Attractiveness principle

Last updated

The Attractiveness Principle is an archetype in system dynamics. System archetypes describe common patterns of behavior in dynamic complex systems. The attractiveness principle is a variation of the Limits to Growth (LtG) archetype, with restrictions caused by multiple limits. The limiting factors here are each of different character and usually cannot be dealt with the same way and/or (and very likely) they cannot be all addressed.

Contents

The term attractiveness principle was first used by inventor of system dynamics Jay W. Forrester. [1] According to Forrester, the only way to control growth is to control attractiveness. [1] Other references on this topic can be found in The Systems Thinker [2] and in The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook [3] in articles and parts by Michael Goodman and Art Kleiner.

In business

In business, the attractiveness principle incorporates the concept that any product or kind of business cannot ever be “all things to all people” [4] though companies very often strive to follow this way. [5] One needs to make necessary decisions on the characteristics of the product as it cannot be perfect in all dimensions. If she doesn't, the product is not going to be successful as of the natural constraints (limited resources) it will have to face – sooner or later. It is a fact of life that (assuming we know the relationships among the system's elements) we can influence, inhibit or remove some of these limits through making expert changes in the system. The archetype can help us to get the insight into the system behavior so we could identify and decide which limiting factors to inhibit before they inhibit the results we want to achieve. But there will always be some limits we are not able to reduce and simply “we have to learn to live with them” and make compromises between our goals.

In management

Knowledge of the attractiveness principle system archetype is essential in management of various projects and businesses. Managers decide which problem is more attractive in terms of possible future improvement of the company [6] – the origin of the archetype's name actually came from this point. Manager as a decision-maker needs efficient support in solving such complex problems, and system dynamics can play this role. Its main advantage is the ability to reach higher complexity and to provide simultaneous calculations. These can be used to determine the future possible behavior of the system. [7] If managers are able to recognize the archetype in a problem it often helps them to solve it with less cost and they are also often able to change its structure. [8]

System dynamics model

Structure

Figure 1. Causal loop diagram Attractiveness Principle-Causal Loop.svg
Figure 1. Causal loop diagram
Figure 2. Stock and flow diagram Attractiveness principle-stock and flow.svg
Figure 2. Stock and flow diagram

The system is made up of a reinforcing loop and at least two balancing loops. See causal loop diagram and stock and flow diagram for the insight into model fundamentals.

The reinforcing loop (R1 in figure 1 and 2) represents accelerating growth – a growing action is producing results. This is a positive feedback loop – the more the growing action taken, the higher the results level, and yet the result itself produces even more of growing action. Balancing loops (B2 and B3 in Figure 1 and 2) represent the way the system turns back to its original state. Result produced in the reinforcing loop is influenced within the balancing loop. There are (at least) two limits causing the slowing actions in the system and adding to them. Limiting actions start to influence the system at various levels of results, generally. Since that moment slowing actions act in the system simultaneously. Both the slowing actions contribute to the total slowing action. Total slowing action then inhibits the results (this process is delayed in time). If we get back to the reinforcing loop then we can see the inhibited results are reducing growing action which is leading to the reduced results again.

Trade-offs

Trade-offs must be calculated to decide which ones of limits to focus on and address first. [9] The one that is more attractive in terms of future benefit to the results should be chosen to be dealt with. It is necessary to compare the future situations after removing each of the slowing actions and their values in terms of reaching the desired result. But not only the one that will have a greater impact should be chosen but a possible synergetic effect when removing interdependent limits should be considered when making a decision. [6]

Simulation

Figure 3. Situation with no limiting factor. Atractiveness Principle-graph no limits.png
Figure 3. Situation with no limiting factor.
Figure 4. Situation with one limiting factor set at 3 and another one set at 5. Atractiveness Principle-graph limits.png
Figure 4. Situation with one limiting factor set at 3 and another one set at 5.

The Simgua Attractiveness principle model can be used to model systems behavior. Graphs in Figure 3 and 4 show the results of simulation in Simgua simulation tool.

Examples

Project management

There is a project with a negative impact of a risk. Some people were taken off the team, there are unexpected changes in the project content and the economic circumstances have changed, too. The indicators of its quality, schedule and costs need to be kept up. Management's task is to allocate the resources as well as possible in terms of the project's indicators. Due to the fact the resources are limited it is necessary to make tradeoffs among opportunities. [9]

Attractiveness of geographical areas

Jay W. Forrester studied the attractiveness principle of geographical areas. [1] [10] He states that all the places in the world tend to the equilibrium where they are all equally attractive, no matter the population class. Let attractivity be the overall rating of a city in terms of its desirability for potential inhabitants. If a city has high attractivity people move to this city, which increases the prices of housing which is getting scarce, cause overloading of job opportunities (leading to unemployment), the environmental stress is rising, city getting overcrowded etc. These changes demonstrate the impact of the movement as of an equalizing process which makes the mentioned city less and less attractive – to the (idealized) point when no one wants to move to it anymore. We can illustrate this situation by Forester's words:

