6 ms·

How to Safely Think in Systems

188 points by kiyanwang 5y ago

RajSinghLA 5y ago
Solid read. Will sounds like a Farnam Street reader. > Effective systems thinking comes from the tension between model and reality, without a healthy balance you’ll always lose the plot. I’ve also heard this as “don’t confuse the map for the territory.”
- Tuckerism 5y ago
  I have this article bookmarked on this very topic: https://fs.blog/2015/11/map-and-territory/ https://fs.blog/2015/11/map-and-territory/ I also like quoting George Box to those who are drinking the kool-aid a little too much with their models, "All models are wrong, but some are useful." :)
jackblemming 5y ago
The authors number one recommended book is ~166 pages in total. I skimmed through and it's mostly pictures. The blog also contained no data. This is all completely fine, but it rubs me the wrong way when things are posed as scientific or rigorous, but are mostly subjective opinion pieces. I like to see what "thinking in systems" gets me with real evidence. I appreciate they took the time to create and share this though.
- kqr 5y ago
  Donatella Meadows created real impact wherever she went. You might also want to look into real-life studies of efficiency and safety by people such as Deming, Weinberg, Womack, Leveson, Dekker, Shewhart, Hollnagel, Ward, etc. There plenty of evidence that it works, even if Meadow's more popular book isn't filled with references.
  - janpieterz 5y ago
    I read the book twice. I walked away feeling the same as OP. I would appreciate it a lot of you have any other reference material on this, any book or resource that convinced you or helped you. I feel I'm close to grasping the underlying reasoning and benefits, but think I am missing a slightly different angle on this.
    - kqr 5y ago
      I did mention several other researchers/authors, and it's hard to give a more specific recommendation without knowing what part of it attracts you. - Deming: management philosophy - Weinberg: software engineering - Womack: lean vs mass production - Leveson: accident analysis, system safety - Dekker: system safety - Hollnagel: operator experience - Ward: innovation, product development
    - tuatoru 5y ago
      Try Business Dynamics by John Sterman. I lent my copy to my brother over a decade ago. Still haven't got it back... Also Exploring Requirements: Quality Before Design by Donald Gause and Gerald Weinberg. Really useful advice about questions to ask people to understand what the system really does/should do.
- swyx 5y ago
  judging the quality of the book by number of pages or picture vs word density is like judging the quality of a program by line of code. i'm sure you know this, just gently reminding you of the natural bias we all have
- rawicki 5y ago
  I found Engineering a Safer World: Systems Thinking Applied to Safety to be a much better explainer for systems thinking than Meadows' book. https://www.amazon.com/Engineering-Safer-World-Systems-Thinking/dp/0262533693/ https://www.amazon.com/Engineering-Safer-World-Systems-Think...
- visskiss 5y ago
  Oh no. The book was only 160 pages? I whatever will you do?
- chubot 5y ago
  I read Thinking in Systems a few years ago, in part because Bill Gates recommended it. (I had seen it elsewhere too, probably on Hacker News.) As I recall, there are problems with the book, because the author actually passed away before it was finished. The biggest problem IMO is that it doesn't adequately address modeling error. It barely mentions it at all. It simply introduces models that were simulated on a computer, and talks about their consequences. And I remember there being a tenuous connection to the original research, which is notable because I believe the author's group did a lot of it. So I would be interested in some other high level / overview books on the same subject. I'm not sure I got a lot out of this book. I think the main thesis was to focus on "points of leverage" when trying to change systems. I think it is valuable to hammer that point home, but it's hardly novel, and it wasn't justified with practice. I felt like it was too focused on simulations, and confused the simulations with reality.
- gmuslera 5y ago
  If it was so short, why you just skimmed through it? You are seeing a few parts (titles, maybe a paragraph or two, a sample of the diagrams and pictures) and you are not seeing the system behind it. You have to read it whole to properly understand its point. And as that system is not isolated from the world, after you understanding it you will get a good hint of the outer system, things that are happening in the real world outside of it.
- groby_b 5y ago
  What does your current way of thinking get you? Do you have tangible evidence for that? Not just "it's my way of thinking, and I create output, therefore", but the causal relationship you demand from this book? "How to think" is always subjective, and additional ways to think get us additional tools in our toolbox. I'd strongly recommend you at least skim the book, and see if it's applicable to your world of problems. (It's 166 pages and "mostly pictures", so it should be a quick read - and it only needs to make minimal impact to repay the time you spent)
- dasil003 5y ago
  Someone always has to come with this particular middle-brow dismissal whenever anything subjective gets posted to HN. Not that I think this is the most brilliant article, but like most things in general-purpose high-level software engineering management, the ideas presented are not quantifiable or specific enough to be tractable for rigorous scientific exploration, you just have to consider them within the framework of your own expertise and experience. Trying to force a data-driven approach on top chaotic human systems where the inputs and outputs themselves are vague and subjective is a quick path to the McNamara Fallacy and other management theory quackery.
  - jackblemming 5y ago
    We're in complete agreement then. The data-driven approach need not be applied to everything. My point was subjectivity trying to chalk itself up as rigorous using scientific sounding terms simply rubs me the wrong way.
Barrin92 5y ago
None of that has really anything to do with systems thinking. That models change, omit information and don't represent reality as such is true for any kind of thinking, systems or otherwise. That's just a truism. At its core systems thinking is an antidote to reductionism. The essential feature of a system is that it is an indivisible whole and that its features are more than the sum of its parts. Systems lose their properties when taken apart into components, because their properties are the result of interactions between components, not the sum of the properties of components in isolation. That insight produces the most important practical application of systems thinking, which is that systems always need to be designed from the ground up. People should never try to improve individual metrics, but only improve parts if it improves the whole. That's also what most of the examples in Maedow's book are about that's quoted in the piece. It's also quite funny to bring up a transition to microservices in the piece in this context. I think microservice architectures are almost always the result of ignoring systems thinking lessons. People start to think in terms of the performance of each individual service, start to develop each service on its own terms, and start to ignore the fact that what matters is the interaction between services. It's exactly the kind of silo-ing that systems approaches try to avoid.
- varjag 5y ago
  Yep, the Uber anecdote sounds more about hubris and inexperience than about systems design.
- gumby 5y ago
  > At its core systems thinking is an antidote to reductionism. This is a brilliant insight.
  - bmitc 5y ago
    It’s a pretty old and well known perspective. More is Different by P. W. Anderson https://cse-robotics.engr.tamu.edu/dshell/cs689/papers/anderson72more_is_different.pdf https://cse-robotics.engr.tamu.edu/dshell/cs689/papers/ander... More and Different by Philip W. Anderson https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/9814350133/ https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/9814350133/
hyperpallium2 5y ago
The iterative interactions of systems also occurs in computational fluid dynamics, with lots of clever techniques (some by von uNeumann) in a rigorously formalized mathematical domain - where it still isn't a "solved" problem.
lukeasrodgers 5y ago
Some other commenters here seem to think this article is (or should have been?) an introduction to systems thinking, or an argument for using it. The article is explicitly framed as some advice, based in experience, on avoiding common pitfalls with using explicit models in systems thinking. As such I think it is a nice read. It is also full of links to other interesting work by the author, not least of which is a tool to assist in system modeling (https://github.com/lethain/systems https://github.com/lethain/systems), and links to other similar tools I was unfamiliar with (https://insightmaker.com https://insightmaker.com), which will make for some fine weekend reading and tinkering.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

188 points by kiyanwang 5y ago

Solid read. Will sounds like a Farnam Street reader. > Effective systems thinking comes from the tension between model and reality, without a healthy balance you’ll always lose the plot. I’ve also heard this as “don’t confuse the map for the territory.”

Tuckerism 5y ago
I have this article bookmarked on this very topic: https://fs.blog/2015/11/map-and-territory/ https://fs.blog/2015/11/map-and-territory/ I also like quoting George Box to those who are drinking the kool-aid a little too much with their models, "All models are wrong, but some are useful." :)

jackblemming 5y ago

The authors number one recommended book is ~166 pages in total. I skimmed through and it's mostly pictures. The blog also contained no data. This is all completely fine, but it rubs me the wrong way when things are posed as scientific or rigorous, but are mostly subjective opinion pieces. I like to see what "thinking in systems" gets me with real evidence. I appreciate they took the time to create and share this though.

kqr 5y ago
Donatella Meadows created real impact wherever she went. You might also want to look into real-life studies of efficiency and safety by people such as Deming, Weinberg, Womack, Leveson, Dekker, Shewhart, Hollnagel, Ward, etc. There plenty of evidence that it works, even if Meadow's more popular book isn't filled with references.
- janpieterz 5y ago
  I read the book twice. I walked away feeling the same as OP. I would appreciate it a lot of you have any other reference material on this, any book or resource that convinced you or helped you. I feel I'm close to grasping the underlying reasoning and benefits, but think I am missing a slightly different angle on this.
  - kqr 5y ago
    I did mention several other researchers/authors, and it's hard to give a more specific recommendation without knowing what part of it attracts you. - Deming: management philosophy - Weinberg: software engineering - Womack: lean vs mass production - Leveson: accident analysis, system safety - Dekker: system safety - Hollnagel: operator experience - Ward: innovation, product development
  - tuatoru 5y ago
    Try Business Dynamics by John Sterman. I lent my copy to my brother over a decade ago. Still haven't got it back... Also Exploring Requirements: Quality Before Design by Donald Gause and Gerald Weinberg. Really useful advice about questions to ask people to understand what the system really does/should do.
swyx 5y ago
judging the quality of the book by number of pages or picture vs word density is like judging the quality of a program by line of code. i'm sure you know this, just gently reminding you of the natural bias we all have
rawicki 5y ago
I found Engineering a Safer World: Systems Thinking Applied to Safety to be a much better explainer for systems thinking than Meadows' book. https://www.amazon.com/Engineering-Safer-World-Systems-Thinking/dp/0262533693/ https://www.amazon.com/Engineering-Safer-World-Systems-Think...
visskiss 5y ago
Oh no. The book was only 160 pages? I whatever will you do?
chubot 5y ago
I read Thinking in Systems a few years ago, in part because Bill Gates recommended it. (I had seen it elsewhere too, probably on Hacker News.) As I recall, there are problems with the book, because the author actually passed away before it was finished. The biggest problem IMO is that it doesn't adequately address modeling error. It barely mentions it at all. It simply introduces models that were simulated on a computer, and talks about their consequences. And I remember there being a tenuous connection to the original research, which is notable because I believe the author's group did a lot of it. So I would be interested in some other high level / overview books on the same subject. I'm not sure I got a lot out of this book. I think the main thesis was to focus on "points of leverage" when trying to change systems. I think it is valuable to hammer that point home, but it's hardly novel, and it wasn't justified with practice. I felt like it was too focused on simulations, and confused the simulations with reality.
gmuslera 5y ago
If it was so short, why you just skimmed through it? You are seeing a few parts (titles, maybe a paragraph or two, a sample of the diagrams and pictures) and you are not seeing the system behind it. You have to read it whole to properly understand its point. And as that system is not isolated from the world, after you understanding it you will get a good hint of the outer system, things that are happening in the real world outside of it.
groby_b 5y ago
What does your current way of thinking get you? Do you have tangible evidence for that? Not just "it's my way of thinking, and I create output, therefore", but the causal relationship you demand from this book? "How to think" is always subjective, and additional ways to think get us additional tools in our toolbox. I'd strongly recommend you at least skim the book, and see if it's applicable to your world of problems. (It's 166 pages and "mostly pictures", so it should be a quick read - and it only needs to make minimal impact to repay the time you spent)
dasil003 5y ago
Someone always has to come with this particular middle-brow dismissal whenever anything subjective gets posted to HN. Not that I think this is the most brilliant article, but like most things in general-purpose high-level software engineering management, the ideas presented are not quantifiable or specific enough to be tractable for rigorous scientific exploration, you just have to consider them within the framework of your own expertise and experience. Trying to force a data-driven approach on top chaotic human systems where the inputs and outputs themselves are vague and subjective is a quick path to the McNamara Fallacy and other management theory quackery.
- jackblemming 5y ago
  We're in complete agreement then. The data-driven approach need not be applied to everything. My point was subjectivity trying to chalk itself up as rigorous using scientific sounding terms simply rubs me the wrong way.

Barrin92 5y ago

None of that has really anything to do with systems thinking. That models change, omit information and don't represent reality as such is true for any kind of thinking, systems or otherwise. That's just a truism. At its core systems thinking is an antidote to reductionism. The essential feature of a system is that it is an indivisible whole and that its features are more than the sum of its parts. Systems lose their properties when taken apart into components, because their properties are the result of interactions between components, not the sum of the properties of components in isolation. That insight produces the most important practical application of systems thinking, which is that systems always need to be designed from the ground up. People should never try to improve individual metrics, but only improve parts if it improves the whole. That's also what most of the examples in Maedow's book are about that's quoted in the piece. It's also quite funny to bring up a transition to microservices in the piece in this context. I think microservice architectures are almost always the result of ignoring systems thinking lessons. People start to think in terms of the performance of each individual service, start to develop each service on its own terms, and start to ignore the fact that what matters is the interaction between services. It's exactly the kind of silo-ing that systems approaches try to avoid.

varjag 5y ago
Yep, the Uber anecdote sounds more about hubris and inexperience than about systems design.
gumby 5y ago
> At its core systems thinking is an antidote to reductionism. This is a brilliant insight.
- bmitc 5y ago
  It’s a pretty old and well known perspective. More is Different by P. W. Anderson https://cse-robotics.engr.tamu.edu/dshell/cs689/papers/anderson72more_is_different.pdf https://cse-robotics.engr.tamu.edu/dshell/cs689/papers/ander... More and Different by Philip W. Anderson https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/9814350133/ https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/9814350133/

hyperpallium2 5y ago

The iterative interactions of systems also occurs in computational fluid dynamics, with lots of clever techniques (some by von uNeumann) in a rigorously formalized mathematical domain - where it still isn't a "solved" problem.

lukeasrodgers 5y ago

Some other commenters here seem to think this article is (or should have been?) an introduction to systems thinking, or an argument for using it. The article is explicitly framed as some advice, based in experience, on avoiding common pitfalls with using explicit models in systems thinking. As such I think it is a nice read. It is also full of links to other interesting work by the author, not least of which is a tool to assist in system modeling (https://github.com/lethain/systems https://github.com/lethain/systems), and links to other similar tools I was unfamiliar with (https://insightmaker.com https://insightmaker.com), which will make for some fine weekend reading and tinkering.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]