View
216
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Checkland
Systems thinking, systems practice
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 2
Different types of systems
Formal system.Living (Organic) systems.Ecological system.Purposeful systems.Controlled systems (open or closed).
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 3
Systems thinking
A meta-science, i.e. a way of thinking about virtually every problem. Thus systems thinking is an extremely general science! So far, all systems thinking is subjective insofar as it is always related to an observer - a systems analyst. It is he who defines the boundaries, the components and the eventuel interaction with the environment.
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 4
General systems
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 5
Three important prerequisitions
Somebody applying a systems perspectiveSome principles underlying the systems
perspectiveSomething to apply it to
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 6
Boulding, reasons for GST
"All we can say about everything is practically nothing!" Tried to achieve a compromise between: "The specific that has no
meaning" and "The general that has no content" There is a need for a meta-science due to the many hybrid and
cross disciplines, such as cybernetics, information theory, management science, organisation theory etc.
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 7
Bouldings levels, 1
Level Char. Examples DisciplinesStructures,framework
Statis Chrystals, bridges Descriptions inevery discipline
Clock works Predeterminedmotion
Machines, thesolar system
Classical naturalscience
Controlmechanisms
Closed-loopcontrol
Thermostastes Control theory,cybernetics
Open systems Structurallyselfmaintaining
Biological cells Metabolism,informationtheory
Lower organisms Growth,reproduction
Plants Botany
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 8
Bouldings levels, 2
Level Char. Examples DisciplinesAnimals Brain, ability to
learnBirds and beasts Zoology
Man Self-conscious,language
Human beings Biology,psychology
Socio-culturalsystems
Roles,communications,values
Families,enterprises,nations
History,sociology,behaviouralsciences
Transcendentalsystems
Inescapablesunknowlables
The idea of God
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 9
Characteristics
Complexity increases with each level, more need for unprogrammable decision.
All the properties of the lower levels are present at each level.
Bouldings description is a system at level 1.
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 10
Usefulness of GST?
It can help us understand other sciences and how they are interrelated. Example: Mangement science
Taylor treated the engeneering workshops as a clock-work system, based upon a mechanistical view of man and the factory. After second world war, the factory was treated as a control mechanism and today it is considered as a socio- cultural system. (But most systems develoment models is based on a clock-work or control mechanisms view!)
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 11
Reduction
The whole is more than the sum of its parts (synergy). If we divide a system into subsystems, and treat them separately (as is usual in systems development) we apply a reductionist wiev.
If the system contains human beings reduction is not possible, since our behavior is different (and even unpredicatble) in different situations.
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 12
Convincing of GST?
The hierachy of Boulding is convincing and nobody argue against it. But still, after 40 years it is not possible to say why it is so convincing!
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 13
Natural systems
System topologi of Checkland
Designed abstract systems
Designed physical systems
Human activity systems
Hard systems Soft systems
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 14
Hard vs Soft systemsHard systems thinking can not be applied to
soft systems, because:Hard to state a precise goal for a soft system.None have succeeded.In hard systems problem solving is thought of as
following a recipe. This can't be done in soft systems.
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 15
Human activity systems
It is human activities related to each other so they can be viewed as a whole. This is often emphasized by the existence of other systems. But human activity systems are fundamentally different from natural systems – they can be very different from how they are. This is due to the specific features of man – self- consciousness. Due to this fact human beings are irreducibly free (Popper, Thorpe, Mackay). Thus natural science can't be used solely in connection with human activity systems.
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 16
Be different from what it is?
The behaviour of a hard system is in principle possible to foresee. The actions of (wo)man is not possible to foresee. Therefore a soft system's behaviour is unpredictable and that's the meaning (I think!) with Checkland's statement.
But are humans unpredictable? Do they really have a free will?
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 17
The free will
Suppose we have a machine that can record the state of my brain and from that predict my actions. Suppose it works, the intended way. However, if the prediction was made available for me before I act, then the state of my brain has changed and a new prediction must be done.
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 18
The conclusion – wrong!
My actions can be predicted by others, but from my point of view they are not inevitable and from my point of view I have a free will.
The prediction might fail if something change the state of my brain between the prediction and action.
This is always the case...
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 19
Human activity systems
1. The problem situation unstructured2. The problem situation expresssed: Rich Picture3. Root definitions of relevant systems4. Conceptual models5. Comparison6. Feasible, desirable changes7. Action to improve the problem situation
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 20
Graphical overwiev
Problematic situation
Rich Picture
Subsystems
Root definitionsConceptual model
Comparison
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 21
The problem situation
Problems in Human Activity systems are more diffuse
There is seldom no obvious solution It is important to avoid seeing solutions
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 22
The problem expressed
The expression should be as rich as possibleDo not impose a particular structureCollect as many impressions as possibleAs many possible choices of relevant systems
should be possible.
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 23
Subsystems
What are the names of the systems that at this stage seems relevant?
Find many different sets of subsystems!Each set describes a certain perspective on the
world!
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 24
Root definitions of relevant systems
Look ahead to stage 4 and 5 in order to see what will happend if we choose the actual relevant systems and root definition.
The root definition must express a certain perspective or Weltanschauung.
It is a purely theoretical construct.
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 25
Validation of RD
Client of the systemActor in the systemTransformations that occur in the systemWeltanscahuung used in the systemOwner of the systemEnvironment in which the system exists
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 26
Conceptual modelling
Describe the system as a transforming systemHas absolutely nothing to do with the actual system!There must be radical differencies from the actual
system, if not the root definition must be refomulated.Construct a minimum list of verbs necessary for the
transformation to take place. They might be other ones than in the root definition.
There might be several levels of resolution
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 27
”Validation”
Compare with a constructed human activity model, a "formal" model.
There might also be comparisons with other types of systems thinking, such as e.g. Socio-technical systems or other organisational/economical system models.
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 28
Procedure for validation
The environment puts certain demands.The decision-maker figures out how to influence
the environments.And then he does it, trying to maximise the benefit
for the system.
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 29
Subsystem
The decision-maker changes the subsystems in order to maximise the benefit for the system.
(S)he also (re)allocate resources in order to obtain the desired result.
Special emphasise is put on sub-systems which are close connected to each other in order to maximise the synergy.
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 30
Compare model and reality
The purpose is to open up a debate, not to present THE solution!
Four ways of doing it:1. Ordered questioning about the problematic situation2. Historical comparison3. What features of CM are different from reality and why?4. Describe present system in the same way and compare
© Per Flensburg Checkland ht 01 31
Implementing changes
The change is seldom implementation of a new system, instead change in structure, in procedures and in attitudes.
There should be a discussion between "concerned actors".
The changes must be desirable and feasible.Changes are easier to implement if they are result
of iterations.
Fine