Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Interim Summary
System Tools and Methodology
The Future of Systems Thinking
Review
Conclusion: A Maturing of Systems Thinking?
References
All Topics
Business and Management
Organization Development

A Maturing of Systems Thinking? Evidence from Three Perspectives

Profile image of Eric WolstenholmeEric Wolstenholme

2004, Systemic Practice and Action Research

Abstract

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.

Related papers

Systems Thinking: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis
Morteza Nagahi

Systems, 2020

Systems thinking (ST) is an interdisciplinary domain that offers different ways to better understand the behavior and structure of a complex system. Over the past decades, several publications can be identified in academic literature, focusing on different aspects of systems thinking. However, two critical questions are not properly addressed in the extant body of ST literature: (i) How to conduct the content analysis exclusively to derive the prominent statistics (i.e., influential journals, authors, affiliated organizations and countries) pertaining to the domain of ST? (ii) How to get better insights regarding the current and emerging trends that may evolve over time based on the existing body of ST literature? To address these gaps, the aim of this research study is to provide a comprehensive insight into the domain of systems thinking through bibliometric and network analysis. Beginning with over 6000 accumulated publications, the analysis narrowed down to 626 prominent articles with proven influence published over the past three decades. Leveraging rigorous bibliometric tools analysis, this research unveils the influential authors, leading journals and top contributing organizations and countries germane to the domain of systems thinking. In addition, citation, co-citation and page rank analysis used to rank top influential articles in the area of systems thinking. Finally, with the aid of the network analysis, key clusters in the existing literature are identified based on the research areas of systems thinking. The findings of this research will serve as a bluebook for practitioners and scholars to conduct future research within systems thinking context.

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
Traditions of Systems theory: An Observer Report
Itay Shani

Constructivist Foundations Vol. 15, No. 1, 78-81, 2019

> Abstract • Despite some questionable decisions regarding its organization , this anthology is an interesting read and a valuable general education resource concerning the intellectual history, and subsequent evolution, of systems theory. The book details early conceptual landmarks while emphasizing latter-day developments and applications, in particular in the context of cultural studies and the socio-economical sciences. While commenting on the book's form and content I also raise questions concerning systems theory's standing in relation to such themes as consciousness, constructivism, and the machine metaphor.

View PDFchevron_right
Book Review: A useful reference source for systems thinking
Shamim Bodhanya
View PDFchevron_right
Systems-thinking theory
Graeme Whitehall

Routledge eBooks, 2021

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

View PDFchevron_right
Appreciating systems: critical reflections on the changing nature of systems as a discipline in a systems-learning society
Ray Ison

Systemic Practice and Action Research, 2000

View PDFchevron_right
Desperately seeking systems thinking in the information systems discipline
Steven Alter

Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International …, 2004

Although called systems, information systems in organizations are often viewed as tools that "users" use. IS success is often gauged as though it were about acceptance and usage of a tool. System development is often conceived as building computerized tools that satisfy information requirements of idealized business processes. Frequent IS disappointments and occasional failures are often attributed to inadequate user involvement, and even users involved in the projects often admit difficulty contributing fully to these technical discussions. This paper argues that the current balance between tool thinking and systems thinking in IS practice and research is slanted toward tool thinking, and that the IS discipline has done far too little to exploit the system nature of systems in organizations. Progress in that direction would fully recognize the sociotechnical nature of systems in organizations, thereby encouraging richer systems thinking than is possible in practice or in research when largely social entities and largely technical entities are treated separately. A long-term effort toward richer systems thinking in the IS field is the attempt to develop the work system method, a systems analysis method for business professionals. To date, this effort has generated innovations that may have valuable implications for systems analysis, IS pedagogy, and the development of a body of knowledge for the IS field. Many research issues for the future have also emerged.

View PDFchevron_right
Ulrich, W. (1988). Systems thinking, systems practice, and practical philosophy: a program of research
Werner Ulrich

Systems Practice (now Systemic Practice and Action Research), 1988

This programmatic paper argues that building a bridge between the two traditions of systems thinking and practical philosophy is key to serving the cause of ethically grounded, socially rational decision-making. A three-level framework of rational systems practice provides a starting point that 30 years after it was first outlined can still guide innovative research and professional practice.

View PDFchevron_right
Systems thinking, systems practice, and practical philosophy: A program of research
Werner Ulrich

Systems Practice, 1988

If Systems Practice is to serve the cause of socially rational decision making, its understanding of systems approach must open itself up to the communicative dimension of rational practice uncovered by contemporary practical philosophy. This programmatic paper argues that building the bridge between the two traditions of systems thinking and practical philosophy is a key challenge to be faced by the systems community. A three-level framework of rational systems practice is suggested as a point of departure for a program of research.

