I have found myself starting a series of workshops on a given systems with an analysis of its dictionary definition ― its implications and weaknesses for the purposes of understanding the system ― followed by some brief reasons for thinking the system may not be doing what its advocates claim it is doing. These has so far taken the form of pointing to very strong evidence that it is not, or contradictions between what the advocates claim and their behaviour.

For example, if free-market capitalism is better because it is far more efficient to have many competing entities attempting to deliver goods and services, why do CEOs of large corporations buy out small ones instead of just buying their products from them? Clearly they do not believe their own logic.

I find this motivates the analysis as well as providing some criteria that must be met by any improvements or replacement of systems. It is at least logically possible that any system will produce the same or worse adverse results.

Then I jump into the methods introduced in my social systems introduction to show the key points of the external interactions of the system and its internal structure.

So I am going to try to apply this pattern to subsequent analyses to see if it continues to work.