[RC] The Principles of systems Thinking

[Avesland at aol.com]

The Principles of Systems  Thinking
                                     By : Billy Rojas
 
What is axiomatic to systems thinking is  the view that no problem exists
in isolation. All problems have a context;  all problems are at least partly
a reflection of their environment  -whether "natural" or social or 
constructed.
 
Solutions to one problem require solutions  to related problems. That is, when
you identify one problem you need to look  for other problems that account for
your first problem. All problems have  causes, namely, other problems.
 
Given the fact that such principles were  known by the 1970s , but also given
the fact that General Systems Theory had a  mixed record at problem solving,
it was necessary to re-evaluate the  systems field. 
 
The problem of problems in systems theory  was that of quantification. This 
realization dawned by some time in the  1970s even if it was not universally
acknowledged until the mid 1980s. 
 
A critical distinction was made at that  time and it has characterized the 
field
ever since  -and  has made it  much more useful while also restricting its
application. By definition "hard systems"  cannot be made to work with
human beings. In other words, strict  quantitative control may work quite
well for NASA, for parts  of  multinational corporations like Shell Oil or
IBM, but it cannot be applied to most  other institutions. "Hard Systems"
is anything but a dead concept but it no  longer is seen as a universal
solvent. Systems thinking branched out  from this time so that problems 
which are more nebulous could also be  analyzed and at least some 
systems approaches recommended in order to  deal with vexing problems
out of the reach of the Hard  approach.
 
Soft systems are those that involve human  interaction at their core. These
types of systems may well include hardware , sometimes a lot of it, but
what characterizes them are group  dynamics. 
 
What is a "soft sytem" ? A (very) short  paper prepared by the ISSS -the
International  Society for Systems  Sciences, Kids Only Page, should be
looked at. Precisely because this "essay"  is intended for pre-teens it gets
to the basics very effectively, for  anyone's benefit.
 
The system with which almost everyone is  most familiar is the family.
And how do we talk about a family ? In  terms of relationships. Only
when a family goes outside of itself do  its members speak of Walter, Susan,
Beverly, and  Tommy. Inside of the  family everything is thought of in terms
of mother and father, sister and  brother  -plus, in many cases, grandparents,
aunts and uncles and perhaps cousins,  nephews and  nieces.
 
Siblings, of course, refer to each other  by name, but mother is never Susan 
father is never Walter. Parents refer to  each other by name, as they do with
respect to their offspring, but what is  always paramount is the fact that the
children are dependent minors or, later in  life, only semi-independent 
individuals. Relationships are the  substance of any family.
 
No-one in a family acts completely  independently of all others in the 
household.
All members of a family have  responsibilities, even those that are not 
clearly
defined, toward all others involved. What  a family does is a systems process.
 
We can quantify only some of what a family does. Most of what is done  is
unquantifiable and is best spoken of in qualitative terms. A family is  where
a certain type of love is expressed; it is where a range of personal  virtues 
are
nurtured. It may also be a breeding ground for various dysfunctional  
attributes
or attitudes, but no-one claims that families are perfect, only that they  
are far
superior to all known alternatives.
 
Other examples of soft systems include :
voluntary associations
religions
clubs
sports teams
political parties
social movements
cultural organizations
most (almost all) businesses.
 
Understanding of the characteristics of soft systems grew out of a  
development
in higher education, sometimes seen in high schools as well, that of 
interdisciplinary studies, another phenomenon associated with the  late
1960s and the 1970s, and with us ever since.
 
Academics came to realize that if there was to be any useful work generated 
from cross-discipline research that modes of co-operation were  vitally
important. Ways to facilitate professional interaction were needed.  This
led to the understanding that no one model of how this interaction  "should"
look like could possibly be successful. Were theologians going to  willingly
defer to biologists ? Were physicists going to defer to MBAs ? Were
art historians going to concede that their specialty was somehow  inferior
to journalism, engineering, or mathematics ?
 
