Week 1 Discussion Post

Week 1 Discussion Topic: The Disruptiveness of Systems Thinking

0 Unread replies0 Replies

In this week, you read two chapters on systems thinking philosophy and theory. You also examined the dual challenge of paradigm shifts facing leaders of organizations today, both in terms of our conception of an organization and in our assumptions regarding inquiry.

Based on your readings and current understanding, choose two principles of systems thinking theory from Chapter 2 that would help a leader manage these shifts in his or her organization. Analyze these principles from the perspective of disruption in the organization, toward the goal of creating change and innovation.

Prepare your initial post by referencing the assigned readings as well as other theoretical, empirical, or professional literature to support your observations and conclusions. Your initial post should be 250–500 words and follow APA guidelines for in-text citations and references.You will write up to 500 words and I have attached excerpt from the book. You have to read the book to set the tone of this discussion post. Also view the rubric to give you clear understanding. You have to make use of peer reviewed journal articles I have attached.I will upload other readings for your perusal.

How the Game Is Evolving The most stubborn habits, which resist change with the greatest tenacity,
are those that worked well for a space of time and led to the practitioner being rewarded for those
behaviors. If you suddenly tell such persons that their recipe for success is no longer viable, their
personal experience belies your diagnosis. The road to convincing them is hard. It is the stuff of
classic tragedy. 1 The Dow Jones Industrial Average recently marked its 100th anniversary. Of the
original companies listed in 1896 only GE had survived to join in the celebration. In the mid-1960s,
Jean-Jacques Shreiber, in his best- selling book, American Challenge (1967), told his fellow
Europeans: “Swallow your pride, imitate America, or accept her dominance forever.” But in late
1970s, it was “Japan Inc.” that somehow posed the greatest competitive challenge to corporate
America. It took 300% devaluation of the dollar to ward off this challenge. Fourteen of the 47
companies exemplified in Tom Peters’ much-acclaimed book of the 1980s, In Search of Excellence
(1982), lost their luster in less than four years, at least in the sense that they had suffered serious
profit erosion. The collapse of savings and loans and real estate, along with the fall of the defense
industry in the late 1980s, could have led to a disastrous 1990s, but counterintuitively, these
phenomena resulted in a restructuring of the financial and intellectual resources in America, which
may very well have been a coproducer of one of the longest periods of economic expansion and
prosperity in America. Ironically, in mid-1998, worries about Japan’s economy were the nagging
concerns of American investors. Collapse of the dotcom bonanza (late 1999 and early 2000) and the
housing bubble and the subprime and financial systems fiasco led to the troubling question: What is
going on?
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:41:06.
The game keeps changing, but this is hardly news. By now it is a wellknown and even a tired secret
that what contributes to the fall of so many great enterprises is that somehow their recipe for
success becomes ineffective. There seems to be a devil at work here, and the name of this devil is
success. Each one of us can recall cases of great powers, nations, organizations, or personalities
rising and falling. This phenomenon occurs all too frequently to be dismissed as coincidental. So
what underlying forces convert success to failure? Let us start with the following observation. The
forces that make a failure out of success form a five level hierarchy (see Figure 1.1). Each level
represents a distinct tendency, but together they form an interactive whole in which higher levels
provide the context for the lower levels. At each level success plays a critical but different role. 1.1
Imitation Operating at the first level, imitation is the most basic force. Competitive advantage is by
definition a distinction. Successful distinctions, in time, are eroded by imitation. At that point,
exceptions become norms and lose their advantage. Although imitation has been present at all
times, today its significance for American business has changed by an order of magnitude.
Advances in information technology, communication, and reverse engineering have increased the
product technology’s vulnerability to imitation. Any technological distinction in a given product is now
fair game for potential imitators who can learn, copy, and reproduce it in practically no time. Such
easy imitation has been significant for American industry. While product
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:42:12.
echnology has traditionally been the cornerstone of the American comt petitive game, countries with
an advantage in process technology have gained a dual advantage. First, it is difficult to copy a
distinction in process technology because its critical elements are knowledge workers. Second,
competency in a process technology makes it simpler to transfer knowledge from one context to
another, easing the operationalization of new knowledge. The results are dramatic: much faster timeto-market performance, a lower break-even point, better product variety, and faster response to
change. In the late 1970s, a well-known equipment company in America realized it had a 40% cost
disadvantage in comparison with its direct Japanese competitor. The company, ironically, was the
technological leader in the lift truck industry. Its cost structure was 40% raw material, 15% direct
labor, and 45% overhead. Overhead (transformation cost) was simply calculated as 300% of direct
labor. The company decided to reduce the cost by 20%. It was assumed that a 5% reduction in direct
labor would automatically reduce overhead by another 15%, resulting in a 20% cost reduction. After
a whole year of struggle, direct labor was reduced to 10% without any reduction in the overhead.
When we were asked to deal with the situation, this was our first reaction: Why does anyone want to
reduce the cost by 20% when there is a 40% cost disadvantage? Where did the 40% cost advantage
come from? It was obvious that even if the workers gave up all of their wages the company would
not survive. Then we realized that the competitive product only used 1,800 parts while our product
employed 2,800. The difference in the number of the parts perfectly explained the difference in cost.
The surprising element in all of this was that a lower number of parts was achieved by the
competition by utilizing technologies that were developed by our client over the last 10 years. The
problem was that our client had patched each one of its newly developed technologies into an old
platform, which resulted in a complex and inefficient product, whereas the competition started from a
clean slate and took full advantage of the potentials that each technology offered. The moral of this
story is that once in a while one should pause and reflect on oneself and begin anew. 1.2 Inertia
Inertia is responsible for all of the second level tendencies and behaviors that delay reactions to
technological breakthroughs. For example, sheer inertia by the Continental Can Company provided
the opportunity for two-piece can technology to replace the three-piece can technology and destroy
the once mighty Continental Can. Five hundred factories all over the United States and 45% share of
the three-piece can market could not prevent a delayed reaction to two-piece technology from
destroying Continental Can in fewer than three years.
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:42:43.
Ironically, the likelihood that an organization will fail to respond to a critical technological break is
directly proportional to the level of success it had achieved in a previously dominant technology. In
other words, the more success an organization has with a particular technology, the higher its
resistance to the prospect of change. The initial reaction is always denial. We do have an amazing
capacity for denial in the face of undeniable events, but the real danger arises when the organization
finally decides to patch things up. Patching wastes critical time. It provides the competition with a
window of opportunity to disseminate the new technology and dominate the market. Patching,
moreover, increases the cost of the operation and reduces the quality of the output, producing a
double jeopardy. 1.3 Suboptimization Exaggeration — the fallacy that if “X” is good more “X” is even
better — is at the core of the third level processes that effectively destroy a proven competitive
advantage. A tendency to push one’s strength to its limits transforms the strength into a destructive
weakness. Unfortunately, many stories follow the same line: a winning formula gains adulation, and
the heroes or heroines who shaped it become the sole authorities. One right answer prevails. An
increasingly monolithic culture produces an everdecreasing set of alternatives and a narrow path to
victory. This limited set redefines the corporate culture, the assumptions, the premises, and the
common wisdom that bounds or frames a company’s understanding of itself and its industry and
drive its competitive strategy. An interesting treatment of this phenomenon can be found in Danny
Miller’s book, The Icarus Paradox (1990) . Miller refers to Icarus of Greek mythology who became
emboldened to fly higher and higher until he came so close to the sun that his wax wings melted and
he plunged to his death. Miller explains how craftsmanship and productive attention to detail by the
Digital Equipment Corporation turned into an obsession with minutia and technical tinkering.
Exaggeration was also at work when the innovative capability of CDC and Polaroid escalated into
high-tech escapism and technical utopia. Miller’s list of firms that have been trapped by this
phenomenon includes IBM, Texas Instruments, Apple Computer, General Motors, Sears, and many
of the most acclaimed American corporations. 1.4 Change of the game Change of the game, or
transformation of the problem, is at the heart of a counterintuitive process that converts success into
failure. In other words, the act of playing a game successfully changes the game itself. Failure to
appreciate the consequences of one’s success and tenacity in playing the good old game are what
create tragedies. Once success is
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:43:37.
achieved, or a problem is effectively dissolved, the concerns associated with that problem are
irreversibly affected. Dissolving a problem transforms it and generates a whole new set of concerns.
