GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY

The idea of general systems theory was developed by L. Von Bertalanffy around 1930, later a
group of people united their concerns in what was called the Society for General Systems
Research, established in 1954 together with Anatol Rapoport, Kenneth Boulding, Ralph Gerard and
others.

The goal of General Systems Theory is not to look for analogies between the sciences, but to try to
avoid the scientific superficiality that has been headed to the sciences. To do this, it uses as an
instrument, usable and transferable models between various scientific continents, whenever said
extrapolation is possible and integrable to the respective disciplines.

When studying systems theory, one must begin with the premises or assumptions underlying
general systems theory. Boulding (1964) attempted a synthesis of the assumptions underlying
general systems theory and points out five basic premises. These premises could also be called
postulates (P), presuppositions or value judgments.

P1. Order, regularity and lack of chance are preferable to lack of order or irregularity (chaos) and
the existence of a random state.

P2. The ordered character of the empirical world makes the world good, interesting and attractive
to the systems theorist.

P3. There is order in the ordering of the external or empirical world (order in the second degree): a
law of laws.

Q4. To establish order, quantification and mathematization are highly valuable auxiliaries.

Q5. The search for law and order necessarily implies the search for the empirical references of this
order and this law. (p. 25).

The general systems theorist is not only a researcher of order in order and laws of laws; It seeks
the concrete and particularistic materializations of the abstract order and formal law that it
discovers.

The search for empirical references to abstract a formal order and laws can start from one or
another of the two initial points, the theoretical and the empirical origin. The systems theorist can
start with some elegant mathematical relationship and then look around the empirical world to
see if he can find something that fits that relationship, or he can start with some empirical order
carefully and patiently worked out in the world of experience and then search the abstract world
of mathematics until you find some relationship that helps you simplify that order or relate it to
other laws with which you are familiar.

Consequently, general systems theory, like all true sciences, is based on a systematic search for
law and order in the universe; but unlike the other sciences, it tends to broaden its search, turning
it into a search for an order of orders, for a law of laws. This is the reason why it has been called
general systems theory.

Characteristics of General Systems Theory

According to Schoderbek et al. (1993), the characteristics that theorists have attributed to general
systems theory are the following:

 Interrelation and interdependence of objects, attributes, events and other similar aspects. Any
systems theory must take into account the elements of the system, the interrelationship between
them and the interdependence of the components of the system. Unrelated and independent
elements can never constitute a system.

 Totality. The systems approach is not an analytical approach, in which the whole is decomposed
into its constituent parts and then each of the decomposed elements is studied in isolation: it is
rather a gestalt type of approach, which tries to address the whole with all its interrelated and
interdependent parts in interaction.

 Search for objectives. All systems include interacting components, and the interaction causes
some goal, end state, or equilibrium position to be reached.

 Inputs and products. All systems depend on some inputs to generate the activities that will
ultimately lead to the achievement of a goal. All systems produce some products that other
systems need.

 Transformation. All systems are transformers of inputs into outputs. Inputs may include
information, activities, an energy source, lectures, readings, raw materials, etc. What the system
receives is modified by it in such a way that the form of the output differs from the form of the
input.

 Entropy. Entropy is related to the natural tendency of objects to fall into a state of disorder. All
non-living systems tend toward disorder; If you leave them isolated, they will eventually lose all
movement and degenerate, becoming an inert mass.

 Regulation. If systems are sets of interacting interrelated and interdependent components, the
interacting components must be regulated (managed) in some way so that the objectives (goals)
of the system are ultimately realized.

 Hierarchy. Generally all systems are complex, made up of smaller subsystems. The term
"hierarchy" implies the introduction of systems into other systems.

 Differentiation. In complex systems, specialized units perform specialized functions. This

differentiation of functions by components is a characteristic of all systems and allows the focal
system to adapt to its environment.
 Equifinality. This characteristic of open systems states that the final results can be achieved with
different initial conditions and in different ways. It contrasts with the closed system cause and
effect relationship, which indicates that there is only one optimal path to achieve a given
objective. For complex organizations it implies the existence of a diversity of inputs that can be
used and the possibility of transforming them in various ways. (pp. 42-43)

Given these characteristics, one can easily imagine a company, a hospital, a university, as a system,
and apply the aforementioned principles to that entity. For example, organizations, as is evident,
have many interacting components: production, marketing, accounting, research and
development, all of which depend on each other.

When trying to understand the organization, it must be approached in its total complexity, rather
than simply considered through a component or functional area. The study of a production system
would not produce a satisfactory analysis if the marketing system were left aside.

THE SYSTEMS APPROACH

The Systems Approach is an orderly way of evaluating a human need of a complex nature and
consists of observing the situation from all angles and determining the distinguished elements in
the problem, the cause and effect relationship that exists between them, the specific functions
that they fulfill in each case and the exchanges that will be required between the resources once
they are defined.

The systems approach conceives the organization as a united and directed system of interrelated
parts that have a purpose and is composed of interacting parts. It states that the activity of one
segment of the organization affects to different degrees the activity of all its segments.

One of its basic assumptions of the systems approach is that organizations are not self-sufficient,
they exchange resources with the defined external environment, this as all elements foreign to the
organization that are relevant to its operations.
Considers that the institutional organization is a system that is made up of subsystems where a
transformation process is followed until a result is obtained, which must be constantly feedback;
all of this through the interaction of the parts that are considered as subsystems, where each
department or service cooperates and interacts with specific functions and activities that lead to
the achievement of a general objective within the institution.

It highlights the dynamic essence and interrelationships of organizations and administrative tasks,
offering a framework that allows us to plan actions and, in most cases, anticipate immediate,
mediate or unexpected consequences when they arise.
With the systems approach, directors of institutions can more easily maintain the balance
between the needs of the different services that make up the organization and the requirements
of the organization as a whole. Communication is not only between employees and departments,
but also and often with representatives of other organizations.
ASPECTS OF THE SYSTEMS APPROACH

Characteristics of the Systems Approach:

 Interdisciplinary : The approach to the problem and its solution is not limited to a single
discipline, but rather all relevant disciplines intervene in the search for a solution.

 Qualitative and Quantitative at the same time: It uses an adaptable approach, since the
designer does not exclusively apply certain instruments. The solution achieved through the
systems can be described in entirely qualitative terms, entirely quantitative terms or with a
combination of both.

 Organized: The Systems Approach is a means of solving amorphous and extensive problems,
whose solutions include the application of large amounts of resources in an orderly manner. The
organized approach requires that the members of the systems team understand it, despite their
various specializations. The basis of their communication is the language of system design.

 Creative: Despite the generalized procedures devised for system design, the approach must be
creative, concentrating first on the proposed goals and then on the methods or manner in which
they will be achieved.

 Theoretical: It is based on the theoretical structures of science, from which practical solutions to
problems are built: this structure is complemented by the data of said problem.

 Empirical: The search for experimental data is an essential part of the approach, in order to
identify relevant data from irrelevant data and true data from false data.

 Pragmatic: The Systems Approach generates an action-oriented result.

General Methodology of the Systems Approach:

The Systems Approach is developed according to the following process:

First: Analysis of the environment or environment (using the needs assessment and the analysis of
discrepancies between the should be and the is to visualize the gaps or problems).
Second: Establishment of the scope and objectives of the system

Third: Definition of resources and means to achieve the objectives

Fourth: System modeling, organizational structuring.

Fifth: Implementation of the model

Sixth: Evaluation of results for feedback.

The Systems Approach is focused on the final objectives; Therefore, it is important to primarily
define the objectives of the system and examine them. Once the objectives are defined, the
greatest number of economically possible data is obtained; They will represent the inputs,
outputs, criteria, restrictions and structure of the system.

Subsequently, the system is outlined from the main elements and relationships. Alternatives and
modifications are created and reviewed; Analogies taken from various disciplines are included.

Analysis begins when the designer tries to refine the system by improving components and
subsystems. At this stage the restrictions and criteria must be evaluated.

Example of the Systems Approach:

The systems approach has countless fields of application, from agricultural production, industrial
production, to automated systems.

Two examples of cases in which the Systems Approach is applied are presented below.

 The agricultural systems approach to the development and generation of appropriate

technology: Guidelines on procedures useful for agricultural systems personnel to achieve
one of the main objectives of the agricultural systems approach to development (SAD): the
design and the improvement of technologies of interest.

 An expansion model of a productive sector that allows defining the best strategy to satisfy
demand, trying to minimize the total costs associated with production, also including
transportation costs. Or in other words maximize efficiency in national terms.

Applications of general systems theory

Starting from the General Systems Theory, several trends have appeared that seek their practical
application through applied sciences. Among others, we can point out:

 Cybernetics : Based on the principle of feedback or circular causality and homeostasis; explains
the communication and control mechanisms in machines and living beings that help to understand
the behaviors generated by these systems that are characterized by their purposes, motivated by
the search for some objective, with self-organization and self-control capabilities. . Cybernetics
provides mechanisms for goal pursuit and self-controlled behavior. In its broadest sense, it is
defined as the science of effective organization, which indicates that the laws of complex systems
are invariable, not only in the face of the transformation of their matter, but also of their content,
whether neurophysiological, automotive, social. or economical.

 Information Theory : This introduces the concept of information as a measurable magnitude

through an isomorphic expression of negative entropy in physics, and develops the principles of its
transmission. The mathematicians who have developed this theory have concluded that the
information formula is exactly the same as the entropy formula, but with the opposite sign:

INFORMATION = - ENTROPY

EITHER

INFORMATION = NEGUENTROPIA

The more complex the systems are in terms of their number of states and relationships, the
greater the energy that these systems give up both in obtaining information and in its processing,
decision, storage and/or communication.

 Game Theory : Analyzes, with a powerful mathematical framework, the rational competition
between two or more antagonists in pursuit of maximum gain and minimum loss. Through this
technique, the behavior of parties in conflict can be studied, be they individuals, logos or nations.
Evidently, even the assumptions on which this theory rests are quite restrictive (they assume
rational behavior among competitors), however, its advance, that is, the elimination, or at least,
the extension not only in this field, but in other fields related, such as group behavior or dynamics
and, in general, the theory or theories that try to explain and resolve or predict conflicts.

 Decision Theory : Analyzes, similarly rational choices, within human organizations, based on the
examination of a given situation and its consequences. In general, two different lines of analysis
have been followed in this field; one is the Decision theory itself, which seeks to analyze, in a
similar way to the theory of Games, the rational selection of alternatives within social
organizations; The other line of analysis is the study of the “conduct” followed by the social system
as a whole and in each of its parts, when facing the decision process. This has led to a “behavioral”
theory of the company as opposed to economic theory, very much in vogue among economists
who have developed the theory of perfect and/or imperfect competition.

 Topology or Rational Mathematics : Includes non-metric fields such as network and graph
theories. Topology has been recognized as a particular area of mathematics in the last 50 years,
and its main growth has originated within the last 30 years. It is one of the new branches of
mathematics that has demonstrated the most power and has produced strong repercussions in
most of the old branches of this science and has also had an important effect on other sciences,
including the social sciences. It started as a response to the need for classical analysis of calculus
and differential equations. Its application to the study of interactions between parts of systems
(social or otherwise) is evident, for example graph theory as a method for understanding
administrative behavior. This is a great help in illustrating the connections between the parts of a
system.

 Factor Analysis : It is the isolation by mathematical analysis of factors in multivariate

phenomena, in psychology and other fields. In this science, this approach tries to determine the
main dimensions of groups (for example, in the study of group dynamics), by identifying their key
elements. This means that it can be measured in a large number of attributes and determine a
much more limited number of independent dimensions, by means of which it can be more
economically and functionally defined to measure any particular group of a larger group
population.

 Systems Engineering : It includes the conception, approach, evaluation and scientific

construction of man-machine systems. The theoretical interest of this field lies in the fact that
those entities whose components are heterogeneous (men, machines, materials, money, buildings
and other objects, flows of raw materials, production flow, etc.) can be analyzed as systems. or
systems analysis can be applied to them.

 Operations Research : It refers to the scientific control of existing systems of men and machines.
Materials, money, etc. Operations research is defined as the attack of modern science on the
complex problems arising from the direction and administration of large systems composed of
men, machines, materials and money in industry, commerce, government and defense . Its
distinctive approach is the development of a scientific model of the system incorporating factors
such as chance and risk, with which to predict and compare the results of different decisions,
strategies or alternative controls. The purpose is to help the administration determine its policy
and actions in a scientific manner.

 Human Engineering : It is the scientific adaptation of systems and especially machines, in order
to maintain maximum efficiency with minimum costs in money and other expenses. It deals with
the capabilities, physiological limitations and variability of human beings.

There are models, principles and laws applicable to generalized systems or their subclasses,
regardless of their particular gender, the nature of their elements that compose it and the
relationships or “forces” that they impose between them. It seems legitimate to ask for a theory,
not of more or less special class systems, but of universal principles applicable to systems in
general.

From here a new discipline called General Systems Theory is born; whose subject is the
formulation and derivation of those principles that are valid for “systems” in general.

A consequence of the existence of general properties of systems is the appearance of structural

similarities or isomorphisms in different fields. There is correspondence between the principles
that govern the behavior of entities that are intrinsically very different.