Not that all disciplines are equally relevant in all circumstances.That  is
manifestly untrue. But all have some contribution to make and,  while the
importance of a speciality toward solving one problem may be low, in
another case it may be very high. It all "depends."
 
Systems thinking became a species of pragmatism. The operating  principle
was:  Whatever works is the gold standard.
 
For a good summary of this approach see the Wikipedia article, Soft  Systems.
Also called Critical Systems Thinking, this approach assumes that any  real-
world social problem will be messy, that there cannot be a perfect solution 
to issues, and that what is most useful is the identification of  provocative
metaphors that help us almost intuitively understand what is going  on.
 
To be sure traditional GST is still alive and well.Its just that it long  ago
ceased to be dominant in the systems movement. As the Wikipedia  article
notes, there still is an influential periodical, the Journal of the  
Operational
Research Society, and OR / GST is still used for a variety of  engineering
applications and also some forms of "process based management," but  this
is the extent of things. Most, by far, of the "action" in the systems  field
is in the area of CST  -Critical Systems Thinking, soft systems.
 
SSM, Soft Systems Methodology, takes the view that it is impossible  and
often undesirable anyway, to try and measure everything in a system  of
human interactions. All relevant measurements should be made, of  course,
but pushing the definition of relevance too far is bound to be  
counter-productive.
It is much better to find the most telling metaphors and work with  them.
 
Here we can offer some new criticisms of systems thinking as it has  developed
in the past 20 years or so, especially the past 10 years.
 
Just how practical is it to seek to find a systems solution to every  problem 
?
Not very. A presumed "systems imperative" may be nothing so much as  an
excuse to delay taking action, which would be bad, indeed, in any  situation
requiring immediate attention.
 
One of the strengths of American culture is the adhocratic nature of  much
decision making that takes place in politics and other areas. It can be a  
real
virtue to choose an ad hoc solution to a problem , especially when the  cost
of becoming fully informed about all variables is high or prohibitive. An 
ad hoc solution may not be the best possible solution to a problem; it  may
even be terrible. But when we value ad hoc decisions we are free, as  a
consequence, to change out minds when something does not work out, 
hence to make a new ad hoc decision that undoes the damages of the  first
such decision.
 
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "Americans always do what is right   -as
soon as they have exhausted all the other possibilities."  The point  is not 
that
our decisions are  always, at first, the best decisions, but that they  
eventually
are the best. Or at a minimum, usually for the best.
 
Too much systems emphasis also fails to take into account human  resiliency
and ingenuity, two characteristic American virtues. Do we need to  "study
everything to death" before taking action ? We are perfectly capable  of
taking action in the here-and-now and correcting any mistakes later,  after
a problem has been at least brought under some control.
 
These comments are not meant to impugn the worth of systems thinking.
Quite the contrary. Few philosophies are more valid and more  productive.
However, systems thinking is not a panacea. Circumstances should  dictate
when we use  a systems approach and when we do not. Perhaps this  will
mean that for most important problems in life we will turn to systems
analysis and solutions. This is my personal view of things. But we  need
to leave the door open for ad hoc decisions,  and to recognize  that
a serious systems solution takes time that, certainly now and then,  we
simply do not have. We should simply always strive to do the best  that
we can. This won't always be systematic, and that is a fact of life.
 
Another criticism is more substantive. This concerns a philosophy  that
has arisen to support systems thinking. In other words, neither  problems
nor the field of systems thinking exist in a vacuum.
 
One principle of this philosophy has it that everyone effected by  systematic
change ought to be consulted in the process of system re-design. For by  its
nature a systems solution to a problem will necessarily rearrange all sorts  
of
elements in a social setting or organization or group.
 
Therefore, to obtain maximum co-operation from people it is important  to
seek the views of one and all.
 
