2020 Handbook of Systems Sciences (Intro)

23/11/2021, 23:16 Introduction to the Handbook of Systems Sciences | SpringerLink
Introduction to the Handbook of

Systems Sciences
Handbook of Systems Sciences pp 3-25 | Cite as
Gary S. Metcalf (1) Email author ([email protected])

Kyoichi Kijima (2)
Hiroshi Deguchi (3)
Mary C. Edson (4)
Peter Jones (5)
John J. Kineman (6)
James Martin (7)
Shankar Sankaran (8)
Carol A. Wessman (9)
1. InterConnections, LLC, , Ashland, USA

2. Graduate School of Decision Science and Technology, Tokyo Institute of
Technology, , Meguro-ku, Tokyo, Japan
3. CABSSS, Tokyo Institute of Technology CABSSS, , Yokohama, Japan
4. Organizational Systems Research and Strategy, Equipoise Enterprises, Inc., , Ithaca,
USA
5. OCAD University, , Toronto, Canada
6. Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of
Colorado, , Boulder, USA
7. Systems Engineering, The Aerospace Corporation, , Chantilly, USA
8. School of the Built Environment, University of Technology Sydney, , Sydney,
Australia
9. Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Environmental Studies Program, Cooperative
Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado
Boulder, , Boulder, USA
Reference work entry

First Online: 28 July 2021
1k Downloads
Abstract
The Handbook of Systems Sciences reflects the work of scholars whose thinking and
practice cross a wide spectrum of disciplines. The intent of this handbook is not simply
to be an overview of knowledge domains, but is the marking of milestones in their
development. The formal study of systems, cybernetics, and complexity all date back
to the early twentieth century. The principles on which those domains were founded
trace back millennia. The chapters contained in this handbook describe the evolution
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_81 1/29
of theories, and applications in practice, across familiar disciplines including

engineering, management, ecology, education, and design. The hope for this work is to
provide foundations on which future researchers and scholars can build.
Keywords
Systems Science Cybernetics Complexity Models Design Management
Ecology Engineering
Download reference work entry PDF
This handbook is comprised of chapters which correspond to disciplines or areas of

study that will be familiar to many people: systems modeling and methodology;
complex systems modeling; management and organizations; social systems; design of
systems; ecological systems; engineered systems; and systems research and education.
The topics were chosen in order to provide points of access for those readers who
might not be familiar with systems sciences or related fields. Different topics or
chapters could have been used, still demonstrating the evolution in theories and
concepts of these domains. The chapters in this handbook, however, represent the
work of significant scholars in these fields, and summaries of their contributions over
decades.
Readers may find challenges in varying uses of terminology across the chapters.
Ludwig von Bertalanffy is referred to by many as the “founding father” of general
system theory (GST), though as will be seen in the opening chapter, he was by no
means alone in his work. He did, however, make extremely important contributions.
One set of distinctions that he created was between three aspects of systems: systems
science, systems technology, and systems philosophy (von Bertalanffy 1969). Systems
science was the use of systems theories in traditional disciplines, such as physics,
biology, psychology, sociology, etc. This included a search for “isomorphisms” which
would connect the disciplines at higher theoretical levels (part of the hope for a general
system theory). Systems technology was Bertalanffy’s way of addressing complexity, as
he saw it arising in society through computerization and automation of many kinds, as
well as the increasing amounts of data and concepts that had to be understood.
Systems philosophy captured the deeper reorientation, or shift in paradigms, that was
caused by thinking in these terms. Bertalanffy (1969) also made reference to a
“systems approach.” He did not, to our knowledge, use the term “systems thinking,”
which has become a common, almost generic term, particularly in applied areas such
as management consulting. Systems engineering is part of the field of engineering.
The greatest dilemma probably lies between systems science and systems philosophy.
All of the founders of systems, cybernetics, and complexity were scientists or
researchers from traditional fields of study. Many worked to advance those fields using
these more encompassing principles. A small number had formally studied
philosophy, or even identified as philosophers, in addition to being scientists,
researchers, or practitioners. They have generally been the few who have practiced
both systems science and systems philosophy. They have advanced their individual
fields as well as the larger domains of systems, cybernetics and complexity. They
appear to know when they are working within their fields, and when they are stepping
outside to challenge the very tenants on which those fields, and science in general, are
based. As Bertalanffy (1969) described: “In one way or another, we are forced to deal
with complexities, with ‘wholes’ or ‘systems,’ in all fields of knowledge. This implies a
basic re-orientation in scientific thinking” (p. 5).
Readers will find vestiges of these concepts and questions throughout the chapters of
this handbook. As noted, the intention of some authors is to apply tools or
technologies to specific problems, while others hope to document advances in a field of
science, or in systems, cybernetics or complexity theories, more generally. Those are
different, but all legitimate pursuits.
Historical Foundations
Chapter 2, “Systems Science, Cybernetics, and Complexity”

(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_67) (Metcalf and Kauffman), is an
historical overview of the three domains of interest: systems, cybernetics, and
complexity. Debates about the nature of the world, including form, function, and
process, date back at least to Ancient Greece. Echoes of those debates still continue in
science today. In some ways, interest in systems, cybernetics, and complexity all
represent a change in focus, from the micro to the macro. Discovering and
understanding the most fundamental aspects of matter and energy do not, by
themselves, explain the world in which we live. Researchers and theorists began asking
larger questions, and searching for ways to understand some of the many, many forms
and behaviors that could emerge from the basic materials of the universe. The world
was not random, nor was it predictive. Some theorists looked for answers in
traditional forms (e.g., mathematical equations). Others challenged prevailing
assumptions of their disciplines. Two key figures, Stuart Kauffman and Robert Rosen,
are compared as a way of tracing some of the influences which have driven the fields as
they have developed over recent decades.
Systems Modeling and Methodologies
From the title of the section, readers might assume that these chapters would focus on
specific tools and technologies. In fact, the authors in this section decided to challenge
many of the problems posed by excessively narrow perspectives, which could either
misinterpret or underestimate the situations being addressed, or apply tools and
technologies without appropriately assessing the nature of the systems involved.
Allenna Leonard and her co-authors, Tom Scholte, Ken Shepard, Gabriele Harrer-
Puchner, and Joe Truss, in their Chap. 3, “Cybernetics Approaches and Models,”
(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_66) offer a window into the many ways
in which the principles of these domains (in this case, cybernetics) can be used. Their
chapter includes descriptions in theatrical works, in organizational applications, and
in decision-making processes. They cover specific applications such as Sensitivity
Modeling, Viable Systems Modeling, and Syntegration.
Chapter 7, “Meta-methodology for Risk Management,”

(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_48) by Takafumi Nakamura considers
the field of risk management. The author provides a broad overview of current
strategies, and underlying theories, for managing risk. Each risk management strategy
brings with it not only underlying assumptions, but often different sets of terminology
or language. The first recommendation is for a more common language or framework
for assessing systemic failures. Then, there need to be more holistic ways of
understanding risk, as opposed to the current problem-solving approaches which lead
to overly narrow solutions. Given the growing complexity of risks, both double-loop
learning and meta-methodological should be employed.
Michael Lissack offers a clear set of distinctions between first-order and second-order
cybernetics, with respect to control in Chap. 4, “Cybernetics and Control.”
(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_2) First-order approaches are
consistent with the needs for machinery. Second-order cybernetics addresses control
as it appears in human settings, including issues of biased interpretations, cognitive
limitations, complexity of varying contexts, and choices of individual agency. Control,
then, becomes a matter of choices which guide influences, as affected by levels of
awareness, and even the narratives created to make sense of the circumstances in
question. Or as Lissack describes his conclusion: “Control in second-order cybernetics
is the assertion of balance, the developing of a narrative and the exploitation of the
resulting dominoes of relatedness. Feedback was the initial cybernetic concept.
Narrative, communication, awareness, and reflexivity are its current successors.”
In Chap. 6, “Knowledge Construction Systems Methodology,”

(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_8) Yoshiteru Nakamori describes
principles for knowledge creation, focusing primarily on intuition, or tacit knowledge.
His model is comprised of five abilities (intelligence, involvement, imagination,
intervention, and integration) across four domains (scientific-actual, social-relational,
cognitive-mental, and intuitive-creative). He then applies the model to the marketing
promotion of a traditional, Japanese craft item.
Gerald Midgley and Raghav Rajagopalan in Chap. 5, “Critical Systems Thinking,

Systemic Intervention, and Beyond,” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_7)
summarize extensive earlier work, describing three “waves” of systems thinking, which
led to the development of Critical Systems Thinking and methodological pluralism.
They explore the practical and philosophical debates which shaped those waves, and
the resulting developments in systems thinking over time. Finally, they propose two
new efforts which seem promising for taking the current state to next stages. One is
the work of Cabrera, built around the concepts of distinctions, systems, relationships,
and perspectives (DSRP), and the other their own recent work, incorporating
philosophical traditions from India and challenging long-standing Western ideas.
Jifa Gu in Chap. 8, “Oriental Systems Thinking,” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-

15-0720-5_9) departs from the traditional approach to systems methodologies and
models, in order to trace more ancient roots of systems ideas. He describes concepts
including Yin-Yang, eight trigrams, five elements, great learning and Traditional
Chinese Medicine. Through a number of research efforts, Gu and his colleagues
consolidated many of the traditional approaches into an Oriental system methodology,

later referred to as Oriental systems thinking. Gu’s chapter brings together many of the
ancient traditions into one convenient source of reference.
Complex Systems Modeling
This section spans a variety of topics and approaches by authors. Some focus on
modeling, per se; others on specific models; and still others on applications of
concepts and models in systems settings.
Hajime Kita explores fundamental questions about the nature of complex systems in
Chap. 9, “Complex Systems.” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_3) This is
done across domains including physical systems, biological and ecological systems,
artificial systems (developed by humans), and social systems. Kita focuses on
processes of emergence, self-reproduction, and adaptive mechanisms.
Yasuo Sasaki in Chap. 12, “Multi-agent Decision System,”

(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_49) addresses multi-agent decision
systems, defined as systems in which several autonomous agents interact and make
decisions according to their “internal models.” This is applied to hyper-game theory
(Bennett 1977; Bennett and Dando 1979) where agents are able to interpret the game
from each of their own internal models (as in societal systems).
Simple hyper-games assume that agents see each other’s internal models as common
information. Hierarchical hyper-games allow for more complex formulations, e.g., “my
view about your view about her view,” etc. This level of complexity affects assumptions
of equilibria, used in traditional game theory. An important aspect is the ways in which
agents may change their internal models, and how this affects later outcomes. Finally,
drama theory, a game-theoretic model, is introduced (Howard 1994). Hyper-games
deal with the subjective, internal models of agents, while drama theory is more
concerned with the dynamic processes arising from interactions among those internal
models.
Belov and Novikov in Chap. 11, “Methodology of Complex Activity,”

(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_6) are concerned with formal models.
Specifically, they describe a methodology of complex activity (MCA), which they define
as “a system of formal models that, from a systems science perspective, generalizes
nontrivial human activity and the operation of enterprises and complex (socio-
technical) systems.” Complex activity involves “a non-trivial internal structure…with
multiple and/or changing actors/players, methods, and roles of the subject matter of
activity in its relevant context.” MCA deals with coupled pairs of complex activities and
sociotechnical systems. As they summarize, “the subject matter of this study is
complex activity, and the research topic is the general principles underlying its
organization and management.” In application, MCA attempts to formalize typical
processes in organizational work.
In Chap. 13, “A Perspective on Agent-Based Modeling in Social System Analysis,”

(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_5) Takao Terano explores the use of
agent-based modeling as an interdisciplinary research method. It is proposed as a
means of simulation, which could be an alternative to traditional scientific research in
social systems.
In Chap. 10, “Systems Modeling,” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_4)

Shingo Takahashi addresses systems modeling as the explicit topic of the chapter. A
defined process is presented in which modeling has three purposes: to express a
current system state as a model, to express an ideal state of the system, and to
represent existing problems. The framework used describes the relationships between
“subject S, objective A, prototype T, and model M.” Systems are classified as machine,
organic, cybernetic, or complex adaptive. And finally, “the modeling process consists
of five phases: understanding problem situations, identifying relevant systems,
clarifying the modeling purpose, identifying and structuring model components, and
identifying parameters.”
Hironobu Matsushita in Chap. 14, “Translational Features of Competencies in

Healthcare Innovation,” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_50) focuses on
healthcare as an area of application. Specifically, “the purpose of this chapter is to
clarify the translational features of human competencies in healthcare innovation by
analyzing some features of nursing managers as a potential agent of innovation
through a perspective of complex adaptive systems.” The quantitative study on which
the work was founded revealed discrepancies between what nurses perceived as
personal strengths, and attributes that would be necessary for the adoption of
innovation. The study points to a need for new models to be developed and
implemented in healthcare settings, in order to create the skills needed for innovation.
Management and Organizations
Systems theories have been used by management scholars since the 1940s, starting
with Barnard’s (1938) discussions of the functions of an executive from a practical
perspective. Since then, several prominent management scholars have contributed to
the advancement of management and organizational theories using systems
approaches, including social systems theories, sociotechnical systems, contingency
theory, open systems, and the application of General System Theory (von Bertalanffy
1969). One of the recent works in applying systems theories to management is the
social systems theory of Luhmann (1995) which contributes to the institutional theory
of the organizations. According to Jackson (1991), systems theories applied to
management overcomes the weaknesses of traditional approaches to management by
looking at “organizations as wholes” (p. 41).
Leadership has received much attention in the field of management, as well as having
many of its own books, journals, and organizations. Complexity is a topic that has been
more recently incorporated into management. Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline
(1990) was an influential book which connected systems thinking to (learning)
organizations. Nancy Southern in Chap. 20, “Creating Leaders for Systems
Complexity,” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_15) takes up the cue from

Senge’s work on how complexity affects the nature of leadership in organizations, She
urges leaders to view organizations as complex adaptive systems bringing diverse
people (agents) together towards a shared vision and goals. She suggests that looking
at organizations from a systems perspective helps by dynamically engaging with
others, and by moving away from a command and control mode of leadership. She
urges modern leaders to create conditions for collective creativity, leading to
collaborative action. The chapter also includes examples of systemic approaches to
building leadership capacity.
While there are systematic approaches for creating technical systems, such as the vee
models in systems engineering, working with sociotechnical systems requires a
different mindset. Sociotechnical systems have been of great interest to management,
dating back to the work of the Tavistock Institute in the early 1960’s. It was used to
deal with issues arising from the introduction of automation in the textile mills in
Ahmedabad, India, and later at Volvo’s Kalmar and Uddevalla car plants factory in
Sweden. Alison McKay, Mathew Davies, Helen Hughes, Rebecca Pienazek, and Mark
Robinson, from the sociotechnical research center at Leeds University, offer a process
to design sociotechnical systems in Chap. 18, “Designing Socio-technical Systems.”
(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_13) They argue that designing
sociotechnical systems requires a new branch of systems science that helps to integrate
human behavior into systems behavior. They illustrate their approach by using a
systems design process vee-model to develop a multi-team customer-service system.
They suggest that their approach can be used as a practical framework to design
sociotechnical systems, more generally.
Governance has become increasingly important as corporate scandals have plagued

organizations such as Enron, WorldCom, Lehman Brothers, and contributed to the
global financial crisis. Governance is also of great concern to systems scientists with
questions about governing during the Anthropocene (Ison et al. 2018). Recently, an
interest in Stafford Beer’s (1984) Viable Systems Model (VSM) has come about, for
developing a Viable Governance Model for information technology projects, and in the
field of Systems Engineering. Ralf Muller, Nathalie Drouin, and Shankar Sankaran
discuss the application of the VSM to Organizational Project Management (OPM) and
megaprojects, in Chap. 19, “Governance of Organizational Project Management and
Megaprojects Using the Viable Project Governance Model.”
(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_14) These authors have also recently
developed a seven-layer model for OPM to integrate all project management-related
activities in an organization. In doing so, they linked the five subsystems of the VSM to
the seven layers of their OPM model. They have also explained how VSM is applicable
to megaprojects, which are large complex undertakings that have great impacts on the
environment and society, posing problems for sustainable development. A case study
of a megaproject is used to show how their proposed viable governance model can be
applied in practice.
An important activity in organizations is the development of a strategic plan. The

strategy is typically formulated or revised annually, but it is unclear how that ritual
contributes to the organization’s outcomes, despite consuming valuable resources.
This is the dilemma addressed by Steven Wallis and Kent Frese in Chap. 17, “Reaching
Goals with Structured Strategic Plans.” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-
5_64) The authors propose an innovative approach using an example of strategic

planning process in a regional catering company. As they explain, it became an
exciting and enjoyable exercise that also resulted in organizational cohesion, providing
flexibility while maintaining analytical rigor. The process proposed by the authors
takes less time than common approaches used in strategic planning while leading to
increased organizational success.
Can systems science and systems engineering help to model enterprises, to determine
ways to make better decisions (which is one of the main functions of management)?
Keshav Vithal Nori, Swaminathan Natarajan, Anand Kumar, and Doji Samson Lakku
try to capture the nature of an enterprise and its evolution over time, to create
software models and tools. Using systems science and systems engineering principles,
they describe their work in Chap. 22, “A Systems Engineering Approach to Modelling
Enterprises.” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_62) Their approach helps
to understand an enterprise in terms of its morphogenic structure and how the
epigenesis of an enterprise captures its evolution over time. They illustrate their
approach using an information technology enterprise, which is concerned with the
information, processes, and knowledge that enable the functioning of its business
systems.
Sustainable management is one of the challenges faced by both developed and

developing countries in the world. The challenges are even more daunting in an
underdeveloped economy, particularly in disadvantaged, rural communities. Nam
Nguyen, Ockie Bosch, Tuan Ha, and Kwamina Banson discuss the successful
application of their innovative systems-based framework, the Evolutionary Learning
Laboratory, which uses participatory approaches to help some of the poorest regions
in the world. The study presented in their Chap. 15, “Sustainable Management,”
(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_10) uses community-based studies in
the rural areas of Haiphong, Vietnam and in Accra, Ghana, to support small-holder
women farmers making practical and sustainable decisions in complex situations. The
two cases demonstrate the effective development of systemically defined management
plans. The cases show how the framework provided by the Evolutionary Learning
Laboratory serves as a powerful management tool to address complex problems,
where the relationships between natural (environmental), human factors, cultural and
socioeconomic aspects, and stakeholders are intrinsically interwoven.
Change management is one of the challenges faced by organizations needing to

implement strategies for both survival and growth in rapidly changing environments.
A number of rational models have been proposed by management scholars. Sam Wells
and Josie Mclean examine the application of living systems theory, using a garden
metaphor, as an alternative to engage with change in organizations, using a holistic
rather than a reductionist approach. Chapter 21, “Organizational Change as
Emergence: A Living Systems Perspective,” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-
0720-5_16) explains how their approach takes into account uncertainty, nonlinear
causation, self-organization, and emergence. This can help managers understand
change as an expression of life rather than a strategy that gets imposed on an
organization. The practice that they explore, along with stories they share, make their
perspective accessible to practitioners.
Organizations in government and the public sector are concerned with development
and implementation of policies that can address complex challenges faced by nations.
Food and nutrition security are some of the challenges affecting countries across the
world. Robert Dyball and Bronwyn Wilkes propose a human ecological systems
framework that can help policy makers analyze, critique, and design interventions in
complex human environments in Chap. 16, “A Human Ecological Approach to Policy
in the Context of Food and Nutrition Security.” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-
0720-5_11) Their framework takes into account interactions and feedback between
components of a complex system, in four main categories. They propose that their
approach is applicable to a variety of policy-related situations, to study how different
paradigms can influence policy making, giving rise to systems that impact outcomes
for human and environmental wellbeing.
For-profit corporations are often criticized on many fronts; for caring only about
money, for neglecting the good of workers and the communities they affect, for
harming the natural environment, and so on. Chapter 23, “Developing a Sustainable
Employee-Owned Chemical Company,” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-
5_74) by Jean-Claude Pierre, offers a first-hand account of an alternative. Pierre
served as the head (comparable to CEO) of a company that would appear to be the
antithesis of other corporations. As implied by the chapter’s title, he led an employee-
owned chemical company which focused on environmental sustainability. That did
not, however, leave the company without challenges, as he explains in his account.
Social Systems
Like many topics in this handbook, social systems could be understood as extremely
broad, or as confined to a small number of theories and theorists. In a broad sense,
social systems encompass the collective behaviors of species from insects to humans.
Termites and ants display divisions of roles and labor, as well as collective efforts in
the building of elaborate nests. Swarm theory (including swarm behaviors and swarm
intelligence) describes specific patterns, across species from insects to birds to fish,
and applicable in some ways to humans. It includes mathematical models to simulate
the patterns and interactions. Animals hunt in packs and survive in herds. Primates
display many common behaviors as familial groups. Disciplines including sociology,
anthropology, economics, and political science, among others, describe human
behaviors at aggregate levels of organization. In terms of theory, however, there are
actually few theorists who have focused on human social systems, per se.
Families and organizations are not simply collections of individuals any more than
bodily organs are simply collectives of individual cells. They remain individual and
collective, in different ways; described as holons, or systems of systems, or in other
terms. Social systems have identities and distinctive behaviors, however, at their levels
of wholeness. Notable theorists who have attempted to define those systems, in their
own rights, include Talcott Parsons and his student, Niklas Luhmann.
Given the potential breadth of this topic, there is no way that one section in this
handbook could cover or summarize the possibilities. The chapters included address
particular aspects of social systems, which represent a small sampling of particular
interests. They serve, however, as an introduction, which will hopefully lead to further
exploration.
Paul Lillrank in Chap. 27, “Declining Society and Systems Productivity,”

(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_71) addresses the current convergence
of economics, and technologies, and demographics in human social evolution. The
particular focus is healthcare, and the challenges posed by aging populations in
contrast with the expectations for care, and the abilities of societies to deliver that
care, economically and logistically. Lillrank explains that healthcare is a service
industry, but not a typical one. It cannot be managed or improved simply like another
industry of a different type. Technologies may help, and there are improvements to be
made in efficiency and productivity. Given current trends in human populations,
change is critical.
Hiroshi Deguchi uses a play on Herbert Simon’s book, The Sciences of the Artificial, as
the entry point for his Chap. 26, “Social Sciences as the Artificial.”
(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_70) Deguchi introduces the idea of
“constructive social systems sciences” as a way of capturing the collective construction
of social reality for humans. This involves individual, internal models and their
interpretations (echoing ideas from Michael Lissack’s Chap. 4, “Cybernetics and
Control” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_2)). Deguchi compares the
development of theory between natural and social sciences, including the development
of models, and uses of natural languages and mathematics. He then applies his ideas
to the realm of public health, and explores distinctions between macro and micro
models of social systems. He argues for a multi-layer, multi-aspect, reflexive process of
building theories and understanding in societies.
Susumu Ohnuma in Chap. 24, “Consensus Building: Process Design Toward Finding a
Shared Recognition of Common Goal Beyond Conflicts,”
(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_68) explores the potential for building
consensus in public decision-making from social dilemmas. This is done using
concepts from game theories as frameworks, including the Illegal Waste Dumping
Game, Emissions Trading Game, and Consensus Building of Wind Farm Game. Much
of the value comes from the process of cooperating towards a common goal.
In Chap. 25, “Social Systems Theory,” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-

5_69) Saburo Akahori deals directly with social systems theory, coming from the
perspective of sociology. Fittingly, the theories of Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann
are prominent, but ideas from Ross Ashby and Ludwig von Bertalanffy are
also included. Social systems as second-order observers is introduced, incorporating
concepts from second-order cybernetics.
Engineered Systems
The section on engineered systems is one of the more significant for this handbook,
both in terms of the number of chapters included, and in terms of perspectives which
these chapters add. There have been formal, collaborative efforts between the systems
science and systems engineering communities since at least 2010, as evidenced by
agreements between the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS) and the
Systems Science Working Group of the International Council on Systems Engineering
(INCOSE). It would be easy to assume that the ISSS focused on development of
theories, and that INCOSE was interested in implementing them. In fact, both groups
have been involved in theory and application since the outset. The authors included in
this section represent some of the most pioneering and active systems engineers in this
work.
The value of these collaborations has been significant, evidencing the need that theory
and practice must work together for mutual benefit. Untested theories are just good
ideas. Practice without a theoretical basis (even tacit) is just a series of trial-and-error
activities.
Special note needs to be made of Harold (Bud) Lawson, who passed away during the
production of this handbook. His Chap. 39, “Understanding the Systems Solution
Landscape,” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_20) is included with the
generous agreement of his family, and the help of James Martin (editor of the section
“Engineered Systems”) in completing the final writing. Bud was a pioneer in crossing
the domains of systems science and systems engineering, as a writer, editor, and long-
time practitioner.
While the chapters in this section come from authors who have practiced systems
engineering, there is nothing homogeneous about the ideas or the examples. Like
other sections, the chapters span great territory.
Brian White in Chap. 42, “Enterprise Systems Engineering,”

(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_24) focuses on enterprise systems
engineering (ESE) and issues of complexity. Enterprises may be formal organizations,
or self-organizing collaborations of many kinds. ESE recognizes the need to treat
enterprises as systems, per se, and as human systems, specifically. As such, White
notes many societally related issues (e.g., population size, education, etc.) as
contributing problems, and the need for stakeholder involvement. He rebuts, in fact,
recent suggestions for systems engineers, which do not adequately address
stakeholders. As he states, “They don’t identify, characterize, and intentionally include
all the key stakeholders as intrinsic, non-technological components of the system to be
improved or developed.” That absence leads to inadequate solutions.
In Chap. 41, “Handling Uncertainty in Engineered Systems,”

