“Systems theory and systems analysis. What is a "systems approach"? Systematicity in science
In the second case, there has been partial success and TQM is seen as a useful innovation, albeit with its limitations and high expectations.
In this situation, organizations carry out separate activities to improve quality in the most favorable areas. Accordingly, such institutions lack a new overall management strategy - they support established practices in the organization that are incompatible with TQM, thus limiting its potential. There is no overall transformation of organizational culture.
The third scenario for the development of integrated quality management assumes that it is deployed in its entirety.
Quality improvement programs are being adopted by all organizations in all sectors of the economy as the vestiges of traditional management are discarded and total quality management becomes part of everyday practice. These three scenarios are not necessarily mutually exclusive; the first may lead to the second, which in turn may pave the way to the third.
Most modern approaches have evolved from total quality management, and there is no reason to believe that this concept has frozen in its development, since Continuous improvement is part of her philosophy. Some consider it a fashion fad, but this does not detract from its merits. Transformations can only happen seriously and lastingly when truly innovative ideas are fully implemented.
As the modern Industrial Revolution progresses, the growth of large organizational forms has stimulated new ideas about how businesses operate and how they should be managed. Today there is a developed theory that provides direction for achieving effective management. The first theory to emerge is usually called the classical school of management; there are also schools social relations, theory of systems approach to organizations, theory of probability, etc.
In our time, there is an unprecedented progress of knowledge, which, on the one hand, has led to the discovery and accumulation of many new facts and information from various areas of life, and thus confronted humanity with the need to systematize them, to find the general in the particular, the constant in the changing. There is no unambiguous concept of a system. IN most general view A system is understood as a set of interconnected elements that form a certain integrity, a certain unity.
The study of objects and phenomena as systems has caused formation of a new approach in science - a systematic approach.
Let's define the features of a systems approach:
The systems approach is a form of methodological knowledge associated with the study and creation of objects as systems, and refers only to systems.
Hierarchy of knowledge, requiring a multi-level study of the subject: the study of the subject itself is its “own” level; the study of the same subject as an element of a broader system - a “higher” level; the study of this subject in relation to the elements that make up this subject is the “lower” level.
A systematic approach requires considering the problem not in isolation, but in the unity of connections with environment, comprehend the essence of each connection and individual element, make associations between general and specific goals.
Taking into account the above, we determine concept of a systems approach:
A systems approach is an approach to the study of an object (problem, phenomenon, process) as a system in which the elements, internal and external connections that most significantly influence the studied results of its functioning are identified, and the goals of each element are based on the general purpose of the object .
It can also be said that the systems approach - this is a direction of methodology scientific knowledge and practical activity, which is based on the study of any object as a complex integral socio-economic system.
1. Integrity, which allows us to simultaneously consider the system as a single whole and at the same time as a subsystem for higher levels.
2. Hierarchical structure, i.e. the presence of many (at least two) elements located on the basis of the subordination of lower-level elements to higher-level elements. The implementation of this principle is clearly visible in the example of any specific organization. As you know, any organization is an interaction of two subsystems: the managing and the managed. One is subordinate to the other.
3. Structuring, allowing you to analyze the elements of the system and their relationships within a specific organizational structure. As a rule, the process of functioning of a system is determined not so much by the properties of its individual elements as by the properties of the structure itself.
4. Plurality, which allows the use of many cybernetic, economic and mathematical models to describe individual elements and the system as a whole.
A systematic approach, first of all, leads to linking tasks arising within the framework of the quality concept, with the organization’s mission, its vision, strategic goals and Quality Policy.
A systematic approach requires coordination of all aspects of activity, application "project approach" to organizing work, involving people in management, delegating authority to them and providing them with trust. This is a process-based, humanistic approach to management that breaks down barriers between departments
A systems approach leads to a revision of our ideas about the organization. This principle, like all others, leads to a revision of business logic .
The application of this principle presupposes:
Formation of a system based on the identification or development of processes that influence the achievement of the goal;
structuring the system to achieve the goal in the most effective way;
understanding the interdependencies of processes in the system that break down barriers between departments;
continuous improvement of the system based on measurement, analysis of processes and evaluation of their results;
setting resource limits before taking action.
Successful application of the principle provides the following advantages:
to formulate Policy and Strategy - creating comprehensive and improvement plans that link functional and process approaches;
to set Goals and indicators - the goals and indicators of individual processes are consistent with the key goals of the organization;
for operational management - Gaining a broad overview of process performance, leading to an understanding of the causes of problems and timely action for improvement;
for human resources management - ensuring a better understanding of roles and responsibilities in achieving common goals by organizing teamwork leading to the elimination of barriers between departments.
Statistics is the most precise of inexact sciences.
Natural science in the classical period of its development largely followed the Cartesian rules of the scientific method, the second and third rules of which oriented the scientist as follows: if you are dealing with a complex problem, then first of all break it down into simple ones, solve them, and then assemble them in reverse order from the simple ones problems are like building blocks of a complex problem, and knowing the answer to simple problems will give the answer to a complex problem. This rule creates the belief that a complex problem does not contain any additional circumstances beyond those contained in simple ones. Therefore, by carefully studying the simple, we will not lose anything that is inherent in the complex. You just need to be able to think professionally analytically (analysis versus synthesis). That's the point elementarianism(in other words - reductionism) as a methodological program of classical science.
The elementaryist attitude was accompanied by the construction of a picture of the world in which there are no statements about integrity, which are fundamentally different from knowledge of parts. The whole and the part were considered in principle to be identical in their properties. The whole did not have any special quality of its own that its parts did not have, and the properties of the whole did not in any way affect the properties and behavior of its parts. In other words, from this point of view, “being whole, being whole” is only a fictitious phenomenon that seems to the shallow mind. It is the result of ignorance, but not reality itself. An analogy can be the ontology of the famous ancient Greek atomist Democritus: everything is atoms and emptiness.
Galileo and Descartes first formulated the principle analytical procedure as the basic method of science, which states that the entity under study must be broken down into parts and then can be recreated from the parts collected together. Successful application of analytical procedures is possible only if the following conditions are met:
- - there should be no interaction between the parts of this phenomenon (or be negligible);
- - relationships describing the behavior of parts must be linear.
In this case, the form of the equation describing the behavior of the whole must coincide with the form of the equations for the parts of this whole. However, as it turned out, this is fundamentally impossible for describing real systems. This is the main difference between systemic methodology and the elementaryist methodology of classical science.
Although great successes have been achieved on the basis of the elemental strategy, nevertheless, with the development of new areas of science, the expansion of the subject area of research and the improvement of scientific instruments, the original principles of this strategy began to gradually lose their attractiveness and authority as the only scientific basis for viewing the world. The famous physicist A. Eddington specifically drew the attention of scientists to the fact that they often think that, having studied one object, they know everything about two exactly the same objects, because two are “one and one.” At the same time, however, these scientists forget that it is also necessary to explore what is hidden behind this “and”. Since the beginning of the 20th century. the opposite, anti-elementarist strategy began to gain strength scientific research, and in the second half it almost became dominant.
The central point of this new strategy, despite all the diversity of its real incarnations, was the conviction that there are wholes that have their own properties, their own individuality, which subordinates the elements that are included in it. Wholeness is not only real, but also primary in relation to its parts. And of course integrity is not the product of immature thinking. In the language of mathematics, system objects are usually described by systems of nonlinear differential equations. In mathematics they started talking seriously about structures. Moreover, as the famous Bourbaki argued, it is structures that should be and are the main subject of mathematics.
Discussions on next problem: what is the place of physics and chemistry in the study of living things. Is there something “biological” that cannot be reduced to the physical and chemical? What is life from the point of view of a physicist and biologist? What is so special about the “living” - the subject of a biologist’s research - that is not present in physical and chemical reality? The idea that life is a property of integrity has long made its way into biology. But the active and fruitful use of physicochemical methods in the study of living things often called this idea into question.
The old idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts was given new meaning. The outstanding linguist F. Saussure wrote that linguistics will become scientific only when it begins to study not individual signs, such as words, sounds, sentences, but when it begins to study the systems and structures of language.
In the 20th century The anti-elementarist strategy found its final consolidation in the systems approach. Integrity began to be called a system. Seeing (understanding) any subject area as a system is systems thinking. The purposeful application of a systems way of thinking to solve scientific problems has come to be called a systems approach. And the entire set of studies that include systemic issues is called systemic research.
Gradually, the concept of “system” became one of the most common in science, philosophy, and everyday speech. At the same time, such a widespread use of this concept in a variety of contexts inevitably led to polysemy and uncertainty of its meaning and significance. The absence of any unambiguous, precise meaning of this word actually deprived it of any heuristic power. Not immediately in the 20th century. works appeared that made it possible to talk about systems something deep and meaningful. Various scientists have made attempts to transform systems thinking into rigorous thinking, i.e. a kind of thinking that obeys certain rules. Gradually, the systems approach has turned into an interdisciplinary scientific direction.
The use of system methods to solve various kinds of scientific and practical problems required the development of strict formal definitions of the system. Such definitions were constructed using the languages of set theory, mathematical logic, cybernetics and other sciences. This was often done in relation to specific tasks and problems of the corresponding field of research: space flight management, transport, production, global modeling, military strategy, business problems, etc. By the middle of the 20th century. systems methodology has turned into a powerful and very wide-ranging intellectual movement, realized in systems research. It has penetrated into different areas human activity and took on very diverse forms. The subject of systemic research was the definition general properties systems, identifying differences between systems, classifying systems, designing systems, analyzing systems (for example, studying the behavior of a system, determining its goals and understanding its operation), modeling systems, etc. Various versions of the systems approach have emerged in accordance with the tools used and the nature of the problems.
Systemic discourse is very heterogeneous in terms of issues, research methods, terminology used, level of rigor, and, consequently, level of validity and evidence. Often, and to this day, systematic research is called an ordinary comprehensive study, when the data of various sciences are simply summed up when solving a problem. Systematic is also called the study of a certain phenomenon in “all” of its relationships with other phenomena. But the requirement of complexity and the requirement of completeness of coverage of interrelations in themselves do not yet contain anything systemic. Within systems research itself, the level of rigor extends from the rigor of theoretical constructions of general systems theory (logical and mathematical) to the use of a more or less defined term “system” and associated system concepts.
The central concept in systems research is certainly the category “system”. However, if we use the word “system”, we must be fully aware of the obligations this imposes on us.
- Bourbaki (Nicolas Bourbaki), a collective pseudonym under which a group of mathematicians in France made (since 1939) an attempt to present modern mathematics in an unconventional way on the basis of the axiomatic method.
Unknown student at the end of the 20th century
Introduction
2. Organizational system: basic elements and types
3. Systems theory
Introduction
As the industrial revolution progresses, the growth
large organizational forms of business stimulated the emergence of new ideas
regarding how businesses operate and how they should be managed.
