Do you want to be a Ferrari or a Toyota?
We will come back to this in a minute. Before that, let's talk about something that shapes how we think and make decisions.
Systems thinking helps us understand how connected parts influence one another and produce patterns over time. It encourages us to look beyond individual events and ask what keeps producing them. [1]
A system is a set of connected parts whose interactions produce behaviour. The company we work for, our marriage, our career, and the coffee shop we visit every day can all be understood as systems.
Essentially, systems thinking means moving from parts to connections, and from connections to patterns.
But different situations require different responses. The Cynefin framework helps us distinguish between four main domains: clear, complicated, complex, and chaotic. It also recognises a fifth domain for situations where we have not yet established which context we are in. [2]
Let's look at the four main domains.
1. Clear Systems
In a clear system, the relationship between cause and effect is readily apparent. We know what needs to be done, and established procedures usually work.
Think of cooking a familiar dish using a reliable recipe, with the right ingredients and equipment. Following the steps carefully will usually produce the expected result.
Our job here is not necessarily to be clever or innovative. Our job is to be precise.
Checklists become especially useful in these situations. We all forget things or skip steps. A checklist helps us carry out a familiar process consistently.
2. Complicated Systems
In a complicated system, the relationship between cause and effect exists, but it may take analysis or specialist expertise to understand it.
Aircraft repair, tax planning, financial modelling, and many aspects of medical diagnosis fit this description.
When we find ourselves in a complicated situation, a useful first step is to slow down and analyse it. The next is to find an expert, preferably someone with expertise relevant to the problem.
A heart surgeon, for example, would not usually be the right specialist to treat a tooth problem.
Choosing the right expert matters as much as recognising that we need one.
3. Complex Systems
In a complex system, patterns emerge through interactions, and the relationship between cause and effect often becomes clear only in hindsight.
Raising a teenager is a useful example. What worked last week may fail this week. Their body, thinking, relationships, and priorities are changing, and our responses influence what happens next.
Experts can still help, but neither expertise nor a checklist can guarantee a particular outcome.
We can try small experiments, observe what happens, and adjust as we learn. The experiments should be limited enough that an unsuccessful result does not cause serious harm.
The aim is to stay directionally right while remaining willing to change course. [2][3]
4. Chaotic Systems
Beginning in September 1982, seven people in the Chicago area died after taking Tylenol capsules contaminated with cyanide. Johnson & Johnson responded with recalls and public warnings. [4]
The initial emergency illustrates a chaotic situation: people needed protection before investigators could establish the full picture.
In chaos, we cannot establish reliable relationships between cause and effect quickly enough to guide our first response. The immediate priority is to contain the danger and create enough stability to investigate.
One of the biggest mistakes we can make here is falling into analysis paralysis. We want to understand everything before acting, even when waiting allows the damage to grow.
We still need analysis. But first, we need to stabilise the situation. [2]
Figuring Out Which System We Are In
In real life, we do not know what each day will bring. We certainly do not receive a label telling us which kind of situation we are facing.
The same company, relationship, or career can contain several different kinds of problems at once.
Processing a routine invoice might be clear. Resolving an unusual accounting issue might be complicated. Finding a market for a new product might be complex. Responding to an unfolding emergency might be chaotic.
So, before choosing a response, we need to understand the situation.
One useful mnemonic is DART, presented by Sandeep Swadia, also known as theMITmonk: Deconstruct, Analyse, Recognise, and Test. [5]
D: Deconstruct
Break the problem into parts, then look at how those parts interact. Are they stable, or are they constantly shifting?
A: Analyse
Ask what you know about cause and effect. Is the relationship obvious? Can an expert work it out? Or will you understand it only after something happens?
R: Recognise
Ask whether you have seen something similar before. You may recognise a useful pattern, but familiarity alone does not mean the same response will work.
T: Test
Where appropriate, run the smallest useful test before committing to a larger response.
The caveat is an urgent chaotic situation. If harm is unfolding, stabilisation comes first. Testing and deeper analysis can follow once there is enough order to make them useful.
Back to Ferrari and Toyota
Now, what does any of this have to do with being a Ferrari or a Toyota?
We often frame business choices as binary. Build a premium product with high margins and limited volume, or build an everyday product that reaches a much larger market.
That can be a useful starting point. But I think we sometimes mistake the tradeoffs in an existing system for permanent limits on what is possible.
Consider Apple. In July 2016, the company announced that it had sold its billionth iPhone. [6]
To me, the iPhone illustrates how premium positioning can coexist with enormous scale. It is not a luxury product in exactly the same sense as a Ferrari, but it challenges the assumption that a premium product must remain scarce.
This does not mean every tradeoff disappears. It means we should examine the assumptions behind the choice.
What makes quality expensive in our current system? What becomes harder as we grow? Which constraints are unavoidable, and which come from how we have organised the work?
Those questions connect the Ferrari and Toyota metaphor to systems thinking. Instead of choosing between two familiar outcomes immediately, we can investigate what produces them.
Ultimately, the limits we accept influence the systems we build, and those systems influence what becomes possible.
We cannot guarantee that the world will meet us at our level of courage and hope. But we can bring that courage and hope to the work of questioning assumptions, testing possibilities, and building something better.
So, do you want to be a Ferrari or a Toyota?
Before you choose, ask whether you can build a system that combines the qualities you admire in both.
Sources
- The Donella Meadows Project: Learning to Connect the Dots: Developing Children's Systems Literacy
- The Cynefin Company: Enhancing Decision Making with the Cynefin Framework and Applying Complexity Science Informed Strategy with Estuarine Mapping
- The Cynefin Company: Cynefin Framework and Estuarine Mapping: Strategic Frameworks for an Era of Competition
- TIME: How Poisoned Tylenol Became a Crisis Management Teaching Model
- Sandeep Swadia, theMITmonk: Systems thinking and the DART mnemonic
- Apple Newsroom: Apple Celebrates One Billion iPhones
Comments