Systems Thinking

Systems thinking refers to the practical application of systems ideas to address or prevent complex environmental, social and organisational issues. It is as much about dialogue and collaboration as what happens in our minds (Ulrich 1983), and it takes place in contexts of action (Midgley 2008). (Source: Midgley & Rajagopalan, 2020).

Systems thinking is a way of making sense of the world's complexity by looking at it in terms of wholes and relationships rather than splitting it into parts. It has been used to explore and develop effective action in complex contexts, enabling systems to change. Systems thinking draws on and contributes to Systems Theory and the System Sciences.

Classical approach

Informed by a single disciplinary perspective; i.e., restricted by relatively arbitrary disciplinary boundaries (von Bertalanffy 1956, Boulding 1956). Uses reductionist methods, which break phenomena into component parts so they can be studied or addressed independently (von Bertalanffy 1968). Ignores the importance of appreciating the interactions between the parts, and between phenomena. Ignoring interactions can bring about systemic resistance to reductionist 'solutions'.

Systems Thinking

Transdisciplinary: Focus is on defining and redefining systems without conforming to disciplinary boundaries (von Bertalanffy 1968, Bailey 2001, Midgley 2001a). Avoids reductionism: Focuses attention on interrelationships, how parts interact to form whole systems, how those systems are defined by boundary distinctions, and what these interrelationships, systems and boundary distinctions might look like from different perspectives (Cabrera et al 2008, 2015; Cabrera and Cabrera 2015). Subject/object dualism and mechanism are both challenged, as the agency and inter-subjectivity of human beings is acknowledged (Fuenmayor 1991a,b,c). People seen as interactive parts of larger socio-ecological systems: Can both change those systems and be changed by them (Gregory 2000).

Reductionist scientific and management methods embody potentially pernicious assumptions

Mechanism and subject/object dualism often walk hand in hand, as the former involves the denial of agency to human beings, which is consistent with removing the knowing subject (who has agency) from the picture.

Mechanism

Viewing the world as a predictable machine (Prigogine 1987), where human beings are regarded as mindless cogs within it instead of self-conscious actors whose choices (based on subjectively or inter-subjectively relevant purposes and values) may be different to those that a supposed 'expert' might make. Value conflicts may therefore confound supposedly 'optimal' or 'objectively rational' solutions (Vickers 1983, Checkland 1985).

Subject/object dualism

Conceptual splitting of the ‘subject’ (who observes things and is the holder of knowledge about them) from the ‘object’ (which is observed and known). If, following this split, the subject comes to be hidden, the illusion of perfect objectivity is created, as if we can have knowledge without a knowing subject (Fazey et al 2018).

The following are Frameworks and methodologies for systems thinking:

1. System Dynamics (SD) developed originally in the late 1950s by Jay Forrester.
2. Viable Systems Model (VSM) developed originally in the late 1960s by Stafford Beer.
3. Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA: with cognitive mapping) developed originally in the 1970s by Colin Eden.
4. Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) developed originally in the 1970s by Peter Checkland.
5. Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) was developed originally in the late 1970s by Werner Ulrich.
6. Critical Systems Thinking developed by Mingers and Jackson in the 80s.
7. Systemic Design

References

• Bailey KD (2001) Towards unifying science: Applying concepts across disciplinary boundaries. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 18:41-62
• Bertalanffy L von (1956) General system theory. General Systems 1:1-10
• Bertalanffy L von (1968) General system theory. Penguin, London
• Boulding KE (1956) General system theory – The skeleton of science. Management Science, 2:197-208
• Fuenmayor RL (1991a) The roots of reductionism: A counter-ontoepistemology for a systems approach. Systems Practice 4(5):419-448
• Fuenmayor RL (1991b) The self-referential structure of an everyday living situation: A phenomenological ontology for interpretive systemology. Systems Practice 4(5):449-472
• Fuenmayor RL (1991c) Truth and openness: An epistemology for interpretive systemology. Systems Practice 4(5):473-490
• Gregory WJ (2000) Transforming self and society: A “critical appreciation” model. Systemic Practice and Action Research 13(4):475-501
• Jackson, Michael C (1982). "The nature of soft systems thinking: the work of Churchman, Ackoff and Checkland". Journal of Applied Systems Analysis. 9: 17–28.
• Midgley G (2001a) Rethinking the unity of science. International Journal of General Systems 30:379-409
• Midgley G (2008) Systems thinking, complexity and the philosophy of science. Emergence: Complexity and Organization 10(4):55-73
• Midgley, G., & Rajagopalan, R. (2020). Critical systems thinking, systemic intervention, and beyond. Handbook of Systems Sciences, 1-51.
• Mingers, J (1980). "Towards an appropriate social theory for applied systems thinking: critical theory and soft systems methodology". Journal of Applied Systems Analysis. 7: 41–49.
• Jackson, Michael C (1985). "Social systems theory and practice: the need for a critical approach". International Journal of General Systems. 10: 135–151.
• Ulrich W (1983) Critical heuristics of social planning: A new approach to practical philosophy. Haupt, Berne