Lecture 6 – System Archetypes

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics

Dr. LI Haobin, Senior Lecturer

Department of Industrial Systems Engineering and Management (ISEM)
College of Design and Engineering
National University of Singapore

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 1
 observations
Diff argles & methods during
leadto diff system bellaviours observed

6.1 Perception of Systems

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 2
 I of praption ofdiff .
Sptem Stakeholder
models
esp preeptronof audience of system
.

Perception
▪ Attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information
▪ A result of interplays between past experiences, culture, and
the interpretation of the perceived.

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 3
 Gate & recognise friend's photo ,

Conscious Perception
Her f e
Consciously perseding

↳ Angheragme -allow us
deeply broiler reflect on respond fat reporte
processing
to
,

X
This ▪ Awareness of some aspect of the environment as a result of
makes
integration of filtered sensory info with stored knowledge
Enscious
perception
easily
mixed y
aurosting
knowledged
his
based
on ,

Letter &distort winder part,

other to z botten
butsomparedty
notshirt
Ed pollen pfins
Prestore
IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore
system So appearance 4
 Meredifft deteut/descal
Unconscious Perception
resultin Mustansmisunder handistal edinteresting
de
Standing /
then
processing
external en

▪ Result of sensory info processed automatically below level of

conscious awareness, but may still influence how we react

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 5
 6.2a Level of Perspectives

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 6
 need contr observe ,

dearl "nose"
to

Levels of Perspectives accuratelypeei by

term behav pattery

I
Rap Lad stelppple
understand & identify deep causes
behind phenomena
:
I

& patterns
->

▪ The Systems Iceberg

Definition
easiest ore to lay quart proft .

obsene Events / Individual situations and actions

declines

Behaviour
gedquarter pott
Patterns that form over time as a result of decine fr
Patterns past 5 yrs
decisions and actions BOT4]
Handto accuratelyrepresent
directly inlanguage meluely, ways & causal relationships conducts large/cak
I
graphe lango Organizational structures, by
lead specifie behave pattery
Systemic Structures marketing ampaigns every
Q3

-
Butdret close connection processes and policies leading significant increase in ,
to

bet mental models &systemi structures

.
(CLD & SFDS) marketing costs affecting profits
,
,

Mental Models uffedhow need

systemic structures wine
we afte use

Rate
e
,
mental model within company
system archetypes ' fo orespond&
I -
enterpret decisionmakers' Beliefs and assumptions "Marketing activities are the
underlying
mental model ofkey-stakeholders/decisionmakers only way to increase sales"
Primary drivingfaster
mostin inselecting
mental models' Visions
Desired future state To become a market

deptes He
zindriving
operation
mental models't
[
of constructing
Concerns
Purpose
organisation's ore goals,
of vision in use leader , notjuzt
achieve short term profits

Land reason/purpose of
1
He
indvenelbrtent& persplattes
I

desires , missions , esp decision E I .

wigtertul .

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore makers system's existence 8
 6.2b Level of Perspectives

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore
 =
plers, often stands a heart of social

Levels of Perspectives But, withen school her

, strang relationships ,
erbts

▪ Example – Good Social Life

observeau recel grade
I Definition
Tired; bad grades; partying Events / Individual situations and actions
with friends Behaviour

Grades are getting worse; making ButA/pj/social

gatherings Patterns that form over time as a result of
batte, exwbrtstrngstlls Patterns decisions and actions
more friends
-shipbuilding
Allocate more time to spend with pollylady consistent Organizational structures,
Systemic Structures
friends and less time to study study routine , speidexternate Sine in Certsete .
processes and policies
-

mightbelieve ming strong relationships & taking part in

Making friends is more socalements
important than studying Leartowards
more artical than acad
Mental Models - acad Beliefs and assumptions
showcasing his strengths orbetere cut/relationships hold more value man
-

Cultivating profound friendships relishing

,
Good social life school life &joys of social events Visions Desired future state
student's social prowess & acad pet are
not
*
.
isolated might seek validation & value in relationships Man asad of vision in use
Phenomena ,
might beresult of ale proced interactions
models &visions
bet Sys Struct , mental
.
,

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 9
 Levels of Perspectives
Recentexam
▪ Example – Good Grades getAtgrede ItSee
enterg
e
I breadsalone doingschodrakDefinition
,

Events / Individual situations and actions

Studying; motivated
Behaviour
overpast terms acad port consistent e
potclass)
socially shy
Increasing time spent on studying; decreasing time inseactions and Patterns that form over time as a result of
Patterns
, ,

spent on social life; grades are getting better rosely participatin in ceA/grproj
,
decisions and actions
concentrate on set work
Daily study routine ,

spendmost oftime study , missing chances

binteract pers
Better motivation and more time spent Organizational structures,
notengaging
in Systemic Structures processes and policies
on studying to get better grades activities that could hore his social skulls

Regard acadas paramount, feeling diff, Le prefers solitude

Grades are more believe social activities will
important than friends
distract him Mental Models Beliefs and assumptions
mightfeel inadequate in social settings , fearing judgement rejection
Acadexcellence, a trfuture opportunities
Get good grades 2 g
.
.

or s Visions Desired future state

of vision in use

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 10
 Levels of Perspectives
more likely to
be

nigtertekreuge ,able acher dested

system changes
↑ ▪ Action Modesranh
Lambringabout significant
effective &sustained
,
mightrespond
- But
bret ee
Definition
systemchanges directly ↓
bu
i leverage q
↑ Reactive
- Events / Individual situations and actions
Behaviour
Decreasing Leverage Point

I
strategies
obsee identity recurring patterns , adjust Patterns that form over time as a result of
- ,
↳ accommodatethem fundamental Patterns
Adaptive I
Arkans mightbe taken
but mightnofmert decisions and actions
changes to system -> elatively
low
Struct can
Changing sys

Tightly Coupled
.

Organizational structures,
↓ Creative in Systemic Structures Stimulate & inspirener

writersand desicanh Stem legea

gned systemimpacts alterny
me
e Visible processes and policies ment models

↳ Interventions profound functions medium since

models
Reflective beliefs how it
W

Changing ment .

re-evaluation
inspect challenge inherent
,
there
assumptions that
in
Hidden Mental Models Beliefs and assumptions might land to
& adjustment of system
is

ourdecisions/actions structure

↓
↳ By altering Hese embeddedmindsets beliefs , can instigate
fund
system chargest
ely
high
Generative or .

↓ Imaginative Visions Desired future state

of vision in use
foundational
redefine/specify system's purpose/valreobjectives mental models drivecreation
teerage extremely high
beshapentiesystem's structure direction-- Cen often understand mentalmodels of - I maintenance of systemic
decision makes/system designers byanalysing asystemic structure
IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore structure ↳ sys Stretocanshape 11
.

our ment models

 Overview of System Archetypes

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 12
 Overview of System Archetypes
▪ The Systems Archetypes describe common patterns of
behavior in organizations. As diagnostic tools they provide
insight into the underlying structures from which behavior over
↑
time and discreet events emerge. corresponding metal models
▪ Archetypes help managers recognize patterns of behavior that are
already present in their organizations.
▪ They serve as the means for gaining insight into the underlying
systems structures from which the archetypal behavior emerges.

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 13
 Overview on System Archetypes butsometimes produce I

I
unintended consequences
address -> A pically involve tradeoffs ,
How system internally system internally solutions
delays & short-sighted
now

renforces inselfie I Am Most & resoheissies

e g customer / direcontinuous growth
Concerned About…
. .

pollution Growth Fixing Problems

trefit
Reinforcing Balancing
Loop Loop But my fix is your
Isolutions nightmare
But nothing But my growth seems But my fix comes
grow forever to lead to your decline back to haunt me
Escalation
growthot singlets
limits growthof 2
anounters Limits to entities competing
Success to the Fixes that
solution
Growth Vlachother Successful Fail
While waiting for my fix
to take effect, to relieve
So if we are all Because I am not
My capacity to handle tension, I become
up against the getting at the real
growth is not large satisfied with less
same limit underlying cause meren
enough. It is my limit haven find an e
et

satfee
roof causlof

Tragedy of
a

a
collecti encountering
mts to growth Growth &
Shifting the
Burden
moblem
Eroding
Goals
blowing
the Commons sced aro together Underinvestment
growth of entingdue to
insufficient investment leadingto
capacity
IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University
constraints
of Singapore 14
 understood as
System archetypes ambebehambur&
templates/patterns describing

Levels of Perspectives
structure of complexsystems

mightbeportofint utialmsstads t over

foreuse of resources ultimately
e
andre

I
,

resulting
in decline)
▪ Action Modes
a

sudd drop insales

Definition

Reactive Events / Individual situations and actions

Behaviour
Decreasing Leverage Point

Patterns that form over time as a result of

andmhVaamnheangine
Adaptive Patterns decisions and actions

Tightly Coupled
Organizational structures,
Creative Visible Systemic Structures processes and policies

Reflective
Hidden Mental Models Beliefs and assumptions
in
Generative or
Visions Desired future state
Imaginative of vision in use

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 15
 6.4 System Archetypes of Growth

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 16
 Limits to Growth
▪ Example
America-On-Line experienced initial success on a fee-per-minute business model. Their
competition offered a flat-rate for connecting and accessing the internet. In an effort to both
recapture their eroding market share and grow subscribers, AOL began an aggressive
marketing campaign, flooding the market with CDs designed to make subscribing and
connecting easy and attractive.
min
The campaign was an enormous success,
so much so that the demand completely
overwhelmed their technical capacity to
deliver service. Not only were new

-Get
subscribers alienated, so too were existing
subscribers who left in significant numbers.
market demand want left Her disappointed but drose ,

manyexisting users away

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 17
 Limits to Growth
▪ Behavior Over Time
Efforts to grow an effect are successful in initial stages, perhaps exponentially so.
However, as the limits to growth are approached, the growth engine begins to lose its
effectiveness and the rate of growth begins to flatten. In the end, despite continued
pressure from the growth engine, the rate of growth stops and then reverses.

Performance
Effort

(The BOTG is for illustration of general trend only,

actual curve under specific scenarios can vary)

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 18
 Limits to Growth
▪ Dynamic Theory
This archetype states that a reinforcing process of accelerating growth (or
<decelerating)
expansion) will encounter a balancing process as the limit of that system is
approached. It hypothesizes that continuing efforts will produce diminishing
returns as one approaches the limits.

▪ Mental Models
“We can get bigger and bigger by
continuing to do more of what we
are doing.”

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 19
 Limits to Growth
▪ Key Strategy
Identify the limit that is causing the decline, then plan for the limit.
▪ Prescriptive Action
▪ Use the archetype to identify potential balancing processes before they
begin to affect growth.
▪ Focus on removing the limit (or weakening its effect) rather than continuing
to drive the reinforcing process of growth.
▪ Identify links between the growth processes and limiting factors to
determine ways to manage the balance between the two.

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 20
 Tragedy of the Commons
▪ Example
IT resources are typically organized into a “commons”
department, with each part of the organization
seeking their support on an as-needed basis. Since
strande e
·

I separate parts of the organization typically do not

keep track of the IT problems in other parts of the
organization, it is fairy common for each part of the
organization to see the IT department as “its own”.
When the IT department is crushed under the weight
of all the demands placed upon it, its performance for
every department begins to erode or fail.

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 21
 Effort demands oflach indrical in system
but arell perf.
of tregstem
stantly mulesing , I

Tragedy of the Commons shows

decting trend

▪ Behavior Over Time

Any time a declining trend is seen in the overall performance of each part of the system even
as it increases its demand on common resources, there is a good possibility that a Tragedy of
Confusion
the Commons is taking place. This is often accompanied by puzzlement, as each party placing
demands on the system cannot understand why their demands are not being met, which
typically results in the party increasing its demands yet further. This may continue until the
commons collapses.
public resources A’s Activity

B’s Activity

Gain per Individual Activity

(The BOTG is for illustration of general trend only,

actual curve under specific scenarios can vary)
IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 22
 Tragedy of the Commons
▪ Dynamic Theory
expogronthot This archetype identifies the causal connections between
indrickal -
schauers
individual actions and the collective results (in a closed
formedthi -

reinforcingloops system). It hypothesizes that if the total usage of a

common resource becomes too great for the system to
support, the commons will become overloaded or
depleted and everyone will experience diminished
benefits.

▪ Mental Models
“This resource is so vast that it will never run out.”

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 23
 Tragedy of the Commons
▪ Key Strategy
Identify the common resource and how people are drawing from it. Then work with users
on allocation or access limits.
▪ Prescriptive Action
nules
▪ Establish methods for making the cumulative effects of using the common resource
more real and immediate to the individual players.
▪ Re-evaluate the nature of the commons to determine if there are ways to replace or
renew (or substitute) the resource before it becomes depleted.
▪ Create a final arbiter who manages the use of the common resource from a whole-
system level.

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 24
 Growth and Under-Investment
▪ Example
In private practice, shareholders historically
treat the business firm as a wealth generator
for their families. There is typically a tension
between the desire to remove profits from
- propt
the practice and the need to invest in takingtom
Salthad infrastructure, especially technology. Over biz
example) time, performance slips so far, that patients

i
prattealthcare
find it increasingly difficult to receive care at -> Listinglieserschng
Restauttreis the practice, mostly for operational reasons brz growth offed .

wangen in
(though clinical equipment and technology
could likewise be affected.)
early stages
unzotreputation Im enterwent thefauttress
i

broughtby
IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 25
 Growth and Under-Investment
▪ Behavior Over Time
Data that shows declining performance and growth at the same time that the rate of investment
is slowing or falling may signal that this archetype is at work.
Correspondingly, it is not uncommon for performance standards to erode as the degree of
-
difficulty in reaching performance standards increases.i t
standards

Growth

Capacity Investment

Performance
Standards
(The BOTG is for illustration of general trend only,
actual curve under specific scenarios can vary)
IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 26
 leadst systemtelite
Growth and Under-Investment ↑

compensatoryeffect, growth in pet

instateof for pot

demandgrowt by wintering top

I
However as
.

balancing percented tra

↳op insum reduces
growth limited by perf -
↑ which cn need finestment
·

be enhancedthin capacity mestment

▪ Mental Models iM

“We don’t need to invest in

capacity, we just need to work
harder.” => rotgrant construct

▪ Dynamic Theory
This archetype applies when growth approaches a limit that
can be overcome if capacity investments are made. If a
system is stretched beyond its limit, it will compensate by
lowering performance standards, which reduces the perceived
need for investment. It also leads to lower performance, which
further justifies underinvestment over time.

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 27
 Growth and Under-Investment
▪ Key Strategy
Identify the limiting capacity that is causing the extra work. Recognize the unintended
consequences, then plan to increase the capacity or deal with the consequences.
else ad exest add efforts & deal - Hest buseq
▪ Prescriptive Action
▪ Identify interlocking patterns of behavior between capacity investments and
performance measures.
redto
very .

I
▪ Shorten the delays between when performance declines and when additional capacity
invest
ASAP comes on line (particularly perceptual delays about the need to invest).
▪ Anchor investment decisions on external signals, not on standards derived from past
performance. 2 make investment reportes moragte

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 28
 Success to the Successful
▪ Example
Two call centers are established in different parts of the
country. Some rationale for resource allocation results in one
of them experiencing better performance than the other. Not
only is the lesser performer looked down upon, but its lack
luster performance is cited as a sound rationale not to put any
more resources into it.

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 29
 Success to the Successful
▪ Behavior Over Time
A dynamic of success to the successful can be identified from trended data by looking for
diverging patterns when individuals, departments or products are examined. As resources are
-

diverted to the successful party, their success improves even more. Correspondingly, the other
party’s performance, as resources are diverted from it, continues to erode.

A’s Performance

B’s Performance

(The BOTG is for illustration of general trend only,

actual curve under specific scenarios can vary)
IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 30
 Success
reinforcing
Forlogers ,
to the Successful
loops strip tem of resources, exacerbatiy their
ganese more sucess
failure - further widen perf gap bet 2painties
, .

▪ Dynamic Theory
&the intering bas ,

The Success to the Successful archetype states that if one person

or group (A) is given more resources than another equally capable
group (B), A has a higher likelihood of succeeding. It hypothesizes
y
that A’s initial success justifies devoting more resources to A,
further widening the performance gap between the two groups over
time.
Success to the Successful rewards the winner of competition with
the means to win again; it may also penalize the losers.

▪ Mental Models
“Because that person is successful, they must be good and
others are not.”

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 31
 Success to the Successful
▪ Key Strategy
Avoid win-lose situations in allocating resources. Find ways to make team collaborators
rather than competitors.
▪ Prescriptive Action Award seating zsorsum game when allocating
▪ Evaluate the current measurement systems to determine if they are set up to favor
established practices over other alternatives.
▪ Identify goals or objectives that will refocus the definition of success to a broader
system.
▪ Calibrate internal views of market success against external indicators to identify
Beyond past awording constraints external
achievement , potential competency traps. indicators place on
refers emphasise those reflecting I
tential spabtes
or
atterneties to form a competenti indiatorsystem that I
intrinsrpotential of indricals
IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore
fines access notistically & Hams 32
 6.5 System Archetypes of
Fixing Problems

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 33
 Fixes that Fail
▪ Example Health hazads sig .

challengeto growth oftobacco industry

For years the tobacco industry steadfastly denied
that there were any ill health effects from smoking,
pouring vast amounts of money into advertising and
a pattern of denials. The tactic served the industry
well. However, each time it denied that smoking
.caused health problems, it stiffened the resolve of
scientists, and research into the effects of smoking
on health steadily grew. Ultimately, the amount of
evidence grew so large that no amount of PR or
advertising could overcome the industry’s claims.

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 34
 Fixes that Fail
Intervention short ter relief
▪ Behavior Over Time
The classic behavior over time for Fixes that Fail is the trend that illustrates that management
intervention appears to have a beneficial effect, even as the long-term trend continues to -

deteriorate. Likewise there is an accumulation of side effects that take on lives and energy of
-

their own, each of which consumes time and resources that could otherwise be devoted to
fixing the “original” problems.

Problem Symptom

Unintended Consequence
↓
(The BOTG is for illustration of general trend only,
actual curve under specific scenarios can vary)
accumulat
u over true
IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 35
 Fixes that Fail
▪ Dynamic Theory
This archetype states that a quick-fix solution can
have unintended consequences that exacerbate the
problem. It hypothesizes that the problem symptom
will diminish for a short while and then return to its
previous level, or become even worse over time.

▪ Mental Models Wasterathertime/moves

“Time is money and neither time or money should be

wasted. Therefore the first answer must be the correct one.”

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 36
 Fixes that Fail
▪ Key Strategy
Identify the quick fix and understand how it undermines the long term solution. Take
robust actions and solve it once and for all.
▪ Prescriptive Action
ratherthan address mere symptoms
▪ Focus on identifying and removing the fundamental cause of the problem symptom.1
▪ If a temporary, short-term solution is needed, develop a two-tier approach of
simultaneously applying the fix and planning out the fundamental solution.
▪ Use the archetype to map out potential side-effects of any proposed intervention.

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 37
 Shifting the Burden
▪ Example
A manufacturing facility experiences periodic
-
problems
-
reaching production targets as a result of
difficulties making adjustments to changing
production requirements. Each time/ the R&D people,
who know the product very well, are called upon to fix
the problem. When the problem symptoms disappear,
the incentive to fix the underlying problem likewise
disappear. Additionally, since the production staff has
received no training to improve their ability to respond
to the problems, they feel disaffected and leave.
frustrate

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 38
 Shifting the Burden
▪ Behavior Over Time
Shifting the Burden is one example of how management intervention works. Each time an
intervention is aimed at problem symptoms, some temporary improvement in performance is
experienced (this assumes a well planned intervention). The underlying problem persists
however and the reappearance of problem symptoms invariably happens.
Rootuse-zorlooked , pressure to implement
Problem Symptom
fund .
Solution diminishes
interventions req
Symptoms insensingly
severe
,
become increasingly interste
*

& address Hese symptoms

Symptomatic Solution

Fundamental Solution
(The BOTG is for illustration of general trend only,
actual curve under specific scenarios can vary)
IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 39
 Shifting the Burden
▪ Dynamic Theory
This archetype states that a problem symptom can be
resolved either by using a symptomatic solution or applying
a fundamental solution. altetepfors
It hypothesizes that once a symptomatic solution is used, it
alleviates the problem symptom and reduces pressure to
implement a fundamental solution, a side effect that
undermines fundamental solutions. reduces
pressure
implement
▪ Mental Models Lund. Sal

“We know what we need to do, but it is too difficult to deal

with right now. So let’s put a bandage on it.”

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 40
 Shifting the Burden
▪ Key Strategy
Identify the addictive behavior to the symptomatic solution. Then commit to
the fundamental solution no matter how difficult it is.
▪ Prescriptive Action
▪ Focus on the fundamental solution. If necessary, use the symptomatic
solution only to gain time while working on the fundamental solution.
▪ Elicit multiple viewpoints to differentiate between fundamental and
symptomatic solutions and to gain consensus around an action plan.
▪ Use the archetype to explore potential side-effects of any proposed
solution.
IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 41
 Eroding Goals
▪ Example
Quality standards are common in organizations. If a gap
occurs between what the organization targeted and its
actual performance, a tension develops between
pressure to live up to standards and the pressure to roll
the standards back to something achievable. leagier choice
-

erosion
1
ofgals)
If the quality standard is anchored to an internal
perception of customer expectations rather than an
industry standard (what the competition is doing) there
is the risk that the pressure to scale back the standard
will prevail.

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 42
 Eroding Goals actpetmabebeprovementState efftarget a I
-
be
get

▪ Behavior Over Time

Eroding goals has a long term effect on goal setting within the organization. Each time goals
are adjusted downward in the organization, a reinforcing dynamic occurs which anchors a lax
orientation to goal setting in the culture of the organization. After some period of time, the
organization finds itself aiming lower and lower to ensure that its goals are always met.

Goal

Actual

Gap
(The BOTG is for illustration of general trend only,
actual curve under specific scenarios can vary)
IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 43
 Eroding Goals
▪ Dynamic Theory
This archetype states that a gap between a goal and an
actual condition can be resolved in two ways: by taking
corrective action to achieve the goal, or by lowering the
goal. It hypothesizes that when there is a gap between a
goal and a condition, the goal is lowered to close the gap.
Over time, lowering the goal will deteriorate performance.

▪ Mental Models
“Our current level of activity is acceptable even though it is
substandard.”

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 44
 Eroding Goals
▪ Key Strategy
Identify the goal and how it has shifted. Recommit to or redefine the goals and stay
focused on it.
▪ Prescriptive Action
▪ Anchor goals to an external frame of reference to keep them from sliding (i.e., a
benchmark or the voice of the customer).
▪ Determine whether the drift in performance is the result of conflicts between the stated
goal and the implicit goals of the system (such as current performance measures).
▪ Establish a clear transition plan from current reality to the goal, including a realistic
time frame for achieving the goal.
which would contribute to dening pert
abt hidden
goals thatnight eastautside stated objectives
.

vigilant 1 ,

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 45
 Escalation
▪ Example viefor
maketshare by constructingnew buildings
In the health care industry, especially in a geographically defined
market, it is not uncommon for competitors to engage in a
campaign of erecting buildings as a tactic for securing market
share. Each facility is seen as a threat by the competitor, who after
some delay, will respond in kind. This can continue for some time
until the cost of doing so becomes prohibitive and the escalation
stops. I stfor highs

This may result in one competitor’s eventual market dominance

(if it had the resources to support the construction boom) or in
one competitors collapse due to overextending itself financially.

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 46
 Escalation
▪ Behavior Over Time
The behavior of escalation is relatively simple and predictable. The actions (and
reactions) of each party are similar in nature, though they become increasingly
competitive as time goes by.
What the Behavior Over Time graph does not illustrate is the potential for collapse if the
escalation goes on for too long.
Party A’s Actions

Party B’s Actions

(The BOTG is for illustration of general trend only,

actual curve under specific scenarios can vary)
IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 47
 Escalation
▪ Dynamic Theory
The Escalation archetype occurs when one party’s
actions are perceived by another party to be a threat,
and the second party responds in a similar manner,
further increasing the threat. It hypothesizes that the
two balancing loops will create a reinforcing figure-8
effect, resulting in threatening actions by both parties
that continue growing over time.

▪ Mental Models
“We are under attack or being threatened. We need to
take action to defend ourselves.”

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 48
 Escalation
▪ Key Strategy
Identify the threat and how it is perceived and escalating. Then stop reacting to the
situation.
▪ Prescriptive Action
▪ Identify the relative measure that is pitting one party against another, and explore
ways it can be changed or other ways the parties can differentiate themselves in the
market place.
▪ Quantify significant delays in the system that may be distorting the nature of the threat
▪ Identify a larger goal that encompasses the individual goal of both parties.
encourage collabo

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 49
 Let's protect the environment
Lecture notes are subject to change before
the class for further improvement

THANK YOU
The preparation of this module has been made possible by
the support from IE2141 teaching team, and the past
teaching materials developed by A/Prof. Aaron Chia.

IE2141 Systems Thinking and Dynamics – ISEM Department, National University of Singapore 50