systemthinking murr
Post on 22-Oct-2015
18 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
For Official Use Only
Systems ThinkingNDIA SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
CONFERENCEOctober, 2003
Patrick Murray
Naval Undersea Warfare Center
Division Keyportpmurray@kpt.nuwc.navy.mil
360-315-7513
For Official Use Only
What is a system?
• A definition as offered by Gregory Watson in his book, Business Systems Engineering: “System means a grouping of parts that operate together for a common purpose.” (Watson, 1994).
For Official Use Only
What is a System? (Cont’d)
• Definition as adapted from Random House Dictionary: A system is an assemblage or combination of elements or parts forming a complex or unitary whole, such as a river system or a transportation system; any assemblage or set of correlated members, such as a system of currency; an ordered and comprehensive assemblage of facts, principles, or doctrines in a particular field of knowledge or thought, such as a system of philosophy; a coordinated body of methods or a complex scheme or plan of procedure, such as a system of organization and management; any regular or special method of plan or procedure, such as a system of marking, numbering, or measuring (Blanchard & Fabrychy, 1998).
For Official Use Only
What is Thinking?
• What, precisely, is thinking? When at the reception of sense impressions, memory pictures emerge, this is not yet thinking. And when such pictures form a series, each member of which calls forth another, this too is not yet thinking. When, however, a certain picture turns up in many such series, then—precisely through such return—it becomes an ordering element for such series…Such an element becomes an instrument, a concept. I think the transition from free association of dreaming to thinking is characterized by the more or less dominating role which the concept plays in it (Einstein, in Schilpp, 1949).
For Official Use Only
Connectedness
• “If you wish to understand a system, and so be in a position to predict its behavior, it is necessary to study the system as a whole. Cutting it up into bits for study is likely to destroy the system’s connectedness, and hence the system itself.” (Sherwood, 2002)
For Official Use Only
Connectedness
• “If you wish to influence or control the behavior of a system, you must act on the system as a whole. Tweaking it in one place in the hope that nothing will happen in another is doomed to failure—that’s what connectedness is all about.” (Sherwood, 2002).
For Official Use Only
Systems Theory
• General Systems Theory
• Chaos Theory
• Quantum Theory
• Ecological Theory
For Official Use Only
Systems Principles
• Openness
• Purposefulness
• Multidimensionality
• Emergent property
• Counterintuitivess
For Official Use Only
Systems Thinking
• Problem Solving Tool
• Pioneered By Biologists
• Looks At The Whole View
• Reduces Complexity
• Controls System Behavior
For Official Use Only
Systems Thinking Methodologies
• Soft Systems Methodologies
• Hard Systems Thinking
• The Fifth Discipline
For Official Use Only
Systems Thinking Tools
• Archetypes
• Causal Loop Diagrams
• Stocks and Flows
• Simple Structure Dynamics
For Official Use Only
Systems Thinking Models
• Archetypes
• Causal Loop Diagrams
• Stocks and Flows
For Official Use Only
Archetype: Fixes That Backfire
The problem symptom alternately improves. It goes down, then comesBack up again and usually comes back worse than before (Senge, 1994).
Original threshold of tolerance
FixProblemSymptom
Unintendedconsequences
delay
Slippery slope
balance
For Official Use Only
Archetype: Limits to Growth
Growth occurs and sometimes dramatic but levels off and/or falls into decline (Senge, 1994).
ActualperformanceProblem
Symptom
Growth process
Limiting processCorrective
action
For Official Use Only
Archetype: Shifting the Burden
Three patterns exist side by side. The reliance on short-term fixes grows stronger, while efforts to fundamentally correct the real problems grow weaker, and the problem symptom alternately improves and deteriorates (Senge, 1994).
Limiting process
Quick fixes
ProblemSymptom
Root cause
Sideeffects
CorrectiveActions
delay
Limiting process
For Official Use Only
Archetype: Tragedy of Commons
Total activity grows, but the gains from individual activities are dropping off. Parts of the organizationare suffering for the whole (Senge, 1994).
A’s growthprocess
B’s growthprocess
A’s growingaction
actual performancethat A measures
A’s limitingprocess
limits or constraints
total growing action
gain perindividual
activity
B’s limitingprocess
B’s growingaction
TRAGIC DEGRADATIONPROCESS
actual performance
that B measures
delay
For Official Use Only
Archetype: Accidental Adversaries
Each sides performance either declines or stays level and low, while competitivenessIncreases over time (Senge, 1994).
A’s activity with B(actions in B’s favor)
B’s activity with A(actions in A’s favor)
A’s unintendedobstruction of B’s success
B’s unintendedobstruction of A’s success
A’s success
B’s success
A’s fixes toImprove A’sown results
B’s fixes toimprove B’sown results
For Official Use Only
Causal Loop Diagrams
For Official Use Only
Pressure on the Government to stay
Within cost
Pressure on the Government to deliver
A workable system
Requirement for high Technical and service
Quality standards
Pressure on the GovernmentTo satisfy
the taxpayers
S
O
O
S
S
S
Dependency of theGovernment on the
contractor
Policy of outsourcing
Risk to the Government ofCost escalation
S
S
S
S
Pressure on the Government to control
Costs and quality
Pressure on the Government to control
The contractor
Quality of theGovernment-Industry
relationship
Pressure fromContractor forMore Dollars
Risk of cost overruns
S
S
S
Government CostModel Adapted
From Sherwood’sCausal Loop
Diagrams
For Official Use Only
My Goals Your Goals
My Consumption ofDollars
Your Consumption ofDollars
Total WorkCapacity
WorkAvailableMy Need for Work Your Need for Work
My fear that you willNot leave enough work
me
Your fear that I willNot leave enough work
you
- + -
+
++
++
++
+
-
-
Conflict
Number of activities competingFor work
-
-
Causal Loop Diagram
Option 1: Two reinforcing loops (Sherwood, 2002)
For Official Use Only
Causal Loop Diagram
Option 2: Limit consumption—before turf war (Sherwood, 2002)
My Goals Your GoalsMy Consumption of
DollarsYour Consumption of
Dollars
Total WorkCapacity
WorkAvailableMy Need for Work Your Need for Work
My fear that you willNot leave enough work
me
Your fear that I willNot leave enough work
you
- + -
+
++
++
++
+
-
+
Appeal toA higherauthority
Police the Work allocation
-
+
- -
For Official Use Only
My Goals Your Goals
My Consumption ofDollars
Your Consumption ofDollars
Total WorkCapacity
WorkAvailableMy Need for Work Your Need for Work
My fear that you willNot leave enough work
me
Your fear that I willNot leave enough work
you
- + -
+
++
++
++
+
-
Recognition ofThe need forcooperation
-
Causal Loop Diagram
Option 3: Players See the Sense in Cooperation (Sherwood, 2002)
My willingness toParticipate in a cooperative
Goal-setting process
My willingness toParticipate in a cooperative
Goal-setting process
++
- -
For Official Use Only
Causal Loop Diagram
Best Solution: Goals Match—Combined Benefit!
Causal Loop Diagram
My Goals Your GoalsMy Consumption of
DollarsYour Consumption of
Dollars
Total WorkCapacity
WorkAvailableMy Need for Work Your Need for Work
My fear that you willNot leave enough work
me
Your fear that I willNot leave enough work
you
- + -
+
++
++
++
+
-
Recognition ofThe need forcooperation
-
My willingness toParticipate in a cooperative
Goal-setting process
My willingness toParticipate in a cooperative
Goal-setting process
++
- -
Mutual Trust
+ +
For Official Use Only
Time Time
Goal
State of The System
Net IncreaseRate
+
+
R B
state of the system
state of the system
state of the system
Correctiveaction
discrepancy
Goal (desiredstate of
the system)
-
+
+
+
System Dynamics: Growth and Goal Seeking Structure and Behavior
For Official Use Only
Stocks and Flows
Inventory
Stock
Production (inflow) Shipments (outflows)
source sink
Valves represent the flow of inventory into and out of the warehouse
Sources and sinks are outside the model boundary.
Stocks and Flows are used in Causal Loop Diagrams to cover someof their limitations of not being able to capture stocks and flows
within systems (Sterman, 2000).
For Official Use Only
Some Models from Soft Systems
Methodology--Checkland
For Official Use Only
perceived real-world
problem or situation
models of relevant purposeful activity
systems each based on a declared world-view
‘comparison’(question problem
situation using models)
accommodationswhich enable
Principles• real world: a complexity of relationships.• relationships exploded via models of purposeful activitybased on explicit world visions.• inquiry structured by questioning perceived situation using the models as asource of questions.• ‘action to improve’ based on finding accommodations (versions of the situation which conflicting interests can live with)• inquiry in principle never-ending; best conducted with wide range ofinterested parties; give the process away to people in the situation.
leads toselection of
action to improve
find
a structured debateabout desirable
and feasible change
The inquiring/learning cycle of SSM (Checkland, 1999)
For Official Use Only
1.the problem situation:
unstructured
7.action to improve
the problemsituation
6.feasible, desirable
changes
2.the problem
situation:expressed.
