Systems Thinking
Systems thinking, or systems science came slowly into the scene with a set of academic dialogues between experts in Biology, Psychology and Ecology. The discovery of the Cell, the Theory of Evolution and Genomics catalysed these conversations (Capra, 2019). During the 1920s and 1930s, scientists began to observe levels of complexity in their discoveries that they were unable to fully comprehend using Descartes’s reductionist approach to science. It took almost half a century with the invention of the Von Neuman’s computer and Complexity Theory before the non-linear mathematics that was used to describe complex models could be solved (without linearizing). Conventional linear thinking has been incredibly useful in realms such as medical diagnostics and quantum physics, but it has provoked what Fritjof Capra describes as a “Crisis of Perception”, calling for a change in paradigm of world view. In order to tackle the interconnected and interdisciplinary challenges, it is imperative to admit and analyse the multi-facetted nature of a specific challenge and find the points of leverage. Capra identifies 4 dimensions to the Systems View of Life (Capra, 2019), aspects that technology can have an effect on but must also consider when being designed:
Biological
Cognitive
Social
Ecological
A living (biological, cognitive, social or ecological) system is an integrated whole whose properties cannot be reduced to those of smaller parts.”
-Fritjof Capra (Capra, 2019)
In essence, Systems Thinking is a conceptual framework. At the core, we have the science of relationships, the interactions and dynamics (flows) that exist between what Donella Meadows labelled as stocks.These building blocks give rise to the “Bathtub Theorem” of economics, which is essentially the smallest unit of a system. In this case, a bathtub is supplied with water through a tap (flow in), and water exits through leakage or the drain (flows out); where the bathtub holds a stock of water (Meadows, 2009)(or whatever liquid you enjoy bathing in). Another key concept in Systems science is that of feedback and causal loops, the first to emerge were those of positive and negative feedback loops (represented as Circles of Causality) which led to the first two archetypes: Balancing (negative – reduces the difference between the disturbed state and the goal-state)and Reinforcing (positive – accelerates the present trend of a process) (Capra, 2019). The concept of delay is crucial to understanding these circles of causality.
The ‘dynamic-yet-stable’ state of systems is a key characteristic which allows a system to adapt to changing environments. From this concept arises the term “Structural Coupling” (Capra, 2019), entailing that a system is structurally coupled to its environment, which when disturbed adapts and thus learns, setting a historic in the system itself. One can quickly see how systems science suddenly becomes incredibly complex. Hence, the importance of applying non-linear mathematics to Complexity Theory, where the solutions are not a number but instead a pattern or a geometry (such as fractal geometry). Without going further into this, I want to introduce what are considered the building blocks of Systems analysis, several archetypes identified by Peter Senge in his book The Fifth Discipline. By generalising the dynamics of a system you are trying to analyse into one of the archetypes described by Senge, you can quickly understand what type of system you are dealing with (Stroh, 2015)(the following link leads to a PDF that has an explanation of these: https://thesystemsthinker.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Systems-Archetypes-I-TRSA01_pk.pdf(Kim, 2000)). The flowchart below is a useful tool to navigate these archetypes. This is a convenient way of diagnosing what trends exist in a system and what kind of interventions would be successful. Bear in mind, that systems can have multiple archetypes embedded within, so amongst different feedback loops one can find different dynamics. This also means that multi-faceted interventions are usually necessary for tackling challenges systemically.
In order to help make these abstract concepts appear more practical I will present a series of examples that have helped me grasp the essence of systems thinking. During the 1980s, European countries along with the US and Australia were experiencing a pandemic of HIV/AIDS. Without a cure, and with little hope of finding any in the near future, a systems analysis of the incidence and spread of disease allowed mapping of transmission channels and find leverage points. These leverage points were locations where interventions would be most successful and efficient, which was imperative for what was becoming an incredibly expensive disease. This exercise showed that most of the infections were occurring in users of injected drugs, such as heroin and other opioids, as a result of sharing and re-using needles. By identifying the main cause of transmission, instead of focusing all resources into research and development of cures, governments and health care systems intervened by providing sterile needles for drug-users (free of cost) and places for them to be disposed of safely. This hugely decelerated the propagation of the disease. Such intervention was critical to saving economically in the long-run and prevented an innumerable amount of infections (Burack & Bangsberg, 1998) (National Academy of Sciences & Institute of Medecine, 1995) (Stimson, 1995) (Wodak & McLeod, 2008). This in turn has allowed a larger proportion of the budget to be dedicated to the identification of the cure. This is a good example of a systemic intervention to a challenge.
At the heart of one of Capra’s narratives in the Systems View of Life is that of the Web of Life, which supports itself not only on the shift from food chains to food webs, but also on evolutionary theory. Most specifically the advancements brought by Lynn Margulis and her theory of Symbiogenesis, leading to the Gaia Hypothesis co-developed with James Lovelock (Capra, 2019). The Gaia Hypothesis suggests that living organisms form complex, synergistic and self-regulating systems with the inorganic matter that surrounds them, such that life is perpetuated. This suggests that organisms co-evolve as the environment changes. The Gaia Hypothesis has in turn led to the philosophical and ecological movement of Deep Ecology, where the worth of all living beings exists regardless of their instrumental utility by humans (Capra, 2019). The argument sets itself on a balance that exists between all the members within a system, due to the high degree of interconnectivity, once again observing the relationships between them. This can be taken another step further and extended to the interconnectivity between the economy and the ecological framework known as Gaia (Capra & Jakobsen, 2017). Capra argues that humans are members of at least two core communities on Earth, that of ‘Humanity’ and that of ‘Oikos’. Within Humanity, we have an imperative to respect and exercise everyone’s human rights, defending each persons’ dignity, such that the system is inclusive. And with Oikos, humans are part of the Earth’s biosphere, sharing our space with all the other living organisms. In recognition of this following the 1992 World Summit, the Earth Charter was devised by a multidisciplinary team, a document that summarises how we must “join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.” (Earth Charter Commission, 2000).
Due to the nature of InAGlobe’s remit, I want to bring focus to the work of David P. Stroh in Systems Thinking for Social Change. There are two examples that I find particularly helpful for understanding the practicality of systems thinking: Homelessness and Criminality. In the thematic of homelessness, focusing on metrics and siloed organisations shows an example of unintended opposition. Temporary shelters are incredibly important in ensuring that homeless people do not sleep rough, and are an invaluable stepping stone into permanent housing. Now, say the metric that temporary shelters report on is the percentage of occupied beds. If this number is increasingly high, close to 100% (and above) a temporary shelter can justify that they require more funding to install more beds. In turn, having more beds will take more people off the streets temporarily and make the problem of homelessness be perceived as ameliorated. This intervention could be seen as a “Quick Fix”, because the metric of number of homeless people has not been reduced, and if anything, has increased (due to the parallel with increased demand for beds). On the other hand, affordable, permanent housing with the supporting services necessary to introduce homeless people into the formal economy as well as treat those who abuse substances, would permanently help remove people from the streets. Yet, if temporary shelters are exerting pressure for funding, budgets for permanent housing and inclusion services suffer. Stroh states that the first step to solving a problem systemically is to convene all the stakeholders in a problem space and define a set of shared goals, in this case: Reduce the amount of homelessnessand define a representative metric, for example,number of individuals transferring from temporary shelters into permanent housing (Stroh, 2015).
The second example, that of criminality, looks at the mass incarceration in the United States. Once again, public perception plays a crucial role in this process by influencing legislation. In order to make the streets safe from crime, criminals are incarcerated. The motif for incarceration is variable, but let’s say that petty crimes (generally in a cumulative sense) lead to eventual incarceration (as do violent crimes). By incarcerating criminals, the immediate effect is that there are less criminals on the streets, and thus the streets appear safer. Petty criminals spend their sentence in prisons where they harden up, through exposure to more violent individuals, and come out into society with a criminal record that gets in the way of them participating in the formal economy normally. This incarceration of the petty criminal has bred an alienated hardened criminal who is now more likely to commit a crime, and especially a violent crime. Hence, the street is now less safe than before the initial incarceration. This in turn leads to harsher laws on criminality, which leads to more individuals being incarcerated, reinforcing the original problem – this illustrates a system of Shifting the Burden/Escalation. This goes into the argument that Michel Foucault so well presented, where punishment in its historical sense rarely rehabilitates individuals, and prisons are but an exponent of this. The argument that Stroh provides is that legislation must have an outlook on reinsertion such that petty criminals do not recidivate, entering a spiral of increasing alienation and aggressiveness (Stroh, 2015). Bear in mind that both examples are an extremely simplified and condensed account of what Stroh presents in his book, and I strongly suggest picking up a copy if you found these topics interesting.
By understanding relationships between living organisms and the non-living environment, InAGlobe seeks to utilise systems thinking to analyse problem spaces in proposed innovation projects. In this manner, interventions must consider possible side-effects and domino effects, as well as providing the most efficient approach to problem solving. There is not a day that passes where systems thinking is not useful in our process, whether it is in analysing problem spaces for innovation or for management of students and stakeholders, as well as internal processes. For anyone interested in diving deeper into this topic, I strongly advise looking into the referenced material for this piece as they are of immense quality.
Written by Jaime Aguilera Garcia (16/5/2019), CEO & Co-Founder of InAGlobe Education
Bibliography
Burack, J. H. & Bangsberg, D., 1998. Epidemiology and HIV Transmission in Injection Drug Users. Capra, F., 2019. CapraCourse: Systems View of Life. London, UK: s.n. Capra, F. & Jakobsen, O. D., 2017. A conceptual framework for ecological economics based on systemic principles of life. International Journal of Social Economics, 44(6), pp. 831-845. Earth Charter Commission, 2000. The Earth Charter. Johannesburg, South Africa: s.n. Kim, D. H., 2000. The Systems Thinker Toolbox: SYSTEMS ARCHETYPES I. [Online] Available at: https://thesystemsthinker.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Systems-Archetypes-I-TRSA01_pk.pdf [Accessed 29 4 2019]. Meadows, D., 2009. Thinking In Systems. London, UK: Earthscan. National Academy of Sciences & Institute of Medecine, 1995. Preventing HIV Transmission: The Role of Sterile Needles and Bleach. Washington D.C., National Academy of Sciences & Institute of Medecine. Stimson, G. V., 1995. Aids and injecting drug use in the United Kingdom, 1987–1993: The policy response and the prevention of the epidemic. Social Science & Medicine, 41(5), pp. 699-716. Stroh, D. P., 2015. Systems Thinking for Social Change. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing. Wodak, A. & McLeod, L., 2008. The Role of Harm Reduction in Controlling HIV Among Injecting Drug Users. AIDS, 22(2), pp. 81-92.