Up Your Upstream Health Leadership: 8 Systems Thinking Methods, Models, and Tools to Transform Your Community

Blip-Zip Executive Summary

Unleash the Power of Systems Thinking in Upstream Health Leadership! This article explores how Systems Thinking, a framework for understanding complex problems, empowers health leaders to design sustainable solutions. Discover eight methods to strengthen your community health initiatives!

Blip-Zip Takeaways

• Uncover Hidden Connections: Systems Thinking helps analyze complex interactions within your health program using tools like Network Analysis.
• Preventative Power: Move beyond reactive solutions. Design interventions that address root causes and stop problems before they arise.
• Sustainable Success: Break the cycle of challenges! Systems Thinking empowers leaders to design long-lasting solutions for a healthier community.

Key Words and Themes (#Hashtags)

#SystemsThinking #HealthcareLeadership #CommunityHealth #PublicHealth #NetworkAnalysis #AgentBasedModeling #ProblemSolving #Sustainability #RootCauses #PreventativeCare

Introduction to Systems Thinking Methods, Models, and Tools

Systems thinking uses various methods, models, and tools to address and solve complex problems, particularly in the initial stages of conceptual development. It is instrumental in addressing community, national, and global health challenges, such as leveraging the social determinants of health, pandemic response, health security, and sustainable development. Systems analysis involves multiple interacting agents at all levels, and it requires leaders to see the patterns of interactions and interrelations connected with a problem. This approach is crucial in the inter-professional approach to healthcare or community health services.

Upstream Health Leadership’s Dilemma

Health organizations are becoming increasingly complex and messy, with problems relating to other parts of their organization or communities. Health leaders often react superficially to events and behavior patterns, but a deeper understanding of structures, processes, and relationships is needed. Systems thinking methods, models, and tools can help uncover and understand dysfunctional structures, preventing biased solutions and promoting systemic causes and effects. Therefore, health leaders must take precautions such as being mindful of systemic causes and effects and being more inclusive within and outside the organization for sustainable solutions.¹

Problems are messy and complex, and health leaders need to understand other perspectives to see different possibilities. Healthy organizations are a function of relationships and processes. The systems approach to sorting through complex problems eliminates biased decisions, unintended consequences, and invisible third-order effects. Health leaders and policymakers must study the interaction and relations of the parts as they pertain to the whole, rather than just the fragmented pieces. Rather than be focused on things, relationships throughout the systems become more important. Healthy organizations are networks of healthy community-level relationships.^1,2,3

Responsibilities in organizations are typically organized into specific roles and disciplines, focusing on thinking within these boundaries rather than recognizing opportunities outside these lines. Health and non-health leaders have been taught to think within the limits of these lines rather than see the opportunities outside the lines.³

Systems thinking methods, models, and tools are widely applicable and involve a broad range of theories and methods to investigate complex problems and processes. Human, machine, and software are used to conduct experiments, make observations, collect, organize, and analyze data. Although it is only sometimes applied across professions, let’s dig deeper into how these categories translate into practical applications.

Learn more

Beyond Leader Development: Insights to Igniting and Revolutionizing Strategic-Minded Leader Development for a Healthier Tomorrow

Categories: Hard and Soft

Systems tools can be categorized into hard and soft methods. Engineering and management approaches are used to analyze systems, with engineers using well-defined methods and designers using qualitative methods. Systems thinking involves addressing significant problems or opportunities at various levels using tools to bridge both approaches.

Hard methods, such as systems analysis, engineering, and operations research, prioritize technical factors and scientific approaches to problem-solving. Hard system tools include Quality, Function, Deployment Diagrams, Functional Decomposition models, Integrated Definition (IDEF), Functional Flow Block Diagram, Universal Modeling Language (UML), and various modeling and statistical tools.⁴

Quality improvement and systems thinking tools aim to address problems. A key difference lies in their approach. Quality improvement tools like RACI matrices often focus on specific, well-defined issues within a system. On the other hand, systems thinking methods take a broader perspective, using tools like network analysis to examine interactions and relationships between different parts of a system. This allows them to identify root causes and design solutions for the entire system, not just isolated parts.

Soft system problems often involve fuzzy, unstructured, and ambiguous requirements and are assumed to be messy or poorly defined. Soft methods focus on human factors, creativity, and intuition to solve problems or develop strategies. They often prioritize learning and understanding over a solution. Examples of soft methods include Peter Checkland’s Soft System Methodology and traditional quality improvement tools like RACI Matrixes and Swim Lane Charts.

Systems thinking practitioners use hard methods and soft instruments, but distinguishing between the two is crucial. Analysts use Soft methods at analysts’ discretion, focusing on improvements to organizational or system-wide problems using concepts and creativity.⁵

Soft methods offer broad problem definitions and stakeholder opinions, while hard methods provide quantitative evaluations and isolated solutions. Integrating these approaches requires creativity and flexibility. Soft methods provide better insight into problems, allowing for more precise application of hard systems design and development.

Applied systems thinking intersects or overlaps these two methods, providing a new power for applying systems thinking in various healthcare and public health settings. Table 1 illustrates the importance of systems thinkers’ leveraging both methods for the right problem with the proper set of players, ensuring a more precise understanding of the relationship between hard and soft methods.⁴

Table 1: Methods, Models, and Tools

Type and Description	Description With Example
Agent-Based Modeling (ABM): Used to create simulated or visual representations of complex systems. Models individual agents (i.e., actors and stakeholders) who interact with each other and the environment. Although interactions or non-interactions are based on simple, pre-defined rules, in a complex system ABM identifies gaps, emergent behaviors, underlying patterns, and relationships leading to improved policies, processes, or services.	Study incentives with Accountable Care Organization (ACO) agents: payers, providers, and patients to share risk, payment, and savings for congestive heart failure (CHF) procedures.6
Network Analysis (or Social Network Analysis) uses graphical methods to analyze relations between nodes. Social network analysis applies network theory to social entities (e.g., individuals, groups, organizations) to understand nodes (individual actors within a network) and interrelations (the type of relationships) between actors and stakeholders.	While progress in understanding networks, structures, and development has been made, more is needed to know about the effectiveness of their contributions to the quality of care and patient safety. According to a synthesis of 29 published articles, evidence of the healthcare workforce’s social networks reveals insights and effects on adopting and coordinating strategic initiatives.7
Scenario Planning or Futuring: This integrative strategic planning method uses tools to identify and analyze possible future events, alternative outcomes, and actionable insights. It can involve quantitative projections and qualitative judgments about alternative futures. The real value lies in learning from the process rather than the actual scenarios.	Scenario planning was used to focus on high-impact, uncertain driving forces affecting the field of radiology.8
Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis (PIPA): PIPA is a workshop-based process involving stakeholders that combines impact pathway logic models and network mapping to create clarity of complexity and sustainable solutions. PIPA workshops help participants uncover assumptions and underlying mental models about how projects or policies should be developed and implemented.	A case assessed threats of emerging infectious disease: Avian Influenza to Ebola resulting from complex social and ecological interactions in Africa. This case examined the disease dynamics and consequences of poverty and social justice. The process facilitated the design of policies to identify pathways to improve health for people experiencing poverty and inform policy institutions and field practitioners.9
Process Mapping Or Diagraphs and Systemigrams: Tools such as flow charts to provide pictorial representations of a sequence of actions and responses. Their use can be flexible, such as clarity of current processes and identifying bottlenecks, constraints, or inefficient steps to produce an “As-Is” versus “To-Be” map or visual.	A sequential and hierarchical process map of a community-based anticoagulation clinic was produced using interview results, walk-throughs, training sessions, and a review of protocols and policies. The study concluded that evidence exists information in an external representation affects better decision-making.10
Stock And Flow Diagrams: Stock and flow diagrams are quantitative system dynamics tools that illustrate a system’s potential for model-based policy analysis in a simulated, dynamic environment. They explicitly incorporate feedback to understand complex system behavior and capture non-linear dynamics.	Stock and flow diagrams, CLDs, and systemigram to uncover barriers to health, sanitation, and nutrition in rural Georgia. The workshop series resulted in the significant players understanding the impacts of the causes and effects of actions and decisions on each other throughout the system. When everyone could see clearly how their different goals and incentives had led to fragmented and piecemeal efforts, a strategic and holistic approach to improving disparities followed 12
Causal Loop Diagrams (CLD): Purpose and Description: CLDs produce qualitative illustrations of mental models, focused on causality and feedback loops. Feedback loops can be reinforcing or balancing. CLDs explain the role of such loops within a system.	In many countries, health system expenditures have increased; pressures on affordability and accessibility in Singapore’s health system are mounting. CDLs were used to elucidate complexities brought about by multiple interconnected subsystems and their complex relationships.11
Systems Dynamics Modeling: A multi-varied approach uses tools to understand the behavior of complex systems over time. Methods include stocks and flows and feedback loops designed to solve problems and assess the impacts of changing variables over small periods while allowing for feedback and various interactions and delays.	The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sponsored the development of a systems dynamics model of diabetes prevalence and complications to be used for designing and evaluating intervention strategies. Other public health stakeholders can utilize the model for policy analysis and strategic planning at the national, state, and local levels.13
Systems Archetypes (Mental Models): Systems archetypes are mental models describing behaviors and patterns between system parts. These models provide mental templates to illustrate behaviors with balancing and reinforcing feedback loops. Teams can use archetypes to diagnose how a system is working or not working and how performance changes over time.	Archetypes helped hospital leaders recognize patterns of behavior already present in their organizations. They served as a means to gain insight into underlying systems structures, uncover fallacies in strategic thinking, and defy fallacies during policy or strategic initiatives implementation.14

Upstream Leaders Need Systems Thinking: The Martinsburg Initiative (TMI)

As mid-career or senior health and human services (HHS) leaders, we understand the complexities of building strong communities. As an illustration, The Martinsburg Initiative (TMI), focusing on preventing substance use disorders (SUDs) through family strengthening and inter-agency Collaboration, is a beacon of hope in this pursuit. However, achieving long-term success requires a shift in our leadership approach.

We need to move beyond reactive interventions and embrace systems thinking, a robust framework that allows us to see the interconnectedness of problems and design solutions that address root causes. Traditionally, HHS interventions often operate in silos, focusing on individuals experiencing SUDs without considering the broader context. This reactive approach is akin to treating the symptoms of a disease without addressing the underlying cause. While TMI’s identification, risk stratification, and intervention efforts are crucial, they represent a downstream approach.

Systems thinking empowers us to see the bigger picture. By understanding the web of relationships between factors like adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), community support systems, and access to education, we can design interventions that prevent problems before they arise. Table 2 illustrates how systems thinking methods can be applied to strengthen TMI’s impact:

Table 2: How Systems Thinking Methods Can Be Applied

Type	Application
Agent-Based Modeling: Understanding Individual Choices Within the Community: Each individual has attributes like socioeconomic status, exposure to ACEs, and access to support systems. The model can then simulate how interactions with schools, healthcare providers, and law enforcement influence their risk of substance misuse. This allows TMI to identify high-risk groups and tailor interventions accordingly.	The model shows a cluster of teenagers in a low-income neighborhood with limited access to after-school programs exhibiting higher risk scores. TMI can partner with schools and community centers to offer targeted activities, reducing their risk of substance use.
Network Analysis: Mapping Connections and Identifying Gaps: This network analysis map depicts connections between different entities within TMI—schools, police departments, social service agencies, and treatment centers. The thickness of the lines represents the frequency of communication and Collaboration. This network analysis can reveal communication gaps or identify underutilized resources.	The network analysis shows limited communication between schools and mental health providers. TMI can then facilitate training sessions and joint initiatives, creating a stronger safety net for students struggling with emotional trauma, a known risk factor for SUDs.
Process Mapping: Optimizing Intervention Delivery: This is a flowchart outlining the steps involved in TMI’s intervention process, from initial risk identification to treatment referral. Process mapping helps identify bottlenecks and inefficiencies. By streamlining the process, TMI can ensure timely and effective interventions.	Process mapping reveals delays in connecting at-risk individuals with treatment due to complex referral procedures. TMI can then simplify referral pathways, ensuring smoother access to services and reducing the likelihood of relapse.

