TABLE OF CONTENTS

§ Systems Archetypes as "Lenses"
     The Copy-Center Dilemma: "Tragedy of the Commons" and "Shifting the Burden"
     Productive Conversations and Deeper Inquiry
§ Systems Archetypes as Dynamic Theories
     Lengthening Delivery Times: "Drifting Goals" in Action
     Seeing Similar Structures Across Diverse Situations
§ Systems Archetypes as Dynamic Theories
     "Success to the Successful": An Example of Technology Transfer
     Managers as Researchers and Theory Builders
§ Systems Archetypes as Tools for Predicting Behavior
     Identifying Predetermined Elements
     Creating (Not Forecasting) Your Future
§ Guidelines for Designing Systemic Interventions
     Long-Term Commitment

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Daniel H. Kim is a cofounder of the MIT Center for Organizational Learning and Pegasus Communications, Inc., and founding publisher of THE SYSTEMS THINKER™ Newsletter.

Colleen P. Lannon is a cofounder of Pegasus Communications, Inc., and former managing editor of THE SYSTEMS THINKER.

EXCERPTS

"Success to the Successful": An Example of Technology Transfer

An information systems (IS) group inside a large organization was having problems introducing a new e-mail system to enhance company communications. Although the new system was much more efficient and reliable than the ones in use, very few people in the company were willing to switch from their existing e-mail systems. The situation sounded like a "Success to the Successful" structure, so the group chose that archetype as their starting point for exploring the problem.

The theory of this archetype (see "Success to the Successful E-mail" on page 8) is that if one person, group, or idea ("A") is given more attention, time, resources, or practice than an alternative ("B"), A will have a higher likelihood of succeeding than B (assuming that the two are more or less equal). The reason is that the initial success of A justifies devoting more of whatever is needed to keep A successful, usually at the expense of B (loop R1). As B gets fewer resources, B's success continues to diminish, which further justifies allocating more resources to A (loop R2). The predicted outcome of this structure is that A will succeed and B will likely fail.

When the IS team mapped out its issue onto this archetype, their experience corroborated the relationships identified in the loops (see "Core Dynamic Theory" in "Success to the Successful E-mail"). The archetype helped paint a common picture of the larger "elephant" troubling the group, and clearly stated their problem: Given that the existing e-mail systems had had such an early head start in this structure, the IS group's attempts to persuade people to use the new system were likely to fail. Furthermore, the more time that passed, the harder it would be to ever shift from the existing systems to the new one.

Using the "Core Dynamic Theory" diagram as a common starting point, the group then explored how to use the success of the new one (see "Extended Dynamic Theory" in "Success to the Successful E-mail"). They hypothesized that creating a link between "Usefulness of Existing E-mail" and "Usefulness of New E-mail" (loop B6) could introduce counterbalancing forces that would fuel the success loop of the new system. Their challenge thus became to find ways in which the current system could be used to help people appreciate the utility of the new system, rather than just trying to change their perceptions by pointing out the limitations of the existing system.