Abstract
The emergence of systems thinking was a profound revolution in the history of Western scientific thought. The belief that in very complex system the behavior of the whole can be understood entirely from the properties of its parts is central to the Cartesian paradigm. This was Descartes’s celebrated method of analytic thinking, which has been an essential characteristic of modern scientific thought. In the analytic, or reductionist, approach, the parts themselves cannot be analyzed any further, except by reducing them to still smaller parts. Indeed, Western science has been progressing in that way, and at each step there has been a level of fundamental constituents that could not be analyzed any further.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
An interesting historical review of the life and works of the founders of systems theory and cybernetics can be found in Ramage and Shipp (2009). An encyclopedic collection of systems theory is available in the extensive website “Principia Cybernetica” at: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/
- 2.
Bateson’s schema can be summarized as follows: (1) A mind is an aggregate of parts of interacting components. (2) The interaction among the parts of the mind is activated by difference, and difference is a non-substantial phenomenon, not situated in space or time; more so than energy, difference is linked to entropy and to negative entropy. (3) The mental process requires collateral energy. (4) The mental process requires chains of circular (or more complex) determination. (5) In the mental process the effects of the difference must be considered to be transformed (that is, codified versions) by the difference preceding the effects. The rules of this transformation must be relatively stable (that is, more stable than the content), but in turn they are subject to transformation. (6) The description and classification of these transformation processes reveal a hierarchy of logical types immanent in phenomena (Bateson 1979, p. 92).
- 3.
Let us remember Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae (part one, Quaestio 2, Article 3: I q. 2 a. 3): The existence of God can be proved by taking five ways. The first, and most evident, way is the argument from motion. […] It is necessary to add a first mover put in motion by no other: and this everyone understands to be God. The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. […] it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. The third way is taken from possibility and necessity. […] it is necessary to postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God. The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. […] there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. […] an intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. The Summa is published in Latin and in English in the following website: http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/
- 4.
“La calunnia è un venticello – Un’auretta assai gentile – Che insensibile sottile – Leggermente dolcemente – Incomincia a sussurrar. […] Alla fin trabocca, e scoppia, – Si propaga si raddoppia – E produce un’esplosione – Come un colpo di cannone, – Un tremuoto, un temporale, […]”. Translated by Gabriela RamĂrez-Carr for The Schiller Institute. www.schillerinstitute.org/educ/reviews/2009/barber_seville.html
- 5.
In order to understand the extreme behavioural complexity of a system with memory it is enough to consider the incredible number of behaviours [input-states-output] that a machine with memory can produce. The extreme computational complexity of machines with memory has been well described by Heinz von Foerster (2003, p. 143), the father of “second-order cybernetics”, who views a machine with memory – defined as non-trivial – as a complex system deriving from the interconnection of machines without memory, or trivial machines (which in Systems Thinking represent the elementary processes between two variables based on a cause-effect relationship).
In any case, the number that can be constructed under such conditions is not astronomical. It is meta-astronomical! If we have only two inputs (A and B) and two outputs we can construct 216, that is, 65,536 different AB machines. Producing these 65,536 machines is quite difficult; however, it is still doable. A fast computer can give us all the possible machines in around two minutes. But suppose we want to calculate the number of machines with four inputs and four outputs (a machine of the ABCD type). There are 28192, that is, 102466 different ABCD machines. If we consider that the age of the universe calculated in microseconds is 1028, this means that if we had a fast computer that could calculate one machine each microsecond, we would need a time period of 102438 times the age of the universe to calculate the number of possible ABCD machines. You are strongly urged not to undertake a similar enterprise. You would lose your shirt, your money, and everything else.
References
Anderson, V., & Johnson, L. (1997). Systems thinking basics: From concepts to causal loops. Waltham, MA: Pegasus Communications, Inc.
Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity (Advances in systems theory, complexity, and the human sciences). New York: Hampton Press. Excerpts. http://www.oikos.org/mind&nature.htm.
Capra, F. (1996). The rise of systems thinking. In F. Capra (Ed.), The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Anchor Books. Online: www.unityofmadison.org/documents/2011fallprogram/Week-5b.pdf. www.maaber.org/sixth_issue/deep_ecology_1e.htm#_ftnref35.
Casti, J. L. (1985). Nonlinear system theory (Mathematics in science and engineering). Orlando, FL: Academic.
Hampden-Turner, C. (1990). Charting the corporate mind, from dilemma to strategy. New York: The Free Press.
Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2007). Knowledge creation and management. New York: Oxford University Press.
