{domain:"www.qualitydigest.com",server:"169.47.211.87"} Skip to main content

User account menu
Main navigation
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Videos/Webinars
    • All videos
    • Product Demos
    • Webinars
  • Advertise
    • Advertise
    • Submit B2B Press Release
    • Write for us
  • Metrology Hub
  • Training
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
Mobile Menu
  • Home
  • Topics
    • 3D Metrology-CMSC
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Login / Subscribe
  • More...
    • All Features
    • All News
    • All Videos
    • Contact
    • Training

A System Is Designed to Do Exactly What It Does, Or...

A constructivist’s view of POSIWID

Harish Jose
Wed, 05/04/2022 - 12:03
  • Comment
  • RSS

Social Sharing block

  • Print
  • Add new comment
Body

T he dictum, “purpose of a system is what it does” (POSWID) is famous in cybernetics, attributed to the management cybernetician Stafford Beer.

Beer notes: “A good observer will impute the purpose of the system from its actions and thus from the resultant state.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Hence the key aphorism and acronym. There is, after all, no point in claiming that the purpose of a system is to do what it consistently fails to do. I’ve written about this before here and here. In cybernetics, the emphasis is on what a “system” does, and not especially on what it is or what the designer or management of the “system” claims it’s doing. Thus, we can see that POSIWID has a special place in every cybernetician’s mind.

A “system” is a collection of variables that observers purposefully select to make sense of the world around them. The boundaries and parts of the system vary according to who is doing the observing. The purpose also is assigned by the observer.

 …

Want to continue?
Log in or create a FREE account.
Enter your username or email address
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.
Create a FREE account
Forgot My Password

Comments

Submitted by Alexander Solodkin (not verified) on Wed, 05/04/2022 - 09:22

Reference of quotes should be provided

Hi Harish,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts about systems and their purpose as well as Beer's view of this matter.

However, I think it could be prudent to share references to the sources of the Beer's quotes that you used in your post.

Regards,

Alexander Solodkin

  • Reply

Submitted by hjose on Thu, 05/05/2022 - 09:55

In reply to Reference of quotes should be provided by Alexander Solodkin (not verified)

Reference

Good suggestion. The source is The Heart of Enterprise. I will add that to the source post.

  • Reply

Submitted by Rip Stauffer on Wed, 05/04/2022 - 09:57

Nice to see this!

Back in the '90s, there was a discussion group (a listserv) called the Deming Electronic Network. Illuminaries in the world of Quailty held regular discussions there on various aspects of the System of Profound Knowledge, Deming's 14 points and 7 deadly diseases, and other related subjects. People like Myron Tribus, Heero Hacqueboord, Michael Tviete, David Kerridge and many others were regular discussants. Don Wheeler chimed in occasionally. Some of the topics really plumbed the depths of epistemology (especially pragmaticist epistemology, a la C. I. Lewis and C. S. Peirce), systems thinking, statistical thinking (especially analytic studies). Some excellent explanations of some otherwise very arcane topics (as well as some lively debates) emerged in those discussions, and I've always been disappointed that after the listserv shut down, no one compiled it or indexed it or made it otherwise available. For a while, you could access an archive at the Deming Institute, but I don't believe that's possible any more. 

Anyway, this is a long way to go to say I really enjoyed this article, because it brings some of those philosophical concepts back into the light. I especially thought the discussion of the height of Mt Everest was remeniscent...it brought all the discussions around the vital importance of operational definitions and Deming's quote "There is no true value of anything." 

  • Reply

Add new comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Please login to comment.
      

© 2025 Quality Digest. Copyright on content held by Quality Digest or by individual authors. Contact Quality Digest for reprint information.
“Quality Digest" is a trademark owned by Quality Circle Institute Inc.

footer
  • Home
  • Print QD: 1995-2008
  • Print QD: 2008-2009
  • Videos
  • Privacy Policy
  • Write for us
footer second menu
  • Subscribe to Quality Digest
  • About Us
  • Contact Us