1

ASSIGNMENT COVER PAGE

SURNAME: Brinkmann

INITIALS: A

STUDENT NUMBER: 17573602

TELEPHONE NUMBER: 0828900663

PROGRAMME NAME: EDP 2012

MODULE: Systems Thinking

FACILITATOR: Steyn Heckroodt

DUE DATE: 25 June 2012

NUMBER OF PAGES:10 – including cover page and reference section

CERTIFICATION

I certify the content of the assignment to be my own and original work and that all sources have been accurately reported and acknowledged, and that this document has not previously been submitted in its entirety or in part at any educational establishment.

_________________________

SIGNATURE

OR

__6701130018085_______________________

ID number for assignments submitted via e-mail

FOR OFFICE USE

DATE RECEIVED:

2

1. Introduction and Background

In this article, very simply named: Systemic Thinking [Williams, 2002:pgs 26-29], Bob

Williams discusses his conclusions as those relate to a recent review of systems

approaches by Robert L Flood.

In essence, Bob Williams concludes that he agrees with the 3 basic paradoxes as set out

by Robert Flood; those are:

1.1 We cannot manage over things, but will manage the unmanageable

1.2 We cannot organise the totality, but will organise within the unorganisable

1.3 We will not simply know things, but we will know the unknowable.

He furthermore discusses Flood‟s thinking and methodologies in some detail, from the final

chapter of Flood‟s book [which he does not mention the title of, but I suspect is extracted

from: Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning within the Unknowable; Routledge; 1999]

Williams concludes that Flood is one of the few systems thinkers who uses systemic

evaluation rather than the quite one-dimensional practice of performance management,

within the centre of his systems design. Williams also concludes that this systemic

evaluation is more than likely too complex for most individuals and organisations to

understand, that they would have to make rather a large leap from their current

conservative measurement metrix and that he believes it would take quite some time

before individuals and organisations are able to embrace Flood‟s integrated model of

systems thinking, design and systemic evaluation.

In most instances, I found resonance with what Bob Williams has concluded as well as

with Flood‟s theories of systems thinking, but found the article lacking in substance and

further exploration of exactly how Flood arrived at his revised conclusions. I shall

therefore spend some time on fleshing out a range of concepts touched upon in Bob

William‟s article, from both the critical as well as supportive perspectives.

2. Brief Biographies on Robert L Flood and Bob Williams

See reference to the history and viewpoints of both Williams and Flood within the

reference section.

3. The Critical Review

Williams begins by dissecting Flood‟s methodology in terms of Flood‟s view on systems,

how to manage them, explore and evaluate them. Williams starts off with Flood‟s

3

statement that: „ Systemic awareness begins with a spiritual appreciation of Wholeness”

and that this wholeness could be ascribed to the inter-relatedness of all things or to

something that he calls spontaneous self-organisation, which leads to emergence and a

new order, or new ways of seeing, organising and doing things.

Williams does not explain that emergence is something that the human mind can conceive

of – the whole being larger than the sum of the parts. Spontaneous self-organisation

which implies that the whole comprises many, many inter-relationships in endless

occurrences of spontaneous self-organisation, is however, in my opinion, very difficult for

the average human mind and specifically, the management mind, to comprehend. I am

however personally a proponent if not evangelist, of both concepts.

What may help the article to flow and to be of interest to readers who have never before

been exposed to systems thinking, it would be helpful to have explained the various

theorems and history of the components of systems thinking as we have come to

understand those today collectively.

When we step back and view the evolution of systems thinking over time, we note

that the emergence of various theorems and practices resonate and support

Williams‟s take on Flood‟s systems model. We note that in the 1930‟s, mechanistic

thinking was the order of the day. Reductionism was used in a way that led to

organisations seeing things made of smaller, invisible parts that no-one could see

or prove were real. [Chapman, pgs 1-25.a]. Many organisations still choose this

approach to problem-solve.

Towards the end of the 1930‟s, biologists and Gestalt theorists moved towards

using an holistic way of describing the world in terms of it being an inter-related

system. These pioneers were able to describe the world, an organisation or a

system as having emergent properties - and that that these emergent properties

disappear when one dissects or breaks down the whole. This was the first inkling

of the theorem that that the whole constitutes more than the sum of its parts.

[Chapman, pgs 1-25. b]

By the 2nd World War, cybernetic thinking entered the domain of systems design,

where control theory and an appreciation of both natural and engineered „ systems‟

and their feedback loops started emerging. The notion that there are pluralistic

views of views, started taking shape.

4

Stafford Beer, in his Viable System Model and Management Cybernetics built upon

these concepts and is known as the father of Management Cybernetics.

The latter two advances, find resonance with Flood‟s process as it relates to the

difference in feedback loops in scientific as opposed to social systems. Both

methodologies can be applied within systems design, where relevant.

There is also a strong sense that as humans, we are not aware of how we think – in other

words, thinking becomes a nearly mechanistic, subconscious practice – and that there are

still fewer human beings who are aware of alternative ways of thinking. [Heckroodt:

Systems Thinking USB: May 2012] This powerful statement supports Flood‟s contention

that we often do not know what we know and that we never will.

In my observation, over 24 years in a career spanning many industries, sectors and

organisations, these statements still hold true in 2012. Companies and organisations do

not inherently accept that there is a constant level of unpredictability in what they do and

that in order to be adaptive to constant change inside and outside their organisation, there

has to be a combination of adaptive behaviour, feedback and non-linear thinking and

behaviour. In an ideal world, Simon [ MIT Press; 1981] states that, the upper hierarchy in

organisations would operate slower and on longer time spans than the lower hierarchy and

that through systems design and the adaptive organisation, a stable environment would be

created in which the lower echelons could operate.

Stafford Beer [ Beer. 1979] advocates for the cybernetic approach, where authority is fully

delegated to staff dealing directly with clients and customers, thereby implying a sense of

wholeness and complete ownership by every individual within the organisation. This is in

my opinion, far from the reality in business at present, but close to where it should in fact

be. Neither Flood nor Williams mention this very important aspect of systems design and

implementation.

In his book, The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation

[P.Senge. 1990.a], Peter Senge advances the following theorem:

Working backwards, he asserts that the Fifth Discipline, Systems Thinking, binds

everything together; that it represents a conceptual framework, body of knowledge

and tools where the patterns of connections have become clearer and also, the

5

mechanisms on how to adapt and change as any one part of the system requires it

to in totality. This assertion support Flood‟s theorem and William‟s interpretation

thereof.

In fact, according to Prof Chapman. [Chapman, pgs 1-25. c] systems thinking is the

opposite of reductionism in that it requires us to move up the levels of abstractions

and to discard detail that is unnecessary at that point. I fully agree with this

thinking and have in fact applied it in my own systems design approach. I felt that

Williams and Flood should have touched on this notion in order to better explain

systems thinking methodology and practice.

In Senge‟s [ P.Senge. 1990.b] view, it starts with Personal Mastery, which involves a

process of clarifying and deepening of personal and organisational vision, the deliberate

focusing of energies, developing infinite patience and seeing reality as objectively as

possible. We need to meaningfully understand ourselves by contemplating the whole of

which we are an integral part. It must be visible that our actions are inter-related to other

person‟s actions in patterns of behaviour. Flood contends that we constantly live between

states of mystery and mastery. Senge and Flood both hold valid points. I prefer the idea

that we embrace mastery as much as possible and use mystery as a constant challenge to

think differently and to learn and adapt.

Senge [ P.Senge. 1990.c] then urges us to move to Mental Modelling, which is where we

unearth our internal pictures and views of the world. This moves us into building a shared

vision, which involves the skills of unearthing and excavating a shared picture of the future

– or what is referred to as Ideal Reality/Future versus Current Reality/Future. This is in

contrast to William‟s assertion that Flood believes we only know that is local and can

therefore only plan for what is local in space and time. This does not allow for scenario

planning and knowing the unknowable and planning for it.

Flood uses the methaphor of „ Prismatic Thinking‟ , wherein he states that the

understanding of the problem is enriched when one deliberately and mindfully applies

various other perspectives, thereby creating new questions and investigative possibilities.

It uses the prismatic characteristics of a diamond to teach the mindset that each problem

has various facets as well as perceptions and that those combine to reflect the complexity

and uncertainty of a situation. [Dalene Duvenhage, 25 June 2008. Workshop]

6

Ackoff does however remind us [R.L Ackoff, 1993. Omega Journal] that corporate visions

are often illusions or even delusions. He furthermore reminds us that the Ideal design or

reality must be an operationally meaningful description of all organisational stakeholders if

they could have any organisation - without any constraints. In William‟s article he

concludes that according to Flood, one of the weaknesses of systems thinking is that there

is a large „bloody hell‟ factor. That it could amount to a very unrealistic wish list that is

unachievable and far removed from reality. That is certainly true within a great many

organisations who seem to continue to believe that THEY are somehow insulated from the

external environment and still insist on very unrealistic short term targets and thereby

demotivate their employees and pillage their companies by stripping as much as possible

out of the system to reach an artificial bottom line. There is no long term systems

planning in place to ensure that the organisation is adaptable or even that it survives the

changing world and environment.

Jamesh Gharajedaghi [ Gharajedaghi. 2011. Pgs 159-179] in his review of Ackoff‟s Systems

Thinking :Formulating the Mess, stresses that many organisations fail to face the right

problems to start off with. I fully agree with this contention. Asking the right question in

the first place remains a challenge.

Definining the „ mess‟ is in fact the most important step of the systems thinking process. In

formulating this mess, organisations find a shared understanding of the underlying inter-

dependencies, assumptions, values and what the [often negative] reinforcing reward

systems are that are assisting in regenerating the problematic patterns. Flood states that

one of the strengths of systems thinking is exactly this – that is integrates key systems

approaches, without becoming a mess of compromises. Significantly, Flood has found an

operational model to achieve this ideal, although this model is not expounded upon by

Williams.

“ A mess is the future implicit in the present behaviour of the system” – a very powerful

statement by Ackoff. We need to understand or predict, within the unpredictability, the

consequences of the current state of the system, use dynamic, not static analysis and

understand what is wrong, how we got to this place and why the system behaves as it

does. Only then can one backwards engineer from the Ideal Future to the ideal design of

the complex, adaptive organisation.

7

In essence, the natural flow of systems thinking and design are accurately described

within William‟s article, from Flood‟s point of departure, that Systemic Thinking arises from

an appreciation of wholeness, following through to the notion that „ We don‟t really know

very much about anything and actually never will‟.

4. Conclusion and commentary

In my opinion, Flood has advanced the practice as well as theory of Systems Thinking

considerably, by thinking about Systems Thinking, as well, a system of inter-related

theorems and practices. His thinking incorporates Peter Senge‟s work on the Learning

Organisation, Bertalanffy‟s Open Systems Theory, Beer‟s Organisational Cybernetics,

Ackoff‟s Interactive Planning, Checkland‟s Soft Systems Approach as well as Churchman‟s

Critical Systemic Thinking. Williams does however not make this clear within his article.

The article clearly IS a work in progress and requires deeper investigation and

substantiation of a range of statements and contentions.

Flood seems to have synthesised the various strains of theory and thinking into a coherent,

practical theorem of practice, ending in a process of systemic evaluation.

The article under review very ironically does not interrogate Flood‟s systemic evaluation

process, but I would imagine, given my knowledge of the current state of organisations,

how they plan and forecast, using ancient, one-dimensional „ tried and tested‟

methodologies, that William‟s contention that the skills necessary to implement Flood‟s

evaluation process, would not yet be present. There is also still a lack in terms of a

community of practice around Systems Thinking and Design that would internalise Flood‟s

integrative model and bring it into the mainstream. I would however postulate that in

Learning Organisations, where there is already the foresight to live by the principles of

Systems Thinking and Design, Flood‟s systemic evaluation process would be adopted and

trialed and that such a process may well in time, build the case for it to be used more and

more in practice.

