Discussion: View Thread

Kenneth and Robert,
The question of system is a minor point but be aware that you are
disagreeing with Forrester, Weiner. Bertalafny, Weinberg, Ackoff, Senge,
and a host of others.
Let's be clear. Some people define system as simply components and
relationships but others invoke the notion of purpose. Those who invoke
purpose, do not say that the system has a purpose (in fact, that is
impossible) but that it is vitally important that the components of the
system have common purpose. Systems are more than the simple linear sum of
their components but the fact remains that systems are only some functionof
their components and cannot have a purpose other than the function of the
components. Organizations cannot have purpose "regardless of who knows
it." If no one knows it, then where is the purpose strored and enacted?

But before we get all wound up in systems semantics I do not want to lose
sight of my question. I understand that Jay's list of questions attempt to
get at why a part of the "system" may be failing. And from the system
failing viewpoint I think it is a good list. But I simply want to ask
whether the questions will discern whether a specific part of the system
may be "failing" -- namely the person. It is true that the "system" can
create an onerous work environment. But it is also true that the person
standing in front of you may not be the person you think he/she is.

>
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:53:31 -1000
>From: Kenneth Rossi <kgrossi@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
>Subject: Re: Jay Warner's Summary
>
>Jack, simply because a person does not know the purpose of his or her
>organization doesn't stop it from being a system. Along with purpose, which
>most organizations have regardless of who knows it, they also include the
>other facets of systems including an input, a thruput and an output. This is
>a given no matter what business, product, or service the organization
>performs. Jay's list of questions attempt to get at why a part of that
>system may be failing to accomplish its tasks. This list appears to come
>right out of situational leadership issues Dan addresses probably the most
>critical aspect of human activity systems: communications. If employees
>don't know what they need to do, what success looks like,don't want to do it
>or can't do it boils down to communications. Without looking at the
>organization as a system, you ma will probably miss key communications
>breakdowns as you attempt to analyze performance shortcomings.
>
>Dr. Ken Rossi
>Asst. Professor of Information Systems
>Hawaii Pacific University
>Honolulu, Hawaii
>(808) 544-1412
>kgrossi@worldnet.att.net
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:13:03 -0600
>From: Robert Bacal <rbacal@ESCAPE.CA>
>Subject: Re: Jay Warner's Summary
>
>On 31 Oct 99, at 8:53, Kenneth Rossi wrote:
>
>> Jack, simply because a person does not know the purpose of his or her
>> organization doesn't stop it from being a system. Along with purpose,
>> which most organizations have regardless of who knows it, they also
>> include the other facets of systems including an input, a thruput and an
>> output.
>
>I agree with you, but it gets really confused. I've talked to a number
>of Deming folks who subsribe to the "it's not a system if it has no
>purpose (what the heck DOES that mean) or if people don't know
>what the purpose is.
>
>The word system has been, in a sense, covertly redefined by
>some. Rather than using adjectives to describe different types of
>systems (an unguides system, a purposeless system, etc), they
>have chosen to say that a "purposeless system" is an oxymoron.
>
>> Without looking at the organization as a system, you ma
>> will probably miss key communications breakdowns as you attempt to analyze
>> performance shortcomings.
>
>It sounds to me like you use system to mean the same thing I do,
>which is a set of interdependent processes and parts that interact.
>
>..which of course is probably a more "hardware" or tech. definition
>than some want to adopt.
>
>My computer is a system, but does it have a single purpose? We
>could choose from any number of possible purposes for this
>physical system but they would all be arbitrary and only a part of
>the picture.
>
>
>Visit the Business & Mgmt. Bookshelf - summaries of best books in HR,
>interviewing, leadership, motivation, training activities
>, and a number of other categories.
>Save time and money while finding the best books.
>http://members.xoom.com/topbooks
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:47:54 -0800
>From: Tobi Lytle <Tobi@NEWPARADIGMS.NET>
>Subject: Re: Deadline -Deconstructing Las Vegas, November 7, 1999
>
>rich learning
>thank you.
>I've much to learn . . . read up on
>before I'm qualified to participate
>and
>what a show it will be.
>Where from (industry roles) do most participant's hail?
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:12:02 +0800
>From: "WONG, HOI DICK 96111229"

