Viable System Approach

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Viable System Approach ( VSA ) is a system theory in which the observed units and their environment are designed according to systemic aspects, starting from the analysis of the fundamental elements and finally taking into account more complex associated systems ( Ludwig von Bertalanffy , 1968). The assumption is that each unit / system is related to other systems at a higher level, so-called suprasystems, and that their characteristics are recognizable in their subsystems (principle of system hierarchy). As such, the basic unit of analysis is a system made up of many parts or structures (Parsons, 1971). In this sense, any entity (a company or just an individual, a consumer or a community) can be viewed as a system, a micro-environment, consisting of a group of interconnected sub-components that are aligned towards a common goal (this is the condition for the aggregate to be called a system). The Viable System Model was first proposed by Stafford Beer . In general, a viable system is assessed in terms of vitality through viable behavior as completed, based on consonance and resonance relationships (Barile, 2000; Golinelli, 2000, 2005, 2010; Barile, 2008, 2009).

Systems thinking

In a significant way, systems thinking has contributed to the creation of a new conception of phenomenological reality as a synthesis of philosophical, sociological, mathematical, physical and biological approaches. It influences culture and its prevailing values, which are based on the axiomatic corpus of Cartesian thought, and has sparked a paradigm revolution away from a reductionist-mechanistic approach to reality, changing the traditional model of inquiry.

After quickly spreading through all parts of research, the systems approach became the result of reflection, theoretical contribution and formalization, creating an epistemological approach to research and the study of complex reality. The origins of systems theory date back to the 1950s when a group of scientists from different scientific and social fields (von Bertalanffy 1956 and others) developed an interdisciplinary theory based on the concept of systems. The perspective of their system rejected the idea that certain phenomena can be fully understood solely through an analytical approach, especially when the subjects of investigation consisted of complex phenomena characterized by a significant interaction of their components, such as B. a company. In such a case, a complete understanding could be achieved through a global view of the subject - a systemic view - and by applying this research method to the organized complexity. Furthermore, we can observe that systems thinking comes from shifting attention from the part to the whole, which results in a perception of reality as an integrated and interacting unit of phenomena in which the individual properties of the individual parts are blurred while the relationships the parts themselves and the events they generate through their interaction gain in importance (in other words we can say that "system elements are rationally connected"; Luhmann, 1990).

Furthermore, the system approach does not coincide with the holistic approach and is not in opposition to the analytical-reductionist approach. Rather, it is an approach that lies in a continuum with reductionism and holism and is able at their ends to reconcile the two. From the analysis of the elementary building blocks of a phenomenon, it is always possible to grasp a phenomenon in its entirety and then to explain it (von Bertalanffy, 1968).

Definition of the term "VSA"

The VSA is a scientific approach to business theory that has become increasingly prominent in Italian academic circles over the past ten years. Based on systems theory, the VSA focuses on the analysis of the relationships between the socio-economic units in search of survivable-interacting conditions (Barile, 2000; Golinelli, 2000). According to the VSA, any entity (a company or an individual) can be viewed as a system of many parts or structures (Parsons, 1971) consisting of a group of interconnected sub-components with the aim of achieving a common goal. The viable systems approach proposes a deep analysis of the structure - system dichotomy when introducing that each system is a recognizable entity that emerges from a certain different structure (a set of individual elements with assigned roles, activities and tasks that are carried out in Compliance with rules and restrictions).

The origin of a system then forms its own structure; this type of evolution results from the dynamic activation of static, existing basic relationships. A structure can be examined (what is it? How was it made?), A system can only be interpreted (how does it work? What logic does it follow?). This means that from a static structure the dynamic interpretation of reality raises the knowledge of various possible systems depending on the purposes and the ultimate goal; in the same way a human is made up of many components attached to a physical structure, but from a dynamic point of view a man and / or woman can eat, sleep, play tennis or bridge, all of which are different possible systems. Another important VSA proposal is shown in the following figure, derived from Beer's first conceptualization of decision-making area and operational structure. Basically, the VSA extension from Stafford Beer’s proposal is based on the assignment of the numerous management and operational decisions within the operational structure area, which means that real decision-making is limited to strategic decisions at a high level with all decision-makers. So we can say that the scope of every person's operations includes the decision to go jogging and, of course, the fact that it involves wearing a sports outfit and running shoes; on the other hand, the decision to deepen the degree in comparison to founding a new company or training in a company is determined as a decision-making area.

The Viable System Approach, however, introduces a concept matrix based on an iterative process that describes the process of designing and realizing a viable system. It starts with an idea that needs more frames in a logical structure, made concrete through the definition of a physical structure. As soon as the physical structure is defined, it can relate to external resources and systems within an expanded structure which, through its dynamics, gives birth to numerous specific structures and ultimately results in a viable system. This recursive process can represent the development of a business as well as that of an industrial area.

Origins of the VSA

On the basis of this theoretical basis, the VSA has collected several multidisciplinary contributions and finalized them on the observation of complex structures; and above all it has developed its theoretical core around several key concepts derived from other disciplines: from systems thinking (open system aspects) from natural and ecological sciences (the organic aspects of homeostasis and equifinality are particularly interesting; Hannan and Freeman, 1977), from chemical and biological disciplines (deepening concepts such as autopoiesis; Maturana and Varela, 1975), from sociology and psychology (cognitivism was a revealing theory, Clark, 1993) and from information technology (we refer in particular to computer science roots in cybernetics; Beer, 1975). The VSA enables an analysis of the relationships that exist between the internal components of a company, as well as an analysis of the relationships between companies and other systemic bodies, which are presented in their ecological context. In the VSA, a company develops as an open system that is characterized by:

  • many components (tangible and intangible);
  • Interdependence and communication between these components;
  • Activation of these relationships in order to pursue the goal of the system.

Key concepts

The aim of this synthetic publication was to present some of the founding concepts of the VSA clearly to the reader (Golinelli 2000, 2005, 2008, 2009; Golinelli et al., 2002; Barile 2000, 2006, 2008, 2009a.): 1. A viable system lives and aims to survive in a context that is populated by other (viable) systems. 2. Each context is perceived subjectively by the top management of a viable system (the decision maker) and by the analysis of its environment (a macro system in which the decision maker is immersed), in which he identifies relevant suprasystems (resource owners) for his objectives. 3. The context is the synthesis of a reticulum of viable systems within which it is possible to distinguish a certain number of systems (relevant suprasystems) that are able to influence management decisions upwards. 4. The structure definition of the system and the harmony between the developed components (interacting supras and subsystems) define the degree of development of the system. 5. A viable system has the ability to adapt its structure dynamically (self-regulation): With this we can describe the harmony as an attempt of the system to interpret context signals correctly, and the resonance as the concretization of the consistent competitive behavior in order to maintain stability (if the system of relevant suprasystems fulfills signaled external expectations and needs).

Basic concepts

The 10 basic concepts (GK) of the VSA

GK 1 Individuals, organizations, and social institutions are systems made up of goal-oriented elements. People, families, networks, companies, public and private organizations are complex structures that can all be understood as systems.
GK2 Each system (of level L) defines several suprasystems that are positioned on a higher level (L + 1) and several subsystems that are located on a lower level (L-1). Each hierarchy of systems is determined by observation from a particular perspective. The classification as a “suprasystem” or “subsystem” is therefore subjective.
GK3 The interpretation of complex phenomena requires interdisciplinary approaches and should synthesize a reductionist perspective (analysis of the elements and their relationships) and a holistic perspective (that looks at the whole). The contribution of relationships (static, structural) and interactions (dynamic, systemic) is essential to the observed phenomenon (reality).
GK4 Systems can establish connections with other systems for the exchange of resources. A system boundary is a changeable concept in which all activities and resources that are necessary for the evolutionary dynamics of the system are included. Nothing happens in isolation. The exchange of information and services in open systems is fundamental to system dynamics. Within the system boundaries, not only the ownership of resources is valued, but also many available and thus accessible resources (even if these belong to other systems).
GK5 Viable systems are autopoietic and self-organizing; that is, they are able to generate internal conditions which, through self-control, support the range of equilibrated conditions and thus combine internal possibilities and external constraints. Every system is autopoietic and is therefore able to generate new internal conditions. Each system is also self-organizing as it continuously aligns internal and external complexity. These two characteristics are the basis for sustainable behavior in the face of opportunities and risks.
GK6 Every organization is made up of components that have specific roles, activities and goals that are carried out within constraints, norms and rules. A system emerges from the structure by transforming relationships into dynamic interactions with subsystems and suprasystems. The transition from structure to system involves the transition from a static view to a dynamic view, and the focus shifts from individual components and relationships to a holistic view of the observed reality. Many different systems can evolve from the same structure as a result of the various combinations of internal and external components to pursue different goals.
GK7 Systems are consonant when there is potential compatibility between the system components. Systems are resonant when there is effective harmonic interplay between the components. Consonant relationships refer to the static view (structure), from which one only evaluates the possibilities of a positive and harmonious relationship. One recognizes resonant relationships in the dynamic view (systemic), from which one can evaluate concrete and effective positive and harmonious interactions.
GK8 The viability of a system is determined by its ability to develop harmonious behavior over time through consonant and resonant relationships in subsystems and suprasystems. The viability depends on the competitiveness of the system and on the co-creation capacity of the system.
GK9 Business dynamics and viability require constant structural and systemic changes in the alignment of internal structural possibilities with external systemic requirements. The evolutionary dynamics of viable systems demonstrate the continuous alignment between internal potentials and external expectations.
GK10 Viable systems continually align with internal complexity and external complexity to better respond to changes affecting their viable behavior. The decision-makers in these cognitive processes are influenced by their beliefs or their interpretation schemes and information. Internal and external alignments are achieved through a cognitive alignment, a knowledge process that encompasses chaos, complexity, complication, and security (through processes of abduction, induction, and deduction).

swell

  • ASHBY, HR (1958), “General Systems Theory as a New Discipline”, in General Systems (Yearbook of the Society for the Advancement of General Systems Theory), vol. 3, pp. 1-6.
  • BARILE, S., (2000), eds., Contributi sul pensiero sistemico, Arnia, Salerno.
  • BARILE, S., SAVIANO, M., PELS, J., POLESE, F., CARRUBBO, L. (2014) “The contribution of VSA and SDl. Perspectives to Strategic Thinking in Emerging Economies ”, Managing Service Quality, Vol.24, n.6, pp.565-591.
  • BEER, S. (1972), Brain of the Firm, The Penguin Press, London.
  • CAPRA, F. (1997), The Web of Life, Flamingo, London.
  • CLARK, A. (1993), Associative Engines, MIT Press, Boston.
  • GOLINELLI, GM (2010), Viable Systems Approach - Governing Business Dynamics, Kluwer / CEDAM, Padova.
  • LUHMANN, N. (1990), Social Sisteme - Outline of a General Theory, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt.
  • MATURNANA, HR and VARELA, FJ (1975), Autopoietic Systems, BLC Report 9, University of Illinois.
  • PARSONS, T. (1971), The System of Modern Societies, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
  • VON BERTALANFFY, L. (1968), General System Theory - Foundations, Development, Applications, George Braziller, New York.
  • WIENER, N., Cybernetics, MIT Press, 1948.

