Systems Literacy and Science Education

23 views
Skip to first unread message

peterdt...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 28, 2020, 2:11:50 PM1/28/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com

Many of you are familiar with the work to create a systems literacy initiative bridging INCOSE and ISSS and IFSR and others. The work is an evolution of work of other literacy activities such as ocean literacy, http://www.oceanliteracy.net earth science literacy, climate literacy etc see http://www.systemsliteracy.com for more info.

 

We need to involve K-12 educators and teachers in the process of creating a systems literacy guide, initiative, framework etc  and have yet to do that comprehensively. Their involvement has been essential to the success of the ocean literacy activity which started in the USA in 2004 and is now going global based on the US work.. https://oceanliteracy.unesco.org/

 

I am hoping to go to the National Science Teachers Association annual conference in Boston April 2-5 and if possible have a meeting with anyone on this list that is interested in systems literacy and would be willing to come to Boston and even to learn more about science education in schools  in the USA by attending some or all of the conference.  https://s6.goeshow.com/nsta/national/2020/overview.cfm

 

Please contact me directly peterdt...@gmail.com

 

Thanks

Peter

 

 

Peter D Tuddenham

President

College of Exploration

Virginia, USA

http://www.coexploration.org

http://www.oceanliteracy.net

http://www.systemsliteracy.net

 

+1 703 433 5760 (work)

+1 703 625 1136 (cell)

Skype petertudd

Video Meeting https://bluejeans.com/128371287

 

 

Managing Director,

CoExploration Limited,

Dorset, England, UK

http://www.coexploration.co.uk
http://www.oceanliteracy.eu

http://www.emsea.eu

+44 (0) 770 969 7862 (mobile)

 

Past-President  (2018-2019)

International Society for the Systems Sciences

http://www.isss.org

.

Jack Ring

unread,
Jan 29, 2020, 11:20:44 AM1/29/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Peter,
Check out http://crlabs.us for Derek and Laura 
A successful program.
Jack Ring

--
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 "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/00ae01d5d60e%24cab28140%24601783c0%24%40gmail.com.

Jack Ring

unread,
Jan 29, 2020, 11:20:44 AM1/29/20
to Janet Singer, Peter D Tuddenham, syss...@googlegroups.com
Your Ocean literacy helped people understand ‘ocean’ and not-ocean.
Will your system literacy do likewise?
Jack

Peter D Tuddenham

unread,
Feb 24, 2020, 11:08:23 AM2/24/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
I have been on the same stage as both Derek and Laura here in Bogota Colombia this past week.

Message has been deleted

Lynn Rasmussen

unread,
Feb 24, 2020, 6:23:14 PM2/24/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Oops. I just realized that I answered to the whole group instead of just to Peter. 
Yikes. 

joseph simpson

unread,
Feb 24, 2020, 8:04:36 PM2/24/20
to Sys Sci
Lynn:

Could you provide a little more context for those who may not know the current context well enough tho understand your message?

Thanks for your help,

Take care and have fun,

Joe

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 3:22 PM Lynn Rasmussen <lyn...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ugh.
 
Their work is so silly and rudimentary that I’m embarrassed for them. . 
Their 4 rules don’t even mention change in any kind of way. And they market this as coming from their “lab” at Cornell. 
I regret buying the book!  

DISTINCTIONS RULE: Any idea or thing can be distinguished from the other ideas or things it is with SYSTEMS RULE: Any idea or thing can be split into parts or lumped into a whole RELATIONSHIP RULE: Any idea or thing can relate to other things or ideas PERSPECTIVES RULE: Any thing or idea can be the point or the view of a perspective



On Feb 24, 2020, at 6:08 AM, Peter D Tuddenham <peterdt...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
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 "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.


--
Joe Simpson

“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. 

Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. 

All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.”

George Bernard Shaw
Git Hub link:
Research Gate link:
YouTube Channel
Web Site:


janetm...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 24, 2020, 9:39:45 PM2/24/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com, James Martin
As Lynn wrote, that was not intended to be a forum posting.

James – can you delete it if Lynn isn’t able to? 

On Feb 24, 2020, at 5:04 PM, joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com> wrote:



joseph simpson

unread,
Feb 24, 2020, 9:59:48 PM2/24/20
to Sys Sci, James Martin
Janet:

My email client did not show the follow up message in the message chain.

I did see the total email chain after your post, I was just confused.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe




Lynn Rasmussen

unread,
Feb 24, 2020, 11:01:15 PM2/24/20
to 'Hillary Sillitto' via Systems Science Working Group Discussion List
Hi Joe, 

Re: my context for systems literacy and science education

It's easy to read Bertanffy or Warfield and then consider yourself systems literate, and I guess that is a form of systems literacy. 

But the current state of systems science according to George Mobus, complexity people (SFI and NECSI), and others incorporates systems dynamics/cybernetics, information theory, chaos theory, network theory, and evolution. 

I’m in the Troncale camp. Systems science should consist of and be based on systems processes. Systems literacy should include at least a basic understanding of networks, hierarchies, feedback, cycles, evolution, and we can debate a few more. 

A basic education in systems at the high school level in 20 years (hopefully sooner) will probably include an understanding of and ability to model  networks, power law distribution, small worlds and how networks form hierarchies and scale;  cellular automata + simple programs —> surprising patterns; fractals; positive/reinforcing and negative/balancing feedback and cycles; oscillations and synchrony; cooperation/synergy and interactions; how systems move through bifurcation, chaos, tipping points/emergence in state spaces/transitions and development; evolution of physical, chemical, biological, human systems since the Big Bang. 

Information theory is evolving so I don’t know what it will look like, but throw that in too.

(The list is off the top of my head. I may have missed something)

My field guide introduces the barebones basics of about 15 processes, each with 5 or 6 examples from a variety of disciplines. It’s slow work but I should have it done this year. 

Basic knowledge of systems processes helps to describe politics, government, economics, climate, human relationships, biological processes, and more in a variety of helpful ways. It is also helpful for better design and assessment of systems. 

The Cabreras’ Systems Thinking Made Simple.promotes four “rules":  DISTINCTIONS RULE: Any idea or thing can be distinguished from the other ideas or things it is with SYSTEMS RULE: Any idea or thing can be split into parts or lumped into a whole RELATIONSHIP RULE: Any idea or thing can relate to other things or ideas PERSPECTIVES RULE: Any thing or idea can be the point or the view of a perspective

One glaring omission is not one reference to how systems change, so I don’t believe that their small list has the capacity to do what they claim in their subtitle: New Hope for Solving Wicked Problems. 

FYI, the current “crosscutting concepts” for the Next Generation Science Standards  for teaching high school science are:  patterns; cause and effect; scale, proportion, and quantity; systems and system models; energy and matter; structure and function; stability and change; interdependence of science, engineering, and technology; influence of engineering, technology, and science on society and the natural world. 

We should at least address those!

Hope that this is helpful and thanks for asking!

Aloha,
Lynn


Lynn Rasmussen
Makawao, Maui, Hawaii





joseph simpson

unread,
Feb 24, 2020, 11:39:00 PM2/24/20
to Sys Sci
Lynn:

Thanks for the expanded context.

Systems literacy is an interesting topic and area for exploration.

There appear to be some unchanging, fundamental components at the foundation of systems science and literacy.

The components are:

1- Human beings
2- Language (formal and informal)
3- Collected works (library)

If we look at a very small portion of the system collected works (library) we may be able to identify some common themes and features.

Warfields Battelle Monograph, June 1972, A Unified Systems Engineering Concept, contains two glossaries, one a word glossary and the other a mathematics glossary.

The word glossary is used to support natural language and the mathematics glossary is used to support formal language.

It is interesting to note that in 1972 Warfield was discussing Category Theory, Homological Algebra, Topological Groups, and Nonlinear Programming.

Many, if not all of the topics you address above are covered in the collection of Battelle Monographs.

However, few people ever read this materiel and understand its value and impact.

George J. Klir included some of this material as preliminaries in his book, "An Approach ti General Systems Theory."

I believe that a basic rule of systems literacy is one must be able to express the same concepts in both formal and informal language.

Further, it appears to me that the rich, deep and valuable legacy of systems science research is crumpling into an unrecognizable aggregation of tribal secret signs and symbols.

The future will be very interesting.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe 













James Martin

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 7:16:46 AM2/25/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Lynn,

Interesting thoughts on the possible scope of systems literacy. 

I can see how some would think that Cabrera’s DSRP is not enough to cover the basics of systems thinking, and that it might not actually “solve wicked problems” as their book title claims. Cabrera said he has run some experiments in his lab that back up his claims. Are you aware of any counter-experiments that might invalidate their claims?

You mention how Mobus, Troncale and others have a more extensive view about systems science. But Cabrera is talking about systems thinking, not systems science. So, isn’t that like comparing apples and oranges? What is the relationship between ST and SS? Do they necessarily have to cover the same phenomena and concepts?

James

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 24, 2020, at 11:01 PM, Lynn Rasmussen <lyn...@gmail.com> wrote:



kall...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 9:29:41 AM2/25/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com

I’m not sure there is sufficient awareness of the differences (either objective, functional or structural) between systems thinking, systems engineering and systems science. In some of the literature, this has been referred to as a “mindset”, but I have contended it goes beyond mindset into domains not requiring “a mind”.

 

The problem is similar to asking “how much don’t you know”?

 

====================================

Kenneth A. Lloyd, Jr.

CEO – Director of Systems Science

Watt Systems Technologies Inc.

Albuquerque, NM 87114 USA

 

The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. These contents may be legally protected from disclosure. Due to technological issues with the means of transmission, the integrity of the contents of this email cannot be guaranteed.

Jack Ring

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 9:52:03 AM2/25/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com

Smith, Gary

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 12:23:27 PM2/25/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com

In system science I believe we need to take into account two dimensions of system knowledge. This is analogous to our established sciences where theory and practice are integrated as a whole.

 

DSRP is on the left hand side (diagram below) and is complemented by works such as that from the Waters Foundation and many others.

All of these frameworks have pros and cons. We could even include the majority of the content of our INCOSE handbook and processes on this side.

 

On the right hand side we have the work of many people who have been considering what some have called General Systems Theory.

Here we have the work of a list far too long to do it justice – but this includes the work of Len and George.

 

All this knowledge has value, but in order for us to realise the full benefits, it has to be integrated and communicated as a coherent whole, the gaps made evident and researched.

 

Without an understanding of the knowledge on the right we will lack a solid foundation for our practice. Without practice and the knowledge on the left, our understandings would remain merely academic and lacking validation.

 

The slide below is from the presentation “A Strategic Plan for System Science” given at the INCOSE IW and you can find the full content on the SSWG webpages

 

BR Gary (VP System Practice ISSS)

 

 

 

 

 

THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT SUBJECT TO EXPORT CONTROL.

 

From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of James Martin
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 12:17 PM
To: syss...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Systems Literacy and Science Education

 

Lynn,

This email and its attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information.  If you have received them in error you must not use, copy or disclose their content to any person.  Please notify the sender immediately and then delete this email from your system.  This e-mail has been scanned for viruses, but it is the responsibility of the recipient to conduct their own security measures. Airbus Operations Limited is not liable for any loss or damage arising from the receipt or use of this e-mail.

Airbus Operations Limited, a company registered in England and Wales, registration number, 3468788.  Registered office:  Pegasus House, Aerospace Avenue, Filton, Bristol, BS34 7PA, UK.

Lynn Rasmussen

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 12:59:15 PM2/25/20
to 'Hillary Sillitto' via Systems Science Working Group Discussion List
Thanks for answering, James. I just think that any attempt at describing systems thinking must include some kind of reference to change, whether in the form of feedback or linkages, development or evolution, or something. Not just “change your perspective” of systems. 

It’s not in my purview to research systems thinking at this time. I’m up to my ears in research and writing. 

Someday, when systems science is a high school course, then maybe what is considered "systems thinking" will expand. 

Lynn

Lynn Rasmussen

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 1:03:05 PM2/25/20
to 'Hillary Sillitto' via Systems Science Working Group Discussion List
Thanks, Joe, for your comments. 

Yes, a full systems science requires the “mathematics glossary.” I would love to include category theory modeling for each systems process/pattern in my field guide. 

If anyone knows anyone who can do that, simply model networks, feedback, cycles etc using category theory, I’d really appreciate a referral!  You’d think by now that it’s been done, but I haven’t found that person or info. 

Lynn

joseph simpson

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 1:44:26 PM2/25/20
to Sys Sci
Lynn:

As I said previously, this is an interesting area that is not well defined as pointed out by others.

One key distinction in the analysis of any system is the identification of system structure and system behavior.

While Warfield's work focused on the identification of system structure, Jay Forrester's work focused on system behavior.

Both of these system views inform and complement each other.

The formal (mathematical) representation of these system views provide the basis for more detailed analysis.

What are the systems process/patterns in your field guide? You seem to be focusing on system behavior.

The logical modeling of a system structure provides the basis for more comprehensive, fully developed conceptual system structures.

One common problem associated with any systemic problem is the inability to provide a fully developed conceptualization of the given problem.

Structural modeling helps with developing a more robust conceptualization of the problem and solution space.

Almost any structured, problem solving approach is better than random response to a systemic problem.

One benefit of a very simple structured problem solving approaches is that they can be employed relatively quickly.

However, what happens after the initial deployment? 

Mar and Morais used a simple systems analysis/thinking framework called FRAT.

This framework was based on a structured analysis and reduction of Warfield's ISM approach.

If the FRAT approach was successful, then it could be expanded and include more aspects of the ISM approach.

The application of system science/thinking techniques is not a trivial task for an individual.

The application of system science/thinking techniques in an organization is much more problematic due to language and organizational barriers.

Therefore, it appears that the deployment of very simple system thinking approaches may be the only cost effective choice available to many organizations.

Given the ubiquitous availability of digital communication capability, we have been working on a plan to use digital communication to reduce the cost of these type of organizational engagements.

I believe that both system structure and system behavior must be considered in any fully developed systems science/thinking approach.

George Mobus

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 2:36:40 PM2/25/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com

A good paper on systems thinking. The unique approach was to use a systems approach to defining systems thinking.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050915002860

 

George

 

From: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Lynn Rasmussen
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 10:03 AM
To: 'Hillary Sillitto' via Systems Science Working Group Discussion List <syss...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Systems Literacy and Science Education

 

Thanks, Joe, for your comments. 

Scott Jackson

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 2:50:27 PM2/25/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
There seems to be as many definitions of the systems approach and systems thinking as there are members of ISSS and INCOSE combined. 

I refer everyone to the SEBoK for completely different definitions.  

Scott

 

Scott Jackson, PhD
斯科特·杰克逊
INCOSE Fellow
Principal Engineer
Burnham Systems Research and Consulting
ORCID 0000-0003-3386-4561




From: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of George Mobus <gmo...@uw.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 11:33 AM
To: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [SysSciWG] Systems Literacy and Science Education
 

Lenard Troncale

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 6:42:01 PM2/25/20
to Sys Sci
Dear Group,

I wrote a contrast before about the relationships between systems thinking and systems science explicitly. I argued that far too many systems thinkers have claimed they are systems scientists in the past when they are not. And that systems thinking is far from systems science. And that we need a REALISTIC systems science, not one that is advocated by systems thinkers to enhance their reputations with real conventional science. I have also argued that systems science is not like conventional science, though based on it, because it hypothesizes relations far beyond any one conventional science, and therefore breaks one of the most important rules of conventional reductionist science.

This work was published by the CSER groups (see attached), related to INCOSE, often overlapping participants and organizers. This paper certainly does not answer all the questions, nor does it please either sole ST advocates or SS advocates, because it strongly challenges BOTH, but I have been thanked by some systems engineers for even raising the question. I am sorry that it has not been picked up or developed further.

I should note, considering very recent comments in this group, that mathematical systems approaches and tools are still another aspect of systems science. Math does not do experiments; but at the same time math has been correctly shown to anticipate many experimental results correctly. SO is math science or not? We use the acronym STEM to indicate Science, Technology, Education and Mathematics showing that each has real differences. I include it in science because of its rigor, not its reliance on the so-called scientific method.

I also have a 2-hour lecture on this topic presented to my SE graduate students for SE 5100. Perhaps I should put it on You Tube as a talk available to all. It is already prepared and like the other 30 lectures (some 42 hours) ready to go.

Len Troncale

REFERENCE: Troncale, L. (2017) “On the Nature of Systems Thinking and Systems Science: Similarities, Differences, Potential Synergies“ CSER Proceedings, 11 pages. I do not include anything but my submitted rough draft, not the official typeset .pdf copy here so you do to have to pay the $40 Procedia/Elsevier wants for every personal copy. The publishers still have us by the balls IMHO and severely inhibit sharing our work and results for their own selfish profit.



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/2619432E-3525-4AA6-8C34-FEED3F4A6F60%40gmail.com.
CAUTION: This email was not sent from a Cal Poly Pomona service. Exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments. Please forward suspicious email to suspec...@cpp.edu.


CSER2017 Troncale STvsSS Final Final.docx

Lenard Troncale

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 6:42:30 PM2/25/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Joe et al.,

Lynn’s Field Guide (suggested by past ISSS President, Peter Tuddenham) is based on Systems Processes Theory. SPT emphasizes BOTH the structure and dynamics of systems. It includes both rigorously. Or based on the conventional sciences and so rigorously IMHO. It has both isomorphies (demonstrated patterns) of form and behavior. And interrelates them through the added contribution of Linkage Propositions.

Len


joseph simpson

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 7:36:26 PM2/25/20
to Sys Sci
Len:

Thanks for the additional information.

Is there a way for me to access the current content of Systems Processes Theory?

How is the content of Systems Processes Theory recorded and communicated?

It is still not clear to me where I can obtain Systems Processes Theory information and descriptions.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

H

unread,
Feb 26, 2020, 7:12:52 AM2/26/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
This is another attempt to explore the distinctions between SE, ST and SS. Presented at IS 2012 in Rome. Might be of interest to some.

Enjoy or ignore as you see fit!

Best wishes

Hillary

36_rome_onse_ss_st.pdf

Lynn Rasmussen

unread,
Feb 26, 2020, 11:33:06 AM2/26/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Here’s my current thinking about systems thinking: 

The more one recognizes, understands, and uses the patterns of interactivity/systems processes in reasoning, the more sophisticated one’s systems thinking is. 

Experiencing these processes has become part of the culture, thanks to our technology. More and more people are thinking in ways that in industrial times would be quite advanced. 
I’m articulating that experience in terms of Len's taxonomy of systems processes for systems science. 

