When is a System Not a System?

Guest post by Dr. Doug Stilwell

Rethinking the “Broken System” Narrative

Is there such a thing as a broken system, or are the undesirable results evidence of a system performing precisely as intended? In my 20 years of teaching systems courses at Drake University, students have often voiced their frustrations, often calling their educational system—or other systems they interact with—“broken.”

This sentiment is common, but I’ve come to challenge the notion of a “broken system.” Is there such a thing as a broken system, or is it functioning exactly as it was designed to, just not delivering the results we hope for? When students point to disengaged learners, frustrated teachers, or declining performance, it’s easy to label the system as a failure. But perhaps the system is operating as intended, only producing outcomes that weren’t fully considered, known as “unintended consequences.” Instead of rushing to declare a system broken, we need to ask whether it’s achieving the results it was designed for, even if those results are undesirable.

What is a System?

A system, according to Dr. W. Edwards Deming, is a network of interdependent components that work together to try to accomplish the aim of the system.  The term “broken system” can be both misleading and, in some cases, inaccurate. It implies that a system has malfunctioned or ceased to work altogether, when in reality, many systems are functioning exactly as they were designed to—but are producing undesirable or unintended outcomes. This perspective shifts the focus from viewing the system as defective to recognizing that it may be performing according to its structure, goals, and constraints.  Understanding this can be challenging, particularly if one does not have a firm grasp of systems concepts, which is why I continue to be convinced that it is paramount for education and organization leaders to be thoroughly versed on systems concepts given that they are the leaders of their systems.

Without a clearly defined aim and interdependence, what appears to be a system may not function as one. This foundational understanding will help distinguish between systems that are operating as designed, though with undesirable outcomes, and those that are not systems at all.

When a “Broken System” Works as Designed: Unintended Consequences of “Success”

A different way to view what students call a broken system is to recognize that it might not be broken at all. Instead, the system could be working exactly as it was designed, explicitly or implicitly but producing outcomes we do not desire. Systems, after all are designed with “trade-offs” in mind.  For example, take the growing pressure for students to perform well on standardized tests. This focus drives a system that emphasizes test preparation and narrows the curriculum, especially in subjects like math and reading, which are tested most frequently. As a result, it’s not surprising that teachers and students feel obligated to prioritize these tests. High test scores can lead to increased financial support for schools, better evaluations for administrators, and a stronger public reputation for the school.

However, while the system may succeed in boosting test scores, it can also generate unintended and potentially harmful consequences that outweigh the benefits, including:

• Lack of deep learning: The downside is that this narrow focus on tests often means less attention is paid to broader educational goals, inadvertently driving behavior that limits achieving broader educational goals, because systems inherently reward what they are designed to achieve. Things like critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity, and social-emotional development can fall by the wayside. Teachers may end up simply “teaching to the test,” sticking only to what’s going to be on the exam.
• Diminished student and teacher engagement: Students might get really good at memorizing information and performing well on tests, but are they really engaged? Are they inspired? Not usually. There’s less opportunity for them to dive deep into subjects, express creativity, or develop a genuine love of learning. Likewise, teachers may suffer as well.  Teachers get caught in this loop where they’re pressured to focus on teaching a narrowed curriculum or prepping for the test rather than teaching in ways that truly engage their students. The joy of creative lesson planning, exploring deeper topics, and adapting teaching styles to fit the needs of different learners often takes a back seat. Instead, teachers are stuck following a rigid script that aligns with what’s being tested.
• Inequity in learning: The system unintentionally leaves behind students who don’t thrive in a test-heavy environment. Kids with different learning styles, emotional needs, or interests outside of math and reading may find themselves overlooked.
• A focus on information versus knowledge: Both Dr. Deming and Dr. Russell Ackoff talked about the differences between information, which is raw data or organized facts, and knowledge, which is gained by interpreting information through theory, experience, and systems thinking to understand patterns, make predictions, and guide effective action.  Focusing strictly on information neglects the fact that knowledge provides the insight necessary to use information effectively.

In this example, the system is not broken.  It is achieving the exact results it was designed to create (higher test scores), as well as a few unintended consequences—narrowing what’s taught, reducing the focus on deeper learning, and disengaging students and teachers alike.  While the system technically works, it’s not addressing the broader educational outcomes that most educators, students, and stakeholders really care about.

A New Paradigm: Is The “System” a System at All?

What about a different mindset? What if what we think is a system isn’t actually a system at all?  What if there’s no common aim? What if the components are working independently or even toward competing goals? And what if both of these conditions are true?  Is there such a thing as a “non-system?”

Healthcare as a “Non-System” Example Viewed through Deming’s Principles:

Let’s consider what is commonly referred to as our “health care system.” I would argue that by Dr. Deming’s definition, it is not a system, although it is casually, and perhaps mistakenly, referred to as such. There are likely multiple aims within U.S. healthcare, and often those aims can conflict with each other, leading to many of the so-called “system’s” challenges. As an example, in the case of pharmaceutical companies, profit and shareholder value often play a major role, which can create tension with other healthcare goals, such as affordable and equitable access to medications, highlighting the lack of focus on a shared aim.

For instance, high drug prices driven by profit motives can restrict patient access to essential treatments, ultimately undermining public health—an aim that should be shared by all components of the system. When each part of this so-called “system” acts in its own interest rather than in collaboration with other components toward the overarching aim of improving public health, the entire structure becomes fragmented and inefficient, demonstrating what occurs when the parts of a system do not work interdependently.

Dr. Deming argued that a system cannot function optimally with competing aims; instead, all components must work toward a singular, unified goal. When conflicting objectives exist, they create inefficiency, confusion, and dysfunction, with different parts pulling in opposing directions. In industries like healthcare, where pharmaceutical companies prioritize profits, hospitals focus on patient care, and insurers aim to reduce costs, this lack of a shared aim undermines the system’s overall effectiveness. Such misalignment results in inefficiencies, inequitable access, and poor outcomes, violating Deming’s principles of a clear aim and interdependence. In this sense, it ceases to be a true system and becomes a “non-system.”

In this scenario, it would be difficult to refer to healthcare in the US as a “system.” Rather, we may more accurately refer to it as a fragmented non-system. By Deming’s standards, a true system requires interdependence and alignment toward a unified purpose or aim, which appears to be lacking in the current U.S. healthcare model.

How Do We Know?

Caution must be taken when digging into the performance of our organizations including those created for societal benefit.  Before saying “The system is broken” or the system isn’t producing desired results, it may be important to determine if what it is we are referring to is a system at all.  The first steps in evaluating whether something is truly a system, especially in the context of organizational performance or entities designed for societal betterment, could include the following:

1. Define the Aim: Clarify whether there is a clear, singular, common aim or purpose that all parts of the organization or entity are working toward. Without a shared aim, it is unlikely to function as a system.
2. Identify Components: Examine the different parts or components of the organization or entity. Are they identifiable, and do they play distinct roles?
3. Assess Interdependence: Determine if the components are working interdependently toward the common aim. If the parts are operating in isolation or at cross-purposes, the entity may not be functioning as a true system.
4. Evaluate Communication: Check for effective communication between the components. Systems require feedback loops and communication to function cohesively.
5. Analyze Consistency: Look at the consistency of results. Are the components aligned in a way that produces predictable, stable outcomes? A system should exhibit patterns of consistent performance.

Should we find that the entity does not meet the definition of a system, we might consider the following steps to mold it into a functioning system:

1. Clarify the Aim: If a common aim is missing or unclear, work with leadership and stakeholders to define a clear, unified purpose. Without a shared goal, the entity’s efforts will remain fragmented.
2. Realign Components: If components are not interdependent or working cohesively, assess how they could be better aligned. This may involve restructuring roles, encouraging cross-functional collaboration, or ensuring that each part of the organization understands its role in achieving the shared aim.
3. Improve Communication: If communication is lacking, implement formal structures such as regular meetings, reporting systems, or collaborative tools to facilitate better feedback and alignment between departments, teams, or individuals.
4. Address Silos: If parts of the entity are operating in isolation (silos), consider strategies like cross-departmental projects, shared performance metrics, or Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) to break down barriers and foster collaboration.
5. Reevaluate the System Design: If the entity appears to be functioning in a way that creates more competing aims than interdependence, it may be necessary to redesign how it operates. This could mean reevaluating the mission, goals, and the relationships between components to create a more cohesive, system-based structure.
6. Analyze and Reduce Unwanted Variation: If variations in performance are excessive or unpredictable, identify the root causes and apply continual improvement methods to reduce unnecessary variation. This might involve better standardization of processes or clearer guidelines.
7. Engage in Systems Thinking Education: If leadership and teams lack systems thinking knowledge, training in systems theory (like that of Deming) can help them understand interdependence, variation, and feedback mechanisms necessary for a functioning system.

Conclusion

The term “system” is often used too casually and inaccurately in many contexts, leading to confusion about what truly constitutes a system. People frequently label various structures, organizations, or processes as systems without understanding the essential characteristics that define one. This means that for something to be a true system, its parts must not only be connected but must also operate with a shared purpose and collaborate to achieve it.

When the term “system” is used loosely—such as in phrases like “the healthcare system” or “the education system”—it often overlooks whether these entities function with interdependence and a unified goal. For example, in healthcare, conflicting objectives between pharmaceutical companies, insurers, and hospitals show that these organizations don’t always work toward a common aim, undermining the very definition of a system.

Using the term “system” too casually can create the illusion of coherence and coordination where none exists. Without a common aim and interdependence, what we’re often dealing with is not a system at all, but rather a collection of disconnected parts. When we mislabel these entities as systems, it prevents us from accurately diagnosing the real issues and making meaningful improvements. Therefore, before assessing the performance of an organization or so-called system, it’s critical to first determine whether it meets the criteria of a true system. By recognizing whether we are dealing with a system that is functioning but producing unintended outcomes, or a non-system, we can better understand where improvements are needed and how to approach meaningful change.