Today there is a developed theory that gives directions for achieving
effective management. The first theory to emerge is usually called classical
school of management, there is also a school of social relations, theory
systematic approach to organizations, probability theory, etc.
In my report I want to talk about the theory of the systems approach
to organizations as ideas for achieving effective management.
1. The concept of a systems approach, its main features and principles
In our time, unprecedented progress in knowledge is taking place, which,
on the one hand, led to the discovery and accumulation of many new facts, information
from various areas of life, and thereby put humanity before
the need to systematize them, to find the general in the particular, the constant in
changing. There is no unambiguous concept of a system. In the most general form
a system is understood as a set of interconnected elements that form
a certain integrity, some unity.
The study of objects and phenomena as systems caused the formation
a new approach in science - a systems approach.
Systematic approach as a whole methodological principle used in
various branches of science and human activity. Epistemological basis
(epistemology is a branch of philosophy that studies the forms and methods of scientific knowledge)
is a general systems theory, which was started by the Australian biologist
L.Bertalanffy. In the early 20s, the young biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy began
study organisms as specific systems, summarizing your view in the book
"Modern Theory of Development" (1929). In this book he developed a system
approach to the study of biological organisms. In the book "Robots, People and Consciousness"
(1967) he transferred general systems theory to the analysis of processes and phenomena of social
life. 1969 - "General Systems Theory". Bertalanffy turns his systems theory into
general disciplinary science. He saw the purpose of this science in searching
structural similarity of laws established in various disciplines, based on
which, it is possible to derive system-wide patterns.
Let's define features systematic approach :
research and creation of objects as systems, and refers only to systems.
studying the subject itself - the “own” level; studying the same subject
as an element of a broader system - a “higher” level; studying this
an object in relation to the elements constituting this object -
"lower" level.
unity of connections with the environment, to comprehend the essence of each connection and
a separate element, to make associations between general and specific goals.
Taking into account the above, we determine concept of a systems approach :
A systematic approach is an approach to the study of an object
(problem, phenomenon, process) as a system in which elements are identified,
internal and external relations that most significantly influence
the studied results of its functioning, and the goals of each of the elements, based on
from the general purpose of the object.
It can also be said that the systems approach -
this is what it is
direction of methodology of scientific knowledge and practical activity, based
which lies the study of any object as a complex integral
socio-economic system.
Let's turn to history.
Before its formation at the beginning of the 20th century. management science rulers,
ministers, generals, builders, when making decisions, were guided by intuition,
experience, traditions. Acting in specific situations, they sought to find the best
solutions. Depending on experience and talent, the manager could push
spatial and temporal framework of the situation and spontaneously comprehend your
the object is controlled more or less systematically. But, nevertheless, until the 20th century. V
management was dominated by a situational approach, or management by circumstances.
The defining principle of this approach is the adequacy of management
decisions regarding specific situation. Adequate in this situation
the solution that is best from the point of view of changing the situation is relied upon directly
after providing appropriate managerial influence on it.
Thus, the situational approach is an orientation towards
the nearest positive result ("and then we'll see..."). It seems that
“next” will again be a search for the best solution in the situation that arises. But
the best decision at the moment may turn out to be completely different from the one
the situation will change or unaccounted for circumstances will be revealed.
The desire to react to every new turn or reversal
(change in vision) of the situation adequately leads to the manager
forced to make more and more new decisions that run counter to the previous ones. He
actually ceases to control events, but floats with their flow.
The above does not mean that management by circumstances
basically ineffective. A situational approach to decision making is necessary and
justified when the situation itself is extraordinary and the use of previous experience
obviously risky when the situation changes quickly and in an unpredictable way,
when there is no time to take into account all the circumstances. For example, rescuers of the Ministry of Emergency Situations
Often you have to look for the best solution within a specific situation.
But, nevertheless, in the general case, the situational approach is not effective enough and
must be overcome, replaced or supplemented by a systematic approach.
- Integrity, allowing us to simultaneously consider the system as
a single whole and at the same time as a subsystem for higher levels. - Hierarchical structure, those. the presence of many (at least
two) elements located on the basis of subordination of elements of the lower level -
higher level elements. The implementation of this principle is clearly visible in the example
any specific organization. As you know, any organization represents
is the interaction of two subsystems: the control and the controlled. One
obeys the other. - Structuring, allowing you to analyze the elements of the system and their
relationships within a specific organizational structure. Usually,
the process of system functioning is determined not so much by the properties of its individual
elements, as many properties of the structure itself. - Plurality, allowing the use of many
cybernetic, economic and mathematical models to describe individual
elements and the system as a whole.
2. Organizational system: main elements and types
Any organization is considered as
organizational-economic system that has inputs and outputs, and a certain
number of external connections. The concept of “organization” should be defined. IN
history there have been various attempts to identify this concept.
expedient arrangement of parts of a whole that has a specific purpose.
group, individual).
Any system develops on the basis of the struggle of opposites.
its constituent elements. It is an integer that is always greater or less than the sum
its parts (it all depends on the effectiveness of connections).
management theories): when people come together and formally accept
decision to join forces to achieve common goals, they create
organization.
It was a retrospective. Today an organization can be
defined as a social community that unites a certain set
individuals to achieve common goal, which (individuals) act on the basis
certain procedures and rules.
Based on the previously given definition of the system, we define
organizational system.
An organizational system is a specific set of
internally interconnected parts of the organization, forming a certain integrity.
The main elements of the organizational system (and therefore
objects of organizational management) are:
The efficiency of using all other resources depends on them.
