What is Systems Thinking?

The basis of systems thinking is to use the notion of system holism to explore real world situations and to build up a set of related system concepts to enable this. In this article we consider the different ways in which systems thinking has been defined, and how this relates to the perspective of those defining it. We then consider how the scope of systems thinking has grown with the associated developments in systems science , and the extent to which modern systems thinking provides the foundation for dealing with engineered system problems.

Definitions of Systems Thinking

Many attribute the notion of systems thinking to the work of Aristotle in examining multiple discipline related aspects in what is termed metaphysics. In modern times, the field of systems thinking has been evolving since the 1920’s when the Austrian biologist von Bertalanffy introduced the idea of using biological analogues to systems in general (von Bertalanffy 1968).

(Senge 1990, p. 6-7) defines systems thinking in his seminal work on learning organizations: “Systems thinking is a process of discovery and diagnosis – an inquiry into the governing processes underlying the problems we face and the opportunities we have.” Senge (2006) further describes systems thinking as follows:

Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static snapshots. It is a set of general principles- distilled over the course of the twentieth century, spanning fields as diverse as the physical and social sciences, engineering, and management... During the last thirty years, these tools have been applied to understand a wide range of corporate, urban, regional, economic, political, ecological, and even psychological systems. And systems thinking is a sensibility - for the subtle interconnectedness that gives living systems their unique character. (Senge 2006, 68-69)

According to Senge and his colleagues (Senge 1994), a good systems thinker, particularly in an organizational setting, is someone who can see four levels operating simultaneously: events, patterns of behavior, systems, and mental models.

More recent chaos and complexity theories have also impacted the development of systems thinking, including the treatment of such concepts as emergence. According to Gharajedaghi:

Systems thinking is the art of simplifying complexity. It is about seeing through chaos, managing interdependency, and understanding choice. We see the world as increasingly more complex and chaotic because we use inadequate concepts to explain it. When we understand something, we no longer see it as chaotic or complex. (Gharajedaghi 1999, p. 283)

The definition of systems thinking has evolved over time as advances have been made in systems theory. Some additional examples of systems thinking definitions are as follows:

• “Systems thinking requires the consciousness of the fact that we deal with models of our reality and not with the reality itself.” (Ossimitz 1997, p. 1)
• “…what is often called “systemic thinking” …is …a bundle of capabilities, and at the heart of it is the ability to apply our normal thought processes, our common sense, to the circumstances of a given situation.” (Dörner 1996, p. 199);
• “Systems thinking provides a powerful way of taking account of causal connections that are distant in time and space.” (Stacey 2000, p. 9)

A broader perspective considers systems thinking to be one element in a wider system of holistic thinking. Kasser defines holistic thinking as follows: "...the combination of analysis [in the form of elaboration], systems thinking and critical thinking." (Kasser 2010) For several years, Gene Bellinger has provided insight into the field of systems thinking via his popular web-site www.systems-thinking.org. He initiated a LinkedIn discussion group entitled Systems Thinking World and the wiki site www.systemswiki.org. Bellinger makes the following highly relevant observation concerning the field of systems thinking and the benefits on his website:

As I have continued to ponder the meaning of Systems Thinking over the years in conjunction with reading and many conversations it would seem that the understanding has evolved, thankfully. There was a time when I thought Systems Thinking was just a not very grown up version of System Dynamics though I have come to understand it is really far more encompassing. While the meaning continues to evolve my foundational belief remains solid. Systems Thinking will enable you to better understand the world around you and enable you to have more control over your life than any other subject you may undertake to study. For situations that concern you Systems Thinking will enable you to create approaches for dealing with these situations that are highly likely to produce the desired results while minimizing unexpected consequences. (Bellinger 2011)

Developments in System Thinking

The work of system scientists such as von Bertalanffy has been the foundation for the creation of applied methodologies to deal with real world system problems, the development of these ideas have in turn influenced the scope of systems thinking. These approaches have been categorized as hard and soft approaches, defined as follows:

• Hard approaches consider problems as “a difficult matter requiring solution, something hard to understand, accomplish or deal with” (Oxford English Dictionary).
• Soft approaches consider problems as “ arising from everyday events and ideas, and may be perceived differently by different people. Such problems are not constructed by the investigator as are laboratory problems” (Checkland, 1981).

In hard system approaches the problems may be complex and difficult, but they are known and can fully expressed by the investigator. Such problems can be solved by selecting from the best available solutions (possibly with some modification or integration to create an optimum solution). In this context, the term "systems" is used to describe real world things, a solution system is selected, created and then deployed to solve the problem.

soft system approaches reject the idea of a single problem and consider problematic situations in which different people will perceive different issues depending upon their own viewpoint and experience. These problematic situations are not solved, but managed through interventions which seek to reduce "discomfort" among the participants. The term system is used to describe systems of ideas, conceptual systems which guide our understanding of the situation or help in the selection of intervention strategies.

These three ideas of “problem vs. problematic situation”; “solution vs. discomfort reduction” and “the system vs. systems understanding” encapsulate the differences between hard and soft approaches (Flood and Carson, 1993).

Churchman (Churchman, 1979) and others have also considered broader ethics political and social questions related to management science, with regards to the relative power and responsibility of the participants in system interventions. Jackson proposes a frame for considering which approach should be applied, please see: Jackson's Framework. In Jackson's framework the following definitions apply to the participants involved in solving the problem:

• unitary : A problem situation in which participants "have similar values, beliefs and interests. They share common purposes and are all involved, in one way or another, in decision-making about how to realize their agreed objectives." (Jackson 2003, p. 19)
• pluralist : A problem situation involving participants in which "although their basic interests are compatible, they do not share the same values and beliefs. Space needs to be made available within which debate, disagreement, even conifct, can take place. If this is done, and all feel they have been involved in decision-making, then accommodations and compromises can be found. Participants will come to agree, at least temporarily, on productive ways forward and will act accordingly." (Jackson 2003, p. 19)
• coercive : A problem situation in which the participants "have few interests in common and, if free to express them, would hold conficting values and beliefs. Compromise is not possible and so no agreed objectives direct action. Decisions are taken on the basis of who has most power and various forms of coercion employed to ensure adherence to commands." (Jackson 2003, p. 19)

Jackson's framework suggests that for simple and complex systems with unitary participants, hard and dynamic systems thinking applies, respectively. For simple and complex systems with pluralist participants, soft systems thinking applies. For simple and complex systems with coercive participants, emancipatory and postmodernist system thinking applies, respectively. These thinking approaches consider all attempts to look for system solutions to be temporary and ineffective in situations where the power of individuals and groups of people dominate any system structures we create. They advocate an approach which encourages diversity, free thinking and creativity of individuals and in the organization's structures. Thus, modern system thinking has the breadth needed to deal with a broad range of complex problems and solutions.

References

Citations

Bellinger, G. 2011. "Systems Thinking Definitions", Retrieved September 7, 2011 from http://www.systemswiki.org/index.php?title=Systems_Thinking_Definitions.

Bertalanffy, L. von. 1968. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. Revised ed. New York, NY: Braziller.

Churchman, C. W. 1968. The Systems Approach and its Enemies. New York, NY, USA: Dell Publishing.

Dorner, H., and A. Karpati. 2008. "Mentored innovation in teacher training using two virtual collaborative learning environments." In Beyond knowledge: The legacy of competence--meaningful computer-based learning environments., eds. J. Zumbach, N. Schwartz, T. Seufert and L. Kester. Vol. VIII. New York, NY: Springer.

Gharajedaghi, J. 1999. Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity: A platform for designing. 1st ed. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Jackson, M. 2003. Systems Thinking: Creating Holisms for Managers. Wiley; Chichester

Kasser, J. 2010. "Holistic thinking and how it can produce innovative solutions to difficult problems." Paper presented at 7th Bi-annual European Systems Engineering Conference (EuSEC), 24-27 May 2010, Stockholm, Sweden.

Ossimitz, G. The development of systems thinking skills using system dynamics modeling tools. in Universitat Klagenfurt [database online]. Klagenfurt, Austria, 1997 [cited November 12 2007]. Available from http://wwwu.uni-klu.ac.at/gossimit/sdyn/gdm_eng.htm.

Senge, P. M. 1990, 2006. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, NY, USA: Doubleday Currency.

Senge, P. M., A. Klieiner, C. Roberts, R. B. Ross, and B. J. Smith. 1994. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York, NY: Crown Business.

Stacey, R. D., D. Griffin, and P. Shaw. 2000. Complexity and management: Fad or radical challenge to systems thinking?. London, U.K.: Routledge.

Primary References

Bertalanffy, L. von. 1968. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. Revised ed. New York, NY: Braziller.

Churchman, C. W. 1968. The Systems Approach and its Enemies. New York, NY, USA: Dell Publishing.

Gharajedaghi, J. 1999. Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity: A platform for designing. 1st ed. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Lawson, H. 2010. A Journey Through the Systems Landscape, London, Kings College, UK.

Senge, P. M. 1990, 2006. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, NY, USA: Doubleday Currency.

Additional References

Edson, R. 2008. Systems Thinking. Applied. A Primer. In: ASYST Institute (ed.). Arlington, VA: Analytic Services.

---

<- Previous Article | Parent Article | Next Article ->