Systems Praxis Framework Brochure
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Systems Praxis Framework, a joint project of the International Council on Systems Engineering and the International Society for the Systems Sciences INTEGRATIVE SYSTEMS SCIENCE Pragmatic Disciplines Identifying, exploring, and understanding patterns of complexity through contributions from e.g., Accounting, Scientific Disciplines e.g., Physics, Design, Law Neuroscience Foundations Theories Representations Meta-theories of Methodology, General Systems Theory, Systems Models, Dynamics, Networks, Ontology, Epistemology, Axiology, Pathology, Complexity, Anticipatory Cellular Automata, Life Cycles, Formal Disciplines Disciplines Praxiology (theory of effective Systems, Cybernetics, Autopoiesis, Queues, Graphs, Rich Pictures, e.g., Math, Logic, Humanistic e.g., Psychology, action), Teleology, Semiotics and Living Systems, Science of Generic Narratives, Games and Dramas, Computation Culture, Rhetoric Semiosis, Categories, etc. Design, Organization Theory, etc. Agent-based Simulations, etc. SYSTEMS THINKING Appreciative and reflective practice using practice informs theory 'systems-paradigm' concepts, principles, patterns, etc. theory informs practice SYSTEMS APPROACHES TO PRACTICE Addressing complex problems/opportunities using methods, tools, frameworks, practice patterns, etc. input from experience Pragmatic, Pluralist, or Critical multi-methodology uses heuristics, prototyping, model unfolding, and legacy practices direct input from boundary critiques, etc., to understand assumptions, contexts, and constraints, including complexity from disciplines stakeholder values and valuations; chooses appropriate mix of 'hard', 'soft', and custom methods; sees systems as networks, societies of agents, organisms, ecosystems, rhizomes, discourses, machines, etc. solicited measured local values, and specified 'Hard' methods are suited to solving well-defined 'Soft' methods are suited to structuring problems knowledge, etc. problems with reliable data, clear optimization goals, involving incomplete data, unclear goals, perspective data, metrics, etc. and at most objective complexity; use machine and role complexity, etc.; use learning system metaphor and realist/functionalist foundations. metaphor and constructivist/interpretivist foundations. Outcomes Actions Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License http://www.systemspraxis.org © 2012 International Federation for Systems Research The Systems Praxis Framework • Foundations, which help us to organize knowledge, data, unclear goals, or open inquiries using a learning, and discovery; “learning system” metaphor. They focus on commu- systemspraxis.org • Theories about systems, identifying patterns nication, subjective and inter-subjective complexity, (September 2012) abstracted from and applicable across domains and interpretations, and roles. They are based on “social- specialties; constructivist”, “interpretivist”, and “humanist” The challenges of complex systems require people to work together across disciplines. To work together, we must first • Representations, which allow insight into and foundations. communicate; and to communicate, we must first connect. communication about systems and their contexts by Systems Praxis is part of a wider ecosystem of All those who work with systems can connect through describing, exploring, analyzing, making predictions, knowledge, learning, and action. Successful integration appreciating their synergistic roles in systems praxis. etc. with this wider ecosystem is the key to success with Praxis is “integrating theory and practice”. Systems Systems Approaches to Practice aim to produce “real-world” systems. Systems science draws on and Praxis refers to the entire intellectual and practical desired outcomes while being mindful of unintended integrates insights regarding complex problems from endeavor of creating holistic solutions to complex consequences. No one branch of systems science or the differentiated disciplines, including “hard” scientific system challenges. Systems concepts, principles, and practice provides a satisfactory explanation for all disciplines such as physics and neuroscience; formal methods are designed to be integrative across traditional aspects of a typical system “problematique”, so practice disciplines such as mathematics, logic, and domain boundaries. However, multiple dimensions of needs to involve the range of knowledge appropriate to computation; humanistic disciplines such as complexity (social, technical, environmental, etc.) may the system of interest and its wider context. psychology, culture, and rhetoric; and pragmatic require a blend of approaches and techniques from • A Pragmatic (also called Pluralist, Critical, or multi- disciplines, such as accounting, design, and law. disparate systems traditions. Terminology for the methodological) approach judiciously selects a mix of Systems approaches to practice depend on: measured various systems domains, scales, and types may appear “hard”, “soft”, and custom methods, tools and patterns, data and specified metrics relevant to the problem or similar; but assumptions underpinning worldview, drawing from different foundations and systems- opportunity situation and domain; understanding of culture, and success criteria are not necessarily shared. specific and domain-specific traditions as local values and knowledge; and pragmatic integration The result is that systems practitioners and theorists are appropriate to the situation. The approach is open to of experience, legacy practices, and discipline apt to find that, while they all are focused on “systems”, whatever is useful for gaining sufficient insights to knowledge. numerous subtle differences result in their being address the issues at hand and achieve desired In summary: Integrative Systems Science allows us “divided by a common language”. combinations of emergent properties. Heuristics, to identify, explore, and understand patterns of The Systems Praxis Framework gives systems “boundary critiques”, “model unfolding”, etc., allow complexity relevant to a problematique; Systems researchers and practitioners a common “map” wherein assumptions, contexts, and constraints to be Approaches to Practice draw on integrative systems they can recognize and appreciate the complementary challenged and understood, uncovering hidden science to address complex problems and opportunities; roles played by all participants and stakeholders in the sources of complexity, such as from different Systems Thinking binds the two together through complex process of systems praxis. stakeholders’ values and valuations. Systems may be appreciative and reflective practice using systems- viewed as hierarchies, networks, societies of agents, paradigm concepts, principles, and patterns; and, finally, Systems Thinking is the core integrative element of organisms, ecosystems, rhizomes, discourses, observing the results of systems practice enhances both the framework. It binds the foundations, theories and machines, etc. practice and theory. representations of systems science together with the • “Hard” methods are suited to solving well-defined pragmatic, “hard”, and “soft” approaches of systems problems with reliable data and clear goals, using practice. In systems praxis, there is a constant interplay analytical methods and quantitative techniques. © 2012 International Federation for Systems Research, released of theory informing practice and outcomes from Strongly influenced by “machine” metaphors, they under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Credits: practice informing theory. Systems thinking guides this focus on technical systems, objective complexity, Diagram lead—Janet Singer, Narrative lead—Hillary Sillitto Team members—Johan Bendz, Gerhard Chroust, ongoing activity, reflecting on and appreciating systems and optimization. They are based on “realist”, and contexts, in order to choose appropriate adaptations. Duane Hybertson, Harold “Bud” Lawson, James Martin, “functionalist”, and “positivist” foundations. Richard Martin, Michael Singer, Tatsumasa Takaku. Integrative Systems Science has a very wide scope • “Soft” methods are suited to resolving or structuring Thanks also to Rick Adcock, Billy Dawson, David Ing, Ray and is grouped into three broad areas: problems and opportunities involving incomplete Ison, Gary Metcalf, Gerald Midgley, Jack Ring, Jennifer Wilby. .