7112565.PDF (2.611Mb)

71-12,555 DEL MAE, Donald, 1928- AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ORIGIN OF THE SYSTEMS CONCEPT. The University of Oklahoma, D.B.A., 1970 Business Administration University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ORIGIN OF THE SYSTEMS CONCEPT A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION BY DONALD DEL MAR Norman, Oklahoma 1970 AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ORIGIN OF THE SYSTEMS CONCEPT u SSERTATION COMMITTEE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to thank Dr. R. L. Boyes, Chairman of the Department of Management and Associate Professor of Manage ment, for his guidance, assistance, encouragement, and patience in directing this dissertation. Sincere appreciation is expressed to Dr. Ronald B. Shuman, Research Professor of Management, for his many helpful and constructive suggestions and his editorial guidance. To Dr. L. D. Bishop, Professor of Management; Dr. James A. Constantin, David Ross Boyd Professor of Marketing and Transportation; and Dr. James E. Hibdon, Professor of Economics, all members of the dissertation committee, I would like to express my thanks for their assistance and encouragement. I also wish to thank Miss Patsy Stephens for her help in coordinating communications and for typing the preliminary and final drafts. Ill TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENT................................... i ü Chapter I. INTRODUCTION......................... 1 The problems and Objectives .......... 1 The Justification for a Historical Investigation ....................... 5 Scope and Limitations of the Study. 8 Some Investigative Problems .......... 9 Research Methodology.............. 11 Further Organization of the Dissertation 14 II. ESTABLISHMENT OF SYSTEMS CONCEPT CRITERIA 18 Etymology of "System" ................. 19 System and Systems Concept........ 21 System........................... 22 The System Concept.............. 26 Some Other Definitions............ 30 Hierarchy and Subsystems........ 31 The Boundary Concept............ 33 Summary and Conclusions.......... 35 Development of Criteria of Definition . 36 Criteria........................ 37 III. DEVELOPMENT OF DEFINITIONS RELATING TO THE SYSTEMS CONCEPT 1813-1914 .......... 39 Builders of the Systems Concept 1813-1914 40 Robert Owen .................... 40 Andrew Ure...................... 42 Jules Dupuit.................... 43 Henry Towne .................... 44 Harrington Emerson.............. 46 Henry L. Gantt.................. 46 Frederick W. T a y l o r ............ 47 Frank B. Gilbreth.............. 48 Morris L. Cooke ................ 48 Russell R o b b .................. 49 Hugo D i e m e r .................... 50 iv Page Louis D. Drandeis....................... 51 Henry P. Kendall......................... 53 Alexander K. Church ..................... 54 Leon P. Alford........................... 55 Analysis and Evaluation ................... 56 IV. THE SYSTEMS CONCEPT 1915-1940 ........... 62 The Development of the Systems Concept 1915-1940 ............................... 63 DuPont Subcommittee Report............... 63 Henry S. Dennison....................... 65 J. William. Schulze....................... 65 Alfred P. Sloan ......................... 67 Richard k. Feiss......................... 68 Keppele Hall............................. 69 H. S. Person............................. 70 Oliver Sheldon........................... 70 Percival VJhite........................... 71 Harry A, H o p f ........................... 72 Chester I. Barnard.................... 73 Analysis and Evaluation ................ 75 V. THE SYSTEMS CONCEPT 1941-1969 ........... 82 The Development of the Systems Concept 1941-1969 ............................... 83 Weapons Systems ......................... 83 Herbert A. Simon...................... 86 William G. Scott...................... 90 Justin G. Longenecker ................... 91 Allan Harvey............................. 93 Leonard J. Garrett and Milton Silver. 95 George Terry............................. 97 Roy Fenstermaker....................... 98 Herb E. K l e i n ......................... 101 Ralph D e u tsc h ......................... 102 Analysis and Evaluation .................. 103 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.................... 106 S u mma ry................................... 106 Conclusions............................... 115 BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................... 121 m INVESTIGATION INTO THE ORIGIN OF THE SYSTEMS CONCEPT CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problems and Objectives The startling changes in industrial technology which have occurred since the second World War have been paral leled by significant changes in the theory and practice of management. These changes, although more subtle than those arising from technological innovation, have nevertheless had a great impact upon the teaching and practice of management. One of the major m.anagerial concepts that has come to the forefront during the past twenty-five years and particularly during the last decade is that of the "systems concept." The extent to which this idea has pervaded the field of management is evidenced by the fact that the term is now incorporated into the working vocabulary of acade micians, practitioners of the art, and writers of business literature. However, understanding of the concept does not appear to be commensurate with its usage. This may be due in large part to semantical problems arising from inconsistent employment of the term. This confusion is not limited to the use and meaning of the term "systems con cept," only, but also covers the origin of the concept itself and the definitions and implications of such closely related terms as "system," "system hierarchy," and "system boundary." A preliminary investigation into the subject suggests that these terms and concepts take on different definitive dimensions depending upon the objectives of the writer and the context in which they are employed. For example, the term "system" is commonly used to define a set of account ing rules and regulations as in an "accounting system," to describe the physical facilities and rolling stock of a bus company as in a "transit system," the procedure for selecting men for the armed services as in the "selective service system," and the means whereby one expects to "beat the odds" at Las Vegas as his "system." In contemporary business literature many individuals are treating the "systems concept" as being something new, while some even go so far as to imply that application of the concept to business is also new. In this writer's opinion neither claim is correct. Moreover the develop ment of today's "systems concept" has been evolutionary in nature rather than revolutionary. In fact it is quite conceivable that the development of the concept over the years has been brought on by necessity. As businesses have 3 increased in size and complexity, a more sophisticated managerial viewpoint or concept of the whole organization is mandatory to its continued success and the achievement of strategic goals. The primary purpose of this study is to examine, from a historical point of view, the origins and growth of what is referred to in contemporary business literature as the "systems concept." To aid in this investigation into the antecedents of the "systems concept," an examination and analysis of several closely related terms and concepts such as "system," "system boundary," and "system hierarchy" will be carried out first. This examination and analysis of pertinent terms and concepts will be made to determine whether and to what extent there exists a common meaning among the terms as they are used by various contemporary writers. Clarification of the definitions of these terms should assist in dispelling some of the semantical problems surrounding their use and that of the "systems concept." A secondary objective of this study is to deter mine whether the evolution of what is now referred to as the "systems concept" paralleled the evolution of business structures. That is, given that business structures over the years have in a general sense increased in size and complexity, has the evolution of the operational definitions generally paralleled this change? For the purpose of orienting the reader to the subject of "systems" and the "systems concept" the following 4 representative operational definitions were selected from contemporary business literature. Gibson defines a system as "an integrated assembly of interacting elements designed to carry out cooperatively a predetermined function. If applied to a business these "interacting elements" could be functional departments such as accounting and manufactur ing or parts of such departments such as an auditing or production control group. From this we can see that a department can be considered, at one and the same time, as a system, made up of a number of smaller groups or subsystems or as an element or subsystem of a larger more inclusive group such as a division. Likewise the division could be considered a subsystem of a larger group such as a company. This design in which systems nest within other systems which in turn nest within still other systems is referred to as a "system hierarchy" and is more fully explored in the next chapter. Ralph Martin, among other contemporary writers, advances the idea that these components, elem.ents, or subsystems should be viewed as making up a synergistic

Load more