The Legacy of C. West Churchman: A Framework for Social Systems Assessments.

Systems Research and Behavioral Science — 2003

3/12/15 - 1

The Legacy of C. West Churchman: A Framework for Social Systems

Assessments.

Harold G. Nelson [email protected]

ABSTRACT

This paper is an overview of a framework for social systems assessment based on my

study and work with C. West Churchman. The framework is an outgrowth of the

systems categories developed by Churchman as part of his definition of teleological

systems. It is an expansion of the methodologies used for socio-economic impact

assessments that has evolved out of the value distribution assessment process first used

in my graduate studies of the impact of geothermal energy development on rural

communities in northern California. This social systems assessment framework is

inclusive of social systems analysis, social systems intervention and social systems re-

design and provides an organizing structure for relating the diverse theories, methods

and experiences of systems scholars and practitioners. This framework is part of the rich

legacy of systems approaches that continue to be developed from the seminal work of

C. West Churchman

Key Words: C. West Churchman, social systems, systems assessment, value distribution

assessment, systems design.


3/12/15 - 2


3/12/15 - 3

INTRODUCTION

Based on the substantial scholarship of C. West Churchman, this is an overview of

the ongoing development of a systemic framework for making value distribution

assessments, social systems assessments and social systems re-designs. It is also a

reflection on the integrative influence of both West Churchman’s ideas and his integrity

as a person. It is an appreciative account of the professional influence of his character

and his intellect on the evolution of the role of a systems designer. Finally this is the

thread of a historical narrative that has evolved out of a life long collegial relationship

and a deep personal friendship that has formed between West Churchman and myself.

PERSONAL CONNECTION

I first met C. West Churchman in 1974 when I was a graduate student in

architecture in the College of Environmental Design at the University of California at

Berkeley. My introduction to him came when I attended a seminar given by a

distinguished professor from the Hass School of Business, who was also the Director of

the Center for Management Science. Professor West Churchman, or ‘West’ as all of his

students addressed him, talked about issues that went directly to the heart of questions I

had been struggling with professionally well before I came to Berkeley. My questions

were not just academic abstractions but were grounded in real world complexities and

contradictions. West Churchman offered a perspective that fit both reflection and

action.


3/12/15 - 4

Horst Rittel, a well-known design professor in the School of Architecture, told

me that he had been persuaded to come to Berkeley because West Churchman was a

professor there. I had great respect for Professor Rittel and his scholarship in design

thus I felt it would be well worth my time to become better acquainted with Professor

Churchman and his engaging ideas. As a consequence, I became one of the students

attending his seminars and participating in independent studies.

I became a regular in his famous Tuesday noon seminar that was open to any

and all who wished to attend, graduate student or not. The seminar focused on a wide

range of topics. For instance, it was in this seminar that I learned how Immanuel Kant,

the Eighteenth Century German philosopher, had direct relevance to the pragmatic

issues faced by decision-makers in everyday situations. I also learned about the

emergence of unintended consequences—too often negative—impacting people and

their environments that came as a consequence of outside interventions, even when well

intended. I was introduced to the consideration of how it should be possible, in his

words, to “secure improvement in the human condition” without causing such

unintended damage. This became an ongoing focus in my academic studies.

VALUE DISTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT

My interest in systems science and systems design led me to apply to the Ad

Hoc Ph.D. program that was offered at U.C. Berkeley. To be accepted into the program

I was required to design my own field of study—the Design of Social Systems—which

included the right to assemble my own faculty. West Churchman became the Chair of


3/12/15 - 5

my committee and the principle investigator for a research grant received from the

Department of Energy through the Lawrence Berkeley National Research Laboratory

(LBL). The grant was for support of my field research, which focused on the impact of

large-scale energy resource development projects on small rural communities (Nelson

1979).

It was during this research that I came to understand and appreciate many of

West Churchman’s seminal ideas as they played out in real world situations. Growing

out of the design of my doctoral program, the field research was focused on the impact

of geothermal development on farms, recreation areas, Native American enclaves and

small towns in Northern California. Under Churchman’s influence, my research

interests were not just concerned with the impact of resource development on the

environment and economy but on the residents of the area as well. This was an

exceptionally complex challenge because it involved Federal, State and local decision

makers as well as special interest groups in addition to the local citizens of the region.

The distinctive research strategy taken in this study was a value distribution

assessment approach (Churchman et al 1979). This was in contrast to the more common

means of analysis typically used in projects like this—the aggregate socio-economic

impact assessment of costs and benefits. The purpose of this innovative new approach

was to assess whom in particular was benefiting and who exactly was paying the

costs—social, cultural, economic, etc.—of the geothermal energy development program

in this rural California region. This turned out to be a controversial approach for some

authorities.


3/12/15 - 6

I learned that by taking this particular approach to an impact assessment process

an abstract philosophic concept could be operationalized in a concrete-particular

context. The abstract concept in this case was based on a corollary of Immanuel Kant’s

imperative to never treat a person as a means only, but as an end in himself or herself

(Kant 1788).

The ability to systemically model extremely complex situations and make some

sense out of them was a key consideration for using a systems approach when making

value distribution assessments. The systems approach used in this case was based on

Churchman’s earlier work beginning with his response to the basic question of “what is

a system?” (Churchman 1971):

We postulate that systems are examples of teleological things, i.e., things some of whose properties are functional.

• • •

Briefly, the necessary conditions that something S be conceived as a system are as follows:

1. S is teleological

2. S has a measure of performance

3. There exists a client whose interests (values) are served by S in such a manner that the higher the measure of performance, the better the interests are served, and more generally, the client is the standard of the measure of performance.

4. S has teleological components which coproduce the measure of performances of S.

5. S has an environment (defined either teleologically or ateleologically), which also coproduces the measure of performance of S


3/12/15 - 7

6. There exists a decision maker who – via his resources- can produce changes in the measures of performance of S’s components and hence changes in the measure of performance of S.

7. There exist a designer, who conceptualizes the nature of S in such a manner that the designer’s concepts potentially produce actions in the decision maker, and hence changes in the measures of performance of S’s Components, and hence changes in the measure of performance of S

8. The designer’s intention is to change S so as to maximize S’s value to the client.

9. S is “stable” with respect to the designer, in the sense that there is a built-in guarantee that the designer’s intention is ultimately realizable.1

From this definition Churchman formulated a set of categories (see Fig. 1) based

on the roles that people play in teleological systems which he continued to expand and

refine for several years2 (Churchman 1979). In his model one or more individuals can

fill a particular role, or the same person can fill different roles at the same time.

Therefore, this is not a political or psychological approach to systems assessment. His

approach is based on differentiating the functions served by people in a system rather

than on the behavior of particular people in a system. The focus is on roles and not

individuals. Each role has particular decision making responsibilities identified with it

that define the purpose of that role as a teleological function. The functionality of the

role is not defined so much by activity as it is by authority and responsibility.

1 The Design of Inquiring Systems, Pg. 43 2 The Systems Approach and Its Enemies, Pg. 79-80


3/12/15 - 8

Client Purpose of system

Measure of performance of system

Decision maker Environment of system Components of system

Planner

Implementation of plans Guarantor-of-design

Systems philosopher

Significance of systems approach Enemies of the systems approach

Fig. 1 Social Systems Categories—(Churchman 1979)

In this case the fundamental approach to the development of systems categories

that Churchman took was dramatically different from what I had come to expect from

systems scientists. The distinction that made this so startlingly different for me was the

focus on people as the scaffolding of a system, rather than merely a set in a

classification of elements. People are often considered as components of systems

models, but typically not as the organizing principle around which systems take shape.

This was also my introduction to the idea of an epistemological approach to

systems assessment in contrast to a strictly ontological approach. That is, one could

choose how to conceptualize a system. This is in distinction to the approaches that

assume discernible systems exists and need only to be rendered visible through

description and explanation using various systems nomenclature. A key insight for me

that took some time to become embodied in my thinking was the realization that how a

system is seen, depends on how you choose to look at it:


3/12/15 - 9

Indeed, the selection of a definition of “systems” is a design choice, because throughout this essay it is the designer who is the chief figure. In other words, whether or not something is a system is regarded as a specific choice of the designer.3

Churchman’s systems approach included a significant ethical component. In our

research, using a value distribution assessment approach, there were two contingencies

to be looked at sequentially using Churchman’s teleological categories as reference. The

first task was to describe who is filling each role. The second task involved determining

who ought to be filling each role from a deontic perspective. The distinction being made

was between what is the case—systems analysis—and what ought-to-be the case—

systems critique (see Fig. 2). The difference between the two—the is and the ought-to-

be—forms a problematic situation which is used to formulate the strategic direction for

a systems intervention.

systems analysis

systems critique

that-which-is that-which- ought-to-be

problematic situation

Fig. 2 Churchman’s Ethical Systems Assessment

3 The Design of Inquiring Systems, Pg. 42


3/12/15 - 10

For Churchman, the judgments required to bridge is statements to ought

statements come by way of an informed consensus4. An agreement that is to be reached

among all those who will be affected by the decisions made concerning possible choices

or actions to be taken in response to the existence of an undesirable situation

(Churchman 1961). Therefore one of the activities of our research team was to create a

newsletter providing information concerning the geothermal development process:

providing residents with information necessary to make informed decisions if given the

opportunity. We were informed by LBL that this was not the kind of activity (i.e. a

scientific intervention) researchers should be engaged in and our activity was stopped.

Because Lawrence Livermore National Research Laboratory (LLL) was

involved in making an impact analysis of the geothermal development in the same area

at the same time, we were able to make a comparison of their approach in contrast to

our own. The LLL approach resulted in the generation of immense amounts of detailed

measurable data such as: the actual or predicted quantities of particulate in the air,

levels of noise generated by steam wells now and in the future, and volumes of

industrial traffic on rural roads during construction and operation of the power plants.

The massive amount of data that was generated overwhelmed the local decision makers.

They had no way of objectively determining what was too loud, too dusty or too

anything. They could make their own quality-of-life judgments but such judgments

carry no credibility in an objective impact assessment process.


3/12/15 - 11

When the local decision makers could not reach consensus in the face of the

immense amount of objective data that had been generated for them decision making

was eventually taken over by the Federal and State decision makers. Of course the

question that remained was what objective means would State and Federal decision

makers use to reach equitable decisions based on the same kind and amount of data,

without being subjective themselves. The answer is that they couldn’t. Decisions were

made by using political reasoning.

The critical issue missed by all of us involved in these impact assessment

processes was, that objective descriptions and explanations do not prescribe what ought

to be the case—only what the case is from a rational perspective. Also, predictions of

outcomes from cause-effect chains do not justify what the intended outcomes ought to

be. Therefore, our value distribution assessment approach needed to be broadened to

include methods for determining strategies for action concomitant with more inclusive

systemic methods of inquiry.

SOCIAL SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT

I have continued to expand and refine the strategy for making social systems

assessments, based on the initial work I did with West Churchman as a graduate

student. This includes the development of a more inclusive framework for making such

assessments, which has proven to be an effective organizing strategy for conceptually

relating a multitude of systems models, theories, approaches and methods. It is also a

4 The Design of Inquiring Systems, Pg. 201-202


3/12/15 - 12

way to integrate, mindfully, the diversity of good ideas flowing from the work of other

scholars and practitioners in an ever more inclusive social systems assessment

approach.

A process that is both iterative and emergent animates the framework. As

presented here, it is much more fluid than might be implied by the graphics shown

below and in the way that the elements of the framework are presented individually in

the text. In reality there are no sharply delineated boundaries between the stages and

phases of the social systems assessment process. There are never-the-less identifiable

transitions between them. The transitions are not necessarily linear although there is a

composite arrow of time.

The first step taken in the expansion of the framework was to add systems

synthesis and systems intervention as bookend activities to the inceptive stages of

systems analysis and systems critique. The systems critique phase has also been

expanded to include: a focus on that which needs-to-be, in addition to that which ought-

to-be. Finally, the category of systems re-design has been added as a terminus stage in

the assessment process (see Fig. 3). Systems design is treated as an entirely different

process that is related to, but not part of the social systems assessment approach

introduced here.


3/12/15 - 13

systems re-design

that-which-is- desired-to-be

systems synthesis

systems analysis

systems critique

systems intervention


the whole

that-which- needs-to-be

that-which-is resolved-to-be

Fig. 3 An Organizing Framework for Social Systems Assessment

Systems synthesis is the critical first step in any assessment, because it provides

the holistic grasp of a system, from which all systemic components and relationships are

given meaning and functional, or even ultimate value. This step is also important

because it makes explicitly visible such often-missed details as the inseparable and

interconnected nature of the observers of systems and the systems observed.

The concept of wicked problems, in distinction to tame problems, becomes a

central consideration in the system intervention step (see Fig. 4). Horst Rittel made the

case that most significant problems cannot be treated as tame problems with clear, easy

steps for reaching a solution. They are in fact wicked problems (Rittel 1972), or messes

as Russell Ackoff prefers to call them (Ackoff 1974)—indeterminate and confounding

(see Fig. 5).

Systems intervention makes the intentional outcome of the system assessment

process explicit. Through iterations, this will reflexively determine how the emergent

problem is conceived, as it is taken up or extracted from the complexity of the situation


3/12/15 - 14

under assessment. In this phase, strategies are developed for getting from undesirable

situations to desired outcomes. It is within this phase that wicked problems are

transcended and messes are transformed into actionable situations.

systems synthesis

systems analysis

systems critique



the whole


1

23

• wicked problems • messes


• tame problems

• problematic situation

• discernment

• problematic situation

Fig. 4 Social Systems Assessment Framework Integrating ‘Problem’ Focused

Concepts from Churchman, Rittel and Ackoff.

STEPS IN TAME PROBLEM SOLVING: 1. UNDERSTAND PROBLEM

2. GATHER INFORMATION

3. ANALYZE INFORMATION

4. GENERATE SOLUTIONS

5. ASSESS THE SOLUTIONS

6. IMPLEMENT

7. TEST

8. MODIFY


3/12/15 - 15

CHARACTERISTICS OF WICKED PROBLEMS

• CANNOT BE EXHAUSTIVELY FORMULATED

• EVERY FORMULATION IS A STATEMENT OF A SOLUTION

• NO STOPPING RULE

• NO TRUE OR FALSE

• NO EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF OPERATIONS

• MANY EXPLANATIONS FOR THE SAME PROBLEM

• EVERY PROBLEM IS A SYMPTOM OF ANOTHER PROBLEM

• NO IMMEDIATE OR ULTIMATE TEST

• ONE-SHOT SOLUTIONS

• EVERY PROBLEM IS ESSENTIALLY UNIQUE

• PROBLEM SOLVER HAS NO RIGHT TO BE WRONG

Fig. 5 Tame and Wicked Problems—Rittel (1972)

Two types of problems emerge as a consequence of the discerned difference

between the assessment of the system as it is (synthetically and analytically) and the

situation that is determined to be either what ought to be the case—ethical problems—

or what needs to be the case—functional problems (see Fig. 6).


3/12/15 - 16

systems synthesis

systems analysis

systems critique


the whole that-which- needs-to-be

• ethical problems – deontic ideals

• functional problems – solutions – fixes & repairs• proablematic

situation

Fig. 6 Ethical & Functional Problems

These problems, whether recognized as tame or wicked, are defined through

judgment or by collective choice. Wicked problems, or messes, are dealt with by

stepping out of a problem solving mindset into traditions of action such as design.

TELEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS

A key aspect of this social systems assessment approach was developed during

my graduate research work with Churchman and has proven to be very practical and

effective over the years since then. This element of the assessment process is based on

the transformation of Churchman’s teleological systems categories5 into questions6

(Churchman et al 1979) (see Fig. 7). I have found that this approach provides an

important strategic framework for very complex situations that can seem overwhelming

5 The Design of Inquiring Systems, Pg. 200 6 Value Distribution Assessment of Geothermal Development in Lake County, CA. Pg. 3


3/12/15 - 17

at first. I have shared this approach with students, colleagues and clients, and they all

have found it to be an invaluable entry point into situations that would otherwise seem

unmanageable.

systems synthesis

systems analysis

systems critique



the whole

• clients - purpose - measure • decision makers - boundary - elements

• clients - purpose - measure • decision makers - boundary - elements • planners - plan - guarantor

• planners - plan - guarantor

? ?

? ?

? ?


Fig. 7 Assessment Questions Based on Churchman’s

Categories—(Churchman et al, 1979)

They are not easy questions to answer by any means, but knowing what to ask is

an essential confidence-building first step. By revisiting these questions outside of any

particular assessment situation, I continue building a conceptual and experiential basis

from which to commence future work. I have gained new insights, found connections to


3/12/15 - 18

the ideas and concepts of others and found relevance for the learning that comes from

my own experience. All as a result of the stimulus of these questions.

When clients and other stakeholders are asked to answer these questions on their

own, their contributions and comprehension are significantly enhanced. What is given,

and what needs to be determined, becomes clear to them and easy answers can be

quickly discredited and discarded when feasible to do so.

I have linked the questions based on Churchman’s category of systems planners

with the systems intervention stage by means of the intended action strategy of charted

solutions. I have also added questions based on a new teleological category—systems

re-designers (see Fig. 8). This new category contains its own is and ought questions,

which are linked to the step dealing with systems re-design by means of the intended

action strategy of re-designing.


3/12/15 - 19

systems synthesis

systems analysis

systems critique


systems re-design



the whole

• designers - design - guarantor

• designers - design - guarantor


• solutions


• designs

? ?

? ?



Fig. 8 Analysis and Critique Questions Linked to

Systems Intervention & Re-design

EXPANDING AND DEEPENING THE FRAMEWORK

I have used this social systems assessment framework effectively as an

organizing tool—a type of information system architecture—that creates places for

ideas that are related in some way to a systems thinking approach to assessment. This

includes loosely associated ideas as well as more tightly bound concepts.

This social systems assessment framework can accommodate ontological

systems approaches (see Fig. 9). Taxonomies and lists of attributes of systems are

essential in a systems analysis whether systems are treated as constructs or existing

artifacts. For example, descriptive factors such as: components, structures, processes,


3/12/15 - 20

functional assemblies, subsystems, relationships, boundaries and cohort systems are

examples of important constituent parts in any systems analysis.

Ontological domains that deal with systems as holistic entities are located in the

systems synthesis phase of a social systems assessment (see Fig. 9). As stated earlier, it

is within this first step of an assessment that we take into consideration issues such as

the inseparability between the observer of systems and the systems being observed. It is

also the place where the idea of emergence is considered. This concept deals with

qualities that manifest themselves only in the presence of systemic relationships that

form patterns, compositions and wholes.

systems re-design


systems synthesis

systems analysis

systems critique



the whole



• compontents • elements • relationships • protocols • patterns • processes • structures • subsystems • assemblies • boundaries • cybernetics

• observer & observed • emergence • composition • context • environment • frame • container • image • metaphor

Fig. 9 Ontological Approaches to Systems Synthesis and Systems Analysis


3/12/15 - 21

The issues of systemic contexts and systems environments are also essential in

determining the nature of any system as a whole. Determining the boundary and space

of a system is made through framing and containing judgments. This discernment

determines what is to be considered either as internal to the system or as external to the

system and what limits or defines the space, conceptual or literal, that the system

occupies. It is also in this phase that images of the system and explorations of

metaphors that capture the essence of a system as a whole, become considerations.

An epistemological example of the use of this systems assessment framework as

an organizing aid is seen in the location of the designs of inquiry explored by

Churchman (Churchman 1971) within systems analysis. These designs of inquiry,

including Liebnizian Fact Nets, Lockean Consensus, Kantian Representations, Hegelian

Dialectics and Singerian Progress, are examples of different historical approaches to

analyisis. The concept of multiple perspectives (technical, organizational and personal)

developed by Harold A. Linstone (Linstone 1984, 1999) that are based on Churchman’s

conceptualization of the Singerian design of inquiry, is an example of an increasingly

granular work that is easily accommodated within this framework. Churchman’s own

multiple perspectives—enemies of the systems approach (Churchman 1979)—are also

located within the systems analysis phase of the assessment process (see Fig 10).


3/12/15 - 22

systems synthesis

systems analysis

systems critique


systems re-design



the whole



• politics • morality • religion • aesthetics • systems approach

• reason - fact nets - consensus - representation - dialectic - progress

designs of inquiry:

multiple perspectives:

Fig. 10 Epistemological Approaches to

Systems Analysis—Churchman(1971, 1979)

Churchman’s use of the term enemy has perplexed some people who assume that

he is making a case against other designs of inquiry. However, he said that he used the

term in the spirit of a Christian tradition—to love your enemy. His intent was not to

polarize his systems approach, which for him was based on reason, against other

traditions of inquiry. He only wanted to demonstrate that these designs of inquiry could

be compelling, despite their distortion or exclusion of rational thought; thus denying the

full benefit of human reason as advanced by the systems approach. This led me to an

important insight concerning the consequences of being inclusive rather than exclusive

in my selection of approaches to inquiry and action. This inclusionary approach is


3/12/15 - 23

different from merely respecting and accepting a diversity of approaches. It is an

approach that leads to the creation of compound forms of inquiry embodying the best of

the traditions of inquiry chosen for inclusion.

RE-DESIGN

A degree of academic emancipation came from my introduction to Churchman’s

belief in the Singerian concept of sweeping in any form of inquiry, or information that

would contribute to a successful solution or best approximation of a real world

situation. First as his graduate student and later in my professional collaborations with

him, I was encouraged to consider including any approach that had relevance to the

work at hand—as long as it did not compromise quality or integrity. This became an

essential part of my systems approach.

As a consequence, this opened many productive avenues for the further

development of a Churchman inspired approach to social systems assessment. This

included the development of a systems approach that is multi-modal rather than

interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary. One such multi-modal assessment process is

based on design, or redesign, as a form of systemic inquiry and action. A colleague,

Prof. Erik Stolterman, and I have explored the concept of design thinking as a separate

and unique tradition of inquiry, which is distinct from traditional forms of inquiry such

as art or science (Nelson & Stolterman 2000a, 2000b, 2002, 2003).

An important point to restate here is that there is no clear, logical bridge

between dealing with wicked problems or messes and re-designing systems. Rittel’s


3/12/15 - 24

characterization of wicked problems leads to a form of assessment paralysis—a dead

end. There is no simple or direct way to go forward. To avoid paralysis, the strategist

needs to reframe the problematic circumstance into a design situation.

As presented here, the social systems assessment process is essential to any

successful re-design situation (it is equally essential in support of an inceptive design

process). However, there is a substantial difference between the two approaches—

systems assessment and re-designing. This is a crucial point that is not often made clear

in discourses on systems designing. Systems theories, methods, models etc. are essential

logical elements in any design composition process but they are just ingredients and not

the full recipe.

ASSESSMENT ASSERTIONS

A mnemonic aid for facilitating communication with stakeholders in social

systems assessment projects (an addendum to the teleological questions developed from

West Churchman’s original systems categories) consists of a list of assertions:

Synthesis and analysis: • The situation is this… • This is why… Critique and intervention: • The situation ought/should be this… • This is because… • This is how it is to be changed…


3/12/15 - 25

Ideal intervention: • The ideal situation is this… • This is the authority for the ideal… • This is how it can be approximated… Re-design intervention: • The desired improvements are these… • It is desired by (decision makers)… • It is desired for (clients, surrogate clients)… • These are the measure of performance… • These are the contexts & environment… • These are the means & resources… • These are the people involved… • These are the relationships and protocols…

Design intervention: • (Requires stepping out of assessment mind set)

This short list of assertions for each phase of the assessment process helps to

quickly give a sense of what the intended outcomes are for each stage. A distilled list

such as this, serves as a quick reference for stakeholders and participants in any social

systems assessment process. This set of assertions must be unpacked, expanded and

specified in great detail for any particular project or situation. Combinations of research,

observations, judgments and beliefs, are needed to support and complete each assertion.


3/12/15 - 26

SUMMARY

Each division of this systems assessment framework can obviously be expanded

and refined far beyond the examples given. The intention here has been to give a few

illustrations of the way Churchman’s ideas, concomitant with the work of others he has

influenced or been influenced by, can be fit into a generalized social systems

assessment framework. In actuality, each stage and phase of this assessment framework

would be filled out in great detail for every unique application.

This conceptual framework is a valuable and pragmatic means of ordering

information and guiding learning strategies in specific educational settings as well.

Churchman’s seminal ideas will continue to inform the future development of this

framework as both a practitioner’s and an academic’s aid in understanding and

changing human systems of immense complexity and richness.

Because this approach to social systems assessment was founded on the idea that

people are integral to any system formulation, it provides a means for including equal

concerns for what is true and what is right and just, what is aesthetically pleasing and

what is desirable—a seminal Churchman legacy. It is a human centered approach that is

both rigorous and relevant—another Churchman legacy. The focus on people as ends in

themselves, on ethical behavior, on sensing and acting on moral outrage, on being

inclusive and sweeping in, on respectful discourse and creative formulations of

systems—all Churchman legacies—flavors the substance of the framework.

The inclusion of future generations and others who cannot represent their own

interests as clients of systems assessments—a fundamental Churchman legacy—has


3/12/15 - 27

played an imperative role in the employment of this framework. The never-ending

questioning of pat answers and taken-for-granted assumptions—another Churchman

legacy—has given color and dimension to the framework. Most especially his legacy

guides the ongoing concern for how we are obliged to secure improvement in the human

condition.


3/12/15 - 28

REFERENCES

Ackoff, Russell L. (1974). Beyond Problem Solving. General Systems, XIX: 237-239

Churchman, C. W. (1961). Prediction and Optimal Decision: Philosophical Issues of a Science of Values. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Churchman, C. W. (1971). The Design of Inquiring Systems; Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization. Basic Books, Inc.: New York, NY. Churchman, C. W. (1979). The Systems Approach and Its Enemies. Basic Books, Inc.: New York, NY. Churchman, C. West, Harold G. Nelson and Kreg Eacret (1979). Value Distribution Assessment of Geothermal Development in Lake County. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Energy Contract No. W-7405-ENG-48, CA. LBL-6875, UC-66, TID-4500-R66. Kant, Immanuel (1788) Critique of Practical Reason. transl. By L. Whitebeck, 1956. Bobbs-Merrill: New York, NY. Linstone, H. A. (1984). Multiple Perspectives for Decision Making. North-Holland: New York, NY. Linstone, H. A. (1999). Decision Making for Technology Executives: Using Multiple Perspectives to Improve Performance. Artech House Publishers: Boston, MA. Nelson, H. G. (1979). Energy Resource Development and Community: Vanishing Community, Boom Town, Home Town. Ph.D. Dissertation in Design of Social Systems. Graduate Division of the University of California at Berkeley. Nelson, H. G. and E. Stolterman (2000). The Case for Design: Creating a Culture of Intention. Educational Technology XL (No. 6): 29-35. Nelson, H. G. and E. Stolterman (2000). Design as Being in Service. Foundations for the Future; Doctoral Education in Design:23-33. D. Durling and K. Friedman (eds.). Staffordshire University Press: Staffordshire, GB. Nelson, H. G. and E. Stolterman (2002). Design Judgment, Decision Making in the "Real World". Common Ground: 125. D. Durling and J. Shackleton (eds.). Staffordshire University Press: Staffordshire, GB.


3/12/15 - 29

Nelson, H. G. and E. Stolterman (2003). The Design Way; Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World, Foundations and Fundamentals of Design Competence. Educational Technology Publications, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Rittel, H. (1972). On the Planning Crisis: Systems Analysis of the 'First and Second Generations'. in Bedrifts Okonomen (Norway)(No. 8): 390-396.

The Legacy of C. West Churchman: A Framework for Social Systems Assessments.

Documents