Towards a System of Systems Concepts

Ackoff, Russell L.

doi:10.1287/mnsc.17.11.661

Cited by 830 publications

(448 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

386

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Systems thinking emerged in reaction to reductionism, when Von Bertalanffy (1968) advocated an interdisciplinary approach to widen the scope when studying problem situations (Ackoff, 1971). A system is a set of interrelated entities, of which no subset is unrelated to any other subset and has properties that do not exist in the parts but are found in the whole (called emergent properties) (Weinberg, 1975).…”

Section: Systems Thinking Methodologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practitioner-based research in Information Systems

Averweg

Kroeze

2012

TDSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information systems and in particular data warehouses are very expensive systems to develop. It is therefore not advisable to experiment with ideas too different from current practices. This makes it difficult to apply prescriptive theories in an existing field. From theoretical considerations one might want to develop a data warehouse according to another method such as critical systems thinking methodology. It is however very difficult to persuade data warehouse practitioners to attempt such an experiment. This might be because they would rather adhere to known practices or that they are not sufficiently knowledgeable on critical systems thinking (or any other prescriptive theory) to apply it to such an expensive project. This paper describes a method in which prescriptive theories may be used descriptively to analyse their applicability in a specific field of application. The proposed method is used to understand the practices of the data warehouse discipline from the perspectives of the systems thinking discipline. It is also indicated how this method could be used in other studies where the behaviour of participants is viewed from a point of view of which the detail are unknown to the participants.

show abstract

Section: Systems Thinking Methodologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practitioner-based research in Information Systems

Averweg

Kroeze

2012

TDSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It assumes that some system properties can only be treated adequately in their entirety, taking into account all facets relating the social to the technical aspects [Ramo, 1973]. These system properties derive from the relationships among the parts of the system: how the parts interact and fit together [Ackoff, 1971]. Thus, the system approach concentrates on the analysis and design of the whole as distinct from the components or the parts and provides a means for studying emergent system properties, such as safety [Leveson, 2009].…”

Section: Question (Why?) Answer Why Is It Disintegrating?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying systems thinking to analyze and learn from events

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

2 performed correctly (as specified in their requirements, i.e., neither failed), but the accident occurred because the system designers did not account for all interactions between the leg deployment and the descent-engine control software.This type of component interaction accident is becoming more common as the complexity of our system designs increases. In the past, our designs were more intellectually manageable and the potential interactions among components could be thoroughly planned, understood, anticipated, and guarded against. In addition, thorough testing was possible and could be used to eliminate system design errors before system use. Modern, high-tech systems no longer satisfy these properties and system design errors are increasingly the cause of major accidents, even when all the components have operated reliably, i.e., have not failed. As Perrow has noted [Perrow, 1999], such systems will also be harder for operators to manage in a crisis situation.The same applies to organizational decision making as illustrated by Rasmussen's analysis of the Zeebrugge ferry mishap [Rasmussen, 1997] shown in Figure 1. Some information about the accident [Sheen, 1987] is necessary to understand the figure. On the day the ferry capsized, the Herald of Free Enterprise was working the route between Dover and the Belgium port of Bruges-Zeebrugge. This was not her normal route and the linkspan at Zeebrugge had not been designed specifically for the Spirit class of vessels. The linkspan used spanned a single deck and so could not be used to load decks E and G simultaneously. The ramp could also not be raised high enough to meet the level of deck E due to the high spring tides being encountered at that time. This limitation was commonly known and was overcome by filling the forward ballast tanks to lower the ferry's bow in the water. The Herald was due to be modified during its refit in 1987 to overcome this problem.Before dropping moorings, it was normal practice for a member of the crew, the Assistant Bosun, to close the doors. The First Officer also remained on deck to ensure they were closed before returning to the wheel house. To keep on schedule, the First Officer returned to the wheel house before the ship dropped its moorings (which was common practice), leaving the closing of the doors to the Assistant Bosun, who had taken a short break after cleaning the car deck upon arrival at Zeebrugge. He had returned to his cabin and was still asleep when the ship left the dock. The captain could only assume that the doors had been closed because he could not see them from the wheel house due to their construction, and there were no indicator lights in the wheelhouse to show door position. There was confusion as to why no one else closed the doors. A few years earlier, one of the Herald's sister ships sailed from Dover to Zeebrugge with the bow doors open, but she made it to the destination without incident. It was therefore believed that leaving the bow doors open should not alone have caused the ship to capsize.Anoth...

show abstract

“…These properties derive from the relationship between parts of systems: how the parts interact and fit together. [Ackoff 1971] Caution should be taken from disciplinary thinkers whose use of the language is limited to their specific domain(s) of interest. The principal aims, at the foundation of the Society of General Systems Research -which evolved to become the International Society for the Systems Scienceswere:…”

Section: The Clarity Of Language In Systems Can Help Bridge Science mentioning

confidence: 99%

9.1.0 Service Systems and Systems Sciences in the 21st Century

Wilby

Kijima

Ing

et al. 2010

INCOSE International Symp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Progress on the emerging science of service systems will be advanced by improved collaboration between scientists, engineers, managers and designers. The endorsement of SysML by the OMG provides an option for rigourous descriptions of service systems.The domains modeled by systems engineers have generally been technical in nature. "A service system can be defined as a dynamic configuration of resources (people, technology, organisations and shared information) that creates and delivers value between the provider and the customer through service" (IfM and IBM 2008). Service systems in the 21st century not only include service machines, but also commercial relationship interactions and public infrastructural and social offerings. Broadening the domains of interest to the subjective and the ambiguous presents challenges not only the formal modeling of systems, but also the effective attainment and communications of shared understandings.A group of senior researchers with shared knowledge in the systems sciences has been conducting conversations about service systems, applying modeling tools in both face-to-face and distributed communications. Findings on joint learning, obstacles, and the responses from observers will be discussed. Introduction: Jennifer M. Wilby, "Service Systems and the Systems Sciences"This panel is to be moderated at the INCOSE International Symposium in Chicago, July 2010, by Jennifer Wilby.The service economy is calling for the development of T-shaped people, with both depth in specific disciplines and the breadth to bridge the challenges of working across people, technology, organization and shared information. These individuals will be chartered to become "social value architects", with the ability to cross and bridge communities of practice with a wide variety of skills and expertise.The systems sciences provide a strong foundation on which service systems can be understood. In addition to the technical knowledge typical amongst systems engineers, appreciation for social behaviours in individual and interpersonal interactions rise in importance.In addition to gaining proficiency across functional specialties, service systems designer will need a greater awareness of issues of implementation, with implications on boundaries, scale, and measurement. These can be informed by the models, methods and theories well developed in the systems sciences.

show abstract

Towards a System of Systems Concepts

Cited by 830 publications

References 0 publications

Practitioner-based research in Information Systems

Practitioner-based research in Information Systems

Applying systems thinking to analyze and learn from events

9.1.0 Service Systems and Systems Sciences in the 21st Century

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About