Systems Thinking
The term "systems thinking" is widely used and does not have a single universally accepted meaning. Different schools place different emphases on it, so it is important to immediately separate the term itself from the specific concept.
Common Interpretations of the Term
In Ludwig von Bertalanffy's general system theory, a systemic approach is associated with viewing the whole, the interaction of parts, levels of organization, system boundaries, and properties that cannot be fully explained through individual elements.
In system dynamics, Jay Forrester, and later Donella Meadows and other researchers, emphasize stocks, flows, delays, and feedback loops. A system is explained through how its internal structure generates observed behavior over time.
In Peter Senge's management tradition, systems thinking is understood as the ability to see not isolated events, but structures, interrelationships, and recurring patterns that create these events.
In cybernetics, associated primarily with Norbert Wiener and the subsequent development of the field, control, information, feedback, stability, and regulation of the system relative to its state and goals become central.
In systems engineering, systems thinking usually means the ability to view an object simultaneously as a whole system and as part of a larger system, taking into account requirements, interfaces, constraints, the lifecycle, and the impact of changes in one part on others.
In complexity science, attention shifts to how the behavior of the whole emerges from the interaction of many elements or agents. Here, non-linearity, self-organization, adaptation, emergence, and the fundamental limitation of predicting the behavior of complex systems through the properties of individual parts are important.
In Peter Checkland's Soft Systems Methodology, systems thinking is used not only to analyze technical systems, but also to work with complex human situations where different participants may define the problem itself and the boundaries of the system under consideration differently.
In Critical Systems Thinking, the question is additionally raised of who defines the system boundaries, what interests are taken into account, what assumptions are built into the model, and what is excluded from consideration.
All these interpretations can be viewed as independent concepts using the same term "systems thinking". They partially overlap, but are not identical to each other.
Our Concept of Systems Thinking
In our "Systems Thinking" concept, we use this term in the following sense.
Systems thinking is a way of viewing objects, knowledge, skills, processes, and methods as systems that have their own structure, capabilities, needs, constraints, and rules of interaction with other systems.
At the same time, a system can be self-sufficient. It does not have to be part of a larger system to remain a system. But if we want to use it as part of another system, a separate task arises—to understand whether they are compatible and whether one system is correctly embedded in another.
This is fundamentally important: a good system on its own can be a bad component of another system. Correct knowledge can be applied incorrectly. A working method can be used in an inappropriate context. A useful skill can turn out to be useless or harmful if it is embedded in the wrong system.
Capabilities and Needs of a System
To describe a system, it is useful to look at it much like a function or component is viewed in functional programming.
A system has capabilities—what it can do, what it can output, what tasks it is capable of solving.
And a system has needs—what resources, inputs, conditions, other systems, or constraints must be met for it to operate.
Therefore, when attempting to embed one system into another, it is important to ask not only "what can it do?", but also:
- what does it need at the input;
- what resources does it consume;
- what does it output;
- what constraints does it impose;
- what interfaces are required;
- which systems is it compatible with;
- what will stop working if it is removed;
- what new capabilities appear if it is added.
The Engine Example
An engine can be viewed as an independent system. It has an internal structure, requirements for fuel, cooling, power, mechanical load, and other operating conditions.
In a car, the engine becomes part of a larger system along with the fuel system, electrical system, transmission, cooling, and other subsystems. If the engine is removed, the car as a system loses one of its key capabilities and stops performing its main function.
However, the engine itself does not stop being a system. It can be embedded into another composition—for example, used in a boat or a generator. However, for this to happen, the new system must provide for its needs and correctly use its capabilities.
This is precisely where systems thinking manifests itself: it is not enough to know that the engine "works." You need to understand where, with what, and under what conditions it will work as part of another system.
Systems Can Be Viewed at Different Levels
The same real-world system allows for multiple levels of consideration.
For a car driver, the following model may be sufficient:
key → start → engine works → car can drive.
If the car does not start, this level is no longer sufficient. You need to go deeper: battery, power, ignition switch, starter, fuel system, ignition system, and other elements.
But even during repairs, you don't need to analyze everything at once. If the starter does not respond to turning the key at all, checking the tire is not part of the current causal chain.
Systems thinking therefore does not mean "taking absolutely everything into account." It means choosing the sufficient level and correct boundaries of consideration for a specific task.
Systems Exist Regardless of the Completeness of Our Understanding
Reality is not obligated to fit into our model.
A thunderstorm forms regardless of whether we understand all the processes of its occurrence. A volcano erupts regardless of the quality of our forecasts. Atoms and more fundamental structures continue to exist and interact regardless of how fully we understand their structure.
Any system can potentially be viewed ever broader—including the environment, society, the planet, the Universe—and ever deeper—moving to smaller structures and mechanisms.
We do not know the ultimate boundaries of this decomposition. We do not know what lies "beyond" the Universe, and we are not sure whether physics has reached the most fundamental level of matter.
From this follows an important principle: incompleteness of knowledge about a system does not negate the existence and operation of the system itself.
What It Means to Think Systemically in Practice
For a specific task, you need to determine:
- what system we are currently considering;
- what it can do and why we need it;
- what its needs and constraints are;
- what other systems interact with it;
- do we want to use it independently or embed it into a larger system;
- what depth of analysis is sufficient for the current task;
- which parts of the system actually belong to the current causal chain;
- where our knowledge ends and the area begins that we do not yet understand or cannot control.
This approach is equally applicable to engineering, programming, knowledge, learning, organizations, economics, biology, and other fields.
Why This Matters for Knowledge
Knowledge can also be viewed as a system or as a component of another system of understanding.
Knowledge in itself can be correct. But if a person applies it without considering the context, constraints, and connections to other knowledge, the result can be erroneous.
Therefore, in our system, it is not enough to simply transmit correct information to a person. We need to understand where exactly it is embedded, what capabilities it provides, what prior knowledge it requires, and what task it helps solve.
It is in this sense that systems thinking is the foundation for us to work with concepts: a concept is important not only for its content, but also for how it is used within a specific system of human understanding and activity.
