Systemic analysis is a process of receiving answer to the question “Why is the overall goal of the system fulfilled (not fulfilled)?” The notion of “systemic analysis” includes other two notions: “system” and “analysis”. The notion of “system” is inseparably linked with the notion of the “goal/purpose of the system”. The notion “analysis” means examination by parts and arranging systematically (classification). Hence, the “systemic analysis” is the analysis of the goal/purpose of the system by its sub-goals (classification or hierarchy of the goals/purposes) and the analysis of the system by its subsystems (classification or hierarchy of systems) with the view of clarifying which subsystems and why can (can not) fulfill the goals (sub-goals) set forth before them. Any systems perform based on the principle “it is necessary and sufficient” which is an optimum control principle. The notion “it is necessary” determines the quality of the purpose, while the notion “is suficient” determines its quantity. If qualitative and quantitative parameters of the purpose of the given system can be satisfied, then the latter is sufficient. If the system cannot satisfy some of these parameters of the goal, it is insufficient. Why the given system cannot fulfill the given purpose? This question is answered by systemic analysis. Systemic analysis can show that such-and-such object “consists of... for…”, i.e. for what purpose the given object is made, of what elements it consists of and what role is played by each elementfor the achievement of this goal/purpose. The organic-morphological analysis, unlike systemic analysis, can show that such-and-such object “consists of... “, i.e. can only show of which elements the given object consists. Systemic analysis is not made arbitrarily, but is based on certain rules. The key conditions of systemic analysis are the account of complexityand hierarchy of goals/purposes and systems.
Complexity of systems. It is necessary to specify the notion of complexity of system. We have seen from the above that complexification of systems occurred basically for the account of complexification of control block. At that, complexity of executive elements could have been the most primitive despite the fact that control block at that could have been very complex. The system could contain only one type SFU and even only one SFU, i.e. to be monofunctional. But at the same time it could carry out its functions very precisely, with the account of external situation and even with the account of possibility of occurrence of new situations, if it had sufficiently complex control block. When the analysis of the complexity of system is made from the standpoint of cybernetics, the communication, informo-dynamics, etc. theories the subject discussed is the complexity of control block, rather than the complexity of the system. Note should be taken of that regardless of the degree of the system complexity two flows of activity are performed therein: information flow and a flow of target-oriented actions of the system. Information flow passes through the control block, whereas the flow of target-oriented actions passes through executive elements. Nevertheless, the notion of complexity may also concern the flows of target-oriented actions of systems. There exist mono- and multifunctional systems. There are no multi-purpose systems, but only mono-purpose systems, although the concept of “multi-purpose system” is being used. For example, they say that this fighter-bomber is multi-purpose because it can bomb and shoot down other aircrafts. But this aircraft still has only one general purpose: to destroy the enemy’s objects. This fighter-bomber just has more possibilities than a simple fighter or simple bomber. Hence, the notion of complexity concerns only the number and quality of actions of the system, which are determined by a number of levels of its hierarchy (see below), but not the number of its elements. Dinosaurs were much larger than mammals (had larger number of elements), but have been arranged much simpler. The simplest system is SFU (SystemicFunctional Unit). It fulfills its functions very crudely/inaccurately as the law that works is the “all-or-none” one and the system’s actions are the most primitive. Any SFU is the simplest/elementary defective system and its inferiority is shown in that such system can provide only certain quality of result of action, but cannot provide its optimum quantity. Various SFU may differ by the results of their actions (polytypic SFU), but they may not differ either (homotypic SFU). However, all of them work under the “all-or-none” law. In other words, the result of its action has no gradation or is zero (non-active phase), or maximum (active phase). SFU either reacts to external influence at maximum (result of action is maximum – “all”), or waits for external influence (the result of action is zero – “none”) and there is no gradation of the result of action. Each result of SFU action is a quantum (indivisible portion) of action. Monofunctional systems possess only one kind of result of action which is determined by their SFU type. They may contain any quantity of SFU, from one to maximum, but in any case these should be homotypic SFU. Their difference from the elementary system is only in the quantity of the result of action (quantitative difference). The monofunctional system may anyway perform its functions more accurately as its actions have steps of gradation of functions. The accuracy of performance of function depends on the value of action of single SFU, the NF intensity and the type of its control block, while the capacity depends on the number of SFU. The “smaller” the SFU, the higher the degree of possible accuracy is. The larger the number of SFU, the higher the capacity is. So, if the structure of the system’s executive elements (SFU structure) is homotypic, it is then multifunctional and simple system. But at that, its control block, for example, may be complex. In this case the system is simple with complex control block. The multifunctional system is a system which contains more than one type of monofunctional systems. It possesses many kinds of result of action and may perform several various functions (many functions). Any complex system may be broken down into several simple systems which we have already discussed above. The difference of multifunctional system from the monofunctional one is that the latter consists of itself and includes homotypic SFU, while complex system consists of several monofunctional systems with differentSFU types. And at that, these several simple systems are controlled by one common control block of any degree of complexity. The difference between monofunctional and multifunctional systems is in the quantity and quality of SFU. In order to avoid confusion of the complexity of systems with the complexity of their control block, it is easier to assume that there are monofunctional(simple) and multifunctional(complex) systems. In this case the concept of complexity of system would only apply to control block. In monofunctional system control block operates a set of own SFU regardless of the degree of its complexity. In multifunctional system control block of any degree of complexity operates several monofunctional subsystems, each of which has its SFU with their control blocks. It is complexity of control block that stipulates the complexity of the system, and not only the type of system, but the appurtenance of the given object to the category of systems. The presence of an appropriate control block conditions the presence of a system, whereas the absence of (any) control block conditions the absence of a system. Systems may have control blocks of a level not lower than simple. The full-fledged system can not have the simplest/elementary control block, whereas the SFU can.
So, the system is an object of certain degree of complexity which may tailor its functions to the load (to external influence). If its structure contains more than one SFU, the result of its action has the number of gradations equal to the number of its SFU or (identically) the number of quanta of action. The number of the system’s functions is determined by the number of polytypic monofunctional systems comprising the given system. In former times development of life was progressing towards the enlargement of animal body which provided some kind of guarantee in biological competition (quantitative competitionduring the epoch of dinosaurs). But the benefits has proven doubtful, the advantages turned out to be less than disadvantages, that is why monsters have died out. This is horizontal development of systems. If they differ in quality it is tantamount to the emergence of new multifunctional systems. Such construction of new systems is the development of systems along the vertical axis. The example of it is complexification of living organisms in process of evolution, from elementary unicellular to metazoan and the human being. What can be done by man can not be done by a reptile. However, what can be done by reptile can not be done by an infusorian (insect, jellyfish, amoeba, etc.). Complexification of living organisms occurred only for one cardinal purpose: to survive in whatever conditions (competition of species). Since conditions of existence are multifarious, the living organismas a system should be multifunctional. The character of a new system is determined by the structure of executive elements and control block features. If there is a need to extend the amplitude or the capacity of system’s performance the structure of executive elements should be uniform. To increase the amplitude of the system’s performance all SFU are aligned in a sequential series, while to increase the capacity – in a parallel series depending on the required quantity of the result of action (amplitude or capacity at the given concrete moment). Polytypic SFU have different purposes and consequently they have different functions. The differences of SFU stipulate their specialization, whereby each of them has special function inherent in it only. If the structure of any system comprises polytypic SFU, such system would be differentiated, having elements with different specialization. In systems with uniform SFU all elements have identical specialization. Therefore, there is no differentiation in such system. So, the concept of specialization characterizes a separate element, whereas the concept of differentiation characterizes the group of elements. The number of SFU in real systems is always finite and therefore the possibilities of real systems are finite and limited, too. Resources of any system depend on the number of SFU comprising its structure in the capacity of executive elements. The pistol may produce as many shots as is the number of cartridges available in it, and no more than that. The less the number of SFU is available in the system, the smaller the range of changes of external influence can lead to the exhaustion of its resources and the worse is its resistance to the external influence. By integrating various SFU in more and more complex systems it is possible to construct the systems with any preset properties (quality of the result of action) and capacities (amount of quanta of the result of action). At that, the elements of systems are the systems themselves, of a lower order though (subsystems) for these systems. And the given system itself may also be an element for the system of higher order. This is where the essence of hierarchy of systems lies.