More on the systems approach.

For a very long time, many scientists have attempted to define the essence of the term "systems approach," but there is still no clear, unambiguous definition. There is only a perception about the systems approach that is based on some rather simplified premises and concepts, which is characteristic of initial stages in any study or analysis.

The view by such prominent scientists in this sphere of knowledge as Yu.I. Chernyak, V.G. Shorin, and D.A. Pospelov, who define the systems approach as "a system forming system," (1) is quite productive for the development of the systems approach theory. It appears that the systems approach is a system of scientific knowledge that is used for designing and creating systems of different levels of complexity. With this definition, the systems approach performs the function of methodological knowledge.

In so far as the first impression about a system is created by its structure, which reflects its composition and connections between its elements, the definition of its structure is essential for the description of the systems approach as a form of knowledge (a system of scientific knowledge).

Most of the well-known works and studies on the systems approach lack any information about the structure of this scientific knowledge. So a study should apparently begin with the simplest possible structure whose development will subsequently help to identify something that will enable us to expand our understanding of the essence of the systems approach and raise it to a basically new level.

It is expedient to single out two basic components within the structure of the systems approach as a form (system) of scientific knowledge: theory and methodology. Theory should include organization theory, cybernetics, general systems theory, and systems technique, while methodology should include systemology (see Diagram).

Each of the aforementioned disciplines and the scope of their application have yet to be clearly defined. This applies above all to general systems theory and systemology.

Analysis shows that the subject of systemology should include the methodology of analysis and research of complex systems, their classification, and specific recommendations on their application in a specific sphere of analytical and practical activity. There is a pressing need to deeply develop the historical/logical method of study and analysis. It is also essential to comprehensively develop the methodology of ascent from abstract thinking to concrete as an alternative to the theory of multi-tier hierarchies whose authors, unfortunately, do not elaborate on the methodology for the creation of this class of systems.

[GRAPHIC OMITTED]

In assessing the scope of research in each particular field of knowledge, it is important to take into account the specifics of using this knowledge at different stages of applied studies (see Table).

For example, organization theory has an extremely broad sphere of practical application in all spheres of human activity. Cybernetics, together with organization theory as its foundation, is used at all stages of analysis and research. It is by far the most important since it forms the highest level of knowledge about a system under analysis. In the past, social scientists obstructed the "penetration of technocracy" into social sciences and other fields of knowledge, technocracy, in their view, being purportedly associated with cybernetics. Today, cybernetics can be used in practically any sphere of human activity: It performs the function of general, interdisciplinary knowledge.

General systems theory reflects the general systemic aspects of the designing process at the original development stage when there are no counterparts or prototypes in a given sphere so there is a need to identify isomorphs in related spheres of knowledge and build a mathematical apparatus for the description of different types of systems, in particular, systems that have a hierarchic structure. Systems technique can serve as a good basis for specific design and development standards.

This array of scientific disciplines constitutes a sufficiently strong theoretical foundation for the systems approach. Cybernetics as a science that identifies and helps to implement in practice methods and mechanisms of systems' target specific functioning best reflects the essence of the systems approach and so can be regarded as its main theoretical foundation.

Methodology is the least studied sphere of the systems approach as a field of science. The role of methodological knowledge steadily grows as more and more wide-ranging problems are coming up requiring effective solutions. It is therefore expedient, within the framework of general scientific systemology, to consider some important aspects of the dialectic path of development with a view to using it in studying and designing complex systems that have a hierarchic structure.

Analysis shows that there is no methodology for the creation of systems that have a hierarchic structure. The theory of hierarchic systems per se has substantial shortfalls since it is based on purely mathematical methods which should always be preceded by the verbal elaboration of a specific problem.

The search for isomorphs in the verbal description of complex multi-tier systems brought the present authors into the field of political economics. It would be expedient, as a model of comprehensive analysis, to use the study by K. Marx of a very complex system--the capitalist mode of production, as well as the methodology of ascent from abstract to concrete that he used to describe the functioning mechanism of a system with a multi-tier hierarchic structure.

K. Marx developed methodology for the formation of relations between the objectives and limitations (constraints) for elements of a hierarchic structure. As is known, in studying the primary cell of social production on the basic level, K. Marx did not use generalization, but once he identified the mechanism of its functioning, he moved to a higher level of analysis; what was a constraint at a lower level became a subject of analysis at the next, higher level. Although the hierarchic systems theory and cybernetics were unknown at that time, K. Marx possessed deep systemic thinking and his analysis was based on the study of objective laws regulating the development of the subject under analysis.

Many scholars believed that the methodology proposed by K. Marx was applicable only to the analysis of the capitalist mode of production. At the same time, a number of researchers, including A.A. Bogdanov, disagreed with the view that K. Marx's methodology could not be used to analyze other modes of production, stressing that the problem did not lie in different methods of analysis, but in different "underlying assumptions." (2)

A.A. Bogdanov made a substantial contribution to the development of the systems approach as a form of scientific knowledge, putting forward a general systems concept--general organization science (tectology). It is the view of the present authors, however, that in formulating a general scientific approach toward systems analysis, A.A. Bogdanov made a serious mistake in giving a subjective definition of the role of this science in the general structure of methodological knowledge. Taking into account the high practical value of tectology in dealing with applied problems, he came to the erroneous conclusion that his general scientific concept was as universal as a general philosophical/methodological concept and so it should replace "obsolete" and "impractical" philosophy. In his introduction to Tektologiya (Tectology), A.A. Bogdanov says that general philosophic knowledge pushed tectology out of the sphere of productive, forward looking scientific ideas.

It seems that tectology is a scientific basis for the systems approach as a form of scientific knowledge and, together with general philosophic methodology (without replacing the latter), constitutes the general scientific methodology for the study of various systems.

NOTES:

1. Yu.I. Chernyak, Sistemniy analiz v upravlenii ekonomikoy, Ekonomika Publishers, Moscow, 1975; Sistemnyy analiz i struktura upravleniya, ed. by V.G. Shorin, Znaniye Publishers, Moscow, 1975; D.A. Pospelov, Situatsionnoye upravleniye, Nauka Publishers, Moscow, 1988.

2. A.A. Bogdanov, Tektologiya, in two books, Ekonomika Publishers, Moscow, 1989.

Vice Adm. Yu.P. GLADYSHEV

Doctor of Political Sciences

Capt. 1st Rank G.V. IVANOV

Candidate of Military Sciences

Table Application of Scientific Disciplines

                              Applied studies
Scientific Disciplines  Original  Designed  Standard

Organization theory     +         +         +
Cybernetics             +         +         +
General systems theory  +         --        --
Systems technique       --        +         +
Systemology             General   Special   Scientific