Whole life thinking and engineering the future

Whole-life thinking for engineers working on the built environment has become more important in a fast changing world.Engineers are increasingly concerned with complex systems, in which the parts interact with each other and with the outside world in many ways – the relationships between the parts determine how the system behaves. Systems thinking provides one approach to developing a more robust whole life approach. Systems thinking is a process of understanding how things influence one another within a wider perspective. Complexity, chaos, and risk are endemic in all major projects. New approaches are needed to produce more reliable whole life predictions. Best value, rather than lowest cost can be achieved by using whole-life appraisal as part of the design and delivery strategy.

A practical framework for the generation and selection of strategic plans of action, The relevance of timeframe considerations and a systems thinking approach

The paper proposes a methodology especially focused on the generation of strategic plans of action, emphasizing the relevance of having a structured timeframe classification for the actions. The methodology explicitly recognizes the relevance of long-term goals as strategic drivers, which must insure that the complex system is capable to effectively respond to changes in the environment. In addition, the methodology employs engineering systems techniques in order to understand the inner working of the system and to build up alternative plans of action. Due to these different aspects, the proposed approach features higher flexibility compared to traditional methods. The validity and effectiveness of the methodology has been demonstrated by analyzing an airline company composed by 5 subsystems with the aim of defining a plan of action for the next 5 years, which can either: improve efficiency, redefine mission or increase revenues.

Systems thinking: learning or driving?

The ability to foresee how behaviour of a system arises from the interaction of its components over time - i.e. its dynamic complexity – is seen an important ability to take effective decisions in our turbulent world. Dynamic complexity emerges frequently from interrelated simple structures, such as stocks and flows, feedbacks and delays (Forrester, 1961). Common sense assumes an intuitive understanding of their dynamic behaviour. However, recent researches have pointed to a persistent and systematic error in people understanding of those building blocks of complex systems. This paper describes an empirical study concerning the native ability to understand systems thinking concepts. Two different groups - one, academic, the other, professional – submitted to four tasks, proposed by Sweeney and Sterman (2000) and Sterman (2002). The results confirm a poor intuitive understanding of the basic systems concepts, even when subjects have background in mathematics and sciences.

Systems thinking: learning or driving?

The ability to foresee how behaviour of a system arises from the interaction of its components over time - i.e. its dynamic complexity – is seen an important ability to take effective decisions in our turbulent world. Dynamic complexity emerges frequently from interrelated simple structures, such as stocks and flows, feedbacks and delays (Forrester, 1961). Common sense assumes an intuitive understanding of their dynamic behaviour. However, recent researches have pointed to a persistent and systematic error in people understanding of those building blocks of complex systems. This paper describes an empirical study concerning the native ability to understand systems thinking concepts. Two different groups - one, academic, the other, professional – submitted to four tasks, proposed by Sweeney and Sterman (2000) and Sterman (2002). The results confirm a poor intuitive understanding of the basic systems concepts, even when subjects have background in mathematics and sciences.

The role of qualitative data and systems thinking in addressing service decline in market towns

Retail services are a main contributor to municipal budget and are an activity that affects perceived quality-of-life, especially for those with mobility difficulties (e.g. the elderly, low income citizens). However, there is evidence of a decline in some of the services market towns provide to their citizens. In market towns, this decline has been reported all over the western world, from North America to Australia. The aim of this research was to understand retail decline and enlighten on some ways of addressing this decline, using a case study, Thornbury, a small town in the Southwest of England. Data collected came from two participatory approaches: photo-surveys and multicriteria mapping. The interpretation of data came from using participants as analysts, but also, using systems thinking (systems diagramming and social trap theory) for theory building. This research moves away from mainstream economic and town planning perspectives by making use of different methods and concepts used in anthropology and visual sociology (photo-surveys), decision-making and ecological economics (multicriteria mapping and social trap theory). In sum, this research has experimented with different methods, out of their context, to analyse retail decline in a small town. This research developed a conceptual model for retail decline and identified the existence of conflicting goals and interests and their implications for retail decline, as well as causes for these. Most of the potential causes have had little attention in the literature. This research also identified that some of the measures commonly used for dealing with retail decline may be contributing to the causes of retail decline itself. Additionally, this research reviewed some of the measures that can be used to deal with retail decline, implications for policy-making and reflected on the use of the data collection and analysis methods in the context of small to medium towns.

Only connect: an annotated bibliography reflecting the breadth and diversity of systems thinking

The field of systems thinking is both broad and diverse. This paper tries to provide assistance to outsiders wishing to find out what systems thinking is and also to insiders interested in exploring areas of the systems movement other than their own. A selection of books, papers and articles is given. Each has a full reference and a brief annotation, this being an account of, and a critical comment on, its content. The selection does not aim to be definitive or authoritative and obviously displays the predilections of the authors. However, the hope is that it will convey a sense of the intellectual and practical endeavours that, to the authors, constitute systems thinking and that it may aid the exploration of the range of holistic ideas that people have found useful in thinking about and acting in the world.

Trying to think systematically about 'systems thinking'

I noticed with interest that Peter Checkland has now contributed' to the debate on the use of the term 'systems thinking' in a paper by Eric Wolstenholme2. However, due to the self-confessed lag in his reading schedule, Peter is responding to the original piece and not to any of the subsequent observations on it3'4 (although he is kind enough to reference some of my other work on the matter).

Blending systems thinking approaches for organisational analysis: reviewing child protection in England

This paper concerns the innovative use of a blend of systems thinking ideas in the ‘Munro Review of Child Protection’, a high-profile examination of child protection activities in England, conducted for the Department for Education. We go ‘behind the scenes’ to describe the OR methodologies and processes employed. The circumstances that led to the Review are outlined. Three specific contributions that systems thinking made to the Review are then described. First, the systems-based analysis and visualisation of how a ‘compliance culture’ had grown up. Second the creation of a large, complex systems map of current operations and the effects of past policies on them. Third, how the map gave shape to the range of issues the Review addressed and acted as an organising framework for the systemically coherent set of recommendations made. The paper closes with an outline of the main implementation steps taken so far to create a child protection system with the critically reflective properties of a learning organisation, and methodological reflections on the benefits of systems thinking to support organisational analysis.

On systems thinking, systems biology and the in Silico Plant

The recent summary report of a Department of Energy Workshop on Plant Systems Biology (P.V. Minorsky [2003] Plant Physiol 132: 404-409) offered a welcomed advocacy for systems analysis as essential in understanding plant development, growth, and production. The goal of the Workshop was to consider methods for relating the results of molecular research to real-world challenges in plant production for increased food supplies, alternative energy sources, and environmental improvement. The rather surprising feature of this report, however, was that the Workshop largely overlooked the rich history of plant systems analysis extending over nearly 40 years (Sinclair and Seligman, 1996) that has considered exactly those challenges targeted by the Workshop. Past systems research has explored and incorporated biochemical and physiological knowledge into plant simulation models from a number of perspectives. The research has resulted in considerable understanding and insight about how to simulate plant systems and the relative contribution of various factors in influencing plant production. These past activities have contributed directly to research focused on solving the problems of increasing biomass production and crop yields. These modeling approaches are also now providing an avenue to enhance integration of molecular genetic technologies in plant improvement (Hammer et al., 2002).

Organisational learning - a critical systems thinking discipline

Original Paper European Journal of Information Systems (2001) 10, 135–146; doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000394 Organisational learning—a critical systems thinking discipline P Panagiotidis1,3 and J S Edwards2,4 1Deloitte and Touche, Athens, Greece 2Aston Business School, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham, B4 7ET, UK Correspondence: Dr J S Edwards, Aston Business School, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham, B4 7ET, UK. E-mail: j.s.edwards@aston.ac.uk 3Petros Panagiotidis is Manager responsible for the Process and Systems Integrity Services of Deloitte and Touche in Athens, Greece. He has a BSc in Business Administration and an MSc in Management Information Systems from Western International University, Phoenix, Arizona, USA; an MSc in Business Systems Analysis and Design from City University, London, UK; and a PhD degree from Aston University, Birmingham, UK. His doctorate was in Business Systems Analysis and Design. His principal interests now are in the ERP/DSS field, where he serves as project leader and project risk managment leader in the implementation of SAP and JD Edwards/Cognos in various major clients in the telecommunications and manufacturing sectors. In addition, he is responsible for the development and application of knowledge management systems and activity-based costing systems. 4John S Edwards is Senior Lecturer in Operational Research and Systems at Aston Business School, Birmingham, UK. He holds MA and PhD degrees (in mathematics and operational research respectively) from Cambridge University. His principal research interests are in knowledge management and decision support, especially methods and processes for system development. He has written more than 30 research papers on these topics, and two books, Building Knowledge-based Systems and Decision Making with Computers, both published by Pitman. Current research work includes the effect of scale of operations on knowledge management, interfacing expert systems with simulation models, process modelling in law and legal services, and a study of the use of artifical intelligence techniques in management accounting. Top of pageAbstract This paper deals with the application of critical systems thinking in the domain of organisational learning and knowledge management. Its viewpoint is that deep organisational learning only takes place when the business systems' stakeholders reflect on their actions and thus inquire about their purpose(s) in relation to the business system and the other stakeholders they perceive to exist. This is done by reflecting both on the sources of motivation and/or deception that are contained in their purpose, and also on the sources of collective motivation and/or deception that are contained in the business system's purpose. The development of an organisational information system that captures, manages and institutionalises meaningful information—a knowledge management system—cannot be separated from organisational learning practices, since it should be the result of these very practices. Although Senge's five disciplines provide a useful starting-point in looking at organisational learning, we argue for a critical systems approach, instead of an uncritical Systems Dynamics one that concentrates only on the organisational learning practices. We proceed to outline a methodology called Business Systems Purpose Analysis (BSPA) that offers a participatory structure for team and organisational learning, upon which the stakeholders can take legitimate action that is based on the force of the better argument. In addition, the organisational learning process in BSPA leads to the development of an intrinsically motivated information organisational system that allows for the institutionalisation of the learning process itself in the form of an organisational knowledge management system. This could be a specific application, or something as wide-ranging as an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) implementation. Examples of the use of BSPA in two ERP implementations are presented.

WASOP, a qualitative methodology for waste minimization: systems thinking, HAZOP principles and nuclear waste

Purpose – The international nuclear community continues to face the challenge of managing both the legacy waste and the new wastes that emerge from ongoing energy production. The UK is in the early stages of proposing a new convention for its nuclear industry, that is: waste minimisation through closely managing the radioactive source which creates the waste. This paper proposes a new technique (called waste and source material operability study (WASOP)) to qualitatively analyse a complex, waste-producing system to minimise avoidable waste and thus increase the protection to the public and the environment. Design/methodology/approach – WASOP critically considers the systemic impact of up and downstream facilities on the minimisation of nuclear waste in a facility. Based on the principles of HAZOP, the technique structures managers' thinking on the impact of mal-operations in interlinking facilities in order to identify preventative actions to reduce the impact on waste production of those mal-operations.' Findings – WASOP was tested with a small group of experienced nuclear regulators and was found to support their qualitative examination of waste minimisation and help them to work towards developing a plan of action. Originality/value – Given the newness of this convention, the wider methodology in which WASOP sits is still in development. However, this paper communicates the latest thinking from nuclear regulators on decision-making methodology for supporting waste minimisation and is hoped to form part of future regulatory guidance. WASOP is believed to have widespread potential application to the minimisation of many other forms of waste, including that from other energy sectors and household/general waste.