The following article is an updated version on the topic of System Complexity from Ho (1996):
The concept of system complexity is a recurring theme in the field of Systems Science and is closely related to the idea of systems. A recent example is Dash and Murthy’s (1994) review of System Dynamic in terms of the concept of complexity. The issue of relationship between complexity and system can be quite complicated when examined from different onto-epistemological viewpoint, see Flood (1990), Flood’s (1990) insightful work has not been taken up in the discussion here, but should be borne in mind future investigation.
The concept of system complexity is a recurring theme in the field of Systems Science and is closely related to the idea of systems. A recent example is Dash and Murthy’s (1994) review of System Dynamic in terms of the concept of complexity. The issue of relationship between complexity and system can be quite complicated when examined from different onto-epistemological viewpoint, see Flood (1990), Flood’s (1990) insightful work has not been taken up in the discussion here, but should be borne in mind future investigation.
A system is used to be considered as being made up of elements and the linkages between entities. For a set of events to be usefully viewed as a system, Ackoff (1981) requires: (a) the behavior of each element of the system has an effect on the behavior of the whole; (b) the behavior of the elements and their effects on the whole are interdependent; and (c) however subgroups of the elements are formed, each has an effect on the behavior of the whole and none has an independent effect on it. These systems can be studied effectively with a few systems-based methods of inquiry, namely, expansionism, synthesis, producer-product relationship, and teleology, see Ackoff (1981). Schoderbek et al. (1985) further clarify the concept of system complexity by defining it as that property of system resulting from the interaction of four main determinants: the number of system elements, their attributes, and the number of interactions among the elements, and the degree of organization of the elements.
When applied to problem-solving and decision-making, the above concept of system complexity is also known as classical or type I complexity, see Ledington (1988). Type I complexity is regarded as insufficient since it is incapable of considering complexity arising from the cultural, human behavioral (or soft) dimension of the problem situation. Therefore, an enhanced model of complexity (type II) is required, which also considers the people dimension. In this respect, Jackson and Keys (1984) propose a classification scheme for types (ideal types) of problem contexts (as systems) along the two dimensions of systems and of the relationship of the parties (people) involved is illuminating for further discussion in this type of complexity. The first dimension of systems of their scheme is in line with the classical view and the work of Ackoff (1981) and Schoderbek et al. (1985) while the second dimension deals with the human interactions. They called the framework "a System of Systems Methodologies (SYSM)", since it aims at classifying the various systems-based problem-solving methodologies in terms of their relative strengths and weaknesses in dealing with various idealised types of problem-context. In a similar vein, Flood and Carson (1988) suggest that the two major components of complexity are system and people. The system component is further broken down into a number of parts and a number of relations, while the people component involves the sub-elements of interests, capabilities, and notions/ perceptions. Figure 1 is an attempt to make the inter-relationship between the elements in the complexity model of Flood and Carson (1998) more explicit see Ho and Sculli (1995).
Figure 1 presents a view of the complexity as a subjective concept - it exists in the mind of the decision maker, who in turn is conditioned by the external environment in which he finds himself. More than just a subjective concept, system complexity is an intersubjective concept as the complexity of a problematic situation is perceived by different stakeholders. The most satisfactory viewpoint on the concept of system complexity, in my view, is that of Midgley (1992) who identifies three aspects of complexity as related to the object relations, subjectivity, value and ethics, and these three aspects were themselves inter-related. such a view of system complexity of Midgley (1992) is supportive of the Critical Systems Thinking and compatible withe the Multi-Perspective, Systems-based perspective.
The relativistic view of complexity is demonstrated in Figure 1. This figure makes it clear that, for some decision makers, a problematic situation is considered as simple and manageable, while the same problematic situation can be perceived in quite dissimilar terms and appears complex to another group of decision makers. System complexity arises in a Cybernetics sense (Ashby, 1973), because the problematical situation (as a system) appears to have a higher variety than the decision maker can absorb or control. Figure 2 further elucidates this point.
There is an additional complexity arising from the interaction of multiple decision makers themselves as a decision-making unit and this needs to be managed. This point is more relevant to the discussion of group decision support systems design (which pays more attention to the process of team process support), than to traditional DSS (which stresses the process of task), or organizational DSS design (which focuses more on the process of process standards/ best practice), see Nunamaker et al. (1992). On this topic, Rodriguez-Ulloa (1988) gives a good discussion on how the problem-solving personnel can become yet another problem component in the system.
Reference
Ackoff, R.L. (1981) Creating the Corporate Future, Wiley, New York
Ashby, W.R. (1973) An Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman and Hall Ltd and University paperbacks
Dash, D.P. and Murthy, P.N. (1994) "Boundary Judgement in System Dynamics Modelling: An Investigation Through The Science of complexity: Research Note" pp. 464-475, Systems Practice 7(4), August, Plenum Press
Flood, R.L. (1990) Liberating Systems Theory, Plenum, New York
Flood, R.L. and Carson, E.R. (1988) Dealing with Complexity: An introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science, Plenum Press
Ho, J.K.K. (1996) "Development of Multi-Perspective, Systems-Based Frameworks" Ph.D. thesis, July, Faulty of Engineering, University of Hong Kong
Ho, J.K.K. and Sculli, D. (1995) "System Complexity and the Design of Decision Support Systems", Systems Practice, pp. 505-516, 8(5), Plenum Press
Jackson, M.C. and Keys, P. (1984) "Towards A Systems of Systems Methodologies", J. Opl. Res. Soc. 35(6), pp. 473-486
Ledington, P. (1988) "Designing Conversation: A Reflection upon Ulrich's Research Program: Research Note" pp. 319-321, Systems Practice 1(3), September, Plenumn Press
Midgley, G. (1992) "Pluralism and the Legitimation of Systems Science", pp. 147-172, Systems Practice 5(2) Plenum Press, New York
Nunamaker, J.F., et al. (1992) "Organizational Decision Support Systems" Chapter 5, pp. 137-166 in Stohr, A. and Konsynski, B.R. (editors) Information Systems and Decision Processes, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, Washington
Rodriguez-Ulloa, R.A. (1988) "The Problem-Solving System: Another Problem-Content System", pp. 243-257, Systems Practice 1(3), September, Plenum Press
Schoderbek, P.P., Schoderbek, C.G., and Kefalas, A.G. (1985) Management Systems: Conceptual Considerations, Business Publications, Texas
When applied to problem-solving and decision-making, the above concept of system complexity is also known as classical or type I complexity, see Ledington (1988). Type I complexity is regarded as insufficient since it is incapable of considering complexity arising from the cultural, human behavioral (or soft) dimension of the problem situation. Therefore, an enhanced model of complexity (type II) is required, which also considers the people dimension. In this respect, Jackson and Keys (1984) propose a classification scheme for types (ideal types) of problem contexts (as systems) along the two dimensions of systems and of the relationship of the parties (people) involved is illuminating for further discussion in this type of complexity. The first dimension of systems of their scheme is in line with the classical view and the work of Ackoff (1981) and Schoderbek et al. (1985) while the second dimension deals with the human interactions. They called the framework "a System of Systems Methodologies (SYSM)", since it aims at classifying the various systems-based problem-solving methodologies in terms of their relative strengths and weaknesses in dealing with various idealised types of problem-context. In a similar vein, Flood and Carson (1988) suggest that the two major components of complexity are system and people. The system component is further broken down into a number of parts and a number of relations, while the people component involves the sub-elements of interests, capabilities, and notions/ perceptions. Figure 1 is an attempt to make the inter-relationship between the elements in the complexity model of Flood and Carson (1998) more explicit see Ho and Sculli (1995).
Figure 1 presents a view of the complexity as a subjective concept - it exists in the mind of the decision maker, who in turn is conditioned by the external environment in which he finds himself. More than just a subjective concept, system complexity is an intersubjective concept as the complexity of a problematic situation is perceived by different stakeholders. The most satisfactory viewpoint on the concept of system complexity, in my view, is that of Midgley (1992) who identifies three aspects of complexity as related to the object relations, subjectivity, value and ethics, and these three aspects were themselves inter-related. such a view of system complexity of Midgley (1992) is supportive of the Critical Systems Thinking and compatible withe the Multi-Perspective, Systems-based perspective.
The relativistic view of complexity is demonstrated in Figure 1. This figure makes it clear that, for some decision makers, a problematic situation is considered as simple and manageable, while the same problematic situation can be perceived in quite dissimilar terms and appears complex to another group of decision makers. System complexity arises in a Cybernetics sense (Ashby, 1973), because the problematical situation (as a system) appears to have a higher variety than the decision maker can absorb or control. Figure 2 further elucidates this point.
There is an additional complexity arising from the interaction of multiple decision makers themselves as a decision-making unit and this needs to be managed. This point is more relevant to the discussion of group decision support systems design (which pays more attention to the process of team process support), than to traditional DSS (which stresses the process of task), or organizational DSS design (which focuses more on the process of process standards/ best practice), see Nunamaker et al. (1992). On this topic, Rodriguez-Ulloa (1988) gives a good discussion on how the problem-solving personnel can become yet another problem component in the system.
Reference
Ackoff, R.L. (1981) Creating the Corporate Future, Wiley, New York
Ashby, W.R. (1973) An Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman and Hall Ltd and University paperbacks
Dash, D.P. and Murthy, P.N. (1994) "Boundary Judgement in System Dynamics Modelling: An Investigation Through The Science of complexity: Research Note" pp. 464-475, Systems Practice 7(4), August, Plenum Press
Flood, R.L. (1990) Liberating Systems Theory, Plenum, New York
Flood, R.L. and Carson, E.R. (1988) Dealing with Complexity: An introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science, Plenum Press
Ho, J.K.K. (1996) "Development of Multi-Perspective, Systems-Based Frameworks" Ph.D. thesis, July, Faulty of Engineering, University of Hong Kong
Ho, J.K.K. and Sculli, D. (1995) "System Complexity and the Design of Decision Support Systems", Systems Practice, pp. 505-516, 8(5), Plenum Press
Jackson, M.C. and Keys, P. (1984) "Towards A Systems of Systems Methodologies", J. Opl. Res. Soc. 35(6), pp. 473-486
Ledington, P. (1988) "Designing Conversation: A Reflection upon Ulrich's Research Program: Research Note" pp. 319-321, Systems Practice 1(3), September, Plenumn Press
Midgley, G. (1992) "Pluralism and the Legitimation of Systems Science", pp. 147-172, Systems Practice 5(2) Plenum Press, New York
Nunamaker, J.F., et al. (1992) "Organizational Decision Support Systems" Chapter 5, pp. 137-166 in Stohr, A. and Konsynski, B.R. (editors) Information Systems and Decision Processes, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, Washington
Rodriguez-Ulloa, R.A. (1988) "The Problem-Solving System: Another Problem-Content System", pp. 243-257, Systems Practice 1(3), September, Plenum Press
Schoderbek, P.P., Schoderbek, C.G., and Kefalas, A.G. (1985) Management Systems: Conceptual Considerations, Business Publications, Texas
No comments:
Post a Comment