**6. Conclusions**

If there is to be a more systems-literate world, people working in different roles must play a part. In each role, particular systems competencies must be brought to bear, and those competencies will vary in maturity within each person. Learning theory tells us that experience in doing something does not translate into maturation unless we reflect it against our existing understandings and assumptions [52]. Thousands of intelligent, committed systems thinkers have contributed their expertise to pressing world problems for decades now. Are those experiences maturing into increased competence in the practice of systems thinking worldwide? This is a matter for thoughtful consideration.

In several industries and academic disciplines, maturity models have been a way to address the question. A maturity model for competence in systems thinking would be a difficult undertaking. The number of situational contingencies and mediating factors one typically encounters in systems projects is considerable. Identifying the competencies that actually contribute to project success is not easy, as scholars working in other fields have discovered. Navigating the tension between a maturity model's formality and flexibility is a challenge [20]. Beyond these, engaging in critical self-reflection—which lies at the heart of maturity assessment—opens the possibility of unexpected and possibly uncomfortable discoveries about one's own immaturity [52]. A maturity model for competence in systems thinking would be a formidable task, but this is not to sugges<sup>t</sup> it ought to be a task left undone.

The task ahead would need to begin by developing clarity about key concepts:


Even once we develop answers to fundamental questions such as these, the work of clarifying, refining, and enhancing a maturity model would be ongoing—cumulative work that scholars in many disciplines have struggled to do well [54]. Empirical studies to establish the validity and usefulness of the model would be necessary, particularly with regard to its ability to predict and guide ways of increasing maturity to greater levels of effectiveness [45]. If a Maturity Model for Systems Thinking Competence is to be worthwhile, its accuracy and applicability must gain widespread acceptance among the systems sciences scholarly communities and systems practitioners alike.

In all this work, the underlying premises for creating a maturity model for systems thinking must be clarified and kept at the forefront. Those premises are ye<sup>t</sup> to be determined. However, some broad-based possibilities can be mentioned here. People who participate in international systems organizations share a vested interest in contributing to more accurate understanding and effective solutions to systemically complex problems. Systems thinking, we believe, is central to that aspiration. Systems thinking involves unique, or at least uniquely combined, human competencies. The competence people exhibit in doing systems thinking varies in maturity. Competence in systems thinking is a developmental process and can progress beyond ad hoc approaches typical of new systems thinkers. The academic disciplines of systems science, and the constituents they serve, would be better served if the discipline could clarify the competencies and skills universally necessary to doing good

systems work. This would legitimize systems thinking competence and differentiate systems thinkers from those using other kinds of thinking, which would enable recognition of the unique contributions that systems thinking makes. In a variety of settings, the approaches, intelligences, knowledge domains, and welcoming cognitive conditions associated with systems thinking would come to be better recognized and valued. Maturity Models for Systems Thinking Competence could accomplish important things: development of systemology, increase in the value that systems theory and practice can deliver to pressing world problems, and strengthening the legitimacy of systems knowledge as a branch of science of equal merit to other established disciplines.

A Model of Systems Thinking Competence could contribute to our understanding of the different kinds of systems thinking work that people do. Generating such a model would engage members of systems communities in dialogue about the sociocultural and political realities that impact effective systems work. The unanalyzed processes of "adaptation and negotiation within organizations" that impact systems thinking would be surfaced [52] (p. 19). The ways in which competent systems thinkers secure budgetary support, the way their work gets evaluated, and the way they generate lessons for the future would be important in assessing the factors that contribute to the development of systems thinking competence. The ways in which systems thinkers' intellectual capital is or is not transferred to others within organizations and industries would need to be addressed [5]; the impact of mentor relationships on the maturation of systems thinkers' competence could be investigated. A systematic process of collective reflection about factors such as these would clarify important situational contingencies that mediate the development of maturity in systems thinkers.

A Maturity Model of Systems Thinking Competence would make transparent the assumptions underpinning current understandings about what constitutes effective behaviour in meeting the challenges of complex systems. It would facilitate the scientific imperative of enabling assumptions underlying a maturity model to be intersubjectively verified by scientists and practitioners. It would mobilize the sharing of interpretations about the sense-making and problem solving practices that systems communities espouse. Greater understanding about the work we do as systems thinkers will not be gained in social isolation. A Maturity Model for Systems Thinking Competence would become a shared analytical lens through which we could understand and judge the competent use of systems science knowledge, skills, and behaviours. It would, thereby, act as a force for community identity building, with the potential to substantially affect the impact that systems thinkers can make in the future.

**Acknowledgments:** The author wishes to thanks Kajal Akruwala, MBA, for her assistance in this research.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.