5.comparison of 4 with 2
3.
root definitions ofsystems
4.conceptual
models
4.a.formal systems
concept
4.b.other systems
thinking
Method for Unstructured Problems
Checkland, 1999
Real world
Systems thinking
For Official Use Only
IDEAS
THEORIES:Substantive
Methodologies
PROBLEMS
MODELS
TECHNIQUES
METHODOLOGY
CASE RECORDS
An area of reality containing:ConcernsIssuesProblemsAspirations
Other sources
ANY DEVELOPING SUBJECT (Checkland, 1999)
Gives rise to
from which maybe formulated
which present
which may beanalyzed using
which may bemanipulated using
which may beused in
which yield
provide
documented in
which supportcriticism of
A developing subject
to be used in action(intervention, influence,
observation) in
For Official Use Only
Laws of Systems Thinking• Today’s problems come from yesterday’s solutions.
– Moving the problem around.• The harder you push, the harder the system pushes back.
– Compensating feedback.• Behavior grows better before it grows worse.• The easy way out usually leads back in.• The cure can be worse than the disease.• Faster is many times slower.• Cause and effect are not closely related in time and space.• Small changes can produce big results—but the areas of highest
leverage are often the least obvious.• You can have your cake and eat it too, but not at the same time.• Dividing the elephant in half does not produce two small elephants.• There is no blame.
Senge, 1990
For Official Use Only
Questions?
For Official Use Only
References/Bibliography
• Barnett, W. P., & Sorenson, O. (2002). The red queen in organizational creation and development. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11, 289-305. Retrieved on October 13, 2003 from the ProQuest database at www.apollolibrary.com.
• Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: George Braziller.• Capra, F. (1996). The web of life. New York: Anchor Books - Doubleday.• Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.• Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1999). Soft systems methodology in action. New York: John Wiley & Sons, LTD.• Chen, Y., & Smith, R. (2001). Equilibrium cost overruns. Annals of Economics and Finance, 2, 401-414. Retrieved May 8, 2003 from
http://www.aeconf.net• Flood, R. L., & Romm, N. R. A. (1996). Critical systems thinking: Current research and practice. New York: Plenum Press.• Gharajedaghi, J. (1999). Systems thinking: Managing chaos and complexity: A platform for designing business architecture . Boston:
Butterworth-Heinman.• Hellman, C. (2003). F/A-22 further in the red. Weekly Defense Monitor, 7, 2-4. • Holbrook, M. B. (2003). Adventures in complexity: An essay on dynamic open complex adaptive systems, butterfly effects, self-organizing
order, co evolution, and ecological perspective, fitness landscapes, market spaces, emergent beauty at the edge of chaos, and all that jazz. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2003, 1. Retrieved on October 13, 2003 from the ProQuest database at www.apollolibrary.com.
• Hudson, C. G. (2000). At the edge of chaos: A new paradigm for social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 36, 215-230. Retrieved October 2, 2003 from the EBSCOhost premier database at www.apollolibrary.com.
• Maertens, J. W. (2003). Chaos theory, Asimov's foundations and robots, and Herbert's Dune: The fractal Aesthetic of epic science fiction (book). Utopian Studies, 1, 244-246. Retrieved on October 13, 2003 from the ProQuest database at www.apollolibrary.com.
• Pesic, P. (2002). Quantum identity. American Scientist, 90, 262-264. Retrieved on October 13, 2003 from the ProQuest database at www.apollolibrary.com.
• Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.• Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. J. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a
learning organization. New York: Doubleday.• Sherwood, D. (2002). Seeing the forest for the trees: A manager's guide to applying systems thinking . London: Nicholas Brealy Publishing.• Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. New York: McGraw-Hill.• Weinberg, G. M. (2001). An introduction to general systems thinking (Silver Anniversary Edition ed.). New York: Dorset House.• Williams Jr., A. O. (2002). Quantum Theory. Encyclopedia Americana-Grolier Online Retrieved October 13, 2003 from Grolier Online at
www.apollolibrary.com.• Watson, G. H. (1994). Business systems engineering: Managing breakthrough changes for productivity and profit . New York, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.• Blanchard, Benjamin S. and Fabrycky, Wolter, J. (1998). Systems engineering and analysis (3rd Ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey,
Prentice Hall.
top related