The system symbols, from deep-insights to universal applications.
This presentation is a survey of research conducted during more than forty years, covering the formalization of system characteristics and a development represented by generic symbols. The work effort includes concept definitions, functional features, notation, mnemonics, semantics, syntax and pragmatics as they have appeared in a multitude of contexts, real-world events and environments. The findings draw upon the author's international praxis of systems analysis and design, and experience from planning worldwide systems of systems and networks. Everyday practical use of the system symbols evolved in large-scale, sociotechnical, engineering and management projects. Further dimensions were created in the professor role of guiding and supervising doctorals and graduates in universities, and researchers in industries and corporations. Additional elaborations were introduced to workshops and in chapters contributed by this author (Samuelson) of investigations, reports, yearbooks, monographs, tutorials and scientific articles.
Since half a century from the 1950's up to recent years there still exists an ambiguous zoo of drawings and sketches trying to portray the explicit features of systems. This remains constantly bothering to someone conducting R&D by rigorous scientific methods towards reproducible results.
Here are some examples indicating the circumstances and amorphous state of affairs. In early 1960's there were stringent studies of automata, self-organizing and cybernetic systems. The dynamics could be sufficiently depicted by squares, circles and flow links in general systemic contexts. Special symbols were only required as they existed in electronics, chemistry, physiology and mechanics. So far, so good: Then came flowcharting for data processing accompanied by Trade Mark lingo from rival computer vendors. Concepts became blurred and cycles were cut by conditional branch loops. Dummy nodes were inserted together with superfluous quasi-relational links. At worst the time-arrow would point longitudinally from top (Start) to bottom (End), instead of from left to right of the coordinate drawing. Links were crossing like cluttered spaghetti. Those 'unsystems' were put together from data processing symbols plus squares and circles to represent subsystems and processes. They all looked quite similar but wore different name labels. The bigger the 'unsystem' grew, the more difficult became the programmer's task of finding an appropriate name label to fit into the square. Chaotic situations evolved characterized by ambiguity, and unsurveyable or imperceivable paper dinosaurs. Such were the bureaucratic administrative routines feeding centralized maxicomputers in service bureaus. These circumstances urgently called for salvaging and resurrection that could be found within the knowledge domain of Systems Science.
THE DUALISM BETWEEN SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS
The holistic approaches of Systems Science remain applicable to and compatible with daily praxis of Cybernetics and Informatics. Altogether there exists a dualism between systems and networks. Interchangeably the network character or the system character appears most pronounced within the linked systemic wholeness. It all depends on the degree of magnification, the level of resolution and richness of details chosen, when observing the linkage structure of subsystems or the interplay of parts. Figure 1 shows how six similar translucid systems (with identified subsystems) can be linked into a network configuration, while the topology and flows of it represent a mesh with forward pumping. The picture is indicative of techno-artefacts built from multiple identical parts and modular subsystems. Our concern and the issues of this article refer to concrete living systems in humane and sociotechnical environments involving individuals, groups, organizations and societies in international coexistence. They all utilize immaterial information flows and interchange of material and energy resources via multiple networks.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
For reasons mentioned in the above sections, my challenge became to interpret, create and design information structures and flows that foremost were comprehensible in human decisions (Samuelson, 1967). Experience from cybernetics, bionics and human information processing yielded an architecture and design specifications for informatic systems and networks during many years to follow (Samuelson, 1969). The main principle was based on heuristics for action-oriented and output-geared flows through functional subsystems, in seven steps, and layers of feedback loops and feedforward. The heuristics read: Result from Action Planning by Informative Diagnostic Sensing. It was referred to by the acronym RAPIDS, as the essential subsystems were sequentially linked functions for Sensing, Informating, Diagnosing, Plan and Action, which constitute an information system (Figure 2). Here was a design prototype for general informatic systems that became useful in several implementations and dedicated applications (Samuelson, 1971a). During the formative years of the theoretic development, each functional subsystem of the RAPIDS system was assigned a unique symbol and an identifying meaningful letter serving as mnemonic shorthand. These formalizations and additional scientific features became internationally established as generic concepts and a canonical framework for information systems design (Samuelson, 1975). The systems behaviour was displayed for study as time-slices, left-to-right. This offered a foundation in design, development and education for global information systems and worldwide network structuring (Samuelson, 1977a).
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
The underpinning General Information Systems Theory (GIST) had already been shown to be compatible with, and encompassing the major directions of, decision, automation, command, control, communication explored in C3I Systems (Samuelson, 1969, 1972).
COMMUNICATION AND CONTROL SYSTEMS
The 1970's represent the era when initiatives began towards launching and development of international networks for information, communication, computers and hybrids of such systems (Samuelson, 1970, 1971b). A feasibility study for EDUNET was made by EDUCOM (1967) with J. G. Miller as a 'founding father'. The original idea of an educational information network grew into the pioneering ARPANET for computer communications. During three decades that followed there was a boom of teleprocessing, satellites, CATV, video-communication and broadband technology. It is important to distinguish between public networks of the external environment's event world and the private internal net and channels belonging to the individual person, family, group or organization. For instance, when using telecom in systems it is utterly necessary to maintain boundaries, firewalls and high quality subsystems for decoding and encoding. An organized balance between systems and networks is imperative (Samuelson, 2004).
Control systems and automation were at first treated as limited special areas. There was industrial automation by process control, and there were defence operations guided by command, control and communication (C3). Thorough feature analyses towards design specifications for a fully integrated system based on the GIST foundations were pursued. It was clarified that the combined decision and command-control functions can be treated as a subset of the general information system and its harmonizing subsystems (Samuelson, 1969, 1975). An ever-actual example is given in Figure 3. It depicts the OODA-loops i.e. Observe, Orient, Decide and Act with alternative degrees of autonomic response in target-driven defence operations. It also shows that this is fully congruent with the loops of feedback, feedforward bypass and action-trigger in Goal-steering of any system designed and operating along the RAPIDS principles.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
In 1975, this author took on the task to serve as president of SGSR, Society for General Systems Research. The integral sign was the logotype of that organization. My challenge was to contribute to its mission of integrating the scientific fields, and conduct metadisciplinary initiatives over and above the divergent special niches. The issues were spelled out in the presidential address and directed to a world full of particularists, but with very few generalists (Samuelson, 1976). My contribution as professor and chair was to unify Informatics, Systems Science and Cybernetics in graduate and doctoral education and research as a core curriculum for more than three decades. Jim Miller was my predecessor as SGSR president, but also president of the University of Louisville, a site that by consultation adopted course modules from our own programme in Informatics and Systems Science.
An effort of analysing compatibility and complementarity between the pioneer works in the neighbouring knowledge domains resulted in an encyclopaedia chapter on General Systems (Samuelson, 1977b). It also covered the generics of living systems, cybernetics, informatics, networks and systems engineering. The analysis again confirmed my previous comparative evaluation, namely that the works by J. G. Miller and collaborators on living systems was the most comprehensive effort to date. The afore-quoted encyclopaedia chapter was written during my last stage of finishing a major book on Informatics by General Systems and Cybernetics (Samuelson, 1978a). It covered structured methodology, definitions, digraphs, matrices, and displayed extensive use of the system symbols in design examples.
So far, during the 1970's information systems were developed and managed as a separate entity serving an object system in its work environment of matter and energy. Integration and holistic approaches towards complete systems were missing. Then later in 1978 came the publishing and release of Jim's book Living Systems (Miller, 1978). Here was a solid ground of nineteen critical subsystems at seven levels explained in a rich coverage of cases and behaviour. One single picture was drawn to portray a generalized living system interacting with its environment (page 2). Other portrayals were exposed in the context of appearance at the seven levels. Despite the lengthy text, there were no systemic formalizations like directed flow-graphs, transition matrices, precedence analysis, symbol notations or architectural structures. This became an inspiration to continue my ever ongoing formalization work towards complete systems (Samuelson, 1978b). While supporting the University of Louisville as a visiting professor in Systems Science, I abducted Jim from his presidential office, and cornered him before a blackboard. I would then front him with the repertoire of systems symbols, digraphs and matrices used over the years, and apply them to general living systems practice. The experiment was well received and my formalizations worked as communicative tools for systems methodology in large-scale projects and organizational development.
During the same years, late 1970's, I also carried forth the design and construction of InformatiCom, a multiway video-communication system with complete 16-part splitscreen presentation in real-time with total feedback (Samuelson, 1980, 1981). This was used for educational multisite video and teleconferencing. In addition it was combined with the display presentation of a complete living system and twenty critical subsystem functions with flows spread over the split-screen windows, as is shown in Figure 4, though several feedback loops are excluded. Instead there is a pragmatic layout, partitioning and subsystem grouping with distinct logic:
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
Additional designs have been made, that combine the functional logic display with quantitative presentation of the flows.
SYMBOLS, MNEMONICS AND GRAPHICS
The repertoire and system symbols that we have used for many years are shown in Figures 5 and 6. Also listed are the functions, character features, naming, numbering, pseudonyms, mnemonic shorts and the flows symbols. The complete system is presented in Figure 7, as a graph with directed flows, feedback, loops, cycles and throughput of information, matter and energy.
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
This is not the time and place for methodology instruction in symbol usage, the way we have lectured in the doctoral programme of Informatics and Systems Science. Only a few comments are added. Since their introduction a few of the symbols have been modified to enhance their explicit meaning. As the information net has significant amounts of feedback, a loop is assigned to its symbol. Matter and energy flows are usually straightforward or branched. Star nets are less usual in living systems, which instead have typical patterns of parallelism.
My concern about the 'time' notion since the 1960's was mentioned earlier in this article. All since that era I kept observing ever more evidence and cases suggesting that there exists a specific 'timer' subsystem. As such it performs the function of a timesetter, pacemaker and rhythm-keeper for each unique system in its behaviour. I had observed this function in bio-clocks, heartbeats and life-cycles and used a clock symbol. After several years of further research and observations the use of the 'timer' is acknowledged and continues as a separate critical subsystem added to the other 19 within living systems analysis (Miller and Miller 1990).
The numbered order of the symbols is in rhyme with the processing order of the critical subsystems. Thus, the tail does not wag the dog! Food stuffing does not drive the nervous system. Goal steering, decisions and plans trigger the alternative actions, producing and moving etc. Nowadays groups and organizations, account for more information-communication versus materiel-energy flows, making the numbers 1-10 a practical auditing order. The adjusted numbering and order of subsystems provides for compatibility with VSM, Viable Systems Modelling (Beer, 1981). Figure 8 shows matching and isomorphies between the viable systems representation and the information flows of a living system. Since VSM is pursued as a real-time control system, the memory function may be treated as self-looping delays rather than as a separate subsystem.
[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]
It is advisable to avoid the insertion of extra notations for artefacts and non-critical subsystems, parts and elements etc. They would blur the holistics. Living in today's world of cellphones, hearing-aides, prosthetics and PC portables etc., it has become practical to treat them as discardable tech-tools in contrast to yesteryears' computer edifice. Maintaining the overall, integrative systemic chart is the main idea of compiling the symbol synthesis for human intellect and reasoning--not the decomposition into fragmented instances.
The developed symbol methods, mnemonics notation and formalizations adhere to the principle of information chunking and 'in subito' handling i.e. sudden organizing of input stimuli into a sequence of memorizable chunks. (Miller, 1967). It also echoes among the seven levels, and the stratification throughout living systems theory.
DIGRAPHS AND MATRICES
A great deal of our work as cited, makes use of directed flow-graphs (digraphs) for system representation, explanation and modelling. These structures can sometimes become quite big and have a large number of inputs, outputs, variables, parameters etc. that are the focus of interest in simulations. For operational handling and management it is then visually practical to use a ternary matrix representation. Figure 9 is a matrix form for the previous digraph that was shown in Figure 7. The internal structure is revealed by this input-output matrix. The basic concepts are: dependence, independence, layers and circularity. Feedback is indicated by minus, while self-loops are excluded by the diagonal. The displayed Figures 7 and 9 have a minor amount of information feedback and some branched matter-energy forwards. In other situations, matrix cells and transitions were quantitative flow indicators.
[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]
EFFECTIVENESS, MEASUREMENT AND ASSESSMENT
The previous sections have addressed such issues as system qualities, behaviour, morphology and character features. We have also formalized quantitative expressions for simulation, measurement and assessment as follows (Samuelson, 1967, 1972). The living systems, subsystems and joint functions have the mutually supportive advantages of being: observable, controllable, tangible and measurable in terms of throughput, balance, flow, structure, input and output for matter, energy and information. The throughput and flows can be holistically assessed as an ideally loss less chain of high-fidelity transforms in serial and parallel subsystems. Evaluation includes pair-wise comparisons and relations when performing over a scale like 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9 and 1.0. Maximum perfection is represented by 1.0.
Formalized examples of measurement began with the RAPIDS chain in addition to those of viable systems applications:
Efficacy R/A Productivity R/P Latency P/G Performance R/G = P/G x R/P Actuality (Results) R Capability (Plans) P Potentiality (Goals) G Control effectiveness R/A x R/P x R/G Efficiency (chained) S/I x H/S x D/H x P/D x A/P x R/A=R/I Effectivity W/V
Here is a simple case of 100% effective power by straightforward chaining of efficiencies:
One observation: S/I = 1 One identification: D/S = 1 One decision: P/D = 1 One action: A/P = 1 One full hit: R/A = 1 Efficiency: R/I = 1
Additional measures have been formalized for matter and energy flows in whole systems applications (Samuelson, 1981).
APPLICATIONS AND CONVERGENT FINDINGS
Systems practice applying the symbols at various stages has been pursued since the 1960's. The author's own principal investigator applications e.g. cover organizational development corporate advising, aerospace projects, industry and management consultancy. Much of this is proprietary or classified. Open references are offered in the concluding bibliography. As professor and chair, my conducting the Informatics and Systems Science programme has been rewarded by the students' doctoral dissertations and research (Rasegard, 1986, 1992; Agrell, 1991). These also, e.g., include (Frandberg, 1994; Osterlund, 1994), and they like Rasegard keep using the systems symbolics. Matrix representations by Frandberg (1982) are in line with related applications (Burns, 1979; Leontief, 1986). Other uses of the symbols are adopted in reported studies by TRADOC (1985). The uses are sometimes slanted but the symbols remain standard.
Altogether, there exists convergent thinking as well as compatible research results by other scientists. Many sources were joined and integrated in the realm of living systems (Miller, 1978). Terminology and definitions are congruent with our concepts in teleology, and on purposeful systems (Ackoff and Emery, 1972). The analysis of energy flows is in line with comprehensive studies of systems ecology (Odum, 1983: Fig. 27-3, P. 574).
There is also the hopper model of a system (Nadler and Hibino, 1990), i.e. a container with an opening for input acted upon and altered by various forces, then after changes flowing through a controlled outlet opening. The forces acting en route may be physical catalysts, information aids, sociotechnical and human agents, while the operative factor is sequence and the order of processing steps. This hopper representation can be visualized like Figure 4 and analysed for structures, matrix cells, elements and transitions etc. under the influence of purposes and goals though impacted by environmental measures and intangibles.
Among the bulk of scientific works compatible with our own, there are two deserving special mention. 'A world of systems' (Bunge, 1979) has stringent formalizations for systems within the core of being i.e. ontology. 'An approach to general systems' (Klir, 1969) has concurring concept definitions, and concordance with our search for scientific rigor.
This survey of the system symbols creation and their use rest upon a meticulous scientific and pragmatic ground. It was built over half a century by individual motivation for initiative, and personal involvement in worldwide interchange as a stimulating force. The system symbols, syntax, logics and structuring are only the explicit surface appearances that are helpful for communicating concepts and ideas in the design and development of systems and networks. Underneath it all, there is a wealth of experience sources. One of them is represented by more than 170 propositions that in modesty were called 'Hypothesis' in general living systems theory (Miller, 1978). Moreover, the sciences that are focused on systems of systems and networks (Samuelson, 1976) are synoptically quoted as SCIN, i.e. Systems, Cybernetics, Informatics and Networks. A manageable size of a few thousand principles have been identified, formalized and cumulated over five decades (Samuelson, 2004). Here reside the deep-insights as a precious resource.
