Transcript Introduction to Systems Thinking ABOUT THE SPEAKER Zaipul Anwar Bin Zainudin Lecturer in Institute of Product Design & Manufacturing, (IPROM) Universiti Kuala Lumpur Tel: 03-27154715, 019-3262427 Email:

Introduction
to
Systems Thinking
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Zaipul Anwar Bin Zainudin
Lecturer in Institute of Product Design &
Manufacturing, (IPROM) Universiti Kuala Lumpur
Tel: 03-27154715, 019-3262427
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.zaipul.com
Blog: http://zaipul.com/category/blogs
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/zaipul
You may download softcopies of all my materials in this session from this
link: http://www.zaipul.com/download/tech-innovation-mgt/ - To verify the
URL, go to ‘Download’ link at my website Zaipul.com
“The significant problems we face today
cannot be solved at the same level of
thinking at which they were created.”
Albert Einstein
WHAT IS SYSTEMS THINKING?
Founded in 1956 by MIT professor, Jay Forrester.
System thinking allows people to make their understanding
of social system explicit and improve them in the same
way that people use engineering principles to improve their
understanding of mechanical system.
It is use to:• Examining how we create our own problems
• Seeing the big picture
• Structure influences performance
SYSTEM THINKING APPROACH
Traditional analysis
Systems thinking
Traditional analysis focuses on
the separating the individual
pieces of what is being studied; in
fact, the word “analysis” actually
comes from the root meaning “to
break into constituent parts.
Systems thinking, in contrast,
focuses on how the thing being
studied interacts with the other
constituents of the system—a set
of elements that interact to
produce behavior—of which it is a
part.
Examples of area System Thinking has
proven its value include:
Complex problems that involve helping many
actors see the “big picture” and not just their
part of it
Recurring problems or those that have been
made worse by past attempts to fix them
Issues where an action affects (or is affected
by) the environment surrounding the issue,
either the natural environment or the
competitive environment
Problems whose solutions are not obvious
Systems Thinking
Learning to see the world systemically
Encourages us to see the whole as well as the parts.
WHOLE   PARTS
 Holistic Thinking
!!!
??
Multiple (often)
restricted views
??
Systems Thinking…
Helps us explore interdependencies and looking for patterns.
Max Barret
Webecoist.com
Systems Thinking…
Helps us understand feedback structures that
change systems over time.
River Fractal - Héctor Garrido
Systems Thinking…
Helps us understand results of our decisions…
http://www.systems-thinking.org/theWay/theWay.htm
SYSTEMS THINKING TOOLS
Causal Loop Diagrams
• A useful way to represent dynamic interrelationships
• Provide a visual representation with which to
communicate that understanding
• Make explicit one's understanding of a system
structure - Capture the mental model
Components of Causal Loop Diagrams
Variables - an element in a situation which may act or be
acted upon
 Vary up or down over time (not an event)
 Nouns or noun phrases (not action words)
Links / Arrows - show the relationship and the direction
of influence between variables
S's and O's - show the way one variable moves or changes
in relation to another
 S or + stands for "same direction”
 O or - stands for "opposite direction”
or B - Balancing feedback loop that seeks equilibrium
or R - Reinforcing feedback loop that amplifies
change
Types of Causal Loop Diagrams
Reinforcing Loop
Behavior Over Time
Structure
Employee
Performance
Perf.
Level
S
Supportive
Behavior
S
Supervisor’s
Supportive
Behavior
Unsupportive
Behavior
Time
Types of Causal Loop Diagrams
Balancing Loop
Structure
Desired
Inventory
S
Behavior Over Time
Discrepancy
O
Actual Inventory
100 ++
S
Actual
Inventory
Desired Inventory
Inventory
Adjustment
100
100 - -
S
Time
SYSTEMS THINKING ARCHETYPES
• A class of tools that capture the "common
stories” in systems thinking
• Powerful tools for diagnosing problems and
identifying high leverage interventions that
creates fundamental change
List of System Thinking Archetype
1. Fixes that Fail / Backfire
2. Limits to Growth/Success
3. Shifting the Burden / Addiction
4. Tragedy of the Commons
5. Drifting Goals
1. Fixes that Fail
S
Behavior Over Time
Problem
Symptom
Fix
O
S
Delay
S
Unintended
Consequences
Time
1. Fixes that Fail
Example:
An example would be fixing problem of a squeaky
wheel. Imagine someone who knows nothing about
mechanics, mistakenly grab a can of water and
splash it on the wheel. With great relief the
squeaking stop for a while, it will
return more loudly as
the water join forces
to rust the joint.
1. Fixes that Fail
Prescriptive actions:
• Increase awareness of the unintended
consequences
• Cut back on the frequency with which you apply
the ‘fix’
• Try to minimize the undesirable consequences
• Reframe and address the root problem, give up the
fix that works only on the symtom
• Breaking ‘fixes that fail’ merely alleviating a
symptom, not really solving the problem. A two
pronged attack of applying fix and finding
fundamental solution will help to break the
problem.
2. Limits to Growth
Behavior Over Time
Structure
“Burnout”
S
Growing Action
Target
Perf.
Level
Diminishing
Returns
S
O
S
Corrective
Action
Actual Performance
Positive
Reinforcement
S
Time
2. Limits to Growth
2. Limits to Growth
Example:
At the beginning of a quality improvement campaign,
significant gains in quality and productivity were
achieved. Once this achieved, the level of
improvements plateaus.
The next wave of improvements
are more complex and tougher to
manage. Later the lack of
organization-wide support leads to
limited/diminishing quality and
productivity of the whole organization (it becomes
stagnant or diminish).
2. Limits to Growth
Prescriptive actions:
• Beware of doing more of what worked in the past.
• If your growth has stalled, look at both reinforcing
and balancing loops to try to find interrelationships
between your success strategies and potential
limits.
• Look for other potential engines of growth.
• The real leverage in ‘limits to growth’ scenario lies
in its early phases.
• The choice between plateauing or peaking often
depends on length of balancing loop delay and our
response to it.
3. Shifting the Burden
Quick fixes
Behavior Over Time
+
_
+
_
Problem/symptom
+
_
Side effects
Efforts Quick fix
Problem symptom
Capacity of system
to fix itself
_
+
Source of problem
/Root cause
_
Time
3. Shifting the Burden
Apply Patches
Behavior Over Time
+
_
+
_
Damage of Road
_
+
Feeling of Okay
Apply patches
Damage of road
Proper road
construction
_
+
Proper Road
Contruction
Time
_
3. Shifting the Burden
Example:
Problem of pot holes on the road. The problem is
handled by applying patches with immediate effect,
thereby solving the problem for a while. The primary
source of the problem is overlooked, that is the
overall quality of the road construction.
The origin of the problem
should be identified and
solved in the long-term run
or else the quality of the
road will be further
diminished.
3. Shifting the Burden
Prescriptive actions:
• Strengthen the long-term solution.
• If possible, support only long-term solution. If
you must address the symtoms right away, do so
with restraint.
• As you strengthen long-term capability, do what
you can to reduce dependency on the short-term
fix.
4. Tragedy of the Commons
S
Net Gains
for A
S
A’s Activity
S
S
Total Activity
O
S
Gain per
Individual
Activity
Resource
Limit
A
S
Time
B
S
B’s Activity
S
Net Gains
for B
S
Time
4. Tragedy of the Commons
Fixed
Budget
S
Investment
in features
S
O
Investment
in Integration
Success from
Product
Investment
Investment
in Integration
S
Success from
Product
Investment
S
Investment
in features
Time
Perceived
Success from
Integration
B
S
O
S
A
S
DELAY
Fixed
Budget
O
O
Time
4. Tragedy of the Commons
Example:
Traffic jam in Kuala Lumpur. Everyone wishes to avoid
traffic jam will use the highway. At first there is room
for everyone, but after sometimes critical threshold has
been reached, each driver brings about
decrease in average speed.
As individuals each person feels he or
she is a victim of traffic but in effect
they all conspired as a group to create
traffic jam.
4. Tragedy of the Commons
Prescriptive actions:
•
•
•
In any of the ‘tragedy’ situations, there must be an
overriding legislation for common good.
To protect common resources some form
of regulation should be introduced.
Re-evaluate the nature of the commons to determine
if there are ways to replace, renew or substitute the
resources before it becomes depleted.
5. Drifting Goals
O
Goal
Pressure to
Lower Goal
S
Goal
S
Gap
Time
S
O
Actual
Corrective Action
S
Delay
5. Drifting Goals
S
Perceived Desired
Temperature
Tolerance for
Temperature
O
S
Temp
Temperature
Gap
Time
S
O
Hop Out
5. Drifting Goals
Example:
If you put a frog in cold water and slowly bring
the water to boil the frog will jump out when it
gets uncomfortable or even died in the boiling
water
If you put a frog in boiling water,
it will croak IMMEDIATELY.
5. Drifting Goals
Prescriptive actions:
•
•
•
Establish a clear transition plan from current reality
to the goal including realistic timeframe to achieve
the goal.
Determine whether the drift in performance is the
result of conflicts between the stated goal and
implicit goals in the system.
Anchor the goal to an external frame of reference
(benchmarking).
Systems Thinking
Case Study
Crop Damaging by Insects
Reducing Crop Damage by Insects:
When an insect is eating a crop, the conventional
response is to spray the crop with a pesticide
designed to kill that insect.
Putting aside the limited effectiveness of some
pesticides and the water and soil pollution they can
cause, imagine a perfect pesticide that kills all of the
insects against which it is used and which has no
side effects on air, water, or soil.
Is using this pesticide likely to make the farmer or
company whose crops are being eaten better off?
Reducing Crop Damage by Insects:
If we represent the thinking used by those
applying the pesticides, it would look like this:
Pesticide
Application
O
Insects
Damaging Crops
1.
The letter indicates how the two variables are related: an “s” means they
change in the same direction - if one goes up then the other goes up, and
an “o” means they change in the opposite direction - if one goes up then
the other goes down (or vice versa).
2.
This diagram is read “a change in the amount of pesticide applied causes
the number of insects damaging crops to change in the opposite
direction.”
3.
The belief being represented here is that “as the amount of pesticide
applied increases, the number of insects damaging crops decreases”.
Reducing Crop Damage by Insects:
Number of Insect A
Damaging Crop
O
O
Number of Insect B
Pesticide
Application
S
S
S
Number of Insect B
Damaging Crop
Total number of
Insects damaging crop
S
Reducing Crop Damage by Insects:
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The problem of crop damage due to insects often does get better - in the
short term.
Unfortunately, what frequently happens is that in following years the
problem of crop damage gets worse and worse and the pesticide that
formerly seemed so effective does not seem to help anymore.
This is because the insect A that was eating the crops was controlling the
population of another insect B, either by preying on it or by competing with
it.
When the pesticide kills the insects A that were eating the crops, it
eliminates the control that those insects were applying on the population of
the other insects, insects B).
Then the population of the insects B that were being controlled explodes
and continue to damage the crops.
Reducing Crop Damage by Insects:
So now how do you solve the problem
of Insect B damaging the crop?
Find the solution…..
Reducing Crop Damage by Insects
The solution:
With this picture of the system in mind, other
actions with better long-term results have been
developed, such as Integrated Pest Management,
which includes controlling the insect eating the
crops by introducing more of its predators into the
area. These methods have been proven effective in
studies conducted by MIT, the National Academy
of Sciences, and others, and they also avoid
running the risk of soil and water pollution.
To more about Systems Thinking,
read this book!
THE FIFTH DISCIPLINES
Personal
Mastery
Shared
Systems
Mental
Vision
Thinking
Models
Team
Learning
References
Warfield, J. Societal Systems, Intersystems, 1989.
Joseph O’Connor & Ian McDermott. The Art of Systems Thinking,
Thorsons, 1997.
Senge, P.M.
 The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization,
Doubleday, 1990.
 The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building A
Learning Organization, Doubleday, 1994.
System Dynamics / Systems Thinking Mega Link List
http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/users/gossimit/links/bookmksd.htm
The Way of Systems (System Archetypes)
http://www.outsights.com/systems/theWay/theWay.htm
Daniel Aronson, Overview of Systems Thinking, 1996-8
http://www.thinking.net