Systems Thinking Approaches in Organizations and Projects

Assessment PPMP20012
Title: Systems Thinking Approaches in Organizations and Projects
Name
Date
Institution

INTRODUCTION
Systems engineering within the open and closed systems is methodological in design for
technical management of projects and organizations. This approach to solving real issues is
complex because it involves an analysis of general systems and their mechanization. Globally,
the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) provides a strategy for effective
engineering systems. This is an organized interdisciplinary approach to problem identification,
design, and support systems for products, services and enterprises. Operating through principles,
models and theories, SEBoK revolves around the life cycle processes and engineering practices.
It combines knowledge, competencies, machines, people, and technology plus management
elements. Therefore a systems thinking approach is a wide concept that requires a breakdown
analysis of different stages using techniques and tools. It puts into consideration the customers,
system users and its stakeholders. A system refers to a large unit made up of basic elements,
units, objects, or variables from different subsystems. A systems approach to organization
involves the interaction of these objects which have different attributes and behaviors. This essay
looks at systems lifecycle management through engineering risks, organizational forms,
structures, culture and the risk management tools. It looks at the environmental influences and
how system contents influence the relevance of such systems in a project or an organization.
ANALYSING LEADING INDICATORS
General Systems Management
Multinational companies suffer the effects of poor systems management caused by failed
systems cycles (Ferreira & Behl, 2014, p. 105). For example, BP experienced a disaster in the
Texas City explosion in which a large industrial explosion killed more than 500 people with

thousands suffering injuries. Negligence, poor safety measures and inadequate preventive
strategies led to the failure of the structural system. General systems management in engineering
provides a framework foundation for the engineering of such processes (Park, Seager, Rao,
Convertino, & Linkov, 2013). The US Chemical Safety Board cited gaps in the interpretive
systems approach and its analysis of the cause effect factors in the failed Texas City systems. In
this incidence, the company did not have a holistic approach. Ferreira and Behl (2014) point out
the importance of multiple stakeholders engaging in an analysis of individual elements in a
system cycle. An example is the relationship between subsets in which companies cooperate in
the realization of all measurable objectives. In the Texas City calamity, BP, Transocean and
industry regulators in the region had a responsibility to prevent the three months oil spills across
the gulf. A rigorous risk management plan would have analyzed all potential risks.
Liao, Lezoche, Panetto, Boudjlida, & Lores (2015) use a survey to investigate the
challenges in systems interconnections thereby identifying limitations in a lifecycle. In this
analysis, strategic implementation using informed decisions defines the planning, execution and
systems feedback modes. This is what natural risk management organizations continue to apply
in order to protect the whole system (Milham, 2014). Higher performance in a system focuses
on the optimization strategies that reduce on wastes and increase value. Indicators of effective
systems approaches lie within the conceptualized model with its business, organizational and
structural perspectives.
Strategic Portfolio alignment
Program and portfolio management of general systems includes an analysis of its process
features within the element behaviors (Strasser, et al., 2015). This defines the change

management approach undertaken, new innovation used and the best action. Portfolio alignment
brings out the strategic planning of processes in an innovative way to address effects caused by
an interaction. In a business portfolio, it captures the artistic and scientific use of policies and
objectives while balancing impending risks. In large systems mixing and matching strategies and
objectives posses the biggest challenge. Using (SEBoK) project managers and companies guide
the functional and structural operations in a system. The Texas City refinery disaster is a pointer
to the significance of an effective hazard analysis methodology with tools for implementation
plans in a lifecycle management process. Portfolio alignment is an analysis of multiple elements
for strategic implementation in a common unit (Ferreira & Behl, 2014). For example, the
adoption of an effective electronic office system requires an integrative approach in which
people and technology play a crucial role (Bandarouk, Parry, & Furtmueller, 2017, p. 98).
In the Deepwater Horizon oil spillage, the national commission analyzing its gaps
highlighted offshore drilling from scientific findings from different sectors. Among them were
specialists from the cultural, ecological and economic spheres. A multi-sector monitoring
process working towards a common goal under one umbrella requires a proper systems
integration (Ferreira & Behl, 2014). SEBoK supports the inclusion of stakeholder requirements
and verification processes. Lifecycle systems depend on support systems for implementation
across different stages (Davies, Dodgson, & Gann, 2016).
Organizational Structures
In Australia and New Zealand the AS/NZS 15288 Systems engineering guides the
systems lifecycle processes. This is a standard system thinking approach relevant for the context
of a system. It addresses capability, lifecycle and quality factors for effective project and
configuration. This is one way in which a system can respond to mishaps in its mechanisms