1 page Summary and Diagram

© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 1 of 3

Week 3: Why Do Managers Need to be Looped In?

Weekly Briefing During the first 2 weeks of this course, you began to explore what systems thinking is and how it extends traditional problem solving to factor in much more “big picture” elements. As a result, you can now identify current organizational “disabilities” and you can do simple gap analysis. These skills make it easier for you to identify systemic threats to organizational performance. This week, you will be introduced to more specific systems thinking skills and techniques you can use to perform basic systems analysis. These include open and closed loop analysis, archetype analysis, and more formal systems diagramming. You will practice these tools using case studies, and you will reflect on how our online classroom itself functions as a system! More formally, this week you will: · Apply systems thinking to management challenges

· Apply single-, double-, and multiple-loop analyses

· Analyze management challenges using feedback loops

So, let’s begin to take a more detailed look at systems thinking. Each of these readings provides a fundamental overview and description of the basics of identifying, understanding, and representing system flows, based on what are known as causal loop diagrams (CLD)1: · Senge (2006), Chapter 5 and Chapter 6

· Atwater and Pittman (2006), pp.279–282 and pp. 282–286

· Meadows (2008) , Chapter 1 and Chapter 2

CLDs are the basic building blocks — along with “feedback logic.” “reinforcing logic,” and “delay logic” — and make up the core of what are known as archetype systems structures and general systems analysis Causal Loop Diagrams (CLD) In Chapter 5, “A Shift of Mind,” Senge (2006) introduces some of the basics in understanding how causal loop diagrams work and are constructed. Atwater and Pittman (2006, pp. 279–282) also provide a good summary of the CLD basics. Review these resources before diving into the archetype analysis readings. One of the important details in Senge’s chapter is his introduction and comparison of the concepts of detail complexity versus dynamic complexity. Dynamic complexity adds a layer of time and causal complexity into a basic cause-effect analysis. So, for

© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 2 of 3

example, a simple gap analysis based on the 5-Whys tools is representative of an attempt to build a detail complexity analysis. If you then take your basic 5-Whys diagram and begin to identify delay loops, subtle causal links, and relationships between variable that may change over time, you can build a “dynamic complexity” analysis—which is what CLDs and systems analysis strive for. Simple Stock Systems In Chapter 1 of her text, Meadows (2008) offers another way to depict systems when discussing them from a “stocks and flows” perspective. Meadows starts introducing basic systems by exploring the various ways a bathtub system can operate. Her technique is visually a bit different than Senge’s, but logically they are the same. Do you see that? In both techniques, the core stock is identified, and the processes that deplete (negative loop), replenish (positive loop), delay, stabilize, or reinforce the system are also identified. Meadows also provides a good discussion on how to translate some of these systems into time-based charts (see page 29 for a chart depicting the cooling behavior of coffee). Review Senge’s Chapter 5 and compare it to Meadows’s Chapter 1—each of which explores the basic logic of simple systems. You should be able to see how they are saying the same thing but are using slightly different “visual depictions.” Feel free to experiment with either depiction technique to see if one helps you more than the other. More Complex Stock Systems In Chapter 2, Meadows (2008) continues to introduce systems analysis by including multiple/competing balancing loops and systems with delays. She notes, importantly, that the information provided by feedback loops can only affect future behavior of the system—so that all feedback loops are attempts to model “dynamic complexity.” Archetype Systems Remember, although each and every system you examine will be unique in the particulars, the essence of most functioning systems can be simplified into a set of inter- relating “archetypes.” Archetypes, in the systems thinking context, are underlying and fundamental patterns of behaviors and relationships that tend to recur in many different settings. As Senge notes:

One of the most important, and potentially most empowering, insights to come from the young field of systems thinking is that certain patterns structures recur again and again. These “systems archetypes” or “generic structures” embody the key to learning to see structures in our personal and organizational lives. The systems archetypes—of which there are only a relatively small number—suggest that not all management problems are unique, something that experienced managers know intuitively. (p. 93)

© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 3 of 3

Senge (2006, Chapter 6) and Atwater and Pittman (2008, pp. 282–286) introduce a number of archetype systems. Senge reviews two archetypes in detail: “Limits to Growth” and “Shifting the Burden.” In addition, in Appendix 2, he briefly outlines “A Balancing Process with Delay,” “Shifting the Burden to the Intervenor,” “Eroding Goals,” “Escalation,” “Success to the Successful,” “Tragedy of the Commons,” “Fixes that Fail,” and “Growth and Underinvestment.” Atwater and Pittman (2008) also show basic archetype forms for “Drifting Goals” and “Accidental Adversaries.” As you begin to consider your analysis of both the Pediatric Orthopedic Clinic at CHWO and the Baria Planning Solutions case studies, try to see if you can see any of these “underlying pattern” systems within the cases. You might want to start with a simple 5-Why gap analysis for each case, then extend that analysis to include more formal dynamic complexity issues using either archetype or single/multiple stock flow techniques (that link to specifics in the cases). Use these diagrams to inform and support your recommendations and proposed solutions. Also, think of our class experience, activities, technological setup, and other elements as a system. What does this “system” look like, in systems diagram form? Where do archetypes exist within our system? How can we improve our classroom systemically? There! You are now learning to apply systems thinking to concrete managerial challenges! References Atwater, J. B., & Pittman, P. H. (2006). Facilitating systemic thinking in business classes. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 273–292. Klassen, R. D., Leitch, K., & Hora, M. (2010). Paediatric Orthopaedic Clinic at the Children's Hospital of Western Ontario [Case study]. HBS Case 908D01. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School. Retrieved from http://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cb/pl/17476859/17477233/02073f19a941f8b4e1a94a63ebfeeee4 Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday. Wheelwright, S. C., & Schmidt, W. (2011). Baria Planning Solutions, Inc.: Fixing the sales process [Case study]. HBS Case 4568. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School. Retrieved from http://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cb/pl/17476859/17477296/13fbbbd06a6b67e4b938634732c8304c