History of Systems Science

This article is part of the Systems Science Knowledge Area. It gives some of the history and detail of the development of a number of different aspects of systems research and practice. Some of these ideas form the basic theory and methods that are used to define Systems Thinking.

Engineering can be defined as “the application of scientific principles to practical ends” (Oxford English Dictionary). We would expect engineering disciplines which take a systems approach (such as systems engineering) to be based upon a systems science . The term science implies a well defined branch of knowledge, with a clearly recorded and coherent historical development. This is not the case for systems science, which has a fragmented history. For instance, some fundamental concepts now used in systems science have been present in other disciplines for many centuries, while equally fundamental concepts have independently emerged as recently as 40 or so years ago (Flood and Carson 1993).

Machine vs System Age Thinking

Many attribute the notion of thinking about the whole to the Greek philosophers, exemplified by the work of Aristotle in examining multiple discipline related aspects in what is termed metaphysics. The explosion of knowledge in the natural and physical sciences during the Enlightenment of the 18th and 19th centuries made the move away from this natural philosophy approach to the creation of specialist disciplines inevitable. The only way for science to advance was for scientists to become expert in a narrow field of study. As disciplines emerged they created their own models and views of reality, which become increasingly specialized and associated with a field of study. The creation of educational structures to pass on this knowledge to the next generation of specialists perpetuates the fragmentation of knowledge into the present day (M’Pherson 1973).

Along with this increasing specialization of knowledge and education, the majority of western scientific study in the 19th century was based upon Descartes' notion of reductionism and closed system , sometimes call Machine Age, thinking (Flood 1999). This approach forms models based on the study of things in isolation and the establishment of rules on how they relate to each other. Unfortunately, this also led to a rational science movement, popularized in (Popper 1972), which rejects any phenomena which do not fit with this rational view as not worthy of study.

While these ideas of specialist knowledge and rational analysis have provided a useful model through which a vast amount of scientific knowledge has been gained, they can also be a barrier to our ability to gain knowledge across disciplines and outside of the closed system view. The systems movement has its roots in two areas of science: the biological-social sciences, and a mathematical-managerial base stemming first from cybernetics and later from organizational theory. Both of which have developed around an open system and systemic thinking approach.

Open system theory considers an organism as a complex entity composed of many parts with an overall integrity, co-existing in an environment. In an open system the organism's structure is maintained, or adapts, through a continual exchange of energy and information with its environment.

The Development of Systems Research

The following overview of the evolution of systems science is broadly chronological, but also follows the evolution of different paradigms in system theory.

Open Systems and General Systems Theory

Ludwig von Bertalanffy developed a research approach based on Open System Theory (Bertalanffy 1950). He was one of a number of natural scientists who realized that the reductionist closed system approach could not be used to explain the behavior of an organism in its environment.

general system theory (GST), attempts to formulate principles relevant to all open systems (Bertalanffy 1968). GST is based on the idea that correspondence relationships (homologies) exist between systems from different disciplines. Thus, knowledge about one system should allow us to reason about other systems. Many of the generic system concepts come from the investigation of GST.

GST also implies a scientific approach, with identified laws and generalized theory to unify all science. Bertalanffy was co-founder, along with Kenneth Boulding (economist), Ralph Gerard (physiologist) and Anatol Rapoport (mathematician), of the Society for General Systems Research in 1957. This group is considered by many to be the founders of System Age Thinking (Flood 1999).

Cybernetics

cybernetics was defined by Wiener, Ashby and others as the study and modeling of communication, regulation, and control in systems (Ashby 1956; Wiener 1948). Cybernetics studies the flow of information through a system and how information is used by the system to control itself through feedback mechanisms. Early work in cybernetics in the 1940s was applied to electronic and mechanical networks, and was one of the disciplines used in the formation of early systems theory. It has since been used as a set of founding principles for all of the significant system disciplines.

Some of the key concepts of feedback and control from Cybernetics are expanded in the Concepts of Systems Thinking article.

Operations Research and Organizational Cybernetics

operations research (OR) considers the use of technology by an organization. It is based on mathematical modeling and statistical analysis to optimize decisions on the deployment of the resources under an organization's control. It arises from military planning techniques developed during World War II.

Operations Research and Management Science (ORMS) was formalized in 1950 by Ackoff and Churchman applying the ideas and techniques of OR to organizations and organizational decisions (Churchman et al 1950).

