URBAN

RESPONSE

Systems
thinking for
humanitarians
An Introduction for the Complete Beginner
Leah Campbell
ALNAP is a global network of NGOs,
UN agencies, members of the Red Cross/
Crescent Movement, donors, academics
and consultants dedicated to learning how
to improve response to humanitarian crises.
www.alnap.org

About the authors

At the time of writing, Leah Campbell was a Research Fellow
with ALNAP.

Acknowledgements
This paper has been shaped by discussions with the broader community
of individuals working to improve urban humanitarian response over the
past six years. Too many to name, you know who you are: thank you.

The author would like to acknowledge the support and insight from
ALNAP colleagues, in particular Alice Obrecht, Justine Kavanagh and
Danny Liu. Thanks also to Juliette Flach, who provided research assistance
and to Hannah Caddick for thoughtful editing. Much appreciation also
goes to the individuals who peer reviewed this paper – Timothy Ehlinger
(UW-Milwaukee), Camilla Knox-Peebles (Amref Health Africa UK), Jessica
Lenz (InterAction), Sheri Marlin (Waters Center for Systems Thinking) and
Andrew Meaux (International Rescue Committee).

Thanks are due to all of the participants of ALNAP’s March 2021

learning exchange on systems thinking for urban crises, the rich
discussions from which informed the basis of this paper. The author is
also grateful to Suzanne Belliveau who helped to organise the event and
Katie Chappell who illustrated the discussions..

Suggested citation
Campbell, L. (2022) Systems thinking for humanitarians. ALNAP Paper.
London: ODI/ALNAP.

ISBN: 978-1-913526-27-6

© ALNAP/ODI 2022. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons

Attribution-non Commercial Licence (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Design by Soapbox, www.soapbox.co.uk

Copyediting by Hannah Caddick
Typesetting by Mary Barker (Design2Print)

ii Systems thinking for humanitarians: An Introduction for the Complete Beginner

Contents

Introduction 3

1 What is systems thinking? 6

2 Why systems thinking? 10

2.1 The challenge of complexity 10
2.2 Traditional thinking vs systems thinking 13

3 How is systems thinking used? 18

3.1 Six principles of systems thinking 19
3.2 Putting systems thinking into systems practice 25

4 Conclusion 30
4.1 What next? 30

Annex: Methodolgy 32
End notes 33
Bibliography 34

1
 Figures

Figure 1: System or heap? 6

Figure 2: Systems thinking 7
Figure 3: What is and what isn’t systems thinking 7
Figure 4: Complex problems are distinct from complicated ones 11
Figure 5: Six principles of systems thinking 25

Tables

Table 1: Reductionist thinking vs systems thinking 14

Table 2: Linear thinking vs systems thinking 15

Boxes

Box 1: History of systems thinking 8

Box 2: Urban crises as complex problems 12
Box 3: Is systems thinking evidence based? 28

2
Introduction

In 2015, ALNAP surveyed its Urban Response Community of Practice.1

The results revealed that members were keen for ALNAP to undertake
research to improve humanitarian response to urban crises. This
marked the beginning of a multiyear research initiative that would
attempt to address the critiques often levelled at humanitarian
response in urban crises, namely that it:
• fails to recognise the resources and capacities in the city
• misses opportunities to work collaboratively with urban stakeholders
• disrupts or hinders long-term planning and development
• cannot deal with interconnected problems or issues in the city
• fails to operate across different scales2 of the city.

While undertaking research for its first paper on these themes –

Stepping Back: Understanding cities and their systems (Campbell, 2016)
– ALNAP found that many people outside the humanitarian sector
described the complexity of urban contexts in the language of ‘systems’.
Stepping Back called for the humanitarian sector to embrace the idea of
the city as a system.
The response to Stepping Back was largely positive, but there was also
some confusion. ‘Systems’ can mean many things and without introducing
these ideas clearly readers were left to draw their own conclusions. In the
years since Stepping Back, ALNAP has invested in its own understanding
of systems thinking, participating in events and workshops, reading relevant
literature and discussing systems thinking with a wide variety of experts.
This paper is the culmination of these efforts. It is an attempt to explain
much more clearly what systems thinking is and why humanitarians should
pay attention to and adopt it. This paper is significantly informed by
ALNAP’s work on urban crises; however, it is relevant for all humanitarians
who encounter complexity in their work.
This paper introduces the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of systems thinking, situating
it within the broader systems universe and demonstrating its relevance for
the humanitarian sector. The paper looks at systems thinking in comparison
to traditional reductionist and linear thinking, which fail to address the sorts
of complex problems that humanitarians face, and introduces the principles,
competencies, language and tools that can be used to put systems thinking
principles into practice. The paper is accompanied by a companion handbook,
which provides the ‘how’ of systems thinking. The hope is to inspire all readers
to invest in building and applying their own systems thinking skills.

Introduction 3
 Definitions for key systems thinking concepts (including emergence,
feedback, mental models and perspective) are provided throughout this
paper, and you can find a glossary in the companion handbook ‘Systems
Thinking Handbook for Humanitarians’. The methodology can be found in
the Annex.

4 Systems thinking for humanitarians: An Introduction for the Complete Beginner

1

What is
systems
thinking?

5
 1 What is systems thinking?

From medicine to business, high-school teachers to economists, the

practice of systems thinking is being used across many different disciplines
and actors. Tapping into this approach and the body of existing resources
available on systems thinking could add great value to the humanitarian
sector. But to do so, we need to get on board with the language of systems
and answer the question ‘What is systems thinking?’
Since publishing Stepping Back: Understanding cities and their
systems (2016), ALNAP has found that many humanitarians are either
put off by the language of systems, finding it obtuse and abstract, or
misunderstand the language of systems and make dismissive assumptions.
At ALNAP’s learning exchange on systems thinking, in March 2021, one
participant noted ‘We all have different things in our minds when we speak
about systems thinking’ and multiple discussions emphasised the need for
simplicity and clarity.
The terms ‘system’ and ‘systems thinking’ are used by different
people from various sectors and perspectives. Like many terms familiar to
humanitarians – for example, community, coordination – systems thinking
is a broad term with no one commonly agreed definition, even among
experienced systems thinking practitioners (Monat and Gannon, 2015;
Goodman, 2018). However, various articulations share many commonalities.
A system3 is a group of ‘interacting, interrelated or interdependent’ things
(Monat and Gannon, 2015) that combine to achieve some purpose. It’s
opposite is a ‘heap’ – a group of things that are not related. In other words,
‘systems are defined by their interrelationships and their functionality’
(Acaroglu, 2017a: 3).

Figure 1: System or heap?

Source: O’Connor and McDermott (1997: 3).

6 Systems thinking for humanitarians: An Introduction for the Complete Beginner

Figure 2: Systems thinking

What then is systems thinking? ALNAP proposes4 the following

definition:
The lack of a common definition of systems thinking is due in part to
the fact that the practice has emerged from multiple disciplines and has
a diverse history (Peters, 2014; see also Box 1). Although it shares many
concepts with the broader family of systems concepts and approaches,
systems thinking places the primary focus on cognition. There is not one
‘right’ way to practise systems thinking nor does it not require users to
adopt a new set of tools (see Section 3.2); systems thinking is about
how we frame a problem, rather than a formulaic or prescriptive new way
of doing things (Morgan, 2005). Systems thinking adds to our existing
skillsets, tapping into our innate understanding of nature and patterns, and
can be honed through practice and reflection.

Figure 3: What is and what isn’t systems thinking

i
‘Systematic means “having a plan or a method” while systemic means “affecting entire body or organism”. So
systematic thinking deals with orderly, methodical thinking and systemic thinking with the behaviour of wholes’
(Open University, n.d.).

What is systems thinking? 7

 Box 1: History of systems thinking

Systems thinking is not new – Aristotle knew that the whole is more
than the sum of its parts and many systems thinking concepts are
found in Indigenous traditions (Booth Sweeney, 2001). Some have
described systems thinking as ‘the most common form of human
thinking… until the advent of Western Rationalism’ (Morgan, 2005:
5). The Industrial Revolution in Europe and North America formalised
this understanding, with systems concepts spreading through
engineering and computing sectors, as well as biology and natural
science (Sherwood, 2002).
Being a transdisciplinary field, it is difficult to pinpoint the precise
origins of systems theories. However, many people trace modern
systems theories back to the 1950s and 1960s, and in particular
the seminal work of Ludwig von Bertalaffy (General Systems Theory,
1968) and Jay Forrester (Urban Dynamics, 1969) (Barton et al.,
2004; Peters, 2014; Emes and Griffiths, 2018).
Following this initial wave of mathematical and computer
modelling systems theory (‘hard systems’), there came a second
wave of systems theory, described as ‘soft systems’, which focused
on more qualitative approaches. Over time, systems theories
expanded to focus on power, complexity and ultimately cognition
(Cabrera Research Lab, 2016). The work of Peter Senge (The Fifth
Discipline, 1990) and Donella Meadows (Thinking in Systems,
2008) brought systems thinking into the organisational development
and sustainability sectors respectively.
Today, many different types of systems theories and approaches
now sit under the broader systems umbrella, including hard and soft
systems, cybernetics, chaos theory, critical systems theory, complex
adaptive systems and system dynamics.
The term ‘systems thinking’ was coined in 1987 by Barry
Richmond (Arnold and Wade, 2015) and is one of the newest and
most straightforward forms of systems approaches. While many
other systems approaches have strict methods, supporters and
critics, systems thinking is more broadly a way of thinking, with no
set rules for how to apply this thinking. Many systems approaches
emphasise ‘particular corners of the systems field’ (Hummelbrunner,
2011: 401) whereas systems thinking can be considered as an
umbrella term for a mindset or worldview.

8 Systems thinking for humanitarians: An Introduction for the Complete Beginner

2
Why systems
thinking?
 2 Why systems thinking?

Systems thinking emerged as an alternative to traditionally reductionist and

linear thinking when dealing with complexity. The simplest answer to ‘why
systems thinking?’ is ‘because reductionist and linear thinking (that is, not
systems thinking) is making things worse’. In the humanitarian sector, there
is now more recognition than ever before about the negative impacts of
sector siloes and logframe-driven project management – manifestations of
reductionist and linear thinking.5 ALNAP’s urban research has highlighted
the need for a different way of thinking and working that is better suited for
dealing with complexity (Campbell, 2016).

2.1 The challenge of complexity

A complex situation involves many stakeholders and lots of change. These

changes do not conform to simple patterns and causality is not linear
(Peters, 2014). Simply put, complexity is big and messy (Acaroglu, 2019).6

Complexity refers to situations that are ‘messy, unpredictable and

hard (or impossible) to replicate’ (Egan, 2019: 8).

Complex situations can also be described as ‘wicked problems’

(Lee, 2016) or ‘VUCA’ – contexts characterised by significant volatility,
uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (Cabrera Research Lab, 2016). But
‘complex’ is the term used most commonly in the literature to describe
these contexts. Complexity and systems thinking go hand in hand, both
recognising interconnectedness, patterns, dynamism and so on.
While many problems can be addressed with technical solutions and
traditional thinking, using these approaches when things are complex can
have significant negative consequences. Complexity requires something
different. As one participant at ALNAP’s learning exchange explained, ‘If
it’s complex, we need a different set of tools, a different way of thinking, a
different way of collaborating with others’.

10 Systems thinking for humanitarians: An Introduction for the Complete Beginner

Figure 4: Complex problems are distinct from complicated ones

Source: Hummelbrunner (2011); Wester (2013); Pollard (2014); Bowman et al. (2015); Allen (2016); Emes and Griffiths (2018).

Why systems thinking? 11

 Box 2: Urban crises as complex problems

In the foreword to one of the systems thinking books that informed

this paper, John Speed writes:

My own organization [the European Court of Auditors] has

a relatively decentralized structure and somewhat diffuse
overall goals – the various sectors of the organization
have their own vision of what is important and what are
their priorities. In these circumstances there is a structural
tendency to ignore the whole view.
(Sherwood, 2002: xvii)

Replace ‘organisation’ with ‘sector’ and this is a description of

the humanitarian system: many actors, many visions, many goals.
Humanitarians tend to break things up into as many small parts as
possible, despite attempting to address some of the most complex
global problems facing the world: food insecurity, conflict, poverty,
displacement, and so on.
The challenges humanitarians attempt to address are complex,
as are the contexts within which they work – including urban
crises. Although urban crises present some unique challenges
(Campbell, 2016; Sanderson, 2019), in many ways they simply
magnify challenges faced across all complex humanitarian contexts.
Diez Roux highlights the ‘long tradition of conceptualizing cities
as systems’ (2015: 10), something which ALNAP’s earlier work on
urban crises also underscored (Campbell, 2016).
Cities face complex and interdependent problems – from
homelessness to infrastructure, politics and population growth
(McFadden, 2018). Adding a crisis onto this only increases
the complexity. One participant at ALNAP’s learning exchange
highlighted the example of Beirut and the explosion that happened
there in 2020: ‘There is an economic crisis, there is a COVID crisis,
and then, on top of that, we have the blast.’
Urban crises involve a range of interconnected and dynamic
challenges and, in the words of another learning exchange
participant, a ‘hypercomplex’ mixture of actors and interests. At
best, the current coordination system achieves alignment7 between
humanitarian actors, with organisations making slight adjustments to
reduce gaps and duplication or follow similar guidance (Knox Clarke
and Campbell, 2015). For a long time, humanitarian actors have
applied reductionist, linear thinking to the contexts and crises they
work in – and the consequences of this have been well documented.
As ALNAP’s Stepping Back report (Campbell, 2016) summarises:

12 Systems thinking for humanitarians: An Introduction for the Complete Beginner

 1. Individuals responding to urban crises struggle to move
beyond their existing mental models.
2. Humanitarian response programmes are designed, funded
and implemented in sector siloes.
3. Humanitarian response focuses (near) exclusively on the
vulnerability of individual households.
4. Humanitarians create new, duplicative structures rather than
understanding the context and empowering local actors.
5. Humanitarian institutions are inflexible, limiting their ability to
adapt based on changes or new learning.
6. There is a lack of meaningful coordination to address
challenges that are beyond the capacity of one organisation.

What’s missing from humanitarian response, particularly in urban

crises, is systems thinking.

2.2 Traditional thinking vs systems thinking

There is an expression, often attributed to Albert Einstein, that ‘We can’t solve
problems by using the same kind of thinking that created the problem in the
first place’. When it comes to complexity, we need a different way of thinking.

2.2.1 Reductionist thinking vs systems thinking

Reductionist thinking refers to an approach that takes things apart in
order to find out how they work. Reductionism ‘[breaks] the world down
into individual and manageable parts’ (Acaroglu, 2019). It is the mindset
that most people are taught in school – ‘to think logically, to understand
by analyzing – breaking events into pieces and then reassembling
them’ (O’Connor and McDermott 1997: xvi). The reductionist approach
is so pervasive, it dominates our organisational structures, which are
‘departmental, silo-like’ (Sherwood, 2002: 18). Sector siloes are one of
the ways in which humanitarians often get stuck in reductionist thinking.
Looking exclusively at household-level vulnerability is another.
Reductionist thinking is an important skill, and helpful for many of the
simple and complicated problems we encounter. However, we run into
problems when we apply reductionism mindlessly. Reductionism leads us
to assume ‘that the world stands still as we study it, that puzzling situations
will stand still while we break them into component pieces’ (Booth
Sweeney, 2001: 20) and ignores the relationships between the pieces that
are so critical to a system’s behaviour (ibid.; Monat and Gannon, 2015).
When it comes to complexity, reductionism is not only unhelpful but can
be damaging. A dissective ‘slice and dice’ (ibid: 19) approach can sever the
connections between components in a system as it attempts to simplify it –
an effect that can change the system and result in all kinds of consequences
(Open University, n.d.; Morgan, 2005). In the humanitarian sector, our attempt

Why systems thinking? 13

 to divide needs and vulnerabilities into technical sectoral problems ignores
the reality that people affected by crises experience.
Reductionism also allows us to shift the blame when the consequences
of this approach are negative. We apply ‘prediction and control’, using ‘an
endless parade of tools and frameworks or recipes’ (Morgan, 2005: 7)
in order to achieve our objectives. When these are unsuccessful, we use
reductionist accounts to explain ‘personal failure, resistance to change, and
so on. The cycle repeats itself. People and organizations get trapped in
fixes that fail’ (ibid).8
Finally, by focusing on problems one at a time, reductionism ‘focuses on
“either-or” choices in a world that is more and more “both-and”’ (ibid: 6)
and makes it difficult for us to practice ‘innovation and adaptation, the very
qualities that are crucial for long-term effectiveness’ (ibid).

