System Dynamics / Systems Thinking : Let ' s Just Get On With It

The world has many problems. Many of these problems are approaching crisis proportions. The System Dynamics community has something very powerful to contribute to addressing these problems whether we call that something Systems Thinking or System Dynamics. We have not been very effective in sharing what we have to offer because we have failed to truly appreciate the essence of System Dynamics. As a result, we have both consciously and unwittingly diluted this essence, and in the process made more difficult the task of disseminating what we have to offer. We need to better understand and appreciate the essence of our field, and then focus our energies on the real task at hand: Figuring out why this essence seems to be so difficult for people to grasp, and then fixing that. The Big Picture: The world's problems haven't lessened much, if any, since 1961 when Jay Forrester penned Industrial Dynamics (Forrester, 1961). In fact, you could make a pretty convincing argument that things are going to hell in a hand-basket pretty quickly! We, in the System Dynamics community, have something very powerful to offer to our increasingly troubled world. We can offer a way of thinking, doing, and being that can help the planet's citizenry to achieve a much saner day-to-day existence, as well as a more promising longer-term future. So, if we have this much to offer, why isn't the world beating a path to our doorstep? It is my contention that we ourselves are thwarting the realization of our potential for making the world a better place. We are doing so by not fully appreciating the essence of what we have to offer. Lacking this appreciation, we have not focused our attention on meeting the very real and very formidable challenges associated with disseminating this essence. Instead, sensing the challenges, we have both consciously and unwittingly diluted this essence in an effort to make it more palatable. But the solution is not dilution! We must instead work to develop a shared appreciation for what really is the essence of what we can bring to the party. We must then focus our energies on figuring out how to best disseminate this essence. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the achievement of both ends. I'll begin by providing an operational definition of Systems Thinking. Then, I'll relate that definition to what I understand System Dynamics to be. From here, I'll focus on what I perceive to be the challenges we must confront if we are to achieve more widespread assimilation of what we have to offer. I'll conclude by first examining some new and promising approaches to meeting these challenges, and then identifying one of the important challenges that remains. What is Systems Thinking, and how does it relate to System Dynamics? Let me begin by briefly saying what Systems Thinking is not. Systems Thinking is not General Systems Theory, nor is it "Soft Systems" or Systems Analysis though it shares elements in common with all of these. Furthermore, Systems Thinking is not the same thing as Chaos Theory, Dissipative Structures, Operations Research, Decision Analysis, or what control theorists mean when they say System Dynamics though, again, there are similarities both in subject matter and aspects of the associated methodologies. Nor is Systems Thinking hexagrams, personal mastery, dialogue, or total quality. Understanding what Systems Thinking "is not" will help us to more fully appreciate what its essence is. I have taken, and will continue to take, the non-politically-correct position that "reaching out" to these other disciplines and approaches is not where we should be focusing our energies. This is not to say that these disciplines and approaches do not themselves have much to contribute! Nor is it to say that we should not celebrate the synergies, or avail ourselves of cross-fertilization opportunities, where these occur. What I do want to say is that we have something in what I will define as Systems Thinking that is quite unique, quite powerful, and quite broadly useful as a way of thinking and learning. It's also capable of being quite transparent seamlessly leveraging the way we learn biology, manage our businesses, or run our personal lives. We need to concentrate on realizing the substantial untapped potential which has been sitting right there in front of us for so many years, before we devote much explicit attention to "reaching out. " Allow me two more "nots. " First, Systems Thinking is not quite the same thing as System Dynamics. However, the overlap is very substantial, and the differences are more in orientation and emphasis than in essence. Second, my definition of Systems Thinking is not the same as Jay Forrester's. I believe Jay's definition, represented in Venn Diagram terms, would look like Figure 1. As the Diagram suggests, Forrester sees Systems Thinking as a small subset of System Dynamics, viewed in terms of what the latter package has to offer vis a vis understanding and improving the way the world works. I have inferred Jay's view from comments that he has made in various forums. Recently his sentiments were reflected in an interview which appeared in the McKinsey Quarterly. In that interview, he stated that Systems Thinking will get you " less than 5 percent of the way towards a genuine understanding of systems. The other 95 percent lies in the rigorous System Dynamics-driven structuring of models and in the simulations based on these models" (McKinsey, 1992). Jay considers rigorous-structuring and simulation activities to fall outside his definition of what constitutes Systems Thinking. By contrast, both are subsumed within my definition. My Venn Diagram-like picture of the relationship between Systems Thinking and System Dynamics appears in Figure 2. The picture contrasts quite sharply with the one I perceive Jay to hold. However, as you'll see, I am in violent agreement with Jay with respect to what the thrust of his picture implies. The differences in our pictures arise from differences in assumptions about which items are included under the rubric of Systems Thinking versus System Dynamics. As Figure 2 is intended to suggest, my view of Systems Thinking is that it encompasses all that Jay thinks of as System Dynamics, "plus some. " A parallel, non-Venn Diagram, way to interpret Figure 2 is that Systems Thinking is "System Dynamics with an aura" (you Californians will like thinking about it this way! ). Let's examine both what's in the core and what's in the aura, as well as why I feel an aura is needed (and justified) I first developed a discomfort with the name "System Dynamics" when I began teaching at Dartmouth in 1979. The name did not seem encompassing enough to students for what they felt they were getting out of the courses I was teaching. Students felt that first and foremost they were emerging with a "new way of thinking. " They averred that this "new way" pervaded their lives, changing the way they saw things, interpreted events, and made meaning out of situations. The name "System Dynamics" seemed to them (and to me) to apply more to "the system" as in referring to the system's dynamics (which is, I believe, why many people continue to misspell the name of our field as Systems Dynamics). When people asked them what the name of this new way of thinking they had embraced was, they wanted to be able to provide a name that had something to do with a worldview. The name "System Dynamics" was very unsatisfying in this regard. I sat with a mounting frustration with the name "System Dynamics" for several years. Then, in 1985 when HPS was ready to release our first version of what became the STELLA® software, I was pressed to come up with a name for the product. After much thought, and only a little reverse engineering, I came up with the acronym: STELLA (Richmond, 1985). The acronym stood for "Structural Thinking, Experiential Learning Laboratory with Animation. " Now that was a mouthful! At the time, the name "Structural Thinking" seemed to be a more accurate description of what we were about than System Dynamics. I still kind of like the name Structural Thinking because it points directly to what I consider to be the essence of System Dynamics (and, therefore, Systems Thinking). Unfortunately, the term also is a pretty good characterization of what a civil engineer does when planning an apartment building or a dam. Structural Thinking simply didn't capture enough of the story. One year later, when preparing our first real User's Guide for the STELLA software, I began using the name "Systems Thinking" to describe what it was that "stood behind" the software (Richmond, et al., 1987). I was unaware of other uses of this name, and I liked where it put the emphasis i.e., on the thinking! Yes, you did rigorous structuring. And yes, you did simulations. But both activities were guided by a paradigm, a way of viewing the world. The purpose was not the structuring or the simulating. The purpose was to think more productively about how to improve the way a system worked. So, we had both key elements: System and thinking. The name felt more accurate. The need for a more accurate description of the nature of our undertaking was not the only motivation behind my shift away from using the term System Dynamics. The second important reason was that I felt the historical emphasis in the practice of System Dynamics had been incorrect. I wanted to radically shift this emphasis, and felt that doing so (under the rubric of what people had known to be System Dynamics) would be too difficult to pull off. The emphasis in System Dynamics practice circa 1976 (which is when I arrived at MIT to begin my study) could be characterized as: "We have the way to get the wisdom; we will get that wisdom for you (just name the context); then we will transmit that wisdom to you. " The message writ large across Industrial Dynamics (Forrester, 1961), Urban Dynamics (Forrester 1969), World Dynamics (Forrester, 1971) and Th