The main general principle of the systems approach. Basic principles of the systems approach

The system as a subject of a systematic approach

The key concept that defines the entire system methodological direction is the concept of the system as a specific subject of scientific research. It has already been noted above that its interpretation is too broad, making it meaningless to use any special research approaches.

So, the system as a subject of the system approach is a composite object of a different nature with the following properties:

• the system is a collection of its elements and components. Element - the primary indivisible part of the system (brick, atom). Component - a broader concept, including both elements and components of the system - subsystems;
• system components have their own internally conditioned activity (non-deterministic behavior) and are in interaction with each other;
• the concept of entropy is applicable to the system - a measure of organization, orderliness of the system. Entropy is the main parameter of the state of the system;
• the state of the system is characterized by a probability distribution.
• the system is self-organizing, that is, it is able to reduce or maintain its entropy at a certain level.
• the properties of a system are not reduced to the sum of the properties of its components.

Such systems are found in matter at the molecular, quantum levels, in technology, computer science. A biological organism, social groups and society as a whole are such systems.

The most important features are self-organization and irreducibility of the properties of the system to the properties of its components.

Self-organization is the process of spontaneous ordering in the system due to internal factors, without external specific influence.

The concept of a systematic approach

A person perceives the world around him through his sense organs, each of which has limitations in sensitivity. The human mind also has limited ability to comprehend the information received from the senses.

Therefore, the main scientific method knowledge was and always will be analysis. Analysis allows you to bring the research problem to a solvable form.

Analysis (ancient Greek ἀνάλυσις - decomposition, dismemberment) is the operation of mental or real dismemberment of the object under study into its component parts, elucidation of the properties of these parts and the subsequent derivation of the properties of the whole from the properties of the parts (synthesis).

When examining a composite object, its components are analyzed, and the properties of the entire object are derived from their properties.

But if we are faced with a composite object, the components of which have non-deterministic behavior, are in interaction with each other, and in general the object shows signs of self-organization, then we understand that the properties of such an object are not reduced to the sum of the properties of its components. We say: "Stop, analysis is not applicable to such an object. We must apply some other research methods."

This is the systematic approach.

Strictly speaking, we end up applying analysis anyway. But, applying a systematic approach, we do not divide the composite object into the components of which it consists, but differentiate according to some other features (grounds). For example, for many research purposes, a social group can (and should) be considered to consist not of people, but of a set of social roles. This is a systematic approach.

Thus,

A systematic approach is the fundamental methodological orientation of the study, the point of view from which the object of study is considered, as well as the principle that guides the overall strategy of the study.

The system approach consists, first of all, in the realization that the object to be studied is a system - a composite object, the properties of which are not reduced to the sum of the properties of its parts.

The system approach makes us stop expressing the properties of the system through the properties of its components, and look for definitions of the properties of the system as a whole.

A systematic approach requires the application of special research methods and tools to the system - systemic, functional, correlation analysis, etc.

findings

The system as a subject of the system approach is a composite object of a different nature, the components of which have their own internally conditioned activity (non-deterministic behavior) and interact with each other, as a result of which the behavior of the system has a probabilistic nature, and the properties of the system are not reduced to the sum of the properties of its components. All such systems of natural origin have the properties of self-organization.

A systematic approach is the fundamental methodological orientation of the study, which consists in stating that analysis is not applicable to such an object, and that its study requires the use of special research methods.

Knowledge of certain principles easily compensates for ignorance of certain facts.

K. Helvetius

1. "Systems thinking?.. Why is it needed?.."

The systemic approach is not something fundamentally new, which has arisen only in recent years. It is a natural method of solving both theoretical and practical problems that has been used for centuries. However, rapid technological progress, unfortunately, has given rise to a flawed style of thinking - a modern "narrow" specialist, on the basis of a highly specialized "common sense", invades the solution of complex and "broad" problems, neglecting systemic literacy as unnecessary philosophizing. At the same time, if in the field of technology, systemic illiteracy is relatively quickly (albeit with losses, sometimes significant, such as the Chernobyl disaster) revealed by the failure of certain projects, then in the humanitarian field this leads to the fact that entire generations of scientists “train” simple explanations for complex facts or cover up with complex, scientific reasoning ignorance of elementary general scientific methods and tools, deriving results that, in the end, cause much more significant harm than the mistakes of "techies". A particularly dramatic situation has developed in philosophy, sociology, psychology, linguistics, history, ethnology and a number of other sciences, for which such a “tool” as a systematic approach is extremely necessary due to the extreme difficulties object of study.

Once, at a meeting of the scientific and methodological seminar of the Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, the project “The Concept of Empirical Research of Ukrainian Society” was considered. Strangely, having singled out six subsystems in society for some reason, the speaker characterized these subsystems with fifty indicators, many of which also turn out to be multidimensional. After that, the seminar discussed for a long time the question of what to do with these indicators, how to obtain generalized indicators and which ones... other were clearly used in a non-systemic sense.

In the vast majority of cases, the word "system" is used in the literature and in everyday life in a simplified, "non-systemic" sense. So, in the "Dictionary of Foreign Words" of the six definitions of the word "system", five, strictly speaking, have nothing to do with systems (these are methods, form, arrangement of something, etc.). At the same time, many attempts are still being made in the scientific literature to strictly define the concepts of "system", "system approach", to formulate system principles. At the same time, it seems that those scientists who have already realized the need for a systems approach are trying to formulate their own systemic concepts. We have to admit that we have practically no literature on the fundamentals of the sciences, especially on the so-called "instrumental" sciences, that is, those that are used as a kind of "instrument" by other sciences. "Instrumental" science is mathematics. The author is convinced that systemology should also become an "instrumental" science. Today, the literature on systemology is represented either by "self-made" works by specialists in various fields, or by extremely complex, special works designed for professional systemologists or mathematicians.

The author’s systemic ideas were mainly formed in the 60–80s in the process of implementing special topics, first at the Head Research Institute for Rocket and Space Systems, and then at the Control Systems Research Institute under the leadership of the General Designer of Control Systems Academician V. S. Semenikhin. Participation in a number of scientific seminars at Moscow University, scientific institutes of Moscow and, especially, a semi-official seminar on systems research in those years, played a huge role. What is stated below is the result of the analysis and comprehension of the literature, many years of personal experience of the author, his colleagues - specialists in systemic and related issues. The concept of a system as a model was introduced by the author in 1966–68. and published in . The definition of information as a metric of system interactions was proposed by the author in 1978. System principles are partially borrowed (in these cases there are references), partially formulated by the author in 1971–86.

It is unlikely that what is given in this work is the "ultimate truth", however, even if some approximation to the truth is already a lot. The presentation is deliberately popular, since the author's goal is to acquaint the widest possible scientific community with systemology and, thereby, stimulate the study and use of this powerful, but still little-known "toolkit". It would be extremely useful to introduce into the programs of universities and universities (for example, in the section of general education in the first years) a lecture cycle of the fundamentals of a systematic approach (36 academic hours), then (in senior years) - to supplement with a special course in applied systemsology, focused on the field of activity future specialists (24–36 academic hours). However, so far these are only good wishes.

I would like to believe that the changes taking place now (both in our country and in the world) will force scientists, and just people, to learn a systematic style of thinking, that a systematic approach will become an element of culture, and system analysis will become a tool for specialists in both the natural and human sciences . Advocating for this for a long time, the author once again hopes that the elementary systemic concepts and principles outlined below will help at least one person avoid at least one mistake.

Many great truths were first blasphemy.

B. Show

2. Realities, models, systems

The concept of "system" was used by materialist philosophers ancient greece. According to modern UNESCO data, the word "system" is one of the first places in terms of frequency of use in many languages ​​of the world, especially in civilized countries. In the second half of the twentieth century, the role of the concept of "system" in the development of sciences and society rises so high that some enthusiasts of this direction began to talk about the onset of the "era of systems" and the emergence of a special science - systemology. For many years, the outstanding cybernetician V. M. Glushkov actively fought for the formation of this science.

In the philosophical literature, the term "systemology" was first introduced in 1965 by I. B. Novik, and to refer to a wide area of ​​systems theory in the spirit of L. von Bertalanffy this term was used in 1971 by V. T. Kulik. The emergence of systemology meant the realization that a number of scientific areas and, first of all, various areas of cybernetics, explore only different qualities of the same integral object - systems. Indeed, in the West, cybernetics is still often identified with the theory of control and communication in the original understanding of N. Wiener. Including in the future a number of theories and disciplines, cybernetics remained a conglomerate of non-physical areas of science. And only when the concept "system" became pivotal in cybernetics, thus giving it the missing conceptual unity, the identification of modern cybernetics with systemology became justified. Thus, the concept of "system" is becoming increasingly fundamental. In any case, "... one of the main goals of searching for a system is precisely its ability to explain and put in a certain place even the material that was conceived and obtained by the researcher without any systematic approach" .

And yet, what is "system"? To understand this, you have to "start from the beginning."

2.1. reality

Man in the world around him - at all times it was a symbol. But at different times, the accents in this phrase moved, because of which the symbol itself changed. So, until recently, the banner (symbol) not only in our country was the slogan attributed to I. V. Michurin: “You can’t expect favors from nature! It is our task to take them from her!” Do you feel where the emphasis is?.. Somewhere in the middle of the twentieth century, humanity finally began to realize: you can’t conquer Nature - it’s more expensive for yourself! A whole science appeared - ecology, the concept of "human factor" became commonly used - the emphasis shifted to the person. And then a dramatic circumstance for humanity was discovered - a person is no longer able to understand the increasingly complex world! Somewhere at the end of the 19th century, D. I. Mendeleev said: “Science begins where measurements begin” ... Well, in those days there was still something to measure! Over the next fifty to seventy years, so much "intentioned" that it seemed more and more hopeless to sort out the colossal number of facts and the dependencies between them. Natural sciences in the study of nature have reached a level of complexity that turned out to be higher than human capabilities.

In mathematics, special sections began to develop to facilitate complex calculations. Even the appearance in the forties of the twentieth century of ultra-high-speed calculating machines, which computers were originally considered to be, did not save the situation. A person turned out to be unable to understand what is happening in the surrounding world! .. That's where the “problem of a person” comes from ... Maybe it was the complexity of the surrounding world that once served as the reason that the sciences were divided into natural and humanitarian, “exact” and descriptive ("inaccurate"?). Tasks that can be formalized, i.e., correctly and accurately set, and therefore strictly and accurately solved, have been analyzed by the so-called natural, “exact” sciences - these are mainly problems of mathematics, mechanics, physics, etc. n. The remaining tasks and problems, which, from the point of view of representatives of the "exact" sciences, have a significant drawback - a phenomenological, descriptive nature, are difficult to formalize and therefore are not strictly, "inaccurately", and often incorrectly set, made up the so-called humanitarian direction of nature research - these are psychology, sociology, the study of languages, historical and ethnological studies, geography, etc. (it is important to note - tasks related to the study of man, life, in general - the living!). The reason for the descriptive, verbal form of knowledge representation in psychology, sociology and, in general, in humanitarian research lies not so much in the poor familiarity and knowledge of mathematics in the humanities (which mathematicians are convinced of), but in the complexity, multi-parameter, variety of manifestations of life ... This is not fault humanities, rather, this is a disaster, the “curse of the complexity” of the object of research! .. But the humanities still deserve reproach - for conservatism in methodology and “tools”, for unwillingness to realize the need not only to accumulate many individual facts, but also to master well-developed in XX century general scientific "toolkit" for research, analysis and synthesis of complex objects and processes, diversity, interdependence of some facts from others. In this, we have to admit, the humanitarian fields of research in the second half of the twentieth century lagged far behind the natural sciences.

2.2. Models

What provided the natural sciences with such rapid progress in the second half of the 20th century? Without going into a deep scientific analysis, it can be argued that progress in the natural sciences was provided mainly by a powerful tool that appeared in the middle of the twentieth century - models. By the way, soon after the appearance of computers, they ceased to be considered as calculating machines (although they retained the word “computing” in their name) and all their further development went under the sign of a modeling tool.

What is models? The literature on this subject is vast and varied; a fairly complete picture of the models can be given by the work of a number of domestic researchers, as well as the fundamental work of M. Vartofsky. Without complicating it unnecessarily, we can define it like this:

A model is a kind of “substitute” for the object of study, reflecting in a form acceptable for the purposes of the study all the most important parameters and relationships of the object under study.

The need for models arises, generally speaking, in two cases:

• when the object of study is not available for direct contacts, direct measurements, or such contacts and measurements are difficult or impossible (for example, direct studies of living organisms associated with their dismemberment lead to the death of the object of study and, as V. I. Vernadsky said, the loss of what distinguishes the living from the non-living, direct contacts and measurements in the human psyche are very difficult, and even more so in the substratum that is not yet very clear to science, which is called the social psyche, the atom is not available for direct research, etc.) - in this case they create a model, in some sense "similar" to the object of study;
• when the object of study is multiparametric, i.e. so complex that it cannot be holistically comprehended (for example, a plant or institution, a geographical region or an object; a very complex and multiparametric object is the human psyche as a kind of integrity, i.e. individuality or personality, complex and multi-parametric are non-random groups of people, ethnic groups, etc.) - in this case, the most important (from the point of view of the goals of this study!) Parameters and functional relationships of the object are selected and a model is created, often not even similar (in the literal sense of the word) to the object itself.

In connection with what has been said, the following is curious: the most interesting object of study in many sciences is Human- both inaccessible and multi-parametric, and humanitarian sciences something is in no hurry to acquire human models.

It is not necessary to build a model from the same material as the object - the main thing is that it reflects the essential that corresponds to the goals of the study. The so-called mathematical models are generally built “on paper”, in the head of a researcher or in a computer. By the way, there are good reasons to believe that a person solves all problems and tasks by modeling real objects and situations in his psyche. G. Helmholtz, in his theory of symbols, argued that our sensations are not “mirror” images of the surrounding reality, but are symbols (i.e., some models) of the external world. His concept of symbols is by no means a rejection of materialistic views, as claimed in philosophical literature, but a dialectical approach of the highest standard - he was one of the first to understand that a person’s reflection of the outside world (and, therefore, interaction with the world) is, as we call it today , informational character .

There are many examples of models in the natural sciences. One of the brightest is the planetary model of the atom, proposed by E. Rutherford in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This, in general, a simple model, we owe all the breathtaking achievements of physics, chemistry, electronics and other sciences of the twentieth century.

However, no matter how much we explore, no matter how we model, at the same time, this or that object, it is necessary to be aware that the object itself, isolated, closed, cannot exist (function) for a number of reasons. Not to mention the obvious - the need to receive matter and energy, to give away waste (metabolism, entropy), there are also other, for example, evolutionary reasons. Sooner or later, in the developing world, a problem arises in front of the object, which it is not able to cope with on its own - it is necessary to look for a “companion”, “employee”; at the same time, it is necessary to unite with such a partner, whose goals at least do not contradict their own. This creates the need for interaction. In the real world, everything is interconnected and interacts. So here it is:

Models of the interaction of objects, which themselves, at the same time, models, are called systems.

Of course, from a practical point of view, we can say that a system is formed when a goal is set for some object (subject), which it cannot achieve alone and is forced to interact with other objects (subjects), whose goals do not contradict its goals. However, it should be remembered that in real life, in the world around us, there are no models or systems that are also models! .. There is just life, complex and simple objects, complex and simple processes and interactions, often incomprehensible, sometimes unconscious and not noticed by us... By the way, a person, groups of people (especially non-random ones) are also objects from a systemic point of view. Models are built by a researcher specifically for solving certain problems, achieving goals. The researcher singles out some objects along with connections (systems) when he needs to study a phenomenon or some part of the real world at the level of interactions. Therefore, the sometimes used term “real systems” is nothing more than a reflection of the fact that we are talking about modeling some part of the real world that is interesting to the researcher.

It should be noted that the above conceptual introduction of the concept systems as models of interaction of object models, of course, is not the only possible one - in the literature, the concept of a system is both introduced and interpreted in different ways. So, one of the founders of systems theory L. von Bertalanffy in 1937 he defined as follows: “A system is a complex of elements that are in interaction” ... Such a definition is also known (B. S. Urmantsev): “System S is the I-th set of compositions Mi, built in relation to Ri, according to the law of composition Zi from the primary elements of the set Mi0 distinguished by the base Ai0 from the set M”.

2.3. Systems

Having thus introduced the concept of a system, we can propose the following definition:

System - a certain set of elements - models of objects interacting on the basis of direct and feedback, modeling the achievement of a given goal.

Minimum population - two elements, modeling some objects, the goal of the system is always set from the outside (this will be shown below), which means that the reaction of the system (the result of activity) is directed outward; therefore, the simplest (elementary) system of model elements A and B can be depicted as follows (Fig. 1):

Rice. 1. Elementary system

In real systems, of course, there are much more elements, but for most research purposes it is almost always possible to combine some groups of elements together with their connections and reduce the system to the interaction of two elements or subsystems.

The elements of the system are interdependent and only in interaction, all together (as a system!) Can achieve goals, set before the system (for example, a certain state, i.e., a set of essential properties at a certain point in time).

It is not difficult, perhaps, to imagine the trajectory of the system towards the goal- this is a certain line in some imaginary (virtual) space, which is formed if we imagine a certain coordinate system in which each parameter characterizing the current state of the system has its own coordinate. The trajectory can be optimal in terms of the cost of some system resources. Parameter space systems are usually characterized by the number of parameters. A normal person, in the process of making a decision, more or less easily manages to operate five-seven(maximum - nine!) simultaneously changing parameters (usually this is associated with the volume of the so-called short-term RAM - 7 ± 2 parameters - the so-called "Miller number"). Therefore, it is practically impossible for a normal person to imagine (comprehend) the functioning of real systems, the simplest of which are characterized by hundreds of simultaneously changing parameters. Therefore, they often talk about multidimensionality of systems(more precisely, spaces of system parameters). The attitude of specialists to the spaces of system parameters is well characterized by the expression “the curse of multidimensionality”. There are special techniques for overcoming the difficulties of manipulating parameters in multidimensional spaces (methods of hierarchical modeling, etc.).

This system may be an element of another system, such as the environment; then the environment is supersystem. Any system necessarily enters into some kind of supersystem - another thing is that we do not always see this. An element of a given system can itself be a system - then it is called subsystem of this system (Fig. 2). From this point of view, even in an elementary (two-element) system, one element, in the sense of interaction, can be considered as a supersystem in relation to another element. The supersystem sets goals for its systems, provides them with everything necessary, corrects behavior in accordance with the goal, etc.

Rice. 2. Subsystem, system, supersystem.

Connections in systems are direct and reverse. If we consider element A (Fig. 1), then for it the arrow from A to B is a direct connection, and the arrow from B to A is a feedback; for element B, the opposite is true. The same is true of the connections of a given system with a subsystem and a supersystem (Fig. 2). Sometimes connections are considered as a separate element of the system and such an element is called communicator.

concept management, widely used in everyday life, is also associated with systemic interactions. Indeed, the impact of element A on element B can be considered as a control of the behavior (functioning) of element B, which is carried out by A in the interests of the system, and the feedback from B to A can be considered as a reaction to control (functioning results, movement coordinates, etc.) . Generally speaking, all of the above is also true for the action of B on A; it should only be noted that all systemic interactions are asymmetric (see below - asymmetry principle), therefore, usually in systems, one of the elements is called the leading (dominant) one, and control is considered from the point of view of this element. It must be said that the theory of management is much older than the theory of systems, but, as happens in science, it “follows” as a particular from systemology, although not all specialists recognize this.

The idea of ​​the composition (structure) of interelement connections in systems has undergone a fair evolution in recent years. So, quite recently, in systemic and near-systemic (especially philosophical) literature, the components of interelement connections were called substance and energy(strictly speaking, energy is a general measure of the various forms of motion of matter, the two main forms of which are matter and field). In biology, the interaction of an organism with the environment is still considered at the level of matter and energy and is called metabolism. And relatively recently, the authors grew bolder and started talking about the third component of the interelemental exchange - information. Recently, the works of biophysicists have appeared, in which it is boldly asserted that the "life activity" of biological systems "... involves the exchange of matter, energy and information with the environment" . It would seem that a natural thought - any interaction should be accompanied by information exchange. In one of his works, the author even proposed a definition information as interaction metrics. However, even today, the literature often mentions the material and energy exchange in systems and is silent about information even when it comes to the philosophical definition of a system, which is characterized by “... performing a common function, ... combining thoughts, scientific positions, abstract objects, etc. » . The simplest example illustrating the exchange of matter and information: the transfer of goods from one point to another is always accompanied by a so-called. cargo documentation. Why, oddly enough, the information component in systemic interactions was silent for a long time, especially in our country, the author guesses and will try to express his assumption a little lower. True, not everyone was silent. So, back in 1940, the Polish psychologist A. Kempinsky expressed an idea that surprised many at that time and is still not very accepted - the interaction of the psyche with the environment, the construction and filling of the psyche is informational in nature. This idea is called the principle of information metabolism and was successfully used by a Lithuanian researcher A. Augustinavichute when creating a new science about the structure and mechanisms of the functioning of the human psyche - theories of informational metabolism of the psyche(Socionics, 1968), where this principle is the basis for constructing models of the types of informational metabolism of the psyche.

Simplifying somewhat the interactions and structure of systems, we can represent interelement (intersystem) exchange in systems(Fig. 3):

• from the supersystem, the system receives material support for the functioning of the system ( matter and energy), informational messages (target indications - a goal or a program for achieving the goal, instructions for adjusting the functioning, i.e., the trajectory of movement towards the goal), as well as rhythm signals necessary to synchronize the functioning of the supersystem, system and subsystems;
• material and energy results of functioning are sent from the system to the supersystem, i.e. useful products and waste (matter and energy), information messages (about the state of the system, the path to the goal, useful information products), as well as rhythmic signals necessary to ensure the exchange (in the narrow sense - synchronization).

Rice. 3. Interelement exchange in systems

Of course, such a division into components of interelement (intersystem) connections is purely analytical in nature and is necessary for a correct analysis of interactions. It must be said that the structure of system connections causes significant difficulties in the analysis of systems, even for specialists. Thus, not all analysts separate information from matter and energy in intersystem exchange. Of course, in real life, information is always presented on some carrier(in such cases it is said that information modulates the carrier); usually for this, carriers are used that are convenient for communication systems and for perception - energy and matter (for example, electricity, light, paper, etc.). However, when analyzing the functioning of systems, it is important that matter, energy and information are independent structural components of communicative processes. One of the now fashionable fields of activity, claiming to be scientific, “bioenergetics” is actually engaged in information interactions, which for some reason are called energy-informational, although the energy levels of the signals are so small that even the known electrical and magnetic components are very difficult to measure.

Highlight rhythm signals As a separate component of systemic connections, the author proposed back in 1968 and used it in a number of other works. It seems that this aspect of interaction is still underestimated in the systems literature. At the same time, the signals of rhythm, carrying "service" information, play an important, often decisive role in the processes of systemic interactions. Indeed, the disappearance of rhythmic signals (in the narrow sense - synchronization signals) plunges into chaos the "deliveries" of matter and energy from object to object, from the supersystem to the system and vice versa (it is enough to imagine what happens in life when, for example, suppliers send some cargo not according to the agreed schedule, but as you like); the disappearance of rhythmic signals in relation to information (violation of periodicity, the disappearance of the beginning and end of a message, the intervals between words and messages, etc.) makes it incomprehensible, just as the “picture” on a TV screen is incomprehensible in the absence of synchronization signals or a crumbling manuscript in which pages are not numbered .

Some biologists study the rhythm of living organisms, though not so much in a systemic way, but in a functional one. For example, the experiments of the doctor of medical sciences S. Stepanova at the Moscow Institute of Medical and Biological Problems showed that the human day, unlike the earthly, increases by one hour and lasts 25 hours - such a rhythm was called circadian (around the clock). According to psychophysiologists, this explains why people are more comfortable going to bed later than waking up early. According to Marie Claire magazine, biorhythmologists believe that the human brain is a factory, which, like any production, works on schedule. Depending on the time of day, the body produces the secretion of chemicals that increase mood, alertness, increased sexual desire or drowsiness. In order to always be in shape, you can set your daily routine taking into account your biorhythms, that is, find a source of vivacity in yourself. Perhaps that is why one in three women in the UK take a one-day "sick" leave from time to time to have sex (results from a survey conducted by She magazine).

The informational and rhythmic impact of the Cosmos on earthly life has been discussed until recently only by a few dissident researchers in science. So, the problems arising in connection with the introduction of the so-called. "summer" and "winter" time - doctors conducted research and found a clearly negative effect of "double" time on human health, apparently due to a malfunction in the rhythm of mental processes. In some countries, clocks are translated, in others they are not, believing that this is economically inefficient, and harmful to people's health. So, for example, in Japan, where the clock does not translate, the highest life expectancy. Discussions on these topics do not stop until now.

Systems cannot arise and function on their own. Even Democritus argued: "Nothing arises without a cause, but everything arises on some basis or because of necessity." And philosophical, sociological, psychological literature, many publications on other sciences are full of beautiful terms "self-improvement", "self-harmonization", "self-actualization", "self-realization", etc. Well, let the poets and writers - they can, but philosophers?! At the end of 1993, a doctoral dissertation in philosophy was defended at Kiev State University, the basis of which is “... a logical and methodological substantiation of the self-development of the initial “cell” to the scale of a person's personality” ... Either a misunderstanding of elementary systemic categories, or slovenliness of terminology unacceptable for science.

It can be argued that all systems are alive in the sense that they function, develop (evolve) and achieve a given goal; a system that is not able to function in such a way that the results satisfy the supersystem, which does not develop, is at rest or “closed” (does not interact with anyone) is not needed by the supersystem and dies. In the same sense understand the term "survivability".

In relation to the objects they model, systems are sometimes called abstract(these are systems in which all elements - concepts; e.g. languages), and specific(such systems in which at least two elements - objects e.g. family, factory, humanity, galaxy, etc.). An abstract system is always a subsystem of a concrete one, but not vice versa.

Systems can simulate almost everything in the real world, where some realities interact (function and develop). Therefore, the commonly used meaning of the word "system" implicitly implies the allocation of some set of interacting realities with necessary and sufficient connections for analysis. So, they say that the systems are the family, the labor collective, the state, the nation, the ethnic group. The systems are the forest, the lake, the sea, even the desert; it is not difficult to see subsystems in them. In inanimate, "inert" matter (according to V. I. Vernadsky) there are no systems in the strict sense of the word; therefore, bricks, even beautifully laid bricks, are not a system, and the mountains themselves can be called a system only conditionally. Technical systems, even such as a car, an airplane, a machine tool, a plant, a nuclear power plant, a computer, etc., by themselves, without people, are not, strictly speaking, systems. Here the term "system" is used either in the sense that human participation in their functioning is mandatory (even if the aircraft is capable of flying on autopilot, the machine is automatic, and the computer "itself" calculates, designs, models), or with a focus on automatic processes , which in a sense can be considered as a manifestation of primitive intelligence. In fact, a person implicitly takes part in the operation of any machine. However, computers are not yet systems ... One of the creators of computers called them "conscientious idiots." It is quite possible that the development of the problem of artificial intelligence will lead to the creation of the same "subsystem of machines" in the "humanity" system, which is the "subsystem of humanity" in systems of a higher order. However, this is a likely future...

Human participation in functioning technical systems may be different. So, intellectual they call systems where creative, heuristic abilities of a person are used for functioning; in ergatic systems, a person is used as a very good automaton, and his intelligence (in the broadest sense) is not really needed (for example, a car and a driver).

It became fashionable to say "large system" or "complex system"; but it turns out that when we say this, we often unnecessarily sign off on some of our limitations, because these are "... such systems that exceed the capabilities of the observer in some aspect important to his goal" (W. R. Ashby).

As an example of a multi-level, hierarchical system, let's try to present a model of interaction between man, humanity, the nature of the Earth and planet Earth in the Universe (Fig. 4). From this simple but quite rigorous model, it will become clear why, until recently, systemology was not officially encouraged, and systemologists did not dare to mention the informational component of intersystem communications in their works.

Man is a social being... So let's imagine the system "man - mankind": one element of the system is man, the second is mankind. Is such a model of interaction possible? Quite!.. But humanity together with man can be represented as an element (subsystem) of a system of a higher order, where the second element is Live nature Earth (in the broadest sense of the word). Terrestrial life (mankind and nature) naturally interact with planet Earth - a system of planetary level of interaction ... Finally, planet Earth, together with all living things, certainly interacts with the Sun; solar system is part of the Galaxy system, etc. - we generalize the interactions of the Earth and represent the second element of the Universe ... Such a hierarchical system quite adequately reflects our interest in the position of man in the Universe and his interactions. And here's what's interesting - in the structure of systemic connections, in addition to quite understandable matter and energy, there is naturally information, including at the highest levels of interaction!..

Rice. 4. An example of a multi-level, hierarchical system

This is where ordinary common sense ends and the question arises that Marxist philosophers did not dare to ask aloud: “If the information component is an indispensable element of system interactions (and it seems that this is the case), then with whom does the information interaction of Planet Earth take place ?!..” and, just in case, did not encourage, did not notice (and did not publish!) the work of systemologists. Deputy Editor-in-Chief (later Chief Editor) of a Ukrainian philosophical and sociological journal that claims to be solid, once told the author that he had not heard anything about the science of systemology. In the 1960s and 1970s, cybernetics was no longer imprisoned in our country, but we did not hear the persistent statements of the outstanding cybernetics VM Glushkov about the need to develop research and applications of systemology. Unfortunately, until now both the official academic science and many applied sciences such as psychology, sociology, political science, etc., do not hear systemology well ... Although the word system and words about system research are always in vogue. One of the prominent systemologists warned back in the 70s: “... The use of systemic words and concepts in itself does not yet give a systematic study, even if the object can really be considered as a system” .

Any theory or concept rests on prerequisites, the validity of which does not raise objections from the scientific community.

L. N. Gumilyov

3. System principles

What is consistency? What is meant when they say "systematicity of the world", "systematic thinking", "systematic approach"? The search for answers to these questions leads to the formulation of provisions that are commonly called systemic principles. Any principles are based on experience and consensus (social agreement). The experience of studying a wide variety of objects and phenomena, public assessment and understanding of the results allow us to formulate some general statements, the application of which to the creation, study and use of systems as models of certain realities determines the methodology of the systems approach. Some principles receive theoretical substantiation, some are empirically substantiated, and some have the character of hypotheses, the application of which to the creation of systems (modeling of realities) allows obtaining new results, which, by the way, serve as empirical proof of the hypotheses themselves.

A fairly large number of principles are known in science, they are formulated in different ways, but in any presentation they are abstractions, that is, they have a high degree of generality and are suitable for any application. The ancient scholastics argued - "If something is true at the level of abstractions, it cannot be wrong at the level of realities." Below are the most important from the point of view of the author system principles and the necessary comments on their wording. The examples do not claim to be rigorous and are intended only to illustrate the meaning of the principles.

The principle of goal setting- the goal that determines the behavior of the system is always set by the supersystem.

The most important principle, however, not always accepted at the level of ordinary "common sense". The generally accepted belief is that someone, and a person with his free will, sets a goal for himself; some collectives, states are considered independent in the sense of goals. Actually, goal setting - a complex process, consisting, in the general case, of two components: tasks (setting) goals system (for example, in the form of a set of essential properties or parameters that must be achieved at a certain point in time) and work (tasks) goal achievement programs(programs for the functioning of the system in the process of achieving the goal, i.e. "moving along the trajectory towards the goal"). To set a goal for the system means to determine why a certain state of the system is needed, what parameters characterize this state and at what point in time the state should take place - and these are all questions external to the system that the supersystem (indeed, a “normal” system) must solve. in general, there is no need to change one’s state and it is most “pleasant” to be in a state of rest - but why does a supersystem need such a system?).

The two components of the goal setting process define two possible ways of goal setting.

• First way: having set a goal, the supersystem can limit itself to this, giving the system itself the opportunity to develop a program to achieve the goal - this is precisely what creates the illusion of an independent goal setting by the system. So, life circumstances, surrounding people, fashion, prestige, etc. form a certain target setting in a person. The formation of an attitude often goes unnoticed by the person himself, and awareness comes when the goal has taken shape in the form of a verbal or non-verbal image in the brain (desire). Further, a person achieves a goal, often solving complex problems. Under these conditions, there is nothing surprising in the fact that the formula "I achieved the goal myself" is replaced by the formula "I set the goal myself." The same thing happens in collectives that consider themselves independent, and even more so in the heads of statesmen, the so-called independent states(“so-called” because both collectives - formally, and states - politically, of course, can be independent; however, from a systemic point of view, dependence on the environment, i.e., other collectives and states, is obvious here).
• Second way: the goal for systems (especially primitive ones) is set immediately in the form of a program (algorithm) for achieving the goal.

Examples of these two methods of goal setting:

• the dispatcher can set a task (goal) for the driver of a car (the "man-machine" system) in the following form - "deliver the goods to point A" - in this case, the driver (element of the system) decides how to go (works out a program to achieve the goal);
• another way - to a driver who is unfamiliar with the territory and the road, the task of delivering the goods to point A is given along with a map on which the route is indicated (the program for achieving the goal).

Applied meaning of the principle: inability or unwillingness to “leave the system” in the process of setting or realizing a goal, self-confidence, often lead functionaries (individuals, leaders, statesmen, etc.) to mistakes and delusions.

Feedback principle- the reaction of the system to the impact should minimize the deviation of the system from the trajectory to the target.

This is a fundamental and universal systemic principle. It can be argued that systems without feedback do not exist. Or in other words: a system that lacks feedback degrades and dies. The meaning of the concept of feedback - the result of the functioning of the system (element of the system) affects the impacts coming to it. Feedback happens positive(strengthens the effect of direct connection) and negative(weakens the effect of direct communication); in both cases, the task of the feedback is to return the system to the optimal trajectory towards the goal (trajectory correction).

An example of a system without feedback is the command-administrative system, which is still in place in our country. Many other examples can be cited - ordinary and scientific, simple and complex. And so more amazing ability not to see (not want to see!) the consequences of one’s activities, i.e., feedbacks in the “man-environment” system ... There is so much talk about ecology, but it’s impossible to get used to new and new facts of people poisoning themselves - what do they think about workers of a chemical plant poisoning their own children?.. What is the state thinking about, which in essence does not give a damn about spirituality and culture, about school and in general social group called "children", and then receiving a deformed generation of young people? ..

The applied value of the principle - ignoring feedback inevitably leads the system to loss of control, deviation from the trajectory and death (the fate of totalitarian regimes, environmental disasters, many family tragedies, etc.).

Purposefulness principle- the system strives to achieve a given goal even when environmental conditions change.

The flexibility of the system, the ability to change within certain limits its behavior, and sometimes its structure, is an important property that ensures the functioning of the system in a real environment. Methodologically, the principle of tolerance adjoins the principle of purposefulness ( lat. - patience).

The principle of tolerance- the system should not be "strict" - a deviation within certain limits of the parameters of elements, subsystems, the environment or the behavior of other systems should not lead the system to a catastrophe.

If we imagine the “newlyweds” system in the “big family” supersystem with parents, grandparents, then it is easy to appreciate the importance of the principle of tolerance, at least for the integrity (not to mention peace) of such a system. A good example of the observance of the principle of tolerance is also the so-called. pluralism, which is still being fought for.

The Principle of Optimal Diversity- extremely organized and extremely disorganized systems are dead.

In other words, “all extremes are bad” ... The ultimate disorganization or, what is the same, diversity taken to the extreme can be likened (not very strictly for open systems) to the maximum entropy of the system, reaching which the system can no longer change (function, develop) in any way ); in thermodynamics, such a final is called "thermal death". An extremely organized (overorganized) system loses flexibility, and hence the ability to adapt to environmental changes, becomes “strict” (see the principle of tolerance) and, as a rule, does not survive. N. Alekseev even introduced the 4th law of energy-entropics - the law of the limiting development of material systems. The meaning of the law boils down to the fact that for a system an entropy equal to zero is just as bad as the maximum entropy.

Emergence principle- the system has properties that are not derived from the known (observable) properties of its elements and the ways they are connected.

Another name for this principle is the "integrity postulate". The meaning of this principle is that the system as a whole has properties that subsystems (elements) do not have. These systemic properties are formed during the interaction of subsystems (elements) by strengthening and manifestation of some properties of elements simultaneously with the weakening and concealment of others. Thus, the system is not a set of subsystems (elements), but a certain integrity. Therefore, the sum of the properties of the system is not equal to the sum of the properties of its constituent elements. The principle is important not only in technical, but also in socio-economic systems, since such phenomena as social prestige, group psychology, intertype relations in the theory of informational metabolism of the psyche (socionics), etc. are associated with it.

Consent principle- the goals of the elements and subsystems should not contradict the goals of the system.

Indeed, a subsystem with a goal that does not match the goal of the system disrupts the functioning of the system (increases "entropy"). Such a subsystem must either “fall out” of the system or perish; otherwise - the degradation and death of the entire system.

Principle of Causality- any change in the state of the system is associated with a certain set of conditions (reason) that generate this change.

This, at first glance, a self-evident statement, is in fact a very important principle for a number of sciences. So, in the theory of relativity, the principle of causality excludes the influence of a given event on all past ones. In the theory of knowledge, he shows that the disclosure of the causes of phenomena makes it possible to predict and reproduce them. It is on this that an important set of methodological approaches to the conditionality of some social phenomena by others is based, united by the so-called. causal analysis ... It is used to study, for example, the processes of social mobility, social status, as well as factors influencing the value orientations and behavior of the individual. Causal analysis is used in systems theory for both quantitative and qualitative analysis of the relationship between phenomena, events, system states, etc. The effectiveness of causal analysis methods is especially high in the study of multidimensional systems - and these are almost all really interesting systems.

Principle of determinism- the reason for changing the state of the system always lies outside the system.

An important principle for any systems, with which people often cannot agree ... “There is a reason for everything ... Only sometimes it is difficult to see it ...” ( Henry Winston). Indeed, even such giants of science as Laplace, Descartes and some others professed the "monism of Spinoza's substance", which is "the cause of itself". And in our time, one has to hear explanations of the reasons for changing the state of certain systems by “needs”, “desires” (as if they are primary), “aspirations” (“... the general desire to materialize” - K. Vonegut), even “the creative nature of matter” (and this is generally something incomprehensible-philosophical); often everything is explained as “mere coincidence”.

In fact, the principle of determinism states that a change in the state of a system is always a consequence of the influence of a supersystem on it. The absence of impact on the system is a special case and can be considered either as an episode when the system moves along a trajectory towards the goal (“zero impact”), or as a transitional episode to death (in the systemic sense). Methodologically, the principle of determinism in the study of complex systems, especially social ones, makes it possible to understand the features of the interaction of subsystems without falling into subjective and idealistic errors.

The principle of the "black box"- the reaction of the system is a function not only of external influences, but also of the internal structure, characteristics and states of its constituent elements.

This principle is of great importance in research practice when studying complex objects or systems, the internal structure of which is unknown and inaccessible (“black box”).

The "black box" principle is extremely widely used in the natural sciences, various applied research, even in everyday life. Thus, physicists, assuming a known structure of the atom, investigate various physical phenomena and states of matter, seismologists, assuming a known state of the Earth's core, try to predict earthquakes and the movement of continental plates. Assuming a known structure and state of society, sociologists use surveys to find out people's reactions to certain events or influences. In the confidence that they know the state and the likely reaction of the people, our politicians carry out this or that reform.

A typical "black box" for researchers is a person. When investigating, for example, the human psyche, it is necessary to take into account not only experimental external influences, but also the structure of the psyche and the state of its constituent elements (mental functions, blocks, superblocks, etc.). It follows from this that under known (controlled) external influences and under the assumption known states elements of the psyche, it is possible to create an idea of ​​the structure of the psyche, that is, the type of informational metabolism (ITM) of the psyche of a given person, in an experiment based on the principle of a “black box” based on human reactions. This approach is used in the procedures for identifying the TIM of the psyche and verifying its model in the study of personality characteristics and individuality of a person in the theory of informational metabolism of the psyche (socionics). With a known structure of the psyche and controlled external influences and reactions to them, one can judge the states of mental functions that are elements of the structure. Finally, knowing the structure and states of a person's mental functions, one can predict his reaction to certain external influences. Of course, the conclusions that the researcher makes on the basis of experiments with the "black box" are probabilistic in nature (due to the probabilistic nature of the assumptions mentioned above) and one must be aware of this. And, nevertheless, the principle of "black box" is an interesting, versatile and quite powerful tool in the hands of a competent researcher.

Diversity principle The more diverse the system, the more stable it is.

Indeed, the diversity of the structure, properties and characteristics of the system provides ample opportunities for adapting to changing influences, malfunctions of subsystems, environmental conditions, etc. However ... everything is good in moderation (see. principle of optimal diversity).

Entropy principle- isolated (closed) system dies.

A gloomy wording - well, what can you do: approximately this is the meaning of the most fundamental law of nature - the so-called. the second law of thermodynamics, as well as the 2nd law of energy entropy formulated by G. N. Alekseev. If the system suddenly turned out to be isolated, “closed”, that is, it does not exchange matter, energy, information, or rhythmic signals with the environment, then the processes in the system develop in the direction of increasing the entropy of the system, from a more ordered state to a less ordered one, i.e. towards equilibrium, and equilibrium is analogous to death… “Closeness” in any of the four components of intersystem interaction leads the system to degradation and death. The same applies to the so-called closed, "ring", cyclical processes and structures - they are only "closed" at first glance: often we simply do not see the channel through which the system is open, ignore or underestimate it and ... fall into error. All real, functioning systems are open.

It is also important to take into account the following - by its very operation, the system inevitably increases the "entropy" of the environment (the quotation marks here indicate a loose application of the term). In this regard, G. N. Alekseev proposed the 3rd law of energy entropy - the entropy of open systems in the process of their progressive development always decreases due to energy consumption from external sources; at the same time, the "entropy" of systems that serve as energy sources increases. Thus, any ordering activity is carried out at the expense of energy consumption and the growth of the “entropy” of external systems (supersystems) and cannot take place without it at all.

An example of an isolated technical system - lunar rover (as long as there is energy and consumables on board, it can be controlled via a command radio link and it works; the sources are depleted - “died”, stopped controlling, that is, the interaction on the information component was interrupted - it will die even if there is energy on board) .

An example of an isolated biological system- a mouse trapped in a glass jar. And here, shipwrecked people on a desert island - a system that is apparently not completely isolated ... Of course, they will die without food and heat, but if they are available, they survive: apparently, a certain information component in their interaction with the outside world takes place.

These are exotic examples... In real life, everything is both simpler and more complicated. So, famine in African countries, death of people in the polar regions due to lack of energy sources, degradation of the country that surrounded itself " iron curtain", the lag of the country and the bankruptcy of an enterprise that, in a market economy, do not care about interacting with other enterprises, even an individual or a closed group that degrades when they "withdraw into themselves", interrupt ties with society - all these are examples of more or less closed systems.

An extremely interesting and important for humanity phenomenon of the cyclical development of ethnic systems (ethnic groups) was discovered by the famous researcher L. N. Gumilyov. However, it seems that a talented ethnologist made a mistake, believing that "... ethnic systems ... develop according to the laws of irreversible entropy and lose the initial impulse that gave rise to them, just as any movement fades from environmental resistance ...". It is unlikely that ethnic groups are closed systems - there are too many facts against this: it is enough to recall the famous traveler Thor Heyerdahl, who experimentally studied the relationship of peoples in the vast Pacific Ocean, the studies of linguists on the interpenetration of languages, the so-called great migrations of peoples, etc. In addition, humanity in this In this case, it would be a mechanical sum of individual ethnic groups, very similar to billiards - balls roll and collide exactly insofar as a certain energy is communicated to them by a cue. It is unlikely that such a model correctly reflects the phenomenon of humanity. Apparently, the real processes in ethnic systems are much more complicated.

In recent years, an attempt has been made to apply to the study of systems similar to ethnic groups, the methods of a new field - non-equilibrium thermodynamics, on the basis of which it seemed possible to introduce thermodynamic criteria for the evolution of open physical systems. However, it turned out that these methods are still powerless - the physical criteria of evolution do not explain the development of real living systems ... It seems that the processes in social systems can only be understood on the basis of a systematic approach to ethnic groups as open systems that are subsystems of the "humanity" system. Apparently, it would be more promising to study the information component of intersystem interaction in ethnic systems - it seems that it is on this path (taking into account the integral intelligence of living systems) that it is possible to unravel not only the phenomenon of the cyclic development of ethnic groups, but also the fundamental properties of the human psyche.

The principle of entropy, unfortunately, is often ignored by researchers. At the same time, two mistakes are typical: either they artificially isolate the system and study it, not realizing that the functioning of the system changes dramatically; or "literally" apply the laws of classical thermodynamics (in particular, the concept of entropy) to open systems, where they cannot be observed. The latter error is particularly common in biological and sociological research.

Development principle- only a developing system survives.

The meaning of the principle is both obvious and not perceived at the level of "common understanding of things." Indeed, how one does not want to believe that the complaints of the Black Queen from Lewis Carroll's Alice Through the Looking-Glass make sense: “... you have to run as fast just to stay in place! If you want to get to another place, then you need to run at least twice as fast! ..” We all want stability, peace, and ancient wisdom upsets: “Peace is death” ... Outstanding Personality N. M. Amosov advises: “To live, constantly make it difficult for yourself ...” and he himself makes eight thousand movements while charging.

What does "the system does not develop" mean? This means that it is in a state of equilibrium with the environment. Even if the environment (supersystem) were stable, the system would have to perform work to maintain the necessary level of vital activity due to the inevitable losses of matter, energy, information failures (using the terminology of mechanics - friction losses). If we take into account that the environment is always unstable, changes (it makes no difference - for better or worse), then even in order to passably solve the same problem, the system needs to be improved over time.

The principle of no excess- an extra element of the system dies.

An extra element means unused, unnecessary in the system. Medieval philosopher William of Ockham advised: "Do not multiply the number of entities beyond what is necessary"; this sound advice is called "Occam's razor". An extra element of the system is not only a wasted consumption of resources. In fact, this is an artificial increase in the complexity of the system, which can be likened to an increase in entropy, and hence a decrease in the quality, quality factor of the system. One of the real systems is defined as follows: "Organization - no extra elements intelligent system of consciously coordinated activities. “What is difficult is false,” said the Ukrainian thinker G. Skovoroda.

The principle of agony - nothing perishes without a struggle.

The principle of conservation of the amount of matter- the amount of matter (substance and energy) entering the system is equal to the amount of matter formed as a result of the activity (functioning) of the system.

In essence, this is a materialistic position about the indestructibility of matter. Indeed, it is easy to see that all the matter entering some real system is spent on:

• maintaining the functioning and development of the system itself (metabolism);
• production by the system of a product that is necessary for the supersystem (otherwise, why would the supersystem need a system);
• "technological waste" of this system (which, by the way, in the supersystem can be, if not a useful product, then at least a raw material for some other system; however, they may not be - the ecological crisis on Earth arose precisely because that the "humanity" system, which includes the "industry" subsystem, throws into the "biosphere" supersystem harmful waste that cannot be disposed of in the supersystem - a typical example of a violation of the system principle of consent: it seems that the goals of the "humanity" system do not always coincide with the goals of the "Earth" supersystem ").

One can also see some analogy between this principle and the 1st law of energy entropy - the law of conservation of energy. The principle of conservation of the amount of matter is important in the context of the systems approach, because so far, in various studies, errors are made related to the underestimation of the balance of matter in various systemic interactions. There are many examples in the development of industry - these are environmental problems, and in biological research, in particular, related to the study of the so-called. biofields, and in sociology, where energy and material interactions are clearly underestimated. Unfortunately, in systemology, the question of whether it is possible to talk about the conservation of the amount of information has not been worked out yet.

The principle of non-linearity Real systems are always non-linear.

Understanding normal people nonlinearity is somewhat reminiscent of a human representation of the globe. Indeed, we walk on flat earth, we see (especially in the steppe) an almost ideal plane, but in fairly serious calculations (for example, trajectories spaceships) are forced to take into account not only spheroidity, but also the so-called. geoidity of the Earth. We learn from geography and astronomy that the plane we see is a special case, a fragment of a large sphere. Something similar takes place with non-linearity. “Where something is lost, it will be added in another place” - M.V. Lomonosov once said something like this and “common sense” believes that how much will be lost, so much will be added. It turns out that such linearity is a special case! In reality, in nature and technical devices, the rule is rather non-linearity: not necessarily how much it decreases, it will increase so much - maybe more, maybe less ... it all depends on the shape and degree of non-linearity of the characteristic.

In systems, non-linearity means that the response of a system or element to a stimulus is not necessarily proportional to the stimulus. Real systems can be more or less linear only over a small part of their characteristic. However, most often one has to consider the characteristics of real systems as strongly nonlinear. Accounting for nonlinearity is especially important in system analysis when building models of real systems. Social systems are highly non-linear, mainly due to the non-linearity of such an element as a person.

Principle of optimal efficiency- the maximum efficiency of functioning is achieved on the verge of system stability, but this is fraught with the breakdown of the system into an unstable state.

This principle is important not only for technical, but even more so for social systems. Due to the strong nonlinearity of such an element as a person, these systems are generally unstable and therefore one should never “squeeze” maximum efficiency out of them.

The law of the theory of automatic regulation says: “The less stability of the system, the easier it is to manage. And vice versa". There are many examples in the history of mankind: almost any revolution, many catastrophes in technical systems, conflicts on national grounds, etc. As for optimal efficiency, the question of this is decided in the supersystem, which should take care not only of the efficiency of subsystems, but also of their stability. .

The principle of completeness of connections- links in the system should provide a sufficiently complete interaction of subsystems.

It can be argued that connections, in fact, create a system. The very definition of the concept of a system gives grounds to assert that there is no system without connections. A system connection is an element (communicant) considered as a material carrier of interaction between subsystems. Interaction in the system consists in the exchange of elements among themselves and with the outside world. substance(material interactions), energy(energy or field interactions), information(information interactions) and rhythmic signals(this interaction is sometimes called synchronization). It is quite obvious that insufficient or excessive exchange of any of the components disrupts the functioning of the subsystems and the system as a whole. In this regard, it is important that the throughput and quality characteristics of links ensure the exchange in the system with sufficient completeness and acceptable distortions (losses). The degrees of completeness and losses are established based on the characteristics of the integrity and survivability of the system (see. weak link principle).

Quality principle- the quality and efficiency of the system can only be assessed from the point of view of the supersystem.

The categories of quality and efficiency are of great theoretical and practical importance. Based on the assessment of quality and efficiency, the creation, comparison, testing and evaluation of systems is carried out, the degree of compliance with the purpose, the purposefulness and prospects of the system, etc. are clarified. politics in socio-economic issues, etc. In the theory of informational metabolism of the psyche (socionics), on the basis of this principle, it can be argued that a person can form individual norms only on the basis of an assessment of his activity by society; in other words, a person is not able to evaluate himself. It should be noted that the concepts of quality and efficiency, especially in the context of system principles, are not always correctly understood, interpreted and applied.

Quality indicators are a set of basic positive (from the position of a supersystem or a researcher) properties of the system; they are system invariants.

• System quality - generalized positive characteristic expressing the degree of utility of the system for the supersystem.
• Effect - it is the result, the consequence of any action; effective means giving effect; hence - efficiency, effectiveness.
• Efficiency - normalized to the cost of resources, the result of actions or activities of the system over a certain period of time is a value that takes into account the quality of the system, resource consumption and action time.

Thus, efficiency is measured by the degree of positive influence of the system on the functioning of the supersystem. Therefore, the concept of efficiency is external to the system, i.e., no description of the system can be sufficient to introduce an efficiency measure. By the way, it also follows from this that the fashionable concepts of “self-improvement”, “self-harmonization”, etc., widely used even in solid literature, simply do not make sense.

Logout principle- to understand the behavior of the system, it is necessary to exit the system into the supersystem.

An extremely important principle! In an old physics textbook, the peculiarities of uniform and rectilinear motion: "... Being in a closed cabin of a sailing ship moving evenly and rectilinearly in calm water, it is impossible to establish the fact of movement by any physical methods ... The only way is to go on deck and look at the shore ..." In this primitive example, a person in a closed cabin is a system "man - ship", and access to the deck and a look at the shore - access to the supersystem "ship - shore".

Unfortunately, both in science and in everyday life, it is difficult for us to think about the need to exit the system. So, in search of the reasons for the instability of the family, bad relations in the family, our valiant sociologists blame anyone and anything, except ... the state. But the state is a supersystem for the family (remember: “the family is the cell of the state”?). It would be necessary to go into this super-system and evaluate the impact on the family of a perverted ideology, economics and command-administrative management structure without feedback, etc. Now there is a reform public education- passions are running high over teachers, parents, innovative teachers, “new schools” are being proposed ... And the question is not heard - what is the “school” system in the “state” supersystem and what requirements does the supersystem put forward for education? .. Methodologically, the principle of exit from systems, perhaps the most important in the systems approach.

The weak link principle- connections between the elements of the system must be strong enough to maintain the integrity of the system, but weak enough to ensure its survivability.

The need for strong (required strong!) ties to ensure the integrity of the system is understandable without much explanation. However, the imperial elites and bureaucracy usually do not have enough understanding that too strong binding of national formations to the empire-forming metropolis is fraught with internal conflicts, sooner or later destroying the empire. Hence the separatism, for some reason considered a negative phenomenon.

The strength of connections should also have a lower limit - the connections between the elements of the system must be weak to a certain extent so that some troubles with one element of the system (for example, the death of an element) do not entail the death of the whole system.

They say that in the competition for The best way keep her husband, announced by one English newspaper, the first prize was won by a woman who proposed the following: "Keep on a long leash ...". A wonderful illustration of the principle of weak connection!.. Indeed, the sages and humorists say that although a woman marries to bind a man to herself, a man marries so that a woman gets rid of him ...

Another example is the Chernobyl nuclear power plant… In an improperly designed system, the operators turned out to be too strongly and rigidly connected with other elements, their mistakes quickly brought the system into an unstable state, and then a disaster…

Hence, the extreme methodological value of the principle of weak coupling is clear, especially at the stage of creating a system.

Glushkov principle- any multidimensional quality criterion of any system can be reduced to a one-dimensional one by entering higher-order systems (supersystems).

This is wonderful way overcoming the so-called. "curses of multidimensionality". It has already been noted above that a person was not lucky with the ability to process multi-parameter information - seven plus or minus two simultaneously changing parameters ... For some reason, nature needs it this way, but it's hard for us! The principle proposed by the outstanding cyberneticist V. M. Glushkov allows one to create hierarchical systems of parameters (hierarchical models) and solve multidimensional problems.

In systems analysis, various methods have been developed for studying multidimensional systems, including strictly mathematical ones. One of the common mathematical procedures for multidimensional analysis is the so-called. cluster analysis, which allows, on the basis of a set of indicators characterizing a number of elements (for example, the studied subsystems, functions, etc.), to group them into classes (clusters) in such a way that the elements included in one class are more or less homogeneous, similar in comparison with elements belonging to other classes. By the way, on the basis of cluster analysis, it is not difficult to substantiate an eight-element model of the type of informational metabolism in socionics, which necessarily and fairly correctly reflects the structure and mechanism of the functioning of the psyche. Thus, exploring the system or making a decision in a situation with a large number measurements (parameters), one can greatly facilitate one's task by reducing the number of parameters by successive transition to supersystems.

The principle of relative randomness- randomness in a given system may turn out to be a strictly deterministic dependence in a supersystem.

Man is so arranged that uncertainty is unbearable to him, and randomness simply irritates him. But what is surprising is that in everyday life and in science, having not found an explanation for something, we rather recognize this “something” as thrice random, but we will never think of going beyond the limits of the system in which this happens! Without listing the errors already debunked, we note some of the persistence that has taken place so far. Our solid science still doubts the connection between terrestrial processes and heliocosmic processes and with perseverance worthy of better application, piles up where necessary and where not necessary probabilistic explanations, stochastic models, etc. To the great meteorologist A. V. Dyakov, who recently lived nearby with us, it turned out to be easy to explain and predict with almost 100% accuracy the weather on the whole Earth, in individual countries and even collective farms, when it went beyond the planet, to the Sun, into space ("The weather of the Earth is made on the Sun" - A. V. Dyakov). And the entire domestic meteorology cannot in any way decide to recognize the supersystem of the Earth and every day mocks us with vague forecasts. The same is true in seismology, medicine, etc., etc. Such an escape from reality discredits truly random processes, which, of course, take place in the real world. But how many mistakes could have been avoided if, in the search for causes and patterns, it was more bold to use a systematic approach!

Optimum principle- the system should move along the optimal trajectory to the target.

This is understandable, since a non-optimal trajectory means low efficiency of the system, increased resource costs, which sooner or later will cause "displeasure" and corrective action of the supersystem. A more tragic outcome for such a system is also possible. So, G. N. Alekseev introduced the 5th law of energy entropy - the law of preferential development or competition, which says: “In each class of material systems, those that, under a given set of internal and external conditions, achieve maximum efficiency receive priority development.” It is clear that the predominant development of efficiently functioning systems occurs due to the "encouraging", stimulating effects of the supersystem. As for the rest, inferior in efficiency or, which is the same, “moving” in their functioning along a trajectory that differs from the optimal one, they are threatened with degradation and, ultimately, death or being pushed out of the supersystem.

Asymmetry principle All interactions are asymmetric.

There is no symmetry in nature, although our ordinary consciousness cannot agree with this. We are convinced that everything beautiful should be symmetrical, partners, people, nations should be equal (also something like symmetry), interactions should be fair, and therefore also symmetrical (“You - to me, I - to you” definitely implies symmetry) … In fact, symmetry is the exception rather than the rule, and the exception is often undesirable. So, in philosophy there is an interesting image - "Buridan's donkey" (in scientific terminology - the paradox of absolute determinism in the doctrine of will). According to philosophers, a donkey placed at an equal distance from two bundles of hay equal in size and quality (symmetrical!) Will die of hunger - it won’t decide which bundle to start chewing (philosophers say that its will will not receive an impulse prompting to choose one or another bundle of hay). Conclusion: bundles of hay must be somewhat asymmetric ...

For a long time people were convinced that crystals - the standard of beauty and harmony - are symmetrical; in the 19th century, accurate measurements showed that there are no symmetrical crystals. More recently, using powerful computers, aesthetes in the USA tried to synthesize an image of an absolutely beautiful face on the basis of fifty of the most famous, universally recognized beauties of the world. However, the parameters were measured only on one half of the faces of the beauties, being convinced that the second half was symmetrical. What was their disappointment when the computer gave out the most ordinary, rather even ugly face, in some ways even unpleasant. The very first artist who was shown a synthesized portrait said that such faces do not exist in nature, since this face is clearly symmetrical. And crystals, and faces, and in general all objects in the world are the result of the interaction of something with something. Consequently, the interactions of objects with each other and with the surrounding world are always asymmetric, and one of the interacting objects always dominates. So, for example, a lot of trouble could be avoided by spouses if the asymmetry of interaction between partners and with the environment was correctly taken into account in family life! ..

Until now, among neurophysiologists and neuropsychologists, there are disputes about the interhemispheric asymmetry of the brain. No one doubts that it, asymmetry, takes place - it is only unclear what it depends on (congenital? educated?) and whether the dominance of the hemispheres changes in the process of functioning of the psyche. In real interactions, of course, everything is dynamic - it may be that first one object dominates, then, for some reason, another. In this case, the interaction can pass through the symmetry as through a temporary state; how long this state will last is a matter of system time (not to be confused with the current time!). One of the modern philosophers recalls his formation: “... The dialectical decomposition of the world into opposites already seemed to me too conditional (“dialectical”). I had a presentiment of many things besides such a private view, I began to understand that in reality there are no “pure” opposites. Between any "poles" there is necessarily an individual "asymmetry", which ultimately determines the essence of their being. In the study of systems and, especially, the application of simulation results to realities, taking into account the asymmetry of interaction is often of fundamental importance.

The usefulness of the system for thinking consists not only in the fact that one begins to think about things in an orderly manner, according to a certain plan, but in the fact that one begins to think about them in general.

G. Lichtenberg

4. System approach - what is it?

Once an eminent biologist and geneticist N. V. Timofeev-Ressovsky I spent a long time explaining to my old friend, also an outstanding scientist, what a system and a systematic approach are. After listening, he said: “... Yeah, I understand ... A systematic approach is, before you do something, you need to think ... Well, this is what we were taught in the gymnasium!” ... One can agree with such a statement ... However, one should not all- forget, on the one hand, about the limitation of a person's "thinking" abilities to seven plus or minus two simultaneously changing parameters, and on the other hand, about the immeasurably higher complexity of real systems, life situations and human relationships. And if you do not forget about it, then sooner or later the feeling will come consistency world, human society and man as a certain set of elements and connections between them... The ancients said: "Everything depends on everything..." - and this makes sense. The meaning of system, expressed in systemic principles - this is the foundation of thinking, which is able to protect at least from gross errors in difficult situations. And from a sense of the systemic nature of the world and an understanding of systemic principles, there is a direct path to realizing the need for some methods to help overcome the complexity of problems.

Of all methodological concepts systemological is closest to the "natural" human thinking - flexible, informal, diverse. Systems approach combines the natural scientific method based on experiment, formal derivation and quantitative assessment, with a speculative method based on the figurative perception of the surrounding world and qualitative synthesis.

Literature

1. Glushkov V. M. Cybernetics. Questions of theory and practice. - M., "Science", 1986.
2. Fleishman B. S. Fundamentals of systemology. - M., "Radio and communication", 1982.
3. Anokhin P.K. Fundamental questions general theory functional systems // Principles of system organization of functions. - M., 1973.
4. Vartofsky M. Models. Representation and scientific understanding. Per. from English. / Common ed. and after. I. B. Novik and V. N. Sadovsky. - M., "Progress", 1988 - 57 p.
5. Neuimin Ya. G. Models in science and technology. History, theory, practice. Ed. N. S. Solomenko, Leningrad, "Nauka", 1984. - 189 p.
6. System modeling technology / E. F. Avramchuk, A. A. Vavilov et al.; Under total ed. S. V. Emelyanova and others - M., "Engineering", Berlin, "Technician", 1988.
7. Ermak V.D. Information models in the processes of interaction between the operator and the means of displaying information in large control systems. General Systems Theory and Knowledge Integration: Proceedings of the Seminar / MDNTP im. F. E. Dzerzhinsky, Moscow, 1968.
8. Blauberg I. V., Yudin E. G. Formation and essence of the system approach. - M., "Science", 1973.
9. Averyanov A. N. Systemic knowledge of the world: Methodological problems. -M., Politizdat, 1985.
10. Mathematical theory of systems / N. A. Bobylev, V. G. Boltyansky and others - M., "Nauka", 1986.
11. Clear J. Systemology. Automation of solving system problems. Per. from English. - M., "Radio and communication", 1992.
12. Leung L. Systems identification. Theory for the user. Per. from English. / Ed. Ya. Z. Tsypkina. - M., "Science", Ch. ed. Phys.-Math. lit., 1991.
13. Nikolaev V. I., Brook V. M. System engineering: methods and applications. - Leningrad, "Engineering", Leningrad. separated., 1985.
14. Kolesnikov L. A. Fundamentals of the theory of a systematic approach. - Kyiv, "Naukova Dumka", 1988.
15. Larichev O. I., Moshkovich E. M., Rebrik S. B. On human capabilities in the problems of classification of multicriteria objects. // System Research. Methodological problems. Yearbook. - 1988. - M., Science.
16. Druzhinin V. V., Kontorov D. S. System engineering. - M., "Radio and communication", 1985.
17. Biological rhythms / Ed. Y. Ashoff. - M., "Mir", 1984. - T. 1.
18. Chizhevsky A. L. Earth echo of solar storms. - M., "Thought", 1976.
19. Kaznacheev V.P. Essays on the theory and practice of human ecology. - M., "Science", 1983.
20. Ackoff R., Emery F. About purposeful systems. Per. from English, ed. I. A. Ushakova. - M., "Owls. radio", 1974.
21. Philosophical Dictionary / Ed. V. I. Shinkaruk. - K., Acad. Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, Ch. ed. Ukr. encyclopedia, 1973.
22. The future of artificial intelligence. - M.: "Nauka", 1991.
23. Rybin I. A. Lectures on biophysics: Tutorial. - Sverdlovsk: Ural University Press, 1992.
24. Alekseev G. N. Energoentropic. - M., "Knowledge", 1983.
25. Brief Dictionary of Sociology / Under the general. ed. D. M. Gvishiani, M. Lapina. - Politizdat, 1988.
26. Gumilyov L. N. Biography of scientific theory or auto-obituary // Banner, 1988, book 4.
27. Gumilyov L. N. Ethnosphere: The history of people and the history of nature. - M: "Ekopros", 1993.
28. Zotin A.I. Thermodynamic basis of reactions of organisms to external and internal factors. - M.: "Nauka", 1988.
29. Pechurkin I. O. Energy and life. - Novosibirsk: "Science", Sib. department, 1988.
30. Gorsky Yu. M. System-information analysis of management processes. - Novosibirsk: "Science", Sib. Otd., 1988.
31. Antipov G. A., Kochergin A. N. Problems of the methodology of the study of society as an integral system. - Novosibirsk: "Science", Sib. otd., 1988.
32. Gubanov V. A., Zakharov V. V., Kovalenko A. N. Introduction to System Analysis: Textbook / Ed. L. A. Petrosyan. - L .: Ed. Leningrad.un.ta, 1988.
33. Jambue M. Hierarchical cluster analysis and correspondence: Per. from fr. - M.: "Finance and statistics", 1982.
34. Ermak V.D. To the problem of analysis of system interactions. // Issues of special radio electronics, MRP USSR. - 1978, Ser. 1, Vol. 3, No. 10.
35. Ermak V.D. The structure and functioning of the human psyche from a systemic point of view. // Socionics, mentology and personality psychology, MIS, 1996, No. 3.
36. Peters T, Waterman R. In search of effective management (experience of the best companies). - M., "Progress", 1986.
37. Buslenko N.P. Modeling of complex systems. - M.: "Science", 1978.
38. Pollak Yu. G. Fundamentals of the theory of modeling complex control systems // Proceedings of the radiotechnical institute. - 1977, No. 29.

General characteristics of a systematic approach

The concept of a systematic approach, its principles and methodology

System analysis is the most constructive direction used for practical applications of systems theory to control problems. The constructiveness of system analysis is due to the fact that it offers a methodology for carrying out work that allows not to lose sight of the significant factors that determine the construction effective systems management in specific conditions.

Principles are understood as basic, initial provisions, some general rules cognitive activity, which indicate the direction of scientific knowledge, but do not give an indication of a specific truth. These are developed and historically generalized requirements for the cognitive process, which play the most important regulatory roles in cognition. Substantiation of principles - the initial stage of building a methodological concept

The most important principles of system analysis include the principles of elementarism, universal connection, development, integrity, consistency, optimality, hierarchy, formalization, normativity and goal setting. System analysis is represented as an integral of these principles.

Methodological approaches in system analysis combine a set of techniques and methods of implementing system activities that have developed in the practice of analytical activity. The most important among them are systemic, structural-functional, constructive, complex, situational, innovative, targeted, activity, morphological and program-targeted approaches.

Methods are the most important, if not the main part of the system analysis methodology. Their arsenal is quite large. The approaches of the authors in their selection are also varied. But the methods of system analysis have not yet received a sufficiently convincing classification in science.

System approach in management

2.1 The concept of a systematic approach to management and its significance

The systems approach to management considers the organization as a whole various kinds activities and elements that are in contradictory unity and in relationship with the external environment, involves taking into account the influence of all factors affecting it, and focuses on the relationship between its elements.

Management actions do not just functionally flow from each other, they influence each other. Therefore, if changes occur in one link of the organization, then they inevitably cause changes in the rest, and ultimately the organization (system) as a whole.

So, a systematic approach to management is based on the fact that any organization is a system consisting of parts, each of which has its own goals. The leader must proceed from the fact that in order to achieve the overall goals of the organization, it is necessary to consider it as single system. At the same time, it is necessary to strive to identify and evaluate the interaction of all its parts and combine them on such a basis that will allow the organization as a whole to effectively achieve its goals. The value of a systems approach is that, as a result, managers can more easily align their specific work with the work of the organization as a whole, if they understand the system and their role in it. This is especially important for the CEO because the systems approach encourages him to maintain the necessary balance between the needs of individual departments and the goals of the entire organization. The systems approach makes him think about the flow of information passing through the entire system, and also emphasizes the importance of communications.

A modern leader must have systems thinking. Systems thinking not only contributes to the development of new ideas about the organization (in particular, special attention is paid to the integrated nature of the enterprise, as well as the paramount importance and importance of information systems), but also provides the development of useful mathematical tools and techniques that greatly facilitate managerial decision-making, the use of more advanced planning and control systems.

Thus, a systematic approach allows a comprehensive assessment of any production and economic activity and the activity of the management system at the level of specific characteristics. This helps analyze any situation within a given system, revealing the nature of input, process, and output problems. The application of a systematic approach allows the best way organize the decision-making process at all levels of the management system.

2.2 System structure with control

The control system includes three subsystems (Fig. 2.1): control system, control object and communication system. Systems with control, or purposeful, are called cybernetic. These include technical, biological, organizational, social, economic systems. The control system together with the communication system forms a control system.

The main element of organizational and technical management systems is a decision maker (DM) - an individual or a group of individuals who have the right to make final decisions on the choice of one of several control actions.

Rice. 2.1. Controlled system

The main groups of functions of the control system (CS) are:

decision-making functions - content transformation functions;

· information ;

· routine functions of information processing ;

· functions of information exchange .

Decision-making functions are expressed in the creation new information in the course of analysis, planning (forecasting) and operational management (regulation, coordination of actions).

Functions cover accounting, control, storage, search,

display, replication, transformation of the form of information, etc. This group of information transformation functions does not change its meaning, i.e. these are routine functions not related to meaningful information processing.

A group of functions is associated with bringing the generated impacts to the control object (CO) and the exchange of information between decision makers (access restriction, receipt (collection), transmission of information on management in text, graphic, tabular and other forms by telephone, data transmission systems, etc. .).

2.3 Ways to improve systems with control

The improvement of systems with control is reduced to reducing the duration of the control cycle and improving the quality of control actions (solutions). These requirements are contradictory. For a given performance of the control system, reducing the duration of the control cycle leads to the need to reduce the amount of information processed, and, consequently, to a decrease in the quality of decisions.

Simultaneous satisfaction of requirements is possible only on condition that the performance of the control system (CS) and the communication system (CC) for the transmission and processing of information will be increased, and the increase in productivity

both elements must be consistent. This is the starting point for addressing issues of improving management.

The main ways to improve systems with control are as follows.

1. Optimization of the number of managerial personnel.

2. The use of new ways of organizing the work of the control system.

3. Application of new methods for solving managerial problems.

4. Changing the structure of the SU.

5. Redistribution of functions and tasks in the US.

6. Mechanization of managerial work.

7. Automation.

Let's take a quick look at each of these paths:

1. The management system is, first of all, people. The most natural way to raise productivity is to intelligently increase the number of people.

2. The organization of the work of managerial personnel must be constantly improved.

3. The way of applying new methods for solving managerial problems is somewhat one-sided, since in most cases it is aimed at obtaining better solutions and requires more time.

4. With the complication of the CO, as a rule, the simple structure of the RS is replaced with a more complex, most often hierarchical type, with the simplification of the CO - vice versa. The introduction of feedback into the system is also considered a change in the structure. As a result of the transition to more complex structure control functions are distributed among a large number of CS elements and the CS performance increases.

5. If the subordinate CAs can solve independently only a very limited range of tasks, then, consequently, the central governing body will be overloaded, and vice versa. An optimal compromise between centralization and decentralization is needed. It is impossible to solve this problem once and for all, since the functions and tasks of management in systems are constantly changing.

6. Since information always requires a certain material carrier, on which it is fixed, stored and transmitted, then, obviously, the necessary physical actions to ensure the information process in the SU. The use of various means of mechanization can significantly increase the efficiency of this side of management. The means of mechanization include means for performing computational work, transmitting signals and commands, documenting information and reproducing documents. In particular, the use of a PC as a typewriter refers to mechanization, not automation.

management.

7. The essence of automation lies in the use

Computer to enhance the intellectual capabilities of decision makers.

All the paths considered earlier lead in one way or another to an increase in the productivity of the SS and SS, but, which is fundamental, they do not increase the productivity of mental labor. This is their limitation.

2.4 Rules for applying a systematic approach to management

A systematic approach in management is based on deep research into causal relationships and patterns of development of socio-economic processes. And since there are connections and patterns, then there are certain rules. Consider the basic rules for applying the system in management.

Rule 1 It is not the components themselves that make up the essence of the whole (system), but, on the contrary, the whole as the primary generates the components of the system during its division or formation - this is the basic principle of the system.

Example. The firm as a complex open socio-economic system is a collection of interrelated departments and production units. First, the company should be considered as a whole, its properties and relations with the external environment, and only then - the components of the company. The firm as a whole does not exist because, say, a pattern maker works in it, but, on the contrary, the pattern maker works because the firm functions. In small, simple systems, there may be exceptions: the system functions due to an exceptional component.

Rule 2. The number of system components that determine its size should be minimal, but sufficient to achieve the goals of the system. The structure of, for example, a production system is a combination of organizational and production structures.

Rule 3. The structure of the system must be flexible, with the least number of hard links, capable of quickly readjusting to perform new tasks, provide new services, etc. The mobility of the system is one of the conditions for its rapid adaptation (adaptation) to market requirements.

Rule 4. The structure of the system should be such that changes in the connections of the system components have a minimal impact on the functioning of the system. To do this, it is necessary to justify the level of delegation of authority by the subjects of management, to ensure optimal autonomy and independence of management objects in socio-economic and production systems.

Rule 5. In the context of the development of global competition and international integration, one should strive to increase the degree of openness of the system, provided that its economic, technical, informational, and legal security is ensured.

Rule 6 To increase the justification of investments in innovative and other projects, one should study the dominant (predominant, strongest) and recessive features of the system and invest in the development of the first, most effective ones.

Rule 7 When forming the mission and goals of the system, priority should be given to the interests of a higher level system as a guarantee of solving global problems.

Rule 8 Of all the quality indicators of systems, priority should be given to their reliability as a combination of the manifested properties of reliability, durability, maintainability and persistence.

Rule 9. The effectiveness and prospects of the system is achieved by optimizing its goals, structure, management system and other parameters. Therefore, the strategy for the functioning and development of the system should be formed on the basis of optimization models.

Rule 10. When formulating the goals of the system, the uncertainty of information support should be taken into account. The probabilistic nature of situations and information at the stage of predicting goals reduces the real effectiveness of innovations.

Rule 11. When formulating a system strategy, it should be remembered that the goals of the system and its components in semantic and quantitative terms, as a rule, do not coincide. However, all components must perform a specific task to achieve the purpose of the system. If without any component it is possible to achieve the goal of the system, then this component is superfluous, contrived, or it is the result of poor-quality structuring of the system. This is a manifestation of the emergence property of the system.

Rule 12. When constructing the structure of the system and organizing its functioning, it should be taken into account that almost all processes are continuous and interdependent. The system functions and develops on the basis of contradictions, competition, a variety of forms of functioning and development, and the system's ability to learn. The system exists as long as it functions.

Rule 13 When forming the strategy of the system, it is necessary to ensure the alternative ways of its functioning and development based on forecasting various situations. The most unpredictable fragments of the strategy should be planned according to several options, taking into account different situations.

Rule 14 When organizing the functioning of the system, it should be taken into account that its efficiency is not equal to the sum of the efficiencies of the functioning of subsystems (components). When the components interact, a positive (additional) or negative synergy effect occurs. To obtain a positive synergy effect, it is necessary to have a high level of organization (low entropy) of the system.

Rule 15 In conditions of rapidly changing parameters of the external environment, the system must be able to quickly adapt to these changes. The most important tools for increasing the adaptability of the functioning of the system (company) are the strategic segmentation of the market and the design of goods and technologies based on the principles of standardization and aggregation.

Rule 16 The only way to develop organizational, economic and production systems is innovative. The introduction of innovations (in the form of patents, know-how, R&D results, etc.) in the field of new products, technologies, methods of organizing production, management, etc. serves as a factor in the development of society.

3. An example of the application of system analysis in management

The manager of a large administrative building received an increasing stream of complaints from employees who worked in this building. Complaints indicated that it took too long to wait for the elevator. The manager asked for help from a company specializing in lifting systems. The engineers of this firm conducted timing, which showed that the complaints are well founded. It was found that the average waiting time for the elevator exceeds the accepted norms. The experts told the manager that there were three possible ways to solve the problem: increasing the number of elevators, replacing existing elevators with high-speed ones, and introducing a special mode of operation of elevators, i.e. transfer of each elevator to serve only certain floors. The manager asked the firm to evaluate all of these alternatives and provide him with estimates of the estimated costs for implementing each of the options.

After some time, the company complied with this request. It turned out that the implementation of the first two options required costs that, from the point of view of the manager, were not justified by the income generated by the building, and the third option, as it turned out, did not provide a sufficient reduction in waiting time. The manager was not satisfied with any of these proposals. He postponed further negotiations with this firm for some time to consider all options and make a decision.

When a manager is faced with a problem that seems to him insoluble, he often finds it necessary to discuss it with some of his subordinates. The group of employees approached by our manager included a young psychologist who worked in the recruitment department that maintained and renovated this large building. When the manager presented the essence of the problem to the assembled employees, this young man was very surprised at the very posing of it. He said he couldn't understand why office workers, who were known to waste a lot of time every day, were unhappy about having to wait minutes for an elevator. Before he had time to express his doubt, the thought flashed through him that he had found an explanation. Although employees often uselessly waste their working hours, they are busy at this time with something, albeit unproductive, but pleasant. But waiting for the elevator, they just languish from idleness. At this guess, the face of the young psychologist lit up, and he blurted out his proposal. The manager accepted it, and a few days later the problem was solved at the most minimal cost. The psychologist suggested hanging large mirrors on each floor by the elevator. These mirrors naturally gave the women waiting for the elevator something to do, but so did the men, who were now engrossed in looking at the women, pretending not to pay any attention to them.

No matter how true the story is, but the point it illustrates is extremely important. The Psychologist was looking at exactly the same problem as the engineers, but he approached it from a different perspective, determined by his education and interests. In this case, the approach of the psychologist proved to be the most effective. Obviously, the problem was solved by changing the goal, which was reduced not to reduce the waiting time, but to create the impression that it had become less.

Thus, we need to simplify systems, operations, decision-making procedures, etc. But this simplicity is not so easy to achieve. This is the hardest task. The old saying, "I'm writing you a long letter because I don't have time to make it short" can be paraphrased as "I'm making it complicated because I don't know how to make it simple."

CONCLUSION

The systematic approach, its main features, as well as its main features in relation to management are briefly considered.

The paper describes the structure, ways of improvement, rules for applying a systematic approach and some other aspects encountered in the management of systems, organizations, enterprises, the creation of management systems for various purposes.

The application of systems theory to management allows the manager to "see" the organization in the unity of its constituent parts, which are inextricably intertwined with the outside world.

The value of a systems approach for the management of any organization includes two aspects of the work of a leader. First, it is the desire to achieve the overall effectiveness of the entire organization and not to allow the private interests of any one element of the organization to damage the overall success. Secondly, the need to achieve this in an organizational environment that always creates conflicting goals.

The expansion of the application of a systematic approach in making managerial decisions will help to increase the efficiency of the functioning of economic and social various objects.

A significant place in modern science is occupied by a systematic method of research or (as they often say) a systematic approach.

Systems approach- the direction of the research methodology, which is based on the consideration of the object as an integral set of elements in the totality of relations and connections between them, that is, the consideration of the object as a system.

Speaking of a systematic approach, we can talk about some way of organizing our actions, one that covers any kind of activity, identifying patterns and relationships in order to use them more effectively. At the same time, a systematic approach is not so much a method of solving problems as a method of setting problems. As the saying goes, "The right question is half the answer." This is a qualitatively higher, rather than just objective, way of knowing.

Basic concepts of the system approach: "system", "element", "composition", "structure", "functions", "functioning" and "goal". We will open them for a complete understanding of the systems approach.

System - an object whose functioning, necessary and sufficient to achieve its goal, is provided (under certain environmental conditions) by a combination of its constituent elements that are in expedient relationships with each other.

Element - an internal initial unit, a functional part of the system, whose own structure is not considered, but only its properties necessary for the construction and operation of the system are taken into account. The "elementary" nature of an element lies in the fact that it is the limit of division of a given system, since its internal structure in this system is ignored, and it appears in it as such a phenomenon, which in philosophy is characterized as simple. Although in hierarchical systems, an element can also be considered as a system. And what distinguishes an element from a part is that the word "part" indicates only the internal belonging of something to an object, and "element" always denotes a functional unit. Every element is a part, but not every part - element.

Compound - a complete (necessary and sufficient) set of elements of the system, taken outside its structure, that is, a set of elements.

Structure - the relationship between the elements in the system, necessary and sufficient for the system to achieve the goal.

Functions - ways to achieve the goal, based on the appropriate properties of the system.

Functioning - the process of implementing the appropriate properties of the system, ensuring its achievement of the goal.

Target is what the system must achieve based on its performance. The goal may be a certain state of the system or another product of its functioning. The importance of the goal as a system-forming factor has already been noted. Let's emphasize it again: an object acts as a system only in relation to its purpose. The goal, requiring certain functions for its achievement, determines through them the composition and structure of the system. For example, is a pile of building materials a system? Any absolute answer would be wrong. Regarding the purpose of housing - no. But as a barricade, shelter, probably yes. A pile of building materials cannot be used as a house, even if all the necessary elements are present, for the reason that there are no necessary spatial relationships between the elements, that is, structure. And without a structure, they are only a composition - a set of necessary elements.

The focus of the systematic approach is not the study of the elements as such, but primarily the structure of the object and the place of the elements in it. On the whole main points of a systematic approach the following:

1. The study of the phenomenon of integrity and the establishment of the composition of the whole, its elements.

2. Study of the regularities of connecting elements into a system, i.e. object structure, which forms the core of the system approach.

3. In close connection with the study of the structure, it is necessary to study the functions of the system and its components, i.e. structural-functional analysis of the system.

4. Study of the genesis of the system, its boundaries and connections with other systems.

A special place in the methodology of science is occupied by methods for constructing and substantiating a theory. Among them, an important place is occupied by explanation - the use of more specific, in particular, empirical knowledge to understand more general knowledge. The explanation could be:

a) structural, for example, how the motor works;

b) functional: how the motor works;

c) causal: why and how it works.

In constructing a theory of complex objects, an important role is played by the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete.

At the initial stage, cognition proceeds from the real, objective, concrete to the development of abstractions that reflect certain aspects of the object being studied. By dissecting an object, thinking, as it were, mortifies it, presenting the object as a dismembered, dismembered scalpel of thought.

A systematic approach is an approach in which any system (object) is considered as a set of interrelated elements (components) that has an output (goal), input (resources), communication with the external environment, feedback. This is the most difficult approach. The system approach is a form of application of the theory of knowledge and dialectics to the study of processes occurring in nature, society, and thinking. Its essence lies in the implementation of the requirements of the general theory of systems, according to which each object in the process of its study should be considered as a large and complex system and, at the same time, as an element of a more general system.

A detailed definition of a systematic approach also includes the obligatory study and practical use of the following eight aspects:

1. system-element or system-complex, consisting in identifying the elements that make up this system. In all social systems, one can find material components (means of production and consumer goods), processes (economic, social, political, spiritual, etc.) and ideas, scientifically conscious interests of people and their communities;

2. system-structural, which consists in clarifying the internal connections and dependencies between the elements of a given system and allowing you to get an idea of ​​​​the internal organization (structure) of the object under study;

3. system-functional, involving the identification of functions for the performance of which the corresponding objects are created and exist;

4. system-target, meaning the need for a scientific definition of the objectives of the study, their mutual linking with each other;

5. system-resource, which consists in a thorough identification of the resources required to solve a particular problem;

6. system-integration, consisting in determining the totality of the qualitative properties of the system, ensuring its integrity and peculiarity;

7. system-communication, meaning the need to identify the external relations of a given object with others, that is, its relations with the environment;

8. system-historical, which allows to find out the conditions in the time of occurrence of the object under study, the stages it has passed, the current state, as well as possible development prospects.

The main assumptions of the systems approach:

1. There are systems in the world

2. System description is true

3. Systems interact with each other, and, therefore, everything in this world is interconnected

Basic principles of a systematic approach:

Integrity, which allows to consider the system simultaneously as a whole and at the same time as a subsystem for higher levels.

