The Systems Approach Churchman Pdf Download --
Osoulo Lejeune
For folks interested in purposeful human activity systems, it is his philosophical and deeply ethical view on complex human affairs, how we can approach them to make sense of them and how we might go about bringing improvement to what we see as a problematique or mess.
Well, to choose the ones that are suitable of a more general systemic approach, is a little less obvious. In SSM I encountered the "3E". Of course, I had heard about them before. But putting criteria themselves into a systemic logic for a wider model ... that's something different.
1) "A great deal of nonsense has been written about the systems approach (HK: ... and still is), because once an idea becomes popular it can be sold, and naturally some of its sellers are out to make a profit."
3) "Indeed, the systems approach itself is placed on a paradox. The approach advises us to look at the 'whole system,' but the amount of effort we spend on trying to understand the whole system is itself a systems problem."
C. West Churchman (born on 29 August 1913 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; deceased on 21 March 2004 in Bolinas, California) is probably the most influential philosopher of the systems movement thus far. A founding father of the systems approach as well as the fields of operations research and management science, he represents a rare case of a pioneer who never allowed himself to become absorbed by the mainstream of his colleagues.
The systems idea, provided we take it seriously, urges us to recognize our constant failure to think and act rationally in a comprehensive sense. Mainstream systems literature somehow always manages to have us forget the fact that a lack of comprehensive rationality is inevitably part of the conditio humana; most authors seek to demonstrate how and why their systems approaches extend the bounds of rational explanation or design accepted in their fields. West Churchman never does. To him, the systems idea poses a challenge to critical self-reflection. It compels him to raise fundamental epistemological and ethical issues concerning the systems planner's claim to rationality. He never pretends to have the answers; instead, he asks himself and his readers a lot of thoroughly puzzling questions.
The year 1971 was to see the publication of yet another important book, The Design of Inquiring Systems. It is one of the more difficult books by Churchman, but perhaps it is also his most original one. In my understanding, the book represents another approach of Churchman's to his fundamental question of how it is possible to secure improvement by means of the intellect. Improvement implies learning; can systems design secure learning? Churchman's idea was to look at different epistemologies that the history of philosophy has brought forth as designs for inquiring systems, i.e., systems that would be capable of learning. What can we learn from Leibniz, Locke, Kant, Hegel, and Edgar A. Singer about the possibilities and limitations of designing systems that could secure improvement?
The systems approach to measurement in business firms. In R.R. Sterling and W.F. Bentz (eds.), Accounting in Perspective, Contributions to Accounting Thought by Other Disciplines, South-Western Publishing Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, 1971, 51-57.
Perspectives of the systems approach. Internal Working Paper No. 13, Social Applications of Resource Information, Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, April 1972. Also in Interfaces, 4, No. 4, 1974, 6-11.
The systems approach: a philosophical overview. Developed from a talk given at the St. Gallen Symposium, May 1972. Internal Working Paper No. 16, Social Applications of Resource Information, Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, Oct. 1972.
Measurement: a systems approach. (A review of Theory of Experimental Inference after 21 years.) In J. Leach et al. (eds.), Science, Decision and Value, Proceedings of the Fifth University of Western Ontario Philosophy Colloquium, 1969, D. Reidel Publishing, Dordrecht, Holland, and Boston, Mass., 1972, 70-86.
Towards a holistic approach. In Proceedings, American Association for the Advancement of Science Conference on Adapting Science to Social Needs, May 5-8, 1976, AAAS Office of Special Programs, Washington, D.C., 1976, 11-24.
Churchman (1971) discusses the writings of philosophers Leibniz, Locke,Kant, Hegel and Singer in the context of inquiring systems. Each of thephilosopher's approaches provides for a different way of gathering evidenceand building models to represent a view of the world (Mason and Mitroff,1973). The basic features of each philosophical inquiring system are summarizedin Table 1 and elaborated below.
