Hierarchy of goals/purposes and systems. The more complex the system, the wider the variety of external influences to which it reacts. But the system should always produce only specific (unique, univocal) reaction to certain influence (or certain combination of external influences) or specific series of reactions (unique/univocal series of reactions). In other words, the system always reacts only to one certain external influence and always produces only one specific reaction. But we always see “multi”-reactive systems. For example, we react to light, sound, etc. At the same time we can stand, run, lay, eat, shout, etc., i.e. we react to many external influences and we do many various actions. There is no contradiction here, as both the purposes and reactions may be simple and complex. The final overall objective of the system represents the logic sum of sub-goals/sub-purposes of its subsystems. The goal/purpose is built of sub-goals/sub-purposes. For example, the living organism has only one, but very complex purpose – to survive, by all means, and for this purpose it should feed. And for this purpose it is necessary to deliver nutriment for histic cells from the external medium. And for this purpose it is necessary first to get it. And for this purpose it is necessary to be able to run quickly (to fly, bite, grab, snap, etc.). Thereafter it is necessary to crush it, otherwise it won’t be possible to swallow it (chewing). Then it is necessary to “crush” long albumen molecules (gastric digestion). Then it is necessary to “crush” the scraps of the albumen molecules even to the smaller particles (digestion in duodenum). Then it is necessary to bring in the digested food to blood affluent to intestine (parietal digestion). Then it is necessary... And such “is necessary” may be quite many. But each of these “is necessary” is determined by a sub-goal at each level of hierarchy of purposes. And for every such sub-goal there exists certain subsystem at the respective level of hierarchy of subsystems. At that, each of them performs its own function. And in that way a lot of functions are accumulated in a system. However, all this hierarchy of functions is necessary for one unique cardinal purpose: to survive in this world. Any object represents a system and consists of elements, while each element is intended for the fulfillment of respective sub-goals (subtasks). The system has an overall specific goal and any of its elements represents a system in itself (subsystem of the given system), which has its own goal (sub-goal) and own result of action. When we say “overall specific goal” we mean not the goals/purposes of elements of the system, but the general/overall/ purpose which is reached by means of their interactions. The system has a goal/purpose which is not present in each of its element separately. But the overall goal of the system is split into sub-goals and these sub-goals are the purposes of its elements anyway. There are no systems in the form of indivisible object and any system consists of the group of elements. And each element, in turn, is a system (subsystem) in itself with its own purpose, being a sub-goal of the overall goal/general purpose/. To achieve the goal the system performs series of various actions and each of them is the result of action of its elements. The logic sum of all results of actions of the system’s subsystems is final function – the result of action of the given system. Thus, one cardinal purpose determines the system, while the sub-goal determines the subsystem. And so on and so forth deep into a hierarchy scale. The goal/purpose is split into sub-goals/sub-purposes and the hierarchy of purposes (logically connected chain of due actions) is built. To perform this purpose the system is built which consists of subsystems, each of which has to fulfill their respective sub-goals and capable to yield necessary respective result of action. That is how the hierarchy of subsystems is structured. The number of subsystems in the system is equal to he number of subtasks (subgoals) into which the overall goal is broken down. For example, the system is sited at a zero level of hierarchy, and all its subsystems are sited at a minus one, minus two, etc. levels, accordingly. The order of numeration of coordinates is relative. It means that the given system may enter the other, larger system, in the capacity of its subsystem. Then the larger system will be equalized to zero level, whereas the given system will be its subsystem and sited at a minus one level. The hierarchy scale of systems is built on the basis of hierarchy of goals/purposes. Target-specific actions of systems are performed by its executive elements, but to manage their target-oriented interaction the interaction of control block of the system with control blocks of its subsystems is needed. Therefore, the hierarchy scale of systems is, as a matter of fact, a hierarchic scale of control blocks of systems. This scale is designed based on a pyramid principle: one boss on top (the control block of the entire system), a number of its concrete subordinates below (control blocks of the system’s subsystems), their concrete subordinates under each of them (control blocks of the lower level subsystems), etc. At each level of hierarchy there exist own control blocks regulating the functions of respective subsystems. Hierarchical relations between control blocks of various levels are built on the basis of subordination of lower ranking blocks to those of higher level. In other words, the high level control block gives the order to the control blocksof lower level. Only 4 levels of hierarchy, from 0 to 3rd, are presented. The count is relative, whereby the level of the given system is assumed to be zero. The counting out may be continued both in the direction of higher and lower (negative) figures/values. The notions of “order” and “level” are identical. The notions of “system” and “subsystem” are identical, too. For example, instead of expression “a subsystem of minus second-order” one may say “a system of minus second-level”. And although a zero level is assumed the level of the system itself, the latter may be a part of other higher order system in the capacity of its subsystem. Then the number of its level can already become negative (relative numeration of level). Elements of each hierarchic level of systems are the parts of system, its subsystems, the systems of lower order. Therefore, the notions “part”, “executive element”, “subsystem”, “system” and in some cases even “element” are identical and relative. The choice of term is dictated only by convenience of accentuating the place of the given element in the hierarchy of system. The notion of hierarchic scale (or pyramid principle) is a