(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_22) Azad Madni and Terry Bahill
explore ways of dealing with uncertainty in engineered systems. Uncertainties are
sometimes measurable, and not always destructive. They may be caused by challenges
within a system itself, or by external factors. A focus of the chapter is on tradeoff
studies (or trade studies), which address compromises that customers often have to
make in design or production. Engineering processes historically begin by stating
customer requirements, but those can be plagued by “biases, cognitive illusions,
emotions, fallacies and the use of simplifying heuristics,” which make the choices and
decisions difficult. The authors explore these problems in some depth, along with
possibilities for resolving them.
Kenneth (Ken) Lloyd explores a branch of mathematics known as Category Theory in

Chap. 43, “Category Theoretic Foundations for Systems Science and Engineering.”
(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_65) (This is the form of mathematical
modeling used by Robert Rosen. See the section on “Ecological Systems.”) As
explained by Lloyd, “a category exclusively refers to an abstract collection of objects,
upon which a structure has been added or imposed.” Further, and a reason that
Category Theory is proposed as an exceptionally good approach for describing
systems: “A category is a particular realization of a formal (mathematical) construct
that can precisely, but indirectly represent all the feature details of any system – by a
single reference.” Category Theory also translates well into computer modeling. Lloyd
then provides a primer to Category Theory, interspersed with concepts and examples
of systems. The chapter is challenging, but a valuable addition to the work in this
section.
Hillary Sillitto addresses the fundamental nature of engineered systems in Chap. 36,
“Nature of an Engineered Systems: Illustrated from Engineering Artefacts and
Complex Systems.” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_17) This is
important so that human designed systems can be compared to, and distinguished
from, natural systems writ large. He situates engineered systems within a larger
taxonomy, including distinctions between conceptual and physical systems, and
discusses the increasingly complex systems with which engineers are faced; highly-
networked, and potentially autonomous. He then applies these concepts of engineered
systems to numerous kinds of examples, including products, services and enterprises.
He highlights the differences between engineered and natural systems, and lastly,
contrasts the various approaches that systems engineers use in working with
engineered systems, from those that systems scientists use in studying natural
systems.
Duane Hybertson’s Chap. 37, “Systems Engineering Science,”

(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_18) serves as a ready companion to that
from Hillary Sillitto, by focusing on the scientific foundations underpinning systems
engineering. As Hybertson explains, “the chapter describes the changes in SE and in
science-based engineering (SBE), and then describes the SE Science (SES) resulting
from the changes in nature and scope of SE.” As the realms of systems engineering
expand, so do the needs of the science on which it depends. Traditional areas included
defense, transportation and energy. Current and future areas encompass healthcare
and other social systems, as well as autonomous and intelligent machine agents, which
will require SE to expand into other existing realms of science.
In Chap. 44, “General Schemas Theory,” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-

5_73) Kent Palmer reaches into philosophy to define a “General Schemas Theory that
can be used as a basis for the science of systems.” He begins with the nature of
schemas, tracing back to Kant, and covers an impressive range of philosophers and
theories. He moves into the application of schemas as templates for design, and into
the realm of meta-systems. He incorporates Pascal’s triangle as a framework on which

to build his theory, ending with a challenging but impressive chapter on which others
might begin to build.
Anand Kumar offers his perspective on the creation of value in Chap. 40, “Delivering
System Value: A Systematic Approach.” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-
5_21) As he explains, building quality into a system does not always equate with
delivering the value needed or required by all stakeholders. He presents an approach
involving four aspects: value understanding, value characterization, value proposition,
and value realization. This creates an interesting companion to the chapters by White,
and by Madni and Bahill.
William (Bill) Schindel explores patterns in systems and in science in Chap. 38,
“System Patterns in Engineering and Science.” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-
0720-5_19) As he describes, “In addition to providing a unifying perspective to
historical accomplishments of specialized disciplines, system patterns also simplify the
complexity of existing engineering environments while advancing ability to develop
new scientific and engineering disciplines for more complex domains, including
markets, networks, distribution systems, the Internet of Things, communities, and the
innovation process itself.” Interestingly, rather than building on the concepts of
isomorphies from General System Theory, or Pattern Language (though referenced),
he works up from the S*Metamodel as a foundation. This creates a unique
contribution to the discussion of patterns, while it parallels and complements several
other chapters in this section (particularly Chaps. 36, “Nature of an Engineered
Systems: Illustrated from Engineering Artefacts and Complex Systems,”
(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_17) 37, “Systems Engineering Science,”
(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_18) and 44, “General Schemas
Theory.” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_73))
The late Bud Lawson contributed his chapter describing a “systems solution
landscape.” As he summarized, “Working toward a solution (response) first involves
understanding the problem or opportunity situation space, the potential response and
the system assets that are available or can be developed to provide a response.” In
clear and simple language, Lawson summarizes basic concepts of systems, and
processes of change in his chapter Chap. 39, “Understanding the Systems Solution
Landscape.” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_20) He then covers the
Essence approach, which is derived from software engineering, systems architecture,
cybernetic applications for change management, and issues of enterprises. (It is a
privilege to publish this final chapter from Bud given his many foundational
contributions in the field.)
Design of Systems
The many relationships of design in systems engineering, philosophy and social

sciences have been identified from the early years of systems science. Ross Ashby’s
“Ashby Box” was an artifact designed to demonstrate cybernetic relationships in
electronic experiments. Ranulph Glanville wrote on the mutual necessity of design
processes in understanding and designing for complex systems. Herbert Simon’s
Sciences of the Artificial (1969) deeply addresses the relationship of design as intent in
the development of artificial systems and practices. Fernando Flores developed a
practice of “ontological designing” and demonstrated its use in theory and tools such
as the early email system, The Coordinator. The systems discipline of social systems
was envisioned from the roots of the discipline as a design practice, from Hasan
Özbekhan’s normative planning, to Eric Jantsch’s Design for Evolution, Alexander
Christakis’ Dialogic Design and Warfield’s generic Design Science, and of course Bela
Banathy’s work. Russell Ackoff’s Idealized Design was an explicit design process, and
so on.
Design has advanced considerably in complexity the information age, and systems
design has evolved into an interdisciplinary intersection of service and systemic design
for complex systems.
The chapters in this section, curated by Peter Jones reflect some of the leading
intersections of systems and design. Peter Jones, a social scientist by training and
designer by profession, provides a foundational overview of Systemic Design, a
thriving practice developed in the last decade and taught in over a dozen universities,
in Chap. 31, “Systemic Design: Design for Complex, Social, and Sociotechnical
Systems.” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_60) Jones defines systemic
design as a design-led field, relying on creative design epistemology and drawing on
systems theory and method as instrumental functions in the design process for
complex social systems. As an emerging practice in the last decade, systemic design
differs from traditional systems design, a field that views systems as the site of
engineering or sociotechnical design, as developed through systems engineering.
Jones takes readers through a brief history of design, and of the recent emergence of
systemic design. He covers theory and principles, practices and methodology, and
incorporates adjacent fields of practice, de such as Structured Dialogic Design, a
practice he has incorporated into graduate design education. Dialogic Design, and
social systems design, are conceived as stakeholder-driven practices, which is
consistent with the direction of advanced design for policy, social services, and human
systems. This leads to considerations of what John Warfield called generic design, not
only for how human systems can be designed, but how they should be designed,
incorporating stakeholders of the future systems.
Following this introduction, systems scientist Thomas Flanagan develops a chapter on

Structured Dialogic Design (SDD) titled Chap. 30, “Structured Dialogic Design for
Mobilizing Collective Action in Highly Complex Systems,”
(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_59) further elaborating the relationship
to systemic design and design with and for systems stakeholders. This includes the
formulation of deeply reasoned methods and engagement technologies, the
development of cognitive and language models for democratizing the design process,
and the challenges of decision making with shared interpretations and meaning for
stakeholders. Flanagan details the methods and concepts of SDD, providing readers
with a quick introduction to a complex engagement process based on principles of
generic design and dialogic design science.
Senior policy advisor Nenad Rava takes systemic design into the realm of public policy,
an emerging discourse and application for engagement and system change proposals.
Chapter 28, “Systems Design Approach to Public Policy,”
(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_52) introduces policy as a design

discipline and develops the systems concepts relevant to policy design. This expands
into complexity, and then systemic design. Finally, Systemic Design Policy is
presented, including basic principles for guidance. Public policy is not a context
typically associated with design, nor with the kinds of stakeholder involvement
advocated by authors in this section. Yet with a new journal (Journal of Policy Design)
and systemic design practitioners heading up new government policy “labs” there are
significant developments emerging in this field. Rava skillfully shows is the
approaches and opportunities that make systemic policy design an area ripe for further
study and development.
Physician Joachim Sturmberg applies systemic design and complexity science to

healthcare reform in Chap. 29, “Systems Design for Health System Reform.”
(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_56) The case is made that most
attempts at reforming healthcare have failed, due at least in part to inadequate
approaches. Sturmberg summarizes key issues for reform: “The design of a true
system facilitating health, i.e. a real health system (Sturmberg 2018) hinges one a
clear understanding of three key concepts: (1) the nature of health and disease, (2) the
epidemiology of health, illness/dis-ease and disease, and (3) the nature and function of
organizations.” The chapter then covers basic principles of systems and complexity,
and explains why healthcare systems have been resistant to change. Finally,
implications for putting systemic design into practice are presented, along with
examples.
Ecological Systems
This section is about systems science and its application in ecological theory. It takes a
broad look at theoretical and applied systems ecology from a natural systems
perspective, reviewing traditions in the history of ecology and new complexity theories
that are emerging. Ecology represents one of the truly complex disciplines and one
argument made in this section is that theoretical ecology can provide foundational
concepts for natural science in general. A basic question addressed in these four
chapters is if ecological processes are determined only by physical constraints or if, in
addition, there must be something acting more at the systems level. Historically, there
has not been a clear theoretical framework to unify these two views. The authors
navigate the history of ecological modeling methods to suggest pathways toward
synthesis; considering thermodynamic drivers and constraints ( Chap. 35, “Systems
Ecology and Limits to Growth: History, Models, and Present Status”
(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_77)), loop causality ( Chap. 34, “Putting
More “System” into Ecosystem-Based Management Using Qualitative Analysis”
(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_76)), holon theory ( Chap. 32,
“Relational Systems Ecology: Holistic Ecology and Causal Closure”
(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_78)) and model coupling ( Chap. 33,
“Relational Systems Ecology: The Anticipatory Niche and Complex Model Coupling”
(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_79)).
Charles A. S. Hall, known for his work on socio-ecological systems and energy analysis
of both natural and industrial systems within the frameworks of Eugene and especially
Howard Odum, sets the stage for this section with a broad but vivid review of systems
ecology in Chap. 35, “Systems Ecology and Limits to Growth: History, Models, and
Present Status,” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_77) describing the
development of the field from the perspective of energetics, including turning points
and great actors (which certainly include Hall). Throughout this history, Hall reminds
us that the journey has often been about our own survival as a civilization, dependent
on resources and constrained by energy. He points out that we have survived this
battle so far, but only because of continuing discoveries of new energy supplies, chiefly
petroleum; perhaps a risky game of brinksmanship. What happens when we can no
longer expand our energy sources?
Hall, like Odum and others (Hall 1995; Odum 2007; Sibly et al. 2012), takes energy
and related measures as perhaps the most important diagnostic factor in the dynamics
of ecosystems and modern civilization in relation to the ecology of the planet, its
resources, and how we as people and governments manage it. In this chapter, he
eloquently demonstrates the strength of this perspective in work that has been done to
date, reminding us that as sophisticated as we may become in our mathematical
modeling, there are still basic physical and chemical laws that are not going away.
These laws can be seen as either driving system behavior or establishing constraints,
but either way, complex possibilities seem to stay within established physical
boundaries. In the face of modern crises affecting global civilization, from accelerating
climate change to emerging pandemics and sociopolitical upheaval, Hall argues for a
return to basic realism that can ground us in verifiable processes that have been well-
studied in ecology for nearly a century, reminding systems thinkers that many socio-
ecological issues would benefit from considerations of how energy has governed much
if not all of biotic interactions with nature, including human ones.
In Chap. 34, “Putting More “System” into Ecosystem-Based Management Using

Qualitative Analysis,” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_76) Patricia
Lane, working in network analysis, marine food webs, and the evolution of ecosystem
chimeras as an ecosystem ecologist, approaches socio-ecological assessment from the
perspective of “loop analysis,” which has been an important tool for understanding
feedbacks in many ecological traditions; for example, in “self-organizing holarchic
open” (SOHO) systems (Kay et al. 1999), climate change studies (Lyubchich et al.
2020), and most recently the study of pandemics (Tonnang et al. 2020). Loop
causality itself is characteristic of “relational biology” and “anticipatory systems”
introduced by the mathematical biologist Robert Rosen (Rosen et al. 2012), who is
often considered a revolutionary genius for his ability to take us to a more
foundational level of complexity. Lane’s own colloquium of Rosen scholars for the
journal “Ecological Complexity” has introduced relational theory to ecology in a way
that cannot be overlooked (Lane 2018).
Relying on Rosen’s category theory approach, Lane explains and applies Causal loop
analysis, giving us a roadmap to a relational understanding of ecology, while retaining
the footing that ecological science has provided to-date. She explores causal loop
diagrams as an analytical capability that may have been missing in physical theory;
processes that otherwise seem to characterize the surprise and unpredictability of
complex and living systems. This analysis is especially relevant to socio-ecological
systems (SES), which strongly involve a human cognitive component. Loop causality is
emerging as a major avenue of investigation.
Closed loops of natural entailment have been known for a long time in terms of
positive and negative feedback systems that tend to form in living and non-living
systems, both carrying information and recycling resources as they dissipate energy.
Basic ecology teaches us about carbon, water, nitrogen, and many other cycles, which
are loops in physical causation that can be observed. The idea of dynamic attractors
can also be associated with causal loops. But a problem arises in explaining why such
phenomena exist: What gives rise to or selects for causal loops? Complex causal loops
must logically require another “organizational” phenomenon, which Rosen called
system “genericity,” a new kind of meta-causal loop between behavior and existence
itself that is involved in the prior organization of physical/material processes in living
systems. There is an emerging trend to explore ways of combining such mechanistic
and complex views (e.g., (Rissman and Gillon 2017; Schlüter et al. 2019).
John J. Kineman, physical scientist and systems theorist, and Carol A. Wessman,
ecosystem/global ecologist, address this last question in two co-authored chapters.
They apply a recent synthesis of Robert Rosen’s complexity (Kineman 2011) in a
retrospective study of ecological holism and niche theory. The first in this pair of
chapters, Chap. 32, “Relational Systems Ecology: Holistic Ecology and Causal
Closure,” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_78) examines four-cause
ontology of the holistic framework, an ancient and perennial concept of holism and
symmetry in nature that is also derivable from Rosen’s theories as a causal loop of the
second kind mentioned above. This four-cause cycle relates structure and function, or
behavior and origin, within systems, and provides a new analytical tool for complexity
science. To introduce this meta-framework, the authors examine higher causation in
nature, arguing that misunderstanding Aristotle’s ‘final cause’ as ‘purpose’ has
prevented its incorporation into natural science. Final-formal cause entailment, in this
view, is “functional entailment” (Louie 2013), having a natural basis in the anticipatory
effect of prior conditions – the concept of ‘karma’ in the East and the inverse causality
that Ervin Schrodinger called for in his famous book “What is Life.” The result is to
propose a rigorous causal synthesis in the concept of “holon” – a unit of system
wholeness interconnecting and transcending nature as something different from ‘the
sum of the parts’.
The second chapter by these authors, Chap. 33, “Relational Systems Ecology: The
Anticipatory Niche and Complex Model Coupling,” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
981-15-0720-5_79) associates final cause with the abstract ecological niche as
described by G. Evelyn Hutchinson, tracing the success of this concept in ecological
theory, its abandonment for heuristic and practical reasons, and now it’s possible
return as a key model type in coupling human and natural system informatics. The
adaptive ecological niche is presented as the missing factor that has been shyly hiding
in ecological theory and that “closes the loop” of cyclical causality, according to Rosen.
The authors suggest that developing niche-based “causal closure” will allow ecology to
rigorously define holism, life, and sustainability in meta-causal terms. Similarly, their
proposed model coupling architecture is meant to meet the aims of current high-
priority research into “Coupled Human and Natural Systems” (CHANS) that is
desperately needed to understand global to local socio-ecological systems presently in
crisis. One very important point regarding general model coupling that all the authors
of this section stress, is that each kind of model needs to be built properly in its own
domain; then the coupling will work best. In that sense, problems arise from two
directions; (1) when logically different types of model are conflated, and (2) when
causal types are eliminated for the sake of arbitrary simplicity.
One topic of concern for every ecologist is how the discipline can affect policy. Ecology
as a discipline has traditionally maintained a keen interest in providing advice or
recommendations to manage and take care of the ecosystems that support us and all
life on Earth. Ecologists can observe what is happening to those systems more keenly
than most because they have the observing instruments and know how to interpret the
data. Undeniably, ecosystems are degrading. But now we must ask, if ecology has done
its job of informing humanity, why is that still the case? The traditional view has been
that a pure scientist should have a certain kind of professional detachment from policy
decisions, but increasingly all of us are humbled, if not humiliated, by our inability to
affect policy.
Each author contributing to chapters discussing “Ecological systems” has made some
attempt to comment on this issue, both here and elsewhere. Kineman and Wessman
point out how scientific detachment has isolated ecologists from critical decisions and
from that absence has encouraged the development of would-be “brokers” (the “policy
analyst”), meant to form a dialog based on their own professional independence from
both science and policy. But, in the end, such independence does not work as it only
establishes a third actor, equally incapable of coupling science and policy. Clearly there
is a communication breakdown creating systemic dysfunction in a “post-truth” world
that discredits expert advice, and no longer receives the scientist’s message. The
emerging alternative is “to develop co-productive relationships with decision makers…
to engage with people on a personal level” (Peters and Besley 2019). This means
becoming more engaged in society and policy by encouraging things like citizen
science; sharing not just expert advice but methodology to arrive at that advice, and
thus to build personal bridges from science to motivation without conflating the two.
These three views of theoretical systems ecology go from the practical world of proven
mechanisms and physical limits into the abstract world of relational complexity and
then down the rabbit hole into a wonderland of general holism. Readers should not,
however, see these views as contradictory, but as identifying different aspects of
modeling that should work better together. These chapters provide a review of ecology
as a unique field of science, essentially an integral science. The many practical
developments can be praised while the lack of progress criticized, on holistic levels;
but perhaps this is symptomatic of the leading edge of science itself. Nevertheless, it
appears that if some revolutionary change is needed in science to better couple natural
and human systems, that might also require more integral modes of participation. We
need a more synthetic, systems-oriented perspective both for Ecology’s own sake and
for the relatively complex issues facing humanity.
Systems Research and Education
This section of the handbook encompasses contributions from diverse sectors of the
systems sciences. It represents educators and researchers whose work includes
fundamental concepts and experiential learning in teams; from career management to
action research. Taking a broad view of the mission of education, its purpose goes
beyond the immediacy of vocational preparation to embrace enduring preparation of
minds, envisioning their futures as contributing members of societies through the
development of critical and systems thinking. In short, education prepares people for
the challenges of today and tomorrow through development of adaptive capacities and
competencies for acquiring knowledge, skills, and abilities to thrive in a changing and
uncertain world. Conceptually, this approach to learning, as well as a commitment to
life-long learning, is akin to the adage about the vital benefits of teaching a man to fish
as opposed to feeding a man a fish. Systems research and education are not merely
about the economics and politics of reducing poverty. Research and education using
systemic approaches can comprise ethical commitments to civic engagement, for the
lifting of societies for betterment of the quality of life. The compelling question driving
this section is, “How can systems research and education help us understand our
complex world and respond to it in timely and effective ways?” The chapters in this
section reflect the essence of being a systems scholar/practitioner.
Research and education using systemic approaches can comprise ethical commitments
to civic engagement for the lifting of societies for betterment of the quality of life.
Indeed, it was this recognition of a need to see whole systems, as they are, to
understand complexity beyond science’s reductive observation, that compelled
Bertalanffy, Boulding, Gerard, and Rapoport to organize the Society for General
Systems Research in 1954, now the International Society for the Systems Sciences
(Hammond 2003).
This section, Chap. 45, “Systems Research and Education,”

(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_26) applies a systems view of research
and education to inquiry and learning. The six authors’ contributions share this vision,
yet they come from different perspectives. Those perspectives help to construct a view
of education and research as a whole system. This aligns with Bela H. Banathy’s (1992)
approach to education as a human activity system (Checkland 1999). In a handbook
such as this, readers naturally ask, what does a systems perspective contribute to our
understanding of our world’s complexity through research and education? Here are
some of Banathy’s thoughts about this question:
What can we expect to attain by the development of the systems view? I suggest that
the systems view helps us understand the true nature of education as a complex, open,
and dynamic human activity system (designed social systems organized for a purpose
that they attain by carrying out specific functions) that operates in ever-changing
multiple environments and interacts with a variety of societal systems. Beyond such
understanding, once we develop the systems view, we have developed ways of
knowing, thinking and critical reasoning that empower us to organize a system of
comprehensive, disciplined inquiry capable of addressing all issues of educational
practice (Banathy 1992, p. 17).
According to Walton (2004), Banathy recommended a three-lens approach for

comprehensive modeling of social systems, like those in research and education.
Walton emphasized that Banathy distinguished product models, which describe
outcomes of an inquiry, from process models, which describe the activities for
conducting an inquiry. Systemic inquiry uses both. It is important to note that these
lenses are rarely independent of one another in organizations. They are perspectives, a
plurality, which help inform the model of the system(s) represented.
Banathy (1992) introduced three lenses as general representations of social systems:
1. 1.
Systems-Environment – this view provides a framework for describing

educational activity systems in the context of their communities and society.
Banathy describes this as the “bird’s-eye-view” (p. 22) or the landscape in which
the system is embedded. Relationships, interactions, and interdependence
mark the concepts and principles of this view. One of the interdependencies this
lens explicates is a set of inquiries as a general description that guides
assessment of the environmental adequacy and responsiveness of the
educational activity system and vice versa – the responsiveness of the
environment toward the system.
2. 2.
Functions/Structure – this view considers the educational activity system in a

moment in time, a “still picture” (Banathy 1992, p. 22), or snapshot. This lens
enables description of the goals, purpose, function, relationships, components,
and organization of those elements as they are integrated into the system.
Through this lens, a set of inquiries can guide researchers and participants
toward understanding the adequacy of the educational activity systems in terms
of its function/structure.
3. 3.
Process – this view considers the activities and actions of an educational activity
system or what it does over time. (e.g., longitudinal research). Like a behavior
over time graph, akin to those used in Systems Dynamics (Sterman 2000); this
perspective presents the dynamics of the system. It is a “motion picture”
(Banathy 1992, p. 22) illustrating how the educational activity system changes
in the context of community and society. It describes how the system receives,
screens, assesses, and processes inputs, as well as transforms this data for use
and engages in operations that fulfill the purpose and goals of the system to
produce expected outcomes. These are continuous processes guiding the
transformation of operations with ongoing assessment and adjustment based
upon feedback from the environment to ascertain its adequacy or fitness.
Banathy (1992) was keen to emphasize that each of these lenses, while robust on their
own, render partial pictures of the essence of an educational activity system. When
used in concert with one another, their vibrancy amplifies. Banathy stated,
What is important for us to understand is that no single model or lens

can provide us with a true representation of an educational organization
as a complex social system. Each lens portrays certain characteristics,
but not all, that we need to describe an educational activity system as a
whole system. Only if we consider these three descriptions jointly, as if
overlaid upon each other, do the lenses help us to provide a
comprehensive image and reveal the real story of an educational
organization as a system. (p. 23).
In this section of the handbook, the authors’ contributions about “Systems Research
and Education” fall into one or more of these lenses. Each article describes
philosophies, perspectives, processes, and practices that inform our vision of
educational activity systems in terms of inquiry and learning. For example, Rowland
sets a conceptual foundation in Chap. 46, “Making Inquiry More Systemic.”
(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_27) In doing so, Rowland addresses
Banathy’s three lenses of environmental context, structures, and processes of
education through systemic inquiry. In Chap. 47, “Violence Prevention Education:
Problem Structuring for Systemic Empowerment in Health Settings,”
(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_28) Stephens and Liley use an action
research approach to address the intractable issue of domestic violence. Their action
research approach integrates relationships in context aligning with Banathy’s Systems-
Environment lens. McIntyre’s Chap. 45, “Systems Research and Education,”
(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_26) aligns with Banathy’s
Functions/Structures lens in her own research and analysis of several student projects.
McMahon and Patton’s Chap. 49, “Career Development from a Systems Perspective:
The Systems Theory Framework” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_30)
combines Banathy’s Process lens with the Systems Environment lens to understand
career development for individual success in competitive environments. Finally, in
Chap. 48, “Team Systems Theory,” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_29)
Edson uses Banathy’s Process lens to analyze and recommend that leaders view
project teams as valuable agents of change, leadership, and resilience in educational,
commercial, governmental, and social service organizations. Banathy’s comprehensive
approach to modeling social systems complements others like rich pictures (Checkland
1999). As a whole, the authors in this section provide a vision of the potential realized
through systemic research design and pedagogy for theoretical and experiential
learning that cumulatively endures. In sum, it is the value of systemic approaches in
research and education.
Cross-References
A Human Ecological Approach to Policy in the Context of Food and Nutrition

Security (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_11)
A Perspective on Agent-Based Modeling in Social System Analysis

(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_5)
A Systems Engineering Approach to Modelling Enterprises

Career Development from a Systems Perspective: The Systems Theory

Framework (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_30)
Category Theoretic Foundations for Systems Science and Engineering

Complex Systems (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_3)
Consensus Building: Process Design Toward Finding a Shared Recognition of

Common Goal Beyond Conflicts (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-
5_68)
Creating Leaders for Systems Complexity (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-

15-0720-5_15)
Critical Systems Thinking, Systemic Intervention, and Beyond

Cybernetics and Control (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_2)
Cybernetics Approaches and Models (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-

0720-5_66)
Declining Society and Systems Productivity (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-

981-15-0720-5_71)
Delivering System Value: A Systematic Approach

Designing Socio-technical Systems (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-

0720-5_13)
Developing a Sustainable Employee-Owned Chemical Company

Enterprise Systems Engineering (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-

5_24)
General Schemas Theory (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_73)
Governance of Organizational Project Management and Megaprojects Using

the Viable Project Governance Model (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-
0720-5_14)
Handling Uncertainty in Engineered Systems (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-

981-15-0720-5_22)
Knowledge Construction Systems Methodology (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-

981-15-0720-5_8)
Making Inquiry More Systemic (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-

5_27)
Meta-methodology for Risk Management (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-

15-0720-5_48)
Methodology of Complex Activity (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-

5_6)
Multi-agent Decision System (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-

5_49)
Nature of an Engineered Systems: Illustrated from Engineering Artefacts and

Complex Systems (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_17)
Organizational Change as Emergence: A Living Systems Perspective

Oriental Systems Thinking (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_9)
Putting More “System” into Ecosystem-Based Management Using Qualitative

Analysis (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_76)
Reaching Goals with Structured Strategic Plans (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-

981-15-0720-5_64)
Relational Systems Ecology: Holistic Ecology and Causal Closure

Relational Systems Ecology: The Anticipatory Niche and Complex Model

Coupling (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_79)
Social Sciences as the Artificial (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-

5_70)
Social Systems Theory (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_69)
Structured Dialogic Design for Mobilizing Collective Action in Highly Complex

Systems (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_59)
Sustainable Management (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_10)
System Patterns in Engineering and Science (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-

981-15-0720-5_19)
Systemic Design: Design for Complex, Social, and Sociotechnical Systems

Systems Design Approach to Public Policy (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-

15-0720-5_52)
Systems Design for Health System Reform (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-

15-0720-5_56)
Systems Ecology and Limits to Growth: History, Models, and Present Status
Systems Engineering Science (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-

5_18)
Systems Modeling (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_4)
Systems Research and Education (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-

5_26)
Systems Science, Cybernetics, and Complexity (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-

981-15-0720-5_67)
Team Systems Theory (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_29)
Translational Features of Competencies in Healthcare Innovation

Understanding the Systems Solution Landscape

Violence Prevention Education: Problem Structuring for Systemic

Empowerment in Health Settings (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-
5_28)
References
Banathy BH (1992) A systems view of education: concepts and principles for effective
practice. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
title=A%20systems%20view%20of%20education%3A%20concepts%20and%20princi
ples%20for%20effective%20practice&author=BH.%20Banathy&publication_year=19
92)
Barnard CI (1938) The functions of the executive. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA
title=The%20functions%20of%20the%20executive&author=CI.%20Barnard&publicat
ion_year=1938)
Beer S (1984) The viable systems model: its provenance, development, methodology
and pathology. J Oper Res Soc 35(1):7–25
CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.1984.2)
title=The%20viable%20systems%20model%3A%20its%20provenance%2C%20develo
pment%2C%20methodology%20and%20pathology&author=S.%20Beer&journal=J%2
0Oper%20Res%20Soc&volume=35&issue=1&pages=7-25&publication_year=1984)
Bennett P (1977) Toward a theory of hypergames. Omega 5(6):749–751.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(77)90056-1 (https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-
0483(77)90056-1)
CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(77)90056-1)
title=Toward%20a%20theory%20of%20hypergames&author=P.%20Bennett&journal
=Omega&volume=5&issue=6&pages=749-
751&publication_year=1977&doi=10.1016%2F0305-0483%2877%2990056-1)
Bennett PG, Dando MR (1979) Complex strategic analysis: a hypergame study of the
fall of France. J Oper Res Soc 30(1):23. https://doi.org/10.2307/3009663
(https://doi.org/10.2307/3009663)
CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.2307/3009663)
title=Complex%20strategic%20analysis%3A%20a%20hypergame%20study%20of%2
0the%20fall%20of%20France&author=PG.%20Bennett&author=MR.%20Dando&jou
rnal=J%20Oper%20Res%20Soc&volume=30&issue=1&pages=23&publication_year=
1979&doi=10.2307%2F3009663)
Checkland P (1999) Systems thinking, systems practice. Pergamon Press, New York
Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?
q=Checkland%20P%20%281999%29%20Systems%20thinking%2C%20systems%20p
ractice.%20Pergamon%20Press%2C%20New%20York)
Hall CAS (ed) (1995) Maximum power: the ideas and applications of H.T. Odum,
Illustrated Edition. University Press of Colorado, Niwot
q=Hall%20CAS%20%28ed%29%20%281995%29%20Maximum%20power%3A%20th
e%20ideas%20and%20applications%20of%20H.T.%20Odum%2C%20Illustrated%20
Edition.%20University%20Press%20of%20Colorado%2C%20Niwot)
Hammond D (2003) The science of synthesis. University Press of Colorado, Boulder,

CO
q=Hammond%20D%20%282003%29%20The%20science%20of%20synthesis.%20U
niversity%20Press%20of%20Colorado%2C%20Boulder%2C%20CO)
Howard N (1994) Drama theory and its relation to game theory. Part 1: dramatic
resolution vs. rational solution. Group Decis Negot 3(2):187–206.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384354 (https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384354)
CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384354)
title=Drama%20theory%20and%20its%20relation%20to%20game%20theory.%20Pa
rt%201%3A%20dramatic%20resolution%20vs.%20rational%20solution&author=N.%
20Howard&journal=Group%20Decis%20Negot&volume=3&issue=2&pages=187-
206&publication_year=1994&doi=10.1007%2FBF01384354)
Ison R, Alexandra J, Wallis P (2018) Governing in the Anthropocene: are there cyber-
systemic antidotes to the malaise of modern governance? Sustain Sci 13(5):1209–1223.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0570-5 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-
0570-5)
CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0570-5)
title=Governing%20in%20the%20Anthropocene%3A%20are%20there%20cyber-
systemic%20antidotes%20to%20the%20malaise%20of%20modern%20governance%
3F&author=R.%20Ison&author=J.%20Alexandra&author=P.%20Wallis&journal=Sus
tain%20Sci&volume=13&issue=5&pages=1209-
1223&publication_year=2018&doi=10.1007%2Fs11625-018-0570-5)
Jackson M (1991) Systems methodology and the management sciences. Springer,
Boston
CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2632-6)
title=Systems%20methodology%20and%20the%20management%20sciences&author
=M.%20Jackson&publication_year=1991)
Kay JJ, Regier HA, Boyle M, Francis G (1999) An ecosystem approach for
sustainability: addressing the challenge of complexity. Futures 31:721–742
CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(99)00029-4)
title=An%20ecosystem%20approach%20for%20sustainability%3A%20addressing%2
0the%20challenge%20of%20complexity&author=JJ.%20Kay&author=HA.%20Regier
&author=M.%20Boyle&author=G.%20Francis&journal=Futures&volume=31&pages=
721-742&publication_year=1999)
Kineman JJ (2011) Relational science: a synthesis. Axiomathes 21:393–437
CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-011-9154-z)
title=Relational%20science%3A%20a%20synthesis&author=JJ.%20Kineman&journal
=Axiomathes&volume=21&pages=393-437&publication_year=2011)
Lane PA (ed) (2018) Rosennean complexity. Ecol Complex 35:1–114
q=Lane%20PA%20%28ed%29%20%282018%29%20Rosennean%20complexity.%20
Ecol%20Complex%2035%3A1%E2%80%93114)
Louie AH (2013) The reflection of life: functional entailment and imminence in

