Systems 2030 – Emergent themes

Introduction

Systems 2030 was the theme of the Felicitation Symposium for Professor David Blockley held on 7 and 8 April 2008 at the University of Bristol to mark his retirement and celebrate his career. This special issue contains eight papers arising from the symposium, including this editorial paper.

The papers by David Blockley and Paul Jowitt probably form the core of this special issue and help to circumscribe the sense and context in which ‘systems thinking’ was used at the symposium. Jowitt presents a historical perspective of the development of systems thinking, starting from early roots in ‘hard’ systems and operational research techniques and ending with ‘soft’ systems and reflective practice. The paper by Pidgeon is another essential historical strand, bringing out the importance of thinking in socio-technical categories through examples taken from industrial safety. Together they contribute to the current state of play and pointers to the future presented by Blockley, who argues that ‘everything is a process’ and advocates learning through feedback for tackling uncertainty.

The need for a definition of what is meant by systems thinking was identified during the symposium and an INCOSE UK Z Guide1 – ‘What is systems thinking?’ – has recently been published. In it, systems thinking is defined as a way of thinking used to address complex and uncertain real-world problems. It recognises that the world is a set of highly interconnected technical and social entities which are hierarchically organised, producing emergent behaviour.

The papers by Godfrey and Oxenham illustrate applications of systems thinking in two specific areas, namely sustainable construction and defence procurement, respectively. Both papers bring out the importance of the temporal dimension in systems thinking – the sustainability paper in its description of life cycle analysis and the defence paper in identifying the need to ‘future proof’ our designs. The final two papers are on climate change (Hall and Pidgeon) and ethics (Blockley and Dias). These papers have been developed from the brainstorming sessions described below. They focus, interestingly, on two of the broad spheres that need to be addressed in systems thinking – the climate change one on the natural environment impinged upon by technology and the ethics one on the social environment influenced by human belief systems.

The workshop methodology

The second day of the symposium took the form of a workshop (Figure 1) led by the first author, who is a Professor of Systems Engineering and Director of the Systems Centre at Bristol University.2 Nine groups were asked to develop their vision for what they wanted systems thinking to become by the year 2030, and the process to achieve that.

Figure 1. Workshop process.

The areas chosen for brainstorming emerged from participant comments and suggestions at the end of the first day and were consolidated by collective agreement.

The following nine areas were identified: managing conflict and ethics, governance and big decisions, climate change, dynamics of systems, education in systems thinking, uncertainty, the pervasive nature of systems thinking, the need for systems thinking and innovation.

All the groups used a future vision template (Figure 2) prepared by the first author to list the future challenges and how to reach them. These proved to be a good basis for producing a statement for each theme, incorporating the following aspects:

• a summary of the desired future state;

• a description of the change required to reach it, starting from the current state;

• an indication of the need for the future state, i.e. the perceived benefits;

• a proposed agenda (process) for getting there.

Figure 2. One of the future vision templates produced at the workshop.

The summaries produced varied considerably in length and style. Two have been expanded to full size papers included in this issue. All summaries have been edited appropriately and are presented below. Some common threads are identified in the conclusions.

Theme 1 – Managing conflict and ethics

Human beings must improve the way we live together across different cultures, ideologies, political systems and faiths. Two of the biggest challenges threatening human well being and flourishing are climate change and global terrorism. Has engineering systems thinking anything to offer such ‘big’ questions?

We suggest that we would all benefit by ‘engineering’ a way forward. Whatever the (unknowable) absolute truth concerning climate change, the consequences are so potentially serious that they just cannot be ignored. We therefore have to act as if what we do collectively is contributing to the global temperature rise. Action has to take precedence over intellectual conviction. Terrorism, together with other issues like corruption, dissipates energy and inhibits a recognition of the importance of common purpose.

