abstracting and engaging: two modes of systems thinking education

I N F O R M STransactions on Education

Vol. 12, No. 1, September 2011, pp. 43–54issn 1532-0545 �11 �1201 �0043

http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/ited.1110.0072© 2011 INFORMS

Abstracting and Engaging: Two Modes ofSystems Thinking Education

José-Rodrigo Córdoba-PachónSchool of Management, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham TW20 0EX, United Kingdom,

[email protected]

This paper presents two modes of systems thinking education to help make sense of previous and future expe-riences in this field as well as in soft operational research in general. Using Abbott’s ideas on professional

knowledge I present these modes as based on either (1) abstracting or (2) engaging. The former emphasisesthe value of systems thinking in helping people understand abstractions to deal with complex situations. Thelatter focuses on using abstractions to facilitate students’ engagement with complex situations in areas outsideoperational research including sustainability and project management. I present each mode based on my expe-rience in a higher education setting in the UK, and I highlight key elements and possibilities for these modesthat could inform future developments in systems thinking and operational research education.

Key words : systems thinking; soft operational research; education; professional knowledge; abstracting;engaging

History : Received: June 2010; accepted: February 2011.

IntroductionSystems thinking, a body of knowledge that ini-tially emerged in biological investigations has spreadto other areas like physics, psychology, cybernet-ics, information technology, community development,and management. Currently it is considered by manyas a form of “soft operational research” (soft OR)and often it is better known as “problem struc-turing methods” or PSMs, both of which are usedto deal with complex (e.g., messy) situations (Edenand Ackermann 2006, Rosenhead and Mingers 2001).Many of the methods used in soft operational researchand PSMs employ systems models or the idea ofthe enquiry process as a system (Checkland 1981).Systems thinking can also involve the use of sev-eral methodologies to guide thinking and practice(Jackson 2003, Mingers 2003, Mingers and Gill 1997,Midgley 2000, Cabrera et al. 2008).

Regardless of the different labels used (systemsthinking, PSMs or soft OR), systems thinking ideasare now incorporated in courses in business educationas well as in specialised journals including the Journalof the UK Operational Research Society and conferences(for instance the European Conference on Opera-tional Research). These efforts share a basic premiseof advocating an alternative mode of thinking to thatof a “mechanistic” one in order to address complex

(messy) problems in organisations. However, popu-larity could be a two-edged sword. On the one hand,it could mean that systems thinking, like OR in thepast, is better seen as a way to help other disciplines(i.e., management) expand into new domains (Corbettand Wassenhove 1993). On the other, popularity couldalso mean a sign of relevance and usefulness for sys-tems thinking that should be taken forward. In anycase, it is worth looking at how education in systemsthinking is being developed, and how such types ofeducation can be improved.

In this paper I discuss a context and experiences ofsystems thinking education in the form of two modes,which are (1) one that emphasises abstracting of con-cepts, ideas of, and methodologies for systems think-ing; and (2) one that emphasises engaging with spe-cific situations. The first mode is based on a strat-egy to offer systems thinking as an alternative wayof thinking about problems. As such, it focuses onenabling students to appreciate and reason about asituation as a system, leading them also to chooseone or several systems-based methodologies to act ona specific problem they want to address. This modeof education has contributed to differentiate systemsthinking as a body of knowledge within and outsidesoft OR.

However, abstracting does not necessarily involvea strong degree of interaction between students and

43

mailto:[email protected]

Córdoba-Pachón: Abstracting and Engaging: Two Modes of Systems Thinking Education44 INFORMS Transactions on Education 12(1), pp. 43–54, © 2011 INFORMS

other people involved or affected by the problem.I became concerned about the relevance for stu-dents and potential impacts of this mode of educa-tion. I therefore shifted to a mode of engaging, whichinvolves students tackling relevant problems in theirown surroundings by using systems thinking ideasand methodologies. This second mode helped stu-dents gain knowledge, skills, and abilities to reflect onthe outcomes that they achieved but required a morestructured process of engagement to help students tomaster what they were learning.

From my experience as an educator, I considerthat these two modes are complementary so thatnew abstractions can be developed and grounded inpractice through engagement. The interdependencebetween these modes helps a great deal in the devel-opment of new educational possibilities in systemsthinking and soft OR in academia and beyond.

The paper is organised as follows. I use the ideas ofAbbott (1988) on the sociology of professional knowl-edge to briefly reflect on systems thinking as a bodyof knowledge that has a number of opportunities andchallenges. I use these ideas to present and detail twomodes of systems thinking education that I then dis-cuss in detail using my experience as an educator inthis field. I assess the strengths and weaknesses ofthese modes and conclude by putting forward a num-ber of future possibilities for systems thinking andsoft OR education.

Systems Thinking in the Context ofProfessional KnowledgeSystems thinking and problem structuring methodsare bodies of knowledge within soft operationalresearch that include concepts, ideas, and method-ologies for problem solving in organisations (Rosen-head 2006, Rosenhead and Mingers 2001). Both ofthem are distinguishable from more traditional or“hard” operational research given that they can helpresearchers and practitioners to define the problemto be addressed prior to tackling it. Several problemstructuring methods and techniques define and repre-sent the problem to be addressed as a “system.” Theycan also help individuals consider their enquiry pro-cess as a learning system (Checkland 1981).

Systems thinking prides itself in using methods andtechniques to represent and solve a problem in aninformed manner. This means that the use of meth-ods and techniques can be organised in methodolo-gies so that users see a coherent process to followand a purpose to be attained. Moreover, the use ofsystems thinking methodologies, methods, or tech-niques is guided by a number of commitments: acommitment to critical awareness of taken for grantedassumptions in a situation and the conditions that

gave rise to them; a commitment to human emancipa-tion from any constraint that could limit the achieve-ment of individuals’ potential; and a commitment toemploy coherently a variety of methodologies, meth-ods, and techniques according to their strengths totackle a problem (Midgley 1996).

As bodies of knowledge, both PSMs and sys-tems thinking are often “caught in” between theworlds of academia and professional practice. Theyare not disciplines or professions on their own; rather,their development takes place in OR departments orgroups as well as systems thinking research centres.In countries like the UK, both of these are beingascribed to management or technology departmentsin universities. This is the case for instance of the Cen-tre for Systems Studies, which is ascribed to theBusiness School of the University of Hull, and of thesystems group that is part of the Faculty of Tech-nology at the Open University. In the world of prac-tice, we see a growing number of training courses forpractitioners in the use of systems thinking or PSMs.Examples include courses run by the UK OperationalResearch Society on using soft systems methodology(SSM) and structuring complex problems (UK Oper-ational Research Society 2011). These courses attractthe interest of those individuals interested in explor-ing alternative ways to manage problems and situa-tions. To this audience we as educators say that we“do” soft operational research, management science,or complex project management rather than systemsthinking. Appropriate labels seem to gain the atten-tion of the professional world as well as of otheracademics.

