A Review of: A Systems View of Information Warfare, by H Friman,
JIW, Volume 1, Number 1, Published 2001

Friman’s paper proposes a systems approach to Information Warfare issues. It was officially published when the Journal of Information Warfare was released at the InfoWar.com conference held in Washington, D.C., the week before the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This event changed most of the approaches to information-related approaches to conflict. The paper outlines the systems approach, which integrates both physical and psychological elements—which became essential in the new environment of the collectivisation of the targets in influencing entities using information systems. The output became targeted at groups both internal and external to the creators of systems for behavioural change.

The interest in systems (and information warfare) was high in Sweden at the time. The history of systems’ thought was also high. Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, many systems approaches were developed. These included ‘hard’ approaches such as Forrester’s ‘System Dynamics’ that emphasised feedback loops and linkages between elements of the system. It certainly presented a leap ahead but was still using the Closed (or Machine) metaphor. Beers Virtual Systems Model had a cybernetic flavour and used a fixed approach, as it specified the essential components necessary for each data component and the interactive flows between them for an effective system to work. Checkland offered another open (organic) metaphor called Soft Systems Methodology, which put emphasis on as many opinions involved with the problem that were involved in the problem’s solution. This was a reaction to the failure to provide information systems that were expensive and which failed to provide adequate service for its users. Thus, this ‘organic’ process to draw a boundary around the system provided many elements that would have previously been omitted. Also, it showed relevant functions outside the system and how they related to it.

Friman seems to have used Flood and Jackson’s (1991) text that explained their Total Systems Intervention which breaks their process into two axes:

1. Simple or Complex,
2. Unitary, Pluralist, Coercive.

Simple means: few system elements and self-governing laws, for example.
Complex means: large numbers of elements, and attributes are not determined.
Unitary means: system has shared common interests, largely agreement.
Pluralist means: most agreement, compromise possible.
Coercive means: no shared common interests, and coercion is used to accept decisions.

These six combinations are examined and appropriate methodologies assigned. So Simple Unitary would use systems analysis and operational research, for example. Complex Pluralist problems would be Interactive Planning, or Soft Systems methodology. Much of this tends to be subjective, but it gives tools to handle systems problems of all types.

So why is this important in the development of Information techniques in an environment where the communication between all in the world is increasing exponentially, where today we are totally dependent on those networks? The audience has also multiplied as it has its ability to access information. Control of information messages has become essential to some. Manipulation of information has become critical to industry, the military, and to society as a whole.

In the warfare context: nations and non-state groups are using information techniques in ever increasing and sophisticated ways. China developed Unrestricted Warfare (Liang & Xiangsui 1999) where all facets of the domestic or enemy population are considered; the U.S. developed full spectrum dominance, and so on. The development of information-based warfare has developed enormously. There have been many derivations of it from the existing psychological operations, propaganda, network operations, and so on, to ‘jargon’ such as full spectrum dominance. Now all populations are exposed to it consistently. The target audiences are both foreign and domestic. It could be said that Cognitive Warfare is the ultimate approach, where the objectives are not only to create beliefs within a population but also their acts as well (du Cluzel 2020). This is an amazing objective technically, using neuroscience and psychology, but the objectives might not be desirable for many.

It is interesting that the word ‘system’ is still contested. Voss (2024) still states that ‘system’ is used interchangeably with ‘technology, and ‘infrastructure’. The exploration of systems and their changing of perceptions has changed thinking and action in the last 24 years.

References
Du Cluzel, F 2020, Cognitive Warfare, Innovation Hub, November.

Flood, RL & Jackson, MC 1991, Creative problem solving: Total systems intervention, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, US.

Liang,Q & Xiangsui W 1999, Unrestricted Warfare, Albatross Publishers, Naples, Italy.

Voss, GV 2024, Systems Ultra, Verso, London, UK.