very powerful tool and it embodies principal advantage of systemic analysis. Systemic analysis is impossible without this concept. Both our entire surrounding world and any living organism consist of infinite number of various elements which are relating to each other in varying ways. It is impossible to analyze all enormous volume of information characterizing infinite number of various elements. The concept of hierarchy of systems sharply restricts the number of elements subjected to the analysis. In the absence of it we should take into account all levels of the world around us, starting from elementary particles and up to global systems, such as an organism, a biosphere, a planet and so on. For global evaluation of any system it is sufficient to analyze three levels only: the global level of the system itself (its place in the hierarchy of higher systems); the level of its executive elements (their place in the hierarchy of the system itself); the level of its control elements (elements of control block of the system itself). To evaluate the system’s function it is necessary to determine the conformity of the result of action of the given system with its purpose – due result of action (global level of function of the system), the number of its subsystems and the conformity of their results of action with their purposes – due resultsof their action (local functional levels of executive elements) and evaluate the function of elements of control. In the long run the maximum level of function of system is determined by the logic sum of results of actions of all subsystems comprising its structure and optimality of control block performance. Abiding by the following chain of reasoning: “the presence of the goal/purpose for implementation of any specific condition, the presence of qualitative or quantitative novelty of the result of action, the presenceof a control (block) loop” it is possible to single out elements of any concrete system, show its hierarchy and divide cross systems in which the same elements perform various functions. Systems work under the logical law which main principle is the fulfillment of condition “... if..., then….”. In this condition “if ..” is the argument (purpose), while “then...” is the function (the result of action). This condition stipulates determinism in nature and hierarchy scale. Any law, natural or social, requires implementation of some condition and the basis of any condition is this logical connective “... if..., then…” At that, this logical connective concerns only two contiguous subsystems on a hierarchic scale. The argument “... if” is always specified by the system which is on a higher step, whereas the function “then…” is always performed by the system (subsystem) sited immediately underneath, at a lower step of a hierarchic scale. Actions of elements per se and interaction between the elements may be based on the laws of physics or chemistry (laws of electrodynamics, thermodynamics, mathematics, social or quantum laws, etc.). But the operation of control block is based only on the logical laws. And as far as control block determines the character of function of systems, it is arguable that systems work under the logic laws. Sometimes in human communities the “bosses” would imagine they may govern/control/ at any levels, but such type of management is the most inefficient one. The best type of management is when the director (the control block of multifunctional system) controls/manages/ only the chiefs of departments (control blocks of monofunctional systems), sets forth feasible tasks before them and demands the implementation thereof. At that, the number of its “assistant chiefs” should not exceed 7±2 (Muller's number). If some department does not implement its objectives, it means that either the departmental management (control block of a subsystem) is no good because has (a) failed to thoroughly devise and distribute the tasks between the subordinates (the SFU), or (b) has inadequately selected average executives (SFU), or (c) impracticable goal has been set forth before the department (before system), or (d) the director himself (control block of the system) is no class for the management. In such cases the system’s reorganization is necessary. But if the system is well elaborated and performs normally there is no sense for the director to “pry”into the department’s routine affairs. A chief of department is available for this purpose. The decision of the system reorganization is only taken when the system for some reason cannot fulfill the objective (system crisis). In the absence of crisis there is no sense in reorganization. For the purpose of reorganization the system changes the structure of its executive and control elements both at the expense of actuation (de-actuation) of additional subsystems and alteration of exit-entry combinations of these elements. In such cases skipping of some steps of hierarchy may occur and the principle “vassal of my vassal is not my vassal” violated. This is where the essential point of the system reorganization lies. At the same time, part of elements can be thrown out from the system as superfluous (that’s how at one time we lost, for example, cauda and branchiae), while other part may be included in the system’s structure or shifted on the hierarchy scale. But all that may only happen in process of the system reorganization proper. When the process of reorganization comes to an end and the reorganized system is able of performing the goal set forth before it (i.e. starts to function normally), the control law of “vassal of my vassal is not my vassal” is restored.
Consequences ensuing from axioms.
Independence of purpose. The purpose/goal does not depend on the object (system) as it is determined not by the given object or its needs, but by the need of other object in something (is dictated by the external medium or other system). But the notion of “system” in relation to the given object depends on the purpose, i.e. on the adequacy of possibilities of the given object to execute the goal set. The goal is set from the outside and the object is tailored to comply with it, but not other way round. Only in this case the object presents a system. Note should be taken again of the singularity of the first consequence: the system’s purpose/goal is determined by a need for something for some other object (external medium or other system). Common sense suggests that supposedly survivability is the need of the given organism (the given system). But it follows from the first consequence that the need to survive proceeds not from the given organism, but is set to it by another system external with respect to it, for example, the nature, and the organism tries to fulfill this objective.
Specialization of the system’s functions. In response to certain (specific) external influence the system always produces certain (specific) result of action. Specialization means purposefulness. Any system is specialized (purposeful) and follows from the axiom. There are no systems in abstracto, there are systems that are concrete. Therefore, any system has its specific purpose/goal. Executive elements (executive SFU) of some systems may be homotypic (identical, non-differentiated from each other). If executive elements differ from each other (are multitype), the given system consists of differentiated elements.
System integrity. The system exerts itself as a unitary and integral object. It follows from the unity of purpose which is inherent only in the system as a whole, but not in its separate elements in particular. The purpose consolidates the system’s elements in a comprehensive whole.
Limited discrecity of system. Nothing is indivisible and any system may be divided into parts. At the same time, any system consists of finite number of elements (parts): executive elements (subsystems, elements, SFU) and management elements (control block).
Hierarchy of system. The elements of a system relate to each other in varying ways and the place of each of them is the place onthe hierarchic scale of the system. Hierarchy of systems is stipulated by hierarchy of purposes. Any system has a purpose. And to achieve this purpose it is necessary to achieve a number of smaller sub-goals for which the large system contains a number of subsystems of various degree of complexity, from minimum (SFU) up to maximum possible complexity. Hierarchy is the difference between the purposes of the system and the purposes of its elements (subsystems) which are the sub-goals in respect to it. At that, the systems of higher order set the goals before the systems of lower order. So, the purpose of the highest order is subdivided into a number of sub-goals (the purposes of lower order). The hierarchy of purposes determines the hierarchy of systems. To achieve each of the sub-goals specific element is required (it follows from the conservation law). Management/control in a hierarchic scale is performed in accordance with the law “the vassal of my vassal is not my vassal”. In other words, direct control is only possible at the level “system - own subsystem”, and the control by super system of the subsystem of its systemis impossible. The tsar, should he wish to behead a criminal, would not do it himself, but would give a command to his subordinate executioner.
System function. The result of the system’s performance is its function. To achieve the purpose the system should perform purposefully certain actions the result of which would be the system’s function. The purpose is the argument for the system (imperative), while the result of action of the system is its function. The system’s functions are determined by a set of executive elements, their relative positioning and control block. The notions of “system” and “function” are inseparable. Nonfunctional systems are non-existent. “Functional system” is a tautology, because all systems are functional. However, there may be systems which are non-operational at the moment (in a standby mode). Following certain external influence upon the system it will necessarily yield certain specific result of action (it will function). In the absence of the external influence the system produces no actions (does not function). When taking into account the purpose, the argument is not the external influence, but the purpose. One should distinguish internal functions of the system (sub-function) belonging to its elements (to subsystems, SFU) and the external functions belonging to the entire system as a whole. The system’s external function of emergent property is the result of its own action produced by the system. Internal functions of the system are the results of action of its elements.
Effectiveness of systems. Correspondence of the result of action to the goal set characterizes the effectiveness of systems. Effectiveness of systems is directly linked with their function. The system’s function in terms of effectiveness may be sufficient, it may by hyperfunction, decelerating and completely (absolutely) insufficient function. The system performs some actions and it leads to the production of the result of its action which should meet the purpose for which the given system is created. Effectiveness of systems is based on their specialization. “The boots should be sown by shoemaker”. Doing the opposite does not always result in real systems’ actions that meet the target/preset results (partial effectiveness or its absence). The result of action of the system (its function) should completely correspond qualitatively and quantitatively to the preset purpose. It may mismatch, be incidental or even antagonistic (counter-purposeful); at that, real systems may produce all these kinds of results of action simultaneously. Only in ideal systems the result may completely meet the preset purpose (complete effectiveness). But systems with 100% performance factor are unknown to us. Integral result (integral function) is the sum of separate collateral/incidental and useful results of action. It is this sum that determines the appurtenance of the given object to the notion of “system” with regard to the given purpose. If the sum is positive, then with respect to the preset purpose the given object is a system of one or other efficiency. If the sum is equal to zero, the object is not a system with respect to the given purpose (neutral object). If the sum is negative, the given object is an anti-system (the system with minus sign preventing from the achievement of the goal/purpose). It applies both to systems and their elements. The higher the performance factor, the more effective the system is. Discrepancy of the result of action of the given system with the due value depends on unconformity of quantitative and qualitative resources of the system, for example, owing to breakage (destruction) or improper and/or insufficient development of its executive elements (SFU) and/or control. Therefore, any object is an element of a system only in the event that its actions (function) meet the achievement of the preset goal/purpose. Otherwise it is not an element of the given system. Effectiveness of systems is completely determined by limitation of actions of the systems.