On the Architecture of Systemology and the Typology of Its Principles

Rousseau, David

doi:10.3390/systems6010007

Cited by 25 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this paper, we bring together, and extend, the high-level findings of this research programme. We were also able to generalize our approach to exploring worldviews to create a framework for exploring information categories in other scenarios, which we have presented in a paper and a workshop [60,61] that inspired two case studies, the results of which are scheduled for presentation at two upcoming conferences [62,63].…”

Section: Development Of the Worldview Inquiry Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Framework for Exploring Worldviews and Its Generalization as a Multi-Purpose Inquiry Framework

Rousseau

Billingham

2018

Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systems science methodologies do not have a consistent way of working with worldviews, even though determining stakeholder perspectives is central to systems thinking. In this paper, we propose a comprehensive "Worldview Inquiry Framework" that can be used across methodologies to govern the process of eliciting, documenting, and comparing the worldviews of stakeholders. We discuss the systemicity of worldviews and explain how this can help practitioners to find the roots of stakeholders' disagreements about value judgements. We then generalize the structure of the Worldview Inquiry Framework to produce a "General Inquiry Framework" that can be used to govern an inquiry process in other contexts. We show that the presented Worldview Inquiry Framework is a special case of this General Inquiry Framework and show how the General Inquiry Framework can be tailored for other contexts such as problem solving, product design, and fundamental research.

show abstract

Section: Development Of the Worldview Inquiry Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Framework for Exploring Worldviews and Its Generalization as a Multi-Purpose Inquiry Framework

Rousseau

Billingham

2018

Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Along the way, I have benefitted from the support of numerous collaborators, contributors, and advisors, and I am profoundly grateful to them. Among other things, we have developed many visual schematics, models, and frameworks that have been useful for structuring our thinking about what the activities, knowledge categories, and guidance principles would be for systems science and, more generally, the field of systemology (Rousseau, 2017a,b, 2018a,b; Rousseau & Billingham, ; Rousseau, Billingham, & Calvo‐Amodio, ; Rousseau, Wilby, Billingham, & Blachfellner, ). In the next section, I will present two of these frameworks and show how these can be used to assess the current state of the art in the search for a scientific general theory of systems.…”

Section: Routes For Discovering a Scientific General Theory Of Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A vision for advancing systems science as a foundation for the systems engineering and systems practice of the future

Rousseau

2019

Syst Res Behav Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I argue that the fragmented state and uneven maturity of current systems science will render it increasingly inadequate for meeting the future needs of the engineering and practice disciplines depending on it. I explain that it is not the case that System Science is a holistic discipline in contrast with the reductionism of classical science, but that Systems Science has both reductionistic and holistic dimensions, dealt with respectively by two “movements” within systems science, which I will designate as “Complexity Science” and “Systems Research”. I argue that in many situations the internal workings of a system can be satisfactorily addressed with the mainly reductionistic methods of Complexity Science, whereas when external factors play a significant role, the mainly holistic methods of Systems Research are brought to the fore. This suggest that Complexity Science and Systems Research are not really as disjunct as often portrayed, but represent special cases under a wider conception that would hold across a spectrum of ratios between ‘internal complexity’ and ‘external complexity’ of the system of interest, and that would entail a differential emphasis on reductionistic and holistic methods based on contextual factors. Such a wider conception could not only help to unify systems science, but would also support analysis and intervention in the ‘middle ground’ between these polar types. This is relevant for Systems Engineering and Practice because as the world's complexity grows engineers and practitioners will increasingly have to deal with situations that are complex both internally and externally. This suggests an increasingly urgent need for the development of the envisioned ‘wider conception’ of systems in which we can deal in an elegant and principled way with shifts in the balance between internal and external complexity. In this paper I propose that a scientific general theory of systems could provide such a wider conception, and that it could serve as a basis for the unification of systems science, provide support for the scientific maturation of the discipline, and extend the capability and utility of systems science in important ways. I present approaches and frameworks that would support the development of such a theory, present wide‐ranging evidence suggesting that we are in a favourable position for developing one, and indicate important areas to focus on in future research.

show abstract

“…Systems engineers and practitioners are asked to design, or intervene in, increasingly complex systems as new technologies open up new opportunities for system capability (INCOSE, , p. 16). The risk of budget and schedule overruns and underperformance has been shown to rise exponentially with rising complexity (Augustine, ), and this is evidenced in recent high‐profile failures (Rousseau, , p. 2). The risk of further such failures is exacerbated by the emerging fourth industrial revolution (Morris, ; Schwab, , ).…”

Section: The Rising Challenge Of Complex System Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systemic virtues as a foundation for a general theory of design elegance

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent discussion and research in systems engineering have highlighted the need for a principled approach to attaining elegance in engineered systems, in order to enhance product value and reduce life cycle risks. In this paper, we analyse the “elegance factors” pertaining to designed systems from the perspective of the philosophy of value (axiology) and characterize the elegance factors as “systemic virtues,” analogous to philosophical models of the factors pertaining to the “goodness” of persons and scientific theories. We defend the possibility of the existence and discovery of general systems laws that could ground a general theory of design elegance, and report on our strategy and progress in developing methods for discovering such laws and for developing such a theory.

show abstract

On the Architecture of Systemology and the Typology of Its Principles

Cited by 25 publications

References 35 publications

A Systematic Framework for Exploring Worldviews and Its Generalization as a Multi-Purpose Inquiry Framework

A Systematic Framework for Exploring Worldviews and Its Generalization as a Multi-Purpose Inquiry Framework

A vision for advancing systems science as a foundation for the systems engineering and systems practice of the future

Systemic virtues as a foundation for a general theory of design elegance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About