Classic Systems Approach 1.0
At the core of the systems approach lies the concept of a “system.” With the help of systems, a constructor thinks about the world of objects or things[1]. Here, you can draw an analogy with physics, where the concept of a “physical body” is introduced. This refers to a material object that has mass, shape, and volume. In physics, all reasoning and laws are tied to the physical body, and when physical laws are applied in practice, the “physical body” is replaced by the corresponding material object: a road, a chair, a rocket, or an engine piston.
The same applies to the concept of a “system.” Every professional works with their own systems. For one person, the system might be a house, a computer program, or a trained artificial intelligence; for another, it could be a child ready for adult life; for a third, a cultivated tree or a grove. Every person, consciously or unconsciously, creates systems. A system constructor does this consciously, relying on various systems methodologies.
In specific projects, “systems” are distinguished from the physical world by the attention of an individual or a team. Systems thinking is the ability to identify systems, describe them, and create them[2], as well as to perform certain actions with them. The systems approach offers methodologies that are based on the concept of a “system” in order to develop systems thinking. There are several generations of the systems approach, each containing different methodologies[3]. What unites all methodologies of each generation is precisely the presence of the concept of a “system.”
In the first version of the systems approach[4], which was formulated by L. von Bertalanffy, systems are viewed as objects representing a certain class. Take the system “clock” as an example. Note that this is an idealized object (even though we imagine clocks as physical), not a specific physical object you can point to. We are not talking about a wristwatch or a clock on a space station. The objective consideration of systems implied that systems are objects, and they were discussed independently of subjects. Therefore, in the systems approach 1.0, you can simply discuss a clock, a table, or a car, and identify different properties in these systems—integrity, emergent properties, and nestedness. The classic approach mainly considers these three properties of any system.
A person cannot consider the entire world at once; the brain simply does not have enough computational power. With attention, a person highlights what is important from reality, but at the same time tries not to lose the connection of this important part with the world as a whole—that is, not to lose context. The concept of a “system” allows you to manage your attention, which is why people sometimes say that systems thinking is the ability to manage attention.
The property of “integrity” means that a system has a boundary, and the connections between the parts of the system are much stronger than with other objects in physical reality. This property helps you identify systems with your attention. For simple objects like a table or a car, boundaries are not a problem, but when we consider complex systems (such as an airport or a university), it is not so easy to find the boundaries. It is not easy to understand what a water safety system, a pass issuance system, or a heating system is. We will discuss complex systems in more detail later.
The second important property of a system is emergence. In English, “emerge” means to appear. Emergence means that the system has acquired a new property (function) that none of its individual parts possessed. For example, the engine, chassis, and cabin together form the system “car,” which gains a new function—transporting a passenger. None of the car’s parts has this function. It appears only when all the subsystems are assembled together. Any system possesses the property of emergence, and if it does not have such a function, it is not a system.
The third property of classic systems is nestedness[5]. You can think of nestedness like a matryoshka doll: one system fits inside another, which is its supersystem. The property of nestedness means that any system itself is a supersystem for some subsystems, and is also part of a larger supersystem. If we say we have a system, it automatically has subsystems and a supersystem.
All three of these properties of the classic systems approach help you identify the necessary objects from the physical world, keep your attention on the system itself, and, if needed, consider its structure (subsystems), as well as maintain the connection between the system and the physical world (supersystem).
Let’s look at an example—the system “clock.” First, you can always imagine this system in the physical world. A clock has the property of integrity; it has a boundary. A clock has an emergent property, meaning it has a function—to show the time. This function appears only when all the parts of the clock are assembled together. None of the clock’s parts has this property. Nestedness is evident in that each element of the clock is part of the whole system. At the same time, the dial itself also has subsystems. Each subsystem will have its own properties of integrity, emergence, and nestedness.
Thus, the classic systems approach sets a certain way of thinking or worldview through the properties of a system, and we will use this way of thinking in the next generations of the systems approach 2.0 and 3.0.
Do not confuse the physical world with the mental space. A person is an object in the physical world, while the concept of “age” is an abstract object. ↩︎
By involving professionals in applied methods. ↩︎
Although all systems methodologies are based on the concept of a “system,” they may use their own unique set of concepts. But in addition to differences in the set of concepts, methodologies also differ by generations of the systems approach. ↩︎
There are several methodologies whose founders include Alexander Bogdanov, Edward de Bono, Peter Drucker, Alfred Chandler, and others. ↩︎
We will discuss the nestedness of physical systems within each other. This “part-whole” relationship between two physical objects is different from the “class-member of class” and “superclass-subclass” relationships. ↩︎