Systems Perspective and Strategic Marketing
HUS- 743-23
Social Systems Integration
Systems Perspective and Strategic Marketing
Instructor: Dr. Szabi Ishtai-Zee
Student: Dawn Swartz
Date Due: 10/13/12
Date Submitted: 10/13/12
IA. Contrasting Characteristics of Relatively Open and Relatively Closed System All systems are relatively open or relatively closed, which means, systems are either receptive or non-receptive to the movement of energy across its boundaries. A system is never completely open, because it would make it indistinguishable from its environment. Nor is a system completely closed, because then it would cease to exist (Anderson, Carter & Lowe, 1999, p. 30).
There are two aspects which must occur in a relatively open system. The first is it must exchange information, energy, or material with its external environment, which is a back and forth flow moving across its boundary. The second aspect is it has to sustain the exchange of information, energy, or material within its internal subsystems.
Human services agencies are an example of a relatively open system. They exchange energy with the environment, such as, funding sources, client referrals, or adhering to licensing requirements from the state of Pennsylvania. When this occurs the internal subsystems come into play, such as, the accounting department, residential services, direct care staff, and upper management.
The ARC of Cumberland and Perry Counties (CPARC) provides services to adults with intellectual developmental disabilities (IDD). One of CPARC’s subsystems is residential services, which is another example of a relatively open system. It exchanges information with its external environment, such as, the Pennsylvania Office of Developmental Programs and Cumberland County MH/IDD. CPARC receives regulatory updates from them and in exchange provides them with fiscal and quality of services statistics.
Mechanicsburg Apartment Program is operated by CPARC and is an example of a relatively closed system. It serves 18
Social Systems Integration
Systems Perspective and Strategic Marketing
Instructor: Dr. Szabi Ishtai-Zee
Student: Dawn Swartz
Date Due: 10/13/12
Date Submitted: 10/13/12
IA. Contrasting Characteristics of Relatively Open and Relatively Closed System All systems are relatively open or relatively closed, which means, systems are either receptive or non-receptive to the movement of energy across its boundaries. A system is never completely open, because it would make it indistinguishable from its environment. Nor is a system completely closed, because then it would cease to exist (Anderson, Carter & Lowe, 1999, p. 30).
There are two aspects which must occur in a relatively open system. The first is it must exchange information, energy, or material with its external environment, which is a back and forth flow moving across its boundary. The second aspect is it has to sustain the exchange of information, energy, or material within its internal subsystems.
Human services agencies are an example of a relatively open system. They exchange energy with the environment, such as, funding sources, client referrals, or adhering to licensing requirements from the state of Pennsylvania. When this occurs the internal subsystems come into play, such as, the accounting department, residential services, direct care staff, and upper management.
The ARC of Cumberland and Perry Counties (CPARC) provides services to adults with intellectual developmental disabilities (IDD). One of CPARC’s subsystems is residential services, which is another example of a relatively open system. It exchanges information with its external environment, such as, the Pennsylvania Office of Developmental Programs and Cumberland County MH/IDD. CPARC receives regulatory updates from them and in exchange provides them with fiscal and quality of services statistics.
Mechanicsburg Apartment Program is operated by CPARC and is an example of a relatively closed system. It serves 18
References: Anderson, R. E., Carter, I. E., & Lowe, G. (1999). Human behavior in the social environment, a social systems approach Brodwin, M. G., & Frederick, P. (2010). Sexuality and societal beliefs regarding persons living with disabilities Corn mazes and mental models. (2011, December 01). Retrieved from http://www.edbatista.com/2011/12/corn-mazes-and-mental-models.html CPARC Residential Services Manual, 2006 Estell, D. B., Jones, M. H., Pearl, R., & Acker, R. V. (2009). Best friendships of students with and without learning disabilities across late elementary school Langher, V., Ricci, M. E., Reversi, S., & Krstikj, N. (2009). Adhd and loneliness social dissatisfaction in inclusive school from an individual-context paradigm Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline;the art and practice of the learning organization. (Revised ed. ed., p. 139). New York, NY: Doubleday. Smoot, S. L. (2011). An outcome measure for social goals of inclusion. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(1), 6. Stichter, J. P., Herzog, M. J., Visovsky, K., Schmidt, C., Randolph, J., Schultz, T., & Gage, N. (2010) functioning autism: An initial investigation. J Autism Dev Disorder, 40, 1067-1079. Worth, M. J. (2009). Nonprofit management, principles and practice. (p. 211). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc