Subject: System Objective

Posted by Bill Braun on 9/4/2006
In Reply To:System Objective Posted by Torrey McMillan on 9/4/2006

Message:

A very brief review of types of systems may be helpful, and speak to Torrey's point.

A mechanistic system is one where the whole has no purposes of its own, and neither do the parts. ("Purpose" is understood to mean the ability to select both "ends" and "means", in other words, to set goals and work toward them is some way.) An engine is the classic example, where the behavior of the whole is determined by the design of the parts. An engine can only do one thing, though the one thing it does can have multiple applications (golf cart or an elevator hoist). It's application is not the same as a goal or objective.

An animated or organismic system is one where the whole has purposes of its own, but the parts do not. The human body is the classic example. The circulatory system cannot adopt a purpose other than the one for which it was designed, though we as humans can, and do, unilaterally and regularly selects ends and means.

A social system is one where both the parts and the whole have purposes of their own. An organization is an example (ignoring that with some regularity they are managed as though they were mechanistic or animated systems). Both the whole and the parts have purposes of their own, and as we all know, sets up the creative tension between the whole and the parts.

Last is the ecological system, in which the whole has no purposes of its own, but the parts do. The planet Earth is the classic example, where the whole as an ecological unit has no self-selected goals, and the behavior of the whole is determined by the behavior of the parts.

Whether we use "goals" or "objectives" or "purposes" is less important that the recognition of the ability (or not) of a part or a whole to self-select its future course. Self-determination (broadly stated) can include multiple goals, objectives, or purposes.

Bill Braun

P.S. As a closing though on Torrey's observation about the congruence between a system's goals and objectives, I am reminded of the axiom that every system is perfectly designed to produce the results it produces.
From that I conclude that whether the design was intentional or not, there is no difference between the system's design and what it it "drives towards", only between a system whose design produces the desired result, and one that fails to produce the desired result (ref. Forrester's analogy with the design of chemical plants from the ST in Action Conference video).

Follow Ups:

System Objective - Prof. Dr. Niall Palfreyman 9/4/2006