Published Article: Integrating Systems & Design Thinking

S YS T E M S

T H E
THINKER
®

BUILDING SHARED UNDERSTANDING

VOLUME 22 NUMBER 9 NOVEMBER 2011

FEATURE _________________________________
Integrating Systems Thinking and Design Thinking
by John Pourdehnad, Erica R. Wexler, and Dennis V. Wilson
Design thinking is a hot topic of discussion in management circles today. But how can
organizations increase their chances of creating the right designs? Systems thinking can help
designers better understand the world around them and avoid unintended consequences. Yet the
most valuable principle that systems thinking can add to design thinking may be
the need to bring the whole system to the discussion from the beginning. MORE ®

PEGASUS CLASSICS
Predicting Behavior Using Systems Archetypes
by Daniel H. Kim
The better we understand the structure of a system, the better we can predict its future behavior.
Systems archetypes can help us see the structures within a complex system, while behavior over
time diagrams offer a glimpse into the expected behavior of that structure over time. By identifying
and working on the underlying structures that produce behaviors, we can help to
create the future instead of just trying to forecast it. MORE ®

TOOLBOX
QUICK LINKS It’s Impossible Not to Make Connections
Register Now: by Michael Michalko
2012 Conference Our genius as humans is our ability to invent patterns and make new connections in our
imaginations. One example is that of blending concepts. For example, if you look at the phrase
Submit an Article
“They are digging their financial grave,” you know immediately what it means, even though there
Read Leverage Points Blog is no connection between digging a grave and investing money. We can intentionally
Search for Products apply this practice of blending to generate creative new approaches and ideas. MORE ®

VIEWPOINT
SYSTEMS THINKER
System Problem or People Problem?
RESOURCES
Archives by Lee Jenkins
Leaders of organizations must deal with people problems. However, they often attempt to solve a
Subscription Options
system problem as if it were a people problem. When teachers spend a third of their time in review
Reading & Using Causal of prior grades, when data is used to rank and demoralize rather than to energize teams, and
Loops when students have their intrinsic motivation removed, system problems
Permission to Distribute are dominating. MORE ®

CONTACT US PEGASUS NOTES ®

Copyright © 2011 Pegasus Communications, Inc. (www.pegasuscom.com) All rights reserved.

FEATURE

INTEGRATING SYSTEMS THINKING AND
DESIGN THINKING
BY JOHN POURDEHNAD, ERICA R.WEXLER,AND DENNIS V.WILSON

A s readers of this newsletter are aware, systems
thinking is evolving as an alternative to the old
paradigms. Richard Mattessich wrote that “systems
actually throw fuel on the fires they seek to
extinguish.

thinking is first and foremost a point of view and a Design Thinking Defined
methodology arising out of this viewpoint” (“The In recent years, a great interest in “design thinking”
systems approach: Its variety of aspects,” Journal of has developed. But design in management is not
the American Society for Information Science, something new. Design philosophy has its roots in
33(6), 1982). It is a lens through which you can Egyptian and Mesopotamian bureaucracies. Even
look at the world. That lens determines what you Taylorism was considered a new design philosophy
see and often influences what you do about it. in the early 20th century! Currently, many contrast-
Systems thinking replaces reductionism (the being concepts of the design process and what makes
lief that everything can be reduced to individual someone a designer exist. Additionally, many organ-
parts) with expansionism (the belief that a system is izations are cited as examples of companies promot-
always a sub-system of some larger system), and ing a design thinking culture (for example, P&G).
analysis (gaining knowledge of the system by under- What does this mean?
standing its parts) with synthesis (explaining its role In 1971, designer and educator Victor Papanek
in the larger system of which it is a part). According wrote: “All men are designers. All that we do, al-
to Russell Ackoff, analysis is useful for revealing most all the time, is design, for design is basic to all
how a system works, but synthesis reveals why a sys- human activity. The planning and patterning of any
tem works the way it does. act towards a desired, foreseeable end constitutes
Many methodologies are derived from the sys- the design process. Any attempt to separate design,
tems thinking worldview, including interactive plan- to make it a thing-by-itself, works counter to the in-
ning, soft systems thinking, and system dynamics. herent value of design as the primary underlying
Regardless of the approach, the essence of systems matrix of life. . . . Design is the conscious effort to
thinking is encapsulated in the concept of systemic impose meaningful order.”
wholeness, which is grasped by looking at the He further asserted that the general design func-
whole instead of the parts. A system involves an in- tion must incorporate considerations of Methods
terconnected complex of functionally related com- (tools, processes); Use (does it work?); Need (real
ponents. Failing to consider the systemic properties vs. evanescent requirements); Telesis (reflection of
as derived from the interaction of the parts leads to the times and conditions surrounding the project);
sub-optimization of the performance of the whole. Association (psychological connections with as-
With systems thinking, managers and designers pects of the project); and Aesthetics (shaping colors,
learn how the parts of their organization interact, not textures, etc. into pleasing forms). More than 30
how they perform independently. Otherwise, unin- years later, professor of design studies Nigel Cross
tended consequences may emerge as changes made pointed out that designers have specific abilities to
within one part of the “produce novel unexpected solutions, tolerate un-
system may adversely af- certainty, work with incomplete information, apply
fect other parts. Often, imagination and forethought to practical problems
TEAM TIP these new problems are and use drawings and other modeling media as
Shift away from assuming that only much worse than those means of problem solving.”
“creative types” can contribute to addressed initially. The term “design thinking” now generally
Ackoff suggested that, refers to applying a designer’s sensibility and meth-
innovation to knowing that everyone
for this reason, many ods to problem solving, no matter what the problem
in your group can do so. performance-improve- is. IDEO’s Tim Brown explains that, from this per-
ment initiatives fail and spective, it is not a substitute for the art and craft of

2 THE SYSTEMS THINKER ® Volume 22, Number 9 November 2011 © 2011 PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

designing, but rather “a methodology for innovation plications do exist in these areas, they are less com-
and enablement.” Lately, some in the management monly highlighted. And while the strengths of tak-
sciences think that a lot can be learned from the way ing a design approach are seen in the successful
designers think and “know” that could help us with outcomes, the term is so common that it risks be-
innovative solutions. coming yet another meaningless, fashionable con-
American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce cept without true business value.
made the case that when new data exists, and that
data doesn’t neatly fit into a currently understood The Role of Design in Systems Thinking
model, the first activity the mind performs is to Design in systems thinking is not the same as design
wonder. Wondering, as opposed to observing, is the in design thinking. Many divergent views exist on
key to abductive reasoning, as opposed to deductive design within the systems process; however, there is
or inductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning is the agreement on a number of underlying principles that
act of creatively thinking about what can be done systems thinkers follow when planning toward a de-
with the data in order to orient it to the current envi- sired future. While a full explanation of these prin-
ronment. Since the data is new, practitioners have ciples goes beyond the scope of this article, systems
no method of reliably determining the appropriate thinkers generally aim to do something today to im-
method of dealing with it; therefore, they must rely prove the system tomorrow.
on a “logical leap of the mind” to make sense of it. In systems thinking, design is a creative act that
In a recent interview, Roger Martin described attempts to estimate how alternative sets of behavior
design thinkers as “willing to use all three kinds of patterns would serve specified goals. In the systems
logic to understand their world.” He explained that community, design has become the preferred ap-
neither analytic nor intuitive thinking alone is proach to problem solving and planning for a vari-
enough to sustain competitive advantage since each, ety of reasons: the belief in the synthetic mode of
while providing tremendous strength, also creates thought, the idea that the future is subject to cre-
systemic weakness if applied in isolation. He also ation (design being the creative process), the con-
made clear that the goal of abductive reasoning is cept that you need to dissolve problems (and not
not to declare a conclusion to be true or false. In- solve them) through redesign of the system, etc.
stead, it is to posit what could possibly be true. It is To understand the role of design in systems
this mode of thinking that allows a designer to seek thinking, let’s look at Ackoff’s view on planning.
out new ways of doing things, challenge old ap- Ackoff describes four orientations to planning:
proaches, and infer what might be possible. It offers Reactivism, Inactivism, Preactivism, and Interac-
the careful, balanced application of the reliable les- tivism. Reactivist planners embrace the past. Inac-
sons of the past and the logically valid leaps of what tivist planners are generally satisfied with the way
might be in the future. things are in the present and want to avoid making
Design thinkers bridge these two worlds and mistakes within the current system; they seek to
work to make the abductive logic explicit so they avoid errors of commission. Preactivist planners are
can share and refine it. Information systems and cog- unsatisfied with the past as well as the current envi-
nitive science professor Fred Collopy recently wrote ronment and seek change. They attempt to under-
in Fast Company: “If thinking is at the center of the stand all aspects of the future that may affect the
activity that we want to encourage, it is not the kind success of their intervention; they want to avoid er-
of thinking that doctors and lawyers, professors and rors of omission. Finally, interactive planners be-
business people already do. It is not a feet up, data lieve the future is subject to creation. They think the
spread across the desk to be absorbed kind of think- best means of revealing a desirable future is by en-
ing. It is a pencil in hand, scribbling on the board abling the stakeholders to do it themselves.
sort of thinking.” While that depiction may be obvi- Not surprisingly, Ackoffian systems thinkers
ous to those close to the design thinking process al- embrace the interactive planning perspective. They
ready, it is not what folks conjure up when they first believe our failures are often due to misguided as-
hear the phrase. Our institutions provide little or no sumptions made when planning for how our future
formal training in the creative design process. ought to be. They think knowledge of the past does
The appeal of design thinking lies in its human- not enable us to solve complex problems, and they
centered heuristics and growing track record of suc- seek to avoid both errors of commission and omis-
cess. We can cite numerous examples, such as those sion. We can say that interactive design is the exe-
produced by IDEO, a California company that has cution of design thinking with a systems worldview.
designed many successful products. As we read
about the application of design thinking in the busi- On Designing, With and Without the
ness world, we find that it is most often applied to Systems Worldview
product-oriented problems despite its value to serv- Kenneth C. Bausch said that: “To accomplish its
ices, systems, and processes. While successful ap- goals, system design cannot be a top-down operation


nor can it be expert driven. It must actively involve need to get into the heads of the stakeholders and at-
the stakeholders of the design in shaping a shared vi- tempt to interpret what they think. Because neither
sion that represents their ideas, aspirations, values the organization nor the end user has been involved
and ideals.” Taking this view, someone who plans, in the entirety of the design process, the designers
redesigns, manages, and organizes social systems need to elicit their buy-in. They also risk missing a
must embrace a systems worldview. And given this key stakeholder group. We caution that unintended
reality, it is the role of the stakeholders in the design consequences often occur when interdependent
process that separates the systems thinkers’ approach pieces of the larger system have not been con-
to design from that of the design thinker. sciously considered in the context of the whole sys-
We believe we have identified the core differ- tem. It is in the use of what Tim Brown describes as
ences in the systems thinking and design thinking the “designer’s sensibility…to meet people’s needs”
approaches to problem resolution: where this form of design thinking strays from the
systems thinking worldview.
• Design thinking methodologies arose from the
In a recent blog post, designer Kevin McCul-
consideration of products and artifacts. The prob-
lagh said, ”Let’s forget about design thinking as a
lems are ultimately resolved by people identified as
magic process, and focus on how designers and
designers by trade. The design team observes
managers should best work together to deliver great
and studies the stakeholders.
quality outputs.” The systems thinking worldview
• Systems thinking methodologies arose from the offers a method of doing just that. We propose that
consideration of social systems. The stakeholders by taking this approach, design thinkers can move
are the designers. into a “Third Generation of Design,” which builds
in a purposeful consideration of systems thinking
The good news is that design thinkers are mov- principles. It addresses many of the challenges of
ing away from the “First Generation of Design,” trying to get into the heads of others. A successful
where the act of designing is the prerogative of a cer- design is therefore not one that is imposed on or
tain talented group called “designers.” The First Gen- provided to the organization from a source external
eration Design methods rely heavily on the idea that to the system. The best way to ensure that the de-
professionals hold knowledge that is critical to the sign will serve the organization’s purpose is to in-
design and inaccessible to the user. Professionals cre- clude the stakeholders in its formulation. Hence, the
ate a design and are under no obligation to go further. success of a design is directly related to the level of
This approach is the one typically taken in the past in stakeholder participation in its development.
the design of operating systems. The designer devel- In the “Third Generation of Design,” the stake-
oped an operating system design on paper, and sup- holders are the designers. They are not external
plied all the documentation and blueprints to a sources of input. Instead, they are the concept gen-
contractor, who converted the paper design to a phys- erators and implementers. An underlying principle
ical system. The designer figuratively threw the de- of interactive planning is that people must be al-
sign over the “wall” that separated the professional lowed to plan for themselves. The process involves
design organization from the contractor or user. the interaction of groups of individuals with diverse
Designers today more often operate from the values. The design facilitator creates an environ-
“Second Generation of Design.” They recognize the ment where these differing views are honored
need for collaboration among designers and external within the context of the larger system. Creating a
perspectives to guide them. For example, IDEO’s shared vision of the future can also be described as
Deep Dive methodology made it standard practice finding “common ground,” a place where partici-
for designers to gain input from many different pants are able to get past the current situation and
stakeholders, including the end user. The design make decisions based on what is good for the sys-
team observes and interacts within the larger system tem. In fact, designing creative solutions becomes
before going back to the design table to piece the much more straightforward if the practitioner is able
data together and design a solution. Such ethno- to address the conflicts that arise due to differing
graphic and anthropological studies have added stakeholder values, beliefs, and worldviews.
tremendous value to the solutions that are gener- By empowering all stakeholders from the be-
ated. This is where design thinking today seems to ginning, it is possible to tap the creative energy of
incorporate some aspects of systems thinking. every participant so that innovative ideas emerge
This approach still has its risks, however. Even from the collective of the differing perspectives.
though there are many perspectives involved in One thing that design practitioners using a systems
parts of the design process, the stakeholders give approach bring to the table is the ability to help an
input solely from their individual experiences and organization take ownership of the ideas that
never see how it fits into the whole system. The de- emerge through the design process. This is a critical
signers’ role is still to piece it all together. They consideration for today’s designers. It is much more


likely that the ideas generated will be implemented The patients’ evaluation had nothing to do with the
and maintained if the stakeholders involved are the quality of the medical care provided by the doctors
ones who came up with the solutions in the first and everything to do with how they perceived their
place. When people within an organization have had experience with the hospital as a whole.
input throughout a change process and believe they These early steps in the design process gave
have influenced its direction, the resistance to new people who had never communicated before a com-
ideas dissipates. mon language and point of reflection. They also re-
Designers must help participants uncover their moved the risk of blame and finger pointing by
underlying assumptions about the problem they redirecting the focus to patterns that were happening
think needs to be solved. Often, cultural assump- in the larger environment of hospital care in general.
tions and traditions contribute to the dilemma. Cul- Even though people came to the table with different
tural assumptions include those specific to experiences and frameworks, they shared an under-
leadership, both formal and informal, which can standing that any design created and implemented
have an effect on how people approach the assumed had to meet two systems thinking criteria:
problem. Designers applying systems thinking prin-
• Identify and consider the essential parts of the
ciples can support participants in recognizing the as-
system
sumptions they and the organization hold. In this
way, they can provide them with the means to de- • Decide the design based on the amount of
velop a new framework and shared worldview. improvement to the system as a whole, not just to
individual parts or units
An Integrated Approach to Problem
Resolution Once these criteria had been determined, the
group considered the next question:
In 2009, leaders at the Johns Hopkins Hospital antici-
pated its 2011 relocation to new multi-billion dollar If John Hopkins is a system, what does the hos-
quarters. Hospital administrators could have enlisted pital do to support the patient experience versus
“design thinking” folks to look at the needs of the dif- simply considering patient care?
ferent units, gather ethnographic data, and then lay
out a plan with recommendations for the relocation. As doctors, janitors, technicians, and other hos-
Instead, the Johns Hopkins team took a different tack. pital staff interacted with patients, the interdepend-
Members looked at the move as an opportunity to re- ence of their contribution to the hospital as a whole
design their current situation into a more desired fu- began to emerge. This analysis led to what can only
ture. The hospital would upgrade its system as it be described as an “A-HA!” moment. The partici-
upgraded its physical environment. Their change pants realized that two essential components of the
would be systemic and not purely geographic. hospital were traditionally overlooked, yet had a
Championed by a number of VPs, the hospital great impact on the patient experience: Patient
formed design teams comprised of the hospital’s Transportation (responsible for moving patients
stakeholders. They defined stakeholders to mean from one part of the hospital to another) and Envi-
anyone who could either impact or be impacted by ronmental Services (responsible for cleaning
the decisions made in the design teams, including throughout the hospital). This realization had signif-
not only administration and management, but repre- icant implications for the new design. The additional
sentatives from all of the hospital’s units, such as awareness that these functions directly affected both
doctors, nurses, technicians, customer services rep- the hospital experience and the bottom line pro-
resentatives, and custodial staff. Most important, the duced exciting designs. But most important, all of
design teams included the end users: the patients. these considerations resulted in a new approach to
Before starting, the teams attended a short course recruitment, training, and compensation for employ-
on systems thinking. The orientation created a shared ees within these key departments.
understanding of how the hospital operated as a sys- Within Patient Transportation, an innovative
tem. Facilitators also shared information and data and effective design resulted from measuring how
from research that had been done across different long it took to move patients between various loca-
hospitals with the goal of finding out how patients tions in the hospital in a pleasant and timely manner.
thought about and described the care they received. Additionally, this consideration helped the design
The trends showed that patients valued more in a hos- team determine a logistically optimum location to
pital stay than the level of care they received. In some place the wheelchairs in the new buildings. The in-
instances, patients who had successful procedures creased ability of Patient Transportation to move pa-
with high-quality medical care stated they would tients quickly improved other departments’
never return to that hospital again. Some of the rea- performance; for example, diagnostics will no
sons provided included poor treatment by diagnosti- longer stay idle waiting for patients to arrive.
cians; multiple room switches; unsanitary bathroom Furthermore, the design team was able to improve
conditions; and long waits for transportation for tests. the internal communication system, eliminating the


additional work and time lost when nurses tried to bring the whole system to the discussion from the
contact patient transporters. beginning. The stakeholders within the system must
In the Environmental Services team, one solu- plan for themselves. If problem formulation is the
tion improves the bed turnaround time, which also first step in the design process, then adopting a sys-
means that patients won’t be left waiting in the hall tems mindset can help with framing and especially
for a room at the new facility. The design team also reframing the problems.
became aware that the Environmental Services unit We have proposed that the two approaches
does more than simply change over the rooms; it complement each other and each incorporates com-
also affects the overall quality of care in the hospi- ponents of the other implicitly. We believe it is pos-
tal, specifically as it relates to infectious diseases. sible—and necessary—to create an approach that
This was an epiphany for everyone. explicitly incorporates the strengths of both, thereby
The Johns Hopkins example shows the instru- addressing the gaps and increasing the chance of
mental role that taking a systemic worldview can creating sustainable solutions to the wicked prob-
play in design. It also highlights how important de- lems facing organizations and society today. •
sign is to any consideration of the system. By start-
ing with an overview of systems thinking principles,
John Pourdehnad serves as affiliated faculty in
everyone was operating from a shared mindset. By
Organizational Dynamics at the University of
hearing trends collected from the larger healthcare
Pennsylvania. He is also associate director, Ackoff
environment within which they operated, the Johns
Collaboratory for Advancement of Systems Ap-
Hopkins team was able to develop a shared under-
proaches, and adjunct professor, Systems Engineering,
standing of the current situation.
in the School of Engineering and Applied Science.
Moreover, by bringing everyone to the design
meetings, the facilitators ensured that stakeholders Erica R. Wexler holds a master’s in Organizational
who rarely had a voice were heard. For the first time, Dynamics from the University of Pennsylvania. She is
a level power dynamic existed, which was a monu- currently communication & training coordinator of the
mental shift from the traditional hierarchy with sur- Pennsylvania Bureau of Autism Services.
geons and doctors at the top of the ladder. Johns
Hopkins achieved its goal of a system redesign with Dennis V. Wilson holds a master’s in Organizational
the ownership of those most impacted by it. Dynamics from the University of Pennsylvania. He is
If Johns Hopkins’ administrators had simply currently project manager/senior process analyst at
brought in designers to look at the problem, interview Penn Mutual Life.
various stakeholders, and design recommendations
based on the compiled feedback, they would not have
achieved such a rich redesign. It was only by having NEXT STEPS
everyone in the same room, under the same shared
context of hospital trends in the larger environment, In a presentation at the 2011 Systems Thinking in
using the same systems language throughout the en- Action Conference, IDEO’s Peter Coughlan and
Seattle University professor Colleen Ponto pro-
tire process that the resulting design had the input
posed a process that integrates systems thinking
and ownership of the entire system. and design thinking:
Conclusion Define the Challenge:
1. Tell the story.
Originally In today’s business world, design thinking and sys-
tems thinking are considered separate things. The 2. Sketch trends.
presented at the
challenge remains how the design thinking commu- 3. Name variables.
International
nity can learn from the systems thinking community 4. Set system boundaries.
Society for the
Systems Sciences and vice versa. We believe that practitioners should Ground Understanding:
(ISSS) 55th Annual intentionally integrate systems thinking with design 5. Share personal experiences.
Conference, “All thinking to enhance the chances of creating the right 6. Explore analogous situations.
Together Now: designs! We have shown that systems thinking can 7. Identify themes.
Working Across help designers better understand the world around Identify Places to Intervene:
Disciplines,” at them. Furthermore, designers can achieve more sus- 8. Make the system visible.
University of Hull, tainable designs by following systems principles. 9. Determine leverage points.
Hull, UK, July 17- Design can be greatly enhanced if it improves the
Move Insights to Action:
22, 2011. performance of the system as a whole, even if you
10. Brainstorm many solutions.
Condensed with are redesigning the part. Being aware of the princi-
pal of unintended consequences can also enhance 11. Prototype promising solutions.
permission.
design thinking. 12. Experiment to test solutions.
Yet the most valuable principle that systems Copyright 2011 Coughlan and Ponto
thinking can add to design thinking is the need to


PEGASUS CLASSICS

PREDICTING BEHAVIOR USING
SYSTEMS ARCHETYPES
BY DANIEL H. KIM

T he adage “a bird in the hand is worth two in the
bush” captures an old belief that something
“known” is more valuable than something less cer-
hands in despair, we should be careful to differenti-
ate between true uncertainty and predetermined ele-
ments—those things we can predict if we have an
tain. Taking that one step further, we might say that adequate understanding of the underlying structure.
present circumstances are somehow more “real” than
future possibilities. But such statements confuse un- Scenario Planning
certainty with ignorance of the structures that pro- Planners at Royal Dutch Shell recognized the impor-
duce future outcomes, leading us to assume that tance of distinguishing between true uncertainty and
everything in the future is inherently uncertain. predetermined elements as part of the scenario plan-
Another deep-rooted assumption is that past ning process. They defined a predetermined element
behavior is a good predictor of as an event that has already oc-
future behavior—hence our curred—or most certainly will
never-ending attempts to fore- The better we understand occur—but the consequences of
cast, anticipate, and otherwise the structure of a system, the which have not yet materialized.
guess at future outcomes by For example, if there is an auto
looking at historical data. With- better we can predict the accident on a major highway at
This article was out a deeper understanding of future behavior of that rush hour, we can predict that
originally published the underlying structures that traffic jams within the city and
system.
in The Systems produce the observed behaviors, ripple effects on secondary roads
Thinker® V5N8, forecasts fail when we need them will be the predetermined out-
October 1994. the most—when the future deviates from the past. comes of that event. The structure of the system—
Inaccurate forecasts stem from two causes: number of lanes, alternative routes, speed limits,
either we do not understand the mechanisms govern- rush hour traffic volume, population density—
ing the actions we are trying to predict, or the situa- makes the outcome very predictable. Identifying
tions themselves are inherently unpredictable. In the such predetermined elements is fundamental to the
latter case, there isn’t much we can do other than planning process, because it allows us to predict fu-
take our best shot with whatever methods seem to ture outcomes based on the structure of the current
produce the best results. But before we throw up our situation.

Structure-Behavior Link
REINFOR CIN G G ROWTH WITH NEW PRODUCTS
The better we understand the structure of a
system, the better we can predict the future
s
New behavior of that system. This is one of the
Products
most important principles of systems think-
s ing—structure, to a large extent, determines
behavior. Although there may be uncertainty
Revenues

New Product Customer about the exact timing and duration of the
Development R1 Orders
Today Forecast outcome, the nature and eventuality of it is
clear. Knowing this, we can greatly improve
s
our ability to influence the behavior of a
system.
Revenues s Time Together, systems archetypes and Behav-
ior Over Time diagrams (BOTs) can help us
A reinforcing dynamic of new products increasing revenue, which is then invested in addi- identify predetermined outcomes of a partic-
tional new products (R1), will initially produce a growth curve. ular situation. Systems archetypes can help


us see the structures within a complex system, while look for balancing loops that the growth in revenues
Behavior Over Time diagrams offer a glimpse into might trigger (see “Identifying Predetermined Conse-
the expected behavior of that structure over time. quences of Limits”).
For example as customer orders grow, the orga-
Identifying Predetermined nizational infrastructures needed to service them
Elements also grows. As more people are hired, the organiza-
For example, in many companies, new product de- tional complexity increases and places an additional
velopment is the main engine of growth (see “Rein- managerial burden on those responsible for develop-
forcing Growth with New Products”). As new ing products. If the company’s way of managing its
products are released, customer orders and revenues product development effort does not change with
increase, which provides more funds to pump back the changing needs (which is often the case in a
into new product development (R1). In this situation, fast-growth environment), a decline in new products
our sales data would show that we are on a healthy is a predetermined consequence of the “Limits to
growth curve, and most forecasts would predict more Success” structure. The more the company tries to
of the same. If we look at the situation from a “Lim- push harder on the growing action, the stronger the
its to Success” perspective, however, we can go be- slowing action will become, as long as the structure
yond straight line projections by better of the management capacity limit remains un-
understanding the structural forces at play. In reality, changed.
there are many different pos-
sible outcomes that can never From Historical Behavior to Archetype
M ULTIPLE FUTURES be predicted by historical data Behavioral charts can also provide a starting point
alone (see “Multiple Fu- for selecting an appropriate archetype to use, since
Forecasts
tures”). Revenues could grow each archetype is associated with a particular domi-
F1
at a slower rate (F2), plateau nant behavior mode that is characteristic of its struc-
F2
(F3), or collapse (F4). Given ture. For example, imagine you are a marketing
these possibilities, what kind manager in charge of a new product launch. You
Revenues

F3
of prediction can we make for have been running a series of campaigns over the
Today
future outcomes? The answer past year, and sales have grown steadily. Last quar-
F4 is determined not by looking ter, however, you noticed that the growth in sales
at past data, but by looking at was beginning to decline. This quarter you increased
Time the underlying structure. your marketing efforts, but it seemed to have little
When we understand the impact.
There are many possible outcomes for rev- structural landscape, we can The historical pattern of behavior can offer
enues, given our current reinforcing structure better distinguish between un- clues that help identify possible archetypal struc-
of increasing product offerings: forecasted certainty and predetermined tures, which then allows us to predict future behav-
growth (F1), continued growth at a slower rate
(F2), plateau (F3), or decline (F4).
elements. In a “Limits to Suc- ior given the system structure. It is an iterative
cess” structure, we would process. For example, the historical data of sales
growing and then plateauing suggests a “Limits to
Success” archetype may be at work. Having identi-
IDENTIFYING PR EDETERM INED CONSEQUENCES OF LIMITS fied a “Limits to Success” structure, we can use
BOT diagrams to flesh out the particular limits af-
New
o fecting our sales growth. How does the volume of
Management campaigns seem to affect sales over time? Are there
s Products Capacity
pressures building in the organization as a result of
s o the growth? What does the production capacity look
Management like over time? Is the size of the market growing or
New Product Customer Burden on Product stagnating? Charting these factors over time can
Development R1 Orders B2 Developers
offer insight into the particular balancing processes
s
s that need to be addressed in order to eliminate po-
tential limits to growth before they affect future
Organizational sales.
Revenues s s Complexity Or suppose you are a new plant manager of a
processed food company and you notice that a once-
Growing Action Slowing Action popular product has been declining steadily in sales.
The “Limits to Success” structure suggests that there are potential balancing
When you ask other employees for their picture of
processes that could limit future growth. For example, as the organizational infra- the situation, they tell you that consumer tastes have
structure grows to service the increasing orders, product developers might have changed and the product does not have as much ap-
less time to devote to creating new products (B2). The result may be a decline in peal as it used to. The declining sales coupled with a
products and a consequent decline in orders (R1) declining level of investment into the product itself,


however, makes you wonder if something else is have yet to unfold. By identifying and working on
going on. This behavior over time suggests that a the underlying structures that produce the behaviors,
“Drifting Goals” archetype may be at work. we can better predict the future by helping to create
it instead of just trying to forecast it. •
Creating (Not Forecasting) Your Future
This link between structure and behavior is critical Daniel H. Kim is co-founder of Pegasus Communica-
in our systems thinking worldview. Linking each ar- tions, founding publisher of The Systems Thinker
chetype with a specific set of behavior patterns can newsletter, and a consultant, facilitator, teacher, and
help us see into the future with a different set of public speaker committed to helping problem-solving
eyes. We can then see more clearly the difference be- organizations transform into learning organizations.
tween true uncertainty and predetermined events that

TOOLBOX

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO MAKE CONNECTIONS
BY MICHAEL MICHALKO

T he human brain cannot deliberately concentrate
on two separate objects or ideas, no matter how
dissimilar, no matter how remote, without eventually
the company. The word “invest” encouraged them to
find ways to invest. One association was the New
York Stock Exchange.
forming a connection between them. According to Rite-Solutions combined the architecture of the
his own story, Isaac Newton conceived of universal stock exchange with the architecture of an in-house
gravitation when he observed an apple falling and, at company stock market and created a stock exchange
the same time, noticed the moon in the sky. These for ideas. The company’s internal exchange is called
random simultaneous images inspired him to specu- Mutual Fun. In this private exchange, any employee
late on whether the same laws governed the falling can offer a proposal to create a new product or spin-
apple and the moon orbiting the earth. This in turn off, to solve a problem, to acquire new technologies
led him to develop the laws of mechanics and estab- or companies, and so on. These proposals become
lish mathematical analysis and modeling as the prin- stocks and are given ticker symbols identifying the
cipal foundations of science and engineering. proposals.
Newton’s conceptual combination created new As reported in the New York Times, “Fifty-five
science. The same process can help you to get the stocks are listed on the company’s internal stock ex-
ideas you need in the business world. James Lavoie change. Each stock comes with a detailed descrip-
and Joseph Marino, cofounders of Rite-Solutions, did tion—called an expect-us, as opposed to a
just that when they needed an employee-suggestion prospectus—and begins trading at a price of $10.
system that could harvest ideas from everyone in the Every employee gets $10,000 in ‘opinion money’ to
company, including engineers, accountants, salespeo- allocate among the offerings, and employees signal
ple, marketing their enthusiasm by investing in a stock or volun-
people, and all ad- teering to work on the project.”
TEAM TIP ministrative staff. The result has been a resounding success.
They wanted Among the company’s core technologies are pat-
The next time your team faces a challenge,
a process that tern-recognition algorithms used in military applica-
use pictures as random stimuli to prompt would get their tions, as well as for electronic gambling systems at
creative thinking. employees to cre- casinos. An administrative employee with no techni-
atively invest in cal expertise was fascinated with one of the com-


pany’s existing technologies and spent time thinking teresting pictures at random that have nothing to do
about other ways it could be used. One pathway she with your problem. Describe one of the pictures in
explored was education. She proposed that this detail. List descriptors—everything that comes to
technology could be used in schools to create an en- mind: imagery, feelings, words, phrases, and so on.
tertaining way for students to learn history or math. If you think of absurd material, list that too. Then
She started a stock called Win/Play/Learn (symbol: force yourself to conceptually blend the descriptors
WPL), which attracted a lot of attention from the with your challenge.
company’s engineers. They enthusiastically bought This is what a sales manager for a pharmaceuti-
her stock and volunteered to work on the idea to cal company did. She filled one whole office wall
turn it into a viable new prod- with interesting pictures of
uct, which they did. A brilliant landscapes, products, people,
idea from an unlikely source Blending concepts is a way animals, and symbols. Every
was made possible by the new time she found something inter-
employee-suggestion system. of thinking and imagining esting, she tacked it on the
Just as Isaac Newton got his in- so natural that we don’t even wall. One day, she wanted an
sight by combining images of a notice how fantastic this idea to differentiate her busi-
falling apple and the moon, this ness cards from the competi-
corporation created an innova- ability is. tion.
tive employee-suggestion sys- She looked at the pictures
tem by blending the concepts of the New York on the wall. One was a picture of a rural road
Excerpted from
Stock Exchange and employee suggestions. through a field of sunflowers, and the other was a
the book Creative
sunset over a field of flowers. She wrote every de-
Thinkering: This Is a Natural Way of Thinking scriptor that came to mind for roads, sunsets, and
Putting Your
Blending concepts is a way of thinking and imagin- flowers. One of her descriptors for the field of flow-
Imagination to
ing so natural that we don’t even notice how fantastic ers was “seed.” The idea of a “seed” intrigued her,
Work ©2011 by
this ability is. A good example is the ordinary as she thought of a business card as a seed for future
Michael Michalko.
metaphor. If you look at a phrase such as “They are business.
Printed with
digging their financial grave,” you know immediately Over the next few hours, she simultaneously
permission of
what is meant. Yet there is no connection whatsoever thought about a seed and business cards, and then
New World
between digging a grave and investing money. There conceptually blended the two into an ingenious
Library,
is no logical way to connect graves and money. How idea. She had the company’s business cards embed-
Novato, CA.
is it possible to know what this means? ded with flower seeds. Once customers read the
www.newworld
Your mind takes one input, “grave digging,” cards, they can place them in a glass of water or in
library.com
and another input, “financial investment,” and con- the ground, and within a few days they will start to
ceptually blends them together. But the meaning grow. Now the card becomes a flower that con-
isn’t contained in either input; the meaning is con- stantly reminds the customer of the company. This
structed in the blend. Through conscious and sub- is the kind of idea you cannot get using the preju-
conscious elaboration, the blend develops a dices of logical thinking.
structure not provided by the inputs to create an We all have the gift to make associations like
emergent new meaning. these. Psychologists have found that if you put peo-
How can you connect a coconut, a sensor, and ple in a room with a contraption containing light
airplane noise? An activist-researcher whose work bulbs wired to blink on and off at random, they will
focuses on the intersections between art, activism, quickly discern what they believe are patterns and
and technology became annoyed at the noise made will develop theories for predicting which bulb will
by aircraft flying over the city he lived in. He con- be next to blink. Our genius as humans is our ability
structed a site-specific art installation, Tripwire, to create elaborate architectures in our imaginations
which responded to the relationship between the to invent patterns and make new connections. •
airport and downtown. He placed sensors inside co-
conuts and hung them from trees in several down-
town locations to monitor aircraft noise. Detection of Michael Michalko is the author of Creative Thinkering,
excessive aircraft noise causes the sensors to trigger Thinkertoys, Cracking Creativity, and ThinkPak.
automated telephone calls to the airport’s complaint While an army officer, he organized a team of NATO
line on behalf of the city’s residents and wildlife. intelligence specialists and international academics
to find the best inventive thinking method. He has
Use Pictures and Illustrations As Random expanded and taught these techniques to numerous
Stimuli Fortune 500 companies and organizations. He lives in
Pictures, photographs, and illustrations are excellent Rochester, New York. Visit him online at
sources of unrelated stimuli. Select two or three in- http://www.CreativeThinking.net.


VIEWPOINT

SYSTEM PROBLEM OR PEOPLE PROBLEM?
BY LEE JENKINS

M ost followers of systems thinking literature are
probably aware of W. Edwards Deming’s esti-
mate that 94 to 97 percent of our problems stem from
Case Applications
Three other examples demonstrate how McCain’s
rating scale can assist leaders in separating people
the system, with the remaining problems caused by problems from system problems. In each instance, I
human error or poor judgment. Sometimes when rate the severity of the problem based on question-
leaders of an organization hear this percentage, they naires provided to me by seminar participants.
misunderstand. They assume the problems are either
in the legislative or the societal systems. They further System Problem No. 1: Beginning with first-grade
rationalize that since they have little effect on either spelling, students soon learn they have permission to
society or legislation, they can do nothing to really forget almost everything that is taught. On average,
improve the situation. teachers tell me they spend a third of the year teach-
This is the attitude of a victim and couldn’t be ing content students should know prior to entering
further from Deming’s teachings. Leaders are re- their classroom. The students “learned the content,”
sponsible for working on their system. Yes, there are wrote it down for an exam or quiz, and promptly did
systemic problems with society and legislation—for a brain dump. (Rating: 10)
instance, problems with a huge impact upon public System Problem No. 2: Data typically is used to rank
education. However, education owns its own set of students, classes, grade levels/departments, or schools,
problems that cannot be solved by either society or not to inform them whether they are improving. Ex-
legislation. Only leaders can fix the education prob- amples of ranking include stickers on walls, forced
lems that education owns. bell curves, and other student-to-student comparisons.
Students rarely see data constructed so that a class-
Rating Scale room is considered a team working together to have as
Cecilia McCain, writing in the September 2006 issue many as possible meet standards, for example, How
of Quality Progress magazine, provided an “Occur- many words can our classroom read in a minute? How
rence Rating Table” that can be of significant help in many ions can the chemistry class identify? At least 1
determining whether something is a system problem of 5 teachers and 1 of 5 schools use data in ways that
or a people problem and which system problems to discourage rather than encourage students. (Rating: 9)
address first. McCain’s scale ranges from 1 to 10,
with 1 meaning the problem has a chance of occur- System Problem No. 3: Students are losing their en-
ring once in 30,000 attempts and 10 meaning the thusiasm for school at an alarming rate. This problem
problem has a 1 in 3 chance of recurring. needs a new level of scoring—an 11. There is a 2 out
For example, you could use this scale to examine of 3 chance a student by the end of grade 8 will have
the use of illegal drugs by school bus drivers. Sup- lost his or her enthusiasm for school.
pose the district has 25 bus drivers driving 180 days a Teachers do not wake up in the morning and ask,
year and another five drivers who work 240 days a “Who can I discourage today?” It is a system prob-
year for a total of 5,700 bus days per school year. If lem. In their respective books, Continuous Improve-
on average one bus driver tests positive for illegal ment in the History/Social Science Classroom and
drugs every six years, this is a level 1 problem. It Continuous Improvement in the Science Classroom,
does not mean that random drug testing should halt, Shelly Carson and Jeff Burgard describe how to stop
but when the one incident does occur, this issue as a this loss of enthusiasm. Their advice was an impor-
whole should not rise to the top of the superinten- tant aspect of the Palatine, IL, school district earning
dent’s priority list. the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in
On the other hand, when an administrator stops 2003.
by a classroom, there is a 1 in 3 chance the teacher Of course leaders of organizations must deal with
will be reteaching something students should have people problems. However, they often attempt to
learned in a prior grade. This is not a people problem; solve a system problem as if it were a people problem.
it is a system problem that is owned by education. (Continued on page 12)


PEGASUS NOTES

(Continued from page 11) Early-Bird Registration for the 2012
When teachers spend a third of Systems Thinking in Action Conference®
their time in review of prior
grades, when data is used to November 12-14, 2012
rank and demoralize rather than
Downtown Marriott Hotel • Indianapolis, Indiana
to energize teams, and when stu-
dents have their intrinsic moti-
“[The 2011
vation removed, system conference] was a “This is
problems are dominating. • “The topics
wow experience. the best
were varied enough for
I can’t stop thinking or conference I
a beginner to engage and
talking about it.” have ever
Lee Jenkins is the director of the track all the way through,
attended!”
From LtoJ Consulting Group as well as keep others
coming back for their
(Lee@LtoJConsulting.com). He is
5th or 10th time.
the co-author of Boot Camp for Well done!”
Leaders in K-12 Education:
Continuous Improvement. This is
The reviews are in—our 21st annual conference was a tremendous success! Take advantage of our
a condensed version of an article
early-bird special to register for Systems Thinking in Action 2012 for only $650—more than
by the same title that appeared in
50% off the full registration fee. You must register by January 31 to take advantage of this special
The School Administrator, Febru-
discounted price!
ary 2007, Number 2, Vol. 64.

Pegasus On-Demand!
The five keynote speakers at this year’s Systems Thinking
THE SYSTEMS THINKER® in Action Conference—Charlotte Roberts, Katie Salen,
David Sibbet, Tom Crum, and Peter Senge—received rave
EDITOR: Janice Molloy
(janicem@pegasuscom.com) reviews. Now you can see them on your own computer through
FOUNDING PUBLISHER: Daniel H. Kim our new Pegasus On-Demand Library.
PRODUCTION: Nancy Daugherty
CIRCULATION: Eric Kraus
(erick@pegasuscom.com)
Pegasus On-Demand provides you with 24/7 access to:
THE SYSTEMS THINKER® explores both the the-
ory and practice of systems thinking and related
organizational development disciplines. Articles
by leading thinkers and practitioners articulate the
# Invaluable tools, tips, and real-world applications of systems thinking to help you
challenges and issues involved in creating organi- successfully improve your organization and achieve the results you want.
zations on the leading edge of innovation. We en-
courage dialogue about systemic issues and
strive to provide a forum for debating such issues.
Unsolicited articles, stories, and letters to the edi-
# Proven techniques for implementing your change management initiatives—
tor are welcome. and making them stick!
THE SYSTEMS THINKER® (ISSN 1050-2726) is
published 10 times a year by Pegasus Communi-
cations, Inc. Signed articles represent the opin- # New webinars each month featuring relevant and innovative thought leaders and
ions of the authors and not necessarily those of practitioners. It’s almost like having your own coaching staff available when
the editors. The list price is $189.00 for one year.
Site licenses, volume discounts, and back issues and where you want!
are also available.
Copyright © 2011 Pegasus Communications, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this news-
letter may be reproduced or transmitted in any For a limited time, view a free webinar by David Sibbet so you can experience the benefits of
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, online access to the ideas and tools you need to improve your team’s performance right now.
including photocopying and recording, or by any
information storage or retrieval system, without You can also preview the entire Pegasus On-Demand Library!
written permission from Pegasus
Communications.
ORDERS AND PAYMENTS INFORMATION
Phone 800-272-0945 • 781-398-9700
• Fax 781-894-7175
customerservice@pegasuscom.com
EDITORIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
Phone 781-398-9700 • Fax 781-894-7175
editorial@pegasuscom.com One Moody Street /
Waltham, MA 02453 USA
www.pegasuscom.com

12 THE SYSTEMS THINKER ® Volume 22, Number 9 Novemberr 2011 © 2011 PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

Published Article: Integrating Systems & Design Thinking

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (11)

Semelhante a Published Article: Integrating Systems & Design Thinking

Semelhante a Published Article: Integrating Systems & Design Thinking (20)