3 Introduction to the System Approach · 3 Introduction to the System Approach 3.1 Introduction Since Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s publication of his article ‘General system theory’

http://www.vssd.nl/hlf/b001.htm 49

3 Introduction to the SystemApproach

3.1 Introduction

Since Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s publication of his article ‘General system theory’ in1956 the term ’system‘ has remained with us in the technical and natural sciences.Later other sciences such as the social sciences and the organisational sciences alsolearned the value of the system-based approach. In the first place the term systempoints to the way in which man endeavours to form a concept of his external reality.This matter will be returned to when, in Section 3.2.1, we deal with the question ofwhat should be seen as falling under the concept ‘system’.System thinking or, thinking in terms of systems, may furthermore be seen as aproblem methodology approach. In historical terms such methodology was necessarybecause the particularisation of societal production' went hand in hand with anincreasing tendency to compartmentalise knowledge. People such as Michelangelo(1475-1564) and Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) were examples of universallyformed savants who knew everything that there was to know about the world in theirday. After the 16th century, knowledge of the world increased so rapidly that scientistsbecame forced to limit themselves to sub areas of knowledge. People began tospecialise and that was how disciplines such as the natural sciences, medical scienceand law developed. Simultaneously the complexity of technical systems, developedwithin what was later to be known as the technical sciences, greatly increased. At thebeginning of the 20th century, only two disciplines were distinguishable within theengineering sciences: civil engineering and mechanical engineering. By the end of the20th century it was virtually impossible to conceive of a technical system that hadstemmed from merely one discipline. When it came to the matter of resolvingproblems that , too, had consequences as will clearly emerge from the followingexamples.

1 See Chapter 10 on ‘Basic Forms of Co-operation‘, Section 10.4, The external organisation.

http://www.vssd.nl/hlf/b001.htm

50 Fundamentals of business engineering and management

Example 3.1The owner of factory premises with a chemical plant wants to demolish the existingbuildings and build there a new factory. At first he thinks that he can do the job with hisown workforce until he finds out that demolition work embraces a number of specialistareas. For instance there are companies that are specialised in the removing of processtechnical installations while yet others are specialised in the pulling down of civil-technicalinstallations. Some other companies only know about how to dismantle electrotechnical(high power) installations. None of these three types of companies would pretend to knowanything about the other types of disciplines or, therefore, to feel responsible for them.That has to be understood. Whenever demolition activities are carried out in an incorrectway that can easily lead to situations which, from the point of view of safety andenvironmental control, would be unacceptable. A consultation bureau with enoughknowledge of all three demolition disciplines is needed to co-ordinate the variousdemolition activities. Such a bureau can then draw up a demolition plan and develop thedifferent specifications.Subsequently the owner is confronted with the fact that he has to purify the soil and forthat purpose soil purification plans have to be drawn up that must be approved by thegovernment and specifications have to be laid down. This demands a level of expertise thatdoes not exist within the companies involved in the demolition side of the project. Theservices of yet another company therefore have to be called in.In the end the demolition and the soil purification - all the preparatory work included - takesaround 2 years to complete. After 2 years the site is ready for the rebuilding, for the newfactory. The owner decides not to take responsibility for the building himself but rather tobring in a contractor. The problems he thus avoids coming up against will become clearlyapparent from example 3.2.

Example 3.2The director of a factory decides that a new kind of co-operation is to be introduced to hisfactory. The relevant plans will be integrated into new work contracts for the productionstaff who are in agreement with this. After 3 months he reviews the situation for the firsttime only to discover the following facts in the manufacturing department which has 53employeeso that sick leave has risen by 10%o that some employees feel that their legal position is threatened and so they are

thinking of starting up legal proceedingso that the work speed has dropped which means that the share of the direct processing

costs in the cost price has risen by 20%o that the once harmonious atmosphere on the work floor has made way for distrustThe director then issues the following orders:o the ARBO (Labour Law) service must carry out investigations to see if the production

workers have been exposed to dangerous substanceso the Personnel department must research the legality of the labour contracts issued to

the production staffo the Cost Calculations department must carry out an investigation to see how efficient

the work methods adopted areo the Company Social Worker department must investigate the social relations within the

manufacturing department.

3. Introduction to the system approach 51

The four departments set to work on their tasks. In each case the main concern is theinterests of the 53 production employees in the production department. The results of theirstudies were as follows:*No harmful substances could be found in the production department so the health of thestaff is not at riskThe labour contracts were signed by the employees and are therefore legal.The new working methods are efficient and appropriate and the advice is that they shouldcontinue producing in the same way.*The Company Social Worker department concluded that there is no longer anycommunication between the directors and the production staff. The recommendation isthat it should be compulsory for the production staff to follow a course in internalcommunication.The directorate decides that these recommendations should be followed and in responsethe entire production department goes out on strike.

Example 3.3The director of a nursing care centre deduces that the office personnel is unhappy abouttheir office accommodation and so decides that a complete renovation should take place.He therefore invites a mason, an electrotechnical fitter, a carpenter, a painter and aplumber to come along and discuss the matter. When the plans are studied what emergesis that when drawing up their plans none of these craftsmen have taken into considerationall the other disciplines. When questioned about this they admit to not being able to do thatbecause they know nothing about the other work areas. At that point the director decidesthat it is time to get in touch with a contractor who will be able to gear the various plans toeach other.

What is to be learnt from all these examples? Without having exactly defined whatprecisely we mean by a system it is clearly evident that in all three examples that iswhat is being discussed.In Example 3.2 it seems as though everyone is looking at the same system: theproduction department. As far as the department is concerned, it is apparently the 53employees that is important. Those employees have a certain relationship with eachother. Their functioning may be described in terms of economic relations, legalrelations, social-psychological relations, and so on. Each of the departments enlistedby the directorate admittedly looks at the same people but only at one aspect of theway in which they influence each other.In Example 3.3 everyone apparently looks at another system, namely their ownsystem. The plumber‘s system looks very different from that of the electrotechnicalfitter. The former thinks in terms of heating elements and how they must be linked upto each other and to the central heating boiler. The electrotechnical man thinks interms of switches, light fixtures and wall sockets and how all of those things can belinked up to the metre cupboard.In Example 3.1 the demolition of the structures first seems to have to do with the samething but the various specialists are in actual fact each considering different relatedmatters, just as in Example 3.3.


After this brief introduction we would just like to look at several definitions of theconcept ‘system’ as it is understood by various more or less authoritative sources. Afirst point of reference is Webster‘s New Encyclopaedic Dictionary, which definesSystem thus:

1 a (1) group of objects or units so combined as to form a whole and work,function, or move independently and harmoniously (a rail-road system)(steam heating systems) (a park system)

(2) a set of simultaneous equations or inequalitiesb (1) a body that functions as a whole (a system weakened by disease)

(2) a group of bodily organs that together carry on one or more vital functions(the nervous system)

c a particular form of societal organisation (the capitalist system)d a major division of rocks, usually greater than a series

2 a an organised set of doctrines or principles usually designed to explain theordering and functioning of some whole

b a method of classifying, symbolising, or schematising (a decimal system ofnumbers) (taxonomic systems)

3 harmonious arrangement or pattern.

