I agree that both of them were not very rigorous, e.g. in terms of making predictions or presenting falsifiable claims. But I enjoyed parts of both.

From Thinking in Systems, I got 2 main things out of it:

- Many systems can be modelled in terms of resources and flows.

- If you want to affect a system, find the leverage points.

But both claims could have been justified more. It feels like the author states them as a given.

Specifically, she doesn't talk much about modelling error. OK, so I came up with a set of resources and flows to model a system. How do I know if it's good? Will it work in some cases and wildly mispredict in others?

I think they just did computer simulations? How did you check it against the real world? I think that was entirely missing from the book. I'd be happy for a correction.

Overall, the book felt like it was incomplete (which is not surprising, given the back story of its publication).

I think I read this book because Bill Gates recommended it. I can understand why he would have liked it. I'm not sure there is much that's actionable for a programmer or software designer, though.

I'd be interested in other takes on it too. Did I miss something? I also wonder why it's so highly thought of. I think it does have a unique point of view, and raises interesting questions, but it also made me wonder if that view is true! It's perhaps too vague to be true or false.

----

I enjoyed Systemantics, to a point. The negative view of systems tends to be the more accurate one in my experience ;-)

Before reading this book, I did not think much about delays but now I try to identify them as soon as possible.

(On mobile) If I grabbed the right link that’s chapter 6 (maybe edited a bit?) of Thinking in Systems. If it interests you you’ll probably like the rest of the book.