|
Introduction
C. West Churchman was
educated at the University
of Pennsylvania
in Philosophy, and studied under the world-renown philosopher, E.A.
Singer. Although his contributions are many, as he has written
hundreds
of articles, books, and proceedings, he is primarily known for being a
founder
and champion of the “systems approach” (a holistic, scientific approach
to
systems planning).[1] To become acquainted with Churchman’s
ideas, it is
important to briefly address his conceptual evolution, then to broadly
introduce the systems approach using three books: The Systems
Approach (1969),
Designing Inquiring Systems (1971), and The Systems Approach and Its
Enemies
(1979). A wide range of scholars have been influenced by
Churchman,
including Russell Ackoff, Peter Checkland, and Werner Ulrich, and they
will be
briefly discussed.
Evolution
Churchman credits Singer
with the systems approach. He describes
the goal of his academic journey as an attempt to apply Singer’s “theme
of
comprehensiveness” to see whether “Singer’s systems approach really
worked”
(Churchman, 1971, p.10). Churchman’s intellectual journey took
him
through statistics, mathematics, experimentation, and beyond.
Churchman eventually
concluded that disciplinary politics within the
“sciences” led to isolation of the various disciplines. He felt
that to
truly apply the systems approach, a cross-disciplinary science was in
order. Churchman appropriated the term operations research from
his
military experience, and began the first Operations Research Department
at the
Case Institute of Technology. Other universities quickly followed
[2] and
he developed the first text book in operations research with his
student and
associate Russel Ackoff (Churchman, Ackoff, & Arnoff, 1957).He was
initially unsuccessful in looking to apply his cross-disciplinary ideas
in city
planning, labor unions, government, and other types of organizations
where he
thought they might be applying a systems approach. He finally
found a
home for systems approach research in industry, as he found that “many
American
managers of industry are quite inquisitive” (Churchman, 1971,
p.15). As
an outlet for interdisciplinary management research, Churchman helped
found
Management Science,
and was the journal’s first editor.
A major activity of
operations researchers was to apply mathematical
models to systems. Although Churchman advocated the use of such
mathematical models, he understood the limitations associated with such
applications and wrote about them as early as 1946 in Psychologistics
(with R.
Ackoff). In order to operationalize concepts such as knowledge,
intelligence, and preferences, the scientist must also take into
consideration
a given subjects values: “not merely show a man how to better gain his
goals. It also estimates for him what his goals really are –
something he
may not be aware of at all” (Churchman, 1961, p.207). Such
estimation
would call into question the objectivity and impartiality of the
scientist. As he summarized, “Tomorrow’s science will not be
objective. Rather, the dichotomies, objective-subjective,
biased-unbiased,
will cease to have their present significance… the day of “objectivity”
and
immunity are over already” (Churchman, 1961, p.209).
In his work with industry,
he prescribed mathematical modeling as part of
a systems approach to managerial systems planning such as linear
modeling and
probability statistics (Churchman, 1969). However, to the
academy, he
stressed value-oriented concepts to systems planning. In one of
his
earliest papers about management he described the implementation
activity as
influenced by the dynamic that occurs between distinct personalities of
scientists and managers engaging in a systems plan. He developed
four
ideal types, separate functionalist, persuader, communicator, and
mutual
understander, and discusses them from a purely theoretical
standpoint.
Only in an appendix does he formalize his theory (Churchman &
Schainblatt,
1965).
The
Systems Approach
Basics
A system is a “set of
parts coordinated to accomplish a set of goals”
(Churchman 1968, p.29), which can be rephrased as “structures that have
organized components” (Churchman 1971, p. 7). The systems
approach
employs models, usually mathematical models, in order to holistically
view a
system. A model is a “way in which the human thought process can
be
amplified” (Churchman 1968, p.61), or “as methods of trying to measure
reality,
to approximate it” (Churchman 1979, p. 52). It is important to
keep from
oversimplification when using models, however, as a model can never
capture the
full intricacies of a system. One key limitation of using models
is that
“the system is always embedded in a larger system,” so although a model
may
work for a given system’s goals, it may be completely unsuccessful in
terms of
the larger systems goals (Churchman 1968, p. 75). Churchman
defended a
scientist’s use of incomplete models as defining “a philosophy of
life…And if
my philosophy precedes my precise method in the exploration of whole
systems,
then, when my technical capability catches up, we shall be so much
better
prepared to use it” (Churchman 1968, p. 77). Churchman offers
five
considerations to keep in mind when thinking about meaning of a
system:
(1) total system objectives & performance measures; (2) the
system’s
environment and fixed constraints; (3) resources of the system; (4)
components
of the system, their activities goals and measures; (5) management of
the
system (Churchman 1968, p. 29-30).
The Environmental Fallacy
Churchman positions the
systems approach as the answer to the
“environmental fallacy” prevalent in organizational planning. An
environmental fallacy occurs when people build up a crisis
(unnecessarily
focusing on the urgency of the situation), and then apply non-holistic,
direct
means to solve the problem. Examples Churchman offers include
anti-drug
legislation and pollution control measures. Such action very
often
exacerbates or adds to the original problem in the effort to eliminate
it
directly (Churchman 1979). The systems approach looks to address
problems
while taking into consideration the consequences of any given action
throughout
a given system, as well as historical precedent. According to
Churchman,
“one of the most flagrant examples of environmental fallacy is the
failure to
recognize history as part of our environment… we tend to regard every
current
crisis as essentially a novel one, and show little interest in its
historical
roots” (Churchman 1979, p.29).
Designing Inquiring Systems
In answer to prevailing
scientific thought regarding human subjects,
where there is considered (at the time) to be “objectivity” and
“quality of
results”, Churchman puts forth that “the essence of the systems
approach is the
design of an inquiring system that is most capable of unfolding the
relevant
issues concerning the human condition” (Churchman 1979, p.147).
He looked
to use the systems approach to answer how it might be possible to
design an
“inquiring system,” using human scientists as a reference for such a
system. An underlying motive of his for this exercise was to
“determine
how one might use high-speed computer-processing machinery to perform
the acts
now commonly performed by the research-scientist” (Churchman, 1971,
p.259).
To fully develop this idea, Churchman enlisted five philosophers,
Leibniz,
Locke, Kant, Hegel, and Singer, to develop a set of archtypical
inquiring
systems (Churchman, 1971). He takes as a point of departure the what he
characterizes as the "pluralist" tradition, a label he uses for the
bulk of positivistic, empirisist, and incremental (non-holistic)
inquiry.
In the tradition of other rationalists such as DeCartes and Spinoza, a
systems
approach looks to address the "whole" system, and this necessarily
requires that different assumptions and assertions be sorted through by
the
inquiring system. He offers a typology as a method for
differentiating
between the way in which inquiring systems essentially address
validity.
A Leibnizian system is comprised of a store of "fact nets," some of
which contend with each other, and rational / deductive processes allow
the
system to test certain fact nets against other. Lockean inquiring
systems, on the other hand, use community agreement to judge between
alternative perspectives. While both the Leibnezian and Lockean
enlist a
singular device to choose between competing assertions (i.e., deduction
and agreement),
Kantian inquiring systems appreciate the different guarantors
associated with
each world-view in the system, and understand that choosing between
worldviews
involves understanding the assumptions that comprise different
world-views.
For these three systems agreement indicates an end to inquiry, whereas
the
Hegelian and Singerian inquiring systems see agreement as a starting
point for
inquiry. Upon agreement, Hegelian systems look to introduce a
"deadly enemy" proposal to a position, in order to challenge that
position and learn through the resulting synthesis. The Hegelian
system
is one of storytelling - tension is intentionally introduced for the
sole
purpose of being resolved. As the story continues, new tensions
continue
to be introduced. The Singerian inquiring system takes the spirit
of the
Hegelian inquirer and adds teeth to it. Rather than introducing a
single
"deadly enemy" and expecting synthesis, the "restless"
Singerian system understands that fundmental assumptions must be
methodically
challenged through the introduction of alternative measurements and new
system
elements are introduced to continually create knowledge.
Churchman's five inquiring systems have been used extensively in
academic
literature. For example, in information systems literature, they
have
been proposed as a basis for the design of information systems in
general
(Mason & Mitroff 1973), specific domains of information systems
such as
decision support systems (Courtney 2001), as well as for a particular
information
system (Boland et al 1994). The five inquirers have also recently
been
used to guide thinking on idea generation (Vandenbosch et al
2006).
Enemies
of the Systems Approach
Many fail to use the
systems approach because their worldview (often unwittingly)
dooms them to the mode of the environmental fallacy. Others,
however,
actively oppose the ideals of the systems approach by the nature of
ideals that
are consistent with the “enemies” of the systems approach – they do not
accept
the rationality of the “whole system.” Churchman states that
these
enemies manifest themselves in the form of politics, religion,
morality, and
aesthetics, who’s reality “cannot be conceptualized, approximated, or
measured,” according to their proponents (Churchman 1979, p.53).
These
proponents often include modern academia, largely from the political
perspective. In the following excerpt, Churchman describes the
plight of
the “hero” of the systems approach, given his enemies within academia:
The story begins with a
somewhat disgruntled hero,
who perceived of the world as populated with stupid people, everywhere
committing the environmental fallacy. The fallacy was a case not
merely
of the “mind’s falling into error,” but rather of the mind leading all
of us
into incredible dangers as it first builds crisis and then attacks
crisis.
Like all heroes, this one
looked about for
resources, for aids that would help in a dangerous battle, and he found
plenty
of support – in both the past and the present. It won’t hurt to
summarize
the story thus far. If the intellect is to engage in the heroic
adventure
of securing improvement in the human condition, it cannot rely on
“approaches,”
like politics and morality, which attempt to tackle problems head-on,
within
the narrow scope. Attempts to address problems in such a manner
simply
lead to other problems, to an amplification of difficulty away from
real
improvement. Thus the key to success in the hero’s attempt seems
to be
comprehensiveness. Never allow the temptation to be clear, or to
use
reliable data, or to “come up to the standards of excellence,” divert
you from
the relevant, even though the relevant may be elusive, weakly supported
by
data, and requiring loose methods.
Thus the academic world of
Western twentieth century
society is a fearsome enemy of the systems approach, using as it does a
politics to concentrate the scholars’ attention on matters that are
scholastically respectable but disreputable from a systems-planning
point of
view. (Churchman 1979, p.145)
The hero of the systems approach, described above, has a certain
arrogance - a
philosopher-king who is able to rationally analyze “whole” systems
without
falling prey to emotional crises and short-sighted thinking.
Using this
device of the hero, Churchman shows how the enemies are woven into the
fabric
of humanity and its systems. It is difficult to sweep these
enemies into
a systems approach - though for a good portion of the book it may
appear that
such a reconciliation might be Churchman’s aim. In the end, what
we find
is that these enemies are fundamental aspects of being human.
Polis is
essential to accomplishing anything; morality is inexorably linked to
any
values that drive questions and conclusions; religion is a driving
force even
to the non religious; and aesthetics are indescribable yet inseparable
from
being human. Churchman charges us with continuing to attempt our holism
and
rationality, yet do so from a reflective perspective, always
understanding that
not only is the system full of enemies to this rationality, but that we
are
subject to the influence of these enemies, as well.
Information
Systems
Churchman’s interest in
computing reaches extensively beyond the metaphor
of inquiring systems. He addresses many issues with the state of
MIS
research of his time, including the tendency of IS researchers to focus
on
“safe” issues such as “structure of files, retrieval techniques,
automatic
abstracting, and the like” (Churchman 1968, p.111). He indicates
that the
majority of such research is not consistent with the systems approach
as it
focuses on transactions rather than the true goals or benefit of the
system. Churchman is also quite visionary as he predicts the
ubiquitous
role of computers in everyday life. With the ability to “find
facts”
readily, Churchman predicted that information systems will actually
work to
reinforce a user’s Weltanschauung (world-view), as the user would
screen
information based on his Weltanschauung. In order to expand use
MIS to expand
the user’s view to one that is more holistic, Churchman envisioned a
“deadly
enemy” proposal for the design of an information system. The main
role of
this deadly enemy is for the system to propose information results
based on
assumptions that are opposite of the user’s information request,
thereby
revealing to the user his fundamental assumptions and at the same time
questioning them (Churchman 1968, p. 122-123).
Associated
Scholars
Three names who are often
associated with Churchman and the systems
approach are Russell Ackoff, Peter Checkland, and Werner Ulrich.
Ackoff
was Churchman’s first doctoral student, and his close associate for
many
decades. Checkland is credited with the “soft systems
approach.” Ulrich
extended Churchman’s work to “critical systems thinking.”
Russell Ackoff
Ackoff founded the
operations research program at Case along with Churchman,
and they have published a number of books and articles together,
including
Psychologistics (1946), Methods of Inquiry (1950), and Introduction to
Operations Research (1957). Two books considered to be classics
that he
wrote independently are Scientific Method (1962) and Redesigning the
Future
(1974).
Peter Checkland
Checkland distinguished
between “hard” systems problems that have
specific goals and can generally be defined adequately. “Soft”
systems
problems, on the other hand, can be vague and have large social and/or
political components. Checkland has developed a process for
addressing
the latter issues and describes them in his classic books, Systems
Thinking,
Systems Practice (1981); and Soft Systems Methodology In Action (1990,
with Jim
Scholes).
Werner Ulrich
Another student of
Churchman’s, Ulrich extended the systems approach to
better understand the issues associated with determining the boundary
of the
system and the values associated with the implementation and
measurement of
practical results. He presents his ideas as “critical systems
heuristics”
in his book, Critical Heuristics of Social Planning (1983).
Conclusion
Churchman was equally
comfortable in the spheres of theoretical
philosophy and in-depth formalization of systems, and he believed the
two
should work together to help the manager engage in systems planning for
the
best results. Although Churchman was an advocate of mathematical
modeling, he saw it as one of many tools to be applied in
context. He
regretted that early Management Science work could only be politically
accepted
by the board if it were associated with mathematical models, and in his
lifetime he regretted that the multi-disciplinary operations research
approach
he created became entirely absorbed in unapplied mathematical models
(Churchman, 1971).
With all of his philosophical framing of issues, theorizing and
contextualizing
of the mathematical approach, there was no question as to where his
heart was
as he answered the relativist criticisms in the days of his key
contributions:
Some will inevitably think that I have “sold out”
to the enemy, that is, to
those who claim that ‘none of the above’ is, in fact, all that there is
to
reality; certainly such a viewpoint is popular among today’s ‘radical’
intellectuals. But my point is that if you have never explored
the
intricacies of trying to model reality within a mathematical language,
then
you, too, have missed the generality of reality. It is really
quite
inappropriate to claim that a mathematical model cannot represent
reality when
you have no idea at all as to what a ‘mathematical model’ is.
(Churchman,
1979, p.xi)
Of course, the
skeptic is an arrogant fellow. The easiest thing
in the
world is to be a relativist, somebody who says, ‘it all depends’ and
‘we can
never know the ultimate answers.’ This is something that every
student
who has ever dug deeply in a social problem will say. It is the
mark of a
sophomore in the intellectual enterprise. The one thing the
skeptic
rarely does is to defend his own skepticism. He simply shows the
extreme
difficulties in answering questions, and as a consequence he regards
the
difficulty as evidence of his own skeptical philosophy. To the
serious-minded, this kind of relativism serves little purpose and is
socially
irresponsible… His approach to systems is that there is no sound
approach, and
that’s that. (Churchman, 1968, p.217)
Throughout his career, and
especially the last twenty years of his life,
Churchman focused increasingly on ethics associated with systems.
He
consistently believed that the goals of a system were inherently not
value-neutral,
and that a system was ethically motivated. The ethics associated
with a
system develop through continuous debate that “dries up once it is
locked in a
debate between academics who have rarely seen or touched the vital
ethical body
of real human beings in their daily lives.” (Churchman 1979, p.118)
Author:
Nick Berente
(Originally written for first year phd seminar "IS Scholar Review")
Churchman
References
Churchman, C.W. (1971) The
Design of Inquiring Systems, Basic
Books Inc.
Churchman, C.W. (1961) Prediction
and Optimal Decision: Philosophical
Issues of a Science of Values, Prentice-Hall.
Churchman, C.W. (1968) The
Systems Approach, Dell Publishing Co.
Churchman, C.W. (1979) The
Systems Approach and Its Enemies, Basic
Books Inc., 1979
Churchman, C.W. &
Schainblatt, A.H. (1965) The Researcher and The
Manager: A Dialectic of Implementation. Management Science,
11(4).
Churchman, C.W., Ackoff,
R.L., & Arnoff, L.E. (1957) Introduction
to Operations Research, Wiley, New York.
Other
References
Boland, R.J., Tenkasi,
R.V., & Te'eni, D. (1994) Designing
information technology to support distributed cognition. Organization
Science, 5(3), 456-475.
Courtney, J.F. (2001).
Decision Making and Knowledge Management in
Inquiring Organizations: Toward a New Decision Making Paradigm
for DSS. Decision
Support Systems, 31, 17-38.
Mason, R.O., &
Mitroff, I.I. (1973). A Program for Research on
Management Information Systems. Management Science, 19(5),
475-485.
Vandenbosch, B., Fay, S.,
& Saatcioglu, A. (2006) Idea Management: A
Systemic View. Journal of Management Studies, 43(2), 259.
|
