Using system archetypes to shortcut problem solving

The use of systems thinking archetypes provide a powerful framework to approach problem solving.

Photo by Clint Adair on Unsplash

Systems thinking is a powerful way of viewing the world. It provides perspective that takes into account more of the complexity and interactions of real world issues when compared to other forms of problem solving tools, such as root cause analysis (RCA). That complexity involves reinforcing and balancing loops, inputs and delays, all of which can create counter intuitive outcomes, often at odds to the original desired result especially when looked at over different time scales.

Peter Senge writes in “The Fifth Discipline”

“From an early age we are taught to break apart problems, to fragment the world. This apparently makes complex tasks and subjects more manageable, but we pay a hidden, enormous price. We can no longer see the consequences of our actions: we lose our intrinsic sense of connection to a larger whole.”

System Archetypes are behavioral patterns that can occur in different setting but with common fundamental structures. Being able to spot these patterns allows you to apply pressure at high levels of influence, improving the chance of an effective outcome. As these patterns are similar, despite occurring across a wide range of process settings, understanding what works well in one setting, can be frequently be applied across other settings, both in time and context.

This is a classic example of building on mental models that are generic in nature to solve many seemingly unrelated problems, and provide a very powerful tool to have in your problem solving tool kit.

Writes Jorge Taborga

The theory behind system archetypes is that situations with unwanted results or side effects can be mapped to the common behavior models. Given the knowledge available about system archetypes, problem solvers, in general, can apply its principles and arrive at a rich diagnosis of a situation and plan a recovery. The knowledge base on system archetypes provides guidelines for determining what archetype is at play and, once identified, how to approach an intervention.

Kim explains in his excellent summary:

The archetypes consist of different combinations of reinforcing and balancing loops, and when applied to business problems, can yield insight into the struc- ture at work and reveal possible high-leverage interventions

Organizations can use the archetypes to become more effective at tackling complex issues in at least three different ways.

• First, the archetypes can be used as diagnostic tools for developing an understanding of a current situation.
• Second, as planning tools, they can help us anticipate future consequences and for them.
• Third, the archetypes can be used as theory-building tools to help build a growing body of knowledge about our understanding of the world.

Eight of the most common archetypes are:

1. Fixes that fail — A solution is rapidly implemented to address the symptoms of an urgent problem. This quick fix sets into motion unintended consequences that are not evident at first but end up adding to the symptoms.
2. Shifting the burden — A problem symptom is addressed by a short-term and a fundamental solution. The short-term solution produces side effects affecting the fundamental solution. As this occurs, the system’s attention shifts to the short-term solution or to the side effects.
3. Limits to growth — A given effort initially generates positive performance. However, over time the effort reaches a constraint that slows down the overall performance no matter how much energy is applied.
4. Drifting goals — As a gap between goal and actual performance is realized, the conscious decision is to lower the goal. The effect of this decision is a gradual decline in the system performance.
5. Growth and underinvestment — Growth approaches a limit potentially avoidable with investments in capacity. However, a decision is made to not invest resulting in performance degradation, which results in the decline in demand validating the decision not to invest.
6. Success to the successful — Two or more efforts compete for the same finite resources. The more successful effort gets a disproportionately larger allocation of the resources to the detriment of the others.
7. Escalation — Parties take mutually threatening actions, which escalate their retaliation attempting to “one-up” each other.
8. Tragedy of the commons — Multiple parties enjoying the benefits of a common resource do not pay attention to the effects they are having on the common resource. Eventually, this resource is exhausted resulting in the shutdown of the activities of all parties in the system.

There are four systems archetypes I would like to focus on in this post:

• Success to the successful
• Limits to growth
• Eroding goals
• Shifting the burden

I have adapted the following summary from 3 separate sources. System Archetypes by William Braun; System Archetypes II by Daniel H. Kim; and “We are the practitioners”

Fixes that Fail

Almost any decision carries long-term and short-term consequences, and the two are often diametrically opposed. This archetype can help you get off the problem solving treadmill by identifying fixes that may be doing more harm than good. (Braun)

Fixes that fail (Bosch and Nguyen)

Intervention guidelines (Kim)

• Identify problem symptom(s).
• Map current interventions and how they were expected to rectify the problem.
• Map unintended consequences of the interventions.
• Identify fundamental causes of the problem symptoms.
• Find connections between both sets of loops. Are the fixes and the fundamental causes linked?
• Identify high-leverage interventions. Add or break links in the diagram to create structural interventions.
• Map potential side-effects for each intervention in order to be prepared for them (or to avoid them altogether).

Success to the successful

This archetype suggests that success or failure may be due more to initial conditions than intrinsic merits. It can help organizations challenge their success loops by “unlearning” what they are already good at in order to explore new approaches and alternatives. (Braun)

Success to the successful (System Thinking)

Intervention guidelines (Kim)

• Investigate historical origins of competencies; identify potential competency traps.
• Investigate initial conditions and the origin of the rules.
• Evaluate current measurement systems; are they set up to favor current systems over other alternatives?
• Map internal views of market success. What are the operating assumptions around success in the market?
• Obtain external views of market success. Ask “outsiders” for alternative strategies.
• Assess effects on the innovative spirit. Is the current system excluding or limiting the spirit of experimentation that will lead to a new alternative.
• Continually scan for gaps and areas for improvement.

Limits to Growth

One of the first concepts engineers learn in the Principles of Engineering Economics class is the Law of Diminishing Returns. The Limits to Growth archetype is the systemic representation of the same principle. Growth always runs into resistance, slowing growth. With every increase in effort to accelerate growth, resistance builds. At some point in the curve, the resistance of the limiting factors becomes greater than the strength of the growing action, and growth stops. (We are the practitioners)

Limits to Growth (System Thinking)

Intervention guidelines (Kim)

• Identify the growth engines.
• Determine the doubling time of those processes.
• Identify potential limits and balancing loops
• Determine change required to deal effectively with the limits identified.
• Assess the time needed to change. Is there a discrepancy between the doubling time and the changes required to support growth?
• Balance the growth. Identify strategies for achieving system balance.
• Reevaluate the growth strategy. Continuously challenge assumptions

Eroding Goals

Various pressures can take our attention away from what we are trying to achieve. This archetype helps explain why an organization is not able to achieve its desired goals. Used as a diagnostic tool, it can target drifting performance areas and help organizations attain their visions. (Braun)

Eroding Goals — (We are the practitioners)

Intervention guidelines (Kim)

• Identify drifting performance measure.
• Look for goals that conflict with the stated goal.
• Identify standard procedures for closing the gap.
• Examine the past history of the goal. Has the goal itself been lowered over time.
• Anchor the goal to an external reference.
• Clarify a compelling vision that will involve everyone.
• Create a clear transition plan.

Shifting the Burden

Organizational gridlock can be caused by interlocking “Shifting the Burden” structures, as one function’s “solution” creates problems in an other area. The archetype provides a starting point for breaking gridlock by identifying chains of problem symptoms and solutions that form walls between functions, departments, or divisions. (Braun)

Shifting the burden (Bosch and Nguyen)

Intervention guidelines (Kim)

• Identify the original problem symptom.
• Map all “quick fixes” that appear to be keeping the problem under control.
• Identify the impact of the symptomatic solutions on other parts of the system.
• Identify fundamental solutions. Develop multiple perspectives.
• Map side-effects of quick fixes that may be undermining the usability of the fundamental solution.
• Find interconnections to fundamental loops. Find links between the interaction effects and the fundamental solution that may be causing gridlock.
• Identify high-leverage actions from both perspectives.

In a future post I plan to look into the places to intervene in a system.

Goodman and Kleiner in an article posted on “The Systems Thinker” have produced a family tree of Archetypes to help work through which one is most useful for a given situation.

Archetype family Tree — (Goodman & Kleiner)

Further reading and references

• Acumen — Systems Practice Short Course
• 12 Recurring system archetypes
• System Archetypes by William Braun;
• System Archetypes II by Daniel H. Kim;
• “We are the practitioners”
• Goodman & Kleiner

Let me know what you think? I’d love your feedback. If you haven’t already then sign up for a weekly dose just like this.

You might also like:

• Boundaries of failure — Rasmussen’s model of how accidents happen.
• Systems Archetypes- Places to intervene — An advantage with using systems archetypes as a problem solving methodology is that places to intervene in the system can be thought through and played with.
• Swarm Intelligence — Can managers develop simple rules to shape the behaviour of their organizations and replace rigid command-and-control structures?
• Kanban your work — The Kanban method is in the Agile suite of tools that can help you visualise and prioritise work.