Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

System thinking in single- and double-loop learning on the perceptions of improving ships’ repair performance

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

System thinking (ST) and creative problem solving (CPS) processes are needed to solve problems. The purpose of this research is to emphasise the need for behavioural and transformational problem solving techniques, using a ST approach to improve performance. This research used a modified instrument encompassing single-loop learning (SLL) and double-loops learning (DLL), tied directly to the pedagogy of problem-based learning. The correlation and regression were used to analyze the ‘mindsets/opinions’ of the employees on the perceptions of future improvement. The statistical results were positively related and contributed to the performance. The finding of this research proposed the application of a system engineering methodology (SEM) and ST&CPS framework as a contribution in SLL and DLL to solve problems. The results were compared with the literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Al-Raqadi, AMS, Abdul Rahim A, Masrom M, Al-Riyami BSN (2015) Cooperation and direction as potential components for controlling stress on the perceptions of improving organisation’s performance. Int J System Assurance Engi Manag 1–15

  • Argyris C (1977) Double loop learning in organizations. Harv Bus Rev 55(5):115–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C (1996) Unrecognized defenses of scholars: impact on theory and research. Organ Sci 7(1):79–87

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C (1999) On organisational learning. Blackwell Business, Malden

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C, Argyris C (1976) Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Adm Sci Q 21(3):363-375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C, Schon DA (1978) Organisational learning: a theory of action perspective. Addison -Wesley Publishing Company, Inc, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C, Schon D (1996) Organizational learning II: theory, method, and practice. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker WE, Sinkula JM (1999) The Synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. J Acad Mark Sci 27(4):411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett H, Balloun JL, Weinstein A (2005) The impact of creativity on performance in non-profits. I J Nonprofit Volunt Sect Mark 10(4):213–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buijs J, Smulders F, van der Meer H (2009) Towards a more realistic creative problem solving approach. Creativ Innovat Manag 18(4):286–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnes PT (2006) A study of voluntary turnover among Generation X information technology professionals. D.M. University of Phoenix, Arizona

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns JS (2002) Chaos theory and leadership studies: exploring uncharted seas. J Leadership Organizational Studies 9(2)):42–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Caughron JJ, Mumford MD (2008) Project Planning: the effects of using formal planning techniques on creative problem-solving. Creativ Innov Manag 17(3):204–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (1985a) Achieving ‘desirable and feasible’ change: an application of soft systems methodology. J Op Res Soc 36(9):821–831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (1985b) From optimizing to learning: a development of Systems thinking for the 1990s. J Op Res Soc 36(9):757–767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (2011) Autobiographical retrospectives: Learning your way to ‘action to improve’—the development of soft systems thinking and soft systems methodology. Int J Gen Syst 40(5)):487–512

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural science, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Colman AM, Norris CE, Preston CC (1997) Comparing rating scales of different lengths: equivalence of scores from 5-Point and 7-Point scales. Psychol Rep 80:355–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, J. E. (1955). The Changing Pattern of Maintenance and Repair of the Machinery of the Fleet. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers June 1955 SAGE Journal, 932–951

  • Cundill G, Cumming GS, Biggs D, Fabricius C (2012) Soft systems thinking and social learning for adaptive management. Conserv Biol 26(1):13–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunha MPe (2004) Organizational time: a dialectical view. Organ Time 11(2):271–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes J (2008) Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? Int J Mark Res 50(1):61–77

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Deitz D, Eveleigh TJ, Holzer TH, Sarkani S (2013) Improving program success through systems engineering tools in pre-milestone B acquisition phase. Def Acquis Res J 20(3):283–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Dew R (2009) Creative resolve response: how changes in creative motivation relate to cognitive style. J Manag Dev 28(10):945–966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeWitt AM (1991) Surface ship maintenance planning process. Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards MG (2009) An integrative metatheory for organisational learning and sustainability in turbulent times. J Learn Organ 16(3):189–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis TJ, Levy Y (2008) Framework of problem-based research: a guide for novice researchers on the development of a research-worthy problem. Int J Emerg Transdiscipl 11:17

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, JR, Lindsay WM (2008). Quality control and management. CENGAGE Learning

  • Gaddefors J (2007) Metaphor use in the entrepreneurial process. Int J Entrep Behav Res Pract Hum Resour Manag 13(3):173–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcı´a-Morales VJ, Verdu´-Jover AJ, Llore´ns FJ (2009) The influence of CEO perceptions on the level of organizational learning: single-loop and double-loop learning. Int J Manpow 30(6):567–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George D, Mallery P (2002) SPSS for Windows step by step guide: a simple guide and reference. Allyn and Bacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • George D, Mallery P (2003) SPSS for Windows step by step guide: a simple guide and reference. Allyn and Bacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, JFJ, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2010). Multivariate data analysis—a global perspective. Pearson Prentice Hall

  • Hargadon AB, Bechky BA (2006) When collections of creatives become creative collectives: a field study of problem solving at Work. Organ Sci 17(4):484–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hebel M (2007) Light bulbs and change: systems thinking and organisational learning for new ventures. J Learn Organ 14(6):499–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann-Nehdi, A. (2010). Whole Brain Thinking. T + D. 64(5), 36-36-41,6

  • Houghton D, Lea G (2009) Maintenance & Asset Management: Managing and supporting Ship Availability. Int J for all those concerned with the Management of Physical Assets. 24(2):35–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle, D. (2000). ISO 9000 Quality System handbook Butterworth, Heinemann Great Britain by Biddles Ltd

  • Imran M, Rizvi SHM, Ali B (2011) Impact of organisational learning on organisation performance. Int J Acad Res 3(4):424–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Israel GD (1992) Determining sample size. University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and agriculture Science

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson MC (1988) An appreciation of Stafford Beer’s ‘Viable System’ viewpoint on Managerial Practice. J Manage Stud 25(6):557–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson C (2000) System approach to management. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publisher, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson MC (2003) System thinking: creative holism for managers. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson MC, Keys P (1984) Towards a System of Systems Methodologies. J Op Res Soc 35(6):473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson M, Brown M, Brown M, Geerling T (2001) Creative problem solving: a system approach—An MBA study guide. University of Hull Business School, University of Hull, Hull

    Google Scholar 

  • Jashapara A (2003) Cognition, culture and competition: an empirical test of the learning organization. J Learn Organ 10(1):31–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1992) The balanced scorecard-measures that drive performance. Harv Bus Rev 70(1):71–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan RS, Norton DP (2001) Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: part I. J Am Account Assoc 15(1):87–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan RS, Norton DR (2005) The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. (cover story). Harvard Bus Rev 83(7/8):172–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Kavadias S, Sommer SC (2009) The effects of problem Structure and team diversity on brainstorming effectiveness. Manage Sci 55(12):1899–1913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, D., A. (2003). Entrepreneurship. Mc Graw Hill Education, Shoppenhanger Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire Sl6 2QL

  • Knez-Riedl J, Mulej M (2006) Corporate social responsibility from the viewpoint of systems thinking. J Kybern 35(3–4):441–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korth SJ (2000) Single and double-loop learning: Exploring potential influence of cognitive style. Organ Dev J 18(3):87–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutucuoglu KY, Hamali J, Irani Z, Sharp JM (2001) A framework for managing maintenance using performance measurement systems. Int J Op Prod Manag 21(1/2):173–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law KMY, Chuah KB (2004) Project-based action learning as learning approach in learning organisation: the theory and framework. J Team Perform Manag 10(7/8):178–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law PJ, Richardson M (2003). Navy Engineering Bulletin (Royal Australian Navy). CP4-7-131, Campbell Park ACT 2600: Defence Publishing Service

  • Linkner J (2011) Brainstorming. Sales Serv Excell 11(2):15

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsick VJ, Watkins KE (2003) Demonstrating the value of an organisation’s learning culture: the dimensions of the learning organisation questionnaire. SAGE Journal 5(2):132–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Martins EC, Terblanche F (2003) Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. Eur J Innov Manag 6(1):64–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie J, van Winkelen C (2011) Beyond words: Visual metaphors that can demonstrate comprehension of KM as a paradoxical activity system. Syst Res Behav Sci 28(2):138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H (1991) The effective organization: forces and forms. Sloan Manag Rev 32(2):54–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore LJ (2007) Ethical and organisational tensions for work-based learners. J Workplace Learn 19(3):161–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mourtzis D (2005) An integrated system for managing ship repair operations. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 18(8):721–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullins LJ (1999) Management and organisational behaviour. Financial Times Pitman, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Norusis MJ (1992) SPSS for Window, Professional Statistics, Release 5 Chicago: SPSS Inc

  • Oyler JD (2009) Workplace diversity in the United States: the perspective of Peter Drucker. J Manag Hist 15(4):420–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palaima T, Skarzˇauskiene A (2010) Systems thinking as a platform for leadership performance in a complex world. Balt J Manag 5(3):330–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parida A, Kumar U (2006) Maintenance performance measurement (MPM): issues and challenges. J Qual Maint Eng 12(3):239–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phan P, Peridis T (2000) Knowledge Creation in strategic alliances: another look at organizational learning. Asia Pac J Manag 17(2):201–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pina E, Cunha M, Vieira Da Cunha J, Dahab S (2002) Yin-yang: a dialectical approach to total quality management. Total Qual Manag 13(6):843–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Presley A, Sarkis J (2000) A soft-systems methodology approach for product and process innovation. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 47(3):379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyoria P (2007) Informal organizational culture: the foundation of knowledge workers’ performance. J Knowl Manag 11(3):16–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rizzo PJ, Adams B, Smith N. (2011). Plan to reform support ship repair and management practice. IN Walton L., Crncevic M., Horsnell. R. & M., H. (Eds.), 2011 Commonwealth of Australia, Ministerial and Executive Coordination and Communication Division, Defence, Canberra

  • Rowe J (2005) Process metaphor and knowledge management. J Kybern 34(6):770–783

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Rushmer R, Kelly D, Lough M, Wilkinson JE, Davies HTO (2004) Introducing the learning practice–II. becoming a learning practice. J Eval Clin Pract 10(3):387–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson F, Cox A (2008) The challenges of supply strategy selection in a project environment: evidence from UK naval shipbuilding. Int J Supply Chain Manag 13(1):16–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders D, Tyndall M, Whitehouse T. (2000a). The Role of System Modelling and Simulation in Royal Australian Navy Capability Management. Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), Maritime Platforms Devision, Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory

  • Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill, A (Eds.) (2000b). Research methods for business students: London Prentice Hall

  • Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. (Eds.) (2009). Research Methods for Business Students: London Prentice Hall

  • Schein EH. (1996). Organisational Learning: What is New? IN Managment, M S S O. (Ed.) Third Biennial International Conferences on Advances in Management. Sharaton Tara Hotel, Framingham, MA., MIT Sloan School of Managment

  • Sekaran U (2009) Research methods for business—a skill building approach. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge M (1990) The fifth Discipline fieldbook. Doubleday/Currency, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Siler T (2010) Pointing your way to success through metaphorming. J Bus Strateg 31(4):47–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh AS, Masuku MB (2013) Fundamental of applied research and sampling techniques. Int J Med Appl Sci 2(4):123–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Skaržauskienė A (2010) Managing complexity: systems thinking as a catalyst of the organization performance. Meas Bus Excell 14(4):49–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slack N, Chambers S, Harland C, Harrison A, Johnston R (1998) Operation management. FT Pitman Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith I (2004) Continuing professional development and workplace learning 7: human resources development-a tool for achieving organisational change. Library Management. 25(3):148–131

  • Steiner G (2009) The concept of open creativity: collaborative creative problem solving for innovation generation —a systems approach. J Bus Manag 15(1):5–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dooren W (2011) Better performance management. Public Perform Manag Rev 34(3):420–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasiloaia M (2009) Managing metaphorical images of organization. A case study on a University. Econom Transdiscipl Cognit 2:161–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Verma AK, Srividya A, Rana A, Khattri SK (2012) Optimization of maintenance scheduling of ship born machinery for improved reliability and reduced cost. Int J Reliab, Qual Saf Eng. 19(3):1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner CG, Docksai R, Cohen AM (2009) Innovation and creativity in complex world. Futurist 43(6):52–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong PSP, Cheung SO, Fan KL (2009) Examining the relationship between organizational learning Styles and project performance. J Constr Eng Manag 135(6):497–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeo R (2003) Linking organisational learning to organisational performance and success: singapore case studies. Leadersh Organ Dev J 24(1/2):70–83

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Yeo RK (2005) Revisiting the roots of learning organization: a synthesis of the learning organization literature. J Learn Organ 12(4):368–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeo RK (2007) (Re)viewing problem-based learning an exploratory study on the perceptions of its applicability to the workplace. J Manag Psychol 22(4):369–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuniarto HA, Osada H (2009) Developing a novel framework for quality system and systems thinking to integrate: a paradigm shift in maintenance. J World Congr Eng 2009(1):550–554

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the assistance given by the Omani dockyard and their participation in making this research possible. The permission given for collection and analysis of quantitative data increased the value of this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Technology Malaysia (UTM), Razak School of Engineering and Advanced Technology, Level 17, Menara Razak, Jalan Semarak Off Jalan Maktab, 54100, Kuala Lampur, Malaysia

    A. M. S. Al-Raqadi, A. Abdul Rahim & M. Masrom

  2. P.O. Box – 38, 122, Muscat, Oman

    A. M. S. Al-Raqadi

  3. Royal Navy of Oman, Engineering and Logistics Support, P.O. Box – 723, 111, Muscat, Oman

    B. S. N. Al-Riyami

Authors
  1. A. M. S. Al-Raqadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Abdul Rahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Masrom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B. S. N. Al-Riyami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. M. S. Al-Raqadi.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Abbreviated Version of Questionnaire Format for single- and double-loop learning and organisational learning performance.

Single-loop learning = Behavioural−(innovation, proficiency and concentration):

“discovering new ways”, “generating ideas”, “training at all levels”, “expertise thro’ training”, “increase training expenditure”, “need of ISO”, “achieve product activity”, “develop and maintain capabilities”, “unite technical effort”.

Double-loop learning = Transformational−(innovation, proficiency and concentration):

“questioning for improvement”, “questioning current ways”, “develop changing methods”, “encourage learning”, “develop individual”, “develop product reliability”, “serving the customer”, “satisfy operators demand”, “justification, investigation, operators demands”.

Organisational learning performance:

“maintain productivity”, “learning, flexibility and productivity”, “flexibility and customer satisfaction”, “maintain staff satisfaction”, “create job satisfaction”, “performance and job standard”, “implement suggestion”, “technology and information processing”, “raise staff morale”, “achieve goodwill organisation capital”, “Maintain wellbeing of staff”, “encourage change management”.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al-Raqadi, A.M.S., Abdul Rahim, A., Masrom, M. et al. System thinking in single- and double-loop learning on the perceptions of improving ships’ repair performance. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 7 (Suppl 1), 126–142 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-015-0353-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-015-0353-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation