Transcript Systems Thinking - Chiang Mai University
Systems Thinking
NDIA SYSTEMS ENGINEERING CONFERENCE October, 2003 Patrick Murray Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Keyport [email protected]
360-315-7513 For Official Use Only
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).
For Official Use Only
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).
For Official Use Only
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 1949).
concept
plays in it (Einstein, in Schilpp, For Official Use Only
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) For Official Use Only
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).
For Official Use Only
Systems Theory • General Systems Theory • Chaos Theory • Quantum Theory • Ecological Theory
For Official Use Only
Systems Principles • Openness • Purposefulness • Multidimensionality • Emergent property • Counterintuitivess
For Official Use Only
Systems Thinking • Problem Solving Tool • Pioneered By Biologists • Looks At The Whole View • Reduces Complexity • Controls System Behavior
For Official Use Only
Systems Thinking Methodologies • Soft Systems Methodologies • Hard Systems Thinking • The Fifth Discipline
For Official Use Only
Systems Thinking Tools • Archetypes • Causal Loop Diagrams • Stocks and Flows • Simple Structure Dynamics
For Official Use Only
Systems Thinking Models • Archetypes • Causal Loop Diagrams • Stocks and Flows
For Official Use Only
Archetype: Fixes That Backfire
Problem Symptom Fix Original threshold of tolerance delay Unintended consequences The problem symptom alternately improves. It goes down, then comes Back up again and usually comes back worse than before (Senge, 1994). For Official Use Only
Archetype: Limits to Growth
Problem Symptom Actual performance Corrective action Growth occurs and sometimes dramatic but levels off and/or falls into decline (Senge, 1994). For Official Use Only
Archetype: Shifting the Burden
Quick fixes Problem Symptom Corrective Actions Side effects delay Root cause 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).
For Official Use Only
Archetype: Tragedy of Commons
total growing action B’s growing action limits or constraints A’s growing action A’s growth process actual performance that A measures A’s limiting process B’s limiting process gain per individual activity B’s growth process actual performance that B measures
TRAGIC DEGRADATION PROCESS
delay Total activity grows, but the gains from individual activities are dropping off. Parts of the organization are suffering for the whole (Senge, 1994).
For Official Use Only
Archetype: Accidental Adversaries
A’s activity with B (actions in B’s favor) A’s unintended obstruction of B’s success A’s success A’s fixes to Improve A’s own results B’s success B’s unintended obstruction of A’s success B’s activity with A (actions in A’s favor) B’s fixes to improve B’s own results Each sides performance either declines or stays level and low, while competitiveness Increases over time (Senge, 1994).
For Official Use Only
Causal Loop Diagrams
For Official Use Only
Government Cost Model Adapted From Sherwood’s Causal Loop Diagrams
Quality of the Government-Industry relationship
O
Pressure on the Government to control The contractor
S O
Pressure from Contractor for More Dollars
S
Pressure on the Government to control Costs and quality
S S
Risk of cost overruns
S
Pressure on the Government to deliver A workable system
S
Pressure on the Government to stay Within cost
S
Risk to the Government of Cost escalation
S
Requirement for high Technical and service Quality standards
S
Dependency of the Government on the
S
Policy of outsourcing Pressure on the Government To satisfy the taxpayers For Official Use Only
My Goals
+ +
My Consumption of Dollars My Need for Work
+ Causal Loop Diagram
Total Work Capacity
+ -
Work Available Your Consumption of Dollars
+ -
Your Need for Work
+ +
Your Goals My fear that you will Not leave enough work me
-
Number of activities competing For work
-
Your fear that I will Not leave enough work you Conflict
+ + Option 1: Two reinforcing loops (Sherwood, 2002)
For Official Use Only
Causal Loop Diagram
My Goals
+
My Consumption of
+
Dollars My Need for Work
+
Total Work Capacity Your Goals
+ -
Work Available Your Consumption of Dollars
+
Your Need for Work
+ + +
My fear that you will Not leave enough work me
-
Police the Work allocation
+ -
Your fear that I will Not leave enough work you
+
Appeal to A higher authority
+ Option 2: Limit consumption —before turf war (Sherwood, 2002)
For Official Use Only
-
My Goals
+ +
My Consumption of Dollars My Need for Work
+ Causal Loop Diagram
Total Work Capacity
+ -
Work Available Your Consumption of Dollars
+
Your Need for Work
+ +
Your Goals
-
My fear that you will Not leave enough work me
-
Your fear that I will Not leave enough work you My willingness to Participate in a cooperative Goal-setting process
+ +
Recognition of The need for cooperation
+
My willingness to Participate in a cooperative Goal-setting process
+ Option 3: Players See the Sense in Cooperation (Sherwood, 2002)
For Official Use Only
My Goals
+
My Consumption of
+
Dollars My Need for Work
+
Total Work Capacity
+ -
Work Available Your Consumption of Dollars
+
Your Need for Work Your Goals
+ +
My fear that you will Not leave enough work me
-
Your fear that I will Not leave enough work you My willingness to Participate in a cooperative Goal-setting process
+ + +
Recognition of The need for cooperation
+
My willingness to Participate in a cooperative Goal-setting process
+ + Mutual Trust Best Solution: Goals Match —Combined Benefit!
For Official Use Only
System Dynamics: Growth and Goal Seeking Structure and Behavior Goal state of the system state of the system Time
+
state of the system Time Goal (desired state of the system)
+ -
discrepancy
+
Net Increase Rate R State of The System B
+
Corrective action
+
For Official Use Only
Stocks and Flows
Valves represent the flow of inventory into and out of the warehouse source Stock Inventory sink
Production (inflow) Shipments (outflows)
Sources and sinks are outside the model boundary.
Stocks and Flows are used in Causal Loop Diagrams to cover some of their limitations of not being able to capture stocks and flows within systems (Sterman, 2000).
For Official Use Only
Some Models from Soft Systems Methodology--Checkland
For Official Use Only
perceived real-world problem or situation The inquiring/learning cycle of SSM (Checkland, 1999)
leads to selection of action to improve ‘comparison’ (question problem situation using models) models of relevant purposeful activity systems each based on a declared world-view find accommodations which enable a structured debate about desirable and feasible change Principles • real world: a complexity of relationships.
• relationships exploded via models of purposeful activity based on explicit world visions.
• inquiry structured by questioning perceived situation using the models as a source 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 of interested parties; give the process away to people in the situation.
For Official Use Only
3.
Method for Unstructured Problems 1.
the problem situation: unstructured 7.
action to improve the problem situation 6.
feasible, desirable changes 2.
the problem situation: expressed.
5.
comparison of 4 with 2
Real world Systems thinking
4.
conceptual models root definitions of systems Checkland, 1999 4.a.
formal systems concept For Official Use Only 4.b.
other systems thinking
An area of reality containing: Concerns Issues Problems Aspirations Gives rise to Other sources documented in CASE RECORDS to be used in action (intervention, influence, observation) in provide which support criticism of which yield METHODOLOGY A developing subject ANY DEVELOPING SUBJECT (Checkland, 1999) For Official Use Only IDEAS from which may be formulated THEORIES: Substantive Methodologies which present PROBLEMS which may be analyzed using MODELS which may be manipulated using TECHNIQUES which may be used 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 For Official Use Only
Questions?
For Official Use Only
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
www.apollolibrary.com
.
Retrieved October 13, 2003 from Grolier Online at 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). Prentice Hall.
Systems engineering and analysis
(3 rd Ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, For Official Use Only