The Metasystem, Rationalities, and Information

  • John P. van Gigch

Abstract

The metasystem approach is used to formulate the distinction’s among data, information, and intelligence. These forms of communication are conceptualized in terms of four types of rationalities which must be present to constitute a message that can lead to a goal-oriented decision. The importance of these factors for the design of viable systems that can avoid failure is explained.

Keywords

Procedural Rationality System Failure Structural Rationality Object Level Relational Universe 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    W. J. M. Kickert, Organisation of Decision Making (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1980).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    W. J. M. Kickert and J. P. van Gigch, Manage. Sci. 25, 1217 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Beer, Platform for Change (Wiley, New York, 1975).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Beer, The Heart of Enterprise (Wiley, New York, 1979).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Beer, Brain of the Firm, 2d. ed. (Wiley, New York, 1981).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. P. van Gigch, Int. J. Man-Machine Stud. 11, 651 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rationality is a concept that appeared, in 1947, in H. A. Simon’s doctoral thesis, and in all of his subsequent works. For an early definition see H. A. Simon, Administrative Behavior (Macmillan, New York, 1961), p. 75.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. A. Simon, Administrative Behavior, 3d ed. (Free Press, New York, 1976).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. A. Simon, in 25 Years of Economic Theory (T. J. Kastelein et al., eds.) (Nijhoff, Leiden, 1976).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. C. J. de Leeuw, “The Control Paradigm as an Aid for Understanding and Designing Organisations,” Proceedings of the Third European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research, Vienna (1976).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. C. J. de Leeuw, “On Coordination and Autonomy,” Proceedings of the Fifth European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research, Vienna (1980).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    W. J. M. Kickert, in Current Topics in Cybernetics and Systems (J. Rose, ed.) (Springer, Berlin, 1978).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    T. J. Murray, J. Appl. Syst. Anal. 6, 101 (1979).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. R. Royce and A. R. Buss, Canadian Psychol Rev. 17, 1 (1976); in.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. J. R. Royce and A. R. Buss, Gen. Syst. 24, 185 (1979).Google Scholar
  16. 15._M. Maruyama, Cybernetica 4 (1965); in Gen. Syst. 11, 55 (1966).Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    M. Maruyama, Curr. Anthropol. 21, 589 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 17.
    A. Locker and N. A. Coulter, Jr., Behav. Sci. 22, 197 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 18.
    J. R. Battista, Re-Vision, 99 (1978).Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    J. R. R. Battista, The Stream of Consciousness: Psychological Investigations into the Flow of Private Experience (K. Pope and J. Singer, eds.) (Plenum, New York, 1978).Google Scholar
  21. 20.
    R. O. Mason and E. B. Swanson, Calif. Manage. Rev. 21, 70 (1979); in.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. R. O. Mason and E. B. Swanson, Measurement for Management Decision (R. O. Mason and E. B. Swanson, eds.) (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1981).Google Scholar
  23. 21.
    G. Nadler, J. Appl. Syst. Anal. 6, 89 (1979).Google Scholar
  24. 22.
    G. Nadler, Design Stud. 1 (1980).Google Scholar
  25. 23.
    J. P. van Gigch, Applied General Systems Theory, 2d ed. (Harper and Row, London and New York, 1978).Google Scholar
  26. 24.
    J. P. van Gigch, Res. Methodology (California State University, Sacramento, 1982).Google Scholar
  27. 25.
    T. J. Murray, J. Appl. Syst. Anal. 6, 101 (1979).Google Scholar
  28. 26.
    P. W. Keen and M. S. Scott-Morton, Decision Support Systems (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1978).Google Scholar
  29. 27.
    Open University, Systems and Failures (Open University, Milton Keynes, England, 1976).Google Scholar
  30. 28.
    Open University, The Hixon Analysis Catastrophe and Its Preconditions (Open University, Milton Keynes, England, 1976).Google Scholar
  31. 29.
    B. A. Turner, Adm. Sci. Q. 21, 378 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 30.
    B. A. Turner, Man-Made Disasters (Crane Russak, New York, 1979).Google Scholar
  33. 31.
    V. Bignell, P. Peters, and C. Pym, Catastrophic Failures (Open University, Milton Keynes, England, 1977); V. Bignell and J. Fortune, Understanding Systems Failures (Manchester University Press, 1984).Google Scholar
  34. 32.
    B. Persson, ed., Surviving Failure: Patterns and Cases of Project Mismanagement (Almqvist and Wiskell International, Stockholm and Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1979).Google Scholar
  35. 33.
    J. P. van Gigch, IEEE Trans. Reliabil. 35, 131 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 34.
    National Transportation Safety Board, Aircraft Accident Report P.S.A., B-727 and Gibbs Flite Center Cessna 172, San Diego, CA (September 25, 1978), Washington, DC (1979).Google Scholar
  37. 35.
    B. Lundberg, in Surviving Failures: Patterns and Cases of Project Mismanagement (B. Persson, ed.) (Almqvist and Wiksell International, Stockholm and Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1979).Google Scholar
  38. 36.
    A. Wilson, in B. Persson, ed., Surviving Failures, Ref. 35.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • John P. van Gigch
    • 1
  1. 1.California State UniversitySacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations