Difference between revisions of "What is Systems Thinking?"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | This article | + | This article is part of the [[Systems Thinking]] Knowledge Area. The scope of systems thinking is the foundation for dealing with real world situations using a set of related [[Concepts of Systems Thinking |system concepts]], [[Principles of Systems Thinking |system concepts]], [[Patterns of Systems Thinking |system concepts]]. |
| − | == | + | ==Introduction== |
| − | + | The concepts, principles, and patterns of systems thinking have arisen both from the work of systems scientists and from the work of practitioners applying the insights of systems science to real-world problems. | |
| − | + | Holism has been a dominant theme in systems thinking for nearly a century, in recognition of the need to consider a system as a whole because of observed phenomena such as [[Emergence (glossary)]. Proponents have included Wertheimer, Smuts, Bertalanffy, Weiss, (Ackoff, 1979), (Klir, 2001), and (Koestler, 1967) among many others. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | A more detailed discussion of the most important movements in systems theory can be found in the History of Systems Science article. | |
| − | + | ==Identifying Systems of Interest== | |
| − | + | When humans observe or interact with a system, they allocate boundaries and names to parts of the system. This naming may follow the natural hierarchy of the system, but will also reflect the needs and experience of the observer to associate elements with common attributes of purposes relevant to their own. Thus, a number of [[systems of interest (SoI) (glossary)]] (Flood and Carson 1993) must be identified and they must be both relevant and include a set of elements which represent a system whole. This way of observing systems wherein the complex system relationships are focused around a particular system boundary is called systemic resolution. | |
| − | |||
| − | + | Systems thinking requires an ongoing process of attention and adaptation to ensure that one has appropriately identified boundaries, dependencies, and relationships. Churchman (1968) and others have also considered broader ethical, political and social questions related to management science with regards to the relative power and responsibility of the participants in system interventions. These are seen by critical systems thinkers as key factors to be considered in defining problem system boundaries. | |
| − | + | ||
| + | A [[system context (glossary)]] can be used to define a SoI and to capture and agree on the important relationships between it, such as the systems it works directly with and the systems which influence it in some way. When this approach is used to focus on part of a larger system, a balance of reductionism and holism is applied. This balance sits at the heart of a systems approach. A systems context provides the tool for applying this balance, and is thus an essential part of any systems approach and hence, of SE as well. Approaches for describing the context of the different types of engineered systems are discussed in Engineered System Context within the Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems knowledge area. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Thoughts on Systems Thinking== | ||
| + | Churchman believes that an important component of system knowledge comes from "others" or "enemies" outside the system: The systems approach begins when first you see the world through the eyes of another. Churchman (1968) | ||
| + | |||
| + | In this famous phrase, Churchman suggests that people can step outside a system they are in and mentally try to consider it through the lenses of other people's values. Churchman (1979), identified four main enemies of the systems approach ([[Acronyms|SA]]) namely: politics, morality, religion and aesthetics. | ||
| + | |||
| + | To Churchman, the "enemies" of the SA provide a powerful way of learning about the systems approach, precisely because they enable the rational thinker to step outside the boundary of a system and to look at it. It means that systems thinkers are not necessarily just involved within a system but are essentially involved in the "outside" of systems rationality. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Senge (1990, 6-7) defines systems thinking in his seminal work on learning organizations as “a process of discovery and diagnosis – an inquiry into the governing processes underlying the problems we face and the opportunities we have.” | ||
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. | 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. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
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: | 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, 1) | *“Systems thinking requires the consciousness of the fact that we deal with models of our reality and not with the reality itself.” (Ossimitz 1997, 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, 199); | *“…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, 199); | ||
*“Systems thinking provides a powerful way of taking account of causal connections that are distant in time and space.” (Stacey 2000, 9) | *“Systems thinking provides a powerful way of taking account of causal connections that are distant in time and space.” (Stacey 2000, 9) | ||
| − | |||
| − | + | 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: | |
| + | <blockquote>''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, 283)</blockquote> | ||
| − | + | Kasser offers 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) | |
| − | + | ==Systems Thinking and the SEBoK== | |
| − | + | From these discussions one can see systems thinking as both a set of founding ideas for the development of systems theories and practices and also as a pervasive way of thinking need by those developing and applying them. | |
| − | + | The SE Body of Knowledge is particularly interested in how Systems Thinking can support a [[Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems | Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems]]. | |
| − | + | In order to examine a SoI in more detail, to understand, use or change them in some way, practitioners are faced with an apparent “systems thinking paradox”. One can only truly understand a system by considering all of its possible relationships and interactions, inside and outside of its boundary and in all possible future situations (of both system creation and life), but this makes it apparently impossible for people to understand a system or to predict all of the consequences of changes to it. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | In order to examine a | ||
If this means that all possible system relationships and environmental conditions must be considered to fully understand the consequences of creating or changing a system, what useful work can be done? | If this means that all possible system relationships and environmental conditions must be considered to fully understand the consequences of creating or changing a system, what useful work can be done? | ||
| − | In many ways this is the essence of all human endeavors, whether they | + | In many ways this is the essence of all human endeavors, whether they are technical, managerial, social or political, the so called known knowns and unknown unknowns. The systems approach is a way of tackling real world problems and making use of the concepts, principle and patterns of systems thinking to enable systems to be engineered and used. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | The systems principles of Encapsulation and Separation of Concerns in [[Principles of Systems Thinking]] relate to this issue. Some of the detail of complex situations must be hidden to allow focus on changes to a system element. The impact must be considered of any changes that might be made across sufficient related system components to fit within acceptable commercial and social risks must be considered. Engineering and management disciplines deal with this by gathering as much knowledge as necessary to proceed at a risk level acceptable to the required need. The assessment of what is enough and how much risk to take can, to some extent, be codified with rules and regulations, and managed through processes and procedures; however, it is ultimately a combination of the skill and judgment of the individuals performing the work. | |
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 16:49, 13 August 2012
This article is part of the Systems Thinking Knowledge Area. The scope of systems thinking is the foundation for dealing with real world situations using a set of related system concepts, system concepts, system concepts.
Introduction
The concepts, principles, and patterns of systems thinking have arisen both from the work of systems scientists and from the work of practitioners applying the insights of systems science to real-world problems.
Holism has been a dominant theme in systems thinking for nearly a century, in recognition of the need to consider a system as a whole because of observed phenomena such as [[Emergence (glossary)]. Proponents have included Wertheimer, Smuts, Bertalanffy, Weiss, (Ackoff, 1979), (Klir, 2001), and (Koestler, 1967) among many others.
A more detailed discussion of the most important movements in systems theory can be found in the History of Systems Science article.
Identifying Systems of Interest
When humans observe or interact with a system, they allocate boundaries and names to parts of the system. This naming may follow the natural hierarchy of the system, but will also reflect the needs and experience of the observer to associate elements with common attributes of purposes relevant to their own. Thus, a number of systems of interest (SoI) (glossary) (Flood and Carson 1993) must be identified and they must be both relevant and include a set of elements which represent a system whole. This way of observing systems wherein the complex system relationships are focused around a particular system boundary is called systemic resolution.
Systems thinking requires an ongoing process of attention and adaptation to ensure that one has appropriately identified boundaries, dependencies, and relationships. Churchman (1968) and others have also considered broader ethical, political and social questions related to management science with regards to the relative power and responsibility of the participants in system interventions. These are seen by critical systems thinkers as key factors to be considered in defining problem system boundaries.
A system context (glossary) can be used to define a SoI and to capture and agree on the important relationships between it, such as the systems it works directly with and the systems which influence it in some way. When this approach is used to focus on part of a larger system, a balance of reductionism and holism is applied. This balance sits at the heart of a systems approach. A systems context provides the tool for applying this balance, and is thus an essential part of any systems approach and hence, of SE as well. Approaches for describing the context of the different types of engineered systems are discussed in Engineered System Context within the Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems knowledge area.
Thoughts on Systems Thinking
Churchman believes that an important component of system knowledge comes from "others" or "enemies" outside the system: The systems approach begins when first you see the world through the eyes of another. Churchman (1968)
In this famous phrase, Churchman suggests that people can step outside a system they are in and mentally try to consider it through the lenses of other people's values. Churchman (1979), identified four main enemies of the systems approach (SA) namely: politics, morality, religion and aesthetics.
To Churchman, the "enemies" of the SA provide a powerful way of learning about the systems approach, precisely because they enable the rational thinker to step outside the boundary of a system and to look at it. It means that systems thinkers are not necessarily just involved within a system but are essentially involved in the "outside" of systems rationality.
Senge (1990, 6-7) defines systems thinking in his seminal work on learning organizations as “a process of discovery and diagnosis – an inquiry into the governing processes underlying the problems we face and the opportunities we have.”
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.
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, 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, 199);
- “Systems thinking provides a powerful way of taking account of causal connections that are distant in time and space.” (Stacey 2000, 9)
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, 283)
Kasser offers 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)
Systems Thinking and the SEBoK
From these discussions one can see systems thinking as both a set of founding ideas for the development of systems theories and practices and also as a pervasive way of thinking need by those developing and applying them.
The SE Body of Knowledge is particularly interested in how Systems Thinking can support a Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems.
In order to examine a SoI in more detail, to understand, use or change them in some way, practitioners are faced with an apparent “systems thinking paradox”. One can only truly understand a system by considering all of its possible relationships and interactions, inside and outside of its boundary and in all possible future situations (of both system creation and life), but this makes it apparently impossible for people to understand a system or to predict all of the consequences of changes to it.
If this means that all possible system relationships and environmental conditions must be considered to fully understand the consequences of creating or changing a system, what useful work can be done?
In many ways this is the essence of all human endeavors, whether they are technical, managerial, social or political, the so called known knowns and unknown unknowns. The systems approach is a way of tackling real world problems and making use of the concepts, principle and patterns of systems thinking to enable systems to be engineered and used.
The systems principles of Encapsulation and Separation of Concerns in Principles of Systems Thinking relate to this issue. Some of the detail of complex situations must be hidden to allow focus on changes to a system element. The impact must be considered of any changes that might be made across sufficient related system components to fit within acceptable commercial and social risks must be considered. Engineering and management disciplines deal with this by gathering as much knowledge as necessary to proceed at a risk level acceptable to the required need. The assessment of what is enough and how much risk to take can, to some extent, be codified with rules and regulations, and managed through processes and procedures; however, it is ultimately a combination of the skill and judgment of the individuals performing the work.
References
Works Cited
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. Delacorte Press.
Churchman, C. West. 1979. "The Systems Approach and Its Enemies". New York: Basic Books.
Checkland, P. 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.
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.
Flood, R. L. and E.R. Carson. 1993. Dealing with Complexity: An Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science, 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: Plenum Press.
Gharajedaghi, J. 1999. Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity: A platform for designing. 1st ed. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Jackson, M. 1989. "Which Systems Methodology When? Initial Results from a Research Program." In: R Flood, M Jackson and P Keys (eds). Systems Prospects: the Next Ten Years of Systems Research. New York, NY, USA: Plenum.
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. West. 1979. "The Systems Approach and its Enemies". New York: Basic Books.
Gharajedaghi, J. 1999. Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity: A platform for designing. 1st ed. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Senge, P. M. 1990, 2006. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, NY, USA: Doubleday Currency.
Additional References
Jackson, M. 2003. Systems Thinking: Creating Holisms for Managers. Wiley; Chichester
Edson, R. 2008. Systems Thinking. Applied. A Primer. In: ASYST Institute (ed.). Arlington, VA: Analytic Services.
Lawson, H. 2010. A Journey Through the Systems Landscape, London, Kings College, UK.
SEBoK Discussion
Please provide your comments and feedback on the SEBoK below. You will need to log in to DISQUS using an existing account (e.g. Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) or create a DISQUS account. Simply type your comment in the text field below and DISQUS will guide you through the login or registration steps. Feedback will be archived and used for future updates to the SEBoK. If you provided a comment that is no longer listed, that comment has been adjudicated. You can view adjudication for comments submitted prior to SEBoK v. 1.0 at SEBoK Review and Adjudication. Later comments are addressed and changes are summarized in the Letter from the Editor and Acknowledgements and Release History.
If you would like to provide edits on this article, recommend new content, or make comments on the SEBoK as a whole, please see the SEBoK Sandbox.
blog comments powered by Disqus