How do you define the boundaries and scope of a system?

The initial paragraph sets boundary definition as being "before" systems thinking. I would argue that it is part of it and not necessarily something that you can do first. A clear definition of the problem or situation is required before you can do boundary definition. But as with most things systems thinking it is rarely that "linear".

This is a fascinating question,I first got into systems thinking in the aerospace design context. When I moved to digital transformation space, I found the same tools can be used to solve digital challenges with higher complexity. For me a system is simply a complex organism with multiple interactive elements. It can be a jet engine, complex IT system or an organisation unit. Our ability to segment the system into several elements that allows us to breakdown the complexity.

Understanding the levels of the system will go a long way to framing and scoping the project. Framing your project, and the system, upfront will help you understand the extent of the research that you need to conduct (e.g. Signals, trends, forces, stocks and flows) Here is the breakdown starting from the bottom: 1. Nano environment - Individual Dynamics 2. Nano+ environment - Team / Grouping Dynamics Organization Dynamics 3. Micro-environment - Value System / Community Dynamics 4. Meso-environment - Industry / cross-sectoral dynamics and cooperation 5. Macro-environment - Ecosystem Dynamics

When you come together with others for a purpose, you form a system. Add or remove those who came together; you no longer have that system. Change your (or their) purpose, and you won’t have the same system anymore. What you experience in the system results from the interactions of those who are part of that system. Whether you accomplish your goals and how you feel are a consequence of the purposes and interactions of those who are part of your system. Since the nineties, when I developed this "actor-based" systems framework, I have used it to make the magic of systems thinking accessible to institutions and individuals and bring consciousness to their systems to foster healing, innovation, and livability.

There are many definitions of a system but for me a system is defined as a collection of interrelated objects that each generate their own pattern of behavior over time. These objects are interconnected in such a way that they form a whole, characterised by relationships of part-to-whole, and part-to-part. In simpler terms, a system can be understood as two or more related parts that come together to form a complex whole, each contributing to the system's overall function and behavior.

I would disagree with the statement "avoid getting overwhelmed by the complexity and ambiguity of the real world." You don't set the boundary to try and avoid the complexity, you set the boundary to make it manageable by considering what elements are the most relevant. It also suggests that systems thinking attempts to avoid "real world" complexity when entirely the opposite is true. It should also be noted that in highly complex or chaotic systems it might not be possible to define a boundary in a traditional sense (I.e. Physical or functional) at the outset.

Boundary conditions are part of systems thinking – a necessity in complex system with subsystems. Example: A fighter jet – a system with multiple subsystems that when “isolated” are systems on their own right (e.g., hydraulic “systems”) or the complex U.S. power grid. Once I gain the necessary understanding, then I start expanding my boundary conditions as it is necessary due to the interconnectivity of the systems. Setting boundary conditions come from an initial “top down” mapping of the systems interrelationships – but the boundary conditions are to focus on potential “hidden vulnerabilities” (I coined this term) at the subsystem level. Then I re-define the boundaries conditions to now understand effects among the connected systems.

A system has a purpose. Define that purpose. It allows you to define metrics and monitor results. Without scope, you are rudderless in the sea.

You have to draw a line somewhere between what you think about and what you don't. There is no single rule because it all depends on your perspective. The important thing is to be clear where you draw the boundary and that others know your perspective. If others draw a different boundary it is because they have a different perspective. Neither is right or wrong but clarity about where you draw that distinction is important. Changing perspectives can change the distinction.

An ERAF diagram is one great way to map out your conceptual understanding of the system. Sometimes you don't know the boundary and scope up front and it takes an iterative process to figure it out. Different people have different perspectives of the system so talk to many different people.

Fropping rules can play a role here. Fropping is a portmanteau of "framing" AND "stopping". Depending on your contraints you can set your fropping rules at the start to define how wide and deep, or high you go in defining the boundaries and when to stop. This prevents you from going down rabbit holes when you don't have time.

Boundaries are hard to define. It takes time and effort to understand the rules and mechanisms behind any system. In practice, the purpose and the limitation will define the boundaries. However, when people brainstorm systematic solutions, it is a common mistake that we need to avoid. To come up with a systematic solution, it is always suggested to focus on the first minimal loop cycle. After that, we start to explore the connection of the environment and the interdependence of each stakeholder. By understanding the environment and others' limitations, we will be closer to coming up with systematic solutions that would align with our purpose and minimize our negative disruption.

The biggest pitfall is assuming systems thinking is only for scientific issues and minds. Everything in nature and business is connected to something. Ignoring that creates silos, which are poison to efficiency and effectiveness. First, make systems thinking a habit. Second, start simply, by reframing your view. Consider who's affected and who you rely upon. Brainstorm what's affected and what's relied upon. Look for patterns. This is systems thinking. Third, visualize the system via journey maps and swim-lane, affinity, tree, fishbone, and inter-relationship diagrams. Fourth, solve for the greater good. Emphasize lifetime value. Ensure all parties buy-in to the optimal way forward. Set up contingencies early to keep agile and on-track.

The best way to improve is to develop the habit of thinking about your thinking. So practice metacognition. You can do this by asking yourself simple questions. 1. What am I choosing to include or exclude? 2. How are these things organised? 3. How are these things related? 4. Do these relationships have parts? 5. From who or what's perspective? These simple questions help you think more complexly and more effectively. Then ask these questions from others so you get their point of view as well.