2.2.2 Linear thinking vs systems thinking

Linear thinking relates to how we think of causality. It posits ‘a straight line
between a problem and its solution’ (Booth Sweeney, 2008: 3–4) and thus
fits in well with the human brain’s ‘tendency to think in simple cause-effect
patterns’ (Hummelbrunner, 2011: 395). Simply put, linear thinking is about
one thing causing another thing to happen – like a car stopping because it
has run out of fuel (Ollhoff and Walcheski, 2006).
Logframes, which outline at the start of an intervention a set of
activities and expected outcomes, are one example of linear thinking in the
humanitarian sector. By establishing the start and end points and requiring
practitioners to jump through lengthy administrative hoops to make changes,
logframe approaches to project design and management don’t easily allow
for adaptation, which a complex environment will inevitably require.
Linear thinking is an important skill for dealing with simple or
complicated problems where one thing does lead to another and is helpful
for ‘more mechanical, short-term tasks’ (Ricigliano, 2012: 23). Systems
thinking, on the other hand, assumes that causality is dynamic – that ‘most
of the time, various components affect each other in various, and often
unexpected, ways’ (Ollhoff and Walcheski, 2006).

Table 1: Reductionist thinking vs systems thinking

Reductionist thinking Systems thinking

Reduces problem into smaller and Uses multiple partial views to understand
smaller parts problem
Focuses on breaking problem down into Focuses on improving relationships
its simplest parts among the parts and understanding the
problem’s environment
Others – either within or outside our We unwittingly create our own problems
organisation – are to blame for our and have significant control or influence
problems and must be the ones to change in solving them through changing our
behaviour
Tackles many issues simultaneously Focuses on a few key coordinated
changes sustained over time
Source: Adapted from Stroh (2015) and White (1995).

14 Systems thinking for humanitarians: An Introduction for the Complete Beginner

Table 2: Linear thinking vs systems thinking

Linear thinking Systems thinking

The connection between problems and The relationships between problems and
their causes is obvious and easy to trace their causes are indirect, circular and not
obvious
A policy which achieves short-term The unintended and delayed
success will also ensure long-term consequences of most quick fixes
success neutralise or reverse immediate gains
over time
The goal is to create order amongst chaos The goal is to find patterns amid the
chaos
Treats organisations as predictable and Treats organisations as unpredictable in
orderly a chaotic environment
Source: Adapted from Ollhoff and Walcheski (2006); Stroh and Zurcher (2012); and Stroh (2015).

2.2.3 Systems thinking for complex problems

Systems thinking is not a fix-all or a replacement for the ways of thinking
we use most frequently day to day. Indeed, ‘in many situations, simple,
technical and even small-scale solutions will be appropriate’ (Bowman et
al., 2015: 18). However, reductionist or linear thinking is not appropriate
for complex problems. For these, we need systems thinking and the new,
unique insights it provides (Burge, 2015; Acaroglu, 2016).
Using systems thinking allows us to move from a place of blame to a
feeling of agency and responsibility (O’Connor and McDermott, 1997;
Stroh, 2015; Jones, 2020). This allows us to see where we have power to
affect change (Acaroglu, 2016) rather than feeling victim to circumstances
out of our control. Systems thinking inspires collaboration, showing us how
we can either create poor results or work together effectively (Bowman et
al., 2015; Stroh, 2015).
Systems thinking helps us to anticipate negative consequences and
use this understanding to get what we want (Pollard, 2014; Stroh, 2015;
Goodman, 2018). It allows us to uncover underlying patterns and focus on
actions that will have long-lasting, far-reaching impact (Omidyar Group,
n.d.; Bowman et al., 2015; Stroh, 2015).
Many of the problems that humanitarians grapple with are complex:
protection, food insecurity, conflict, to name just a few. The humanitarian
sector itself is a complex system. And the contexts in which humanitarians
work – including but not limited to urban contexts – are complex too. It
should not be a surprise, then, that ’the traditional linear and reductionist
approach used in aid programme design, management and evaluation
is at the centre of repeated criticisms. It is argued that it does not take
into account the complexity of development processes in social systems’
(Ribesse et al., 2015: 1).
Systems thinking has already been used in the humanitarian,
development and peacebuilding sectors and to deal with issues from
homelessness to food insecurity. InterAction have used systems thinking
in their results-based protection work, the United States Agency for
International Development have embedded it in their development work
(USAID, 2014) and CDA Collaborative have used it in their work on

Why systems thinking? 15

 accountability. Participants at ALNAP’s learning exchange agreed that there
was significant potential to use systems thinking even more in humanitarian
contexts, in particular in urban and protracted crises.
If there was any doubt about the need for systems thinking when
dealing with complex problems, the COVID-19 pandemic has removed it.
Writing in April 2020, Reynolds pointed out, ‘our failure to understand the
interconnections of our system has already cost us almost 100,000 lives
globally, a grim tally which will only grow in the weeks ahead’.

16 Systems thinking for humanitarians: An Introduction for the Complete Beginner

3 How is
systems
thinking
used?

2 Why systems thinking? 17

 3 How is systems thinking
used?

One of the great things about systems thinking is its versatility. It can help
you make sense of and respond appropriately wherever you encounter
complexity. So, what exactly does that look like?
Imagine you’re running a humanitarian programme. You’ve conducted a
needs assessment, planned an intervention and are trying to juggle a range
of daily challenges and obstacles. Mid-way through the programme you
realise that, alongside positive impacts, your intervention is having some
unexpected negative consequences. These have angered stakeholders you
weren’t aware of. You are not sure if your plans are still relevant and there
are so many unknowns, you don’t know what to do next. At the same time,
you find that affected communities are upset with how aid was provided
last year and are now hostile to new efforts – despite the humanitarian
situation having deteriorated. You worry that your interventions are not
having the desired impact and that you might even be making things worse.
In this scenario, using systems thinking could help you to:
• be better prepared for the consequences your intervention will have
• understand the best place within in a system to intervene to have the
biggest impact
• gain a more comprehensive understanding of the situation
• understand why things are or aren’t happening and what agency you
have to do something about it.

Some humanitarians argue that the short-term, basic-needs approach

of humanitarian response means that they do not need to consider the
greater complexities of the environment in which they operate. However,
increasingly there is a recognition that more often than not, crises are long-
term, protracted and dynamic, requiring multiple actions over a longer time
frame to effect and measure change.
Even for those unconvinced about the role of humanitarianism in
longer-term issues, systems thinking is still a critical skill. The reality is that
the situations and issues humanitarians encounter on a regular basis are
complex. And in those complex situations and crises, systems thinking is
required. Avoiding unintended negative impacts is an important component of
the humanitarian commitment to do no harm. More positively, understanding
the unintended positive impacts of humanitarian assistance helps support the
case for such assistance in a demanding funding environment.

18 Systems thinking for humanitarians: An Introduction for the Complete Beginner

 Section 2 of this paper proposed a definition of systems thinking. This
section outlines six principles that help us to understand the implications
of this definition and introduces the competencies, language and tools that
systems thinkers use to apply these principles to their work.

3.1 Six principles of systems thinking

Systems thinking is a set of principles which aims to

address complex problems in practical, tangible ways
by examining the relationships between different parts
of a system and making use of multiple perspectives.

3.1.1 The different parts of a system are interrelated, and these

relationships have consequences
This principle is about seeing how parts of a system work together.
Systems thinking promotes a holistic view, which means understanding
the whole without losing the nuance of detail. In other words, keeping ‘one
eye on the forest, one eye on the trees’ (Richmond, 1994, in Arnold and
Wade, 2015: 671). Others describe the value in being able to both ‘break
things into parts (deconstruction) and put parts together into a whole
(construction)’ (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2015: 60).

A holistic approach focuses on looking at the whole of something

(the parts and their relationships).

