SystemThinking Murr

For Official Use Only

Systems ThinkingNDIA SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

CONFERENCEOctober, 2003

Patrick Murray

Naval Undersea Warfare Center

Division [email protected]

360-315-7513

mailto:[email protected]


What is a system?

• A definition as offered by Gregory Watson in his book, Business Systems Engineering: “System means a grouping of parts that operate together for a common purpose.” (Watson, 1994).


What is a System? (Cont’d)

• Definition as adapted from Random House Dictionary: A system is an assemblage or combination of elements or parts forming a complex or unitary whole, such as a river system or a transportation system; any assemblage or set of correlated members, such as a system of currency; an ordered and comprehensive assemblage of facts, principles, or doctrines in a particular field of knowledge or thought, such as a system of philosophy; a coordinated body of methods or a complex scheme or plan of procedure, such as a system of organization and management; any regular or special method of plan or procedure, such as a system of marking, numbering, or measuring (Blanchard & Fabrychy, 1998).


What is Thinking?

• What, precisely, is thinking? When at the reception of sense impressions, memory pictures emerge, this is not yet thinking. And when such pictures form a series, each member of which calls forth another, this too is not yet thinking. When, however, a certain picture turns up in many such series, then—precisely through such return—it becomes an ordering element for such series…Such an element becomes an instrument, a concept. I think the transition from free association of dreaming to thinking is characterized by the more or less dominating role which the concept plays in it (Einstein, in Schilpp, 1949).


Connectedness

• “If you wish to understand a system, and so be in a position to predict its behavior, it is necessary to study the system as a whole. Cutting it up into bits for study is likely to destroy the system’s connectedness, and hence the system itself.” (Sherwood, 2002)


Connectedness

• “If you wish to influence or control the behavior of a system, you must act on the system as a whole. Tweaking it in one place in the hope that nothing will happen in another is doomed to failure—that’s what connectedness is all about.” (Sherwood, 2002).


Systems Theory

• General Systems Theory

• Chaos Theory

• Quantum Theory

• Ecological Theory


Systems Principles

• Openness

• Purposefulness

• Multidimensionality

• Emergent property

• Counterintuitivess


Systems Thinking

• Problem Solving Tool

• Pioneered By Biologists

• Looks At The Whole View

• Reduces Complexity

• Controls System Behavior


Systems Thinking Methodologies

• Soft Systems Methodologies

• Hard Systems Thinking

• The Fifth Discipline


Systems Thinking Tools

• Archetypes

• Causal Loop Diagrams

• Stocks and Flows

• Simple Structure Dynamics


Systems Thinking Models

• Archetypes

• Causal Loop Diagrams

• Stocks and Flows


Archetype: Fixes That Backfire

The problem symptom alternately improves. It goes down, then comesBack up again and usually comes back worse than before (Senge, 1994).

Original threshold of tolerance

FixProblemSymptom

Unintendedconsequences

delay

Slippery slope

balance


Archetype: Limits to Growth

Growth occurs and sometimes dramatic but levels off and/or falls into decline (Senge, 1994).

ActualperformanceProblem

Symptom

Growth process

Limiting processCorrective

action


Archetype: Shifting the Burden

Three patterns exist side by side. The reliance on short-term fixes grows stronger, while efforts to fundamentally correct the real problems grow weaker, and the problem symptom alternately improves and deteriorates (Senge, 1994).

Limiting process

Quick fixes

ProblemSymptom

Root cause

Sideeffects

CorrectiveActions

delay

Limiting process


Archetype: Tragedy of Commons

Total activity grows, but the gains from individual activities are dropping off. Parts of the organizationare suffering for the whole (Senge, 1994).

A’s growthprocess

B’s growthprocess

A’s growingaction

actual performancethat A measures

A’s limitingprocess

limits or constraints

total growing action

gain perindividual

activity

B’s limitingprocess

B’s growingaction

TRAGIC DEGRADATIONPROCESS

actual performance

that B measures

delay


Archetype: Accidental Adversaries

Each sides performance either declines or stays level and low, while competitivenessIncreases over time (Senge, 1994).

A’s activity with B(actions in B’s favor)

B’s activity with A(actions in A’s favor)

A’s unintendedobstruction of B’s success

B’s unintendedobstruction of A’s success

A’s success

B’s success

A’s fixes toImprove A’sown results

B’s fixes toimprove B’sown results


Causal Loop Diagrams


Pressure on the Government to stay

Within cost

Pressure on the Government to deliver

A workable system

Requirement for high Technical and service

Quality standards

Pressure on the GovernmentTo satisfy

the taxpayers

S

O

O

S

S

S

Dependency of theGovernment on the

contractor

Policy of outsourcing

Risk to the Government ofCost escalation

S

S

S

S

Pressure on the Government to control

Costs and quality

Pressure on the Government to control

The contractor

Quality of theGovernment-Industry

relationship

Pressure fromContractor forMore Dollars

Risk of cost overruns

S

S

S

Government CostModel Adapted

From Sherwood’sCausal Loop

Diagrams


My Goals Your Goals

My Consumption ofDollars

Your Consumption ofDollars

Total WorkCapacity

WorkAvailableMy Need for Work Your Need for Work

My fear that you willNot leave enough work

me

Your fear that I willNot leave enough work

you

- + -

+

++

++

++

+

-

-

Conflict

Number of activities competingFor work

-

-

Causal Loop Diagram

Option 1: Two reinforcing loops (Sherwood, 2002)


Causal Loop Diagram

Option 2: Limit consumption—before turf war (Sherwood, 2002)

My Goals Your GoalsMy Consumption of

DollarsYour Consumption of

Dollars

Total WorkCapacity



me


you

- + -

+

++

++

++

+

-

+

Appeal toA higherauthority

Police the Work allocation

-

+

- -


My Goals Your Goals

My Consumption ofDollars

Your Consumption ofDollars

Total WorkCapacity



me


you

- + -

+

++

++

++

+

-

Recognition ofThe need forcooperation

-

Causal Loop Diagram

Option 3: Players See the Sense in Cooperation (Sherwood, 2002)

My willingness toParticipate in a cooperative

Goal-setting process



++

- -


Causal Loop Diagram

Best Solution: Goals Match—Combined Benefit!

Causal Loop Diagram

My Goals Your GoalsMy Consumption of

DollarsYour Consumption of

Dollars

Total WorkCapacity



me


you

- + -

+

++

++

++

+

-

Recognition ofThe need forcooperation

-





++

- -

Mutual Trust

+ +


Time Time

Goal

State of The System

Net IncreaseRate

+

+

R B

state of the system

state of the system

state of the system

Correctiveaction

discrepancy

Goal (desiredstate of

the system)

-

+

+

+

System Dynamics: Growth and Goal Seeking Structure and Behavior


Stocks and Flows

Inventory

Stock

Production (inflow) Shipments (outflows)

source sink

Valves represent the flow of inventory into and out of the warehouse

Sources and sinks are outside the model boundary.

Stocks and Flows are used in Causal Loop Diagrams to cover someof their limitations of not being able to capture stocks and flows

within systems (Sterman, 2000).


Some Models from Soft Systems

Methodology--Checkland


perceived real-world

problem or situation

models of relevant purposeful activity

systems each based on a declared world-view

‘comparison’(question problem

situation using models)

accommodationswhich enable

Principles• real world: a complexity of relationships.• relationships exploded via models of purposeful activitybased on explicit world visions.• inquiry structured by questioning perceived situation using the models as asource of questions.• ‘action to improve’ based on finding accommodations (versions of the situation which conflicting interests can live with)• inquiry in principle never-ending; best conducted with wide range ofinterested parties; give the process away to people in the situation.

leads toselection of

action to improve

find

a structured debateabout desirable

and feasible change

The inquiring/learning cycle of SSM (Checkland, 1999)


1.the problem situation:

unstructured

7.action to improve

the problemsituation

6.feasible, desirable

changes

2.the problem

situation:expressed.

5.comparison of 4 with 2

3.

root definitions ofsystems

4.conceptual

models

4.a.formal systems

concept

4.b.other systems

thinking

Method for Unstructured Problems

Checkland, 1999

Real world

Systems thinking


IDEAS

THEORIES:Substantive

Methodologies

PROBLEMS

MODELS

TECHNIQUES

METHODOLOGY

CASE RECORDS

An area of reality containing:ConcernsIssuesProblemsAspirations

Other sources

ANY DEVELOPING SUBJECT (Checkland, 1999)

Gives rise to

from which maybe formulated

which present

which may beanalyzed using

which may bemanipulated using

which may beused in

which yield

provide

documented in

which supportcriticism of

A developing subject

to be used in action(intervention, influence,

observation) in


Laws of Systems Thinking• Today’s problems come from yesterday’s solutions.

– Moving the problem around.• The harder you push, the harder the system pushes back.

– Compensating feedback.• Behavior grows better before it grows worse.• The easy way out usually leads back in.• The cure can be worse than the disease.• Faster is many times slower.• Cause and effect are not closely related in time and space.• Small changes can produce big results—but the areas of highest

leverage are often the least obvious.• You can have your cake and eat it too, but not at the same time.• Dividing the elephant in half does not produce two small elephants.• There is no blame.

Senge, 1990


Questions?


References/Bibliography

• Barnett, W. P., & Sorenson, O. (2002). The red queen in organizational creation and development. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11, 289-305. Retrieved on October 13, 2003 from the ProQuest database at www.apollolibrary.com.

• Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: George Braziller.• Capra, F. (1996). The web of life. New York: Anchor Books - Doubleday.• Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.• Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1999). Soft systems methodology in action. New York: John Wiley & Sons, LTD.• Chen, Y., & Smith, R. (2001). Equilibrium cost overruns. Annals of Economics and Finance, 2, 401-414. Retrieved May 8, 2003 from

http://www.aeconf.net• Flood, R. L., & Romm, N. R. A. (1996). Critical systems thinking: Current research and practice. New York: Plenum Press.• Gharajedaghi, J. (1999). Systems thinking: Managing chaos and complexity: A platform for designing business architecture . Boston:

Butterworth-Heinman.• Hellman, C. (2003). F/A-22 further in the red. Weekly Defense Monitor, 7, 2-4. • Holbrook, M. B. (2003). Adventures in complexity: An essay on dynamic open complex adaptive systems, butterfly effects, self-organizing

order, co evolution, and ecological perspective, fitness landscapes, market spaces, emergent beauty at the edge of chaos, and all that jazz. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2003, 1. Retrieved on October 13, 2003 from the ProQuest database at www.apollolibrary.com.

• Hudson, C. G. (2000). At the edge of chaos: A new paradigm for social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 36, 215-230. Retrieved October 2, 2003 from the EBSCOhost premier database at www.apollolibrary.com.

• Maertens, J. W. (2003). Chaos theory, Asimov's foundations and robots, and Herbert's Dune: The fractal Aesthetic of epic science fiction (book). Utopian Studies, 1, 244-246. Retrieved on October 13, 2003 from the ProQuest database at www.apollolibrary.com.

• Pesic, P. (2002). Quantum identity. American Scientist, 90, 262-264. Retrieved on October 13, 2003 from the ProQuest database at www.apollolibrary.com.

• Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.• Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. J. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a

learning organization. New York: Doubleday.• Sherwood, D. (2002). Seeing the forest for the trees: A manager's guide to applying systems thinking . London: Nicholas Brealy Publishing.• Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. New York: McGraw-Hill.• Weinberg, G. M. (2001). An introduction to general systems thinking (Silver Anniversary Edition ed.). New York: Dorset House.• Williams Jr., A. O. (2002). Quantum Theory. Encyclopedia Americana-Grolier Online Retrieved October 13, 2003 from Grolier Online at

www.apollolibrary.com.• Watson, G. H. (1994). Business systems engineering: Managing breakthrough changes for productivity and profit . New York, John Wiley &

Sons, Inc.• Blanchard, Benjamin S. and Fabrycky, Wolter, J. (1998). Systems engineering and analysis (3rd Ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey,

Prentice Hall.

http://www.apollolibrary.com/

http://www.aeconf.net/






Documents

SystemThinking Murr