RE: System Thinking in the UK

[HOSKINS Roland M <roland.m.hoskins@ci.eugene.or.us>]

Hello all, 
I have enjoyed reading the messages on the den for quite some time.  This is
my first response to a thread so I hope that I did this correctly.  It is my
belief that the study of the system is important and defining the system
boundary is necessary for an individual or group to narrow its scope of
study.  The people involved in the analysis need to agree what is included
or not included in the system.  These agreements lead to a common
understanding, which facilitate the learning by developing a collective
mental model of the system.  I have seen far too many discussions where
people thought that they were talking and arguing about a similar process
when they were referring to entirely different processes or systems.  

JPK Crawford wrote in a response to Vic Forte:
So defining the system boundaries
is an essential part of the job.  We do that mainly by reference to the aim
of the system.  The question "is this element a part of our system?" is
resolved by answering the question "does it contribute to the aim of the
system?"  

These questions are very helpful.  I would add - How is the system
influenced? What are the causal relationships? The exploration of how the
parts, activities, elements, policies etc,,,,  positively or negatively
impact the aim of the system and identifying how they contribute to
variation is insightful.

I concur with JPK's conclusion:

To conclude, my answer to Vic's question is that those within the system
boundary are not misled if they believe in it and direct their efforts
towards its survival - I think they are doing some proper system thinking.
But if that is all that they do, I would say that they may not be doing the
whole job.

Regards,
Roland Hoskins