Abstract
The theme of the 56th annual meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS) — Service Systems, Natural Systems — was intended to be both forward-looking and reflective. There is a long and rich history of systems ideas, but are they still relevant? And are they adequate to meet the challenges today? The mix of themes and presenters in the plenary sessions reflected those questions. Rafael Ramirez, Tim Allen and Stuart Umpleby have long histories with some of the early systems scientists. John Kineman has been extending the work of Robert Rosen into new theories. Jim Spohrer adopted systems science as a foundation for his work in service science at IBM. Garry Peterson and Minna Takala have been applying systems principles to their own realms of practice, in ecology and innovation, respectively.
The structure of the plenary sessions also reflected systems principles. Rather than leaving the presentations as lectures, discussants had been selected to question, to challenge and to elaborate on each presenter's remarks. The intent was to honour the thinking of C. West Churchman, seeking a dialogic process and the sweeping in of as much relevant information as possible. The discussants for the week were: Kyoichi (Jim) Kijima, Gerald Midgley, Vince Barabba, Len Troncale, Jennifer Wilby, Kathia Castro-Laszlo, Ockie Bosch and Lynn Rasmussen.
This was also the first ISSS annual meeting in which the use of social media was openly encouraged. Participants, in general, were asked to share comments and to record their learning through posting to their own blogs, or to sites such as Facebook or through other media such as Twitter. What is reported here is a compilation of many streams of thoughts and ideas captured by different participants throughout the meeting.
David Ing
David Ing, ISSS President for this meeting, began the first morning with an overview of the issues and challenges. He discussed how many of the theories most closely associated with systems were developed between the 1960s and the 1980s (if not earlier.) Most were associated with a particular individual — a luminary or a guru in the systems science world. As those individuals pass on, Ing asserted that little has been performed either to incorporate their ideas into more comprehensive theories or to test and extend them into more robust theories. As a result, we have been facing increasingly complex problems with theories that, at the least, may need to be updated.
An example is the distinction between designing a system to function in a given way and designing a system with the capabilities to learn and to adapt; to co-evolve with its environment. In elaborating, Ing discussed the work of many systems scientists related both to learning and co-evolving. Gregory Bateson (1999) described five learning types, from ‘no learning’ to genetic change. Stewart Brand (1994) used an analogy of buildings that learn. Howard Odum explored two-species population interactions. Fred Emery and Eric Trist (1965) had described the co-evolution of systems and environments, including the challenges of turbulent environments. Russ Ackoff (1981) described approaches to systems, from reactive to inactive to pre-active to interactive. Allen et al., (2003) distinguishes between complicated and complex systems, and Pille Bunnell (with many others) has been involved with the Resilience Alliance (2008) in their work on ecosystems and change.
Ing's summary points focused on distinctions among episteme (knowing why, captured in systems theories), techne (knowing how, such as systems methods), and phronesis (knowing when, where or whom, as in systems practice.) All three are different, and all are relevant for creating systems to meet current and future challenges.
Rafael Ramirez
The presentation by Rafael Ramirez was titled, ‘Is there a “Peak Oil” effect on “Service Management”, “Systems Science”, and “Service Science” Research?’ The concept of peak oil was used as an analogy for the lack of ‘production’ of new systems ideas, consistent with Ing's thinking. Ramirez noted that the fields mentioned in his title, ‘alone and together, have tended to over-promise and under-deliver.’ The ideas have been grand, but they have not typically lived up to their promises of solving real-world problems. One suggestion was that systems research should turn its focus towards the importance of the differences between the varying theories and worry less about trying to resolve their incommensurability. Another was that notions such as value, values and value creation might be explored focusing more from the arts and humanities and less from the approaches of the sciences.
Conversations between the presenters and the discussants for the morning raised a number of issues about funding for systems research. One proposal suggested that moving the focus away from the scientific approaches might shift the emphasis on funding from traditional government-sponsored research to more philanthropic or even business-oriented sources. Connecting with immediate real-world problems might support such a change.
Jim Spohrer
Jim Spohrer's talk, titled ‘Service Science: Reframing the Skeleton,’ connected developments in the field of service science with Kenneth Boulding's skeleton of science (1956). He described service science as ‘an emerging trans-discipline (whole) that borrows from many existing academic disciplines (parts) without replacing any of them, and reframes their essential interconnectedness.’
A key example, and much of his emphasis, was on universities as service systems and co-producers of value. This is not just for students/graduates but on a regional economic and social basis. As Spohrer explained, the role of innovation was crucial. Large-scale disruption to the status quo has tended to happen less as a result of disasters than from positive new innovations. Although it will require a great deal of change, he felt that higher education has the potential to become a force for innovative leadership. As he emphasized, using a quote from John Sexton, ‘More than ever, universities will generate and sustain the world's idea capitals and … will provide a framework for a global civil society.’
Garry Peterson
The presentation, ‘Resilience, Ecological Regime Shifts and Social-Ecological Transformation,’ shifted the conference's focus towards natural systems. In it, Peterson noted that we are now living in what is termed the Anthropocene era, a geological phase in which human actions are the predominant influence on the earth. He and his colleagues at the Stockholm Resilience Centre have extended the concept of regime shifts to include examples such as conversion of forest to cropland or transformations in ecosystem management practices. Peterson commented that many of the global problems we are facing seem not to be widely understood: our massive population increase is an indicator of species success; poverty of large portions of the species is not a positive indicator, although, nor is the destruction of biomes on which we depend.
At present, humankind is facing many wicked problems, which make the predictability of change very difficult. Climate change, by itself, is not even the most complicated issue facing us. Positive feedback in some systems is outstripping the ability of negative feedback to stabilize them. The collective effect of system changes is creating more ecological surprises. Some regime shifts may be reversible, but others will not. Resilience has to do with the amount of shock a system can absorb before it undergoes a regime shift, flipping into an alternate state.
To Peterson, a problem in our understanding and addressing regime shifts includes overreliance on computer and conceptual models that include too few variables. They oversimplify and obscure the problems. The bigger challenges facing us include our abilities to conceptualize regime shifts in social-ecological systems and to analyse social feedbacks in relation to shift dynamics.
Tim Allen
The presentation, ‘Insights into Service Coming from Biology,’ brought together concepts from natural and service systems. In applying his ideas, Allen offered this distinction: ‘Manufacturing creates something while service changes something.’ He acknowledged that this distinction is relative, although, according to how it is seen or applied. It may depend on the identity of the customer in question, and how they use what is provided. Allen described how, historically, products have been higher gain (related to more concentrated sources of energy), and how services have been lower gain (involving more varied or dispersed forms of energy). The rapid availability of information has made many products lower gain. In his talk, he states that, ‘Service is like mutualism in biology. It is about cooperation.’ It does not appear that way, immediately or automatically; however, relationships may start as destructive or predatory and can evolve over time.
Stuart Umpleby
Stuart Umpleby offered his thoughts around ‘A Second Expansion of Science.’ He explored the origins of cybernetics and the comparisons with systems science. Science, as based in physics, focused on matter and energy. In the years following World War II, systems science and cybernetics emerged to help in work on information and communication, including their control and regulation. They expanded traditional science, moving from linear to circular causality, from direction to self-organization, from reductionism to holism, from environment-free to environment-full investigations and from not including the observer to including the observer. Newer research has added reflexivity as an additional factor, as evidenced in work by George Soros.
All of these lead to the need for a second-order science, which would include the effect of both first-order and second-order theories on the phenomena being studied. The idea is not todiscard and to replace earlier theories of science but to encompass and to expand them. It would focus on dissipative structures and self-organizing systems — on patterns rather than objects themselves. It would emphasize theories in social science, including how ideas influence society, and how this could create an embeddedness of meaning for people.
The discussant conversation further explored the role and the perspectives of people involved in science and theory building. Even the language that we use biases ideas in narrow directions. This led back to earlier presentations about the role of universities and the place of disciplines in narrow development of theories, including the peer review process used in judging publications. Umpleby contended that Americans and continental Europeans tend to think differently. Americans, he felt, tend to find meaning through specific examples and their results. He believes that Europeans, who are more likely to have studied philosophy in their schooling, are drawn towards using contexts and dynamics of change. Other cultures around the world have other and different ways of creating meaning.
