A social
network can realise many social systems (part 2)
Copyright Graham Berrisford 2017. One of a
hundred papers on the System Theory page at http://avancier.website.
Last updated 04/03/2019 19:42
Find that page
for a link to the next System Theory for
Architects Tutorial in London.
General system theory was supposed to unify the sciences.
Today, much systems thinking discussion is not general – it is unique to human society
It is commonly said that “enterprise architecture views the enterprise as a system, or system of systems”.
But there are misunderstandings of what this means.
To call every problem, situation or business “a system” is unhelpful.
The misleading equation “entity = system”
runs though much systems thinking discussion.
How to restore the system concept to systems thinking?
Contents
More on the
relationship between social networks and social systems
A network exists in space and time; it is a structure whose nodes are distributed in space.
Every node may be decomposed into smaller elements (all the way down to the level of sub-atomic particles).
But in discussing a network, the decomposition stops at the level where nodes are connected.
A social network is a network in which the nodes are animate actors who communicate with each other.
Such as the
network of people employed in a business or any other human organisation.
How is social network bounded?
To make sense of the social network concept, we have to draw a boundary around it.
The boundary may
be loosely defined or ambiguous.
Who decides
whether an actor is a member of a social network? How do actors join or leave?
How many networks
can an actor belong to? And are their different degrees of membership?
But for the sake
of simplicity, we have to ignore this difficulty in this paper.
Let us assume it
is clear how actors join and leave a social network
It may help to imagine
the social network is a business in which every member has an employee number.
How is social network identified?
The social network that is a marriage is
identified by naming the two actors.
But other social networks may gain, lose or replace actors.
The whole social network must have a continuity of identity over time, if only a name.
· A biological organism (a society of cells) has continuity of identity both to observers and in its DNA.
·
A choir is a social network we can identify and
observe over time.
· A legally-constituted business (say IBM) is a social network we can identify and observe over time.
Asides
This paper is not about social network analysis (SNA) or the problems that it solves.
Here, the term
social network is used more loosely.
And for discussion of “social group
thinking” read the earlier paper https://bit.ly/2w5XKNK.
The sometimes-drawn analogy
between a human social network and the human brain is misleading in that.
· A brain cell cannot belong to several brains; a human actor can belong to several social networks.
·
A brain cell cannot move
between brains; a human actor can move between social networks.
· Brain cells cooperate in regular and repeatable behaviors; human actors may cooperate (and compete) in ad hoc ways.
To be called a system, a social network must
exhibit (manifest, instantiate, realise) the properties in an abstract system
description.
A social network is a system where and in so far as it realises an
abstract system description.
The match of a social network to an abstract system may be fuzzy.
It only needs to be close enough to pass whatever system tests we consider to be decisive.
Imagine there is only one social network and one social system.
The actors in the network realise the system
in so far as they realise its roles
and rules.
With respect to a
system, social networks might be classified into three kinds.
·
In
a formal social network, actors
are wholly constrained by the roles and rules of the system.
·
In
an informal social network, actors
are somewhat constrained by the roles and rules.
·
In
a chaotic social network, actors
completely ignore the roles and rules.
With respect to a system, a human social network is rarely 100% formal.
In an army, a call centre, or a game of tennis, actors may strive to stick to the rules.
Commonly, actors may follow only some of the rules, some of the time.
Actors may do only what is expected of their roles in systems.
People play roles in
business systems.
In a "work to
rule" actors choose to do nothing but play roles in defined systems.
They refuse to use
the many other abilities the business requires of human beings in their social
network
Actors in a social network usually do much more than is expected of their roles in systems.
Of course, human
flexibility is essential to all societies and businesses.
People are much more
than components in business systems.
They also communicate in a social network, and act independently of those systems.
Social systems thinkers presume this makes the system more complex.
But it doesn’t; the system is what it is – be it simple or complex.
Rather, it makes the social network more anarchic and unpredictable (or chaotic if you prefer).
One
system can be realised by many social networks
Several social networks can realise one system over time.
E.g. One bus company may replace another; different actors run the same buses to the same timetable.
The human actors change, but the roles and rules of the system remain the same.
Several social networks can realise one system at the same time.
E.g. Different orchestras can play the same symphony.
The different players and instruments in each orchestra follow the same roles and rules.
One
social network can realise many systems
A business, like IBM, is a social network
that depends on many systems.
Pointing to IBM and calling it a system has
no useful meaning.
Because IBM realises as many systems as we can describe and test it as realising.
And some of those systems may be in conflict with each other.
As Ashby would
have said, one social network may realise infinite
social systems.
The actors in a
human social network are somewhat constrained not only by one set of roles and
rules, but by many.
They have to
choose not only how to act in one system, but which system to act in.
At every moment,
actors have to choose which set of roles and rules takes priority.
Human actors often
switch from a role in one system to a role in another.
They leave the
office to go home, then go out to play a game of
tennis (in a different social network).
And sometimes they
“helicopter” from acting in system A into acting in the meta
system that defines system A.
More
on this later.
It is commonly said that “enterprise architecture views the enterprise as a system, or system of systems”.
But there are misunderstandings of what this means.
To call every problem, situation or business “a system” is unhelpful.
The misleading equation “entity = system”
runs though much systems thinking discussion.
How to restore the system concept to systems thinking?
1:
The state of an activity system may change
In biology, the values of state variables
(temperature, salinity, etc) of an organism vary over time.
In System Dynamics, the population of a stock may grow, shrink or be exhausted.
Classical
cybernetics is about system state change of this kind.
The term adaptation is used to mean homeostatic state change – regulating
the values of state variables.
2:
The roles and rules of a system are fixed for a system generation
In biology, the roles and rules of the cells
are encoded for a generation in an organism’s DNA..
In System Dynamics, the rules governing flows between stocks are fixed for a generation.
3: One social network can realise several systems
It is important to distinguish:
· a social network in which people communicate
· a social system in which people realise role and rules.
An enterprise is one social network that realises many social and technological systems.
These systems may overlap, duplicate or even conflict with each other.
4:
Changing the roles and rules makes a new system or system version.
Changing roles and rules makes a different system - or at least, a new system version or generation.
In System Dynamics, the model of stocks and flows can be changed, and the model rerun to see how its outcomes differ.
In Darwin's theory of evolution, the form and functions of a species changes as its DNA changes from generation to generation.
Second-order
cybernetics is about system
mutation of this kind
The term adaptation is used to mean changing the state variable
types, or the rules that update their values.
Moreover, the system is self-organising.
How to extend system theory to embrace
“self-organisation”?
Read System stability and change
for the answer to that question.
All free-to-read materials at http://avancier.website are paid for out of income from Avancier’s training courses and methods licences.
If you find the web site helpful, please spread the word and
link to avancier.website in whichever social media
you use..