Overview of Viable Systems Model
The Viable Systems Model, popularly known as VSM, is an organizational and managerial framework, formulated by Stafford Beer, in the year 1972. Beer, a theorist dealing with cybernetics and operations research, first highlighted the model, in the book, ‘Brain of the Firm’ (Schwaninger & Scheef, 2016). With respect to the existence of present day autocratic business, where managerial decision-making processes are devoid of feasibility and accountability due to its restrictive, hierarchical structure – the Viable Systems Model serves as an innovative tool to establish managerial amendments, to further result in an organization, which is responsive to adaptations (Walker, 2017).
The following report aims at the formulation of a Viable Systems model of a concerned organization, in this case, a histology laboratory. The following paragraphs aim to shed light on the various modifications which can be implemented, at enhancing the viability, adaptability, communication and policy making structure of the specified organization
Overview
Since the establishment and functioning of the Industrial Revolution, the basic framework of organizational functioning has been widely prevalent across the globe. This functioning highlights the traditional vertical mode of communication in any business – focussing primarily, on a top to bottom hierarchical approach, where decisions are formulated at the leading platform, followed by implementation through communication to the lesser-valued, minority platforms (Schwarz, 2014). Despite the familiarity and approved credibility of this method, the outcomes are often preceded by delays in functioning and presence of organizational inability to change or adapt. The Viable Systems Model, aims at abolishing this recurring problems, by establishing efficient modes of inter-department communication, followed by rapid adaptability to change in accordance to the external environment (Resendiz et al., 2017).
Prior to development of a Viable Systems Model, there must be considerable acquaintance regarding its key components, primarily (Puche et al., 2016):
- Complexity: Viewing organizations as a collaborative system of minor networks, each with its own autocratic functioning and the presence of inter-departmental communication with each other.
- Recursion: The presence of minor sub-parts of an organization, which further can be divided into increasingly minor sub-parts, each with their own separate set of independent functioning.
- Viability: The capability of an organisation and each of its components to work with success and efficiency.
In accordance to development of a Viable Systems Model, the presence of five independent yet interconnected systems are acknowledge, each with its own unique functioning. The first three systems are primarily concerned with the present functioning capabilities of an organization, where the fourth system deals with its response to external amendments occurring in the surrounding vicinity. The final fifth system operates as the mediating force between these systems, establishing coordination between the present functioning and the future possibilities of the organization, and aiming for maintenance of harmony in order to sustain its viability (Gallego & Garcia, 2018).
With respect to the presence of these systems, the following is an extensive outline of a possible Viable Systems Model, for a laboratory dealing with histological samples.
- First System (Operative functioning or Implementation): This system of a histological laboratory is primarily concerned with the performance and provision of its key services and products. With accordance to the Viable Systems Model, each functioning element of the laboratory yields further minor components, with equally complex activities working in independence at intra-departmental, and working in harmony at an inter-departmental platform (Gallego & Garcia, 2015). In a histology laboratory, the managerial head holds the apex position, with functioning pertaining to the maintenance of assured quality deliver to its customers, which included a complex team undergoing conductance of trials and tests at the clinical. Underneath this is the team dealing with laboratory finances and administration, further handling complex tasks of equipment functioning and maintenance. The final platform of a histology laboratory scales down to the various departmental functioning pertaining to analysis of histological properties of cells, tissues and haematological samples – all scaling down to the a single functioning laboratory individual, conducting sample evaluation with microscopic aid. With respect to the Viable Systems Model, medication of this structure would include the conductance of two-way communication horizontally, establishing an all-inclusive, vertical and feasible mode of communication and managerial functioning (Sadi et al., 2016).
- Second System (Cooperation and coordination): The second system applicable to the Viable Systems Model, is that of the usage of effective communication strategies, to establish synchronisation and harmony between the departments working in a collective system or organization. The key objective pertaining to establishing optimum communication and coordination, as stated by the Viable Systems Model, is the modification of the less viable top to bottom, one way hierarchical mode of communication, in to a feasible and accountable coordinating network, which allows transmission of interaction through multiple mechanisms (Stich & Groten, 2015). With respect to a histology laboratory, the aim is to establish coordinating mechanism between various departments. For departments assigned with the task of sample analysis the establishment of effective communication is advantageous as it enhances faster modes of sample analysis from department to department, such as samples assigned with haematological as well as hormonal screenings will required a lateral framework of communication for optimum analysis, further resulting in an efficient communicatory reciprocation to the higher, that is diagnostic platform. The Viable Systems Model should aim for the aforementioned synergistic mode of cooperation rather than simple treating each department as independent, autocratic units, or allowing the managerial heads to engage in bureaucratic one-way modes of idea transmission (Gallego & Garcia, 2018).
- Third System (Controlling and Monitoring): Since the establishment and implementation of a horizontal, flexible mode of communication and control is imperative to the functioning of the Viable Systems Model, there is an inevitable need to cross the communication so forwarded, in order to implement corrections of biasness, as well as ensure clarification of the stated decisions and ideas. However, such monitoring mechanisms should considering key principles to ensure optimum functioning without its emergence as an autocratic department. There is a need for the control and monitoring mechanism to be spontaneous, rather than routine, in order to avoid undermining the credibility for the higher functioning departments. In addition, the monitoring protocols must be stated openly and extensively to every functioning department of the system, in order to ensure feasibility, accountability and provision of optimum quality and standards (Awuzie & McDermott, 2015). With respect to a histology laboratory, the quality management and quality assurance department of any laboratory, is essential in carrying the responsibility of monitoring and controlling, in accordance to the principles outlined by the Viable Systems Model. The presence of auditing reports and mechanisms by the quality assurance department is an effective way to inspect the coordinating functioning of a histology laboratory, which can be performed a specified intervals, in order to generate awareness regarding the importance of optimum, harmonising functioning within and between departments.
- Fourth System (Department of Intelligence): The optimum functioning of any organization lies in its ability to perform adaptable modification with respect to the occurrence of changes in its external environment. The assurance of adaptability can only be performed with a sound analysis of an organization’s external environment (Stich & Groten, 2015). With respect to a laboratory dealing with histological specimens and analysis, the managerial department at the apex hierarchy can perform extensive analysis on the emergence of relatively novel innovations in diagnosis and treatment, or upcoming acceptable modifications in equipment and sample analysis. The utilisation of marketing frameworks such as Porters Five Forces model or PESTEL analysis can yield simple, yet detailed outcomes of the external threats, competitors and amendments arising in an environment (Indiatsy et al., 2014). With further collaborative functioning with the clinical trials department of the histology laboratory, such adaptations can be implemented and executed. However, such intelligent information sharing should hold equilibrium, without burdening unnecessary data on the organization, or release of changes or modifications, which are no accountable or beneficial.
- Fifth System (Policy making): The final essential system pertaining to the Viable Systems Model, is the installation and applications of effective policy making departments in the concerned organization. This is required for the establishment and maintenance of equilibrium amongst the internal information and functioning of the organization, and the external changes occurring in the environment surrounding its vicinity (Awuzie & McDermott, 2015). In the situation of a histology laboratory, the primary functioning of the department dealing in policy formulation, is the establishment of the objectives, goals and principles and ideologies of the laboratory organization, which will behave as the driving forces pertaining to its functioning and provision of products and services. Hence, every functioning for the department will achieve inter-departmental harmony, only with the existence and adherence to clearly defined policies and framework of the laboratory. In a histology laboratory, the management should deal with the outlining of an effective policy network, with a detailed description of the vision and mission of the organization. The management will also be responsible for the formulation of policies outlining the rules and regulations of the histology laboratory, along with standardised guidelines regarding the functioning and safety of workers and maintenance and handling of equipment (Panagiotakokopoulos, Espinosa & Walker, 2016). According to the Viable Systems Model, the managerial policy makers of a histology laboratory must also pertain to information transmission and adherence to external accreditation factors, which will further deal with quality certifications and the resulting synchronisation external and internal functioning of the laboratory, further leading to provision of consumer satisfaction and quality products and services (Stich & Groten, 2015).
Despite the novelty and possible effectiveness, displayed by the Viable Systems Model, as proposed by Stafford Beer, the aforementioned model still present considerable loopholes in its functioning. With respect to its usage in the selected organisation, that is histology laboratory, several shortcomings can be outlined in the system. One of the primary concerns related with the Viable Systems Model applied on a histology laboratory, is ironically, the presence of increased bureaucracy, and an ignorance of the presence of humane interests and workforce welfare (Solberg, 2017). The Viable Systems Model places great importance on ‘viability’, that is, the rate of success presented by an organisation, with respect to its functioning and ability. Hence, in accordance to this model, emotions or humanity may be at a loss when scaled with the requirement for ‘viability’, due to its absolute requirement here. Hence, as an amendment, workforce welfare through the assurance of sound psychological and physiological welfare should be prioritised at a greater rate than the occurrence of viability, in any organization (Hildbrand & Bodhanya, 2015).
Viable Systems Model for a Histology Laboratory
With this respect, another possible fault of the Viable Systems Model being applied to a histology laboratory, is its extensive applications on scientific scenarios, outlining merely chemical, biological or mechanical systems. While this argument is refuted by Beer, justifying that the model’s scientific examples are merely due to its cybernetic origins – its usage seems to not take a humane approach to any organization. Human existence forms the crux of any organization, granting all of them the status of a ‘social organization’ (Beckford, 2016). Viewing a histological laboratory merely as a scientific system, consisting of further subsystems, ignores the presence of human welfare, in accordance to the Viable Systems Model. Hence, with respect to a quality assurance managerial framework, the presence of a human resource department would be a beneficial modification in the application of a Viable Systems Model, in a laboratory dealing with histological analysis (Srinivasan et al., 2015).
Lastly, the Viable Systems Models emphasizes profusely, on the importance of change and adaptability, of any organization, with respect to its external environment. However, with respect to the establishment of a fifth system outlining the policy framework of a histological laboratory, there seems to be a presence of greater emphasis on the adherence of the foundation principles and objectives of the laboratory functioning, rather than focussing on change or adaptability (Beckford, 2016). The act of survival of any system, individual, organism or organization is greatly dependant on its response to change, and with the changing environment pertaining to laboratory equipment technology, diagnosis and treatment standard, along with inspection quality – the need of the hour for a histology laboratory is to highlight the importance of adapting and amending its standards, which is contrary to the popular Viable Systems Model (O’Grady, Morlidge & Rouse, 2016). Hence, in response to this, the histology laboratory managerial department, should not only aim to extensively analyse the external market scenario, but also strive to implement and execute the required modifications inevitable for its survival in today’s dynamic business scenario.
With respect to the selected organisation, that is, a histology laboratory, the presence of standard quality should outline its basic objectives, which would further ensure its viable functioning. The diagnosis and treatment of a disease, based upon the analysis of cell histological structural changes at a microscopic level, forms the heart of laboratory functioning. Hence, the occurrence of experimental errors may not only produce incorrect results, but would also result in the formulation of incorrect diagnosis and treatment plans, which will yield hazardous implications for the patients, further resulting in negative consumer feedback and the loss of success in viability (Sciacovelli, Aita & Chiozza, 2014). Hence, quality assurance should be at the forefront of a histology laboratory. This can be ensured with the avoidance of experimental error through the development of efficient analytical and observational practices, monitoring of laboratory equipment as well as enhancing staff awareness regarding the need to avoid errors in order to establish efficient quality functioning pertaining to the success or viability of any organization (Thedorsson, 2016).
Limitations and Shortcomings of Viable Systems Model in a Histology Laboratory
With respect to the implementation of enhanced qualitative functioning, considerable changes are required to be implemented in a histology laboratory. Considering the need for change and improvement in response to the dynamic environment, the installation of a definite quality assurance team is required, whose sole responsibility will lie in the external market analysis through managerial business tools, and directing the required changes to another team of quality assurance managers, responsible for the internal amendments of the laboratory. With respect to internal analysis, optimum quality should be ensured with respect to laboratory functioning, such as specimen sampling, specimen analysis, equipment management and the resultant diagnosis. The quality of such activities should be assured through optimum inspection and monitoring by the internal quality management team (Robboy et al., 2015). The coordination of such external and internal analysis is of utmost important for the optimum functioning of the histological laboratory, and personnel communicating and reporting through a feasible, lateral mode of communication would prove to be highly beneficial to reap its benefits. Lastly, human resources should also be assured in the histology laboratory, since its proper functioning would be impossible to achieve without sound physical and mental health of its workforce (Robboy et al., 2015).
Conclusion
Hence, it can be concluded, that the Viable Systems Model is an effective and efficient tool for the diagnosis and formulation of an effective managerial framework, pertaining to the functioning of any organization. However, due to its negative implications, such a model still requires considerable modification and regulation. Considering a histology laboratory, the application of a Viable Systems Model, along with certain amendments, would prove to be advantageous for its present, as well as future functioning, productivity and profitability.
References
Awuzie, B. O., & McDermott, P. (2015). A conceptual model for evaluating infrastructure-based temporary multi-organisations. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(1), 103-120.
Gallego García, S., & García García, M. (2018). Design and Simulation of Production and Maintenance Management Applying the Viable System Model: The Case of an OEM Plant. Materials, 11(8), 1346.
Hildbrand, S., & Bodhanya, S. (2015). Guidance on applying the viable system model. Kybernetes, 44(2), 186-201.
Indiatsy, C. M., Mwangi, M. S., Mandere, E. N., Bichanga, J. M., & George, G. E. (2014). The application of Porter’s five forces model on organization performance: A case of cooperative bank of Kenya Ltd. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(16), 75-85.
O’Grady, W., Morlidge, S., & Rouse, P. (2016). Evaluating the completeness and effectiveness of management control systems with cybernetic tools. Management Accounting Research, 33, 1-15.
Panagiotakopoulos, P. D., Espinosa, A., & Walker, J. (2016). Sustainability management: insights from the Viable System Model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 792-806.
Puche, J., Ponte, B., Costas, J., Pino, R., & De la Fuente, D. (2016). Systemic approach to supply chain management through the viable system model and the theory of constraints. Production planning & control, 27(5), 421-430.
Reséndiz, T. A., Padilla, R. T., Matamoros, O. M., Páez, A. L. C., & Piña, I. B. (2017). The Soft Systems Methodology and the Viable System Model to improve mexican tourist supply regarding chinese consumers. Acta Universitaria, 27(2), 53-64.
Robboy, S. J., Gupta, S., Crawford, J. M., Cohen, M. B., Karcher, D. S., Leonard, D. G., … & Gross, D. J. (2015). The pathologist workforce in the United States: II. An interactive modeling tool for analyzing future qualitative and quantitative staffing demands for services. Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine, 139(11), 1413-1430.
Sadi, T., Wilberg, J., Tommelein, I. D., & Lindemann, U. (2016). Supporting the design of competitive organizations by a domain-specific application framework for the viable system model. In DSM 2016: Sustainability in modern project management-Proceedings of the 18th International DSM Conference, São Paulo, August 29th and 30th, 2016 (pp. 077-087).
Schwaninger, M., & Scheef, C. (2016). A test of the viable system model: theoretical claim vs. empirical evidence. Cybernetics and Systems, 47(7), 544-569.
Schwarz, N. (2014). Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods, and the logic of conversation. Psychology Press.
Sciacovelli, L., Aita, A., & Chiozza, M. L. (2014). Harmonization of pre-analytical quality indicators. Biochemia medica: Biochemia medica, 24(1), 105-113.
Solberg, T. R. (2017). A Proposed Framework for Increasing the Accessibility of Systems Thinking Intervention Approaches for Non-Systems Thinking Practitioners.
Srinivasan, B., Kolli, A. R., Esch, M. B., Abaci, H. E., Shuler, M. L., & Hickman, J. J. (2015). TEER measurement techniques for in vitro barrier model systems. Journal of laboratory automation, 20(2), 107-126.
Stich, V., & Groten, M. (2015). Design and simulation of a logistics distribution network applying the Viable System Model (VSM). Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 534-541.
Theodorsson, E. (2016). Quality assurance in clinical chemistry: a touch of statistics and a lot of common sense. Journal of medical biochemistry, 35(2), 103-112.
Walker, M. (2017). The Search for Viability: A practitioner’s view of how the Viable Systems Model is helping transform English local government (and why it has passed unrecognised). Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 34(3), 313-334.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
