程序辅导案例 > Program >

代写辅导接单-The System Archetypes

欢迎使用51辅导，51作业君孵化低价透明的学长辅导平台，服务保持优质，平均费用压低50%以上！ 51fudao.top

The System Archetypes

By William Braun

Abstract1

The Systems Archetypes describe common patterns of behavior in organizations. As diagnostic tools they provide

insight into the underlying structures from which behavior over time and discreet events emerge. As prospective tools,

they alert managers to future unintended consequences. Collectively they challenge managers to consider the merits

of fundamental solutions by making time an explicit variable in decision making.

The System Archetypes are highly effective tools for gaining insight into patterns of

behavior, themselves reflective of the underlying structure of the system being studied.

The archetypes can be applied in two ways - diagnostically and prospectively.

Diagnostically, archetypes help managers recognize patterns of behavior that are already present

in their organizations. They serve as the means for gaining insight into the underlying systems

structures from which the archetypal behavior emerges. This is the most common use of the

archetype.

Archetypes are effective tools for beginning to answer the question, “Why do we keep seeing the

same problems recur over time?”

Archetypes are also useful prospectively for planning. As managers formulate the means by

which they expect to accomplish their organizational ends, the archetypes can be applied to test

whether policies and structures under consideration may be altering the organizational structure

in such manner as to produce the archetypal behavior. If managers find this to be the case, they

can take remedial action before the changes are adopted and embedded in the organization’s

structure.

Archetypes and Modeling

Archetype are useful for gaining insight into the “nature” of the underlying problem and for

offering a basic structure or foundation upon which a model can be further developed and

constructed. The archetypes are rarely sufficient models in and of themselves. They are generic

in nature and generally fail to reveal important variables that are part of the real system

structure of a specific organization. Without an explicit awareness of these real variables, it is

difficult for managers to pinpoint specific leverage points where changes in structure can

achieve sustainable changes in system behavior.

THE ARCHETYPES

Ten archetypes are generally acknowledged as forming the set of tools that reveal patterns of

behavior in systems.

• Limits to Growth (aka Limits to Success)

• Shifting the Burden

• Eroding Goals

• Escalation

• Success to the Successful

• Tragedy of the Commons

• Fixes that Fail

• Growth and Underinvestment

• Accidental Adversaries

• Attractiveness Principle

Each of the archetypes will be illustrated and discussed, along with general guidelines,

prescriptive action(s) and a set of seven steps that are useful for applying the archetypes for

successful managerial interventions.

Limits to Growth

Limits to Growth was introduced by Donella Limiting

Meadows, Dennis Meadows, Jørgen Randers Condition

and William Behrens in 1972 in their book ( + ) ( + )

of the same name2. The book has spawned a

generation of “World” models that critically

examine the policies that deplete natural Efforts R1 Results B1 S Al co tw ioin ng

resources over long periods of time, arguing

that we are sowing the seeds of our own

( + ) ( - )

future destruction.

Generic Archetype

The theory is not without is challengers and

detractors. Nevertheless, it does put forth the premise that growth cannot continue unabated in

an unrestricted reinforcing dynamic.

In simple terms, the lesson from Limits to Growth is that something always pushes back. There

is no such thing as unrestricted positive reinforcing behavior. There are always limits that

eventually make themselves known and felt.

Dynamic Theory3

This archetype states that a reinforcing process of accelerating growth (or expansion) will

encounter a balancing process as the limit of that system is approached. It hypothesizes that

continuing efforts will produce diminishing returns as one approaches the limits.

Behavior Over Time

300

Efforts to grow an effect are successful in

250

initial stages, perhaps exponentially so.

200

However, as the limits to growth are

150

approached, the growth engine begins to

lose its effectiveness and the rate of growth 100

begins to flatten. In the end, despite 50

continued pressure from the growth

engine, the rate of growth stops and then

Performance Efforts

reverses. Behavior Over Time

Application4 - Planning

If we don’t plan for limits, we are planning for failure. This archetype shows that being

successful can be just as dangerous to long-term health as being unsuccessful. By mapping out

the growth engines and potential danger points in advance, we can anticipate future problems

and eliminate them before they become a threat.

Example

America-On-Line experienced initial Access

success on a fee-per-minute business model.

( + ) ( + )

Their competition offered a flat-rate for

connecting and accessing the internet. In an

effort to both recapture their eroding market HeaC vu yt PP rr oic mes o, tion R1 Sales B1 Dema Cn ad p E ax cc ite yeding

share and grow subscribers, AOL began an

aggressive marketing campaign, flooding

( + ) ( - )

the market with CDs designed to make

Example: America On Line

subscribing and connecting easy and

attractive.

The campaign was an enormous success, so much so that the demand completely overwhelmed

their technical capacity to deliver service. Not only were new subscribers alienated, so too were

existing subscribers who left in significant numbers.

Prescriptive Action5

• Focus on removing the limit (or weakening its effect) rather than continuing to drive the

reinforcing process of growth.

• Use the archetype to identify potential balancing processes before they begin to affect

growth.

• Identify links between the growth processes and limiting factors to determine ways to

manage the balance between the two.

Seven Action Steps6

• Identify the growth engines.

• Determine the doubling time of those processes.

• Identify potential limits and balancing loops

• Determine change required to deal effectively with the limits identified.

• Assess the time needed to change. Is there a discrepancy between the doubling time and

the changes required to support growth?

• Balance the growth. Identify strategies for achieving system balance.

• Reevaluate the growth strategy. Continuously challenge assumptions.

What Does This Really Mean?

Managers are encouraged to be “action oriented” and “proactive”, constantly engaged in the

process of pushing on people and situations to make them change or move. Typically, they focus

their attention on the sphere of activity in the organization that coincides with their title and job

description.

The Limits to Growth archetype (or Limits to Success as it applies) reminds managers to take

the time to examine what might be pushing back against their efforts. The counter-force may

come, and most likely will come, from either (a) parts of the organization not under the control

of the manager or (b) from the external environment. Expansionistic thinking is a key

competency for locating Limits to Growth.

By focusing their attention on these limits, managers may find opportunities to either continue

the improvement curve they were on, or identify the elements in the system that represent the

counter-force and devise new improvement initiatives that would reduce or remove the limits.

Shifting the Burden

Shifting the Burden is the first of several archetypes that

Symptomatic

illustrate the tension between 1) the attraction (and relative Solution

ease and low cost) of devising symptomatic solutions to

( + )

visible problems and 2) the long-term impact of fundamental

solutions aimed at underlying structures that are producing B1

( + )

the pattern of behavior in the first place.

( - )

The tension between the two is understandable. Long-term

solutions tend to demand deep understanding and learning SP yr mob ple tom m R1 ES ffid ee ct

about the underlying problem, take a long time to formulate,

( - )

require a relatively large, up-front commitment of funds, and

test managers’ patience. All this in the face of pressures from

many angles that demand that managers fix problems

promptly and move on. ( + )

( - )

The essence of Shifting the Burden is that once the Fundamental

Solution

symptomatic solution (which by contrast requires less

Generic Archetype

understanding, is easier to formulate, is relatively less

expense - in the short run - and produces instant gratification) has had its effect, there is little

perceived need to pay any more attention to the fundamental, underlying systemic problem.

Dynamic Theory

This archetype states that a problem symptom can be resolved either by using a symptomatic

solution or applying a fundamental solution. It hypothesizes that once a symptomatic solution

is used, it alleviates the problem symptom and reduces pressure to implement a fundamental

solution, a side effect that undermines fundamental solutions.

Behavior Over Time 120

100

Shifting the Burden is one example of how

management intervention works. Each time

an intervention is aimed at problem

symptoms, some temporary improvement in

performance is experienced (this assumes a

well planned intervention). 0

Problem Symptom Fundamental Solution

Symptomatic Solution

The underlying problem persists however

Behavior Over Time

and the reappearance of problem symptoms

invariably happens.

Application - Break Organizational Gridlock

Organizational gridlock can be caused by interlocking “Shifting the Burden” structures, as one

function’s “solution” creates problems in an other area. The archetype provides a starting point

for breaking gridlock by identifying chains of problem symptoms and solutions that form walls

between functions, departments, or divisions.

Example

A manufacturing facility experiences periodic problems

Reliance on

reaching production targets as a result of difficulties R&D Staff

making adjustments to changing production

( + )

requirements. Each time the R&D people, who know the

product very well, are called upon to fix the problem. B1

( + )

When the problem symptoms disappear, the incentive to

( - )

fix the underlying problem likewise disappear.

Additionally, since the production staff has received no

Pressure to R1 Attrition of Talented

training to improve their ability to respond to the Deliver Product Local Staff

problems, they feel disaffected and leave.

( + )

( - )

Prescriptive Action Local

B2 Capability

• Focus on the fundamental solution. If necessary, use

the symptomatic solution only to gain time while ( + )

( - )

working on the fundamental solution. Local

Capability

• Elicit multiple viewpoints to differentiate between

Example: Manufacturing

fundamental and symptomatic solutions and to gain

Facility

consensus around an action plan.

• Use the archetype to explore potential side-effects of any proposed solution.

Seven Action Steps

• Identify the original problem symptom.

• Map all “quick fixes” that appear to be keeping the problem under control.

• Identify the impact of the symptomatic solutions on other parts of the system.

• Identify fundamental solutions. Develop multiple perspectives.

• Map side-effects of quick fixes that may be undermining the usability of the fundamental

solution.

• Find interconnections to fundamental loops. Find links between the interaction effects and

the fundamental solution that may be causing gridlock.

• Identify high-leverage actions from both perspectives.

What Does This Really Mean?

Shifting the Burden is an example of creative tension7 at work. The archetype draws attention

to the gap between the pressures to perform in the short-term with the insights and long-term

sustaining decisions to which systems managers seek to respond.

It also points to the critical importance of developing patience as one of the skills that systems

managers include in their Personal Mastery of competencies. It illustrates the challenge and

difficulty of demonstrating forward-thinking leadership in the face of mounting pressure to “fix

it” and “get on to the next problem”.

Without a clear and convincing picture in the manager’s mind’s eye (Personal Vision) as well

as in the collective mind’s eye of everyone (Shared Vision), the pressure to go for the quick fix

may overwhelm the manager, condemning her/him to a recurring pattern of interventions that

aim to solve the same set of problem symptoms.

Eroding Goals

Eroding Goals shares a basic similarity with Shifting the

Burden - the dynamic tension between a symptomatic ( - )

solution and a fundamental one. In the case of Eroding

Goals, managers are faced with performance that fails to

meet a stated goal. They seek a rationale (the symptomatic Goal B1 P Ar de js us su t r Ges o ato l

solution) for changing the goal to one that appears to be

more attainable rather than rigorously determining what ( + )

prevents the organization from performing as originally ( + )

Gap

expected (the fundamental solution).

( - )

Unlike other archetypes, Eroding Goals examines dynamic ( + )

behavior in the present that is the result of forecasts of the

future made in the past. The argument for adjusting the goal Actual B2 ImprA oc vt eio Cns o nto dition

is not without merit - the future cannot be know with

certainty, so if the forecast turned out to be wrong, what is

the harm in making adjustments that reflect current ( + )

knowledge about reality? Without some objective metric to

Generic Archetype

autonomously assess performance, against some benchmark

for example, the temptation to lower goals is difficult to challenge - no measurement, no data,

no problem.

Dynamic Theory

This archetype states that a gap between a goal and an actual condition can be resolved in two

ways: by taking corrective action to achieve the goal, or by lowering the goal. It hypothesizes

that when there is a gap between a goal and a condition, the goal is lowered to close the gap.

Over time, lowering the goal will deteriorate performance.

Behavior Over Time

100

Eroding goals has a long term effect on goal

setting within the organization. Each time 80

goals are adjusted downward in the

organization, a reinforcing dynamic occurs

which anchors a lax orientation to goal 40

setting in the culture of the organization.

After some period of time, the organization 20

finds itself aiming lower and lower to ensure

that its goals are always met.

Goal Actual Gap

Behavior Over Time

Application - Stay Focused on Vision

Various pressures can take our attention away from what we are trying to achieve. This

archetype helps explain why an organization is not able to achieve its desired goals. Used as a

diagnostic tool, it can target drifting performance areas and help organizations attain their

visions.

Example

Competitor's ( - )

Quality

Quality standards are common in organizations. If ( + )

a gap occurs between what the organization

targeted and its actual performance, a tension Q Gu oa alit ly B1 LP or wes es r u Qre us a lt ito y

( + )

develops between pressure to live up to standards

( + )

and the pressure to roll the standards back to ( + )

something achievable. ( + )

Customers'

Expectations Gap

of Quality

( - )

If the quality standard is anchored to an internal

( + )

perception of customer expectations rather than an ( + )

industry standard (what the competition is doing)

there is the risk that the pressure to scale back the Actual Quality B2 ProT gQ raI m

standard will prevail.

Prescriptive Action ( + )

Example: Internal Quality

• Anchor goals to an external frame of reference

Standards

to keep them from sliding (i.e., a benchmark or

the voice of the customer).

• Determine whether the drift in performance is the result of conflicts between the stated goal

and the implicit goals of the system (such as current performance measures).

• Establish a clear transition plan from current reality to the goal, including a realistic time

frame for achieving the goal.

Seven Action Steps

• Identify drifting performance measure.

• Look for goals that conflict with the stated goal.

• Identify standard procedures for closing the gap.

• Examine the past history of the goal. Has the goal itself been lowered over time.

• Anchor the goal to an external reference.

• Clarify a compelling vision that will involve everyone.

• Create a clear transition plan.

What Does This Really Mean?

Eroding Goals has two important ramifications for systems managers. First, the immediate

short-term effect is the failure to critically examine the underlying causes that explain why 1)

performance is lacking and 2) managers feel pressure to revise goals to match what the

organization is currently capable of achieving.

Second, repeatedly falling into the trap of Eroding Goals eventually becomes embedded in the

organization’s culture as a justifiable and even reasonable thing to do. Over time, the

organization falls farther and farther behind the expectations of its customers and eventually

fails altogether.

On the other hand, how do managers assess whether the original goals were attainable? What

about managers who repeatedly set goals that everyone knows are unattainable and uses them

as catalysts to prod people into higher and higher levels of performance?

What about events in the external environment that could not have been predicted and that may

be legitimate grounds for revising goals downward? What about goals that turn out to be

mistakes in judgement or weaknesses in the forecasting process?

Since there are (potentially) legitimate reasons to adjust goals downward, systems managers

must take extreme caution when considering an adjustment to goals. The two most important

considerations are 1) an honest and rigorous examination of the organization itself and 2) an

equally candid look at competitors and their performance, and at customers and their

expectations.

Escalation

A commonly held belief of competition is mounting an appropriate response to the actions of

competitors (a) to sustain one’s own competitive advantage, (b) to maintain momentum toward

gaining competitive advantage, or (c) because that’s what managers are supposed to do.

The Escalation archetype presents an irony of management -

Activity by B

in the name of protecting and/or furthering the best interests

( + )

of their organization, managers engage in escalating ( + )

behavior to the point where they harm their organizations

and reduce the value to customers, stakeholders and B's Results B1 Threat to B

shareholders.

( + )

( - )

The archetype also presents an opportunity to think

expansionistically, the behavior described by the archetype Results of A

Relative to B

itself being the [at least partial] result of reductionistic

( + )

thinking. By expanding their view, managers may find the

( - )

means through which an encompassing, unifying or

overarching goal may be established whereby they discover A's Result B2 Threat to A

and option to the perceived need to resort to escalation as a

primary competitive response. ( + )

Activity by A

Dynamic Theory

Generic Archetype

The Escalation archetype occurs when one party’s actions are perceived by another party to be

a threat, and the second party responds in a similar manner, further increasing the threat. It

hypothesizes that the two balancing loops will create a reinforcing figure-8 effect, resulting in

threatening actions by both parties that grow exponentially over time.

Behavior Over Time

100

The behavior of escalation is relatively

simple and predictable. The actions (and 80

reactions) of each party are similar in

nature, though they become increasingly

competitive as time goes by. 40

What the Behavior Over Time graph does 20

not illustrate is the potential for collapse if

the escalation goes on for too long.

Party A's Actions Party B's Actions

Behavior Over Time

Application - Competition

One of the reasons we get caught in escalation dynamics may stem from our view of

competition. This archetype suggests that cutthroat competition serves no one well in the long

run. The archetype provides a way to identify escalation structures at work and shows how to

break out of them or avoid them altogether.

Example

In the health care industry, especially in a geographically HCO A's

defined market, it is not uncommon for competitors to Capital

Spending &

engage in a campaign of erecting buildings as a tactic for Expansion ( + )

( + )

securing market share. Each facility is seen as a threat by the

competitor, who after some delay, will respond in kind. This HCO A's Results B1 Threat to HCO A

can continue for some time until the cost of doing so

becomes prohibitive and the escalation stops. ( + )

( - )

Results of A

This may result in one competitor’s eventual market Relative to B

dominance (if it had the resources to support the ( + )

construction boom) or in one competitors collapse due to ( - )

overextending itself financially.

HCO B's Result B2 Threat to HC B

Prescriptive Action ( + )

HCO B's S

Capital

• Identify the relative measure that is pitting one party Spending &

Expansion

against another, and explore ways it can be changed or

Example: HCO Expansion

other ways the parties can differentiate themselves in the

market place.

• Quantify significant delays in the system that may be distorting the nature of the threat

• Identify a larger goal that encompasses the individual goal of both parties.

Seven Action Steps

• Identify the competitive variable. Is a single variable the basis of differentiation between

competitors?

• Name the key actors in the dynamic.

• Map what is being threatened. Are your actions addressing the real threat or preserving a

status quo value which may no longer be relevant?

• Reevaluate competitive measure. Can the variable that is the foundation of the game be

shifted?

• Quantify significant delays that may be distorting the nature of the threat.

• Identify a larger goal encompassing both parties’ goals.

• Avoid future Escalation traps by creating a system of collaborative competition.

What Does This Really Mean?

This archetype is difficult to apply - it appears to strike at the heart of the core tenets of free

enterprise. Thinking and/or behaving any other way could have ramifications for the manager

and the firm - engaging in anti-trust practices for example.

It may be that this archetype may find its value in the public policy arena, or in industry and/or

community based assessments of the needs, expectations and requirements of customers and

other stakeholder constituencies.

Success to the Successful

A common piece of wisdom is not to throw good money

( + )

after bad. In managerial terms this archetype is often the

basis for citing the “80/20” rule.

Success of A R1 Resources to A

The Success to the Successful archetype describes the

common practice of rewarding good performance with

( + )

more resources in the expectation that performance will

( + )

continue to improve. There is a belief that the successful

Allocation to A

[people, departments, products, etc.] have “earned” their Instead of B

increasing share of resources through past performance. ( - )

( - )

The potential downside to this assumption is the continued

under-performance of people, departments or products that Sucess of B R2 Resources to B

perform at their current level through no intrinsic lack of

skill or capability. In other words, current performance

may be a better reflection of the initial or starting ( + )

conditions than they are of true ability for commitment to

Generic Archetype

top performance.

In practice, one cannot conclude one way or another that a performance gap between two people,

departments or products is or is not attributable to a bona fide performance gap simply from

taking this archetype into account. The true value of the archetype is to raise the question. With

the question on the table, carefully tracing the history of the gap will frequently provide valuable

insights into the origin of the gap in the first place.

If the gap can be explained as one person, department or product truly performing better,

through his/her/its own intrinsic merits, then managers can make operational or strategic

decisions with the full knowledge that the long-term interests of the firm are well served.

On the other hand, managers may discover that current performance is more a matter of initial

conditions and, with sound planning, careful resource allocation and good execution, under-

performing people, departments or products can be transformed into winners, likewise for the

long-term best interests of the firm.

Dynamic Theory

The Success to the Successful archetype states that if one person or group (A) is given more

resources than another equally capable group (B), A has a higher likelihood of succeeding. It

hypothesizes that A’s initial success justifies devoting more resources to A, further widening the

performance gap between the two groups over time.

Success to the Successful rewards the winner of competition with the means to win again; it may

also penalize the losers.

Behavior Over Time

A dynamic of success to the successful can be identified from trended data by looking for

diverging patterns when individuals,

100

departments or products are examined. As

resources are diverted to the successful 80

party, their success improves even more.

Correspondingly, the other party’s

performance, as resources are diverted from 40

it, continues to erode.

Application - Avoid Competency Traps

A's Performance B's Performance

This archetype suggests that success or

Behavior Over Time

failure may be due more to initial conditions

than intrinsic merits. It can help organizations challenge their success loops by “unlearning”

what they are already good at in order to explore new approaches and alternatives.

Example

( + )

Two call centers are established in different parts of the

country. Some rationale for resource allocation results in

Success of R1 Resources to

one of them experiencing better performance than the other. Call Center A Call Center A

Not only is the lesser performer looked down upon, but its

lack luster performance is cited as a sound rationale not to ( + )

( + )

put any more resources into it.

Growth Funding

to A Instead of B

Prescriptive Action ( - )

( - )

• Evaluate the current measurement systems to determine

if they are set up to favor established practices over Sucess of R2 Resources to

Call Center B Call Center B

other alternatives.

• Identify goals or objectives that will refocus the

definition of success to a broader system. ( + )

• Calibrate internal views of market success against

Example: Call Centers

external indicators to identify potential competency

traps.

Seven Action Steps

• Investigate historical origins of competencies; identify potential competency traps.

• Investigate initial conditions and the origin of the rules.

• Evaluate current measurement systems; are they set up to favor current systems over other

alternatives?

• Map internal views of market success. What are the operating assumptions around success

in the market?

• Obtain external views of market success. Ask “outsiders” for alternative strategies.

• Assess effects on the innovative spirit. Is the current system excluding or limiting the spirit

of experimentation that will lead to a new alternative.

• Continually scan for gaps and areas for improvement.

What Does This Really Mean?

Managers should exercise caution before quickly concluding that intrinsic merit is a complete

explanation for good performance. This archetype may also reveal in depth the axiom that “we

manage what we measure”. Stated otherwise, are the measurements that have historically been

used to assess performance still relevant? Are they still accurate? Is there an increased level of

“noise” in the data that is used for decisions making? Have delays in information caused

managers to reach conclusions that appear to favor one person, department or product over

another, when in fact refining measurements to better reflect what customers think, want and/or

need would offer a different view of performance?

Finding itself bogged down in this archetype can also lead to the erosion of innovation and

change. Concluding that “this is our best product” and “we have to stay with it” because it is the

best performer (at present) can obscure a long, slow decline in the product’s position in the

market. Taking a fresh look at “marginal” performers, in a new light, may lead to insights that

can rejuvenate an organization’s approach to its internal management, its products or to its

customers.

Tragedy of the Commons

The Tragedy of the Commons provides

unique insights into the effect that an ( + )

un-systemic approach to organizational

Net Gains for A

structure can have on overall, long-term

performance. A's Activity ( + )

Resource Limit

The commons in an organization is a ( + ) B1

( + )

resource (people, materials, space, tools, etc.)

Gain per ( + )

that is simultaneously made available to Total Activity ( - ) Individual

Activity

multiple people and/or teams. The initial

( + )

rational for creating the commons is typically ( + ) B2

economies of scale.

B's Activity ( + )

As each person or team claims their “share” R2

Net Gains for B

of the commons, within the context of the

goals and objectives that they have set for ( + )

themselves, they regard the commons as

Generic Archetype

being uniquely available for their own

purposes. Although their lack of awareness of the demands other people or teams place on the

commons are not the result of thoughtless disregard, the effect on the commons is the same.

As each person or team increases their demands and expectations of the commons in the name

of their own goals, the commons itself finds itself under steadily increasing pressure to perform

while simultaneously feeling that its control over it own destiny steadily erodes toward collapse.

In the case of commons such as materials or space, there is no conscious awareness of increased

demand, but the concrete, physical limitations have no elasticity, and the satisfaction of people

or teams placing demands on the commons erodes.

As aggregate performance of the commons slides, several consequences can be felt in the

organization. One, individual or team performance declines as the erosion of the commons

affects their ability to meet individual goals and objectives.

Two, aggregate organizational performance erodes as the interaction and interdependency of

multiple individual and/or team performance begins to reflect the declining performance of the

individuals or teams.

Three, organizational goals themselves begin to erode and to reflect the diminished ability of

the commons to support the goals and objectives of the individuals and teams that depend on

the commons. This can have far reaching consequences in terms of the firm’s competitive

advantage in the markets in which it competes.

Four, the commons itself deteriorates as a valued and valuable resource to the point where it is

regarded as a cause of failure rather than success. When these perceptions become embedded

in people’s collective assumptions, they can lead to deep beliefs about the organization and its

ability (and willingness) to be successful in the long-term.

Dynamic Theory

This archetype identifies the causal connections between individual actions and the collective

results (in a closed system). It hypothesizes that if the total usage of a common resource becomes

too great for the system to support, the commons will become overloaded or depleted and

everyone will experience diminished benefits.

Behavior Over Time

Any time a declining trend is seen in the 100

overall performance of each part of the

system even as it increases its demand on

common resources, there is a good

possibility that a Tragedy of the Commons is 40

taking place. This is often accompanied by 20

puzzlement, as each party placing demands

on the system cannot understand why their

Gain per Individual Activity

demands are not being met, which typically

A's Activity

results in the party increasing its demands B's Activity

yet further. This may continue until the Behavior Over Time

commons collapses.

Application - Resource Allocation

In this archetype situation, the complex interaction of individual actions produces an undesirable

effect, such as the depletion of a common resource. The archetype can be used to help connect

the long-term effects of individual actions to the collective outcome, and develop measures for

managing the common resource more effectively.

Example

( + )

IT resources are typically organized into a

Net Gains for Admin

“commons” department, with each part of R1

the organization seeking their support on an Admin's Demands ( + ) IT FTEs,

Resurces

as-needed basis. Since separate parts of the & Skills

( + ) B1

organization typically do not keep track of ( + )

the IT problems in other parts of the

Gain per ( + )

organization, it is fairy common for each Total Demands ( - ) Individual

Demand

part of the organization to see the IT

( + )

department as “its own”. When the IT ( + ) B2

department is crushed under the weight of

all the demands placed upon it, its Medicine's Demands ( + )

performance for every department begins to R2

Net Gains for Medicine

erode or fail.

( + )

Example: IT Project Requests

Prescriptive Action

• Establish methods for making the cumulative effects of using the common resource more

real and immediate to the individual players.

• Re-evaluate the nature of the commons to determine if there are ways to replace or renew

(or substitute) the resource before it becomes depleted.

• Create a final arbiter who manages the use of the common resource from a whole-system

level.

Seven Action Steps

• Identify the “commons”. What is the common resource that is being shared?

• Determine incentives. What are the reinforcing processes that are driving individual use

of the resource?

• Determine the time frame for reaping benefits.

• Determine the time frame for experiencing cumulative effects of the collective action.

• Make the long-term effects more present. How can the long-term loss or degradation of the

commons be more real and present to the individual users?

• Reevaluate the nature of the commons. Are there other resources or alternatives that can

be used to remove the constraint upon the commons?

• Limit access to resources. Determine a central focal point - a shared vision, measurement

system, or final arbiter - that allocates resources based on the needs of the whole system.

What Does This Really Mean?

In many respects the Tragedy of the Commons is a classic example of reductionistic thinking.

By remaining unaware of the effect of the parts on the whole, people continue to think and

behave as though there are no connections within the organization that affect their ability to

meet goals and objectives. Focused on their own part, behaving as though it depended on no

other, demands on the commons are issued with only the present in mind.

Sustainability is increasingly put forward as a guiding principle for the planet we inhabit.

Sustainability has applications within organizations, with respect to their structure and practices,

with an eye on the long-term future. Structures that create commons and policies and practices

that govern them (leading to depletion or replenishment) are critical success factors.

Ultimately, firms may conclude that structures that include a commons are ineffective means

of distributing and allocating resources. Alternately, they may gain insight into how commons

have to be governed, and recognize that structures and policies, other than the commons itself,

all interact and have a pronounced effect upon the utility the commons bring to organizations.

Fixes that Fail

( + )

When managers find themselves saying, “I thought we fixed

this - why is it worse than it was before?”, the Fixes that Fail

archetype may be at work in the organization. This archetype Problem Symptom B1 Fix

is also a good reflection of the perils of reductionistic

thinking - despite their best efforts (good try’s that miss the

( + )

mark) managers find themselves dealing with the same ( - )

problem symptoms, albeit in a variety of different colors and

flavors, over and over again. R1 ( + )

Unintended

Consequences

Generic Archetype

When problem symptoms are assumed to be a unique set of circumstances that exist in their own

(relatively) small, isolated subsystem, unconnected to other problem symptoms or other parts

of the larger whole system, it is reasonable to assume that focusing one’s attention on the

problem symptom is (a) a reasonable response and (b) one that will be effective.

Fixes that Fail bears a strong resemblance to Shifting the Burden, in that the managerial

response is primarily aimed at the problem symptom rather than spending time on the more

difficult and time consuming task of identifying the underlying, systemic problem (or as is more

often the case, the system of problems).

The difference between Shifting the Burden and Fixes that Fail lies in the unintended

consequence that emerges from the quick-fix that functions as a reinforcing loop, exacerbating

the initial problem symptom. By contrast, the Shifting the Burden archetype suggests that while

the fundamental problem will not have been addressed, the repeated intervention in response

to the problem symptom(s) may still have some palliative effect for a limited time.

The Fixes that Fail archetype displays a steadily worsening scenario, where the initial problem

symptoms are worsened by the fix that is applied to them. The reinforcing loop, which contains

a delay, contributes to a steadily deteriorating problem symptom, not in spite of the fix (which

is the case with Shifting the Burden) but because of it.

Dynamic Theory

This archetype states that a quick-fix solution can have unintended consequences that exacerbate

the problem. It hypothesizes that the problem symptom will diminish for a short while and then

return to its previous level, or become even worse over time.

Behavior Over Time

The classic behavior over time for Fixes that 100

Fail is the trend that illustrates that

management intervention appears to have a

beneficial effect, even as the long-term trend 60

continues to deteriorate. Likewise there is an

accumulation of side effects that take on

lives and energy of their own, each of which

consumes time and resources that could 0

otherwise be devoted to fixing the “original” Problem Symptom

problems. Unintended Consequence

Behavior Over Time

Application - Problem Solving

Almost any decision carries long-term and short-term consequences, and the two are often

diametrically opposed. This archetype can help you get off the problem solving treadmill by

identifying fixes that may be doing more harm than

good. ( + )

Example

Number of Tobacco Lawsuits B1 Public Denial of Problem

For years the tobacco industry steadfastly denied that

there were any ill health effects from smoking,

pouring vast amounts of money into advertising and ( + )

( - )

a pattern of denials. The tactic served the industry

well. However, each time it denied that smoking R1 ( + )

caused health problems, it stiffened the resolve of Scientific

Research

scientists, and research into the effects of smoking

Example: Tobacco Industry

on health steadily grew. Ultimately, the amount of evidence grew so large that no amount of PR

or advertising could overcome the industry’s claims.

Prescriptive Action

• Focus on identifying and removing the fundamental cause of the problem symptom.

• If a temporary, short-term solution is needed, develop a two-tier approach of simultaneously

applying the fix and planning out the fundamental solution.

• Use the archetype to map out potential side-effects of any proposed intervention.

Seven Action Steps

• Identify problem symptom(s).

• Map current interventions and how they were expected to rectify the problem.

• Map unintended consequences of the interventions.

• Identify fundamental causes of the problem symptoms.

• Find connections between both sets of loops. Are the fixes and the fundamental causes

linked?

• Identify high-leverage interventions. Add or break links in the diagram to create structural

interventions.

• Map potential side-effects for each intervention in order to be prepared for them (or to avoid

them altogether).

What Does This Really Mean?

The key to appreciating the Fixes that Fail archetype is the delay in the balancing loop. The time

that elapses between the fix and the worsening problem symptoms frequently makes the

connection between the fix and the deteriorating problem symptoms hard to identify. Managers

tend to attribute the worsening problem symptom to something other than the prior decision(s)

they made in their efforts to fix the problem symptom(s).

Despite its apparent simplicity, Fixes that Fail can be devilishly hard to unravel. It requires a

deep commitment to setting aside mental models that may strongly influence managers not to

see, or even consider, that there may be a connection between the problem symptoms that are

visible and the fix(es) they are applying in an effort to alleviate the problem symptoms.

Growth and Underinvestment

The Growth and

( + ) ( + )

Underinvestment archetype

Current Demand

builds upon Limits to

Growth by explicitly

addressing a firm’s need to Growing Action R1 B1

invest in its own resources,

capabilities and core

( - )

competencies. A growing ( + )

Current

Performance Standard

action seeks to stimulate Performance

and reinforce demand while ( + )

the firm’s current ( - ) ( + )

performance level may

Capacity B2 Perceived Need to Invest

behave as the limit to its

growth. Similar to Limits to

( + )

Growth, if current ( + )

performance is adversely Investment

in Capacity

affecting demand, no

amount of growing action will overcome customers’ reluctance to reward the organization with

sales.

Unique to Growth and Underinvestment is the long-term requirement to continue to keep its

capabilities and core competencies at a level that ensures its competitive advantage. There are

several characteristics of the investment balancing loop that are critical from a managerial

decision making point of view.

First, although performance standards are presented as a constant (no causal influences are

working on it), they themselves may be subject to the Eroding Goals archetype. This may be

situational or it may be a trend that has developed over long periods of time, as the organization

loses confidence in its own ability to perform at the level of customer needs and expectations.

Second, when coupled with the firm’s current performance, performance standards combine to

exert a corrosive influence on the perceived need for investment. At any given performance

standard (regardless of any declining trend it may be exhibiting over time), if current

performance is falling short, the adage, “why throw good money after bad” can gain a hearing

within the organization.

Third, as confidence declines, so too may investment itself. Additionally, declining performance

leads to declining revenue which in turn reduces cash available for investment.

Fourth, even if the organization makes an investment, if it has not anticipated the delay in

bringing the increased capacity and capability on line, it may turn out to be a long run for a

short slide.

Dynamic Theory

This archetype applies when growth approaches a limit that can be overcome if capacity

investments are made. If a system is stretched beyond its limit, it will compensate by lowering

performance standards, which reduces the perceived need for investment. It also leads to lower

performance, which further justifies underinvestment over time.

Behavior Over Time

Data that shows declining performance and 100

growth at the same time that the rate of

investment is slowing or falling may signal

that this archetype is at work.

Correspondingly, it is not uncommon for

performance standards to erode as the

degree of difficulty in reaching performance

Growth

standards increases.

Capacity Investment

Performance Standards

Application - Capital Planning Behavior Over Time

If demand outstrips capacity, performance can suffer and hurt demand. If this dynamic is not

recognized, the decrease in demand can then be used as a reason not to invest in the needed

capacity. This archetype can be used to ensure that investment decisions are viewed from a fresh

perspective, rather than relying on past decisions.

Example Demand for

Shareholder

( + ) Dividends

In private practice,

shareholders historically treat ( + ) ( + ) ( - )

the business firm as a wealth Patient Visits

generator for their families. Cash on Hand

There is typically a tension WP orr dom oo f t Mio on u, th R1 B1

between the desire to remove

profits from the practice and

( - )

the need to invest in ( + ) Patient Performance

Satisfaction, Standard

infrastructure, especially Health

Status

technology. Over time, ( + ) ( + )

performance slips so far, that ( - )

( + )

patients find it increasingly

Capacity B2 Perceived Need to Invest

difficult to receive care at the

practice, mostly for

( + )

operational reasons (though ( + )

Investment

clinical equipment and in Plant,

People &

technology could likewise be Technolog

affected.)

Prescriptive Action

• Identify interlocking patterns of behavior between capacity investments and performance

measures.

• Shorten the delays between when performance declines and when additional capacity comes

on line (particularly perceptual delays about the need to invest).

• Anchor investment decisions on external signals, not on standards derived from past

performance.

Seven Action Steps

• Identify interlocking patterns of behavior between capacity investments and performance

measures.

• Identify delays between when performance falls and when additional capacity comes on

line.

• Quantify and minimize acquisition delays.

• Identify related capacity shortfalls. Are other parts of the system too sluggish to benefit

from added capacity?

• Fix investment decisions on external signals, not on standards derived from past

performance.

• Avoid self-fulfilling prophesies. Challenge the assumptions that drive capacity investment

decisions.

• Search for diverse investment inputs. Seek new perspectives on products, services and

customer requirements.

What Does This Really Mean?

Growth and Underinvestment is the archetype that brings special attention to planning for

limits. In this case, it is the capabilities and core competencies that give firms their competitive

advantage. This is part and parcel of strategic planning as well as internal policy formation.

It also draws attention to the insidious nature of the failure to meet customer demands over long

periods of time - the constant (albeit hard to notice in any one period) decline in the firm’s

opinion of itself and in its commitment to, and ability to perform at, customer demands and

expectations.

Accidental Adversaries

Accidental Adversaries is similar to the

A's Activity with B

Escalation archetype in terms of the ( + ) (in B's Favor)

pattern of behavior that develops over

time. It is different from it insofar as the ( - )

A's Success

intent of the parties is concerned.

Accidental Adversaries begin their ( - ) B1

A's Fixes to

relationship with win-win goals and Improve A's ( + )

( + ) Results

objectives in mind, generally taking

A's Unintended

advantage of their respective strengths, ( + ) B's Unintended R2 O Bb 'ss t Sru uc cti co en s sof

minimizing their respective Obstruction of ( + )

A's Success B's Fixes to

weaknesses, with the objective of ( + ) Im Rpr eo sv ue lt sB's ( + )

accomplishing together what cannot be

B2 ( - )

achieved separately.

R1 ( - ) B's Success

Unwittingly and unintentionally, one

party (“the party of the first part”) takes

an action that the other party (“the party B's Activity with A ( + )

(in A's FAvor)

of the second part”) interprets as Generic Archetype

outside the spirit, if not the letter, of

their understanding. The “offended” party perceives that the action gives the “offending” party

unfair advantage in the partnership (at best) or harms the “offended” party (at worst). The spirit

of partnership turns to one of contentious adversaries,` typically as a function of the mental

model(s) each party holds. Rather than communicate and engage in dialogue, the offended party

assumes (a) it knows everything there is to know about the action (including the foreknowledge

that it was willful and hostile), (b) there is no point in discussing it, and (c) their only option is

to right the wrong through retaliatory action.

In reality, the first party may not be aware of its action’s “harmful” of “hurtful” nature. When

the second party retaliates, the first party is as surprised and wounded as the second party, and

proceeds to make the same assumptions that the second party did. The first party’s recourse?

Retaliate.

Once the adversarial (partnership turned sour) relationship takes hold, the behavior is very

similar to the Escalation archetype. However, the outer reinforcing loop is still available to the

parties should they suspend their mental models and engage in dialogue. The root of

misunderstandings, unrealistic expectations, performance problems or mistakes can be revealed,

giving the parties a fresh start on their partnership.

Dynamic Theory8

This archetype states that when teams or parties in a working relationship misinterpret the

actions of each other because of misunderstandings, unrealistic expectations or performance

problems, suspicion and mistrust erode the relationship. If mental models fueling the

deteriorating relationship are not

100

challenged, all parties may lose the benefits

of their synergy. 80

Behavior Over Time

The trend of each of the adversaries follows 20

a similar direction and rate of change, with

one of the adversaries trailing the other (the

PPMC's Impact on GP

delay as information travels through the

GP's Impact on PPMC

systems and is interpreted). The pattern will

Behavior Over Time

show periodic leveling periods, though overall the trend will be in a direction that adversely

impacts both parties.

Application9 - Collaboration

Many cooperative efforts begin on a good note only to deteriorate over time, often as the need

for collaboration deepens. This archetype helps the parties to a collaborative effort gain insight

into how the actions of one party are filtered through mental models to produce unintended

interpretations.

Example

In the early 1990's the Physician PPMC's Activity

with GP

Practice Management Corporation ( + ) (in GP's Favor)

industry emerged. PPMCs purchased

the hard assets of a practice in return ( - )

PPMC's Success

for a percent of revenue for operational

services rendered. Initially the

( - ) B1

relationships fared well. Eventually PPMC's Fixes to

Improve PPMC's ( + )

however, when performance and growth ( + ) Results

PPMC's Unintended

l ta hg eg re ed la, tp ioh ny ss hic ipia sn as n b de c ba em gae n u tn oe ia ns ty e rw prit eh t ( + ) G OP b's s U trun cin tit oe nn d oe fd R2 O Gb Ps 'str u Sc ut cio cn e so sf ( + )

every move by the PPMC as potentially PPMC's Success G ImP p's ro F veix e Gs P t 'o s

(or actually) injurious to theirs interests. ( + ) Results ( + )

The result was the downward spiral of B2 ( - )

both parties’ interests.

R1 ( - ) GP's Success

Prescriptive Action10

GP's Activity ( + )

with PPMC

• Revisit the original opportunity (in PPMC's Favor)

that brought the parties together PPMC and Group Practice

into a collaborative relationship.

• Use the archetype to identify the origins of adversarial attitudes.

• Renew the Shared Vision of the collaborative effort and commit to Team Learning.

Seven Action Steps11

• Reconstruct the conditions that were the catalyst for collaboration.

• Review the original understandings and expected mutual benefits.

• Identify conflicting incentives that may be driving adversarial behavior.

• Map the unintended side effects of each party’s actions.

• Develop overarching goals that align the efforts of the parties.

• Establish metrics to monitor collaborative behavior.

• Establish routine communication.

What Does This Really Mean?

The lesson of Accidental Adversaries lies in the power of mental models to supply all too ready

explanations of situations. Unless judgement is suspended these mental models can drive one,

both or all parties to conclusions that bear remote resemblance to the underlying reason the

“breach” in the relationship occurred in the first place, if indeed any breach actually took place.

There is also a lesson on Shared Vision in this archetype. The degree to which the parties hold

a vision in common and have articulated their deep needs and expectations is a significant

contributor to tempering reactions of the parties when breaches are perceived.

Breaches in the agreement(s) may happen; the probability of deteriorating into Accidental

Adversaries is decidedly lower when the parties believe there are overarching values and

objectives that unite them in Shared Vision.

Shared Vision will contribute insight to the extent that partners actually engage in helping fix

problems (or problem symptoms) in their partner’s organization because of their understanding

of the long-term impact their efforts will have on their own firm’s success. This suggests that

Shared Vision is connected to a sense of mission higher than money, that a sense of purpose to

customers and an underlying, shared sense of organizational values and culture must be the

bedrock of the partnership in the first place.

The archetype also draws attention to Team Learning. If the partners in the venture adopt a

principle of continuous joint improvement and learning, the probability that breaches to the

partnership will happen in the first place is diminished, as well as a higher probability that if

and when misunderstandings, unrealistic expectations or performance problems do occur, the

parties will have mechanisms in place to meet each other half way and work them out.

Attractiveness Principle12

The Attractiveness Principle archetype is Limiting

Condition B

lesser known than those discussed above.

References were found in The Systems

Slowing

Thinker13 and in The Fifth Discipline Action B

( + )

Fieldbook14, in articles both authored by B1 ( + )

Michael Goodman and Art Kleiner as part

Total

of their presentation of the “Archetype Efforts R1 Results Slowing

Action

Family Tree” (see the following section).

Gene Bellinger offers a variation of the ( + )

( + ) ( - )

Archetype Family Tree at the Outsights Slowing

website15. Action A

Limiting

Condition A

This archetype bears strong resemblance to

Generic Archetype

Limits to Growth with the addition of

multiple slowing actions. Each slowing

action is a challenge the firm faces and which must be addressed if the firm is to overcome the

aggregate limits to growth.

The archetype takes its name from the dilemma of deciding which of the limits to address first,

that is, which is more attractive in terms of the future benefit to the desired results that are being

pushed by the effort (or growing action).

With limited resources and multiple limits impeding growth, managers are faced with

comparing the potential future value of removing or reducing each of the slowing actions,

including any synergistic effect they may have in reducing or removing interdependent limiting

conditions. In some cases the manager may have few options, given the resources available. The

lesser ambiguity may be offset by the limited benefits the firm can expect.

Dynamic Theory16

This archetype states that the result sought by a firm and which is the target of a growing action

may be subject to multiple slowing actions, each of which represent an opportunity and an

opportunity cost to managers. Insight into the interdependencies between the slowing actions

is a critical insight into deciding how scarce resources should be utilized to reduce or remove

the slowing actions.

Behavior Over Time

300

The attractiveness principle presents itself

250

frequently in organizations. When faced with

200

multiple challenges, managers must decide

150

which problem/problem symptom appears

100

more attractive as a potential for improving

the organization’s general health

(operational, financial, or both).

Performance Efforts

Limit A Limit B

Slowing Action

Application - Planning, Improvement,

Behavior Over Time

Strategy

Planning

The lessons from the Attractiveness Principle, with respect to planning are similar to Limits to

Growth. The insight is complicated by interacting limits. As systems and planning becomes

more complex, so too must anticipation into the future limits.

Improvement

Continuous improvement frequently unearths multiple, Resources

interconnected problems (the “system of problems” that ideally

replace the orientation to problem symptoms taken separately

and treated as unique problems unto themselves). Performance Capabilities

Careful and systemic inquiry into the interconnected problems

can reveal where synergies can be realized when available Core

Competencies

resources are devoted to carefully chosen limits, and the

reduction or removal of the selected limits result in (a)

additional resources that can be devoted to the remaining limits or (b) the reduction or removal

of other limits as a dynamic side effect of addressing the limits first selected.

Strategy

The archetype is especially powerful when addressing long-term decisions that affect the

availability of resources, their conversion to key capabilities, and the development and

maturation of selected capabilities into core competencies.

This is especially true in organizations that pursue resource based strategies. These firms face

the challenge of constant renewal if they are to retain their competitive advantage. The

requirement of mapping out the growth engines and potential danger points in advance (as is

the case with Limits to Growth) is reinforced many-fold in this archetype.

Example Knowledge

Generation

A consulting firm is faced with the

Effectiveness

decision/dilemma on how to improve its ( + )

( + )

overall performance for clients, choosing B1 ( + )

between shoring up its IT capabilities or Problem

Promotional Campaign R1 Client Base Solving

growing its knowledge base, both of which Capability

are under attack from existing clients, and B2

( + )

are acting as deterrents to acquiring new ( + ) ( - )

Efficiency

clients.

IT Capabilities

Example: Consulting Firm

Prescriptive Action17

• Focus on identifying interconnected and interdependent limits.

• Use the archetype to identify potential synergistic tactics to remove the balancing processes

before they begin to affect growth.

• Establish priorities; carefully match available resources with specific slowing actions.

Seven Action Steps18

• Identify the growth engines.

• Map the growth engine to each limiting or slowing action; establish a time line for each

slowing action (avoid fixes before they are required).

• Map the interdependencies between the slowing actions.

• Model the dynamics of potential synergies between the slowing actions.

• Review available resources; develop a list of options.

• Establish metrics to assess the impact of efforts to reduce or remove slowing actions;

periodically reassess slowing actions.

• Reevaluate plans, expected continuous improvement programs and strategies for potential

slowing actions. Continuously challenge assumptions.

What Does This Really Mean?

The Attractiveness Principle pits managers against growing complexity and the interactions

between parts that are increasingly difficult to anticipate. Although implied with many of the

archetypes, it makes a strong case for dynamic modeling to reveal the synergies that may emerge

from the firm’s response to growth engines as complexity increases.

At its core is expansionistic thinking; the requirement that managers seek to solve systems of

problems in the largest system to which they have access. The archetype reinforces the

distinction between understanding and knowledge. Knowledge, the “know-how” managers rely

on to make decisions, precedes from the “contained” parts of the whole to the “containing

whole”, while understanding precedes from the “containing whole” to its parts19.

Connections Between the Archetypes

There are many ways in which the archetypes can interact with each other. Michael Goodman

and Art Klien have mapped the archetypes, and their interactions, in an article published in The

Systems Thinker20 in the December, 1993/January, 1994 issue. The work was subsequently

republished in the Fifth Discipline Fieldbook21, by Peter Senge et.al.

I Am Most

Concerned

About...

Fixing Problems

Growth...

Balancing Loop

Reinforcing Loop: But my fix

Vicious and Virtuous Spiral comes back to

haunt me...

But my fix

is your

While waiting for

nightmare

But my growth my fix to take hold,

seems to lead Fixes that to relieve the tension,

to your decline... Fail I become satisfied

But nothing with less..

I form a partnership Escalation

grows forever...

for growth, but end

up feeling betrayed... ...by making my

partner into

an adversary...

Success to

Limits to

the Successful Eroding

Growth

Goals

...beacuse I'm

Accidental not getting

...so if we're all

up against the My capacity is my limit; Adversaries at the real

same limit... therefore my capacity undelying The eroding goals

isn't large enough... cause undermine my

long-term

growth

Shifting the

Burden

Tragedy of I have more than Growth and

the Commons one limit, and Underinvestment

can't address all (Fixed Standards)

of them equally... ...but there's a

temptation to let

standards slip

instead

Attractiveness

Growth and

Principle

Underinvestment

(Drifting Standards)

CONCLUSION

The Systems Archetypes are patterns of behavior that emerge from the underlying system

structure. They can be used diagnostically to reveal insights into the structure that already exists,

or prospectively to anticipate potential problems and/or problem symptoms.

Archetypes do not describe any one problem specifically. They describe families of problems

generically. Their value comes from the insights they offer into the dynamic interaction of

complex systems.

Use them with the other systems thinking tools that are available. As part of a suite of tools, they

are extremely valuable in developing broad understandings about organizations and their

environments, and contribute to more effectively understanding problems.

“We don’t need better solutions, we need better thinking about problems.”22

END NOTES

1. This material is a chapter from The Systems Modeling Workbook by William Braun. References to modeling are

forward and backward links to material in other chapters in the workbook.

2. Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows, Jørgen Randers, William Behrens, Limits to Growth, (New York: New

American Library), 1972.

3. Except where otherwise credited, the notes on Dynamic Theories of the archetypes are taken from Daniel Kim,

“Archetypes as Dynamic Theories”, The Systems Thinker, June/July, 1995.

4. Except where otherwise credited, the notes on Applications of the archetypes are taken from Daniel Kim and

Colleen Lannon-Kim, “A Pocket Guide to Using the Archetypes”, The Systems Thinker, May, 1994

5. Except where otherwise credited, the notes on Prescriptive Action for the archetypes are taken from Daniel Kim,

“Archetypes as Dynamic Theories”, The Systems Thinker, June/July, 1995.

6. Except where otherwise credited, the notes for the Seven Action Steps for the archetypes are taken from Daniel Kim

and Colleen Lannon-Kim, “A Pocket Guide to Using the Archetypes”, The Systems Thinker, May, 1994

7. Peter Senge, The Fifth Discipline (New York: Doubleday Currency), 1990, 142, 150-55, 156, 226.

8. Adapted from Jennifer Kemeny, “‘Accidental Adversaries:’ When Friends Become Foes”, The Systems Thinker,

February, 1994.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Archetype based on the work of Gene Bellinger; see www.outsights.com

13. The Systems Thinker. Pegasus Communications, Inc. Waltham, MA.

14. Senge, P. et. al. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. New York: Doubleday Currency, 1994.

15. See www.outsights.com/systems/theWay/theWay.htm, June 14, 2000.

16. The Dynamic Theory, Application, Prescriptive Action and Seven Action Steps for this archetype are the work of

the author.

17. Review the Prescriptive Actions for Limits to Growth

18. Review the Seven Action Steps for Limits to Growth

19. Russell L. Ackoff, Ackoff’s Best, (New York: Wiley & Sons), 1999, 20.

20. Michael Goodman and Art Kleiner, “Using the Archetype Family Tree as a Diagnostic Tool”, The Systems

Thinker, December, 1993/January, 1994.

21. Peter Senge et. al., The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook (New York: Doubleday Currency), 1994, 149-150.

22. Attributed to Russell Ackoff, source unknown.