 So, we have looked at various models within our course. Many of these models can end up following in any of these what is called a system archetypes, limits to growth, shifting the burden, eroding goals, escalation, success of to the successful tragedy of the commons, fixes that fail, growth and under investment, accidental adversaries, attractiveness principle. It is from Brown 2002, the extended notes for this I have uploaded in a model, it is also extended from Peter Senge's book called The Fifth Discipline, which talks about nothing but system sinking from 1990. Let me quickly explain about the different types of the system architects and where it is applicable. The limits to growth again a classical model is attributed when it came from 1970s by introduced by Medo's, Donal, Donella Medo's and Dennis Medo's and in their 1970s book, books also title limits to growth. So, essential idea that they are saying is we are always look at the results and efforts and it keeps reinforcing each other. However, there is a limiting condition which over slowly over time gets affected like how much we are extracting. Like right now there is sufficient amount of say box height over, then we are going to keep exploiting it because we are looking at next quarter what is the forecast and really short term things, right. But only over a long period of time this is going to slowly start hitting. So, that is defined limiting condition and this slowing action since this loop is takes a much longer time period, eventually everything will take a limit hit at some point in time after which your growth will start to come down. So, that is the classical limits to growth model archetype. Second is shifting the burden archetype. This left side here shows the generic structure. So, we have problem symptom, then there is some symptomatic solution. Once we given the problem symptom disappears, based on symptom we treat the problem and the problem disappears very fast. However, because of a side effects the system of symptomatic solutions that we are providing it keeps the fundamental solution is always is avoided it is delayed. So, after some time the problem again appears, again it do this is symptomatic solution again the problem disappears temporarily. However, the fundamental solution was never addressed, it results in a kind of a behavior what we call as we just instead of looking for a solution for this fundamental solution we are looking at solving this symptoms. An example that is shown here is suppose there is pressure to deliver a product, you may quickly rely on say the R and D staff to make quick fixes to our particular say products, so any problem is there and then we deliver the product ok. Let us just worry about today's shipment, let us just finish it, let us quickly fix the machine, so that this afternoon shipment goes, tomorrow shipment goes, next week somehow the model is done we will we will get the better process later. The problem is they are relying on a very few experts to solve the problem, the result is since a lot of pressure deliver all the experts looking at the R and D they are setting a shop floor trying to fix the problem to ensure that the products are going. It is going to affect the local capability to actually solve the problem. The result is they may also not want to stick around if they are you know always firefighting they may say ok I do not want to continue I mean leave the organization which is the side effects you may end up actually facing. So it kind of the problem symptom which keeps appearing again and again in this kind of sawtooth pattern that is there and the symptomatic solution initially we may do some solution again and again we know that the solution does not work, so it refers to that also kind of keeps reducing and the fundamental problem keeps increasing. Third kind of example is what is called as eroding goals. See this is to talk about we have a goal and we actually change the goal based instead of trying to change the system to achieve the goal we actually change the goal so that it is in line with what we want to what we have been achieving that is what eroding goals. If you are we are all familiar with I am sure your current CPI is no relation to your goal CPI. Final semester settle settle is a very common doubt you settle in courses settle in everything you settle over here plus. So that is eroding goals as an example is to change the quality goal depending on customers perception and competitors quality you may not improve quality only if the competitors as much higher quality or if they are also not providing that much quality you may just saturate this much quality is enough. In fact another thing in India the some of the products demand is so high that they say look we are going to produce grade A products goes to this market grade B goes to this market grade C goes to this market I do not really want to micromanage the quality I am going to produce in this any way. So those depends on based on what customer is doing you are actually changing your own goals as what you are setting. You can observe that all almost all these loops previous figures also in the one coming forward there are always these double lines indicating delays within the system that is actually causing this dynamic behavior over time. Escalation is when say two parties are competing with each other then activity of A is seen as a pursuit of a threat by B and then B takes counter activity which is seen as a threat to A who then takes counter activity the classical result is both their activities is reinforced each other and causes escalating behavior classical example is arms race another example you can think of is say restaurant chains you know Burger King opens McDonald opens Subway opens Pizza Hut opens Papa John's opens everybody starts competing and as in more and more chains happen then some closes some may feel the pain some may may go out of business because they bit too much Wal-Mart 7-11 many of these even among corporations there is race it is not just arms race as in between nations when corporations has to for them the physical footprint may actually matter it also works for healthcare also when there are multiple clinics nowadays are coming up so in competing clinics come by then they want to position themselves there so that is lead to escalation. Success to successful another interesting architect this again many of us might have perceived or at least heard of suppose some resources kind of given to say two parties A and B say maybe initially the equal resources suppose A produce some reasonable success then in future people may be more willing to give more resources to A than B now since A has more resource he can produce much better so that start to reinforce the effect in A while it causes an exponential collapse for B because B's performance is going down so they are unwilling to invest more in B as a result performance even worsens over time maybe like you know when there are competing startups some may get slightly better than that because initially they had a slight better success and that snowballed into attracting more and more investment so some become success some kind of collapse right so that is what we mean by success to the successful this is a much more complicated looking nozzle loop it is not very apparent immediately how to translate this into a start flow also but what you are saying is okay first to define what is commons commons is any resource people material space whatever it is that is simultaneously made available to multiple people okay so when the same resource available to multiple people everybody thinks that that resource is there only for them and the result is they over exploit that resource they do not realize that many others are also competing for the same resource one example there is a IT team in a company may not have some experience but many large companies have one big IT company they they get request from production department finance department admin department they get from company A B C D many companies kind of give same request to them so then they have to deliver everywhere right so that is it tragedy in the sense that their own performance will start declining over time because they are unable to do their own projects they are always firefighting so one other thing is when people try to start up a technology hub in India or somewhere which is to solve all this analytics hub where there is one company or one center which will take request from companies of their own companies subsidiary units from Australia, Austria, Brazil everywhere and they try to solve here then every company will perceive that this technology is interested to solve only their problem and they will start pestering them so then that is what we call about tragedy of common more non-corporate kind of examples would include exploitation of natural resource say everybody is going to see that the fishers in the sea is only for me the mining then the entire hill is only for me there is nobody else who is competing for it etc so then the tragedy is everybody will lose out that is it tragedy point in the future another archetype is fixes that fail those are common phrases like again it is very similar to the second archetype we saw that was the second one the shifting the burden archetype we saw again we only address the problem symptom which may cause some other consequences and the symptom will keep reappearing just a small part of that one of the example given is the number of tobacco lawsuits and then the tobacco companies made lot of public denials saying that many doesn't cause cancer and things like that but then after delayed cause lot of scientific research is started publishing and then more number of tobacco lawsuits are coming much later and much larger so the problem didn't go away came in a much larger amount later growth and underinvestment it builds upon the limits to growth so already there is a limit to growth which is happening in this loop here but based on demand our own growing action gets tapered off as soon as we start hitting limits our own capacity environment starts to fall down that will put further restrictions on how much we can actually grow based on the initial shock that we may perceive early on this is even more crazy looking thing it is accidental adversaries it is actually similar to escalation but happening in the other direction you can ignore the actual diagram so what it is trying to say is suppose two people are equal footing but then one perceives some wrongdoing from the other then they say okay no let me do something else which is going to affect my own success as well as it might have unintended obstruction of B's success then B gets offended and B does something else to change his success which I inadvertently offends the other person and the result is everybody both parties starts to lose out on the long term because they felt the other was doing something only to spite me but it was not so they just perceived it and the result is both are going down one is called attractiveness principle similar to limits to growth but with multiple slowing actions it is not just one activity which slows things down multiple things may come in parallel to limit your growth so when things go bad multiple things get attracted to that and both are going to affect the end results within a mod within a system so that is what is captured in this attractiveness principle archetype more discussions on this is written up but the interesting thing about is people have actually put it all together in a nice flowchart kind of thing to see for example let us say what are we concerned about growth or fixing a problem so let us just pick one say I am interested in fixing a problem so is there a balancing loop okay what kind of balancing loop my fix again keeps coming back or while waiting for the my fix to take hold to relieve the tension I become satisfied with less or but my fix is your nightmare suppose we say we are going to wait until my fix is going to work then until then I need to do something then it can lead to eroding goals kind of models and if the eroding goals undermine long term growth yes then we are looking at growth and under investment kind of scenarios so this is just a kind of interesting flowchart that tries to connect all these archetypes and what scenarios we might actually be useful for that I take some effort to understand and okay.