[DSRP Evidence](https://dsrpevidence.org/)

# Additional Thoughts on Systems Thinking

## Details

**Authors** Forrest J

**Year** 2008

**Publisher** Evaluation and Program Planning 31(3):333-334

**Kind of work** article

**Discipline** Systems Science

**Secondary disciplines** Public Policy

**Reading level** beginner

**Kind of engagement** scholarly

[Read it at the publisher](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.04.008) 
10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.04.008

## In authors' words

### What they set out to do (purpose)

A scholarly practitioner commentary elaborating the argument in three directions: what systems thinking is, how it supports contemplating and communicating complexity, and how it might support a more future-oriented conception of evaluation.

### What they found (results)

Forrest concludes that Cabrera, Colosi and Lobdell give a valuable explanation of systems thinking and its relation to evaluation. Given the complexity evaluators face, he holds that systems thinking is valuable because it aids the perception, analysis and communication of complex issues, and argues that evaluation may be moving toward a more future-oriented role in which it helps.

## Commentary

### In short

Supportive conceptual and practitioner commentary. Forrest says he was particularly struck by the development of Distinction, System, Relationship and Perspective as rules underlying systems thinking and evaluation, and regards the paper as a valuable addition to the systems-in-evaluation literature. His response independently reinforces several functions DSRP is meant to serve — structuring thought, surfacing relationships, bounding complex situations, generating insight, communicating mental models — without being empirical validation of the four rules.

### In more detail

Forrest accepts the description of systems thinking as an ambiguous and inconsistent multidisciplinary literature, and offers practical characterisations of it: an amalgam of logic, heuristics, perspectives and processes; a structured way of thinking that yields deeper insight; a visual language for representing complex situations. Rather than mastering the whole fragmented literature, he recommends internalising its holistic and causal logic, comparing systems thinking to a Swiss army knife and emphasising flexible rather than rigid application.

In evaluation he finds it most useful where multiple actors, relationships, objectives and fuzzy boundaries make conventional representations inadequate. He closes by arguing that evaluation naturally has future implications, because learning what worked or failed is valuable partly for what it tells the next decision.

### Response

A practitioner commentary supporting the four rules and extending the argument toward a more future-oriented evaluation. Agreement rather than test; it records how the framing was received in 2008.

**Patterns it shows** D, S, R, P

**How to cite this** Forrest J (2008). Additional Thoughts on Systems Thinking. Evaluation and Program Planning 31(3):333-334.