system thinking
samira121
-SystemsArchetypes1.pptxSystems Archetypes
Systems Archetypes
Features that cause problematic behaviour in systems
Usually result in negative consequences
Powerful tools for diagnosing problems and identifying high leverage interventions that create fundamental change
List of Systems Archetypes
Quick Fixes that Fail / Backfire
Limits to Growth / Success
Shifting the Burden to the Intervenor
Tragedy of the Commons
Eroding Goals / Drift to Low Performance
Success to the Successful
1. Quick Fixes That Fail
A ‘quick fix’ solution can have unintended consequences that increase the problem.
The problem symptom will diminish for a short while and then return to its previous level or become worse over time.
Fixes that Fail – Squeeky Wheel Example
An example would be fixing problem of a squeaky wheel.
Imagine someone who knows nothing about mechanics, mistakenly grabs a can of water and splashes it on the wheel.
With great relief the squeaking
stops for a while.
It will return more loudly
as the water rusts the joints.
Prescriptive actions
Increase awareness of the unintended consequences
Reframe and address the root problem – discard the ‘fix’ that works only on the symptom
Bring in all parties to seek out mutually satisfactory ways for the problem to be solved
Soft Systems Methodology
2. Limits to Growth
Continued efforts initially lead to improved performance
Over time, however, the system encounters a limit which causes performance to slow down or even decline, even as efforts continue to increase
Limits to Growth - Example
At the beginning of a quality improvement campaign significant gains in quality and productivity were achieved.
Once achieved, the level of improvements plateaus
The next wave of improvements is more complex and tougher to manage. Lack of organisational support leads to limited or diminishing quality and productivity
Prescriptive actions
Beware of doing more of what worked in the past
Look to find interrelationships between your success strategies and potential limits
Look for other potential engines of growth
3. Shifting the Burden to the Intervenor
A problem is perceived as ‘solved’ by applying a symptomatic solution, which diverts attention away from more fundamental solutions
Sometimes the fix causes the self-maintaining capacity of the system to erode by setting a destructive reinforcing feedback loop in motion
This results in an increased dependence on more interventions
Shifting the burden
Shifting the Burden to the Intervenor - Example
Potholes in 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 – the overall quality of the road construction
Prescriptive actions
Strengthen the long-term solution
This may entail restructuring an organisation
If possible, support only the long-term solution. If you must address the symptoms right away, do so with restraint
As you strengthen long-term capability, do what you can to reduce dependency on the short-term fix
4. Tragedy of the Commons
Common resources will eventually be exploited (or abused) by people or competitors wanting to maximise their individual gain from the shared resource
This causes everyone to share the costs of the exploitation/abuse
Therefore, there is weak feedback about the condition of the shared resource to its users
The consequence is overuse, eroding the resource until it becomes unavailable to everyone
Tragedy of the commons
Tragedy of the Commons - Examples
Traffic jam
Everyone who uses the roads wishes to avoid a traffic jam
At first there is room for everyone, but after a critical threshold has been reached,
each driver contributes
to a decrease in average
speed
Prescriptive actions
Find ways to reconcile short-term individual rewards with long-term cumulative consequences
Re-evaluate the nature of the ‘commons’ to determine if there are ways to replace, renew or substitute the resource(s) before it becomes depleted
Privatise the use so each user feels the direct consequence
Where privatisation is not possible, regulate the use
Consider fishing or greenhouse gas emission policies
5. Eroding goals/Drift to low performance
A gap between the goal and current reality can be resolved by taking corrective action or lowering the goal
Lowering the goal closes the gap immediately, whereas corrective actions usually take time
If there is a negative/downbeat bias in perceiving past performance, this sets up a reinforcing feedback loop of eroding goals
The system drifts towards low performance
Drifting/eroding goals
Drifting Goals - Example
If you put a frog in boiling water it will hop out immediately
If you put a frog in cold water and slowly bring the water to boil the frog will unwittingly enjoy its last blissful warm bath
Prescriptive actions
Establish a clear transition plan from current reality to the goal including a 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
Don’t compromise performance standards and set them by best past performance instead of being discouraged by the worst
Anchor the goal to an external frame of reference (benchmarking)
6. Success to the Successful
Start on equal terms
One player gets a slight advantage
That advantage enables the player to compete even more effectively in the future
Eventually, that player will take over everything as long as it chooses to reinvest and expand production facilities
Success to the successful - examples
The rich are getting richer:
Flexibility to expose less of their income to taxation
Monopoly game:
Whoever builds the fist hotels extracts rent to build more hotels
The more you have, the more you can get
Concentration of competitors
Prescriptive actions
Look for reasons why the system was set up to create just one “winner”
Find ways to make teams collaborators rather than competitors
Diversification
Create a level playing field
Golf handicap
Antitrust laws
Where we want to get to is Assessment 3, which integrates System Archetypes with Value Stream Mapping
Recall From Week 1: Important Business Process Improvement (BPI) Concepts Today
https://miro.com/blog/choose-between-agile-lean-scrum-kanban/
https://goleansixsigma.com/lean-vs-agile-whats-the-difference/
https://blog.procurify.com/2014/04/22/agile-lean-supply-chain-management/
Eliminate waste in everything you do, based on “Continuous Incremental Improvement” and “Respect for People”
BPI Philosophy Comparison
https://www.isixsigma.com/methodology/lean-methodology/introducing-agile-sigma/
Value Stream Mapping Is Another Lean Tool
Adapted from https://miro.com/blog/choose-between-agile-lean-scrum-kanban/
Value Stream Mapping
VSM Differs From Six Sigma
https://www.isixsigma.com/dictionary/value-stream-mapping/
Much broader scope of information than a typical six sigma process map
Considers our suppliers’ suppliers and distribution channels
Higher level ( up to about 10 boxes only)
Useful for top management
Used to identify where to focus future projects and/or kaizen events
How Does VSM Work?
A value stream focuses on value-adding areas for a product or service
Compare: value chain referring to all activities within a company
Much broader scope than a typical six sigma process map
Often the transition from the current state to the ideal state needs to be staged/phased
Stakeholders need to agree on the journey to the ideal state
For example, start with improving cycle times or reducing defects
VSM is often associated with manufacturing
Other applications are logistics, supply chain, service industries, healthcare, software development, product development, and administrative/office processes
40
A VSM Example
