A Workshop: Our Systems Are Not Failing Us … We Are ... · Systems Thinking foundations provide a language and perspective to drive different thinking, decision, action, and interpretation

© 2017 Old Dominion University

A Workshop: Our Systems Are Not Failing Us … We Are Failing Our Systems

May 3, 2017

Chuck Keating, Ph.D.

© 2017 Old Dominion University

Old Dominion University

§ Established 1930, 26,000+ students from 106 countries, 795 Full-time faculty § Degree Programs: 70 undergraduate, 54 Masters, 42 doctoral§ Graduates: 124,000+ from 77 different countries§ Home to the National Centers for System of Systems Engineering (NCSOSE)

– focused on system science based engineering of technologies to improve complex system performance

Located in Norfolk, Virginia, USA

© 2012 NCSOSE3 © Copyright 2017 Old Dominion University

Overview: Purpose and Objectives

3

Provide several simple tools to enhance systems practice003

Introduce several critical concepts for Systems Thinking & their application002

Examine the problem domain for modern system practitioners.01

PURPOSE: Provide an introductory treatment and application of Systems Thinking concepts and tools to enhance practices for dealing with complex systems and their problems

© 2012 NCSOSE4 © Copyright 2017 Old Dominion University4


People talk about systems ……

I hate this !@&*$# System

Trash it and start over

Ignore it and wish it away


But what if systems could talk about people?

I hate those !@&*$# humans, no respect

We should shut down, that’ll show’em

Ignored, abused, they will pay big time for this


© 2016 Old Dominion University © Copyright 2017 Old Dominion University

Force us to make excuses for them

• Operator error• Lax management

oversight• Culture of

complacency• Lack of procedural

controls

Continually Disappoint

• Fail, sometimes catastrophic

• Degrade• Don’t meet

expectations• Late, over budget,

lack performance

Temperamental• Don’t respect

requirements• Change without

warning• Source of great human

suffering• Lack rational logic and

common senseThe

Prosecution rests



There are only two sides to the systems coin – both drive performance

Design

Execution


Systems evolve/develop through three primary means

Accretion ad hoc piecemeal additions without priority or logic

Self-Organization

without external constraint, get what you get

Purposeful Design

Deliberate, with specific aims and design



In Sum: Three Areas of System Failure

Failures of Design

Failures of Development

Failures of

Execution

System Failure

DesignDesign by ‘accretion’, ‘self-organization’, or ‘purposeful’

ExecutionAccounting for ‘emergence’ and ‘increasing system knowledge incorporation’

DevelopmentModifying the system (structure) to accommodate shifts in systems, context, or environment

Can cross the ‘holistic’ spectrum –Tech, Org, Mgt, Hum, Soc, Pol, Political, Inf




Complex System Problem Domain

Conflicting Perspectives

Shifting Demands

Unstable Resources

High Uncertainty

Emergent Situations Solution Urgency

Lack Sufficient Information

Misinformation/defensiveness

Politically Charged

Divergent Stakeholders

Unclear Entry Point

Ambiguous Boundaries

Unintended Consequences

Instabilities Politics

Infrastructure

Social

Information

Culture

Education

Resources

Demographics

Economics

Environment Technology

Laws & Regulations

The Problem Domain -- It’s a tough world out there and getting tougher


5

UncertaintyInterdependence

2

EmergenceComplexity

Ambiguity

5 Problem DomainRealities

Problem Domain in Sum


Scoring (scale 1 - 5, with 1 – more critical , 5 – less critical)

System in Focus

Positive Driving Forces

Score ScoreNegative Restraining Forces

System or System

Problem in Focus

Identification of the positive forces impacting the

situation-in-focus

Each Force is given a score from 1-5 for

criticality in the situation

Focus of the effort for which Forces are

identified

© 2017 C. Keating, All rights reserved

A “rich picture” of Student Entry @ODU

16 feet

6 feet

Constructed 6-15-2012

A Cartoonish diagram constructed by actors in the systemProvides for:

Joint exploration, Basic system mapping, Examination of assumptions,Formulation of the domain considerations


A “rich picture” of Carrier Strike Group Information Exchange

24 feet

6 feet



1. View and mentally frame

What is Systems Thinking?“A new way to view and mentally frame what we see in the world; a worldview and way of thinking whereby we see the entity or unit first as a whole, with its fit and relationship to its environment as primary concerns; the parts secondary.”

*Haines (1998, p. vi)

2. Worldview & way of thinking

3. Relationships primary; elements secondary

*Haines, S. G. (1998). The Managers Pocket Guide to Systems Thinking. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.


What Systems Thinking is NOT

Prescriptive3

Easy2

Magic1


Language shapes thoughts and emotions, determining one’s perception of reality

- Benjamin Whorf

Connecting the system dots ...

Systems Thinking provides concepts and language that can inform a different level of thinking to address complex problems


So what? What’s the big deal aboutSystems Thinking?

Mitroff, I. (1997). Smart Thinking for Crazy Times: The Art of Solving the Right Problems. Berrett-Koehler


The Flatland Dilemma

28

Flatland View Beyond Flatland View

?Solving the wrong problem precisely in the most efficient way possible

Result of solving multidisciplinary problems in flatland



What is a System – First system Error?An articulated set of interrelated entities that organizes to transform resources into outputs and outcomes. (Keating, 2001)


What is a System – First system Error?

Interrelated& Organizes

Transformation

Articulated

Resources(M5I)Outputs

Outcomes


ProblemThis is really bad

It’s going to hurt

Let’s ignore

it

Complex problems must be faced by Practitioners


Problems are the inevitable products of an underlying ‘Problem System’ Environment

ProblemsInput Transformation

Feedback (intrinsic)

Boundary

Poke it No Way

WeMust

Feedback (extrinsic)

Transformation



“Root System Definition” Using BATWOVE*Beneficiaries: those who receive benefit and value from the system outputsActors: those who carry out one or more activities within the systemTransformations: the changes that are affected by the systemWeltanschauung: World View – a perspective of the system from a particular vantage point; supporting logic & assumptions Owner: those to whom the system belongs, to whom it is answerable and who can authorize changes to itVictims: those who suffer from poor system performanceEnvironment: the world in which the system operates and by which it is influenced

*Follows from the work of Checkland in Soft Systems Methodology as amplified by Midgley


One way to compensate for poorly designed, executed, and undeveloped systems

Can postpone inevitable failure and system collapse, get tired, move on, can be inconsistent

003

Generate large amounts of ‘power’ by brute force execution for weak system designs –shifts power distribution away from design

002

Step up to ‘power through’ systems inadequacies by navigating inconsistencies –mask underlying deficiencies

01

Detrimental to Systems



Unlike cartoons, real world Systems conform to principles that:1. Don’t sleep, are

always there & on2. Apply equally

without bias or value judgments

3. Make no allowances for ignorance

4. Have realconsequences forviolations

Physics Laws in the Cartoon World

Systems (principles) Laws in the Real World

System ‘lawbreakers’ must pay for

violations


§ Requisite Variety§ Requisite Hierarchy§ Feedback§ Circular Causality§ Recursion

SYSTEMSTHEORY

CENTRALITY AXIOM§ Emergence§ Hierarchy§ Communications§ Control

CONTEXUTAL AXIOM§ Complementarity§ Boundary§ Incompressibility§ Holism

GOAL AXIOM§ Equifinality§ Multifinality§ Satisificing§ Purposive Behavior

OPERATIONAL AXIOM§ Dynamic Equilibrium§ Homeorhesis§ Homeostasis§ Redundancy§ Relaxation Time§ Self-organization§ Suboptimization

VIABILITY AXIOMDESIGN AXIOM§ Power Law§ Requisite Parsimony§ Requisite Saliency§ Minimum Critical

Specification

INFORMATION AXIOM§ Information Redundancy§ Redundancy of Potential

Command

*Whitney, K., Bradley, J.M., Baugh, D.E. and Chesterman Jr., C.W. (2015) ‘Systems theory as a foundation for governance of complex systems’, Int. J. System of Systems Engineering, Vol. 6, Nos. 1/2, pp.15–32.

Systems Thinking foundations provide a language and perspective to drive different thinking, decision, action, and interpretation



System BoundaryA constructed delineation of the separation of a system from that which exist outside the system.


Complex System Boundary – in a nutshell of 3 fundamentals points for system practitioners

Separates a system from its environment, determining what is included and excluded – criteria answers inclusion question and serves purpose

Is arbitrary and dynamic -- subject to value judgments and changes over time based on new knowledge, changing interpretations, or shifts in purposes

Can be tacit (left undefined, ambiguous, and debatable) or explicit (defined, clear, and negotiable)

Careful with system boundary establishment & maintenance


ComplementarityAny two perspectives (or models) of a system will reveal truths about the system which are neither entirely independent nor entirely compatible

Bohr, N. (1928) "The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory," Nature, 121 (3050), 580-590.


All perspectives of a system or problem are correct and incorrect –depending on their vantage point

Perspectives are incomplete surface manifestations

To challenge a perspective – attack the assumptions, underlying logic, or inconsistent ‘system’ model

Complementrarity – what this means for practitioners


IncompressibilityWe are not capable of complete knowledge of a complex system. The system is known only through its representation (model) – which is always incomplete.

ProcessesSystem Objectives

StructuresOutputs

Power InfluenceManagement/

Leadership CooperationConvictions

RelationshipsEmergence

Emotions

Ethics

PatternsPrivileges

Products

Outcomes

Explicit Factors

Tacit Factors

Syst

em U

nder

stan

ding

HIGH

LOW


Can’t know everything about a complex system– understanding & knowledge change over time

Representations are NOT systems – all representations have ‘abstraction’ errors; system knowledge is fallible

Emergence – behavior, structure, and performance emerge over time as a system operates

Incompressibility – what this means for system practitioners


Self-organizationThe structural and behavioral patterns (performance) of a complex system emerge as a result of interactions between entities within the system; subject to externally imposed constraints (energy).

Tn+1

Tn

Tn+2


Left alone systems organize for lowest energy– NOT maximum performance

Emergence is product of self-organization –behavior, structure, and performance emerge over time as a system operates

Self-organization should be maximized – ‘by design’ to maximize autonomy and preserve system level performance

Self-organization – what this means for system practitioners



CONTROL – The process or means by which a whole entity retains its identity and/or performance under changing circumstances.


Control often gets a bad rapconstrain

PROCESSTHEORY

RestrictionsTechnology

LIMITSThinking

NUMBER

CHALLENGES MAKING

Regu

latio

n

PROBLEMS

MET

HODO

LOGY

IDEAS OPPORTUNITIESPOLICYSOCIALCOMPLEXITY

PEOPLErequirements

trust

SOLU

TIO

NS

DEVELOPMENT

DEVELOPING

rules

TEAM

skills

FRAMING

Control is about balanced constraint – balance is dynamic, shifting, & subject to interpretation

Constraint Performance

Paradox of control – to get control we must give up control

Control – what this means for system practitioners


MINIMAL CRITICAL SPECIFICATION – Only those constraints necessary to ensure performance should be invoked .


Minimal Critical Specification – what this means for system practitioners

Excess constraint wastes resources – constraint is not free – it costs M5I (manpower, materials, money, methods, minutes, information)

Too little constraint impacts performance – maintenance of performance requires sufficient constraint for integration

Constraint is not constant over time –requires tradeoff to continual balance Autonomy and Integration

© 2012 NCSOSE54 © Copyright 2017 Old Dominion University*Rosenblueth, A., Wiener, N. and Bigelow, J. (1943) ‘Behavior, purpose and telelogy’, Philosophy of Science, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.18–24.

PURPOSIVE BEHAVIOR* – in short ‘the purpose of a system is what it does’, not what it is designed, intended, or desired to do.


Don’t confuse design with performancerelated, but not interchangeable

Effective design must consider context –there is no such thing as a context free system

Evolution – maintenance of performance requires system development & evolution –faster than context change

Purposive Behavior – what this means for system practitioners

ObservedDesigned

≠


SYSTEM RELAXATION TIME – The amount of time it takes a system to return to a state of dynamic equilibrium following a perturbation.Dynamic Equilibrium

Uncontrolled Oscillation without return to dynamic equilibrium


SYSTEM RELAXATION TIME – what this means for system practitioners

Are we metering the number of simultaneous internal system changes introduced?

Are we metering the number of simultaneous external system changes introduced?

Is our design capable of resilience across a spectrum of perturbations?

© 2016 Old Dominion University © Copyright 2017 Old Dominion University58


Problem/Need QuestionWhat is the problem or need?

Stakeholders QuestionWhat are the interests, values, and management strategy for stakeholders?

Context QuestionWhat is the relevant context for the system?

Success/Failure Determination QuestionWhat constitutes measurable success or failure of the system?

System Compatibility QuestionIs the system sufficiently compatible with the context andsupport infrastructure to proceed?

Failure Modes QuestionWhat are the likely systemic failure modes for the system?

System Definition QuestionWhat is the ‘problem system’, including boundaries and environment?

Orientation QuestionWhat is the Orientation of thinking about the system and endeavor?

7 Plus 1 Questions

01

plus 1

04

02

0305

07

06


7 Plus 1 QUESTIONS – what this means for system practitioners

1. Guide leaders in design, execution, and evolution of complex systems,

2. Are applied from the language and perspective of systems, and

3. Embody the systems worldview,

This question set is ‘unremarkable’ – it becomes ‘remarkable’ to avoid failing our systems when they:

If you can’t answer these questions you are not fulfilling a key systems practitioner role!


Example: Border SecurityWhat are 7+1 question issues in deployment of unmanned aircraft on the Southern Border?

© 2016 Old Dominion University © Copyright 2017 Old Dominion University62

Complex System Governance – in a nutshell of 5 fundamentals points

All systems perform essential governance functions that determine system performance.

All systems are subject to the laws of systems

Pathologies linked to ‘violation’ of one or more system principles

Governance functions can experience pathologies in their performance.

“circumstance, condition, factor, or pattern that acts to limit system performance, or lessen system viability, such that the likelihood of a system achieving performance expectation is reduced” (Keating and Katina, 2012, p. 253)

PATHOLOGY

Keating, C. B., & Katina, P. F. (2012). Prevalence of pathologies in systems of systems. International Journal of System of Systems Engineering, 3(3-4), 243-267.

EXAMPLEM2.11. Introduction of uncoordinated system changes resulting in excessive oscillation.

System performance can be enhanced through purposefuldevelopment of governancefunctions & addressing pathologies

83 System Principles

Maps to 9 Governance Functions

OBSERVEDFAILURE(s)

Same underlying system pathology appears as ‘different’ surface issues

53 ComplexSystem Pathologies

UNOBSERVED FAILURE SOURCES



System Problem Solving

Advanced SystemProblem Solving

Systemic System Problem Solving


So What? Who cares?What’s the big deal?

Thinking Slow

Thinking Fast

• Design• Execution• Development

Advanced degrees in systems engineering, project management, sociology, psychology, and business –and demonstrated experience in large technical project management, acquisition, test & evaluation, human resources, sales, marketing, innovation, product development, contracts, negotiation, …. Etc.



Chuck Keating, Ph.D.Professor, Engineering Management and Systems EngineeringDirector, National Centers for System of Systems [email protected] +1 (757) 683-5753

Contact and Follow-up Information

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

A Workshop: Our Systems Are Not Failing Us … We Are ... · Systems Thinking foundations provide a language and perspective to drive different thinking, decision, action, and interpretation