RE: Operational Definitions: System and Process

["Vic Forte" <vic@vichara.f9.co.uk>]

I have no real problem with Myron's definition of a system, and to show
this, I repeat it here in full:

Start of Myron's definition:

Ackoff says that a system is a set of two or more elements that
satisfy the following conditions:

1. The behavior of each element has an effect on the behavior of the whole.
2. The behavior of the elements and their effect on the whole are
interdependent.
3. However subgroups of the elements are formed, each as an effect on
the behavior of the whole and none has an independent effect on it.

Ackoff uses as an example an automobile which provides
transportation.  None of the parts individually provide
transportation.

To complete the definition requires an operational definition of the
word "process".

A process is an activity which is repeatable.

Ackoff defines three important variables associated with systems:

A. Systems FUNCTION in some larger system.  Systems play a role in a
larger system.

B. Systems have STRUCTURE, which describes how the elements are put
together and, therefore, interact with one another.

C. Systems have PROCESSES which take place within them.  Processes
are what happens to and among elements when the system operates.

End of Definition

This is an excellent definition of system, and reading it taught me much.
But:

I was not totally happy with the definition of process as stated here,
because I did not think that it shed enough light on the relationship
between process and system which was after all our main bone of contention.

Myron then stated "When talking about verb like things you are discussing
processes, where discussing mainly noun like things you are discussing
systems?"

Very neat. This makes me feel a bit better, but not totally. I would like to
propose this:

A process is a system of actions and events.

I think this tidies it up.
====================================================================