Systems thinking is the process of understanding how things influence one another within a whole.

In nature, systems thinking examples include ecosystems in which various elements such as air, water, movement, plants, and animals work together to survive or perish. In organizations, systems consist of people, structures, and processes that work together to make an organization healthy or unhealthy. Systems Thinking has been defined as an approach to problem solving, by viewing "problems" as parts of an overall system, rather than reacting to specific part, outcomes or events and potentially contributing to further development of unintended consequences. Systems thinking is not one thing but a set of habits or practices[2] within a framework that is based on the belief that the component parts of a system can best be understood in the context of relationships with each other and with other systems, rather than in isolation. Systems thinking focuses on cyclical rather than linear cause and effect. In science systems, it is argued that the only way to fully understand why a problem or element occurs and persists is to understand the parts in relation to the whole.[3] Standing in contrast to Descartes's scientific reductionism and philosophical analysis, it proposes to view systems in a holistic manner. Consistent with systems philosophy, systems thinking concerns an understanding of a system by examining the linkages and interactions between the elements that compose the entirety of the system. Science systems thinking attempts to illustrate that events are separated by distance and time and that small catalytic events can cause large changes in complex systems. Acknowledging that an improvement in one area of a system can adversely affect another area of the system, it promotes organizational communication at all levels in order to avoid the silo effect. Systems thinking techniques may be used to study any kind of system natural, scientific, engineered, human, or conceptual. The concept of a system Science systems thinkers consider that:

a system is a dynamic and complex whole, interacting as a structured functional unit; energy, material and information flow among the different elements that compose the system; a system is a community situated within an environment; energy, material and information flow from and to the surrounding environment via semipermeable membranes or boundaries; systems are often composed of entities seeking equilibrium but can exhibit oscillating, chaotic, or exponential behavior.

A holistic system is any set (group) of interdependent or temporally interacting parts. Parts are generally systems themselves and are composed of other parts, just as systems are generally parts or holons of other systems.

Science systems and the application of science systems thinking has been grouped into three categories based on the techniques used to tackle a system:

Hard systems involving simulations, often using computers and the techniques of operations research/management science. Useful for problems that can justifiably be quantified. However it cannot easily take into account unquantifiable variables (opinions, culture, politics, etc.)[citation needed], and may treat people as being passive, rather than having complex motivations. Soft systems For systems that cannot easily be quantified, especially those involving people holding multiple and conflicting frames of reference. Useful for understanding motivations, viewpoints, and interactions and addressing qualitative as well as quantitative dimensions of problem situations. Soft systems are a field that utilizes foundation methodological work developed by Peter Checkland, Brian Wilson and their colleagues at Lancaster University. Morphological analysis is a complementary method for structuring and analysing non-quantifiable problem complexes. Evolutionary systems Bla H. Bnthy developed a methodology that is applicable to the design of complex social systems. This technique integrates critical systems inquiry with soft systems methodologies. Evolutionary systems, similar to dynamic systems are understood as open, complex systems, but with the capacity to evolve over time. Bnthy uniquely integrated the interdisciplinary perspectives of systems research (including chaos, complexity, cybernetics), cultural anthropology, evolutionary theory, and others.

[edit] The systems approach The systems thinking approach incorporates several tenets:[4]

Interdependence of objects and their attributes - independent elements can never constitute a system Holism - emergent properties not possible to detect by analysis should be possible to define by a holistic approach Goal seeking - systemic interaction must result in some goal or final state Inputs and Outputs - in a closed system inputs are determined once and constant; in an open system additional inputs are admitted from the environment Transformation of inputs into outputs - this is the process by which the goals are obtained Entropy - the amount of disorder or randomness present in any system Regulation - a method of feedback is necessary for the system to operate predictably Hierarchy - complex wholes are made up of smaller subsystems Differentiation - specialized units perform specialized functions Equifinality - alternative ways of attaining the same objectives (convergence) Multifinality - attaining alternative objectives from the same inputs (divergence)

Some examples:

Rather than trying to improve the braking system on a car by looking in great detail at the material composition of the brake pads (reductionist), the boundary of the braking system may be extended to include the interactions between the:

brake disks or drums brake pedal sensors hydraulics driver reaction time tires road conditions weather conditions time of day

Using the tenet of "Multifinality", a supermarket could be considered to be:

a "profit making system" from the perspective of management and owners a "distribution system" from the perspective of the suppliers an "employment system" from the perspective of employees a "materials supply system" from the perspective of customers an "entertainment system" from the perspective of loiterers a "social system" from the perspective of local residents a "dating system" from the perspective of single customers

As a result of such thinking, new insights may be gained into how the supermarket works, why it has problems, how it can be improved or how changes made to one component of the system may impact the other components. [edit] Applications Science systems thinking is increasingly being used to tackle a wide variety of subjects in fields such as computing, engineering, epidemiology, information science, health, manufacture, management, and the environment. Some examples:

Science of Team Science Organizational architecture Job design Team Population and Work Unit Design Linear and Complex Process Design Supply Chain Design Business continuity planning with FMEA protocol Critical Infrastructure Protection via FBI Infragard Delphi method developed by RAND for USAF Futures studies Thought leadership mentoring

The public sector including examples at The Systems Thinking Review [1] Leadership development Oceanography forecasting complex systems behavior Permaculture Quality function deployment (QFD) Quality management Hoshin planning methods Quality storyboard StoryTech framework (LeapfrogU-EE) Software quality Program management Project management MECE - McKinsey Way Sociocracy Linear Thinking

The System Concept The information and testing procedures covered in the guide are viewed from a system perspective rather than a component perspective. This is especially critical for functional testing and the overall success of the system. The performance of the system is dependent on four areas of interaction: The individual components in the system. The components with each other as a system. The system with other systems in the building. The building with the ambient environment. Successful performance is only achieved when these interactions occur in a harmonious fashion in the real world-operating environment. For instance, all of the components associated with the operation of a preheat coil may check out satisfactorily when tested for sequencing logic (i.e. when the control system thinks its moving the preheat control valve, the valve is actually moving and moving in the correct direction), proper action, and correct arrangement. These pre-functional verifications must be correct for the functional test to be successful. The goal of the functional test is to look at what happens to this properly installed preheat coil when it is called upon to operate as a part of a complete system. A properly written functional test may uncover the fact that the preheat coil controls properly during a steadystate operating mode, but experiences problems at start-up, when the coil must deal with flow variations and other shifting parameters. Instability in the system flow control loop may cascade into instability in the preheat coil control loop. The system needs to be tested and adjusted so that the components can respond to changing conditions and restabilize without excessive oscillation or damage to the equipment while maintaining tolerable conditions. The

functional tests ultimate goal is to identify and correct these system level problems. Thus the guide will take a systems perspective.

System (from Latin systma, in turn from Greek systma, "whole compounded of several parts or members, system", literary "composition"[1]) is a set of interacting or interdependent components forming an integrated whole. A system is a set of elements and relationships which are different from relationships of the set or its elements to other elements or sets. Fields that study the general properties of systems include systems theory, cybernetics, dynamical systems, thermodynamics and complex systems. They investigate the abstract properties of systems' matter and organization, looking for concepts and principles that are independent of domain, substance, type, or temporal scale. Most systems share common characteristics, including:

Systems have structure, defined by components and their composition; Systems have behavior, which involves inputs, processing and outputs of material, energy, information, or data; Systems have interconnectivity: the various parts of a system have functional as well as structural relationships to each other. Systems may have some functions or groups of functions

System concepts Environment and boundaries Systems theory views the world as a complex system of interconnected parts. We scope a system by defining its boundary; this means choosing which entities are inside the system and which are outside - part of the environment. We then make simplified representations (models) of the system in order to understand it and to predict or impact its future behavior. These models may define the structure and/or the behavior of the system. Natural and man-made systems There are natural and man-made (designed) systems. Natural systems may not have an apparent objective but their outputs can be interpreted as purposes. Man-made

systems are made with purposes that are achieved by the delivery of outputs. Their parts must be related; they must be designed to work as a coherent entity - else they would be two or more distinct systems. Theoretical Framework An open system exchanges matter and energy with its surroundings. Most systems are open systems; like a car, coffeemaker, or computer. A closed system exchanges energy, but not matter, with its environment; like Earth or the project Biosphere2 or 3. An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its environment. A theoretical example of such system is the Universe. Process and transformation process A system can also be viewed as a bounded transformation process, that is, a process or collection of processes that transforms inputs into outputs. Inputs are consumed; outputs are produced. The concept of input and output here is very broad. E.g., an output of a passenger ship is the movement of people from departure to destination. Subsystem A subsystem is a set of elements, which is a system itself, and a component of a larger system. System Model A system comprises multiple views. For the man-made systems it may be such views as planning, requirement, design, implementation, deployment, operational, structure, behavior, input data, and output data views. A system model is required to describe and represent all these multiple views. System Architecture A system architecture, using one single coalescence model for the description of multiple views such as planning, requirement, design, implementation, deployment, operational, structure, behavior, input data, and output data views, is a kind of system model.

Definition This theory of the structure and functions of the mind suggests that the two different sides of the brain control two different modes of thinking. It also suggests that each of us prefers one mode over the other. Discussion Experimentation has shown that the two different sides, or hemispheres, of the brain are responsible for different manners of thinking. The following table illustrates the differences between left-brain and right-brain thinking: Left Brain Logical SequentialRational Analytical Objective Looks at parts Right Brain RandomIntuitive Holistic Synthesizing Subjective Looks at wholes

Most individuals have a distinct preference for one of these styles of thinking. Some, however, are more whole-brained and equally adept at both modes. In general, schools tend to favor left-brain modes of thinking, while downplaying the right-brain ones. Left-brain scholastic subjects focus on logical thinking, analysis, and accuracy. Right-brained subjects, on the other hand, focus on aesthetics, feeling, and creativity. How Right-Brain vs. Left-Brain Thinking Impacts Learning CurriculumIn order to be more whole-brained in their orientation, schools need to give equal weight to the arts, creativity, and the skills of imagination and synthesis. InstructionTo foster a more whole-brained scholastic experience, teachers should use instruction techniques that connect with both sides of the brain. They can increase their classrooms right-brain learning activities by incorporating more patterning, metaphors, analogies, role playing, visuals, and movement into their reading, calculation, and analytical activities.

AssessmentFor a more accurate whole-brained evaluation of student learning, educators must develop new forms of assessment that honor right-brained talents and skills.

Over-Emphasizing Rationality Much of the conflict resolution literature presents an image of disputants as rational actors who are focused on pursuing their long-term interests, unaffected by their emotions. The "realist" approach suggests that all conflict involves material interests, while the rationalist approach suggests that conflict is the outcome of conscious intentions. [1] The idea seems to be that if parties rely solely on logic, both sides can advance their interests and come to a mutually acceptable compromise in the event that those interests conflict. Any emotional and relational factors should be set aside so that the political and economic interests that are central to the conflict can be addressed. Feelings of humiliation, shame, fear, and anxiety are viewed as obstacles to rational thinking and as a sign of vulnerability. [2] Once parties have identified their deep-seated concerns and interests, they can make trade-offs and concessions and work together to devise creative solutions to their problems. Rationality helps them to explore their various interests and options, identify their zone of possible agreement, and find a way a way to compromise. According to the widely-accepted conception of means-ends rationality, a rational act is one that uses the most efficient means to achieve a given end. [3] Classical economic theory, for example, describes individuals as "hyper-rational." [4] They make decisions by gathering and processing information and then acting in a manner that maximizes utility. However, an approach to conflict that over-emphasizes rationality may obscure the fact that disputants in conflict are often influenced by unconscious motives and guided by the emotions of anger, fear, distrust, and shame. Protracted conflict, in particular, is often a result of parties' lack of self-knowledge, disturbances in communication, and unacknowledged feelings about their relationship. [5] Insofar as strong emotions typically play either a positive or negative role in the way parties wage conflict and attempt to negotiate solutions, emotions have a profound influence on dispute management as well Conflict and its resolution are driven not only by the pursuit of instrumental goals and rational interests, but also by desires for less tangible things such as love, recognition, and a sense of belonging. The Classical Conception Of Rationality Monika Walczak The Catholic University of Lublin

aktor@kul.lublin.pl

ABSTRACT: The aim of this paper is to describe the classical conception of rationality, i.e., to indicate the theses traditionally associated with this conception. I do not intend to discuss these theses in detail. Rather, I focus on the question regarding the main elements of the classical conception of rationality. I am interested in the rationality of cognition and of knowledge (epistemic/epistemological rationality), especially in the rationality of science (scientific rationality).

1. Introduction The aim of this paper is to characterize the classical conception of rationality, i.e. to indicate the theses and conditions traditionally connected with this conception. I do not intend to discuss these theses and conditions in detail. I attempt only to answer the question of what the main elements of the classical conception of rationality are. I limit myself to brief specification and characterization of these elements. The classical conception of rationality that I (re)constructed is an ideal type. Historically known philosophical views and positions are more or less similar to that type. I am interested in the rationality of cognition and knowledge (epistemic/ epistemological rationality), especially in the rationality of science (scientific rationality). I take for granted that the rationality of science is a specific kind of the rationality of cognition and knowledge. I shall begin with some explanation of the term "classical". Generally, the meaning of this term varies from tradition to tradition and depends also on what is seen as bearers of the property of "being classical". I use the term "classical" in connection with the tradition of ancient philosophy, especially with that of Aristotle and Plato. Among the authors whose conceptions of rationality called here classical I count both the above mentioned ancient philosophers as well as Descartes, Husserl and logical empiricists such as Carnap, Neurath and Reichenbach. A relevant - from the point of view of my problem - element of the classical tradition is its foundational epistemology which is required by the classical conception of rationality. Epistemological foundationalism have extreme and moderate versions. Hence, the conception of rationality may then be strong or weak. In my paper I focus on the radical version of foundationalism. The classical conception of truth and maximalistic approach to justification are these two main ideas of the classical conception of rationality to which all other elements of that conception are subordinated. The primary bearers of rationality are epistemic decisions, for instance the acceptance of a proposition (as true and justified) or its rejection (as false if its falsity is demonstrated). It is rational to accept a proposition if there are good/adequate reasons for it (Aristotle). 2. Theses connected with the classical conception of rationality (constituents of the

classical conception of rationality) In short, the classical conception of rationality is constituted by: 1) demarcationism; 2) the correspondence conception of truth; 3) objectivism/objectivity and realism; 4) theses and requirements concerning (scientific) language a. the thesis of passive role of language in cognition; b. the requirement of linguistic precision and exactness of articulation; 5) classical logic a. the deductive ideal of knowledge; b. the requirement of consistency and coherence; c. the requirement of using algorithmic rules; 6) the requirement of justification and criticism; 7) the requirement of accepting basic propositions (premises of reasoning); 8) epistemic values a. universality; b. necessity; c. certainty; d. absolutism (antirelativism).

Some Types of Creativity as described by Elliot Eisner

Creativity refers to the phenomenon whereby a person creates something new (a product, a solution, a work of art, etc.) that has some kind of value. What counts as "new" may be in reference to the individual creator, or to the society or domain within which the novelty occurs. What counts as "valuable" is similarly defined in a variety of ways.

Boundary Pushing (the rules are too constraining) ". . . . the ability to expand the limits that define uses . . . to place objects into classes from which . . . previously excluded." It is ". . . extending the given." p. 326 Examples include the use of a rubber eraser as a printing stamp or finding ways to bend plywood in order to make chairs. Inventing (bring things together in a new way) "The inventor does not merely extend the usual limits . . . (but) creates a new object by restructuring the known." p. 326 The inventor often finds useful combinations, congruencies, to produce reconstruction's. It is discovery followed by "purposeful activity." p. 327 Examples are Guttenburg, Bell, Marconi, etc. Boundary Breaking (the rules are the problem) least common ". . . . the rejection or reversal of . . . assumptions and making the 'given' problematic.' p. 327 The creator notices problems with existing assumptions and is able to imagine and generate solutions by thinking "outside the box". Opposite thinking and gap filling thinking. Examples are Einstein and Copernicus. Aesthetic Organizing (order and beauty from chaos) most common Qualitative organizing. The need to produce order, harmony, and unity. Differs from the others in that novelty is not required. I often wonder if aesthetic organizing should be included as a type creativity. Of course when one of the other types is used with aesthetic organizing, the result will be creative.

Two Types of Creativity (from the research of Dr. Michael Kirton) In his book Adaptors and Innovators, Michael Kirton describes AdaptionInnovation as a cognitive style, a "preferred mode of tackling problems at all stages." He emphasizes that scores on the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI), are value-free: "Very high, very low or intermediate KAI scores are neither laudatory nor pejorative." All of us can use both styles of

creative problem solving, but we have a preference for either Adaptive/Resourceful or Innovative/Original Creativity. Adaptive/Resourceful People who score on the KAI as Adaptive tend to accept the paradigm within which a problem is embedded (current theories, policies, points of view). They're likely to produce a few ideas that aim at continuity with the practices, norms, and current way of doing things, but bring about a better way of doing them. They often (not always) show a preference for Sensing on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). To be successful over time, most organizations (except the most innovative in their products and/or services) will necessarily be adaptive in their orientation. It's more costly and risky to continually do things in a different way. Kirton remarks that Adaptors are at their best "in the smooth, efficient operation of an existing system; creatively refining, improving, and extending the thinking that underlies it." Innovative/Original People who score on the KAI as Innovative tend to "detach the problem from its cocoon of accepted thought," to step out of the "box" or paradigm. They tend to redefine a problem, produce many ideas, break through what the organization perceives as givens and restraints, provide solutions aimed at doing things differently. They often (not always) show a preference for Intuition on the MBTI. While a company is growing and maintaining itself in predictable ways and in a predictable market, innovative solutions are not necessarily preferable; but organizations cannot survive if they're unable to break through with new thinking when necessary

Understanding The Characteristics of Living Systems All systems have certain characteristics in common. Nonliving systems include heating and air conditioning systems, electrical systems, computer systems, radar systems, weather, the solar system and so on. Living systems include animals, people, organizations, communities, nations and the world. The following key characteristics of systems are based on General System Theory, the landmark work by Viennese

biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy, and other insights from the life sciences. 1. A system is a dynamically interacting and interdependent group of members or components and their attributes, forming a whole. This means that a system must consist of two or more members or components; one thing is not to be considered a system unless it is composed of multiple interacting components. For example, when we speak of interpersonal systems, an individual person does not constitute a system, but in terms of living organisms composed of component parts, a human being is most definitely a system. That is, insofar as we discuss something as a system, we must by definition refer to it as a group of interdependent parts, but it all depends on our point of view.

"Dynamically interacting" means that there is movement and change within a system. A static crystal such as a diamond is not considered a system because its parts do not move or change, although technically its subatomic particles are in motion. "Interdependent" is also an important term because what happens to one part of the system affects the other parts. Remove the roots from a tree and it will die. Break some of the electrical connections in a computer and it will not function. A serious accident to one member of a family will affect the other members of the family, and so on. The attributes of components refers to their characteristics. This is a direct function of their interdependence. If the roots of a tree are dry, if the connections of a computer are broken, if a member of a family is injured, then the dryness, brokenness and injury are all attributes that are part of the system and that impact other components of the system. When we speak of a system forming a whole, we are making a very significant statement about the order of the system. This wholeness has several important aspects. One is that the system functions as a whole and can be recognized as a whole. A family, a tree, a computer can each be recognized as a whole made up of parts. Another aspect is that removing one or more components undermines or destroys the wholeness. A branch is not a whole tree, a keyboard is not a whole computer, a mother is not a whole family. This aspect of wholeness is one of the most profound dimensions of reality. We may take it for granted, but it seems almost mystical or magical at times. The way a tree grows from a

seed, or in some cases can be propagated from rooted cuttings, involves complex living processes that scientists still do not fully understand. The bonds between members of a family, though not physically visible, are so strong that they can motivate sacrifices even of life itself. The loosening of those bonds, when a child grows up and leaves home or when a divorce occurs, can be very painful experiences. The forces that make a system whole tend to keep it whole and to resist the break-up of the system. (Perhaps this cannot be said of an inanimate object such as a computer, but it is very true of living systems.) 2. The environment of a system consists of all objects and forces external to the system, such that a change in the environment's attributes or actions affects the system and vice versa. A pond is an environment for a fish. A home is an environment for a family. Von Bertalanffy and other systems thinkers define environment as external things which have a relationship with or impact on the system. Thus the environment for each system can change over time. If you are a member of an American company, much of what goes on in Japan is not part of your environment. But when a Japanese competitor starts taking your customers' business, your environment changes dramatically. In fact many of the forces which are tending to shrink our world into a closely linked, interactive economy are forcing more and more people to think of the whole earth as their environment. From another perspective, the world economy is becoming a system in itself, and when we discuss subjects such as international weather and protection of the environment, the earth itself is viewed as a system of interactive parts. We may summarize all this by saying that "environment" is sometimes arbitrary and always relative to how we define the system we are focusing on. 3. All living systems are open systems. Open systems maintain themselves in a continuous interchange with their environments, importing and exporting matter and energy (including money and information for people). One essential aspect of life is that every living organism depends on importing energy from its environment in order to survive. Some of that energy may be warmth from the sun or fire. Some of it is always in the form of food or nutrients, which the organism processes to release chemical energy or form new chemicals essential to life. And all living systems give off by-products, ranging from animal

wastes to oxygen released by plants. The by-products almost always have lower-order energy than the ingested nutrients for that organism, although other organisms may still take energy from the wastes or inhale the oxygen from plants. A closed system, such as a computer, can exist and persist without importing energy. But even then, any system in which there is physical, electrical or other motion must have energy from the outside at some point to power its motion, such as electricity which runs the computer. Actually a closed system is in many ways a product of the imagination of scientists who need to isolate experiments from their environments in order to observe the results, such as heating an enclosed gas to observe the increase in pressure. A closed system is an unnatural device, of little value to anyone except to observe how it functions in an experiment. 4. Open systems are always acting and changing. However, they have a strong tendency to reach and maintain a balance known as a steady state, or homeostasis. For example, human beings are always acting and changing, yet our bodies have a strong tendency to maintain a balance. When we use up our energy reserves, we become hungry. When we get overheated, we perspire. When we become tired, we desire rest. The steady state often represents an optimum condition that the system seeks to return to again and again, even though the system is in almost constant motion or change. 5. In open systems, the same steady state may be reached from different initial conditions and pathways. This is called equifinality. For example, if a person is hungry, he can eat all sorts of foods in all sorts of locations in order to restore his steady state. Equifinality is another way of saying that open systems are adaptable; if there were not different pathways to the steady state, the survival of the open system would be very much at risk. 6. Living systems tend to evolve toward higher levels of order in terms of differentiation and organization. This is one of the most profound aspects of living systems and represents the exact opposite of the entropy principle, which is a tendency to evolve toward greater disorder and uniformity. In living systems, there is what seems to be an innate drive for order. This higher order is achieved through processing energy. Whether the energy comes from sunlight or food, energy is essential for living systems, which have a natural drive for order. This

includes human beings, of course. This principle is very important to understand and again demonstrates the profound significance of the relationship between order and energy in all living things. 7. In human systems, the primary means of evolving toward higher levels of order, differentiation and organization is the communication of information, especially in the form of decisions. Get a group of people together for the first time and they may just mingle around in a state of very low order. But once the group begins making decisions as to what it will do collectively, or how labor will be divided, it begins evolving toward a higher level of order. 8. Higher levels of order are achieved through the dynamic interaction of the components and through feedback. Through feedback, the effects of actions are transmitted back to the source of the actions to allow self-regulation. A thermostat is a classic example of a feedback loop in a system - when the temperature drops to a certain level, the thermostat sends a signal to the heater to send more heat. Feedback is essential to the success of any living system. For example, feedback from customers and the environment is essential to keep an organization functioning at peak performance. 9. A high level of order tends to make a living system and its parts function more efficiently, but it also tends to restrict or abolish the equality of power among the parts. For example, in most organizations a high level of order means different people have different power. There are typically a chairman, president, vice presidents, assistant vice presidents, managers, etc., each with a particular level of power. Even with teams, certain actions require a leader, even if that person's leadership is limited to a task or function. One of the primary functions of Codynamics is to minimize these power differences so that all people are empowered to contribute to their fullest capabilities. 10. Adaptive systems try different means to ends or goals and tend to settle into a pattern of interaction which minimizes conflict with critical factors in the environment. The tendency of many nations to join together through the United Nations to support world peace is a good example. An adaptive organization will explore different ways to adapt to changing customer needs, the competition, and market conditions. But this is an endless, constant process. You

must not become complacent with a pattern that works today because new patterns will be needed in the very near future.

Influence diagram An influence diagram (ID) (also called a relevance diagram (preferred terminology in Stanford-school decision analysis), decision diagram or a decision network) is a compact graphical and mathematical representation of a decision situation. It is a generalization of a Bayesian network, in which not only probabilistic inference problems but also decision making problems (following maximum expected utility criterion) can be modeled and solved. ID was first developed in mid-1970s within the decision analysis community with an intuitive semantic that is easy to understand. It is now adopted widely and becoming an alternative to decision tree which typically suffers from exponential growth in number of branches with each variable modeled. ID is directly applicable in team decision analysis, since it allows incomplete sharing of information among team members to be modeled and solved explicitly. Extension of ID also find its use in game theory as an alternative representation of game tree.

Semantics An ID is a directed acyclic graph with three types (plus one subtype) of node and three types of arc (or arrow) between nodes. Nodes;

Decision node (corresponding to each decision to be made) is drawn as a rectangle. Uncertainty node (corresponding to each uncertainty to be modeled) is drawn as an oval. Deterministic node (corresponding to special kind of uncertainty that its outcome is deterministically known whenever the outcome of some other uncertainties are also known) is drawn as a double oval.

Value node (corresponding to each component of additively separable Von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function) is drawn as an octagon (or diamond).

Arcs;

Functional arcs (ending in value node) indicate that one of the components of additively separable utility function is a function of all the nodes at their tails. Conditional arcs (ending in uncertainty node) indicate that the uncertainty at their heads is probabilistically conditioned on all the nodes at their tails. Conditional arcs (ending in deterministic node) indicate that the uncertainty at their heads is deterministically conditioned on all the nodes at their tails.

Informational arcs (ending in decision node) indicate that the decision at their heads is made with the outcome of all the nodes at their tails known beforehand.

Given a properly structured ID;

Decision nodes and incoming information arcs collectively state the alternatives (what can be done when the outcome of certain decisions and/or uncertainties are known beforehand) Uncertainty/deterministic nodes and incoming conditional arcs collectively model the information (what are known and their probabilistic/deterministic relationships) Value nodes and incoming functional arcs collectively quantify the preference (how things are preferred over one another). Alternative, information, and preference are termed decision basis in decision analysis, they represent three required components of any valid decision situation. Formally, the semantic of influence diagram is based on sequential construction of nodes and arcs, which implies a specification of all conditional independencies in the diagram. The specification is defined by the d-separation criterion of Bayesian network. According to this semantic, every node is probabilistically independent on its non-successor nodes given the outcome of its immediate predecessor nodes. Likewise, a missing arc between non-value node X and nonvalue node Y implies that there exists a set of non-value nodes Z, e.g., the parents of Y, that renders Y independent of X given the outcome of the nodes in Z. [edit] Example

Simple influence diagram for making decision about vacation activity Consider the simple influence diagram representing a situation where a decisionmaker is planning her vacation.

