
Systems Thinking and Quality - ggeorgovassilis
https://www.ufried.com/blog/systems_thinking_and_quality/
======
cjfd
One area where this becomes apparent is that in complex and layered system at
least some of the bahaviours of a single layer do not make sense in terms of
the system as a whole. Often it is wrong to attempt to let a layer on its own
do the thing that seems most logical because actually the output of that layer
is the input of another one and the total result is an interplay between the
two. Attempting to make each one separately more logical would make both
layers a lot more complex and would essentially be duplicating the relevant
concerns into multiple layers, if not outright introducing bugs by introducing
speculative logic that often turns out to be wrong in yet unforeseen cases.

~~~
LaundroMat
Communication between its elements is the source of a system's emergent
behaviour.

So yes, input/output streams (and where they originate and end up) are at
least as important to the system as its discrete elements, if not more so.

------
jackhalford
Very insightful, and as usual with systems thinking, I think that we don't
understand the field well.

I once found a comment on HN to read "The Systems Bible" by John Gall, this is
a great occasion to relay the proverbial baton. If tou like this article I
strongly recommend reading this book.

------
omazurov
_> He says, that you should imagine having all cars available in a room and
then ask a group of experts to identify the best engine, the best battery, the
best transmission, and so on. Afterwards, you take all the parts identified
and put them together. While we would expect to get the best car possible (we
only use the best parts available), we do not even get an automobile because
the parts do not fit.

> This leads Ackoff to the conclusion:

> | The performance of a system depends on how the parts fit, not how they act
> taken separately._

Isn't it how we hire talent nowadays?

~~~
asdff
Not at the entry level. A grad with a 3.5 GPA and one with a 4.0 GPA are
applying to the same job, guess who gets hired every single time. Not always
the best fitting part!

~~~
omazurov
Same thing: greedy algorithms. Mostly imposed by companies "living by
algorithms".

------
ggeorgovassilis
> No part of the system or a collection of parts of the system has an
> independent effect on it. Therefore a system as a whole cannot be divided
> into independent parts.

------
npudar
I worked with Ackoff. Brilliant man. An extremely important video to watch:
[https://vimeo.com/148192220](https://vimeo.com/148192220) 29 minutes is a
tiny investment for the returns.

------
luord
I recommend watching the actual video. In fact, I wish that it had been shared
instead of the article.

------
crimsonalucard
Is systems thinking the same epistemological BS that's heaped onto the
industry like design patterns and all these acronyms I hear being thrown
everywhere? Is there formal axiomatic basis for any of this stuff or is it
just mumbo jumbo.

This is the definition of quality:

>The definition of quality has to do with meeting or exceeding the
expectations of the customer or the consumer. Therefore, if their expectations
are not met, it’s a failure.

How is this a definition? It's a vague comparison. It tells me you don't
really have clear definition in your own brain.

Take a look at the definition of system:

>A system is a whole that consists of parts each of which can affect its
behavior or its properties. Each part of the system when it affects the system
is dependent for its effect on some other part. In other words: The parts are
interdependent.

Is this for real? What is a whole and what is a part? No rigor and it's all
mumbo jumbo that's obvious. Yes a system can be made up of modules and yes
things can be interdependent. How is this new and innovative? Thanks for
telling me something everybody on the face of the earth already knows.

>The essential property of an automobile is that it can carry you from one
place to another. No part of an automobile can do that.

Mind blown. Just kidding. If you take the wheel of the car and balance on top
of it like a circus artist then walk the wheel will carry you from one place
to another. Boom. Guess what a car is not a system because one of the "parts"
works independently. I guess I just blew apart what this persons' definition
of a system because a car is obviously a system but under the articles' flawed
definition it is not.

>If we have a system of improvement that’s directed at improving the parts
taken separately you can be absolutely sure that the performance of the whole
will not be improved.

Have you heard of the term "bottleneck"? It's when one "component" of the
"system" slows the overall system down.

>It’s a wrong concept of quality. Quality ought to contain a notion of value,
not merely efficiency. That’s a difference between efficiency and
effectiveness. Quality ought to be directed at effectiveness.

You know what? "Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're
gonna get." Clever right? Makes sense right? Two things most people miss when
they read the quote above. First thing: it was said by someone who is mentally
disabled. Second thing: The message is obvious. Life is spontaneous who
doesn't know this? It's pointless wrapping this concept up in an analogy. Same
with the "concept of quality" Quality ought to be directed at effectiveness?
Who on the face of the earth isn't aware of this fact?

In conclusion, this is not a good way to think. If you want a good systematic
way to analyze the world and "systems" the way to do it is to have a very
clear notion about the difference between science, logic and intuition. Know
the strength of each pillar and know the weaknesses.

The above article above is all just intuition with logical flaws due to lack
of rigor or science to back up its points. Additionally, the main point is
incredibly obvious.

~~~
Fellshard
There is a more formal description of systems thinking (see 'Thinking in
Systems', Donella H. Meadows, for examples) that describe systems as
components driving feedback loops and how they generate equilibrium or
degenerate states, and where the best leverage is to alter the states of those
systems. But I have a feeling it's yet another topic that's been diluted by
consult-speak.

~~~
crimsonalucard
Yes signals and systems is a theoretical thing which is not what the person is
describing here. ME and EE's learn it, but it's largely absent from CS.

Type theory or Category theory is probably closer to a formal description of
the "intuition" behind the article.

~~~
kesor
Then there is this field called ... Cybernetics ... which is actually a field
that studies systems! _gasp_

~~~
crimsonalucard
gasp! another word for control theory! gasp!

~~~
Terretta
Pronounce it in Greek though and add it to your resume.

