Ackoff’s ideas – for applying system theory to
management science
Copyright 2017 Graham Berrisford. One of many articles on the “System Theory” page at http://avancier.website . Last updated 07/05/2021 10:06
Reading on line? If your screen is wide, shrink the display width for easier reading.
This
article focuses on Ackoff’s fundamental ideas about the nature of systems. It reviews
how Ackoff defined and classified systems in three documents that you can
probably find on the internet.
It was written during research for the book at https://bit.ly/2yXGImr.
Contents
Ackoff’s hierarchy of activities
Ackoff’s three system classifications (1971, 1999 and
2003)
Ackoff’s five conditions (1999)
Russell L
Ackoff (1919-2009) was an American
organizational theorist, operations researcher, systems thinker and management
scientist. He is respected for a large body of work focused on managed
human social entities, and perhaps best known the following works.
·
“Towards a system of system concepts” (1971)
·
“Re-Creating the
Corporation - A Design of Organizations for the 21st Century” (1999
· “On The Mismatch Between
Systems And Their Models”. (2003)
In the above, and in this article,
Ackoff says a few things disputed below
Ackoff
was concerned with the management of organized social entities – like
universities and government agencies. His work
on systems concepts draws on two distinct “system” traditions. First, a sociological
tradition that can be traced back to the 19 century. Second, activity systems thinking, which emerged
after the second world war in form of cybernetics and general system theory, and
later embraced system dynamics.
Whereas Ackoff strove to combine these two
traditions, it is argued below he might have done better to distinguish the actor-centric
and activity-centric viewpoints.
“Different observers of the same phenomena may
conceptualize them into different systems”. Ackoff
In “Towards a System of Systems Concepts”
(1971) Ackoff started some distance from human society. He started with eleven
terms and concepts that appear to derive from cybernetics.
1.
System:
two or more interrelated objects (parts or elements).
2.
Abstract
system: a system in which the elements are
concepts.
3.
Concrete
system: a system that has two or more objects.
4.
System
state: the values of system properties (state
variables) at a particular time.
5.
System
environment: those elements and their
properties (outside the system) that can change the state of the system, or be
changed by the system.
6.
System
environment state: the values of environment
properties at a particular time.
7.
A
closed system: one that has no environment.
8.
System/environment
event: a change to the system's state variable values.
9.
Static
(one state) system: a
system to which no events occur (it does not change).
10. Dynamic (multi state) system: a
system to which events occur (its state changes).
11. Homeostatic system:
a static system whose elements and environment are dynamic.
In EA, a concrete
business system (3) realizes an abstract system (2). The system is open (7)
dynamic (10) and interacts with its environment (5). It recognizes input events
that represent changes to the state of entities (people, processes, materials
and machines) in the environment (8). It maintains system state variables (4).
It informs, directs or enables consumers or customers to change the system
environment state (6) and meet their aims. The communication between the
business and the external actors it monitors and serves or directs may be seen
as a regulator-to-target feedback loop.
|
Feedback loop |
Business environment |
|
|
Regulator |
ßstate
information directionà |
Target |
|
Consumes inputs Produces outputs Maintains system state |
ß Inputs à
Outputs |
External
actors Environment
state |
Above, Ackoff’s abstract system is a model
of how a concrete entity behaves, or should behave. He wrote that: “Different
observers of the same phenomena may conceptualize them into different systems
and environments.” Moreover, one concrete
entity can realize several abstract systems. This table illustrates the
difference between an abstract system and a concrete system instantiated by a
concrete entity.
|
How
an abstract activity system is realized |
Orchestral music |
|
Abstract system: a description of roles for
actors, rules for processes and variable types |
A musical score |
|
Concrete system: a performance of defined
activities, which gives values to variables |
A performance of the score |
|
Concrete entity: two or more objects able to
perform the activities |
An orchestra |
Ackoff wrote wisely about the management of
human institutions, but lost the plot when speaking of them as systems. There
is much to enjoy in his view of motivating people to learn, the self-serving
nature of the leaders of human organizations and other sociological phenomena.
And there are things to dispute in his use of the term "system".
In cybernetics, system dynamics and soft
systems methodology there is
A. one observable entity or
phenomenon
B. any number of systems
abstracted from it
Although Ackoff began by saying “Different
observers of the same phenomena may conceptualize them into different systems”,
later, he started using the term system with reference to the observed
phenomenon: "Every human organization is a system."
Ackoff’s 2003 collaboration with Gharajedagh further confused matters by saying "Most
contemporary social systems are failing" and "There is a … mismatch
between most social systems and the models of them that are in use". What Ackoff
usually meant was
A. some government
institution or university is failing
B. some model we have of it
is inadequate to solve its problems.
On the other hand, is it not obvious that:
A. most such institutions
also succeed to some extent
B. none of the infinite
systems abstractable from one could solve all its problems.
Worse, this use of “system” to mean the observed
phenomenon, rather than a model of it, increased the confusion in wider systems
thinking discussion between a social entity and any activity system it may realize.
The main conclusion one can extract from the joint 2003 paper is that human
creativity and delinquency make any attempt to equate 1 social entity to 1
system not only contrary to system theory, but daft.
In an effort to build a unifying
system theory that bridges the schism between activity systems and social
entities, Ackoff built elaborate hierarchies of aims, activities and four
system types. The graphic below is my attempt to stitch Ackoff’s system ideas
together in a coherent whole.
|
Ackoff’s system classes |
Actors (parts) |
Activities (parts) |
Aims (purposes) |
|
State
maintaining system |
Play roles in an activity system |
No optional activities |
Fixed aims |
|
Goal-seeking
system |
Some optional activities |
||
|
Purposive
system |
Are members of a social entity |
Define their own activities |
Fixed aims |
|
Purposeful
system |
Define their own aims |
The first two kinds of system are activity
systems with a fixed range of possible activities. Ackoff referred to
them deterministic; I don't know if he recognized they could instead be probablistic or possibilistic (as defined elsewhere in this
work).
