Ventana software support forum

Posted: **Wed Nov 11, 1998 10:28 am**

I have adopted, over many years of struggling to be clear in my writing and
speaking, the precept that if a word or phrase begins to be used in a way
that makes it essentially useless I try to get people to agree to change its
definition/usage.

I sense that the time has come to do this with "whole system." If, as some
(such as George Backus -- not to pick on you, George; I always appreciate
your contributions to this list) write, "whole system" cannot be used for
anything less that everything in the universe plus everything else anyone
ever imagines to be in the universe -- I would say that the phrase is going
to the scrap heap. And thats a shame, because I think there may be
uses/meanings of "whole system" that we might want to keep. [And Im not
fond of substituting the locution "whole subsystem" even though that might
work.]

For example, Marvin Weisbord writes of his method of exploring system
thinking in an organization by saying he "gets the whole system in the
room." In context this has a pretty precise meaning and is a very useful
idea.

I have for years been told about whole systems of thought -- such as
Newtons laws of motion -- and found the idea of "completeness" (or supposed
completeness) an important insight into what these thinkers were trying to
accomplish. Sure, Newton didnt include properties of objects such as their
color, taste, inclination to vote Republican (and many others) in what he
was trying to do. That would have been ridiculous. So is any notion of
"whole system" such as I hear being used in this dialogue.

So, I propose that we agree that "whole system" can be used in proper
context to mean "everything we believe must be included in order to describe
______ (fill in the blank.)" Note: I think its critically important to
fill in the blank -- thats what gives what I called the "proper context."

I know, I know -- this is just the definition many people have for
"subsystem" or "problem." However, the notion of completeness is missing
from those words. And if it is the intention of trying to include
everything necessary, I like having a signal that completeness or wholeness
is part of the enterprise.

What do you think? Must "whole system" be put on the scrap heap, never to
be uttered again, or can we salvage it for useful work?

From: "John W. Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>

Posted: **Thu Nov 12, 1998 7:13 am**

Question (not criticism):
When the focus is profits, why would not a systems (e.g., a
businesss) suppliers and customers and regulators (and international
economic cycles, emerging technology, etc.) be included in "everything we
believe must be included in order to describe______ (fill in the blank.)"
and therefore to be necessary in attendance if one wants to "get the whole
system in the room"?

Most "whole systems" work Ive seen operates within organizational
boundaries, treating it as if it were a closed system.

> Michael D. Nugent, Ph.D.
> Process Manager, Boeing People System
From: "Nugent, Michael D" <Michael.Nugent@PSS.Boeing.com>

Posted: **Thu Nov 12, 1998 8:53 am**

We have come to a discussion of words. "The word is not the thing" Alfred
Korzipski(sp?). The question arises in my mind as to when it is appropriate
to use the phrase "whole systems" in the context of SD (systems dynamics).
Words are tools for understanding and communicating thought. If, as John
Gunkler worries, the phrase no longer has any useful meaning in SD it will
slide on the scrap heap of its own accord. It may also be that those
complaining about its usage in modeling systems worry that the connotation
"whole system" offends a belief that "all things are connected". Then
perhaps the concept "whole system" becomes the idea "we can never really
know the whole". Can we?

Tom Higgins
loscann@telebyte.net
From: C Thomas Higgins <loscann@telebyte.net>

Posted: **Thu Nov 12, 1998 10:03 am**

I like "whole system", but when more precision is require I like "bounded
system". A system is bounded well when it address components or dimensions
important to the family of problems being addressed. It is not bounded well
when there is excess in dimensions not needed, or lacking in required
dimensions.

Visually, computer graphics has used a concept of bounding boxes.
Geometrically, bounding boxes completely enclose the object; that is, the
bounding box completely carves out the region by supplying the maximun and
minimum extent values in each dimension. You can visualize bounding boxes
in 2-D and 3-D computer graphics; the concept applies in n-D space. If you
visualize systems as having dimensions, the concept of bounding applies.

Identifying bounds for the dimensions of a system, gives a sense of
completeness that the word "whole" provides. This enables the discussion
surrounding the appropriate settings of the boundaries in all the dimensions
of the system for a given family of problems. The system still remains
whole, but we are empowered to turn off the dimensions we think are not
important by bounding those demensions to zero length.

--Dan
From: "Compton, Dan" <dan.compton@intel.com>

Posted: **Fri Nov 13, 1998 9:14 am**

Snow is really important to Eskimos. They have many names to describe the
nuances of different conditions of snow because it is important to their
survival (e.g. how fast can they move on the snow, how fast is the
temperature falling, etc.). As they are "snow people," we are "systems
people." In the recent days, many subtly, but importantly, different
"systems" denotations have been raised on the banner of (for the present
discussion) "whole systems." Bring al the buyers, sellers, suppler into a
room is a different whole system that the one describing the market in which
all these folks interact. Any good model is "complete," just not all
inclusive and not always comprehensive. It does describe the "issue" of
concern (I use "issue" here to try to stay away from the "problem, behavior
mode, thing," discussion that is having the same semantic gyrations.)

I must agree that even though I would not have included the universe(s) in
thinking about the "whole" energy "system" in a country, in the extreme I
would have to accept John Gunklers criticism and "exclude nothing."
Therefore, I would welcome us coming up with a "systems" glossary similar to
the "snow" glossary of Eskimos, that, at least, allows us to talk among
ourselves in mutually accepted and agree upon terms/definitions.

G

George Backus, President
Policy Assessment Corporation
14604 West 62nd Place
Arvada, Colorado, USA 80004-3621
Bus: +1-303-467-3566
Fax: +1-303-467-3576
George_Backus@ENERGY2020.com

Posted: **Fri Nov 13, 1998 11:32 am**

Michael Nugent writes:
>Most "whole systems" work Ive seen operates within organizational
>boundaries, treating it as if it were a closed system.

Id like to suggest, Michael, that you must be observing in the wrong
places! In the seminal work of Marvin Weisbord, as well as in my own
consulting, we do not stop at the organizational boundary.

I, for instance, have created a methodology called "Layered Listening" in
which we put representatives of several "layers" of the corporate value
chain in the room and hold a modified kind of focus group with them -- the
layers usually consisting of customers, independent distributors, front-line
employees (who directly serve the distributors), and one or more layers of
management. Obviously, customers and distributors are beyond the
organizational boundaries. When appropriate any other "layers" have been
included, such as regulators, suppliers, the "community," etc.

From: "John W. Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>

Posted: **Sat Nov 14, 1998 11:16 am**

Nugent, Michael D wrote:

> Question (not criticism):
> When the focus is profits, why would not a systems (e.g., a
> businesss) suppliers and customers and regulators (and international
> economic cycles, emerging technology, etc.) be included in "everything we
> believe must be included in order to describe______ (fill in the blank.)"

Depending on the blank, aspects of all of those actors might be included
(obviously not everything about suppliers, say, but the aspect thats relevant
to the blank).

The boundary of the system would be determined by the problem being
investigated (i.e. the blank) and would be broad enough so we could represent
the loops that we think can generate the behavior pattern of concern. Any
given loop might include parts of many players in the system.

Perhaps the concern is that Boeings market share has stopped gowing (perish
the thought!). Perhaps one hypothesis involves the loop:

[Image]
The loop contains aspects of Boeings order booking process, aspects of
manufacturing, aspects of Boeings sales effort, and aspects of its
customers. A simulation model designed to investigate the dynamics of the
loop would include the customers policy that that reduces orders in response
to increasing delivery delay, the relevant policy and structure internal to
Boeing and little else.

Regards,
Jim Hines
MIT and LeapTec
From: Jim Hines <jimhines@interserv.com>

Posted: **Mon Nov 16, 1998 6:03 am**

"John W. Gunkler" wrote:

> I, for instance, have created a methodology called "Layered Listening" in
> which we put representatives of several "layers" of the corporate value
> chain in the room and hold a modified kind of focus group with them

John, will be possible to obtain more details about your methodology ?
How it performs and what info should be obtain from the group?

Regards,

Armando J. Carradore
ajc@mbox.servicenet.com.ar

Ventana software support forum

Whole Systems

Whole Systems

Whole Systems

Whole Systems

Whole Systems

Whole Systems

Whole Systems

Whole Systems

Whole Systems