To some extent this principle cannot be argued with. But it makes an
assumption that is not stated anywhere, namely, that we are  discussing
responsible men and women who have community interests at heart,
not only their private or egocentric interests. Yet some people  simply
do not know enough to make a meaningful contribution to any such
discussion. For instance, when a father or mother makes a decision
about his or her career should the children have equal voice in  making
a determination ? Any such thing would virtually guarantee a poor
decision. We need to be realistic about such matters and, in the  context
of the early 21st century,  the people most likely to be systems  thinkers are
also most likely to be under the spell of various contemporary  shibboleths,
especially the set of values associated with Political Correctness.
 
Thus  some systems thinkers today refer to Michael Foucault's  views
on the nature of power relationships in society. According to  Foucault
we ought to make sure to consult with the marginalized, not only  people
in whatever mainstream is under consideration, when making a social
decision. But is this advice always sound ? Is it ever sound  ?
 
Foucault was a practicing homosexual who died from AIDS. What he
was arguing as a subtext in his philosophy of power was actually that
homosexuals should always be consulted  -as  supposed experts- 
whenever issues about homosexuality come before decision makers..
 
But are homosexuals in any way competent to render sound opinions
on their condition ? This is not the place to discuss the many  arguments
and the wealth of evidence that says that homosexuality is a mental  illness.
All that will be done is to refer the reader to a 1995 book by  Charles
Socarides, Homosexuality  -A Freedom Too Far. The volume  makes
as good a case as imaginable that homosexuality is a full blown  psycho-
pathology, a conclusion that is accepted here as unarguable. And this 
being the case, it would be utterly irresponsible to ask homosexuals
their opinions about social policy. After all, any sane community has the  
right
to protect itself from deviants, especially from the actions of the
psychologically disturbed.
 
When the principle of including the marginalized is taken as necessary  a
plethora of needless problems can occur. Some or even many  marginalized
groups may be on the margins of society for good reason. This is NOT  true
with respect to ethnic or racial populations, nor is it valid when  
considering
women. But it certainly is  when thinking about any and all groups  with
sociopathological tendencies -alcoholics, heroin addicts, habitual  criminals,
and so forth. Such people have no legitimate claim to an equal voice  in
public decision making. Systems thinking should not be subverted by
Political Correctness values or anything else that undercuts its  objective
value. Some outlooks that have an appeal to some systems thinkers  simply
should  not be associated with systems theory at all.We need to  be clear
about this and act accordingly.
 
Yet it can hardly be disputed that particular types of people have  been
unfairly edged out of one or another mainstream and deserve to be  heard
concerning decisions that impact directly on their lives. The point is  that
it is essential to only include those groups or individuals who have  been
unjustly excluded. 
 
The worth of systems thinking is too great to allow it to be  compromised.
 
Considering all of the good aspects of a systems approach gives us quite  a
list of benefits from this form of thought.
 
Systems analysis means that we do not overlook an entire set of variables  
when
trying to solve complex problems. There is little or no "shooting in the  
dark."
All relevant variables must be identified before a serious problem can  be
addressed. This is in contrast to programs, written about in another ISSS  
paper
by Bill Shireman, What is a System ?"
 
According to Shireman, a program typically seeks to accomplish just one  
thing,
or perchance a very small number of things that follow from one Big issue.  In
contrast a system is a form of organized process; when one problem is  solved
by a system so are other problems. The educational system, at least when  it
is working well, not only keeps kids from becoming criminals, it prepares  
them
for the job market, provides them with valuable social skills, and  
inculcates a 
host of useful values and predispositions. A program to fight crime may  have
a more immediate effect on a local crime rate but to the extent that  social
factors produce criminals in the first place., the simple expedient of  
arresting
and locking up criminals is only a stop gap. The larger problem can only  be
solved sytemically   -and, we might add, systematically.
 
Programs cost resources. Systems generate resources. Systems can  be
and often are self sustaining.
 
Programs are intended to accomplish limited objectives. Systems are  intended
to accomplish an entire set of related objectives.
 
Programs, to be most effective, must operate within a system. A system  is
something that enables programs to reach  desired goals.
 
Programs are reactive; they are implemented to remedy a problem or  crisis.
Systems are pro-active; their purpose is to prevent problems or create  the
conditions for success.
 
Programs "always require external controls." Systems, once they are
operational,  are self regulating and synergistic.They give you more  than
you bargained for.
 
Programs are influential in proportion to the resources spent on 
implementation. Systems are influential based on how well they are  designed
and how much can be learned from them. "The better their design, the
less money needs to be spent."
 
Finally, programs are vulnerable to single factor considerations. That is, 
success of one program almost invariably means that resources for  other
programs is in short supply. But one's "program of the time" may  become
a victim to the same competitive pressures itself and be phased out.  Also,
when a program accomplishes its purpose there no longer is a need for  it.
 
Systems, however, are adaptive by intent and design. Systems, if they  are
well designed, evolve and are able to accomplish new tasks and even  to
solve problems that were unforeseen when they first went "on line."  Hence
systems have a future dimension. At least this is true with respect  to
"open systems" which receive feedback and input  from the  environment.
Because of this openness such systems foster creativity, hence novel
solutions to emerging problems are intrinsic to them. A functional system  is
intended to be around for many years, in other words.
 
Futurists understood this quality of systems from almost the beginning  and,
as a consequence , have devised some of the most memorable systems
metaphors known to our culture.
 
Hence Buckminster Fuller's "Spaceship Earth" model of the 1970s and  into
the 1980s, imagery that not only suggests that our planet is traveling  into
the future but is a system that requires careful management.
 
Hence G. Harry Stine's 1975 book, The Third Industrial Revolution, 
gave us a metaphor meant to suggest that cybernetics, computers, new human 
sciences, new energy sources, and everything else of similar nature,
can best be thought of in terms of the previous industrial revolutions  of
the early 1800s and the late 19th century, with all that this implies  for
the 21st century,
 
Also from the 1970s was William Irwin Thompson's At The Edge  of
History, a text that shows us how simple and "primitive" forms of  social
organization necessarily evolve into more complex social structures the  way,
for example, that a tribal shaman morphs into a theologian in Medieval  
Europe,
a university scholar  in the 1870s, and then a theoretical physicist  in the 
late
20th century. The historical destination of a tribal chief of 10,000 BC  is,
depending on your frame of reference, the president of the United States  or
the Prime Minister of a nation in Europe or Asia. The tribal artist  becomes,
over time, a Hollywood or Bollywood film producer. The tribal hunter 
eventually becomes Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Similarly, each 
of us may go through a congruent transformation as talents we gained in 
childhood are transformed into a skill set that enable  us to become  an 
editor or
scientist or philosopher or engineer. It all comes down to how a system 
operates and determines (or simply shapes) the available future.
 
Contemporary with these books was The Club of Rome's blockbuster,
The Limits to Growth. In this model of how society operates what  is
most important is economic equilibrium  -or absence of equilibrium  due
to excessive demand upon limited natural resources.
 
More hopeful was a 1977 book by F.M. Esfandiary, the Iranian-American
futures researcher, Telespheres. Esfandiary's thesis is that all  human 
systems
exist in  spheres of communication and that the next big change in  social 
evolution
will be the effect upon us all when the entire world is "wired" and all  
people
with an interest can network with as many others as they may want.
 
Finally we can mention a 1982 book that set the stage for several that  were
to follow,  all based on variations on  the original theme.  This is John 
Naisbitt's
best seller, Megatrends, a book that contends that the system we  ought to
be most concerned about is the matrix of trends that is everywhere  creating
the future we will live in. Here the system of consequence can be thought  of
as a wave phenomenon, in which a lot of smaller but still significant size  
waves
combine to produce a tsunami of change.
 
These characterizations of books hardly do justice to their contents, but  at 
least
to give you an idea of the situation as the 1990s loomed ahead and  systems
thinking began to take the form it is in today. The story is about to take  
some
surprising turns.
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/attachments/20050721/d4b2c841/attachment-0001.html