literature

  • BARABÁSI, AL (2002), Linked - The New Science of Networks, Perseus, Cambridge.
  • BARILE, S. (2008), L'impresa come Sistema - Contributi sull'Approccio Sistemico Vitale, II ed., Giappichelli, Torino.
  • BARILE, S. (2009a), Management Sistemico Vitale, Giappichelli, Torino.
  • BARILE, S. (2009b), “The dynamic of Information Varieties in the Processes of Decision Making”, Proceeding of the 13th WMSCI - World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, Orlando, July.
  • BARILE, S., PELS, J., POLESE, F., SAVIANO, M. (2012), “An Introduction to the Viable Systems Approach and its Contribution to Marketing” in Journal of Business Market Management, Vol.5, No. 2, pp.54-78, www.jbm-online.net/index.php/jbm/article/view/14.
  • BARILE, S. (Ed.) (2013), Contributions to theoretical and practical advances in management. A Viable Systems Approach (VSA), Vol. II, Roma, ARACNE.
  • BARILE, S. and POLESE, F. (2010), “Linking Viable Systems Approach and Many-to-Many Network Approach to Service-Dominant Logic and Service Science”, in International Journal of Quality and Service Science, vol.2, n .1, pp. 23-42.
  • BARILE, S. and SAVIANO, M. (2011), “Foundations of systems thinking: the structure-system paradigm”, in VARIOUS AUTHORS, Contributions to theoretical and practical advances in management. A Viable Systems Approach (VSA). ASVSA, Associazione per la Ricerca sui Sistemi Vitali, International Printing Srl, Avellino, pp. 1-26.
  • BARILE, S., PELS, J., POLESE, F., SAVIANO, M. (2012), “An Introduction to the Viable Systems Approach and its Contribution to Marketing”, in Journal of Business, Market, Management, vol.5 , n.2, pp. 54-78.
  • BEER, S. (1975), “Preface”, in HR, MATURNANA and FJ VARELA, Autopoietic Systems, BLC Report 9, University of Illinois.
  • CAPRA, F. (2002), The Hidden Connections, HarperCollins, London.
  • CHRISTOPHER, WF (2007), Holistic Management - Managing What Matters for Company Success, Wiley-Interscience. Hoboken.
  • GOLINELLI, G., PASTORE, A., GATTI, M., MASSARONI, E. and VAGNANI, G. (2002), “The Firm as a Viable System - Managing Inter-Organizational Relationships”, in Sinergie, n.58, pp. 65-98.
  • GOLINELLI, GM (2000), L'approccio Sistemico al Governo dell'Impresa - L'Impresa Sistema Vitale, I ed., CEDAM, Padova.
  • GOLINELLI, GM (2001), “Firm as a Viable System”, in Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management (www.unimib.it/symphonya), n. 2., pp.
  • GOLINELLI, GM (2005), L'approccio Sistemico al Governo dell'Impresa. - L'Impresa Sistema Vitale, II ed., CEDAM, Padova.
  • GOLINELLI, GM (2008), L'approccio Sistemico al Governo dell'Impresa - Verso la Scientificazione dell'Azione di Governo, vol. II, II ed., CEDAM, Padova.
  • GOLINELLI, GM (2010), Viable Systems Approach (VSA), Governing Business Dynamics, Kluwer Cedam, Padova.
  • GOLINELLI, GM, GATTI, M., VAGNANI, G. and GATTI, C. (2001), “Managing The Firm as a Viable System”, Euram (European Academy of Management) Proceedings: European Management Research - Trends and Challenges, IESE , Barcelona, ​​April 20-21.
  • GUMMESSON, E. (2008), Total Relationship Marketing, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
  • GUMMESSON, E., MELE, C. and POLESE, F. (2009), “Service Science, SD logic and Network Theory - Integrating the Perspectives for a New Research Agenda”, in E., GUMMESSON, C., MELE and F ., POLESE, Service Science, SD Logic and Network Theory, Giappichelli, Napoli, pp. 1-6.
  • HANNAN, MT and FREEMAN, J. (1977), “The Population Ecology of Organizations”, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 82, n.5, pp. 929-964.
  • SPOHRER, J., ANDERSON, L., PASS, N. and AGER, T. (2008), “Service Science and Service Dominant Logic”, Otago Forum 2, pp. 4-18.
  • SPOHRER, J., MAGLIO, PP, BAILEY, J. and GRUHL, D. (2007), “Steps Toward a Science of Service Systems”, Computer, pp. 71-77.
  • VARGO, SL and LUSCH, R. (2008), “Service-Dominant Logic - Continuing the Evolution”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 36, pp. 1-10.
  • VARGO, SL and LUSCH, RF (2004), “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing”, Journal of Marketing, vol. 68, pp. 1-17.
  • VON BERTALANFFY, L. (1956), “General System Theory”, in FE, EMERY (eds.), General System, (Yearbook of the Society for the Advancement of General System Theory).
  • VON BERTALANFFY, L. (1962), Modern Theories of Development, Harper, New York.
  • WEICK, KE (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations. Say, Thousand Oaks.