Benefits of Systems Thinking

INTRODUCTION

Systems thinking is a well organised approach of understanding the dynamic relationship between components of a system, so that we can make better choices and avoid unintentional consequences. It’s a conceptual framework for problem-solving which understands and considers the problems in their entirety (Hall, 1999 and Senge 1990). In other words, it can be defined as a view which looks at the ‘system as a whole’ first with its fit and relationship to external environment being a primary concern as compared to the constituent elements that make up the system (Morgan, 2005). It can be used to understand how systems work and how individuals can deal with them, while looking for patterns of interaction and underlying structures which shapes the systems behaviour. As system is a combination of several parts people who understand systems thinking keep one eye on the big picture (i.e. system as a whole) and one on the detail (i.e. constituent’s components), as they recognise that problem in one part of the system can impact other parts and forces patterns of behaviour in the system that lead to crisis (Morgan 2005).

Systems view is a way of positioning and looking into an organisational or systems issue where system boundaries are to be set to determine what parts are contained inside the system and what parts are considered external environment. The environment will certainly influence the problem solving capabilities of the system, but it’s not the part of the whole system (Ackoff, 1971). Outcomes will depend heavily on how a system is defined because system thinking investigates relationships between various parts of the system and its external environment (Montano et. al, 2001).

ADOPTION OF SYSTEMS THINKING

A number of methods, tools and principles cover the concept of systems thinking with a common goal of understanding relationships within the system, as systems thinking works on the hypothesis that there are certain evolving properties of systems that do not exist when systems are disintegrated into individual parts. For example consider a driver who is constantly hitting red lights on the road. If the driver is only noticing one part of the system i.e. red lights, then he will simply decide to speed up to in-order to make the next light before it turns to red. But, if he considers other parts of the system i.e. his car, condition of the road, driving style and the distance between two lights, he will notice that every time he tries to speedup to make a light, it changes to red. His speed is tripping the lights to force him to drive slower. So if he is observing this pattern, he can simply reduce his speed to drive thorough 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 (Morgan, 2005). It’s argued that the emphasis on systems view should begin when a project is started and should continue till the final lessons have been learnt even after completion (Stewart and Fortune, 1995).

Advantages of Systems Thinking

Adopting a view of system thinking can complement conventional styles of research in projects in certain 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.
Systems thinking complements reductionism (the principle that everything can be reduced to its individual parts), analytical analysis (breaking down a system to its smallest components), cause and effect thinking (environment-independent, linear but without feedback loops, closed and defined boundaries), complete determinism (illusion of control) with complexity (a sub-system of larger network), blended structure (explaining the whole system in terms of functions and inter-relationship between parts), circular contributing effects (explaining external environmental influences, performance and feedback) and belief in uncertainty which leads to probabilistic thinking (Schiuma et.al, 2012).
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 practise aimed at disclosing the relationships characterizing a system (Joham et al., 2009 and Pourdehnad, 2007). Such approaches use a non-linear model where different elements are connected through cyclical rather linear cause-and-effect chains. This shows how a system is structured and also shows the nature of interactions among components of the system, which helps in understanding the behavioural patterns characterizing the system under investigation (Schiuma et.al, 2012).
Having a reductionist thinking tends to push the project towards a closed systems view of the environmental i.e. the different phenomenon could be explained as individual and isolated events, which shows that the system and the context are separate, deterministic and predictable. In addition, the casual relationship between different elements is linear in the sense that A affects B which affects B, so such a approach can be used as a process or procedure to track and access results and performance on a operational level rather than on a broader system level.
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 (Stewart and Fortune, 1995).

Disadvantages of Systems Thinking

Although adoption of systems thinking/view is beneficial in some aspects while executing consulting projects, there are still certain 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 e.g. the interconnections or inter-relationships amongst and between the constituent sub-systems (Morgan, 2005). The project and its sub-tasks are totally ignored. Reductionism is no longer appropriate for dynamic projects which comprises of mostly human activities. It encourages fragmentation and isolation of the project which causes undue concern with the individual project activities or sub-systems. This method is makes us smart in micro-level thinking with regard to projects whereas on the other hand it’s 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 certain patter/manner.
Reductionism can’t 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 causality, 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 (Morgan, 2005). The simple approach to cause and effect can’t be implemented in consulting projects with high level of complexity, as it can’t keep up with the complexity of the project. As systems thinking 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 usable 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, resistance to change etc. So, the cycle goes on repeating itself and people, organisations get trapped into fixes which are doomed to fail.
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 threatens some of the established policies and procedures in managing consulting projects, for 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. Some of its ideas such as emergence can be unattractive with project management teams, who are constantly under pressure to give results in short run.
Systems view can also have a disengaging effect on people and organisations that are used to a structured system where projects are planned and targets are met. 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 in terms of intellectual resources as it requires multi-disciplinary approaches to handle wide range of issues and patterns. It requires a significant investment in terms of skills, organisational structure where people are trained across a series of interrelated issues to make systems thinking work, because if they give up on the practise of systems views they will probably get back to much easier conventional approaches (Morgan, 2005).

Conclusion

The implications of systems thinking can be far reaching as it’s 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 (Morgan, 2005). Though it’s best in synthesis, it needs help in terms of practical 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 conclusion, adopting a systems view can contribute in planning and controlling the complexity and uncertainty by embedding flexibility in consulting activities. When implemented and aligned properly, systems view can alleviate the flaws present in the existing frameworks to produce a more general framework which includes both prescriptive and descriptive elements (Montano et. al, 2001). Also, it facilitates the links between project management initiatives and the strategic goals and objectives of an organisation helping in maintain a clear vision of what is being done and why it is being done (Ackoff and Emery, 1972).