On 1 Nov 99, at 0:46, Jack Ring wrote:

> Kenneth and Robert,
> The question of system is a minor point but be aware that you are
> disagreeing with Forrester, Weiner. Bertalafny, Weinberg, Ackoff, Senge,
> and a host of others. Let's be clear. Some people define system as simply
> components and relationships but others invoke the notion of purpose.
> Those who invoke purpose, do not say that the system has a purpose (in
> fact, that is impossible) but that it is vitally important that the
> components of the system have common purpose.

Jack, I don't see how you can make a sweeping statement about
"those who invoke purpose". Besides that there IS a difference
between saying a purpose is vitally important, and saying a system
is not a system unless it has a purpose (and I have seen this
revisionist definition used countless times on discussion lists like
the Deming list.

Since the definition and boundaries of a system are crucial for
working with a system, it isn't a trivial thing.

Systems are more than the
> simple linear sum of their components but the fact remains that systems
> are only some functionof their components and cannot have a purpose other
> than the function of the components. Organizations cannot have purpose
> "regardless of who knows it." If no one knows it, then where is the
> purpose strored and enacted?

I suppose if one person knows it and it's the "right" one person, it
may function with purpose (like if the owner/boss is running it).

I agree with all you have said including the parts I didn't quote, but
there are many people who ought to know better that talk about the
system as if it is alive, thinks and directs itself, and hence has a
purpose (to make it a system) or doesn't, which makes it a
collection of stray fruit in a basket.


Visit the Business & Mgmt. Bookshelf - summaries of best books in HR, interviewing, leadership, motivation, training activities
, and a number of other categories.
Save time and money while finding the best books.
http://members.xoom.com/topbooks

Good discussion.

I've never assumed that a system was intelligent simply because it was
alive and functioning, but I have attempted to give systems the benefit of
the doubt, although I constantly revisit the "why?" question.

And I've certainly learned the hard way that whether it's an organized
system like a corporation or a chaotic system like a stock market, even
when consisting of intelligent beings, that it's rarely approaching fully
functional. In fact, I'd suggest strongly that accurate forecasts depend on
a deep understanding of how the system reacts dysfunctionally to change,
without which one is quite blind.

Take the average American family, business or university for example (did I
forget to mention political parties?)<g>.

Mark Montgomery

http://gwin.net

1. If a group of people have a common mental model since when is a
reference to that group a "sweeping statment?" The reason you don't see
how I could make a sweeping statement is probably because I did not make
one.
2. Yes, there is a distinction between saying purpose is important and
saying a system must have purpose. That is exactly what I said in
characterizing the two groups.
3. Revisionist from what baseline?
4. The definition and boundaries of a system are curcial only to those who
need them. They are conveniences of the viewer, not high fidelity
descriptions of the elements and interconnectedness out there. Closer to
home the notion of "open systems" tends to boundlessness. If you are
comfortable with boundaries then so be it but others should be forewarned
about the subjectiveness of your view of system.
5. Perhaps people should not talk about systems as if systems are alive,
thinking, choice making and self-directing. But if you shut that off, what
model would the evolutionists use?

At 12:37 PM 11/1/1999, rbacal@escape.ca wrote:
>On 1 Nov 99, at 0:46, Jack Ring wrote:
>
>> Kenneth and Robert,
>> The question of system is a minor point but be aware that you are
>> disagreeing with Forrester, Weiner. Bertalafny, Weinberg, Ackoff, Senge,
>> and a host of others. Let's be clear. Some people define system as simply
>> components and relationships but others invoke the notion of purpose.
>> Those who invoke purpose, do not say that the system has a purpose (in
>> fact, that is impossible) but that it is vitally important that the
>> components of the system have common purpose.
>
>Jack, I don't see how you can make a sweeping statement about
>"those who invoke purpose". Besides that there IS a difference
>between saying a purpose is vitally important, and saying a system
>is not a system unless it has a purpose (and I have seen this
>revisionist definition used countless times on discussion lists like
>the Deming list.
>
>Since the definition and boundaries of a system are crucial for
>working with a system, it isn't a trivial thing.
>
>Systems are more than the
>> simple linear sum of their components but the fact remains that systems
>> are only some functionof their components and cannot have a purpose other
>> than the function of the components. Organizations cannot have purpose
>> "regardless of who knows it." If no one knows it, then where is the
>> purpose strored and enacted?
>
>I suppose if one person knows it and it's the "right" one person, it
>may function with purpose (like if the owner/boss is running it).
>
>I agree with all you have said including the parts I didn't quote, but
>there are many people who ought to know better that talk about the
>system as if it is alive, thinks and directs itself, and hence has a
>purpose (to make it a system) or doesn't, which makes it a
>collection of stray fruit in a basket.
>
>
>Visit the Business & Mgmt. Bookshelf - summaries of best books in HR,
>interviewing, leadership, motivation, training activities
>, and a number of other categories.
>Save time and money while finding the best books.
>http://members.xoom.com/topbooks

Jack Ring
Innovation Management
32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
Office) 480-488-4615,
Cell) 602.369.4615,
Fax) 480-488-4616
We all think alike, none of us very much.

On 1 Nov 99, at 16:07, Jack Ring wrote:

> 1. If a group of people have a common mental model since when is a
> reference to that group a "sweeping statment?" The reason you don't see
> how I could make a sweeping statement is probably because I did not make
> one.

The point I am trying to make is simple. You said:

Those who invoke purpose, do not say that the system
has a
>> purpose (in fact, that is impossible) but that it is vitally
important
>> that the components of the system have common
purpose.

I am saying that there are some that invoke purpose who DO say
that a system has a purpose, and that a system without one is not
a system. Your sweeping statement is above and characterizes
"those who invoke purpose". Some do, some don't.

It's quite simple.

Let's not assume common definitions among those not present,
lest we mislead ourselves into thinking there is more consistency
of thought than really exists.



Visit the Business & Mgmt. Bookshelf - summaries of best books in HR, interviewing, leadership, motivation, training activities
, and a number of other categories.
Save time and money while finding the best books.
http://members.xoom.com/topbooks

Mental Models are individual constructs, a common mental model would
indicate only socially negotiated parts of that model representative of
small sections of the concept.

" but that it is vitally
> important
> >> that the components of the system have common
> purpose."

The mental model of the purpose may be socially negotiated but each
individual will still bring in his/her own ever changing mental model
regarding the purpose and possible solution to the problem.

Jayne Klenner
Ph.D Candidate
Instructional Systems
Project Manager
Engineering Destinations Project
The College of Engineering
The Pennsylvania State University
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Management Education and Development Discussion
> [mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU]On Behalf Of Robert Bacal
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 7:30 PM
> To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> Subject: Re: Systems and People
>
>
> On 1 Nov 99, at 16:07, Jack Ring wrote:
>
> > 1. If a group of people have a common mental model since when is a
> > reference to that group a "sweeping statment?" The reason you don't see
> > how I could make a sweeping statement is probably because I did not make
> > one.
>
> The point I am trying to make is simple. You said:
>
> Those who invoke purpose, do not say that the system
> has a
> >> purpose (in fact, that is impossible) but that it is vitally
> important
> >> that the components of the system have common
> purpose.
>
> I am saying that there are some that invoke purpose who DO say
> that a system has a purpose, and that a system without one is not
> a system. Your sweeping statement is above and characterizes
> "those who invoke purpose". Some do, some don't.
>
> It's quite simple.
>
> Let's not assume common definitions among those not present,
> lest we mislead ourselves into thinking there is more consistency
> of thought than really exists.
>
>
>
> Visit the Business & Mgmt. Bookshelf - summaries of best books in
> HR, interviewing, leadership, motivation, training activities
> , and a number of other categories.
> Save time and money while finding the best books.
> http://members.xoom.com/topbooks
>

Now that I understand your sweeping statement, please cite anyone who says
a) a system must have Purpose and b) it is the system, as contrasted to the
elements of the sytem, that has the purpose.

My point is that only the elements, and specifically the alive elements, of
a system can have purpose. Accordingly, the system cannot have purpose
other than the combination of the individual purposes. I am very
interested in any contrasing views and would appreciate citations.

Thanks,

On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 Robert Bacal wrote Re: Systems and People
>On 1 Nov 99, at 16:07, Jack Ring wrote:
>
>> 1. If a group of people have a common mental model since when is a
>> reference to that group a "sweeping statment?" The reason you don't see
>> how I could make a sweeping statement is probably because I did not make
>> one.
>
>The point I am trying to make is simple. You said:
>
>Those who invoke purpose, do not say that the system
>has a
>>> purpose (in fact, that is impossible) but that it is vitally
>important
>>> that the components of the system have common
>purpose.
>
>I am saying that there are some that invoke purpose who DO say
>that a system has a purpose, and that a system without one is not
>a system. Your sweeping statement is above and characterizes
>"those who invoke purpose". Some do, some don't.
>
>It's quite simple.
>
>Let's not assume common definitions among those not present,
>lest we mislead ourselves into thinking there is more consistency
>of thought than really exists.

Jack Ring
Innovation Management
32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
Office) 480-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615, Fax) 480-488-4616
We all think alike, none of us very much.

On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 "Jane K. Moore" wrote Re: Systems and People
>
>Mental Models are individual constructs, a common mental model would
>indicate only socially negotiated parts of that model representative of
>small sections of the concept.
>
>" but that it is vitally
>> important
>> >> that the components of the system have common
>> purpose."
>
>The mental model of the purpose may be socially negotiated but each
>individual will still bring in his/her own ever changing mental model
>regarding the purpose and possible solution to the problem.
>
>Jayne Klenner
>Ph.D Candidate
>Instructional Systems
>Project Manager
>Engineering Destinations Project
>The College of Engineering
>The Pennsylvania State University

[JR] Seems right to me. Thanks for stating it so clearly.
Now the question is: Is the purpose do the system they comprise simply a
combination of their respective mental models or can the system have a
purpose different from the combination (non-linear, of course) of the
individuals?

Jack Ring
Innovation Management
32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
Office) 480-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615, Fax) 480-488-4616
We all think alike, none of us very much.

On 2 Nov 99, at 21:55, Jack Ring wrote:

> Now that I understand your sweeping statement, please cite anyone who says
> a) a system must have Purpose and b) it is the system, as contrasted to
> the elements of the sytem, that has the purpose.

Jack, cruise on over the the DEN (that's the Deming list). I think
you will find what you are looking for there.


Visit the Business & Mgmt. Bookshelf - summaries of best books in HR, interviewing, leadership, motivation, training activities
, and a number of other categories.
Save time and money while finding the best books.
http://members.xoom.com/topbooks

There are different types of systems with different purposes. For example,
the purpose of a thermostat as a self-regulating system is to control
temperature, and the measure of effectiveness of this sytem is the extent to
which it achieves this purpose. But a tree as an interactive system does
not regulate temperature; instead, the natural evolution of a tree as an
system is to grow. The seed that is planted does not contain simply a
miniature tree that gets bigger. Instead, the growth of the tree is
influenced and determined by the water and soil and other factors within the
environment as the seed begins to root into the earth. Some people have
compared the growth of a tree with raising a child, in that we don't "grow"
either the tree or the child. The elements of growth are contained in the
seed as we fertilize the earth and soil, and care for the environment of the
tree, and it grows on it's own. But none of this is new. It has been
discussed and debated for decades (see, for example, the 20-year-old chapter
by Pondy and Mitroff, entitled "Beyond Open Systems Models of
Organizations," in Staw's first RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR volume,
JAI Press).


Larry Pate
University of Wisconsin-Madison


At 09:55 PM 11/2/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Now that I understand your sweeping statement, please cite anyone who says
>a) a system must have Purpose and b) it is the system, as contrasted to the
>elements of the sytem, that has the purpose.
>
>My point is that only the elements, and specifically the alive elements, of
>a system can have purpose. Accordingly, the system cannot have purpose
>other than the combination of the individual purposes. I am very
>interested in any contrasing views and would appreciate citations.
>
>Thanks,
>
>On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 Robert Bacal wrote Re: Systems and People
>>On 1 Nov 99, at 16:07, Jack Ring wrote:
>>
>>> 1. If a group of people have a common mental model since when is a
>>> reference to that group a "sweeping statment?" The reason you don't see
>>> how I could make a sweeping statement is probably because I did not make
>>> one.
>>
>>The point I am trying to make is simple. You said:
>>
>>Those who invoke purpose, do not say that the system
>>has a
>>>> purpose (in fact, that is impossible) but that it is vitally
>>important
>>>> that the components of the system have common
>>purpose.
>>
>>I am saying that there are some that invoke purpose who DO say
>>that a system has a purpose, and that a system without one is not
>>a system. Your sweeping statement is above and characterizes
>>"those who invoke purpose". Some do, some don't.
>>
>>It's quite simple.
>>
>>Let's not assume common definitions among those not present,
>>lest we mislead ourselves into thinking there is more consistency
>>of thought than really exists.
>
>Jack Ring
>Innovation Management
>32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
>Office) 480-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615, Fax) 480-488-4616
>We all think alike, none of us very much.
>

Folks --

Russell Ackoff makes this point in his newest book, Re-creating the
Corporation: there are systems and there are systems. He suggests five
criteria that must be met for a system to be a system. I don't have the
book in front of me, but in an earlier book he offered this:

A system is a whole that contains two or more parts that satisfy the
following five condition.
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.
(The Democratic Corporation p 18-21)

He identifies four varieties, obviously to serve the purposes of his book
and his line of thinking. In the new book he posits
+ mechanical systems, where neither the wholes nor the parts have purpose
of their own (e.g., an automobile).
+ animate systems, where the whole has a purpose but the parts do not
(e.g., a human being)
+ social systems, where the whole and the parts each have purposes (e.g., a
politcal party)
+ ecological systems, where the whole does not have a purpose but the parts
do (e.g. a forest)

Now certainly you can take issue with his categories just as you can with
any taxonomy. His interest lies with social systems, especially that
variety known as the corporation.

Does this help clarify anything? Stir the mud?

Michael A
- Michael Ayers
Mailto: mbayers@mmm.com Voice (651) 733-5690) FAX (651) 737-7718
IT CC&PD 3M Center 224-2NE-02 PO Box 33224 St. Paul MN 55133-3224
** Sometimes the right question is, 'Are we asking the right question?' **

Russell's categories strike me as profound and simple. Thanks Michael.




mbayers@MMM.COM on 11/03/99 11:23:57 PM

Please respond to Management Education and Development Discussion
<MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>



To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU

cc: (bcc: OmPrakash/hr_che/India/HIL)



Subject: Re: systems and people







Folks --

Russell Ackoff makes this point in his newest book, Re-creating the
Corporation: there are systems and there are systems. He suggests five
criteria that must be met for a system to be a system. I don't have the
book in front of me, but in an earlier book he offered this:

A system is a whole that contains two or more parts that satisfy the
following five condition.
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.
(The Democratic Corporation p 18-21)

He identifies four varieties, obviously to serve the purposes of his book
and his line of thinking. In the new book he posits
+ mechanical systems, where neither the wholes nor the parts have purpose
of their own (e.g., an automobile).
+ animate systems, where the whole has a purpose but the parts do not
(e.g., a human being)
+ social systems, where the whole and the parts each have purposes (e.g., a
politcal party)
+ ecological systems, where the whole does not have a purpose but the parts
do (e.g. a forest)

Now certainly you can take issue with his categories just as you can with
any taxonomy. His interest lies with social systems, especially that
variety known as the corporation.

Does this help clarify anything? Stir the mud?

Michael A
- Michael Ayers
Mailto: mbayers@mmm.com Voice (651) 733-5690) FAX (651) 737-7718
IT CC&PD 3M Center 224-2NE-02 PO Box 33224 St. Paul MN 55133-3224
** Sometimes the right question is, 'Are we asking the right question?' **

mbayers@MMM.COM wrote:

> Folks --
>
> Russell Ackoff makes this point in his newest book, Re-creating the
> Corporation: there are systems and there are systems. He suggests
> five
> criteria that must be met for a system to be a system. I don't have
> the
> book in front of me, but in an earlier book he offered this:
>
> A system is a whole that contains two or more parts that satisfy the
> following five condition.
> 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.
> (The Democratic Corporation p 18-21)

snap response: Yes, this is getting there. The key word, I believe, is
'interaction.' To be a (an interesting?) system the parts must
interact. the idea of a goal/purpose could be a concept, imposed from
without. As your continuation suggests.

> He identifies four varieties, obviously to serve the purposes of his
> book
> and his line of thinking. In the new book he posits
> + mechanical systems, where neither the wholes nor the parts have
> purpose
> of their own (e.g., an automobile).
> + animate systems, where the whole has a purpose but the parts do not
> (e.g., a human being)
> + social systems, where the whole and the parts each have purposes
> (e.g., a
> politcal party)
> + ecological systems, where the whole does not have a purpose but the
> parts
> do (e.g. a forest)
>
> Now certainly you can take issue with his categories just as you can
> with
> any taxonomy. His interest lies with social systems, especially that
> variety known as the corporation.

As one who comes out of the technical system world, I _know_ there are
systems that don't know anything about purpose, but go right on
interactiong, and functioning, anyway. Thus, purpose could be a
construct grafted/imposed on the reality.

Steven J. Gould, for one, might argue that ecological/evolutionary
systems do not have purpose(s). He might even deny that these systems
make 'progress.' They simply retain the gene pool, conserving and
adapting it to meet new stresses.

Now. If 'purpose' is a construct imposed on the collection of
interacting pieces called a system, how does, and wherefrom comes, a
corporate purpose? Could this be what we mean by 'leadership'?

> Does this help clarify anything? Stir the mud?
>
> Michael A
> - Michael Ayers

Looks like I'll have to read Ackoff's book, too.

Jay
--
Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216
USA

Please Note: New Area Code ------
Ph: (262) 634-9100
FAX: (262) 681-1133
email: quality@a2q.com
web: http://www.a2q.com

The A2Q Method (tm). What do you want to improve today?

I have been watching discussions on systems and people from many of you. The
principles of Systems Engineering and its use in Management is well
documented. The following are the excerpts from Chapter 6 of a TextBook
(volume I) published by Prentice Hall, 1997. You may find details on the web
page as follows:
Concurrent Engineering (CE) Fundamental Text Books Series (two Volumes):

http://www.prenhall.com/allbooks/ptr_0131474634.html

http://www.prenhall.com/allbooks/ptr_0133969460.html

============================================
6.31 Elements of a Functional System

In order for the system to be functional or work repeatedly, the following
must be true:

· Parts of a Whole Function: Each part must provide or contain a set of
partial but distinct functions by itself-functions that can be distinctly
identified as associated with each part of the whole.
· Whole of the Parts: A part or a combination of parts should work together
to accomplish the function (aim or purpose) of the whole system. Each is
capable of contributing a functional build-up leading to the system's
function-ality when every part is in place.
· Structure or Constancy-of-Purpose: There is a definite order (in some
instance priority) in which these parts need to be arranged to work as a
unit. The system requires a structure or a "constancy-of-purpose" to yield
the system's functionality.

Structure Û [Product, Process, Network and Work Hierarchy ]
(6.3)
Without a structure or a "constancy-of-purpose" there is no system. Take for
example, an exploded view of a product's subassembly. The view maintains the
assembly sequence by displaying a principal axis of a subassembly and by
placing the mating parts adjacent to each other with respect to a base part.
The precedence information is explicit in the exploded views. Without proper
assembly plans or sequences, there would not be any functional assembly.
Structures, like a cellular manufacturing organization or robots in a
flexible manufacturing system, are what makes factories work.

System Û [ Parts of a Whole Function + Whole of the Parts + Structure or
Constancy-of-Purpose ] (6.4)

If something is made of parts and it does not matter how these parts are
arranged, then we are dealing with a collection, a "heap," and not a system.
A pile of sand, a collection of stones, a mob, parts in bins, candies in a
candy-dispenser, or a pail of water are examples used to describe heaps.
There are three differences between a collection and a system, as shown in
Figure 6.1; A collection or heap has no structure. It exhibits randomness.
The size and location of the particles have no influence on the outcome. A
heap is uncorrelated. If we stir a heap, it will remain a heap, since each
part does not have a unique enabling or supporting functional role. However,
when the external environment is controlled, e.g., when water is poured into
a measuring glass or a container, it becomes a system. The glass along with
its markings now serves to define the volume the substance occupies. The
measuring glass, markings, and the weight-summary chart together provide a
purpose. This leads to a very interesting postulate.
Postulate: What is important or best for the whole system is nearly
identical with what would be the best in the long run for each of its
constituents. However, what is best for each individual constituent may not
be the best for the whole system.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Warner [mailto:a2q@EXECPC.COM]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 12:20 AM
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: systems and people


mbayers@MMM.COM wrote:

> Folks --
>
> Russell Ackoff makes this point in his newest book, Re-creating the
> Corporation: there are systems and there are systems. He suggests
> five
> criteria that must be met for a system to be a system. I don't have
> the
> book in front of me, but in an earlier book he offered this:
>
> A system is a whole that contains two or more parts that satisfy the
> following five condition.
> 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.
> (The Democratic Corporation p 18-21)

snap response: Yes, this is getting there. The key word, I believe, is
'interaction.' To be a (an interesting?) system the parts must
interact. the idea of a goal/purpose could be a concept, imposed from
without. As your continuation suggests.

> He identifies four varieties, obviously to serve the purposes of his
> book
> and his line of thinking. In the new book he posits
> + mechanical systems, where neither the wholes nor the parts have
> purpose
> of their own (e.g., an automobile).
> + animate systems, where the whole has a purpose but the parts do not
> (e.g., a human being)
> + social systems, where the whole and the parts each have purposes
> (e.g., a
> politcal party)
> + ecological systems, where the whole does not have a purpose but the
> parts
> do (e.g. a forest)
>
> Now certainly you can take issue with his categories just as you can
> with
> any taxonomy. His interest lies with social systems, especially that
> variety known as the corporation.

As one who comes out of the technical system world, I _know_ there are
systems that don't know anything about purpose, but go right on
interactiong, and functioning, anyway. Thus, purpose could be a
construct grafted/imposed on the reality.

Steven J. Gould, for one, might argue that ecological/evolutionary
systems do not have purpose(s). He might even deny that these systems
make 'progress.' They simply retain the gene pool, conserving and
adapting it to meet new stresses.

Now. If 'purpose' is a construct imposed on the collection of
interacting pieces called a system, how does, and wherefrom comes, a
corporate purpose? Could this be what we mean by 'leadership'?

> Does this help clarify anything? Stir the mud?
>
> Michael A
> - Michael Ayers

Looks like I'll have to read Ackoff's book, too.

Jay
--
Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216
USA

Please Note: New Area Code ------
Ph: (262) 634-9100
FAX: (262) 681-1133
email: quality@a2q.com
web: http://www.a2q.com

The A2Q Method (tm). What do you want to improve today?