A System of Systems Methodology: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
* The system is represented in a quantitative model which simulates its performance under different operational conditions something only possible if the system is simple and the context mechanical. | * The system is represented in a quantitative model which simulates its performance under different operational conditions something only possible if the system is simple and the context mechanical. | ||
* Classical OR Systems analysis and systems engineering are most appropriate for solving problems. | * Classical OR Systems analysis and systems engineering are most appropriate for solving problems. | ||
| Mechanical-pluralist contexts responded to the kind of systems design method proposed by Churchman, and by Mason and Mitroff in their 'strategic assumption surfacing and testing' methodology. | |||
|- | |||
! scope="row"| Systemic | |||
| Cybernetic approaches, such as advocated by Beer and in the socio-technical systems literature. | | Cybernetic approaches, such as advocated by Beer and in the socio-technical systems literature. | ||
Suitable for tackling problems associated with systemic-unitary contexts. | Suitable for tackling problems associated with systemic-unitary contexts. | ||
| The soft systems thinking proposed by Ackoff and by Checkland could minister to problems set in systemic-pluralist problem-contexts. For example, Ackof's 'interactive planning' exhibited, through the participative principle, a method to cope with pluralism and, through the proposed design for a 'responsive decision system', an attempt to come to terms with systemicity | | The soft systems thinking proposed by Ackoff and by Checkland could minister to problems set in systemic-pluralist problem-contexts. For example, Ackof's 'interactive planning' exhibited, through the participative principle, a method to cope with pluralism and, through the proposed design for a 'responsive decision system', an attempt to come to terms with systemicity | ||
|} | |} |
Revision as of 09:41, 3 February 2023
The starting point was a classification of problem- contexts according to:
- The nature of the systems(s) embedding the problem of concern
- The relationship between relevant stakeholders
. Systems were seen to lie on a continuum ranging from simple to complex and, following Ackoff's terminology, problem-contexts labelled 'mechanical' if they contained relatively simple systems and 'systemic' if they housed complex systems. Decision-makers could be in a
- Unitary relationship to one another If they agreed upon a set of goals
- Pluralist If their objectives differed.
Problem-contexts, it followed, could also exhibit a 'unitary' or 'pluralist' character. Bringing the two dimensions of 'systems' and 'decision- makers' together, to form a four-celled matrix, yielded a classification of problem-contexts as mechanical-unitary, systemic-unitary, mechanical-pluralist and systemic-pluralist. Some brief justifi- cation was provided for the choice of the two dimensions forming the matrix.
Unitary | Pluralist | |
---|---|---|
Mechanical |
|
Mechanical-pluralist contexts responded to the kind of systems design method proposed by Churchman, and by Mason and Mitroff in their 'strategic assumption surfacing and testing' methodology. |
Systemic | Cybernetic approaches, such as advocated by Beer and in the socio-technical systems literature.
Suitable for tackling problems associated with systemic-unitary contexts. |
The soft systems thinking proposed by Ackoff and by Checkland could minister to problems set in systemic-pluralist problem-contexts. For example, Ackof's 'interactive planning' exhibited, through the participative principle, a method to cope with pluralism and, through the proposed design for a 'responsive decision system', an attempt to come to terms with systemicity |