Reflections on Systems Theory and Systems Practice | SpringerLink

(1/? Ioiy/i/

J

I / / Lote 2

»iii jum J22/

Reflections on Systems Theory and Systems Practice Lorraine Warren, Keith Ellis and Peter Adman This article will consider and discuss tue 'interfaces' between the academic dezelopment of Systems 'Tlzeort and Systems Practice at the orfanisatzonal ¡ere1. In particular the authors

for this lack of acceptance will now he explored, and we shall support this exploration with the argument

will adrocate the needjur further research into issues associated

assisted by using Systems Thinking within our O\V11

wi/li the tiansfar of theory into practjcal application that can produce sustainable change within 'irai world' oiganisations.

institutions in complex problem situations in an

-000)(i)o-

Context

Contcmporary Systems Thinking has been associated with the development (I)f methodological

The lack of acceptance of Systems Thinking by practising managers was highlighted in a plenary address to the first Australian Systems Confèrence

that the importance of gaining credibility rail he efThrt to 'practice what we preach'.

approaches for intervening, and bringing about improvement, in complex organisational problem

(Ellis, 19951)). It was 1)ointed out, during this address, that the UK Systems Society (UKSS Fourth

situations (Ellis, I 995a). In response to the problems

encountered after the second world war, the ongoing developmental work in Systems Thinking has been undertaken largely within academia, where there has been a pronounced siuft in emphasis from 'hard' to

International), which used Critical Issues in Systems

Theory and Practice

as

the conference theme,

attracted less than twenty practitioners out of a total delegate list of around 180. It was also pointed out that although the UKSS has a membership in excess of 250, only around 1 Oo of those members can be thought of as practitionersanci, they are generally not active in the management of the UKSS.

'soft' and 'critical' approaches. Systems Thinking offers such approaches to practising managers as effective alternatives to the more recently developed 'management fads' such as Total Quality Management, Business Process Re-engineering and Benchmarking amongst others.

The authors have carried out a variety of consultancy assignments during the past three years and it has been during diese assignments that our concerns regarding the lack of penetration of Systems Thinking into the 'real world' of

The research work which has been carried out in the management sciences, particularly within the Systems Thinking movement, has been discussed by ,Jackson )1995). This discussion highlights the lack of underpinning theory associated with the SO called

organisations has developed. \Ve have taken the opportunity to ask prdiising míuiagers \\ liv they

'management fàds'. From this premise it can be argued that Systems 'Ihinking has more to oflèr

not using approaches based in Systems Thinking in their efforts to produce sustainable and effective change within their organisations. Some of the reasons put forward included: were

manage rs than the 'fads'. Yet, we argue that, by and large, Systems Thinking has huleci to gain general

acceptance by practising managers who readily accept the 'fads' as tailor macle Ihr their needs in

too time consuming; esoteric rather than practical:

addressing organisational problems.

an over concentration on 'what' needs to he done rather than 'how' to go about solving

The lack of transfèr of contemporary theory into application by practising nianagers and consultants

the troublesome issue s'; the methodologies are academic toys;

must be of concern to all those engaged in the future development of Systems Thinking. Possible reasons

14

tiin,Icrable

11011

in

tenus

of

application

expertise:

\\ ihv u asll\ ()cioiogical ( laptnap; u e arc paving \ ou to solve our prohlcms not involve us ill th solution proces;

expensive, locks up too mans highly paid PP1 for too long. Clearly tlierc is a need to develop Svsteiius Iliinking

such that n ider acceptance by the orgamsational eommunit\ can br gaincd. Failure to realise this acceptance could be the dcath knell of what we considcr to he, an approach that has considerable valuc iii achieving sustainable improvement in This means that the academic ni ust uiidcrstand the difliculties of

onganisatioils.

eomrnunit\

promoting Systems 1liinking to thosc whose world lies outside of the developmental arena. Acadcmics who are engaged in thc theoretical and intellectual debate associated witil tue development of Systems Thinking use a language that is not readily understood Lv the practitioner community. therefore, we argue, those academics must identify and promote tile benefits which will be considered relevant aild meaningful h practising managers.

theoretical development, the intellectual paradigm and human beha\ iour are still mainly prc-svstclllic". Herrschcr identifies two 'webs' of potential reasons

have been associated u ith the lack of acceptance of Systems Thinking: wInch

The first of the two 'webs', iclentificd by Herrscher is known as the social n eh, and the assoeiatcd reasons are: change in the way people think is more difficult to achieve than maintaining the status quo:

realising that one's 'territor\' is part of a greater whole implics or can bc perecived as) a loss of power; most organisations

are built around a fragmentcd hierarchical rnodcl in which true systems practice is out of place. our emphasis

The second 'web' Herrscher refers to

as

the

intellectual weh and the reasons he identifies are:

ihr 'loss

of

horizontal

deptil' associated n ith a rather a vertical than

specialisatioiu;

Substantive argument

the (im balance hetu ecu rational and noii ratiomual elements non that 'soft' Systems

It lias bcen argued that the goal based model, on n hich man\ organisations are fhunded, encourages 'straight line thinking' by managers in their pursuit of

efficient

goal

achievement

Ellis,

l995b).

Organisational problemiis demand rapid solutions and, tile belief that the straight line i, the shortest distance hetn ren two points, discourages the systenlic approach required for sustainable, rather than satisficing, improvement. In other words, there eau be a tendency fiar managers to jump to 'obvious coninloil sense' solutions rather than seek to gain a fuller understanding of fec problem situation facing

Thinking luas become the dominant mode; the subj ective-obj ecti\ e dei )ate:

the adherence to simplistic thinking along a linear, flOfl recursive, causality mode: the notion of the organismic model impl\ ing dangerously hic subscrvïenee uf parts tu the interests of the whole.

It could be uscful to speculate on the relationship between the pragmaticali\ piliasedl reasoning recorded by Ellis I 995b ajud the intellectually based

reasons identified by Herrscluer 1996

.

Indeed, it

them. Hence, manager.s may 'solve' tile same

may well be that the maivagerial concerns are

1rotleni repeatedl\

subsumed within Herrscher's anal sis. Comments h

managers such as 'too academic' and 'too time ILe argument thus far lias becn largely based on

authors have voiced concern over the need to make Systems l'luinking more relevant, see, for example, Jackson. 1 99i: Hutehinson, 1996; Broeklesby, 1 994.

consuming' could be 1it forward to obscure the fear of undergoing i)cr50iitl chaiuge, or the reluctance to relinquish power. If this is the case. shich of Herrscher's reasons are most relevant to mamlagers? ,\Jternatively, iuianagerial conuments could he takeiu simply at face value and it could he concluded that Herrscher is over elaborating to comustruct ail

In a recent iix'u Herrscher 1996 has asked the

iiutellcctually satisR'ing positiolu. \Vhilst n e eoiuteiud,

qucstion ''...n h systemic thinking is 'difficult to sell'", arguing that ".. after fiaur decades of

as does Herrscher, that those who luold these vim s have 'missed the point of' S\ sterns liuiiuking. thcre is

pragmatic expericnce. lt is also vital that we present acadcmic cvidenee to support tiuc views presented

and it

is

to this issue that we now turn. Several

a il('('(l foi' further i'('s('ai'ell and (lehate by ciiccrncd

concentrate on providing solutions rutlier

aiid iiit('i'est('d S\ 51(11)5 !iiml'a'rs il tll(' approach is to hecoiiie geitci'a!l\ acc'pn'd h\ the pi'agilatic oi'gaiiisatioiuil \sorl(1.

than o'xplicitl\ ('xpounding theory:

illamlílmmg a broad spectrwn o!' thought and action.

Both sets o!' proposals have. in pi'uiciple. nutiehi to commend them: vet they co ulc! ix' di flic uIt to implement in prioctice. ( )ur view is that fîn'thei' i'eseu'ch needs to ht' ('oudueted into the tine ivatiu'e

\\e noiI' at this pout that Flcri'.sclier goes ou to argue that criticisms o!' the Systems Approach, as l)eing 'devoid o! values, caiiiiot he put aside. 'l'hose who consider c'tluo's as a 'collecli\ e imperative cannot agrte with tite 'acceptable dilemma in which the possibility of conti'adictioiis is recognised as one o! tIie typical Íeaturcs o! S\'stems 'l'hinking. Space does not pei'mnit a detailed discussion o! this important isstic, \VlIiclI is explored in mort' by depth in Ellis and Hail r

o!' the difficulties associated with míuking the hciief its o!' Systems 'l'hinking ti'aiispareilt to) those is ho operate iii the world outside of that involved with the development of' Systems 'l'hiiiukiiig as ami acaoheniit' discipline. \Ve shall discuss this view iii the !iuial section o!' this pitpt'r.

h PPhr.

Both Ellis and Herrscher go on put forward suggestions fbi' how we. aS concerned academics, can ('ontI'ibUte lo tlu' promotion aiid development of

The status of systems thinking in the academic world

S stems 'thinking. Ellis (1 9931) pOints to a need to take our e!Torts out o! academia u1dl into tile 'rca! world' of organisations. His suggestions include:

In the !breg'oing analysis we prst'nt'd evidence which suggests that Systems 'l'luinking is dOminate(l by the academic comrnuritv. 'l'his apparent academic acceptance is, however, paradoxical. Therefbre, we flow turn our attention to the stattis of Systems Thinking in the academic worIdi, firstly, as a

broadening the appeal through teaching, research and consultanev activities; dcvcloping undcrgraduate and postgraduate

subject of study and secondly. as an approach td) problem solving in academic iflstitutioflS. \Ve

programmes which contain significant and relevant Systems 'I'hinking components; developing integrated research programmes such that the output is applicable and useful tc praetising managers; working with managers and using Systems 1hinking to bring about sustainable resolution to their problems; developing a professional association of Systems 'l'hinkers which will attract praetising managers and academics as active members; designing

arid

promoting

conclude that despite the apparent vote of confidence from the academic world, Systems

Thinking continues to struggle tog'tiri more general acceptance.

The number of university academic departments which speciahise in teaching and! researching in

Systems 'I'hinking are relatively fe\v Hull, City. Lancaster, Lincolnshire amid Humberside and The Open University are amongst those institutions which can lay claim to such distinction. There are very few undlergraduate auch postgraduate degree

conferences,

workshops and seminar series which will

programmes, which offer, explicit Systems Thinking components. It can he cogently argued that the mcta or multi-disciplinary nature of the Systems Sciences is a major factor in the dearth of British universities,

encourage attendance by managers and academies.

Herrscher (1 996 issues

also suggests and discusses key

which have departments, which specialise in such studies. In one sense, this could be represented as a triumph of Systems Thinking - that it has been internalised within a range of other disciplines. Yet

for an 'action plan' intended to provide

principles for joint action by

individuals and institutions if humankind is to benefit from Systems thinking. In summary he identifies:

going down this road creates immense difficulties for the future development of Systems 'l'hinking itself'. with the potential for fragmentation drue to ontological and epistemological contradictions resulting from paradlign) incommensurability between the included disciplines. For example,

the importance of remaining innovative; that is being 'market driving' and not

'market driven'; except where managers are enlightened, to

be implicit in our approach; that

is to

16

schools of ('ligilleelilig aiicl infhrniation seieiiees tend

Nianagement to generate a departmental strategy

to dras largels on the 'hard' systems approaches, is hilsi

and a five-year plan in 1983. This aeti's it\ appears to he an isolated instance and it is interesting to note

On a iTiore pi'aetieal ilote, academies working in the niiilti-disciplinarv 'grey' areas can experience signifu ant diffieult\ in achieving recognition and, therefore, obtainiig research funding. For an

that this Department of S\ stems Science did not repeat the exercise '\Ioreover the aetivit\ was not widely published. It ss ould appear that we make only limited (-ontributi on to addressin g complex problems using Systems Thinking in our ois n institutions, and when we do, the outputs are not

example of this dilemma we need look no further

widely publicised.

than the 1 996 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). In this assessment, unu ersitv departments and

WI

J usiness and inanageiiient schools rely more ou the soft approaches.

should this be so? Because is e are too busy? Because the rate of change being experienced is too rapid? Because the environment is too turbulent? These questions are probIlily raising sorne si 1'\ smiles, Why? Surely it is only b's developing a f'ulher understanding of our ois n situation and our ois ii

academics working in the S\ stems Sciences had to make their assessment submission within the area of Business \Ianagemerit. This omission lias significant nnplicatïons for the future of Systems 'l'hinking in terms oh

difliculties in, to echo Herrscher's phrase, 'selling

Systems Thinking' to ourselves can is-c be better

attracting students to degree programmes ii Inch have a significant Systems Thinking

equipped to go 'out there and sell S\ stems Thinking. It seenis highl\ unlikeim that oui' difliculties arc' so u nique that corresponding situations don't exist elseis here. It could he argued that such an approach can lie eolisidhered as inward

component:

attracting academies uit0 s stems Ihinking research programmes: gaining research binding from national and international funding bodies;

looking, hut this isould ignore the heterogeneit\ of funding mechanism and organisational structure of the institutions in is'bich is-c is ork. If is e cannot 'sell it at home' - ei-er - anvis here - then this must seriously undermine our efforts to offer practising managers an's thing practicall\ useful: there must, in our vieis be a serious underlying problem. Is there a future for Systems Thinking both

gaining accreditation k research councils and professional institutions for doctoral

size,

Sd iolarships:

creating a

professional UK society or

institute dedicated to the development and furtherance of Systems Thinking as an academic discipline and as a profession.

as an academic discipline and as practically useful Is

means for managers in toda\ 's rapidl changing

there ans thing concerned academic Systems

Thinkers can do to improve this situation?

One means by which all Systems Thinkers could raise the profile of their discipline is to consistently use Systems Thinking to improve pro1em situations in our ois n ss orknig lives, that is, in our universities.

organisational world?

The ghost of practice past During the past five years two of the authors (\Varren and Adman have been ini olved in the process of developing Information S's SteITis /

Universities are large and complex organisations, made up of academics and a wide range of managerial, administrative and other support service stahl As Systems Thinkers is ithin our institutions, are

Information - ['ecli n ogy IS / IT Strategies within several 'old' UK universities. Due to the confidential nature 'si e are not at liberty to provide details of the work involved. Nevertheless is e are able to drais on tue work to support our previous discussion concerning the difficulties in gaining general acceptance for S stems Thinking.

we invited, and if we are, are is e able, to make a contribution to bringing about improvement in problem situations which do arise? Do we actually use Systems Thinking within our own faculties, and departments? There are very {7'w schools recorded instances of systems-based interventions in

our ois n universities. One of the authors of this paper Ellis reports that the I)epartmcnt of Systems Science nois suhswned into the City University

formulation of IS/Il strateg\ in UK universities is a highh\ complex issue is hieb is'ould, in our view, benefit from adldlressing the lateral issues in ii ssa\' encouraged by Svstc'iiis 'fliiiikiiig. This si unid

The

Business School and no longer a I )epartment in its ()\s n right at (3t\ University used Interactive

17

also he a high j)rofilc aiea in \Vhli(hl to j)ril(licC vhit

(oem'civc pu bleui (omitext and ue all kmioi that SS\l

we preach. Ihere are several reasons why:

is míq)propriite ii

stich

ii

context. 55M is better

suited to a complex-phii alist context, no wonder no

)et\\en

one would listen lo vonT Such a reaction. wlnist

amid 8° o of tue annual expendittn'e of am is í2,iven umuversmt\ iIi\'Ol\ed tlie quality of available computing facilities is

-

1 II

academilicall\ sound. does little lo help those actnall\ iivolved with ílttenipt mig to persuade powerful stakeholders to modify their attitude. .\ similar experience lias been i'ecoum)ted by Ellis and \vork \Vitli North Hminiplireys 199a in ilici \orkslume Police. ( learly, it is neither possible nor desu'ahle to attempt to generahisc fioni two c'xperieiices. Nevertheless. stich experiences support our vie thit we M US'l' carr\ out Rnthcr icseucli

a signifietii1 Íi(tor to potential students in -

niakiiig their choice of iimuversitv: the req uuement of a heterogene ins (onlplmtiní4 fiuilitv iieeded to Stipport

teaching. rwarcIi and admi listration (2iIiSe cliflicultv

n)

svsteiii

iii)CI

CCI ti1fl1Ci1t

to address the luk of' miietliodlogies to tise iii situations if ve are to create general accc'ptalice of Systems 'Ihiimiking.

)eci liC a ti 0m i

Some of the concerns. \vlii('h emerged during oui'

coem'ciye

involvement mn this work, were a.s fillows:

there was a reductionism:

strong tendency

towards

Conclusions

there was a propensity to base strategy on Ibis papel' mnakes íUl cmnequivocal call for sustunedi and investigatiye research into the i iterf ace between the academic world. engaged in the devehopmemital debate amid work, and tut' 'real orgamusational world of practice and action. \Ve riced to fbreih1 remnimid ourselves that the 'iyoi'v tower stei'eotype lias - \\ e

quantitative audits of' equipment, machinery aoci people rather than 1 )V gai iing a systemic understanding of' the computing reciturements as a whole; the tencleiicv to non-critically accept the

'expert' view raised ethical concerns in our ininds;

hope - ldlig gone. amid that we do work in

the advancement of the needs of' powerful

organisations. lt is useful hiere to refe r back ti) Herrscher's chistimiction between expounding the

stakehoiclers at the expense of' less powerful others also gave rise to ethical concerns. (Dur

'm'eal

underlying theory under appropriate conditions to enlightened managers. whilst quicthv 'binning that component uiidei' inappropriate conditions.

concerns were f'recuent1v expressed, both

and informally, during the Strategy Formulation process. Indeed we argued for the USC of a holistic and participative approach which would formally

lt seems reasonable to assiurie that it will be through enlightened managers that the Systems Movement will make progress in tut' dissemination of' Systems Thinking auch Approaches into the 'rc'al' world. Enlightened mamiagers will also he able to hei1) generating (and celebrcting successful use of the ideas such that demand for graduates who l)Oss'ss Systems 'Ï'hinking skills will be required b the organisations of the future.

ensure equitable representation of all stakeholder interests and, at the same time, produce considerable benefits in tcrms of' system performance. This argument was made substantive through our suggestion to use Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) (Checkland, 1981; Checkland and Scholcs, 199E

This suggestion was made on the basis that 'what' was needed had not been clearly established. Our suggestions fell on 'deaf ears' and it was made clear

\Ve mnust identify those enlightened managers and

to us that our suggestion was considered to be

organisations. perhaps by focusing on a wider range

counter productive to the espoused need to develop a strategy as quickly as possible. We did use Systems Thinking for small projects which were within our own span of control, hut our successes were met with

interest in tlie educational grounding in Systems '1'hinking, concepts and theories. This, we feel,

of organisations who have, or wish to have, an should he an important aspect in the development of a researeli programmne which will address the issues

disinterest.

we have attempted to raise in this brief paper. We must certainly become proacti'ee in this venture and. we must become flir more concerned with respect to identifying amid )ron1Oting the benefits of Systems

Devotees of Total Systems Intervention (TSI) (Flood and Jackson, 1991; Jackson, 1991( might say - 'Ha

ha ha - you were clearly involved in a complex-

18

'1 hiiikini.

ternis that managers can find 1)0th

in

i't'lt'vaiit and nicaning!iil.

\Vc \vill continue Vt argue for such an approach and

continue to promote the 'real' world application of Systems '1'}iinking through our Consultancy activities. \Ve encourage our like uiuided colleagues to join with us.

For the interested reader I 961 'l.o't the jios 1)ccii!c;.\s'ssing the Cultural j I'easihilit\ of lot:il Svteni', liitr vriitioo. S\StUios 16actiee. ,:1. pp J.)-

Firo klushv.

PETER AD1vIAN is du' Assiaot i)irector of Ge Comopoter Centre :11 tue Lniversit of' FRill. In iddition. to 6m'. mterest as , pmactinoner in the field of' IS/Il' strategy forinolation, hie lois m'c(ent!v icen mseardcd lu'.

33(3.

Phi) in the area of mmotrn ial record hinkige.

