DOCSLIB.ORG

Schemas Theory Overview

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Schemas Theory Overview Schemas Theory Overview Part 9 Exploring Worldly Domains Kent D. Palmer [email protected] http://kdp.me 714-633-9508 Copyright 2019 KD Palmer All Rights Reserved. Not for Distribution. older: SchemasTheoryOverview_09_20190321kdp01a older: SchemasTheoryOverview_09_20190322kdp02a older: SchemasTheoryOverview_09_20190329kdp03a old: SchemasTheoryOverview_09_20190405kdp04a old: SchemasTheoryOverview_09_20190406kdp05a with appendix old: SchemasTheoryOverview_09_20190406kdp06a without appendix new: SchemasTheoryOverview_09_20190410kdp07a slight change Draft Version 01; unedited 2019. 03.21-29-04.07 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5298-4422 http://schematheory.net http://emergentdesign.net ResearcherID: O-4956-2015 Key Words: Schemas Theory, Systems Theory, Form, Pattern, Meta-system, OpenScape, Domain, World, Spacetime, Phenomenology, Structure of a Pattern, Essence of a Form, Nucleus of a System, Locus of a Meta-system, Systems Science, Systemology, Schematology, Monadology, Facet, Monad. Abstract: A closer look at the schemas emphasizing here Domains and Worlds. Even though the main information (surprise) of Schemas Theory is contained in the relation between System/Meta-system and to Special Systems, there is still something to be said about the next pair of Schemas going up the hierarchy which is the Domain and World Schemas. The Dual of the ‘Formal Structural System’ described by Klir in Architecture of Systems Problem Solving 1 is the ‘Domain World Meta- system’. This is a Schematic Tapestry2 that is the context for every Formal Structural System which is also a Tapestry itself. And these two Tapestries cover the realm of 1 Klir, George J, and Doug Elias. Architecture of Systems Problem Solving. Boston, MA: Springer US, 2003. 2 A continuity beyond the networking of these schemas with each other. https://www.academia.edu/38535146/Network_MetaSchemas 1 direct experience, with the other schemas3 being scaffolding exit outside the realm of direct experience. The question here is how the Domain and World Schemas augment what we already have discovered about the Meta-systemic OpenScape. The way I normally think about the Domain is that it is a Discipline such as those represented by Departments in Universities that are thematically organized. They are all about rigor and discipline of viewpoints that work together given a specific theme or subject matter. There may be a diversity of Opinion related to the Appearances that Phenomenologically appear regard the subject of study, but there is normally substantial agreement about the Ontos, Episteme and Paradigms that are the background to Theory production in a given discipline. Design Science is a Discipline that considers the domain of all possible approaches to Design. Systems Science (Systemology 4 ) is the domain that covers all of the various versions of General Systems Theory. One day there may be a ‘Schemology’ or Schemas Science that studies all possible and embodied Schemas used by human beings to comprehend Spacetime and perhaps other species as well. Schemology might study the question whether there are different schematizations in different cultures? Where a Domain is a restricted economy of viewpoints the World would be a general economy of viewpoints encompassing all possible and actualized viewpoints within a given World. Worlds are tied closely to languages. We accept a limited application of the Whorfian hypothesis5. Language structure does affect how we see the world. Domains have a technical vocabulary, but Worlds use general language of a culture 6 underwritten by society which is rooted in basic tropes like metaphor, metonymy, as well as analogy. By Worlds Schema we do not mean the Penrose and Popper “Worlds” used by Kenneth Lloyd in Foundations of Systems Science 7 , those are ‘regional ontologies’ or ‘realms of experience’ instead of Worlds or Domains proper as understood in Schemas Theory (http://schematheory.net). Worlds turn out to be singulars 8 . And that is probably the most interest things that the exploration of Schemas Theory has discovered about them. Domains are slices of that Singular that is the World with its embedded language. Domains restrict the viewpoints that are designated as identical, true, present, or real within the World. All experience takes place in a World of some kind. What is beyond the World is the Kosmos and Pluriverse which are conceptual scaffolding for the World. Kosmos means Universe and Pluriverse means Multi-verse or whatever was before the Big Bang in Physics. The Pluriverse is hidden from us as we can only be in one Universe at a time. But the Universe is seen by us as the realm of physical phenomena in the Modern era. Prior to that the Kosmos was Mythic. But we are only in a small corner of the Universe such that what we see of it is really miniscule. Even though it is visible, audible, and tactilely touchable, as well as hearable, and taste-able when close at hand, most of it is out of reach due to the speed of light limit on our movement that limits us mostly to 3 Monad/Facet on one end of the hierarchy and Kosmos/Pluriverse at the other. 4 Rousseau, David, Jennifer Wilby, Julie Billingham, and Stefan Blachfellner. General Systemology: Transdisciplinarity for Discovery, Insight and Innovation. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2018. 5 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Linguistic_relativity 6 Pagel, Mark D. Wired for Culture: The Natural History of Human Cooperation. London: Allen Lane, 2012. 7 Not published yet. http://wattsystems.com 8 When we apply the Philosophical Principles to the Schemas in order it turns out that the World Schema is characterized by the Singular Philosophical Principle. 2 exploration the Solar System given current technology. So that is why we say it is part of the scaffolding. It encompasses us and we cannot encompass it in its phenomenality, despite how much science has learned about it in terms of generalizations based on experiments conducted close to home or sensors that pick up what is happening beyond our reach such as the Hubble Telescope and other Astronomical instruments. While Meta-systems have horizons, Worlds really have vistas on the Kosmos. Worlds are tied to the Planet Earth in a very real way because it is our home environment. We may live on other planets someday so that they become worlds for us. But worlds need a community, a tribe, a people, a folk living and working together to support their existence. Worlds are fundamentally social in the widest sense covering all the humanities and the social sciences. Domains are like the boundaries of States or territories projected on the earth. Domains have a compass or purview. Domains look inward at the territory they enclose or warily look beyond their borders while the World looks out on the Kosmos. Worlds contain all possible viewpoints and perspectives while the Domain filters a subset of these into a rigorous discipline which it orders. Technology is one of the preeminent domains. Heidegger focuses on that Domain and shows that it has a different mode of Being for Dasein, which is the ready-to-hand, while Knowledge in Science has the ideal of being present-at-hand. These distinguish two equi-primordial modes of being-in-the-world of Dasein (being there) which are Pure and Process Being. Engineering is the discipline associated with Technology while Mathematics and Science is the discipline that is the ideal of knowledge discovery and elaboration which grounds Technology. There is a Mathematical “World” and a Scientific World concerning Physical phenomena in Kenneth Lloyd’s set of fundamental realms of experience or regional ontologies. To that we must add the Intersubjective realm which is the “World” in which Domains and Worlds as schemas appear. Oddly the Conceptual “World” turns out to be Technological for Kenneth Lloyd because he uses as his example of it the results of neural net classifications. This leaves the Mental “World” which we found was related to the System and Meta-system schemas. We can think about the Meta-system as a panorama to the horizon from a specific spot on the globe. But the Domain is the boundaries drawn on that globe that are established and enforced by one group against another group of what ever size. Domains are established by Kantian natural law (Mine/Yours) territorialization, and colonization by conquest. Mammals are territorial animals and so they naturally establish territorial boundaries and defend them against incursion, as well as taking over territories of weaker opponents. So, Domains have all the problems associated with the relation of the Map to the Territory. Maps are projected on Territories, but what is happening on the ground is not necessarily what is portrayed in the map. Maps can be Mercator, i.e. distorted, rather than globes. Worlds are associated instead with globes, and spherical geometry. With Worlds there is infinite maneuverability even if the surface area is finite because it is a sphere and you can keep going around it in different great circle routes. So, Worlds have closure that is natural rather than artificial boundaries like the Domain. Also, among the Domains even though each is a 3 restricted economy within its boundaries there is also “international waters” and other regions like failed states that are lawless, in other words there is always somewhere that is uncontrolled that makes the global landscape that is mostly territorialized a General Economy. There also has to be somewhere like Switzerland where money can be exchanged between rival powers that is neutral. Domains are screens for Ideological projection such as that discussed by Zizek 9 . However, Ideological projections are not strong enough to encompass the whole World. Domains are artificial enclaves in which ideological projection can be enforced at least temporarily10. But that means that the tension between ideology and reality is played out in the tension between Domains and Worlds with all its absurdity. Or instead, we can see the relation between Domains and Worlds in relation to Das Mann (Absolute Social Ego11) and Mitsein12 (Ultimate Social Ego).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Systemic View of Parts of the World
    50th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences 2006 (ISSS 2006) Rohnert Park, California, USA 9-14 July 2006 Volume 1 of 2 Editors: Jennifer Wilby Janet K. Allen Cecilia Loureiro-Koechlin ISBN: 978-1-62276-755-7 Printed from e-media with permission by: Curran Associates, Inc. 57 Morehouse Lane Red Hook, NY 12571 Some format issues inherent in the e-media version may also appear in this print version. Copyright© (2006) by the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS) All rights reserved. Printed by Curran Associates, Inc. (2013) For permission requests, please contact the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS) at the address below. International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS) 47 Southfield Road Pocklington, York YO42 2XE, United Kingdom Phone/Fax: +44 (0)1759 302718 [email protected] Additional copies of this publication are available from: Curran Associates, Inc. 57 Morehouse Lane Red Hook, NY 12571 USA Phone: 845-758-0400 Fax: 845-758-2634 Email: [email protected] Web: www.proceedings.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 1 Systemic View of Parts of the World....................................................................................................................................1 Korn, Janos Mindful Knowing................................................................................................................................................................. 26 Fielden, Kay Fostering a Sustainable Learning Society through Knowledge Based Development ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Enacting Research Methods in Information Systems: Volume 1
    Enacting Research Methods in Information Systems: Volume 1 Edited by Leslie P. Willcocks, Chris Sauer and Mary C. Lacity Enacting Research Methods in Information Systems: Volume 1 This page intentionally left blank Enacting Research Methods in Information Systems: Volume 1 Edited by Leslie P. Willcocks London School of Economics and Political Science, UK Chris Sauer Oxford University, UK and Mary C. Lacity University of Missouri-St Louis, USA Editors Leslie P. Willcocks Chris Sauer London School of Economics and Oxford University Political Science, London, UK Oxford, UK Mary C. Lacity University of Missouri-St Louis St Louis, Missouri, USA ISBN 978-3-319-29265-6 ISBN 978-3-319-29266-3 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29266-3 © Association for Information Technology Trust 2016 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2016 978-3-319-29265-6 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Manifesto for General Systems Transdisciplinarity (GSTD)
    Manifesto for General Systems Transdisciplinarity (GSTD) Dr David Rousseau, Centre for Systems Philosophy, UK Dr Jennifer Wilby, Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull, UK Julie Billingham, Centre for Systems Philosophy, UK Stefan Blachfellner, Bertalanffy Centre for the Study of the Systems Sciences, Austria The ISSS was founded on an ambition to develop a systems transdiscipline, grounded in a General System Theory (GST), which could be leveraged to build a systemically healthy world that promotes personal dignity, human welfare, international cooperation and environmental stewardship. The ISSS pioneers saw this as an urgently needed response to looming human, social and environmental crises, which at least in part coincide with what we recognise today as the Anthropocene. This ambition and call to action remain as inspiring and pertinent today as they were when the ISSS was founded in 1956 as the Society for the Advancement of General Systems Theory. The crises anticipated by our founders are now upon us, making the founders’ vision and call to action more pertinent than ever. Over the last two years ISSS members David Rousseau, Jennifer Wilby, Julie Billingham and Stefan Blachfellner have been investigating the possibility of accelerating progress towards a General Systems Transdiscipline (GSTD). This was done by working with: • contributors to the ISSS’s SIG on Systems Philosophy and SIG on Research towards a General Theory of Systems in 2013 and 2014, • participants in a special Symposium of the 2014 European Meetings on Cybernetics and Systems Research (EMCSR), • participants in a special 2014 Conversation of the International Federation of Systems Research (IFSR), and • attendees of a 2015 Workshop of the Systems Science Working Group (SysSciWG) of the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE).
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Health Systems Thinking
    THE UNIVERSITY OF HULL HEALTH SYSTEMS THINKING: THE NEED FOR A MORE CRITICAL APPROACH being a Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of Hull by Luis Gomes Sambo MD, Universidade Agostinho Neto, Angola and Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal Specialist in Public Health, Angolan Medical Post-Graduation College and Portuguese Medical Association Date: April 27, 2009 Abstract The present study intends to bring more insights and added value to Health Systems Thinking using systems ideas. It inquires about the current state of Health Systems Thinking, analyses different strengths of alternative systems approaches, and suggests what systems thinking can offer in order to improve the current understanding and the technical performance of Health Systems. It does not intend to develop a blue print model but rather a more critical approach to deal with some of the intractable problems encountered in current health sector reforms. The thesis is not expected to serve public health practitioners only but also systems thinking theorists, particularly those interested in social systems and pluralism in management sciences. Specifically, this thesis aims at analysing the current state of Health Systems Thinking; explores what other systems approaches can offer to enlighten health systems; and yields knowledge on Critical Health Systems Thinking. To achieve these aims the researcher articulated the study on the basis of the definition of health by the World Health Organisation, the interconnectedness among key health determinants and the global health challenges with particular emphasis in Sub-Saharan Africa. Critical Systems Thinking is the theoretical framework in which knowledge about systems is expressed and the current state of Health Systems Thinking is the area of concern in relation to which the researcher has aspirations.
    [Show full text]
  • IASCYS the International Academy for Systems & Cybernetic Sciences
    IASCYS The International Academy for Systems & CYbernetic Sciences 77 Academicians (2021/04/13) -alphabetic order- 1. Mary Catherine BATESON (USA) Cultural Anthropology & Cybernetics 2. Ockert J. H. BOSCH (New Zealand) Ecology Management 3. Paul BOURGINE (France) Cognitive Sciences and Artificial Intelligence 4. Pierre BRICAGE (France) Biologist, Secretary General 5. Søren BRIER (Denmark) Systems Cybersemiotics Philosopher 6. Pille BUNNELL (Canada) Systems Ecologist 7. Tom R. BURNS (Sweden) Sociologist 8. Xiaoqiang CAI (PR China, Hong Kong) Systems Engineering and Engineering Management, 9. Jinde CAO (PR China) Artificial Intelligence 10. Antonio CASELLES MONCHO (Spain) Applied Mathematician 11. Guangya CHEN (PR China) Operations Research & Systems Engineering 12. Hanfu CHEN (PR China) Automation & Systems Control Engineering 13. Jian CHEN (PR China) Systems Engineering & Management Science 14. C.L. Philip CHEN (PR China, Macao) Intelligent Systems Engineering 15. T.C. Edwin CHENG (PR China) Business Administration 16. Gerhard CHROUST (Austria) Systems Engineering & Automation 17. Gerard de ZEEUW (Netherlands) Architectural Design 18. Zengru DI (PR China) Socio-Economics Systems Engineering 19. Georgi M. DIMIROVSKI (R. Nth Macedonia) Computer & Control Sciences, Vice-President for membership 20. Gérard DONNADIEU (France) Systems Engineering & Management 21. Jean-Pierre DUPUY (France) Risk Management & Ethics 22. Raúl ESPEJO (UK) Systems Organization & Complexity Management, WOSC President 23. Helder Manuel FERREIRA COELHO (Portugal) Artificial Intelligence Engineering 24. Charles FRANÇOIS (Belgium) Cybernetics, Systems Theory & Systems Science 25. Ranulph GLANVILLE (UK) Cybernetics & Design 26. Jifa GU (PR China) Operations Research & Systems Engineering 27. Enrique HERRSCHER (Argentina) Economist & Systems Scientist 28. Wolfgang HOFKIRCHNER (Austria) Information Science, Internet & Society 29. Tingwen HUANG (Qatar) Systems Dynamics, Control & Optimization 30. Ray ISON (Australia) Systems Governance, IFSR President 31.
    [Show full text]
  • Detailed Programme of the Overall 2014 Meetings
    Programme and Schedule Tuesday: April 22, 2014 Registration Desk Open 8:00 – 16:00 and 17:30 – 18:00 Lobby, Department for Communication Studies, University of Vienna, Währingerstrasse 29 8:00 Early Registration Lobby 9:00 – 10:30 Plenary Session Lecture Hall Opening and Welcome by Chair and Co-Chairs Wolfgang Hofkirchner, on behalf of the Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science – EMCSR Chair Iryna Dobronravova, on behalf of the Ukrainian Synergetic Society 9:00 Andrée Piecq, on behalf of the Union Européenne de Systémique Markus Schwaninger, on behalf of the World Organisation of Systems and Cybernetics Robert Trappl, on behalf of the International Academy for Systems and Cybernetic Sciences Jennifer Wilby, on behalf of the International Society for the Systems Sciences Rainer E. Zimmermann, on behalf of the Institut für Design Science München Greetings Gerhard Banse, on behalf of the Leibniz-Sozietät der Wissenschaften zu Berlin e.V., Germany Opening and Welcome David Rousseau, Centre for Systems Philosophy, Surrey, United Kingdom – Systema Editor-in-Chief 9:45 Stefan Blachfellner, Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science, Austria – EMCSR Conference Management, International Federation for Systems Research, Austria – Vice President Opening Address: The Baconian Project of Science and the Crisis of "Salomon's House" 10:00 Hans Schelkshorn, Department of Christian Philosophy, University of Vienna, Austria 10:30 – 11:00 Late Registration & Coffee break Lobby 1 11:00 – 12:30 Plenary Session Lecture Hall Keynote: The need for both specialists and generalists 11:00 Mario Bunge, Department of Philosophy, McGill University, Montreal, Canada Award Ceremony: The Ludwig von Bertalanffy Award in Complexity Thinking 12:00 Laudatio by Rainer E.
    [Show full text]
  • Applying System Dynamics Modelling to Building Resilient Logistics: a Case of the Humber Ports Complex
    Applying System Dynamics Modelling To Building Resilient Logistics: A Case of the Humber Ports Complex A thesis submitted By John Kwesi Buor MBA (Log.), B.Ed. (Math/Sc), Dip. Math To The Hull University Business School’s Logistics Institute in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Management University of Hull UK 2015 Dedication To my son Robin Yaw Buor Koranteng for the enormous sacrifice he has made. Dedications also to the less privileged of any society in the world, especially to the mustard seeds whom, for the lack of support, the perceived “haves” cite them as accursed. ii The Abstract This research employs system dynamics modelling to analyse the structural behaviour of the interactions between Disaster Preparedness, Environment Instability, and Resilience in maritime logistics chain as a response to policy change, or strategic risk management interventions, at ports on the Humber Estuary. Port authorities, logistics operators, agencies, transporters, and researchers have revealed that disasters lead to interruptions in free flow of supply chains, and has the potential to disrupt the overall performance of a logistics chain. There is strong evidence about the rise in frequency, magnitude, and disruption potentials of catastrophic events in recent times (e.g. 9/11 attack, the Japanese earthquake/Tsunami and the aftermath nuclear disaster, Hurricanes Katrina and Haiyan, Super Storm Sandy, and many more). However, it appears that risk managers are not able to anticipate the outcomes of risk management decisions, and how those strategic interventions can affect the future of the logistics chain. Management appears to misjudge (or miscalculate) risks, perhaps due to the assumed complexity, the unpredictability of associated disruptions, and sometimes due to individual managerial approach to risk management.
