Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Management 2014 International Annual Conference S. Long, E-H. Ng, and C. Downing eds. Copyright, American Society for Engineering Management, 2011 METASYSTEM PATHOLOGIES: TOWARDS A SYSTEMS-BASED CONSTRUCT FOR COMPLEX SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES Polinpapilinho F. Katina 1 & Charles B. Keating 2 Department of Engineering Management & Systems Engineering National Centers for System of Systems Engineering Old Dominion University Innovation Research Park Bldg. 1 241j Kaufman Hall, Norfolk, VA 23508 Fax: (757) 683-5640 1 pkati001@odu.edu 2 ckeating@odu.edu ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Abstract The purpose of this paper is to explore the concept of metasystem pathology in the context of problem formulation for systems-based approaches designed to enhance complex system governance. Despite numerous proclamations regarding the importance of problem formulation, it appears that there is relatively little research regarding identification of metasystem pathologies. A possible extension of the research literature is to introduce systems theory (laws, principles, and theorems governing systems) and management cybernetics (science of effective organization) to further understanding of pathologies in complex system governance. Specifically, this paper is concerned with how systems theory and management cybernetics can be merged to identify pathologies (circumstances, conditions, factors, patterns, and issues) acting to limit expected performance at the metasystem level. A multidisciplinary literature review illustrates an important contribution of thinking in terms of systems pathology. The paper concludes with implications and future research directions. Keywords Management Cybernetic, Metasystem, Metasystem pathologies, Problem formulation, Systems theory, Viability, Viable System Model Introduction Mintzberg, Raisinghani, and Théorêt (1976) describe problem formulation as “probably the single most important routine” (p. 274) because it is a critical phase in understanding systems and contributes to the eventual formulation of responses that bring about positive change in complex systems (Ackoff, 1974; Adams & Keating, 2011; Dery, 1984; Mitroff and Emshoff, 1979). As a formal activity, problem formulation is essential in bringing a required understanding of a system under study including the surfacing of the ‘right’ issues or circumstances acting to limit system performance (Beer, 1984; Keating & Katina, 2012). Furthermore, problem formulation serves to reduce the probability of solving the wrong problem precisely (Kimball, 1957; Mitroff, 1998). Solving the wrong problem (Type III error) is attributed to failure to adequately scope the problem and might result in costs spiraling out of control (Katina et al., 2014) as well as loss of an important measure of the analyst’s credibility (Lynn, 1980). Methodological approaches, especially systems-based approaches, have often emphasized the importance of problem formulation as indicated by the breath of concepts and the domain depicted in Exhibit 1. Consequently, Dery’s (1984) supposition that problem formulation is “considered the most critical stage in policy analysis” (p. 2) appears relevant. When dealing with problem formulation, the analyst must adequately bound problems using empirical data of both the quantitative and qualitative types, and include consideration of the relevant stakeholders and the environment (Adams & Hester, 2012; Kimball, 1957). Certainly, the purview of bounding problems includes identification of any factors that may act to limit expected system performance. However, there remains ambiguity