Problems are seen as parts of a bigger picture with systems thinking. Relationships between system elements are its main focus. This approach looks beyond isolated events or issues.
Government often encounters problems that are intertwined. Traditional approaches may not see all links among issues. Policymakers can understand more with systems thinking.
It helps governments trace problems to their roots. Better solutions can result from this understanding. Unexpected outcomes are less likely with systems thinking.
Departments work together more using this approach. Departmental barriers are reduced with this method. It makes teamwork and communication easier.
Government policies are improved by this approach. This approach aids in forecasting results. Sustainable solutions are easier to create.
More administrations are implementing systems thinking. Governments innovate and adapt better with this approach. Complex issues are easier to solve.
Governments adapt better using this approach. Governments learn and improve continuously. Adaptation is easier with this approach.
It prepares policies for unexpected events. Problems can be stopped before they grow. Long-term planning is easier with this approach.
Evaluation shapes policy outcomes. Real-world data inform policy updates. It creates ongoing progress.
Systems thinking can be integrated into every stage of policy development. It is useful during planning, implementation, and evaluation. Systems thinking keeps policies relevant.
Engagement with the public is easier. Systems thinking bridges government and citizens. Government becomes more equitable.
Systems thinking challenges old ways. It stops mistakes from returning. Learning becomes central to government.
Systems thinking cracks tough issues. Creative answers are found. It helps with challenges such as health and the environment.
Many viewpoints are considered. Different people contribute. Policies are more comprehensive.
Training supports systems thinking. Governments support staff development. Preparation for tough problems is ensured.
Systems thinking assists with allocation. Best actions are found. Funds are managed well.
Systems thinking can help governments measure success more accurately. Indicators are used more. Outcomes are monitored easily.
Openness is promoted in government. People are kept informed. Trust in government rises.
Systems thinking boosts policy quality. It creates more effective, resilient, and inclusive solutions. This approach suits all policy fields.
by pete barbrook-johnson, co-author of systems mapping: how to build and use causal models of systems.
by catherine hobbs and gerald midgley. originally published on the integration and implementation in
this article explores the importance of systems thinking as a mindset for designing, developing, procuring and delivering products, services, programs and policies, and how to apply it to product management.
“the covid-19 pandemic has shown what governments can do when faced with an existential threat……”
background systems thinking is an approach that views systems with a holistic lens, focusing on how components of systems are interconnected. specifically, the application of systems thinking has proven to be beneficial when applied to health systems. although there is plenty of theory surrounding systems thinking, there is a gap between the theoretical use of systems thinking and its actual application to tackle health challenges. this study aimed to create a framework to expose systems thinking characteristics in the design and implementation of actions to improve health.methods a systematised literature review was conducted and a taxonomy of systems thinking objectives was adapted to develop the new ‘systems thinking for health actions’ (stha) framework. the applicability of the framework was tested using the covid-19 response in pakistan as a case study.results the framework identifies six key characteristics of systems thinking: (1) recognising and understanding interconnections and system structure, (2) identifying and understanding feedback, (3) identifying leverage points, (4) understanding dynamic behaviour, (5) using mental models to suggest possible solutions to a problem and (6) creating simulation models to test policies. the stha framework proved beneficial in identifying systems thinking characteristics in the covid-19 national health response in pakistan.conclusion the proposed framework can provide support for those aiming to applying systems thinking while developing and implementing health actions. we also envision this framework as a retrospective tool that can help assess if systems thinking was applied in health actions.
traditional innovation approaches—breakthrough and design thinking—often ignore the complex ripple effects they produce in interconnected systems. in a world facing multifaceted challenges like climate change and sustainability, a systems-thinking approach offers a more resilient and holistic path forward. systems thinking emphasizes understanding interdependencies, redefining problems iteratively, and engaging diverse stakeholders to co-create solutions. this article outlines a four-step framework: (1) define a desired future state. (2) reframe problems so that they resonate across stakeholders. (3) focus on flows and relationships over discrete products. and (4) implement small nudges to gradually shift the system. examples from maple leaf foods, co-operators insurance, and the csa group illustrate how this approach can realign business models for long-term sustainability. while not a replacement for other innovation methods, systems thinking addresses their limitations in tackling “wicked problems.” it encourages companies to anticipate unintended consequences, build coalitions, and adaptively guide transformation in complex environments.
background there is increasing interest in using systems thinking to tackle ‘wicked’ policy problems in preventive health, but this can be challenging for policy-makers because the literature is amorphous and often highly theoretical. little is known about how best to support health policy-makers to gain skills in understanding and applying systems thinking for policy action. methods in-depth interviews were conducted with 18 policy-makers who are participating in an australian research collaboration that uses a systems approach. our aim was to explore factors that support policy-makers to use systems approaches, and to identify any impacts of systems thinking on policy thinking or action, including the pathways through which these impacts occurred. results all 18 policy-makers agreed that systems thinking has merit but some questioned its practical policy utility. a small minority were confused about what systems thinking is or which approaches were being used in the collaboration. the majority were engaged with systems thinking and this group identified concrete impacts on their work. they reported using systems-focused research, ideas, tools and resources in policy work that were contributing to the development of practical methodologies for policy design, scaling up, implementation and evaluation; and to new prevention narratives. importantly, systems thinking was helping some policy-makers to reconceptualise health problems and contexts, goals, potential policy solutions and methods. in short, they were changing how they think about preventive health. conclusion these results show that researchers and policy-makers can put systems thinking into action as part of a research collaboration, and that this can result in discernible impacts on policy processes. in this case, action-oriented collaboration and capacity development over a 5-year period facilitated mutual learning and practical application. this indicates that policy-makers can get substantial applied value from systems thinking when they are involved in extended co-production processes that target policy impact and are supported by responsive capacity strategies.
in november 2022, the centre for science and policy delivered a series of policy workshops on how to apply systems thnking to policy making. these workshops brought together policy makers and experts to discuss health systems, physical infrastructure, and conflict.
the cecan 2024 conference ‘looking back and looking forward: closing the loop from evaluation to policy making’ considered the questions ‘what is the role of systems thinking in evaluation? is it the answer to wicked problems?’ in one of its breakout sessions.
in recent years, there has been a marked rise in the use of systems thinking approaches in uk policy making institutions, especially in environmental domains. to better understand practice
alyx slater from food standards agency reflects on why systems thinking is an essential component of policy design.
| in praise of systems thinking: what are “systems thinking” and “system dynamics”?
posts about systems thinking written by lancingfarrell
browsing the daily news headlines might lead one to conclude that we live in an era ruled by populism, fear, and misinformation. in reality, over the past…
an overview of thinking in systems and quick tips on how to recognize issues and apply solutions.
a systems thinking approach to public health policy development is essential as it ensures there has been a thorough investigation into the dynamic complexit...
systems thinking is a core skill in public health and health promotion and helps professionals develop policies and initiatives that are aware of and prepared for unintended consequences. although there is no universal definition of a system it can generally be regarded as a group of interacting, interrelated and interdependent components that form a complex and unified whole (the systems thinker, 2018). all systems have elements or components that make up the system, a relationship between the elements or components and a pattern of the system as whole.
this blog launches “systemic” – a game that simulates how policy-making systems function and possible shifts that can be made to improve policy outcomes. systemic has been inspired by the world of board games, and was co-created by policy lab
by catherine hobbs why does public policy go wrong? how can researchers who are systems thinkers begin to create the conditions in which those involved in public policy may flourish within their po…
this post forms one part of the policy analysis in 750 words series overview and connects to previous posts on complexity. the first 750 words tick along nicely, then there is a picture of a cat ha…
systems thinking provides new ways of seeing the world, focusing attention on the relationship between elements in complex systems and the spaces inbetween. haynes study shows that many policy-makers valued systems thinking as a new way to approach ...
context knowledge mobilisation (km) is a vital strategy in efforts to improve public health policy and practice. linear models describing knowledge transfer and translation have moved towards multi-directional and complexity-attuned approaches where knowledge is produced and becomes meaningful through social processes. there are calls for systems approaches to km but little guidance on how this can be operationalised. this paper describes the contribution that systems thinking can make to km and provides guidance about how to put it into action. methods we apply a model of systems thinking (which focuses on leveraging change in complex systems) to eight km practices empirically identified by others. we describe how these models interact and draw out some key learnings for applying systems thinking practically to km in public health policy and practice. examples of empirical studies, tools and targeted strategies are provided. findings systems thinking can enhance and fundamentally transform km. it upholds a pluralistic view of knowledge as informed by multiple parts of the system and reconstituted through use. mobilisation is conceived as a situated, non-prescriptive and potentially destabilising practice, no longer conceptualised as a discrete piece of work within wider efforts to strengthen public health but as integral to and in continual dialogue with those efforts. a systems approach to km relies on contextual understanding, collaborative practices, addressing power imbalances and adaptive learning that responds to changing interactions between mobilisation activities and context. conclusion systems thinking offers valuable perspectives, tools and strategies to better understand complex problems in their settings and for strengthening km practice. we make four suggestions for further developing empirical evidence and debate about how systems thinking can enhance our capacity to mobilise knowledge for solving complex problems – (1) be specific about what is meant by ‘systems thinking’, (2) describe counterfactual km scenarios so the added value of systems thinking is clearer, (3) widen conceptualisations of impact when evaluating km, and (4) use methods that can track how and where knowledge is mobilised in complex systems.
under national or state-based legislation, local governments are commonly required to prepare municipal health and wellbeing plans. yet, the issues these plans aim to address are often complex, and programmatic planning approaches traditionally used by practitioners struggle to engage with such complexity as they assume these issues can be ‘solved’ in isolation. systems thinking is increasingly being used as an approach to deal with those struggles more effectively, yet little is known about whether local governments and other stakeholders think systems approaches are feasible and acceptable in practice. this study tested a systems thinking approach to gauge if it could better address complex place-based health and wellbeing issues, such as to reduce noncommunicable diseases. guided by a systems change framework, the approach comprised a facilitated systemic inquiry and rich picture process involving diverse stakeholders in a remote municipality in the australian state of tasmania. among the participants there was broad support for the systems approach tested and they thought it was effective for increasing systems thinking capacity, collaboratively revealing systemic issues, and identifying opportunities to address those issues. they valued the rich picture because it created shared understandings of local issues. the findings suggest more is needed from macro-level policy to support place-based stakeholders to undertake systems approaches in practice, which could result in more sustainable and effective systems change required to improve health and wellbeing outcomes. the findings have implications for theory, research, and practice across interdisciplinary fields concerned with placed-based systems change, especially in rural and remote municipalities.
in a world of rapid change and complex challenges, governments are increasingly recognizing the need to think ahead, plan better, and work together. the ministry of finance, national planning and trade of seychelles realized the potential of strategic foresight and systems thinking for adopting a more integrated approach to strategic planning. what started as a collaboration between the government of seychelles, the resident coordinator office (rco) for mauritius and seychelles in 2022, the united nations department of economic and social affairs (un desa), and unitar, is gradually evolving into a way of working for the ministry.
worldwide there is increasing interest in both academic and government sectors to evaluate the different impacts of electronic government (e-government) systems. a number of predictive, cause-effect, linearly and functionally oriented models of evaluation have been proposed and applied. the focus of...
climate change is one of the most pressing challenges facing present and future generations, with far-reaching impacts on the environment, society and the economy. addressing this complex issue requires a holistic and collaborative approach that goes beyond traditional top-down governance models.
systems thinking very much has a role to play across all government priorities.
systems thinking brings problems to the surface, making it easier for governments to collectively develop, influence and shape solutions, including in relation to grand missions, policy domains and governments themselves.
systems thinking is a mental framework that helps us to become better problem solvers. it takes a systemic approach to solving complex issues.
better decisions emerge when we think across systems - understanding how different policies influence health outcomes and economic vitality
the challenges facing government tend to be mutlifacted, complex, chronic, social, economic and environmental, and their causes and potential solutions are typically unobvious, suggests paul kett, director general at the department for education. as part of csap's 2020 annual virtual conference, we explored how systems thinking can help government seek solutions to wicked problems.
increased systems thinking capacity—that is, the capacity to consider systemic effects of policies and actions—is necessary for translating knowledge on sustainable development goals’ (sdgs) interactions into practice. various models and tools that seek to support more evidence-based policy-making have been developed with the purpose of exploring system effects across sdgs. however, these often lack integration of behavioral aspects and contextual factors that influence the decision-making process. we analyze three applications of a decision-support approach called sdg synergies, which aims at building capacity in systems thinking among decision-makers and implementing agencies. our objective is to explore how behavior and context influences whether and how knowledge is taken up and acted upon when making decisions. drawing on empirical material from mongolia, colombia, and sri lanka, we identify three sets of mechanisms that appear important for enabling more systemic thinking: system boundaries (time, scale, and space), rules of engagement (ownership, representation, and purpose), and biases (confirmation biases and participation biases). results highlight some key challenges for systemic thinking that merit further attention in future applications, including the importance of localizing sdgs and incorporating this knowledge to national-level assessments, an unwillingness of stakeholders to acknowledge trade-offs, the challenge of addressing transformational as opposed to incremental change, and striking a balance between the flexibility of the approach vis-à-vis scientific robustness.