Challenges to Systems Thinking

["George Cloughley" <cloughley@telegnosis.com.au>]

A small contribution to the current systems thinking dialogue:

On 3rd June, Vic Forte wrote:

The intrinsic contradictions within systems seem to be these:

In order for a system to exist it must have a boundary. But this boundary is
not real - it is put there in order to help us to think about the system.
The system is inextricably bound up with the dynamics of the world outside
of itself. So are those within the boundary misled if they believe in it and
direct their efforts towards its survival ?

Sub-optimisation seems inevitable. Because at some level there is a
boundary. When we place the boundary at too low a level within an
organisation and direct people's efforts towards the sub-system's survival,
we call this sub-optimisation. Why is it then that when we place the
boundary at the level of the organisation, company or whatever, this is not
regarded as sub optimisation?

Nature is a great systems thinker. But if we take nature as our model,
survival is not a requirement of systems within nature - ecology demands
that the lion consume the antelope; the fish consume the plankton. So is it
not the case that systems thinking may mislead people and create false
expectations?

On 14 June, David Kerridge wrote

It is true that systems theories as developed by various writers
(eg Bertalanffy, Wiener) were explicitly based on models in nature,
and do (in my view) lead people astray.

I don't mean that it has no value. It is interesting to see what sort
of things would happen in a competitive environment - some good,
some not so good. Free and aggressive competition is the model most
widely adopted for the business world.

As I understand it, Deming's theory of a system was, from the
first, a theory of cooperation, not competition. For example,
writing to JUSE about the lectures he was to give in Japan, he
says:

"I shall teach during the forenoons the theory of a system, and
cooperation."


I'm struggling a bit with some of the systems thinking issues as raised by
Vic and David. I would summarise my current confusion as follows: 

1.  Bertalanffy defined a system as: "A system is an entity which maintains
its existence through the mutual interaction of its parts." To me,  the key
words are "mutual interaction", and this interaction can be either
cooperative or competitive. There is no mention of an aim although survival
of the species would surely be implied?
2. Deming (TNE p50) defined a system as "a system is a network of
interdependent components that work together to try to accomplish the aim of
the system."  To me the key differentiating words here are "work together"
and "aim".

Keeping within a natural environment, I can imagine a savannah system
comprising of some (sub-)systems such as grass & water resources, antelope
herds and prides of lions all in a dynamic equilibrium. The higher order
food chain components are dependant on the resources provided by the lower
order components and have evolved different physical characteristics and
strategies for survival which best fit their environment. The antelope herds
are mobile and continually search for new food resources while the lions are
territorial and wait for new herds to arrive. Although lions and antelopes
can operate alone,  lions usually hunt in packs  and antelopes herd together
for defensive purposes in order to improve their respective chances. 

This leaves me pondering on the following questions, which I would welcome
any feedback on: 

1. Can a Deming system be described as a aimed, cooperative system including
suppliers and customers, in order to distinguish it from other types of
systems?
2. Can Deming system boundaries therefore be defined as the limits of the
areas the organisation has control over and including suppliers and
customers?. 
3. Can the lion pride and antelope herd be considered as examples of
cooperating Deming (sub-) systems operating within a competitive Bertalanffy
savannah system?

Regards,
George Cloughley