There can be no doubt that systems thinking complements reductionism and that the world and our lives would be poorer without it. But, try as one might, systems thinking is not the be-all and end-all of approaches to problem solving: (a) systems thinking encourages binary (or black-and-white) solutions, even though real-life is about paradox (or gray areas), and so may prevent creative types from contributing because such personalities are entirely intuitive; (b) systems thinking underrates the inestimable value of experiencing, something that happens in social organizations but not in natural systems; (c) systems thinking may be more suited to circumstances of apparent complexity (that some might instead term complicated)—where the interaction of components seems complex at first glance but demonstrates relatively simpler order below the surface—and may have limitations in instances of truly complex systems, such as social systems; and (d) systems thinking needs to be followed by "systems doing" since one must by then deal with real people instead of models.

Article Five Notes on Systems Theory

Thanks, Olivier for your comments and for sending 5 Notes on ST.

Cheers,

Mike

Michael, system theory can also be applied in system dynamics methodology context, where the theoretical framework as a conceptual model forms the basis for defining the systemic parameters in systems dynamic modeling.

In complex technology and environmental systems, such as floating solar photovoltaics, where floating PV interacts with natural aquatic and land-based systems, the approach offers valuable opportunities for parametric modelling in environmental impact assessments EIA for floatovoltaics: see example:

Article Sustainability Assessment Framework and Methodology with Tra...

Thanks, Prinsloo for sharing your thoughts and SAFM with our community.

Regards,

Michael

Yes and No. It depends on which kind of the system you are dealing with. Some systems are just too huge to model them sufficiently accurately.

I will give you just one simple example. Human cell. Just one living cell has the number of functional parts approxiamtely equal to the number of living people on the Earth. Are we capable to predict the evolution of the humanity in the span of just a few years? Nope. Nada. Zilch.

It is same with a single cell! Not to speak about bodies!

With other systems, it gets even worse: human body, society, state, humanity, ecosystems, the whole Earth's nature, the Umiverse. Is there any escape from this trap made by our inability to evaluate all processes undergoing in the complex system simultaneously? Yes. There is.

By searching for emergent structures in complex systems, we can describe them at different levels. Seems to be easy, right. But it isn't. We have a Russian doll like structure of hard sciences each encompasing just one part of the complexity of the Universe: quantum fields, particles, atoms, molecules, materials, biomolecules, cells, tissues, bodies, ecosystems, the Earth, the Solar system, galaxies, and the Universe.

Scientific disciplines are here for a good reason. We are unable to go from the first principles and derive behavior of galaxies from them! We take as the baseline whole stars, gravity, and electromagnetism. We cannot go from quantum field theory to prove behavior of the galaxies!

Stars themselves are emergent structures originating in the lower level physics: electromagnetism, atomic interactions, fusion, etc. This physical ladder goes even lower.

Many scientists working in their field of research do not realize that they are working with emergents that exist only due to vast number of interactions of parts operating at the lover level of the physics ladder. Those who understand this can easily cross the borders of disciplines as they are putting ends correctly together.

Thanks, Jiri for your elaboration. I am more or less inclined to the self-organized system, autopoietic systems.

Regards,

Michael

I will add this is a good starting point. You will need to link that with other tools or theories depending on the context/location of the problems. Keep in mind that complex problems require multiple solutions with unintended consequences, contradictions are an integral part of both.. The process can be very messy, unpredictable specially with emerging issues. Thus the importance of a theoretical and conceptual framework to account for the different variables, as well assisting in data collections and analysis.

Thanks, Margot for your contribution. Michael

An excellent point Michael,

Systemic interventions mentioned before are explained in this work, where the natural environmental system plays a key role in determining project outcomes in floating PV system modelling:

Thesis A geo-informatics approach to sustainability assessments of ...

Thanks, Prnsloo for your excellent to practical system theory and its applications.

Cheers,

Mike

We use systems approaches for our work in sustainability - and generally this application if a bit different.

For one, it is critical that extensive systems thinking - i.e. an expansion of the context surrounding whatever topic is in issue - be completed prior to attempting the model. For two, the modeling process itself requires the establishment of a 'systems boundary', which is somewhat synonymous with a feasibility analysis in the sense that it defines a workable sub-set.

While not perfect, and normally subjective, it advances complex/comprehensive sustainability practices (including implementation) far beyond the conventional norm.