Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos & Complexity book

23
diagram of interactive management with principles, assumptions, dynamics

29
5 principles of systems thinking
openness
30 “Openness means that the behavior of living (open) systems can be understood
only in the context of their environment (see Figure 2.2).”
purposefulness
33 why is the matter of the purpose

multidimensionality
38 “Multidimensionality1 is probably one of the most potent principles of systems
thinking. It is the ability to see complementary relations in opposing tendencies
and to create feasible wholes with unfeasible parts.”

43
“Complementary to the principle of multidimensionality and parallel to it is the concept of plurality.
Plurality of function, structure, and process, as we will see later on, is at the core of systems theory of
development. It makes the high/high a possibility and choice a reality. Plurality simply maintains
that systems can have multiple structures and multiple functions and be governed by multiple processes
(Figure 2.12); it denies the classical view of a single structure with a single function in a single cause-
and-effect relationship.”

emergent property
46
“Emergent, or type II, properties are the property of the whole, not the property of the parts, and cannot
be deduced from properties of the parts. However, they are a product of the interactions, not a sum of
the actions of the parts, and therefore have to be understood on their own terms. Furthermore, they
don’t yield to any one of the five senses and cannot be measured directly. If measurement is necessary,
then one can measure only their manifestation.
Emergent properties, by their nature, cannot be analyzed, they cannot be manipulated by analytical
tools, and they do not yield to causal explanations. Consider the phenomenon of life, the most
significant emergent property.”

counterintuitiveness
49
“Social dynamics are fraught with counterintuitive behavior. They stand on a level of complexity
beyond the reach of the analytical approach. Counterintuitiveness means that actions intended to
produce a desired outcome may, in fact, generate opposite results.”

33
“To influence the actors in our transactional environment we have to understand why they do what they
do. Understanding is different from both information and knowledge. Information deals with the what
questions, knowledge with the how question, and understanding with the why questions”

iteration is important to the author

52 attractors
“Four kinds of attractors determine the nature of the patterns:
1. Point attractor (drawn to or repelled from a particular activity).
2. Cycle attractor (oscillation between two or more activities).
3. Torus attractor (organized complexity repeating itself).
4. Strange attractor (unpredictable complex patterns emerging over time).
If one is tempted to use chaos terminology in the social context, the four
attractors, viewed from a systems perspective, can be explained as follows:
• The point attractors (dichotomy/unidirectional) represent the behavior of
social beings in pursuit of their natural instincts—fear, love, hate, desire to
share, or self-interest.
• The cycle attractors (dialectic/self-maintaining) would correspond to our
principle of multidimensionality, pursuit of seemingly opposite but complementary
tendencies: stability and change, security and freedom, and,
in general, differentiation and integration. Cyclicality, or periodic shift of
emphasis from one orientation to another, is the result of sub-optimization.
• Torus attractors (equifinal/neg-entropic/goal-seeking) exemplify the
behavior of open systems. These systems are guided by the image (DNA)
of what they ought to be, as growth patterns of biological systems.
• Strange attractors (multifinal/self-organizing/purposeful) reflect the
behavior of sociocultural systems with choice of ends and means; unpredictable
patterns emerge out of stylistic preferences of purposeful actors.”

Time
52
“A new understanding of time brings the realization that time is not really defined by the clock but by
rhythms and iterations.6” (footnote says it was/is the value of the Persians as well)

56 Five dimensions which shape the future of organizations

“However, the parameters that coproduce the future are found in the interactions of five dimensions of
a social system. These five dimensions, in my experience, form a comprehensive set of variables that
collectively describe the organization in its totality.
• The generation and distribution of wealth, or the production of necessary goods and services and their
equitable distribution.
• The generation and dissemination of truth, or information, knowledge, and understanding.
• The creation and dissemination of beauty, the emotional aspect of being, the meaningfulness and
excitement of what is done in and of itself.
• Formation and institutionalization of values for the purpose of regulating and maintaining
interpersonal relationships: cooperation, coalition, competition, and conflict.
• Development and duplication of power, the questions of legitimacy, authority, and responsibility or, in
general, the notion of governance.
Historically, the identification of social system dimensions has been both reactive (reacting to certain
problems in social life) and proactive (reaching for the ultimate good). Reactively, the five dimensions
of social systems correspond to the following major problem areas historically faced by all human
societies: economics, scientifics, aesthetics, ethics, and politics.”
.\
58
throughput processes diagram

107
4 foundations of systems thinking
“Years of struggle to get a handle on the whole and real-life experimentation with different systems at
different levels, have led me to believe that effective systems methodology lies
at the interaction of the following four foundations of systems thinking:
• Holistic Thinking (iteration of structure, function and process)
• Operational Thinking (dynamics of multi-loop feedback systems; chaos
and complexity)
• Self-organization, movement toward a predefined order (socio-cultural
model)
• Interactive Design (redesigning the future and inventing ways to bring it
about)”

112 iterative process for understandeing complexity

super diagram—review & revisit it

113 This iterative method/model may provide the approach that I need in order to use/apply Deleuze.
Make sure to review it yet again to be sure

125
Ackoff & author on purpose of interactive design
“The ultimate aim of interactive design is to replace the existing “shared
image” responsible for regenerating a pattern of malfunctioning order with a
shared image of a more desirable future.
We strongly believe that a participative design process is the most effective
way to produce a desirable change in the behavioral pattern of a social
system. This pretentious (daring) optimism, however, is based on the following
assumptions:
1. “The future is not contained in the past; much of it is yet to be written.”
(Ackoff, 1982)
2. The best way to learn and understand a system is to redesign it.
3. People are more likely to accept an idea when they have had a hand in
shaping it.
4. Performance of a system is essentially design-driven. An order of magnitude
improvement requires a redesign.
5. “With unfeasible parts, one can create a feasible whole.” (Ackoff, 1982)
6. Opposing tendencies form an “and” not “or” relationship. Both win/win
as well as lose/lose are strong possibilities.”

126 3 ways to describe a problem

a deviation from the norm
b lack of resources
c define it in terms of the solution that we already have
132 More methods
““Searching” is the iterative examination that generates information, knowledge,
and understanding about the system and its environment. The searching
phase of mess formulation involves three kinds of inquiry (Figure 6.1):

Systems Analysis: To develop a snapshot of the current system and its

environment that describes their structural, functional, and behavioral aspects
without making a value judgment.

Obstruction Analysis: To identify the malfunctioning in the power,

knowledge, wealth, beauty, and value dimensions of a social system.

System Dynamics: To understand the nature of multi-loop feedback systems

and interactions of interdependent variables in the context of time.

The three inquiries—systems analysis, obstruction analysis, and system

dynamics—evolve iteratively. With each successive cycle of iterations, we try to
achieve a higher level of specificity. In the first iteration, we try to get a feel for the
whole; define the system boundary; identify important variables; note areas of
consensus and conflict; and identify gaps in information, knowledge, and understanding.
Between iterations, we try to fill in the gaps. In subsequent iterations,
we verify the assertions made in the previous iteration; obtain agreement on
significant issues; and develop models to understand the behavior of the system.”

316
“Finally, you can capture the future implicit in the present order by recognizing that: 1) cause and effect
may form circular relations; 2) events may have multiple outcomes, each with a different time lag; 3) if
“X” is good, more “X” is not necessarily better; and 4) tenacity in playing the old game
converts success to failure. It is seldom a good idea to make people feel defensive
about their past. Presenting the mess as the consequence of success will go
a long way toward getting it accepted.”