Systemic Reasoning Techniques

While reading the book "Learning Systems Thinking" by Diana Montalion , I came across Chapter 7, "Collective Systemic Reasoning," which resonated with my views on the need for developers and architects to improve their approach to presenting ideas and shaping arguments systematically. For the past 12-15 years, I have been advocating for a systemic approach to shaping ideas and arguments, and even wrote articles and occasionally presented on "Better Presentation and Argumentation Techniques for Developers and Architects." Although I didn't emphasize the collective element back then, many of the concepts Diana discusses in this chapter align with my own ideas and techniques that I regularly use. In this article, I aim to contribute three approaches to the elaboration part of systemic reasoning as a supplement to the excellent ideas presented in Diana's book.

What is Systemic Reasoning and why does it matter?

Diana defines Systemic Reasoning as the "art and science of reasoning systematically in support of an idea, action, or theory." This skill is incredibly important, especially for lead developers and architects who are often at the forefront of driving ideas, concepts, and changes. In this role, they frequently encounter different, and sometimes conflicting, ideas. Those who have the skill to systematically reason their ideas will have a greater impact than those who rely on buzzword-filled presentations. Gregor Hohpe 's book "The Software Architect Elevator" supports this idea, arguing that architects have a more significant impact if they are able to address their propositions in a structured and stakeholder-aware / -suitable manner.

Diana describes that a proposition you want to reason about includes three components (MONTALION):

• The idea, action, or theory you are proposing
• Three to five reliable, relevant, sound, and cogent reasons that justify your premise
• Why this idea is highly impactful and matters right now

In her book, she visualizes a model to structure your thinking and, I believe, your later verbal, visual or written argumentation. The model looks like this (MONTALION):

According to Diana, the key to constructing a solid argument is ensuring that your reasons are reliable, relevant, cohesive, and cogent. Another recommendation that Diana puts forward is using a Top-Down Elaboration, which is structured as follows:

• WHY
• WHAT
• WHO
• HOW
• WHEN

Further techniques for Systemic Reasoning

Diana's approach is excellent and a great fit for many folks who are starting with systemic reasoning. Personally, I like the idea of binding claims to values very much. However, it is not the only way of advancing ideas and arguments. This article aims to offer three more approaches and techniques to systemic reasoning: Logical Grouping, Logical Chain, and the MECE-Principle. A lot of these ideas stem from the work by Barbara Minto how has a good quote in her book The Pyramid Principle (MINTO):

“ideas in writing should always form a pyramid under a single thought. The single thought is the answer to the executive's question. Then, for each supporting idea or argument, break that further into more ideas or arguments until you have formed a pyramid.”

You may ignore the "executive" part of the quote, Barbara Minto's ideas can be applied in various contexts.

Logical Grouping

Logical Grouping, or inductive argumentation, condenses the information into a pyramid with the main message at the top. The logical group proceeds in a strictly hierarchical manner. As someone who constructs an argumentation group, you write the key message in a way that raises a specific question. This question is answered at the next level. If one of these answers triggers further questions, you introduce an additional level to answer them. The questions in a message can vary depending on the message, for example, ‘Why?’, ‘What?’, ‘How?’ The more such questions occur, the deeper the logical group is built up.

Logical Chain

Like the logical group, the logical chain, also known as deductive reasoning, starts with a key message. However, it differs from the group from this point onwards. The logical chain only answers the question "Why?" and uses three steps to do so: the situation, the complication, and the conclusion. The first thing you need to be aware of is the phrasing of the key message at the top: it needs to trigger the question "Why?".

Based on the key message, the situation first answers this "Why?" question with a neutral statement. You formulate this statement in a general tone and correct facts about the situation. After that, you evaluate the situation with a message called complication. Even if complication sounds negative at first glance, the commentary can contain a positive or reinforcing statement and, therefore, does not necessarily have to be negative. Finally, there is a conclusion. It must be consistent with the content of the key message but contains more details and is formulated more specifically. In most cases, the conclusion begins with "Therefore ...". The conclusion is a result of situation + complication.

The logical chain tempers a negative message and can be used to convincingly promote a certain strategy for the next steps in a difficult project situation. Let's assume we are in a hot project phase in which the development team has caused numerous errors. As the technical project manager, we want to promote a two-week test stop to give the development team the opportunity to correct the numerous errors.

Key Message: The test of project XYZ should be suspended for a fortnight

Situation: There are numerous errors in the current test release

Complication: The errors prevent each acceptance test from running smoothly end-to-end

Conclusion: The test should, therefore, be suspended for 2 weeks to allow the developers to correct the errors

Logical Group and Logical Chain compared

If we now compare the logical chain with the logical group, it becomes clear that the group is easier to use and more flexible. Like the chain, it is able to address a core message. In addition, the group is able to address other questions after the message in addition to the question "why?". At this point, the chain is limited to the question "why?". Due to the flexible structure and the simple answering of one question per level, the group is very easy for the audience to understand. However, the group has structural weaknesses when deriving recommendations for action, which are excellently mastered by the logical chain through the triple jump "situation + complication = conclusion". Nevertheless, you should act carefully with the logical chain. If the situation or complication is open to challenge, the entire chain of reasoning collapses and you can end the reasoning at this point after a "successful challenge". That does not have to be a shame: we should be thankful for the hint because systemic reasoning is a collective discipline which aims at combining various perspectives. The earlier we find out about misconceptions or wrong assumptions the better. The logical group also has a disadvantage that should not be kept secret here: it is difficult to present a change of perspective from ‘what?’ to ‘why?’ or from ‘why?’ to ‘how?’.

Combinations of Logical Group and -Chain

Of course, we don't have to limit ourselves to just one of the reasoning techniques mentioned above when we prepare a proposition. I already mentioned in the description of the logical group that groups can be nested like in the visualization below:

You can also use a logical group for backing up your situation, complication and conclusion in a logical chain. Such a reasoning structure looks as follows:

These two types of combination are the most common. There is also a group that can be substantiated by chains and a group that can be substantiated by both chains and other groups. However, I advise against the latter in particular, as it is difficult for the audience to follow.

MECE-Principle

So far, we have discussed structured approaches to systemic reasoning. However, there is one more thing: the MECE principle helps you improve the quality and conciseness of your argumentation.

Barbara Minto, a former McKinsey consultant, popularized the MECE Principle. She developed it as part of her work on logical thinking and communication. In the 1970s, she formalized this principle in her book, The Pyramid Principle: Logic in Writing and Thinking (MINTO), published in 1978. This book became an essential text for McKinsey consultants and business professionals worldwide. In it, Minto explained how structured thinking—using MECE—could help create clear, concise, and logical communications.

McKinsey consultants needed to break down complex problems into manageable, non-overlapping parts to ensure that nothing was missed and that redundancy was avoided. Minto introduced the MECE framework to ensure that every issue or category considered during analysis was mutually exclusive (distinct categories with no overlap) and collectively exhaustive (covering all possible aspects of the problem).

While McKinsey formalized and popularized the principle, the underlying idea of exhaustive categorization and logical separation has older roots in fields such as mathematics and logic. However, its use as a structured problem-solving tool in business and management can be traced directly to McKinsey and Minto’s influence.

MECE stands for Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive, and it serves as a guiding principle for organizing information and propositions in a structured, logical manner.

1. Mutually Exclusive (ME)

Mutually Exclusive means that each category or point in your argumentation has to be distinct, without overlap. This ensures that your logic is clean and avoids redundancy or contradiction.

When constructing an argumentation based on logical groups or chains, ensure that each point or idea addresses a different aspect of the issue. For example, if you’re discussing the causes of a problem, each cause should be separate and distinct (e.g., external factors vs. internal factors).

It prevents confusion and redundancy by avoiding overlap between ideas. When each part of the argument stands independently, your overall reasoning becomes more precise and compelling.

2. Collectively Exhaustive (CE)

Collectively Exhaustive means that the set of categories or points in your argumentation should fully cover all possible aspects of the argument. Nothing important should be left out.

Ensure that your argument touches on all relevant points necessary to fully understand or solve the issue. For instance, if you’re presenting solutions, make sure you cover all potential solutions to give the argument depth and completeness.

It ensures your argument is comprehensive and leaves no gaps. By covering all options, you can anticipate objections or counterarguments, thereby making your argument stronger and more well-rounded.

Summary: Systemic Reasoning with Structure and Logic

The techniques of the logical group, logical chain and the MECE principle provide valuable tools for any kind of reasoning. They help to structure thoughts clearly, to link ideas logically and to ensure that all relevant information is covered.

• The Logical Group brings order to complex topics by grouping related information.
• The Logical Chain ensures consistent and coherent argumentation, with each step building on the previous one.
• The MECE principle ensures that all aspects of an issue are clearly defined and fully addressed.

Applying these principles not only improves the clarity and comprehensibility of arguments, but also their persuasiveness. In a world characterised by information overload, such structured approaches are indispensable.

These three techniques complement the ideas in the Learning Systems Thinking (MONTALION) book's Collective Systemic Reasoning chapter. However, they lack an explicit connection to values, which Diana Montalion promoted. Fixing this is easy: just add that reference to either the logical group or chain.

We as a community should improve on these skills and regularly train our ability to reason and articulate our propositions and ideas. This set of skills is, in my humble opinion, as important as a sound technical background. If you manage to complement these two skillsets, you will inevitably develop more impact in any organization. Riding Gregor Hohpe 's Software Architect Elevator becomes more seamless if you are good at Collective Systemic Reasoning.

Let me end this article with a question: Who wants to dig deeper into these topics? Maybe that is an interesting topic for the Open Space at KanDDDinsky , ComoCamp, The Collaborative Modeling Unconference , or perhaps even Virtual Domain-driven design .

References

MONTALION: Montalion, Diana. Learning Systems Thinking. O'Reilly, 2024

MINTO: Minto, Barbara. The Pyramid Principle - Logic in Writing and Thinking. Pearson Education, 1978

The importance of goal-oriented leadership communication. https://www.enparadigm.com/posts/criticality-of-outcome-oriented-communication