Minna Takala
The last morning started with a presentation by Takala regarding innovation and changing practices for development. Her talk focused on research being conducted through Innovation in Sourcing Competencies funded by TEKES, the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation. New emerging institutions include the Design Factory and Demola from Finland, Reconstructed Living Labs from South Africa and TANZICT (Information Society and ICT Sector Development Project) in Tanzania. These institutions include development communities, living laboratories, mobile application development laboratoriess, a global HUB network, a global Fab Lab network and crowdsourcing practices.
Takala traced the paths of the development of these institutions. Both Living Labs and Fab Labs had been started at MIT. Living Labs proliferated in the EU, but not in the USA. By contrast, Fab Labs have taken off in the USA and only later in the EU. The Global HUB network was started in London in 2005. Spontaneous and self-organizing, it provides spaces for innovation in locations around the world. Hubs in Africa started in communities more than universities with minimal infrastructure. ReConstructed Living Labs in Africa have focused on social media and social issues collaborating with Aalto University's Design Factory in Helsinki.
Although new and still developing, there are strong ties between this work and the systems theories, including Kenneth Boulding's (1956) model for change and the appreciative systems approach by Sir Geoffrey Vickers. The various laboratories also reflect the Design Principle 2 structures (democratic and self-organizing), as explained by Merrelyn Emery.
John Kineman
The final presentation of the meeting was by Kineman, regarding his development of R-theory. As described, R-theory is a synthesis of Robert Rosen's work in relational biology and complexity, on the basis of the integration of two of his theory tracks: modelling relations and entailment mappings (in category theory). Its intent is to realize Rosen's vision of creating a new foundation for all of science.
The R-theory claims that relations are not directly between events in the world but between events and their contexts, from which the measurable world originates. This concept is most familiar to us in ecology and perhaps the most surprising discovery has been that ecological relations indicate a deeper general complexity embedded in all of nature.
At the most fundamental level, Kineman noted that R-theory reveals a fractal, self-similar description of reality that is reflected in cellular biology, medicine, ecology, evolution, cosmology, quantum physics and consciousness; suggesting that nature creates itself within infinite contexts. Its proper introduction and demonstration require essentially rewriting many of the laws of nature in more relational terms; not to replace currently adequate theories but to find their common root and to show that this root is relational.
As Kineman explained, nature is fundamentally complex: self-referencing, self-generating and self-organizing. The concepts date back to the Upanishads and are well described through the work by Alan Watts. (A video narrated by Watts, titled ‘Prickles and Goo,’ humorously reinforced that idea.) Using a quotation from Rosen (1991), Kineman described the problems of capturing and modelling complex phenomena regarding the infinite number of mechanisms required to describe even one complex system.
SUMMARY
The breadth of topics addressing the theme of this conference was ambitious. In order to address the question of currency and relevance of systems science, although, it was also necessary. Despite the diversity of backgrounds and perspectives of the speakers, they quickly identified common themes and challenges. Throughout the conference, attendees embraced David Ing's invitation to communicate their thoughts and reactions through social media. Daily, participants expressed agreement, challenged assertions and drew connections between the conference's presentations and unfolding current events in the USA and elsewhere.
Plenary speakers and conference participants agreed that what the systems movement has contributed in moving beyond traditional science is important, but there is still a great deal of work to be accomplished. Some of those present urged attendees to keep focused on the ISSS founders' aspiration — that the society continue to encourage the investigation of isomorphic ‘concepts, laws and models in various fields to help in useful transfers from one field to another’ (isss.org). Many in the society use this mission as a guiding principle that, when realized, will be relevant, indeed central, to meeting today's global challenges. Systems science and cybernetics have provided new ideas and new approaches. They are still far from being mainstream, although, in general recognition or appreciation. As Umpleby noted in his presentation, ‘You can choose recognition or influence. Most systems scientists have chosen influence.’ To that, Allen added the admonition, ‘Do something important – don't bother about the credit.’
Many of those who are present at this ISSS conference work within institutions of higher education. The traditional structures of universities may have helped to create problems, but the future of universities might well be an important part of the solutions. Regardless of whether universities grasp the opportunities or not, innovation and research are happening. We are finding new ways of addressing the growing complexities of our world: through independent researchers, through innovations in rural and developing locations, through unexpected collaborations and through ongoing work in the ISSS.