Tag Archives: system dynamics

Not getting lost in process

Not getting lost in process

Debates about political process and endless delays in making decisions threaten to weaken trust in our democratic institutions especially with regard to pressing matters like the provision of adult social care. Politics has become a “prisoner of process” (Bagehot, 2025). 

Bagehot makes a good point and cites Blair in support of the observation that process, rather than being the means to the end, has become an end in itself. Bagehot draws on Stafford Beer’s (not attributed) POSIWID heuristic – the purpose of a system is what it does – to suggest that the system’s purpose has become an endless cycle of debate without action, although, in passing, observing that deliberation is necessary to “ensure that decisions are simply not made” (my emphasis). This is all good, but I think there are a number of conceptual errors that unhelpfully muddy the argument.

Starting with Beer’s POSIWID, it is a simple observation that system is being interpreted here in a narrow sense. We would hope that any system of governance has feedback mechanisms in it. Rather than a simple linear sequence of steps we would expect something like deliberation → action → observation (of effects of actions) → comparison → deliberation → …, where the comparison step derives an error signal based on the difference between what was intended and what happened. This system should operate in a continual cycle of feedback – it is both unlikely that our actions achieve the desired effect and the world keeps changing anyway. While we might conclude that the evident purpose of the system is to endlessly deliberate i.e., deliberation → deliberation → …, we could go a bit further and observe where the system is broken – the action element is missing and therefore the feedback loop is not operating. I think we would both agree that the system needs to be repaired. 

POSIWID is useful and the elicitation of feedback loops, at any desirable level of detail, provides a powerful analytical tool; but I believe there is another way of looking at this problem and the use of a process approach offers some benefits, rather than being consigned in the narrow sense to a trap of deliberation. The key can be found in the way in which we use language in our analyses. I have previously railed against the use of language like ‘solution’ and ‘fix’ in the context of complex problems, but in the analysis of the feedback loop above I rather consciously used ‘deliberation’, ‘action’ and ‘observation’ to emphasise the linearisation of what should be a system and that this arises from the nominalization of elements that should be thought of as verbs.

Getting stuck in a process of deliberation, or an endless sequence of deliberations, is likely when all the actors, including analysts and commentators (expert and otherwise), are constrained by their nominalizations. A better conceptualising of process thinking is to think of governing as a process and that for it to perform it must consist of further processes such as deliberating, acting (or effecting change, or intervening) and observing (or measuring). These processes are all necessary for governing but none are sufficient, by themselves, for properly enacting the process of governing. Note the use of the gerund form of the verb to convey a sense of continual ongoingness of the process. We can decompose this schema (or model) to any level of detail that is required using conditions of necessity and sufficiency as a test on whether a process is required in the model. 

Coming back to Bagehot’s analysis, we can clearly agree that the process of acting is not working well, but it cannot be reduced to a simple intervention that is yet to happen and that will somehow ‘fix’ the problem. The process of deliberating is obviously not working well either, it is clearly not sufficient by itself to enable the process of governing and our measure of its performance should of necessity include its commissioning of useful planning to enable acting. Rather than being prisoners of process, we would be better served by realising that processes are all there are, both in the world and in our ways of intervening in the world. To do this, amongst other things, requires a change in our language, away from nominalizations, especially ones like ‘action’ and ‘solution’, and recognise that acting or intervening is a continuing and ongoing process and may be enacted at any level of scale (socially, temporally, spatially,…).

In the case of adult social care there is clearly a whole lot of process detail that is completely missing between deliberating and intervening and nobody seems to be talking about it. We are left with unedifying analyses and useless solutionist traps. 

A short guide to System Dynamics

A short guide to System Dynamics

This guide was produced to help explain System Dynamics modelling to a group of interested stakeholders for a modelling workshop. However, if you have the time I would really recommend reading John Sterman’s textbook for a definitive account:

  • Sterman, J.D. (2000). Business dynamics : systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

Otherwise this short paper summarises the key points

  • Sterman, J.D. (2001). System dynamics modeling: Tools for learning in a complex world. California Management Review, 43(4), pp. 8-25. doi: 10.2307/41166098

And if neither are available, or time is really short, then try this SD-Introduction-MY-20200527.pdf from me.