Existing efforts in systems thinking education cannow be considered in the context of the professionsthat systems thinking currently serves. According tothe sociologist (Abbott 1988), a profession is a set ofactivities that requires an adequate level of expertiseto address and solve a specific set of problems. Itis only through time and by gaining recognition ofits relevance and uniqueness that a set of activitiescan gain the status of a profession. A profession canthen lay claims to a set of problems and their solu-tions. Abbott (1988) argues that professions constitutea dynamic system in society where professions thathold relevant knowledge emerge, interact, or com-pete with each other (almost territorially) for juris-diction on or ownership of specific problems. In thisprocess professions can develop further, contract, ordisappear.

According to Abbott (1988), a profession involvesactivities of (a) diagnosing a set of problems; (b) treat-ing them; and (c) inferring or linking diagnoseswith a range of treatments and their expected out-comes. These terms will be used throughout the papergiven that they can constitute the core of professional

Córdoba-Pachón: Abstracting and Engaging: Two Modes of Systems Thinking EducationINFORMS Transactions on Education 12(1), pp. 43–54, © 2011 INFORMS 45

knowledge in both academia and practice. The role ofacademics in contributing to identify new diagnoses,treatments, and inferences is fundamental for a pro-fession. Abbott says

The ability of a profession to sustain its jurisdictionslies partly in the power and prestige of its academicknowledge 0 0 0Academic professionals demonstrate therigor, the clarity, and the scientifically logical char-acter of professional work, thereby legitimating thatwork in the context of larger values 0 0 0 In most modernprofessions these have been the values of rationality,logic and science 0 0 0 [academic knowledge] may revealunderlying regularities that can ultimately reshapepractical knowledge altogether 0 0 0 [however, it] existsin a peculiarly disassembled state that prevents its use.(Abbott 1988, pp. 53–55, italics and brackets added.)

Abbott’s statement makes it explicit how aca-demic knowledge contributes to maintain a professionby reorganising existing classifications of diagnoses,treatments, and inferences, so as to make them morecomplete, useful, and accessible to professionals. Thisalso means that academic activities (including edu-cation) have a two-sided effect. On the one hand,academics are in a unique position to develop newideas and explore their potential use in new domainsof practice. On the other, by making their knowl-edge available and useful to professionals or studentsthey also reveal the achievements and limits of theiractivity and indirectly those of the professions theysupport. This can make a profession vulnerable to“attack” by others. Academics and educators need tocontinuously regenerate and renew knowledge whilecontributing to protect their professions’ jurisdictions.

Under the above perspective, systems thinking canbe considered a body of knowledge that can help peo-ple understand and deal with complex phenomena.This body is now regarded as distinctively differentfrom but complementary to that of hard or mecha-nistic (goal-oriented) thinking (Kapra 1997). From anumber of systems-based methodologies (treatments)(Ackoff 1981, Mason and Mitroff 1981, Checkland1981) we also now have ways to diagnose complexproblems as “messes” (Ackoff 1981), as well as toinfer which of those methodologies could help profes-sionals deal with them (Mingers 2003, Jackson 2003,Jackson and Keys 1984, Midgley 2000, Meadows et al.1972). These inferences also provide theoretical rigorto the choice of particular systems methodologiesto deal with situations. These efforts show that sys-tems thinking—in both academia and practice—hascontributed to the work of professionals who claimjurisdiction on complex problems. Among the profes-sions supported by systems thinking we now haveOR and management.

In systems thinking, new theories and ideas arebeing explored, studied, and incorporated. People

developing research in systems thinking have madesome further inferences to unveil certain regularities,strengths, and weaknesses that systems methodolo-gies could have in practice (Jackson 2003); otherslook at incorporating ideas of complexity theoryinto systems thinking (Cabrera et al. 2008). Othersapply existing abstractions to project management(Checkland and Winter 2006), information systems(Clarke 2007, Checkland and Holwell 1998, Wilson1984), and the development of the information society(Córdoba 2009). Additional efforts in the field includeshort textbooks (Checkland and Poulter 2006, Wilson2002) that aim to make the use of systems methodolo-gies more accessible to different audiences of studentsand practitioners. These developments signal impor-tant contributions of systems thinking to professionsin the public and private sector.

By doing the above, systems thinkers seem to beworking on providing new diagnoses, inferences, andtreatments, as well as making existing ones more“portable” and to the service of academics, students,and practitioners. Following Abbott (1988), the activ-ities of systems thinkers can have a number of chal-lenges that could also be considered opportunities:

1. making existing developments more accessibleto different audiences, and

2. consolidating and extending knowledge of com-plex situations in other areas of interest.

How we can address these challenges by focusingon making systems thinking education more usefulto its different audiences is the focus of this paper.As educators and instructors, we need to continueto facilitate students’ access to and learning of sys-tems thinking based diagnoses, treatments, and infer-ences whilst enabling them to engage into and learnfrom other and possibly more “real world” com-plex situations. In this way these experiences canalso help educators to generate new knowledge aboutsystems thinking. Building on my own experienceas a systems thinking educator, in the next sectionI present two modes of teaching systems thinking.These modes bear similarities and differences withother efforts in the field. The presentation also followsmy personal journey and the intention is not to pro-vide specific detail of curricula but to focus on keyactivities and elements that I used to interact withmy students in my courses. Following this presenta-tion I reflect on these modes in relation to the abovechallenges and conclude by suggesting a number ofpossibilities for the future.

Two Modes of Systems ThinkingEducationIn line with Abbott’s ideas, a first mode was that ofsustaining jurisdiction over a set of specific problems


(complex, messy) by abstracting and disseminatingexisting knowledge of systems thinking. Using someprevious material from an existing course (Jackson2003) as well as from my own PhD research, I re-designed and ran a one-term compulsory course offour months, with a weekly three-hour session for stu-dents taking a masters’ degree in systems thinking.The degree was administered by the business schoolof the University of Hull in the UK. Between 2003 and2006, the emphasis of this course was on the presen-tation of a number of abstractions in systems think-ing: ideas, concepts, and methodologies to help indiagnosis and treatments of messy management situa-tions as well as on further inferences connecting thesetwo (for instance using several methodologies at thesame time).

The aim of the course was to encourage studentsto adopt an alternative way to mechanistic, short-term, or reductionist thinking in dealing with organ-isational problems. The course began by challengingtraditional ways of thinking as being focused onsymptoms rather than causes and often generatingfar from desirable consequences. I presented prob-lems as ill structured ones or messes (sets of intercon-nected elements) (Ackoff 1981). Students were encour-aged to embrace rather than reduce messes and towork on the causes rather than the symptoms of prob-lems. To represent messes I associated systems as setsof connected parts whose interaction could generatesomething other than individual outputs. Interdepen-dences and interconnections between parts, featuresof adaptation and holism were declared as systemsproperties that could be observed in natural or socialphenomena.

The course continued by presenting the main tenetsof general systems theory (GST) (Von Bertalanffy1968) followed by practical exercises in which stu-dents mapped the properties of systems to differentphenomena. Together with students we looked at thehistory of OR and systems thinking to highlight theircommon interest in using methods and techniquesfor systems analysis and systems engineering (Floodand Jackson 1991, Churchman 1970). In this histori-cal exploration, I also showed to students the influ-ence of general systems ideas in society, in particularhow organisations can also be conceived of as sys-tems to continuously meet the needs of employees,customers, and other stakeholders and adapting todemands of their markets or regions of operation.

To continue exploring relationships between theidea of a system and organisations, I presented anumber of metaphors of organisations as machines,brains, organisms, and cultures (Morgan 1997). Theseallowed students to understand in more depth howthe influence of certain elements (i.e., structure, com-munication practices, reward systems, collective val-ues, etc.) would impact on the performance of an

organisation as a whole. Different forms of organ-isation (i.e., those based on functional hierarchies,autonomous and networked teams or communities)were compared to metaphors. Students then identi-fied a number of relevant issues in an organisationalsituation that in their view could be addressed toimprove conditions and possibilities for the organisa-tion, its employees, and other stakeholders.

Following up on a historical analysis of systemsthinking, I presented a first “turn” in systems think-ing that took place when a distinction was madebetween hard and soft systems thinking, the formerfocusing on efficiency related goals seeking, the lat-ter on value enquiry, accommodation, and critique(Checkland 1981). This distinction enabled studentsto see how the idea of a system could be used fordifferent purposes when dealing with complex sit-uations. I then offered a number of systems-basedmethodologies to students so that they could assessthe orientation of these methodologies toward hardor soft goals. Several methodologies were describedwith their features and composing methods and tech-niques. Practical exercises to use them on a par-ticular situation (i.e., working to improve a prisonsystem) were set up for students to engage with andexperience systems methodology use. Methodologiesincluded soft systems methodology (SSM) (Checkland1981, Checkland and Poulter 2006), interactive plan-ning (IP) (Ackoff 1981), and strategic assumption sur-facing and testing (SAST) (Mason and Mitroff 1981). Ipresented methodologies as tools to help people makesense of their current and desired situation using sys-tems models and properties in the process of learningabout it. During the practical exercises I also offeredguidelines on how to build conceptual systems mod-els according to certain criteria of what such modelsare. For instance conceptual systems models shouldhave a number of human activities to accomplishwhat is stated in a definition of what the systemdo. Models should also have ongoing purposes ormissions, measures of performance, a decision-takingprocess, components that are themselves systems andthat interact within and outside the bigger systems,and resources (material, people) that are at the dis-posal of the decision-taking process (Checkland 1981).

Discussions in class about the problems encoun-tered when comparing conceptual models with whathappens in real practice led students to identify con-flicts of interest or purpose between different actorsinvolved in carrying out the systems activities. Forinstance a prison can be regarded as a system to pun-ish or to rehabilitate people. Activities and thereforeresources required to meet each of these two pur-poses could be different and often in opposition toeach other. I used this and other types of insights to


present students a second “turn” in systems think-ing. This turn was characterised by the introductionof critical social theory in the process of enquiryon situations (Mingers 1980, 1984, 1992; Ulrich 1983;Jackson 1985), in order to address more in depthquestions related to how to improve a complex sit-uation. This turn was also presented with examplesof today’s organisations, many of which have fol-lowed traditional managerial practices and that havegenerated far from desirable consequences like envi-ronmental degradation, psychological alienation, feel-ings of disempowerment, and exclusion in individu-als (Alvesson and Willmott 1996, Ackoff 1981).

From a second turn in systems thinking, I presentedas an abstraction the inclusion of social theories andsociological paradigms in the enquiry process withthe idea that knowledge is not neutral and thereforebasic assumptions about different ways of generat-ing it needed careful consideration. I then revisitedthe main tenets of systems methodologies exploredpreviously and used abstractions from both socialtheory and systems thinking to assess methodolo-gies’ strengths and weaknesses. In particular I offeredthe abstractions of classification of social paradigms(Burrell and Morgan 1979) and the system of sys-tems methodologies (SOSM) (Jackson and Keys 1984).Following Abbott’s terminology on professions andas a way of inference in systems thinking, I linked theuse of organisational metaphors to the choice of sys-tems methodology to guide action, so that issues thatwere considered relevant to explore in a messy situ-ation could be tackled with an appropriate method-ology according to the methodologies’ strengths andweaknesses (Jackson 2003).

I also presented critically oriented systems-basedapproaches that in the systems thinking literaturemake more explicit commitment to the issue of eman-cipation mentioned previously. These approachesincluded boundary critique (Churchman 1968, 1970;Ulrich 1983, Midgley 2000) and critical systemsheuristics or CSH (Ulrich 1983). I set up a number ofpractical exercises for students to have another lookat situations already explored (i.e., the prison sys-tem). These particular approaches encourage peopleto consider the human values that influence the choiceof what is considered relevant to tackle as well ason who is considered a relevant stakeholder in theenquiry process. Reflection on values and how theyaffect the choice of boundaries of the “system” understudy was proposed to students to complement theirchoices of systems methodologies to address a partic-ular situation.

In the final part of the course, I presented fur-ther developments on exploring the philosophi-cal assumptions of systems methodologies (Mingers2003) as well as extensions of current inferences to

facilitate choice to multimethodology (Mingers andBrocklesby 1996, Jackson 1999). I also looked at appli-cations of systems thinking in areas like the informa-tion society (Córdoba 2002), which also suggest newavenues of exploration in systems thinking researchand practice.

Formative course assessment included studentgroups exploring a situation with the use of organisa-tional metaphors and presenting their choice and useof methodologies to address issues that they consid-ered relevant. Feedback was given to guide studentson the core principles and tenets of methodologiesas well as frameworks of choice so that their infer-ences about diagnosing a situation and prescribinga course of action (treatment) with a methodologycould be improved. This type of formative assess-ment linked to a final summative course assessment,which consisted of an individual assignment and/orexam in which students were to justify and documenttheir choices of exploring a situation with a numberof metaphors and using a systems methodology totackle it. The assignment required students reportingon their choices and on their insights about a method-ology’s strengths and weaknesses in practice.

A summary of the features of this mode of educa-tion is presented in Table 1.

From Abstracting to EngagingThe above abstracting mode of systems thinkingeducation enabled students to appreciate differentsystems ideas and methodologies to help themdeal with complex situations. Key abstractions camefrom developments in both systems thinking andsocial theory. Dissemination of these abstractionshas become popular and integrated in curriculain management departments and systems thinkingresearch centres. This has contributed to create more“portable” and “simple to use” versions of systemsthinking education, which in turn, have contributed

Table 1 The Abstracting Mode of Systems Thinking Education

Area of jurisdiction Complex problems and decision making

Key course elements • Reductionist thinking• Systems concepts• Social theories• Metaphors• Hard, soft, critical systems thinking approach• Systems methodologies• Frameworks for methodology use• The future of systems thinking

Course assessment Formative: feedback on group work related to achoice of issues in a situation and systemsmethodology use to tackle them.

Summative: individual assignment and/or examto show competence in the choice and useof methodologies; reflections on strengths andweaknesses of methodologies.


to make it more relevant in traditional business andmanagement oriented subjects. An example of howsystems thinking has spread in these subject is Fry’s2008 development of MBA courses, where problemsolving techniques inspired by systems ideas areused to engage students in supply chain managementproblems.

In my own educational setting though, externalchanges shifted the focus of management educationto the practical relevance of what was being taught.In the last few years a high degree of importancehas been conceded to collaborative work with profes-sionals in industry, giving students more opportuni-ties to engage in “real” learning situations (Tushmanet al. 2007, Bartunek 2007, Mintzberg 2004). With newdemands and pressures, my course on systems think-ing became noncompulsory and reduced in hours(from three to two per week). I had to transform itin order to make it more appealing to different areasof management education as well as other academicdepartments. For me, as an educator, the situationgenerated a wake up call and an opportunity. Speak-ing about the need for continuous revision of aca-demic knowledge, Abbott says (1988, pp. 51–52)

0 0 0either too little or too much use of inference [in pro-fessions] will ultimately weaken jurisdiction 0 0 0a pro-fession that is purely esoteric has trouble demonstratingthe cultural legitimacy basis for that [attributed] effi-cacy. (Brackets and italics added.)

Looking at alternative ways of delivering our sys-tems thinking course, I became conscious of theimportance of the surroundings or contexts in whichmanagement students (including those interested insystems thinking) were being immersed (Kay andFoster 1999) as well as of improving my own under-standing of how the existing abstractions that linkedcomplex problem diagnoses with systems methodol-ogy choice were effectively used in practice (Keys2006). According to Bawden (2005), the presentationof systems methodologies and associated abstractionsin systems education can become a mere tick in the boxto be fulfilled by both instructors and students withinexisting educational settings. Lots of content can betransmitted without generating any significant impactin students’ awareness of the potentialities of think-ing beyond and outside the box. Students could missthe opportunity to become part of wider systems ofconcern, in particular those systems belonging to theirimmediate and geographical context of learning. Edu-cators could also miss the chance to use that engage-ment to transform educational systems and practices,many of which are out of date and in need of demon-strating how they can really help addressing societalproblems (Banathy 1992).

It became important for me as an educator to facil-itate students’ engagement in action with problems

of their own context, and to learn from their and myexperience in the process. In the domain of PSMs,Keys (2006) raises the importance of enabling stu-dents to develop expertise by tackling problems out-side their comfort zones and learning from otherswho are more experienced. People should be allowedto use their own PSMs and techniques in conjunctionwith official methodologies, to change their (systems)models as they see fit and to go beyond textbookdescriptions, in other words to try things for them-selves. Students could also learn from experts’ expe-riences about dealing with tough or atypical systemsinterventions in the field as well as the choices thatwere made throughout. Keys also suggests that reflec-tion and self-reflection opportunities are to be offeredin the process: “if novice users are to learn morethan simply how to apply existing PSMs, if they areto become genuinely expert, they also have to learna basis for reflection and self-development” (2006,p. 828).

The Engaging Mode ofSystems Thinking EducationThe above and other insights provided me with ideasto shift from an abstracting to an engaging and col-laborative mode of systems thinking education. I firstconsidered that this mode should enable students togenerate knowledge to be relevant to a particular con-text of application (Nowotny et al. 2003). Instead of abody of knowledge with its own identity (and in con-tinuous claim to jurisdiction to complex problems) aspreviously proposed, in an engaging mode of educa-tion systems thinking was now to be presented as astrategy for learning about relevant areas. These areasincluded sustainability, project management, or cor-porate social responsibility.

As described previously (Córdoba and Farquharson2008, Córdoba and Campbell 2008, Porter andCórdoba 2009), an engaging type of educationalcourse on systems thinking followed a similar struc-ture/content to the previous one. However emphasison presenting abstractions and linking them to gain-ing systems methodological competence was shiftedto the process of engagement itself. Engagement wasput forward to students as a systemic effort thatinvolved students’ continuous interaction with theirimmediate environment(s). A focus on engagementrequired in some cases renaming the course to moreappealing names including business ethics, (complex)decision making, or complex project managementwith systems thinking. Because of the nature of somenew audiences we also had to shorten the course con-tent so as to tailor it to them (researchers, practition-ers, or other groups of management students).

In the new instances of delivery we emphasised theimportance of thinking outside the box and of doing


something about a situation that was considered as rel-evant and complex (messy). In some cases I helpedstudents to define the situation they wanted to tackle.Situations included

Ø the sustainability of a city, including the citywhere their university was based;

Ø an imminent change situation (a merge betweenorganisations, a legally bound change or reform), ora situation after a change (for example the post-apartheid period in South Africa);

Ø businesses relocating to other countries;Ø project failures; andØ information systems failures.

During the course, I used ideas on general systemstheory to conceive of student groups as systems(Córdoba and Piki 2012). I emphasised that a groupcould be considered as a system whose interactingparts (students) could also generate synergies. Fortheir projects, students were assembled in teams ofno more than four. In each group I ensured that therewas a diversity of individual profiles according tothe results of questionnaires administered to each stu-dent in order to assess their preferences and orienta-tions when working in teams as proposed by Belbin(1981, 1996). Conceiving of groups as systems enabledus to get students’ attention to how their traditionalmodes of thinking and working together could becontributing to experiencing failures when dealingwith complex situations. It was necessary for studentsto continuously reflect on how they were communi-cating and interacting with each other as well as withthe rest of the cohort, how they were responding tofeedback, and how they were using their individualand group related skills to meet the requirements ofthe course (Córdoba and Piki 2012).

As Kay and Foster (1999) argue, “the success-ful practice of systems thinking requires knowledgeat both the systems level and the discipline level”(p. 171), so that students are able to synthesise knowl-edge from both levels. In our attempt to implementthis insight and for certain topics (project manage-ment, information systems design), the content oflectures included basic knowledge on project manage-ment, “good” computer systems design (with princi-ples of feedback, adequate mapping of actions in thereal world with actions on the screen, and coordina-tion) (Norman 1999, Winograd and Flores 1987) andapproaches to facilitate participative information sys-tems design using systems thinking (Wilson 2002). Forother topics though, we found it challenging to offerboth systems thinking and topic-specific content. Inthis case for example, we invited a guest lecturer togive us some basic insights on sustainability.

Alongside presenting the basic tenets of one or twosystems methodologies (chosen by us according toour level of expertise) in lectures we set up two other

types of activity. First, we used the guidelines of theWorld Cafe’ approach (World Cafe’ 2010). This exer-cise allows people to converse about relevant ques-tions (defined previously by a “host” or tutor in thiscase), whilst at the same time contributing to gener-ate new ideas on how to address them. People couldthen travel through different groups by contributingto and getting ideas from them. Out of the emergingconversations during this exercise and together withstudents we identified a number of questions andthemes to be addressed later. Second, we had infor-mal conversations with students outside class andthrough business meetings (15-minute meetings witheach group in which they mapped issues and connec-tions among them). Using these activities I collectedstudents’ ideas, comments, and connections betweenthem in order to build a picture of the mess wewere all getting in (see Figure 1). This picture hadsome relation, but it was not drawn by following theguidelines of a rich picture of SSM (Checkland 1981).Together with students I drew connections betweenexisting issues and actions to tackle them. Studentscould also visit the room where the picture was beingdrawn at any time to comment on or add things to it.

After a few weeks from the start of group projects,I presented the picture back to the cohort of studentsin class. We continued the discussion in order to addor talk about connections between the picture ele-ments. The aim of this was twofold: to convey themessiness of the situation, and to highlight the impor-tance of an effort by all members of the cohort to bet-ter understand and if possible deal locally with thecomplexity of the topic of sustainability.

Regarding sustainability I brought forth a perspec-tive of a city as a system using the work of Ravetz(2002) in order to help students make connectionsbetween issues, policies, and actions, so that theycould think of potential impacts of addressing someof them in both mechanistic or systemic (integrated,interdependent) ways. With the help of local coun-cil websites, student groups then chose to investigatetwo particular areas of city management in which acity of their choice was doing something about itssustainability. In their group projects students had tobuild a “system of concern” composed by at leasttwo themes being addressed by local governmentpolicies or plans for action. They were encouragedto consider two related themes and whose systemicmanagement could then contribute to sustainability(economic, social, environmental) (UNCED 1992). Asreported in most UK cities’ government websites, wefound that these themes ranged from transportationto education, from community and health to safety,from children to the elderly, or from wildlife andecosystems preservation to economic development.Using these websites, students could then venture


Figure 1 Picture of a Complex Situation for an Engaging Mode of Systems Thinking Education

to learn about specific themes and make connectionsbetween themes and possible actions to address them.For their choice of issues to tackle, students needed toget empirical evidence to support their claims aboutthemes and connections. Evidence included but wasnot limited to statistics, Web-based documents or firsthand information obtained from speaking to govern-ment, citizen, and company representatives.

Once the basic tenets of some systems method-ologies were covered, I lectured on systems multi-methodology and methodological pluralism. As thefocus of the course was on enabling students toengage with each other and with a situation at hand,I stressed the possibility of combining methodolo-gies in a whole system of enquiry (Midgley 1997,Mingers 2003). I also set up practical exercises inwhich I helped students to build messes, rich pic-tures, conceptual models, and future scenarios withinformation about the situations of their choice. Idid not explicitly focus on ensuring rigor in build-ing systems models or in using several methodolo-gies at the same time. Rather, my concern was that ofstressing the message that systems-based methodolo-gies, methods, and techniques should be assembled toaddress questions that were emerging from what stu-dents perceived as being relevant in their situations(Midgley 1997).

In my new course on systems thinking, formativeassessment continued in the form of group-based pre-sentations to the whole cohort of students. Presen-tations helped groups to report on progress as well

as to receive feedback. Groups could also use sys-tems tools (e.g., pictures, models) to better conveytheir understanding of situations to themselves andto others and to communicate and negotiate withstakeholders (Collins and Kearins 2004). As Bradbury(2003) and Reason (2007) suggest, students can alsouse these or other methods to enliven their own per-sonal diaries of engagement, their reflections, andinsights on the engagement process. If these reflec-tions showed an explicit interest by students toget to the bottom of issues, or deal with politicsin a situation, I directed them to explore in moredetail critical perspectives to manage organisations(Willmott 1997). I also encouraged students to try toidentify institutional constraints or specific ways ofworking for different actors involved that could makeit challenging to produce comprehensive and action-able plans for improvement. In defining these plansstudents could also bear in mind the cultural feasibil-ity and the systemic desirability of any possible action(Checkland 1981).

Feedback in presentations or business meetingsincluded me pushing student groups to their edge ofchaos if I considered that they were following work-ing patterns that, in my view, were far from desirable(i.e., getting into dead ends, individuals not speakingto each other) (Murray 2003). The idea was to encour-age students to engage with each other and with thesituation at hand. This proved helpful for groups andenabled them to move forward in their exploratory


and problem solving tasks. Again, I used the idea of agroup as a system in continuous adaptation in orderto facilitate students’ understanding of their own roleand contributions to their group outcomes as well asto those of the entire cohort.

In later versions of this course, I encouraged furtherreflection with the use of electronic blogs and videos,1

which I found useful to allow students to communi-cate in different ways, and to explore together theirunderstandings and perspectives of systems thinking(Churchman 1974). Both types of resources allowedstudents to express themselves in a different way;in this regard we found the insights of Leeds andMaurer (2009) useful in relation to the use of digitaltechnologies in business education. They argue thatthese technologies allow students to better prepareand structure their communications and use alterna-tive means to do so. I found that blogs helped over-seas students to take away the pressure from peers.Blogs also allowed instructors to provide immediatefeedback on the content of students’ ideas and alsoon their (English) writing capabilities.

If required, summative assessment of the coursefocused on students’ reflective and individualattempts to balance theoretical, methodological, andpractical insights coming from their group-basedactivity. I asked students to write a comprehensiveindividual report of their engagement with the chosensituation and topics, their use of methodologies, andtheir group experience. I assessed the degree of rich-ness and depth with which a situation was describedin terms of issues and connections; the justificationfor the choice of a systems methodology (it could bea combination of existing ones); insights coming fromits use; and the reflections about students as individu-als, group members, and future managers who couldbe facing similar situations in the future.

A summary of the engaging mode of systems think-ing education is presented in Table 2.

ReflectionsI now reflect on key insights from our experiences onthe two modes of systems thinking education that wehave presented. I also reflect on how their improve-ment could improve OR education in general.

1 A practical experience in one of our systems thinking coursesinvolved students in preparing a small play based on Churchman’sPerspectives of the Systems Approach (1974). A student acted as thepresenter and introduced the play, followed by the paper dialoguedby other students. I videoed the play and provided an introduc-tion and conclusion to the video, which was posted in YouTube®

for all students to see and share with their friends and colleagues.Most students found this a very useful and playful experience. Wecould also assess students’ understanding of systems thinking as avehicle to enable debate and definition of problems.

Table 2 Engaging Mode of Systems Thinking Education

Area of jurisdiction Relevant complex problems for the audience(e.g., sustainability)

Key course elements • Specific topic (e.g., sustainability, projectfailures, skills development)

• Student groups as “systems” and groupprojects to engage with “real” (complex)situations.

• Optional: Hard, soft, critical systems thinkingapproach

• One or two systems methodologies (e.g., softsystems methodology, interactive planning,critical systems heuristics)

• Practitioners lecture(s)• Optional: use of videos and blogs

Course assessment Formative: business meetings, informal talks, the“World Café” exercise, group presentations tonarrate their engagement with situations.

Summative (when required): Individual andreflective report on process of engagementwith a set of problems to be studied andintervened); improvements to a situation usingsystems methodologies; reflections on ownrole in the engagement process (individuallyand in groups).

In my view, the abstracting mode of systems think-ing education has been an appropriate response torequirements of students and the professions theyaspire to (management, technology, OR). With my ini-tial course I have provided a way of facilitating dis-semination of existing knowledge in systems thinkingthrough a number of concepts, methodologies, andinferences. I believe this contributes to improve theability of operational researchers and managers todeal with complex situations and thus to make sys-tems thinking education relevant to these groups.

Students’ feedback from courses in the abstractingmode indicates that they appreciate the “nontradi-tional” side of things, to know that there are alter-natives to mechanistic thinking, and to develop aperspective on what the future may hold for them.These insights lead me to conclude that there is asolid base from which systems thinking educationcan develop further. With this solid base, we havebeen able to incorporate new abstractions comingfrom our own research and that of others, for instancenew approaches to help planning information sys-tems (Córdoba and Midgley 2006).

In the abstracting mode, students’ feedback alsosuggests that they sometimes find it difficult to digestall abstractions that have been conveyed to them:the notion of system, its properties, methodologies,improvement, commitments, emancipation, and thelike. This difficulty reinforced my concern about howto make systems thinking education more relevantand engaging, which required greater selectivity inthe knowledge elements that we use in our courses.


As an alternative, the engaging mode has allowedstudents and educators to explore new areas in mean-ingful ways. This mode has enabled me to make sys-tems thinking abstractions more useful to students, sothey could use them more easily in practice so theycan understand more clearly the insights that theseabstractions could yield. I believe this has also con-tributed to a feeling of empowerment in students sothey could go “out there” and try things for them-selves. Their experience in group projects has alsoallowed them to better understand how to work moreeffectively with each other and to identify difficul-ties in communication, division of tasks, and in moti-vating themselves and others. By working on realsituations, students cold see more clearly how cul-ture, social norms, politics, diversity of viewpoints,and work ethics influence how change is defined andimplemented in and across organisations.

However, when it comes to structuring proposalsfor improving situations, I have encountered a sim-ilar challenge to that of Fry (2008) when he says:“It appears that students are more fearful of offer-ing a suggestion [for improvement] that could beproven wrong than offering no specific recommenda-tions at all” (p. 71, brackets added). As an educator,what I have considered an opportunity to gain andapply knowledge in both systems thinking and a par-ticular area (i.e., sustainability) seems to be viewedas an insurmountable challenge by some students.With deadlines for group presentations and individ-ual reports approaching, many students decided toresort to me for guidance about the right problemsand the right systems methodology (or set of meth-ods) to deal with them. Only in a few cases have Iseen that students have become confident enough tomake and justify their own decisions regarding theseaspects.

This insight leads me to review the strategy toinvolve students in both modes of education and toconsider the importance of structuring our coursesto offer clear and adequate levels of knowledge andexpertise. In line with the suggestions of Kay andFoster (1999) and Keys (2006) and using the insightsobtained so far, I now put forward two different levelsin each mode of systems thinking education: noviceand expert led as presented in Table 3.

A novice level of abstracting mode would offer stu-dents a basic degree of knowledge on systems (pos-sibly by showing systems models and guidance tobuild them), their properties, and applications in cer-tain areas. The stock of knowledge in areas like thelearning organisation (Senge 1999), limits to growth(Meadows et al. 1972), and supply chain management(Fry 2008) could be used to convey the main proper-ties of systems and to get students’ initial attentionand interest (Kay and Foster 1999). A novice level of

Table 3 Different Levels in Each Mode of Education

Level Abstracting mode Engaging mode

Novice Basic knowledge of systems,with application onsustainability, supply chainmanagement, or learning

Experiential learning withone systemsmethodology orapproach, with somedegree of reflection

Expert Use of more “sophisticated”abstractions (i.e.,multimethodology), furtherreflection on initialengagements.

Independent agenda ledby learners in situationsof interest, withsupport/mentoringfrom experts.

engaging could follow from this and would seek toprovide some degree of experiential learning in theseor other areas, possibly with the use of a systemsmethodology or model and with a short period oftime for reflection and application.

At an expert level of abstracting, students canprogress to reasoning about and applying moresophisticated abstractions (for instance multimethod-ology), and/or reflecting on how they initiallyengaged into tackling real situations. In an expert levelof engaging, students could pursue a more indepen-dent agenda, which could include defining their ownproblems of interest, gaining discipline-based knowl-edge (with the help of discipline experts), and beingmentored in their processes of engagement that couldinvolve systems methodologies. Mentoring activitiescould also help students to appreciate the role ofindividual decisions through their process of enquiry.An expert level of engagement should encourage stu-dents to push their own boundaries about the prob-lems they define, the judgements they make in theprocess of tackling them, and the methodologies theyuse (Keys 2006).

Between these levels and modes of teaching I alsosee it as important to enable their continuous inter-action. As new modes of engaging are developed atan expert level, new abstractions or methodologies forlearning can inform novice experiences and strategies.Conversely, if education at a novice level attracts theinterest of different audiences then those willing tobecome experts can be gradually supported in theirtransition to more complex forms of abstracting andengaging. Like educators who aim to progress in ourunderstanding and use of systems thinking, so couldthose who consider themselves novices contribute tomake systems thinking education more accessible andvisible.

As I see it, these insights could also inform educa-tional developments in OR. Both forms of abstractingand engaging could be used in other areas includinghard OR and at different levels. As this is a proposalthat needs further refinement and integration into rel-evant courses, I see that the door is open to continue


developing new connections between these and othermodes of systems thinking education, and to make itmore relevant, useful, and accessible to a variety ofaudiences. I hope that this paper has made a valuablecontribution to consolidate existing efforts in educa-tion and to advance them for the benefit of systemsthinking and OR in general.

ConclusionIn this paper I have provide a context and discus-sion for two modes of education in systems think-ing: (1) abstracting and (2) engaging. In defining thesemodes I have considered how systems thinking asa body of knowledge has elements of diagnosing,treating, and inferring on complex problems and thusserving several professions including OR. Both modesoffer key elements of learning that I have found use-ful in helping students to appreciate and deal withsuch problems and situations.

A mode of abstracting emphasizes the presenta-tion of ways of viewing complex problems as messesand reasons how systems methodologies can help intackling them. A mode of engaging facilitates puttinginto practice some of these abstract elements anduses the idea of student groups as systems to sup-port their engagement with their immediate contexts.My insights from reflecting on the use of these twomodes lead me to appreciate how systems thinkingcan offer its available knowledge whilst helping ourstudents and ourselves to deal with relevant issues intheir and our lives. Together with students we havegained key insights on how education in these modeshas generated possibilities and challenges. As a result,I have also proposed levels (novice, expert) withineach mode to improve support to students.

My belief is that our task as educators is now tomotivate students to learn more about systems think-ing, and with this to become more independent andresponsible learners. As I see it this task can continueby further developing strategies to support students’transitions between these modes of education. Fur-ther research on how to make systems thinking morerelevant, useful, and interesting to different audiencesand professional communities is needed.

ReferencesAbbott, A. 1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division

of Expert Labor. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Ackoff, R. 1981. Creating the Corporate Future: Plan or To Be Planned

For. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Alvesson, M., H. Willmott. 1996. Making Sense of Management: A

Critical Introduction. Sage, London.Banathy, B. 1992. A Systems View of Education: Concepts and Principles

for Effective Practice. Educational Technology Publications Inc.,Englewood cliffs, NJ.

Bartunek, J. 2007. Academic-practitioner collaboration need notrequire joint or relevant research: Toward a relational scholar-ship of integration. Acad. Management J. 50 1323–1333.

Bawden, R. 2005. Systemic development at Hawkesbury: Somepersonal lessons from experience. Systems Res. Behav. Sci. 22151–164.

Belbin, M. 1981. Management Teams—Why They Succeed or Fail.Butterworth Heinemann, London.

Belbin, M. 1996. Team Roles at Work. Butterworth-Heinemann,Oxford, UK.

Bradbury, H. 2003. Sustaining inner and outer worlds: A wholesystems approach to developing sustainable business practicesin management. J. Management Ed. 27 172–187.

Burrell, G., G. Morgan. 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organisa-tional Analysis. Heinemann Educational Books, London, UK.

Cabrera, D., L. Colosi, C. Lobdell. 2008. Systems thinking.Evaluation and Program Planning 31 299–310.

Checkland, P. 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John Wileyand Sons, London.

Checkland, P., S. Holwell. 1998. Information, Systems, and Informa-tion Systems: Making Sense of the Field. John Wiley and Sons,Chichesterm, UK.

Checkland, P., J. Poulter. 2006. Learning for Action: A Short DefinitiveAccount of Soft Systems Methodology and Its Use for Practitioners,Teachers, and Students. John Wiley, Chichester, UK.

Checkland, P., M. Winter. 2006. Process and content: Two ways ofusing SSM. J. Oper. Res. Society 57 1435–1441.

Churchman, C. W. 1968. The Systems Approach. Delacorte Press,New York.

Churchman, C. W. 1970. Operations research as a profession.Management Sci. 17 b37–b53.

Churchman, C. W. 1974. Perspectives of the systems approach.Interfaces 4 6–11.

Clarke, S. 2007. Information Systems Strategic Management: An Inte-grated Approach. Routledge, London.

Collins, E., K. Kearins. 2004. Stakeholder negotiation exercises inthe classroom: Learning relationships for sustainability. Creat-ing Actionable Knowledge: Academy of Management Annual Meet-ing. Academy of Management, New Orleans.

Corbett, C., L. N. Wassenhove. 1993. The natural drift: What hap-pened to operations research? Oper. Res. 51 625–640.

Córdoba, J. R. 2002. A critical systems thinking approach for theplanning of information technology in the information society.Centre for Systems Studies. University of Hull, Hull, UK.

Córdoba, J. R. 2009. Systems Practice in the Information Society. Taylorand Francis, Routledge, New York.

Córdoba, J. R., T. Campbell. 2008. Learning to deal with CSR in theclassroom. Systems Res. Behav. Sci. 25 427–437.

Córdoba, J. R., F. Farquharson. 2008. Enquiring into skills devel-opment with SSM: A South African experience. Systems Res.Behav. Sci. 25 81–97.

Córdoba, J. R., G. Midgley. 2006. Broadening the boundaries:An application of critical systems thinking to IS planning inColombia. J. Oper. Res. Society 57 1064–1080.

Córdoba, J. R., A. Piki. 2012. Facilitating project management edu-cation through groups as systems. Internat. J. Project Manage-ment. 30(1). Forthcoming.

Eden, C., F. Ackermann. 2006. Where next for problem structuringmethods? J. Oper. Res. Society 57 766–768.

Flood, R. L., M. C. Jackson, eds. 1991. Critical Systems Thinking:Directed Readings. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.

Fry, M. 2008. Teaching problem solving techniques to MBA stu-dents through supply chain management. INFORMS Trans. Ed.8 65–74.

Jackson, M. C. 1985. Social systems theory and practice: The needfor a critical approach. Internat. J. General Systems 10 135–151.


Jackson, M. C. 1999. Towards coherent pluralism in managementscience. J. Oper. Res. Society 50 12–22.

Jackson, M. C. 2003. Creative Holism: Systems Thinking for ManagersJohn Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.

Jackson, M. C., P. Keys. 1984. Towards a system of system method-ologies. J. Oper. Res. Society 35 473–486.

Kapra, F. 1997. The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter.Flamingo, London.

Kay, J., J. Foster. 1999. About teaching systems thinking. G. Savage,P. Roe, eds. Proc. HKK Conf., University of Waterloo, Waterloo,Ontario, Canada, 165–172.

Keys, P. 2006. On becoming expert in the use of problem structuringmethods. J. Oper. Res. Society 57 822–829.

Leeds, E., R. Maurer. 2009. Using digital video technology toreduce communication apprehension in business education.INFORMS Trans. Ed. 9 84–92.

Mason, R., I. Mitroff. 1981. Challenging Strategic Planning Assump-tions: Theory, Cases and Techniques. John Wiley and Sons,New York.

Meadows, D., H. Meadows, J. Randers. 1972. The Limits to Growth: AReport of the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind.Pan Books, London.

Midgley, G. 1996. What is this thing called CST? R. L. Flood,N. Romm, eds. Critical Systems Thinking: Current Research andPractice. Plenum Press, New York, 11–24.

Midgley, G. 1997. Mixing methods: Developing systemic interven-tion. J. Mingers, A. Gill, eds. Multimethodology: The Theory andPractice of Combining Management Science Methodologies. JohnWiley and Sons, Chichester, UK, 249–290.

Midgley, G. 2000. Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology andPractice. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.

Mingers, J. 1980. Towards an appropriate social theory for appliedsystems thinking. J. Appl. Systems Anal. 7 41–49.

Mingers, J. 1984. Subjectivism and soft systems methodology: A cri-tique. J. Appl. Systems Anal. 11 85–113.

Mingers, J. 1992. Technical, practical and critical OR: Past, presentand future? M. Alvesson, H. Willmott, eds. Critical ManagementStudies. Sage, London.

Mingers, J. 2003. A classification of the philosophical assump-tions of management science methods. J. Oper. Res. Society 54559–570.

Mingers, J., J. Brocklesby. 1996. Multimethodology: Towards aframework for critical pluralism. Systemist 18 101–131.

Mingers, J., A. Gill. 1997. Multimethodology: The Theory and Practiceof Combining Management Science Methodologies. John Wiley &Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK.

Mintzberg, H. 2004. Managers Not MBAs. Financial Times PrenticeHall, Indianapolis.

Morgan, G. 1997. Images of Organization. Sage, Thousand Oaks, US.Murray, P. J. 2003. So what’s new about complexity? Systems Res.

Behav. Sci. 20 409–417.Norman, D. 1999. The Invisible Computer. The MIT Press, London.Nowotny, H., P. Scott, M. Gibbons. 2003. Mode 2 revisited: The new

production of knowledge. Minerva 41 179–194.Porter, T., J. R. Córdoba. 2009. Three views of systems theories and

their implications for sustainability education. J. ManagementEd. 33 323–347.

Ravetz, J. 2002. City-Region 2020: Integrated Planning for a SustainableEnvironment. Earthscan, London.

Reason, P. 2007. Education for ecology: Science, aesthetics, spiritand ceremony. Management Lear. 38 27–44.

Rosenhead, J. 2006. Past, present, and future of problem structuringmethods. J. Oper. Res. Society 57 759–765.

Rosenhead, J., J. Mingers, eds. 2001. Rational Analysis for a Problem-atic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity,Uncertainty and Conflict. John Wiley, Chichester, UK.

Senge, P. 1999. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the LearningOrganisation. Random House, London.

Tushman, M., A. Fenollosa, D. McGrath, C. O’Reilly, A. Kleinbaum.2007. Relevance and rigor: Executive education as a lever inshaping practice and research. Acad. Management Learn. Ed. 6345–362.

UK Operational Research Society. 2011. Accessed July 2011, http://theorsociety.com/orshop(fc24if45qhqqmc55ggxn3y55)/orcontent.aspx?inc=training_calendar.htm.

Ulrich, W. 1983. Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approachto Practical Philosophy. Haupt, Berne, Switzerland.

UNCED. 1992. Earth Summit ’92: The United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development Rio de Janeiro 1992. J. Quarrie, ed.United Nations Conference on Environment and Development,Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

von Bertalanffy, L. 1968. General System Theory: Foundations, Devel-opment, Applications. Brazilier, New York.

Willmott, H. 1997. Management and organization studies as sci-ence? Organization 4 309–344.

Wilson, B. 1984. Systems: Concepts, Methodologies, and Applications.John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.

Wilson, B. 2002. Soft Systems Methodology: Conceptual Model and ItsContribution. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.

Winograd, T., F. Flores. 1987. Understanding Computers and Cognition:A New Foundation for Design. Addison Wesley, London.

World Café. 2010. World Café approach. Accessed May 2010,http://www.theworldcafe.com.

http://theorsociety.com/orshop(fc24if45qhqqmc55ggxn3y55)/orcontent.aspx?inc=training_calendar.htm



http://www.theworldcafe.com

abstracting and engaging: two modes of systems thinking education

Documents