A System:
A System is basically a collection of parts (or
subsystems) which are integrated to accomplish
an overall goal (a system of people is an organization).
Systems have inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes,
with ongoing feedback among these various parts.
If even one part of the system is removed, the
nature of the entire system is changed. In his
book The Fifth Discipline, organizational development
theorist Peter Senge developed the notion of organizations
as systems (Senge, 1990).
Systems Thinking:
Systems thinking involves the use of various techniques
to study systems of many kinds. It includes studying
things in a holistic way, rather than the traditional
reductionist techniques. Its aim is to gain insights
into the whole by understanding the linkages,
interactions and processes between the elements
that comprise the whole ‘system’.
Systems thinkers consider that a ‘system’
is a dynamic and complex whole, interacting as
a structured functional unit in equilibrium. Information
flows between the different elements that compose
the system and from and to the surrounding environment
throigh semi-permeable membranes or boundaries
(Weinberg, 1975).
Systems thinkers are specially interested in
studying systems because changing a system mostly
leads to counterintuitive system responses. As
an example, feedback loops may operate to either
keep the organization in check or unbalance it.
Traditional decision making mostly focuses on
linear cause and effect relationships. When a
systems approach is used, we can see the whole
complex of bidirectional interrelationships.
Instead of viewing a problem in terms of an input
and an output, for example, we take into account
the whole system of inputs, processes, outputs,
feedback, and controls. This larger picture will
generally lead to more useful results than conventional
methods. System thinking also helps us integrate
the temporal dimension of any decision. So, now
managers do not have to look at discrete ‘shapshots’
at points in time, rather, they can see change
as a continuous process (Weinberg, 1975).
Systems thinking tools and techniques provide
a worldview based on the perspective of the systems
sciences, which gives an understanding of the
interconnectedness, complexity and wholeness of
what comprises systems and their specific relationship
to each other. It is not only ‘constructivist’,
rather systems thinking combines the values of
reductionist science by understanding the parts
and the constructivist viewpoints which focus
on wholes, and more so, the understanding of the
circuitous relationships that enable ‘parts’
to become ‘wholes’ (Banathy, 1996).
Systems thinking uses a variety of techniques
that may be divided into:
Hard systems – these involve simulations,
often the use of computers and the techniques
of operations research. This is generally useful
for problems that can justifiably be quantified.
But, the problem arises when it cannot easily
take into account unquantifiable variables such
as opinions, culture, etc), and may treat people
as being passive, rather than having complex motivations
(Muller-Merbach, 1994).
Soft systems – this is used to tackle systems
that cannot easily be quantified, and is extremely
valuable for systems involving people interacting
with each other or with other ‘systems’.
It is useful for understanding motivations, viewpoints,
and interactions, all unquanitifiable data but
does not provide quantified answers. This is a
field that the academic Peter Checkland has done
much to develop (Muller-Merbach, 1994).
Evolutionary systems - the development of Evolutionary
Systems Design by Bela Banathy integrates critical
systems inquiry and soft systems methodologies
to create a meta-methodology applicable to the
design of complex social systems. They are understood
as being open and complex systems but have the
potential to evolve with the passing of time.
Banathy very finely integrated the multidisciplinary
perspectives of systems research (including chaos,
complexity, cybernetics), cultural antrhopology,
evolutionary theory, and others. Today, systems
thinking is increasingly being used to tackle
a wide variety of subjects in fields such as managing,
computing and the environment (Banathy, 2000).
How systems thinking is helping managers:
Senge defines the very spirit of systems thinking
as a shift of mind to: (a) seeing interrelationships
rather than linear cause-effect chains, and (b)
seeing processes of change rather than snapshots.
According to him, most systems analysis focuses
on detail, not dynamic complexity. This may be
a very pivotal point in organizational analysis
and planning. If, as mentioned above, most organizations
are concerned with only things - details, they
may very well be operating with a very limited
vision of the world. Senge defines detail complexity
as merely one of many variables. This type of
complexity does not capture the dynamic complexity
that is at work in complex social systems. Daniel
Kim (1993) relates a very basic hypothesis proposed
by H. A. Simon in Science of the Artificial, “A
man, viewed as a behaving system, is quite simple.
The apparent complexity of his behavior over time
is largely a reflection of the complexity of the
environment in which he finds himself” (Gall,
1978).
Systems thinking ‘plops’ the organization
and all of its individual players into the context
of their environment(s), then sets them moving.
Kim’s types of organizational interpretation
systems relate the richness and complexity of
just the interpretive aspects of an organization
alone. Within these multiple dynamic systems,
one can even view the organization as a ‘learning
system’ (Nevis, DiBella, & Gould, 1995).
The impact of systems theory in management and
organizations today is that writers, educators,
consultants, etc. are helping managers to look
at organizations from a broader perspective. Systems
theory has brought with it a new and better way
for managers to interpret patterns and events
in their organizations. What happened in the past
was that managers typically took one part and
focused on that. After that, they would make another
part their sole focus of attention. The problem
with this was that an organization could, for
example, have wonderful departments that function
effectively by themselves but don’t necessarily
gel well together. As a result, the organization
suffers as a whole (Nevis, DiBella, & Gould,
1995).
Today, more managers are recognizing the various
parts of the organization, and, in particular,
the how these parts are interrelated, e.g., the
coordination of central offices with other departments,
engineering with manufacturing, supervisors with
workers, etc. Now, managers give more attention
to matters of ongoing organization and feedback.
They diagnose problems, not by examining what
appear to be separate pieces of the organization,
but by recognizing larger patterns of interactions.
They maintain perspective by focusing on the outcomes
they want from their organizations. Now, managers
emphasize the structures that provoke behaviors
which lead to occurrence of events – rather
than reacting to events as was the traditional
method (Nevis, DiBella, & Gould, 1995; Senge,
Roberts, Ross, Smith & Kleiner, 1994).
Solving Personnel Problems through Systems
Thinking:
The Coast Guard enlisted workforce has been fashioned
by two different personnel management strategies
over the past decade. The first one was a reduction
in the overall number of jobs, implemented in
the mid-1990s. Then, as a result of the enlistment
shortages caused by new National Security requirements
taken on by the Coast Guard after September 11,
2001, a sharp increase in recruitment occurred.
Now, with the implementation of opposing personnel
management strategies, the system at the Coast
Guard suffered greatly and these strategies were
the basic cause for what the Coast Guard refers
to as “turbulence”, which is simply
the undesirable rate of movement through the personnel
system.
Above all, the most frustrating aspect of the
turbulence problem facing personnel managers was
that they were often compelled to fill jobs and
positions with whatever personnel resources were
immediately available. Younger, less experienced
employees were mostly promoted to fill vacant
positions at the higher levels, which resulted
in extra, unplanned moving costs and an overall
less experienced, vulnerable Coast Guard.
To solve this problem, a Systems Thinking methodology
was chosen as the basis for the conceptual framework.
The Systems Thinking methodology supported the
simulation of complex processes and the inter-relationships
among the sub-processes and in the end produced
a desktop tool that realistically approximated
the steady-state effects of personnel flow and
personnel turbulence. The methodology was broken
up into four main phases: Phase 1: Identifying
key personnel; Phase 2: Functional Area Briefs;
Phase 3: Model Development and Phase
Validation and Acceptance
In Phase 1, Subject Matter Experts (SME) from
the areas of assignment, advancement, training,
budget, and others were invited to the group facilitation
sessions. They were educated on the differences
between the systems view of problem solving and
the more traditional, linear cause & effect
views of problem solving. Once they were armed
with knowledge about the methodology of Systems
Thinking, the SME’s from each of the functional
areas explained to each other the workings of
their specific areas, with most focus on their
interaction with the personnel system. After each
functional area was summarized to the group, the
process of capturing the personnel system using
Systems Thinking notation began.
These basic models of the structure of the enlisted
personnel system were created in real time, using
the input and discussion of the SME’s. CALIBRE
spent time translating the discussion into actual
iThink® models and towards the end of the
SME meetings the iThink® models served as
the main discussion piece. The basic models that
were created in the facilitated group session
were later expanded and integrated into a larger
model, focusing on the interactions between each
stand-alone model. Additionally, Coast Guard data
was gathered and used in this larger model to
help validate model accuracy.
The final phase of the methodology was a repetitive
process of playback and steering from the working
group. The model was then updated to include the
group’s proposed changes and recommendations
and then played back to validate the changes.
Eventually, everyone agreed that the enlisted
personnel system was accurately modeled.
There were many advantages that systems thinking
provided for the Coast Guard and these appeared
as early as the group facilitation session. Seeing
the structure of the personnel flow, assignment
managers were able to clearly see the natural
delays in the advancement and training processes.
Before this effort, Coast Guard managers made
decisions in an “organizational vacuum”
where they did not and could not gauge the impacts
of their decisions on other areas of the Coast
Guard or at best only at a superficial level.
As a result of these organizational decision-making
barriers, personnel decisions often resulted in
adverse effects on the entire system.
For example, it was policy that after each promotion
an employee would be moved to another duty location
to fill a position that required a more experienced
person. When an employee was moved to fill a vacancy,
a second employee had to be moved to replace the
position vacated by the first employee. That continual
replacement cycle caused many more moves than
the Coast Guard desired and had a negative effect
on unit continuity.
Using a Systems Thinking Methodology to address
complex personnel issues was valuable because
it produced an understanding within the Coast
Guard that in complex systems there are “ebbs
and flows.” Complex policy decisions that
are made today may, in the short-term, produce
negative effects on the system. Managers began
to understand that the personnel issues were systems
level problems which could be anticipated and
if allowed would correct themselves in time. This
mental preparation for expected short-term negative
conditions made it possible to make insightful
decisions to prepare for these conditions instead
of being at the complete mercy of the system.
The systems view of the personnel system helped
the Coast Guard avoid making sudden, reactionary
decisions after September 11, 2001. Using their
systems view, the Coast Guard was able to show
that one proposed aggressive growth strategy would
hurt current mission effectiveness and compromise
efforts to meet the new mission requirements (Using
a Systems Thinking Approach to Examine Personnel
Issues).
|