Showing papers by "Patrick T. Hester published in 2014"

Systems Theory as the Foundation for Understanding Systems

Abstract: As currently used, systems theory is lacking a universally agreed upon definition. The purpose of this paper is to offer a resolution by articulating a formal definition of systems theory. This definition is presented as a unified group of specific propositions which are brought together by way of an axiom set to form a system construct: systems theory. This construct affords systems practitioners and theoreticians with a prescriptive set of axioms by which a system must operate; conversely, any set of entities identified as a system may be characterized by this set of axioms. Given its multidisciplinary theoretical foundation and discipline-agnostic framework, systems theory, as it is presented here, is posited as a general approach to understanding system behavior. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 17:

Towards a theory of multi-method m&s approach: part III

Abstract: The current level of theoretical, methodological, and pragmatic knowledge related to a multi-method modeling and simulation (M&S) approach is limited as there are no clearly identified theoretical principles that guide the use of multi-method M&S approach. Theoretical advances are vital to enhance methodological developments, which in turn empower scientists to address a broader range of scientific inquiries and improve research quality. In order to develop theoretical principles of multi-method M&S approach, the theory of falsification is used in an M&S context to provide a meta-theoretical basis for analysis. Moreover, triangulation and commensurability are characterized and investigated as additional relevant concepts. This paper proposes four theoretical principles for justification of the use of a multi-method M&S approach, which will be analyzed and used to implement methodological guidelines in a subsequent work. A final discussion offers initial implications of the proposed theoretical view.

Systemic Thinking: Fundamentals for Understanding Problems and Messes

Abstract: Preface Part I: A Frame of Reference for Systemic Thinking 1 Introduction 2 Problems and Messes 3 Systemic Thinking 4 Systems Theory Part II: A Methodology for Systemic Thinking 5 The Who of Systemic Thinking 6 The What of Systemic Thinking 7 The Why of Systemic Thinking 8 The Where of Systemic Thinking 9 The How of Systemic Thinking 10 The When of Systemic Thinking 11 Putting It All Together-A Systemic Perspective Appendix A: Systemic Thinking Self-Assessment Index

The When of Systemic Thinking

Abstract: The previous chapters in this section have addressed: (1) the who question through a discussion of problem stakeholders, their analysis, and management; and (2) the what question by decomposing the mess and constituent problems into relevant elements such as outputs and outcomes. In this chapter, we will address the why question through an analysis of motivation, and how each problem has a unique model of motivation and feedback between and among the stakeholders and the problem. The sections that follow will focus on the underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for achieving goals and objectives as part of solving messes and their constituent problems. It will provide a short description of 20 theories of motivation that have informed the body of knowledge on the subject of motivation. Developing an understanding for the motives underlying the behaviors associated with why is the central tenet of each of these theories. The chapter will conclude by providing a theory or framework, for linking existing theories of motivation within a cybernetic model. The cybernetic model is provided as an aid in understanding the relationship between individual problems and the associated stakeholders, and the unique two-way relationship that contains both motivation and an associated feedback response.

Problems and Messes

Abstract: As problems have evolved from simple systems to complex systems, so too must the methods we use to address them. However, machine age problems, consisting of simple systems, have traditionally been viewed from a largely technical perspective. In systems age complex problems, a predominantly technical perspective continues to be used at the expense of other complementary perspectives. Complex problems have been viewed, and hence, addressed, with a single predominant lens which has often been unsuccessful in solving many ill-structured, wicked, or messy problems. The development of multiple perspectives requires those faced with solving complex problems to include additional perspectives in order to achieve understanding. This includes the integration of hard and soft perspectives to ensure that, in addition to the technical perspective, the equally important organizational, political and human perspectives have been included. The application of multiple perspectives offers a more inclusive framework through which complex problems may be viewed. The integration of technical, organizational, political and human perspectives widens the aperture through which a problem is analyzed, which then increases the probability of correctly addressing ill-structured, wicked, and messy problems. Embracing these complementary perspectives, guidance is given on how to begin to decompose our mess into a number of discrete problems for analysis.

Toward a Watershed- and System of Systems–Oriented Perspective of Stormwater Management Enterprise Performance:

Abstract: Public works decision and policy makers daily face myriad management problems. The problem of stormwater runoff management, for one, has for several decades received a great deal of attention, with much of that focused on reconciling the needs of natural watershed systems with those of the man-made physical and non-physicalsocietal systems that watersheds overlap. In other words, stormwater management has effectively been cast as a system of systems problem requiring a delicate balance among multiple natural and man-made systems. The authors propose a methodology with which stakeholders can first set and then realize expectations for stormwater management problems by using watershed- and system of systems–oriented perspectives. The methodology, Enterprise AID (assessment, improvement, and design) is particularly well suited to such a pairing of perspectives, and this article, therefore, shows how stakeholders in multiple and commonly disparate interests might best balance the stormwater management needs o...

Putting it All Together: A Systemic Perspective

Abstract: We’ve come a long way together. Recall Fig. 2.3, which presented a basic illustration of the steps underlying mess decomposition and reconstruction, presented as Fig. 11.1 with additional annotation regarding topics covered since our discussion in Chap. 2. The assumption at this point is that the reader has read through the first ten Chapters of this book and understands how to analyze a singular problem from each of the six perspectives presented in Chaps. 5– 10. This analysis alone would be sufficient for a standalone problem. Those interested in understanding messes, however, need to go the extra mile. To this end, this Chapter develops a meta-methodology for understanding messes by discussing the interconnected elements necessary from each perspective to be integrated into a coherent whole for systemic understanding. The primary focus of this chapter is on mess reconstruction. Messes, of course, are a construct of convenience. They are envisioned and constructed in a somewhat arbitrary manner by each of us (as the observer) and yet, in identifying a mess and deconstructing it as we did in Chap. 2, and then analyzing its elements as we did in Chaps. 5– 10 (as the systems practitioner), we have placed a responsibility on ourselves to reconstitute these pieces into a coherent whole to allow for systemic understanding of our mess. To start on this journey, we must begin first with mess articulation and problem decomposition. Each perspective is then discussed as it pertains to gained understanding at the mess-level. They are presented as they reside within what we propose as two meta-perspectives, namely what is and what ought-to-be, or our current and idealized state, respectively, and named after the conventions established by Ulrich [5]. Articulation and reasoning about these two states with respect to our mess provides us with a rational framework for increasing our understanding about it. Finally, this analysis will be explored as it pertains to the act and observe stages of the TAO process. Both the content and the structure in this Chapter are to be taken together as a meta-perspective framework for systemic thinking.