Monday Edition

Get the Blog Feed
What is RSS?

Cheap Viagra Overnight Shipping

"Systems Thinking" and Me: Never the Twain Shall Meet

I just read a major article on Bill Clinton's new approach to philanthropy. It is profit-based. (Stuff, to get imbedded in day-to-day life, has to be based on sound economics.) I applaud that. The problem I had was that Clinton's principal associate is Ira Magaziner, the same "intellectual" who was the schemer-in-chief behind "Hillary care" in 1993.

Years ago, in my McKinsey days, one of my bosses was bemoaning the help we were getting from an "economic genius." He said, "Tom, consider a matrix. One axis boils down to 'simplifier' vs 'complexifier.' The other is 'smart' and 'dumb.' Thus we are dealing with a 2X2 matrix. The analyst-from-heaven is the 'smart simplifier.' The analyst-from hell is 'smart complexifier.' He is, in fact, worse that the 'dumb complexifier,' who you can simply ignore, and the 'dumb simplifier' who might actually be of help." I can't help but think (Huh? I'm quite certain) that Magaziner is the poster child for "smart complexifier."

I'm also told that Mr M is a devout advocate of "systems thinking." Well, I'm not.

The first thing I wrote that got national attention was an Op Ed in the Wall Street Journal in June 1981. (It appeared 5 days before my Dad died, which was sad, because rightly or wrongly he would have been beside himself.) The article got me in deep doo-doo with my McKinsey colleagues. It was called, "Ideas. Plans. Actions." Planning was the rage, as it mostly still is—and it was-is McKinsey's bread & butter. My article claimed that "planning" was highly overrated. The best performers, I said, seesawed back and forth between "ideas" and "actions." That is, they had a "big idea." (Or a small one, for that matter.) Rather than think it to death, they immediately got the hell into the field and experimented with some element of it (a prototype). They watched what happened, adjusted, and then quickly ran another experiment—in the meantime the "big idea" also was trimmed or expanded to fit the incoming "real" data, the results of those experiments. As far as I'm concerned this approach, rather than a "planning-centric" approach, is the best (bold assertion) route to success. By the by, another definition of "my" approach is the Newtonian "scientific method," wholly dependent on ideas shaped and reshaped by actions—my studies of Nobel laureates in the sciences, for example, suggests (and not oversimplifying by much) that the winners "do more experiments faster." (Among other things, this was what my summer neighbor for a few years and winner of a Nobel for the first successful organ transplant told me of his situation, giving me heightened confidence in my beliefs.)

I am an unabashed fan of MIT Media Lab guru Michael Schrage—particularly his book Serious Play. His principal axiom: "You can't be a serious innovator unless you are ready and able to play. 'Serious play' is not an oxymoron; it is the essence of innovation." And, in turn, the heart of his serious play is ... fast prototyping: "Effective prototyping may be the most valuable core competence an innovative organization can hope to have." His intriguing connection, which makes all the sense in the world to me, is that true innovation comes not from the idea per se, though it guides the work, but from the "reaction to the prototype." In fact, in a surprising number of cases (the majority?) the collective responses to a host of fast prototypes reshape the original idea beyond recognition—or lead one down an entirely new path.

Years and years ago, while working in the UK, I delightedly heard a Cadbury exec call his approach to product development "Ready. Fire. Aim." It was love at first sound. (Mistakenly, Ross Perot is often given credit for this—though I acknowledge it captures his successful mode of action.)

Here is a sampling of my favorite quotes, from trustworthy sources, on the topic:

"How do I know what I think until I see what I say."—C.K. Chesterton

"We made mistakes, of course. Most of them were omissions we didn't think of when we initially wrote the software. We fixed them by doing it over and over, again and again. We do the same today. While our competitors are still sucking their thumbs trying to make the design perfect, we're already on prototype version #5. By the time our rivals are
ready with wires and screws, we are on version #10. It gets back to planning versus acting: We act from day one; others plan how to plan—for months."—Bloomberg by Bloomberg

"This is so simple it sounds stupid, but it is amazing how few oil people really understand that you only find oil if you drill wells. You may think you're finding it when you're drawing maps and studying logs, but you have to drill."—The Hunters, by John Masters, wildly successful Canadian Oil & Gas wildcatter

"Experiment fearlessly"—BusinessWeek, in a Special Report, on the premier innovation strategy of the best innovators

"The secret of fast progress is inefficiency, fast and furious and numerous failures."—Kevin Kelly, founding editor, Wired

I won't arrogantly proclaim "Case closed"—though, secretly (not), that's what I feel based on over a quarter century of pretty intensive study.

