Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Background
Methodology/Research Approach
Limitations
References
All Topics
Business and Management
Information Systems and Management

Systems-thinking theory

Profile image of Graeme WhitehallGraeme Whitehall

2021, Routledge eBooks

https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003128786-3
visibility

…

description

11 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Background The idea of 'systems' has been discussed in almost all disciplines since its origin in the 17th century including physics, biology and chemistry, and was eventually used for explanations in ecology, engineering, economics, anthropology, geography, sociology, cybernetics and so on. It has emerged as a meta-discipline and as a metalanguage (Checkland & Scholes, 1999). Using the idea of systems, Checkland (1981 to date) provides the seminal work on 'systems-thinking'. 'Systems-thinking' is about consciously organised thinking processes (Arnold & Wade, 2015; Checkland, 1981). Systems-thinking is a world view which allows appreciation of holistic systems, having interconnections between the elements of which systems-thinking is made of, called system-components. This includes human and non-human elements of the system, encompassing physical, natural, social, economic, cultural and cognitive attributes, established in the form of the wider, linked processes between the users (human) and technologies or structures (non-human) of the system (Clegg, 2000). These system-components contribute to properties such as drivers, outcomes and feedbacks, and can be applied to problems of multiple disciplines (Cerar, 2012; Forrester, 1994; Voinov & Farley, 2007). As a core concept, systemsthinking is an idea of the 'adaptive whole'. As a whole, a system has its own emergent properties, layered structure and processes of communication and control (Arnold & Wade, 2015; Checkland, 1981). Systems-thinking involves several principles, which on their own are looked upon as disciplines of systems-thinking. Anderson and Johnson (1997) provide the basic principles of systems-thinking: 1 The 'Big Picture' principle demands widening one's perspective to find a more effective solution (e.g. in stressful times, one tends to focus on the immediate, most pressing problem and this perceives only the effects of changes elsewhere in the system). Therefore, one should step back to look at the bigger picture and investigate the source of the problem, which would more likely identify a more effective solution. 2 The 'Long Term, Short Term' principle suggests that the best approach to strike a balance about any decision is to consider short-term (e.g., a week, a quarter, a year) and long-term

Related papers

Book Review: A useful reference source for systems thinking
Shamim Bodhanya
View PDFchevron_right
The Development and Initial Validation of the Paradigm of Systems Thinking
Mirella L Stroink

Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 2018

Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static "snapshots." '-Peter Senge. The current research examined the psychological construct of systems thinking alongside other established psychological constructs of intelligence, personality, cognitive complexity and creativity to distinguish systems thinking as an independent psychological construct. Across two studies, results suggest that, while systems thinking may overlap with some of these constructs, notably intelligence and cognitive complexity, these constructs did not fully explain obtained variance in systems thinking scores and suggest that systems thinking may indeed be a distinct, perhaps foundational, psychological construct that may exist as an individual difference dimension. This exploratory study discusses the theoretical implications of systems thinking as well as further psychometric validation of the Systems Thinking Scale.

View PDFchevron_right
Foundations of Systems Thinking: The Structure-System Paradigm
Sergio Barile

2011

ABSTRACT The aim this contribution is to propose a framework of the key concepts of a systems thinking perspective to adopt when analyzing and interpreting business as well as social phenomena. Recognizing the limits of the traditional analytical-reductionist approach, on the basis of a systems thinking, the paper underlines the need for recovering a whole view of phenomena and suggests to couple a structure-based approach, focused on the analysis of parts and relations and adequate for describing how the investigated phenomenon is made, with a systems-based approach, focused on interaction and necessary when interpreting the dynamics of functioning of the observed phenomenon. In this way, the systems path appears as a bridge between a reductionist and a holistic approach. After a definition of the qualifying elements of systems thinking, the implications of the passage from a structure-based to a systems-based view are discussed by deepening the interpretative contribution of the structure-system dualism as derived from the more general distinction between a static and a dynamic view.

View PDFchevron_right
Systems Thinking: An Analysis of Key Factors and Relationships
Divya Behl

Procedia Computer Science, 2014

Today's work environment presents engineers with complex challenges that demand holistic approaches. Systems thinking provides ways to think about a problem and its solutions using "whole system" perspectives. There have been multiple studies that identify the key elements that comprise systems thinking. These studies have resulted in the identification of sets of individual systems thinking traits, elements, and characteristics. In this paper, the authors further explore and analyze individual systems thinking elements as well as the relationships between the various elements. The authors will present and discuss a model that illustrates the relationships between the elements related to individual systems thinking.

View PDFchevron_right
Chapter 2 Systems Thinking and Behaviour
Peter Slattery

The BWA Method Book, 2021

As a society, we are dealing with increasingly complex problems and working in environments where there are many competing agendas. To build a shared understanding of the problem and uncover insights on the changes that organisations can make - and those which may be out of their control - we use systems, process, actor and influence mapping to identify the individuals, groups and organisations involved in the problem - and who may be part of the solution.

View PDFchevron_right
A Maturing of Systems Thinking? Evidence from Three Perspectives
Eric Wolstenholme

Systemic Practice and Action Research, 2004

This paper reviews trends in systems theory/thinking from the 1970s to the early 2000s. It proposes a maturation of the field based on certain conceptual and methodological advances that have sought to liberate systems thinking from earlier strictures. An edited dialogue among three prominent systems thinkers from different systems "schools"-Merrelyn Emery, Bob Flood, and Eric Wolstenholme-provides evidence. Similarities and differences are identified, complementarities among the schools are derived and analyzed, and trajectories for future research are indicated.

View PDFchevron_right
THE PROBLEM WITH SYSTEMS THINKING AND ITS RESOLUTION
janos korn

no abstract

View PDFchevron_right
A Unifying Theory of Systems Thinking with Psychosocial Applications
Laura Cabrera, Derek Cabrera

Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 2015

Systems thinking is a field characterized by a baffling array of methods and approaches. We posit that underlying all, however, are four universal rules called DSRP (distinctions, systems, relationships, and perspectives; each containing two co-implying elements). We make distinctions between and among things and ideas, each implying the existence of an other. We identify systems, which are composed of parts and wholes. We recognize relationships composed of actions and reactions. We take perspectives consisting of a point (from which we see) and a view (that which is seen). We argue that DSRP offers a unifying and organizing principle for the field of systems thinking and an indispensable analytical tool for solving complex problems. At the same time, the metacognitive practice of applying these rules has significant psychosocial implications, such as increasing self-awareness, empathy, and a sense of belonging, while decreasing stereotyping and self-harming and other-harming orientations. As such, DSRP has the potential to create advanced analytical thinkers with prosocial orientations.

View PDFchevron_right
Crisis in systems thinking
janos korn

Kybernetes

Purpose The current field of systems thinking consists of a variety of views, methods and a number of organisations involved with these views which suggests a state of confusion and fragmentation of the field which fundamentally is supposed to be a uniform view of structures or systems. This can be interpreted as a “crisis situation”. A resolution of the crisis in the form of a “new science of systems” is proposed. Assuming this new science becomes part of the field of systems thinking, a debate of the elements of the field is suggested with a view to consider its current state and future developments. “Crisis - resolution - debate” is the central theme of the paper. Design/methodology/approach The field of current systems thinking is described in terms of views, methods and organisations and is seen as the “problematic issue”. A “new science of systems” strongly rooted in natural language as its primary symbolism and consisting of three general principles of systems and linguistic ...

View PDFchevron_right
CONTRIBUTION OF SYSTEMS THINKING TO SOCIETY
janos korn

no abstract

View PDFchevron_right

References (68)

  1. Kaspary, M. C. (2014). Complex thought and systems thinking connecting group process and team man- agement: New lenses for social transformation in the workplace. Systems Research and Behavioral Sci- ence, 31(5), 655-665. doi:10.1002/sres.2313
  2. McDaniel, R., Jr (2007). Management strategies for complex adaptive systems sensemaking, learning, and improvisation. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20(2), 21-41. doi:10.1111/j.1937-8327.2007. tb00438.x
  3. Shrivastava, P., Ivanaj, S., & Persson, S. (2013). Transdisciplinary study of sustainable enterprise. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(4), 230-244. doi:10.1002/bse.1773
  4. Alcott, B. (2008). The sufficiency strategy: Would rich-world frugality lower environmental impact? Eco- logical Economics, 64(4), 770-786. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.04.015
  5. Anderson, V., & Johnson, L. (1997). Systems Thinking Basics. Cambridge, MA: Pegasus Communications.
  6. Arnold, R., & Wade, J. (2015). A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44(2015), 669-678. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.03.050
  7. Azeiteiro, U., Leal Filho, W., & Caeiro, S. (2014). E-Learning and Education for Sustainability. doi:10.3726/ 978-3-653-02460-9
  8. Berkhout, F., Smith, A., & Stirling, A. (2004). Socio-technological regimes and transition contexts. In B. Elzen, F. Geels & K. Green (Eds.), System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evi- dence and Policy (p. 336). doi:10.4337/9781845423421.00013
  9. Boston, J. (2000). The challenge of evaluating systemic change: The case of public management reform. International Public Management Journal, 3(1), 23-46. doi:10.1016/S1096-7494(00)00033-7
  10. Brunia, S., De Been, I., & van der Voordt, T. (2016). Accommodating new ways of working: Les- sons from best practices and worst cases. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 18(1), 30-47. doi:10.1108/ JCRE-10-2015-0028
  11. Campbell, D. (1960). Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67(6), 380-400. doi:10.1037/h0040373
  12. Campbell, D. (2000). The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. Academy of Management Perspectives, 14(3), 52-66. doi:10.5465/ame.2000.4468066
  13. Candy, P. (1991). Self-Direction for Lifelong Learning. A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice. San Fran- cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  14. Cerar, J. (2012). Transdisciplinary Sustainable Development (Master thesis). Univerza v Ljubljani, Ekonomska fakulteta. www.cek.ef.uni-lj.si/magister/cerar773-B.pdf
  15. Chapman, J. (2004). System Failure: Why Governments Must Learn to Think Differently. London: Demos.
  16. Checkland, P. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: J. Wiley.
  17. Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1999). Soft Systems Methodology: A 30-Year Retrospective. Chichester: Wiley.
  18. Choi, T., Dooley, K., & Rungtusanatham, M. (2001). Supply networks and complex adaptive systems: Control versus emergence. Journal of Operations Management, 19(3), 351-366. doi:10.1016/S0272- 6963(00)00068-1
  19. Clarke, S. (2012). Information Systems Strategic Management: An Integrated Approach. Oxon: Routledge.
  20. Clegg, C. W. (2000). Sociotechnical principles for system design. Applied Ergonomics, 31(5), 463-477. doi:10.1016/S0003-6870(00)00009-0
  21. da Costa Jr, J., Diehl, J. C., & Snelders, D. (2019). A framework for a systems design approach to complex societal problems. Design Science, 5. doi:10.1017/dsj.2018.16
  22. Denzin, N. (2001). Interpretive Interactionism (Vol. 16). California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
  23. Eraut, M., & Hirsh, W. (2010). The Significance of Workplace Learning for Individuals, Groups and Organisations. Oxford: SKOPE.
  24. European Commission. (2014). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions -A Policy Framework for Climate and Energy in the Period from 2020 to 2030. Brussels: European Commission. https://eur-lex. europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0015&from=EN
  25. Forrester, J. (1994). System dynamics, systems thinking, and soft OR. System Dynamics Review, 10(2-3), 245-256. doi:10.1002/sdr.4260100211
