The main principles of a systematic approach. Systems. System principles. Systems approach
methodological direction in science, the main task of which is to develop methods for the study and design of complex objects - systems of different types and classes.
Great Definition
Incomplete definition ↓
systems approach
SYSTEMS APPROACH- the direction of philosophy and methodology of science, specially scientific knowledge and social practice, which is based on the study of objects as systems. S. p. focuses research on the disclosure of the integrity of the object and the mechanisms that ensure it, on the identification of diverse types of connections of a complex object and their reduction into a single theoretical picture. The concept "S. P." (English "systems approach") has been widely used since the late 60s - early 70s. 20th century in English and Russian. philosophical and systemic literature. Close in content to "S. P." are the concepts of "systems research", "systematic principle", "general systems theory" and "systems analysis". S. p. is an interdisciplinary philosophical, methodological and scientific direction of research. Without directly solving philosophical problems, S. p. needs a philosophical interpretation of its provisions. An important part of the philosophical substantiation of S. p. systemic principle. Historically, the ideas of a systematic study of the objects of the world and the processes of cognition arose in ancient philosophy (Plato, Aristotle), were widely developed in the philosophy of modern times (I. Kant, F. Schelling), were studied by K. Marx in relation to economic structure capitalist society. In the theory of biological evolution created by Charles Darwin, not only the idea was formulated, but the idea of the reality of superorganismal levels of life organization (the most important prerequisite for systems thinking in biology). S. p. is certain stage in the development of methods of cognition, research and design activities, methods of describing and explaining the nature of analyzed or artificially created objects. The principles of S. p. come to replace the widespread in the 17-19 centuries. concepts of mechanism and oppose them. The methods of static analysis are most widely used in the study of complex developing objects—multilevel, hierarchical, self-organizing biological, psychological, social, and other systems, large technical systems, man-machine systems, and so on. Among the most important tasks of structural design are: 1) the development of means for representing the objects being studied and constructed as systems; 2) construction of generalized models of the system, models of different classes and specific properties of systems; 3) study of the structure of systems theories and various system concepts and developments. In a system study, the analyzed object is considered as a certain set of elements, the interconnection of which determines the integral properties of this set. The main emphasis is on identifying the variety of connections and relationships that take place both within the object under study and in its relationship with the external environment. The properties of an object as an integral system are determined not only and not so much by the summation of the properties of its individual elements, but by the properties of its structure, special backbone, integrative links of the object under consideration. To understand the behavior of systems (first of all, purposeful), it is necessary to identify the management processes implemented by this system - forms of information transfer from one subsystem to another and ways of influencing some parts of the system on others, coordination of the lower levels of the system by elements of its higher level of management, influence on the last of all other subsystems. Significant importance in S. p. is attached to revealing the probabilistic nature of the behavior of the objects under study. An important feature of S. the item is that not only the object, but also the process of research itself acts as a complex system, the task of which, in particular, is to combine various models of the object into a single whole. System objects are very often not indifferent to the process of their research and in many cases can have a significant impact on it. In the context of the development of the scientific and technological revolution in the second half of the 20th century. there is a further refinement of the content of S. p. - the disclosure of its philosophical foundations, the development of logical and methodological principles, further progress in the construction of a general theory of systems. S. p. is a theoretical and methodological basis system analysis. A prerequisite for the penetration of S. p. into science in the 20th century. first of all, there was a transition to a new type of scientific problems: in a number of areas of science, problems of organization and functioning of complex objects begin to occupy a central place; cognition operates with systems, the boundaries and composition of which are far from obvious and require special research in each individual case. In the second half of the 20th century tasks similar in type also arise in social practice: in social management, instead of the previously prevailing local, sectoral tasks and principles, large complex problems begin to play a leading role, requiring close interconnection of economic, social, environmental and other aspects of public life (for example, global problems, complex problems of socio-economic development of countries and regions, problems of creating modern productions, complexes, urban development, nature protection activities, etc.). The change in the type of scientific and practical problems is accompanied by the appearance of general scientific and special scientific concepts, which are characterized by the use in one form or another of the basic ideas of S. p. in. the systematic development of these principles in methodological terms begins. Initially methodological research grouped around the problems of constructing a general theory of systems. However, the development of research in this direction has shown that the totality of the problems of the methodology of system research goes beyond the scope of the tasks of developing only a general theory of systems. To designate this wider scope of methodological problems, the term “S. P.". S. p. does not exist in the form of a strict theoretical or methodological concept: it performs its heuristic functions, remaining a set of cognitive principles, the main meaning of which is the appropriate orientation of specific studies. This orientation is carried out in two ways. First, the substantive principles of S. p. allow fixing the insufficiency of old, traditional subjects of study for setting and solving new problems. Secondly, the concepts and principles of S. p. significantly help to build new subjects of study, setting the structural and typological characteristics of these subjects and thus contributing to the formation of constructive research programs. The role of S. p. in the development of scientific, technical and practice-oriented knowledge is as follows. First, the concepts and principles of S. p. reveal a wider cognitive reality in comparison with that which was fixed in the previous knowledge (for example, the concept of the biosphere in the concept of V. I. Vernadsky, the concept of biogeocenosis in modern ecology, the optimal approach in economic management and planning, etc.). Secondly, within the framework of S. p., new, in comparison with the previous stages in the development of scientific knowledge, schemes of explanation are developed, which are based on the search for specific mechanisms for the integrity of an object and the identification of a typology of its connections. Thirdly, it follows from the thesis about the variety of types of relations of an object, which is important for s., that any complex object admits several divisions. At the same time, the criterion for choosing the most adequate division of the object under study can be the extent to which, as a result, it is possible to construct a “unit” of analysis that allows fixing the integral properties of the object, its structure and dynamics. The breadth of the principles and basic concepts of S. p. puts it in close connection with other methodological trends in modern science. In terms of its cognitive attitudes, S. p. has much in common with structuralism and structural-functional analysis, with which he is connected not only by operating with the concepts of system, structure and function, but also by an emphasis on the study of heterogeneous relations of an object. At the same time, the principles of S. p. have a broader and more flexible content; they were not subjected to such rigid conceptualization and absolutization, which was characteristic of some interpretations of structuralism and structural-functional analysis. I.V. Blauberg, E.G. Yudin, V.N. Sadovsky Lit .: Problems of methodology of system research. M., 1970; Blauberg I.V., Yudin E.G. Formation and essence systems approach. M., 1973; Sadovsky V.N. Foundations of General Systems Theory: Logical and Methodological Analysis. M., 1974; Uemov A.I. System approach and general systems theory. M., 1978; Afanasiev V.G. Consistency and society. M., 1980; Blauberg I.V. The problem of integrity and a systematic approach. M., 1997; Yudin E.G. Science Methodology: Consistency. Activity. M, 1997; System Research. Yearbook. Issue. 1-26. M., 1969-1998; Churchman C.W. The Systems Approach. N.Y., 1968; Trends in General Systems Theory. N.Y., 1972; General Systems Theory. Yearbook. Vol. 1-30. N.Y., 1956-85; Critical Systems Thinking. Directed Readings. N.Y., 1991.
The essence of a systematic approach
| Parameter name | Meaning |
| Article subject: | The essence of a systematic approach |
| Rubric (thematic category) | Education |
In modern scientific literature The systems approach is most often perceived as a direction in the methodology of scientific knowledge and social practice, which is based on the consideration of objects as systems.
The systematic approach focuses researchers on revealing the integrity of the object, identifying the diverse connections in it and bringing them together into a single theoretical picture.
The system approach is a form of application of the theory of knowledge and dialectics to the study of processes occurring in nature, society, and thinking. Its essence lies in the implementation of the requirements of the general theory of systems, according to which each object in the process of its study should be considered as a large and complex system and, at the same time, as an element of a more general system.
The essence of the system approach lies in the fact that relatively independent components are considered not in isolation, but in their interconnection, in development and movement. As one component of the system changes, others change as well. This makes it possible to reveal the integrative system properties and quality characteristics, which are absent from the elements that make up the system.
Based on the approach, the principle of consistency has been developed. The principle of the system approach is to consider the elements of the system as interconnected and interacting to achieve the global goal of the system functioning. A feature of the system approach is the optimization of the functioning of not individual elements, but the entire system as a whole.
The system approach is based on a holistic vision of the objects or processes under study and seems to be the most universal method for studying and analyzing complex systems. Objects are considered as systems consisting of regularly structured and functionally organized elements. A systematic approach is the systematization and unification of objects or knowledge about them by establishing significant links between them. The system approach assumes a consistent transition from the general to the particular, when the basis for consideration is a specific ultimate goal, for the achievement of which the given system is being formed. This approach means that each system is an integrated whole even when it consists of separate disparate subsystems.
Basic concepts of the system approach: ʼʼsystemʼʼ, ʼʼstructureʼʼ and ʼʼcomponentʼʼ.
ʼʼSystem - ϶ᴛᴏ a set of components that are in relationships and connections with each other, the interaction of which generates a new quality that is not inherent in these components separatelyʼʼ.
A component is understood as any objects connected with other objects in a complex complex.
The structure is interpreted as the order of registration of elements in the system, the principle of its structure; it reflects the shape of the arrangement of elements and the nature of the interaction of their sides and properties. The structure connects, transforms the elements, giving a certain commonality, causing the emergence of new qualities that are not inherent in any of them. An object is a system if it is to be broken down into interrelated and interacting components. These parts, in turn, have, as a rule, their own structure and, therefore, are presented as subsystems of the original, large system.
The components of the system form backbone links.
The main principles of the systems approach are:
Integrity, which allows considering the system at the same time as a whole and at the same time as a subsystem for higher levels.
Hierarchy of the structure, that is, the presence of many (at least two) elements located on the basis of the subordination of elements lower level top level elements.
Structuring, which allows you to analyze the elements of the system and their relationships within a specific organizational structure. As a rule, the process of functioning of the system is determined not so much by the properties of its individual elements, but by the properties of the structure itself.
Multiplicity, which allows using a variety of cybernetic, economic and mathematical models to describe individual elements and the system as a whole.
For example, the education system is perceived as a system that includes the following components: 1) federal state educational standards and federal state requirements, educational standards, educational programs of various types, levels and (or) directions; 2) organizations engaged in educational activities, teachers, students and parents (legal representatives) of underage students; 3) federal state bodies and state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation exercising state administration in the field of education, and local governments exercising management in the field of education, advisory, advisory and other bodies created by them; 4) organizations that provide educational activities, assess the quality of education; 5) associations legal entities, employers and their associations, public associations operating in the field of education.
In turn, each component of the education system acts as a system. For example, the system of organizations engaged in educational activities includes the following components: 1) preschool educational organizations 2) general educational organizations 3) professional educational organizations of higher education. educational organizations 4) educational organizations of higher education.
Educational organizations of higher education can also be considered as a system that includes the following components: institutes, academies, universities.
The presented hierarchy of systems included in the education system is located on the basis of the subordination of lower-level components to higher-level components; All components are closely interconnected, form a holistic unity.
The third level of methodology - concrete scientific - this is the methodology of a particular science, it is based on scientific approaches, concepts, theories, problems specific to scientific knowledge in a particular science, as a rule, these foundations are developed by scientists of this science (there are scientists of other sciences).
For pedagogy, this level of methodology is, first of all, pedagogical and psychological theories, concepts for particular didactics (methods of teaching individual subjects) - theories in the field of didactics, for research in the field of education methods - basic concepts, theories of education. This level of methodology in a particular scientific study is most often its theoretical basis research.
The specific scientific level of pedagogy methodology includes: personal, activity, ethno-pedagogical, axiological, anthropological approaches, etc.
Activity approach. It has been established that activity is the basis, means and factor of personality development. The activity approach involves consideration of the object under study within the framework of the system of its activities. It involves the inclusion of educators in various activities: teaching, work, communication, play.
