Last week I was working on a project and using the Soft Systems Methodology to help an organisation understand a wicked problem involving how a nightclub is used.  At the heart of the matter was the question of whether the nightclub was a physical asset that was designed to be physical system of delivering evening entertainment to a particular segment of the community or whether it was a space that could be used within multiple systems, regardless of the initial physical design.

Essentially this comes back to the question, ‘is the purpose of a system what it was designed to do or is the purpose of a system is what it does?’  If we are looking at the purpose of a system is what it was designed to do, then we are firmly into systems engineering territory.  According to INCOSE (2020a) systems engineering is “a structured and auditable approach to identifying requirements, managing interfaces and controlling risks throughout the project lifecycle” and who also note “systems thinking is an essential skill for systems engineers which is shared with many disciplines and provides a key intellectual underpinning for systems engineering” (INCOSE, 2020b).

Now, as has been discussed in previous blogs, there is no clear or agreed definition of systems thinking.  At the 2015 Conference on Systems Engineering Research, Arnold and Wade (2015) proposed the following as definition, “systems thinking is a set of synergistic analytic skills used to improve the capability of identifying and understanding systems, predicting their behaviours, and devising modifications to them in order to produce desired effects. These skills work together as a system”.  Now this is a useful, but possibly limited definition, as if we consider both perspective and emergence to be key fundamentals of systems thinking, then the definition does not fully capture systems thinking.

So, if we take the project in question, then we need to consider what is the desired effect?  Are we considering the current usage or the future use and is we are considering future usage, who is defining the desired effect.  After all, if the desired effect is to maximise profit, then maybe repurposing the physical asset to be something else may be drive modifications even though the community are desperate for a space where they can interact within a community or undertake community activities in a safe environment. So, the nightclub might disappear and instead become a hub for parcel delivery service if that was felt to be the most suitable way to achieve the desired effect.

If we consider that systems engineering is based on systems thinking (at least according to the INCOSE website) and that there is no agreed definition of systems thinking, then can it really be said that systems engineering is based on systems thinking or would it be more accurate to say that systems engineering is based on a definition of systems thinking “from a specific perspective”?

Whilst using SSM within the project there was debate around who were the project owners, which bought in to question the leadership of the system, as within the system (whatever the system is perceived as) then there should be people trying to provide leadership as well as, or including, people that are acting purposefully.  Now, at a simplistic level, it could be assumed wrongly that a leader using systems thinking would automatically be using systems leadership.  And the reason this is wrong is that system leadership is a distinct approach.  According to the Harvard Kennedy School, “systems leadership seeks to address complex societal challenges by combining deep understanding of system dynamics, inclusive engagement and empowerment of all stakeholders, and new forms of collaborative leadership that enable widespread action for system change”.

Personally, I’m not sure what this means in practice, and the use of the phrase systems dynamics is open to interpretation, especially as it may, or may not, refer to systems dynamics as a methodology.  An alternative definition is that systems leadership is “a collective form of leadership” drawing on “the concerted effort of many people working together at different places in the system and at different levels”, which “crosses boundaries, both physical and virtual” (Bolden, N.D.). 

Ultimately though it could be considered that systems leadership is simply leadership delivered though the use of systems thinking.  This is the view but forward by the Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy, “systems leadership is about building a culture in which systems approaches can flourish”.  It is important to note that a leader is an individual who acts in a certain way but who may not be in a management or supervisory role.

So, what can be taken from this?  Maybe that the different parts of systems community, such as engineering and leadership as simply subsystems of systems thinking, and therefore the fundamentals of systems thinking are also the fundamentals of the sub-systems.

References

Arnold, R. D. & Wade, J. P. (2015) A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44 669-678

Bolden, R., (N.D.) Systems Leadership:Pitfalls and possibilities https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f881ec88fa8f50429658795/NLC-thinkpiece-Systems-Leadership-BOLDEN.pdf

Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (N.D) Systems Leadership

Guide: How to be a Systems Leader https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65e0c1822f2b3b001c7cd7e2/how-to-be-a-systems-leader.pdf

Harvard Kennedy School (2019), Systems Leadership for Sustainable Development: Strategies for Achieving Systemic Change https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/mrcbg/files/Harvard_CRI_System%20Leadership_ExecSum_Sept%202019.pdf

INCOSE (2020a), https://incoseuk.org/Documents/zGuides/Z1_Rebrand_july_issue_3.1_webpdf.pdf

INCOSE (2020b), https://incoseuk.org/Documents/zGuides/Z7_Systems_Thinking_issue1.1_web.pdf