Ackoff's primary interest was
in social entities of the third and fourth kinds. He assumed
actors can define their own activities, and perhaps aims. He characterized
these social entities as being "purposive" or "purposeful".
The aims of Ackoff’s purposive social entity lie
in the desire of external actors (sponsors, stakeholders, managers, designers
and others) for the entity to produce particular state changes in its
environment. The internal actors may be seen as slaves to that end.
The aims of his purposeful social entity
are found in the desire of its internal actors to produce internal or external
state changes that benefit themselves. Which implies the entity is “self-organizing.”
Surely well-nigh every human institution
is both? It may be called purposive in so far as it is shaped by the aims of
external actors; and called purposeful where it is shaped by the aims of actors
who play roles in the system (who may change activities and aims in ad hoc ways).
If there is no pattern regularity
or repetition, then what is systematic or systemic about a social entity?
Ackoff said his purposeful system "can change its goals in constant
environmental conditions; it selects goals as well as the means by which to
pursue them. It displays will.” However, he said it does have one stable
feature - an "ideal" - which is unobtainable. Who defines it? Who
knows what it is? Why can it not be changed?
Ackoff characterized a system as a whole in
which two or more parts interact, and parts as elements that interact to
produce the behavior of the whole. He wrote
"A
part is never modified unless it makes the whole better, that is a systemic
principle, you don't change the part because it makes the part better without
considering its impact on the whole, that is systemic thinking" Ackoff
A difficulty with this is that the
granularity of a whole and its parts are whatever the observer decides, and
that systems can be nested, one a part of another, several times over. So, if you
took Ackoff’s advice to its extreme, you might never improve a system, for fear
its impact on one or more wider systems (of which it is a part) cannot be
predicted. (Holism is not wholeism; you can never consider everything.)
Ackoff has been
quoted as saying "Improving a part does not necessarily improve the
whole". Nevertheless, improving a part on its own is a reasonable
way to improve the performance of the whole. Attending to the highest cost part, and removing the largest bottleneck (one at a
time) are recommended practices for improving a system. Such incremental
development is a feature of biological evolution and agile system development.
Moreover, contrary to some interpretations
of Ackoff, you can indeed remove parts from a whole without affecting its
ability to meet its main aim. E.g. You can remove the
spell checker from a word processor. You can remove the glove compartment,
airbag, safety belt, carpet, arm rests and radio from a motor car, and still
drive from A to B. You can remove the spleen, gall bladder and appendix from a
human body with no significant effect on the functioning of the body.
Ackoff did a great job of highlighting the
failings of organized social entities. Especially "public" ones such
as government agencies and universities. On the other hand, he is partly
responsible for spreading confusion between social entities and activity
systems.
EA is about the design and
planning of activity system changes. In Ackoff’ terms, you might say a human
organization is one purposeful social entity, whose actors may
play roles in any number of activity systems, and may change them
from time to time. By the way, Ackoff’s “socio-systemic view of organizations”
bears some similarity to today’s Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF).
For analysis
of Ackoff’s “system of system concepts” read on
In “Towards a System of Systems Concepts” Ackoff declared more than thirty ideas about systems.
Ackoff idea 1- System: a set of interrelated elements.
All the elements must be related directly or indirectly, else there would be two or more systems.
Note: This definition embraces both passive structures (e.g. tables) and activity systems. However, Ackoff’s main interest was multi-state systems in which actors perform activities.
· In Forrester’s system dynamics, a system’s elements include both stocks and flows.
· In Ashby’s cybernetics, a system’s elements include both state variables and transformations
·
In Ackoff’s management science, a system’s
elements include properties and functions.
Ackoff idea 2- Abstract system: a system in which the elements are concepts.
Note: Like Ashby in discussing cybernetics, Ackoff distinguished abstract systems from concrete systems. An abstract system may describe an observed or envisaged reality. Abstract systems take concrete forms, in mental, documented and material models. What matters here is not the form the description takes but the correlation of an abstract description to a concrete reality observed or envisaged as instantiating that description.
Ackoff idea 3- Concrete system: a system that has two or more objects.
A concrete system is a realization (in physical matter and/or energy) of an abstract system description.
|
Abstract system |
Concrete system |
|
The Dewey Decimal System |
A set of books sorted on library shelves |
|
“Solar system” |
A set of planets orbiting a sun |
|
The laws of tennis |
A tennis match |
|
The score of a symphony |
A performance of a symphony |
|
A computer program |
A performance of a computer program |
Note: One abstract system (or type) can be realized (or instantiated) by many concrete system realities. One concrete system (or type) realize (or instantiate) many abstract systems.
Which comes first? A natural concrete system (like the solar system) runs in reality before it is observed to be a system. A designed concrete system (like a motor car) cannot run in reality until after it has been envisaged by a designer.
People find this hard to understand and accept, but here goes… In cybernetics, it is meaningless to say a named entity is an activity system without reference to a particular system description. With no system description there is just stuff happening. The universe is an ever-changing entity in which stuff happens. A concrete activity system is an island of regular or repeatable behavior carved out of that universe. It is a set of describable activities performed by describable actors, which we can test an entity as realizing.
Ackoff idea 4: System state: the values of the system’s properties at a particular time.
