Synopsis of “Towards a Core Set of Archetypal Structures in System Dynamics” E.F.Wolstenholme and D.A.Corben

1. Synopsis of “Towards a Core Set of Archetypal Structures in System Dynamics”E.F.Wolstenholme and D.A.Corben Synopsis by Laura Shirey SDOE 683 March 2009

2. Additional Reading • “Towards the definition and use of a core set of archetypal structures in system dynamics” http://www.symmetricsd.co.uk/files/Towards_definition_of_a_core_set_of_archetypal_structures.pdf E. F. Wolstenholme

3. Purpose • Condense the infrastructure and activity archetypes (Richmond 1988) and 8 relevant generic structures (Senge 1990) into a minimum set. • Classify generic archetypes as problem and solution

4. Definitions System Archetypes represent an attempt to classify system structures and behaviors and, in particular, counter intuitive behaviors. -E.F.Wolstenholme and D.A.Corben System Dynamics A method for understanding the dynamic behavior of complex systems. The basis of the method is the recognition that the structure of any system — the many circular, interlocking, sometimes time-delayed relationships among its components — is often just as important in determining its behavior as the individual components themselves. - Wikipedia.org

5. Archetypes in System Dynamics • “System Dynamics in general, and archetypes in particular, describe systems in terms of feedback loops arising from a combination of actions (rates of change) and outcomes (levels).” -E.F.Wolstenholme and D.A.Corben

6. Feedback Loops • Actions to attempt control, using balancing (negative) feedback effects • Actions which attempt to initiate growth, using reinforcing (positive) feedback effects • Examine responses to actions to understanding behavioral insights and in turn systems thinking and system dynamics • Four possible two-loop archetypes represent the action-outcome-responses.

7. Generic Two Loop System Archetype

8. The characteristics of the archetype • First, it is composed of an intended consequence feedback loop which results from an action initiated in one sector of an organization with an intended consequence over time in mind. • Second, it contains an unintended consequence feedback loop, which results from a reaction within another sector of the organization or outside. • Third, there is a delay before the unintended consequence manifests itself. • Fourth, there is an organizational boundary that ‘‘hides’’ the unintended consequence from the ‘‘view’’ of those instigating the intended consequences. • Fifth, that for every ‘‘problem’’ archetype, there is a ‘‘solution’’ archetype.

9. Four Generic Problem Archetypes • Growth intended- stagnation/decline achieved • Underachievement, where intended achievement fails to be realized • Control intended- unwanted growth achieved • Out of control, where intended control fails to be realized • Control intended- compromise achieved • Relative achievement, where achievement is only gained at the expense of another • Growth intended- at expense of others • Relative control, where control is only gained at the expense of others

10. The reduced set of four generic archetypes R = reinforcing feedback loop; B = balancing feedback loop; o = opposing action

11. Mapping the Semi-Generic Problem Archetypes • Growth Intended – Stagnation Achieved • Limits to Growth/Success • Tragedy of the Commons • Control Intended- Unwanted Growth Achieved • Fixes that Fail • Shifting the Burden • Control Intended – Compromise Achieved • Escalation • Drifting Goals • Growth Intended – At the Expense of Others • Success to be Successful

12. Underachievement Archetype

13. Out of Control Archetype

14. Relative control archetype

15. Relative achievement archetype

16. Questions • 1. How can understanding these archetypes assist decision makers in having foresight/forecasting? • 2. Does understanding these archetypes assist communication across boundaries? • 3. How does this apply to chaos?