Back • Return Home
Storage Capacity in Living Systems
Lane Tracy
Department of Management Systems
College of Business Administration
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
USA
All living systems have or have access to matter-energy storage and memory subsystems (Miller 1978). Yet living systems display a remarkable penchant for increasing their natural storage capacity through use of artifacts. Many animals, either individually or in groups, store food in nests, hives, and similar structures. Human individuals and groups use storage huts, closets, cabinets, shelves, racks, drawers, crawl spaces, attics, garages, refrigerators, freezers, tanks, boxes, suitcases, trunks, batteries, books, tape recorders, cameras, computer disks -- all to store various forms of matter-energy and information. Entire organizations, such as libraries, museums, warehouses, banks, insurance companies, waste disposal firms, burial associations, and water departments, are devoted primarily to storage. Manufacturing organizations devote considerable attention to storage of raw materials, work in process, and finished goods, as well as to retention of correspondence, production records, orders, billing and payment records, personnel data, and so forth. Some organizations, such as naval ships, must even devise ways to store their members who are not at work. Societies and supranational systems often concern themselves with the storage of natural resources through forest and wildlife preserves, energy reserves, fuel depots, and dams. Armaments are stored in armories, hangars, and bunkers. Records are retained in archives and computer networks.
The variety of means that living systems have developed and are still developing to increase their storage capacity attests to the importance of memory and matter-energy storage. It is evident that there is competitive advantage, at least up to a point, in being able to store more than other systems. Improving upon nature in the matter of storage capacity is a primary focus of survival and competition among living systems.
From these observations I wish to state the following cross-level hypothesis: Other things being equal, living systems that have greater capacity for storage of critical resources will survive and prosper better than those having lesser capacity. Of more immediate interest in this paper is the following corollary: Among systems that are able to use artifacts for storage, those that build or acquire greater storage capacity for critical resources will survive and prosper better than those that build or acquire lesser capacity.
It is generally considered that efficiency is a major principle behind the success and survival of living systems. In the long run systems that are able to do more with less will outlast or outreproduce those that make inefficient use of inputs (Miller 1978:101). How can we reconcile this principle with the observation that successful systems devote much of their resources to development of increased storage capacity? Is this-an efficient use of resources? If so, how? If not, how do the principles of efficiency and storage capacity interact?
In order to begin to answer these questions we must first understand why matter-energy storage and memory are so critical to the health of living systems. How does storage capacity: conteiuke to the survivability of a living system?
There are circumstances in which no matter-energy storage or memory is necessary. If a system exists in an environment that automatically makes available in sufficient amounts whatever resources the system requires, then there is no need for the system to store anything. Bacteria often find such and environment, as do human infants. Even so, bacteria and babies both possess innate storage capacity for nutrients, water, and Certain minerals. Perhaps this capacity is a remnant of harder times, but we must assume it has some survival potential.
As the environment becomes less benign or more variable, the need for Storage capacity increases. Certain resources may be available on a sporadic basis, for instance. When a living system depletes the resources in its immediate vicinity, as a tribe of hunter-gatherers might, it must store enough to survive during the period of migration to a new place. During the spring a farmer stores water in a pond for use during the dry summer months. Seeds are stored in the fall for replanting in the spring. Infants learn that food will be available at certain recurring intervals, rather than on demand. These activities require memory of the recurring patterns as well as capacity to hold whatever is needed for the future.
So long as resource deficiencies in the environment are predictable, there is no need for expansion of storage capacity beyond a calculable size. Our built-in capacity to retain air, water, and nutrients probably reflects the evolutionary calculations of survival as to the maximum length of time we are likely to be deprived of each of these resources. Many business firms are able to calculate the seasonal variations of supply and demand and to minimize inventory accordingly. When changes in the availability of resources are predictable, the principles of efficiency and sufficiency can be reconciled. It is when change becomes unpredictable that storage capacity emerges as a dominant factor.
Management under conditions of uncertainty is a major theme of the literature of business administration. Managers attempt to convert uncertainty or unpredictability into risk, which is manageable. A primary method in this conversion process is the use of buffers. The technical core functions of an organization are surrounded by buffer departments that protect the core from environmental uncertainty (Thompson 1967). Further, buffer stocks are used to protect critical functions from a shortage of any resources they may require. These buffer stocks may exist at each stage of System operation: at the input stage in the form of ready access to information, energy, a line of credit, parts, and raw materials; at the throughput stage as materials inventory and semi-finished assemblies; and at the output stage in the form of finished products inventory.
Buffers require storage capacity. Buffer departments need office space and other resources. A major part of their normal activity consists of gathering and storing information in an attempt to reduce uncertainty. Buffer stocks consisting of materials, semi-finished assemblies, and finished products require storage space. System resources are invested both in storage capacity (i.e. space and memory) and in activities such as research and development that are designed to reduce uncertainty to a manageable level, Management takes a calculated risk of wasting resources in unnecessary activities and excess capacity, judging that the risk is likely to be less harmful to the system than environmental change might be.
Note that buffers may be dispersed to other living systems or the nonliving environment. In using credit, for instance, an individual or organization allows a financial institution to be the actual holder of the buffer stock. Asa quid pro quo, the organization may be required to deposit some of its cash in the financial institution. Mining and logging firms depend on the land as a repository of their raw materials. Information may be gleaned from libraries, reporting services, customers and competitors, and the physical environment; the system may simply invest in the means of accessing these sources of data. Nevertheless, such Sources should be considered adjuncts of a system's storage and memory subsystems, if the system makes regular, planned use of them.
The general observation is that living systems invest resources in Storage capacity in order to reduce uncertainty. A degree of risk of inefficient use of Tesources is accepted as a tradeoff. This riskManagement behavior can be seen at many levels of living systems. As I Noted in the introduction, all living systems maintain some buffer stocks of building and energy-producing materials. Human individuals, groups, organizations, and societies are particularly active in increasing their storage and memory capacity. In fact, the ability of human systems to expand their storage capacity seems almost unlimited. This observation raises the question of whether there are any natural or logical limits to a system's storage capacity.
Two fields in which this question has been studied extensively are finance and operations management. At the level of organizations, particularly business organizations, there has been much study of such questions as how much cash should be retained and how much credit is needed to support a given level of activity. Similarly, various models have been developed to calculate the optimal level of inventory of raw materials and finished goods. Nevertheless, controversy and disagreement still exist concerning these matters. The literature on just-in-time (JIT) production illustrates the issues involved in trying to determine an optimal tradeoff between reduction of uncertainty and risk of inefficiency.
JIT is a technique developed by Japanese manufacturers to improve the firm's efficiency by reducing its investment in inventory. Through extensive planning of resource needs and close monitoring of suppliers and production schedules, the firm is able to receive raw materials and components only days or hours before they are actually required, and move materials smoothly through a multistage production process with minimal delay between stages. Even finished product inventory may be minimized by careful coordination of production with market demand. The technique also involves flexible use of machinery and employees, with overtime capacity and capability of rapid switchover from one product to another (Monden 1981).
Advocates of JIT point out its advantage of greater efficiency. Critics contend that this efficiency is attained at the expense of other systems. Suppliers may have to carry additional inventory themselves, in order to meet the demands of their contract. Managers must devote additional time to planning and data gathering, and operative employees must be willing to work overtime. Machinery and transport may require upgrading. Also, the firm may face added risk from natural catastrophe or labor unrest. Thus far there is no clear answer as to what constitutes the optimal tradeoff between efficiency and risk reduction, from the point of view of the firm or the broader economic system of which it is a part.
At the societal level there is debate about optimal storage capacity of natural resources and arms. Ecologists argue for increased stockpiling of nonrenewable resources through substitution of renewable resources, but economists often point out the short-run inefficiencies involved in such substitution. Advocates of increased spending on national defense emphasize that investment in arms and armies reduces the risk of attack, while opponents contend that such spending on nonproductive goods and services undermines the strength of the economy (Kennedy 1987).
At all of these levels of living systems the basic tradeoff appears to be the same: A degree of efficiency is sacrificed for the sake of reducing the uncertainty faced by the system. Uncertainty cannot be reduced to zero, however, and the cost of reduction increases tapidly. It appears we must reject the hypothesis that unlimited growth of storage capacity is best, but a formula for the optimal tradeoff has not yet been determined. Human systems continue to develop new means of storage and to expand existing capacity. Yet resistance has developed toward further spending on Storage capacity, and there is increasing concern for efficiency at the organizational and societal levels.
REFERENCES
Kennedy, Paul M. 1987. The rise and fall of the great powers. New York: Random House.
Miller, James G. 1978, Living systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Monden, Y. 1981. Adaptable kanban system helps Toyota maintain just-in-time Production. Industrial Engineering 13(5): 29-46.
Thompson, James D. 1967, Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.