These elements are the main objects of organizational
management. But there is another side to the organizational system:
People. The manager's job is to facilitate coordination and
integration of human activity.
Goals And tasks. Organizational goal - there is an ideal project
future state of the organization. This goal helps to unite the efforts of people and
their resources. Goals are formed on the basis of common interests, therefore the organization
a tool to achieve goals.
Organizational structure. Structure is a way of unification
elements of the system. Organizational structure is a way of connecting different
parts of the organization into a certain integrity (the main types of organizational
structures are hierarchical, matrix, entrepreneurial, mixed, etc.
d.). When we design and maintain these structures, we are in control.
Specialization And separation labor. This is also an object
management. Breaking down complex production processes, operations and tasks into
components that involve specialization of human labor.
Organizational power- this is a right, ability (knowledge + skills)
and the willingness (will) of the leader to pursue his line in preparing, accepting and
implementation of management decisions. Each of these components is necessary for
realization of power. Power is interaction. Coordination function and
integration of people's activities powerless and ineffective manager organize
can not. Organizational power is not only a subject, but also an object of management.
Organizational culture- the system of traditions inherent in the organization,
beliefs, values, symbols, rituals, myths, norms of communication between people.
Organizational culture gives the organization its individuality, its own face.
What is important is that it unites people and creates organizational integrity.
Organizational borders- these are material and
intangible restrictions that fix the isolation of a given organization
from other objects located in the external environment of the organization. The manager must
have the ability to expand (to some extent) boundaries own organization. In moderation
- means taking only what you can hold. Managing boundaries means
outline them in time.
Organizational systems can be divided into closed and
open:
A closed organizational system is one that
which has no connection with its external environment (i.e. does not exchange with the external
environment products, services, goods, etc.). An example is subsistence farming.
An open organizational system has connections with the external
environment, i.e. other organizations, institutions that have connections with the external
environment.
Thus, the organization as a system is
a set of interconnected elements that form an integrity (i.e. internal
unity, continuity, mutual connection). Any organization is open
system, because interacts with the external environment. She gets from the environment
environmental resources in the form of capital, raw materials, energy, information, people, equipment
etc., which become elements of its internal environment. Part of the resources with
using certain technologies is processed, converted into products and
services, which are then transmitted to the external environment.
3. Systems theory
Let me remind you that systems theory was developed by Ludwig von
Bertalanffy in the 20th century. Systems theory deals with the analysis, design and
functioning of systems - independent economic units that
are formed by interacting, interconnected and interdependent parts.
It is clear that any organizational form business meets these criteria and can
studied using the concepts and tools of systems theory.
Any enterprise is a system that turns a set
resources invested in production - costs (raw materials, machines, people) - in goods and
services. It operates within a larger system - foreign policy,
economic, social and technical environment in which it constantly enters
V complex interactions. It includes a series of subsystems that also
interconnected and interacting. Malfunction in one part
system causes difficulties in other parts of it. For example, a large bank is
system that operates within a wider environment, interacts and
associated with it, and also experiences its influence. Bank departments and branches
are subsystems that must interact without conflict in order to
The bank as a whole worked efficiently. If something is violated in the subsystem, it
will ultimately (if left unchecked) affect performance
the bank as a whole.
Basic concepts and characteristics of general systems theory:
from openness, is determined through its composition. These components and the connections between them
create the properties of the system, its essential characteristics.
limiters that distance the system from the external environment. From a general point of view
systems theory, each system is part of a larger system (which
called supersystem, supersystem, supersystem). In turn, each
a system consists of two or more subsystems.
used to describe phenomena in which the whole is always greater or less,
than the sum of the parts that make up the whole. The system operates until
until the relationship between the components of the system becomes antagonistic
character.
appears as three processes. Their interaction produces a cycle of events.
Any open system has an event cycle. With a systematic approach, it is important
It becomes important to study the characteristics of the organization as a system, i.e.
characteristics of “input”, “process” (“transformation”) and characteristics of “output”.
In a systematic approach based on marketing research, the
"output" parameters , those. goods or services, namely what
produce, with what quality indicators, at what costs, for whom, in
what terms to sell and at what price. The answers to these questions should be
clear and timely. The “output” should ultimately be competitive
products or services. Then determine "input" parameters , those.
the need for resources (material, financial, labor and
information), which is determined after a detailed study
organizational and technical level of the system under consideration (level of technology,
technology, features of the organization of production, labor and management) and
parameters of the external environment (economic, geopolitical, social,
environmental, etc.). And last but not least, it becomes important
study "process" parameters, transforming resources into finished
products. At this stage, depending on the object of study,
production technology or management technology is considered, and
also factors and ways to improve it.
emergence of the formation of the functioning of the crisis of the
collapse
the functioning of all other elements and
viability of the system as a whole.
Characteristics of open organizational systems
organizations to death;
necessary resources from the external environment can counteract this tendency.
This ability is called negative entropy;
entropy, and, thanks to this, some of them live for centuries;
d) for a commercial organization the main criterion
negative entropy is its sustainable profitability at a significant
time interval.
Feedback. Feedback means
information that is generated, collected, used open system
for monitoring, evaluation, control and correction of own activities.
Feedback allows the organization to obtain information about possible or
real deviations from the intended goal and make timely changes to the process
its development. Lack of feedback leads to pathology, crisis and collapse
organizations. People in an organization who collect and analyze information
interpreting it, systematizing information flows, have
colossal power.
