DOCSLIB.ORG

SYSTEMS THINKING: the WINNING FORMULA “Best Practices Research - the DNA of Successful Organizations” “Systems Thinking: the Natural Way the World Works”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SYSTEMS THINKING: the WINNING FORMULA “Best Practices Research - the DNA of Successful Organizations” “Systems Thinking: the Natural Way the World Works” SYSTEMS THINKING: THE WINNING FORMULA “Best Practices Research - The DNA of Successful Organizations” “Systems Thinking: The Natural Way the World Works” By Stephen Haines, Founder and CEO of the Haines Centre for Strategic Management® Our Haines Centre for Strategic Management utilizes the Sci- The Winning Formula ence of Systems Thinking as embodied by General Systems Theory and the Society of General Systems Research (now ISSS). Systems Thinking is based on 50 years of scientific The Systems Thinking Approach® is our foundation, our core research on the unity of Science for Living Systems technology, and a new orientation to life. It is the best, most and is the best, most holistic, organizing frame- holistic organizing framework and language available in the work and language available in the world to guide world to guide all our consulting, training, and keynoting with all our thinking, planning and actions in life. clients. Why? Systems Thinking is a heavily researched and rigorous macro- taught and where he was influenced by von Bertalanffy and his scientific theory with its roots in the Universal Laws of Living Society of General Systems Research. Systems on Earth and in ecology and biology. It is analogous to DNA in humans; it defines our life-giving characteristics. An Others he influenced include Victor Frankl (In Search of Austrian, Ludwig von Bertalanffy is the father of what he called Meaning), Aldous Huxley, Karl Menninger, Arthur Koestler, General Systems Theory when he formed the Society of General Norbert Weiner, Russell Ackoff, Abraham Maslow, Ervin Systems Research in 1954 with Margaret Mead and three super- Laszlo, Erik Erikson, and Jean Piaget to name only a few. star Nobel Prize winners from economics (Kenneth Boulding), While we do not know of von Bertalanffy, we all know W. physiology (Ralph Gerard), physics/math (Anatol Rapoport). Edwards Deming, the father of quality and his TQM approach. It has been a more recent focus of Dr. Russell Ackoff (renais- The “T” in TQM means “total” or “entire system” and was his sance professor emeritus at University of Pennsylvania) and approach as another renowned Systems Thinker. Unfortunately Dr. Jay Forrester at MIT in Systems Dynamics, among others. his thinking was not initially accepted in western management In fact, we have identified over 30 other scientific disciplines and society. So he had to go to Japan and became so revered such as electronics, architecture, complexity, chaos theory and that their top quality award is the “Deming Prize”. We later project management, whose leading thinkers and writers are established ours as the “Baldrige Award for Quality”, a much less moving in this direction. This is the long-term result of the five prestigious name. superstars above whose goal was finding a unity of science for all complex living things on earth. Von Bertalanffy was nomi- The question we are often asked is; who were some of Deming’s nated for a Nobel Prize himself by Buckminster Fuller, another prime clients in Japan and what were their results? Toyota was renowned Systems Thinker. However, von Bertalanffy died one. They now have the famous “Toyota Management System”, before he could be awarded the prize which is given to only liv- resulting in Toyota becoming the world’s largest and most profit- ing persons. able automobile firm in 2007. They have now surpassed General Motors (GM). GM, despite learning about Toyota’s management In short, Systems Thinking is an old/new orientation to life. It is system through their joint venture in Fremont, California, called “the natural way the world works” and thus, a better, more natu- NUMMI (New United Motors Manufacturing Incorporated), ral, simpler, and holistic view of living systems, such as individu- never could implement this management system. GM’s culture als, teams and organizations, as they try to survive and thrive has rejected this “management system” concept. in today’s dynamic complex global environment. This holistic and more purposeful outcome-oriented approach distinguishes In fact, it takes a higher, more integrated “Helicopter View” in- Systems Thinking and our Centre from other consultants who tellect and level of human maturity (Erickson’s “Interdependence have a primary focus on separate challenges, issues, and organi- Level”) to utilize this different and more effective worldview. zational functions (a more narrow, piecemeal, and fragmented Some people see and understand it naturally. Others never get approach to life and work). it. As Martin Luther King said, “many attend but few under- stand” (about church and religion). While von Bertalanffy is relatively unknown to most people, his impact through his disciples is enormous. We all know who However, the author has found leading theorists in over 30 Peter Drucker is—the most revered management thinker, father scientific disciplines who are now moving towards the higher of management thought, and number one management consul- level concept of Systems Thinking in their writings. Seeing the tant in the world in the 20th Century. Well, he also was from world as one living system due to global warming as a huge issue Vienna, Austria where Systems Thinking was (and is still being) has only accelerated this view and understanding. ©2009 DO NOT DUPLICATE 1420 Monitor Road, San Diego, CA 92110-1545 • Phone 619-275-6528 • Fax 619-275-0324 • www.HainesCentre.com 1 WHAT IS SYSTEMS THINKING? Thus, these five interrelated Systems Thinking DNA concepts A system is defined as “a set of elements or components that that follow create a more elegant simplicity for ease of use (the work together in relationships for the overall objectives/vi- KISS method) out of our complex and chaotic world. These five sion of the whole”. The focus of all systems’ elements in an strands include: organization should be the attainment of an organization-wide #1. The Seven Levels of Living Systems are in natural hierar- shared vision of customer satisfaction within today’s complex chical relationships with each other, starting with (7) Earth as and changing environment. the largest (7th) living system and progressing downward to (6) How we think...is how we plan...is how we act..., and that deter- societies/communities, to (5) organizations, to (4) teams/fam- mines the results we get in work and life. Systems Thinking is a ilies/departments, to (3) individuals, and finally to (2) organs, higher order thinking about the whole system first rather than and to (1) cells as living systems! its parts. We have adapted this to look at the three key levels of living CONCEPTS AND RESEARCH : FIVE STRANDS systems that affect organizations (individuals—teams—organi- zation-wide) and their three levels of collisions/collaboration This 50 plus years of rigorous scientific and biological research (1=1, team-team, organization-environment). This leads to on Systems Thinking has been translated, interpreted, and Six Natural Levels of Leadership Competencies and focus for updated by us at the Haines Centre. Our Systems Thinking Ap- planning, people, leadership, and change. These Six Natural proach® uses five interrelated main concepts from the research Levels of Leadership Competencies are found nowhere else but to clarify and simplify how we view our complex world. They at the Centre. They are the Number One corporate-wide core help us improve as individuals, teams, and whole organiza- competency of all successful organizations. James Grier Miller tions. These concepts give us a broader and better framework, was the Systems Scientist who popularized these seven levels in or mental map, to see, to think, to understand, to diagnose, and his landmark book, Living Systems, originally published in 1978 to act more effectively. The most powerful way to improve our and revised in 1995. If Systems Thinking seems close to the field effectiveness is to improve the way we think! of Behavioral Science, it is. Miller is the person who named the field “Behavioral Science.” 12 NATURAL LAWS OF LIVING SYSTEMS ON EARTH SEVEN LEVELS OF LIVING & OPEN SYSTEMS Best Practices vs. Traditional Human Dynamics I. THE WHOLE SYSTEM: “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” Hierarchy : Systems Within Systems 1. Wholism–Overall broader perspectives, 1. Parts Focused–Suboptimal Results, Ends/Purpose-Focused, Synergy Narrower Views, Means Seven Levels of Living/Open Systems 2. Open Systems–To the Environment, Regular 2. Closed Systems–Low Environmental 1. Cell Scanning, “Outside-In”, Implications Clear Scanning or Concern, Parts-Focused 2. Organ 3. Boundaries–Clarity of System, Integrated, Fit, 3. Fragmented/Inexible–Turf Battles, Collaborative, Complementary Voids, Overlaps, Duplication 3.Organism/Individual 4. Input/Output–How Natural Systems Operate, 4. Sequential–Linear, Mechanistic, “Backwards Thinking” Piecemeal/Analytic, Forecasts 4.Group/Team/Family Usual Organizational 5. Feedback–On Eectiveness, Results, 5. Low Feedback–Financial Only Fear, 5.Organization “Feedback is a gift”, Encourage It. Defensiveness, Lack of Measures Focus 6. Multiple Outcomes–Goal seeking at all levels 6. Conict–Articial “Either/Or” Thinking 6.Community/Society (WIIFM)-”What’s In It For Me?” “Yes, but”, One Result Only II. THE INNER WORKINGS: Synergy, Relationships and Interdependence 7. Supranational System/Earth 7. Equinality–Flexible and Adaptive, Empower 7. Direct Cause-Eect–1 Best Way, Quick the Means, More than One Way To Do It Fix Fails, Activity-Focused 8. Entropy–Follow-up/Inputs of Energy, 8. Natural Decline–Obsolescence, Rigidity #2. Standard and predictable System/Organizational Dynam- Renewal, “Booster Shots” needed and Death ics are based on 12 Characteristics (or DNA Codes) of open/ 9. Hierarchies–Flatter Organization/Self 9. Bureaucracy–Command and Control, Organizing, Productive Order Emerges Policy Paramount, Centralize Decisions living systems. It is from the research of the Society of General 10. Relationships-Related Parts–Patterns, Webs, 10. Separate Parts–Components, Silos, Systems Research. The original research was first published in Interdependence and Leverage, Fit Individualism, Parts are Primary the 1972 Yearbook of the Society for General Systems Research 11.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Living Systems Theory (Under Construction)
    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Faculty and Researcher Publications Faculty and Researcher Publications 2008-06-30 Living Systems Theory (under construction) Bradley, Gordon http://hdl.handle.net/10945/38246 Living Systems Theory (under construction) Agranoff, B. W. (2003). Obituaries: James Grier Miller. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from University of Michigan: The University Record Online: http://www.ur.umich.edu/0203/Feb03_03/obits.shtml Bertalanffy, Ludwig von. (1968). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York: George Braziller. Crawford, Raymond R. (1981). An Application of Living Systems Theory to Combat Models. Master’s Thesis. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School. http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA101103 Duncan, Daniel M. (1972). James G. Miller's Living Systems Theory: Issues for Management Thought and Practice. The Academy of Management Journal, 15:4, 513-523. http://www.jstor.org/stable/255145?seq=1 Kuhn, Alfred. (1979). Differences vs. Similarities in Living Systems. Contemporary Sociology, 8:5, 691- 696. http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0094- 3061(197909)8%3A5%3C691%3ADVSILS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4 Miller, James Grier. (1979). Response to the Reviewers of Living Systems. Contemporary Sociology, 8:5, 705-715. http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0094- 3061(197909)8%3A5%3C705%3ARTTROL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8 Miller, James Grier. (1995). Living Systems. Niwot: University of Colorado. (out of print) Oliva, Terence A. and R. Eric Reidenbach. (1981). General Living Systems Theory and Marketing: A Framework for Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 45:4, 30-37. http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022- 2429(198123)45%3A4%3C30%3AGLSTAM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R Parent, Elaine.
    [Show full text]
  • Serendipities Vol.1 No1.Fin
    ARTICLE A “Not Particularly Felicitous” Phrase: A History of the “Behavioral Sciences” Label Jefferson D. Pooley [email protected] Abstract The article reconstructs the history of the "behavioral sciences" label, from scattered interwar use through to the decisive embrace of the newly prominent Ford Foundation in the early Cold War. The rapid uptake of the label, the article concludes, was the result of the Ford Foundation’s 1951 decision to name its social science unit the “Behavioral Sciences Program” (BSP). With Ford’s en- couragement, the term was widely adopted by quantitative social scientists eager to tap the founda- tion’s social science funds. The label’s newness and its link to the gigantic foundation’s initiative generated much suspicion and resistance as well. Keywords Behavioral sciences, Ford Foundation, Cold War There are few behavioral scientists today. But as recently as the 1950s and 1960s, self-identified “behavioral scientists” occupied the elite ranks of American social science. The rapid uptake of the label was the result of the Ford Foundation’s 1951 decision to name its social science unit the “Be- havioral Sciences Program” (BSP). With Ford’s encouragement, the term was widely adopted by quantitative social scientists eager to tap the foundation’s social science funds. The label’s newness and its link to the gigantic foundation’s initiative generated much suspicion and resistance as well. This paper reconstructs the label’s career from scattered interwar use through to Ford’s embrace. Existing histories trace the term back to psychologist James Grier Miller’s Committee on the Be- havioral Sciences at the University of Chicago.
    [Show full text]
  • 212 © 1978 Scientific American
    212 © 1978 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC Adaptation The manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution. Yet natural selection does not lead inevitably to adaptation; indeed, it is sometimes hard to define an adaptation by Richard C. Lewontin he theory about the history of life iors that appear to have been carefully These "organs of extreme perfection" that is now generally accepted, the and artfully designed to enable each or­ were only the most extreme case of a TDarwinian theory of evolution by ganism to appropriate the world around more general phenomenon: adaptation. natural selection, is meant to explain it for its own life. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural two different aspects of the appearance It was the marvelous fit of organisms selection was meant to solve both the of the living world: diversity and fitness. to the environment, much more than the problem of the origin of diversity and There are on the order of two million great diversity of forms, that was the the problem of the origin of adaptation species now living, and since at least chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. at one stroke. Perfect organs were a dif­ 99.9 percent of the species that have Darwin realized that if a naturalistic ficulty of the theory not in that natural ever lived are now extinct, the most con­ theory of evolution was to be successful. selection could not account for them but servative guess would be that two billion it would have to explain the apparent rather in that they were its most rigorous species have made their appearance on perfection of organisms and not simply test, since on the face of it they seemed the earth since the beginning of the their variation.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Systems Theory?
    What is Systems Theory? Systems theory is an interdisciplinary theory about the nature of complex systems in nature, society, and science, and is a framework by which one can investigate and/or describe any group of objects that work together to produce some result. This could be a single organism, any organization or society, or any electro-mechanical or informational artifact. As a technical and general academic area of study it predominantly refers to the science of systems that resulted from Bertalanffy's General System Theory (GST), among others, in initiating what became a project of systems research and practice. Systems theoretical approaches were later appropriated in other fields, such as in the structural functionalist sociology of Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann . Contents - 1 Overview - 2 History - 3 Developments in system theories - 3.1 General systems research and systems inquiry - 3.2 Cybernetics - 3.3 Complex adaptive systems - 4 Applications of system theories - 4.1 Living systems theory - 4.2 Organizational theory - 4.3 Software and computing - 4.4 Sociology and Sociocybernetics - 4.5 System dynamics - 4.6 Systems engineering - 4.7 Systems psychology - 5 See also - 6 References - 7 Further reading - 8 External links - 9 Organisations // Overview 1 / 20 What is Systems Theory? Margaret Mead was an influential figure in systems theory. Contemporary ideas from systems theory have grown with diversified areas, exemplified by the work of Béla H. Bánáthy, ecological systems with Howard T. Odum, Eugene Odum and Fritj of Capra , organizational theory and management with individuals such as Peter Senge , interdisciplinary study with areas like Human Resource Development from the work of Richard A.
    [Show full text]
  • (GST) Date Back to Ludwig Von Bertalanffy's
    General System Theory. The origins of General System Theory (GST) date back to Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s (1901– 1972) interwar studies whose continuation after World War II found a friendly reception in the Anglo-American hemisphere, while there was also some debate with, partly, independent, partly, overlapping, developments in operations research, engineering science, management science and cybernetics all of which had some connection with United States think tanks like the RAND Corporation (cp. Davidson 1983, Hammond 2003). The term “General System Theory” (GST) was coined by Bertalanffy himself. By that term his “Allgemeine Systemlehre” was translated into English (Bertalanffy 1950), after, for a long time, Bertalanffy himself had resisted to call his German “Lehre” (“doctrine”) “Theory”. Later on, during his stay at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, California (which had been formed with James Grier Miller as spearhead), from 1954 to 1955, he started to use “Systems” in plural too when, together with Kenneth E. Boulding (1910–1993), Ralph W. Gerard (1900–1974), and Anatol Rapoport (1911–2007), holding a seminar on “General Systems” and subsequently initiating the foundation of the Society for the Advancement of General Systems Theory (which after short time was renamed in Society for General Systems Research and since 1988 is known under the label of International Society for the Systems Sciences) and editing the General Systems Yearbooks. Bertalanffy used the old and the new term (“system” in singular and plural) interchangeably – as well as the German translation of “GST” into “Allgemeine Systemtheorie” – until he passed away (cp. Bertalanffy 1972, 1972 a).
    [Show full text]
  • System Dynamics and the Evolution of Systems Movement a Historical
    Diskussionsbeiträge des Instituts für Betriebswirtschaft System Dynamics and the Evolution of Systems Movement A Historical Perspective Markus Schwaninger No 52 - June 2005 Universität St. Gallen Hochschule für Wirtschafts-, Rechts- und Sozialwissenschaften 1. Introduction The purpose of this contribution is to give an overview of the role of System Dynamics in the context of the evolution of the systems movement. ”Systems movement”––often referred to briefly as ”systemics”––is a broad term, which takes account of the fact that there is no one systems approach, but a range of different ones. Indeed, the development of the System Dynamics methodology, and the worldwide community that applies SD to the modeling and simulation in the most different contexts, suggest it is a ”systems approach” on its own. Nevertheless, taking ”System Dynamics” as the (one and only) synonym for ”systemic thinking” would go too far, as there are other approaches to systemic thinking as well as a variety of systems theories and methodologies, which – to a certain extent – are complementary to SD. The purpose of this article implies working out the actual and potential relationships between System Dynamics and the other strands of the systems movement. An overview on the temporal sequence of some milestones in the evolution of the Systems Approach in general and System Dynamics in particular is given in the Appendix. Elaborating on each one of the sources and dates quoted therein would reach beyond the possibilities of this paper. 2. The Emergence of the Systems Approach The systems movement has many roots and facets, with some of its concepts going back as far as ancient Greece.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 the BACKGROUND to SYSTEMICS
    Chapter 1 THE BACKGROUND TO SYSTEMICS 1.1 Introduction 1.2 What is Systemics? 1.3 A short, introductory history 1.4 Fundamental theoretical concepts 1.4.1 Set theory 1.4.2 Set theory and systems 1.4.3 Formalizing systems 1.4.4 Formalizing Systemics 1.5 Sets, structured sets, systems and subsystems 1.6 Other approaches 1.1 Introduction This book is devoted to the problems arising when dealing with emergent behaviors in complex systems and to a number of proposals advanced to solve them. The main concept around which all arguments revolve, is that of Collective Being. The latter expression roughly denotes multiple systems in which each component can belong simultaneously to different subsystems. Typical instances are swarms, flocks, herds and even crowds, social groups, sometimes industrial organisations and perhaps the human cognitive system itself. The study of Collective Beings is, of course, a matter of necessity when dealing with systems whose elements are agents, each of which is capable of some form of cognitive processing. The subject of this book could therefore be defined as "the study of emergent collective behaviors within assemblies of cognitive agents". 2 Chapter 1 Needless to say, such a topic involves a wide range of applications attracting the attention of a large audience. It integrates contributions from Artificial Life, Swarm Intelligence, Economic Theory, but also from Statistical Physics, Dynamical Systems Theory and Cognitive Science. It concerns domains such as organizational learning, the development or emergence of ethics (metaphorically intended as social software), the design of autonomous robots and knowledge management in the post-industrial society.
    [Show full text]
  • {PDF} Bully Kindle
    BULLY Author: Penelope Douglas Number of Pages: 336 pages Published Date: 06 Nov 2014 Publisher: Little, Brown Book Group Publication Country: London, United Kingdom Language: English ISBN: 9780349405933 DOWNLOAD: BULLY Bully PDF Book Manyof the papers in these proceedings directly re?ect that theme. For example, a new computer-based programme in a Utah hospital has dramatically reduced treatment-caused deaths, while in another hospital a database is being created to give all doctors access to the latest medical treatments. A brand-new full-color layout makes the content easier to understand than ever before. Which continued. MiltonWith Milton, the first pictorial history of the town ever published, local historians Paul Buchanan and Anthony Sammarco present a nostalgic look at the development and growth of this well-built and affluent suburb from 1860 to 1940. Auyang argues that the current relational- substantial debate on space- time is inadequate and the observer- observed distinction in quantum interpretations illusory becouse they are hampered by philosophical constructs too narrow to accommodate the complicated structures of modern philosophical theories. The coverage is everywhere thorough and judicious; but Heath is not content with plain exposition: It is a defect in the existing histories that, while they state generally the contents of, and the main propositions proved in, the great treatises of Archimedes and Apollonius, they make little attempt to describe the procedure by which the results are obtained. The book features explanatory text boxes, tables and diagrams, suggestions for further reading, and a listing of the economic concepts used in the chapters. For many of the survivors "life has broken down," while for others, it has "stopped," and still others say that it "absolutely must go on.
    [Show full text]
  • Behavioral Sciences” Label Jefferson D
    ARTICLE A “Not Particularly Felicitous” Phrase: A History of the “Behavioral Sciences” Label Jefferson D. Pooley [email protected] Abstract The article reconstructs the history of the "behavioral sciences" label, from scattered interwar use through to the decisive embrace of the newly prominent Ford Foundation in the early Cold War. The rapid uptake of the label, the article concludes, was the result of the Ford Foundation’s 1951 decision to name its social science unit the “Behavioral Sciences Program” (BSP). With Ford’s en- couragement, the term was widely adopted by quantitative social scientists eager to tap the founda- tion’s social science funds. The label’s newness and its link to the gigantic foundation’s initiative generated much suspicion and resistance as well. Keywords Behavioral sciences, Ford Foundation, Cold War There are few behavioral scientists today. But as recently as the 1950s and 1960s, self-identified “behavioral scientists” occupied the elite ranks of American social science. The rapid uptake of the label was the result of the Ford Foundation’s 1951 decision to name its social science unit the “Be- havioral Sciences Program” (BSP). With Ford’s encouragement, the term was widely adopted by quantitative social scientists eager to tap the foundation’s social science funds. The label’s newness and its link to the gigantic foundation’s initiative generated much suspicion and resistance as well. This paper reconstructs the label’s career from scattered interwar use through to Ford’s embrace. Existing histories trace the term back to psychologist James Grier Miller’s Committee on the Be- havioral Sciences at the University of Chicago.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a Classification of General Systems Theory Concepts: the Categorization of Vocabulary Components and Their Su Age Patterns in the Literature
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1982 Toward a Classification of General Systems Theory Concepts: the Categorization of Vocabulary Components and Their sU age Patterns in the Literature. Stephanie S. Robbins Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Robbins, Stephanie S., "Toward a Classification of General Systems Theory Concepts: the Categorization of Vocabulary Components and Their sU age Patterns in the Literature." (1982). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 3771. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/3771 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce •this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity.