A Systems Reading List

A Systems Reading List

I often get asked to recommend books on systems thinking, systemic problem structuring, and systems modelling – from general introductions to specialist texts. In this update I have reduced the list to a more manageable length and split it into two parts – essential and further reading. Note that I recommend the 1999 versions of ‘Systems thinking, systems practice‘ and ‘Soft Systems Methodology in Action’ since they both include Checkland’s excellent reflections on 30-years’ of Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). If you are learning about and using SSM then I think you also need to know something about Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA)/JourneyMaking and the Strategic Choice Approach (SCA).

Essential Reading

  • Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2011). Making strategy : mapping out strategic success (2nd ed) London: Sage.
  • Beer, S. (1985). Diagnosing the system. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  • Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice: Including a 30-year retrospective. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  • Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2006). Learning for action : a short definitive account of soft systems methodology, and its use for practitioner, teachers and students. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  • Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1999). Soft Systems Methodology in Action: Including a 30-year retrospective. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  • Jackson, M.C. (2019). Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic intervention : philosophy, methodology, and practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
  • Mingers, J., & Rosenhead, J. (eds) (2001). Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited : problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict (2nd ed). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  • Pidd, M. (2004). Systems modelling : theory and practice. Chichester: Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  • Pidd, M. (2010). Tools for thinking : modelling in management science (3rd ed). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  • Sterman, J.D. (2000). Business dynamics : systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Boston, Mass.: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
  • Vennix, J. (1996). Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Further Reading

  • Ackoff, R.L., & Emery, F.E. (1972). On purposeful systems. London: Tavistock Publications.
  • Coyle, R.G. (2004). Practical strategy : structured tools and techniques. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
  • Friend, J.K., & Hickling, A. (2005). Planning under pressure: the strategic choice approach (3rd ed). Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
  • Jackson, M.C. (2003). Systems thinking: creative holism for managers. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  • Midgley, G., & Ochoa-Arias, A. (2004). Community operational research : OR and systems thinking for community development. New York ; London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
  • Morecroft, J.D.W. (2007). Strategic modelling and business dynamics : a feedback systems approach. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley
  • Ramage, M., & Shipp, K. (2009). Systems Thinkers. London: Springer.
  • Richardson, G.P. (1991). Feedback thought in social science and systems theory. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  • Senge, P.M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. London: Random House.

Systems modelling in engineering

Systems Modelling in Engineering

The wider and more pervasive use of appropriate systems modelling techniques would have a beneficial impact on the way in which engineers deal with messy socio-technical problems. This class of problems is commonly defined by the following characteristics; i) difficulty on agreeing the problem, project objectives, or what constitutes success, ii) situations involving many interested parties with different worldviews, iii) many uncertainties and lack of reliable (or any) data, and iv) working across the boundary between human activity systems and engineered artefacts. All systems models attempt to conceptualise, via appropriate abstraction and specialised semantics, the behaviour of complex systems through the notion of interdependent system elements combining and interacting to account for the emergent behavioural phenomena we observe in the world.

Engineers have developed a multitude of approaches to systems modelling such as Causal Loop Diagrams (CLDs) and System Dynamics (SD), Discrete Event Modelling (DEM), Agent Based Modelling and simulation (ABM), and Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) and these are all included in my programme of research.   However, despite their extensive use, there still exists a number of research challenges that must be addressed for these systems modelling approaches to be more widely adopted in engineering practice as essential tools for dealing with messy problems. These systems modelling approaches as used in current engineering practice provide little or no account of how the process of modelling relates to the process of intervention (if any). This is in part due to the wider challenge to address the poor awareness and uptake of Problem Structuring Methods (PSMs) in engineering, the current inadequate way of integrating these more engineering-focussed systems modelling approaches into PSMs, and lack of understanding in how to deploy them appropriately in addressing messy problems in specific contexts. There is also the need to interpret the current state of the social-theoretic underpinning to systems modelling into a form that is appropriate for use in engineering. This need arises from the endemic atheoretical pragmatism that exists in engineering practice. The lack of methodology supported by suitable theory to counter this i) hinders the development of understanding why methods work or not, and also what it means for them to work, ii) acts as a barrier to communication between practitioners and disciplines, and iii) has ethical consequences, as pragmatic use of methods raises the problem of instrumentalism.

Addressing this methodological challenge is currently a central core of my work. I believe this research is transformational in that it integrates academically disparate areas of expertise in engineering, management, and social science, into a coherent articulation of systems modelling for engineers.