Category Archives: Organisational Thinking

DevOps Metaphors in a Nutshell.

Image from ribbonfarm.com showing Gareth Morgan’s 8 Organisational Metaphors

This is the first DevOps post on make10louder. DevOps is a way to develop and run software that removes organisational boundaries and shares tools and culture.

DevOps is similar to a marketing and sales department working closely with factory operations to make sure the factory can build and deliver what the customer wants.

TL;DR

This post looks at the different types of work in building and running software. I’ll suggest organisational metaphors reveal useful insight into DevOps; removing the boundaries between development and operations, and delivering value to customers. We can work better from understanding all the perspectives these metaphors give us.

Gareth Morgan’s Organisational Metaphors

The organisational metaphors I’m using are from Gareth Morgan’s Images of Organisation. (This book referenced by Microservices Architecture , coachesOpen University MSc courses, and ribbonfarm.com).

There are eight metaphors; Machine, Organism, Brain, Culture, Political System, Psychic Prison, Change and Flux and Instrument of Domination. All the metaphors can be true at the same time. People are likely to favour a dominant metaphor in their understanding of the organisation. This means the organisation will be working in ways they cannot see.

The metaphors that I think Devs Ops uses are:

  • Organisations as Machines
    • with known input they should produce identical output
    • ideally ‘well oiled’
    • People as interchangeable cogs, once trained or certified
    • Input, process, output.
    • reducing variation
    • A leads to B leads to C.
  • Organisations as Brains
    • Who knows what
    • How information spreads
    • Constant learning through feedback, and learning to learn
    • Viable Systems and management cybernetics
  • Organisations as Organisms
    • Adapting to the variety of a changing environment
    • Evolving an organisational DNA
    • Having a survival strategy
    • the best fit with the environment survives
  • Organisations as Cultures
    • The way we do things here
    • Value Systems
    • Norms and Patterns of Behaviour
    • Dominant cultures and sub-cultures

I don’t see DevOps best practices covering:

  • Organisations as Political Systems
  • Organisations as Psychic Prisons
  • Organisations as Instruments of Domination

There are some useful lessons looking at real world problems through these lenses, that I will leave to another post.

Metaphors in a DevOps World

#1 Computers are actually Machines

This is not even metaphorical. Don’t configure computers by hand. Person A should not configure a computer better than person B. Computers are often still treated like they need configuration by a wizard.

DevOps insists we treat computers like machines, configured accurately by other computers by running code.

This gives us to easily replicate systems, and have reassurances that if something is wrong it’s not because the wrong wizard configured them.

We treat monitoring metrics in the same way. Automate and get data on all the things.

#2 Processes are machine-like, but controlled by Brains influenced by Culture, in a complex unknowable future environment.

We design our process to run smoothly and they’re automated where possible. We have a strong culture of doing the right thing when things go wrong and we learn from our mistakes. With double loop learning we also ask ‘is this still the right thing to do?’

#3 People are not Machines

People are a complex combination of all eight metaphors.

In a DevOps people are give time to learn and apply their knowledge safely. They are given the tools they need and trust to know how to best use them without involving centralised experts. We encourage a culture of experimentation, honesty, shared ownership of problems and customer focus. Machines cannot do these things.

#4 The value created by software can be seen as the output of a machine

The output as seen by the customer is the number one priority. Customers don’t care how parts of the value stream are working. They care about the output of the entire system, and internal optimizations can have negative consequences. Systems Thinking 101.

#5 Working Software is a machine, used by People, in a changing environment

Software, like the computers it runs on is literally a complicated machine. Although software may behave in ways we don’t understand, without AI, it’s knowable and predictable. It may still be incredibly complicated, but it’s theoretically understandable in advance if the starting point, context and inputs are known.

Problems arise when people use the software. We can start to understood people using the metaphors of brains, culture, organisms and a healthy dose of biases via psychic prisons.

We should automate as much of the machine part of software as we can, in the knowledge that the needs of the people using it will take all of our attention.

We can’t automate software development, but using Agile methodologies to move bits of functionality from customers heads into predictable code, we’re riding a flux and change metaphor.

DevOps Metaphors in a Nutshell

Computers are machines. Build them with code, don’t craft them by hand.

Processes are designed and improved like machines, but in the knowledge that bad stuff will happen. Culture will help you do the right thing when it does, and brains will help your organisation improve. As an organism you need to adapt to a changing environment. Today’s solutions are tomorrows problems.

People and Teams can learn and adapt, but can also follow anti patterns. All the Organisation Metaphors help here. Metaphors of Political Systems and Psychic Prisons (think Cognitive biases) may also help diagnose issues where you’re following good practice, but things still are not working.

Software works like a machine in a complex environment including people, and all of their metaphorical ways of seeing and acting. Crossing this chasm is the work of developers often aligned to the agile manifesto. The use a dominant metaphor of flux and change, but produce software that has a repeatable output.

Conclusion, and So What?

Organisation metaphors reassure us we’re looking at the right things and show us how we can more fully understand situations.

DevOps is a mixture of theory and sound practical experience. Metaphorical insight can help us.

Advertisements

IT From Common Resource to Strategic Partner

800px-cows_in_green_field_-_nullamunjie_olive_grove03

This blog post is about IT in large organisations, including public organisations like councils and businesses where new Tech competitors are changing the environment of business. The environment is changing, or more accurately, being changed by the strategies of competitors.

Organisations are looking for a digital strategy to combat this threat, moving digital to the heart of what they do. IT for it’s part is keen to become a Strategic Partner to the business. So what is stopping it?

Where did IT departments come from?

It’s worth looking at how IT departments may have been created. They traditionally exist as a cost on the balance sheet, providing common resource to other areas of the business, often underpinning other parts that are necessary, but may not directly exchange value with the environment, like accounting, marketing or HR. The may also run internal and external websites, but they are unlikely to be the core value propositions.

If not managed,  common resources can suffer from the “tragedy of the commons”. The popular example is common grazing land is so overburdened by people wanting to graze their animals that loses it’s initial value. People are assumed to want to maximise the number of animals on the common land.

Common IT Resources

Many people in IT departments will recognise this, with many unrelated customers in the business wanting their work to be prioritised by the limited IT resource. Like in the tragedy they want to get value from the resource. There is now no such thing as an IT project – they are business projects central to strategy. But with a common IT resource each may be another cow on the  metaphorical field.

The big issue is ‘Who would strategically partner with an unmanaged commons?”. It’s a very risky proposition.

From an Unmanaged Commons to Strategic Partner

Managed commons can and do exist. Elinor Ostrom studied working, managed commons, and found that there are 8 organising principals common to functional commons. Applying these to IT could provide the step towards being seen as a potential Strategic Partner.

Eleonor’s rules applied to IT may look like

  • Define clear group boundaries
    • This is perhaps the easy part, but it’s vital to understand where the boundaries are, so you can understand and manage the work and relationships across them
  • Match rules governing use of common goods to local needs and conditions.
    • Your rules will differ from other commons, best practices won’t work. You need to look at what is required by the people who use the resources.
  • Ensure that those affected by the rules can participate in modifying the rules.
    • For natural commons like an inland fishery the fish don’t get a say. For IT departments there is likely to be internal work that needs be done, for example upgrades, patching and audit requirements.  So the IT department itself, alongside Project Managers, Service Managers, Marketing and Finance should discuss the rules for using the common resoure.
    • Users of IT resources need a way of getting work done
    • They need a way of getting progress reports out
    • They need a way of getting ad-hoc questions answered by subject matter experts.
  • Make sure the rule-making rights of community members are respected by outside authorities.
    • We need to sell the idea that IT will work better for everyone as a managed common resource
    • We should have rule for getting urgent business requirements discussed and done appropriately – so that there is not a requirement for the use of higher authority to get work done
  • Develop a system, carried out by community members, for monitoring members’ behaviour.
    • Monitoring should be done bu users of the commons. It is in their interests that the rules they helped create are followed.
  • Use graduated sanctions for rule violators
    • Starting small, and agree. What sort of sanctions would you like to see?
  • Provide accessible, low-cost means for dispute resolution.
    • Anticipate things may go wrong, and we know how issues will be resolved quickly and easily
  • Build responsibility for governing the common resource in nested tiers from the lowest level up to the entire interconnected system.
    • Create systems within systems, with each level being viable. The Viable Systems Model would be ideal for creating, or diagnosing this organisational structure.

There are many other areas of organisations, or entire organisations that are Common Pool Resources. Strategically some may aim to be well managed commons, others may need to use this framework to be seen as a potential strategic partner by other areas of the organisation or environment.

A Strategy needs to change your environment

One of the most interesting things about organisations is that they affect the environment they are in, and the environment affects them whether they know it or not. This co-evolution, is not just two systems, but a huge number of interconnected complex systems. I’ll stick to discussing a smaller number of interactions for obvious reasons.

New Strategies of an Economic Hit Man

To discuss this I’ll use the examples from a post called ‘51i0a1xtubl-_sx321_bo1204203200_New Strategies of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins as it describes various strategies – or lack of – for changing the environment that an organisation operates in. Ideally designed to work in the organisations favour. I’ll also use ideas from the Viable Systems Model. This should make the ideas clearer, and show why an approach that models this behaviour is useful. An understanding of your environment is not something you hope to have, if you want to stay viable.

Reality is what you think it is

I’ll start by suggesting the reality is what you think it is. If someone can change what you think reality is, then that is what it is. So by defining success, or desirability, or the right way to do something then it becomes reality. Part of changing your environment may involve changing what people think as much as changing their material reality.

The article gives examples of The World Bank, Ford, Nike and the USA/Iran relationship, so I’ll cover each of these.

#1 The World Bank

Firstly the World Bank’s strategy is described, and it’s bleak. It’s job is to

  • get developing countries with natural resources to accept loans for infrastructure to be build by western engineering and construction companies
  • if the country struggled with the loans (if they did not become developed) then the IMF would restructure the loan
  • This restructuring would involve the country selling it’s resources to the corporations

We can use ‘The purpose of a system is what it does‘ to infer the strategy of the World Bank and developed nations here.

  • Getting countries to invest in infrastructure supplied by corporations from developed nations. I’ll call this Goal 1.
    • This is done by persuading the developing country that development happens by having roads, airports and infrastructure. By creating a top down plan of how development happens, in a simple non-complex way, Goal 1 is attained. It doesn’t matter if it works, in fact Goal 2 and 3 require that it doesn’t. This is a High Modernist approach to development as discussed in Seeing Like a State, and is recognised as failing, but because it is a legible and much simplified it appeals to humans looking for certainly, and an explanation and understanding of the future.
    • This is how the World Bank changes the their environment to one that is suited to their goals.
  • Get the countries to take out loans to get the loan interest repayments. Goal 2.
    • This needs the infrastructure provided in Goal 1 to fail to produce the predicted economic growth.
  • Get the natural resources of the country as a demand of restructuring the loans. Goal 3.
    • The purpose of a system is what it does. POSIWD.

We can model this with the VSM, using just the they systems that add value, to see if it is potentially Viable. We can see that the plans would not create a viable system.

The viability of the developing country was never a concern of the World Bank. All of the infrastructure projects are required for a developed economy. A postroom, admin staff, car park and canteen are vital for a business, but they do not exchange value with their environment and generate wealth.

Infrastructure projects are similar, roads and airports do not exchange value with the environment, and so are can only support viable systems.

They are a Potekmin Developed Economy, they just look like the real thing. We can use the VSM to show that the infrastructure would not make the country economically viable. The infrastructure is a by product of economic viability. This viability often comes from a country being able to exploit it’s own natural resources. That would not allow the World Banks Goal 3 to be attained.

Clearly the VSM shows that the developments are not System1’s that exchange value with the environment, so are not viable. This could have been known in advance, and probably was.

In this case the environment of developed countries was altered to the benefit of developed countries, banks and corporations, at the expense of developing countries.

#2 Ford 

After implementing Taylorism / scientific management, Ford is often used as a byword for old school management failure. I’ll argue that strategically, they deliberately changed their environment to make the company more viable. They did this by turning their staff into potential customers, this changed the environment they were in, for an entire class of Americans.

Ford’s reality was that his Taylorist production approach created a massive turnover of staff. He also needed a much larger market to sell the increasing numbers of cars he could produce.

To do this he doubled the wages of his staff. This increased retention, and also created customers for his business. He changed the enviromnent his business was working in, so that it suited his business model. Ford would have struggled to make or sell 308,000 Model Ts in 1914 if he hadn’t have done both of these things.

He changed his environment by creating a well off working class who were consumers for his product, and allowed continued success for both his company and American manufacturing.

#3 Nike, Adidas etc

Nike, Adidas and other high end brands make expensive sports clothing, but outsource the manufacture to the cheapest tolerable manufacturer. This lowers their costs, maximising the profit margins they can get. They don’t however pay enough to create customers from the people who manufacture their shoes.  Someone else need to provide employment and income here.

