Download Free Donella Meadows Thinking In Systems Pdf Free
Meadows’ Thinking in Systems, is a concise and crucial book offering insight for problem solving on scales ranging from the personal to the global. Edited by the Sustainability Institute’s Diana Wright, this essential primer brings systems thinking out of the realm of computers and equations and into the tangible world, showing readers how to develop the systems-thinking Meadows’ Thinking in Systems, is a concise and crucial book offering insight for problem solving on scales ranging from the personal to the global. Edited by the Sustainability Institute’s Diana Wright, this essential primer brings systems thinking out of the realm of computers and equations and into the tangible world, showing readers how to develop the systems-thinking skills that thought leaders across the globe consider critical for 21st-century life.Some of the biggest problems facing the world—war, hunger, poverty, and environmental degradation—are essentially system failures. They cannot be solved by fixing one piece in isolation from the others, because even seemingly minor details have enormous power to undermine the best efforts of too-narrow thinking.While readers will learn the conceptual tools and methods of systems thinking, the heart of the book is grander than methodology. Donella Meadows was known as much for nurturing positive outcomes as she was for delving into the science behind global dilemmas. She reminds readers to pay attention to what is important, not just what is quantifiable, to stay humble, and to stay a learner.In a world growing ever more complicated, crowded, and interdependent, Thinking in Systems helps readers avoid confusion and helplessness, the first step toward finding proactive and effective solutions.
This is a nice basic text about systems. The layout is clear. The diagrams are helpful. The volume is an introduction. Much of it overlaps with what is in but without the specific focus. The opening chapters here I felt could have been boiled down, I found myself skipping and sliding over paragraphs, but if you completely new to systems thinking the slow pace is probably helpful.In chapter four Meadows argues that one of the reasons why economic modelling This is a nice basic text about systems.
The layout is clear. The diagrams are helpful. The volume is an introduction. Much of it overlaps with what is in but without the specific focus. The opening chapters here I felt could have been boiled down, I found myself skipping and sliding over paragraphs, but if you completely new to systems thinking the slow pace is probably helpful.In chapter four Meadows argues that one of the reasons why economic modelling is flawed because it concentrates on flows not stocks (eg production rather than productive capacity) and doesn't consider the dynamic between them. There's a nice discussion of bounded rationality as opposed to the complete information assumed to be available to homo economicus due to the time delays inherent in information feedback and the absence of data which means that in real life we get tragedy of the commons type events occurring.Chapter five on systems traps I thought was particularly good, with aninteresting comparison on population policy in post world war two Romania, Hungary and Sweden. Attempts in Romania to increase the birth rate by banning abortion led to an increase in deaths from back-street abortions and an increase of children abandoned at orphanages.
While in Hungary there was a focus on building instead to counter people delaying having families due to a lack of housing - ie addressing a cause rather than a symptom of the problem.There's a nice rehabilitation of President Carter who attempted to deal with the Oil Shock in the USA by introducing a tax on imported oil that would rise in proportion to the amount of oil imported and with illegal immigration by investing in development in Mexico instead. This rather sums up the difficulty that you face through thinking in systems. Because the results are counter-intuitive the feel good message of a President Reagan that addresses symptoms are more easily grasped than policies that address causes of problems be it addiction to oil or differing levels of development in North America having an effect like osmosis on populations.
As a collection of guidelines for understanding and intervening in problematic situations this book is quite useful. But I have never liked it because of two reasons, one internal to the book and one related to its effects in the outside world.As a primer, it’s perfectly fine that a book skids over some of the finer points of the theory. But my feeling is that this informality hides a quite damaging conceptual incoherence. Epistemologically the book oscillates between a naive realism (there is As a collection of guidelines for understanding and intervening in problematic situations this book is quite useful. But I have never liked it because of two reasons, one internal to the book and one related to its effects in the outside world.As a primer, it’s perfectly fine that a book skids over some of the finer points of the theory.
But my feeling is that this informality hides a quite damaging conceptual incoherence. Epistemologically the book oscillates between a naive realism (there is complexity out there and we can model it more or less faithfully) and a muddled constructivism (we can’t really know what is out there but models are a useful construct to structure our interaction with the world with the aim to progressively learn about how to deal with the friction and problems in that world). Then the book is anchored in the normative perspective of an engineer who is interested in the dynamics of depletion of natural resources.
It is inevitable that this professional perspective engenders a very distinctive (but always disputable) way of evaluating systems behavior. It is equally inevitable that it reflects a rather obvious position on the political spectrum. Finally the lack of conceptual clarity extends to some of the pivotal notions in the book. It remains, for instance, unclear how desirable systems behavior, resilience and self-organization are conceptually linked. Also, readers may be surprised by the progressively narrowing focus to how social systems may suffer from actors’ bounded rationality.My other misgivings have to do with the way this book is at the root of some of the ‘systems traps’ that it wants to help defeat. Many people will read the book in the conviction that this is more or less what there is to say about systems thinking. In fact its scope is quite narrow.
There is much more to be said about ‘systems thinking and doing’ than the MIT-centered school of system dynamics leads us to believe. By omitting references to other, ‘competing’ (or complementary) approaches the book puts the bar for aspiring learners rather low, leading to a premature sense of gratification of readers’ curiosity for systemic insights (the ‘eroding goals’ trap). Furthermore and related to the previous point, if readers’ attention is the stock that authors and publishers are competing for, then the net effect of this book’s ever-increasing popularity is that it crowds out other, contrasting accounts of systems thinking (the ’success to the successful’ trap). In other words, the success of the MIT brand of system dynamics is obscuring other valuable contributions in the systems domain to such an extent that it is becoming a liability rather than an asset (considered against the background of potential gains in intellectual capital that could be realized by other systems approaches).So I'm giving two stars to underline my reservations.
But I won't dispute that 'Thinking in Systems' contains quite a few useful ideas and from that point of view I could have granted it 3,5 stars too. Ever read a book that you're sad to finish because you borrowed it from the library, rather than bought it? Also, you were sad you couldn't write notes in the margins or highlight passages?
Yeah, that's this right here.This is essential reading for anyone, and I say that without hyperbole. You should do it especially if you're in business, technology, or policy (god, especially policy) but also just generally if you live on this planet and care about a thing.
I think perhaps it puts a lot of Ever read a book that you're sad to finish because you borrowed it from the library, rather than bought it? Also, you were sad you couldn't write notes in the margins or highlight passages? Yeah, that's this right here.This is essential reading for anyone, and I say that without hyperbole.
You should do it especially if you're in business, technology, or policy (god, especially policy) but also just generally if you live on this planet and care about a thing. I think perhaps it puts a lot of people off because of two things:One, the perceived dryness of the title/topic, but there's no worry here, as Meadows conveys complex ideas simply and engagingly.Two, the sustainability emphasis that runs through it.
However, even though it takes an environmentalist stance, you can completely discard that to embrace the bigger picture of the book - which is, well, to embrace the bigger picture.As I read this I was floored by the constant application to my life. Pretty remarkable considering the bulk of the writing was done around 2001 and it wasn't published until 2008.
The passage about how we tend to focus on the play of a system but not the space it has to play in made me think about the infrastructure challenges we have at work. The bit about the volatility that can result from removing delays from a system is powerfully and scarily echoed in the story of the 2010 flash crash (well-told in the Radiolab episode ). And the whole thing about a system constantly reinforcing itself even if you change the players within it is the plot of The Wire.While it can be daunting to think about challenges in this way, it's really the only way to do it if we want to solve those challenges. The world is unspeakably complex and unfortunately our inferior lizard-evolved brains are nowhere near capable of comprehending this. The world is complex and that is why our Hollywood movies have sucky plots, our politicians say idiotic things that idiotic people believe, and the word 'accurate economist' is an oxymoron.So here is the progression/evolution of a man who learns about the complexity of the world. He starts by watching Hollywood movies and Fox News and thinks that the world is The world is unspeakably complex and unfortunately our inferior lizard-evolved brains are nowhere near capable of comprehending this. The world is complex and that is why our Hollywood movies have sucky plots, our politicians say idiotic things that idiotic people believe, and the word 'accurate economist' is an oxymoron.So here is the progression/evolution of a man who learns about the complexity of the world.
He starts by watching Hollywood movies and Fox News and thinks that the world is black and white. There are good guys and there are bad guys. Good guys beat the bad guys. Then, you go out in the real world and find out that things aren't that easy to pigeonhole. There are bad guys who do good things.
There are good guys who do bad things. Good guys promise to do things for everyone but never do them, or even make things worse.
The man lays out simple plans in his head and tries to execute on them in the real world but they inevitably fail. 'Why don't things work out for me?'
And through years of failure, he comes to learn that the good guys are sometimes the bad guys and the bad guys are sometimes the good guys too. The rules that we believe to be real - 'Good guys win' and 'Working hard always leads to results' - are not so, and our efforts turn out so often to be naught because of the mysterious working processes of some Wizard of Oz behind the curtain screen. But the hard truth is that though the working processes are indeed mysterious, there is no single person to bash or blame.
There are only the actions of everyone around us.It could take years to learn this way of the world, but if you read this book you will learn this in hours. This book is not an engineering book and it is unfortunate that Donella gave it such a bland engineering-oriented name.
This is a book of philosophy and life learnings. A book about complexity, written with Zen-style simplicity and brevity yet every word is packed with meaning.
You read this book not because you want to learn about 'systems' (who cares about that?!) but you want to learn about why things don't always work out the way you want them to. I recommend Thinking in Systems because it has changed the way I understand and relate to my world.
Published after Donella Meadow's death, it introduces Systems Thinking by way of definition, illustration and application.In Part 1, System Structure and Behaviour, Meadows uses two graphical tools to analyse systems: stock and flow diagrams to show system structure; and charts mapping stock or flow levels over time to explore system behaviour for specific scenarios. The diagrams can be used to I recommend Thinking in Systems because it has changed the way I understand and relate to my world. Published after Donella Meadow's death, it introduces Systems Thinking by way of definition, illustration and application.In Part 1, System Structure and Behaviour, Meadows uses two graphical tools to analyse systems: stock and flow diagrams to show system structure; and charts mapping stock or flow levels over time to explore system behaviour for specific scenarios. The diagrams can be used to display 'balancing' (aka 'negative') and 'reinforcing' (aka 'positive') feedback loops, and the charts to explore how these might play out.While some of the systems might seem simplistic, they build up understanding of a key Systems Thinking insight, that systems generate their own behaviour.
And if you're ever wondered why the 'heroes and villains' style of explanation only works in retrospect, this is a damn good explanation.Chapter two, The Zoo, is a library of common system structures and their behaviour. Those of us from the software world will be reminded of a patterns library. Again, these patterns illustrate a deeper insight, that 'systems with similar feedback structures produce similar dynamic behaviors, even if the outward appearance of these systems is completely dissimilar.'
(p 51)In Part 2, Systems and Us, Meadows applies Systems Thinking to our world. Many of the examples are dated, but I found myself thinking how applicable these patterns and insights were to topics I was currently encountering - for example, I can't help thinking she would have loved the way that Kanban reflects a systems learning, that the ability of people and organisations to execute tasks degrades rapidly as the number of tasks rises beyond a critical limit.Of course one natural and urgent interest in systems behaviour is how to change it. If worshipping heroes and lynching villains isn't going to reform systems that may exhibit non-linear, perverse or self-preserving behaviour, what is?In Part 3, Creating Change in System and in our Philosophy, Meadows gives us a dozen leverage points for changing systems, starting with the simplest and ending with the most powerful.
She finishes with a list of 'systems wisdoms' - attitudes and values that she and others she respects have adopted to make them more effective at understanding and changing the systems we live in.Like many of the other reviewers, I wish I'd read this book a long time ago. It has its limitations - I'd love to see more recent examples, and can't help wondering if there are any open-source Systems modelling resources.
But for me this is a book of timeless value for anyone interested in a better understanding of their world and their options in it. If you're interested in 'limits to growth,' climate change, peak oil, and things like that, you should at least take a look at this book. It is, as the title advertises, a 'primer,' so anyone can read it, and it is very readable. It isn't real technical (and technical people may find it not technical enough), but the results are important and often surprising.Donella Meadows is one of the original authors of the 'Limits to Growth' study in 1972, and she shows the kind of systems reasoning that If you're interested in 'limits to growth,' climate change, peak oil, and things like that, you should at least take a look at this book. It is, as the title advertises, a 'primer,' so anyone can read it, and it is very readable.
Donella Meadows Leverage Points
It isn't real technical (and technical people may find it not technical enough), but the results are important and often surprising.Donella Meadows is one of the original authors of the 'Limits to Growth' study in 1972, and she shows the kind of systems reasoning that went into the study. It generally boosts my confidence that the authors were pretty well informed for an analysis of the whole issue of limits to growth for their day, and in fact even today.The book does not cover specific issues, but uses issues as examples; it is really about method and approach to issues and problems in our society. She discusses what a system is, why systems surprise us, and some favorite patterns in systems that lead us astray, how to get systems to work better, and some practical advice on how to deal with systems and 'systems thinking.'
She talks about the 'tragedy of the Commons' which Garrett Hardin made famous. There's the trap of the 'drift to low performance.'
Intervening to overcome problems may lead to something like 'addiction,' in the sense that we become totally dependent on the intervention.Two interesting examples stand out. She discusses why sailboat races progressed from a way to have fun with normal sailboats, to a highly specialized competition in which boats are useless for any other purpose except competition in carefully-defined sailboat races. She also discusses why maintaining inventory in the face of a changing demand, may actually lead NOT to a more stable inventory level, but to an increasing oscillation in inventory - a result which I couldn't argue with, but that I found totally non-intuitive.Some people may find this all very obvious. Well, some of it is, and some of it isn't, and I think that Meadows knows this and is doing the best she can to explain this fact. Part of it is obvious.
When you see the diagrams and the explanations, the flows and stocks and arrows, it all looks pretty simple. But part of it is not only NOT obvious, it's very hard to explain or even see in the first place.
The problem is getting to the point where you HAVE flows and diagrams and arrows. The problem is figuring out how much of systems analysis is 'art,' and how much is 'science,' and getting the knack of knowing the difference and when you need one and not the other.One key problem in analyzing systems, which she points out, is that we never quite know where they begin or where they end.
Figuring out the 'boundaries' is exactly a key problem in dealing with systems. So you can't just approach systems analysis by laying out the elements and definitions and drawing some general conclusions.
You need to know when you've really identified all the elements in a system, and that, unfortunately, is an art and not a science, which her last chapter deals with in a whimsical way. It's not the first book on Systems Theory I've read, but even if this one is described as a 'primer', it was not time wasted (definitely).It starts very low-level (stacks & flows), but don't get discouraged by that - w/o some foundations it's really hard to get a proper grasp of the what ST is. All this stuff is supported with nice, simple examples expressed with stacks+flows notation. You learn about balancing, reinforcing, delays, corrective flows, feedback, renewable vs non-renewable It's not the first book on Systems Theory I've read, but even if this one is described as a 'primer', it was not time wasted (definitely).It starts very low-level (stacks & flows), but don't get discouraged by that - w/o some foundations it's really hard to get a proper grasp of the what ST is. All this stuff is supported with nice, simple examples expressed with stacks+flows notation.
You learn about balancing, reinforcing, delays, corrective flows, feedback, renewable vs non-renewable stocks. and the best part comes around half of the book: author describes some sort of 'patterns' (archetypes) of systems frequently spotted in the wild. This is incredible & enlightening: you go through examples from politics, sociology, economy which map well-known RL situations to ST. Don't get me wrong - if e.g. Particular scenario is doomed to fail you'll know it (because you've seen in failing in the real-life), now you know WHY such systems fail (not THIS system fail) - it.clicks. as something corresponding to a pattern. Neat stuff.The last 20% is not as entertaining, but even keeping that in mind, the book is truly worth reading (4.5 stars).
TBH the more I learn about ST, the more critical I find it in my everyday's work (as an Architect, Manager, Leader). How to see the the big picture 101: how often do you get the sense that we are too consumed with micro issues to see the looming macro tidal waves that will wash away our elaborate sand castles into oblivion?Preamble:-I have been semi-consciously learning and applying “systems thinking” as a survival mechanism while exploring the dismal realms of economics and geopolitics (in particular: global division of labor and market externalities i.e. Environment, cheap labor, reproductive labor, How to see the the big picture 101: how often do you get the sense that we are too consumed with micro issues to see the looming macro tidal waves that will wash away our elaborate sand castles into oblivion?Preamble:-I have been semi-consciously learning and applying “systems thinking” as a survival mechanism while exploring the dismal realms of economics and geopolitics (in particular: global division of labor and market externalities i.e. This book was incredible.
When I picked it up I honestly had no idea how much it'd end up pulling me in.I love how Meadows approached a very complex scientific and mathematical subject and broke it down into easy-to-understand diagrams and concepts. Reading it at times was almost like reading poetry mixed with a text book, especially near the end.What I enjoy most about her way of thinking is that it arms you with a practical lens for viewing the world. She also advocates for constantly Wow. This book was incredible. When I picked it up I honestly had no idea how much it'd end up pulling me in.I love how Meadows approached a very complex scientific and mathematical subject and broke it down into easy-to-understand diagrams and concepts. Reading it at times was almost like reading poetry mixed with a text book, especially near the end.What I enjoy most about her way of thinking is that it arms you with a practical lens for viewing the world. She also advocates for constantly questioning and observing the systems in which you're living to identify different leverage points to help you achieve your purpose whatever it may be.In the end, I learned just as much about a beautiful dance-like way of approaching life as I did about approaching the analysis and manipulation of complex systems.
This book deserves a star more if the concepts and the ideas in it a completely new to you. For me, unfortunately, too much of this was too long-winded considering that it concluded with concepts that are extremely well-known to me.The best part of this book is the first few chapters; where the basic concepts and vocabulary is explained. Balancing and Strengthening feedback-loops. After that it spends too many words for too simple concepts making it fairly boring in the latter This book deserves a star more if the concepts and the ideas in it a completely new to you. For me, unfortunately, too much of this was too long-winded considering that it concluded with concepts that are extremely well-known to me.The best part of this book is the first few chapters; where the basic concepts and vocabulary is explained. Balancing and Strengthening feedback-loops.
After that it spends too many words for too simple concepts making it fairly boring in the latter parts, at least if you've got a decent grounding in related concepts already. I think this book would be better at half the length.
I ended up skimming the last half of the book; there just wasn't enough that was new to me there to hold my interest, relative to how many words were spent. It is the one of the areas I’ve been interested for quite a while.
But I could not find concise introductory book about system thinking for social science and/or policymaking. I think, in spite of its limitations, this book is as close as you could get. It is not technical. It explains the basics very clearly. It could be claimed, that the book is representing only one part of the rapidly developing and diverse field.
But I would argue, that it does not go deep into the specifics of any field, It is the one of the areas I’ve been interested for quite a while. But I could not find concise introductory book about system thinking for social science and/or policymaking.
I think, in spite of its limitations, this book is as close as you could get. It is not technical. It explains the basics very clearly. It could be claimed, that the book is representing only one part of the rapidly developing and diverse field. But I would argue, that it does not go deep into the specifics of any field, while providing the starting point.Donella Meadows, professor of MIT, she has written the manuscript in1992, but never came to publishing it. It has been published after her death in 2001, I believe. While reading, i felt she did not have a chance to edit it properly.
It is a mixture of a basic system theory, her views on certain social issues, personal experiences and even sometimes more general philosophic thoughts. So you have to be a patient reader to get what you want out of it.
I’ve almost ended up reading it twice. But it is very rewarding at the end. You start see systems everywhere.Some of her examples are obviously very outdated. In spite of this, I did not feel her explanations and approach has aged. She came up with the suggested methodology, how to change social systems and this is already quite a lot.What is the system?It is something which is more than the sum of its parts and it is source of its own behaviour.
She gives more formal definition: “a set of elements or parts that is coherently organised and interconnected in a pattern or structure that produces a characteristic set of behaviours often classified as its function or purpose”.The difference between a system and a set of objects:1) there are connections (called flows) between the elements (often called stocks or agents) in the system;2) there are certain feedback mechanisms communicated through these connections. Respectively, a change in one part of the system would course the change in another part. The main point here, that the system would course its own behaviour by itself.
So it would function in time (“dynamic” is the scientific word).Non controversial examples is a thermostat, or a human body. Apparently, in the 90s to consider an individual, society or economy as a systems examples was controversial to the extent that she uses the word “heretical”In the book she briefly describes different types of systems. She also brings natural resources into social system.What is thinking in systems?It is a critical tool applying the knowledge of systems to the chosen object of research in order to understand it better or solve related problems.
Practically, it is done through building a model of the underlying system. It is just one type of analysis, the “lens” how to understand the world around us. The book delves deeper into how it works and describes the properties of the systems.What are feedbacks?Feedback loop is much easier to understand intuitively than define. But it is a chain of rules or physical laws which defines how the initial change in the element (stock in the system speak) of the system courses the next change at the same element. It comes in two varieties:- balancing feedback - there is a defined goal and the current state is compared to this goal (the targeted temperature in thermostat vs the current temperature for example).
This type of feedback makes the system more stable, but more resistant to change as well.- reinforcing feedback loop - it is self-enfacing mechanism when the initial change triggers even bigger change. This type of feedback left alone is leading to the exponential growth or runaway collapses of the system over time. The example could be a bank balance with the compounded interest rate; population growth of rabbits or escalation of a political conflict.Or, I dare say, a rating on GR website - the higher the rating, the more people would read the book, the more people would rate it positively - the more rating would grow - the more people would read. You’ve got the picture. But unfortunately, for some wonderful, but underrated books, it works in negative way as well.What a boundaries?“there are no separate systems. The world is continuum. Where to draw a boundary around a system depends on the purpose of the discussion.” It is very important point which illustrates the relevance of systems thinking to our life.
She notes: “Ideally we would have the mental flexibility to find the appropriate boundary for thinking about each new problem. We are rarely that flexible. We get attached to the boundary our minds happen to be accustomed to. To think how many arguments have to do with boundaries- national trade ethnic, boundaries between public and private responsibility, and boundaries between the religious ch and poor, polluters and pollutees, people alive now and people who cone in the future.” This lack of mental flexibility is the source of a lot of unnecessary conflicts and mistakes, systems or notWhat are “systems’ traps”?Systems could be counter-intuitive. Pourbaix diagram questions.
More often than not a system would “surprise” you - come up with the results which you would not expect. This is because the majority of systems are complex - contain subsystems.
And there are a lot of connections and feedbacks. Feedbacks might pull the performance in an unexpected direction. Or, the goals of subsystems might contradict to each other and “may not lead to decisions that further the welfare of the system of the whole”.The bad “surprises” she calls “systems traps”. She defines about 9 different traps encountered in the social systems and the recommended ways out.
They are all very important, but I’ve picked up just three to give you a jest of what is all about:- Escalation - When the state of one stock (agent) is determined by trying to surpass the state of another stock (agent) and vice versa. “It is a reinforcing feedback loop carrying the system in an arms race, a wealth race, a smear campaign, escalating loudness, escalating violence. The escalation is exponential and can lead to extremes surprisingly quickly.
If nothing is done, the spiral will be stopped by someone collapse.” As the way out, once side could refuse to compete unilaterally. Or some balancing feedback loop could be negotiated to compensate for the reinforcing one.- Success to the Successful - “The winners of a competition are systematically rewarded with the means to win again, a reinforcing feedback loop is created. And if it is allowed to proceed uninhibited, the winners eventually take all, while the losers are eliminated.” One might recognise the monopolisations of the industries and the mechanism for inequality, currently big issues on the social radar. As the way out - diversification, strict limitation of maximum fraction of a winning pie (antitrust law for example); periodically levelling the playing field for everyone; policies that device the rewards for success that do not bias the next round of competition.- Seeking a Wrong Goal - if the system has got a poorly defined or plainly wrong goal, it would obediently tick-tack towards it.
Way out - define the goal carefully and redefine if wrong; not to try accept the goal just so it is easy to measure.What to do with all of this?You can answer this question on two levels. On the personal level, the system thinking is a good tool to understand the world around you; that everything is interconnected and some of your decisions might come back and affect you in a surprising way. On the other hand, you always have an ability to learn and to change (to adapt in system speak).On the level of society and social science, it is much more complicated of course:“Self-organising, nonlinear, feedback systems are inherently unpredictable.
They are not controllable. They are understandable only in the most general way.
The goal of foreseeing the future exactly and preparing for it perfectly unrealisable.”In plain speak, no-one can control such system and no-one would be able to predict what it would do in future. To add insult to injury: “Social systems are the external manifestation of cultural thinking patterns and of profound human needs emotions strength and weakness. Changing them is not simple.”Why to bother then?Because, though the systems cannot be controlled and predicted, but it can be understood (to some extent)! The new system can be designed and the existing ones can be re-designed.Redesigning of the existing systems is probably the most interesting bit.
For this she defines “Leverage points”, the terms borrowed from Physics - places in the system where a small change could lead to a large shift in its behaviour.Leverage points (levels of impact from the weakest to the strongest):1. Numbers/parameters - characteristic of rates of flow, levels of stock, buffers. They are the least effective in terms lasting impact on the system behaviour. Examples are tax rates, spending rates, caps on ambient air quality, minimal wage and cap at prices.
Even such things like firing people and hiring the new ones, including politicians — but of the structure is the same and info flows are the same would not help. She compares in with shifting chars on Titanic in order to restore the balance.“Whatever cap we put on campaign contributions, it does not clean up politics. The Fed’s fiddling with the interest rate has not made business cycles go away. (We always forget that during upturns and are shocked by the downturns). Spending more on police or education does not make crime go away.”Only one exception is when the goal of the whole system is expressed as a numerical value. But more about it below.2.
Although I had looked at Systems Thinking in the past, I did it very superficially. This book really helped me understand more about it and gave me knowledge I could apply immediately in my work environment.As I’ve been told before reading the book, I would see systems everywhere.
And that’s exactly what happened while going through the book and after I finished. Systems Thinking makes you look at things in a different way and gives you tools to better deal and influence the environment around Although I had looked at Systems Thinking in the past, I did it very superficially.
This book really helped me understand more about it and gave me knowledge I could apply immediately in my work environment.As I’ve been told before reading the book, I would see systems everywhere. And that’s exactly what happened while going through the book and after I finished.
Systems Thinking makes you look at things in a different way and gives you tools to better deal and influence the environment around you. I had big expectations and oh wow, this book is so much better than I expected in every imaginable way!I love how every page shows how theory and practice, quality and quantity or any other methodological dichotomy needs to be bridged to arrive at clear understanding of a situation. Closing chapters add a welcome and sober reflection.Wow. Recommended to anybody, really. I'm really sorry that I left on my shelf for almost three years. (And that I did not meet it already in my studies years I had big expectations and oh wow, this book is so much better than I expected in every imaginable way!I love how every page shows how theory and practice, quality and quantity or any other methodological dichotomy needs to be bridged to arrive at clear understanding of a situation.
Closing chapters add a welcome and sober reflection.Wow. Recommended to anybody, really. I'm really sorry that I left on my shelf for almost three years. (And that I did not meet it already in my studies years before that.). An attempt to make holism rigorous; given holism's deep intuitive appeal for people, the attempt is worthy. But I was hostile to this at first – mostly because her field helped breed a generation of pseuds who use ‘reductionism’ as an insult (rather than as, or a useful way of thinking, instances of which denote the highest achievements of the species).
Let's get clear:“REDUCTIONISM” (to the pseud): The claim that complicated or immeasurable things do not exist.“SYSTEMS An attempt to make holism rigorous; given holism's deep intuitive appeal for people, the attempt is worthy. But I was hostile to this at first – mostly because her field helped breed a generation of pseuds who use ‘reductionism’ as an insult (rather than as, or a useful way of thinking, instances of which denote the highest achievements of the species).
Let's get clear:“REDUCTIONISM” (to the pseud): The claim that complicated or immeasurable things do not exist.“SYSTEMS THEORY” (to the pseud): The only way of understanding things: as a whole. Everything else omits and so isn't full.REDUCTIONISM (ontology): The claim that complicated things are made of simpler things. Only the simplest of them are physically real; the rest are mental models of their interactions.REDUCTIONISM (methodology): The attempt to isolate causes and treat phenomena in terms of their most basic units (whether quark, string, transaction).SYSTEMS THEORY: When things get together, they exhibit features the individual things don’t.So stated, there is no conflict between good old reduction and shiny systems thinking. But Meadows distils the juicy bits into. TLDR of my review: Reading this book doesn't make one an expert on complex systems. In fact it probably makes one dangerously hubristic when it comes to systems thinking. It's a decent primer but it only scratches the surface.
And it is flawed in a number of ways.I first became interested in Systems Thinking a little over 5 years ago and this book was one that I used to kick start my study. It was interesting re-read it after a few years as I now have a much more TLDR of my review: Reading this book doesn't make one an expert on complex systems. In fact it probably makes one dangerously hubristic when it comes to systems thinking.
It's a decent primer but it only scratches the surface. And it is flawed in a number of ways.I first became interested in Systems Thinking a little over 5 years ago and this book was one that I used to kick start my study. The first step to better systems thinking is acknowledging the fact that humans are never able to perfectly grasp and model the real world in their heads. The real world is just way too complex and non-linear for our simple and biased minds.A system in it's essence is more than sum of it's parts.
It's an interconnected set of elements that is coherently organized in a way that achieves something. Otherwise it would be just random collection of things.As systems are usually quite complex and The first step to better systems thinking is acknowledging the fact that humans are never able to perfectly grasp and model the real world in their heads. The real world is just way too complex and non-linear for our simple and biased minds.A system in it's essence is more than sum of it's parts.
It's an interconnected set of elements that is coherently organized in a way that achieves something. Otherwise it would be just random collection of things.As systems are usually quite complex and have non-linear results on feedback they are already quite hard to grasp for ordinary people. Add in a fact that when we talk about systems in real life like societies, ecosystems, mechanical structures etc, they are also changing in time.Usually when we look at the statistics which describe the behaviour of the system we, as characteristic to humans, start to see patterns and expect systems to behave linearly when we reduce or increase the variables. This is the first mistake as systems behave very differently and nonlinearly on the extremes.
Second mistake is that we almost never take into t he consideration that system itself is changing and we can't rely on the statistics of the system that is not existing anymore.Overall a very good introduction into systems thinking. If only people in power (businesses, non-profits, government) would better understand their limitations of understanding and behave based on that. Nice introduction to systems thinking.Warning: after reading this book you'll start noticing feedback loops all around you.It touches on system thinking fundamentals like stocks, flows & feedback loops.I love how it provides real-life examples (fish population, economic failure modes.) and offers pointers on how to intervene in failing systems.I read this work through the eyes of a consultant/software developer and a lot of the advice offered translates directly to my day job. Highly Nice introduction to systems thinking.Warning: after reading this book you'll start noticing feedback loops all around you.It touches on system thinking fundamentals like stocks, flows & feedback loops.I love how it provides real-life examples (fish population, economic failure modes.) and offers pointers on how to intervene in failing systems.I read this work through the eyes of a consultant/software developer and a lot of the advice offered translates directly to my day job. Highly recommended!
At first glance, it's hard not to be dismissive of systems theory. Oh, the world is comprised of various interrelated systems that can only be manipulated for different outcomes with great care if they aren't to end in collapse and chaos? Tell me something else I already know.
Donella Meadows Book
But that's not really the point of systems thinking—though it is the starting point.Donella Meadows was a Harvard-educated scientist who worked at MIT and taught at Dartmouth, and was among the vanguard of systems At first glance, it's hard not to be dismissive of systems theory. Oh, the world is comprised of various interrelated systems that can only be manipulated for different outcomes with great care if they aren't to end in collapse and chaos?
Transcending Paradigms Donella Meadows
Tell me something else I already know. But that's not really the point of systems thinking—though it is the starting point.Donella Meadows was a Harvard-educated scientist who worked at MIT and taught at Dartmouth, and was among the vanguard of systems thinkers. Technically, systems analysts use computer-processed mathematical models to analyze systems and attempt to forecast best practices; Thinking in Systems, however, offers a non-technical introduction to the fascinating discipline, and provides readers with enough information and detail to guide reflection, analysis, and activity.According to Meadows, there is no end- or starting-point for any system: the universe itself is a vast integrated system of innumerable subsystems that overlap ad infinitum.
Systems thinking, then, is not about analyzing closed systems, but about describing parameters around as much of a set of subsystems as is necessary or worthwhile for the desired discussion. A human being, for example, might be seen as a closed system, until one considers the other human beings in the subject's vicinity with whom she interacts, the environment in which she lives, etc. These are all subsystems working together to form a larger whole.The value of looking at systems is chiefly in its capacity for facilitating understanding, and for observing and manipulating the elements of systems to effect change. A system, to truly be a system, must have three aspects: elements (the individual parts such as inventory for a business, oil for a refinery, etc.), interconnections (how the elements relate), and purpose (the reason for the system to exist in the first place).
Systems that work well are resilient, self-organizing, and employ hierarchy within their structure.The value of this book is chiefly in its capacity to help you adjust the way you look at any given system (your business, your community, your national government). Understanding how the parts of systems interact or are likely to interact, and realizing that much of systems operation is surprising and even counterintuitive, can be a powerful tool for anyone involved in organizational decision-making, management, or projection and guidance.Meadows's ideas are clearly presented and defined, though the writing style is a bit stilted and there are a number of typos throughout the text; this may be the fault of the editor, however, who adapted the content of the original pamphlet form of Thinking in Systems for this book. Getting past the style isn't hard, though, since the ideas themselves are fascinating, practical, and ultimately self-defending. If you're involved in management or part of a steering committee, read this book. This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,Excellent book. Too many useful nuggets to not save.
Saving my notes here for future referenceDominance is an important concept in systems thinking. When one loop dominates another, it has a stronger impact on behavior.
Because systems often have several competing feedback loops operating simultaneously, those loops that dominate the system will determine the behavior.Complex behaviors of systems often arise as the relative strengths of feedback loops shift, causing first one loop and Excellent book. Too many useful nuggets to not save. Saving my notes here for future referenceDominance is an important concept in systems thinking. When one loop dominates another, it has a stronger impact on behavior.
'Dana' Meadows was a pioneering American environmental scientist, teacher, and writer. She was educated in science, receiving a B.A. In chemistry from Carleton College in 1963, and a Ph.D. In biophysics from Harvard in 1968. After a year-long trip with her husband, Dennis Meadows, from England to Sri Lanka and back, she became, along with him, a research fellow at MIT, as a member of a Donella H.
'Dana' Meadows was a pioneering American environmental scientist, teacher, and writer. She was educated in science, receiving a B.A. In chemistry from Carleton College in 1963, and a Ph.D. In biophysics from Harvard in 1968. After a year-long trip with her husband, Dennis Meadows, from England to Sri Lanka and back, she became, along with him, a research fellow at MIT, as a member of a team in the department created by Jay Forrester, the inventor of system dynamics as well as the principle of magnetic data storage for computers. She taught at Dartmouth College for 29 years, beginning in 1972.