Systems Thinking Principles for Making Change

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well written and well structured paper. It contributes to the debate about systems thinking and practice.

The paper reads well and I do not have any major changes to recommend. These are some MINOR changes I recommend:

1.        Figure 1: From what I understand, Checkland (Who has worked with the OU in the past) should be credited for the concepts and thoughts. As far as know (I might be mistaken, he coined the expression; “ I spy systems that I can engineer” to characterise the ‘hard’ systems engineering approach. about as to how to fully and seriously .

2.        The characterisation of 1^st and 2^nd Order use if the system idea is compelling. My only observation is that again Checkland pioneer this idea when he talks about the two worlds: Rear world and Systems Thinking world. I suggest to make a reference to these his work and/or acknowledged  his merit or point to its limitations, in any case Checkland’s influential work should be acknowledged.

3.        Finally, the paper should at least hint or summarise a ‘real case’ in which these ideas (ST for change) have been used. I know that the text refer to the cases in which these methodology has been used at the OU but a couple of shirt cases would help the reader ti see the practicality of it. I did not detect these but I could have missed them

 

Thanks for the opportunity  to read and review thus paper.

Author Response

1. Figure 1: From what I understand, Checkland (Who has worked with the OU in the past) should be credited for the concepts and thoughts. As far as know (I might be mistaken, he coined the expression; “ I spy systems that I can engineer” to characterise the ‘hard’ systems engineering approach. about as to how to fully and seriously .

 

1. The characterisation of 1^st and 2^nd Order use if the system idea is compelling. My only observation is that again Checkland pioneer this idea when he talks about the two worlds: Rear world and Systems Thinking world. I suggest to make a reference to these his work and/or acknowledged  his merit or point to its limitations, in any case Checkland’s influential work should be acknowledged.

Response:  Checkland is now cited.  Thanks for important corrections 

1. Finally, the paper should at least hint or summarise a ‘real case’ in which these ideas (ST for change) have been used. I know that the text refer to the cases in which these methodology has been used at the OU but a couple of shirt cases would help the reader ti see the practicality of it. I did not detect these but I could have missed them

The core principles together are being used more generically for evidencing STiP as an educational tool for new and aspiring ST practitioners - so difficult to relay published case studies.  A 'postscript disclaimer' item is now provided at the end of section 1

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thankyou for the opportunity to read the manuscript. The topic is very much of the moment, developing systems thinking approaches in ways that  are more functional and applicable in today’s hectic and stressful world (BANI) Evseeva, S., Evseeva, O. and Rawat, P., 2021,  Employee development and digitalization in BANI world. In International scientific conference on innovations in digital economy (pp. 253-264) is very much on point.

I have discussions regularly with people attempting to apply systems thinking who say they simply cannot run through full iterations of either single or multiple methodologies and who are struggling to work with existing system thinking frameworks and approaches in meaningful ways. The idea that practitioners can in some way build on existing skill sets, and that more helpful frameworks can be created to make this easer is welcome.

Systems Thinking in Practice (STiP) has been developed as an approach over a number of years and this paper attempts to build on that work and propose new ways of making systems thinking both more accessible and usable as well as effective, maintaining a level of expertise and literacy. My one overall point is that, given the orientation towards practice,  and the length some of these ideas have been out in the world, it would be good (and perhaps more accessible to practitioners) if it made some reference (at least some small examples of) practice and experiences of practice to ground the theory and validate it's effectiveness.  Currently, what starts out as a great discussion and proposition,  tends towards being self defeated as the framework becomes more complex and with little to explain how it does/has worked in practice.

The paper offers a mixture of concepts that have been in use for some time and a development of how these might be used -  it would improve the paper if the narrative and argument were slightly clearer as to what is new and how these developments make sense relevant to the existing ideas (of bricolage, artisan, systemic sensibilities, for example). What justifies the three levels of conversation? For example. has this been tested in practice in any way? Given the paper is making claims for advancing practice this seems essential. Could some example of why or how it worked be offered? 

The author discusses Patton’s defence of generic systems thinking concepts and develops this throughout the article. It would seem relevant to bring in Cabrera’s work on systems thinking concepts (DSRP) at this point, (Cabrera, D. and Cabrera, L., 2022. DSRP theory: A primer. Systems, 10(2), p.26.) given that this also relates to the use of systems thinking concepts in a very similar way and is incredibly popular, usable and has been developed quite significantly, even if it is just in reference, but ideally with some level of comparison. 

As mentioned the author refers to a number of ideas and concepts such as ‘systemic sensibilities’ these would benefit from more description drawing from practice in the context of this framework, helping statements like ‘recovering systemic sensibilities’ become more meaningful (and less as though they should be taken for granted) and supporting the orientation of the paper towards making the approach more accessible (and developing these ideas further with examples of how they work in practice). The authors sentence on pg 9 maybe speaks to both this, and a lack of certainty of what may or may not be useful in practice: “Having some image in the mind (mental model) of how STiP may offer professional support can be helpful as a point of reference (or checklist) of systemic sensibilities, but may have more limited use in guiding actual practice.”  Again, given the articles orientation towards practice it would be of great interest to include real examples of how these approaches and understandings have been applied and been functional in the ‘real’ world to validate/test/make meaningful  sentences like these.

The author makes the point that there is a need for some level of systems literacy for concepts to be applied and used in any way that which actually have utility and go beyond existing ways of working. At the same time there is a need for artisanship and a number of features speak to the artisan intuitions and their own ideas. Perhaps in this area the author would look at work on expert intuition which would  help start to make the link  between literacy and intuition- Kahneman, D. and Klein, G., 2009. Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree. American psychologist, 64(6), p.515. 

Overall, and in summary, the article brings an interesting set of ideas together, but many have existed for some time and (given that) it would be good for the author to make clear (even in small ways) what of the existing concepts work in practice (and why?) and then how that  justifies and supports the development of the new ideasthat feed into the frameworks offered here as a good progression towards an approach that is more usable and effective. This would then, I believe, speak to the overall orientation  of the article which sets out to make systems thinking frameworks more accessible, useable and practical.

 

Author Response

Some very helpful feedback, and suggested references that I can draw on in making the case more contextual amongst existing practices.  The feedback has triggered the need to be more explicit about the scope and limitations of aim and endeavours of the paper.    A 'postscript disclaimer' item is now provided at the end of section 1.  Many thanks  

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1) STiP principles appear to be presented somewhat abstractly, and no clear examples or case studies are provided to demonstrate how these principles can be applied in real-world situations. The author could include case studies or practical examples of how the above principles have been successfully implemented in different organizational or management contexts. This is intended to enhance the understanding of readers outside the UK.

 

2) One of the queries that arose for me when mentioning the divergence between recovering systems sensitivities and deepening systems thinking literacy approaches is how they compare benefits or advantages and how the disadvantages are addressed.

 

3) The article uses metaphors such as bricolage and conversation to explain critical concepts. Still, it does not provide sufficient detail on how these metaphors translate into concrete actions or tools for systems thinking in practice. I am also wondering how the article's proposal really separates from the philosophy and framework of action of continuous improvement and Lean Six Sigma, which involves network thinking.

 

4) The paper criticizes the over-reliance on decontextualized tools in systems thinking. I agree that one can fall into the trap of prioritizing the tool and leaving aside the experience of those who know a given problem situation. However, it does not provide a critical evaluation of existing tools or suggest new tools or approaches to facilitate the deployment of systems thinking.

 

5) The author could be more explicit about potential challenges, such as organizational resistance or lack of adequate training, that could arise when implementing STiP principles.

 

6) The author could supply specific practical tools for measuring or modeling particular practical tools for measuring or modeling real-time system interactions. For example, network thinking offers methods for mapping and analyzing interactions. This could provide a more detailed and actionable view of system dynamics.

 

I appreciate the opportunity to review this article. I have shared my comments with the utmost respect and to contribute constructively to the development of the work presented.

Author Response

This is a very helpful set of reflections with some good prompts towards referencing relevance of Cabrera, as well as possible mentioning of approaches like Lean Sigma and network thinking.   I have included Cabrera as footnote to boundary critique.  I'm inclined though not to start including systems approaches for risk of alienating those that inevitably are not included.  The feedback has triggered the importance of setting out disclaimers and being clearer on the limitations and challenges of the submitted monograph.    A 'postscript disclaimer' item is now provided at the end of section 1. With thanks.