Systems thinking and design remain, by nature, an evolving discipline or system. Even

though there is a gargantuan body of work by a great many specialists and practitioners,

that does not mean that the will to change or embrace systems thinking and design exists

within organisations or individuals.

8

The idea that if there is a change in one sub-system, all others react and change, is

perhaps too much for the average human and management mind to conceive of. In my

view, this short article, in its simplicity, does however make a very strong case for systems

thinking, design and evaluation and would benefit, as the author explores the topic further,

from adding more information about the real operational modelling as well as to create an

understanding of the systemic evaluation process that is very briefly touched upon.

The article, though lightweight, did, in the end, inspire me to interrogate the various

statements in greater detail and sent me on a journey of deeper discovery of the history of

systems thinking and how this shaped Flood‟s theorem and methodologies. If its existence

inspires other scholars and organisations and piques their interest to explore further, then

it has served its purpose.

9

5. REFERENCES

5.1 Bob Williams

Based in New Zealand, he divides his working time between evaluation, strategy

development, facilitating large-group processes and systemic organisational change

projects. [ www.bobwilliams.com]. He dedicates most of this time to training and

consultancy support for the use of systems concepts in evaluation.

Very similar to Flood, whom he describes as a peripatetic [ itinerant, wayfarer, traveller,

prone to Aristotle‟s „ teaching whilst walking‟ methods] Englishman, Williams himself views

his work as a continual learning process and one that is participative. It is no surprise that

he is supportive of Flood‟s systemic evaluation methodology, as Williams has had an active

and published interest in the use and abuse of performance measures as evaluation tools.

5.2 Robert L Flood

Born in 1955, he became a British Organisational Scientist and Professor of Management

Sciences at the age of 32 at Hale University. He became known as an authority on

systemic thinking in areas of strategic management, organisational behaviour as well as

organisational improvement.

He has been the Editor of the International Journal : „ Systemic Practice & Research” as

well as Associate Editor of the Journal : “ Systems Research & Behavioural Science”.

He has authored and co-authored various books on the topic of Systemic Thinking, among

them:

Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning within the Unknowable [ Routledge, 1999]

Systems Science [ Co-written with E.R Carson]

[ Source: Wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert L. Flood]

As Ackoff is widely recognised as the father of Systems Thinking, Flood is revered for

pushing the frontiers of research and practice and finding improved models of design and

evaluation.

FURTHER REFERENCES:

Ackoff, R L. 1993. Idealised Design: creative corporate visioning. Omega Journal

Beer, S. 1979. The heart of the enterprise. Wiley & Sons

Beer, S. 1959, Cybernetics and Management, English Universities Press

10

Chapman, J. Introducing Systems Thinking.

www.learningsociety.org.uk/.../JackChapmanIntroducingSystemsThinking

Accessed: June 2012

Checkland,P and Scholes. 1990. “Soft Systems Methodology in Action”.

Duvenhage, D. 25 June 2008. Private/Academic partnership in Intelligence Analysis

training: The SA Experience – workshop lecture.

Flood, R. 1999. Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning from the Unknowable.

Routledge.

Gharajedaghi. J. Review: Thinking: Formulating the Mess: Ackoff. 2011. Pgs 159-

179

Senge P.M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning

organisation

Simon. 1981. The Architect of Complexity: MIT Press

Williams, B. 2002. Systemic Thinking – Work in progress.

http:users.actrix.co.nz/bobwill Accessed during May/June 2012

Williams, B. www.bobwilliams.com Accessed during June 2012

Wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert L. Flood

www.organizationalcybernetics.org/ www.cybsoc.org/contacts/people-Beer.