Asking Questions ...
Thinking Systems? Does that mean it happens when I am
thinking beyond my job or my workunit?
thinking beyond my job or my workunit?
The Fifth Discipline, "A Shift of Mind, Seeing the World Anew", pg 68
Peter Senge
"By seeing wholes we learn to foster health," Peter Senge. To do
so, systems thinking offers a language with system archetypes that
begins by restructuring how we think. It is a set of general
principles distilled over the course of the twentieth century
spanning diverse fields such as physical and social sciences,
engineering and management. It is also a set of specific tools
and techniques, originating in two threads: in “feedback: concepts
of cybernetics and in “servo-mechanism” engineering theory dating
back to the nineteenth century. It is a sensibility for the subtle
interconnectedness that gives living systems their unique
character. It is the antidote to this sense of helplessness that
many feel as we enter the “age of interdependence”.
Systems thinking is the cornerstone that underlies all of the five
learning disciplines of this book. All are concerned with a shift of
mind (hence learning) from seeing parts to seeing wholes, from
seeing people as helpless reactors to seeing to seeing them as active
participants in shaping their reality, from reacting to the present to
creating the future. Without systems thinking, there is neither the
incentive nor the means to integrate the learning disciplines once
they come into practice.
As the fifth discipline, systems thinking is the cornerstone of how
learning organizations think about their world. E.g. the roots of the
arms race lie not in rival political ideologies, nor in nuclear arms, but
in a way of thinking both sides have shared. From each standpoint,
the other has been the aggressor and their own action to expand
nuclear arms has been a defensive response (linear cause-effect) to
the threat posed by the other. But the two straight lines form a
circle. The two nations individual “linear” or non-systemic
viewpoints interact to create a “system”, a set of variables that
influence one another.
Interestingly both sides failed for years to adopt a true
systems view, despite an abundance of “systems analysts”.
Why then have these supposed tools for dealing with complexity
not empowered us to escape the illogic of the arms race?
The answer lies in the same reason that sophisticated tools of
forecasting and business analysis, as well as elegant strategic plans,
usually fail to produce dramatic breakthroughs in managing a
business. They are all designed to handle the sort of complexity in
which there are many variables: detail complexity. But there are
two types of complexity. The second type is dynamic complexity,
situations where cause and effect are subtle and where the effects
over time of interventions are not obvious. Conventional
forecasting, planning and analysis methods are not equipped to deal
with dynamic complexity. Mixing many ingredients in a step, or
following a set of instructions to assemble a machine or taking
inventory in a discount retail store involves detail complexity. But
none of these situations is especially complex dynamically.
Peter Senge
"By seeing wholes we learn to foster health," Peter Senge. To do
so, systems thinking offers a language with system archetypes that
begins by restructuring how we think. It is a set of general
principles distilled over the course of the twentieth century
spanning diverse fields such as physical and social sciences,
engineering and management. It is also a set of specific tools
and techniques, originating in two threads: in “feedback: concepts
of cybernetics and in “servo-mechanism” engineering theory dating
back to the nineteenth century. It is a sensibility for the subtle
interconnectedness that gives living systems their unique
character. It is the antidote to this sense of helplessness that
many feel as we enter the “age of interdependence”.
Systems thinking is the cornerstone that underlies all of the five
learning disciplines of this book. All are concerned with a shift of
mind (hence learning) from seeing parts to seeing wholes, from
seeing people as helpless reactors to seeing to seeing them as active
participants in shaping their reality, from reacting to the present to
creating the future. Without systems thinking, there is neither the
incentive nor the means to integrate the learning disciplines once
they come into practice.
As the fifth discipline, systems thinking is the cornerstone of how
learning organizations think about their world. E.g. the roots of the
arms race lie not in rival political ideologies, nor in nuclear arms, but
in a way of thinking both sides have shared. From each standpoint,
the other has been the aggressor and their own action to expand
nuclear arms has been a defensive response (linear cause-effect) to
the threat posed by the other. But the two straight lines form a
circle. The two nations individual “linear” or non-systemic
viewpoints interact to create a “system”, a set of variables that
influence one another.
Interestingly both sides failed for years to adopt a true
systems view, despite an abundance of “systems analysts”.
Why then have these supposed tools for dealing with complexity
not empowered us to escape the illogic of the arms race?
The answer lies in the same reason that sophisticated tools of
forecasting and business analysis, as well as elegant strategic plans,
usually fail to produce dramatic breakthroughs in managing a
business. They are all designed to handle the sort of complexity in
which there are many variables: detail complexity. But there are
two types of complexity. The second type is dynamic complexity,
situations where cause and effect are subtle and where the effects
over time of interventions are not obvious. Conventional
forecasting, planning and analysis methods are not equipped to deal
with dynamic complexity. Mixing many ingredients in a step, or
following a set of instructions to assemble a machine or taking
inventory in a discount retail store involves detail complexity. But
none of these situations is especially complex dynamically.
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