(:1'ckl(n(d. P

93! I

'Svöeois 'I looking. SS ',t('Ins Pradice'. John \\ilev &

Son s. C.! ii I1('st ('r.

C'hirrkloiid. P .iiiíl Sclioli's. ,J 136)1 'Soft ,\tents \kthO(1010t4\ .\(tlon.john \\'ili'v aiiil Soli'.. (.hic!ester. 1',IIi'..

RK

199.s:i

'( (OtilO! (_2(iisidcr,(tio)is

It)

iii the 1)eve!oprnent öl'

Svstriiis Ihinkuo.3 iiiicl Pl'd(tiCe, Systems Proctice. 13:2. pp 199-211.

t

Ellis, R K I 99)6 ''1 he .\ssociation o!' Systems

1'hiuking svii.Im tue Pmaroee öl \l,ìtiogi'ioriit. ill 'Svstrmmms foi iht' Future - Proee('dings oI'the

Firö ,\ustra!i,oi Ss ins (ioiif'erencc', \\

Fll.i(Ul(it)SOfl. S

1etralf.

C:

S(I«limOf 0(1! M \\'i!!ianms cd'. ,., Prrth. ,\usmr:ilio.

¡M LORRAINE 'NARREN is t setmior lecturer in Informanoim SS stem',

12h11'.. R K oui! Flrminphreys, .\ j, ! 99) ' loto! Systems timteryennon in

.Strotegic Pkoimiing'. in 'Critical Issues iii Systems 't'!n'orv od Practicr, R K Ellis. :\ (6egom'\ . B )Iears-\ou1(g 011(1 G Ragsdell .ecls'. Plenum Pmmhlislmmmmg.N ese \'ork.

Ellis. R K, ( regorv , .. \leius-\ouug. B imh Ragsdell. G

it

the Lincoln School of N h nagenicnt at the t.'mmiyersitv of Timm1 oloshire am ml Fitimherside, Her Interests ire in resemmchummg 1PPt'001h15 fc) ilitei'\ emit on

im) organisations and the natore of information si stems (hesigr. . 1992

'k ritica! Isstmí,s in Ss steIns 'I hc my amir! Praciici', 11lenom Publishing,

\e'v 'lork. Ellis. R K

1-loll, M 1. \\' I 93)6. 'Sysicio', 'l'hinking (((((.1 Hntmian

\'!u('s: ( remtiiig I .ink,ioies Gr Efleetise \\'orking l2(per \muuhei 1 ,it)Co!I mslimtm'

2. t Iornhter',idm'.

(.) rg,umms:m(monal

1I(tt'l'\'emitiofl. of'

School of \Imnagenmcnt. Lniversitv

1'Iöod. R t iiidjacksoii N C l991 .. '(:rtiv- Prohlem Solving: 10011 S'. sIclos Intervennomi .,Jolni \\mlev & Soit'.. Chichii'ster.

Flerrschirr, L fi I 99)). 'An Agenda for Enhancing Systemic 'I hinking ri Soeim'mc', System'. Rese:mrclm. 13:2. pp 1)9-ICI.

N ( : 199 1 'Sysmerns Niethiedologs Sciences. Pk'nuio Publishing. Ness Vom k. Jork'.m ii

jacksoim. Nl C I 99) 'Bevoitd the lads: Sy',tents Rm'se,imcfv 1 2: I . pp 22-42.

Ihr the \lanagenieut

seas, m.mmmnl N ttmrch 1997, Director of lii' Ceotm e for Systems Research at tIme I,ineoln School of' N1tmiagm'nteimt it the Lmliversiiv (Ir Linetmlnsliit'e and Ituniberside. I-Ic is nose N Ianmgimg Director ö1 Keith 'Ill!'. (.onsiilting Limited, l'In'. mornptmlv protides teaching, training amie! monsimltiney si'ryiees (o ieademii. te the 1tuhlii

KEITH ELLIS

Systems Ihinking for .\Ianagers.

seetot' mcl to inrinstrial and rommtmcrein! ma gimnsmtn)mis mt lirm'.

(,'s/flrmg/ii .6 O/s'momtmommrr/ Rerrsr,o I

19

ser ir