PT3F O R M

Faculty of Business Studies

TMA Cover SheetKSA Branch

Second□ First□Semester

11- 201220Academic Year

2□1 □TMA No.T306BCourse No.

I. Student Information (to be completed by the student)

Abdulrahman bin Talal AL SAUD Student Name

………………...Section No.10814946Student No.

…….…….…………………………………………………………….…....E-Mail

I hereby certify that the work presented in this TMA is my own and is not copied from any source.…….. / ……. / 20Date of

Submission……………………………………Signature

TotalQ6Q5Q4Q3Q2Q1

QuestionsAllocate

d Marks

Weight

Marks

TotalE-Library

Word Count

Referencing

Presentation

Criteria

Allocated Marks

Marks

Student's Total Mark100

1

I. Tutor's Comments

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Tutor Name …………………………………………………………………..……………………………….

…….. / ……. / 20Date Returned……………………………………Signature

2

Q.1a) The spray diagram above shows two ideas as to how they are interconnected in the

determination of complex problem within the organization. These ideas help to define, identify,

and provide solutions effectively, once jointly exhibited. The first idea is about using systems

thinking as seeing a whole picture of complex problems. Systems thinking looking up problems

generally and breaking down problems into components, examining its links and interrelating to

the whole systems. It highlights the relationships and interconnections among different discipline

that are useful in determining problems.

Applying systems thinking will drive into a strategic management as the second thoughts of the

diagram. Strategic management developed interactive issues and matching it between the internal

and external environment using frameworks of analysis. It analyzes the problem on top only and

makes some assumption of issues; the connectedness is to consider systems thinking in the whole

process to understand the complex problem.

3

Q. 2b) The above diagram shows two way either positive or negative closed-loop control of

feedback within its activity or process. The positive closed-loop control feedback understands to

be a perfected result form in the process or activity from the input, process and to desired output.

A controller still has to check and compare the desired result and make this as basis on the next

process.

The second diagram is the negative closed-loop control diagram. It doesn’t mean that once it is

negative, you have always negative results of the output. In this control, “you never get

perfection’, so adjustment can occur until after a variation has already happened” (Farmer and

Martin 2004, p.39) In the closed-loop control model diagram whatever the result maybe either

positive or negative feedback from the output should be reported directly back to the input for

further adjustment if required, so that changes of the process or activity will be made.

4

Q.3b) Using an essay format of no more than 2000 words, and based on what you learned in

T205B concept file 04 section I “Organizations are They Rational”, readings 01 and 07, section

III “Structure”, section IV development, section V culture and climate, and section VI “Decision

Making” and based on the ideas put forth by Batra, Kaushik, and Kalia in the attached article,

describe the principles of systems thinking, analyze their effectiveness for management, for

problem solving and for decision making, and contrast its principles to those of strategic

management (50 % marks).

Answer:

Managing within the organization requires important factors of involvement, the individual who

does the thinking, the organization and the environment served as a system. If the individual

learn, the organization well also learns. This are correlated without each no learning occurs, but

individual learning does not warrant organizational learning does varies its principle.

Organization was developed for a purpose; it shows the existence of an entity to be identifiable,

logical, unified and mutually inter-reliant. I was rationally designed for a main reason by

achieving its unified goals. It has a well established mission, objectives and goals that will serve

as the basis in carrying out its objective towards the organization either short, medium and long-

term target in which that action is base. To put some idea, that if you know where you are going,

you are possibly to get there since you are guided by the right means.

In practice, some organization experience conflict due to a large number goals to realize others

may not be easily reconciled, it’s hard to distinguish sometimes as to what really the

organizations is aiming for. Other organization tries to develop clear overall structure of

objective and lead into a more specific departmental objective and goal. An established structure

for achieving its goal provides an impact to the individual who carrying out the purpose of the

organization in a coherent way.

Many organizations today have learned on how to develop an effective way of managing

organization through a new form of information and by relating its new idea within the process

in order to develop an organizational change. “An example was a study undertaken by F.W. 5

(nickname ‘Speedy’) Taylor to increase the productivity of a machine shop” (Farmer and Martin

2004, p.25). He link individual workers pay base on his or her productivity and that they link

workers to a machine to control the works by adjusting the speed and capabilities which really

found to be an effective way in that decade. But because of criticisms and base on the actual

observation that Taylorism has this dehumanizing effect to the individuals it suddenly coil into a

new form of ideas. This ideas and principles develop changes into a new form of strategy they

found individuals to be more productive of having personal empowerment by having a personal

control over the responsibilities. It appears to have a substantial increase of morale, commitment

and motivation to do the job that lead to an increase in productivity. But Taylorism principles are

still alive in this century as they so-called ‘high-tech’ industries were workers are still controlled

by having a set of target, a prove example is a call center companies who set a target number of

customer calls they have to answer per hour.

Other organization take this ideas but in an extroverted way of applying into their activities or

even try to put in new ideas that is pertinent to the existing strategy and applicable at present

situation. Uncertainty is everywhere, once an established structure of the organization are laid

down within the system; “the process are fully understood, the input is highly consistent, the

tools are very reliable, workflow is uniform and members of the organization have possessed all

the required skills and commitment to their task provided” (Farmer and Martin 2004, p.77).

These well help to an organization being aware and to cope up with a growing uncertainty. A lot

of an organization experience failure and developments, some are capable and others are

incapable on cope up complex problem and to a changing environment. But most of the

organization has already learned from their existing activities by making used of their

organizational strength and take the available opportunities from outside or external

environment. They coordinate this new form of opportunity to their existing strategy to deal with

uncertainty. One of the best examples is by using information technology that has an enormous

impact on information handling capacity and operation used. “Advantages of using information

technology, it gives a development of decision-support systems (DSS), Development of group

decision support systems (GDSS), and gives wide area-distributor networks” (Farmer and Martin

2004, p.81). Environmental development provides an idea of an organizational change as to how

6

they cope up with internal or external changes and problems, and to decide which actions or

decision are considered to be effective. Flexibility sometimes becomes a problem due to inability

of the members or the organization itself to cope up with unstable environment. At present, most

of the organization subscribe to changes in the environment in order to compete with other

organization.

Organizational culture can now become flexible' shared schemas, thus, culture change can be

understood by examining members' cognitions about an organizational culture change. These

results support the viability of measuring organizational culture change from a cognitive

perspective and suggest implications for managing the process of culture change. Organizations

now really learn that they should be able to cope up changes otherwise not at all. Author(s):

Chung-Ming Lau, Lynda M. Kilbourne, Richard W. Woodman

Source: Research in Organizational Change and Development, Volume: 14, 2003. Some

disparity of ideas or opinions within the organization towards changes are now the challenge of

the decision maker whom to encourage them on how to take part and even more aware on the

changes especially on the possible complex problem that might impinge on the organizational

changes and development.

This is now the role of decision maker which is to obstruct multifaceted problems and ambiguity

in order to create strategic basis in formulating useful decisions or actions to an organizational

problems. Decision making typically reflect of the coherent choice of the information or decision

especially in the resolution of inconsistency. Other decision makers are called to be

opportunistic; they try to bring together information that is valuable in the current situation or in

the future depending on their perception headed for decision making. The future of an

organization depends on the present decision, which means that what the organization experience

today is the result of the past decision. Therefore decisions play a critical role of the

organizational life or its existence, and not just an easy task but a crucial responsibility being

handle by the decision makers. To be good decision makers, it requires systems practice to

develop an effective decision on knowing and solving complex problems.

7

According to Batra, Kaushik, and Kalia in the article of “System Thinking: Strategic planning”,

system thinking, an agent of integration and enabler of effective decision making for permanent

solutions of this complex world, has developed as an important tool for strategic planning and

decision making (SCMS Journal of Indian Management, October-December, 2010). For

purposeful understanding, system thinking is both a mindset and particular set of tools for

identifying and mapping the inter-related nature and complexity of real world situations. It

encourages explicit recognition of causes and effects, drivers and impacts, and in so doing helps

anticipate the effect a policy intervention is likely to have on variables or issues of interest.

Furthermore, the processes of applying systems thinking to a situation is a way of bringing to

light the different assumptions held by stakeholders or team members about the way the world

works ( http://interactive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/survivalguide/skills/s_systems.htm,

Accessed: 14 December 2011). Knowing system thinking is the best way of finding connection

between things, events and ideas from inside and outside of the organization or vice versa. It

involves equal situation or status with the things, events and ideas themselves and even the

relationship of it and their meaning will contribute a great impact to a decision making.

Figure 3: Systematic Approach of Systems Thinking

8

COMPLEX PROBLEM

ORGANIZATIONAL PROBLEM

DEPARTMENTAL ISSUES

Thus, systems thinking provide whole understanding towards dynamic complexity which require

a good structure, skills and experience in dealing with complex system. System thinking, in the

determination of complex problem usually start from a broader view of the problem, breaking

down the problem into a component parts and examining the links or an interrelation ships of the

whole systems. This structural ways of dealing complexity is consider being a best approach to

understand a complex web of influences and information that often results to an effective

resolution of the complex problem. Usually an organization requires strategic planning and

management in coping up dynamic complex systems but they cannot be easily broken down into

pieces of understanding a complex problem.

System thinking helps to define and solve problems in general, while strategic management helps

to define strategy, direction and decision making in achieving objectives using framework of

analysis such as SWOT, PEST, STEER or EPISTEL analysis. Strategic management, analyze the

problem on top only and assume other issues, but the problem sometimes will not be address

well, since the assumption of ‘what they don’t know’. Using systems thinking it addresses the

entire problem situations from internal or external environment and it also offer strategic

planning and development as provided in the strategic management. Strategic planning in

identifying cause and reasons of problems don’t provide permanent solutions of the problem,

whereas systems thinking approach provides solutions to all kinds of problems by considering

the entire system (SCMS Journal of Indian Management, October-December, 2010).

To be able to have a truthful idea as to the effective use of systems thinking, here are a few

professional areas related to project management in practice where proactively applying systems

thinking can offer benefits: Understanding organizational structure better (the project

environment), for more big picture perspective in project management work which may

influence decisions and capture the attention of upper management; bolstering ability to

contribute ideas for organizational improvements; Directly relating systematic improvement

ideas to project stakeholders. Understanding the "system implications" of projects, how a project

might affect the organization’s system; improve ability to develop systems for getting work done

more effectively and efficiently within a given environment; and for entrepreneurial or growing

9

business situations, building skill to scale the organization

(http://pmcrunch.com/project_management_process/the-benefits-of-systems-thinking, accessed:

12 December 2011).

Thus, strategic management offers greater benefits in developing organizational effectiveness in

achieving its goal. The following are the ideas of which strategic management provides

advantages or benefits towards the systems practitioner or the decision maker. Key benefits of a

strategic management: taking an organization-wide, proactive approach to a changing global

world; building an executive team that serves as a model of cross-functional or horizontal

teamwork; having an intense executive development and strategic orientation process; defining

focused, quantifiable outcomes measures of success; making intelligent budgeting decisions;

clarifying your competitive advantage; reducing conflict; empowering the organization;

providing clear guidelines for day-to-day decision making; Creating a critical mass for change;

“singing from the same hymnal” throughout the organization; clarifying and simplifying the

barrage of management techniques; empowering middle managers; focusing everyone in the

organization in the same overall framework; speeding up implementation of the core strategies;

providing tangible tools for dealing with the stress of change

(http://www.hainescentre.com/strategic-management/benefits.html, Accessed: 14 December

2011).

Such advantages of both two important topics that are being laid down, shows that systems

thinking focus the whole big picture of the organization as to how to develop and acquire

effectual strategic information and actionable solution in the conduct of resolving existing

problems within the organizations. Then it goes into a deeper side of the system for the

determination of certain issues and problems or to a specific and actual knowing of the problem.

While, strategic management, in the determination of the purpose are laid down on top of the

organization which involves executives teams who are task to conduct strategic measures

towards the existing problems. This will serve as the overall framework in the implementation of

the strategic solution towards the issues or problems. After the determination of action or finding

and having a well develop strategic resolution of the problem, it will be distributed to the

10

different functions or department who are now empower to do their action. The manager will see

to it that such action will done accordance with the executive plan of action, and report back to

the top executives about the current situation of the project.

The idea provided between the two issues will make up into our mind and drive into a conclusion

that systems thinking methodology develop a highly beneficial to improve performance of any

organization. And that the organization should invest in this area to have an effective

determination and create possible solution towards the existing complex problem. The research

proves that firms successfully implement system thinking, perform better business category

including return on investment, employment growth, organizations growth and creating profit in

the business activities. One of the principal barriers to this exciting prospect is the currently

limited capacity for transferring the systems thinking framework to the people within the

organization. It requires a highly and broader context of critical thinking and ways of

recognizing multidimensional nature of the thinking skills involved in the systems thinking that

make people to apprehend.

In this regards, strategic management develop interconnectedness of idea towards systems

thinking, since framework requires greater thinking in order to gain leverage in addressing

complex issues and problems.

REFERENCES:

Farmer and Martin (2004). Managing within Organization. Arab Open University : The Open

Univeristy. p.39; p.25;p.77; p. 81;

Lau, Kilbourne and Woodman. (2003). Research in Organizatioal Change and Development.

Research in Organizational Change and Development. 14 (4), 35.

http://interactive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/survivalguide/skills/s_systems.htm, Accessed: 14

December 2011

11

http://pmcrunch.com/project_management_process/the-benefits-of-systems-thinking, accessed:

12 December 2011

http://www.hainescentre.com/strategic-management/benefits.html, Accessed: 14 December 2011

12