  26. Geels, F. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level per- spective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8-9), 1257-1274. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8
  27. Geels, F. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 24-40. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002
  28. Giljum, S., & Polzin, C. (2009). Resource Efficiency for Sustainable Growth: Global Trends and European Policy Scenar- ios. Paper Presented at the International Conference on Green Industry in Asia -Managing the Transition to Resource-Efficient and Low-Carbon Industries, Manila, Philippines. www.academia.edu/190057/ Resource_efficiency_for_sustainable_growth_global_trends_and_European_policy_scenarios
  29. Göb, R., McCollin, C., & Ramalhoto, M. (2007). Ordinal methodology in the analysis of Likert scales. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 601-626. doi:10.1007/s11135-007-9089-z
  30. Gray, D. (2019). Doing Research in the Business World. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  31. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lin- coln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-117). California: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  32. Hansen, L., & Hoffman, J. (2011). Climate savvy: Adapting conservation and resource management to a changing world. Oryx, 45(3), 456-457. doi:10.1017/S0030605311001232
  33. Harding, S. (1992). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is "strong objectivity? The Centennial Review. www.jstor.org/stable/23739232
  34. Harris, R. (2015). The changing nature of the workplace and the future of office space. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 33(5), 424-435. doi:10.1108/JPIF-05-2015-0029
  35. Harrison, A., Wheeler, P., & Whitehead, C. (Eds.). (2003). The Distributed Workplace: Sustainable Work Environments (1st ed.). doi:10.4324/9780203616574
  36. Hodson, R. (2001). Dignity at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  37. Holbeche, L. (2015). The Agile Organization: How to Build an Innovative, Sustainable and Resilient Business. London: Kogan Page Publishers.
  38. Huber, J. (2000). Towards industrial ecology: Sustainable development as a concept of ecological mod- ernization. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 2(4), 269-285. doi:10.1002/1522-7200 (200010/12)2:4<269::AID-JEPP58>3.0.CO;2-U
  39. Huberman, M., & Miles, M. (2002). The Qualitative Researcher's Companion. California: SAGE Publica- tions, Inc.
  40. Jackson, T. (2016). Prosperity without Growth: Foundations for the Economy of Tomorrow. London: Routledge.
  41. Kavantera, A., Thakore, R., & Whitehall, G. (2020). How do Corporate Drivers and Individual Preferences for Agile Working Meet? Study of Hong Kong Organisations and Employees. Paper Presented at the The Second Transdisciplinary Workplace Research Conference, 16th-19th of September 2020, Weimar, Germany. www.twr2020.org/Conference-Program/Session-4/
  42. Kemp, R., & Rotmans, J. (2005). The management of the co-evolution of technical, environmental and social systems. In M. Weber & J. Hemmelskamp (Eds.), Towards Environmental Innovation Systems (pp. 33-55). doi:10.1007/3-540-27298-4_3
  43. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. In, Archives of Psychology (Vol. 22, p. 55). Virginia: The University of Virginia.
  44. Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: A prescriptive, complexity- based governance framework. Governance, 23(1), 161-183. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01471.x
  45. Marczyk, G., & DeMatteo, D. (2005). Essentials of Research Design and Methodology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  46. McCormick, K., Anderberg, S., Coenen, L., & Neij, L. (2013). Advancing sustainable urban transforma- tion. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.003
  47. Mensah, J., & Casadevall, S. (2019). Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for human action: Literature review. Cogent Social Sciences, 5(1), 1653531. doi:10.1080/ 23311886.2019.1653531
  48. Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2015). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. California: John Wiley & Sons.
