Biomatrix Theory makes some unique conceptual contributions to systems thinking, namely:
- A distinction between activity and entity systems.
Analogous to a fishing net that consists of threads and knots, the Biomatrix is a web that
consists of activity systems (i.e. thread-like or vector-like systems) and entity systems
(i.e. knot-like or field-like systems).
Examples of an entity system are the planet, a
society, an organization, an individual, a cell and an atom, while activity system refers to the
various activities or functions performed by these entity systems.
An entity system emerges
from a field of interacting activity systems, yet is more than the sum of its participating activity systems.
|
| Relevance: |
This distinction between activity and entity systems is important, because the design and
management of entity and activity systems involve different methods and theoretical guiding principles.
|
- Entity systems are characterised by a three-fold organisation.
Entity systems consist of three types of activity systems, namely outward, inward and self-directed
systems in terms of their purpose.
|
| Relevance: |
Amongst others, this three-fold organisation gives rise to a generic organisational structure, namely
a three-dimensional process matrix. (We regard this matrix structure as the new organisational structure
of the information age, replacing that of the traditional hierarchy of the industrial age.)
|
- Entity systems and activity systems interact and co-produce each other.
Activity systems give rise to entity systems and vice versa. Thereby all systems co-produce each other and co-evolve.
|
| Relevance: |
This implies that continuous change is inevitable and that systems need to be designed and structured
to manage ongoing change without loosing stability, similar to the surfer who needs to keep moving to
affect a stable ride, wave after wave.
|
- Co-production and co-evolution occurs across levels.
An entity system emerges from the interaction with systems in the outer and inner environment and with itself.
Thus, systems co-evolve across three levels.
|
| Relevance: |
This implies that a systems intervention needs to span three levels - the interaction of a system with its outer
environment, its inner environment and itself (e.g. self-reference, self-reflection and self-management).
Systems emerge in the middle from the co-production across three levels. This concept of the emerging middle
is a contribution of Biomatrix Theory to evolutionary theory in general.
|
- The Biomatrix consists of three interacting sub-webs.
One can distinguish between three types of systems - systems that evolved in nature, systems that emerge
from the mind of sentient beings and their interaction with each other (i.e. psychological and social systems)
and systems produced by them (i.e. technological systems).
We refer to these qualitatively different systems as the naturosphere, psycho-sociosphere and technosphere.
|
| Relevance: |
In spite of sharing the same organizational principles, these three types of systems also show differences
in organization, thereby requiring different problem (dis)solving approaches and interventions. Managing
the interface between them raises issues of carrying capacity and sustainability, amongst others.
|
- Biomatrix Theory emphasises the duality of process and structure.
Analogous to the wave - particle duality in physics - Biomatrix Theory emphasises the duality as well
as complementing aspects of the process and structure perspective of a system and outlines the organising
principles associated with each.
|
| Relevance: |
This duality of perspectives gives rise to a worldview that balances change and stability, connectivity
and containment, amongst others.
|
- Biomatrix Theory emphasizes the duality of organization in time and space.
The existence and continuity of the Biomatrix in time and space gives rise to different organising principles
in terms of time and space.
|
| Relevance: |
Harmonious co-existence between systems requires management from both perspectives. Likewise, the sustainable
development of systems must be managed from a temporal and spatial perspective.
|
- Systems link up with each other through tapping.
A contribution offered by a system to another system, needs to be tapped by the receiving system in
order to continue. Thus tapping facilitates the continuity of flow of substance, purpose and regulation
across system boundaries. The tapping interface also highlights the boundaries between systems.
|
| Relevance: |
Without tapping there is no continuity of systems. If tapping does not take place, it can be mediated.
During tapping the responsibility shifts from one system to another which has governance
implications (e.g. power issues).
|
- The substance of a system is comprised of mei fields.
The substance of a system is an interacting field of matter, energy and information or mei fields. It is
also referred to as the resources of the system.
|
| Relevance: |
Process and supply chain design and management need to consider the optimisation of mei flow and the
splitting of mei fields during processing into products and by-products, which become part of different
supply chains. The mei composition is also of relevance in resource management.
|
- Systems have a conceptual and physical reality.
Analogous to a house that is built (i.e. in physical reality) according to a plan (i.e. its conceptual reality),
the physical (Mei) reality of a system is in-formed (i.e. put into form) according to its conceptual (meI)
reality. Both types of systems are real with feedback loops between them.
|
| Relevance: |
A fault in the conceptual reality of a system will lead to a faulty physical reality of the system.
A systems redesign represents a change in the conceptual reality of the system. A systemic performance
management system in an organisation links the two realities, allowing continuous improvement of both.
|
- There are seven forces of organisation in a system.
Biomatrix Theory identifies seven aspects of systems organisation, namely ethos, aims, process, structure,
governance, substance and environmental interaction. Each of these aspects represents a different force
that co-produces the overall organisation of a system.
|
| Relevance: |
Optimal development of systems requires the development of the system in terms of each of the seven organising
aspects (whereby each aspect is associated with different change management approaches), as well as the
management of coherence and integration between the different systems aspects.
|
- One can distinguish two types of change within a system.
The seven forces of organisation interact with each other to give rise to two fundamentally different flows
of change, namely a clockwise flow of intended change and a counter-clockwise one of inherent change.
|
| Relevance: |
This distinction of different types of change provides an understanding of how systems develop,
change and transform and how one needs to manage change within a system.
|
- The various spatial organising principles of Biomatrix Theory give rise to a generic systems dynamics model.
The three types of activity systems within an entity system, the hierarchical organisation of entity systems,
the continuity of activity systems along and across levels, and the multi-dimensionality of systems provide a
generic systems dynamics. More specifically, the generic systems dynamics within the Biomatrix involves a multi-dimensional
inward, outward and self-directed flow of purpose and its associated flow of substance.
This generic systems dynamics provides a generic framework to analyse the flow and impact of change throughout the Biomatrix.
It prompts the systematic, as well as systemic identification of the variables of a systems dynamics model.
|
| Relevance: |
The generic systems dynamics allows for multi-dimensional interaction analysis along and across levels
which is useful in both, systems analysis and systems (re)design.
|
- Systems have a teleonic nature.
Biomatrix Theory suggests that systems are teleonic, meaning that their activities are driven by a “purpose”.
This purpose can be evolved, emergent or designed.
|
| Relevance: |
“Without vision, the systems perish”. A change in teleos (purpose or aim) will lead to a fundamental change of the system.
|
- There is telentropy in a system.
Until the outcomes of the activity have actually been achieved, systems have telentropy, implying
uncertainty of outcomes. Put differently, the concept of telentropy links the teleonic (i.e. conceptual)
realty of a system to its physical reality as expressed by the mei flow and configuration of the system,
whereby telentropy refers to a misalignment or gap between the two.
Because of the interaction of systems, this telentropy is passed from one system to another, following
the generic systems dynamics of the Biomatrix.
|
| Relevance: |
Telentropy needs to be managed. The method of tracing the nature and flow of telentropy through the generic
systems dynamics of the Biomatrix is referred to as telentropy tracing. It is also a useful tool in problem
analysis within and across systems and to optimise the interaction between systems across systems boundaries
(e.g. in supply chain management).
|
- The spatial and temporal organising principles give rise to frameworks for problem analysis and problem (dis)solving.
The spatial organisation of the Biomatrix provides various frameworks for systems analysis and ideal systems
(re)design, while the temporal organising principles provide a generic methodology for managing change in a
systemic manner.
|
| Relevance: |
This facilitates the (dis)solving of any type of organisational, societal or ecological problem, as well as
the restoration of systems in nature and the transformation of social systems. It provides the methodology
to develop strategies for dissolving society's most pervasive and perplexing problems (e.g. poverty,
ecological deterioration, unsustainable societal development, pandemics and infrastructure problems),
as well as methods to transform organisations and governments into learning organisations capable of
implementing those strategies.
|
