system approach to problem solving in mis

Skip to main content
Skip to primary sidebar
Skip to secondary sidebar
Skip to footer

Computer Notes

Computer Fundamental
Computer Memory
DBMS Tutorial
Operating System
Computer Networking
C Programming
C++ Programming
Java Programming
C# Programming
SQL Tutorial
Management Tutorial
Computer Graphics
Compiler Design
Style Sheet
JavaScript Tutorial
Html Tutorial
Wordpress Tutorial
Python Tutorial
PHP Tutorial
JSP Tutorial
AngularJS Tutorial
Data Structures
E Commerce Tutorial
Visual Basic
Structs2 Tutorial
Digital Electronics
Internet Terms
Servlet Tutorial
Software Engineering
Interviews Questions
Basic Terms
Troubleshooting

Header Right

Systems approach to problem solving.

By Dinesh Thakur

Systems approach is widely used in problem solving in different contexts. Researchers in the field of science and technology have used it for quite some time now. Business problems can also be analyzed and solved using this approach. The following steps are required for this:

We’ll be covering the following topics in this tutorial:

Defining the Problem

This is the step when the problem has to be defined. Sometimes one may confuse the symptoms or the exhibition of a behavior to be a problem but actually it may only be a symptom of a larger malaise. It may just exhibit the behavior of a larger phenomenon. It is vital to drill deep into an issue and clearly understand the problem rather than having a superficial understanding of the problem. One must appreciate that this in the initial stage of problem solving and if the problem itself is not correctly diagnosed then the solution will obviously be wrong. Systems approach is therefore used to understand the problem in granular detail to establish requirement and objectives in-depth. By using the systems approach the problem will be analyzed in its totality with inherent elements and their interrelationships and therefore this detailed analysis will bring out the actual problem and separate out the symptom from it.

Developing Alternative Solutions

This the logical next step in the systems approaches for problem solving. In this stage alternative solutions are generated. This requires creativity and innovation. In this stage-the analyst uses creativity to come up with possible solutions to the problem. Typically in this stage only the outline of solutions are generated rather than the actual solutions.

Selecting a Solution

In this step, the solution that suits the requirement and objectives in the most comprehensive manner is selected as the ‘best’ solution. This is done after evaluating all the possible solutions and then comparing the possible set of solutions to find the most suitable solution lot of mathematical, financial and technical models is used to select the most appropriate solution.

Designing the Solution

Once the most appropriate solution is chosen, it is then made into a design document to give it the shape of an actionable solution, as in the evaluation stage, only the outline of the solution is used. At this stage the details of the solution are worked out to create the blueprint for the solution. Several design diagrams are used to prepare the design document. At this stage the requirement specifications are again compared with the solution design to double check the suitability of the solution for the problem.

Implementing the Solution

It is the next step in the process. The solution that has been designed is implemented as per the specifications -laid down in the design document. During implementation care is taken to ensure that there are no deviations from the design.

Reviewing the Solution

This is the final step in the problem solving process where the review of the impact of the solution is noted. This is a stage for finding out if the desired result has been achieved that was set out.

A Systems Approach Example

Let us assume that A is the coach of the Indian cricket team. Let us also assume that the objective that A has been entrusted with is to secure a win over the touring Australian cricket team. The coach uses a systems approach to attain this objective. He starts by gathering information about his own team.

Through systems approach he views his own Indian team as a system whose environment would include the other team in the competition, umpires, regulators, crowd and media. His system, i.e., team itself maybe conceptualized as having two subsystems, i.e., players and supporting staff for players. Each subsystem would have its own set of components/entities like the player subsystem will have openers, middle order batsmen, fast bowlers, wicket keeper, etc. The supporting staff subsystem would include bowling coach, batting coach, physiotherapist, psychologist, etc. All these entities would indeed have a bearing on the actual outcome of the game. The coach adopts a systems approach to determine the playing strategy that he will adopt to ensure that the Indian side wins. He analyses the issue in a stepwise manner as given below:

Step 1: Defining the problem-In this stage the coach tries to understand the past performance of his team and that of the other team in the competition. His objective is to defeat the competing team. He realizes that the problem he faces is that of losing the game. This is his main problem.

Step 2: Collecting data-The coach employs his supporting staff to gather data on the skills and physical condition of the players in the competing team by analyzing past performance data, viewing television footage of previous games, making psychological profiles of each player. The support staff analyses the data and comes up with the following observations:

Both teams use an aggressive strategy during the period of power play. The competing Australian team uses the opening players to spearhead this attack. However, recently the openers have had a personal fight and are facing interpersonal problems.
The game is being played in Mumbai and the local crowd support is estimated to be of some value amounting to around fifty runs. Also the crowd has come to watch the Indian team win. A loss here would cost the team in terms of morale.
The umpires are neutral and are not intimidated by large crowd support but are lenient towards sledging.

Step 3: Identifying alternatives-Based on the collected data the coach generates the following alternate strategies:

Play upon the minds of the opening players of the competitors by highlighting their personal differences using sledging alone.
Employ defensive tactics during power play when the openers are most aggressive and not using sledging.
Keep close in fielders who would sledge and employ the best attacking bowlers of the Indian team during the power play.

Step 4: Evaluating alternatives-After having generated different alternatives, the coach has to select only one. The first alternative may lead to loss of concentration on the part of openers and result in breakthroughs. However, there is a chance that the interpersonal differences between the two openers may have already been resolved before they come to the field and in such a case this strategy will fail. The second strategy provides a safer option in the sense that it will neutralize the aggressive game of the openers but there is limited chance of getting breakthroughs. The third option of employing aggressive close in fielders to play upon the internal personal differences of the openers and at the same time employing the best bowlers may lead to breakthroughs and may also restrict the aggressive openers.

Step 5: Selecting the best alternative-The coach selects the third alternative as it provides him with the opportunity of neutralizing the aggressive playing strategy of the openers as well as increases the chances of getting breakthrough wickets.

Step 6: Implementing and monitoring-The coach communicates his strategy to his players and support staff, instructs support staff to organize mock sessions and tactics to be employed to make the strategy a success. The players and support staff performance is monitored by the coach on a regular basis to ensure that the strategy is employed perfectly.

Simplifying a System or Applying Systems Approach For Problem Solving

The easiest way to simplify a system for better understanding is to follow a two-stage approach.

Partitioning the System into Black Boxes

This is the first stage of the simplification process, in this stage the system is partitioned into black boxes. Black boxes need limited knowledge to be constructed. To construct a black box one needs to know the input that goes into it, the output that comes out of it and its function. The knowledge of how the functionality is achieved is not required for constructing a black box. Black box partitioning helps in the comprehension of the system, as the entire system gets broken down into granular functionalities of a set of black boxes.

Organizing the Black Boxes into Hierarchies

This is the second stage of the simplification process, in this stage the black boxes constructed in the earlier phase are organized into hierarchies so that the relationships among the black boxes is easily established. Once, a hierarchy of the black boxes is established, the system becomes easier to understand as the internal working of the system becomes clearer.

You’ll also like:

What is Systems Approach? Definition and Meaning
Basic Concepts of the Systems Approach
Database Approach
Types of Systems
Information Systems Planning

Dinesh Thakur is a Freelance Writer who helps different clients from all over the globe. Dinesh has written over 500+ blogs, 30+ eBooks, and 10000+ Posts for all types of clients.

For any type of query or something that you think is missing, please feel free to Contact us .

Basic Course

Database System
Management System
Electronic Commerce

Programming

Structured Query (SQL)
Java Servlet

World Wide Web

Java Script
HTML Language
Cascading Style Sheet
Java Server Pages

MBA Knowledge Base

Business • Management • Technology

Home » Management Information Systems » Systems Approach to Problem Solving

Systems Approach to Problem Solving

The systems approach to problem solving used a systems orientation to define problems and opportunities and develop solutions. Studying a problem and formulating a solution involve the following interrelated activities:

Recognize and define a problem or opportunity using systems thinking.
Develop and evaluate alternative system solutions.
Select the system solution that best meets your requirements.
Design the selected system solution.
Implement and evaluate the success of the designed system.

1. Defining Problems and Opportunities

Problems and opportunities are identified in the first step of the systems approach. A problem can be defined as a basic condition that is causing undesirable results. An opportunity is a basic condition that presents the potential for desirable results. Symptoms must be separated from problems. Symptoms are merely signals of an underlying cause or problem.

Symptom: Sales of a company’s products are declining. Problem: Sales persons are losing orders because they cannot get current information on product prices and availability. Opportunity: We could increase sales significantly if sales persons could receive instant responses to requests for price quotations and product availability.

2. Systems Thinking

Systems thinking is to try to find systems, subsystems, and components of systems in any situation your are studying. This viewpoint ensures that important factors and their interrelationships are considered. This is also known as using a systems context, or having a systemic view of a situation. I example, the business organization or business process in which a problem or opportunity arises could be viewed as a system of input, processing, output, feedback, and control components. Then to understand a problem and save it, you would determine if these basic system functions are being properly performed.

The sales function of a business can be viewed as a system. You could then ask: Is poor sales performance (output) caused by inadequate selling effort (input), out-of-date sales procedures (processing), incorrect sales information (feedback), or inadequate sales management (control)? Figure illustrates this concept.

3. Developing Alternate Solutions

There are usually several different ways to solve any problem or pursue any opportunity. Jumping immediately from problem definition to a single solution is not a good idea. It limits your options and robs you of the chance to consider the advantages and disadvantages of several alternatives. You also lose the chance to combine the best points of several alternative solutions.

Where do alternative solutions come from/ experience is good source. The solutions that have worked, or at least been considered in the past, should be considered again. Another good source of solutions is the advice of others, including the recommendations of consultants and the suggestions of expert systems. You should also use your intuition and ingenuity to come up with a number of creative solutions. These could include what you think is an ideal solution. The, more realistic alternatives that recognize the limited financial, personnel, and other resources of most organizations could be developed. Also, decision support software packages can be used to develop and manipulate financial, marketing, and other business operations. This simulation process can help you generate a variety of alternative solutions. Finally, don’t forget that “doing nothing” about a problem or opportunity is a legitimate solution, with its own advantages and disadvantages.

4. Evaluating Alternate Solutions

Once alternative solutions have been developed, they must be evaluated so that the best solution can be identified. The goal of evaluation is to determine how well each alternative solution meets your business and personal requirements. These requirements are key characteristics and capabilities that you feed are necessary for your personal or business success.

If you were the sales manager of a company, you might develop very specific requirements for solving the sales-related information problems of your salespeople. You would probably insist that any computer-based solution for your sales force be very reliable and easy to use. You might also require that any proposed solution have low start-up costs, or have minimal operating costs compared to present sales processing methods.

Then you would develop evaluation criteria and determine how well each alternative solution meets these criteria. The criteria you develop will reflect how you previously defined business and personal requirements. For example, you will probably develop criteria for such factors as start-up costs, operating costs, ease of use, and reliability. Criteria may be ranked or weighted, based on their importance in meeting your requirements.

5. Selecting the Best Solution

Once all alternative solutions have been evaluated, you can being the process of selecting the best solution. Alternative solutions can be compared to each other because they have been evaluated using the same criteria.

Alternatives with a low accuracy evaluation (an accuracy score less than 10), or a low overall evaluation (an overall score less than 70) should be rejected. Therefore, alternative B for sales data entry is rejected, and alternative A, the use of laptop computers by sales reps, is selected.

6. Desingning and Implementing Solution

Once a solution has been selected, it must be designed and implemented. You may have to depend on other business end users technical staff to help you develop design specifications and an implementation plan. Typically, design specifications might describe the detailed characteristics and capabilities of the people, hardware, software, and data resources and information system activities needed by a new system. An implementation plan specifies the resources, activities, and timing needed for proper implementation. For example, the following items might be included in the design specifications and implementation plan for a computer-based sales support system:

Types and sources of computer hardware, and software to be acquired for the sales reps.
Operating procedures for the new sales support system.
Training of sales reps and other personnel.
Conversion procedures and timetable for final implementation.

7. Post Implementation Review

The final step of the systems approach recognizes that an implemented solution can fail to solve the problem for which it was developed. The real world has a way of confounding even the most well-designed solutions. Therefore, the results of implementing a solution should be monitored and evaluated. This is called a postimple-implemented. The focus of this step is to determine if the implemented solution has indeed helped the firm and selected subsystems meet their system objectives. If not, the systems approach assumes you will cycle back to a previous step and make another attempt to find a workable solution.

Operations Research approach of problem solving
Systems Approach to Management
How Creativity Helps in Problem Solving Process?
Case Study on Information Systems: Cisco Systems
The Concept of Systems
Types of Systems
Types of Information Systems
Strategic Information Systems
Business benefits of ERP systems
Role of a Systems Analyst in Organizations

MIS Practice

MIS Executive Interview Questions & Answers

Home » Management Information System

MIS - System Approach

MIS | System Approach: In this tutorial, we will learn about the system approach in management information system, and systems approach features. By IncludeHelp Last updated : June 01, 2023

The system approach is based on the generalization that all things are inter-related and inter-dependent with one another. A system is made up of related and dependent elements that form a unique system. A system is simply an assemblage of things to forming a single unit.

One of the most significant characteristics is that it consists of a subsystem hierarchy. These are the components that form the main device, and so on. For instance, it is possible to view the world as a system in which different national economies are sub-systems.

System Approach as Planning, Organizing and Controlling in MIS

System approach in planning.

Planning is an essential feature of management. Planning involves deciding what needs to be done, who needs to do it, when to do it, and how to do it in advance. Two phases are part of the preparation process:

Developing the strategic.
Formulating the steps which are necessary to accomplish the plan, timing and expense.

System Approach in Organizing

Organizing is important for managers because it leads to successful group action. It also helps to keep people working together. The following points are shows about the System Approach in Organizing -

The good structure of the organization as outlined in the policies and procedure.

Informal organizing.
The individual as a device
The method of organizational contact.
The power chain.
The functional method.
The system for management process.

System Approach in Controlling

Controlling is necessary because the outcome of the desire needs to be achieved. The most popular approach consists of a three-step procedure—

Setting a performance standard requires the quality of performance we need. Quantitative or qualitative maybe these parameters.

Performance assessment against this standard is important to assess performance against standards once a standard has been developed.

Deviation Control-we understand that the first comparison of the norm with real results is made to calculate the deviation.

