DBA 702

DBA702chapter5.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >DBA 702

5 THE SYSTEMS VIEW

The systems view contains many variations in practice, but, from a methodological point of departure, we believe it can be summarized in terms of philosophical influences, similarities and differences when explaining and understanding using the systems view, basic systems language, the relation of the systems view to its paradigm and typical theoretical results from the systems view. Such a summary will be provided in this chapter.

THE ROOTS OF THE SYSTEMS VIEW

Three overlapping philosophies make up the paradigmatic thinking behind the systems view. They are:

systems theory holism structuralism

Systems theory, in its broadest sense, is the interdisciplinary study of organizations with systems language and thinking. More specifically, it is a framework by which a creator of knowledge can analyse and/or describe any group of objects that work in concert to produce some result. These objects can be, for instance, the components of a single organism, any organization or society, or any electro-mechanical or informational artefact. Systems theory as a general academic area of study predominantly refers to the science of systems that resulted from von Bertalanffy (1901–1972), who in relationship with many other scholars, for instance Rapoport (1911–2007), Boulding (1910–1993), Ashby (1903–1972), Mead (1901–1978) and Churchman (1913–2004), launched the General Systems Theory (GST) in the 1950s. As a transdisciplinary, interdisciplinary and multiperspectival domain, General Systems

Theory tried to bring together principles and concepts from Ontology, Philosophy of Science, Physics, Computer Science, Biology and Engineering and, later, Geography, Sociology, Economics and Business, among others, serving as a bridge for an interdisciplinary dialogue between autonomous areas of study as well as within the area of systems science itself. Systems theory was based on two fundamental ideas. First, all phenomena can be regarded

as a web of relationships among its components, that is, as a system. Second, all systems have common patterns, behaviour and properties which can be explained and/or understood to develop greater insight into the behaviour of complex phenomena and move closer toward the unity of science.

Arbnor, I., & Bjerke, B. (2008). Methodology for creating business knowledge. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from indwes on 2021-03-23 09:17:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Systems theory became a nomenclature that early creators of knowledge used to describe the interdependence of relationships in organizations by defining a new way of thinking about science and scientific paradigms. A system from this frame of reference is composed of regularly interacting and interrelating groups of activities. This was different to conventional models at that time that centred on individuals, structures, departments and components separate in part from the whole, instead of recognizing the interdependence between components and groups of components that enables an organization to function. The basic idea was that the whole sometimes has properties that cannot be known from an analysis of its components in isolation. General Systems Theory is seen as part of the history of science, but in business, like in

several other disciplines, its influence still lingers on to some extent. Structuralism refers to various theories across the humanities and social sciences, which

share the assumption that structural (patterned) relationships can be usefully exposed and explored. More accurately it could be described as a perspective in academic disciplines in general that explores the relationships between principal elements in their fields, where these elements are built up as tangible structures, cultural structures and/or structural networks. In the second half of the twentieth century, it grew to become one of the most popular

approaches in academic fields concerned with the analysis of language, culture and society. Structuralism can be found in, among other areas, Psychology, Linguistics, Anthropology, Sociology and Literary Theory. Structural thinking is also often seen in business. However, due to its nature of ultimately

looking for better economic and human solutions, it is commonly called structural functionalism there. Holism is the idea that all the properties of a given system (biological, chemical, social,

economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) cannot be determined, explained or understood by the sum of its component parts alone. Instead, the system as a whole determines in an important way how the parts behave. Reductionism is sometimes seen as the opposite of holism. Reductionism in science holds that a complex system can be explained and understood by reduction to its fundamental parts. In the second half of the twentieth century, holism led to systems thinking and its derivatives,

like the science of chaos and complexity. Scientific holism holds that the behaviour of a system cannot be perfectly predicted, no

matter how much data is available. We will be back to this last point a bit later in this chapter. The systems view could also be called the structural or holistic view. However, we prefer

systems view as it seems to be the most established term of the three in business.

SYSTEMS EXPLANATION AND SYSTEMS UNDERSTANDING

We have, on a number of previous occasions, mentioned that the systems view can have an ambition to explain as well as to understand (one of the two ambitions might be in focus; a

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

combination of the two is possible as well). Let us explore what this means by first looking at Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1 Is Q a Star?

Picture 1 in Figure 5.1 is a model. The idea is here to depict the reality as it is, in fact, in this case in a systems model. A good model is supposed to include aspects of the factive reality which are of importance, say, to explain the centre Q of the system, for instance its behaviour, etc. Picture 2 in Figure 5.1 is an interpretation. Apart from depicting reality as it is, something

else is added. A common way to do this is to bring a metaphor into the picture. A metaphor, in the systems view, is invented by the creator of knowledge and therefore not, strictly speaking, part of the reality of the study area per se. Such a metaphor is placed on the systems model in order to give further insight into what is going on, that is, to understand, and to do this by inspiring and generating some new questions, which are intended to guide the creator of knowledge in his/her further endeavor into the study area. So, the metaphor of a star in picture 2 may, for instance, lead to the following questions:

Is there really a star (recall Chapter 2, and compare with Figure 2.4)? Is Q really the centre of the star and what does it mean to be a centre? Have all the tips of the star been identified? Have any tips been missed? Are the tips of the star equally strong or which is the balance of power between them?

There are other ways to try to understand real systems, for instance by concepts or models added by the creator of knowledge, which do not have the symbolic aspects of a proper metaphor (the star in the example above is a symbol, that is, something is seen as if it were a star, which it is not in reality). Also, metaphors are used in the actors view as well, but then they are a result of a procreative effort by the creator of knowledge (see Chapter 6).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

EXAMPLES OF CLASSIC SYSTEMS MODELS

Let us look at some models and interpretations that have been presented in business during the last few decades. The illustrations are from organizations and organizing in business in general without going into functional areas like marketing, finance, manufacturing, service or human resource management, where in all cases a large number of models and interpretations have been suggested with a systems view over the years. Let us start with some examples of models and, then, in the next section look at some

examples of interpretations using metaphors. There are many classic systems models, some of which are based on concepts and ideas that are still in use:

March & Simon (1958): organizations are decision-making and problem-solving mechanisms. Burns & Stalker (1961): different kinds of environment require different organizational structures; the faster moving and the more unsettled the environment is, the looser the organization’s structure should be to succeed. Burns and Stalker refer to this as being organic instead of being mechanistic in your organization structure. Thorsrud & Emery (1964): organizations should best be seen as sociotechnical systems, that is, a mix of social and technical aspects. Etzioni (1966): power structures are important in organizations. Katz & Kahn (1966) derived the following eight characteristics that they claimed was a pattern for all human organizations seen as open systems:

The system imports energy into itself from the environment. Energy consists of resources, raw material, competence, and so on. The system processes resources and transforms them into products that are delivered in different forms to its environment. Activities have a cyclical character and there are dependent relationships between input and output. Negative entropy in living systems means that they tend to die. This is to be counteracted by the organization through importing resources and energy from the environment. Information and negative feedback makes it possible to control the activities of the organization within certain critical limits. Balance (homeostasis) among different components of the system must exist in such a way that the relationship to the environment is maintained. Differentiation, integration and coordination are necessary when handling complex relationships to the environment and trying to incorporate these variations with the system’s own structure. The system can reach its objectives in different ways. It can arrive at the same result through different types of structures (finality).

Thompson (1967): organizations are governed by the law of requisite variety and the need for buffering systems.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Buckley (1968): organizations are complex, but socially adaptive systems. Lawrence & Lorch (1969): the importance of differentiation and integration differ between different environments. From the 1970s, consultants took on systems models. One such, then, commonly used model is shown in (Figure 5.2).

Figure 5.2 McKinsey’s 7S-model Source: McKinsey. Reproduced with kind permission.

The idea with this model, of course, is to say that seven aspects of an organization, which could be referred to as components, should be identified in the company as a system. If you want a well-running firm, the seven components should fit each other, support each other and not counter and block each other. Then you will have the synergy effect, which is possible in systems, that is, to have a situation where the whole is more than the sum of the parts.

Some important concepts of classic systems models

We consider it to be possible to see some kind of common vocabulary or concepts in the above classical analyses of business systems as models. The words actually used in specific cases may not be the same as the following ones, but the thinking behind them and the orientations of the concepts are, in principle, along the same lines.

Variety. Variety is the more or less distinguishable components, states, events or behaviours

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

shown from systems either as structures or as processes, components etc., that a system has the potential of showing and using at any given moment. A law of requisite variety of systems was formulated in systems theory a long time ago; it states that systems, in order to survive, must have at least the same amount of variety as their environment (for a business application of this law, see Thompson 1967).

Depiction. Depiction is the ability of a system to “reproduce” positions of the environment, the ability to allow the structure of the system to be “similar” to that of the environment.

Adaptability. Systems are adaptive. In order to be so, they require: (a) a certain degree of plasticity or irritability toward their environment, so that they have a continuous interaction with the events in the environment, considering them and if necessary reacting to them; (b) some source of mechanism for variety – to manage the problem of depiction and to introduce a new or a more detailed variety in a changing environment, if necessary; (c) a set of selective criteria or mechanism by which “the source of variety” can attract the variations in the system that reproduce the environment well and that deflect those that do not; and (d) an arrangement for keeping and/or developing successful reproductions (compare Buckley, 1968).

Existence of tensions and conflicts. Tensions and conflicts might exist in all systems. Systems that function well have the ability to use these in order: (a) to obtain information about what is happening out in the environment (what has caused the disturbance); (b) to obtain new ideas of suitable arrangements via deviations from existing ambitions; and (c) to create new, more purposeful arrangements.

Systems objectives. One outcome of the systems view is the realization that it is possible to talk about a system without having to talk of its parts. For instance, it is possible to talk about the system of a company and then state that the system has objectives. There are many suggestions for what objectives companies have and should have. The trend is definitely to combine strict financial objectives, like cash flow, profit and turnover, with softer objectives, like being socially and environmentally sustainable and the like, often in more process terms than before.

Management system. Systems, run by people, do not just develop by themselves, of course, even if from outside this may seem to be the case. They are a result of conscious efforts by what could be called “the management subsystem” of the company. By studying this subsystem, the creator of knowledge may get an explanation of how the system works as a whole.

Fit. Two or more interacting systems or subsystems that cooperate and support each other are said to fit each other. Systems that disturb or destroy each other are unfit to each other. To survive, a system should develop such that it fits the environment with all its changes and it should develop subsystems that fit each other.

Reactions to and in the environment. Open systems depend on their environment, which means that it is important for them to interact purposefully with the environment in order to

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

derive a goal-oriented behaviour – and to behave accordingly. Researchers often talk about three kinds of environment and the associated purposeful reactions of the system, if the system reacts actively, which is not always the case. (There is a natural tendency among systems made up of people to resist change, even if the environment insists. This can express itself in the system neglecting external changes and continuing as before – which probably will not be a purposeful behaviour for long). The first of the three kinds of environmental change is variation (reversible change), that is,

a temporary deviation from a “normal” situation. This kind of change is often answered by the system varying its behaviour within existing areas of competence, provided the system has a sufficiently varied repertoire. The environment will eventually return to “normal”. The second kind of change in the environment is a structural change (even called

displacements), which is an irreversible change, that is, a permanent departure from a previous situation. Systems theory claims that organizations (as systems) must adapt with new structures to such a situation, that they must create a new fit with the environment in order to survive and grow. This can take place in several ways (that can be combined):

Reproducing the environment (see previous treatment) Matching, or a mutual adaption to another organization followed by exploiting the environment together Simultaneously optimizing and consulting, which means partly to cooperate with and support another organization in order to exploit the common environment, and partly to see the other organization as part of the exploitable environment (to cooperate and compete with the environment at the same time; a situation which is often claimed to be a characteristic of a good functioning business cluster) Domination, which means that systems may be able to dominate their environment all the way from having a superior variety to subduing the environment through force.