All systems require firm foundations and strong structure and must work well. A basic idea in engineering systems thinking is loops of interdependent sub-processes that can be characterised, for example, as problem, design, build and operate. We can draw process interaction diagrams for the current status of thinking about say climate change and the desired future status. A strong political will to identify issues is likely to be a starting point, in order to change the way we think and convince the majority of the need for common purpose. Engineers can contribute towards this ‘working well together’ because of their experience of working in teams as they face up to nature, a ‘cunning adversary’.

Theme 2 – Governance and big decisions

All big decisions are made within complex enterprises. These enterprises extend well beyond the relationships that exist between a customer and the supply chain. They involve many participants and stakeholders playing a multiplicity of roles, many informal or unrecognised even by those playing them. The interactions between the players, and how they affect the outcome of the decision, are difficult to capture and analyse, with the connection between cause and effect being obscure or not well understood. The decision-taker will nearly always not be the customer. There will be many decision-makers advising the decision-taker. There will be as many or more decision-breakers who can delay, over-ride or veto the decision. And every stakeholder can be a decision-influencer.

Developing an understanding of how complex enterprises arrive at decisions (there may never be an identifiable point where the decision is actually taken) is crucial for making systems thinking systemic to big decisions.

Currently the governance of large projects suffers from a lack of common understanding among the wide range of stakeholders involved. This leads to a lack of common purpose, which often results in a lack of sound decision-making to ensure strategic outcomes are met. There is a need to move from a position where stakeholders in an enterprise are kept at arm's length without sufficient understanding of the outcome being sought. The participants and stakeholders can be drawn together in a common understanding of the outcomes that are being sought through education and demonstration from exemplar case histories, together with better ways of presenting evidence and value and associated measures. Decisions will then be more soundly based and supported, with less opportunity for unintended consequences.

The decision-taker would also find the enterprise better able to add value to the solution. (S)he would be able to confidently defend decisions made, with the knowledge that they are soundly based and fully supported by participants and stakeholders, and would be understood and accepted by peers and public (and history!). The first and crucial step is to get a number of key stakeholders to buy into the broad thrust of what needs to be done.

Theme 3 – Climate change

The challenge of climate change is an outstanding example of a systems problem. Engineers have an essential, and so far under-recognised, role in responding to the climate challenge, alongside many other disciplines in environmental science, economics, social sciences and politics. There are a number of distinctive systems characteristics of climate change from an engineering perspective. These relate to issues of spatial and temporal scale, uncertainty, rates of change and interdisciplinarity. The challenge of implementing transitions to a sustainable future system state must be addressed.

A ‘climate proof’ future system will have two key characteristics:

• (1) Dependency on fossil fuels will be more or less completely eliminated and replaced by renewable energy sources for transport as well as for domestic and industrial purposes. This will mean that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have been stabilised before reaching a dangerous level. In doing so it may be necessary to adopt methods for carbon sequestration, in which case there will be a legacy of sequestration facilities to monitor and maintain in order to prevent major CO₂ releases.

• (2) Society, infrastructure and the economy will be well adapted to the residual impacts of climate change. Society will be resilient to the effects of climatic extremes. The long-term legacy of sea level rise is unavoidable, but society will have incorporated this in coastal management and engineering.

Achieving the objectives of a well adapted, decarbonised society (on a global scale) will require access to and sharing of advanced knowledge of the relevant systems. The complexity of the knowledge required for effective management of the climate system is one of its most striking characteristics. Understanding and predicting the behaviour of the complex coupled human and natural systems in question is far beyond the cognitive capacity of any individual. Coping with this complexity can be facilitated through the use of integrated assessment models and computer-based tools for engaging stakeholders. Perhaps more important, however, is the role of science and engineering in promoting sustainable choices by governments (i.e. evidence-based policy).

Theme 4 – Dynamics of systems

It is widely recognised that the world is constantly changing, but perhaps we do not take the same view for its different embedded systems. One reason for this is that we do not fully understand the interactions and resulting dynamics. Of course, the rate of change of some systems may be so slow that for a given purpose their dynamics is not important, but even to make that decision an understanding of dynamics is still needed. If we are to improve our systems, it is necessary to have a widespread understanding of the dynamics of systems.