They sponsor athletes, sporting events, and pay for product placement that makes their products desirable in their environment. They pay to change the perception of reality. Unlike Ford they do nothing to change the economic reality of their customers. In the country where their products are manufactured they destroy opportunities for economic growth that they would be able to benefit from.

The long term viability of these High end brands concerns their ability to maintain the perception that their products are desirable, and the ability of other organisations to ensure that customers have sufficient money. They are connected to their customers ability to buy their product, but do not help to create potential customers.

Without viable high end customers perceptions the organisations may use their perceived high worth status in reputation mining via low cost suppliers. But they are no longer a viable high worth organisation.

Three Examples

The three examples show how an organisation needs to exist in a viable environment. In the case of the Developing Nations, Developed Nations acted to create large scale government customers for it’s Corporations, and then acted to get access to resources to help it stay viable in markets that already existed. The environment, in this case entire countries, were used without improvement or development.

Ford on the other hand actively changed and improved his environment to make his product more viable by creating customers, fuelling economic growth. Of course this was based on consumption, and petrochemicals, so there are downsides here.

The evonomics article has some suggestions for how we can improve our situation. I’d like to argue for the use of the Viable Systems Modelling to understand how proposed changes may create viability.

If we cannot see how viability is created by building infrastructure, or by manufacturing high value items at the lowest prices outside of the intended market then this should inform us as to how desirable these things are, and gives an idea of the strategy of the organisation pushing for the changes.

Workplace Systems Thinking Groups

This post is an overview of a talk by Tim James and Mike Haber at the SCIO open day in Manchester in October 2016. Pauline Roberts kindly made some great notes, and I’m using these notes as the basis of this post, and adding extra information and links.

At the talk in Manchester Mike and Tim gave an overview of some very powerful systems thinking work they have been doing in the workplace. Both have developed Systems Thinking groups in the workplace to share, support and learn from one another. Tim’s group is called Systems Thinkers Anonymous and Mike runs a strengths workshop. Both groups run for 1 hour per week over lunch time. 

The origin of this talk was a SCiO development day. These are days where systems practitioners meet to discuss practical problems they are dealing with. At a recent London Development Day Tim and Mike realised they were both facilitating systems thinking groups at their workplace, and although the groups were very different they had a lot of similarities. Looking at the differences and similarities has been really interesting.

Notes taken from SCiO open day by Tom Hitchman

Notes taken from SCiO open day by Tom Hitchman, @Carbonliteracy

 

How Mike’s Group Started

Mike started by running the introduction to systems thinking workshop “Draw Toast” with 45 people, and follow up sessions exploring boundaries using football matches as an example helping people start to think systemically. This was an example of using a single systems ideas, boundaries in this case, to investigate a situation. Mike had spoke at SCiO on this previously, and has a set of cards for workshops planned.

After these two sessions Mike asked a small number of colleagues who had attended previous sessions to investigate Clifton Strength’s Finder and Clean Language to see if using both ideas at the same time would be useful.

This group has been meeting weekly for about 10 months, and has moved to discuss more approaches, but in a largely unstructured meetings, using a lean coffee ish format. People bring their own ideas and situations.

Tim’s Group

Tim’s Systems Thinkers Anonymous group developed alongside a blog to engage and help others. The blog at http://systemsthinkersanonymous.com/ has helped their learning and a wide audience has now been drawn in to share learning and encourage systems practice and systems thinking. Tim’s group is more structured, and looks at systems approaches from Burge Hughes Walsh Training and consultancy.  There is a wide range of approaches and Tim’s blog discusses how the group has applied these to their problems. There is suggested work to do before each session, and a structure to the learning.

Example of rich picture from Tims group

Example of rich picture from Tims group

Tim’s blog is a great narrative of how the group has run, and has some great examples of applied Systems Thinking, including lots of diagramming techniques, Soft Systems Methodology, Rich Pictures, and guests including Jean Boulton talking about complexity

Comparisons

Whilst both groups are about drawing people into systems thinking, one is very structured and one is more organic. This demonstrated the versatility of how systems thinking can be shared at a grass roots level in organisations.

There was a discussion about “safety” of the groups, both as a protection from those who may challenge the legitimacy of the group, and the safe spaces for discussion that were created.

The branding of learning was helpful – both groups use freely available materials that helps give legitimacy and openness to the groups – the materials are available to anyone.

Content

Mike started using Clean Language as a way to model how people feel and  using Strengths Finder to understand how people work, and asked how the two pieces of information can support working relationships. The organic nature of the group allows emergence of topics for discussion that make people look at situations differently. The lack of agenda is its power. They are able to discuss things that would otherwise feel “unsafe” to talk about in the workplace. People are able to explore their own behaviour in a non-judgemental environment. Non Violent Communication was introduced as an amazing framework for doing this. He aims to explore Barry Oshry’s work next but the organic nature of the discussions will allow any topics prevail – whatever what people want to explore.

Tim has observed barriers being brought down and people feel they can talk about systems thinking in a way they never could before.

Tim noted there is a thirst for this kind of group due to the lack of training budgets in the NHS. Going into the systems thinking space is very different for those in the NHS. It is engaging and powerful and helps people look at the problems they are facing.

 

Questions

Do people think outside in or inside out? Are the groups on the outside, inside or are there some linear thinkers who are getting broader? And how this fits with the populations as a whole?

Tim – they have attracted people who would normally be attracted to the group. They have lost one or two but most have stayed.

Mike – similar to Tim, it’s people who are interested, but is quite rigorous calling out woolly thinking. There has been a definite shift towards practical systemic thinking in the group, and good practical examples of the use of the tools in work, and in other relationships.

 

Are the boundaries open?

Tim has taken in new members lately.

Mike – problems of scale as it is over lunch time. We definitely have a tight group, but are currently using the group to plan a series of three one hour workshops using Barry Oshhrys Power Systems framework.

 

Are either looking at a time when they can be an overt challenge to the organisation?

Tim- The blog – reflective text, way of engaging with other and also it can create autopoiesis – others could do the same if they wanted to.

Mike explained how people are starting to ask to be taught things about systems thinking there is an appetite for practical systems thinking, but it may need to be grass roots.

What do we get from the groups

What is emerging – fun! They are really enjoying their journey. There is a lot of work to set up a learning group but it is worth it. Whilst it isn’t for everyone most people are keen to support one another. Tim is doing project on public health, another on isolation (particularly for the elderly) and how to do commissioning for outcomes.

Shared ideas for Future Groups

Timing

Both groups meet weekly. If someone misses a meeting it’s a week until the next one, and there is a great benefit in running at the same time and day each week.

Content #1

The content of each group is sourced from books, websites and videos, and is open to anyone. There is no secrecy about the tools we’re using. Having a open source of content is important.

Content #2

The content the group discusses should reflect their interests, and if possible their issues.

Drivers

Both groups we’re initiated by a person interested in a group forming, who was able to get people interested. There may be some work involved, but both groups now meet if the initiator is not there.

Planning /Purpose

Each groups started with a completely different purpose. Tim’s group had a syllabus. Mikes started with one lunchtime meeting to look at a couple of techniques to see if they had merit – like a academic peer review. It continued and looked at other ideas because there was a interest to do so.

Official Support

Neither group has official support or funding. Margaret Wheatleys “Proceed until apprehened” works here. The groups are authentic, and are not suspect to ‘fear of missing out’, or have members who are there because they need to be seen there. A downside is a lack of direct influence. This can also be an advantage, as people can simply behave differently, and explain why afterwards which can be powerful.

Safe Spaces 

The groups are safe spaces where difficult conversations can be held. In the case of Mikes group, the group is quite tight. It would be hard for new members to join due to the shared language and understanding that the group has.

Any new group would need to be mindful of this, although it is not a negative in itself.

 

 

 

Why are people replacing robots?

Mercedes-Benz is replacing some of the robots in their factories with people.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/26/mercedes-benz-robots-people-assembly-lines

3127953038There had to be some passionate conversations between factory managers, and executives at Mercedes-Benz with this one. Replacing some robots with people has caused all sort of problems. If the factories are quite new, and were built for automation they probably don’t have many toilets near the factory floor. Or a large car park, or canteen. Robots don’t drive to work, and need to eat. Factory managers will take personal and professional pride in running efficient operations and automation has made cars affordable, reliable and available.

What is going on when the factories start employing people to replace robots? Wearing an efficiency hat this doesn’t make sense. Robotic factories have been the only future imaginable for years.  What has changed? Does the factory rulebook need to be rewritten?

Increasing pace of change and complexity 

From the Guardian article:

The robots cannot handle the pace of change and the complexity of the key customisation options available for the company’s S-Class saloon at the 101-year-old Sindelfingen plant, which produces 400, 000 vehicles a year from 1,500 tons of steel a day.

We need to be flexible. The variety is too much to take on for the machines. They can’t work with all the different options and keep pace with changes.”

Robots can’t currently mange the complexity of the customisation options. People are currently able to outperform robots at tasks requiring variety, at least until the robot manufacturers catch up.

Managing Variety 1: Making something you can sell

To find where this variety has come from, we can start in sales. Mercedes is in business to sell cars to customers. To do the sales folk need to offer what the customer environment wants, a…

… dizzying number of options for the cars – from heated or cooled cup holders, various wheels, carbon-fibre trims and decals, and even four types of caps for tire valves –

There may be customer demand for these, or marketing could have created the demand. Either way, with a lean, efficient production line, the sales folk are selling something the robotic factories can’t make.

Variety 2: Selling something you can make

Mercedes need to reduce the variety their customers demand to a level their factories can cope with. Balancing this equation is essential. Of course the ultimate offer would be a custom Mercedes for each customer, but this is not possible for the cost of a Mercedes.

To do this marketing and production have to work together to design and market cars that they can make in their factories. Mercedes-Benz are a luxury brand, so cost efficiency is not the sole purpose of the factory.

Marketing has to create and manage demand for the sort of customisation that their factories, restructured with people and robots, can produce. People can cope with the operational variety that robots, or people behaving like robots can’t.

Using robots, machines or computers increases efficiency, but reduces the ability of the system, in this case a factory, to cope with variety in an fast changing environment.

At every level we must ensure that the variety equations balance. If a car dealer can’t supply what the customer is asking for, they will buy elsewhere. If the factory can’t make what the car dealer is selling then the business won’t last long.

 

 

 

Why we need Models, and why it’s hard to change them.

  •  It’s 460BC. Your job is a map maker, and your maps show the world to be flat. You’ve a lockup garage of flat earth maps to sell. But you also like astronomy, and understanding the planets.
    • Is a model of a flat earth of any use? Is it good?  It was good enough for me to get to work, and to drive a cart to London.
    • But it’s not good enough for astronomy, you need another model.
  • You hear of the model of the earth as a sphere. Hmm, this fits simple astronomy, but does it make your lockup full of flat earth maps worthless? Which model do you believe? How hard is it to change your mind to a new more complicated model?
    • Is the model good enough? It’s great when thinking on a global scale – like where is Australia relative to where you are.
    • But maybe it’s a bit complicated for driving to London. A flat earth map will be fine for that.
  • From the international space station, is the model of the earth as a sphere good enough?
    • Maybe not. Gravity may be affected by the shape of the earth, and the movement of planets may need more complicated models. But perhaps you don’t need a model of the earth that shows the Himalayas.
  • Is that enough models?
  • What if you are cycling to London? A flat earth map won’t show you the hills, but a spherical model with enough detail is far too much information. You like to avoid hills, so you need another model.

Using the examples above, I think we can learn:

  • We need models. A model is a synonym for an understanding
  • Multiple models of the same thing exist at the same time
  • New models should compliment existing ones
  • We should use the simplest model we can, but no simpler
  • We need awareness of other models
  • Believing in one true model is an Anti-Pattern
  • If you have an interest in a model being true (like a business selling flat earth maps) it could be hard to learn a new model. The greatest resistance against a new, different model may be those who currently benefit from an existing model.
  • All models are wrong, but some are useful. Is the only up-to date model of the earth the earth itself?

This cartoon shows Calvin explaining his simple model to his toy tiger.

Calvin-Toast

This model of how to make toast is sufficient unless:

  • Calvin starts to sell toast in his yard and
    • He may be asked to contribute towards the electricity bill
      • “There is electricity and you have to pay for it?!”
    • He may have to buy his own bread
      • “Can’t I reuse the bread I just put in somehow?!”
    • There is a drought and the price of bread rises
      • “So I’m losing money on everything I sell?!”

Systems Thinkers love models. It’s how we understand the world, and different perspectives and contexts.

We can also see that if you insist on using a simple model, for example one that will fit on a napkin, or can be explained to a 6 year old, then you can only use it in simple situations. More complicated systems need bigger models.