Hierarchy of the structure, i.e. the presence of a plurality (at least two) of elements located on the basis of the subordination of elements of a lower level to elements of a higher level. The implementation of this principle is clearly visible in the example of any particular organization. As you know, any organization is an interaction of two subsystems: managing and managed. One is subordinate to the other.

Structurization, allowing to analyze the elements of the system and their interrelationships within a specific organizational structure. As a rule, the process of functioning of the system is determined not so much by the properties of its individual elements, but by the properties of the structure itself.

Plurality, which allows using a variety of cybernetic, economic and mathematical models to describe individual elements and the system as a whole.

Levels of a systematic approach:

There are several types of systems approach: integrated, structural, holistic. It is necessary to separate these concepts.

An integrated approach implies the presence of a set of object components or applied research methods. At the same time, neither the relations between the components, nor the completeness of their composition, nor the relations of the components with the whole are taken into account.

The structural approach involves the study of the composition (subsystems) and structures of the object. With this approach, there is still no correlation between subsystems (parts) and the system (whole). The decomposition of systems into subsystems is not unique.

With a holistic approach, relationships are studied not only between parts of an object, but also between parts and the whole.

From the word "system" you can form others - "systemic", "systematize", "systematic". In a narrow sense, the system approach is understood as the application of system methods to study real physical, biological, social, and other systems. The system approach in a broad sense includes, in addition, the use of system methods for solving the problems of systematics, planning and organizing a complex and systematic experiment.

A systematic approach contributes to the adequate formulation of problems in specific sciences and the development of an effective strategy for their study. The methodology, the specificity of the system approach is determined by the fact that it focuses the study on the disclosure of the integrity of the object and the mechanisms that ensure it, on the identification of diverse types of connections of a complex object and their reduction into a single theoretical picture.

The 1970s were marked by a boom in the use of the systems approach throughout the world. A systematic approach was applied in all spheres of human existence. However, practice has shown that in systems with high entropy (uncertainty), which is largely due to "non-systemic factors" (human influence), a systematic approach may not give the expected effect. The last remark testifies that "the world is not so systemic" as it was represented by the founders of the systems approach.

Professor Prigozhin A.I. defines the limits of the system approach as follows:

1. Consistency means certainty. But the world is uncertain. Uncertainty is essentially present in the reality of human relations, goals, information, situations. It cannot be overcome to the end, and sometimes fundamentally dominates certainty. The market environment is very mobile, unstable and only to some extent modeled, cognizable and controllable. The same is true for the behavior of organizations and workers.

2. Consistency means consistency, but, say, value orientations in an organization and even one of its participants are sometimes contradictory to the point of incompatibility and do not form any system. Of course, various motivations introduce some consistency into service behavior, but always only in part. We often find this in the totality of management decisions, and even in management groups, teams.

3. Consistency means integrity, but, say, the client base of wholesalers, retailers, banks, etc. does not form any integrity, since it cannot always be integrated and each client has several suppliers and can change them endlessly. There is no integrity in the information flows in the organization. Isn't the same with the resources of the organization?

35. Nature and society. Natural and artificial. The concept of "noosphere"

Nature in philosophy is understood as everything that exists, the whole world, subject to study by the methods of natural science. Society is a special part of nature, singled out as a form and product of human activity. The relationship of society with nature is understood as the relationship between the system of human community and the habitat of human civilization.

The essence of the system approach as the basis of system analysis

Research is carried out in accordance with the chosen goal and in a certain sequence. Research is an integral part of the organization's management and is aimed at improving the main characteristics of the management process. When conducting research on control systems object research is the management system itself, which is characterized by certain characteristics and is subject to a number of requirements.

The effectiveness of the study of control systems is largely determined by the chosen and used research methods. Research methods are methods and techniques for conducting research. Their competent application contributes to obtaining reliable and complete results study of problems that have arisen in the organization. The choice of research methods, the integration of various methods in the conduct of research is determined by the knowledge, experience and intuition of the specialists conducting the research.

To identify the specifics of the work of organizations and develop measures to improve production and economic activities, system analysis. main goal system analysis is the development and implementation of such a control system, which is selected as a reference system that best meets all the requirements of optimality.

In order to comprehend the laws that govern human activity, it is important to learn how to understand in each specific case the general context for the perception of immediate tasks, how to bring into a system (hence the name “system analysis”) initially disparate and redundant information about a problem situation, how to coordinate with each other and to deduce one from the other representation and goals of different levels related to a single activity.

Here lies a fundamental problem that touches almost the very foundations of the organization of any human activity. The same task in different contexts different levels decision-making requires absolutely different ways organization and knowledge.

A systematic approach is one of the most important methodological principles of modern science and practice. System analysis methods are widely used to solve many theoretical and applied problems.

SYSTEM APPROACH - a methodological direction in science, the main task of which is to develop methods for researching and constructing complex objects - systems of various types and classes. A systematic approach is a certain stage in the development of methods of cognition, methods of research and design activities, ways of describing and explaining the nature of the analyzed or artificially created objects.

At present, a systematic approach is increasingly used in management, experience is accumulating in building system descriptions of research objects. The need for a systematic approach is due to the enlargement and complexity of the systems under study, the need to manage large systems and integrate knowledge.

"System" is a Greek word (systema), literally meaning a whole made up of parts; a set of elements that are in relationships and connections with each other and form a certain integrity, unity.

Other words can be formed from the word "system": "systemic", "systematize", "systematic". In a narrow sense, we understand the system approach as the application of system methods to study real physical, biological, social, and other systems.

The system approach is applied to sets of objects, individual objects and their components, as well as to the properties and integral characteristics of objects.

The systems approach is not an end in itself. In each case, its use should give a real, quite tangible effect. The systematic approach allows us to see gaps in knowledge about a given object, to detect their incompleteness, to determine the tasks of scientific research, in some cases - by interpolation and extrapolation - to predict the properties of the missing parts of the description.

Exist several varieties of systems approach: complex, structural, holistic.

It is necessary to define the scope of these concepts.

A complex approach suggests the existence of a set of components of the object or applied research methods. At the same time, neither the relations between objects, nor the completeness of their composition, nor the relations of the components as a whole are taken into account. Mainly the problems of statics are solved: the quantitative ratio of components and the like.

Structural approach offers the study of the composition (subsystems) and structures of the object. With this approach, there is still no correlation between subsystems (parts) and the system (whole). Decomposition of systems into subsystems is not carried out in a unified way. The dynamics of structures, as a rule, is not considered.

At holistic approach relations are studied not only between parts of an object, but also between parts and the whole. The decomposition of the whole into parts is unique. So, for example, it is customary to say that "the whole is that from which nothing can be taken away and to which nothing can be added." A holistic approach proposes the study of the composition (subsystems) and structures of an object not only in statics, but also in dynamics, i.e., it proposes the study of the behavior and evolution of systems. a holistic approach is not applicable to all systems (objects). but only to those who have high degree functional independence. To the number the most important tasks of a systematic approach relate:

1) development of means for representing the studied and constructed objects as systems;

2) construction of generalized models of the system, models of different classes and specific properties of systems;

3) study of the structure of systems theories and various system concepts and developments.

In a system study, the analyzed object is considered as a certain set of elements, the interconnection of which determines the integral properties of this set. The main emphasis is on identifying the variety of connections and relationships that take place both within the object under study and in its relationship with the external environment. The properties of an object as an integral system are determined not only and not so much by the summation of the properties of its individual elements, but by the properties of its structure, special system-forming, integrative links of the object under consideration. To understand the behavior of systems, primarily purposeful, it is necessary to identify the management processes implemented by this system - forms of information transfer from one subsystem to another and ways of influencing some parts of the system on others, coordination of the lower levels of the system by elements of its higher level, management, influence on the latter. all other subsystems. Significant importance in the system approach is given to identifying the probabilistic nature of the behavior of the objects under study. An important feature of the system approach is that not only the object, but the research process itself acts as a complex system, the task of which, in particular, is to combine various object models into a single whole. Finally, system objects, as a rule, are not indifferent to the process of their study and in many cases can have a significant impact on it.

The main principles of the systems approach are:

1. Integrity, which makes it possible to consider the system at the same time as a whole and at the same time as a subsystem for higher levels.

2. Hierarchical structure, i.e. the presence of a plurality (at least two) of elements located on the basis of the subordination of elements of a lower level to elements of a higher level. The implementation of this principle is clearly visible in the example of any particular organization. As you know, any organization is an interaction of two subsystems: managing and managed. One is subordinate to the other.

3. Structurization, which allows you to analyze the elements of the system and their relationships within a specific organizational structure. As a rule, the process of functioning of the system is determined not so much by the properties of its individual elements, but by the properties of the structure itself.

4. Multiplicity, which allows using a variety of cybernetic, economic and mathematical models to describe individual elements and the system as a whole.

As noted above, with a systematic approach, it is important to study the characteristics of an organization as a system, i.e. "input", "process" characteristics and "output" characteristics.

With a systematic approach based on marketing research, the parameters of the "exit" are first investigated, i.e. goods or services, namely what to produce, with what quality indicators, at what cost, for whom, in what time frame to sell and at what price. The answers to these questions should be clear and timely. As a result, the "output" should be competitive products or services. The login parameters are then determined, i.e. the need for resources (material, financial, labor and information) is investigated, which is determined after a detailed study of the organizational and technical level of the system under consideration (the level of technology, technology, features of the organization of production, labor and management) and the parameters of the external environment (economic, geopolitical, social, environmental and etc.).

And, finally, of no less importance is the study of the parameters of the process that converts resources into finished products. At this stage, depending on the object of study, production technology, or management technology, as well as factors and ways to improve it.

Thus, a systematic approach allows us to comprehensively evaluate any production and economic activity and the activity of the management system at the level of specific characteristics. This will help to analyze any situation within a single system, to identify the nature of the input, process and output problems.

The application of a systematic approach allows the best way to organize the decision-making process at all levels in the management system. An integrated approach involves taking into account the analysis of both the internal and external environment of the organization. This means that it is necessary to take into account not only internal, but also external factors - economic, geopolitical, social, demographic, environmental, etc.

Factors - important aspects when analyzing organizations and, unfortunately, are not always taken into account. For example, often social issues are not taken into account or postponed when designing new organizations. When introducing new equipment, ergonomic indicators are not always taken into account, which leads to increased fatigue of workers and, as a result, to a decrease in labor productivity. When forming new labor collectives, socio-psychological aspects, in particular, the problems of labor motivation, are not properly taken into account. Summarizing the above, it can be argued that an integrated approach is a necessary condition for solving the problem of analyzing an organization.

The essence of the system approach was formulated by many authors. In an expanded form, it is formulated V. G. Afanasiev, which determined a number of interrelated aspects, which together and unity constitute a systematic approach:

- system-element, answering the question of what (what components) the system is formed from;

- system-structural, revealing internal organization systems, the method of interaction of its components;

System-functional, showing what functions the system and its constituent components perform;

- system-communication, revealing the relationship of a given system with others, both horizontally and vertically;

- system-integrative, showing the mechanisms, factors of conservation, improvement and development of the system;

System-historical, answering the question of how, how the system arose, what stages it went through in its development, what are its historical prospects.

The rapid growth of modern organizations and their level of complexity, the variety of operations performed, has led to the fact that the rational exercise of management functions has become extremely difficult, but at the same time even more important for successful work enterprises. To cope with the inevitable increase in the number of transactions and their complexity, a large organization must base its activities on a systematic approach. Within this approach, the leader can more effectively integrate their activities in managing the organization.

The systems approach contributes, as already mentioned, mainly to the development of the correct method of thinking about the management process. The leader must think in accordance with a systematic approach. When studying a systems approach, a way of thinking is instilled, which, on the one hand, helps to eliminate unnecessary complexity, and on the other hand, helps the manager to understand the essence of complex problems and make decisions based on a clear understanding of the environment. It is important to structure the task, to outline the boundaries of the system. But it is equally important to consider that the systems that the manager has to deal with in the course of their activities are part of larger systems, perhaps including the entire industry or several, sometimes many, companies and industries, or even the whole society as a whole. These systems are constantly changing: they are created, operate, reorganized and, sometimes, eliminated.

Systems approach is the theoretical and methodological basis system analysis.