There is 1 decision node (Vacation Activity), 2 uncertainty nodes (Weather Condition, Weather Forecast), and 1 value node (Satisfaction). There are 2 functional arcs (ending in Satisfaction), 1 conditional arc (ending in Weather Forecast), and 1 informational arc (ending in Vacation Activity). Functional arcs ending in Satisfaction indicate that Satisfaction is a utility function of Weather Condition and Vacation Activity. In other words, her satisfaction can be quantified if she knows what the weather is like and what her choice of activity is. (Note that she does not value Weather Forecast directly) Conditional arc ending in Weather Forecast indicates her belief that Weather Forecast and Weather Condition can be dependent. Informational arc ending in Vacation Activity indicates that she will only know Weather Forecast, not Weather Condition, when making her choice. In other words, actual weather will be known after she makes her choice, and only forecast is what she can count on at this stage. It also follows semantically, for example, that Vacation Activity is independent on (irrelevant to) Weather Condition given Weather Forecast is known.

System dynamics From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Dynamic stock and flow diagram of model New product adoption (model from article by John Sterman 2001)

System dynamics is an approach to understanding the behaviour of complex systems over time. It deals with internal feedback loops and time delays that affect the behaviour of the entire system.[1] What makes using system dynamics different from other approaches to studying complex systems is the use of feedback loops and stocks and flows. These elements help describe how even seemingly simple systems display baffling nonlinearity.

System archetype From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search System Archetypes are patterns of behavior of a system. Systems expressed by circles of causality have therefore similar structure. Identifying a system archetype and finding the leverage enables efficient changes in a system. The basic system archetypes and possible solutions of the problems are mentioned in #Examples of system archetypes.[1]

Circles of causality The basic idea of system thinking is that every action triggers a reaction. In system dynamics this reaction is called feedback. There are two types of feedback - reinforcing feedback and balancing feedback. Sometimes a feedback (or a reaction) does not occur immediately - the process contains delays. Any system can be drawn as a diagram set up with circles of causality including actions, feedbacks and delays.[1] [edit] Reinforcing feedback (+) Reinforcing feedback (or amplifying feedback) accelerates the given trend of a process. If the trend is ascending, the reinforcing (positive) feedback will accelerate the growth. If the trend is descending, it will accelerate the decline. Falling of an avalanche is an example of the reinforcing feedback process.[1] [edit] Balancing feedback (-)

Balancing feedback (or stabilizing feedback) will work if any goal-state exists. Balancing process intends to reduce a gap between a current state and a desired state. The balancing (negative) feedback adjusts a present state to a desirable target regardless whether the trend is descending or ascending. An example of the balancing feedback process is staying upright on bicycle (when riding).[1] [edit] Delays Delays in systems cause people to perceive a response to an action incorrectly. This causes an under- or overestimation of the needed action and results in oscillation, instability or even breakdown.[1] [edit] Examples of system archetypes [edit] Balancing process with delay This archetype explains the system in which the response to action is delayed. If the agents do not perceive the delayed feedback, they might overshoot or underestimate the requisite action in order to reach their goals. This could be avoided by being patient or by accelerating reactions of the system to realized measures. Example: supply chain (The Beer Game)[1]

Causal loop diagram "Balancing process with delay" [edit] Limits to growth The unprecedented growth is produced by a reinforcing feedback process until the system reaches its peak. The halt of this growth is caused by limits inside or outside of the system. However, if the limits are not properly recognized; the former methods are continuously applied, but more and more aggressively. This results in the contrary of the desired state - a decrease of the system. The solution lies in the weakening or elimination of the cause of limitation. Example: dieting, learning foreign languages[1]

Causal loop diagram "Limits to growth" Attractiveness Principle is an archetype derived from Limits to Growth. The main difference is that Attractiveness Principle assumes growth is limited with two or more factors. [edit] Shifting the burden The problem is handled by a simple solution with immediate effect, thereby "healing the symptoms". The primary source of the problem is overlooked, because its remedy is demanding and has no immediate outcome. The origin of the problem should be identified and solved in the long-term run during which the addiction to the symptomatic remedy decreases. Example: drug addiction, paying debts by borrowing[1]

Causal loop diagram "Shifting the burden"

[edit] Eroding goals A kind of shifting the burden archetype. As current problems need to be handled immediately, the long-term goals continuously decline. It can be avoided by sticking to the vision. Example: balancing the public debt, sliding limits of environmental pollution[1]

Causal loop diagram "Eroding goals" [edit] Escalation This archetype could be seen as a non-cooperative game where both players suppose that just one of them can win. They are responding to actions of the other player in order to defend themselves. The aggression grows and can result in self-destructive behavior. The vicious circle can be broken by one agent stopping to react defensively and turn the game into cooperative one. Example: arms race[1]

Causal loop diagram "Escalation" [edit] Success to successful Two people or activities need the same limited resources. As one of them becomes more successful, more resources are assigned to him/it. The second one becomes less and less successful due to lacking resources, and prove the right decision to support the first one. Problems occur if the competition is unhealthy and interferes with the goals of the whole system. The two activities or agents might be decoupled or they should receive balanced amount of resources. Examples: two products of one company, work vs. family[1]

Causal loop diagram "Success to the successful" [edit] Tragedy of the commons Agents use common limited resource to profit individually. As the use of the resource is not controlled, the agents would like to continuously raise their benefits. The resource is therefore used more and more and the revenues of the agents are decreasing. The agents are intensifying their exploitation until the resource is completely used up or seriously damaged. To protect common resources some form of regulation should be introduced. Example: fish stocks (The Fishing Game)[1]

Causal loop diagram "Tragedy of the commons" [edit] Fixes that fail In the fixes that fail archetype, the problem is solved by some fix (a specific solution) with immediate positive effect. Nonetheless, the side effects of this solution turn out in the future. The best remedy seems to apply the same solution. Example: saving costs on maintenance, paying interest by other loans (with other interests)[1]

Causal loop diagram "Fixes that fail" [edit] Growth and underinvestment The limit to growth is the current production capacity. It can be removed by sufficient investment in new capacities. If the investment is not aggressive enough (or it is too low), the

capacities are overloaded, the quality of services declines and the demand decreases. Example: small, but growing company[1]

Causal loop diagram "Growth and underinvestment"

Main characteristics of the ten archetypes What follows is a brief summary of the ten archetypal figures that emerged from the research. #1 The front-line worker The new role of front-line workers varies between providing technical knowledge and helping callers, a shift from dispensing information on demand. They feel compelled into the help profession, where empathy, intuition, language skills and judgement are vital. These workers alternate between pride and frustration, sometimes feeling appropriately rewarded for their value added, and sometimes feeling frustrated if the information they scan is overlooked and if access to basic knowledge tools, such as the internet, is denied. On their journey, they meet the experts, the case workers and the information synthesists. Experts provide insightful and pertinent answers to clients questions, while their relationship with case workers is still to be to be properly defined: it is often a fine line between information and assistance. Some days, front-line workers wish they were synthesists to allow them to research information on their own.

#2 The expert Experts can be hermits yet influence financial movements when called upon to interpret the details of a new budget. They can be at the highest echelons of their scientific category and yet explain regulations directly to stakeholders. For some, its refreshing to be able to connect directly with the public; they love difficult questions enabling them to discuss their domain of expertise. Others choose to steer clear of telephone knowledge dissemination to do what they are best at: creating knowledge. The ranks of level-one service providers are being backed by a growing number of experts trained for very specific subjects. As the level of specialisation grows, automated wizards and expert systems are considered. #3 The case worker As governments develop CRM solutions for their online activities, various case-management technologies are implemented, but not without resistance since these technologies have the potential to de-personalise interactions. Case-management technologies can be smart, probe the end-user and give pop-up menus with options to consider. But to what extent can probing guides and avatars replace the human guides? Case-management technologies are also implemented on intranets, where employees can access their private information without an intermediary. Will end-users and employees become their own case workers? #4 The cluster manager Cluster managers are a new breed of workers and yet the centre of online government activities. Their horizontal approach blurs their reporting hierarchy and blazes new trails when it comes to delivering services between jurisdictions. Their principal skill is relationship management and their challenge is to defy governmental structures. They greet departmental representatives at their tables with a request to leave their departmental spin at the door. These workers seek stakeholders recommendations and ask for patience from their senior managers. #5 The information synthesist Information synthesists are proliferating but are still undefined. They may be described as road warriors, forcing their way through well protected silos of information. Those who know where the information lies, in what format and how it can be accessed quickly are the winners. These workers may also be described as caring professionals, whose sense of volunteerism ranks high with a strong public-service ethic of impartial information. They get irritated, but are not intimidated, by scientific jargon and conflicting terminologies. They have an arsenal of automatic taxonomy tools to track and classify information.

Their value fuels innovation in government processes, from product to regional policy development. Yet many organisations just dont know what to do with these skills. #6 The guerrilla PR Government communicators are experimenting with the jiu jitsu of information. These workers must know about technology, ideas and current information before they become tomorrows buzzwords. They know that stories might break at the other end of the world while they are sleeping. They are not caught by surprise and have a few tricks of their own (with a little help from their favourite information synthesist): issue tracking and e-mail alerts. With their blogs and a few clever Perl scripts, they are always listening and circulating trends. They serve their stakeholder groups with solid content-management tools. They find re-purposing their information into various formats goes a long way to serve the media in a multi-channel environment. #7 The conversation acrobat Even with resistance from many government departments, conversation acrobats are now in high demand. These public servants try to create a symphony from the clutter of the internet. They bring to government tables youth, anti-globalisation gurus and native women. They know how to use a personal note to warm the atmosphere, a tone of truth, however short, instead of a 30-line standard response, and open-ended questions, to stimulate the discussion and re-formulate ideas. As much as they can, they use the network as a distributed structure of peers. They thrive under the wings of enlightened senior managers yet know to stay underground to avoid complications presented by lawyers and experts, whose jargon they have to translate, and they distance themselves from communications people; they are not a form of glorified outreach. #8 The policy developer Entrepreneurs bloom in the networked policy world, bridging national bodies and local communities. A few savvy ones operate in the public service, but often encounter resistance since entrepreneurship is the terrain of the elected. Nevertheless, public servants develop policies and the network gives them access to the front lines where they can listen to actual regional stories of programme delivery and requirements. From this information, gathered using bilateral communication, policy solutions emerge. Policy developers are energised by these new avenues, but require training to weed out harmful network circles from virtuous ones.

#9 The integrator For two decades, integrators were those everyone loved to hate: the central agencies. With the network environment comes the issues of privacy, authenticity and brand equity. Integrators are now required to provide direction to various networks, set common operating principles and systems, and serve as a pool of expertise and learning. Their capacity to integrate knowledge bases from various sources to produce a result is their key skill. #10 The regional programme manager Regional programme managers make service integration happen. They are no longer mere transmission belts of programmes designed and orchestrated from headquarters but, as the local face of the Government of Canada, are active members of smart communities. Even though they have gained some independence from headquarters, networking tools brings them closer, in a sense at least. As networking champions, the Canada brand depends on their ability to collaborate. They are proud of being the new model for successful urban organisation in the global age. Coopetition, gain sharing and collaboratories are their favourite buzzwords. They manage programmes with people from various backgrounds and create a unified workplace from a patchwork. They accept accountability for the bottom line of their part of the business, and for their own continued employability and careers within the industry.

THE LANGUAGE OF LINKS AND LOOPS

The Language of Systems Thinking: "Links" and "Loops" Michael Goodman, Jennifer Kemeny, Charlotte Roberts In systems thinking, every picture tells a story. From any element in a situation (or "variable"), you can trace arrows ("links") that represent influence on another element. These, in turn, reveal cycles that repeat themselves, time after time, making situations better or worse.

This image, for instance, from the Acme Company, shows the level of service influencing sales. Everv time service grows poorer (when billing and delivery problems increase), sales will also decrease. Conversely, if the level of service improves, we can expect (eventually, at least) more sales. But links never exist in isolation. They always comprise a circle of causality, a feedback "loop," in which every element is both "cause" and "effect" - influenced by some, and influencing others, so that every one of its effects, sooner or later, comes back to roost. How to Tell the Story from a Loop 1. Start anywhere. Pick the element, for instance, of most immediate concern. Our sales are dropping . . . Resist the temptation to explain why this is happening -- yet. 2. Any element may go up or down at various points in time. What has the element been doing at this moment? Try out language which describes the movement: As Acme's sales level goes up . . . goes down . . . improves . . . deteriorates. . . increases. . . decreases. . . rises. . . falls . . . soars . . . drops. . . waxes . . . wanes . . . 3. Describe the impact this movement produces on the next element As Acme's sales level goes down, the number of efforts to sell new accounts goes up. 4. Continue the story back to your starting place. Use phrases that show causal interrelationship: "This in turn, causes . . ." or ". . . which influences . . ." or ". . . then adversely affects . . ." As Acme's sales level goes down, the number of efforts to sell

new accounts goes up. This means the level of service drops, which in turn influences sales to continue falling . . . 5. Try not to tell the story in cut-and-dried, mechanistic fashion. When service problems rise, sales fall. As sales fall, sales force efforts rise. Instead, make it come alive. Add illustrations and short anecdotes so others know exactly what you mean.... This means the level of service drops. We just can't keep to the delivery schedules we promised. Loyal customers, in turn, become upset. Some stop doing business with us . .. Note that linear languages, like English, permit us to talk about the loop only one step at a time, as if we were following a train in a toy railroad around a track. In reality, however, all of these events occur at once. Seeing their simultaneity (. . . sales continue to fall, while we spur even more efforts to sell new accounts . . .) helps you recognize system behavior and develop a sense of timing. Reinforcing Loops: when small changes become big changes There are basically two building blocks of all systems representations: reinforcing and balancing loops. Reinforcing loops generate exponential growth and collapse, in which the growth or collapse continues at an ever-increasing rate. To grasp the often-surprising ramifications of exponential growth, consider an interest-bearing bank account. Your money grows much faster than it would if you merely put $100 each year into a piggy bank. At first, the difference seems small, interest would generate only a few extra dollars per year. But if you left the interest in the bank, the money would grow at an ever-faster rate. After fifty years (at 7 percent interest), you'd have more than $40,000, more than eight times as much as the piggy bank would generate by growing at the same rate, year after year. If you were unprepared for it, you'd reach a moment of surprise after perhaps fifteen vears, when you saw how the growth of your money was building on itself-a truly virtuous spiral. But you'd be caught in a vicious spiral if, instead of investing money, you went into debt for a long time. At first it would seem as if you were paying only small sums in interest. But over time, the balance you owed would grow with increasing speed. In all reinforcing processes, as in the bank account, a small change builds on itself. High birth rates lead to higher birth rates; industrial growth begets more industrial growth. Don't underestimate the explosive power of these processes; in their presence, linear thinking can always get us into trouble. For example, organizations often assume that they will face steady, incremental growth in demand. They are startled to discover that when their new facilities come on line (be they factories, distribution systems, utility grids, jails, highways, or city services) the demand has already overshot the relief effort.

When someone remarks that, "The sky's the limit," or "we're on a roll," or "This is our ticket to heaven," you can bet there's a reinforcing loop nearby, headed in the "virtuous" direction they prefer. When people say, "we're going to hell in a handbasket," or "we're taking a bobsled ride down the chute," or "we're spiraling to oblivion," you know they're caught in the other kind of reinforcing loop -- the vicious cycle.

DRAWING THE REINFORCING LOOP There can be any number of elements in a reinforcing loop-all in a circle, all propelling each others' growth. Reinforcing loop situations generally "snowball" into highly amplified growth or decline. If you wish, use the letter R to mark a reinforcing loop. A reinforcing loop, by definition, is incomplete. You never have a vicious or virtuous cycle by itself. Somewhere, sometime, it will run up against at least one balancing mechanism that limits it. The limit may not appear in our lifetime, but you can assume it will appear. Most of the time, there are multiple limits. REINFORCING LOOP TEMPLATE (FOR PLOTTING YOUR OWN SITUATION):