There are two thoughts that occur to me. First, a systems approach in and
of itself does not guarantee that 1) every single variable has been
captured in the model and 2) the precise relationship between/among all
vriables has been defined.
Second, an important tenet of the systems approach is to recognize delays.
We might do well to carefully distinguish between expressing
disappointment in the systems approach and considering that we might still
be in a delay structure that has not revealed its effect on the system
yet. Further, not getting it right the first time is not necessarily a
valid basis for discrediting the systems approach.
Bill Braun
At 12:45 PM 2/15/1999 +0800, you wrote:
>I have read the current issue of The Economist(13th Feb) and there is a
>new book "Rescuing Prometheus" talking about the effectiveness of the
>systems approach. Actually, the review says that the book was praising the
>applications by the systems approach, especially those engineering systems
>such as the SAGE(Semi-Automated Ground Environment) project. However, the
>review had pointed out the disappointment of the systems approach in
>applying to social problems such as poverty, healthcare and crime. and the
>article accused "those systems enthusiasts woefully underestimated the
>complexity of human behaviour and the great quantities of computing power
>needed to model it in any meaningful way."
>
>I know that Meadows' Limits to Growth and Beyond the Limits are exactly
>dealing with these complicated(or more complicated) issues, is the
>systems-approach-failure includes these two important books? If yes, what
>can we learn form the limitations of systems approach, or simply, systems
>thinking?
>
>Joey Chan
--Bill Braun <medprac@hlthsys.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>