what is included in systems thinking graphical representations

Designorate

Design thinking, innovation, user experience and healthcare design

How to Create the Systems Thinking Diagrams

Complex systems can’t be seen as individual parts. We need a broader perspective to see the whole pattern that causes the problem, as many factors as affecting both the current state and the desired state of the system. The systems thinking theory was first introduced by Jay Forrester and members of the Society for Organizational Learning at MIT in his book, The Fifth Discipline, to help us see a complex system as a framework with interrelationships between different internal and external elements that affect the system.

Related articles:

The Six Systems Thinking Steps to Solve Complex Problems

What Does Systems Thinking Teach us About the Problems of Problem-Solving Practice

Design Schools Should Teach Systems Thinking, and This is Why

What is Systems Thinking?

Systems thinking (Also known as system dynamics) is an approach to address problems by looking into them as a whole rather than small parts and considering the dynamic nature of the problem. Each element affects the other elements in the system. The approach helps us to present the root solution by considering the impact of this solution on different parts of the system. Systems thinking extend to seeing the world around ad complex interested systems that influence each other rather than isolated systems. The below video visualises what systems thinking mean:

Think about reducing the price of a specific product to ncrease sales. This will negatively affect the quality of the product and increase external competitiveness. Therefore, the systems thinking diagram provides us with a visual aid to understand the connection between different factors in the system.

Characteristics of the Systems Thinking

Before building the systems diagrams, we first need to understand the general principles that control the complex systems known as The 11 Laws of the Fifth Discipline (Check What Does the Systems Thinking Teach us About the Problems of Problem-Solving Practice ). These principles were highlighted in the Fifth Discipline theory by Peter Senge in his book, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization . These principles are below: 1- Today’s problems come from yesterday’s solutions. So, before adopting any new solutions, it is very important to understand the history of the existing problem. 2- The harder you push, the harder the system pushes back in a phenomenon known as “compensative feedback.” 3- Behavior grows better before it grows worse 4- The easy way out usually leads back in, therefore, the best solution is to understand the problem from a systematic approach to eliminate it. 5- The cure can be worse than the disease 6- Faster is slower. For example, If the solution aims to increase the system productivity beyond its optimal rate, the system may actually slow down to compensate for this change in growth rate. 7- Cause and effect are not closely related in time and space

8- Small changes can produce big results—but the areas of the highest leverage are often the least obvious 9- You can have your cake and eat it too — but not all at once. The systems thinking method teaches us that we need to look at the big picture. We can provide a complete solution that accomplishes all of the required goals if we consider achieving these solutions based on a determined timeline. 10- Dividing an elephant in half does not produce two small elephants. The problems need to be seen as a whole rather than as individual parts. 11- There is no blame. One of the common difficulties when solving problems is to point the finger at someone as the sole guilty person. However, in system thinking, everyone is part of a whole system

Structure of the Systems Thinking Diagrams

In order to build the systems thinking diagram, we need to clearly identify the elements of the system and how it interacts with each other. Building the systems diagrams requires four steps; identify the events, identify the pattern of behaviour, build the system, and determine the mental models.

Step 1: Event

The first step is to identify the problem at hand that we would like to learn about. This may include one or more related problems to be addressed. For example:

• Customers wait for a long time at the reception
• The unsatisfied patients at the hospital reception in the systems thinking in healthcare setup

Step 2: Patterns of Behaviors

The next step is to observe the patterns that show the relationship between different elements involved in the system. These elements represent the potential causes of the problem (effect). The Cause Effect Diagram can help identify the different causes that may involve the problem highlighted in the previous step.

Charts like the one below can show the positive and negative relation between different factors and how they contribute to the main problem that need to be analyzed in the system.

Step 3: System

After identifying the potential causes for the final effect. The relation between every two elements in the system is controlled by the feedback loops. The loops either show positive or negative relations, as shown in the figure below. Sometimes, the relationship is referred to as Same/Opposite instead of Positive(+)/Negative(-).

Based on the above relation, there are two types of loops that are classified based on how they change the system:

Balanced feedback loops

This loop is the natural loop elements that tend to naturalize the impact of the change. For example, talking to each patient in the hospital reception office increases the waiting time, which positively increases the patient’s unsatisfactory. In this example, the feedback “patient unsatisfactory” decreases the impact of the change “talking to the patients.”

Reinforcing Feedback Loops

In contrast to the balanced loop, in the reinforcing loop, the feedback increases the impact of the change. Both are moving in the same positive direction. In our example, reducing the time at the reception office reduces the waiting time and, subsequently, reduces the patient’s unsatisfactory.

Once we build the relationship between different factors, we can add external factors that affect the system, such as the parking lots available for the patients or the medicine and governmental support…etc.

Identifying Gaps and Delays

In some cases, the current state of one of the elements stands as a barrier to achieving the intended goal or contributing to increasing the problem. These states are known as gaps. For example, the limited number of reception personnel halts any initiative to reach higher patient satisfaction. This factor is set as a gap in the system.

Once the gaps are defined, we can clearly see if our initiative may work out or if we need to fix these gaps before moving further to solving the problems in the system.

As highlighted Fifth Element Theory, the cause and effect may be separated by time and place. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the time delay in the feedback loops. For example, training reception employees to handle patients’ problems more efficiently may take time to see its impact on the system. These delays are represented in the systems by double slashes on the loop.

Further details can be added to the systems diagram, such as adding numerical data that show exactly how each element is affected by the other elements in the system.

Step 4: Mental Models

At the end of the process, the model guides us through the next steps required to achieve the intended goal. For example, improving the customer experience at the hospital front desk may involve the following:

– Increase the parking lots in front of the hospital

– Train the personnel to handle a large number of customers

– Wait for the government to provide better medicine prices…etc.

The below workshop from MIT Open Courses provides another practical example of applying the system dynamics using the Fishbone diagram :

The systems thinking diagrams allow us to effectively apply the theory to understand the different elements in the complex systems by visualizing the relation between them and determining the form of this relation. Once the systems diagram is complete, we’ll better understand of how it works, its gaps, the delays in the system, and how to improve the system based on the concluded data.

Wait, Join my Newsletters!

As always, I try to come to you with design ideas, tips, and tools for design and creative thinking. Subscribe to my newsletters to receive new updated design tools and tips!

Dr Rafiq Elmansy

As an academic and author, I've had the privilege of shaping the design landscape. I teach design at the University of Leeds and am the Programme Leader for the MA Design, focusing on design thinking, design for health, and behavioural design. I've developed and taught several innovative programmes at Wrexham Glyndwr University, Northumbria University, and The American University in Cairo. I'm also a published book author and the proud founder of Designorate.com, a platform that has been instrumental in fostering design innovation. My expertise in design has been recognised by prestigious organizations. I'm a fellow of the Higher Education Academy (HEA), the Design Research Society (FDRS), and an Adobe Education Leader. Over the course of 20 years, I've had the privilege of working with esteemed clients such as the UN, World Bank, Adobe, and Schneider, contributing to their design strategies. For more than 12 years, I collaborated closely with the Adobe team, playing a key role in the development of many Adobe applications.

You May Also Like

Using the TRIZ Method for Creative Problem Solving

Common Types of Mind Maps and How to Use Them

Why Brainstorming is a Waste of Time and What is the Alternative

SWOT Analysis: Exploring Innovation and Creativity within Organizations

Design Thinking Tools and Methods Complete Guide

What is Design? And What is not?

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sign me up for the newsletter!

Systems thinking

• 1 . 1 The Fundamentals of Systems Thinking
• 1 . 2 The History and Development of Systems Thinking
• 1 . 3 Key Concepts and Principles
• 2 . 1 Introduction to Systems Diagramming
• 2 . 2 Feedback Loops and Systems Archetypes
• 2 . 3 System Dynamics Modelling Tools
• 3 . 1 The Value of Systems Thinking in Organisations
• 3 . 2 Case Studies: Applying Systems Thinking
• 3 . 3 Overcoming Barriers to Systems Thinking in Organisations
• 4 . 1 Strategies for System Intervention
• 4 . 2 Systems Leadership and Change Management
• 4 . 3 Conclusion: The Future of Systems Thinking

Systems Thinking Tools and Techniques

Introduction to systems diagramming.

Based on systems theory (broadly applicable concepts and principles, as opposed to concepts and principles applicable to one domain of knowledge; distinguishes, dynamic or active systems and static or passive systems).

Systems diagramming is a powerful tool used in systems thinking to visually represent and understand the complex relationships within a system. This unit will introduce you to the basics of systems diagramming and how to use it effectively.

Importance of Visual Representation in Systems Thinking

In systems thinking, visual representation plays a crucial role in understanding and communicating the complex relationships and dynamics within a system. Diagrams help to simplify complex systems and make them easier to understand. They also provide a common language for discussing system dynamics and can help to reveal insights that might be missed in a purely verbal or written analysis.

Basic Diagramming Tools in Systems Thinking

There are several types of diagrams used in systems thinking, each with its own strengths and uses. Some of the most common include:

Causal Loop Diagrams (CLDs): These diagrams show the causal relationships between different elements of a system and how they influence each other. They are particularly useful for understanding feedback loops within a system.

Stock and Flow Diagrams: These diagrams represent the accumulation and depletion of resources within a system. They are useful for understanding how resources move through a system and how changes in one part of the system can affect the whole.

System Maps: These diagrams provide a high-level overview of a system, showing the major elements and their relationships. They are useful for getting a broad understanding of a system and its context.

Creating and Interpreting Causal Loop Diagrams

Causal loop diagrams (CLDs) are one of the most commonly used tools in systems thinking. They consist of variables connected by arrows, which represent causal relationships. The arrows are labeled with either a "+" or a "-", indicating whether the relationship is positive (an increase in one variable leads to an increase in the other) or negative (an increase in one variable leads to a decrease in the other).

Creating a CLD involves identifying the key variables in a system, determining how they are related, and then drawing a diagram to represent these relationships. Interpreting a CLD involves understanding the feedback loops within the system and how they drive the system's behavior.

Understanding Stocks and Flows in System Diagrams

Stocks and flows are key concepts in systems thinking and are often represented in system diagrams. Stocks represent the accumulations within a system, such as the amount of water in a reservoir or the number of people in a population. Flows represent the movement of resources into or out of a stock, such as the inflow of water into a reservoir or the birth and death rates in a population.

Understanding stocks and flows is crucial for understanding how systems change over time and how interventions in one part of a system can affect the whole.

In conclusion, systems diagramming is a fundamental tool in systems thinking, providing a visual way to understand and communicate complex system dynamics. By mastering these tools, you will be better equipped to analyze and improve the systems within your own organization.

Hi, any questions for me?

• The Open University
• Accessibility hub
• Guest user / Sign out
• Study with The Open University

My OpenLearn Profile

Personalise your OpenLearn profile, save your favourite content and get recognition for your learning

Diagrams in systems thinking

The various diagramming techniques can be used to explore distinct aspects of a situation alongside other modelling techniques. The combined use of a range of techniques can therefore be an extremely powerful approach in refining and communicating your understanding and the understanding of others. A systems practitioner who has mastered each of their uses can deploy them to provide a truly holistic and comprehensive analysis of a complex situation, as shown in the following example:

View the other diagramming tutorials

Spray diagrams

What are spray diagrams? How can you draw a spray diagram? This tutorial explains all you need to know...

Level: 1 Introductory

Systems maps

Get an introduction to systems maps, why you might use them and discover how to draw them with our diagram tutorial.

Influence diagrams

Ever wondered what an influence diagram is or how to draw one? These video tutorials explain...

Multiple cause diagrams

What elements do you need to build a multiple cause diagram? These tutorials show you how...

Causal loop diagrams

These tutorials explain what a causal loop diagram is and show you how to go about drawing one...

Become an OU student

Ratings & comments, share this free course, copyright information, publication details.

• Originally published: Wednesday, 7 July 2021
• Body text - Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 : The Open University
• Image 'Systems maps' - Copyright free
• Image 'Spray diagrams' - Copyright free
• Image 'Multiple cause diagrams' - Copyright free
• Image 'Causal loop diagrams' - Copyright free
• Image 'Diagrams in systems thinking' - Copyright free
• Image 'Influence diagrams' - Copyright free

Rate and Review

Rate this video, review this video.

Log into OpenLearn to leave reviews and join in the conversation.

Video reviews

For further information, take a look at our frequently asked questions which may give you the support you need.