Systems Approach Features

A system consists of elements that interact. It is a set of interrelated and inter-dependent components organized in a way that generates a cohesive whole.
In their inter-relationships, rather than in isolation from each other, the different subsystems should be examined.
There is a boundary in an organizational structure that defines which parts are internal and which are external.
In a vacuum, there is no device. It receives data, materials and energy as inputs from other systems. Inside a system, these inputs undergo a phase of transformation and exit the system as an output to other systems.
As it is sensitive to its environment, an organization is a dynamic structure. In his climate, he is vulnerable to change.

Taking a systems thinking approach to problem solving

Systems thinking is an approach that considers a situation or problem holistically and as part of an overall system which is more than the sum of its parts. Taking the big picture perspective, and looking more deeply at underpinnings, systems thinking seeks and offers long-term and fundamental solutions rather than quick fixes and surface change.

Whether in environmental science, organizational change management, or geopolitics, some problems are so large, so complicated and so enduring that it’s hard to know where to begin when seeking a solution.

A systems thinking approach might be the ideal way to tackle essentially systemic problems. Our article sets out the basic concepts and ideas.

What is systems thinking?

Systems thinking is an approach that views an issue or problem as part of a wider, dynamic system. It entails accepting the system as an entity in its own right rather than just the sum of its parts, as well as understanding how individual elements of a system influence one another.

When we consider the concepts of a car, or a human being we are using a systems thinking perspective. A car is not just a collection of nuts, bolts, panels and wheels. A human being is not simply an assembly of bones, muscles, organs and blood.

In a systems thinking approach, as well as the specific issue or problem in question, you must also look at its wider place in an overall system, the nature of relationships between that issue and other elements of the system, and the tensions and synergies that arise from the various elements and their interactions.

The history of systems thinking is itself innately complex, with roots in many important disciplines of the 20th century including biology, computing and data science. As a discipline, systems thinking is still evolving today.

How can systems thinking be applied to problem solving?

A systems thinking approach to problem solving recognizes the problem as part of a wider system and addresses the whole system in any solution rather than just the problem area.

A popular way of applying a systems thinking lens is to examine the issue from multiple perspectives, zooming out from single and visible elements to the bigger and broader picture (e.g. via considering individual events, and then the patterns, structures and mental models which give rise to them).

Systems thinking is best applied in fields where problems and solutions are both high in complexity. There are a number of characteristics that can make an issue particularly compatible with a systems thinking approach:

The issue has high impact for many people.
The issue is long-term or chronic rather than a one-off incident.
There is no obvious solution or answer to the issue and previous attempts to solve it have failed.
We have a good knowledge of the issue’s environment and history through which we can sensibly place it in a systems context.

If your problem does not have most of these characteristics, systems thinking analysis may not work well in solving it.

Areas where systems thinking is often useful include health, climate change, urban planning, transport or ecology.

What is an example of a systems thinking approach to problem solving?

A tool called the iceberg mode l can be useful in learning to examine issues from a systems thinking perspective. This model frames an issue as an iceberg floating in a wider sea, with one small section above the water and three large sections unseen below.

The very tip of the iceberg, visible above the waterline, shows discrete events or occurrences which are easily seen and understood. For example, successive failures of a political party to win national elections.

Beneath the waterline and invisible, lie deeper and longer-term trends or patterns of behavior. In our example this might be internal fighting in the political party which overshadows and obstructs its public campaigning and weakens its leadership and reputation.

Even deeper under the water we can find underlying causes and supporting structures which underpin the patterns and trends.

For our failing political party, this could mean party rules and processes which encourage internal conflict and division rather than resolving them, and put off the best potential candidates from standing for the party in elections.

The electoral system in the country may also be problematic or unfair, making the party so fearful and defensive against losing its remaining support base, that it has no energy or cash to campaign on a more positive agenda and win new voters.

Mental models

At the very base of the iceberg, deepest under the water, lie the mental models that allow the rest of the iceberg to persist in this shape. These include the assumptions, attitudes, beliefs and motivations which drive the behaviors, patterns and events seen further up in the iceberg.

In this case, this could be the belief amongst senior party figures that they’ve won in the past and can therefore win again someday by repeating old campaigns. Or a widespread attitude amongst activists in all party wings that with the right party leader, all internal problems will melt away and voter preferences will turn overnight.

When is a systems thinking approach not helpful?

If you are looking for a quick answer to a simple question, or an immediate response to a single event, then systems thinking may overcomplicate the process of solving your problem and provide you with more information than is helpful, and in slower time than you need.

For example, if a volcano erupts and the local area needs to be immediately evacuated, applying a thorough systems thinking approach to life in the vicinity of an active volcano is unlikely to result in a more efficient crisis response or save more lives. After the event, systems thinking might be more constructive when considering town rebuilding, local logistics and transport links.

In general, if a problem is short-term, narrow and/or linear, systems thinking may not be the right model of thinking to use.

A final word…

The biggest problems in the real world are rarely simple in nature and expecting a quick and simple solution to something like climate change or cancer would be naive.

If you’d like to know more about applying systems thinking in real life there are many online resources, books and courses you can access, including in specific fields (e.g. FutureLearn’s course on Understanding Systems Thinking in Healthcare ).

Whether you think of it as zooming out to the big picture while retaining a focus on the small, or looking deeper under the water at the full shape of the iceberg, systems thinking can be a powerful tool for finding solutions that recognize the interactions and interdependence of individual elements in the real world.

Systems Thinking for School Leaders: A Comprehensive Approach to Educational Management

Systems thinking is a powerful approach that school leaders can harness to navigate the complex landscape of education. With increasing challenges, such […]

system approach to problem solving in mis

Best Books on Systems Thinking: Top Picks for 2023

Systems thinking is an approach to problem-solving that embraces viewing complex systems as a whole, rather than focusing on individual components. This […]

Systems Thinking vs. Linear Thinking: Understanding the Key Differences

Systems Thinking and Linear Thinking are two approaches to problem-solving and decision-making that can significantly impact the effectiveness of a given solution. […]

What is Systems Thinking?

There are various approaches to solving problems that require us to analyze and interpret data. However, complex problems can require different perspectives […]

We built the best EDI platform in the world. Connect once and get everything your business will ever need for EDI

Web EDI fulfillment is a quick way to send and receive EDI documents on the web.

Effortlessly generate fully compliant UCC-128 or GS1 labels for your retail partners.

Connect to all your trading partners and immediately start testing and onboarding

Try out Orderful's realtime EDI validation with your own X12 payload.

Go live with EDI partners in days and enable self-service onboarding for carrier partners

Unlock new revenue streams and provide more value for your customers by offering the fastest and most complete EDI solution

A one-time integration that allows retailers and the brands they partner with to go-live and start trading in 9 days or less

At Orderful, we’ve never cared about legacy expectations or the way things have always been done

We’re looking for passionate, driven, and curious people to drive change and continuously set the bar higher

Get connected to (or join) our expanding roster of best-in-class EDI technology, implementation, and integration partners to uplevel your trading infrastructure

Uncover industry insights and read how Orderful Strategically thinks about EDI

Find EDI thought leadership, best practices, case studies, webinars and more

What Are MIS? The Role of Management Information Systems

If you want to build a stronger business and make educated decisions, management information systems provide a valuable tool for quickly scaling your company. So, what are MIS, and why do they matter?

We’ll explain MIS, the pros and cons, and how you can use them to organize essential information.

Defining MIS

Management information systems (MIS) are the processes organizations have in place to gather, analyze, and organize essential information. They’re used to generate valuable reports that inform decision-makers.

Technological tools play a role in understanding how a system works, but MIS also focuses on studying the people, organizations, and relationships that affect the outcomes of a process.

The objectives of MIS can be broken down into three categories:

Data capture: Gather relevant operational information that decision-makers can use later for strategizing and planning. Data may come from internal or external sources, with multiple collection systems operating simultaneously.
Data processing: Raw data is sorted, analyzed, and summarized to make it more useful. Some data points may be used in calculations and predictions; others may be written up and factored into assessments.
Data storage: All data is saved in case it’s needed again in the future.It should be organized and stored intuitively.

You can also look at MIS as a breakdown of the three words that make up the initialism:

Management: Managers are typically tasked with directing, monitoring, and coaching staff, but they also oversee the planning and organization of initiatives with significant impacts on the company, its partners, and its stakeholders.
Information: Good data is more than information; it’s information with context and value. You should know where it comes from and have access to the unprocessed version so you (or your software) can assess the data without looking through someone else’s lens.
System: A system is a set of interconnected entities that work together toward a common goal.

Why should you have an MIS?

Management information systems make data easier to access and understand, helping businesses make decisions that make sense .

Think about the process you go through when you need a quick answer to a crucial question. For example, what if you need to know how many of your client accounts were more than 90 days past due? Or which products sold best during a specific time frame? MIS provides those answers as quickly and accurately as possible.

In short, MIS can help by:

Providing real-time data: MIS tracks metrics continuously, so you know your sales or production numbers are current and correct.
Automating tasks to reduce oversights and errors: MIS can automate tasks based on preset triggers (e.g., sending out a payment reminder when an invoice rolls over from due to past due).
Facilitating teamwork: Sales, customer service, accounts receivable, and the dev team can all look at data simultaneously and discuss options together.

The role of MIS

A management information system gives leaders accurate and timely insight into individual and company performance. It provides a subjective assessment of how a business is doing.

Essentially, MIS draws a line between assuming (“It seems like the new product launch is going well”) and knowing based on data (“We’ve sold X units in the Y days since launch, which is Z% better than previous product launches”).

Essential MIS components

There are five key components of information systems management:

People: The people who use the information system or will use it in the future are vital to every MIS.
Data: These systems are fueled by data. Some data is gathered manually, whereas other bits of information are gathered automatically through digitized processes.
Business procedures: Organization-specific operations determine how information will be collected, recorded, analyzed, and stored.
Hardware: System hardware includes all the tangible equipment used to gather, store, transmit, and analyze data — computers, networking equipment, servers, and printers.
Software: MIS rely on software programs designed to handle a constant data flow. There will likely be multiple programs in play, with programs meant for compiling data and transmitting info, all working together toward a common goal.

6 types of management information systems

There are six types of management information systems. Each serves a unique purpose using distinct data input.

1. Transaction processing systems (TPS)

Transaction processing systems perform and record tasks in a business’s daily operations. For a restaurant, this might include making and organizing reservations, paying vendors, running customer credit cards, managing payroll, and shipping out merchandise bought from the website.

2. Decision support systems (DSS)

When organizations need help with decision-making or problem-solving, they turn to a decision support system (DSS). A DSS uses data to automate decisions related to a specific problem or need.

For example, consider GPS software. The user tells the system where they need to go while avoiding tolls or stopping at a specified checkpoint. The system then analyzes the possibilities, adjusts for issues like traffic accidents or weather, and provides a route.

3. Executive information systems (EIS)

Executive information systems are expressly designed to assist upper-level leadership. EIS can gather and analyze technology reports, market reports, consultant reports, changes in government policy, and financial info to provide one master report that helps executives manage more efficiently and make stronger, better-informed decisions.

4. Knowledge management systems (KMS)

As the name suggests, knowledge management systems are all about finding, organizing, and sharing information. This info might be shared between employees of a company or between a company and its clients. Software giants such as Canva and HubSpot are prime examples that gather information to share with those who will benefit most.

5. Enterprise resource planning (ERP)

ERPs help companies unify their processes and divisions under one highly functional umbrella. An ERP can help you run your entire business by automating tasks, funneling information where it needs to go, and always keeping you updated.

6. Risk management information system (RMIS)

Unsure whether a business deal is worth the risk? Risk management information systems help you evaluate variables, such as risk exposure and available protection measures. Insurance companies use RMIS to determine the risk level attached to a client or policy.

MIS pros and cons

Before you adopt a management information system, it’s wise to understand the benefits and potential drawbacks involved.

Pros of MIS

The right MIS can help you with the following endeavors:

Increase efficiency: If you want to streamline your company’s workflows, MIS can help.
Improve data management: File folders, whether digital or tucked into an actual cabinet, are unwieldy and hard to use. A data management system lets you gather and analyze data efficiently and effectively.
Make fast, well-informed decisions: Forget searching through endless data to find relevant info every time you make a decision. MIS puts knowledge at your fingertips so you understand what you’re looking at as you weigh your options.
Streamline communication: The centralized nature of an MIS encourages collaboration and communication, eliminating pesky email chains and games of telephone.
Outthink and out-strategize the competition: MIS can help you become more competitive in your industry.

Cons of MIS

Before you invest a chunk in an MIS, consider these potential obstacles and disadvantages:

Initial implementation costs: From purchasing hardware to training employees, an MIS’s startup cost can be surprisingly high.
Tech pitfalls: You’ll need someone to maintain the system and help employees figure out the MIS when they’re confused.
Security risks: Whenever you’re gathering and storing data, you must protect that data from breaches.
Human error: Don’t get too comfortable; even a stellar MIS can’t guarantee your business will be free from human error.

Build a better business with input from Orderful

Inspired by the management information systems examples above? It’s just one capability of a robust electronic data interchange (EDI) integration. You can revolutionize your business using progressive EDI operations and MIS, especially with Orderful on hand to assist. For more information, reach out today and speak to an expert about our EDI solutions.

Schedule a Demo

BOOK A DEMO

Go live with new trading partners in days, not months. Orderful’s modern EDI platform standardizes integrations and streamlines testing, getting your business connected with partners 10x faster than other solutions.

Related Resources

Join us on the journey to change the way the world trades EDI

Talk to an EDI Expert today

Academics & Programs

Faculty & research, ulmer career management center, alumni & friends, news & events.

Resources for:
Current Students
Staff & Faculty Resources
Recruiters & Employers
Press & Media

About the College of Business

The UofL College of Business enhances the intellectual and economic vitality of our city, the region, and the broader business world through our academic programs, research, and community outreach activities. We strongly believe that lives improve through entrepreneurship, innovation, critical and rigorous thinking, diverse ideas, and people.

The University of Louisville College of Business offers a wide variety of degree programs to help you accelerate your success and achieve your professional goals. Whether you’re laying a strong foundation for your business career, taking the next big step on your professional journey, or building specialized industry expertise, we’ve got you covered.

UofL College of Business faculty pride themselves on real-world experience and depth of research. They value innovation, critical thinking, and the exchange of new ideas. Our distinguished faculty will help you achieve your goals — before and after graduation.

The Ulmer Career Management Center is a state-of-the-art resource connecting local, regional, and international employers with high-potential College of Business students and alumni.

The UofL College of Business continues to succeed thanks to the commitment and resources of alumni and friends. Learn about our latest initiatives, the impact of our alumni on our mission, and how you can stay involved.

Get up-to-date on the latest news from the College of Business community.

Staff & Faculty

Systems Thinking: How to Solve Problems So They Stay Solved

From production to customer service and marketing, organizations are made up of a series of interconnected parts. While each function may appear to operate efficiently on its own, a change in just one cog can throw the whole system out of whack. The problems that arise in interconnected organizations can be difficult to solve.

Systems thinking is problem-solving approach that examines the relationships between functions in an organization. Systems thinking is powerful because it enables you to predict the consequences of a potential change. This problem-solving method can also help you eliminate silos, see different viewpoints, and remain focused on the big picture.

Ultimately, systems thinking empowers you to solve problems so that they stay solved. Instead of offering quick-fix solutions that work only in the short term, systems thinking helps you make decisions that benefit your organization in the long run.

You will learn how to:

Apply systems thinking in the workplace in ways that benefit you and your organization: encouraging innovation, learning from mistakes, and enhancing leadership and management skills.
Apply the tools of systems thinking to solve a problem.
Minimize the unintended consequences of major decisions.

Seminar Fee

$430 (includes instruction, seminar manual, refreshments, certificate of completion and parking)

Stay Notified of Upcoming Classes

Interested to learn about our other programs? Check out our other Seminars . Or sign up and we will keep you informed about future educational offerings.

Search all Louisville
Search College of Business

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

8 Soft systems methodology

Learning Outcomes

Contextualise systems as a ‘Wholistic’ project management method approach.
Compose the requirements for a Systems Lens application.
Formulate Soft Systems Methodology frameworks.

This module will explore a systems approach to integrating all the different components within the project environment, to create a comprehensive approach to solving the problem.

Broadly speaking, a systems approach is used to create an understanding of the interrelationships between different components within the environment, the project, and the stakeholders. Through a generalisation of the different components, the project team is better able to understand the interdependent nature of the factors (Cleland 1997; Meredith and Mantel 2011; Kerzner 2017). Additionally, the systems approach allows the project team to understand the situation in its entirety, including resources, materials, market conditions, organisational needs, stakeholders and so forth. By understanding these factors, the project is better able to meet the project objectives and keep the end-state in mind throughout, to ensure that the approach is the most efficient and effective process possible.

This is a disciplined way to view the environment and identify potential solutions to problems while being open to opportunities. These opportunities can be realised through understanding that everything is related to everything else in the environment or organisation.

A system is a composition of numerous related and dependent components which, through interactions with one another, create a whole. Therefore, a system is a compilation of distinct factors or components which form a complex whole. Although this definition is general, a key element of a system is how the collection of factors or components come together to produce an outcome (INCOSE 2015). This outcome is not attainable by the individual elements – an outcome can only be created through the interactions between and across the components and factors.

By applying a systems approach to project management, the view of the project changes from a set of tasks and activities to a combination of sub-systems which work together to make a broader system (Cleland 1997; Meredith and Mantel 2011; Kerzner 2017). The broader system’s effectiveness and performance is impacted by the corresponding performance of the sub-systems of which it is comprised. Therefore, by viewing the project management process as a system which operates as an entity comprised of sub-systems, project managers can identify areas within the project which could lead to success or failure. However, the sub-systems which comprise the project are not limited to internal factors within the organisation – external components or factors play a significant role within the systems approach.

Through a systems approach, a project manager, project team and the broader project organisation are empowered to consider the impacts of the environment when implementing changes or projects. The context surrounding the project should be established at the outset as this will provide a viewpoint of the system. This viewpoint will support decision-making throughout the project, encourage realignment of resources as needed and trigger changes in response to the environment.

Considerations

Before a project manager considers applying a systems approach (Cleland 1997; Meredith and Mantel 2011; Kerzner 2017), there are several components which need to be considered:

How all tasks, activities, processes, and deliverables within the project depend on one another needs to be documented. However, consideration is needed to understand the properties of the individual components outside of their dependencies.
Project goals need to be clear; each component of the project should be working towards those goals.
Resources supporting the project should be consistent throughout. Where additional resources are required, the impacts on the outcome need to be considered. This includes impact on quality, scope, budget, and schedule.
Uncertainty is expected within a project. Consideration is required to provide support in managing and responding to uncertainty as it arises (for example, risk and issues management processes).
Resources should be allocated roles and responsibilities based on their skills and experience. These resources can work together as part of a sub-project team, to support the development of different deliverables. For each deliverable, a different approach may be required to manage the needs and complexities.
Visualisation can be used to support documenting the complexities.

Through a systems approach, project managers are supported to ensure they are aiming for the project’s goals and objectives.

Let’s watch the following video by Systems Innovations which explains the primary differences between analytical methods of reasoning and systems thinking

Video [5 mins, 41 sec] Note: Closed captions are available by selecting the CC button in the video below.

How to apply a systems approach

In addition to using traditional project management methodologies, the systems approach can be used to effectively manage a project. Based on systems theory, there are 4 primary tools and principles which can be applied from the Systems Thinking Iceberg, recreated in Figure 28.

Figure 28. Systems Thinking Iceberg, by Carmen Reaiche and Samantha Papavasiliou, licensed under CC BY (Attribution) 4.0

Based on Figure 28, below are 4 principles and tools which can be applied to projects to support the systems approach to project management (Cleland 1997; Meredith and Mantel 2011; Kerzner 2017).

a detailed problem statement
triggers, causes and side-effects
the reactions of the different stakeholders
links between problems and solutions previously attempted.
when it occurs (frequency)
who has been impacted
steps taken to rectify
interactions between the event and other factors or events
identifying potential causes
testing potential solutions.
environmental elements within the system
causes of the behavioural patterns
stakeholders within the system
underlying interactions between stakeholders, environment, and causes.
what supports the underlying structure
the values, expectations, and beliefs within the system and broader environment
how the problem is understood
the proposed solutions and how will they be implemented and analysed.

Systems approaches can be applied through a cyclical method which considers the relationships between each component of a project phase. See Figure 29 for examples.

Figure 29. Examples of the cyclical approach that can be used to support systems approaches to project management, by Carmen Reaiche and Samantha Papavasiliou, licensed under CC BY (Attribution) 4.0

By applying the systems approach, organisations can understand the interactions between different areas, documents, and tasks and activities. By using a systems approach:

Project managers are able to realise the need for a holistic approach to prepare, plan, and implement a project.
The multidimensional components which have an impact on the outcomes of a project (for example, technological, financial, resources, cultural, etc.) can be documented.
Project managers can understand how different dimensions or structural components will influence the stakeholders and their expectations, and how the market and environment can change swiftly and significantly. This is commonly in response to economic factors, ecological issues, stakeholder values, news cycles and so forth.
The end-to-end interactions between tasks, activities, resources, stakeholders and so on, are considered and work together to reach the common goals and objectives of the broader system (or the project).

Therefore, when the systems approach is applied to a project, project managers are better able to respond to the conditions outside of their control, and create efficiencies within their projects boundaries to maximise outcomes.

Soft Systems Method

Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) is an approach which is used to create structure in complex problems and develop changes which are both feasible for and wanted by all the stakeholders. These stakeholders include internal stakeholders (employees, developers) and external stakeholders (users, clients, competitors). As a result, everyone provides different insights into and solutions to solve a problem (Checkland and Scholes 1990; Checkland 2000; Checkland and Poulter 2006).

To support the understanding of SSM, a soft system can be defined as a human activity system (HAS). This HAS is purposeful and organised in that groups of people work collectively to achieve a purpose or outcome.

SSM was designed to allow each heterogeneous group of stakeholders the opportunity to provide their insights into the problem. Each group or stakeholder can document the problem in their own way and provide their insights into feasible or desirable outcomes or solutions (Checkland 2000).

Through collaboration, a solution can be created that is agreed upon by all stakeholders. It supports quicker decision-making through consensus. The approach is used to show the links between the real world and the considerations and components documented within the systems world.

The 7 steps to SSM

There are 7 steps to SSM (see Figure 30). These steps are not necessarily carried out in linear order and some steps may not need to be completed. These steps should be used to support collaboration, decision-making and problem-solving.

Figure 30. SSM 7 steps, by Carmen Reaiche and Samantha Papavasiliou, licensed under CC BY (Attribution) 4.0

Step 1. Identify the problem situation

This step involves gathering relevant information to understand the problem situation. There are several tools which can be used to support information gathering (Checkland and Scholes 1990; Checkland 2000; Checkland and Poulter 2006), including:

interviews
brainstorming sessions
historical and current data
news articles
document analysis
organisational structure
control policies
observation sessions.

Through the information gathered, analysis should support understanding the possible components and factors which could influence or impact the problem situation.

Let’s go through the rest of the steps using a sample organisation: Lugano. Lugano is a financial firm that offers digital services to clients. This organisation is experiencing decreased overall use of digital services and significant increases in the need for support provided by frontline employees by telephone. It is unclear what is causing this increased need for support. Information is gathered via employee and user feedback, data and document analysis. Lugano will be used as an example in the following step.

Step 2. Describe the problem situation

From Step 1, the analyst has sufficient information to understand the problem space and document the situation through pictures or diagrams. The tool recommended in SSM is the rich picture diagram (Checkland and Scholes 1990; Checkland 2000; Checkland and Poulter 2006). This diagram outlines the problem situation using a graphical representation of the different relationships, communication mechanisms, processes, structure, people, concerns, conflict, and climate. A rich picture can incorporate images, text, symbols, and icons.

Figure 31 provides an example of part of a rich picture. This example highlights Lugano’s relationships between the digital services provided to users, and the support mechanisms in place to provide guidance when needed. The problem situation Lugano is the increased requirement for support and the decreased use of digital services. The problems highlighted in Lugano’s example include the need for skills development and training for users, accuracy and relevance of information and records provided, and access to services.

Figure 31. Example rich picture from a digital service offering perspective, by Carmen Reaiche and Samantha Papavasiliou, licensed under CC BY (Attribution) 4.0

Step 3. Develop key definitions

Once the rich picture has been created, the next step is to determine the best way for the system to function. This process starts with creating root definitions which provide an ideal view of the key systems and structures (Checkland and Scholes 1990; Checkland 2000; Checkland and Poulter 2006). This commonly follows the CATWOE elements (Checkland and Scholes 1990; Checkland 2000; Checkland and Poulter 2006). Using the sample organisation:

Customers: Who are Lugano’s clients, and the users, stakeholders, and key players within a system?

Actors: Who are the employees within the organisation who support the transformation process?

Transformation: Which process will be transformed by Lugano, specifically considering what the output is and how the problem will be solved?

Worldview/Weltanschauung: What is the bigger picture or the environmental view of the situation, specifically the stakeholders within the environment who can influence the transformation?

Owners: Who within Lugano can make the changes or has the power to approve the start and end of the project or transformation?

Environmental constraints: What are the elements within the environment which influence Lugano and have the capacity to impact the system negatively, and how should they be managed?

CATWOE supports the creation of the root definition, which is defined as the representation of the problem situation to be addressed. Therefore, a root definition is defined as a statement which concisely and clearly describes the system of interest (or under review). It commonly starts with a single sentence that begins with ‘A system to’ followed by ‘all key elements of the system’.

Table 7. A CATWOE example using Lugano

Table 8. A root definition example using Lugano

Tables 7 and 8 provide an example of CATWOE and creating the root definition for the digital service example. This example shows the key players and the aim of the transformation within the root definition. Through this approach, the problem became clearer, and the system of interest became the digital service and surrounding environment.

When applying SSM its important to understand the transformation component correctly, especially in relation to inputs and outputs (Checkland and Scholes 1990; Checkland 2000; Checkland and Poulter 2006). This is outlined in Figure 32, which shows that Input (I) should support the transformation and lead to the Output (O). A common mistake is incorrectly identifying the system input (the entity change) with the resources required to implement the change.

Figure 32. Inputs create transformation which leads to outputs, by Carmen Reaiche and Samantha Papavasiliou, licensed under CC BY (Attribution) 4.0

Forbes and Checkland (1987) provided some definitions and rules to support the documentation of the transformation:

(T) transforms the Input (I) into Outputs (O).
The input must be present in the output; however, it will be in a different or changed state.
An abstract (intangible) input will create an abstract (intangible) outcome.
A tangible (concrete) input will create a tangible (concrete) output.

Step 4: Create conceptual models

This step requires creating a conceptual model which is used to analyse the activities which need to occur to undertake the transformation. The activities outlined should only be based on actions taken by actors (internal to the organisation). These activities need to link back to the root definition and be limited to a project group to control (Wilson 2001). All activities need to achieve the objectives of the transformation, and activities must include monitoring the transformation and providing feedback. It should consider what is meant by success, how it is measured and who will measure it.

The key activities required for the digital services example include:

Determine what factors influence digital service use.
Assess actions required to improve these.
Take action.
Measure behavioural change.
Measure impact of change on the environment.
Report results.
Monitor and manage the system performance, recommend improvements.

Figure 33. Example draft of the digital services conceptual map, by Carmen Reaiche and Samantha Papavasiliou, licensed under CC BY (Attribution) 4.0

As outlined in Figure 33, there are clear operational activities which need to be taken to activate the transformation. Each activity should be monitored to ensure it is easy to follow and that there is a clear process in place. The conceptual model outlined in Figure 33 is in draft state – it shows a starting point for developing a complete model.

Within a conceptual model, Forbes and Checkland (1987) recommended:

having 7+/-2 activities of the same size
describing each activity using a verb
using arrows to show logical dependencies
numbering activities to reaffirm the dependencies.

Conceptual models are made to document HAS, which are softer models (Tavella and Hjortso 2012). This is because it is difficult for human behaviour to repeat and reproduce the same actions repeatedly with the same results. Therefore, there is an innate variability in the human activities and performances outlined within the conceptual models. These still require monitoring and controlling to support the transformation and ensure that changes are made as required. The overarching structure of a HAS is outlined in Figure 34, and this approach can be used to support improvements to the conceptual model. This calls out the operational system within the organisation’s control (operational subsystem) and the elements which occur outside of the direct control of the organisation, this being the response to the implemented change. These are tracked and monitored and as changes are required, they are implemented.

Figure 34. HAS overarching structure, by Carmen Reaiche and Samantha Papavasiliou, licensed under CC BY (Attribution) 4.0

This monitoring and controlling process should follow the 3Es: effective, efficient, efficacy (Wilson 2001; Checkland 2000). When planning, the transformation needs to consider:

Effective : Is the system acting in the way it should be? Does the system contribute to the broader organisational goals?
Efficient : Does the system use the least number of resources? Does it use the resources appropriately?
Efficacy : Does the system provide the expected results?

Using the 3Es, a project manager is better equipped to determine what level of monitoring and controlling is required and how it could be completed.

Another critical component of a conceptual model is the use of feedback loops (Checkland 2000; Wilson 2001). Within conceptual models, there are commonly two forms:

Internal feedback loop. This loop highlights how the actors (or the individual completing the work) need to alter how they work to meet the transformation.
External feedback loop. This loop looks at the links between the inputs and the outputs, specifically interested in how the system is performing.

Therefore, an effective project manager needs to clearly define their success measures for the transformation and ensure that they are built into the system.

Step 5. Compare conceptual models to reality

Conceptual models are developed through applying theory; however, they are not necessarily representative of reality. Therefore, Step 5 requires an understanding of how much these models reflect the real world (Checkland 2000; Wilson 2001). This requires an analysis of the gaps, to determine whether the provided solution will meet the needs. This analysis is required to understand:

conceptual model activities
the real world
what can be completed.

Table 9 is an example of the analysis for the digital services transformation, using 3 columns based on the above analysis questions.

Table 9. Example conceptual model vs. real world comparison (digital services example)

Step 6. Assess feasibility and define changes

Based on the results of Step 5, a feasibility assessment is required of the suggested changes (Checkland 2000; Wilson 2001). The changes are normally classified as a change in:

procedures and processes
attitudes or behaviours.

This requires an analysis of 3 primary elements: feasibility, priorities and risk analysis.

Feasibility

Feasibility requires understanding how the different activities will be undertaken. A feasibility analysis will need to consider whether something is achievable (Checkland and Scholes 1990; Checkland 2000; Checkland and Poulter 2006), based on:

Cultural feasibility: Will the employees or actors involved be able to complete the work?
Technical feasibility: What is the required support or modern technology required to implement the change?
Dependencies: Are there links between the organisational and technological systems? What order do updates need to go in?
Win-Win: Do the recommended changes make it easier for the organisation, employees, and clients?

This is a vital component; the changes need to be prioritised based on what impact they will have on the desired transformation, what risks they pose and how difficult they will be to implement. This can follow Kaplan and Norton’s (1993) balanced scorecard approach – an example of factors is outlined in Figure 35.

Figure 35. Example of the balanced scorecard for the digital services example, by Carmen Reaiche and Samantha Papavasiliou, licensed under CC BY (Attribution) 4.0

According to Kaplan and Norton (1993) there are 4 primary elements within the balanced scorecard and successful organisations, projects, and transformation find a balance between each of these components. Each component provides a different view of the organisation to operate efficiently and effectively. These components are:

Financial perspective: outlines the different cost measures involved in the organisation, project and or change.
Client perspective: outlines how client satisfaction, retention and market share will be measured and improved.
Internal processes perspective: outlines what the change will cost and how it will impact the quality of the internal business processes.
Innovative perspective: outlines measures of employee satisfaction, knowledge management, improvement rates and number or percentage of employees included in the improvement.

These 4 components or perspectives are interlinked – they do not function in isolation. Using the scorecard approach, the factors within the perspectives need to consider:

objectives: organisational objectives and strategies
measures: following the objectives, how you will measure progress
targets: what is the objective aiming to achieve
initiatives: actions taken to meet the objectives.

Risk analysis

The third tool to support feasibility assessment is the completion of a risk assessment. Risk analysis is the process which determines the likelihood and impact of a risk occurring. The assessment considers how the risk will impact the project schedule, quality, budget, and scope. The analysis technique recommended in SSM is the risk analysis matrix.

The risk analysis matrix assesses the likelihood of a risk occurring and the overall severity if it were to occur. These are classified by importance and impact. Likelihood and consequence (impact) are measured as low, medium, high, or very high (Vose 2008), as shown in Figure 36.

Figure 36. Example of a risk analysis matrix, by Carmen Reaiche and Samantha Papavasiliou, licensed under CC BY (Attribution) 4.0

Each risk should be identified, analysed, and considered as part of the feasibility assessment.

To complete the assessment, the project manager should understand the potential feasibility of the changes, the priority of each change and the level of risk associated. This should be used as a guide to help determine which changes should be implemented.

Step 7. Take action to implement proposed changes

The final step is to implement the proposed and agreed upon changes (as outlined in Step 6). The implementation should follow the required steps outlined within the conceptual model (and reality analysis). Once implemented, there is a potential for the system changes to provide new opportunities and problems that require responses. As a result, the process would need to start again.

Advantages of SSM

There are several advantages to applying SSM, including:

provides a structure for complex problems or situations
easy to follow steps
rigorous testing required
encourages multiple iterations.

Disadvantages of SSM

There are several potential disadvantages to applying SSM, including:

requires organisational change, which can be difficult to convince stakeholders of
solutions can be narrowed down too early
rich pictures are challenging to create, due to their lack of structure
actions are expected quickly; however, the process can be time consuming.

In sum, SSM provides an analysis tool and technique which outlines the different requirements for the system transformation. This module outlines the 7 primary steps required to implement the methodology. SSM is a systems approach which can be used to undertake problem-solving and analysis of complex situations. Therefore, a cycle of research, learning and reflection is recommended based on the perceptions of all the stakeholders to better provide solutions for the problem space.

Test your knowledge

Key Takeaways

A system is composed of numerous related and dependent components which, through interactions with one another, create a whole. Therefore, a system is a compilation of distinct factors or components which form a complex whole.
By viewing the project management process as a system which operates as an entity comprised of sub-systems, project managers can identify areas within the project which could lead to success or failure.
Systems approaches can be applied through a cyclical approach which considers the relationships between each component of a project phase.
SSM is used to create structure in complex problem and then develop changes which are both feasible for and wanted by all the stakeholders.

Checkland P and Poulter J (2006) Learning for action: a short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use, for practitioners, teachers, and students , John Wiley and Sons Ltd, United States.

Checkland P (2000) ‘Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective’, Systems Research and Behavioral Science , 17(S1):S11–S58.

Checkland P and Scholes J (1990), Soft systems methodology in action , vol. 7, Wiley, Chichester.

Cleland DI (1997) ‘Defining a project management system’, Project Management Quarterly , 8(4):37–40.

Forbes P and Checkland PB (1987) ‘Monitoring and control in systems models’, Internal Discussion Paper 3/87, Department of Systems, University of Lancaster.

INCOSE (2015) INCOSE systems engineering handbook: a guide for system life cycle processes and activities , 4th edn, Wiley, United States.

Kaplan RS and Norton DP (1993) ‘Putting the balance scorecard to work’, Harvard Business Review Magazine , Sep/Oct, accessed 3 August 2022. https://hbr.org/1993/09/putting-the-balanced-scorecard-to-work

Kerzner H (2017) Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling , 12th edn, Wiley, United States.

Meredith JR and Mantel Jr SJ (2011) Project management: a managerial approach , John Wiley & Sons.

Tavella E and Hjortsø C (2012). ‘Enhancing the design and management of a local organic food supply chain with soft systems methodology,’ International Food and Agribusiness Management Review , 15(2): 47–68.

Vose D (2008) Risk analysis: a quantitative guide , 3rd edn, Wiley, United States.

Wilson B (2001) Soft systems methodology conceptual model building and its contribution , Wiley, United States.

Management Methods for Complex Projects Copyright © 2022 by Carmen Reaiche and Samantha Papavasiliou is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Systems Approach to “Problem Solving”

Cite this chapter.

Robert L. Flood 3 &
Ewart R. Carson 4

470 Accesses

Much of humanity’s efforts in the developed and developing world aim to overcome the “problems” created by changes in science, technology and the effects of these on society. Knowledge gained by traditional and systems sciences has been implemented in technological developments and devices. This has often led to unforeseen consequences such as pollution, unemployment, and scarcity of resources. Efficient and effective technical expertise is required to plan and design to overcome these difficulties. Chapter 5 presented one contribution from systems science. Often, however, such requirements involve hard decisions to be made. More often than not, a conflict of interests arises. New approaches are needed to help to manage that conflict. In this chapter, which continues to develop Theme C, we introduce a number of these approaches to “problem solving” each able to contribute in particular ways to deal with the complexities of modern society. Let us first set the scene.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Available as EPUB and PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The University of Hull, Hull, England

Robert L. Flood

City University, London, England

Ewart R. Carson

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Flood, R.L., Carson, E.R. (1993). Systems Approach to “Problem Solving”. In: Dealing with Complexity. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2235-2_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2235-2_6

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-1-4419-3227-3

Online ISBN : 978-1-4757-2235-2

eBook Packages : Springer Book Archive

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Towards a Mission-oriented Innovation Systems (MIS) approach, application for Dutch sustainable maritime shipping

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation

Affiliation PNO Consultants, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Joeri Wesseling,
Nick Meijerhof

Published: August 11, 2023
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000075
Reader Comments

This paper builds on the literature on mission-oriented innovation policy, governance, transition studies and innovation systems, and develops a structural-functional approach to formatively evaluate mission governance from a Mission-oriented Innovation Systems (MIS) perspective. Central to this MIS approach is the mission arena, a governance structure where actors formulate and govern the mission, by mobilizing and directing other, preexisting system components. Their goal is to meet the mission by developing and diffusing innovative mission solutions and destabilizing harmful practices. The MIS approach involves a problem-solutions diagnosis and an analysis of structural, functional, and systemic barriers. To provide formative mission governance recommendations, the systemic barriers are then contrasted with the mission arena’s governance tasks. To illustrate the value of the MIS approach, we use a case study of the Dutch mission for sustainable maritime shipping. This case study illustrates a mission arena striving to increase coherence amongst different innovation system structures in semblance of a MIS. The mission arena configuration of actors shaped the mission formulation and negotiated governance actions. Dominant industry networks negotiated green growth as problem direction and non-committal governance actions, which are likely ineffective for inherently transformative sustainability missions. The paper concludes by identifying directions for further developing the MIS approach and the mission arena concept.

Author summary

Missions like ‘a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions economy by 2050’ are used increasingly to tackle societal challenges like climate change. However, no analytical frameworks currently exist that can adequately evaluate the impacts of such challenge-led missions. We therefore introduce the Mission-oriented Innovation Systems (MIS) approach, which captures all social, technological, and other factors that affect the success of developing and spreading the use of mission solutions. Mission solutions include innovations, like electric drivetrains, but also changing or phasing-out harmful practices, like growing consumption. Central to our MIS approach is the mission arena, where different stakeholders negotiate the rate and direction of mission-oriented societal change and mobilize external stakeholder support. We study how the arena’s actions impact systemic barriers to mission success. We apply our MIS approach to the Dutch mission for sustainable maritime shipping. We find that its mission arena targets many systemic barriers, like missing business models and lacking direction in selecting between mission solutions, but that complementary actions are necessary. Notably, mission arenas should watch out for capture by vested industry interests, that may lobby for a green growth paradigm and for non-committal mission-supportive actions, neither of which are likely to meet the inherently transformative, sustainability missions.

Citation: Wesseling J, Meijerhof N (2023) Towards a Mission-oriented Innovation Systems (MIS) approach, application for Dutch sustainable maritime shipping. PLOS Sustain Transform 2(8): e0000075. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000075

Editor: Ana Delicado, Universidade de Lisboa Instituto de Ciencias Sociais, PORTUGAL

Received: March 24, 2022; Accepted: July 5, 2023; Published: August 11, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Wesseling, Meijerhof. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Other than the publicly available data detailed in the paper's reference list, our minimal dataset includes interview data as well. In the 'interview consent document', we have promised interviewees not to publicly share their responses, after a first interviewee did not agree with publication of the transcripts due to the political sensitivity of the topic for their organization. To guarantee candid interviewee responses, we promised interviewees not to publicly share the transcripts. Deidentified transcripts can be shared upon request via the Ethics Review Board of the faculties of Science and Geosciences (ETC Bèta-Geo) at Utrecht University; interested researchers should contact ETC Bèta-Geo secretary H.H. Rump ( [email protected] ).

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1. Introduction

Sustainability challenges are considered the most wicked of today’s societal problems [ 1 ]. To deal with such wicked problems, a ‘third generation’ innovation policy has emerged [ 2 ], referred to as ‘Transformative Innovation Policy’ [ 3 – 5 ] or ‘challenge-led, Mission-oriented Innovation Policy’ [ 6 – 8 ]. Both these literatures converged around a notion of challenge-led policy that underlines (a) the wickedness of societal problems; (b) the directionality provided by governance constellations across sectors, disciplines and geographical levels, involving strategic stakeholder deliberation and balancing short and long term; (c) the multifaceted nature of innovation policy (mixes) as requiring new rationalities; and (d) the need for behavioral or social change in addition to technological fixes [ 2 ]. The difference is that Mission-oriented Innovation Policy provides directionality through ambitious, actionable, measurable, and time-bound goals, while Transformative Innovation Policy is more open-ended and bottom-up [ 2 , 4 , 9 ].

Mission-oriented Innovation Policy is slowly gaining traction [ 10 – 12 ] and can be defined as “a directional policy that starts from the perspective of a societal problem , and focuses on the formulation and implementation of a goal-oriented strategy by acknowledging the degree of wickedness of the underlying challenge , and the active role of policy in ensuring coordinated action and legitimacy of both problems and innovative solutions across multiple actors ” [ 13 , p.476]. To enable effective design of missions, such as the EU’s mission of climate neutrality by 2050, and their underlying governance actions, further research into their potential leverage points and transformative societal impacts is needed [ 12 , 14 ]. Systems perspectives promise such valuable insights, but scholars agree that none of the current innovation systems and transition frameworks are sufficiently equipped to understand and systematically assess the impact of missions for formative evaluation [ 14 – 22 ]. Therefore Hekkert et al. [ 15 ] call for developing a new approach, the Mission-oriented Innovation System (MIS) approach .

Developing such a MIS approach faces various challenges, pertaining to (a) the wickedness of both a mission’s problems and solutions, i.e. their contestedness, complexity, and uncertainty [ 9 , 23 ]; (b) the temporality and embeddedness of missions as missions have time-bound goals, typically medium- to long-term, meaning 10–30 years ahead [ 10 , 24 ] and build on preexisting innovation system structures; and (c) the directionality by which missions select between competing problems and solutions. These challenges imply that, on the one hand, a MIS approach should capture all relevant societal problems that ‘compete’ for legitimacy and prioritization in the mission formulation process [ 9 , 25 ]. On the other hand, a mission’s solution scope includes both technologically and socially innovative solutions; as wicked societal problems like climate change cannot be resolved by technological fixes alone [ 1 , 26 ]. Here, social innovations are described as “novel combinations of ideas and distinct forms of collaboration that transcend established institutional contexts” [ 27 , p.1] like sustainable consumption [ 28 ]. Solutions include not only the development and implementation of the ‘new’, but also the replacement and phase out–or exnovation [ 29 ]–of the ‘old’ problematic practices and technologies [ 30 – 32 ]. While ‘accelerator’ missions focus on supporting technological innovation, ‘transformer’ missions require socio-technical transformation (i.e. the replacement of harmful goods and practices by innovative solutions) but with the ‘radicality’ of that transformation differing per mission [ 10 , 11 , 33 ]. Hence, transformer mission solutions include both diffusion of technological, organizational, behavioral, or institutional innovations and the phase-out of the old [ 30 – 32 , 34 ]. Finally, missions require development and diffusion of different sets of technologically and socially innovative solutions, that interact in various ways [ 35 ]. Hence, to capture the wickedness of missions, a MIS approach should embody (a) coordination of interacting technological and social solutions–including phase-out; (b) associated contestation processes; and (c) reflexivity to capture the uncertainty of how societal problems and solutions develop in relation to set goals [ 36 , 37 ].

Here, we refer to a MIS as “ a temporary semi-coherent configuration of different innovation system structures that interact and affect the development and diffusion of solutions to a mission that is defined and governed by a mission arena of different stakeholders" . The mission arena , a concept developed in Section 2.1.2.1, refers to actors engaged in the highly political and often heavily contested process of mission governance. We describe this governance process as mobilizing, directing, and aligning existing innovation system structures into a semi-coherent ensemble that aims to pursue the mission. Since many more than governmental actors are involved in these governance processes [ 3 , 11 , 19 ], we refer to measures aiming to achieve a mission goal as ‘ mission governance actions’ rather than as Mission-oriented Innovation Policy.

This paper aims to develop for the first time a first MIS approach and illustrates its usefulness through application to the case of the Dutch Green Deal mission on sustainable maritime shipping. The Dutch Green Deal involves a goal-oriented collaboration process between a clearly defined set of actors that, despite contestation, try to develop different types of innovative mission solutions. Our approach first identifies the MIS barriers that inhibit development of a ‘well-performing MIS’, i.e. a MIS that develops and diffuses innovative solutions sufficiently rapidly to meet the mission’s time-bound goals. The approach then assesses, ex ante, whether the mission arena’s governance actions adequately target all MIS barriers to effectively support functional MIS development. In this formative assessment lies the value of the MIS approach, in that it allows us to provide recommendations for more effective governance of transformative missions, notably around sustainability. In the Discussion Section we reflect on the MIS approach and induce theory based off our empirical case study.

2.1 MIS approach: a structural-functional approach to evaluating missions

The MIS approach’ foundation lies in the structural-functional approach normally applied to Technological Innovation Systems (TIS) [ 38 , 39 ], as it provides a clear operational systems approach that can serve for ex-ante, formative innovation policy assessment [ 20 , 21 , 40 , 41 ]. The structural-functional approach to studying TIS starts with the analysis of system’s structural components (i.e. actors, networks, institutions and materiality). It then assesses ‘key innovation activities’, called ‘system functions’, to identify weaknesses in the system’s performance and to uncover the systemic barriers that cause these weaknesses. These barriers serve as a starting point for an ex-ante policy assessment of the systemic policy instruments (or in our case mission governance actions) that should overcome barriers to improve system performance [ 40 , 41 ]. Similar to Wieczorek and Hekkert [ 42 ], we use ‘diagnostic questions’ to operationalize and guide our MIS approach.

The analytical focus of TIS is on a single technological solution. This differs from the focus of MIS on societal problems and the corresponding sets of interrelated solutions. Moreover, TIS and Regional Innovation System approaches focus on innovation (‘the new’) and overlook that which is being replaced (‘the old’) [ 22 , 30 ]. As a result, innovation systems approaches like TIS focus less on contested arena’s that direct transformation processes. Consequently, these perspectives have different conceptions of (a) wickedness, (b) temporality and embeddedness, and (c) directionality and transformation (see Table 1 for an overview). This necessitates changes to the structural-function approach when analyzing missions from a systems perspective. For our MIS approach, we therefore add a first analytical step, the problem-solution diagnosis, and a final step that assesses mission arena tasks; see Table 2 for an overview of the MIS analytical steps.

PPT PowerPoint slide
PNG larger image
TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000075.t001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000075.t002

Other adaptations of the structural-functional approach have been undertaken by Ghazinoory et al. [ 16 ], in their concept of a ‘Problem-oriented Innovation System’ (PIS), and by Haddad and Bergek [ 20 ], in their assessment of transformative innovation policy at the sectoral level. The main difference between the MIS and Ghazinoory et al.’s [ 16 ] PIS approach is that by focusing on a societal problem, the PIS delineation becomes more diffuse, while the MIS approach introduces the mission arena concept (see Section 4.2.1) as the central governance structure that mobilizes and redirects innovation system structures into a well-functioning MIS. This also allows the MIS approach to formatively evaluate the mission arena processes and governance actions. Building on the structural-functional TIS approach, and bringing in transition, governance, and Mission-oriented Innovation Policy literature, we below outline our MIS approach, summarized in Table 2 .

2.1.1 Problem-solution diagnosis.

First, we contextualize the mission within a broader set of problems and solutions, that may underlie the mission goal. Although missions typically focus on a single societal problem [ 9 , 24 ], other societal problems tend to be involved via framework conditions that define what solutions are desirable. For example, the Dutch Delta Works mission for water safety required solutions to comply with framework conditions related to maritime transportation, ecology, and cultural heritage [ 43 ]. The way in which different societal problems are included and prioritized in mission formulation and supportive instruments, constitutes ‘problem directionality’ and is assessed as part of the system functions analysis.

Problem directionality determines what solutions are relevant for the mission. ‘Solution-directionality’ reflects how stakeholders search for and invest in solutions they deem promising. This is impacted by regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive institutions [ 44 ], which the mission arena may attempt to influence. Inventorying solutions requires understanding how solutions interrelate [ 45 ]. Diagnostic questions relevant to problem-solution diagnosis include:

How do different societal problems and ‘wants’ relate to the mission?
What technological and social solutions are relevant to the mission?
How radically innovative are these solutions, how well do they correspond with existing innovation system structures’ resource endowments, and what is their state of development?
How do solutions interact (symbiosis, neutralism, parasitism, commensalism, amensalism [ 45 ])?

2.1.2 Structural analysis.

The second MIS analytical step is mapping the actors, institutions, networks, and materiality [ 46 ], in which we distinguish the mission arena from the overall MIS , i.e. the semi-coherent configuration of different innovation system structures that interact and affect the development and diffusion of solutions to a mission.

2 . 1 . 2 . 1 Mission arena . The mission arena concept builds on Loorbach’s [ 47 ] notion of transition arenas and Jørgensen’s concept of arenas of development [ 48 ] and refers to actors engaged in highly political and contested processes of mission governance. Mission governance involves mobilizing and aligning existing innovation system structures into a semi-coherent ensemble that aims to pursue the mission goal. The arena metaphor is taken from political and social theory to emphasize its temporary, actor-dependent, and contested nature [ 48 , 49 ], which reflects the struggles between proponents and opponents of swift transformative mission action [ 9 ]. Based on Mission-oriented Policy Observatory’s (MIPO) ongoing work [ 12 , 50 ], we distinguish four mission arena tasks:

setting up the mission arena,
formulating the mission,
mobilizing MIS components via mission governance actions, and
continued, reflexive mission governance.

In setting up the mission arena actors decide a mission governance structure, including which actors are involved in what decision-making centers, how to deal with power imbalances, how to mobilize resources, at what levels to coordinate policies and other actions, and whether to build on existing networks or develop new, dedicated, and cross-sectoral structures. Literature on governance arrangements, ranging from hierarchical to self-governance [ 51 ] and different governance theories, on multi-level (e.g. [ 52 ]), polycentric (e.g. [ 53 , 54 ]) and network (e.g. [ 55 , 56 ]) or collaborative (e.g. [ 57 ]) governance provide handholds for understanding the benefits and impact of different mission arena structures. Smith and Stirling [ 37 ] furthermore distinguish inside-political from outside-management transformative governance strategies and Larrue [ 11 ] empirically identifies bottom-up as well as top-down mission governance approaches. Different situations ask for different governance structures and strategies, perhaps even over time for the same mission. By placing the mission arena at the heart of the MIS approach, we may eventually induce theory on how mission arena’s governance strategies impact MIS functioning. Although highly institutionalized arenas may have more stable boundaries and configurations, this likely does not hold for societal transformative visions reflected in transformative missions–particularly when it comes to sustainability [ 49 , 58 ].

Formulating the mission entails prioritizing societal problems and translating them into ambitious and actionable mission goals that guide to the overall MIS. Since societal-challenge-led missions typically require transformation of existing socio-technical systems [ 9 , 12 , 20 ], mission goals often oppose expectations and visions of regime actors, leading to conflict with powerful vested interests [ 47 ]. This inherent conflict, and struggle with inclusivity, social learning, and regime persistence needs to be considered in inclusive deliberation methods employed in the mission arena and might require excluding powerful vested interests, as fundamental conflict affects collective sense-making processes and mission formulation outcomes [ 47 , 49 , 58 – 60 ]. Larrue [ 11 ] finds that mission formulation processes ideally “unfolds as a succession of top-down and bottom-up phases, opening and reducing the space of potential options through a mix of concertation and selection stages” [ 11 , p.54].

Mobilizing MIS components via mission governance actions requires an overall mission agenda or action plan that includes not only activities that existing innovation system structures need to pursue, but also governance actions that incentivize and enable these structures to undertake such activities. We refer to ‘ mission governance actions’ as all measures by which the mission arena aims to mobilize and align MIS components to improve MIS performance. They include Mission-oriented Innovation Policy instruments and other stakeholders’ actions to mobilize innovation system components, such as networking organizations sharing knowledge; and educational organizations providing training and re-integration programs.

Continued , reflexive mission governance is required throughout the mission, including (a) monitoring and evaluating mission progress; (b) reflecting on coordination of solution pathways; (c) ensuring mission reformulation and MIS redirection when it loses societal relevance or legitimacy; (d) ensuring that mission governance actions are adapted or existing institutions changed when solution pathways are evaluated as inadequate to the mission goal; and (e) ensuring restructuring the mission arena itself, when certain parties inhibit mission progress. Hence, continued governance should consider changing stakeholder appraisals of societal problems and solution development trajectories [ 37 , 49 , 61 ]. This requires recurring broad and empowered deliberation [ 37 , 49 , 61 ] and the ability “to draw on a monitoring, anticipation, evaluation and impact assessment system (“strategic intelligence”) that provides the analytical and forward-looking basis for reflexive discourses and adaptive policies” [ 36 , p.1044, 47 , 59 , 62 ].

2 . 1 . 2 . 2 MIS scope . A MIS, like any innovation system is defined by its structural components that affect the rate and direction of innovation and transformation [ 38 , 63 – 66 ]. Although these broader definitions do not exclude change-opposing forces, transition perspectives have often criticized innovation systems perspectives for under-conceptualizing forces of stability, i.e. the regime, that profoundly influence the rate and the direction of innovation [ 67 , 68 ]. We therefore included in our MIS definition structural components that positively or negatively influence innovative mission solutions, either directly or indirectly, purposefully, or inadvertently, and for the sake of the mission’s progress, for economic gains, or for other purposes. Existing regulations that inadvertently restrict adoption of innovative mission solutions (like double taxing of smart car charging) are thus part of the MIS lens, as are entrepreneurs developing innovative solutions for financial gain.

MIS emerge with mission formulation and develop as mission problems and solutions increasingly institutionalize. Over time, if the mission remains societally relevant and urgent, the MIS’ societal problems and solutions will increasingly align, institutionalize, and materialize; and MIS’ ‘systemness’ or MIS-defining structural characteristics (i.e. technologies, actors, institutions and networks), will become increasingly profound [ 16 , 17 ]. Although MIS coherence is an assumed precondition for effectively meeting transformative missions, the actual emergence of a coherent MIS is not assumed and should be empirically studied. In fact, it would be surprising if MIS structures that have developed in different TIS, Regional (RIS), National (NIS), Sectoral (SIS) Innovation System contexts, with different purposes (typically economic growth) would all easily realign around the same mission goal. As Fig 1 shows, the mission arena therefore attempts to align and mobilize (orange arrows) these structural components to improve MIS performance. For example, mission arena actors may lobby to remove restrictive regulations that served to preserve an established technology, or to redirect subsidy schemes, to benefit the performance of the MIS. The mission-oriented redirection of existing innovation system structures implies that certain existing innovation systems transform and prosper when aligned with the mission. For example, Bugge et al. [ 69 ] highlight the economic opportunities resulting from the mission-driven reorientation of the Western Norway regional innovation systems. At the same time, other pre-existing systems that conflict with the mission, may decline as the MIS develops; fossil fuel based TIS are likely to decline under a developing sustainability-oriented MIS that requires their phase out. At the same time, missions rarely emerge ‘from scratch’; instead, problems and solutions have already started institutionalizing and developing in different stages in existing innovation system structures. The new Horizon Europe missions, for example, did not originate in a vacuum, but built on previous problem and solution framings and pre-existing innovation system structures [ 9 ]. Because MIS performance depends on pre-existing innovation system structures, our MIS approach maps out and studies the impact of these embedded structures and how the mission’s governance (i.e. the mission arena) aims to mobilize and redirect them, using the following diagnostic questions:

What actors are part of the mission arena and contribute to (a) mission formulation; (b) mobilizing other MIS components; and (c) continued mission governance?
What governance structure supports the mission arena?
What actors, networks, institutions, and materiality support the development and diffusion of the mission’s solution, including the phasing out of harmful goods and practices?
How does the mission arena align with existing institutional structures related to the mission?

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000075.g001

2.1.3 System functions.

The system functions developed to study TIS [ 38 , 39 ] comprise a set of ‘key innovation activities’ that result from the structural system components identified in Step 2. The system functions are generic enough to apply to innovation systems characterized by a sector [ 70 ], by a societal problem [ 16 ], and by sustainability transition pathways [ 20 ]. We show that when sufficiently adapted, the system functions can reflect transformative MIS performance, i.e. the development and diffusion of innovative mission solutions and phase-out or destabilization of practices harmful to the mission. Table 3 lists MIS functions and associated diagnostic questions to assess them.

Source: builds on TIS function works such as [ 38 , 39 , 42 , 81 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000075.t003

First, since ‘mission solutions’ involve both innovations and phasing out of old, harmful practices and technologies, MIS functions should reflect both key innovation activities that capture ‘the new’ and transformation activities capturing destabilization or phase-out of the ‘the old’. In Table 3 we posit that all such destabilizing activities can be traced back to the counterpart of existing system functions oriented towards supporting ‘the new’. A policy mandating phase-out of an existing technology or levying additional taxes may be interpreted as market destabilization , the counterpart of market formation. Capturing both sides results in MIS function 5 ‘market formation and destabilization’ that reflects a key transformation activity instead of only an innovation activity. Similarly, the TIS function ‘creation of legitimacy’ has been extended to the transformative System Function (SF) 7 ‘creation and withdrawal of legitimacy’ [ 71 – 73 ]; ‘resource mobilization’ is reinterpreted as SF6 ‘resource reallocation’, to also capture withdrawal of resources, including supportive physical infrastructures, from harmful practices; SF2 ‘knowledge development and unlearning’ now captures unlearning processes that refer to abandoning obsolete or ineffective practices and habits [ 74 – 76 ]; SF3 ‘Knowledge diffusion’ has become ‘knowledge diffusion and network breakdown’ [ 74 ].

Second, the mission arena concept foregrounds governance structures and highlights its different tasks and system functions impacts. This moves beyond innovation systems’ conceptualizations of network as only diffusing knowledge (see e.g. [ 38 ]).

Third, the mission arena aims to influence directionality or ‘guidance of the search’ (SF4) in the MIS. Directionality can range from open problem framings to specific mission formulations that exclude societal problems or many solutions. Azar and Sandén [ 45 ] argue any goal framing favors some solutions over others, because they can or cannot meet certain targets, synergize, or compete with a set of solutions, or are at a certain level of development. Consequently, missions may purposefully but also involuntarily shape what clusters of technological and social solutions, or solution pathways, which is overlooked in existing innovation systems approaches [ 22 ]. Many practitioners face the challenge of providing directionality that balances different stakeholder interests while meeting a mission goal [ 10 , 11 ]. Achieving such directional mission governance requires inclusive multi-stakeholder processes, well-informed reflexivity, and coordination to prevent unintended exclusion of potential solutions [ 24 , 36 , 37 , 60 ]. Hence, MIS functions should capture both problem directionality (SF4a) and solution directionality (SF4b). Additionally, since the mission arena’s continued, reflexive governance processes are central to monitor mission progress and to readjusting problem and solution-directionality and mission arena tasks [ 24 , 77 ], we include this as a third directionality dimension (SF4c). Finally, mission goals provide a clear reference point to assess system function performance, allowing for diagnostic questions like “Are system functions developed ‘sufficiently rapidly to complete the mission’?”.

Fourth, solution-directionality (SF4b) is affected specifically by the increased scope and complexity of MIS, because of including sets of interacting technological and social solutions. This affects the granularity of the MIS analysis; should MIS functions be assessed per individual mission solution, per set of solutions or mission-generically? We take the latter approach to manage complexity–assessing MIS functions for mission solutions in general while critically reflecting on solution-type-specific exceptions. The broader MIS scope also raises the question if MIS functions can sufficiently capture social innovation processes. Ghazinoory et al. [ 16 ] and Haddad and Bergek [ 20 ] tentatively showed that adapted system functions can do so. Interrelatedness of solutions requires mission arena processes of solution pathway coordination that TIS and Regional Innovation System analyses overlook [ 20 , 22 , 46 ].

Similar to the TIS functions approach by Suurs and Hekkert [ 78 ], it is possible to distinguish between positive system function fulfillment (i.e., transformation processes that contribute to meeting the mission goal, like more support for innovative solutions or phase-out of harmful practices) and negative fulfilment (i.e. a decrease in innovation activities or increase in harmful practices).

2.1.4 Systemic barriers analysis.

Systemic barriers (also known as systemic problems or blocking mechanisms) are structural components or interactions that are missing or unable to support system functions, thereby hampering the overall system functioning [ 79 ]. Often, the origin of systemic barriers can be traced to the regime as vested interests may result in different barriers to radical innovation, like standardization committees or other gatekeeper positions dominated by regime players [ 70 ]. Different, interrelated systemic barriers may result in systemic lock-in [ 70 ].

2.1.5 Formative evaluation.

The innovation systems literature refers to systemic instruments as policy or governance actions that address systemic barriers [ 80 ]. Effective systemic instruments or governance actions should be targeted at the root causes of barriers that prevent innovation system development [ 70 ]. In the context of MIS, we understand systemic instruments as the mission governance actions that mission arena participants committed to, in support of the mission.

We use the rationale of systemic instruments that tackle barriers to improve MIS performance, to enable ex-ante, formative evaluation of mission governance actions. Prospective, formative evaluation is most desirable, as policy makers are currently still planning or struggling with the implementation of mission policies and look for ways of improving this process ‘on the go’, and insufficient time has passed for retrospective, summative evaluation [ 12 ]. Hence, instead of assessing ex ante the likely impact of a mix of governance actions based on the mix’ design criteria, such as consistency and coherence [ 82 , 83 ], our MIS approach starts from an additionality perspective, stressing that existing MIS components are already engaging in various innovation activities and that the mix of actions should focus on resolving remaining MIS barriers to boost MIS performance effectively and efficiently. To assess if all MIS barriers are adequately targeted, we compare them with the mission governance actions. Formative recommendations follow from untargeted MIS barriers or that may be unintentionally reinforced by mission governance actions. Building on this overarching systemic evaluation rationale, more generic formative governance recommendations may follow from our approach when stakeholders have not yet defined mission governance actions.

2.2 Case study description

We take a single case study approach, as this is the preferred research strategy for exploring the usefulness of our MIS approach while enabling theory generation, in a contemporary context that is outside the researcher’s control [ 84 , 85 ]. We focus on the case of the Dutch (not European) ‘Maritime and Inland Shipping and Ports’ Green Deal. Specifically, we focus on the mission to achieve a 20% reduction in CO 2 emissions per maritime short sea shipping operation by 2024 [ 86 ] and a 70% reduction in absolute CO 2 emissions in the sector by 2050 [ 87 ]. The mission arena in this case comprises a governance structure in which different types of public and private actors negotiated and signed the ‘Green Deal’ document that specified the mission goal and signees’ commitments to taking mission governance actions to increase MIS performance [ 87 ]. One of these actions is the initiation of a taskforce that represents the signees, and that coordinates, monitors and evaluates the implementation of the Green Deal. Other planned actions involve the implementation of various innovation policy instruments by public organizations, and the mobilization of members of industry networks to contribute to innovative mission solutions [ 87 ], see Section 3.5 for an overview and evaluation of these actions. We tentatively evaluate ex ante (data collection started eight months after the Green Deal’s signing) whether the Green Deal’s mission governance tasks and actions effectively target MIS barriers.

Maritime transport is efficient in terms of emissions per unit of cargo carried but is responsible for 2% of global emissions and uses some of the most polluting fuels available [ 88 ]. The past decade has seen a reduction in the carbon intensity of shipping activities by around 20% [ 89 ], achieved by incremental innovation, but a greenhouse gas emission increase by 9.6% due to increasing demand [ 90 ]. Dutch shipping shows a similar trend [ 91 ]. The shipping sector is essential for societal functioning, as it transports over 90% of total world commerce [ 92 ]. In the Netherlands, the sector accounts for 3.2% of Dutch GDP totaling 79.4 billion euros in turnover [ 93 ]. While the sector has distinguishable market segments [ 94 ], the global maritime sector has become highly consolidated, with oversupply of capacity. This has caused strong horizontal and vertical integration, leading the four largest carriers to control more than half of global capacity [ 89 ]. Inland shipping is however dominated by smaller, family-owned businesses [ 95 ]. The Dutch rank 15 th in terms of ownership of the world fleet (totaling 23.9 billion USD) and is the sixth most connected maritime economy worldwide [ 89 ].

2.3 Data collection and analysis

To analyze this mission, our case study approach is structured by the research steps summarized in Table 2 . These five analytical steps have three overarching themes: mapping the MIS, assessing the MIS and formative evaluation. Since systems are dynamic and mission governance and MIS barriers change over time, another cycle of analytical steps may commence several years after the formative evaluation, see Fig 2 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000075.g002

The concepts relevant to these research steps were operationalized via the diagnostic questions listed in Section 2.1. We developed a database to apply these diagnostic questions to, consisting of 27 interview transcripts totaling 168 pages and, to enable triangulation, a complementary set of scientific publications, newspaper articles, trade magazine articles, websites, company and technology reports, and Dutch policy documents on sustainable maritime transportation (obtained using LexisNexis, Google, and Google Scholar, and via our networks).

The sample of our interviewees is representative of the Dutch maritime and inland shipping sector (see Table 4 ) and include both stakeholders actively involved in and affected by the mission arena. To ensure candid responses, interviews were anonymized. To further prevent interest-based biases, we did not rely on interviewees’ direct normative assessments of events, but on their cause-and-effect explanations of events, which we triangulated with document data and other interviewed actor types, to then form our own assessment. Interview data provided the backbone in all research steps, with the exception of the ‘solution diagnosis’, for which a complementary literature review using sector reports and academic literature on sustainable maritime transportation solutions was conducted. Semi-structured interviews proved particularly useful for identifying interrelated MIS barriers, as they allow for building on the diagnostic questions with ‘Why?’-type questions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000075.t004

Our data analysis approach employs a four-stage blended coding approach [ 96 ], making use of NVivo. As an initial step, we engaged in open coding of textual fragments [ 97 ]. These coded fragments were then grouped into categories following focused coding [ 98 ]. These categories were then allocated to the respective MIS analytical steps and system functions and used to inductively construct MIS barriers. This step allowed us to identify themes that would not fit the predefined set of MIS functions, or re(de)fine the functions if necessary. Finally, axial coding was done to identify causal linkages between MIS functions and barriers. Axial coding largely built on interviewees’ explanations of causalities. This allowed us to create a flowchart that captures MIS inhibitive dynamics [ 99 ]. This coding process resulted in a total of 1,403 coded textual fragments. A reliability check was applied by two other researchers, resulting in a Krippendorff’s Alpha of 0.88, which is considered reliable [ 100 ].

3.1 Problem-solution diagnosis

The Green Deal was initiated by policymakers in 2018 because the maritime sector was omitted from most environmental policies and agreements, including the Paris climate agreement [ 87 ]. Although the problem of sustainability acknowledged by all Green Deal stakeholders and goals were not contested, international economic competitiveness inhibited swift transformative action. Reduced mobility is another trade-off for more radical alternative energy carriers such as battery and hydrogen-electric ships, while the better local air quality these ships bring is a large benefit.

S1 Table lists the technological and social mission solutions. The main technological solutions to be implemented to the ship include exhaust gas treatment systems (scrubbers), electric propulsion systems, electrical sensor systems, and efficiency gains within established technologies. Alternative energy carriers such as hydrogen and LNG were also identified. We found two major social innovations, including efficient shipping routes, speeds and fleet use, and a smarter global production and transportation system. As S1 Table (Supplementary Information) shows, most of these solutions have already been proven in an operational shipping environment. Some incremental solutions, such as scrubbers and LNG ships, are starting to take off on the global market [ 101 , 102 ] whereas other, more radically innovative solutions, such as hydrogen fuel cell ships, need more development and policy support to become competitive [ 103 , 104 ]. From these solutions, different solution-pathways can be identified.

3.2 Structural analysis

While Dutch Green Deals are normally initiated by industry pioneers, the focal mission arena was initiated by the Dutch government, as it was required by the Dutch Coalition Agreement [ 95 ]. The arena initially consisted of 42 parties (including 11 industry and trade associations, 8 governmental organizations, 5 port representatives, 2 shippers, 1 chemicals company, 1 energy company, 1 freight forwarder, 1 consultancy, 4 financial organizations, 3 knowledge institutes, 1 knowledge platform, 1 education organization, 2 foundations). These parties negotiated in a top-down process and signed the Green Deal, committing to numerous mission governance actions over the period 2019–2024 (see Section 3.5) [ 87 ]. In 2024, an updated Green Deal will be negotiated. In 2021, the North-Holland and South-Holland provinces also committed to and signed the agreement. Interviewees agree that the negotiations for the Green Deal were dominated by government and industry associations, with a marginalized role for companies; in the end, only four companies signed the Green Deal [ 87 ]. This top-down approach of company representation via industry associations caused limited mission awareness and commitment by companies, despite their central role in solution development, production, and use. To safeguard the industry’s economic competitiveness, the industry associations negotiated some public funds be mobilized to compensate for private investments, but also vaguer and noncommittal mission governance actions from the industry side.

The actors in the overall MIS are much more numerous. As indicated by the inventory of clean shipping solutions, knowledge institutes and technology suppliers had already developed various technological solutions independently of the mission. Shipping companies adopted more incremental solutions [ 105 , 106 ], and various ports researched and developed supportive infrastructure [ 107 ]. Most of these innovation activities received government support. The Green Deal strives to bundle, guide, and increase the innovation processes by these MIS components.

The Green Deal is embedded in a multi-level institutional context that supports sustainable short sea shipping. Interviewees point to the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) worldwide regulations, European and national regulations, and local regulations in the form of ‘Emission Controlled Areas’. The IMO formally aims to halve global shipping emissions by 2050 [ 108 ], for which the International Chamber of Shipping proposed a 5bn USD fund to design zero-emissions vessels, fed by a 2 USD levy on every tonne of fuel [ 109 ]. Progress is slow, however, causing the EU to formulate its own emission-reduction strategy including market-based measures [ 110 ]. The Dutch mission was at the time of negotiation more ambitious than these IMO and EU targets, but, interviewees agree, likely less impactful due to its national scope.

3.3 Functional analysis

The mission benefitted from quite some entrepreneurial activities (SF1) and many experimental projects have moved incremental and radical innovations to TRL9 (see S1 Table ). Thanks to supportive measures, such as accelerator PortXL, some startups–mostly smart technology providers as such firms need lower capital investments–are entering the market with clean innovations [ 111 ]. Business model innovation is however insufficient to overcome the cost of most clean shipping solutions.

Most interviewees (19/27) stated that knowledge institutes and technology suppliers have developed much knowledge (SF2) [ 112 ] and pushed clean innovations to high TRLs. Most interviewees (24/27) indicated knowledge diffusion (SF3) to be high, because of strong formal and informal networks and collaborations along the supply chain that serves the relatively small market of short sea shipping. There was no indication of unlearning (SF2) or network breakdown (SF3).

With its ambitious CO 2 emission reduction goal, the Green Deal contributes to problem-directionality (SF4a) . Increasing economic competitiveness is however listed as the first consideration in the Green Deal [ 87 ]. Nine interviewees indicated the Green Deal’s “green growth” trajectory already existed, implying the mission’s impact on problem-directionality was limited. The three interviewees from knowledge institutes deem the goal inadequate to meeting the Dutch Climate Agreement.

Although interviewees agree that a range of solutions is necessary to meet the mission, solution-directionality (SF4b) remains weak. Various radically innovative solutions have reached the market introduction stage but require substantial further development to become competitive. This range of uncompetitive alternative solutions means that shippers and ports are waiting for a dominant design to emerge. However, little selection is taking place. Additionally, the previous push in the Netherlands and Europe for LNG has led to high sunk development costs by engine manufacturers, making them reluctant to again switch technology [ 113 ]. Finally, two shipping companies indicated many shippers do not know the best solution for their type of ship and can be dependent on novel, uninstalled infrastructure. A port representative indicated this infrastructure is missing, due to lacking demand by shippers (a chicken-or-egg problem). Although the mission goal signals that a cluster of radical technological and social solutions needs to be widely diffused by 2050, ten interviewees indicated the mission arena might contribute more to solution-directionality if it provided information on and assessments of the different solutions stakeholders need. This is something that the mission arena failed to do adequately, but for which public funding was secured due to the lobby by knowledge institute mission arena members. Four interviewed companies (not involved in the mission arena) confirmed that the vague formulation of mission actions contributed little to solution-directionality.

Reflexive governance (SF4c) was low, as greenhouse gas emissions were not consistently monitored. Industry associations will ‘stimulate’ their members to report shipping emissions. More importantly, a taskforce will monitor and evaluate mission progress and effectiveness of mission governance actions. Their insights will inform negotiations for the updated 2024 Green Deal. Although all interviewees praised such a taskforce, half of them stressed the taskforce should have been installed immediately and should operate transparently, to better maintain stakeholder commitment throughout the mission.

In terms of market formation and destabilization (SF5) , the diffusion of clean shipping innovations is largely limited to incremental and add-on solutions. This includes ships equipped with exhaust gas treatment systems (scrubbers), alternative fuels (e.g. biofuels or LNG), efficiency gains within established technologies, electrical sensor systems, and more effective shipping routes, speeds, and fleet use [ 114 ]. Some solutions are tentatively being diffused on the global market, like scrubbers (2,947 ships by 2019 [ 102 ]), LNG (541 by 2019 [ 101 ]) and sensory systems, which have become mainstream in new ships [ 115 ]. Most solutions have been diffused in response to market-destabilizing regulations, such as emission-control areas and compulsory fuel consumption monitoring, that favor incremental and add-on innovation adoption [ 116 , 117 ]. Phase-out of existing technology is limited to replacement of conventional, oil-based marine fuels by LNG and biofuels. An important driver for sustainable shipping is the procurement of the government’s shipping fleet. By 2018, 12 seafaring ships of the Dutch government were powered by 30% biodiesel and from 2019 onwards the government started the procurement of 15 hybrid-electric ships. These ships were equipped with electrical sensor and software systems to enable efficient shipping, shipping routes, and speeds; with enhanced hydrodynamics; heat recirculation systems; and solar panels [ 118 ].

Nevertheless, all interviewed stakeholders agreed that market formation for sustainable-shipping innovations is weak, particularly for radical innovations, for several reasons. First, other than the pre-existing regulations, eleven interviewees indicated that market-forming policies and destabilizing regulations are insufficient to kick-start the adoption of uncompetitive innovations. Second, both interviewed freight forwarders were unwilling to pay a sustainability premium to shippers because they cannot transfer it to their customers. Consequently, shippers are unwilling to pay for the implementation of radical sustainable innovations. A third reason is the aforementioned uncertainty regarding the dominant energy carrier and its dependence on infrastructure, resulting in a wait-and-see attitude in shippers [ 109 ]. Finally, two interviewed shipping companies and a technology supplier explained that energy-efficiency solutions, including the social solutions of optimal shipping speeds and routes, are impaired by organizational barriers. This is largely because the charterer prioritizes speed and timing over efficiency and pays the fuel, removing the incentive for shippers to innovate. Business model innovation can overcome this barrier. Niche markets in which some sustainability premium can be transferred to the end consumer tend to be more high-value, particularly high-tech industries in direct contact with the end consumer (confronting them with visible air pollution), such as the cruising industry [ 119 ].

Most interviewees found no clear barriers in the (re)allocation of financial , human , or material resources (SF6). The presence of public R&D support but the lack of business models, causes investments to focus on R&D instead of adoption, even though interviewed financial organizations are willing to finance. This imbalance is one reason for the many market-ready but uncompetitive innovations that are not being selected in for wider diffusion. The mission arena mobilized 5 million EUR public funding, which all interviewees consider unimpactful, compared to the billions of EUR necessary to finance the sector’s sustainability transition.

Interviewees agreed that problem-legitimacy (SF7) was high politically, as the government’s coalition agreement required the Green Deal [ 120 ]. The public, however, put little pressure on the sector as it (and its emissions) are mostly invisible to them. Hence the industry experienced little urgency looking instead to government to initiate and direct change. Solution legitimacy (SF7) has been lobbied for by various solution-specific and generic lobby groups, such as the emission-free shipping association that lobbied for a CO 2 tax to finance sustainable innovation [ 121 ]. Industry associations opposed these types of more transformative instruments in favour of vaguer and non-committal mission governance actions.

3.4 Systemic barriers analysis

The main, mutually reinforcing barriers in the overall MIS relate to the system functions ‘market formation and destabilization’, ‘entrepreneurial activities’, and ‘solution-directionality’ (see green area, Fig 3 ). The central barrier constitutes the missing business model among shippers to adopt, particularly more radical, sustainable innovations. This is caused (a) by too little market-oriented policy support ( -SF5 ); (b) freight forwarders and end users unwilling to pay a premium for sustainable transportation ( -SF5 ); (c) shippers waiting for an alternative energy carrier to become dominant and for infrastructure to emerge ( -SF4b ); and (d) charterer paying the shippers’ fuel, taking away shippers’ incentive to adopt fuel-saving solutions ( -SF5 ). This lack of a business model impairs the investments of technology suppliers in developing technological solutions to commercially- competitive levels (- SF1; 2 ). In combination with the abundant early-stage R&D funding, this resulted in many uncompetitive radical solutions that require substantial physical infrastructure development. This systemic barrier reflects low solution-directionality and results in shippers adopting a wait-and-see approach ( -SF4b ), closing a vicious cycle of systemic barriers in which a lack of demand maintains a lack of supply and vice versa.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000075.g003

3.5 Contrasting mission arena tasks and MIS barriers

We now assess the four mission arena tasks. The task to involve stakeholders in the arena held more potential, as companies were not adequately involved in the arena, relying instead on industry associations which are more conservative than their members (see orange area, Fig 3 ). This resulted in low company support to the mission.

This non-inclusive, top-down governance structure impacted the mission arena task of formulating the mission . Although the mission goal was largely uncontested due to its embedding in the Dutch Coalition Agreement, dominant industry associations succeeded in making Dutch economic competitiveness a first consideration in the Green Deal. The result has been a focus on ‘green growth’.

The green growth orientation defined the task ‘mission governance actions to mobilize the overall MIS’ , as the mission arena’s strategy revolved around supporting sustainable shipping innovations, while leaving regime-destabilizing solutions up to transnational governance, as it would damage attractiveness of Dutch industry. In total 64 mission governance actions were defined [ 87 ], many of which target MIS barriers (see Table 5 ). Particularly the missing business model barrier is addressed by many governance actions, both from a market-forming and a solution-directing perspective. These actions should aspire not only to increase the attractiveness of clean shipping solutions (SF5), but also to provide clarity on preferential solutions (SF4b). If effective, these actions will also impact the ‘many uncompetitive solutions with no infrastructure’ barrier, as an improved business model directly translates into more competitive solutions, particularly after learning processes and scale economies kick in. This triggers a process of demand-driven selection (SF4b) and infrastructure investments (SF6), which public mission governance actions will also support (SF5). Despite the funds allocated to assessing solution to market segment fit, most interviewees believe the mission arena could have provided clearer solution directions, e.g. via better coordination between actor types (e.g. ports, shippers and technology suppliers) and better information dissemination to shippers. While government committed to many innovation-support instruments, industry associations limited their actions to ‘requesting’, ‘stimulating’ and ‘urging’ their members to engage in various sustainable shipping activities. Government and industry associations committed to lobbying for regime-destabilizing measures at respectively, the European and global level [ 87 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000075.t005

Regarding the arena task to engage in reflexive governance , interviewees agreed that a quick follow-up to the mission agreement via the promised monitoring and evaluation taskforce would have benefited stakeholder commitment.

4. Discussion

4.1 contribution to sustainable maritime literature.

This paper provides a holistic view on the mission-oriented governance of the maritime sustainability transition. This expands previous maritime studies that focused only on parts of the transition, such as understanding the role of a specific actor type [ 90 ], of its segmented market [ 94 ], of pilot projects and public procurement [ 122 ], or of transnational governance via the IMO [ 123 ]. Others have studied individual solutions from a TIS perspective [ 124 ] or combined TIS studies to understand the interplay between solutions and regime practices [ 125 ].

Our contribution lies in our comprehensive, goal-oriented transitions perspective, allowing us to understand contestation dynamics within mission governance arenas and how this may impact governing the rate and direction of the maritime sustainability transition. The MIS approach also allowed us to identify systemic barriers to social solutions that would have been overlooked by other (TIS) studies, such as charterers paying shippers’ fuel costs and prioritizing timing and speed, which disincentivizes optimal shipping routes and speeds.

4.2 Reflection on MIS approach

From the conceptual and empirical work done in this study, we elucidate six characteristics that set the MIS approach apart from other innovation systems approaches. These characteristics structure our reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the MIS approach in Table 6 . Overall, we consider the approach’ analytical steps useful for evaluating mission governance from a systems perspective, but further case studies are needed to confirm this. Systematic case study comparisons may enable theory induction on (a) typical dynamics and barriers in innovation system structures affecting missions, and on (b) the impact of different mission governance approaches. Comparison across the following dimensions would be quite valuable:

level of ‘wickedness’, as degrees of complexity, uncertainty and contestation differ [ 9 , 23 ];
type of required solutions, i.e. predominantly technological or social [ 126 ];
accelerator missions or transformer missions [ 10 , 11 , 33 ];
relatedly, ‘big science’ missions of old or today’s challenge-led missions [ 8 , 127 ];
number of possible ‘solution-pathways’ and ensuing complexities, within the mission scope;
geographical scope and multi-scalarity, and ensuing coordination problems [ 22 , 128 ];
bottom-up or top-down, and dedicated or business-as-usual governance structures [ 11 ];
outside-managerial or inside-political governance strategies [ 37 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000075.t006

Central to our MIS approach is the mission arena concept, which merits further reflection. This case study showed that the mission arena took an outside, managerial type of mission governance approach [ 37 ] relying on existing, national, and sector-specific industry networks whose principal interest was to maintain the Dutch maritime sector’s competitiveness. So, although the governance structure included many different actor types, individual companies were marginalized in its deliberation processes. In this light, our empirics suggest the following relations between mission arena composition and negotiated mission governance actions, that merit further study to build theory on mission arenas.

First, a non-inclusive, top-down mission arena approach undermines stakeholder support. This is reflected in the Mission-oriented Innovation Policy literature, which underlines the importance of bottom-up deliberation processes, such as participatory foresight methods, for tapping into stakeholders’ creativity and support [ 11 , 130 ]. Further research should inventory best practices balancing top-down and bottom-up mission governance processes, and especially of effectively engaging individual companies in mission arenas.

Second, vested interests striving for economic competitiveness of sectors affected by the mission favor a ‘mission accelerator approach’ that focuses on technological development supported by public policy support [ 10 , 11 , 33 ] and neglects destabilizing and social solutions necessary for missions that are inherently transformative, like most sustainability missions. Bugge et al. [ 69 ] find that accelerator mission approaches may be adequately governed by existing innovation system networks. However, in our case, actors justified the accelerator approach to a transformative sustainability mission under the misleading (in terms of absolute, global decoupling) ‘green growth’ paradigm [ 131 , 132 ]. Hence, powerful vested interests can inhibit the achievement of a more impactful ‘transformer mission approach’. Building on transition arenas and arenas of development literature [ 47 , 49 , 58 , 59 ], further research should study how to move away from pre-existing innovation systems’ governance structures where vested interests like industry associations have positions of power. Instead, research should explore how to create dedicated, multi-stakeholder mission governance structures that do not build on, but exclude established networks that prioritize economic interest in established technologies. This is because such networks will negatively impact collective sense-making processes in terms of transformative mission goals, problem and solution directionality, and mission governance commitments. Finally, longitudinal research may study how mission arena configurations and boundaries shift over time, as stakeholder power and interests shift.

Third, although the focal national mission was created in a transnational (EU) and global (IMO) institutional context of developing similar mission targets, it lacked sufficient transnational commitment. The case study here suggests that in inherently transnationally oriented sectors, such lack of transnational institutional context may (a) undermine the national mission’s impact and (b) narrow its solution orientation to solutions less dependent on transnational cooperation. Limited transnational commitments are not uncommon in sustainability contexts, as even the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals seems to have marginal transformative impact on national mission policies, due to the limited commitments and non-binding agreements [ 133 ]. Perhaps the EU mission areas and EU Green Deals can secure such commitments [ 134 ]. It may be necessary to further study how to align mission solution orientations and create cohesion of mission governance actions across multi-level governance structures [ 135 ], i.e. mission arenas interconnected across geographical scales as suggested by the concept of Challenge-oriented Regional Innovation Systems [ 22 ].

5. Conclusions

This paper introduces for the first time a MIS approach, which is a structural-functional approach to study missions from a systems perspective. Furthermore, the paper illustrates its applicability with a case study of the Dutch Green Deal mission for sustainable short sea shipping. We identified the most important barriers in the system structures affecting the mission, which inhibit the development and diffusion of innovative and destabilizing mission solutions. To formatively evaluate the mission-supporting tasks of the mission arena, we assessed if arena tasks targeted these MIS barriers.

The main MIS barriers revolved around the missing business model of shippers to adopt sustainable innovations. THis is caused by little market-oriented policy support, unwillingness to pay sustainability premiums, wait-and-see dynamics due to missing solution directionality, and inadequate incentive structures. These barriers and low company commitment to the mission illustrate the semi-coherence of existing system structures influencing the mission, indicating that a coherent MIS still needs to emerge. Assessing the first arena task in relation to the MIS barriers, we find individual firms were not adequately involved in forming the mission arena, which was dominated instead by industry associations that negotiated a mission formulation around green growth (second arena task) and vague and non-committal governance actions, although these actions did target MIS barriers (third task). This, combined with the delayed installment of a taskforce (fourth task), failed to overcome the barrier of limited company support to the mission. There also was more potential to provide the much-needed solution-directionality in a MIS characterized by a wide range of still uncompetitive but infrastructure-dependent technological solutions that require coordinated selection by different actors to becomes successful. Finally, better attempts could be made to overcome problematic incentive structures in support of social innovation.

Building on the assumption that a coherent MIS is necessary to effectively meet mission goals, we conclude that the value of the MIS approach lies in its ability to explore emerging mission governance dynamics in relation to the broader innovation system structures that the mission arena aims to impact. The MIS approach acknowledges the political nature of missions, their overarching societal problems, and underlying innovative and transformative solutions. Instead of building on prescriptive principles, the MIS approach provides a heuristic tool to systematically identify MIS barriers, which forms as basis to formatively assess mission governance actions.

Supporting information

S1 table. overview of solutions, their trl, innovation type, involvement of interviewees, advantages, and disadvantages..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000075.s001

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank the interviewees for their candid responses; the three anonymous referees and the section editor for their comprehensive feedback that enabled us to improve this paper; our colleagues at the MIPO (Mission-oriented Innovation Policy Observatory) for the discussions that helped shape this paper; Matthijs Janssen for his comprehensive comments on the draft paper; a maritime transport expert working at RVO that factually checked the draft; in particular Koen Frenken for his continued support throughout the publication process.

View Article
Google Scholar
PubMed/NCBI
26. IPCC. Chapter 2: Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5°C in the Context of Sustainable Development. IPCC special report Global Warming of 15 oC. 2018.
44. Scott WR. Institutions and organizations: ideas, interests, and identities. Los Angeles: Sage; 2014.
48. Fink H. Arenabegreber—mellem ørkensand & ørkensand. In: Fink H, editor. Arenaer—om politik & inscenesættelse. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag; 1996. pp. 7–22.
52. Marks G, Hooghe L. Contrasting Visions of Multi-level Governance. In: Bache I, Flinders M, editors. Multi-level Governance. Oxford University Press; 2004: 15–30.
54. Zeben J Van, Bobic A. Polycentricity in the European Union. Cambridge University Press; 2019.
66. Edquist C, Lundvall B. Comparing the Danish and Swedish systems of innovation. In: Nelson R, editor. National Innovation Systems. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993.
81. Suurs R. Motors of sustainable innovation: Towards a theory on the dynamics of technological innovation systems. Utrecht University; 2009.
84. Yin R. Case study research, Design and Methods. London: Sage Publications; 2003.
85. DePoy E, Gitlin L. Mixed Method Designs. In: DePoy E, Gitlin L., editors. Introduction to Research. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2016: 173–179.
88. IEA. International Shipping. Paris; 2022.
89. UN. Review of maritime transport 2022, Navigating stormy waters. New York; 2022.
96. Bryman A. Social research methods. 4th ed. Oxford University Press; 2016.
97. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Basics of Qualitative Research Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. London: Sage; 2008. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153
98. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative research. London: Sage; 2006.
101. IGU. 2020 World LNG Report. International Gas Union. 2020.
120. Regeerakkoord. Vertrouwen in de toekomst. The Hague: 2017.
135. Marks G, Hooghe L. Contrasting Visions of Multi-level Governance. In: Bache I, Flinders M, editors. Multi-level Governance. Oxford University Press; 2004. pp. 15–30.

Accountancy
Business Studies
Commercial Law
Organisational Behaviour
Human Resource Management
Entrepreneurship

Systems Approach to Management

Quantitative Approach to Management
Classical Approach to Management
Behavioural Approach to Management
Contingency Approach to Management
What is a Learning Management System?
What is a Quality Management System?
Types of Management Styles
Product Management A-Z (A to Z)
What is Task Assignment Approach in Distributed System?
What is a Library Management System ?
Top 10 Best Content Management Systems (CMS)
Management Information System (MIS)
What is Project Management System?
Security Management System
Data Stream Management System Architecture
Introduction to Supply Chain Management
Use Case Diagram for Library Management System
ER diagram of Library Management System
Basics of management

The General Systems Theory applied to organisation and management in the 1950s, has been developed through the contributions of pioneers such as Kenneth Boulding, Ludwig Von Bertalanffy, Nisbet Wiener, E.L. Trist, F.E. Kast, R.A. Johnson, and Chester Barnard.

Table of Content

Concept of Systems Approach to Management

Features of systems approach to management, uses and limitations of systems approach to management.

The theory emphasizes that a system is not simply a collection of individual parts but rather an organized whole, where the interdependence of its parts contributes to the unique characteristics of the entire system. Every system, including organisations, is composed of interdependent subsystems, which themselves can consist of smaller subsystems. This recognition highlights the complexity and interconnectedness of organisations as open systems. Unlike closed systems, open systems interact with their external environment, relying on it for energy, information, and materials. These interactions with the external environment influence the functioning of the system. Open systems can adapt to changes in their external environment, ensuring their continued viability and survival.

Overall, the General Systems Theory applied to organisation and management views organisations as complex, open systems comprised of interdependent subsystems. It emphasizes the interconnectedness of the parts and their interactions with the external environment. This approach recognizes that organisations are not self-sufficient but rely on external inputs and adapt to changes in their environment to thrive.

Some of the features of the systems approach are:

Interconnected Sub-systems: An organisation is like a big puzzle made up of smaller pieces that work together. These pieces, called sub-systems, interact and depend on each other for the organisation to function properly.
No Isolation: We can’t understand the sub-systems by looking at them individually. Instead, we need to see how they relate to each other and to the organisation as a whole. It’s like understanding how each puzzle piece fits into the larger picture.
Boundary: An organisation has a boundary that sets it apart from other systems. It helps us identify which parts are inside (like employees) and which parts are outside (like customers). This boundary defines the organisation’s scope and limits.
Changing Environment: Organisations are dynamic systems because they are affected by their environment. They can be influenced by things, like power cuts, strikes, or shifts in customer preferences. That’s why management needs to keep an eye on what’s happening outside and make adjustments when needed.
Sensitivity to the Environment: Because organisations are influenced by their environment, they need to be sensitive to changes. Just like we react when something unexpected happens, organisations must be responsive and adapt to external factors that may affect their operations.
Monitoring and Taking Action: To ensure a healthy organisation, it’s crucial to constantly monitor its well-being. Management needs to pay attention to signs of problems and take corrective action promptly. It’s like regularly checking the pulse of the organisation to make sure everything is running smoothly.

Some of the uses of the Systems Approach are:

Meaningful Analysis: The systems approach provides a helpful way to understand organisations and how they are managed. It encourages us to look at the bigger picture and consider how different parts of the organisation interact with each other.
Integrated Thinking: Instead of focusing on individual problems in isolation, the systems approach encourages us to think about how different problems and solutions are connected. This helps us see the organisation as a whole and make more informed decisions.
Unified Focus: The systems approach helps bring everyone in the organisation together by giving a common focus. It helps align goals, strategies, and actions across different teams and departments, making sure everyone is working towards the same objectives.
Dynamic Nature: Organisations are always changing, and the systems approach recognizes this. It reminds us that organisations need to be adaptable and flexible to keep up with the constantly evolving business environment.
Understanding Interactions: The systems approach highlights the importance of how different things in the organisation interact and depend on each other. It helps us see the ripple effects of changes and decisions, allowing us to make better choices.

The following are the limitations of the systems approach:

Simplification: While the systems approach is helpful, it may oversimplify the complexity of real-life organisations. Real organisations can be much more intricate and have more nuances than what the systems approach may capture.
Subjectivity: Applying the systems approach requires interpretation and judgment, which can vary from person to person. Different managers may see things differently, leading to potential variations in analysis and decision-making.
Time and Resource Constraints: Using the systems approach can take time and resources. It may be challenging to gather and analyze all the necessary data, especially for larger and more complex organisations.
Overemphasis on Interactions: While understanding interactions is crucial, focusing solely on them may overlook the unique qualities and contributions of individual elements in the organisation.
Lack of Precision: The systems approach provides a general framework rather than specific step-by-step instructions. Its concepts are open to interpretation and can vary depending on the situation.

Please Login to comment...

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

IMAGES

Problem-Solving Strategies: Definition and 5 Techniques to Try
6 steps of the problem solving process
How to improve your problem solving skills and strategies
5 Step Problem Solving Process Diagram for PowerPoint
Master Your Problem Solving and Decision Making Skills
Systematic Problem-Solving

VIDEO

SUBTRACTION with WHOLE NUMBERS [4.4A] Problem Solving Strategies: 4th Grade Math
Complete Revision Ch 6 રેખાઓ અને ખૂણાઓ Part-1 Std 9 Maths
11x13+22x8+33x7 #maths #mathematics #math
A NICE GEOMERTY QUESTION🚀 #maths #mathemajics
Process of MIS
THE UNLIMITED VOCABULARY VOYAGE PART

COMMENTS

Systems Approach to Problem Solving
Simplifying a System or Applying Systems Approach For Problem Solving. The easiest way to simplify a system for better understanding is to follow a two-stage approach. Partitioning the System into Black Boxes. This is the first stage of the simplification process, in this stage the system is partitioned into black boxes.
Systems Approach to Problem Solving
Recognize and define a problem or opportunity using systems thinking. Develop and evaluate alternative system solutions. Select the system solution that best meets your requirements. Design the selected system solution. Implement and evaluate the success of the designed system. 1. Defining Problems and Opportunities.
MIS
The system approach is based on the generalization that all things are inter-related and inter-dependent with one another. A system is made up of related and dependent elements that form a unique system. A system is simply an assemblage of things to forming a single unit. One of the most significant characteristics is that it consists of a ...
mis chapter three notes
this is a sample of a mis chapter notes. chapter 3: solving business problems with informationsystems. a systems approach to probelm solving. define a problem of opportunity in a systems context; develop and evaluate alternative systems solutions; select the system solution that best meets your requirements;
Developing and Implementing Information Systems
Abstract. In this chapter, we will describe the system approach to problem solving, explain the steps of the systems development life cycle, point out the need for successful project management, change management and risk management, and compare different development approaches organisations can apply. Download to read the full chapter text.
Taking a systems thinking approach to problem solving
A systems thinking approach to problem solving recognizes the problem as part of a wider system and addresses the whole system in any solution rather than just the problem area. A popular way of applying a systems thinking lens is to examine the issue from multiple perspectives, zooming out from single and visible elements to the bigger and ...
PDF 4 The general systems approach to problem-solving
This problem-solving framework is in fact the basis of all the techniques involved in an important systems discipline known as systems engineering. More recently, methodologies based on this particular problem-solving framework have come to be referred to as the hard systems approaches. The ideas of a relatively new systems approach,
Solving Real-World Issues With Management Information Systems
Management information systems (MIS) can refer to individual information systems, an organizational department and a field of study. MIS addresses organizational information management needs, supports effective decision-making and solves complex problems in all instances and applications. Organizations rely on MIS and related information ...
PDF Systems Approaches to Information Systems
• Monitoring System reductionist by design "Each problem generates sub-problems, until we find a sub-problem that we can solve. We proceed until, by successive solution of such sub-problems, we eventually achieve, our goal - or give up." Simon, 1960 Soft Systems Methodology Real World Situation (problem) System ____ models, theories ...
What Is Management Information Systems (MIS)? Your Career Guide
Management information systems (MIS) is the study and application of information systems that organizations use for data access, management, and analytics. For MIS to be effective, you must understand and carefully map out business processes. Data must be accurate and timely, and hardware and software must be able to store and manipulate it.
What Are MIS? The Role of Management Information Systems
Defining MIS. Management information systems (MIS) are the processes organizations have in place to gather, analyze, and organize essential information. They're used to generate valuable reports that inform decision-makers. Technological tools play a role in understanding how a system works, but MIS also focuses on studying the people ...
An Introduction to Management Information System (MIS)
1. Introduction. Management Information System (MIS) is a set of information technology tools and techniques used to gather, store, and analyze information aiming to support the decision-making process. Nowadays, MIS is an essential component, especially for modern business operations, that provides managers with timely and accurate information ...
Systems Thinking: How to Solve Problems So They Stay Solved
Systems thinking is problem-solving approach that examines the relationships between functions in an organization. Systems thinking is powerful because it enables you to predict the consequences of a potential change. This problem-solving method can also help you eliminate silos, see different viewpoints, and remain focused on the big picture.
Soft systems methodology
In sum, SSM provides an analysis tool and technique which outlines the different requirements for the system transformation. This module outlines the 7 primary steps required to implement the methodology. SSM is a systems approach which can be used to undertake problem-solving and analysis of complex situations.
PDF Problem Solving and MIS
4 . perceive a to learn. New concepts should only be introduced. need when a need exists, or where the teacher has also introduced. such a need. In Piaget's view, one of the major sources of ...
Systems Approach to Problem Solving
Subject:Management Paper: Management Information System
Day 9 MIS- System approach to problem solving
This is the series of video, you can watch previous video for better understanding.Here is the playlist 👇👇https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWBZM5AsF6IXgl...
MIS and Problem Solving or System Approach to Problem Solving
MIS and Problem Solving or System Approach to Problem Solving. The system analysts and programmers who designed and developed the MIS, were not, in the initial stages, familiar with the managerial setup and the role of managers in the organization. So, they were not in a position to understand how managers solved problems in the organizations.
Systems Approach to "Problem Solving"
New approaches are needed to help to manage that conflict. In this chapter, which continues to develop Theme C, we introduce a number of these approaches to "problem solving" each able to contribute in particular ways to deal with the complexities of modern society. Let us first set the scene. Download to read the full chapter text.
Towards a Mission-oriented Innovation Systems (MIS) approach
The main difference between the MIS and Ghazinoory et al.'s PIS approach is that by focusing on a societal problem, the PIS delineation becomes more diffuse, while the MIS approach introduces the mission arena concept (see Section 4.2.1) as the central governance structure that mobilizes and redirects innovation system structures into a well ...
Systems Approach to Management
Unified Focus: The systems approach helps bring everyone in the organisation together by giving a common focus. It helps align goals, strategies, and actions across different teams and departments, making sure everyone is working towards the same objectives. Dynamic Nature: Organisations are always changing, and the systems approach recognizes ...
MIS
The management must recognize the fundamental business problems and objectives of the MIS. The system constraints can be environmental, basic business, or technical. ... The 'systems approach'to problem solving uses a systems orientation to define problems and opportunities and develop solutions.