Chapter 4: SYSTEMS AND MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS

4.1 SYSTEMS CONCEPTS

A system is a collection of components that constitute a whole. Physical systems, such as
an IS and social systems, such as an organisation, are organised to achieve predefined
objectives. There are also abstract systems of concepts and ideas i.e. system theory.

A system operates in an environment, from which it is delimited by its boundary. Delimiting

a system from its environment gives us a ‘black box’ view of the system. When we take this
view, we do not care what is inside the ‘black box’

A further analysis of a system will progressively identify its sub-systems and then their own
components with increasing detail. Necessary interconnection between these components
will also be identified.

The entire system must be thought of in the light of its objectives (such as the type of
transactions it will support) and constraints (such as processing time, government
regulations and interaction with existing systems). This boundary delineation will, in turn,
lead into identification of the input to and output from the system.

4.1.1 Classification of systems

i) Natural and artificial systems
ii) Deterministic and probabilistic systems
iii) Closed and open systems

4.1.2 Systems Approach

The systems approach or systems theory is an approach (abstract system of ideas) to
problem solving - the problem being....how to structure an organisation or analyse an IS - in
which the entity being studied (an organisation or IS) is considered a system.

This implies that we must establish the objectives of the system, consider the totality of its
relationships with its environment, and identify in greater detail its components and their
interactions.
The systems approach is a method or framework, which helps us to analyse and explore the
operation and interactions which exist in the systems around us.

Features of the Systems Approach

The fundamental consideration affecting the design of information systems stem from
Systems Approach. The Approach has many facets but the following are the most salient:

1. All systems are composed of inter-related parts or sub-systems and the system can only
be explained as a whole.

2. Systems are hierarchical, that is, the parts and sub-systems are made up of other smaller
parts. For example, a payroll system is a subsystem of the Accounting System, which is a
sub of the whole organisation. One system is a sub of another...

3. The parts of a system constitute an indissoluble whole so that no part can be altered
without affecting other parts.

4. The sub-systems should work towards the goals of their higher systems and should not
pursue their own objectives independently. When subsystems pursue their own objectives, a
condition of sub-optimality arises, and with this the falling of the organisation is close at
hand!
Information systems designers should seek to avoid the sub-optimality problem!

5. Organisational systems contain both hard and soft properties. Hard properties are those
that can be assessed in some objective way e.g. the amount of PAYE tax with tax code, size
of product- quantifiable
Soft properties - constitute individual taste. They cannot be assessed by any objective
standard or measuring process e.g. appearance of a product, suitability of a person for job
and any problem containing a political element.

NOTE: The systems approach is also known as Systems Thinking or the General Systems
Theory (GST) It recognises that organisations as one example of a system, are complex
entities with multiple relationships. Helps designers to avoid a narrow view to the
examination of organisational operations and problems. (photocopy Lucey 32 - 39)

4.1.3 Structuring of systems:

Systems are designed (or analysed) by progressive decomposition. In the process of
decomposition, we progressively factor (breakdown) a system into its sub-systems, which
are in turn factored, until we reach the elements we consider primitive, for the purposes of
our design.

The goodness of a system’s structure depends on the degree to which the system sub-
systems are autonomous. Relatively autonomous (i.e. relatively independent) sub-systems
display a high degree of functional cohesion: It performs a well-defined function fully and
completely.

Relatively autonomous sub-systems are also loosely coupled with other sub-systems; that is
relatively few interfaces exist between the subsystems, and these interfaces are relatively
few.

Cohesion of sub-systems
Cohesion is the interrelationship of elements of a system.
A well-chosen sub-system displays a high degree of cohesion of its elements/ procedures
and a low degree of coupling (interrelationship). It performs well-defined functions
completely. What a subsystem function is depends on the decomposition level on which the
subsystem occurs.

