A System of Systems Methodology: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
(Matrix) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
|- | |- | ||
! scope="row"| Mechanical | ! scope="row"| Mechanical | ||
| | | classical OR Systems analysis and systems engineering are most appropriate for solving problems. It is taken as given that it is relatively easy to establish clear objectives for the system in which the problem resides so the context must be unitary. They then try to represent the system in a quantitative model which simulates its performance under different operational conditions something only possible if the system is simple and the context mechanical. | ||
| | | Cybernetic approaches, such as advocated by Beer and in the socio-technical systems literature | ||
Suitable for tackling problems associated with systemic-unitary contexts. | |||
|- | |- | ||
! scope="row"| Systemic | ! scope="row"| Systemic | ||
| | | 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. | ||
| | | 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 03:34, 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 | classical OR Systems analysis and systems engineering are most appropriate for solving problems. It is taken as given that it is relatively easy to establish clear objectives for the system in which the problem resides so the context must be unitary. They then try to represent the system in a quantitative model which simulates its performance under different operational conditions something only possible if the system is simple and the context mechanical. | Cybernetic approaches, such as advocated by Beer and in the socio-technical systems literature
Suitable for tackling problems associated with systemic-unitary contexts. |
| Systemic | 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. | 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 |