Systems Thinking & Modelling in Organizations

DM945 System Thinking and Modelling
Collin Andrews and Jim Mather
Department of Design, Manufacture, and Engineering Management
University of Strathclyde
System Thinking and Modelling
“Learning Diary Report”
by
Pulkit Vijayvargiya
Reg. No. 201388279
M.Sc. Global Innovation Management

PulkitVijayvargiya DM945-System Thinking and Modelling
II
I Statement of Academic Honesty
“I declare that this submission is entirely my own original work. I declare that, except where fully
reference direct quotations have been included, no aspect of this submission has been copied from
any other source. I declare that all other works cited in this submission have been appropriately
referenced. I understand that any act of Academic Dishonestly such as plagiarism or collusion may
result in the non-award of my degree.”
Glasgow, 05.05.2014
PulkitVijayvargiya (Reg.No.: 201388279)
Signature:

II Table of Contents
I Statement of Academic Honesty .............................................................................................. II
II Table of Contents....................................................................................................................... III
III Table of Figures ........................................................................................................................ III
1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 1
2 Learning Diary............................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Week 1 - What is a system?.......................................................................................... 2
2.2 Week 2 - How do systems develop? ............................................................................ 2
2.3 Week 3 - How to sustain system performance?......................................................... 3
2.4 Week 5 - How to apply systems thinking?................................................................... 3
2.5 Week 6 - Continuous innovation & Viable Systems Model....................................... 4
2.6 Week 7 - Toyota - a systems thinking company......................................................... 5
2.7 Week 9 - Public sector case study................................................................................ 5
2.8 Week 10 - Q & A session Group work.......................................................................... 6
2.9 Week 11 - Service Company case study..................................................................... 7
2.10 Week 12 - Group presentations .................................................................................... 7
3 Reflective discussion ................................................................................................................. 8
References ..................................................................................................................................... 12
III Table of Figures
Figure 1 (a) Thought Development, (b) Purpose defination ..................................................... 9
Figure 2 Basic Simplified Model.................................................................................................. 10
Figure 3 Final Simulation Model (By Simul8)............................................................................ 11

1
1 Introduction
Systems Thinking is a holistic approach to analysis that focuses on the way that a system's
constituent parts interrelate and how systems work over time and within the context of larger
systems (Georgiou, 2007). The systems thinking approach contrasts with traditional analysis,
which studies systems by breaking them down into their separate elements. Systems thinking can
be used in any area of research and has been applied to the study of medical, environmental,
political, economic, human resources, and educational systems, among many others. This holistic
knowledge process is further analysed by Mella (2007), who defines Systems Thinking rather as a
discipline than a technique.
Systems Thinking has its foundation in the field of system dynamics, founded in 1956 by MIT
professor Jay Forrester (Midgley, 2003). Professor Forrester recognized the need for a better way
of testing new ideas about social systems, in the same way we can test ideas in engineering.
Systems thinking allows people to make their understanding of social systems explicit and
improve them in the same way that people can use engineering principles to make explicit and
improve their understanding of mechanical systems.
The following learning diary is prepared covering the experience and knowledge of the author
from basic concept generation to critical analysis in the field of System Thinking and Modelling.
Additionally connections to other topics, 3D printing system group work and other experiences
are analyzed with context to Systems Thinking followed by a detailed reflective discussion about
the knowledge development of author at the end.

