Biodiversity revisited through systems thinking

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between Husserl’s phenomenology and soft systems. An important idea arising from the action research programme at the University of Lancaster is the notion of soft systems. The concept of soft systems, that distinguished it from other systems (holistic) thinking of the time, was the conscious link between soft systems thinking and phenomenology. Phenomenology is that the realm of intentional consciousness that enables the phenomenologist to develop a radically unprejudiced justification of his (or her) basic views of the world and of himself and explore their rational interconnections. Similarly, in soft systems, it is acknowledged that reality is formed by sensation and fashioned by experience. It is not exclusively a process of thought (although this may shape how we process our experience), for us the world exists as the result of a subjective appreciation of it. In Part 1, the author explores how phenomenology informs soft systems theory and practice through the work of Husserl and some of those that influenced him and were influenced by him. In Part 2, the author explores a possible relationship between Husserl and Gadamer as a possible intellectual grounding for organisational inquiry. Design/methodology/approach The research was conducted by examining published material relating to the development of soft systems ideas and Husserl's phenomenology. Findings An analysis of the ideas within the material suggests that phenomenology can be considered as a underpinning the notion of soft systems Research limitations/implications There is difficulty tracking down important papers that recorded the development of soft systems (i.e. 1970–1990) as Lancaster University had disposed of all issues. However, the author tracked down a source and was able to use this material as part of the research. In addition to helping research the origins of the idea, it also provides a paper trail for other researchers interested in these ideas. Practical implications Tracing the published material relating to soft systems necessitated visits to several universities as many of the important papers where no longer held by the University of Lancaster library. Social implications It seems apposite that the ideas behind soft systems are resurrected as they offer an alternative way of thinking about complexity – which the modern world seems increasingly creating Originality/value There is a lack of research into soft systems as the publications describing the Lancaster research programme have centred around soft systems methodology (SSM). Checkland remarked a decade or so ago that said SSM should be taken as given and other ideas explored. There is little evidence that the soft ideas have been explored outside variations of SSM, this paper is intended to encourage more research into ‘soft’ systems.

“Taking stock historically” was the first subtitle of Professor Peter Checkland’s presidential address to the International Society for General Systems Research in June 1987. The title of the address is suggestive: “Images of Systems and the Systems Image” (1988a). By ‘taking stock historically’ Checkland means to make a chronological narrative of different attempts at systems thinking and check what we have’ stocked’ in what seems to be a common project comprising those different attempts. This teleological written chronicle leading to a’ stock’ intends to give historical meaning to’ soft systems thinking.’ A cursory inspection of the last 25 years of systems thinking in UK is enough to accept that critical systems thinking is historically indebted to Checkland’s soft systems thinking. Hence, the problem about the historical meaning of soft systems thinking is at the root of any other type of systems thinking derived from it; even though such a derivation be by means of logical opposition.

Recent developments in the field of systems thinking show that conventional project management theory is essentially rooted in ‘hard’ systems thinking and there are now increasing calls to augment this theory with ideas and approaches from ‘soft’ systems thinking. This paper examines the essential differences between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ systems thinking through a comparison of their different perspectives on project management practice. The core ideas for a new perspective on project management are presented together with implications for the education and training of future project managers.

Recent developments in the field of systems thinking show that conventional project management theory is essentially rooted in ‘hard’ systems thinking and there are now increasing calls to augment this theory with ideas and approaches from ‘soft’ systems thinking. This paper examines the essential differences between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ systems thinking through a comparison of their different perspectives on project management practice. The core ideas for a new perspective on project management are presented together with implications for the education and training of future project managers.

Forest landscapes as social-ecological systems and implications for management

Contribution of systems thinking and complex adaptive system attributes to sustainable food production: Example from a climate-smart village

This paper is concerned with the development of ‘Systems Thinking.’ In particular, it considers and critiques ‘traditional Systems Thinking’ within the framework of Critical Systems Thinking. Before embarking on such a venture it is necessary to derive a base context from which to develop argument and analysis. Therefore the outline of this paper is as follows: A contextual setting for Systems Thinking, Theoretical Considerations, Soft Systems Thinking and Methodology, and A Critical Systems Thinking (CST) approach. The account of the development of Systems Thinking is followed by a synopsis of a theoretical framework for Systems Thinking which will allow us to gain an understanding of contemporary views. The paper then goes on to review SSM and CST in order to provide a platform for a critique of traditional forms of Systems Thinking. The final section briefly discusses the applicability of CST to the ‘real-world’ context by outlining some current studies being undertaken by the author.

Outlines the emergence of critical systems thinking and practice and the reasons why such a development in the systems approach was necessary. Considers the limitations of traditional systems thinking and the strengths and weaknesses of three alternatives to the traditional systems approach — soft systems thinking, organizational cybernetics and emancipatory systems thinking. Reflection on the relationship between these different strands of the systems approach gave impetus to the birth of critical systems thinking. Details the nature of critical systems thinking, as resting on five commitments, and describes a new methodology (“total systems intervention”) to operationalize this approach.

In low-income and middle-income countries, such as those in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, the COVID-19 pandemic has had substantial implications for women's wellbeing. Policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted the gendered aspect of pandemics; however, addressing the gendered implications of the COVID-19 pandemic comprehensively and effectively requires a planetary health perspective that embraces systems thinking to inequalities. This Viewpoint is based on collective reflections from research done by the authors on COVID-19 responses by international and regional organisations, and national governments, in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa between June, 2020, and June, 2021. A range of international and regional actors have made important policy recommendations to address the gendered implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on women's health and wellbeing since the start of the pandemic. However, national-level policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have been partial and inconsistent with regards to gender in both sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, largely failing to recognise the multiple drivers of gendered health inequalities. This Viewpoint proposes that addressing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women in low-income and middle-income countries should adopt a systems thinking approach and be informed by the question of who is affected as opposed to who is infected. In adopting the systems thinking approach, responses will be more able to recognise and address the direct gendered effects of the pandemic and those that emerge indirectly through a combination of long-standing structural inequalities and gendered responses to the pandemic.

Thinking in terms of systems is surely as old as any other kind of intelligent contemplation, but even if the creation of ‘systems thinking’ as a separate intellectual discipline is much more recent, academic approaches to analysing ‘soft systems’ have been around for at least two generations. The fact has to be faced, though, that the impact of more structured approaches to systems thinking have been extremely limited, with most of the world stubbornly continuing to address the obvious failings of the various systems that we need by tinkering with a few of the components, despite the evidence of decades that such approaches inevitably disappoint. Systems theorists have perhaps not helped as much as they could, being seen too easily as creating as esoteric jargon that seeks to describe in opaque terms what was already abundantly clear to everyone anyway—but not really offering a way forward that anyone connected with the problem could actually find helpful. (More recently complexity theorists seem to be repeating the same path.) This chapter describes a system (emergency response to droughts in the Horn of Africa) that was clearly not functioning well in the eyes of those who were working in it. It tells the tale of a diagnosis that did not start with system theory, but which found itself forced into understanding the problems in system terms, and which tried to find a system solution to avoid future repeated failures. It is presented here a story of both hope and disappointment with lessons that are hopefully of wider applicability than just for the humanitarian system that it describes. There was, and remains, hope, because so many of the practitioners found the use of system thinking (without any system jargon or intellectualisation) to be a refreshing take on an old problem and they saw that it offered a different way to do something about long standing failures. It is also a tale of disappointment because ultimately the initiative did not succeed in establishing the processes that were needed. And it is hopefully instructive because systems thinking itself reveals why the initiative was so likely to fail: it is a sad truth that institutional diagnosis tends to be reserved for problems and is rarely used ex ante in assessing the institutional (or system) feasibility of proffered solutions. Some details about the livelihoods of livestock herders in the Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia are necessary to understand the story, as are some technical details about how emergency aid actually works. These details have been kept to a minimum in order not to distract attention from the system lessons at the story’s heart. Those who are interested in the more specific application of systems thinking to emergency response in arid areas or to the livelihood systems of the Horn of Africa should read Levine et al. (System failure? Revisiting the problems of timely response to crises in the Horn of Africa. Humanitarian Practice Network, Overseas Development Institute, 2011).

"Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings." Journal of the Operational Research Society, 43(12), pp. 1183–1184

In celebration of C. West Churchman's work, this article investigates one of the most cherished endeavours of his thinking: to provide a normative meaning for the conduct of human affiars. Churchman has always emphasized ‘What‐Ought‐To‐Be’, at the expense of the ‘What‐Is’. To achieve this purpose, four Systems Thinking paradigms, namely Hard Systems Thinking, Soft Systems Thinking, Critical Systems Thinking, and Multimodal Systems Thinking, are investigated with regard to their foundations for normative guidance. This investigation is made by identifying their respective basic convictions in the form of so‐called ‘religious ground‐motives’, which are based on the assumption that all human thinking and acting starts with a credal conviction, be it Christian, Jew, Islamic, Buddhist, or other. As a result it is found that these systems thinking paradigms are either founded on an inherent contradiction or provide a normative foundation that lacks a social contract for their implementation, and therefore these paradigms do not provide a stable and satisfactory normative guidance for system design.Note: The key claim of this author is that, to be normative, an ethical theory must be grounded in a transcendental justification which is based on some religious faith. The opinions presented in this paper are strictly the author's, who does not claim that his beliefs have more merit or are more ethical than those of any competitive faiths. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Enhancing systems thinking in corporate sustainability through a transdisciplinary research process

Strategic Management of Peruvian Natural Gas Using Soft System Dynamics Methodology (SSDM)

Higher education in China has moved into a popularized and international stage, which makes the management of Learning, Teaching and Assessment (LTA) challenging and sometimes problematic. However, research into its theory and practice is sparse and in demand. This paper explores how to approach complex problematic situations in LTA management with soft systems thinking, which embodies a phenomenological investigation, at the Business College of the Beijing Union University (BCBUU) China with our instantiation of Checkland’s FMA model of Research. Through this substantial study of seven years we made sense of and improved the problematic situation and one tangible result is the development of a new model for LTA management at BCBUU. We learn lessons through this study. It is found that action research grounded on soft systems thinking provides LTA managers with an innovative and fundamental approach to appreciate complex and ill-structured problem situations that they face. It is also proven that our particular instantiation of the general FMA model for research in the context of LTA management in a Chinese university college is practically effective and may be seen as substantiation of it.