The personal approach means orientation in the design and implementation of the pedagogical process to the individual as a goal, subject, result and the main criterion for its effectiveness. It urgently demands the recognition of the uniqueness of the individual, his intellectual and moral freedom, the right to respect. Within the framework of this approach, it is supposed to rely on the natural process of self-development of the inclinations and creative potential of the individual, and the creation of appropriate conditions for this.
The axiological (or value) approach means the implementation in research, in education of universal and national values.
The ethno-pedagogical approach involves the organization and implementation of research, the process of education and training based on the national traditions of the people, their culture, national-ethnic rituals, customs, habits. The national culture gives a specific flavor to the environment in which the child grows and develops, various educational institutions function.
Anthropological approach, which means the systematic use of data from all sciences about man as a subject of education and their consideration in the construction and implementation of the pedagogical process.
To carry out the transformation, it is extremely important for a person to change the ideal way of his actions, the plan of activity. In this regard, he uses a special tool - thinking, the degree of development of which determines the degree of well-being and freedom of a person. It is a conscious attitude to the world that allows a person to realize his function as a subject of activity, actively transforming the world and himself on the basis of the processes of mastering the universal culture and cultural creation, self-analysis of the results of activity.
This, in turn, requires the use of a dialogic approach, which follows from the fact that the essence of a person is much richer, more versatile and more complex than his activity. The dialogical approach is based on faith in the positive potential of a person, in his unlimited creative possibilities of constant development and self-improvement. It is important that the activity of the individual, his needs for self-improvement are not considered in isolation. Οʜᴎ develop only in the conditions of relationships with other people, built on the principle of dialogue. The dialogical approach in unity with the personal and activity approach constitute the essence of the methodology of humanistic pedagogy.
The implementation of the above methodological principles is carried out in conjunction with the cultural approach. Culture is usually understood as a specific way human activity. Being a universal characteristic of activity, it, in turn, sets the social and humanistic program and predetermines the direction of this or that type of activity, its value typological features and results. Τᴀᴋᴎᴍ ᴏϬᴩᴀᴈᴏᴍ, the assimilation of culture by a personality presupposes its assimilation of the ways of creative activity.
A person, a child lives and studies in a specific socio-cultural environment, belongs to a certain ethnic group. In this regard, the culturological approach is transformed into an ethnopedagogical one. In such a transformation, the unity of the universal, national and individual is manifested.
One of the resurgents is the anthropological approach, which means the systematic use of data from all the sciences of man as a subject of education and their consideration in the construction and implementation of the pedagogical process.
Tech level methodology make up the methodology and technique of research, ᴛ.ᴇ. a set of procedures that ensure the receipt of reliable experimental material and its primary processing, after which it can be included in the array of scientific knowledge. This level includes research methods.
Methods of pedagogical research - methods and techniques of cognition of the objective laws of education, upbringing and development.
Methods of pedagogical research are divided into groups:
1. Methods for studying pedagogical experience: observation, survey (conversation, interview, questionnaire), study of written, graphic and creative works of students, pedagogical documentation, testing, experiment, etc.
2. Theoretical methods of pedagogical research: induction and deduction, analysis and synthesis, generalization, work with literature (compilation of bibliography; summarizing; note-taking; annotation; citation), etc.
3. Mathematical methods: registration, ranking, scaling, etc.
The essence of the systematic approach is the concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Essence of a systematic approach" 2017, 2018.
The system as a subject of a systematic approach
The key concept that defines the entire system methodological direction is the concept of a system as a specific subject. scientific research. It has already been noted above that its interpretation is too broad, making it meaningless to use any special research approaches.
So, the system as a subject of the system approach is a composite object of a different nature with the following properties:
- the system is a collection of its elements and components. Element - the primary indivisible part of the system (brick, atom). Component - a broader concept, including both elements and components of the system - subsystems;
- system components have their own internally conditioned activity (non-deterministic behavior) and are in interaction with each other;
- the concept of entropy is applicable to the system - a measure of organization, orderliness of the system. Entropy is the main parameter of the state of the system;
- the state of the system is characterized by a probability distribution.
- the system is self-organizing, that is, it is able to reduce or maintain certain level its entropy.
- the properties of a system are not reduced to the sum of the properties of its components.
Such systems are found in matter at the molecular, quantum levels, in technology, computer science. A biological organism, social groups and society as a whole are such systems.
The most important features are self-organization and irreducibility of the properties of the system to the properties of its components.
Self-organization is the process of spontaneous ordering in the system due to internal factors, without external specific influence.
The concept of a systematic approach
A person perceives the world around him through his sense organs, each of which has limitations in sensitivity. The human mind also has limited ability to comprehend the information received from the senses.
Therefore, the main scientific method of cognition has been and always will be analysis. Analysis allows you to bring the research problem to a solvable form.
Analysis (ancient Greek ἀνάλυσις - decomposition, dismemberment) is the operation of mental or real dismemberment of the object under study into its component parts, elucidation of the properties of these parts and the subsequent derivation of the properties of the whole from the properties of the parts (synthesis).
When examining a composite object, its components are analyzed, and the properties of the entire object are derived from their properties.
But if we are faced with a composite object, the components of which have non-deterministic behavior, are in interaction with each other, and in general the object shows signs of self-organization, then we understand that the properties of such an object are not reduced to the sum of the properties of its components. We say: "Stop, analysis is not applicable to such an object. We must apply some other research methods."
This is the systematic approach.
Strictly speaking, we end up applying analysis anyway. But, applying a systematic approach, we do not divide the composite object into the components of which it consists, but differentiate according to some other features (grounds). For example, for many research purposes, a social group can (and should) be considered to consist not of people, but of a set of social roles. This is a systematic approach.
Thus,
A systematic approach is the fundamental methodological orientation of the study, the point of view from which the object of study is considered, as well as the principle that guides the overall strategy of the study.
The system approach consists, first of all, in the realization that the object to be studied is a system - a composite object, the properties of which are not reduced to the sum of the properties of its parts.
The system approach makes us stop expressing the properties of the system through the properties of its components, and look for definitions of the properties of the system as a whole.
A systematic approach requires the application of special research methods and tools to the system - systemic, functional, correlation analysis, etc.
findings
The system as a subject of the system approach is a composite object of a different nature, the components of which have their own internally conditioned activity (non-deterministic behavior) and interact with each other, as a result of which the behavior of the system has a probabilistic nature, and the properties of the system are not reduced to the sum of the properties of its components. All such systems of natural origin have the properties of self-organization.
A systematic approach is the fundamental methodological orientation of the study, which consists in stating that analysis is not applicable to such an object, and that its study requires the use of special research methods.
Unknown student of the end of the 20th century
Introduction
2. Organizational system: main elements and types
3. Systems theory
Introduction
As the industrial revolution unfolds, growth
large organizational forms of business stimulated the emergence of new ideas
about 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 appear is usually called the classical one.
management school, there is also a school social relations, theory
a systematic approach to organizations, probability theory, etc.
In my report, I want to talk about the theory of a systematic approach
to organizations as ideas to achieve effective management.
1. The concept of a systematic approach, its main features and principles
In our time, an 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 common in the particular, the constant in
changing. There is no unambiguous concept of a system. In the most general way
system is understood as a set of interrelated elements that form
a certain integrity, a certain unity.
The study of objects and phenomena as systems caused the formation
a new approach in science - a systematic approach.
The system approach as a general methodological principle is 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 originated by an Australian biologist
L. Bertalanffy. In the early 1920s, the young biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy began
study organisms as certain systems, summarizing your view in a book
"Modern Theory of Development" (1929). In this book, he developed a system
approach to the study of biological organisms. In "Robots, Humans and Consciousness"
(1967) he transferred the general systems theory to the analysis of the processes and phenomena of social
life. 1969 - " General theory systems." Bertalanffy turns his systems theory into
general disciplinary science. He saw the purpose of this science in the search
structural similarity of laws established in various disciplines, based on
which, it is possible to deduce system-wide regularities.
Let's define traits systems approach :
research and creation of objects as systems, and applies only to systems.
the study of the subject itself - "own" level; study of the same subject
as an element of a wider system - a "superior" level; studying this
object in relation to the elements that make up this object -
"lower" level.
unity of connections with the environment, to comprehend the essence of each connection and
individual element, to make associations between general and particular goals.
In view of what has been said, we define the concept of a systematic approach :
A systematic approach is an approach to the study of an object
(problems, phenomena, processes) as a system in which elements are identified,
internal and external relations that most significantly affect
the investigated 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 -
it's like that
direction of the methodology of scientific knowledge and practical activities, based on
which lies the study of any object as a complex holistic
socio-economic system.
Let's turn to history.
Before becoming at the beginning of the XX century. management Science Rulers,
ministers, commanders, builders, making decisions, were guided by intuition,
experience and tradition. Acting in specific situations, they sought to find the best
solutions. Depending on experience and talent, the manager could push apart
spatial and temporal framework of the situation and spontaneously comprehend one’s own
control object more or less systematically. But, nevertheless, until the XX century. in
management was dominated by a situational approach, or management by circumstances.
The defining principle of this approach is the adequacy of the managerial
decisions regarding a particular situation. Adequate in this situation
relies on the solution that is best in terms of changing the situation, directly
after it has been subjected to appropriate management action.
Thus, the situational approach is a focus on
the nearest positive result ("and then we'll see..."). It is thought that
"next" will again be the search for the best solution in the situation that arises. But
decision in this moment the best may not be the same as
the situation will change or unaccounted for circumstances will be revealed in it.
The desire to respond to each new twist or turn
(change of vision) of the situation in an adequate way leads to the fact that the manager
forced to make more and more new decisions that run counter to the previous ones. He
in fact, it ceases to control events, but floats along their course.
This does not mean that ad hoc management
fundamentally inefficient. A situational approach to decision making is necessary and
justified when the situation itself is extraordinary and the use of previous experience
notoriously risky when the situation changes quickly and in unpredictable ways,
when there is no time to take into account all the circumstances. So, for example, rescuers of the Ministry of Emergency Situations
often you have to look for the best solution precisely within the framework of a particular 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 the system to be considered simultaneously 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 the subordination of the elements of the lower level -
top level elements. The implementation of this principle is clearly seen in the example
any particular organization. As you know, any organization is
is the interaction of two subsystems: control and managed. One
obeys the other. - Structurization, allowing to analyze the elements of the system and their
relationships within a particular organizational structure. Usually,
the process of functioning of the system is determined not so much by the properties of its individual
elements, how many properties of the structure itself. - multiplicity, allowing the use of multiple
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
organizational and economic system that has inputs and outputs, and a certain
the number of external links. The term "organization" should be defined. AT
History has been various attempts to identify this concept.
purposeful arrangement of parts of the whole, which 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 (everything depends on the effectiveness of the links).
management theory): when people get together and formally accept
decision to combine their efforts 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 a common goal, who (individuals) act on the basis of
certain procedures and rules.
Based on the previously given definition of the system, we define
organizational system.
An organizational system is a set of
internally interconnected parts of the organization, forming a certain integrity.
The main elements of the organizational system (and hence
objects of organizational management) are:
they depend on the efficiency of the use of all other resources.
These elements are the main objects of organizational
management. But the organizational system has another side:
People. The task of the manager is to facilitate coordination and
integration of human activities.
Goals and tasks. Organizational goal - there is an ideal project
the future state of the organization. This goal contributes to the unification of the efforts of people and
their resources. Goals are formed on the basis of common interests, so the organization
tool to achieve goals.
Organizational structure. Structure is a way of combining
elements of the system. Organizational structure - there is a way to connect different
parts of the organization a certain integrity(main types of organizational
structures are hierarchical, matrix, entrepreneurial, mixed, etc.
d.). When we design and maintain these structures, we manage.
Specialization and separation labor. This is also an object
management. Breaking down complex manufacturing processes, operations and tasks into
components that presuppose the specialization of human labor.
Organizational power is a right, ability (knowledge + skills)
and the willingness (will) of the leader to pursue his line in the preparation, adoption and
implementation of management decisions. Each of these components is necessary for
the exercise of power. Power is interaction. coordination function and
integration of people activities powerless and ineffective manager to 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 an organization its own identity.
Most importantly, it brings people together, creates organizational integrity.
Organizational borders are material and
intangible constraints that fix the isolation of this organization
from other objects in external environment organizations. The manager must
have the ability to expand (in moderation) the boundaries of their own organization. In moderation
It means to take only what you can keep. Managing borders 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 links to external
environment, i.e. other organizations, institutions that have ties with the external
environment.
Thus, the organization as a system is
a set of interrelated elements that form integrity (i.e. internal
unity, continuity, mutual connection). Any organization is open
system, because interacts with the external environment. She gets out of the environment
environment resources in the form of capital, raw materials, energy, information, people, equipment
etc., which become elements of its internal environment. Part of resources with
using certain technologies is processed, converted into products and
services, which are then transferred 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
the functioning of systems - independent business units that
formed by interacting, interconnected and interdependent parts.
It is clear that any organizational form of business meets these criteria and can
be 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 functions within major system- foreign policy,
economic, social and technical environment in which it constantly enters
into 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
a system that operates within a wider environment, interacts and
associated with it, and is also affected by it. Departments and branches of the bank
are subsystems that must interact without conflict in order to
the bank as a whole worked effectively. If something is broken in a subsystem, it, in
will ultimately (if not contained) 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 relationships between them
create the properties of the system, its essential characteristics.
limiters that distance the system from the external environment. In terms of general
systems theory, each system is part of a larger system (which
called supersystem, supersystem, supersystem). In turn, each
the 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 relations between the components of the system become antagonistic
character.
presented as three processes. Their interaction gives a cycle of events.
Any open system has an event loop. With a systematic approach, it is important
the importance of studying the characteristics of the organization as a system, i.e.
characteristics of "input", "process" ("transformation") and characteristics of "output".
With a systematic approach based on marketing research first researched
"exit" options , those. goods or services, that is
to produce, with what quality indicators, at what cost, for whom, in
when to sell and at what price. The answers to these questions should be
clear and timely. At the “output”, as a result, there should be a competitive
products or services. Then determine "login" options , 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 (prior art,
technologies, features of the organization of production, labor and management) and
parameters of the external environment (economic, geopolitical, social,
ecological, etc.). And finally, no less importance acquires
study "process" parameters, which converts resources into finished
products. At this stage, depending on the object of study,
production technology or management technology is considered, and
as well as factors and ways to improve it.
the emergence of Yu the formation of Yu the functioning of Yu the crisis of Yu
collapse
the functioning of all other elements depends to a decisive extent 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 trend.
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 by an open system
to monitor, evaluate, control and correct their own activities.
Feedback allows an organization to receive 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 inherent dynamic
homeostasis. All living organisms show a tendency to internal
equilibrium and balance. The process by which an organization maintains a balanced
state and is called dynamic homeostasis.
Open organizational systems are characterized
differentiation- a trend towards growth, specialization and division of functions
between the various components that form a given system.
Differentiation is the system's response to a change in the external environment.
Equivalence. Open organizational systems
able, unlike closed systems, to achieve their goals
in different ways, moving towards these goals from different starting conditions. No and
there can be no single and best method to achieve the goal. The goal can always
be achieved different ways, and you can move to it with different
speeds.
Let me give you an example: consider a bank from the point of view of systems theory.
An examination of the bank from a systems theory point of view would begin with
clarification of objectives to help understand the nature of the decisions that need to be made
take in order to achieve these goals. It would be necessary to investigate the external environment,
to understand the ways in which the bank interacts with its wider environment.
The researcher would then turn to the 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 paths, the most important
information necessary for their acceptance, 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 led to the emergence
new useful concepts and techniques.
Making decisions
Information systems
Communication channels
Making decisions
In the field of decision making, systems thinking has contributed to
classification various types solutions. The concepts of certainty have been developed,
risk and uncertainty. Logical approaches to the adoption of complex
decisions (many of which had mathematical basis), which had a large
helping managers improve the process and quality of decision making.
Information systems
The nature of the information held by the recipient
decision has an important impact on the quality of the decision itself, and it is not surprising that
this issue was given great attention. Those who develop systems
management information, try to give relevant information
the right person at the right time. To do this, they need
know what decision will be made when the information is provided, and
also how soon this information will reach (if speed is an important element
decision making). Providing relevant information that improved
would improve the quality of decisions (and would 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 as they convey the required information.
Systems Analysts provided many useful examples of deep understanding of the process
relationships between organizations. Significant progress has been made in the study
and solving the problems of "noise" and interference in communications, problems of transition from one
system or subsystem from another.
4. The value of a systematic approach to management
The importance of a systems approach is that managers
can more easily align their specific work with that of the organization as a whole,
if they understand the system and their role in it. This is especially important for general
director, because a systematic approach encourages him to maintain the necessary
balance between the needs of individual units and the goals of the whole
organizations. He makes him think about the flows of information passing through the whole
system, and emphasizes the importance of communications. Systems approach
helps to establish the reasons for making ineffective decisions, it also provides
funds and technique to improve planning and control.
A modern leader must have a systemic mindset,
as:
the amount of information and knowledge that is necessary for the adoption of managerial
decisions;
relate one area of the organization's activities to another,
allow quasi-optimization of managerial decisions;
everyday life and realize what place his organization occupies in the external
environment, how it interacts with another, larger system, part of which
is an;
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 paid
integrated nature of the enterprise, as well as the paramount importance and
importance of information systems), but also provided the development of useful mathematical
tools and techniques that greatly facilitate the adoption of managerial decisions,
use of more advanced planning and control systems. Thus,
a systematic approach allows us to comprehensively evaluate any
production and economic activities and activities of the management system at
level of specific characteristics. This will help to 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 not fulfilled its most important purpose. The assertion that it
will allow the application of modern scientific method to management, 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
affects the internal organization. Interaction of many subsystems within
enterprises are not well understood. The boundaries of systems are very difficult to establish,
too broad a definition would lead to an accumulation of costly and unusable
data, and too narrow - to a partial solution of problems. It won't be easy
formulate questions that will arise before the enterprise, determine the
accuracy of information needed in the future. Even if the best and most
a logical solution will be found, it may not be feasible. However,
A systematic approach provides an opportunity to better understand how the enterprise works.
Knowledge of certain principles easily compensates for ignorance of certain facts.
K. Helvetius
1. "Systems thinking?.. Why is it needed?.."
The systems approach is not something fundamentally new, which arose only in last years. It is a natural method of solving both theoretical and practical problems that has been used for centuries. However, rapid technological progress, unfortunately, has given rise to a flawed style of thinking - a modern "narrow" specialist, on the basis of a highly specialized "common sense", invades the solution of complex and "broad" problems, neglecting systemic literacy as unnecessary philosophizing. At the same time, if in the field of technology systemic illiteracy relatively quickly (albeit with losses, sometimes significant, such as the Chernobyl disaster) is revealed by the failure of certain projects, then in the humanitarian field this leads to the fact that entire generations of scientists are “trained” simple explanations on complex facts or cover up with complex, scientific reasoning ignorance of elementary general scientific methods and tools, deducing results that, in the end, cause much more significant harm than the mistakes of "techies". A particularly dramatic situation has developed in philosophy, sociology, psychology, linguistics, history, ethnology and a number of other sciences, for which such a “tool” as a systematic approach is extremely necessary due to the extreme difficulties object of study.
Once, at a meeting of the scientific and methodological seminar of the Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, the project “The Concept of Empirical Research of Ukrainian Society” was considered. Strangely, having singled out six subsystems in society for some reason, the speaker characterized these subsystems with fifty indicators, many of which also turn out to be multidimensional. After that, the seminar discussed for a long time the question of what to do with these indicators, how to obtain generalized indicators and which ones... other were clearly used in a non-systemic sense.
In the vast majority of cases, the word "system" is used in the literature and in everyday life in a simplified, "non-systemic" sense. So, in the "Dictionary of Foreign Words" of the six definitions of the word "system", five, strictly speaking, have nothing to do with systems (these are methods, form, arrangement of something, etc.). At the same time, many attempts are still being made in the scientific literature to strictly define the concepts of "system", "system approach", to formulate system principles. At the same time, it seems that those scientists who have already realized the need for a systematic approach are trying to formulate their own system concepts. We have to admit that we have practically no literature on the fundamentals of the sciences, especially on the so-called "instrumental" sciences, that is, those that are used as a kind of "instrument" by other sciences. "Instrumental" science is mathematics. The author is convinced that systemology should also become an "instrumental" science. Today, the literature on systemology is represented either by “self-made” works of specialists from various fields, or by extremely complex, special works designed for professional systemologists or mathematicians.
The author’s systemic ideas were mainly formed in the 60–80s in the process of implementing special topics, first at the Head Research Institute for Rocket and Space Systems, and then at the Control Systems Research Institute under the leadership of the General Designer of Control Systems Academician V. S. Semenikhin. Participation in a number of scientific seminars at Moscow University, scientific institutes of Moscow and, especially, a semi-official seminar on systems research in those years, played a huge role. What is stated below is the result of analysis and comprehension of the literature, many years personal experience the author, his colleagues - specialists in systemic and related issues. The concept of a system as a model was introduced by the author in 1966–68. and published in . The definition of information as a metric of system interactions was proposed by the author in 1978. System principles are partially borrowed (in these cases there are references), partially formulated by the author in 1971–86.
It is unlikely that what is given in this work is the "ultimate truth", however, even if some approximation to the truth is already a lot. The presentation is deliberately popular, since the author's goal is to acquaint the widest possible scientific community with systemology and, thereby, stimulate the study and use of this powerful, but still little-known "toolkit". It would be extremely useful to introduce into the programs of universities and universities (for example, in the section of general education in the first years) a lecture cycle of the fundamentals of a systematic approach (36 academic hours), then (in senior years) - to supplement with a special course in applied systemology, focused on the field of activity future specialists (24–36 academic hours). However, so far these are only good wishes.
I would like to believe that the changes taking place now (both in our country and in the world) will force scientists, and just people, to learn a systematic style of thinking, that a systematic approach will become an element of culture, and system analysis will become a tool for specialists in both the natural and human sciences . Having been advocating for this for a long time, the author once again hopes that the elementary systemic concepts and principles outlined below will help at least one person avoid at least one mistake.
Many great truths were first blasphemy.
B. Show
2. Realities, models, systems
The concept of "system" was used by the materialist philosophers of ancient Greece. According to modern UNESCO data, the word "system" is one of the first places in terms of frequency of use in many languages of the world, especially in civilized countries. In the second half of the twentieth century, the role of the concept of "system" in the development of sciences and society rises so high that some enthusiasts of this direction began to talk about the onset of the "era of systems" and the emergence of a special science - systemology. For many years, the outstanding cybernetician V. M. Glushkov actively fought for the formation of this science.
In the philosophical literature, the term "systemology" was first introduced in 1965 by I. B. Novik, and to refer to a wide area of systems theory in the spirit of L. von Bertalanffy this term was used in 1971 by V. T. Kulik. The emergence of systemology meant the realization that a number of scientific areas and, first of all, various areas of cybernetics, explore only different qualities of the same integral object - systems. Indeed, in the West, cybernetics is still often identified with the theory of control and communication in the original understanding of N. Wiener. Including in the future a number of theories and disciplines, cybernetics remained a conglomerate of non-physical areas of science. And only when the concept "system" became pivotal in cybernetics, thus giving it the missing conceptual unity, the identification of modern cybernetics with systemology became justified. Thus, the concept of "system" is becoming increasingly fundamental. In any case, "... one of the main goals of searching for a system is precisely its ability to explain and put in a certain place even the material that was conceived and obtained by the researcher without any systematic approach" .
And yet, what is "system"? To understand this, you have to "start from the beginning."
2.1. reality
Man in the world around him - at all times it was a symbol. But at different times, the accents in this phrase moved, because of which the symbol itself changed. So, until recently, the banner (symbol) not only in our country was the slogan attributed to I. V. Michurin: “You can’t expect favors from nature! It is our task to take them from her!” Do you feel where the emphasis is?.. Somewhere in the middle of the twentieth century, humanity finally began to realize: you can’t conquer Nature - it’s more expensive for yourself! A whole science appeared - ecology, the concept of "human factor" became commonly used - the emphasis shifted to the person. And then a dramatic circumstance for humanity was discovered - a person is no longer able to understand the increasingly complex world! Somewhere at the end of the 19th century, D. I. Mendeleev said: “Science begins where measurements begin” ... Well, in those days there was still something to measure! Over the next fifty to seventy years, so much "intentioned" that it seemed more and more hopeless to sort out the colossal number of facts and the dependencies between them. Natural sciences in the study of nature have reached a level of complexity that turned out to be higher than human capabilities.
In mathematics, special sections began to develop to facilitate complex calculations. Even the appearance in the forties of the twentieth century of ultra-high-speed calculating machines, which computers were originally considered to be, did not save the situation. A person turned out to be unable to understand what is happening in the surrounding world! .. That's where the “problem of a person” comes from ... Maybe it was the complexity of the surrounding world that once served as the reason that the sciences were divided into natural and humanitarian, “exact” and descriptive ("inaccurate"?). Tasks that can be formalized, i.e., correctly and accurately set, and therefore strictly and accurately solved, have been analyzed by the so-called natural, “exact” sciences - these are mainly problems of mathematics, mechanics, physics, etc. The remaining tasks and problems, which, from the point of view of representatives of the "exact" sciences, have a significant drawback - a phenomenological, descriptive nature, are difficult to formalize and therefore are not strictly, "inaccurately", and often incorrectly posed, constituted the so-called humanitarian direction studies of nature are psychology, sociology, the study of languages, historical and ethnological studies, geography, etc. (it is important to note - tasks related to the study of man, life, in general - the living!). The reason for the descriptive, verbal form of knowledge representation in psychology, sociology and, in general, in humanitarian research lies not so much in the poor familiarity and knowledge of mathematics in the humanities (which mathematicians are convinced of), but in the complexity, multi-parameter, variety of manifestations of life ... This is not fault humanities, rather, this is a disaster, the “curse of the complexity” of the object of research! .. But the humanities still deserve reproach - for conservatism in methodology and “tools”, for unwillingness to realize the need not only to accumulate many individual facts, but also to master well-developed in XX century general scientific "toolkit" for research, analysis and synthesis of complex objects and processes, diversity, interdependence of some facts from others. In this, we have to admit, the humanitarian fields of research in the second half of the twentieth century lagged far behind the natural sciences.
2.2. Models
What provided the natural sciences with such rapid progress in the second half of the 20th century? Without going into a deep scientific analysis, it can be argued that progress in the natural sciences was provided mainly by a powerful tool that appeared in the middle of the twentieth century - models. By the way, soon after the appearance of computers, they ceased to be considered as calculating machines (although they retained the word “computing” in their name) and all their further development went under the sign of a modeling tool.
What is models? The literature on this subject is vast and varied; a fairly complete picture of the models can be given by the work of a number of domestic researchers, as well as the fundamental work of M. Vartofsky. Without complicating it unnecessarily, we can define it like this:
A model is a kind of “substitute” for the object of study, reflecting in a form acceptable for the purposes of the study all the most important parameters and relationships of the object under study.
The need for models arises, generally speaking, in two cases:
- when the object of study is not available for direct contacts, direct measurements, or such contacts and measurements are difficult or impossible (for example, direct studies of living organisms associated with their dismemberment lead to the death of the object of study and, as V. I. Vernadsky said, the loss of what distinguishes the living from the non-living, direct contacts and measurements in the human psyche are very difficult, and even more so in the substratum that is not yet very clear to science, which is called the social psyche, the atom is not available for direct research, etc.) - in this case they create a model, in some sense "similar" to the object of study;
- when the object of study is multiparametric, i.e. so complex that it cannot be holistically comprehended (for example, a plant or institution, a geographical region or an object; a very complex and multiparametric object is the human psyche as a kind of integrity, i.e. individuality or personality, complex and multi-parametric are non-random groups of people, ethnic groups, etc.) - in this case, the most important (from the point of view of the goals of this study!) Parameters and functional relationships of the object are selected and a model is created, often not even similar (in the literal sense of the word) to the object itself.
In connection with what has been said, the following is curious: the most interesting object of study in many sciences is Human- both inaccessible and multi-parametric, and the humanities are in no hurry to acquire models of a person.
It is not necessary to build a model from the same material as the object - the main thing is that it reflects the essential that corresponds to the goals of the study. The so-called mathematical models are generally built “on paper”, in the head of a researcher or in a computer. By the way, there are good reasons to believe that a person solves all problems and tasks by modeling real objects and situations in his psyche. G. Helmholtz, in his theory of symbols, argued that our sensations are not “mirror” images of the surrounding reality, but are symbols (i.e., some models) of the external world. His concept of symbols is by no means a rejection of materialistic views, as claimed in philosophical literature, but a dialectical approach of the highest standard - he was one of the first to understand that a person’s reflection of the outside world (and, therefore, interaction with the world) is, as we call it today , informational character .
Examples of models in natural sciences many can be cited. One of the brightest is the planetary model of the atom, proposed by E. Rutherford in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This, in general, a simple model, we owe all the breathtaking achievements of physics, chemistry, electronics and other sciences of the twentieth century.
However, no matter how much we explore, no matter how we model, at the same time, this or that object, it is necessary to be aware that the object itself, isolated, closed, cannot exist (function) for a number of reasons. Not to mention the obvious - the need to receive matter and energy, to give away waste (metabolism, entropy), there are also other, for example, evolutionary reasons. Sooner or later, in the developing world, a problem arises in front of the object, which it is not able to cope with on its own - it is necessary to look for a “companion”, “employee”; at the same time, it is necessary to unite with such a partner, whose goals at least do not contradict their own. This creates the need for interaction. In the real world, everything is interconnected and interacts. So here it is:
Models of the interaction of objects, which themselves, at the same time, models, are called systems.
Of course, from a practical point of view, we can say that a system is formed when a goal is set for some object (subject), which it cannot achieve alone and is forced to interact with other objects (subjects), whose goals do not contradict its goals. However, it should be remembered that in real life, in the world around us, there are no models or systems that are also models! .. There is just life, complex and simple objects, complex and simple processes and interactions, often incomprehensible, sometimes unconscious and not noticed by us... By the way, a person, groups of people (especially non-random ones) are also objects from a systemic point of view. Models are built by a researcher specifically for solving certain problems, achieving goals. The researcher singles out some objects along with connections (systems) when he needs to study a phenomenon or some part of the real world at the level of interactions. Therefore, the sometimes used term “real systems” is nothing more than a reflection of the fact that we are talking about modeling some part of the real world that is interesting to the researcher.
It should be noted that the above conceptual introduction of the concept systems as models of interaction of object models, of course, is not the only possible one - in the literature, the concept of a system is both introduced and interpreted in different ways. So, one of the founders of systems theory L. von Bertalanffy in 1937 he defined as follows: “A system is a complex of elements that are in interaction” ... Such a definition is also known (B. S. Urmantsev): “System S is the I-th set of compositions Mi, built in relation to Ri, according to the law of composition Zi from the primary elements of the set Mi0 distinguished by the base Ai0 from the set M”.
2.3. Systems
Having thus introduced the concept of a system, we can propose the following definition:
System - a certain set of elements - models of objects interacting on the basis of direct and feedback, modeling the achievement of a given goal.
Minimum population - two elements, modeling some objects, the goal of the system is always set from the outside (this will be shown below), which means that the reaction of the system (the result of activity) is directed outward; therefore, the simplest (elementary) system of model elements A and B can be depicted as follows (Fig. 1):
Rice. 1. Elementary system
In real systems, of course, there are much more elements, but for most research purposes it is almost always possible to combine some groups of elements together with their connections and reduce the system to the interaction of two elements or subsystems.
The elements of the system are interdependent and only in interaction, all together (as a system!) Can achieve goals, set before the system (for example, a certain state, i.e., a set of essential properties at a certain point in time).
It is not difficult, perhaps, to imagine the trajectory of the system towards the goal- this is a certain line in some imaginary (virtual) space, which is formed if we imagine a certain coordinate system in which each parameter characterizing the current state of the system has its own coordinate. The trajectory can be optimal in terms of the cost of some system resources. Parameter space systems are usually characterized by the number of parameters. A normal person, in the process of making a decision, more or less easily manages to operate five-seven(maximum - nine!) simultaneously changing parameters (usually this is associated with the volume, the so-called short-term random access memory- 7±2 parameters - so-called. "Miller number"). Therefore, it is practically impossible for a normal person to imagine (comprehend) the functioning of real systems, the simplest of which are characterized by hundreds of simultaneously changing parameters. Therefore, they often talk about multidimensionality of systems(more precisely, spaces of system parameters). The attitude of specialists to the spaces of system parameters is well characterized by the expression “the curse of multidimensionality”. Exist special tricks overcoming the difficulties of manipulating parameters in multidimensional spaces (methods of hierarchical modeling, etc.).
This system may be an element of another system, such as the environment; then the environment is supersystem. Any system necessarily enters into some kind of supersystem - another thing is that we do not always see this. An element of a given system can itself be a system - then it is called subsystem of this system (Fig. 2). From this point of view, even in an elementary (two-element) system, one element, in the sense of interaction, can be considered as a supersystem in relation to another element. The supersystem sets goals for its systems, provides them with everything necessary, corrects behavior in accordance with the goal, etc.
Rice. 2. Subsystem, system, supersystem.
Connections in systems are direct and reverse. If we consider element A (Fig. 1), then for it the arrow from A to B is a direct connection, and the arrow from B to A is a feedback; for element B, the opposite is true. The same is true of the connections of a given system with a subsystem and a supersystem (Fig. 2). Sometimes connections are considered as a separate element of the system and such an element is called communicator.
concept management, widely used in everyday life, is also associated with systemic interactions. Indeed, the impact of element A on element B can be considered as a control of the behavior (functioning) of element B, which is carried out by A in the interests of the system, and the feedback from B to A can be considered as a reaction to control (functioning results, movement coordinates, etc.) . Generally speaking, all of the above is also true for the action of B on A; it should only be noted that all systemic interactions are asymmetric (see below - asymmetry principle), therefore, usually in systems, one of the elements is called the leading (dominant) one, and control is considered from the point of view of this element. It must be said that the theory of management is much older than the theory of systems, but, as happens in science, it “follows” as a particular from systemology, although not all specialists recognize this.