There is lots to learn from "systems thinking"—but the heart of the matter for me will always be to cast the plan aside for the moment—and get into the lab (field) and try something concrete. Only then will you begin to learn about the practicality (implementability) of your Grand-Grandiose Design—uh, system.

(NB: The principal objection to my approach is that we end up with a not so pretty cobbled together design. True. But there is a term for that: "Welcome to the real world." Or Speaker Tip O'Neill's "Politics is the art of the possible"—all effective implementation is the product of smart corporate or non-corporate politics, as much as that idea offends purists. Magaziner's approach in '93 might well have been "perfect"—though most of us think the opposite, but its result was overcomplexity, total failure to implement—and loss, after 50 years of hegemony, of the House by the Democrats.)

Tom Peters posted this on 09/29/07.

Comments

In the military we have an expression that says that even the best plans will not survive first contact with the enemy. Perhaps that is the thinking behind Ike's famous quote: plans are nothing; planning is everything.

We need planners. They give us options. They establish a baseline. They synchronize resources. But "good enough" is usually enough to get out in the field and let leaders on the ground figure out the rest. Far too many "systems thinkers" invest way too much time and energy trying to develop the perfect plan...when there is no such thing! Hooah!

Posted by Tom Magness at September 29, 2007 10:18 AM

I don't understand what the systems thinking has to do with the planning.
The way I use or think about systems thinking, is that by changing small parts of your system, you actually try to get better and do something else.
But for me Systems thinking is about doing not about planning.

Posted by Yves Hanoulle at September 29, 2007 1:13 PM

This is a total misunderstanding/misrepresentation of systems thinking and complexity.

Also, 'ready, fire, aim' is a poor excuse for the lack of reflection, creativity, responsibility, carefuleness etc. (think 'friendly fire'). To accomplish anything of substance it takes more than an entertaining slogan. Splitting 'reflection' and 'action' into polarities will not serve human endeavor in this modern world.

Posted by Harold Nelson at September 29, 2007 1:58 PM

Don't Blame Systems Thinking!

I whole heartedly agree with all of your comments. Failing fast, often, and fabulously is an essential part of doing great things.

Excessive planning rarely leads to cool sh*t.

But to equate "systems thinking" with overanalytical and stagnant planning is to bastardize this very important way of looking at the world.

Systems thinking, at its foundation, relies on the world view that things in our world are interconnected, and that sometimes we forget this fact and get unintended consequences. Seeing things as fragmented, and as operating in silos is a symptom of not seeing the world as a collection of interrelated systems. Here are some ways in which we've stumbled as a result:

1. Physicians treat symptoms, only to find that the treatment creates another problem elsewhere...or they may miss the underlying problem that leads to a collection of seemingly unrelated symptoms. Illness-based versus wellness-based healthcare results.

2. Healthcare is divided into silos, each of which is seeking to maximize their profits, but failing to see that in so doing, they hurt other parts of the system. Hospitals and physicians that encourage wellness are still operating in a reimbursement system in which creating greater health leads to a loss of revenue. Skewed incentives are rampant. Perhaps even more glaring is how the failure of hospitals to see interrelated systems ultimately leads to their failure to make a significant dent in the number of patients killed!

3. Global warming and environmental depletion are commonly the result of people and companies failing to see themselves as part of a larger system.

4. Companies focus on blaming individuals for outcomes that would result for anyone in the same situation...it's more often a systemic problem that fosters the same maladaptive response each time. The ultimate result is a workplace devoid of joy, risk-taking, and innovation.

The examples go on and on...

Here's my take:

--Excessive planning can kill great ideas, or more commonly, dilute them so much that every bit of "wow" is gone.

--Systems thinking is less useful in this planning stage, only if it detracts from taking bold risks.

--Where it's immensely useful, even critical, is in reducing the time between version 1.0 and 2.0. Used effectively, it supercharges the feedback loop from customer to company. And it's also helpful in solving the tough problems that pop up in a process of constant re-invention.

Like it or not, the world and universe we live in exists as a collection of interrelated systems.

The ability to see things through this lens at the proper time and place creates competitive advantage, and supports more rapid and continual re-invention.