The current structure of a system is represented in state variable values, which changes over time.
Note: Ashby’s cybernetics defines systems in terms of the state variable changes that result from events detected. Ackoff used the term “property” to mean a system state variable.
|
Abstract
state: typically a complex type, a composite of
variables. |
Cyclist
Name, Direction, Speed, Gear Number |
|
Concrete
state: an instantiation of the type, a composite of variable values. |
Guy
Onnerbeich, South, 20 mph, 7 |
The state variables of a concrete entity may
be part of one system but not part of another. E.g.
the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere is vital to its role in the
biosphere, but irrelevant to the earth’s role in the solar system.
Ackoff idea 5: System environment: those elements and their properties (outside the system) that can change the state of the system, or be changed by the system.
“The elements that
form the environment… may become conceptualised as systems when they become the
focus of attention.” Ackoff
Note: the environment is the world outside the system of interest. The system’s boundary is a line (physical or logical) that separates a system from its environment. Encapsulation is the enclosure of a system as an input-process-output “black box”.
Every brain and business can be described as encapsulated in a wider environment.
· It receives information (in messages) about the state of actors and activities in its environment.
· It records information (in a memory)
· It sends information (in messages) to inform and direct actors and activities in its environment.
Thus, every brain and business can be seen as a control system connected in a feedback loop with external actors and activities in its environment. And note that a systems thinker may conceptualize those external actors and activities as a target system.
Ackoff idea 6: System environment state: the values of the environment’s properties at a particular time.
The current state of an environment is defined by giving values to the variable types in a description of that environment. The remainder of the real-world does not count as part of that environment (though it might count as part of another system’s environment).
Note: “Different observers of the same phenomena [actors and activities] may conceptualise them into different systems and environments.” Ackoff
Yes, observers of the same business may see different systems that are nested, overlapping, discrete, coupled by output/input flows and cooperating, competing or conflicting.
Ackoff
idea 7: A closed system: one that has no environment.
“Such conceptualizations
are of relatively restricted use”. Ackoff
Whereas an open system interacts with entities and events in a wider environment, a closed system does not interact with its environment.
Note: It is normal in using Forrester’s System Dynamics to model a closed system of stocks that interact by flows. Ashby’s more general cybernetics models open systems that respond to inputs from their environment. A conventional business system design process proceeds along these lines. 1) Define customers, outputs, inputs, suppliers and processes. 2) Define roles in the processes 3) Hire, buy or build actors to play the roles. 4) Organise, deploy, motivate and manage the actors – to perform the processes.
Ackoff idea 8: System/environment event: a change to the system variable values.
Note: Ackoff was concerned with how state changes inside a system are related to state changes in its environment. He did not distinguish events (input messages received) from state changes caused by those events. One may think of external events are crossing the boundary from the environment into the system.
In response to an event, a system refers to its current state, then “chooses” which actions to perform, to change its current state and/or produce outputs. A state change is the modification of one or more state variable values. One event can cause different, optional, state changes, depending on the current state of the system.
(See the “Causality and choice” section in the concluding remarks.)
Ackoff idea 9: Static (one state) system: a system to which no events occur.
Note: his example of a static system, a
table, does experience events; it can be laid for dinner, be painted, stripped
and polished, and have its wonky leg replaced.
Ackoff
idea 10: Dynamic (multi state) system: a system to which events occur.
Note: the system of interest to most systems thinkers is not only dynamic (changes state in response to events) it is also an activity system in which actors perform activities.
Ackoff idea 11: Homeostatic system: a static system whose elements and environment are dynamic.
“A house that
maintains a constant temperature… is homeostatic”. Ackoff
Note: Ackoff considered a homeostatic system to be a static system. But the state of such as system does fluctuate, and it does experience events. A truly one state system could be a passive structure (as in ArchiMate), which is inanimate; it can experience events, can be acted on or in; but cannot act.
Ackoff’s example here is also questionable. Surely the house is merely a container for the air whose temperature is controlled? What maintains that air at a constant temperature is a heating/cooling system, controlled by a thermostat.
Aside: Several early social entity thinkers viewed sociology as analogous to biology; they looked at social entities as akin to homeostatic organisms. Ackoff and other systems thinkers have deprecated using this analogy.
About the ideas to follow
From idea 9 onwards Ackoff’s ideas grow more questionable. He built elaborate hierarchies of aim, activity and system types. He used the term “function” sometimes mean an activity and sometimes an aim. The table below is an attempt to stitch many of his ideas into a coherent whole. I believe it gives a good impression of how a cybernetician like Ashby would see Ackoff ideas.
|
Ackoff’s system classes |
Actors (parts) |
Activities (parts) |
Aims (purposes) |
|
State
maintaining system |
Play roles in an activity system |
No optional activities |
Fixed aims |
|
Goal-seeking
system |
Some optional activities |
||
|
Purposive
system |
Are members of a social entity |
Define their own activities |
Fixed aims |
|
Purposeful
system |
Define their own aims |
When Ackoff strove to apply the terms and concepts of general system theory and cybernetics to human society, he contradicted himself. He said (re. points 2 and 3 above) “Different observers of the same phenomena may conceptualize them into different systems”. But later said that every human organization is a system, regardless of any particular observer's conceptualization. Thus, he confused social entities with activity systems.
Most system theorists are concerned with activity systems. In System Dynamics, a system may be defined thus:
“A set of elements or parts that is coherently organized and interconnected in a pattern or structure that produces a characteristic set of behaviors." Meadows
And in the context of cybernetics:
“Cybernetics deals with all forms of behavior
in so far as they are regular, or determinate, or reproducible.” “[It] treats,
not things but ways of behaving. It does not ask "what is this
thing?" but ''what does it do?" It is thus essentially functional and
behavioristic.” (Ashby 1956)
Ackoff built an elaborate hierarchy of behavior concepts. He distinguished acts, reactions and responses with reference to state changes inside the system and its environment.
Ackoff
idea 12: System reaction: a system event that may be triggered directly by
another event.
E.g. “A light going on when the switch is turned.” Ackoff
Note: A system reaction is
simplistic: there is no reference to memory and no other option. If the
reaction depends on the state of the world, then Ackoff would call this a response.
Ackoff idea 13: System response: a response that goes beyond the naive reaction at 12.
E.g. “A person’s turning on a light when it gets dark is a
response to darkness”. Ackoff
Note: in Ackoff’s example, a person compares two variables: an internal state variable (visual acuity level needed for their current activity, say reading) and an external environment variable (current light level).
If the required acuity level is higher than the current light level allows, then the person switches on the light. Presumably, people apply what might be called fuzzy logic to such internal variables rather rigid rules.
Ackoff idea 14: System act: a self-determined, autonomous, behavior.
Ackoff said a system act may be triggered by an internal event (rather than an external event). An internal event happens when the value of an internal state variable crosses a significant threshold. E.g. when a person’s required acuity level is higher than the current light level allows, this may trigger them to switch on a light.
Ackoff’s example of a system response also fits his definition of a system act. Any activity system can “choose” its response to an event, and produce different outcomes, by applying rules that refer to the state of its memory. Any observer may see the response to an event as unpredictable if a) the rules include applying fuzzy logic and b) the internal state of the system is unknown. (See the “Causality and choice” section in the concluding remarks.)
However, surely Ackoff was intending to distinguish determined behaviors (responses) from self-determined behaviors (acts). Meaning that the latter are made by self-aware entities with free will.
Ackoff idea 15: System behavior: system events which… initiate other events.
Ackoff says behaviors are state changes whose consequences are of interest. It is arguable that all behaviors (acts, reactions and responses) have both consequences of interest at some level of investigation, and antecedents of interest at some level of investigation.
I can’t find a definition of “outcome” in Ackoff’s 1971 work. Are they consequential changes in the state of the system? or its environment?
On
the hierarchy of behavior types
Ackoff arranged behaviors (ditto aims and systems below) in a hierarchical structure using different words at different levels. I am not confident that his classification is wholly coherent; however, this table represents my attempt to summarize it.
|
Trigger event |
Make choices wrt system state |
Outcome (event/state change) |
Involve Learning? |
||
|
System? |
Environment? |
||||
|
12 Reaction |
External |
No |
No |
One |
No |
|
13 Response |
External |
Yes |
Yes |
Several |
Yes? |
|
14 Act |
Internal |
Not defined? |
Yes |
Not defined? |
Not defined? |
Ackoff’s main interest was in managed human organizations. So, although other things (the solar system, a virus, a tree, an ant, an ant colony, and a person) might be viewed as a system, it is best to consider his hierarchy of aim concepts in the context of a human institution.
Ackoff idea 22: The relative value of an outcome: a value (between 0 and 1) compared with other outcomes in a set. The highest value outcome is the preferred outcome.
Ackoff
idea 23: The goal of a purposeful system: a preferred outcome within a time
period.
Ackoff
idea 24: The objective of a purposeful system: a preferred outcome that
cannot be obtained in a time period.
Ackoff
idea 25: An ideal: an objective that cannot be obtained in a time period,
but can be approached.
Ackoff idea 26: An ideal-seeking system: a purposeful system that seeks goals leading towards its ideal.
From top to bottom, the hierarchy of aims seems to be ideals < objectives < goals < outcomes.
|
25 Ideals |
are persistent aims that appear “unobtainable in principle or in practice”. |
|
|
24 Objectives |
can be ordered with respect to |
Ideals |
|
23 Goals |
can be ordered with respect to |
Objectives |
|
22 An outcome |
can be valued and preferred as a |
Goal |
Again, outcome is undefined in Ackoff’s 1971 work, but appears to be a consequential change in the state of a system or its environment.
How Ackoff’s purposes and functions relate to each other and to ideals, objectives, goals and outcomes not entirely clear, but purposes appear to sit at a higher level than goals.
How is the aim hierarchy affected by system composition?
Systems may be composed or decomposed in space, time
or logic. So, an event that is external to a smaller system
is internal to a larger system, and vice-versa.
What happens to aims if you expand the time period ? Presumably, an ideal
becomes an objective and an objective becomes a goal?
What happens to aims if you expand the system boundary (say from
department to division to enterprise)? Presumably, a goal of a small subsystem is seen as one
of many outcomes in a wider system?
A system is composed
from interacting parts or subsystems. Systems are recursively composable and
decomposable. Like Boulding before him, Ackoff blurred the idea of system
decomposition with the idea of different system types. His aim and behavior hierarchies (above) may have been designed to fit his
system type hierarchy (this section), in which he classified systems by
dividing behaviors and outcomes between “determined” and “chosen”.
Ackoff idea 16: State maintaining system: the most naïve of reactive systems (cf. 12 reactions).
When an event of a given type occurs, Ackoff’s state maintaining system reacts to produce a fixed outcome. “Fixed outcome” implies there is no choice as to the outcome of the event. Ackoff’s discussion of this system type is dominated by self-regulating or homeostatic entities. In this category, is maintaining a system state variable (within defined bounds) definable as a goal or objective?
What if maintaining one system state variable involves making choices related to the values of other state variable? I guess that is a goal-seeking system - the next idea below.
Ackoff idea 17: Goal-seeking system: a system that chooses its response to events (cf. 13 responses).
This category of system seems to be defined by its ability to retain and use a memory to make choices. Every business remembers facts in the form of state variables (in data stores) and uses that memory to inform its actions. It refers to its memory when choosing between actions that produce different outcomes, with an end goal “in mind”.
(See the “Causality and choice” section in the concluding remarks.)
Ackoff refers at this point to a system that does more – it learns – it adapts its behavior by conditioning according to experience. E.g. a rat in a maze increases its efficiency in meeting a goal by choosing not repeat a behavior that failed earlier. That primitive kind of learning can be mimicked by a computer program.
It is unclear whether Ackoff intended to embrace all kinds of learning, for example:
· Learning from simple physical sensation (e.g. that your lips may stick to a cube ice)
· Learning facts (e.g. the colours of the rainbow)
· Learning a physical process (e.g. to swim or play music)
· Learning a logical process (e.g. multiplication, algebra, a business process)
· Learning a cultural norm (e.g. to say please and thank you)
· Machine learning (detecting patterns in data).
Ackoff idea 18: Process: a sequence of behavior that constitutes a system and has a goal-producing function.
You might call this process a one-time system. It runs from trigger event to an outcome that meets its goal. Ackoff says each step in the process (be it an act, reaction or response) brings the actor closer to the goal. It isn’t clear whether his process can have control logic, or lead from one event to a variety of different outcomes/goals. Also, it isn’t clear whether the goals of a system = the sum of all goals of processes performed by the system.
Ackoff idea 19: Multi-goal seeking system: a system that seeks different goals in different states.
So, the goal(s) of a system depend on the state it is in. Presumably, Ackoff means the state-goal relationship predetermined. Here, Ackoff appears to presume system actors behave in a deterministic manner.
Ackoff idea 20: Purposive system: a multi-goal seeking system where goals have in common the achievement of a common purpose.
The common purpose could be to survive, win the game or make a profit. Purposive systems and sub-animate actors may be given goals but can’t change them. Again, it seems purposes sit at a higher level than goals, but the relationship of purposes to objectives and ideals is not clear. Here, Ackoff appears to presume system actors can choose between acts, but cannot determine goals.
Ackoff idea 21: Purposeful system: can produce the same outcome in different ways and different outcomes in the same and different states.
Ackoff believed that free will enabled purposefulness, which in turn demonstrated free will. A book Ackoff wrote with Emery about purposeful systems (1972) put it more clearly.
“a purposeful
system is one that can change its goals in constant environmental conditions;
it selects goals as well as the means by which to pursue them. It displays
will.” Ackoff
Animate actors (being self-aware) might change the aims of any system they participate in.
"members are also purposeful individuals who intentionally and
collectively formulate objectives and are parts of larger purposeful systems.” Ackoff
(How far the goals of a social entity relate to or derive from individual actors’ goals is a question beyond the discussion here.)
On
the hierarchy of system types
The table below is a sketchy attempt to stitch ten of Ackoff’s ideas together into a coherent whole. I believe it gives a good impression of what he was striving towards.
|
System types |
Behavior types |
Aim types |
|
16 A state maintaining system |
12 Reacts as predetermined to produce |
22 one predetermined Outcome |
|
17 A goal-seeking system chooses between |
13 Responses as predetermined to meet |
23 one predetermined Goal |
|
20 A purposive system chooses between |
14 Acts by self-determination to meet |
23 predetermined Goals with a shared 24 Objective |
|
21 A purposeful system chooses between |
14 Acts by self-determination to meet |
25 Goals and Objectives it chooses, leading to an Ideal |
If (20) actors can define the acts they
perform, there isn’t a system in the normal sense.
Later, he defined “organizations” as
purposeful systems (21). If their only stable feature is an
ideal (which Ackoff described as unobtainable), there is nothing systematic
about the organization.
What might a cybernetician like Ashby
make of this? Find an answer in the next section.
Remember
Ackoff’s primary system of interest was managed human organizations. This
section reviews how his classification of system types evolved over twenty
years.
Ackoff’s hierarchy of systems appears to have been an attempt to turn hierarchical system decomposition into a science. In this regard, he seems to have followed in the footsteps of Kenneth Boulding. However, Boulding's (1956) system classification was highly questionable.
Boulding proposed systems be classified in hierarchy with seven levels that rise in two ways by aggregation from part to whole, and by complexification from simple to complex. The hierarchy is topped by societies at level 6 societies and ecologies at level 7. This has encouraged people, ever since, to apply the term "complex system" to social networks.
One trouble is that levels of aggregation and levels of complexity are different ideas. Every system is a perspective, or partial representation, of a reality. To take a holistic view of an aggregate is to deliberately ignore the complexity of each part. E.g. a card game is a very simple activity system; the biology of a human’s cardio-vascular system is very complex. The staggering complexity of a card players’ biology is irrelevant to the card game (and to other social interactions).
At first, Ackoff differentiated his
systems of interest by whether behaviors and outcomes are “determined” and
“chosen”. Remember this table (copied from above) is my interpretation of what
he was saying in 1971.
|
System types |
Behavior types |
Aim types |
|
16 A state maintaining system |
12 Reacts as predetermined to produce |
22 one predetermined Outcome |
|
17 A goal-seeking system chooses between |
13 Responses as predetermined to meet |
23 one predetermined Goal |
|
20 A purposive system chooses between |
14 Acts by self-determination to meet |
23 predetermined Goals with a shared 24 Objective |
|
21 A purposeful system chooses between |
14 Acts by self-determination to meet |
25 Goals and Objectives it chooses, leading to an Ideal |
Later, Ackoff defined “organizations” as purposeful systems (21).
A cybernetician’s view
This table shows what Ashby might make
of Ackoff’s classification.
|
Ackoff’s system classes |
Actors (parts) |
Activities (parts) |
Aims (purposes) |
|
State
maintaining system |
Play roles in an activity system |
No optional activities |
Fixed aims |
|
Goal-seeking
system |
Some optional activities |
||
|
Purposive
system |
Are members of a social entity |
Define their own activities |
Fixed aims |
|
Purposeful
system |
Define their own aims |
Note that Ackoff’s purposive and
purposeful systems are only systems if the definitions of responses and aims
are changed under change control, else they are continually mutating entities
in which no regular activity system can be found.
Later, Ackoff differentiated his systems of interest by the “purposefulness” of the parts and the whole. The table is edited from table 2.1 in “Re-Creating the Corporation - A Design of Organizations for the 21st Century” .
|
Systems type |
Parts |
Whole |
Notes |
|
Deterministic |
Not purposeful |
Not purposeful |
Motor cars, fans, clocks, computers, plants |
|
Animated |
Not purposeful |
Purposeful |
Animals |
|
Social |
Purposeful |
Purposeful |
Corporations, universities, societies |
|
Ecological |
Purposeful |
Not purposeful |
An environment that serves its parts. E.g. ocean, atmosphere |
By 1999, Ackoff had defined “purposeful” more neatly than in 1971.
"An Entity is
purposeful if it can select both means and ends in two or more
environments."
He then contrasted goal-seeking entities…
“Although the
ability to make choices is necessary for purposefulness, it is not sufficient.
An entity that can behave differently (select different means) but produce only
one outcome in any one of a set of different environments is goal seeking, not
purposeful. For example, automatic pilots on ships and airplanes and
thermostats for heating systems have a desired outcome programmed into them;
they do not choose them.”
… with purposeful people and social networks
“people can
pursue different outcomes in the same and in different environments and
therefore are obviously purposeful; so are certain types of social networks.”
Ackoff subtly
revised his system classification scheme as shown
below. Now, the key differentiator is the ability of the parts and the
whole to exercise “choice”.
|
Parts |
Whole |
Beware! |
|
|
Deterministic / mechanistic Clock, Tree, Ant, Fish |
No choice |
No choice |
Not just man-made machines! includes plants and “lower” animals. |
|
Animate Human, Gibbon |
No choice |
Choice |
Not all animals! excludes “lower” animals, includes only “higher” animals Ackoff considered to exercise free will |
|
Social Church, Corporation |
Choice |
Choice |
Not all social networks! excludes “lower” animal groups and informal groups, is primarily if not only formal organizations |
|
Ecological Island |
Choice |
No Choice |
Not an environment served an environment that serves its parts. |
Clearly, the meaning Ackoff attached to “choice” is vital to his system classification. He had had previously allowed that machines can make choices.
See the “Causality and choice” section in the concluding remarks. And perhaps read this article for a more detailed critique of this 2003 system classification.
Ackoff was a doomsayer about
the management of organised human social networks. His joint
article “On The Mismatch Between Systems
And Their Models” started:
“Most contemporary social systems are failing.”
However, Ackoff’s examples of failing organizations were
questionable.
|
Ackoff’s example |
Alternative
possibilities |
|
“Head Start is said to be a failure.” |
Impossible targets? Or the
impossibility of garnering enough resources to meet the huge challenge? |
|
“The US has a higher percentage of its population in prison than
any other developed country, but has the highest crime rate.” |
The prison population is consequence of
the crime rate? Or shows the success of criminal investigation organizations? |
|
“Most corporations formed each year fail before the year is up.” |
A flourishing entrepreneur base? |
|
“Half the corporations on the Fortune 500 list twenty-five years
ago no longer exist.” |
A healthy free market adapting to changing times? (Biology
requires that older individuals die to make way for new ones.) |
“One could go on citing deficiencies in the management of our
principal social systems.”
Surely
most of organizations also succeed in some way to some extent, at least they
employ some people for a while?
Is it reasonable to expect every organization to succeed? The difficulties of managing large organizations are multitudinous. What if managers have impossible targets? Or they cannot garner enough resources? Or market forces change the game?
In short
Ackoff’s system classifications (1971, 1999 and 2003) appear plausible on the surface, yet are often misunderstood. And there is a problem with classifying real-world entities into system types. That is, it undermines the distinction Ackoff originally drew between an entity, such as a human organization, and the many different systems that might be abstracted from observation of that entity.
This section lists Ackoff’s further ideas with only a couple of comments.
Ackoff idea 27: The functions of a system: production of the outcomes that defines its goals and objectives.
Whether and how purposes and functions relate to each other and to the hierarchy of ideals < objectives < goals < outcomes is not clear.
Ackoff idea 28: The efficiency of a system: defined in mathematical terms beyond the analysis here.
Ackoff idea 29: An adaptive system: reacts or responds to reduced efficiency by changing system or environment state.
Note that adaptation here appears to mean system state change rather than system mutation.
Ackoff idea 30: “To learn is to
increase one’s efficiency in the pursuit of a goal under unchanging
conditions.” Ackoff
Ackoff idea 31: Control: “An
element or system controls another element or system if its behavior is either
necessary or sufficient for subsequent behavior of the element or the system
itself and the subsequent behavior is necessary or sufficient for the
attainment of one of more of its goals.” Ackoff
Ackoff idea 32: Organization: “An organization is a purposeful system that contains at
least two purposeful elements which have a common purpose relative to which the
system has a functional division of labor; its
functionality distinct subsets can respond to each other’s behavior through
observation of communication; and at least one subset has a system-control
function”. Ackoff
Since Ackoff later deprecated the mechanical and biological views of systems taken by cyberneticians, it is a little surprising that (in 1971) he described inter-system relationships in terms of controls.
Remember: Ackoff’s primary
system of interest was a managed human organization. In 1999, Ackoff defined his system of
interest by five conditions.
Condition 1- The whole has one or more defining properties
or functions.
Ashby (cybernetics)
defined a system as having both state variables and behaviors. Forrester
(system dynamics) defined a system as having both stocks and flows. Ackoff
(management science) defined a system as having both properties and functions. He
used the term “property” to mean a system state variable.
Condition 2- Each part in the set can affect the behavior or
properties of the whole.
At first sight, this seems to
go without saying, but what is meant by a “part”? Is it a type in an abstract organization – a role, rule or variable? You cannot remove a type without having an impact on the
behavior or variables of the whole. Or is
it an instance in a concrete
organization – an actor or activity instance? You can remove an instance (remove a fish from a shoal) with no effect on the
behavior or properties of the whole.
Condition 3- There is a subset of parts that is sufficient
in one or more environments for carrying out the defining function of the
whole; each… necessary but insufficient for… this defining function.
The division of a system into parts, and the granularity of those parts, is entirely in the gift of the describer. This third condition is not true of systems described at the level of coarse-grained parts that are tightly coupled. E.g. there is no functioning subset of a rider and bicycle system. Or a marriage between two people. Or a commercial business divided into sales, delivery and accounting parts.
Condition 4- The way that each essential part of a system
affects its behavior or variables depends on (the behavior or variables of) at
least one other essential part of the system.
Again, the division of a system into parts, and the granularity of those parts, is entirely in the gift of the describer. This fourth condition is not true of systems in which one subsystem (part) encapsulates all essential parts.
Condition 5- The effect of any subset of essential parts on
the system as a whole depends on the behavior of at least one other such
subset.”
The fifth condition seems an elaboration of the fourth.
Some system descriptions fit all Ackoff's 5 conditions. Some do not, where all the described parts are essential and there is no functioning subset of parts.
This article was written during research for the book at https://bit.ly/2yXGImr.
References below are to other chapters in that book, which discusses ways that management scientists (Boulding, Ackoff and Beer) tried to meld management science with cybernetics or general system theory. Unfortunately, attempts to merge different approaches can obscure what each has to offer. And when management scientists borrow terms from cybernetics or general system theory, they often use them with different meanings.
On abstract
and concrete systems
In
1971, one of Ackoff’s insights was this: “Different
observers of the same phenomena may conceptualise them into different systems”.
Ackoff distinguished the conceptualization of a system from its realization. Abstract systems are conceptual - as are the roles and rules in a system description. Concrete systems are physical - as are the actors and activities in a working system. Systems thinkers often conflate the two ideas, yet there is a many-to-many association between them. One abstract system can be realized by several concrete social networks. One concrete social network can realize several abstract systems.
In 1999, Ackoff’s first condition was that a system’s variables or functions must be defined. So, a group of people or social network doing things is not a system just because people call it an “organization”. It becomes an activity system when, where and in so far as it performs functions defined in a system description.
So, systems thinking involves separating abstract systems (e.g. laws like apartheid) from concrete things (e.g. societies) that realize them. Just as a thing is infinitely more than any system it realizes, so, a social entity is infinitely more than any law that constrains its behaviors. A social entity that realizes a system will continue to evolve. Sometimes a social entity evolves in a way that reinforces the system (cf. a social cell); sometimes a social entity evolves in a way that forces the system to be changed or abandoned.
The social entity and the system are two different things. The trouble is - Ackoff later went on to contradict himself by equating a social network with a social system. He referred to a church, a corporation or a government agency as being a social system. Whereas IBM, for example, is as many different activity systems as system describers can describe and test. Some of those activity systems may conflict with each other, or undermine each other.
Moreover, much of what happens in a business like IBM is not at all systematic or systemic. It relies on humans knowing what to do, choosing what to do, and inventing what to do when the need arises. In equating an organization that depends on human knowledge and abilities (rather than system description) to a system, Ackoff undermined the basic ideas he set out at the beginning.
Ackoff arranged aims, behaviors and systems in hierarchical structures, using different words at different levels. It can be convenient to use different words for different levels of system concept. The table present an example of using different words at different levels of composition.
|
Division in time |
Aims |
Activities |
Actors |
Division in space |
|
Persistent |
Mission |
|
Enterprise |
Whole |
|
Long term |
Goal |
Value stream |
Division |
Large part |
|
Short term |
Objective |
Process |
Team |
Small part |
|
Immediate |
Requirement |
Activity |
Actor |
Atomic part |
However,
systems are infinitely nestable; the level of decomposition is arbitrary – a
choice made in a particular situation. Pinning different words to
different levels of a decomposition hierarchy can obscure the general nature of system theory. At every level, a process is an event-triggered
sequence of actions that may refer to system state, include choices and produce
outcomes.
A choice is a choice: whether it is made by strict or fuzzy logic, deterministically or by free will.
Ackoff said all animated systems are organisms, which he said are defined as being autopoietic. In discussion of social entities, he used the term self-organising, which is a different concept.
First, we need to distinguish self-sustaining from self-organising. Then, if the latter means actors continually change the variables and functions of the organization they work in, this conflicts with Ackoff’s first condition for a system. For a more coherent discussion, we need to distinguish several possible meanings of “self-organising”.
SEE “SYSTEM CHANGE” CHAPTER
It may seem Ackoff’s attempts
to merge social entity thinking with activity system thinking are doomed.
However, it is possible to reconcile the two traditions, as indicated in
the chapter above.
Ackoff took an anthropomorphic view of systems. Even so, he did not see all human social entities as organizations. He showed little interest in those with minimal bureaucracy (a tennis club or pick-pocket gang). His primary interest was in organizations of the kind addressed by “management science”.
Management science addresses human institutions that – in
more or less bureaucratic ways - organize most or some of what human actors do. Typically, these social entities employ many discrete
activity systems. And when observing actors’ behavior, we can classify their responses to
stimuli into four kinds.
|
Causality |
In theory, when an event happens, we can
predict |
|
Deterministic |
exactly
which action an actor will perform in response. |
|
Probabilistic |
how
likely an actor will perform activity type A or activity type B. |
|
Possibilistic |
the
actor will choose from the range of activity types in our model. |
|
Self-determining |
nothing
– because actors can invent activities outside any model made. |
In so far as a social entity realizes a known activity system, its actors always act in the first three ways. We may not be able to predict which action they choose to perform, but we can say they will choose one of the actions available to them in the activity system. (A designer has to make allowances for “exception paths” actors may choose to follow.)
In so far as actors act in the fourth way, they act outside any activity system we know of. Even if they are in acting in an activity system we don’t know about, we must treat them as having free will and the ability to do what they choose.
SEE “SOCIAL ENTITY THINKING” CHAPTER
Ackoff defined animate actors (humans and other higher animals) as ones that choose freely between possible actions. He said they make choices in the light of their “ideals”.
"The
capability of seeking ideals may well be a characteristic that distinguishes
man from anything he can make, including computers".
Really? Doesn’t a chess-playing
computer choose between possible chess moves in the light of its ideal – to win
the game? Doesn’t a humanoid robot direct its limb movements in the light of
its ideal – to stay on its feet?
Surely the main
issue is not how actors make choices - by free will or not? Rather, it is that animate actors may
have different ideals from any
activity system they play roles in. And so, the actors have to choose between conflicting ideals
when choosing their next action.
“All organizations are social systems”
Ackoff said the reverse is not true; not all social
systems are organizations. And for sure, not all social entities are organized
to the extent we can define an activity system they realize
“Most contemporary social systems are failing”
Did
he mean to say most organizations are
failing? Sometimes he seems to be presenting something akin to a political
manifesto. Does he really mean government agencies rather than
commercial businesses? Most UK government agencies surely
succeed a bit and fail a bit. Is his concern US government in particular?
“An organization is a purposeful system that contains at
least two purposeful elements which have a common purpose”.
Can purposes be ascribed to a purposeful organization by entities inside or outside the organization?
“An aggregation of purposeful entities does not constitute
an organization unless they have at least one common purpose”
Does it count if employees and
suppliers have the common purpose of maximising their income from the
organization? Or all employees are motivated by self-respect from being
employed and social interactions with their colleagues?
“Organizations display choice.”
Geoff Elliot told me that in the sociological perspective, only people can be “purposeful”. But Ackoff said social systems (meaning social organizations) are also purposeful.
What does it mean to say a social organization make choices or exercises free will? Not all the purposes of an organization are abstracted from the purposes of the actors in it. What about purposes ascribed to an organization by entities outside the organization – like the government?
Would you say an investment bank’s trading division chooses
which stocks to buy and sell? Those choices, formerly made by human actors, are
now by made mechanistic computer actors. So, in what sense does the
organization display choice? And how does it make a choice independently of choices made by its animate or mechanistic parts?
a deterministic process? If so, does that undermine the meaning of purposeful?
The word “part” suggests containment within a boundary, be it physical or logical. A man can contain a machine (say, an artificial heart) both physically and logically. The heart has no aim or behavior outside of the man. A machine (say, motor car) can contain a man physically but not logically. E.g. a taxi driver has aims and behaviors outside of their role as driver.
Suppose you employ human actors, each with their own aims and behaviors, in your business. Your business needs only some of the time and talents of each employee. You ask an employee (Jane) to perform the activities expected of her given role. Within her work hours, Jane will sometimes act outside her defined role, and sometimes contrary to it. Outside of work hours, she may play a role in other (perhaps even competing) businesses. In what sense is Jane a part of your business?
“A group of unwilling slaves can be organised to do
something that they do not want to do, but they do not constitute and an
organization, even though they may form a system” Ackoff
There is a difference between not
being keen to do some work and not being willing and able to do it well when
asked. We may baulk at starting a job,
but get some enjoyment from it nevertheless. And being appreciated by
colleagues and managers has a lot to do with that.
Your new
employee brings their own aims (ideals, purposes, objectives, goals) to your
business. Their aims may be in conflict with each other, in flux,
unconscious or unrecognised. Some of their aims may be contrary to the aims of you and your
social organization.
Your employee may act to make your organization inefficient, or even to sabotage it (e.g. sharing information with a competitor). OK, you can design security and exception handling processes to address the conflicting aims and contrary behaviors of employees.
And yes, human actors are special, they need special attention. This is the territory of social psychology, neuro-linguistic programming and the like – rather than system theory.
Business managers and project managers are responsible for
managing and motivating their employees. It isn't the responsibility of
enterprise architects. Attending to the "machinery" of human and
computer activity systems is difficult enough. Where people's roles are
affected, the EA function work with business managers, HR and sometimes a
"business change function" to ensure people are well managed and
motivated.
SEE “SOCIAL ENTITY THINKING” CHAPTER