lectura nº 10 what is systems thinking

8/6/2019 LECTURA N 10 WHAT IS SYSTEMS THINKING

1/11

What is SystemsThinkingDOCUMENTO DE TRABAJO

El document aborda los temas centrales de la teroria de sistemas y seala los

aspectos que conforman el pensamiento sistmico. El documento es esfuerzo de

la labor realizada por las Universidades de Manchester (UK), Catlica (Chile),

Tesalonica (Grecia) y Villarreal (Per).

2009

Editor: Alexis Dueas Dvila

Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal

4/2/2009


2/11

[WHAT IS SYSTEMS THINKING] April 2, 2009

Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal | MAG. ALEXIS DUEAS DAVILA/ASIGNATURA EIA-UNFV-FIIS-EPIA 2

What is Systems Thinking?

The concept of 'System'

The concept of system embodies the notion of a collection of elements connected together to

form a whole. Systems thinking uses this concept to help understand the world. Central to the

approach are the ideas of emergence and hierarchy, and communication and control, Checkland

(1981). Systems practice employs systems ideas to design and manage complex processes and

artefacts for the benefit of individuals, organisations and society.

The use of systems ideas (systemic approach) is useful because conventional scientific method

seeks to reduce its object of inquiry into elementary parts. This mode of investigation runs into

difficulties when faced with highly complex, real-world problems set in social context. System

thinking complements scientific method by dealing with such complexities. It has been successfully

applied in engineering, the information and decision sciences, management and the human and

social sciences.

1. Holism

Jackson, stating the benefits of a systemic or holistic approach to management asserts that:

Holism puts the study of wholes before that of the parts. It does not try to break down

organisations into parts in order to understand them and intervene in them. [] Being holistic also

means approaching problems ready to employ the systems language, Jackson (2003)

2. The Systems Movement

System Thinking developed in the 1950s and 1960s when a number of Systems Based

Methodologies (SBM) were introduced. Systems Engineering and Systems Analysis, Hall (1962) and

Jenkins (1969) were used in various industrials and organisational contexts. Checkland (1981)

groups these approaches under the name of Hard Systems Thinking arguing that all of them

share the assumption that the problem task they tackle is to select an efficient means of

achieving a known and defined end. Operational Research and Management Sciences make

similar assumptions and are normally included in this group.


3/11



During the 1970s, the effectiveness of the Hard Approaches was seriously challenged. The failure

of Management Science and Operational Research was strongly debated by Churchman (1971)

and Ackoff(1979) in the USA and Checkland(1972, 1981,1990) in the UK. The core of the argument

was that in situations in which the problem is not well defined, Systems Engineering and the rest

of the Hard Approaches did not offer a suitable methodology. The Hard approach worked

successfully when the problem and objectives to achieve were well defined but in situations when

the problem itself is not clear, the hard approaches fail to give useful insights. Checkland (1981,

1990) argues that this is mainly because these approaches see the situation as an engineering

problem; looking at how to do things when what to do is already defined. In contrast Soft

Systems Thinking proposes to abandon the goal-seeking model arguing that not only the hows of

the problematic situation (not of the problem) should be studied but, more importantly, the

whats of the situation must be debated. It proposes the use of systems or more appropriately

holons as mental constructs for perceiving the problematic situation with the view of improving

(not solving it) and learning from it. Systems Thinking, in the UK, has been generally associated

with Soft Systems Methodologies.

3. Two Paradigms

The nature and significance of Systems Thinking can be explained by the stand of the two different

paradigms that are present across the Systems Movement. The distinction between the two

adjectives Systemic and Systematic, that in the English language are related to the noun System, is

also crucial to understand the stands of these two different paradigms and the nature of Systems

Thinking.

3.1.The Optimisation Paradigm (Paradigm 1)

Under this Paradigm the world is considered systemic, that is made of systems; this paradigm

assumes that the systemic world (containing facts ready to be discovered and revealed by the

observer) can be studied systematically. Under this paradigm the focus is on the optimisation of

the system. This is the view that most of the Hard Systems Approaches (HSA). The UK Operational

Research Society, still defines Operational Research (OR) as:


4/11



OR is the application of the methods of science to complex problems arising in the direction and

management of large systems of men, machines, materials and money in industry, business,

government and defence. The distinctive approach is to develop a scientific model of the system,

incorporating measures of factors, such as chance an risk, with which to predict and compare the

outcomes of alternative decisions, strategies or controls. The purpose is to help management

determine its policy and action scientifically.

Systems Engineering, another of the HSA emphasises the need for a systematic procedure to

Solving Problem. Hall (1969) illustrates the problem-solving sequence as follows:

(1) Problem definition (essentially definition of a need)(2) Choice of objectives.(3) Systems Synthesis (creation of possible alternative system)(4) Systems Analysis (analysis of hypothetical systems in the light of objectives)(5) Systems selection (selection of the most promising alternative)(6) Systems Development (up to prototype stage)(7) Current Engineering (systems realisation, monitoring and control)

Essentially, the Hard Approach follows a goal-seeking model (Checkland, 1978)

Fig.1 Goal-Seeking Model - The Hard Approach, from Checkland (1978)


5/11



3.2.The Learning Paradigm (Paradigm 2)

The alternative paradigm argues for a shift of the systemicity from the object of enquiry to the

process of enquiry that is to the Methodology itself. This paradigm considers the world to be

problematic (containing a number of interpretations, made by the subjects involved) and attempts

to study it systemically. Under this paradigm, an intervention will aim to learn about the situation

perceived as problematic. This is the paradigm that Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) embraces.

Figure 2 ( based on Checkland 1990) illustrates the shift of systemicity proposed by the Soft

Systems Tradition in the West. A parallel development of Systems Thinking in the East has been

added to the Checklands model. It is important to note here the difference between (1) the

general Philosophical underpinnings, with the ontological implications implicit in making

assumptions about The Perceived Word issue central to this model, which might differ between

the views hold in the West and the East generally; and (2) the Methodologies used in Management

Practice in these two parts of the world.

If we want to operationalise the model in a Managerial Practice this poses a problem: It is well

known for instance that although in countries like Japan, the philosophical stands are very much

embedded by their particular way of seeing the world which can be regarded as much more

systemic, holistic or integrative than the Western view; but nevertheless they have proved to be

adapters of Western Managerial Practices and Methods which on the other hand are considered

sytematic and rooted in the Reductionistic tradition of Western Science. This apparent

contradiction suggests that in the East the Methodology of enquiry into problematic situations is a

type of mixture of systemic and systematic approaches.


6/11



Fig 2. The Shift of systemicity from the Perceived World to the

Methodology of enquiry, adapted from Checkland, 1990.

4. Soft and Hard Approaches in Management Science

In Management Science, two problem-solving systems applications can be identified:

(a) the hard approach, (mainly associated with classical Operational Research/ManagementSciences) which uses systems ideas as a mechanism for choosing between alternative ways of

achieving a well defined goal; and;

(b) soft systems thinking methodologies or systemic approaches, which abandoning the goal-seeking model of hard approaches, make conscious use of 'systems' as mental constructs for

perceiving a problematic situation with the view of bringing improvement and learning from it.

Although it is accepted that in the management of problematic situations, each situation deserves

a particular way of approaching it, there is evidence that in an increasingly complex environment,

the hard approach (based on optimising) has proved to be limited and soft (based on learning)

methodologies have been increasingly used in management practice. The correct assessment of a


7/11



problematic situation and the use of an appropriate methodology has become increasingly

important when managing complexity.

The increasing use of soft methodologies when facing a problematical situation and the use of

the so-called Systemic Management Sciences Methodologies, SMSM (or Systems Based

Management Science Methodologies, such as Checklands Soft Systems Methodology, Edens

Cognitive mapping orJacksons Total Systems Intervention amongst others), have been one of the

major developments in the field of Management Practice during the last 40 years in Europe and

the USA. Successful applications of systems ideas, enacted on an ever increasing number of SMSM,

for intervention into real-world managerial situations have been reported in the UK and various

other European countries. Evidence suggests that the hard/classical Operational Research and

Management Science approaches such as linear programming, simulation, etc., have been used

extensively in Latin America but the soft approaches together with the increasing number of

SMSM are little known or used.

5. Bibliography5.1.Hard Systems Thinking1) Checkland, P.B. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester.2) Flood, R.L. and Jackson, M.C. (1991). Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention,

Wiley, Chichester.3) Hall, A. D. ,1962, A Methodology for Systems Engineering, Van Nostrand.4) Jackson, M.C. (2000). Systems Approaches to Management, Kluwer/Plenum, New York.5) Jackson, M.C. and Keys, P. (1984). Towards a system of systems methodologies, Journal of the

Operational Research Society, 35, 473-486.

6) Jackson, M.C. (1993). The system of systems methodologies : a guide to researchers, Journal ofthe Operational Research Society, 44, 208-209.

7) Jenkings, G. M. ,1969, The Systems Approach, Journal of Systems Engineering, 1 (1).8) Weber, M. (1969). The Methodology of the Social Sciences, Free Press, New York.5.2.Systems Dynamics1) Cavaleri, S. and Obloj, K. (1993). Management Systems: A Global Perspective. Wadsworth

Publishing Company, Belmont CA.

2) Flood, R.L. and Jackson, M.C. (1991), Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention,Wiley, Chichester.

3) Forrester, J.W. (1958), Industrial Dynamics - a major breakthrough for decision makers,Harvard Business Review, 36, 37-48.

4) Forrester, J.W. (1961). Industrial Dynamics, Productivity Press, Portland, Oregon.5) Forrester, J.W. (1968). Principles of Systems, Productivity Press, Portland, Oregon.
http://www.lums2.lancs.ac.uk/MANSCI/Staff/CHECK.HTMhttp://www.lums2.lancs.ac.uk/MANSCI/Staff/CHECK.HTMhttp://www.strath.ac.uk/gsb/staff/eden_c.htmlhttp://www.strath.ac.uk/gsb/staff/eden_c.htmlhttp://www.ifsr.org/officers/jackson.htmlhttp://www.ifsr.org/officers/jackson.htmlhttp://www.ifsr.org/officers/jackson.htmlhttp://www.ifsr.org/officers/jackson.htmlhttp://www.strath.ac.uk/gsb/staff/eden_c.htmlhttp://www.lums2.lancs.ac.uk/MANSCI/Staff/CHECK.HTM


8/11



6) Forrester, J.W. (1969). Urban Dynamics, Productivity Press, Portland, Oregon.7) Forrester, J.W. (1971). World Dynamics, Productivity Press, Portland, Oregon.8) Jackson, M.C. (2000). Systems Approaches to Management, Kluwer/Plenum, New York.9) Keys, P. (1991). Operational Research and Systems: the Systemic Nature of Operational

Research, Plenum, New York.

10)Maani, K.E. and Cavana, R.Y. (2000). Systems Thinking and Modelling, Pearson Education, NewZealand.

11)Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. and Behrens, W.W. III (1972). The Limits toGrowth, Universe Books, New York.

12)Morecroft, J.D.W. and Sterman, J.D. (eds) (1994). Modelling for Learning Organizations,Productivity Press, Portland, Oregon.

13)Senge, P.M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,Random House, London.

14)Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. and Smith, B. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook,Century, London.

15)Senge, P. and Sterman, J.D. ( 1994). Systems thinking and organisational learning: Actinglocally and thinking globally in the organisation of the future, in Modelling for Learning

Organizations, (eds. J.D.W. Morecroft and J.D. Sterman, 1994), pp. 195-216, Productivity Press,Portland, Oregon.

16)Sterman, J.D. (2000). Business Dynamics Systems Thinking and Modelling in a ComplexWorld, McGraw-Hill, New York.

17)Vennix, J.A.C. (1996). Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using SystemDynamics, Wiley, Chichester.

18)Wolstenholme, E.F. (1990). Systems Enquiry : a System Dynamics Approach, Wiley, Chichester.5.3.Organisational Cybernetics1) Ashby, W.R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics, Methuen, London.

Beer, S. (1972). Brain of the Firm, Allen Lane, London (second edition, 1981, Wiley,Chichester).

Beer, S. (1974). Designing Freedom, CBC Publications, Toronto.

2) Beer, S. (1979). The Heart of Enterprise, Wiley, Chichester.3) Beer, S. (1984). The viable system model: Its provenance, development, methodology and

pathology, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 35, 7-26.

4) Beer, S. (1985). Diagnosing the System for Organizations, Wiley, Chichester.5) Espejo, R. (1989) A cybernetic method to study organizations, in The Viable System Model

(eds. R. Espejo and R.J. Harnden), pp. 361-382, Wiley, Chichester.

6) Espejo, R. and Harnden, R.J. (eds.) (1989). The Viable System Model: Interpretations andApplications of Stafford Beers VSM, Wiley, Chichester.

7) Espejo, R. and Schwaninger, M. (eds.) (1993). Organizational Fitness: Corporate Effectivenessthrough Management Cybernetics, Campus Verlag, New York.

8) Espejo, R., Schuhmann, W., Schwaninger, M. and Bilello, U. (1996). OrganisationalTransformation and Learning, Wiley, Chichester.

9) Espinosa, A. (2002). Proyecto Consolidacin del sistema de infomacin ambiental colombiano(SIAC), Working Paper, United Nations Development Program, Bogota, Colombia.

10)Flood, R.L. and Jackson, M.C. (1991). Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention,Wiley, Chichester.

11)Jackson, M.C. (2000). Systems Approaches to Management, Kluwer/Plenum, New York.


9/11



12)Harnden, R.J. (1989). Outside and then: an interpretive approach to the VSM, in The ViableSystem Model, (eds. R. Espejo and R.J. Harnden), pp. 383-404, Wiley, Chichester.

13)Maturana, H.R. and Varela, F.J. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of theLiving, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.

5.4.Soft Systems Methodology1) Checkland, P.B. (1976). Towards a systems-based methodology for real-world problem-solving,

in Systems Behaviour, (eds. J. Beishon and G. Peters), pp. 51-77, Harper and Row, London.

2) Checkland, P.B. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester.3) Checkland, P.B. (1982). Soft systems methodology as process: a reply to M.C. Jackson, Journal

of Applied. Systems Analysis, 9, 37-39.

4) Checkland, P.B. (1983). OR and the systems movement: mappings and conflicts, Journal of theOperational Research Society, 34, 661-675.

5) Checkland, P.B. (1987). The application of systems thinking in real-world problem-situations:the emergence of soft systems methodology, in New Directions in Management Science, (eds.

M.C. Jackson and P. Keys), pp. 87-96, Gower, Aldershot.

6) Checkland, P.B. (1999). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice (new edition), Wiley, Chichester(including a 30 -year retrospective).

7) Checkland, P.B. (2003). Personal communication to Mike Jackson.8) Checkland, P.B. and Holwell, S. (1998). Information, Systems and Information Systems, Wiley,

Chichester.

9) Checkland, P.B. and Scholes, P. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley, Chichester.Gaisford P.J. (1989). A systemic analysis of female street prostitution within the environs of

central London, M.Phil. Thesis, City University

10)Jackson, M.C. (1982). The nature of soft systems thinking: the work of Churchman, Ackoff andCheckland, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 9, 17-28.

11)Jackson, M.C. (1983). The nature of soft systems thinking : comments on the three replies,Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 10, 109-113.12)Jackson, M.C. (2000). Systems Approaches to Management, Kluwer/Plenum, New York.

13)Mingers, J.C. (1984). Subjectivism and soft systems methodology - a critique, Journal ofApplied Systems Analysis, 11, 85-103.

14)Mingers, J.C. (2000). An idea ahead of its time : the history and development of soft systemsmethodology, Systemic Practice and Action Research, 13, 733-755.

15)Vickers, G. (1965). The Art of Judgement, Chapman and Hall, London.16)Vickers, G. (1970). Freedom in a Rocking Boat, Allen Lane, London.5.5.Total Systems Intervention1) Brocklesby, J. (1997). Becoming multimethodology literate: an assessment of the cognitive

difficulties of working across paradigms, in Multimethodology: the Theory and Practice ofCombining Management Science Methodologies, ( eds. J. Mingers and A. Gill), pp. 189-216,

Wiley, Chichester.

2) Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis,Heinemann, London.

3) Checkland, P.B. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester.4) Ellis, R.K. (2002). Toward a systemic theory of organisational change, Ph.D. Thesis, City

University, London.


10/11



5) Flood, R.L. (1995). Solving Problem Solving, Wiley, Chichester.6) Flood, R.L. (1999). Rethinking The Fifth Discipline: Learning within the Unknowable,

Routledge, London.

7) Flood, R.L. and Jackson, M.C. (1991). Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention,Wiley, Chichester.

8) Flood, R.L. and Jackson, M.C. eds. (1991). Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings, Wiley,Chichester.

9) Flood, R.L. and Romm, N.R.A. (1996). Critical Systems Thinking: Current Research and Practice,Plenum, New York.

10)Habermas, J. (1970). Knowledge and interest, in Sociological Theory and PhilosophicalAnalysis, (eds. D. Emmet and A. MacIntyre), pp. 36-54, Macmillan, London.

11)Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation Crisis, Beacon Press, Boston.12)Habermas, J. (1984). Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Beacon Press, Boston.13)Jackson, M.C. (1982a). Verifying social systems theory in practice : a critique, in A General

Survey of Systems Methodology, (ed. L. Troncale), pp. 668-673, S.G.S.R., Louisville.

14)Jackson, M.C. (1982b). The nature of soft systems thinking : The work of Churchman, Ackoffand Checkland, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 9, 17-28.

15)Jackson, M.C., (1985). Social systems theory in practice: the need for a critical approach, Int.Journal of General Systems, 10: 135-151.

16)Jackson, M.C. (1987). Present positions and future prospects in management science, Omega,15:455-446.

Jackson, M.C. (1991). Systems Methodology for the Management Sciences, Plenum, New York.

Jackson, M.C. (2000). Systems Approaches to Management, Kluwer/Plenum, New York.

17)Jackson, M.C. and Keys, P. (1984). Towards a system of systems methodologies, Journal of theOperational Research Society, 35, 473-486.

18)Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press,Chicago.

Linstone, H.A. (1984). Multiple Perspectives for Decision Making, North-Holland, New York.

19)Midgley, G. (1996). Evaluating services for people with disabilities: a critical systemsperspective, Evaluation, 2, 67-84.

20)Mingers, J.C. (1980). Towards an appropriate social theory for applied systems thinking: criticaltheory and soft systems methodology, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 7, 41-49.

21)Mingers, J.C. (1984). Subjectivism and soft systems methodology a critique, Journal ofApplied Systems Analysis, 11, 85-103.

22)Mingers, J.C. and Brocklesby, J. (1996). Multimethodology: towards a framework for mixingmethodologies, Omega, 25, 489-509.

23)Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organization, Sage, Beverley Hills, CA.Taket, A.R. and White, L.A. (2000). Partnership and Participation: Decision-making in the

Multiagency Setting, Wiley, Chichester.

24)Tsoukas, H. (1993). The road to emancipation is through organizational development : Acritical evaluation of Total Systems Intervention, Systems Practice, 6, 53-70.Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical Heuristics of Social Planning, Haupt, Bern.

5.6.Critical Systems1) Brocklesby, J. (1994). Let the jury decide: assessing the cultural feasibility of Total Systems

Intervention, Systems Practice, 7, 75-86.


11/11



2) Brocklesby, J. (1997). Becoming multimethodology literate: an assessment of the cognitivedifficulties of working across paradigms, in Multimethodology: the Theory and Practice of

Combining Management Science Methodologies, (eds. J. Mingers and A. Gill), pp. 189-216,

Wiley, Chichester.

3) Carrizosa, A. (2000). Enacting thinking spaces towards purposeful actions: an action researchproject, unpublished paper, University of Lincoln.

4) Carrizosa, A. (2002). Platforms for critical systems practice, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Lincoln5) Checkland, P.B. (1999). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester

(with a 30-year retrospective).

6) Checkland, P.B. and Scholes, P. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley, Chichester.Flood, R.L. (1990). Liberating Systems Theory: On Systems and Inquiry, Plenum, New York.

7) Flood, R.L. and Jackson, M.C. (1991). Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention,Wiley, Chichester.

8) Flood, R.L. and Romm, N.R.A. (1996). Diversity Management : Triple Loop Learning, Wiley,Chichester.

9) Gregory, W.J. (1992). Critical Systems Thinking and Pluralism: a New Constellation, PhD Thesis,City University, London.

10)Gregory, W.J. (1996). Discordant pluralism: a new strategy for critical systems thinking?Systems Practice, 9, 605-625.

11)Jackson, M.C. (2000). Systems Approaches to Management, Kluwer/Plenum, New York.Midgley, G. (1997). Mixing methods: developing systemic intervention, in Multimethodology:

the Theory and Practice of Integrating OR and Systems Methodologies, (eds. J. Mingers and A.

Gill), pp.291-332, Wiley, Chichester.

12)Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology and Practice,Kluwer/Plenum, New York.

13)Mingers, J.C. and Brocklesby, J. (1996), Multimethodology: towards a framework for mixingmethodologies, Omega, 25, 489-509.

14)Mingers, J.C. and Gill, A. (1997). Multimethodology the Theory and Practice of CombiningManagement Science Methodologies, Wiley, Chichester.15)Morgan, G. (ed.) (1983). Beyond method : Strategies for social Research, Sage, Beverley Hills,CA.

Munro, I. and Mingers, J. (2002) The use of multimethodology in practice-results of a survey of

practitioners, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 53, 369-378.

16)Pirsig, R.M. (1974). Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, The Bodley Head, London.17)Taket, A.R. and White, L.A. (2000). Partnership and Participation: Decision-making in the

Multiagency Setting, Wiley, Chichester.

lectura nº 10 what is systems thinking

Documents