Andrea Magnorsky đš đŚA team is a system đ
Trond Hjorteland@roundcrisis I tried to claim this too but was sternly corrected by Merrelyn Emery. A team is a part of a larger system, the organisation. Off course, if the the team is the org, then it is a system.
Dawn Ahukanna@trondhjort @roundcrisis
Curious Q: what's in-between an individual and the organizational system, if a team is not a system?
Curious Q: what's in-between an individual and the organizational system, if a team is not a system?
@dahukanna @roundcrisis Both the teams and the individuals are parts of the system that is the org. Treating them like systems in their own rights, in this context, will lead to problems.
I maybe missing some context cos of federation not showing all related messages, I can only see previous 2 before my question: Are you saying the socio-technical system in focus is the Organisation?
Because:
1. Organisations are part of wider society.
2. Individuals are made up of biological systems e.g. endocrine, circulatory,etc that affect individuals and proximal people.
@dahukanna @roundcrisis The sociotechnical systems is an joint optimisation of the technical and the social aspects of a system. And the teams are the ones doing that. All parts of the system that is the org. It's all about framing as I see it and seeing the teams as one isolated system will not be suitable as you will miss the interconnection with the other parts and their joint relation to the whole.
@dahukanna @roundcrisis The two examples are what Ackoff often did, framing it as a nested hierarchy. This is a closed systems model. The open ones conceptualise the environment as well, which all systems then have.
@trondhjort @roundcrisis thanks for clarification.
Containment (encapsulation abstraction) â open system, if the container is not the environment.
Closed systems can contain other closed systems.
@dahukanna @roundcrisis Yes, and that can be a useful model too. But closing a system will limit it as it most likely is an open system really. I've seen arguments made that there are no closed system in nature and although we try, we have not been able to create one either. Closest is probably the space station. âşď¸
@trondhjort @roundcrisis Interesting. I'm gonna noodle on that comment.
Is a laboratory an approximation of a closed system?
@dahukanna @roundcrisis We try, for sure, but do we manage it? Having a setting where no matter or energy is transferred? Or, even where we can disconnect ourselves completely? Closed systems are not a good approximation in many cases. Even in natural sciences where we have law that are not really applicable anywhere.
Ackoff is always a good source for this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGN5DBpW93g
Russell L Ackoff From Mechanistic to Systemic thinking
@trondhjort I agree that any grounded/real world system is an open system - intermingled and intertwined. Closed system abstraction can be useful as a simplified and scoped starting point for modelling, not a definitive reference.
As George E.P. Box says, " Essentially, all models are wrong (inaccurate) but some are useful".
As George E.P. Box says, " Essentially, all models are wrong (inaccurate) but some are useful".
@dahukanna Absolutely. Simply thinking in systems is doing that, or modularity in IT. Very useful, but find that we often then seem to forget the huge simplification we make doing that, even as systems thinkers. By taking the open systems approach this will be front and center.
Ruth â of systems & design@trondhjort @dahukanna is there something to point to where M Emery describes open and closed systems in such a way that open systems canât be part of open systems â only environments (that are not systems)? (Iâm sure you know exactly which of her papers would be good to read on this!) Be interesting to contrast with others in the systems space. :)
@RuthMalan @dahukanna One I keep coming back to is the Vienna briefing paper: https://www.bcsss.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Vienna.OPEN-OR-CLOSED-SYSTEMS.pdf
The environment is by definition not a system. It is formed by the systems it is the environment for, but it is a different thing.
The environment is by definition not a system. It is formed by the systems it is the environment for, but it is a different thing.
me@trondhjort @RuthMalan @dahukanna
Hence systems are not âpure fractalâ? Meaning they show self-similarity on different scales?
@me @dahukanna @RuthMalan Not sure what you mean here. Fractal is similarity at scales, no? What do you then mean by not pure fractal?
@trondhjort @dahukanna @RuthMalan
If systems act as a component in a bigger system acting as a component in an even bigger system at what point it does become ⌠âEnvironmentâ instead of âjust a bigger system with more componentsâ?
Or does system define something relatively autonomous or â by itselfâ and âenvironmentâ is more like an aggregate of âall surrounding systemsâ?
This is obviously not my topic of expertise btw đ
@me @dahukanna @RuthMalan Ah, gotcha. Well the argument made there is what open systems theorists make against thinking "trutles all the way down" - or up. And your second paragraph comes close to how open system are thought of, as defined by the boundary that you draw and the environment that you identify for it. As Anygal said, you cannot separate them.
@trondhjort @me @dahukanna eh. Thereâs turf stuff that happens and⌠Some open systems folk may work with notions of system in environment on one hand, and ecologies of interacting systems on another.
@RuthMalan @me @dahukanna Like to see it as different ways of framing things and finding one that suites you in a particular situations. Closed or open for example. And, yes systems do interact, but in OST the environment is still accounted for.