Basic systems thinking requires the scientist to define:
what "the system" is that we are studying
We have to delineate the level of the system or part of a system. This may be a division of a large company or a function such as stock control or a process such as employee remuneration. Obviously we have small systems within larger ones and systems are linked with other systems; the banking system, systems of trade, an employment system, the contract of emplyment.
Such hierarchies (the worker, the department, the firm, the corporation, the industry, the trading bloc, the universe) can lead us into unmanageable complexity. We therefore have to be skilled in selecting and delineating the elements and the boundary of the system we wish to study. This is an inherent problem of taking a systems approach. As business scientists we must be aware of the level of our perspective or view on business.
Using the notion of a boundary we can specify what is inside the system we are studying, what is left outside and/or what crosses the system boundary. We define the elements - the givens and the variables to provide a coherent framework of analysis. We must recognise the limitations e.g. what we are and are not referencing in our study and what the consequences are to exclude consideration of something.
Our "rich picture" of, say, the stock management sub-system of a business, should account for assumptions (in drawing the boundary) and the importance or otherwise of omitted items.
If we are partial to 'hard science' commitments then we strive to define, measure and explain the relationships and the elements within our system boundary i.e. vital components/ingredients and the purposes serve. How concrete are these things? How do they manifest themselves? How are they felt or feature within the holistic scheme of things? How do they originate and why do we ascribe such significance to them?
We might be interested in why they are organised and structured as they are, how sub-parts function together and why components become specialised according to their associated functional and social processes.
Even if we subscribe more to 'soft science' interpretive commitments - we will still need to understand how we attach meaning to "boundary" issues: what we accept within the boundary of a definition and argument and what we may care to leave outside - because it is plainly not relevant or we choose to discount the significance for reasons of our own.
treatment of an analytic or abstract relationship as though it were a concrete entity.
Motivation cannot be weighed like sulphur or calculated like stress on an aircraft wing. However, peoples' opinions, what they say about themselves and others, their interpretation of the imprtance of things - can be defined and charted. The behaviours which are influenced by judgement cojnscious or otherwise may be defined and evaluated in terms of their effect on behaviour e.g. decisions in the market-pace.
A business is a social construct
It is created and developed by someone. It takes objective, tangible form in terms of e.g. its legal ownership, its buildings, products services, staff and the formal arrangements they work with.
Yet our perceptions and judgments on many aspects of business behaviour are subjectively defined. The status and contribution, events and influences that a business and businesses are associated with are interpreted by analysts (other business people, customers, theoreticians and politicians). Each person making statements about the form and behaviour of the business system will be selective in the values, criteria and assumptions they use.
