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

Systematic approach- a direction of research methodology, which is based on considering an object as an integral set of elements in a set of relationships and connections between them, that is, considering an object as a system.

Speaking about a systems approach, we can talk about a certain way of organizing our actions, one that covers any type of activity, identifying patterns and relationships in order to use them more effectively. At the same time, the systems approach is not so much a method of solving problems as a method of setting problems. As they say, “A question asked correctly is half the answer.” This is a qualitatively higher way of cognition than just an objective one.

Basic concepts of the systems approach: “system”, “element”, “composition”, “structure”, “functions”, “functioning” and “goal”. Let's expand on them to fully understand the systems approach.

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

Element - an internal source unit, a functional part of the system, the own structure of which 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 a given system is ignored, and it appears in it as a phenomenon that in philosophy is characterized as simple. Although in hierarchical systems an element can also be considered as a system. What distinguishes an element from a part is that the word “part” only indicates the internal belonging of something to an object, while “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 - relationships between elements in a system that are necessary and sufficient for the system to achieve its goal.

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

Operation - the process of realizing the appropriate properties of the system, ensuring it achieves its goal.

Target is what the system must achieve based on its functioning. 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 us emphasize it again: an object acts as a system only in relation to its goal. 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, a 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, that is, structures, between the elements. And without structure, they represent only a composition - a set of necessary elements.

The focus of the systems approach is not on studying the elements as such, but primarily on the structure of the object and the place of the elements in it. In general main points of the systems approach the following:

1. Study of the phenomenon of integrity and establishment of the composition of the whole and its elements.

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

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

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

Methods for constructing and justifying theories occupy a special place in the methodology of science. Among them, explanation occupies an important place - 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 is designed;

b) functional: how the motor operates;

c) causal: why and how it works.

When constructing a theory of complex objects, the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete plays an important role.

At the initial stage, cognition moves from the real, objective, concrete to the development of abstractions that reflect individual aspects of the object being studied. By dissecting an object, thinking, as it were, kills it, imagining the object dismembered, dismembered by the scalpel of thought.

A systems approach is an approach in which any system (object) is considered as a set of interconnected elements (components) that has an output (goal), input (resources), communication with the external environment, and feedback. This is the most complex approach. The systems 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 systems approach also includes the mandatory study and practical use of the following its eight aspects:

1. system-element or system-complex, consisting in identifying the elements that make up a given 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 one to get an idea of ​​the internal organization (structure) of the object under study;

3. system-functional, which involves identifying the functions for which the corresponding objects were created and exist;

4. system-targeted, meaning the need to scientifically determine the goals of the research and their mutual coordination;

5. system-resource, which consists in carefully identifying the resources required to solve a particular problem;

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

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

8. systemic-historical, which makes it possible to find out the conditions in time for the emergence of the object under study, the stages it has passed through, the current state, as well as possible prospects for development.

Basic 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 the systems approach:

Integrity, allowing us to simultaneously consider the system as a single whole and at the same time as a subsystem for higher levels.

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

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

Plurality, allowing the use of many 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: comprehensive, structural, holistic. It is necessary to separate these concepts.

An integrated approach presupposes the presence of a set of object components or applied research methods. In this case, neither the relationships between the components, nor the completeness of their composition, nor the relationship of the components with the whole are taken into account.

The structural approach involves studying the composition (subsystems) and structures of an 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 the only way.

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

From the word “system” you can form others - “systemic”, “systematize”, “systematic”. In a narrow sense, a systems approach is understood as the application of systems methods to study real physical, biological, social and other systems. The systems approach in a broad sense also includes the use of system methods to solve 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 and specificity of the systems approach is determined by the fact that it focuses the research on revealing the integrity of the object and the mechanisms that provide it, identifying the diverse types of connections of a complex object and bringing them together into a single theoretical picture.

The 1970s saw a boom in the use of the systems approach throughout the world. The systems 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-system factors” (human influence), a systematic approach may not give the expected effect. The last remark indicates that “the world is not as systemic” as the founders of the systems approach imagined it.

Professor Prigozhin A.I. This is how the limitations of the systems approach are defined:

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

2. Systematicity means consistency, but, say, value orientations in an organization and even in 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 work behavior, but always only partly. We often find this in the totality of management decisions, and even in management groups and teams.

3. Systematicity means integrity, but, say, the client base of wholesale, retail firms, banks, etc. does not form any integrity, since it cannot always be integrated and each client has several suppliers and can change them endlessly. Information flows in the organization also lack integrity. Isn’t that the case with the organization’s resources?”

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, identified as a form and product of human activity. The relationship between society and nature is understood as the relationship between the system of human society and the habitat of human civilization.

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

K. Helvetius

1. “Systems thinking?.. Why is this necessary?..”

The systems approach is not something fundamentally new, having emerged only in recent years. It is a natural method for solving both theoretical and practical problems and 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 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 revealed relatively quickly (albeit with losses, sometimes significant, such as the Chernobyl disaster) through 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-like reasoning ignorance of elementary general scientific methods and tools, producing results that ultimately 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 systems approach is extremely necessary due to the extreme complexity object of research.

Once, at a meeting of a scientific and methodological seminar at the Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, the project “Concept of empirical research of Ukrainian society” was considered. Having strangely identified 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 this, at the seminar there was a long discussion about the question of what to do with these indicators, how to obtain generalized indicators and which ones... Confusion in front of a complex object of study was evident from the speeches of sociologists at this seminar, and the terms “model”, “system”, “subsystem” and etc. were clearly used in a non-systematic sense.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, the word “system” is used in literature and in everyday life in a simplified, “non-systemic” sense. Thus, in the “Dictionary of Foreign Words”, out of six definitions of the word “system”, five, strictly speaking, have nothing to do with systems (these are methods, form, structure of something, etc.). At the same time, in the scientific literature many attempts are still being made to strictly define the concepts of “system”, “system approach”, and 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 systems concepts. We have to admit that we have practically no literature on the basics of science, especially on the so-called “instrumental” sciences, i.e. those that are used as a kind of “tool” by other sciences. Mathematics is an “instrumental” science. The author is convinced that systemology should also become an “instrumental” science. Today, the literature on systemology is represented either by “homemade” works by specialists in various fields, or by extremely complex, special works designed for professional systems scientists or mathematicians.

The author’s systemic ideas were mainly formed in the 60–80s in the process of carrying out special topics, first at the Head Research Institute for Rocket and Space Systems, and then at the Research Institute of Control Systems 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 in 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 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 presented in this work is the “ultimate truth”, however, even if there is some approximation to the truth, this is already a lot. The presentation is deliberately popular, since the author’s goal is to introduce the widest possible scientific community to systemology and, thereby, stimulate the study and use of this powerful, but so far little-known “toolkit.” It would be extremely useful to introduce into the programs of universities and higher education institutions (for example, in the section of general education in the first years) a lecture cycle on the fundamentals of the systems approach (36 academic hours), then (in senior years) - supplement with a special course in applied systemsology, focused on the field of activity future specialists (24–36 academic hours). However, for now 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 the systems approach will become an element of culture, and system analysis - a tool for specialists in both the natural sciences and the humanities . Having been 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 at first blasphemy.

B. Shaw

2. Realities, models, systems

The concept of “system” was used by materialist philosophers of 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 trend began to talk about the advent of the “era of systems” and the emergence of a special science - systemology. For many years, the outstanding cyberneticist V. M. Glushkov actively fought for the development of this science.

In philosophical literature, the term “systemology” was first introduced in 1965 by I. B. Novik, and to designate a wide area of ​​systems theory in the spirit 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 communications in the original understanding of N. Wiener. Having subsequently included a number of theories and disciplines, cybernetics remained a conglomerate of non-physical areas of science. And only when the concept "system" became core in cybernetics, thereby 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 the search 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 it? "system"? To understand this, you will have to “start from the beginning.”

2.1. Realities

Man in the world around him has been a symbol at all times. It’s just that at different times the emphasis in this phrase has shifted, which is why the symbol itself has changed. So, until recently, the banner (symbol) not only in our country was the slogan attributed to I.V. Michurin: “You cannot expect favors from nature! Taking them from her is our task!” Do you feel where the emphasis is?.. Somewhere in the middle of the twentieth century, humanity finally began to realize: you cannot 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 revealed - man 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”... So in those days there was still something to measure! Over the next fifty to seventy years, so much was “determined” that it seemed increasingly hopeless to understand the colossal number of facts and dependencies between them. Natural sciences in the study of nature have reached a level of complexity that is beyond 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 were initially considered computers, did not save the situation. Man turned out to be unable to understand what was happening in the world around him!.. This is where the “problem of man” comes from... Perhaps it was the complexity of the world around him that once served as the reason that the sciences were divided into natural and humanitarian, “precise” and descriptive (“inaccurate”?). Problems that can be formalized, i.e. correctly and accurately posed, 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 - phenomenological, descriptive in nature, difficult to formalize and therefore not strictly, “imprecisely”, and often incorrectly formulated, constituted the so-called humanitarian direction of nature research - these are psychology, sociology, language research, historical and ethnological studies, geography, etc. (it is important to note - tasks related to the study of man, life, and living things in general!). The reason for the descriptive, verbal form of representing knowledge in psychology, sociology and, in general, in humanities research lies not so much in the poor familiarity and mastery of mathematics by humanists (which mathematicians are convinced of), but in the complexity, multi-parameter, diversity of manifestations of life... This is not the fault humanists, it is rather a disaster, the “curse of complexity” of the object of research!.. But the humanities still deserve a reproach - for conservatism in methodology and “instruments”, for the reluctance to realize the need not only to accumulate many individual facts, but also to master a fairly well-developed In the 20th century, a general scientific “toolkit” for research, analysis and synthesis of complex objects and processes, diversity, and the interdependence of some facts from others. In this, we have to admit, the humanities areas of research in the second half of the twentieth century lagged far behind the natural sciences.

2.2. Models

What ensured such rapid progress in the natural sciences in the second half of the twentieth century? Without going into a deep scientific analysis, we can say 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 their appearance, computers were no longer 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 it models? The literature on this topic is vast and varied; A fairly complete picture of the models can be provided by the work of a number of domestic researchers, as well as the fundamental work of M. Wartofsky. 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 connections of the object being studied.

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

• when the object of study is inaccessible 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 living from non-living; direct contacts and measurements in the human psyche are very difficult, and even more so in that substrate that is not yet very clear to science, which is called the social psyche, an atom is inaccessible for direct research, etc.) - in this case they create a model that is in some sense “similar” to the object of study;
• when the object of study is multi-parametric, i.e. so complex that it cannot be comprehensively comprehended (for example, a plant or institution, geographical region or object; a very complex and multi-parametric object is the human psyche as a certain integrity, i.e. an individual or personality, complex and multi-parameter 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 research!) parameters and functional connections 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 the above, it is curious that the most interesting object of study in many sciences is Human- both inaccessible and multi-parametric, and the humanities are 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 what is essential and corresponds to the goals of the study. So-called mathematical models are generally built “on paper,” in the researcher’s head or on 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. Even 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 stated 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 external world (and, therefore, interaction with the world) is what we call today , informational nature.

There are many examples of models in the natural sciences. One of the most striking is the planetary model of the atom, proposed by E. Rutherford at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. We owe all the mind-blowing achievements of physics, chemistry, electronics and other sciences of the twentieth century to this generally simple model.

However, no matter how much we study, no matter how much we model this or that object, we must be aware that the object cannot exist (function) by itself, in isolation, in a closed manner, 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 he is not able to cope with on his own - he must look for a “comrade-in-arms”, “collaborator”; At the same time, you need to unite with a partner whose goals at least do not contradict your own. This creates the need for interaction. In the real world, everything is interconnected and interacts. So here it is:

Models of interaction of objects, which themselves are models, are called systems.

Of course, from a practical point of view, we can say that a system is formed when a certain object (subject) is given a goal that 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, no systems, which are also models!.. There is simply life, complex and simple objects, complex and simple processes and interactions, often incomprehensible, sometimes unconscious and not noticed by us... By the way, people, groups of people (especially non-random ones) from a systemic point of view are also objects. Models are built by the researcher specifically to solve certain problems and achieve set goals. The researcher identifies 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 between 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. Thus, one of the creators of systems theory L. von Bertalanffy in 1937 he defined this: “A system is a complex of elements that interact”... The following definition is also known (B. S. Urmantsev): “System S is the first set of compositions Mi, constructed in relation to Ri, according to the law of composition Zi from the primary elements of the set Mi0, separated by the base Ai0 from the set M.”

2.3. Systems

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

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

Minimum population - two elements, modeling some objects, the goal of the system is always given from the outside (this will be shown below), which means the system’s reaction (the result of its 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 there are, of course, 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 can everyone together (by the system!) achieve goals posed to the system (for example, a certain state, i.e., a set of essential properties at a certain point in time).

It is probably not difficult to imagine trajectory of the system towards the target- this is a certain line in some imaginary (virtual) space, which is formed if you imagine some coordinate system in which each parameter characterizing the current state of the system corresponds to its own coordinate. The trajectory may be optimal in terms of the expenditure of some system resources. Parameter space systems are usually characterized by a number of parameters. During the decision-making process, a normal person manages to operate more or less easily five to 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 almost 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.).

A given system may be an element of another system, for example, the environment; then the environment is supersystem. Every system is necessarily included in 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 they need, adjusts behavior in accordance with the goal, etc.

Rice. 2. Subsystem, system, supersystem.

There are connections in systems straight 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 feedback; for element B the opposite is true. The same applies to the connections of this system with the subsystem and supersystem (Fig. 2). Sometimes connections are considered as a separate element of the system and such an element is called communicator.

Concept management, widespread in everyday life, is also associated with systemic interactions. Indeed, the influence of element A on element B can be considered as control of the behavior (functioning) of element B, which is carried out by A in the interests of the system, and 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 effect of B on A; it should only be noted that all system interactions are asymmetrical (see below - principle of asymmetry), therefore, usually in systems one of the elements is called leading (dominant) and control is considered from the point of view of this element. It must be said that control theory is much older than systems theory, 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 considerable evolution in recent years. Thus, 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 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 became bolder and started talking about the third component of interelement exchange - information. Recently, works by biophysicists have appeared in which they boldly assert that the “life activity” of biological systems “...involves the exchange of matter, energy and information with the environment.” It would seem a natural idea that 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 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 the so-called. cargo documentation. Why, oddly enough, the information component in system interactions was kept silent for a long time, especially in our country, the author guesses and will try to make his assumption a little lower. True, not everyone was silent. Thus, back in 1940, the Polish psychologist A. Kempinski expressed an idea that surprised many at that time and is not very accepted to this day - the interaction of the psyche with the environment, the construction and filling of the psyche is of an informational nature. This idea was called principle of information metabolism and was successfully used by a Lithuanian researcher A. Augustinavichiute when creating a new science about the structure and functioning mechanisms of the human psyche - theories of information metabolism of the psyche(socionics, 1968), where this principle is used as the basis for constructing models of types of information metabolism of the psyche.

Simplifying the interactions and structure of systems somewhat, we can imagine this: 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 (goal instructions - a goal or program for achieving a goal, instructions for adjusting functioning, i.e., the trajectory of movement towards the goal), as well as rhythmic 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 route to the goal, useful information products), as well as rhythmic signals necessary to ensure exchange (in the narrow sense - synchronization).

Rice. 3. Interelement exchange in systems

Of course, such a division into components of interelement (intersystem) connections is of a purely analytical nature and is necessary for a correct analysis of interactions. It must be said that the structure of system connections causes significant difficulties in analyzing 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 they say that information modulates the carrier); Usually, media that are convenient for communication systems and for perception are used for this - 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 communication processes. One of the currently fashionable areas of activity that claims to be scientific, “bioenergetics” is actually concerned with information interactions, which for some reason are called energy-informational, although the energy levels of the signals are so low that even the well-known electrical and magnetic components are very difficult to measure.

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

Some biologists study the rhythm of living organisms, although not so much in a systemic, but in a functional sense. For example, experiments by Doctor of Medical Sciences S. Stepanova at the Moscow Institute of Medical and Biological Problems showed that the human day, unlike the earthly day, increases by one hour and lasts 25 hours - this rhythm was called circodian (circadian). According to psychophysiologists, this explains why people are more comfortable with going to bed later than waking up earlier. Biorhythmologists believe, writes Marie Claire magazine, that the human brain is a factory that, like any production, works according to a schedule. Depending on the time of day, the body secretes chemicals that help improve mood, alertness, increased sexual desire or drowsiness. To always be in shape, you can set your daily routine taking into account your biorhythms, that is, find the source of vigor in yourself. This may be why one in three women in the UK occasionally take a day off sick to have sex, according to a She magazine survey.

Until recently, the informational and rhythmic impact of the Cosmos on earthly life was discussed only by a few dissident researchers in science. Thus, there are known problems arising in connection with the introduction of the so-called. “summer” and “winter” time - doctors conducted research and discovered a clearly negative effect of “double” time on human health, apparently due to a disruption in the rhythm of mental processes. In some countries, clocks are changed, in others - not, considering that this is economically ineffective and harmful to people's health. For example, in Japan, where clocks do not change, life expectancy is the highest. Discussions on these topics have not stopped to this day.

Systems cannot arise and function on their own. Democritus also stated: “Nothing arises without a cause, but everything arises on some basis or due to necessity.” And philosophical, sociological, psychological literature, many publications on other sciences are replete with beautiful terms “self-improvement”, “self-harmonization”, “self-actualization”, “self-realization”, etc. Well, let 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 justification for the self-development of the original “cell” to the scale of a human personality”... Either a misunderstanding of elementary system categories, or sloppiness 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, that does not develop, is in a state of rest or “closed” (does not interact with anyone) is not needed by the supersystem and dies. The term “survivability” is understood in the same sense.

In relation to the objects they model, systems are sometimes called abstract(these are systems in which all elements are concepts; eg languages), and specific(such systems in which at least two elements - objects, for example, family, factory, humanity, galaxy, etc.). An abstract system is always a concrete subsystem, 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 identification of some set of interacting realities with connections necessary and sufficient for analysis. Thus, they say that systems are family, work collective, state, nation, ethnic group. Systems are forest, lake, sea, even 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 ones, are not a system, and mountains themselves can only be called a system conditionally. Technical systems, even such as a car, an airplane, a machine tool, a factory, a nuclear power plant, a computer, etc., by themselves, without people, are not systems, strictly speaking. Here the term “system” is used either in the sense that human participation in their functioning is mandatory (even if an airplane is capable of flying on autopilot, a machine tool is automatic, and a 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 is implicitly involved in the operation of any machine. However, computers are not systems yet... 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 “machine subsystem” in the “humanity” system as the “humanity subsystem” is in systems of a higher order. However, this is a probable future...

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

It has become fashionable to say “large system” or “complex system”; but it turns out that in saying this, we often unnecessarily acknowledge some of our limitations, because these are “... 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 strict model, it will become clear why until recently systemology was not officially encouraged, and systemologists in their works did not dare to mention the information component of intersystem connections.

Man is a social being... So let’s imagine the “man - humanity” system: one element of the system is man, the second is humanity. 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 the living nature of the Earth (in the broad sense of the word). Earthly life (humanity and nature) naturally interact with planet Earth - a system of planetary level of interaction... Finally, planet Earth, along with all living things, certainly interacts with the Sun; The solar system is part of the Galaxy system, etc. - let’s generalize the interactions of the Earth and imagine the Universe as the second element... 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 system connections, in addition to completely understandable matter and energy, there is naturally information, including at higher levels of interaction!..

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

This is where ordinary common sense ends and a question arises that Marxist philosophers did not dare to ask out loud: “If the information component is an obligatory element of systemic interactions (and it seems that this is so), then with whom does the information interaction of Planet Earth take place? ?!..” and just in case, they did not encourage, did not notice (and did not publish!) the work of systemologists. The deputy editor-in-chief (later the editor-in-chief) of a Ukrainian philosophical and sociological journal that claimed to be reputable once told the author that he had never heard anything about the science of systemology. In the 60s and 70s, we were no longer imprisoned for cybernetics, but we did not hear the persistent statements of the outstanding cybernetics V. M. Glushkov about the need to develop research and applications of systemology. Unfortunately, even today, both 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 systemic research are always in fashion. One of the outstanding systemologists warned back in the 70s: “...The mere use of systemic words and concepts does not yet provide a systemic study, even if the object can really be considered as a system.”

Any theory or concept is based on premises, the validity of which does not raise objections among the scientific community.

L. N. Gumilyov

3. System principles

What is it 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 system 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 comprehension of the results make it possible to formulate some statements of a general nature, the application of which to the creation, research and use of systems as models of certain realities determine the methodology of the systems approach. Some principles receive theoretical justification, some are empirically justified, and some have the nature of hypotheses, the application of which to the creation of systems (modeling of realities) allows us to obtain 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 false at the level of realities.” Below are the most important from the author's point of view system principles and necessary comments on their wording. The examples do not pretend to be rigorous and are intended only to clearly demonstrate 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, is not always accepted at the level of ordinary “common sense”. The generally accepted belief is that anyone, but a person with his free will, sets a goal for himself; Some groups and states are considered independent in terms of goals. In fact, goal setting - a complex process consisting, in general, of two components: assignments (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 output (tasks) goal achievement programs(programs for the functioning of the system in the process of achieving a goal, i.e., “moving along a trajectory towards a goal”). To set a goal for a 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 occur - and these are all questions external to the system that the supersystem (indeed, the “normal” system) must solve In general, there is no need to change your state and it is most “pleasant” to be in a state of rest - but why does the supersystem need such a system?).

Two components of the goal setting process determine two possible ways of setting a goal.

• First way: Having set a goal, the supersystem can limit itself to this, giving the system itself the opportunity to develop a program for achieving the goal - this is precisely what creates the illusion of the system independently setting a goal. Thus, life circumstances, surrounding people, fashion, prestige, etc. form a certain goal 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). Next, the person achieves the goal, often solving complex problems. Under these conditions, it is not surprising that the formula “I achieved the goal myself” is replaced by the formula “I set the goal for myself.” The same thing happens in collectives that consider themselves independent, and even more so in the heads of statesmen of 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 communities and states, is obvious here).
• Second way: The goal of 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 (a “man-machine” system) in the following form - “deliver the cargo to point A” - in this case, the driver (element of the system) decides for himself how to drive (develops a program for achieving the goal);
• another way - to a driver unfamiliar with the territory and road, the task of delivering the cargo to point A is given along with a map on which the route is indicated (a program for achieving the goal).

The applied meaning of the principle: the inability or unwillingness to “exit the system” in the process of setting or realizing a goal, self-confidence, often lead functionaries (individuals, managers, government officials, etc.) to mistakes and misconceptions.

Feedback principle- the system’s response to the impact should minimize the deviation of the system from the trajectory to the target.

This is a fundamental and universal system 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 is that the result of the functioning of a system (system element) influences the influences received on it. Feedback happens positive(strengthens the effect of direct communication) and negative(weakens the effect of direct communication); in both cases, the task of 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 that still exists in our country. Many other examples can be given - everyday and scientific, simple and complex. And all the more surprising is the ability of a normal person not to see (not want to see!) the consequences of his activities, i.e. feedback in the “man - environment” system... There is so much talk about ecology, but it is impossible to get used to new and new facts of people poisoning themselves - what are the workers of a chemical plant thinking about when they poison their own children?.. What is the state thinking about when it essentially doesn’t care about spirituality and culture, about school and in general a social group called “children”, and then receives a mutilated generation of young people? ..

The applied meaning of the principle is that 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.).

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

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

Principle of tolerance- the system should not be “strict” - deviation within certain limits of the parameters of elements, subsystems, the environment or the behavior of other systems should not lead the system to disaster.

If you imagine the “newlyweds” system in the “big family” supersystem with parents and grandparents, then it is not difficult to appreciate the importance of the principle of tolerance, at least for the integrity (not to mention the peace) of such a system. A good example of observing 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 unorganized systems are dead.

In other words, “all extremes are bad”... Extreme disorganization or, what is the same thing, diversity taken to the extreme can be likened (not very strictly for open systems) to the maximum entropy of the system, having reached which the system can no longer change (function, develop) ); In thermodynamics, this ending is called “thermal death.” An extremely organized (over-organized) system loses flexibility, and therefore 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 entropy - the law of limiting development of material systems. The meaning of the law is that for a system, entropy equal to zero is just as bad as maximum entropy.

Emergence principle- the system has properties that are not deduced from the known (observable) properties of its elements and methods of their connection.

Another name for this principle is the “postulate of integrity”. The meaning of this principle is that the system as a whole has properties that subsystems (elements) do not have. These system properties are formed through the interaction of subsystems (elements) by strengthening and manifesting some properties of the elements while weakening and hiding others. Thus, a system is not a set of subsystems (elements), but a kind of integrity. Therefore, the sum of the properties of a 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 relationships in the theory of information metabolism of the psyche (socionics), etc. are associated with it.

Principle of consent- the goals of elements and subsystems should not contradict the goals of the system.

In fact, a subsystem with a goal that does not coincide with the goal of the system disorganizes the functioning of the system (increases “entropy”). Such a subsystem must either “fall out” of the system or die; otherwise - 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 (cause) that give rise to this change.

This, at first glance, is a self-evident statement, but in fact it is a very important principle for a number of sciences. Thus, 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 revealing the causes of phenomena makes it possible to predict and reproduce them. This is precisely the basis for an important set of methodological approaches to the conditionality of some social phenomena by others, united by the so-called. causal analysis... With its help, we study, for example, the processes of social mobility, social status, as well as factors influencing the value orientations and behavior of an 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.

The principle of determinism- the reason for a change in the state of the system always lies outside the system.

An important principle for any system, 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 we hear explanations of the reasons for changes in the state of certain systems by “needs”, “desires” (as if they were primary), “aspirations” (“... the universal desire to be realized” - K. Wonegut), even the “creative nature of matter” (and this is generally something incomprehensibly philosophical); Often everything is explained as “mere chance.”

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 a systemic sense). Methodologically, the principle of determinism in the study of complex systems, especially social ones, allows one to understand the peculiarities of the interaction of subsystems without falling into subjective and idealistic errors.

The "black box" principle- the response 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 important in research practice when studying complex objects or systems whose internal structure is unknown and inaccessible (“black box”).

The “black box” principle is extremely widely used in the natural sciences, various applied research, and even in everyday life. Thus, physicists, assuming a known structure of the atom, study 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. Confident that they know the state and likely reaction of the people, our politicians carry out certain reforms.

A typical “black box” for researchers is a person. When studying, 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 that under known (controlled) external influences and assuming known states of the elements of the psyche, it is possible in an experiment based on the “black box” principle based on human reactions to create an idea of ​​the structure of the psyche, i.e. the type of information metabolism (IMT) of the psyche of a given person. This approach is used in the procedures for identifying TIM of the psyche and verifying its model in the study of personality characteristics and individuality of a person in the theory of information 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 state of a person’s mental functions, it is possible to predict his reaction to certain external influences. Of course, the conclusions that a researcher draws from experiments with a “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 “black box” principle is an interesting, universal and quite powerful tool in the hands of a competent researcher.

The principle of diversity- the more diverse the system, the more stable it is.

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

Entropy principle- an isolated (closed) system dies.

A gloomy formulation - 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 turns 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 an analogue of death... “Closedness” 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, we 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 functioning, the system inevitably increases the “entropy” of the environment (quotes 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 serving as energy sources increases. Thus, any ordering activity is carried out due to the consumption of energy and the growth of “entropy” of external systems (supersystems) and cannot occur without it.

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 line and it works; if the sources are depleted - it “dies”, it stops being controlled, i.e. interaction on the information component is interrupted - it will die even if there is energy on board) .

Example of an isolated biological system- a mouse caught in a glass jar. But here, shipwrecked people on a desert island are a system that is apparently not completely isolated... Of course, without food and warmth they will die, but if they have it, they will survive: apparently, there is 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 complex. Thus, famine in African countries, the death of people in the polar regions due to lack of energy sources, the degradation of a country that has surrounded itself with an “iron curtain”, the backwardness of the country and the bankruptcy of enterprises that, in a market economy, do not care about interaction with other enterprises, even individual a person or a closed group that degrades when they “withdraw into themselves” and cut off ties with society - all these are examples of more or less closed systems.

The extremely interesting and important phenomenon for humanity of the cyclical development of ethnic systems (ethnic groups) was discovered by the famous researcher L. N. Gumilyov. However, it seems that the talented ethnologist made a mistake in believing that “...ethnic systems... develop according to the laws of irreversible entropy and lose the original impulse that gave birth to them, just as any movement fades due to 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 interrelations of peoples in the vast Pacific Ocean, the research of linguists on the interpenetration of languages, the so-called great migrations of peoples, etc. In addition, humanity is 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 imparted to them by the 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 - nonequilibrium 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 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 among 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 cyclical 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, without realizing that the functioning of the system is changing 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 especially common in biological and sociological research.

Development principle- Only a developing system is tenacious.

The meaning of the principle is obvious and cannot be perceived at the level of a “common understanding of things.” Indeed, I really don’t want to believe that the laments of the Black Queen from Lewis Carroll’s “Alice Through the Looking Glass” make sense: “... you have to run as fast as you can 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 and peace, but the ancient wisdom saddens us: “Peace is death”... The outstanding personality N. M. Amosov advises: “To live, constantly make it difficult for yourself...” and he himself makes eight thousand movements while exercising.

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

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

An extra element means unused, unnecessary in the system. The 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 waste of resources. In essence, 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 and quality factor of the system. One of the real systems is defined as follows: “Organization - without unnecessary elements an intelligent system of consciously coordinated activities." “What is complex is false,” asserted the Ukrainian thinker G. Skovoroda.

The principle of agony - nothing dies without a fight.

Principle of conservation 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.

Essentially this is a materialistic position about the indestructibility of matter. Indeed, it is not difficult to see that all 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 needed by the supersystem (otherwise why would the system be needed by the supersystem);
• “technological waste” of a given system (which, by the way, in a 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 systemic 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 various studies still make mistakes associated with underestimating the balance of matter in various system 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 preserving the amount of information has not yet been well studied.

Nonlinearity principle- real systems are always nonlinear.

Normal people's understanding of nonlinearity is somewhat reminiscent of a person's understanding of the globe. Indeed, we walk on a flat earth, we see (especially in the steppe) an almost ideal plane, but in fairly serious calculations (for example, the trajectories of spaceships) we are forced to take into account not only spheroidality, but also the so-called. geoidity of the Earth. From geography and astronomy we learn that the plane we see is a special case, a fragment of a large sphere. Something similar occurs with nonlinearity. “Where something is lost, something will be added in another place” - that’s what M.V. Lomonosov once said, and “common sense” believes that whatever is 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 nonlinearity: it is not necessary that as much as it decreases, it will increase - maybe more, maybe less... it all depends on the shape and degree of nonlinearity of the characteristic.

In systems, nonlinearity means that the response of a system or element to an influence is not necessarily proportional to the influence. Real systems can be more or less linear only over a small portion of their characteristics. However, most often we have to consider the characteristics of real systems to be highly nonlinear. Taking nonlinearity into account is especially important in system analysis when constructing models of real systems. Social systems are highly nonlinear, mainly due to the nonlinearity of such an element as a person.

The principle of optimal efficiency- maximum operating efficiency is achieved on the verge of system stability, but this is fraught with the system breaking down 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 control states: “The less stability of the system, the easier it is to control. And vice versa." There are many examples in the history of mankind: almost any revolution, many disasters in technical systems, conflicts on national grounds, etc. As for optimal efficiency, this issue is resolved 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- connections in the system must ensure sufficiently complete interaction of subsystems.

It can be argued that connections, in essence, create a system. The very definition of the concept of a system gives grounds to assert that without connections there is no system. System communication is an element (communicator) considered as a material carrier of the interaction of 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 connections ensure exchange in the system with sufficient completeness and acceptable distortions (losses). The degrees of completeness and loss are established based on the characteristics of the integrity and survivability of the system (see. loose coupling principle).

The principle of quality- 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 an assessment of quality and efficiency, the creation, comparison, testing and evaluation of systems is carried out, the degree of compliance with the intended purpose, the purposefulness and prospects of the system, etc. are determined. The theory of efficiency provides the solution to a number of important applied problems about the optimal allocation of resources, the choice of direction for the development of technology, rational policies in socio-economic issues, etc. In the theory of information metabolism of the psyche (socionics), based on this principle, it can be argued that a person can form individual norms only on the basis of the assessment of his activities 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 the supersystem or researcher) properties of the system; they are system invariants.

• System quality - a generalized positive characteristic expressing the degree of usefulness of the system for the supersystem.
• Effect - this is a result, a consequence of any action; effective means giving an effect; hence - efficiency, effectiveness.
• Efficiency - The result of actions or activities of a system normalized to resource costs over a certain time interval 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. Consequently, 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 follows from this that the fashionable concepts of “self-improvement”, “self-harmonization”, etc., widely used even in reputable 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 features of uniform and rectilinear motion were once explained in this way: “... Being in a closed cabin of a sailing ship moving uniformly and rectilinearly on calm water, it is impossible to establish the fact of movement by any physical methods... The only way is to go out on deck and look at the shore ..." In this primitive example, a person in a closed cabin is the “man - ship” system, and going out onto the deck and looking at the shore is an exit to the “ship - shore” supersystem.

Unfortunately, both in science and in everyday life, we find it difficult to think about the need to exit the system. So, in search of the causes of family instability and bad relationships 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 unit of the state”?). It would be necessary to go into this supersystem and assess the impact on the family of perverted ideology, economics and the command-administrative structure of management without feedback, etc... Now there is a reform of public education - passions are running high about teachers, parents, innovative teachers, “new schools”... 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 leaving the system is perhaps the most important in the systems approach.

Loose coupling 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 (necessarily strong!) connections to ensure the integrity of the system is clear without much explanation. However, imperial elites and bureaucrats usually lack the understanding that too strong a tie between national entities and the empire-forming metropolis is fraught with internal conflicts that sooner or later destroy the empire. Hence separatism, for some reason considered a negative phenomenon.

The strength of connections must also have a lower limit - connections between 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 entire system.

They say that in a competition for the best way to keep a husband, announced by one English newspaper, the first prize was won by a woman who suggested the following: “Keep him on a long leash...”. A wonderful illustration of the principle of weak ties!.. Indeed, as sages and humorists say, although a woman marries in order to tie a man to herself, a man marries so that a woman can untie herself from him...

Another example is the Chernobyl nuclear power plant... In an incorrectly designed system, operators found themselves too tightly and rigidly connected to other elements, their errors quickly brought the system into an unstable state, and then - a disaster...

This makes clear the extraordinary methodological value of the principle of weak coupling, especially at the stage of creating a system.

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

This is a wonderful way to overcome the so-called. "curses of multidimensionality." It was already noted above that a person is unlucky with the ability to process multi-parameter information - seven plus or minus two simultaneously changing parameters... For some reason, nature needs this, but it’s hard for us! The principle proposed by the outstanding cyberneticist V. M. Glushkov makes it possible 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 of multivariate analysis is the so-called. cluster analysis, which allows, based on a variety of indicators characterizing a number of elements (for example, the subsystems, functions, etc.) to be grouped into classes (clusters) so that the elements included in one class are more or less homogeneous, similar in comparison with elements included in other classes. By the way, on the basis of cluster analysis it is not difficult to justify an eight-element model of the type of information metabolism in socionics, which is necessary and quite correctly reflects the structure and mechanism of functioning of the psyche. Thus, when studying a system or making a decision in a situation with a large number of dimensions (parameters), you can greatly simplify your task by reducing the number of parameters by successively moving to supersystems.

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

This is how a person is designed that uncertainty is intolerable to him, and randomness simply irritates him. But what’s surprising is that in everyday life and in science, without finding an explanation for something, we would rather recognize this “something” as being three times random, but we would never think of going beyond the boundaries of the system in which this happens! Without listing the already debunked errors, we note some persistence that still exists. Our respectable science still doubts the connection of earthly processes with heliocosmic processes and, with tenacity worthy of better use, piles up probabilistic explanations, stochastic models, etc. where necessary and where not necessary. 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 entire 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 done in the Sun” - A. V. Dyakov). And all of domestic meteorology can’t decide to recognize the Earth’s supersystem and mocks us every day 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 be avoided if we more boldly used a systematic approach in searching for causes and patterns!

Optimum principle- the system must move along an optimal trajectory towards the goal.

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 the corrective impact of the supersystem. A more tragic outcome for such a system is also possible. Thus, G.N. Alekseev introduced the 5th law of energy entropy - the law of preferential development or competition, which states: “In each class of material systems, those that, under a given set of internal and external conditions, achieve maximum efficiency receive preferential development.” It is clear that the predominant development of effectively functioning systems occurs as a result of the “encouraging” stimulating effects of the supersystem. As for the rest, who are inferior in efficiency or, what is the same thing, “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.

Principle of asymmetry- all interactions are asymmetrical.

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 in rights (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 more the exception than the rule, and the exception is often undesirable. Thus, 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 equal in size and quality (symmetrical!) bundles of hay will die of hunger - it will not decide which bundle to chew (philosophers say that its will will not receive an impulse encouraging it to choose one or another a bale of hay). Conclusion: hay bales must be somewhat asymmetrical...

For a long time, people were convinced that crystals - the standard of beauty and harmony - were symmetrical; in the 19th century, precise measurements showed that there are no symmetrical crystals. More recently, using powerful computers, aesthetes in the United States tried to synthesize an image of an absolutely beautiful face based on fifty of the most famous, universally recognized beauties in the world. However, measurements of the parameters were carried out only on one half of the beauties’ faces, being convinced that the second half was symmetrical. Imagine their disappointment when the computer produced the most ordinary, rather ugly face, even unpleasant in some ways. The first artist, who was shown the 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 asymmetrical and one of the interacting objects always dominates. So, for example, a lot of troubles could have been avoided by spouses if family life had correctly taken into account the asymmetry of interaction between partners and with the environment!..

There is still debate among neurophysiologists and neuropsychologists about interhemispheric asymmetry of the brain. No one doubts that asymmetry occurs; it is not clear what it depends on (innate? nurtured?) and whether the dominance of the hemispheres changes during the 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. At the same time, interaction can pass through 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 conventional (“dialectal”). I had a presentiment of many things besides such a private view, I began to understand that in reality “pure” opposites do not exist. Between any “poles” there is necessarily an individual “asymmetry”, which ultimately determines the essence of their existence.” 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 benefit of the system for thinking lies not only in the fact that people begin to think about things in an orderly manner, according to a known plan, but in the fact that they begin to think about them in general.

G. Lichtenberg

4. Systems approach - what is it?

Once an outstanding 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 systems approach are. After listening, he said: “...Yeah - I understand... A systematic approach is, before doing something, you need to think... But 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 limitations of a person’s “thinking” abilities by 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 don’t forget about this, then sooner or later the feeling will come systematic the 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 systematicity, expressed in system principles - This is the foundation of thinking that can protect you from at least gross mistakes 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 that help overcome the complexity of problems.

Of all the methodological concepts systemological is closest to “natural” human thinking - flexible, informal, diverse. Systematic approach combines the natural scientific method, based on experiment, formal derivation and quantitative assessment, with a speculative method based on imaginative 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 Communications”, 1982.
3. Anokhin P.K. Fundamental issues of the general theory of functional systems // Principles of systemic organization of functions. - M., 1973.
4. Vartofsky M. Models. Representation and scientific understanding. Per. from English / General 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, “Science”, 1984. - 189 p.
6. Technology of system modeling / E. F. Avramchuk, A. A. Vavilov, etc.; Under general ed. S. V. Emelyanova and others - M., “Mechanical Engineering”, Berlin, “Technician”, 1988.
7. Ermak V.D. Information models in the processes of interaction between the operator and information display devices of large control systems. General systems theory and knowledge integration: Seminar materials / MDNTP im. F. E. Dzerzhinsky, M., 1968.
8. Blauberg I. V., Yudin E. G. Formation and essence of the systems approach. - M., “Science”, 1973.
9. Averyanov A. N. Systematic knowledge of the world: Methodological problems. -M., Politizdat, 1985.
10. Mathematical theory of systems / N. A. Bobylev, V. G. Boltyansky and others - M., “Science”, 1986.
11. Clear J. Systemology. Automation of solving system problems. Per. from English - M., “Radio and Communications”, 1992.
12. Leung L. System identification. Theory for the user. Per. from English / Ed. Ya. Z. Tsypkina. - M., “Science”, Ch. ed. physics and mathematics lit., 1991.
13. Nikolaev V. I., Bruk V. M. Systems engineering: methods and applications. - Leningrad, “Mechanical Engineering”, Leningrad. Department, 1985.
14. Kolesnikov L. A. Fundamentals of the theory of systems approach. - Kyiv, “Naukova Dumka”, 1988.
15. Larichev O. I., Moshkovich E. M., Rebrik S. B. On human capabilities in problems of classification of multicriteria objects. // System research. Methodological problems. Yearbook. - 1988. - M., Science.
16. Druzhinin V.V., Kontorov D.S. Systems engineering. - M., “Radio and Communications”, 1985.
17. Biological rhythms / Ed. Y. Ashoff. - M., “Mir”, 1984. - T. 1.
18. Chizhevsky A. L. Earthly echo of solar storms. - M., “Thought”, 1976.
19. Treasurer V. P. Essays on the theory and practice of human ecology. - M., “Science”, 1983.
20. Ackoff R., Emery F. About goal-oriented systems. Per. from English, ed. I. A. Ushakova. - M., “Sov. radio", 1974.
21. Philosophical Dictionary / Ed. V. I. Shinkaruk. - K., Academician Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, Ch. ed. Ukr. encyclopedia, 1973.
22. The future of artificial intelligence. - M.: “Science”, 1991.
23. Rybin I. A. Lectures on biophysics: Textbook. - Sverdlovsk: Ural University Publishing House, 1992.
24. Alekseev G. N. Energy entropics. - 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 a scientific theory or auto-obituary // Znamya, 1988, book 4.
27. Gumilyov L. N. Ethnosphere: History of people and history of nature. - M: “Ekopros”, 1993.
28. Zotin A.I. Thermodynamic basis of reactions of organisms to external and internal factors. - M.: “Science”, 1988.
29. Pechurkin I. O. Energy and life. - Novosibirsk: “Science”, Sibirsk. department, 1988.
30. Gorsky Yu. M. System information analysis of management processes. - Novosibirsk: “Science”, Sibirsk. Dept., 1988.
31. Antipov G. A., Kochergin A. N. Problems of methodology for studying society as an integral system. - Novosibirsk: “Science”, Sibirsk. dept., 1988.
32. Gubanov V. A., Zakharov V. V., Kovalenko A. N. Introduction to system analysis: Textbook / Ed. L. A. Petrosyan. - L.: Ed. Leningrad University, 1988.
33. Zhambu M. Hierarchical cluster analysis and correspondence: Transl. from fr. - M.: “Finance and Statistics”, 1982.
34. Ermak V.D. On the problem of analyzing system interactions. // Questions of special radio electronics, MCI of the USSR. - 1978, Ser. 1, T. 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. Pollyak Yu. G. Fundamentals of the theory of modeling complex control systems // Proceedings of the Radio Engineering Institute. - 1977, No. 29.

1. The concept of a systems approach, its main features and principles……………….2

2. Organizational system : main elements and types…………………………3

3. Systems theory………………………………………………………………………………5

• Basic concepts and characteristics of general systems theory
• Characteristics of open organizational systems

· Example: a bank from the point of view of systems theory

4. The importance of a systems approach in management …………………………………………...7
Introduction

As the Industrial Revolution progressed, the growth of large organizational forms of business stimulated new ideas about how businesses operate and how they should be managed. Today there is a developed theory that provides direction for achieving effective management. The first theory that emerged is usually called the classical school of management; there are also the school of social relations, the theory of a systems approach to organizations, the theory of probability, etc.

In my report I want to talk about the theory of a systems approach to organizations, as an idea for achieving effective management.

1. The concept of a systems approach, its main features and principles

In our time, there is an unprecedented progress of knowledge, which, on the one hand, has led to the discovery and accumulation of many new facts and information from various areas of life, and thereby confronted humanity with the need to systematize them, to find the general in the particular, the constant in the changing. There is no unambiguous concept of a system. In its most general form, a system is understood as a set of interconnected elements that form a certain integrity, a certain unity.

The study of objects and phenomena as systems caused the formation of a new approach in science - the systems approach.

The systems approach as a general methodological principle is used in various branches of science and human activity. The epistemological basis (epistemology is a branch of philosophy, the study of forms and methods of scientific knowledge) is the general theory of systems, the beginning of the cat. put it by the Australian biologist L. Bertalanffy. In the early 20s, the young biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy began to study organisms as specific systems, summarizing his view in the book “Modern Theory of Development” (1929). In this book he developed a systematic approach to the study of biological organisms. In the book “Robots, People and Consciousness” (1967), he transferred general systems theory to the analysis of processes and phenomena of social life. 1969 - "General Systems Theory". Bertalanffy turns his systems theory into a general disciplinary science. He saw the purpose of this science in the search for the structural similarity of laws established in various disciplines, based on cat. system-wide patterns can be derived.

Let's define features systematic approach :

1. Syst. approach is a form of methodological knowledge, connection. with the study and creation of objects as systems, and refers only to systems.

2. Hierarchy of knowledge, requiring a multi-level study of the subject: the study of the subject itself is its “own” level; the study of the same subject as an element of a broader system is a “higher” level; the study of this subject in relation to the elements that make up this subject is the “lower” level.

3. The systematic approach requires considering the problem not in isolation, but in the unity of connections with the environment, to comprehend the essence of each connection and individual element, to make associations between general and specific goals.

Taking into account the above, we determine concept of a systems approach :

Syst. approach- this is an approach to the study of an object (problem, phenomenon, process) as a system, in a cat. the elements, internal and external connections that most significantly influence the studied results of its functioning are highlighted, and the goals of each of the elements, based on the general purpose of the object.

It can also be said that the systems approach - This is a direction in the methodology of scientific knowledge and practical activity, which is based on the study of any object as a complex integral socio-economic system.

Let's turn to history.

Before its formation at the beginning of the 20th century. management sciences rulers, ministers, generals, builders were guided by intuition, experience, and traditions when making decisions. Acting in specific situations, they sought to find better solutions. Depending on experience and talent, the manager could expand the spatial and temporal boundaries of the situation and spontaneously comprehend his object of management more or less systematically. But nevertheless, until the 20th century. management was dominated by a situational approach, or management by circumstances. The defining principle of this approach is the adequacy of the management decision regarding a specific situation. In a given situation, the decision that is adequate is the one that is best from the point of view of changing the situation, immediately after the appropriate management influence has been exerted on it.

Thus, the situational approach is an orientation toward the immediate positive result (“and then we’ll see…”). It is thought that “next” there will again be a search for a better solution in the situation that arises. But the best decision at the moment may turn out to be completely different as soon as the situation changes or unaccounted for circumstances are discovered.

The desire to respond to each new turn or reversal (change in vision) of the situation in an adequate way leads to the fact that the manager is forced to make more and more new decisions that run counter to the previous ones. He actually ceases to control events, but goes with their flow.

This does not mean that management by circumstances is ineffective in principle. A situational approach to decision making is necessary and justified when the situation itself is extraordinary and the use of previous experience is obviously risky, when the situation changes quickly and in an unpredictable way, when there is no time to take into account all the circumstances. For example, rescuers from the Ministry of Emergency Situations often have to look for the best solution within a specific situation. But nevertheless, in the general case, the situational approach is not effective enough and must be overcome, replaced or supplemented by a systematic approach.

1. Integrity, allowing us to simultaneously consider the system as a single whole and at the same time as a subsystem for higher levels.

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

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

4. Plurality, allowing the use of many cybernetic, economic and mathematical models to describe individual elements and the system as a whole.

2. Organizational system: main elements and types

Any organization is considered as an organizational-economic system that has inputs and outputs and a certain number of external connections. The concept of “organization” should be defined. There have been various attempts throughout history to identify this concept.

1. The first attempt was based on the idea of ​​expediency. Organization is the expedient arrangement of parts of a whole that has a specific purpose.

2. Organization is a social mechanism for realizing goals (organizational, group, individual).

3. Organization - harmony, or correspondence, of parts between themselves and the whole. Any system develops on the basis of the struggle of opposites.

4. An organization is a whole that cannot be reduced to a simple arithmetic sum of its constituent elements. It is a whole that is always greater or less than the sum of its parts (it all depends on the effectiveness of the connections).

5. Chester Bernard (in the West, considered one of the founders of modern management theory): when people come together and formally decide to join forces to achieve common goals, they create an organization.

It was a retrospective. Today, an organization can be defined as a social community that unites a number of individuals to achieve a common goal, which (individuals) act on the basis of certain procedures and rules.

Based on the previously given definition of the system, we will define the organizational system.

Organizational system- this is a certain set of internally interconnected parts of the organization, forming a certain integrity.

The main elements of the organizational system (and therefore the objects of organizational management) are:

·production

marketing and sales

·finance

·information

·staff, human resources - have a system-forming quality, the efficiency of using all other resources depends on them.

These elements are the main objects of organizational management. But there is another side to the organizational system:

People. The manager's job is to facilitate the coordination and integration of human activities.

Goals And tasks. An organizational goal is an ideal project for the future state of the organization. This goal helps to unite the efforts of people and their resources. Goals are formed on the basis of common interests, so organization is a tool for achieving goals.

Systematic approach- direction of the methodology of scientific knowledge, which is based on the consideration of an object as a system: an integral complex of interconnected elements (I. V. Blauberg, V. N. Sadovsky, E. G. Yudin); sets of interacting objects (L. von Bertalanffy); sets of entities and relationships (Hall A.D., Fagin R.I., late Bertalanffy)

Speaking about a systems approach, we can talk about a certain way of organizing our actions, one that covers any type of activity, identifying patterns and relationships in order to use them more effectively. At the same time, the systems approach is not so much a method of solving problems as a method of setting problems. As they say, “A question asked correctly is half the answer.” This is a qualitatively higher way of cognition than just an objective one.

Basic principles of the systems approach

Integrity, allowing us to simultaneously consider the system as a single whole and at the same time as a subsystem for higher levels.

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

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

Plurality, allowing the use of many cybernetic, economic and mathematical models to describe individual elements and the system as a whole.

Systematicity, the property of an object to have all the characteristics of a system.

Features of the systems approach

Systematic approach- this is an approach in which any system (object) is considered as a set of interconnected elements (components), having an output (goal), input (resources), connection with the external environment, feedback. This is the most complex approach. The systems 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 theories systems, according to which each object in the process of its research 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 systems approach also includes the mandatory study and practical use of the following its eight aspects:

- system-element or system-complex which consists in identifying the elements that make up a given 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;

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

- system-functional, which involves identifying the functions for which the corresponding systems have been created and exist;

system-target, meaning the need for scientific determination of the goals and subgoals of the system, their mutual coordination with each other;

- system-resource, which consists in carefully identifying the resources required for the functioning of the system, for the system to solve a particular problem;

- system-integration, which consists in determining the totality of qualitative properties of the system, ensuring its integrity and distinctiveness;

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

- systemic-historical, which makes it possible to find out the conditions during the emergence of the system under study, the stages it has passed through, the current state, as well as possible prospects for development.

Almost all modern sciences are built on a systemic principle. An important aspect of the systematic approach is the development of a new principle for its use - the creation of a new, unified and more optimal approach (general methodology) to cognition, for applying it to any cognizable material, with the guaranteed goal of obtaining the most complete and holistic understanding of this material.

The essence of the systems approach

Parameter name	Meaning
Article topic:	The essence of the systems approach
Rubric (thematic category)	Education

In modern scientific literature, the systems approach is most often perceived as a direction in the methodology of scientific knowledge and social practice, which is based on the consideration of objects as systems.

The systems approach orients researchers toward revealing the integrity of an object, identifying the diverse connections in it and bringing them together into a single theoretical picture.

The systems 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.

The essence of the systems approach is essentially that relatively independent components are considered not in isolation, but in their interrelation, development and movement. As one component of the system changes, others also change. This makes it possible to identify integrative system properties and qualitative characteristics that are absent in the elements that make up the system.

Based on the approach, a systematic principle has been developed. The principle of the systems approach is to consider the elements of the system as interconnected and interacting to achieve the global goal of the system’s functioning. A feature of the systems approach is the optimization of the functioning not of individual elements, but of the entire system as a whole.

The systems approach is based on a holistic vision of the objects or processes under study and seems to be the most universal method of research and analysis of complex systems. Objects are considered as systems consisting of naturally structured and functionally organized elements. A systematic approach is the systematization and unification of objects or knowledge about them by establishing significant connections between them. The systems approach involves a consistent transition from the general to the specific, when the basis of consideration is a specific final goal to achieve which this system is formed. This approach means that each system is an integrated whole even when it consists of separate, disconnected subsystems.

Basic concepts of the systems approach: “system”, “structure” and “component”.

“A system is a set of components that are in relationships and connections with each other, the interaction of which gives rise to a new quality that is not inherent in these components individually.”

A component is understood as any object connected to other objects in a complex complex.

Structure is interpreted as the order of design of elements into a system, the principle of its structure; it reflects the shape of the arrangement of elements and the nature of the interaction of their sides and properties. The structure connects and transforms elements, imparting a certain commonality, causing the emergence of new qualities that are not inherent in any of them. An object is a system if it must be divided into interconnected and interacting components. These parts, in turn, usually have their own structure and, in connection with this, are presented as subsystems of the original, large system.

The components of the system form system-forming connections.

The main principles of the systems approach are:

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

Hierarchy of the structure, that is, the presence of many (at least two) elements located on the basis of the subordination of lower-level elements to higher-level elements.

Structuring, 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 a system is determined not so much by the properties of its individual elements as by the properties of the structure itself.

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

For example, the education system is perceived as a system that includes the following components: 1) federal state educational standards and federal state requirements, educational standards, educational programs of various types, levels and (or) orientations; 2) organizations carrying out educational activities, teaching staff, students and parents (legal representatives) of minor students; 3) federal state bodies and government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, exercising public administration in the field of education, and local government bodies, exercising management in the field of education, advisory, advisory and other bodies created by them; 4) organizations providing educational activities, assessing the quality of education; 5) associations of legal entities, employers and their associations, public associations operating in the field of education.

In turn, each component of the education system acts as a system. For example, the system of organizations carrying out educational activities includes the following components: 1) preschool educational organizations 2) general educational organizations 3) professional educational organizations of higher education. educational organizations 4) educational organizations of higher education.

Educational organizations of higher education can also be considered as a system that includes the following components: institutes, academies, universities.

The presented hierarchy of systems included in the education system are located on the basis of the subordination of lower-level components to higher-level components; All components are closely interconnected and form an integral unity.

The third level of methodology - specifically scientific - this is the methodology of a specific science, it is based on scientific approaches, concepts, theories, problems specific to scientific knowledge in a specific science, as a rule, these foundations were developed by scientists of a given science (there are scientists of other sciences).

For pedagogy, this level of methodology is, first of all, pedagogical and psychological theories, concepts for private didactics (methods of teaching individual subjects) - theories in the field of didactics, for research in the field of education methods - basic concepts, theories of education. This level of methodology in a particular scientific study is most often its theoretical basis for the study.

The specific scientific level of pedagogy methodology includes: personal, activity-based, ethnopedagogical, axiological, anthropological approaches, etc.

Activity approach. It has been established that activity is the basis, means and factor of personality development. The activity approach involves considering the object under study within the framework of its activity system. It involves the inclusion of teachers in various activities: learning, work, communication, play.

A personal approach means focusing the design and implementation of the pedagogical process on the individual as a goal, subject, result and the main criterion of its effectiveness. It urgently demands recognition of the uniqueness of the individual, his intellectual and moral freedom, and the right to respect. Within the framework of this approach, it is assumed that there will be reliance on the natural process of self-development of the inclinations and creative potential of the individual, and the creation of appropriate conditions for this.

The axiological (or value) approach means the implementation of universal and national values ​​in research and education.

The ethnopedagogical approach involves the organization and implementation of research, the process of education and training based on the national traditions of the people, their culture, national-ethnic rituals, customs, and habits. National culture gives a specific flavor to the environment in which a child grows and is formed, and various educational institutions operate.

An anthropological approach, which means the systematic use of data from all sciences about man as a subject of education and their consideration in the construction and implementation of the pedagogical process.

To carry out transformation, it is extremely important for a person to change the ideal way of his actions, the intention of his activity. In this regard, he uses a special means - thinking, the degree of development of which determines the degree of human well-being and freedom. It is a conscious attitude towards the world that allows a person to realize his function as a subject of activity, actively transforming the world and himself on the basis of the processes of mastering universal human culture and culture creation, self-analysis of the results of activity.

This, in turn, requires the use of a dialogical approach, which follows from the fact that the essence of a person is much richer, more versatile and more complex than his activities. The dialogical approach is based on faith in the positive potential of man, in his unlimited creative possibilities for constant development and self-improvement. It is important that the activity of the individual and his needs for self-improvement are not considered in isolation. Οʜᴎ develop only in conditions of relationships with other people, built on the principle of dialogue. The dialogical approach in unity with the personal and activity approach constitutes the essence of the methodology of humanistic pedagogy.

The implementation of the above methodological principles is carried out in conjunction with the cultural approach. Culture is generally understood as a specific way of human activity. Being a universal characteristic of activity, it, in turn, sets a social-humanistic program and predetermines the direction of a particular type of activity, its typological value characteristics and results. However, a person’s mastery of culture presupposes his mastery of methods of creative activity.

A person, a child lives and studies in a specific sociocultural environment, belongs to a specific ethnic group. In this regard, the cultural approach is transformed into an ethnopedagogical one. This transformation reveals the unity of the universal, national and individual.

One of the reviving approaches is the anthropological approach, which means the systematic use of data from all sciences about man as a subject of education and their consideration in the construction and implementation of the pedagogical process.

Technological level methodology constitute the research methodology and technique, ᴛ.ᴇ. a set of procedures that ensure the receipt of reliable experimental material and its primary processing, after which it can be included in the body of scientific knowledge. This level includes research methods.

Methods of pedagogical research - ways and techniques of understanding the objective laws of teaching, upbringing and development.

Methods of pedagogical research are divided into groups:

1.Methods of studying teaching experience: observation, survey (conversation, interview, questionnaire), study of written, graphic and creative works of students, pedagogical documentation, testing, experiment, etc.

2. Theoretical methods of pedagogical research: induction and deduction, analysis and synthesis, generalization, work with literature (compiling a bibliography; summarizing; note-taking; annotating; citing), etc.

3.Mathematical methods: registration, ranking, scaling, etc.

The essence of the systems approach is the concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Essence of a systems approach" 2017, 2018.