 'Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes', Psychol Rev, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 231-59.

Some writers (below) provide defences for talk aloud methods but I am not sure either defence works for a project that attempts to elicit implicit understandings, especially if you are working with people who are not trained in meditation.

·       Sudman, Bradburn and Schwarz (1996) Thinking about Answers

·       Petitmengin, C (2006), 'Describing one’s subjective experience in the second person: An interview method for the science of consciousness', Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, vol. 5, pp. 229-69.

I prefer expressive methods because they are more closely linked to System 1 thinking. See for example

I suggest they are much more likely to elicit cognitive processes that share some of the characteristics of the lived experience (see attached).  However, we do need to recognise that any interview situation is removed from the situation of interest and carries its own freight of context and demands on the participant. 

Hi Numa

I designed a scientific tool to help answer questions such as these in a systems manner. Please refer to this white paper I'm attaching here. It is not for reproduction, but for your personal use only. Contact me if you have any, further questions. 

Regards,

Robert

I think your general goal is quite coherent: first inductively coding your material as closely too the participants' own words as possible, and then comparing that coding system to a deductive framework based on existing theory.

As reasonable as this might be, I'm not aware of examples of anyone else following the same path. In terms of reporting your findings, you could create a table with 11 rows and 2 columns, where the cells that match existing theory have small amounts of text to explain the linkage, and then blank cells when your code categories do not match existing theory. The core of your Results section would then be to describe the innovative content that you have found.

As far as Ground Theory goes, you have certainly followed the recommendation of going from open (initial) coding into categorization. The strict use of in vivo codes is a bit unusual, but certainly understandable for your purposes. Beyond that, goal of comparing a set of categories (which is less than a theory) to preexisting theories is not a very good fit to GT. So I personally would say that you used GT methods in ways that would ultimately serve a different purpose.

Of course, you did not mention GT in your original post, and I'm not sure why you want to claim it. The problem being that many GT proponents have a tendency to argue over boundaries -- what is and is not acceptable as GT. Since your work is also compatible with Braun & Clarke's (2006) thematic analysis, I would recommend aligning yourself with that widely used approach to qualitative analysis.

sorry I do not have the expertise to answer this question.

Regards

Your question is excellent, and should periodically be discussed. You seem to be assuming that the problem lies with Systems Thinking which is not the case. The problem is in an unwillingness to change. This can be due to any number of reasons. I hope the attached article will be of some help. 

Yes it's likely to depend on the structure of the network, as it does for a simple network. The situation you describe is quite specific, so I'm not sure the answer is known. The best way is to try to find out!

You might find this review helpful, for some basic ideas http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.0010