Skip to main content
  • 53 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Die Auswahl der geeigneten Methode hängt hauptsächlich von zwei Faktoren ab (Abbild 9):

  1. (1)

    von den Charakteristika des zu untersuchenden Phänomens;

  2. (2)

    von dem Ziel der Untersuchung.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Hinweise

  1. Forrester, J. W.: Industrial Dynamics-After the First Decade, in: MS, Vol. 14 (1968), S. 401.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Vgl. Forrester, J. W.: Industrial Dynamics — A Response to Ansoff and Slevin, in: MS, Vol. 14 (1968), S. 606 f.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Vgl. ebenda, S. 607: “I would indeed assert that industrial dynamics is a general theory of systems and would like to have it compared against any other body of knowledge which asserts that it is a general theory of systems. In doing so, however, we should be careful about any claims for originality... Industrial Dynamics is a clerificationof many ideas that run through cybernetics, ser-vomechanisms theory, psychology, and economics” Zum Ansatz der Allgemeinen Systemtheorie vgl. z. B. Bertalanffy, L. v.: General System Theory, a. a. O., S. 62 f.: “Certain laws of nature can be arrived at not only on the basis of experience but also in a purely formal way... such laws are ‘a priori’ independent from their physical, chemical, biological, etc., Interpretation... this shows the existence of a general system theory which deals with formal characteristics of systems, concrete facts appearing as the special applications by defining variables and parameters”; (statt der Sperrung im Original kursiv); Boulding, K. E.: General Systems Theory — The Skeleton of Science, in: MS, Vol. 1/2(1955/56), S. 197 ff.; Fuchs, H.: Systemtheorie, in: Grochla, E. (Hrsg.): HWO, Stuttgart 1969, Sp. 1618 f.; Miller, J. G.: Towards a General Theory for the Behavioral Sciences, in: AP, Vol. 10 (1955), S. 513 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Nach Ericson, R. F.: The Impact of Cybernetic Information Technology on Management Value Systems, in: MS, Vol. 16 (1969), S. B-52.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Forrester’s Begriff des geschlossenen Systems unterscheidet sich diametral von dem in der Allgemeinen Systemtheorie verwendeten. Dort werden Systeme als “geschlossen” bezeichnet, wenn über die Systemgrenze hinweg kein Energie-und/oder Informationsaustausch erfolgt, während offene Systeme Energie bzw. Informationabsorbieren und emittieren. Ein geschlossenes System in diesem Sinne ist immer ein totes System, das keinerlei dynamisches Verhalten aus sich selbst heraus entwickeln kann. Forrester’s geschlossene Systeme sind in der Terminologie der Allgemeinen Systemtheorie stets offene Systeme, da nur sie eine durch Regelkreise kontrollierte Eigendynamik haben können. Forrester’s offene Systeme hingegen sind gekennzeichnet “by outputs that respond to inputs but where the outputs are isolated from and have no influence on the inputs. An open system is not aware of its own performance. In an open system, past action does not control future action” (Principles of Systems, S. 1-5). Diese Definition Forrester’s resultiert aus der Betonung des Feedbackcharakters von Systemen. Vgl. z. B. Ashby, W. R.: Introduction to Cybernetics, third impression, New York, N.Y. 1958, S. 40; Ber-talanffy, L. v.: The Theory of Open Systems in Physics and Biology, in: Science, Vol. 111 (1950), S. 23–29; ders.: General System Theory, a. a. O., S. 39 ff.; Katz, D. and Kahn, R. L.: The Social Psychology of Organizations, New York, N.Y. 1966, S. 14ff.; Johnson, R. A.; Käst, F. E.; Rosenzweig, J. E.: The Theory and Management of Systems, a. a. O., S. 9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kremyanskiy, V. J.: Certain Pecularities of Organisms as a “System” from the Point of View of Physics, Cybernetics, and Biology, in: General Systems, Vol. 5 (1960), S. 221–230.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Forrester, J. W.: Principles of Systems, a. a. O., S. 4-2. Auch an anderer Stelle hat Forrester diesen Zusammenhang mit großer Klarheit betont: “Given a purpose one should then define the boundary which encloses the smallest permissible number of components. One asks not if a component is merely present in the system. Instead, one asks if the behavior of interest will disappear or be improperly represented if the component is omitted. If the component can be omitted without defeating the purpose of the system study, the component should be excluded and the boundary thereby made smaller. An essential basis for identifying and organizing a system structure is to have a sharply and properly de-finded purpose” Forrester, J. W.: Market Growth as Influended by Capital Investment, in: IMR, Vol. 9 (1968), S. 84. Vgl. auch Cyert, R. M.: A Description and Evaluation of Some Firm Simulations, in: Proceedings of the IBM Scientific Computing Symposium on Simulation Models and Gaming, IBM, White Plains, N. Y. 1966, S. 16 f.; Deutsch, K. W.: The Evaluation of Models, abgedruckt in: Schoderbeck, P. P. (ed. ): Management Systems, New York-London-Sydney 1967, S. 339

    Google Scholar 

  8. McKenney, J. L.: Critique of Verification of Computer Simulation Models, in: MS, Vol. 14 (1967), S. B–102–B–103; Langhoff, P.: The Setting: Some Non-metric Observations, in: Langhoff, P. (ed.): Models, Measurement and Marketing, third printing, Englewood Cliffs, N. J. 1965, S. 12 f.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Vgl. hierzu auch die Ausführungen von Ackoff, R. L.: Management Misinformation Systems, in: MS, Vol. 14 (1967), S. B–149 f.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Diese Vorgehensweise entspricht auch der Forderung Terreber-ry’s, die reaktive Umwelt durch kybernetische Prozesse und die zufallsbedingten Umwelteinflüsse durch stochastische Prozesse abzubilden. Vgl. Terreberry, S.: The Evolution of Organizational Environment, in: ASQ, Vol. 12 (1968), S. 610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1974 Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Dr. Th. Gabler · Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Milling, P. (1974). Die Methodologie. In: Der technische Fortschritt beim Produktionsprozeß. Gabler Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-83859-9_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-83859-9_4

  • Publisher Name: Gabler Verlag

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-409-39292-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-322-83859-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics