Difference between revisions of "History of Systems Science"

From SEBoK
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 21: Line 21:
 
'''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).  
 
'''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 1972), which encapsulates the effective organization needed for a system to be [[Viable (glossary)]] (to survive and adapt in its environment).
+
'''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 (glossary)]] (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).
 
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).

Revision as of 12:03, 20 February 2012

This article is part of the System Science Knowledge Area. It gives some of the history and detail of the development of a number of different apsects of systems research and practice. Some of these ideas form the basic theory 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).

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.

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 1999, p. A9). 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 1990) and the role of system thinking in society.

Classification of Systems

Many systems researchers have attempted to produce a useful calssification taxonomy, giving some logic to the mapping of Systems Thinking to the real world.

Kenneth Boulding, one of the founding fathers of general system theory , developed a systems classification which has been the starting point for much of the subsequent work. (Boulding 1956). He classifies systems into 9 types:

  1. Structures (Bridges)
  2. Clock works (Solar system);
  3. Controls (Thermostat);
  4. Open (Biological cells);
  5. Lower organisms (Plants)
  6. Animals (Birds)
  7. Man (Humans)
  8. Social (Families)
  9. Transcendental (God).

Bertalanffy (Bertalanffy 1968) divided systems into 9 types, including control mechanisms, socio-cultural systems, open systems, and static structures. Miller (Miller 1986) offered cells, organization, and society among his 7 system types. Other similar categorizations of system types can be found in (Aslaksen 1996), (Blanchard 2005) and (Giachetti 2009).

These approaches also highlights some of the subsequent issues of classification. Boulding implies that physical structures are closed and natural or social ones are open. He also separates humans from animals. (Hitchins 2007).

In addition to making the distinction between Hard and Soft systems, Peter Checkland divided systems into five classes: natural systems, designed physical systems, designed abstract systems, human activity systems and transcendental systems. The first two classes are self explanatory.

  • Designed abstract systems – These systems do not contain any physical artifacts but are designed by humans to serve some explanatory purpose.
  • Human activity systems (glossary) – These systems are observable in the world of innumerable sets of human activities that are more or less consciously ordered in wholes as a result of some underlying purpose or mission. At one extreme is a system consisting of a human wielding a hammer. At the other extreme lies international political systems.
  • Transcendental systems – These systems that go beyond the aforementioned four systems classes, systems beyond knowledge. Checkland refers to these five systems as comprising a “systems map of the universe”. (Checkland 1999, p.111)

Magee and de Weck (Magee and de Weck 2004) examine many possible methods that include: degree of complexity, branch of the economy that produced the system, realm of existence (physical or in thought), boundary, origin, time dependence, system states, human involvement / system control, human wants, ownership and functional type, such as (Maier 2009),(Paul 1998) and (Wasson 2006). They conclude by proposing a functional classification method that sorts systems by their process: transform, transport, store, exchange, or control and by the entity that they operate on: matter, energy, information and value.

Development of Service Science and Service 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 Science is described more fully in the Service Systems Engineering Knowledge Area in Part 4 of the SEBoK.

Systems Methodologies

Much of the work of the Systems Science community has been around the creation of System Methodologies. These describe structured approaches to problem understanding and/or resolution making use of some of the concepts of Systems Thinking. These methodologies are generally associated with a particular System paradigm, or way of thinking, about how Systems Thinking should be applied.

These paradigms arise from the different system movements discussed above. The most widely used groups of methodologies are as follows:

  1. hard system methodologies, (Checkland 1978), set out to select an efficient means to achieve a predefined and agreed end.
  2. soft system methodologies, (Checkland 1999), are interactive and participatory approaches to assist groups of diverse participants to alleviate a complex, problematic situation of common interest.
  3. critical systems thinking methodologies,(Jackson 1985), attempts to provide a framework in which appropriate hard and soft methods can be applied as appropriate to the situation under investigation.

More detailed discussion of some of the methods most often used in Systems Engineering can be found in the associated System Methodology topic.

References

Works Cited

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

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

Aslaksen, E.W. 1996. The Changing Nature of Engineering. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill.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.

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.

Boulding, K. 1956 “General Systems Theory: Management Science, 2, 3 (Apr. 1956) pp.197-208; reprinted in General Systems, Yearbook of the Society for General Systems Research, vol. 1, 1956.

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.

Giachetti, R.E. 2009. Design of Enterprise Systems: Theory, Architectures, and Methods. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.

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

Jackson, M.C. and Keys, P. 1984. "Towards a System of Systems Methodologies." The Journal of the Operational Research Society. 35(6) (Jun. 1984): 473-486.

Jenkins, G.M. 1969. The Systems Approach. In Beishon, J. and G. Peters (eds.), Systems Behavior, 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: Harper and Row.

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

Maier, M. W. 1998. "Architecting Principles for Systems-of-Systems". Systems Engineering, 1(4): 267-84.

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.

Mason, R.O. and I.I. Mitroff. 1981. Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions: Theory, Case and Techniques. New York, NY, USA: Wiley and Sons.

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

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

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

Paul, A. S. 1998. "Classifying Systems." Proceedings of The Eighth Annual International Council on Systems Engineering International Symposium, 26-30 July, 1998, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation. London, UK: Century Books.

Wasson, C. S. 2006. System Analysis, Design and Development. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons.

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.

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.

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.

Additional References

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.

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.


<- Previous Article | Parent Article | Next Article ->