Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [446]
* * *
In general, we may make a useful distinction between representing reality as systems, using systems language and protocols, and inquiring of what we regard as reality using systems approaches (Senge, 1990; Checkland and Scholes, 1990). The latter notion is that by examining situations using systems frameworks as learning frameworks, and by using the systems concepts of holism, boundary, feedback, etc., one can gain an understanding of complex situations where seemingly insignificant events can catalyze the playing out of complex relationships that generate unpredictable, unanticipated emergent behaviors and outcomes, which cannot be attributed to any single causal event.
Senge (1990) regards systems thinking as a discipline for seeing wholes; as a framework for seeing inter-relationships rather than events, and for seeing patterns; as a set of principles; and as a sensibility for “the interconnectedness that gives living systems their unique character” (69). In adopting a systems approach, one is therefore less likely to be reactive or over-reactive to current or local events or outcomes, where such over-reaction may potentially exacerbate undesired problems elsewhere. As a corollary, we may become more sensitized to patterns of change, to the impact of change, and of the systemic influences whereby even a positive change in one area of a system may lead to adverse effects elsewhere in another part of the system. As such, systemic sensibility to such possibilities may likely reduce the tendency to act and think suboptimally and, as Senge (1990) suggests, to be generative in terms of creating systemic structure that leads to sustainable and desirable outcomes.
* * *
While Jackson (2000) has asserted that systems thinking is, indeed, a new paradigm which could revolutionize management practice in the 21st century, Senge (1990) sees systems thinking as a discipline to change patterns of thinking. In recognizing the evolving broad church of systems approaches, Jackson (2000) has commented on the need to recognize communality and complementarity in the methodology and purpose of such approaches. He offers “critical systems thinking” as a coherent framework to unite diverse systems approaches, including chaos and complexity theory, the learning organization, SD, living systems theory, SSM, interactive management, interactive planning, total systems intervention, autopoiesis, management cybernetics, the viable system model, operations research (hard and soft), systems analysis, systems engineering, general system theory, socio-technical systems thinking, the fifth discipline, social systems design, team syntegrity, and post-modern systems thinking. However, Jackson, like most systems thinkers, fails to mention TOC as belonging to this broad church, despite most TOC authors (Goldratt, Dettmer, Scheinkopf, Cox et al., 2003) labeling TOC as a systems approach and stressing the importance of taking a systems view.
As such, we can view, for example, Checkland and Scholes’ (1990) SSM or Beer’s (1985) Viable Systems Model (VSM) of organizational structure and design as enquiry systems, as learning systems, where the methodology or model provide the conceptual framework to guide our inquiry and learning about the situation or organization at hand. In both these cases, the notion of purposeful systems looms large in the mode of inquiry. In SSM, assumptions about the nature and purpose of the system being examined are captured in a “root definition