The appropriateness of using the living systems theory by - DiVA

132 Pages·2009·0.68 MB·English

The appropriateness of using the living systems
theory by James Grier Miller as a diagnostic tool

M.Sc. Dissertation
2001

Lars Lorentsson

Department of Computer Science
University of Skövde, Box 408
S-54128 Skövde, SWEDEN

HS-IDA-MD-01-009
The appropriateness of using the living systems
theory by James Grier Miller as a diagnostic tool

Lars Lorentsson

Submitted by Lars Lorentsson to the University of Skövde as a
dissertation towards the degree of M.Sc. by examination and
dissertation in the Department of Computer Science

September 2001

I hereby certify that all material in this dissertation which is not my own
work has been identified and that no work is included for which a
degree has already has been conferred on me.

________________________________________________________
Lars Lorentsson
Abstract
Abstract
This work is a research in the field of systems science, emphasising the importance of
applying models and theories that have been developed in this area. This work studies the
possibility of using James Miller’s living systems theory (LST) as a diagnostic tool. The
application area was project management processes used when developing computerised
information systems. The focus on the analyses was on the critical subsystems that process
information. Based on this study it was found that LST function as a diagnostic tool
according to the following criteria: it was possible to identify the critical subsystems in the
application, the critical subsystems covered relevant information flows in the application and
LST could make a unique contribution in the analyses of the application.

Keywords: Living systems theory, Group, Diagnostic tool, Information processes
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ______________________________________________ 1
2 Background ______________________________________________ 2
2.1 What is Systems Science?____________________________________2
2.2 The Living Systems Theory ___________________________________3
2.2.1 The levels of Living Systems Theory________________________________ 4
2.2.1.1 The level of Community ______________________________________ 5
2.2.2 The critical subsystems of Living Systems Theory _____________________ 6
2.3 Living systems and mortality __________________________________9
2.4 The need for applications of systems science ____________________11
2.5 Information systems management processes ____________________12
2.5.1 What is information and what is data? ______________________________ 12
2.5.2 Computerised Information Systems – a definition _____________________ 13
2.5.3 The management process of developing information systems ____________ 14
3 Aims and objectives _______________________________________ 17
4 Methods ________________________________________________ 18
4.1 Different research methods and techniques ______________________18
4.2 Selected method and techniques ______________________________20
4.2.1 Interviews ____________________________________________________ 20
4.2.2 Observations __________________________________________________ 21
4.2.3 Literary studies ________________________________________________ 22
5 The group level and the information critical subsystems ___________ 23
5.1 The group level ___________________________________________23
5.2 The critical subsystems that process information at the group level ____25
5.3 Demands on living systems __________________________________28
6 Description of the utilised project management method at Volvo
Information Technology________________________________________ 30
6.1 The project management and systems development models _________31
6.2 The PCM-model___________________________________________31
I
Table of Contents
6.2.1 Short description of the PCM-model _______________________________ 32
6.2.2 A more thorough description of the PCM-model ______________________ 33
6.2.2.1 Roadmap ________________________________________________ 33
6.2.2.2 Gate ____________________________________________________ 33
6.2.2.3 Checkpoint _______________________________________________ 34
6.2.2.4 Project organisation _______________________________________ 35
6.2.2.5 Project documentation ______________________________________ 37
6.3 The AU-model ____________________________________________38
6.4 The relationship between the PCM-model and the AU-model ________39
6.5 Analysis of the PCM-model __________________________________40
7 Material ________________________________________________ 42
7.1 Sources for the documents __________________________________42
7.2 Why describing the documents? ______________________________42
7.3 Interviews and flows of information_____________________________43
7.3.1 Conditions for the interviews _____________________________________ 44
7.3.2 Some general views on the PCM-model_____________________________ 44
7.3.3 The manager of purchasing_______________________________________ 46
7.3.4 The project sponsor_____________________________________________ 47
7.3.5 The chairman of the SC _________________________________________ 49
7.3.6 The team-leader _______________________________________________ 50
7.3.7 The project manager ____________________________________________ 52
7.4 Flowcharts describing the different flows of information _____________57
8 Analysis ________________________________________________ 61
8.1 Is the project management group a living system?_________________61
8.2 Identification of the critical subsystems _________________________62
8.2.1 The boundary subsystem ________________________________________ 62
8.2.2 The reproducer subsystem _______________________________________ 64
8.2.3 The input transducer subsystem ___________________________________ 65
8.2.4 The internal transducer subsystem _________________________________ 67
8.2.5 The channel and net subsystem ___________________________________ 68
8.2.6 The timer subsystem ____________________________________________ 70
8.2.7 The decoder subsystem__________________________________________ 71
II
Table of Contents
8.2.8 The associator subsystem ________________________________________ 73
8.2.9 The memory subsystem _________________________________________ 74
8.2.10 The decider subsystem ________________________________________ 75
8.2.11 The encoder subsystem________________________________________ 77
8.2.12 The output transducer subsystem ________________________________ 79
8.3 A normative evaluation of the critical subsystems according to LST and
the corresponding subsystems in the application________________________80
8.3.1 The Boundary Subsystem________________________________________ 81
8.3.2 The Reproducer Subsystem ______________________________________ 82
8.3.3 The Input Transducer Subsystem __________________________________ 83
8.3.4 The internal transducer subsystem _________________________________ 85
8.3.5 The channel and net subsystem ___________________________________ 86
8.3.6 The timer subsystem ____________________________________________ 87
8.3.7 The decoder subsystem__________________________________________ 89
8.3.8 The associator subsystem ________________________________________ 91
8.3.9 The memory subsystem _________________________________________ 93
8.3.10 The decider subsystem ________________________________________ 95
8.3.11 The encoder subsystem________________________________________ 97
8.3.12 The output transducer subsystem ________________________________ 99
8.4 Summary of the analysis ___________________________________101
8.5 Problems concerning the flow of information in the application_______101
8.5.1 The problem _________________________________________________ 102
8.5.2 How malfunctions in the process of writing the charter can be identified with
help from LST ______________________________________________________ 102
9 Results ________________________________________________ 105
10 Discussion ___________________________________________ 106
10.1 Why do the subsystems of LST match the applied situation so well? __106
10.2 Reflections on LST as a diagnostic tool ________________________107
10.3 An alternative way to map processes specified by LST ____________109
10.4 Reflections on the working process ___________________________109
10.5 Strengths and weaknesses of this work ________________________110
10.6 Future Work _____________________________________________111
II I
Table of Contents
References ________________________________________________ 112
Appendix A ________________________________________________ 116
Appendix B ________________________________________________ 118

IV
Table of Figures
Table of Figures
Figure 1. The waterfall model (Boehm et al. 1977). ______________________________________ 15
Figure 2. Relationship between the levels of organism, group and organisation according to Miller
(1995). _________________________________________________________________________ 23
Figure 3. The PCM-model (PCM-Model, 2001). ________________________________________ 32
Figure 4. Gate decisions (PCM-Model, 2001). __________________________________________ 34
Figure 5. Checkpoint evaluations (PCM-Model, 2001). ___________________________________ 35
Figure 6. Relationship between the PCM- and the AU-models______________________________ 40
Figure 7. The general flow of formal information to and from the manager of purchasing ________ 47
Figure 8. The general flow of formal information to and from the project sponsor ______________ 49
Figure 9. The general flow of formal information to and from the chairman of the SC ___________ 50
Figure 10. The general flow of formal information to and from the team-leader ________________ 52
Figure 11. The general flows of development between gate G1 and gate G4 ___________________ 56
Figure 12. The general flow of formal information to and from the project manager_____________ 56
Figure 13. The transformation of request for an information system to a signed business agreement 58
Figure 14. The transformation of a business agreement into a signed project charter_____________ 58
Figure 15. The transformation of a signed project charter into a white book ___________________ 59
Figure 16. The processing and transformation of Change Management Council Meeting Minutes __ 60
Figure 17. The process and transformation of SCMN and SCMM ___________________________ 60
Figure 18. Input and output from the VIT PCM monitoring database ________________________ 60
Figure 19. PCM-documents (PCM-Model, 2001)_______________________________________ 119

V
Introduction
1 Introduction
In 1978 James Grier Miller presented living systems theory (LST). A theory that,
according to Miller, functions as a general theory for all systems that wants to be accounted
for as having life. Several researchers in the systems theory community (Linstone 1993,
Holmberg 1995, Taormina 1991, etc.) have expressed the need to find ways to apply system
theories and thereby give more legitimacy to the systems theory research area. The aim of
this work is to investigate the appropriateness of applying LST as a diagnostic tool. The
application is project management processes when designing and developing computerised
information systems. This study will analyse Miller’s critical subsystems with a focus on the
information processing critical subsystems and their connected processes. An analysis of the
specific application situation will also be carried out and finally LST will be applied to the
investigated situation.

This work is an attempt to examine and analyse LST in a real world situation and to
see how LST can contribute to the analysis of the flow of information in project management
processes when developing computerised information systems.

1
Background
2 Background
In this chapter a brief explanation of what systems science is will be described
followed by a presentation of Miller’s LST, which is the main theory in this work. A
discussion about the growing need for finding ways to apply systems science in real world
situations will then follow. Finally, the information flow in management processes when
developing information systems will be addressed, since this is the application area for this
work.

2.1 What is Systems Science?
According to Klir (1991), systems science is the field of scientific inquiry whose
objects of study are systems. In order to understand what this means it is necessary to explain
what a system is. A system is a set of related elements in an organised whole (Flood &
Carson, 1993). This means that there are elements grouped together that has relations to each
other and interact with each other in some way or another, and the constitution of these
elements and interactions is seen as a whole. Ackoff (1981) has a similar definition of a
system. A system is a whole that cannot be divided into independent parts. This means that
every part of a system has properties that it loses when separated from the system and that
every system has some properties, the essential ones, that none of its parts have (Ackoff,
1981).

An important concept, when talking about wholeness, is emergence, since these two
concepts are tightly coupled together. Emergence is something that happens when the whole
is greater than the sum of its parts (Flood & Carson, 1993). Systems science is therefore the
study of systems seen as wholes. This means that systems theory has a holistic approach
when confronting systems. Having a holistic approach means that one does not only focus on
the system at hand, but also on other systems in the environment and the impact these
systems have upon the system under study (and what impact the system under study has on
the surrounding systems, not to be forgotten). The systems are thus seen as open (exchanging
material, energy and information with its environment across a boundary) and interacting
with its surroundings. The main initiator of a general theory for systems science is
recognised as Bertalanffy (1969). Bertalanffy´s work on his General Systems Theory (GST)
in the 1940´s was based on the idea that homologies exists between disciplines that
2