Advantages And Difference Between Open And Open Systems

In society, there are groups that interact with each other. They may be families, churches, government agencies, or anything in between. Those groups can be defined as systems, and in the systems perspective that is what they are referred to (Hutchison, 2017). In the 1960s, Ludwig von Bertalanffy developed the general systems theory in relation to biology, but it was widely publicized and used for various subjects (Hutchison, 2017). Hutchison (2017) summarized Bertalanffy’s theory by saying, “any element is best understood by considering its interactions with its constituent parts as well as its interactions with larger systems of which it is a part.” (p.

1. System Thinking: System thinking is nothing but instead of focusing on only one particular issue, we have to analyze and try to understand the entire system on the whole. With this kind of analyzation, we can easily find a solution to the problem as the problems are not confined to only a particular area or time. We might find a solution for a particular issue, somewhere in the whole system by analyzing the entire system completely. We should try to relate the actions and the consequences on the whole as the issues occur at different time levels, not confined to only one particular time level. We have to have knowledge of the relation between different departments of an organization and the relation between them and the functionality between the departments as to how they are related in an organization. We generally focus on only one particular issue rather than seeing the bug picture and that shouldn’t be done. In system thinking we analyze the big picture.

A system is a set of interrelated parts. Systems theory assumes that a system must be understood as a whole, rather than in component parts. It is a way of looking at the world where all the objects are interrelated with one another. Many family systems are addressed in the movie Little Miss Sunshine.

The Organizations have evolved over the years and from the Concept of people management they slowly have moved towards the concept of System managements and this is how an organizations needs to aim to grow and to succeed in growing complex market environment.

A system is “A set of interrelated and interdependent parts arranged in a manner that produces a unified whole” (robbins 2006), and Systems theory is the

In order for any organization to be successful, they must find effective ways to change systems and policies that are ineffective in creating a successful environment. A system consists of four things, elements, attributes, internal relationships, and the system environment. The systems theory is transdisciplinary study of the abstract organization of phenomena, independent of their substance, type, or spatial or temporal scale of existence (Heylighen & Joslyn, 1992). The study investigates all the principals common to all complex bodies, and the models which can be used to describe them. Von Bertalanffy (1971) was the creator of the “system” concept, he developed this idea as an answer to the limitations of individual disciplines in addressing complex social issues (Mitchell, 2005). The underlining principal of this theory is that an organization consists of multiple, interdependent parts that collectively form more than the sum of their parts. Developed from the systems theory, are three separate theories with the basis of each being the systems theory. The activity theory considers the entire program versus just one single sector, it sees the operation as a whole instead of sub departments, it combines both micro and macro elements of the organization. The chaos theory does not mean a chaotic hectic situation, rather a situation where there appears to be little to no order, there really is a hidden underlying order. The complexity theory is

However, they tend to have a focus on certain organizational aspects making the modern organization system be a blend of the three major perspectives. Based on organizational science that was formulated in the early 20th century there has been an emergence of rational, open and natural system theorists that explain the functioning of the organizations.

To begin understanding how organizations learn from and adapt to change it is important to understand the concept of systems thinking. “Systems thinking is the process of understanding how various systems influence one another within a complete entity (or larger system) (“Are You Living in a World of Chaos,” 2016). Senge uses the example of a rainstorm to explain these relationships because it is only when we consider the different events that occur before, during and after the storm will rainstorms make any sense (Senge, 1990, p. 6). Systems thinking is important for leaders to comprehend because it involves looking at the effects decisions might have across a business or organization. As I discovered during this 8-week course, there is a cause and effect relationships to our actions and it is important for leaders to pay close attention to the effect their decisions have across an organization.

The System Theories focused attention on organizations as 'systems ' and on the complexity and interdependence of relationships of their inter-related sub-systems. This approach attempted to synthesize the classical approaches (organizations without people) with the later human relations approaches that focused on the psychological and social aspects ( 'people without organizations).

* System – the result of a strong search for a higher meaning at work by many of today’s employees. They want more than just a paycheck and job security from their jobs.

The General Systems Theory (GST) came about as an effort to describe the systems approach, born from the biological concept of the organism developed in the first part of the 20th century (Von Bertalanffy, 1972). In contrast to the mechanistic systems which are closed and have a direct relationship between a cause and its effect, a biological or social system is open, operating on a principle of equifinality, where regardless of the starting point, the objective can be achieved (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972). Any system will achieve equilibrium, but an open system can reach a steady state by accessing resources from outside itself (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972). The underlying assumptions of GST rely on the organization of a company resembling the inner workings of an organism. However, subgroups within organizations can act independently of the the whole, in

Systems thinking is a method of thinking that looks at the interconnectedness between different elements rather than a linear cause and effect approach and sees patterns of change rather than fixed “snapshots”. In essence it is a view on the “whole picture” (Anderson, R 1994).

System development can generally be thought of having two major components: systems analysis and systems design. In System Analysis more emphasis is given to understanding the details of an existing system or a proposed one and then deciding whether the proposed system is desirable or not and whether the existing system needs improvements. Thus, system analysis is the process of investigating a system, identifying problems, and using the information to recommend improvements to the system. System design is the process of planning a new business system or one to replace or complement an existing system.

General system theory focuses on the interaction or the relationships between components that contribute to the system as a whole.

Moving away from “Mechanistic” metaphor originated from the bureaucratic organizational theories in the early 1920s. Morgan (2006) presents a more biological view of the organization. Described as a living system the “Organism” metaphor is dependent on wider environment and functions. Such organizations are open systems and more inclined to adapt, grow, survive and to meet the needs of organizations to operate more efficiently. The flexibility to change to the best-suited structure also introduced. As organizations tend to appear and thrive in certain environments, the functions are adjusted to establish more orderly and stable environments. In line with Morgan’s “Organism” metaphor (Morgan. 2010), if they do not adapt, organizations become week and die when those needs not met.