All Comments

I also wrote an article cover information management on my blog

A key reference which looked at (UK) healthcare delivery (which is interesting variation due to the "not for profit" / NHS stakeholder values, and hence expectations of the consumers of healthcare) is the Royal Academy of Engineering report "Engineering Better care". Particularly important consideration of how Systems, Design, People and Risk thinking need to be applied, and on making the "systems process" accessible.

The point is because the parts of a System of Systems are designed as independent systems then a) there is no single controlling architect (and procurement control doesn't do it) b) the System of Systems may be transient, and so "modifications" to the parts may not be feasible or economic c) many of the systems may already exist.....

please - it is important we get the fundamental properties clear!!!

But I am afraid this isn't good or clear enough, as this can be held to be true for a system (or anything that is considered as a system). So you have to make this article be clear that a system of systems is both a system (and a true system, with all the properties seen in a system that are used in Systems Thinking) with the following additional properties

a) the constituent elements in a systems of systems are in themselves "true" systems

b) typically there is no single owner for all the systems in a system of systems (making top down control hard!)

c) a system of systems may be a permanent or temporary connection of the consituent parts

Using David Snowden's Cynefin framework, this makes a System of Systems a "complex system", whereas a single system may be complex or complicated. Typically (if the consistuent system is a product) is a "complicated" system. This distinction is really important as there is a different approach needed for each (sense - analyse - respond for complicated, probe - sense - respond for complex)

Far too often I hear complex and complicated used interchangeably, and things that are just systems (say an aircraft) described as a system of systems (when it really isn't, its just its sub-systems are described as systems, and can be thought of as one to applying systems thinking / Systems Engineering). Just like with Systems Thinking, there is nothing wrong with applying Systems of Systems thinking to a system that isn't really one, but it isn't often very useful.

See chapters 4a and 4b "Ideas from systems thinking history" here https://bit.ly/2yXGImr

Chapter 4b points to where Ackoff confused social entities with activity systems, and Meadows confused goals without outcomes.