Systems have souls.Yes, you read right, systems have souls. And that single sentence has the potential to have me excommunicated from my academic discipline. Not a single textbook on Operations Management mentions this statement.

Share Market Live

NSE

Operations Management has its roots in management science, and science demands proof for any statement. Where is the proof that a system has a soul? But wait, before you think about proof, first define the soul.

I offer no definitions; I offer no proof. I offer only the scientific temper of questioning: Does a system have a soul? The statement ‘systems have souls’ is thus a hypothesis that we would want to prove or disprove. I myself have not been able to prove or disprove this statement. But that does not mean others cannot. What worries me is not the proof either for or against this statement, nor the absence of proof, but the complete silence on this question in the Operations Management domain. It is as if this question is irrelevant. I beg to differ. I do not know of any question more fundamental to Operations Management than this one.

In the absence of proof or a counterexample, one approach towards progress is to raise the question at a metaphysical level. A philosophical treatment of this question is not meant to provide definite answers but to expound alternate viewpoints. I do not claim my viewpoint as superior, let alone infallible. In my view, systems have souls.

It does not matter what my view is; what matters is your own viewpoint. What do you think? Do systems have souls? The question is highly philosophical since you first need to ask yourself, do you have a soul? If your answer to this question is affirmative, stay with me and question my viewpoint. If the answer is negative, stay with me and question my viewpoint rigorously, and question your viewpoint too. If you have never been bothered by such questions, read no further.

But why are the two questions related? It is because the human observer and the organization being observed are both systems. Have you ever thought of yourself as a system? What is a system anyway?

A system is greater than the sum of its parts

This conception of a system mirrors the statement ‘The whole is greater than the sum of its parts’, attributed to Aristotle. Do you have parts in your body? Of course, you do. Your body has sub-systems, like the circulatory system, nervous system, digestive system, etc., which are themselves made up of smaller parts like individual cells. Each cell is itself a system made up of even smaller parts, and we can go on like this to sub-atomic particles.

Similarly, a car can be disassembled into sub-assemblies like the engine, transmission, chassis, etc., and further into individual parts made up of molecules.

An organization is made up of departments and factories with machines and workers. It is very easy to see that a system has parts. But a mere collection of the parts is not a system. A system is greater than the sum of its parts.

The quality which makes a system a ‘system’ is thus inherent in that word ‘greater’. If I disassemble a car and put all the parts in a box and give it to you, would you call it a car? Surely something is missing. The parts of the car need to interact with each other. In the process of this interaction, certain parts, like fuel, may get transformed.

It is worthwhile to think of a system as composed of components, a set of interactions, and a set of transformations. When the parts interact flawlessly, and the transformations occur as planned, the system exhibits synergy. It is this synergy which is the difference between the sum of the parts and the whole.

Note that synergy is not a part of the system, nor is it interaction or transformation. This synergy is a result, not a physical or logical input. Synergy has to be attained; it cannot be guaranteed by providing a set of inputs.

Excerpted with permission from Elephants & Cheetahs by Saral Mukherjee, published by Penguin Random House India. Title releases on January 25.