How A System Can Trap You
Introduction:
In this post we will discuss the multiple system traps or archetypes that we may encounter. Systems that create common patterns of problems are known as ‘archetypes’. These system traps are ways that a system can go wrong. We often have the reflex of blaming independent events for the failure of our system, rather than underlining the actually systemic issue, which is why we have system traps - the actual problem is not being fixed. It can be extremely interesting to see some of these system traps in action. They occur in more places that we imagine, and identifying them will allow us to better observe them. The purpose of this post is to learn and understand each of the eight archetypes through explanations and with the help of examples.
Key concept:
Policy Resistant
Balancing feedback loops have the advantage, that, although external factors affect the system, not much changes in the long term. This fact is simultaneously the disadvantage of balancing feedback loops. Policy resistance happens because various actors in a system have their own goals: if one actor pushes in one direction, the other actor will pull back.
In this post we will discuss the multiple system traps or archetypes that we may encounter. Systems that create common patterns of problems are known as ‘archetypes’. These system traps are ways that a system can go wrong. We often have the reflex of blaming independent events for the failure of our system, rather than underlining the actually systemic issue, which is why we have system traps - the actual problem is not being fixed. It can be extremely interesting to see some of these system traps in action. They occur in more places that we imagine, and identifying them will allow us to better observe them. The purpose of this post is to learn and understand each of the eight archetypes through explanations and with the help of examples.
Key concept:
Policy Resistant
Balancing feedback loops have the advantage, that, although external factors affect the system, not much changes in the long term. This fact is simultaneously the disadvantage of balancing feedback loops. Policy resistance happens because various actors in a system have their own goals: if one actor pushes in one direction, the other actor will pull back.
Tragedy of the common
The Tragedy of the common comes from an economic problem that states that everyone wants the most personal gain, the common describes commonly shared assets. A simple way to illustrate this system trap is by considering the common as being land and the people involved in the system as farmers. As land is limited, so is the amount of cattle that can be put on this land. As all farmers want to earn more and have more cows, if they all do so, the land will die. The photo bellow explains this system trap.
Escalation
Escalation comes from a reinforcing loop with has been set up by a competing actor which is trying to get ahead. Such system traps as escalation can be found in some horrific example such as arms races. Arms races have been seen throughout history and are one of the common system traps, ‘The United States and the Soviet Union for years exaggerated their reports of each other’s armaments in order to justify more armaments of their own. Each weapons increase on one side caused a scramble to surpass it on the other side.
Escalation comes from a reinforcing loop with has been set up by a competing actor which is trying to get ahead. Such system traps as escalation can be found in some horrific example such as arms races. Arms races have been seen throughout history and are one of the common system traps, ‘The United States and the Soviet Union for years exaggerated their reports of each other’s armaments in order to justify more armaments of their own. Each weapons increase on one side caused a scramble to surpass it on the other side.
Drifting Goals – Drift to Low Performance
Drifting goals is a structure that results in lower and lower performance or expectations. An example of this archetype within a company could be a delay in delivery of 3 weeks that at first is unacceptable, but with time become the given goal. Another common example of such an archetype is a frog in boiling water. If you throw a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will immediately jump out, as its goal is to survive. On the other hand, if the frog is in the pot and the water temperature rises with time, it will swim around until it eventually dies. This archetype is seen as a drift to low performance. Some systems don’t resist the policy and stay in the "normal" bad state and keep getting worse.
Drifting goals is a structure that results in lower and lower performance or expectations. An example of this archetype within a company could be a delay in delivery of 3 weeks that at first is unacceptable, but with time become the given goal. Another common example of such an archetype is a frog in boiling water. If you throw a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will immediately jump out, as its goal is to survive. On the other hand, if the frog is in the pot and the water temperature rises with time, it will swim around until it eventually dies. This archetype is seen as a drift to low performance. Some systems don’t resist the policy and stay in the "normal" bad state and keep getting worse.
Success to the Successful – Competitive Exclusion
This system trap consists of an entity winning a competition or compensation which results in a greater possibility to win in the future. In this archetype, we can notice a reinforcing feedback loop which divides the system in two categories: winners that continue winning and losers that continue losing. A well known example of such system trap can be the game of Monopoly. In monopoly, the odds of winning the game are higher for the first person wining money as he/she can continue earning in the future. "Success to the successful" is furthermore important in the ecological fields, as it relates to the competitive exclusion principle.
This system trap consists of an entity winning a competition or compensation which results in a greater possibility to win in the future. In this archetype, we can notice a reinforcing feedback loop which divides the system in two categories: winners that continue winning and losers that continue losing. A well known example of such system trap can be the game of Monopoly. In monopoly, the odds of winning the game are higher for the first person wining money as he/she can continue earning in the future. "Success to the successful" is furthermore important in the ecological fields, as it relates to the competitive exclusion principle.
Shifting the Burden to the Inventor
When a solution reduces the symptoms but doesn’t solve the underlying problem we are in the “shifting the burden” archetype. If the invention created to solve the problem erodes the self-maintaining capacity of the original system, a destructive reinforcing feedback loop is set in motion. The system gradually self destructs and more solutions are required. In the end, the system becomes less able to maintain its own desired state.
When a solution reduces the symptoms but doesn’t solve the underlying problem we are in the “shifting the burden” archetype. If the invention created to solve the problem erodes the self-maintaining capacity of the original system, a destructive reinforcing feedback loop is set in motion. The system gradually self destructs and more solutions are required. In the end, the system becomes less able to maintain its own desired state.
Seeking the Wrong Goal
If the goal is defined badly, the system can't possibly produce a desirable result. So for example, if national security is the desired system, and that is defined as the amount of money spent on the military, the system will produce military spending. It may or may not produce national security. In fact, spending big amounts of money on unnecessary weapons may negatively affect the economy of the country.
The worst mistake of this kind has been the adoption of the GNP as the measure of national economic success. This measure should not be used as a measure of human welfare. The GNP puts together goods and bids and it counts only marketed goods and services, this does not reflect distributional equity.
If you define the goal of a society as GNP, that society will do its best to produce GNP. It will not produce welfare, equity, justice, or efficiency unless you define a goal and regularly measure and report the state of welfare, equity, justice, or efficiency. In seeking the wrong goal, the system obediently follows the rule and produces its specified result—which is not necessarily what anyone actually wants.
If the goal is defined badly, the system can't possibly produce a desirable result. So for example, if national security is the desired system, and that is defined as the amount of money spent on the military, the system will produce military spending. It may or may not produce national security. In fact, spending big amounts of money on unnecessary weapons may negatively affect the economy of the country.
The worst mistake of this kind has been the adoption of the GNP as the measure of national economic success. This measure should not be used as a measure of human welfare. The GNP puts together goods and bids and it counts only marketed goods and services, this does not reflect distributional equity.
If you define the goal of a society as GNP, that society will do its best to produce GNP. It will not produce welfare, equity, justice, or efficiency unless you define a goal and regularly measure and report the state of welfare, equity, justice, or efficiency. In seeking the wrong goal, the system obediently follows the rule and produces its specified result—which is not necessarily what anyone actually wants.
Rule Beating
Rules to govern a system can lead to rule beating behavior that gives the appearance of obeying the rules or achieving the goals, but that actually distort systems. Rule beating that distorts nature, the economy, organizations, and the human spirit can be destructive. For example, departments of governments, universities, and corporations often engage in pointless spending at the end of the fiscal year just to run out the money, because if they don't spend their budget this year, they will have a lower budget for next year. Notice that rule beating produces the appearance of rules being followed. Drivers obey the speed limits, when they’re in the vicinity of a police car. Rule beating is usually a response of the lower levels in a hierarchy to overrigid, deleterious, unworkable rules. The way for abiding this is designing, or redesigning, rules to release creativity not in the direction of beating the rules, but in the direction of achieving the purpose of the rules. |
Conclusion
Now that we have identified and understood all the different archetypes, we are enabled to approach a problem in a system with different eyes. With this knowledge we are able to identify the patterns in order to fix the problem from the root.
|
|
References:
References:
KIM, D. (2008). SYSTEMS ARCHETYPES I. [online] Thesystemsthinker.com. Available at: https://thesystemsthinker.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Systems-Archetypes-I-TRSA01_pk.pdf [Accessed 6 Nov. 2018].
KIM, D. (n.d.). Using "Success to the Successful" to Avoid Competency Traps - The Systems Thinker. [online] The Systems Thinker. Available at: https://thesystemsthinker.com/using-success-to-the-successful-to-avoid-competency-traps/ [Accessed 6 Nov. 2018].
Taborga, J. (2011). Eight systems archetypes and their story lines. [online] Unbound. Available at: https://www.saybrook.edu/unbound/systems-archetypes/ [Accessed 6 Nov. 2018].
Meadows, D. (2009). Thinking in systems. London: Earthscan, pp.111-141