This article is from a Foundational Systems Conferance (1983?) and should be referenced to the author named above
“The Systems Movement distinguishes its 'problems to solve" in accordance with the traditions of science and rational thought. It's initial premise must inevitably be, therefore, that the world can be perceived to contain problems which can be rationally defined.
With this the advocates of prescriptive systems thinking are obliged to agree but must also incorporte a systems amendment to give the prescriptive axiom that
'The world can be perceived to contain problems which can be rationally defined and solved in systems terms"
This would seem to encapture the prescriptive inducement on offer to adopt a systems approach to problem solving, and when that inducement is linked, as it so often is, to the potent technologies of our times, it is quite evidently difficult to resist. One consequence of such a perspective is that the problem solving process can be argued to suffer an inversion. The ready made solution embodied in the technological means of achieving desired ends initiates and dominates the problem solving process so that only those problems which are consistent with (or taken to be consistent with) the prescribed solution are engaged. Solutions thus become self fulfilling prophecies and all that remains is to ensure the process is performed well. To this end a particular set of systems methodologies has evolved which simply prescribe the match ensuring process to be adopted . In renderlng both solution and problem harmonlously explicit.
As Banathy ( 2 ) notes
'We borrowed from the systems engineer and devised ten, twenty five, or fifty steps of systems approaches'
Hence we find methodologies, excellent of their kind, which specify such activities as creating data flow diagrams, producing specifications for normalised data stores and data dictionaries, and legitimising the whole systems exercise by conducting some kind of cost/benefit argument in support of the always intended information system solution. Though this illustration is based on one particular manifestation of technology, namely computers, similar scenarios can be painted for the many other techriologies of our times, be it the technology of mass production, of mass communication, or even of mass destruction. Each can adapt systems as a directing mechanism to a problem set capable of presentation in a manner consistent with the technologically built in and readily available solution set.
However, it cannot be denied that the prescriptive systems approach is not only popular and pursuasive but is also supported by some of the most powerful intellectual and
technological products of human endeavour. Therefore, it is little wonder that in a real sense its position in systems is dominant and, indeed for many, is the only interpretation of any consequence. Given such public status it would ill become the systems movement to deny prescriptive legitimacy or to reject association with this dimension of systems activity. However, the systems movement should not rest easily with the solution/problem inversion which so often occurs in this particular expression of systems thinking, and it is this issue which is perhaps amongst the most pressingly problematic for systems as a discipline.
To some extent the alternative perception of an interpretative systems approach can be seen as an attempt to avoid this inversion. That it does so by suggesting a different, and excluding, set of problems (ill-structured) does little to address the inverted well-structured situation. Indeed it often seeks to emphasise its detachment from such situations .
In axiomatic terms this approach might be stated in contrast to the prescriptive axiom as
"The world can be perceived to contain issues which are open to alternative configurations according to beliefs and ethical values, and which might be understandable and addressable in systems terms"
In this, interpretation replaces prescription, there is no guarantee of solution, and no constraining limitation on the kind of issue which might be engaged.
The contrast on all major aspects of comparison is complete, and if, as argued previously, the prescriptive axiom is dominant what then for interpretation?
Constantine. D. Tsatos (3) presents a forceful argument in favour of the interpretative paradigm when writing
"We should not forget that whatever is accomplished by human beings in human communities has infinite facets. If the value of those accomplishments is to be judged with any degree of accuracy, the main ones of those facets must be conscious for the person involved"
Writing as President of the Hellenic Repubic and previously a professor of social philosophy, such recognition must command serious consideration.
As with its prescriptive relation methodologies have evolved in keeping with this basic perspective. Most elegant amongst them 'and most closely argued is perhaps the Checkland (Soft Systems) Methodology (4) developed at the University of Lancaster
It rests firmly on the interpretative paradigm and proposes as an outcome, not prescriptions for systems to adopt, but informed discussion and debate based on the perspectives engaged and the concepts proposed within conceptually relevant systems.
In terms of both starting and end points the activity area proposed for this methodology differs significantly from the prescriptive alternatives. Its purpose in a broad sense is to encourage that debate which most illluminates the issue of attention of with, hopefully, some emergent agreement on possible future action. This might be seen as an attempt to transform a situation initially perceived as ill-structured into one with improved or well-structured appreciation
Two propositions emerge from this thesis:
1. That only with regard to well-structured problems is it possible (sensible) to take solution oriented actions which can be defended.
2. That in reality all problems can be better understood and a wider set of relevarnt facets engaged before adopting actlons for solution. This implies that only one set of problems exists, and it is simply a matter of initial assumption that makes possible the prescriptive approach.
One major problem for the systems movement would, on the basis of these premises be to make the interpretative paradigm as acceptable, and lndeed as necessary, as the prescrlptlve paradigm. Thus it is essential to marshall those arguraents and evidences that support interpretation before prescription, and to communicate those messages with pursuasion.
Even within the rather tidy world of the technology related systems perspective such a revision of approach is long overdue given its lengthy history of admitted failures, but in the context of the truly horrendous national and international issues of our time its claim is essential rather than simply overdue.
The systems movement can, through its interpretative perspective and methodologies, offer support to those who are engaged, willing to be engaged, or need to be engaged, in the major issues affecting the human condition.