Our second point of reference is found in the ‘Web Dictionary of Cybernetics andSystems’, which combines the explanatory word list provided by the AmericanSociety for Cybernetics in its ‘A Dictionary of Cybernetics’ by Klaus Krippendorffand the explanatory word list of Bernd Hornung of the Institut Für MedizinischeInformatik of the Philipps Universität Marburg in Germany.1) a set of variables selected by an observer (Ashby, 1960)2) Usually three distinctions are made:

An observed object.A perception of an observed object. This will be different for different observers.A model or representation of a perceived object. A single observer can constructmore than one model or representation of a single object.Some people assume that 1 and 2 are the same. This assumption can lead todifficulties in communication. Usually the term “system” is used to refer to either1 or 2. “Model” usually refers to 3. Ashby used the terms “machine”, “system”and “model” in that order for the three distinctions. (Umpleby)

3) a set or arrangements of entities related or connected so as to form a unity ororganic whole. (Iberall)

4) Any definable set of components. (Maturana and Varela, 1979)

Any portion of the material universe which we choose to separate in thought from therest of the universe for the purpose of considering and discussing the various changeswhich may occur within it under various conditions is called a system (J.W. Gibbs,from his biography by Muriel Rukeyser, page 445).


(1) A set of variables selected by an observer (Ashby) together with the constraintsacross variables he either discovers, hypothesises or prefers. Inasmuch as the variablesof a system may represent (see representation) the components of a complex machine,an organism or a social institution and a constraint is the logical complement of arelation, an equivalent definition of system is that (2) it represents a set of componentstogether with the relations connecting them to form a whole unity. Unlike in generalsystems theory, in cybernetics, a system is an observer‘s construct. It describes,simulates or predicts a portion of his environment and it may be regarded as a modelof that portion (see reconstructability). The model and the modelled “world” share thesame organisation but because of their different material realisations they are likely todiffer in structure. Cybernetics starts with investigating all possible systems and theninquires why certain systems are not materially realised, or it asks why certainconceivable behaviours are not followed. Systems neither exist independently of anobserver nor imply a purpose (Krippendorff).

Following this introduction we shall now also introduce several definitions of systemconcepts that will be further referred to in this book.

3.2 What is to be understood as constituting a ’system‘

3.2.1 System

Already from the examples given but also from the Webster’s New EncyclopaedicDictionary definitions and the ‘Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and Systems’ is hasbecome evident that what is probably most characteristic about a system is theelements from which it is built up. The term ‘built up’ would indicate that aconstruction is somehow artificial and that is what we mean here. What is involvedhere is a mental construct. An observer forms an image of something in reality towhich he has directed his consciousness. That image is constructed with the help ofhis Real Life System (RLS)2. In view of the fact that every individual has a uniqueRLS the image that an observer forms of reality should also be viewed as unique.Where human perception is discussed in this book it is presumed that this involvesimages of reality which have the character of a whole range of elements related toeach other.From what has been stated above it emerges that there is still one more essentialcharacteristic of a system which is that the elements form a cohesive whole, in otherwords, that there are relations between the components.

A system is also understood to be a whole composed of elements that are related toeach other. That cohesion will emerge from the fact that the elements are linked

2 See for Real Life System:

Chapter 10 on ‘Basic Forms of Co-operation’, Section 10.3.3 Several facets of the view of mankindthat are important for co-operation. Chapter 12 ‘A Fundamental Model for the Problem Approach’,Section 12.4 Thinking as a process.


together by their relations. Briefly defined, one might say that a system is acollection of elements in their entirety and the relations between them.

A perceived image therefore has the character of a system.

Figure 3.1 Image forming.

Observing is therefore viewed here as mental activity that generally continues at asubconscious level. Whenever there is evidence of a problem that needs to be tackledthe thinking of the observer will take on a more conscious character. That will, forinstance, be expressed in the choice between the elements he sees as suitable forbuilding up his system. The precise elements selected will depend on the goal set bythe researcher. In example 2 of the last section the researchers chose a system (theproduction department), comprising as its elements the 53 employees. It would havebeen possible to make a different choice, one could have chosen the 53 employees andthe production machines with which those employees conduct their work. That would,for instance, have been useful if the researcher had had the impression that theergonomic circumstances might form a relevant aspect of the problem to beresearched. What was furthermore striking was the fact that the director was not seenas an element of the system so that the relationship between the director and the 53employees was not considered. It might well be that it was because of that that theproblem had become impossible to resolve for the researcher in question.In the case of the production department, some readers might well prefer to talk of a‘model’ rather than of a ‘system’. A model implies a simplification of reality, whichmay subsequently be used to further research the phenomenon in the external reality inwhich one is interested. As far as we are concerned, there is no fundamental differencebetween a model and a system. The main difference actually lies in whether or not it isconsciously applied. If there is evidence of a conscious, explicit simplification ofreality then we generally term this a model. Indeed, we have in the meantime learnedto see that even a perceived image is not a faithful copy of reality but rather a distortedprojection of that in our minds even though, usually, the observer will not be so awareof this.

What one may now question is: how is the existence of relations between the variouselements actually revealed? What should be mentioned is that the elements of asystem are characterised by certain features. Those features may be physical,geometrical, aesthetic, social-psychological or economic, to name but a few possibili-


ties. If a relationship exists between one or more elements then that means that if thecharacteristics of those elements change then the elements of that other element (orthose other elements) will similarly change.In Figure 3.1 a system was symbolised as follows:

Figure 3.2 Symbolisation of the concept ‘system’.

The balls represent the elements, what the observer or researcher at that momentviews as the smallest parts. The connections indicated point to the relations betweenthe elements. Furthermore, a certain inner ´ outer polarity is suggested and a systemboundary.

The environment of the system can include elements which, for whatever reason,cannot be viewed as part of the system but which do influence elements seen asbelonging to the system (and thus the system under consideration as a whole).(NB: In the interests of clarity those elements from the environment have not beenindicated in Figure 3.2). In such cases we refer to this as being an open system.

In reality, everything is influenced by everything else and so no single phenomenonstands on its own. A nice example of this is the little sparrow which - somewhere inthe world - spreads its wings and flies, thus creating a minor degree of air turbulencewhich, through a long chain of cause and effect relations and undammed oscillationsultimately leads to a storm somewhere else in the world. Actually contemplating sucha reality, in which everything has to do with everything, is - because of its incrediblecomplexity - not something that is significant. As observers or researchers wetherefore reduce that reality and separate in our minds parts of that reality from therest. Sometimes we will want to emphatically remind ourselves (and others) that therereally is an interaction between the part of reality isolated by us and the rest. In thesystem approach this is termed an open system.


Sometimes, though, we will conclude that the interplay between that distinguishedsystem and its environment is so minimal in relation to the other interaction takingplace within the system boundaries that we may consider the system’senvironment to be empty as far as the system being contemplated is concerned. Insuch cases this is termed a closed system.

With the system-based approach there are two other concepts that are frequently used,we often talk of the content of a system and the structure of a system.

With the content of the system what is understood is the complete collection of allthe elements without the interrelations of these elements being taken intoconsideration.

The structure of a system thus consists of the pattern of these relations or, the wayin which these elements are related to each other.

3.2.2 Subsystem

The considering of the inner ´ outer polarity of a system, as a result of Figure 3.2,leads us to the introduction of the subsystem concept.

A subsystem is seen as a partial collection of the elements of the system in whichall the original relations between these elements remain unaltered.

A system is sketched in Figure 3.3. In Figure 3.4 a subsystem is distinguished withinthat entire system.

Figure 3.3 System: the elementsand relations in between.

Figure 3.4 The symbolisation of asubsysteem.

This does not look like a very useful interpretation of the subsystem concept.Admittedly the elements to which the researcher has devoted his attention are clearly


differentiated from the remaining elements but the entire pattern of relations has notyet renounced anything in terms of complexity. Figure 3.5 gives a more workableapproach from the point of view of complexity reduction and therefore alsomanageability. Here the subsystem forms an element for the rest of the system.

Figure 3.5 The subsystem interpretation used in this book.

The many relations between the elements of the subsystem and the elements of theenvironment of the subsystem are now replaced by relations between the elements inthe subsystem’s environment and the subsystem as a whole. For the environment, thesubsystem functions as an element. The researcher can now, in the first place, limithimself to an internal study of the subsystem itself, unhindered by a complex networkof relations between elements within the (sub)system and outside the (sub)system. Ineffect, he is then contemplating the subsystem as a closed system. In the second place,he is able to include the interaction between the subsystem and its environment in hisconsiderations. The subsystem will then still be regarded as an open (sub)system.

3.2.3 Aspect systems

In Figure 3.2 the relations between the elements are indicated by means of a simpleline. In effect, that line points to the number of relations between those elements. InFigure 3.6 the different sorts of relations are made more explicit.What is apparent from this example is that it has to do with an image of a phenomenonin which the technical, economic and social-psychological aspects are the mostobvious points. Other aspects have not been considered. The relations considered arenot independent of each other. If, somewhere in the system, one begins turning an‘economic knob’ it will generally be the case that the technical features and the social-psychological features of the elements will thereby change.


Figure 3.6 The same system as in Figure 3.2 but now with an explicit indicationof the most important relations in this example.

Example 3.4.Up until recently it was customary to sail a certain type of sea-going vessel with 10 head ofcrew. The shipping company concerned decided that a 5% cut needed to be made inoperational costs and so it was decided that a new ship should be designed and built thatcould be sailed with a crew of 7. Once in use, it soon became clear that the necessarycrew could not be found. What actually emerged was that sailing with a crew of 7 led tosocial isolation among crew members. That meant that the quality of the work haddiminished to such a degree that it was no longer possible to find people to do the work.

Basically there is nothing wrong with examining the various aspects in isolation ofeach other in the first place. That is something which, for instance, frequently occurswith what is known as the multi-disciplinary problem approach. In the case of theexample given in Figure 3.6 technical, economic and social-psychological studies willalso be carried out independently of each other. The situation is sketched in Figure3.7.Virtually imperceptibly a new concept has now been introduced, namely that of theaspect system.

An aspect system is understood to be a partial collection of the system relations inwhich all the elements remain unchanged and preserved.

It should be clear that on the whole it is not wise to go ahead and take action on thebasis of three mono-disciplinary problem analyses carried out independently of each


other without having put together the partial problem analyses to form one integralproblem analysis. That was something that was already made clear in Example 1,there too was evidence of three aspect systems: a civil engineering aspect, a process-technical aspect and an electrotechnical aspect. If, for example, the civil engineeringdemolition company had started knocking down the building before the high voltagesystem has been correctly disconnected that would have led to extreme safety risks.

Figure 3.7 The multi-aspect system divided into three single independent aspectsystems.

How, then, should things be done? Figure 3.8 demonstrates how. There the variousaspect systems have been connected together by means of what are termedinterrelations. Those interrelations should at least serve as reminders of the fact thatthe basic point of departure was a multi-aspect system. No generally applicable replycan be given to the question of how the interrelations must be maintained if anintegrated problem analysis is to be completed and later an integrated solution is to befound. That is something that has to be decided from case to case and in consultationwith all participants.The concept interrelation may now be defined as follows.Interrelations are seen as the relations between the different aspect systemsdistinguishable within the original system.The system presented in Figure 3.8 is therefore intended to be equivalent to theoriginal multi-aspect system given in Figure 3.6.


Figure 3.8 Integration of separated aspect systems into an integral system.

Finally, in Figure 3.9, the essential points of the concepts subsystem and aspectsystem are presented in one last alternative way.

Figure 3.9 Subsystem and aspect system.

What the figure also makes immediately apparent is what is to be understood as a sub-aspect system.

3.2.4 Mono, Multi and Interdisciplinary traits

A mono-disciplinist is seen as someone with specialist knowledge in the area of asingle, mono-discipline, and no or virtually no knowledge of other mono-disciplines;not even basic knowledge of those areas. When such a person is confronted with a


phenomenon from external reality he will only be able to construe a mono-aspect viewof that phenomenon. Indeed, a person is only able to recognise what he already knows,that is to say, what has been stored in his Real Life System RLS. This is well summedup by the truism: “a way of seeing is a way of not seeing”. The mono-disciplinistknows nothing about other disciplines and so will not be capable of recognisingphenomena which ’belong‘ to other disciplines. The image which he creates of thatphenomenon is therefore a mono-aspect image. A typical example of such a mono-disciplinist is the traditional technologist who often knows nothing about and does notwant to know anything about economics, psychology and other disciplines. Example3.5, given at the start of this exposition, illustrates such a situation. That example alsomade it instantly clear that a mono-disciplinary approach to problems often bringswith it great risks. In practice the problems to be dealt with are often characterised bytheir large number of different but relevant aspects. Reality is in no way affected bythe way in which man has artifically compartmentalised all the available knowledgeabout reality into subject areas. When presenting his approach to the problem themono-disciplinist therefore identifies with his own mother discipline and, indeed, hasno alternative way of doing things.

With the increasing complexity of technical systems and the increase in the number ofrelevant aspects, ever more objections were gradually posed to mono-disciplinaryapproaches to design, implementation and application problems. That was when anapproach became fashionable which was to become known as the multi-disciplinaryapproach.The essence of this approach is illustrated in Figure 3.10.

Figure 3.10 An example of a multi-disciplinary approach to a problem with morethan one relevant technical discipline.

Imagine that a project manager has arrived at the conclusion that the technicalproblem that has to be tackled is not a mono-disciplinary one but rather one thatextends to cover the five technical disciplines indicated in the diagram. He then goeson to compose a team consisting of 5 specialists from the relevant fields. Each of thesespecialists then goes on to do a problem analysis which primarily links up with hisown dicipline. The ‘team’s’ results will consist of five partial problem analyses which


do not link up with each other. The best that can be made of such a situation is to viewthe analyses as five partial analyses to be seen as aspect systems. In such cases each ofthe participants will have based his notions on the same elements. It is also verypossible that the analyses need to be viewed as sub-aspect systems. In such a caseeach of the participants will not only have identified with his own ‘mother discipline’but he will also have based his analysis on different elements drawn from the otherparticipants.It will then be very difficult to put five such partial problem analyses together to formone integrated problem analysis. The ‘team members’ will certainly not be capable ofdoing that. They will only know about their own specialist field and they will literallynot ‘speak each other’s language’.Imagine now that, some how or another, the ’team‘ has succeeded in achieving anintegrated problem analysis. It will then be necessary to find or design a solution.During that design process precisely the same problem will arise as that justencountered in conjunction with the emergence of the problem analysis.A multi-disciplinary approach can be successful but it demands integrative skills fromthe project manager, both in the problem definition phase and in the design phase. Weshall return to that in a moment.

In Figure 3.11 a multi-disciplinary approach is sketched in which not only technicaldisciplines turn out to be relevant but also where disciplines related to human andsocial sciences turn out to be crucial. What was problematic in the situation sketchedin Figure 3.10 will turn out to be much more problematic here.

Figure 3.11 An example of a multi-disciplinary approach to a problem in whichhuman and social sciences prove to be crucial.

The core of the interdisciplinary approach is illustrated in Figure 3.12.Now the problem resolver does not identify primarily with his own specialistdiscipline but rather with a problem!An essential prerequisite is that he has at his disposal knowledge of one or more otherscience aspects that are not linked to his own basic discipline. Without that knowledgehe will view the world as one-dimensional and he will be unable to identify with the


problem. The knowledge of the other disciplines must at least be basic knowledge andthrough that basic knowledge he will at least be aware of the relevant aspects of theproblem. Usually that basic knowledge will also enable him to make a problemanalysis of an integrated nature even though it might be a limited analysis.

Figure 3.12 An example of an interdisciplinary approach to a multi-aspectproblem.

Experienced interdisciplinary problem resolvers are also often able to come up withmulti-aspect solutions. Should the knowledge of the science aspects that do not belongto the mother discipline be insufficient to arrive at a solution then there is always thepossibility of calling in a specialist in the field.In practice, an interdisciplinary problem resolver will often have knowledge of two orthree other disciplines. With most modern complex problems there are often four ormore relevant aspects to be recognised. In an interdisciplinary team it is really easy todraw on five or more different disciplines.

Now we can conclude with the following definitions:

A multi-disciplinary problem-approach is seen as the approach of highlyspecialised mono-disciplinists, each of whom identifies with his own specialist(mother)discipline when accomplishing both a (partial) problem-analysis and a(partial) solution. Such an approach can only be successful if a project managerwith an interdisciplinary attitude is brought into action to integrate the partialproblem analyses into an overall analysis and to realise the integration of themono-disciplinary partial solutions into a (more or less) complete solution.

An interdisciplinary problem-approach is understood to be an approach adopted byproblem solvers with at least a basic knowledge of some mono-disciplines and atendency to identify with the problem rather than with their own specialist motherdiscipline or any other disciplines.


Such a tendency and the corresponding attitude can only be obtained in a learningprocess that may be characterised as personality development. While such processestake a lot of time, the interdisciplinary problem approach should, according to theDelft School of Management, be an essential subject in every academic educationalprogramme.

3.2.5 The injurious fallacy of misplaced concreteness (also labelled “theconcretistic pitfall”)

In Sections 3.2.1 to 3.2.3 it became clear that the general system approach is above allelse a WAY OF VIEWING matters. The words system and model allude to the mentalconstruct which, either consciously or not and explicitly or implicitly, one makes ofthat in the external reality on which one focuses attention or they allude to what onewishes to examine in the external reality.In practice it often emerges that in their research into external reality even scientificresearchers are not always conscious of the fact that their models have the character ofmental constructs. As a consequence, new observations that do not fit into the modelare often disqualified and seen as incorrect and are thus not considered. Peopleconfuse the models that they have created of reality with reality. Those who aretherefore insufficiently aware of the mental construction character of their models willgenerally have great trouble perceiving new phenomena. The same applies to the’simple observer‘ who, in his daily orientation, is not conscious that his observationsare in actual fact distorted, incomplete, reductionistic images of reality. Instead hemaintains that what is perceived is reality.What one is thus actually replicating is the empiricistic vision on “knowing and beingrelationships” once developed by Francis Bacon (1561-1626). What this relationship,which is schematically represented in Figure 3.13, amounts to is the conviction thatthere is a one-to-one relationship between reality and the images that people form ofreality in their observations. Indeed, it is not an automatic process but rather one thatrequires much effort. However, if you take the trouble to do that you will ultimately,as a researcher and as society, be rewarded with what amounts to complete andthoroughly reliable knowledge of reality.

Figure 3.13 Knowing and being relationships according to the empirical view.

In turn, on the basis of that complete knowledge you will be able to convert thatreality with 100% certainty into the desired reality.It was the empirical vision which led to the utopia of a society that could be createdand which, until well into the 20th century, constituted the driving force for manypeople in their scientific and political dealings.


Opposed to the empiricistic opinion was the view of Emanuel Kant (1724-1804)whose schematic stance is represented in Figure 3.14.

Figure 3.14 Knowing and being relationships according to the view of Kant.

Put in modern terms, Kant’s view really amounts to the following:The human perception system is ‘bombarded’ by physical-chemical stimuli derivedfrom external reality summarised in what Kant termed ‘das Ding an Sich’ (i.e. ’thething in itself‘). Subsequently the perception system forms an image (object) of whichthe individual (the subject) becomes aware. What is crucial to this view is the notionthat man does not possess the means to verify with 100% certainty the authenticity ofthe images formed in relation to reality.It is thus on the grounds of the inherent certainty attached that the empiricistic viewhas always appealed greatly to practitioners of the technical and natural sciences. Inusing mathematics and the accompanying dominant mental reasoning form known asdeduction, it then becomes easy to become convinced of the truth that in practisingwhat are known as the b sciences3 one will be led to statements about reality that areirrevocably true.By contrast, Kant managed to convince us that such certainty is nothing more than asemblance of certainty. The empiricistic view can easily lead to untrue claims aboutreality, claims which moreover hold back progress in the knowledge-accumulatingprocess. Apart from anything else, those who are convinced about the truth of theirown view of the nature of reality will not be easily motivated to adopt new points ofview and to gain new insights. For practitioners of science where the empirical view isadhered to, knowledge actually has the character of being prejudiced against reality.A successful researcher must therefore be able or, better still, inclined to perpetuallyquestion his own knowledge and viewpoints and to continually ask himself thequestion: might it perhaps be somewhat different from the way I have alwaysobserved and presumed it to be? A necessary prerequisite for such a scientific attitudeis the capacity to be able to at all times cope with uncertainty.

There is an extra complication to be added to this process which is this: when gainingknowledge of reality every person makes use of the knowledge that he or she already

3 The term ‘b–sciences’ refers to the gap between the natural and technical sciences (called the‘b–sciences’) and the human sciences and arts (called the ‘a–sciences’). This gap was mentionedby C.P. Snow (1905-1980) in his book “The two cultures and the scientific revolution”, 1959.


possesses. To put it in a nutshell, knowing amounts to recognising or, to put itdifferently: people are only able to assimilate new knowledge if that new knowledgecontains enough familiar elements to be able to recognise what is observed. (See also,in this connection, the chapter ‘Basic Forms of Co-operation’, Section 10.3). Whenacquiring new knowledge it is therefore very important for one to be able to detachoneself from one’s existing body of knowledge.

A third complicating factor when it comes to acquiring new knowledge resides in theway in which people use language. When verbalising our insights into reality we areused to formulating such views by using statements, in other words, claims made inlanguage which encompass judgements. The fundamental structure of such statementsis: subject is predicate. The subject is the element containing the value judgementwhile the content of the assertion lies in the predicate. The word ‘is’ amounts to apermutation of the verb ‘be’. Take, for instance, the statement: ‘Hans is Dutch’. In thatsentence ‘Hans’ is the individual about whom something is said while the content ofthe assertion gives information about one particular characteristic, namely hisnationality. By using the verb ‘be’ all other possible characteristics are leftunconsidered. It has to do with one and only one concrete characteristic and nothingmore than that.

The three-fold problem sketched above will now be summarised using the indicationspertaining to the concretistic pitfall introduced by Malotaux:As a rule, we are insufficiently aware of the fact that� what we conceive as being knowledge of concrete reality in fact has the character

of something that amounts to an image of reality that is tinged with deformity andis reductionistic;

� the images that we form of reality are coloured and determined by our priorknowledge of reality;

� through our linguistic expressions we often restrict ourselves to one possible viewof reality, thus excluding all other possible views.

In the endeavour to surmount all the difficulties so far outlined the system-basedapproach can be of help. Those who are thoroughly convinced of the fact that� when observing and forming more explicit models we in actual fact make use of

the system-based approach,� basically the system-based approach should be seen as a way of viewing matters,

and that through our linguistic utterances we often unnecessarily tie ourselves toone possible view of reality,

will generally find it easier to assimilate new knowledge and new insights relating toreality.Those who have become fully conversant with this way of viewing the world willhave become accustomed to formulating things differently, to saying for instance:“Hans may be viewed as being Dutch” and to thus leaving space for other views; forconceiving of Hans’ other roles, e.g.: Hans as a manager, Hans as a tax-payer, Hans asa husband, Hans as the head of the family, etc.


3.2.6 Causal and final systems

Every interaction between a person and his environment is founded on the basis of themodels which that person has of his environment. In the chapters ‘Basic Forms of Co-operation’ and ‘A fundamental Model for Problem Approaching’ the importance ofthat will be discussed, in connection with the effectiveness of such interaction, and thedifferentiation between objects and subjects in external reality.

An object is seen as a causal model of a phenomenon in external reality.A subject is seen as a goal-aspiring system, thus a final model of a phenomenon inexternal reality. A subject is characterised, apart from anything else, by itspossessing of a certain degree of autonomy and freedom, that is to say, a capacityto choose between alternatives.

With causal models the phenomena are described by means of cause and effectrelations. It is possible, with the help of a good causal model, to make true statementsabout the behaviour of the phenomenon in reality according to the state of theenvironment. The main criterion is truth, the main reasoning form that of deduction.Deduction may be viewed as a logically correct way of reasoning. What it means isthat when going on true premises the reasoning will lead to indisputably truepredictions about the behaviour that can be expected of the system.

Figure 3.15 The forming of a causal model.

We talk of there being finality if there is a certain directedness towards the goal to berealised in the future. With final models one is involved with goal-means relations4.With the aid of the final model one looks for the way in which a minimum number ofsacrifices can lead to the established goal. The criteria are therefore effectiveness andefficiency and the main form of reasoning that of abduction. According to the rules ofreasoning of formal logic the process of reasoning from a goal to a means is anincorrect way of reasoning which will not lead to an indisputable and unequivocalresult.

A researcher should be perpetually aware of the discrepancy between causal and finalsystems and he should ask himself when researching: should the behaviour of the

4 Sometimes reference is made to voluntary systems (a system that ‘wants’ to do something) and to

the use of ‘intentional logic’.


phenomenon that is to be researched be described with the help of a causal model orwith a final model?In the history of mankind it is the final style of thinking that has played a prominentrole. In effect, all mythology can be regarded as an endeavour to explain naturaloccurrences in finalistic terms. Final characteristics were ascribed to material mattersby contemplating such things as goal-aspiring systems. This was a view that wasupheld until into the 17th century. Remnants of such ways of thinking are still to bedetected in the natural sciences today. For instance, one of the gas laws is formulatedthus: “a gas endeavours to achieve an as large as possible volume” so, in effect,ascribing to the material in question a kind of intelligence that it does not possess. Wehave by now become generally convinced of the fact that a gas cannot be viewed as agoal-seeking system but that it is rather more meaningful to view it as a causal system.Nowadays we regard such formulations of natural scientific laws as metaphors.

Fig.3.16 The forming of a final model.

When using technical means we therefore make use of causal models. Sometimes it isuseful to describe the behaviour of people in terms of causal models. When operatingon a patient who is under anaesthetic a surgeon will therefore be most likely to be ledby causal considerations. Nowadays, though, when deciding beforehand on theoperation and treatment plan the same surgeon will usually be inclined to involve thepatient in his decision-making process, thus regarding the patient as a goal-aspiringsystem.

3.3 What is to be understood as a ’process‘

3.3.1 Static and dynamic systems

The adjusting of a technical system so that it becomes a way of contributing to therealisation of a goal may be systematically represented, as in Figure 3.17.The behaviour of the technical system can be described in terms of causal relations.The attuning has the character of something final. There is an intelligence, a goal-directed system that has formulated an objective and which has in view a means whichis to be deployed in order to realise that goal. If a system contributes to a greaterwhole then that is termed a function fulfilled by the system in its environment. Thecontribution to such a greater whole may be made either by means of a static systemor by means of a dynamic system. Before we can explain the difference between a


static and a dynamic system we must first say something about the terms ‘state’,‘occurrence’ and ‘activity’.

Figure 3.17 A technological construction as the means.

When introducing the concept ‘relation’ we remarked that elements havecharacteristics which may generally be expressed in terms of a value. With somecharacteristics the values cannot be placed in a sequence. If one considers, forexample, a person’s gender then the results can be placed on a two-point scale theoutcomes being ‘male’ and ‘female’. That scale has no recognisable hierarchy. It istermed a nominal scale. With certain characteristics it is possible to arrange values in aparticular order, one such example being with the temperature of a body. Atemperature of 15 °C is higher than a temperature of 7 1

2 ∞C. There is therefore a moreor less randomly selected nought level. Such scales are known as interval scales.When one talks of a ratio scale one means one in which there is a natural zero levelwhich thus makes it useful to carry out calculations such as multiplying and dividing.An example of this is to be found in the weight scale. A man weighing 75 kg is notonly 25 kg heavier than a man of 50 kg but he is also 1 1

2 times that other man’sweight.

The characteristics of elements may thus be generally expressed in terms of values. Ifan element does not have a certain value then we can term the value of thecharacteristic = 0.

What we may therefore now see as the state of a system may be, the summing upof all the values of the characteristics of a system at the time of consideration.

If the value of the characteristic of an element of the system changes then the stateof the system will change and that is when one talks of an occurrence.

If an occurrence leads to another occurrence then we call this an activity.


If one occurrence does not lead to another occurrence then it will be concluded thatthere is no relation between the elements in question.

If, during a given period of consideration, nothing happens within a system thenwe refer to this as a static system.If there are occurrences within the period under consideration then we term it adynamic system.

Within the world of engineering science there has always been one kind of dynamicsystem that has been of central interest. We are thinking here of systems which, inorder to fulfil their function, draw upon temporary elements in their environment andthen go on to transform those elements into what is seen by the environment as usefuloutput. These transformations are effected by means of permanent elements. The termused to denote systems of this sort is process. In a process it is possible to distinguishbetween input, throughput and output. What constitutes the input is the temporaryelements emerging from the environment for transformation. The output derives fromthe temporary elements offered to the environment that represent the function of thedynamic final system. The actual transformation takes place during the throughputstage.

3.3.2 The process approach

It is now time to define the concept process.

A process is seen as a series of transformations taking place during the throughputstage leading to the changing of the input element in terms of place, state, form,dimensions, orientation, function, purpose, features and other characteristics.

If the technical system illustrated in Figure 3.17 has the character of a process then theattuning of the process to the envisaged goal can be visualised as in Figure 3.18.A goal-directed system formulates an objective that is to be realised.

Figure 3.18 A technical process as the means.


A goal is seen as a situation found in external reality that is aimed towards.

On the whole, that state will have a multi-aspect character which means to say that indescribing that state it will not be sufficient to only abide by natural scientificcharacteristics; often social-psychological, economic, legal and other aspects will turnout to be relevant as well.The source of the desire to realise the external reality state aimed at is what we call a‘need’. After the goal has been established a technological construction will be soughtthat instigates a change in reality that is formulated in technical or natural scientificterms in such a way that the goal can actually been achieved. The agreement will berevealed in the choice of physical output of the technological construction and in therequired technological construction. The choice is designed to lead to the intendedgoal.In technical design theory, the working of a technological construction is oftendescribed in terms of the aspects of material, energy and information. The word‘aspect’ points here to one sort of temporary element of the dynamic system drawnfrom the environment. We shall link up with that tradition.Often it will be one of the aspects that stands out most. If that happens to be thematerial aspect, then such a technological construction can be represented in the waygiven in Figure 3.19.

Figure 3.19 The simplest representation of a process (based on the materialflow).

If it is the energetic aspect that is the most striking of the three then the relevanttechnological construction may be represented as illustrated in Figure 3.20.

Figure 3.20 The simplest representation of a process (based on the energyflow).

Finally, if it is the information aspect that is the most apparent of the three then themost simple way of denoting the accompanying technological organisation will be inthe way indicated in Figure 3.21.


In this book we are not primarily concerned with technical organising but rather withcompany processes. If the company processes are viewed as causal systems and if thetemporary elements that have to be transformed have a particularly material characterthen we will find that we are having to make frequent use of symbolism of the typegiven in Figure 3.19. That is, for instance, the case when it comes to analysingcompany processes in which the material flow through the business is what is central.

Figure 3.21 The simplest representation of a process (based on the informationflow).

With the designing of business processes things are somewhat different. Such aprocess is in fact primarily final in character. Also in processes where it is not only thenatural scientific or technical process but also the input of the social-psychological,economic, legal etc. process that needs to be included in the considerations thesymbolism of Figure 3.19 will be less apt. In this book it will often be the process assymbolised in Figure 3.22 that will be drawn upon.

Figure 3.22 The simplest representation of a final or multi-aspect process.

What is valid here is t2 > t1. The spiral line represents the transformation process bywhich means multi-aspect input is somehow transformed into multi-aspect output.Figure 3.23 is equivalent to Figure 3.22, the only difference being that in Figure 3.23the multi-character aspect of the temporary elements is emphasised.In Figure 3.24 a schematic indication is given of the support given to the primaryprocess by the supporting process. The denotation ‘primary process’ refers to theprocess where the real value-adding takes place.


Figure 3.23 Representation of a multi-aspect process, the emphasis being onthe multi-aspect character of the temporary elements.

Figure 3.24 Representation of a process and the contribution made to it by asupporting process.

Figure 3.25 Representation of the learning process passed through by a readerof this book. The reader is seen as a temporary element.


The final process is represented as a kind of pipeline. In that way the flow-throughdirection of the temporary elements that have been concealed from the environment isindicated. One imagines that the pipelines have semi-permeable walls. That makes asupporting contribution, originating from an auxiliary process and seen in the diagramas hanging above the main flow and feeding into the primary process, possible.In Figure 3.25 an application is given for the visualisation method depicted in Figure3.24.At a point in time given as t = t1 you will have a value known as Value1 on the labourmarket. After having studied this book you will have passed through a learningprocess whereby your market value will have been raised to Value2. When progress-ing through the learning process you will, provided that the studying of this bookconstitutes part of a course, receive support from a lecturer. The process ofcontemplation is therefore one in which you yourself undergo a transformation. Thetemporary elements are thereby formed by you, yourself.The process may also be described from a different viewpoint, as is illustrated inFigure 3.26.

Figure 3.26 Other representations of the learning process that a reader of thisbook passes through. The reader of the book is seen as a permanent element.

Here you yourself become, as it were, the totality of permanent elements. Thetemporary elements extracted from the environment derive from problems and fromthe knowledge elements required for the solution. For you, the learning party, thoseproblems constitute the necessary elements for the learning process to be able to takeplace. People tend not so much to think in abstractions as in concrete conceptions. Inorder to learn one thus requires concrete examples (problems). As the learning processproceeds in one‘s mind the temporary elements are thus transformed into a capacityfor dealing with more complex problems. What Figures 3.25 and 3.26 also once againunderline is that the system approach has the character of a ‘way of seeing’.


3.3.3 Goal, function and task

If one is to think in terms of processes a good understanding of the difference betweentask and function is essential. Here, again, it is useful to distinguish between causaland goal-aspiring systems.The function concept with causal systems.With a (mono)causal system the output can often be described as y = f(x). There xrepresents the independent variable and y the dependent variable. The function findicates the link between input and output.

Figure 3.27 The function concept of a causal system.

In the case of more complex technical systems it will not at first be possible todescribe the functionality of the technological construction by means of a mathemati-cal algorithm. The function will then be indicated by means of a noun and verbcombination.Examples:a) oil refiningb) transporting peoplec) converting rotation-energyFigures 3.28a, b and c give the possible visualisations of such concepts.

Figure 3.28a The causal transformation of “oil refining”.

Figure 3.28b The causal transformation of “passenger transport”.

Figure 3.28c The causal transformation when ‘converting rotational energy’.

From the three examples given it is clear that� the technological construction is not indicated in terms of object representations

but in terms of what needs to be realised. In other words, the concrete filling in of


the technical function to be fulfilled in the form of an object has not yet takenplace. To put it another way: the technical function indicates WHAT needs to berealised but not HOW it should be realised.

� it is necessary to label explicitly the input, the output and the throughput.The output should be such that the goal can be realised. When discussing Figure 3.18we already established that the goal has the character of a situation to be aspired towhich may generally be described in multi-aspect terms (social-psychological,economic and so forth). Here it should be noted that with causal transformations thefunction points to the throughput.

What the following example illustrates is that the function shows WHAT ought to berealised and not IN WHAT WAY that can take place. The example given in Figure3.29 relates to a simple logical circuit design taken from digital electronics5 with twoNOR gates and one NAND gate

Figure 3.29 Simple example of logical functions in a combinatory circuit.

The logical functions are not indicated here in words but rather as standard symbols.This is therefore referred to as a symbolic model. In the model there has been no firmdecision-making on the way in which the functions can be fulfilled. They could, forinstance, be filled in with relays, diodes, bipolar transistors, MOS-FETs, and so on.

3.3.4 The function concept in the case of goal-aspiring systems

In the case of goal-aspiring systems the function concept is generally applied in asomewhat different way. That is schematically illustrated in Figure 3.30.The function now has an output character while the throughput may be bracketedtogether with the task to be executed.NB: the concept task is exclusively used in conjunction with human activity and not inconjunction with causal transformations induced by technical organising.With goal-aspiring systems there is no fundamental difference between the functionconcept and the concept ‘goal’. The function points to the contribution to a greaterwhole. One might say: with the function it is the subgoal that counts.

5 Electronic circuit design has become a permanent feature of modern technological systems. That is

why we presume that most readers will be familiar with the basics of that field.


Figure 3.30 The relationship between task and function.

We can now give the following definitions:

With a goal-aspiring system the function of an element (subject or entity6) is seenas that which is brought about by the element and which the greater whole needs tohave. In short, it is the desired contribution of a part to the greater whole of whichit is a part.

The task is understood to be that which must take place or which must be done inorder to realise that particular contribution so that the function can be fulfilled.

The foregoing differentiation between function and task also has an important part toplay in the creating of organisations.When creating or designing organisations the first thing that has to be considered iswhat the greater whole requires, in other words, the products or services for whichthere is a market demand. In a manner of speaking, one directs the organisation thatstill has to be designed towards the demands emanating from the environment. Onceone has thus mapped out the function or functions that have to be fulfilled one thenhas to decide how this function or these functions may be fulfilled. In other words, oneexamines the tasks that have to be completed if the established function or functionsare to be fulfilled. This is termed the implementing of the process. Once a decision hasbeen taken concerning the tasks that have to be carried out then it is finally time forthe process that has been implemented to be put into use. When designingorganisations it is therefore usually the following phases that have to be passedthrough:� the directing of the organisation that still has to be developed towards the needs

emanating from the environment� implementing the process by making decisions about the tasks and activities to be

executed� utilising the process that has been set up or organised.

6 See Chapter 10 on ‘Basic forms of co-operation’, Section 10.3.5.


3.4 The practical implementation of the system approach

3.4.1 Introduction

When carrying out a practical study of phenomena in external reality it would appearthat there are two possible ways of approaching the problems: from the point of viewof the elements and from the point of view of the whole. Both approaches will bediscussed in the following sections and, in so doing, the term ‘black box’ will be used.That term will therefore first be introduced.

3.4.2 The black box

If we view a system or sub-system as a black box then we will first of all (temporarily)not consider the internal elements and relations. A black box thus has the character ofan element. Alternatively, one might say: we shall only consider the system from anexternal viewpoint.In the engineering sciences it has been especially dynamic systems that havetraditionally drawn people‘s attention and which extract temporary elements from theenvironment and transform them into other elements which are then placed in theenvironment. A black box thus has the character of a process, with an input and anoutput component. If one is to get to know what is the function of that process onewill have to see which inputs lead to which outputs and so endeavour, through isolatedobservations and by means of a process of inductive reasoning, to arrive at generallyvalid claims concerning the system behaviour of the black box. This approach is notwholly without its risks. Much statistical research is based on the black box approach.Two phenomena are compared and an attempt is made to establish a correlation factor.If that factor is high enough then one will go on to proclaim that the researchedconnection constitutes a law. That can give rise to nonsensical utterances relating toreality. There is a well-known anecdote that tells of statistical research carried out inSweden where an endeavour was made to correlate the numbers of storks endemic to aparticular region with the number of births. The conclusion drawn from the study wastherefore that babies are indeed ‘brought by the stork’. Statistical research conductedwithout opening the black box in order to establish the causality between twophenomena can indeed lead to nonsensical conclusions.

It is not only researchers with an engineering background who feel attracted to theblack box approach. In the field of psychology a school of thought emerged around1920 that came to be known as ‘behaviourism’. Inspired by the Russian physiologist,Pavlov (1849-1936), the practitioners of the method viewed man as a black box andresearch was carried out to see how people reacted to certain stimuli. In so doing, theprinciple that the black box should not be opened and, indeed, could not be opened,was celebrated because the inner seclusion of the psyche was not thought to lend itselfto scientific research. This psychological school of thought has had great influence,right up onto the present day. It will suffice, in this context, to mention that B.F.Skinner (1904-1990) was a famous exponent of this school of thought. Socialpsychology, which has its roots in behaviourism, developed a number of mechanistic


motivation theories which still greatly influence relationships within industry and thetypes of styles of leadership which thrive there. Similarly, within psychotherapy,behavioural therapy – also traceable to behaviourism – forms an authoritative variant.

3.4.3 Two approaches to research

If one is to research a phenomenon or artefact then one can opt to work from theelements or one can approach the system as a whole.In approaching matters from the element side the system to be researched is brokendown into the elements. During this dismantling process one must meticulouslyregister the relations between the elements in order to later make the assembly processpossible. While taking things apart one researches the elements in the sense that oneendeavours to find the function of those elements in relation to all the other elements.Researching a system from the point of view of the elements is therefore often anextremely time-consuming process.

The dismantling method

Example 3.5.

Imagine that the owner of a motor cycle knows little about the mechanics of suchmachines. One day his motor cycle breaks down and so he has to completely take it apartto examine all the working parts. He decides to replace all the parts that look old and wornout in the hope that this will solve the problem. He will only be sure if this was a goodapproach when the whole motor cycle has been put back together again.

The system-based approach

When examining the system as a whole one will first endeavour to describe the systemin terms of several (main) elements and relations between those elements at higheraggregation level. The (main) elements are distinguished on the grounds of thefunctionality recognised in them. Such differentiations can only be made if there is areasonable amount of knowledge pertaining to the functioning of the system. Each(main) element is regarded as a black box that one does not open for the time being.

Example 3.6.

A driver is unable to start his car in the morning. Although he is no expert in car mechanicshe realises that the problem is to be sought somewhere under the bonnet. Really there aretwo subsystems that could be responsible for the starting problem (for the time being weshall call them black boxes): the electrical system and the fuel supply system. The analysisstarts by checking the output of the latter black box. First of all the ignition key is turned.The engine does not start up but from the flicking back and forth of the needles in themetres in the dashboard it can be concluded that the battery is producing some current. Itis also possible to hear that the petrol pump in the tank is working; it does not appear to bebroken. The owner then takes a look under the bonnet and pulls the fuel pipe out of theinjection point. Petrol spurts out of the pipe so the fuel supply system is also working. Thatblack box does not need to be opened. Attention is then diverted to the black box relatedto the electricity supply. When the ignition key is turned the starter is obviously doing itswork. Everything appears to be in order. After that one of the sparking plugs is removed


and held against an earthed source (the motor block). The sparking plug does not spark,thus proving that something is wrong in that subsystem. It is therefore time to open upthat black box and look further.

The problem approach adopted in Example 3.6 is typical of the system-basedapproach. Efforts are first made to gain a general impression of the situation from abird's eye view. At the same time, precisely which process configurations are to beregarded as elements is decided. Those elements then form the black boxes. It is thentime for the first analysis to be made. It is on the grounds of that analysis that it isdecided which black box is to be zoomed in on. In so zooming in the metaphorical lidof the black box will be lifted so that the subsystem contained within will be revealedin greater detail. Once again, it is necessary to decide which elements of thatsubsystem are relevant. Further analysis takes place and, once again, the element to behomed in on is selected, and so it continues.Generally speaking, such systematic-analytical approaches will lead more quickly andmore effectively to insight into the problem and to a solution than to the dismantlingmethod adopted in example 1. One should, however, have sufficient prior knowledgeabout the phenomenon or artefact to be researched. If that is lacking then one is(temporarily at least) reduced to putting up with the dismantling method.

Zooming in and out

The terms zooming in and zooming out were used in the passage above. We feel it isnecessary to briefly contemplate this important analogy made to a process taken fromthe world of photography. Indeed, a certain understanding of the characteristics ofphotographic lenses is necessary if we are to fully comprehend the similarly named“Systems Approach” method.In the case of cameras that use 35 mm films it is generally so that lenses with 50 mmfocal distances are taken as standard since the relevant aperture roughly correspondsto that of the human eye. Photos shot with such a lens therefore create the most naturalpossible impression. Sometimes, though, it is necessary to have a lens with a longerfocal distance and a smaller opening angle (not to be confused with the aperture).What happens when the opening angle is made smaller is that part of the objectphotographed is, in a manner of speaking, enlarged. Imagine, for instance, that one hasfirst taken a photo of someone with a standard 50 mm lens, thus capturing the wholeperson. The person is therefore completely visible on the negative. One may then goon to replace the standard lens with a telephoto lens that has a focal distance of, let ussay, 200 mm and one then photographs the person again without changing one’sdistance from the person being photographed. Because the aperture has become muchsmaller it is now the person’s head that fills the negative. One has therefore created aportrait in which it was the person’s head that was of interest and not the rest of his orher body and surroundings. Such a telephoto lens has one further feature, namely thatof meeting one’s possible requirement to simply ‘leave out’ the surroundings. In factsuch a lens has a much lower depth of field than a normal lens. The depth of fieldindicates the focusing range (from a certain distance in front of the object beingphotographed to a certain distance behind that same object) that will also be sharply


in focus on the photograph if one focuses on the object being photographed. Whenusing a telephoto lens therefore the background will be vaguely outlined because thedepth of field is less. This means that all attention will be drawn towards the centraltheme (which, with portraits, is always the head of the person being photographed).Wide-angle lenses may be seen as the natural counterparts to telephoto lenses. Thefocal distance of wide-angle lenses is thus less than 50 mm which means that theopening angle is opened wider and the depth of field becomes larger. If aphotographer swaps his standard lens for a wide-angle lens he will thus get the objector person being photographed and also a part of the surroundings on the ultimatephoto. The smaller the focal distance, the larger the portion of the surroundingsphotographed will be. On top of that the depth of field will also increase. If the wide-angle lens is powerful then the background will, in principle, be sharply focused.Many photographers make use of what are known as zoom lenses. Those are lenseswith variable focal distances. An example of such a lens is one that has a focal rangeof 35-135 mm. Imagine that a photographer adjusts his lens to 50 mm (whichcorresponds to the standard lens distance) and photographs somebody who thus fillsthe photo. Afterwards he might then zoom in to a focal distance of 135 mm to takeanother photo. This time it will be the subject’s head that fills the photo and only theperson’s head will be in focus: the background will become vague. The photographermay then decide that he wants to take a photo that will reveal the person’s context orsurroundings at the time of being photographed. He therefore zooms out until hereaches a focal distance of 35 mm. Not only will the resultant photo give an idea ofthe person and his surroundings but his surroundings will also be sharply in focus.The reason why the features of photographic lenses have been expanded upon here isbecause there are certain parallels to be seen with research corresponding with systemtheoretical methodology.Just imagine that after having made a first general survey of the phenomenon to beresearched the researcher decides that extensive and detailed research must be carriedout upon one of the system’s elements. He will therefore zoom in on the element inquestion thus obtaining a detailed view of that particular element without beinghampered or distracted by all kinds of links it might have with its surroundings. If youlike, the element is isolated from its surroundings not just through the enlarging butalso because of the minimal depth of field that is typical of zooming in. In that waythe surroundings are initially seen as irrelevant. After having carried out his detailedresearch the researcher will then want to examine the phenomenon’s relationship to itssurroundings. In other words, he will want to place the problem in its correct contextand he will do that by zooming out. In that way not only his view will be broadenedthus clarifying interrelationships but it will also be so that the depth of field willincrease in scope thus making the surroundings or context sharper or clearer. Whenzooming out it is frequently the case that people speak of wanting to gain “a bird’s eyeview” of matters. When zooming in the familiar analogy is that of the “moon-walkapproach” because details become increasingly clear but that is at the expense of anoverview of the entire contextual situation.

Documents

3 Introduction to the System Approach · 3 Introduction to the System Approach 3.1 Introduction Since Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s publication of his article ‘General system theory’