Systemic Thinking

The first step to solving a problem is recognizing you have one. It is with this notion in mind that the authors begin their discussion. This chapter begins with the first tenet of systemic thinking which we term the TAO approach, a general approach for increasing our understanding about problems. Then, a discussion of systems errors is presented. In order to mitigate these errors, we discuss the importance of observation as it pertains to making conclusions about our problems. Issues associated with observation and the effects of bias are then discussed.

As problems have evolved from simple systems to complex systems, so too must the methods we use to address them. However, machine age problems, consisting of simple systems, have traditionally been viewed from a largely technical perspective. In systems age complex problems, a predominantly technical perspective continues to be used at the expense of other complementary perspectives. Complex problems have been viewed, and hence, addressed, with a single predominant lens which has often been unsuccessful in solving many ill-structured, wicked, or messy problems. The development of multiple perspectives requires those faced with solving complex problems to include additional perspectives in order to achieve understanding. This includes the integration of hard and soft perspectives to ensure that, in addition to the technical perspective, the equally important organizational, political and human perspectives have been included. The application of multiple perspectives offers a more inclusive framework through which complex problems may be viewed. The integration of technical, organizational, political and human perspectives widens the aperture through which a problem is analyzed, which then increases the probability of correctly addressing ill-structured, wicked, and messy problems. Embracing these complementary perspectives, guidance is given on how to begin to decompose our mess into a number of discrete problems for analysis.

As machine age problems have given way to systems age messes, the underlying complexity associated with understanding these situations has increased exponentially. Accordingly, the methods we use to address these situations must evolve as well. Unfortunately, however, many antiquated methods for dealing with situations remain prominent. Systems engineering is traditionally viewed as the practical application of procedural problem solving, typically geared toward the acquisition of large-scale systems. The underlying paradigm for solving problems with this approach, and other similar approaches, can be characterized as systematic thinking. While quite appropriate for machine age problems, it lacks the theoretical rigor and systemic perspective necessary to deal with systems age messes. Thus, a new paradigm of systemic thinking, conceptually founded in systems theory, is necessary. This chapter provides a brief historical background on the development of systems approaches, contrasts systems approaches and systems engineering and their underlying paradigm with systemic thinking, and introduces practical guidelines for the deployment of a systemic thinking approach that will provide the foundation for the remainder of this book.

Systems theory is a term that has been used inconsistently in a variety of disciplines. Further, few of these disciplines provide any type of formal definition for the term. As such, it is often subject to misunderstanding when used between disciplines. We believe that systems theory provides the foundation for improved understanding when dealing with systems and their attendant problems and messes. Before exposing you to a formal definition for systems theory, we will present a classification and high-level view of the major streams of thought that have addressed systems theory (i.e., the historical roots of systems theory). This will be followed by our definition of systems theory and the axioms and supporting propositions (i.e., systems principles) that we feel apply to all systems. Finally, we’ll present a linkage of the principles of systems theory to the systemic thinking perspectives.

The main focus of the what question of systemic thinking is on attributes of the problem that we are trying to gain increased understanding of. Given that a mess is a system of problems as we describe it in Chap. 2, we take the occasion in this chapter to dissect a given problem and the structured decision analysis and associated concerns that may be employed to gain further insight regarding its parent mess. While it is beneficial to have undergone stakeholder analysis prior to proceeding with this chapter, it is not necessary. The problem analysis phase focuses on decomposition of a problem in a manner that allows for identification of outcomes, their derivative outputs, the outputs’ goals, and the relative importance of these outputs in determining goal attainment and the relative importance of outcomes in achieving problem understanding. This chapter first discusses the basics of decision analysis. We then discuss the anatomy of a problem. Finally, a framework for addressing the what question is presented and this framework is demonstrated on a realistic problem.

The previous chapters in this section have addressed: (1) the who question through a discussion of problem stakeholders, their analysis, and management; and (2) the what question by decomposing the mess and constituent problems into relevant elements such as outputs and outcomes. In this chapter, we will address the why question through an analysis of motivation, and how each problem has a unique model of motivation and feedback between and among the stakeholders and the problem. The sections that follow will focus on the underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for achieving goals and objectives as part of solving messes and their constituent problems. It will provide a short description of 20 theories of motivation that have informed the body of knowledge on the subject of motivation. Developing an understanding for the motives underlying the behaviors associated with why is the central tenet of each of these theories. The chapter will conclude by providing a theory or framework, for linking existing theories of motivation within a cybernetic model. The cybernetic model is provided as an aid in understanding the relationship between individual problems and the associated stakeholders, and the unique two-way relationship that contains both motivation and an associated feedback response.

The previous Chapters in this Section have addressed: (1) the who question through a discussion of problem stakeholders, their analysis and management; (2) the what question by decomposing the mess and constituent problems into relevant elements such as outputs and outcomes; and (3) the why question through an analysis of motivation and how each problem has a unique model of motivation and feedback between and among the stakeholders and the problem. This Chapter will answer the where question. This where we refer to is not associated with physical location and geographic coordinates, but with the circumstances , factors , conditions , values and patterns that surround the problem, and the boundaries that separate the problem from its environment. The sections that follow will focus on two elements of where. The first section will review context—the circumstances, factors, conditions, values and patterns that surround messes and problems. The second section will review boundaries—the representations we use that provide lines of demarcation between messes and problems and the surrounding environment. A framework is then presented for addressing where in messes and problems.

The previous Chapters in this Section have addressed the who, the what, the why, and the where questions associated with messes and their constituent problems. This Chapter will address the how question. When we refer to how we are interested in the means used in the attainment of specific, purposeful goals. The means are the mechanisms utilized in moving from the current problem state toward a new desired state where the goals and associated objectives have been satisfied. Mechanisms produce the effects that, when taken in concert, move a mess from the current state to the desired state. The sections that follow will focus on nine elemental mechanisms that serve as the means of how. The first section will reveal the mechanisms of how, the second section will examine the abstract mechanism of method, and the third section will provide a framework that may be used when understanding messes and their constituent problems.

The when question of systemic thinking attempts to determine the appropriate time for interacting with our mess in an effort to increase our understanding about it. Recalling the TAO of systemic thinking, we must think before we act on (and observe) our mess. The understanding gained from our thinking informs when (and if) we decide to intervene in our mess. In order to discern the appropriate time for action, we explore two criteria of our messes, its maturity and its stability. These two criteria will first be explored by investigating life cycles and their relevance to the maturity of our mess. We will then explore the phenomena of evolution, both as it pertains to biological systems and to purposeful systems. Then, we will discuss entropy as it relates to evolution. Finally, we develop a framework to address the when as it applies to any efforts at intervention in our mess.

We’ve come a long way together. Recall Fig. 2.​3, which presented a basic illustration of the steps underlying mess decomposition and reconstruction, presented as Fig. 11.1 with additional annotation regarding topics covered since our discussion in Chap. 2. The assumption at this point is that the reader has read through the first ten Chapters of this book and understands how to analyze a singular problem from each of the six perspectives presented in Chaps. 5–10. This analysis alone would be sufficient for a standalone problem. Those interested in understanding messes, however, need to go the extra mile. To this end, this Chapter develops a meta-methodology for understanding messes by discussing the interconnected elements necessary from each perspective to be integrated into a coherent whole for systemic understanding. The primary focus of this chapter is on mess reconstruction. Messes, of course, are a construct of convenience. They are envisioned and constructed in a somewhat arbitrary manner by each of us (as the observer) and yet, in identifying a mess and deconstructing it as we did in Chap. 2, and then analyzing its elements as we did in Chaps. 5–10 (as the systems practitioner), we have placed a responsibility on ourselves to reconstitute these pieces into a coherent whole to allow for systemic understanding of our mess. To start on this journey, we must begin first with mess articulation and problem decomposition. Each perspective is then discussed as it pertains to gained understanding at the mess-level. They are presented as they reside within what we propose as two meta-perspectives, namely what is and what ought-to-be, or our current and idealized state, respectively, and named after the conventions established by Ulrich [5]. Articulation and reasoning about these two states with respect to our mess provides us with a rational framework for increasing our understanding about it. Finally, this analysis will be explored as it pertains to the act and observe stages of the TAO process. Both the content and the structure in this Chapter are to be taken together as a meta-perspective framework for systemic thinking.