Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:32:49.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SYSTEM DESIGN CANVAS FOR IDENTIFYING LEVERAGE POINTS IN COMPLEX SYSTEMS: A CASE STUDY OF THE AGRICULTURAL SYSTEM MODELS, CAMBODIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Akinori Komaki ,
Akira Kodaka ,
Eri Nakamura ,
Yu Ohno  and
Naohiko Kohtake
Akinori Komaki*
Affiliation:
Graduate School of System Design and Management, Keio University
Akira Kodaka
Affiliation:
Graduate School of System Design and Management, Keio University
Eri Nakamura
Affiliation:
Graduate School of System Design and Management, Keio University
Yu Ohno
Affiliation:
Graduate School of System Design and Management, Keio University
Naohiko Kohtake
Affiliation:
Graduate School of System Design and Management, Keio University
*
Komaki, Akinori, Keio University, Graduate School of System Design and Management, Japan, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

There has been a growing recognition that a systems thinking approach, which pays attention to the entire dynamic system, its constituent parts and the interactions among those parts, is an effective approach for tackling complex issues that exhibit nonlinear behaviour and involve multiple stakeholders. To understand a complex system, a systems thinking approach must identify the leverage points, which are non-intuitive and difficult to identify. This paper proposes a design tool called System Design Canvas, which supports the identification of system variables and leverage points from technological sensing data and human data while understanding stakeholders' mental model. The present case study confirms that System Design Canvas can identify system variables and leverage points that are required for the current agricultural system in Cambodia.

Keywords

Design methodsDesign methodologyDesign processDesign CanvasSystems Design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 2901 - 2910
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Arthur, W. B. (1994). Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.10.3998/mpub.10029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banson, K. E., Nguyen, N. C., Bosch, O. J. and Nguyen, T. V. (2015), “A systems thinking approach to address the complexity of agribusiness for sustainable development in Africa: a case study in Ghana”, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 672–688.10.1002/sres.2270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosch, O. J. H., King, C. A., Herbohn, J. L., Russell, I. W. and Smith, C. S. (2007), “Getting the big picture in natural resource management—systems thinking as ‘method’ for scientists, policy makers and other stakeholders”, Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 217–232.10.1002/sres.818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosch, O. and Nguyen, N. C. (2015), Systems thinking for everyone: The journey from theory to making an impact, Think2Impact Pty Ltd., Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
Bosch, O. J. H., Nguyen, N. C. and Krishnamurthi, K. (2014), “Systems-based Evolutionary Learning Laboratories to enable Systemic Entrepreneurship in a Complex World (Invited Keynote Address)”, In The 10th HSSS National & International Conference: “Systemic Entrepreneurship-Innovations, Business, Growth”, Athens, 29–31 May 2014, The Hellenic Society for Systemic Studies (HSSS).Google Scholar
Cabrera, D., Colosi, L., and Lobdell, C. (2008), “Systems thinking”, Evaluation and program planning, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 299–310.10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2007.12.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haraldsson, H. V. (2004), Introduction to system thinking and causal loop diagrams, Reports in Ecology and Environmental Engineering 2004, Vol 1, Lund University.Google Scholar
Maani, K. and Cavana, R. Y. (2007), Systems thinking, system dynamics: Managing change and complexity, Prentice Hall, Auckland, NZ.Google Scholar
Maani, K. E. and Maharaj, V. (2004), “Links between systems thinking and complex decision making. System Dynamics Review”, Journal of the System Dynamics Society, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 21–48.10.1002/sdr.281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meadows, D. H. (2008), Thinking in systems: A primer, chelsea green publishing, White River Junction, Vermont.Google Scholar
Nguyen, N. C., & Bosch, O. J. (2013). “A systems thinking approach to identify leverage points for sustainability: a case study in the Cat Ba Biosphere Reserve, Vietnam”, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 30 No.2, pp. 104–115.10.1002/sres.2145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salisbury, D. (1996), Five Technologies for Educational Change: Systems Thinking, Systems Design, Quality Science, Change Management, Instructional Technology, Educational Technology, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Senge, P. M. (2006), The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (Rev. ed.), Currency Doubleday, New York.Google Scholar
Sterman, J. D. (2001), “System dynamics modeling: tools for learning in a complex world”, California Management Review, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 8–25.10.2307/41166098CrossRefGoogle Scholar