Peter Checkland is another system thinker that I have just discovered. Apparently he is well-known, but I find that systems thinkers are buried in a variety of disciplines, in this case management, and I wasn’t looking there.

This is from a 2000 journal article, Soft Systems Methodology: A Thirty Year Retrospective:

Although the history of thought reveals a number of holistic thinkers — Aristotle, Marx, Husserl among them — it was only in the 1950s that any version of holistic thinking became institutionalized. The kind of holistic thinking which then came to the fore, and was the concern of a newly created organization, was that which makes explicit use of the concept of ‘system’, and today it is ‘systems thinking’ in its various forms which would be taken to be the very paradigm of thinking holistically. In 1954, as recounted in Chapter 3 of Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, only one kind of systems thinking was on the table: the development of a mathematically expressed general theory of systems. It was supposed that this would provide a meta-level language and theory in which the problems of many different disciplines could be expressed and solved; and it was hoped that doing this would help to promote the unity of science.

These were the aspirations of the pioneers, but looking back from 1999 we can see that the project has not succeeded. The literature contains very little of the kind of outcomes anticipated by the founders of the Society for General Systems Research; and scholars in the many subject areas to which a holistic approach is relevant have been understandably reluctant to see their pet subject as simply one more example of some broader ‘general system’!

But the fact that general systems theory (GST) has failed in its application does not mean that systems thinking itself has failed. It has in fact flourished in several different ways which were not anticipated in 1954. There has been development of systems ideas as such, development of the use of systems ideas in particular subject areas, and combinations of the two. The development in the 1970s by Maturana and Varela (1980) of the concept of a system whose elements generate the system itself provided a way of capturing the essence of an autonomous living system without resorting to use of an observer’s notions of ‘purpose’, ‘goal’, ‘information processing’ or ‘function’. (This contrasts with the theory in Miller’s Living Systems (1978), which provides a general model of a living entity expressed in the language of an observer, so that what makes the entity autonomous is not central to the theory.) This provides a good example of the further development of systems ideas as such. The rethinking, by Chorley and Kennedy (1971), of physical geography as the study of the dynamics of systems of four kinds, is an example of the use of systems thinking to illuminate a particular subject area.

It’s sad to me to see his contention that general systems theory has failed.  It should be a central, foundational body of knowledge that people are trained in before they apply their focus to narrower fields. I have said many times, this would give a wider variety of intelligent people a shared body of knowledge, vocabulary, and respect for each other’s pursuits, and might accelerate the pace of innovation.