by Hugh M. Lewis

General systems may largely be called a theory in need of a methodology, or a set of methods as well as a general set of operational instructions in the deployment and articulation of methods. If it is to be more than a theory of everything, then general systems must also become a methodology for all possible problems in all seasons. If this is asking too much from any single paradigm, perhaps this is so, but at the same time we can expect no less than a comprehensive set of applied methodologies from a purported comprehensive framework of general understanding.

Science based upon a general systems paradigm will not come fully of age unless and until its own distinct set of methods or methodology can be more carefully worked out and made to work in a practical manner. One of the most important aspects of developing a general systems methodology that is a method for everything is to come to terms with and deal with the problem of the anthropological relativity of our own understanding of systems, large and small. This comes to play especially I think in our identification and definition of "problem" sets with which we must deal, when we speak of applying always limited means to virtually unlimited possibilities. 

To understand general systems methodologies, we must seek general purpose methodologies that are appropriate to a wide range of different kinds of systems. We must also seek to understand the general nature of the kinds of problem sets to be solved by such methodologies--the purpose of methodologies are primarily to conduct research through the solution of complex problems. 

A problem may be defined as an unresolved question or condition of reality that requires a solution at some reasonable level of acceptability. A problem exists as a discrepant state of affairs between existing states or conditions and ideal or desired states and conditions, seen primarily from a human or anthropological standpoint. 

How a problem will be understood, or even what problem occurs, will be largely a condition of the frames of reference adopted by the problem solver. What may seem problematic about reality for one person may not be so problematic for another individual or group of people. We may therefore distinguish also between primary or direct problem sets with deal with immediate, instantaneous conditions of reality, and secondary or indirect or derivative problem sets that are the consequence of the differential or parallax of perception of primary problems or other secondary problems. I would also distinguish what I would refer to as "tertiary" problem sets that are distinguishable as "pseudo" problems or false problems that arise as the result of error of processing or recording, the transmission of misinformation, or erroneous apprehension of either direct or indirect problem sets.

General systems methodologies then are concerned with the solving problem sets in a deliberate and systematic manner, being whatever it is that a person or group of people construe as being problematic based upon some calculus of ends, whether such a calculus of ends is explicit or left unstated.

Methodologies come into play as a set of possible means when the calculus of ends creates a search-solution space for the resolution of problem sets identified by these ends. This is a complex way of saying that methods attempt to marry means to ends in problem resolution. We work with the understanding that, especially with complex problems, solutions, though hopefully simplifying, are unlikely to be perfect or simple.

As I've been engaged in articulating systems approaches for some time now, there are some sets of methods and methodologies that seem pertinent for consideration of "general systems methodologies." I would designate two general classes of methods pertinent to general systems methodologies. The first set I would call general systems methodologies and this are a set of methods that apply generally to a broad range of systems, but which are not necessarily designative of any particular kind of system. The second set I would call special systems methodologies, and they are sets of methods that are appropriate to a certain class or kind of system, but not necessarily to any other class or kind of system.

To list the set of general systems methodologies, I would include: 1. symbolic representation & strategic planning; 2. design modeling & heuristic simulation, especially involving computing and supercomputing; 3. non-linear dynamics and set-theoretic representation & manipulation; 4. inter-correlative analysis; 5. experimental prototyping of designs. I believe that for applied systems, this model automatically leads to a production or processing sequence, as well as to issues of recycling and repair/replacement of systems as well as to systems growth and regeneration. Thus I have elaborated a basic development cycle for general applied systems within which theoretically any form of applied system may be developed. 

To list sets of special systems methodologies, we need first to categorize general types of systems in some kind of logical or natural schema based upon natural stratification. In general all methodologies that are deployed in the normal sciences at each level of systems stratification are pertinent and appropriate to that level or sub-level of system, albeit usually in a fairly specialized manner. Any or all tools of the trade of any particular scientific discipline or field of inquiry are pertinent methods to be employed within the area of stratification of natural systems--though some kinds of methods may be more relevant and generally deployable than others. General systems methodologies therefore encompass fully the range of analytical and investigative methods that are deployable across all fields of science.

We can generalize a methodology to a framework of applied systems of all kinds, with the recognition that all applied systems will have at least their physical, biological and human components, as well as their outcomes and consequences for the larger world. We recognize that the problem of the anthropological relativity of systems, and its influence in determining problem solving frameworks, need to be taken into account in the defining of possible search solution spaces and the realization of possible solutions in a system. The frame of reference we adopt in defining a problem and a methodology of solution will determine the range of possibilities and thereby predetermine and constrain the outcome of the process.

Applied general systems therefore seems to entail a multi-purpose design development framework that is capable of taking a project through a series of steps in its development as part of a larger design cycle. It should be also capable of starting and maintaining multiple design-development cycles simultaneously, and upon different levels, interlinking these cycles or the components of these cycles, in a meaningful way. The design-development project cycle for any single system or kind of applied system, represents therefore a general methodology for the solution to the problem set that is related to that system or kind of system. It provides a manner of constructive application and work that allows us to investigate alternative systems and explore the possibilities for their developmental refinement and evolution as adaptive systems.

Within such a framework, specialization of systems or subsystems would follow on the heels of the development of the basic applied design-development cycle, and would represent the elaboration of such a cycle and its splitting into multiple sub-cycles. We can imagine therefore as well the higher level organization of such a framework of cycles within cycles as a single comprehensive meta-systems framework by which all projects and programs are interrelated to one another and made coordinate in their development.

General Systems Essays, Vol. I