Systems thinking for complex problem solving
There are two types of thinking. It is possible that all of us can be bucketed into either of the two. We are either modular thinkers or holistic thinkers. It can be said that modular thinkers are detailed oriented, and holistic thinkers are driven need and relevance. Modular thinking allows the team to focus within the scope. But sometimes when the scope needs to be scaled and circling around singular elements is no more adequate, holistic thinking is essential. This bird's eye view processing of the problem is not easy for many.
Work in social behaviour change often requires professionals to reframe a proposed problem. There are times when the client’s lens of the problem remains the scope of the project. Yet sometimes, to achieve the desired impact the problem defined needs a review. The scope needs expansion. To enable this, as outsiders to the context, designers and behavioural scientists need to understand the problem from within. With a mixed team of modular and holistic thinkers, sensemaking of the problem is possible.
Many if not all experienced professionals can effortlessly provide a holistic view of the problem ecosystem. In their absence then, systems thinking tools come to the aid. Systems thinking tools deliberate the team to push the connected boundaries. The breadth of the information they help create about the problem ecosystem will shun loop talks around a dominant opinion. they blur the team biases and help modular thinkers and the collectively the team to grasp the big picture, in its complex self.
In light of this, as a novice to the systems thinking the approach to problem-solving, I am sharing my first systems mapping experience in this article.
There was a time when I had assumed that systems can be mapped only as a team and never individually. This bothered me. Because sometimes I need to work with myself. Need to sort the hang-ups in my head. But, as I learnt later, systems mapping need not be a team exercise always! So I went ahead and applied my learnings and sorted my head in the first project I got next, at Final Mile Consulting: Understanding one key stakeholder’s behaviour in a delivery system: the delivery man.
Any problem-solving exercise should start with laying out the players involved, their internal and external interconnections, and the purpose of their existence. So:
1a. I Clustermapped the core elements — Logistic elements, driver, driving vehicle, contextual elements at the start, end and during her trip, reporting systems, etc.
1b. Then detailed out the purpose of their interconnections in the existing system- error removal, timely delivery, safety, diligence, etc.
1c. Highlighted the weak links and strong links to identify the barriers and facilitators for a successful delivery completion.
But this layout was not sufficient. The cause for the weakness and strength of the connections was not made clear with the cluster mapping technique. This disallowed me from identifying the levers that influence key decisions and behaviours.
2. Step-2: So I juxtaposed the barriers and facilitators identified in step-1 on an X-map. Writing down the issues, opportunities, and possibilities helped me draw out the causal loops, which in turn fed into opportunities and possibilities.
3a. Step-3: Having uncovered thus I prioritized the behavioural needs that would ensure a successful delivery system — an ideal win-win situation.
This step particularly helped me draw up the pitch for our proposal. It zeroed in on the vital need for a delivery man to achieve the desired output if s/he is to operate in the existing environmental, social and emotional context.
It is noteworthy to mention that an experienced team member also identified the same behavioural need, but without having to go through this exercise. In this case, the systems mapping assertively reinforced his experiential judgment. In fact, it also negated the prejudices of other inexperienced team members.
Now, having identified the behavioural need it can be agreed that the ideal solution is a system overhaul. While it is one approach, the behavioural complexities that would arise with overhauling will be an unnecessary side-effect that cannot be handled at the present. So a cultural behaviour change strategy was proposed wherein the existing system components were reused and reordered. System stability was maintained by way of integrating both the top-down and bottom-up solution strategies.
Originally published at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/one-way-map-systems-complex-problem-solving-srilakshmi-/ on May 21, 2018.
