Qualitative System Dynamics

The "traditional", Newtonian approach to solivng problems and dealing with issues is no longer working. The fixation on reductive solutions and answers that is inherent in Newtonian thinking has reinforced development of Western society and social systems, corporations and business systems, and government and political systems that are not only not working, but poised for great turmoil. While I had been troubled by the unintended consequences I had seen arising around the globe, it was my doctoral work at the intersection of systems theory and futures studies that really drove home the need for new approaches to thinking about the future.

While, as an engineer, I love good quantitative models, as a futurist I recognized the inability of quantitative models to provide reliable insight to the longer-term, uncertain future and that led me to explore qualitative approaches. Though there are a variety of qualitative approaches to systems the most approapriate approach seems to me to be that of qualitative system dynamics for, as a methodology, it aspires to use whatever methods are appropriate for using system structure to infer potential system behaviours. My doctoral research initiated a productive exploration of systems theory and research to identify heuristics and guidelines for relating structure to behaviour. That effort is the cornerstone for the QualSD.org website that I am developing to serve as a reference point for both my, and others, approaches to qualitative system analsysis.

Thoughts on Systemic Approaches to Futures Studies

Bertrand de Jouvenel distinguished between two primary activities in futures studies: 1) gathering and processing information about the real world (trends, facts, data, and such) which he called facta, and 2) inferring potential fufures which he called futura from facta. I find this distinction useful for I perceive enormous need for more robust logic for inferring the future. In part this need arises from persistent and consistent cognitive errors that people make in anticipating the future and in part from the scanty guidance available from mainstream futures studies. My research is quite specificially intended to provide stronger logic and to facilitate exploration and anticipation of alternative futures with an ambition of providing better understanding of the "natural" future (which would occur without intervention) and interventions that can potentially mitigate the impact of future problems or avoid them altogether.

Qualitative system approaches cab be particularly useful in futures contexts for qualitative system models (particularly in the form of influence diagrams) have been shown to increase the level of complexity that individuals and groups can deal with, to aid in communicating and sharing perceptions and concepts, and to stimulate deeper dialogue. My research into interpreting influence diagrams andfor inferring future systems behaviour reinforces the appropriateness of qualitative system methods in futures studies.

An issue, I think, that has challenged futures studies lies in an unresolved tension between reductive thought patterns that have been reinforced by more than a century of teaching Newtonian problem solving and the technical, more reductive, operational foundations of futures studies and the complexity of modern problems and issues. This is a topic that will be addressed in greater detail further in this section.

While my personal interest lies more in qualitative system approaches to futures studies, I have strong interest in qualitative system dynamics as an integrator and synthesizer of qualitative system logic for addressing complex issues, problems, and concerns. As a result the web site QualSD.org is oriented to all approaches and methods for qualitative system analysis. (Note: the fact that conventional, quantitative system dynamics is excluded should not be taken as a snub of system dyanmics for it has an important role in understanding systems. The focus on qualitative system analysis simply reflects a focus that I believe augments and strengthens system dynamics by bringing stronger thought processes to the qualitative facets of system dynamics.

A Path to the Future?

My dissertation explored the intersection of system science, futures studies, and cognition and arrived at a heuristic logic to guide stronger inferences of system behaviour from system structure. In practice, that seems to be a practical route for groups and for facilitation of groups to better bounding of complex issues and problems, for more thorough examination of complex issues for vulnerabilities and opportunities, and for stronger inference of alternative futures. Separate, but synergistic to this work, lies a mulitude of perspectives for examining influence diagrams to gain fundamental insight into the system, including use of Godet's quantitative MICMAC method. Other authors, such as Neil Smith, are striving to bring more quantitative rigour to the process through quantitative methods and more refined depictions of qualitative models.

The most exciting development I have seen in systems theory that has potential to reshape qualitative and quantitative system analysis is the process-based theory introduced by Robert Ulanowicz in his 2009 book A Third Window. The implications of this book are too broad and profound for this brief summary and await a more detailed review which is in the works. However, as a simplistic introduction, Ulanowicz suggests that ecological and social systems have innate behavioural characteristics that defy Newtonian approaches and that challenge quantitative, definitive modelling - suggesting that there are classes of problems for which quantitative, Newtonian approaches hold better value and another class where the problem must be dealt with as a process and not at a reductive level. This is very consistent with the logic I developed during my doctorate and to the holistic approach taken in my dissertation. A process logic is, I think, where qualitative system dynamics will ultimately realize its potential.