System Archetypes

System Archetypes: Archetypes in Action- A Case of Shifting the Burden System Archetype

Student’s Name

Institution’s Name

Date

Abstract

System thinking is a new perspective that offers a comprehension that emanates from focusing on the bigger picture of the organization and the interactions both external and internal to it, as opposed to breaking up the picture into smaller elements. This perspective involves thinking in loops rather than in straight lines. In addition, the causes and effects are interactive. System archetypes describe the fundamental form of the pattern involving a causal diagram that employs descriptive and evocative names to accentuate the essence of the system dynamic . This essay looks into the Shifting the Burden System Archetype and evaluates the challenges of the model. Further a situational analysis of a cost accounting problem in an organization is appraised through the shifting the burden archetype and interventions to challenges of the model discussed.

Introduction

System archetypes provide descriptions for common patterns of behavior in organizations. They serve as diagnostic instruments that offer insight in into the underpinning structures from which behavior over time as well as discreet events emerge. Additionally, they act as prospective tools that aim at alerting managers of future unintended consequences. So far there are ten typical system archetypes that have been identified with each describing a generic story, a scenario that plays out in a wide spectrum of environments and situations, although following the same underlying pattern (Novak & Levine, 2010). As described by Senge in The Fifth Discipline (1994), the ten system archetypes are;

Balancing process with delay

Limits To Growth

Shifting The Burden

Eroding Goals

Escalation

Success To Successful

Tragedy Of The Commons

Fixes That Fail

Growth And Underinvestment, And

Accidental Adversaries

The system archetypes, represented as stories, diagrams, graphs, or templates, provide description and depict specific patterns that serve to reveal the underlying system structure as well as the associated problems and mental models (Hsueh, 2010). They facilitate the addressing of the underlying causes of behavior that are common in most organizations.

Shifting the Burden System Archetype

Shifting the burden system archetype is considered as a short term solution that has the immediate effect of reducing some problem (Senge, 1990). The archetype begins with a Problem Symptom. At this point there is a choice between applying the Symptomatic Solution or the Fundamental Solution to address the Problem Symptom. The short term solution is defined as the symptomatic solution. Besides its immediate reduction of the problem symptom, the symptomatic solution has side effects that result in the fundamental solution to atrophy. It is important to note that the Fundamental solution has the capability of reducing the problem symptom to a greater extent as compared to the symptomatic solution, however, there is a delay in the period it takes for the Fundamental solution to be effective (Novak & Levine, 2010).

In shifting the burden archetype, a convenient solution is employed to provisionally solve a problem. However, the repeated application of expedient solution makes it difficult to employ the fundamental solution. Shifting the Burden is also known as addiction due to its symptomatic solution being addictive with the side effects being ultimately damaging. This archetype demonstrates how dealing with symptoms, rather than identifying and solving underlying problems, can result in further reliance on symptomatic solutions (Hsueh, 2010). The option of employing a long-term solution is not very attractive since it involves a greater time delay as well as additional cost prior to relieving the problems symptoms. Below is a diagrammatic representation of the loops in Shifting the Burden System Archetype.

Fundamental

Solution

Symptomatic

Solution

Problem

Symptom

Solution-induced Side Effects

The behavior in shifting the burden commences with an underlying problem generating symptoms that call for attention. However, the underlying problem is considered difficult to the leaders or managers in an organization following the fact that it is ether costly to deal with or it is obscure. The burden of the problem is thus shifted to other solutions that are easy fixes and can seem to be considerably efficient. Regrettably, the easier solutions, symptomatic solutions, only serve to revolutionize the symptoms while leaving the underpinning problem unchanged (Novak & Levine, 2010). Consequently, the underlying problem becomes worse, unobserved due to the fact that symptoms seem to clear up, and subsequently the system loses its capability to solve the core problem (Nemcova & Mildeova, 2009).

The shift burden is made up of two balancing processes that try to adjust the same problem symptom. The first loop is a representation of the symptomatic intervention that offers a quick fix, while the bottom loop has a delay, and represents a more fundamental response to the problem that take longer for effects to be realized. It is important to note that in shifting the problem there is the creation of an additional reinforcing processes that is created by the side effects of the symptomatic solution that consequently renders the fundamental solution difficult (Hsueh, 2010).

A situational Analysis of Shifting the Burden System Archetype

As an illustration we consider an organization dealing with a Cost Accounting Problem. The problem symptom for this organization is workload. There are two ways to approach this problem symptom; one way is by outsourcing, and two, is the build-up of accounting training. The scenario is captured by the diagrammatic representation below.

Outsourcing of accounting services serves as symptomatic solution to the problem. Capacity building for accounting within the organization in reducing the workload problem would present a fundamental solution. However, the organization may opt for outsourcing following the delay and cost implication of affecting the fundamental solution. There will be, nonetheless, cumulative total cost that emanate from addiction to outsourcing, and these cost will render the building up of accounting capacity in the organization, difficult to implement.

To address the challenges of the shifting the burden archetype, in this case, will call for focusing on the fundamental solution that involve capacity building of cost accounting. The use of symptomatic solution outsourcing should only be done only in seeking to gain time while the capacity building, as a fundamental solution, is being worked on. There is need to elicit multiple perspectives and viewpoints in differentiating symptomatic solutions from fundamental solutions and then building consensus around an effective action plan (Hsueh, 2010). The side effect of symptomatic solutions should be mapped and the interconnection to fundamental loops identified. From the formulated perspective, high-leverage actions need to be identified in a bid to guide implementation of the fundamental solution.

Conclusion

Shifting the burden is an illustration of how the intervention of organizations management works. At every point, the intervention is formulated at problem symptoms, and temporary improvement in the performance is experienced. The core problem, however, persists and the symptoms keep on reappearing. An organizational stalemate can occur as a result of interlocking shifting the burden structures due to one functional solution creating problems in other sectors (Nemcova & Mildeova, 2009). The archetype offers a beginning point for breaking deadlocks through the identification of chain problem symptoms as well as solutions that create barriers between functions, divisions, and departments.

References

Hsueh, J. (2010), A Case of the Shifting the Burden Archetype: What Can Formal Modeling Add to Qualitative Systems Thinking?, the 28th International System Dynamics Conference, Seoul, Korea.

Nemcova, I., & Mildeova, S. (2009), “System Archetipes in Selected Processes of Economic Integration”, Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, Vol. 2, No. 2, ISSN: 1803-1617, pp 30-42, [on-line] Accessed from www.eriesjournal.com/_papers/article_92.pdf [2009-06-3

Novak, W. E. & Levine, L (2010), Success in Acquisition: Using Archetypes to Beat the Odds, Technical Report, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University