China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Systems Engineering as Engineering Philosophy
Published in Diane P. Michelfelder, Neelke Doorn, The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Engineering, 2020
The pluralistic outlook of systems thinking further recommends thinking creatively and broadly, having multiple perspectives and condoning ambiguity and uncertainty (Behl and Ferreira 2014). Part of the motivation for systems thinking is to facilitate the management of complexity. As such, system thinking is useful in complex decision-making, identifying causality, understanding dynamic behaviour, identifying feedback and recognising interconnections within systems. Tools which aid in systems thinking have been developed within four broad categories delineated by Daniel Kim (2016): brainstorming tools, dynamic thinking tools, structural thinking tools and computer-based tools. Systems mapping and cause-and-effect diagrams are examples of brainstorming tools. Examples of dynamic thinking tools include graphical analysis aids such as frequency plot and time series plots in the form of histograms, dot plots, etc. Tools in the structural thinking category include graphical function diagrams and conceptual models.
Implementing an SMS
Published in Alan J. Stolzer, Carl D. Halford, John J. Goglia, Safety Management Systems in Aviation, 2018
Alan J. Stolzer, Carl D. Halford, John J. Goglia
Systems thinking is somewhat antithetical to the way many of us have been taught to solve problems, including in the safety realm. Usually when faced with a problem we try to break it down into smaller, more manageable pieces; that is, we decompose it. This approach allows us to get our minds around the problem, analyze various facets of it, and begin to formulate solutions. The trouble is that when we decompose the problem we are unable to see the interactions between that problem and the larger system in which it (normally) operates. In contrast, systems thinking uses tools and methodologies that enable us to focus on how the issue being studied interacts with the other constituents of the system of which it is a part. When those interactions are kept in view, the results of our problem solving efforts are often much different than they would be using conventional methods. Systems thinking is most effective with problems that are complex or dynamic, recurring, and where actions affect the environment within which the issue exists.
General Systems Theory
Published in Slobodan P. Simonović, Managing Water Resources, 2012
The important question is, how can the framework, the process and the technologies of systems thinking be transferred to future water managers in a reasonable amount of time? According to Richmond (1993), if we view systems thinking within the broader context of critical thinking skills, and recognize the multidimensional nature of the thinking skills involved in systems thinking, we can greatly reduce the time it takes to pick up this framework. As this framework increasingly becomes the context within which we think, we shall gain much greater leverage in addressing the pressing water management issues that await us in the future. A switch must occur from teacher-directed learning to learner-directed learning. Open classrooms, computer-aided instruction and offering interdisciplinary courses are but a few of the initiatives in the right direction. It has also become apparent to me that good systems thinking means operating on multiple thought tracks simultaneously. This would be difficult even if these tracks comprised familiar ways of thinking.
The Impact of Practitioners’ Personality Traits on Their Level of Systems-Thinking Skills Preferences
Published in Engineering Management Journal, 2021
Morteza Nagahi, Raed Jaradat, Simon R. Goerger, Michael Hamilton, Randy K. Buchanan, Sawsan Abutabenjeh, Junfeng Ma
Based on testing, the first hypothesis was supported. Numerous studies have shown that systems thinking promotes better management of problems in the complex systems’ domain (Checkland, 1999; Flood & Carson, 2013; Keating et al., 2003; Steward, 1981). In the literature, no studies are investigating the impact of systems engineers and engineering managers’ PTs on ST skills preferences when education level, current occupation type, and managerial experience are added as moderator variables. Understanding the connection between PTs and ST skills preferences can help engineering managers and systems engineers match the practitioners’ skills preferences with the requirements of the work environment. The contribution of the first hypothesis is consistent with other studies such as Linder and Frakes (2011), which showed there is a correlation between respondents’ PTs and their preferences for using systems thinking practices. Balkis and Isiker (2005) who found a close positive relationship between different thinking styles and the personalities of university students. Davidz and Nightingale (2008) also showed that participants’ personality characteristics positively affect the development of systemic thinking.
Understanding local health departments decision to pursue/defer accreditation: A mixed-method systems thinking approach
Published in IISE Transactions on Healthcare Systems Engineering, 2020
Mina Ostovari, Sandra S. Liu, Yuehwern Yih, Denny Yu
Systems thinking has no global definition; however, most definitions emphasize these three common themes: 1) elements of the system, 2) their interconnections, and 3) the purpose of the system (Arnold & Wade, 2015). Systems thinking has been applied widely to tackle diverse health policy problems (Powell et al., 2017),(Leischow et al., 2008) through the assessment of system components and their connections, elements responsible for the system behavior, and the situation over time (Minyard et al., 2014). The accreditation process requires a complex series of tasks that are dependent on the governing hierarchy, priorities of the LHDs, and their leadership (Public Health Accreditation Board Standards & Measures, 2013). Moreover, additional complexity external to LHDs can impact their ability to pursue accreditation, e.g., different regulations and requirements in every state regarding undertaking accreditation (Yeager et al., 2016). The systems thinking approach provides a holistic understanding of the system, its components, and external factors impacting the system.
The effect of an individual's education level on their systems skills in the system of systems domain
Published in Journal of Management Analytics, 2020
Niamat Ullah Ibne Hossain, Morteza Nagahi, Raed Jaradat, Erin Stirgus, Charles B. Keating
In the last decade, the global market has emphasized the need to train well-rounded students with holistic ways of thinking to efficiently work in complex system problem domains (NSF, 2017). Scholars and researchers also recognize the necessity of ‘systemic’ perspectives for complex problem solving (Checkland & Scholes, 1999b; Jackson, 2003; Jaradat et al., 2020). To recognize and respond to the SoS environment it is essential to have a more holistic standpoint entrenched in higher level systems thinking (ST) capabilities (Checkland, 1999a; Keating et al., 2003; Nagahi et al., 2020a; Sherwin, 2010). In the SoS environment, systems thinking allows an individual to gain a better understanding of the conceptual fundamentals or mental constructs of the system of interest, (Cabrera, Colosi, & Lobdell, 2008). The key aspects of systems thinking encompass the perception of the big picture and conceptualization of system processes, boundary, structure, interrelationships, and dynamics features (Cabrera et al., 2008). To better navigate the SoS environment, Jaradat, Keating, and Bradley (2018) emphasize that organizations should focus on three fundamentals: (1) individual capacity – focused on the scale of an individual's ST skills preferences profiles to engage complex system problems, (2) environmental assessment– focused on the degree of competency required to deal with complex system problems, and (3) supporting infrastructure compatibility.