Applications of systems dialectics to integrated development

Systems dialectics is conceived as the integration of two convergent and complementary lines of thinking; one, methodological, the other one, philosophical. The methodological approach attempts to understand the same system, or systems, from static, dynamic, and dialectical perspectives. Systems dynamics considers systems from the viewpoint of homeostasis or dynamic equilibria. Systems dialectics tries to explain mutation-sudden structural and functional change-in nature and society. The modern philosophical trend follows the line of dialectical idealism (Hegel); dialectical materialism (Engels, Marx); and the French scientific dialectics movement, which made a first attempt to synthesize both approaches. Systemic dialectics tries to understand these approaches from a global perspective, as complementary viewpoints. A practical application of systems dialectics would be to test in the real world its global viewpoints in order to transform conflicting situations by applying the new paradigm to the integrated development of individuals and groups.     

System dynamics as a systems-based problem-solving methodology

Systems dynamics is concerned with using systems ideas to increase understanding of various types of phenomena and to aid in the decision-making which determines action upon the processes involved. Developments within system dynamics have occurred mainly independently of advances in the broader systems movement. In this paper an attempt is made to bring to bear on system dynamics some recent work which considers the character of systems-based problem-solving methodologies. System dynamics is placed within a framework which enables the relative strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to be identified. This leads to a deeper understanding of some of the critiques of system dynamics and enables some issues to be outlined which may help to strengthen the theoretical base of system dynamics methodology and hence improve its ability to tackle practical situations.     

Appreciating Systems: Critical Reflections on the Changing Nature of Systems as a Discipline in a Systems-Learning Society

The paper reports a reflective inquiry into the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of systems-related courses developed and presented up to 1995 by the former Systems Department in the Open University, UK. The SWOT analysis is considered in the context of the "systems movement" in its broadest sense. Based on the OU experiences the institutional challenges of systems-as-discipline and interdiscipline are explored. Three strategies for the future are suggested: (i) the potential of Systems Departments to demonstrate rigorous and coherent interdisciplinarity; (ii) for systemists to work harder to bridge the divide between their espoused theory and theory in use, particularly in their own institutional settings and (iii) the need for a rigorous pedagogy for "systems practice."     

Emancipation and truth in critical systems methodologies

This paper deals with the need for stakeholders to participate actively in organizations, so that systems methodologies can be applied in a critical fashion with the objective of arousing the emancipatory interest. It discusses the meaning of emancipation in the labor movement tradition and the emergence of the apathy of working people toward it. Critical Systems Thinking is obliged to face this apathy in its attempt to motivate the emancipatory interest.     

Total systems intervention: A practical face to critical systems thinking

This is the first exposition of a new methodology (or perhaps meta-methodology) for systems practice known as Total Systems Intervention (TSI). Designed to overcome the weaknesses of hard, cybernetic, and soft systems approaches and build on their strengths, TSI represents a practical face of critical systems thinking. It advocates combining three building blocks-systems metaphors, system of systems methodologies, and individual systems methodologies—in an interactive manner which is deemed to be particularly powerful and fruitful. In this paper the philosophy, principles, and phases of the TSI methodology are set out and two very different examples of its use are provided.     

Systems and reengineering: Relating the reengineering paradigm to systems methodologies

Recently the topic of business process reengineering (BPR) has emerged to prominence in a number of guises, e.g. Hammer and Champy (1993). BPR is accepted here as containing a core paradigm with the potential to mobilize and channel change to secure radical improvements in organizational performance. This is contrasted with Continuous Improvement methods which deliver gradual improvements. In this paper BPR is conceputalised as an approach comprised of an emerging group of systems methodologies. These are related to other approaches and methodologies using the Total Systems Intervention framework of Flood and Jackson (1991). In keeping with the framework the main assumptions and metaphors that underlie the BPR literature are examined. BPR methodologies are characterised as rooted mainly in the hard systems approach with the machine metaphor dominating. The possibility is discussed of BPR methodologies based around other than hard system approaches.     

A Theoretical Framework for Facilitating Methodological Choice

Total Systems Intervention, in a recent version, facilitates the intervention process via three modes: problem solving, critical reflection, and critical review. Of these modes, there has been relatively little attention paid to the critical review mode, the purpose of which is to assess the value of different methodologies within a given problem situation. This paper takes as its basis the only major work in this area and seeks to build on this in order to improve the mixing of methodologies within a single intervention.     

Strategies for the Study of Complex Socio-Economic Systems: an Approach Using Agent-Based Simulation

The present paper proposes a research strategy that integrates top-down and bottom-up approaches, aimed at the study of complex socio-economic systems. Through a theoretical analysis, it is demonstrated throughout the text a strategy that allows the articulation between agent-based simulation approaches and methods of deductive and phenomenological basis capable of providing social sciences with unprecedented accuracy due to ethical and methodological limitations imposed by the study object until then. This is because this type of hybrid approach allows the construction of a deep systemic articulation between the micro and the macro, as advocated by the General Theory of Systems, at the same time as it is supported by systematic experiments that give new light to the study of the socio-economic complexity.     

