Checkland Systems thinking, systems practice. © Per FlensburgCheckland ht 01 2 Different types of systems áFormal system. áLiving (Organic) systems. áEcological

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).


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.


General systems


Three important prerequisitions

Somebody applying a systems perspectiveSome principles underlying the systems

perspectiveSomething to apply it to


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.


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


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


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.


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!)


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.


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!


Natural systems

System topologi of Checkland

Designed abstract systems

Designed physical systems

Human activity systems

Hard systems Soft systems


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.



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.


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?


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.


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...



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


Graphical overwiev

Problematic situation

Rich Picture

Subsystems

Root definitionsConceptual model

Comparison


The problem situation

Problems in Human Activity systems are more diffuse

There is seldom no obvious solution It is important to avoid seeing solutions


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.


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!


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.


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


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


”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.


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.


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.


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


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

Documents

Checkland Systems thinking, systems practice. © Per FlensburgCheckland ht 01 2 Different types of systems áFormal system. áLiving (Organic) systems. áEcological