Leveraging Systemigrams for Conceptual Analysis of Complex Systems : Application to the U . S . National Security System

Systemigrams are useful learning tools for visually representing natural language descriptions of complex systems. Systemigrams are commonly used to engage system stakeholders in conversations that lead to deeper insights into a system’s overall construction and operation. In addition to being effective tools for system description, systemigrams also hold significant potential as tools for iterative system design. This paper examines the effectiveness of systemigrams as tools for creating composite definitions of systems, for assessing system characteristics, and for informing collective decisions by stakeholders about implementing changes within systems. We describe a methodology for incorporating systemigrams into the problem definition and design stages of a system analysis, and we demonstrate the usefulness of this tool as a means of comparing different systems in terms of desired structures and functions. We provide an example from the domain of US National Security to demonstrate how systemigrams can directly aid system design by enabling a side by side comparison of existing and desired systems. Introduction Over the past twenty years, multiple Soft Systems Methodologies (SSMs) have been developed for modeling and describing the structure and functionality of complex systems (see (Blair et al. 2007) for a concise summary). Early work in this area reflected a growing understanding that many problems are not amenable to traditional analysis methods that focus exclusively on “ends” and “means. ” Rather, these problems – or soft systems – are more accurately modeled as collections of relationships that persist and evolve over time within some system or framework (Checkland 1999). This development within systems theory reflects a shift away from positivist or reductionist paradigms, which assume that objective knowledge about a system can always be achieved. Nontraditional methods begin with the assumption that “open-ended” objectives – strategic goals and the needs of users – should be the driving forces behind a system’s design, development, and operation (Blair et al. 2007). The systemigram is a tool that leverages the objectives of nontraditional SSMs by providing a visualization of an entire system, thus highlighting the complexities of its functionality and of the relationships between its components (Blair et al. 2007). Previous discussions about the use of systemigrams have focused primarily on contexts in which the primary purpose of the systemigram is to more fully describe the system under consideration and to engage the stakeholders in constructive dialog. In this paper, we leverage systemigrams beyond a merely descriptive function to show how they can be used for the design of complex systems – especially for monolithic, institutionalized systems with no clear owner and with ambiguous boundaries. We demonstrate how systemigrams can be used iteratively, both for reaching an agreed-upon definition of a system’s structure and functions and for progressively designing the system toward an articulated desired state. Application of Systemigrams to Analysis of Complex Systems Systemigrams as analytical tools. A growing amount of work has focused on the use of multiple methodologies for analyzing soft systems. Checkland’s SSM is most frequently used in conjunction with other methodologies (Munro and Mingers 2002). The SSM framework motivated the development of Boardman Soft System Methodology (BSSM), a methodology that first incorporated systemigrams and that focused the techniques of SSM on the domain of project management in concurrent engineering processes and extended enterprises (Clegg and Boardman 1996). (Boardman and Sauser 2008) describe how BSSM relies on systemigrams to capture strategic intent and to develop consensus among various system stakeholders. They provide examples of systemigram use in several domains, including the UK Rail Industry Economic Architecture and the UK Digital Terrestrial TV Strategy. The primary focus of BSSM, and of these applications, is on the domains of enterprise and technology systems development (Boardman and Sauser 2008). Systemigrams are generally employed in the early stages of problem formulation, as stakeholders and analysts first conceptualize the system or problem under consideration (Clegg and Boardman 1996, Blair et al. 2007, Boardman and Sauser 2008). Indeed, one of the central uses of systemigrams is presenting stakeholders with a visual presentation of the very words they used to describe the system under consideration. This visual representation depicts system relationships and functions in a more instructive way than natural language descriptions, since systemigrams allow stakeholders to view all of their previous descriptions of a system simultaneously (Blair 2007, Boardman and Sauser 2008). This “allat-once” representation enables recognition and discussion of specific system characteristics in the context of the entire system, and in the specific environment in which the system is located. Systemigrams as iterative description and development tools. The examples and methodologies exhibited in (Blair et al. 2007, Boardman and Sauser 2008) show how systemigrams provide the basis for architecting enterprise and technology systems. Less attention has been given to the use of systemigrams for assessing, critiquing, and proposing alternatives to existing systems. We suggest that systemigrams can be further applied as analytic tools that enable conceptual iterations of a system toward some desired goal. Such an approach can be particularly warranted in contexts where there is no clear “owner” of the system and where the boundaries of the system are not clear. In such contexts, systemigrams can be employed to assist system stakeholders in clarifying and agreeing upon boundaries, key relationships, and functions of the system. As an agreedupon definition of the actual functionality of such a system emerges, insights will also emerge about the shortcomings of the system. If stakeholders are also able to articulate the key characteristics and functions of a “desired,” ideal system, then systemigrams can be created that enable active comparisons between the current and the desired systems. Systemigrams can therefore also serve as an interactive system design tool by enabling an iterative, “thought experiment” process through which stakeholders can assess the steps necessary to move from the current to the desired system. The following sections describe the iterative use of systemigrams in the contexts of system description and design. Problem Definition and CATWOE Analysis. A key component of nontraditional systems methodologies is the integration of multiple viewpoints, or perspectives, into the analysis of a system (Munro and Mingers 2002, Blair et al. 2007). Under this framework, as the perspectives of multiple relevant stakeholders are synthesized, a composite picture of the system emerges that is more complete and robust (and more generally accepted) than the individual perspective of any one stakeholder. Yet the synthesis of relevant stakeholder perspectives does not, in itself, guarantee that a complete view of the system has been achieved. Individual stakeholders themselves may not be taking a systems-based approach in their thinking about the system, and may fail to consider relevant aspects that are relevant to the multi-stakeholder perspective of the system. (Checkland 1999) describes the importance of establishing a system-based methodology in describing systems. This methodology is articulated through a mnemonic, CATWOE, and is useful for ensuring that a description of a system is complete and robust. The CATWOE framework considers the different perspectives of the stakeholders based on their root definitions of a system’s of Customers, Actors, Transformations, Worldview, Owners, and Environment. CATWOE analysis assists stakeholders in generating complete descriptions of the system – yet the resulting descriptions are still from the perspectives of the individual stakeholders. For example, the provision of US foreign aid is an important government function that falls under the jurisdictions of multiple US government agencies. Each of these agencies can use CATWOE to develop a description of the foreign aid process as understood within that agency – but the resulting descriptions may not interface well together. In this case, an additional feedback process is necessary in order to integrate the descriptions of foreign aid from each agency’s perspective into a composite view of the US foreign aid process. Systemigrams can facilitate the process of integrating stakeholder feedback in order to establish a holistic perspective on a system. As individual stakeholders develop their CATWOE descriptions of the system, systemigrams provide a verification platform to help analysts ensure that all relevant CATWOE aspects have been sufficiently addressed. As the perspectives of individual stakeholders are integrated, a systemigram can be created to model the emerging, composite system. This representation can provide the basis for further discussions between stakeholders about how to (re)define and (re)frame the system or problem under consideration. (Frittman and Edson 2009) demonstrates the incorporation of CATWOE and systemigram analyses into the early stages of analysis. An adaptation of their approach is illustrated in Figure 1. As the process of defining the problem and involving stakeholders progresses, a natural feedback loop of information develops in which input from system stakeholders informs the refinement of the problem definition. This process leads to greater clarity about the nature of the problems exhibited in the system, and increased stakeholder agreement about how to model and address these