用CIMOSA和随机PETRI网对CIM系统进行行为建模

利用ＣＩＭＯＳＡ建模框架和建模语言，一个企业的集成模型能够被建立．用过程规则集能够对企业模型进行行为分析．为了进一步对ＣＩＭＯＳＡ企业模型的操作进行分析，本文提出了将ＣＩＭＯＳＡ企业模型转换为等价的随机Ｐｅｔｒｉ网模型的系统方法．这种方法是一种将“ｂｏｔ－ｔｏｍ－ｕｐ”和“ｔｏｐ－ｄｏｗｎ”建模方法混合使用Ｐｅｔｒｉ网综合技术．由这种方法得到的Ｐｅｔｒｉ网模型能够保持初始Ｐｅｔｒｉ网的某些定性结构性质     

The Systemic Approach of SSM: The Case of a Brazilian Company

This paper aims to describe the application of Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) to the reality of a Brazilian enterprise. Systemic practices are ways of putting to use systemic thought in the real world, using the precepts of the systemic approach, which is very important for knowledge management and globalization. The systemic practice SSM is used in the resolution of ill-defined problems, which often involve behavioral variables and, thus, cannot be addressed by the so-called hard methodologies. In this paper, SSM is applied to the problematic of a middle-market business, an auto supply distributor, whose managers consulted the authors of this paper as regards proposing improvements of its performance. As a result of this work, the authors were able to propose core changes in attitudes, leading to changes in structure and process.     

Systems thinking in British Telecom Training: A brief account

This paper describes how British Telecom's Training Department has been using Systems Thinking over the last few years and has started introducing Systems concepts and methodologies to a wider audience of operational managers within. The paper explores some of the reasons for British Telecom to adopt Systems Thinking and describes the application of Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) to a particular project within Training Department. The paper also describes the design and delivery of the Introduction to Systems Thinking course which is now part of British Telecom's core program of management training.     

粗糙集理论在我国税收预测中的应用

基于粗糙集理论给出了对象与规则可信度的概念,提出了一种经济系统中相关关系预测法.利用信息熵的概念,评价因素的重要程度和约简因素,由此提取基本相关规则.在对象与规则之间的可信度基础上,建立了预测模型.与传统的回归预测法比较,这个方法不需要进行相关性判断、模型识别和检验,它直接从数据出发,在不损失信息的条件下约简冗余因素,寻找经济指标与影响因素之间的相关关系,能同时处理定性、定量因素以及不确定因素.税收预测模型算例说明了本文方法的有效性.     

基于分离BDD的通用多阶段任务系统可靠性分析

静态的通用多阶段任务系统的不完全覆盖、跨阶段依赖性极大地增加系统可靠性分析的复杂性和难度.基于SEA思想给出两级分离的组合方法将任务和阶段的不完全覆盖分割, 通过新增的阶段代数规则和向后阶段依赖运算式处理跨阶段依赖性,并且充分利用高效的多阶段系统双值决策图,实现模型规模和运算的简化.最后,通过案例分析, 将此分离BDD方法与三值决策图和多状态双值决策图对比, 验证其精确、高效和模块化的优点.     

Action Research for Emancipation Informed by Habermas and Hierarchy of Systems: Case Study on Environmental Education and Management of Water Resources in Brazil

Technology is used in order to emancipate. Emancipation for social and environmental justice ought to shape the way technology is designed and used. The relationships across action research, action research spiral, and the General Systems Theory was investigated. The case study refers to environmental education activities as part of a participative management approach to water resources on the Hydrographic Basin of the Upper Maranhão River (Brazil). By introducing action research spiral as a search of rationality in social practices, and describing the nature of lower and higher hierarchical level in General Systems Theory, the higher hierarchical level was associated with Habermasian emancipatory interest, whereas lower hierarchic levels were associated with the specific instrumental concern. To conclude, it is said that the articulation between action research spiral and General System Theory can be the means to strengthen the dialectical potential of the action research spiral in order to achieve both individual and collective empowerment.     

Total systems intervention and human inquiry: The search for a common ground

Total Systems Intervention (TSI) is an approach to intervening in problem situations which has much to offer where complex interacting issues need to be addressed by the complementary use of intervention methodologies. That such an approach has much in common with Action Research (AR) has been recognized, with much recent effort being devoted to the relationship between AR and Critical Systems Thinking (CST), the theoretical endeavor underpinning TSI. This paper further develops this line of debate and relates AR or Human Inquiry (HI) more directly to TSI, using an information systems intervention to enhance the study. The outcome is a demonstration of how TSI implicitly uses techniques informed from the field of Action Research, and how a more thorough synthesis of HI with TSI might serve to improve the overall intervention process.     

Towards a critique of Critical Systems Thinking within a foucauldian framework: A “demystification process” or an “instrumental use” of Critical Theory

Critical Systems Thinking is an approach which aims at providing a coherent platform to guide systems practitioners through the numerous systems paradigms and systems methodologies currently available. However, it claims not only that it can provide an efficient way for choosing the appropriate methodology based on proper understanding of their strengths and weaknesses, but also that it is grounded within a commitment to critique, complementarism, and emancipation. Furthermore, it has claimed to be deeply rooted in the ideas of Habermas and Foucault. Considering recent research in Foucault's philosophy, this paper attempts to provide of CST a critical examination which can be extended to other areas of the management and systems sciences. In the context of this examination, the conclusion has been reached that CST has at least two options. The first is to redefine itself as a demystification process (of cherished concepts such as emancipation, complementarism, intervention and so on), if it wants to remain somehow ‘inspired’ by Critical Theory. The second one is to redefine its ‘critical’ claims so as to become aligned with managerial activities such as business consultancy and intervention, openly acknowledging an application of Critical Theory that is instrumental, if such an influence indeed exists.     

Practicing What We Teach in Teaching Systems Practice: The Action–Learning Cycle

Respect for autonomy is a powerful tool for managing complexity. It lets natural, mutually supportive order emerge. In Western culture, though, much order is imposed. This causes conflict, which only increases complexity. This conflictual pattern has an antidote in systems practice: the systemic action–learning cycle. When used reflectively at the level of second-order cybernetics, this cycle embodies respect for autonomy. The UK Open University course "T306: Managing Complexity—A Systems Approach" teaches this action–learning cycle, and uses the cycle in its own teaching. In particular, it uses the cycle in its online conferences, to invite participation and dissolve conflict. This paper shows how.     

Designing artificial intelligence applications in law: A systemic view

Artificial intelligence applications development in law has historically focused on formal legal reasoning. Most of the systems are rule-based and none has yet become a fully functional prototype or commercially viable. The attempts to build large-scale systems without examining the intrinsic systemic nature of the legal process has resulted in limited operational success. The legal function, another area of legal activity, has emerged rapidly offering potential for artificial intelligence-based applications. This paper discusses the systemic differences between legal reasoning and legal function and suggests that different design methodologies be used in the two domains. Legal reasoning requires a holistic approach such as the blackboard model incorporating the properties of softness, openness, complexity, flexibility, and generality of legal systems, while traditional rule-based approaches are sufficient for legal function applications.     

The Ontological Constitution of Bounding-Judging in the Phenomenological Epistemology of von Bertalanffy's General System Theory

An analysis of the current presentation of boundary judgments in the Critical Systems literature highlights a general result: that the activity of bounding has been, implicitly or explicitly, considered as an epistemological issue. By arguing that knowledge is not produced singularly by bounding, the paper informs this general result. This, in turn, informs other results, which have emerged in current understanding. In particular, the paper argues (a) the reason why knowledge indeed never attains the status of "objective or right" knowledge, (b) how critique is dependent on some positing of knowledge, and (c) the exact place where critique is actioned. von Bertalanffy's attempted systems epistemology is considered at length because it explains and informs the epistemological conclusions seen to have been drawn in the current Critical Systems literature. von Bertalanffy's attempt requires the support of Husserlian phenomenology, especially Sartre's understanding of it. This requires an in-depth discussion of the phenomenological understanding of consciousness. Since the conclusions stem from von Bertalanffy, the paper reconsiders the status of General System Theory in Critical Systems Thinking.     

Methodological foundations of systems methodologies

In social systems science generally, and in management science particularly, recent developments in the variety of types of specific problem-solving methodologies (under the rubric of hard and soft systems approaches) have given an impetus to a line of inquiry, as well as debate on the nature of those methodologies. On the one hand, there has been the view that what we are witnessing is a form of Kuhnian crisis. On the other hand, a complementarist view of developments has been argued and a contingency approach proposed. But one thing has been common among the competing views: a belief that the prospects for further advances in the design and application of those methodologies, and in resolving the current controversies, lie in serious attempts to reconsider and clarify the underlying metatheoretical assumptions and concerns. This paper is an attempt to contribute to such an endeavor. A brief exposition of three methodological foundations (namely, empiricism, hermeneutics, and critique) is made, not only with the purpose of highlighting the nature as well as the limits of their epistemological and ethical claims, but also as a basis for illuminating both the nature of contemporary work on systems inquiry, design, and problem solving and the ongoing debate on what constitutes appropriate criteria for choice of specific methodologies.