Workshop on Systems Methodology, East and West -- Zhichang Zhu, August 4, 2002

46th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS), Shanghai, P.R. China, August 2-6, 2002.

Sunday, August 4, 2002, 4:00 p.m., Workshop on Systems Methodology, East and West, Zhichang Zhu

This digest was created in real-time during the meeting, based on the speaker's presentation(s) and comments from the audience. These should not be viewed as official transcripts of the meeting, but only as an interpretation by a single individual. Lapses, grammatical errors, and typing mistakes may not have been corrected. Questions about content should be directed to the originator. These notes have been contributed by David Ing (daviding@systemicbusiness.org) at the IBM Advanced Business Institute ( http://www.ibm.com/abi ).

Can we learn from each other?

[Introduction by Cathal M. Bruga]

Paper sessions are tomorrow!

• Will discuss the abstracts today.

An example: parallels between Nomology (Brugha) adjusting, convincing and committing, and the WSR model.

Paper: "Total Thinking: The Fourth Milestone of the Development of Systems Thinking", Li Xibin, Kang Jian, Li Ya

• Total thinking versus whole thinking
• Whole ==> everything into one system
• Total ==> different intelligent systems that interrelate.

Paper: "Exploriing a Cross-Culture Context for Knowledge Management", Zhichang Zhu

• Critiquing the western view of knowledge as an homogenous view

Paper: "Mixing Meta-Methodologies and Philosophies: Wuli, Shili, Renli, Pragmatist and Practical Philosophy", Roger Attwater

• WSR related to other methodologies.
• Having found parallels between WSR and western approaches, can share the systems approach.
• Better to elucidate the experiences, and use some sort of meta-structure.

Paper: "Managing Complexity from within: an Eastern Systems Perspective", Li Ming-fen

• Systems archetypes -- things so generic
• In Senge's view, self and others are the same concept.
• Critique: Approaches don't always cope with the habitual thinking.
• Outer society and inner society.

Paper: "Societal Phase Transformation", Hellmut K. Loeckenhoff

• How society moves from one phase to another.
• Hope will address the change in Shanghai; has done work in South Africa, where huge change has occurred over the past ten years.
• Using sciences and systems to help and control
• Simulation and forecasting
• Evaluates alternative futures.

Paper: "Using Meta-modelling to form an Inter-Cultural East-West Bridge", Cathal Brugha

• Uses critical realism: the empirical, the actual, and the real (underlying structure that helps to form everyone's thoughts)
• Can communicate at the real level, as long as we accept that we're different.
• Nomology (the science of the laws of the mind) that helps to form and cluster what we do.
  • We can use this to help to find parallels.
• Match: wuli (knowledge) and adjusting, shili and convincing, and renli and committing.
  • Committing and convincing are about Kantian systems
• Focuses on the adjusting process -- how to adjust organizations, when they don't seem to be doing things right.
• Need a balance on three or four different dimensions.
• Parallels to I Ching, The Eight Fold Path, and the Eight Wires of Great Learning.
  • In today's China, it is tacit knowledge.
  • (Don't really know anything about these Chinese approaches).

Could also mention other system models:

• Professor Nakamori: different perspectives
• Mike Jackson: system intervention
• As Ackoff says, we are dealing with messes.

[Comment]

Western = rationalism, and Eastern = natural?

• Chinese come to Australian consultings, looking for technical solutions.
  • Needed to enlarge idea to action learning.

When Jackson's systems intervention approach was first used, there was a strong use of Burrell &1mp; Morgan's quadrants with a focus on emancipation.

• Not just the methods: need to understand the local situation, and find a way forward.

WSR as a starting point (alternative to Habermas) rather than a model.

• Both TSI and WSR were found to be multi-methodologies.
• Both in east and west, a movement away from single methodologies towards multi-methodologies to deal with complexity.

How do you get into a dialogue in the first place? There could be a complete set of different mental models, e.g. the negotiation of ground rules.

• The only alternative is for people to share papers.
• Consider a critique on existing models -- almost an emancipatory approach.
• e.g. if looked at people in China who had adopted Peter Checkland's approach, then would have a point of discussion.
• Need to see people writing up practice, not only people writing up theory.

In Chinese academia, need to work with other Chinese academics to get funding. Issues of working with the west. In China, the doctoral level means that you address the issue from a philosophical level. The western research is considered more legitimate than the classical philosophy, e.g. I Ching.

• Example: Ph.D. student interested in applying I Ching to software development, but advised to use Warfield's approach.

Systems thinking is always a means to an end. Then systems practice will become local and cultural. Don't believe in multi-culturalism.

• Ten years ago, WSR was not a method. Then came to the west, understood Habermas.

  We could understand our own thinking better. We summarize our experience as a method, and then come back to discuss with our colleagues.

• After all of this, WSR is still considered to be an Eastern methodology.

Gu: When went to UK, learned western's approach, but realized that some approaches couldn't be used in China

• Teaching methods are different.
• In China, need to respect the views of the leadership. Otherwise, won't even get funding.
• Similarly, Nakamori's approach was based on Japanese culture.

Differences in culture. In China, the students are quiet, but in Korea, they're very active.

Not just culture, but culture and age, culture and gender, culture and education. There are norms, but large variations around those norms.

System methodology and epistemology. What is behind system methodology? Holism. How do we divide the problem up? What's the standard?

Two types of system methodology. First simpler, using systems language. Second, finding the real essence of the system.

Jackson response: System methodology used holism.

• When first started using methodology, e.g. VSM or SSM, believed that they could embrace all of the complexity, with a single method.
• Don't know whether the model will or won't embrace all of the complexity. Could try coming from an alternative methodology, then can reflect on the limitations of each.

Zhu response: Is the operative method to break into the parts? Really, the challenge is to find a mutually acceptable solution to the situation.

• Moving away from ontological approach of cutting the whole into the parts.
• Seeking "good enough" solutions.

Any method has a purpose, and is determined. The purpose or inclinations will drive you towards a method. Can still have critiques. At some point, need to decide value, culture, and what you want to achieve.

Churchman: when you make a decision, you make a cut. Then, need to involve people in deciding the cut.

Breaking things down is a good idea, but is a leap in the dark, because you could cut the wrong way initially.

• e.g. the link between shili and convincing.
  • Convincing stages: technical, contextual and situational.
  • In renli (human relations), want needs, preferences and values.
  • Putting these together into a combination develops a hierarchy of needs, preferences and value.

• See Chinese more the others, whereas Americans more on situational/business (economic, emotional).
• These are all generalizations.

There's a persistent set of myths in the western culture -- a convenient metaphor -- which needs to get knocked down.

Uncomfortable with the idea of breaking things down -- which is reductionist. Should really be looking at different ways of dealing with holism.

• Can't take renli out, without looking at the relationships with wuli and shili.

The systems approach guides us to learn. Or the other way around, if system science doesn't help us do this, forget it!

Can we learn from methodologies outside our culture? What will be the real difficulties and benefits.

• We've haven't even addressed this issues theoretically. However, some effort has been put towards this.