What is Systems Thinking?

This article forms part of the Systems Thinking Knowledge Area. The basis of systems thinking is to use the notion of system holism as defined in What is a System? to better understand all types of system, in particular the engineered system contexts described in Types of Systems.

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 the scope of systems thinking as the foundation for dealing with real world situations using a set of related system concepts.

System Theory

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). 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 thinking considers problems as “a difficult matter requiring solution, something hard to understand, accomplish or deal with” (Oxford English Dictionary).
• Soft thinking considers 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).
• Hybrid thinking considers combinations of Hard and Soft thinking as appropriate the the situation (Jackson 1989).

Churchman (Churchman, 1968) 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.

A more detailed discussion of the most important movements in system theory can be found in History of System Science

Definitions of Systems Thinking

(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)

Churchman believes that an impportant 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. In doing so he pioneered the use of the epistemological inquiry an approach which can be used to enlarge the scope of available knowledge and to increase our understanding of the underlying concepts of these issue.

To Churchman, the "enemies" of systems approach 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 involved within a system but are essentially involved in the "outside" of systems rationality. In Churchman’s systems approach, decision makers or system designers admit the freedom of individual thinking and our world view is very restricted and that it is possible to develop an alternative 'mode of thinking'.

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)

From these definitions we 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. These ideas are further developed in the System Science and Systems Approach Knowledge Areas.

The Systems Thinking Paradox

If we wish to examine a particular group of element in more detail, to understand, use or change them in some way, we are faced with an apparent “Systems Thinking Paradox”. We 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 we must consider all possible system relationships and environmental conditions to fully understand the consequences of creating or changing a system, how can we ever do anything useful in the real world?

In many ways this is the essence of all human endeavours, technical, managerial, social or political, the so called known and unknown unknowns. The systems approach is a way of tackling real world problems which makes use of the tools of systems science to enable useful systems to be engineered and used. The key principle of the systems approach is that we must hide some of the detail of complex situations to allow us to focus on changes to a system element; but that we can consider the impact of any changes we might make across sufficient related system components to fit within acceptable commercial and social risks. Engineering and management disciplines deal with this by gathering as much knowledge as necessary to proceed at a risk 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, but is ultimately a combination of the skill and judgement of people.

System 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, we will identify a number of systems of interest (soi) (Flood and Carson 1993), which must be both relevant to our interest but also include a set of elements which represent a system whole. This way of observing systems is call Systemic Resolution in which the complex system relationships are focused around a particular system boundary.

We use the idea of a system context to define a system of interest, and to capture and agree on the important relationships between it; the systems it works directly with and the systems which influence it in some way. When we use this approach to focus on part of a larger system we employ a balance of reductionism and holism which sits at the heart of a systems approach. A systems context provides the tool for doing this, and is thus an essential part of any systems approach and hence of systems engineering. Approaches for describing the context of the different types of engineered system are discussed in Engineered System Context within the Systems Approach Knowledge Area.

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.

---

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