Table of Content
Citation
Churchman, C. W. (1979). The systems approach. Dell Publishing Co.
Highlights
- v - ix: Success of scientific teams in WW II led to “Operations Research” on ever larger endeavors helped by expanding computing capability. As the application of the scientific perspective widened, the activity became a “systems approach” The “system scientist” was interested in characterizing the nature of the system to enable logical and coherent decision making.
- 4: Problems & solutions are overlapping & interconnected
- 11: (system) enthusiast: systems are made up of sets of components that work together for the overall objective of the whole. Systems Approach is a way of thinking about the total systems and their components/
- 14: The Debaters (Advocates of):
- Efficiency
- Appliers of science
- Human Feelings (humanists)
- Anti-planners
- 16: CWC mingles the scientific approach and the systems approach referencing Taylor, & separating the system scientist from Managers of Systems (whose overriding objective is Efficiency of Operation)
- 17: Efficiency expert - determines how to keep costs within budget
- 18: “Scientific Management” opposed to “Management Science” (bpl) SM addressses local optimization, MS addresses holistic/global optimization.
- 29: “All definers will agree that a system is a set of parts coordinated to accomplish a goal” (bpl) “Goal” here is broadly defined as a conceptual expected outcome rather than an intentional outcome (which makes sense for natural systems).
- 29: Management Science’s aim is to spell out in detail:
- spell out in detail, what the whole system is
- the environment in which it lives
- what its ‘objective’ is
- how the ‘objective’ is supported by the activity of the parts
- 29: 5 considerations/aspects Management Scientists believe must be kept in mind when considering systems:
- Total system objectives and measurements of the WHOLE system
- the system environment - fixed constraints
- systems resources
- components of the system, their goals, activities and measures of performance
- the management of the system CWC: This omits mention of people and the future desired state
- 30-33: Churchman is NOT talking about engineered systems as indicated by his statements about objectives. Specifically discussing social systems.
- 34: Further highlighted by reminding that we are talking about management scientists
- 36: Separating System-of-Interest and Environment
- 37-38: Resources vs. Environment
- 38-39: Role of Management Science in Business management
- 39: “Resources are the general reservoir out of which the specific actions of the system can be shaped”
- 40-41: Functional analysis vs Mission analysis
- 41: Describes ‘territorial’ organizations and references ‘machine design’
- 41: Smoothly moves between social and technical “engineering”
- 43-44: Component metrics that do not reflect system goals drive local optimization rather than system effectiveness (my words)
- 45: Issues with roles: Me-quoting Sgt. Calahan “A man’s got to know his limitations”
- 46: describes the ‘components’ of a system as ‘missions’, much different than SyE’s description of component
- 47: Cybernetics = study of feedback loops. Applied to natural and technological systems. Management scientist tries to apply theory to organizations.
- ASIDE: cybernetics was considered in both nature and machines. The breadth of application of cybernetic concepts indicate it is a fundamental system theory. I’m not yet sure if this should be considered a theory of systems science or an application of a theory of systems science.
- 47: Management science applied under various labels: OR, Systems Science, SyE, Systems Analysis
- 47: Cybernetic loop of the management function: Feedback from the environment to adjust our control response.
- 50-54: The ‘Environment’ is the part that is not controlled. Layered SOIs each produce Decisions that constrain the next lower layer (before arriving at SyE)
- 57: Simulation is a model - Must recognize what the simulations implies and what it DOESN’T tell us