Open organizational systems are characterized by dynamic
homeostasis. All living organisms exhibit a tendency towards internal
equilibrium and balance. The process of maintaining a balanced
state and is called dynamic homeostasis.
Open organizational systems are characterized by
differentiation- a tendency towards growth, specialization and division of functions
between the various components that form a given system.
Differentiation is the system's response to changes in the external environment.
Equifinality. Open organizational systems
are capable, unlike closed systems, of achieving their goals
in different ways, moving towards these goals from different starting conditions. No and
there cannot be a single and best method of achieving a goal. The goal can always
be achieved in different ways, and you can move towards it with different
speeds.
Let me give you an example: let’s consider a bank from the point of view of systems theory.
The study of a bank from the point of view of systems theory would begin with
clarifying goals to help understand the nature of the decisions that need to be made
take to achieve these goals. It would be necessary to explore the external environment,
to understand the ways in which the bank interacts with its wider environment.
The researcher would then turn to internal environment. To
try to understand the main subsystems of the bank, interaction and connections with the system in
In general, the analyst would analyze the decision-making paths, the most important
information necessary for their adoption, as well as the communication channels through which this
information is transmitted.
Decision making, information system, communication channels especially
important to the systems analyst because if they perform poorly, the bank
will be in a difficult position. In each area, a systematic approach has led to the emergence
new useful concepts and techniques.
Making decisions
Information systems
Communication channels
Making decisions
In the area of decision making, systems thinking has contributed to
classification of various types of solutions. The concepts of certainty were developed
risk and uncertainty. Logical approaches to accepting complex
decisions (many of which had mathematical basis), which had a big impact
Helping managers improve the process and quality of decision making.
Information systems
The nature of the information at the disposal of the recipient
decision has an important impact on the quality of the decision itself, and it is not surprising that
This issue received a lot of attention. Those who develop systems
management information, try to provide relevant information
to the appropriate person at the appropriate time. To do this they need
know what decision will be made when the information is provided, and
also how quickly this information will arrive (if speed is an important element
decision making). Providing relevant information that improved
quality of decisions (and eliminate unnecessary information that simply increases
costs) is a very significant circumstance.
Communication channels
Communication channels in an organization are important elements
in the decision-making process because they convey the required information.
Systems analysts provided many useful examples of deep process understanding
relationships between organizations. Significant progress has been made in the study
and solving problems of “noise” and interference in communications, problems of transition from one
systems or subsystems from another.
4. The importance of a systems approach in management
The importance of the systems approach is that managers
can more easily coordinate their specific work with the work of the organization as a whole,
if they understand the system and their role in it. This is especially important for the general
director, because the systematic approach encourages him to maintain the necessary
balance between the needs of individual departments and the goals of the entire
organizations. It makes him think about the flow of information passing through all
system, and also emphasizes the importance of communications. Systems approach
helps to identify the reasons for making ineffective decisions, it also provides
tools and techniques to improve planning and control.
A modern leader must have systems thinking,
because:
the amount of information and knowledge that is necessary to make management decisions
decisions;
correlate one area of activity of your organization with another, do not
allow quasi-optimization of management decisions;
everyday life and realize what place his organization occupies in the external
environment, how it interacts with another, larger system of which it is part
is;
implement its main functions: forecasting, planning,
organization, leadership, control.
Systems thinking not only contributed to the development of new
ideas about the organization (in particular, Special attention was given
integrated nature of the enterprise, as well as the paramount importance and
importance of information systems), but also provided the development of useful mathematical
means and techniques that significantly facilitate management decision making,
use of more advanced planning and control systems. Thus,
a systematic approach allows us to comprehensively evaluate any
production and economic activities and management system activities at
level of specific characteristics. This will help analyze any situation in
within a single system, identify the nature of input, process and
exit. The use of a systematic approach allows you to best organize
decision-making process at all levels in the management system.
Despite all the positive results, systems thinking
still has not fulfilled its most important purpose. The statement that it
will allow the application of modern scientific methods to management, which is still not
implemented. This is partly because large-scale systems are very
complex. It is not easy to understand the many ways in which the external environment
influences internal organization. Interaction of many subsystems within
enterprise is not entirely understood. System boundaries are very difficult to establish,
a definition that is too broad will lead to the accumulation of costly and unusable
data, and too narrow - to a partial solution to problems. It won't be easy
formulate the questions that the enterprise will face, determine
accuracy of information needed in the future. Even if the best and most
a logical solution will be found, it may not be feasible. Nevertheless,
A systematic approach makes it possible to gain a deeper understanding of how an enterprise operates.
Systems approach represents a direction in the methodology of scientific knowledge and social practice, which is based on the consideration of objects as systems.
The essence of the joint ventureconsists, firstly, in understanding the object of research as a system and, secondly, in understanding the process of studying the object as systemic in its logic and the means used.
Like any methodology, a systems approach implies the presence of certain principles and ways of organizing activities, in this case activities related to the analysis and synthesis of systems.
The systems approach is based on the principles of purpose, duality, integrity, complexity, plurality and historicism. Let us consider in more detail the content of the listed principles.
Principle of purpose focuses on the fact that when studying an object it is necessary first of all identify the purpose of its functioning.
We should be primarily interested not in how the system is built, but why it exists, what is the goal of it, what caused it, what are the means of achieving the goal?
The goal principle is constructive if two conditions are met:
The goal must be formulated in such a way that the degree of its achievement can be assessed (set) quantitatively;
The system must have a mechanism to assess the degree to which a given goal has been achieved.
2. The principle of duality follows from the principle of purpose and means that the system should be considered as part of a higher-level system and at the same time as an independent part, acting as a single whole in interaction with the environment. In turn, each element of the system has its own structure and can also be considered as a system.
The relationship with the principle of purpose is that the purpose of the operation of the object should be subordinated to solving the problems of the functioning of the system more high level. Goal is a category external to the system. It is given to her by a system of a higher level, of which this system is included as an element.
3.Principle of integrity requires considering an object as something isolated from a set of other objects, acting as a whole in relation to the environment, having its own specific functions and developing according to its own laws. At the same time, the need to study individual aspects is not denied.
4.The principle of complexity indicates the need to study an object as a complex formation and, if the complexity is very high, it is necessary to consistently simplify the representation of the object in such a way as to preserve all its essential properties.
5.The principle of plurality requires the researcher to present a description of the object at multiple levels: morphological, functional, informational.
Morphological level gives an idea of the structure of the system. The morphological description cannot be exhaustive. The depth of the description, the level of detail, that is, the choice of elements into which the description does not penetrate, is determined by the purpose of the system. The morphological description is hierarchical.
The specification of morphology is given at as many levels as are required to create an idea of the basic properties of the system.
Functional Description associated with the transformation of energy and information. Every object is interesting primarily for the result of its existence, the place it occupies among other objects in the surrounding world.
Information Description gives an idea of the organization of the system, i.e. about information relationships between system elements. It complements the functional and morphological descriptions.
Each level of description has its own specific laws. All levels are closely interconnected. When making changes at one level, it is necessary to analyze possible changes at other levels.
6. The principle of historicism obliges the researcher to reveal the past of the system and identify trends and patterns of its development in the future.
Predicting the behavior of a system in the future is a necessary condition that the decisions made to improve the existing system or create a new one ensure the effective functioning of the system for a given time.
SYSTEM ANALYSIS
System analysis represents the totality scientific methods and practical techniques for solving various problems based on a systematic approach.
The methodology of systems analysis is based on three concepts: problem, problem solution and system.
Problem- is a discrepancy or difference between the existing and required state of affairs in any system.
The required position can be necessary or desired. The necessary state is dictated by objective conditions, and the desired state is determined by subjective prerequisites, which are based on the objective conditions of the functioning of the system.
Problems existing in one system are usually not equivalent. To compare problems and determine their priority, attributes are used: importance, scale, generality, relevance, etc.
Identifying the problem carried out by identification symptoms that determine the system’s inadequacy for its purpose or its insufficient efficiency. Symptoms that appear systematically form a trend.
Symptom identification is carried out by measuring and analyzing various indicators of the system, the normal values of which are known. A deviation from the norm is a symptom.
Solution consists in eliminating the differences between the existing and required state of the system. Elimination of differences can be done either by improving the system or by replacing it with a new one.
The decision to improve or replace is made taking into account the following provisions. If the direction of improvement provides a significant increase in the life cycle of the system and the costs are incomparably small in relation to the cost of developing the system, then the decision to improve is justified. Otherwise, you should consider replacing it with a new one.
A system is created to solve the problem.
Main systems analysis components are:
1. The purpose of system analysis.
2. The goal that the system must achieve in the process of: functioning.
3. Alternatives or options for building or improving the system, through which it is possible to solve the problem.
4. Resources necessary to analyze and improve the existing system or create a new one.
5. Criteria or indicators that allow you to compare different alternatives and select the most preferable ones.
7. A model that links together the goal, alternatives, resources and criteria.
Methodology for conducting system analysis
1.System Description:
a) determining the purpose of system analysis;
b) determining the goals, purpose and functions of the system (external and internal);
c) determining the role and place in the higher-level system;
d) functional description (input, output, process, feedback, restrictions);
e) structural description (discovery of relationships, stratification and decomposition of the system);
g) description of the life cycle of the system (creation, operation, including improvement, destruction);
2.Identifying and describing the problem:
a) determining the composition of performance indicators and methods for calculating them;
b) Selection of functionality for assessing the effectiveness of the system and setting requirements for it (determining the necessary (desired) state of affairs);
b) determining the actual state of affairs (calculating the effectiveness of the existing system using the selected functionality);
c) establishing a discrepancy between the necessary (desired) and actual state of affairs and its assessment;
d) history of the occurrence of nonconformity and analysis of the causes of its occurrence (symptoms and trends);
e) formulation of the problem;
f) identifying connections between the problem and other problems;
g) forecasting the development of the problem;
h) assessment of the consequences of the problem and conclusion about its relevance.
3. Selection and implementation of directions for solving the problem:
a) structuring the problem (identifying subproblems)
b) identifying bottlenecks in the system;
c) research into the alternative “improving the system - creating a new system”;
d) determining directions for solving the problem (selection of alternatives);
e) assessment of the feasibility of directions for solving the problem;
f) comparison of alternatives and selection of an effective direction;
g) coordination and approval of the chosen direction for solving the problem;
h) highlighting the stages of solving the problem;
i) implementation of the chosen direction;
j) checking its effectiveness.
IN modern scientific methodology, starting from the mid-twentieth century, a new systematic approach has been formed - an interdisciplinary philosophical, methodological and special scientific direction with high research and explanatory potential. As a special type of methodology, it involves the identification of general philosophical, general scientific and special scientific levels, as well as consideration of the conceptual apparatus, basic principles and functions corresponding to each of them.
As researchers note, the idea of systematicity is present in an implicit, unreflected form in the thoughts of many philosophers of the past. Thus, in ancient Greek philosophy in the works of Plato and Aristotle, the idea of systematicity is widely represented, realized as the integrity of the consideration of knowledge, the systematic construction of logic, and geometry. Later, these ideas were developed in the works of Leibniz, a philosopher and mathematician, in particular, in the “New System of Nature” (1695), in an effort to create a “universal science.” In the 19th century, Hegel essentially generalized the experience of modern philosophy in developing the problem of systematicity, taking as the basis for his reasoning the integrity of the objects of research and the systemic nature of philosophical and scientific knowledge. And although the principle of systematicity had not been clearly formulated by this time, the idea itself correlated well with the systematizations widespread in natural science by Linnaeus in biology, Decandolle in botany, and the holistic study biological evolution C. Darwin, etc. A classic example of the application of the idea of systematicity and integrity was Marx’s teaching on socio-economic formation and his consideration of society as an “organic system”.
Today philosophical principle of consistency is understood as a universal proposition that all objects and phenomena of the world are systems of various types and types of integrity and complexity, however, the question of which interpretation is more justified - ontological or epistemological - remains open and discussed. The traditional point of view that prevails today is ontological, originating from the systemic ontological concepts of Spinoza and Leibniz, which attributes “systematicity” to the objects of reality themselves; the task of the subject-researcher is to discover the system, its connections and relationships, describe, typologize and explain them. But an epistemological interpretation is making its way more and more clearly, in which “systematicity” is considered precisely as a principle inseparable from the theoretical attitudes of the subject-observer, his ability to imagine and construct the object of knowledge as systemic. In particular, famous modern scientists sociologist N. Luhmann, neurobiologists
U. Maturana and F. Varela sought to show that a system, structure, environment does not exist in natural or social reality, but is formed in our knowledge as a result of operations of discrimination and construction carried out by the observer. However, it is impossible to deny that reality must have such “parameters” that can be represented as systems. Systematicity thus appears as a modern way of seeing an object and a style of thinking that has replaced mechanistic ideas and principles of interpretation. Accordingly, a special language is formed, including, first of all, such philosophical and general scientific concepts as systematicity, relationship, connection, element, structure, part and whole, integrity, hierarchy, organization, system analysis and many others.
The principle of systematicity combines and synthesizes several ideas and concepts: systematicity, integrity, the relationship between part and whole, structure and “elementaryness” of objects, universality, universality of connections, relationships, and finally, development, since it assumes not only staticity, but also dynamism and variability of systemic formations . As one of the leading and synthesizing philosophical principles, it underlies systematic approach- general scientific interdisciplinary and particular scientific system methodology, as well as social practice, considering objects as systems. It is not a strict theoretical or methodological concept, but as a set of cognitive principles it allows us to record the insufficiency of an extra-systemic, non-holistic vision of objects and, expanding the knowable reality, helps to build new objects of research, giving them characteristics, and offering new schemes for their explanation. It is close in orientation structural-functional analysis And structuralism, which, however, formulate fairly “rigid” and unambiguous rules and norms, respectively acquiring the features of specific scientific methodologies, for example, in the field of structural linguistics.
The main concept of system methodology is system- received serious development as in methodological research, and in general systems theory - the doctrine of the special scientific study of various types of systems, the laws of their existence, functioning and development. The founder of the theory is L. von Bertalanffy (1930), his predecessor in our country was A.A. Bogdanov, the creator of “Tectology” (1913) - the doctrine of universal organizational science.
The system constitutes an integral complex of interconnected elements; forms a special unity with the environment; has a hierarchy: it is an element of a system more high order, its elements in turn act as systems
lower order. It is necessary to distinguish from the system the so-called unorganized aggregates - a random accumulation of people, various kinds of landfills, the “collapse” of old books at a junk dealer and many others, in which there is no internal organization, connections are random and insignificant, there are no holistic, integrative properties different from the properties of individual fragments .
A feature of “living”, social and technical systems is the transfer of information and the implementation of management processes based on various types of “goal setting”. Various - empirical and theoretical - classifications of systems have been developed, and their types have been identified.
Thus, famous researchers of system methodology V.N. Sadovsky, I.V. Blauberg, E.G. Yudin identified classes of inorganic and organic systems, in contrast to unorganized aggregates. Organic system - it is a self-developing whole, going through stages of complexity and differentiation and possessing a number of specific features. This is the presence in the system, along with structural, and genetic connections, coordination and subordination, control mechanisms, for example, biological correlations, central nervous system, governing bodies in society and others. In such systems, the properties of the parts are determined by the laws and structure of the whole; the parts are transformed along with the whole in the course of its development. The elements of the system have a certain number of degrees of freedom (probabilistic control) and are constantly updated following changes in the whole. In inorganic systems the dependence between the system and its elements is less close, the properties of the parts and their changes are determined by the internal structure, and not by the structure of the whole, changes in the whole may not lead to changes in the elements that exist independently and are even more active than the system as a whole. The stability of the elements determines the stability of such systems. Organic systems, as the most complex, require special research; they are the most promising methodologically (Problems in the methodology of systems research. M., 1970, pp. 38-39).
From the distinction between these two types of systems it follows that the concept element is not absolute and unambiguously defined, since the system can be divided in different ways. An element is “the limit of possible division of an object”, “the minimum component of a system” capable of performing a certain function.
The fundamental tasks being solved today in the field of formation and development of systems research methodology include the following: construction of concepts and models for the systemic representation of objects, development of techniques and apparatus for describing all parameters of the system: type of connections, relationship with the environment, structure hierarchy, nature of control, construction formalized - symbolic, ideal, mathematical - systems for describing real system objects and the possibility of applying the rules of logical inference. In specific sciences, at the level of special methodology,
System developments are analyzed using specific methods and systems analysis techniques used specifically for this area of research.
