Analyzing Systems

Thinking in All Dimensions

Systems exist in the full realm of reality — they grow in time, occupy space, and connect to other systems on multiple levels. SiD analyzes systems across three dimensions: Space, Time, and Context. A full analysis would require at least 72 maps (3 dimensions × 3 scales × 8 ELSI layers). In practice, we combine maps and rarely make more than 10.

Space

Beyond familiar spatial components, SiD maps the flow of resources, movement of people, value relationships, and ecosystems in geographic space. A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) typically ignores spatial relationships; SiD challenges you to include them. The impact of exhaust particulates differs enormously between rural areas and dense cities — context changes the score.

Time

Sustainability is a state of a dynamic system — you are always designing something fluid over time. Systems cycle through multiple rhythms simultaneously (day/night, seasons, maturity stages) and respond differently in each. An intervention that supports a system in its growth phase may damage it at maturity. Extend the timeline beyond any project's start and finish: monitor future effects and track past patterns to learn from history.

Context

Context mapping reveals relationships freed from spatial and temporal constraints. Causal loop diagrams, organizational charts, electrical circuit diagrams, and life cycle assessment spreadsheets are all context maps — more familiar than they might seem.

Thinking in Scales

Each dimension divides into scales to ensure a comprehensive view. Critical system relations appear at both fine and coarse levels.

Spatial Scales

For a building redevelopment: map the immediate neighborhood, the city district, the state, and global influence where relevant. In practice, 3–5 scale steps suffice.

Temporal Scales

The typical division: hours, days, weeks, years, decades, and roughly 50 years back and forward. Looking back is easier than looking forward — use historical evidence wherever you can.

Contextual Scales

Scales in context measure relationship depth. For a multinational: first level is the company itself, second includes primary suppliers and customers, third encompasses everyone affected. The Global Reporting Initiative uses the same tiering (Tier 1/2/3). Complexity grows exponentially at each step.

Scales of Impact

1st level — Direct Impacts: Directly and materially linked to an action. Measurable in kWh, temperature, GDP. Easy to quantify but limited in capturing systemic influence.

2nd level — Network Impacts: Results of relationships between objects. Building a school far from a community increases transport, causing energy use, emissions, and time costs — cascading network effects.

3rd level — System Impacts: Long-term resilience, educational value, adaptive capacity. Harder to express but by far the largest in magnitude, influencing all network relationships and objects.

Practical Application

To avoid band-aid solutions, investigate at which level an intervention's effects will play out. Effects confined to the first degree rarely produce significant long-term benefit.

As a general rule: aim for at least one strong positive network effect for any intervention. A strong positive systemic effect is the ideal, though not always achievable.