A methodological comparison of the science, systems, and metasystem paradigms. [Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 11, 5 (Sept. 1979), 651-663]
|
 |
|
Post a Comment
|
|
|
|
|
CONTRIBUTORS:
|
|
|
JOURNAL:
|
Computing Reviews,
21(7),
334 -
334.
|
|
|
|
YEAR:
|
1980
|
|
PUB TYPE:
|
Book Review
|
|
SUBJECT(S):
|
Operations/Operational Research; Systems Engineering
|
|
DISCIPLINE:
|
Computer Science
|
|
HTTP:
|
|
|
LANGUAGE:
|
English
|
|
PUB ID:
|
103-426-995
(Last edited on
2006/05/28 12:04:15 GMT-6)
|
|
ABSTRACT:
A paradigm is a "distinct way of thinking about problems" which may be applied to many problems in a domain regardless of their specific content, according to the author. He studiously avoids equating a paradigm with a model. He identifies three systems methodologies-science paradigm, systems paradigm. and metasystem paradigm and compares these.
The paper is a philosophical exercise and must be read with great care. The best known paradigm is science: observation. hypothesis, experiment, explanation, generalization (laws), prediction. Operations/Operational Research and Systems Engineering are methodologies embodying the science paradigm. Operations Research (OR) is the application of quantitative methods to decision-making and the use of mathematical models for optimization. Systems Engineering (SE) looks at reality broadly. accepting the structure of domains; it involves analysis and design by selecting the best alternative policy or course of action meeting system performance requirements.
The systems paradigm considers domains with organized complexity, notably living systems. Unfortunately. there is no unique systems paradigm offered as a counterpart to the science paradigm, although efforts have been under way by van Gigch and Checkland ,to accomplish this. Checkland's work is identified as Applied Systems Analysis while van Gigch's contribution is called Applied General Systems Theory. Both methodologies move "in the same direction." They "straddle" the hard systems methodologies of OR and SE and the soft systems methodologies in the life sciences. The author believes that certain systems of "organized complexity" cannot be dealt with by the science paradigm, which assumes high separability and low interaction among parts of the whole. Checkland's approach views human behavior and organizations as not necessarily goal-seeking but as maintaining "on-going relationships." On the other side, van Gigch views the system paradigm as a cycle or "cybernetic fluid process" by which soft systems can be fashioned.
The metasystem paradigm requires the use of the language at a system level above that of the systems being studied. This method has been described by Klir, Ulrich, Churchman, and others. The reviewer is concerned that most of these contributors use different words to express the same thoughts; also, a number of new and exciting words are entering the vocabulary: metaprocedure, metapolicy-making, meta-metasystem. Simple terms like 'anasynthesis' (invented by the Reviewer) can't stand up under this metamucil attack.
The ultimate goal is to fashion a methodology which, when applied to any system, simple or complex, will reveal the elements and the interaction between elements, and produce knowledge of the system as a whole which will allow for predictions as to how it can or will act at some future time. The reviewer supposes that the author's paper attempts to review paradigms which, all together, aim for this ultimate goal. But each expert has a pet vocabulary and a unique perspective, and it is difficult to make useful comparisons under such conditions. Well, The fault cannot be attributed to computer failure---The terms computer and Winchester are absent!
L. C. Silvern, Los Angeles, Calif.
[Author: VAN GlGCH, JOHN P. (School of Business and
Public Administration, California State Univ.; Anglian Regional Management Centre, North East London Polytechnic,
Danbury Park, Essex, UK; Dept. of Industrial Engineering, Eindhoven Univ. of Technology, The Netherlands)]
|
|
|
|
STATISTICS
|
|
Click on # to view
|
|
Citations
|
|
1
|
|
References
|
|
0
|
|
Comments
|
|
0
|
|
Quality
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
Interest
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
View(er)s
|
|
2/118
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Prev |
Next |
|