Don't blame systems thinking for the problems of overplanning!

Posted by Manoj Pawar at September 29, 2007 1:59 PM

Schemer in chief of Hillary care indeed!

1. And now the Hill back to the future version is on the table - the lawyers love it!

2. Europe is/was on the brink with socialist systems' thinkers that makes them vulnerable to Russia & Iran & Islamists within.

3. USA must vote away liberal excess and restore a Newt Gingrich like USA contract to increase free enterprise tax revenue and enable a surplus economy.

4. Profit based philanthropy - plus distribution centric - like Bill Gates ensuring the aid hits the ground as optimal ROI.

5. Systems have their place though - as a pilot one is constantly reviewing systems - pre & during & post flight - 90% systems & 10% fun.

6. Systems can run the mundane business routine too - so one can focus wildcard time on people & fast changing events while the IT machines & avatars toil. :>]

7. A system and/or routine is key to major league sports star success - the same routine every day is relaxing & keeps the mind from thinking to much = action vs. mind games. :>]

Posted by John at September 29, 2007 5:24 PM

Now I am afraid - for this is the first time I have disagreed materially with one of you key philosophies. (I've built my entire business on the 7-S framework.

Systems think ultimately concludes: everything is connected. Whilst that 'theoretically' means it can be predicted, the nub lies in the "everything". Chaos theory makes sense of apparent randomness - but ultimately concludes there is a pattern to everything - and that pattern IMHO is a 'system'. But far from making the world an everything in it predictable and 'plan-able', it means quite the opposite. The only way to cope with 'the world' - is systemic flexibility.
Pheeww. I disagreed with the guru - sorry Tom.

Posted by Dennis at September 29, 2007 6:01 PM

I was about to comment that the writer's logic was flawed and has misunderstood the meaning of "systems thinking", but I see I was beaten to the punch.

Posted by Noema at September 29, 2007 10:35 PM

The rapid feedback approach you've just advocated is a fine example of systems thinking. Describing how & why rapid feedback works is another.

What on Earth does Hillarycare, especially Rev 1.0 from back in the day, have to do with systems thinking as a negative example? The whole exercise ingnored both feedback in its development and system effects in its design.

Posted by Jim Bullock at September 29, 2007 10:35 PM

Great article! Mental connections:

o Agile software development methodologies (e.g., Extreme Programming) give planning its rightful place - incrementally, and organically. That doesn't prohibit planning, but does give some relief to the (apparently) common human need to over-engineer.

o "How do I know what I think until I see what I say."â€”C.K. Chesterton

I was wondering where this quote came from. Until your post I've only heard the "think-write" variation.

o The principal objection to my approach is that we end up with a not so pretty cobbled together design.

In the above software methods this is corrected as it's noticed by an immediate "refactoring" - re-writing the code to its next step in purity and simplicity (cleaning up, abstracting, etc.) It works, and usually leads to something crisper, more elegant, and more surprising/novel than a "big up-front design" would have led to (see http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BigDesignUpFront).

Posted by Matthew Cornell at September 30, 2007 7:56 AM

Forgot to add: "One axis boils down to 'simplifier' vs 'complexifier.' The other is 'smart' and 'dumb.' I first came across the idea of hiring the "lazy and smart" in Richard Koch's book "The 80/20 Principle". Here's a nice summary:

There are only four types of officer. First, there are the lazy, stupid ones. Leave them alone, they do no harmâ€¦Second, there are the hard- working, intelligent ones. They make excellent staff officers, ensuring that every detail is properly considered. Third, there are the hard- working, stupid ones. These people are a menace and must be fired at once. They create irrelevant work for everybody. Finally, there are the intelligent, lazy ones. They are suited for the highest office. -- General Erich Von Manstein (1887-1973) on the German Officer Corps

(From "Balancing diligence and laziness" -
http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2007/04/21/balancing-diligence-and-laziness/)

Posted by Matthew Cornell at September 30, 2007 8:13 AM

to add another quote:

Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." John Lennon

This appears to be very much the fact of life in business roadmapping and strategic planning.

Posted by Tom Vandewiele at September 30, 2007 10:50 AM

Life is what happens when you are making other plans -

What happens when you don't make other plans?

Posted by glenOrGlenda at September 30, 2007 11:15 AM

Effective planning results in actionable items. I fear and have seen too often planning where the planning itself gives the impression that tasks are accomplished and goals reached by merely planning it. Without the direct result of actionable items and accountability, then planning has accomplished very little besides making people feel good. You may find this blog on Effective planning results in actionable items. I fear and have seen too often planning where the planning itself gives the impression that tasks are accomplished and goals reached by merely planning it. Without the direct result of actionable items and accountability, then planning has accomplished very little besides making people feel good. You may find this blog on executive coaching interesting. interesting.

Posted by Richard at October 1, 2007 1:29 AM

I am afraid I see exactly the opposite problem in business. An overwelming action oriented culture that screws up time and time again. And I am not talking about the WOW! Tom Peters failure is important way to success type screw ups I am talking about deeply unprofessional, values lacking and REPEATED mistakes that cause problems (sometimes legal issues) not success.

The reason - things are not thought through - not even for a nano second.

I too am against planning to the nth degree and agree it gets in the way of execution but much of what I see coming from a number of snr people is straight out of Dilbert.

I think the issue is not around planning as a process more a mind set that lacks the self awareness to look at what is being done and see if it makes sense or not.

I would like to get away from this myth that planning and thinking is a slow process. One of the most effective mechanisms I have come across is Ed Debono's 6 thinking hats - when use properly you only need about 20 minutes to drive forward the positives and mitigate the main risk areas. Makes a huge difference

Posted by PaulH at October 1, 2007 7:19 AM

I agree Paul - I use the term 'Passion with a Side Salad of Process'

I don't dislike planning - It's just there is far too much of it that stifles enthusiasm and squashes initiative. The process becomes more important than the outcome. In my healthcare career I met many talented colleagues in planning departments ... they could PLAN a great service .... And it usually stayed in everyoneâ€™s pending tray

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 1, 2007 8:13 AM

Tom, as Yves, Harold, Manoj, Dennis, Noema, and Jim have pointed out, you seem to have mixed up Systems Thinking with planning/grand designing.

Systems Thinking, as the name indicates, is simply a way of thinking â€“ it offers us a completely different way of looking at the world, compared with conventional, analytical thinking. Rather than causing complexity, Systems Thinking helps us better understand complexity.

Moreover, Systems Thinking never says â€œthis is the one best way to do things.â€ In fact, as Jim has pointed out, Systems Thinking advocates exactly what you are advocating â€“ youâ€™ve got to keep trying things, see what works, take feedback, and do things again.

Finally, I would say you can over-systemize or over-analyze or over-plan anything. But you canâ€™t blame systems, analysis or planning. Itâ€™s up to us to decide where and when to use what, and to what extent.

Posted by Chetan Dhruve at October 1, 2007 10:47 AM

I will also add my voice in defense of Systems Thinking (if it really needs defending). Dr. Deming stated "There is no knowledge without theory". Yet, he was also a believer in action. American corporations tend to mimic what they think works for others - thus the daily soup dujour - TQM, six sigma, MBO, etc.

I will say, having been a submarine officer, you better be darn well sure how the systems interact on a submarine. Failure to comprehend interactions between the components on a submarine could lead to "water in the people tank". generic viagra online canada

Steve Prevette
Fluor Hanford
Ex- US Navy Lieutenant

Posted by Steve Prevette at October 1, 2007 1:58 PM

Ain't know theory without knowledge, either.

Posted by Paul at October 1, 2007 2:17 PM

The term "systems theory" has been abused to the point that doesn't mean much any more. As with most great ideas, the concept has got away from the original thinkers.

Most of the original ideas are grounded in biology, cognition, and evolution resulting in an eco-systemic understanding of systems. These ideas are exemplified by the likes of Gregory Bateson, Humberto Maturana, Donnella Meadows who believe that natural systems (any systems that include life, which includes human behavior) are too complex to fully understand, and that the royal road to insight into complex systems is not analysis of the parts, seeing how they fit, and making bold predictions, but acting upon the whole and seeing how it responds. Furthermore, they believe that, since we are part of any eco-system that we attempt to understand, we are subject to a Heisenberg Principle-like effect: we'll change the system that we're acting upon (researching). Hence, (they believe that) we need act with great care and humility when trying to influence any system. This is best accomplished by making very small changes and evaluating the resulting behavior of the system.

As a change strategy, central planning and administration is not in line with the ideas of the above system theorists, but its polar opposite. You could have well argued your central point by backing it with systems theory.

Posted by Gary Bloom at October 3, 2007 2:43 PM