Jump to content

Talk:Systems thinking/Archives/2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Examples

I've moved this question to the discussion page where it seems more appropriate "what are the critical examples compared to Infomation Systems."

That's a deeply philosophical question in a sense. It can be argued that everything is information and that the Universe is one big information system. Matter and energy are just the implementation of that information system. In that sense, there is no difference between other kinds of systems and information systems since everything is an information system. However, from a pragmatic point of view, information systems are normally considered to be computer hardware, computer software, and the people who work on them/use them - specifically how all three fit together. From that perspective, there are a lot of systems which aren't information systems - living biological organisms, weather, economies, etc.

Noteable Quotes

What on earth does a Lord of the Rings quote have to do with this page? Domhail 16:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I guess it was intended as an example. Tehy even misspelled "notable". In any case I've deleted it. If we need a quotation we should get one from a notable systems thinker. -Will Beback 21:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Section 4

...is weak. Need specifics, etc. Hopefully an informed individual will do so. --Tothebarricades 03:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Integrated highlights from prior article about anticipatory thinking for Operational Continuity Presponse (OCP) scenarios.
geoWIZard-Passports 22:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion?

I just saw this on the front page:

{{dated prod|concern = Copyrigh violation. The whole section "Why use systems thinking techniques?" is found verbatim at [http://www.termpapergenie.com/systems.html this term paper mill]. I suspect that both versions come from the same non-internet source (= book), since the rest of the article reads in exactly the same manner. Therefore just blanking the provably copyvio section won't fix the problem. Plus, the entire text is an unencyclopedic word soufflé anyway.}}

I think that it is wrong to delete a whole article when there is only one section of copyright infringement, and when the article is a very valid and important one. I suggest that the offending paragraph listed is simply deleted, and hopefully then added again with information that does not infringe upon copyright. --Pordaria 02:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This flag, placed by User talk:Bishonen, has been removed from the article:

It is proposed that this article be deleted, because of the following concern:
Copyrigh violation. The whole section "Why use systems thinking techniques?" is found verbatim at this term paper mill. I suspect that both versions come from the same non-internet source (= book), since the rest of the article reads in exactly the same manner. Therefore just blanking the provably copyvio section won't fix the problem. Plus, the entire text is an unencyclopedic word soufflé anyway.
If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.
The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days.{{{1}}} This template was added 2007-04-29 17:29; five days from then is 2007-05-04 17:29.

Repairs done to fix this violation:

  • Section, "Why use systems thinking techniques?" was deleted (moved to this talk page).
  • Section, "Methods" was revised by myself & others.

— WikiLen 21:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why use systems thinking techniques?

[This has been moved from the main article page to here for copyright violations — see this term paper. It is here for reference purposes in support of writing a new version for this section.]

Systems thinkers are particularly interested in studying systems because changing a system frequently leads to counterintuitive system responses. For example, feedback loops may operate to either keep the organization in check or unbalance it.

Traditional decision making tends to involve linear cause and effect relationships. By taking a systems approach, we can see the whole complex of bidirectional interrelationships. Instead of analysing a problem in terms of an input and an output, for example, we look at the whole system of inputs, processes, outputs, feedback, and controls. This larger picture will typically provide more useful results than traditional methods.

System thinking helps to integrate the temporal dimension of any decision. Instead of looking at discrete "snapshots" at points in time, a systems methodology will allow us to see change as a continuous process.
Systems thinking is a world view based on the perspective of the systems sciences, which seeks to understand interconnectedness, complexity and wholeness of components of systems in specific relationship to each other.
Systems thinking is not only constructivist, rather systems thinking embraces the values of reductionist science by understanding the parts, and the constructivist perspectives which seek to understand wholes, and more so, the understanding of the complex relationships that enable 'parts' to become 'wholes' as noted in the example below. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiLen (talk • contribs) 20:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Above moved from article to here by WikiLen 00:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this article about anything?

The copyright violation may have been dealt with, and this article has "references", such as they are, but it still does not seem to really have a subject to be about. Passages like:

Consistent with systems philosophy, systems thinking concerns an understanding of a system by bringing the linkages and interactions to bear between the elements that comprise the entirety of the system. It depicts all human-activity systems as open systems, that they are affected by the environment in which they exist.

strike me as complete bollocks. Unless this article is rewritten in plain English, I'm not at all sure it belongs here. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Smerdis. I refer to this WP page quite often when pointing folks to the concepts of Systems Thinking. Just because you don't believe something to be true, does not mean it is not true. I watch a number of Systems Thinking and Systems-related pages on WP and there appears to be a growing effort to expunge the topic. I believe Copernicus had similar trouble. I will make some time this weekend to have a go at cleaning up the jargon. --qswitch426 16:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Copernicus was writing about the movements of the planets, a concrete subject.
Exactly. And to a Systems Scientist, this topic is just as self-evident. =] I agree it requires a healthy dose of plain English --qswitch426 05:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
But what's the subject of those sentences? It mentions linkages, and interactions, and elements. What happens to them? The linkages and interactions are brought to bear on the elements. What do we learn from the last sentence? Human activities are affected by the environment, apparently. This is why I question whether this article really has a subject to be about. The abstract nouns are chasing each other's tails.

Yes, I've been on the warpath about this sort of writing for several months now. I question its value, mostly for the reasons stated above. Frankly, a lot of this sort of material feels faintly spammy to me: my fear is that it exists chiefly to promote various consultancies or management fad paperbacks. I'm not entirely closed minded about this, but the prose here urgently needs to be purged of inappropriate abstractions and rhetorical tautologies. Like the WP:BOLLOCKS essay says, "The reader is challenged by this section to identify what he has learned from the text that was not already known, or could not have been thought up by a mind gifted with sufficient leisure and vocabulary." Consider Miss Anne Elk's theory about the brontosaurus; anything that reminds you of that theory needs to go. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Systems thinking" is a well-developed field of scholarship. This article is an overview with links to many specific branches. The field is abstruse and uses terminology that is hard to understand. Compared to actual systems papers this article is relatively clear. The passage cited above does need work. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm having trouble identifying which field of scholarship systems thinking belongs to. Most of the articles linked to from this page seem to be either a subset of systems theory or some flavor of self-help philosophy. Could anyone provide clarification as to what field of study systems thinking falls under? - bcdj2004 20:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Systems theory is a decent introduction. Systems thinking certainly isn't a self-help philosophy. Epistemology and cybernetics are perhaps the most specific fields to which Systems theory belongs, but it is an inclusive approach. "Systems" exist in almost every physical, biological, and organizational field. Anyway, this page really doesn't exist to discuss the topic, just to discuss the article. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Much bullockry going on

hi guys, indeed much bullockry going on. i'm new here and have been perusing all the 'systems' related pages. wow. after all this stuff is only about 50 years old, it's in a state of flux. the key i think is to distinquish between the mathematical results, the engineering problems, the actual physical, biological, and social systems, the philosophy, and the mysticism. tough task! i suppose you can see my various comments on my user contributions page. does this fall under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems? anyway over the next weeks perhaps i will dig in. Wikiskimmer 20:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions about the WikiProject Systems itselve can be asked at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems. If you look there, you see that the remarks you added there, are allreadya answered. - Mdd 21:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Cosmetic bullockry removal

Hi All... I've made some minor changes to the page in an attempt to remove jargon and make it easier to read. I have also added a references section and have started to incorporate references using the ref template. Please let me know if you think the mods are in the correct direction. Cheers! --qswitch426 04:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The buzzwords tag

I've had a go at addressing the concerns of the buzzwords tag. Can we remove the tag? --qswitch426 12:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the buzzwords tag by two other tags, because I still think this article needs a lot of work to fit the Wikipedia standards. - Mdd 13:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization

I've reorganized this article some more to create a more logical structure. I hereby put together text about systems, the systems approach, applications and systems thinkers. In this new situation I think important parts are still missing. These are parts about:

  1. The different meanings of systems thinking
  2. The foundations of systems thinking
  3. The history of systems thinking

The existing parts should also be extended. - Mdd 15:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The article gave the following (commercial) software links.

I don't see the meaning of these links in the article and I also don't think that this kind of commercial links should be in any article. So I moved them here. Maybe somebody can explain? - Mdd 10:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mdd... I agree the commercial links should be removed from the main page. It would not make any sense to list commercial software on the wp Statistics page and I see no difference between that tool and Systems thinking. I did not contribute any commercial links, but my guess is that the purpose of their inclusion would be to lend some support for the legitimacy of Systems thinking. From some of the comments I have seen, I gather the subject has had poor popular opinion as a "management gimmick" or "self help scheme". --qswitch426 11:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this feed back. I just saw in the history that these links were put in by the anomynous user:80.152.52.72 on 6 September 2006 12:24. This guy made only one more edit in the systems dynamics article. Now I have noticed that these links are also more about systems dynamics than about systems thinking. So we should keep them out of the article. - Mdd 15:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should the link to the Analysis page be removed? From that page, "Analysis means literally to break a complex problem down into smaller, more manageable "independent" parts for the purposes of examination; with the hope that solving these smaller parts will lead to a solution of the more complex problem as well." Analysis is the opposite of Systems thinking... I think it helps to define this article by linking to its opposite. Thoughts? --qswitch426 01:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The answer is not so simple. The analysis article is an disambiguation page, and a standard in the Wikipedia is that links should not direct to those pages but to specific items, which are listed in such a page. Now I restored the link but now to philosophical analysis... but this is not very satisfying.
The thing is that a article about the general meaning of analysis, as we learn this in systems theory is missing. This article for example should look like the current disambiguation page.

Analysis (scientific method)

Analysis means literally to break a complex problem down into smaller, more manageable "independent" parts for the purposes of examination; with the hope that solving these smaller parts will lead to a solution of the more complex problem as well.

Although taken for granted as a method of advancing understanding today, this is a relatively recent and important invention of humankind, however it should be noted that roughly parallel concepts within mathematics and logic go back beyond Aristotle. It has been variously been ascribed to Descartes from his "Discourse on Method", Galileo and Newton as a practical method of physical discovery, and was quite surprising to their contemporaries.

