Systemism: a love-hate relationship

If somebody had to ask me why I'm such a firm believer in the implementation and functioning of systems, I'd probably say it's because the world is inherently unstable and we have to stabalise it.

Systems reduce uncertainty, provide structure, establish predictability, and define boundaries to stay within. The fact that reality dictates that everything and anything could and should happen; systems are a nice relief and bring about a sense of balance and order.

However (famous last words), I'm also acutely aware that a lot of our problems are because there are systems in the first place.

It became pretty clear to me when I fixed the pool filter over the weekend, right after feeling the slightest hint of accomplishment, that my problems and triumphs (both trivial I know), were only a result of there being a pool filtration system in the first place. And this is where John Gall probably would say that the fundamental problem doesn't necessarily come from any specific system, but rather from systems as such (Kaufman 2020).

Effectively meaning that despite all the good it brings, things tend to go south, and systems fail.

You’re a fool to think otherwise.

?

So what is a system?

Well, Josh Kaufman in his book called The Personal MBA argues that a system is a self-perpetuating arrangement of interconnected parts that form a unified whole.

Another way to put it is that a system is a set of components/ relationships working together that form part of an organised collection of parts, not only acting independently but also acting together to accomplish an overall goal.

Whether it's the solar system, your cardiovascular system, the ecosystem, our judicial system, or even the system you've put in place to invoice your customers and facilitate those collections, there’s a complex whole of principles and procedures that act according to a set of rules and is expressed through its functioning.

In a perfect world with an efficient hierarchy, there are systems within systems all working independently but effectively, serving the needs of the larger system itself. Whether by force or by nature, systems work hand in hand with one another.

Everything, truth be told, is a system.

There are also three important properties of any given system: flow, stock, and constraint.

Flow refers to the inputs (inflows) and outputs (outflows) of a system. Resources flow in and resources flow out. Various raw materials go into an assembly line, for example, finished goods come out of an assembly line. There’s always movement, there’s always action taking place.

Stock on the other hand refers to a pool of resources within a system. Think of raw materials again as stock. To increase your inventory of finished goods, either bump up the inflow of raw materials into your system or decrease the outflow of finished goods from leaving your system entirely (for example, start selling less of your inventory). The inverse is also true, to decrease your inventory, either slow down the inflows of raw material into the system or increase the outflows from your system (like selling more finished goods). There’s always a pool of resources within a system that can be manipulated to achieve a desired result.

Lastly, every system has a fair degree of constraint that affects the system's overall performance. Depending on what the outcome should be, alleviating or increasing that constraint can produce two-fold results. Either improve throughput by removing the constraint or limit the goal of achieving more by introducing more constraints.

(Kaufman 2020: 360-362)

?

Now understanding that there’s always interdependence, larger systems coordinating the actions of smaller subsystems, and that there are properties within each system that can be manipulated to produce different results is not the end game I’m after. What I’m suggesting is that we start scrutinising and stress-testing the systems in our lives. The point of philosophical inquiry is to challenge conventional practices and established beliefs. Because trust me, there’s nothing worse than a system doing efficiently that which in actual fact should not be done at all (Kaufman 2020: 420).

That’s why it’s important to acknowledge the existence of systems, review them, and ask questions, and Josh Kaufman himself provides a great foundation for this with the following examples:

?

The null hypothesis

If something goes wrong in a system, ask yourself what will happen if you do nothing?

• Maybe it was just an accident or error, never to happen again.
• Perhaps if left unattended, it will cause more damage.

Refactoring

Perhaps you need to change the system, and make it more efficient, where can you start looking to adjust without changing the output of the system?

• Ask what the current constraints are.
• What processes are most critical to the output?

The critical few

In a system, the tendency is to have a minority of the inputs produce the majority of the output.

• What are the most critical inputs producing the most results?
• What’s the opportunity cost when you focus on the non-critical inputs?
• Perhaps weed out the unnecessary overhead in the system.

Process overhead

How much of your system’s capacity is spent on processes with diminished returns as opposed to other activities that create much more value?

• If a process has outlived its usefulness, why not remove it?
• What's the cost in time and value of every checklist you have to go through to get the result you seek? Is it not reducing efficiency?

(Kaufman 2020)

?

To function, to have movement, and to track inputs against outputs, there has to be a system in place. To drive to the grocery store, book a vacation, and even get married, there’s a system or process that facilitates this. I guess what I’m getting at is despite all the good that systems bring to our existence I think it’s important to not let them live rent-free in our lives and mindlessly conform to them. We have to examine them as often as we can, maintain them, and remind ourselves when things get overly complicated that all complex systems evolved from a system that is much simpler (something John Gall said again).

Instead of getting flustered because half my Saturday went down the drain trying to fix the pool, I probably have to be honest and say that the signs were there that something was wrong. It was a bit neglected and I definitely didn’t take the time to try and understand what was going on. I just left it, praying that by some miracle it would fix itself, which it didn't.

Even though systems do break (it’s an inherent characteristic), just remember that failures are temporary. But if it can be better, perhaps it should be better. But it starts with us, it’s not going to happen by design.

There’s a lot to consider as it’s no easy feat to observe and improve systems either, especially since they have to be analysed whilst they’re working. And you have to be careful with lazy assumptions as well, because introducing new systems to address old problems might just end up creating new problems altogether.

Just know that systems are here to stay. As John Gall said, they're like babies, as soon as you get one, you have it (Novel Investor 2024), they ain't going away anytime soon pal.

??

References

Kaufman, J. (2020). The Personal MBA: a world-class Business Education in a Single Volume. 1st ed. Bungay: Penguin Random House UK.

Systemantics: How Systems Work and Especially How They Fail by John Gall, Novel Investor (2024) Novel Investor. Available at: https://novelinvestor.com/notes/systemantics-how-systems-work-and-especially-how-they-fail-by-john-gall/ (Accessed 09 June 2024).