Systems and Functions: Names Matter
One of the common problems with understanding systems thinking is that people get confused by system names and rely too heavily on common sense and the objective names of physical objects[1]. For example, a student is asked to provide the name of a system that generates energy for a house. He describes: “This system will be called the Tesla Model X electric vehicle, which delivers the main function—generating electric energy for my house.” The student then explains that this can actually be done. We were considering an educational example, so we were not concerned with the technology for connecting the Tesla to the home network.
Notice that the student’s description contains a typical mistake: the words “Tesla Model X electric vehicle” were used as a physical object-module, but what was needed was the name of the system (a functional name) based on its main function. From a methodological standpoint, it would be correct to say: “The Tesla Model X electric vehicle will play the role of a generator that supplies electric energy to the house.” In other words, the functional name of the system is “generator,” and its main function is energy generation. Alternatively, one could refer to the Tesla Model X electric vehicle as a car (also a functional name), whose main function is movement or transportation (but not energy generation).
Let’s reflect a bit more using the example of the physical object “stone.” Notice that here, unlike with a car, there is no functional name: it’s hard to assign a function to a stone (unlike a hammer or a car). The example with the stone clearly demonstrates that there are objective objects—that is, things not initially loaded with any widely recognized functional meaning in culture.
Suppose you need to carry out two projects: in one, you need to fasten boards together, and in the other, you are delivering a presentation outdoors and have many sheets of paper on the table. When you describe (model) these projects, systems, and subsystems, in the first case, among other systems, you will have in mind the system or functional object “hammer”[2], and in the second—the “paperweight.” The words “hammer” and “paperweight” convey the functional behavior of systems, making their main functions immediately clear. This is an example of why it is always necessary to look for system names that clearly indicate their main functions.
Of course, in both projects, you could say there is a “stone” system, but that doesn’t make it clear what to do with it. However, if these are not your first projects and you have experience, then in your mind, the stone automatically becomes a “hammer” in one project and a “paperweight” in the other. That’s why professionals in their work often don’t even notice the need to name systems by their main functions. They are already used to using a stone to drive nails or to hold down papers on a table.
The most common mistakes occur when “hammer” (a functional object) is written, but the main function is somehow listed as holding down paper. Of course, in everyday life, anything is possible, and a student might justify that the physical object hammer (in this case, the functional and modular meanings coincide) can hold down paper. But what does the system in the role of “hammer” do in a project where you are delivering a presentation outdoors? That’s nonsense, isn’t it? Or even better: what does a “paperweight” do in a project to fasten boards together?
Now you understand that the word “hammer” can be used as a functional name for a system and as a physical object (just like “stone”). Usually, people intuitively understand from context what is meant in a particular everyday situation. But in projects, it’s not so simple, especially if it’s a new project. You need to be aware that in one project, you have the system “hammer” (as a functional object, or if “hammer” is too complicated, just say “nailer”), and this role can be fulfilled by a stone, a microscope, etc. Its main function is to drive nails. In another project, you have the role of “paperweight,” which can be fulfilled by a stone or other physical objects—a hammer or a microscope. But the main function is to hold down paper.
Systems thinking is counterintuitive, and this example demonstrates that. There are many such non-obvious aspects in systems thinking, but you can figure them out by mastering the necessary systems techniques. Then you will truly see the world in a new way and be able to improve it—first for yourself, and then for others.
Read section 2 of the course and try to understand the difference between a word, a physical object, and a system. After studying sections 3–5, you can return to this and reread it. Most likely, you will better understand the differences between the various generations of the systems approach (from 1.0 to 3.0). ↩︎
This name has become a culturally defined concept, just like the role name “driver.” ↩︎