Athanasios (Tom) Kokkinias wrote:
[Content removed at the request of the author.]
The works of Ludwig von Bertalanaffy, General Systems Theory, and Alfred
Korzybski, Outline of General Semantics, are basics for the systems
engineer, but for a criticism on their work it might be worth reading
John Gall, one time prof. of medicine at the U. of Michigan.
System-Antics How Systems Work and Especially How They Fail.
It becomes clear Gall has had hands-on-experience in the field of the
science of systems, it is worth a read. I think it is worth keeping in
mind one or two of the points he makes, such as,
"THE "PROBLEM" PROBLEM."
"For the practising systems-manager, the greatest pitfall lies in
the realm of Problems and Problem-solving. Systems can do many things,
but one thing they emphatically cannot do is to Solve Problems. This is
because Problem-solving is not a systems-function, and there is no
satisfactory Systems-approximation to the solution of a Problem. A System
represents someone's solution to a problem. Yet, whenever a particular
problem is large enough and puzzling enough to be considered a Capital-P
Problem, men rush in to solve it by means of a system.
Once a problem is recognised as a Problem, it undergoes a subtle
metamorphosis. Experts in the "Problem" area proceed to elaborate its
complexity. They design systems to attack it. This approach guarantees
failure, at least for all but the most pedestrian tasks. A system that is
sufficiently large, complex, and ambitious can reduce output far below
"random" levels. Thus, a Federal program to conquer cancer may tie up all
the competent researchers in the field, leaving the problem to be solved
by someone else, typically a graduate student from Tasmania doing a
little recreational entomology on his vacation. Solutions usually come
from people who see in the problem only an interesting puzzle, and whose
qualifications would never satisfy a select committee."
Gall has a number of rules that he finds to be general
rules governing problem-solving and four which come under the heading of
the 'Problem' are given below.
"1. Great advances are not made by systems designed to
produce great advances,
2. Complex systems tend to produce complex responses (not
solutions) to problems,
3. Systems develop goals of their own the instant they come
into being,
4. The crucial variables of a system are discovered by accident."
One point stressed by Korzybski is the need for precise and scientific
definitions of a system, where it fits into the Universal system and what
are the sub-systems.
If systems are scientific then they should be described as abstract
systems, or at least I think so.
regards,
William Kirk.