| We believe employing a systems perspective provides individuals, groups and organizations a greater likelihood of creating the future they desire with fewer unintended consequences. The endeavor is to promote further awareness and understanding of the power and value of employing a systems perspective and create content essential to enable one to develop and evolve the skill and ability to think and act systemically. |
Accidental Adversaries Systems Archetype
From SystemsWiki
The Accidental Adversaries Systems Archetype represents a structure where two entities which would be in a synergistic relationship end up limiting each others results because of their own activities.
Contents |
[edit] Causal Loop Diagram
Fig. 1 represents the standard Causal Loop Diagram for the Accidental Adversaries Systems Archetype. It begins with the outer Reinforcing Loop (R1) representing the synergistic relationship between A and B.
At some point in time, for any one of multiple possible reasons, one party, A or B, initiates an action which obstructs the other's success. The party who's success is obstructed then initiates action to fix the obstruction. What typically makes matters worse is that the party's fix action actually represents an obstruction to the other party, which in turn initiates a fix action of their own. The fix actions on the part of each party result in the Balancing Loops (B1) & {B2). The interaction between the fix efforts between each of the parties results in the Reinforcing Loop (R2) which serves to undermine the synergy of Reinforcing Loop (R1).
With each party expending more an more energy to fix the obstructions of the other party, and thus creating even more obstruction for the other part, results in a structure that behaves like a escalation structure which continues to further impact the success of each other.
Here's another description of the unfolding dynamic of this structure from Jody Jacobson
- Initially, starts with the intention of a virtuous Reinforcing process (outer loop): Intention is for collaboration--A's activity with B in B's favor, and vice versa, to act in concert to increase the success of each group.
- At some point, early on, A or B starts to make fixes to improve their own success, even beyond what they perceived they could achieve through collaboration.
- As the first one, A or B, but let's say it's B, makes those improvements, it improves B's own success; so, B's individual feedback loop is Reinforcing, for a brief instant.
- As B goes on its merry way increasing its own success, B's fixes (to increase B's success) unintentionally obstruct A's success. Thus, the "+" between the two: As B increases its fixes, the impact of B's activities on A increases [I reversed the A and B in the name of that variable in the diagram I sent to you...errrr, so sorry about that], which then decreases A's Success.
- "A" responds by increasing their own fixes, so A's loop becomes a Balancing loop because their success is going down, so they increase fixes, which increases their own success.
- The CRITICAL incident is then when A's increased fixes to A's success has a negative impact on B's success. This shifts B's feedback loop from Balancing to Reinforcing, as B's Success now decreases, so B, in turn, increases its own fixes, thus increasing the impact on A of B's fixes.
- At that point, both A and B's small causal loops are Balancing, and the three larger systemic loops all are reinforcing.
- Most of the literature indicates the outer reinforcing loop is still available to leverage change.
This structure points out how myopic local activity, with the best of intentions, can lead to an overall limiting development of the global system, and actually inhibit local development as well.
[edit] Stock & Flow Diagram
Fig. 2 represents a Stock & Flow Diagram for the Accidental Adversaries Systems Archetype in Fig 1.
While Fig. 2 seems to represent the Causal Loop Diagram of Fig 1 I'm still having a problem getting the structure to actually execute. I have managed to figured out where that balancing goal is as:
- A inflow = B Activity - (B Obstruction - A Fixes)
The part that has me at a dead end is that A Success is supposed to subtract from A Fixes, though I can't figure out where the A Fixes value comes from so there's something to subtract from. There also needs to be a way to limit A Fixes because if it overshoots and exceeds B Obstruction then the balancing loop B1 turns into a reinforcing loop.
If you have a resolution to this please send Gene and email so this page can be fixed.
[edit] Accidental Adversaries Variant
Fig 3 represents a variant of the Accidental Adversaries structure that also seems to be quite prevalent.
While the description of Fig. 1 indicates that "At some point in time, for any one of multiple possible reasons, one party, A or B, initiates an action which obstructs the other's success," in Fig. 3 A or B, or both, because they like the growth they are experiencing specifically take action to improve their own growth, i.e., A to A or B to B. Is it then this action to improve their own success that serves as an impediment to the other's success. So as A and B seek to improve their own success through Reinforcing Loops (R2) & (R3) their actions suppress the results of the Synergistic Reinforcing Loop (R1) and establish the Negative Reinforcing Loop (R4). The Balancing Loops (B5) & (B6) seem to be completely overshadowed by the Reinforcing Loop (R4).
Fig. 4 is Active Stock & Flow equivalent of Fig. 3. Active meaning that you can click on the elements and investigate them and you can actually Run Simulation right here in the web page.
Fig. 1 - This is the Caption for the Figure [Source]
In this model A to A Ctrl and B to B Ctrl are simply to turn the Reinforcing Loops (R3) & (R4) on and off. Also, the negative feedback of B to B and A to A, which are very controlling factors are set to 1.1, which you can see by investigating the A inflow and B inflow elements.
If you run this model, by clicking on Run Simulation, in its initial state with A to A Ctrl and B to B Ctrl set at zero you will see A Success and B Success are just a little over 1,000. Then if you set both B to B Ctrl and A to A Ctrl sliders to 1 and rerun the model you'll see the success for both A and B has been limited to just above 600. You will also find that by varying A to A Ctrl and B to B Ctrl for individually different values produces varying results for A and B.
[edit] Effective Strategies
This structure points out how myopic local activity, with the best of intentions, can lead to an overall limiting development of the global system, and actually inhibit local development as well.
- A and B need to determine whether it is really better to be partners in creating the future or competitors, and do one or the other, not both. At present A and B are neither as they undermine each others success to promote their own success. Sounds like enemies to me.
- Alternatively, some higher authority could alter the structure in such a way that A to A and B to B didn't promote the individual result of A and B.
- Another alternative would be to alter the structure in such a way that the result is not measured in terms of A and B individually but in terms of the total result of the two of them together. In this way it should be quite quickly evident that each is undermining their own success through their self-serving actions.
[edit] Areas of Concern
- There are currently no known Systems Archetypes that are derivatives of the Accidental Adversaries Systems Archetype.
[edit] Examples
[edit] References
- Causal Loop and Stock & Flow Diagrams created with Vensim
- Simulation created with Simgua
- Systems Archetypes by William Braun
| Online Courses * Content Guide * Bookmarks Feedback to Gene Bellinger |