Drawing Change

Visuals for a Better World

Systems Scribing: Resources for Visuals and Systems Thinking

I’m resharing some great resources from Jessica Riehl and legend Kelvy Bird about Systems Scribing. Have you ever been curious about questions such as:

• How can facilitating complexity and systems thinking serve groups?
• What contribution to complexity and systems can visual practitioners make?
• What types of systems diagrams are there?
• How can we encourage the reach of systems thinking into visual practice?
• When can graphic recorders/scribes best choose to draw differently: instead of a faithful record of what we hear, when can we draw to make the system visible?
• How could we deepen the expertise of visual practitioners in multiple models for systems thinking: for example, if I notice that one metaphor is present in the room (eg an iceberg, or a change over time graph), how might I be attuned to the presence or usefulness of bringing in other system visuals?
• How can we sense into something greater than us and into group dynamics?

This is where Systems Scribing comes in.

I came to taste these questions at an Advanced Visual Practice workshop led by legend Kelvy Bird and the Presencing Institute in 2019.  At that workshop, Jessica Riehl shared these great handouts with us. Jessica is a facilitator, scribe, photographer, and designer who uses collaborative-based design processes to gain insight and empower change; Kevly Bird has been working in the field of human development within organizational contexts since 1995, with a focus on collaboration, innovation, leadership, and collective intelligence. (And is a visionary in this work.) Jessica and Kelvy articulate what happens when we combine scribing or live graphic recording with systems thinking: Systems Scribing.

Each of these models could be considered a life’s work, and to see them on the page is a valuable systems thinking resource for me. I’m familiar with many of these but it’s my goal to be more familiar with more of them, to deepen my own practice. When I hear a group using, for example, an iceberg model for their sensemaking – my wish is that it sparks a reminder in me: what other systems thinking tools may be useful here? Hearing about one tool should trigger my thinking that other systems tools may also be possible/ have potential to serve the group.

Speaking of new tools, watch for their new book chapter coming out soon about Systems Scribing.

Jessica and Kelvy write,

This is a new, tangible approach to representing dynamics, occurring in the moment and over time, between a scribe and social body. This discipline develops a critical skill to facilitate a system’s ability to see and sense itself, as well as crystalize ideas into action. Learn more in this excerpt  Systems Scribing: An Emerging Visual Practice , authored by Kelvy Bird and Jessica Riehl, from the forthcoming  Routledge Handbook of Systems Thinking , Edited by Derek Cabrera et al. 2021

And my own intention is that as a visual practitioner, when needed, I’m able to use the tools of systems scribing to create an original model that the group needs right in the moment : the annotations, relationships, and more. I’m able to make visible the parts and the whole; the patterns and perspectives. Systems scribing helps us create a diagram of a system: it could be drawn on the back of a napkin but also something more full, where needed. I find that I might shift between graphic recording plenaries/workshop presentations into systems scribing in the same day. Or, I could be invited into a session to specifically build a model with a group (eg we are drawing what  governance options will serve us best?)

To learn more, Kelvy’s teaching and resources are abundant:

• programs online and in person: https://www.kelvybird.com/programs/
• on generative scribing, an art for the 21st Century ( book and more): https://www.kelvybird.com/generative-scribing/

Share this:

Leave a reply cancel reply.

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

75 Systems Thinking Tools Proven To Give Deeper Insights

If you want to become a systems thinker and achieve deeper insights about our complex world, you’re going to need a range of systems thinking tools.

But you might be overwhelmed by the sheer number and range of tools out there. You’ve probably seen a number of systems thinking toolboxes online. Some focus only on engaging stakeholders while others just cover mapping tools or systems thinking concepts.

This blog provides a comprehensive list of 75 essential systems thinking tools helpfully sorted into 10 categories .

For each tool I’ve created a short description. This will help you choose the right tool for the right purpose at the right time.

Linking to the best systems thinking tools and resources

When relevant, I link to the best place on the web to either get the tool itself or read a more in-depth description.

If you’re interested in learning how to use these tools, check out my online course all about how to solve complex social problems .

75 systems thinking tools in 10 categories

Instead of sorting through all the systems thinking tools, you can just jump to the category that best fits what you’re trying to do by clicking one of the sections below.

• Types of system problems (4)
• Types of system dynamics and system archetypes (16)
• Mental models and metaphors about systems (4)
• Concepts about systems (13)
• Mapping and visualizing systems (16)
• Brainstorming and engaging with stakeholders (7)
• Decision-making tools (6)
• Evaluation tools (6)
• Simulation and learning experiences (2)
• The ultimate multipurpose tool (1)

Why use systems thinking tools?

In a word, sense-making. Systems thinking tools help make sense of situations that are complex and hard to understand.

Sometimes the tool is a helpful mental model or concept that succinctly captures a dynamic otherwise hard to describe. On other occasions, for example, a tool may create a visual that better describes a system than words alone. Finally, tools may be about helping others see the systems they are operating within.

But just like any other tool, systems thinking tools extend your ability to modify the surrounding environment. By helping you better understand your environment, you’ll be better prepared to influence it in the way you want.

If you’re operating in a system – and it’s likely you are – becoming familiar with the tools below can enhance your complex problem-solving ability. That means you’re more likely to solve system problems and create the long-term impact you want.

Chapter 1: Types of system problems

It is important to recognize the type of systems problem you face because it has implications for how you should approach it.

#1. Mess : Coined by Ackoff in 1974, a mess is not just one problem, but a system of interrelated problems. The related insight, according to Ackoff, is that “the sum of the optimal solutions to each component problem taken separately is no an optimal solution to the mess.”

#2. Wicked problems : Introduced by C. West Churchman in 1967, a wicked problem is one where the information required to solve it depends on problem understanding. Rittel and Webber have aptly described the impossible implication: “in order to describe a wicked-problem in sufficient detail, one has to develop an exhaustive inventory of all conceivable solutions ahead of time.”

#3. Swamps : Developed by Schon, a swamp implies leaving the “high ground” of using research-based theory and techniques, and the necessity of using less rigorous techniques for swampy “low land” problems that don’t have a technical solution.

#4. Problematique (meta-problem) : Introduced by Ozbekhan in 1970, a problematique is a system of messes. This is particularly apt for social problems in our society that are so interrelated as to be impossible to discuss in isolation.

Chapter 2: Types of dynamics and archetypes within systems

Recognizing basic variable relationships, as well as how they add up to common dynamics can help you more quickly see a system.

There are two basic types of causal loops: reinforcing (#4) and balancing (#5).

#5. Reinforcing feedback loops : Two variables change in the same direction, resulting in a compounding or exponential effect over time. An increase in X increases Y, which in turn increase X. Or, a decrease in X decreases Y, which in turn decreases X.

#6. Balancing feedback loops : Two variables change in opposite directions, often resulting in a plateau. An increase in X decreases Y, which decreases X.

#7. Time delays : The time between an action and the change(s) it manifests. Time delays often result in oscillations or inertia in system dynamics. In causal loop diagrams, delays are represented by two hash marks on any relational arrow.

#8. Unintended consequences : Outcomes of purposeful action not intended or foreseen. The law of unintended consequences is an adage used to describe the likely unintended (and undesirable) consequences of any kind of intervention in complex systems.

System archetypes

Systems dynamics was an approach developed in the 1950s by Jay Wright Forrester. Problems and systems are represented by causal loop diagrams (#43), which is a simple map of the system, component parts and relationships. Systems archetypes, which built on the work of Forrrester and John Sterman, were first catalogued as described below by Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline (and added to by Donella Meadows and David Peter Stroh).

Below are the twelve most common system structures or patterns. In this case, I’ve found that a dozen causal loop diagrams can be overwhelming for most people. As such, I’ve only used short descriptions and common examples because they seem to be easier for most people to quickly digest.

The best resources for more in-depth descriptions are from William Braun (10 archetypes) , Jorge Taborga (8 archetypes) , and Wikipedia (10 archetypes) .

#9. Balancing with delay : Response to action is delayed. If the delay is not understood by participants, action may under- or over-shoot the necessary amount to reach goals. Common example is supply chains where delays result in large inventory fluctuations.

#10. Limits to growth (or unanticipated constraints) : A reinforcing feedback loop that leads to exponential growth until a system limit is reached. Continued action that had previously resulted in growth will not work and perhaps cause the opposite effect. Common example is learning a new skill.

#11. Shifting the burden (or unintended dependency) : The symptom is addressed with short-term solutions to some effect, but the long-term cause of the problem isn’t remedied and likely gets worse. Common example is paying debts with more loans.

#12. Shifting the burden to the intervenor : Similar to shifting the burden, this version uses outside intervenors to successfully address symptoms, preventing system participant from feeling agency to address causes themselves. Common example is hiring outside consultants rather than learning in-house.

#13. Success to the successful (or winner takes all) : A process by which a winner’s gains lead to more gains, and a loser’s losses leads to more losses. Common example is two products competing in the same company, where initial success of one product leads to more resources, which propels further growth over the other product.

#14. Accidental adversaries : Two parties who may be working for the same goal, but inadvertently become enemies, hurting their individual and collective chance at success. Common example is two non-profits with the same goals undercutting each other’s work in the pursuit of additional funding.

#15. Drifting/eroding goals (or unintended poor performance) : Current pressures lead system participants to lower standards or goals, leading to deteriorating performance over time. Common example is federal budget deficit.

#16. Competing goals : Conflicting goals that are not possible to simultaneously reach, or too many goals that result in not achieving any of them. Common example is a strategic plan with over a dozen goals that no one can remember.

#17. Escalation : Two parties acting in a perceived zero-sum game where they see their welfare as dependent on their advantage over the other. Results in cycles of ever-increasing threat and aggression. Common example is gang warfare.

#18. Tragedy of the commons : A common resource is depleted by individuals seeking their own gain. A decreasing resource supply or diminishing returns leads to intensified efforts, perhaps fully using up the resource. Common example is mining a natural resource.

#19. Fixes that fail (or unintended consequences) : An effective short-term fix creates unforeseen, longer-term consequences that require even more of the same fix. Common example is delaying maintenance, creating more expensive repairs in the future.

#20. Growth and underinvestment (or self-created limits) : Continued growth requires significant investment in longer-term capacity that may hurt current performance. To maintain current performance, underinvestment is justified, but growth nonetheless slows due to lack of capacity. Common example is over-investing in advertising while underinvesting in human capital, resulting in a sub-par product and eventually lower sales.

Chapter 3: Mental models and metaphors about systems

These are the four most common metaphors about systems, and they are often used as systems thinking tools in systems change initiatives (learn more in my No-Bullshit Systems Change Guide ).

#21. Iceberg : The iceberg metaphor is meant to show that we can’t see most of a situation’s causes. So, while we focus on real-time events, which is the tip of the iceberg, more foundational causes lie beneath the surface of our consciousness. The model encourages people to look at things “below water” like patterns, beliefs, power dynamics and mindsets.

#22. Root causes : The root causes metaphor is all about finding a condition’s initiating cause. Similar to the iceberg metaphor, what is above ground (the leaves) are obvious, whereas the less obvious cause is unseen below (the roots). The purpose of this metaphor is to get people to distinguish between symptoms and causes.

#23. Swimming in water : Just like the fish who doesn’t know what water is, in this analogy the the philanthropic sector is “swimming” in a system of non-explicit factors that nonetheless drive social change. It is posited that by focusing on non-obvious factors, practitioners can increase their odds of success. Check out The Water of Systems Change for a whole report based on this metaphor.

#24. Bathtub : The bathtub analogy is a simple way of describing any stock and flow system. The water is the stock, and the flows are controlled by the faucet (in-flow) and drain (out-flow). The purpose of this system map is to help people go beyond quantity at any given moment, and expand to consider rates of change.

Chapter 4: Concepts about systems

#25. Emergence : Most simply, the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Specifically, denotes properties of the whole (its structure or activities) not reducible to components.

#26. Self-organization : The principle that order emerges of out initially independent and uncoordinated components. Implies that trying to manage or control systems is difficult due to its own dynamics.

#27. Interconnectedness : The general everything is connected to everything else, like an ecosystem.

#28. Hierarchy : Parts are treated as wholes, which are themselves made up of smaller parts, which are themselves wholes. Higher “levels” are more complex and have emergent behavior not present at lower levels.

#29. Darkness : The idea that no complex system can be completely known, because each human has limited perceptions. Implies the need for multiple perspectives.

#30. Complimentarity : Coined by Neils Bohr, this term refers to the idea that no single perspective of a system can provide complete knowledge about the system. Similar to darkness (#29), implies the need for multiple perspectives.

#31. Equifinality : No matter the starting point, all actions lead to the same end point. Implies that some actions will have the same effect regardless of initial state.

#32. Multifinality : The same starting points will have dissimilar end points. Implies that some actions may result in different effects even given the same initial state.

#33. Requisite saliency : The idea that the parts of a system don’t have equal importance or relevance, but that these factors can only be determined through a process of examination and comparison.

#34. Requisite parsimony : Humans have a limit to the number of things they can process simultaneously, likely between 5 and 9 observations. From Miller’s famous The Magical Number Seven, Plus of Minus Two .

#35. Suboptimization : The optimal solution to a mess (a collection of interrelated problems), is not the sum of optimal solutions to each component problem. Attributed to a World War II observation by Charles Hitch .

#36. Synthesis : The opposite of reductive analysis, synthesis brings two or more ideas together to understand the whole in a different way than treating the parts separately.

#37. Satisficing : Because humans have incomplete information (a far cry from the “perfect information” presumed by traditional economics), they make the best possible choice at any given time based on what satifies their goals to a suffient degree. Coined by Herbert Simon , the word satisfice is a  portmanteau  of satisfy  and  suffice.

Chapter 5: Mapping or visualizing systems

This section categorizes mapping tools under brainstorming, hypothesizing, and simulating.

Mapping as brainstorming

#38. Rich pictures : Originally developed as part of Soft Systems Methodology by Peter Checkland, rich pictures is an individual or group method of creating a visual representation of an ill-defined or complex situation. The purpose is not to define the problem structure or logic model (unlike some of the mapping tools below), but to actively reflect on various perspectives about the situation.

#39. Cognitive mapping : Cognitive mapping is a method of creating a visual representation of a concept or process. Concepts are connected with arrows and linking phrases like “increases”, “causes”, or “is a part of”. Cognitive mapping has been used in Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA), where operational research (OR) interviews mappers and facilitates group processes to learn from the map. Mind mapping can be similar but instead of a free-form map it typically uses a tree structure. There are many concept- and mind-mapping software options .

#40. Connection circles : A brainstorming exercise to help people get started thinking about how variables are related. A circle is drawn and variables are listed on the outside. Participants then begin connecting variables with lines that go through the circle. This method can help identify closed loops that can be converted into causal loop diagrams.

Mapping as hypothesizing and representing complexity

#41. Behavior over time graph : A simple line graph that shows a variable’s change over time. Plotting multiple variables at the same time can help participants theorize about causal relationships between variables.

#42. Graphical function diagram : Similar to behavior over time graphs (see #41) in that two variables are being graphed, but in this version time is removed and the relationship between variables is charted. One variable is on the X axis and the other on the Y. The resulting graph hypothesizes the causal relationship between variables.

#43. Causal loop diagram : A diagram that visually shows how a set of variables are causally related, usually denoted by a increasing (positive) or decreasing (negative) relationships. This type of diagram focuses most on closed loops that are labeled as reinforcing or balancing. Causal loop diagrams are especially useful for identifying common system dynamics, or archetypes (see tools #9 through #20).

#44. Bayesian belief networks : A probabilistic visual representation of relationships that can be used in network analysis to determine probabilities. Often used in social network analysis.

#45. GIGA-maps : A mapping process that emerged from how designers apply systems thinking, GIGA-mapping attempts to create extensive visual maps that transcend traditional boundaries of boundaries and scale. Designers have used GIGA-mapping as a research tool to investigate design questions, as well as to create new knowledge.

#46. Viable systems model (VSM) : Developed by operations researcher Stafford Beer, VSM models the organizational structure on any autonomous system capable of adapting itself to a changing environment. A key feature of all viable systems is that they are recursive.

#47. Social network analysis (SNA) : A process of exploring and visualizing social structures using network and graph theory. Many different types of SNA software are able to analyze networks for key metrics like degree centrality, betweenness centrality, and closeness centrality. In addition to data analysis, visual representations provide avenues for qualitative analysis not otherwise available. There are many options of social analysis software .

#48. Policy structure diagram : A visual representation of steps in a decision-making processes. The map can be expanded by adding the factors that are weighed for each step.

Mapping as simulating

#49. Fuzzy cognitive mapping (FCM) : FCM is a type of cognitive mapping that quantifies relationships between concepts with fuzzy logic, and allows the creation of simulation models to determine strength of impact. It is an excellent qualitative tool that combines the benefits of concept mapping with the empirical side of system dynamics.

#50. System dynamics simulation model : A computerized model that quantifies relationships and can measure stock and flows, analyze feedback loops, and run scenarios. This is a great option when there is an abundance of empirical data and all nodes can be quantified.

#51. Stock and flow diagram : Stock and flow is a way of representing quantities and rates in a more detailed way than in a causal loop diagram. Oftentimes people will start with a causal loop diagram and convert it into a stock and flow diagram by adding relevant quantities and rates.

#52. Discrete-event simulation : A way to model a system as a series of discrete events in time. Events occur at specific moments in time and result in state changes for the system. This type of simulation is particularly helpful in understanding complex behavior in processes, like in manufacturing and supply chains.

#53. Agent-based modeling : A computational model for understanding the behavior of independent agents and how their decisions result in aggregate, or system-wide behavior. This type of model is often used to re-create and/or predict how micro-scale behavior results in macro-scale behavior.

Chapter 6: Brainstorming and engaging with stakeholders

Brainstorming.

#54. Double-Q (QQ) diagram : A modified “fishbone” diagram of cause and effect that separates “hard” (quantitative) variables from “soft” (qualitative) variables.

#55. Actor mapping : A visual way to brainstorm or represent stakeholders who are involved with or influence an issue. Distinct from stakeholder analysis, actor mapping helps to depict the many relationships between stakeholder to explore relational dynamics in a system.

Engaging stakeholders

FSG has the best step-by-by resources for engaging stakeholders with the following group mapping methods. These methods are good for brainstorming, exploring issues in groups, and finding common understanding. However, most mapping and visualizing methods listed above are far superior in terms of mapping actual system structures and dynamics.

#56. Appreciative inquiry : A method for helping a group of stakeholders find or create a common vision. Unlike other methods that may focus on problems, appreciative inquiry takes a positive, strengths-based approach that builds on successes that already exist within a system.

#57. Ecocycle mapping : A collaborative activity and mapping process that applies a 4-stage (development, conservation, destruction, and renewal) closed-loop system to a particular initiative or organization. The insight being explored is how an organization’s work may, like a natural ecosystem, go through life stages over time.

#58. Timeline mapping : A process for creating a visual and chronological map of events, actions, achievements over time. The purpose is to put an initiative’s or organization’s work into a broader context of how it is affected by external events.

#59. Trend mapping : A group process for brainstorming trends related to any given topic. Like timeline mapping, the purpose is to consider the broader context of system changes over time.

#60. World cafe method : A methodology for facilitating collaborative conversation and hosting large group dialogue.

Chapter 7: Decision-making tools

#61. Fundamental objectives hierarchy : A way of decomposing and organizing objectives that clarifies which are most important and which are a simply a means to another objective. The hierarchy is created by asking series of questions to clarify what is valued most. Often used in conjunction with means-end network.

#62. Means-end network : Usually created from a Fundamental Objectives Hierarchy, a means-end network is a way of organizing how objectives can be achieved.

#63. Cynefin framework : A conceptual framework for analyzing general behavior of a system and a guide for decision-making. It provides “sense-making” for five different types of system environments: obvious, complicated, complex, chaotic, and disorder.

#64. Stacey matrix : A two by two matrix to help categorize actions or tasks based on level of complexity. On one axis is a scale of agreement from “close to” and “far from”. On the other axis is a scale of certainty from “close to” to “far from”. Within the matrix are five areas very similar to the Cyfin framework: simple, complicated (2), complex and chaos.

#65. Ladder of inference : A visual representation of steps one goes through, often without realizing it, to get from a fact to a decision. The original concept of each step depicted as a rung on a ladder was created by Chris Argyris. The tool is often used to help people think about how they think, and to share their thinking process with others.

#66. Force field diagram : Created by social psychologist Kurt Lewin, a force field diagram represents situations in which forces that drive change are in equilibrium with forces that resist change. For a change to occur, it is hypothesized, driving forces must be increased and resisting forces must be decreased. Like the ladder of inference, this tool helps people explain their thinking about why they made a decision.

Chapter 8: Evaluation tools

#67. 5Rs framework : Used by USAID to assessing local systems and the effectiveness of programs, the framework focuses on the key aspect of any system: Results, Roles, Relationships, Rules and Resources. The tool is used as a lens in evaluation to see the system “as is” and to envision desired changes (the system “to be”).

#68. Theory of change : A method and comprehensive description of how actions lead to desired results. Organizations and programs often use the tool to brainstorm desired long-term outcomes and work backwards to identify the conditions that must exist to create those outcomes. While an excellent logic tool, its linear progression can be limiting in complex situations in which change is less straightforward.

#69. Logic model : Often used in program planning, the tool hypothesizes a logical sequence of what an intervention’s outcomes will be. Like the theory of change, logic models are often used to focus on desired outcomes and move backward to actions.

#70. After action review : A structured process for analyzing what happened, why, and how it can be done better in the future. An excellent learning tool to explore intended results versus actual results achieved.

#71. Outcome harvesting : A highly participatory evaluation approach that looks at what has changed and works backward to determine if or how an intervention contributed to the result. The approach is used in complex situations in which in is not possible to prescribe in advance what a program’s interventions or outcomes will be. Learn more at Better Evaluation or in Ricardo Wilson-Grau and Heather Britt’s book.

#72. Critical systems heuristics (CSH) : A framework of twelve questions, developed by Werner Ulrich and later enhanced with Martin Reynolds, to surface judgements of boundaries in any system. CSH is an evaluation tool that questions perspectives about means and ends by asking “what is” and “what should be”.

Chapter 9: Simulation and learning experiences

#73. Management flight simulator : A learning environment that provides participants with experiential and conceptual lessons based on simulated real-world situations. Time is usually compressed so that participants can see the long-term consequences of their actions. Often used as training for corporate managers (or in high-school economics courses), the most classic example is the Beer Game. The best resource to play simulations online is MIT Sloan .

#74. Learning laboratories : Workshops that combine instruction in systems thinking with repeated use of games and/or management flight simulators. The intent is to encourage reflection about one’s own role in systems with double-loop learning.

Chapter 10: The ultimate multipurpose systems thinking tool

#75. Your brain : Yup, that’s right. Your brain is a complex problem-solving machine . Don’t forget that systems thinking tools themselves can’t provide you with the answers. And, tools can even serve to magnify your own biases if you’re not careful. No matter what tools you use, your job is to be a critical systems thinker in search of reasonable conclusions.

Learn how to use these systems thinking tools

Are you ready to get to work actually applying these systems thinking tools to real-world problems? Strap on a tool belt and join me in my online course all about how to solve complex social problems .

• General & Introductory Electrical & Electronics Engineering
• Systems Engineering & Management

Systemic Thinking: Building Maps for Worlds of Systems

ISBN: 978-1-118-37646-1

September 2013

Brian Sauser , John Boardman

"Systemic thinking" is the process of understanding how systems influence one another within a world of systems and has been defined as an approach to problem solving by viewing "problems" as parts of an overall system, rather than reacting to a specific part, outcome, or event.

This book provides a complete overview of systemic thinking, exploring a framework and graphical technique for understanding and identifying new ways to more efficiently solve problems and create solutions. Demystifying the conjunction of systems concepts and systemic diagramming techniques, this comprehensive pocket guide introduces and explains the basis of systemigrams, how to create a systemigram and a SystemiShow, illuminates multiple complex problems, and provides an overview of what purpose they serve for today's industry professionals.

Systemic Thinking: Building Maps for Worlds of Systems:

• Includes illustrative systemigrams and case studies
• Includes the SystemiTool software, developed by the authors
• Provides an overview of systemic thinking, particularly with regard to systemigrams
• Incorporates graphical representations of systemigrams
• Instructs how and when to implement a systemigram when a problem arises

An invaluable book for industry professionals—specifically, technical leaders in industry and business trying to confront complex problems— Systemic Thinking is also ideal for postgraduate students in engineering and business management.

JOHN BOARDMAN is Principal of John Boardman Associates, a consultancy and training provider specializing in applied systemic thinking. He was formerly Distinguished Service Professor at Stevens Institute of Technology, where he is now Adjunct Professor in the School of Systems and Enterprises.

BRIAN SAUSER is an Associate Professor of Complex Logistics Systems at the University of North Texas. He previously managed an applied research and development laboratory in life sciences and engineering at the NASA Johnson Space Center and was the Program Director of the New Jersey NASA Specialized Center of Research and Training before joining Stevens Institute of Technology. He was also a Project Specialist with ASRC Aerospace.

Systems Thinking in Ecological and Physiological Systems and the Role of Representations

• First Online: 26 May 2022

Cite this chapter

• Sophia Mambrey 20 ,
• Andrea Wellmanns 20 ,
• Justin Timm 20 &
• Philipp Schmiemann 20  

Part of the book series: Contributions from Biology Education Research ((CBER))

491 Accesses

1 Citations

Representations are frequently used to visualise complex systems in science education and likely play an important role in understanding complex systems more generally. Representations used in biology are manifold, highly formalised and context-specific. Students seem to struggle to develop a comprehensive understanding of systems based on these representations, especially because system properties are often not explicitly integrated in the representation. This chapter addresses evidence from three studies on systems thinking in two context areas to uncover possible causes of students’ difficulties in understanding system representations. Here, we focus on the role of system properties that are not shown in the representation. In order to identify patterns, we merge findings of studies of systems thinking in physiological and ecological systems. We identify both indirect relationships in food webs and process continuity, self-regulation and causal-mechanistic relations in physiological systems as implicit system properties that appear to challenge the understanding of system representations. We therefore advocate explicitly addressing implicit system properties that arise from system representations in learning settings by using prompts, sequencing and simulations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Multiple Representations in Modeling Strategies for the Development of Systems Thinking in Biology Education

Systems Thinking—Ludwig Von Bertalanffy, Peter Senge, and Donella Meadows

Supporting and assessing complex biology learning with computer-based simulations and representations.

Ampatzidis, G., & Ergazaki, M. (2018). Challenging students’ belief in the ‘balance of nature’ idea: The emergence of a design theory. Science & Education, 27 (9–10), 895–919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-0017-5

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson, T. R., Schönborn, K. J., du Plessis, L., Gupthar, A. S., & Hull, T. L. (2013). Identifying and developing students’ ability to reason with concepts and representations in biology. In D. F. Treagust & C.-Y. Tsui (Eds.), Multiple representations in biological education (pp. 19–38). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4192-8_2

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Audesirk, T., Audesirk, G., & Byers, B. E. (2017). Biology: Life on earth with physiology (11th ed.). Pearson Education.

Google Scholar  

Bannert, M. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23 (2), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.139

Batzri, O., Ben Zvi Assaraf, O., Cohen, C., & Orion, N. (2015). Understanding the earth systems: Expressions of dynamic and cyclic thinking among university students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24 (6), 761–775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9562-8

Begon, M., Townsend, C. R., & Harper, J. L. (2006). Ecology: From individuals to ecosystems (4th ed.). Blackwell.

Ben Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2005). Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42 (5), 518–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20061

Bich, L., Mossio, M., Ruiz-Mirazo, K., & Moreno, A. (2016). Biological regulation: controlling from within. Biology & Philosophy, 31 (2), 237–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-015-9497-8

Biggs, A., Hagins, W. C., Holliday, W. G., Kapicka, C. L., Lundgren, L., Mac Kenzie, A. H., Rogers, W. D., Sewer, M. B., Zike, D., & National Geographic. (2009). Biology . Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Booth Sweeney, L., & Sterman, J. D. (2007). Thinking about systems: Student and teacher conceptions of natural and social systems. System Dynamics Review, 23 (2–3), 285–311. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.366

Brooker, R. J., Widmaier, E. P., Graham, L. E., & Stiling, P. D. (2018). Principles of biology (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Camazine, S., Deneubourg, J.-L., Franks, N. R., Sneyd, J., Theraulaz, G., & Bonabeau, E. (2003). Self-organization in biological systems . Princeton University Press.

Cannon, W. B. (1929). Organization for physiological homeostasis. Physiological Reviews, 9 (3), 399–431. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.1929.9.3.399

Constantinou, C. P., Nicolaou, C. T., & Papaevripidou, M. (2019). A framework for modeling-based learning, teaching, and assessment. In A. Upmeier zu Belzen, D. Krüger, & J. van Driel (Eds.), Towards a competence-based view on models and modeling in science education (pp. 39–58). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30255-9_3

Dobzhansky, T. (1964). Biology, molecular and organismic. American Zoologist, 4 (4), 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/4.4.443

Eilam, B., & Poyas, Y. (2010). External visual representations in science learning: The case of relations among system components. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (17), 2335–2366. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903503096

Ericsson, K. A. (2006). Protocol analysis and expert thought: Concurrent verbalizations of thinking during experts’ performance on representative tasks. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 223–242). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816796.013

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5 (3), 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca0503_3

Frank, M. (2000). Engineering systems thinking and systems thinking. Systems Engineering, 3 (3), 163–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6858(200033)3:3%3C163::AID-SYS5%3E3.0.CO;2-T

Freeman, S., Quillin, K., Allison, L., Black, M., Podgorski, G., Taylor, E., & Carmichael, J. (2017). Biological science (6th ed.). Pearson Education.

Hegarty, M. (2014). Multimedia learning and the development of mental models. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 673–702). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.033

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice understanding of complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16 (3), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701413401

Hoefnagels, M. (2016). Biology: The essentials (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Hokayem, H., & Gotwals, A. W. (2016). Early elementary students’ understanding of complex ecosystems: A learning progression approach. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53 (10), 1524–1545. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21336

Jones, M., Fosbery, R., Gregory, J., & Taylor, D. (2014). Cambridge international AS and A level biology coursebook (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Kitano, H. (2002a). Computational systems biology. Nature, 420 (6912), 206–210. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01254

Kitano, H. (2002b). Systems biology: A brief overview. Science, 295 (5560), 1662–1664. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1069492

Lee, T. D., Jones, M. G., & Chesnutt, K. (2019). Teaching systems thinking in the context of the water cycle. Research in Science Education, 49 (1), 137–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9613-7

Lowe, R. K., & Schnotz, W. (2014). Animation principles in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 513–546). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.026

Mambrey, S., Timm, J., Landskron, J. J., & Schmiemann, P. (2020). The impact of system specifics on systems thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57 (10), 1632–1651. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21649

Mambrey, S., Schreiber, N., & Schmiemann, P. (2022). Young students’ reasoning about ecosystems: The role of systems thinking, knowledge, conceptions, and representation. Research in Science Education, 52 , 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09917-x

Mayr, E. (1997). This is biology: The science of the living world . Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

McGlade, C., Rogers, R., & Thompson, H. (Eds.). (2016). A-level biology: The complete course for AQA . Coordination Group.

