Types of Systems
Classification methods for systems have been proposed over the past forty years, yet no standard classification system exists. Various methods that have been proposed are summarized in this article.
Classification Methods
Kenneth Boulding, one of the founding fathers of General Systems Theory (glossary), 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); Controls (Thermostat); 4. Open (Biological cells); 5. Lower organisms (Plants); 6. Animals (Birds); 7. Man (Humans); 8. Social (Families); and 9. Transcendental (God). This approach 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).
Peter Checkland proposed a classification system described below. (Checkland 1999) Arthur Paul surveyed the work to date and proposed methods for classifying systems. (Paul 1998) One of the most recent work was performed by Magee and de Weck, who developed a classification approach for complex systems and focused on engineered systems. (Magee and de Weck 2004) All of these classification approaches separate human-designed from non-human-designed systems or natural from man-made systems. While they provide some methods for classifying natural systems, their primary emphasis and value to the practicing systems engineer is in their classification method for human-designed or manmade 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)
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 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.
- soft systems 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.
The systems engineering discipline is primarily aimed at developing, modifying or supporting hard systems.
Arthur Paul (Paul 1998) surveys previously defined classification methods and arrives at five definitions of system types based on function and usage of the systems. He defines: personal/household, military, civil, industrial and infrastructure systems as the five types of operating systems.
Magee and de Weck 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. 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.
Other categorizations of system types can be found throughout the literature. The varieties of suggested types that relate to specific presentations of various authors include:
In the Changing Nature of Engineering (Aslaksen 1996) describes three main classes of systems, according to the actions they perform: transport systems (translations in space), storage systems (translations in time), and production systems (time and space independent transformations). (Blanchard 2005) describes several types including human-made systems, physical systems, conceptual systems, static systems, closed systems and open systems. (Giachetti 2009) describes enterprise systems. (Jackson 2010) describes technological (or product) systems, product-centered infrastructure systems, technological system with human interface, human-intensive systems, process systems, socio-ecological systems, complex adaptive systems and infrastructure systems. (Maier 2009) describes builder-architected systems, form-first systems, politico-technical systems and socio-technical systems. (Wasson 2006) describes cultural systems, business systems, educational systems, financial systems, government systems, medical systems and transportation systems.
The reader is encouraged to follow up on these sources in order to provide a deeper perspective of the various categorizations of system types.
System Classifications
The generally accepted, although there is no consensus, and useful classifications that should be considered are:
- Natural or Manmade
- Physical or Abstract / Conceptual
- Classification by complexity – simple, complicated and complex
- Hard or Soft
- Static or Dynamic
- Classification by function or domain
The systems engineering profession is usually involved with manmade, physical, complicated to complex, hard, dynamic systems with a wide range of functions useful to mankind in many domains. As the profession evolves the range of system types has increased with many recent developments aimed at complex systems and systems with more natural components. Some aspects of systems engineering have been applied to observing natural systems, such as weather modeling and prediction. In these cases the model is typically viewed as the system being developed with the goal of making the model match the natural system. In these cases classifications of natural systems may be necessary and additional work may be needed.
References
Citations
Aslaksen, E.W. 1996. The Changing Nature of Engineering. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.]]
Blanchard, B. S., and W. J. Fabrycky. 2005. Systems engineering and analysis. Prentice-hall international series in industrial and systems engineering. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall.
Checkland, P. B. 1999. Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Hitchins, D. (2007) Systems Engineering: A 21st Century Systems Methodology: Wiley
Giachetti, R. E. 2009. Design of enterprise systems: Theory, architectures, and methods. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Magee, C. L., de Weck, O. L., 2004. Complex System Classification, Fourteenth Annual International Symposium of the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), 20 June – 24 June 2004
Maier, M., and E. Rechtin. 2009. The art of systems architecting. 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Paul, A. S. 1998. Classifying Systems, Proceedings of the eighth annual International Symposium of the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE).
Wasson, C. S. 2006. System analysis, design and development. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Primary References
Checkland, P. B. 1999. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Magee, C. L., de Weck, O. L., 2004. Complex System Classification. Toulouse, France: Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Symposium of the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), 20 June – 24 June 2004.
Paul, A. S. 1998. Classifying Systems. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Proceedings of the 8th annual International Symposium of the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), 26-30 July, 1998.
Additional References
All additional references should be listed in alphabetical order.
Article Discussion
Description: The section is descriptive
Balance: OK
Scope: OK. The author recognizes that he has scratched the surface and tells the reader so.
Writing: OK. Some minor issues addressed below:
Citations: OK
references: OK
Glossary: OK
Cross-Linkages: None noted
Maturity: Good, after correction of below:
Under Classification Methods, the third paragraph refers to "Checkland". Subsequent mentions of him refer to him as "Peter Checkland". It would seem more appropriate to use his full name the first time he is mentioned, then his last name would suffice for later mentions. - DONE 8/17/2011
Second paragraph under Classification Methods uses "high light". I believe that should be a single word -- "highlight". I think the "... not to mention the whole god discussion!" is out of place -- especially choosing to make "God" lower case and the exclamation point. I think the professionalism of the paragraph would be greater if the last two sentences were combined and ended after "animals". - DONE 8/17/2011
Under System Classifications, last paragraph -- "with wide range" should be "with A wide range". - DONE 8/17/2011
Concur with above comments and believe with minor corrections this topic is ready for version .50 - John Snoderly 8/21/2011
Signatures
--Radcock 19:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)