4 Levels of systems

You may have noticed that although I chose the ‘higher education system’ as my complex situation, the five systems of interest I have given of that situation are only parts of that complex situation. This relates back to my earlier comments about a hierarchy of (sub-) systems within systems. Kenneth Boulding (1956), an influential early systems theorist, suggested one such hierarchy for systems (or set of layered, nested or interdependent structures) with nine levels of ‘complexity’ as set out in Box 1.

Box 1 Boulding’s hierarchy of systems

  1. Static structural frameworks, such as bridges and crystals.
  2. Clock-works with pre-determined motion, such as wind-up toys or the solar system.
  3. Closed-loop control mechanisms, such as thermostats and automatic regulation in living organisms.
  4. Simple open systems that are self-maintaining such as living cells, or flames, or the vortex that forms as water flows down a plughole.
  5. Lower organisms such as plants that have separate organs but have little control over their own development.
  6. Animals that have a brain to guide behaviour and an ability to learn.
  7. Humans who exhibit language, self-consciousness, and conscious acquisition of knowledge.
  8. Socio-cultural systems whose members have different tasks but shared values, and which have a lot of internal communication.
  9. Transcendental systems such as the idea of God – inescapable unknowables.

Each level contains elements or components (sub-systems, sub-sub-systems, etc.) of all the other levels, but a new type of emergent property appears at that level. So you or I contain examples of all of levels 1-to-6, but also add on the special qualities of level 7. As you move up the hierarchy, complexity increases, in the sense that observers find it harder to predict what will happen. Boulding’s levels 1-5 are subdivisions of what can be called the rational-technical level. This level is often called the mechanistic level. Level 7 is roughly a personal level, 8 includes the wider environment level, and 9 the spiritual side to our lives.

4.1 Additional ways of identifying a system of interest

This is not the only way of describing hierarchies as it depends on the purpose behind the categorisation and the purpose we might ascribe to each (sub) system description (and Boulding’s descriptions are more recognised systems than explanatory systems as discussed earlier). However, there are additional ways of identifying a system of interest beyond that of ascribing a purpose to a system through a textual description using active verbs rather than passive nouns as I did in Activity 1. In Activity 2 you will explore another, visual, approach.

Activity 2 Identifying systems of interest – a visual approach

Allow approximately 10 minutes for this activity.

  1. Take an issue you are concerned about; one that puzzles or worries you and seems complicated.
  2. Take a piece of paper and write down a brief title to the puzzle or problem you face.
  3. Turn over the paper and on the other side jot down the first ten or so thoughts you have about the key features of the issue. Don’t write them down as a list, but write them as if they were in small boxes scattered at random on the page.
  4. Now see which of your thoughts have something in common, i.e. seem to be about the same point or problem, and draw a boundary round them. You may end up with two or three boundaries. Don’t include all your ideas just for the sake of it: if one or more seems to have no strong connection with any of the others, leave it without a boundary round it.
  5. For each set of thoughts enclosed in a boundary, write down the point or problem they have in common and then jot down any ideas you may have for dealing with that problem.
  6. Look at the brief title on the other side of the paper and see if what you have done has helped you to take a new view of the issue.

4.2 Commonly used criteria

In Activity 2 you were asked to draw a boundary round things that had something ‘in common’. That phrase was deliberately vague. You were not given any rules or guidelines for drawing boundaries, so you could see how you did it instinctively before you were given some commonly used criteria. For although these criteria can be very helpful, they can restrict ideas if used too rigidly. Often it is more helpful to draw the boundaries first and reflect on them afterwards, as in the exercise. But if this doesn’t generate new views, then try the following criteria:

  1. Interest and concern

    The boundary separates those aspects which are vital to you and those of secondary importance, but which may still exert an influence. In applying this criterion, you will find that you will have to think quite hard about your purpose by drawing the boundary. This point was at least partly dealt with by the second stage of Activity 2 when you were asked to write a brief title to the puzzle or problem you faced.

  2. Influence and control

    There are two ways in which this criterion can be used. First, boundaries can separate those aspects of the issue which are under the control of, or are strongly influenced by, separate people or groups. So, for example, this guideline can help you to become clear about the areas where you have power to make changes, and those which you have to accept as they are. Second, there will be times when there is a strong mutual influence between some aspects of the problem, but not others. Separating these two with a boundary will help to reveal that solutions to the problem will have to take account of the strong mutual influence.

  3. Time

    Boundaries can be drawn round aspects of the issue which raise short-term problems and those which have longer and more pervasive effects. This can help to reveal the limitations of solutions which only address the former.

In essence Activity 2 was trying to get you to draw what is known as a systems map of a situation, which is one way of representing a system of interest and is the subject of Week 4.