That is why the basis for competition changes and a new competitive game emerges as soon as a
competitive challenge is met. The role of success is quite different in the third and fourth level
processes. When it is exaggerated (third level), success works against the nature of the solution and
diminishes its effectiveness. By contrast, success in handling a challenge (fourth level) transforms
the nature of the problem. In other words, it changes the game. Henry Ford’s success in creating a
mass production machine effectively dissolved the production problem. A familiar concern for
production was replaced with an unfamiliar concern for markets. The once unique ability to massproduce lost its advantage through widespread imitation. This event changed the competitive game
from concern for production to concern for markets, which required an ability to manage diversity
and growth. Henry Ford’s refusal to appreciate the implication of his own success and his
unwillingness to play the new game (“they can have any color as long as it is black”) gave Alfred
Sloan of GM the opportunity to dominate the automotive industry. Sloan’s concept of product-based
divisional structure turned out to be an effective design for managing growth and diversity. The new
game, artfully learned and played by corporate America, became the benchmark for the rest of the
world to copy (Womack, 1990). In an attempt to duplicate the American system, Ohno, the chief
engineer of Toyota, came up with yet another new design. His introduction of the lean production
system changed the performance measures by more than an order of magnitude. While it took the
American auto industry three days to change a die, Toyota could do it in only three minutes. Once
again, success transformed the game. This time the differentiating factors were flexibility and control
. But corporate America was too overwhelmed and overjoyed by its own success to even notice the
emergence of the new game. This inattentiveness provided Japan with an opportunity to launch a
slow but effective challenge. The insidious manner in which the new game evolved underscores
another important principle of systems dynamics, which is exemplified by the story of the frog that
boiled to death by sitting happily in water that gradually grew hotter. Examples of the change of the
game can also be found in politics. Although the success of the Persian Gulf War boosted the
approval rating of President Bush to an unprecedented level, it inadvertently cost him the election.
The triumph of his foreign policy caused the nation to shift its concern from national security to
domestic economy. Failure to understand the implication of this change converted the success to
failure. Recognizing that success changes the game, think what the phenomenal success of
information technology means. Success marks the beginning
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:44:17.
of the end of the Information Era. Competitive advantage is increasingly shifting away from having
access to information to generating knowledge and, finally, toward gaining understanding. 1.5 Shift
of paradigm The cumulative effects of imitation, inertia, suboptimization, and change of the game
ultimately manifest themselves in the fifth force — a shift of paradigm. A shift of paradigm can
happen purposefully by an active process of learning and unlearning. It is more common that it is a
reaction to frustration produced by a march of events that nullify conventional wisdom. Faced with a
series of contradictions that can no longer be ignored or denied and/or an increasing number of
dilemmas for which prevailing mental models can no longer provide convincing explanations, most
people accept that the prevailing paradigm has ceased to be valid and that it has exhausted its
potential capacity. This is a twilight zone where Stafford Beer’s (1975) aphorism rings true:
“Acceptable ideas are competent no more and competent ideas are not yet acceptable . ” It is where
powerful threats and opportunities emerge; where the great organizations rise and fall. Eventually, it
takes the exceptional courage of a few to question the conventional wisdom and point to the first
crack in it. Thus begins a painful struggle whose end result is reconceptualization of critical variables
into a new ensemble with a new logic of its own. Shifts of paradigm can happen in two categories: a
change in the nature of reality or a change in the method of inquiry. Also possible, however, is a dual
shift involving both dimensions. The significance and impact of any paradigm shift cannot be
overestimated, but facing a dual shift is an even more formidable challenge. It tests the outer limits
of human capacity to comprehend, communicate, and confront the problematic. For example, the
shift of paradigm from a mechanical to a biological model, despite its huge impact, represented a
unidimensional shift in our understanding of the nature of organization. It happened in the context of
analytical inquiry (Figure 1.2). We are now facing the challenge of a dual shift. Not only has there
been a shift of paradigm in our understanding of the nature of the beast — from our conception of an
organization as a biological model to a sociocultural model — but there has also been a profound
shift in our assumption regarding the method of inquiry, the means of knowing, from analytical
thinking (the science of dealing with independent sets of variables) to holistic thinking (the art and
science of handling interdependent sets of variables). The complementary nature of these two
dimensions is at the core of both understanding how the game is evolving and identifying the drivers
for change.
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:45:08.
1.6 Interdependency and choice While the organization as a whole is becoming more and more
interdependent , the parts increasingly display choice and behave independently. The resolution of
this dilemma requires a dual shift of paradigm. The first shift results in the ability to see the
organization as a multiminded, sociocultural system, a voluntary association of purposeful members
who have come together to serve themselves by serving a need in the environment. The second
shift helps us see through chaos and complexity and learn how to deal with an interdependent set of
variables. Failure to appreciate the significance of this dual change results in excessive structural
conflict, anxiety, a feeling of impotency, and resistance to change. Unfortunately, prevailing
organizational structures, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, are designed to prevent change.
Dominant cultures by default keep reproducing the same non-solutions all over again. This is why
the experience with corporate transformation is so fraught with frustration. The implicitness of the
organizing assumptions, residing at the core of the organization’s collective memory, is
overpowering. Accepted on faith, these assumptions are transformed into unquestioned practices
that may obstruct the future. Unless the content and implications of these implicit, cultural codes are
made explicit and dismantled, the nature of the beast will outlive the temporary effects of
interventions, no matter how well intended. 1.6.1 On the Nature of Organization: The First Paradigm
Shift To think about any thing requires an image or a concept of it. To think about a thing as complex
as an organization requires models of something similar, something simpler, and something more
familiar. The three models
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:45:49. represent the successive shift in our understanding of
the nature of the organization, from a mindless mechanical tool, to a uni-minded biological being
and, finally, to a multi-minded organized complexity. 1.6.1.1 Mindless system — a mechanistic view
The mechanistic view of the world that evolved in France after the Renaissance maintains that the
universe is a machine that works with a regularity dictated by its internal structure and the causal
laws of nature. This worldview provided the basis not only for the Industrial Revolution but also for
the development of the machine mode of organization (Gharajedaghi and Ackoff, 1984). In the early
stages of industrialization, machines replaced agricultural workers by the thousands. The reservoir of
an unemployable army of unskilled agricultural workers threatened the fabric of Western societies.
Then came a miracle, the ingenious notion of organizations. It was argued that in the same way a
complicated tractor is built by parts, each performing only a simple task of horizontal, vertical, and
circular motions, an organization could be created in such a manner that each person performs only
a simple task. The mechanistic mode of organization was born as a logical extension of this
conception and became instrumental in converting the army of unskilled agricultural laborers to
semi-skilled industrial workers (Figure 1.3). The impact of this simple notion of organizations was so
great that in one generation it created a capacity for the production of goods and services that
surpassed the cumulative capacity of mankind. The essence of An Ingenious simple Idea 90% This
mode of organizaƟon, in only one generaƟon, produced goods and services that superseded the
cumulaƟve producƟon capacity of mankind Every tractor replaced 500 farm workers Vertical,
horizontal, and circular motions Industrial RevoluƟon
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:46:45.
the machine mode of organization is simple and elegant. An organization is a mindless system; it
has no purpose of its own. It is a tool with a function defined by the user, an instrument for the owner
to use to achieve his goal of making profit. The important attribute of this tool is its reliability, and its
performance criterion is simply efficiency. The principle that parts should not deviate is at the core of
the glamour of tidiness, efficiency, controllability, and predictability of its operation. The parts of a
mindless mechanical system, just like the whole, have no choice. Its structure is designed into it,
leaving it with no ability to restructure itself. The system functions reactively and can operate
effectively only if its environment remains stable or has little effect on it. 1.6.1.2 Uni-minded systems
— a biological view The biological thinking or living systems paradigm, which led to the concept of
the organization as a uni-minded system, emerged mainly in Germany and Britain, but then caught
fire in the United States. The underlying assumptions and principles of the biological mode of
organizations are also simple and elegant: an organization is considered a uni-minded living system,
just like a human being, with a purpose of its own. This purpose, in view of the inherent vulnerability
and unstable structure of open systems, is survival. To survive, according to conventional wisdom,
biological beings have to grow. To do so they should exploit their environment to achieve a positive
metabolism. In organizational language, this means that growth is the measure of success, the
single most important performance criterion, and that profit is the means to achieve it. Therefore, in
contrast to the machine mode, in which profit is an end in itself, profit, for the biological mode, is only
a means to an end. The association of profit with growth, considered a social good, gives profit the
much needed social acceptability and status compatible with the American way of life. Although uniminded systems have a choice, their parts do not. They operate based on cybernetics principles as a
homeostatic system, reacting to information in the same way as a thermostat. As a matter of fact, the
beauty of a uni-minded system is that the parts do not have a choice and react only in a predefined
manner to the events in their environment. For example, my heart cannot decide on its own that it
does not want to work for me. My stomach will not get suspicious, thinking “the liver is out to get
me.” No consciousness, no choice, no conflict. The operation of a uni-minded system is totally under
the control of a single brain, the executive function, which, by means of a communication network,
receives information from a variety of sensing parts and issues directions that activate relevant parts
of the system. It is assumed that a malfunctioning of any normal uni-minded system is due to a lack
of information or noise in the communication channel. Therefore, the perceived answer for most of
the problems is more information and better communication. However, if
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:47:17.
parts of a system develop consciousness and display choice, the system will be in real trouble.
