Coevolving Innovations

An interview by Performance magazine — with an issue focused on systems in architecture and related disciplines — has now been published. Since the content has been translated into German (as well as reduced for length) — the original interview is posted below, in English.

• David Ing is the president (2011-2012), of the International Society for the Systems Sciences. He welcomes deep thinkers from around the world to join in an interactive learning experience at the annual meeting of the ISSS, scheduled for July 15-20, 2012, in San Jose, California. David Ing responded to this interview from his home in Toronto, Canada.

1. Could you please, in just a few words, explain to us what the systems sciences deal with and what your specialty area is?

The systems sciences — many of us prefer sciences in the plural — study the nature of parts and wholes. People may say that they are systems thinkers: they view the world primarily as relations of part-whole, part-part and whole-whole arrangements in space and time. Systems thinking enables a basic foundation across a wide variety of domains, including (i) natural systems in geographic and biological domains, and (ii) man-made systems in social and informatic domains.

In 2011-2012, I am serving as the president of the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS). Our annual meeting for July 2012 will be at San Jose State University, in California. We expect a broad range of systems researchers and practitioners to come together for interdiscipinary and transciplinary discussions over five days. For 2013, we have plans for the meeting to convene in Hai Phong, Vietnam, led by the next ISSS president, Alexander Laszlo.

My interests are in (i) social systems — particularly in the context of work in business organizations and government — and in (ii) information systems — most recently transformed through the rise of the Internet, globalization, and social computing. Much of my current research is centered on the emerging science of service systems — often called service science — as the world has shifted from industrial age into global service economy.

2. In which areas of research can conclusions and consequences be drawn from the results of systems sciences?

Questions about the systems sciences lead us to think more deeply about the definitions of both science and systems.  Read more... (2917 words, 2 images, estimated 11:40 mins reading time)

Does systems thinking lead to systems that can learn as they evolve (or devolve)? How does a service system continue to learn about purposes (and objectives and goals) in its wholes and its parts? When a service system learns that change is called for, can that system consciously act to evolve (or devolve)?

Focusing on definitions of science and of systems thinking can lead to thinking about a static thing, rather than intellectual virtues that changes over time. Applying systems thinking to science, the intellectual virtues of episteme (know why), techne (know how) and phronesis (know when, know where, know whom) can each or all evolve. Actually, they coevolve, because the why, how, when, where and whom are all changing simultaneously.

Many of today’s services systems are under stress, possibly reaching a point of unsustainability. Does (or would) systems thinking help? To be concise, let’s try some responses to the three questions at the outset of this essay.

• Does systems thinking lead to systems that can learn as they evolve (or devolve)?
  • A system in which systems thinking has contributed towards its design should have had features or properties included that are appropriate for its environment. If the environment changes, the fitness of the system may or may not degrade. A system intended for volatile environments may be have been designed to respond to change, or to fail — potentially gracefully — with signals that a more appropriate replacement should be put in place. The range of designs from fragile to “over-engineered” reflects different approaches to handling environmental change.
• How does a service system continue to learn about purposes (and objectives and goals) in its wholes and its parts?
  • A service system — potentially socially constructed, and/or developed from natural resources — can be designed for its whole to serve both a collective (e.g. a community, a nation) and/or an individual. In addition, parts of that system may satisfy goals for others, as a byproduct. The wants and needs of service recipients may evolve, however.
• When a service system learns that change is called for, can that system consciously act to evolve (or devolve)?
  • As the function provided by a system degrades or fails, the choices are either to (i) decommission the old service and start up a new service, or (ii) change the existing systems as it continues to operate. This latter choice requires a system that not only adapts to its environment, but also learns.

A service designed with systems thinking may have a productive lifespan that is short or long. Designing a service system that remains viable over a brief life cycle can be a challenge. Designing a service system that can learn and appropriately evolve with a highly variable environment is a bigger challenge.

In systems thinking, the idea of learning has been well developed. The remainder of this essay outlines some of the foundational appreciation on learning from systems research, and adds some recent theories coinciding with the practice turn in contemporary theory [Schatzki, Knorr-Cetina, von Savigny (2001)].

• A. A system can maintain its purpose under constant conditions by adapting, and under changing conditions by learning.
• B. Learning can typed at multiple levels: (1) change within a set of alternatives; (2) change in the set of alternatives; (3) change in the system of sets of alternatives; and (4) change in the development of systems of sets of alternatives.
• C. Both physical systems and human systems can learn, if sufficient resources are reserved for long term maintenance.
• D. In human systems, social participation is a process of learning and knowing that includes meaning, practice, community and identity

Systems thinking about systems thinking should include a greater emphais on design for learning. Each of the above assertions is supported in the sections that follow.  Read more... (8316 words, 8 images, estimated 33:16 mins reading time)

Commenting on the Overview of Systems Science (draft version 0.5) for the Guide to the Systems Engineering Book of Knowledge is problematic. Applying systems thinking on systems thinking constitutes a mess of ideas that is difficult to tease apart. Breaking the idea of “systems science” in its parts of (i) “systems” and (ii) “science” is reductive. The more compatible approach is to view “science” with a larger context of “systems thinking”.

I’ll attempt to shed some more light on concerns and perspectives in the following sections:

• 1. The definition of science often tends towards disciplinarity; systems thinking aims for transdisciplinarity
• 2. Science is part of thinking, which can be philosophically framed as episteme (know why), techne (know how) and phronesis (know when, know when, know whom)
• 3. Domains of systems thinking can be categorized into systems theory, systems methods, and systems practice
• 4. Incomplete systems thinking may suggest paths through which gaps may be filled
• 5. Systems thinking has evolved with roots of linear causality, circular causality, complexity theory and reflexivity theory
• 6. Opportunities to refresh ties between systems thinking and action science, theory of practice and social learning could be pursued

The discussion of science and systems thinking leads to perspectives at another level. There’s an additional appendix on applied philosophy that illustrates that such inquiries are not without history.

1. The definition of science often tends towards disciplinarity; systems thinking aims for transdisciplinarity

In a previous post on systems thinking and (the) systems science(s) in a system of ideas, the correlation between the term “systems science” and “social systems science” at the University of Pennsylvania was reviewed. While “social systems science” was chosen as a term to be purposively clumsy, Russell Ackoff preferred more generally to use the label of “systems thinking”, obviating some criticisms on definitions of science. Science tends to be organized as disciplines. In the Oxford English Dictionary, one definition of discipline is “a branch of instruction or education; a department of learning or knowledge; a science or art in its educational aspect”. Another is “a particular course of instruction to disciples”, which implies a master. Ackoff criticized disciples as anti-systemic, challenging his students and followers to transcend his body of work.  Read more... (6580 words, 1 image, estimated 26:19 mins reading time)

In February, I returned to Finland to teach the Systemic Thinking for Planners and Designers CS0005 course in the master’s program in Creative Sustainability at Aalto University.  I had previously blogged about teaching and learning from the Systemic Thinking for Sustainable Communities CS0004 course in October.  The February course was again intensive, this time on a Friday-Tuesday-Friday schedule.

All of the course content is available as open source in a directory at http://coevolving.com/aalto/201102-cs0005/ .  Here’s a map outlining the course.

The style of the classes again centered on a list of references from which students could select according to personal interests, supplemented by lectures outlined with context maps.  The course outline was provided as long form text that evolved online during the week.  Written responses from students were most frequently posted on public blogs, with notifications and responses on the Systemicists Forum on the Systems Community of Inquiry, with separate threads for Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, and the final essays.

The first lecture for CS0005 was a quick review of the first topic for CS0004 in October, foundations for a systems approach.  This turned out to be a worthwhile activity, as the students (and my co-instructors!) had mulled over the basic ideas of systems for four months, resulting in more reflection and questions than I was expecting.

This background in the first lecture continued with a discussion of method frameworks.  Read more... (884 words, 10 images, estimated 3:32 mins reading time)

How are (or can or should) the systems sciences and systems engineering (be) related?  For the web conference for the INCOSE (International Council on Systems Engineering) Complex Systems Working Group on November 22, 2010, I decided to present a personal perspective on linkages.  The ideas were essentially in two parts, with

• the systems movement as a system of ideas, including …
  • the systems science community as some individuals, some organizations and some publications; and
  • ten frames to guide thinking and discussion about changes in society, economics and technology in the 21st century (based on Ing (2011)); and
• John N. Warfield’s “A Challenge for Systems Engineers: To Evolve towards Systems Science”, published in INCOSE Insight (2007).

The first point reflects my view of the breadth and diversity of the system sciences.  The second point reviewed the some challenges presented by John N. Warfield, who was both a pioneer in the systems engineering community and a luminary in the systems sciences community.  As a guide for the web conference, I provided a context map.

View the full-sized context map or listen to the digital audio recording.

The web conference was recorded, producing a movie that emphasizes key points on the context map.  Read more... (202 words, 3 images, estimated 48 secs reading time)

I’ve received news about an Aalto University course on  ”Socio-Technical Systems Paradigm: History and Further Developments” [see pdf], led by Frans M. van Eijnatten (Eindhoven University of Technology) and Mari Kira (Academy Research Fellow at sustain.tkk.fi), scheduled  for September 27-28 in Espoo, Finland.

The course is associated with the Sustain Research Program that “focuses on creating sustainable work in contemporary working life”.  I also noticed a book on Creating sustainable work systems:  developing social sustainability, edited by Peter Docherty, Mari Kira and Abraham B. Shani (Taylor & Francis 2008) [preview at Google Books].

We would seem to be at the leading edge of research with this topic.  Since I’m active in the systems community, I was intrigued by a reference to an article in 2008 article in Systems Research and Behavioral Science by Mari Kira, and Frans M. van Eijnatten, “Socially sustainable work organizations: A chaordic systems approach”.  Read more... (564 words, 1 image, estimated 2:15 mins reading time)