The models of inquiry, being systems, have inputs, processes, and outputs.The output of an inquiring system is "true" knowledge, or atleast knowledge that is believed not to be false. One of the most distinctivefeatures of inquiring systems design is the inclusion of elaborate mechanismsfor "guaranteeing" that only "valid" knowledge is produced.Such a concept is not new. The "guarantor" in scientific inquiryis generally based on use of the "scientific method," and scientistsin general include many checks and balances and usually exhaust a greatdeal of time and effort to ensure that the results of their inquiries areacceptable to the rest of the scientific community. Each of the approachesdescribed below contain analogous provisions for ensuring that its outputsare consistent with the underlying philosophy, so that the knowledge generatedmay be considered "valid" for all time.
The Kantian system is a mixture of the Leibnitzian and Lockian approachesin the sense that it contains both theoretical and empirical components.The empirical component is capable of receiving inputs, so the system isopen. It generates hypotheses on the basis of inputs received. A clockand kinematic system are used to record the time and space of inputs received.
Perhaps the most unique feature of Kantian systems is that the theoreticalcomponent allows an input to be subjected to different interpretations.This occurs because the Kantian theoretical component maintains alternativemodels of the world (alternative world views). Representations and interpretationsare based on causal connections maintained in the models. The theoreticalcomponent contains a model building constituent, which constructs Leibnizianfact nets. It tests the alternatives by determining the best "fit"for the data, and the guarantor in this approach is the degree of model/dataagreement. The use of alternative models permits, for example, one pieceof economic data to be interpreted differently by different econometricmodels (e.g., competing models proposed by different political parties).Additionally, an "executive routine" turns the Kantianmodels on and off and can examine their outputs in terms of the degreeof satisfaction with their interpretations. Thus, if a model is not producingsatisfactory results it can be turned off, while those which are more successfulproceed.
An application of the Leibnizian approach may be observed when the policies,goals, ideas of purpose, and core values, established by the organization'sdesigners, serve as Leibizian axioms. "Truth" is determined ina procedural manner, with focus on structural or procedural concerns, andwith error detection and correction being a direct consequence of comparinginputs with the accepted "axioms" of the system (i.e., organization).The organization's basic theorems, so defined, must be mutually consistent,lending themselves to rote memorization and direct application. Furthermore,new ideas, plans, and visions, (i.e., hypotheses) developed within theorganization must be compatible with the existing policies, goals, andcore values of the organization. As creative tension is exercised to bringthe organization closer to its vision, this test of consistency must becontinuously reviewed.
A consequence of Leibnizian inquiry may be the creation of what Fioland March (1985) refer to as competency traps; as learning produces increasingreturns to experience via the persistent use of procedures or technologies,superior procedures or technologies are ignored once an inferior technologyis learned and used repeatedly. If several "generations" of proceduresor technologies have been ignored, conversion to the newer approaches maybecome more costly and difficult. The gap between employees' existing skillsand skills needed for new approaches may cause retraining to be difficult.
An application of the Lockean approach is demonstrated in a "needsassessment" exercise in which, for example, an organization's managersdecide the characteristics needed in a new hire. While complete agreementmay not be possible, consensus may be reached at least to the point thatan effective advertisement may be created and a search process begun sothat a new employee may be identified who embodies the generally agreedupon skill set needed by the organization.
The Lockean concept of consensual agreement in or between systems enhancesthe ability of the learning organization to develop a shared vision. Examinationof causal relationships also enhances understanding, thereby moving theparticipants in a Lockean approach from apprentice-like rote memorizationof procedures to a level of specialist understanding and perhaps on togeneralist integration. By observational input and inductive labeling,the Lockean inquiring system is also able to improve the firm's pictureof current reality. These two factors, a shared vision and agreement oncurrent reality, are necessary ingredients for creative tension.
An inability to reach consensus, however, marks failure for the system.In this case, decision-making processes may be unacceptably delayed orimpossible to complete. In highly emotional or divisive decision-makingsituations, a Lockean approach may not be suitable due to the reduced likelihoodof achieving consensus.
aa06259810