Author:

Prof. Arun Abraham Elias

• Research
• Responsible Consumption and Production,Climate Action
• 29-05-2024

1. Introduction

The essence of systems thinking can be captured using a quote from Senge’s (1990) landmark book, ‘The Fifth Discipline’.

“Systems Thinking. A cloud masses, the sky darkens, leaves twist upward, and we know that it will rain. We also know that after the storm, the runoff will feed into the groundwater miles away, and the sky will grow clear by tomorrow. All these events are distant in time and space, and yet they are all connected within the same pattern. Each has an influence on the rest, an influence that is usually hidden from the view. You can only understand the system of a rainstorm by contemplating the whole, not any individual part of the pattern.

Business and other human endeavours are also systems. They too are bound by invisible fabrics of interrelated actions, which often take years to fully play out their effects on each other. Since we are part of that lacework ourselves, it’s doubly hard to see the whole pattern of change. Instead, we tend to focus on snapshots of isolated parts of the system, and wonder why our deepest problems never seem to get solved. Systems thinking is a conceptual framework, a body of knowledge and tools that has been developed over the past fifty years, to make the full pattern clearer, and to help us see how to change them effectively.” (Senge, 1990, p.6).

The quests for understanding our nature and its underpinning complexities have been a continuous process (Brocklesby, 2016).  For long, this search for knowledge followed the principles of reduction, analysis and summation. The thrust of those so called scientific enquiries were to break down a whole into parts, analyse the structure and behaviour of each part, and then almost mechanically sum the behaviour of the parts to explain or predict the behaviour of the whole (Flood, 2010). While, this reductionist approach has served us well, the intricacies faced by this approach pointed to the need for the pursuance of a more pragmatic and holistic approach, while designing future quests into our own world (Elias et al., 2023).

‘Systems Thinking ’ as an approach tries to address the weaknesses of reductionism, by developing a more holistic view in understanding problem situations (Sterman, 2000). This brief blog introduces the field of systems thinking, explains the different systems approaches, and proposes a research direction linking systems thinking and sustainable development goals (SDGs).

2. Systems Approaches

Systems approaches are based on holistic thinking (Jackson, 2007). Although it has a long history embedded in the culture of different civilisations, it was recognised as an academic discipline when von Bertalanffy (1950) developed the general system theory. Some researchers classify the different systems approaches into hard, soft, critical and multimethodology.

Hard Systems Approach: Hard systems approaches are generally based on a positivistic research paradigm and assumes that models are representations or abstractions of the real world. The problem definitions in this approach are clear and single dimensional, and quantitative data is mostly used (Pidd, 1996).  Systems Dynamics, started in the MIT by Jay Forrester (1961) is often shown as an example of hard systems methodology, although some researchers question the logic of portraying system dynamics as a pure hard approach (Lane, 2000).

Soft Systems Approach: Soft systems approaches are generally based on the interpretivist research paradigm and assumes that models are a way of generating debate and insight about the real world. The problem definitions in this approach are ambiguous, and qualitative data is mostly used (Pidd, 1996).  Soft Systems Methodology, championed by Prof Peter Checkland of Lancaster University is a common methodology used in this approach (Checkland, 1972).

Critical Systems Approach: Critical systems approach is based on the critical research paradigm and in its simplest definition, critical systems thinking is applied systems thinking in the service of good practice (Ulrich, 2003). Critical Systems Heuristics is a framework in critical systems thinking used for reflective professional practice organised around the central tool of boundary critique (Ulrich and Reynolds, 2010).

Multimethodology: Multimethodological systems approach involves combining methodologies (e.g., hard and soft). Mingers and Brocklesby (1997) outlined some of the cultural, philosophical, and cognitive aspects of multimethodological studies. They also described a framework that can capture the relative strengths of different systems methodologies and provided a basis for developing multimethodology designs.

This discussion on systems approaches is summarised in table 1.

                                                                  Table 1. Systems Approaches

3. Systems Thinking and SDGs: A Research Direction

Systems thinking approaches and associated methodologies are proved to be ideal when dealing with complex problems (Elias et al., 2021). Often complex problems are characterised by their interconnected parts, multi-stakeholder interests, and counterintuitive behaviour (Sterman, 2000). In this context, research related to sustainable development goals (SDGs), especially the implementation of most SDGs is deemed to be complex, presenting systems thinking researchers with a meaningful research direction.

            Already systems approaches have been applied to further the understanding of SDGs. For example, the well-known C-Roads Climate Policy Model (Sterman et al., 2012) uses system dynamics to address the complexities related to climate action (SDG 13). Elias (2022) conducted an empirical research employing the Systems Thinking and Modelling methodology, and involving multi-stakeholder participation, in the area of responsible consumption and production (SDG 12). The framework used in this research can be generalised as follows:

Table 2. Phases of Systems Thinking

These successful research reiterates the scope for using systems thinking to further explore the different aspects of SDGs, using a three-phased approach.

4. Conclusions

The purpose of this blog is to introduce the concept of systems thinking, briefly explain the different systems approaches, and to provide a research direction using systems thinking to further explore the SDGs. A three-phased systems thinking framework is also summarised. While acknowledging the limitations as a mere overview, this blog hopes to encourage researchers to use systems thinking in their investigations of SDGs.

References

Brocklesby, J. (1997). Becoming multimethodology literate: An assessment of the cognitive difficulties of working across paradigms. Multimethodology: The theory and practice of combining management science methodologies, 189, 216.

Brocklesby, J. (2016). The what, the why and the how of behavioural operational research—An invitation to potential sceptics. European Journal of Operational Research, 249(3), 796-805.

Checkland, P. B. (1972). Towards a systems-based methodology for real-world problem solving. Journal of systems engineering, 3(2), 87-116.

Elias, A.A. (2022), "Multi-Stakeholder Participation for Achieving Sustainable Development Goals: A Systems Thinking Approach", Tauringana, V. and Moses, O. (Ed.) Environmental Sustainability and Agenda 2030 (Advances in Environmental Accounting & Management, Vol. 10), Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 45-65.

Elias, A. A., Donadelli, F., Paiva, E. and Bacic Araujo, P. (2021). Analysing the Complexities of Sustainable Wood Supply Chain in the Amazon: A Systems Thinking Approach. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 32 (4): 1481-1505.

Elias, A. A., Pepper, M., & Singh, G. (2023). Towards a holistic definition of post-pandemic resilience: the Pacific context. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 24(1), 1-8.

Flood, R. L. (2010). The relationship of ‘systems thinking’ to action research. Systemic practice and action research, 23, 269-284.

Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial Dynamics, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

Jackson, M. C. (2007). Systems approaches to management. Springer Science & Business Media.

Lane, D. C. (2000). Should system dynamics be described as a ‘hard ‘or ‘deterministic’ systems approach?” Systems research and behavioral science: the official journal of the international federation for systems research, 17(1), 3-22.

Mingers, J., & Brocklesby, J. (1997). Multimethodology: Towards a framework for mixing methodologies. Omega, 25(5), 489-509.

Pidd, M. (1997). Tools for thinking—Modelling in management science. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48(11), 1150-1150.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation. Doubleday/Currency, New York.

Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for the Complex World. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Sterman, J., Fiddaman, T., Franck, T. R., Jones, A., McCauley, S., Rice, P. & Siegel, L. (2012). Climate interactive: the C-ROADS climate policy model. System Dynamics Review, 28(3), 295-305.

Ulrich, W. (2003). Beyond methodology choice: critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54, 325-342.

Ulrich, W., & Reynolds, M. (2010). Critical systems heuristics. In Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide (pp. 243-292). London: Springer London.

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1950). An outline of general system theory. The British Journal for the Philosophy of science, 1(2), 134-165.