View PDFchevron_right
The Barriers to Systems Thinking
mjeed alqhtani

System Thinking is a prerequisite to effective Systems Engineering, and is one of the hardest elements to recognize, develop and use. This paper argues that this is because Systems Thinking is hard, and actually unnatural. There are barriers in the way the human brain is pre-disposed to act, and the current state of engineering can also be a barrier to Systems Thinking. To deliver the value promised by Systems Engineering recognizing these difficulties, and overcoming them is essential.

View PDFchevron_right

References (67)

  1. Ackoff, R. (1979). The future of operational research is past. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 30, 93-104.
  2. Ackoff, R., and Emery, F. (1972). On Purposeful Systems, Aldine-Atherton, Chicago. Aldrich, H. (1999). Organizations Evolving, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
  3. Angyal, A. (1941). Foundations for a Science of Personality, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Asch, S. (1952). Social Psychology, Prentice-Hall, New York.
  4. Ashmos, D., and Huber, G. (1987). The systems paradigm in organization theory: Correcting the record and suggesting the future. Acad. Manage. Rev. 12(4), 607-621.
  5. Baburoglu, O. (1992). Tracking the development of the Emery-Trist systems paradigm. Syst. Pract. 5(3), 263-290.
  6. Barton, J., and Selsky, J. (2000). Toward an Emery model of management: Implications and prospects of Emery open systems theory. Syst. Pract. Act. Res. 13(5), 705-720.
  7. Bausch, K. C. (1997). The Habermas/Luhmann debate and subsequent Habermasian perspectives on systems theory. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 14, 315-330.
  8. Beer, S. (1966). Decision and Control, Wiley, New York.
  9. Bion, W. (1952). Group dynamics: A review. Int. J. Psychoanal. 33, 235-247.
  10. Bion, W. (1961). Experiences in Groups, Tavistock, London.
  11. Burrell, G., and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis, Gower, Aldershot.
  12. Checkland, P. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester.
  13. Checkland, P., and Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley, Chichester.
  14. Chisholm, R., and M. Elden. (1993). Features of emerging action research. Hum. Relat. 46(2), 275-298.
  15. Churchman, C. W. (1968). The Systems Approach, Delta, New York.
  16. Churchman, C. W. (1979). The Systems Approach and Its Enemies, Basic Books, New York.
  17. Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems, Routledge, London.
  18. Clark, P. (2000). Organizations in Action, Routledge, London.
  19. Coveney, P., and Highfield, R. (1995). Frontiers of Complexity Theory, Faber and Faber, London.
  20. Cullen, J. (1998). The needle and the damage done: Research, action research, and the organizational and social construction of health in the "informational society." Hum. Relat. 51(12), 1543-1564.
  21. Dupuy, J.-P. (2000). The Mechanization of the Mind: On the Origins of Cognitive Science, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
  22. Emery, F. (ed.) (1969). Systems Thinking, Vol. 1, Penguin, Harmondsworth, UK.
  23. Emery, F. (1980). Educational paradigms: An epistemological revolution. In Emery, M. (ed.) Partici- pative Design for Participative Democracy, Centre for Continuing Education, Canberra, 1993.
  24. Emery, F. (1997). Introduction. In Trist, E. L., Emery, F. E., and Murray, H. (eds.), The Social Engage- ment of Social Science, Vol. III. The Socio-Ecological Perspective, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 36-46.
  25. Emery, F. (1998). Futures We're In, rev. ed. SCU Press. (Original edition, Martinus Nijhoff, 1977).
  26. Emery, F., and Emery, M. (1976). A Choice of Futures, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden.
  27. Emery, F., and Emery, M. (1997). toward a logic of hypotheses: Everyone does research. Concepts Transform. 2(2), 119-144.
  28. Emery, F., and Trist, E. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Hum. Relat. 18, 21-32.
  29. Emery, F., and Trist, E. (1973). Towards a Social Ecology, Plenum Press, New York.
  30. Emery, M. (1997). Open systems is alive and well. Presented at Academy of Management national meetings, Boston, August.
  31. Emery, M. (1999). Searching: The Theory and Practice of Making Cultural Change, John Benjamin, Amsterdam.
  32. Emery, M. (2000). The current version of Emery's open systems theory. Syst. Pract. Act. Res. 13(5), 623-643.
  33. Flood, R. L. (1990a). Liberating Systems Theory, Wiley, New York.
  34. Flood, R. L. (1990b). Liberating systems theory: Toward critical systems thinking. Hum. Relat. 43(1), 49-75.
  35. Flood, R. L. (1993). Beyond TQM, Wiley, New York.
  36. Flood, R. L. (1996). Total systems intervention: Local systemic intervention. In Flood, R. L., and Romm, N. R. Critical Systems Thinking: Current Research and Practice, (eds.), Plenum, New York, pp. 95-115.
  37. Flood, R. L. (1999a). Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning Within the Unknowable, Routledge, London.
  38. Flood, R. L. (1999b). Knowing of the unknowable. Syst. Pract. Act. Res. 12(3), 247-256.
  39. Flood, R. L. (2001). The relationship between "systems thinking" and action research. In Reason, P., and Bradbury, H. (eds.), Handbook of Action Research, Sage, London.
  40. Flood, R. L., and Jackson, M. C. (1991a). Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings, Wiley, Chichester.
  41. Flood, R. L., and Jackson, M. C. (1991b). Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention, Wiley, Chichester.
  42. Flood, R. L., and Romm, N. R. (1996a). Diversity management: Theory in action. In Flood, R. L., and Romm, N. R. (eds.), Critical Systems Thinking: Current Research and Practice, Plenum, New York, pp. 81-91.
  43. Flood, R. L., and Romm, N. R. (1996b). Diversity Management: Triple Loop Learning, Wiley, Chichester.
  44. Forrester, J. (1961). Industrial Dynamics, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  45. Gloster, M. (2000). Approaching action research from a socioecological perspective. Syst. Pract. Act. Res. 13(5), 665-682.
  46. Lane, D., and Jackson, M. (1995). Only connect! An annotated bibliography reflecting the breadth and diversity of systems thinking. Syst. Res. 12(3), 217-228.
  47. Lilienfeld, R. (1978). The Rise of Systems Thinking, Wiley, Chichester. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
  48. Martindale, D. (1960). The Nature and Types of Sociological Theory, Hougton-Mifflin, Boston.
  49. Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization, rev. ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
  50. Parsons, T. (1949). Essays in Sociological Theory, Pure and Applied, Free Press, Glencoe, IL.
  51. Peery, N. (1972). General systems theory: An inquiry into its social philosophy. Acad. Manage. J. 15(4), 495-509.
  52. Pepper, S. C. (1942). World Hypotheses, University of California Press, Berkeley.
  53. Reason, P., and Bradbury, H. (eds.) (2001). Handbook of Action Research, Sage, London.
  54. Reed, M. (1996). Organizational theorizing: A historically contested terrain. In Clegg, S., Hardy, C., and Nord, W. (eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 31-56.
  55. Richardson, G. (1991). Feedback Thought in Social Science and Systems Theory, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
  56. Richardson, G. (ed.) (1996). Modeling for Management: Simulation in Support of Systems Thinking, Gower, Aldershot.
  57. Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday, New York.
  58. Shenhav, Y. (1995). From chaos to systems: The engineering foundations of organization theory, 1879- 1932. Admin. Sci. Q. 40, 557-585.
  59. Sommerhoff, G. (1950). Analytical Biology, Oxford University Press, Oxford. (See also The ab- stract characteristics of living systems. In F. Emery (ed.), Systems Thinking, Vol. 1, Penguin, Harmondsworth, UK, 1969, pp. 147-202.
  60. Stacey, R. (2000). Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics: The Challenge of Complexity, Pearson Education, London.
  61. Sterman, J. 2000). Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Irwin McGraw Hill, Boston.
  62. Vennix, J. (1996). Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics, Wiley, New York.
  63. Verma, N. (1998). Similarities, Connections and Systems, Lexington Books, Lanham, MD. von Bertalanffy, L. (1950). The theory of open systems in physics and biology. In Emery, F. (ed.), Systems Thinking, Vol. 1, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1981, pp. 83-99.
  64. von Bertananffy, L. (1972). The history and status of general systems theory. Acad. Manage. J. 15(4), 407-426.
  65. Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos, Viking, London.
  66. Wolstenholme, E. (1990). System Enquiry, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
  67. Wolstenholme, E. (1999). Value chain dynamics: Applying system dynamics to support value thinking. Presented at International system dynamics conference, Wellington, New Zealand, July.

Related papers

Rethinking Systems Thinking: Learning and Coevolving with the World
David Ing

2013

Much of systems thinking, as commonly espoused today, was developed by a generation in the context of the 1950s to 1980s. In the 2010s, has system thinking changed with the world in which it is to be applied? Is systems thinking learning and coevolving with the world? Some contemporary systems thinkers continue to push the frontiers of theory, methods and practice. Others situationally increment the traditions of their preferred gurus, where approaches proven successful in prior experiences are replicated for new circumstances. Founded on interactions with a variety of systems communities over the past 15 years, three ways to rethink systems thinking are proposed: 1. "Parts and Wholes" Snapshots → "Learning and Coevolving" Over Time 2. Social and Ecological → Emerged Environments of the Service Economy and the Anthropocene 3. Episteme and Techne → Phronesis for the Living and Non-living These proposed ways are neither exhaustive nor sufficient. The degree to which systems thinking should be rethought may itself be controversial. If, however, systems thinking is to be authentic, the changed world of the 21st century should lead systems thinkers to engage in a reflective inquiry.

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

Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 2012

ABSTRACT

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
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
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

Related topics

  • Systemic Practice
  • Critical Systems Thinking
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved