Defining IT system: a philosophical exploration
In the world of IT, our primary focus is on designing, building, running, and supporting systems. But when you stop to think about it, what exactly is an "IT system"? Is it defined by its functionality, the technology it uses, or something else entirely? Here are some hopefully not too random ramblings on the topic.
Let’s start with a simple example. Imagine you have a customer relationship management (CRM) system coded in C++. Now, suppose you convert this system into Java without the user noticing any difference—except for the new defects that inevitably crop up. Would you still consider it the same system? I would argue it’s not. But if you only converted a small module to Java, it still feels like the same system.
What if you add new functionality? If it’s related to customer relationship management, I’d say yes, it’s still the same system. However, if you add marketing functionalities, then it starts to feel like a different system.
Consider a more complex scenario: an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system with interconnected subsystems for finance, HR, sales, inventory, and so on. Here, we have systems within systems. The degree of granularity matters—a high-level view might not distinguish between various versions, but a detailed perspective might see each version as a separate system, much like Borges' character, Funes, who perceives each evolving form of a cloud as a distinct cloud.
领英推荐
This phenomenon raises a question similar to when a mound becomes a hill, and a hill becomes a mountain. It also parallels the philosophical thought experiment of the Ship of Theseus, where a ship has all its decaying parts replaced with new timber over time. Is it still the same ship? Similarly, human bodies renew most of their cells over time, and our personalities evolve—what defines our identity?
So, are there objective criteria for what constitutes an IT system, or is it merely a social construct? Perhaps an IT system is simply what we collectively agree it to be. Or is that a cheap post-modernist get-out-of-jail card, avoiding the need for concrete definitions?
Note: Funes the Memorious is a short story by Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges. It tells the tale of Ireneo Funes, who, after a horseback riding accident, acquires the remarkable ability—or curse—of remembering absolutely everything.
Divergent Thinking, Communications in KM, Change R&D, Art
9 个月The only reason to ever call something is "system" is to point at two things - (1) a single overall operation, and (2) the "fact" that the operation requires the interactions of designated "components" (not "elements"). Any time you cannot identify the first and the second is not true, then you can't call what you are observing a system. The purpose of "information technology" is to be a tool for processing information. Functionally addressing the purpose is processing. The processing is the operation. The operation is a system only when it is meeting its purpose through depending structurally on the interactions of certain components. Any given process has a scope and scale. When you have identified the process you have also declared a scope and scale. Scope and scale are both logical (conceptual) and actual (ACTual). Conceptually, Locomotion is bigger than transportation. Transportation is bigger than shipping. Shipping is bigger than delivery. Delivery is bigger than... What's going on? It's taxonomy. Similarly. a motor is a system; no separate part of a motor accomplishes what a motor does. A truck is a system. An interstate highway is a system. Global trade is a system. Law. Economy. (cont'd in reply to this reply)