The third kind of change in the environment is also an irreversible one. It is what we might call a paradigmatic shift. In this case the environment changes so radically that only a completely new “model of the environment” can handle the new situation.

Dynamic conservatism. So far, our discussion has been almost exclusively about adequate behaviour of systems. Schon (1972) provides an interesting example of the opposite. His example has proved to be very common in general. A system often displays considerable inertia as far as changing its structure is concerned (this is sometimes called “the human factor”). According to Schon, members of the system then use various means in an attempt to maintain the system as it is: a. They ignore facts that influence and/or change the way the environment behaves. b. They pursue an internal economy in which changes in one area are offset by higher stability in another.

c. They each have an active interest in maintaining the subsystem of which they are a part.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Later behaviours in the sequence are not considered until previous ones have failed (first (a), then, of necessary, (b), and finally, as a last resort, (c)). Schon calls this the strategy of dynamic conservatism. This strategy may be dysfunctional – not purposeful – for the system as a whole, but is

understandable from the point of view of the individual participants.

Recipe. Every human system has members that have gradually established mental clichés for how to manage its operations in the light of the environment in which they operate. Like all mental clichés, they are simplified versions of what is going on, but are generally considered as successful (at least as judged by performance in the past). This is what might be called the recipe for the system (Johnson & Scholes, 1999). This is a set of unquestioned beliefs and assumptions about what to do and what not to do in order to do well. Such a set is, of course, very much a result of the history of the system.

EXAMPLES OF CLASSIC SYSTEMS INTERPRETATION

The variety in using metaphors in the systems view as means of an interpretation in order to get an understanding of a system is not smaller than the variety in using models, which are used as a means of explanation – rather the opposite. Furthermore, it is fair to say that the use of metaphors has grown among systems creators of knowledge over the years, partly due to the fact that these creators of knowledge increasingly stress the importance of symbols in understanding real systems and their environments. Some examples of metaphors used are, to understand organizations as living mechanisms, the survival of which depends on financial capital (Miller, 1977), or as holograms, or to go beneath the surface of what appears to be happening by studying them in terms of cultures, conceptions and psyches (Kilmann, 1984), or as jingles (Pfeffer, 1992), as music (DePree, 1992), as factories (Hammer & Champy, 1993), as theatres (Jeffcutt et al., 1996), as jamming (Kao, 1997), as having souls (Salzer-Mörling, 1998) or as cognitive fields (Morgan, 1998). Let us finish this list of examples of metaphors by bringing up two examples from regional

development – Figures 5.3 and 5.4.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Figure 5.3 The Cluster Diamond Source: Porter, 1990: 127. Reproduced with permission of the Free Press, a Division of Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group, from The Competitive Advantage of Nations by Michael E. Porter. © Copyright 1990, 1998 by Michael E. Porter. All rights reserved.

These two last metaphors tell a story of the systems they portray more effectively than a simple snapshot would. This is what we have referred to as “understanding,” which, in a way, goes beyond “explaining”. In the first case, you think of a “diamond,” where all parts are to shine equally bright and in harmony for the system to work at its best. In the second, if you break the “circle”, the system will not work as well any longer!

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Figure 5.4 The Italian Village Business Circle Source: Normann, 2001: 302. Reframing Business. When the Map Changes the Landscape. Normann, R. (2001), © John Wiley & Sons Limited. Reproduced with permission.

SYSTEMS VIEW IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

During our present century, the number of proposals for suitable systems models and systems interpretations has grown ever bigger. However, it is possible to see aspects of systems being stressed more often than others:

Processes more than structure. In the modern life of constant change, so also in business, this is quite natural. Good relations to customers. Increasingly, customers are seen as components of the business system, not only as people to whom you try to sell your goods and services. Team-building. The fact that the company’s people are its most important resource is true – and having them work in concert is often necessary and a great asset for business. Temporary organizations/project organizations. Another aspect of (or rather response to) change is that no organization should be built up to stay that way for too long any more. New temporary project organizations should be designed to face new problems, always slightly different from before. Entrepreneurial organizations/organized chaos. It is less and less possible to forecast the future. The future is increasingly built by resourceful individuals and they seem to thrive best in a kind of organized chaos. The network perspective. It is often no longer most important what is happening inside organizations, but outside and between them in a kind of mutual adaptation. The innovation system. New situations require new solutions – and this at an increasing rate. The virtual system. This is due to an increasing range of computer information technology applications. Deep structures. Increasingly, systems are analysed in order to trace so-called deep structures, that is, patterns and processes which are not possible to see directly, but which, if assumed, can provide a good understanding of what is going on.

We believe that, before as well as today, it is possible in the systems view both to explain by models as well as to understand by interpretations (in the latter case to use, for instance, metaphors) and that there are certain guiding principles to keep in mind by the creator of knowledge using this view (Figure 5.5).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Figure 5.5 Three Principles for Creating Systems Knowledge

The first principle is that it is important to stress the totality of a complicated world in which the parts are more or less dependent on each other (totality). Nevertheless, no matter how a picture of this complexity is created, every picture becomes relatively limited. Delimitations of two types have to be made:

external delimitations: It is necessary to delimit the picture of a system, if for no other reason besides a practical one, at the same time noting the systems relations to and from this environment. internal delimitations: There is a limit to how much detail can be considered in the picture of the system. It is always necessary to choose a certain magnifying level. (We will be back to this concept shortly.)

The second principle means that:

Every systems model or interpretation is a limited picture of reality, real or imagined. Every delimitation can be questioned. There are no absolute systems delimitations, only more or less useful ones in relation to a certain purpose. Being so multidimensional as real systems are, there are many options to choose from (complexity).

The third principle is that every systems picture becomes partly dependent on the one who constructs it. This is an important dissociation from the analytical view. The systems creator’s frame of reference is of great importance; it depends on the creator of knowledge as a person and how his/her angle and focus is delimiting the model or interpretation. To phrase it differently: there are no absolutely true or false systems pictures, only more or less comprehensive ones (to express it in more positive terms), or ones that are more or less dependent on the frame of reference of the creator of knowledge (to express it in slightly more negative terms). Churchman (1968), one of the first who introduced the systems view into social sciences, said that all systems models are “deceptive”, even “untruthful”, in the sense that it is not possible to present the whole truth in such models. In the system view, one can say that the American courtroom oath, to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”,

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

is a myth (relativity).

A “COMMON” SYSTEMS LANGUAGE

In a sense, every methodological view is its language. So also the systems view, in spite of large variation in its structural and holistic attempts to explain and/or understand systems. The following systems language concepts will be illustrated here:

Systems, subsystems and components Open and closed systems Systems environments Real systems vs. models and interpretations of systems Magnifying level Systems relations Structural and processual perspectives Systems analysis, systems construction and systems theory

Systems, subsystems and components

The systems view in business started in the 1970s. At that time it came along as a way of looking at different academic activities as well as at industry outside the universities, in everyday language and in mass media. New titles and professions emerged, some of which are still in use, such as systems analyst, systems engineer and systems designer (which is not limited to associations with computers). And what student has not heard of concepts like control systems, information systems and reward systems? These (and similar concepts) have become a natural part of the vocabulary of business in practice as well as in business as an academic discipline. The background to this development is quite multi-dimensional. One dimension is the

development of energy and of technology, everything from feedback-controlled mechanisms like thermostats and missiles to modern communications and computers. This development, according to the systems view, has contributed to the tendency to talk, for instance, about technical systems instead of single, isolated mechanisms or machines. Another dimension of this development is the increasing complexity of society, for instance,

from an organizational point of departure. Now we talk about, say, the hospital system, the educational system, the political system, and more. What is the meaning of the concept “system” in these various constellations? Although there

are nuances in practice, in the context of creating knowledge from the systems view, there is general agreement on the following, seemingly simple, definition: a system is a set of components, which can be subsumed into subsystems and the relationships among them all (compare Figure 5.6).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Figure 5.6 A System

Open and closed systems

The definition of systems demands a couple of additions:

A systems view is not an analytical view model that is exceptionally comprehensive or that considers more aspects than simpler one-dimensional models do. It is something much more fundamental than that. It is a reorientation of thinking compared to the analytical view. This reorientation means studying components that are in inevitable interaction with each other instead of in potential cause–effect relations. In order to explain or to understand an individual component it is not enough to study the component itself in isolation. A creator of knowledge must put the component in context. This reasoning can be carried to a higher level. In order to explain or to understand a system it is sometimes necessary to place it in its own context or environment; this makes it possible to distinguish between open and closed systems. Open systems are studied in the context of their environment; closed systems are not (see Figure 5.7). Business is normally not interested in closed systems.

Figure 5.7 Open and Closed Systems

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Systems environment

The systems environment is what lies outside the “boundary” of the system. This environment is usually seen as the factors that are important to the system to consider but beyond its control. It is always so that the environment of an open system is important. A large number of

theories from the systems view refer to how a system should act in a given environment. To give just one example: the more complications there are from outside, the more flexible the system needs to be from inside (compare the law of requisite variety mentioned earlier). Therefore, in business (using the systems view) there are a number of suggestions about how to classify the systems environment, for instance, shifting or not, demanding or not, friendly or not, and more.

Real systems vs. models and interpretations of systems

Just as the analytical view did, the systems view makes a distinction between factive reality (reality itself) and representations of this reality. Misunderstandings can arise in discussions if it is not made clear whether manifestations of factive reality (i.e. real systems) or representations of this reality (i.e. systems models or systems interpretations) are the topic. In the systems view, creators of knowledge are very open to what a systems model or

interpretation might contain. In the ideal situation, this is determined by the use for which the model or representation is intended and by the magnifying level desired. If the model or interpretation is intended only for descriptive purposes, the creator of knowledge may include a huge number of factors from reality. If, on the other hand, the model or interpretation is to be used for controlling the future of the real system, several factors in the real system might have to be omitted in order to make the model or interpretation manageable to use, not including too much detail. To take an example: a model of a university as a system might contain a list of different

subjects and departments, a list of available educational programmes, a map pinpointing off- campus localities related to the university, and – this is decisive for the systems model – the mutual relations among these subjects, departments, localities and so on. A model intended to show new students where to go to register for the Business department needs only a map of the city where an arrow is indicating the building in question and another arrow shows where the student is now. One might possibly criticize the person distributing the map of the university mentioned

above if it turns out to be ten years old and if the names of several streets and locations were omitted or outdated. The criticism is unjustified, however, if the map is up-to-date in the aspects that new students need, that is, informative enough to show them how to find the Business department. Suppose a new student wants a deeper insight into what world he/she is entering by studying

business at the university in question. He/she meets another student who has been studying the subject for one year already. This other student says:

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Remember that the Business department is the biggest department at this university in terms of number of students. You will feel like you are spending your student life on a lush and green hill with many dull small villages around on the university campus. You will have the impression that you are spending your life on the top and isolated from the rest of the world at the same time.

This is a systems interpretation and it might give an additional feeling to the new student of being prepared for something extra. Every systems model or interpretation is just one among many possible aspects of a real

system. If a creator of knowledge claims, therefore, that something takes place in a “system”, it should be made clear sometimes whether this “system” is a real system, or a model or an interpretation of the same, or possibly all of it (see Box 5.1).

Box 5.1

Be or As a System?

The reader should realize that in one respect there are two kinds of creators of knowledge in the systems view. There are those who believe that reality in itself is systems-like and that the task of the creator of knowledge is to reproduce it or interpret it as such. On the other hand, there are those who see no reason to take a definite position for or against the way reality is ultimately constructed, but nevertheless find it useful, interesting, or both, to reproduce it or interpret it as if it behaved like systems. Similarly, there are two kinds of analytical creators of knowledge reproducing reality in

the form of cause–effect relations, in one case because it is assumed to be that way, in the other case because it is treated as if it were (in the latter case without taking a position on how reality in itself is constructed). Distinguishing between those two kinds of creators of knowledge is of minor interest

here. From a methodological point of departure they behave in the same way.