Human cognition and development is my thing. When I’m finished with the field guide, I’ll write a systems view of the self (which I’ve sketched in conference papers and posters)  based on the questions for developing a systems view in my field guide. Then I’ll write about levels of human cognition in terms of systems thinking. It has already been done in 1998 in Robert Kegan’s In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life. But with an articulation of exactly what systems thinking consists of, a better systems view of his systems view of systems views (yes, I really wrote that) can be written.  

Lynn




--
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 "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/7FE69148-B9E3-4D0F-B7A9-12C8B147E9BF%40blueyonder.co.uk.
<36_rome_onse_ss_st.pdf>

Sent from my iPhone


--
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 "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

Lenard Troncale

unread,
Feb 26, 2020, 12:08:11 PM2/26/20
to Sys Sci
Joe,

Good questions; often asked. Thank you. I have made a website specifically for systems processes theory. However, it has been messed up by cyberattacks by hackers and is suffering from the Word Press community updating their software in ways that do not allow my old html in WP.  so I have not finished it until I can mount sufficient security and updates.
systemsprocessestheory.com     and if that does not work
I just checked them and the framework works but i have a massive amount of material to upload.
i have seven websites all with the same problems. But I keep trying.

I also wrote a key article in 1978 that has all the elements of SPT although not fully developed because it was so early. And I wrote a book on approximately the same info, in a less developed form. Nature’s Enduring Patterns. We had a meeting in Maui totally about what I call my Compendium, a digital and re-organized version of fifty years of writing and power points of nearly a thousand pages. which the participants said was way too long and encouraged me to divide it into two books (which i did and is described in ten-page outlines for the proposals mentioned in the paragraph after next.

I just finished 40 hours of professionally studio recorded info as SE 5100 (a completely online graduate course for systems engineers). It is also on Blackboard. It essentially is a 3-unit course in systems processes theory, plus. But I have to update the components more to reflect current work and advances.

I am writing two books right now that i will propose to the Springer Series that used to be edited by George J. Klir before he passed. It is now edited by George Mobus who asked me to submit the Springer proposals. One is titled:
Systems Processes Theory: The Other Theory of Everything which will contain all about SPT and its dozen spin-offs.
and another
Introduction to Systems Awareness and Literacy on the history of systems thinking and systems science and general theories of systems and samplings of all of them.

Otherwise, I’ve done nothing. Mobus tells me, and your questions show me that SPT is very frustrating to learn about and reference. Sorry. I am trying to remedy this before I die, which at 77 may be any day. None of us know.

Len


On Feb 25, 2020, at 4:36 PM, joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com> wrote

Lenard Troncale

unread,
Feb 26, 2020, 12:08:21 PM2/26/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
I am getting questions. You have to SCROLL ALL THE WAY DOWN to the end of the messages to get a copy of the draft of the paper. And it is only present in the original sent email.
Len




CAUTION: This email was not sent from a Cal Poly Pomona service. Exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments. Please forward suspicious email to suspec...@cpp.edu.

<CSER2017 Troncale STvsSS Final Final.docx>

Helene Finidori

unread,
Feb 26, 2020, 12:33:33 PM2/26/20
to Sys Sci
Hi Lynn & all,

I think this is where Cabrera's DSRP is positioned, in learning to "recognize, understand, and use the patterns of interactivity/systems processes" (as per Lynn): Distinguishing them in the noise (Distinctions), seeing how they combine into wholes (Systems), exploring what they entail (Relationships), evaluating how they can be seen or expressed differently in different domains (Perspective). Seen from the cognitive / perception perspective of an observer (systems thinking), and not of the objects that are observed (systems science)... I attached an image that Derek posted recently on Facebook as a summary of the framework. Indeed, as suggested by Gary and James something totally different from systems processes, and complementary.

I don't quite agree with the term of 'rules' and the term of 'patterns', in the context of 'applied' systems thinking, because I see this more as a sense-making framework -as defined by Dave Snowden-, based on cognitive behavior.  I am not very familiar with the way this is applied, but it makes sense to me as a learning, i.e. literacy method. I agree the time dimension is not clearly expressed, but it seems covered under Relationship described as "actions interacting with reactions... that result". 

Helene

IMG_0905.jpg

joseph simpson

unread,
Feb 26, 2020, 12:48:28 PM2/26/20
to Sys Sci
Len:

Thanks for the additional information and links to the web sites.

I will continue to explore this area as I have time.

Take care, be god to yourself and have fun,

Joe

joseph simpson

unread,
Feb 26, 2020, 10:09:44 PM2/26/20
to Sys Sci
Helene:

Interesting ideas and viewpoints.

Human being use shared context to achieve semantic understanding and integration.

Informal prose language combined with a shared context is capable of encoding a specific instance of a system structure.

If the specific system structure is then generalized and encoded in a formal language (mathematics) then it may be possible to create a formal description of a general system structure that is not dependent on a specific shared context to generate semantic integration.

The formal description is devoid of any specific shared context.

The formal description has semantics that are different but similar to any specific instance where the formal description is applied.

It is interesting to note that these simple general rules of system identification may be applied in a recursive manner.

These simple general rules are not independent and overlap in many ways when applied to any given specific instance.

The methods and processes for creating a coherent  instance of a system are not stated.

While these simple, informal approaches may be valuable to provide a illusion of progress, it appears that they may well generate much more friction and entropy due to the lack of independence and application structure.

Bottom Line:  This kind of approach may get a group quickly started and up to speed before the group hits a wall of jumbled and incompatible semantics.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe








kall...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 27, 2020, 11:50:55 AM2/27/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com

Joe,

 

The contexts (more correctly, context models) can be mathematically encoded and “composed” with other contexts that interact with the (linguistically encoded) model. Furthermore, the linguistic model can be related to compositions of abstract concepts. “Coherent consistency” is better achieved at the abstract conceptual level and translated (transformed) by language models (in cultural or domain specific) contexts to form the translation.

 

Ken Lloyd

Helene Finidori

unread,
Feb 27, 2020, 12:54:31 PM2/27/20
to Sys Sci
Hi Joe,

Thanks for this description. You do not mention DSRP here though, which was the object of my comment. Are you saying that DSRP is similar to or can be used in similar ways as structural modeling, as rules of systems identification? So then how do you see systems processes involved here?

Helene


joseph simpson

unread,
Feb 27, 2020, 8:44:24 PM2/27/20
to Sys Sci
Ken:

I agree, the capability (in general)  to encode context models exists.

Further, I agree that we have the capability (in general) to relate and analyze a wide range of context models at various levels of abstraction.

However, this capability is not part of most system science and engineering processes.

Structural modeling is based on the ability to inter-relate formal and informal context models.

The original practice of Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) also had this type of mathematical modeling capability.

Over a period of time, various versions of ISM have dropped the ability to create formal mathematical models and only use prose and structured graphics.

DSRP seems to be a system modeling capability that is based on informal language and does not have the capability to create formal, mathematical contextual models.

Further, the DSRP approach appears to stand alone without reference to more capable approaches. 

I should state here that this is the first time I have encountered DSRP in any detail.

The FRAT approach from Mar and Morais, was designed as a simplified version of structural modeling.

The FRAT approach is very general  and simple but biased toward system design issues which aligns it with the Science of Generic Design.

The FRAT approach does not contain the formal language approach but that capability may be added by stepping up to a more robust structural modeling approach.

Yes, we have the capability to do what you say, I just do not see that capability as part of simple system analysis approaches like DSRP and FRAT.

Remember that structural modeling started 50 years ago, when computing power was very limited.
Mary and I created the Augmented Model-Exchange Isomorphism (AMEI) to address the encoding of linguistic context into a formal, mathematical package.  There is still much more work to be done, but I believe that  the AMEI and Abstract Relation Type (ART) are both positive addition to the needed toolbox.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe
 

joseph simpson

unread,
Feb 27, 2020, 8:55:07 PM2/27/20
to Sys Sci
Helene:

You are correct, I did not provide enough context to make my meaning clear.

What I am saying is there are many simple system analysis approaches, like DSRP and FRAT.

These simple approaches do not have an inherent formal language component.

DSRP seems to be so flexible that it could be used for almost anything, when an informal language is used.

DSRP does not appear to have a formal language component.

If structural modeling (or other formal language approach) is used to identify, describe and communicate categories of system structural patterns, then any system pattern identified using an informal approach, like FRAT and DSRP, may be aligned with one or more of these formally defined and described structures.  This alignment with formally defined structures increases the semantic density of the communication process.

If formally defined structures do not exist, then a significant amount of the specific context must be preserved to convey the proper meaning.

I hope this helps to clarify my previous message.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

Жаргалсайхан Д

unread,
Feb 28, 2020, 8:58:11 AM2/28/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Dear All,
Thank you for letting us be part of the discussion.  I just wanted to share attached copy of English versions of definitions of some concepts that are used in our formal business language. I thought these definitions can serve as an alternative for comparison with other variations of concepts of systems thinking, systems science and systems engineering.  The Mongolian version of definitions have been developed by us using systemized cognitive technology /SCT/. SCT was developed by one of our teams of system engineers in 2015-2018 and over 300 pillar concepts ,which are most frequently used  in our business communication, are defined with SCT. We also tried to align logically meanings of those definitions. We are not sure about the quality of alignment but we have done our best. Please be advised that our English proficiency level is not good enough to discuss every details concerning translation and interpretation of those definitions. Nevertheless, we would be happy to have any comments or questions you might have and answer.  
Best regards,
Jargal 

System semantics.pdf

Жаргалсайхан Д

unread,
Feb 28, 2020, 5:26:44 PM2/28/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
My apology.  I just realized that my earlier email was sent to you from my investment service company email address. For further communication please use the following email address : jargal...@tussolution.mn which is registered with my INCOSE membership.
Thank you.
Best regards 
Jargal 

Aleksandar Malečić

unread,
Feb 29, 2020, 7:14:03 AM2/29/20
to Sys Sci
Does this discussion so far look attractive and interesting to outsiders who arguably have other priorities in their lives? Could it invite them to learn more about it in order to modify their daily routine in order to make it more systems-friendly?