Types of cohesion
 Data Type: Implements an abstract data type or object
 Functional: Elements collectively implement a single function or feature
 Logical: Elements form a set of logically related tasks
 Sequential: Elements executed in sequence
 Incidental: Unrelated elements

Advantages of cohesion
i) Changes to cohesive modules are likely to affect other modules, making them easier
to code, test, and maintain
ii) Cohesive modules are easier to understand, explain, and document
iii) It is easier to hide information in cohesive modules because communication between
the modules is minimised
Coupling
Can be defined as the interrelationship of modules in a system. It is the interrelationship or
dependence between subsystems of a system

Types of coupling
 Data definition: Modules share data declarations- data structure (integer, character)
 Data element: Modules pass data through a disciplined interface (intelligent interfaces)
 Control: One module affects control flow in another
 Global: Modules access global data- declared so at design!
 Content: One module alters private data or control in another module.

Disadvantages of coupling
i) Strongly coupled modules are hard to change independently
ii) Strongly coupled modules are hard to understand, explain, and document
iii) They are harder to test, debug, and maintain

Decoupling:
Interactions between subsystems contribute greatly to a system’s complexity. These
interfaces make systems more difficult to organise in the first place.

The interfaces also make systems more difficult to manage; the task of co-ordinating the
work of an organisational unit with the work of other units, it has to interact with, grows
rapidly as the number and intensity of these interactions increase.

Interactions also makes system modifications more difficult, since a change in one
subsystems may require a change in other subsystems it interacts with - and thus the
change ripples through a large part of the system.

Depending on the nature of the system and the trade-offs preferred, various decoupling
techniques may be adopted.

Decoupling aims at reducing the intensity of interactions between subsystem. Thus although
an interconnection between two subsystems may be necessary, we can often loosen it and
thus decrease the need for co-ordination.

The following means of decoupling are:

i. Inventories or Buffers:
The outward logistics subsystem, which delivers a firm’s products to their distributors, may
be decoupled from the production subsystem by imposing an inventory of materials between
the two.

Buffers are commonly used in computer hardware and software design to make paralleled
operation of various subsystems possible e.g. the input ‘from a users’ keyboard goes into a
buffer area in memory during the slow typing process, so that the central processor can at
the same time be executing another program at a far faster rate, processing the buffer
contents periodically.
 (ii) Slack Capacity
If a subsystem contains a slack capacity for processing input, the rate of input can be
temporarily delayed without the need for additional co-ordination or some other adjustments.

Slack capacity in a supplying subsystem may ensure the smooth operation of the receiving
system if it should temporarily require a greater rate of supply e.g. If the customer company
receives a surge of orders, the supplier can ensure delivery of need materials with extra
production capacity.

(iii) Flexible resources:

If a sub system can easily fulfil various rates on demand from another subsystem that
interacts with it little adjustment is needed to satisfy the change in the nature of the request.
Thus flexible-manufacturing system can easily accommodate a change in the nature of
orders.

Training personnel for several jobs may help a company respond faster to a change in
market demands.

(iv) Standardisation:
If the output of the supplying subsystem is standardised, the receiving subsystem, “knowing”
what to expect, needs hit the adjustment and may be more simply structured standards
reduce the need for communication e.g. if the corporate MIS department follows a
standardised system.

Development methodology, the need for communication among the organisational

subsystems involved in development is reduced.

In general, as products become more complex, they are also becoming parts of a system’s
receiving system if it should temporarily require a greater rate of supply e.g. if the customer
company receives a surge of orders the suppliers can ensure delivery of needed materials
with extra production capacity.

Note: A good system is that that is highly cohesive but loosely coupled, i.e. all
the elements (inputs, processes, outputs) are very interrelated but the
subsystems are free, or not so dependent on one another in their functions!

Organisational Design: Integration or Independence?

Subsystems can be made relatively independent of one another by decoupling. However,
decoupling carriers resource costs in the design of an organisation. If we forego decoupling
and tightly inter-relate subsystems the complexity of the integrated unit increases and it
becomes more difficult to manage.

Organisations in many situations have a choice between increasing the capabilities for
information processing and reducing performance levels through costly decoupling.
Costs of Independence through decoupling

Trade-offs between integration and independence

 Lower co-ordination needs
 Lower system complexity
 Lower risks if failure occurs
 Flexibility
 Efficiently
 Avoidance of sub optimisations
 Costs