China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Introduction
Published in Andrew Greasley, Simulation Modelling, 2023
A type of causal loop diagram termed a system archetype provides a template of common behaviour in systems. For example, we know that expediting orders causes missed delivery dates in a production system but don’t know exactly how the two events interact. We could link the two by mapping the underlying structure of the system to a system archetype. The potential advantage of this approach is that it provides a way of understanding the underlying dynamics to explain behaviour. See the case study ‘Using System Dynamics in a Discrete-Event Simulation Study of a Manufacturing Plant’ in chapter 3 for an example of the use of a system archetype.
The Systems Approach and Thinking
Published in Howard Eisner, Tomorrow's Systems Engineering, 2023
Rutherford approaches complexity in systems by addressing nine “archetypes” that explain behavior and suggest new ways of defining and dealing with problems. His book on Systems Thinking [24] has the following subtitle: “Use System Archetypes to Understand, Manage and fix Complex Problems and Make Smarter Decisions”. If we believe Rutherford, this book should be on every systems engineer's bookcase.
Avoiding Disruption of the PMO by Accidental Adversaries
Published in Mel Bost, Project Management Lessons Learned, 2018
William Braun has also written extensively about systems archetypes. System archetypes are highly effective tools for gaining insight into patterns of behavior, themselves reflective of the underlying structure of the system being studied. The archetypes can be applied in two ways—diagnostically and prospectively.
Conceptualising a systems thinking perspective in sport studies
Published in Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2021
Euodia Vermeulen, Sara S. Grobbelaar, Adele Botha
System archetypes represent generic behavioural patterns that recur over and over, thereby simplifying complex system stories into eloquent themes that are easier to recognise. Their structure consists of balancing and reinforcing feedback loops knit together in a CLD with delays to tell the ‘bottom-line’ plot of the system, by which it highlights low and high leverage for change (Senge 1990; Peters 2014; Bureš and Racz 2016). System archetypes are considered useful as a starting point to system analysis, its synthesis and problem diagnostics (Bureš and Racz 2016). Several have been recognised and formulated in literature and are explained in much more detail in Senge (1990), Goodman (1991), and Maani and Cavana (2007); the conceptual output in this article is based on the growth-and-underinvestment archetype which will be the focus in the following discussion. In its basic form, the growth-and-underinvestment archetype juxtaposes two solutions to an emergent problem: a symptomatic solution (the quick-fix) that delivers results in the short term, yet is not sustainable, and the long term, fundamental solution which will address the core shortcomings and provide a sustainable solution.
Using system archetypes to identify safety behaviours within the Malaysian construction industry
Published in Safety and Reliability, 2020
Luke Farrand, Neil James Carhart
System dynamics was first pioneered by Forrester (Forrester, 1961) and was developed into a methodology for understanding ‘the structure and dynamics of complex systems’ (Sterman, 2000). It embodies, and is to some synonymous with, systems thinking. The notion that systems thinking can be used to interpret intricate systems was echoed by Checkland (1981), who stated that systems thinking was ‘the use of a particular set of ideas, systems ideas, in trying to understand the world’s complexity’ (Checkland, 1981). Furthermore, system dynamics related methods – namely causal loop diagrams (see Figure 1(a,b)) – may be better suited for the problems associated with traditional accident models as they emphasise the circular nature of complex systems – there is ‘no difference between cause and effect’ (Goh, Brown, & Spickett, 2010). Causal loop diagrams can be used to create generic and frequently occurring system structures to describe common behaviours, called system archetypes, which are useful to identify points of leverage for change (Goh et al., 2010). These system archetypes can be viewed as ‘classifying structures responsible for generic patterns of behaviour over time’ (Wolstenholme, 2003).
Analysing the impact of value added services at intermodal inland terminals
Published in International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 2020
Sonja Maria Protic, Christian Fikar, Jana Voegl, Manfred Gronalt
To depict impacts of a VAS implementation, cascading effects and potential direct and indirect consequences at the operational terminal level need to be investigated. First, the generic terminal model is described. The system's behaviour reveals organisational dynamics, known as system archetypes (Senge 2010). Secondly, detected impact chains at the operational terminal level, triggered by a potential VAS implementation are presented. Thirdly, the implementation of two different VAS is described using real-world cases, and the impacts are analysed.