Mehren, R., Rempfler, A., Buchholz, J., Hartig, J., & Ulrich-Riedhammer, E. M. (2018). System competence modelling: Theoretical foundation and empirical validation of a model involving natural, social and human-environment systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55 (5), 685–711. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21436

Noble, D. (2002). Modeling the heart – from genes to cells to the whole organ. Science, 295 (5560), 1678–1682. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1069881

Orion, N., & Libarkin, J. (2014). Earth system science education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 481–496). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203097267.ch24

Pavé, A. (2006). Biological and ecological systems hierarchical organisation: Natural mechanisms and human driven processes’ roles in the emergence of living systems’ organisation levels and properties. In D. Pumain (Ed.), Hierarchy in natural and social sciences (pp. 39–70). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4127-6_3

Proulx, S. R., Promislow, D. E. L., & Phillips, P. C. (2005). Network thinking in ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20 (6), 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.04.004

Rieß, W., & Mischo, C. (2010). Promoting systems thinking through biology lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (6), 705–725. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902769946

Russ, R. S., Scherr, R. E., Hammer, D., & Mikeska, J. (2008). Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education, 92 (3), 499–525. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20264

Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S., Foley, J. A., Folke, C., & Walker, B. (2001). Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature, 413 (6856), 591–596. https://doi.org/10.1038/35098000

Schnotz, W. (2014). Integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 72–103). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.006

Simon, E. J. (2017). Biology: The core (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.

Snapir, Z., Eberbach, C., Ben Zvi Assaraf, O., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Tripto, J. (2017). Characterising the development of the understanding of human body systems in high-school biology students – a longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 39 (15), 2092–2127. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1364445

Sommer, C., & Lücken, M. (2010). System competence – Are elementary students able to deal with a biological system? Nordic Studies in Science Education, 6 (2), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.255

Strogatz, S. H. (2001). Exploring complex networks. Nature, 410 (6825), 268–276. https://doi.org/10.1038/35065725

Tripto, J., Ben Zvi Assaraf, O., Snapir, Z., & Amit, M. (2017). How is the body’s systemic nature manifested amongst high school biology students? Instructional Science, 45 (1), 73–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9390-0

Tripto, J., Assaraf, B. Z., & O., & Amit, M. (2018). Recurring patterns in the development of high school biology students’ system thinking over time. Instructional Science, 46 (5), 639–680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9447-3

Tsui, C.-Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2013). Introduction to multiple representations: Their importance in biology and biological education. In D. F. Treagust & C.-Y. Tsui (Eds.), Multiple representations in biological education (pp. 3–18). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4192-8_1

van Mil, M. H. W., Postma, P. A., Boerwinkel, D. J., Klaassen, K., & Waarlo, A. J. (2016). Molecular mechanistic reasoning: Toward bridging the gap between the molecular and cellular levels in life science education. Science Education, 100 (3), 517–585. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21215

Verhoeff, R. P., Waarlo, A. J., & Boersma, K. T. (2008). Systems modelling and the development of coherent understanding of cell biology. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (4), 543–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701237780

Verhoeff, R. P., Knippels, M. C. P. J., Gilissen, M. G. R., & Boersma, K. T. (2018). The theoretical nature of systems thinking: Perspectives on systems thinking in biology education. Frontiers in Education, 3 , Article 40. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00040

Wellmanns, A., & Schmiemann, P. (2020). Feedback loop reasoning in physiological contexts. Journal of Biological Education . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2020.1858929

Westerhoff, H. V., & Palsson, B. O. (2004). The evolution of molecular biology into systems biology. Nature Biotechnology, 22 (10), 1249–1252. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1020

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany

Sophia Mambrey, Andrea Wellmanns, Justin Timm & Philipp Schmiemann

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justin Timm .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Graduate Program for Science and Technology Education, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

Orit Ben Zvi Assaraf

Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Marie-Christine P. J. Knippels

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Mambrey, S., Wellmanns, A., Timm, J., Schmiemann, P. (2022). Systems Thinking in Ecological and Physiological Systems and the Role of Representations. In: Ben Zvi Assaraf, O., Knippels, MC.P.J. (eds) Fostering Understanding of Complex Systems in Biology Education. Contributions from Biology Education Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98144-0_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98144-0_6

Published : 26 May 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-98143-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-98144-0

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Hey! You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Palette of Systems Thinking Tools

T here is a full array of systems thinking tools that you can think of in the same way as a painter views colors many shades can be created out of three primary colors, but having a full range of ready made colors makes painting much easier. The systems thinking tools fall under several broad categories: brainstorming tools, dynamic thinking tools, structural thinking tools, and computer based tools. Although each tool is designed to stand alone, they also build on one another and can be used in combination to achieve deeper insights into dynamic behavior.

Brainstorming Tools

DOUBLE-Q DIAGRAM

Dynamic Thinking Tools

BEHAVIOR OVER TIMEGRAPH

CAUSAL LOOP DIAGRAM

SYSTEMS ARCHETYPE

Structural Thinking Tools

GRAPHICAL FUNCTION DIAGRAM

STRUCTURE-BEHAVIOR PAIR

POLICY STRUCTURE DIAGRAM

Computer-Based Tools

COMPUTER MODEL

MANAGEMENT FLIGHT SIMULATOR

LEARNING LABORATORYA

Related Articles

Moving from blame to accountability.

When something goes wrong in an organization, the first question that is often posed is, “Whose fault is…

The “Thinking” in Systems Thinking: How Can We Make It Easier to Master?

Despite significant advances in personal computers and systems thinking software over the last decade, learning to apply systems…

Systems Thinking: What, Why, When, Where, and How?

If you’re reading The Systems Thinker®, you probably have at least a general sense of the benefits of…

From Key Success Factors to Key Success Loops

Many of us are familiar with the following drill: Corporate pushes a new program, and each department must…

Sign up to stay in the loop

Receive updates of new articles and save your favorites..

• First Name *
• Last Name *
• Password * Enter Password Confirm Password