systems thinking methodology

• Data Science
• Engineering
• Entrepreneurship
• Technology Insider
• Manufacturing
• MIT Bootcamps
• MIT Open Learning
• MITx MicroMasters Programs
• Online Education
• Professional Development
• Quantum Computing

  View All Posts

By: MIT xPRO on September 14th, 2022 5 Minute Read

Print/Save as PDF

Ask an MIT Professor: What Is System Thinking and Why Is It Important?

Professional Development | Leadership | Systems Thinking

System Thinking Is the Cognitive Skill of the 21st Century

Look around you, and you’ll see: life as we know it is becoming more and more complex. 

From the iPhone in your pocket to the organizations driving public health, national defense, finance, criminal justice, and [insert just about anything else you can imagine], the world is powered by increasingly intricate systems working behind the scenes to integrate countless moving pieces into a meaningful whole. 

“One of the characteristics of the 21st century is that we’re investing more in complexity, and things are just getting damn complicated,” says Professor Edward Crawley , Ford Department of Engineering, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, MIT. 

Professor Crawley is one of the MIT lead faculty instructors for MIT xPRO’s online course on system thinking , a skill that helps organizations examine and simplify complexity, recognize patterns, and create effective solutions to challenges. He considers system thinking “ the cognitive skill of the 21st century.” We recently sat down with Professor Crawley to discuss system thinking and what learners can expect from his course. 

What is system thinking? 

Professor Crawley explains that “system thinking is simply thinking about something as a system: the existence of entities—the parts, the chunks, the pieces—and the relationships between them.” 

There are measures of both performance and complexity in system thinking. “Complexity is what we invest in: more parts, more sophisticated parts, more parts talking to more parts,” Professor Crawley states. “Performance is the benefit that emerges.” 

Who uses system thinking, and how might they use it?

“System thinking is for everyone on this side of the life-death line,” Professor Crawley jokes. Anyone who has taken a course he teaches will tell you that he has an excellent sense of humor.

More specifically, system thinking is broadly used by:

• Leaders who have a high-level view of how different parts of a system fit together and need to be able to step back and see how all the pieces connect.
• Individual contributors who want to understand how the part they’re responsible for fits into the bigger picture so that they can perform at their highest potential.

In a professional setting, leaders and individual contributors use system thinking all the time to understand: 

• How organizations work (e.g., team dynamics) 
• Complex technologies (e.g., smartphones and other devices) 
• The optimal ways to track, organize, and utilize information (e.g., medical records) 
• Intricate processes (e.g., the tax system: who pays taxes, how much they pay, and how the revenue is distributed)

Professor Crawley specializes in using system thinking to understand the space system, exploring the answers to questions like: Who builds the satellites? What orbits are they in? How do they communicate with each other? How can humans produce brilliant images like those from the James Webb Space Telescope ? “Those images are an example of an emergent value proposition that resulted from NASA’s multi-year effort on the James Webb Space Telescope,” remarks Professor Crawley. 

What pedagogical methods and tools do you use to get learners comfortable with system thinking?

The big challenge in being one of the faculty instructors for MIT xPRO’s system thinking course, explains Professor Crawley, is using examples that exhibit just the right amount of complexity. The systems need to be complicated enough that the answers aren’t too obvious but not so complicated that no one can understand how they work, even after learning the tools for system thinking. 

Professor Crawley prefers using examples that he categorizes as “middle-complexity systems that people commonly encounter in their lives.” One example is a bicycle. If a rollerblade is too simple and an automobile is overly complex, a bicycle is just right. “You want to train your mind and train your methodology to think about automobiles, but it’s a hard place to start,” says Professor Crawley. “So you start with the middle-complexity system.” 

Professor Crawley uses these types of examples to teach students:

• The principles underlying the system
• The methods used to think about the system
• The concrete tools that system thinkers activate each day 

What are some challenges learners face during a system thinking course? 

Nevertheless, getting comfortable with system thinking can be extraordinarily challenging for learners! Why? Because system thinking is, in essence, an entirely new way of thinking. 

“You’re literally neurologically tuning up your brain. You’re creating connections between neurons that didn’t exist before because you’re developing new neural pathways that allow you to think about things differently,” states Professor Crawley. 

“I tell my class at MIT at the beginning of the term, ‘I predict that within a week or two, you’ll have headaches,’” he says with a grin. “They look at me and laugh. But sure enough, I check in with them two weeks later, and I’m right.” 

What would you say to someone considering enrolling in a system thinking course? 

“You’ll get over the headaches once the brain is rewired,” Professor Crawley jokes. 

On a serious note, Professor Crawley encourages students to take a system thinking course because learning a new way of thinking about the world is of vital importance in the 21st century. 

“Life is only getting more complex,” he says. If you see him in person, ask him to tell the story about how he and a colleague—two actual rocket scientists—couldn’t figure out how to make a photocopy. “That was two decades ago, and already technology was so complex that you had to be trained to operate it!” he exclaims. 

With devices and organizations becoming ever more complicated, system thinking can give learners the skills to succeed.

Those skills include being able to engage in the unknown and think differently about the relationships between the parts that make up a system; ultimately, learners evolve from reductionist thinkers to integrative thinkers ready to face a limitless future. 

If you’d like the opportunity to learn from Professor Crawley, as well as Professors John Sterman, Daniela Rus, and Hasma Balakrishnan, enroll in MIT xPRO’s 5-week online system thinking course . 

• More about MIT xPRO
• About this Site
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy

Lean Six Sigma Training Certification

• Facebook Instagram Twitter LinkedIn YouTube
• (877) 497-4462

Systems Thinking: A Holistic Approach to Solving Complex Problems

February 22nd, 2024

Everything has become so interconnected, comprising of multi-pronged challenges. We still try to tackle modern problems with linear thinking approaches that isolate problems and reduce complexity.

But, more often than usual, they fall short of providing a viable solution.

Here, systems thinking offers an alternative perspective to understand how things influence one another within embedded contexts.

This holistic approach proves uniquely capable of untangling thorny issues like sustainability , inequality, or emerging diseases and making decision making effective.

As systems thinking gains wider traction, questions arise about what exactly it entails and why it matters. This article maps out the fundamental principles of systems thinking, dynamic tools used, diverse applications across sectors, and the overall benefits of adopting a systems view, especially in 2024.

The systemic perspective holds special relevance for problem solvers and changemakers currently grappling with twisted challenges and complex systems fundamentally shaped by interdependence.

By revealing hidden connections and patented patterns, systems thinking empowers interventions well-matched to our intricately networked world.

From classrooms to boardrooms, systems tools meet teams in any field to support analysis, communication, planning, or evaluation through an inter-relational lens geared to 22nd-century dynamics shaping our existence.

What is Systems Thinking?

Systems thinking is an approach to understanding how things influence one another within a whole entity. Systems thinking studies connections between key parts to see the collective behaviors that result. Expanding perspectives brings clarity to complex situations.

Systems thinking provides a framework for seeing relationships and patterns to explain how systems function. The key concepts include recognizing the interconnected and interdependent nature of systems and shifting from linear to circular causality.

Reductionist Thinking vs. Systems Thinking

In systems thinking, systems behave as integrated wholes in which elements dynamically impact each other over time.

This contrasts with traditional forms of reductionist thinking that isolate parts to understand systems.

Reductionism breaks systems down into discrete elements, rather than examining the fuzzy system boundaries, complex interactions, and unintended consequences that arise within intricate open systems in the real world.

Systems thinking offers a new perspective focused on the linkages, relationships, emergence, and feedback processes underlying systems functioning. By mapping reinforcing and balancing loops, systems thinking can identify behavior-over-time patterns for a system. This helps explain the whole picture better than reductionism.

Key Concepts of Systems Thinking

Several principles form the foundation of systems thinking. First, systems thinking recognizes the importance of feedback loops in driving system behavior. Feedback loops capture how the output of one part of a system impacts the input to another part, creating causal chains.

Reinforcing feedback loops amplify change exponentially while balancing loops counteract the change.

By mapping these feedback loops, system archetypes emerge – common patterns like limits to growth, escalation, and tragedy of the commons. These system archetypes help diagnose systemic issues, revealing core interrelating dynamics.

System archetypes function as conceptual models for understanding challenges like sustainability, urban decay, and organizational change.

In complex systems, leverage points serve as places to intervene for substantial impact. The goal is to identify where minimal effort shifts the system, through changes to parameters, feedback loops, or paradigm-shifting transformations at the level of goals or mindsets. This contrasts with incidental low-leverage tweaks.

Changing social or ecological systems often involves unintended consequences. However each system has interconnections, time delays, and complex human motivations at play. These can undermine change efforts when not adequately mapped and anticipated.

Systems thinking aims to reveal these unintended ripple effects so they can be weighed when leveraging change.

So, while unintended consequences often limit pure design, systems thinking provides insights to navigate reform more wisely. By elevating awareness of inter-dependencies and causal loops, one can recognize patterns, structures, boundaries, and relationships fundamental to systems insights.

Using Systems Thinking Approaches

Systems thinkers employ various conceptual tools to understand systems, communicate about them, and guide interventions.

Causality mapping visually depicts variables in a system, their connections, and the direction of causal influence. This illumination of causal links reveals chains of systemic connectivity not otherwise apparent. It supports the analysis of cascading effects and feedback dynamics.

Systems mapping outlines key system components, their attributes and functions, and interrelationships. This structural perspective clarifies the organization of various elements into an integrated whole.

Systems mapping tools can also overlay dynamic processes like information flows and decision pathways to evaluate systemic leverage points.

Mental models strongly shape how people perceive systems and strategic choices within them. Two people can have divergent understandings of the same system. Reflecting critically on how mental models influence thinking is crucial for expanding limited mindsets that bound perspectives on addressing systemic issues.

More detailed system dynamics computer simulations help model system behavior by mapping dynamic complexity. This computational modeling integrates time delays, feedback processes, stocks, and flows to run long-term scenario forecasts for deeper analysis of complex systems like ecosystems, markets, or hospitals.

Adaptive systems thinkers also recognize that models have limits and that systems change over time in nonlinear ways. Rather than attempting precise prediction and control, adaptive approaches use feedback to dynamically adjust interventions according to emergent system patterns.

This flexibility to meet systems in flux is well-suited for catalyzing change in complex contexts.

Applying Systems Thinking

Systems thinking has powerful and diverse applications across sectors:

In business, systems thinking helps managers gain perspective on organizational challenges and identify root causes of problems like low morale or stagnant sales. By mapping reinforcing loops, leaders can find intervention points to shift momentum.

Systems thinking offers analytic tools to rethink structures, decision processes, and feedback channels for organizational change.

Government policymakers similarly utilize systems approaches to craft robust public policies able to balance social, environmental and , outcomes. Methodologies like group model building bring together diverse stakeholders to map out key system relationships as part of the policy design process.

This systems perspective enables policies attuned to ripple effects.

Nonprofit organizations working on social change also apply systems thinking to guide advocacy and programming. For instance, systems tools like behavior over time graphs and connection circles help groups explicitly map the structural causes perpetuating social problems like homelessness at a community level.

This equips nonprofits to pursue systemic intervention points.

More broadly, systems thinking skills help strengthen collaborative problem solving in teams. Facilitating activities that surface mental models, unpack complex dynamics, and scan for unintended consequences builds shared systemic understanding to transform discussion and explore structural solutions.

Overall, systems thinking fosters paradigm shifts towards interconnected, ecological, and holistic thinking in any problem solving context. This empowers more responsible decision-making.

Benefits of Systems Thinking

Adopting a systems thinking perspective carries many advantages:

Systems thinking allows one to see situations more completely rather than getting lost in details. By focusing on interconnections and processes that link system elements, systems thinking provides a “big picture” orientation. This expanded framework reveals areas of critical linkage within the messiness of complex contexts.

A systems view also aids in identifying types of high-leverage interventions amidst complexity. For instance, by mapping system archetypes like limits to growth or tragedy of the commons, one can pinpoint potent areas to reroute damaging feedback loops.

A systems lens highlights openings for targeted changes to cascade through interconnected subsystems.

Systems thinking also anticipates longer-term consequences of potential actions. By tracing causal threads through a system, secondary and tertiary effects are revealed that may otherwise go unseen.

This equips better foresight for the unintended impacts that might ripple across time and space from well-intentioned interventions.

Additionally, systems thinking brings order and coherence to complexity. By surfacing the organic patterning at play, systems tools decode complex dynamics in understandable yet nuanced ways.

Conceptual frameworks like stocks and flows clarify the structural forces driving issues like urban brain drain or suburban sprawl without oversimplifying.

In all of these ways, systems thinking empowers solutions better aligned to real-world complexity while still providing transformational direction. It permeates analysis with key principles of inter-relationship, temporality, perspectival flexibility, and buried connectivity – allowing insight into predicaments otherwise overwhelming.

Systems Thinking in Practice

For those first learning systems thinking, frustrations can arise. Ingrained linear thinking patterns clash with the new multidimensional perspective. Beginners also face cognitive overload wrestling with interconnections between system elements. However, skills gradually build from foundational concepts towards adept systems analysis.

With consistent practice, systems thinkers progress to parsing dynamics of specialized contexts like public health, smart grids, or supply chains. These domain experts learn to rapidly orient to unfamiliar systems through a systemic lens to ask probing questions.

Expanding one’s toolkit with advanced skills like system dynamics modeling and group facilitation extends capabilities to address complex settings.

Some systems thinkers like Donella Meadows significantly advance the field through groundbreaking applications. Meadows demonstrated deep systems wisdom over her career with The Limits to Growth and pioneering system dynamics methodologies.

These mentors develop strong systemic intuition after internalizing inter-relational patterns for decades. Their capacity to shift mental models in themselves and others unlocks societal transformation.

Ultimately, accomplished systems thinkers heed the call to teach others systemic perspectives that spread. Skills-building workshops on causal loop mapping, systems archetypes, communication tactics, and facilitation techniques proliferate systems literacy.

Outreach occurs across diverse communities given universal relevance. Each effort to cultivate systems thinking and broaden capacity for recognizing systemic leverage sustains movement toward positive change.

SixSigma.us offers both Live Virtual classes as well as Online Self-Paced training. Most option includes access to the same great Master Black Belt instructors that teach our World Class in-person sessions. Sign-up today!

Virtual Classroom Training Programs Self-Paced Online Training Programs

SixSigma.us Accreditation & Affiliations

Monthly Management Tips

• Be the first one to receive the latest updates and information from 6Sigma
• Get curated resources from industry-experts
• Gain an edge with complete guides and other exclusive materials
• Become a part of one of the largest Six Sigma community
• Unlock your path to become a Six Sigma professional

" * " indicates required fields

• Reviews / Why join our community?
• For companies
• Frequently asked questions

Systems Thinking

What is systems thinking.

Systems thinking is an approach that designers use to analyze problems in an appropriate context. By looking beyond apparent problems to consider a system as a whole, designers can expose root causes and avoid merely treating symptoms. They can then tackle deeper problems and be more likely to find effective solutions. 

“You have to look at everything as a system and you have to make sure you're getting at the underlying root causes.”

— Don Norman, “Grand Old Man of User Experience” 

See why systems thinking helps prevent wasted time and resources on the wrong problem.

• Transcript loading…

Everything is a System: Think of Each as One

Systems surround us, including within our own bodies, and they’re often highly complex. For example, that’s why doctors must know patients’ medical histories before prescribing them medicines. However, our brains are hardwired to find simple, direct causes of problems from the effects we see. We typically isolate issues we notice by considering how to combat their symptoms, since we’re more comfortable with “If X, then Y” cause-and-effect relationships. Cognitive science and usability engineering expert Don Norman identifies the need for designers to push far beyond this tendency if they want to address serious global-level problems effectively. That’s why systems thinking is not only an essential ingredient of 21st century design but also a principle of human-centered design .

The concept of systems thinking emerged in 1956, when Professor Jay W. Forrester of MIT’s Sloan School of Management created the Systems Dynamic Group. Its purpose was to predict system behavior graphically, including through the behavior over time graph and causal loop diagram. For designers, systems thinking is therefore vital to tackling larger global evils such as hunger, poor sanitation and environmental abuse. Norman calls such problems complex socio-technical systems , which, like wicked problems , are:

●      Difficult to define.

●      Complex systems.

●      Difficult to know how to approach.

●      Difficult to know whether a solution has worked.

The danger of not using a systems thinking approach is that we might oversimplify a situation, take problems out of context, treat symptoms and end up making matters even worse. Norman considers electric vehicles an example of an apparently good solution (to pollution) that can obscure what should be the real focus. If the fuel source that generates their electricity comes from coal, etc., it defeats the purpose and, worse, could cause even more world-damaging pollution, especially if so much electricity perishes between the generating source and the consumers’ power supply.  

© Daniel Skrok and Interaction Design Foundation, CC BY-SA 3.0

How to Use Systems Thinking in Design

Systems thinking is also the third principle of humanity-centered design ; therefore, integrate it within this approach:

●      Be people-centered. Spend a long time living among the people you want to help, to understand the true nature of their problems, their viewpoints and solutions they’ve tried. For example, a village’s crops might be failing even though the water source seems adequate.

●      Solve the right problem . Closely examine the factors driving the people’s problems. Try the 5 Whys approach. E.g., the soil is damp enough, so might it be exhausted of nutrients? Or does it contain toxins? Why? Sewage? If not, what then?

●      Consider everything as a system . Now, leverage systems thinking to untangle as many parts of the problem(s) as possible. Complex socio-technical systems such as (potential) famine demand hard investigation and working alongside others: principally, the community concerned; so:

Keep consulting the community leaders for their insights into the problems you uncover.

Evaluate the feedback loops . E.g., the collected clean water from a small stream and secondary well should be enough to irrigate the village’s few fields. The people seem to be doing things correctly: using pipes and a small ditch they’ve diverted from the stream and enclosed using plastic sheets strung over metal frames. The soil is adequately fertilized; the farmers water after dusk (operating taps and a sluice from the tunnel). Still, the problem persists.

Dig past the apparent problems to root causes. E.g., thinking of the village’s irrigation system as a system, you notice it’s not the amount of water or soil quality . The water is slightly too hot — due to the dark-colored plastic pipes and the black plastic sheeting of the improvised tunnel — for the crops to handle.

●      Proceed towards a viable solution using incrementalism :

Wait for the opportunity to do a small test of the small-scale solution you’ve co-created with the community. E.g., fortunately, here, a good solution involves just lightening the color of the irrigation system to reflect sunlight. The village has enough white paint for the pipes, and you collect white sheeting and tarpaulins to cover the stream tunnel.

If it’s successful, evaluate how successful; then adapt and modify it or repeat it several times until you fine-tune a sustainable solution. E.g., fortunately, you just need to find more light-colored tarpaulins.

Overall, systems thinking is about reframing a problem to expose its addressable underlying causes. Thinking broadly, you can deduce real problems and stop to consider potential solutions with (e.g.) design thinking . That’s how community-driven projects — and people-centered design — arrive at inventive, economical and culturally acceptable best-possible solutions.

Learn More about Systems Thinking

Use the 5 Whys method to help you find the root causes. Take our 21st Century Design course with Don Norman if you want to dig deeper and help solve some of the world’s most complex problems. You can of course also use the insights to design “normal” products and services.

If you want to know more about how you can apply system thinking and many other humanity-centered design tools to help solve the world’s biggest problems you can take our course Design for a Better World with Don Norman .

Here’s an article on why we need to see our work through a systems thinking lens .

Here’s another designer’s insight-rich piece about what systems thinking means and how it’s related to design thinking .

Answer a Short Quiz to Earn a Gift

Why is systems thinking important in complex design problems?

• It encourages reliance on first impressions.
• It focuses solely on the end product.
• It helps designers understand and address the root causes of problems.

What tool do designers use in systems thinking to predict outcomes over time?

• Aesthetic assessments
• Behavior over time graphs
• Immediate feedback loops

How does systems thinking benefit community-driven projects?

• It encourages isolated interventions.
• It focuses on quick fixes.
• It promotes incremental changes after understanding the system.

Who founded the Systems Dynamic Group and contributed to the development of systems thinking?

• Jay W. Forrester

Which global challenges does systems thinking help address according to systems thinking principles?

• Complex socio-technical systems like hunger and environmental issues.
• Short-term marketing goals.
• Technical malfunctions like 404 error pages and broken call-to-action (CTA) buttons.

Better luck next time!

Do you want to improve your UX / UI Design skills? Join us now

Congratulations! You did amazing

You earned your gift with a perfect score! Let us send it to you.

Check Your Inbox

We’ve emailed your gift to [email protected] .

Literature on Systems Thinking

Here’s the entire UX literature on Systems Thinking by the Interaction Design Foundation, collated in one place:

Learn more about Systems Thinking

Take a deep dive into Systems Thinking with our course Design for the 21st Century with Don Norman .

In this course, taught by your instructor, Don Norman, you’ll learn how designers can improve the world , how you can apply human-centered design to solve complex global challenges , and what 21st century skills you’ll need to make a difference in the world . Each lesson will build upon another to expand your knowledge of human-centered design and provide you with practical skills to make a difference in the world.

“The challenge is to use the principles of human-centered design to produce positive results, products that enhance lives and add to our pleasure and enjoyment. The goal is to produce a great product, one that is successful, and that customers love. It can be done.” — Don Norman

All open-source articles on Systems Thinking

What are wicked problems and how might we solve them.

Which Skills Does a 21st Century Designer Need to Possess?

• 2 years ago

System Usability Scale for Data-Driven UX

Human-Centered Design: How to Focus on People When You Solve Complex Global Challenges

• 3 years ago

Open Access—Link to us!

We believe in Open Access and the  democratization of knowledge . Unfortunately, world-class educational materials such as this page are normally hidden behind paywalls or in expensive textbooks.

If you want this to change , cite this page , link to us, or join us to help us democratize design knowledge !

Privacy Settings

Our digital services use necessary tracking technologies, including third-party cookies, for security, functionality, and to uphold user rights. Optional cookies offer enhanced features, and analytics.

Experience the full potential of our site that remembers your preferences and supports secure sign-in.

Governs the storage of data necessary for maintaining website security, user authentication, and fraud prevention mechanisms.

Enhanced Functionality

Saves your settings and preferences, like your location, for a more personalized experience.

Referral Program

We use cookies to enable our referral program, giving you and your friends discounts.

Error Reporting

We share user ID with Bugsnag and NewRelic to help us track errors and fix issues.

Optimize your experience by allowing us to monitor site usage. You’ll enjoy a smoother, more personalized journey without compromising your privacy.

Analytics Storage

Collects anonymous data on how you navigate and interact, helping us make informed improvements.

Differentiates real visitors from automated bots, ensuring accurate usage data and improving your website experience.

Lets us tailor your digital ads to match your interests, making them more relevant and useful to you.

Advertising Storage

Stores information for better-targeted advertising, enhancing your online ad experience.

Personalization Storage

Permits storing data to personalize content and ads across Google services based on user behavior, enhancing overall user experience.

Advertising Personalization

Allows for content and ad personalization across Google services based on user behavior. This consent enhances user experiences.

Enables personalizing ads based on user data and interactions, allowing for more relevant advertising experiences across Google services.

Receive more relevant advertisements by sharing your interests and behavior with our trusted advertising partners.

Enables better ad targeting and measurement on Meta platforms, making ads you see more relevant.

Allows for improved ad effectiveness and measurement through Meta’s Conversions API, ensuring privacy-compliant data sharing.

LinkedIn Insights

Tracks conversions, retargeting, and web analytics for LinkedIn ad campaigns, enhancing ad relevance and performance.

LinkedIn CAPI

Enhances LinkedIn advertising through server-side event tracking, offering more accurate measurement and personalization.

Google Ads Tag

Tracks ad performance and user engagement, helping deliver ads that are most useful to you.

Share Knowledge, Get Respect!

or copy link

Cite according to academic standards

Simply copy and paste the text below into your bibliographic reference list, onto your blog, or anywhere else. You can also just hyperlink to this page.

New to UX Design? We’re Giving You a Free ebook!

Download our free ebook The Basics of User Experience Design to learn about core concepts of UX design.

In 9 chapters, we’ll cover: conducting user interviews, design thinking, interaction design, mobile UX design, usability, UX research, and many more!

Understanding Systems Thinking: A Guide to the Key Concepts and Benefits

Updated: April 10, 2023 by Ken Feldman

The famed statistician and quality consultant, Dr. W. Edwards Deming, defined a system as “…. a network of interdependent components that work together to try to accomplish the aim of the system. A system must have an aim. Without the aim, there is no system.”

Systems thinking is based on the concept that it is better to view all the components as a whole rather than as individual components, while focusing on the interrelationship of the individual components.

Overview: What is systems thinking? 

Systems thinking is based upon the concept that a ll systems are composed of interconnected parts. These connections and interrelationships cause behavior of one part to impact another. All parts are connected.

Key elements of a system are:

• Input, Processing, and Output 
• Environment

Problems that are ideal for a systems thinking intervention have the following characteristics:

• The issue is important.
• The problem is chronic and ongoing and not just a one-time event.
• The problem is familiar and has a known history.
• Previous attempts to solve the problem have failed.

Key concepts of systems thinking:

• Interconnectedness – everything is connected
• Synthesis – Synthesis is about understanding the whole and the parts at the same time, along with the relationships and the connections that make up the whole. This is different from analysis which is the dissection of complexity into manageable individual components.
• Emergence – Emergence is the outcome of the synergies and interrelationships of the parts.
• Feedback Loops – Since everything is interconnected in systems thinking, there are constant feedback loops and flows between the elements of the system.

The graph below illustrates the difference between systems thinking and non-systems thinking concepts.

Difference in concepts between systems and non systems thinking

Tools of systems thinking used to collect, analyze, synthesize, and develop system insights are:

• ladder of inference 
• behavior-over-time graph 
• connection circle 
• stock-flow map 
• iceberg visual 
• causal loop diagram. 

3 benefits of systems thinking 

As the world becomes more complex, systems thinking will provide you the following benefits:

• See the bigger picture 

Systems thinking allows you to view things from the 30,000-foot perspective rather than from ground level. 

• Greater clarity 

By zooming out and viewing the wider process, you can see the interrelationships and interactions between your system elements.

• Understand and fix the “problems that never seem to go away”

Most problems are caused by the interaction of things rather than only by the individual element. Systems thinking will help you better understand these interactions so you can solve the more complex and chronic problems you always seem to have. 

Why is systems thinking important to understand? 

In a world where interconnectedness and complexity exists understanding systems thinking offers you a disciplined approach to find innovative solutions to problems.

Encourage a big picture perspective

By understanding the system’s interconnected parts, their historical evolution and their relationships with each other, systems thinkers can look for other optional ways of achieving system improvement 

See problems as opportunities 

Without a way to see problems in the context of a complex, interconnected whole system, solving problems using linear thinking risks making your problem more complex.  

Understand and prepare for rapid change 

Systems thinking offers a way to better predict future outcomes—based not on past events, but on a more insightful understanding of the surrounding environment and its elements.

An industry example of systems thinking

One of the classic examples showing the contrast between systems and non-systems thinking relates to a problem at the Washington Monument in Washington, D.C. The problem was the surface of the monument was disintegrating. A team was formed to analyze the problem. They initially used the 5 Why technique, which is a version of the cause and effect technique. 

Every time they thought they solved the problem; they created a new one. Eventually they stood back and viewed the problem through the lens of systems thinking rather than individual events. The solution was quick and inexpensive. Here was the thought process:

• Why is the Monument disintegrating? – Because of the use of harsh chemicals. 
• Why are harsh chemicals being used? – To clean pigeon poop – solution is to change chemicals. 
• Why are there so many pigeons? – They eat spiders and there are a lot of spiders at the monument – solution is to put up insect netting.
• Why so many spiders? – They eat gnats and there are lots of gnats at the monument.
• Why so many gnats? – They are attracted to the light at dusk. 

Solution: Turn on the lights 30 minutes later. 

3 best practices when thinking about systems thinking 

Here are a few tips for effectively using systems thinking. .

• Ask different questions

Try to ask questions about underlying structural relationships or patterns of behavior exhibited over time. Focus on potential delays, balancing or reinforcing processes, and unintended consequences. Use circular rather than linear thinking.  

• Search out and use feedback loops

Information gleaned from your system feedback loops will give you insight into potential relationships and interactions between process elements and the subsequent impacts. 

• Think about system boundaries 

Understand what elements of your process are part of the system and what is in the surrounding environment that may change and affect the state of the system. To draw this boundary you need to know your scope of action, what you can alter and what lies beyond your ability to directly change.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about systems thinking

What is the opposite of systems thinking.

Systems thinking is circular in nature while non-system thinking is linear. System thinking looks at the whole and the relationship of the parts. Non-system linear thinking looks at the individual components of the process.

What is systems thinking?

Systems thinking is a management approach that views a system as a set of linkages and interactions between the components which make up the entire defined system.

What are the basic concepts of systems thinking?

• Interconnectedness – Everything is connected.
• Causality – In systems thinking, causality is about being able to understand the way the parts of the system influence each other.
• Systems Mapping – Here you Identify and map the elements within a system to understand how they interconnect, relate and act in the overall system.

Systems thinking is based on the concept that the parts of a system or process are all connected and the relationship between these parts drives the behavior and outcomes of the system. By seeking to understand the connectedness of all the components you can understand how the process works and can gain insights to allow for system improvements.

About the Author

Ken Feldman

Systems Thinking Methodologies

• First Online: 05 March 2017

Cite this chapter

• Haim Shaked 3 &
• Chen Schechter 4  

1716 Accesses

In order to understand how systems thinking can be used as a management approach, we turn to the most significant past attempts that have been undertaken to apply a holistic approach for improving organizational performance. For this purpose, this chapter provides a review of some of the best-known and most useful holistic approaches to management, all of which make use of systems thinking. According to these approaches, applied systems thinking is a highly structured procedure, which involves a series of steps requiring much attention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Ackoff, R. (2001). A brief guide to interactive planning and idealized design . Retrieved from http://www.ida.liu.se/~steho/und/htdd01/AckoffGuidetoIdealizedRedesign.pdf

Allen, P. M. (2001). A complex systems approach to learning in adaptive networks. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5 (2), 150–180.

Article   Google Scholar  

Beer, S. (1972). Brain of the firm . London, UK: Allen Lane.

Google Scholar  

Beer, S. (1974). Designing freedom . Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

Beeson, I., & Davis, C. (2000). Emergence and accomplishment in organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13 (2), 178–189.

Boal, K. B., & Schultz, P. L. (2007). Storytelling, time and evolution: The role of strategic leadership in complex adaptive systems. The Leadership Quarterly, 18 (4), 411–428.

Brown, J. (2012). Systems thinking strategy: The new way to understand your business and drive performance. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse.

Burnes, B. (2005). Complexity theories and organizational change. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7 (2), 73–90.

Burns, A., & Knox, J. S. (2011). Classrooms as complex adaptive systems: A relational model. Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language , 15 (1). Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume15/ej57/ej57a1/

Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice . Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice; Soft systems methodology: A 30 year retrospective . Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

Chiva-Gomez, R. (2003). The facilitating factors for organizational learning: Bringing ideas from complex adaptive systems. Knowledge and Process Management, 10 (2), 99–114.

Choi, S. K., & Brower, R. S. (2006). When practice matters more than government plans: A network analysis of local emergency management. Administration and Society, 37 (6), 651–678.

Choi, T. Y., Dooley, K. J., & Rungtusanatham, M. (2001). Supply networks and complex adaptive systems: Control versus emergence. Journal of Operations Management, 19 (3), 351–366.

Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics . Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

Forrester, J. W. (1968). Principles of systems . Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

Jackson, M. C. (2003). Systems thinking: Creative holism for managers . Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

Johnson, N. (2010). Simply complexity: A clear guide to complexity theory . Oxford, UK: Oneworld.

Jolly, R. (2015). Systems thinking for business: Capitalize on structures hidden in plain sight . Portland, OR: Systems Solutions.

Lichtenstein, B. B., & Plowman, D. A. (2009). The leadership of emergence: A complex systems leadership theory of emergence at successive organizational levels. The Leadership Quarterly, 20 (4), 617–630.

Lord, R. G. (2008). Beyond transactional and transformational leadership: Can leaders still lead when they don’t know what to do? In M. Uhl-Bien & R. Marion (Eds.), Complexity leadership, Part 1: Conceptual foundations (pp. 155–184). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Macadam, R. D., & Packham, R. G. (1989). A case study in the use of soft systems methodology: Restructuring an academic organisation to facilitate the education of systems agriculturalists. Agricultural Systems, 30 (4), 351–367.

Mandviwalla, M., & Schuff, D. (2014). Reimagining the higher education experience as a socially-enabled complex adaptive system . Paper presented at the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, Hawaii.

Meek, J. W., De Ladurantey, J., & Newell, W. H. (2007). Complex systems, governance, and policy administration consequences. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 9 (1–2), 22–33.

Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2003). Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on organisations: The application of complexity theory to organisations . Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Mitroff, I. I., & Emshoff, J. R. (1979). On strategic assumption-making: A dialectical approach to policy and planning. Academy of Management Review, 4 (1), 1–12.

Morcol, G. (2005). A new systems thinking: Implications of the sciences of complexity for public policy and administration. Public Administration Quarterly, 29 (3), 297–320.

Newell, C. (2008). The class as a learning entity (complex adaptive system): An idea from complexity science and educational research. Simon Fraser University Educational Review, 2 (1), 5–17.

O’Day, J. A. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72 (3), 293–329.

Olson, E., & Eoyang, G. (2001). Facilitating organization change: Lessons from complexity science . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Patel, N. V. (1995). Application of soft systems methodology to the real world process of teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Management, 9 (1), 13–23.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization . New York, NY: Currency, Doubleday.

Senge, P. M., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2012). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents and everyone who cares about education . New York, NY: Crown.

Stacey, R. D. (2001). Complex responsive process in organizations: Learning and knowledge creation . London, UK: Routledge.

Stacey, R. D., Griffin, D., & Shaw, P. (2002). Complexity and management: Fad or radical challenge to systems thinking . London, UK: Routledge.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Marion, R. (2009). Complexity leadership in bureaucratic forms of organizing: A meso model. The Leadership Quarterly, 20 (4), 631–650.

Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical heuristics of social planning: A new approach to practical philosophy . Bern, Switzerland: Haupt.

Wells, C., & Keane, W. G. (2008). Building capacity for professional learning communities through a systems approach: A toolbox for superintendents. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 4 (4), 24–32.

Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics, or communication and control in the animal and the machine . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wiener, N. (1954). The human use of human beings: Cybernetics and society . London, UK: Eyre and Spottiswoode.

Wilson, B., & Van Haperen, K. (2015). Soft systems thinking, methodology and the management of change . London, UK: Palgrave.

Book   Google Scholar  

Yadin, A. (2013). Soft systems methodology in an educational context: Enhancing students’ perception and understanding. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 3 (5), 351–356.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Hemdat Hadarom College of Education, Netivot, Israel

Haim Shaked

Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

Chen Schechter

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Haim Shaked .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Shaked, H., Schechter, C. (2017). Systems Thinking Methodologies. In: Systems Thinking for School Leaders. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53571-5_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53571-5_3

Published : 05 March 2017

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-53570-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-53571-5

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Digital transformation

systems thinking

• Ben Lutkevich, Site Editor

What is systems thinking?

Systems thinking is a holistic approach to analysis that focuses on the way that a system's constituent parts interrelate and how systems work over time and within the context of larger systems. The systems thinking approach contrasts with traditional analysis , which studies systems by breaking them down into their separate elements.

Systems thinking can be used in any area of research and has been applied to the study of medical, environmental, political, economic, human resources, and educational systems, among many others.

Characteristics of systems thinking

According to systems thinking, system behavior results from the effects of reinforcing and balancing processes. A reinforcing process leads to the increase of some system component. If reinforcement is unchecked by a balancing process, it eventually leads to collapse. A balancing process is one that tends to maintain equilibrium in a particular system.

Attention to feedback is an essential component of system thinking. For example, in project management , prevailing wisdom may prescribe the addition of workers to a project that is lagging. However, in practice, that tactic might have actually slowed development in the past. Attention to that relevant feedback can allow management to look for other solutions rather than wasting resources on an approach that has been demonstrated to be counterproductive.

Methodologies of systems thinking

Systems thinking uses computer simulation and a variety of diagrams and graphs to model, illustrate, and predict system behavior. Among the systems thinking tools include the following:

• The behavior over time (BOT) graph, which indicates the actions of one or more variables over a period of time.
• The causal loop diagram (CLD), which illustrates the relationships between system elements.
• The management flight simulator, which uses an interactive program to simulate the effects of management decisions.
• The simulation model, which simulates the interaction of system elements over time.

History of systems thinking

Systems thinking originated in 1956 when Professor Jay Forrester founded the Systems Dynamic Group at MIT's Sloan School of Management.

Continue Reading About systems thinking

• Ultimate guide to business intelligence in the enterprise
• CIO on the importance of holistic data collection and analysis methods
• 6 challenges of building predictive analytics models
• Data warehouses and holistic business intelligence
• The growing importance of critical thinking in IT education

Related Terms

Dig deeper on digital transformation.

model-based systems engineering (MBSE)

service virtualization

Systems Modeling Language (SysML)

Unified Modeling Language (UML)

The different types of private cloud offer varying levels of control, customization and convenience. These factors affect the ...

Private cloud doesn't have to break the bank. Use these best practices to implement an intentional cost management strategy that ...

Are you ready for the newest version of the CompTIA Cloud+ exam? Learn exam prep tips from the author of The Official CompTIA ...

Dell continues to cut its workforce to become 'leaner,' as it repositions for changes in the enterprise PC market that are ...

Tap to Pay makes it possible to accept customer payments from an iPhone with no additional hardware. Find out the best use cases ...

Mobile devices bring their own set of challenges and risks to enterprise security. To handle mobile-specific threats, IT should ...

Tests off coastlines around the world are measuring the feasibility of underwater data centers. With proper maintenance and ...

Sustainable and renewable energy sources are necessary for data centers to meet emissions requirements by 2030. Nuclear power is ...

Intel's failure to profit from the red-hot AI market is behind plans to cut 15,000 jobs. The workforce reduction is part of a $10...

Organizations face various business risks related to environmental, social and governance issues. These are notable ones, with ...

The hype surrounding artificial intelligence has extended to its use in ESG. But, as in other areas, AI is no panacea. Learn how ...

Understanding the nuances of ESG investing, SRI and impact investing is important for companies and investors. Learn what they ...

A system must be managed. It will not manage itself. Left to themselves, components become selfish, competitive, independent profit centers, and thus destroy the system. The secret is cooperation between components toward the aim of the organization. —W. Edwards Deming

Principle #2 – Apply systems thinking

The four foundational bodies of knowledge that inform SAFe are systems thinking, Agile development, Lean product development, and DevOps. Systems thinking takes a holistic approach to solution development, incorporating all aspects of a system and its environment into the system’s design, development, deployment, and maintenance.

Figure 1 illustrates three primary aspects of systems thinking.

Understanding these concepts helps leaders and teams navigate the complexity of solution development, the organization, and the larger picture of total time-to-market. Each is described in the following sections.

The Solution Is a System

• Team members must clearly understand the system boundaries and how it interacts with the environment and the systems around it.
• Optimizing a component of the system does not optimize the whole system. Components can become selfish and hog the resources—computing power, memory, electrical power, whatever—that other elements need.
• For the system to behave well, teams must understand the intended behavior and architecture (how the components work together to accomplish the system’s aim). Intentional design is fundamental to systems thinking.
• The value of a system passes through its interconnections. Those interfaces—and the dependencies they create—are critical to providing ultimate value. Continuous attention to those interfaces and interactions is vital.
• A system can evolve no faster than its slowest integration point. The faster the full system can be integrated and evaluated, the quicker the system knowledge grows.

The Enterprise Building the System Is a System, Too

There’s a second aspect to systems thinking: the people, management, and processes of the organization that builds the system are also a system. The understanding that ‘systems must be managed’ applies here as well. Otherwise, the components of the organization building the system will optimize locally and become selfish, limiting the speed and quality of value delivery. This leads to another set of systems thinking insights about the enterprise:

• Building complex systems is a social endeavor. Therefore, leaders must cultivate an environment where people collaborate on the best way to build better systems.
• Suppliers and customers are integral to the development value stream. Both must be treated as partners based on a long-term foundation of trust.
• Optimizing a component does not optimize the system in this case, either. Therefore optimizing local teams or functional departments does not enhance the flow of value through the enterprise.
• And as with physical systems, the value of the system passes through its interfaces here too. Accelerating flow requires eliminating functional silos and creating cross-functional organizations, such as Agile Teams, Agile Release Trains (ARTs), and Solution Trains.

Understand and Optimize the Full Development Value Stream

Development value streams are fundamental to SAFe. A SAFe portfolio is a collection of development value streams, each delivering one or more solutions to the market. As illustrated in Figure 2, each development value stream consists of the steps necessary to integrate and deploy a new concept through a new or existing system.

Understanding and optimizing the entire development value stream—the third aspect of systems thinking—is the only way to reduce the total time it takes to go from concept to cash [2]. Systems thinking mandates that leaders and practitioners grasp and continuously optimize the entire development value stream, especially as it crosses technical and organizational boundaries.

One essential process is Value Stream Mapping, a systematic way to view all the steps required to produce value. Value stream mapping (Figure 3) helps leaders quickly recognize that the actual value-added steps—creating code and components, deployment, validation, etc.—consume only a small portion of the total time-to-market. This recognition drives these leaders to constantly focus on the delays between steps.

Note that in this example, almost all the time between a feature request and deployment is wait time, resulting in a highly inefficient process.

Only Management Can Change the System

“ Everyone is already doing their best; the problems are with the system … only management can change the system.”

—W. Edwards Deming

This Deming quote prepares us for a final set of insights. Systems thinking requires a new approach to management as well, a perspective where managers are problem solvers, take the long view, proactively eliminate impediments, and lead the changes necessary to improve systems and performance. These Lean-Agile Leaders :

• Exhibit and teach systems thinking and Lean-Agile values, principles, and practices
• Engage in solving problems and eliminating roadblocks and ineffective internal systems
• Apply and teach root-cause analysis and corrective action techniques
• Collaborate with the teams to reflect at key Milestones and identify and address shortcomings
• Take a long-term view, investing in enabling capabilities such as infrastructure, practices, tools, and training that lead to faster value delivery, better quality, and higher productivity
• Foster a Continuous Learning Culture that includes relentless improvement in the application of systems thinking

Understanding the elements of systems thinking helps leaders and teams recognize the ‘why’ and the ‘what’ of their actions, as well as the impact on those around them. This understanding leads to a leaner, smarter enterprise that can better navigate organization and solution development complexities. And that results in better business outcomes.

Last update: 26 September 2023

Privacy Overview

Mutual Responsibility

We are a non-profit organization Humanity Integrated that is comprised of people who find themselves in the most interesting yet trying times of human evolution – the time of global crisis, which is the first stage of a profound change.

What Is Systems Thinking? – Peter Senge Explains Systems Thinking Approach And Principles

http://youtu.be/HOPfVVMCwYg

What Is Systems Thinking?

Whenever I’m trying to help people understand what this word ‘system’ means, I usually start by asking: ‘Are you a part of a family?’ Everybody is a part of a family. ‘Have you ever seen in a family, people producing consequences in the family, how people act, how people feel, that aren’t what anybody intends?’ Yes. ‘How does that happen?’ Well… then people tell their stories and think about it. But that then grounds people in not the jargon of ‘system’ or ‘systems thinking’ but the reality – that we live in webs of interdependence.”

What Is The Fundamental Rationale Of Systems Thinking?

[The fundamental rationale of systems thinking] is to understand how it is that the problems that we all deal with, which are the most vexing, difficult and intransigent, come about, and to give us some perspective on those problems [in order to] give us some leverage and insight as to what we might do differently.”

3 Characteristics Of A Systems Thinking Approach

A very deep and persistent commitment to ‘real learning.’ I have to be prepared to be wrong. If it was pretty obvious what we ought to be doing, then we’d be already doing it. So I’m part of the problem, my own way of seeing things, my own sense of where there’s leverage, is probably part of the problem. This is the domain we’ve always called ‘mental models.’ If I’m not prepared to challenge my own mental models, then the likelihood of finding non-obvious areas of leverage are very low. The need to triangulate. You need to get different people, from different points of view, who are seeing different parts of the system to come together and collectively start to see something that individually none of them see.”

A Fundamental Principle Of Systems Thinking: Smart Individuals Are No Longer Needed, Collective Intelligence Is

We all have probably spent too much time thinking about ‘smart individuals.’ That’s one of the problems with schools. They are very individualistic, very much about ‘the smart kids and the dumb kids.’ That’s not the kind of smartness we need. The smartness we need is collective. We need cities that work differently. We need industrial sectors that work differently. We need value change and supply change that are managed from the beginning until the end to purely produce social, ecological and economic well-being. That is the concept of intelligence we need, and it will never be achieved by a handful of smart individuals. It’s not about ‘the smartest guys in the room.’ It’s about what we can do collectively. So the intelligence that matters is collective intelligence, and that’s the concept of ‘smart’ that I think will really tell the tale.”

All quotes in this post are by Peter Senge, scientist and director of the Center for Organizational Learning at the MIT Sloan School of Management, taken from the video “ Navigating Webs of Interdependence .”

3 Replies to “What Is Systems Thinking? – Peter Senge Explains Systems Thinking Approach And Principles”

• Pingback: Surprise MBA Lessons | PatrickDichter.com

If you can get it through to people on this level, further individual developments will occur in the varied directions of the interested parties, It is a wonderful new worldview, the birth of sanity I would say. What are the strongest reactionary groups or pressures which are resisting this new paradigm for the health of organism and environment, is it deemed ungodly.

One interesting phrase that Peter said that caught my “minds eye” was the idea of collectiveness. This collecting of what others perceive, which requires LISTENING TO, WHAT ALL, in a particular group ARE SAYING regarding a specific subject, issue or problem would lead to those in the group being able to 1. learn from each other 2. foster harmony amongst its members which WOULD LEAD, possible over time, encourage EACH OTHER TO CARE ABOUT WHAT OR HOW THE OTHER IS FEELING, then MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY would begin to grow on us all, over time. I think this is how mother nature works, right?

If this kind of activity became the standard practice within society at all levels then NO CHILD “woodbe” LEFT BEHIND, and spelling wood not B the issue, that many have used to separate people from the real issues. I personally was not a good speller, however I am working on being a better speller though. LOL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Designorate

Design thinking, innovation, user experience and healthcare design

The Six Systems Thinking Steps to Solve Complex Problems

A quick overview of common problem solving techniques indicates that most of these methods focus on the problem rather than the whole eco-system where the problem exists. Along with the challenges of global economy , problems turn out to be more complicated and sometimes awakening problems. Climate change, traffic problems, and organizational problems that have developed through the years are all complex problems that we shouldn’t look at the same way as simple or linear problems. Part of the problem of thinking about a complex problem is the way we approach it, which may contribute to making the problem even more complex. As stated by Albert Einstein, “The problems cannot be solved using the same level of thinking that created them.” Systems thinking tends to focus on the broader ecosystem rather than the problem itself.

Systems thinking was developed by Jay Forrester and members of the Society for Organizational Learning at MIT. The idea is described in his book, The Fifth Discipline , as follows: “Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static ‘snapshots.’” A common example of the systems thinking method is the life around us where multiple systems interact with each other and are affected by each other. This wide perspective of systems thinking promotes it to solve complex problems that are dependent on external factors. Below are some of the stations that system thinking may contribute to solve.

• Complex problems that involve different factors, which require understanding the big picture in order to be efficiently solved
• Situations that are affecting, are being affected by, or affect the surrounding systems
• Problems that have turned more complicated by previous attempts to solve them

Concepts of Systems Thinking

In order to understand systems thinking, a number of concepts should be highlighted in order to define the relation between the problem and the other elements in the system and how to observe this relation in order to reach an effective solution. These principles include the following.

• All systems are composed of interconnected parts, and changing one part affects the entire system, including other parts.
• The structure of a system determines its behavior, which means that the system depends on the connection between parts rather that the part themselves.
• System behavior is an emergent phenomenon. System behavior is hard to predict due its continuously changing, non-linear relations and its time delay. It can’t be predicted by simply inspecting its elements or structure.
• Feedback loops control a system’s major dynamic behavior. The feedback loop is a number of connections causing an output from one part to eventually influence input to that same part. The number of feedback loops are larger than the system parts, which contributes to increasing system complicity.
• Complex social systems exhibit counterintuitive behavior. Solving complex problems can’t be achieved through everyday problem solving methods. They can be solved only through analytical methods and tools. Solving complex problems can be achieved through systems thinking, a process that fits the problem, and system dynamics , which is an approach to model systems by emphasizing their feedback loops.

Systems Thinking in Six Steps

In their paper Six Steps to Thinking Systemically , Michael Goodman and Richard Karash introduced six steps to apply systems thinking principles while solving complex problems. These steps were part of their case study to Bijou Bottling company’s problem of getting their orders shipped on time.

Set 1: Tell the Story

The first step in solving the problem is to understand it, and this can be achieved through looking deeply at the whole system rather than individual parts. This step requires meeting with the stakeholders to share their vision about the situation. One of the common tools to build this understanding is to utilize Concept Maps, which are graphical tools used to represent the organization or a structure of knowledge. Concept Maps visually present the system’s elements, concept links, proposition statements, cross-links, and examples.

Step 2: Draw Behavior Over Time (BOT) Graphs

When thinking about a problem, we are influenced with the current situation that is reflected in our analysis, yet the problem follows a time dimension, which means that it should be tracked through the time. The Behavior Over Time graph draws a curve that presents a specific behavior (Y) through the time (X). This graph helps us to understanding whether or not the current solution is effective.

Step 3: Create a Focusing Statement

At this point, there should be a clear vision about the problem solving process, which is defined in the from of a statement that indicates the team’s target and why the problem occurs.

Step 4: Identify the Structure

After having clear vision about the problem through the proposed statement, the system structure should be described, including the behavior patterns. Building these patterns helps in understanding more about the problem, and it can be formed as a system archetype.

Step 5: Going Deeper into the Issues

After defining the problem and the system structure, this step tends to understand the underlying problems through clarifying four items: the purpose of the system (what we want), the mental models, the large system, and personal role in the situation.

Set 6: Plan an Intervention

The previously collected information is used to start the intervention phase, where modifications to the current problem relate parts to connections. This intervention attempts to reach the desirable behavior.

Practice Example of Systems Thinking

One of the direct examples of adopting the systems thinking method was presented by Daniel Aronson highlighting insects who caused damage crops. Traditional thinking to solve crop damage is to apply more pesticides to reduce the number of insects and subsequently reduce the crop damage. However, this solution solves the problem for a short term. In the long run, the problem isn’t truly solved, as the original insect eating the crops are controlling the population of another species of insect in the environment either by preying on it or competing with it. Subsequently, the crop damage increases again due to the increasing numbers of other insect species.

Observing the ecosystem that includes both the insects and the crops, systems thinking suggests exploring a solution that ensures reducing the crop damage in the long run without affecting the environmental balance, such as deploying the Integrated Pest Management that has proven success based on MIT and the National Academy of Science. This solution tends to control the number of an insect species by introducing its predators in the area.

Unlike everyday problems, complex problems can’t be solved using traditional problem solving methods due to the nature of the problems and their complexity. One of the theories that attempts to understand complex problems is systems thinking, which is defined by a number of characters. Six steps are to be used to explore and solve complex problems under the umbrella of systems thinking, which help us to observe and think in a whole eco-system rather than individual parts. Systems thinking can be deployed in multiple domains to solve organization problem, or global problems such as energy, pollution, and poverty.

Wait, Join my Newsletters!

As always, I try to come to you with design ideas, tips, and tools for design and creative thinking. Subscribe to my newsletters to receive new updated design tools and tips!

Dr Rafiq Elmansy

As an academic and author, I've had the privilege of shaping the design landscape. I teach design at the University of Leeds and am the Programme Leader for the MA Design, focusing on design thinking, design for health, and behavioural design. I've developed and taught several innovative programmes at Wrexham Glyndwr University, Northumbria University, and The American University in Cairo. I'm also a published book author and the proud founder of Designorate.com, a platform that has been instrumental in fostering design innovation. My expertise in design has been recognised by prestigious organizations. I'm a fellow of the Higher Education Academy (HEA), the Design Research Society (FDRS), and an Adobe Education Leader. Over the course of 20 years, I've had the privilege of working with esteemed clients such as the UN, World Bank, Adobe, and Schneider, contributing to their design strategies. For more than 12 years, I collaborated closely with the Adobe team, playing a key role in the development of many Adobe applications.

You May Also Like

How to Use Task Analysis Grid in Service Design

Applying Design Thinking in Education to Fight Extremism

How to Use Mind Mapping for Better Thinking

How Does Apple’s Design Process Work?

How to Use the Fishbone Diagram in Root Cause Analysis?

Six SWOT Analysis Tools and Applications

3 thoughts on “ the six systems thinking steps to solve complex problems ”.

“Systems thinking was developed by Jay Forrester and members of the Society for Organizational Learning at MIT. The idea is described in his book, The Fifth Discipline, as follows:” Peter Senge is the author of The Fifth Discipline

Thank you so much Misi for the helpful information.

Thank you for the valuable information. I believe that systems thinking can be applied to every aspect of our lives. When you teach yourself to spot patterns, cycles, and loops instead of individuals elements. You see behind the scenes. Understand what actually needs addressing to move forward and make progress faster with less damage.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sign me up for the newsletter!

More From Forbes

Systems leadership case study: workplanning using systems thinking.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Thomas Lim is the Vice-Dean of Centre for Systems Leadership at SIM Academy. He is an AI+Web3 practitioner & author of Think.Coach.Thrive!

Workplanning usually involves a confluence of top-down and bottom-up approaches in many organizations. Some broad annual guidance is given by the CEO, with Finance providing a budget forecast based on historical data and the strategic imperatives for the new fiscal year. The line divisions then prepare and present a list of initiatives that purportedly contribute to these imperatives and justify their budget-ask.

This generally works in stable environments where the workplanning objectives are incremental as part of a longer five-year duration, but it may be inadequate in managing transformation efforts with the need for new systemic structures due to the merging or dissolving of functional areas within the organization.

Systems thinking provides a holistic approach to understanding and managing complex systems from the current reality to a desired outcome, making it an ideal tool for recasting workplans to enhance efficiency and effectiveness.

In the case of Client X, they aimed to leverage systems leadership practices to transform internally and propagate these practices first across its internal divisions, with the goal of taking it to the ecosystem at large. This article outlines a high-level approach to recasting the workplan using systems thinking tools, which has helped Client X align its initiatives, identify gaps and overlaps and achieve strategic objectives.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024, what is systems thinking.

Systems thinking is an approach to problem-solving that views "problems" as parts of a unified whole. It involves understanding how different parts of a system interact and influence each other within the system. Unlike traditional linear thinking, systems thinking considers the broader context and the interconnections within the system and provides a systems map wherein these interactions are perceived as system-to-system, subsystem-to-subsystem or component-to-component.

In the case of Client X, adopting systems thinking means moving away from siloed operations and toward a more integrated and cohesive approach whereby a division’s work is mapped against another for synergistic outcomes. This can help the organization address complex challenges, improve decision-making and foster innovation by removing duplication and identifying implementation gaps.

Recasting The Workplan

The workplan recasting effort begins with "taking apart" the current work streams, not along the divisions’ lines of work but from an overall organizational lens. The leaders participating in this exercise have already been trained in the fundamentals of systems thinking tools. The three-day effort is about applying the systems concepts to model Client X’s journey from its current reality to its desired outcome through its articulated theory of success. The three-day session revolves around these workpieces both at the organizational level and at each strategic level:

1. Align And Select Tools/Models: Select the appropriate systems models and frameworks to guide the recasting process.

2. Apply Systems Thinking Practices: Rework existing work streams of the workplan as layers of interaction across nested hierarchies for each strategy.

3. Identify Interconnectedness: Understand how various initiatives are interconnected and the causal loops that would guide the process.

4. Identify Gaps And Overlaps: Detect any gaps and overlaps in the initiatives to optimize efforts and budgetary choices.

The specific steps that the team undertook during the three-day process included the following.

Step 1: Articulate Vision And Current Reality

Begin by clearly defining the vision and the current reality of the organization. This involves understanding the structural gap between where Client X is and where it wants to be. This step helps in identifying the key challenges and opportunities.

Step 2: Recast Workplan As A Nested Hierarchy Of Choices

Recast the workplan as a nested hierarchy of choices to ensure that decisions at every level are aligned and relevant. This helps in clarifying the strategic intent and who is responsible for what and aids in surfacing gaps and duplications, enabling better resource allocation and prioritization.

Step 3: Cluster Use Cases, And Prioritize Challenge Statements

Cluster the use cases, and prioritize the top three challenge statements that need to be addressed. This focuses the efforts on the most critical issues and ensures that resources are used effectively.

Step 4: Work On Chosen Challenge Statements

The selected challenge statements are put through using the levels of perspective "walk-up" framework to surface and test mental models for diagnosis. This helps in understanding the underlying assumptions and beliefs that drive current behaviors and outcomes.

Step 5: Create A Theory Of Success

Develop a theory of success that identifies the key levers at higher leverage for achieving the desired outcomes from key success factors. This provides a clear road map for action and helps in aligning efforts across the organization.

Step 6: Co-Create A Walk-Down Of The Levels Of Perspective

Collaborate with stakeholders to create a walk-down of the levels of perspective. This step aligns the challenge statement and diagnosis with a related growth strategy, ensuring that all efforts are coherent and strategic.

By integrating systems thinking into the recasting of its workplan, Client X was able to achieve a more cohesive, efficient and effective approach to its initiatives. The workplan was still central in execution, but it is now reinforced and streamlined for internal alignment in a way that was not possible before overlaying the systems thinking perspectives.

This approach can be extrapolated to enable other organizations to address complex challenges, optimize resource allocation and drive strategic outcomes. A coaching reinforcement can additionally be put in place to ensure that these practices are deeply embedded within the organization, leading to sustained transformation and growth.

Forbes Coaches Council is an invitation-only community for leading business and career coaches. Do I qualify?

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Jump to main content

Explore the latest news from the university of Northern Colorado.

Student Researcher Examines Effectiveness of 'Systems Thinking' Teaching Approach in Chemical Education

New approach aims to amplify students' critical thinking powers and tie learning to real-world applications.

August 8, 2024 | By Brenda Gillen

In his second semester in the University of Northern Colorado's Chemical Education Ph.D. program , Navid Ahmed Sadman has already discovered his passion. He's researching the effectiveness of educating future chemists differently using a "systems thinking" approach. Systems thinking is both a philosophical and practical method that views problems holistically and considers the interconnectedness of a system's components.

It's far from the culture of rote memorization method Sadman experienced as a chemistry undergraduate in Bangladesh.

"...in systems thinking, instead of discrete components, it's looking at our whole world and how all its parts work together. The next generation of policymakers or scientists need that more complex picture." — Navid Ahmed Sadman

"The focus was on memorizing the answers to the questions that would repeat year after year in the examination. I think that despite being taught by well-trained faculty, only the top students in my country can get the mental scope of understanding the concepts after they have memorized them. For most others, perhaps cramming before an examination is only as far as they could or would go. Don't get me wrong, students emerging from this culture are still pursuing higher studies in droves, but still, our education policymakers should critically appraise and improve the country’s education system while being aware of the current culture, students' accessibility to resources, and their financial capabilities.

"This emphasis on memorization bothered me as a student; and now, as an instructor, I see that memorization makes students question chemistry's relevance. We need to train chemistry students better at the undergraduate level. That's why I am more and more invested in the chemistry education field," he said.

He believes a systems thinking approach to teaching chemistry will amplify students' critical thinking powers and tie learning to real-world applications.

"If students are learning about global warming, in general chemistry they are taught about carbon dioxide and its environmental implications. In industrial chemistry, carbon capture and human interventions are covered. In environmental chemistry, topics finally include climate change and its impacts. But in systems thinking, instead of discrete components, it's looking at our whole world and how all its parts work together. The next generation of policymakers or scientists need that more complex picture," Sadman said.

He offered the example of electric vehicles (EVs). While EVs are a promising solution to reducing carbon emissions, he noted that mining for metals like cobalt and rare earth elements, essential for EV batteries, can have significant social and environmental impacts if not properly monitored. A systems thinking approach will enable scientists to address these issues adequately, ensuring EVs' benefits are realized while mitigating negative consequences.

Such changes to chemical education would have a wide-ranging impact because different fields, e.g., pre-med, pre-nursing, health, biology and physics majors all take chemistry courses. As part of a graduate-level introduction to qualitative research course at UNC, he completed a mini-project to better understand student perceptions of systems thinking in chemistry education (STICE), which is an identified research gap. Next, he'll test the premises for incorporating STICE using a mixed-methods approach that includes quantitative and qualitative data.

"I'm also planning a systematic review of the literature on STICE. This will be a more comprehensive study, which would add depth to the growing body of literature," he said.

Sadman received feedback from his peers when he shared his early findings on this systematic review at the December 2023 Graduate Research Symposium. He believes the statistics, psychology and science education courses required for his Ph.D. will shape his understanding and development of his doctoral research project.

He's working as a research assistant this summer. For most of the year, he's a teaching assistant in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry for Assistant Professor Corina Brown .

"I'm learning a lot from working with Dr. Brown. She's kind and personable," he said.

Brown said Sadman's enthusiasm, motivation and sincere desire to learn have made mentoring enjoyable

"Even though Navid is in the beginning stages of his doctoral studies, he's working on a cutting-edge topic. The interdisciplinary nature of the systems thinking approach could allow students to comprehend and apply chemical concepts in novel ways. His research contributes to expanding the understanding, application and assessment of systems thinking in chemical education. I think he has a promising journey ahead with the potential to make significant contributions to research and education," Brown said.

After he graduates in 2027, Sadman hopes to pursue a post-doctoral degree. Eventually, he'd like to join academia as a chemistry education researcher or work at a research institute focused on chemistry education.

"I also feel I owe it to my country to return with the knowledge I have gathered here and contribute there. Ask me again in three years about my future plans," he said.

More Stories

Student Researcher Aims to Bring Joy Back to Classroom Teachers

Este artículo no está en español..

Teacher Burnout Addressed in Research Project Investigating Yoga as an Intervention Strategy

Research in Cognition and Metacognition Aims to Improve Mathematical Communication

Measuring School Performance: Looking Beyond Standardized Testing and Scores

Follow unc social.

Contact UNC

Social media.

• UNC Overview
• Awards & Accolades
• Organizational Chart
• Strategic Plan
• Accreditation
• Student Consumer Information
• Sustainability
• Accessibility Statement
• UNC Newsroom
• Events Calendar
• UNC Magazine
• Submit News
• Submit an Event
• Marketing and Communications
• University Advancement

Page Last Updated: Today | Contact for this Page: Deanna Herbert

Privacy Policy | Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity/Title IX Policy & Coordinator

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Soft systems methodology in standardizing the method for applying dolphin-assisted therapies in neurodivergent patients: case study of delfiniti mexico.

Share and Cite

Coria Páez, A.L.; Flores Hidalgo, B.L.; Morales Matamoros, O.; Moreno Escobar, J.J.; Quintana Espinosa, H. Soft Systems Methodology in Standardizing the Method for Applying Dolphin-Assisted Therapies in Neurodivergent Patients: Case Study of Delfiniti Mexico. Systems 2024 , 12 , 294. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12080294

Coria Páez AL, Flores Hidalgo BL, Morales Matamoros O, Moreno Escobar JJ, Quintana Espinosa H. Soft Systems Methodology in Standardizing the Method for Applying Dolphin-Assisted Therapies in Neurodivergent Patients: Case Study of Delfiniti Mexico. Systems . 2024; 12(8):294. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12080294

Coria Páez, Ana Lilia, Brenda Lorena Flores Hidalgo, Oswaldo Morales Matamoros, Jesús Jaime Moreno Escobar, and Hugo Quintana Espinosa. 2024. "Soft Systems Methodology in Standardizing the Method for Applying Dolphin-Assisted Therapies in Neurodivergent Patients: Case Study of Delfiniti Mexico" Systems 12, no. 8: 294. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12080294

Article Metrics

Further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Hey! You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

A New Path to Understanding Systems Thinking

M any readers will recognize this scenario: A group in your department is planning a highly complex project, but the conversations you’re hearing about it center only on immediate, individual interests and the need for short-term deliverables. A week later, the project comes to a halt because the team discovers that the initiative is negatively affecting another department. Conflict and blame ensue.

Just like the rest of the world, functions within our organizations are increasingly interconnected and interdependent. Complex situations requiring a systemic approach are much more common than in the past. Nonetheless, many leaders and managers regularly use linear thinking, with its sequential, short-term focus on individual parts, which not only creates more complications, but also frustrates those of us who seem to “naturally” use systems thinking.

Why aren’t more people applying systems thinking tools and skills to manage the complex needs in the world today? In some ways, systems thinking is like chess: It is easy to learn the basic rules, but you need experience to become good at it. While many resources exist to enhance one’s ability to learn and practice systems thinking (including The Systems Thinker), our experiences tell us that certain people don’t seem to “get it,” use it, or even care about it. As Dave Packer observed in a 2004 article, “Whatever the reason, despite the promise of systems thinking, its impact has been surprisingly limited” (The Systems Thinker, V.14, N.10).

Why Don’t More People Use Systems Thinking?

We believe that at least two major barriers exist to the widespread adoption of systems thinking:

1. People get confused about what “systems thinking” means.

Multiple terms. Even highly educated professionals are often uncertain about how to define “systems thinking.” Similar concepts about systemic thinking are used in various applications throughout the world, including fields of study related to a systems approach to complexity — i.e., cybernetics, systems theory, complexity science, chaos theory, family systems theory, system dynamics, etc.

Internal debates. In the United States, arguably the most popular academic understanding of systems thinking developed out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where Professor Jay Forrester founded system dynamics in the 1950s, and where Peter Senge (a student of Forrester’s) raised awareness of systems thinking through The Fifth Discipline (1990). Twenty years after the publication of this bestselling book, an internal debate still festers among practitioners regarding the history and scope of systems thinking and system dynamics. As these internal debates continue, the arguments can confuse individuals seeking to clarify which tools, skills, and approaches are necessary and useful for better working with systems.

2. The tools and skills of systems thinking are not always consistent with the way people naturally think.

Learning to easily apply the tools and language of systems thinking has been compared to becoming fluent in a foreign language, in that it requires time and repetition with the material to build skills and confidence in applying it (Michael Goodman, “Systems Thinking as a Language,” The Systems Thinker, V2N3; David Bridgeland, “Technology Versus Discipline: Why I Am Not a Systems Thinker,” The Systems Thinker, V9N2). Yet our experience has shown that even with repeated exposure, some individuals within any group consistently disregard the majority of systems thinking practices, dismissing their value or return on investment. In contrast, within any group, some individuals quickly embrace and delight in discovering the “language” of systems thinking. (In our classes, these are the students who say, “This is the way I’ve always thought; you’re just giving me language to express it.”)

Our Study and Survey

While many great teachers and organizations are helping to clarify what systems thinking means, we have found little research regarding any connection between how people think and the use of systems thinking skills. Curious about the different levels of appreciation for systems thinking, we engaged in a study to see if at the individual level, a link might exist between a person’s personality and his or her preference for using systems thinking skills. Our research study asks: In what ways might the preference for systems thinking be connected to one’s preference for how to learn and evaluate information? In our post-study reflections, we also consider: How can we use our findings to help spread the appropriate use of systems thinking more broadly?

For our study, we engaged in two main activities:

1. We developed a comprehensive inventory and administered a survey of practices commonly associated with systems thinking.

2. We compared assessment responses to participants’ Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI) typologies. Note: While many other useful and credible tools for assessing personality and style types are available, we chose the MBTI based on its popularity, name recognition, and the possibility of comparing our data to other MBTI correlation studies.

What We Mean by Systems Thinking

Given the variety and vagueness of definitions of systems thinking, we decided to clarify what we mean by systems thinking as a basis for collecting our data. Analyzing multiple sources, including material from Linda Booth Sweeney, Barry Richmond, and the Waters Foundation, we methodically developed a list of 17 practices that we consider important to systems thinking. (Immense thanks to our colleague Lucy Garrick for her partnership in the development of the list and survey instrument. For more information about the source materials, see www.lindaboothsweeney.net, www.watersfoundation.org, and Barry Richmond’s The ‘Thinking’ in Systems Thinking (Pegasus Communications, 2000).

17 PRACTICES OF SYSTEMS THINKING

How We Collected Data

We developed a questionnaire to assess a respondent’s preference for using any of the 17 systems thinking practices. Participants were asked to consider a brief scenario of a complex problem and answer 17 questions, each representing one of the systems thinking skills.

Imagine that you are on a citizen panel working on solutions to decrease crime in your hometown. You are given a great deal of data and requested to propose solutions. Think about how you would naturally want to process information and approach the issues.

Study volunteers were asked to choose the one answer that best fit with their preferred approach to learn and understand the information, given the scenario. We also requested that participants provide their MBTI types. If they were uncertain of their current MBTI type, they were able to take a validated online MBTI assessment at no charge. (We appreciated the grant assistant from Consulting Psychologists Press (CPP) for this project.)

Results were scored and means calculated for the level of preference for each of the 17 systems practices in the survey. We also conducted one-way analysis of variance tests as described in more detail later (see “Correlating Preferences for Using Systems Thinking with MBTI Type Dimensions”).

Overall Use of Systems Thinking. Our first analysis was to explore the level of preference for the 17 systems thinking practices contained in our questionnaire. “Participants’ Preferences for Each Systems Thinking Practice” summarizes the level of preference by the respondents for each of the 17 practices. Our purpose in developing this summary was simply to evaluate the level of familiarity the respondents had with systems thinking practices. As you will note, all practices were quite familiar to the survey respondents.

CORRELATING PREFERENCES FOR USING SYSTEMS THINKING WITH MBTI TYPE DIMENSIONS

• Developing of a list of the 17 systems thinking practices we wanted to measure
• Creating a questionnaire to assess the 17 systems thinking practices
• Surveying a sample of 271 colleagues and others* to collect their questionnaire responses and Myers-Briggs typologies

PARTICIPANTS’ PREFERENCES FOR EACH SYSTEMS THINKING PRACTICE

The table may seem to indicate strong acceptance of system thinking processes, but a fair degree of variation does exist. This is why we were interested in further investigating whether the MBTI dimensions might explain some of this variation.

Using the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI)

The MBTI is a survey based on the theory of psychological type introduced by Carl Jung in the 1920s. The survey results provide a level of preference individuals have for each of four dimensions, which can help explain how they perceive and judge situations they encounter as well as how they prefer to behave in routine interactions. The survey provides preferences for four dimensions:

Extroversion (E) or Introversion (I), which relates to how individuals focus their perception on the world around them. Individuals associated with E tend to gather information by exploring the world around them versus I individuals, who tend to focus more inward.

Sensing (S) or Intuitive (N), which relates to whether you prefer to focus on the basic information you take in (S) or whether you prefer to interpret and add meaning (N).

Thinking (T) or Feeling (F), which relates to making decisions. T individuals prefer to first look at logic and consistency as opposed to S individuals, who first look at the people and special circumstances.

Judging (J) or Perceiving (P), which relates to how one deals with the outside world. J individuals tend to like to have things decided whereas P individuals tend to prefer to stay open to new information and options.

If you’re interested, we encourage you to explore the many resources describing the MBTI on the web for further information. One site in particular we recommend is the Myers & Briggs Foundation.

Systems Thinking Practices and MBTI Dimensions. Our second analysis assessed whether any of the four primary factors of the Myers-Briggs indicator were correlated with the level of preference for any of the 17 systems thinking practices. To do so, we employed a simple analysis of variance to test

STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT PREFERENCES FOR SYSTEMS THINKING PRACTICES, BY MBTI DIMENSION

whether any of the four MBTI dimensions was statistically more identified with responses to any of the 17 practices. In short, we were interested in whether someone who was intuitive (N) expressed a higher level of preference for a given systems thinking practice than someone who was sensing (S), etc. Our findings are shown in “Statistically Significant Preferences for ST Practices, by MBTI Dimension.”

In summary, 11 of the 17 systems thinking preferences were statistically significant for intuition (N) and 6 of the 17 for perceiving (P). Only one systems thinking variable was significant for extroversion (E) and two for feeling (F).

The data suggests that respondents who identified themselves as intuitive (N) and, to a lesser extent, those identifying as perceiving (P) are more likely to express preference for systems thinking practices than those identifying themselves as having other types.

What Might This Analysis Mean?

The findings from the overall analysis suggest that within the general population, some segment of people naturally practice and prefer systems thinking as a way for them to better understand complex issues. This tendency is not necessarily related to someone’s capability of applying a given systems thinking practice or its frequency of use. Given the generally high percentages of strong/moderate preference for all of the practices, we may be able to generalize to say that if someone prefers to practice one aspect of systems thinking, he or she will also likely prefer several, if not all aspects of systems thinking. While this conclusion fits with our observation that some people tend to use more systemic thinking than others, the variance in the findings suggests that some practices remain less used overall: in particular, being comfortable with ambiguity (#6) and being cautious of a win/lose attitude (#14). Indeed, it may be possible that these and similar practices are actually discouraged in classrooms and the workplace in favor of other Western ideals such as knowing the “right answer, right away” and competing to win.

This systems thinking/MBTI analysis offers one explanation for the varied levels of appreciation and use of systems thinking in the workplace. It also suggests an approach of focusing on one or more specific practices to encourage the spread of this approach.

Application

We see several applicable lessons here about how to use knowledge about MBTI types to help engage more people in systems thinking practices. Here are a few that we believe are particularly useful:

“Preference” Doesn’t Mean “Ability.” As Myers Briggs professionals are quick to point out, one’s type is only a preference, and it is possible to learn how to adapt to situations as necessary. Put another way, just as someone with a strong P might adopt a to-do list to ensure she doesn’t forget to perform critical tasks, we believe people can use a variety of tools and techniques to help them focus on utilizing systems thinking practices. Some suggestions are included in “Sample Actions to Enhance Systems Thinking Practices.”

Remember That Systems Thinking Is One of Many Approaches. Recall the famous Mark Twain quote, “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” As groups begin to gain skills and confidence in systems thinking practices, they will be tempted to see every organizational problem as a systems issue. This is of course not the case. Systems thinking is best used only under certain circumstances — with complex issues where the problem is not clear and the solution is unknown, what Ron Heifetz refers to as “adaptive challenges.” This is in contrast to a complicated or linear technical issue — where the problem is understood and the solution is known. For more on adaptive challenges versus technical problems, see Heifetz’s book, Adaptive Leadership (2009).

The point is this: if you do not have an adaptive issue on your hands, don’t spend time with systems thinking practices. A systemic approach may over-complicate the situation — and turn people off from the practices as they’ll see limited value for the time and thinking invested.

To Improve Systems Thinking as a Whole (Overall List of Practices), Pay Attention to the Parts (Individual Practices). Make sure you understand the basic idea of each practice. If a particular practice is relevant but underused in your organization, refer to “Statistically Significant Preferences for ST Practices, by MBTI Dimension” to help identify whether that particular practice may be related to individual MBTI preferences. If so, you may need to raise awareness first as opposed to immediately ordering another training.

SAMPLE ACTIONS TO ENHANCE SYSTEMS THINKING PRACTICES

For example, individuals with a strong MBTI preference for S, J, or both may refer to “Statistically Significant Preferences for ST Practices, by MBTI Dimension” as a guide to deciding which systems thinking practices may be less comfortable for them. So, someone with a J preference may want to focus on Practices 2, 3, 4 etc. first. In “Sample Actions to Enhance Systems Thinking Practices,” we provide suggestions for how to enhance this awareness and use it for two of the 17 practices. We suggest working on no more than one or two practices at a time.

To use this table, review the definition of the practice in the middle column and then think of how you might incorporate the suggested tools provided in the third column the next time your group faces a complex issue. Individuals working on building their systems thinking competencies are encouraged to self-reflect and seek feedback from others as to how effectively they are able to engage in the particular systems thinking practice and how their use of the practice affects results. We have found that this kind of focused approach can have a significant impact on people’s comfort with systems thinking practices and their development of new insights, both of which increase the perceived value of a systems thinking approach.

Implications for Using and Spreading Systems Thinking

We can draw a number of conclusions from the study that should be helpful to those applying or thinking about applying systems thinking in their organizations. For one thing, familiarity with systems thinking concepts appears to be quite widespread, indicating that most of us likely have the basic skills that are required to be successful in applying them to our organizational challenges. Second, not surprisingly, our personal preferences may affect our use of systems thinking, particularly from the standpoint of our omitting certain practices when they are not aligned with our preferred means of learning. By becoming aware of how our preferences might influence our (or other’s) desire to engage in systems thinking, we can begin to consciously focus our effort on specific learning tools to support the use of systems thinking when it might be helpful.

Most descriptions of systems thinking do not explicitly delineate the full set of 17 practices used in our survey. We recommend incorporating this list of practices into academic and professional development curricula to help expand awareness of the capabilities involved, as well as to bolster the confidence of new learners about their existing mastery of some of the practices.

Possibilities for Future Research

We caution that this study was an initial investigation into the use of MBTI types to think about preference for systems thinking use. It was not meant to be comprehensive or representative of the general population or even the subset of current users of systems thinking. Rather, the study sought to determine if any relationship might exist between the four MBTI dimensions and systems thinking practices among a small set of volunteers in order to determine if further investigation may be appropriate. We believe this study provides sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation and suggests:

1. The replication of this study with a larger sample that more clearly represents the four MBTI dimensions.

2. The development of an expanded methodology to identify a priori those likely to employ systems thinking and those less likely.

3. The inclusion of appropriate demographics into the selection of respondents to test whether factors such as age, sex, education, etc. may have intervening or direct consequences in the adaptation of these practices.

4. The inclusion in future questionnaires of indicators of frequency of use and a self-assessment of the degree of capability the respondent has in a given systems thinking practice.

5. An exploration of systems thinking correlating with other behavioral assessments, such as DiSC and FiroB.

While further research is needed to better understand personal preferences for systems thinking, it seems clear to us that this way of thinking is developed through a combination of both nature and nurture. We hope that this idea can serve those of us who are “natural systems thinkers” in at least two ways. First, it can remind us to be more patient and less judgmental when our colleagues don’t seem to “get it.” Second, it can help us look to specific exercises and tools to build capacity for particular systems thinking skills in both ourselves and others. We hope that, over time, with enough encouragement and practice, organizational groups will begin to naturally engage in systems thinking practices when complex issues come up — resulting in more systemic strategies and better, more sustainable solutions.

Nalani Linder is founder and principal of N P Linder Consulting, providing organizational development and systems thinking resources to organizational and community change agents since 2005. Nalani has been teaching systems thinking workshops since 2008. She currently divides her time between facilitating organizational change efforts for clients and consulting to Washington State K–12 educators about integrating systems thinking into their curriculum. Nalani received her master’s degree in Whole Systems Design from Antioch University–Seattle.

Jeff Frakes, Ph. D., serves as CEO of Performance Innovations, Inc., which provides coaching and conferencing in the human and organization development fields. He is a field faculty member for the organizational management program at Fielding Graduate University. Jeff has more than 20 years of experience as a human resources executive. He has contributed extensively to the use of Statistical Process Control and the administration and monitoring of drug dosages for those with neurological diseases.

• Use the MBTI correlation as a reminder that, while not everyone will be wildly enthusiastic about systems thinking, everyone can work to strengthen their systems thinking “muscles.”
• Preference for using the systems thinking skills varies. Become better aware of the multiple skills associated with systems thinking, and be clear about which ones you see as serving the needs of your organization.
• For individual and group learning conversations, make available tools and questions associated with each systems thinking practice.
• Several useful texts explain the basic principles of both systems thinking and system dynamics. For a helpful discussion on the similarities and differences between the two disciplines, we recommend Barry Richmond’s “System Dynamic-Systems Thinking: Let’s Just Get On with It” (1994).

Related Articles

all methods are wrong. some methods are useful..

Interest in systems concepts is reviving and broadening. However, the sheer size of the field poses a dilemma…

Integrating Systems Thinking and Design Thinking

As readers of this newsletter are aware, systems thinking is evolving as an alternative to the old paradigms.

”Leaning” into Organizational Learning

As a senior management team, we have always worked hard to create a true learning organization in our…

Treating America’s Health System with Structural Dynamics

Ours is an era of discontinuity. The tectonic plates of history are shifting, causing powerful and complicated stresses…

Sign up to stay in the loop

Receive updates of new articles and save your favorites..

• First Name *
• Last Name *
• Password * Enter Password Confirm Password

What Kamala Harris has said so far on key issues in her campaign

As she ramps up her nascent presidential campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris is revealing how she will address the key issues facing the nation.

In speeches and rallies, she has voiced support for continuing many of President Joe Biden’s measures, such as lowering drug costs , forgiving student loan debt and eliminating so-called junk fees. But Harris has made it clear that she has her own views on some key matters, particularly Israel’s treatment of Gazans in its war with Hamas.

In a departure from her presidential run in 2020, the Harris campaign has confirmed that she’s moved away from many of her more progressive stances, such as her interest in a single-payer health insurance system and a ban on fracking.

Harris is also expected to put her own stamp and style on matters ranging from abortion to the economy to immigration, as she aims to walk a fine line of taking credit for the administration’s accomplishments while not being jointly blamed by voters for its shortcomings.

Her early presidential campaign speeches have offered insights into her priorities, though she’s mainly voiced general talking points and has yet to release more nuanced plans. Like Biden, she intends to contrast her vision for America with that of former President Donald Trump. ( See Trump’s campaign promises here .)

“In this moment, I believe we face a choice between two different visions for our nation: one focused on the future, the other focused on the past,” she told members of the historically Black sorority Zeta Phi Beta at an event in Indianapolis in late July. “And with your support, I am fighting for our nation’s future.”

Here’s what we know about Harris’ views:

Harris took on the lead role of championing abortion rights for the administration after Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022. This past January, she started a “ reproductive freedoms tour ” to multiple states, including a stop in Minnesota thought to be the first by a sitting US president or vice president at an abortion clinic .

On abortion access, Harris embraced more progressive policies than Biden in the 2020 campaign, as a candidate criticizing his previous support for the Hyde Amendment , a measure that blocks federal funds from being used for most abortions.

Policy experts suggested that although Harris’ current policies on abortion and reproductive rights may not differ significantly from Biden’s, as a result of her national tour and her own focus on maternal health , she may be a stronger messenger.

High prices are a top concern for many Americans who are struggling to afford the cost of living after a spell of steep inflation. Many voters give Biden poor marks for his handling of the economy, and Harris may also face their wrath.

In her early campaign speeches, Harris has echoed many of the same themes as Biden, saying she wants to give Americans more opportunities to get ahead. She’s particularly concerned about making care – health care, child care, elder care and family leave – more affordable and available.

Harris promised at a late July rally to continue the Biden administration’s drive to eliminate so-called “junk fees” and to fully disclose all charges, such as for events, lodging and car rentals. In early August, the administration proposed a rule that would ban airlines from charging parents extra fees to have their kids sit next to them.

On day one, I will take on price gouging and bring down costs. We will ban more of those hidden fees and surprise late charges that banks and other companies use to pad their profits.”

Since becoming vice president, Harris has taken more moderate positions, but a look at her 2020 campaign promises reveals a more progressive bent than Biden.

As a senator and 2020 presidential candidate, Harris proposed providing middle-class and working families with a refundable tax credit of up to $6,000 a year (per couple) to help keep up with living expenses. Titled the LIFT the Middle Class Act, or Livable Incomes for Families Today, the measure would have cost at the time an estimated $3 trillion over 10 years.

Unlike a typical tax credit, the bill would allow taxpayers to receive the benefit – up to $500 – on a monthly basis so families don’t have to turn to payday loans with very high interest rates.

As a presidential candidate, Harris also advocated for raising the corporate income tax rate to 35%, where it was before the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that Trump and congressional Republicans pushed through Congress reduced the rate to 21%. That’s higher than the 28% Biden has proposed.

Affordable housing was also on Harris’ radar. As a senator, she introduced the Rent Relief Act, which would establish a refundable tax credit for renters who annually spend more than 30% of their gross income on rent and utilities. The amount of the credit would range from 25% to 100% of the excess rent, depending on the renter’s income.

Harris called housing a human right and said in a 2019 news release on the bill that every American deserves to have basic security and dignity in their own home.

Consumer debt

Hefty debt loads, which weigh on people’s finances and hurt their ability to buy homes, get car loans or start small businesses, are also an area of interest to Harris.

As vice president, she has promoted the Biden administration’s initiatives on student debt, which have so far forgiven more than $168 billion for nearly 4.8 million borrowers . In mid-July, Harris said in a post on X that “nearly 950,000 public servants have benefitted” from student debt forgiveness, compared with only 7,000 when Biden was inaugurated.

A potential Harris administration could keep that momentum going – though some of Biden’s efforts have gotten tangled up in litigation, such as a program aimed at cutting monthly student loan payments for roughly 3 million borrowers enrolled in a repayment plan the administration implemented last year.

The vice president has also been a leader in the White House efforts to ban medical debt from credit reports, noting that those with medical debt are no less likely to repay a loan than those who don’t have unpaid medical bills.

In a late July statement praising North Carolina’s move to relieve the medical debt of about 2 million residents, Harris said that she is “committed to continuing to relieve the burden of medical debt and creating a future where every person has the opportunity to build wealth and thrive.”

Health care

Harris, who has had shifting stances on health care in the past, confirmed in late July through her campaign that she no longer supports a single-payer health care system .

During her 2020 campaign, Harris advocated for shifting the US to a government-backed health insurance system but stopped short of wanting to completely eliminate private insurance.

The measure called for transitioning to a Medicare-for-All-type system over 10 years but continuing to allow private insurance companies to offer Medicare plans.

The proposal would not have raised taxes on the middle class to pay for the coverage expansion. Instead, it would raise the needed funds by taxing Wall Street trades and transactions and changing the taxation of offshore corporate income.

When it comes to reducing drug costs, Harris previously proposed allowing the federal government to set “a fair price” for any drug sold at a cheaper price in any economically comparable country, including Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Japan or Australia. If manufacturers were found to be price gouging, the government could import their drugs from abroad or, in egregious cases, use its existing but never-used “march-in” authority to license a drug company’s patent to a rival that would produce the medication at a lower cost.

Harris has been a champion on climate and environmental justice for decades. As California’s attorney general, Harris sued big oil companies like BP and ConocoPhillips, and investigated Exxon Mobil for its role in climate change disinformation. While in the Senate, she sponsored the Green New Deal resolution.

During her 2020 campaign, she enthusiastically supported a ban on fracking — but a Harris campaign official said in late July that she no longer supports such a ban.

Fracking is the process of using liquid to free natural gas from rock formations – and the primary mode for extracting gas for energy in battleground Pennsylvania. During a September 2019 climate crisis town hall hosted by CNN, she said she would start “with what we can do on Day 1 around public lands.” She walked that back later when she became Biden’s running mate.

Biden has been the most pro-climate president in history, and climate advocates find Harris to be an exciting candidate in her own right. Democrats and climate activists are planning to campaign on the stark contrasts between Harris and Trump , who vowed to push America decisively back to fossil fuels, promising to unwind Biden’s climate and clean energy legacy and pull America out of its global climate commitments.

If elected, one of the biggest climate goals Harris would have to craft early in her administration is how much the US would reduce its climate pollution by 2035 – a requirement of the Paris climate agreement .

Immigration

Harris has quickly started trying to counter Trump’s attacks on her immigration record.

Her campaign released a video in late July citing Harris’ support for increasing the number of Border Patrol agents and Trump’s successful push to scuttle a bipartisan immigration deal that included some of the toughest border security measures in recent memory.

The vice president has changed her position on border control since her 2020 campaign, when she suggested that Democrats needed to “critically examine” the role of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, after being asked whether she sided with those in the party arguing to abolish the department.

In June of this year, the White House announced a crackdown on asylum claims meant to continue reducing crossings at the US-Mexico border – a policy that Harris’ campaign manager, Julie Chavez Rodriguez, indicated in late July to CBS News would continue under a Harris administration.

Trump’s attacks stem from Biden having tasked Harris with overseeing diplomatic efforts in Central America in March 2021. While Harris focused on long-term fixes, the Department of Homeland Security remained responsible for overseeing border security.

She has only occasionally talked about her efforts as the situation along the US-Mexico border became a political vulnerability for Biden. But she put her own stamp on the administration’s efforts, engaging the private sector.

Harris pulled together the Partnership for Central America, which has acted as a liaison between companies and the US government. Her team and the partnership are closely coordinating on initiatives that have led to job creation in the region. Harris has also engaged directly with foreign leaders in the region.

Experts credit Harris’ ability to secure private-sector investments as her most visible action in the region to date but have cautioned about the long-term durability of those investments.

Israel-Hamas

The Israel-Hamas war is the most fraught foreign policy issue facing the country and has spurred a multitude of protests around the US since it began in October.

After meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in late July, Harris gave a forceful and notable speech about the situation in Gaza.

We cannot look away in the face of these tragedies. We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering. And I will not be silent.”

Harris echoed Biden’s repeated comments about the “ironclad support” and “unwavering commitment” to Israel. The country has a right to defend itself, she said, while noting, “how it does so, matters.”

However, the empathy she expressed regarding the Palestinian plight and suffering was far more forceful than what Biden has said on the matter in recent months. Harris mentioned twice the “serious concern” she expressed to Netanyahu about the civilian deaths in Gaza, the humanitarian situation and destruction she called “catastrophic” and “devastating.”

She went on to describe “the images of dead children and desperate hungry people fleeing for safety, sometimes displaced for the second, third or fourth time.”

Harris emphasized the need to get the Israeli hostages back from Hamas captivity, naming the eight Israeli-American hostages – three of whom have been killed.

But when describing the ceasefire deal in the works, she didn’t highlight the hostage for prisoner exchange or aid to be let into Gaza. Instead, she singled out the fact that the deal stipulates the withdrawal by the Israeli military from populated areas in the first phase before withdrawing “entirely” from Gaza before “a permanent end to the hostilities.”

Harris didn’t preside over Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in late July, instead choosing to stick with a prescheduled trip to a sorority event in Indiana.

Harris is committed to supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression, having met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at least six times and announcing last month $1.5 billion for energy assistance, humanitarian needs and other aid for the war-torn country.

At the Munich Security Conference earlier this year, Harris said: “I will make clear President Joe Biden and I stand with Ukraine. In partnership with supportive, bipartisan majorities in both houses of the United States Congress, we will work to secure critical weapons and resources that Ukraine so badly needs. And let me be clear: The failure to do so would be a gift to Vladimir Putin.”

More broadly, NATO is central to our approach to global security. For President Biden and me, our sacred commitment to NATO remains ironclad. And I do believe, as I have said before, NATO is the greatest military alliance the world has ever known.”

Police funding

The Harris campaign has also walked back the “defund the police” sentiment that Harris voiced in 2020. What she meant is she supports being “tough and smart on crime,” Mitch Landrieu, national co-chair for the Harris campaign and former mayor of New Orleans, told CNN’s Pamela Brown in late July.

In the midst of nationwide 2020 protests sparked by George Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer, Harris voiced support for the “defund the police” movement, which argues for redirecting funds from law enforcement to social services. Throughout that summer, Harris supported the movement and called for demilitarizing police departments.

Democrats largely backed away from calls to defund the police after Republicans attempted to tie the movement to increases in crime during the 2022 midterm elections.

Related links

Additional credits