Awareness	Confirm
I am not experiencing the system directly, but indirectly through my mental model of it. I am taking the first step in the Systems Thinking Loop—building a mental model...	☑
As a human, I am prone to cognitive biases (like confirmation bias). I will really try to look for evidence that supports my conclusions about the system.	☑
I am not solving a problem yet, I’m simply trying to understand a real world system by mapping it out...	☑

Step 1a Choose the medium for your mapping

There are multiple ways you can map your thinking, each with advantages and disadvantages. It's helpful to think about which medium you will use. Here are a few to choose from:

Great job! You’ve completed Step 1. Now go to Step 2

Step 2 (D): Start mapping using a “splat map” of your main identities (Distinctions). What are the salient things your mapping will include?

Use a visual map or a table or pen and paper to write down the basic elements. If your map is about healthcare in a region, write down the basic ideas that come to mind when you think about that system. Think of these things as little boundaried identities. We will use a little rectangle to signify that the identity could be any thing but you could use a circle or whatever you want. Remember that the border signifies that each identity creates a boundary that marginalizes an other. For now you don’t have to worry about all that just distinguish in the table below a few of your most salient identities:

Step 2a: For just two seconds for each identity you made, get in the habit of considering the “other”? An alternative? The opportunity cost of each identity you think of.

For example:

*Identity*	*Other(s)*
Human Resources	if you think about stakeholders and you define it as “those who have a stake in the initiative,” consider that there may be others who don’t necessarily have a stake in the initiative but may be affected negatively by it or may have been left out of it. The opportunity costs of defining stakeholders in this way may be an unintended bias that you bring to your thinking and this bias may have opportunity costs: you don’t seek out their perspective (later on); you don’t consider them in solutions; you don’t understand the way the system really works; your solution doesn’t work...etc. Is there a better term that doesn’t codify so many biases?
Stakeholders	Stakeholders is usually defined as “those who have a stake in the initiative.” But, consider that there may be others who don’t necessarily have a stake in the initiative but may be affected negatively by it or may have been left out of it. Defining stakeholders in this way may be an unintended bias that you bring to your thinking that may have opportunity costs: you don’t seek out their perspective (later on); you don’t consider them in solutions; you don’t understand the way the system really works; your solution doesn’t work. Rather than narrow the identity, broaden the boundary of it to include others…and perhaps there is a better term for it (Interested/Affected Parties?)
Silo	The term silo has negative connotations as something that is isolated or not integrated. But the reason silos form are based on positive intentions to break your organization into parts (divisions, departments, initiatives, projects) is critically important to functioning, division of labor, and not feeling overwhelmed. Be careful not to get rid of silos (bathwater) and also get rid of part-whole structure (baby). Instead of getting rid of silos, build relationships between the parts
Environment	Environment could mean ecological systems. But it also could mean social, cultural, etc. Can we use the same term but purposefully expand its meaning with a description?

Cut and paste up to four of your above identities into the table below. Take literally a second to think about the other for each and jot it in. If you can’t think of anything in one second, move on.

*Identity from above*	*Others*	*Identity from above*	*Others*

Great job! For now, don’t worry too much about the other. It's something you’ll learn to do quickly and efficiently through practice over time. For now just remember how its done, but don’t worry about it…

Great job! You’ve completed Step 2. Now go to Step 3

Step 3 (R) Consider the relationships

Consider the relationships between your identities. Does one thing lead to or cause another? Are there stepped sequences? Feedback loops? If so, draw lines with arrows between them. You can choose from the many line options below. But for starters, just use lines and arrows.

Endpoints	Color	Thickness	Style	Type

Example:

Great job! You’ve completed Step 3. Now go to Step 4

Step 4 (S) Consider the Systems

Consider the systems of part-whole across your identities.

Does one thing fit inside another? If so, drag it over to be part of the other thing.

before	after
or	or
(little ‘a’ is a type of big ‘A’ so it can be part of it)

Does one thing have parts (i.e., it is a whole with parts). If so, add some parts as a list

before	after
or	or
(“When I see ‘B’ I realize that be has two important parts: “b1’ and ‘b2’.)

Is there something that exists in your current map that makes you think some larger whole should exist? If so, draw it in

before	after
or	or
(“When I see ‘A,’ ‘B,’ and ‘a’ I think ‘Letters’ so I can make one part-whole system that contains them all!”)

Now, draw your identities into part-whole structure or add a link to your map below

Great job! You’ve completed Step 4. Now go to Step 5

Step 5 (S & R) Consider the Relationships between the Parts

You’ve already related the top level concepts, but now with part-wholing you’ve created two (or more) levels. Look at the second level of parts and see if they can or should be related. For example:

Either	Or
You may have a system like this that is a list of parts...	Or, you may decide that the parts should be related like this...
or	or
(“That’s good enough, no need to relate those parts, the list is enough.”)	(“It is important that the I understand and show how the parts of this subsystem interrelate.”)

2a. When you draw parts you can do it in two ways, draw them directly INTO the whole, or use a popout

Drawn in	Popped Out
or	or
(“I want the parts to show inside the system where it is.”)	(“My map is getting to cramped and visually confusing, I’m going to pop these parts out over here...”)

Draw your identities part-whole structure below with second level relationships or add a link to your map below

Great job! You’ve completed Step 5. Now go to Step 6

Step 6 (R & D & S) Consider the RDSs

RDS is a thing that starts out as simple Relationship line between to things. But using your thinking you ask yourself, “how might I Distinguish that relationship by giving it a name?” Next, you go even deeper into understanding that relationship by zooming into it to see if it is a System made up of parts!

RDSs are extremely important, because they help you to understand how the system is related and what is happening within those relationships. Most of the complexities and problems in systems are hidden inside the relationships!

Start with a Relationship you think is important (This is the R part of RDS)	Ask yourself what might its name be (This is the D part of RDS)	Ask yourself what might the parts of this relationship be (this is the S part of RDS)

(“I think these two things are related...”)	(“...the relationship is so important is needs to be named...”)	(“...and, to better understand the system, we need to zoom into its parts...”)

Below, draw your any RDS you decide to make explicit or add a link to your map

Great job! You’ve completed Step 6. Now go to Step 7

Step 7 (P) Consider the Perspectives

Now look at your map and determine:

First, are there any things in your map that offer an important Perspective (these might be stakeholders, but they could also be non-human things like: a regional perspective; an economic perspective; a paradigmatic perspective, etc.

When you do think of that thing as the point and consider what its view looks like. Not how its view might look different than your point of view or someone or something else's point of view.

Consider especially

What it sees and does not see?

What it values and does not value?

What is salient and not salient from that perspective?

You may also notice that the perspectives you want to take are not in the map you’ve built and need to be added as overarching perspectives. For example, you might be looking at a local healthcare system and want to think of it from any one of these perspectives: Technological, Historical, Social, Health & Safety, Political, Emotional, Moral/Ethical, Security, Ecological, Cultural, Legal, Organizational, Economic.

You can add these perspectives to your map and think about the content from their point of view.

You can think of perspective mapping in three ways.

In vs. On the Map

Are the salient perspectives already IN your map?

Are the salient perspectives an overarching view ON your map?

Both?

One Map, Multiple Perspectives (and annotations)

Map the point to the view and add annotations and in/out perspective boundary.

(Good for situations where: As a result of perspective, most things remain the same but a few things change.)

Multiple Perspectives, Multiple Maps

Make entirely separate maps where the view completely changes

(Good for: perspectives are looking t the same thing but seem it in dramatically different ways; alot or everything changes as the result of the perspective)

Identify your Perspectives below.

Great job! You’ve completed Step 7. Now go to Step 8

Step 8 (DSRP) Realize that DSRP is massively parallel

You don’t need to do this step in every map, but we would be remiss if we didn’t point out that there are simply no limits to where DSRP can take you in your analysis and synthesis.

You can do identity-other boundary analysis on every single identity in your map/world

There are opportunity costs for every identity you choose and there is an other which represents an entirely alternative world.

Any identity can be an entire complex system made up of many interrelated parts each with their own perspective.

The above statement (#2) applies to every single relationship in your map! (i.e., RDSs)

The way you organize the parts matters. One way will lead to a totally different understanding than another.
You could have Systems of Relationships (SoR) just like you have systems of “object” parts. A SoR is a set of Relationships among 3 or more items that work together to form some output or outcome or dynamical property of the system.
Every single identity, other, part, whole, and relationship, can be a point with its own unique view.

This point of view can effect the dynamical properties of the system itself and is therefore salient, whether it is wrong or right, whether you agree with it or not.

The point of a perspective can be a system of parts making up subperspectives. The view is also potentially a whole system.

Great job! You’ve completed Step 8. Now go to the last Step 9

Step 9 Now that you have a fleshed out mental model, remember to test it in the real world and then update it!

Ask yourself:

When was the last time I changed my mental model (map)?
How often have I changed my mental model (map)?
Is it possible I am seeing what I want to see?
What is the evidence that my mental model is right?

Great job! You’ve completed Step 9. Now repeat...