Aleksandar

joseph simpson

unread,
Feb 29, 2020, 9:11:55 PM2/29/20
to Sys Sci
Aleksandar:

Great question.

There are many established system approaches.

Many of these approaches have similar components.

A great challenge is to use any specific systems approach among a large group of individuals.

Single individuals may not be attracted to a specific systems approach because they may have their own 'internal view' which works well for them.

Take care and have fun,

Joe



Жаргалсайхан Д

unread,
Feb 29, 2020, 9:39:51 PM2/29/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Dear Joe,
I'm Jargal from Mongolia. I run social system engineering services company in Mongolia. I just wanted to share some of our findings we learned. We have developed a social system mental model and currently we are testing it for various social systems. Besides, we are conducting a research to find out if the same model concept can be applied for other artificial systems like car, equipment. It enabled us to generate some useful data. These data suggest that the model can be used as universal basis for modeling various systems. The key assumption here is a system is a way of mentally representing aligned interactions but not elements. Building mental representation is thinking which is done by performing logical algorithm. As thinking is extremely complex process , we decided to develop a visualized simple image instead of verbally define in order to create a consensus among ourselves. It helped. We would be happy to share the model-image with the group. 
Best wishes,
Jargal 


joseph simpson

unread,
Feb 29, 2020, 10:20:07 PM2/29/20
to Sys Sci
Dear Jargal:

Very interesting ideas and research.

I am very interested in viewing, reviewing any of your work that is in english prose.

You wote:

"..we decided to develop a visualized simple image instead of verbally define in order to create a consensus among ourselves. It helped. We would be happy to share the model-image with the group. "

I would like to see this model.

We use, prose, structured graphics and mathematics in an isomorphic manner.

I would be interested to find out if your structured graphics (image) can be cast as a mathematical model.

If it can then that will be a great step forward.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe








Жаргалсайхан Д

unread,
Mar 1, 2020, 5:08:39 AM3/1/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Dear Joe,
Please find attached a copy of  smart city concept definition that we developed and proposed for INCOSE Smart city WG review.  The model I mentioned in my previous email is on slide #4. Please bear in your mind that the model is conceptual and therefore it is also very generic. The model can be tailored to the specifics of a common goal without changing the nature of the system. We have applied the model for our  businesses and also for a number of researches dealing with various social challenges and It is very convenient for application for various types of social system. The model was designed in a manner that enables to quantify it. Besides, the model can  serve as a foundation for integrated system that includes organizational system, IT system and any other artificial systems. Please have a look and let me know your thoughts.
Best regards,
Jargal


1. Smart City _Sent_.pdf

Scott Jackson

unread,
Mar 1, 2020, 8:16:20 AM3/1/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Jargal, in the paper I sent you called "What  is a System?" you will see that a  common type of system is a mental model also called an abstraction. I believe  there are more abstractions than are generally recognized.  

Are you with a university?

 

Scott Jackson, PhD
斯科特·杰克逊
INCOSE Fellow
Principal Engineer
Burnham Systems Research and Consulting
ORCID 0000-0003-3386-4561




From: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Жаргалсайхан Д <jargal...@gundinvest.mn>
Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2020 2:08 AM
To: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com>

Aleksandar Malečić

unread,
Mar 1, 2020, 8:25:25 AM3/1/20
to Sys Sci
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_the_Systems_Sciences   "to encourage research and facilitate communication between and among scientists and professionals from various disciplines" - Does the PDCA (plan, do, check, act) cycle (indirectly mentioned in the previous message and the paper on smart cities) facilitate communication? In my opinion, the PDCA cycle is BS (as opposed to Henri Fayol's planning, organizing, leading, and control) and does serious damage to any further effort in the field of systems thinking/science/engineering.                 Aleksandar

joseph simpson

unread,
Mar 1, 2020, 11:42:06 AM3/1/20
to Sys Sci
Jargal:

Interesting approach.

For any system concept I first look for the system primary mission function.

What does the system have to do?

The provided graphics do not appear to address the system primary mission function.

The primary mission function may be implied as, address fundamental human needs, but I am not sure about that view.

The system in the graphic (slide 4) appears to be a cyclic network graph.

The process described by the network graph appears to be a very general problem solving approach.

There are a wide range of these types of general problem solving approaches.

When the general, logical problem solving process is  mapped to a specific instance of an architecture that solves the problem, then the graph form usually changes.

Architecture graphs usually have some type of hierarchical  graph structure.

The primary issues arise when the general problem solving approach is mapped to one or more candidate problem solution architectures.

In my mind, I would call slide 4 a "Process representation of Smart city concept."

joseph simpson

unread,
Mar 1, 2020, 11:50:25 AM3/1/20
to Sys Sci
Aleksandar:

Interesting point of view.

As with almost all concepts, the plan, do, check, act (PDCA) approach is strongly  impacted by context.

There may be some contexts where the PDCA approach is not viable or acceptable.

While there may be some contexts where the PDCA approach is the preferred approach.

I believe that the selection of any general problem solving approach is strongly impacted by the individual selecting the problem solving approach.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe



Жаргалсайхан Д

unread,
Mar 2, 2020, 2:49:30 AM3/2/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Dear Joe,
Thank you very much indeed for your prompt response and your time. Your comments are very helpful  and I'm delighted to have this open exchange of views. May I make a few points on your comments.
Primary ultimate mission function of any artificial system is enabling fulfillment of human needs in a part or complex. Let's take a manufacturing company or activity. You may insist that  the company's primary mission is manufacturing something. But if we look deeper inside, all stakeholders will be benefiting something that would help them in satisfying their fundamental needs as a result of their engagement in the activity.   I know this concept may sound unrealistic and conflicts with many old paradigms dominating our thinking. Please find attached copy of paper on applying our model. This can help you better understand my thoughts as my English is not good enough to explain everything in my mind. Regarding problem solving process, I agree the model offers very general approach. On the other hand, this general approach can be tailored to any specific needs dictated by a given goal and this process is initiated with well tailored diagnosis.  Thank you again for your kind attention and time. Once again my apologies for my poor English. It would be very much appreciated if you can share your valuable comments and opinions. 
Best,
Jargal

Results of Applying Strategy System Model (SSM) for Building and using “Human Centered Enterprise Model (HCEM)” - Jargalsaikhan(1) (1) (1) (1).pdf

Smith, Gary

unread,
Mar 2, 2020, 3:39:37 AM3/2/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com

The PDCA cycle is a very useful model when you are dealing with the simple or even the complicated when the scope and the architecture you are working within is clear.

 

Bud Lawson (bless him), placed Observe Orient Decide and Act (act being the act of planning) to sit above PDCA so that we could use OODA to deal appropriately with the perceived chaotic and complex. (and to keep in mind the context for the architecture/models and not fall into the trap of using a model that is not suitable to the situation)

 

Peace to you all.

 

BR Gary

 

THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT SUBJECT TO EXPORT CONTROL.

This email and its attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information.  If you have received them in error you must not use, copy or disclose their content to any person.  Please notify the sender immediately and then delete this email from your system.  This e-mail has been scanned for viruses, but it is the responsibility of the recipient to conduct their own security measures. Airbus Operations Limited is not liable for any loss or damage arising from the receipt or use of this e-mail.

Airbus Operations Limited, a company registered in England and Wales, registration number, 3468788.  Registered office:  Pegasus House, Aerospace Avenue, Filton, Bristol, BS34 7PA, UK.

Scott Jackson

unread,
Mar 2, 2020, 2:53:37 PM3/2/20
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Jargal, I have just read your paper and find it exceedingly readable and understandable. Question: Has this paper been published in a journal or a conference? If so, you may want to upload it to ResearchGate or Academia.co,  This step will greatly enhance its viability around the world.

Next, on p.2 you have a list of axioms.  I think these axioms will also qualify as heuristics for the heuristics project I am working on within INCOSE.  Speaking of INCOSE, are you a member?  Another organization you may want to join is the International Society for the Science of Systems (ISSS). I think the ISSS would be a better place to discuss social systems.  In addition, the ISSS has global conference calls so you don't have to travel. 

An area I have been studying is cognitive biases. In short, cognitive biases are the root cause of many flawed decisions. One of the important cognitive biases is called rankism which is the assumption by many people that people of higher rank (in an organization) will have superior knowledge and will make better decisions. I have many case studies that show that this assumption is wrong. Anyhow this bias may fit into your discussion of organizations.  

Regarding Mongolia, I know that it is a landlocked country between China and Russia. This raises the most interesting question: To what degree has Mongolia been able to maintain political independence from China and Russia?

Regarding my country the USA, right now it is in the midst of political chaos.  I can only hope that this situation will improve,

Scott   

Scott Jackson, PhD
斯科特·杰克逊