Ventana software support forum

Greetings colleagues!

I am working in the areas of resource policy and resource management using
system dynamics as my major approach. I believe others would agree that
system dynamics is much more than a tool. It is a legitimate framework in
its own right. As such, SD touches on many philosophical questions. One
of the most intriguing questions for me at the moment, is trying to come to
terms with the meaning of the words system, and holistic. I have not
really thought much about this in the past. In recent times, though, I
have put some effort into exposing my SD work to colleagues to whom both
the method and philosophy are a bit mysterious. Perhaps surprisingly, my
colleagues seem to be most concerned with the notions underlying the
systems perspective. What does the systems perspective involve and how can
we capture anything like a comprehensive accounting of any systems
components in an abstract SD model? Like most of us, I suspect, one of the
first responses I provide to questioning of this nature is that system
behaviour is described by more than the sum of component behaviours. To
realistically understand, let alone manage, system behaviour, we need a
systems or holistic perspective. SD is an appropriate modelling approach
for developing holistic insights of this nature. I suspect that I am
guilty of downplaying the anxiety that such a justification causes amongst
my non-systems thinking colleagues.

I have often received the comment that the SD and general systems
literatures provide a very superficial treatment of the concepts
underlying the systems perspective. It would seem, for example, that some
would suggest that more is implied by words such as holistic and
systems than is apparent to a non-systems observer familiar only with the
official dictionary meaning of the term.

What does the word holistic mean, or even more importantly, what does it
imply for things like management, policy and research? Is holistic an
acceptable term in the territory of SD? Are holistic and systems
synonymous terms? I have decided to prepare a paper on the subject to
facilitate some debate. I have started with the official definition of the
term: the philosophical theory that wholes (which are more than the mere
sums of their parts) are fundamental aspects of the real. Two related
aspects arise from this definition. First, the notion that whole system
behaviour is explained by more than the sum of the behaviours of its
constituent components and second, that holism is synonymous with the
realistic explanation of a systems behaviour.

I am seeking the input of colleagues on this list to help me out on the
questions I have posed above. I would appreciate any feedback.


regards


Dr Roderic A. Gill
Deputy Director,
Centre for Agricultural and Resource Economics (CARE)
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics,
University of New England,
Armidale, NSW, Australia
telephone: 067 73 2280, fax: 067 733944, mobile: 015 293 288

"Wisdom is a happy marriage between respect for tradition on the one
hand, and confidence in ones own discernment on the other".

Dr. Gill writes:

>What does the word holistic mean, or even more importantly, what does it
>imply for things like management, policy and research? Is holistic an
>acceptable term in the territory of SD? Are holistic and systems
>synonymous terms?

"Holism" was coined in the 1890s, I think, by Jan Christian Smuts, one time
governor of South Africa who dabbled in philosophy. I cant recall offhand
his definition(s) of the word, but most now take it to identify an effort
to think about a problem not by studying its "parts" separately but rather
by studying the parts as they assemble together to create the whole. In
this sense, I think a "holistic view" is pretty much synonymous with some
interpretations of a "systems view."

Efforts to define "holistic" and "systems" are potentially doomed to
unsatisfying results, a bit like Euclid trying to write definitions of a
"point" or a "line" -- inevitably we create circular definitions. However,
my favorite "definition" comes from Adam Smith: "Systems in many respects
resemble machines. A machine is a little system, created to perform, as
well as to connect together, in reality, those different movements and
effects which the artist has occasion for. A system is an imaginary
machine invented to connect together in the fancy those different movements
and effects which are already in reality performed." I like this
characterization because it says systems are in our heads -- they are the
organizations we make mentally of things we see connected somehow in
reality.

Better than trying to define "system" or "holism," I think, is the effort
to think systemically or holistically. I think we could fall apart trying
to define, when we could actually be quite productive just doing it as best
we can, like Forrester, Checkland, Senge, Sterman, and so on. Like the
bee, they say, whom scholars proved could not fly but cant read so it goes
on flying.

Do we need to do better than "good systems thinking is what good systems
thinkers do"? Cant we just tackle real problems? My father, at the end
of his professional life was a "systems engineer" at Bell Labs. He asked
me more than once: "What is systems engineering anyway, other than just
damn good engineering?"

...GPR



.............................................................................
George P. Richardson G.P.Richardson@Albany.edu
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs & Policy GR383@Albnyvms.bitnet
State University of New York at Albany Phone: 518-442-3859
Albany, NY 12222 FAX: 518-442-3398
.............................................................................