02/12/05

There is much more to systems thinking and systems-based frameworks than being systematic about what we think or do. It is sometimes difficult to define things from a new point of view when so much of what we know or think about, or how we know and talk, seems steeped in some other way of looking at the world. Systems frameworks demand holism and comprehensiveness as well as analysis and synthesis. It is to me, in hindsight, a completely different way of approaching, framing and solving problems than we are conventionally used to.

Ideally, an applied alternative systems framework would permit us a means of systematically exploring a full compass of possible solution sets to complex problems, and to dramatically foreshorten development cycles leading to successful solutions that are otherwise based upon somewhat short-sighted and serendipitous processes of blind research and "working in the dark." We seek systems that can not only explore the search-solution spaces of very complex problem sets in a systematic and hopefully efficient manner, but that can actually adapt changes internally and externally to its own pattern and select alternatives based upon certain criteria or standards of success (i.e., working efficiencies, simplicity, functional efficacy, cost, etc.)

The process of discovery and knowledge seems overall to be blind and to proceed one step at a time in a discontinuous manner. Flight, once again, was an alternative system which, once basic principles of lift and drag were figured out, which took a very long time, then developed at a very rapid rate. In principle, there is no reason that the ancient Greeks could not have worked out the principles of aeronautics a long time ago, if they understood fully the dynamics of air flow. In part, systems development in any one area must await sufficient development of knowledge relating to systems in many areas, and to the development of what can be called a meta-systems context in general.

One would think that there would be a premium placed upon the systematic exploration, discovery and development of new systems of all kinds. In fact, in my own narrow range of experience, just the opposite seems to be the case. There seems to be built in resistance, upon many levels, to any form of alternation. This exists psychologically and symbolically as resistance to change, as well as socially and culturally in resistance of the structural status quo. It exists in most knowledge areas, as unquestioning acceptance of paradigmatic norms and beliefs. It is for this reason I think that alternative systems so often come out of far right field, by people who are marginal to the normal order of things in their contemporaneous world.

If I were to offer a definition of an alternative functional system, I would call it the range or paradigm of alternative solution sets applicable to a specific problem. This implies variation of design of systems along multiple dimensions, with the idea that there is some minimum standard of goodness of fit of the whole design to a problem set. Many alternative systems will be insufficient by such criteria, but there will always tend to be multiple alternative optimal solution sets, that comprise a range of trade-offs between conflicting sets of factors.

In the course of development of this meta-systems framework, the realization of various types or kinds of applied alternative systems have come to my attention as integral to the problem of systems based application in general. Recognition of the basic types and differences, and their implications, have become important to the organization of this meta-systems framework, and without their differentiation and integration, this framework would not be successfully articulated.

What I seek in this brief article therefore, is an explanation of alternative functional systems by way of example. I would describe a kind of teleological sense of order to alternative functional systems development. All applied systems have a development life-cycle, and these life-cycles all share certain facets in common.

I present this in the form of an expanded Alternative Systems scheme:

What is most important about this scheme, in my mind at least, is not the differentiation of specific functional kinds or areas of alternative systems, but the relationships between these possible areas and especially the feedback loops that may develop between them.

From the cup to the lip, there is many a slip. The fact that applied meta-systems frameworks are as yet largely unrealized and exist primarily upon paper as ideas in waiting, does not mean that practical efforts cannot be undertaken to implement frameworks, or parts of frameworks, with the idea that unsuitable or undeveloped parts of the whole cannot eventually be substituted by better designs.

The practical implementation of frameworks may even proceed a-theoretically, and can prove to be heuristically productive of new theoretical and applied insight not to be gained by structured, top-down approaches. In fact, most solutions are practical solutions, and meta-system frameworks that cannot be rendered practical and efficacious, cannot be successful as proposed solutions to problems.

Practical systems must be regarded in the main as shoe-string and boot-strap solutions, as usually except in the most coveted of worlds (and excepting the US military and NASA), ends usually far exceed the means to accomplishing them. Thus making due with what one has, and making the most of a little bit, becomes the operating standard.

Practical frameworks provide us, informally at least, a set of standards by which we can finally judge the success of any undertaking or systems project. Practical frameworks are functional frameworks par-excellence, and standards used to gauge the success of working systems of all kinds, like achieved efficiency, longevity, etc., are standards that can be used to guide the development of such practical frameworks in the long run and short-term. We refer generally to such development as functional streamlining--the achievement of an optimal solution to a complex  multivariate problem, including maximum possible efficiencies in functioning. Applied systems tend toward "equi-final" convergence in terms of streamlined functional solutions to practical problems to be met by such systems. I would argue that however blind natural evolutionary development may be, most evolution has occurred in terms of such adaptive streamlining of biological systems to specific environmental conditions.

Practical systems can be thought of therefore as controlled experiments--the control usually being the inherent limits and constraints set upon the development of such systems. They are thus to be seen as the best tools for hands-on learning and teaching. This learning may be formal and informal in terms of hands-on, experiential knowledge and expertise that comes with close working association with systems. We would probably trust an automobile mechanic who has 20 years of successful experience working with a certain car, more than we would trust one who received his diploma in an auto mechanic school a year before with certification in that same kind of car.

Indeed, it is practical solutions that count most in the world, and until a solution can be had in real terms, all the plans and designs on paper don't amount to much. People probably debated the possibility and practicality of human flight  centuries before someone actually achieved the practical feat of flying a machine. But once that happened, the aircraft and aeronautical industry never looked back and is today, less than a century later, shooting past the moon.

It is evident that rules of practice that people engage in everyday, hands-on problem solving, are fundamentally different from formal rules of form and theory that are often alleged to guide human behavior. A simpler way of saying the same thing is to remark that ultimately it does not matter how something is done, so long as it is done, and done well. Like typing or bicycle riding, or the composing of an symphonic masterpiece, we cannot always conveniently or adequately explain how things get done--we just know that they do by terms of their results. In fact, we do not really need to know necessarily the theory of what it is we are supposed to be doing, so long as we know how to do it and the job gets done.

I would suggest that practical applications of frameworks rely upon different capacities and more non-analytical methodologies and faculties of the brain, than formal or formalized frameworks. I would also suggest that practical application systems lend themselves more readily to a broader range of adaptation and capacity and to more human differences than frameworks that are more formally designed and organized. The challenge becomes of course marrying the formal with the functional, and the proper with the practical.

I can offer no prescription for the development of practical frameworks--each must work within a model of organization that best suits themselves in their own life-world. What can be said is that many tasks can be rendered more efficient in organization through routine-operationalization, but this should never come at the expense of or in lieu of development and new project focus. Thus, there seems always to be a trade-off and a balance to be effected, between doing things in a tried and true "time-tested" way and trying to learn to do things in a new way. We must always meet the world head one with a sense of openness to learning new things, and a sense of adaptive creativity in how we respond to things we encounter and implement new designs. But at the same time, sense of organization and operational management is important to achieve and maintain, if not compulsively, then at least punctually.

Functional Differentiation, Systems Integration & Meta-systems Stratification

From the standpoint of universal systems theory, all event structures are organized on the basis of systems. It is by virtue of this deterministic organization that we can comprehend and make sense of event structures in the world. Any event structure therefore has a systems-based frame of reference by which that event structure can be comprehended and related to other similar or different event structures.

We develop typologies and taxonomies of different kinds of event structures that occur or may occur in reality. These are developed through the observation, study and comparison of event structures or "system," and from a scientific standpoint, usually in considerable detail. The fact that we are able to develop such typologies and taxonomies, particularly for natural systems, like the Periodic Table of the Elements and the Linnaean System of the phylogenic classification of living forms, presupposes a systems based organization to reality that would not otherwise be possible. 

We find in all systems development a trend that appears to defy the basic principle of thermodynamics when this is applied strictly to a model of closed systems--that is the emergence of complex states from previously simple and primitive states. We associate this with living systems in the main, and human systems especially, but we can find it to occur as well with the development of many physical systems.

The process of differentiation of systems, that tends to go from relatively simple and undetermined states towards more complex and determined states, seems to be inherent to all systems development. This trend is inherent to the under-determination of systems and the chaotic tendency that is part of natural variation. Semi-stable systems can coexist in a manner that allows divergence of function to occur. The stratification of alternative systems is an outcome of this divergence. All systems change, and all systems change in a manner that will in the long run become divergent from one another.

Stratification and differentiation of function occurs internally between components of systems as well as externally in a meta-systemic contexts between systems, and this reflects the natural hierarchy of systems stratification at all levels. The fact that this seems to be an ordered process, and results in the formation of rationally ordered taxonomies, is due to the systems principles that underlie such development.

"Formal Versus Functional Systems Frameworks"

Unlike natural systems that can be said to be inherently self organizing, human systems of application, i.e., functional systems, are in a sense predetermined and human organized. In other words, they do not happen by themselves, but take work and effort to organize and maintain. This presents a level of problem in applied systems frameworks that doesn't occur in natural systems, except perhaps in areas of methodological application and developmental extension in for instance engineering.

Formal systems frameworks (i.e, generalized, conceptual symbolic systems) are necessary for theorization and heuristic exploration--we always start with models that are more or less formalized and abstracted representations of the realities we wish to understand--but it is functional systems that get the job done. Functional systems are rarely if ever actually articulated or organized on formal principles, at least not in their epiphenomenal states of actual occurrence. Principles of functional organization are based upon efficacy and efficiency of available technology and know-how/will-how of human actors. Functional systems are in other words real working systems and we know well by now the inherent limitations of real working systems.

I have learned in the past year that often it would be nice in the design of systems that we could dispense with formalities altogether and stick strictly to the functional diagrams of flow and control. But we do not have the luxury of dispensing completely with formal models of systems--formal models are at the outset and in the course of development of real working systems necessary for the purposes of heuristic exploration and guiding thinking about systems. No human system can be free of aspects of symbolic formalization that take place as a consequence of our behavioral interaction with our environment and our efforts to shape the environment in deliberate ways.

There is another reason not to completely dispense with formal matters of representation in systems when attempting to understand or to design or articulate a system in real working terms, and this is other than the human factor reason. It has to do primarily, in a fundamental way, with the design principles inherent to any system, and the formal attempt to understand these design principles, and, more importantly, how they are demonstrated by the action or pattern of any particular phenomena we may be observing. And this, in a proverbial nutshell, has been the entire basis of all theoretical science that deals with any form or level of natural system.

It would be interesting to come up with a theory of functional systems. I do not know off hand if this is even possible, or if it is something oxymoronic and self-contradictory. It is not that functional systems are a-theoretical necessarily, but the kind of theories found in functional systems are what are termed "lower level" theories, working theories, that apply not generally but specifically. The kind of knowledge we associate with functional systems is what can be termed "expert knowledge" and this knowledge is derived from specialized training, focus and experience on specific problem sets presented in particular areas of the application of knowledge.

The greatest challenge of attempting to design and then implement in real terms a comprehensive meta-systems framework has been to devise a functional framework for the organization and utilization of knowledge that can be truly inter-disciplinary and that can allow a generalized form of expertise that can cross-specialize or maintain multiple specializations at the same time. This is far easier said than done, especially if we are looking at qualitative factors of refinement in systems rather than loose and somewhat sloppy indicators. In a sense I daily confront and deal with this challenge. The answers I've devised for meeting and resolving this challenge are mainly heuristic devices, like multi-tasking, hot-spotting, etc, rather than formally defined theoretical solutions.

Solutions I've found at functional levels of application have typically been those kinds of streamlining and organizational solutions that pertain to a specific problem set, rather than generally to a range of different kinds of problems. I occasionally hit upon an "aha" kind of solution to a particular problem set that may spill over somewhat to other problem areas I'm dealing with. So far, much of this has been in planning and organizational areas any way, and planning systems effective in one area or for one problem set often have residual value as a design template in other problem sets.

The difficulty to me has been to be able to systematically generalize on the basis of precepts and paradigms, from one kind of solution set that appears to work for a particular problem set, to other or any other kinds of problem-solutions. Applied systems theory largely depends upon being able to do this in a meaningful, non-trivial manner.

The bottom line is that functional systems are working systems in real time. They are not the information dancing across the computer screen, but the computer and monitor that produces that pattern on the screen. It requires work to make working systems work, and work always comes in finite amounts and leads to inefficient, less than perfect, results. Just as there occurs an information bottleneck in the processing of the information explosion that is the consequence of large and complex search-solution spaces, so also there is what can be called a "working" or resource bottleneck in the organization and implementation of working systems when their is an organizational explosion as the consequence of large-scale or broad problem solution spaces.