  49. Ngai, E., Xiu, L., & Chau, D. (2009). Application of data mining techniques in customer relationship management: A literature review and classification. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2), 2592-2602. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.02.021
  50. O'Connell, P., Russell, H., Watson, D., & Byrne, D. (2004). The Changing Workplace: A Survey of Employees' Views and Experiences. http://edepositireland.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/72620/NCPP_Research_2_ 2004_nwses_full_report.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  51. Patton, M. (2014). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
  52. Pelling, M. (2010). Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation. Oxon: Routledge.
  53. Piasecki, M., Kostyrko, K., Fedorczak-Cisak, M., & Nowak, K. (2020). Air enthalpy as an IAQ indica- tor in hot and humid environment -experimental evaluation. Energies, 13(6), 1481. doi:10.3390/ en13061481
  54. PROVIA. (2013). PROVIA Guidance on Assessing Vulnerability, Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change. Nai- robi, Kenya. www.adaptation-undp.org/sites/default/files/downloads/provia-guidance-nov2013.pdf
  55. Repko, A. F., & Szostak, R. (2020). Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory (4th ed.). California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
  56. Rhodes, M. (2008). Complexity and emergence in public management: The case of urban regeneration in Ireland. Public Management Review, 10(3), 361-379. doi:10.1080/14719030802002717
  57. Rhodes, M., & MacKechnie, G. (2003). Understanding public service systems: Is there a role for complex adaptive systems theory? Emergence, 5(4), 57-85. doi:10.1207/s15327000em0504_6
  58. Rosendahl, J., Zanella, M., Rist, S., & Weigelt, J. (2015). Scientists' situated knowledge: Strong objectivity in transdisciplinarity. Futures, 65, 17-27. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2014.10.011
  59. Schmidt-Bleek, F. (1998). The MIPS-Concept. Paper Presented at the Environmental Behaviour and Qual- ity of Life: Ecological, Sociological, Psychological and Communicational Indicators of Sustainability, Stadtschlaining, Austria. https://docplayer.net/37642574-Environmental-behaviour-and-quality-of- life-ecological-sociological-psychological-and-communicational-indicators-of-sustainability.html
  60. Schneider, F., & Rist, S. (2014). Envisioning sustainable water futures in a transdisciplinary learning pro- cess: Combining normative, explorative, and participatory scenario approaches. Sustainability Science, 9(4), 463-481. doi:10.1007/s11625-013-0232-6
  61. Skogland, M. (2017). A spatial approach to transformational change: Strategic alignment of the spatial and cultural environment. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 19(4), 285-299. doi:10.1108/JCRE-09-2016-0030
  62. Thakore, R. (2016). A Strategic Engagement Model for Delivering Energy Efficiency Initiatives in the English Housing Sector. University of Central Lancashire. http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/18647/
  63. Tolley, E., Ulin, P., Mack, N., Robinson, E., & Succop, S. (2016). Qualitative Methods in Public Health: A Field Guide for Applied Research. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  64. UNEP. (2010). Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production (9280730843). www. resourcepanel.org/file/171/download?token=p6YPKaxA
  65. United Nations. (2012). Report of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. https://sustainable development.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=111&nr=1358&menu=35
  66. Urban Sustainability Directors Network. (2016). Why Efficiency is not Enough. United States and Canada. https://sustainableconsumption.usdn.org/concept/why-efficiency-is-not-enough
  67. van Alphen, A., Halfens, R., Hasman, A., & Imbos, T. (1994). Likert or Rasch? Nothing is more applicable than good theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 20(1), 196-201. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1994.200 10196.x Voinov, A., & Farley, J. (2007). Reconciling sustainability, systems theory and discounting. Ecological Eco- nomics, 63(1), 104-113. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.10.005
  68. Weizsäcker, E., Lovins, A., & Lovins, L. (1998). Factor Four: Doubling Wealth-Halving Resource Use: The New Report to the Club of Rome. Oxon: Earthscan.