Implementing these methods requires a shift in leadership culture. We need to foster Collaboration and encourage inter-agency communication, invest in data analysis by collecting and analyzing data to understand risk factors and measure progress, and embrace continuous improvement by evaluating interventions and adapting based on new information.

The benefits are undeniable. By applying systems thinking, TMI can target interventions to focus resources on high-risk individuals and communities, prevent problems by addressing root causes of SUDs before they manifest, and optimize resource allocation by ensuring and measuring impact with tools to track progress and demonstrate the effectiveness of TMI.

Examples like the Martinsburg Initiative offer a promising approach to building a healthier community. However, to truly break the cycle of substance abuse, we need to move beyond traditional methods and embrace systems thinking. By understanding the interconnectedness of factors that influence SUDs, we can design interventions that address the root causes and empower individuals, families, and, ultimately, the entire Martinsburg community.

Power of Systems Thinking for Health Leaders: A Call to Action

Traditional approaches to healthcare often fail to address complex problems like substance abuse. This article highlights the importance of systems thinking for health leaders. Systems thinking is a framework that considers the interconnectedness of issues, allowing us to address root causes and create sustainable solutions.

Systems thinking utilizes various tools like Agent-Based Modeling and Causal Loop Diagrams to identify gaps and patterns within a system. By understanding these relationships, leaders can design interventions that prevent problems before they arise. Take The Martinsburg Initiative (TMI) for example. Their focus on family strengthening and community collaboration exemplifies how systems thinking can break the cycle of substance abuse.

Health leaders must embrace systems thinking. By fostering Collaboration, investing in data analysis, and continuously improving, we can empower individuals and communities to thrive. Let’s move beyond traditional methods and build a healthier future together.

The following deep-dive questions, professional development activities, and references provide a springboard to explore Systems Thinking and its applications in your leadership journey. Utilize these resources to gain a deeper understanding of the concepts, apply them to your specific context, and build your capacity to design and implement effective, sustainable solutions for a healthier community.

Learn more

https://sheldr.com/unleash-7-secret-benefits-value-of-systems-thinking

Deep Dive Discussion Questions

1. Reflect on your current leadership approach. How does it address the interconnectedness of issues within your health or human services organization?
2. Identify a complex challenge within your community. How could Systems Thinking methods be applied to understand the root causes and design preventive interventions?
3. Consider a recent health initiative you implemented. How could Systems Thinking have enhanced your approach?
4. Imagine you are leading a community health coalition. How would you foster collaboration and data analysis to leverage Systems Thinking principles?
5. Think about a potential barrier to implementing Systems Thinking within your organization. How could you address this challenge?

Professional Development and Learning Activities

1. Self-Assessment: Conduct a self-assessment of your Systems Thinking skills using online quizzes or frameworks from organizations like the International Society for Systems Sciences (https://www.isss.org/).
2. Attend a Workshop: Participate in a Systems Thinking workshop or online course offered by universities, professional associations, or consulting firms.
3. Team Discussions: Facilitate discussions within your leadership team or department to explore the potential of Systems Thinking for your organization’s challenges.
4. Develop a Systems Thinking Project: Identify a specific challenge within your community and design a project that utilizes Systems Thinking methods to address it.

