The third archetype introduced in the module materials (Activity 2.24) is ‘limits to growth’ where trying harder stops working after a while:
This archetype takes its name from the book by Donella Meadows and her colleagues (Meadows et al., 1972). It consists of a reinforcing loop and a balancing loop running side-by-side… It is a formalisation of the observation that success breeds success.
Growth breeds growth initially, but, as time moves forward, it becomes harder and harder to sustain.
[…]
Initial effort is rewarded with good performance that elicits further effort. Eventually, it is impossible to make more effort, or it is impossible to improve the performance further. A limit to growth has been reached, often stopping the reinforcing loop quite suddenly.
This archetype often manifests itself when the just-try-harder approach no longer works. It becomes impossible, for example, to reduce hospital-acquired infection rates any further simply by cleaning ‘deeper’ and more frequently; there is a level of infection that is part of the human condition and impossible to eradicate without isolating patients in ways that impair their recovery. Universities may become better at delivering education with less money, but at some point the level of reduction would mean that students get completely inadequate modules and support.
(The Open University, 2020)
As in any context, there’s only so much more you can do with less. For example, in a library context, if you cut the budget and staff try harder to come up with new ways of increasing visitor numbers and improving provision, eventually this takes its toll.
Activity 2.23 introduces a second archetype, where ‘quick fixes’ are made to deal with a problem, but this merely delays dealing with the underlying issues and implementing the ‘fundamental solution’.
In this archetype, the temptation is to deal with the easy, most obvious and urgent tasks first and leave the underlying problems unaddressed. As a consequence, dealing with the easy, most obvious and urgent tasks becomes a treadmill that doesn’t leave time for more fundamental action. Symptoms are relieved as a quick fix is applied, but the underlying problem is reinforced by the fix. The temptation to fix stays in place.
[…]
Examples of this archetype are often found where there is:
procrastination
preference for doing the quick, easy and urgent tasks first
desire to earn the quick buck
prioritisation of the urgent over the important.
It is also found where managers, for example, feel uncomfortable challenging difficult behaviour or poor performance and settle instead for workarounds, or become irritated with junior colleagues.
(The Open University, 2020)
Again, I’ve recreated the diagram from the module materials, colouring the arrows to make it easier to see how the loops are constructed:
In my situation of interest, I can imagine marketing being a ‘quick fix’. It might increase visitor numbers, but at the (literal) expense of reducing the budget for other activities. Without fundamentally reimagining what the library is for, then marketing is going to lead to diminishing returns:
Activity 2.22 asks us to apply one of five system archetypes to our situation of concern. The first is ‘fixes that fail’:
In this archetype, the initial benefits of action to address a problem are found to be temporary. What seemed initially to be the solution stops working. It turns out the temporary fix has failed. For example, when you hear a statement like ‘I get stomach pains almost every day but I find the indigestion remedy from the supermarket deals with the immediate problem but actually may cause other ailments later on’. The point here is you don’t need any medical understanding at all to see that a fix like an indigestion remedy does nothing to forestall any unintended consequences that are completely unseen at this stage.
(The Open University, 2020)
I’ve recreated the diagram from the module materials:
So if we take increased opening hours as an attempt to increase visitor numbers we get an impact on the budget and staff workload, which can potentially lead (after a delay) to a decline in service quality and, after an initial spike, a reduction in numbers of visitors:
Equally, I could apply this archetype to:
Expanding digital access: the problem is low engagement with library services, so the fix is to expand digital access and promote ebooks. After a temporary benefit of increased engagement, after a delay, reduced demand for physical resources leads to budget cuts, with traditional library users feeling alienated.
Increased marketing efforts: the problem (low number of library visitors) is addressed with the fix of spending more time and budget on marketing. This attracts more visitors initially, but after a delay the budget is strained, reducing funds available for other services.
More community activities: the problem of low community engagement leads to the ‘fix’ of increasing the number and variety of community activities. This increases visitor numbers, but also increases the noise, making is less suitable for quiet study. These users stop using the library.
