Yesterday, I was watching the film Oppenheimer and the one of the characters made the observation, “the important thing isn’t can you read music, it’s can you hear it”.  And this struck a real chord with me, as it in some ways it encapsulates my research and my thoughts around systems thinking. Paula Dawidowicz (2011) makes the observation that “it is possible some individuals consider systems thinking to be a gut level decision‐making process. In other words, they believe some individuals’ immediate gut decisions can be applications of systems thinking”.  Or to relate it back to the observation, some people can create music but without any understanding of how to read music, or even the theory of how music works.  In fact, some of the most influential musicians of all time had no academic background in music and were possibly illiterate; it’s well known that Steve Jones of the Sex Pistol’s was a functioning illiterate for most of his life. 

Having discussed the idea of using gut decisions in regard to systems thinking with friends, it is clear that the phrase gut decision (or gut feeling) can mean different things to different people.  For the purpose of this blog, I will use the following definition; “an instinct or hunch, based on intuition and accumulated experience, rather than logic, research, and facts”.

So, if we are talking about “hearing the music” of systems thinking, then it is clear that there needs to be an acknowledgement of the fundamentals of systems thinking, and if we are going to consider fundamentals as a component of systems thinking, then it is useful to consider the other components of systems thinking, and indeed to set definitions (or boundaries in systems thinking language).  I perceive these components to be as follows:

Fundamentals: these are the basic building blocks that constitute the basic elements of Systems Thinking and which can be found within each methodology.  There is a possibility that individuals may utilise some fundamentals “by instinct” rather than acquiring them through academic learning.

Methodologies: the formal academic approaches that constitute systems thinking approaches. It is important to note that only elements of a methodology may utilise the fundamentals and therefore only parts of a methodology may contribute towards systems Thinking.

Tools: These are the methods for documenting and communicating output from the Systems Thinking Process. 

I choose to represent these though what I call the FMT circle, as shown in the figure below.

You will note that I don’t identify or define the tools, methodologies or fundamentals, and this is a conscious choice, as what constitutes a tool, methodology or fundamental is down to an individual or to a collection of individuals choosing to apply labels.  Whilst definitions and labels can be useful, they can also be problematic, especially for an individual that is new to the field, and I will now explain why.  In Angela Espinosa’s excellent book, Sustainable Self-governance in Businesses and Society (2023), which is predominantly about the use of the Viable Systems Model, Angela makes the observation, “it is very useful to collectively develop a ‘rich picture’ or a cartoon-like representation of the messy or complex situations the organisation is facing”.  Now, for a new entrant to the systems field, they are going to be presented with a useful tool which they may then associate with either Angela’s work or the VSM whereas someone that has experience with systems thinking may associate rich pictures predominantly with Checkland and SSM.  

And this brings forward the basis of my current position on systems thinking and which I will explain using music as an analogy.   If a problem can be equated to the words and harmonies of a song, then the fundamentals can be represented by structure of the song, the methodologies by the style of music and the instruments used to make the song are the tools. If it helps consider these different interpretations of the song, Tainted Love.

• Gloria Jones- https://youtu.be/6UteUet8BPw?si=bbcQvxj42A01VGKv
• Soft Cell – https://youtu.be/XZVpR3Pk-r8?si=nfKeOhPGnr-U4q1o
• Marilyn Manson – https://youtu.be/N_KU_3GDdm0?si=6AB2LvOwSUbJcKPL
• Imelda May – https://youtu.be/BMOgSdc8OAI?si=wnb8q2Nmf-ow-NGs
• Proms – https://youtu.be/byxroSQhkTk?si=vSac8PNanvnEtYfu

All the versions have the same basic structure (fundamentals) but are interpreted using a different style of music (soul, synthpop, goth, rockabilly and orchestral) which equates to a methodology and then each song uses different tools in the form of a different instrument.  None are more right or wrong than any other version, and how enjoyable (usable) depends very much an on individual (or group of individuals) interpretation.  In fact, each different version can be enjoyed in its own right and depending on the audience.

Consider which is the best live album of all time.  One prominent systems thinker of the last 40 years would argue it’s, The Who, Live at Leeds, whereas I would argue that it’s 101 by Depeche Mode.  And, truthfully, both would be right as the concept of “best” would be defined by the individual based on their experiences and preferences.  And yet each album is made up of a collection of songs, each of which is based on the same fundamentals, apply different methodologies and utilise a varying collection of tools.  Some songs may use the same style, whilst some might use different styles or even blend styles.  Yet how does this apply to systems thinking?  Consider that different analysis of a problem can be interpreted in different ways using different methodologies, for instance systems dynamics may interpret a situation of interest differently to cybernetics and both could be different to an analysis using the soft systems methodology.  It is worth noting that none of the analysis would be wrong, and none would be right; they would all be equally valid, however that does not mean that they would be the most appropriate depending on the audience.  It is also possible that as there is no “correct” approach then the most appropriate approach may be to mix and match methodologies and tools, whilst maintaining a respect for the fundamentals on which they are based.

To return to the question, “can you hear the music”? In the same way that some people can pick up an instrument and craft beautiful songs, so some people can look at a problem and be able to apply the fundamentals of systems thinking instinctively.  Equally some people can simply pick up an instrument and play using instinct. Indeed, some people could even produce a song using a specific style, however could an understanding of the structure, style and instruments improve the song?  Or to return to systems thinking could knowing the fundamentals, methodologies and tools lead to a better analysis?  To which the simple answer is yes, because even if someone chooses not to use the fundamentals, methodologies and tools, they will have an understanding of what is available to assist in understanding a situation of interest.  But we shouldn’t dismiss people or analysis because they are haven’t got a full understanding of systems thinking, in the same way we wouldn’t dismiss a great song just because the performer didn’t understand music theory. 

• Dawidowicz, P. (2012), The Person on the Street’s Understanding of Systems Thinking. Syst. Res., 29: 2-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.1094
• Espinosa, Angela. Sustainable Self-Governance in Businesses and Society (Systems Thinking) (p. 77). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

Thank you to Gemma Smith for translating the FMT Circle into a usable graphic.