source:

(PDF) Improving the Systems Thinking Skills of the Systems Architect via Aesthetic Interpretation of Art

Improving the Systems Thinking Skills of the Systems Architect via Aesthetic Interpretation of Art

• July 2017 INCOSE International Symposium 27(1):1340-1354

• DOI: 10.1002/j.2334-5837.2017.00432.x

• Project: 
• Systems engineering: Learning from artistic endeavors

• Tom McDermott
• Alejandro Salado

continues and full pdf in source:

(PDF) Improving the Systems Thinking Skills of the Systems Architect via Aesthetic Interpretation of Art

A perspective on systems thinking, architecting, and art

Tom McDermottAlejandro SaladoFirst published: 02 September 2019 https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2622Citations: 9Read the full textPDFTOOLSSHARE

Abstract

Systems architecture has been considered as both an art and a science. The systems architect uses heuristics, stories, and models to communicate complex architectural concepts to stakeholders. Since the earliest times, master building architects have developed their skills broadly across the technical, business, and fine art domains. Why should engineering be different? Principles and practices of systems architecture are exhibited in the creation of film scores, fine arts, and building architecture. Why not teach art as a core skill of the systems architect? In this work, we explore a formal competency model linking art, systems thinking, and systems architecture. We associate competencies across these domains with the concept of elegant design. We explore formal education in the arts as a way to bridge the communication problems that technical architects have with their stakeholders. The goal is to improve the competencies of systems architects and systems thinkers by bringing the methods of the art studio class to systems education.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sres.2622

pdf

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.sci-hub.se/doi/abs/10.1002/sres.2622

source:

Cynefin and Critical Systems Thinking (CST): A further contribution to the debate | LinkedIn

Cynefin and Critical Systems Thinking (CST): A further contribution to the debate

• Published on April 8, 2021

Status is reachableDr Mike C Jackson OBECentre for Systems Studies9 articles Following

I recently wrote a CST review (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/critical-systems-thinking-overview-gapps-eu-science-jackson-obe/) of the EU Science Hub/Cynefin Centre Field Guide to leadership in times of complexity. Dave Snowden has written a detailed and considered response (https://stream.syscoi.com/2021/03/29/naturalising-narrated-cognitive-edge-dave-snowden-response-to-two-recent-mike-jackson-pieces/ ), for which I thank him. It has helped me gain a clearer understanding of his ‘naturalising’ approach to complexity and of our differences. This contribution to the debate is meant to further mutual understanding.

continues (and please comment) in source:

Cynefin and Critical Systems Thinking (CST): A further contribution to the debate | LinkedIn

High Tech Heroes, #10, part 2: Heinz von Foerster and Cybernetics

High Tech Heroes, #10, part 2: Heinz von Foerster and Cybernetics – YouTube

Patrick Hoverstadt, ‘Strategy at the speed of thought’ SD 480p

Patrick Hoverstadt, ‘Strategy at the speed of thought’ SD 480p – YouTube

source

A guide to ontology, epistemology, and philosophical perspectives for interdisciplinary researchers – Integration and Implementation Insights

A guide to ontology, epistemology, and philosophical perspectives for interdisciplinary researchers

May 2, 2017

By Katie Moon and Deborah Blackman

How can understanding philosophy improve our research? How can an understanding of what frames our research influence our choices? Do researchers’ personal thoughts and beliefs shape research design, outcomes and interpretation?

These questions are all important for social science research. Here we present a philosophical guide for scientists to assist in the production of effective social science (adapted from Moon and Blackman, 2014).

Understanding philosophy is important because social science research can only be meaningfully interpreted when there is clarity about the decisions that were taken that affect the research outcomes. Some of these decisions are based, not always knowingly, on some key philosophical principles, as outlined in the figure below.

Philosophy provides the general principles of theoretical thinking, a method of cognition, perspective and self-awareness, all of which are used to obtain knowledge of reality and to design, conduct, analyse and interpret research and its outcomes. The figure below shows three main branches of philosophy that are important in the sciences and serves to illustrate the differences between them.

(Source: Moon and Blackman 2014)

continues in source:

A guide to ontology, epistemology, and philosophical perspectives for interdisciplinary researchers – Integration and Implementation Insights

source:

Power dynamics: A systemic inquiry | by Anna Birney | School of System Change | Medium

Power dynamics: A systemic inquiry

Anna BirneyFollowingJan 20 · 17 min read

Why this article? Purpose and position

The word power keeps popping up wherever I turn. Through my ten years of doing my doctorate action research it was all over my notes and reflections. I kept pushing it out of what I was writing about and feeling scared to even go there as if the power of it itself was too much to face or to look at, as if it was just too complex and unknown. In the end I could not ignore the question and did reflect on what it meant for the work I had been doing. I concluded that the field of systems change did need to really integrate it more into its work. Fast forward a couple of years and the question kept on slapping me in the face, not literally but in the questioning of who you choose to facilitate a session, how you frame the work, make decisions and so forth — saying to me — come one you said it was important to what the hell are you doing about it!

This article therefore is trying to pull together some of the thread of the last four or five years of looking at the journey so far and what I have learnt. I have put off publishing this for eighteen months as if the final answer or way to present it will come, but that I also realise is a putting off — so here is some of the messy journey of stumbling around in the dark.

This article there has a few elements to it.

• Firstly how the issue of power relates to the systemic sustainability challenges we are facing — from climate change, deep inequalities that through the mirror that is our time in Covid has been seen even more acutely and how we might see the way they interrelate and are part of the same issues.
• Secondly exploring the concept of power and how it relates to systems change;
• Thirdly, looking at some of the insights about what makes up the dynamics of power, that are based in both our histories, and wider context as well as how that manifests in us individually and needs work all levels;
• Finally starting to explore some framings of the strategies we might take to work with power.

continues in source:

Not wishing to trigger anyone, but. Here this is.

source:

Three forms of meaning and the management of complexity. – PsycNET

Three forms of meaning and the management of complexity.

Peterson, Jordan B.

Citation

Peterson, J. B. (2013). Three forms of meaning and the management of complexity. In K. D. Markman, T. Proulx, & M. J. Lindberg (Eds.), The psychology of meaning (p. 17–48). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14040-002

Abstract

We live in a sea of complexity (Peterson & Flanders, 2002). The boundaries of the objects we manipulate are not simply given by those objects. Every object or situation can be perceived in an infinite number of ways (Medin & Aguilar, 1999), and each action or event has an infinite number of potential consequences. We frame our objects by eradicating vast swathes of information, intrinsically part of those objects and categories but irrelevant to our current, subjectively defined purposes (Norretranders, 1998). How do we manage this miracle of simplification? This chapter addresses this question from a neurodevelopmental and evolutionary perspective. The world manifests itself to us in the form of meaning. Such meaning, however, does not take a single form. Instead, it makes itself known in three different classes. The first class includes the most basic, universal and evolved forms of functional simplifications. This class, meanings of the known, familiar, or determinate world, includes the meanings of individual and social identity that simplify and structure the world. The second class includes those that arise to challenge the integrity of our current known or determinate worlds. This class, meanings of the unknown, foreign, or indeterminate world, includes the meanings of anomaly or novelty—the unexplored world. The third class includes those that arise as a consequence of the integrated interaction of the first two classes. This class, meanings of the conjunction of the known and the unknown, includes the meanings arising in the course of voluntary exploratory behavior. These are the existential meanings intrinsic to individual experience. Consideration of all three classes provides a comprehensive, differentiated portrait of meaning, free from paradox. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

pdf:

David Chapman: “It is not entirely clear that anything can be reduced to anything else”

source:

Reduction: the Cheshire cat problem and a return to roots | SpringerLink

Reduction: the Cheshire cat problem and a return to roots

• Kenneth F. Schaffner 

Synthese volume 151, pages377–402(2006)Cite this article

Abstract

In this paper, I propose two theses, and then examine what the consequences of those theses are for discussions of reduction and emergence. The first thesis is that what have traditionally been seen as robust, reductions of one theory or one branch of science by another more fundamental one are a largely a myth. Although there are such reductions in the physical sciences, they are quite rare, and depend on special requirements. In the biological sciences, these prima facie sweeping reductions fade away, like the body of the famous Cheshire cat, leaving only a smile. … The second thesis is that the “smiles” are fragmentary patchy explanations, and though patchy and fragmentary, they are very important, potentially Nobel-prize winning advances. To get the best grasp of these “smiles,” I want to argue that, we need to return to the roots of discussions and analyses of scientific explanation more generally, and not focus mainly on reduction models, though three conditions based on earlier reduction models are retained in the present analysis. I briefly review the scientific explanation literature as it relates to reduction, and then offer my account of explanation. The account of scientific explanation I present is one I have discussed before, but in this paper I try to simplify it, and characterize it as involving field elements (FE) and a preferred causal model system (PCMS) abbreviated as FE and PCMS. In an important sense, this FE and PCMS analysis locates an “explanation” in a typical scientific research article. This FE and PCMS account is illustrated using a recent set of neurogenetic papers on two kinds of worm foraging behaviors: solitary and social feeding. One of the preferred model systems from a 2002 Nature article in this set is used to exemplify the FE and PCMS analysis, which is shown to have both reductive and nonreductive aspects. The paper closes with a brief discussion of how this FE and PCMS approach differs from and is congruent with Bickle’s “ruthless reductionism” and the recently revived mechanistic philosophy of science of Machamer, Darden, and Craver.

pdf:

https://link.springer.com.sci-hub.se/article/10.1007/s11229-006-9031-2

source:

Epistemological and empirical challenges of Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory: an interview with professors Álvaro Pires and Lukas Sosoe

Epistemological and empirical challenges of Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory: an interview with professors Álvaro Pires and Lukas Sosoe

DESAFIOS EPISTEMOLÓGICOS E EMPÍRICOS DA TEORIA DOS SISTEMAS DE NIKLAS LUHMANN: ENTREVISTA COM OS PROFESSORES ÁLVARO PIRES E LUKAS SOSOE

Álvaro Pires, Interviewees¹ 
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5927-9091

Lukas Sosoe, Interviewees² 
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0416-3475

Lucas Fucci Amato, Interviewers³ 
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8923-8300

Marco Antonio Loschiavo Leme de Barros, Interviewers^4  5 
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9465-8783

Gabriel Ferreira da Fonseca, Interviewers^6  7 
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7401-7644

¹ University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

² University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg

³ University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

⁴ University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

⁵ Mackenzie Presbyterian University, São Paulo, Brazil

⁶ Estácio University Center of Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil

⁷ Salvador University Center (Uniceusa), Salvador, Brazil

INTRODUCTION

Niklas Luhmann (1927-1998) built one of the most encompassing and abstract sociological theories of the 20th century. Bringing to sociology the radical constructivism developed by transdisciplinary scientists such as the mathematician George Spencer-Brown, the physicist Heinz von Foester, and the biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, Luhmann renewed the bases of understanding society and its subsystems – including law, science, politics, economy and many others. Two decades after the death of this German sociologist, his views on world society, communication and functional differentiation have given rise to an immense body of literature that focuses on analyzing a variety of questions. But how to deal with the scale and abstraction of this theory and apply it to the understanding of localized legal phenomena, such as crime and punishment, or ethics and courts?

In this interview, this discussion was posed to two leading Luhmannian scholars who work specially in the Francophone academy. Álvaro Pires, Distinguished University Professor at the University of Ottawa (Canada), and Lukas Sosoe, Full Professor at the University of Luxembourg, were interviewed in São Paulo, on August 22, 2019. Professors Pires and Sosoe have parallel academic trajectories, having worked together in some projects and symposiums. Professor Pires conducted pioneer works on empirical and criminological research with systemic approaches. Professor Sosoe works with legal theory, ethics, contemporary political philosophy and European studies. He has worked on translations to the French of many books by Niklas Luhmann. In this interview, both scholars explore the limitations and potentials for addressing empirical and historical questions within systems theory and present their views on the epistemological innovations that radical constructivism brings for socio-legal studies.

Continues in source:

The primary audience were 3^rd year undergraduates at The University of Hull working on a module called SMART: Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity

https://youtu.be/T3LyUv7LZLk

You can also click here to see all the events in a browser. Note that we have moved into summer time and all meeting times therefore are GMT+1 or CET+1.

______________________________________________________________

  SCiO UK

SCiO UK “Metaphor” Special Virtual Development Event – April 2021

Mon 12 April 2021 19:00–21:00 GMT +1

This Virtual Development Event will be a Metaphor Special.   SCiO’s Development Days offer an opportunity to draw upon the collective expertise of SCiO members in a friendly and supportive atmosphere. By taking Development Events online, using the Zoom meeting platform, we aim to make them accessible to more SCiO members Development Events are both for members who are just starting out on a journey to explore Systems Thinking approaches, and for those who have many years of exploration and practice….

Members only; FREE to members; Online event (Zoom); English; Book now

SCiO UK Virtual Open Meeting – May 2021

Mon 17 May 2021 18:30–20:30 GMT+1

Virtual Open Meeting: A series of presentations of general interest to Systems & Complexity in Organisation’s members and others. SCiO organises Open Meetings to provide opportunities for practitioners to learn and develop new practice, to build relationships, networks hear about skills, tools, practice and experiences. This virtual session will be held on Zoom, more details will be confirmed nearer the time…

·         topic to be confirmed – Ben Simpson,  Denis Bourne

·         The Arts and Systems Thinking  – Tom McDermott

All welcome; FREE; Online event (Zoom); English; Book now

“Later in the bar” – SCiO UK May 2021

Mon 24 May 2021 19:00–21:00 GMT+1

“Later in the bar” is a SCiO UK networking event where we try to recapture some of the features of meeting in the bar after an open meeting. This is an opportunity to mingle freely (online) and set your own agenda. These social networking events are different from the open days (speakers and discussion) and member-only development days (each agenda slot filled set by members for learning discussions). Social networking events combine some initial small group work and provide completely open opportunities to mingle as individuals and groups. The format will vary slightly based on numbers.

All welcome; FREE; Online event (Zoom); English; Book now  

______________________________________________________________

  SCiO Belgium

SCiO Belgium – digitale meeting editie april 2021

Wed 28 April 2021 18:00–20:30 CET+1

Virtuele meeting (Zoom) waar we telkens inzoomen op één topic gebracht door een inspirerende spreker, waarna we een mind-openende én verdiepende dialoog houden. 19:00 Welkom & introductie 19:20 Netwerk moment SCiO-stijl 19:30 ‘Reorganiseren voor groei tijdens Covid’ – Wim Focquet – DPD – HR Directeur (Nl) 20:30 Verdiepende dialoog 21:15 Conclusies & dankwoord. Het Belgische netwerk is een Nederlandstalig netwerk. SCiO is een breed netwerk van professionals in organisatie ontwikkeling, organisatie design, en de systemische bege….

Members only; FREE; Online event (Zoom); Dutch; Book now

______________________________________________________________

   SCiO DACH (Deutschland, Österreich, Schweiz)

SCiO DACH: One System – One Hour: System 3*

Fri 16 April 2021 17:00–18:00 CET+1

Moderiertes Diskussionsforum über die Eigenschaften und Aufgaben des Systems 3* im VSM. Basis der Diskussion sins die Bücher “Viabilitiy of Organizations Vol. 1-3” von Wolfgang Lassl.

Members only + Guests; KOSTENLOS; Online event (Zoom); German; Book now

SCiO DACH: Kybernetik-Stammtisch

Fri 21 May 2021 17:00–19:00 CET+1

Offenes Format zum freien Austausch und zur Diskussion über Themen wie Systeme, Systems Thinking, Organisationsformen und -Entwicklung, Viable System Model, usw. Alle Interessierten sind herzlich willkommen!…

All welcome; KOSTENLOS; Online event (Zoom); German; Book now

______________________________________________________________

  SCiO Espana

SCiO Espana – La evolución organizacional – Abril 2021

Tue 27 April 2021 19:00–21:00 GMT+1

La evolución organizacional La esencial triple pregunta de los seres humanos, “quién soy, de dónde vengo y a dónde voy”, es perfectamente aplicable a las organizaciones que, en definitiva, no dejan de ser agregaciones de personas conformando un sistema complejo. En este pequeño espacio  vamos a realizar un rápido recorrido a las tipologías organizativas, sus estados de evolución y cómo descubrir “dónde está” cada una, aspecto fundamental para valorar cuáles son sus posibles opciones de transformación y evolución desde una perspectiva consciente y sostenible.  Presentado por Pedro Martín de Hijas.

All welcome; FREE; Online event (Zoom); Spanish; Book now

______________________________________________________________

  SCiO Nederland

SCiO-NL April 2021 meeting – Imagineering

Fri 9 April 2021 14:00–16:00 CET+1

This month SCIO-NL will be hosting a presentation on Imagineering. People most commonly associate ‘imagineering’ with Disney, but this is definitely too limited a view.  Imagineering includes elements of complexity theory and systems thinking and uses this knowledge specifically in a human-oriented approach to change. The presentation will be given by Iris de Jong, who has a degree in imagineering and uses it successfully as an independent contractor. The presentation will be in English, so international members are more than welcome….

Members only + Guests; FREE; Online event; English; Book now

A May event is to be posted. Please check on the website.

source:

Systems Thinking Ontario – 2021-04-12

April 12 (the second Monday of the month) is the 89th meeting for Systems Thinking Ontario. The registration is on Eventbrite at https://pattern-language-schuler.eventbrite.ca

Patterns and Pattern Languages Supporting Cross-boundary Collaboration

For our April session of Systems Thinking Ontario, we will be honoured to have Douglas Schuler join us online from Seattle.

Doug was exposed to the original A Pattern Language in the mid-1970s. It aimed to generate towns and buildings that would be alive and life-affirming. That framework and perspective served to orient and structure collaboration under the auspices of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR). The Directions and Implications of Advanced Computing conference in 2001 attracted over 100 pattern proposals. These were ultimately transformed into the Liberating Voices pattern language containing 136 patterns by 75 authors. This body of work is available online and in a book published by MIT Press in 2008.

This pattern language addresses collaboration and civic intelligence, a critical under-developed resource necessary for democratic societies and public problem solving. Doug has led workshops in his teaching at the Evergreen State College, and with community groups designing actions and projects, around the world.

Doug is looking forward to an open discussion on the potential for patterns and pattern languages to help address wicked problems on a large scale, via technology, loose coordination, and social commitments.

Douglas Schuler is currently chair of ACM SIGCAS and president of the Public Sphere Project as a non-profit organization in the State of Washington. Doug is Professor Emeritus at The Evergreen State College, former Chair of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), and a founding member of the Seattle Community Network (SCN).

Venue:

• The link for a Zoom conference will be sent upon preregistration.

Suggested pre-reading:

Public Sphere Project

• Ongoing work at https://labs.publicsphereproject.org/

Seattle Community Network

• “Defund Big Tech, Refund Community”, https://techotherwise.pubpub.org/defund-big-tech.

Christopher Alexander’s early work.

• In 1968, Christopher Alexander wrote about “Systems Generating Systems“.
• Also in 1968, he was developing “A Pattern Language Which Generates Multi-Service Centers“.
• Alexander published A Pattern Language. in 1977, then The Timeless Way of Building in 1979. These works targeted built environments (i.e. architecture of physical places).

Agenda in original link:

Systems Thinking Ontario – 2021-04-12

Please comment at the original link https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6782692265593737216/

Looking for a few good starter papers and books on the history of complexity science, theory and applied practices. I’m particularly interested in the key research disputes, different traditions and paradigmatic/theoretical separations. Could be from the humanities, or natural or social sciences. I want to ease myself in and then explore from there. What’s worked for you?

Post | Feed | LinkedIn

Stafford Beer Collection.- Intro to Cybernetics Liverpool Poly 1991

Stafford Beer Collection.- Intro to Cybernetics Liverpool Poly 1991 – YouTube

source:

ASC: Foundations: History: Timeline

One good way of obtaining a historical overview of a discipline is to review a summary outline of its evolution. This page offers a summary timeline of events relevant to cybernetics.Unfortunately, assembling a linear timeline for cybernetics is not as straightforward as is the case for other disciplines. Cybernetics precipitated out of diverse threads of work fortuitously intersecting during the 1940’s. In the ensuing decades, the themes circumscribing cybernetics’ original definition diverged again to engender or facilitate the rise of an even greater diversity of fields, labels, and disciplines.The timeline below is derived from a number of reference sources. It is deliberately intended to reflect at least a sample of the many subjects and disciplines from which cybernetics descended and into which its themes subsequently flowed. In the early stages, this timeline focuses on the theme of control. As it approaches the 20th century, it begins to reflect developments in fields such as philosophy, biology, mathematics, etc.There is no claim that this timeline is comprehensive, though it’s the most detailed one to be found anywhere on the Internet. If you would like to contribute specific and significant items to be included in this timeline, please contact the Webmaster.