DEAR YOUNG OFFICER,

One of the most fascinating topics I learnt at the MIT Sloan School 20 years ago is “systems dynamics”. Originally developed by MIT Professor Jay Forrester in the 1950s to study the behaviour of industrial corporations, it was popularised in the 1990s as “systems thinking” by Peter Senge, bestselling author of The Fifth Discipline.

Essentially, systems thinking is about seeing the world as consisting of many different systems interacting with and affecting one another, positively or negatively. Systems come in all sizes (large and small) and have different interactions with one another (independent or linked).

Over the years, systems thinking has been used effectively to model complex systems, from manufacturing operations and property cycles to population growth and climate change.

You can be seen as a system too, interacting with and affecting other systems such as your team, department and agency.

At a micro level, there is also great value in applying systems thinking to the projects that you encounter in the course of your work.

In fact, each project that you undertake is a system, made up of smaller systems (or sub-projects). Your project is in turn part of a larger system, such as a programme, interacting with other projects and systems.

Having such a holistic approach is especially important for organisations responsible for long-term planning. For example, in building infrastructure for housing and transportation, one needs accurate projections of population growth and user demand. These are in turn affected by economic factors, political consideration, lifestyle choices, etc.

Each of these factors is governed by its own system, which is linked to other systems. You can see how quickly the planning model can develop into a huge, complex megasystem, with many forces interacting in complicated ways.

To illustrate: the National Research Foundation introduced a series of programmes in 2008 to develop a vibrant eco-system for technology entrepreneurship in Singapore. Providing start-up companies with seed funding is an obvious thing to do but would be totally ineffective on its own.

A more comprehensive approach would be to trace the life cycle of a high-tech company, from its genesis to a successful exit, and consider whether the right conditions are present at each stage for the company to thrive. Beyond this, other systems that work to support and sustain the eco-system must also be present.

These include having start-up-friendly legislation, professional support services(such as patent agents), a critical mass of experienced entrepreneurs, availability of “smart” money (venture capital), world-class scientific research, an environment conducive to academic entrepreneurship at the local universities and not least, a social culture that accepts failure and encourages risk-taking.

If properly developed, all these constituent parts would interact and mutually reinforce one another, over time creating a robust and healthy eco-system that fosters innovation. The policymaker’s responsibility is then to monitor this “system of systems” and intervene as necessary to strengthen those parts that are not working well.

So young officer, as you look at your projects, think “systems” and interconnectivity. I believe that if you look at the big picture and see the forest for the trees, it will help you to formulate and implement programmes that would be more robust, effective and sustainable.