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.