Benefits of Systems Thinking

Benefits of Systems ThinkingINTRODUCTIONSystems thinking is a well nonionic blast of understanding the dynamic relationship between components of a establishment, so that we stern make break in choices and avoid unintentional consequences. Its a conceptual frame deed for problem-solving which understands and considers the problems in their entirety (Hall, 1999 and Senge 1990). In new(prenominal) words, it tail end be defined as a view which looks at the system of rules as a whole first with its fit and relationship to external milieu being a primary equal as compargond to the constituent elements that make up the system (Morgan, 2005). It can be applyd to understand how systems work and how soulfulnesss can deal with them, while looking for patterns of interaction and underlying structures which shapes the systems behaviour. As system is a combining of several separate people who understand systems thinking keep one eye on the salient picture (i.e. system as a whole) and one on the detail (i.e. constituents components), as they recognise that problem in one part of the system can impact other parts and forces patterns of behaviour in the system that lead to crisis (Morgan 2005).Systems view is a way of positioning and looking into an organisational or systems issue where system boundaries be to be set to determine what parts be contained inside the system and what parts are considered external purlieu. The environment will trus dickensrthyly influence the problem solving capabilities of the system, scarcely its not the part of the whole system (Ackoff, 1971). Outcomes will depend heavily on how a system is defined because system thinking investigates relationships between various parts of the system and its external environment (Montano et. al, 2001).ADOPTION OF SYSTEMS THINKINGA number of methods, tools and principles cover the concept of systems thinking with a common inclination of understanding relationships within the system, as systems thinking works on the hypothesis that there are certain evolving properties of systems that do not exist when systems are disintegrated into item-by-item parts. For example consider a driver who is evermore hitting red lights on the road. If the driver is only noticing one part of the system i.e. red lights, then he will simply decide to fixedness up to in-order to make the next light onward it turns to red. But, if he considers other parts of the system i.e. his car, condition of the road, driving style and the distance between two lights, he will notice that every time he tries to speedup to make a light, it changes to red. His speed is tripping the lights to force him to drive slower. So if he is observing this pattern, he can simply subordinate his speed to drive thorough all green lights.In systems view, the focus spreads in a mix of disparate directions compared to the constituted linear style of thinking. It focuses on processes, patterns and relationships and their flow and movement and puts much tension on understanding the effects of the interactions in the system as opposed to putting efforts to predict the outcomes (Morgan, 2005). Its argued that the emphasis on systems view should begin when a final cause is started and should continue till the final lessons arrive at been learnt in time after completion (Stewart and Fortune, 1995).Advantages of Systems ThinkingAdopting a view of system thinking can complement conventional styles of research in holds in certain waysIt suggests different levels of summary and synthesis for different kinds of problems, ranging from the elementary activity levels to the more complex hierarchical levels.Systems thinking complements reductionism (the principle that everything can be reduced to its individual parts), analytical analysis (breaking down a system to its smallest components), cause and effect thinking (environment-independent, linear notwithstanding without feed substantiate loops, closed and defined boundaries), complete determinism (illusion of fit) with complexity (a sub-system of larger network), blended structure ( explicateing the whole system in terms of functions and inter-relationship between parts), circular contributing effects (explaining external environmental influences, performance and feedback) and belief in uncertainness which leads to probabilistic thinking (Schiuma et.al, 2012).It provides a conceptual framework which utilizes different theories, tools and techniques handle the Soft Systems methodology (SSM), which helps in constructing a holistic, reliant perspective and practise aimed at disclosing the relationships characterizing a system (Joham et al., 2009 and Pourdehnad, 2007). Such approaches use a non-linear model where different elements are connected through cyclical rather linear cause-and-effect chains. This shows how a system is structured and also shows the nature of interactions among components of the system, which helps in unde rstanding the behavioural patterns characterizing the system under investigation (Schiuma et.al, 2012).Having a reductionist thinking tends to push the project towards a closed systems view of the environmental i.e. the different phenomenon could be explained as individual and isolated events, which shows that the system and the context are separate, deterministic and predictable. In addition, the cursory relationship between different elements is linear in the sense that A affects B which affects B, so such(prenominal) a approach can be used as a process or social occasion to track and access results and performance on a operational level rather than on a broader system level.Project managers can use systems thinking to assist them in the scoping of a project where the project and its relationship to the environment are examined to underline potential risk areas and also to look at the project performance and thus to facilitate organizational learning (Stewart and Fortune, 1995). Disadvantages of Systems ThinkingAlthough adoption of systems thinking/view is safe in some aspects while executing consulting projects, there are still certain problems which are associated with this approach. just about of them are as followConcept of systems thinking totally ignores or much worse destroys the some important aspects of human systems, for e.g. the interconnections or inter-relationships amongst and between the constituent sub-systems (Morgan, 2005). The project and its sub-tasks are totally ignored. Reductionism is no longish appropriate for dynamic projects which comprises of mostly human activities. It encourages fragmentation and isolation of the project which causes undue concern with the individual project activities or sub-systems. This method is makes us smart in micro-level thinking with regard to projects whereas on the other hand its allowing us to be dumb on the macro-level analysis. Under this thinking the project attention loses the capability of making sense of how and why things work in a certain patter/manner.Reductionism cant be implemented in every project. It tries to deal with the issues of the project one at a time, which leads to the problem of backing up which make things much worse. Also it is not helpful in dealingss with multiple or delayed causality, as it is leading us to the simplistic way of thinking where individuals instead of focusing on the core problem focus on either-or choices and blame mentality (Morgan, 2005). The simple approach to cause and effect cant be implemented in consulting projects with high level of complexity, as it cant keep up with the complexity of the project. As systems thinking focus on dealing with symptoms of the problem, interventions aimed at fixing things can end up sometimes making things better in the compact run but worse in the long term.The over-reliance on reductionism will create an imaginary environment in which individuals think that prediction and control are the usable approaches to deal with complex projects. Endless varieties of tools and frameworks would be applied to ensure project success and when all such things fail they will try to explain the causes of system failure using the reductionist explanations of personal failure, resistance to change etc. So, the cycle goes on repeating itself and people, organisations get trapped into fixes which are doomed to fail.Having a systems perspective enables the project to exert control over people and its processes. But such a view tends to act against innovation and adaptation which are fundamental qualities for long-term effectiveness.Adopting a systems view can threatens some of the established policies and procedures in managing consulting projects, for e.g. in areas like monitor and evaluation, performance management and assessment. Most of the practitioners have doubted its operational use, as it has not provided specific answers to the cases when the system has encountered problems. So me of its ideas such as emergence can be unattractive with project management teams, who are constantly under pressure to give results in short run.Systems view can also have a disengaging effect on people and organisations that are used to a structured system where projects are planned and targets are met. So, adopting a system thinking view can increase the effect of uncertainty in project consulting and management rather than reducing it.System thinking can also be demanding in terms of intellectual resources as it requires multi-disciplinary approaches to handle wide range of issues and patterns. It requires a significant coronation in terms of skills, organisational structure where people are trained across a series of interconnected issues to make systems thinking work, because if they give up on the practise of systems views they will probably get back to much easier conventional approaches (Morgan, 2005).ConclusionThe implications of systems thinking can be far reaching as its not clear how it will fit with other methods of analyzing situations. Questions will be asked about its contribution to monitoring and evaluation as the some of the sub-systems may be inadequate in generating data needed for analysis which leads to reluctance in trusting the conclusions (Morgan, 2005). Though its best in synthesis, it needs help in terms of practical analysis, so the question arises that can it supplement present methods of doing things or does it have to counterchange them in some way?In conclusion, adopting a systems view can contribute in mean and controlling the complexity and uncertainty by embedding flexibility in consulting activities. When implemented and aligned properly, systems view can alleviate the flaws present in the existing frameworks to produce a more general framework which includes two prescriptive and descriptive elements (Montano et. al, 2001). Also, it facilitates the links between project management initiatives and the strategic goals and objectives of an organisation helping in maintain a clear vision of what is being done and why it is being done (Ackoff and Emery, 1972).