1. Introduction to Systems Thinking

2. ABOUT THE SPEAKER Zaipul Anwar Bin Zainudin
Lecturer in Institute of Product Design & Manufacturing, (IPROM) Universiti Kuala Lumpur
Tel: ,
Website:
Blog:
Facebook:
You may download softcopies of all my materials in this session from this
link: - To verify the URL, go to ‘Download’ link at my website Zaipul.com 1

3. “The significant problems we face today cannot be solved at the same level of thinking at which they were created.”
Albert Einstein

4. WHAT IS SYSTEMS THINKING?
Founded in 1956 by MIT professor, Jay Forrester.
System thinking allows people to make their understanding of social system explicit and improve them in the same way that people use engineering principles to improve their understanding of mechanical system.
It is use to:-
Examining how we create our own problems
Seeing the big picture
Structure influences performance

5. SYSTEM THINKING APPROACH
Traditional analysis
Systems thinking
Traditional analysis focuses on
the separating the individual
pieces of what is being studied; in
fact, the word “analysis” actually
comes from the root meaning “to
break into constituent parts.
Systems thinking, in contrast, focuses on how the thing being studied interacts with the other constituents of the system—a set of elements that interact to produce behavior—of which it is a part. 4

6. Examples of area System Thinking has proven its value include:
Complex problems that involve helping many actors see the “big picture” and not just their part of it
Recurring problems or those that have been made worse by past attempts to fix them
Issues where an action affects (or is affected by) the environment surrounding the issue, either the natural environment or the competitive environment
Problems whose solutions are not obvious

7. Systems Thinking Learning to see the world systemically
Encourages us to see the whole as well as the parts.
WHOLE   PARTS
 Holistic Thinking ??
!!!
Multiple (often) restricted views

8. Systems Thinking…
Helps us explore interdependencies and looking for patterns.
Max Barret
Webecoist.com

9. Helps us understand feedback structures that change systems over time.
Systems Thinking…
Helps us understand feedback structures that
change systems over time.
River Fractal - Héctor Garrido

10. Systems Thinking… Helps us understand results of our decisions…

11. SYSTEMS THINKING TOOLS
Causal Loop Diagrams
A useful way to represent dynamic interrelationships
Provide a visual representation with which to communicate that understanding
Make explicit one's understanding of a system structure - Capture the mental model

12. Components of Causal Loop Diagrams
Variables - an element in a situation which may act or be acted upon
 Vary up or down over time (not an event)
 Nouns or noun phrases (not action words)
Links / Arrows - show the relationship and the direction
of influence between variables
S's and O's - show the way one variable moves or changes in relation to another
 S or + stands for "same direction”
 O or - stands for "opposite direction”
or B - Balancing feedback loop that seeks equilibrium
or R - Reinforcing feedback loop that amplifies change
Besides S & O we have + & -

13. Types of Causal Loop Diagrams Reinforcing Loop
Structure
Perf.
Level
Time
Behavior Over Time
Supportive Behavior
Employee
Performance
Employee
Performance S S
Unsupportive
Behavior
Supervisor’s
Supportive
Behavior
Supervisor’s
Supportive
Behavior

14. Types of Causal Loop Diagrams
Balancing Loop
Structure
Desired Inventory
Time
Behavior Over Time
100
100 ++
Actual Inventory
Desired
Inventory S
Discrepancy O S
Actual
Inventory
Inventory
Adjustment S

15. SYSTEMS THINKING ARCHETYPES
A class of tools that capture the "common stories” in systems thinking
Powerful tools for diagnosing problems and identifying high leverage interventions that creates fundamental change

16. List of System Thinking Archetype
Fixes that Fail / Backfire
Limits to Growth/Success
Shifting the Burden / Addiction
Tragedy of the Commons
Drifting Goals

17. 1. Fixes that Fail S Behavior Over Time O S S Problem Fix Symptom
Delay S S
The ‘Fixes that Fail’ archetypes states that a ‘quick fix’ solution can have unintended consequences that increase the problem. It hypothesized that the problem symptom will diminish for a short while and then return to its previous level or become worse over time.
Time
Unintended
Consequences

18. 1. Fixes that Fail Example:
An example would be fixing problem of a squeaky
wheel. Imagine someone who knows nothing about
mechanics, mistakenly grab a can of water and
splash it on the wheel. With great relief the
squeaking stop for a while, it will
return more loudly as
the water join forces
to rust the joint.