To illustrate the attractiveness principle, imagine for a moment the ideal city. Perhaps the ideal city would be one with readily available housing at low cost, a surplus of jobs at high wages, excellent schools, no smoke or pollution, housing located near one's place of work, no crime, beautiful parks, cultural opportunities, and to this list the reader can add his own preferences. Suppose such a city existed. What would happen? It would be perceived as the ideal place to live. People from everywhere would move into the ideal city until the advantages had been so swamped by rising population that the city would offer no net attractiveness compared with other locations. (, [1] pg. 275-276)

As stated by Richard C. Duncan, using Forrester's Word dynamics model to predict the behavior of Third World countries shows that it is not possible to stop the immigration from these countries to USA as these countries can never reach the USA's level of geographical attractiveness (and so there always will be a tendency to immigrate). [11]

Effective strategies

Here is a list of possible effective strategies to deal with attractiveness principle in praxis based on. [4] [5] [6] [12]

  1. Knowing the growth is limited is the first step.
  2. The insight is complicated by mutual interaction of limits, so analysis of their relation should be a priority. Such an analysis can also reveal possible synergies that can be achieved by allocating resources to carefully chosen limits.
  3. Consider replacing limited resources by another ones.
  4. Dominant strategy is to monitor the limits and using tradeoff analysis for deciding which of them it is convenient to reduce or remove to obtain desired results.
  5. Define the acceptable level of (un)attraction.
  6. Slowing actions are not usually appearing at the same time so it is important to manage them through the time.
  7. Try to inhibit the limits before they even start to act like limits.
  8. As limits start to have impact on various levels of results it is important to keep the right timing – intercept the moment when the limit starts playing its role but not waste the resources to avoid its impact unless it is necessary.

It is important to have in mind that dynamic complexity is very often counterintuitive – cause and effect are distant in time and space, but decision-makers rather tend to look for causes “near” their effects. The solution is not to concentrate on the symptoms of the problem, but on its causes. [13]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">System dynamics</span> Study of non-linear complex systems

System dynamics (SD) is an approach to understanding the nonlinear behaviour of complex systems over time using stocks, flows, internal feedback loops, table functions and time delays.

The twelve leverage points to intervene in a system were proposed by Donella Meadows, a scientist and system analyst who studied environmental limits to economic growth.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Systems thinking</span> Examining complex systems as a whole

Systems thinking is a way of making sense of the complexity of the world by looking at it in terms of wholes and relationships rather than by splitting it down into its parts. It has been used as a way of exploring and developing effective action in complex contexts, enabling systems change. Systems thinking draws on and contributes to systems theory and the system sciences.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Peter Senge</span> American systems scientist (born 1947)

Peter Michael Senge is an American systems scientist who is a senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management, co-faculty at the New England Complex Systems Institute, and the founder of the Society for Organizational Learning. He is known as the author of the book The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jay Wright Forrester</span> American operations researcher

Jay Wright Forrester was an American computer engineer, management theorist and systems scientist. He spent his entire career at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, entering as a graduate student in 1939, and eventually retiring in 1989.

The word ‘dynamics’ appears frequently in discussions and writing about strategy, and is used in two distinct, though equally important senses.

<i>The Fifth Discipline</i> 1990 book by Peter Senge

The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization is a book by Peter Senge focusing on group problem solving using the systems thinking method in order to convert companies into learning organizations that learn to create results that matter as an organization. The five disciplines represent classical approaches for developing three core and timeless learning capabilities: fostering aspiration, developing reflective conversation, and understanding complexity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mental model</span> Way of representing external reality within ones mind

A mental model is an internal representation of external reality: that is, a way of representing reality within one's mind. Such models are hypothesized to play a major role in cognition, reasoning and decision-making. The term for this concept was coined in 1943 by Kenneth Craik, who suggested that the mind constructs "small-scale models" of reality that it uses to anticipate events. Mental models can help shape behaviour, including approaches to solving problems and performing tasks.

John David Sterman is the Jay W. Forrester Professor of Management, and the current director of the MIT System Dynamics Group at the MIT Sloan School of Management. He is also co-faculty at the New England Complex Systems Institute. He is mostly considered as the current leader of the System Dynamics school of thought. He is the author of Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World.

In business management, a learning organization is a company that facilitates the learning of its members and continuously transforms itself. The concept was coined through the work and research of Peter Senge and his colleagues.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social system</span> Patterned series of interrelationships existing between people, groups, and institutions

In sociology, a social system is the patterned network of relationships constituting a coherent whole that exist between individuals, groups, and institutions. It is the formal structure of role and status that can form in a small, stable group. An individual may belong to multiple social systems at once; examples of social systems include nuclear family units, communities, cities, nations, college campuses, religions, corporations, and industries. The organization and definition of groups within a social system depend on various shared properties such as location, socioeconomic status, race, religion, societal function, or other distinguishable features.

David Kantor was an American systems psychologist, organizational consultant, and clinical researcher. He is the founder of three research and training institutes, the author of numerous books and articles, and the inventor of a series of psychometric instruments that provide insight into individual and group behaviors. His groundbreaking empirical research revealed a fundamental structure to all communication, known as Structural Dynamics, which provides the solution to the most common communication challenges experienced in any human system. Kantor's Four Player Model has been referenced by hundreds of other theorists including Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline, Bill Isaacs in Dialogue: The Art of Thinking Together, and Michael Jensen and Werner Erhard in their revolutionary leadership program: Being a Leader and the Effective Exercise of Leadership as Your Natural Self Expression. His work has made a significant contribution to both family systems therapy and organizational theory and practice.

A system archetype is a pattern of behavior of a system. Systems expressed by circles of causality have therefore similar structure. Identifying a system archetype and finding the leverage enables efficient changes in a system. The basic system archetypes and possible solutions of the problems are mentioned in the section Examples of system archetypes. A fundamental property of nature is that no cause can affect the past. System archetypes do not imply that current causes affect past effects.

Fixes that fail is a system archetype that in system dynamics is used to describe and analyze a situation, where a fix effective in the short-term creates side effects for the long-term behaviour of the system and may result in the need of even more fixes. This archetype may be also known as fixes that backfire or corrective actions that fail. It resembles the Shifting the burden archetype.

Accidental Adversaries is one of the ten system archetypes used in system dynamics modelling, or systems thinking. This archetype describes the degenerative pattern that develops when two subjects cooperating for a common goal, accidentally take actions that undermine each other's success. It is similar to the escalation system archetype in terms of pattern behaviour that develops over time.

The environmental sustainability problem has proven difficult to solve. The modern environmental movement has attempted to solve the problem in a large variety of ways. But little progress has been made, as shown by severe ecological footprint overshoot and lack of sufficient progress on the climate change problem. Something within the human system is preventing change to a sustainable mode of behavior. That system trait is systemic change resistance. Change resistance is also known as organizational resistance, barriers to change, or policy resistance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Friday Night at the ER</span> Experiential team-learning game

Friday Night at the ER is an experiential team-learning game. Played on game boards at tables with four players per board, each gameplay session is followed by a detailed debriefing in which participants relate the simulation experience to their own work and gain insights for performance improvement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Growth and underinvestment</span> System archetype

The growth and underinvestment archetype is one of the common system archetype patterns defined as part of the system dynamics discipline.

The escalation archetype is one of possible types of system behaviour that are known as system archetypes.

<i>Thinking In Systems: A Primer</i> An introduction to System Dynamics and systems analysis

Thinking in Systems provides an introduction to systems thinking by Donella Meadows, the main author of the 1972 report The Limits to Growth, and describes some of the ideas behind the analysis used in that report.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Forrester, J. W. (1975). Collected Papers of Jay W. Forrester. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Wright-Allen Press. http://dieoff.org/page23.htm Archived 2010-11-22 at the Wayback Machine
  2. ↑ The Systems Thinker. Pegasus Communications, Inc. Waltham, MA.
  3. ↑ Senge, P. et al. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. New York: Doubleday Currency.
  4. 1 2 Attractiveness Principle at Systems-thinking.org. http://www.systems-thinking.org/theWay/sap/ap.htm
  5. 1 2 Powell, Bob (2001). The Attractiveness Principle. Continuous Improvement Associates. 1–2. http://www.exponentialimprovement.com/cms/uploads/flyer_attractiveness_principle2p.pdf
  6. 1 2 3 Braun, William (2002). The System Archetypes: 21–23. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-06. Retrieved 2011-01-22.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  7. ↑ Mildeová, Stanislava and Vojtko, Viktor (2006). Selected Chapters of System Dynamics. KARTPRINT. 86–87. ISBN   80-88870-60-7.
  8. ↑ Mildeová, Stanislava and Vojtko, Viktor (2003). Systémová dynamika. Oeconomica. 39. ISBN   80-245-0626-2.
  9. 1 2 Sherrer, J. Alex (2010). Fix It With Systems Thinking: Part 4. Project Management Road Trip. http://www.pmroadtrip.com/art09004c.html#ATTRACTIVENESS
  10. ↑ Forrester, Jay (1971). Counterintuitive behavior of social systems. Technology Review. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-08-23. Retrieved 2009-09-03.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  11. ↑ Duncan, Richard C. (2007). The olduvai theory: terminal decline imminent. http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/olduv_7.htm
  12. ↑ Attractiveness Principle Systems Archetype. SystemsWiki. "Attractiveness Principle Systems Archetype - SystemsWiki". Archived from the original on 2011-07-28. Retrieved 2011-01-22.
  13. ↑ Sterman, John D. (2000). Business Dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. McGraw Hill. 22. ISBN   0-07-231135-5.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.