By
definition, a system is composed of interrelated parts.
In systems theory, the degree of interrelationship is termed the
"wholeness" of the system. If the operation of every part
of a system is related to every other part, wholeness is
said to be high. And in fact, an outcome measure taken
from any part of such a system will represent the
effectiveness of every part of the system to the extent that
other parts enter into the outcome. Because all parts are
interrelated, all of the outcome measures taken from this system
will be complex measures reflecting the operation of every other
part of the system and will be substantially Interco related.
For
logical purposes, it is useful to contrast a system of high
wholeness to a non-system in which no parts are
interrelated. Measures of outcome would not reflect the
operation of other parts measured and would not be Interco
related. This is so obvious that it seems silly. But the
converse, stated above, is not so easily grasped: outcome
measures from different parts of a system are correlated because
those outcomes are jointly determined by common parts
of the system.
What
we hope is obvious is that the parts of the system themselves
are interrelated but are theoretically independent in
their unique operation. The only way to demonstrate this
independence is to obtain less complex measures of
outcome of that particular part of the system which are free of
the effects of other parts of the system. As an example, the
quality of the library staff would be one variable contributing
to library size, A test of librarianship skills could be devised
and administered to the library staff It would certainly be
expected that the results of this test would be less correlated
with university quality than would be library size. That is,
the more molecular the measure, the less intimately it would be
expected to he related to global indices of system functioning.
However, more molecular measures would give more specific
information about system functioning,
We
believe the same holds true for mental ability. Certainly
the human mind is a well‑integrated system having a high
degree of wholeness. Wholeness is reflected in complex
measures of human ability, which explains the high correlations
between standard tests of intelligence. Simpler, more molecular
measures should be individually less highly correlated with more
complex measures but should provide more specific information
about the operation of the system.
Management
sciences
have learned a great deal about organizations and how they work.
Much of this learning has come from adopting the perspective
that organizations are entities (systems, defined later), much
like people,
plants and animals. There are many benefits to leaders who adopt
this systems view of their organizations.
Systems thinking
has its foundation in the field of system
dynamics, started
in
1956 by MIT professor Jay Forrester.
Professor Forrester recognized the need for a better way of
testing new ideas about social systems, in the same way we
can test ideas in engineering. Systems thinking allows people
to make their understanding of social systems explicit and
improve them in the same way that people can use engineering
principles to improve their understanding of mechanical systems.
Systems
thinking are fast becoming a powerful tool for
decision-making and organizational change. All employees in
a company should be equipped with the skills necessary for
systems thinking. It is imperative to have some awareness of the
origin of systems thinking and how it can be of benefit to
various types of organizational change, such as
reengineering, systems integration, process redesign, Total
Quality Management, and teamwork. In order to apply systems
thinking to challenges that occur in the work place, some of the
tools and methodologies used in systems thinking should be
taught. Some of the best known strategies used to implement
systems thinking include systems modelling, simulations, causal
loops, archetypes, and scenario planning. To meet the complex
changes that are inevitable, systems thinking can no longer be
esoteric knowledge held by few managers, but should be accessed
by all.
The approach of systems
thinking is fundamentally different from that of traditional
forms of analysis. Traditional analysis focuses on separating
the individual pieces of what is being studied; in fact, the
word “analysis” actually comes from the root meaning
“to break into constituent parts.” Systems thinking,
in contrast, focuses on how the thing being studied interacts
with the other constituents of the system – a set of
elements that interact to produce behavior – of which it is a
part.
The character of systems
thinking makes it extremely effective on the most difficult
types of problems to solve:
those involving complex issues, those that depend a great deal
on the past or on the actions of others, and those stemming from
ineffective coordination among those involved.
Examples of areas in which systems thinking has proven its value
include:
§Complex problems
that involve helping many actors see the “big picture” and not
just their part of it.
§Recurring
problems
or those that have been made worse by past attempts to fix them.
§Issues
where an action affects (or is affected by) the environment
surrounding the issue, either the natural environment or the
competitive environment.
System Thinking
stresses the systemic pattern of thinking (Systemic is the
attribute of thinking derived from systems approach). |