The Ontology of Systems LTC Kristo S. Miettinen, North Central Information Operations Center, Coraopolis PA 15108 email: kristo.miettinen@us.army.mil; phone: (585) 269-5592 Abstract— Systems analysis comprehends systems in terms of and the system its emergent properties on the other. In a an ontology that relates any system, its elements, and its nested system-of-systems, Bertalanffy’s definition helps to environment in terms of their functional, structural, and explain what Ackoff’s definition asserts, particularly the behavioral relations. At the heart of systems ontology is “design”, distinction between functions and purposes. the combination of two interactive loops: one loop relating the system to its environment, the other loop relating the system to its Ackoff concludes from his definition that every element of a parts. For systems analysis, e.g. intelligence analysis of remotely system has essential properties that belong to it only by virtue sensed facilities in denied territory, these loops consider structure, of its being an element in the system, and also that every function, and process in the context of environment to develop system has essential properties that belong to none of its information (what), knowledge (how), and understanding (why) elements, either individually or in aggregation. Systems of the system and elements being studied. This exposition analysis exploits these two ontological conclusions to locate presents the interactive loops of design in systems ontology, treating analysis of Soviet national missile defenses as an example function among the essential properties of an element that it of successful application of systems ontology. has only in virtue of its being in a system, and to locate the purpose being served by a function among the essential Index Terms—Ballistic missile defense, cold war, intelligence properties of the system that belong to none of its elements. analysis, ontology, systems methodology These are ontological razors for winnowing candidate functions and candidate purposes in systems analysis. I. INTRODUCTION TO SYSTEMS The analysis of design in systems ontology leans heavily on II. DESIGN IN SYSTEMS ONTOLOGY the modern concept of a system, especially the definitions of “system” due to Bertalanffy and Ackoff. A. Definitions of “Design” Bertalanffy (1969, pp. 55-56) defined systems as follows: “Design” as a verb is a rational or economic act of “A system can be defined as a set of elements standing in requirements transformation. In engineering, requirements are interrelations. Interrelation means that elements, p, stand in transformed through many stages: from user requirements to relations, R, so that the behavior of an element p in R is system operational requirements through conceptual design, different from its behavior in another relation, R’. If the from system operational requirements to element functional behaviors in R and R’ are not different, there is no interaction, requirements through preliminary design, and from element and the elements behave independently with respect to the functional requirements to production requirements relations R and R’.” (specifications, schematics etc.) through detailed design. Ackoff’s subsequent restatement suppresses explicit Engineering design develops efficient applications of mention of the relations among elements (1981, pp. 15-16; see resources to satisfy needs. The economic or rational aspect of also 1972, 1974): “A system is a set of two or more elements design, combined with functional allocation in design, that satisfies the following three conditions. (1) The behavior distinguishes designs from other arrangements of parts for a of each element has an effect on the behavior of the whole… collective purpose by the economy of means to an end so that (2) The behavior of the elements and their effects on the whole nothing is invoked other than what is functionally justified. are interdependent… the way each element behaves and the In keeping with the definition of designing as an inherently way it affects the whole depends on how at least one other rational or economic activity, “design” as a noun is the element behaves… (3) However subgroups of the elements rationale for the requirements transformations understood in are formed, each has an effect on the behavior of the whole the structural, functional, and process relationships between and none has an independent effect on it.” the system, its environment, and its parts or elements. Ackoff’s and Bertalanffy’s definitions are compatible, but The outputs of engineering design are product and Ackoff’s definition avoids explicitly introducing the relations production specifications in sufficient detail to eliminate R as explaining differences in behavior of p, leaving the interpretation in the production process, rather than any interdependencies unexplained. This leads to abandonment of cognitive basis for requirements transformations. “Design” as reductionism, which is characteristic of systems thinking. a noun is not the outcome of “design” as a verb; schematics Bertalanffy’s definition is important for illuminating why it is and specifications are not designs but rather summaries of that systems have the kinds of irreducibility that are made design sufficient for production. That there is more to a design implicit in Ackoff’s definition: it is the relations of the than is captured in schematics and specifications is evident elements to the system and to one another that give the when designs are protected as proprietary, or delivered from a elements their system-dependent properties on the one hand, vendor to a customer in cases of contracting design, or archived for future use. What is included in an archived coincidence. So, for instance, if a function of a search radar in design, or in a design delivered under a standard contract, or is a BMD system is to cue targeting radars, and if RV destruction protected as proprietary when safeguarding designs, includes is a purpose of the BMD system, then that does not entail that performance analyses, trade studies, and the development of cueing targeting radars is a purpose of the search radar (i.e. an those alternative system concepts that were evaluated but not, end served by functions of elements of the radar such as the in the end, chosen for production. What is included in the antenna, transceiver, beam-former, power supply etc.), nor object called a “design” is the entire rationale for the does it entail that RV destruction is a function of the BMD requirements transformations specified in the design process. system in the national defense architecture. Both of these Complementing the distinction between the noun “design” hypotheses are, in practice, reliable starting points for iterative and the products of the activity called “design” is the systems analysis, but they are not necessary consequences of distinction between comprehending the design of something, search radar function or BMD system purpose. e.g. a surface-to-air (SAM) missile complex, and apprehending C. Analogy of Engineering and Analysis the prior occurrence of an act of design; to acknowledge the design of something is only to judge that the relationships Design in systems ontology is the combination of two between elements and their capabilities at successive interactive loops, one addressing the relationship of the system hierarchical levels of nested systems are rational or to its environment, the other addressing the relationship of the economical. The rationality of design is ontological (specific system to its parts. In systems engineering, the two loops are to the relations among elements), and specifically an analytical called preliminary design and detailed design, while in systems rationality (comprehensibility) rather than an etiological analysis they are called expansion and reduction. Analysis rationality. The cause of rationality in design is not the mirrors the structure of engineering even when analysis is rationality of any designer, but rather the environmental, conducted without access to system designers, because of the technical, and economic constraints within which the system is ontological commitments of scientific realism regarding realized. Failing to appreciate this distinction, by insisting on systems: systems being what they are, they must be analyzed the rationality of causal agents, leads to a characteristic failure (and designed, if designed at all) in terms of the underlying of analysis discussed in section IV.b below. reality of systems, which involves the two loops of design. Viewed from the perspective of any arbitrary element Yb (a B. Function and Purpose functionally specified constituent of a system X), preliminary Functions are not arbitrary properties of system elements; design of X and expansion of Yb both determine the function of they must be among those properties that are essential to the Yb as a contribution to the comprising whole X, while detailed element as an element, in light of the essence of systems (the design of X and reduction of Yb determine the structure of Yb interdependence of behaviors of systems and elements). This and how it works. distinguishes the intercept function of an anti-ballistic-missile (ABM) in a national missile defense (NMD) system from its X non-functional trans-sonic boom. Claiming that the sonic Yc boom is non-functional is to claim that there is no system that Yb Zb3 can be fully analyzed in terms of the ontology of systems, Expansion of Yb Ya whose design leads to the ascription of any function or purpose Preliminary Design of X Zb2 to the sonic boom of an ABM. Any well-formed system Reduction of Yb Zb1 comprising the ABM will avoid such ascriptions; any putative Detailed Design of X system whose analysis entails such ascriptions for the sonic Fig. 1. Nested design loops of systems methodology boom of the ABM will fail to converge on a design, as discussed in section IV.a below. The relationship between the systems engineering design of Similarly, the ends served by the functions of the elements X and the systems analysis of one of its elements Yb is (i.e. the purposes of the system) are among those properties of illustrated in figure 1 above for a system X consisting of the whole system that are essential to the system as a system. elements Yi, each of which in turn consists of sub-elements Zij. For instance, if a function of a search radar in a ballistic- The nesting can continue indefinitely in both directions: X can missile defense (BMD) system is cueing targeting radars, and be an element of some other larger comprising super-system if re-entry vehicle (RV) destruction is the purpose served by W, and each Zij can in turn be an object of either design or that function, then this entails (1) that RV destruction is an analysis, so that the preliminary design of X may also be part emergent property of the BMD system, (2) that the search of the detailed design of W, and the detailed design of X may radar is an element of that system, and (3) that the search radar comprise the preliminary designs of the Yi and the conceptual does not cue targeting radars apart from its belonging to a designs of the Zij. BMD system. Figure 1 offers an opportunity to distinguish functions from Functions and purposes are separated by one hierarchical purposes using Bertalanffy’s definition of a system. Consider layer in a nested system-of-systems, but purposes at one level the relations Rzb found among the elements Zbj in the reduction are not the same as functions at the next, except by of Yb, and the relations Ry found among the elements Yi in the expansion of Yb. The functions of the elements Zbj serve acquiring the target at a range in excess of 1000 kilometers purposes inherent in Yb, and the function of Yb serves a and passing targeting data to Triad radars and the interceptor purpose inherent in X. The question to consider is whether the launch site (Lee, 1997). function of Yb and the purposes inherent in Yb are identical. Following this successful test, operational deployment of Systems ontology answers “no, except by coincidence”, missile defense systems began in 1962-63, with simultaneous because the function of Yb is among those properties that Yb construction of the Moscow zonal missile defense system (with has in virtue of relations Ry rather than any alternative R’y, its characteristic Dog House and Pillbox radars), and the while the purposes inherent in Yb are among those properties Soviet national BMD system, with its Hen House and Pechora- that Yb has in virtue of relations Rzb rather than any alternative class large phased array radars (LPAR), most famously the R’zb. The function of Yb and the purposes inherent in Yb are LPAR at Krasnoyarsk. both at the same hierarchical level (i.e. they are both in Yb), but American intelligence analysis of Soviet missile defense they are determined by distinct relations Ry and Rzb at adjacent development could only rely on external observations of hierarchical levels, and therefore they are not identical, though various kinds, such as operating frequencies and pulse they may correspond to one another. durations collected from Soviet radars, observation of tests at Sary Shagan, and overhead photographs of missile D. Relating Structure, Function, and Process installations. Analyses of this evidence were based on the As summarized by Gharajedaghi (1999, pp. 112-113), the ontology of systems. During the mid-1960s, while systems design approach to systems analysis iteratively examines analysis of Soviet missile defense failed to understand the structure, function, and process to develop understanding in significance of many tests conducted at Sary Shagan or the terms of design. In the ontology of systems, process and relationship between the Hen House radar network and the structure co-produce function in the context of environment, so Moscow missile defense network, US national intelligence that inquiry necessarily becomes iterative because of the cyclic estimates (NIE) nonetheless correctly determined that the graph ontology of systems. Structure, function, and process Soviets were deploying NMD. These assessments were are each co-produced by the others, as well as co-producing ultimately challenged in the late 1960s as the USA and the each other. Therefore, developing new understanding of each Soviet Union began negotiating what would become the 1972 necessarily modifies understanding of the others, in a ABM treaty, and the diplomatic community imposed a change converging sequence of mutual dependence. in the nature of evidence required for those claiming that the The producer/product relationship is Singer’s framework for Soviets had deployed NMD (Lee, 1997), since Soviet explanation in the world of complex objects without sufficient authorities denied deploying NMD and the treaty forbade it. causation. In this framework, producers are necessary but not The 1960s-era systems analyses of Soviet NMD proceeded sufficient for their products, in the manner of acorns being from fixing observed Soviet interceptor limitations (especially necessary but not sufficient for oak trees. Singer (1924, 1959) their slow speed, about 2 kilometers per second, and their uses the producer/product relationship to develop a pragmatic languid initial acceleration) as technological design constraints theory of choice, purpose, and free will, and extends the under the ontological razor of rational economy of means, and relationship in various ways to account for reproducers, co- concluding from this that any Soviet NMD would have to producers, potential producers, and other analogues for operate in battle management mode rather than point defense biological and ecological systems. Following Churchman or perimeter defense mode. With this in mind, the question of (1971, 1979), systems analysis uses the same ontological whether the Soviets were deploying NMD was analytically framework for developing an objective theory of function and reduced to four core questions, all potentially answerable from purpose. Function is a joint product of structure and process available intelligence methods: in the context of a purpose inherent in the essential characteristics of a comprising system. [1] Were the SA-5 and the SA-10 interceptors dual-function SAM/ABMs? III. ANALYSIS OF SOVIET NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE [2] Were the Hen House and Pechora-class LPAR radars passing target tracking data to missile defenses? Sparked by a 1953 joint letter of seven Marshals [3] Was there a central ABM command authority with a recommending national missile defense (NMD), the Soviet command, control, and communications (C3) system? Politburo approved their first plan for NMD in 1954. This [4] Did the SAM/ABM missiles have nuclear warheads? plan, implemented in stages, adapted the SA-1 SAM in an ABM role, and developed the Sary Shagan missile test range All NIE participants agreed that if the answers to these as well as the Triad targeting radar and the Hen House phased- questions were “yes” (and they were), then the Soviets were array radar. Among the achievements of this first Soviet NMD deploying NMD (Lee, 1997). program was the successful 1961 interception of an SS-4 Several things are noteworthy about these questions. An warhead by a modified SA-1 interceptor (called V-1000) at an overarching feature of systems analysis in this case was that altitude of 25 kilometers over Sary Shagan, using a inferences of purpose (NMD) and function (ABM) were being conventional explosive warhead. This interception integrated made without any testimony of the system’s designers (which all of the elements of NMD, with a Hen House radar initially would become available in the 1990s, corroborating the 1960s- era analysis). The inference was based only on capabilities disavowal of NMD), upon the Soviet leadership as the Soviet that NMD systems should have that air defense systems would national nuclear strategy stemmed from the non-systems- not, given rational and economic relationships among system ontology assumption of rationality on the part of system elements under the constraints of prevailing Soviet technology. designers (as “rational” nuclear policy was then understood in This is consistent with function and purpose being matters of the west), rather than the weaker systems ontology assumption ontology, matters of the nature and relationships among things of rationality of design relations among elements of a system. as they are, rather than being dependent upon the intentions of This kind of strong assumption may not be an error in other causal agents, or otherwise contingent upon causal history. fields (e.g. it is a core assumption of the diplomatic theory of All four core questions address issues of function or purpose realpolitik), but it is unwarranted in systems analysis, and in through analysis of relations. For instance, the distinction this specific case it turned out to be materially false. between a SAM and an ABM depends on how the interceptor A related error committed in mis-analyzing Soviet NMD is integrated with its associated radars, specifically with the was the inference from high presumed cost and low presumed function that the interceptors and radars co-produce. effectiveness of NMD to the conclusion that the Soviets Similarly, whether the SA-5 and SA-10 interceptor missiles weren’t deploying NMD, because doing so would be had nuclear warheads depended on the proximity of nuclear uneconomical, or because NMD just wouldn’t work. This is storage facilities to the missile launch sites. an example of misplacing the economy inherent in systems This case also illustrates a characteristic of systems analysis from the relationship of elements (an ontological matter) to the of artificial systems: an ontological analysis often develops decisions and motives of owners, or making the unwarranted functional ascriptions which contradict the claims of assumption that a systems must work to have designs. For authorities, a characteristic amply documented in Ackoff’s these and other reasons systems analysis emphasizes many writings on his analyses of government and UN understanding the design without attempting to understand agencies, corporations, charities, etc. either the designer or the beneficiary, without even assuming that any designer or beneficiary exists. Only the manifest IV. FAILURES OF THE ANALYSIS OF SOVIET NMD relationships of system elements are understood rationally; understanding the designer or the motives that lead to A. Failures of Systems Analysis existence of the design are not part of the ontological analysis. The various failures of systems analysis of Soviet NMD described by Lee are instructive. For instance, the failure to V. CONCLUSION rationalize the sequence of tests at Sary Shagan and the failure Design in systems ontology consists of two interactive to understand the relationship between the Hen House and Dog loops, one relating the design object to its environment, the House radars (in fact there was none) were both due to the other relating the design object and its elements. The analysis same mistake, made by analysts at the beginning of Soviet of any system’s design develops information, knowledge, and missile defense deployment in the early 1960s and corrected a understanding of the system and its elements presuming that few years later: what was in fact two separate systems, with rational and economic relations among system elements distinct interceptor models, distinct radar models, and distinct determine structure, function, and process in the context of areas of responsibility (Moscow on the one hand and the environment. This method is capable of discerning functions Soviet Union on the other) was analyzed as though it was all and purposes that are not apparent from structures alone, or one system whose area of responsibility was a topic of from analogy with structures of known function. contention. The problem of correct delimitation of a system in systems analysis remains difficult, and inspiration remains part REFERENCES of the solution (Zandi, 2000; Churchman, 1971, 1979). [1] Ackoff, R. L. and Emery, F. E., 1972, On Purposeful Systems, Aldine- It is important to note in the case of Soviet NMD that the Atherton Press, Chicago. consequence of initial failure to properly distinguish and [2] Ackoff, R. L., 1974, Redesigning the Future, Wiley, New York. delimit the systems was not a conclusive faulty analysis, but [3] Ackoff, R. L., 1981, Creating the Corporate Future, Wiley, New York. [4] Bertalanffy, L. von, 1969, General Systems Theory, Braziller, New rather it was failure of the ontological analysis to converge. York. This is characteristic of ontological systems analysis, that [5] Churchman, C. W., 1971, The Design of Inquiring Systems, Basic rather than confidently reaching erroneous conclusions from Books, New York. [6] Churchman, C. W., 1979, The Systems Approach and its Enemies, false premises, it dissolves into a muddle when its underlying Basic Books, New York. premises are incorrect. [7] Gharajedaghi, J., 1999, Systems Thinking, Heinemann, Boston. [8] Lee, W. T., 1997, The ABM Treaty Charade: A Study in Elite Illusion B. Other Failures of Analysis and Delusion, Council for Social and Economic Studies, Washington. Other failures after the analysis of the 1960s reflect [9] Singer, E. A., 1924, Mind as Behavior, Adams Press, Columbus, OH. [10] Singer, E. A., 1959, Experience and Reflection, C. W.Churchman, ed., departures from analysis methods of systems ontology, rather University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. than failure of systems analysis to understand Soviet NMD. [11] Zandi, Iraj, 2000, “Science and engineering in the age of systems”, For instance, the mistaken projection by western experts of presented at “What is Systems Engineering?”, Intn. Council on Syst. Engr. (INCOSE), Sept 19 2000. mutually assured destruction (MAD, with its implicit