Systems science is not entirely characterized by a unique conception. Since it seems still to be in a formative stage, a proposal that looks to its future may be appropriate. Because systems science is commonly perceived to be very broad in its scope and far reaching in its implications for practitioners, it is not unreasonable to suppose that systems science can be seen as filling multiple scientific roles. In order to fulfill this common perspective, systems science ought to be able to appear in at least five roles: as a science of description—in which the original role of science, to describe the physical world and portray interactions among a few of its components, is enlarged to enable description of problematic situations, whatever the nature of these situations; as a science of generic design—in which those aspects of system design often left to intuition are no longer the prisoner of intuitive thought only, but rather become identifiable beneficiaries of methods that do not rely on specific disciplines, but rather stem from neutral sources that are clearly essential for the development of any science, thus serving a broad universe of design situations; as a science of complexity—in which systems science is extendible to the far reaches of human competence, enlarging the domain of demonstrable results in the service of humanity, relying on high discursivity and careful quality control; as a science of action—in which clear patterns of behavior essential to resolve problematic situations are identified, and the linguistic and infrastructure needs for carrying out such actions are clearly specified; as a science that is open to imports from other disciplines and incorporates means of identifying and integrating essential components of those disciplines, when clearly required in a problematic situation. It is proposed that systems science will fill all of these roles, being perceived by means of a hierarchical inclusion structure in which general concepts are applied to well-specified purposes, reserving importation of methods from the specific disciplines to its applications arena. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
[1]
George H. Perino.
Complexity: A Cognitive Barrier to Defense Systems Acquisition Management
,
2001
.
[2]
John N. Warfield,et al.
Complexity and Cognitive Equilibrium: Experimental Results and Their Implications
,
1991
.
[3]
John N. Warfield,et al.
The delta chart: A method for R&D project portrayal
,
1971
.
[4]
John N. Warfield.
Some Principles of Knowledge Organization
,
1979,
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.
[5]
B. Tuckman.
DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE IN SMALL GROUPS.
,
1965,
Psychological bulletin.
[6]
J. Warfield,et al.
The problematique: evolution of an idea
,
1999
.
[7]
John N. Warfield,et al.
The magical number three—plus or minus zero
,
1988
.
[8]
W. Ashby,et al.
Requisite Variety and Its Implications for the Control of Complex Systems
,
1991
.
[9]
John N. Warfield,et al.
Twenty laws of complexity: science applicable in organizations
,
1999
.
[10]
K. Lewin,et al.
Resolving social conflicts and field theory in social science.
,
1997
.
[11]
John N. Warfield,et al.
A Role for Formalisms in Integrative Studies
,
1999
.
[12]
G. A. Miller.
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1
,
1956
.
[13]
Harold D. Lasswell,et al.
Technique of Decision Seminars
,
1960
.
[14]
H A Simon,et al.
How Big Is a Chunk?
,
1974,
Science.