Search results

The purpose of this paper is to construct a general theory of the marketing system that addresses the fundamental question: why do marketing systems occur, survive and grow?

The approach integrates the concepts and constructs contained in special and mid-range theories, scattered throughout the history of marketing thought, into a logically coherent set of propositions (including definitions, axioms, theorems, scientific laws, bridge laws and hypotheses) that comprise a general theory of the marketing system.

The theoretical answer to why marketing systems arise, survive and grow is because marketing systems offer the most efficient mechanism for supplying products and services that people demand, thereby increasing economic growth, compared to the opportunity costs of alternative methods of acquisition. Based on just two (of several) marketing efficiency theorems, if the input costs of trading decline (law of reduced transaction costs) and/or the output value increases (law of bulk transactions), then marketing system efficiency rises. This creates an upward spiraling cycle: increasing the extent of the market (law of market size), proliferating opportunities for increasing aggregate production efficiency (through the law of comparative advantage and the law of division of labor), thereby further proliferating opportunities for aggregate marketing system efficiency (e.g. law of central markets, law of marketing specialists), thus fueling further aggregate economic growth (until limited by the law of diminishing returns, the law of the minimum resource or the law of market size). An empirically testable central hypothesis is derived from the propositions: increasing aggregate marketing system efficiency provides both the necessary and sufficient conditions for increasing aggregate economic growth in a society.

The value of developing a general theory of the marketing system is to advance the marketing discipline as a social science. Additionally, a general theory is likely to enhance academic thinking, improve business practice and facilitate interaction among academicians and practitioners. Further, a general theory could also reduce disciplinary fragmentation, avoid identity confusion and lessen the credibility crisis in marketing, among others.

A general theory of conceptual systems (GCST) is developed, in which the concept of systems is introduced not a priori or theoretically, but by means of a rigorous procedure, supported by experimental knowledge of these or other system realization forms (so‐called “realization” and “trajectories”). This is the stage of an inductive construction of computable concepts, i.e. “concepts”. “Concept” is presented in the form of a function of discrete variables, one part of which is known (essential variables), while the other part is independent (non‐essential variables). The presence of “concept” allows one to construct new, not yet realized “trajectories”. This is the stage of the deductive conclusion. The general principles of GCST construction on the basis of an artificial intelligence program system are formulated. This approach excludes widespread methods of a priori construction of system theories (e.g. in the “theory of usefulness”, the “study of operations”).

The purpose of this paper is to give broad‐spectrum analysis of general system theory, including the researching approach – dynamic structure approach, the study on general object system by broad‐spectrum analysis, and the study of general cognitive system by broad‐spectrum analysis, etc.

The theoretical basis of broad‐spectrum analysis is dynamic structuralism, which, therefore, leads to the fact that its methodology is dynamic structural methodology, including that from the perspective of generalized structure, that from the dynamic perspective (the fluxional viewpoint of structure and the transforming viewpoint of structure).

Generalized structural models of general object system (including general thing system and general dynamic system, general cognitive system and general value system) are given in this paper. It shows a unique perspective of broad‐spectrum analysis, its close relationship with general system theory and the viewpoints of many questions in general system.

The details of the structural models in this paper have to be worked out.

The methodological principle for us to analyze, study, optimize, and control the general system is provided.

Generalized structural models of this paper originate from pansystem methodology and discrete mathematics. This paper has the value of methodology for those who are studying general systems.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate whether there is significant agreement on what constitutes the essential elements for building a general theory of the marketing system.

The method is an historical review of the various concepts, elements, sub-theories, axioms, components, explananda and ingredients proposed by marketing scholars over the past half century who contributed to the development of a general theory of the marketing system.

The main finding is that despite the diversity of terms and concepts found in the marketing literature, there is considerable agreement on the essential elements necessary to build a general theory.

The value of this work is in assembling and organizing the various concepts, elements, sub-theories, axioms, components, explananda and ingredients of a general theory. Scholars are encouraged to examine the pieces and re-join the quest to construct and empirically test a general theory of the marketing system.

The purpose of this paper is to state new formulation of the programme‐styled framework of pansystems research and related expansions.

Pansystems‐generalized extremum principle (0**: (dy/dx=0)**) is presented with recognitions to various logoi of philosophy, mathematics, technology, systems, cybernetics, informatics, relativity, biology, society, resource, communications and related topics: logic, history, humanities, aesthetics, journalism, IT, AI, TGBZ* <truth*goodness*beauty*Zen*>, etc. including recent rediscoveries of 50 or so pansystems logoi.

A keynote of the paper is to develop the deep logoi of the analytic mathematics, analytic mechanics, variational principles, Hilbert's sixth/23rd problems, pan‐axiomatization to encyclopedic principles and various applications. The 0**‐universal connections embody the transfield internet‐styled academic tendency of pansystems exploration.

The paper includes topics: history megawave, pansystems sublation‐modes, pan‐metaphysics, pansystems dialogs with logoi of 100 thinkers or so, and pansystems‐sublation for a series of logoi concerning the substructure of encyclopedic dialogs such as systems, derivative, extremum, quantification, variational principle, equation, symmetry, OR, optimization, approximation, yinyang, combination, normality‐abnormality, framework, modeling, simulation, relativity, recognition, practice, methodology, mathematics, operations and transformations, quotientization, product, clustering, Banach completeness theorem, Weierstrass approximation theorem, Jackson approximation theorem, Taylor theorem, approximation transformation theorems due to Walsh‐Sewell mathematical school, Hilbert problems, Cauchy theorem, theorems of equation stability, function theory, logic, paradox, axiomatization, cybernetics, dialectics, multistep decision, computer, synergy, vitality and the basic logoi for history, ethics, economics, society OR, aesthetics, journalism, institution, resource and traffics, AI, IT, etc.

There is a field needing both cybernetics and systems theory: business as one way to viability – “business cybernetics” might have to emerge. The purpose of this paper is to address this issue.

A first draft of business cybernetics (BC) notion is presented. Discusses the definition of business systems (BSs) and their need for requisite holism, our understanding of cybernetics, our understanding of the (general) systems theory and systems thinking, differences between some versions of systems theories and cybernetics, and add our draft cybernetics of BSs, finishing with BC as a case of interdependence between business practice, systems theories and cybernetics and resulting conclusions.

It was not found, although quite some literature was studied and quite some practical experience in business, both as employees and as consulting instructors was collected. It is clear that cybernetics and (general) systems theory were created at about the same time by two different groups of scientists. They both dealt with complex rather than complicated entities/features/processes and they both tried to stress relations between parts of reality, which used to be considered separately and one‐sidedly rather than (requisitely) holistically.

Later on, their “war against a too narrow specialisation” did not end in their general victory, but rather in application of their fruitful findings inside many specialised disciplines of science and practice. This is good, but not good enough, uncovered topics remain. Business is one of them.

Links both cybernetics and systems to an emerging “business cybernetics” in an innovative approach.

The approach is based on an evolutionary interpretation of the fundamental concepts of cybernetics, general systems theory, information theory, theory of automata, autopoiesis, etc. In the author's view, this enables us to formulate principles of the evolutionary theory of cybernetic systems which is visualised as the theory of structures, functions and evolution of cybernetic or control systems. This suggests a heuristic idea of cybernetic evolution as the higher stage of negentropic universal evolution of open systems.

The historical perspective of the emergence of cybernetics as the science of control, communication and computation in machines and living tissues, and integrated and complex man‐machine systems as a unitary discipline of General Systems Theory is presented. In the second section both the theories of cybernetics and general systems are shown to be the same in motivation, requirements, characteristics, attributes and behaviour. In the third section cybernetic systems such as the class of finite state machines are established as a subclass of general dynamical systems. In the last section the cybernetics as a general and universal theory of action, including social praxis in general comprehending technical and moral praxis, is presented.

In view of the increased domain of application of the systems approach there is a need for reappraisal of its foundations and a sharpening of the basic systems concepts. This is done in the article on the basis of a general theory of systems developed within the set‐theory and related branches of abstract mathematics. Importance of the goal‐seeking representation of the systems behavior and the basic classification of large‐scale systems are briefly discussed.

This paper has two parts. The purpose of part 1 explains the need for an adaptive paradigm that can efficaciously respond to the complex issues in wicked problems and the fundamentals that this requires were identified. It involved the formulation of a cross-disciplinary relational methodologically plural paradigm with certain properties. The purpose in this Part 2 is to provide a theoretical framework. It adopts autonomous agency theory in which paradigm holders collectively act as “living system” agencies and deliver “living stories” to create coherence in addressing wicked problem issues, and then adopts hybrid structures to address this need.

The approach seeks to address wicked problem issues. Wicked problems do not respect academic disciplines, requiring a cross-disciplinary approach. Autonomous agency theory is adopted capable of structuring cross-disciplinary inquiry processes and formulating a hybrid inquiry paradigm. The paper sets up a narrative that delivers a structured essay resulting in a general theory of hybrid inquiry. This paradigm is explored in detail, considering how it can be applied to wicked problems.

The paradigm, which traditionally defines a field of study conceptualises and regulates approaches that enable inquiry into behavioural systems. Mono-disciplinary, they are not suitable for the resolution of issues that arise from cross-disciplinary wicked problems. To resolve this, a relational paradigm has been defined within which sits a cross-disciplinary hybrid inquiry system. A general theory of hybrid inquiry has been offered, with an appropriate illustration in ecosystem management. It is shown that agency theory can successfully embrace a relational paradigm.

To determine the limitations of this theory, there is a need to provide exemplars, which is currently premature. Another outcome is to centre on modes of practice in hybrid inquiry but there is insufficient space for this here.

This paper makes an original contribution by formulating a structured approach on the creation of a relational paradigm capable of supporting hybrid inquiry. It also adopts cross-disciplinary theory to make its case for a relational paradigm, recognising that wicked problems are cross-disciplinary. As part of the regulatory process it connects Rittel’s issue-based information system (IBIS) schema intended to resolve wicked problems issues and the Johari Window and explains how they would relate. A means is suggested for determining the degree of undecidability of wicked problems issues and hence that of the models that inquiry produces. This uses formative characteristics that define a modelling space. The paper also adopts Husserl’s concept or lifeworld, which acts as a channel for complex narrative theory through which regulative processes are enabled.