System Thinking and Soft

System Methodology
Hilya Arini, Ph.D.
hilya.mudrika@ugm.ac.id
 • Introduction to System Modeling
• System Thinking and Soft System Methodology

Course • Conceptual Model in Simulation

• Discrete Event Simulation
Outlines • System Dynamics
• Agent-based Modeling
• Behavioural Operations Research
Mengapa banjir
Group Quiz:
masih sering
terjadi di
Jakarta?
Problem
Structuring
 • Discuss in a group, try to think in a system to
answer the main question.
Group Quiz: • Define the significant variables affecting the
phenomena.
Problem • Make a relation amongst variables.
Structuring • Define the solution according the variables
that you have considered.
• Duration time to finish quiz: 30 min
 Albert Einstein
• “The significant
problems we face today
cannot be solved at the
same level of thinking at
which they were
created.”
System Thinking
What is System Thinking?

• Founded in 1956 by MIT professor, Jay Forrester.

• System thinking allows people to make their understanding of social system

explicit and improve them.

• It is use to:
1) Examining how we create our own problems
2) Seeing the big picture
3) Structure influences performance
The Law of System Thinking
• Today's problems come from yesterday's "solutions."
Decisions we make today often become tomorrow’s problems. The solution – engage your
community to help identify, frame and solve the problem. A large, diverse group will see the
problem from all angles is more likely to anticipate unintended consequences.

• The harder you push, the harder the system pushes back.
This is, in systems thinking parlance, “compensating feedback”.
Example: Government aims to improve the living conditions for a group in one part of town result is
more people moving into the area, placing an unsupportable burden on the systems in place.
 • Behaviour grows better
before it grows worse.
Sometime this is seen when
organizations are more
concerned with impression
control than dealing with the
actual problem. Engaging
stakeholders in problem
solving and solution finding
can virtually eliminate this,
provided the arena for
engagement reduces bias and
allows ideas and potential
solutions to rise above

The Law of System Thinking personalities and politics.

(cont.)
 • The easy way out usually leads back in.
Maslow reframed this saying “If all you have is a
hammer, everything looks like a nail”. This is a
comfort zone challenge. When something works we
like to reuse it. Engaging your community members
The Law of provides much needed insight and a diverse set of
tools to apply to the problem.
System
Thinking • The cure can be worse than the disease.
If an intervention is needed then we have to make
(cont.) sure the intervention doesn’t weaken the entire
system causing more and more dependence.
Example: Gojek
 • Faster is slower.
Every system has it own unique and optimal speed. This kind of
thinking is often articulated as “fixing” things. When you hear
something like “We’re bringing in a consultant (or hiring a new
manager) to fix things around here”. A fast fix often leads to a
slow cure. Finding sustainable solutions can take time.
Community members may need time and space to absorb and
adjust to new ideas or changes.
The Law of
System Thinking • Cause and effect are not closely related in time and space.
–The effects of many actions may not be immediately

(cont.) detectable.
–The challenge of a new competitor, for example, is not felt
quickly. It will take years before the impact is significant.
Likewise, an effective response to a problem may not be
effective immediately.
Example: Invest in education
 • Small changes can produce big results...but the
areas of highest leverage are often the least
obvious.
Small, well-focused actions can produce significant
enduring improvements. This is the principle of
"leverage."
The Law of Example: Marketplace
System
• You can have your cake and eat it too---but not all
Thinking at once.

(cont.) - Low cost vs. high quality. Can you have low cost with
high quality?
- Wait for one thing whilst you focus on the others.
 • Dividing an elephant in half does not produce two
small elephants.
- Must view the whole system that generated the
issue
- Difficult to practice. Most organisational designs to
The Law of keep people from seeing important interaction.

System Thinking • There is no blame.

(cont.) In a complex adaptive system there is no separate

“other”. Everything and everyone is connected and
together we co-create the whole system. Sometimes
we have difficulty with this. We reflex to blame, we
deflect, and deny. Its hard to take full responsibility
for something that seems to be outside of our control
without trying to control everything.
 System Thinking: Approach

Linear Thinking System Thinking

Traditional analysis focuses on Systems thinking, in contrast, focuses on

the separating the individual how the thing being studied interacts
pieces of what is being studied; in with the other constituents of the
system—a set of elements that interact to
fact, the word “analysis” actually produce behavior—of which it is a part.
comes from the root meaning “to
break into constituent parts.
 Linear Thinking System Thinking
• The connection between problems and • The relationship between problems and
their causes is obvious and easy to trace. their causes is indirect and not obvious.

• A policy designed to achieve short term • Most quick fixes have unintended
success will also assure long term success. consequences: they make no difference
or make matters worse in the long run

• In order to optimize the whole, we must • In order to optimize the whole, we must
optimize the parts. improve relationships among the parts.

• Aggressively tackle many independent • Only a few key coordinated changes

initiatives simultaneously sustained over time will produce large
systems change.
Linear Thinking System Thinking
 • Complex problems that involve helping
many actors see the "big picture" and not
Systems just their part of it
thinking is • Recurring problems or those that have been
made worse by past attempts to fix them
needed for • Issues where an action affects (or is affected
problems by) the environment surrounding the issue,
either the natural environment or the
that are: competitive environment
• Problems whose solutions are not obvious
Systems
Thinking:
Learning to see
the world
systemically

WHOLE   PARTS
 Holistic Thinking
 System Thinking:
Helps us explore
interdependencies
and looking for
patterns
 System Thinking:
Helps us understand feedback structures that change systems over time.
Systems Thinking:
Helps us understand results of our decisions
Soft System Methodology
Soft System
Methodology (SSM)
• developed by Peter Checkland in the late 60’s at the
University of Lancaster in the UK.

• a learning and meaning development tool

• it constrains your thinking in order for you to

expand your thinking
The Purpose of SSM
The Use of SSM
Soft Systems Methodology is useful
when rigor and deep insights are
needed under these circumstances:
• Multiple goals
• Different views and perspectives
• Different assumptions
• Different logics
• Different stakeholders
Seven Stages
in SSM
Stage One and Two – The situation defined
• assess the general area that interests
• an arbitrary starting point and it may shift
• what should be included (structures, processes, climate, people,
issues expressed by people, conflicts, How can the situation be
expressed in an “unstructured” form)
Peredaran Gelap Narkoba (P4GN) di Indonesia
Kegiatan Penanggulangan dan Pencegahan Peredaran Gelap Narkoba di Indonesia
Root Definitions of Relevant Systems

• to understand the concept of different perspectives that are possible to draw out of the rich
picture.
• to select a particular perspective and put it through a very structured and rigorous model
development process

1. The starting point is a Transformation (T). From this particular perspective, what is actually
transformed from input to output ?
2. Customers who (or what) benefits from this transformation
3. Actors who facilitates the transformation to these customers
4. Transformation from “start” to “finish”
5. World view gives the transformation some meaning.
6. Owner to whom the “system” is answerable and/or could cause it not to exist
7. Environment that influences but does not control the system
Construct the CATWOE
1. Transformation
2. World view (i.e., this transformation is relevant because …)
3. Customer
4. Actors
5. Owners
6. Environment
Stage Four – Developing the Model
1. Using verbs in the imperative write down activities necessary to carry out
the Transformation (T in CATWOE). Aim for 7±2 activities that are at the
same scale.
2. Select activities which could be done at once (i.e., not dependent on
others) :
3. Place these activities in a line, and then those that are dependent on these
first activities in a line; continue until all are accounted for.
4. Indicate the dependencies
5. Rearrange to avoid overlapping arrows where possible. Add a means of
assessing performance and include the aspects of the environment identified
in CATWOE.
Stage Four – Developing the Model (cont.)
6. Finally check whether your model demonstrates the following systems properties :
• An ongoing purpose (that may be determined in advance – purposeful, or assigned
through observation - purposive)
• A means of assessing performance
• A decision taking process
• Components that are also systems (i.e., the notion of sub-systems)
• Components that interact
• An environment (with which the system may or may not interact)
• A boundary between the system and the environment (that may be closed or open)
• Resources
• Continuity
Model konseptual transformasi Penanggulangan,
Pemberantaan dan Peredaran Narkoba
Steps Five to Seven – Back in the Real World
Checkland suggests four ways of doing this :
1. Unstructured discussions
2. Structured questioning of the model using a matrix approach
3. Scenario or dynamic modelling
4. Trying to model the real world using the same structure as the conceptual model

The second is the most common – often using a matrix that looks at each component of
the model and asks :
• Does it exist in the real world ?
• How does it behave ?
• How is its performance identified and measured ?
• Is this process any good ?
Step 6:
Develop desirable and feasible interventions
Checkland suggests several ways of doing this:
1. Run through the model again using different CATWOE/BATWOVE, different
perspectives, different scales (ie model sub-systems)
2. Undertake different systems based analyses (eg system dynamics, CAS,
CHAT)
3. “Owner” analysis. Who fundamentally has the authority to take action?
4. “Social system analysis” How do the various roles, norms and values
present in the real world relate to the conceptual model?
5. “Political analysis”. How is power expressed in the situation being studied?
Step 7 Action to Improve the Situation
• This is where the methodology comes full cycle, and maybe starts a
new cycle
Perubahan yang diinginkan adalah:
1. Tertatanya integrasi program kerja kelembagaan dan Sistem
informasi yang terpadu,terkait P4GN
2. Berkurangnya oknum pemerintah dan penegak hukum yang terlibat
masalah narkoba
3. Pulihnya kepercayaan masyarakat terhadap kinerja pemerintah
dan penegak hokumdalam memerangi narkoba
4. Terciptanya aparatur pemerintah yang bersih dan memiliki integrtas
tinggi dalam upayaP4GN
5. Berkurangnya mata rantai peredaran narkoba di tanah air
6. Berkurangnya pengguna narkoda ditanah air
Langkah-langkah perbaikan situasi masalah
1. Meningkatkan koordinasi dan mengimplementasikan secara konsisten dalam bentuk
kerjasama upaya P4GN antara pihak Pemerintah pusat (BNN), Kepolisian danpemerintah
daerah
2. Membangun dan memanfaatkan sistem informasi terpadu terkait peta peredaran,kajian,
berbasis laporan masyarakat, kondisi wilayah sebagai dukungan terhadapkegiatan-kegiatan
P4GN
3. Melakukan kajian terhadap peraturan daerah dan melakukan perbaikan bila diperlukan
4. Menjalin hubungan dialogis antar pemangku kepentingan (pemerintah, kepolosian
danmasyarakat) baik berupa penyuluhan, seminar maupun kegiatan rehabilitasi
terhadappengguna narkoba sebagai upaya percepatan pemahaman terhadap bahaya
narkoba
5. Melakukan transparansi penegakan hukum
6. Melakukan kajian dan investigasi bersama antara pihak yang terkait (kepolisian, BNNatau
pemerintah daerah)