References and Resources

1. Thinking in Systems: A Primer by Donella Meadows (https://wtf.tw/ref/meadows.pdf)
2. The Systems Thinking Playbook: How to Apply Systems Thinking to Any Problem by Peter Senge (https://www.amazon.com/Systems-Thinking-Playbook-Exercises-Capabilities/dp/1603582584)
3. The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care (https://www.dartmouthatlas.org/) provides data-driven insights into healthcare disparities.
4. Valaitis, R., et al. (2017). Social Network Analysis of Health Care Workforce Collaboration: A Scoping Review. Jmir Public Health Surveill, 3(2), e44. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22870261/
5. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Social Determinants of Health Resource Page (https://www.cdc.gov/about/sdoh/index.html) explores the upstream factors influencing health outcomes.
6. Agent-Based Modeling in Health Care by John M Epstein (2009) An exploration of Agent-Based Modeling applications in healthcare: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5937544/)
7. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization by Peter Senge (2006), A classic on building learning organizations to address complex challenges: https://www.amazon.com/Fifth-Discipline-Practice-Learning-Organization/dp/B000NY81VS
8. Healthy People 2030 by Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Provides a framework for improving the nation’s health: https://health.gov/healthypeople)
9. A Framework for Assessing and Addressing Social Determinants of Health by National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017) A critical resource on addressing the social factors influencing health: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/21923/a-framework-for-educating-health-professionals-to-address-the-social-determinants-of-health

Citations

1.         Bellinger G. Systems Thinking: an Operational Perspective of the Universe. In. Outsights.1998.

2.         Wheatley M, J. Leadership in the New Science: Learning about Organization from an Orderly Universe. San Francisco, California: Berrett – Koehler Publishers Inc.; 1992.

3.         Wheatley M, J. Leadership in the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. San Francisco, California: Berrett – Koehler Publishers Inc.; 1999.

4.         Edson R. Systems Thinking. Applied. Version 1.1. ANSER Corporation, ASyst Institute; 2008.

5.         Checkland P. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1999.

6.         Liu P, Wu, Shinyi. Health Care Management Science. 2016;19:89-101.

7.         Bae S-H, Nikolaev, Alexander, Seo, Jin Young, Castner, Jessica Castner. Health care provider social network analysis: A systematic review. Nursing Outlook. 2015;63, Issue 5, Pages 566–584 (5):566–584

8.         DR E, NJ, Beauchamp, A., Norbash. Scenario planning. Journal of the American College Radiology. 2011;;8(3):(3):175-179. doi: .

9.         n.a. Health and Disease. The Institute of Development Studies, https://steps-centre.org/health-disease/. Published 2016. Accessed.

10.       Colligan L, Anderson, Janet E., Potts, Henry WW, Berman, Jonathan. Does the process map influence the outcome of quality improvement work? A comparison of a sequential flow diagram and a hierarchical task analysis diagram. BMC Health Serv Res 2010;10(6).

11.       Tsan A, Sheng, Tsan Sheng, Sy, Charlle, Li, Jie. A SYSTEM DYNAMICS MODEL OF SINGAPORE HEALTHCARE AFFORDABILITY. Paper presented at: Winter Simulation Conference2011; Singapore.

12.       Branscomb J. Systems Thinking Tools and Principles for Collaboration and Problem Solving. Georgia Health Policy Center, Atlanta, Georgia: Healthcare Georgia Foundation;2016.

13.       Homer J, Jones, Andrew, Seville, Don, Essien, Joyce, Milstein, Bobby, Murphy, Dana The CDC’s Diabetes Systems Modeling Project: Developing a New Tool for Chronic Disease Prevention and Control 22nd International Conference of the System Dynamics Society 2004; Oxford, England.

14.       Gillies A, Maliapen, Mahendran Using healthcare system archetypes to help hospitals become learning organizations. Journal of Modelling in Management. 2006;3(1):82-99.