Systems Archetypes:
Generic Systems Structures
• This module follows after you have learned and
become familiar with the concepts and terms used in
Module 3 (e.g. Causal Loop Diagram; feedback loop;
reinforcing and balancing loops; etc.). Before
attending this lecture, it is recommended that you
read Chapter 5 of the textbook: “What does the
big picture tell me?” (pp. 37 – 44).
• 2
Systems Archetypes (SAs)
› Systems archetypes (SAs) are generic systems models or templates that
represent a wide range of situations;
› Systems archetypes (SAs) are generic systems models or templates that
represent a wide range of situations;
› They (SAs) provide a high-level map of dynamic processes within a
› They (SAs) provide a high-level map of dynamic processes within a system;
system;
› In other words, systems archetypes ‘reveal an incredibly elegant simplicity
› In otuhnedre rwlyoinrgd tsh,e scyosmtpelmexist ya orfc mheantaygpeemse n‘rt eisvseuaesl …a[nth ienyc arlelodwi bulsy] teol esegea mnotr e
places where there is leverage in facing difficult challenges, and to explain
simplicity underlying the complexity of management issues …[they allow
these opportunities to others’ (Senge, 2006, p.93);
us] to see more places where there is leverage in facing difficult
› Systems archetypes will always suggest areas of high and low leverage change
challenges, and to explain these opportunities to others’ (Senge, 2006,
(Senge, 2006);
p.93);
› There are 10 common systems archetypes (see Readings 1 & 4, page 46); the
following slides present the four most common ones;
› Systems archetypes will always suggest areas of high and low leverage
change (Senge, 2006);
› There are 10 common systems archetypes (see Readings 1 & 4, page 44);
the following slides present the four most common ones;
• 3
“Shifting the Burden”: Structure
(adapted from Senge, 2006; Maani and Cavana, 2007)
› This SA (shifting the burden) has two
balancing loops (B1 & B2) and one
Symptomatic
reinforcing loop (R);
‘Solution’/Quick Fix
S › More ‘problem symptom’ – more
‘symptomatic solution’/‘quick fix’ (same
direction – S) – reduce/ease (opposite
B1 S direction – O) the ‘problem symptom’
in the short term (loop B1);
› It is important to identify the ‘root
Problem Side Effect
Symptom O R causes of the problem’ (although this
O may take time – Delay) and then come
up with ‘fundamental solution’ to
address the problem (loop B2);
B2
› The tendency of ‘overusing’ ‘quick fixes’
(for ‘immediate results’) would lead
to/increase the ‘side effect’, which
S
Fundamental makes it harder to implement
Solution ‘fundamental solution’ and in turn
O increases the problem (loop R);
• 4
“Shifting the Burden”: Example
• This example is self-
explanatory.
• This is a common situation,
(Parent) Buying sweets
S e.g. Dad (David), Mum
(Mary) and their two little
children (John, 3.5 years old
B1 S
and Jess, 2 years old) at a
check-out counter of a
(Children) Asking for sweets
supermarket;
Crying for O R every time
O
sweets
B2
S
‘Educating’
the children
O
“Shifting the Burden”: Summary
(adapted from Senge, 2006)
• This is the summary and management
principle for a ‘shifting the burden’ SA;
› A short-term ‘solution’ is used to correct a problem,
with immediate positive results;
› Fundamental long-term corrective measures are used
less and less;
› Management principle: Focus on the fundamental
solution. If symptomatic solution is imperative, use it
to gain time while working towards the fundamental
solution.
• 6
“Fixes that Fail”: Structure
(adapted from Senge, 2006; Maani and Cavana, 2007)
› This SA (fixes that fail) has
one balancing loop (B) and
one reinforcing loop (R);
S
› More ‘problem’ – more ‘fix’
(same direction – S) –
B
Problem Fix
reduce/ease (opposite
O
S direction – O) the ‘problem’
(loop B);
› More ‘fix’ (without
careful/systemic
consideration) often leads to
more ‘unintended
R
consequence’ – more
‘problem’ – more ‘fix’ (loop R
Unintended – a vicious circle);
Consequence
› See next page for an
S
example of the ‘Fixes that Fail’
SA.
• 7
“Fixes that Fail”: Example
› This example shows a fix/solution
(with a good intention, but very
unfortunate ‘unintended
consequences’);
S
› Cane toads (an invasive species in
B Australia) were first introduced to
Pest Fix
Australia from Hawaii in June 1935
(cane beetle) (cane toad)
S O in an attempt to control the native
grey-backed cane beetle;
› There are now over 200 million
cane toads in Australia and they
have been known to spread
diseases affecting local
R biodiversity. Unfortunately, the
introduction of the toads has not
only caused large environmental
detriment, but there is also no
“Feral species”
evidence that they have had an
S
impact on the cane beetles they
were introduced to ‘fix’;
• 8
“Fixes that Fail”: Summary
(adapted from Continuous Improvement Associates, 2003; Senge, 2006)
• This is the summary and management
principle for a ‘fixes that fail’ SA;
› An action (a ‘fix’), effective in the short-term, has
unforseen long-term consequences which may require
even more use of the same ‘fix’;
› Typically a result of addressing the symptoms of
problems, rather than the root causes;
› Management principle: Take action by relieving
immediate pain, but continue working towards finding
long-term solutions that will address the root causes of
the problem.
• 9
“Tragedy of the Commons”: Structure
(adapted from Senge, 2006; Maani and Cavana, 2007)
› This SA (tragedy of the
S
commons) has two reinforcing
A’s Net Gain Resource loops (R1 & R2) and two
R1
Activity for A Limit balancing loops (B1 & B2);
S
› This archetype is commonly
S
seen in situations where there
B1 are ‘common goods’ to
S
O share/exploit;
O Gain per
Total
Individual
› In this SA, the two ‘players’ (A
Activity
Activity
S and B) in a system try to do
B2
more activities to gain more
(R1 & R2 loops); however, due
S
to ‘resource limit’ in the
S system, the counter-acting
B’s
Net Gain
R2
Activity loops (B1 & B2) will ‘kick in’;
for B
› Following is an example of this
S
SA;
• 10
“Tragedy of the Commons”: Example
› This archetype shows the
worsening level of competition
S Total demand at every rank of the corporate
A’s investment in A’s ability to advance for graduate
ladder for all graduates;
R1
tertiary education up corporate ladder student
O
› As a result of an increasing
S
number of people getting
B3
tertiary education, the effort
S needed by a person to scale
S Effort required to
Total number of advance up corporate the corporate ladder becomes
graduates ladder per person
S S exponential;
› Also, the education system's
B4
continued supply of more
graduates yearly, further
S
O
B’s investment hinder the older graduates
in tertiary R2 B’s ability to advance
ability to scale the corporate
education up corporate ladder
ladder;
S
Source: Ong, 2013
• 11
“Tragedy of the Commons”: Summary
(adapted from Senge, 2006)
• Summary and management principle for a
‘Tragedy of the Commons’ SA;
› Individuals use a commonly available but limited
resource solely on the basis of individual needs;
› The resource is either significantly depleted or entirely
exhausted;
› Management principle: Manage the ‘commons’
either through educating everyone and creating forms
of self-regulation and peer pressure, or through an
official regulating mechanism (ideally to be designed
by participants).
• 12
“Limits to Success/Growth”: Structure
(adapted from Senge, 2006; Maani and Cavana, 2007)
Constraints
S
S
S
R B
Effort Performance Limiting Action
S
O
› This SA (limits to growth) has one reinforcing loop (R) and one balancing loop (B);
› The tendency is to spend more ‘effort’ to achieve more ‘performance’ and keep on ‘pushing’
the R loop (without paying attention to remove the ‘constraints’);
› The following slide provides an example of this SA;
• 13
“Limits to Growth”: Example
Service
Capacity for
S
client
O B Delivery
Quality
S S
Sales R Referrals
S
Source: Thompson, 2013
Client Base
S
› This is a common situation in many businesses: focusing a lot on increasing ‘sales’, ‘client
base’, revenue, etc.; and not paying enough attention to improving ‘service capacity for
client’;
› Another similar example: the ‘boom’ and ‘collapse’ of People Express Airlines in the US.
• 14
“Limits to Growth”: Summary
(adapted from Senge, 2006)
• Summary and management principle for a
‘limits to growth’ SA
› A process feeds on itself to produce a period of
accelerated growth or expansion; then
› The growth begins to slow and eventually comes to a
halt;
› Management principle: Do not push on the
reinforcing (growth) process, but remove (or weaken)
the sources of limitations/constraints.
• 15
Systems Archetypes in the Cát Bà model
P Agriculture
Other pollution sources S O S Services Eco pollution New construction
S B_T4 O S
Attraction of
S S Infrastructure Agriculture S
CB island
Biodiversity Number of R_T2 S revenue
B_T3
S tourists
S
B_T1 R_T3
Tourism R_T3 Access to market
Tourism
revenue S
pollution R_T1 Investment in S
agriculture
B_T2 S R
Available S S S Eco3
underground Waste Hotels and
water Restaurants S GDP per capita
S S Information and Other income
communication sources
Use of R_Eco1 Livelihood of S S
underground water S O Commoner O Food safety
R_Env Health
O S
Misuse of NR
NR conservation
R_S1 Life expectancy
O
Poverty
O S S
The System is influenced by O Educated Population Immigration
S population S
S Student
R_S3
S population
Cultural values R_S2
NGOs Governance Policies O
Social
structure
evils/crime
S S O
Four systems archetypes can be identified in
Tourism development People’s awareness
this systems model (See next pages)
Nguyen, Bosch et al. (2011).
Creating ‘Learning Laboratories’ for SD in Biospheres - A Systems Thinking Approach. SR & BS, 28 (1), pp 51-62.
• 16
Systems Archetypes in the Cát Bà model
› Four systems archetypes have been identified in the
systems model of the CBBR. These include ‘limits to
growth’, ‘fixes that fail’, ‘tragedy of the common’, and
‘shifting the burden’;
› These SAs provide a high-level ‘story’ and an
understanding of the dynamics, interconnectedness
and relationships present within the Cát Bà system;
› Readings 3 & 4 (page 35, text book) provide a
comprehensive description of the Cát Bà model;
› The following slides illustrate each systems archetype
that has been identified in the Cát Bà Island model
Nguyen, Bosch et al. (2011).
Creating ‘Learning Laboratories’ for SD in Biospheres - A Systems Thinking Approach. SR & BS, 28 (1), pp 51-62.
• 17
Tourism development: ‘Limits to Growth’
• See the description, management principle and leverage points of this SA
in page 39, text book;
Constraints
S S
O
R B
Tourism Number Attraction of
revenue of tourists Cát Bà island
S O
R_T1,2,3 versus B_T3,4in:
Nguyen and Bosch (2013). A Systems Thinking Approach to identify Leverage Points for Sustainability... SR & BS, 30 (2), pp 104-115.
• 18
Tourism development: ‘Fixes that Fail’
• See the description, management principle and leverage points of this SA
in pp 39 - 40, text book;
S
S
Number of Staying and catering Hotels and
B
tourists problems restaurants
S O
R
Pollution
S
R_T1,3 versus B_T1,2 in:
Nguyen and Bosch (2013). A Systems Thinking Approach to identify Leverage Points for Sustainability... SR & BS, 30 (2), pp 104-115.
• 19
Carrying capacities: ‘Tragedy of the
Commons’
• See the description, management principle and leverage points of this SA
in pp 40 - 41, text book
S
S
Investment in Tourism
R
tourism revenue
Carrying
S
capacities
B
S
O S
Total investment Revenue per
activities each industry
S
B
S
Investment in Agriculture
R
agriculture revenue
S
S
R_Eco2 versus B_Eco, R_Eco1 versus B_T3,4 in:
Nguyen and Bosch (2013). A Systems Thinking Approach to identify Leverage Points for Sustainability... SR & BS, 30 (2), pp 104-115.
• 20
International aid: ‘Shifting the Burden’
• See the description, management principle and leverage points of this SA
in pp 41 – 42, text book.
S
International $
B
S
O Problems in Cát Bà O R Dependance on
international assistance
B
S
Long-term
solutions
O
Nguyen and Bosch (2013). A Systems Thinking Approach to identify Leverage Points for Sustainability... SR & BS, 30 (2), pp 104-115.
• 21
Exercises – Systems Archetypes (SAs)
› Study the other SAs (readings 1 & 4, page 44 of the
text book);
› Work in a group or individually and present two
examples of SAs (the SAs can be on any general topics
or they can be around the area of your own interest
that you have developed a draft CLD in the previous
module);
• 22
