#RLA100. Russell Lincoln Ackoff: 10-week countdown to his 100th birthday One week to go. Remembrance. Reverence. Reflection.

#RLA100 #RLA #Ackoff #management #systems #systemsthinking #systemspractice #synthesis #analysis #curiosity #creativity #courage #vigour #rigour #responsibility #charlatanry #understanding #education #requirements #whole #interdependence #interaction #definition #essential #properties #inquiry #dysfunctionality #aggregation #why #complementarity #knowledge #wisdom # efficiency #effectiveness #circularity #differentiation #expansionism #reductionism #remembrance #reverence #reflection

This is part 10 of 10. A continuation from a longer opening article posted, together with a scene-setting introduction, as the start of this series 9 weeks ago:

Start of the 10-week countdown

We started the 10-week countdown with synthesis, today we come full circle, dealing with system. It is a tiny word, but it encapsulates so much. It is a widespread word, almost everybody knows it, but its implication is so little understood. Its frequent use in professional and layman language is a good sign? Prima facie it is. If we want to propagate systems thinking and systems practice, we depend upon the word (literally) being part of our daily life. But, as with so many words that gain a certain popularity, usage and context of usage spread as fast as the word travels. And it finds its destination in realms it is not conducive to and in minds that have lost touch - if they ever had it - with the concept and the essence of what is "a system".

We, as systemists, carry several responsibilities:

• We ourselves ought to lead by good example. If we lack vigour to demonstrate what systems thinking and practice is, we must not be surprised if the concept gets misunderstood or misused. If we lack rigour in terminology, we render the systems field a playground for all kind of hoax and sleights of hand. As ambassadors of systems, maintaining and enhancing our standards,

we must be self-critical.

• We need to be firm in our protest and defense against such misuse. Not in the name of any one and only right way to apply the systems concept as such. But if and when we encounter the hydra-like copycats and freeriders, who employ a systems language, and mutilate the concept of systems as a tool and on a process level only. I consider myself a civilized man, but the systems hypocrites do make me fume and grumpy sometimes. They deliver terrible damage by selling trivia as circumspective concepts, shallow dreams, or quick-fix tools. And the biggest damage they bring by disenchanting or fooling those who maybe for the first time ever are curious, creative, and courageous enough to "give this systems 'thing' a try".

We must unmask charlatanry.

• We ought to help and discipline misusers, whether "sinners or ignoramuses", onto a right path. More importantly, to enable all those not yet (sufficiently) knowledgeable about systems to learn about it. Less the terminology itself, but what crucial ingredients mean, for them. For that knowledge is necessary, but not sufficient. So, we have to "teach". More importantly, we have to enable understanding. And that comes from deeper wrestling with the application of systems concepts. But a start has to be made. That is why the unravelling of systems is so important. As ambassadors and defenders,

we also have the obligation to educate.

Now, that said, let us revisit the most central ingredient to systems thinking and practice, the notion, the concept of system. Of course, Russ as the master of razor-sharp explanation has put it better than anybody could aspire for. I stay fairly close to his original, but deliberately attempt to explain a little less cuttingly. Part of the "education obligation" is to reach also those, who until now are maybe less into systems; less interested in, knowledgeable about, or understanding of systems. I mentioned elsewhere management's responsibility. We systemists carry a heavier load of responsibility, because our field of theory and practice is far more wide-reaching and powerful than most other expert fields for most messes.

It starts banal. Clearly, a system consists of at least two parts or more. There probably everybody not yet exposed to systems theory will yawn and say "duh". But now come 3 requirements for a system as a whole, the essential properties of its definition, if you will.

• 1. The behaviour of each part can affect the whole. What the parts do are functions. But they function for the purpose of the whole. Professor Ackoff typically used the human body as example. And, in his dry humour, asked for the one odd body "part" that did not fit, because it has no function. The appendix (literally: added on). Russ cumulated with:

"If the medical sciences ever found a use for the appendix, they would have to change its name."

• 2. The behavior of the system is, however, not affected by what one single part is doing. The effect on the system depends on what at least one other part is doing. No part has an independent effect on the system. It depends on other parts. No part is isolated. Parts are all interconnected. All parts interact.
• 3. Taking 1. and 2., we address a requirement that deals with any section of the system and variations thereof. No matter how we arrange the parts of a system, whether we line them up, group them, form subsets - all of these variations, clusters, arrangements will have the same properties as the parts. Every subset of parts can affect the behavior of the whole (similar to 1. above) and/yet no subset of parts has an independent effect on the whole (similar to 2. above).

Putting the requirements together, we get what Russ called a "poetic" definition of a system:

“It’s a whole which cannot be divided into independent parts.”

So far, so good. So easy! Easy to read, easy to nod to, so this "systems stuff" is dead easy? Not quite, it is highly relevant and very lively, but what is - not only with respect to systems - easy forgotten, are the consequences of the definition spelled out above.

It demonstrates, again, the crucial difference between the (apparently) obvious and reflected understanding.

The properties that define the essence of the system are, straightforwardly, called essential properties. None of its parts or subsets have any of the essential properties of the whole. The essential properties of the system are those of the whole. And of the whole only. If we take a system apart, essential properties are lost: all of them; the essential ones of the system and the functional properties of its parts. Specifically this effect on the parts tends to be overlooked in lightheadedness, superficiality, and lack of reflection on the consequences of the definition.

Russ often used the example of an automobile to illustrate that point. If we take it apart, we have all its components. But we have neither a car - the system has lost its essential properties (a driving vehicle). Nor a functioning part, because, e.g., the engine has lost its capacity to move (its functional property) when removed from its containing system (the one it is a part of). Because a system is:

“Not the sum of its parts, but the product of their interactions.”

Upon realising this, the scientific method of analysis has been shown to be replaced by synthesis. Returning to the synthesis-analysis topic we started this series with.

However, now, that we also know why the differences between these two forms of inquiry are so central and what characteristics of the object of inquiry - a system - are, let us bring them together (and some, of course likewise interrelated, additional strands). Hopefully, those who joined us over the last 10 weeks have been curious enough to now be prepared to follow what are some essential consequences for their own methods of inquiry.

I chose to not "confront" readers with it at the start, because I have repeatedly made the experience that non-systemists tend to struggle with the density and differentiation of terminology and the consequences of the concept and its tenets. It is for many a fundamental mindshift. Exactly the difference of all they have been taught and practiced. If, however, they might warm to some unconventional thinking and practice along the way, to some gem of differentiation to be happily remembered, this may be a buildup more likely successful in opening eyes and mind.

“You cannot understand the nature of a system by analysis.”

Synthesis is the exact opposite of analysis. As we in previous parts of this series already exposed the dysfunctionality of our education system, let us follow Russ with another of his favourite examples, a university.

Under the reign of analysis, the inquiry starts with taking it apart: Departments, faculty, students, etc. Under synthesis, a university is seen both as a whole and as a part of a larger system, the educational system; a/the larger containing system of the educational system is society. Consequently, instead of trying to understand the parts, e.g., the departments, under systhesis one will strive to understand the containing educational system. Finally, where analysis aims to understand the whole by aggregating the understanding of its parts, synthesis disintegrates the understanding of the system to one of its parts, by identifying their function within and for the purpose of the wider whole.

Analysis is about knowledge and answers questions of how and how to. Synthesis answers questions of why. Analysis shows instructions. Synthesis shows explanations. Analysis is about structure. Synthesis yields understanding. It is explanation that brings understanding. And explanation lies outside the system, in its environment, its containing system.

What I frequently mention holds also for the relationship between analysis and synthesis: complementarity. Russ said that, depending on whether the objective is knowledge or understanding: 

"Systems Thinking is the fusion of analysis and synthesis."

With this we also come full circle - circularity being the number one principle of systems, according to Heinz von Foerster - to the themes of knowledge and efficiency on one side and understanding and effectiveness on the other as in the second part of this series.

Comprehension comes in two types, knowledge and understanding. Knowledge increases the smaller the component we comprehend. Understanding is never complete but increases the larger the system we comprehend. Knowledge increases from the whole to the parts. Understanding increases from one whole to larger wholes. Systems Thinking is

"expansionism, not reductionism."

Systems Thinking is trans-disciplinary. Thinking in systems is a trans-formation required to break loose from machine-age thinking. Systems Thinking is at heart intrinsically disruptive, as it is about discontinuity. Creativity is discontinuous and disruptive - therefore it is a disturbance to most "managers out there". It is much more a revolution than a reformation. No wonder, it is meeting huge resistance. It is the kind of revolution that will happen in real-life, real-time. The revolution will not be televised. "The revolution will put YOU in the driver seat", it is a challenging and! liberating mindset.

It requires breaking habits and!, even worse, conceding, to oneself and others, a mindset unfit to deal with the messes at hand. Many are more readily prepared to lose the chance to responsibly manage the present and design the future than to lose their face. To support and hide that attitude they regularly point at difficulties and uncertainty that allegedly come with Systems. Is Systems easy? No. Life is! difficult and uncertain. While there is at least an efficacy match of problem and mind "achieved", let us recall another Russ quote:

"The only managers that have simple problems have simple minds."

Next Tuesday, on Russ' 100th birthday, 12 February 2019, I shall post another and a little longer article under the #RLA100 hashtag. It is not part of the 10-episode runup that primarily dealt with contents from his vast body of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom; yet it belongs to my paying tribute to this great thinker, educator, and practitioner. It will be something of a personal account how he came into my life and why I want to honour him.