“The Systems Movement distinguishes its 'problems to solve" in accordance with the traditions of science and rational thought. It's initial premise must inevitably be, therefore, that the world can be perceived to contain problems which can be rationally defined.
With this the advocates of prescriptive systems thinking are obliged to agree but must also incorporte a systems amendment to give the prescriptive axiom that
'The world can be perceived to contain problems which can be rationally defined and solved in systems terms"
This would seem to encapture the prescriptive inducement on offer to adopt a systems approach to problem solving, and when that inducement is linked, as it so often is, to the potent technologies of our times, it is quite evidently difficult to resist. One consequence of such a perspective is that the problem solving process can be argued to suffer an inversion. The ready made solution embodied in the technological means of achieving desired ends initiates and dominates the problem solving process so that only those problems which are consistent with (or taken to be consistent with) the prescribed solution are engaged. Solutions thus become self fulfilling prophecies and all that remains is to ensure the process is performed well. To this end a particular set of systems methodologies has evolved which simply prescribe the match ensuring process to be adopted . In renderlng both solution and problem harmonlously explicit.
As Banathy ( 2 ) notes
'We borrowed from the systems engineer and devised ten, twenty five, or fifty steps of systems approaches'
Hence we find methodologies, excellent of their kind, which specify such activities as creating data flow diagrams, producing specifications for normalised data stores and data dictionaries, and legitimising the whole systems exercise by conducting some kind of cost/benefit argument in support of the always intended information system solution. Though this illustration is based on one particular manifestation of technology, namely computers, similar scenarios can be painted for the many other techriologies of our times, be it the technology of mass production, of mass communication, or even of mass destruction. Each can adapt systems as a directing mechanism to a problem set capable of presentation in a manner consistent with the technologically built in and readily available solution set.
However, it cannot be denied that the prescriptive systems approach is not only popular and pursuasive but is also supported by some of the most powerful intellectual and
technological products of human endeavour. Therefore, it is little wonder that in a real sense its position in systems is dominant and, indeed for many, is the only interpretation of any consequence. Given such public status it would ill become the systems movement to deny prescriptive legitimacy or to reject association with this dimension of systems activity. However, the systems movement should not rest easily with the solution/problem inversion which so often occurs in this particular expression of systems thinking, and it is this issue which is perhaps amongst the most pressingly problematic for systems as a discipline.
To some extent the alternative perception of an interpretative systems approach can be seen as an attempt to avoid this inversion. That it does so by suggesting a different, and excluding, set of problems (ill-structured) does little to address the inverted well-structured situation. Indeed it often seeks to emphasise its detachment from such situations .
In axiomatic terms this approach might be stated in contrast to the prescriptive axiom as
"The world can be perceived to contain issues which are open to alternative configurations according to beliefs and ethical values, and which might be understandable and addressable in systems terms"
In this, interpretation replaces prescription, there is no guarantee of solution, and no constraining limitation on the kind of issue which might be engaged.
The contrast on all major aspects of comparison is complete, and if, as argued previously, the prescriptive axiom is dominant what then for interpretation?
Constantine. D. Tsatos (3) presents a forceful argument in favour of the interpretative paradigm when writing
"We should not forget that whatever is accomplished by human beings in human communities has infinite facets. If the value of those accomplishments is to be judged with any degree of accuracy, the main ones of those facets must be conscious for the person involved"
Writing as President of the Hellenic Repubic and previously a professor of social philosophy, such recognition must command serious consideration.
As with its prescriptive relation methodologies have evolved in keeping with this basic perspective. Most elegant amongst them 'and most closely argued is perhaps the Checkland (Soft Systems) Methodology (4) developed at the University of Lancaster
It rests firmly on the interpretative paradigm and proposes as an outcome, not prescriptions for systems to adopt, but informed discussion and debate based on the perspectives engaged and the concepts proposed within conceptually relevant systems.
In terms of both starting and end points the activity area proposed for this methodology differs significantly from the prescriptive alternatives. Its purpose in a broad sense is to encourage that debate which most illluminates the issue of attention of with, hopefully, some emergent agreement on possible future action. This might be seen as an attempt to transform a situation initially perceived as ill-structured into one with improved or well-structured appreciation
Two propositions emerge from this thesis:
1. That only with regard to well-structured problems is it possible (sensible) to take solution oriented actions which can be defended.
2. That in reality all problems can be better understood and a wider set of relevarnt facets engaged before adopting actlons for solution. This implies that only one set of problems exists, and it is simply a matter of initial assumption that makes possible the prescriptive approach.
One major problem for the systems movement would, on the basis of these premises be to make the interpretative paradigm as acceptable, and lndeed as necessary, as the prescrlptlve paradigm. Thus it is essential to marshall those arguraents and evidences that support interpretation before prescription, and to communicate those messages with pursuasion.
Even within the rather tidy world of the technology related systems perspective such a revision of approach is long overdue given its lengthy history of admitted failures, but in the context of the truly horrendous national and international issues of our time its claim is essential rather than simply overdue.
The systems movement can, through its interpretative perspective and methodologies, offer support to those who are engaged, willing to be engaged, or need to be engaged, in the major issues affecting the human condition.
