Talk:Systems thinking/Archives/2017

Removing the page banner
Team,

I am planning to remove the page banner that complains that the article does not meet Wikipedia layout requirements and has issues with referencing of the article. Technically both statements are correct, but the tagging are 4 years old. Currently the article has many inline references and people maybe adding others. The layout requirements are meant to be used with common sense and I can see it being followed. I don't see the need for a banner as the article is in reasonably good shape. --Wikishagnik (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it may be OK to remove Template:Cleanup-reorganize, but keep Template:More footnotes, as the article still needs more inline citations. Biogeographist (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits
An attempt was made to improve readability by improving the grammar and punctuation, without changing the author's intended meaning. Alas, all sorts of RED text appeared and several edits did not appear quite as intended in the case of several 'headings' related to the 3 methods or approaches (Hard, Soft, and Evolutionary).

In the process of editing it was noticed that the lists were not uniform in style, so the capitalization of elements of the first list were normalized with the use of lower case in the second list which seemed the most appropriate for both lists. Capitalization in the third list was for proper nouns; these were left as they were.

Regarding the word 'tackle' This word seemed inappropriate and ambiguous in context to the subject, the replacement for this "techniques or methodologies used to design, analyze, modify, or manage" may be too wordy, but may be much clearer as well. No change in the meaning or purpose intended by 'tackle' was intended.

Regarding the word 'Thinking' in the title and as generally used within this article. The word 'Analysis' seems more appropriate, but 'Systems Analysis' is already used by another wiki, perhaps these two articles need to be combined?

Sorry, if this makes more work for someone else. The article is very helpful as it is, but the constant interruptions by poor grammar (taking into account American vs British grammatical differences implied by both British and American spelling) made this difficult to read at times.

Registration to be a wiki contributor will be considered, you may email greg.gourdian@gmail.com 2602:306:BD87:11C0:F466:C038:6CA6:DF06 (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Grigori Rho Gharveyn

Topic definition and redirect
There wasn't even a topic definition for this article- "For some.." is a particularly poor choice of words, and even that had no reference. I've redirected the article to Systems theory for now. That covers much of the same material and seems to be better written. Maybe if a definition for the topic "systems thinking" is found this article can be revived. Volunteer1234 (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Merging a theory and a cognitive model is incorrect. There are several definitions of systems thinking one of which is here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050915002860 Deleting content on a public resource and merging concepts without understanding them will lead to a state where the resource is no longer fit for purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.24.200.26 (talk • contribs)


 * What makes "systems thinking" a "cognitive model"? That expression doesn't appear anywhere in this article. The definition in the paper is- "Systems thinking is a set of synergistic analytic skills used to improve the capability of identifying and understanding systems, predicting their behaviors, and devising modifications to them in order to produce desired effects.  These skills work together as a system."  -still no "cognitive model". Unfortunately that paper is a WP:PRIMARY source. Isn't there an article we can paraphrase that defines this topic? It still seems to me that this article is about disparate influences that were swallowed by systems theory which is pretty broad.  Volunteer1234 (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Cognitive model in the sense of the definition here https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4419-1428-6_241 matches what systems thinking describes. An analogy would be Systems Thinking-Systems Theory, Scientific method-Scientific Theory. The paper took the holistic approach of combining existing attempts to describe it to produce a more complete system. While in one way it's a primary source, it's also a secondary source as it's the authors view point on the primary source papers that it's based on. The approach is expansive to build a more complete big picture and from a reductionistic approach it can create a perception of disparate views however from a systems approach it's multiple ways of describing the generalized system which has value in cognitive model that is based on systems thinking. There is a decent write up from an engineering perspective in the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge: http://sebokwiki.org/wiki/What_is_Systems_Thinking%3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.24.200.26 (talk • contribs)


 * It is primary in that it is a paper and not an article in a reliable resource. What it says or how it says it can't make it secondary. Obviously wikis aren't a reliable source either. The Springer link doesn't mention systems thinking. Sorry, this article is WP:OR unless you can find a good secondary source. Volunteer1234 (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Stating that the engineering body of knowledge is an unreliable resource is jumping to conclusions, highly offensive, and incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.24.200.26 (talk • contribs)


 * No, what's offensive is ignoring policy and using an anonymous account for your controversial edits. Volunteer1234 is 100% right, and I've restored the redirect. If you think there's a case to make for a separate article, you need to make it way better than you have done, and lose the attitude entirely. Also, sign your posts. — swpb T 18:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As we are both offended by this series of interactions I propose the following as a retrospective assessment of the issues: 1) I was unaware of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 2) My initial argument was based on the assumption that the goal of presenting scientific information publically was to ensure the accuracy and reliability of information. This was diametrically opposed to the viewpoint and methodology of wikipedia. 3) It would have been clearer to state my objection is that the redirect does not make sense and may cause confusion because systems thinking is not defined in the systems theory page not is it well defined on this page. As there are multiple concepts and definitions of systems thinking disambiguation would likely be more appropriate. 4) As my view and the view of wikipedia are diametrically opposed some of this discussion is interpreted as a personal attack and attempts to discredit my profession. 5) Since this content is unclear and these changes were made by an unintentional mistakes and add no value I request that my comments and edits be purged from wikipedia. This will be my last edit to wikipedia as it's clear that my further participation would be counter productive given the opposing subjective viewpoints. If both of you agree with this assessment please invoke the correct policy to delete this conversation based on subjectivity, mutually agreed offensiveness, and confusion. Apologies if I've signed this incorrectly. Thank you and all the best. 23.24.200.26 (talk

@Volunteer1234 and @swpb: The redirect seems justified for now. Below are some relevant sources, listed chronologically, that suggest how the term systems theory relates to systems thinking. Other perspectives could probably be found. Biogeographist (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

"In the literature the title G.S.T. is used for General System Theory as well as General Systems Theory. In General System Theory one finds especially the ideas of Von Bertalanffy who, as stated above, examines in particular the 'unity of science' and believes he finds this in a General System: a general theory of systems valid for all systems. General Systems Theory endeavours mainly to develop a 'system of systems': an all-encompassing, classifying, and relating theory concerning systems. We regard the two –General System Theory and General Systems Theory –as well as their related variants, indicated by 'modern systems research', 'systems science', 'systems thinking', 'systems analysis', as parts of one field of scientific endeavour."

"By the early 1950s (as a result of the development of GST and ORMS) the cycles shown in Figure 1.1 (the development processes of systems thinking, theory, and application) had become at least loosely coupled and over the following decades became fully engaged. Looking at the figure we can see four interlinked cycles, which, we believe, fairly represent the evolutionary processes associated with systems science. We shall use this dynamic configuration as a base on which to mold our continuing discussion. Development Cycle 1. Systems thinking, when formalized, leads to systems theory, which promotes systems thinking. Systems thinking is a framework of thought that helps us to deal with complex things in a holistic way. The formalization of (giving an explicit, definite, and conventional form to) this thinking is what we have termed systems theory. Conventions are subsequently adopted in the thinking process. However, theory and thinking are never synonymous, as it is the latter that remains looser and provides the lubricant for application. Development Cycle 2. Systems thinking, when formalized, leads to systems theory, which helps to explain structure and behavior in other disciplines, which promotes systems thinking. During the initiation phase of GST, Development Cycles 1 and 2 were effectively the only ones in action. Thought revolved around the need to develop a metatheory that could be used to explain much of the dynamics associated with situations of separate disciplines in a single operation. [...] Development Cycle 3. Systems thinking, when used in real-world application, helps to promote management effectiveness in other disciplines, which promotes systems thinking. Real-world, or practical, application of systems science may be found in many disparate disciplines, and has included modeling approaches with both systemic scientific and utilitarian objectives—for instance, studies of technological advances and man's involvement in them, respectively. Another example is the in-depth study of complexity in structured situations. For instance, in computer science this has proved to be crucial in handling and developing new technology. [...] Development Cycle 4. Systems thinking, when used in real-world application, improves the effectiveness of problem management, which promotes systems thinking. "Real-world problem solving," adopting a hard methodological approach, has been successful in design and decision making. In fact, systems analysis (promoted by the RAND Corporation) and systems engineering, for decision making and real-world problem solving respectively, emerged as the norm in systems applications during the 1960s. However, early attempts to apply this approach in a social problem-solving context in California were rightly criticized by Hoos (1972). The main difficulties have, however, been remedied to a large extent by more sophisticated systems engineering (M'Pherson, 1980, 1981) and with Checkland's work on soft systems methodology (Checkland, 1972, 1981). [...] To summarize, in systems science, thinking leads to application, which feeds back to (re)thinking. Figure 1.1., then defines the process by which systems thinking and theory have developed and identifies the role of application, not only in real-world use, but also in the further development of systems science itself."

"Systems science is a phenomenon of the second half of this century. It developed within a movement that is usually referred to as systems movement. In general, systems movement may be characterized as a loose association of people from different disciplines of science, engineering, philosophy, and other areas, who share a common interest in ideas (concepts, principles, methods, etc.) that are applicable to all systems and that, consequently, transcend the boundaries between traditional disciplines. Systems movement emerged from three principal roots: mathematics, computer technology, and a host of ideas that are well captured by the general term systems thinking. Since at least the publication of Newton's Principia in 1687, mathematics has played a key role in describing and dealing with systems in various areas of science and engineering. Prior to the Twentieth Century, however, mathematics was capable of dealing only with rather simple systems, consisting of a mere handful of variables (usually two or three) related in a functional way. This was adequate for typical problems in science and engineering until physics became concerned with processes at the molecular level in the Nineteenth Century."

"Systems thinking and the systems movement have been enormously productive and innovative since they emerged through developments in biology and information technology in the 1930s. To highlight a few of the major contributions: Von Bertalanffy's (1971) first conscious articulation of general systems theory. Cybernetics as developed by Weiner (Weiner 1948), Ashby (1956), Bateson (1973) and others, and then applied to management by Stafford Beer (1966). The living systems approach to biology developed by Miller (1978). C West Churchman's (1968; 1971) ideas on dialectical systems further developed by Ulrich (1994). Ackoff and Emery's (1972) theory of purposeful systems. Hard systems engineering (Hall 1962). Checkland's (1981; 1990) reorientation of the discipline with the development of soft systems. Maturana and Varela's (1980; 1987) enormously influential theories of autopoiesis and cognition. Social systems theory developed, for instance, by Buckley (1967), Luhmann (1995), Habermas (1984; 1987) and Giddens (1984). Jackson (2000), Flood (1991), Midgley (2000) and Mingers' (1997) investigations of critical systems thinking and most recently multimethodology. Developments in chaos and complexity theory particularly at Santa Fe (Kaufmann 1995). Taken together these works demonstrate both the coherence and the value of the underlying ideas and the huge range of disciplines within which they can be applied—from biology and neuroscience through to practical interventions in the organisational world. I have been working and publishing in the systems field for over twenty-five years and my contributions have also been wide-ranging. [...] These experiences led me to systems thinking, as it promised a holistic approach that might have the potential to bring quantitative approaches together with the social and personal aspects of organisations that I had experienced."

"The term systems theory does not have a single common or accepted definition. It is frequently attributed to Anatol Rapoport, Norbert Weiner, Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy and Ross Ashby (Klir 1972; Laszlo and Krippner 1998) and emerged in the 1940s as an attempt to provide an alternative to reductionism. Reductionism is closely aligned with the scientific method, which holds that a complex organism is nothing but the sum of its parts, and therefore they can be reduced to constituent elements to explain the performance of the whole (Hammond 2002; von Bertalanffy 1968). As doubts regarding the classical scientific approach of isolating constituent elements became clear in different fields, researchers became more interested in notions of 'organization' of wholes rather than parts (von Bertalanffy 1972). They kept re-discovering the Aristotelian dictum of the whole being greater than the sun of its parts in biology, psychology, sociology, and physics (von Bertalanffy 1968; Laszlo 1996). This set in motion a different level of thinking [i.e., systems thinking], based in understanding systems behavior/performance not being explained from traditional reductionist thinking. [...] Consequently, there are pronounced differences between reductionist and systems approaches along the lines of 'substance' and 'organization' (Laszlo 1996). These differences can also elaborate upon by examining systems theory through three related concepts, including systems science, systems technology, and systems philosophy (Strijbos 2010; von Bertalanffy 1972). This current discourse is primarily focused on 'systems science' which deals with knowledge of the connected 'wholes'—complexity as opposed to a focus on detailed and isolated system elements. von Bertalanffy (1972) suggests that systems science deals with the "scientific exploration and theory of 'systems' in various sciences (e.g., physics, biology, psychology, social sciences), and general systems theory as the doctrine of principles applying to all (or defined subclasses of) systems" (p. 414). Therefore, the basis for the trajectory of systems theory was set by the early works. Their focus was on finding commonality across disciplines through a set of universals that would define the function, performance, and behavior of all systems, natural or manmade."