Imagine for a moment that a friend followed you with a webcam and recorded every moment of your typical work day. What could you learn from so much data? Probably not much, unless you matched each video frame with a related task. Once you did, however, you could pinpoint areas for improvement by comparing your activities on video with the expected minimal requirements (time and money) to complete each task.
ADVERTISEMENT |
The clinical engineering term used to describe this comparative analysis is called “systems thinking,” where choices for a set of outcomes are optimized using benchmark data. For non-engineers, systems thinking could be described as an exercise in time management or an example of how a person should best maneuver while driving through rush-hour traffic. Surprisingly, if you are not an engineer but know how to drive effectively in traffic, you may be a more intuitive expert on systems thinking than you realize.
So, what is systems thinking, and why should CEOs view it as their next competitive edge for years to come?
At a recent conference on Systems Thinking for Contemporary Challenges held at MIT, thought leaders, CEOs, and entrepreneurs (some representing various Fortune 100 companies) shared their thoughts and experiences. At first, I wondered why so much attention was being given to a decision-making process that seemed so intuitive. It wasn’t until I realized that systems thinking, as a clinical term, actually has two very different meanings. One definition applies to how an individual must think to solve problems, and the other applies to how groups of individuals must think collectively to find solutions. Then it became obvious to me that the latter was the principal reason for the conference.
Another way to look at this important distinction is to split systems thinking into two separate definitions, one for the individual within a company and the other for a group of integrated companies that work together on large projects.
Definition No. 1: An individual learns to think in terms of systems
The first definition focuses on an individual’s ability to use systems thinking for self-improvement and measures the potential effects from a group of employees that improve at the same time. For example, the webcam gathering data throughout your day would give you a frame-by-frame glimpse of your routine and potentially expose hidden areas for improvements. Now, imagine if everyone in your company analyzed their daily activities frame-by-frame, too? No doubt, the sum of their improvements would translate into a significant productivity boost for the entire company.
Definition No. 2: A group of systems learns to think together
The second definition looks at how a group of companies can effectively work together as a network of systems to complete complex projects such as producing a fleet of fighter jets at Raytheon, or designing wind turbines at GE. But a fragmented bunch of contracted companies would find it impractical to use a webcam to video their collective daily activities the same way we proposed in the first definition. Instead they would apply proven systems-thinking tools and methodologies specifically designed to coordinate and optimize the collective efforts from multiple companies.
How systems thinking works
Systems thinking begins by breaking down processes into their minimal components, even down to a molecular level, if need be. These data representing the flow of information from people, machines, and business objectives are thrown into the same soup and mapped onto a design structure matrix that visually connects the dots among people, activities, priorities, and time tables. Even management is treated as just another series of systems and data points. Industry tools such as TRIZ and ANYLOGIC are commonly used to identify patterns and determine optimal interactions from one group or system with another. They also highlight critical path areas caused by any number of factors such as supply-chain bottlenecks, limited use of shared resources, or realigning priorities.
When seen from close range, flaws and inefficiencies that were once hidden are suddenly exposed like a knitted fabric with a faulty stitch. When changes are implemented, the same systems-thinking methodology used to unearth the problem in the first place is “recycled” and reassessed using more current data.
Looking ahead
If systems thinking is something you feel that you have been doing all along but never knew that it had a name, you are not alone. Many professionals unwittingly apply the basic principles of systems thinking to improve their time management at work or at home. However, the systems thinking discussed in definition No. 2 goes much deeper. It evaluates companies as though they are systems operating within other systems, and applies innovative methodologies that can spot hard-to-find problems or solutions.
Companies that already subscribe to systems-thinking ideas designate one person or team to offer companywide recommendations. But past experiences have shown that a greater emphasis on a participatory effort from a wider range of individual inputs can be more effective, especially when it comes time to implement any changes. As the workplace becomes increasingly automated, an employee’s role will also change, and this requires a better understanding of systems thinking. Companies would do well to invest in various levels of systems thinking training for their entire workforce, or hire employees who already have a degree or experience in systems thinking.
Not everyone needs to receive a graduate degree to get hired, of course, since the majority of staff can be trained in systems thinking at the individual level (see definition No. 1). Management or specialized staff members, on the other hand, can opt for degree-level programs that use sophisticated tools to evaluate groups of systems (see definition No. 2). Currently the number of institutions offering degrees in systems thinking is limited, but since the demand for training is expected to increase in the coming years, more options will become available.
MIT’s master’s program
For those who are anxious to get started or are looking to realign their MBA degrees, consider MIT’s System Design and Management Program, which offers a master’s degree in engineering and management. This degree program is flexible with 13- to 24-month, career-compatible options comprised of on-campus and live, synchronous, at-a-distance classes. Many students who attend the program are sponsored by a company. Students work with their peers on problem sets that in many cases can be applied immediately to their sponsoring companies.
Of course, you do not need to wait for your employer to sponsor you. If the timing is right to advance your education, you might do better by taking your own initiative. Aside from getting a leg up on this new and exciting trend, you will also have much to gain personally, collectively, and professionally.
This article first appeared Nov. 13, 2013 on Tom Kadala’s blog.
Comments
Very Different
Maybe I'm missing something, but this video suggestion seems to be a completely different view of "systems thinking," in stark contrast to the usual concepts from the general systems theory originated by von Bertalanffy and further developed by Jay Forrester, Russell Ackoff, Peter Senge, Fritjof Capra, Jamshid Gharadjedaghi and others, and promoted by Deming as one of the four components of his System of Profound Knowledge. From that point of view, I would think that the video is only about systems thinking if it somehow captures all the interactions you have with the system, and allows you to see how you fit in as part of the whole. It would have to keep you from making any local changes that might optimize your local performance but suboptimize the larger system.
It's not that I think the video idea is necessarily bad...you could no doubt uncover lots of bad habits, and certainly help your own performance. It just sounds a lot more like basic process analysis than systems thinking, to me.
I agree; the article is more
I agree; the article is more about the vicious fiction of personal performance; and not the system that the person/s work in to achieve the organisation's mission. So, completely wrong-headed!
But the author is right in pointing to systems thinking as the source of organisation performance. Top management has to see the organisation as a total mission orientated system that facilitiates people achieving mission oriented outcomes: typically this means serving the customer.
One rule of thumb for a system oriented business is: no voice recognition call centre merry go rounds; but customers dealing with people who solve their problem or meet their need.
Add new comment