A systematic formulation of the problem involves not just a transition to a “system language”, but a preliminary clarification of the possibility of presenting an object as an integrity, isolating system-forming connections and structural characteristics of the object, etc. In this case, there is always a need to find out subject relevance, those. the correspondence of concepts, methods, principles to a given object in its systemic vision and in combination with methods of other sciences, for example, whether the mathematical apparatus can be applied to a systemically presented object and what it should be.
A number of methodological requirements relate to the description of the elements of an object; in particular, it must be carried out taking into account the element’s place in the system as a whole, since its functions significantly depend on this; one and the same element must be considered as having different parameters, functions, properties that manifest themselves differently in accordance with the hierarchical levels or type of system. An object as a system can be fruitfully studied only in unity with the conditions of its existence, the environment; its structure is understood as a law or principle of connecting elements. The system research program should be based on the recognition of such important features of the elements and the system as the generation of a special property of the whole from the properties of the elements and, in turn, the generation of the properties of the elements under the influence of the properties of the system as a whole.
These general methodological requirements of the systems approach can be supplemented by its specific features in modern sciences. Thus, E.G. Yudin examined the development of systematic ideas and the application of methodological principles of this approach in psychology. In particular, he showed that Gestalt psychology was the first to raise the question of the holistic functioning of the psyche, presenting the laws of Gestalt as laws of organization of the whole based on the unification of functions and structure. At the same time, the approach from the standpoint of integrity and systematicity not only united the object, but also set a scheme for its division and analysis. It is known that Gestalt psychology and its schemes have been subjected to serious criticism, but at the same time, “the basic methodological ideas of the psychology of form hardly belong to history and form part of the entire modern psychology of culture, and traces of their fruitful influence can be found in almost all the main areas of psychology” (Yudin E.G. Methodology of science. Systematicity. Activity. M., 1997. pp. 185-186).
The leading psychologist of the 20th century, J. Piaget, also interpreted the process of mental development as a dynamic system of interaction between the organism and the environment, which has a hierarchy of structures that build on top of each other and are not reducible to one another. Carrying out an operational approach and reflecting on the systemic-structural nature of intelligence, located at the top of the system hierarchy, he expressed a new idea for his time about building a “logic of holistic
stey", which has not been implemented to this day. “To understand the operational nature of thinking, it is necessary to achieve systems as such, and if ordinary logical schemes do not allow us to see such systems, then we need to build a logic of integrity” (Piaget J. Selected psychological works. M., 1969. P. 94).
In an effort to master systems methodology, applying its principles and concepts, the following should be kept in mind. Using a systems approach is not a direct path to true knowledge; as a methodological technique, systems vision only optimizes cognitive activity, makes it more productive, but to obtain and substantiate reliable knowledge it is necessary to apply the entire “arsenal” of general methodological and special principles and methods.
Let's use the example of E.G. Yudin to understand what we are talking about. The famous scientist B.A. Rybakov, trying to establish the author of “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign,” did not have a systematic approach in mind and did not use the corresponding concepts, but united and combined several different ways of analyzing the socio-political conditions of Kievan Rus at that time, likes and dislikes the author, expressed in the Lay, his education, stylistic and other features of the chronicle of that era. A genealogical table of the Kyiv princes was compiled and used. The study clarified the special systems of connections and relationships in each of the cases involved, which were not considered separately, but were superimposed on each other. As a result, the search area and the number of possible candidates were sharply reduced and with a high degree of probability it was suggested that the author was the Kiev boyar Peter Borislavich, the chronicler of the Kiev princes. It is obvious that the principle of integrity was used here to enhance the effectiveness of the study and overcome the fragmentation, incompleteness and partial nature of the factors. The result was undoubtedly interesting, the increase in knowledge was obvious, the probability was quite high, but other experts in this field, in particular D.S. Likhachev, expressed quite a lot of counterarguments and did not recognize the truth of the conclusions; the question about the author remains open today.
In this example, which simultaneously reflects the peculiarities of humanitarian research, where formalization and application of mathematical apparatus is impossible, two points emerged: the first - the integrity (systematicity) of the object was constructed, in reality it was not a system with objective natural connections, systematicity is presented only in its methodological function and has no ontological content; second - the systematic approach should not be considered as a “direct path” to true knowledge, its tasks and functions are different and, first of all, as already mentioned, expanding the scope of vision of reality and constructing a new object of study, identifying new types of connections and relationships, applying new methods.
System methodology received new impetus in its development when turning to self-organizing systems or, in other words, when representing an object as a self-organization
organizing system, for example, the brain, a community of organisms, a human collective, an economic system and others. Systems of this type are characterized by an active influence on the environment, flexibility of structure and a special “adaptive mechanism”, as well as unpredictability - they can change their method of action when conditions change, they are able to learn, and take into account past experience. Turning to complexly organized evolving and nonequilibrium systems led researchers to a fundamentally new theory of self-organization - synergetics, which arose in the early 70s of the twentieth century (the term was introduced by the German physicist G. Haken from the Greek sinergeia - assistance, cooperation), combining system-informational, structuralist approaches with the principles of self-organization, nonequilibrium and nonlinearity of dynamic systems.
Taylor series expansion Approximate solution of the Cauchy problem for the ordinary
What is NOT taught at school What is not taught at school ask
Money Thinking Formula (A