Introduction
An organization system is a compilation of elements or units that are well incorporated to achieve a general aim. The system consists of entities that undertake a course of action to generate definite outcomes that collectively, result in the desired yield for the arrangement. Therefore, a system comprises numerous sub-systems that work jointly to produce the required results by the main structure.
Systems thinking is a method that understands the systems from a viewpoint of the whole arrangement of the organization. This is done in dealing with its different smaller systems and the returning sequences in the interaction linking the smaller systems. In essence, system thinking assists in examining systems using an open approach. The manager operates by viewing the arrangements, models and sequences in the systems. This observation can assist in speedy recognition of genuine reasons for concerns in organizations and a focused remedy can be instituted. Standards and means for studying and modifying systems have been developed through systems thinking (McNamara, 2008).
Main Body
Organizations face challenges when managing their various sub-units to fit into the larger system and ultimately achieve the intended results. Identifying the reasons for poor results cannot be achieved by looking at the overall organizational results. An example can be seen in the military unit, where problems arise in the analysis of relationships of its activities with external forces. There are different external systems of laws that ideally encode the military units’ work. The officer in charge of the execution of duties has to first analyze these external laws so as to merge the military unit tasks effectively in accordance with these laws (McNamara, 2008).
The military unit has lots of duties that revolve around the personnel and the society in general. The military is known to depend on the environment for inputs into the organization. The commander assigned to the unit has to be aware of the external forces when planning for military tasks for the unit. They ought to have an understanding of the appearance of the force, the nature of its exploit and the commanding officer’s capacity to control it (Fedorov, 2001).
To curb the effects of these external forces, the military unit commander ensures that the unit soldiers are educated on the forces. They focus on efficiency when undertaking their activities. An improvement in the mechanical and logistic gear, increased aptitude of the workforce, lifting up their trade and industry knowledge, unity and group work improvement, increased legal knowledge and bearing, and use of international practices when managing combined tasks in the military unit. These tasks are achieved by targeted training of the personnel to be more aware of the forces (Fedorov, 2001).
A similar approach can be found in an orchestra group. The group taps inputs from their surroundings, develop them and creates an output. This input range from people to cultures and moral support. In order to flourish, the orchestra system relies on its surroundings and relations among its unit systems. In the symphony orchestra group, a multifaceted lay down of mutually supporting sub-systems is used. It absorbs in the form of statistics and synthesizes them in an assortment of techniques resulting in services and products for the people in its surrounding. Therefore, the orchestra group relies on the surrounding for its continuity to existing as an organization. The orchestra groups utilize money from the society in the form of wages and donations. There is also a reliance on the people to maintain a flow of voluntary resources. It also takes in permanent assets for its functions. The group releases music in live concerts and also recordings for long-term use. The groups thrive on their output which is music and sound for that matter. Over the years sound production has largely evolved with people having access to compact disc players and other devices. This has impacted negatively on the number of people who attend the concerts. Sound design plays a vital role in the music business and should be considered when producing music (Fedorov, 2001).
However, the industry has adopted good quality modern sound systems that are now being merged with the style of music. There have been developments of theaters in major areas for orchestra concerts performances just like in the earlier years. The industry used the surroundings again to develop methods of adopting the sound into the orchestra style of music (Fedorov, 2001).
Systems in military and orchestra organizations depend on the external surroundings for their functioning. They both need to have feedback from the immediate environment and for the other sub-systems within the organizations to work. The inputs they tap from the exterior are synthesized into different forms and hence the different outputs. This can be likened to living organisms that take in raw food and produce energy. The energy is used in the environment for benefit in the form of services. The similarity can also be observed in the prediction of the future trends in resource behavior. Alternatively, there is a difference in the services provided. The orchestra produces entertainment as opposed to the security services of the military units (Fedorov, 2001)
Educational institutions such as universities can be likened to living systems. They absorb personnel from the surroundings as their inputs together with other supporting resources. After a period they return to the society-qualified persons as the output. The use of persons makes these institutions similar to the military. The people are taken in and values are added to their skillset through training focusing on efficiency when taking responsibility. An enhancement in the aptitude of the students, lifting up their trade and industry knowledge, teamwork improvement, increased legal know-how and bearing, and use of international practices when studying courses. The general training of persons makes the university system similar to the military system (Flower, 1995).
A living system can be used to describe an organization as it takes in raw materials and synthesizes them into a more useful end product. It also uses the past to predict the future. This is similar in most organizations they utilize inputs focusing on future availability. From an organization’s inputs and outputs, one can be able to know what kind of institution it is. Similarly, living systems have inputs that they use to produce outputs that are having much greater value. For example, farms are planted with seeds and later crops are harvested. The farm seeds are living organisms and therefore produce crops. This is a futuristic phenomenon that is common to organisms and organizations (Flower, 1995).
Organizations can be thought of as organisms as they operate from a myriad of appendages that work independently but collectively to achieve an overall aim. Organisms take in raw materials from the environment and synthesize them into finished products. They do this with expectations of the future. This is similar to organizations such as universities that enable departments to develop and cope with advances in studies. Thinking of the organization as a machine will be relying on a single aspect of the full system. A mechanized system can only reflect what is current or in the past whereas an organism predicts the future (Flower, 1995).
Thinking in terms of systems in organizations can be of use in analysis of the firm. Diagnosis of a functional challenge can be easier if the system theory of an organization is well understood. It has been well understood that organizations are like organisms, they can predict the future by analysis of the past and the quantity and quality of the input. Managers can use a section of the overall organization system to alter the production level. However, this can be only used wisely if there is a factual understanding of the section of the firm (Flower, 1995).
Conclusion
Studies have been done to create awareness to break down the organization structure into cells. This results in a focused approach to inject change where necessary. Sections of the firm are easily managed to use resources more efficiently with predictions of future trends available. As opposed to trying to manage the whole firm, it is more practical to narrow down to where there is need for action and correct it. This will increase productivity with better use of resources.
Managers are therefore advised to be more proactive and learn how to be adaptable. Evolution into new trend will increase the yield of the firm if detected early. Change in the way management is done has continued to evolve over the years and should be welcomed.
List of references
Fedorov, G.S. (2001) The Military Unit as Part of the Armed Forces’ Economic System. Military Thought.
Flower, J. (1995) The Structure Of Organized Change: A conversation with Kevin Kelly. The Healthcare Forum Journal, vol. 38, no. 1, 1995.
McNamara, C. (2008). Systems Thinking.