Koestler, A. (1967). The ghost in the machine. London: Arkana.
Lange, O. (1965). Wholes and parts: A general theory of system behavior. London: Pergamon Press.
Leigh, J. R. (2004). Control theory. London: The Institution of Electrical Engineers.
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1992). The tree of knowledge. Boston: Shambhala.
Mella, P. (2005a). Observing collectivities as simplex systems: The combinatory systems approach. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 9(2), 121–153.
Mella, P. (2007). Combinatory systems and automata: Simulating self-organization and chaos in collective phenomena. The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 7(2), 17–28.
Mella, P. (2008b). Systems thinking: The art of understanding the dynamics of systems. The International Journal of Learning, 15, 79–88.
Mella, P. (2009a). The holonic revolution. Holons, holarchies and holonic networks. The ghost in the production machine. Pavia: Pavia University Press.
Mella, P. (2009b). Description, definition, denomination and explanation: The bases of the knowledge process. The International Journal of Learning, 16, 483–494.
Morin, E. (2007). Emergence of sense from no-sense. Convergencia, 44(May–August), 140–154.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.
Ramage, M., & Shipp, K. (2009). Systems thinkers. London/Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Richardson, G. P. (1991). Feedback thought in social science and system theory. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Richmond, B. (1991). Systems thinking: Four key questions. Watkinsville, GA: High Performance Systems, Inc.
Richmond, B. (1993). Systems thinking: Critical thinking skills for the 1990s and beyond. System Dynamics Review, 9(2), 113–133.
Roberts, N. (1978). Teaching dynamic feedback systems thinking: An elementary view. Management Science, 24(8), 836–843.
Sandquist, G. M. (1985). Introduction to system science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (1st ed., 1990). New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Senge, P., & Lannon-Kim, C. (1991). The systems thinking approach. The Systems Thinker Newsletter, 2(5)
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., & Smith, B. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook. New York: Boubleday, Random House Inc.
Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Turing, A. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59, 433–460.
Volterra, V. (1926). Variations and fluctuations of the number of individuals in animal species living together. In Animal ecology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931 [original: Variazioni e fluttuazioni del numero d’individui in specie animali conviventi. Atti Acc. Naz. Lincei:31–113].
Volterra, V. (1931). Lessons on the mathematical theory of struggle for life [original: Leçons sur la théorie mathématique de la Lutte pour la vie]. Paris: Gauthier-Villars.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: George Braziller.
von Foerster, H. (2003). Understanding understanding: Essays on cybernetics and cognition. New York, Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Walker, J. (2001). Lifelong learning and the learning organizations. In D. Aspin, J. Chapman, M. Hatton, & Y. Sawano (Eds.), International handbook of lifelong learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Wasson, C. S. (2006). System analysis: Design, and development. London/New York: Wiley.
Wiener, N. (1961). Cybernetics: Or control and communication in the animal and the machine (original: 1948). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, Google Books.
Wilber, K. (2000). Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of evolution (1st ed., 1995). Boston: Shambhala Publications.
Wilber, K. (2001). A brief history of everything (1st ed., 1996). Boston, London: Shambhala.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Appendix 1.1 Skills and Obstacles for the Spread of Systems Thinking
Appendix 1.1 Skills and Obstacles for the Spread of Systems Thinking
Barry Richmond has identified seven skills necessary for becoming a systems thinker and seven obstacles to the spread of Systems Thinking, as well as three areas for improvement. It is useful here to present a summary of his basic ideas (Richmond 1991).
1.1.1 The Seven Skills of the Systems Thinker
1.1.1.1 Consider the Dynamics
skill | Look at a problem in terms of behavioural models that repeat themselves over time |
good practice | Construct graphs of behavioural dynamics; think of events as interesting points in the general time path of a variable |
1.1.1.2 Think in Internal Causal Terms
skill | Attribute the responsibility for a specific behaviour to the internal actors that administer the policies and create the system |
good practice | Instead of apportioning blame we must ask ourselves: “How could those involved inside the system have been responsible?” or “What could the internal actors of the system have done to make it more resilient to outside disturbances?” |
1.1.1.3 Think in Terms of a “Forest”
skill | In order to know something we must understand the context of the relationships |
good practice | Focus on the similarities rather than the differences |
1.1.1.4 Think in Operational Terms
skill | Concentrate on identifying the causal links and understanding how specific behaviour is really produced |
good practice | Ask oneself: “What is the nature of the process?” rather than: “What are all the factors that influence the process?” |
1.1.1.5 Think in Terms of Loops
skill | View causality as a continuous process and not as a sporadic event, so that it is the “effect” that influences once again the causes, and the causes which determine the effects, as part of an ongoing continuous process |
good practice | Take a “shopping list” and try to understand how the items could influence one another reciprocally |
1.1.1.6 Think in Quantitative Terms
skill | Assume it is always possible to quantify even though it is not always possible to measure |
good practice | Ask which “soft” key variables have been left out of the analysis and determine the implications from their inclusion |
1.1.1.7 Think in Scientific Terms
skill | Recognize that all models make hypotheses which are always applicable only in a limited way |
good practice | Test an electronic model by drastically varying the values of certain variables in order to find out where the model does not work |
1.1.2 The Seven Obstacles to Systems Thinking
I believe that there are seven major impediments to the rapid and wide-scale assimilation of Systems Thinking. I have divided the seven into two classes, the first are “fundamental impediments,” the second are “situational”, although the compartments are far from hermetically separated.
