Value and the Quality of Systems
Acknowledgement
This article reflects established knowledge from systems science and systems engineering, organized and collated for the SEBoK. Drafting support was provided by OpenAI’s ChatGPT, with all content reviewed and finalized by the author, who retains full responsibility.
Framing and Definitions
This article is part of the Nature of Systems knowledge area (KA). It addresses two essential concepts within the Fit dimension of the Fit–Form–Function (FFF) triad:
- Value refers to the contextual significance or worth of a system, judged relative to stakeholder goals, ecological constraints, or societal purposes.
- Qualities are the attributes through which a system’s capabilities are expressed and evaluated, such as reliability, resilience, elegance, or sustainability.
In this framing:
- Form describes what a system is.
- Function describes what a system does.
- Fit describes how well a system aligns with its environment and purpose.
“The quality of a system is the degree to which it satisfies the stated and implied needs of its various stakeholders.”
— (ISO/IEC 25010 2011)
“The purpose of a system is what it does (POSIWID)… but how well it does it determines its viability.”
— (Beer 1984)
“Stability, equilibrium, and regulation are universal qualities observed across natural systems.”
— (Troncale 1978)
Introduction: Why Value and Qualities Matter
Systems engineering often emphasizes purpose and capability, what systems are for and how they perform. However, to determine whether a system is fit for purpose, we must evaluate both:
- Qualities: How well are capabilities expressed?
- Value: Why does it matter in a given context?
These evaluations are relational and dynamic:
- In natural systems, qualities such as resilience and redundancy determine survival value.
- In social systems, value is framed by cultural, ethical, and institutional goals.
- In engineered systems, system qualities drive stakeholder satisfaction, mission success, and lifecycle viability.
As contexts evolve, the relative value of qualities may change. For example, climate adaptation shifts emphasis toward sustainability and resilience, qualities once subordinate to efficiency or cost.
Recognizing these shifting balances is essential for:
- Prioritizing system requirements
- Managing trade-offs among qualities
- Ensuring long-term value beyond immediate utility
Frameworks Addressing Value and Qualities
A range of systemic and engineering traditions address Fit through either value, qualities, or both:
| Framework | Key Contribution |
|---|---|
| General Systems Theory (GST) | Emergent system properties, adaptability, coherence, robustness, inform evaluation (Bertalanffy 1968). |
| Troncale’s System Isomorphies | Recurring qualities like equilibrium and regulation appear across domains (Troncale 1978). |
| Living Systems Theory | Viability arises from subsystem qualities like throughput, redundancy, and integrity (Miller 1995). |
| Cybernetics | Control qualities such as feedback responsiveness and robustness determine system effectiveness (Wiener 2019; Ashby 1956). |
| Viable System Model (VSM) | Organizational viability is tied to variety-handling and recursive regulation (Beer 1984). |
| INCOSE & ISO Standards | Codify measurable system qualities such as reliability, usability, and sustainability (ISO/IEC 25010; INCOSE SE Handbook 2023). |
| Management Science | Value is modeled through performance metrics, stakeholder satisfaction, and systemic contribution (Ackoff 1971; Checkland 1999). |
Each tradition affirms that qualities shape performance, while value determines contextual worth.
Integrative Perspectives
Value and Qualities as Dual Aspects of Fit
- Value without qualities is abstract, a claim without demonstration.
- Qualities without value are technical features without systemic relevance.
Together, they form the lens of Fit: value asks “why it matters”; qualities show “how well” it is achieved.
Emergence and Scale
- Qualities emerge from interactions between Form and Function.
- Value emerges in relation to systems of reference, stakeholders, environments, ecosystems, or societal structures.
This dual emergence implies that Fit is always contextual and multi-level.
Relational Holon Perspective
Building on Blockley (2025), the relational holon offers a dynamic view:
- Qualities correspond to the realization and actualization quadrants, how the system enacts itself.
- Value arises in the reflective and orienting quadrants, where meaning, ethics, and purpose emerge.
Archetypes of Value and Qualities
Value and qualities manifest in recurring evaluative patterns across domains.
Value Archetypes
| Archetype | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Utility | Direct usefulness | A solar panel’s energy output |
| Exchange | Interoperability or trade | API compatibility |
| Intrinsic Worth | Independent significance | Biodiversity, cultural assets |
| Systemic Contribution | Enables higher-level functionality | Keystone species; transport infrastructure |
| Transformative Value | Enables paradigm shifts | AI systems; emergence of consciousness |
Quality Archetypes
| Archetype | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Reliability | Consistent performance | Fault-tolerant hardware |
| Resilience | Recovery from disturbance | Forest regrowth; network redundancy |
| Adaptability | Reconfiguration under change | Agile organizations; evolutionary traits |
| Efficiency | Resource-performance ratio | Metabolic pathways; lean manufacturing |
| Sustainability | Long-term endurance in context | Closed-loop cycles; circular economy |
Integrative Archetypes
| Archetype | Description |
|---|---|
| Fitness for Purpose | Adequate qualities aligned with intent |
| Systemic Elegance | Simplicity, sufficiency, and coherence |
| Alignment with Context | Harmonization with ecological, societal, or stakeholder realities |
Implications for Systems Engineering
Defining Value
Value in SE spans:
- Operational utility (mission success)
- Stakeholder satisfaction (usability, safety)
- Long-term contribution (sustainability, resilience)
Value archetypes help clarify these distinctions and link design choices to contextual relevance.
Engineering for Qualities
System qualities are:
- Specified as non-functional requirements
- Assessed through verification, validation, and model-based methods
- Balanced through trade-off analysis
Standards such as ISO/IEC 25010 and 15288 offer a structured vocabulary for evaluating qualities.
(Rousseau 2019) proposes systemic virtues, such as coherence, elegance, and resilience, as foundational qualities that link system design to broader systemic contribution and aesthetic value, offering a promising bridge between engineering practice and systems science.
Trade-offs and Lifecycle Change
- Systemic trade-offs (e.g., performance vs. maintainability) must be stakeholder-informed and lifecycle-aware.
- Both qualities and perceived value change over time, necessitating re-evaluation across design, operation, and decommissioning.
System-of-Systems and Enterprise Engineering
- Large-scale systems require balancing diverse and sometimes conflicting stakeholder values.
- Enterprise architecture, value network analysis, and resilience engineering help navigate this complexity.
Sustainability and Planetary Fit
Systems that harm ecological integrity lose long-term value, regardless of short-term utility. SE must increasingly:
- Address planetary boundaries (Rockström et al. 2009)
- Align value models with ecosystem services
- Adopt circularity and regenerative design principles
Summary
Value and qualities form the evaluative backbone of the Fit dimension in systems thinking:
- Value is contextual significance—why a system matters to stakeholders, ecosystems, or society.
- Qualities describe how well a system performs across dimensions like reliability, adaptability, and sustainability.
- Together, they determine whether a system is truly fit for its environment and purpose, not only in theory but across its lifecycle and across scales.
This article completes the transition from what systems are (Form) and do (Function) to how they are judged (Fit). The next article, Consciousness and the Experience of Systems, extends this evaluation into perceptual and experiential dimensions.
References
Works Cited
Ackoff, R. L. (1971). Towards a system of systems concepts. Management Science, 17(11), 661–671.
Ashby, W. R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. London, UK: Chapman & Hall.
Beer, S. (1984). The viable system model: Its provenance, development, methodology and pathology. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 35(1), 7–25.
Bertalanffy, L. von. (1968). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. Revised edition. New York, NY, USA: George Braziller.
Blockley, D, Smith G. (2025). Relational holon: Systems science and information theory in engineering practice and beyond. Journal of Information Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515251353192
Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Checkland, P. (1999). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
INCOSE. (2023). INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities (5th ed.). San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering.
ISO/IEC. (2011). ISO/IEC 25010:2011 — Systems and Software Engineering — Systems and Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) — System and Software Quality Models. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. (2023). ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2023 — Systems and Software Engineering — System Life Cycle Processes. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, International Electrotechnical Commission, and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Miller, J. G. (1995). Living Systems. Niwot, CO, USA: University Press of Colorado.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin III, F. S., Lambin, E. F., ... & Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a
Rousseau, D., Billingham, J., & Calvo-Amodio, J. 2019. "Systemic Virtues as a Foundation for a General Theory of Design Elegance." Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 36(5): 656–667. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Troncale, L. R. 1978. "Linkage Propositions between Fifty Principal Systems Concepts." In Applied General Systems Research, edited by G. J. Klir, NATO Conference Series, vol. 5, 29–52. Boston, MA, USA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-0555-3_2
Volk, T. (2017). Quarks to Culture: How We Came to Be. New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press.
Wiener, N. 2019. Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press. Available at: https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/4581
Primary References
Ackoff, R. L. (1971). Towards a system of systems concepts. Management Science, 17(11), 661–671.
Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Maier, M. W., & Rechtin, E. (2009). The Art of Systems Architecting, 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Ulrich, W. (1994). Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical Philosophy. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Volk, T. (2017). Quarks to Culture: How We Came to Be. New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press.
Additional References
None