Replying to LO28095 --
Hello Bob --
My definition:
We call it a "system" when we distinguish a compound entity which produces
a result in EXCESS of the sum of the results attributable to the
components, and where the excess result arises from the relationships
between the components
To support the proposition that something is a "system" requires us to
identify the excess result.
To understand a system we want to be able to explain how the organization
of the components produces the excess result.
A "subsystem" is a subset of a system which is itself a system.
The entry point: Systems explain patterns.
A "system" is different from just "synergy" in that when we say "system"
we are more aware of the relationships between components and how those
relationships produce the excess result. When we have no idea of the
relationships or how they work, we might just notice "synergy."
The "excess result" can be positive or negative.
Here's an exercise: Consider each of these "things"... Is it a system? To
answer this, consider whether it is a compound entity (if it's compound,
what are it's components?) and whether there is any "excess result"
produced. Then think about how that result arises.
- traffic on (name any major highway)
- bowl of fruit
- your family
- etc.
Also: I understand that Russell Ackoff, who has my very high respect,
said, "A system is anything we say is a system."
Note: The term "structure" is also confusing. I use "structure" to mean
the organization of components and relationships. That is, if we look
inside a system, we'll see structure.
Note: Many authors talk about systems having a purpose. That is, the
system produces something. I greatly prefer to talk about "excess result"
rather than "purpose" because when we say "purpose" most people understand
this as having something to do with intent. Many systems have arisen
without any intentional design.
A slightly different slant on this: "Every system is optimally designed to
produce exactly the result they are producing... However, you might not
like the results it's producing now!" This is a good thought-provoker, but
is potentially confusing.
I wrote a short article in _The Systems Thinker_ on "How to Find
Structure". It's at http://world.std.com/~rkarash/structure/
Hope this helps. Anyone else have a useful definition of "system"?
-=- Rick
>I want to generate some discussion about the notion of a "system" at a
>workshop I'm running next week. I thought it would be a good idea to
>circulate a dozen or so "classic" definitions of "system" and get people
>to compare and contrast them. Somewhat to my surprise I can't find any.
>Indeed I can find few actual definitions. Unfortunately I'm all half a
>world away from my books and references, so very dependent on the 'net.
--Richard Karash ("Rick") | <http://world.std.com/~rkarash> Speaker, Facilitator, Trainer | mailto:Richard@Karash.com "Towards learning organizations" | Host for Learning-Org Discussion (617)227-0106, fax (617)523-3839 | <http://www.learning-org.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.