'System problems' require 'system solutions', which in the language of this book means that we must aim at solving the larger system problems with solutions that not only satisfy the subsystems' objectives but also provide for the global system's survival.
Many of the problems arising in systems stem from the inability of
managers, planners, analysts, administrators, and the like to differentiate
between system improvement and system design. . . . The methods of science
leading to system improvement have their origin in the scientific method
and are
known as the science paradigm. Those leading to system design stem from system
theory and are known as the system paradigm.
John P. van Gigch
The system approach requires that all decision units be integrated to deal
with a common problem regardless of their formal organizational boundaries.
This is optimizing at the total-system level.
To feel threatened that imposing a common language infringes on a certain
kind of undefined freedom is to forget that the real threat is the threat of
complexity, the threat that, unless we work to resolve the mutual problems
existing among systems, the systems themselves will grind to a halt.
John P. van Gigch
...four basic features of self-organization that truly stood the
traditional concepts of systems change on their head:
1) Self-organization is a self-generated and self-guided process. This
means change is neither a hierarchically controlled not an externally driven
process.
2) Self-organization moves beyond the idea of a system as an inert mass
characterized by innate resistance to change. Instead, change is the
activation
of a system's inherent potential for transformation, i.e., its non-linearity.
3) Self-organization results from the utilization, even enhancement of
random, accidental and unexpected events. Change, then, is not the suppression
of chaos; it is order emerging out of chaos.
4) Self-organization represents a system undergoing a revolution prompted
by far-from-equilibrium conditions. This is vastly different than the
traditional model where change is nothing more than a mere shift in system
functioning and a subsequent return to equilibrium.
Jeffrey Goldstein
1. If a system uses all of the knowledge that is has, it must be
perfectly
intelligent. These is nothing that anything called intelligence can do to
produce more effective performance. If all the knowledge that a system has is
brought to bear in the service of its goals, the behavior must correspond to
what perfect intelligence produces.
2. If a system does not have some knowledge, failure to use it cannot
be a
failure of intelligence. Intelligence can work only with the knowledge the
system has.
3. If a system has some knowledge and fails to use it, then there is
certainly a failure of some internal ability. Something within the system did
not permit it to make use of the knowledge in the service of one of its own
goals, that is, in its own interests. This failure can be identified with a
lack of intelligence. . . .
Intelligence as defined is not a measure, but a description of adequacy
over the joint range of two complex domains, the system's goals and the
system's
knowledge.
Allen Newell
The components of a social system -- the humans -- have too much knowledge
relative to how rapidly that can communicate it to each other. There is no way
for a social group to assemble all the information relevant to a given goal,
much less integrate it. There is no way for a social group to act as a single
body of knowledge.
Allen Newell
The deterioration of the American economy and its enterprises is not a
problem but a complex system of interrelated problems. I call such systems
messes. A mess cannot be handled effectively by breaking it down into its
constituent parts and solving each part separately. As we will see, the way
problems and their solutions interact is much more important than how they act
independently of each other.
Russell L. Ackoff
A system is a whole that contains two or more parts that satisfy the
following five conditions.
1) The whole has one or more defining functions.
2) Each part in the set can affect the behavior or properties of the whole.
3) There is a subset of parts that is sufficient in one or more
environments for
carrying out the defining function of the whole; each of these parts is
separately necessary but insufficient for carrying out their defining function.
4) The way that the behavior or properties of each part a system affects its
behavior or properties depends on the behavior or properties of at least one
other part of the system.
5) The effect of any subset of parts on the system as a whole depends on the
behavior of at least one other subset. . . .
If the parts of a corporation do not interact, they form an aggregation, not a
system.
Russell L. Ackoff
How part of a system performs when considered independently of the system
of which it is a part is irrelevant to its performance in the system of
which it
is a part. . . .
Supervision and command are the management of actions; coordination and
integration are the management of interactions, and this requires leadership.
The exercise of leadership does not necessarily require authority. . . .
The defining function of a system cannot be carried out by any part of the
system taken separately. . . .
Furthermore, when an essential part of a system is separated from the
system of which it is a part, that part loses its ability to carry out its
defining function.
Russell L. Ackoff
The educational system in general and business schools in particular treat
analysis and thought as synonyms, but analysis is only one way of
thinking.. Its
product is not understanding but knowledge of systems, how their parts act and
interact, how they work, their structure. Synthetic thinking is required to
gain understanding of systems. Understanding comes from determining how they
function in the larger systems of which they are part.
Russell L. Ackoff
A system, after all, is any unit containing feedback structure and
therefore competent to process information. There are ecological systems,
social systems, and the individual organism plus the environment with which it
interacts is itself a system in this technical sense. The circumstance
that the
family as a unit came to be thought of as a system must lead back inevitably, I
believe, to considering the individual as a system.
It follows that the ways of thinking evolved by psychiatrists in order to
understand the family as a system. . . .The polarization of opinion then will
not be simply between practitioners of individual therapy and practitioners of
family therapy but between those who think in terms of systems and those who
think in terms of lineal sequences of cause and effect. . . .
The basic rule of system theory is that, if you want to understand some
phenomenon or appearance, you must consider that phenomenon within he
context of
all completed circuits which are relevant to it.
Gregory Bateson
The final state of the closed system is completely determined by initial
circumstances that can therefore be said to be the best 'explanation' of that
system; in the case of the open system, however, organization
characteristics of
the system can operate to achieve even the extreme case of total
independence of
initial conditions: the system is then its own best explanation, and the study
of its present organization the appropriate methodology.
Watzlawick, Bavelas, and Jackson
Prigogine's work on the evolution of dynamic systems demonstrated that
disequilibrium is the necessary condition for a system's growth. He called
these system dissipative structures because they dissipate their energy in
order
to recreate themselves into new forms of organization. Faced with amplifying
level of disturbance, these systems possess innate properties to reconfigure
themselves so that they can deal with the new information. For this reason,
they are frequently called self-organizing or self-renewing systems. One
of the
distinguishing features is system resiliency rather than stability.
M. J. Wheatley
These ideas speak with a simple clarity to issues of effective
leadership.
They bring us back to the importance of simple governing principles: guiding
visions, strong values, organizational beliefs -- the few rules individuals can
use to shape their own behavior. The leader's task is to communicate them, to
keep them ever-present and clear, and then allow individuals in the system
their
random, sometimes chaotic-looking meanderings. . . .
If we succeed in maintaining focus, rather than hands-on control, we also
create the flexibility and responsiveness that every organization craves. What
leaders are called upon to do in chaotic world is to shape their organizations
through concepts, not through elaborate rules or structures.
M. J. Wheatley