Archetypes: repetitive behaviors in complex systems
Models are simplified abstractions of real systems. Man has long used models to understand and explain the systems he has studied. In physics models have been used to explain the behavior of forces, to learn the Ohm law in electricity, to understand what electrons are in chemistry, etc. Without changing the real or real system, with the models you can do tests, ask questions like "What would happen if we did this…" and answer. Each of these tests is called a policy. For example, different policies can be used in business management: "What if we did a brutal marketing campaign? What if we duplicate template? What would happen if we lowered prices?..." Models can be used to answer these questions.
Multiple variables can be considered in the development of the models. There is one of the problems of the models: what to put in and what not in that model. However, for the purpose of this article is not very important as they will analyze behaviors that are often repeated, archetypes.
Archetypes
Despite the variety of systems that can be analyzed, the fundamental objective of archetypes is to explain repeated behaviors. Sometimes the problem is not solved because its origin is not found. Archetypes are a useful tool for explaining and classifying the structures underlying behaviours.
When analyzing the behavior of a real system it is observed that it is the behavior of an archetype. The only way to find the archetype in reality is to observe the behavior of this real system. Once the behavior of the archetype is identified, the next work will be to find the variables and their relationships. This will allow you to understand and explain the system.
So far eight archetypes have been found. Only four appear here. Those not mentioned are: Escalation, Limits to success, Shifting the burden and Tragedy of the commons.
Fixes that fail
When a problem appears, a solution is invented that supposedly fixes that problem. The problem improves in the short term and the solution is accepted based on the good results obtained. However, this solution has effects that reinforce the problem in the longer term and now, again, if given the same solution that has been used previously, the same small improvement will be achieved in the short term, but in the long term the problem will increase.
There are many examples of this behavior: if when rolling that sounds you throw water, at first it seems that the sound has silenced and has been solved, but from there will come more noise than a season ago. The drug addict solves his problem in the short term, increasing that dependence for the future. Punishment of a human being or a group may result in the achievement of a close goal, but disagreement over time will increase moderately. When economic expenses are reduced in the company, with the exclusion of workers, you can reduce expenses and momentarily improve the economy of the company, but if quality is reduced by doing the same job and customers are lost, you can further reduce future income.
If in devising any solution, it is not taken into account that short-term and long-term effects can be counterposed, the solution that seems beneficial through short-term effects analysis can be very harmful. The consequence of all this is that, once the situation that was getting worse, something improved and, instead, if it evolves downwards, we have to be very careful with that solution that seemed good.
Improving the Best (Success to the successful)
If at some point we analyze how time, money or any other resource should be distributed between both tasks, it is not surprising that more is given to those who have greater profitability. Giving more to the one who offers more, it will continue to improve and, giving less to the one who returns less, it will become less and less. If one does not take into account the amount given to each one by reviewing again what each has translated, the resulting conclusion will contribute to increasing the difference between the two.
If a family helps a lot the family member who is better off from school and not others, what went well will have more chances to increase the difference. When you have to choose between two computer programs, if you choose one and learn well, what is known well before the new versions will be easier and powerful and the change of program will become more and more difficult. If two products are produced and better results are obtained with one of them, marketing, production, research, etc. will make the product more profitable and the difference will become increasingly evident.
What best explains this type of behavior is the saying "It has happened as I said." Sometimes it is intended to know the results obtained before conducting the experiment. From experience we do not learn, we want to show that what we believe is true and for this we do not perform an experiment or a clear measurement, even if it is without realizing it. Another conclusion that can be drawn is that decisions taken at all times can be affected by those already adopted. Therefore, a timely modification or decision can have important effects in the future.
Drifting the goals
When a form of organization is not able to achieve the preset objectives, it may be easier to modify the objectives than to analyze the root causes of this achievement.
The most common cause is lack of patience. The impossibility of achieving the previously proposed objectives can be immediately determined by the presentation of others closer. Thus, instead of trying to bring reality closer to goals, realities
pulls targets and plunges into a continuous process of worsening. After a season without results, a sports team sets goals that can be more easily attainable, rather than training more and trying to achieve higher long-term goals. Changes in production processes in the company can be organized very slowly, without entering into a deeper change that would have more work in the short term but would also have better long-term results. Instead of preparing food, if something already prepared is introduced into the microwave and eaten, the ability to swallow worse and worse food develops. Their parents had them pick up the frets that their children left where they were, but for not discussing them they began to keep their shoes, then coat, umbrella… until their parents had to keep everything.
The drop in the objective levels exposed in this archetype is usually very slow, almost unconscious, as something indisputable. This phenomenon is called the frog paradox. If the frog is thrown into boiling water, it immediately jumps outside, but if it is thrown into cold water and heated slowly, the frog is unable to notice that temperature change and dies calcined.
Growth and underinvestment
If the growing system stops growing, most of the time the causes of the interruption of this process are looked for externally. Those who have worked with System Dynamics are clear that the causes of system behavior are almost always in structures.
Many of the startups that are created do things very well at first, after reaching such a large size, fear to keep growing because the market has reached the top. So, if the number of requirements they receive continues to grow, the quality of the service offered by the company can be reduced. In the period between the decision to increase capacity and obtaining results, customers may be lost, not only for market reasons, but also for the decrease in the quality of the service offered. In times after its growth, the capacity is sufficient to meet the requirements, so the increase in quality can sometimes recover customers until new growth is necessary.
The conclusion to be drawn is that the system itself is limited to itself, not only to external conditions.
Conclusions
Using causal diagram models is the first step in understanding complex systems. You can work the archetypes to follow in that direction. This allows you to explain simpler components of complex situations, allowing you to make correct decisions.
The acceptance of all this in a human group allows for a common approach. In this way, the members of this group will use the same language to face any problem and, with the same objectives, it will cost them less to find a solution accepted and understood by all.
Zu idazle
Zientzia aldizkaria