2
2 Learning Diary
2.1 Week 1 - What is a system?
The first lecture was about creating the background for the critical study and understanding of the
topic Systems Thinking and Modelling. It was started from the discussion about the history of
Systems and the fact that systems exist everywhere with different levels of complexity. The fact,
that systems are not just the collection of different variables or entities but they are a systematic
bunch of entities which are all connected to each other and “if a system is not connected it
cannot be a system” was very interesting to know. By different examples, it was revealed that
even a small system can be highly complex in nature and could be very difficult to interpret, which
creates a huge possibility of further explorations in this field.
One of the key factors discussed was the emergence of a system; every system has a purpose
behind its emergence, for example the Patent system which was mentioned in the class is
emerged for the purpose of assigning exclusive rights to an inventor or assignee for a limited
period of time in exchange for detailed public disclosure of his invention or knowledge. But
several systems are emerging today which are completely unexpected and incapable of being
avoided from the outgrowth due to the continuous improvement in the society and exponential
growth of information.
In order to manage and maintain different complex systems a communication and controlling
approach is required. Different options of change and control in a system depends on the number
of nodes and the number of different connections between these nodes in a system.
Understanding of this structure of a system seems to play an important role in order to control it.
In order to create a viable or self-maintaining system there must be as many options of control as
there are for change. As a result of first lecture about Systems, a keen interest to know more
about different procedures to maintain and control a system through approach of System thinking
was developed in author’s mind.
2.2 Week 2 - How do systems develop?
This lecture starts from the quick recap of last session regarding the complexity and purpose of a
system and argued about Emergence and Hierarchy, as two of the core ideas behind the
foundation of systems thinking. One of the main discussions was about the question “How a
system might develop”? Which was very clearly illustrated using different examples. For instance
an Engineering System is developed on the basis of three main building blocks: firstly there must
be a need or a specific purpose, secondly the availability of resources to facilitate the system and
their optimum use and third factor is further research and development for continuous expansion
of the system.
From the idea of “Purpose of a system is what it does” the key concept of emergent behaviour
was developed. Different complexities in a system possess interfaces at different levels
formulating Hierarchies, which brings the concept of decomposability in a system. Different
theories suggest that systems can be decomposed in to small levels and could be solved. But due
to the problem of more and more complexity in the systems like Social systems and Management
systems which are too complicated to be further decompose and analyse, it is difficult to
decompose these systems after a certain level of depth. According to Checkland (1981) the

3
evolution of concept of System Thinking was the result of this problem (p. 60). This argument is
very well realized throughout the lecture, which emphasized the fact that system thinking is
dealing with the theme of hierarchy, its levels of complexity and decomposability. Two of the
fascinating thoughts are provided here: first one was from Descartes which states that, “dividing
up the system being studied in to separate parts and these separate parts will retain the
phenomenon being studied”. Second though was from the Ockham which states that, “the
simplest solution is the right solution”. Thus a new and next level of advancement in context to
Systems thinking was achieved in this lecture along with the introduction of Lean thinking and
different theories of constraints. The cornerstone of lean thinking grasped during the lecture is
the elimination of waste from the processes with a mindset of continuous improvement. Also the
interesting discussion about the theories of constraints inspires the author to read Goldratt’s
novel The Goal.
2.3 Week 3 - How to sustain system performance?
Discussion about Lean thinking in a system in the previous lecture created a framework for an
approach towards sustaining the performance of a system with the mindset of continuous
improvement. The main notion behind Lean thinking i.e. to reduce waste and to simplify and
optimize the system as whole, well adapts to the systems thinking. Third lecture underlined the
similar concept with the involvement of the theme “It’s all about people”. For the development of
any organizational system, people’s thinking behaviours seemed to be very important; they must
be humble and open minded supporting the idea of continuous improvement and must have a
fully shared vision. Innovation and change was considered as one of the main factor which
supports a system to sustain, but most of the innovations and changes failed as soon as they are
implemented. Many reasons behind this failure are discoursed in the lecture and the main reason
emerged was the lack of collaborative conversations among people.
Senge (2006) in his book The Fifth Discipline speaks about the same problems in a system and
raised the importance of considering the system as whole. He says that it is important to see “the
whole system that generates the issues”. He defines Systems thinking as one of the five disciplines
which is vital for a system as it helps to integrate other disciplines by fusing them in to a coherent
body of theory and practice. Goldratt (1989) in his book The Goal also speaks about the same
problems and describes how organizations could be successful by focusing the whole system
instead of single processes.
With different discussions about the involvement of different people aspects like collaboration,
motivation, management-leadership skills, open thinking etc. in a system further emphasized the
importance of understanding and implementing system thinking approaches in organizations.
2.4 Week 5 - How to apply systems thinking?
From previous lectures a fundamental background was developed about systems and a clear
understanding was prepared regarding the need of systems thinking approach in an organization.
Further moving to next stage, this lecture was about the actual application of systems thinking
approach by employing different modelling and system tools. Significance of systems thinking
approach lies in one of its important feature that it actuates the formation of simplified

4
presentation of a complex system in order to investigate and develop an understanding, which is
feasible with the help of modelling. But one of the essential idea evolved here was that, it is very
important to define the boundary of a system on the basis of influence, logic or convenience
otherwise every system could transformed to an over-complex framework which could be difficult
to analyse. Different methodologies are discussed in the class which help in analysing a system. 7
level approaches by Checkland as compared to Archetype approach by Senge found more useful
to author while analysing the 3D Printing System during the initial stages of class group work.
Different system tools in context to soft and hard systems found to be another interesting way to
study a complex system. Prior experience of author in value stream mapping and discrete process
simulation using Simul8 made the understanding of capabilities and limitations of hard system
analysis more clearly during the lecture. One of the biggest challenges faced during the simulation
of a production process was about interaction of soft system components with hard system
components. As the number of variables and interdependency on each other in the system was
very high, it became very difficult for the author to analyse the system by only using a hard
system tool. But with the help of step to step system thinking approach and especially casual
maps; the complexity of the system was decreased and finally the soft system analysis outputs are
used as inputs to get the results from hard system analysis.
2.5 Week 6 - Continuous innovation & Viable Systems Model
Lecture six was one of the most interesting and interactive from the author’s point of view
because of its focus on innovation. As the author is from the background of Innovation
management; this lecture brings more critical thinking development in the field of Innovation
from the context of systems thinking.
The lecture starts from the discussion about Beer’s (1985) viable systems model (VSM). One of
the major outcomes here was the fact that a viable system model which is actually inspired from a
human system could plays a vital role in managing today’s modern organizations. Bititci and
Turner (1999) mentioned the similar outcomes in his paper about a viable modern business
structure. He emphasized the fact that when a VSM combined with modern business thinking, it
generates a powerful framework for analyzing today’s modern and complex organizations.
During the discussion of The Human beings and Organizations as metaphors; bring in to the
picture the need of change in a system, as human bodies dies when they are no longer replacing
their cells similarly organizations dies too when they fail to change. To sustain successful in the
market, companies have to adopt and implement change successfully.
In the same context, further connection of process of Innovation with system thinking creates a
huge difference when it comes to implement changes successfully in the organizations. According
to Saddon (2008) any innovation has to start with knowledge about how the system is currently
performing from a customer point of view. Having detailed knowledge about the system opens up
for experimentation with new innovations around how the system can be designed. As discussed
in the class in order to innovate we need to think differently. Changing thinking creates different
types of problems, and the solutions to these problems always constitute great innovation and
creativity. Thus identification of the areas of innovation in a system is also found to be an
important part of system thinking approach by the author. Recognition of different drivers and

5
barriers on the way of innovation implementation in an organization are also equally important
which can be achieved with the effectuation of proper innovation management strategies.
2.6 Week 7 - Toyota - a systems thinking company
“All we are doing is looking at the time line from the moment the customer gives us an order to
the point when we collect cash. And we are reducing that time line by removing the non-value-
added wastes” (Ohno, 1988). These words from Ohno, the founder of highly successful Toyota
Production system clearly indicates the Lean thinking nature of Toyota. This Lean success, as
enjoyed by Toyota Motor Co, has eluded most Western companies. This lecture about “Toyota as
a system thinking company” intelligibly identifies and documents various causes for this abject
failure.
With past experience in working with Toyota motors this lecture renders a very interesting appeal
to author. The Toyota system represents a fundamentally different way of thinking about the
design and management of work. It remains the first challenge to ‘command and control’
management thinking and it remains beyond the knowledge of author. Toyota’s approach on
designing and managing the organization with an outside-in customer focus; understanding
demand; managing flow; understanding what is value and what is waste; and using capability
measures, which tells how well the company has achieved against their customer defined
purpose. It is a radically different view of the organization compared to traditional thinking, and it
releases the potential for great system innovation.
Toyota’s learning from Ford caught their attention to the overall continuous flow of work through
the plant as a whole. This initial realization combined with the ambition only to produce the cars
the customers wanted to buy, was what drove the development of the Toyota Production System
(Ohno, 1988), a production system which was driven by a different way of thinking about design
and management of the work. One of the interesting observations made by the author here was
the Toyota’s customer oriented approach and the philosophy of change based on knowledge was
very similar to the Seddon’s (2003) Vanguard method of system thinking.
2.7 Week 9 - Public sector case study
From previous lectures use of Toyota system approach was discussed for manufacturing sectors.
In this lecture another system thinking tool called as Vanguard method which was mentioned
earlier was discussed in more details by its application to Public sector system analysis. Vanguard
approach is directing towards continuous improvement in companies by following a three step
approach including check, plan and do. These three steps help to change from command and
control systems to the system thinking approach and can be related to Ohno’s ideas of Toyota
production system. Deming’s PDCA-Cycle and his 14 points of management (Deming, 1982) also
speaks about the same approach for an organizational analysis. Seddon (2008) presented a nice
comparison model between Traditional command-and-control thinking approach and Systems
Thinking approach for service organizations by highlighting different perspectives.

6
Table 1 Comparison model (Seddon, 2008)
COMMAND-AND-CONTROL
THINKING
SYSTEMS THINKING
Top-down, hierarchy PERSPECTIVE Outside-in, system
Functional DESIGN Demand, value and flow
Separated from work DECISION-MAKING Integrated with work
Output, targets, standards:
related to budget
MEASUREMENT Capability, variation:
related to purpose
Contractual ATTITUDE TO CUSTOMERS What matters?
Contractual ATTITUDE TO SUPPLIERS Cooperative
Manage people and budgets ROLE OF MANAGEMENT Act on system
Control ETHOS Learning
Reactive, projects CHANGE Adaptive, integral
Extrinsic MOTIVATION Intrinsic
All these and other tools can be used to improve processes in the public sector because the
processes themselves are poor, but the opportunity for improvement is much larger than this.
One of the important points learned during the lecture was that the greatest leverage for change
is achieved when one understands the organization as a system, as Ohno’s innovation
demonstrated in manufacturing. The systems approach reveals major opportunities for
improvement and at the same time presents a critical challenge for public sector management
conventions. Just as Ohno learned counter-intuitive ideas by learning about designing and
managing work as a system (Ohno, 1988), public sector managers can learn counter-intuitive
things when they learn to look at work from a different point of view. The similar approach was
found quite useful while working as a team on the topic 3d printing to analyse the effects of the
system on customers and vice versa.
2.8 Week 10 - Q & A session Group work
After a healthy discussion about the possible scope of study and research in the field of 3D
printing (our group topic) team finally came up with the split up and allocation of topics in the
team. The first job performed was the identification of purpose of 3D printing and then the
formation of boundaries to the system was performed by the team. As a result of initial system
thinking approach team easily able to sort out to disruptiveness in supply chain and
manufacturing because of 3D printing as the core area of research. The next step of the team was
to design the approach for the analysis of complex 3D printing system. According to different
System thinking tools discussed in the class the whole analysis approach was divided in to three
components as soft system analysis, hard system analysis and purpose analysis. Analysis tools
such as CATWOE, Influence Diagrams, Balanced Scorecards and Porters Five Forces are used at
the initial stage by the team. For hard system analysis tools such as value stream mapping and
Simulation software Simul8 are used. The outcomes of the analysis show several impacts on the
industry sector and customer perception that are aligning us with the theory discussed in the
lectures. The main task of the author was to find out the impact of 3D printing system on other
systems and finally support the soft system analysis in the team. The initial findings suggest that
3D printing poses significant questions for the future of how we manufacture goods. Factories will

7
not disappear, but the face of the manufacturing industry will change as new entrants, new
products and new materials emerge, and mainstay processes like distribution may no longer be
needed. According to Christensen (1997), 3D printing will completely eliminate the long supply
chain system in upcoming years. Hard system analysis using simulation tools clearly suggests the
impact on constraints and bottlenecks behaviors of manufacturing systems. Customer demand is
evolved as an important factor and it was realized that the capacity of the system can only be
improved by changing the characteristic of demand.
2.9 Week 11 - Service Company case study
One of the basic learning from this lecture was the fact that service differs from manufacturing. In
a service system aside from the obvious lack of making physical things, the customer is involved in
production and the service agent is involved too. There is much more variety of demand. So
instead of thinking of the system as one that pulls physical things together to manufacture at the
rate of customer demand (the essence of the Toyota system), one has to think about the system
as one that brings intangible things together in response to the variety of customer demands. This
approach was also used by the author while analyzing the customer needs and impacts of 3d
printing systems, as different purpose leads to different methods, when we learn there are
different problems to solve. And when we solve these problems we learn how to design services
from which customers can ‘pull value’—i.e. get what they want. Moreover, as service improves,
costs fall.
As the case study of utility provider discussed in the class, taking a systems approach requires
studying demand to understand why citizens call. As Seddon (2003) suggests Demand as the
Greatest Point of Leverage, it is important to understand the frequency and predictability of value
and failure demands, which will tell what is not working for citizens and show the priorities for
service improvement in order to stop the calls coming in. Understanding the value demands helps
the determination as to whether the calls can be serviced in the call centre or whether the call
centre should be used as only a switch. These simple strategies lead to a reduction in call volumes
and more efficient delivery of services. Operating at this ‘system’ level achieves far more than can
be achieved by attention to processes.
2.10 Week 12 - Group presentations
On the final presentation day different groups analysed wide verities of systems using different
system thinking approaches. Few of the most interesting topics presented by different teams are
impacts of bees on the environmental system and reintroducing wolfs to Scottish national park.
But one of the occupying outcomes from different range of topics covered was that System
thinking approach can be applied to any system when its purpose and boundaries are clear.
Defining the boundaries was one of the biggest challenges faced by the author’s team who are
working on the 3D printing system. Another difficulty faced by the author as his job was to
analyze the impacts of 3D printing on other systems was the rise of complexity because of
tremendous amount of information. Although an information matrix was developed by the team
to cover all the impacts still it was found to be less effective way of understanding the impact on
other systems.

8
The soft system analysis of Irish economic system presented by the group 5 was found very
interesting to the author. The application of influence diagrams to analyze the critical economic
systems was very interesting and easy to understand. Another observation regarding hard system
analysis presented by different groups realized the author that his belief that hard system must
have numbers is wrong and throughout the presentations different kind of hard system analysis
was observed carefully. At the same time as it was observed that applying hard system analysis to
some of the systems like one mentioned in the case of reintroducing wolf in to parks is very
difficult. This idea generates the possibilities of further research and right methodology selection
in the field of system thinking.
3 Reflective discussion
Systems thinking is a general conceptual orientation concerned with the interrelationships
between parts and their relationships to a functioning whole, often understood within the
context of an even greater whole. At the beginning of the class the knowledge and opinion
about system thinking approach was very obscure, but as the lectures proceed a clear
framework and thinking was started to develop. Author understood the importance of
System thinking approach and the need of its understanding and implementation.
From different examples discoursed in the class in the beginning author realized that we are
engaged in a type of systems thinking in our everyday lives. Soon it was realized that systems
can be more complex and systems thinking even encompasses some of the most advanced
and sophisticated recent work in contemporary science. Computational modeling and
simulation, as a complement to experimentation and theory, are hallmarks of recent systems
thinking and the systems sciences. (Sterman, 2000)
Systems Modeling was found out to be a tool for system thinking which is a methodological
tradition that involves the use of formal models, frameworks or simulations as explicit aids to
increase the understanding of complex systems and improve the effectiveness of our actions
within them. The difference between model and metaphor was very interesting to know. The
depth and breadth of systems thinking science was started to be bewildering, particularly as
one first is introduced to its underlying principles and formulations. Considering just a few of
the topics associated with contemporary systems thinking covered in the class which creates
a strong background of the topic are: feedback; flow structures and open and closed systems;
centralized, decentralized, hierarchical, and self-organizing systems; nonlinear systems and
chaos; boundary conditions; emergence; Viability; simulation; evolution etc. The vastness of
the literature alone can be overwhelming, and it is not easily summarized in few thousand
words. The knowledge gathered during the whole course was sufficient to propose a system
and analyze it critically.

9
Detailed discussion about approach to Systems Thinking through the Vanguard Method in the
class inspired the author to read John Seddon’s book “Freedom from Command and Control“.
A few key points really struck in author’s mind in context to the theory covered in the class
and helped clarify author’s thoughts on some of the challenges come across recently.
First thought developed was the following simple diagram (See figure 1 (a)), which shows that
Management is responsible for defining the System, which is ultimately what defines
Performance. Management’s role should be to analyse Performance, and change the System
to improve it.
Figure 1 (a) Thought Development, (b) Purpose defination
All lean initiatives are usually begun in order to improve performance. As discussed in the
class and Seddon (2008) also says that in order to analyse Performance, we first need to
understand the Purpose of the System. Thus author believe that we should create Measures
to provide knowledge of how well we are meeting that Purpose, before finally applying a
Method which meets that Purpose, using the Measures to help refine the Method.
After developing a strong background about different approaches of system thinking many
questions begin to rise in the authors mind:
How to identify the purpose of any system? Are there any Measures about capability against
that Purpose? Also how to identify the customer demand?
Finally, getting in to more depth of Vanguard method, it was realized that understanding
Purpose involves understanding Demand, and in particular, Seddon introduces the concepts
of Value Demand and Failure Demand. Value Demand is what do customers ask to do
because it add value, and Failure Demand is what customers ask to do because we failed to
something, or do something right in the first place.
Toyota thinking approach discussed in the class which is actually an anatomy of Lean and
Agile approach of thinking is found to often use in different organizations just as alternative
delivery approaches within an existing System, rather than as means to change the System
itself. These organisations can be thought of as “wall-dwellers”, using a method within
existing boundaries, rather than “wall-movers”, moving the boundaries to help create a
System which helps meet the Purpose. Quote from “Russell Ackoff” a famous American
organizational theorist, best fits here: “doing the wrong thing righter, rather than doing the
right thing”.

10
Other than vanguard other tools covered in the class enable a good understanding of
different soft and hard system analysis frameworks. Hard system tools such as simulation
using different software and value stream mapping are seemed to be very helpful to author in
the analysis of supply chain system of a manufacturing processes. Different soft system tools
such as CATWOE analysis, process mapping, causal mapping, Deming’s PDCA Cycle etc. are also
found to be very useful for analysis at initial stages.
One of the successful accomplishment of this class was that author has already applied his
learning in his other projects successfully. For instance one of the complex manufacturing
systems in a traditional textile company was analysed by the author during Industrial group
project using the system thinking approach learned in the class. The challenge for the author
was to analyze a complex process which has more than thousand input variables and
interconnections. The solution to this problem was provided in the form of a simplified
model. The approach followed was first to identify the boundaries of the system by
considering the whole process as a system then soft system tools are used to identify all the
links. For this different discrete variables are first arranged in to four groups as shown in the
first model prepared in figure 2. Second step was to identify the bottlenecks in the whole
process; two processes warping and weaving are identified as bottlenecks. Next is to
identifies the queue and finally to identify the flow of the system. Thus out of a complex web
of more than thousand machines and products a simplified model was prepared (See figure 2)
which was finally plotted in a simulation software Simul8 (See figure 3) with different
conditions in order to perform the real time analysis.
Figure 2 Basic Simplified Model

11
Figure 3 Final Simulation Model (By Simul8)
Moreover the presentation session brought out the scope of different approaches that can be
undertook within System Thinking and provided insight into the different ways the System
thinking approach can solve problems within such a broad range of topics. Even the advancement
of technology and expansion of knowledge has bring in to picture various approaches of dealing
and managing complex systems but they all are found to be as complex as the problem to use and
highly time consuming. A Systems thinking approach is of considering the whole and working
within the defined boundaries provides a more holistic and clear analysis solution. This was
carried out and experienced by the covered case studies and the practical group project in class,
but is also ubiquitous in the topic related literature.
Additionally the in depth discussion of one of the most significant topic in different organizations
i.e. Innovation was an excellent add-on to the class logistics. The connection of innovation with
system thinking is found as the topic of most interest for author. Author believes that there are
tremendous possibilities of research and experiment are available in this specific area. Further the
way of teaching and delivering knowledge very differently by the means of tools like MindGenius
and involvement of unique case studies enable this class as one of the most innovative and
unique experience for me.

12
References
Beer S. (1985) Diagnosing the system for organisations, Wiley, Chichester, England
Bititci U S and Turner T J, 1999,"The Viable Business Structure", International Journal of Agile
Manufacturing Systems, vol.1 no.3,
Checkland, P.B. (1981), Systems thinking, Systems practice, John wiley and sons ltd., Bath
Christensen C.M. (1997), The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to
Fail (Boston: Harvard Business School Press).
Georgiou, I. (2007). Thinking through Systems Thinking, New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
Goldratt, E. M. (1989). The Goal, Rev. Ed. Aldershot: Gower
London: Random House Business Books
Mella, P. (2007). System Thinking – Intelligence in Action, Heidelberg, Germany: Spring-er-Verlag
Midgley, G. (2003). Systems Thinking – Overview, London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Ohno, T. (1988), Toyota Production System, Productivity Press, New York.
Seddon, J. (2003). Freedom from command and control, Vanguard Education Ltd, Vanguard
Press, Buckingham.
Seddon, J. (2008). Systems Thinking in the Public Sector, Triarchy Press,
Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline – The Art & Practise of the Learning Organisa-tion.
Sterman JD. (2000) Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World.
NewYork, NY:McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Systems Thinking & Modelling in Organizations

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to Systems Thinking & Modelling in Organizations (20)

More from Pulkit Vijayvargiya (7)

Systems Thinking & Modelling in Organizations