A system is composed of two or more components that interact directly or indirectly and can impact the behaviour of other components and the whole system. In a generalized study, these components are considered systems with their own features, parameters, behaviour, and purpose and, subsequently, are the subsystems of the overarching system. The interactions between subsystems can be direct or non-direct, linear or non-linear. The degree of non-linearity of the interactions depends on the level of complexity of the system and its subsystems—for instance, the effect of temperature or ocean acidity as variables on other subsystems is non-linear, in other words, change in global average temperature from 1.5 to 2.0 has far more adverse effects on the entire Earth system than an increase from 1.0 to 1.5 would have. Another example would be the loss of rainforests to deforestation practices, where each additional percentage in loss makes it significantly more challenging to predict the responses from other subsystems due to the change in the non-linearity of interactions.
The interactions between subsystems could be in a steady state, negligible strength, or time-dependent. For instance, an analog watch is a system of multiple components, each in a steady state condition (the parts don’t change their compositions or behaviour with time), all in direct or indirect interaction. The human body is another example of dynamic subsystems within a larger system where the strengths of interactions and functions vary with time. The number and complexity of subsystems can be chosen according to the scope of the study and be increased to reach the desired state.
Systems thinking is a process that observes and analyzes a system as an aggregate of interacting subsystems and constructs a systematic approach to identify the composition of each subsystem, parameters of interest, behaviour, and function/purpose; additionally, it distinguishes the degree of interactions within and between the subsystems. Systems thinking should be distinct from systematic thinking, commonly utilized as a problem-solving approach where parameters are systematically modified in order to investigate the system’s response and the underlying mechanisms.
In a systems thinking process, the assumptions of linearity, cause-and-effect, or correlation relationships between subsystems are good starting points; however, they often need to be revised; otherwise, it could lead to oversimplification of the system. For instance, marketing variables and employee engagement in a company are assigned to two distinct departments (human resources and marketing) and might appear independent and uncorrelated when studying their effects on quarterly revenue; however, a logical mind would agree that engaged employees (throughout the supply chain and the company itself) bring forth productivity, innovation, brand recognition and loyalty, work ethic and dedication, commitment to learning, and more, all of which impact the short and long-term profit and revenue as marketing campaigns aim to do. Therefore, marketing and human resources are not independent subsystems.
Systems thinking is not an overwhelmingly complex process; in contrast, it’s a process by which a system under examination is simplified by removing layers of complexity to a state in which the system can be understood and explained. The simplification process reduces the subsystems to their most fundamental forms by eliminating components and processes to reach a functional but explainable state. Once the simplest state of the system is understood, the complexity is gradually added to the system, and the process is repeated until the original system can be thoroughly investigated and explained. Furthermore, complexity is added to the system and its subsystems to explore and examine more advanced derivations of the original system. Scientists have been utilizing this progressive approach for centuries to simplify complex problems into one, two, and gradually multi-body systems.
Let’s examine some of the applications of systems thinking. This process doesn’t attempt to solve an engine problem in a car by focusing on the car’s engine alone or its transmission, nor does it ignore the possibility of a related issue in the transmission. Likewise, it doesn’t attempt to improve sales numbers or return on investment in a business using data and variables from a few departments; instead, it considers every subsystem (departments and their functions) in the company and thoroughly examines their constituents, performance, and interactions, in other words, all stakeholders.
The overall performance of a company as a system depends on the performance of each of its subsystems, but to an extent. For instance, a poor-performing subsystem is a weak link in the system; on the other hand, an extremely well-performing subsystem is also an outlier. The efficiency and degree of optimization of a system is a function of every variable and their rate of impact on each subsystem and the whole corresponding system; this is a fundamental concept in multivariable calculus.
An application of broad systems thinking would be in the architecture of a business model right from the outset of the company’s inception. In this approach, all conventional components are evaluated as inter-dependent subsystems within the larger planetary ecosystem, a concept that didn’t exist a few decades ago; now, the adverse effects of irresponsible processes in companies are being noticed in the current global ecosystem because the human and environmental variables had been excluded from the models. These negative effects include the exploitation of natural resources, including groundwater, deforestation, carbon and water footprints, ocean acidification, biodiversity degradation, and many more. In addition to the environmental components, a comprehensive systems approach incorporates the human elements and their subsystems as an integral part of a business. If the human factors are undermined and undervalued, the system fails to operate at its most efficient and productive form.
Another prominent application of systems thinking is the process by which we can reconstruct the framework of the mind. As discussed in previous articles, I define the mind as a framework of virtual entities that each individual has created throughout life. This virtual network consists of nodes and edges, the nodes representing perceptions, perspectives, interpretations, ideas, goals, and concepts. The edges represent the connections and the degree of influence each node has on another. These contents are virtual in the sense that they were created by the individual and may have little to no relevance to the corresponding sources, such as persons or experiences. We often bundle these created entities into groups. These groups each represent a subsystem in the grand system of the mind’s framework. Inside each subsystem, we have given the contents some common attributes, which is why they have ended up in the same subsystem. The intriguing thing is that one entity could belong to multiple subsystems. For instance, the subsystem that governs the dynamics and mechanics of one’s self-esteem may include an ex-partner who caused hurt and pain in the relationship, hence the self-image, but also contributed to the person’s career success, a completely different self-image in a different dimension. This example perfectly portrays the necessity to utilize a systems thinking approach without prejudice.
Systems thinking encourages the individual to observe each subsystem thoroughly, examine the dynamics of the contents within, and try to understand why and how they ended up in the same subsystem. In addition, the individual should explore the impact of each subsystem on others. Through this process, we can see how and why we group people, attribute them with specific characteristics and perceive them accordingly. Systems thinking compels us to recognize that we continuously create virtual subsystems, connect them, and create a complex system- call it the mind. By creating such subsystems of objects that have never existed in the real world and may be completely inaccurate and biased, we are constructing an imaginary world of concepts and keep adding complexity and dependency to them. These dependencies and attachments continuously take away the mind’s degree of freedom and bring suffering; hence, free thinking is impeded because there is just too much complex crap in there. Systems thinking is a conscious and intentional approach to examining complex dynamics of the mind and seeing the necessity to free our minds and ourselves.
Systems thinking should not be labelled as a scientific approach and be dismissed due to its complexity; it’s a logical one that makes sense. Removing vital subsystems from a study is similar to omitting the brain from the analysis of the human body just because of its complexity. Removing such integral components adds bias to systems studies, and bias propagates; consequently, we end up with problems such as water, food, energy, climate change, social and economic inequality, and human rights crises because we removed the human and planetary subsystems from the business models due to their complexity and demand for accountability and the error/bias has propagated to such extents.
Systems thinking doesn’t suggest that all components/subsystems matter; it dictates that all subsystems must be accounted for and included in the system’s examination.
Payman Janbakhsh, Ph.D.