Magnifying level

Sometimes there is a reference to the relativity principle in the systems view: every component in a system is a potential system of its own. Every system is a potential component in a larger system. This smaller system is, as mentioned above, called a subsystem. The larger system, correspondingly, is a supersystem. This makes it possible to talk about various magnifying levels for systems. A low

magnifying level means that a model or an interpretation contains a number of details. Conversely, a model or interpretation with a high magnifying level would have few details (compare with a magnifying glass: the higher level, the fewer details, and vice versa; see Figure 5.8).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Figure 5.8 Magnifying Levels of Models and Interpretations

Systems relations

What do relationships in a system actually consist of? The concept of “relation” could be seen as having a concrete or an abstract content (or a combination). We might, for instance, describe relations among different stages in a manufacturing process as the flow of material passing between workstations or as a flow of information progressing among different decision makers at these different stages. This gives the concept of relation a concrete meaning, which can be studied in Figure 5.9, where every relation in the figure is an expression of something concrete.

Figure 5.9 Concrete Systems Relations

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

In another system, for instance, a creator of knowledge might want to explain how a group’s unity functions. It would be possible to talk about relations among the members of the group, for instance, in terms of their attitudes toward each other, of their family connections, of similar opinions about the value of unity, or of relations between the system and its environment as various threats that forge the workers into a group (see Figure 5.10). Note the differences in the content of relations in the systems view and the analytical view.

In the latter case, relations do not contain anything. They purely point out which causes are connected with which effects (see Figure 4.1). It is possible, in principle, to illustrate models (or interpretations) in the systems view as

diagrams of the kind we can see in Figure 4.1, that is, where the components contain variables, in this systems case producers and products (terms which we, as mentioned before, use in the systems view to point out the differences from causes–effects). However, such illustrations become much more complicated than they are in the analytical view and not very illustrative. It is such, for instance, that what is a producer in one model or interpretation can easily be a product in another – and vice versa. To give one example: in network analysis the following variables can be used to characterize a network (a kind of systems view model) (Shaw & Conway, 2000):

Figure 5.10 Systems Relations in How a Group’s Unity Functions

Morphological dimensions

Anchorage Reachability Density Range

Interactional dimensions

Content Intensity Frequency

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Durability Direction

However, these variables might as easily be seen as reasons for a specific network behaviour (producers) as the results of such behaviour (products). Due to the complexity of producer–product relations, relations which are far from so direct

as the cause–effect relations are regarded in the analytical view, we can formulate two more principles for the systems view apart from those three we have already examined (in the section, “Systems view in the twenty-first century”). The fourth one is: The principle of mutuality. (Producers and products can easily change place.)

We can also add a fifth principle to our systems view, based on what was said when we talked about holism at the beginning of this chapter: The principle of unpredictability. (Due to the way a system is constructed and because it is in constant interaction with its environment, there is a definite limit to predicting its future.)

Structural and processual perspectives

To describe a real system, creators of knowledge would have to indicate the positions of different components and relations at a given time. By indicating the position of all components and relations in the system and considering all characteristics of the system, the creator of knowledge indicates a systems state (remember that we refer here to a model or interpretation and not the real thing when we talk about “systems”. To indicate the position of all the components and relations in a system in reality would be theoretically and practically impossible). The description of the real system should be complete enough for the creator of knowledge to feel that he/she has explained or understood the real system in relevant aspects. Stressing the different characteristics of components and relations in a model or the interpretations of real systems, is traditionally called a structural perspective. The description of real systems may alternatively be intended to indicate the flow of

different components and relations over time. This has been called a processual perspective. It is, of course, possible, in one and the same study, to describe real systems in structural as well as in processual terms, as shown in Table 5.1. In traditional terms we can say that a structural description gives a static picture, whereas a processual description gives a dynamic picture.

Table 5.1 Structural and Processual Perspectives (Examples)

Structural perspective of System A

The system is three years old.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

The system’s objective is to represent its members. The system is constructed in a relatively simple way. One of the rules of the system prescribes that the leadership consists of M., B. and K.

Processual perspective of System A

The system added a new member during the past year. The system has a continuous interchange with System B. The system issues a newspaper three times a year. The system is stable.

Many creators of knowledge are of the opinion that it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between structures and processes in real systems. For instance, let us look at the three last examples of systems aspects from the list in the beginning of the section “Systems view in the twenty-first century” earlier in this chapter. When we talk about innovations systems, it is, almost by definition, something that is constantly changing in content as well as in form (otherwise it would not be very innovative). The word “innovation” in English can even be read as a creative process or as a new result (which might be a new structure). When we refer to a virtual system, this might be a large number of computers that are linked up with each other. It might be impossible in practise to provide a model of this build-up (its structure). But is this of interest to anybody? Is it not more interesting to get an understanding of what goes on in this system, its process? And is the distinction between structure and process useful here, really? Let us consider a third example, that is, deep structures. How can we call something a structure when it cannot be seen but only be assumed that it exists? Is it not rather a behavioural pattern we are talking about here (which can be seen)? Such “indistinct” circumstances as those just mentioned are not uncommon in the systems

view. It can be seen as a result of the pragmatism so characteristic of the systems view (see Box 5.2).

Box 5.2

Pragmatism

Languages can be characterized as sign processes. Those signs can be analysed in three “dimensions” or aspects of how they function: in relation to other signs (syntax); in relation to what they represent (semantics); and in relation to their users (pragmatics). Pragmatism also stands for the epistemological orientation that claims that the value of

knowledge is equal to its practical use. This is what we normally associate with the systems view. “The truth” of a statement of a systems description becomes equal to its consequences. See also “Validation techniques” in Chapter 7.

The realities that the business theorist is interested in never stand still in their concrete forms of expression. One could, therefore (and maybe rightly so), ask oneself whether the

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

models and interpretations intended to describe this reality should not be dynamic as well. There are authors who claim that the interesting structures of real systems in social contexts are the stable behaviours that can be distinguished over time. It is therefore possible to differentiate between dynamic and static structures. In such a case, the statement “The system issues a newspaper three times a year”, for instance, would indicate a dynamic structure and “The system’s objective is to represent its members” would indicate a static structure. This would give a classification of:

static structures (fixed, stable characteristics) dynamic structures (regular processes) non-regular processes (which may even lead to a change of structure)

Non-regular processes are the aspects (characteristics and behaviours) of the system that are not stable. It is a question of one-time phenomena of various kinds. They do not necessarily have to be without interest; on the contrary, they may have a decisive influence on the course of the system (they could be critical events). Such singular phenomena may even lead to the system changing its structure (static and/or dynamic). We want to introduce the following distinction concerning systems perspectives:

Structural perspectives focus on stable and dynamic structures and on non-regular processes that mean (or can mean) a change of structure. Processual perspectives focus on dynamic structures and non-regular processes.

There are studies carried out according to the systems view in which these perspectives are combined so that in some stages the creator of knowledge has a structural perspective and in others a processual perspective.

Systems analysis, systems construction and systems theory

A creator of knowledge working according to the systems view may have several orientations. These orientations, systems analysis, systems construction and systems theory, do not exclude one another.

The knowledge orientations of the view

Systems analysis means to depict a real system in a systems model or interpretation without changing the real system, and to make clear to oneself the internal and external factors influencing this system. In a way, this is as much a question of synthesis as of analysis. In other words, systems analysis has both a descriptive and an explanatory or understanding purpose. We may say that it is partly a question of synthesis because systems analysis also includes the study of the totality of the real system, including its relations to the environment. Recall that in

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

the analytical view totality did not have its own meaning as an object of study; there the situation is broken up into its elements and only the relations among those elements are studied. If the totality is discussed in the analytical view, it simply means the sum of the individual elements. In systems terminology we could call this a closed system without synergy – that is, no system at all. Systems construction means to develop a new system, that is, a systems model that the

creator of knowledge may hope to be able to construct in reality (a new combination in factive reality). The need for a new real system may emerge when, while analysing a real system, the creator of knowledge finds that it does not function very well. The creator of knowledge then might try to construct a new real system (on paper and possibly in reality as well). When talking about systems theory, either of two things may be referred to (usually the

latter):

General systems theories. These are inspired by the General Systems Theory mentioned earlier in this chapter, that is, they are theories of systems in general – alternatively, theories of different classes of systems – that do not allude to any specific real systems. Often the structure in such general systems theories is seen as the essential producer to bring about certain (hopefully purposeful and functional) products. General systems theories are therefore sometimes said to be homologically constructed, that is, based on similarities in structure. Specific systems theories. These theories are less general and refer to specific types of real systems or even a single real system. These theories often classify systems into different categories, but structure might not be the decisive producer anymore. These categories may instead be, for instance, types of technology, age, type of environment, size, complexity, strength of culture and many more. The ambition is to find similarities within these categories.

THREE ILLUSTRATIVE STUDIES

Let us look at three real studies based on the systems view to illustrate how this language may be expressed in practice. We will see that these three studies have some thinking in common, even if they were done in three very different fields. The three studies are:

1. The success of Silicon Valley (Saxenian, 1996) 2. The Balinese culture (Geertz, 1973) 3. Female entrepreneurship (Ahl, 2007)

The success of Silicon Valley

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Saxenian’s study is an attempt to explain why the region of Silicon Valley in the United States has been such an economic success when the region of Route 128 has not. Silicon Valley has been created by people brought together from different firms and

industries, from public and private sectors, and from financial, educational and training institutions. An industrial community has been created where traditional boundaries between employers and employees and between corporate functions within firms have been eliminated. Instead, interdependent project teams linked by intense, informal communications mirroring the region’s industrial structure have been growing in large numbers. Individuals have also moved from firm to firm, both within and between industrial sectors,

from established firms to start-ups, and vice versa. At the same time, an expanding network of specialist suppliers and service providers has facilitated start-ups. This has resulted in a complex, highly social process rooted in an industrial community.

Silicon Valley’s producers are embedded in, and inseparable from, these social and technical networks. As a result, the region’s engineers have developed stronger commitment to one another and to advancing technology than to individual companies or industries. Informal conversations have been, and still are, pervasive and serve as an important source of up-to- date information about every issue that concerns business and technology in the region. They also function as efficient job search networks. This has been essential in Silicon Valley, where engineers move so frequently between firms. Mobility is not only socially acceptable, it has become the norm. The preferred career option in the region has traditionally been to join a small company or a start-up. The Silicon Valley culture has encouraged risk and accepted failure. Less formal social

relationships and collaborative traditions have developed that support experimentation. The geographic proximity of the firms in Silicon Valley has facilitated occupational mobility. Moving from job to job in that region has not been too much of a disruption from a personal, social and professional perspective. However, unlike Silicon Valley, the Route 128 region is so expansive that sometimes helicopters are used to link its widely dispersed facilities. Furthermore, in Route 128, entrepreneurs inherited and reproduced an industrial order based

on independent firms which, by and large, kept to themselves. The region is dominated by a small number of relatively integrated corporations. Secrecy and corporate loyalty govern relations between them and their customers, suppliers and competitors, reinforcing a culture that encourages stability and self-reliance. This has been valued over experimentation and risk-taking in the Route 128 region. Managers and executives in Route 128 firms are typically in their fifties and sixties while in

Silicon Valley, by contrast, they are often in their twenties and thirties. The blurring of social and professional identities and the practices of open exchange of

information that distinguished Silicon Valley never developed on Route 128.

Illustrated in our systems language, we can say about Silicon Valley that processes are more important than structures, that team-building across the functions of firms and between firms have been decisive, that many of these teams are temporary, entrepreneurial, of a network type and devoted to innovation. The system is very open; its environment is that part of the rest of the world operating in

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

similar industries. This environment is certainly very shifting, complex and demanding. The study is made at a magnifying level where individual firms are of minor importance and

the relations between various components contain the latest necessary information to take the road to the commercialization of new technological ideas.