The idea of the composition (structure) of interelement connections in systems has undergone a fair evolution in recent years. So, quite recently, in systemic and near-systemic (especially philosophical) literature, the components of interelement connections were called substance and energy(strictly speaking, energy is a common measure various forms motion of matter, the two main forms of which are substance and field). In biology, the interaction of an organism with the environment is still considered at the level of matter and energy and is called metabolism. And relatively recently, the authors grew bolder and started talking about the third component of the interelemental exchange - information. Recently, the works of biophysicists have appeared, in which it is boldly asserted that the "life activity" of biological systems "... involves the exchange of matter, energy and information with the environment" . It would seem that a natural thought - any interaction should be accompanied by information exchange. In one of his works, the author even proposed a definition information as interaction metrics. However, even today, the literature often mentions material and energy exchange in systems and is silent about information even when it comes to the philosophical definition of a system, which is characterized by "... common function, ...unification of thoughts, scientific statements, abstract objects, etc.” . The simplest example illustrating the exchange of matter and information: the transfer of goods from one point to another is always accompanied by a so-called. cargo documentation. Why, oddly enough, the information component in systemic interactions was silent for a long time, especially in our country, the author guesses and will try to express his assumption a little lower. True, not everyone was silent. So, back in 1940, the Polish psychologist A. Kempinsky expressed an idea that surprised many at that time and is still not very accepted - the interaction of the psyche with the environment, the construction and filling of the psyche is informational in nature. This idea is called the principle of information metabolism and was successfully used by a Lithuanian researcher A. Augustinavichute while creating new science about the structure and mechanisms of functioning of the human psyche - theories of informational metabolism of the psyche(Socionics, 1968), where this principle is the basis for constructing models of the types of informational metabolism of the psyche.
Simplifying somewhat the interactions and structure of systems, we can represent interelement (intersystem) exchange in systems(Fig. 3):
- from the supersystem, the system receives material support for the functioning of the system ( matter and energy), informational messages (target indications - a goal or a program for achieving the goal, instructions for adjusting the functioning, i.e., the trajectory of movement towards the goal), as well as rhythm signals necessary to synchronize the functioning of the supersystem, system and subsystems;
- material and energy results of functioning are sent from the system to the supersystem, i.e. useful products and waste (matter and energy), information messages (about the state of the system, the path to the goal, useful information products), as well as rhythmic signals necessary to ensure the exchange (in the narrow sense - synchronization).
Rice. 3. Interelement exchange in systems
Of course, such a division into components of interelement (intersystem) connections is purely analytical in nature and is necessary for a correct analysis of interactions. It must be said that the structure of system connections causes significant difficulties in the analysis of systems, even for specialists. Thus, not all analysts separate information from matter and energy in intersystem exchange. Of course, in real life, information is always presented on some carrier(in such cases it is said that information modulates the carrier); usually for this, carriers are used that are convenient for communication systems and for perception - energy and matter (for example, electricity, light, paper, etc.). However, when analyzing the functioning of systems, it is important that matter, energy and information are independent structural components of communicative processes. One of the now fashionable fields of activity, claiming to be scientific, “bioenergetics” is actually engaged in information interactions, which for some reason are called energy-informational, although the energy levels of the signals are so small that even the known electrical and magnetic components are very difficult to measure.
Highlight rhythm signals As a separate component of systemic connections, the author proposed back in 1968 and used it in a number of other works. It seems that this aspect of interaction is still underestimated in the systems literature. At the same time, the signals of rhythm, carrying "service" information, play an important, often decisive role in the processes of systemic interactions. Indeed, the disappearance of rhythmic signals (in the narrow sense - synchronization signals) plunges into chaos the "deliveries" of matter and energy from object to object, from the supersystem to the system and vice versa (it is enough to imagine what happens in life when, for example, suppliers send some cargo not according to the agreed schedule, but as you like); the disappearance of rhythmic signals in relation to information (violation of periodicity, the disappearance of the beginning and end of a message, the intervals between words and messages, etc.) makes it incomprehensible, just as the “picture” on a TV screen is incomprehensible in the absence of synchronization signals or a crumbling manuscript in which pages are not numbered .
Some biologists study the rhythm of living organisms, though not so much in a systemic way, but in a functional one. For example, the experiments of the doctor of medical sciences S. Stepanova at the Moscow Institute of Medical and Biological Problems showed that the human day, unlike the earthly, increases by one hour and lasts 25 hours - such a rhythm was called circadian (around the clock). According to psychophysiologists, this explains why people are more comfortable going to bed later than waking up early. According to Marie Claire magazine, biorhythmologists believe that the human brain is a factory, which, like any production, works on schedule. Depending on the time of day, the body produces the secretion of chemicals that increase mood, alertness, increased sexual desire or drowsiness. In order to always be in shape, you can set your daily routine taking into account your biorhythms, that is, find a source of vivacity in yourself. Perhaps that is why one in three women in the UK take a one-day "sick" leave from time to time to have sex (results from a survey conducted by She magazine).
The informational and rhythmic impact of the Cosmos on earthly life has been discussed until recently only by some researchers - dissidents in science. So, the problems arising in connection with the introduction of the so-called. "summer" and "winter" time - doctors conducted research and found clearly Negative influence"double" time on human health, apparently due to the failure of the rhythm of mental processes. In some countries, clocks are translated, in others they are not, believing that this is economically inefficient, and harmful to people's health. So, for example, in Japan, where the clock does not translate, the highest life expectancy. Discussions on these topics do not stop until now.
Systems cannot arise and function on their own. Even Democritus argued: "Nothing arises without a cause, but everything arises on some basis or because of necessity." And philosophical, sociological, psychological literature, many publications on other sciences are full of beautiful terms "self-improvement", "self-harmonization", "self-actualization", "self-realization", etc. Well, let the poets and writers - they can, but philosophers?! At the end of 1993, a doctoral dissertation in philosophy was defended at Kiev State University, the basis of which is “... a logical and methodological substantiation of the self-development of the initial “cell” to the scale of a person's personality” ... Either a misunderstanding of elementary systemic categories, or slovenliness of terminology unacceptable for science.
It can be argued that all systems are alive in the sense that they function, develop (evolve) and achieve a given goal; a system that is not able to function in such a way that the results satisfy the supersystem, which does not develop, is at rest or “closed” (does not interact with anyone) is not needed by the supersystem and dies. In the same sense understand the term "survivability".
In relation to the objects they model, systems are sometimes called abstract(these are systems in which all elements - concepts; e.g. languages), and specific(such systems in which at least two elements - objects e.g. family, factory, humanity, galaxy, etc.). An abstract system is always a subsystem of a concrete one, but not vice versa.
Systems can simulate almost everything in the real world, where some realities interact (function and develop). Therefore, the commonly used meaning of the word "system" implicitly implies the allocation of some set of interacting realities with necessary and sufficient connections for analysis. So, they say that the systems are the family, the labor collective, the state, the nation, the ethnic group. The systems are the forest, the lake, the sea, even the desert; it is not difficult to see subsystems in them. In inanimate, "inert" matter (according to V. I. Vernadsky) there are no systems in the strict sense of the word; therefore, bricks, even beautifully laid bricks, are not a system, and the mountains themselves can be called a system only conditionally. Technical systems, even such as a car, an airplane, a machine tool, a plant, a nuclear power plant, a computer, etc., by themselves, without people, are not, strictly speaking, systems. Here the term "system" is used either in the sense that human participation in their functioning is mandatory (even if the aircraft is capable of flying on autopilot, the machine is automatic, and the computer "itself" calculates, designs, models), or with a focus on automatic processes , which in a sense can be considered as a manifestation of primitive intelligence. In fact, a person implicitly takes part in the operation of any machine. However, computers are not yet systems ... One of the creators of computers called them "conscientious idiots." It is possible that the development of the problem artificial intelligence will lead to the creation of the same "subsystem of machines" in the "humanity" system, which is the "subsystem of humanity" in systems of a higher order. However, this is a likely future...
Human participation in the functioning of technical systems can be different. So, intellectual they call systems where creative, heuristic abilities of a person are used for functioning; in ergatic systems, a person is used as a very good automaton, and his intelligence (in the broadest sense) is not really needed (for example, a car and a driver).
It became fashionable to say "large system" or "complex system"; but it turns out that when we say this, we often unnecessarily sign off on some of our limitations, because these are "... such systems that exceed the capabilities of the observer in some aspect important to his goal" (W. R. Ashby).
As an example of a multi-level, hierarchical system, let's try to present a model of interaction between man, humanity, the nature of the Earth and planet Earth in the Universe (Fig. 4). From this simple but quite rigorous model, it will become clear why, until recently, systemology was not officially encouraged, and systemologists did not dare to mention the informational component of intersystem communications in their works.
Man is a social being... So let's imagine the system "man - mankind": one element of the system is man, the second is mankind. Is such a model of interaction possible? Quite!.. But humanity together with man can be represented as an element (subsystem) of a system of a higher order, where the second element is the living nature of the Earth (in the broad sense of the word). Terrestrial life (mankind and nature) naturally interact with planet Earth - a system of planetary level of interaction ... Finally, planet Earth, together with all living things, certainly interacts with the Sun; solar system is part of the Galaxy system, etc. - we generalize the interactions of the Earth and represent the second element of the Universe ... Such a hierarchical system quite adequately reflects our interest in the position of man in the Universe and his interactions. And here's what's interesting - in the structure of systemic connections, in addition to quite understandable matter and energy, there is naturally information, including at the highest levels of interaction!..
Rice. 4. An example of a multi-level, hierarchical system
This is where ordinary common sense ends and the question arises that Marxist philosophers did not dare to ask aloud: “If the information component is an indispensable element of system interactions (and it seems that this is the case), then with whom does the information interaction of Planet Earth take place ?!..” and, just in case, did not encourage, did not notice (and did not publish!) the work of systemologists. The deputy editor-in-chief (later - the editor-in-chief) of a Ukrainian philosophical and sociological journal claiming to be solid once told the author that he had not heard anything about the science of systemology. In the 1960s and 1970s, cybernetics was no longer imprisoned in our country, but we did not hear the persistent statements of the outstanding cybernetics VM Glushkov about the need to develop research and applications of systemology. Unfortunately, until now both the official academic science and many applied sciences such as psychology, sociology, political science, etc., do not hear systemology well ... Although the word system and words about system research are always in vogue. One of the prominent systemologists warned back in the 70s: “... The use of systemic words and concepts in itself does not yet give a systematic study, even if the object can really be considered as a system” .
Any theory or concept rests on prerequisites, the validity of which does not raise objections from the scientific community.
L. N. Gumilyov
3. System principles
What is consistency? What is meant when they say “systemic nature of the world”, “systematic thinking”, “systematic approach”? The search for answers to these questions leads to the formulation of provisions that are commonly called systemic principles. Any principles are based on experience and consensus (social agreement). The experience of studying a wide variety of objects and phenomena, public assessment and understanding of the results allow us to formulate some general statements, the application of which to the creation, study and use of systems as models of certain realities determines the methodology of the systems approach. Some principles receive theoretical substantiation, some are empirically substantiated, and some have the character of hypotheses, the application of which to the creation of systems (modeling of realities) allows obtaining new results, which, by the way, serve as empirical proof of the hypotheses themselves.
A fairly large number of principles are known in science, they are formulated in different ways, however, in any presentation, they are abstractions, that is, they have a high degree generality and suitable for any application. The ancient scholastics argued - "If something is true at the level of abstractions, it cannot be wrong at the level of realities." Below are the most important from the point of view of the author system principles and the necessary comments on their wording. The examples do not pretend to be rigorous and are intended only to illustrate the meaning of the principles.
The principle of goal setting- the goal that determines the behavior of the system is always set by the supersystem.
The most important principle, however, not always accepted at the level of ordinary "common sense". The generally accepted belief is that someone, and a person with his free will, sets a goal for himself; some collectives, states are considered independent in the sense of goals. Actually, goal setting - a complex process, consisting, in the general case, of two components: tasks (setting) goals system (for example, in the form of a set of essential properties or parameters that must be achieved at a certain point in time) and work (tasks) goal achievement programs(programs for the functioning of the system in the process of achieving the goal, i.e. "moving along the trajectory towards the goal"). To set a goal for the system means to determine why a certain state of the system is needed, what parameters characterize this state and at what point in time the state should take place - and these are all questions external to the system that the supersystem (indeed, a “normal” system) must solve. in general, there is no need to change one’s state and it is most “pleasant” to be in a state of rest - but why does a supersystem need such a system?).
