For the first time in months, I’ve had the chance to sit down and start organising my thoughts around systems thinking again and was prompted to put pen to paper (metaphorically speaking) by reading a recent post from the always insightful, Harish Jose.  Harish’s blog can be found here, and in his most recent post he considers the story of the blind men and the elephant and revisits what Churchman had to say regarding the story.

What Harish shared reminded me that whilst I have referred to Churchman many times during my systems journey and in producing dissertations to satisfy the requirements to obtain both undergraduate and master’s degrees, I hadn’t actually read Churchman directly.  At least I hadn’t read his books, or even his papers.  What I had done is regurgitate the views and interpretations of other people of Churchman’s work, rather than taking the time to visit the source.  As a result, Harish’s blog post spoke directly to me and has inspired me to try and track down a copy of “The Systems Approach”, something that has been easier said than done, as it appears to have been out of print for a long time and doesn’t appear to be available as an electronic document.

And this got me thinking, how many times do people refer to the ideas and concepts relating to systems without having visited the original texts?  I remember when I returned to I academia to study systems at the Open University (OU) I was presented with the excellent “Systems Approaches to Making Change” by Reynolds and Holwell as the set text.  This I devoured as I journeyed through the five approaches outlined in the book; System Dynamics (SD) Viable Systems Model (VSM), Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA: with cognitive mapping), Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), and Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH).  SD, SODA and CSH were all new to me, whereas I had engaged with SSM and VSM as an undergraduate.  But interestingly, as I journeyed though my OU degree (M.Sc. Systems Thinking in Practice), I never felt the need to engage with the thinkers, or their works, that formed the basis of the degree.

As an undergraduate, pre-internet, access to books and papers was strictly through the university library, however as someone that has an allergy to the library, I was restricted to copies of books obtained through second hand bookshops, my sandwich placement or acquired from previous students.  As a result, I have battered copies of the works of Checkland that I have read multiple times over the years and a copy of Brain of the Firm that I read once and then hid at the back of a cupboard.  As someone returning to education in 2017 the internet gave me full access to books, most of which were interpretations of the original ideas and approaches, and to papers which often quoted interpretations rather than the original source.  This meant when writing or talking about SD, CSH or SODA I was not providing my interpretation, but rather my interpretation of someone else’s interpretation, in what could be considered an academic version of Chinese whispers.

Since undertaking my PhD I have taken the time to revisit the original texts but I have become increasingly aware that this is not the norm, and that a lot of “Systems Thinkers” have developed their knowledge through recent interpretations.  This is not necessarily a bad thing, after all anyone who has read Beer’s work will know it is not an easy read whereas books like “The Fractal Organization” make VSM accessible and offer insights in how to apply the approach in practise.  But it does mean that the nuances and philosophies can be missed, for instance as I have noted in a previous post, purpose of a system is what it does (POSIWID) from the observers perspective. However, the part about the observer’s perspective is implicit and not actually stated by Beer, and as a result this is often missed when people discuss POSIWID, as they are unaware of the philosophy behind the approach.

From a practical point of view, does this matter?  In terms of being able to understand and intervene in situations of interest, probably not, as often a practical approach is different from an academic approach. For instance, I know a lot of people that will produce a VSM that works on a practical level that would be received negatively if being considered in an academic context and for most people being able to use an approach needs to work in practise.  On the other hand, if someone wants to consider themselves a “systems thinker” then shouldn’t they have a deeper understanding of the underlying concepts and texts?

Recently a friend of mine, Gemma Smith, came up with the term “Systems Curious” which is a phrase I really appreciate as it suggests that someone can have an interest in, and interact with, the concepts of systems thinking without needing to engage to a level where they can obtain their systems thinker badge.  Which, for me, allows us to remove the pressure on an individual to become a “Systems Thinker” but provides them the freedom to simply be Systems Curious.