19. 1. Fixes that Fail Prescriptive actions:
Increase awareness of the unintended consequences
Cut back on the frequency with which you apply the ‘fix’
Try to minimize the undesirable consequences
Reframe and address the root problem, give up the fix that works only on the symtom
Breaking ‘fixes that fail’ merely alleviating a symptom, not really solving the problem. A two pronged attack of applying fix and finding fundamental solution will help to break the problem.

20. 2. Limits to Growth Structure Behavior Over Time Perf. Level Time
“Burnout” S
Growing Action
Target S
Diminishing
Returns O S
Positive
Reinforcement
Corrective
Action
The ‘Limits to Growth’ archetype states that a reinforcing process of accelerating growth (or expansion) will encounter a balancing process as the limit of the systems is approached. It hypothesizes that continuing efforts will produce diminishing returns as one approaches the limits.
Actual Performance S

21. 2. Limits to Growth

22. 2. Limits to Growth Example:
At the beginning of a quality improvement campaign,
significant gains in quality and productivity were
achieved. Once this achieved, the level of
improvements plateaus.
The next wave of improvements
are more complex and tougher to
manage. Later the lack of
organization-wide support leads to
limited/diminishing quality and
productivity of the whole organization (it becomes
stagnant or diminish).

23. 2. Limits to Growth Prescriptive actions:
Beware of doing more of what worked in the past.
If your growth has stalled, look at both reinforcing and balancing loops to try to find interrelationships between your success strategies and potential limits.
Look for other potential engines of growth.
The real leverage in ‘limits to growth’ scenario lies in its early phases.
The choice between plateauing or peaking often depends on length of balancing loop delay and our response to it.

24. 3. Shifting the Burden Quick fixes Behavior Over Time + _
Problem/symptom
Source of problem
/Root cause
Side effects + _
Behavior Over Time
Efforts Quick fix
Time
Problem symptom
Capacity of system
to fix itself
The ‘Shifting the Burden’ archetype states that a problem symptom can be resolved in one of two ways: a symptomatic solution or a fundamental solution. It hypothesizes that once a symptomatic solution is used, it alleviates the problem symptom and reduce pressure to implement a more fundamental solution. The symptomatic solution also produces a side effect that systematically undermines the ability to develop a fundamental solution or capability.

25. 3. Shifting the Burden Apply Patches Behavior Over Time + _
Damage of Road
Proper Road
Contruction
Feeling of Okay + _
Apply patches
Time
Damage of road
Proper road
construction

26. 3. Shifting the Burden Example:
Problem of pot holes on the road. The problem is handled by applying patches with immediate effect, thereby solving the problem for a while. The primary source of the problem is overlooked, that is the overall quality of the road construction.
The origin of the problem
should be identified and
solved in the long-term run
or else the quality of the
road will be further
diminished.

27. 3. Shifting the Burden Prescriptive actions:
Strengthen the long-term solution.
If possible, support only long-term solution. If you must address the symtoms right away, do so with restraint.
As you strengthen long-term capability, do what you can to reduce dependency on the short-term fix.

28. 4. Tragedy of the Commons Net Gains for A A Resource Limit
Time A S
Resource
Limit S
A’s Activity S S
Gain per
Individual
Activity S O
Total Activity
Time B S
B’s Activity
Net Gains
for B S
The ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ archetype identifies the causal connections between individual actions and the collective results (in a closed system). It hypothesizes that if the individual use a common resource becomes too great for the system to, the commons will become overloaded or depleted and everyone will experience diminishing benefits. S

29. 4. Tragedy of the Commons A Time DELAY B Time Investment
Fixed
Budget S
Investment
in features S
Time A O
Success from
Product
Investment O
Investment
in Integration S S
Perceived
Success from
Integration
DELAY
Time B
Investment
in Integration S
Investment agents use common limited resource to profit individually. As the use of the resource is not controlled, the agents would like to continuously raise their benefits. The resource is therefore used more and more and the revenues of the agents are decreasing. The agents are intensifying their exploitation until the resource is completely used up or seriously damaged. To protect common resources some form of regulation should be introduced. Example: fish stocks (The Fishing Game).
Success from
Product
Investment O O S
Investment
in features
Fixed
Budget S

30. 4. Tragedy of the Commons Example:
Traffic jam in Kuala Lumpur. Everyone wishes to avoid
traffic jam will use the highway. At first there is room
for everyone, but after sometimes critical threshold has
been reached, each driver brings about
decrease in average speed.
As individuals each person feels he or
she is a victim of traffic but in effect
they all conspired as a group to create
traffic jam.

31. 4. Tragedy of the Commons Prescriptive actions:
In any of the ‘tragedy’ situations, there must be an overriding legislation for common good.
To protect common resources some form of regulation should be introduced.
Re-evaluate the nature of the commons to determine if there are ways to replace, renew or substitute the resources before it becomes depleted.

32. 5. Drifting Goals Goal Time Goal Pressure to Lower Goal Gap Actual
The ‘Drifting Goals’ archetype states that a gap between a goal and an actual condition can be resolved in two ways: by taking corrective action to achieve goal or by lowering the goal. It hypothesizes that when there is a gap between the goal and the actual condition, the goal is lowered to close the gap. Over time, the continual lowering the goal will lead to gradually deteriorating performance.
Actual
Corrective Action S
Delay 31

33. 5. Drifting Goals Temp Time Perceived Desired Tolerance for
Temperature
Tolerance for
Temperature
Time O S
Temp
Temperature
Gap S O
Hop Out 32

34. 5. Drifting Goals Example:
If you put a frog in cold water and slowly bring the water to boil the frog will jump out when it gets uncomfortable or even died in the boiling water
If you put a frog in boiling water,
it will croak IMMEDIATELY. 33

35. 5. Drifting Goals Prescriptive actions:
Establish a clear transition plan from current reality to the goal including realistic timeframe to achieve the goal.
Determine whether the drift in performance is the result of conflicts between the stated goal and implicit goals in the system.
Anchor the goal to an external frame of reference (benchmarking).

36. Systems Thinking Case Study
Crop Damaging by Insects 35

37. Reducing Crop Damage by Insects:
When an insect is eating a crop, the conventional response is to spray the crop with a pesticide designed to kill that insect.
Putting aside the limited effectiveness of some pesticides and the water and soil pollution they can cause, imagine a perfect pesticide that kills all of the insects against which it is used and which has no side effects on air, water, or soil.
Is using this pesticide likely to make the farmer or company whose crops are being eaten better off?

38. Reducing Crop Damage by Insects:
If we represent the thinking used by those
applying the pesticides, it would look like this:
Pesticide
Application O
Insects
Damaging Crops
The letter indicates how the two variables are related: an “s” means they change in the same direction - if one goes up then the other goes up, and an “o” means they change in the opposite direction - if one goes up then the other goes down (or vice versa).
This diagram is read “a change in the amount of pesticide applied causes the number of insects damaging crops to change in the opposite direction.”
The belief being represented here is that “as the amount of pesticide applied increases, the number of insects damaging crops decreases”.

39. Reducing Crop Damage by Insects:
Number of Insect A
Damaging Crop O O
Number of Insect B
Pesticide
Application S S
Number of Insect B
Damaging Crop S
Total number of
Insects damaging crop S 38

40. Reducing Crop Damage by Insects:
The problem of crop damage due to insects often does get better - in the short term.
Unfortunately, what frequently happens is that in following years the problem of crop damage gets worse and worse and the pesticide that formerly seemed so effective does not seem to help anymore.
This is because the insect A that was eating the crops was controlling the population of another insect B, either by preying on it or by competing with it.
When the pesticide kills the insects A that were eating the crops, it eliminates the control that those insects were applying on the population of the other insects, insects B).
Then the population of the insects B that were being controlled explodes and continue to damage the crops.

41. Reducing Crop Damage by Insects:
So now how do you solve the problem of Insect B damaging the crop?
Find the solution…..

42. Reducing Crop Damage by Insects The solution:
With this picture of the system in mind, other
actions with better long-term results have been
developed, such as Integrated Pest Management,
which includes controlling the insect eating the
crops by introducing more of its predators into the
area. These methods have been proven effective in
studies conducted by MIT, the National Academy
of Sciences, and others, and they also avoid
running the risk of soil and water pollution.

43. To more about Systems Thinking,
read this book!
THE FIFTH DISCIPLINES
Personal
Mastery
Shared
Vision
Mental
Models
Systems
Thinking
Team
Learning 42

44. References Warfield, J. Societal Systems, Intersystems, 1989.
Joseph O’Connor & Ian McDermott. The Art of Systems Thinking, Thorsons, 1997.
Senge, P.M.
The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday, 1990.
The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building A Learning Organization, Doubleday, 1994.
System Dynamics / Systems Thinking Mega Link List
The Way of Systems (System Archetypes)
Daniel Aronson, Overview of Systems Thinking,