systems thinking & modelling in organizations

DM945 System Thinking and Modelling

Collin Andrews and Jim Mather

Department of Design, Manufacture, and Engineering Management

University of Strathclyde

System Thinking and Modelling

“Learning Diary Report”

by

Pulkit Vijayvargiya Reg. No. 201388279

M.Sc. Global Innovation Management

PulkitVijayvargiya DM945-System Thinking and Modelling

II

I Statement of Academic Honesty

“I declare that this submission is entirely my own original work. I declare that, except where fully

reference direct quotations have been included, no aspect of this submission has been copied from

any other source. I declare that all other works cited in this submission have been appropriately

referenced. I understand that any act of Academic Dishonestly such as plagiarism or collusion may

result in the non-award of my degree.”

Glasgow, 05.05.2014

PulkitVijayvargiya (Reg.No.: 201388279)

Signature:

II Table of Contents

I Statement of Academic Honesty .............................................................................................. II

II Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... III

III Table of Figures ........................................................................................................................ III

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

2 Learning Diary ............................................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Week 1 - What is a system? .......................................................................................... 2

2.2 Week 2 - How do systems develop? ............................................................................ 2

2.3 Week 3 - How to sustain system performance? ......................................................... 3

2.4 Week 5 - How to apply systems thinking? ................................................................... 3

2.5 Week 6 - Continuous innovation & Viable Systems Model ....................................... 4

2.6 Week 7 - Toyota - a systems thinking company ......................................................... 5

2.7 Week 9 - Public sector case study ................................................................................ 5

2.8 Week 10 - Q & A session Group work.......................................................................... 6

2.9 Week 11 - Service Company case study ..................................................................... 7

2.10 Week 12 - Group presentations .................................................................................... 7

3 Reflective discussion ................................................................................................................. 8

References ..................................................................................................................................... 12

III Table of Figures

Figure 1 (a) Thought Development, (b) Purpose defination ..................................................... 9

Figure 2 Basic Simplified Model .................................................................................................. 10

Figure 3 Final Simulation Model (By Simul8) ............................................................................ 11


1

1 Introduction

Systems Thinking is a holistic approach to analysis that focuses on the way that a system's

constituent parts interrelate and how systems work over time and within the context of larger

systems (Georgiou, 2007). The systems thinking approach contrasts with traditional analysis,

which studies systems by breaking them down into their separate elements. Systems thinking can

be used in any area of research and has been applied to the study of medical, environmental,

political, economic, human resources, and educational systems, among many others. This holistic

knowledge process is further analysed by Mella (2007), who defines Systems Thinking rather as a

discipline than a technique.

Systems Thinking has its foundation in the field of system dynamics, founded in 1956 by MIT

professor Jay Forrester (Midgley, 2003). Professor Forrester recognized the need for a better way

of testing new ideas about social systems, in the same way we can test ideas in engineering.

Systems thinking allows people to make their understanding of social systems explicit and

improve them in the same way that people can use engineering principles to make explicit and

improve their understanding of mechanical systems.

The following learning diary is prepared covering the experience and knowledge of the author

from basic concept generation to critical analysis in the field of System Thinking and Modelling.

Additionally connections to other topics, 3D printing system group work and other experiences

are analyzed with context to Systems Thinking followed by a detailed reflective discussion about

the knowledge development of author at the end.


2

2 Learning Diary

2.1 Week 1 - What is a system?

The first lecture was about creating the background for the critical study and understanding of the

topic Systems Thinking and Modelling. It was started from the discussion about the history of

Systems and the fact that systems exist everywhere with different levels of complexity. The fact,

that systems are not just the collection of different variables or entities but they are a systematic

bunch of entities which are all connected to each other and “if a system is not connected it

cannot be a system” was very interesting to know. By different examples, it was revealed that

even a small system can be highly complex in nature and could be very difficult to interpret, which

creates a huge possibility of further explorations in this field.

One of the key factors discussed was the emergence of a system; every system has a purpose

behind its emergence, for example the Patent system which was mentioned in the class is

emerged for the purpose of assigning exclusive rights to an inventor or assignee for a limited

period of time in exchange for detailed public disclosure of his invention or knowledge. But

several systems are emerging today which are completely unexpected and incapable of being

avoided from the outgrowth due to the continuous improvement in the society and exponential

growth of information.

In order to manage and maintain different complex systems a communication and controlling

approach is required. Different options of change and control in a system depends on the number

of nodes and the number of different connections between these nodes in a system.

Understanding of this structure of a system seems to play an important role in order to control it.

In order to create a viable or self-maintaining system there must be as many options of control as

there are for change. As a result of first lecture about Systems, a keen interest to know more

about different procedures to maintain and control a system through approach of System thinking

was developed in author’s mind.

2.2 Week 2 - How do systems develop?

This lecture starts from the quick recap of last session regarding the complexity and purpose of a

system and argued about Emergence and Hierarchy, as two of the core ideas behind the

foundation of systems thinking. One of the main discussions was about the question “How a

system might develop”? Which was very clearly illustrated using different examples. For instance

an Engineering System is developed on the basis of three main building blocks: firstly there must

be a need or a specific purpose, secondly the availability of resources to facilitate the system and

their optimum use and third factor is further research and development for continuous expansion

of the system.

From the idea of “Purpose of a system is what it does” the key concept of emergent behaviour

was developed. Different complexities in a system possess interfaces at different levels

formulating Hierarchies, which brings the concept of decomposability in a system. Different

theories suggest that systems can be decomposed in to small levels and could be solved. But due

to the problem of more and more complexity in the systems like Social systems and Management

systems which are too complicated to be further decompose and analyse, it is difficult to

decompose these systems after a certain level of depth. According to Checkland (1981) the


3

evolution of concept of System Thinking was the result of this problem (p. 60). This argument is

very well realized throughout the lecture, which emphasized the fact that system thinking is

dealing with the theme of hierarchy, its levels of complexity and decomposability. Two of the

fascinating thoughts are provided here: first one was from Descartes which states that, “dividing

up the system being studied in to separate parts and these separate parts will retain the

phenomenon being studied”. Second though was from the Ockham which states that, “the

simplest solution is the right solution”. Thus a new and next level of advancement in context to

Systems thinking was achieved in this lecture along with the introduction of Lean thinking and

different theories of constraints. The cornerstone of lean thinking grasped during the lecture is

the elimination of waste from the processes with a mindset of continuous improvement. Also the

interesting discussion about the theories of constraints inspires the author to read Goldratt’s

novel The Goal.

2.3 Week 3 - How to sustain system performance?

Discussion about Lean thinking in a system in the previous lecture created a framework for an

approach towards sustaining the performance of a system with the mindset of continuous

improvement. The main notion behind Lean thinking i.e. to reduce waste and to simplify and

optimize the system as whole, well adapts to the systems thinking. Third lecture underlined the

similar concept with the involvement of the theme “It’s all about people”. For the development of

any organizational system, people’s thinking behaviours seemed to be very important; they must

be humble and open minded supporting the idea of continuous improvement and must have a

fully shared vision. Innovation and change was considered as one of the main factor which

supports a system to sustain, but most of the innovations and changes failed as soon as they are

implemented. Many reasons behind this failure are discoursed in the lecture and the main reason

emerged was the lack of collaborative conversations among people.

Senge (2006) in his book The Fifth Discipline speaks about the same problems in a system and

raised the importance of considering the system as whole. He says that it is important to see “the

whole system that generates the issues”. He defines Systems thinking as one of the five disciplines

which is vital for a system as it helps to integrate other disciplines by fusing them in to a coherent

body of theory and practice. Goldratt (1989) in his book The Goal also speaks about the same

problems and describes how organizations could be successful by focusing the whole system

instead of single processes.

With different discussions about the involvement of different people aspects like collaboration,

motivation, management-leadership skills, open thinking etc. in a system further emphasized the

importance of understanding and implementing system thinking approaches in organizations.

2.4 Week 5 - How to apply systems thinking?

From previous lectures a fundamental background was developed about systems and a clear

understanding was prepared regarding the need of systems thinking approach in an organization.

Further moving to next stage, this lecture was about the actual application of systems thinking

approach by employing different modelling and system tools. Significance of systems thinking

approach lies in one of its important feature that it actuates the formation of simplified


4

presentation of a complex system in order to investigate and develop an understanding, which is

feasible with the help of modelling. But one of the essential idea evolved here was that, it is very

important to define the boundary of a system on the basis of influence, logic or convenience

otherwise every system could transformed to an over-complex framework which could be difficult

to analyse. Different methodologies are discussed in the class which help in analysing a system. 7

level approaches by Checkland as compared to Archetype approach by Senge found more useful

to author while analysing the 3D Printing System during the initial stages of class group work.

Different system tools in context to soft and hard systems found to be another interesting way to

study a complex system. Prior experience of author in value stream mapping and discrete process

simulation using Simul8 made the understanding of capabilities and limitations of hard system

analysis more clearly during the lecture. One of the biggest challenges faced during the simulation

of a production process was about interaction of soft system components with hard system

components. As the number of variables and interdependency on each other in the system was

very high, it became very difficult for the author to analyse the system by only using a hard

system tool. But with the help of step to step system thinking approach and especially casual

maps; the complexity of the system was decreased and finally the soft system analysis outputs are

used as inputs to get the results from hard system analysis.

2.5 Week 6 - Continuous innovation & Viable Systems Model

Lecture six was one of the most interesting and interactive from the author’s point of view

because of its focus on innovation. As the author is from the background of Innovation

management; this lecture brings more critical thinking development in the field of Innovation

from the context of systems thinking.

The lecture starts from the discussion about Beer’s (1985) viable systems model (VSM). One of

the major outcomes here was the fact that a viable system model which is actually inspired from a

human system could plays a vital role in managing today’s modern organizations. Bititci and

Turner (1999) mentioned the similar outcomes in his paper about a viable modern business

structure. He emphasized the fact that when a VSM combined with modern business thinking, it

generates a powerful framework for analyzing today’s modern and complex organizations.

During the discussion of The Human beings and Organizations as metaphors; bring in to the

picture the need of change in a system, as human bodies dies when they are no longer replacing

their cells similarly organizations dies too when they fail to change. To sustain successful in the

market, companies have to adopt and implement change successfully.

In the same context, further connection of process of Innovation with system thinking creates a

huge difference when it comes to implement changes successfully in the organizations. According

to Saddon (2008) any innovation has to start with knowledge about how the system is currently

performing from a customer point of view. Having detailed knowledge about the system opens up

for experimentation with new innovations around how the system can be designed. As discussed

in the class in order to innovate we need to think differently. Changing thinking creates different

types of problems, and the solutions to these problems always constitute great innovation and

creativity. Thus identification of the areas of innovation in a system is also found to be an

important part of system thinking approach by the author. Recognition of different drivers and


5

barriers on the way of innovation implementation in an organization are also equally important

which can be achieved with the effectuation of proper innovation management strategies.

2.6 Week 7 - Toyota - a systems thinking company

“All we are doing is looking at the time line from the moment the customer gives us an order to

the point when we collect cash. And we are reducing that time line by removing the non-value-

added wastes” (Ohno, 1988). These words from Ohno, the founder of highly successful Toyota

Production system clearly indicates the Lean thinking nature of Toyota. This Lean success, as

enjoyed by Toyota Motor Co, has eluded most Western companies. This lecture about “Toyota as

a system thinking company” intelligibly identifies and documents various causes for this abject

failure.

With past experience in working with Toyota motors this lecture renders a very interesting appeal

to author. The Toyota system represents a fundamentally different way of thinking about the

design and management of work. It remains the first challenge to ‘command and control’

management thinking and it remains beyond the knowledge of author. Toyota’s approach on

designing and managing the organization with an outside-in customer focus; understanding

demand; managing flow; understanding what is value and what is waste; and using capability

measures, which tells how well the company has achieved against their customer defined

purpose. It is a radically different view of the organization compared to traditional thinking, and it

releases the potential for great system innovation.

Toyota’s learning from Ford caught their attention to the overall continuous flow of work through

the plant as a whole. This initial realization combined with the ambition only to produce the cars

the customers wanted to buy, was what drove the development of the Toyota Production System

(Ohno, 1988), a production system which was driven by a different way of thinking about design

and management of the work. One of the interesting observations made by the author here was

the Toyota’s customer oriented approach and the philosophy of change based on knowledge was

very similar to the Seddon’s (2003) Vanguard method of system thinking.

2.7 Week 9 - Public sector case study

From previous lectures use of Toyota system approach was discussed for manufacturing sectors.

In this lecture another system thinking tool called as Vanguard method which was mentioned

earlier was discussed in more details by its application to Public sector system analysis. Vanguard

approach is directing towards continuous improvement in companies by following a three step

approach including check, plan and do. These three steps help to change from command and

control systems to the system thinking approach and can be related to Ohno’s ideas of Toyota

production system. Deming’s PDCA-Cycle and his 14 points of management (Deming, 1982) also

speaks about the same approach for an organizational analysis. Seddon (2008) presented a nice

comparison model between Traditional command-and-control thinking approach and Systems

Thinking approach for service organizations by highlighting different perspectives.


