Word, Object, System
Let's master another thinking technique and learn to distinguish between the “word,” the “object”[1], and the “system.”
Let’s take the word “hammer” as an example. In language, it’s quite difficult to separate the word “hammer” from the physical object “hammer”—that is, this specific hammer in my hand. In English, these elements are strongly connected for us. But if, for example, a Chinese person said the word “hammer” in Chinese, we would just hear a set of sounds and wouldn’t even think of the object “hammer.” So, a word is simply a collection of sounds and symbols (letters) put together. It is people who assign this word to some physical or abstract object.
A word can refer to a physical object that is called by that word in a given culture. Usually, before the “word” appears, there is some system, and the inventor gives it a name, or the name is later formed by the culture (as a class of certain physical objects). For example, at one time, the phrase “automatic self-moving carriage” or “horse-less carriage” was used, but eventually, the word “automobile” became attached to this system. Overall, there is a cultural tendency to find a short name for a system, even though the inventor originally used a long phrase.
A good name for a system means that its main function is clear from the name. Another example: “an airplane, or a system designed to enable flight.” Often, the names of systems, roles, and objects come from other languages. For instance, the word “chauffeur” came from French and was originally associated with the function of “heater.” You can read more about this in the post “Chauffeur and Driver” in the AISYSTANT club[2].
Later, the name of the system becomes attached to a specific object, or we use the invented word to refer to certain objects. However, we must clearly understand that the system “hammer” is not the same as the typical physical object “hammer” (the one in my hand), which everyone in the culture can easily picture. The word is the same, but the meaning is different, and in systems thinking, it’s important to keep this in mind.
In the first case, we focus on the fact that we need a system that performs the function of driving nails. By the way, this system would probably have been called “nail driver” or simply “object for driving nails.” Later, a short name for the system—“hammer”—became established in the culture. But this role can be performed by physical objects such as a “stone” or even a “microscope.” Of course, the best performer for this role is the typical physical object “hammer”[3].
It is certainly convenient to have a single word for a specific type of object that usually performs a certain function. Culture usually handles this well. That’s why it can be so difficult for us to separate the word, the physical object, and the system “hammer.” But a system constructor must be able to easily understand this from context in any project. The thing is, with a hammer, everything is clear, but when it comes to complex work projects, it may not be so straightforward. That’s why we start by analyzing the “hammer” example, and then apply the same thinking techniques to work projects.
Once you understand this distinction, it will become easier for you to grasp what physical and functional objects are, what a system is, and other systems thinking concepts.
Here, we are referring to a physical object, not all objects, which may include abstract ones. ↩︎
In fact, this item was invented for this purpose and then named accordingly. Now, laypeople don’t need to understand the specifics in each case. But a system constructor must be able to distinguish words in context. By the way, for a specific work role, such as a manager, there will always be both good and bad performers. ↩︎