Every Saturday, we gather for insightful Mini Symposia Sessions, where we explore systems science, holistic thinking, and global challenges. Don’t miss the opportunity to engage, learn, and contribute to thought-provoking discussions!
📢 Join us live on Zoom:🔗 https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82698131416?pwd=R1hDVGNTWlk2SzVFYUcrTXVmRTlVZz09
🌎 Time Zones:🕔 Honolulu, USA – 05:00 HST 🕖 Los Angeles, USA – 07:00 PST 🕙 New York, USA – 10:00 EST 🕒 London, UK – 15:00 GMT 🕔 Cape Town, SA – 17:00 SAST 🕣 New Delhi, India – 20:30 IST 🕜 Adelaide, Australia – 01:30 ACDT (Sunday)
🔍 Let’s dive into big ideas, systems perspectives, and transformative discussions! Set your reminders and see you this Saturday!
💬 What topics would you like to explore this week? Drop your thoughts below! 👇 #SystemsScience#HolisticThinking#GlobalCollaboration#JoinTheDiscussion 🚀
Excerpt from a conversation at the American Society for Cybernetics conference 1995 in Chicago about Undecidable Questions… Includes comments from Heinz von Foerster, Herbert Brün, Humberto Maturana, Gordon Pask….
…these concerns are only partly assuaged by the well-respected and popular names guest editing and writing in this edition of the journal.
I would really value opinions of readers on the content of this particular special edition.
On a first scan, some of the papers seem intriguing, some seem a little random, and there still feels to me to be something odd about the editing/writing – previously noted in grappling with this journal – which often leaves me wondering if there have been omissions or edits which have made the meaning of sentences and paragraphs unnecessarily hard to grasp. Perhaps it’s just me.
I would also have been doubtful if someone told me Dave Snowden endorsed the concept of *managing* complexity, but anyway…
can more capable minds than mine help me to understand?]
You can access WWF Scotland’s ageing, but still rather fine, Linking Thinking report here. It was written by Stephen Sterling, Paul Maiteny, Deryck Irving and John Salter. Is it for you? Well, the authors say that if you, or your institution or organisation are:
interested in thinking skills but think the debate so far is ‘missing something’
perplexed or overwhelmed by complexity in our lives
interested in developing understanding about how things interrelate
concerned by too much fragmentation and segregation in educational structures, knowledge, or policy making
interested in the sort of thinking skills, values and concepts that might be needed in the transition towards a more sustainable society,
… then it is. Such a pity not enough people took any notice of this the first time around.
There are quite a few things in this world that get me ranting…and the co-opting of systems thinking is one of them.
Systems Thinking has started being given a lot of attention in our modern culture – you can take multiple courses in systems-thinking, become a ‘systems-thinking expert’ whilst changing or transforming systems is all the range.
But what actually is a system? What does it mean to transform systems? And what is systems thinking anyway?
We are all of us natural-born systems thinkers…it’s how we are born into this world, deeply connected into the web of life. Over time our dominant culture has left us fragmented whilst our education system has taught us to live in separation, rather than in relationship with life. But living in systems, thinking in systems is how life works – and so we don’t need to take courses or read hundreds of books to understand how to do it – we simply need to remember how to relate to the world. Systems thinking is as simple and as profound as understanding that life is all about relationships.
In this week’s episode of Two Inconvenient Women, I get ranty, Holly rethinks growth and we have a juicy conversation about the inconvenience of systems-thinking.
🎧 Available to listen to now on your usual podcast channels:
[Is that the right way to cite this? It’s on Arxiv and Yaneer Bar-Yam is of course the name which stands out… and also named is Alfredo Morales, who sadly passed away before publication
Anyway, brought to my attention by Ivo Velitchkov on Mastodon who says:
“Science is in the business of explanation, not prediction. And #complexity science should know better than any other science that future is unpredictable. Yet, this paper claims it offers “practical tool for prediction”. https://arxiv.org/html/2501.07349v1“
The paper, though, is very interesting albeit it raises more questions in my mind than answers. From two data sets (order to a US manufacturing company, and references to a particular environmental concern in US legislation etc) it purports to show that the ‘sigmoid curve’ predicts both individual and whole-system behaviours – i.e. orders and references in legislation etc start slow, speed up, slow down, then stop. And that this “model is applicable for any system in which entities initiate, accelerate (engaging phase), decelerate (disengaging phase) and finally cease their activity. “
There may be some element of circularity there (no pre-registration or process note to show if other datasets were sought, if characteristics were pre-determined etc) but anyway it’s clear the model is all bottom-up causation with all factors determined within individual entities (and some rather odd references to ‘noise’). Clearly not true for systems for which is this not true, which of course is a truism. So no mention of Lindy effects, no real exogenous factors (economy? environment?), no contagion effects etc… well, if everything can be captured intrinsically then everything can be captured intrinsically….
