I would like to propose an analogy; that systems thinking is just like chocolate.

Let me explain.  Chocolate comes in different flavours and has difference uses and appeals to different people in different ways.  For instance, you can have a drop of dark chocolate on top of a cup cake, you can have a hot drink of milk chocolate and you can eat a bar of chocolate straight from the wrapper.  Additionally, you can enjoy chocolate in a group, say with a chocolate fountain, or solo with a chocolate muffin bought at a local bakery.

And guess what, there is no right or wrong way to enjoy chocolate just as there is no right or wrong way to undertake systems thinking.  When making your first investigations into systems thinking it can be easy to be overwhelmed with all the variety especially as different people or groups will promote their own preferences and it is worth noting Ackoff’s (2006) observation, “until we communicate to our potential users in a language they can understand, they and we will not understand what we are talking about”. 

So just like talking to someone about how to cook or appreciate chocolate, so the person when they first come to systems thinking may not have the experience or skills to appreciate the different flavours or the way to use the ingredients to obtain their greatest benefit.  In fact, showing someone a recipe for a complex chocolate fudge cake may be off-putting whilst showing someone how to make fairy cakes with a dollop of melted chocolate on top make encourage them to explore further and build their confidence.

I remember talking to Gerald Midgley over a cup of coffee earlier this year and he said he didn’t touch the viable systems model (VSM) for 10 years because the diagrams put him off.  This doesn’t mean that VSM isn’t a good approach, it just highlights that people have their own tastes and way of discovering a subject. What is worth noting is “each of systems thinking’s various manifestations demands some degree of subscription to an orthodoxy (a particular view of just what systems thinking is). And each requires that the user master a large number of related ideas and techniques, most of which are not particularly useful on their own” (Collopy, 2019).  This therefore leads to the question, why should you subscribe to an orthodoxy?  After all, Checkland (2012) says “the first requirement of a systems thinker is an understanding of the concept of emergent properties, and a readiness to resist reductionist arguments, because the need for holistic thinking is real” (Checkland, 2012) which suggests all that is needed to be considered a systems thinker is an understanding of emergent properties as a concept, not that you need to be a “expert” or a devotee of a particular orthodoxy.  

After all, you don’t need to be a connoisseur of chocolate to appreciate the different types or uses of chocolate, and an initial liking for chocolate may stop simply at enjoying a bar of Dairy Milk, or you may choose to exploring a particular type of chocolate or even study the manufacturing process.  This is the same for systems thinking; you may stop after gaining a level of understanding of emergent properties that you are happy with, or you may want to explore different systems tools from multiple manifestos which would benefit yourself or your organisation or you may choose to become an academic or an expert in one particular orthodoxy.  However always remember, just like with chocolate, there is no right or wrong way to do systems thinking, there are just lots of flavours and types, all of which can be applied to different situations.

References

Ackoff, R., 2006. Why few organizations adopt systems thinking. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 23(5), pp.705-708.

Checkland, P., 2012. Four Conditions for Serious Systems Thinking and Action. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 29(5), pp.465-469.

Collopy, F., 2019. Why the Failure of Systems Thinking Should Inform the Future of Design Thinking (06.07.09). Design Issues, 35(2), pp.97-100.