The logic, connectivity, structure and dynamics of Figure 7 serve as a frame of reference and base plate when the deep-insights are derived and retrieved out of the time-longitudinal weave of interconnected domains and core knowledge sources. In some projects we used these three domains and their interactions:
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
* Physical and Social
* Information and Communication
* Cognitive and Behavioural
They are overlapping and mixed concrete, immaterial and time-spanning. Progressive clarity is generated when the loops are iteratively traversed yielding: Awareness, Intent, Understanding (Figure 3 and 10). Insight grows through the understanding loop. Motive is comprised of value referring to an image, and intention which refers to a plan. Insight does comprise holistic consciousness/awareness and complete capability to fully understand and grasp:
[FIGURES 3-10 OMITTED]
* Systemic nature-laws, physical principles and experience rules
* Total contexts, structures, coupling points and linked or causal relationships
* Complexity degrees, interplay, functions, roles and intents
* Statics: descriptions, concepts, definitions, formalized contents and meanings.
* Dynamics: means, measures, re-/actions, capacities, effects, responses, consequences and lessons learned.
The loop of insight gaining is part of the metasystemic self-renewal (autopoiesis) involving coordination, diagnose, plans and goals among the critical subsystems, prior to action execution. The use of insight, creativity/imagination and personal acquired wisdom are aimed at increasing Requisite Variety in an action repertoire (Figures 3, 7 and 8). The above summarized features are what constitutes the Deep-Insights Bank (DIB) as a unique proprietary, cumulative resource of principles grown as a knitted connect work. It also carries the functions of universal inquiring system dynamics towards wisdom (Churchman, 1982).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND INTEGRATION
An armful of praise and acknowledgements is hereby sincerely expressed to fellow scientists and colleagues since many years. Cordial appreciation goes to Jim Miller MD, PhD as a founder of Behavioral Science, General Living Systems Theory and EDUCOM/EDUNET (1967). Our mutual interests in international information networks were shared with Joe Becker, and through the General Systems Foundation we took an initiative towards launching University of the World activities.
Wide recognition goes to an array of science and research colleagues, most of whom served as presidents and/or board members of SGSR and ISSS during or after my own term in presidential office and later in the board of distinguished advisors. Out of dedicated work in systems science grew life-long friendship. My appreciation is expressed to them, by the rationale that some wore the same first name, and all are remembered, thus alphabetically: Anatol, Bela, Bill, Bob, Brian, Charles, Dan, Dick Donald, Ervin, G. A., Gerard, George, Gordon, Hal, Heinz, Herb, Howard, Ian, Ilya, Jessie and Jim, Joe, John, Jonas, Karl, Ken, Larry, Len, Margaret, Mike, Peter, Ross, Russ, Skip, Stafford, Steve, Stu, Tom, West and Yong Pil. Statistically, a few might be unintentionally missing, as times goes by.
Further gratitude is extended to science colleagues from collaborations within other scholarly associations, such as AAAS, AMA, ASC, ASIS, ICA, IEEE, IFIP and IFSR. The integrative role of SGSR/ISSS has been quite instrumental to the flow of members and officers. En route, they have been exposed to a multitude of areas outside the personal niches. There are no simple either-ors, hard-soft antipodes, two-faced solutions or singular panacea. The SCIN-domains jointly with the spectrum of scientific territories generate kaleidoscopic facets and multidimensional openings for combined systems approaches. Our pictographics (Figures 1-10) function as methodology entries into mining an ocean of insight depths, and retrieval from guru quality wisdom core.
Ackoff RL, Emery FE. 1972. On Purposeful Systems. Aldine-Atherton: Chicago.
Agrell PS. 1991. Systems Theory for Systems Practice. Informatics & Systems Science. Stockholm University and Royal Institute of Technology. TRITA IS-5437.
The application of living systems theory to 41 US Army battalions. Univ. Louisville, TRADOC Systems Science Research Element. 1985. Behavioral Science 30(1): 7-50.
Beer S. 1981. Brain of the Firm, Managerial Cybernetics of Organization. John Wiley & Sons : New York.
Brown GW, Miller JG, Keenan TA. EDUNET, 1967. Report on Information Networks conducted by EDUCOM. John Wiley & Sons : New York.
Bunge M. 1979. A world of systems In Treatise on Basic Philosophy, Ontology II (Vol. 4). Reidel Publ. Dordrecht: Holland.
Burns JR et al. 1979. An algorithm for converting signed digraphs to Forrester schematics. IEEE Trans. Systems Man and Cybernetics 9(3): 115-124.
Churchman CW. 1982. Thought and Wisdom. Intersystems: Seaside, CA.
Frandberg T. 1982. The town as a system, a methodology for computerized modeling of building process and living. In Proceedings of SGSR Conf., Washington D.C., Jan. 1982; 919-924.
Frandberg T. 1994. Environmental and Systems Thinking, Simulation Studies of Living Systems. Informatics and Systems Science. Royal Institute of Technology: Stockholm.
Klir GJ. 1969. An Approach to General Systems Theory. Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York.
Leontief W. 1986. Input-Output Economics. Oxford University Press.
Miller GA. 1967. The magical number seven, plus-or-minus two, some limits to our capacity for processing information. In Brain Physiology and Psychology. Buttenvorths: London; 175-200. And in The Psychology of Communication. Basic Books: New York; 14-44.
Miller JG. 1978. Living Systems. McGraw-Hill: New York.
Miller JG, Miller, JL. 1990. The nature of living systems. Behavioral Science 35(3): 157-163.
Nadler G, Hibino S. 1990. The Systems Principle, seven-eights of everything can't be seen, Ch. 7. In Breakthrough Thinking. Prima: Rocklin, CA; 163-192.
Odum HT. 1983. Systems Ecology. John Wiley & Sons: New York.
Osterlund J. 1994. Competence management by informatics systems in R&D work. Informatics & Systems Science, Royal Institute of Technology. Stockholm, TRITA IS-5259.
Rasegard, S. 1986. Using ideas of cybernetics in organization development. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 10 (3-4): 185-196.
Rasegard S. 1992. Informatics and Systems Science Applications for Analysis and Structural Improvement of Municipal Organization. Informatics & Systems Science. Stockholm University & Royal Institute of Technology. TRITA IS-5419.
Samuelson K. 1967. Information structure and decision sequence. In Mechanized Information Storage, Retrieval and Dissemination. Samuelson, K FID/IFIP: North-Holland, Amsterdam; 622-636.
Samuelson K. 1969. Management information systems and nervous systems, a comparison of design concepts. In Proceedings of IEEE Systems Science & Cybernetics Conference, Philadelphia: Oct. 1969: 90-98.
Samuelson K. 1970. Worldwide information networks. In Proceedings of CiCiN Conference ALA, Chicago: 317-328.
Samuelson K. 1971a. Action-oriented data-base design for medical information ant facts. In Proceedings of Conf. Electron. Med. Biol. Las Vegas, Oct-Nov 1971. IEEE: New York.
Samuelson K. 1971b. International information transfer and network communication. In Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (Vol. 6). Britannica: Chicago; 482-505.
Samuelson K. 1972. Information models and theories, a synthesizing approach. In Information Science. NATO ASI: Dekker, New York; 47-67.
Samuelson K. 1975. Information systems design, towards generic concepts and a canonical framework. In Systemeering 75. Studentlitteratur, Lund; 74-84.
Samuelson K. 1976. General systems, cybernetics and informatics as an interdisciplinary breed. Presidential Address. In Proceedings of SGSR-AAAS Meeting in Boston, MA, Feb 1976: 2-8.
Samuelson K. 1977a. Networks and structuring, Ch 9, In Information Systems and Networks, Samuelson K. North-Holland, Amsterdam: 71-87.
Samuelson K. 1977b. General systems. In Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology (Vol. 8). Dekker: New York; 482-505.
Samuelson K. 1978a. Informatics by General Systems and Cybernetics, a Structured Methodology for Design, Anasynthesis and Usage. Stockholm University & Royal Institute of Technology. TRITA IS-5011.
Samuelson K. 1978b. General information systems theory in design, modeling and development. In Information Science in Action, Systems Design (Vol. 1). NATO AS1 59 in Crete Aug 1978, Nijhoff: Boston: 304-320.
Samuelson K. 1980. Informatic communication by multiway video and complete teleconferencing. In Proceedings of 43rd ASIS Meeting in Los Angeles. ASIS: Washington, D.C.; 129-131.
Samuelson K. 1981. InformatiCom and multiway video communication as a cybernetic design and general systems technology. In Proceedings of 25th SGSR-AAAS Meeting in Toronto, Canada. Jan 1981; 207-214.
Samuelson K. 2004. Organized Balance of Systems and Networks. Informatics & Systems: Stockholm, Sweden.
Kjell Samuelson *
Informatics and Systems Science, Stockholm 11523, Sweden
* Correspondence to: Professor Kjell Samuelson, Informatics & Systems, Narvavegen 8, Stockholm 11523, Sweden.
Figure 5. Legend of systems symbols and functions LEGEND of SYSTEMS SYMBOLS and FUNCTIONS Symbols Mnemonic Subsystems shorts (critical) [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] S 1 Input transducer [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] H 2 Internal transducer [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] D 3 Decoder [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] P 4 Associator [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] G 5 Decider [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] N 6 Channel & Net [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] M 7 Memory [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] E 8 Encoder [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] A 9 Output transducer [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] T 10 Timer [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] J 11 Ingestor [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] F 12 Supporter [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] C 13 Converter [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] K 14 Producer [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Y 15 Motor [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] L 16 Distributor [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Q 17 Storage [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] X 18 Extruder [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] B 19 Boundary [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Z 20 Reproducer Subsystems Functional character features 3 qualities (critical) Input transducer sensor, sighting, receptor, detector, perception, receiving Internal transducer coordination, inside monitor, feeler gage, harmonious correlator, home-base sensing Decoder diagnose, designation, distinction, interpret, translation, categorize, synoptic labeling, construe, situation- control, identification Associator projective planning, prospect vision, assemble, relate, strategic intelligence, anticipation, presage, decision switch Decider goals & objectives-keeping, purpose guidance, motives, drive, policy, steering-control, impeller Channel & Net net (work), communication, circulate, relaying, Memory remember, message-retainer, filing & retrieval, retrospect Encoder explicate, external translation, expression- former, outcoding, public report Output transducer action, activator, actuator, exploit, deed, implement, sending, effector, Timer time-keeper, cycle-setter Ingestor injector, jet-entry, intake, reception, job-entry Supporter foundation, firmament, ground, substance, sustain, maintain Converter conditioning, prepare, transform, rework, refinery Producer maker, generator, facture, repair, mending Motor move, motility, mobilize, ambulate Distributor pipeline, transport linkage, route, line entrenchment, liner fairway Storage supply store, stockpile, queue, cumulation, reservoir, depot, deposit Extruder exit, outlet, exhaust propulsion, remove, discharge, unload Boundary border, shield, fence, wall, enclose Reproducer replicate, template, zoon, remake Figure 6. Legend of system and flow symbols LEGEND OF SYSTEM AND FLOW SYMBOLS [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] S1 Input transducer [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] H2 Internal transducer [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] D3 Decoder [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] P4 Associator [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] G5 Decider [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] N6 Channel & Net [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] M7 Memory [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] E8 Encoder [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] A9 Output transducer [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] T10 Timer [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] J11 Ingestor [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] F12 Supporter [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] C13 Converter [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] K14 Producer [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Y15 Motor [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] L16 Distributor [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Q17 Storage [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] X18 Extruder [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] B19 Boundary [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Z20 Reproducer [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] I Information input [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] R Result/outcome [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] V Intake Value/Volume [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] W Wanted output [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] so Source [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] si Sink [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Information flow [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Matter flow [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Energy flow [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Relations
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Research Article|
|Publication:||Systems Research and Behavioral Science|
|Date:||May 1, 2006|
|Previous Article:||Theories of viability: a comparison.|
|Next Article:||Functional modelling in engineering design: a perspectival approach featuring living systems theory.|