"Formal Versus Functional Systems Frameworks"

Unlike natural systems that can be said to be inherently self organizing, human systems of application, i.e., functional systems, are in a sense predetermined and human organized. In other words, they do not happen by themselves, but take work and effort to organize and maintain. This presents a level of problem in applied systems frameworks that doesn't occur in natural systems, except perhaps in areas of methodological application and developmental extension in for instance engineering.

Formal systems frameworks (i.e, generalized, conceptual symbolic systems) are necessary for theorization and heuristic exploration--we always start with models that are more or less formalized and abstracted representations of the realities we wish to understand--but it is functional systems that get the job done. Functional systems are rarely if ever actually articulated or organized on formal principles, at least not in their epiphenomenal states of actual occurrence. Principles of functional organization are based upon efficacy and efficiency of available technology and know-how/will-how of human actors. Functional systems are in other words real working systems and we know well by now the inherent limitations of real working systems.

I have learned in the past year that often it would be nice in the design of systems that we could dispense with formalities altogether and stick strictly to the functional diagrams of flow and control. But we do not have the luxury of dispensing completely with formal models of systems--formal models are at the outset and in the course of development of real working systems necessary for the purposes of heuristic exploration and guiding thinking about systems. No human system can be free of aspects of symbolic formalization that take place as a consequence of our behavioral interaction with our environment and our efforts to shape the environment in deliberate ways.

There is another reason not to completely dispense with formal matters of representation in systems when attempting to understand or to design or articulate a system in real working terms, and this is other than the human factor reason. It has to do primarily, in a fundamental way, with the design principles inherent to any system, and the formal attempt to understand these design principles, and, more importantly, how they are demonstrated by the action or pattern of any particular phenomena we may be observing. And this, in a proverbial nutshell, has been the entire basis of all theoretical science that deals with any form or level of natural system.

It would be interesting to come up with a theory of functional systems. I do not know off hand if this is even possible, or if it is something oxymoronic and self-contradictory. It is not that functional systems are a-theoretical necessarily, but the kind of theories found in functional systems are what are termed "lower level" theories, working theories, that apply not generally but specifically. The kind of knowledge we associate with functional systems is what can be termed "expert knowledge" and this knowledge is derived from specialized training, focus and experience on specific problem sets presented in particular areas of the application of knowledge.

The greatest challenge of attempting to design and then implement in real terms a comprehensive meta-systems framework has been to devise a functional framework for the organization and utilization of knowledge that can be truly inter-disciplinary and that can allow a generalized form of expertise that can cross-specialize or maintain multiple specializations at the same time. This is far easier said than done, especially if we are looking at qualitative factors of refinement in systems rather than loose and somewhat sloppy indicators. In a sense I daily confront and deal with this challenge. The answers I've devised for meeting and resolving this challenge are mainly heuristic devices, like multi-tasking, hot-spotting, etc, rather than formally defined theoretical solutions.

Solutions I've found at functional levels of application have typically been those kinds of streamlining and organizational solutions that pertain to a specific problem set, rather than generally to a range of different kinds of problems. I occasionally hit upon an "aha" kind of solution to a particular problem set that may spill over somewhat to other problem areas I'm dealing with. So far, much of this has been in planning and organizational areas any way, and planning systems effective in one area or for one problem set often have residual value as a design template in other problem sets.

The difficulty to me has been to be able to systematically generalize on the basis of precepts and paradigms, from one kind of solution set that appears to work for a particular problem set, to other or any other kinds of problem-solutions. Applied systems theory largely depends upon being able to do this in a meaningful, non-trivial manner.

The bottom line is that functional systems are working systems in real time. They are not the information dancing across the computer screen, but the computer and monitor that produces that pattern on the screen. It requires work to make working systems work, and work always comes in finite amounts and leads to inefficient, less than perfect, results. Just as there occurs an information bottleneck in the processing of the information explosion that is the consequence of large and complex search-solution spaces, so also there is what can be called a "working" or resource bottleneck in the organization and implementation of working systems when their is an organizational explosion as the consequence of large-scale or broad problem solution spaces.