I believe the institutional culture was  not modified to encourage and motivate such approach which is considered to be a catalyst for innovation and creativity in problem solving.

À la lettre, systems thinking is a product from the 1960s. Much water has run under the bridge since then. The novelty and challenging force of systems thinking has altogether vanished. That is, ST was cooped by the establishment, and thus it has become completely innocuous. 

It' s time we thought about other alternatives. I like asking to my students: do any of you  still listen to music such as the the Bee Gees or Johnny Cash, f.i.? No one? You guys like, say, Rihanna, Ariana Grande and Victorious? Well,  then stop sung and referring to ST, unless you have a historical interest; period.

This is to Mr. Manjunath Sulur who has asked me to define "Systems Thinking". Systems thinking is an approach to understand complex systems and solve problems therein by focusing on the system as a whole rather than focusing on a particular part or a perspective. 

Systems thinking is a way to conceptualize the world and to achieve insights into complex interactions and problems. Many businesses have embraced it as a recipe for changed and expected quick returns. Inevitably, this has led to disappointment and a search for the next quick fix formula. There can be no end to this search, since there isn't one. This is not a matter of fashion -  'Quick fix' methodologies can yield quick returns but only systemic thinking leads to sustainability.

In my opinion, I don't think if we need a new paradigm or a new paradigm can solve the problem. Systems thinking is complete in itself. It would be wrong to say that systems thinking has failed. Implementation of systems-oriented solutions could fail in many cases due several reasons such as lack of knowledge about the system, bounded rationality, data unavailability and partial compliance of various actors in the system. Systems thinking provide us solutions of Utopian/ideal/ nature. These solutions may face 'policy resistance' during their implementation phase due to various reasons mentioned earlier and because of non-ideal nature of systems which we try to understand using systems thinking.

There is a profound discussion on such issues in:  'Thinking in Systems' by Donella Meadows, some papers by Peter Checkland, also, a classical book on systems thinking by Churchman. 

Systems thinking can seem like a misnomer to some. The so called systems thinking approach provides one with a conceptual framework (almost a tool) via which one can view organizational management challenges via a different lens.

The thinking part of this so called approach of course can not be delivered via the framework itself. The thinking part is delivered by the individuals who have embraced the concepts that are facilitated by possessing the framework.

Systems Thinking (and its twin Cybernetics) was never intended as a theory or methodology that delivered concrete answers to research and management problems but. Rather it was intended as a conceptual framework where concrete methods and models could be fitted. As Deborah Jean Verran already pointed out – the users of any Systems Approach have to do the thinking themselves. 

There is plenty of literature about Systems Thinking. Have a look at the works of George Klir, Ervin Laszlo, C. West Churchman, Stafford Beer, Jay Forrester, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Stuart Umpleby.

I agree with you Carlos.  I believe one of the failings of Systems Theory is that, by definition, it conceptualises an organisation as a stable entity; in other words something with a defined structure.  While that is generally true, it is not helpful in the context of solving problems.  Increasingly, with flatter decision making organisational structures, employees at lower levels are being asked to solve problems, which is, inherently, a cross disciplinary activity (in other words, making connections that are not necessarily logically derived).  Take communications as an example.  One can 'map' the formal paths of communication within an organisation, but the real value (particularly in the context of innovation) comes from the informal communication networks that individuals establish to solve particular problems.  These are often fleeting and not susceptible to formal modelling, but critical to innovation.  I only mean communications as an example.  There are others.

This might be of interest:

Emergence: Complexity & Organization. An International Transdisciplinary Journal of Complex Social Systems 

http://emergentpublications.com/ECO/issue_contents.aspx?Volume=11&Issue=2&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

Systems thinking has been used by professionals (often external consultancies) to help redesign systems. One could argue that disappointment arises as a result of the phase in which the system requires redesign and conflict between expectation and the appropriate level of complexity required for the system to accomplish its goals.

I apologise for the slightly reductionist and crude example!

If we take a start-up business, a summer lemonade stand for example:

In its initial phases the lemonade stand develops in both complexity and sustainable growth. It starts off as a small table selling fresh, handmade lemonade. However, realising it has potential, an electric juicer is added into the process and a helper is required. This phase sees increased complexity in the system but it is a manageable level and is necessary to sustain growth.

The problem occurs when the system reaches a phase of crisis. The lemonade stand has now become a shop selling refreshments, including snacks and hot drinks to survive the winter trade. There is now licencing requirements, a complicated staff roster, tax, and many other issues to consider. The system has become complex to the point where actors in this system have started to game in an attempt to avoid some complexity. This could materialise as something as simple as staff members not adhering fully to the required cleaning procedures. The resulting EHO audit reveals that you have failed due to lack of cleanliness. The system is now in crisis and the failed audit is a catalyst for change.

In a redesign phase an expert is hired and uses systems thinking to advise on how the problem occurred and what the solution is. The expert studies the lemonade stand and advises that some complexity should be removed from the system. Focus on serving the best quality lemonade to one customer at a time with cleaning after each customer and using the easier to clean but less productive manual juicer.

This method works fine when it’s part of the system evaluation. However, when an attempt is made to initiate the changes, they only work for a short time. This is because the lemonade stand can't meet demand or sustain itself when working in this less complex way. So the complexity is slowly added back into the system, the lemonade stand is working until it reaches another crisis and has to redesign again, and the lemonade stand owner feels pretty disappointed that systems thinking didn't seem to work the first time.

This is an interesting answer but I take issue with it on a couple of points. First, the idea that an 'expert' can use systems thinking to generate advice. Of course, s/he can do so but it unlikely to be good advice unless discussion/analysis was conducted with the active involvement of those working within the business. They are the relevant 'experts'. Secondly, Systems thinking is not a method. It is a way of thinking about the world. Some people have used it to design methodologies, i.e. frameworks for applying this type of thinking in problem structuring or design, but these are not 'methods' in the sense that I understand the word. Disappointment often arises when people imagine ST as a method that will simplify their complex issues.

I suggest that the issues in Craig's suggested scenario relate to boundary setting (see, e.g. Ulrich, 2002. A system is a mental construct which changes when any element changes. A refreshment stand is therefore conceptually different from a lemonade stand with a wider boundary its complexities have not just increased but are different. This is just where Systems thinking can be most helpful.

Thank you for considering my answer so comprehensively Christine. I agree in principle with some of your comments.

I am also critical of the idea that an 'expert' can use systems thinking to generate advice. However, despite our critique, such work is being undertaken by consultants (I have experienced this first hand) and, as part of the process, they are actively involving those working in the system. It is this method that I imagined our expert using in my rather quaint scenario. Additionally, I make no reference to the advice in the scenario being 'good'. 

As regards systems thinking not being a method, I also agree, as a researcher it is not how I would traditionally understand the term. However, the question relates to why ST does not meet the expectations of professionals as a problem solving tool. I don't see how this can be adequately answered without reference to a practical application of ST to solving something. A practical method of systematic review that encompasses ST, even if he/she is unaware of the ethos of ST, is where I have experienced ST having a relationship with practitioners to identify problems. Using it to design methodologies, as you suggest.

I like the concept of boundary settings, I shall read up more on this and thank you for bringing it to my attention (I am new to complexity theory and ST and seek theoretical development on the topic). However, I suppose I see the refreshment stand's development not to be the generating of separate system or a change in the boundaries. Rather, I see it as evidence that it has the characteristics of a complex adaptive system, an evolution of the original system as it cycles through the phases of a complexity and gets trapped in a cycle of its own crisis and redesign, in an attempt to avoid risk (in this case, another failed EHO visit).

I agree Craig, that the example you give can be seen as a complex adaptive system. In boundary shifting, it is our thinking that we shift and not any aspect of the 'real-world' phenomena that we are interested in. 

http://wulrich.com/

Thanks Craig and Christine for attempting this question. I had raised this question couple of weeks ago and only now it has gained momentum. Viable System Model (VSM) talks about systems changing their primary identity midway- a lemonade stand becoming a refreshment stand. It is also well supported by systems theory that systems must acquire complexity in order to survive. Stafford Beer in VSM defines viability as a property of systems. A system is said to be viable if it fulfils its purpose in its environment while maintaining its identity. Identity preservation is critical for system viability in Viable System Model framework. Does this create a paradox?

Identity maintenance must be part of a viable system if this is a critical factor in viability. I don't see this as a paradox. It is perhaps worthwhile to consider Vickers' work.Vfickers pointed out that we often see business organizations as goal seeking entities but their activities can better be viewed as efforts to maintain relationship to their environment - analogous to a boat needing to remain afloat in uncertain waters.

I disagree with Andre regarding the nature of Systems thinking. Some Systems thinkers have conceptualised organizations as stable entities but many more have not. Vickers' work on relationship maintaining springs to mind, in which he uses the metaphor of a boat attempting to stay afloat and keep the water on the outside. Others, e.g. De Zeuuw, Bednar (2007) have specifically discussed organizations at dynamic open systems. It is this dynamic that makes ST difficult for professionals to exploit, since it requires the thinker to 'travel in hope', rather than arriving at a specific destination. None of the forms of ST (even, for instance, Seddon's Vanguard method) promises to solve problems for you, only to help you structure your thinking about them in a way that embraces inherent complexities.

I disagree with Andre regarding the nature of Systems thinking. Some Systems thinkers have conceptualised organizations as stable entities but many more have not. Vickers' work on relationship maintaining springs to mind, in which he uses the metaphor of a boat attempting to stay afloat and keep the water on the outside. Others, e.g. De Zeuuw, Bednar (2007) have specifically discussed organizations at dynamic open systems. It is this dynamic that makes ST difficult for professionals to exploit, since it requires the thinker to 'travel in hope', rather than arriving at a specific destination. None of the forms of ST (even, for instance, Seddon's Vanguard method) promises to solve problems for you, only to help you structure your thinking about them in a way that embraces inherent complexities.

Your question is excellent, and should periodically be discussed. You seem to be assuming that the problem lies with Systems Thinking which is not the case. The problem is in an unwillingness to change. This can be due to any number of reasons. I hope the attached article will be of some help. 

I think the basic answer to your question is that systems thinking fails because it is founded on a false premise - that complex aggregates of dynamic relations can be treated as individuals ('systems') with individual dynamic relations. People have always done this as a way of simplifying things but it very easily leads to errors. The way forward is to move away from systems thinking and study the component dynamic relations in their own terms - and then learn how to integrate them. This leads to an understanding that is usually impossible to communicate simply in a lecture or textbook. It needs practical know-how of the sort that you get after a four year PhD, or perhaps fifteen years as a senior academic. Systems thinking is thus an illusory short cut. All the complex dynamics that get included in systems textbooks were already there being used by people who would not want to be called systems thinkers and continue to be so used. 

Systems thinking is particularly pernicious in biology and has now come to dominate the field as politicos looking for a quick result have taken over research fund bidding. It is a major reason why many areas of biomedical research have stalled in terms of major new conceptual developments. Neurobiology is perhaps the most egregious example. Brains are not dynamic individuals. So we have to pose our questions in relation to something else.

Unfortunately, the interdependent, dynamic relations are what actually constitute the phenomena of interest in many cases. Efforts to simplify and re-integrate are unlikely to be useful, particularly in human activity systems. To break down relationships for examination is fine providing you remember that this is only mental modelling. The danger is that we lose sight of the phenomenon we are trying to understand. An analogy is textual analysis. It is meaningful to break a text down into paragraphs or sentences, providing the relationships that make them meaningful in context are not forgotten. However, looking at individual words is of limited value, and to break the text down into the component letters becomes absurd. 

Going back lack to the original question, I believe it is in the expectations of the professionals that the difficulty lies. If you are looking for a tool to simplify your problems and help you find solutions, you will be disappointed in an approach that seeks to complexify and deliver deepened understandings.

I disagree, Christine. The reality is what happens. Particular events. The 'phenomenon of interest' is the mental modelling. The patient's low blood calcium or the money in the bank are real. Whether 'the business venture succeeded' is merely a heuristic construct. Systems theorists end up breaking things down into dynamic components just as we always did. The error is to suggest that somehow 'the whole is greater than the parts', which the possibility of computer modelling shows to be plain false. 

The word analogy is a bad red herring. Words have no dynamic relations in themselves so are not the component dynamic units of language. The component dynamic units of language are propositions, or statements - the minimal truth evaluable units. If in chapter three it says 'John died.' then that is a valid dynamic unit that will work in the story or in the chapter or in the paragraph. Nobody is suggesting that individual dynamic units are removed from context - that is what systems theory encourages - it makes people think in contextual boxes that do not necessarily apply. Maybe the business venture failed but the CEO made sure he paid himself a nice big severance payment, so there IS money in the bank and that is what matters to him.

I agree that systems theory, like yoga lessons, is a poor quick route to understanding. However, the progress I have made with real complex dynamic problems in biomedicine has largely been due to throwing away other people's concepts of 'systems' and building up the dynamics from realities. 

What systems theory completely misses is that aggregate dynamic units CAN show dynamics that goes beyond their parts - but this occurs by the acquisition of completely independent new dynamic units. An example is the latent heat of melting of ice. This can only be explained by positing a completely new dynamic unit that is not the aggregate of water molecules and so has NO parts. It is not the whole that is greater than its parts. It is that many parts in a whole may come to be associated with some new partless dynamic component. Electrical conductivity is another example.

I think Jonathan that we would never agree because of the proposition that some things are 'real'. Money in the bank has no reality analogous to calcium in the blood stream. Money is simply a mental construct used to represent relations between people . Banks create it by putting an entry into an account. Organisations have no 'reality' but are an emergent property of dynamic relations between people and are thus ephemeral and open to differing interpretations. Not only is 'the whole greater than the sum of its parts' (to borrow from GST) but so potentially is every part greater than the whole.

I think there could be multiple answers to the first question, and all of them are complementary. Some of them are related to the following subquestions:

1. What type of system do we refer to when talking about "systems thinking"? Do we mean a system as an aggregate - an entity composed of elements, with its internal structure (a white box model) - or do we understand it as a transformator tool (in which case we do not refer to the internal structure). This kind of "whole" does not need parts.

In practice, systems thinking does not differentiate between the two types of systems, thus the functions of systems (eg. "increasing the level of..."), mix with the actions of subsystems capable of influencing the processes (eg. people, departments, organizations). In effect, the heuristic value of ST is undermined.

This shows how important it is to know exactly what is the level of analysis and what specific system does one have in mind in its application.

2. Is it necessary, and possible to include the "professionals' expectations" into the system?

Systems Thinking didn't pick up as expected because 'people' don't like questions, questioning their own assumptions and folks prefer simple answers, going to their gut feel for these answers.

Another view is that ST would make you more collaborative & relational, many managers want to be dictators.

ST helps you to look at & face your own assumptions & implications in the mirror. Managers & Leaders who could have promoted ST, don't like to face their fears headon. Unfortunately, their fears get infused without logic into decisions which come to bite them. Instead of blaming themselves and get punished for wrong decisions, they look for someone else to blame.

But no matter how we run, ST would still catch up with us and overtake us.

It is because the concept "system" is itself is not well understood.

The problem is not with systems thinking as a tool, WE are the problem; with our mental models, furthermore, to implement systems thinking each single employee needs to be included "from the front-line employee to CEO and higher management" -lack of synergy-; moreover WE refuse to confess that we are a part from the problem, and in this case we never can be a part of the solution.