Similar concepts, models and laws emerge again and again in very diverse fields independently,
based on completely different facts. On many occasions identical principles were discovered,
because they wanted to work in a territory and did not realize that the required theoretical
structure was already well advanced in some other field. The General Systems Theory will count a
lot in the effort to avoid this useless repetition of efforts.

It will then be said that a general theory of systems would be a useful instrument by providing
usable and transferable models between different fields and avoiding, on the other hand, vague
analogies that have often harmed progress in said fields.

The General Systems Theory is capable in principle of giving exact definitions of such concepts and,
in appropriate cases, of subjecting them to quantitative analysis.

The General Systems Theory is only applied in those cases where isomorphism exists, that is,
when, in certain aspects, coincident abstractions and conceptual models can be applied to
different phenomena.

METHODOLOGY OF CHANGE

The theme of change is the theme of our time. Technology gives us more information and better
communications, which forces us to act more quickly than before and also promises to increase
the speed of events and therefore the speed of future change.

The basic problem is that people do not want to change. We prefer to fall in love with a slogan
rather than produce a change, because the slogan, no matter what it is, allows us to continue
being and doing what we are accustomed to.

For now, a change always begins with someone who comes to tell us that what we do is wrong. Or
with a third party who begins to analyze what we do and who, too often, looks at us with a certain
air of superiority and even with a smile of compassionate understanding when we explain why we
do it in such a way.

In any case we feel threatened and we feel mistreated. If we are people of a certain hierarchical
level we will smile and say that we agree with analyzing the way in which the company is
managed; If we are not, we will give more space to our anger and in different ways we will let it be
known to those around us and even to those who tell us what we should do or who is sticking their
conceited nose into our work.

Every time we change because we are forced, we oppose fierce resistance, direct or indirect,
usually passive and we allow the successive and mysterious errors of the new process to fall on
those who have entered our territory. This exotic phenomenon of resistance to change is one of
the healthiest expressions of the human being. The opposite, letting your life change and being
kind, is only acceptable when it is a minor issue or when it is exceptional. If we usually agree with
the changes that are imposed on us, it is because we are not, we have fallen so far in our strength
that we can barely call ourselves human beings.
A major change is the most appropriate to start with flexibility. Daily or minor changes do not offer
so much difficulty and surely the same principles can be applied to them to be applied more easily.
But a major change is a phenomenon in which many positions will be touched because if the
process does not cover many positions it can hardly be classified as major.

As we all have time problems and as we are all aware that communication technologies will be
increasingly powerful, bringing a little help to better manage that resource as rigid as time is
always welcome.

Starting from the acceptance of the difficulty and the creation of the expectation of its results, the
modification of habits means a radical change in the relationships and management of that group,
which has a significant impact on the company, due to the improvement in the internal situation
of the group and for its greater effectiveness.

This makes those who thought of change as a threatening event that tends to end in dismissal
change their attitude, because they can carry out changes without anything harmful happening.
And thus the novelty is realized that instead of having to make culture changes, we produce a
culture of change that continues to function once the process has ended, because that group has
learned, based on a need it had, that it can work changing things without resulting in harm to
anyone, but rather in benefit.

This process is usually worked on the basis of the flexible change methodology, which was
restarted a little over five years ago and which allows participants to put the Time Diamond into
practice between one meeting and another, choosing their own objectives, which makes that
change in situation that we mentioned in the previous paragraph occurs.

The Change Methodology is carried out through 7 phases:

 Determining the need to make changes ("unfreezing").

 Implementation of links due to changes.

 Operations aimed at making changes.

 Determination of goals and purposes.

 Transformation of purposes into action for change

 Generalization and stabilization of changes ("freezing").

 Way to end relationships.

1a. Phase: Determination of the need to make changes

Before the process of change resulting from a plan can begin, it is, as a rule, necessary to
transform these difficulties into conscious "knowledge" of the real problem; that is, in the desire
to effect change and to seek help from within outside the body.
Frequently, there is awareness of the problems and a real desire to try to solve them, and yet it is
also accompanied by opposition to the idea of receiving outside help. Across different cultures and
subcultures there can be a wide variety of reactions to different types of problems as if they were
"authentic", which should be taken into consideration or acknowledged to other people.

This first way of operating, "unfreezing" the process, generally has one of three different ways:

 The first is that the change manager discovers or formulates a hypothesis about a certain
difficulty in the organization and offers his help directly; or take steps to stimulate awareness of
the difficulty.

 The second way is that a third party who has relationships with both the change manager and
the company realizes the company's difficulties and puts them in contact.

 The third is that the company realizes its own difficulties, and itself seeks help from an external
or internal source. This is the most common way to start the change process.

2a. Phase: Implement the links referring to the change.

The development of a working relationship with the change manager raises a number of new
problems for the client organization or company.

There is, for example, the problem of notifying the need to help in such a way that the potential
manager can understand and accept it; and that you agree that the work is compatible with your
type of aid.

One of the crucial characteristics of this second phase is the way in which the organization first
begins to think about the change manager. First impressions can mean a lot in determining the
outcome of any human relationships.

Another latent danger to overcome in this second phase is the one that arises when reaching an
agreement on the type and degree of work that must be carried out to collaborate with the
potential manager. It is necessary not only that the client understands the agreement well, but
that he at least agrees with it. Frequently, believing what you want has deceptive effects on the
client's body; It is thought that the change process is easier and faster than it really can be. When
this happens, the relationship between the agency and the manager is probably started on a false
basis.

3a. Phase: Diagnosis of the problem in the body.

An important task that must be performed in the client's organization is to collaborate with the
change manager to formulate a diagnosis of the nature of the difficulties.

First of all, the manager needs information. How will it be obtained? Maybe it's just a matter of
making the system testable.
During this phase, the organism struggles with the vast, mutable interpretation of the issue at
hand. As the data are collected and analyzed, the problem that at first glance seemed simple is
likely to take on the appearance of an intricate and multifaceted difficulty.

This is the point at which individuals or groups with vested interests will become aware of the
looming threat, by virtue of the change; and their defensive reactions can destroy the entire
mechanism of collaboration between the organization and the change manager. The organism
may begin to think that its problems, posed in this new way, are too deep or too fundamental to
be remedied; and maybe decide to drop the case without a fight.

Generally the remedy is to achieve a kind of balance within the organism, between two extremes
of inactivity: the impossibility of doing anything by virtue of dependence and hopeless terrorism in
the face of unexpectedly serious problems; and the refusal to do anything in the face of hostile
rejection of all interpretations of the diagnosis.

4a. Phase: Determination of goals and purposes.

This is the stage in which the client's body converts its understanding of the diagnosis into ideas of
the means to act and into defined purposes for making changes concretely. Concern in the client
agency about failure to attempt new standards of conduct. or new technical procedures
contributes an obstacle to change. These concerns can often be moderated by providing means for
the client to test innovations before they are adopted on a permanent basis. If the organism is
given the opportunity to explore the consequences of a new functional concept, some of the
unknown will dissipate and the client gains confidence in his ability to do what is expected of him.
Unfortunately, too many relationships are broken during changes before reaching this phase; and
often the agency is left alone, dealing with the diagnoses and recommendations presented to it by
the change manager.

5a. Phase: Transformation of purposes into action for change.

The actual success or failure of any change management, as far as the organization is concerned, is
determined by the degree to which its original ineffectiveness is lessened and functional efficiency
is regained. This means that success is measured by the way plans are transformed into positive
realities. Active work to effect change is the key to the entire process of achieving it.

During this phase the body faces numerous critical problems. One of the most common is to
obtain the support of the change manager while the work to carry it out is in its beginnings.
Another problem is the achievement of operations to carry out the change of various subsections
of the organism or adjacent organisms. It may also be difficult to obtain adequate feedback about
the consequences of change management.

6a. Phase: Generalization and stabilization of change.

One of the important issues about the process of change is that, when achieved, it continues to
constitute a stable and permanent characteristic of the organization. Too often a change that has
been the result of painstaking effort tends to disappear after it ceases; and the organism that
wanted the change, instead of supporting it, returns to its old ways.

A crucial factor in stabilizing change is whether or not it extends to contiguous systems or

subsectors of the client's organization. However, more direct types of positive evaluation and
appreciation are generally needed. If an industrial company has changed its personnel policies, or
its communication procedures between departments, it generally wants to know whether these
changes have actually affected the efficiency or productivity of the staff. In other words,
confirmation must come in the form of objectively meaningful data. In large social organizations
these assessments are not always easily achieved. Consequently, desirable changes may be
rejected for insufficient reasons, simply because no adequate means of valuation are presented,
and because stakeholders assume that lack of valuation means poor valuation.

7a. Phase: Final realizations.

There is a wide variety of final adjustments between agencies and change managers. We have
already pointed out that the relative relationships they can reach in a phase as early as the third of
the series. The problems that arise when relationships end often depend on the point in the
consecutive series at which they end.

Systems paradigm

Systems Theory is one of the most important intellectual productions that have occurred in this
century. Its potential lies in the way it teaches us to observe the world around us in a way that is
180 degrees different from the usual reductionist way that the prevailing paradigm today has us
accustomed to.
Instead of practicing a reduced vision of the real world, Systems Theory presents us with the need
to visualize it from an integral, holistic perspective (from the Greek holos - whole) with the
purpose, first, of understanding it adequately, and secondly so that From this understanding, a
pertinent approach to the existing situation can be established in search of solutions and
approaches appropriate to each specific situation.

The proposal of Systems Theory, although its philosophical origins can be traced back to centuries
before Christ, is innovative and timely for current and future times, basically because the events
that are taking place in the world are becoming increasingly more complex. and more, requiring a
comprehensive vision.
Consequently, a paradigm emerges that is not yet widespread in the vast majority throughout the
planet, but in advanced intellectual and entrepreneurial groups, which practices a vision and
comprehensive study of the events and phenomena that occur in the world. real world. This
paradigm is called Systems, with Systems Theory being a theoretical basis.

Paradigm Confrontation

Paradigm
Constellation of achievements shared by a community
REDUCTIONISM HOLISM

Rational Holistic

reductionist Intuitive

Linear Non-Linear

Expansive Conservative

Competitive Cooperative

Amount Quality

Domination Association

The paradigm of Systems Theory, that is, its practical realization, is Systemics or Systems Science ,
and its implementation is also an exercise in humility, since a good systemic must start from the
recognition of its own limitation. and the need to collaborate with other men to capture reality in
the most appropriate way for the proposed purposes.

General Systems Theory is a science of globality, in which the rigorous and exact sciences born
from the Cartesian paradigm not only can coexist but mutually enhance each other due to their
relationship with those known as human sciences, and in which disjunctive logic Formal logic,
which from Aristotle to the present day has made enormous progress and led to spectacular
results, goes hand in hand with recursive and blurred logic.

It is through this possibility of integration as the systemic, the paradigm of complexity, a mixture
of art, science, intuition and heuristics, which allows complex systems to be modeled, is today a
system and a philosophy of thought in full expansion in terms of the sciences that come together
in it: from the fields of knowledge traditionally associated with it, such as engineering and
organizational sciences, which, although not so young, are being incorporated, such as political
and moral sciences, sociology, biology, Systems Thinking and Systems Thinking, linguistics and
semiotics, or those that due to their youth have been integrated almost since their birth, as is the
case with computing, artificial intelligence or ecology.

Every system, to survive, needs internal feedback and exchange of flows of a very varied nature
with its environment in order to avoid the constant growth of its entropy, which would lead to its
thermal death. This exchange of flows should allow the admission of variety to reduce entropy.
The refusal to assume this incorporation of variety in social systems and organizations also usually
leads to serious political and economic problems; The fundamentalisms of all kinds that are
emerging in so many parts of the world are paradigmatic examples of this denial of variety by
attempting to develop at any price, a model of variety by attempting to develop at any price, a too
uniform model of society, be it culturally, linguistically, religiously, or economically, if not in all of
them.
views of general systems theory

Similar general conceptions and points of view have emerged in several disciplines of modern
science. While before, science tried to observe observables, reducing them to the set of
elementary units that can be researched independently of each other, in contemporary science,
attitudes appear that deal with what is somewhat vaguely called totality, that is, problems of
organization, phenomena not decomposable into local events, dynamic interactions manifest in
the difference in behavior of isolated parts or in a higher configuration, etc. (multi-order systems).

Not only are general aspects and points of view similar in different sciences; Formally identical or
isomorphic laws frequently appear in different fields. In many cases, isomorphic laws hold for
certain classes or subclasses of systems, regardless of the nature of the entities involved. There
appear to be general system laws applicable to any system of a given type, regardless of the
particular properties of the system or its participating elements.

The General Systems Theory formulates valid principles for “systems” in general, regardless of the
nature of its component elements and the relationships or “forces” reigning between them.

Among the goals of the General Systems Theory are:

 General trend towards the integration of natural and social sciences.

 It constitutes an important resource to search for an exact theory in the non-physical fields of
science.

 By elaborating unifying principles that run vertically through the universe of sciences, we move
closer to the goal of the unity of Science.

 This can lead to much-needed integration in science instruction.