Types of System Archetypes

TYPES OF SYSTEM ARCHETYPES a. Drifting Goals In the “Drifting Goals” archetype, a gap between goals and current reality can be resolved by taking corrective action (B1) or lowering the goal (B2). The critical difference is that lowering the goal closes the gap immediately, whereas corrective action usually takes time. (See Systems Thinker, October 1990.) Hint: • Drifting performance numbers are usually an allied indicator that the “Drifting Goals” archetype is at work and that corrective action is not being taken. • An important aspect of avoiding a potential “Drifting Goals” scenario is to determine what is driving the goal setting. • Goals that are outside the system will be less susceptible to the pressure of drifting goals. b. Escalation In the “Escalation” archetype, one party (A) takes an action that is perceived by the other party as threatening. The other party (B) responds in a similar manner, escalating the threat to A and resulting in more threatening action by A. The reinforcing loop is traced out by following the outline of figure-8 produced by the two balancing loops. (See Systems Thinker, November 1991.) Hint: To break down the escalation structure, ask the following questions: • What are the relative measures that pit one party against the other and can you change them? • What are the significant delays in the system that can distort the true nature of the threat? • What are the deep-rooted assumptions that lie beneath the actions taken in response to the threat? c. Fixes that fail In a “Fixes that Fail” situation, the symptoms of the problem cry out for resolution. A quick solution is implemented and stated that alleviates the symptoms (B1), but the unintended consequences of the “fix” make the problem worse (R2). Over time, the symptoms of the problem return to their previous levels or get worse. (See Systems Thinker, November 1990.) Tips: • Breaking the cycle of “Failed Fixes” usually requires recognizing that fixes only alleviate symptoms, and making a commitment to solving the real problem now. • The two-pronged attack of implementing fixes and planning solutions helps ensure that you don’t get caught in a cycle of continually solving past-day “solutions.” d. Growth and Underinvestment In the basic pattern of “growth and underinvestment,” growth approaches the limits that can be eliminated or pushed into the future if capacity investments are made. Instead, performance standards are lowered to justify underinvestment, leading to lower performance that further justifies underinvestment. (See Systems Thinker, June/July 1992.) Tips: • Examine the assumptions that drive capacity investment decisions. If overperformance dominates as a consideration, try to balance that perspective with a fresh look at demand and the factors that drive its growth. • If growth potential exists, build capacity in anticipation of future demands. e. Limits to Success In the "Limits to Success" scenario, continued effort initially leads to improved performance. Over time, however, the system encounters limits that cause performance to slow or even decline (B2), even as effort continues to increase. (See Systems Thinker, December 1990/January 1991.) Hints: • Archetypes are most helpful when used well before problems arise, to see how the cumulative effects of continued success might lead to future problems. • Use archetypes to explore questions such as What kinds of pressures are building in the organization as it grows? • Look for ways to relieve pressures or remove limitations before the organization blows the gasket. f. Shifting the Burden/Addiction In "Shifting the Burden," the problem is "solved" by applying the symptom solution (B1), which diverts attention away from the more fundamental solution (R3). (See Systems Thinker, September 1990.) In the “Addiction” structure, a “Shifting Burden” degrades into an addictive pattern in which the side effects are so entrenched that it overcomes the original problem symptoms. (See Systems Thinker, April 1992.) Hints: • Symptoms of a problem are usually easier to recognize than other elements of the structure. • If the side effects have become a problem, you are probably dealing with an “Addiction” structure. • Whether a solution is “symptomatic” or “fundamental” often depends on one’s perspective. Exploring the problem from multiple perspectives offers a more comprehensive understanding of what the fundamental solution is. g. Success to Successful In the “Success to Successful” archetype, if one person or group (A) is given more resources, it has a higher probability of success than B (assuming they are equally capable). The initial success justifies devoting more resources to A, and B’s diminishing success justifies allocating more resources to A (R2). (See Systems Thinker, March 1992.) Hint: Find reasons why the system is set up to create only one “winner.” • Cut the basic pattern in half by focusing effort and resources on one group, rather than creating a “winner-take-all” competition. • Find ways to make teams collaborators rather than competitors. • Identify goals or objectives that define success at a level higher than the average individual A and B players. h. Tragedy of the Commons In a future “Tragedy of the Commons” structure, everyone pursues actions that are individually profitable (R1 and R2). If the amount of activity grows too large for the system to support, however, the “commons” begin to experience diminishing returns (B5 and B6). (See Systems Thinker, August 1991.) Hint: Effective solutions to “Tragedy of the Commons” scenarios never lie at the individual level. • Ask questions such as: “What are the incentives for individuals to persist in their actions?” “Can the long-term selective harms of cooperation be made more tangible and direct to each actor?” • Find ways to reconcile short-term cumulative consequences. A chartered body of government with a limited resource capacity can help.