UNDERSTANDING THAT EVERYTHING WE SEE, IS ACTUALLY A SYSTEM AS SUCH
In systems thinking a system is dismantled into smaller particles in order to comprehend what systems are really made of. When particles (which can be in fact subsystems) are found we can observe a map of relations, situations and reasons behind the bigger system. Inside systems we might find almost infinite amount of smaller systems. We have to bear in mind that creator as well as observer of the system will have their own interpretations, aims, reasons and perspective. Systems thinking can broader perspective and comprehension about the super complex world we are living in. It can be used as a tool in order to take many aspects into account whenever designing or working among systems. Getting deeper understanding about meanings and particles inside the systems helps to build bridges between different particles, humans or ideologies.
The idea of combining systems thinking and design is relatively rational. Too many times designers don’t think about all the factors their design will affect, in fact relations that are usually discussed consider only target market, customer and designer. Designers should – because they are in a position that creates new – think more about the whole supply chain. I hope systems thinking will give some kind of a tool for that, yet many of the interesting breakthrough design cases are created by accident without systematic thinking. If we systematically design something, taking into account most of the aspects and details, does systems thinking still leave space for pure incidents?
One of the article stated that if we think of the whole existing life here on earth biologically as the author observes it, as a general system we would have the Universe. Lower in the hierarchy we have general major system the Earth. Under general major system we find smaller subsystems which all has physical, social or biological features in them.
Universe > Earth > Subsystems: physical, social, biological
He points out that every ecosystem has faults, but they are not considered as faults rather coincident that can lead to unexpected outcome, as mutation that is change in parameters, evolution. Also catastrophes or disturbance might happen by the cause of an accident or human error, but ecosystems have reasonable capacity for resurgence. Nature usually strives for balance – ‘catastrophe diminishes number of species below equilibrium population, but population will start to grow until the equilibrium is re-establed’. One of his noble aims is that we should regard nature as an example when creating our own systems by remembering that uncertainty is out there and if it is not taken into consideration systems might face disequilibrium.
Referings in the text: Boulding, Kenneth E. 2009. Systems research and the hierarchy of world systems: General systems in special chaos.
