essay for systems thinking in an organisation

Running head: RELEVANCE OF SYSTEMS THINKING 1

Relevance of Systems Thinking

Name

Institution

RELEVANCE OF SYSTEMS THINKING 2

Relevance of Systems Thinking

Systems thinking is a well-organized approach to understand the dynamic relationship

that exist between components of a system and unintentional consequences. In fact, it is a

conceptual framework for finding remedy to problems which understand and consider the

problems in their entirety (Haines, 2016). In other words, it is described as a view that sees the

‘system as a whole' first with its fit and relationship to the external environment being the main

concern as compared to the constituent elements that make up the system (Bush, 2018). It can be

used in the understanding of how systems work and how individuals deal with these systems

while looking for patterns of interaction as well as the underlying structures that shape system’s

behavior. In essences, a system is a combination of many components where some people

understand the systems thinking as a whole and one on the detail. These people recognize

problems in one part of the system has impacts on other parts as well as the forces patterns of

behavior in the system that result in crisis (Bush, 2018).

Systems view is a means of positioning and investigating an organizational issue in

which system boundaries are to be set to determine what components are contained in the system

and what components are considered as the external environment. The environment will

undoubtedly influence the problem-solving capabilities of the system, but it is not the part of the

whole system (Glasson & Gibbons, 2015). Therefore, the results will depend mainly on how a

system is described because systems thinking looks into the relationships between a variety of

components of the system as well as its external environment (Banson et al., 2015).

On the adoption of the systems thinking, there methods, tools, and principles that must

deal with the concept of systems thinking. This done with a common goal of understanding

relationships within the system. It is believed that systems thinking works on the hypothesis that

RELEVANCE OF SYSTEMS THINKING 3

there are specific evolving properties of systems that do not exist when systems are disintegrated

into individual parts. For instance, consider a driver who is consistently hitting red lights on the

road. If the driver is only noticing one part of the system that is red lights, then he will be

tempted to speed up to get to the next light before it turns to red. But, if he considers other parts

of the system, it implies that his car, the condition of the road, driving style and the distance

between two lights, he will notice that every time he tries to speed up to make a light, it changes

to red (Glasson & Gibbons, 2015). His speed is tripping the lights to force him to drive slower.

So if he is observing this pattern, he can merely reduce his speed to drive through all green

lights.

In systems view, the focus spreads in a variety of different directions compared to the

conventional linear style of thinking. It focuses on processes, patterns and relationships and their

flow and movement and puts much emphasis on understanding the effects of the interactions in

the system as opposed to putting efforts to predict the outcomes (Bush, 2018). It is argued that

the emphasis on systems view should begin when a project is started and should continue till the

final lessons have been learned even after completion (Haines, 2016).

Adopting a view of system thinking can complement conventional styles of research in

projects in specific ways: It suggests different levels of analysis and synthesis for different kinds

of problems, ranging from the simple activity levels to the more complex hierarchical levels

(Arnold & Wade, 2015). Systems thinking complements reductionism, analytical analysis, cause

and effect thinking, complete determinism with complexity. Also it complements the blended

structure, circular contributing effects and belief in uncertainty which leads to probabilistic

thinking (Glasson & Gibbons, 2015).

RELEVANCE OF SYSTEMS THINKING 4

It provides a conceptual framework which utilizes different theories, tools, and

techniques like the Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), which helps in constructing a holistic,

reliant perspective and practice aimed at disclosing the relationships characterizing a system

(Banson et al., 2015). Such approaches use a non-linear model where different elements are

connected through cyclical somewhat linear cause-and-effect chains. This shows how a system is

structured and also indicates the nature of interactions among components of the system, which

helps in understanding the behavioral patterns characterizing the system under investigation

(Glasson & Gibbons, 2015).

Having reductionist thinking tends to push the project towards a closed systems view of

the environment that is the different phenomenon could be explained as individual and isolated

events, which shows that the system and the context are separate, deterministic and predictable.

Besides, the causal relationship between different elements is linear in the sense that A affects B

which affects B, so such an approach can be used as a process or procedure to track and access

results and performance on an operational level rather than on a broader system level (Arnold &

Wade, 2015).

Project managers can use systems thinking to assist them in the scoping of a project

where the project and its relationship to the environment are examined to underline potential risk

areas and also to look at the project performance and thus to facilitate organizational learning

(Banson et al., 2015).

