The Benefit of
Shifting the Burden
20th MIT-UAlbany-WPI System Dynamics PhD Colloquium
April 30, 2010
Joe Hsueh
MIT Sloan School of Management
Research Questions
• Can a formal simulation model reproduce the dynamic
behavior as described in the shift the burden archetype?
– Dowling, MacDonald and Richardson (1995)
• What can formal modeling add to qualitative systems
archetype? In particular, should one always strive to eliminate
shift the burden as prescribed?
Acknowledgement: Nelson Repenning, Peter Senge, John Sterman
Shift the Burden Behavior
• “An underlying problem generates symptoms that demand attention. But
the underlying problem is difficult for people to address, either because it
is obscure or costly to confront. So people “shift the burden” of their
problem to other solutions – well-intended, easy fixes which seem
extremely efficient. Unfortunately, the easier “solutions” only ameliorate
the symptoms; they leave the underlying problem unaltered. The
underlying problem grows worse, unnoticed because the symptoms
apparently clear up, and the system loses whatever abilities it had to solve
the underlying problem.” (Senge 1990, p.104)
Shift the Burden Structure
• “The shift the burden is composed of two balancing (stabilizing) processes.
Both are trying to adjust or correct the same problem symptom. The top
circle represents the symptomatic intervention; the “quick fix.” It solves
the problem symptom quickly, but only temporarily. The bottom circle has
a delay. It represents a more fundamental response to the problem, one
whose effects take longer to become evident. However, the fundamental
solution works far more effectively – it may the only enduring way to deal
with the problem.”
• “ Often (but not always), in shifting the burden structures there is also an
additional reinforcing (amplifying) process created by “side effects” of the
symptomatic solution. When this happens, the side effects often make it
more difficult to invoke the fundamental solution.” (Senge 1990, p.106)
Effect of Problem
Symptom on
Symptomatic Solution
Symptomatic
Solution Sensitivity
+
+
B1
Reference
Problem Symptom
Normal
Symptomatic
Solution
+
Symptomatic
Solution
OUTSOURCING
Symptomatic
Solution
Problem Symptom
Relative to Reference
Problem
Symptom
WORKLOAD
Problem
Creation Rate
Problem
Solving Rate
R1
+
Side Effect
Fundamental
Solution Sensitivity
+
Available Fundamental
Problem Solving Rate
+
Effect of Problem
Symptom on Fundamental
Solution Buildup
Problem Solving Per
Fundamental Solution
B2
Fundamental
Solution
+
<Normal Fundamental
Solution Buildup>
Fundamental
Solution Buildup
TRAINING
Fundamental
Solution
EMPLOYEE
CAPABILITY
Fundamental
Solution Atrophy
SKILL
OBSOLESCENCE
+
+
-
Atrophy
Time
<Normal
Symptomatic
Solution>
+
Effect of Symptomatic
Solution on Fundamental
Solution Erosion
+
Fundamental Solution
Erosion from Side Effect
CONFIDENCE EROSION
Normal Erosion
from Side Effect
Side Effect
Sensitivity
Symptomatic Solution = Normal Symptomatic Solution * Effect of Problem Symptom on
Symptomatic Solution
Effect of Problem Symptom on Symptomatic Solution
= (Problem Symptom/Reference Problem Symptom) ^ Symptomatic Solution Sensitivity
Effect of Problem Symptom on Symptomatic Solution
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80
Problem Symptom / Reference Problem Symptom
Sensitivity : 0
Sensitivity : point 3
Sensitivity : point 7
Sensitivity : 1
2
Normal Fraction of
Problem Solved by
Symptomatic Solution
Effect of Problem
Symptom on
Symptomatic Solution
Symptomatic
Solution Sensitivity
+
+
+
B1
Reference
Problem Symptom
Normal
Symptomatic
Solution
+
+
<Exogenous
Input Rate>
Symptomatic
Solution
OUTSOURCING
Symptomatic
Solution
Problem Symptom
Relative to Reference
Fundamental
Solution Sensitivity
+
Problem
Solving Delay
<Initial Problem
+
Symptom>
Problem
Problem
Solving Rate
Symptom
Problem
WORKLOAD
Creation Rate
+
Max Problem
Min Problem
Symptom
Exogenous
Symptom
Solving Rate
Input Rate
Solving Time
-
Effect of Problem
Symptom on Fundamental
Solution Buildup
Slack Problem
Solving Capability
R1
Side Effect
Available Fundamental
Problem Solving Rate
+
+
Problem Solving Per
Fundamental Solution
B2
Fundamental
Solution
+
<Normal Fundamental
Solution Buildup>
Fundamental
Solution Buildup
+
TRAINING
<Initial Fundamental
Solution>
Fundamental
Solution
EMPLOYEE
CAPABILITY
Fundamental Solution
Slack Buildup
+
Maximum
Erosion Rate
Minimum
Erosion Time
+
Fundamental
Solution Atrophy
SKILL
OBSOLESCENCE
+
+
-
Atrophy
Time
<Normal
Symptomatic
Solution>
+
Effect of Symptomatic
Solution on Fundamental
Solution Erosion
+
Fundamental Solution
Erosion from Side Effect
CONFIDENCE EROSION
Normal Erosion
from Side Effect
Side Effect
Sensitivity
Cost Accounting
<Symptomatic
Solution
OUTSOURCING>
+
Symptomatic
Solution Unit Cost
Fundamental Solution
Buildup Cost as Multiple
of Symptomatic Solution
Symptomatic
Solution Cost
Fundamental
Solution Cost
<Fundamental
Solution Buildup
TRAINING>
<Normal Problem
Solving Delay>
Problem Solving
Delay Unit Cost
+
Cumulative Total
Solution Cost
+
Fundamental
Solution Buildup
Unit Cost
<Problem
Solving Delay>
Cumulative
Symptomatic
Solution Cost
Cumulative
Fundamental
Solution Cost
+
Cumulative
Total Cost
+
Cumulative
Problem Solving
Delay Cost
Problem Solving
Delay Cost
<Problem
Symptom
WORKLOAD>
Partial Model Test 1:
B1 Symptomatic Solution only
•
•
•
Cut B2 Fundamental Solutions and R1 Side Effect loops.
Test: Pulse problem creation rate from 10 to 15 at time 10 for 10 months
Adjusting Symptomatic Solution (SS) Sensitivity from 0 to 0.5 to 1
•
Question: Is shift the burden intended rational?
Problem Creation Rate
symptom/Month
20
17
14
11
8
0
10
20
30
Problem Creation Rate : SS=1
Problem Creation Rate : SS=point 5
Problem Creation Rate : SS=0
40
50
60
Time (Month)
70
80
90
100
SS sensitivity = 0
SS sensitivity = 0.5
Main Variables
Main Variables
Main Variables
100 sym
15 cap
2 cap/m
100 sym
15 cap
2 cap/m
100 sym
15 cap
2 cap/m
50 sym
7.5 cap
1 cap/m
50 sym
7.5 cap
1 cap/m
50 sym
7.5 cap
1 cap/m
0 sym
0 cap
0 cap/m
80
100 0
0 sym
0 cap
0 cap/m
80
100 0
0 sym
0 cap
0 cap/m
0
20
40
60
Time (Month)
Problem Symptom WORKLOAD : SS=0
Symptomatic Solution OUTSOURCING : SS=0
Fundamental Solution EMPLOYEE CAPABILITY : SS=0
Fundamental Solution Buildup TRAINING : SS=0
20
40
60
Time (Month)
SS sensitivity = 1
Problem Symptom
sym
WORKLOAD : SS=point 5
Symptomatic
cap Solution OUTSOURCING : SS=point 5
Fundamental
capSolution EMPLOYEE CAPABILITY : SS=point
Fundamental
cap/mSolution Buildup TRAINING : SS=point 5
20
40
60
Time (Month)
80
Problem Symptom
sym
WORKLOAD : SS=1
Symptomatic
cap Solution OUTSOURCING : SS=1
5Fundamental
capSolution EMPLOYEE CAPABILITY : SS=1
Fundamental
cap/mSolution Buildup TRAINING : SS=1
100
sym
cap
cap
cap/m
Decision Rule: higher problem symptoms (PS), enact higher symptomatic solutions (SS)
to reduce the problems.
Intended Rationality: Higher SS sensitivity from 0 to 0.5 to 1, higher SS (red) which
reduces PS (blue) and restores to equilibrium faster.
Insight 1: Without fundamental solution and side effect, shift the burden is intended
rational as it reduces problem symptoms as expected.
Partial Model Test 2:
B1 + B2, No Side Effect
•
•
•
Cut R1 Side Effect loop
Test: Pulse problem creation rate from 10 to 15 at time 10 for 10 months
Adjusting Symptomatic Solution (SS) Sensitivity from 0 to 0.3 to 0.6 to 0.9
•
•
Question 2: Without side effect, do we see shift the burden dynamics as described?
Question 3: Without side effect, is shift the burden always bad?
Problem Creation Rate
symptom/Month
20
17
14
11
8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Time (Month)
Problem Creation Rate : No SE, SS=0
Problem Creation Rate : No SE, SS=pt3
Problem Creation Rate : No SE, SS=pt6
Problem Creation Rate : No SE, SS=pt9
70
80
90
100
Higher Symptomatic Solution Sensitivity, higher symptomatic solution (red) and lower fundamental
solution (green)  Shift the burden does occur. Problem symptom (blue) restores faster to equilibrium.
Main Variables
Main Variables
100 sym
8 cap
0.2 cap/m
100 sym
8 cap
0.2 cap/m
50 sym
4 cap
0.1 cap/m
50 sym
4 cap
0.1 cap/m
0 sym
0 cap
0 cap/m
0 sym
0 cap
0 cap/m
0
20
40
60
Time (Month)
80
100
Problem Symptom WORKLOAD : No SE, SS=0
Symptomatic Solution OUTSOURCING : No SE, SS=0
Fundamental Solution EMPLOYEE CAPABILITY : No SE, SS=0
Fundamental Solution Buildup TRAINING : No SE, SS=0
sym
cap
cap
cap/m
Main Variables
100 sym
8 cap
0.2 cap/m
0
100 sym
8 cap
0.2 cap/m
0 sym
0 cap
0 cap/m
0 sym
0 cap
0 cap/m
40
60
Time (Month)
80
Problem Symptom WORKLOAD : No SE, SS=pt3
Symptomatic Solution OUTSOURCING : No SE, SS=pt3
Fundamental Solution EMPLOYEE CAPABILITY : No SE, SS=pt3
Fundamental Solution Buildup TRAINING : No SE, SS=pt3
100
sym
cap
cap
cap/m
80
Main Variables
50 sym
4 cap
0.1 cap/m
20
40
60
Time (Month)
Problem Symptom WORKLOAD : No SE, SS=pt6
Symptomatic Solution OUTSOURCING : No SE, SS=pt6
Fundamental Solution EMPLOYEE CAPABILITY : No SE, SS=pt6
Fundamental Solution Buildup TRAINING : No SE, SS=pt6
50 sym
4 cap
0.1 cap/m
0
20
0
20
40
60
Time (Month)
80
Problem Symptom WORKLOAD : No SE, SS=pt9
Symptomatic Solution OUTSOURCING : No SE, SS=pt9
Fundamental Solution EMPLOYEE CAPABILITY : No SE, SS=pt9
Fundamental Solution Buildup TRAINING : No SE, SS=pt9
100
sym
cap
cap
cap/m
100
sym
cap
cap
cap/m
Is shifting the burden necessary bad? It depends.
If there is a cost for solving problems slower than expected (Problem Solving Delay Cost), then higher
symptomatic solution helps restore equilibrium faster, thus reduces the cumulative costs.
Insight 2: Shift the burden is beneficial when (1) no or low enough side effect from symptomatic
solution and (2) high enough problem solving delay cost.
Costs
2,000
2,000
1,000
1,000
$
$
Costs
0
0
0
20
40
60
Costs
Time (Month)
80
100
20
40
60
Costs
Time (Month)
80
100
Cumulative Total Cost : No SE, SS=pt6
2,000Symptomatic Solution Cost : No SE, SS=pt6
Cumulative
Cumulative Fundamental Solution Cost : No SE, SS=pt6
Cumulative Problem Solving Delay Cost : No SE, SS=pt6
1,000
$
$
Cumulative Total Cost : No SE, SS=0
2,000Symptomatic Solution Cost : No SE, SS=0
Cumulative
Cumulative Fundamental Solution Cost : No SE, SS=0
Cumulative Problem Solving Delay Cost : No SE, SS=0
0
1,000
0
0
0
20
40
60
80
Time (Month)
Cumulative Total Cost : No SE, SS=pt3
Cumulative Symptomatic Solution Cost : No SE, SS=pt3
Cumulative Fundamental Solution Cost : No SE, SS=pt3
Cumulative Problem Solving Delay Cost : No SE, SS=pt3
100
0
20
40
60
80
Time (Month)
Cumulative Total Cost : No SE, SS=pt9
Cumulative Symptomatic Solution Cost : No SE, SS=pt9
Cumulative Fundamental Solution Cost : No SE, SS=pt9
Cumulative Problem Solving Delay Cost : No SE, SS=pt9
100
Full Model:
B1+B2+R1 with Side Effect Sensitivity = 1
•
•
Test: Pulse problem creation rate from 10 to 15 at time 10 for 10 months
Adjusting Symptomatic Solution (SS) Sensitivity from 0 to 0.2 to 0.4 to 0.6 to 0.8 to 1
•
•
Question 4: With side effect, do we see shift the burden dynamics as described?
Question 5: With side effect, is shift the burden always bad?
Problem Creation Rate
20
symptom/Month
17
14
11
8
0
Problem
Problem
Problem
Problem
Problem
Problem
10
Creation Rate :
Creation Rate :
Creation Rate :
Creation Rate :
Creation Rate :
Creation Rate :
20
SS=0
SS=pt2
SS=pt4
SS=pt6
SS=pt8
SS=1
30
40 50 60
Time (Month)
70
80
90
100
SS sensitivity = 0.6
SS sensitivity = 0.8
Main Variables
Main Variables
Main Variables
120 sym
10 cap
2 cap/m
120 sym
10 cap
2 cap/m
120 sym
10 cap
2 cap/m
60 sym
5 cap
1 cap/m
60 sym
5 cap
1 cap/m
60 sym
5 cap
1 cap/m
0 sym
0 cap
0 cap/m
0 sym
0 cap
0 cap/m
80
100 0
0 sym
0 cap
0 cap/m
80
100 0
0
20
40
60
Time (Month)
Problem Symptom WORKLOAD : SS=pt6
Symptomatic Solution OUTSOURCING : SS=pt6
Fundamental Solution EMPLOYEE CAPABILITY : SS=pt6
Fundamental Solution Buildup TRAINING : SS=pt6
20
40
60
Time (Month)
Problem Symptom
sym
WORKLOAD : SS=pt8
Symptomatic
cap Solution OUTSOURCING : SS=pt8
Fundamental
capSolution EMPLOYEE CAPABILITY : SS=pt8
Fundamental
cap/mSolution Buildup TRAINING : SS=pt8
SS sensitivity = 1
20
40
60
Time (Month)
Problem Symptom
sym
WORKLOAD : SS=1
Symptomatic
cap Solution OUTSOURCING : SS=1
Fundamental
capSolution EMPLOYEE CAPABILITY : SS=1
Fundamental
cap/mSolution Buildup TRAINING : SS=1
80
100
sym
cap
cap
cap/m
Higher SS sensitivity, higher SS (red) and lower FS (green)  Shift the burden does occur.
When SS sensitivity = 0.8  SS increases (red) which lowers PS temporarily (blue) 
however, side effect induced by too many SS causes FS to erode  PS increases rapidly 
need more SS  even faster FS erosion …
Insight 3: With side effect, shift the burden too much can tip the system into vicious circle.
SS sensitivity = 0.4
SS sensitivity = 0.2
Main Variables
Main Variables
Main Variables
120 sym
10 cap
2 cap/m
120 sym
10 cap
2 cap/m
100 sym
10 cap
2 cap/m
60 sym
5 cap
1 cap/m
60 sym
5 cap
1 cap/m
50 sym
5 cap
1 cap/m
0 sym
0 cap
0 cap/m
0 sym
0 cap
0 cap/m
80
100 0
0 sym
0 cap
0 cap/m
80
100 0
0
20
40
60
Time (Month)
Problem Symptom WORKLOAD : SS=pt4
Symptomatic Solution OUTSOURCING : SS=pt4
Fundamental Solution EMPLOYEE CAPABILITY : SS=pt4
Fundamental Solution Buildup TRAINING : SS=pt4
20
40
60
Time (Month)
Problem Symptom
sym
WORKLOAD : SS=pt2
Symptomatic
cap Solution OUTSOURCING : SS=pt2
Fundamental
capSolution EMPLOYEE CAPABILITY : SS=pt2
Fundamental
cap/mSolution Buildup TRAINING : SS=pt2
SS sensitivity = 0
20
40
60
Time (Month)
Problem Symptom
sym
WORKLOAD : SS=0
Symptomatic
cap Solution OUTSOURCING : SS=0
Fundamental
capSolution EMPLOYEE CAPABILITY : SS=0
Fundamental
cap/mSolution Buildup TRAINING : SS=0
80
100
sym
cap
cap
cap/m
As SS sensitivity reduces from 0.4 to 0.2 to 0, there is less SS (red), however FS (green)
and PS (blue) oscillate!
When SS sensitivity = 0  a pulse shock of PS increases FS buildup (grey)  FS increases
with time delay  FS overshoots  PS drops significantly  cut back FS buildup  FS
erodes with time delay  FS undershoots  PS increases significantly ….
Insight 4: Appropriate level of shift the burden can dampen FS oscillation, stabilize PS
and reduce problem solving delay costs.
Cumulative Total Cost
6,000
$
4,500
3,000
1,500
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Time (Month)
70
80
90
100
Cumulative Total Cost : SS=0
Cumulative Total Cost : SS=pt2
Cumulative Total Cost : SS=pt4
Cumulative Total Cost : SS=pt6
Cumulative Total Cost : SS=pt8
As SS sensitivity goes from 0 (blue) to 0.2 (red) and 0.4 (green), the cumulative total cost
actually decreases due to SS helps dampen FS and PS oscillations, and reduces problem
solving delay costs.
As SS sensitivity increases to 0.6 (grey) and 0.8 (black), the cumulative total cost increases
dramatically due to too high the shift the burden tips the system into a vicious circle.
Further Work
• Other shocks: step, sine wave, noise etc
• Add and analyze proactive FS buildup policy (a fixed training)
in combination with existing reactive SS and FS buildup
policies.
• Add and analyze subjective performance measure (Gibbons),
a goal-and-gap structure for FS.
• Analytic analysis beyond simulation runs
Questions
• Publishable? Where? How to frame?
• Real world cases resemble to the described insights?