Fundamental impediments arise out of “the way things are;” i.e., the nature of “objective reality,” and the legacy of our biological heritage. To the extent that things really are the way you perceive them to be, and that intentionality can exert some influence over biology, we have some power to lessen these “fundamental” impediments.
Situational impediments, on the other hand, are those that we, ourselves, largely create. This implies that we can directly do something about them. By altering our behavior, the form of our institutions, the way we “do business,” we can do much to eliminate the impediments in this class. Personally, I am optimistic. I feel there is much that we can do to remove the barriers to wide-scale adoption of Systems Thinking (Richmond 1991, p. 3).
1.1.3 The Fundamental Impediments
impediment 1 – We are all prisoners of our own frame of reference. We spend most of our time right up against reality and interact locally in certain parts of the web.
impediment 2 – Almost all our daily experiences appear, as they unfold, as an “open loop”; that is, they do not seem to derive from ongoing continuous processes – as Systems Thinking would have us believe. This, in turn, encourages us to view ourselves as “respondents to” rather than as “creators of”.
impediment 3 – The true essence of Systems Thinking is the ability to perceive relationships and not the objects! For this a considerable effort is needed, more than that required to simply open our eyes and allow the appropriate chemical receptors to be stimulated. This additional requirement, in particular during the start-up phase, represents the third impediment to the adoption of a Systems Thinking.
impediment 4 – In the last quarter of a critical year, when there are only two weeks left to put the balance sheet in order, there will not be a large enrolment in Systems Thinking seminars! The problem is that for too many people in too many organizations it is always the last quarter of a critical year and there are always only two weeks left. Systems Thinking remains merely a curiosity: something to look into sometime soon.
1.1.4 The Situational Impediments
impediment 5 – The first situational impediment to the assimilation of Systems Thinking is the lack of technical expertise. Until we free ourselves of our math anxiety and technological phobias, Systems Thinking will largely remain on the shelf.
impediment 6 – People resist Systems Thinking because it can be threatening, and in various ways. People who rely on a monopoly of information, specific technical expertise, or well-defined turf boundaries to sustain their sense of personal power will, as a result, find Systems Thinking threatening.
impediment 7 – Before a person adopts a systems perspective he must feel he is up to the task. It takes courage and strength to believe you can influence the way a systems functions. Systems Thinking frightens individuals who have no true conviction of being capable of influencing a system.
1.1.5 Three Areas to Facilitate the Adoption of Systems Thinking
-
first area – As personal computers become more powerful and more widely available, there will be an increase in the capacity to produce the simulated experiences that allow us to “stand far enough back” to “see the trees and the forest”.
-
second area –A second area that can facilitate the adoption of Systems Thinking is formal education. There is a need for courses (at all levels) that deal with the similarity among the various disciplines rather than courses that bring out the differences. Not enough time is devoted to exercising the “intuition of people for the whole”.
-
third area – Organizations that operate under the assumption that “power flows from the top down” will resist the adoption of Systems Thinking. At the same time, those working inside these organizations will feel little need for Systems Thinking and lack a sense of sufficient expertise to adopt this framework. Only in organizations where people really do, and are aware that they do, have an influence will Systems Thinking take root. We must search out these organizations; it is there where our efforts to implement Systems Thinking must be concentrated.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Italia
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mella, P. (2012). The Kingdom of Circular Processes: The Logical Foundations of Systems Thinking. In: Systems Thinking. Perspectives in Business Culture, vol 2. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-2565-3_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-2565-3_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Milano
Print ISBN: 978-88-470-2564-6
Online ISBN: 978-88-470-2565-3
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)