Stafford Beer was one of the first to take a cybernetics approach to organizations (Beer 1959). For Beer the techniques of ORMS are best applied in the context of an understanding of the whole system. Beer also developed a Viable Systems Model (Beer 1979), which encapsulates the effective organization needed for a system to be viable (to survive and adapt in its environment).

Work in cybernetics and ORMS consider the mechanism for communication and control in complex systems, and particularly in organizations and management sciences. They provide useful approaches for dealing with operational and tactical problems within a system, but do not allow consideration of more strategic organizational problems (Flood 1999).

Hard and Soft Systems Thinking

Action Research is an approach first described by Kurt Lewin as a reflective process of progressive problem solving in which reflection on action leads to a deeper understanding of what is going on and to further investigation (Lewin 1958).

Peter Checkland’s action research program in the 1980‘s led to an Interpretative-based Systemic Theory which seeks to understand organizations by not only observing the actions of people, but by building understandings of the cultural context, intentions and perceptions of the individuals involved. Checkland, himself starting from a systems engineering perspective, successively observed the problems in applying a systems engineering approach to the more fuzzy, ill-defined problems found in the social and political arenas (Checkland 1975). Thus he introduced a distinction between hard systems and soft systems:

hard systems views of the world are characterized by the ability to define purpose, goals, and missions that can be addressed via engineering methodologies in attempting to, in some sense, “optimize” a solution.

In Hard System approaches the problems may be complex and difficult, but they are known and can fully expressed by the investigator. Such problems can be solved by selecting from the best available solutions (possibly with some modification or integration to create an optimum solution). In this context, the term "systems" is used to describe real world things, a solution system is selected, created and then deployed to solve the problem.

soft systems views of the world are characterized by extremely complex, problematical, and often mysterious phenomena for which concrete goals cannot be established and which require learning in order to make improvement. Such systems are not limited to the social and political arenas and also exist within and amongst enterprises where complex, often ill-defined patterns of behavior are observed that are limiting the enterprise's ability to improve.

Soft System approaches reject the idea of a single problem and consider problematic situations in which different people will perceive different issues depending upon their own viewpoint and experience. These problematic situations are not solved, but managed through interventions which seek to reduce "discomfort" among the participants. The term system is used to describe systems of ideas, conceptual systems which guide our understanding of the situation or help in the selection of intervention strategies.

These three ideas of “problem vs. problematic situation”; “solution vs. discomfort reduction” and “the system vs. systems understanding” encapsulate the differences between hard and soft approaches (Flood and Carson, 1993).

Hard and Soft thinking became the dominant paradigms for Systems Science investigations in the 1980's and early 90'2, leading to the creation of a number of System Methodologies

Critical Systems Thinking

The development of a range of hard and soft methods naturally leads to the question of which method to apply when (Jackson 1989). critical systems thinking (CST) or Critical Management Science Jackson (Jackson 1985) attempts to deal with this question.

The word critical is used in two ways. Firstly, critical thinking considers the limits of knowledge and investigates the limits and assumptions of hard and soft systems, as discussed in the above sections. From this comes frameworks and meta-methodology for when to apply different methods and Multi-Methodology approaches which recognize the value of combining techniques from several hard or soft methods as needed (Mingers and Gill 1997).

Churchman (Churchman, 1979) and others have also considered broader ethics political and social questions related to management science, with regards to the relative power and responsibility of the participants in system interventions. The second aspect of critical thinking considers the ethical, political and coercive dimension in Jackson's SOSM framework (Jackson 2003) and the role of system thinking in society.

Development of Service Science and Service Systems Engineering

The world economies have transitioned over the past few decades from manufacturing economies that provide goods -- to service based economies. Along with this transition there has been a new application of systems thinking, The disciplines of service science and Service engineering, built on principles of systems thinking but applied to the development and delivery of service systems have developed to support this expansion.

One of the first articles to define the field of service science and service engineering was published in 2006 in the Communications of the ACM, titled "Service Systems, Service Scientists, SSME, and Innovation" (Maglio, et al. 2006). This article was written to "establish a new academic discipline and new profession" (Maglio, et al. 2006, 8).

Published in 2008, Service Science, Concepts, Technology, Management, by Harry Katzan (2008) claims to be the first book to define the newly emerging field of service science: "Service science is defined as the application of scientific, engineering, and management competencies that a service-provider organization performs that creates value for the benefit of the client of customer" (Katzan 2008, vii).

Within the past few years a number of other books have appeared that address service science and service systems engineering based on the foundation laid by the earlier IBM work on service science, management, engineering and design, also known as SSMED:

Service science has grown into a global initiative involving hundreds of organizations and thousands of people who have begun to create service innovation roadmaps and to invest in expanding the body of knowledge about service systems and networks. (Spohrer and Maglio 2010, 3)

Service systems Engineering is described more fully in the Service Systems Engineering knowledge area (KA) in Part 4 of the SEBoK.

References

Works Cited

Ackoff, R.L. 1971. "Towards a System of Systems Concepts". Management Science. 17(11).

Ashby, W. R. 1956. Introduction to Cybernetics. London, UK: Methuen.

Beer, S. 1959. Cybernetics and Management. London, UK: English Universities; New York: Wiley and Sons.

Beer, S. 1979. The Heart of the Enterprise. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Bertalanffy, L. von. 1950. "The Theory of Open Systems in Physics and Biology". Science, New Series, 111(2872) (Jan 13): 23-29

Bertalanffy, L. von. 1968. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, Revised ed. New York, NY, USA: Braziller.

Checkland, P. 1975. "The Origins and Nature of “Hard” Systems Thinking." Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 5(2): 99-110.

Checkland, P. 1999. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.

Churchman, C.W. 1968. The Systems Approach. New York, NY, USA: Dell Publishing.

Churchman, C.W., R.L. Ackoff. and E.L. Arnoff. 1950. Introduction to Operations Research. New York, NY, USA: Wiley and Sons.

Flood, R.L. 1999. Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning within the Unknowable. London, UK: Routledge.

Flood, R.L. and E.R. Carson. 1993. Dealing with Complexity: An Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science, 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: Plenum Press.

Jackson, M. 1985. "Social Systems Theory and Practice: the Need for a Critical Approach." International Journal of General Systems. 10: 135-151.

Jackson, M. 1989. "Which Systems Methodology When? Initial Results from a Research Program." In: R Flood, M Jackson and P Keys (eds). Systems Prospects: the Next Ten Years of Systems Research. New York, NY, USA: Plenum.

Jackson, M. 2003. Systems Thinking: Creating Holisms for Managers. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Katzan, H. 2008. Service Science. Bloomington, IN, USA: iUniverse Books.

Lewin, K. 1958. Group Decision and Social Change. New York, NY, USA: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. p. 201.

Magee, C. L., O.L. de Weck. 2004. "Complex System Classification." Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Council on Systems Engineering International Symposium, 20-24 June 2004, Toulouse, France.

M’Pherson, P, K. 1974. "A Perspective on Systems Science and Systems Philosophy." Futures 6(3) (June 1974): 219-239.

Miller, J.G. 1986. "Can Systems Theory Generate Testable Hypothesis?: From Talcott Parsons to Living Systems Theory." Systems Research. 3: 73-84.

Mingers, J. and A. Gill. 1997. Multimethodology: Theory and Practice of Combining Management Science Methodologies. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Maglio P., S. Srinivasan, J.T. Kreulen, and J. Spohrer. 2006. “Service Systems, Service Scientists, SSME, and Innovation." Communications of the ACM. 49(7) (July).

Popper, K. R. 1979. Objective Knowledge, 2nd edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Spohrer, J. and P. Maglio. 2010. "Service Science: Toward a Smarter Planet." In Introduction to Service Engineering. Ed. G Salvendy and W Karwowski. 3-30. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Wiener, N. 1948. Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Paris, France: Hermann & Cie Editeurs; Cambridge, MA, USA: The Technology Press; New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Primary References

Bertalanffy, L. von. 1968. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, Revised ed. New York, NY, USA: Braziller.

Chang, C.M., 2010. Service Systems Management and Engineering: Creating Strategic Differentiation and Operational Excellence. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons.

Checkland, P. 1999. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.

Flood, R. L. 1999. Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning within the Unknowable. London, UK: Routledge.

Jackson, M. 1985. "Social Systems Theory and Practice: the Need for a Critical Approach." International Journal of General Systems 10: 135-151.

Additional References

Ackoff, R.L. 1981. Creating the Corporate Future. New York, NY, USA: Wiley and Sons.

