Subscribe to our blog!

Your email:

Leverage Points Blog

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Systems Thinking Provides a Boost to Quality Professionals

 

By Mark Alpert

The recently published Conference Board Research Report, A Leadership Prescription for the Future of Quality, noted that the quality function and the role of the quality professional are at a crossroads. Quality, which has been a critical part of the manufacturing process for three decades and transactional processes for two, is facing the test of new trends in globalization, customer sophistication, economic challenges, excellence in execution, customer loyalty, retention, and top-line growth.

These developments bring new layers of complexity for leaders. At the same time, they present a unique opportunity for quality professionals to contribute in new ways and advance to higher levels of the organization. 

Of particular interest in the report is the highlighting of systems thinking as one of the key methodologies needed to address these new challenges. Although systems thinking has been around for a long time, it has not become a permanent part of the toolbox for many quality practitioners. Systems thinking is exactly what many organizations need to understand these emerging complexities and develop and execute strategic plans that will positively impact the bottom line.

Systems thinking provides the lens to view the organization beyond the traditional sum of its internal parts; it positions the organization itself as part of a larger system. Using systems tools to understand the patterns and structures of that larger system can provide an enormous competitive advantage to any enterprise. 

Synthesis over Analysis
Seeing the organization in a different light requires new thinking. For years Russ Ackoff, Peter Senge, and others have encouraged us to change the way we think about organizations in order to improve performance. Ackoff would say that most thinking over the last 400 years has relied on analysis. We tend to take things apart, examine each piece, and then put them back together in an attempt to understand the whole.

The problem with that approach is that it does little to drive whole system improvement and may in fact be detrimental, as people focus solely on optimizing each part. Analytical thinking leads to a better understanding of how things work, but does not provide much insight into how things work together.

An approabicyclech that involves synthesis may provide better answers. Synthesis, the opposite the analysis, asks "what is this part of?" as a means to explain the behavior of the whole. From this perspective, performance is derived from the interaction of the parts and not the function of each part separately. For example, when engineers design a bicycle, they design the overall bike first, then the parts, not the other way around. The objective is to build the best bike, not the best part.  

Opportunities Ahead
Systems thinking offers a variety of tools and practices that can support seeing the whole over the parts and understanding the dynamics of a complex system. For quality professionals, these rich insights can help ensure that decision making addresses the organizational and performance challenges of tomorrow. The door is open, quality professionals; tune up your systems thinking skills and take advantage of the opportunities ahead.  

Mark AlpertMark Alpert is president of Pegasus Communications.

Comments

Intent of the article is good; thanks for sharing. 
 
 
 
I diagree with the decision to be imprecise by applying new meanings to old words. It makes it difficult to communicate with others outside of the discipline when random language changes are made. 
 
 
 
Synthesis does not mean analyzing from a holistic view, it means putting together things that were separate. One can form new ideas and concepts by melding old ones, but this does not replace analysis. 
 
 
 
Analysis does not mean taking something apart and disregarding its context. Analysis means examining the parts through the lens of experience in the context of the whole and its environment. (Often people do not go far enough in their analysis and do not take the context of the whole and environment into account, but that just means the analysis is incomplete.)
Posted @ Friday, July 17, 2009 11:20 AM by ljf
Thanks for the comments, ljf. I appreciate your post, I was simply trying to make a point. To get a bit more clarity on Russ Ackoff’s views on analysis and synthesis, we asked him for a little input. Here is Russ's response: 
 
Analysis is way of thinking about a thing by taking it apart and attaining knowledge or understanding of the parts that can be integrated to gain an understanding or knowledge of the whole. Call it what you will, but this is different from what I call synthesis, which treats the thing to be understood as a part of a larger system and gains understanding of it by determining its role or function in that whole. 
 
These are two different approaches to understanding systems. They make a difference because the analytical approach slights interactions, which are the producers of the behavior of the whole. 
 
Thanks, 
 
Mark 
 
 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:42 AM by Mark Alpert
Comments have been closed for this article.