6

Table 1 Comparison model (Seddon, 2008)

COMMAND-AND-CONTROL THINKING

SYSTEMS THINKING

Top-down, hierarchy PERSPECTIVE Outside-in, system

Functional DESIGN Demand, value and flow

Separated from work DECISION-MAKING Integrated with work

Output, targets, standards: related to budget

MEASUREMENT Capability, variation: related to purpose

Contractual ATTITUDE TO CUSTOMERS What matters?

Contractual ATTITUDE TO SUPPLIERS Cooperative

Manage people and budgets ROLE OF MANAGEMENT Act on system

Control ETHOS Learning

Reactive, projects CHANGE Adaptive, integral

Extrinsic MOTIVATION Intrinsic

All these and other tools can be used to improve processes in the public sector because the

processes themselves are poor, but the opportunity for improvement is much larger than this.

One of the important points learned during the lecture was that the greatest leverage for change

is achieved when one understands the organization as a system, as Ohno’s innovation

demonstrated in manufacturing. The systems approach reveals major opportunities for

improvement and at the same time presents a critical challenge for public sector management

conventions. Just as Ohno learned counter-intuitive ideas by learning about designing and

managing work as a system (Ohno, 1988), public sector managers can learn counter-intuitive

things when they learn to look at work from a different point of view. The similar approach was

found quite useful while working as a team on the topic 3d printing to analyse the effects of the

system on customers and vice versa.

2.8 Week 10 - Q & A session Group work

After a healthy discussion about the possible scope of study and research in the field of 3D

printing (our group topic) team finally came up with the split up and allocation of topics in the

team. The first job performed was the identification of purpose of 3D printing and then the

formation of boundaries to the system was performed by the team. As a result of initial system

thinking approach team easily able to sort out to disruptiveness in supply chain and

manufacturing because of 3D printing as the core area of research. The next step of the team was

to design the approach for the analysis of complex 3D printing system. According to different

System thinking tools discussed in the class the whole analysis approach was divided in to three

components as soft system analysis, hard system analysis and purpose analysis. Analysis tools

such as CATWOE, Influence Diagrams, Balanced Scorecards and Porters Five Forces are used at

the initial stage by the team. For hard system analysis tools such as value stream mapping and

Simulation software Simul8 are used. The outcomes of the analysis show several impacts on the

industry sector and customer perception that are aligning us with the theory discussed in the

lectures. The main task of the author was to find out the impact of 3D printing system on other

systems and finally support the soft system analysis in the team. The initial findings suggest that

3D printing poses significant questions for the future of how we manufacture goods. Factories will


7

not disappear, but the face of the manufacturing industry will change as new entrants, new

products and new materials emerge, and mainstay processes like distribution may no longer be

needed. According to Christensen (1997), 3D printing will completely eliminate the long supply

chain system in upcoming years. Hard system analysis using simulation tools clearly suggests the

impact on constraints and bottlenecks behaviors of manufacturing systems. Customer demand is

evolved as an important factor and it was realized that the capacity of the system can only be

improved by changing the characteristic of demand.

2.9 Week 11 - Service Company case study

One of the basic learning from this lecture was the fact that service differs from manufacturing. In

a service system aside from the obvious lack of making physical things, the customer is involved in

production and the service agent is involved too. There is much more variety of demand. So

instead of thinking of the system as one that pulls physical things together to manufacture at the

rate of customer demand (the essence of the Toyota system), one has to think about the system

as one that brings intangible things together in response to the variety of customer demands. This

approach was also used by the author while analyzing the customer needs and impacts of 3d

printing systems, as different purpose leads to different methods, when we learn there are

different problems to solve. And when we solve these problems we learn how to design services

from which customers can ‘pull value’—i.e. get what they want. Moreover, as service improves,

costs fall.

As the case study of utility provider discussed in the class, taking a systems approach requires

studying demand to understand why citizens call. As Seddon (2003) suggests Demand as the

Greatest Point of Leverage, it is important to understand the frequency and predictability of value

and failure demands, which will tell what is not working for citizens and show the priorities for

service improvement in order to stop the calls coming in. Understanding the value demands helps

the determination as to whether the calls can be serviced in the call centre or whether the call

centre should be used as only a switch. These simple strategies lead to a reduction in call volumes

and more efficient delivery of services. Operating at this ‘system’ level achieves far more than can

be achieved by attention to processes.

2.10 Week 12 - Group presentations

On the final presentation day different groups analysed wide verities of systems using different

system thinking approaches. Few of the most interesting topics presented by different teams are

impacts of bees on the environmental system and reintroducing wolfs to Scottish national park.

But one of the occupying outcomes from different range of topics covered was that System

thinking approach can be applied to any system when its purpose and boundaries are clear.

Defining the boundaries was one of the biggest challenges faced by the author’s team who are

working on the 3D printing system. Another difficulty faced by the author as his job was to

analyze the impacts of 3D printing on other systems was the rise of complexity because of

tremendous amount of information. Although an information matrix was developed by the team

to cover all the impacts still it was found to be less effective way of understanding the impact on

other systems.


8

The soft system analysis of Irish economic system presented by the group 5 was found very

interesting to the author. The application of influence diagrams to analyze the critical economic

systems was very interesting and easy to understand. Another observation regarding hard system

analysis presented by different groups realized the author that his belief that hard system must

have numbers is wrong and throughout the presentations different kind of hard system analysis

was observed carefully. At the same time as it was observed that applying hard system analysis to

some of the systems like one mentioned in the case of reintroducing wolf in to parks is very

difficult. This idea generates the possibilities of further research and right methodology selection

in the field of system thinking.

3 Reflective discussion

Systems thinking is a general conceptual orientation concerned with the interrelationships

between parts and their relationships to a functioning whole, often understood within the

context of an even greater whole. At the beginning of the class the knowledge and opinion

about system thinking approach was very obscure, but as the lectures proceed a clear

framework and thinking was started to develop. Author understood the importance of

System thinking approach and the need of its understanding and implementation.

From different examples discoursed in the class in the beginning author realized that we are

engaged in a type of systems thinking in our everyday lives. Soon it was realized that systems

can be more complex and systems thinking even encompasses some of the most advanced

and sophisticated recent work in contemporary science. Computational modeling and

simulation, as a complement to experimentation and theory, are hallmarks of recent systems

thinking and the systems sciences. (Sterman, 2000)

Systems Modeling was found out to be a tool for system thinking which is a methodological

tradition that involves the use of formal models, frameworks or simulations as explicit aids to

increase the understanding of complex systems and improve the effectiveness of our actions

within them. The difference between model and metaphor was very interesting to know. The

depth and breadth of systems thinking science was started to be bewildering, particularly as

one first is introduced to its underlying principles and formulations. Considering just a few of

the topics associated with contemporary systems thinking covered in the class which creates

a strong background of the topic are: feedback; flow structures and open and closed systems;

centralized, decentralized, hierarchical, and self-organizing systems; nonlinear systems and

chaos; boundary conditions; emergence; Viability; simulation; evolution etc. The vastness of

the literature alone can be overwhelming, and it is not easily summarized in few thousand

words. The knowledge gathered during the whole course was sufficient to propose a system

and analyze it critically.


9

Detailed discussion about approach to Systems Thinking through the Vanguard Method in the

class inspired the author to read John Seddon’s book “Freedom from Command and Control“.

A few key points really struck in author’s mind in context to the theory covered in the class

and helped clarify author’s thoughts on some of the challenges come across recently.

First thought developed was the following simple diagram (See figure 1 (a)), which shows that

Management is responsible for defining the System, which is ultimately what defines

Performance. Management’s role should be to analyse Performance, and change the System

to improve it.

Figure 1 (a) Thought Development, (b) Purpose defination

All lean initiatives are usually begun in order to improve performance. As discussed in the

class and Seddon (2008) also says that in order to analyse Performance, we first need to

understand the Purpose of the System. Thus author believe that we should create Measures

to provide knowledge of how well we are meeting that Purpose, before finally applying a

Method which meets that Purpose, using the Measures to help refine the Method.

After developing a strong background about different approaches of system thinking many

questions begin to rise in the authors mind:

How to identify the purpose of any system? Are there any Measures about capability against

that Purpose? Also how to identify the customer demand?

Finally, getting in to more depth of Vanguard method, it was realized that understanding

Purpose involves understanding Demand, and in particular, Seddon introduces the concepts

of Value Demand and Failure Demand. Value Demand is what do customers ask to do

because it add value, and Failure Demand is what customers ask to do because we failed to

something, or do something right in the first place.

Toyota thinking approach discussed in the class which is actually an anatomy of Lean and

Agile approach of thinking is found to often use in different organizations just as alternative

delivery approaches within an existing System, rather than as means to change the System

itself. These organisations can be thought of as “wall-dwellers”, using a method within

existing boundaries, rather than “wall-movers”, moving the boundaries to help create a

System which helps meet the Purpose. Quote from “Russell Ackoff” a famous American

organizational theorist, best fits here: “doing the wrong thing righter, rather than doing the

right thing”.

http://availagility.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/measures.png


10

Other than vanguard other tools covered in the class enable a good understanding of

different soft and hard system analysis frameworks. Hard system tools such as simulation

using different software and value stream mapping are seemed to be very helpful to author in

the analysis of supply chain system of a manufacturing processes. Different soft system tools

such as CATWOE analysis, process mapping, causal mapping, Deming’s PDCA Cycle etc. are also

found to be very useful for analysis at initial stages.

One of the successful accomplishment of this class was that author has already applied his

learning in his other projects successfully. For instance one of the complex manufacturing

systems in a traditional textile company was analysed by the author during Industrial group

project using the system thinking approach learned in the class. The challenge for the author

was to analyze a complex process which has more than thousand input variables and

interconnections. The solution to this problem was provided in the form of a simplified

model. The approach followed was first to identify the boundaries of the system by

considering the whole process as a system then soft system tools are used to identify all the

links. For this different discrete variables are first arranged in to four groups as shown in the

first model prepared in figure 2. Second step was to identify the bottlenecks in the whole

process; two processes warping and weaving are identified as bottlenecks. Next is to

identifies the queue and finally to identify the flow of the system. Thus out of a complex web

of more than thousand machines and products a simplified model was prepared (See figure 2)

which was finally plotted in a simulation software Simul8 (See figure 3) with different

conditions in order to perform the real time analysis.

Figure 2 Basic Simplified Model


11

Figure 3 Final Simulation Model (By Simul8)

Moreover the presentation session brought out the scope of different approaches that can be

undertook within System Thinking and provided insight into the different ways the System

thinking approach can solve problems within such a broad range of topics. Even the advancement

of technology and expansion of knowledge has bring in to picture various approaches of dealing

and managing complex systems but they all are found to be as complex as the problem to use and

highly time consuming. A Systems thinking approach is of considering the whole and working

within the defined boundaries provides a more holistic and clear analysis solution. This was

carried out and experienced by the covered case studies and the practical group project in class,

but is also ubiquitous in the topic related literature.

Additionally the in depth discussion of one of the most significant topic in different organizations

i.e. Innovation was an excellent add-on to the class logistics. The connection of innovation with

system thinking is found as the topic of most interest for author. Author believes that there are

tremendous possibilities of research and experiment are available in this specific area. Further the

way of teaching and delivering knowledge very differently by the means of tools like MindGenius

and involvement of unique case studies enable this class as one of the most innovative and

unique experience for me.


12

References

Beer S. (1985) Diagnosing the system for organisations, Wiley, Chichester, England

Bititci U S and Turner T J, 1999,"The Viable Business Structure", International Journal of Agile

Manufacturing Systems, vol.1 no.3,

Checkland, P.B. (1981), Systems thinking, Systems practice, John wiley and sons ltd., Bath

Christensen C.M. (1997), The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to

Fail (Boston: Harvard Business School Press).

Georgiou, I. (2007). Thinking through Systems Thinking, New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.

Goldratt, E. M. (1989). The Goal, Rev. Ed. Aldershot: Gower

London: Random House Business Books

Mella, P. (2007). System Thinking – Intelligence in Action, Heidelberg, Germany: Spring-er-Verlag

Midgley, G. (2003). Systems Thinking – Overview, London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Ohno, T. (1988), Toyota Production System, Productivity Press, New York.

Seddon, J. (2003). Freedom from command and control, Vanguard Education Ltd, Vanguard

Press, Buckingham.

Seddon, J. (2008). Systems Thinking in the Public Sector, Triarchy Press,

Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline – The Art & Practise of the Learning Organisa-tion.

Sterman JD. (2000) Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World.

NewYork, NY:McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

systems thinking & modelling in organizations

Documents

dm945 system

system performance

table of contents

table of figures figure

statement of academic

act of academic

service company case

modelling collin andrews