Eberhard Umbach

apl.Prof., Dr.phil., Dipl.-Volkswirt
Institute of Environmental Systems Research
University of Osnabrueck
D-49069 Osnabrueck, Germany
E-mail: umbach@uos.de
Internet homepage: http://www.usf.uos.de/~eberhard

Starting from my contribution to the ISSS-Conference of 2000 (Conference CD, #20045), I consider systems science as an instrument of networking the specialized disciplines on a holistic basis. For the realization of any concrete projects in the real world, like striving towards sustainability in any given local community, system science depends on cooperation with the specialized disciplines. This raises three problems:

What is the "coherent philosophical perspective" (Midgley, 1998, p. 2) that allows for both the "unity of Science" and the multitude of diciplinary approaches and methodologies ?

How is the cooperation organized ?

Are there any other scientific approaches that compete with systems science for this networking task ?

The answers will be searched for in the following directions:

As a philosophical perspective, a special kind of action theory is suggested and will be sketched.

For organizing the cooperation, the normal modelling methods are interpreted as a paradigm to allow for the cooperation with scholars or practitioners from the specialized disciplines.

Concerning the quest for possible competing approaches, the philosophical domain of ethics is scrutinized in its aims and methods with the question of whether it could fulfill the same networking functions. Relations between systems science and ethics will be discussed.
[01-074]

E. Vidinova, A. Athanassov
Sofia, Bulgaria

In order to overcome the negative results of the transformation and economic changes in the domain of agriculture sufficient and steadily updated information has to be available: about conditions and requirements on the product market, the ongoing scientific research and its outcome, the peculiarities of the local soil-climate conditions, the economic indices trends as well as the variety of technological solutions. A kind of polyoptimization between the given different
conditions takes place on the basis of a processing of a great amount of data in a short time. A
module-oriented information system may significantly help in that solutions are chosen in terms of the actual local conditions of agricultural products and then estimated upon economic criteria.
It should be seen as a part of decision processes at local, regional, national and global scales, in the
search for viable ways to raise the effectiveness and the capacity to compete in agriculture.

[01-141]

William J. Wells
Urban Planner
The DISmovement, Inc.
P.O. Box 70114
Louisville, Ky 40270

The difficult challenge to "rethink" ourselves will be critical towards decoding the paradox of "changing our systems thinking to understand "them". The phenomenon of life itself will be understood as the myth of science becomes integrated with religion as discovered through the art of living. Healthier cities will be realized when urban planning confronts racial inequality and discrimination as well as a world engineered, designed and sustained by able-bodied men. Personal observation, professional experiences and published literature will identify how the more incongruent space experienced by citizens with disabilities can be a basis for understanding the architecture of the greater space occupied by that scalar level we know as cities.

[01-060]

Systems In Service To Humanity: Unifying Traditional Systems, Evolutionary Systems Thinking, And 2nd Order Cybernetic Perspectives To Explore Originating Dynamics¾Toward Regulatory Mechanisms For Sustainability?

Elizabeth White, MBA, Ph.D.
Analysis and Design for Management
425 East Harwood, #1128
Euless, Texas 76039
lizwhite999@yahoo.com

"As a species we are consuming our little piece of a solar system, pulling little bits of a planet through our individual perceptual unreality fields, and excreting it collectively as concrete, McDonalds, and dogs (White, ISSS '00)." Further exploring implications of her view that "Traditional Systems" reside in the "emergence space" at the "center" of confluencing arrays of dynamic flows, i.e., at the center of the wider perspective on "systems" that the author refers to as a "General Evolutionary View," the author discusses the advantages to be achieved as we as systemists gain the ability to point to and to explain the originating dynamics whose confluencing over eons generated the sequential series' of confluencing systems that generate and sustain, not only earth's current biosphere system's composition, but also that of our species' various cultural, social, and corporate systems. More importantly for Homo sapiens' progeny, as we as systemists gain deep, structural understanding of this "whole system" view of the relationship between traditional systems, general evolutionary systems, and 2nd order cybernetics, we come closer to gaining the "scientific" capability of generating computer simulations that through iterative cycles can visually and quantitatively depict the "quality of life" and sustainability consequences for generations hence of various current cognitive choices. The author invites further dialogue.

Keywords: Evolutionary, Systems, Cybernetic, Sustainability, Regulatory.

[01 61]

Jennifer Wilby
University of Hull, UK.
Email: jmwilby@dial.pipex.com

Hierarchy theory works to provide an enriched understanding of complexity and the management of complex situations. The question for this paper is whether an intervention using hierarchy theory would be termed functionalist or interpretivist?

The functionalist paradigm underpins the scientific method which is evident in many of the interpretations of hierarchy theory. Functionalism "represents a perspective which is firmly rooted in the sociology of regulation [a basic tenet of hierarchy theory] and approaches its subject matter from an objectivist point of view. ... It is characterised by a concern for providing explanations of the status quo, social order, consensus, social integration, solidarity, need satisfaction and actuality." (Burrell and Morgan, 1979, 25-26)

Hence, if functionalist, hierarchy theory would not question the existence of the issue being studied, would not admit the influence of the observer on the issue being studied, and would look for general laws (isomorphies) across disciplines to apply to the issue being studied. Our response to such issues is determined by the environment in which we exist.

If subjective however, then the definition of complexity must involve not only the interplay between an observer and the object observed, but also the interplay between the researcher and the rest of society. This becomes more of an intersubjective stance, and the definition is now limited not only by the capacity and abilities of the individual observer but also by the social meanings, perspectives and biases of the phenomena's social context.

Hence, if interpretivist, hierarchy theory would question the existence of the issue being studied and our perceptions of that issue, would actively admit the influence of the observer on the issue being studied, and would look for individual explanations to apply to the issue being studied. Our response to such issues is not determined by the environment in which we exist, but rather that we control the issue being studied.

The work of two hierarchy theorists will be presented and compared using these two views: one from a functionalist perspective and one from an interpretivist perspective.

[01-135]

Harald Yndestad

Mailing address:
Aalesund University College
Larsgaardsvegen 2
N-6009 Aalesund,
Norway

The postindustrial society has grown more complex during the past decades. A typical industrial planning range may span the value chain of production from materials in nature to the consumption in a market. It may include the life cycle of a product or a life cycle of a production system. Understanding dynamics in nature may span from earth dynamics to the sea temperature and from sea temperature to fishery biomass dynamics. Such a complexity has moved the focus from specialized knowledge to a need for knowledge of structures. To handle such problems, we need better methods to analyze complexity, better methods to make models of organizations and better methods of long time planning.

Better understanding of complex organizations is dependent on the ability of reduction complexity by simple methods that most people understand. This means there is a need for a generic method of modeling complex organization, nature and man made organizations.

The main thesis in this paper is that understanding systems needs different dual views of organizations. The paper describes a general systems theory based on a dualistic approach. The theory is based on of a modeling tradition from cybernetics, system dynamics, computer science and focus on a need for a notation language we may use in computers. The system theory is described by a set of definitions, fundamental attributes, comments and a mathematical notation based on set theory. System attributes are described in the dual views System = System ontology + System epistemology, System ontology = System architecture + System dynamics and System epistemology = System ethics + Systems learning. In important part of the paper is the presentation of attributes related to a binding theory.

The presented system theory is developed gradually over a decade working with different types of complex systems. The theory of system architecture has been useful when analyzing complex computer systems, the theory of system architecture and system dynamics has been useful analyzing biomass fishery systems and the whole system theory has bin useful when planning total quality management systems.

Keywords: Systems theory; System ontology; System epistemology; System binding; System attributes
[01- 23]

M.I. Yolles, Iles, P.
Liverpool John Moores University, UK

The use of action research approaches to finding intervention strategies that can deal with complex or messy situations in organisations is well accepted. However, there are no such approaches that tackle inquiry through knowledge processes and in terms of knowledge management. The intention will be to provide an approach that does both of these things from a Critical Theory perspective.

[01-120]

Yu, J. E.
Lincoln School of Management
Lincoln University Campus, Brayford Pool, Lincoln LN6 7TS UK
E-mail: 95015670@95.lincoln.ac.uk

The thesis describes and demonstrates the author's proposal of a new system approach, called 'rhizomatic systems approach' that is developed on the basis of the poststructuralist work in general, Deleuze and Foucault's work in particular. The overall purpose of 'Systems Science in the Service of Humanity' can be said that we encourage the development and applications of 'systems thinking' to 'solutions' of specific practical contexts. It is to help to focus research practice and promote a great deal of efforts towards the service of humanity. However, we should ask ourselves what kind of 'systems thinking' is useful to promote the investigation of 'practice' in which gives way towards postcivil society.

As the author will argue throughout his thesis, rhizomatic systems approach to 'problematization' supports an unconscious transcendental reality which inheres or subsists between the two extremes of a priori subjects (or idealism) and realism. Rhizomatic systems approach is to foster the investigation of the 'movement image' of the world in terms of appreciation of a series of events. To do so, our research is to shift from focus on 'problem solving' in the real world situation to focus on 'problematization' of the ongoing participatory process of social appreciation in the particular and local contexts. The utility of our research leads to acknowledge an "open system" in Deleuzian sense, which is a new type of adaptive whole being proposed in order to produce a continual renewal a mode of existence in social process of learning from theory to practice.

[01-105]

Edna Zalmenson
Management Consultant, 13 Kalisher St., Haifa, Israel
Email: zalmenso@actcom.co.il
(corresponding author)

Efraim Zinman
Director, Integrated Systems, ELTA Electronics Industries,
Email: zinman@is.elta.co.il

During the modern Industrial Age (starting in Taylor's period, the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century) the main issue concerning Organizations Managements was EFFICIENCY and PRODUCTIVITY- how to get more from your resources, by centralized control techniques and incentive programs. This trend was dominant even during the 80's, when methods such as JIT were developed to maximize efficiency even more.
By the 90's it has already been very clear to most Hi-Tech organizations that Productivity and Efficiency by themselves do not guarantee Survivability in the New-Age complex and dynamic environment.
Survivability means the ability to react to dynamic environmental changes, with both negative feedback loops (to maintain stability) and positive feedback loops- to enable adaptation and evolution. The Systems Sciences, and particularly Management Cybernetics and the Viable System Model made a huge contribution in this direction. Survivability means robustness along with flexibility (contradicting? Not really).
The new Information Age, where Virtual, Network, Organizations are dominant- requires a whole new Management paradigm. Survivability is not enough. A CEO of a company producing commodity products was wondering, during one of our lectures, how come his company's market value had increased by few percents, while the market value of a small company, selling software packages for manufacturing had increased at the same time by about 60%. This leads us to a whole new systemic concept: SIGNIFICANCE. The Organization's new goal is to achieve better SIGNIFICANCE, or in other words: Perceived Value. This notion is also true for public organizations. Nowadays, competition is not only the concern of business-oriented organizations. Competition is the main concern of public organizations, i.e. schools, hospitals, government agencies as well. Competition is not only between similar organizations, but also between different alternatives for the consumers' attention, time and energy. Organizations compete for Significance. This requires a whole new systemic, Human-oriented thinking. In this paper we will analyze the meaning of Significance and Perceived Value. We will describe our work with an organization in the Education field, using Human oriented systemic approach to help the organization to increase its Perceived Value within its environment. The basic approach we use includes:
Stakeholders Interests and Values mapping
Value- oriented alternatives and competition analysis
Increasing Perceived Value- alternatives and directions
Implementing Synergy to achieve on-going significance improvement.

Our methodology involves all Organization's members. Full commitment of all participants is essential in the success of this on-going process of increasing the Organization's significance.
[01-014]