Although adoption of systems thinking/view is beneficial in some aspects while

executing consulting projects, there are still specific problems which are associated with this

approach. Some of them are as follow: Concept of systems thinking totally ignores or much

worse destroys the most important aspects of human systems, for example, the interconnections

RELEVANCE OF SYSTEMS THINKING 5

or inter-relationships amongst and between the constituent sub-systems (Bush, 2018). The

project and its sub-tasks are ignored. Reductionism is no longer appropriate for dynamic projects

which comprise of most human activities. It encourages fragmentation and isolation of the

project which causes undue concern with the individual project activities or sub-systems. This

method makes us smart in micro-level thinking about plans whereas, on the other hand, it is

allowing us to be dumb on the macro-level analysis. Under this thinking, the project management

loses the capability of making sense of how and why things work in a particular pattern/manner.

Reductionism cannot be implemented in every project. It tries to deal with the issues of

the project one at a time, which leads to the problem of backing up which make things much

worse. Also, it is not helpful in dealing with multiple or delayed causalities, as it is leading us to

the simplistic way of thinking where individuals instead of focusing on the core problem focus

on ‘either-or' choices and blame mentality (Bush, 2018). The simple approach to cause and effect

cannot be implemented in consulting projects with high level of complexity, as it cannot keep up

with the complexity of the project (Arnold & Wade, 2015). As systems thinking the focus on

dealing with symptoms of the problem, interventions aimed at fixing things can end up

sometimes making things better in the short run but worse in the long term.

The over-reliance on reductionism will create an imaginary environment in which

individuals think that prediction and control are the practical approaches to deal with complex

projects. Endless varieties of tools and frameworks would be applied to ensure project success,

and when all such things fail, they will try to explain the causes of system failure using the

reductionist explanations of personal failure and resistance to change.(Reardon, Ryan & Wanhill,

2015). So, the cycle goes on repeating itself and people, and organizations get trapped into fixes

which are doomed to fail.

RELEVANCE OF SYSTEMS THINKING 6

Having a systems perspective enables the project to exert control over people and its

processes. But such a view tends to act against innovation and adaptation which are fundamental

qualities for long-term effectiveness.

Adopting a systems view can threaten some of the established policies and procedures in

managing consulting projects, e.g. in, areas like monitoring and evaluation, performance

management and assessment. Most of the practitioners have doubted its operational use, as it has

not provided specific answers to the cases when the system has encountered problems (Reardon,

Ryan & Wanhill, 2015). Some of its ideas such as emergence can be unattractive with project

management teams, who are always under pressure to give results in short run.

Systems view can also have a disengaging effect on people and organizations that are

used to a structured system where projects are planned, and targets are met(Reardon, Ryan &

Wanhill, 2015). So, adopting a system thinking view can increase the effect of uncertainty in

project consulting and management rather than reducing it.

System thinking can also be demanding regarding intellectual resources as it requires

multi-disciplinary approaches to handle a wide range of issues and patterns. It requires a

significant investment concerning skills, an organizational structure where people are trained

across a series of interrelated problems to make systems thinking work because if they give up

on the practice of systems views, they will probably get back to much easier conventional

approaches (Bush, 2018).

In conclusion, the impacts of systems thinking is far reaching as it is not clear how it will

fit with other methods of analyzing situations. Questions will be asked about its contribution to

monitoring and evaluation as the some of the sub-systems may be inadequate in generating data

needed for analysis which leads to reluctance in trusting the conclusions. Though it is best in

RELEVANCE OF SYSTEMS THINKING 7

synthesis, it needs help regarding rational analysis, so the question arises that can it supplement

present methods of doing things or does it have to replace them in some way? In brief, adopting

a systems view can contribute to planning and controlling the complexity and uncertainty by

embedding flexibility in consulting activities. When implemented and appropriately aligned,

systems view can alleviate the flaws present in the existing frameworks to produce a more

general framework which includes both prescriptive and descriptive elements. Also, it facilitates

the links between project management initiatives and the strategic goals and objectives of an

organization helping in maintain a clear vision of what is being done and why it is being done.

RELEVANCE OF SYSTEMS THINKING 8

References

Arnold, R. D., & Wade, J. P. (2015). A definition of systems thinking: a systems

approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44, 669-678.

Banson, K. E., Nguyen, N. C., Bosch, O. J., & Nguyen, T. V. (2015). A systems thinking

approach to address the complexity of agribusiness for sustainable development in

Africa: a case study in Ghana. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 32(6), 672-688.

Bush, S. J. W. (2018). A systems-thinking approach to improving the freight performance of New

Zealand’s state highway bridges (Doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland).

Glasson, J., & Gibbons, P. (2015). Understanding the context of the organisation: adopting a

systems thinking approach to asset management.

Haines, S. (2016). The systems thinking approach to strategic planning and management. CRC

Press.

Reardon, E., Ryan, J., & Wanhill, S. (2015). Lean services: a systems thinking approach for

achieving operational excellence and quality improvement in the Irish hotel sector. 11th

Annual Tourism and Hospitality Research in Ireland Conference (THRIC).