As a general scientific method analysis is the opposite of systems thinking.

See also

External links

Further comments

As I said, such a general article is missing... And I still don't know if such a separate article should be nececary...!?

One last thing. If you stating, that analysis is the opposite of systems thinking... I think in the current Wikipedia this is spoken of under reductionism. - Mdd 11:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mdd. Thanks for the clarification of the disambiguation page. I do like the wording appearing on that page, as it is not simply a list of pointers to various uses of the word, but contains a very nice definition. As for reductionism, I agree with your link to this philosophical article (after all, we are talking about Systems thinking...) I see Analysis as a verb based on the concept of reductionism.
The flavor of what I was getting at was that analysis as defined on the DAB page has a broader meaning than just reductionism. My terminal degree is in Analytical chemistry and I have received all means of instruction in methods of breaking complex samples into simpler parts for individual analysis. We have lots of machines that can do this automatically. The science of Analytical chemistry is now moving toward the incorporation of systems thinking into its repertoire. Topics like chemometrics and laboratory informatics incorporate the tenants of systems thinking and incorporate the effects of neighboring parts and the entire system of the sample to figure out the importance and operation of the sample. For instance, analytical chemistry can tell you what chemical bases are found in a gene, but the exact function and expression of the gene depends on the identity of neighboring bases and environmental affects such as temperature and pH.
In my experience, Analyze = break down; Systems thinking = build up. Analyze = differentiate; Systems thinking = integrate. Scientists tend to dissect; Engineers tend to build. Scientists disregard individual differences in order to discover broad heuristics; Engineers exploit individual differences to construct unique systems. Neither process is wrong. Both are required. But our relatively long use of analysis methods does not lessen the importance of systems thinking --qswitch426 19:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
After reading my comments, I believe I am drawing a direct synonym between Systems thinking and synthesis. I have seen authors draw similar contrasts between analysis = break down; synthesis = build up. In fact, the synthesis page has similar language to the Systems thinking page. I guess what is confusing is how to draw the distinctions between Systems thinking, synthesis and Philosophical synthesis. --qswitch426 12:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

For me it becomes clear that the term analysis is a complex term.

  • The term analysis has some dozends specific meanings in science and in real life
  • ... and even different meanings in specific scientific disciplines
  • ... just as for example the term approach, which has not even an disambiguation page. And what to think of words as model, process and system.... and the term complex.

I've also noticed that you drew a kind of synonym between Systems thinking and synthesis. I'm aware that that is also a thing my professors in systems theory wanted to let me believe. But I think also in systems science the term analysis has different meaning:

  • It's a general term for the reductionistic way of theory development in science... which is called analytic, or based on analyses.
  • In the process of scientific research or problem solving, one of the first parts is called analysis and one of the lasts synthesis.

Now both in systems science as in traditional science steps in working processes are called analysis and synthesis.

The Wikionary article analysis als shows some of what I mentioned here. - Mdd 18:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the reference to futurists in "Both systems thinkers and futurists..." is completely superfluous and should be removed - cdegroot (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Tying together

How about maybe merging systems thinking and systems theory? What's the real difference between the two?

--sydbarrett74 29 August 2007

This is a good question and the article itselve should give the answer to this question. Unfortunatly we have not really reached that point yet. We still have trouble to express the nature of systems thinking.
The difference between systems thinking and systems theory is rather clear to me.
  • Systems theory is the collection theories based on systems thinking,
  • and systems thinking is the way of thinking similair in the systems theories and in the systems sciences
  • Hereby systems theories are the collection of theories and systems sciences are the collection of scientific disciplines.
However, all kind of questions remain, like:
  • What is that way of thinking similair in the systems theories?
  • What does the theory and pratice tells us about this?
  • And what kind of meanings and differences have those concepts in theory and practice?
We are working to sort this out. - Mdd 23:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If you still need to sort this out, perhaps the distinction is Original research. there should be clear sources. If you cannot find t hem, consider merging the articles. DGG (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to say that Systems Thinking is a set of strategies or a framework for problem solving that uses various Systems Theories. I took a Master's program in this stuff, and it is still difficult to define. I've got some references and will try and add some citations and info soon. --Ryandwayne 02:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
@DGG. I started a complete redesign of this article User:Mdd/Systems thinking based on multiple sources, but I didn't finish it yet. I think this new design makes clear allready, that systems thinking is much more then systems theorie. It will take however some more time to improve this article. - Mdd 13:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Systems Approach

Nobody talks about what do the critics of systems approach or soft systems approach more precisely have to say.. I would love to have a few comments from this face of the coin.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.145.180 (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia. Please correct me if I'm not posting correctly.

The book "Creative Holism for Managers" and other books by Flood and Jackson are excellent sources for criticisms of various systems theories.

Barryleelandis (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Objective Language

Repeatedly unscientific language is used to describe scientific processes. Descriptions of systems or examples would ideally be objective and neutral (or example, using the term "improved" to describe a change in a system is a value assessment). Further, implying intent or participation should be avoided in my opinion (for example, "working together to survive or perish").

Also, closed systems are not by definition static.

Sinenox (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Systems_thinking/Archives/2012&oldid=656599229"