Systems practice

Critical systems thinking is a relative newcomer in the systems tradition of thought. Nevertheless, it has already made a number of significant contributions to the field and is now developing more quickly than any other part of systems thinking. The paper charts the origins and nature of this evolving, critical systems, body of work. The author's own impressions of its

This programmatic paper argues that building a bridge between the two traditions of
systems thinking and practical philosophy is key to serving the cause of ethically
grounded, socially rational decision-making. A three-level framework of rational systems practice provides a starting point that 30 years after it was first outlined can still guide innovative research and professional practice.

Total systems intervention (TSI) is a meta-methodology which interprets and brings into action a range of problem solving methodologies, viewing problem solving as a process of intervention where practitioners can learn about and manage complex interacting issues. When first presented, TSI was the framework that evolved from one of many possible operationalisations of critical systems thinking. From these beginnings, TSI (as one practical implementation of the principles of CST) now continues its development into a methodology for use by problem solvers in all situations, not just the organisational-enterprise setting. This paper presents a detailed operationalisation of the critical review mode, the framework of which may also be of use in the operationalisation of the other modes in TSI.

A study of the DSS implementation area reveals an increased emphasis on methodologies for DSS development. As the DSS field matures, a larger number of methodological options are becoming available to the DSS developer. Existing methodologies have adopted various methods for performing the important task of DSS requirements analysis and specification. In envisaging a hierarchy of requirements analysis methods, a method for improved requirements analysis is proposed to remedy observed deficiencies within it. This method is based on a view of generic types of inquiries or solicitations made by the DSS user during decision-making. This formalism constitutes the basis of a proposed DSS development methodology that offers several benefits to DSS development. The intended benefits include a sharper and more focused requirements analysis to improve the DSS development process. This paper describes the model and methodology, alongside details of a real-world example of their use in developing a Marketing Decision Support System (MKDSS) for the support of marketing decision-making.

This paper attempts to make sense of the apparent paradox of the successful representation of management as a technical practice coexisting with a lack of success in management sustaining a project of professionalization. The success of the former has, for many occupations, been the key to the latter, especially when allied with university licensing. The main issues and debates relating to management as a technical practice, management as a profession, and the role of the management academy are outlined. This leads to an alternative interpretation of their relation, in which the representation of management as a technical practice is envisaged not as a failed professionalization of management but rather as a successful responsibilization of managers.

The International Systems Institute held its sixth annual conversation at Asilomar on November 14–19, 1993. At that meeting, seven participants self-selected themselves into a conversation group that met intensively over 4 days to develop some guidelines or principles for the process of facilitating systemic change in education. This is a report on how that group functioned and what it produced. The trigger questions addressed included: What are the major stages in the systemic change process? Can you do systems design with only a part of the “system”? How important isscale (e.g., number of people, schools)? What is an educational system? Can you use the same design process in any culture? How can one best create the idealized design? What are the major goals, obstacles, guidelines? Can we design the process without knowing the product? and Are there big differences between working within the system and outside the system? A large portion of the effort focused on guidelines for facilitating the first two phases of the systemic change process: preparing for design and designing the new system.