relational biology. Springer Science & Business Media, New York
title=The%20reflection%20of%20life%3A%20functional%20entailment%20and%20i
mminence%20in%20relational%20biology&author=AH.%20Louie&publication_year
=2013)
Luhmann N (1995) Social systems. Stanford University Press, Stanford
title=Social%20systems&author=N.%20Luhmann&publication_year=1995)
Lyubchich V, Gel Y, Kilbourne KH, Miller TJ, Newlands NK, Smith A (2020)
Evaluating climate change impacts. CRC Press, New York
q=Lyubchich%20V%2C%20Gel%20Y%2C%20Kilbourne%20KH%2C%20Miller%20T
J%2C%20Newlands%20NK%2C%20Smith%20A%20%282020%29%20Evaluating%2
0climate%20change%20impacts.%20CRC%20Press%2C%20New%20York)
Odum HT (2007) Environment, power, and society for the twenty-first Century: the
hierarchy of energy. Columbia University Press, New York
title=Environment%2C%20power%2C%20and%20society%20for%20the%20twenty-
first%20Century%3A%20the%20hierarchy%20of%20energy&author=HT.%20Odum&
publication_year=2007)
Peters MA, Besley T (2019) Citizen science and post-normal science in a post-truth
era: democratising knowledge; socialising responsibility. Educ Philos Theory 51:1293–
1303
CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2019.1577036)
title=Citizen%20science%20and%20post-normal%20science%20in%20a%20post-
truth%20era%3A%20democratising%20knowledge%3B%20socialising%20responsibil
ity&author=MA.%20Peters&author=T.%20Besley&journal=Educ%20Philos%20Theor
y&volume=51&pages=1293-1303&publication_year=2019)
Rissman AR, Gillon S (2017) Where are ecology and biodiversity in social–ecological
systems research? A review of research methods and applied recommendations.
Conserv Lett 10:86–93
CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12250)
title=Where%20are%20ecology%20and%20biodiversity%20in%20social%E2%80%93
ecological%20systems%20research%3F%20A%20review%20of%20research%20meth
ods%20and%20applied%20recommendations&author=AR.%20Rissman&author=S.%
20Gillon&journal=Conserv%20Lett&volume=10&pages=86-
93&publication_year=2017)
Rosen R, Rosen J, Kineman JJ, Nadin M (2012) Anticipatory systems: philosophical,
mathematical, and methodological foundations, 2nd edn. Springer, Boston
title=Anticipatory%20systems%3A%20philosophical%2C%20mathematical%2C%20a
nd%20methodological%20foundations&author=R.%20Rosen&author=J.%20Rosen&
author=JJ.%20Kineman&author=M.%20Nadin&publication_year=2012)
Schlüter M, Haider LJ, Lade SJ, Lindkvist E, Martin R, Orach K, Wijermans N, Folke C
(2019) Capturing emergent phenomena in social-ecological systems: an analytical
framework. Ecol Soc 24:11
CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11012-240311)
title=Capturing%20emergent%20phenomena%20in%20social-
ecological%20systems%3A%20an%20analytical%20framework&author=M.%20Schl%
C3%BCter&author=LJ.%20Haider&author=SJ.%20Lade&author=E.%20Lindkvist&a
uthor=R.%20Martin&author=K.%20Orach&author=N.%20Wijermans&author=C.%2
0Folke&journal=Ecol%20Soc&volume=24&pages=11&publication_year=2019)
Senge P (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization.
Doubleday/Currency, New York
title=The%20fifth%20discipline%3A%20the%20art%20and%20practice%20of%20th
e%20learning%20organization&author=P.%20Senge&publication_year=1990)
Sibly RM, Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A (eds) (2012) Metabolic ecology: a scaling
approach, 1st edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester/Hoboken
title=Metabolic%20ecology%3A%20a%20scaling%20approach&publication_year=20
12)
Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex
world. McGraw Hill, New York
q=Sterman%20JD%20%282000%29%20Business%20dynamics%3A%20systems%20
thinking%20and%20modeling%20for%20a%20complex%20world.%20McGraw%20
Hill%2C%20New%20York)
Sturmberg JP (2018) Time to design a “real health system.” In: BMJ (Clinical research
ed.), vol 361, p k2598. NLM (Medline). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k2598
(https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k2598)
Tonnang H, Greenfield J, Mazzaferro G, Austin CC Wg RC. (2020) COVID-19
emergency public health and economic measures causal loops: a computable
framework. SSRN Scholarly Paper, Social Science Research Network, Rochester
q=Tonnang%20H%2C%20Greenfield%20J%2C%20Mazzaferro%20G%2C%20Austin
%20CC%20Wg%20RC.%20%282020%29%20COVID-
19%20emergency%20public%20health%20and%20economic%20measures%20causal
%20loops%3A%20a%20computable%20framework.%20SSRN%20Scholarly%20Pape
r%2C%20Social%20Science%20Research%20Network%2C%20Rochester)
von Bertalanffy L (1969) General system theory (Revised). George Braziller, Inc., New
York
q=von%20Bertalanffy%20L%20%281969%29%20General%20system%20theory%20
%28Revised%29.%20George%20Braziller%2C%20Inc.%2C%20New%20York)
Walton DC (2004) Modeling organizational systems: Banathy’s three lenses revisited.
Syst Pract Action Res 17(4):265–284.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SPAA.0000040647.65393.79
(https://doi.org/10.1023/B%3ASPAA.0000040647.65393.79)
CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1023/B%3ASPAA.0000040647.65393.79)

title=Modeling%20organizational%20systems%3A%20Banathy%E2%80%99s%20thr
ee%20lenses%20revisited&author=DC.%20Walton&journal=Syst%20Pract%20Action
%20Res&volume=17&issue=4&pages=265-
284&publication_year=2004&doi=10.1023%2FB%3ASPAA.0000040647.65393.79)
Copyright information
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021
About this entry

Cite this entry as:
Metcalf G.S. et al. (2021) Introduction to the Handbook of Systems Sciences. In: Metcalf G.S., Kijima K.,
Deguchi H. (eds) Handbook of Systems Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-
0720-5_81
First Online 28 July 2021

DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_81
Publisher Name Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN 978-981-15-0719-9
Online ISBN 978-981-15-0720-5
eBook Packages Business and Management Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences
Reprints and Permissions
Personalised recommendations
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Part of Springer Nature.
Not logged in Not affiliated 66.65.49.25

2020 Handbook of Systems Sciences (Intro)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2020 Handbook of Systems Sciences (Intro)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2020 Handbook of Systems Sciences (Intro)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

23/11/2021, 23:16 Introduction to the Handbook of Systems Sciences | SpringerLink

Introduction to the Handbook of

Gary S. Metcalf (1) Email author ([email protected])

1. InterConnections, LLC, , Ashland, USA

Reference work entry

of theories, and applications in practice, across familiar disciplines including

This handbook is comprised of chapters which correspond to disciplines or areas of

Chapter 2, “Systems Science, Cybernetics, and Complexity”

Systems Modeling and Methodologies

Chapter 7, “Meta-methodology for Risk Management,”

In Chap. 6, “Knowledge Construction Systems Methodology,”

Gerald Midgley and Raghav Rajagopalan in Chap. 5, “Critical Systems Thinking,

Jifa Gu in Chap. 8, “Oriental Systems Thinking,” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-

consolidated many of the traditional approaches into an Oriental system methodology,

Complex Systems Modeling

Yasuo Sasaki in Chap. 12, “Multi-agent Decision System,”

Belov and Novikov in Chap. 11, “Methodology of Complex Activity,”

In Chap. 13, “A Perspective on Agent-Based Modeling in Social System Analysis,”

In Chap. 10, “Systems Modeling,” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_4)

Hironobu Matsushita in Chap. 14, “Translational Features of Competencies in

Management and Organizations

Complexity,” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_15) takes up the cue from

Governance has become increasingly important as corporate scandals have plagued

An important activity in organizations is the development of a strategic plan. The

5_64) The authors propose an innovative approach using an example of strategic

Sustainable management is one of the challenges faced by both developed and

Change management is one of the challenges faced by organizations needing to

Paul Lillrank in Chap. 27, “Declining Society and Systems Productivity,”

In Chap. 25, “Social Systems Theory,” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-

Brian White in Chap. 42, “Enterprise Systems Engineering,”

In Chap. 41, “Handling Uncertainty in Engineered Systems,”

Kenneth (Ken) Lloyd explores a branch of mathematics known as Category Theory in

Duane Hybertson’s Chap. 37, “Systems Engineering Science,”

In Chap. 44, “General Schemas Theory,” (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-

the realm of meta-systems. He incorporates Pascal’s triangle as a framework on which

The many relationships of design in systems engineering, philosophy and social

Following this introduction, systems scientist Thomas Flanagan develops a chapter on

(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_52) introduces policy as a design

Physician Joachim Sturmberg applies systemic design and complexity science to

In Chap. 34, “Putting More “System” into Ecosystem-Based Management Using

Systems Research and Education

This section, Chap. 45, “Systems Research and Education,”

According to Walton (2004), Banathy recommended a three-lens approach for

Banathy (1992) introduced three lenses as general representations of social systems:

Systems-Environment – this view provides a framework for describing

Functions/Structure – this view considers the educational activity system in a

What is important for us to understand is that no single model or lens

A Human Ecological Approach to Policy in the Context of Food and Nutrition

A Perspective on Agent-Based Modeling in Social System Analysis

A Systems Engineering Approach to Modelling Enterprises

Career Development from a Systems Perspective: The Systems Theory

Category Theoretic Foundations for Systems Science and Engineering

Complex Systems (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_3)

Consensus Building: Process Design Toward Finding a Shared Recognition of

Creating Leaders for Systems Complexity (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-

Critical Systems Thinking, Systemic Intervention, and Beyond

Cybernetics and Control (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_2)

Cybernetics Approaches and Models (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-

Declining Society and Systems Productivity (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-

Delivering System Value: A Systematic Approach