TEXT BOOK - Systems Thinking For EVERYONE Bosch and Nguyen 2015 PDF

Systems Practitioner
Ockie Bosch & Nam Nguyen

© Ockie Bosch and Nam Nguyen 2015
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.
Published by
Think2Impact Pty Ltd
P O Box 6064
Kingston
2604 ACT
AUSTRALIA
Ockie Bosch and Nam Nguyen have asserted their moral right under the Copyright Act, 1968 to be identified as the authors of
this work.
National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry:

Creator: Bosch, Ockie, author
Title: Systems thinking for EVERYONE:
The Journey from Theory to Making an Impact / Ockie Bosch & Nam Nguyen
ISBN: 9780994235602 (paperback)
Subjects: Thought and thinking
Management
Strategic planning
Systems thinking
Executive ability
Complexity
Other Creator: Nguyen, Nam Cao, author
Dewey Decimal
classification notation: 153.42
Printed and bound by Dong Tien Printing and Trading Company, Tu Liem, Ha Noi, Viet Nam
ii
This book is dedicated to All Peoples – EVERYONE
– in any area of interest, different contexts, businesses, organisations,
government departments, communities, families, individuals
iii
Foreword
Until now our inability to effectively deal with ever increasing globally complex environments
sees our world abound with failed projects and programs. The waste and opportunity cost is
staggering at the local, regional, national and global level.
As the founding, and until recently, Managing Director and Chief Executive of the
International Centre for Complex Project Management, I was struck how wedded the
international community was to linear approaches when dealing with complex issues. Their
willingness to repeat the same mistakes and their unwillingness to embrace a more systemic
approach were strongly evident. Some were even suggesting that there was no such thing
as complexity and all things could be deconstructed.
Fortunately the world has moved on and today there is growing acceptance that current
tools and processes, whilst important, are not sufficient for dealing with complexity.
Complex issues - those that exhibit non-linearity, uncertainty, ambiguity, and emergence -
those that have multiple stakeholders or may be subject to political influence, require a
different approach. Having engaged extensively throughout the international community
over the past eight years I am confident that systems thinking stands as the single most
important contribution we need to embrace to improve our capacity to better deal with
complex issues and as a consequence, help create a better world.
Having recognised systems thinking as an important key for the international community, I
began my search for someone in the systems community who had managed to develop and
deploy a successful systems thinking process or model. A process or model that was
adaptable for small and large-scale issues. A process or model that transcended cultural and
sectoral boundaries. Professor Ockie Bosch and Dr Nam Nguyen ended my search when
they introduced me to the systems-based Evolutionary Learning Laboratory (ELLab) process.
The ELLab process provides a well-constructed, repeatable and accessible approach to
dealing with complexity. More importantly, the ELLab process has been successfully
deployed to great effect in support of large and small communities, governments, aid
agencies and other organisations.
Through this book, Professor Bosch and Dr Nguyen have put systems thinking and the
ELLab process in a practical context that will enable EVERYONE to make a difference
whether that will be at a local or global level. Recognising the need to make the ELLab
process more accessible, and to create a global platform for collaboration amongst the
systems community, this book concludes by introducing Think2Impact™.
I strongly recommend the reader use this book as the starting point for a journey into the
practical application of systems thinking. Beyond that, I invite you to explore and apply
Think2Impact™ in addressing your complexity issues, in your systems science journey and
to collaborate with the international community through the Think2Impact™ platform. We
look forward to supporting your systems journey.
Stephen Hayes MBE

Managing Director
Think2Impact
iv
What do systems scientists say?
Professor Ockie Bosch and Dr Nam Nguyen have spent years refining their concepts and applications
of systems. Some of the ideas emerged through deep conversations with other systems professionals,
then took root in the university programs in which they worked. The most valuable applications,
though, seem to have come from moving highly theoretical concepts into practice in settings where
the participants may, or may not, have been literate in common languages. They have used systems
ideas to empower local people to participate in decision-making, and the design of their own
futures.
Professor Gary Metcalf

President, International Federation for Systems Research
This book is all about the art of change. It addresses the complex challenges we meet every day. It
enables us to draw better maps of the world. It encourages learning not only about the technical
world, but more than that about the micro and macro dimensions of political and cultural realities. We
learn about the dynamics that lead to complexity and how to channel them. We learn about the
power of context which tends to overrule for the worth or the better. And we learn to reflect on our
role in creating a world and our responsibility for the outcome. This book takes us on a learning
journey to become the change we want to see in the world.
Dr Louis Klein
President, Systemic Excellence Group, Berlin, Germany
As a scientist of robotics, human society, complex systems and well-being, I realise that everything is
connected and interacts with each other. Nothing can be seen as separated anymore. However,
humans have been focused on reductionist approaches for hundreds of years. This book helps
‘everyone’ with what is required to deal with complex issues - to start focus on systems. Global issues
including environmental problems, poverty issues, disaster management, welfare and medical issues,
educational issues, economics, politics and innovation are all connected to each other. This book
leads us into a new era of systems thinking in a language that will make it easy for everybody to
understand and for systems thinking to become main stream in society.
Professor Takashi Maeno

Dean, Graduate School of Systems Design and Management, Keio
University, Japan
v
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude to the many people who have crossed our paths
during our continuing journey from theory to making an impact. Many people in various countries
around the world have been involved in our research and testing the applications of different systems
methods, including Dr Nguyen Van Thanh from the Central Vietnamese Government; Professor Dan
Duc Hiep and various Government officials from the Haiphong People’s Committee; the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation and Grand Challenges Team, USA; Philip Taylor and Hamish Park from the
South Australian Department of State Development; Frances Graetz from the South Australian
Department of Health; Professor Takashi Maeno, Dean of the Graduate School of Systems Design and
Management at Keio University, Japan; Dr Ishwaran Natarajan, former Director of Ecological and
Earth Studies, UNESCO; Professor Nguyen Viet Thinh and Professor Nguyen Hoang Tri from Hanoi
National University; Professor Tuong Duy Kien and Dr Pham Thi Phuong Nga from the Ho Chi Minh
National Academy of Politics and Public Administration, Vietnam; Dr Alan Shiell, Chief Executive
Officer of the Centre of Excellence in Intervention and Prevention Science; and Dr Sonia Wutzke
Deputy Director, the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre.
We are also grateful for the continued support and inspiration of many colleagues who we
continuously work with such as Professor Gary Metcalf, President of the International Federation for
Systems Research; Professor Gerald Midgley and Dr Jennifer Wilby from Hull University Business
School, UK; Dr Louis Klein, President of the Systemic Excellence Group in Berlin; Professor Wolfgang
Hofkirchner and Stefan Blachfellner from the Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science in
Austria; Professor Roberto Barrera from the University of Patagonia, Argentina; Professor Deborah
Hammond from Sonoma University in California; Professor Pamela Henning from the School of
Business, Adelphi University in New York; Professor Fredmund Malik and Dr Constantin Malik from the
Malik Institute for Complexity Management, Governance and Leadership, Switzerland; Dr Sam Wells
from The University of Adelaide Business School and Damian Scanlon, Director of the Adelaide MBA;
Professor Gandolfo Dominici, Scientific Director of the Business Systems Laboratory, Italy; and too
many other colleagues to mention.
Our sincere gratitude to Stephen Hayes MBE and Warwick Watkins AM from Think2Impact for their
contributions to this book. The value that they brought from years of experience working with
complex issues speaks directly to ‘everyone’ for whom this book has been written. A special word of
thank you to Kailash Krishnamurthi for his contribution and to his Gravity Consulting team in
Bangalore, under the professional local leadership of Ankur Mahanta. With the help of Ankur and his
extraordinary design team at Gravity, the text in this book has become a colourful and insightful
experience, even if one just scans through it.
Last but not least, our appreciation to our many past and present students at under, and post-
graduate level. Their enthusiasm in applying their learnings to different complex problems in various
countries, cultural and political settings continuously enhance our own development as systems
scientists who are passionate about taking our science out to where it can make a difference to the
lives of people.
Finally, to our families – thank you very much for your wonderful support and for ‘coping’
with our many ‘Travels2Impact’.
vi
Table of Contents
Foreword…………………………………………..…………………………………...…………………………iv
What do systems scientists say……………………………………………………….……………………..v
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………….………………………….…vi
From the authors .................................................................................................... 1
Systems thinking for everyone? ............................................................................... 1
Who is everyone? ................................................................................................... 1
Why is this important for everyone? ......................................................................... 2
Chapter 1 The journey starts!.....................................................................................4
Why systems thinking ............................................................................................. 5

Systems thinking .................................................................................................... 6
The complexity of any system that we have to deal with...........................................11
Small challenges for you ........................................................................................12
List of selected further readings ..............................................................................12
Chapter 2 The journey has just begun - why run away from complexity?........... 14
Do we need to run away from complexity? ..............................................................15

It is not only the ‘privilege’ of systems scientists to ‘tame’ complexity ........................15
Moving away from ‘quick-fixes’ and linear thinking ...................................................15
The iceberg approach versus the systems-based approach........................................16
The systems-based Evolutionary Learning Laboratory framework ..............................17
Chapter 3 Is everyone part of the journey?.............................................................22
The importance of involving all relevant stakeholders ...............................................23

Different mental models .........................................................................................23
How to gather the mental models of stakeholders ....................................................24
How to put the mental models into key themes........................................................26
vii
Chapter 4 Discovering the big picture….…………………………………………….….……………..30
Building capacity for stakeholders ...........................................................................31

Integrating the mental models by developing a systems structure/model ...................32
Causal Loop Diagrams………………………………………………………………………………………….32
Reinforcing and balancing loops…………………………………………………………………………….33
Software Resources ...............................................................................................36
Chapter 5 What does the big picture tell me?.........................................................38
Use a systems model to identify relationships and interactions between components..39

Systems archetypes - Generic structures…..……………………………………………………………39
Leverage points .....................................................................................................39
Examples of systems archetypes and leverage points ...............................................40
Chapter 6 Addressing leverage points in a systemic way…………….………………………48
What is a Bayesian Belief Network (BBN)? ...............................................................49

Creating a Bayesian Belief Network Model ...............................................................52
Illustrating the use of BBNs in practice ....................................................................56
Some challenges for you ........................................................................................59
Chapter 7 Implementation of Integrated Systemic Management…………..…………..62
Importance of systemically based implementation ....................................................63

Developing systemic management plans to deal with complexity ...............................65
viii
Chapter 8 Reflection as part of the journey………………………………………………………….72
You would never have a ‘perfect’ model to deal with complexity……………………….…….73

Examples of the outcomes, impacts and lessons learned during Reflection .................75
Chapter 9……and finally our journey leads to Think2Impact………………………………82
The changing paradigm..........................................................................................83

Opportunities in the information and knowledge economy .........................................83
Evolution of the Evolutionary Learning Laboratories ..................................................83
Think2Impact ........................................................................................................85
What does Think2Impact™ want to achieve? ...........................................................86
Bibliography .......................................................................................................87
About the authors……………………………………………………..……………………94
ix
From the authors
Professor Ockie Bosch B.Sc. M.Sc. D.Sc.
Dr Nam Nguyen B.Econ. M.Agribus. PhD.
Like all good scholars we both started our journeys in the systems sciences by
focusing on understanding and developing theory. However, we soon started to
realise that only knowing definitions or other systems characteristics and
understanding the use of systems tools are not sufficient for enabling members of
the public to actively apply their knowledge about systems in the way that the term
‘systems thinker’ implies – no more than having people memorize Russian words
would enable them to communicate effectively in Russia. If creating systems
thinkers merely required teaching systems facts to others, the world would have as
many systems thinkers as it has people who have read a book about systems or
have taken a course about systems. What has become important to us is the
realisation of the enormous potential that systems thinking could have in managing
the many complex issues in all areas of need. For this to become a reality systems
thinking has to spread beyond scholarly circles – systems thinking and its associated
concepts and tools need to be taken out to where it can make a difference.
Systems thinking does not yet play an important role in making good policy and
investment decisions or solving complex problems. There remains a lack of
awareness of the unintended consequences of our decisions. Cross-sectoral
communication and collaboration to deal with the multi-dimensional nature of
complex problems is not yet visible in our societies and going for ‘quick fixes’,
because it is easier to treat the symptoms, remains the preferred way to deal with
complex issues. These issues clearly demand an urgent need for new and innovative
ways of thinking and a fresh approach and tools to deal with the problems facing our
society. Our research over the last 20 years has focused mainly on how to bring
theory and practice together and, more specifically, to make systems thinking more
mainstream in society. The contents of this book are based on our many experiences
and successes to diffuse systems thinking into different societies, cultures,
communities, organisations and businesses.
Systems thinking for everyone?

Who is everyone?
By definition when you want to refer to all the people in a group ‘everyone’ means
‘everybody’. The group being referred to here is our whole society – local, regional,
national or global. Therefore, you are one of the people who will hopefully find this
book useful, because it is written for you.
1
Why is this important for everyone?
When it comes to dealing with issues, any organisation, business or community have
people that are involved. These people may be affected by decisions being made or
can influence the formulation and implementation of the decisions. They may
support or oppose the decisions, be influential in the organization or within a
community in which they operate, and ensure that decisions are implemented. No
project or issue can be solved without the knowledge, perceptions and opinions of
the stakeholders. These people may be affected by decisions being made or can
influence the formulation and implementation of the decisions. This means everyone
has a ‘stake’ in dealing with an issue – making every one a ‘stakeholder’.
If the role of all stakeholders in the decision making processes is so important, why
is there the perception that finding solutions to complex problems is the work of
systems scientists? Problems can only be solved if we have sufficient knowledge and
everybody has some level of knowledge and wisdom about the issues facing society.
It is therefore important that all stakeholders become engaged in projects or issues
that need to be resolved. Wikipedia describes stakeholder engagement in the
business world as the process by which a stakeholder is provided with opportunities
to further align business practices with societal needs and expectations, helping to
drive long-term sustainability and shareholder value. In any project or for every
problem under consideration, identifying, mapping and prioritising the stakeholders
are an important first step.
Critical to the success of any problem management exercise is the continued

involvement of stakeholders throughout the processes of finding effective solutions,
creating and implementing management plans and refining the management over
time. That requires a working knowledge of systems thinking in practice – not
necessarily to become a systems scientist, but for everyone to develop a sufficient
level of knowledge and skills to engage effectively in systemic decision making. This
book is written for everyone who has to deal with issues in a wide range of areas of
interest in society, varying from complex businesses, health systems, governance
and environmental management to project and program management, innovation,
community development, poverty alleviation to mention but a few – all within the
context of economic constraints, cultural sensitivities, different political agendas and
other social issues.
2
3
4
Why systems thinking
Despite many efforts to deal with the various complex issues facing our societies,
plans and problem solutions are seldom long lasting, because we, as individuals, and
our leaders are most likely to fall into the trap of using traditional linear thinking. It
is natural and easy, but does not usually deliver long-term solutions in the context of
highly complex modern communities. There is an urgent need for innovative ways of
thinking and a fresh approach to dealing with the unprecedented and complex
challenges facing our world.
We are surrounded by systems, and are, indeed, a part of systems. Humans are not,
however, in the habit of either seeing this or of thinking systemically. Even when we
can see that ‘something is wrong with the system’, we tend to analyse the problem
by breaking the system down to smaller and smaller parts looking for that which is
faulty until we begin to lose sight of the interactions between all the elements 1, 2, 21.
This type of thinking is a logical consequence of the sheer difficulty of observing and
interpreting the actions and reactions of people or things synthetically (or
holistically). That is, it is mentally easier to break a thing down to inspect individual
components than to study the component and its relationship to other components
simultaneously. Linear thinking might be satisfactory if you are deciding where to
build a house if there are no councils and no environmental regulations. And
powering modern economies would be easy if we could burn oil and coal without
consequence. But these activities, like all activities, have consequences.
Additionally, humans instinctively understand the importance of systems and their
parts. What we do not instinctively do in society at large is to regularly solve
problems by considering the whole system, tending to focus instead on the part that
appears to be malfunctioning. Thus, governments attempt to control obesity by
encouraging exercise or influencing food choices without also considering food
culture, city planning, pet ownership, economic pressures, advertising, agriculture,
human nature, serving portions, convenience, the availability of time for food
preparation or other health issues that inhibit activity; or they try to save
endangered species by establishing national parks with porous boundaries which are
already full of feral animals.
The lack of systemic management and cross-sectoral communication and
collaboration are not new problems. There are seminars, retreats and courses that
focus on finding solutions and entire books have been written on these problems 23,
26, 30, 35, 36
. However, little has been done that is new or has proved able to both
overcome the barrier to communication caused by the differing mental models of the
world and to devise systemic management strategies towards complex problems 11.
5
In addition, governments and business institutions are under pressure to make the
right investment decisions in the face of a continually changing world. Policy makers,
managers and leaders today are expected to deliver innovative solutions to cope
with increasing change and uncertainty. In order to govern our complex society
towards resilient technical, economic and social developments there is an urgent
need to step outside our collective ‘comfort zone’ and to develop new ways of
thinking and acting in the interest of our future. It is essential for current and future
managers and leaders, and any citizen of our society, to be equipped with new ways
of thinking (systems thinking) to deal with complex problems in a systemic,
integrated and collaborative fashion—that is, working together in identifying and
dealing with root causes of issues rather than focusing on short-term fixes.
Systems thinking
What is a system?
The story of ‘the six blind men and an elephant’ (Figure 1.1) has slightly different
versions in different cultures. The story goes like this: Once upon a time, there lived
six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, ‘Hey, there is an elephant
in the village today.’ They had no idea what an elephant was. They decided, ‘even
though we would not be able to see it, let’s go and feel it anyway’. All of them went
to where the elephant was standing. Every one of them touched the elephant:
‘Hey, an elephant is a pillar’, said the first man who touched his leg.
‘Oh, no! It is a rope’, said the second man who touched the tail.
‘Oh, no! It is a huge snake’, said the third man who touched the trunk.
‘It is a big hand fan’, said the fourth man who touched the ear.
‘It is a huge wall’, said the fifth man who touched the belly.
‘It is a solid pipe’, said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.
Figure 1.1: The six blind men and an elephant

Source: Adapted from Google’s images for the six blind men and an elephant
6
The reason each of them was experiencing it differently is because each one of them
touched a different part of the elephant. In other words, each of them had a partial
truth. The elephant has all the features that each of them described, but isn’t fully
what they described unless we combine all of their answers. Only when each
individual learns that they are part of a system, touching upon truth at some point,
but probably not touching upon the total systemic truth, will each teammate seek
out alternative perspectives. Many times, disagreements are not really
disagreements at all, but just individuals seeing or feeling a different aspect of the
system, revealing a portion of the truth, that only when combined yields the whole
truth. In other words, ‘the behaviour of a system cannot be known just by knowing
the elements of which the system is made’ 52, p.7. However, this is still a prevailing
philosophy, or ways of doing things, in our society. That is, when one wants to
understand a system, there is a common tendency to break it into parts and study
each part separately.
There are various definitions of a system; for example:
‘A system is a way of looking at the world’ 84, p.52.
‘A system is a collection of parts that interact with one another to function as a
whole’ 50, p.7.
‘A system is a set of elements or parts that is coherently organised and
interconnected in a pattern or structure that produces a characteristic set of a
behaviours, often classified as its ‘function’ or ‘purpose’’52, p.188.
‘Simply defined, a system is a complex whole the functioning of which depends
on its parts and the interactions between those parts’ 40, p.3.
‘A system is more than the sum of its parts – it is the product of their
interactions’ 1.
Figure 1.2: A forest is a system composed of different parts with a function – one tree or a
leaf is a system composed of different parts with a purpose and function
7
It is important to note that a collection is also composed of a number of parts, but
they are just ‘thrown’ together and are not interconnected 72. A system must consist
of:
elements or parts,
the interconnectedness and interactions between these parts, and
a function or purpose.
Examples of systems: A football team; the digestive system; a school; a city; a
corporation; an animal; a tree; a forest (Figure 1.2); etc. A forest is a larger system
that encompasses subsystems of trees and animals. Similarly, your body is a large
system that consists of various subsystems. For instance, the digestive system
includes elements such as teeth, enzymes, stomach, and intestines. They are
interrelated through the physical flow of food, and through an elegant set of
regulating chemical signals. The function of this system is to break down food into
its basic nutrients and to transfer those nutrients into the bloodstream (another
system) while discarding unusable wastes52.
What is systems thinking?
Different scholars define systems thinking slightly differently, for example:
‘Systems thinking is a way of looking at, learning about, and understanding
complex situations’ 85, p.7 .
‘Systems thinking is a way of seeing and talking about reality that helps us
better understand and work with systems to influence the quality of our lives’
44, p.2
.
‘Systems thinking is a big idea – the idea that you really can understand and
tame the complexity of the real world by seeing things in the round, as a
whole’ 72, p.1 .
Systems thinking is a ‘new way of thinking’ to understand and manage complex
problems 7, 15.
In beliefs about the relationship between humans and the rest of the natural world,
in philosophical understandings of the universe, or medicine and healing, we see
numerous examples of cultures which have, throughout history, operated with a
‘holistic view’, seeing things as a whole or a system; this is the essence of
systems thinking. The following examples clearly illustrate the centuries-old
existence of systems thinking in many cultures (Figure 1.3).
Australian indigenous cultures (the oldest continuing cultures in the world) have a
deep connection with the land that is expressed in their stories, art and dance. For
them, country is a word for all the values, places, resources, stories and cultural
obligations associated with that area and its features. It describes the entirety of
their ancestral domains. Systems concepts have also been present in the thinking
8
and philosophy of Maori people in New Zealand. These indigenous people highlight
the importance of the ‘Earth Mother’ and the ‘Sky Father’ and perceive that
everything in the universe is connected. For millennia, Native Americans have
employed traditional healing modalities that are very old in methodology and holistic
in nature. This ancient holistic approach is still used today by many Native Americans
to resolve health care problems 76.
Eastern philosophy has evolved a unique, systemically non-linear and holistic
worldview. For example, ancient Chinese philosophers believed that everything in
the universe was made up of two forces called ‘yin’ and ‘yang’. This reflects not only
the collective wisdom of ancient Chinese people about the fundamental features of
the universe, but also influences the way of metaphysical thinking of subsequent
Chinese in various schools or movements 19.
Inputs are passed on by the sensory Ancient Chinese philosophers believed Reductionism is a concept in philosophy
organs to the epiphysis in the brain that everything in the universe was that claims a description of properties in
and from there to the immaterial made up of two forces called ‘yin‘ and a complex system can be ‘reduced’ to
spirit ‘yang‘. the lower-level properties of the
system's components.
Figure 1.3: Separation of mind and body, Yin and Yang, Reductionism
However, Western thinking was heavily built upon three fundamental pillars, namely,
Greek reductionism, separation of mind and matter (which led to the separation of
mind and body) advocated by René Descartes, and a deterministic-monotheistic
worldview originated by Isaac Newton 65. René Descartes taught Western civilization
that the thing to do with complexity was to break it up into component parts and
tackle them separately 18. This is still the prevalent mode of thinking in the West.
Systems thinking is not a new concept. It is not easy to identify the precise
beginning of the systems thinking field, as the beginning is a matter of perspective.
For example, Midgley 53, 54 suggests that the field and study of systems began in the
early 20th century with either Alexander Bogdanov 6 or Ludwig von Bertalanffy 79, 80.
9
17, 18 70, 71
It is widely acknowledged in the literature that Checkland and Senge also
proposed influential systems thinking approaches.
Systems thinking is a very broad field. Sherwood 72 concludes that it would be
impossible to cover all of its associated tools, techniques, methods, and approaches
in a single document. Understandably, there have been various books and papers
written on the topic of systems thinking. For example, see Emery 25, Flood &
Gregory 27, Midgley 55, Jackson 40, Hammond 33, and Francois 28 for a ‘rich
storehouse’ of different systems approaches and inclusive sources about systems
thinking concepts. Many scholars have also attempted to write ‘easy-to-read’ books
to ‘demystify systems thinking and make it accessible to a wide range of audiences’,
e.g. Haines 32, Weinberg 84, Sherwood 72, Maani & Cavana 50.
The application of systems thinking has been evident in many diverse fields and
disciplines such as, to mention but a few, management 40, business 75, 83, decision
making and consensus building 49, human resource management 67, organisational
learning 29, health 48, 58, commodity systems 69, agricultural production systems 85,
natural resource management 4, environmental conflict management 24, education
38
, social theory and management 57, food security and population policy 43,
sustainability 59, 74, and complexity management 10.
Amongst the vast number of publications on systems thinking, Peter Senge’s book,
‘The Fifth Discipline’ is described as ‘bestselling’, ‘more than 1 million in print’ and
‘one of the seminal management books of the past seventy-five years’. Senge 71
describes what he believes are the five new component technologies that are
gradually converging to innovate learning organisations, namely Systems Thinking,
Personal Mastery, Mental Models, Building Shared Vision and Team Learning. He
emphasises how important it is that the five disciplines develop as an ensemble and
points out the challenges of integrating new tools, rather than ‘simply apply them
separately’. This is why systems thinking is the fifth discipline – ‘the discipline that
integrates the disciplines, fusing them into a coherent body of theory and practice’.
Apart from the millions that read this book, why is this ‘Fifth Discipline’ not yet
absorbed into everyday decision making or implementation? Why is the journey from
theory to impact so difficult?
In spite of its extensive application in various fields, systems thinking has mostly
been used and applied by systems scientists and some academics. The application of
systems thinking by policy makers, managers, practitioners, and ordinary people
remains limited. This has been attributed, but not limited to, several factors
including the ‘difficulty to sell systemic thinking’ 37, systems thinking is not yet a
phrase in general use 18, it is a frequently misunderstood term meaning many things
to many people 32, the emphasis in formal education is evidently placed on events,
parts, and isolated processes rather than systemic relationships 34, and the bulk of
systems education to date has been focused on training specialists 41. In addition,
10
the diverse schools of systems thoughts create confusion about the systems thinking
concept. There is an urgent need to make systems and interconnected thinking
become popular, or ‘unremarkable’ as suggested by Allen 3, and easy to understand
by all, i.e., become ‘a common language’ as proposed by Zhu 87 or ‘absorbed into
scientific research, in the same way that statistics, is today an integral part of all
sciences’ as postulated by Bosch et al. 7.
The complexity of any system that we have to deal with

We have all become interconnected in a vast physical and digital web. Potentially
contentious issues, such as healthcare, environmental protection, gender
relationships, poverty, mental health, economic development, migration, land use or
water allocation (just to name a few), are now tangled and magnified in a global
system of ecological, economic, social, cultural and political processes, ideas and
dynamic interactions in relentlessly challenging ways not experienced before the
Industrial and Technological Revolutions.
These increasing complex issues and challenges require new ways of thinking and a
fresh approach to address the multi-dimensional and multidisciplinary nature of
complexity. There is an urgent need for a societal change to deal with complexity
in a world that focuses on reductionist approaches (breaking things or issues into
parts; traditional linear thinking; seeking silver bullets). The need to step outside our
collective ‘comfort zone’, develop new ways of thinking and act in the interest of our
future is crucial. System thinking offers a holistic and integrative way of appreciating
all the major dimensions of any complex problem, and enables the formation of
effective and long-term management strategies.
11
____________________________________________________________________
Small challenges for you

1. Are the following a symptom or a root cause?
Symptom or
Root Cause Explain
Marriage failure
Headache
Heart attack
Skin rash
High blood pressure
Climate change
Poverty
Global financial
crisis
Globalisation
Stress
Food safety
2. A degree program at a University is normally a collection of courses. How could

a program be changed to a system of courses?
3. A football team is a system: what are the elements, interactions, purpose of
this system?
List of selected further readings

If you would like to know more about the content of this chapter, you could scan
through readings such as:
1. Meadows D. 2008. Thinking in Systems: A Primer (Edited by Diana Wright),

Sustainability Institute. Chelsea Green Publishing Company: USA.
12
2. Maani KE, Cavana RY. 2007. Systems thinking, system dynamics: Managing
change and complexity. Prentice Hall: Auckland, NZ.
However, if you are a university student or wish to do more, you could also have a
good look at the following readings:
3. Ackoff RL. 1999. Ackoff's best: His classic writings on management. Wiley: New
York, USA.
4. Boardman J, Sauser B. 2008. Systems Thinking: Coping with 21st Century
Problems. CRC Press: New York, USA.
5. Hammond, D. 2003. The science of synthesis: Exploring the social implications
of general systems theory. University Press of Colorado: Boulder, CO, USA.
6. Midgley G. (ed). 2003. Systems Thinking (Volumes 1-4). Sage: London, UK.
7. Senge PM. 2006. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization (revised and updated). Random House: New York, USA.
8. Sherwood D. 2002. Seeing the Forest for the Trees: A Manager's Guide to
applying Systems Thinking. Nicholas Brealey Publishing: London, UK.
9. Vester F. 2007. The art of interconnected thinking: Tools and concept for a
new approach to tackling complexity. MCB Verlag GmbH: Munich, Germany.
10. Weinberg GM. 2001. An introduction to general systems thinking. Dorset House
Publishing: New York, USA.
13
14
Do we need to run away from complexity?
As discussed in Chapter 1, everyone has to deal with increasing complex issues in
which:
the elements or components are multi-dimensional and inter-dependent
multiple stakeholders are always involved
people have diverse backgrounds, agendas and objectives
no silver bullets/quick fixes exist.
The easiest way for everyone to deal with this is just ‘giving up’ or ‘running away’!
It is not only the ‘privilege’ of systems scientists to ‘tame’

complexity – everyone must deal with it
Complex problems can only be solved if we have sufficient knowledge and everyone
has some level of knowledge and wisdom about the issues facing society. Critical to
the success of any problem management is the continued involvement of
stakeholders throughout the processes of finding effective solutions, creating and
implementing management plans and refining the management over time. That
requires a working knowledge of systems thinking in practice – not necessarily to
become a systems scientist, but for everyone to develop a sufficient level of
knowledge and skills to engage effectively in systemic decision making. This book is
therefore written for everyone who has to deal with issues in the wide range of
areas of interest in society within the context of economic constraints, cultural
sensitivities, different political agendas and other social issues.
This chapter describes the processes for unravelling complexity through
participatory systems analysis and the interpretation of systems structures to identify
leverage points for systemic interventions. It further demonstrates the promotion of
effective change and the enhancement of cross-sectoral communication and
collaborative learning. This learning focuses on finding solutions to complex issues
by applying an iterative, systems-based approach, both locally – Evolutionary
Learning Laboratory (see below) and globally – Think2Impact (Chapter 9).
Moving away from ‘quick-fixes’ and linear thinking

Current approaches to understanding and dealing with complex problems are almost
universally ad hoc and non-systemic.45, 86. Few individuals or groups consider the
issues holistically, i.e., few appreciate the interconnectedness of the elements of the
vast system of which they are a part; and honest discussion is rare. Silos of ideas,
policy and activity abound; and issues bubble along without satisfactory resolution,
ranging from ocean protection to city planning. It has become apparent that
15
complex problems cannot be solved anymore through a traditional single discipline
and linear thinking mindsets. There is an increasing demand for society to move
away from linear thinking that often leads to ‘quick fixes’ that do not last, to a new
way of thinking that is systems-based.
It has become clear that more comprehensive and cross-partisan approaches are
required 82, that they must take into account participants’ mental models and
encourage systems thinking. In other words, it is only by appreciating the dynamic
interplay of all the elements in a system that today’s complex social, economic or
environmental problems can be solved22, 43, 56, 60, 74.
The iceberg approach versus the systems-based approach

Although systems thinking is an ‘old’ concept 55 it is increasingly being regarded as a
‘new way of thinking’ to understand and manage complex problems at both local or
global levels 7, 15. The analogy of an iceberg 50 is used to illustrate the conceptual
model known as the Four Levels of Thinking (Figure 2.1) for understanding systems.
Figure 2.1: The Iceberg Approach versus a Systems Approach

50 10
Source: Adapted from and
16
In this conceptual model, events or symptoms (those issues that are easily
identifiable) represent only the visible part of the iceberg above the waterline. Most
decisions and interventions currently take place at this level, because ‘quick fixes’
(treating the symptoms) appear to be the easiest way out, although they do not
provide long lasting solutions. However, at the deeper (fourth) level of thinking that
hardly ever comes to the surface are the ‘mental models of individuals and
organisations that influence why things work the way they do. Mental models reflect
the beliefs, values and assumptions that we personally hold, and they underlie our
reasons for doing things the way we do’ 50, p.15.
Moving up to the third level of thinking is a critical step towards understanding how
these mental models can be integrated in a systems structure that reveals how the
different components are interconnected and affect one another. Thus, systemic
structures unravel the intricate lace of relationships in complex systems.
The second level of thinking is to explore and identify the patterns that become
apparent when a larger set of events (or data points) become linked to create a
‘history’ of past behaviours or outcomes and to quantify or qualify the relationships
between the components of the system as a whole.
The systems thinking paradigm and methodology embrace these four levels of
thinking by moving decision-makers and stakeholders from the event level to deeper
levels of thinking and providing a better understanding of the system under
consideration 50.
The systems-based Evolutionary Learning Laboratory

framework
This section describes a comprehensive systems thinking approach, embedded in a
cyclic Evolutionary Learning Laboratory (ELLab) framework that is designed to
deal effectively with complex issues in a variety of contexts.
The ELLab is an innovative systems-based framework – one that differs from other
systems frameworks and approaches. Innovation is embedded throughout the
concept, design and application of the ELLab framework. Research and
documentation of systems thinking abound in the literature and research journals.
However, its practical implementation and tracking of discernible impact is at best
unclear, disjointed and highly variable. The ELLab recognises these deficiencies in
the practical application of systems thinking and provides a framework and
implementation pathway to bridge the gap between science, research and the need
to make a difference in the varied economic and socio-political environments in
which decision makers, managers and the broader community grapple with the
complexities of the real world. The ELLab recognises the multi-dimensional nature of
the broad environmental parameters and creates a practical approach to the
17
engagement with stakeholders, identification of issues and the analysis and
synthesis of the issues. Above all, the ELLab recognises that the impact of research
is of little significance if the science is right but the application, analysis and route of
impact are poorly executed.
In the ELLab, which is both virtual (a way of thinking; a concept) and real
(individuals coming together to work for consensus), all stakeholders involved
develop a deep understanding of the system, a shared vision and skills for systemic
continuous adaption, innovation and improvement.
The ELLab consists of a unique seven step iterative process (Figure 2.2) of thinking
and acting in which the participants engage in well-defined activities, creating a
systemic framework and environment where policy makers, managers, local
facilitators, members of the community and researchers collaborate and learn
together in an ‘experimental laboratory’ – to understand and address complex
multidimensional and multi-stakeholder problems of common interest in a systemic
way 10. The ultimate goal is to achieve coherent actions directed towards sustainable
outcomes. Figure 2.2 provides a diagrammatic explanation of the ELLab cyclic
process 59, 64.
The process of establishing an ELLab (Figure 2.2) is a unique ‘methodology’ to
collaboratively integrate and use existing and future knowledge to help manage
complex issues. It starts at the ‘Fourth level of thinking’ with an issues workshop
(step 1) and a series of forums with specialist groups to gather the mental models
of all stakeholders involved in the issue under consideration, their perceptions of
how the system works, what they regard as barriers to success and drivers of the
system and possible strategies (solutions) to overcome these problems.
This is followed by implementing the ‘Third level of thinking’ through follow-up
capacity building (step 2) sessions during which the participants (all
stakeholders) learn how to integrate the various mental models into a systems
structure (step 3). The Vensim software program 77 is a valuable tool for the
development of a systems model (Causal Loop Diagram) of the issue under
consideration. This learning step is of particular importance in order for all involved
to take ‘ownership’ of the systems model.
Once completed, the participants move to the ‘Second level of thinking’ by
interpreting and exploring the model for patterns, how different components of
the model are interconnected and what feedback loops, reinforcing loops and
balancing loops exist. This step aims to assist relevant stakeholders to develop an
understanding of their interdependencies and the role and responsibility of each
stakeholder group in the entire system. The main barriers and drivers of the system
are discussed in more detail, which provides the stakeholders with an opportunity to
develop a deeper understanding of the implications of coordinated actions,
strategies and policies. Overall, this process provides all stakeholders with a better
18
understanding of each other’s mental models and the development of a shared
understanding of the issue(s) under consideration.
Figure 2.2: Evolutionary Learning Laboratory for managing complex issues

10
Source: Adapted from
The interpretation leads to the identification of leverage points for systemic

intervention (step 4). Leverage points are places within a complex system (e.g.
an economy, a living body, a city, an ecosystem) ‘where a small shift in one thing
can produce big changes in everything … leverage points are points of power’ 51, p.1.
Senge 71, p.64 also refers to leverage points as the ‘right places in a system where
small, well-focused actions can sometimes produce significant, enduring
improvements’. Identification of leverage points greatly assists the devising of
19
systemic interventions (finding systems based solutions) that will contribute to the
achievement of goals or solving problems in the system under consideration.
The outcomes are used to develop a refined systems model, which at the same time
forms an Integrated Systemic Master Plan (step 5) with systemically defined
goals and strategies (systemic interventions). In order to operationalise the master
plan, Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) modelling 16, 73 is used to determine the
requirements for implementation of the management strategies; the factors that
could affect the expected outcomes; and the order in which activities should be
carried out to ensure cost-effectiveness and to maximize impact.
The process of developing good policies and investment decisions is based on the
best knowledge (scientific data and information, experiential knowledge, expert
opinions) that is available at any point in time. The systems model can be used to
test the possible outcomes of different systemic interventions by observing what will
happen to the system as a whole when a particular strategy or combination of
strategies is implemented, that is before any time or money is invested in the actual
implementation thereof.
Once the systemic interventions have been identified and an operational plan has
been developed, the next step for the people responsible for the different areas of
management is to implement the strategies and/or policies (step 6) that will
create the biggest impact. Targets are determined and monitoring programs are
implemented to measure and/or observe the outcomes of the strategies and policies.
In many cases it only requires an adjustment of existing monitoring programs to
comply with the targets set within the ELLab process (e.g. to include factors to be
measured that were used in the construction of the Bayesian Management Model).
Because no systems model can ever be completely ‘correct’ in a complex and
uncertain world and unintended consequences always occur, the only way to
manage complexity is by reflecting (step 7) at regular intervals on the outcomes
of the actions and decisions that have been taken to determine how successful or
unsuccessful the interventions are and to identify unintended consequences and new
barriers that were previously unforeseen.
In summary, the ELLab framework is generic and is designed to deal with any
complex issue, regardless of its context (e.g. from large organizations and natural or
social systems, to a dysfunctional family or a small business that is not profitable) or
discipline area (e.g. business, health, engineering, education, marketing,
development, environmental management and so on). The following chapters
provide further elaboration on and demonstration of various successful applications
of the ELLab framework in solving complex problems in a variety of contexts e.g., 5,
8, 9-11, 31, 43, 46, 47, 60, 61, 64
.
20
____________________________________________________________________

1. What would you regard as the critical factors for successful problem solving?
2. Why is a systems structure or model important when you deal with a complex
issue?
3. What is the main difference between the Evolutionary Learning Laboratory
approach and traditional linear thinking?
4. What is the value of involving stakeholders who know nothing about systems
thinking in the ELLab process?
5. What is a ‘leverage point’?

The following selected sources will provide you with information on some other
systems-based approaches that can be used to deal with complex issues. University
students may want to do more than a scan through these readings:
1. Checkland P, Scholes J. 1999. Soft systems methodology: a 30 year
retrospective. Wiley: Chichester, UK.
2. Espinosa, A, Walker J. 2011. A Complexity Approach to Sustainability: Theory
and Application. Imperial College Press: London, UK.
3. Forrester JW. 2007. Systems dynamics - a personal view of the first fifty years.
System Dynamics Review 23(2/3): 345-358.
4. Forrester JW. 2007. Systems dynamics - the next fifty years. System Dynamics
Review 23(2/3): 359-370.
5. Jackson MC. 2000. Systems Approaches to Management. Kluwer/Plenum: New
York, USA.
6. Jackson MC. 2003. Systems thinking: creative holism for managers. John Wiley
& Sons: Chichester, UK.
7. Lewin R. 2001. Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos. Phoenix: USA.
8. Malik F. 2010. Managing, Performing, Living: Effective Management for a New
Era. Campus Verlag GmbH: Frankfurt, Germany.
9. Malik’s approaches: http://www.malik-management.com/en
10. Sterman JD. 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a
Complex World. Irwin McGraw-Hill: Boston, USA.
21
22
The importance of involving all relevant stakeholders
Identifying, mapping and prioritising a project’s stakeholder community are the
most important first steps in managing complexity. Projects and other initiatives can
only be considered successful when their key stakeholders acknowledge that they
are a success. This requires the effective engagement of at least the key
stakeholders to understand and manage their expectations and then deliver the
outcome to meet or exceed these ‘managed expectations’ 13. Unravelling complexity
requires information, knowledge, data, opinions and ideas. The stakeholders form
the richest source of knowledge, because they are intrinsically involved in finding
solutions to a complex issue since they have a ‘stake’ in the outcomes of any
decision making and taking action.
Researchers in the field of systems thinking and modelling have acknowledged the
importance of involving stakeholders. Allowing for different perspectives and
divergent views is not only important to enrich the knowledge source for finding
solutions for the root causes of any problem, but also helps to ensure continued
involvement of the stakeholders in the further processes of solving the issues (‘I
add value; my knowledge is respected’). ‘Buy-in’ is essential for success in
stakeholder engagement. Every party must have a stake in the process and have
participating members who have decision-making power. Every party must be
committed to the process by ensuring any action they take is based on the
decisions made through the engagement.
Involving stakeholders to participate in solving their management problems instead
of bringing in outside experts to solve these problems can be described as a
‘participatory’ or ‘bottom-up’ approach. In participatory systems analysis, the
involvement of stakeholders allows the multitude of factors that may influence
outcomes or objectives to be identified, whilst systems thinking provides a
mechanism through which these stakeholders can interact and discuss their
understanding of the management system and the dependent relationships
between these factors (see Chapter 4).
Different mental models

Each of us has a different set of visions, aspirations and views (mental models) of
how to deal with the world around us. Our mental models contain information
accumulated through our lived experiences; they determine our perception of new
information and help us create new knowledge.
All people relate to the world by forming hypotheses about it, ‘testing’ these
hypotheses through their everyday behaviour, observing the feedback from these
interactions with environments or other people, and revising their hypotheses if
necessary to fit the situation. The ‘hypotheses’ or patterns of thinking are known as
23
‘constructs’, because they deal with how people ‘construe’ situations; that is how
they develop mental models. Mental models are ‘…deeply ingrained assumptions,
generalizations, or even pictures or images that influence how we understand the
world and how we take action…’ 71.
Mental models reflect the beliefs, values and assumptions that we personally hold,
and they underlie our reasons for doing things the way we do 44, 50. They are so
powerful in affecting what we do because they affect what we see and they shape
our perceptions 71. Mental models are the filters through which we interpret our
experiences, evaluate plans, and choose among possible courses of action. The
great systems of philosophy, politics, and literature are, in a sense, mental models
71, 75
.
Unfortunately, we cannot simply look at other people and discern their mental
models, any collaboration and consensus of people is a matter of shared experience,
coincidence, or the result of honest discussion and understanding. When people
grew up and lived in largely isolated communities, individual mental models among
members of the community tended to coincide. In the 21st century, isolation is rare
and diversity, complexity and ambiguity are the norm. We have all become
interconnected in a vast physical and digital web. Potentially contentious issues,
such as healthcare, environmental protection, gender relationships, poverty, mental
health, economic development, migration, land use or water allocation (just to name
a few), are now tangled and magnified in a global system of ecological, economic,
social, cultural and political processes, ideas and dynamic interactions 39, 66, 78, 81.
In any government, organisation, business or community system there are many
individuals with an interest in such systems (stakeholders) and each will have a
mental model of the system and its purpose depending on their individual
understanding, experience, education and values. This means that among
stakeholders there can be a multitude of views and different implicit and explicit
understandings of how the processes of the system they are involved in work 68 and
the factors that would affect the purposes of the system. In managing purposeful
systems, it is important to accommodate the different world views of the
stakeholders involved so that any proposed management interventions are informed
by a breadth of available experience, and are acceptable to those who will need to
implement changes or live with the consequences of their implementation.
How to gather the mental models (opinions, perceptions,

knowledge, experience) of stakeholders
Mapping the system starts through exchanging the perceptions of a problem and
exploring questions such as:
What exactly is the problem we face?
24
How did the problematic situation originate?
What might be its underlying causes?
How can the problem potentially be addressed?
What barriers exist to deal with the problem?
What or who are potential drivers in the system?
Figure 3.1: Workshop to gather the mental models of all stakeholders
Running a workshop to elicit the mental models requires a good facilitator and some
key ground rules such as:
All knowledge, opinions, information are regarded as valuable.
Allow for discussion in order for stakeholders to understand each other’s
mental models.
Avoid conflict by respecting each other’s knowledge and recording all opinions.
It is important to remember that in order to communicate with another person, one
does not need to think (construe) in the same way, but be able to construe how the
other person is construing 12. This means that while divergent views occur, the
appreciation of one another’s views gained through ‘mapping the system’ helps
stakeholders to converge on a common understanding of the management system.
25
Effective communication can also help to change perceptions and expectations to
make them realistic and achievable.
Workshop settings with all stakeholders involved could often lead to a group of
people that, say, work for the same organisation, but have different levels of
seniority (Figure 3.1). We have conducted many of these workshops, for example in
sustainable tourism in Cambodia, where the stakeholders included the full range
from top government officials, such as the Minister of Tourism and Director General
to officials responsible for implementing policies, young officials still in the lower
ranks of government, hotel owners, and taxi drivers. In this situation it was not
possible to obtain honest and in-depth insights into the mental models of all the
participants. Changing the nature of the workshop to a ‘silent’ sharing of people’s
perceptions and ideas solved the problem of domination by senior officials, while
juniors and people with no power remained totally quiet. All participants put their
mental models (responses on the above questions) on notes that were then
anonymously put into big containers. This process revealed a very rich picture of the
tourism sector through full participation by all stakeholders. The downside was that
very little discussion took place that could improve the understanding of each other’s
mental models. However, once the mental models were obtained and integrated into
a systems structure (see next point), much discussion and co-learning eventually did
happen.
How to put the mental models into key themes

In the following example women small-scale farmers and relevant stakeholders (in a
Gates Foundation’s project) identified the issues they see as the key to their
problems, potential solutions, barriers and drivers. Participants in the workshop were
encouraged to share their mental models of how they viewed the circumstances
under which they live and farm and to think about potential solutions towards
achieving their main goal, namely to improve the quality of their lives. The various
ideas were written down on sticky notes and then pasted on a white board. Many of
the notes were the same, in which case the participants put the notes on top of each
other. The participants were then asked to discuss the different variables and to
identify the main themes that emerged. The notes were rearranged around these
main themes to produce a visual map of the mental models that evolved (Figure
3.2).
This step provides an opportunity for the stakeholders to discuss their mental
models with each other and develop an understanding of how different stakeholders
construe. Even if people do not agree with each other, all the ideas are left on the
board. This is the first step towards co-learning and developing an understanding of
what the system under consideration looks like. It creates a basis for reaching
consensus on the main goal, and initiates the process of thinking how the different
variables relate to each other. The grouping into main themes significantly helps to
integrate the mental models into a systems structure/model (See Chapter 4).
26
Figure 3.2: Mental models (ideas, perceptions, barriers, actions, etc.) of workshop
participants organised in main themes
Figure 3.3 provides an example of how the different ideas and perceptions
(mental models) of various stakeholders were grouped into main themes.
Figure 3.3: Key themes of the ‘mental models’ of stakeholders of the sustainable
management of Cat Ba Island
27
__________________________________________________________________

1. Can you name the key stakeholders of a motor car manufacturing company?
2. Are bottom-up participatory approaches in developing systemic solutions
possible under all circumstances, e.g. in governments, a non-profitable
business, a dysfunctional family?
3. What barriers do you see for stakeholders to share their mental models with
other stakeholders and how can you be sure they are honest in sharing their
true perceptions and opinions?
4. How could a facilitator overcome these barriers?
5. Why is respecting each other’s knowledge and recording all opinions important
in solving or managing a complex problem?
6. Depending on the situation you are in, for example working in a government
department, a business, bank, family consultancy services organisation, or you
are part of a student class, a sports club, or any other area of interest:
a. Form a small ‘stakeholder’ group around a particular complex issue that is
relevant to your or your organisation’s circumstances.
b. Request the stakeholders to role play who they represent and ask them
questions about the issue under consideration (use above list as a guide).
c. Develop a visual map of the mental models that emerge (e.g. Figure 3.5)
with identified themes (to help the next activities described in Chapter 4).
d. Provide an opportunity for the ‘stakeholders’ to explain their thinking and
perceptions and add variables where necessary (or only delete with full
consensus of all involved).
e. Identify those variables that were mentioned by more than one or two
people (to provide the ‘stakeholders’ with some idea of which variables are
more important).

The following selected sources provide you with more information on mental models
and stakeholder management:
1. Bourne LM. 2008. Stakeholder Relationship Management Maturity (accessed on
9 March 2015):
http://www.stakeholder-management.com/shopcontent.asp?type=methodology-papers
2. Responder Linking SCP and Growth Debate (accessed on 9 March 2015):
http://www.scp-responder.eu/about/methodology
organization (revised and updated). (Chapter 9: Mental models) Random
House, Inc.: New York, USA.
28
29
30
Building capacity for stakeholders
Capacity building (step 2 of the ELLab) is actually an integral part throughout all the
steps of the ELLab process. The participants (all stakeholders) are building
capacity (informal training) in systems thinking, interconnectedness and model
construction, using Causal Loop Diagrams (this chapter) and Bayesian Belief
Network (BBN) Modelling (Chapter 6) in order to achieve:
the integration of various mental models into a systems structure
‘ownership’ of the systems model(s) through direct involvement and informal
training
an understanding of the inter-connectedness between and amongst different
stakeholders (government departments and sectors in the organisation
respectively) to improve communication
the necessary links and needs for effective cross-sectoral collaboration.
People who are intrinsically involved are doing all the modules of the training, while
some end-users (e.g. women in rural areas) are only involved informally in certain
modules (e.g. for awareness) to help identify themes, discuss leverage points, rank
the important variables, evaluate and refine the models and develop ways to reflect
on outcomes to maximise co-learning benefits.
We have helped to build the capacity of various people (relevant stakeholders) in
different places where ELLabs have been/are being established. The stakeholders
have been/are closely involved in all the different steps of the establishment of their
respective ELLabs. This close involvement has enabled a shared vision amongst
stakeholders and helped them to understand complexity and be able to identify the
root causes of problems, rather than merely treating the symptoms. It has also
helped them to develop solutions collaboratively over time, ‘experiment’ with them
and be able to adapt when required through knowledge sharing and discussions with
others. In addition, the close involvement has enabled the relevant stakeholders to
take ‘ownership’ of the ELLab and to know how to operate it.
Having a ‘champion’ is another important lesson learned through our work. We have
been fortunate to work with a champion (a key person in a leading position, who
understands and supports the approach) in every site where an ELLab has been
established. This is essential for the successful implementation and operation of the
ELLab.
31
Integrating the mental models by
developing a systems WHY USE CAUSAL LOOP
structure/model DIAGRAMS?
TO PROVIDE A ‘BIG PICTURE’

The process of developing a systems model
OF THE SYSTEM UNDER
provides stakeholders with a shared understanding CONSIDERATION
and a big picture of the system they are dealing EASY TO CONSTRUCT
TO BETTER UNDERSTAND
with. While no model represents a ‘true’ or
THE SYSTEM YOU ARE
complete representation of reality, a systems model DEALING WITH
can usefully unravel important dynamics of a TO BETTER UNDERSTAND
EACH OTHER’S MENTAL
complex system 42.
MODELS TO SEE THE ‘ROLE’
AND INTERCONNECTEDNESS
Decision makers, managers and relevant BETWEEN DIFFERENT
stakeholders often find it difficult to ‘see’ the big COMPONENTS AND
STAKEHOLDERS
picture and account for all relationships and
TO SERVE AS A FOUNDATION
interdependencies between different components of FOR CONSENSUS BUILDING
their system. Therefore, it is essential to have an AMONG STAKEHOLDERS
overall picture of the system to show the TO SERVE AS A BASIS FOR
IDENTIFYING LEVERAGE
interconnectedness and roles of various players and POINTS IN THE SYSTEM
agencies and their impacts. For example, the
systems model (Figure 8) represents a ‘big picture’
of the Cat Ba Biosphere system and provides a
powerful platform for learning, collaboration and
collective decision making for various stakeholders
including policy makers, managers, and community
representatives.
Causal Loop Diagrams
The Vensim software program 77 is a valuable tool for integrating the different
mental models into a systems model (Causal Loop Diagram) of the issue under
consideration. A causal loop diagram (CLD) provides ‘… a framework for seeing
interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static
snapshots’ 70, p.68.
A causal loop diagram has two basic elements, namely variable and arrow:
Variable is a condition, state, action, or decision which can influence, and can
be influenced by, other conditions, states, actions, etc. A variable can be
quantitative (e.g. number of employees, kilograms of production, business
profit, etc.) or it can be qualitative (e.g. values, motivation, reputation,
feelings, respect, etc.).
An arrow indicates a causal relationship or change in the state of two variables.
32
In a CLD, each pair of variables can move either in the same or opposite direction. If
an increase (or decrease) in variable X at the tail of the arrow causes a
corresponding increase (or decrease) in variable Y at the head of the arrow, then
this is a change in the same direction (denoted by ‘S’ or ‘+’ near the head of the
arrow). That is, the two variables move up and down together. On the other hand, if
an increase (decrease) in one variable causes a decrease (increase) in the other
variable, then this is a change in the opposite direction (denoted by ‘O’ or ‘-’ near
the head of the arrow). In other words, as one variable moves up, the other will
move down and vice versa (adapted from 50, 71, 72). Figure 4.1 illustrates this
description by a simple example.
Figure 4.1: An example of the causal relationship between two variables illustrating
the use of same direction and opposite direction signs
A casual loop diagram would normally have different feedback loops. A feedback
loop arises when a sequence of interactions form a closed loop, i.e.:
A-B-C-A.
Reinforcing and Balancing loops

There are two different types of feedback loops: reinforcing (R) loops and balancing
(B) loops. Reinforcing loops are positive feedback systems. They can represent
growing or declining actions. Unlike reinforcing loops, balancing loops (negative
feedback loops) seek stability or return to control 50.
50, 71, 72
Differentiating between ‘R’ and B’ loops (adapted from ):
33
Using logic or intuition to identify the nature of the
loop: if the loop shows growing or declining action
(R loop), if the loop shows counteracting process (B
loop).
THE CAT BA ISLAND
Tracing the loop variable by variable: start from a BIOSPHERE TAKES UP
variable with a verb and go around the loop until MOST OF THE ISLAND AND
SURROUNDING WATERS AND IS
you come back to this variable, if you end with the LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE
same verb it is a R loop, and ending with the FAMOUS HA LONG BAY WORLD
opposite verb it is a B loop. For example, ‘A HERITAGE AREA OF VIETNAM.
THE ISLAND IS OF HIGH
increases’ – ‘B increases’ – ‘C increases’ – ‘A BIODIVERSITY IMPORTANCE
increases’ (R loop); ‘A increases’ – ‘B increases’ – ‘C AND HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS
increases’ – ‘A decreases’ (B loop). A HIGH PRIORITY FOR GLOBAL
CONSERVATION, WITH THE
Counting the number of ‘O’ (or ‘-’ sign) in the loop: MOST NOTEWORTHY SPECIES
BEING ONE OF THE WORLD’S
if the number is zero or even (R loop), if the
RAREST PRIMATES, THE
number is odd (B loop). GOLDEN-HEADED LANGUR. CAT
BA ISLAND IS CURRENTLY
The following is a set of ‘rules’ for drawing CLDs INHABITED BY ABOUT 16,000
(adapted from 72): PEOPLE AND MANY
SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES EXIST
Rule 1: Know your boundaries - POOR ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS OF THE LOCAL
Rule 2: Start somewhere interesting PEOPLE, SHORTAGE OF ARABLE
Rule 3: Ask ‘What does this drive?’ and ‘What is this LAND, ILLEGAL EXPLOITATION
OF RESOURCES, LOW
driven by?’ EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS,
POOR HEALTH CARE AND AN
Rule 4: Use nouns, not verbs
EXPANDING TOURISM
Rule 5: Don’t use terms such as ‘increase in’ or INDUSTRY THAT PUTS VARIOUS
STRESSES ON THE
‘decrease in’ SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF
THE ISLAND . VIETNAMESE
Rule 6: Don’t be afraid of unusual items
MANAGERS AND UNESCO HAVE
Rule 7: Do the ‘s’ and ‘o’ as you go along REALISED THE COMPLEXITY OF
THE ISSUES AND IDENTIFIED
Rule 8: A good diagram must be recognised as real THE IMPORTANCE OF SYSTEMS
APPROACHES TO MANAGE THE
Rule 9: Don’t ‘fall in love’ with your diagram ISLAND IN A HOLISTIC WAY,
WHILE TRANSCENDING
Rule 10: No diagram is ever ‘finished’ ORGANISATIONAL AND
DISCIPLINARY ‘SILOS’.
Figure 4.2 is a CLD representing a systems model of the
Cat Ba Island Biosphere in Vietnam. The preliminary
systems model was initially developed with and validated
by relevant stakeholders through a Participatory Systems
Analysis 73 workshop. The model was further developed
and informed by relevant literature and available
documents as well as through consultation with
34
managers of the Cat Ba Island Biosphere during a two-month training program in
Australia in 2008 62. Subsequently, the model has been refined and validated by
various stakeholders (managers and rangers of Cat Ba National Park, hotel owners,
farmers, local people, and officials from different government departments) in a
series of workshops, focus group discussions and in-depth interviews conducted in
Hai Phong City and on Cat Ba Island in 2008 and 2009.
Figure 4.2 illustrates the dynamics (the interrelationships and interdependencies)
amongst the key components of the system. The systems model of the Cat Ba Island
Biosphere is analysed by identifying feedback loops 50, 72 formed in the model.
Feedback loops can be reinforcing or balancing. The feedback loops identified in this
model include ten reinforcing (‘R’) and five balancing (‘B’) loops. However, it is not
within the scope of this chapter to describe the systems model in detail (see
readings # 3 and 4 in the list of selected further readings for a comprehensive
description of the model).
Figure 4.2 Systems model of CBBR – A Platform for Collaboration (adapted from 60)
Legend: S (same direction), O (opposite direction), R (reinforcing), B (balancing), T1, T2
(Tourism loop number), S1, S2, etc. (Social loop number), Eco (Economic), Env (Environment).
The systems model has been developed and refined through facilitating extensive
discussions among the relevant stakeholders. This close engagement of the
stakeholders in the process is of vital importance, because it leads to them taking
‘ownership’ of the model. It also enables deeper understanding and commitment to
35
future interventions and actions to improve the system towards sustainable
outcomes. Once a representative CLD is constructed and refined or validated,
relevant systems archetypes and leverage points can be identified to address
the root causes of complex problems and persistent issues (see Chapter 5).
____________________________________________________________________

1. Draw a ‘virtuous’ reinforcing loop that demonstrates positive growing feedback?
2. What would a ‘vicious’ reinforcing loop look like?
3. Give an example of a balancing loop that counteracts the above vicious
reinforcing loop.
4. Continue with Challenge No. 6 in Chapter 3: You now have a visual map of the
variables and some idea of their importance. Using this, develop a CLD that
show the ‘big picture’ of the system you are dealing with.
Note: your CLD should include variables, arrows, signs (S or O) and possible reinforcing (R) and
balancing (B) loops.
Software Resources
For educational purposes you can use Vensim software (download from:
http://vensim.com/download/ (Click on Free Download). Think2Impact could also be
used to draw the relationships between the different elements of the system (See
Chapter 9).

The following selected sources provide you with more information on the content
of this chapter:
1. Kim DH. 1999. Introduction to Systems Thinking. Pegasus Communications,

Inc.: MA, USA.
2. Maani KE, Cavana RY. 2007. Systems thinking, system dynamics: Managing
change and complexity. Prentice Hall: Auckland, NZ.
3. Nguyen NC, Bosch OJH and Maani KE. 2009. The importance of systems
thinking and practice for creating biosphere reserves as ‘learning laboratories
for sustainable development’. Proceedings of the International Society for the
Systems Sciences 2009 Conference, The University of Queensland, Australia.
4. Nguyen NC, Bosch OJH and Maani KE. 2011. Creating 'learning laboratories' for
sustainable development in biospheres: A systems thinking approach. Systems
Research and Behavioral Science 28(1): 51-62.
organization (revised and updated). Random House, Inc.: New York, USA.
36
6. Sherwood D. 2002. Seeing the Forest for the Trees: A Manager's Guide to
applying Systems Thinking. Nicholas Brealey Publishing: London, UK.
37
38
Using a systems model to identify the relationships and
interactions between different components of the system
Figure 4.2 presents the interrelationships and interactions amongst the key
components of the Cat Ba Island system. A detailed description of this can be found
in readings 3 and 4 in the list of selected further readings at the end of the previous
chapter. The development of this systems model has served several purposes
including ‘serving as a big picture’ for stakeholders to develop a deeper
understanding of the system they are involved in; ‘creating a collaborative platform’
for integrated natural resource management and social, economic, and
environmental development on the Cat Ba Island; ‘serving as an example’ for
extending the concept to other biosphere reserves around the world, as well as for
applying the concepts and processes in various other domains that require
management of complex issues 60.
The development of this systems model for Cat Ba Island has also enabled the
identification of relevant systems archetypes and leverage points of the system.
This helps to prioritise actions and understand the importance of addressing core
issues rather than treating the symptoms.
Systems archetypes – generic structures

Systems archetypes are generic systems models or structures that represent a wide
range of situations. They provide a high-level map of dynamic processes and are
highly effective tools for gaining insight into patterns of behaviour, themselves
reflective of the underlying structure of the system being studied 50. In other words,
systems archetypes ‘reveal an incredibly elegant simplicity underlying the complexity
of management issues [they allow us] to see more places where there is leverage in
facing difficult challenges, and to explain these opportunities to others’ 71, p.93.
Leverage points
Archimedes (280-211 BC) stated ‘Give me a lever long enough … I can single-
handedly move the world’’. This statement implies the power of a leverage point.
Leverage points are places within a complex system (e.g. a corporation, an
economy, a living body, a city, an ecosystem) ‘where a small shift in one thing can
produce big changes in everything … leverage points are points of power’ 51, p.1.
Senge 71, p.64 pointed out that leverage points are the ‘right places in a system where
small, well-focused actions can sometimes produce significant, enduring
improvements’.
Leverage points exist in all systems. For example, the economy of any country is a
truly complex social system. Interest rate is one of the most obvious leverage points
39
in the economy where a small change in interest rate can have large effects on the
whole socio-economic system (Figure 5.1). Education is another example. It has
been widely acknowledged that education is the key leverage point to alleviate
poverty in both the underdeveloped and developing countries. In biological systems,
the practice of acupuncture is a good example to demonstrate the concept of
leverage points. The acupuncturist would usually find the ‘right spots’ or leverage
points, on the body of a patient to insert the needles. This would gradually cure the
problem experienced by the patient in various parts of the body that have been
targeted.
Figure 5.1 Small changes can cause big changes through leverages
In spite of their common existence, leverage points are not intuitive. They are not
easy to identify 51. However, once a representative causal loop diagram of a system
is constructed and validated, the root causes and leverage points of complex
problems and persistent issues become more apparent and appropriate intervention
strategies can be devised to address these 50.
Examples of systems archetypes and leverage points

Readings 1 and 4 in the list of selected further readings at the end of this chapter
provide a number of common systems archetypes, their descriptions and
management actions. It is important to note that the identification of systems
archetypes will always suggest areas of high and low leverage change 71. In other
words, these generic systems structures allow us to easily identify the leverage
points in the system under consideration.
This section discusses four systems archetypes that capture the key dynamics of the
Cat Ba system (Figure 4.2). These archetypes provide a high-level ‘story’ and an
understanding of the dynamics, interconnectedness and relationships present within
40
the Cat Ba system. They include ‘limits to growth’, ‘fixes that fail’, ‘tragedy of the
common’, and ‘shifting the burden’.
Limits to growth (R_T1,2,3 versus B_T3,4 – Figure 4.2)
The limits to growth structure is useful for understanding situations where growth
‘bumps up’ against limits 71. This archetype consists of a reinforcing and a balancing
loop as illustrated in Figure 5.2. Typically, most people react to limits to growth
situations by trying to put pressure on (‘pushing’) the reinforcing loop. However,
‘leverage lies in the balancing loop … to change the behaviour of the system, [we]
must identify and change the limiting factors’ 71, p.100.
Figure 5.2: Tourism development as a ‘limits to growth’ systems archetype

Source: adopted from 59
Legend: S (same direction), O (opposite direction), R (reinforcing), B (balancing)
The management practice in Cat Ba has so far been focused on ‘pushing’ the
reinforcing loop to bring increasing numbers of tourists to the island. This is
evidenced by the ‘behaviour over time’ of ‘Tourism’ and the analysis of the systems
model of Cat Ba Island, especially loop ‘R_T1’ 63. However, the management
principle in this archetype is to ‘not continue pushing growth, without removing the
factors that are limiting growth’ 50, 71. In the Cat Ba system, leverage points lie in the
balancing loop (Figure 5.2), which indicates that it is essential to remove the
constraints or limiting factors (e.g. pollution, lack of fresh water, poor service
quality) in order to achieve sustainable and long-term tourism development.
Fixes that fail (R_T1,3 versus B_T1,2 – Figure 4.2)
The fixes that fail systems archetype is composed of one balancing loop and one
reinforcing loop (Figure 5.3). It represents situations in which unintended and often
harmful consequences follow well-intentioned actions 50. In such a situation, a
problem (usually symptoms of a problem) appears which often requires immediate
attention and ‘quick fix’ solutions from the relevant managers or decision makers.
Although such quick fix solutions would normally ease the problem in the short term,
they may create unintended consequences which will make it much harder to cure
the problem in the long term.
41
Figure 5.3: Tourism development as a ‘fixes that fail’ systems archetype
Legend: S (same direction), O (opposite direction), R (reinforcing), B (balancing), (delay)
As illustrated in Figure 5.3, building more hotels and restaurants on Cat Ba Island
has been seen as a solution to the problem of accommodation and availability of
eating places for the increasing numbers of tourists. However, an unintended
consequence of this solution is an increase in pollution which would accelerate the
pressure on accommodation and catering. This could have a negative effect on the
tourism industry (e.g. attractiveness of the island as a tourist destination), which will
reduce the number of tourists to Cat Ba. In this systems structure, the management
principle is to maintain a long-term focus. Short-term ‘fixes’ should be disregarded if
feasible, or only used as interim solutions while actively working on a long-term
remedy 71.
Tragedy of the common (R_Eco2 versus B_Eco, R_Eco1 versus B_T3,4 –
Figure 4.2)
This archetype is composed of two reinforcing and two balancing loops (Figure 5.4).
This archetype reveals that common sense behaviour can lead to destructive
consequences over time 50. In other words, individuals use a commonly available but
limited resource solely on the basis of individual need. They are rewarded for using
it at first; eventually, they get diminishing returns, which cause them to intensify
their efforts. Eventually, the resource is either significantly depleted, eroded, or
entirely consumed 71. This systems archetype is commonly seen in the use and
management of natural resources and public goods.
Figure 5.4 shows the relationships between the two main industries on Cat Ba
Island: tourism and agriculture. Each player in the system tries to invest and put
more effort in to maximise their profit returns. The players in the tourism industry
(owners of hotels and restaurants, tour operators) want to invest more to get more
revenue from tourism. Similarly, the players in the agricultural industry (farmers)
also want to invest more to get more revenue from agriculture. These actions
42
increase the total investment activities in the system. However, the system has its
limitations for both industries, such as their carrying capacities due to the lack of
fresh water, lack of electricity (and costs), lack of trained staff, and lack of land for
cultivation and insufficient space for the overcrowded number of floating farms (now
starting to encroach into nature conservation areas). These issues will ultimately
reduce the revenue for each industry (as shown by the two balancing loops in Figure
5.4).
Figure 5.4: Carrying capacities as a ‘tragedy of the commons’ systems archetype

In this systems structure, the management principle is to manage the ‘commons’,

either through educating everyone and creating forms of self-regulating and peer
pressure, or through an official regulating mechanism, ideally designed by
participants 71. In the case of Cat Ba, the leverage point lies in the development of
an integrated master plan for the whole island, focusing on the tourism and
agriculture industries and how these could play a role in the larger issues of poverty
alleviation and conservation of biodiversity and the natural resources.
Shifting the burden
This systems archetype consists of two balancing (stabilizing) loops or processes.
Both are trying to correct the same problem symptom. The top circle represents the
symptomatic intervention – the ‘quick’ fix. It often solves the problem symptom
rapidly, but only temporarily. The bottom circle, which has a delay, represents a
more fundamental response to the problem. Although the effects of the latter
43
normally will take longer to become evident, the fundamental solution will have a far
more effective outcome 71.
‘Shifting the burden’ structures are common in our personal as well as organizational
lives. In these situations, obvious symptoms of problems attract attention which
often are dealt with by quick ‘fixes’ that make the symptoms disappear, at least for a
while. According to Maani and Cavana 50, this archetype represent a human
tendency to deal with the easy, the obvious and the urgent before one is forced to
deal with the difficult, the ambiguous and the important.
Figure 5.5: International aid as a ‘shifting the burden’ systems archetype

Over the last two decades, the symptoms of problems in Cat Ba have attracted
considerable financial assistance from international organisations 20. Examples
include issues such as the threatened Golden-headed Languor species, poverty,
waste accumulation and pollution – all symptoms of deeper lying core issues. This
has helped to temporarily solve the problem symptoms as demonstrated in the top
balancing loop of Figure 5.5. However, after investments of millions of dollars and
human resources, many of the problems in Cat Ba still exist, because the core issues
(less obvious or visible) had not been addressed 14. In addition, having received
huge amounts of international aid is also increasing the dependence of Cat Ba on
international assistance. Because countries that provide the aid often want to see
the results of their aid programs rapidly, the focus remains on addressing the
symptoms rather than core issues. This will make it more difficult to implement long-
44
term solutions to deal with the real and deeper lying problems of the system (the
reinforcing loop in Figure 5.5).
Generally, dealing effectively with shifting the burden structures requires a
combination of strengthening the fundamental response and weakening the
symptomatic response 71. Symptomatic solutions can be used if it is imperative, but
it should only be used to gain time while working on the fundamental or long-term
solutions. It has been the main objective of this study to identify the core of
problems in the Cat Ba Island system, identify leverage points and then develop
systemic intervention strategies for the sustainable and long-term development of
the system.
It is important to note that the use of outcomes from this research by local
managers in the Cat Ba Island is on-going. Several small projects and actions have
been undertaken to address the various leverage points identified from the systems
model and its associated systems archetypes. These include applying systems
thinking in the revision of Cat Ba Island Management Regulations; building capacity
for the rangers of Cat Ba National Park; conducting a social welfare study relating to
community development in Cat Ba Island; producing an annual Cat Ba Ecosystem
Health Report Card; granting the Cat Ba Island UNESCO Biosphere brand to
environmentally certified products and businesses; establishing community
partnerships in natural resource management and environment protection;
integrating a waste management and treatment model for Cat Ba Island; relocating
the floating fishery farms. The implementation of these small projects and activities
helped to remove the constraints for sustainable tourism development (‘limits to
growth’ systems archetype) and to maintain a long-term focus for the sustainable
development of Cat Ba Island (‘fixes that fail’ systems archetype). The leverage
points identified from the ‘shifting the burden’ systems archetype have been
addressed by the training program conducted for a group of professionals and
managers responsible for the management of Cat Ba Island 62; and these people
have now trained their colleagues at their workplace (‘train the trainers’). A project is
also being planned to develop an integrated master plan for the sustainable
development of the whole Cat Ba Island (addressing the leverage point identified
from the ‘tragedy of the commons’ systems archetype).
In the resource constraint world that we live in today, it is of major importance to be
able to identify key leverage points in any system that has to be managed
sustainably. These leverage points form the basis of devising high priority and
effective systemic intervention strategies (Chapter 6) that will make best use of
available resources and facilitate the creation of sustainable and long-term
development outcomes.
45
____________________________________________________________________

1. Study the other systems archetypes in readings 1 and 4.
2. Work on your own (or with a small group of your classmates, colleagues, etc.)
to develop examples of systems archetypes (either generic ones or archetypes
identified in the systems model you have developed in the previous chapter).
3. Read Meadows’ 12 leverage points (reading 2 below).
4. Identify the systems archetypes (if any) and leverage points in your systems
model (the CLD around an area of your own interest that you have developed
in Chapter 4).
Note: It is not always possible to identify systems archetypes within CLDs (some CLDs may not
have any systems archetypes). In such a case, you may need to look for the key loops in your
CLD to identify potential leverage points.

The following selected sources provide you with more information on the contents of
this chapter:
1. Associates CI. 2003 Systems Thinking Archetypes (accessed on 5 September
2014):
http://www.exponentialimprovement.com/cms/uploads/ArchetypesGeneric02.pdf
2. Meadows D. 1999. Leverage points: Place to intervene in a System. The

Sustainability Institute: Hartland, VT, USA.
organization (revised and updated). Random House, Inc.: New York, USA.
4. Braun W. 2002. The Systems Archetypes (accessed on 3 September 2014):
http://www.albany.edu/faculty/gpr/PAD724/724WebArticles/sys_archetypes.pdf
46
47
48
There are several quantitative and qualitative
methodologies available to determine how a
WHY USE BAYESIAN BELIEF
particular leverage point could be addressed. In
NETWORK MODELS?
other words, what interventions or strategies could
be carried out to achieve the goal that was USEFUL FOR PARTICIPATORY
SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
identified as a leverage point in the system. Two EASY TO CONSTRUCT FOR
things are important. First, ‘quick fixes’ or ‘silver NON-MODELLERS - VISUAL
bullets’ do not exist, but the systemic interventions IDEAL MECHANISM FOR
INTEGRATING MENTAL
that will lead to long-term sustainable outcomes MODELS, DIFFERENT TYPES
should be identified. Second, this book is written for AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE
‘everyone’ and therefore it should be taken into AND DATA
CAN LINK QUALITATIVE AND
account that a methodology is required that will be QUANTITATIVE FACTORS IN
easy to use even for people who are not familiar ONE MODEL
with modelling and that also has a wide applicability THEY REPRESENT COMPLEX
SYSTEMS (I.E. LINK DATA,
in any area of interest in society. INFORMATION AND
PROCESSES)
One such methodology is Bayesian Belief Networks.
QUANTIFY UNCERTAINTIES
This methodology has been used with great success THROUGH THE USE OF
by people with all different levels of education, for a PROBABILITIES
EASILY UPDATEABLE –
wide variety of complex issues and in various
THROUGH ADAPTIVE
cultural settings MANAGEMENT/LEARNING BY
DOING
What is a Bayesian Belief Network DETERMINE WHAT TO DO
SYSTEMICALLY (NOT JUST
(BBN)? TRAIL AND ERROR)
CAN RAPIDLY PERFORM
A Bayesian Belief Network is a model. It reflects the DIAGNOSTIC AND
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;
states of some part of a world or system that is
SCENARIO TESTING
being modelled and it describes how those states USEFUL FOR DEVELOPING
are related by probabilities. The model might be of STRATEGIC AND
OPERATIONAL PLANS
your family, or your business, your body, your
community, your workplace, or the system around a
particular complex problem that needs to be
resolved, etc. In other words, absolutely anything
can be modelled by a BBN.
Bayesian networks are composed of three elements (Figure 6.1):
1. Nodes representing the system variables, each with a finite set of mutually
exclusive states (the terms ‘node’ and ‘variable’ have the same meaning). Variables
can either be discrete or continuous. A discrete variable is one with a well-defined
finite set of possible values, e.g. the number of people in a company; whether a
building is new or old; whether a statement is true or false. In a BBN, each of these
values becomes a state of the node. A continuous variable is one that can take on a
value between any other two values. Examples include rainfall, depth, height, price
49
and weight. When represented in a BBN, the full range of values of a continuous
variable must be broken down into sub-ranges, each becoming a state of the node.
2. Links representing causal relationships between these nodes. Links, therefore,
have direction – from cause to effect. If there is a link from node A to node B, B is
described as a child of A, while A is a parent of B.
3. Probabilities, one for each node, specifying the belief that a node will be in a
particular state given the states of those nodes that affect it directly (its parents).
Typically some states will tend to occur more frequently when other states are
present. Thus, if you are sick, the chances of a runny nose are higher. If it is cloudy,
the chances of rain are higher, and so on. These probabilities are determined by
conditional probability tables (CPTs – see point 4) that express how the relationships
between the nodes operate.
Nodes and links together form a BBN diagram (or, also known as a directed acyclic
graph). The addition of probabilities creates a fully-functioning BBN. Figure 6.1
illustrates these concepts, using simple BBN diagrams.
Figure 6.1: Components of a Bayesian Belief Network Model

In this example the current conditions indicate that the probabilities for rainfall and
temperature to be high and mild to hot respectively in both cases are 75%. These
values (of the end nodes) were entered by the stakeholders as ‘current conditional
probabilities’ and were not calculated by the model. In the case of growth the BBN
calculates that the probability to expect high growth in the area is about 67%.
In this next simple example of a system, the weather has three states: sunny,
cloudy, or rainy; the grass can be wet or dry, and the sprinkler can be on or off. In
this model there are some causal links. If it is rainy, then the grass will become wet
50
directly. If it is sunny for a long time, that too can make the grass wet, indirectly, by
causing us to turn on the sprinkler.
When actual probabilities are entered into this BBN that reflect the reality of real
weather, lawn, and sprinkler-use-behaviour, such a BBN can be used to answer a
number of useful questions, such as: ‘if the lawn is wet, what are the chances it was
caused by rain or by the sprinkler’, ‘if the chance of rain increases, how does that
affect the need for turning the sprinkler on’, ‘how much will I have to rely on
irrigation in the area I live? ’
Figure 6.2: A simple BBN model illustrating testing of different scenarios

The BBN in Figure 6.2 indicates that under current conditions there is only a 10%
change for rain and people living in this area will have to rely to a large extent on
irrigation to have a green lawn (a). If sunny conditions prolong, there is a 100%
probability that sprinklers will be turned on (b). One can also see this in ‘back
casting’, by setting a wet lawn on 100%, that the chances for rain to be responsible
for a wet lawn is only 10.9%, while the probability that it is wet because of irrigation
is 88.6% (c).
Figure 6.3: A simple BBN showing the possibility for back casting
BBNs (d) and (e) in Figure 6.3 respectively indicate that if irrigation is turned on, the
lawn will be wet and if it rains, with no sprinklers turned on the probability for the
lawn to be wet is also 100%.
51
Creating a Bayesian Belief Network Model
As mentioned before, for each of the identified leverage points, Bayesian Belief
Network (BBN) modelling 16, 73 is used to determine the systemic interventions
(those variables that have the biggest impact on the goal); the requirements for
implementation of the systemic management strategies; the factors that could affect
the expected outcomes; and the order in which actions should be taken to ensure
cost-effectiveness and to maximize impact.
Determine the goal
First decide on the goal (i.e. make the goal one of the leverages identified during the
identification of leverage points – Chapter 5).
Creating a BBN structure (Figure 6.4)
Figure 6.4: Basic framework for developing a BBN
The structure of the BBN is then created by asking four basic questions:
1. What are the things, actions, activities you think can be undertaken that could
help to achieve the goal?
52
2. What would the effects or outcomes of these actions or interventions be on the
goal – in other words, why would you take such an action?
3. What other factors could influence the outcomes that you would expect to
achieve?
4. What needs to be in place for these actions or interventions to happen? In
other words, what are the enabling requirements for carrying out the actions
mentioned in question 1?
Through asking questions, more experiential knowledge becomes unlocked. For
example, the facilitator says: ‘In other words, if you have achieved outcomes 1, 2
and 3, the probability you would achieve the goal is about 100%’? This statement
could be met by a response: ‘No, what about 4 and even 5 – these will also be
important before the goal could be achieved’. In this way more knowledge is
obtained and built into the BBN model, until all participants are satisfied with the
model. This process also leads to the participants ‘taking ownership’ of the model
because they are actively involved and their knowledge is respected.
The model construction process
Enter the different nodes of the BBN model into Netica. Note: In this example the
‘Netica’ software package is used (http://www.norsys.com/netica_api.html)
A free version of Netica API is available that has the entire set of functionalities
included in the licensed version and it is not time-limited. It is, however, limited in
the size of any Network you can construct and save. It is an excellent vehicle for
learning about Bayesian Network Modelling and Netica’s capabilities. You will also
find the online tutorials of value for constructing the BBN (see Further reading list for
this chapter).
For the purposes of constructing BBNs, only use ‘Nature nodes’. There are several
other nodes types available (e.g. Decision nodes, Utility nodes, etc.) as well as many
other advanced modelling approaches. As this book is written for ‘everyone’ the
nature nodes are sufficient for the purposes of developing BBNs for identifying and
prioritising systemic interventions.
Assign ‘states’ to each node
Double click on the node and the window in Figure 6.5 will appear.
Type in the name of the node and select whether it is a discrete or continuous node.
If discrete, the states will be ‘yes’ or ‘no’; ‘warm’ or ‘cold’; etc. while if it is
continuous you will type in a range such as 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 kg, or 15-20, 21-25, 25-
30oC, etc. Under ‘Description’ you could explain what you mean by saying ‘high’ or
‘low’, ‘sufficient’ or ‘insufficient’, etc.). Repeat this procedure for each of the nodes in
the BBN.
53
Figure 6.5: Node appearing for describing (populating) it with a name and states
Construct a Conditional Probability Table (CPT) for each node

You now have to populate the model with data or experiential knowledge in order to
describe the nature of the relationships between the nodes. For this: Click on the
node for which you want to develop a CPT (in this case Node C)
Click on the symbol F on the toolbar
The following table (Figure 6.6) will appear:
Figure 6.6: Populating the node with experiential knowledge (or data when available)
Fill in as follows – If A and B are both true, what is the probability that C will be
true or false… If A is false and B is true, what are the probabilities that C will
be true or false… etc.
This process is repeated until all the CPTs are completed. It is important to go
to ‘Network’ and select ‘Compile’. The BBN is now completed and can be used
to test different scenarios, e.g. what will happen if A is true, but C is false
(forecasting) or if you click on C = true (it will turn to 100%), by looking back
54
(‘back casting’) you will see which of the scenarios would most likely achieve
a high probability that C will be true.
In filling in the CPTs it is useful to obtain the opinions of the stakeholders about
which of the factors you are dealing with in a table are more important than the
others (Figure 6.7). This helps in establishing the probabilities – especially if no data
are available. It is important to note that probabilities do not need to be exact to be
useful. Some people have shied away from using BBNs because they imagine they
will only work well if the probabilities upon which they are based are exact. This is
not true. In fact, very often approximate probabilities, even subjective ones that are
merely guess work, give very good results.
Figure 6.7: Understanding the system (Causal Loop Diagram) helps to identify the important
variables for constructing a BBN
In general BBNs deal well with imperfect knowledge. Often the combination of
several strands of imperfect knowledge can lead to surprisingly strong conclusions.
Furthermore, since the BBNs are used for decision making (identifying systemic
interventions) they are embedded in the cyclic Evolutionary Learning Laboratory
discussed in Chapter 2. Through implementation, reflection and adaption our
knowledge about how well a systemic intervention works or how different variables
relate to each other are continuously improving; allowing the CPTs to be improved
over time through the use of better and even real data from, for example,
monitoring and research.
55
Illustrating the use of BBNs in practice - The Integrated
Systemic Governance of Haiphong case
The Government of Haiphong City decided to establish an Evolutionary Learning
Laboratory to enhance communication and collaboration between the different
departments in order to develop an integrated and systemic Governance Plan for the
sustainable development of Haiphong.
Workshops and specialist forums were held to gather the mental models of
representatives of different government departments. These were integrated into a
systems model using Causal Loop Modelling. Interpretation and collaboratively
developing a deeper understanding of the potential implications of actions, strategies
and policies led to the identification of the main leverage points for the sustainable
development of Haiphong.
Figure 6.8 Identification of leverage points for integrated systemic governance of Haiphong,
Vietnam
A BBN was developed for each of the leverage points to identify the systemic
interventions (those factors that contribute most to the achievement of each
leverage point goal). To illustrate the use of the BBNs for this purpose the identified
leverage point ‘Sustainable Economic Development (SED)’ is used as an example of
how a BBN can be used for identifying the systemic interventions (Figure 6.8).
56
The sustainable economic development of HPC is influenced by four main groups of
factors, including ‘infrastructure’, ‘policy and collaboration’, ‘education’ and ‘tourism’.
According to the preliminary BBN model (Figure 6.9), under the current conditions,
there is a 57.5% probability for the sustainable economic development of HPC to be
high.
Cross-Sectoral Commun. & Collaboration Media

Enhanced Infrastructure
Strong 10.0 Effective 40.0
Yes 50.0
Mod 20.0 Not Effective 60.0
No 50.0
Poor 70.0
Integrated policies for SED Education Level Raising Local Awareness

Investment in ports Developed 28.0 Tertiary 20.0 Yes 48.4
More 20.0 Non Integrated 72.0 Second 80.0 No 51.6
Same 80.0
Less 0
Local People Involved
Implementation of Policies High 41.1
Sea/airport Industry Efficient 28.0 Mod 12.4
Mod Efficient 14.0 Low 46.4
Enhanced 62.0 Poor 58.0
Static 38.0 Natural Resource Protection
Improved Human Resources Good 60.0
Mod 40.0
Good 43.3
Traffic Congestion Poor 0
Mod 31.1
Mod High 36.1 Poor 25.6 Utilise Rich Culture History
High 63.9 Env. for for Investment Yes 60.0
Fav 33.7 Tourism Industry No 40.0
NotFav 66.3
Enhanced 64.4 Tourism Promotion & Marketing
Limited 35.6
Opportunities for ED Good 35.0
Mod 65.0
Greatly enhanced 45.2 Quality of Economic Development
Moderate 26.7 Improved Socio-Econ. Planning Know Key SED Drivers
High Med 52.7
Low potential 28.1 Med Low 47.3 Yes 33.1 Good 30.0
No 66.9 Poor 70.0
New Roads
Knowledge of current status of SED
Yes 78.8
No 21.2 Sustainable Econ. Dev. of Haiphong City Yes 30.0
High 57.5 No 70.0
Medium 22.5
Low 20.0
Figure 6.9: Current situation – BBN populated with experiential knowledge and opinion of
stakeholders
By testing different scenarios (rapid sensitivity analysis), a combination of systemic
interventions or management strategies could be ‘implemented’ to observe how the
probability for a high SED of HPC can be increased. These include ‘enhanced
infrastructure’, more ‘investment in ports’, strong ‘communication and collaboration’,
higher ‘education level’, increased ‘awareness’, good ‘protection of natural
resources’, good ‘promotion and marketing’ and a favourable ‘investment
environment’.
The rapid sensitivity analysis also indicated that increasing development
opportunities are most sensitive to enhancing investment in the port, effective cross-
sectoral communication, collaboration and policy implementation. Quality of
economic development is most sensitive to human resource development,
awareness and local people involvement, while enhancing tourism is most sensitive
to natural resource protection, availability of new roads (to reach tourist
destinations) and promotion and marketing Haiphong as a tourist destination. The
end result is a BBN that helps to identify systemic interventions (Figure 6.10). The
model can also be used as a means to test the possible outcomes of different
systemic interventions by observing what will happen to the system as a whole when
57
a particular intervention (or combination) is implemented, that is before any time or
money is invested in actual implementation.
Cross-Sectoral Communic & Collaboration Media
Enhanced Infrastructure
Strong 100 Effective 40.2
Yes 100
Mod 0 Not Effective 59.8
No 0
Poor 0
Integrated policies for SED Education Level Raising Local Awareness

Investment in ports Developed 90.1 Yes 66.4
Tertiary 100
More 100 Non Integrated 9.92 Second 0 No 33.6
Same 0
Less 0 Local People Involved
Implementation of Policies High 56.5
Mod 13.3
Sea/airport Industry Efficient 90.0
Low 30.3
Mod Efficient 9.97
Enhanced 83.2 Poor 0
Static 16.8 Natural Resource Protection
Improved Human Resources Good 100
Mod 0
Good 62.7
Poor 0
Mod 30.1
Poor 7.13 Utilise Rich Culture History
Environment for Investment Yes 60.2
Traffic Congestion No 39.8
Favourable 71.8 Tourism Industry
Mod High 15.8
High 84.2 Not Favour 28.2 Enhanced 87.1 Tourism Promotion & Marketing
Limited 12.9
Good 100
Mod 0
Opportunities for Econ. Dev.
Greatly enhanced 66.5 Quality of Econ. Dev.
Improved Socio-Econ. Planning Know Key SED Drivers
Moderate 24.3 High Med 67.4
Low potential 9.21 Med Low 32.6 Yes 33.2 Good 30.1
No 66.8 Poor 69.9
New Road Han to HP
Yes 100
No 0 Sustainable Econ. Dev. of Haiphong City Knowl. SED current status
High 77.8 Yes 30.0
Medium 16.5 No 70.0
Low 5.61
Figure 6.10: Systemic interventions (grey shaded variables) increasing the probability for
high Sustainable Economic Development from 57% to 78%
Systemic interventions that will be most important to achieve the leverage goal is
identified by constructing a BBN for each of the leverage points (Figure 6.11)
Figure 6.11: BBN and systemic interventions for leverage point enhancing economic
development
58
Representatives of all the different departments and other stakeholders collaborated
(through sharing of knowledge and co-learning) to identify the systemic
interventions. One of the most important outcomes in Haiphong was the realisation
that complex problems cannot be solved through the traditional silo-mentality; that
is, each department develops policies without taking into account that a bigger
system exists (Figure 6.12)
Figure 6.12: Workshops representing various different government departments
___________________________________________________________________
Some challenges for you

1. What is the difference between a node and a system variable?
2. What does a link represent?
3. What is the difference between a discrete and continuous node?
4. Construct and populate a simple BBN with the goal: A Happy Marriage (Note:
use only nature nodes for exercises 4 and 5)
5. Construct and populate a BBN model with one of the leverage points identified
in the exercise in Chapter 5 as your goal. As in the case of developing the CLD
in Chapter 4, you may form a small group of people in your class or workplace
who could role play different ‘stakeholders’; or you may decide to develop the
BBN on your own. Use the model to test different scenarios in order to define
the most important systemic interventions that will be required to
achieve the goal.
59
The following selected sources provide you with more information on the content
written in this chapter:
1. Cain J. 2001. Planning improvements in natural resources management. Centre
for Ecology and Hydrology, Crowmarsh Gifford: Wallingford, Oxon, UK.
2. Cain J, Batchelor C and Waughray D. 1999. Belief networks: a framework for
the participatory development of natural resource management strategies.
Environment, Development and Sustainability 1: 123-133.
3. Smith C, Felderhof L and Bosch OJH. 2007. Adaptive Management: Making it
Happen Through Participatory Systems Analysis. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science 24(1): 567-587.
4. Tutorials for developing BBNs – from beginner to advanced (accessed on 9
March 2015): http://www.norsys.com/tutorials/netica/nt_toc_A.htm.
60
61
62
Importance of systemically based implementation
We live in an increasingly complex environment where project failure is driven by
ambiguity, uncertainty, emergence and a multitude of competing stakeholder’s
expectations. Whilst important, normal project management tools and processes are
not sufficient for interdisciplinary, cross sectional programs requiring extensive
communication and collaboration within this dynamic and competitive rich project
environment.
Government and industry increasingly work on projects that have to be designed,
planned and executed in an uncertain environment subject to uncontrollable external
influences and continuous change, often with ill-defined and mutually incompatible
stakeholder requirements. This leads to sub-optimal performance, as represented
through cost overruns, delivery time ‘blow outs’ and poor delivery against
established project performance and target goals.
Figure 7.1: Not a particularly reassuring picture!

The world is littered with examples of projects that have failed to deliver in support
of government initiatives or failed to deliver expected shareholder value. For
example, contemporary research from around the world has found that only 40% of
projects were completed on time and to budget. The research also emphasised that
‘human factors’ such as difficulties in changing attitudes (58%), dysfunctional
corporate culture (49%) and a lack of support from senior management (32%) were
63
identified as the main barriers to success, with 35% of major projects studied
severely underestimating the degree of complexity (Figure 7.1).
Independent Project Analysis, Inc. in work completed for the Business Council of
Australia in 2012, found that ‘large (greater than $100M) technically complex
Australian projects have a poor performance record with a failure rate of over 76%’
(Figure 7.1).
Complexity in project management is not just confined to the traditional engineering,
defence or infrastructure style projects but is equally embedded throughout projects
that transcend the complete scope of project implementation in society. It is equally
at home within social, health and projects dominated by environmental or human
factors as it is in those in the built environment. For example, one of the most
complex large scale projects covering a multitude of human, political, jurisdictional,
economic and environmental perspectives within Australia has been the
management of the Murray-Darling Basin (Figure 7.1).
There has been no project that has demonstrated a greater degree of complexity of
issues and passionate, almost rebellious protective stakeholder debate than this
project. Driven by a need for increased consideration of environmental water flow
allocations there has been a long established debate between water for the
environment, water for human consumption and water for economic development,
with all this overlaid by a plethora of political and other related considerations.
Essentially, stakeholders with differing perspectives have failed in their attempt to
look at, and consider the whole suite of interacting parameters and agree on the
respective trade-offs and optimal position needed for society as a whole. It can be
argued strongly that the Murray Darling Basin is not about water use and allocation
but about structural adjustment where society recognises that there has been sub-
optimal resource allocation in the past, poor consideration of total reflective societal
goals and that this ambiguity, lack of transparency and lack of an appropriate
framework for consideration of all the issues have lead, and continue to lead to
adversarial positions with stakeholders rather than collective and consensus decision
making. This lack of a holistic policy, management and project approach underpins
this issue in Australia but it is also manifestly evident in projects across the globe.
Work undertaken by the National Audit Office of the United Kingdom has highlighted
many of the underlying difficulties in managing and delivering major complex
projects. For example, one of the failures of the Fire Control project was that it did
not initially have the support of those essential to its success – the Local Fire and
Rescue services. The Department for Communities and Local Government tried to
centrally impose a national control system, without having sufficient mandatory
powers and without consulting properly with the Fire and Rescue Services. The
project was cancelled in December 2010, seven years after it began, following a
wasted expenditure of at least £482 M, with no information technology system in
64
place, and as at March 2013, five of the nine regional control centres were empty
and incurring maintenance costs.
Examination of three major British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) estate projects
found that the scope of the first phase of the Broadcasting House refurbishment and
construction project in 2006 was not sufficiently defined when the project was
approved. A dispute with the developer, and over 42 individual contract variations,
totalling a cost of £13.9 M, led to the project being delivered a year later than
specified. The BBC rebased the contract in negotiation with the developer and
agreed on a fixed cost for the remainder of the work that was £58 M more than the
original budget.
Failure to effectively engage with stakeholders can significantly disrupt delivery of a
complex project, or even derail it completely. For example, in the early 1980’s when
the Department of Transport in the United Kingdom planned to build the M40
motorway through Otmoor in Oxfordshire, the local ‘Friends of the Earth’ group
purchased a strategic block of land, subdivided it into 3500 lots and sold it at £3 a
lot. All the plot owners were anonymous and each owner could, in theory, have
forced a public enquiry and taken the case to the High Court if the government had
subsequently tried to purchase the land. The Friends of the Earth were successful in
getting the route changed.
These examples underscore the importance of transparency and inclusiveness in
project scope, design and delivery and the critical importance of having a holistic
approach to all aspects of project design, management and implementation, and,
importantly, of having sound project tracking and post evaluation measures in place.
Developing systemic management plans to deal with

complexity
Examples from two different case studies are discussed to illustrate how an
integrated systemic management plan can be developed.
Case 1: Integrated governance of Haiphong, Vietnam
The need for systemic integrated governance of Haiphong Province has been
discussed in Chapter 6. In this case the identified systemic interventions of each of
the BBNs (for each leverage point) were combined to serve as a basis to develop an
integrated (combined) systemic governance plan for enhancing inter-departmental
collaboration in Haiphong (Figure 7.2). True integrated governance will require
ongoing communication and collaboration between different departments,
businesses and other sectors of society in order to solve the complex issues
systemically.
Note: Only three of the leverage points were dealt with by using BBN models. The
‘Enhanced cross-sectoral communication and collaboration’ leverage point was
65
addressed through the processes of sharing mental models, integrating the mental
models to develop a shared understanding of the context in which information and
knowledge were given and co-learning through exploring the relationships and
interconnectedness between variables. The construction of the BBNs required
intense cross-sectoral communication, as the variables in each BBN consisted of
elements from all different departments and other stakeholders involved.
Figure 7.2: Systemic interventions of achieving main leverage points in Haiphong combined
into an Integrated Systemic Governance Plan
The fifth important leverage point, namely ‘Capacity building for a new way of
thinking by starting with the young’ is an example of one that is not addressed
through using a BBN model. This leverage point was addressed by implementing the
cybernetics simulation game ‘Ecopolicy’ (provided by Malik Management, St Gallen,
Switzerland) as a systemic intervention in schools and universities to help people
from a young age to develop an understanding of the concepts of systems and
interconnected thinking through gamified learning.
Competitions were run within schools and universities and by means of several
rounds between small teams within classes and between classes, until a winning
team for each school and university was determined. Through playing this game
young people learn how to shift from our traditional, mainly linear, simple cause-
effect thinking approaches to a new way of thinking in relations, in feedback cycles,
in patterns, in networks and in systems.
An important outcome of Ecopolicy was its introduction in all government
departments and agencies in Haiphong as part of their in-job training. Teams within
66
each department competed against each other. They eventually had to develop their
strategic plan (for each department) using what they have learned about
interconnectedness and systems thinking. Of particular importance is how they used
the experience they got from playing Ecopolicy to improve their capacity (another
example of how the ‘Capacity Building’ leverage point has been addressed) to first
develop a model of the systems they are dealing with in each department and then
use these to identify leverage points and systemic interventions in order to develop
an Integrated Systemic Strategic Plan.
The different systemic interventions addressing each of the leverage points are the
responsibility of different government departments and other sectors of society. For
example, the interventions for ‘Improving quality of life’ include collaborative actions
to be taken by government departments such as Education, Health, Planning and
Investment, Natural Resources and Environment. Ensuring ‘Sustainable Economic
Development’ will involve collaboration between departments such as Planning and
Investment, Education, Natural Resources and Environment, Culture, Tourism and
Sport, as well as the media sector.
These collaborations have already started to happen and are probably a ‘World First’
where the silos between different government departments are deliberately being
broken down through enhanced cross-departmental communication and
collaboration and the creation of an overall Integrated Systemic Governance Plan
(Figure 7.2). The Leader of Haiphong City pointed out in the concluding remarks of
his keynote address during the 57th World Conference of the International Society
for the Systems Sciences in Haiphong City (July 2013) that Systems Thinking and
the systems-based ELLab approach have already changed the effectiveness of the
government departments and businesses and communities in many ways:
There is today a much better mutual understanding of the diverse mental
models of different stakeholders;
We have moved away from traditional linear thinking that leads to quick fixes
and treatment of the symptoms, to long lasting systemic solutions that address
the root causes of our problems;
The ability to collaboratively identify leverage points and systemic interventions
has significantly helped to underpin the systems-based master and strategic
governance plans for Haiphong;
All policymakers have today a much deeper understanding of the
interconnectedness between possible actions (systemic interventions) in order
to develop efficient and cost-effective management strategies;
We have developed a working knowledge of cutting edge systems tools to test
the outcomes of strategies, including identification of unintended consequences
– before actual implementation;
67
The use of ‘back-casting’ to identify those factors that will have the most
influence on the achievement of goals is helping the government to identify
where and when to invest in the system we have to govern; and
Using the ELLab as an ongoing process for continuous co-learning and
refinement of management strategies has become an important part of our
policy making and governance in general.
Case 2: Improving the quality of life of women in agriculture

A pilot study was carried out in Vietnam to address the hardship of women, gender
biases and discrimination in order to find solutions to their poor quality of life. It was
found that that it is not a single thing, an item, a technology or a device that is
needed to assist women in small scale agriculture. What is needed, instead, is a
‘new way of thinking’ about the whole of the South East Asian farming systems and
the interactions between the component parts.
In the following example (Figure 7.3) in the Red River Delta of Vietnam three
leverage points to improve the quality of these women’s lives were identified,
namely increasing income, reducing work pressure and improving health. The
different factors affecting these three ‘goals’ are intrinsically interconnected and
separating the BBNs for easy identification of systemic interventions makes little
sense. In this case one BBN model was constructed through an integration of the
different factors that affected the three goals, which together determined the quality
of life of the women in agriculture.
Train_content_relevant Qual_Trainers Learning_Capacity Product_Diversification
Yes 40.0 Social_Engage Quality_Control
Good 55.0 High 60.0 Yes 40.0
No 60.0 Poor 45.0 Poor 40.0 High 13.0 No 60.0 Effective 15.0
Low 87.0 Ineffective 85.0
Will_to_learn Satisfied_Consumer
Qual_Training Yes 70.0 Market_Actors_Linkages Yes 33.4
Capital
Yes 39.8 No 30.0 Strong 36.0 No 66.6
Available 10.0 No 60.2 Weak 64.0
Insufficient 90.0 Old_Customs
Knowledge_Skills Yes 10.0 Produce_Quality
No 90.0 Stable_Markets High 29.9
Improved 47.3 Branding
Yes 37.4 Poor 70.1
Gov_Support Unchanged 52.7 Family_Support Yes 23.9
No 62.6
Effective 50.0 Yes 36.9 No 76.1
Ineffective 50.0 No 63.1 Producer_Groups
Infrastructure
Strong 15.0 Eco_friendly_Practices
Modern 45.8 Work_Sharing Weak 85.0 Market_Access
Poor 54.3 Yes 38.7 Yes 30.0
Good 36.8
Implements No 61.3 No 70.0
Poor 63.2
Available 25.3
Unavailable 74.8 Input_Prices_Quality Secondary_Jobs Produce_Prices
Satisfactory 30.8 Available 18.0 High 28.7
Unsatisfactory 69.2 Unavailable 82.0 Low 71.3 Toxic_Chemicals_Use
Service_Groups Reduced 29.7
Prod_Efficiency Increased 70.3
Effective 66.5 Production_Cost
Ineffective 33.5 High 51.5 Health
Low 48.5 Reduced 35.8
Good 27.2 Rural_Hygiene
Expensive 64.2
Not_good 72.8 Clean 25.0
Poor 75.0
Work_Pressure
Income Access_Healthcare
Reduced 48.3
Increased 51.7 High 32.7 Yes 32.7
Low 67.3 No 67.3
Healthcare_Services
Qual__Life_Women
Effective 35.0
High 37.9
Poor 65.0
Low 62.1
Figure 7.3: Systems model of the current situation in small scale agriculture in Vietnam
68
Separate BBN models for each of the leverage points (or sub-goals) did not indicate
the various interconnections between the different factors affecting the three sub-
goals. For example, eco-friendly practices do not only affect the health of the
women, but also have an effect on the quality of produce, which will in turn affect
income through factors such as improved market access and produce prices. Various
factors such as knowledge skills and production efficiency affect work pressure,
which has a strong influence on the health of the women.
The current situation (Figure 7.3) shows that there is only about a 38% probability
that the quality of life of the women farmers would be high. This is mainly due to
the poor health conditions, work pressure (which also affects health) and low
incomes. Particular issues mentioned by the women include the lack of implements,
relevant knowledge, government support, effective support services, capital, social
engagement (which is due to the women’s high working pressure), product
diversification, eco-friendly practices, rural hygiene, effective healthcare services,
secondary jobs (which is difficult because of already high working hours), and the
existence of producer groups (called ‘clubs’ by the women) and linkages with market
actors (which, together with product diversification and quality produce will improve
one of their main concerns, namely poor market access).
Train_Content_Relevant Qual_trainers Learning_Capacity Social_Engagemt Product_Diversific

Yes 100 Good 100 High 61.6 High 100 Yes 100
No 0 Poor 0 Poor 38.4 Low 0 No 0
Qual_Training Will_to_Learn Market_Actors_Linkages Quality_Control

Yes 96.1 Yes 100 Strong 80.9 Satisf_Consumer Effective 100
No 3.86 No 0 Weak 19.1 Ineffective 0
Yes 72.4
Capital
No 27.6
Available 100
Insufficient 0 Knowledge_Skills Old_Customs Stable_Markets
Improved 91.7 Yes 10.0 Yes 78.2
Unchanged 8.30 No 90.0 No 21.8 Produce_Quality
Branding High 96.1
Infrastructure Family_Support Yes 77.5 Poor 3.89
Modern 90.4 Yes 83.0 No 22.5
Poor 9.62 No 17.0 Producer_Groups Market_Access
Gov_Support Strong 100 Good 74.6
Effective 100 Work_Sharing Weak 0 Poor 25.4
Ineffective 0 Eco_Friendly_Practices
Yes 78.4
No 21.6 Yes 100
Input_Prices_Quality Secondary_Jobs Produce_Prices No 0
Implements Prod_Efficiency Satisfactory 95.2 Available 100 High 84.6
Available 100 High 96.8 Unsatisfactory 4.76 Unavailable 0
Unavailable 0 Low 15.4
Low 3.25
Production_Cost
Toxic_Chemicals_Use
Reduced 92.5 Reduced 95.0
Service_Groups
Expensive 7.54 Increased 5.00
Effective 100 Work_Pressure Health
Ineffective 0 Good 90.8
Reduced 84.5
Increased 15.5 Not_good 9.21 Rural_Hygiene
Income
Clean 100
High 97.2 Access_Healthcare Poor 0
Low 2.80
Yes 100
No 0
Qual_Life_Women
High 90.1 Healthcare_Services
Low 9.86 Effective 43.0
Poor 57.0
Figure 7.4: Expected changes in work pressure, income and health (quality of life of women
in agriculture) in Vietnam if the identified systemic interventions are implemented
Various factors affecting or determining the three leverages are in many cases
intrinsically interlinked and this make the use of one ‘combined’ model preferable for
the identification of systemic interventions and subsequently the development of a
systemic management plan to improve the quality of life of the women.
69
The systemic interventions identified by the women farmers are indicated in the
darker shaded nodes. The main nodes of each of the leverages are indicated in
different colours, while the arrows indicate clearly the inter-relationships between
many of the factors that affect the leverages or sub-goals. By comparing the BBNs in
Figures 7.3 and 7.4 it is clear that the interventions identified by the women could
significantly reduce working pressure, increase the probability for higher income and
lead to healthier women – and subsequently a better quality of life. The systemic
management plan, including the actions that will be required are given in Table 7.1
Taking action and monitoring outcomes and impact
Once a systemically based plan has been developed it is of critical importance to
identify who will be responsible for the different actions, and to develop a monitoring
plan to track the benefits and impact of the systemic interventions over time. Taking
on responsibilities is normally not a problem, because of the fact that all the
stakeholders would have been involved in the process and would have already taken
‘ownership’ of the interventions that are required.
Table 7.1: Action plan for implementing the identified systemic interventions
Improve Health Reduce Work Pressure Increase Income
Systemic Interventions
i. Address workload i. Production efficiency i. Cooperatives/producer groups
issues ii. Available production devices ii. Market access and outlets
ii. Eco-friendly production iii. Capacity building iii. High production costs
facilities & practices iv. Production infrastructure iv. Sideline job opportunities
iii. Rural hygiene v. Effective service groups v. Improve produce quality
iv. Access to healthcare
services
Actions
Reduce pesticide use = bio- Labour exchange (planting, harvesting) Organise farmer interest groups and/or
pesticides through formed cooperative groups “clubs”/cooperatives to help reducing
Improve work safety (work Study visits (learning from successful work pressure and production costs
protection clothes) production models (through sharing of facilities)
Actively working on reducing Information diffusion (through more Develop a plan for sharing Harvesting
work pressure actions effective extension services) machines; Tractors; Rice transplanters
Use pest resistant plant Direct guidance of production techniques (seedling planting machines) and
varieties by extension services and service Irrigation pumps
Request medical coupons providers Enhance linkages between farmers and
for low income people Organize training workshops on crop companies for stable market outlets and
production, husbandry, product storage; prices
production device use, Time planning and Create and environment for the four
management and gender equity and life stakeholder groups to collaborate
skills (government, enterprises, scientists and
Develop and providing handouts farmers)
(learning materials) Explore potential to set up large scale
Organizing workshops and develop production
relevant courses ( Produce clean and high quality products
Address lack of family support through (that will satisfy consumers)
increased income and social engagement Implement a quality control system
(when work pressure is reduced) Become directly involved with processing
Make information available on internet of produce for markets
Use electric pesticide sprayers
It is of great importance that the monitoring criteria will be determined with the
people who will benefit. The stakeholders’ involvement in setting the goals and
identifying the systemic interventions enable them to determine what should be
70
monitored. That is, what are the monitoring criteria? They are not only in a position
to define what they would like the outcomes to be, but could also use the model as
a basis for determining which of the monitoring criteria will be most ‘do-able’ from a
practical point of view. It is also important for all stakeholders, including policy
makers in government to be involved in the monitoring process in order to track the
impact of their policies. In this particular case the agricultural extension offices can
play a valuable role.
It is also important that funding bodies, donors (countries and philanthropists) know
what the impact of their investments are. Their attendance of ‘Reflection’ workshops
will significantly help to evaluate the impact of their donations, as well as to redirect
their financial aid when and where required. For example, one of the systemic
interventions to improve the level of education in a rural area may be to build six
schools to provide easier access to education. This may be made possible through a
donation from a country or philanthropist. Typical monitoring criteria to determine
the impact of such an intervention (big investment) would include factors such as:
Number of children attending school
Number completing school
Do those with an education find it easier to become employed
What difference does the education make to their income, etc.
Note: Tracking the impact of systemic interventions is referred to in Chapter 9.
____________________________________________________________________

1. Can you provide examples of project or program failures that did not use a
systems approach in their planning and execution?
2. Continuing with the BBN model and having identified systemic interventions in
Chapter 6, discuss and decide on the actions that will be required for
implementing each of the systemic interventions (i.e. develop an integrated
systemic management plan).
71
72
You would never have a ‘perfect’ model to deal with
complexity
Systems models can hardly ever be completely ‘correct’ in a complex and uncertain
world and unintended consequences always occur. The only way to manage
complexity is by reflecting (step 7 of the ELLab process) at regular intervals on the
outcomes of the actions and decisions that have been taken to determine how
successful or unsuccessful the interventions are and to identify unintended
consequences and new barriers that were previously unforeseen.
The iterative process of the ELLab (Figure 8.1) serves as a valuable informal co-
learning experience and leads to new levels of capability and performance. Working
in this way as a coalition is the most effective way to deal with complex issues,
because the methodologies and processes acknowledge that complex problems are
multi-dimensional and have to involve all stakeholders, they require cross-sectoral
communication and collaborative approaches to resolve, and deal with the many
uncertainties that will need adaptive management approaches as more knowledge
becomes available through the iterative process of learning by doing.
For example, the early and consistent involvement of key decision makers and
stakeholders in the Cat Ba Island Biosphere (more than 200 participants to date) has
been of paramount importance for the successful formation and implementation of
an ELLab for sustainable development of the island. This involvement is of significant
importance for the seamless continuity and sustainability of the project. Frequent
reflection on the successes and failures of implemented strategies (systemic
interventions) has led to new knowledge and ideas. For instance, to enhance
awareness of sustainable practices and to increase local employment, a Cat Ba
Island Biosphere brand system has been introduced that is awarded to products
(e.g. fish sauce, honey) and businesses (e.g. tourist boat services, recreation parks,
hotels, guest houses and restaurants) that comply with a set of relevant criteria such
as business registration, water saving mechanisms, employment of local people, fire
safety standards, food safety and hygiene standards. The collaborative learning
process has also led to a strong realisation that the Cat Ba Island management
regulations need revision, especially to improve integrated planning and actions
across different sectors of society.
Once an Evolutionary Learning Laboratory has been established in a region or
country it will operate as a management tool for the reform and sustainable
management of complex issues in their respective systems. As described in the case
studies management strategies and policies are implemented and the ELLab runs
‘Reflection’ meetings (step 7) to discuss the outcomes (successes, impact, failures)
and decide how to change the management or how to adapt a policy. These
73
reflection meetings lead to new levels of learning and
SYSTEMS-BASED COST-
enhanced management performance in the different sectors of
EFFECTIVE &
the system as a whole. SUSTAINABLE
MANAGEMENT
Note: You are encouraged to register on the Think2Impact site
STRATEGIES
(www.think2impact.org) which will enable you to explore all the project
details of various case studies. IMPROVED KNOWLEDGE
& SKILLS FOR DECISION
& POLICY MAKING
HOLISTIC
UNDERSTANDING
ENHANCED CROSS-
SECTORAL
COMMUNICATION &
COLLABORATION
ENHANCED
OPPORTUNITIES FOR
FUNDING - TARGETED
INVESTMENTS WITH
HIGHEST IMPACTS
COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT IN
DECISION MAKING
CUTTING EDGE
SYSTEMS EDUCATION –
ATTRIBUTES INSTILLED
THAT INDUSTRY
Figure 8.1: Cyclic ELLab for Managing Complex Issue going global REQUIRES
(through Think2ImpactTM)
10 DEGREE PROGRAMS
Source: Adapted from CHANGE FROM A
COLLECTION OF
COURSES TO AN
Each individual ELLab also becomes part of the global platform INTERCONNECTED
SYSTEM OF COURSES
(Think2Impact™ - Chapter 9) and continually shares the
lessons it has learned with ELLabs (and other similar INTEGRATED SYSTEMIC
initiatives) in other parts of the world, through the lenses of GOVERNANCE OF
HAIPHONG – A WORLD
different political systems, cultures, etc. Think2Impact™ is an FIRST
advanced e-technology that serves as a platform for
continuous sharing and co-learning, leading to innovation and
new levels of learning and performance at regional and global
level. It also helps individual ELLabs to learn more and
perform better in their own countries, organisations,
businesses and communities (see Chapter 9).
74
Examples of the outcomes, impacts and SAFER PRODUCT DESIGNS
FOR CHLDREN –
lessons learned from selected ELLabs DECREASE IN DEATH
RATE OF TODDLERS
during Reflection
MINDSET CHANGE THAT
The ELLab process has been effectively deployed in a variety WORK PRESSURE ON
of contexts with profound impact. The following examples of WOMEN IN AGRICULTURE
CANNOT BE REDUCED
outcomes are from a selected group of case studies with THROUGH TECHNICAL
different levels of complexity: DEVICES ALONE, BUT IS
INTRINSICALLY INTER-
Sustainable development of UNESCO Cat Ba LINKED WITH HEALTH
Biosphere, Vietnam ISSUES & INCOME
Members of the Management Board changed their way IN BUILDING

ORGANISATIONAL
of thinking from linear (quick fixes) to interconnected REPUTATION, A
and systems thinking which led to the development of PARTICIPATORY
sustainable and cost-effective management strategies; APPROACH ENSURED
ADOPTION OF
Improved knowledge and skills in making polices; on- STRATEGIES
ground managers assist senior leaders in decision
CAPACITY BUILDING IN
making; SYSTEMS THINKING A
PREREQUISITE FOR A
Obtained funding for systemic interventions (e.g.
NEW WAY OF THINKING &
Toyota, AusAID, Haiphong City); ACTING
Communities actively involved in collaborating with SYSTEMS MODELS TO

different departments and local authorities; ASSIST DECISION MAKERS
IN SCENARIO TESTING
Job providers responding enthusiastically to incentives
such as a bronze plaque for restaurants and hotels that FLEXIBLE LEARNING
TOOLS FOR SUCCESSFUL
employ local people – poverty reduction.
GOVERNANCE OF REMOTE
AUSTRALIA]
Enhancing systems education, Australia and

Worldwide
Valuable insights into the ways in which different systems concepts could be
matched with different types of systems education for different types of
students;
Systems Education Matrix - a useful tool for educators charged with designing
and teaching new university-level curricula that effectively integrate systems
concepts;
Frameworks and modules for introductory and advanced systems courses world-
wide available;
75
Systems Thinking attributes required by industry instilled in graduates that will
enable them to operate fully and effectively in our turbulent 21st century
knowledge society;
Large shift in the way of thinking – from limited understanding and linear
thinking to a more coherent and interconnected way of thinking;
Implementation of the ELLab and Think2Impact™ is a major step forward
towards introducing systems education worldwide into university systems;
The Adelaide MBA incorporated systems courses by redesigning it as a ‘new era’
degree program (changed from a collection of courses to an MBA ‘system’) –
enrolments increased from 9 in 2013 to >100 in 2014.
Integrated systemic governance of Haiphong City, Vietnam

Enhanced cross-sectoral communication and collaboration improved the
effectiveness of governance and links with businesses and communities;
All government officials in Haiphong are being trained in systems and
interconnected thinking and are using this knowledge to develop systemic
strategic plans for their departments;
Acknowledgement that complexity cannot be managed through ‘treating the
symptoms’ and acceptance (‘taking ownership’) of the ELLab as an ongoing
process for continuous co-learning and refinement of governance strategies
that are based on addressing the root causes of complex issues.
Improving child safety, Japan

Safer product designs, caring volunteers to support frustrated parents, closer
involvement of social workers, more integrated approach by government;
Appointment of more paediatricians;
Shortening of the time between an accident and hospitalisation;
Change in government policy to increase voluntary nursing staff and
implementation of the additional systemic interventions to ‘experiment’ in an
ELLab context how these interventions would affect child injuries.
Labour saving innovations in Sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia

Shared understanding of the disparate mental models of different stakeholders
with different objectives, agendas and positions in the system and respect for
each other’s knowledge;
76
Well-developed understanding of a ‘new way of thinking’ – the importance of a
holistic view of Sub-Saharan and South East Asian farming systems and the
interactions between the parts of the system;
Change in mindset that work pressure is intrinsically, directly or indirectly
affected by income and health, which implies that labour saving innovations
cannot be seen as solutions that will come only from devices and production
techniques, but requires addressing all the factors that are directly (e.g.
implements) and indirectly (e.g. solutions related to increased income and
healthy people) affecting work pressure;
Identification of sustainable and broadly applicable labour-saving solutions by
end-users and relevant stakeholders themselves, focusing on the most
important factors that have a direct impact on improving the quality of lives for
small-holder women farmers in Ghana and Vietnam. Understanding and
respecting each other’s mental models has led to ‘taking ownership’ of their
issues and ensuring adoption of strategies and technological devices relevant to
their cultural and institutional environments.
Building the reputation of the Graduate School of Systems Design

and Management, Keio University, Japan
Market intelligence-based promotion has led to an increase in student
applications;
Quality of students improved due to more stringent selection criteria and
attraction of world renowned professors who became involved in the School
due to its enhanced reputation (not through ‘buying’ academic staff at high
costs);
Active involvement of students in industry through smaller and big projects on
real issues that a company or city council have to deal with. This has led to
access to better research facilities for the School and the creation of job
opportunities for the students after graduation;
Increased publication rate and more relevant (industry led) projects resulted in
a significant increase in research quality.
Economic development of South Australia

South Australia Department of State Development staff and other relevant
stakeholders are being trained in effective systems thinking approaches to
collaborate in economic development initiatives;
77
An ELLab structure tailored for South Australia Department of State
Development staff to apply systems approaches to the specific collaborative
economic development challenges that need to be addressed over the medium
term;
Ongoing under- and post-graduate education and research in the application of
systems approaches in public sector decision making.
Addressing the complexity of agribusiness for sustainable

development in Africa: ELLab in Ghana
Enhanced insights into potential system behaviours and leverage points for
systemic interventions for sustainable agricultural development in Ghana;
A contemporary systemic development model for growth and sustainable
development in Africa;
Systems models that assist governments to anticipate the long-term
consequences of their decisions and actions, and help to avoid any unintended
consequences of policies and strategies;
Understanding that the cause of a ‘fix now’ will give rise to a much bigger
problem to ‘fix later’;
Adaptation and mitigation strategies for the sustainable development for the
agriculture in Africa.
The success of the ELLab framework on the world stage, and the demand for its
application in an increasing number of situations across the globe, brought together
a group of like-minded people to develop an online complexity management
package, Think2Impact™. This package is introduced in the next Chapter.
_________________________________________________________________

1. Discuss a complex problem(s) in your own organisation/situation:
Would the institutionalisation of an ELLab be of use to develop long-lasting
solutions/systemic strategies to address the problem?
What would you see as the main barriers that will make it difficult to
institutionalise the ELLab?
How would you try to overcome these barriers?
What strategies, or who would you see as potential drivers to help the
successful implementation of an ELLab?
78
2. Develop a Bayesian Belief Network model with the goal: Institutionalisation of an
ELLab in my workplace (high probability or low probability). Populate the model
(Conditional Probability Tables) and test the sensitivity of the nodes to each other.
Identify the systemic interventions that will be required to increase the probability
that the ELLab will become institutionalised.

The following selected sources provide you with more information on the
applications of the ELLab framework in dealing with complex problems in a variety of
contexts and locations. Some of the case studies can also be found by registering for
Think2Impact at: www.think2impact.org
1. Banson KE, Nguyen NC, Bosch OJH and Nguyen TV. 2014. A systems thinking
approach to address the complexity of agribusiness for sustainable
development in Africa: A case study in Ghana. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science (In Press):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sres.2270/abstract
2. Bosch OJH, Nguyen NC and Krishnamurthi K. 2014. Systems-based
Evolutionary Learning Laboratories to Enable Systemic Entrepreneurship in a
Complex World. Invited Keynote Address at the 10th HSSS National &
International Conference held on 29 & 29 May 2014 in Athens, Greece.
3. Bosch OJH, Nguyen NC and Ha TM. 2014. Can Advancements in Economic
and Managerial Practice be achieved without Systems Thinking Education as
the Foundation? Business Systems Review (Special Issue - Invited Plenary
Paper of the Business Systems Laboratory, 2nd International Symposium:
Systems Thinking for a Sustainable Economy) 3(2): 33-53.
4. Bosch OJH, Nguyen NC, Maeno T and Yasui T. 2013. Managing Complex
Issues through Evolutionary Learning Laboratories. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science 30(2): 116-135.
5. Ha TM, Bosch OJH and Nguyen NC. 2014. Applying an Evolutionary Learning
Laboratory approach for improving the quality of life for women smallholder
farmers in the Red River Delta of Vietnam. European Meetings on Cybernetics
and Systems Research (EMCSR) held April 2014 in Vienna, Austria.
6. Keegan M and Nguyen NC. 2011. Systems Thinking, Rural Development and
Food Security: Key Leverage Points for Australia’s Regional Development and
Population Policy. Migration Australia (Launch issue) 1(1): 50-64.
7. Kiura T, Bosch OJH, Nguyen NC, Shirasaka S and Maeno T. 2014. Creating a
New Business through Applying the Systems-Based Evolutionary Learning
Laboratory Approach. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. Invited
79
paper for the special issue on 'Advancements in Systemic Methodologies for
Economics and Management', 31(6): 696-707.
8. Kiura T, Bosch OJH, Nguyen NC, Yasui T and Maeno T. 2013. Using a
systems-based Evolutionary Learning Laboratory to address the ‘NEET’ (Not in
Employment, Education, or Training) issue in Japan. Proceedings of the 57th
World Conference of the International Society for the Systems Sciences,
Haiphong, Vietnam, 14-19 July 2013.
9. Nguyen NC, Bosch OJH and Maani KE. 2011. Creating 'learning laboratories'
for sustainable development in biospheres: A systems thinking approach.
Systems Research and Behavioral Science 28(1): 51-62.
10. Nguyen TV, Bosch OJH and Nguyen NC. 2015. Using the Evolutionary
Learning Laboratory Approach to Establish a World First Model for Integrated
Governance of Haiphong, Vietnam (Invited Paper for the ISSS2013 Special
Issue). Systems Research and Behavioral Science 31(5): 627–641.
80
81
82
The changing paradigm
The eventual question always is: ‘What’s next?’
Our world is witnessing an era of rapid technological growth and explosion of
information. Today, the sum total of all of humanity’s knowledge doubles every 12
months. What gave advantage to an economy in the industrial age – availability of
raw materials and indigenous sources of energy – matters less in the new
information age. Developing and retaining ‘brain power’ to process and make sense
of the huge volume of information that surrounds us will be the new guidelines for
competitive advantage over others.
It is clear that knowledge will fuel prosperity and that those who can manage
knowledge will enjoy a considerable advantage over those who cannot. The
determinants of success of enterprises and of national economies as a whole will be
ever more reliant upon their effectiveness in gathering and utilising knowledge.
Thus, if we want to operate and compete in this new age, we have to ensure that
our learning and management practices take advantage of opportunities presented
to us by this rapidly changing new world.
Opportunities in the information and knowledge economy

In the knowledge and information economy, the diffusion and use of knowledge and
information is as important as its creation. Be it learning institutions where the
knowledge is imparted to students or multinational corporations where plans and
strategies need to be communicated to stakeholders, traditional methods of creating
and dispensing knowledge have reached its limits and risk being out-dated. At the
same time, the advent of online technology has given rise to new opportunities – for
example using technology for connecting millions of users worldwide to co-create
new knowledge together, sharing and collaborating on problems in a real time basis,
using tons of facts and data points collected from disparate sources to generate
insights that can in turn be applied across a diverse range of problem solving
contexts.
Essentially, the new knowledge and information economy creates numerous
possibilities that are much greater than the sum of their parts. Thus it becomes
integral to the theme of this book – Systems Thinking, where understanding the
system as a whole has the potential of creating impact much greater than the sum
of its individual components. How can we then use the new ‘digital’ tools of this era
to exponentially increase the potential of systems thinking?
Evolution of the Evolutionary Learning Laboratories

The Evolutionary Learning Laboratories (ELLabs) have been very successful in
bringing systems thinking out of the theoretical world to actually creating an impact
83
in the real world. It demonstrated that a change in the way we think about
approaching problems has a major impact not only on the solutions that are derived
but also on our understanding of the entire system with respect to the problem as a
whole.
Figure 9.1: Relationship between the ELLab steps and the Think2Impact platforms
84
The progression in the evolution of the ELLab would naturally be then to embrace
technologies presented to us by the era we live in and use it to further the impact it
had already started to create. The Think2Impact platform intends to do exactly this
– leverage emerging technologies to transform exponentially the quality, speed and
breadth of the traditional ELLabs framework (Figure 9.1).
Think2Impact
Think2Impact takes the ELLabs framework and uses online technologies to integrate
it with traditional learning and management methods, in turn taking systems
thinking to a wider global audience through a scalable online global platform (Figure
9.2). Through its collaborative and community driven approach, it aims at:
Identifying and addressing the right problem
Leveraging the combined intelligence of a cross disciplinary panel of experts
and the global audience to advise and facilitate solution building
Building a big picture defining dependencies and multi-causal relationships
within a complex problem
Enabling forecasting of impact to avoid unforeseen consequences
Iterating quickly and repeatedly to focus on moving targets
Evolving innovative solutions that are people and sustainability focused
Tracking and analysing impact of interventions
Figure 9.2: Reaching and collaborating worldwide through virtual workshops, sharing of
knowledge, innovations and discussion boards
85
Functionally, the Think2Impact framework is made up of four complementary parts
that allows you to:
Access an extensive repertoire of curated systems related knowledge and case
studies, Learn about theories and practical application of systems thinking as well
as test its application, Engage and collaborate with the community to start and
conduct projects to create sustainable solutions and finally track and analyse the
Impact of the interventions and solutions in the long term.
Think2Impact™ addresses the two important needs of the knowledge economy –
‘creation of knowledge’ by bringing together people to work on projects that lead to
solutions and strategies and ‘dissemination of knowledge’ by allowing others to tap
into this source of knowledge. The collaborative nature of the platform means that
everything is co-created, so governments, organisations, aid agencies, universities
and members of the community can all work together towards a common solution
that takes into account all relevant viewpoints.
What does Think2Impact™ want to achieve?

Think2Impact hopes to revolutionise problem solving and help communities and
organisations around the world use systems thinking to address complex challenges.
Solutions emerging from this process will have an innovation and sustainability focus
enabling governments and organisations to operate and thrive in an increasingly
complex environment.
It is also important to mention that the different platforms of Think2Impact can be
used in isolation from the ELLab process. For example, Access could be used as a
platform to publish, share and discuss any systems initiative being undertaken any
place in the world. Learn can be used as a source for formal educational courses
and executive training programs (including online) and to obtain a certificate in, for
example, Program Management.
It is a systems thinking tool for EVERYONE to make the important
journey from THEORY to IMPACT.
You are invited to explore this problem solving and systems thinking tool at:
www.think2impact.org
86
Bibliography
1 R.L. Ackoff, Ackoff's Best: His Classic Writings on Management (New York,
USA: Wiley, 1999).
2 R.L. Ackoff, The Arts of Problem Solving (New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons,
1987).
3 T.F.H. Allen, 'Making Liveable Sustainable Systems Unremarkable', Systems
Research and Behavioral Science, 27 (2010), 469-79.
4 H.E. Allison, and R.J. Hobbs, Science and Policy in Natural Resource
Management: Understanding System Complexity (UK: Cambridge University
Press, 2006).
5 K.E. Banson, N.C. Nguyen, O.J.H. Bosch, and T.V. Nguyen, 'A Systems
Thinking Approach to Address the Complexity of Agribusiness for Sustainable
Development in Africa: A Case Study in Ghana', Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, In Press (2015), DOI: 10.1002/sres.2270.
6 A.A. Bogdanov, The Universal Science of Organization (Tektologia). 1996
Edition Published as Bogdanov's Tektology, Book 1. Dudley, P. (Ed.),
Sadovsky, V.N., Kartashov, A., Kelle, V. and Bystrov, P. (Translators) (Hull,
UK: Centre for Systems Studies Press, 1913-1917).
7 O.J.H. Bosch, C.A. King, J.L. Herbohn, I.W. Russell, and C.S. Smith, 'Getting
the Big Picture in Natural Resource Management - Systems Thinking as
'Method' for Scientists, Policy Makers and Other Stakeholders', Systems
Research and Behavioral Science, 24 (2007), 217-32.
8 O.J.H. Bosch, and N.C. Nguyen, 'Establishing Systems-Based Evolutionary
Learning Laboratories for Labor Saving Innovations for Women Smallholder
Farmers', Poster presented at the Business Systems Laboratory 2nd
International Symposium “SYSTEMS THINKING FOR A SUSTAINABLE
ECONOMY: Advancements in Economic and Managerial Theory and Practice”
ed. by Gandolfo Dominici (January 23-24, 2014, Universitas Mercatorum,
Roma, Italy, 2014).
9 O.J.H. Bosch, N.C. Nguyen, and K. Krishnamurthi, 'Systems-Based
Evolutionary Learning Laboratories to Enable Systemic Entrepreneurship in a
Complex World', Invited Keynote Address at the 10th HSSS National &
International Conference (Athens, Greece, 2014).
87
10 O.J.H. Bosch, N.C. Nguyen, T. Maeno, and T. Yasui, 'Managing Complex
Issues through Evolutionary Learning Laboratories', Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, 30 (2013), 116-35.
11 O.J.H. Bosch, N.C. Nguyen, and D. Sun, 'Addressing the Critical Need for a
"New Way of Thinking" in Dealing with Complex Issues Facing Our Societies
(Best Paper Award)', Business Systems Review, 2 (2013), 48-70 (Special
Issue - Selected papers of the first B.S.Lab International Symposium).
12 O.J.H. Bosch, A.H. Ross, and R.J.S. Beeton, 'Integrating Science and
Management through Collaborative Learning and Better Information
Management', Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 20 (2003), 107-18.
13 L.M. Bourne, 'Project Relationships and the Stakeholder Circle', in PMI
Research Conference (16-19 July, Montreal, Canada, 2006).
14 A. Brooks, 'Enhancing the Effectiveness of Projects on Cat Ba Island - an
Evaluation of Ten Years of International Support', (Hanoi, Vietnam: IUCN
Vietnam Country Office, 2006).
15 D. Cabrera, L. Colosi, and C. Lobdell, 'Systems Thinking', Evaluation and
Program Planning, 31 (2008), 299-310.
16 J. Cain, C. Batchelor, and D. Waughray, 'Belief Networks: A Framework for
the Participatory Development of Natural Resource Management Strategies',
Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1 (1999), 123–33.
17 P. Checkland, Systems Thinking, Systems Practice (Chichester, UK: John
Wiley & Sons, 1981).
18 P. Checkland, Systems Thinking, Systems Practice: Includes a 30 Year
Retrospective (Chichester, UK: Wiley, 1999).
19 H.J. Chen, Y.H. Tsai, S.H. Chang, and K.H. Lin, 'Bridging the Systematic
Thinking Gap between East and West: An Insight into the Yin-Yang-Based
System Theory', Systemic Practice and Action Research, 23 (2010), 173-89.
20 Z. Dawkins, 'The Social Impact of People-Oriented Conservation on Cat Ba
Island, Viet Nam', Canberra: Australian National University, Research School
of Pacific and Asian Studies, Resource Management in Asia-Pacific Program
(Working Paper 68), 2007).
21 S. W. Dekker, 'We Have Newton on a Retainer: Reductionism When We Need
Systems Thinking', Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety /
Joint Commission Resources, 36 (2010), 147-49.
22 M. Dodgson, A. Hughes, J. Foster, and S. Metcalfe, 'Systems Thinking, Market
Failure, and the Development of Innovation Policy: The Case of Australia',
Research Policy, 40 (2011), 1145-56.
88
23 A. N. Donald, Living with Complexity (US: MIT Press, 2010).
24 A.A. Elias, 'Towards a Shared Systems Model of Stakeholders in
Environmental Conflict', International Transactions in Operational Research,
15 (2008), 239-53.
25 F.E. Emery, ed., Systems Thinking (Volumes 1 and 2) (Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1981).
26 A. Espinosa, Complexity Approach to Sustainability: Theory and Application
(London, UK: Imperial College Press, 2011).
27 R.L. Flood, and W.J. Gregory, 'Systems: Past, Present, and Future', in
Systems Prospects: The Next Ten Years of Systems Research , ed. by R.L.
Flood, M.C. Jackson and P. Keys (New York, USA: Plenum, 1988).
28 C. Francois, 'International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics', (2nd
ed.). Munchen: Saur, 2004).
29 K. Galanakis, 'Innovation Process. Make Sense Using Systems Thinking',
Technovation, 26 (2006), 1222-32.
30 J. Gharajedaghi, Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity : A
Platform for Designing Business Architecture (3rd Edition) (Burlington:
Morgan Kaufmann, 2011).
31 T.M. Ha, O.J.H. Bosch, and N.C. Nguyen, 'Applying an Evolutionary Learning
Laboratory Approach for Improving the Quality of Life for Women Smallholder
Farmers in the Red River Delta of Vietnam', in European Meetings on
Cybernetics and Systems Research (EMCSR) (Vienna, Austria, 2014).
32 S.G. Haines, The Complete Guide to Systems Thinking & Learning (MA, USA:
HRD Press, 2000).
33 D. Hammond, The Science of Synthesis: Exploring the Social Implications of
General Systems Theory (Colorado, USA: University Press of Colorado, 2003).
34 B. Hannon, and M. Ruth, Dynamic Modeling. 2nd edn (New York, USA:
Springer, 2000).
35 G. Harris, Seeking Sustainability in an Age of Complexity (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2007).
36 D. Helbing, Managing Complexity: Insights, Concepts, Applications: Insights,
Concepts, Applications (Dordrecht: Springer, 2007).
37 E.G. Herrscher, 'Why Is Systemic Thinking “Difficult to Sell”?', in Critical Issues
in Systems Theory and Practice, ed. by K. Ellis, A. Gregory, B. Mears-Young
and G. Ragsdell (New York, USA: Plenum Press, 1995), pp. 45-49.
89
38 W. Hung, 'Enhancing Systems-Thinking Skills with Modelling', British Journal
of Educational Technology, 39 (2008), 1099-120.
39 M.C. Jackson, 'Response and Comments on the Special Issue: 'Systems
Methodology and Social Development: A Global Conversation in China'',
Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 27 (2010), 241-44.
40 M.C. Jackson, Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers (Chichester,
UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2003).
41 J. Jones, O.J.H. Bosch, M. Drack, Y. Horiuchi, and M. Ramage, 'On the Design
of Systems-Oriented University Curricula', Research Reports of Shibaura
Institute of technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering. 53(1), 121-130.
ISSN 0386-3115, 2009).
42 S.E. Jørgensen, and G. Bendoricchio, Fundamentals of Ecological Modelling.
Vol. 3rd ed. (New York, USA: Elsevier, 2001).
43 M. Keegan, and N.C. Nguyen, 'Systems Thinking, Rural Development and
Food Security: Key Leverage Points for Australia’s Regional Development and
Population Policy', Migration Australia (launch issue), 1 (2011), 50-64.
44 D.H. Kim, Introduction to Systems Thinking (MA, USA: Pegasus
Communications, Inc., 1999).
45 J. Kirkbride, and S. Letza, 'Regulation, Governance and Regulatory
Collibration: Achieving an “Holistic” Approach', Corporate Governance: An
International Review, 12 (2004), 85-92.
46 T. Kiura, O.J.H. Bosch, N.C. Nguyen, S. Shirasaka, and T. Maeno, 'Applying a
Systems-Based Evolutionary Learning Laboratory for the Creation of a New
Business', in Proceedings of the Business Systems Laboratory 2nd
International Symposium “SYSTEMS THINKING FOR A SUSTAINABLE
ECONOMY: Advancements in Economic and Managerial Theory and Practice”
ed. by G. Dominici (23-24 January 2014, Universitas Mercatorum, Roma,
Italy, 2014).
47 T. Kiura, O.J.H. Bosch, N.C. Nguyen, T. Yasui, and T. Maeno, 'Using a
Systems-Based Evolutionary Learning Laboratory to Address the "Neet" (Not
in Employment, Education, or Training) Issue in Japan', in Proceedings of the
57th World Conference of the International Society for the Systems Sciences
(Haiphong, Vietnam, 14-19 July 2013, 2013).
48 A. Lee, 'Health-Promoting Schools: Evidence for a Holistic Approach to
Promoting Health and Improving Health Literacy', Appl Health Econ Health
Policy, 7 (2009), 11-17.
49 K. Maani, and V. Maharraj, 'Links between Systems Thinking and Complex
Decision-Making', System Dynamics Review, 20 (2004), 21-48.
90
50 K.E. Maani, and R.Y. Cavana, Systems Thinking, System Dynamics: Managing
Change and Complexity. 2nd. edn (Auckland, NZ: Prentice Hall, 2007).
51 D. Meadows, Leverage Points: Place to Intervene in a System (Hartland, VT,
USA: The Sustainability Institute, 1999).
52 D. Meadows, Thinking in Systems: A Primer (Edited by Diana Wright,
Sustainability Institute) (USA: Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 2008).
53 G. Midgley, Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology, and Practice
(New York, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000).
54 G. Midgley, 'Systems Thinking for Evaluation', in Systems Concepts in
Evaluation: An Expert Anthology, ed. by G. Midgley and I. Imam (Point Reyes,
CA, USA: Edge Press, 2006), pp. 11-34.
55 G. Midgley, ed., Systems Thinking (Volumes 1-4) (London, UK: Sage, 2003).
56 J. Mingers, and L. White, 'A Review of the Recent Contribution of Systems
Thinking to Operational Research and Management Science', European
Journal of Operational Research, 207 (2010), 1147-61.
57 J.C. Mingers, Realising Systems Thinking: Knowledge and Action in
Management Science (New York, USA: Springer, 2006).
58 D. Newell, 'Concepts in the Study of Complexity and Their Possible Relation to
Chiropractic Health Care: A Scientific Rationale for a Holistic Approach',
Clinical Chiropractic, 6 (2003), 15-33.
59 N.C. Nguyen, and O.J.H. Bosch, 'A Systems Thinking Approach to Identify
Leverage Points for Sustainability: A Case Study in the Cat Ba Biosphere
Reserve, Vietnam', Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 30 (2013), 104-
15.
60 N.C. Nguyen, O.J.H. Bosch, and K.E. Maani, 'Creating 'Learning Laboratories'
for Sustainable Development in Biospheres: A Systems Thinking Approach',
61 N.C. Nguyen, O.J.H. Bosch, T.V. Nguyen, and H.D. Dan, 'Using an
Evolutionary Learning Laboratory Apporach to Establish a Systemic
Governance Plan for the Sustainable Development of Haiphong City, Vietnam',
Systems Design and Complexity Management Alliance, Univeristy of Adelaide
Business School, Australia and Haiphong People Committee, Vietnam
(Working Report), 2013), pp. 1-69.
62 N.C. Nguyen, D. Graham, H. Ross, K. Maani, and O.J.H. Bosch, 'Educating
Systems Thinking for Sustainability: Experience with a Developing Country',
91
63 N.C. Nguyen, O.J.H. Bosch, and K.E. Maani, 'The Importance of Systems
Thinking and Practice for Creating Biosphere Reserves as "Learning
Laboratories for Sustainable Development"', in Proceedings of the
International Society for the Systems Sciences 2009 Conference (The
University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, 2009).
64 T.V. Nguyen, O.J.H. Bosch, and N.C. Nguyen, 'Using an Evolutionary Learning
Laboratory Approach to Establish a World First Model for Integrated
Governance of Haiphong, Vietnam', in Plenary Paper, Proceedings of the 57th
World Conference of the International Society for the Systems Sciences
(Haiphong, Vietnam, 14-19 July 2013, 2013).
65 S.T. Ohnishi, and T. Ohnishi, 'Philosophy, Psychology, Physics and Practice of
Ki', Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 6 (2009), 175-
83.
66 M. Pimbert, J. Thompson, B. Vorley, T. Fox, N. Kanji, and C. Tacoli, 'Global
Restructuring, Agri-Food Systems and Livelihoods, Gatekeeper Series 100',
International Institute for Environment and Development, London, (2003)
<http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/9166IIED.pdf> [Accessed 11 January 2009].
67 S.A. Quatro, D.A. Waldman, and B.M. Galvin, 'Developing Holistic Leaders:
Four Domains for Leadership Development and Practice', Human Resource
Management Review, 17 (2007), 427-41.
68 H. Ross, and N. Abel, 'Eliciting Mental Models of Landscape Processes: The
Transect Method', in People and Physical Environment Research Conference:
Environment-Behaviour Research on the Pacific Rim, ed. by G.T. Moore, J.
Hunt and L. Trevillion (Faculty of Architecture, University of Sydney, Australia,
2000).
69 B. Sawin, H. Hamilton, and A. Jones, Commodity System Challenges: Moving
Sustainability into the Mainstream of Natural Resource Economies (Hartland,
USA: Sustainability Institute, 2003).
70 P.M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization (New York, USA: Doubleday/Currency, 1990).
71 P.M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization (Revised and Updated) (New York, USA: Random House, Inc.,
2006).
72 D. Sherwood, Seeing the Forest for the Trees: A Manager's Guide to Applying
Systems Thinking (London, UK: Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2002).
73 C. Smith, L. Felderhof, and O.J.H. Bosch, 'Adaptive Management: Making It
Happen through Participatory Systems Analysis', Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, 24 (2007), 567-87.
92
74 T. Smith, 'Using Critical Systems Thinking to Foster an Integrated Approach to
Sustainability: A Proposal for Development Practitioners', Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 13 (2011), 1-17.
75 J.D. Sterman, Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a
Complex World (Boston, USA: Irwin McGraw-Hill, 2000).
76 R. Struthers, and V.S. Eschiti, 'Being Healed by an Indigenous Traditional
Healer: Sacred Healing Stories of Native Americans. Part II', Complementary
Therapies in Clinical Practice, 11 (2005), 78-86.
77 Ventana Systems, 'Vensim Program, Ventana Systems UK'
<http://www.ventanasystems.co.uk/> [Accessed 11 January 2015].
78 J. Thompson, and I. Scoones, 'Addressing the Dynamics of Agri-Food

Systems: An Emerging Agenda for Social Science Research', Environmental
Science & Policy, 12 (2009), 386-97.
79 L. von Bertalanffy, 'General Systems Theory', General Systems, 1 (1956), 1-
10.
80 L. von Bertalanffy, 'General Systems Theory - a Critical Review', General
Systems, 7 (1962), 1-20.
81 B. Vorley, 'Sustaining Agriculture: Policy, Governance, and the Future of
Family Based Farming', International Institute for Environment and
Development, London, (2002)
<http://www.poptel.org.uk/iied////sarl/pubs/exec_summ/9175.html.> [Accessed 11 May
2008]
82 B.W. Walker, D.J. Porter, and I. Marsh, 'Fixing the Hole in Australia’s
Heartland: How Government Needs to Work in Remote Australia', Desert
Knowledge Australia, Alice Springs, Australia, 2012).
83 G.H. Walker, N.A. Stanton, D.P. Jenkins, and P.M. Salmon, 'From Telephones
to Iphones: Applying Systems Thinking to Networked, Interoperable
Products', Applied Ergonomics, 40 (2009), 206-15.
84 G.M. Weinberg, An Introduction to General Systems Thinking. Silver
anniversary ed. (New York, USA: Dorset House Publishing, 2001).
85 J. Wilson, Changing Agriculture: An Introduction to Systems Thinking. 2nd
edn (QLD, Australia: Print on Demand Centre, University of Queensland
Bookshop, 2004).
86 T. Younos, 'Paradigm Shift: Holistic Approach for Water Management in Urban
Environments', Frontiers of Earth Science, 5 (2011), 421-27.
87 Z. Zhu, 'Systems Approaches: Where the East Meets the West?', World
Futures, 53 (1999), 253-76.
93
About the authors
The authors launching Think2Impact on top of the Swiss Alps, January 2015
Professor Ockie Bosch B.Sc. M.Sc. D.Sc.
Ockie was Head of the School of Integrative Systems at the University of Queensland in Australia
from 2002 to 2011. In 2012 he founded the Systems Design and Complexity Management Alliance at
the University of Adelaide Business School and is currently the leader. He is a Vice President of the
International Society for the Systems Sciences and an academician of the prestigious International
Academy for Systems and Cybernetic Sciences. He is currently a Consortial Partner of the Systemic
Excellence Group (Head Office in Berlin, Germany) and a member of the Scientific Board and
Honorary Board member of the Business Systems Laboratory in Italy. He is also a Director of
Think2Impact Pty Ltd and SysPrac Pty Ltd. In January 2015 he was appointed as Distinguished Guest
Professor in the Graduate School of Systems Design and Management, Keio University, Japan.
Ockie has published more than 140 journal papers, book chapters, and papers presented at various
national and international conferences, many as an invited keynote speaker.
Homepage: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/ockie.bosch
Dr Nam Nguyen B.Econ. M.Agribus. PhD.

Nam is a co-founder of the internationally linked Systems Design and Complexity Management
Alliance. He has been awarded a number of nationally and internationally competitive academic
fellowships and research grants (worth more than $1M). Nam is also a recipient of the prestigious
2011 Australian Leadership Award; a Vice President (2012-13) of the International Society for the
Systems Sciences (ISSS) and a Vice President (2014-16) of the International Federation for Systems
Research (IFSR). He is currently the formal representative (in Australia and Vietnam) of the Malik
Institute for Complexity Management, Governance and Leadership, Switzerland and a member of the
Scientific Board of the Business Systems Laboratory, Italy. Nam is also a co-founder of Think2Impact
Pty Ltd and a Director of SysPrac Pty Ltd, Australia.
Nam has published more than 50 journal papers, book chapters, and papers in proceedings of a
number of national and international conferences.
Homepage: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/nam.nguyen
94
95
96

TEXT BOOK - Systems Thinking For EVERYONE Bosch and Nguyen 2015 PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

TEXT BOOK - Systems Thinking For EVERYONE Bosch and Nguyen 2015 PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Systems Practitioner

Ockie Bosch & Nam Nguyen

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry:

Stephen Hayes MBE

Professor Gary Metcalf

Professor Takashi Maeno

Chapter 1 The journey starts!.....................................................................................4

Why systems thinking ............................................................................................. 5

Do we need to run away from complexity? ..............................................................15

Chapter 3 Is everyone part of the journey?.............................................................22

The importance of involving all relevant stakeholders ...............................................23

Chapter 4 Discovering the big picture….…………………………………………….….……………..30

Building capacity for stakeholders ...........................................................................31

Chapter 5 What does the big picture tell me?.........................................................38

Use a systems model to identify relationships and interactions between components..39

Chapter 6 Addressing leverage points in a systemic way…………….………………………48

What is a Bayesian Belief Network (BBN)? ...............................................................49

Chapter 7 Implementation of Integrated Systemic Management…………..…………..62

Importance of systemically based implementation ....................................................63

You would never have a ‘perfect’ model to deal with complexity……………………….…….73

Chapter 9……and finally our journey leads to Think2Impact………………………………82

The changing paradigm..........................................................................................83

About the authors……………………………………………………..……………………94

Systems thinking for everyone?

Critical to the success of any problem management exercise is the continued

Figure 1.1: The six blind men and an elephant

The complexity of any system that we have to deal with

Small challenges for you

High blood pressure

2. A degree program at a University is normally a collection of courses. How could

List of selected further readings

1. Meadows D. 2008. Thinking in Systems: A Primer (Edited by Diana Wright),

It is not only the ‘privilege’ of systems scientists to ‘tame’

Moving away from ‘quick-fixes’ and linear thinking

The iceberg approach versus the systems-based approach

Figure 2.1: The Iceberg Approach versus a Systems Approach

The systems-based Evolutionary Learning Laboratory

Figure 2.2: Evolutionary Learning Laboratory for managing complex issues

The interpretation leads to the identification of leverage points for systemic

Small challenges for you

List of selected further readings

Different mental models

How to gather the mental models (opinions, perceptions,

Figure 3.1: Workshop to gather the mental models of all stakeholders

How to put the mental models into key themes

Small challenges for you

List of selected further readings

TO PROVIDE A ‘BIG PICTURE’

Reinforcing and Balancing loops

Small challenges for you

List of selected further readings

1. Kim DH. 1999. Introduction to Systems Thinking. Pegasus Communications,

Systems archetypes – generic structures

Examples of systems archetypes and leverage points

Figure 5.2: Tourism development as a ‘limits to growth’ systems archetype

Figure 5.4: Carrying capacities as a ‘tragedy of the commons’ systems archetype

In this systems structure, the management principle is to manage the ‘commons’,

Figure 5.5: International aid as a ‘shifting the burden’ systems archetype

Small challenges for you

List of selected further readings

2. Meadows D. 1999. Leverage points: Place to intervene in a System. The

Figure 6.1: Components of a Bayesian Belief Network Model

Figure 6.2: A simple BBN model illustrating testing of different scenarios