Systems Thinking

Aims of the Session

• Explore the ideas of Systems Thinking
• Consider the difference to more traditional
analytical forms of problem solving – ‘Hard’
approaches
• Introduce varied Soft Systems Thinking (SST)
methodologies
• Use some of the SST tools to examine the
potential for strategic thinking
 Systems Thinking

• It uses a lot of acronyms!!!:

– ST: Systems Thinking
– CST: Critical Systems Thinking
– SST: Soft system thinking
– SSM: Soft thinking methodologies
– SCA: Strategic Choice Approach
– SODA: Strategic Options Development & Analysis
– HAS: Human activity systems
– HST: Hard system thinking
– HSM: Hard system methodology
Starting definitions
• “A system is a set of resources—personnel, materials, facilities, and/or
information—organized to perform designated functions, in order to
achieve desired results.” (Reisman 1979, p. 2).

• “Systems thinking [is] a way of thinking about, and a language for

describing and understanding, the forces and interrelationships that
shape the behavior of systems. This discipline helps us to see how to
change systems more effectively, and to act more in tune with the
natural processes of the natural and economic world. (Senge, 1993)
 Context
• Systems Thinking has had a long association with strategy but it
is only recently that the value in enabling strategic thinking has
been explicit.
• Systems Thinking is a broad topic area that covers a range of
specialisms, such as:
– Cybernetics
– System Dynamics
– Problem Structuring Methods
– Critical Systems.
• We are particularly interested in the last two and the way that
they can inform strategic thinking.
• However, there are core principles that link these varied
strands.
 Core ideas of Systems Thinking
Underpinning fundamentals of systems thinking are:
• Viewing the situation holistically, as opposed to reductionistically,
as a set of diverse interacting elements within an environment.
• Recognising that the relationships or interactions between
elements are more important than the elements themselves in
determining the behaviour of a system.
• Recognising a hierarchy of levels of systems and the consequent
ideas of properties emerging at different levels, and mutual
causality both within and between levels.
• Accepting, especially in social systems, that people will act in
accordance with differing purposed or rationalities.
(Mingers & White, 2010)
 Problems, problems
• It is helpful to consider the nature of a problem and
some of the terms that can be applied.

Puzzles Problems Messes

Formulation Agreed Agreed Arguable

Solution Agreed Arguable Arguable

(Pidd, 2009)
 Strategic Messes?
• “In a mess, there are many issues to be faced, they are
interrelated and the interrelationships are often as
important as the issues themselves. A mess is a system
of problems with multiple stakeholders who may hold
quite different views of what is feasible and desirable.”
(Pidd, 2009)
• Often termed a ‘wicked problem’.
• This terminology is more suited to strategy.
• To be able to fully understand ‘messes’ it is important to
be able to see the links as well as the particular issues.
 Problem Structuring
• “There is an old saying that a problem well put is half-solved.
This much is obvious. What is not so obvious is how to put a
problem well.” (Churchman, Ackoff & Arnoff, 1957)
• It is helpful to have methods that can aid in structuring the
issues that exist within the problem being considered.
• For ‘Soft’ problems the challenge is how to represent
complexity in a way that will not alienate a wide range of
participants.
• A danger exists of using too mathematical a method that is
difficult for non-experts to understand.
• This is why graphical methods have become an important part
of Soft methodologies.
 A Comparison of Soft & Hard Systems
Soft Systems Hard Systems
Problem Not straightforward; it is A need has been established and
Definition itself problematic defined
Nature of What to do? How to do it?
Question
Nature of Do not take it for granted ‘Human machines’ with people
Organisational assigned according to function
Life
Use of Models Developed to allow people to Are representations of part of the
think through positions and real world
engage in debate

Outcome Importance of individual and A clear solution that can

organisational learning implemented

Adapted from (Pidd, 2009) & (Checkland, 2001)

 The Complementarity of HST and SST

Results of the Process of

Enquiry

PROBLEM
SOLVING

SST HST
(Conceptual (Formal
model) Model)

GOOD
SYSTEMS
THINKING
Problem developments or issues
necessitating further enquiries
(Reisman & Oral, 2005)
A Learning System for SST

The Philosophy The Method(s)

of SST of SST

SST as
a whole

SST in
action
 SST Address the Following Questions:
• What is the real problem?
• What goals or objectives are to be achieved given the conflicting perceptions
about the problem situation?
• What are the constraints?
• Who are the players, the stakeholders?
• Who are the beneficiaries?
• Who are the regulators?
• What part of the world is involved? or What is the system?
• How does this system perform its functions?
• What are the system’s subsystems?
• What are or what should be the criteria for evaluating system performance?
(Adapted from Reisman & Oral, 2005)
 Methodologies
• A number of approaches have evolved over the last
few decades to develop a method to structure the Soft
Systems philosophy.
– Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)
– The Strategic Choice Approach (SCA)
– Strategic Options Development & Analysis (SODA)
• It is important to consider their main elements and the
tools that can be used to develop the thinking and
learning about the problem being faced.
 Human Activity Systems
• A common feature of organisations is groups of people,
acting out social roles, trying to take purposeful action.
• In SSM these are termed Human Activity Systems.
• These HASs must act based on some interpretation of
the world.
• HASs will contain several different viewpoints -
pluralism - because individuals will interpret the world
differently.
• Concerted action requires consensus (or
accommodation).
(Checkland, 1999)
 Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)
• The model has evolved over the decades but is
informed by certain core ideas.
• There is a separation between what is happening in a
situation and what could happen.
• The ideas generated must be able to be rigorously
explored to the necessary level of detail .
• This ability to separate provides the potential for a gap
analysis.
• In order to help generate the thinking process several
tools are offered as a means of stimulating
communication.
(Checkland, 1999)
An evolved view of SSM

(Checkland & Scholes, 1999)

 Strategic Choice Approach (SCA)
• The framework is based on 4
complementary modes of decision-making:
1. Shaping
2. Designing
3. Comparing
4. Choosing

• Traditional methods tend to focus only on

stages 2&3.
• A range of computer-based and paper
methods can be adopted to enable the 4
modes, such as:
• Decision graphs
• Option trees
• Sets of Uncertainty areas
(Friend, 2001)
 Main Features of SCA
Five statements highlight the main distinguishing features of
SCA:
More emphasis on Structuring Communication than on Reinforcing
Expertise
More emphasis on Facilitating Decisions than on Exploring Systems
More emphasis on Managing Uncertainty than on Assembling
Information
More emphasis on Sustaining Progress than on Producing Plans
More emphasis on Forming Connections than on Exercising Control
(Friend, 2001)
 Strategic Options Development & Analysis
(SODA)

• The SODA methodology is founded on ‘Subjectivism’ and

is based on 4 key perspectives:
– The Individual
– The Nature of Organisations
– About Consulting Practice
– The Role of Technology and Technique
• The wisdom and experience of participants is a key area
in the approach.
• The focus is on the Process as well as the Content.
(Eden & Ackerman, 2001)
 SST Toolbox
• The way that Soft Systems is applied in the various
methods is through a range of tools.
• These enable the critical thinking and learning that is
at the heart of the varied approaches.
• Over the years the tools have evolved into a
‘toolbox’ that can be selected from.
• Essentially, there are 3 stages to the use of the tools:
1. Surfacing the Issues involved
2. Evaluating the gap to what could be achieved
3. Overcoming the gap
• A key aspect of these tools is that they are ‘socially’
driven, i.e. The require people to communicate with
each other.
 Surfacing the Issues
• The power of images is a striking feature of SST.
• Pictures and maps can capture a range of
viewpoints and the use of imagery is powerful in
suggesting emotion as well as actions.
• Key methods of enabling this stage are:
– Brainstorming/Mindmapping
– Rich Picture (SSM)
– Cognitive Maps (SODA)
– Oval Mapping Technique (SODA)
– Decision Graphs (SCA)
 Food for Thought
 Use the Mindmapping technique to identify
the different elements that are part of:
The learning system within the Masters course.
 Rich Pictures
• This SSM tool adds more emotion than a mind map and often
looks to use imagery to represent how a system is perceived by
those involved.
 Evaluating the Gap
• Building on the imagery of the system the next stage is to start to
consider what the system needs to be achieving
• This is achieved in the methods by:
– Identifying options and compatibility (SCA)
– Exploring the purpose of the system (SSM)
• In SSM language often referred to as ‘Root Definitions’

• Interpretations of how different people view the situation can be

developed.
• This stage looks to capture the essence of a system that might be
useful in the given problem situation.
• First stage of an idealisation of what might be.
 Multiple Perceptions of a System
• To understand the value of a system it can be
helpful to construct a definition to identify a
purpose.
• Three components need to be clearly
identified in order for this to work:
• Input – what is entering the process?
• Transformation – what is the change?
• Output – what is the result?
• This stage can identify potential constraints.
• This is particularly clear in the compatibility
element of SCA.
 Model the Outcome
• Ultimately, there is a need to understand how
the evolved system will work.
• The results of the analysis will be a future
reality so will have elements that need to
interact for the system to operate.
• The methodologies use varied ways to model
what the desired system will look like.
• SSM uses Conceptual Models.
 Conceptual Models
• The language can make them appear difficult.
• They enable the development of the components of
an Alternative Definition.
• Essentially are a way of promoting thought.
• Illuminate the gap between ideas and reality.
• Enable a variety of views to be discussed.
• The strangest concepts can contain inspiration.
Example Conceptual model
 Key Thoughts behind SST
1. Human Activity Systems are the focus.
2. Many interpretations of a declared ‘purpose’
are possible.
3. The idea of a ‘situation’ as opposed to an
‘obvious’ problem.
(Checkland, P. 1999)
 “Novice” SST : Some Principles
• Exploration of people taking purposeful action NOT a
description.
• Purposeful action can be interpreted in multiple
ways.
• The complexity of purposeful action will always
exceed the complexity of models.
– They are devices for structuring debate
• SST is a learning process.
• SST is a set of principles rather than a precise
method.
 Criticisms of SST
• Does not provide an end product.
• Can be open-ended, the danger of constantly
revisiting the stages.
• The language can be complicated.
• Is just ‘woolly’ thinking.
 Summarising Thoughts

• Holistic
• Thinking
• Organisational Learning
• Environment/Culture
 Further Reading
• Checkland, P. (1999) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley,
London
• Checkland, P. & Scholes, J. (1999) Soft Systems Methodology in
Action, Wiley, London
• Wilson, B. (2001) Soft Systems Methodology; Conceptual Model
Building and its Contribution, Wiley, London
• Reisman, A. & Oral, M. (2005) Soft Systems Methodology: A
Context Within a 50-Year Retrospective of OR/MS, Interfaces
35(2), pp. 164–178
• Senge, P. M. (2006) The Fifth Discipline, 2nd Ed, Random House,