Systems thinking places particular emphasis on the relationships and

interconnectedness between different parts of a system, more so than
on the parts themselves. Systems thinkers look for circular feedback
relationships, rather than linear causality. Oxfam’s introduction to systems
thinking gives the example of a river system, in which rainfall interacts with
the soil and human activity interacts with water levels: ‘To understand what
is happening we need to understand how the different parts of the system
interact and affect each other, which actors are affecting the system and
what motivates them’ (Bowman et al., 2015: 5). Applied to the practicalities
of humanitarian action, this could mean undertaking multi-sectoral needs
assessments, looking at the needs of both displaced and host communities,
and designing interventions that benefit entire communities and not only
individual households.
Systems thinkers also look at the properties that emerge when parts of a
system interact. This is called ‘emergence’ or ‘synergy’. It can be a difficult
concept to grasp but really just means that the whole is more than the sum
of its parts – that when parts come together, something special happens
that wouldn’t have been possible if the parts had remained independent .

How is systems thinking used? 19

 For example, the spirit of community that emerges when individuals living
near one another work together.

Emergence is the idea that there are characteristics of a system that

only emerge when the parts of a system interact with one another,
characteristics which are not found in any of the individual parts on
their own and cannot be predicted by analysing the parts individually.

The humanitarian sector tends to apply a reductionist approach,

attempting to deal with different needs and vulnerabilities in siloes. While
there is an important role for the rich technical expertise found in sector
specialisms, the holistic view is often lacking, as is an understanding of
how the different issues and challenges in a crisis connect. Applying
this principle of systems thinking will require humanitarians to balance
their siloed technical view with a more balanced, holistic one that reveals
the relationships and emergence inherent in the crisis or context within
which they’re working. Applied to humanitarian action, this could mean
more multi-sectoral needs assessments and programming, area-based
coordination structures, holistic forms of data analysis, etc.

3.1.2 Change in one place creates change elsewhere, and these

changes can be different in time, space and scale
The relationships between different parts of a system mean that change
in one part of it will lead to change elsewhere. This means that ‘when you
are dealing with a system you can never just do one thing’ (O’Connor and
McDermott, 1997: 21). Making changes in one place, hoping they’ll have
only the intended results and nothing else will happen, is ‘doomed to failure’
(Sherwood, 2002: 5).
The effect of changes are subject to:
• Delays: Events influence one another ‘even if the second event occurs
a long time after the first’ (Booth Sweeney, 2001: 20).
• Far-reaching places: Changes can include ‘ripple effects’ (Stalter et
al., 2017) and may take place ‘far away’ (Booth Sweeney, 2001).
• Magnification: Small acts can have big consequences (Acharya et al.,
2010; Meadows et al., 2016), also described as ‘Micro effects can have
macro causes’ (Morgan, 2005).

20 Systems thinking for humanitarians: An Introduction for the Complete Beginner

 Applying this principle to humanitarian practice could mean changing
how impact is monitored and reported – including the monitoring time
frame. It would also mean thinking through the potential impacts of any
intervention as part of project design.
Recognising delays in time and place means recognising the value of
both a short-term and a long-term view. ‘Lasting change is best achieved
through an on-going process not a knee-jerk reaction that produces a
one-off fix’ (CPS HR Consulting, n.d.: 3). For humanitarians, mention of
the long-term can give rise to arguments about the role of the humanitarian
sector in long-term development. However, this defensiveness is
decreasing thanks in part to the rising prominence of the humanitarian–
development–peacebuilding nexus and the efforts of specialists from
protection, shelter and cash, among others.
Fundamentally, even short-term actions can be informed by a long-term
view – and that sometimes short-term actions can bring about lasting
change. Anderson and Johnson explain:

The point is not that the long-term view is ‘better’ than

the short-term view… the best approach is to strike a
balance, to consider long-term and short-term options
and to look for the course of action that encompasses
both. At the very least, try making your decisions by
first thinking through their likely ramifications – both
short-term and long-term.

(Anderson and Johnson, 1997: 19)

Applying this principle to the humanitarian sector means finding ways to

act in the short-term that don’t make things worse in the long term.

3.1.3 To change a system, we must understand its structure because

this is what drives its behaviour
The behaviours of a system derive from its structure. If you don’t change
the system’s structure, you won’t change the outcomes. The ‘structure’
of a system is another way for describing the nature of the relationships
between different elements: how one thing affects all the other things.
Structure is about patterns, dependencies, causality.
Changing one factor (Morgan, 2005), blaming one actor (Kim, 1994)
or expecting any one intervention to solve the problem won’t have a
substantial impact. Systems thinkers at ALNAP’s learning exchange
described the influence of the system’s structure as an elastic band: if
you pull one element in an attempt to change it or move it elsewhere, the
structure will snap it back into place as soon as you let go.
Interventions that focus on one element alone are very unlikely to
succeed. This is, as one participant explained, giving a household several
goats doesn’t break the cycle of poverty: ultimately you’ve not changed the

How is systems thinking used? 21

 structure of the system. ‘Rather, the key to success lies in optimizing the
activities, relationships, and interactions among the various components of
a system’ (Gopal and Clarke, 2015: 1).
In terms of humanitarian response, this principle highlights the need
to work more strategically. Some of the processes currently used in the
system to harmonise programming can end up being more like a tick-
box exercise than true coordination (Knox Clarke and Campbell, 2015).
Humanitarians engaged in advocating for humanitarian access may have
relevant learning to share in how to understand the structures of complex
stakeholder dynamics.
While many humanitarian organisations work across multiple
sectors, the overall setup of the system is highly siloed, which creates
disconnection. There have been efforts by, for example, protection actors,
to emphasise the strategic need to work collectively to ensure the safety
and protection of affected populations. However, challenges persist in
agreeing the scope and purpose of humanitarian action, the meaning of
protection, and the concepts and incentives of mandates and territories.
Systems thinking emphasises a more strategic approach to using limited
resources: although problems are complex, there are underlying patterns
that are themselves simple enough to understand (Cabrera and Cabrera,
2015): ‘We must first understand what causes the system to function the
way it does’ (WWF, n.d.: 9). By learning to see patterns in the properties
and behaviours exhibited by systems, humanitarians can identify where they
can intervene to achieve the most impact.

Leverage is the idea that, in a system, where you try to have

influence matters. Using leverage you can identify where a small
change can have a big impact, and this will be more effective than a
scattered, untargeted approach.

3.1.4 We need to understand the recurring patterns in a system’s

structure, rather than trying to solve individual events
Systems thinking can help humanitarians to see that there are in fact rules
that drive seemingly ‘isolated and independent incidents’ (O’Connor and
McDermott, 1997: xiii). By looking at dynamic patterns rather than ‘static
snapshots’ (Emes and Griffiths, 2018: 6), we can see how structures are
more influential than individual events (Morgan, 2005: 4).
When we apply linear thinking, we focus on identifying problems ‘in
terms of their solutions’ (Anderson and Johnson, 1997: 88). However,
‘before you can “solve” anything, you must first understand it’ (Acaroglu,
2017b: 3). Humanitarians are often driven by our innate desire to fix
things, a preoccupation that can distract us from looking deeply at the
structure (ibid). Linear thinking makes us focus on surface-level problems
that are really symptoms. ‘Unfortunately, making a symptom go away

22 Systems thinking for humanitarians: An Introduction for the Complete Beginner

won’t solve the problem. In fact, it may make things worse’ (Ollhoff and
Walcheski, 2016: 9).
Humanitarians may recognise this pattern when it comes to cyclical
crises like flooding or drought. When humanitarians move beyond focusing
on a single incident of drought and try to understand broader seasonal
climate patterns that result in cyclical food insecurity, they are applying
systems thinking. Levine et al. (2011) explore this in their reflection on
cyclical crises in the Horn of Africa. Having first diagnosed the problem as
a complicated technical one, the recognition that the problem was in fact
complex led to the examination of the structure underlying the system.
One significant barrier to humanitarians applying this principle is that
we have convinced ourselves that the patterns and structures aren’t our
responsibility. We gather information about needs but not about context
(Campbell, 2018). This is a consequence of the prevalence of linear,
reductionist thinking. But by focusing on events, and not on underlying
patterns, well-meaning interventions can end up being part of the problem.
Humanitarians can put this systems thinking principle into action by
using tools like ALNAP’s Systems Thinking for Humanitarians Handbook
(Campbell, 2022) to understand the dynamics and use this understanding
to look for opportunities for leverage.

3.1.5 Perspectives and mental models shape our view of the system
Systems thinking is about recognising the value of multiple perspectives
(Arnold and Wade, 2015). Systems thinkers recognise that the more
perspectives involved, the better the overall understanding will be (Morgan,
2005). They acknowledge their own view ‘depends on where we are in the
system’ (Booth Sweeney 2001: 20). By seeking out multiple and diverse
perspectives, systems thinking can level power imbalances by creating
knowledge equity among perspectives.

Perspective (or framing) is how you look at something. Systems

thinkers recognise that each situation can be viewed in different
ways, through multiple lenses or framings.

The first step to expanding one’s perspective is to recognise that

everyone is affected by assumptions and mental models. By becoming
more alert to the fact that there are deep-rooted assumptions and beliefs
underpinning how we are viewing a problem, we can challenge this ‘and
become aware of how they limit us’ (Booth Sweeney, 2001: 20).
Humanitarians can apply this principle to their work by ensuring that a
wide range of stakeholders are engaged throughout project design and
implementation. They can act iteratively, identifying points of reflection to
challenge the assumptions informing action and whether any perspectives
are missing.

How is systems thinking used? 23

 Mental models are the deep-rooted assumptions, stories and
beliefs which shape what we perceive as reality, a way to frame
information based on our perspective and worldview.

Setting boundaries can be a helpful way to frame or bring perspective

to a problem. We can create distinctions about what the problem is or is
not to help us understand it (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2015). It’s important,
however, to remain aware that all boundaries are superficial and are
simply another part of the perspective we are using at that moment. While
boundaries are a helpful concept, often it is widening our perspective that
leads us to the most effective solution (Anderson and Johnson, 1997).

In systems thinking, a boundary refers to what’s in and what’s out

when looking at a particular issue.

Systems do not have entirely objective viewers; if you can observe

a system, and take a perspective on it, you are part of that system
(Sherwood, 2002). Some even describe this as being not an observer
but an architect, emphasising the strong influence of perspective (Leal,
2016). Systems thinkers recognise that ‘reality’ is in the eye of the beholder
(Morgan, 2005). Once we intervene in a system, we must start adjusting
our future interventions to account for the changes that our intervention,
and the interventions of others, will have.
Humanitarians tend to work in siloes and attempt to draw a fairly
narrow boundary when looking at problems. By expanding the range of
stakeholders involved, humanitarians can bring in relevant perspectives
from across and beyond the humanitarian system. Deliberately seeking
out diverse views from outside a sector or discipline can enrich thinking,
increase collaboration and identify more options for addressing a problem.

3.1.6 Systems are always changing, often leading to unexpected

outcomes
Systems are dynamic – ‘always moving and changing’ (Booth Sweeney,
2001: 20); ‘the system we see today is different to the system that we will
see tomorrow and quite different to that which we will see in three months’
time’ (Burns and Worsley, 2015: 63). Changes occur in the system based
on our actions as observers (see Principle 5), and some changes happen
on their own.
Systems thinking pays attention to ‘flow and movement’ and ‘assumes
a good deal of randomness and unanticipated consequences that cannot
be foreseen even under the most laborious exercises in risk analysis’
(Morgan 2005: 4). Understanding patterns (see Principle 4) will help us
to ‘anticipate or even avoid unintended consequences’ (Booth Sweeney,

24 Systems thinking for humanitarians: An Introduction for the Complete Beginner

Figure 5: Six principles of systems thinking

2001: 33) and can also help us to reinforce intended consequences.

Systems archetypes help reveal common patterns in systems (see Section
4.7 in ALNAP’s Systems Thinking for Humanitarians Handbook).
For humanitarians, applying this principle to action could mean being
more adaptive and flexible, using iterative approaches to planning and
monitoring rather than rigid, linear logframes. To effect and measure
change, humanitarians need to be iterative and able to adapt both
actions and what is being measured. Using a broader range of monitoring
and learning tools – such as outcome mapping, process evaluation,
most significant change and contribution analysis – can support this.
Humanitarians can also move away from standardised global indicators to
those that are locally identified and regularly revised to measure changes as
the situation evolves over time.

3.2 Putting systems thinking into systems practice

The clue is in the name: the most important and prominent element of
systems thinking is thinking. There isn’t only one path or model. There
isn’t a checklist or 10 steps to follow. How you apply systems thinking to
your work is up to you; at the beginning, it can help to think about systems
thinking competencies, language and tools.

How is systems thinking used? 25

 3.2.1 Competencies
Competencies allow us to focus on what it looks like to do something well.
ALNAP’s research identified six systems thinking competencies:
1. Perspective awareness: Having an awareness of your current
perspective and mental model.
2. Perspective versatility: The ability to use different perspectives to
increase your understanding.
3. Improving mental models: Taking action to improve your mental
models.
4. Understanding relationship impact: Identify relationships in the
problem you’re trying to address.
5. Working the structure: Explain the structure of a problem and use
this structure to your advantage.
6. Iterative action: Adjust your behaviour so it is appropriate to a
changing system.

Each of these competencies contains several criteria. For example,

improving mental models involves (a) deliberately seeking new information,
(b) surfacing and testing your assumptions and (c) communicating your
mental models and those of others. ALNAP’s Systems Thinking for
Humanitarians Handbook explores each of the six competencies and
provides suggested activities that you can use to strengthen them.

3.2.2 Language
Systems thinkers have a ‘unique vocabulary’ (Kim, 1999). This language helps
systems thinkers to recognise patterns and apply concepts across disciplines.
If you can get past the jargon, systems thinking can be quite practical –
evidenced by its use in everything from nursing to education. However, the
language of systems thinking can be off-putting to the unfamiliar and is one of
the biggest barriers to its wider understanding and use.
Much of the literature about systems thinking is vague and littered with
jargon. This is particularly the case with the broader world of systems
approaches (see Box 1), which have evolved from various disciplines –
including engineering and biology – and feature highly conceptual and
mathematical concepts. This can also make systems thinking seem elitist or
highly technical and overwhelm people (Lamont, 2020) – a feeling echoed
by participants at ALNAP’s learning exchange. And although these diverse
histories provide many helpful insights into systems thinking, they also
come with a lot of baggage.
One of the biggest challenges to using the language of ‘systems’ in
ALNAP’s work has been the assumptions people make based on their
experience or knowledge of the broader world of systems thinking. This
not only includes assumptions about the difficulty of anything to do
with systems, but also about what systems thinking is or isn’t. ALNAP
experienced this following the publication of Stepping Back in 2016, as
some people interpreted the report’s use of ‘systems’ language as one or
another specific systems approach.

26 Systems thinking for humanitarians: An Introduction for the Complete Beginner

 A helpful aspect of systems thinking language is the strong visual
component, which provides clear and concise ways to understand and
clarify complex issues (Goodman, 1994, in Kim, 1994). Visualising
systems9 can help to ‘foster a collective understanding of a problem’ (ibid:
6) and is particularly helpful where problems are not measurable (Anderson
and Johnson, 1997).
The key thing to remember is that it is the systems thinking concepts
that are important, not the exact terminology.
Systems thinking can be simple. You can be a systems thinker without
ever uttering the words ‘emergence’ or ‘mental model’, or drawing a systems
map. Systems thinking is about thinking differently and it can be practiced by
anyone. In the accompanying handbook, we outline simple, practical ways
that any humanitarian can apply systems thinking to their work.

3.2.3 Tools
Participants in ALNAP’s learning exchange emphasised that the promise of
systems thinking for humanitarians was in generating a shift in perspective,
rather than adopting new tools. This is good news for a sector that many
feel is already drowning in toolkits.
This being said, there are a number of ‘techniques and devices for visually
capturing and communicating about systems’ (Kim, 1999: 2), often described
as systems thinking tools. You can practice systems thinking without ever
using these tools, but they do exist and they can be helpful. The companion
handbook to this paper introduces some of these tools, including the ladder of
inference, iceberg diagram, systems maps and archetypes.

How is systems thinking used? 27

 Box 3: Is systems thinking evidence based?

As part of the methodology for this paper, ALNAP conducted a

literature review to identify evidence, positive or negative, about
systems thinking. However, most of the publications identified
focused on forms of systems approaches (see Box 1) rather than
systems thinking. The nature of systems thinking (a mindset, rather
than a single intervention) makes it difficult to evaluate in the way
that a more tightly defined programme or intervention could be, or
to rigorously compare its effectiveness against reductionist or linear
approaches. Previous work has come across the same challenge,
finding little rigorous study of the effectiveness of systems thinking
(Cavaleri and Sterman, 1997).
The most comprehensive study identified is by Waters Center
for Systems Thinking, which looked at 197 studies of systems
thinking used in schools in the United States. It found evidence that
systems thinking helped students to develop a range of skills and
competencies, with applicability to real-life problems (Waters Center,
2020). Other studies have found positive impacts from systems
thinking in addressing homelessness (Stroh and Zurcher, 2012) and
in business (Valerdi and Rouse, 2010). Cavaleri and Sterman (1997)
found that systems thinking had a positive impact on organisational
performance within an insurance firm; Emes and Griffiths (2018)
found systems thinking tools were deemed useful by project
managers; and positive impacts were also reported by studies
exploring the effectiveness of systems thinking games (Goodwin and
Franklin, 1994; Bacon et al., 2018).
Given that systems thinking can be described in comparison to
analytical and reductionist thinking, the strongest evidence in its
support may be that it offers to address the complex problems that
linear and reductionist approaches have been unable to address.

28 Systems thinking for humanitarians: An Introduction for the Complete Beginner

4
Conclusion
 4 Conclusion

ALNAP’s previous research found that humanitarian response in cities often:

• fails to recognise the resources and capacities in the city
• misses opportunities to work collaboratively with urban stakeholders
• disrupts or hinders long-term planning and development
• cannot deal with interconnected problems/issues in the city
• fails to operate across different scales of the city.

This paper proposes that developing and applying systems thinking skills
will help to address these deficiencies and improve humanitarian response.
Systems thinking is holistic, integrative and circular, and is part of the broader
family of systems approaches, which have multidisciplinary origins. Based
on a comprehensive literature review, participant-led learning exchange and
informed by the author’s participation in several systems thinking events and
trainings, the paper defines systems thinking as a set of principles that aims
to address complex problems in practical, tangible ways. This involves taking
account of multiple perspectives and looking at patterns, feedback and the
relationships between parts of the system while also looking at the whole.
Complex problems are messy, unpredictable situations where change
doesn’t conform to simple patterns and there isn’t a straight line explaining
that A happened because of B. When things are complex, it is hard to
describe the problem let alone know how to solve it. Everything connects
to everything else, with infinite variables and no way to predict the potential
outcome. Complex can be distinguished from complicated problems, which
might present an intricate challenge, but which can be solved with expertise.
Systems thinking is very different from traditional forms of thought – namely
reductionist thinking (breaking problems into individual, manageable parts) and
linear thinking (focusing on one thing causing another thing to happen).

4.1 What next?

This paper has introduced six core systems thinking principles:

1. The different parts of a system are interrelated, and these relationships
have consequences.
2. Change in one place creates change elsewhere, and these changes can
be different in time, space and scale.
3. To change a system, we must understand its structure because this is
what drives its behaviour.
4. We need to understand the recurring patterns in a system’s structure,
rather than trying to solve individual events.

30 Systems thinking for humanitarians: An Introduction for the Complete Beginner

5. Perspectives and mental models shape our view of the system.
6. Systems are always changing, often leading to unexpected outcomes.

Putting these principles into practice and applying systems thinking requires
changing how you think and act. It means admitting that many of the things that
are ingrained in existing ways of working within the humanitarian system ‘may
actually be producing or at least contributing to the current problem’ (CPS
HR Consulting, n.d.: 5). This includes sector siloes and territorialism, and the
compulsion to ‘rapidly identify and implement a solution’ (ibid).
Embracing systems thinking means embracing diverse perspectives –
and this shift to a more equitable understanding of whose voice is heard
and whose ideas feed into decision-making can be seen as a threat to
established power dynamics and structures that emphasise expertise. For
systems thinking to have practical value, humanitarians need to overcome the
instinct to hold on to reductionist, linear ways of working when it comes to
complex problems. For systems thinking to have the most value, it will need
to be used widely across the sector.
Bolstered by this paper’s introduction to systems thinking, it is now
time to start building your own systems thinking skills. The accompanying
handbook outlines six systems thinking competencies and gives examples of
how to build and practice these skills. It also provides a glossary of systems
thinking terms and introduces eight basic systems thinking tools. If you’re the
type of person who finds themselves flipping straight to the tools section,
remember: systems thinking is first and foremost a mindset. Although they
may be useful, the tools are optional.
Alongside the handbook that accompanies this paper, you may find the
following resources helpful:

Waters Center for Systems Thinking

The Waters Center is a US-based non-profit who offer a variety of free
resources and learning tools about systems thinking, including monthly
webinars and a self-guided learning platform, ‘Thinking Tools Studio’.

Acumen Academy Systems Thinking e-learning (free)

This free e-learning course for teams/groups, developed in partnership with
Omidyar Group, will walk you through how to use systems thinking and
develop a systems map.

The Systems Thinker

This website offers a variety of articles, guides and multimedia resources
exploring various systems thinking topics, tools and applications.

Academy for Systems Change (Donella Meadows Project)

This organisation furthers the work of the late Donella Meadows, a systems
thinking and environmental advocate. The academy offers various resources
including a system leader’s fieldbook and various other articles, resources
and stories.

Conclusion 31
 Annex: Methodology

This paper aims to explore the potential for humanitarians to make use of
the practical ‘systems thinking’ tools and practices used in education and
healthcare fields outside the humanitarian sector, in relation to making
urban humanitarian response more context appropriate.
The research questions are:
• What are systems thinking approaches and practices?
• To what degree can systems thinking approaches support urban
humanitarian response to be context appropriate?10
• What evidence exists that systems thinking approaches and practices
have impact?
• Which specific practices and tools can humanitarians use to improve
their systems thinking skills?

This paper is based primarily on a literature review. An initial search

was conducted on Google Scholar and Google, using the following
search strings: “Systems thinking” + “in practice”, “Systems thinking” +
“humanitarian”, “Systems thinking” + “tools”. The first 100 results for each
were considered. A further literature search was conducted on Google
Scholar, using the following search strings: “Systems thinking” + “evidence”,
“Systems thinking” + “impact” and “Systems thinking” + “critique”. Additional
documents were identified from the literature review conducted for Stepping
Back (Campbell, 2016) and through the author’s own library. In total, 222
documents met the inclusion criteria.11 These were then coded using
MaxQDA and informed the structure and content of the paper.
In March 2021, ALNAP held a two-day virtual learning exchange with 28
participants from nine countries and a mix of humanitarian, development
and systems thinking disciplines. The discussions at the learning exchange
were recorded, transcribed and reviewed by the author as a further source
of evidence to this paper. Anonymised quotes from participants are
included throughout.
The paper has also been informed by the author’s participation at a
number of workshops and events, including the Waters Foundation’s
Systems Thinking Institute, training workshop for ‘Friday Night at the ER’,
and University College London’s Systems Thinking course.

32 Systems thinking for humanitarians: An Introduction for the Complete Beginner

Endnotes

1. The Community of Practice was closed in 2019, following a membership

survey: www.alnap.org/help-library/urban-response-community-
of-practice-2018-membership-survey

2. Such as: streets, neighbourhoods, zones, city-wide, nationwide.

3. See Kim (1999) and Open University (n.d.) for more on the definition of
‘system’.

4. For more on the definition of ‘systems thinking’ see Arnold and Wade
(2015); Monat and Gannon (2015); and Stalter et al. (2017).

5. ALNAP. (2020, 19 February) ‘Story in 5: Arbie Baguios | Decolonising

project management in the aid sector’. YouTube.

6. See Boulton et al. (2015) for an introduction to complexity.

7. ALNAP’s coordination research identified three levels of coordination

(between complete independence and full merger): communication,
alignment and collaboration. Alignment is defined as ‘Organisations
retain a high degree of independence but may adjust their activities
to create a more effective response on the basis of the activities of
other organisations. Adjustments might include accepting common
guidance, or changing the nature or location of activities to reduce
gaps/duplication. Organisations are working separately but influenced
by one another’ (Knox Clarke and Campbell, 2015:6).

8. See the accompanying handbook, Section 4.7 on system archetypes

for more on ‘fixes that fail’.

9. See Egan (2019) for more on visualisations in systems evaluations.

10. A context-appropriate urban response is one that does not fail to

recognise the resources and capacities in the city, does not miss
opportunities to work collaboratively with urban stakeholders, does not
disrupt or hinder long-term planning and development, is able to deal
with interconnected problems or issues in the city and to operate across
different scales of the city.

11. Inclusion criteria: documents that outline systems thinking tools or practices;
guidance, training materials, resource packs, articles and similar formats.
Exclusion criteria: documents that are purely theoretical and do not contain
practical tools or practices; documents that contain the phrase ‘systems
thinking’ but are not themselves about the subject matter.

Endnotes 33
 Bibliography

All resources in this bibliography can be found in our Humanitarian Evaluation

Learning and Performance (HELP) Library: http://www.alnap.org/help-
library/systems-thinking-for-humanitarians-biblio

Acaroglu, L. (2017a) ‘Tools for systems thinkers: Getting into systems

dynamics... and Bathtubs’. [Blog]. Medium. 13 September. San Francisco:
Medium. (www.alnap.org/help-library/tools-for-systems-thinkers-
getting-into-systems-dynamics-and-bathtubs).

Acaroglu, L. (2017b) ‘Tools for systems thinkers: 7 steps to move from

insights to interventions’. [Blog]. Medium. 9 October. San Francisco:
Medium. (www.alnap.org/help-library/tools-for-systems-thinkers-7-
steps-to-move-from-insights-to-interventions).

Acaroglu, L. (2019) ‘Unlocking the power of systems thinking’. [Blog].

Medium. 8 July. San Francisco: Medium. (www.alnap.org/help-library/
unlocking-the-power-of-systems-thinking).

Acaroglu, L. (2020) ‘Systems thinking skills are critical for developing a

sense of agency’. [Blog]. Bold Expert. 16 January. Zürich: Bold Expert.
(www.alnap.org/help-library/systems-thinking-skills-are-critical-for-
developing-a-sense-of-agency).

Acharya, K., Booth, B., Wambugu, C., Karanja, E., Arimi, H. and Bender, S.
(2010) How can systems thinking, social capital and social network analysis
help programmes achieve impact at scale? Results of a demonstration
project in the Kenyan dairy sector. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre. (www.
alnap.org/help-library/how-can-systems-thinking-social-capital-and-
social-network-analysis-help-programmes).

Allen, W. (2016) Complicated or complex - knowing the difference is

important. Learning for Sustainability. (www.alnap.org/help-library/
complicated-or-complex-knowing-the-difference-is-important).

Anderson, V. and Johnson, L. (1997) ‘What is systems thinking?’, in Systems

Thinking Basics: From Concepts to Causal Loops. Berwyn: Pegasus
Communications, Inc. (www.alnap.org/help-library/what-is-systems-
thinking).

34 Systems thinking for humanitarians: An Introduction for the Complete Beginner

Arnold, R. D. and Wade, J. P. (2015) ‘A definition of systems thinking:
A systems approach’. Procedia Computer Science, 44(C): 669-678.
(www.alnap.org/help-library/a-definition-of-systems-thinking-a-
systems-approach).

Ascencio, R. L. (2016) ‘Systems thinking’. [PowerPoint presentation].

University College London. London: UCL. (www.alnap.org/help-library/
systems-thinking-0).

Bacon, C. T., Trent, P. and McCoy, T. (2018) ‘Enhancing systems thinking

for undergraduate nursing students using Friday Night at the ER’. Journal
of Nursing Education, 57(11): 687-689. (www.alnap.org/help-library/
enhancing-systems-thinking-for-undergraduate-nursing-students-
using-friday-night-at-the).

Barton, J., Emery, M., Flood, R., Selsky, J. and Wolstenholme, E. (2004)
‘A maturing of systems thinking? Evidence from three perspectives’. Systemic
Practice and Action Research, 17(1): 1-35. (www.alnap.org/help-library/a-
maturing-of-systems-thinking-evidence-from-three-perspectives).

Booth Sweeney, L. (2001) When a Butterfly Sneezes. Berwyn: Pegasus

Communications Inc. (www.alnap.org/help-library/when-a-butterfly-
sneezes).

Booth Sweeney, L. (2009) Connected Wisdom: Living Stories about Living

Systems. Hong Kong: Regent Publishing Services. (www.alnap.org/help-
library/connected-wisdom-living-stories-about-living-systems).

Bowman, K., Chettleborough, J., Jeans, H., Whitehead, J. and Rowlands,

J. (2015) Systems thinking: An introduction for Oxfam programme staff.
Oxford: Oxfam. (www.alnap.org/help-library/systems-thinking-an-
introduction-for-oxfam-programme-staff).

Burge, S. (2015) ‘Systems thinking’. Systems thinking: Concepts, 1–2.

Rugby: Burge Hughes Walsh. (www.alnap.org/help-library/systems-
thinking).

Burns, D. and Worsley, S. (2015) Navigating Complexity in International

Development: Facilitating Sustainable Change at Scale. Warwickshire:
Practical Action Publishing. (www.alnap.org/help-library/navigating-
complexity-in-international-development-facilitating-sustainable-
change-at).

Cabrera, D. and Cabrera, L. (2015) ‘Learning systems thinking at the

graduate level’. [Blog]. Cornell Policy Review. Ithaca: Cornell Policy
Review. (www.alnap.org/help-library/learning-systems-thinking-at-the-
graduate-level).

Bibliography 35
 Cabrera Research Lab. (2016) Reality bias: Systems thinking. Ithaca:
Cabrera Research Lab. (www.alnap.org/help-library/reality-bias-
systems-thinking).

Campbell, L. (2016) Stepping back: Understanding cities and their

systems. ALNAP Working Paper. London: ALNAP/ODI. (www.alnap.org/
help-library/stepping-back-understanding-cities-and-their-systems).

Campbell, L. (2018) What’s missing? Adding context to the urban response

toolbox. ALNAP Study. London: ALNAP/ODI. (www.alnap.org/help-
library/whats-missing-adding-context-to-the-urban-response-toolbox).

Cavaleri, S. and Sterman, J. D. (1997) ’Towards evaluation of systems

thinking interventions: A case study’. System Dynamics Review, 13(2):
171-186. (www.alnap.org/help-library/towards-evaluation-of-systems-
thinking-interventions-a-case-study).

CPS HR Consulting. (n.d.) Using systems thinking to achieve results in

organizational development. Sacramento: CPS HR Consulting.
(www.alnap.org/help-library/using-systems-thinking-to-achieve-
results-in-organizational-development).

Diez Roux, A. V. (2015) ‘Health in cities: is a systems approach needed?’.

Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 31: 9-23. (www.alnap.org/help-library/
health-in-cities%E2%80%AF-is-a-systems-approach-needed).

Emes, M. and Griffiths, W. (2018) Systems thinking: How is it used

in project management?. Buckinghamshire: Association for Project
Management. (www.alnap.org/help-library/systems-thinking-how-is-it-
used-in-project-management).

Goodman, M. (2018) ‘Systems thinking: What, why, when, where, and how?’.
[Blog]. The Systems Thinker. Berwyn: Pegasus Communications. (www.
alnap.org/help-library/systems-thinking-what-why-when-where-and-
how).

Goodwin, J. S. and Franklin, S. G. (1994) ‘The Beer Distribution Game:

Using simulation to teach systems thinking’. Journal of Management
Development, 13(8): 7-15. (www.alnap.org/help-library/the-beer-
distribution-game-using-simulation-to-teach-systems-thinking).

Gopal, S. and Clarke, T. (2015) ‘System mapping: A guide to developing

actor maps’. [Webpage]. FSG. Washington, D.C.: FSG. (www.alnap.org/
help-library/system-mapping-a-guide-to-developing-actor-maps).

Hummelbrunner, R. (2011) ‘Systems thinking and evaluation’. Evaluation, 17(4):

395-403. (www.alnap.org/help-library/systems-thinking-and-evaluation).

36 Systems thinking for humanitarians: An Introduction for the Complete Beginner

Jones, A. (2020) ‘Why systems thinking isn’t a fad’. [Blog]. Gov.UK. 4 June.
London: Gov.uk. (www.alnap.org/help-library/why-systems-thinking-
isn%E2%80%99t-a-fad).

Kim, D. H. (1994) Systems Thinking Tools: A User’s Guide. Berwyn: Pegasus

Communications. (www.alnap.org/help-library/systems-thinking-tools-a-
user%E2%80%99s-guide).

Kim, D. H. (1999) ‘Introduction to systems thinking’, in L. Johnson and

Wardman O’Reilly, K’s (eds.) The Innovations in Management Series. Berwyn:
Pegasus Communications. (www.alnap.org/help-library/introduction-to-
systems-thinking).

Knox Clarke, P. and Campbell, L. (2015) Exploring coordination in

humanitarian clusters. ANLAP Study. London: ALNAP/ODI. (www.alnap.
org/help-library/exploring-coordination-in-humanitarian-clusters).

Lamont, T. (2020) ‘But does it work? Evidence, policy-making and systems

thinking’. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 10(10), 1-3.
(www.alnap.org/help-library/but-does-it-work-evidence-policy-making-
and-systems-thinking).

Lee, A. (2016) ‘Systems thinking’, in Resilience by Design, Advanced

Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications. New York: Springer
International Publishing. (www.alnap.org/help-library/systems-thinking-1).

Levine, S. (2011) ‘System failure? Revisiting the problems of timely

response to crises in the Horn of Africa’. HPN Network Paper, 71. London:
ODI. (www.alnap.org/help-library/network-paper-71-system-failure-
revisiting-the-problems-of-timely-response-to-crises-in).

McFadden, M. (2018) ‘Systems thinking for 21st-century cities: A beginners

introduction - part #1’. [Blog]. Medium. 3 February. San Francisco: Medium.
(www.alnap.org/help-library/systems-thinking-for-21st-century-cities-a-
beginners-introduction-part-1).

Meadows, D., Booth Sweeney, L. and Mehers, G. M. (2016) The Climate

Change Playbook. Hartford: Chelsea Green Publishing. (www.alnap.org/
help-library/the-climate-change-playbook).

Monat, J. P. and Gannon, T. F. (2015) ‘What is systems thinking? A review

of selected literature plus recommendations’. American Journal of Systems
Science, 4(1): 11-26. (www.alnap.org/help-library/what-is-systems-
thinking-a-review-of-selected-literature-plus-recommendations).

Morgan, P. (2005) The idea and practice of systems thinking and their
relevance for capacity development. Brussels: ECDPM. (www.alnap.org/
help-library/the-idea-and-practice-of-systems-thinking-and-their-
relevance-for-capacity-development).

Bibliography 37
 Egan, M., McGill, E., Penney, T., Anderson de Cuevas, R., Er, V., Orton, L.,
Lock, K., Popay, J., Savona, N., Cummins, S., Rutter, H., Whitehead, M.,
De Vocht, F., White, M., Smith, R., Andreeva, M., Meier, P., Marks, D. and
Petticrew, M. (2019) NIHR SPHR guidance on systems approaches to
local public health evaluation. Part 1: Introducing systems thinking. London:
NIHR. (www.alnap.org/help-library/nihr-sphr-guidance-on-systems-
approaches-to-local-public-health-evaluation-part-1).

O’Connor, J. and McDermott, I. (1997) The Art of Systems Thinking:

Essential Skills for Creativity and Problem Solving. London: Thorsons.
(www.alnap.org/help-library/the-art-of-systems-thinking-essential-
skills-for-creativity-and-problem-solving).

Ollhoff, J. and Walcheski, M. (2006) ‘Making the jump to systems thinking’.

[Blog]. The Systems Thinker. Berwyn: Pegasus Communications.
(www.alnap.org/help-library/making-the-jump-to-systems-thinking).

Omidyar Group. (n.d.) Systems practice. Redwood City: Omidyar Group.

(www.alnap.org/help-library/systems-practice).

The Open University. (2020) ‘Systems thinking and practice’. [Course].

The Open University. Milton Keynes: The Open University. (www.alnap.org/
help-library/systems-thinking-and-practice).

Peters, D. H. (2014) ‘The application of systems thinking in health: Why

use systems thinking?’. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12(51): 1-6.
(www.alnap.org/help-library/the-application-of-systems-thinking-in-
health-why-use-systems-thinking).

Pollard, D. (2014) ‘Systems thinking and complexity 101’. [Blog].

Resilience. Corvallis: Post Carbon Institute. (www.alnap.org/help-library/
systems-thinking-and-complexity-101).

Ribesse, N., Bossyns, P., Marchal, B., Karemere, H., Burman, C. J.

and Macq, J. (2015) ‘Methodological approach and tools for systems
thinking in health systems research: technical assistants’ support of
health administration reform in the Democratic Republic of Congo as
an application’. Global Health Promotion, 24(1): 43-52. (www.alnap.
org/help-library/methodological-approach-and-tools-for-systems-
thinking-in-health-systems-research).

Ricigliano, R. (2012) Making Peace Last: A Toolbox for Sustainable

Peacebuilding. Oxfordshire: Routledge. (www.alnap.org/help-library/
making-peace-last-a-toolbox-for-sustainable-peacebuilding).

Sanderson, D. (2019) ‘Urban Humanitarian Response’, in Good Practice

Review, 12. London: ODI. (www.alnap.org/help-library/humanitarian-
response-in-urban-contexts).

38 Systems thinking for humanitarians: An Introduction for the Complete Beginner

Sherwood, D. (2002) Seeing the Forest for the Trees: A Manager’s Guide
to Applying Systems Thinking. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
(www.alnap.org/help-library/seeing-the-forest-for-the-trees-a-
manager%E2%80%99s-guide-to-applying-systems-thinking).

Stalter, A. M., Phillips, J. M., Ruggiero, J. S., Scardaville, D. L., Merriam,

D., Dolansky, M. A., Goldschmidt, K. A., Wiggs, C. M. and Winegardner,
S. (2017) ‘A concept analysis of systems thinking’. Nursing Forum,
52(4): 323-330. (www.alnap.org/help-library/a-concept-analysis-of-
systems-thinking).

Stroh, D. P. and Zurcher, K. (2012) ‘Acting and thinking systemically’.

[Blog]. The Systems Thinker. Berwyn: Pegasus Communications.
(www.alnap.org/help-library/acting-and-thinking-systemically).

Stroh, D. P. (2015) Systems Thinking for Social Change. Hartford: Chelsea

Green Publishing. (www.alnap.org/help-library/systems-thinking-for-
social-change).

USAID. (2014) Local Systems: A framework for supporting sustained

development. Washington, D.C.: USAID. (www.alnap.org/help-library/
local-systems-a-framework-for-supporting-sustained-development).

Valerdi, R. and Rouse, W. B. (2011) ‘When systems thinking is not a natural

act’. [PowerPoint presentation]. IEEE International Systems Conference
Proceedings, SysCon. Tucson: University of Arizona. (www.alnap.org/
help-library/when-systems-thinking-is-not-a-natural-act).

Waters Center. (2020) The impact of the systems thinking in schools

project: 20 years of research, development and dissemination. Pittsburgh:
Waters Center for Systems Thinking. (www.alnap.org/help-library/
the-impact-of-the-systems-thinking-in-schools-project-20-years-of-
research-development).

Wester, J. (2013) ‘Understanding the Cynefin framework - a basic intro’.

[Blog]. Everyday Kanban. 29 September. Svedala: Everyday Kanban.
(www.alnap.org/help-library/understanding-the-cynefin-framework-a-
basic-intro).

White, D. (1995) ‘Application of systems thinking to risk management:

A review of the literature’. Management Decision, 33(10): 35-45.
(www.alnap.org/help-library/application-of-systems-thinking-to-risk-
management-a-review-of-the-literature).

Bibliography 39
Related ALNAP publications

• Stepping back: understanding cities and their

systems
• What’s missing? Adding context to the urban
response toolbox
• One neighbourhood: CARE’s humanitarian
response in Tripoli
• Barrio Mio and Katye: PCI’s neighbourhood
approach in cities

ALNAP
Overseas Development Institute
203 Blackfriars Road
London SE1 8NJ
United Kingdom
[email protected]