Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
3.3
1.9
Journals
Systems
Special Issues
Systems Thinking
share announcement

Systems Thinking

A special issue of Systems (ISSN 2079-8954).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 October 2018) | Viewed by 150783

Printed Edition Available!
A printed edition of this Special Issue is available here.

Special Issue Editors

Prof. Dr. Cliff Whitcomb

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
1. Fellow, International Council on Systems Engineering; San Diego, CA 92111, USA
2. Systems Engineering Department, Naval Postgraduate School, 1 University Circle, Monterey, CA 93943, USA
Interests: systems engineering; systems thinking; multidisciplinary design; engineering competency development
Dr. Heidi Davidz

E-Mail Website
Co-Guest Editor
Systems Engineering, Aerojet Rocketdyne, P.O. Box 109680, M/S 704-31, West Palm Beach, FL 33410-9680, USA
Interests: systems engineering; systems thinking; systems engineering capability development; digital thread; systems pathology
Prof. Dr. Stefan Groesser

E-Mail Website
Co-Guest Editor
1. Professor of Strategy and Organization, School of Engineering, Bern University of Applied Sciences, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland
2. Dean of Studies BSc, Industrial Engineering and Management Science, Bern University of Applied Sciences, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland
3. Leader of the Research Group, Business Ecosystem Management (BEM), Bern University of Applied Sciences, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland
4. Deputy-Leader of the BFH-Centre for Energy Storage Research, Bern University of Applied Sciences, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland
Interests: Business Models, Strategic Management, Simulation Methodology, Decision Making, Mental Models

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Thinking is the “systematic transformation of mental representations of knowledge to characterize actual or possible states of the world, often in service of goals” (Holyoak and Morrison, 2012). Thinking relates to reasoning, judgment, decision making, and problem solving. Systems thinking can be broadly considered the activity of thinking applied in a systems context, forming a basis for fundamental approaches to several systems disciplines, including systems engineering, systems science, and system dynamics. Although these are somewhat distinct fields, they are bound by common approaches in regards to systems. Whereas systems engineering seeks to apply a multidisciplinary, holistic approach to the development of systems, systems science seeks to understand the basics related to systems of all kinds, from natural to man-made, and system dynamics seeks to understand systems from the basis of the dynamics involved.

As man-made systems become more ubiquitous and complex, and the study of natural systems present new challenges to understanding emergent, dynamic behaviors, the process of sense-making based on systems thinking becomes critical.

This Special Issue will focus on the nature of systems thinking as it applies to systems engineering, systems science, system dynamics, and related fields. Topics of interest related to systems thinking include:

  • Systems engineering
  • Systems science
  • System dynamics
  • Management
  • Social sciences
  • Artificial intelligence and machine learning
  • Strategic approaches to problem solving
  • Complex systems and emergence
  • Systems thinking in education
  • Reasoning, judgment, decision-making, and problem solving based on systems thinking

Contributors are invited to present case studies, approaches, models and theoretical frameworks to deal with topics related to systems thinking for both academic, disciplinary, commercial, and industrial applications.

References

Holyoak, K.J.; Morrison, R.G. Thinking and reasoning: A reader’s guide. In Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning; Holyoak, K.J., Morrison, R.G., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012.

Prof. Dr. Cliff Whitcomb
Dr. Heidi Davidz

Prof. Dr. Stefan Groesser

Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Systems is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • Systems thinking
  • Systems engineering
  • Systems science
  • System dynamics
  • Design thinking for systems

Published Papers (12 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Other

26 pages, 4762 KiB  
Article
A Systems Thinking Approach to Designing Clinical Models and Healthcare Services
by Inas S. Khayal
Systems 2019, 7(1), 18; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems7010018 - 24 Mar 2019
Cited by 9 | Viewed by 16026
Abstract
Chronic diseases are on the rise, increasing in number and treatment regimen complexity. Consequently, the needs of patients with chronic diseases are increasing and becoming more complex and multi-faceted. Such chronic conditions require addressing not only the physical body, but also psychosocial and [...] Read more.
Chronic diseases are on the rise, increasing in number and treatment regimen complexity. Consequently, the needs of patients with chronic diseases are increasing and becoming more complex and multi-faceted. Such chronic conditions require addressing not only the physical body, but also psychosocial and spiritual health. The healthcare delivery system, however, organically organized into departments based on physical organ systems. Such a configuration makes it ill-suited to provide comprehensive multi-faceted healthcare services that span multiple departments and specialties (e.g., podiatry and endocrinology for diabetes; primary care and psychiatry for behavioral health; and palliative care physicians, chaplains, and social workers for end-of-life care). To deliver new services, the medical field typically designs new clinical models to base its new services on. Several challenges arise from typical approaches to designing healthcare services and clinical models, including addressing only single conditions, describing models only at a high-level of abstraction, and using primarily narrative documents called text-based toolkits for implementation. This paper presents and uses systems thinking as an alternative strategy to designing clinical system models and healthcare services to alleviate many of the current design challenges in designing integrated services for chronic conditions. An illustrative example taking a clinical model and describing it as a system model is presented. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Systems Thinking)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

15 pages, 5099 KiB  
Article
A Bibliographic and Visual Exploration of the Historic Impact of Soft Systems Methodology on Academic Research and Theory
by Scott Warren, Brian Sauser and David Nowicki
Systems 2019, 7(1), 10; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems7010010 - 13 Feb 2019
Cited by 16 | Viewed by 7729
Abstract
Soft systems methodology (SSM), an analytic method commonly employed in engineering and business research, produces models focused on human activities and relevant structures used to explain complex, engineered systems. The original version of SSM involves seven stages; five address real-world aspects and observable [...] Read more.
Soft systems methodology (SSM), an analytic method commonly employed in engineering and business research, produces models focused on human activities and relevant structures used to explain complex, engineered systems. The original version of SSM involves seven stages; five address real-world aspects and observable data, while two stages leverage a systems thinking viewpoint. This approach allows the development of a simplified depiction of complex systems representative of the multi-perspective lenses used to comprehend the systemic complexity of a problem and provide a clearer picture to analysts and decision makers. This bibliometric meta-analysis of 286 relevant publications in engineering, business, and other social sciences fields explores the historic impacts of SSM on academic research and systems thinking in relevant publications that described or employed SSM for research from 1980–2018. This study produced descriptive narrative outcomes and data visualizations including information about top SSM authors, author citation impacts, common dissemination outlets for SSM work, and other relevant metrics commonly used to measure academic impact. The goal of this piece is to depict who, what, why, when, and where SSM had the greatest impact on research, systems thinking, and methodology after nearly 40 years of use, as we look towards its future as a methodological approach used to comprehend complex problem situations. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Systems Thinking)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

12 pages, 307 KiB  
Article
Could Education for Sustainable Development Benefit from a Systems Thinking Approach?
by Maria Hofman-Bergholm
Systems 2018, 6(4), 43; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems6040043 - 04 Dec 2018
Cited by 20 | Viewed by 8323
Abstract
Sustainable development is not a novel concept. However, we continue with our unsustainable way of living. It is as though we cannot see our own part in the unsustainable system. Values, ethics and morals are connected to education and therefor education is in [...] Read more.
Sustainable development is not a novel concept. However, we continue with our unsustainable way of living. It is as though we cannot see our own part in the unsustainable system. Values, ethics and morals are connected to education and therefor education is in a key position to change the way we think and act for a sustainable future. Both education for sustainable development (ESD) and systems thinking are concepts connected to changes toward a sustainable future. However, they have proven to be conceptually problematic and are characterized by their complexity, making implementation more difficult. The purpose of this study is to discover whether it could be possible to interlace ESD and systems education to a strong and solid entirety in order to overcome the obstacles preventing the implementation of sustainability in education. This is done through a literature review in the fields of systems thinking and ESD. The literature review identifies two joint approaches that could be worth exploring more in order to develop an excellent instrument in the educational work toward sustainability. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Systems Thinking)
14 pages, 1298 KiB  
Article
Conceptualizing Shadow IT Integration Drawbacks from a Systemic Viewpoint
by Melanie Huber, Stephan Zimmermann, Christopher Rentrop and Carsten Felden
Systems 2018, 6(4), 42; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems6040042 - 03 Dec 2018
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 6965
Abstract
Business units are increasingly able to fuel the transformation that digitalization demands of organizations. Thereby, they can implement Shadow IT (SIT) without involving a central IT department to create flexible and innovative solutions. Self-reinforcing effects lead to an intertwinement of SIT with the [...] Read more.
Business units are increasingly able to fuel the transformation that digitalization demands of organizations. Thereby, they can implement Shadow IT (SIT) without involving a central IT department to create flexible and innovative solutions. Self-reinforcing effects lead to an intertwinement of SIT with the organization. As a result, high complexities, redundancies, and sometimes even lock-ins occur. IT Integration suggests itself to meet these challenges. However, it can also eliminate the benefits that SIT presents. To help organizations in this area of conflict, we are conducting a literature review including a systematic search and an analysis from a systemic viewpoint using path dependency and switching costs. Our resulting conceptual framework for SIT integration drawbacks classifies the drawbacks into three dimensions. The first dimension consists of switching costs that account for the financial, procedural, and emotional drawbacks and the drawbacks from a loss of SIT benefits. The second dimension includes organizational, technical, and level-spanning criteria. The third dimension classifies the drawbacks into the global level, the local level, and the interaction between them. We contribute to the scientific discussion by introducing a systemic viewpoint to the research on shadow IT. Practitioners can use the presented criteria to collect evidence to reach an IT integration decision. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Systems Thinking)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

24 pages, 8426 KiB  
Article
Systemic Semantics: A Systems Approach to Building Ontologies and Concept Maps
by David Rousseau, Julie Billingham and Javier Calvo-Amodio
Systems 2018, 6(3), 32; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems6030032 - 10 Aug 2018
Cited by 22 | Viewed by 12600
Abstract
The field of systemology does not yet have a standardised terminology; there are multiple glossaries and diverse perspectives even about the meanings of fundamental terms. This situation undermines researchers’ and practitioners’ ability to communicate clearly both within and outside their own specialist communities. [...] Read more.
The field of systemology does not yet have a standardised terminology; there are multiple glossaries and diverse perspectives even about the meanings of fundamental terms. This situation undermines researchers’ and practitioners’ ability to communicate clearly both within and outside their own specialist communities. Our perspective is that different vocabularies can in principle be reconciled by seeking more generalised definitions that reduce, in specialised contexts, to the nuanced meaning intended in those contexts. To this end, this paper lays the groundwork for a community effort to develop an ‘Ontology of Systemology’. In particular we argue that the standard methods for ontology development can be enhanced by drawing on systems thinking principles, and show via four examples how these can be applied for both domain-specific and upper ontologies. We then use this insight to derive a systemic and systematic framework for selecting and organising the terminology of systemology. The outcome of this paper is therefore twofold: We show the value in applying a systems perspective to ontology development in any discipline, and we provide a starting outline for an Ontology of Systemology. We suggest that both outcomes could help to make systems concepts more accessible to other lines of inquiry. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Systems Thinking)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

20 pages, 2257 KiB  
Article
A Systematic Framework for Exploring Worldviews and Its Generalization as a Multi-Purpose Inquiry Framework
by David Rousseau and Julie Billingham
Systems 2018, 6(3), 27; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems6030027 - 10 Jul 2018
Cited by 24 | Viewed by 21571
Abstract
Systems science methodologies do not have a consistent way of working with worldviews, even though determining stakeholder perspectives is central to systems thinking. In this paper, we propose a comprehensive “Worldview Inquiry Framework” that can be used across methodologies to govern the process [...] Read more.
Systems science methodologies do not have a consistent way of working with worldviews, even though determining stakeholder perspectives is central to systems thinking. In this paper, we propose a comprehensive “Worldview Inquiry Framework” that can be used across methodologies to govern the process of eliciting, documenting, and comparing the worldviews of stakeholders. We discuss the systemicity of worldviews and explain how this can help practitioners to find the roots of stakeholders’ disagreements about value judgements. We then generalize the structure of the Worldview Inquiry Framework to produce a “General Inquiry Framework” that can be used to govern an inquiry process in other contexts. We show that the presented Worldview Inquiry Framework is a special case of this General Inquiry Framework and show how the General Inquiry Framework can be tailored for other contexts such as problem solving, product design, and fundamental research. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Systems Thinking)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

19 pages, 342 KiB  
Article
Maturity Models for Systems Thinking
by Pamela Buckle
Systems 2018, 6(2), 23; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems6020023 - 11 Jun 2018
Cited by 12 | Viewed by 8474
Abstract
Recent decades have seen a rapid increase in the complexity of goods, products, and services that society has come to demand. This has necessitated a corresponding growth in the requirements demanded of organizational systems and the people who work in them. The competence [...] Read more.
Recent decades have seen a rapid increase in the complexity of goods, products, and services that society has come to demand. This has necessitated a corresponding growth in the requirements demanded of organizational systems and the people who work in them. The competence a person requires to be effective in working in such systems has become an area of increased interest to scholars and practitioners in many disciplines. How can we assess the degree to which a person is executing the competencies required to do good systems work? Several industries now utilize maturity models in the attempt to evaluate and cultivate people’s ability to effectively execute complex tasks. This paper will examine current thought regarding the value and pitfalls of maturity models. It will identify principles and exemplars that could guide the development of a Maturity Model of Systems Thinking Competence (MMSTC) for the varied roles people inhabit in systems contexts. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Systems Thinking)
10 pages, 305 KiB  
Communication
Natural Systems Thinking and the Human Family
by Daniel Papero, Randall Frost, Laura Havstad and Robert Noone
Systems 2018, 6(2), 19; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems6020019 - 01 Jun 2018
Cited by 12 | Viewed by 15763
Abstract
Broadly speaking, natural systems thinking is defined as a way of thinking that endeavors to conceptualize the functioning of living organisms as dependent on predictable forces at work within and around them. Systems concepts help to bring the function of those variables and [...] Read more.
Broadly speaking, natural systems thinking is defined as a way of thinking that endeavors to conceptualize the functioning of living organisms as dependent on predictable forces at work within and around them. Systems concepts help to bring the function of those variables and life forces into better view. Psychiatrist Murray Bowen over the course of several years and a major research project at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) developed a theory of the family as a system. He considered his theory a natural systems theory, “... designed to fit precisely with the principles of evolution and the human as an evolutionary being” The human family system, a network of relationships, linking each family member to every other, responds dynamically to its environment and the conditions to which all members must adapt. Each family member’s behavior influences that of every other to some degree. Although ideas of a general system theory and cybernetics were developing at the same time, Bowen reported that he knew nothing about those ideas at the time he developed his thinking. He believed that his systems orientation derived from his study of systems in nature and not from the “systems thinking” of the period. An emerging systems paradigm in biology and evolutionary thinking focuses on collective behavior and appears consistent in principle with Bowen’s thinking about the family. The collective behavior of the family unit cannot be understood by looking at the characteristics of the individuals who comprise it. The human family presents a highly integrated, interactive system of adaptation. Its roots extend along the path of hominid evolution and share common elements with other evolved collectivities. The complex development of the human brain appears to have co-evolved with the interactional processes of the family. The Bowen theory provides the potential for an integrative theory of human behavior reaching beyond the focus on the physiology and psychology of the individual to the operation and influence of the family system. Such an integrative theory can offer broader explanatory and investigative pathways for understanding physical, emotional, and social problems as they emerge in human activity. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Systems Thinking)
19 pages, 3939 KiB  
Article
Modeling Isomorphic Systems Processes Using Monterey Phoenix
by Kristin Giammarco and Len Troncale
Systems 2018, 6(2), 18; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems6020018 - 28 May 2018
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 7338
Abstract
This article describes preliminary research (a proof of concept test) on the potential value of formalizing Isomorphic Systems Processes (ISPs) based on systems science research using the Monterey Phoenix (MP) language, approach and tool. MP is a Navy-developed framework for behavior modeling of [...] Read more.
This article describes preliminary research (a proof of concept test) on the potential value of formalizing Isomorphic Systems Processes (ISPs) based on systems science research using the Monterey Phoenix (MP) language, approach and tool. MP is a Navy-developed framework for behavior modeling of system, process, and software behaviors, and has a demonstrated ability to expose emergent behaviors in engineered, complex systems. In this article, we introduce the related lines of research and discuss and demonstrate use of MP in modeling ISPs. We accomplish the demonstration through a small example of the Cycles ISP and discuss several possible variations generated from an MP model of this single ISP. Among these variations, we found patterns of oscillation, lifecycle, recycling, positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, and combinations thereof, all derived from a common model of a cycle comprising six lines of MP code. Although the detection of three of these patterns (oscillations, lifecycles, and recycling) was anticipated, the involvement of the other two patterns (positive and negative reinforcement) were not anticipated in pre-model analyses and provided evidence to resolve a dispute over the application of ISPs in systems engineering. From conducting this initial experimentation at the intersection of different research domains, we found that using MP to formalize relationships within and among presently non-formally-described ISPs yielded new insights into system processes. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Systems Thinking)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 1663 KiB  
Article
Using Systems Thinking to Understand and Enlarge Mental Models: Helping the Transition to a Sustainable World
by Edward J. Garrity
Systems 2018, 6(2), 15; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems6020015 - 08 May 2018
Cited by 15 | Viewed by 12261
Abstract
Sustainability and climate change are massive global problems that stem from the industrial world’s relentless pursuit of growth. Transitioning to a sustainable world requires understanding citizen mental models and our addiction to short-term rewards. This paper uses causal loop diagramming (CLD) to describe [...] Read more.
Sustainability and climate change are massive global problems that stem from the industrial world’s relentless pursuit of growth. Transitioning to a sustainable world requires understanding citizen mental models and our addiction to short-term rewards. This paper uses causal loop diagramming (CLD) to describe the general, prevailing citizen viewpoint and to propose a wider mental model that takes the natural world and sustainability into account. The corporate profit model that depicts the wider view acknowledges and describes the important impacts and influences of political pressure on our social, economic, and ecological systems. Adopting the wider mental model can help the industrialized world design better policy to achieve both national and United Nations (UN) sustainable development goals. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Systems Thinking)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

17 pages, 2717 KiB  
Article
On the Architecture of Systemology and the Typology of Its Principles
by David Rousseau
Systems 2018, 6(1), 7; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems6010007 - 13 Mar 2018
Cited by 17 | Viewed by 11209
Abstract
Systems engineering is increasingly challenged by the rising complexity of projects undertaken, resulting in increases in costs, failure rates, and negative unintended consequences. This has resulted in calls for more scientific principles to underpin the methods of systems engineering. In this paper, it [...] Read more.
Systems engineering is increasingly challenged by the rising complexity of projects undertaken, resulting in increases in costs, failure rates, and negative unintended consequences. This has resulted in calls for more scientific principles to underpin the methods of systems engineering. In this paper, it is argued that our ability to improve systems Engineering’s methods depends on making the principles of systemology, of which systems engineering is a part, more diverse and more scientific. An architecture for systemology is introduced, which shows how the principles of systemology arise from interdependent processes spanning multiple disciplinary fields, and on this basis a typology is introduced, which can be used to classify systems principles and systems methods. This framework, consisting of an architecture and a typology, can be used to survey and classify the principles and methods currently in use in systemology, map vocabularies referring to them, identify key gaps, and expose opportunities for further development. It may, thus, serve as a tool for coordinating collaborative work towards advancing the scope and depth of systemology. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Systems Thinking)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Other

Jump to: Research

14 pages, 1127 KiB  
Case Report
Systems Thinking Education—Seeing the Forest through the Trees
by Sigal Koral Kordova, Moti Frank and Anat Nissel Miller
Systems 2018, 6(3), 29; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems6030029 - 12 Jul 2018
Cited by 29 | Viewed by 20168
Abstract
Systems thinking is an indispensable tool in comprehending and analyzing real-world phenomena. Observed processes are naturally composed of many interconnected components which ought to be studied jointly rather than individually. Engineering systems thinking is a very valuable skill, which helps to successfully execute [...] Read more.
Systems thinking is an indispensable tool in comprehending and analyzing real-world phenomena. Observed processes are naturally composed of many interconnected components which ought to be studied jointly rather than individually. Engineering systems thinking is a very valuable skill, which helps to successfully execute multi-disciplinary projects. In high-tech companies that deal with complex and dynamic systems projects, the need for engineers with high systems thinking skills is growing. Engineers with high systems thinking skills are able to understand the big picture and the project in its entirety, both functionally and conceptually, without necessarily knowing all of the small details. Systems thinking enables understanding the entire system beyond its components, and clarifies the importance of the isolated component as part of the system as a whole. Systems thinking helps understand how sub-systems connect to one whole system, and provides solutions for the client’s specifications and requirements. In addition, systems thinking enables perceiving the inter-relationships and mutual influence among the system’s components and other systems. The current study examined the development of systems thinking among engineers and engineering students. In addition, the personality traits of engineers with high systems thinking skills were examined by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality type test. This article also presents the initial results of the development of a new systems thinking study course, taught as a pilot course to industrial and management engineering students. It seems that engineers with certain personality traits can acquire or improve their systems thinking capabilities through a gradual, long-term learning process and by acquiring the necessary tools. Additionally, the study includes recommendations for the continuation of ongoing research on developing systems thinking. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Systems Thinking)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-12
Back to TopTop