Begin forwarded message:
From: Halltennis@aol.com
Subject: Basic issue in Peter Small’s stuff
Date: June 30, 1997 at 02:20:46 EDT
To: joe@joe10.com, skt@vista.com, mcquaide@vista.com, MTennis391@aol.com, WWTennis@aol.com, WmTennis2@aol.com, temme@vision.namrl.navy.mil, BEATBARD@aol.com, jimp@digitoy.com
Joe:
A FUNCTIONING SYSTEMHerewith another stumbling response to reading Peter Small’s stuff. If this
statement has any value, I think it would result from: 1) Amending it
appropriately. 2) Test by comparing it to known functioning systems. 3)
Make the leap and compare the considered result to machine systems.In writing down this impossible idea, I feel at risk. Then I remind myself,
as Motherwell said (not to me), “Paul, if you do it, you can’t do it wrong,”
–or was it Maplethorpe?In this statement, I want to say what a functioning system must be doing to
be called that; I do not want to say what a functioning system “is.”My purpose is to assert, not to convince; to write it, rather than to think
about it; and, to achieve brevity, not completeness.This is not to talk about “THE SYSTEM” as people do in the failure of their
personal objectives.
And, I may discuss and analyze a bit as I go along.Here’s what an FS does:
GOAL 1. A fs garners resources.
It does not create them, it may seek and recruit them. From the existing
environment, as it stands, it readily fosters, accepts, nurtures and
husbands them.If you have functioning system in mind as you read this, you could at this
point make a quick list of the resources you suspect may be included– for
your purposes.GOAL 2. A fs determines what is to be accomplished.
It may not, however, determine the nature or value of the ultimate
end-outcomes resulting from what it accomplishesFrom within the very character of its own structure and the way it’s parts
are organized, the system sets objectives that are to be accomplished and
monitors the achievementsStudents of systems have argued convincingly that the primary achievement of
a system is the perpetuation of self. If this were simple and true, it would
be a diversion of resources away from its achievements.
Usually it is cited by the cynics as THE inherent, major inefficiency of any
system. This, however, is a flaw in thinking. If self-perpetuation is an act
ivity of a system, it is either misfeasance or intention, not laissez faire
inertia.GOAL 3. A fs seeks to perform its activities with the appropriate
consumption of resources.The actual ratio of resources consumed to objectives achieved is a
significant point of evaluation. A large portion of the costs of evaluation
usually attend this question. (This is a traditional error used by/in most
large systems.)GOAL 4. A fs monitors its own activities, quantifies the value
othe information.The resources and achievements are counted and valued in accord with
criteria representative of the structure and organization of the system, and
the character of the environment from which the resources are drawn.GOAL 5. A fs may organize all or part of its activities in terms of the use
of subsystems.Each subsystem is, in principle and in form, a replication of the
functioning system. The subsystem draws resources solely from the
functioning system; and publishes the results of its monitoring and
evaluation activities solely for the use of the functioning system.Now, the major issue here appears to be the relation of a functioning system
to resources it requires. Without resources the system does not function.
For practical purposes, it ceases to be.That, above, is the easy one. The actual issue is the measurement criteria
problem:
A. How does the source of the resources know that the functioning system is
worth it?
B. How does the functioning system know that the subsystem is worth it?
C. How does the functioning system know it is doing what was intended?That’s enough for a start. Right?
I know I should let this sit and simmer overnight (even though it was not
written in a fit of temper) and rewrite it tomorrow. But, c’mon, now. This
is enough for this week.L–h.