    [Show full text]
  • A Typology of Emergence in Social Systems and Sociocybernetic Theory
    A TYPOLOGY OF EMERGENCE IN SOCIAL SYSTEMS AND SOCIOCYBERNETIC THEORY Kenneth D. Bailey Past President, RC 51 Department of Sociology University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, California 90095 USA [email protected] Prepared for presentation at the International Sociological Association XVI World Congress, Durban, South Africa, Research Committee 51, Sociocybernetics, Session 17, “Emergence in Social Systems and Sociocybernetic Theory, July 29, 2006. A TYPOLOGY OF EMERGENCE IN SOCIAL SYSTEMS AND SOCIOCYBERNETIC THEORY ABSTRACT The concept of emergence, like that of complexity, is central to the development of sociocybernetics and social systems theory. The classical “whole is greater than the sum of its parts” model is a traditional model not only of emergence, but also of a social system, with individuals being the parts, and society (as derived through interaction among individuals) being the “emergent “whole”. While the models of emergence as presented by Buckley, Luhmann, Miller, and others may differ in form and in their relation to complexity, they all recognize emergence as a “bottom-up” hierarchical concept. All of these models view emergence as aggregative and as essentially irreducible. However, emergence is a multidimensional concept, rather than being essentially unidimensional, as is usually assumed. The only way to adequately present and analyze all of the dimensions of emergence is through a typology. The purpose of this paper is to construct this typology. The typology will subsequently be used as a mechanism for recognizing and analyzing the various types of emergence that exist in contemporary social systems theory and sociocybernetics, with the aim of ultimately eliminating much of the confusion that now surrounds the concept of emergence.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2018 IASCYS Yearbook
    The International Academy for SYSTEMS and CYBERNETIC SCIENCES pictures by alphabetic order IASCYS 2018 yearbook The International Academy for SYSTEMS and CYBERNETIC SCIENCES pictures by alphabetic order IASCYS 2018 yearbook IASCYS The International Academy for Systems & CYbernetic Sciences 62 Academicians (2019/01/01) -alphabetic order- 1. Mary Catherine BATESON (USA) Cultural Anthropology & Cybernetics 2. Ockert J. H. BOSCH (Australia) Quantitative Ecology & Vegetation Management, Vice-President [email protected] 3. Pierre BRICAGE (France) Biologist, Secretary General [email protected] 4. Søren BRIER (Denmark) Systems Cybersemiotics Philosopher 5. Pille BUNNELL (Canada) Systems Ecologist 6. Tom R. BURNS (Sweden) Sociologist 7. Xiaoqiang CAI (PR China) Systems Engineering and Engineering Management 8. Antonio CASELLES MONCHO (Spain) Applied Mathematician 9. Guangya CHEN (PR China) Operations Research & Systems Engineering 10. Hanfu CHEN (PR China) Automation & Systems Control Engineering 11. Jian CHEN (PR China) Systems Engineering & Management Science 12. C.L. Philip CHEN (PR China) Intelligent Systems Engineering 13. T.C. Edwin CHENG (PR China) Business Administration 14. Gerhard CHROUST (Austria) Systems Engineering & Automation 15. Gerard de ZEEUW (Netherlands) Architectural Design 16. Georgi Marko DIMIROVSKI (Macedonia) Computer & Control Sciences 17. Jean-Pierre DUPUY (France) Risk Management & Ethics 18. Raúl ESPEJO (UK) Systems Organization & Complexity Management 19. Charles FRANÇOIS (Belgium) Cybernetics, Systems Theory & Systems Science 20. Ranulph GLANVILLE (UK) Cybernetics & Design 21. Jifa GU (PR China) Operations Research & Systems Engineering,Vice-President [email protected] 22. Enrique HERRSCHER (Argentina) Economist & Systems Scientist 23. Wolfgang HOFKIRCHNER (Austria) Information Science, Internet & Society 24. Ray ISON (Australia) Systems Governance 25. Michael C. JACKSON (UK) Management Systems Scientist 26.
    [Show full text]
  • Service Systems and Systems Sciences in the 21St Century
    Service Systems and Systems Sciences in the 21st Century Jennifer M Wilby Kyoichi Kijima David Ing Gary S. Metcalf University of Hull Tokyo Institute of Technology IBM InterConnections LLC [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Copyright © 2010 by Jennifer M. Wilby, Kyochi Kijima, David Ing, Gary S. Metcalf. Published and used by INCOSE with permission. Abstract. Progress on the emerging science of service systems will be advanced by improved collaboration between scientists, engineers, managers and designers. The endorsement of SysML by the OMG provides an option for rigourous descriptions of service systems. The domains modeled by systems engineers have generally been technical in nature. "A service system can be defined as a dynamic configuration of resources (people, technology, organisations and shared information) that creates and delivers value between the provider and the customer through service" (IfM and IBM 2008). Service systems in the 21st century not only include service machines, but also commercial relationship interactions and public infrastructural and social offerings. Broadening the domains of interest to the subjective and the ambiguous presents challenges not only the formal modeling of systems, but also the effective attainment and communications of shared understandings. A group of senior researchers with shared knowledge in the systems sciences has been conducting conversations about service systems, applying modeling tools in both face-to-face and distributed communications. Findings on joint learning, obstacles, and the responses from observers will be discussed. Introduction: Jennifer M. Wilby, “Service Systems and the Systems Sciences” This panel is to be moderated at the INCOSE International Symposium in Chicago, July 2010, by Jennifer Wilby.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 19, No
    Newsletter Official Newsletter of the International Federation for Systems Research Editor-in-Chief: Gerhard Chroust Volume 26, no. 1 (Dec. 2008) Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Dear Members! Another very active year for the IFSR has passed and I am proud to have the privilege to support these activities. For me, personally, much has changed: Since October 1st, 2007 I am a Professor Emeritus of the University of Linz. This has some dramatic changes for me and also for my job as Secretary General of the IFSR: I can devote more time to the IFSR, on the other hand I do not have any secretarial support from the university any more. So be patient if some things get delayed. On the other hand I hope you have noticed the increased activity on our homepage. This is now our primary medium of information exchange and communication – please use it and support it by supplying information. This drastically changes the purpose of the IFSR-Newsletter: I think that only information of an archival value should go into the newsletter. This precludes short-term announcements of conferences etc. – These you find on the web-site! And it is more up-to-date! But this Newsletter will inform you of major activities of the IFSR, especially in the past year – you will be surprised, how diversified the IFSR has become in its intentions. Let me now wish you all A Merry Christmas and a Happy, Healthy New Year 2009 Gerhard Chroust ISSN 1818-0809 (print) ISSN 1818-0817 (online) 1 Our new Vice-President: Yoshiteru Nakamori: In the Board Meeting on March 26, 2008 in Vienna (see p.14) the IFSR Board elected a new vice president: Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Community OR Organisers: Martha Vahl, Eliseo Vilalta-Perdomo And
    Community OR Organisers: Martha Vahl, Eliseo Vilalta-Perdomo and Alejandro Ochoa-Arias Martha Vahl Eliseo Vilalta-Perdomo 8/9/2010 : 09:30 : Room Windsor 0.03 Code:COR1 Modelling Dynamic Preferences of Disruptive Agents to Assess Risks of Violence Outbreaks Sumitra Sribhashyam*, Gilberto Montibeller** *The London School of Economics and Political Science,, **LSE Modelling threats caused by disruptive agents has been a booming area of interest, emphasised since the 9/11 terrorist strikes and especially in the field of insurances. Several modelling approaches have been attempted, including Monte Carlo simulations. Arguably, these methods may help in assessing natural disasters, but they may not be as accurate to model threats caused by agents within a system. Agents are subject to change their behaviour based on the system in which they evolve, and hence, observed past behaviour may prove to be an irrelevant factor in determining their future one. The proposed research aims to develop a framework for determining dynamic preferences over time of disruptive agents, which may help anticipate a motivation to cause social unrest and help understand how this impacts agents’ choice of a harmful action. The focus will be on modelling preferences changes induced by changes in beliefs, objectives or desired outcomes caused by various exogenous factors. The integration of multi-criteria decision analysis and system dynamics is investigated in order to achieve the aims. We propose to model the preference ordering of the disruptive agents based on their objectives to identify the most probable disruptive actions that such agents may perpetrate. To model exogenous changes, which may have an impact on the agents’ preferences, we propose using a system dynamics model.
    [Show full text]