2018
DOI: 10.1109/jsyst.2017.2652218
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Individual Capacity and Organizational Competency for Systems Thinking

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
45
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

5
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
45
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In many systems‐based methodologies (e.g., see Checkland's [2019] work describing systems‐based approaches), the necessary systemic orientation is either tacit, assumed, or omitted. For CSG, development for deployment requires that the level of “systems thinking capacity” (Jaradat & Keating, ; Jaradat et al, , Jaradat et al, ) be accounted for prior to full engagement. We believe this to be the case with deployment of any systems‐based methodology.…”
Section: Challenges For Csg Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In many systems‐based methodologies (e.g., see Checkland's [2019] work describing systems‐based approaches), the necessary systemic orientation is either tacit, assumed, or omitted. For CSG, development for deployment requires that the level of “systems thinking capacity” (Jaradat & Keating, ; Jaradat et al, , Jaradat et al, ) be accounted for prior to full engagement. We believe this to be the case with deployment of any systems‐based methodology.…”
Section: Challenges For Csg Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…a. Systems Thinking Capacity -examines seven dimensions of Systems Thinking through a 39-question web-based survey instrument (Jaradat, 2015;Jaradat et al, 2017). The instrument determines the relative preference for systems thinking that exist in the participating group.…”
Section: Systemic Intervention For Complex System Governancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The shifting landscape of the systems engineering practitioner might be characterized by several dominant characteristics. Following previous recitations of this landscape from recent works (Jaradat & Keating, 2014;Keating, Katina, & Bradley, 2015;Keating & Katina, 2011), the following summary is offered with respect to characteristics and their nature for the domain faced by system practitioners dealing with complex systems (Table 1).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Instead, the landscape for acquisition systems might be best characterized as a 'complex problem space'. The different aspects of this increasingly complex problem space, within which acquisition systems must exist, has been previously articulated (Keating, Katina, and Bradley 2015;Jaradat and Keating 2014;Keating 2014;Keating and Katina 2011;Naphade, Banavar, Harrison, Paraszczak, and Morris 2011) as being characterized by such conditions as identified in Figure 1. In sum, we suggest that the acquisition field includes many of the recognized conditions that plague complex systems.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Acquisition practitioners and the field are certainly plagued with having to function in a difficult environment as they deal with increasingly complex systems -in what appears to be impossible circumstances. We summarized this domain of the acquisition practitioner as being marked by conditions characterized previously expounded (Keating, et al 2015;Jaradat, Keating, and Bradley 2017), including:…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%