Related papers

Systems thinking
Derek Cabrera

Evaluation and Program Planning, 2008

Evaluation is one of many fields where “systems thinking” is popular and is said to hold great promise. However, there is disagreement about what constitutes systems thinking. Its meaning is ambiguous, and systems scholars have made diverse and divergent attempts to describe it. Alternative origins include: von Bertalanffy, Aristotle, Lao Tsu or multiple aperiodic “waves.” Some scholars describe it as

View PDFchevron_right
Systems Thinking: The Art of Understanding the Dynamics of Systems
Piero Mella

The International Journal of Learning: Annual Review

It is a discipline for seeing wholes, recognizing patterns and interrelationships, and learning how to structure those interrelationships in more effective, efficient ways. Systems Thinking is a discipline in that it proposes: to train us to observe reality as composed of dynamic systems;; to provide us powerful models of description and simulation;; to improve our ability to gain knowledge, that is to learn;; to develop our intelligence. Systems Thinking, in that it is a discipline, must be learned gradually, with practice, and continually perfected. In his book, Peter Senge presents Systems Thinking in an intuitive way, but he does not provide the logical principles behind it. I believe that the logical structure of this discipline can be summarized in five fundamental rules the systems thinker must follow at all times: if we wish to understand the world we must be able to see the "trees through the forest";; we must develop the capacity to "zoom" in and out from whole to parts, from systems to components;; we must not limit our observation to what appears constant but "look for that which varies". Variables-and the "variations" that these undergo over time-are what interests the systems thinker;; if we want to understand reality we must connect the variables which are of interest to us in a chain of causal relations among the connected variables;; we must "link the variables" in order to specify the loops between all those variations, thereby transforming the linear variations into system interactions among the variables;; when we observe the world we must always specify the boundaries of the system we are examining.

View PDFchevron_right
Systems Thinking: Common Ground or Untapped Territory?
Pamela Buckle

Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 2012

ABSTRACT

View PDFchevron_right
The Four Waves of Systems Thinking
Laura Cabrera, Derek Cabrera

Routledge Handbook of Systems Thinking, 2021

It has been over thirty years since the third wave washed onto the beach of systems practice, bringing with it (amongst other things) a healthy focus on methodological pluralism. This focus represents a significant aspect of the context for editing this book, and is the reason why such a diverse variety of approaches and methodologies could be represented in it. We describe the focus on methodological pluralism as ‘healthy’ because, in the early 1980s (just before the start of the third wave), the systems research community was involved in a paradigmatic war between first wave thinkers, who advocated a focus on objective analysis and optimization (usually using quantitative modelling methods to derive expert recommendations to hand over to decision makers), and second wave practitioners who advocated the participative exploration of stakeholder perspectives, and the use of qualitative modelling methods to enable better mutual understanding and agreements on action to be taken. In contrast, third wave authors argued that both types of systems approach were useful for different purposes and in different contexts. This advocacy for methodological pluralism struck a chord with pragmatic practitioners, many of whom already mixed methods from different paradigmatic sources—systems methodology was aligning with what many people intuitively saw as best practice. That was in the second half of the 1980s and early 1990s, and for the most part, it ended the paradigm war between first and second wave systems thinkers. A new valuing of diversity flourished, and as a result, more and more methodological innovations were proposed.

View PDFchevron_right
A Definition of Systems Thinking: A Systems Approach
Jon Wade

Procedia Computer Science, 2015

This paper proposes a definition of systems thinking for use in a wide variety of disciplines, with particular emphasis on the development and assessment of systems thinking educational efforts. The definition was derived from a review of the systems thinking literature combined with the application of systems thinking to itself. Many different definitions of systems thinking can be found throughout the systems community, but key components of a singular definition can be distilled from the literature. This researcher considered these components both individually and holistically, then proposed a new definition of systems thinking that integrates these components as a system. The definition was tested for fidelity against a System Test and against three widely accepted system archetypes. Systems thinking is widely believed to be critical in handling the complexity facing the world in the coming decades; however, it still resides in the educational margins. In order for this important skill to receive mainstream educational attention, a complete definition is required. Such a definition has not yet been established. This research is an attempt to rectify this deficiency by providing such a definition.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Sociology
  • Knowledge Management
  • Agile software development
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved