Viable System Model - Essay Example

Beer's VSM (Viable System Model) Introduction Systems theory focuses on complexity and interdependence of relationships. A system is composed of regularly interacting or interdependent groups of activities/parts that form the emergent whole. Systems theory has had a significant effect on management science and understanding organizations. Systems theory has brought a new perspective for managers to interpret patterns and events in the workplace. They recognize the various parts of the organization, and, in particular, the interrelations of the parts, e.g., the coordination of central administration with its programs, engineering with manufacturing, supervisors with workers, etc. Origin and Overview The Viable System Model is based on work of Stafford Beer, continuing from the 1950s until the present. The basic style of this work is systems approach and it grows out of Beer's operations research background. A systems approach assumes (or claims to show) that all systems (things) operate according to some common fundamental rules, that analysis is usually best done from the top down, that the most fundamental rules deal with the dynamic interaction of a system and its component parts and that systems should be viewed recursively, that is, that each part of a system can itself be studied as a complete system (and vice versa). "Viable systems are those that are able to maintain a separate existence. Such systems have their own problem solving capacity. If they are to survive, they need not only the capacity to respond to familiar events such as customer orders, but the potential to respond to unexpected events, to the emergence of new social behaviors and even to painful catastrophes. The latter capacity is the hallmark of viable systems; it gives them the capacity to evolve and adapt to changing environments. While a catastrophic event may at a particular instant throw the viable system off balance, the fundamental characteristic of viability lessens its vulnerability to the unexpected, making it more adaptive to change." Not Available. February 28, 2006. Retrieved http://www.syncho.com/pages/pdf/INTRODUCTION%20TO%20THE%20VIABLE%20SYSTEM%20MODEL3.pdf For Beer, a system is viable if it is capable of responding to environmental changes even if those changes could not have been foreseen at the time the system was designed. The system must be able to respond appropriately to the various threats and opportunities presented by its environment. Beer's studies of the human form, the muscles and organs and all the various nervous systems were the inspiration for the Viable Systems Model. It may be considered as a generalization of the way that we all manage ourselves in response to a changing environment. Beer's first insight was to consider the human organism as three main interacting parts: the muscles & organs, the nervous systems, and the external environment. Generalizing these three parts resulted to: 1. The Operation: The muscles and organs, the bits that do all the basic work that is the primary activities. 2. The Metasystem: The brain and nervous systems, the parts that ensure that the various Operational units work together in an integrated, harmonious fashion. The job of the Metasystem is to hold the whole thing together. 3. The Environment: All those parts of the outside world, which are of direct relevance to the system in focus. According to this model, the organization is viewed as two parts: the Operation, which does all the basic work (production, distribution, earning the money) and the bits which provide a service to the Operation by ensuring the whole organization works together in an integrated way (scheduling, accounts, strategic planning...) These bits are called the Metasystem. And the Environment refers to all the external factors that influence the organization, its activities and people in one way or the other. An arrangement of five functional elements, which Beer call Systems 1 - 5, constitutes the basic Viability System Model. A brief description of Systems 1 - 5 is now given. The system 1 (which is also the part one as described above) of an organization consists of the various parts (subsystems) of it directly concerned with implementation. Central to Beer's reasoning is that each part of System 1, should be autonomous in its own right, so that it can absorb some of the massive environmental variety that would otherwise submerge higher management levels. Each subsystem should be itself a viable system. The management Metasystem, Systems 2 - 5, emerges from the need to facilitate the operation of System 1, and to ensure the suitable adaptation of the whole organization. System 2, co-ordination, is necessary to ensure that the various elements making up System 1 act in harmony. It ensures that there are ways of dealing with conflicting interests that are inevitable in the interactions, which occur as the parts of S1 interact. Conflict resolution is the job of System 2. System 2 is also given the job of ensuring stability. System 3 is a control function, ultimately responsible for the internal stability of the organization. Once the interactions of the System 1 units are rendered stable, it becomes essential to look at ways of optimizing these interactions. This is the job of System 3. System 3 works with an overview of the entire complex of interacting System 1 units and thinks, "If this one does this and that one does that, then the whole thing will work more effectively." This leads to synergy. System 3 is there to regulate System 1, and therefore its primary function is optimization. System 4, or the intelligence function, captures for the organization all relevant information about its total environment. Day to day interactions with the environment is handled by the subsystems in system 1. System 4 deals with the future environment. Once there is a stable, optimized set of Operational units, then it must be ensured that the organization can survive in a changing environment. This is the job of System 4. System 4 looks at the outside world, considers what it sees, looks for threats and opportunities, and schemes. System 4 is there to produce plans to ensure long-term viability. System 5 is responsible for policy and must also represent the essential qualities of the whole system to any wider system of which it is a part. The whole thing (organization) must function within some sort of overall context. Everyone must be pulling in the same direction. This is System 5's job. It provides the ground rules and the means of enforcing them to ensure that the system in complete. System 5 provides the ultimate authority. The decisions that do need to be made here concern how the operational system (system 1) should change its behavior to deal with the changing environment. This is based on intelligence information about the environment (filtered through system 4) and control information about the operational system (filtered through system 3). These two sources of information need to be in balance, so as well as dealing with the information; system 5 needs to ensure that the systems, which provide it, are properly designed.All the things that cannot be decided otherwise are decided here. Finally, an emergency system is needed to bypass the "proper channels" when an unexpected disaster occurs. A special 'algedonic' (pain/pleasure) filter is employed to separate out particularly important signals, which may require the intervention of senior management. Strengths Following are few important ways in which VSM serves most advantageously when it is used to assist management practice. First, the model is capable of dealing with organizations the parts of which are both vertically and horizontally interdependent. Horizontally interdependent sub-systems, the parts of System 1, are integrated and guided by the organizational meta-system, Systems 2 - 5. The problematic debate of centralization versus decentralization is dealt with in the VSM by arrangements to allow to the sub-systems as much autonomy as is consistent with overall systemic cohesiveness. Second, the model demands that attention be paid to the sources of command and control in the system. In the VSM, the source of control is spread throughout the architecture of the system. This allows the self-organizing tendencies present in all complex systems to be employed productively. Problems are corrected as closely as possible to the point where they occur. Motivation should be increased at lower levels. Higher management should be freed to concentrate on metasystemic functions. Third, the model offers a particularly suitable starting point for the design of information systems. This implies taking a reverse from the conventional and traditional hierarchical model of organization, where information processing system is designed and incorporated at a later stage in accordance with the hierarchy and the organizational structure. This model puts information processing first and makes recommendations for organizational design on the basis of information requirements. Fourth, the organization is represented as being in close interrelationship with its environment; both influencing it and being influenced by it. The organization does not simply react to its environment but can proactively attempt to change the environment in ways that will benefit the organization. Finally, the VSM can be used very effectively as a diagnostic tool to make specific recommendations for improving the performance of organizations. Criticism There are doubts whether the kind of intricate monitoring and control systems, implied in the VSM, can actually be made operable in organizations. In such systems there are potentially huge numbers of variables. There are problems in measuring how well a particular variable is actually performing. VSM takes the organization to be like a machine set up to carry through some purpose. Checkland (1980) prefers the phenomenological perspective in which organizations 'are perhaps not machines at all but processes in which different perceptions of reality are continuously negotiated and renegotiated.' Nonetheless, it is the operation of power in organizations, which ensures that the VSM's best intentions can get distorted. Beer himself acknowledges, in Diagnosing (1985, p. 91), the unfortunate effects the exercise of power can have in viable systems. In an organization disfigured by the operation of power, many of the features of the VSM that Beer sees as promoting decentralization and autonomy, instead offer to the powerful means for maintaining control and consolidating their own positions. Conclusion The arrangement of Systems 1 - 5, with development and policy located in Systems 4 and 5, take on a hierarchical significance. The autonomic management system, embedded in Systems 1 - 3, appears as a magnificent structure for ensuring conformance to externally established plans and procedures. The algedonic mechanism appears as a device for alerting higher management levels that lower levels are not doing their bidding. The VSM appears as a sophisticated organizational model of great generality. It is geared to tackling problems of differentiation and integration providing insight into the proper arrangement of command and control systems and into the design of appropriate management information and decision support systems; treating sensitively organization - environment relations; and yielding specific recommendations for improving the performance of organizations. The VSM sets down criteria for organizations to become viable, i.e. capable of sustaining themselves in their chosen environment through time. Viability implies the ability of the organization to go beyond merely doing what it does, and doing it well and efficiently. It implies the ability to change itself, its activities, its form, its identity, and the environment in which it operates. So to be viable, organizations need to be able to adapt, and furthermore, the mechanisms for adaptation need to present in all the sub-systems and sub-sub-systems of the organization. References The VSM - a guide for co-operatives and federations. February 28, 2006. Retrieved from http://www.greybox.uklinux.net/vsmg_2.2/contents.html BPT Lecture 4 - VSM. February 28, 2006. Retrieved from http://www-staff.mcs.uts.edu.au/jim/bpt/vsm.html Brief Overview of Contemporary Theories in Management. February 28, 2006. Retrieved from http://www.managementhelp.org/mgmnt/cntmpory.htm Not Available. February 28, 2006. Retrieved http://www.syncho.com/pages/pdf/INTRODUCTION%20TO%20THE%20VIABLE%20SYSTEM%20MODEL3.pdf Viable System. February 28, 2006. Retrieved http://artsandscience.concordia.ca/edtech/ETEC606/viablesystem.html Read More