The Balinese culture

Geertz believes that human thought is social in its origin, social in its function, social in its forms and social in its applications. He spent quite some time in Bali to prove his point, examining how the cultural apparatus of that place make its people refine, perceive and react to each other. In Bali, there are six sorts of labels which one person can apply to another person in order

to identify him/her as a unique individual. These are: (1) personal names; (2) birth order names; (3) kinship terms; (4) teknonyms; (5) status titles; and (6) public titles. These labels are, in most cases, used simultaneously. Geertz (1973) refers to all this as “symbolic orders of person-definition”.

Personal names. The symbolic order defined by personal names is the simplest to describe for a foreigner, because it is in formal terms the least complex and in social terms the least important. All Balinese have personal names, but they rarely use them to refer to themselves or others. In general, personal names are rarely heard and they play very little public role.

Birth order names. The most elementary, standardized label bestowed upon a child, when born, is whether it is the first, second, third, fourth, etc., member of the sibling set. These birth order names are the most frequently used terms of both address and reference for children and young men and women who have not yet produced offsprings in Bali. They can be used on their own or supplemented by the personal name, especially when no other way is convenient to get across which is meant.

Kinship terms. Formally, Balinese kinship terminology is quite simple. An individual classifies his/her relatives primarily according to the generation they occupy with respect to their own, like siblings, half-siblings, cousins, uncles and aunts. The interesting fact about Bali, however, is that these terms are used very infrequently. With rare exceptions, one does not actually call one’s father (or uncle) “father”, one’s child (or nephew/niece) “child”, one’s brother (or cousin) “brother”, and so on. Kinship terms in Bali appear in public discourse only in response to some question or event, where the existence of the kin tie is felt to be a relevant piece of information. In short, the Balinese kinship terminology defines individuals in a cultural map where

certain persons can be located and certain others, not features of the landscape, cannot.

Teknonyms. If personal names are treated almost as secrets, birth order names are used only with children and not yet parents and kinship terms are invoked at best sporadically, how, then, do most Balinese address and refer to each other? For the great mass, according to Geertz, it is

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

by teknonyms. This means, in Bali, that as soon as a couple’s first child (“X”) is named, they start to be referred to as “Father-of-X” and “Mother-of-X”. This is what they will be called (and will call themselves) until their first grandchild (“Y”) is born, at which time they will begin to be addressed and referred to as “Grandfather-of-Y” and “Grandmother-of-Y”. A similar transition may occur if they live to see their first great-grandchild. This means that what identifies a Balinese is reproductive continuity, his/her ability to

perpetuate him/herself. This has very great economic, political and spiritual consequences in the country.

Status titles. Almost everyone in Bali bears one or another title placing that person in an all- Bali status ladder. However, status in Bali, or at least that sort determined by titles, is a personal characteristic and independent of any social structural factors. It has, of course, important practical consequences and influences a wide variety of arrangements, from kinship groups to business organizations and governmental institutions. From a person’s title you know, for instance, what demeanour you ought to display toward that person. The human inequality embodied in status titles is neither moral, nor economic, nor political

– it is religious.

Public titles. Balinese have a high sense of responsibility and everybody’s duty as part of the public as a corporate body is charged by the special status that public titles express. At the same time, Balinese look at the public sector of society as a number of self-sufficient and self- contained realms, including the hamlet as a corporate political community, the local temple as a religious body, the irrigation society as an agricultural body, and, above these, the structures of regional government and worship, centring on the nobility and the high priesthood.

It is easy to understand that all this has great consequences for business life in Bali. Illustrated in our systems language, we can say that the Balinese culture is a closed and rigid system, where structure is much more important than processes and which has been built up by generations. One might even say that this system is closed and has no environment of interest to identify in order to understand the system. The content of its components differ with social situation and role, but its relations always

include religious aspects. The magnifying level to understand the Balinese culture should include all its members but their labels differ with social occasions. The details at individual or family level are of less importance for such an understanding.

Female entrepreneurship

Ahl’s (2007) study is about women’s entrepreneurship. She undertook a discourse analysis of a large number of research articles on women’s entrepreneurship published from 1982 to 2000 in order to find out how they regarded the female entrepreneur. The material was analysed using a framework by Foucault. In general she found that a female entrepreneur was consistently positioned as inferior to her

male counterpart, irrespective of which facet of entrepreneurship was studied. Arbnor, I., & Bjerke, B. (2008). Methodology for creating business knowledge. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from indwes on 2021-03-23 09:17:41.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Ahl asserted that feminist theories are examples of how different versions of knowledge imply different sorts of social order. Feminism is defined as the recognition of women’s subordination, and the desire to do something about it. The definition of discourse in the Ahl study is that it:

is a group of claims, ideas and terminologies that are historically and socially specific is a set of metaphors, representations, images, stories and statements that in some way presents a version of reality has some kind of effects, including power implications.

Some of Foucault’s procedures and principles as seen by Ahl and used in her study were:

1. You do not speak about everything, what is of most interest to a researcher here is the ideas and assumptions that are taken for granted about women, society, entrepreneurship, and so on, that are reflected in the reviewed articles.

2. What is true and what is false is historically contingent and dependent on institutional support.

3. Discourses are repeated and reproduced; founding fathers and the foundational texts on entrepreneurship can therefore not be neglected.

4. Writing and publishing practices are part of shaping and delimiting the discourse. 5. The disciplines, in this case entrepreneurship, carry out a restricting function and provide

regulations for research methods. 6. There are rules and rituals pertaining to who is allowed to speak (and write) on the topic

of women’s entrepreneurship in the research community. 7. The principle of discontinuity says not to forget that there is no grand narrative.

Ahl concluded that the entrepreneur was described in words such as bold, rational, calculative, firm, strong willed, achievement oriented and detached and that these words are male gendered. The words describing masculinity and entrepreneur are very similar. The femininity words are mostly their direct opposites. The most common research question was related to differences between male and female entrepreneurship in areas like personal background and firm characteristics, attitudes to entrepreneurship and intentions to start, psychology, access to capital, and performance but, contrary to expectations, few such differences were found. Within-group variation was typically larger than between-group variation. The arguments for studying female entrepreneurship in the reviewed articles were largely the same as for studying male entrepreneurship – to see how it contributes to employment and economic growth. It turned out, however, that the women’s businesses in comparison with that of men were, on average, a little smaller, grew a little slower and were somewhat less profitable. This was seen as a problem and a further reason for investigation.

Illustrated in our systems language, we can say that the above study is an attempt to find a deep structure an implicit arrangement between entrepreneurship scholars that contained opinions of female entrepreneurship. This structure seems quite closed, and the different components of

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

it, like claims, terminology, models and findings, seem to support each other in their version of reality. Discourse processes in the system are consequently repeating and reproducing each other in their content as far as the topic of women’s entrepreneurship is concerned. They are so repetitive that they even might be seen as a structure which is constantly confirming itself. Another magnifying level than the usual one has to be taken in order to break the existing order.

THE RELATION OF THE SYSTEMS VIEW TO ITS PARADIGM

Let us, just like we did in the case of the analytical view, summarize what the systems view stands for in terms of:

1. Conception of reality 2. Conception of science 3. Scientific ideals 4. Ethical/aesthetical aspects.

Conception of reality, or, What Does Business Reality Actually Look Like? We can look at reality as either independent from, or dependent on, us as theorists and/or creators of knowledge. In the first case, we assume that it is systemically constructed; in the second case, we treat it as if that were the case. From a methodological point of departure the two cases are the same. In both situations we accept that reality contains objective as well as subjective facts. The subjective facts, however, can be treated as objective according to the systems view conception of reality and be described as systemic.

Conception of science, or, How Do We Look at Business as a Science? Business-as-a-science is a representation of business reality, either in models or in interpretations. The terminology developed within the framework of the systems view (which is plentiful by now) is related to various systems pictures. These pictures cannot be treated in terms of “other things being equal”, and they are mainly assessed in relation to their users and to the consequences they have when explaining, understanding and adding value to the purposefulness of different systems, and/or parts of these, to the members of corresponding real systems (pragmatics).

Scientific ideals, or, What Do We Want From Business as a Science? Eventually, Business is to provide better and better pictures of systems in business reality. This takes place as formulated producer–product relations. These relationships are strengthened as we,

reach better explanations and understandings of how various types of systems behave under different internal and external circumstances. The types that a creator of knowledge is studying change as we reach ever better systems knowledge. develop new concepts that better cover what happens in the systems world.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Ethical and aesthetical aspects, or, What Can and Should Business Creators Do, and What Attitude Should They Take Toward What Is Done? Systems creators of knowledge believe that the ethical and aesthetical consequences of the knowledge we gain through the systems view are increasingly emphasized as we consider the relationships between companies and their surroundings in the form of employees, consumers, environment, technology and energy. This is in keeping with the belief in increasingly interdependent relationships in the world, not only among different parts of the company but also between the company and its surroundings. Aesthetically, the systems view wants to provide holistic descriptions which, as illustratively and knowledge-creatively as possible, provide overviews and facilitate practical action at the same time as these descriptions can inspire other researchers/consultants/investigators as analogies.

EXAMPLES OF FORMULATION OF THEORETICAL RESULTS

Let us show a few examples of how theoretical results are formulated in the systems view. Again (as for the analytical view), we want to point out that these results are presented only to offer a perception of the type of theoretical results that emerge from using the systems view, how they are usually formulated and at what level of generality they can be kept. The examples are therefore not meant to be either important or comprehensive. General systems theories tend to be both abstract and general, as shown by the examples that

follow:

Different environments give different systems. How well they succeed depends on their structure. The systems structure is conditioned by history and can become an obstacle to future development. Demand for variety in a system is conditioned by the variety in the environment. If open systems are not provided with input from the environment, they will die. Mechanistic systems structures tend to prevent entrepreneurship while organic structures seem to facilitate it. What is the best system should most often be judged by what it leads to for its environment.

As we have seen quite a few examples of in this chapter, modern systems theories are usually of a more specific type.

The systems view is, in a sense, broad as well as having a focus and an orientation. It has spread into a number of different applications in business, in fact, too many to summarize or classify in any meaningful way. Therefore, in this chapter, we have tried to illustrate some of these applications by using those which we see as more typical than others. In doing so, we have made a distinction between explaining reality in (representative) models

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

and understanding reality in (representative) interpretations. However, we believe that there is a central nucleus in the systems view. All its applications emanate from the same philosophical roots, there is a reasonably common systems language and the relation of the systems view to its paradigm is quite clear. This has also been presented in this chapter.

POINTS OF REFLECTION

1. The systems view talks about being holistic and structural in it orientation. Explain what this means to your fellow students.

2. Why is there an unlimited number of possible pictures of a real system? 3. In the chapter you could read about both the understand/interpret and explain/models.

These are two very important concepts in the systems view, concepts which you are not allowed to use among the set of concepts in the next point of reflection, but what do these two conceptual constellations mean?

4. When interviewed for a position you are asked to come up with six important systems concepts and describe what they stand for. Which ones would you choose? And what would your descriptions look like?

5. Why is there, in principle, a definite limit to perfectly predict the future course of action of a system?

6. Think about and describe a cause/effect relation consisting of a main cause and at least two contributing causes. Repeat the description in finality terms using producers and products. Differences?

7. Come up with a metaphor for the place where you work or study or for any situation with which you are very familiar. What does this metaphor say over and above a description based only on a model of this situation, where the model is based only on an attempt to depict as truly as possible what is going on?

8. Suppose you characterize one business firm in terms of “summer” and another one in terms of “winter”. What do these metaphors tell you about the firms in more practical terms?

9. What would your story look like if somebody asked you to present the relation of the systems view to its paradigm?

10. In the chapter we talk about five principles. What are they? What do the principles say to a person who wants to use the systems view?

11. In Chapter 2 you can find a heading “The importance of the perspective”. If you reflect on the essence of that heading and relate this to the perspectives of Structural and Processual in this chapter, how could you describe that reflection in terms of its characteristics (structure) and/or in terms of its flow (process)?

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed