Systems Thinking is basically Thinking. Systems Thinking approaches or frameworks have been invented to bring structure to thinking and enable modeling and sharing mental models. This also helps to practice thinking, when you have some more tangible ideas to talk about. Because thinking about thinking is quite on the meta level. M = I x OA Mental Model is Information combined with Organization…

Buttons are all over the screen I'm looking at. There will be buttons on the screen you read this. There's buttons in your house, in your car, everywhere. And every button is more than just a button. A button is a complex system. "Come on, now you exaggerate!", you might say. Let me explain. A button has a purpose. When you press or click the button, something should happen.

In the Systems Seeing Adventure we used an Empathy Map on Day 9. This is a nice tool to look at a system from other perspectives. In this case from other humans. My current favorite approach to systems thinking is the DSRP-method. The P stands for Perspective. The idea is to use the perspective of any element of the system to improve its model.

One issue that I see every now and then is that we tend to automate things because we can. I'm guilty of that myself. Ever since I started writing scripts and tests and tools and what not, I started to automate things. Because I can. Don't get me wrong, automating things is useful and a fantastic opportunity to reduce stupid work.

I have decided to bundle a few days together. The reason is, that I now need to come up with a situation that the rest of the adventure is using for the exercises. So I need to find something that I can share publicly. On the other hand I want to look at a work-related situation as well. So I will have a simpler situation for the blog, and a more complicated one for myself.

A topic that keeps coming back to me is pondering about simplification of processes. What is a simple process and what is a complicated or complex process? In which constraints does it make sense to have more or less details? Just because it looks simple doesn't mean it is simple. And just because it looks complex doesn't mean it is complex.

This quote is by American novelist and poet Jack Kerouac. And ever since I read this, I aim to achieve it. So far without success. Finding the right and simple words is hard work. The same is said with the quote "I wanted to write you a short letter, but I only had time for a long one", which is assigned to Goethe, Lichtenberg, Pascal, Swift and others.

If you want to know more about the System Seeing Adventure, check out this link. My TL;DR: of this session is: What seems simple is rather complex, if you only look close enough. Today's task was to look at a picture and note what we see. The system and the interactions. How is it communicated and conveyed. The picture to look at can be found…

Too often I am, and probably we all are, result-driven. Get there fast, get it done, get it out of the way. Or get it automated or implemented in a way that I can reproduce something quickly by the dozen. This applied to nearly every aspect of my life.And I see my daughter now reading a lot of books. But she is always keeping track of how many pages still to read, and likes finishing books.

If you want to know more about the System Seeing Adventure, check out this link. The task for Day 4 is watch and sketchnote the TED talk by Dr. Russ Ackoff on Quality Improvements of Systems. I have tried sketchnoting in the past and it was not very successful. This talk by Dr. Ackoff was just a rapid fire of smart statements worth noting down.

The task on day 3 is to explore system concepts and make concept cards out of them. I will pass on this drawing challenge and rather focus on the write-up here. I'm aware of two system concepts that helped me the last 10 years. A decade ago I read the book "Thinking in Systems" by Donella H. Meadows. The basic elements that were used in this approach are stocks, inflow and outflow.

This weekend - when you read this, last weekend - I listened to my favorite woodworking podcast. And the topic was "Gratitude, Appreciation and the concept of Enough". "Enough" is a topic that lately rumors in my head all the time. When I look at politics, careers, economics, global warming, ecosystems, billionaires, and all topics along this line. Why do we always need more, more, more.

The task on day 2 is not only to draw your org, but draw it in three different ways. The org to draw I choose was my company in its current state. Next step: Draw your org - 3 different ways That was harder than imagined. Next step: Jot down what you learned about your org. Rather team-centric view For some non-tech related functions I have no idea how they are organized…

Many years ago I learned the basics about the Cynefin Framework. The very basics. To repeat these very basics, Cynefin differentiates events into five different domains. Simple or obvious, Complicated, Complex, Chaos and Unknown or disorder. This helps to understand how to perceive situations and make sense out of them. Cynefin is based among others on systems thinking, which makes it sometimes a bit tricky to distinguish.

My friend Vernon made me aware of this post from Ruth Malan. It's about a 31 day systems seeing adventure. This is fully up my alley at the moment. So I'll take you with me on this journey. Next step: Draw a bubble diagram of a bike. This task is for me. Two years ago I built a gravel bike with a bamboo frame from scratch.

In 2016 I gave my first talk at a testing conference - TestBash Brighton. The topic was about the power of ignorance. One model that I tried to convey back then was the rain drop model. Based on the concentric circles that rain drops produce on the water surface. Each rain drop stands for a particular topic or system. The growing circle demonstrates the growth of knowledge.

Erzeugt ein Solarschiff wirklich genauso viel Strom wie 100 Kohleschiffe, wie die internationale Energieagentur sagte? Nein! Das Verhältnis ist sogar noch besser.

Over time your mental model evolves. With your next bit of information your model improves one step further. But that's not the aspect of time I want to talk about. The system at hand gets older, time passes by, bits and pieces of the system change. That's the aspect of time I want to talk about. Time is a very important dimension in your mental models.

Unpopular opinion: even in Agile we just work in many small waterfalls or V-models, in parallel, all the time. Scrum and Kanban in action feels more like my ADHD brain works. Doing all the things, all the time, and in parallel. Don't get me wrong. My brain is fine with working that way. But do you know what is merely impossible?

Recently this is a topic all around me. At work, at home, in the news. The world has become a complex place. Well it always was, but as we stand on the shoulders of giants, we are able to understand more and more of it now. This requires more knowledge than anyone is able to gain in a lifetime. This is overwhelming.

I recently thought a lot about simplicity and complexity. And I came to the conclusion, that simplicity is often only possible when you shift complexity. The complexity doesn't go away. Setting boundaries reduces complexity, but someone has to set these boundaries. Sometimes the shift is from many to few, sometimes from few to many. Let me explain my thought. Let's start with a wood working example.