The elements, or issues that are relevant in the management of any kind of situation should be carefully evaluated through a study of the nature of their impact and the intensity of the same.
This implies a systemic -cybernetic inquiry.
On the other hand no such inquiry can totally escape from personal prejudice. As a result, the aspects taken in account must be also scrutinized from that viewpoint. Very interesting ways to avoid underconceptualization are by using techniques of generative dialogue in design conversation (B. BANATHY), interpretive structural modeling (J. WARFIELD), or interpretive systemology (H. LOPEZ GARAY and R. FUENMAYOR)
In all cases, conversation and consensus are needed to avoid dubious and/or excessively subjective evaluations about the different aspects taken (or not taken!) into account. But, of course, strictly objective criteria of relevance cannot be established. In fact, it seems that we are still in want for a good theory of relevance (D. HOFSTADTER, 2000, p. 50-51)
- 1) General information
- 2) Methodology or model
- 3) Epistemology, ontology and semantics
- 4) Human sciences
- 5) Discipline oriented
To cite this page, please use the following information:
Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science (2020). Title of the entry. In Charles François (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics (2). Retrieved from www.systemspedia.org/[full/url]
We thank the following partners for making the open access of this volume possible: