SYSTEM DESIGN MODELING AND METAMODELING SYSTEM DESIGN MODELING AND METAMODELING John P. van Gigch California State University Sacramento, California Springer Science+Business Media, LLC L i b r a r y o f Congress C a t a l o g i n g - i n - P u b l i c a t i o n Data Van G1gch. John P. System design modeling and m e t a m o d e l i n g / John P. van G i g c h . p. cm. I n c l u d e s b i b l i o g r a p h i c a l r e f e r e n c e s and i n d e x . ISBN 978-1-4899-0678-6 1 . S o c i a l s c i e n c e s - - M a t h e m a t i c a l models. 2 . System a n a l y s i s . 3 . D e c i s i o n - m a k i n g . I . T i t l e . H 6 1 . 2 5 . V 3 6 1991 0 0 3 - - d c 2 0 9 1 - 1 6 2 2 9 CIP ISBN 9 7 8 - 1 - 4 8 9 9 - 0 6 7 8 - 6 ISBN 9 7 8 - 1 - 4 8 9 9 - 0 6 7 6 - 2 (eBook) DOI 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / 9 7 8 - 1 - 4 8 9 9 - 0 6 7 6 - 2 © 1 9 9 1 Springer Science+Business Media New York Originally published by Plenum Press, New York in 1991 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1991 All rights reserved N o part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording, or otherwise, w i t h o u t written permission from the Publisher To create an artifact, the designer needs to be a scientist to model reality, an epistemologist to metamodel the design process, and an artist to contemplate the result. SYSTEM DESIGN METAMODELING I MODELING REAL WORLD SYSTEM DESIGN Preface This book is a venture in the worlds of modeling and of metamodeling. At this point, I will not reveal to readers what constitutes metamodeling. Suf- fice it to say that the pitfalls and shortcomings of modeling can be cured only if we resort to a higher level of inquiry called metainquiry and metadesign. We reach this level by the process of abstraction. The book contains five chapters from my previous work, Applied General Systems Theory (Harper and Row, London and New York, First Edition 1974, Second Edition 1978). More than ten years after its publication, this material still appears relevant to the main thrust of system design. This book is dedicated to all those who are involved in changing the world for the better. In a way we all are involved in system design: from the city manager who struggles with the problems of mass transportation or the consolidation of a city and its suburbs to the social worker who tries to provide benefits to the urban poor. It includes the engineer who designs the shuttle rockets. It involves the politician engaged in drafting a bill to recycle containers, or one to prevent pesticide contamination of our food. The politician might even need system design to chart his or her own re-election campaign. I believe that system design is of relevance to the medical staff of a hospital which has been asked to cut costs, as well to workers involved in designing protocols to fight new diseases. System design is certainly important to those of us in education who have to master critical think- ing skills and apply them to shape other minds. System design should be of relevance to both, hard and soft system designers, where the distinction between hard and soft refers to the differentiation between physico-mechanistic system domains, as found mainly in the physical and natural sciences, and biological- behavioral domains, as usually found in the behavioral sciences, the social sciences, management science, industrial engineering, engineering management, and the like. System design aims to make readers aware of new approaches and new methodologies as well as to raise awareness of the importance of metamodeling in problem solving. Overlooking the metamodeling perspective may help explain many of our costly mistakes in system design. As an author, I hope to spark interest in new ideas and to keep asking questions in order to improve our solutions to the problems that beset us on Planet Earth and beyond. As my patient readers will soon find out, the "Earth and beyond" to which I am referring is not an empty ix x PREFACE metaphysical entity, but rather a metareality which exists, here and now, in the realm of organizational decision making. As the verse at the beginning of the book states, to create an artifact requires the skills and knowledge of an expert who works at three levels of abstraction. The designer must take turns to be scientist, epistemologist, and artist. The assessments of all three are needed to ensure a design's success. As this book draws to a close, I prefer the position of the artist, who can "apprehend"* and contemplate the work "in its entirety,"* while awaiting the reader's verdict. * Terms borrowed from Langer. See Ref. 24 in Chapter 10. John P. van Gigch Sacramento, CA Acknowledgment This book is dedicated to my students, without whom I would have no audience. In particular, I would like to thank J. Borghino, John R. Crawford, T. Delacroix, Kim Handy, Sarah Harper, Doug Orahood, Maria Pereira, Carol Simonini, Susan Takeda, and many others whose ideas have been included in this book. May this acknowledgment encourage them to be inquisitive and insightful and never settle for simple answers to complex problems. xi Contents Plan of Book. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Part I: The Nature of Reality 1. The Modem View of Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2. The System Approach: Introduction and Examples . . . . . . . 29 3. The System Approach: Applied System Theory .......... 61 Part D: Modeling 4. Decision Making and the System Paradigm 101 5. Modeling. . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. . . . .. ... ... . . .. .. .. ... 119 6. Model Types....................................... 137 7. Complexity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 171 8. Control and Regulation. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . . . .. .. 189 xiii xiv CONTENTS Part III: Metamodeling 9. The Metasystem Paradigm: Metasystem Design 225 10. Abstraction ........................................ 233 11. Metamodeling ...................................... 255 12. Metamodeling: More Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 275 13. Diagnosis and Metamodeling of System Failures . . . . . . . .. 297 Part IV: Metamodeling and Organizational Decision Making 14. The Metasystem Approach to Organizational Decision Making............................................ 315 15. The Metasystem, Rationalities and, Information ......... 333 16. Rationalities and Metarationalities in Organizational Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 343 17. The Metasystem Paradigm: Applications ............... 359 18. The Morality of System Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 399 Glossary ...................................................... 423 References ...................................................... 429 Index ...................................................... 449 Plan of Book REALITY appraising Ihenature of rea lily choice of paradigm acquisition of knowledge REALITY I II MODELING MODELING III METAMODELING METAMODELING III Plan of Book. SYSTEM DESIGN requires an understanding of three domains: REALITY, MODELING, and METAMODELING. As the preceding illustration demonstrates, system design requires an understanding of three domains: 1. Reality, 2. Modeling, and 3. Metamodeling. We propose to study these domains from the perspective of three different inquiring systems, as follows: 1. An inquiring system which studies reality (Part I), 2. An inquiring system which works at the level of modeling (Part II), and 3. An inquiring system which operates at the level of metamodeling (Parts III and IV). Unless we understand the nature of reality, we cannot model successfully. Likewise, the system design process requires that we understand the intrinsic nature of modeling, the study of which involves what we call metamodeling. The process of abstraction is used to create models from reality (modeling) and to create metamodels from models (metamodeling). 3 I The Nature of Reality SYSTEM DESIGN I REAL WORLD SYSTEM DESIGN INTRODUCTION TO PART I Part I has three chapters. Chapter 1 shows how knowledge uncovered by science is in a constant state of flux and illustrates how, in the course of time, the worldviews and the paradigms of scientific disciplines are brought into question and modified. The chapter questions the traditional views and methodologies of the social sciences and asks whether they can, or should, yield truths as rigorous as those obtained in the physical and natural sciences. In Chapters 2 and 3, we introduce the reader to systems thinking. The systems approach is offered as an alternative methodology which can begin to solve some of the problems of complexity. It was developed to overcome some of the perceived shortcomings of previous approaches. Chapters 2 and 3 contain material which appeared in J. P. van Gigch, Applied General Systems Theory, 2nd ed. (Harper and Row, London and New York, 1978). Copyright © 1978 by John P. van Gigch. 7 1 The Modern View of Reality ASCENDANCY OF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES The models upon which research and education in many of the social sciences are built assume the primacy of quantitative methods in decision making. Further- more, they are based on assumptions that are probably obsolete or that have suffered drastic change in the last 100 years. In general, these assumptions are based on an epistemology that is (1) positivistic, (2) mechanistic, and (3) reductionist. By this we mean the following: 1. Positivistic refers to a school of thought, popular in the late 19th century, which assumed that~ given time, science would solve all major riddles and would provide society with the key well-being for all. 2. Mechanistic means that most phenomena are machine-like artifacts (see Glossary) devoid of biological and behavioral attributes. 3. Reductionist is associated with the mechanistic view, according to which problems can be solved by breaking down (analyzing) systems into their component parts, much as a machine is disassembled for repair. The mechanistic-reductionist view is related to a scientific model that is closed. It has been superseded by the system model, to be considered below, which is open. In addition, the obsolete epistemology assumes that reality is usually (1) con- crete or tangible, (2) continuous and linear, and (3) deterministic and controllable. Obviously, not all domains are concrete or tangible. However, given our materialistic attitudes, our tendency is to deal with the aspects of a problem that can be readily seen and handled. For example, if we are concerned with a recreation problem, we usually give priority to the so-called primary benefits, which can be measured, such as the number of visitor-days at a park or the average amount spent per family. It is not a mere coincidence that the primary benefits are those that can easily be described and counted. Further, it is not surprising that the so-called secondary benefits are those that are intangible, or not readily translatable into numbers, including such psychic rewards as the enjoyment and the decrease in mental stress which can result from park visits. It is pertinent to remind readers that variables can be classified along a parametric-nonparametric continuum, 9 10 CHAPTER 1 where variables representing physical properties and attributes are labeled "parametric" and variables that represent nonphysical properties (such as those studied in the behavioral sciences) are labeled "nonparametric." The parametric- non parametric spectrum corresponds roughly with the tangible-intangible con- tinuum. Furthermore, as we go from parametric to nonparametric variables, the scale of measurement is weaker, although the variables are fully measurable. However, here we can apply only the nominal and ordinal scales of measurement, whereas in the parametric realm, the interval and ordinal scales are acceptable. For more on the differentiation of scales of measurement and of the variables to which they can be applied, refer to van Gigch 1 which is devoted to quantification and problems of measurement. We prefer to deal with domains whose variables are continuous and linear. To facilitate study, we make the bold assumption that no discontinuities exist (even when they do), or we assume that relationships are linear (even when they are not). As a result of the ascendancy of the physical sciences, scientists as well as laypeople started to believe that everything in nature, including people, behaves according to immutable and inviolable laws which, to a great extent, negate the will. Furthermore, given that humankind is, for the most part, pragmatic and action-oriented, we prefer to deal with problems that are likely to be solved and whose solutions offer a modicum of the possibility of success. In general, we tend to reject out of hand ideal or long-term solutions where the risk factor is difficult to assess. Controllable solutions are those that can easily be implemented and whose results can be accounted for. Thus, we prefer what is more certain and short- term (sometimes called the "myopic" or "near-by" view) to what is uncertain and long-term. Unfortunately, the best solutions are, more often than not, related to the latter rather than the former. The real world and the reality we face are much different from what we have assumed, either because of our anachronistic assumptions or because of our natural tendency to solve what is easiest and closest at hand. As we shall show in what follows, there are strong reasons why we must change our epistemological and methodological positions and revise the attitudes and assumptions which regulate our research and our inquiry. We will try to justify proposed modifications that we think should apply to the paradigms and methods which underlie our whole scientific endeavor. If we persist in holding obsolete worldviews, the solutions proposed to solve our ills will not work, because they are based on erroneous notions about the world and our environment. THE INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY AND INDUS TRIA LlZA TION Physics has always been at the foundation of our understanding of the forces of the universe. Mathematics and physics share the distinction of being two of the most important disciplines which shape the way we see reality and the way we make decisions to control it. To physics we owe the laws of mechanics, electricity, light, and acoustics and the rules which govern all engineering designs, from our THE MODERN VIEW OF REALITY 11 high buildings to our speedy automobiles. Even chemistry owes its enviable progress to advances in molecular and atomic physics. When we use the law of gravity and the laws of thermodynamics to determine the physical measurements and parameters that regulate our daily lives, we are also heavily influenced by the know- ledge which we have acquired in physics. It is interesting to note that the laws that govern most of our decisions concerning time, energy, and matter are based on what can be called traditional physics, which is not far removed from the Newtonian mechanics developed in the 18th century. On the one hand, as a result of the advent of the industrial age, we have reached a sophisticated level of technology which is the combined result of mechanization, of the advent of electricity, and of innumerable chemical and other technological discoveries. On the other hand, all this progress has created terrible havoc on our planet Earth, including mountains of waste and radioactive material. In the last few decades, we have suffered serious deterioration of the environment, demonstrated, for example, by the breaking up of the ozone layer and the effects of acid rain. We have also witnessed major disasters, as exemplified by accidents of nuclear-energy plants (e.g., Three Mile Island and Chernobyl) and in the chemical industry (Bhopal, in India), by serious land and water degradation due to indiscriminate dumping of toxic wastes, and by accidents caused by lack of proper foresight or governmental oversight, as shown by the Gulf of Alaska oil spill in 1989. It would be absurd to solely blame science of the scientific establishment for all these ills. However, there is no doubt that society is reassessing the unlimited confidence it has placed in these institutions. It would appear that this blind trust in science as the provider of a bountiful and untainted standard of living may have been ill-founded. Is it possible that the scientific establishment that brings us miraculous technological improvements is the same one that wreaks havoc with our air, water, and land? Should we blame ourselves for not managing wisely the innovations brought about by our newly found knowledge? Indeed, humankind is at the same time inventor and manager. If failures always accompany successes, it is time to question whether we are too hasty in implementing our newly acquired innovations without understanding their consequences. It may well be that we do not understand the reality of nature as well as we should and that, as a conse- quence, we make flagrant mistakes in designing systems. This chapter is devoted to exploring this possibility and to offering reasons for these deviations, if they can be found. The "new physics" is different from the old, traditional physics to which we owe past innovations. Apart from Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which drastically revised Newton's paradigm of physics, other advances have contributed to providing us with a new vision of reality. In the short space of fifty years, the picture of the atom, which was said to be made up of electrons revolving around a nucleus (still the view in books of physics used in high school during the author's life time) has been drastically altered: the modern view (which, by the way, is suffering daily changes in our physics laboratories with their cyclotrons and linear accelerators) contends that matter is made up of a myriad of subatomic particles. While the world of subatomic matter is still the subject of daily scientific investiga- 12 CHAPTER 1 tion, we must admit that this research is not affecting the course of our daily lives very much: houses are still being built with cement and mortar, and we plant com and wheat the way our ancestors did. However, this is not quite the whole story. Physics has not only brought about changes in our view of the universe at the subatomic level, but its discoveries have also left an important legacy that may affect the very way we think not only about physical reality but also about the biological, behavioral, social, and other realities which also surround us. These changes are related not so much to the laws of physics discovered in the last hundred years or so, but to the epistemological and philosophical implications of these laws and of their conclusions. How can changes in the world of subatomic physics affect other disciplines? The world of physics is very different from that of the social sciences. However, there are important lessons to be learned from the paradigm shift in physics. First, we must learn the lesson that paradigms evolve and that we cannot remain wedded to obsolete perspectives about the world. Second, we must learn that if physics, one of the most fundamental of disciplines, has modified its epistemological and para- digmatic positions, it may be time for the social sciences to consider whether these modifications are relevant to them, too. Third, the deterministic and positivistic stance of traditional physics has given way to the more skeptical and questioning attitude of modem physics, which pervades epistemology and methodology alike. For good or evil, the social sciences and allied disciplines have always borrowed heavily from the methodological approaches of the physical sciences. Therefore, itis relevant to ask whether the social sciences should also investigate some of the modifications adopted by modem physics and adapt them to its own use. We have always been partly of the opinion that the social sciences should develop their own paradigms and not be wedded to those of the so-called exact sciences. (For a discussion of this subject, see Ref. 2.) However, given that the social sciences have, since their inception, imitated the physical sciences, it is relevant to study how the changes in the paradigm of physics apply to the paradigm of the contemporary social sciences. In particular, we shall evaluate how these changes affect (i) the nature of the reality under study, (ii) the model(s) that we formulate to study this reality, and (iii) the methods and strategies used to manage solutions to everyday problems. Students usually receive the erroneous impression that the absolute and the perfect reign in the world. Furthermore, as a result of many years of instruction throughout their elementary and secondary schooling, they rigidly adhere to a mind-set which emphasizes the primacy of the concrete and of the physical world. Apart from this orientation toward the physical and mechanical and away from the biological and behavioral, they also tend to see and interpret the world through mental models which emphasize thinking and sensing over intuition and feeling. After high school, many lose the ability to use their imagination and to think THE MODERN VIEW OF REALITY 13 abstractly. Another tendency which emphasizes the primacy of the physical and concrete is the attempt of the "softer" social sciences to become overscientific. This effort has taken the form of transferring the methods of the physical sciences to the social sciences. We strongly decry this effort because it overlooks the specific nature of social-science domains. We have already discussed this point at lengh elsewhere 2 and concluded that what is needed is the design of an epistemology and a paradigm specific to the social sciences. It is to this effort that this book is devoted. If the budding scientists and managers of tomorrow can be trained to better understand the nature of reality, they may be able to avoid the costly mistakes that our generation has made. We must modify the ontological outlook, the mind-set, the mental attitudes, approaches, and methodologies which pervade society. 3 The social sciences and ancillary disciplines-for example, the behavioral sciences (anthropology, psychology, & sociology), geography, economics, social work, management science, management information science, and business administration-are ripe to accept new knowledge, which may in turn affect the way in which these disciplines are taught. THE INFLUENCE OF MODERN PHYSICS ON ALL OF SCIENCE During the last hundred years, changes brought about in the paradigm of modern physics have modified the view of reality held by that discipline. Due to momentous discoveries in the fields of relativity, quantum mechanics, and the like, physics has revised its epistemology (i.e., its methods of reasoning and of inquiry). As a result of discoveries such as Bohr's Complementarity Theorem, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and Godel's Theorem, modern physics is changing its approach to modeling, measurement and research design. Physics, and by the example of physics the rest of the scientific world, is now less sanguine about its pronouncements concerning the nature of reality and of truth. By these discoveries, modern physics has revolutionized the methodology at our disposal to study the world as well as modified our earlier assurances that our deterministic, no-failure approach would provide us with the tools to attempt the control of nature. This uncertainty and loss of confidence has not as yet spilled over into the social sciences and other related disciplines. Rather, they still pursue the positivist model of research, which is grounded on very definite, exact, and inflexible methods based on an obsolete model of what we now know about reality. This chapter aims to describe how the subject material in the social sciences and related disciplines is affected by the changes in the methodology and approach that result from contemporary discoveries in the so-called exact sciences as well as other changes which influence the scientific and epistemological stance and the direction of research and of inquiry of the major sciences. Modern discoveries in physics should provide ample evidence that our image of the world as inherited from Newton has been superseded. Physics, the most exact