James Kincheloe, DVM, MPH – Veterinary Public Health and Preventive Medicine resident
Keagan Ringling – PhD student, Department of Food Science and Nutrition

Uneven COVID-19 response to date

At times, the response to the coronavirus pandemic resembles a morbid round of the board game Operation. Action after action is met with a jarring buzz as it is revealed to be a misstep, and lives are lost.

Trump touted that the virus was no worse than the seasonal flu, only to release social distancing guidelines a week later. The Food and Drug Administration created emergency use authorization to quickly approve diagnostic tests, but the regulations were so complicated that they in practice delayed testing.  After finding that national stockpiles of supplies for fighting the pandemic were too low, the Federal Emergency Management Agency started to bid for them on the open market and competed against the very states it was meant to help.

A common factor in these situations is a simple linear idea-to-solution mentality.  In other words, when there is an immediate or emerging problem, a narrow idea is formed of an action which could address that individual problem, and the resulting action is taken. This is how people address most problems in their lives. Where should a dinner party be held? Well, the Italian restaurant usually has good specials on this day, so the Italian restaurant it is, and the average adverse outcome involves only bland chicken alfredo.  

Most people, however, are also familiar with the unintended consequences of linear thinking. A classic scenario involves management which spontaneously comes up with flawed streamlining initiatives on a regular basis, such as requiring more meetings for an intensive project which actually decreases productivity by taking time away from working. When that solution does not quite work, a brainstorming session leads to another frustrating new initiative being rolled out the next month.   

The flaws in linear thinking

The flaws in these linear thinking solutions arise from applying a myopic problem-solving approach to issues which are complex, involve many stakeholders, sectors, and disciplines, and lack clear-cut, definitive answers. Most problems don’t exist in a vacuum, but in larger systems composed of interrelated, interacting, and interdependent parts.  

For example, the medical system includes all the care providers, patients, drug companies, insurance companies, policies, and regulations involved in providing healthcare. Because of this interconnectivity, though, a small change in the interaction between two parts can have unintended consequences which cascade through the entire system. A minor delay from a company manufacturing a niche drug could have devastating consequences downstream for the patient desperately in need of the treatment.   

Approaching seemingly simple challenges in these systems requires systems thinking, which involves looking across boundaries and sectors to develop comprehensive solutions. Systems thinking emphasizes identifying all of the parts in a system, determining exactly how they interact with each other, and preemptively addressing negative unintended consequences.

Systems thinking: an alternative approach

Systems thinking is not necessarily a complicated concept and could easily be applied to the aforementioned problem of where to host a dinner party. Instead of choosing on a whim, the entire system could be analyzed. Who is joining?  What are their priorities for dinner? How are attendees getting there? Will there be multiple dish options for each attendee’s preferences? How long does the service take?  By going through these questions, suddenly this simple problem is revealed to be part of a complex system, and a potentially disastrous dinner party can be easily avoided with a quick analysis.  

Systems thinking could also have been applied to plans for the more pressing challenges in the pandemic response, such as the distribution of supplies from national stockpiles. Who would need them? How many for a domestic outbreak? How would they be allotted? How would they be distributed? Thoughtful consideration of these questions would have better highlighted supply chain issues and led to more effective action. 

Much of the flawed pandemic response can be traced to inexcusably poor systems thinking. To wish for a sudden appreciation for this methodology from leadership would likely be asking for too much. Fortunately, rather than just being a tool for use in large organizational responses, systems thinking can and should be regularly practiced at an individual level on smaller challenges like the dinner party problem. The more proficient an individual becomes with systems thinking, the more negative outcomes are astonishingly predictable and seen as the avoidable gaffes they are. Then, with hope and time, a greater appreciation in the public for systems thinking will lead to better problem solvers at the decision-making tables.

This story has been written by Jim Kincheloe, VPHPM Resident, and Kegan Ringling, PhD student in the Department of Food Science and Nutrition. 

Keagan Ringling is a PhD student in the Department of Food Science and Nutrition at the University of Minnesota working at the intersection of food, health, ecological security, and business. His research projects focus on strategies for whole-value chain improvement of novel crops. Specific project areas include genetic improvement of chemical composition, agricultural science, production economics, and ingredient regulation. These efforts are bolstered by his food industry experience in ingredient commercialization and regulation. As a result, he is well-equipped with skills in interdisciplinary project management, integrated scientific approaches to problem solving, strategic thinking, and stakeholder engagement.