Listening to the affected: Security in a Home Area Network

With the advent of smart appliances and objects, a smart home has never been this complex. Today’s homes are equipped with all kinds of smart objects capable of internet connectivity. Just a few years ago, a Home Area Network (HAN) only had personal computers and mobile devices making up the network. Today the picture is different, fridges, televisions, coffee machines, aircon, thermostats, and gate motors, just to name a few, are all now capable of communicating with each other and to the internet. This interconnectivity of various systems introduces a level of complexity to a HAN. For instance, these smart appliances and objects might be using different communication protocols, each manufacturer may implement security differently. With the lack of standardization when it comes to Internet of Things (IoT), this complexity opens up loopholes in the security of the smart home.    By looking at a smart home as a complex system made up of sub-systems that may impact the security of the whole network, systems thinking will be a suitable approach to address this problem. Systems thinking was developed as a means to address the complexity created by the interdependency of various systems, both existing and new ones. In this paper, we propose addressing the data privacy issues of smart homes by looking at the problem from a systems thinking perspective. With this perspective in mind, we can address the security problems in a smart by looking at it as a complex system. We relate the smart home as a system to Churchman’s definition of a system as a set of parts coordinated to accomplish a set of goals.  In this research, Critical Systems Thinking has been adopted as the preferred methodology for this research

BEING HUMAN IN AN IT ENVIRONMENT

In this paper, the reflection will be on different perspectives of humans living in an Information technology (IT) environment. The paper is based on work done by the researcher over many years in IT-related fields; looking back, seeing what is current and looking forward. Rapid change and emergence, complexity of systems, failed and challenged information systems, information and computer (in)security, lack of awareness and training (inter alia), all have an impact on being human in an IT environment. The problem statement that will be investigated is: "There is a lack of coherent knowledge of what is impacting the human living in the IT environment”. Humans manage their situation within the IT environment in silos and from their own perspectives. This topic is also being studied and addressed in a somewhat narrow, one-sided way, namely from own contexts. Rapid change within IT systems/software and platforms is not adequately adopted and incorporated by humans to understand how new/adapted systems operate and how to interact securely with these changes. There is thus a need is to ascertain what aspects have an influence on being human in the IT world in order to understand it and interact with it in a safe, holistic manner. The research methodology will be a critical systems thinking approach, where holism and emergence are of importance. The method applied will be a critical reflection of the aspects impacting the human living in the IT environment from different perspectives. Kant asked the three questions about reason: “What can I know?” “What must I do?” and “What may I hope?” These questions will lead this reflective paper, considering different perspectives when addressing the problem statement. The “what can I know” question will focus on several IT-related issues, such as information systems failures and challenges and the possible reasons of this, information security awareness, educational efforts to improve knowledge and skills when interacting with (using and developing) IT systems, and how to understand and incorporate the emergence and rapid change in the IT environment. The “what must I do” question will concentrate on the human’s role, e.g., as researcher, subject chair, software developer, engaging in professional societies etc. The “what may I hope” question will focus on how to bring about a better future for humans to cope with and to be living in the IT environment, based on insights and actions (know and do). This is the rationale of this paper – to reflect on how humans can be empowered (involved and affected) to live, work and flourish in the IT environment with all these challenges

Sciencing and Philosophizing on Threads in Systems Thinking: Tracing through the Texture of the Socio-Technical and Socio-Ecological Perspectives

Systems thinking rose in 20th century industrial society largely from post-WWII research.  Psychologists Eric L. Trist and Fred E. Emery were early in human relations, later turning towards sociology.  Philosophers C. West Churchman and Russell L. Ackoff were cofounders of Operations Research, applying pragmatism to problem-solving of complex issues.  The texture of Socio-Technical Systems (STS) and Socio-Ecological Systems (SES) perspectives interweaves with management science and inquiring systems. In the 21st century, the service economy and ecological Anthropocene followed advancement of the Internet and globalization through the 1990s.    Resurfacing Trist-Emery and Churchman-Ackoff for a new generation not only revisits their sciencing, but also philosophizing. Trist-Emery Socio-Psychological Systems (SPS) and STS perspectives extended the structuralist psychology of Gestalt, through Andras Angyal and Kurt Lewin.  The SES perspective built on the pragmatist metaphilosophy of Stephen C. Pepper.  Sciencing by Churchman-Ackoff encouraged Operations Research beyond math towards collaborative decision-making.  Postwar applied philosophizing built on the experimentalism of Edgar A. Singer Jr.  This lineage traces from the Metaphysical Club circa 1890, through the 1980s. Philosophizing in the 21st century provides new lenses for the system sciences.  Through ecological anthropology, Tim Ingold depicts the lives of lines, and texture in weaving.  Through Classical Chinese Medicine, Keekok Lee distinguishes yin qi and yang qi.  In post-colonial constructionist program of Rethinking Systems Thinking, principal concepts of (i) rhythm, (ii) texture, and (ii) propensity have become the core of Systems Changes Learning practices, theory, and methods. A new world hypothesis of (con)textural-dyadicism is proposed, combining STS and SES features.  The associated systems theory foregrounds time-space changes over defining space-time systems and boundaries.  Philosophizing across Western and Classical Chinese traditions requires deeper inquiry and education

SYSTEM THINKING MEETS DATA SCIENCE/ENGINEERING

With the advent of data 3.0 and analytics 3.0, system thinkers are in the position to provide a bigger picture in data science and data engineering. In the data life cycle, a system thinking approach emphasises data-driven decision-making. A System Thinker approaches problem-solving by viewing the problems as part of a wider, data-resourced and dynamic system, and a Data Practitioner supports the data life cycle by collecting, transforming, and analyzing data, and communicating results to inform and guide decision-making. This paper uses explanatory research and a pragmatic case study approach to look at the (i) What is the role of system thinking and data science/engineering skill in data-driven decision-making or organisation? (ii) Is the combination of system thinking and data science/engineering give rise to a new discipline? (iii) What are the skills needed in this new discipline? The research shows that the system thinking skills in the data life cycle are important. System thinkers meet data practitioners to provide a bigger picture of data-driven decision-making. The latter ascertains the position of a system thinker in any industrial revolution (i.e. industry 4.0. and industry 5.0). Furthermore, a Data-System Thinker is proposed as a new career field.&nbsp

DOCUMENTING EMERGENT KNOWLEDGE TO EXPLORE COMMON PERCEPTIONS OF WELL-BEING

This paper explores the potential role of systemic research and experiential learning to document emergent knowledge among somatic movement practitioners. Somatic practitioners study physical sensation to hone motor skills and body-centered awareness. I explored how somatic practitioners related movement experiences to their perceptions of physical and psycho-spiritual well-being. I used an online systemic research tool, WindTunneling (developed by systemic science researchers Bruce McKenzie and Jane Lorand), to gather individual experiential learning insights as an integrated part of a 16-week somatic movement program in 2022. This program introduced 978 international participants to a body-centered well-being philosophy. Participants studied bodily sensation, practiced somatic communication, and explored techniques to use movement to enhance their physical and psychological well-being. WindTunneling uses a structured process of anonymity and transparency to pool collective knowledge, which facilitates pattern emergence and sense-making by the researcher and the community at-large. I used WindTunneling with the aim to identify common perceptions of well-being. The discovery of commonalities could be a meaningful measurement of the program’s curriculum to develop individual capacity to use movement to enhance well-being. During the program, participants recorded 1,164 anonymous body sensation insights in 13 WindTunneling knowledge pools. These insights correlated to 13 somatic skills. Insights were transparently available to all participants to read and comment. I am synthesizing these insights to discover shared perceptions within the global practitioner community. Successful implementation of this research methodology should foster shared understanding, meaningful participation, and community belonging among global practitioners. &nbsp

EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SOCIAL SYSTEMS. SYSTEM-TRANSDISCIPLINARY VIEW

Abstract Problem: To answer the question "where is humanity going?" it is necessary to understand what humanity is and where it SHOULD go. Only by answering these questions will we be able to find the answer to the question "How will we get there?". To answer the question "What is a stable social system in a global system in crisis?" it is necessary to answer the question of what is a "stable system", "what is a social system" and "global system" and why crises arise.   Rationale: Obviously, the answers to these questions lie in the field of various scientific disciplines – philosophy, sociology, ecology, economics, politics, etc. Therefore, an approach with transdisciplinary potential is needed, which allows interpreting the achievements of various disciplines from unified ontological and methodological positions.   Methodology: A systematic approach will be able to find answers to these questions if ontological and epistemological principles are proposed that allow studying objects of different origins from a single systemic position. Such a concept, in our opinion, is the concept of a system-transdisciplinary approach. From the point of view of the philosophical principle of unicentrism, all existing fragments of the world realize within themselves a single order that generates them. Extrapolation of such ontological representations to the objects and processes under study makes it possible to look for systemic signs in their development and interpret them from a single position.   Results: "what is humanity." From the point of view of unicentrism, humanity as an object is a fragment of the planetary biosphere and cannot exist outside of it. Humanity transforms the matter and energy of the planet, just like any other fragment of the biosphere and the planet. what is a "sustainable social system" A person is at the same time a fragment of the biosphere, a social system, an economic system. The biosphere is a system that determines the emergence and existence of humans as a biological species. An economic system is a relationship between people in the process of creating, exchanging and distributing matter and energy in the form of goods. The social system is the order of the emergence and existence of social groups from the family to humanity as a whole. The task of the social system is the formation of values in the minds of people. The totality of values determines the behavior of people in natural, economic and social systems. The concept of sustainable development has been designated as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” From the point of view of the system-transdisciplinary concept, humanity can develop steadily if the principles of its nature-transforming activity correspond to the principles of coevolution and determinism of consumed matter and energy. «why crises arise». Crises are a manifestation of the systemic law of neutralization of dysfunctions. In accordance with the temporal patterns, the development of human society is adjusted in the appropriate periods. The depth and nature of crises depend on how much humanity has violated the principle of coevolution and determinism of needs. In order to achieve a state in which the needs of the present will be met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, it is necessary to change the value system. The proposed concept allows us to theoretically substantiate the thesis that the four aspects of sustainable human development – society, environment, culture and economy – are interconnected, not separated. &nbsp

The 2 FEEDBACK LOOP AXIOM: WHY PARTICIPATORY SYSTEMS METHODS FAIL AND ARE INAPPROPRIATE FOR COMPLEX SYSTEM PROBLEMS

It has been widely assumed in systems disciplines and systems professional practices that there are no intrinsic limits on individuals’ abilities to mentally understand and address complex systems situations.  This paper describes how this assumption is mistaken and the implication for systems research, systems science science, theories, methods,  and practices This paper identifies an explicit, biologically based cognitive bound on individuals’ abilities to mentally predict system behaviours and outcomes. It identifies this bound applies when system behaviours are shaped by two or more feedback loops. The analysis develops through exploring the central and essential role of prediction in addressing system problems, understanding system behaviour, and managing complex systems situations. As part of this exploration, the author draws attention to the existence of a widely held individual subjective delusion that such a bound on predicting systems outcomes does not exist, and does not limit the ability of individuals to understand and predict behaviours and outcomes of such systems regardless of the evidence otherwise. The author suggests the above faulty assumption and concurrent delusion  has led to systems professionals and others mistakenly claiming to be able understand and make valid decisions about complex systems when they are physically unable to do so. The implications of this 2-feedback loop limitation on human mental abilities to understand and managed impact several traditional assumptions of systems theories and practices. Firstly, this limitation on individuals’ abilities to mentally understand complex systems, and correctly predict systems behaviours when they derive from 2 or more feedback loops, means it is obviously of no advantage to ask multiple people, who are all incapable of understanding such system and predicting their behaviours if these are shaped by feedback loops beyond the 2-feedback loop boundary. This, then, obviously defines a boundary on the validity and applicability of participatory and consultative systems methods that ask individuals or groups about their understandings and suggestions for interventions because participants biologically-based lack of ability to correctly predict means such methods are invalid beyond the 2-feedback loop boundary. Secondly, for the above reason, it is suggested the two-feedback loop boundary provides a more appropriate basis for the definition of complex system and defines the boundary and difference between complex and merely complicated systems

Architecture, Ecology, and Hubris

In the context of the emerging environmental consciousness of the 1960s and 1970s, cybernetician Gregory Bateson identified one root cause of ecological crisis as Western culture’s hubristic tendency to see humans as separate from, above, and in competition with the environments on which they depend. While Bateson framed this hubris as “epistemological error”, addressing hubris is not simply a matter of adopting a better epistemology. In this paper I explore how hubris is reinforced by the aesthetics of the conventional built environment, such as in the (literal) construction of sharp distinctions between human and ecological worlds. I then discuss an example of how architectural design can present a challenge to hubris by embodying something of the complex entanglements of humans within ecosystems. I conclude by reflecting on the importance and difficulties of escaping hubris

There are Systems and Systems: Towards an Integrated General Systems Theory

This paper provides an overview of key concepts of Biomatrix Systems Theory and a framework for classifying systemic methodologies by means of mind-maps. The theory was co-developed by the Biomatrix Research Group in an interdisciplinary PhD programme at the University Cape Town, South Africa with the aim of co-producing an integrated trans-disciplinary systems theory. We suggest that the concept of the biomatrix and its different types of systems can be the foundation on which an integrated General Systems Theory can be further developed. Those concepts and some others are briefly described in the paper and illustrated with graphics

W/Holistic Participatory Democracy: An Ideal Societal Governance Design

This paper proposes the ideal design of a W/Holistic Participatory Democracy, based on the application of generic concepts of Biomatrix Systems Theory. The model distinguishes between the development of the nation as a coherent whole (i.e. as a social organism with a unique ethos) and its functional development. Based on this distinction, it proposes different government forums and various measures that encourage a more direct participation of citizens in societal governance. It also suggests that citizens participate in national governance as equal members of society and in functional governance as member of the specific function of which they are part