Jennifer Wilby

A critique of hierarchy theory

In our zeal to apply models successfully, failures of the model are often overlooked. A model may be used for quite some time before its success is questioned or before the model fails to be applied successfully. Since hierarchy theory has been deemed successful in the systems field, it is necessary and appropriate to critique the development and application of hierarchy theory using the framework presented inCreative Problem Solving (Flood and Jackson, 1992). That framework proposes a critique that uses the four areas of theory, utility, ideology, and methodology in reviewing a systems theory. It is important to examine hierarchy theory through the analytical filter of critical systems thinking if we are genuinely to understand what hierarchy theory has to offer systems thinking in the exploration of complex situations.

Developing total systems intervention (TSI): The critical review mode

Total systems intervention (TSI) is a meta-methodology which interprets and brings into action a range of problem solving methodologies, viewing problem solving as a process of intervention where practitioners can learn about and manage complex interacting issues. When first presented, TSI was the framework that evolved from one of many possible operationalisations of critical systems thinking. From these beginnings, TSI (as one practical implementation of the principles of CST) now continues its development into a methodology for use by problem solvers in all situations, not just the organisational-enterprise setting. This paper presents a detailed operationalisation of the critical review mode, the framework of which may also be of use in the operationalisation of the other modes in TSI.

Intentionally holistic knowledge intensive service systems

This paper applies a new framework of systems science to service science. This new framework reveals the effect of the interactions between systems principles and system structure in revealing complex systems behaviour, demonstrates why such methodologies are classed as being systemic, and how these systemic methodologies can be used to explore, design and manage emergent complex behaviour in practice. This paper then proposes that this framework of ideas can be transferred to inform the content of the existing roadmap for researching service systems, and thereby improve the design of new intentionally holistic service systems and the understanding and management of existing service systems and knowledge intensive service systems. Further research will investigate cases of complex scenarios in service systems, with the aim of transferring that knowledge (and its implications) to the fields of research, practice and education in both systems science and service (systems) science.

The observer's role and the process of critical review

The intention in this paper is to present a framework of critique which can be used to evaluate OR and determine (1) whether it is possible for OR to address its missing systemic, interdisciplinary components and (2) whether OR might address the practical (human) considerations often found in complex problem situations. The discussion begins with hierarchy theory and the work of C. West Churchman and moves towards incorporating those insights into a process of critical review (Wilby, 1996) as practiced within Total Systems Intervention (Flood and Jackson, 1991a, b; Food, 1995; Flood and Romm, 1996).

A model for the critical review mode in TSI

Total systems intervention (TSI) is a meta‐methodology which interprets and brings into action a range of problem solving methodologies. TSI is one framework which has evolved from the operationalization of critical systems thinking (CST). This paper presents a six‐step model for the operationalization of the critical review mode, which is one of the three modes within TSI. The model presented may also prove to be of use in the operationalization of the other two modes in TSI.

TSI as Critique

Total Systems Intervention (TSI) (Flood & Jackson, 1991a; Flood, 1995c) is an evolving metamethodology. It evolves in two different ways. First, it grows by reviewing models and methodologies and incorporates new ideas on them in its own process. Second, as this development takes place, TSI evolves and matures through self-reflective critique employing these new ideas to review its own principles and practice. TSI interprets and brings into action the resulting system of problem-solving approaches (Flood, 1995a Flood, 1995b Flood, 1995c). It then becomes a process of intervention where practitioners can learn about and manage complex interacting organizational and societal issues employing the system of problem-solving approaches.

The Knowledge Base of General Systemology

The search for a foundational general systems theory (GST*) formally became a scientific enterprise with the founding of the Society for the Advancement of General Systems Theory in 1954. Many scientific advances have been made towards a GST*, but GST* is still incomplete and there is a rich ongoing debate about the nature, structure and value of GST*. In this chapter we argue that the general theory of a discipline has a generic structure, which can be inferred by attending to the process by which disciplines build up their knowledge base. We develop a model of this generic structure and then use it to envision the structure and scope of GST*. This provides a principled baseline for assessing the developmental status of GST*, planning work towards its completion, and defending the potential value of GST*.

The Potential of General Systemology as a Transdiscipline

The pioneers of the general systems movement envisioned the development of a new scientific ‘meta-discipline’ grounded in a “General Systems Theory” (GST*), a theory that encompasses universal principles underlying the systemic behaviours of all kinds of “real-world” systems. In contemporary terms we can identify this as a vision for a “transdiscipline” and we discuss its relationship to other conceptions of transdisciplinarity. In line with arguments presented elsewhere we identify this transdiscipline as “General Systemology”, and the application of it as “General Systems Transdisciplinarity” (GSTD). The founders of the general systems movement argued that GSTD would be important for assisting the transfer knowledge between disciplines, facilitating interdisciplinary communication, supporting the development of exact models in areas where they are lacking, and promoting the “unity” of knowledge. In this chapter we defend this view, and infer that the scope and range of GSTD is wider than hitherto recognized, and argue that GSTD would potentially be the most powerful of the transdisciplines.

The Existence, Nature and Value of General Systems Theory (GST*)

The founders of the general systems movement envisaged the development of a theory articulating and inter-relating the principles underlying the systemic behaviours of all kinds of concrete systems. We call this theory GST* (“g-s-t-star”) to disambiguate it from other uses of the term “GST” prevalent in the literature. GST* is still radically underdeveloped, but its nature can be analysed. GST* is a formal theory, because the principles of GST* would apply across all kinds of systems, that is, GST* would predict behaviours and structures of systems qua systems, without regard for the kind of system under consideration, and hence it is neutral with respect to ontology.

A Disciplinary Field Model for Systemology

The field of systems is still a nascent academic discipline, with a high degree of fragmentation, no common perspective on the disciplinary structure of the systems domain, and many ambiguities in its use of the term “General Systems Theory”. In this chapter we develop a generic model for the structure of a discipline (of any kind) and of disciplinary fields of all kinds, and use this to develop a Typology for the domain of systems.