Imagine for a moment that the thermostat in your room suddenly develops a mind of its own — when
it receives information about the temperature in the room it decides it does not like it and wants to
sleep on it. The undeniable result is a chaotic air conditioning system. When parts display choice,
the central issues become conflict and the ability to deal with it. However, as long as paternalism is
the dominant culture, the imperatives of “father knows best” or “give the apple to your sister” become
an effective way to handle conflict. Paternalism best approximates the essential characteristics of a
uni-minded system, and it creates powerful organizations. Corporate giants such as Ford, DuPont,
General Motors, and IBM owe much to their paternalistic founding fathers. 1.6.1.3 Multi-minded
system — a sociocultural view Multi-minded systems are exemplified by social organizations. A
sociocultural view considers the organization a voluntary association of purposeful members who
manifest a choice of both ends and means. This is a whole new ball game. Behavior of a system
whose parts display a choice cannot be explained by mechanical or biological models. A social
system has to be understood on its own terms. The critical variable here is purpose . According to
Ackoff (1972), an entity is purposeful if it can produce (1) the same outcome in different ways in the
same environment and (2) different outcomes in the same or a different environment. Although the
ability to make a choice is necessary for purposefulness, it is not sufficient. An entity that can behave
differently but produce only one outcome in all environments is goal seeking, not purposeful. Servomechanisms are goal-seeking, but people are purposeful. As a purposeful system, an organization
is part of a larger purposeful whole — the society. At the same time, it has purposeful individuals as
its own members. The result is a hierarchy of purposeful systems of three distinct levels. These three
levels are so interconnected that an optimal solution cannot be found at one level independent of the
other two. Aligning the interest of the purposeful parts with each other and that of the whole is the
main challenge of the system. In contrast to machines, in which integrating of the parts into a
cohesive whole is a one-time proposition, for social organizations the problem of integration is a
constant struggle and a continuous process. Effective integration of multilevel purposeful systems
requires that the fulfillment of a purposeful part’s desires depends on fulfillment of the larger system’s
requirements, and vice versa. In this context, the purpose of an organization is to serve the purposes
of its members while also serving the purposes of its environment. The elements of mechanical
systems are energy-bonded , but those of sociocultural systems are information-bonded . In energy-
bonded systems, laws of classical physics govern the relationships among the elements.
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:48:00.
Passive and predictable functioning of parts is a must, until a part breaks down. An automobile yields
to its driver regardless of his expertise and dexterity. If a driver decides to run a car into a solid wall,
the car will hit the wall without objection. Riding a horse, however, presents a different perspective. It
matters to the horse who the rider is, and a proper ride can be achieved only after a series of
information exchanges between the horse and the rider. Horse and rider form an information-bonded
system in which guidance and control are achieved by a second degree agreement (agreement
based on a common perception) preceded by a psychological contract. The members of a
sociocultural organization are held together by one or more common objectives and collectively
acceptable ways of pursuing them. The members share values that are embedded in their culture.
The culture is the cement that integrates the parts into a cohesive whole. Nevertheless, since the
parts have a lot to say about the organization of the whole, consensus is essential to the alignment
of a multiminded system. 1.7 On the nature of inquiry 1.7.1 The Second Paradigm Shift Classical
science is preoccupied with independent variables. It assumes that the whole is nothing but the sum
of the parts. Accordingly, to understand the behavior of a system we need only to address the impact
that each independent variable has on that system (Figure 1.4). Handling independent variables is
the essence of analytical thinking, which has remained intact in all three contexts: physical,
biological, and social. To share in the glory of classical science, both biological and social sciences
opted to use the analytical method with no deviation. This might help explain why a whole set of
phenomena, known as type II (emergent) property, has been conveniently ignored. Properties like
love, success, and happiness do not yield to analytical treatment. However, increasingly we are
finding out that our independent variables are no longer independent and that the neat and simple
construct that served us so beautifully in the past is no longer effective. The following experience
illustrates this point. Ford Motor Company was one of the first American corporations to embark on
the quality movement. “Quality is job one” was the theme, and the operating units were encouraged
to use continuous improvement to
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:48:32.
1.8 The competitive games Each of the competitive games discussed in this section corresponds to
a given paradigm in the following matrix (Figure 1.9). Together, these games have dominated the
management scene for the better part of the past century. Each has produced an order-of-magnitude
change in performance measures, and each has had a profound effect on our lives. Each paradigm
has its own unique mode of organization, and every mode of organization, by virtue of its
requirement for specific talents, creates its own clique and privileged members. These members
often trans late their privileges into power and influence. The higher the level of success, the greater
the stake in continuing an existing order and the higher the resistance to change. Unfortunately, the
inability to change an outdated mode of organization is as tragic for the viability of a corporation as
the consequence of missing a technological break is for the viability of a product line. 1.8.1 Mass
Production — Interchangeability of Parts and Labor Mass production resulted directly from the
machine mode of organization. Henry Ford’s success in designing a production machine by making
both parts and labor interchangeable led to a mass-production system and a whole new competitive
game. He could produce 6,000 cars a day, while his closest competitor in France could muster only
700 cars a year. The ability to produce increased by more than an order of magnitude. In one
generation we produced goods and services that surpassed the cumulative capacity of mankind.
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:49:32.
The effectiveness of this mode of organization in the production of goods and services created not
just a quantitative change but also a qualitative change in the nature of the problem itself. The
question was no longer how to produce, but how to sell. And so dawned the marketing era. What
emerged was an environment with an entirely new set of challenges. Foremost among them was
how to respond to increasing demand for variety and diversity, and how to manage growth in size
and complexity. This challenge was too great for even the best that a machine mode of organization
could offer. The requirement for no deviation, in view of the assumption that human nature is
essentially deviant, places high emphasis on tight supervision to ensure conformity, predictability,
and reliability of individual behavior within the organization. This emphasis undermines the
organization’s creative ability and limits its response to meeting the increasing demand for variety
and diversity. A defensive reaction to consumer dissatisfaction calls for greater adherence to the
rules and more rigidity, resulting in a vicious circle. On the other hand, growth in size tends to reduce
efficiency and organizational effectiveness. Because of an inverse relationship between an
organization’s size and the effectiveness of its control system, large organizations are forced toward
decentralization. But this result is inconsistent with the principle of no deviation and unity of
command. No driver in his or her right mind would drive a car with decentralized front wheels. In an
organization that demands a passive functioning of parts with a high degree of compatibility and
predictability, decentralization leads to chaos and suboptimization. The best answer for production
may be in conflict with the best answer for marketing, and may not necessarily agree with the best
answer for finance or personnel. Could this be why most large organizations constantly oscillate
between centralization and decentralization? 1.8.2 Divisional Structure — Managing Growth and
Diversity Unlike Ford, Sloan recognized that the basis for competition had changed from an ability to
produce to an ability to manage growth and diversity. He not only used public financing to generate
the necessary capital to sustain growth, but also capitalized on the emerging biological model to
provide a structural vehicle for control that made it possible to manage growth and diversity. Sloan’s
model, with small variations, constitutes the foundation of the MBA programs taught in all prominent
schools of management, including Harvard, Wharton, Stanford, and MIT. Operationally, this model is
built around two concepts: divisional structure and predict-and-prepare mode of planning (Figure
1.10). Corporations, in their simplest form, are divided into two distinct types: corporate office and
operating unit. A corporate office with a traditional functional structure is the “brain of the firm,” with
an algorithm, which is
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:54:01.
1.8.3 Participative Management The unprecedented generation and distribution of wealth and
knowledge resulted in ever higher levels of choice, which changed the nature of social settings and
individual behavior in America. But the enhancement of choice, which resulted in higher levels of
sophistication in social interactions, proved a double jeopardy for the biological mode of thinking. Not
only did organizations conceived as uni-minded systems become more difficult to manage, but they
also became more vulnerable to the actions of a few. Members of an organization, unlike the parts of
a biological being, do not react passively to the information they receive. In this regard, advances in
information technology and communication as a means of control did not produce the panacea once
expected. Even the ultimate in this mode of thinking, Stafford Beer’s famous Brain of the Firm
(1967), despite its elegance, in my experience, is unable to deal with the complexities of emerging
social interactions. Nevertheless, the model was successful in the context of paternalistic cultures,
where loyalty, conformity, and commitment are considered core virtues. These virtues are reinforced
by the security of belonging to a group, which in turn protects and provides for its members. For
example, Japan, an industrialized society, with a relatively strong paternalistic culture, closely
approximates a uni-minded system. Therefore, it has been able to capitalize more effectively on the
strength of the biological mode of organization. In a strong paternalistic culture, conflict can be
resolved by the intervention of a strong father figure, but the realities of highly developed multiminded social systems are fundamentally different. Members of societies that have outgrown the
secure, unifying web of a paternalistic culture display real choice. But a price must be paid for this
transformation, especially in terms of insecurity and the level of conflict. The purposeful actors,
individually or in groups, generate unprecedented levels of conflict
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:54:46.
1.8.4 Operations Research — Joint Optimization The success of the first Operations Research (OR)
group, created by Ackoff and Churchman at the Case Institute of Technology, which dealt with the
challenge of interdependency, resulted in the spread of OR programs to most American universities.
But the first full application of OR in corporate America came with Ford’s whiz kids, when McNamara
and his associates moved from the Defense Department to the Ford Corporation. The essence of
this effort was to use models, basically mathematical, to find optimal solutions to a series of
interdependent variables. However, the assumptions regarding the nature of the organization
remained mechanical. The other significant contribution to this version of systems thinking was the
concept of systems dynamics developed by J. Forrester of MIT. Operations Research dominated the
field of systems thinking for the better part of the 1960s until it was challenged, ironically, by one of
its founding fathers. In a famous article, Ackoff (1979) declared, “The future of Operations Research
is past.” Instantaneously, he converted an army of
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:55:41.
Systems Theory The Nature of the Beast “GOD IS DEAD,” says graffiti on a notice board in Oxford
University, England. “NO!” it says underneath, “HE IS JUST WORKING ON A LESS AMBITIOUS
PROJECT.” Maybe God has given up the idea of an orderly and deterministic world. Maybe he/she
has playfully decided to mix it up with some degree of randomness and choice, or maybe this has
been the state of affairs all along. Zoroaster, the ancient Persian prophet, proclaimed this some
3,000 years ago: There are elements of chance, choice, and certainty in every aspect of our lives.
Maybe having choice is not an illusion, after all. Nevertheless, choice is but one of the three
elements. The interaction of choice with chance (randomness) and certainty (laws of nature) can
indeed produce some counterintuitive outcomes. Natural science has discovered “chaos.” Social
science has encountered “complexity.” But chaos and complexity are not characteristics of our new
reality; they are features of our perceptions and understanding. We see the world as increasingly
more complex and chaotic because we use inadequate concepts to explain it. When we understand
something, we no longer see it as chaotic or complex. Maybe playing the new game requires
learning a new language. We have used a multitude of languages to express the different ways in
which we exist in the world. We first told the story of our lives as myth. We sang it, danced it, and
expressed it in rituals that defined the parameters of our cultures and so gave us a degree of
security in a threatening environment. As our proficiency increased, so did our learning and creative
capacity. We started writing in the languages of poetry, mathematics, philosophy, and science. There
were times when music, along with literature and art, produced our most beautiful texts. But during
the past century, we increasingly specialized in one language, the language of analytical science. As
we emphasized one language to the exclusion of all others, we became unidimensional — and
boringly predictable. Today the analytical language has penetrated every facet of our lives. Our
system of production, organization, interaction, communication — even our choice of recreation,
sport, and foods —is done in terms of the assumptions and applications
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:39:10.
of analytical tools. Finding a correlation is the order of the day. Best sellers, in all areas, are those
that simply identity a few common attributes of the winners. No one can deny the success of this
language, but it has acquired an importance disproportionate to its position as only one method of
inquiry. When one game states the rules for all games, it does not matter how many new games you
create, they are all the same kind. History, unfortunately, has not been too kind to those who have
capitalized so extensively on a single winning strategy. The price on selecting only one pattern of
existence has been very high. Alienation, lust for power, frustration, insecurity, and boredom are only
a few symptoms of the emerging culture where ready-made intellectual goods are making the
formation of mass opinion a matter of mass production. The tendency to simplify everything to a
level not requiring serious thinking has turned the political system into a voting industry, which
assumes that people are ensured choice over their lives when they elect the decision makers. We
have let the default values of an analytical culture define what is good, proper, and beautiful. But,
somehow, something is missing with the way we think about our lives. What has become the
dominant language of our time produces only a partial understanding of our reality and relates only
to parts of our being, not the whole of it. We need a holistic language, a language of systems, which
will allow us to see through chaos and understand complexity. A language of interaction and design
will help us learn a new mode of living by considering various ways of seeing, doing, and being in
the world. We can then design new methods of inquiry, new modes of organization, and a way of life
that will allow the rational, emotional, and ethical choices for interdependent yet autonomous social
beings. The systems language, by necessity, will have two dimensions. The first will be a framework
for understanding the nature of the beast, or the behavioral characteristics of multi-minded systems.
The second will be an operational systems methodology, which goes beyond simply declaring the
desirability of the systems approach and provides a practical way to define problems and design
solutions. To build the first dimension of this language, we need to develop a system of systems
concepts. In this context, Ackoff’s On Purposeful Systems (1972) is a Herculean work, a must-read
book, which cannot be reproduced here. What I intend to do is share the principles and concepts
that I believe are critical for developing a systems view of sociocultural systems. These principles
have evolved with me during years of struggling to get a handle on systems. Details of these exciting
concepts, which have been tested in a variety of contexts and cultures, are so rich that each could
be the subject of a separate book. To fit my purpose here they had to be simplified at the risk of
considerable distortion. Five systems principles will be discussed in Chapter 2. The informationbonded systems and the notion of shared image and culture and the essence of self-organization
will be the topic of Chapter 3. Theory of development and obstructions to development will be
discussed in Chapter 4. Finally this notion of a sociocultural system
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:38:25.
Systems Principles The five principles of openness, purposefulness, multidimensionality, emergent
property, and counterintuitive behavior, acting together as an interactive whole, define the essential
characteristics and assumptions about the behavior of an organization viewed as a purposeful,
multiminded system (Figure 2.1). These principles are an integral part of the third-generation
systems view. Their implications will be present in every aspect and in all of the subsequent parts of
this work, from defining problems to designing solutions. Please read them carefully, more than
once. Make them your own. Use them in different contexts so you can internalize them. They are the
building blocks of the mental model you will need to construct to become a systems thinker and
systems designer. 2.1 Openness Openness means that the behavior of living (open) systems can be
understood only in the context of their environment. The world is, indeed, a complex whole in
interaction. Therefore, even genuine inquiries regarding human nature, such as the love of liberty,
lust for power, and search for happiness, are abstractions that cannot be meaningfully entertained
when separated from the context, or the culture of which they are a part. We can observe, somewhat
helplessly, that “everything” depends on “everything else,” concluding that we should not mess
around with “the natural order of things” and that we may be better off leaving everything in the
hands of the “One” who has control over all. But if there are elements of chance , choice , and
certainty in everything we do, we need to know which elements are certain and which ones offer the
opportunity for choice. And how do we deal with the randomness of chance? Remember that
appreciation of drag , a law of nature, as a certainty made it possible to convert the so-called
obstruction into an opportunity and use it as an instrument of flying.
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:36:53.
Figure 2.1 Systems principles. Our first break came by recognizing that although everything depends
on everything else, this “everything” can be grouped into two categories: those elements that
somehow can be controlled and those that cannot. This distinction gave us an operational definition
of the system, environment, and system boundary. The system therefore consists of all of the
interactive sets of variables that could be controlled by participating actors. Meanwhile, the
environment consists of all those variables that, although affecting the system’s behavior, could not
be controlled by it. The system boundary thus becomes an arbitrary, subjective construct defined by
the interest and the level of the ability and/or authority of the participating actors. Then a second
break came along. We discovered that the behavior of the variables in the environment, although
uncontrollable, is more or less predictable. In most cases, the less controllable a contextual variable,
the more predictable it becomes. This led to the formulation of the first rule for getting a handle on
open systems: the imperatives of predict and prepare . Predicting the environment and preparing the
system for it became the foundation of the neoclassical school of management. Developing the
econometric model and winning the Nobel Prize brought fame and fortune to Wharton. Chase
followed suit with its own model, and soon thousands of organizations were each specializing in
forecasting different industries. The new game was learned and played artfully by almost all entities
— large and small, business and governmental (Figure 2.2). But success somehow changed the
game. Something went wrong. In the last 10 years we have observed, with much apprehension, that
all the predictions made by our prize-winning models were wrong. So much so
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:36:06.
that those who never used them were much better off than those who did. We went back to the
drawing board again and this time rediscovered a whole new category of variables that we had
missed the first time: those variables that we do not control but instead influence. To control means
that an action is both necessary and sufficient to produce the intended outcome. To influence means
that the action is not sufficient; it is only a coproducer. As our knowledge about the environment
increased, however, so did our ability to convert the uncontrollable variables to those that could be
influenced. As we increased our ability to influence a variable, we decreased our ability to predict it.
If a rain dance had any influence on the weather, we would not be able to predict the weather.
Ironically, the extent to which we are able to predict the weather is an indication that we might not be
performing the rain dance properly. The new category of variables, those that could be influenced,
form a new region called the transactional environment. The transactional environment is becoming
significant to understanding the behavior of an open purposeful system. It includes all the critical
stakeholders of a system: customers, suppliers, shareholders, the boss, and, ironically, the members
themselves. Customers used to be predictable, but uncontrollable. We were told they were always
right. Increasingly, they are becoming more and more susceptible to influence and therefore are less
and less predictable. It seems that the nerds are taking over. The boss has become weird and
unpredictable as well. Suppliers used to be the most agreeable group. They did what they were told.
Today they claim to house the core technology. Who is in control
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:34:50.
2.3 Multidimensionality Multidimensionality 1 is probably one of the most potent principles of
systems thinking. It is the ability to see complementary relations in opposing tendencies and to
create feasible wholes with infeasible parts. For the majority of cultures, a fallacy has dominated the
treatment of opposing tendencies as a duality in a zero-sum game. Everything seems to come in a
pair of opposites: security/freedom, order/complexity, collec tivity/individuality, modernity/tradition,
art/science, and so on. They are cast in such a way that a win for one is invariably associated with a
loss for the other. In the context of a zero-sum game, opposing tendencies are formulated in two
distinct ways. First, conflicting tendencies are conceptualized as two mutually exclusive, discrete
entities. The conflicts are treated as dichotomies that are usually expressed as X or NX (Figure 2.5).
If X is right then NX has to be wrong. This represents an or relationship, a win/lose struggle with a
moral obligation to win. The loser, usually declared wrong, is eliminated. Second, opposing
tendencies are formulated in such a way that they can be represented by a continuum (Figure 2.6).
Between black and white are a thousand shades of gray. This calls for a compromise, or resolution
of the conflict. Compromise is a frustration point, a give-and-take struggle. Depending on the relative
strength of the poles of tension, the power game will come to a temporary halt. The compromise
point is an unstable mixture, usually containing elements of two extremes. As the power structure
changes, so does the compromised position. The constant struggle between groups of people who
see different “ clear
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:33:10.
Multidimensionality 39 of production versus that of distribution, the desire to protect the rights of
victims versus the rights of the accused, the need to protect the environ ment versus the individual
right to make a living — is the manifestation of a need to develop new frameworks. Churchman’s
(1979) concern with the “environmental fallacy,” Boulding’s (1968) rejection of suboptimization
(1968), and Ackoff’s (1978) concept of “separately infeasible parts making a feasible whole” are
reflections of the same concern. It seems as though we live in an age of paradoxes. Even timehonored values such as freedom and justice are not spared. Boulding (1953) acknowledged the
dilemma with the observation that some are afraid of freedom , seeing always behind it the specter
of anarchy, whereas some others are afraid of justice , seeing always behind it the specter of
tyranny. Furthermore, consider the relation between security and freedom. One cannot be free if one
is not secure; one will not be secure if one is not free. Maybe freedom, justice, and security are three
aspects of the same thing and were not meant to be separated in the first place. Certainly, treating
them in isolation has been problematic. A complement is that which fills out or completes a whole.
The principle of multidimensionality maintains that the opposing tendencies not only coexist and
interact, but also form a complementary relationship. The complementary relationship is not confined
to pairs. More than two variables may form complementary relations as the trio of freedom, justice,
and security demonstrates (see Figure 2.7). The mutual interdependence of opposing tendencies is
characterized by an and instead of an or relationship. This means that each tendency is represented
by a separate dimension, resulting in a multidimensional scheme where a low/low and a high/high, in
addition to low/high and high/low, are strong possibilities. This is a non-zero-sum formulation in
which a loss for one side is not necessarily a gain for the other; on the contrary, both opposing
tendencies
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:32:09.
Using a multidimensional representation, one can see how the tendencies previously considered as
dichotomies can interact and be integrated into something quite new. The addition of new
dimensions makes it possible to discover new frames of reference in which opposing sets of
tendencies can be interpreted in a new ensemble with a new logic of its own. Says Churchman
(1979): “The usual dichotomy of ‘x’ or ‘not x’ never seems to display the general, because neither of
the above is always so prominent an aspect of social systems.” Note that in classical logic,
contradictions are relative to a domain; adding a new dimension expands the domain and converts
the contradictions to complementaries. To explain this further, let us look at a related concept:
typology. A proper way of developing typologies, which corresponds with my intentions here, requires
that the relevant variables, which together define the state of the phenomenon under study, are
identified and each conceptualized as a separate dimension. A dimension represented by an arrow
is used to reflect a quantification of a variable on a given scale. It measures a characteristic specified
by the operational definition of the variable involved. Segmentation of this scale into two regions of
low and high is usually based on an assumption that the low or high value assigned to the variable
will have a significant impact on the behavior of the system that is coproduced by the variable. In this
context, the point of distinction between low and high is not arbitrary (Figure 2.8). It signifies the level
at which the behavior of the dependent system is qualitatively affected. This is a change that
corresponds to the singularity or inflection point (change of phase) in physical phenomena. In other
words, if the variable income has an impact on an individual’s behavior, there seems to be a critical
level of income at which a change in lifestyle occurs, qualitatively affecting that behavior. If I make
$10 a week, I may eat one hamburger; with $20 I may have two; and with $30 I will try three.
However, if I make $1,000 a week, I will not eat 100 hamburgers. I may not eat hamburgers at all.
Therefore, a quantitative change in my income at some point has produced a qualitative change in
my way of life. That is the point of distinction between the low and the high level of income. Provided
one is aware of their underlying assumptions and limitations, typologies can show how behavior of a
multidimensional system differs
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:31:18.
For example, the interaction of a high concern for change with a high concern for stability produces a
completely different mode of behavior than the one produced either by a high concern for change
coupled with a low concern for stability or the one produced by a high concern for stability coupled
with a low concern for change (see Figure 2.9). The high/high represents the behavior of a mature
system, searching for stability through change. While the low/high reflects a radical system
interested in change at any price, it can be reactionary or progressive, depending on the direction of
the change sought. The high/low, on the other hand, represents a conservative state, preferring the
status quo and, therefore, a tendency for regulation and compromise. But the low/low is anarchy with
a low concern for change and a low concern for stability, opposed to government in any form.
Therefore, with different combinations of the levels of concern (low or high), different modes of
behavior will emerge. Each mode represents a new system whose character can be understood only
in its own right. The typology of the management style developed by Blake and Mouton (1964)
underscores the same point by demonstrating that although the “1.9” and “9.9” styles both reflect a
high concern (9) for people, the manifestations of these concerns are different in both cases (Figure
2.10). The 1.9 is a paternalistic, populist leader, whose concern for people is basically a concern for
their weaknesses. Therefore, he/she assumes a protective role. Meanwhile, the 9.9 is a leader
whose main concern for people stems from a respect for their ability and individuality. He/she
assumes a different role — that of a motivator. In the work of Gerald Gordon and colleagues (1974)
that studies the factors conducive to innovation, we see the following two abilities as complementary
to an individual’s propensity to innovate: the ability to differentiate between objects that seem similar
and the ability to find
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:30:13.
42 Systems Principles C o n c e r n 1.9 19 Managerial Grid style of management The nature of 9 in
1.9 is different from the nature of 9 in 9.9 1.1 11 ? Theory X 5.5 Nature of 9 in 9.9 9.9 Theory Y f o r p
e o p l e is different from Figure 2.10 Style of management. 9.1 9 in 9.1 Conce rn fo r P roduction
Figure 2.11 Innovative abilities. Similarly, we can show how seemingly contradictory requirements for
order and complexity are simultaneously achieved by an organization, and the requirement for
stability and change is achieved with adaptation . In each case, the desired characteristic would not
be a compromise, but a new totality with characteristics of its own. 2.3.1 Plurality of Function,
Structure, and Process Complementary to the principle of multidimensionality and parallel to it is the
concept of plurality. Plurality of function, structure, and process, as we
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:29:07.
Multidimensionality 43 SYSTEM FUNCTION 1 FUNCTION 2 FUNCTION 3 SYSTEM Figure 2.12
Plurality of functions and structures. STRUCTURE 1 STRUCTURE 2 STRUCTURE 3 high/high a
possibility and choice a reality. Plurality simply maintains that systems can have multiple structures
and multiple functions and be governed by multiple processes (Figure 2.12); it denies the classical
view of a single structure with a single function in a single cause-and-effect relationship. 2.3.1.1
Plurality of function A system can have multiple functions, both implicit and explicit. A car, for
example, in addition to having the explicit function of transportation, might have an implicit function
of, say, an identification tag. For many, a car defines the lifestyle of its owner and can have
considerable snob value. Furthermore, an investor might consider a car company a money- making
machine, while union leaders see it as job-producing system. For an entrepreneur, the organization
may present a lifetime challenge to create a winning system; however, for a professional corporate
citizen it might be the platform for an internal power game. Indeed, organizations have multiple
functions, generating and disseminating wealth, power, and beauty. Still, corporate actors,
depending on their mindsets or the roles assigned to them, consider only one of these functions as
primary. This is the fallacy that results in successful operations but dead patients. 2.3.1.2 Plurality of
structure Earlier, we proposed that the system’s structure defines the components and their
relationships. Plurality of the structure, therefore, means that the components and the relationships
among them are multiple and variable. Consider, for example, salt (NaCl). Its components —
chlorine (Cl) and sodium (Na) — form a single type of relationship in all environments; therefore, salt
is said to have a singular structure. But the same cannot be said about hydrocarbons. Hydrogen and
carbon enter into various combinations and relationships, resulting in multiple structures. Carbon’s
ability to combine with itself gave rise to a whole new branch of evolution
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:28:24.
Human beings display a similar tendency. They form varying relationships with each other, creating
an interactive type of structure, or a social system. Interactions between purposeful actors in a group
take many forms. Social actors may cooperate on one pair of tendencies, compete over others, and
be in conflict over different sets, all at the same time. In addition, members of a social system learn
and mature over time and are therefore variable and subject to change. The result is an interactive
network of variable members with multiple relationships, re-creating itself continuously. This is what
is meant by the plurality of structure. Acceptance of plurality of structure, unlike that of functions, is a
difficult proposition, since it goes against the traditional concept of structure as something that
endures. However, a reconceptualization of this traditional concept is necessary to appreciate the
principle of purposefulness and multidimensionality. 2.3.1.3 Plurality of process The classical
principle of causality maintained that similar initial conditions produce similar results, and
consequently that dissimilar results are due to dissimilar initial conditions. Therefore, for a given
structure, behavior of the system is completely predictable and its future states invariably depend on
its initial conditions and the laws that govern its transformation (determinism). Bertalanffy (1968), in
analyzing the self-regulating or morphostatic features of open biological systems, loosened this
classical belief by introducing the concept of “equifinality”: a final state may be reached by any
number of different developmental routes. Buckley (1967), in his discussion of morphogenetic
processes in sociocultural systems, goes even further and suggests an opposite principle,
“multifinality”: similar initial conditions may lead to dissimilar end states. So the process, rather than
the initial conditions, is responsible for future states. Accordingly, a social phenomenon can also be
studied as the end result of a set of interactive processes. This adds a new dimension to the process
of inquiry, which is key for understanding a powerful concept: the emergent property. 2.3.2 • • Recap
• “With infeasible parts you can create a feasible whole.” 2 In a multidimensional scheme,
differences in degrees are differences in kind. A “high/high” concern represents a different behavior
from a “low/high” concern. Each mode has its own distinct interpretation for the meaning of the
variables involved. Freedom, justice, and security, in my belief, are three aspects of the same thing.
They should not be separated; treating them in isolation has always been problematic. 2 For
demonstration
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:27:37.
Emergent Property 45 2.4 Emergent Property I can love, but none of my parts can love. If you take
me apart, the phenomenon of love will be lost. Furthermore, love does not yield itself to any one of
the five senses. It does not have a color, a sound, or an aroma. It cannot be touched or tasted. Then
how does one measure love? Of course one may always measure the manifestation of love. “If you
love me why don’t you call me?” someone may say. Something does not seem quite right. The
phenomenon of love does not fit the classical description of a property. Furthermore, it does not
seem to be alone in this distinction. Similar phenomena, such as success, failure, and happiness,
display the same types of characteristics. So let us give them a name, emergent properties, and put
them in a category of their own: type II properties, as distinct from the more classical type, which we
will call type I properties (Figure 2.13). Emergent, or type II, properties are the property of the whole,
not the property of the parts, and cannot be deduced from properties of the parts. However, they are
a product of the interactions, not a sum of the actions of the parts, and therefore have to be
understood on their own terms. Furthermore, they do not yield to any one of the five senses and
cannot be measured directly. If measurement is necessary, then one can measure only their
manifestation. Emergent properties, by their nature, cannot be analyzed, they cannot be
manipulated by analytical tools, and they do not yield to causal explanations. Consider the
phenomenon of life, the most significant emergent property. No one has yet been able to identify a
single cause for life. Falling into the trap of trying to find correlation, we could probably find one
between life and almost everything. Unfortunately, these correlations do not explain much about the
essence of life. Relying exclusively on an analytical approach, not surprisingly, fails to produce a
basic understanding about emergent properties.
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:26:59.
I have suggested that emergent properties are the product of interactions among several elements.
The mere notion of interaction signifies a dynamic process producing a time-dependent state. In
other words, the emergent phenomenon is reproduced continuously online and in real time .
Therefore, life, love, happiness, and success are not one-time propositions; they have to be
reproduced continuously. If the processes that generate them come to an end, the phenomena
cease to exist as well. They cannot even be stored or saved for future use. And for sure, none can
be taken for granted. Life, love, and happiness can be there one moment and gone the next. The
same is true of success; it is just as vulnerable as love and happiness. If emergent properties are the
spontaneous outcome of ongoing processes, then to understand them one has to understand the
processes that generate them. Dying is very natural; staying alive is the miracle. It takes
simultaneous interactions among hundreds of processes to keep someone alive. Those who try to
explain the phenomenon of life as a single accident do not know what they are talking about. If
success is an emergent property, then it has to be about managing interactions rather than actions.
An all-star team is not necessarily the best team in the league, and it might even lose to an average
team in the same league. What characterizes a winning team is not only the quality of its players but
also the quality of the interactions among them. A few years ago the New Orleans Saints football
team had four defensive players in the Pro Bowl, but that did not mean the Saints had the best
defense in the league. The same year, the Dallas Cowboys won the Super Bowl, without having any
defensive players in the Pro Bowl. The compatibility between the parts and their reinforcing mutual
interactions creates a resonance, a force, which will be an order of magnitude higher than the sum of
the forces generated by the separate parts. On the other hand, incompatibility among the parts will
result in a less potent force than what the aggregate would have been able to produce. In the same
way, an organization, depending on the nature of the interactions among its members, can be a
value-adding or value-reducing system. I have argued elsewhere that an organization’s success is
the product of the interactions among the five basic processes of throughput, decision making,
learning and control, membership, and conflict management. These processes correspond with
generating and disseminating wealth, power, knowledge, beauty, and values. For example, to
understand the success of GE, one cannot simply look at its earnings and market shares. At any
given time, one might win or lose for the wrong reasons. Understanding GE’s organizational
processes (specifically decision, learning, and measurement systems) may provide a
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:26:03.
We have said that emergent properties cannot be measured directly; one can measure only their
manifestations. However, measuring the manifestation of a phenomenon has proven very
problematic. For example, if the number of phone calls is the measure of love, then one can fake it.
People can call people without necessarily loving them. Since most of the behavioral characteristics
of living systems are type II properties, the art of faking has been the major preoccupation of
behavioral sciences in recent decades. How one can pretend to be something that one is not has
been the money-making question of our times. Consider the huge market for how-to books, which
give advice on a multitude of topics such as how to come across as a caring person when one does
not care at all. Remember when one could pretend to be powerful simply by wearing a red tie?
Measuring the success of an organization has not been an easy proposition, either. As the
manifestation of success, growth has been considered an important performance measure of an
organization. If an organization is successful, most probably it will grow; however, if an organization
is growing, this does not necessarily mean that it is successful. One can easily grow by “faking,” or
making lousy acquisitions. But unfortunately, two turkeys will not make an eagle. And that is exactly
how many organizations have grown, only to destroy themselves. To avoid pitfalls in measuring an
emergent property, one has to measure more than one manifestation. In this context, economic
value added (EVA) is a much more reliable measure of past success than simple growth. EVA =
Investment × (rateof return − cast of capital) EVA is based on two important manifestations of
success. It is the product of both growth and value generation over and above the cost of capital. A
positive EVA indicates a value-adding growth, while a negative EVA shows a value-reducing one.
Finally, manifestation of a phenomenon in its totality can be assessed only by picturing the future
implicit in the present behavior of a given system. To map this future, we need a handle on social
dynamics. 2.4.1 • • Recap Instead of trying to describe a property only in terms of being, we can also
try to understand it as a process of becoming. An all-star team is not necessarily the best team in the
league, and it might even lose to an average team in the same league. What characterizes a winning
team is not only the quality of its players but also the
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:25:17.
• The compatibility between the parts and their reinforcing mutual interactions creates a resonance,
or force, which may be an order of magnitude higher than the sum of the forces generated by the
parts separately. Emergent properties are the spontaneous outcome of ongoing pro – cesses. Life,
love, happiness, and success are not one-time propositions; they have to be reproduced
continuously. If the processes that generate them end, the phenomena will also cease to exist. 2.5
Counterintuitive Behavior Social dynamics is fraught with counterintuitive behavior. It stands on a
level of complexity beyond the reach of analytical approach. Counterintuitive behavior means that
actions intended to produce a desired outcome may generate opposite results. It has been said that
the path to hell is paved with good intentions. Things can get worse before getting better, or vice
versa. One can win or lose for the wrong reason. Making drugs illegal, while costing the nation a
fortune, was meant to curb abuse and save the society from its ills. Counterintuitively, it has
produced a multi-billion-dollar crime industry, higher consumption, and an overburdened criminal
justice system. To appreciate the nature of counterintuitive behavior, one needs to understand the
practical consequences of the following assertions: • Cause and effect may be separated in time and
space. An event happen – ing at a given time and place may have a delayed effect, producing an
impact at a different time and a different place. • Cause and effect can replace one another,
displaying circular relations. • An event may have multiple effects. The order of importance may shift
in time. • A set of variables that initially played a key role in producing an effect may be replaced by a
different set of variables at a different time. Removing the initial cause will not necessarily remove
the effect. Expanding the welfare system to reduce the number of poor families in a community may,
counterintuitively, increase their numbers. Improvement of welfare usually requires additional
resources, which means an increase in taxes. Excessive taxation may push the wealthy and many
businesses to move out of the region, diluting the tax base and reducing revenues. Moreover, a
more attractive welfare system will attract higher numbers of the needy to the region. It may also
reduce the incentive to work, adding the burden of unemployment to an already overloaded system.
Increased cost, coupled with reduced revenue, becomes a recipe for disaster (Figure 2.14). For
example, to examine the total effects of smoking on the heart, we should consider its multiple
outcomes. Smoking might reduce anxiety and therefore, in the short term, be beneficial to the heart.
In addition, smoking,
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:24:25.
Counterintuitive Behavior Welfare System again increases 49 increases more welfare taxes reduces
incentive to work results businesses move out wealthy move out reduces increase increases
unemployment reduces reduces tax base more money requires attracts results increasing number of
needy Figure 2.14 Dynamics of a welfare system. increases increases cost helping the heart. But
the pleasure associated with reduced anxiety is habit-forming and results in a desire to repeat the
act. However, in the long run , smoking has a negative effect on the arteries. Combined with genetic
dispositions and/or other oxidizing processes, smoking results in rigidity, roughness, and hardening
of the heart’s arteries. The natural defenses of the body react with multiple layers of cholesterol
coatings to smooth things out, which ultimately results in a blockage and heart attacks. Furthermore,
smoking negatively affects the functioning of the lungs, resulting in a less-than-optimum supply of
oxygen to the heart (Figure 2.15). In this context, it seems that developing a simple correlation
between variables does not mean much; it might even be misleading. Is cholesterol the real villain or
just an element of an overprotective defensive mechanism? We have said that multifinality negates
the classical principle of causality, suggesting that process, using different combinations of certainty,
chance, and choice rather than the initial condition, is mostly responsible for future states. All this
means that understanding the shortand long-term consequences of an action, in its totality, requires
building a dynamic model to simulate the multi-loop, nonlinear nature of the system. The model
should capture the critical time lags and relevant interactions among major variables. This approach
is distinctly different from the conventional one, where the fallacy of generating simple correlation is
responsible for proliferating misinformation that is floated around continuously. Considering the level
of confusion that exists around counterintuitive outcomes, it is not difficult to see how
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:23:40.
50 Systems Principles COUNTER-INTUITIVENESS Oxidation In the long run rigidifies arteries
defensive action Increases cholesterol coating Smoking helps maintain In the short run desire to
repeat Weight In the long run negatively affects Reduces anxiety Lungs is good for helps Heart
negatively affects Reduces oxygen predisposition produces An event may have multiple effects.
Cause & effects separated in time & space. Blockage gradually destroys Cause & effects may
replace one another. One can win or lose for the wrong reason. Figure 2.15 Effect of smoking.
Ironically, an interesting formulation known as chaos theory (Gleick, 1987) provides an alternative
insight into the nature of this phenomenon. Unpredictability of nonlinear systems parallels
counterintuitive behavior in a social context. Chaos theory was advanced by a group of scientists 3
with different backgrounds (in physics, chemistry, and mathematics) working on the dynamics of
complex physical phenomena. It seemed, at first, that chaos theory is but a systems theory of fluid
dynamics. But I found it to be very relevant to the problems of social dynamics and a welcome
addition to the realm of systems thinking. It adds a new, somehow twisted perspective to the notion
of complexity and holistic thinking. Chaos theory, using a different perspective, reconfirms the
significance of the Herculean work done by Ackoff (1972), some 40 years ago, in explaining the
behavioral characteristics of purposeful systems. The work essentially provides the basic tools and
concepts needed to understand choice and why social systems do what they do. There is another
reason for my interest in chaos theory. Recognition of the fundamental role iteration plays in the
discovery of complex patterns is very 3 Famous among them were Edward Lorenz, Benoit
Mandelbrot, William M. Schaffer,
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:22:53.
compatible with my long-held belief that iteration is the essence of the holistic approach, and the
core element of the design methodology (for details, see Part Three). The following is my take on the
relevant and interesting points of chaos theory: • Analyzing the behavior of a nonlinear system is like
walking through a maze whose walls rearrange themselves with each step you take (in other words,
playing the game changes the game). • Systems too complex for traditional mathematics could yet
obey sim – ple laws, for example, fractal geometry 4 and fuzzy logic. 5 • Laws of complexity hold
universally across hierarchical scales (scalar, self-similarity) and are not influenced by the detailed
behavior of constituent parts. • We are less likely to be able to explain the behavior of a complex
whole by studying the behavior of the parts; contrarily, we are more likely to be able to explain the
behavior of the parts by studying the behavior of the whole. • A new understanding of time brings the
realization that time is not really defined by the clock but by rhythms and iterations. 6 • “Nature forms
patterns, some orderly in space but disorderly in time, others orderly in time but disorderly in space.
Some patterns are fractal, exhibiting structures self-similar in scale, while others oscillate” (Gleick,
1987, p. 308). Four kinds of attractors determine the nature of the patterns: 1. Point attractor (drawn
to or repelled from a particular activity) 2. Cycle attractor (oscillation between two or more activities)
3. Torus attractor (organized complexity repeating itself) 4. Strange attractor (unpredictable complex
patterns emerging over time) If one is tempted to use chaos terminology in the social context, the
four attractors, viewed from a systems perspective, can be explained as follows. The point attractors
represent the behavior of social beings in pursuit of their natural instincts — fear, love, hate, desire
to share, or self-interest. The cycle attractors (dialectic/self-maintaining) would correspond to our
principle of multidimensionality, pursuit of seemingly opposite but complementary tendencies:
stability and change, security and freedom, and, in general, differentiation and integration. Cyclicality,
or periodic shift of emphasis from one orientation to another, is the result of suboptimization. Torus
attractors (equifinal/neg-entropic/goal-seeking) exemplify the behavior of open systems. These
systems are guided by the image (DNA) of what they ought to be, as growth patterns of biological
systems. Strange 4 For anyone interested, the original, indispensable source is The Fractal
Geometry of Nature (Mandelbrot, 1977). 5 For definition and description see Fuzzy Sets and
Applications (Zadeh, 1987). 6
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:22:04.
attractors (multifinal/self-organizing/purposeful) reflect the behavior of sociocultural systems with
choices of ends and means; unpredictable patterns emerge out of s tylistic preferences of
purposeful actors. Note that self-organization is not always a conscious act. More often than not, it
happens by default or through a random iterative process of deviation amplification (evolution).
Therefore, self-organization, if it happens by default using implicit cultural codes, would be more like
the patterns produced by a torus attractor. However, redesign would be the type of self-organization
created by a strange attractor. Ackoff’s (1972) description of passive, reactive, responsive, and
active systems corresponds beautifully to the behavioral patterns attributed to the four attractors
previously listed. (See Section 2.2 earlier in this chapter.) With attractors, it is the iteration that
makes it possible for order to appear from chaos. Nature automatically creates the iteration, but
social beings can return to zero only by choice to start a new iteration. Designing from a clean slate
is a reflection of this imperative. Counterintuitive behavior of social systems is further exemplified by
the following observations: 1. Social systems display a tendency to repeat themselves and
reproduce the same set of non-solutions all over again. One can never overestimate the resistance
to change. “Conventional wisdom is like an old guard; it would rather die than surrender.” A comfort
level with the familiar, combined with fear of the unknown, creates a formidable force that may even
override potential self- interest. People may genuinely become excited by a beautiful idea and even
support it wholeheartedly. But as the idea moves closer to implementation, insecurity and self-doubt
set in. The supporters of the idea may then subconsciously sabotage their own efforts and prevent
the change. Along with this comes pathological behavior, which is produced when those in charge of
removing an obstruction benefit from it. Absent the support of a courageous, charismatic leader who
enjoys the confidence of his/her people, any suggestions for a fundamental change become
potentially self-destructive propositions. The fool who chooses to take on this role should be aware
of his/her eventual loneliness. 2. A difference in degree may become a difference in kind. A
commonly accepted principle of systems dynamics is that a quantitative change, beyond a critical
point, results in a qualitative change. Accordingly, a difference in degree may become a difference in
kind. This doesn’t mean that an increased quantity of a given variable will bring a qualitative change
in the variable itself. However, when the state of a system depends on a set of variables, a
quantitative change in one variable beyond the inflection point will result in a change of phase
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:21:16.
whole new set of relationships among the variables involved. Suppose my style of life (state of a
system) depends on my income. If my income were to suddenly change from $1,000 a month to
$100,000 a month, it would certainly change my style of life. The change, of course, would be a
qualitative one, representing a new mode of being. The income level that brings a qualitative change
in lifestyle may be different for different people; however, it defines a critical juncture called the
inflection point as defined above. Catastrophe theory (Zeeman, 1976), which deals with the same
phenomena but in a physical context, reveals that at the inflection point, systems display
catastrophic behavior (a cusp). In the social context, an inflection point will usually occur when one
of the critical variables changes by an order of magnitude, that is, when something can be done 10
times faster, cheaper, and/or better than would have been possible before. In his book Only the
Paranoid Survive (1996), Andrew S. Grove, President and CEO of Intel Corporation, dealt beautifully
with the change of phase in a modern, technology-driven corporation. He explains, with great insight,
how a “10X” change in certain variables (such as technology, markets, and regulations) resulted in a
“strategic inflection point” and a change in the nature of the business, where the known facts of the
business become invalid and a whole new set of emotions — denial, fear, insecurity, and feeling of
betrayal — sets in. I have mentioned before that market economies, like democracies, do not usually
select the best solutions. They choose the most compatible, satisficing solution. Being ahead of your
time is sometimes more tragic than falling behind. The following episode, used by Grove to indicate
the impact of a 10X change in the marketplace, demonstrates, in my opinion, the essence of market
economies’ counterintuitive behavior as well. 3. Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple, is arguably the
founding genius of the personal computing industry. He left Apple in 1985 to create the “Next”
generation of superbly engineered hardware, a graphical user interface that was even better than
Apple’s Macintosh interface, and an operating system much more advanced than Mac. The software
would be built in such a way that customers could tailor applications to their own uses by rearranging
chunks of existing software rather than having to write it from the ground up. He wanted to create a
computing system that would be in a class by itself. Jobs did not like PCs. He thought them
inelegant and poorly engineered. The irony is that he was right. It took him a few years, but the Next
computer and operating system delivered basically
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:20:38.
Yet while Jobs was working on his “insanely great computer,” Microsoft Windows had come on the
market. Windows wasn’t even as good as the Mac, let alone the Next interface, and it wasn’t
seamlessly integrated with computers or applications. But it was cheap and it worked, most
importantly, on the inexpensive personal computers that by the late 1980s were available anywhere
in the world from hundreds of PC manufacturers. Grove, 1996, pp. 59– 60 The Next machine, even
with all its beauty, never took off. Despite an ongoing infusion of cash, a state-of-the-art software
operation, and a fully automated factory built to produce a large volume of Next computers, Jobs
could not overcome the widespread momentum generated by the combination of Microsoft Windows
and Intel Pentium chips, known figuratively as “WinTel.” Ironically, Microsoft owes as much of its
success to Intel as Intel owes to Microsoft. Each one, by default, created a 10X market for the other.
It is also worthy to note that the Next machine and its operating system is now the basis for the
popular and very successful Apple computers and Apple X Operating System. Passive adaptation to
a deteriorating environment is a road to disaster. It’s been said that if a frog is suddenly dropped into
boiling water it will immediately jump out. However, if you put the same frog in warm water that is
heated gradually, the frog will boil to death with no objection. The same is true of social systems. The
capacity to adapt gradually to a changing environment can lead to a disaster if the adaptation is to a
deteriorating environment. That only one of the original companies in the Dow Jones index
participated in its centennial celebration is an indication that death, even among successful
organizations, is more common than we like to believe. In fact, gradual deaths are more common
than sudden deaths. In what is called the “Pan Am Syndrome,” organizations bleed to death by
adapting to an imperceptible gradual change, always doing too little too late. Ironically, sudden
change of phase with all of its ramifications is less dangerous than imperceptible, gradual change.
An organization facing a sudden change may still have enough organizational strength left in it to
cope. But in the case of passive adaptation, by the time an organization recognizes the severity of
the problem, it may have already lost most of its strength and be unable to do anything about it. 4.
2.5.1 • • Recap Success in playing the game changes the game, and tenacity in playing the old
game converts success to failure. Market economies, like democracies, make only rational choices.
The
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:19:38.
the existing order. Being ahead of your time is sometimes more tragic than falling behind. Cause and
effect display circular relations. Events have multiple effects, each with a different time lag and
independent life of its own. Removing the cause will not necessarily remove the effect. Nature’s
tendency for iteration, pattern formation, and creation of order out of chaos creates expectations of
predictability. It seems, however, that nature, because of varying degrees of interaction between
chance and choice, and the nonlinearity of systems, escapes the boredom of predictability.
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-09 20:18:32.
Original research
Development of the Systems Thinking
for Health Actions framework: a
literature review and a case study
Jenna Thelen ‍ ‍ ,1,2 Carmen Sant Fruchtman ‍ ‍ ,1,2 Muhammad Bilal,3
Kebabonye Gabaake,4 Shahid Iqbal,3 Tshiamo Keakabetse,4 Aku Kwamie,5
Ellen Mokalake,4 Lucia Mungapeyi Mupara,4 Onalenna Seitio-­Kgokgwe,6
Shamsa Zafar,7 Daniel Cobos Muñoz1,2
To cite: Thelen J,
Sant Fruchtman C, Bilal M,
et al. Development of the
Systems Thinking for Health
Actions framework: a
literature review and a case
study. BMJ Global Health
2023;8:e010191. doi:10.1136/
bmjgh-2022-010191
ABSTRACT
Background Systems thinking is an approach that views
systems with a holistic lens, focusing on how components
of systems are interconnected. Specifically, the application
of systems thinking has proven to be beneficial when
applied to health systems. Although there is plenty of
theory surrounding systems thinking, there is a gap
between the theoretical use of systems thinking and its
actual application to tackle health challenges. This study
aimed to create a framework to expose systems thinking
Handling editor Stephanie M
characteristics in the design and implementation of actions
Topp
to improve health.
► Additional supplemental
Methods A systematised literature review was conducted
material is published online only.
and a Taxonomy of Systems Thinking Objectives was
To view, please visit the journal
adapted to develop the new ‘Systems Thinking for Health
online (http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​
Actions’ (STHA) framework. The applicability of the
1136/​bmjgh-​2022-​010191).
framework was tested using the COVID-­19 response in
Pakistan as a case study.
Received 28 July 2022
Results The framework identifies six key characteristics
Accepted 19 January 2023
of systems thinking: (1) recognising and understanding
interconnections and system structure, (2) identifying
and understanding feedback, (3) identifying leverage
points, (4) understanding dynamic behaviour, (5) using
mental models to suggest possible solutions to a problem
and (6) creating simulation models to test policies. The
STHA framework proved beneficial in identifying systems
thinking characteristics in the COVID-­19 national health
response in Pakistan.
Conclusion The proposed framework can provide
support for those aiming to applying systems thinking
while developing and implementing health actions. We
also envision this framework as a retrospective tool that
can help assess if systems thinking was applied in health
actions.
© World Health Organization
2023. Licensee BMJ.
For numbered af…