    [Show full text]
  • General Systems * * * Red Cybernetics Black Physical Sciences Originated in 1996 by Dr
    Some Streams of Systemic Thought KEY: (Draft update — May 2001) white general systems * * * red cybernetics black physical sciences Originated in 1996 by Dr. Eric Schwarz, Neuchâtel, Switzerland. Extended in 1998, including items from the The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant (1933). blue mathematics Elaborated in 2000-2001 from many sources for the International Institute for General Systems Studies. magenta computers & informatics Currently a research project of the IIGSS. green biology & medicine - - - yellow symbolic systems This rendition is the property of the International Institute for General Systems Studies. orange social systems All Rights Reserved. olive ecology Errors and omissions in this chart are solely attributable to the IIGSS. gray philosophy cyan systems analysis purple engineering International Encyclopedia of Systems & Cybernetics Charles François 1997 Teleonics Multi-Methodology Gyuri Jaros John Mingers General Systems Theory Yi Lin Genomics General Tropodynamics Social Entropy Theory Co-creative Process Craig Venter, Cultural Hector Sabelli Hegemony Systems Semiotics Soucheng OuYang, Yi Lin Kenneth D. Bailey Francis Collins USA Luis Rocha, Systemic Perspectivism Critical Physics Cosmological Howard Pattee Superstrings Topology of Evolutionary Ronald W. Moses Physics Brian Greene, et al Grand Unified Treories Meaning Knotted Systems Philosophy Steven Weinberg Stephen Hawking R. Ian Flett Louis Kauffman Systemic Development Punctuated Evolution Richard L. Coren Pansystems Informational Fuzzy Systemics Cyber-semiotics Blown Up Systems Richard Bawden Stephen J. Gould Synergy Grey Systems Microdynamics Evolutionary Wu Xuemou Positivism Self-organized Anti-chaos & Vladimir Dimitrov Søren Brier Shoucheng OuYang Homeorheotic Peter A. Corning Sifeng Liu, Yi Lin Vladimir Lerner Artificial Life World Wide Web Systems Richard Dawkins Economics Adaptation Complex Evolutionary Total Systems Whole Systems Chris Langton Tim Berners-Lee Interpretive William Irwin W.
    [Show full text]
  • CURRICULUM VITAE Kenneth D. Bailey Professor of Sociology
    CURRICULUM VITAE Kenneth D. Bailey Professor of Sociology Department of Sociology 405 Hilgard Ave. University of California, Los Angeles 90095-1551 Telephone: (310) 825-1313 Fax: (310) 206-9838 E-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Research Methods, Theory, Systems Theory, Demography/Ecology, Environmental Sociology. Education University of Texas at Austin B.S., 1963, Mathematics M.A., 1966, Sociology Ph.D., 1968, Sociology Academic Employment Experience Professor, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles, 1989-Present. Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles, 1974-1989. Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles, 1968-1974. Director, Population Research Program, Survey Research Center, University of California at Los Angeles, 1971- 1974. Departmental Scholar and Visiting Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Tulane University, 1981-1983. Exchange Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Lund, Sweden, Spring 1987. Honors, Awards, and Fellowships N.D.E.A. Fellowships, 1965-68. Participant, Workshop in Mathematical Sociology, Johns Hopkins University, Summer, 1967. Participant, Conference on Mathematical Demography, University of California, Berkeley, Summer, 1969. Nominee for Distinguished Teaching Award, UCLA, 1979. National Science Foundation Travel Grant, Classification and Psychometric Society Third European Meeting, Paris, 1983. Senior Research Fellow, International Systems Science Institute, La Jolla,
    [Show full text]