Blanchard, B.S., and W.J. Fabrycky. 2005. Systems Engineering and Analysis, 4th ed. Prentice-Hall International Series in Industrial and Systems Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall.

Bowler, D.T. 1981. General Systems Thinking: Its Scope and Applicability. Amsterdam: The Netherlands: Elsevier.

Boulding, K.E. 1996. The World as a Total System. Beverly Hills, CA, USA: Sage Publications.

Hitchins, D. 2007. Systems Engineering: A 21st Century Systems Methodology. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.

Laszlo, E. (ed). 1972. The Relevance of General Systems Theory. New York, NY, USA: George Brazillier.

Skyttner, L. 1996. General Systems Theory - An Introduction. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Press.

Warfield, J.N. 2006. An Introduction to Systems Science. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte Ltd. Chang, C.M., 2010. Service Systems Management and Engineering: Creating Strategic Differentiation and Operational Excellence. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons.

Chesbrough, H. 2004. "A failing grade for the innovation academy." Financial Times (September 24):1, cited by Spohrer, J. and P. Maglio. 2010. "Service Science: Toward a Smarter Planet." In Introduction to Service Engineering. Ed. G Salvendy and W Karwowski. 3-30. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

IBM. 2005. IBM Research: Services Science: A New Academic Discipline? www.almaden.ibm.com/asr/resources/facsummit.pdf (accessed September 12, 2011), cited by Spohrer, J. and P. Maglio. 2010. "Service Science: Toward a Smarter Planet." In Introduction to Service Engineering. Ed. G Salvendy and W Karwowski. 3-30. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

IfM and IBM. 2008. "Succeeding through service innovation: A service perspective for education, research, business and government." University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing. Cambridge, UK, cited by Spohrer, J. and P. Maglio. 2010. "Service Science: Toward a Smarter Planet." In Introduction to Service Engineering. Ed. G Salvendy and W Karwowski. 3-30. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Lusch, R.F. and S. L. Vargo (Eds). 2006. The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe Inc.

Maglio P., S. Srinivasan, J.T. Kreulen, and J. Spohrer. 2006. “Service Systems, Service Scientists, SSME, and Innovation." Communications of the ACM. 49(7) (July).

Salvendy, G. and W. Karwowski (eds.). 2010. Introduction to Service Engineering. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons.

Sampson, S.E. 2001. Understanding Service Businesses. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley.

Spohrer, J. 2008. "Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Design (SSMED): An Emerging Discipline-Outline & References." International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector. 1(3) (May).

Spohrer, J. and P. P. Maglio. 2008. "The emergence of service science: Toward systematic service innovations to accelerate co-creation of value." Production and Operations Management 17 (3): 238-246, cited by Spohrer, J. and P. Maglio. 2010. "Service Science: Toward a Smarter Planet." In Introduction to Service Engineering. Ed. G Salvendy and W Karwowski. 3-30. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Spohrer, J. and P. Maglio. 2010. "Service Science: Toward a Smarter Planet." In Introduction to Service Engineering. Ed. G Salvendy and W Karwowski. 3-30. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Tien, J.M. and D. Berg. 2003. "A Case for Service Systems Engineering". Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering. 12(1): 13-38.

Vargo, S.L. and R.F. Lusch. 2004. "Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing." Journal of Marketing 68 (January 2004): 1-17.

Zeithaml, V. A., M. J. Bitner, and D. D. Gremler. 2005. Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm. 4th ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill, quoted in Chang, C.M., 2010. Service Systems Management and Engineering: Creating Strategic Differentiation and Operational Excellence. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons.

---

< Previous Article | Parent Article | Next Article >

SEBoK v. 1.9.1 released 30 September 2018

SEBoK Discussion

Please provide your comments and feedback on the SEBoK below. You will need to log in to DISQUS using an existing account (e.g. Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) or create a DISQUS account. Simply type your comment in the text field below and DISQUS will guide you through the login or registration steps. Feedback will be archived and used for future updates to the SEBoK. If you provided a comment that is no longer listed, that comment has been adjudicated. You can view adjudication for comments submitted prior to SEBoK v. 1.0 at SEBoK Review and Adjudication. Later comments are addressed and changes are summarized in the Letter from the Editor and Acknowledgements and Release History.

If you would like to provide edits on this article, recommend new content, or make comments on the SEBoK as a whole, please see the SEBoK Sandbox.

blog comments powered by Disqus