DOCSLIB.ORG

Systems Thinking Approach to Develop Smallholder Beef Farming in Rural Java, Indonesia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Systems Thinking Approach to Develop Smallholder Beef Farming in Rural Java, Indonesia Systems Thinking Approach to Develop Smallholder Beef Farming in Rural Java, Indonesia Novie Andri Setianto Diploma in Animal Science Master of Science in Rural Development A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2014 School of Agriculture and Food Science Abstract Improving smallholder performance remains a seemingly intractable central issue for beef farming development in Indonesia. Studying a complex system such as beef farming requires a systems thinking approach. In the body of systems thinking, System Dynamics (SD) is considered to be a powerful methodology for taming the complexity of a system. However, SD has been criticized as being insensitive to the multiple interests and power structures likely to occur in a smallholder system. This thesis reports on the possibility of combining Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) to overcome that limitation. The objective of this research was to devise an approach that optimises the participation of farmers and other stakeholders in: (1) understanding the overall systems well enough to identify the problematic situations - the situations which participants considered as uncomfortable; and (2) formulate the most feasible strategies for mitigating the problematic situation. A series of interviews and workshops involving two farmer groups and other stakeholders in the smallholder beef farming system was undertaken in two separate field studies in Central Java, Indonesia. The five steps of SD’s methodology were adopted with an enhancement at the problem structuring process where the CATWOE analysis of SSM and the 12 questions of CSH complement the SD. As a result, a four dimensional representation of the problematic situation of smallholder beef farming was generated. The dimensions involve; motivation, control, knowledge, and legitimacy. From this a Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) was assembled. This CLD has a total of nine loops, four reinforcing and five balancing, and seven archetypes: two limit to growth archetypes, three shifting the burden, and one each of archetypes of success to successful and fixes that fail, which together defined the systems’ behaviour. A total of seven leverages were able to be identified: increase forage availability, control of the trading of cattle, improve farming productivity to generate income, improve breeder cow performance, strengthen waste management skills, balance the breeding and fattening ratio on farm, and focus on increasing the cattle population. After refinement, and in consultation with respondent farmers, this CLD was translated into a quantitative dynamic model to allow simulation of these leverage points. The result suggests the following strategies: forage availability is not an issue as the current cattle population is less than the carrying capacity, provide education about herd replacement strategies to maintain the desired sales rate at a sustainable level, improve the feed, reduce the risk of overpriced purchasing and under-priced selling, provide education about farm planning and budgeting, educate farmers on animal assessment i.e. to select quality breeding cows, manure composting, and buying cattle using non-grant schemes. Although increasing the complexity of the methodology, the inclusion of CSH and SSM in the research protocol provided depth and richness to the findings through the ability of the models to embrace the opinions of the farmers who are often reluctant to express their opinion. Thus, for the stakeholders, the described models provide a better understanding i of the system than can be provided by SD alone and thereby provides the potential for facilitating development of more effective interventions. Further, the study produces a rigorous dynamic model which can be used to simulate intervention strategies. Three key statements were produced as recommendations for the development of smallholder beef farming in Rural Java. This includes: the importance of improving the local breeding cows’ reproductive performance; the necessity to consider farmers’ opinions in policy making; and the need to re-think the design of government programs to support smallholders. ii Declaration by author This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly-authored works that I have included in my thesis. I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional editorial advice, and any other original research work used or reported in my thesis. The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of my research higher degree candidature and does not include a substantial part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of my thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award. I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library and, subject to the General Award Rules of The University of Queensland, immediately made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968. I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the copyright holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have obtained copyright permission from the copyright holder to reproduce material in this thesis. iii Publications during candidature Peer reviewed papers Setianto, N. A, Cameron, D. and Gaughan, J. B., 2014, Structuring the problematic situation of smallholder beef farming in Central Java, Indonesia: using systems thinking as an entry point to taming complexity, International Journal of Agricultural Management, vol. 3, no. 3, pp: 164 – 174 Setianto, N. A., Cameron, D. and Gaughan, J. B., 2014, Identifying Archetypes of an Enhanced System Dynamics Causal Loop Diagram in Pursuit of Strategies to Improve Smallholder Beef Farming in Java, Indonesia. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, vol. 31, no. 5, pp: 642–654. doi: 10.1002/sres.2312 Paper presented to international conference Setianto, N. A., Cameron, D. and Gaughan, J. B., 2013. Identifying archetypes of an enhanced System Dynamics Causal Loop Diagram in pursuit of strategies to improve smallholder beef farming in Java, Indonesia. Proceeding of the 57th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences – 2013. 14 – 19 July 2013, Hai Phong, Vietnam. Publications included in this thesis “No publications included” Contributions by others to the thesis “No contributions by others” Statement of parts of the thesis submitted to qualify for the award of another degree “None” iv Acknowledgements My sincere appreciation to both my PhD advisors, Dr. Donald Cameron and Dr. John B. Gaughan, for their assistance and guidance during my journey here at the Gatton campus. I give my sincere thanks to Dr. Carl Smith who introduce me to dynamic modelling. Also, my appreciation to Professor Ray Collins, Professor Dennis Poppi, Professor Rob Cramb, Professor Don McMillen, Assoc. Professor Jim Cavaye, and Dr. Scott Waldron for their constructive comments. My gratitude for Gordon Claridge for his valuable critiques, comments, and friendship. Also, my sincere thanks to Hanneke Nooren for her sociological insights. Thank you to Professor Akhmad Sodiq from the University of Jenderal Soedirman, for his enormous support. To farmers, traders, graduates, extension officers, and fellow researcher from the University of Jenderal Soedirman, thank you for all your help. I would like to thank the Directorate General for Higher Education of the Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia who provided the scholarship for my study. Also, my appreciation to the International Society for the Systems Sciences for the Anatol Rapoport award. To my parents, Supangat and Sri Hartati, and my parent in law Triwadi Sutrisno and Aah Sutiah, thank you for your silent support and for having me in all your prayer. I love you. Also, to my late brother Heri Setiawan. This is for you, sorry for not being there at the end. To my brothers Gunawan Setia Budi and Dian Setiaji thank you for all the sharing and encouraging. Lastly, to my lovely wife Regina Elizabeth and my two kids Andhika Pradipa and Farrel Pandya, thank you for always believing in me and for always being there during my ups and downs. You are my world. v Keywords smallholder, systems thinking, systems dynamics, soft systems methodology, critical systems heuristics, multi methodology, beef farming, indonesia, dynamic model Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications (ANZSRC) ANZSRC code: 070105, Agricultural Systems Analysis and Modelling, 60% ANZSRC code: 070106, Farm Management, Rural Management and Agribusiness, 40% Fields of Research (FoR) Classification FoR code: 0701, Agriculture, Land and Farm Management, 100% vi Glossary of Terms The meaning of various terms used in this thesis are as follows: Term Definition B Balancing. Followed by number, it identifies a balancing loop in a Causal Loop Diagram BPS Badan Pusat Statistik Republik Indonesia, Statistics Indonesia. A government body responsible for providing statistics of Indonesia. BSP Beef Self-sufficiency Program. A program
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (Sebok) Version 1.3
    Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) version 1.3 Released May 30, 2014 Part 2: Systems Please note that this is a PDF extraction of the content from www.sebokwiki.org Copyright and Licensing A compilation copyright to the SEBoK is held by The Trustees of the Stevens Institute of Technology ©2014 (“Stevens”) and copyright to most of the content within the SEBoK is also held by Stevens. Prominently noted throughout the SEBoK are other items of content for which the copyright is held by a third party. These items consist mainly of tables and figures. In each case of third party content, such content is used by Stevens with permission and its use by third parties is limited. Stevens is publishing those portions of the SEBoK to which it holds copyright under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/deed.en_US for details about what this license allows. This license does not permit use of third party material but gives rights to the systems engineering community to freely use the remainder of the SEBoK within the terms of the license. Stevens is publishing the SEBoK as a compilation including the third party material under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for details about what this license allows. This license will permit very limited noncommercial use of the third party content included within the SEBoK and only as part of the SEBoK compilation.
    [Show full text]
  • Success in Acquisition: Using Archetypes to Beat the Odds
    Success in Acquisition: Using Archetypes to Beat the Odds William E. Novak Linda Levine September 2010 TECHNICAL REPORT CMU/SEI-2010-TR-016 ESC-TR-2010-016 Acquisition Support Program Unlimited distribution subject to the copyright. http://www.sei.cmu.edu This report was prepared for the SEI Administrative Agent ESC/XPK 5 Eglin Street Hanscom AFB, MA 01731-2100 The ideas and findings in this report should not be construed as an official DoD position. It is published in the interest of scientific and technical information exchange. This work is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense. The Software Engineering Institute is a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense. Copyright 2010 Carnegie Mellon University. NO WARRANTY THIS CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY AND SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE MATERIAL IS FURNISHED ON AN “AS-IS” BASIS. CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY MAKES NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, AS TO ANY MATTER INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR PURPOSE OR MERCHANTABILITY, EXCLUSIVITY, OR RESULTS OBTAINED FROM USE OF THE MATERIAL. CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY DOES NOT MAKE ANY WARRANTY OF ANY KIND WITH RESPECT TO FREEDOM FROM PATENT, TRADEMARK, OR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. Use of any trademarks in this report is not intended in any way to infringe on the rights of the trademark holder. Internal use. Permission to reproduce this document and to prepare derivative works from this document for inter- nal use is granted, provided the copyright and “No Warranty” statements are included with all reproductions and derivative works. External use.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter XIII Modeling with System Archetypes: a Case Study
    Chapter XIII Modeling with System Archetypes: A Case Study Mahendran Maliapen IGate Consulting, Canada ABSTRACT This chapter examines the application of system archetypes as a systems development methodology to create simulation models. Rapid organizational change and need to adapt to new business models limits the lifespan of both the databases and software applications. With the information representa- tion permitted by archetypes, diagnostic analysis and can help to evolve generic classes and models for representing the real world. Archetypes do not describe any one problem specifically. They describe families of problems generically. Their value comes from the insights they offer into the dynamic inter- action of complex systems. The case of a healthcare system is discussed here. As part of a suite of tools, they are extremely valuable in developing broad understandings about the hospital and its environment, and contribute more effectively to understanding problems. They are highly effective tools for gaining insight into patterns of strategic behavior, themselves reflective of the underlying structure of the system being studied. Diagnostically, archetypes help hospital managers recognize patterns of behavior that are already present in their organizations. They serve as the means for gaining insight into the underlying systems structures from which the archetypal behavior emerges. In the casemix model of the hospital, the investigation team discovered that some of the phenomena as described by these generic archetypes could be represented. The application of system archetypes to the strategic business analysis of the hos- pital case reveals that it is possible to identify loop holes in management’s strategic thinking processes and it is possible to defy these fallacies during policy implementation as illustrated by the results of the archetype simulation model.
    [Show full text]
  • Systems Thinking in the Healthcare Professions: a Guide for Educators and Clinicians Margaret M
    Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library, The George Washington University Health Sciences Research Commons Teaching and Learning Tools Educational Resources 3-30-2019 Systems Thinking in the Healthcare Professions: A Guide for Educators and Clinicians Margaret M. Plack, PT, DPT, EdD George Washington University Ellen F. Goldman, EdD, MBA, George Washington University Andrea Richards Scott, EdD, MBA George Washington University Shelley B. Brundage, PhD, CCC-SLP George Washington University Follow this and additional works at: https://hsrc.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/ educational_resources_teaching Part of the Education Commons, and the Medical Education Commons Recommended Citation Plack, M. M., Goldman, E. F., Scott, A. R., & Brundage, S. B. (2019). Systems thinking in the healthcare professions: A guide for educators and clinicians. Washington, DC: The George Washington University. This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Educational Resources at Health Sciences Research Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Teaching and Learning Tools by an authorized administrator of Health Sciences Research Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Systems Thinking in the Healthcare Professions A GUIDE FOR EDUCATORS AND CLINICIANS Margaret M. Plack, PT, DPT, EdD, Ellen F. Goldman, EdD, MBA, Andrea Richards Scott, EdD, MBA, and Shelley B. Brundage, PhD, CCC-SLP March 30, 2019 Copyright © 2019, The George Washington University. This monograph is freely available for individual use but cannot be reproduced without permission of the authors. Contact information: Ellen F. Goldman, EdD, MBA, [email protected]. Suggested citation: Plack, M. M., Goldman, E. F., Scott, A. R., & Brundage, S. B. (2019). Systems thinking in the healthcare professions: A guide for educators and clinicians.
    [Show full text]
  • IMS013E Introduction to Systems Thinking
    Introduction to Systems Thinking Daniel H. Kim System. We hear and use the word all the time. “There’s no sense in trying to buck the system,” we might say. Or, “Mary, Contents she’s a systems analyst.” Or, “This job’s getting out of control; What Is Systems Thinking? ............................................. 2 I’ve got to establish a system.” Whether you are aware of it or not, you are a member of many systems—a family, a commu- What Is a System?........................................................... 2 nity, a church, a company. You yourself are a complex biological Collections Versus Systems system comprising many smaller systems. And every day, you probably interact with dozens of systems, such as automobiles, Defining Characteristics of Systems ATM machines, retail stores, the organization you work for, etc. The Importance of Purpose But what exactly is a system? How would we know one if we saw one, and why is it important to understand systems? Most Putting Systems in Context: “The Iceberg” ................. 4 important, how can we manage our organizations more effec- What Do Systems Do? A Close Look at tively by understanding systems? Systemic Behavior............................................................ 5 This volume explores these questions and introduces the princi- Fun with Feedback ples and practice of a quietly growing field: systems thinking. With roots in disciplines as varied as biology, cybernetics, and The Building Blocks of Systemic Behavior: Reinforcing ecology, systems thinking provides a way of looking at how the and Balancing Processes world works that differs markedly from the traditional reduc- Looking for a Sign: Loops and Labels tionistic, analytic view. But this is not an either-or distinction The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: A Closer Look at we are making here.
    [Show full text]
  • An Abstract of the Dissertation Of
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF Hannah S. Walsh for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Mechanical Engineering presented on October 30, 2020. Title: The Structural Characteristics of Robustness in Large-Scale Complex Engineered Systems Abstract approved: Irem Y. Tumer, Andy Dong Modern engineered systems are increasingly integrated into society, decentralized, and interconnected. However, scale and complexity create unique challenges in system design, such as emergent behavior and unintended consequences. This work investigates the structural characteristics of robustness in complex engineered systems by identifying patterns of under-recognized vulnerabilities at various levels of hierarchy. The work begins at the highest level of hierarchy, taking a system of systems view in order to investigate unintended consequences. Then, this work investigates the system architectures that make them prone to certain types of failures using different network modeling perspectives. Finally, this work uses network modeling to identify system elements that are key to controlling system robustness from a system behavior perspective. Altogether, this research provides a novel perspective on robustness of complex systems and presents empirical findings on general patterns of system vulnerabilities that can be used in future system-level architecture design. Applications of the work are focused on aerospace systems but can be applied in a diverse range of domains, including energy and transportation. c Copyright by Hannah S. Walsh October 30, 2020 All Rights Reserved The Structural Characteristics of Robustness in Large-Scale Complex Engineered Systems by Hannah S. Walsh A DISSERTATION submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Presented October 30, 2020 Commencement June 2021 Doctor of Philosophy dissertation of Hannah S.
    [Show full text]
  • System Traps . . . and Opportunities
    — FIVE — System Traps . and Opportunities Rational elites . know everything there is to know about their self-contained technical or scientifi c worlds, but lack a broader perspective. They range from Marxist cadres to Jesuits, from Harvard MBAs to army staff offi cers. They have a common underlying concern: how to get their particular system to function. Meanwhile . civilization becomes increasingly directionless and incomprehensible. —John Ralston Saul,1 political scientist Delays, nonlinearities, lack of fi rm boundaries, and other properties of systems that surprise us are found in just about any system. Generally, they are not properties that can or should be changed. The world is nonlinear. Trying to make it linear for our mathematical or administrative conve- nience is not usually a good idea even when feasible, and it is rarely feasible. Boundaries are problem-dependent, evanescent, and messy; they are also necessary for organization and clarity. Being less surprised by complex systems is mainly a matter of learning to expect, appreciate, and use the world’s complexity. But some systems are more than surprising. They are perverse. These are the systems that are structured in ways that produce truly problematic behavior; they cause us great trouble. There are many forms of systems trouble, some of them unique, but many strikingly common. We call the system structures that produce such common patterns of problematic behavior archetypes. Some of the behaviors these archetypes manifest are addiction, drift to low performance, and escalation. These are so prevalent TIS final pgs 111 5/2/09 10:37:40 112 PART TWO: SYSTEMS AND US that I had no problem fi nding in just one week of the International Herald Tribune enough examples to illustrate each of the archetypes described in this chapter.
    [Show full text]
  • Meadows 2008. Thinking in Systems.Pdf
    Thinking in Systems TIS final pgs i 5/2/09 10:37:34 Other Books by Donella H. Meadows: Harvesting One Hundredfold: Key Concepts and Case Studies in Environmental Education (1989). The Global Citizen (1991). with Dennis Meadows: Toward Global Equilibrium (1973). with Dennis Meadows and Jørgen Randers: Beyond the Limits (1992). Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update (2004). with Dennis Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III: The Limits to Growth (1972). with Dennis Meadows, et al.: The Dynamics of Growth in a Finite World (1974). with J. Richardson and G. Bruckmann: Groping in the Dark: The First Decade of Global Modeling (1982). with J. Robinson: The Electronic Oracle: Computer Models and Social Decisions (1985). TIS final pgs ii 5/2/09 10:37:34 Thinking in Systems —— A Primer —— Donella H. Meadows Edited by Diana Wright, Sustainability Institute LONDON • STERLING, VA TIS final pgs iii 5/2/09 10:40:32 First published by Earthscan in the UK in 2009 Copyright © 2008 by Sustainability Institute. All rights reserved ISBN: 978-1-84407-726-7 (pb) ISBN: 978-1-84407-725-0 (hb) Typeset by Peter Holm, Sterling Hill Productions Cover design by Dan Bramall For a full list of publications please contact: Earthscan Dunstan House 14a St Cross St London, EC1N 8XA, UK Tel: +44 (0)20 7841 1930 Fax: +44 (0)20 7242 1474 Email: [email protected] Web: www.earthscan.co.uk 22883 Quicksilver Drive, Sterling, VA 20166-2012, USA Earthscan publishes in association with the International Institute for Environment and Development A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data has been applied for.
    [Show full text]
  • Systems Archetypes I
    TOOLBO X REPR INTS ERIE S SYSTEMS ARCHETYPES I Diagnosing Systemic Issues and ­ Designing High-Leverage Interventions 2 ­ BY DANIEL H. KIM THE TOOLBOX REPRINT SERIES Systems Archetypes I: Diagnosing Systemic Issues and Designing High-Leverage Interventions Systems Archetypes II: Using Systems Archetypes to Take Effective Action Systems Archetypes III: Understanding Patterns of Behavior and Delay Systems Thinking Tools: A User’s Reference Guide The “Thinking” in Systems Thinking: Seven Essential Skills Systems Archetypes I: Diagnosing Systemic Issues and Designing High-Leverage Interventions by Daniel H. Kim © 1992, 2000 by Pegasus Communications, Inc. First printing August 1992. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publisher. Acquiring editor: Kellie Wardman O’Reilly Consulting editor: Ginny Wiley Project editor: Lauren Keller Johnson Production: Nancy Daugherty ISBN 1-883823-00-5 PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. One Moody Street Waltham, MA 02453-5339 USA Phone 800-272-0945 / 781-398-9700 Fax 781-894-7175 [email protected] [email protected] www.pegasuscom.com 2008 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 2 A Palette of Systems Thinking Tools 4 Systems Archetypes at a Glance 6 Organizational Addictions: Breaking the Habit 8 Balancing Loops with Delays: Teeter-Tottering on Seesaws 10 “Drifting Goals”: The “Boiled Frog”
    [Show full text]
  • Systems Archetypes III: Understanding Patterns of Behavior and Delay
    TOOLBO X REPR INTS ERIE S SYSTEMS ARCHETYPES III Understanding Patterns of ­ Behavior and Delay 2 ­ BY DANIEL H. KIM THE TOOLBOX REPRINT SERIES Systems Archetypes I: Diagnosing Systemic Issues and Designing High-Leverage Interventions Systems Archetypes II: Using Systems Archetypes to Take Effective Action Systems Archetypes III: Understanding Patterns of Behavior and Delay Systems Thinking Tools: A User’s Reference Guide The “Thinking” in Systems Thinking: Seven Essential Skills Systems Archetypes III: Understanding Patterns of Behavior and Delay by Daniel H. Kim © 2000 by Pegasus Communications, Inc. First edition. First printing March 2000. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publisher. Acquiring editor: Kellie Wardman O’Reilly Consulting editor: Ginny Wiley Project editor: Lauren Keller Johnson Production: Nancy Daugherty ISBN 1-883823-49-8 PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. One Moody Street Waltham, MA 02453-5339 USA Phone 800-272-0945 / 781-398-9700 Fax 781-894-7175 [email protected] [email protected] www.pegasuscom.com 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 4 From Growth to Uncertainty: The Dynamics of “Limits to Success” 7 Macro Outcomes from Micro Behaviors: The Dynamics of “Tragedy of the Commons” 10 “Growth and Underinvestment”: The Role of Relative Delay 13 A Tale of Two Loops: The Behavior of “Success to the Successful” 16 “Fixes That Fail”: Why Faster Is Slower 18 “Shifting the Burden”: Moving Beyond a Reactive Orientation 20 “Escalation”: The Underlying Structure of War 22 “Drifting Goals”: The Challenge of Conflicting Priorities 24 Index to The Systems Thinker 26 About the Toolbox Reprint Series 26 Pegasus Publications 27 INTRODUCTION D r.
    [Show full text]
  • Housing and Systems Thinking Working Paper Professor Ken Gibb (University of Glasgow) and Professor Alex Marsh (University of Bristol)
    Housing and systems thinking Working paper Professor Ken Gibb (University of Glasgow) and Professor Alex Marsh (University of Bristol) 4 July 2019 housingevidence.ac.uk Summary This working paper outlines the value of using systems thinking concepts to frame understanding of the housing sector. The UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence (CaCHE) was funded in part on the basis that it would, where appropriate, integrate a focus on housing as a system into its evidencing, knowledge exchange and research strategies. Systems thinking provides an array of useful concepts, mental models and modes of thinking that can inform and help structure housing policy and strategy development. To pursue this line of argument, the paper goes through the following stages. First, we set out core ideas associated with systems thinking, stressing a complexity-based perspective; to this we add other relevant systems thinking ideas such as system archetypes and other mental models. Second, we define a housing system and demonstrate how we can apply these ideas to thinking about the housing sector. Finally, the paper suggests ways in which this body of work can directly and indirectly contribute to housing policy and strategy development. Key points l Systems thinking focuses on the interrelationships between the elements of a system; clarity about where the boundaries of the system lie for the purposes of analysis; and the reality of different interests across the system, requiring a willingness to work with multiple perspectives. However, there is not one single “systems approach”. Systems analysis has evolved into multiple, different approaches and is applied in many different fields and areas of policy interest.
    [Show full text]
  • Applying Systems Archetypes
    Applying Systems Archetypes Daniel H. Kim and Colleen P. Lannon S o, you’ve chosen a problem you want to study using systems thinking tools. You gather together some coworkers, round up Contents some flip-chart paper and markers, and sit down to work. But, Systems Archetypes as “Lenses” . 2 after an hour of trying to match the problem to a particular archetype and drawing diagrams that quickly look like The Copy-Center Dilemma: “Tragedy of the Commons” spaghetti, you give up in despair. It all seems so simple when and “Shifting the Burden” you read about it; why is it so difficult to actually do? Productive Conversations and Deeper Inquiry Applying archetypes such as “Shifting the Burden,” “Fixes That Fail,” and “Limits to Growth” to a problem can be a Systems Archetypes as Structural Pattern Templates . .3 confusing and difficult process. It is easy to spend a lot of time Lengthening Delivery Times: “Drifting Goals” in Action trying to figure out which archetype best matches your Seeing Similar Structures Across Diverse Situations particular situation, or trying to get your arrows to go in the right direction. But before you let yourself get caught up in the Systems Archetypes as Dynamic Theories . .5 notion that there is one “right” way to use the archetypes, let’s “Success to the Successful”: An Example of explore several possibilities. Archetypes can be used in at least Technology Transfer four ways: Managers as Researchers and Theory Builders 1. as “lenses”; 2. as structural pattern templates; Systems Archetypes as Tools for Predicting Behavior . .9 Identifying Predetermined Elements 3.
    [Show full text]