Systems Understanding Approach

We live in a world full of systems. Look around you, and what you actually see is a collection of systems. For example: the new student admission system, the lecture system, the higher education system, the economic system, the business system, the earth's orbital system, or the transportation system. Even our own bodies are composed of various systems, such as the digestive system, the respiratory system, the circulatory system, and many others. Similarly, an information system is also a type of system. Therefore, understanding the concept of a system beforehand greatly aids in comprehending information systems.

A system can be explained through two approaches: the procedural approach and the component approach. With the procedural approach, a system is defined as a collection of procedures that serve a specific purpose. A good example of a system suited to this approach is the accounting system, which is defined as a set of procedures for cash receipts, cash disbursements, sales, purchases, and the general ledger.

On the other hand, the component approach defines a system as a collection of interrelated components that form a unified whole to achieve a certain goal. A computer system, for instance, fits this approach well—it is defined as a collection of hardware and software components working together.

Both approaches are valid; there is no wrong approach. Some authors prefer one over the other to make it easier to describe a particular system. In fact, a system consists of two main parts: structure and process. The structure represents the system’s components, while the process is made up of its procedures. Each approach simply focuses on one aspect of the system from a particular perspective. For systems that emphasize process, the procedural approach is more suitable. For systems that have a more visible physical form, the component approach provides a clearer picture.

As an illustration, take a car. To describe and explain a car to someone who has never seen or heard of it before, the component approach might be more effective. If explained through the procedural approach, a car as a system might be defined as a sequence of procedures: opening the door, lifting the left leg to get into the car, then lifting the right leg to sit behind the wheel, starting the engine, shifting gears, and driving.

However, if explained through the component approach, a car can be defined as a collection of components—such as the frame, body, seats, dashboard, engine, steering wheel, and four wheels—that work together as a unified whole to achieve its purpose: transporting passengers from one place to another safely and comfortably.

From the two definitions above, a person who has never seen a car will likely find it easier to imagine what a car looks like through the component approach rather than the procedural approach. To prove this, you can ask that person to create a miniature version of the car based on their understanding. If they understand the components, they will be able to recreate the car more easily by assembling each part. But if their understanding is based solely on the procedures, it will be very difficult for them to build a miniature car—since it's not easy to translate "lifting the left leg into the car, then the right leg..." into a physical model.

Based on this illustration, a system such as an information system will be easier to understand and design using the component approach. Therefore, this blog post will focus more on explaining information systems using the component-based approach.

The component approach is relatively effective for explaining an information system. However, it does have its weaknesses. One major limitation is that the components of the system may not always be clearly identifiable. If even a single component is not identified, the system may not be accurately represented, and it will likely fail to achieve its intended goals.