CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 116Complex Systems and Decision MakingSystems Engineering Methodologies and ApplicationsEducation and Critical Thinking Development

A complete set of systems thinking skills

Arnold, Ross D., Wade, Jon P.·2017·Insight
DOI 10.1002/inst.12159
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper proposes a complete set of systems thinking skills for use across many different disciplines. The paper places particular emphasis on the ability to assess each of the skills quantitatively, a comprehensible description of the skills, and the completeness of the set. The proposed skills derive from a review of the literature, the application of systems thinking experience, and the application of systems thinking to itself. Several different sets of systems thinking skills exist throughout the systems community, but common key concepts distill from these sets. When we consider combinations of these concepts separately, holistically, and together as a system, a single, cohesive set of skills emerges. Systems thinking is widely believed to be of critical importance across many different fields; some say that skillful use of systems thinking skills could have prevented such disasters as World War II, the Great Depression, and the Challenger space shuttle disaster, as well as lessened or avoided the effects of many major environmental disasters. At the opposite send of the spectrum, systems thinking can enhance health care, improve the economy, improve technology, laws, international and interpersonal relationships, schools, organizations, and so much more. However, this very useful skill set still lingers outside mainstream education. To address this problem requires a set of assessable, comprehensible systems thinking skills. This paper defines, describes, and details such skills.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/inst.12159

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The participant who combined all relevant business-case instructions in a small number of prompts achieved notably higher scores across Analytical, Creative, and Systems Thinking skills.

    “By contrast, the participant who combined all relevant business-case instructions in a small number of prompts achieved notably higher scores across Analytical, Creative, and Systems Thinking skills, underscoring the value of a holistic perspective in problem solving [28].”

    From Exploring the Impact of AI Tools on Cognitive Skills: A Comparative Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [28]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Arnold, R. D., & Wade, J. P.
Corresponding author
  • Arnold, Ross D.
  • Wade, Jon P.
ORCID
Arnold, Ross D.
Venue
Insight
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-09
Volume
20
Issue
3
Pages
9-17
ISSN
  • 2156-485X (ISSN-L)
  • 2156-4868
DOI
10.1002/inst.12159
OpenAlex
W4237989630
Cited by
116
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 35 d)
Locations
Insight (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Complex Systems and Decision Making
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Systems Engineering Methodologies and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
Keywords
systems thinking, systems thinking skills, skill assessment, interdisciplinary applications, systems thinking education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review