The two components of the goal-setting process determine two possible ways goal setting.
- First way: having set a goal, the supersystem can limit itself to this, giving the system itself the opportunity to develop a program to achieve the goal - this is precisely what creates the illusion of an independent goal setting by the system. So, life circumstances, people around, fashion, prestige, etc. form a certain target setting. The formation of an attitude often goes unnoticed by the person himself, and awareness comes when the goal has taken shape in the form of a verbal or non-verbal image in the brain (desire). Further, a person achieves a goal, often solving complex problems. Under these conditions, there is nothing surprising in the fact that the formula "I achieved the goal myself" is replaced by the formula "I set the goal myself." The same thing happens in collectives that consider themselves independent, and even more so in the heads of statesmen, the so-called independent states (“so-called” because both collectives - formally, and states - politically, of course, can be independent; however, from a systemic point of view, dependence on the environment, i.e., other collectives and states, is obvious here).
- Second way: the goal for systems (especially primitive ones) is set immediately in the form of a program (algorithm) for achieving the goal.
Examples of these two methods of goal setting:
- the dispatcher can set a task (goal) for the driver of a car (the "man-machine" system) in the following form - "deliver the goods to point A" - in this case, the driver (element of the system) decides how to go (works out a program to achieve the goal);
- another way - to a driver who is unfamiliar with the territory and the road, the task of delivering the goods to point A is given along with a map on which the route is indicated (the program for achieving the goal).
Applied meaning of the principle: inability or unwillingness to “leave the system” in the process of setting or realizing goals, self-confidence, often lead functionaries (individuals, managers, statesmen etc.) to errors and misconceptions.
Feedback principle- the reaction of the system to the impact should minimize the deviation of the system from the trajectory to the target.
This is a fundamental and universal systemic principle. It can be argued that systems without feedback do not exist. Or in other words: a system that lacks feedback degrades and dies. The meaning of the concept of feedback - the result of the functioning of the system (element of the system) affects the impacts coming to it. Feedback happens positive(strengthens the effect of direct connection) and negative(weakens the effect of direct communication); in both cases, the task of the feedback is to return the system to the optimal trajectory towards the goal (trajectory correction).
An example of a system without feedback is the command-administrative system, which is still in place in our country. Many other examples can be cited - ordinary and scientific, simple and complex. And the more surprising is the ability of a normal person not to see (not want to see!) the consequences of their activities, i.e. feedbacks in the “man-environment” system ... There is so much talk about ecology, but it is impossible to get used to new and new facts of people poisoning themselves - what do the workers of the chemical plant, who poison their own children, think about?.. What does the state think about, which, in essence, does not give a damn about spirituality and culture, about school and in general social group called "children", and then receiving a deformed generation of young people? ..
The applied value of the principle - ignoring feedback inevitably leads the system to loss of control, deviation from the trajectory and death (the fate of totalitarian regimes, environmental disasters, many family tragedies, etc.).
Purposefulness principle- the system strives to achieve a given goal even when environmental conditions change.
The flexibility of the system, the ability to change within certain limits its behavior, and sometimes its structure, is an important property that ensures the functioning of the system in a real environment. Methodologically, the principle of tolerance adjoins the principle of purposefulness ( lat. - patience).
The principle of tolerance- the system should not be "strict" - a deviation within certain limits of the parameters of elements, subsystems, the environment or the behavior of other systems should not lead the system to a catastrophe.
If we imagine the “newlyweds” system in the “big family” supersystem with parents, grandparents, then it is easy to appreciate the importance of the principle of tolerance, at least for the integrity (not to mention peace) of such a system. good example compliance with the principle of tolerance is also the so-called. pluralism, which is still being fought for.
The Principle of Optimal Diversity- extremely organized and extremely disorganized systems are dead.
In other words, “all extremes are bad” ... The ultimate disorganization or, what is the same, diversity taken to the extreme can be likened (not very strictly for open systems) to the maximum entropy of the system, reaching which the system can no longer change (function, develop) in any way ); in thermodynamics, such a final is called "thermal death". An extremely organized (overorganized) system loses flexibility, and hence the ability to adapt to environmental changes, becomes “strict” (see the principle of tolerance) and, as a rule, does not survive. N. Alekseev even introduced the 4th law of energy-entropics - the law of limiting development material systems. The meaning of the law boils down to the fact that for a system an entropy equal to zero is just as bad as the maximum entropy.
Emergence principle- the system has properties that are not derived from the known (observable) properties of its elements and the ways they are connected.
Another name for this principle is the "integrity postulate". The meaning of this principle is that the system as a whole has properties that subsystems (elements) do not have. These systemic properties are formed during the interaction of subsystems (elements) by strengthening and manifestation of some properties of elements simultaneously with the weakening and concealment of others. Thus, the system is not a set of subsystems (elements), but a certain integrity. Therefore, the sum of the properties of the system is not equal to the sum of the properties of its constituent elements. The principle is important not only in technical, but also in socio-economic systems, since such phenomena as social prestige, group psychology, intertype relations in the theory of informational metabolism of the psyche (socionics), etc. are associated with it.
Consent principle- the goals of the elements and subsystems should not contradict the goals of the system.
Indeed, a subsystem with a goal that does not match the goal of the system disrupts the functioning of the system (increases "entropy"). Such a subsystem must either “fall out” of the system or perish; otherwise - the degradation and death of the entire system.
Principle of Causality- any change in the state of the system is associated with a certain set of conditions (reason) that generate this change.
This, at first glance, a self-evident statement, is in fact a very important principle for a number of sciences. So, in the theory of relativity, the principle of causality excludes the influence of a given event on all past ones. In the theory of knowledge, he shows that the disclosure of the causes of phenomena makes it possible to predict and reproduce them. It is on this that an important set of methodological approaches to the conditionality of some social phenomena by others is based, united by the so-called. causal analysis ... It is used to study, for example, the processes social mobility, social status, as well as factors influencing the value orientations and behavior of the individual. Causal analysis is used in systems theory for both quantitative and qualitative analysis of the relationship between phenomena, events, system states, etc. The effectiveness of causal analysis methods is especially high in the study of multidimensional systems - and these are almost all really interesting systems.
Principle of determinism- the reason for changing the state of the system always lies outside the system.
An important principle for any systems, with which people often cannot agree ... “There is a reason for everything ... Only sometimes it is difficult to see it ...” ( Henry Winston). Indeed, even such giants of science as Laplace, Descartes and some others professed the "monism of Spinoza's substance", which is "the cause of itself". And in our time, one has to hear explanations of the reasons for changing the state of certain systems by “needs”, “desires” (as if they are primary), “aspirations” (“... the general desire to materialize” - K. Vonegut), even “the creative nature of matter” (and this is generally something incomprehensible-philosophical); often everything is explained as “mere coincidence”.
In fact, the principle of determinism states that a change in the state of a system is always a consequence of the influence of a supersystem on it. The absence of impact on the system is a special case and can be considered either as an episode when the system moves along a trajectory towards the goal (“zero impact”), or as a transitional episode to death (in the systemic sense). Methodologically, the principle of determinism in the study of complex systems, especially social ones, makes it possible to understand the features of the interaction of subsystems without falling into subjective and idealistic errors.
The principle of the "black box"- the reaction of the system is a function not only of external influences, but also of the internal structure, characteristics and states of its constituent elements.
This principle is of great importance in research practice when studying complex objects or systems, the internal structure of which is unknown and inaccessible (“black box”).
The "black box" principle is extremely widely used in the natural sciences, various applied research, even in everyday life. So, physicists, assuming a known structure of the atom, investigate various physical phenomena and states of matter, seismologists, assuming a known state of the Earth's core, try to predict earthquakes and the movement of continental plates. Assuming a known structure and state of society, sociologists use surveys to find out people's reactions to certain events or influences. In the confidence that they know the state and the likely reaction of the people, our politicians carry out this or that reform.
A typical "black box" for researchers is a person. When investigating, for example, the human psyche, it is necessary to take into account not only experimental external influences, but also the structure of the psyche and the state of its constituent elements (mental functions, blocks, superblocks, etc.). It follows that under known (controlled) external influences and assuming known states of the elements of the psyche, it is possible in an experiment, based on the principle of the "black box" according to human reactions, to create an idea of the structure of the psyche, i.e. the type of informational metabolism (ITM) of the psyche of a given person. This approach is used in the procedures for identifying the TIM of the psyche and verifying its model in the study of the characteristics of personality and individuality of a person in the theory of informational metabolism of the psyche (socionics). With a known structure of the psyche and controlled external influences and reactions to them, one can judge the states of mental functions that are elements of the structure. Finally, knowing the structure and states of a person's mental functions, one can predict his reaction to certain external influences. Of course, the conclusions that the researcher draws on the basis of experiments with the "black box" are probabilistic in nature (due to the probabilistic nature of the assumptions mentioned above) and one must be aware of this. And, nevertheless, the principle of "black box" is an interesting, versatile and quite powerful tool in the hands of a competent researcher.
Diversity principle The more diverse the system, the more stable it is.
Indeed, the diversity of the structure, properties and characteristics of the system provides ample opportunities for adapting to changing influences, malfunctions of subsystems, environmental conditions, etc. However ... everything is good in moderation (see. principle of optimal diversity).
Entropy principle- isolated (closed) system dies.
A gloomy wording - well, what can you do: approximately this is the meaning of the most fundamental law of nature - the so-called. the second law of thermodynamics, as well as the 2nd law of energy entropy formulated by G. N. Alekseev. If the system suddenly turned out to be isolated, “closed”, that is, it does not exchange matter, energy, information, or rhythmic signals with the environment, then the processes in the system develop in the direction of increasing the entropy of the system, from a more ordered state to a less ordered one, i.e. towards equilibrium, and equilibrium is analogous to death… “Closeness” in any of the four components of intersystem interaction leads the system to degradation and death. The same applies to the so-called closed, "ring", cyclical processes and structures - they are only "closed" at first glance: often we simply do not see the channel through which the system is open, ignore or underestimate it and ... fall into error. All real, functioning systems are open.
It is also important to take into account the following - by its very operation, the system inevitably increases the "entropy" of the environment (the quotation marks here indicate a loose application of the term). In this regard, G. N. Alekseev proposed the 3rd law of energy entropy - the entropy of open systems in the process of their progressive development always decreases due to the consumption of energy from external sources; at the same time, the "entropy" of systems that serve as energy sources increases. Thus, any ordering activity is carried out at the expense of energy consumption and the growth of the “entropy” of external systems (supersystems) and cannot take place without it at all.
An example of an isolated technical system - lunar rover (as long as there is energy and consumables on board, it can be controlled via a command radio link and it works; the sources are depleted - “died”, stopped controlling, that is, the interaction on the information component was interrupted - it will die even if there is energy on board) .
An example of an isolated biological system - a mouse trapped in a glass jar. And here, shipwrecked people on a desert island - a system that is apparently not completely isolated ... Of course, they will die without food and heat, but if they are available, they survive: apparently, a certain information component in their interaction with the outside world takes place.
These are exotic examples... In real life, everything is both simpler and more complicated. Thus, famine in African countries, the death of people in the polar regions due to lack of energy sources, the degradation of the country that surrounded itself with an "iron curtain", the backwardness of the country and the bankruptcy of an enterprise that, in a market economy, do not care about interacting with other enterprises, even a separate a person or a closed group that degrades when they “withdraw into themselves”, cut off ties with society - all these are examples of more or less closed systems.
An extremely interesting and important for humanity phenomenon of the cyclical development of ethnic systems (ethnic groups) was discovered by the famous researcher L. N. Gumilyov. However, it seems that a talented ethnologist made a mistake, believing that "... ethnic systems ... develop according to the laws of irreversible entropy and lose the initial impulse that gave rise to them, just as any movement fades from environmental resistance ...". It is unlikely that ethnic groups are closed systems - there are too many facts against this: it is enough to recall the famous traveler Thor Heyerdahl, who experimentally studied the relationship of peoples in the vast Pacific Ocean, the studies of linguists on the interpenetration of languages, the so-called great migrations of peoples, etc. In addition, humanity in this In this case, it would be a mechanical sum of individual ethnic groups, very similar to billiards - balls roll and collide exactly insofar as a certain energy is communicated to them by a cue. It is unlikely that such a model correctly reflects the phenomenon of humanity. Apparently, the real processes in ethnic systems are much more complicated.
In recent years, an attempt has been made to apply to the study of systems similar to ethnic groups, the methods of a new field - non-equilibrium thermodynamics, on the basis of which it seemed possible to introduce thermodynamic criteria for the evolution of open physical systems. However, it turned out that these methods are still powerless - the physical criteria of evolution do not explain the development of real living systems ... It seems that the processes in social systems can only be understood on the basis of a systematic approach to ethnic groups as open systems that are subsystems of the "humanity" system. Apparently, it would be more promising to study the information component of intersystem interaction in ethnic systems - it seems that it is on this path (taking into account the integral intelligence of living systems) that it is possible to unravel not only the phenomenon of the cyclic development of ethnic groups, but also the fundamental properties of the human psyche.
The principle of entropy, unfortunately, is often ignored by researchers. At the same time, two mistakes are typical: either they artificially isolate the system and study it, not realizing that the functioning of the system changes dramatically; or "literally" apply the laws of classical thermodynamics (in particular, the concept of entropy) to open systems, where they cannot be observed. The latter error is particularly common in biological and sociological research.
Development principle- only a developing system survives.
The meaning of the principle is both obvious and not perceived at the level of "common understanding of things." Indeed, how one does not want to believe that the complaints of the Black Queen from Lewis Carroll's Alice Through the Looking-Glass make sense: “... you have to run as fast just to stay in place! If you want to get to another place, then you need to run at least twice as fast!..” We all want stability, peace so much, and ancient wisdom upsets: “Peace is death” ... An outstanding personality N. M. Amosov advises: “To live, constantly make it difficult for yourself ...” and he himself makes eight thousand movements while charging.
What does "the system does not develop" mean? This means that it is in a state of equilibrium with the environment. Even if the environment (supersystem) were stable, the system would have to perform work to maintain the necessary level of vital activity due to the inevitable losses of matter, energy, information failures (using the terminology of mechanics - friction losses). If we take into account that the environment is always unstable, changes (it makes no difference - for better or worse), then even in order to passably solve the same problem, the system needs to be improved over time.
The principle of no excess- an extra element of the system dies.
An extra element means unused, unnecessary in the system. Medieval philosopher William of Ockham advised: "Do not multiply the number of entities beyond what is necessary"; this sound advice is called "Occam's razor". An extra element of the system is not only a wasted consumption of resources. In fact, this is an artificial increase in the complexity of the system, which can be likened to an increase in entropy, and hence a decrease in the quality, quality factor of the system. One of the real systems is defined as follows: "Organization - no extra elements intelligent system of consciously coordinated activities. “What is difficult is false,” said the Ukrainian thinker G. Skovoroda.
The principle of agony - nothing perishes without a struggle.
The principle of conservation of the amount of matter- the amount of matter (substance and energy) entering the system is equal to the amount of matter formed as a result of the activity (functioning) of the system.
In essence, this is a materialistic position about the indestructibility of matter. Indeed, it is easy to see that all the matter entering some real system is spent on:
- maintaining the functioning and development of the system itself (metabolism);
- production by the system of a product that is necessary for the supersystem (otherwise, why would the supersystem need a system);
- "technological waste" of this system (which, by the way, in the supersystem can be, if not useful product, then, in any case, raw material for some other system; however, there may not be - the ecological crisis on Earth arose precisely because the "humanity" system, which includes the "industry" subsystem, throws harmful, non-utilizable waste into the "biosphere" supersystem - a typical example of a violation of the systemic principle of consent: it seems that that the goals of the "humanity" system do not always coincide with the goals of the supersystem "Earth").
One can also see some analogy between this principle and the 1st law of energy entropy - the law of conservation of energy. The principle of conservation of the amount of matter is important in the context of the systems approach, because so far, in various studies, errors are made related to the underestimation of the balance of matter in various systemic interactions. There are many examples in the development of industry - these are environmental problems, and in biological research, in particular, related to the study of the so-called. biofields, and in sociology, where energy and material interactions are clearly underestimated. Unfortunately, in systemology, the question of whether it is possible to talk about the conservation of the amount of information has not been worked out yet.
The principle of non-linearity Real systems are always non-linear.
Understanding normal people nonlinearity is somewhat reminiscent of a human representation the globe. Indeed, we walk flat earth, we see (especially in the steppe) an almost ideal plane, but in fairly serious calculations (for example, trajectories spaceships) are forced to take into account not only spheroidity, but also the so-called. geoidity of the Earth. We learn from geography and astronomy that the plane we see is a special case, a fragment of a large sphere. Something similar takes place with non-linearity. “Where something is lost, it will be added in another place” - M.V. Lomonosov once said something like this and “common sense” believes that how much will be lost, so much will be added. It turns out that such linearity is a special case! In reality, in nature and technical devices, the rule is rather non-linearity: not necessarily how much it decreases, it will increase so much - maybe more, maybe less ... it all depends on the shape and degree of non-linearity of the characteristic.
In systems, non-linearity means that the response of a system or element to a stimulus is not necessarily proportional to the stimulus. Real systems can be more or less linear only over a small part of their characteristic. However, most often one has to consider the characteristics of real systems as strongly nonlinear. Accounting for nonlinearity is especially important in system analysis when building models of real systems. Social systems are highly non-linear, mainly due to the non-linearity of such an element as a person.
Principle of optimal efficiency- the maximum efficiency of functioning is achieved on the verge of system stability, but this is fraught with the breakdown of the system into an unstable state.
This principle is important not only for technical, but even more so for social systems. Due to the strong nonlinearity of such an element as a person, these systems are generally unstable and therefore one should never “squeeze” maximum efficiency out of them.
The law of the theory of automatic regulation says: “The less stability of the system, the easier it is to manage. And vice versa". There are many examples in the history of mankind: almost any revolution, many catastrophes in technical systems, conflicts on national grounds, etc. As for optimal efficiency, the question of this is decided in the supersystem, which should take care not only of the efficiency of subsystems, but also of their stability. .
The principle of completeness of connections- links in the system should provide a sufficiently complete interaction of subsystems.
It can be argued that connections, in fact, create a system. The very definition of the concept of a system gives grounds to assert that there is no system without connections. A system connection is an element (communicant) considered as a material carrier of interaction between subsystems. Interaction in the system consists in the exchange of elements among themselves and with the outside world. substance(material interactions), energy(energy or field interactions), information(information interactions) and rhythmic signals(this interaction is sometimes called synchronization). It is quite obvious that an insufficiently complete or excessive exchange of any of the components disrupts the functioning of the subsystems and the system as a whole. In this regard, it is important that the throughput and quality characteristics of links ensure the exchange in the system with sufficient completeness and acceptable distortions (losses). The degrees of completeness and losses are established based on the characteristics of the integrity and survivability of the system (see. weak link principle).
Quality principle- the quality and efficiency of the system can only be assessed from the point of view of the supersystem.
The categories of quality and efficiency are of great theoretical and practical importance. Based on the assessment of quality and efficiency, the creation, comparison, testing and evaluation of systems is carried out, the degree of compliance with the purpose, the purposefulness and prospects of the system, etc. are clarified. politics in socio-economic issues, etc. In the theory of informational metabolism of the psyche (socionics), on the basis of this principle, it can be argued that a person can form individual norms only on the basis of an assessment of his activity by society; in other words, a person is not able to evaluate himself. It should be noted that the concepts of quality and efficiency, especially in the context of system principles, are not always correctly understood, interpreted and applied.
Quality indicators are a set of basic positive (from the position of a supersystem or a researcher) properties of the system; they are system invariants.
- System quality - a generalized positive characteristic expressing the degree of usefulness of the system for the supersystem.
- Effect - it is the result, the consequence of any action; effective means giving effect; hence - efficiency, effectiveness.
- Efficiency - normalized to the cost of resources, the result of actions or activities of the system over a certain period of time is a value that takes into account the quality of the system, resource consumption and action time.
Thus, efficiency is measured by the degree of positive influence of the system on the functioning of the supersystem. Consequently, the concept of efficiency is external to the system, i.e., no description of the system can be sufficient to introduce an efficiency measure. By the way, it also follows from this that the fashionable concepts of “self-improvement”, “self-harmonization”, etc., widely used even in solid literature, simply do not make sense.
Logout principle- to understand the behavior of the system, it is necessary to exit the system into the supersystem.
An extremely important principle! In an old textbook of physics, the features of uniform and rectilinear motion were once explained in this way: physical methods establish the fact of movement ... The only way is to go on deck and look at the shore ... ”In this primitive example, a person in a closed cabin is the “man - ship” system, and going on deck and looking at the shore is an exit to the “ship - shore” supersystem.
Unfortunately, both in science and in everyday life, it is difficult for us to think about the need to exit the system. So, in search of the reasons for the instability of the family, bad relations in the family, our valiant sociologists blame anyone and anything, except ... the state. But the state is a supersystem for the family (remember: “the family is the cell of the state”?). It would be necessary to go into this super-system and evaluate the impact on the family of a perverted ideology, economics and command-administrative management structure without feedback, etc. schools”… And you don’t hear the question – what is the “school” system in the “state” supersystem and what requirements does the supersystem put forward for education?.. Methodologically, the principle of leaving the system is perhaps the most important in the systemic approach.
The weak link principle- connections between the elements of the system must be strong enough to maintain the integrity of the system, but weak enough to ensure its survivability.
The need for strong (required strong!) ties to ensure the integrity of the system is understandable without much explanation. However, the imperial elites and bureaucracy usually lack the understanding that too strong a peg national formations to the empire-forming metropolis is fraught with internal conflicts, sooner or later destroying the empire. Hence the separatism, for some reason considered a negative phenomenon.
The strength of connections should also have a lower limit - the connections between the elements of the system must be weak to a certain extent so that some troubles with one element of the system (for example, the death of an element) do not entail the death of the whole system.
It is said that in a competition for the best way to keep a husband, announced by an English newspaper, the first prize was won by a woman who proposed the following: "Keep on a long leash ...". A wonderful illustration of the principle of weak connection!.. Indeed, the sages and humorists say that although a woman marries to bind a man to herself, a man marries so that a woman gets rid of him ...
Another example is the Chernobyl nuclear power plant… In an improperly designed system, the operators turned out to be too strongly and rigidly connected with other elements, their mistakes quickly brought the system into an unstable state, and then a disaster…
Hence, the extreme methodological value of the principle of weak coupling is clear, especially at the stage of creating a system.
Glushkov principle- any multidimensional quality criterion of any system can be reduced to a one-dimensional one by entering higher-order systems (supersystems).
This is a wonderful way to overcome the so-called. "curses of multidimensionality". It has already been noted above that a person was not lucky with the ability to process multi-parameter information - seven plus or minus two simultaneously changing parameters ... For some reason, nature needs it this way, but it's hard for us! The principle proposed by the outstanding cyberneticist V. M. Glushkov allows one to create hierarchical systems of parameters (hierarchical models) and solve multidimensional problems.
In systems analysis, various methods have been developed for studying multidimensional systems, including strictly mathematical ones. One of the common mathematical procedures for multidimensional analysis is the so-called. cluster analysis, which allows, on the basis of a set of indicators characterizing a number of elements (for example, the studied subsystems, functions, etc.), to group them into classes (clusters) in such a way that the elements included in one class are more or less homogeneous, similar in comparison with elements belonging to other classes. By the way, on the basis of cluster analysis, it is not difficult to substantiate an eight-element model of the type of informational metabolism in socionics, which necessarily and fairly correctly reflects the structure and mechanism of the functioning of the psyche. Thus, when investigating a system or making a decision in a situation with a large number of dimensions (parameters), one can greatly facilitate one's task by reducing the number of parameters by successive transition to supersystems.
The principle of relative randomness- randomness in a given system may turn out to be a strictly deterministic dependence in a supersystem.
Man is so arranged that uncertainty is unbearable to him, and randomness simply irritates him. But what is surprising is that in everyday life and in science, having not found an explanation for something, we rather recognize this “something” as thrice random, but we will never think of going beyond the limits of the system in which this happens! Without listing the errors already debunked, we note some of the persistence that has taken place so far. Our solid science still doubts the connection between terrestrial processes and heliocosmic processes and with perseverance worthy of better application, piles up where necessary and where not necessary probabilistic explanations, stochastic models, etc. To the great meteorologist A. V. Dyakov, who recently lived nearby with us, it turned out to be easy to explain and predict with almost 100% accuracy the weather on the whole Earth, in selected countries and even collective farms, when he went beyond the planet, to the Sun, into space ("The Earth's weather is done on the Sun" - A. V. Dyakov). And the entire domestic meteorology cannot in any way decide to recognize the supersystem of the Earth and every day mocks us with vague forecasts. The same is true in seismology, medicine, etc., etc. Such an escape from reality discredits truly random processes, which, of course, take place in the real world. But how many mistakes could be avoided if, in the search for causes and patterns, it is more bold to use a systematic approach!
Optimum principle- the system should move along the optimal trajectory to the goal.
This is understandable, since a non-optimal trajectory means low efficiency of the system, increased resource costs, which sooner or later will cause "displeasure" and corrective action of the supersystem. A more tragic outcome for such a system is also possible. So, G. N. Alekseev introduced the 5th law of energy entropy - the law of preferential development or competition, which says: “In each class of material systems, those that, under a given set of internal and external conditions, achieve maximum efficiency receive priority development.” It is clear that the predominant development of efficiently functioning systems occurs due to the "encouraging", stimulating effects of the supersystem. As for the rest, inferior in efficiency or, which is the same, “moving” in their functioning along a trajectory that differs from the optimal one, they are threatened with degradation and, ultimately, death or being pushed out of the supersystem.
Asymmetry principle All interactions are asymmetric.
There is no symmetry in nature, although our ordinary consciousness cannot agree with this. We are convinced that everything beautiful should be symmetrical, partners, people, nations should be equal (also something like symmetry), interactions should be fair, and therefore also symmetrical (“You - to me, I - to you” definitely implies symmetry) … In fact, symmetry is the exception rather than the rule, and the exception is often undesirable. So, in philosophy there is interesting image- "Buridan's donkey" (in scientific terminology - the paradox of absolute determinism in the doctrine of will). According to philosophers, a donkey placed at an equal distance from two bundles of hay equal in size and quality (symmetrical!) Will die of hunger - it won’t decide which bundle to start chewing (philosophers say that its will will not receive an impulse prompting to choose one or another bundle of hay). Conclusion: bundles of hay must be somewhat asymmetric ...
For a long time people were convinced that crystals - the standard of beauty and harmony - are symmetrical; in the 19th century, accurate measurements showed that there are no symmetrical crystals. More recently, using powerful computers, aesthetes in the United States tried to synthesize an image of absolutely beautiful face. However, the parameters were measured only on one half of the faces of the beauties, being convinced that the second half was symmetrical. What was their disappointment when the computer gave out the most ordinary, rather even ugly face, in some ways even unpleasant. The very first artist who was shown a synthesized portrait said that such faces do not exist in nature, since this face is clearly symmetrical. And crystals, and faces, and in general all objects in the world are the result of the interaction of something with something. Consequently, the interactions of objects with each other and with the surrounding world are always asymmetric, and one of the interacting objects always dominates. So, for example, a lot of trouble could be avoided by spouses if the asymmetry of interaction between partners and with the environment was correctly taken into account in family life! ..
Until now, among neurophysiologists and neuropsychologists, there are disputes about the interhemispheric asymmetry of the brain. No one doubts that it, asymmetry, takes place - it is only unclear what it depends on (congenital? educated?) and whether the dominance of the hemispheres changes in the process of functioning of the psyche. In real interactions, of course, everything is dynamic - it may be that first one object dominates, then, for some reason, another. In this case, the interaction can pass through the symmetry as through a temporary state; how long this state will last is a matter of system time (not to be confused with the current time!). One of the modern philosophers recalls his formation: “... The dialectical decomposition of the world into opposites already seemed to me too conditional (“dialectical”). I had a presentiment of many things besides such a private view, I began to understand that in reality there are no “pure” opposites. Between any "poles" there is necessarily an individual "asymmetry", which ultimately determines the essence of their being. In the study of systems and, especially, the application of simulation results to realities, taking into account the asymmetry of interaction is often of fundamental importance.
The usefulness of the system for thinking consists not only in the fact that one begins to think about things in an orderly manner, according to a certain plan, but in the fact that one begins to think about them in general.
G. Lichtenberg
4. System approach - what is it?
Once an eminent biologist and geneticist N. V. Timofeev-Ressovsky I spent a long time explaining to my old friend, also an outstanding scientist, what a system and a systematic approach are. After listening, he said: “... Yeah, I understand ... A systematic approach is, before you do something, you need to think ... Well, this is what we were taught in the gymnasium!” ... One can agree with such a statement ... However, one should not all- still forget, on the one hand, about the limited "thinking" abilities of a person by seven plus or minus two simultaneously changing parameters, and on the other hand, about the immeasurably higher complexity of real systems, life situations and human relations. And if you do not forget about it, then sooner or later the feeling will come consistency world, human society and man as a certain set of elements and connections between them... The ancients said: "Everything depends on everything..." - and this makes sense. The meaning of system, expressed in systemic principles - this is the foundation of thinking, which is able to protect at least from gross mistakes in difficult situations. And from a sense of the systemic nature of the world and an understanding of systemic principles, there is a direct path to realizing the need for some methods to help overcome the complexity of problems.
Of all methodological concepts systemological is closest to the "natural" human thinking - flexible, informal, diverse. Systems approach combines the natural scientific method based on experiment, formal derivation and quantitative assessment, with a speculative method based on the figurative perception of the surrounding world and qualitative synthesis.
Literature
- Glushkov V. M. Cybernetics. Questions of theory and practice. - M., "Science", 1986.
- Fleishman B. S. Fundamentals of systemology. - M., "Radio and communication", 1982.
- Anokhin P.K. Fundamental questions of the general theory of functional systems // Principles of systemic organization of functions. - M., 1973.
- Vartofsky M. Models. Representation and scientific understanding. Per. from English. / Common ed. and after. I. B. Novik and V. N. Sadovsky. - M., "Progress", 1988 - 57 p.
- Neuimin Ya. G. Models in science and technology. History, theory, practice. Ed. N. S. Solomenko, Leningrad, "Nauka", 1984. - 189 p.
- System modeling technology / E. F. Avramchuk, A. A. Vavilov et al.; Under total ed. S. V. Emelyanova and others - M., "Engineering", Berlin, "Technician", 1988.
- Ermak V.D. Information models in the processes of interaction between the operator and the means of displaying information of large control systems. General Systems Theory and Knowledge Integration: Proceedings of the Seminar / MDNTP im. F. E. Dzerzhinsky, Moscow, 1968.
- Blauberg I. V., Yudin E. G. Formation and essence of the system approach. - M., "Science", 1973.
- Averyanov A. N. Systemic knowledge of the world: Methodological problems. -M., Politizdat, 1985.
- Mathematical theory of systems / N. A. Bobylev, V. G. Boltyansky and others - M., "Nauka", 1986.
- Clear J. Systemology. Automation of solving system problems. Per. from English. - M., "Radio and communication", 1992.
- Leung L. Systems identification. Theory for the user. Per. from English. / Ed. Ya. Z. Tsypkina. - M., "Science", Ch. ed. Phys.-Math. lit., 1991.
- Nikolaev V. I., Brook V. M. System engineering: methods and applications. - Leningrad, "Engineering", Leningrad. separated., 1985.
- Kolesnikov L. A. Fundamentals of the theory of a systematic approach. - Kyiv, "Naukova Dumka", 1988.
- Larichev O. I., Moshkovich E. M., Rebrik S. B. On human capabilities in the problems of classification of multicriteria objects. // System Research. Methodological problems. Yearbook. - 1988. - M., Science.
- Druzhinin V. V., Kontorov D. S. System engineering. - M., "Radio and communication", 1985.
- Biological rhythms / Ed. Y. Ashoff. - M., "Mir", 1984. - T. 1.
- Chizhevsky A. L. Earth echo of solar storms. - M., "Thought", 1976.
- Kaznacheev V.P. Essays on the theory and practice of human ecology. - M., "Science", 1983.
- Ackoff R., Emery F. About purposeful systems. Per. from English, ed. I. A. Ushakova. - M., "Owls. radio", 1974.
- Philosophical Dictionary / Ed. V. I. Shinkaruk. - K., Acad. Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, Ch. ed. Ukr. encyclopedia, 1973.
- The future of artificial intelligence. - M.: "Nauka", 1991.
- Rybin I. A. Lectures on Biophysics: Textbook. - Sverdlovsk: Publishing House Ural University, 1992.
- Alekseev G. N. Energoentropic. - M., "Knowledge", 1983.
- Brief Dictionary of Sociology / Under the general. ed. D. M. Gvishiani, M. Lapina. - Politizdat, 1988.
- Gumilyov L. N. Biography of scientific theory or auto-obituary // Banner, 1988, book 4.
- Gumilyov L. N. Ethnosphere: The history of people and the history of nature. - M: "Ekopros", 1993.
- Zotin A.I. Thermodynamic basis of reactions of organisms to external and internal factors. - M.: "Nauka", 1988.
- Pechurkin I. O. Energy and life. - Novosibirsk: "Science", Sib. department, 1988.
- Gorsky Yu. M. System-information analysis of management processes. - Novosibirsk: "Science", Sib. Otd., 1988.
- Antipov G. A., Kochergin A. N. Problems of the methodology of the study of society as an integral system. - Novosibirsk: "Science", Sib. otd., 1988.
- Gubanov V. A., Zakharov V. V., Kovalenko A. N. Introduction to System Analysis: Textbook / Ed. L. A. Petrosyan. - L .: Ed. Leningrad.un.ta, 1988.
- Jambue M. Hierarchical cluster analysis and correspondence: Per. from fr. - M.: "Finance and statistics", 1982.
- Ermak V.D. To the problem of analysis of system interactions. // Issues of special radio electronics, MRP USSR. - 1978, Ser. 1, Vol. 3, No. 10.
- Ermak V.D. The structure and functioning of the human psyche from a systemic point of view. // Socionics, mentology and personality psychology, MIS, 1996, No. 3.
- Peters T, Waterman R. In search of effective management (experience of the best companies). - M., "Progress", 1986.
- Buslenko N.P. Modeling of complex systems. - M.: "Science", 1978.
- Pollak Yu. G. Fundamentals of the theory of modeling complex control systems // Proceedings of the radiotechnical institute. - 1977, No. 29.