In the classical systems approach, systems were considered as material objects. These are objects not in any way related to the interests of people. These relations appeared in the so-called systems approach 2.0.
In the first version of systems approach, formulated by Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy, systems were considered as ideal objects. We have just looked at a “chronometer” classic system. Objective review of systems implies that systems are objects, and they were discussed regardless of subjects. This is why in the systems approach 1.0 we can discuss just a chronometer, a table or a car, and find various properties in these systems - integrity, emergence and nesting.
The system is in the eye of the beholder.
The system is not just an object (classical approach). It depends on the subjective views.
Not ideal objects are discussed, but specific systems that interested parties need. No subjects - no system!
Contemporary systems approach does not deny classic properties of a system. These are all the necessary conditions. In modern interpretation, concept “system” receives new additional properties that result from a subjective look at a system.
Classical approach is more abstract and considers ideal objects, and modern approach is pragmatic and considers the objects that somebody needs for whatever reason, or the objects that influence certain people.
Systems thinking 2.0 is not applied when we need just to talk about a table, a chronometer, or a car, without any real project. These are ideal objects of mental space, and often in a conversation, there are no concrete physical objects, required by real people for certain projects, behind them.
Systems thinking starts to appear when we talk about the systems like “an office desk”, “a wrist watch”, “a passenger car,” i.e. in this case we can at least speak about interests and interested roles who want something from these systems. Following from it, we define a system, its boundaries and how it will be used.
A set of all project roles’ interests specifies a system, its function, its components, etc. For example, an auto concern creates a passenger car, with regard to the probable interests of potential customers in the roles of a driver, a passenger, a user, an owner, pedestrians, controlling authorities, environmentalists, etc.
Every accounted for interest determines what a car should be like. If there were no ecological interest, it would not be necessary to install an exhaust gases purification subsystem compliant with Euro 6 standard. Having installed such a subsystem into a vehicle, the manufacturer changed the system structure.
Everything installed in a passenger car is a response to a concern of a project role, which the manufacturer decided to take into consideration. The “passenger car” system will be successful, if the concerns of all interested parties (project roles) are considered (satisfied).