System Principles?

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Jack Ring

unread,
Mar 15, 2015, 2:28:41 PM3/15/15
to Sys Sci
I posted the following on the SEBoK Comments page but thought it might not be seen by SysSci members.
++++++
The Principles of Systems Thinking section of SEBoK 1.3.1 does not address system principles, specifically the necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be a system vs. not a system. 
Example system principles are a) progress properties which hold that a system can progress from State(i) to State(n) in a finite number of transitions else is not a system and b) safety properties which hold that during any such progression certain other aspects of the system and its context must not change. 
Are system principles addressed elsewhere in the SEBoK?
++++++
Impetus for this perspective comes from Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge by Joseph D. Novak, 2nd Edition which holds that propositions when sufficiently general become principles and that theories (such as designs, e.g., expressed as prescriptive models) consist of a selected bundle of properly ordered principles.

Does the SEBoK address the issue of "what is and is not a system" and state necessary, sufficient and efficient criteria for determining such?
If so, pls point me to the section.

James Martin

unread,
Mar 15, 2015, 4:18:35 PM3/15/15
to SSWG
Jack

The Guide to the SEBOK is intended to provide pointers to the essential information that has been published in the "body of knowledge" somewhere in the literature. It is not intended for "original" material.

The comments you provided are good. Can you provide a reference to a published document in the literature that states what you just said?

The SSWG is planning on updating the articles on systems science, systems thinking, systems approach, etc. Janet Singer has the lead on developing the updates. We welcome suggestions that enhance the SEBOK articles.

I am not aware of anywhere else in SEBOK where systems principles are addressed. Nor where it addresses the question of what is or is not a system. Perhaps others who know this can tell the rest of us.

James


--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to syss...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
James

Jack Ring

unread,
Mar 15, 2015, 6:41:45 PM3/15/15
to Sys Sci
James,
Wayne Wymore, John Boardman, Dennis Buede and I finally got agreement several years ago to “Guide" to SEBoK. Thankfully, the distinction has endured. 
Note, however, that we also emphasized Guide only to knowledge which had been demonstrated valid, not just balloted. This distinction seems to have been largely ignored to date. Ironically, the Guide has no section on vetting cited ‘knowledge.’

Regardless, honoring your request for progress and safety citations a couple of examples circa 1980’s are:
1) A readable overview of system progress and safety properties is 

2) A deeper and more formal explication to the two properties, elevating them to principles can be seen at 

OBTW, Dr. Pizzarello is currently my colleague at www.ontopilot.com

Jack

James Martin

unread,
Mar 15, 2015, 8:52:55 PM3/15/15
to SSWG
Jack,

Appreciate the references. Regarding your comment about vetting cited knowledge, the governance of the SEBOK is described here:
http://sebokwiki.org/wiki/BKCASE_Governance_and_Editorial_Board

There is not "balloting" as you call it. Maintaining the quality of the information is through editors selected by the Editor-in-Chief who is appointed by the Editorial Board. This is similar to how Journals are governed.

If you think a section is needed on how the knowledge should be vetted, then could you submit such an article? I would gladly work with Rick Adcock to get this included in the next release.

James

Jack Ring

unread,
Mar 16, 2015, 1:39:14 AM3/16/15
to Sys Sci
James, 
You are confusing governance with fallibility assessments. Approval of content by acclamation by those allowed to vote is balloting as contrasted to conducting actual system projects according to the ministrations. As Stalin said, it is not who gets to vote that counts, it is who gets to count the votes.

I have no interest in entering the SEBoK process at this time. You are probably not aware that I volunteered to be an author when this SEBoK project first started and indicated that my focus would be on ways of estimating operational readiness and effectiveness from Day 2 of a system project. The then chair of the Whatever board distinctly declined my offer, grandly granting me Commenter status.

In case I missed it, pls send me any report citing the actual use of SEBoK material in a successful project and a report showing that no project has been successful without it.
Onward,
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages