Thinking Systems? Does that mean it happens when I am thinking beyond my job or
my workunit? What does it mean to discipline us to see and understand patterns?
my workunit? What does it mean to discipline us to see and understand patterns?
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
Asking Questions ...
| The Fifth Discipline, "A Shift of Mind, Seeing the World Anew", pg 68 Peter Senge 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 (we assume the part is the whole to themselves) to seeing one as part of the whole, from seeing people as helpless reactors to seeing to seeing them as active participants in shaping the reality for themselves and beyond, from reacting to the present to generating (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 (1.00 / 4:53). 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, focus on reacting to ecenrs and therefore usually fail to produce dramatic breakthroughs in managing an organization / business. They are designed to handle the sort of complexity in which there are many variables and view causality in a linear fashion: that is referred to in this work as detail complexity. But there are actually two types of complexity. The second type is referred to as dynamic complexity, situations where cause and effect are subtle (the causes are not obvious) and it has inherently entrenched its vicious (circular) nature (of cause and effect) within the 'system'. The structure now reinforces itself at an increasing rate creating a trail of pattern or behaviour of the event over time. Therefore we say, its impact has become systemic - it affects all and sundry - collectively and individually. Yet our response to such a system continues to be linear i.e. we attempt to put out the fire without first understanding what is causing it (the gaspipe and water pipe metaphors that I use in my workshops). It is no longer effective as we are soon caught in a catch- 22 (no-win or double-bind). We have no choice as we see the fire becoming larger yet risk being sucked in by the verocious appetite it has for resources to put it out. Unfortunately conventional forecasting, analysis, planning and action implementation methods are not equipped to deal with dynamic (circular) 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. "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”.
works are far more practical and successful than our attempts at efficiency. Such systems are not trying to reduce inputs in order to maximize outputs. They slosh around in the mess, involve many individuals, encourage discoveries, and move quickly past mistakes. They are learning all the time, engaging everyone in finding what works. The system succeeds because it involves many tinkerers focused on figuring out what is possible. Could we begin to appreciate that this kind of tinkering is efficient?" -- Margaret Wheatley and Myron Kellner-Rogers from A Simpler Way |
See also videos by following on Systems Thinking:
Russel Ackoff
Jay Forrester /
John Sterman (the designer
of the Beer Game)
John Sterman (the designer
of the Beer Game)
Daniel H Kim