There are many aspects of dynamics which require careful consideration. These include understanding system boundaries and the interactions between systems; ability to deal with hard and soft systems; anticipating emergent behaviour and designing for it; defining appropriate performance measures and using feedback loops to advantage; understanding delays and impedance; and making systems adaptable and agile. This may well require new modelling approaches where system boundaries can be moved around or even dissolved.

A lack of understanding of systems dynamics often results in unintended consequences and hence a culture of blame. We must reduce this tendency to an absolute minimum. We need to have a better appreciation of the systems outside and their interactions. Generally a system has more than one purpose and there may be tension between the different purposes. We need to understand that tension and identify the characteristics that really matter to each kind of user. Performance measures should be chosen around these characteristics.

Systems education across the board seems to be a key factor in achieving this. Systems thinking and systems dynamics should be taught in every undergraduate degree programme. Getting the communication going between disciplines and the interaction between specialists will help develop a common language – a language that is rich enough to describe social and technical aspects of systems in a holistic manner.

Theme 5 – Education in systems thinking

The capacity to educate in systems thinking must be created for three distinct populations, namely:

• (i) Those whose ‘professional’ role is systems engineering, and so will require systems thinking as a vital, underpinning skill. There will be an associated deep understanding of the subject, together with a strong ability to use the appropriate systems thinking tools and techniques.

• (ii) Those who are involved in systems thinking ancillary to their main specialism (e.g. detailed aerodynamics in the aerospace domain, fatigue and/or mechanical failure analysis in the built environment). It is these specialisms that systems engineering as a skill seeks to integrate. Specialists need to have sufficient understanding of systems thinking to allow its use to be of benefit to them, and to allow the benefits to be achieved.

• (iii) Those who need to know that systems thinking is an approach that is of benefit to them and to their projects. Therefore such people, by their education, will both ‘expect’ a systems thinking approach to be used, will know how to get it done (but not how to do it) and will be able to understand and/or accept the outcomes produced by systems thinking.

There are several areas in which education in systems thinking should be advanced:

• (i) Engineers specialising in other than systems engineering need an appropriate appreciation of systems thinking, so that they can bring their expertise to bear in the right way when engaged by systems engineers. While not initiating systems thinking, they must appreciate and respect it – and not shy away from such thinking by diving prematurely into the detail. Therefore, there must be appropriate specific modules and behaviour training in the curriculum of all engineers (and others too) so that systems engineers have a common ground to talk to specialists.

• (ii) Systems engineering students need a curriculum of continuous education available to learn what they need to know in systems engineering. Two things are important here. First, systems thinking can be a first degree, where some domain knowledge must be added to the communication, elicitation and holistic thought processes that need to be understood by a systems engineer. However, it can also emerge from domain knowledge, in which case the education must be available to employees as part of ongoing professional development. Second, what they need to know has to be defined and understood – for example, the holistic and communication skills that add to technical knowledge, particularly an ability to think top-down and work in abstract terms (avoiding getting to detail too soon) in order to see the interfaces.

• (iii) Define/explore/explain systems thinking in order to demystify it. Some consensus needs to be achieved, so that the ‘war of definitions comes to an end’. It must be recognised that systems thinking is of value in many domains and at many levels in a system. It is a thought process and skill rather than the subject matter being worked on. Academic and educational progress needs to be made so that there is a common recognition of the diversity of application.

• (iv) Benefits/justification for systems thinking must be made obvious in order to create a natural demand for people who can do systems thinking.

• (v) Behaviours inherent in non-system thinkers must be understood. There is a lot of natural behaviour that leads them to want to find the problems to solve, and to prioritise what emerges. The nature of this natural (but ultimately failing) behaviour must be understood; and also ways to utilise the strengths of the ‘straight to solution’ mentality, without trying to just change the way they think (which may not be possible).

• (vi) Applying systems thinking to education in social and economic systems (i.e. those systems traditionally not addressed by engineering) should be the goal of systems thinkers. Systems thinking applies to more than just engineered system. In fact it could be argued that the desire for ‘joined-up government’ is nothing more than a desire for good systems thinking at the highest level. This is an area where real benefit could accrue to the whole world, because we often see sub-optimisation and/or unintended consequences from well-intended government or society actions.

• (vii) Qualification and certification would be required by those doing systems thinking for a living, in addition to their experience, just as in any other professional activity. What must be avoided is a classic unintended consequence. Systems engineering is a communication and/or glue between disciplines, and it would be a tragedy if it formed another separate discipline that created more barriers.

In summary, one clear educational issue shines through. We must be able to communicate the ambiguity of systems thinking. In most debates it appears that the answer is not ‘either {\ldots} or’, but ‘both {\ldots} and’. Learning to understand and accept such apparent contradictions is one of the first challenges for education.

Theme 6 – Uncertainty

The world is a place of significant uncertainty, yet despite this uncertainty it is necessary to make important and meaningful decisions on a daily basis. The complex socio-technical systems within which these decisions are made are advancing at an accelerated rate and as they do, the levels of uncertainty can increase. This uncertainty can exist for various reasons – the system might exhibit chaotic or random behaviour; or the available data might be imprecise, incomplete or missing altogether. This can be especially true when dealing with elements of the social system. In order to make decisions there is a desire to become informed, and an expectation for experts in the relevant fields to provide the required information with a particular certitude.

Many of the channels for communicating engineering and scientific information to the general public foster a belief that it is possible to give definitive black and white answers. The media, for example, is often interested in the most attention-grabbing aspects of a story, and since certainty can affect the authority and impact of the story, any uncertainty is discarded. Ultimately this cultivates a limited understanding of, and low public tolerance to, uncertainty, especially in high-risk situations where the scale of the potential impacts can affect the subjective interpretation of information. Yet, it is often these very situations, involving the most complex and subsequently uncertain systems, that require balanced assessment. This in turn places a high degree of responsibility on the experts working within them, since uncertainty is perceived to be a dangerous weakness, the result of a lack of effort and not an inherent component of the system.

There is a need to improve the public understanding of uncertainty and the ways in which it can be communicated. This can be achieved through considered reflection on the language used in the domain of uncertainty, and initiatives taken to educate people towards a better understanding of the methods used for quantifying it.

A cultural shift towards a public and industry-based tolerance to uncertainty is required, dismantling reductionist notions of the world that conform to simple and distinctive classifications and solutions. This reinforces the importance of fully capturing the richness of the problem domain, including the uncertainties, which can in due course lead to the development of more robust systems. This is closely linked to improving the appreciation for complexity within systems and the emergent nature of certain behaviours they exhibit. With these emergent behaviours there can be a tipping point, a trigger to chaos beyond which uncertainty increases. It is important to recognise and communicate these tipping points.

If the general level of understanding of uncertainty is not improved, then scientists and engineers may create their own future ethical dilemmas. In an increasingly complex world where people do not understand uncertainty, experts may be required to appear certain beyond the current level of objective engineering and scientific judgement and beyond their own levels of comfort. If the risk of a catastrophic event is increasing, is there a point at which the scientific and engineering community deliberately communicates this information without reference to the related uncertainties? As the abilities of our mathematical models advance there is a need to move from just being clever to also being wise.

Theme 7 – Systems thinking is pervasive

In the world of tomorrow, more information will be easily available than could ever be assimilated by any individual. Hence the breakthroughs of tomorrow will come through linking the specialisms, as much if not more than by increasing the depth of knowledge within specialisms.

It is not enough to ‘bolt on’ a ‘Systems Thinking Course’ to undergraduate studies of the sciences; systems thinking must cross not only disciplinary boundaries, but also societal ones. We foresee a world where children are taught in first-grade geography classes to consider the world as a system, and this theme is maintained in their studies of other academic disciplines from the sciences to religious studies.

The motivation for change is most obvious in the need to respond to the current challenge of climate change, as well as to make a step-change in the sustainability of human activities. However, the benefits to a society that ‘thinks systems’ are even wider. Indeed, we foresee that the performance of democratic political systems could improve significantly in a world where all members of society consider the impact of their actions beyond the immediate effects.

To change the ways of thinking in a society is not a trivial undertaking. Naturally, a proportion of society will never ‘think systems’, and hence paradoxically maintaining the depth of specialisms is needed for the systems thinking movement to succeed. However, to transition to this state we must harness the pervasive power of the media. We foresee a world where the analysis of news shows a strong grasp of systems thinking.

Theme 8 – Need for systems thinking

Six separate end goals were identified, as follows:

• (i) Capacity in the form of widespread systems skills among individuals, having an array of methodologies, tools and techniques that are employed in a standardised and consistent manner, and able to recognise problems that are best addressed through a systems approach.

• (ii) Recognition of the value of systems thinking by organisations. This will have wide-ranging (boardroom downwards) awareness of the need to recruit for the systems professional role. They will have re-aligned to accommodate such roles, probably requiring more flexible, matrix-type arrangements to accommodate job descriptions that typically entail cross-disciplinary working and functions designed to achieve integration.

• (iii) Awareness and acceptance in society as a whole of systems thinking, its role and value. Such awareness and understanding of systems thinking among the broader society will facilitate the deployment of systems approaches since it is the politicians, managers, decision-makers and pressure groups that influence the way in which issues are addressed.

• (iv) Underpinning of decision-making by transparency, integration and holistic considerations such as life cycle effects, and outcomes based on proper systems boundary considerations, so that complex issues and unintended consequences are managed appropriately.

• (v) Professional recognition of systems thinking as a discipline, inclusive of professional bodies that (a) qualify members with chartered status, (b) promote, regulate and standardise its practice and (c) facilitate the development of systems thinking (particularly in an applied context).

• (vi) The defining of ‘value’ in systems thinking terms, with decision-making outcomes and overall performance assessments being based on systems thinking that will require a broader range of issues to be taken into account.

In order to achieve the above, initial activities should seek to ‘integrate the integrators’; i.e. the promoters of systems thinking and its application should be brought together so that the further development of system thinking benefits from a truly cross-disciplinary foundation. In order for systems thinking to be accepted widely, there is a need for systems thinking at the most strategic level to be de-coupled from engineering. (However, this should not prevent discipline-specific systems activities from taking place.) The formation of a truly inter-disciplinary professional body will be of significant importance. Systems thinking should be embedded in all aspects of education ranging from (a) broad understanding of concepts by all in education; to (b) specialist understanding of theory and practice by those who wish to develop into practitioners; and (c) advancement of the pure and applied theory of systems thinking by academics. The development of a suite of tools and methodologies for systems thinking applications, and the alignment and application of systems methodologies to existing best practice and statutory methodologies and processes (e.g. in planning, sustainability appraisal, etc.) are also steps towards achieving the desired ends.

The need for making the above changes has to be demonstrated through (a) acceptance that complex issues have, in the past, not been adequately addressed due to the lack of tools; (b) perception that issues are becoming yet more complex; and (c) recognition that systems approaches offer the opportunity to address the trends in complexity arising from the issues described above, and that adopting them will achieve demonstrable benefits.

Theme 9 – Innovation

The basis of innovation is expected to shift further away from improving our understanding of fundamental sciences to cross-connecting between the disciplines.

Up to now most of the multi-disciplinary inventions have been made through serendipity – the insightful deductions from accidental observations. Ways should be identified of encouraging, harnessing and exploiting serendipity to improve access to innovations.

Innovation can be also encouraged through:

• (a) promoting multi-cultural inclusiveness where societal values cross-connect to help produce new insights into how things can be done;

• (b) enhancing the exploitation of the existing knowledge base by being both more focused on finding and using specific information, and dealing with cross-connections between disciplines more effectively and efficiently – this leads to the need for improved generic knowledge and knowledge tailoring;

• (c) letting individuals have quiet thinking time during which they are allowed to think about a given issue or problem in a creative manner, e.g. the use of reflection pods by individuals; and

• (d) inducing step or random changes where practicable.

Drivers of innovation are defined as those attributes that lead to the necessity for innovation. These usually come from societal needs, which include the need for:

• (a) autonomy, which will help with future demographic trends as well as giving people more time to do other things (e.g. making machines more autonomous for tasks like housework);

• (b) greater cohesion between people to deal with the increasing population; also the need to undertake large projects to ensure the survival of the human race (e.g. dealing with the impacts of climate change);

• (c) greater personalisation that will lead to the need to have a greater product variety; and

• (d) coping with step or random changes in the environment in which we live in.

Any of the above can be better understood through examining case studies and learning from experimentation.

Shifts in innovation from the exploitation of extant knowledge via cross-connections between disciplines could create tensions between ‘opposing’ initiatives. Also, there is a need to maintain the balance between structured research programmes and the apparently boundless and intermittent nature of discoveries by serendipity. Furthermore, the exploitation of extant knowledge in new ways must be cost-effectively balanced with the desire to extend the boundaries of basic knowledge. All these require an ambience to be maintained between opposing directional pulls. Where that balance is finally struck is a matter of judgement and a topic of research in its own right.

As the body of knowledge continues to grow, there will be a need to summarise our knowledge in such a way so as not to lose any of its meaning or applicability to the real world. The key to knowledge exploitation will lie in our abilities to tailor that wealth of knowledge to individuals’ needs. Only in these ways can the body of knowledge be truly exploited.

Discussion

The ideas that were repeated by the different groups can be conveniently grouped into two, namely those that relate to the nature of systems thinking on the one hand and those that relate to people and persons on the other.

Under the first category, the need to view systems thinking both as being pervasive within all disciplines and as a link between disciplines was emphasised. There was nevertheless a strong opinion that systems must be promoted as a specialised field too, with professional bodies dedicated to its promotion, and practitioners, competent in specific systems tools, whose services are demanded by clients. Uncertainty and complexity were identified as two key aspects that were integral to the behaviour of both natural and human systems. These aspects give rise to emergence and unintended consequences in systems. As such, systems thinking must focus on these areas.

Where people are considered, the need for a wide range of stakeholders to demand, accept and display systems thinking was stressed. These would range from those requiring systems thinking services to those functioning as systems thinking professionals. The need for political will to promote systems thinking was identified. The media too were seen as playing a key role in promoting systems thinking.

What is envisaged here is the ‘mainstreaming’ of systems thinking into the whole of society. There are in fact examples of how such mainstreaming of new concepts has occurred, originating from engineering practice. Consider the concepts of environmental impact assessment (a process) and the project manager (a person), both of which have come into prominence over a mere quarter century.

Environmental concerns were first reflected in cost–benefit analyses that included environmental costs. Later, project approval required an environmental impact assessment. Now, the consideration of environmental impacts has moved from the project formulation stage to the planning stage (e.g. land and resource use planning at national levels).

An engineering project in early days may have had the same organisation (generally a state organisation) as client, consultant and contractor. With the passage of time there was not only separation of these roles, but fragmentation of roles as well, and separate consultant organisations performed architectural, structural engineering and services functions. This increase in complexity necessitated a project manager, whose role has now become established, with professional bodies associated with it too.

Both the process of environmental impact assessment and the person of the project manager require resource inputs. In some ways they add to the complexity of operations too. However, they have both been accepted and mainstreamed by governments, the public and the media because that wider community saw the need for it. It is hoped that systems thinking and systems thinkers will experience the same acceptance by 2030.

Systems thinking is a philosophy of approach which encompasses and extends scientific reductionism. The scientific reductionist approach to studying parts of a system must be maintained, but the understanding so generated has to be set in a holistic framework of processes. This framework must include a new understanding, not only of ‘hard’ system interactions where the whole is ‘more than the sum of its parts’, but also, and perhaps more importantly, of the ‘soft systems’ that include the human and organisational processes required for humans to improve the way we live well together.

Conclusions

An overriding conclusion from the symposium is that there is an urgent need to communicate what systems thinking is, and how it relates to systems engineering. As a foundation for this a 10-point Systems Thinking Manifesto has emerged as follows:

• (1) Systems thinking is a philosophy of approach which encompasses and extends scientific reductionism. It is a system of thought for integration and synergy.

• (2) Systems thinking is needed to tackle the challenges of modern complex systems such as climate change, terrorism, integration of various value systems, governance of large organisations, encouraging innovation and managing uncertainty and risk in a modern democracy.

• (3) Systems thinking therefore extends beyond engineering and should be promoted among (a) specialists who will be better able to relate their specialism to wider needs; (b) strategic thinkers who will be better able to relate the big picture to specialist knowledge and skills; and (c) the general public who will be better able to appreciate the challenges of complexity.\enlargethispage*{6pt}

• (4) Systems thinking needs to form an integral part of the education of everyone from school through to continuous professional development.

• (5) Systems thinking is founded on three key ideas: layers, loops and ‘new process’.

• (6) Layers contain holons which are, at the same time, both parts and wholes.

• (7) Loops define the connectivity and relationships from which spring emergence. Emergent properties define how the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

• (8) ‘New process’ defines how change happens and is captured using the questions why, how, who, what, where and when.

• (9) The output of a process may be a product but that in itself has a life cycle and is also a process.

• (10) Systems thinkers use evidence that may be combinations of quantitative and qualitative information to monitor the progress of a process towards fulfilling its purpose.

Finally it is concluded that systems thinking is an essential skill for systems engineers, but one that is shared with many disciplines. It provides a key intellectual underpinning for systems engineering.

Participants

The following is a list of the participants at Systems 2030: Jitendra Agarwal, Neil Allan, Mohammad Askariazad, Richard Beasley, David Blockley, Colin Brain, Rupert Bridges, Kirsty Brown, Samantha Brown, Neil Carhart, Fred Chen, Bob Dale, John Davis, Andrew Daw, Priyan Dias, Robert Ditchfield, Ian Duncan, Keith Eaton, Ayman El-Fatatry, Chris Elliott, Juan England, John Findlay, Ian Gallagher, Paul Gibbons, Ian Gibson, Kate Gill, Edward Goddard, Patrick Godfrey, Neil Grange, Phil Greenway, Jim Hall, Dawei Han, Graham Harrison, Mitsuyuki Hashimoto, Peter Head, Richard Henderson, Sally Heslop, Niki Jobson, Paul Jowitt, Joan Ko, Ian Liddell, Alasdair Macdonald, Renica Mapfunde, John May, Malcolm McIntosh, Rowland Morgan, Rosie Oliver, David Oxenham, Nick Pidgeon, Guido Renda, Miguel Rico Ramirez, Maurico Sanchez-Silva, Roy Severn, Lesley Seymour, Lynda Sharp, Mike Shears, Hillary Sillitto, Colin Taylor, Dick Taylor, Malcolm Touchin, Lorenzo Van Wijk, Mohammed Wanous, Ian Watson, Terry Winnington, Norman Woodman.

Notes

‘What is systems thinking?’ INCOSE UK (2010). Available from: http://www.incoseonline.org.uk/Documents/zGuides/;Z7_Systems_Thinking_WEB.pdf

The systems centre. Available from: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/engineering/systemscentre