This paper explores Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) through the lenses of a theoretical framework that incorporates key concepts from Maturana’s Ontology of the Observer (OoO) with the view of complementing Checkland’s SSM application process. We outline and examine paradigmatic compatibility between: Checkland’s ontological position (reality is problematic/chaotic) together with his interpretivist epistemology (multiple perceptions enrich the ever-changing reality); and Maturana’s OoO (we are immersed in the praxis of living in an ontological multi-universe). We argue that OoO resonates with key SSM theoretical underpinnings. After establishing compatibility between these two influential systems thinkers, we advance a conceptual framework in which Checkland’s SSM learning process is re-visited through a the framework grounded on Maturana’s OoO. The proposed framework illustrates how key ideas drawn from Maturana’s OoO can shed light into the way in which some of the main SSM devices (i.e.: Root definitions, Conceptual model) are used in the SSM process. By doing that, SSM is enriched and becomes more flexible as the stakeholders involved are placed within the domain of constitutive ontologies from which, a deeper dialogue can be promoted in a domain of coexistence in mutual acceptance. We argue that this is a suitable way to have more flexible and holistic views for a SSM intervention in particular to promote the learning process and debating proposed changes amongst the stakeholders involved. The proposed framework, when applied, may enhance the power of SSM learning process and when adopted can have substantial implications to complement the SSM process.

Key words: problem structuring, systemic learning, soft systems methodology, ontology of the observer, multi-methodology.

Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model is the best known of the many cybernetic models he constructed over a career spanning more than 50 years. He explored the nec¬essary conditions for viability in any complex system whether an organism, an organi¬zation or a country. Although the model was first applied in his work in the steel industry, many further applications were made during his later work as a consultant. The best known of these was when he was invited by President Salvadore Allende of Chile in 1970 to model the social economy of that country. That experiment was brutally cut short in 1973 by the CIA assisted coup during which Allende was killed and Pinochet’s dictatorship installed. The model itself draws on mathematics, psychology, biology, neurophysiology, communication theory, anthropology and philosophy. It was first expressed in mathe¬matical terms in ‘The Cybernetic Factory’; next it was described in neurophysiological terms in Brain of the firm; and finally according to logic and graphic presentation in Heart of Enterprise and Diagnosing the System for Organizations. This last version is the one that is most accessible. It enables people to address organizational issues in a way that skirts the usual categories and organization charts and gets down to the actual necessary functions, no matter who is performing them. With this model people can get a boost as they diagnose or design an organizations. One aspect is to discover what the organization’s critical variables are and to find or install the homeostats that will show that they are maintaining equilibrium. Within that context, the model will help you ascertain that the principle functions and communications channels are in place and can function effectively. A crucial aspect of the VSM is that it is recursive; that is that the same relationships can be traced from the shop floor to the corporation or from the village to the country. Two examples will be discussed: a small business and the Chilean work from the 1970s. It is hoped that this will encourage people to imagine a world that works much better than it does now and where management is not defeated by complexity.

Key words: Viable System Model, Stafford Beer, Project Cybersyn

Autopoiesis and the Biology of Cognition attributes a practical and connotative role to language but also gives importance to emotions which together with language braid in forming the consensual domain of conversations of living organisms. This paper outlines the biology of cognition’s view that language has a connotative nature together with the claim that language’s role is a practical coordination of coordination of actions. In poetry, language becomes the medium for producing aesthetic events that grasp the domain of emotions of writer and reader. Reflecting on the type of language that poetry uses as a medium for its creation/poiesis, it is speculated that language expressed in the written form a poem seems to have both denotative and connotative nature which gives the description of the object the immediacy of both beauty and emotion. The paper argues that language in poetry does cease to have the practical role attributed by autopoiesis.

Key words: autopoiesis, language, cognition, poetry, biology of cognition.

This paper presents an activity and knowledge analysis using second-order cybernetics for analysing human activities in social-ecological systems. We do this with the case of smallholder farmers producing milk in Nakuru County, Kenya. The analysis is based on farmers′ actions and the knowledge behind their actions. Using this approach, we analysed how smallholder farmers regulate milk production and how they influence milk quality. Farmers influence milk quality with their routine and problem-solving management actions. The knowledge behind these actions can be represented as rules. We found that Routine Control Rules that influence milk quality aim to (i) minimize contamination (ii) maintain udder health, and (iii) preserve milk. Problem-Solving Control Rules aim to deal with disturbances associated with (i) market imperfection (ii) microbiological contamination (iii) disease, and (iv) unfavourable milk composition. The approach revealed key restrictions and disturbance factors influencing milk quality in smallholder dairy systems. It also allowed for co-identification of best practices and entry points for contextualized innovations, i.e. innovations that fit into the respective production context. The co-analysis led to changes in farmers’ practices, as it fostered the co-development of milk quality standards to be applied at the community level as preparation for collective marketing activities. When emphasis is placed on finding restrictions and developing innovations, the approach can be further applied to other land-use systems.

C. West Churchman and Humberto Maturana share similar cultural traditions involving frustrations with applying conventional systematic methods in domains of social systems design (Churchman) and neurobiology (Maturana). They have independently of each other developed a rich systemic framework of analysis based on a constructivist epistemology. But there appears to have been little correspondence between the two traditions. This paper explores six possible areas of congruence between the critical systemic perspective associated with Churchman and Maturana’s autopoiesis. This initial sketch reveals possible ways forward in applying ideas of autopoiesis to our social world through a more constructive and adaptive conversation with the works of Churchman.

Key words: autopoiesis, critical systemic.

This short paper revisits Bertalanffy’s open systems theory and Luhmann’s theory of autopoietic social systems in order to highlight the linkage between systemic complexity and the carrying capacity of the environment. Being paradigmatically focused on biological complexity, Bertalanffy’s work shows this linkage to be relatively unproblematic. In contrast, Luhmann argued that autopoietic social systems are likely to develop excessive complexity which overstrains the environment’s carrying capacity. The paper synthesizes these conceptions into a framework of discretionary social decision-making aimed at preventing systemic complexity from becoming excessive. Rooted in the idea of balancing the system and the environment, this framework determines the optimal level of systemic complexity as that level which systems can maximally attain without incurring the risk of self-destruction. The system–environment balance is shown to be the general systems theory core of Ulrich’s critical systems heuristics and critical systems thinking more generally.

Key words: open systems, autopoietic systems, complexity, environment, critical systems heuristics.