I also wonder if there’s some sort of mirroring effect where this is just capturing the visibility of the environmental concern to lawmakers/the success of the legislation etc in dealing with the issues, and whether the manufacturer fits in to some natural lifecycle of customers… so in general I’m frustrated that there’s no holistic or contextual thinking brought in to what is otherwise Quite Intriguing].
Leila HedayatifarNew England Complex Systems Institute, 125 Mount Auburn St., Box 380762, Cambridge, MA 02138, USAleila@necsi.edu, yaneer@necsi.eduAlfredo J. MoralesNew England Complex Systems Institute, 125 Mount Auburn St., Box 380762, Cambridge, MA 02138, USADeceasedDominic E. SaadiNew England Complex Systems Institute, 125 Mount Auburn St., Box 380762, Cambridge, MA 02138, USARachel A. RiggNew England Complex Systems Institute, 125 Mount Auburn St., Box 380762, Cambridge, MA 02138, USAOlha BuchelNew England Complex Systems Institute, 125 Mount Auburn St., Box 380762, Cambridge, MA 02138, USAAmir AkhavanNew England Complex Systems Institute, 125 Mount Auburn St., Box 380762, Cambridge, MA 02138, USAEgemen SertDepartment of Computer Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, TürkiyeAabir Abubaker KarNew England Complex Systems Institute, 125 Mount Auburn St., Box 380762, Cambridge, MA 02138, USAMehrzad SasanpourDepartment of Physics, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, IranIrving R. EpsteinNew England Complex Systems Institute, 125 Mount Auburn St., Box 380762, Cambridge, MA 02138, USADepartment of Chemistry, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02453, USAYaneer Bar-YamNew England Complex Systems Institute, 125 Mount Auburn St., Box 380762, Cambridge, MA 02138, USAleila@necsi.edu, yaneer@necsi.edu
Abstract
Predicting dynamic behaviors is one of the goals of science in general as well as essential to many specific applications of human knowledge to real world systems. Here we introduce an analytic approach using the sigmoid growth curve to model the dynamics of individual entities within complex systems. Despite the challenges posed by nonlinearity and unpredictability in system behaviors, we demonstrate the applicability of the sigmoid curve to capture the acceleration and deceleration of growth, predicting an entity’s ultimate state well in advance of reaching it. We show that our analysis can be applied to diverse systems where entities exhibit nonlinear growth using case studies of (1) customer purchasing and (2) U.S. legislation adoption. This showcases the ability to forecast months to years ahead of time, providing valuable insights for business leaders and policymakers. Moreover, our characterization of individual component dynamics offers a framework to reveal the aggregate behavior of the entire system. We introduce a classification of entities based upon similar lifepaths. This study contributes to the understanding of complex system behaviors, offering a practical tool for prediction and system behavior insight that can inform strategic decision making in multiple domains.
keywords:
Sigmoid model, Accelerating and Decelerating phases, Lifepath
Predicting System Dynamics of Universal Growth Patterns in Complex SystemsLeila HedayatifarNew England Complex Systems Institute, 125 Mount Auburn St., Box 380762, Cambridge, MA 02138, USAleila@necsi.edu, yaneer@necsi.eduAlfredo J. MoralesNew England Complex Systems Institute, 125 Mount Auburn St., Box 380762, Cambridge, MA 02138, USADeceasedDominic E. SaadiNew England Complex Systems Institute, 125 Mount Auburn St., Box 380762, Cambridge, MA 02138, USARachel A. RiggNew England Complex Systems Institute, 125 Mount Auburn St., Box 380762, Cambridge, MA 02138, USAOlha BuchelNew England Complex Systems Institute, 125 Mount Auburn St., Box 380762, Cambridge, MA 02138, USAAmir AkhavanNew England Complex Systems Institute, 125 Mount Auburn St., Box 380762, Cambridge, MA 02138, USAEgemen SertDepartment of Computer Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, TürkiyeAabir Abubaker KarNew England Complex Systems Institute, 125 Mount Auburn St., Box 380762, Cambridge, MA 02138, USAMehrzad SasanpourDepartment of Physics, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, IranIrving R. EpsteinNew England Complex Systems Institute, 125 Mount Auburn St., Box 380762, Cambridge, MA 02138, USADepartment of Chemistry, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02453, USAYaneer Bar-YamNew England Complex Systems Institute, 125 Mount Auburn St., Box 380762, Cambridge, MA 02138, USAleila@necsi.edu, yaneer@necsi.eduAbstractPredicting dynamic behaviors is one of the goals of science in general as well as essential to many specific applications of human knowledge to real world systems. Here we introduce an analytic approach using the sigmoid growth curve to model the dynamics of individual entities within complex systems. Despite the challenges posed by nonlinearity and unpredictability in system behaviors, we demonstrate the applicability of the sigmoid curve to capture the acceleration and deceleration of growth, predicting an entity’s ultimate state well in advance of reaching it. We show that our analysis can be applied to diverse systems where entities exhibit nonlinear growth using case studies of (1) customer purchasing and (2) U.S. legislation adoption. This showcases the ability to forecast months to years ahead of time, providing valuable insights for business leaders and policymakers. Moreover, our characterization of individual component dynamics offers a framework to reveal the aggregate behavior of the entire system. We introduce a classification of entities based upon similar lifepaths. This study contributes to the understanding of complex system behaviors, offering a practical tool for prediction and system behavior insight that can inform strategic decision making in multiple domains.keywords: Sigmoid model, Accelerating and Decelerating phases, Lifepath
Face-to-Face Open Meeting: A series of presentations of interest to Systems and Complexity in Organisation’s members and all comers.
By SCiO – Systems and Complexity in Organisation
Date and time
Mon, 31 Mar 2025 09:30 – 17:00 BST
Location
Manchester Business School MBS West, Booth St West Manchester M15 6PBShow map
SCiO holds 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 meeting will be held face-to-face in Manchester, with details of speakers confirmed shortly.
This open meeting explores specific application of systems thinking practice methods and learning, with five sessions. The programme for the day is as follows:
09:30 – Introduction to Systems Thinking (subject tbc)
10:00 – Welcome, SCiO notices and community exercise
10:45 – Fundamentals of Systems Thinking– Matt Lloyd
11:45 – Break
12:15 – Psychological safety as a systemic construct: implications for social services– Joan O’Donnell
13:15- Lunch Break
14:30 –Multi-Methodology Approaches in Systems Thinking – Patrick Hoverstadt, Simon MacCormac
15:30 – Break
16:00 – Fundamentals of System Dynamics – Peter Lacey
17:00 – Later in the Bar for a social
=================================================
About SCiO
SCiO is a community of systems practitioners who believe that traditional approaches to running organisations are responsible for many of the problems we see today. We believe that systemic approaches to designing and running organisations offer radically better alternatives.
SCiO has three main objectives:
Developing practice in applying systems ideas to a range of organisational issues
Disseminating the use of systems approaches in dealing with organisational issues
Supporting practitioners in their professional practice.
Many systems practitioners can feel isolated in their organisations. SCiO provides a way to talk to and get support from a wide range of like minded people and see how they are addressing similar challenges.
SCiO is a non-profit and social enterprise – SCiO started in the UK, but now has groups in several European countries. Please visit our website for further details and sign-up to become a member: http://www.systemspractice.org/
If you have any questions about the event, or booking to attend it, please contact: mike.jones@systemspractice.org
an C. Willems’ behavioral systems theory offers a paradigm shift in understanding dynamical systems by focusing on their ‘behavior’—the set of all possible trajectories—without predefining inputs and outputs. This contrasts with traditional approaches that emphasize input-output relationships.
In this framework, a dynamical system is defined as a triple (T, W, B), where T represents the time set, W denotes the signal space, and B is the behavior comprising all signals that satisfy the system’s laws. This perspective treats all variables equally, allowing for multiple interpretations of cause and effect.
A key advantage of the behavioral approach is its flexibility in modeling complex systems, especially when distinguishing between inputs and outputs is challenging or arbitrary. It has led to new insights in areas such as controllability, where the focus is on the ability to transition between trajectories, and system interconnection, viewed as the sharing of variables among subsystems.
For a comprehensive introduction to this approach, consider the book “Introduction to Mathematical Systems Theory: A Behavioral Approach” by J.W. Polderman and J.C. Willems.
what space of ‘systems theory’ does this belong to? Why, in over ten years of documenting everything I find on www.syscoi.com, have I never come across this before?
ChatGPT said:
Jan C. Willems’ behavioral systems theory is a distinctive approach within systems theory, emphasizing the set of all possible trajectories of a system—its “behavior”—without predefining inputs and outputs. This perspective contrasts with traditional methods that prioritize input-output relationships.
The behavioral approach has been particularly influential in control theory and dynamical systems analysis. It offers a framework that accommodates complex systems where traditional input-output distinctions may be ambiguous or limiting. This methodology has led to advancements in understanding system interconnections and controllability.
Regarding its relative obscurity, several factors might contribute:
Niche Focus: The behavioral approach is primarily applied in specific areas of control theory and mathematical systems analysis. If your research or documentation has concentrated on other aspects of systems theory, it’s possible this particular approach didn’t surface prominently.
Terminology Variations: Differences in terminology can lead to oversight. Willems’ work might be referenced under different terms or within contexts that don’t explicitly label it as “behavioral systems theory.”
Publication Channels: Willems’ contributions are often found in specialized journals and conferences focused on control theory and applied mathematics. If your sources haven’t included these specific outlets, his work might not have been as visible.
To delve deeper into this approach, you might explore Willems’ publications and related literature in control theory and mathematical systems. This could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the behavioral perspective within systems theory.
The Behavioral Approach to Modeling and Control of Dynamical Systems
Jan C. Willems
Dept. of Electrical Engineering University of Leuven Belgium and Mathematics Institute University of Groningen The Netherlands
Abstract
The behavioral approach provides a mathematical framework for modeling, analysis, and synthesis of dynamical systems. The main difference from the classical view is that it does not the input/output partition as its starting point. In this setting, control is viewed as interconnection.
EVA ZERZ Lehrstuhl D für Mathematik RWTHAachen University, 52062 Aachen, Germany e-mail: eva.zerz@math.rwth-aachen.de
We survey the so-called behavioral approach to systems and control theory, which was founded by J. C. Willems and his school. The central idea of behavioral systems theory is to put the focus on the set of trajectories of a dynamical system rather than on a specific set of equations modelling the underlying phenomenon. Moreover, all signal components are treated on an equal footing at first, and their partition into inputs and outputs is derived from the system law, in a way that admits several valid cause-effect interpretations, in general.
The Behavioral Approach to Open and Interconnected Systems
JAN C. WILLEMS
MODELING BY TEARING, ZOOMING, AND LINKING
During the opening lecture of the 16th IFAC World Congress in Prague on July 4, 2005, Rudy Kalman articulated a principle that resonated very well with me. He put forward the following paradigm for research domains that combine models and mathematics: 1) Get the physics right. 2) The rest is mathematics. Did we, system theorists, get the physics right? Do our basic model structures adequately translate physical reality? Does the way in which we view interconnections respect the physics? These questions, in a nutshell, are the theme of this article. The motivation for the behavioral approach stems from the observation that classical systemtheoretic thinking is unsuitable for dealing on an appropriately general level with the basic tenets at which system theory aims, namely, open and interconnected systems. By an open system, we mean a system that interacts with its environment, for example, by exchanging matter, energy, or information. By an interconnected system, we mean a system that consists of interacting subsystems. Classical system theory introduces inputs, outputs, and signal-flow graphs ab initio. Inputs serve to capture the influence of the environment on the system, outputs serve to capture the influence of the system on the environment, while output-to-input assignments, such as series and feedback connection, serve to capture interconnections. A system is thus viewed as transmitting and transforming signals from the input channel to the output channel, and interconnections are viewed as pathways through which outputs of one system are imposed as inputs to another system.
June 15, 2018The Behavioral Approach to Systems TheoryPosted by John Baezguest post by Eliana Lorch and Joshua TanAs part of the Applied Category Theory seminar, we discussed an article commonly cited as an inspiration by many papers1 taking a categorical approach to systems theory, The Behavioral Approach to Open and Interconnected Systems. In this sprawling monograph for the IEEE Control Systems Magazine, legendary control theorist Jan Willems poses and answers foundational questions like how to define the very concept of mathematical model, gives fully-worked examples of his approach to modeling from physical first principles, provides various arguments in favor of his framework versus others, and finally proves several theorems about the special case of linear time-invariant differential systems.
Thank you so much, Tonnie Van der Zouwen, for inviting me onto your podcast to talk about the collaboration that produced the “blueprint” on Funding Governance for Systemic Transformation. Those who are interested can find the paper here on the website of r3.0, the organization that initiated the blueprint development process and invited me to be a co-lead author: https://lnkd.in/exE8QCuF
It’s worth noting that, as we discuss on the podcast, the approach we used to empower a team of thirty people to produce the 170pp paper was greatly influenced by my love of Open Space, the dialogue process that brought the two of us together last summer for the Co-creating a World that Works for All Summit.
With pride I announce the 9th episode of my podcast series on ‘Creating a level playing field for collaboration’. Ben Roberts shares his experience with a collaborative Blueprint writing project.
We delve into the challenges and successes of co-creating a blueprint for systemic transformation. Learn how shared ownership and action learning led to blueprints for innovative funding practices. Hear firsthand accounts of how the team of the Blueprint Project navigated the complexities of shifting power dynamics and fostering a truly inclusive process. Tune in and be inspired by Ben’s stories of regenerative funding, the power of collaboration, and the potential for creating a more equitable future.
Chapters 00:00 Introduction to Ben Roberts and His Background 03:06 Exploring Large Group Engagement and Technology 04:39 Case Study: Collaborative Paper on Funding Governance 08:48 The Process of Collaboration and Its Challenges 13:30 Activating the Blueprint: Moving Beyond the Document 15:19 Reflections on Collaboration and Cultural Differences 19:32 The Importance of Clarity and Vision in Collaboration 23:59 Future Directions and Reimagining Financial Systems
Systems Community of Inquiry 
You must be logged in to post a comment.