C. Raeff, Some Practical Tips for Thinking Systemically about Complexity
June 13, 2022
Hello It’s Complex Readers,
I hope you had a good week and are not too overwhelmed by complexity. Even with lots of examples, a systems perspective can seem quite abstract. So, here are some practical tips for thinking systemically about complexity. Try them out. Think of other ways to apply systems theory to whatever complexities you may be dealing with. Use the comments button at the end of the newsletter to share what you come up with.
A Reminder for Familar Readers and an Orientation for New Readers
Here at It’s Complex we think about and deal with the world’s many complexities—from global issues to individual experiences. The world sure is a complex place, and it is easy to get overwhelmed. We end up glossing over complexity and postpone thinking about it. But much is at stake for humanity and for individuals. Let’s stop postponing; let’s embrace complexity and deal with it. At It’s Complex, we think about and deal with complexity from a holistic systems perspective. A system is a wider whole made up multiple, connected, and dynamic parts. So, we think about and deal with any complex issue in terms of multidimensionality (M), connectedness (C), and dynamics (D). Be MCD, think MCD!
Multidimensionality refers to how complex phenomena are made up of multiple parts.
Connectedness refers to the varied ways in which complex phenomena are connected or linked. Systems theory emphasizes interrelatedness, that is, mutual and reciprocal connections between and among parts and wholes.
Dynamics refers to how system processes are ongoing and can be played out in stable ways, as well as in varied, changing, and sometimes unpredictable ways.
For further details, check out some of the first newsletter posts.
Newsletter: Some Practical Tips for Thinking Systemically about Complexity
The world is a complex place because the world is a system. From the grand-scale global world to anyone’s particular corner of the world, the world is a system made up of innumerable sub-systems. A system is a wider whole that is made up of multiple simultaneously-occurring, connected, and dynamic parts. We can think about and deal with complexity from a systems perspective in terms of multidimensionality, connectedness (especially interrelatedness), and dynamics.
There is much merit in thinking systemically about the world and hopefully you are ready to ponder and grapple with varied complex issues in terms of multidimensionality, connectedness, and dynamics. Hopefully you feel ready to embrace complexity without getting too overwhelmed by it. Embracing complexity includes expecting complexity wherever you are in the world. Embracing complexity means getting frustrated by simplistic, either-or, sound-bite analyses of and solutions to what you know are complex issues. Embracing complexity means seeing complex issues systemically. If you are embracing complexity, you are starting to see systems everywhere, and you are trying to identify their multiple, interrelated, and dynamic parts.
Maybe you are thinking about how to apply systems theory in your own life or to the complexities of the grand-scale world that you are interested in dealing with. But you do not quite know how to start because it is hard to go from the abstract ideas to concrete issues and solutions. We have already considered a few concrete issues and more are on the way. With regard to solutions to complex problems, it depends on the system, issues, and your goals. So for now, here are a few general tips for thinking systemically about any complex phenomenon.
ASSUME IT’S SYSTEMIC
Using a systems perspective means starting by assuming that virtually any phenomenon under the sun can be understood as a system, which is a wider whole that consists of multiple, connected (especially interrelated), and dynamic parts. It means assuming that virtually any complex issue, problem, activity, or circumstance can be understood systemically in terms of multidimensionality, connectedness (especially interrelatedness) and dynamics. If you identify a system, assume that it is a sub-systemic part of another wider system, as well as connected to other systems and sub-systems. I readily recognize that thinking about systems and sub-systems and sub-sub-subsystems, as well as ever-wider systems and connections within and among systems, along with thinking about the dynamics of all those systems and sub-systems, can be overwhelming. You feel like you will never finish identifying systems, parts, connections, and dynamics. There is no way you can deal with the whole universe at once. Fortunately, you do not have to! Don’t give up before you start. You can just start somewhere.
JUST START SOMEWHERE AND GO FROM THERE
Starting somewhere is what I did with climate change. As I read about climate change, I was quickly overwhelmed by all the articles, and all the studies, and all the issues. So, I decided to start somewhere and go from there. I started with melting Arctic ice because it makes concrete sense to me that if the planet is warming, ice would melt. Another concrete place to start is with trees and deforestation. Trees are concrete physical objects that you can see, touch, and hear. Trees play vital environmental roles, from absorbing rain water and preventing soil erosion, to absorbing carbon dioxide, to cooling the immediate setting. When trees are cut down, less carbon dioxide from human greenhouse gas emissions is absorbed, and the earth warms, and we get climate change with its multiple, interrelated, and dynamic processes. Here is an interesting article on deforestation: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/climate-un-amazon-tipping-point/
Start with some part of the issue that is the complex part of the world you are dealing with and keep going for a while by identifying multiple parts. Be it a small-scale world issue that you are grappling with personally or a big-scale world issue that you are pondering, make a non-exhaustive list of some of the major parts that you think you can identify and deal with right off the bat. Write them down on a piece of paper.
Then, start connecting the dots. Draw arrows as you identify some of the ways in which the parts are connected, including bidirectional and multi-directional arrows for how they are interrelated. Identify part ↔ part interrelations and think about how the parts affect or influence each other. Write them down. Think about how they enable and constrain each other. Think about part ↔ whole interrelations. That is, how do the parts affect the whole system and how does the whole system affect the parts? Step back and identify some more parts and some more connections (especially interrelations). If you are really ambitious, starting thinking about how the system may be connected to other systems, as well as how it may be a sub-systemic part of another system(s).
I find that when complexity is acknowledged, people mostly focus on multidimensionality. They identify some of the multiple parts of a phenomenon and they may recognize that some of the parts are connected. But then the analysis seems to fizzle out. I find that the hardest and most overwhelming part of systems thinking is thinking about connections, especially interrelations. So, mind the connections! Take special care during this part of thinking systemically. Be patient and stick with the task of identifying interrelations among system parts, as well as between parts and the whole. Do some research on the multiple dimensions and their connections.
Then, identify some dynamics. What are some of the stable and variable ways in which the phenomenon’s parts are played out? Place the phenomenon in historical context and think about how it has been stable and changing over longer periods of time. Do some research and learn about the history of the system and its parts. And think about how the phenomenon may remain stable and how it may change in the future. Of course, you will remember from the explanation of systems theory that even though you know change is inevitable, it is not necessarily predictable. But just because there are limits to predictability, some consideration of future change possibilities is useful.
You can also see if there are some problems with a system’s functioning. If you discern some problems with a system’s functioning or if you are not satisfied with how a system is functioning, start thinking about how you do want it to function. Think about how its parts could be structured differently to achieve that different functioning. This is also a place to carefully mind the connections because system functioning depends on interrelations between and among parts and wholes. What changes to the structuring of parts and their connections would be required for more effective system functioning?
Then, you can start to think about how to make those changes happen. Think about how you can beat the system by restructuring it. As you think about restructuring, do not expect there to be one best solution as there can be multiple ways to achieve an outcome. A system is made up of multiple parts, and it is possible that there are multiple possible ways in which they can be effectively restructured. Restructuring could include one or a combination of the following: getting rid of some parts, adding some parts, changing how varied parts are interrelated to change the functioning of the whole, and changing how the whole affects the parts. Because it will be impossible to predict exactly how some changes will work out, remain flexible. There may be some unintended consequences. Assess and reassess. Keep assessing and reassessing as new ways of systemic functioning emerge.
Throughout this process of thinking about any complex part of the world, do not expect complete clarity or certainty. Be prepared for ambiguity, fuzzy boundaries, and gray areas. They are inevitable because a system is made up of distinct, but not separate parts. Insofar as the parts are not totally separate, there is overlap among them—or among some of them. Also, be prepared for shifts, including shifting functioning, as well as shifting boundaries between system parts and between sub-systems of wider systems. Shifting is to be expected because systems and their parts are not static; they are dynamic.
DO A SYSTEMS CHECK
When you hear about some system or when you yourself use the term, do a systems check. Think about whether and how the term applies. What are the multiple, interrelated, and dynamic parts? How are they currently structured and functioning? During the pandemic, the US public health system and the healthcare system were front and center, and I thought about whether the term “system” fits. Are they systems? Are they wider wholes made up of multiple, interrelated, and dynamic parts? If yes, how so? If no, should or could they be?
I googled variations on “US public health system,” and at some point, I landed on the US Institute of Medicine Committee for the Study of the Future of Public Health. It explains that “states are the principal governmental entity responsible for protecting the public’s health in the United States” and within states, “local health departments are the front line of public health agencies.” The report provides information about the particular tasks, functions, and responsibilities of federal, state, and local health agencies. According to the report, “there are about 3,000 local health departments in the United States,” and “they are generally responsible for the direct delivery of public health services to the population,” from conducting communicable disease control programs, to providing immunizations and health education services, to sanitary engineering, to collecting health statistics. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218212/
Clearly, there are multiple parts in the form of federal, state, and local health agencies and they perform multiple functions. With regard to connectedness, the report reports some coordination among federal, state, local, and private agencies, as well as lack thereof. The report also notes competition and turf protecting, which are kinds of connections. Of course, no system is perfect all the time, but it seems that connections among the parts are loose, inconsistent, ineffective, negative and sometimes non-existent. Perhaps that is not surprising if “states are the principal governmental entity responsible for protecting the public’s health in the United States” and if there are 3,000 local health departments. If healthcare is up to the states, then each state can make its own policies separately from other states. And if there are 3,000 local health departments, they may go their own ways within states and end up competing for resources. However, when there is a nation-wide (not to mention, global) health situation, interstate interrelations could kick in, and state health functions could be coordinated by a wider whole that the states themselves contribute to establishing and maintaining. Although the Covid-19 vaccination rollout was not perfect, early glitches were fixed and the vaccination process was initially quite successful in the US. There did seem to be effective coordination by the federal government (under the new Biden administration) to ensure that vaccines were distributed throughout the states in an orderly way and in accord with CDC guidelines.
My systems antennae are always alerted when I hear analysts say that we need a “whole government approach” that involves “coordination” among local, state, and federal agencies. The issue may be about law enforcement, national security, healthcare, education, or some other issue that involves local, state, and federal agencies. To me, these ways of speaking invoke systems premises. From a systems perspective, “coordination” is a synonym for connectedness, and a “whole government approach” involves multiple parts of the government-as-system functioning in relation to each other. The notion of coordinating parts within a whole government approach further implies that the parts function within a wider whole that is doing some of the coordinating, and the coordinated parts contribute to the functioning of the whole. When analysts say that we need a coordinated whole government approach to address some issue, it suggests that systemic interrelations are not what they could be. As such, there are part ↔ part and whole ↔ part interrelations to think about and work on. A coordinated holistic approach is where a systems approach would have us start when creating a new system to deal with some aspect of the world, or when working to change and improve an already existing system.
So, I would say that yes, it makes sense to use the word “system” in the cases of healthcare and public health. However, they do not pass my systems check with flying colors when it comes to the connectedness dimension of system functioning. Once again, we must mind the connections. That is, we must identify the part ↔ part and whole ↔ part interrelations that exist and discern how they are functioning. Maybe some connections could be eliminated, but others added. Maybe they could be restructured in some way. It depends on the system.
Some Questions and Issues to Think and Comment About
What do you think? What interested you, what surprised you, what struck you?
What other tips can you think of for thinking systemically about complexity?
How can you apply these (and other) tips to a particular complex part of the world that you are dealing with?
Start exploring a complex issue in terms of multidimensionality, connectedness (especially interrelatedness), and dynamics. Present it in the Comments thread so that we can explore it together.
What questions do you have about any of this?