Thinking in Systems I
Note: The aim of this nine-part series is to define and describe the basic structure and components of a system. This is the fourth post in the series, which is excerpted from Chapter 4 of my recently published book, Win-Win: W. Edwards Deming, the System of Profound Knowledge, and the Science of Improving Schools.
As a starting point, it will be helpful to revisit the definition of a system from earlier in the series and add to it the definition of systems thinking. A system is a set of elements interconnected in such a way that it produces its own pattern of behavior over time. Systems are coherently organized in a way that achieves something. The system may be impacted by outside forces, but its response to these forces is characteristic of the system itself, and that response is seldom simple.
As you may notice from the definition, systems must have elements, interconnections, and a function (nonhuman systems) or purpose (human systems).[1] Systems thinking then is a way of thinking that focuses on recognizing the interconnections between the parts of a system and synthesizing them into a unified view of the whole.
A defining property of a system is that none of the individual elements have all the properties of the whole. Think about the example of the automobile as a system. No part of an automobile can take you from one place to another, only the whole automobile can do that. Dr. Ackoff, the eminent systems thinker quoted below, explained that a system is more than the sum of its parts using this classic example of the automobile as a system.
When the whole automobile (system) is disassembled it loses its essential properties and so do all of its parts. The automobile is the product of the interaction of the parts, not the sum of the parts taken separately. This has an incredibly important implication for management that the Western world has not yet learned. Divide and conquer is the basic principle of Western management. Manage each department separately and in turn the whole will be run as well as possible. But this is absolutely false.
In any system, when one improves the performance of the parts taken separately the performance of the whole does not necessarily improve and frequently gets worse. When the system is being run as well as possible, none of its parts may be. This simple example demonstrates it. The NY Times reported that there are 457 automobiles available in the U.S. If you had engineers find the best part from each car, the best motor from say a Rolls Royce, the best transmission from a Mercedes, etc. and have engineers remove the best parts from each car and instruct them to assemble them. Do we get the best automobile? Of course not, we don’t even get an automobile. Because the parts don’t fit together.[2]
Ackoff’s automobile as a system example illustrates the four defining characteristics of systems.
First, systems have a function or purpose. The function of the automobile is to provide transport from one place to another. This function is a property of the automobile as a whole and cannot be achieved by any of the parts alone-be it the wheels, the transmission, or the engine. The function of the automobile is what defines it as a discrete entity.
Second, all parts of the system must be present for it to carry out its function optimally. If pieces can be taken away from something without impacting its function, then you have a collection of things and not a system. The wheels, transmission, and engine (and many other parts) cannot be taken away from the automobile without it losing its ability to transport.
Third, the order in which the parts are assembled impacts the performance of a system. Not only that, but those parts must fit together; the arrangement of the parts matters a great deal. That is why assembling the best parts in the anecdote above results in a pile of junk rather than a luxury automobile. They do not work together as a system.
And finally, systems attempt to maintain stability through feedback. Feedback is the return of information within the system about the status of a process. Its most important feature is that it provides information about system performance relative to some desired state. If you brake too hard as you approach a stop light, you receive feedback in the form of screeching tires and the automobile abruptly stopping. From there, you can use the feedback to make the braking smoother at the next light.
This example illustrates the importance of thinking in systems, a point I’ll expand on in next month’s post and as applied to school systems.
***
John A. Dues is the Chief Learning Officer for United Schools Network, a nonprofit charter management organization that supports four public charter schools in Columbus, Ohio. He is also the author of the newly released book Win-Win: W. Edwards Deming, the System of Profound Knowledge, and the Science of Improving Schools. Send feedback to jdues@unitedschoolsnetwork.org.
Notes
1. Donella H. Meadows, Thinking in Systems: A Primer (White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2008), 11.
2. “Systems Thinking Speech by Dr. Russell Ackoff.” YouTube, November 1, 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbLh7rZ3rhU&ab_channel=awalstreetjournal.