What is it?

Systems Mapping is a visual technique for drawing out how the parts of a situation connect to each other and influence each other over time. The group picks a specific problem, then maps the variables that matter, draws arrows to show cause and effect, marks each arrow with a plus or minus to show whether the effect pushes in the same direction or the opposite, and then looks for the loops. Loops are where the technique earns its keep. A reinforcing loop explains why something keeps getting worse (or keeps getting better). A balancing loop explains why something seems stuck or keeps bouncing back to the same state. When a group sees these loops for the first time in their own situation, the mood shifts. They stop blaming each other or external forces, and start seeing the structure they are part of.

Also Known As

• Causal Loop Diagram
• CLD
• Systems Diagram
• Systems Thinking Map
• Feedback Loop Diagram

When to Use It

• The group is stuck on a problem that keeps coming back despite repeated attempts to fix it
• People disagree about what is causing a situation and each side has a partial view
• You need to uncover unintended consequences before making a strategic decision
• A recent intervention made things worse and nobody quite knows why
• The group is about to invest serious effort in a solution and you want to pressure-test it
• You are working on topics where many things affect many other things: organisational culture, public health, sustainability, customer experience, team performance
• You want to build shared understanding across departments or disciplines that see the same problem differently

When NOT to Use It

• The problem is genuinely simple or linear, and a root cause analysis would do the job in a fraction of the time
• The group needs to act in the next hour. Systems Mapping is a thinking tool, not a rapid decision tool.
• Participants have no patience for abstract diagrams. Forcing it will feel like punishment and produce weak output.
• You need quantitative forecasts. A qualitative map can hint at dynamics but cannot predict magnitudes. For that, you need a full system dynamics simulation.
• Trust is so low that people will not name the variables that actually matter. You will get a polite map that avoids the real issue.

Systems Mapping in its modern form grew out of the System Dynamics field founded by Jay Forrester at MIT in the mid-1950s, starting with his 1961 book Industrial Dynamics. Causal Loop Diagrams emerged as a standalone mapping technique in the 1970s, with Michael Goodman's 1975 study notes giving them their first formal treatment and Donella Meadows popularising them through the 1972 Limits to Growth report. Peter Senge brought the technique into mainstream organisational practice with The Fifth Discipline (1990), adding the language of system archetypes. Jac Vennix's Group Model Building (1996) turned it into a facilitated group process, and Peter Hovmand's Community-Based System Dynamics (2014) adapted it further for community and public health work.

What You Need

Group size: 6 to 16 people. Works best with 8 to 12. Above 16, split into sub-groups working on the same problem in parallel and compare at the end.

Time required:

• Minimum 90 minutes for a focused map on a single issue
• Typical 3 to 4 hours for a full map with archetype analysis and leverage point discussion
• Extended 1 to 2 days for Group Model Building on a strategic question

Space:

• A wall long enough for a 2 to 3 metre working surface
• Room for people to stand in front of the wall and move around
• Seating at tables or chairs for the pre-work and debrief

Materials:

• Large sheets of flip chart paper or butcher paper taped together to create a single working surface (minimum 2m x 1m)
• Sticky notes in two colours: one for variables, one for loops
• Fine black markers for arrows (one per 3 people)
• Chunky coloured markers for loop labels (green for reinforcing, red for balancing works well)
• A pre-written prompt stating the problem or "behaviour over time" the group is investigating
• Optional but useful: printed Systems Archetypes reference cards (one per small group)

The Process

Setup

1. Write the focusing question at the top of the working surface. Frame it as a specific behaviour over time rather than a static problem. "Why has employee engagement dropped over the past two years?" is stronger than "How do we fix engagement?"
2. Draw a simple axis underneath showing the behaviour over time (the "reference mode"). You can sketch what the group thinks has actually happened to the key variable over the past period. This gives everyone a shared starting point.
3. Have sticky notes, markers and the archetype cards laid out within reach of the wall.
4. If the group is new to this technique, prepare a simple worked example on a separate sheet you can reveal during Step 1.

Step 1: Orient the Group

Time: 10 minutes

Purpose: Give people the minimum vocabulary they need to participate, nothing more.

1. Point at the focusing question. Read it aloud. Check that the group accepts it as the right question. If anyone wants to reframe, spend two minutes getting that agreement before continuing.
2. Introduce the three moving parts: variables, arrows, and loops. "A variable is something that can go up or down: sales, trust, workload, customer complaints. An arrow shows one variable affecting another. A loop is what happens when you follow a chain of arrows and end up back where you started."
3. Show the worked example briefly. Something like: stress goes up, sleep goes down, which makes stress go up further. A small reinforcing loop. Thirty seconds, then move on.
4. State the two rules of variable naming: "Use nouns, not actions. Use something that can measurably go up or down. 'Communication' is too vague. 'Frequency of one-to-one meetings' works."

Watch for: Participants trying to write full sentences on sticky notes. Pull them back to short variable names.

Step 2: Generate Variables

Time: 20 to 30 minutes

Purpose: Surface every factor the group thinks matters, before any attempt to connect them.

1. Hand out sticky notes. Ask everyone to work silently for 5 minutes writing one variable per note, aiming for 8 to 10 notes each.
2. After the silent round, take one note from each person in turn, read it aloud, and stick it on the wall in a loose cluster. No evaluation, no connecting yet.
3. Continue until everyone has shared. Duplicates can be stacked.
4. Step back and look at what is on the wall. Ask: "What is missing? What variable would someone outside this room say we have not put up?"
5. Cluster the notes loosely by theme. Do not over-organise. Aim for 15 to 25 variables on the wall. If you have more than 30, you are going to get lost in your own map. Ask the group to narrow down.

Watch for:

• Variables that are really actions in disguise ("run a training programme"). Rename them as their measurable effect ("staff capability").
• Variables that are too broad ("culture"). Ask "what specifically about culture? What would we measure?"

Step 3: Draw the Connections

Time: 30 to 45 minutes

Purpose: Establish cause-and-effect arrows between variables, with polarity.

1. Move variables around on the wall so they are spread out with space between them.
2. Pick the variable that feels central to the question. Ask: "What directly affects this? What does this directly affect?"
3. Draw an arrow from the cause to the effect using a fine black marker.
4. Mark each arrow with a plus or minus: "Plus means both move the same way. If A goes up, B goes up. Minus means opposite. If A goes up, B goes down."
5. Work outwards. For each new link, invite the group to challenge it. "Does this really cause that directly? Or is there something in between?"
6. Keep the map messy. Do not try to make it pretty yet. The goal is truthfulness, not aesthetics.

Watch for:

• Groups that want to draw an arrow between every pair of variables. Push back: "Does A directly cause B, or does it happen through another variable?"
• Confusion about polarity when dealing with decreases. A common trap: "more stress leads to less sleep" is a minus sign, even though both words are about bad things. The rule is about direction, not valence.
• One or two people dominating. Hand the marker around. Make quieter people the ones to draw links they have been suggesting.

Step 4: Find the Loops

Time: 20 to 30 minutes

Purpose: Identify the feedback loops that are driving the behaviour over time.

1. Ask the group to trace a path of arrows that eventually returns to where it started. When you find one, mark it clearly.
2. Label each loop. A loop with an even number of minus signs (including zero) is reinforcing. Mark it R. A loop with an odd number of minus signs is balancing. Mark it B.
3. Give each loop a short plain-English name the group agrees on. "The burnout spiral." "The quick fix trap." Names make loops memorable and discussable.
4. Aim for 3 to 6 clearly identified loops. Any more and the group will lose the plot.

Watch for:

• Groups that get mathematical. Keep pulling them back to the story. "What does this loop mean? Walk us round it in words."
• Loops that the group does not really believe. If someone says "I don't think this actually happens," investigate. Either the loop is wrong or something is missing.

Step 5: Test Against Archetypes

Time: 15 to 20 minutes

Purpose: Match the patterns on the wall to common system archetypes to deepen understanding.

1. Hand out the archetype reference cards. Give the group 5 minutes to read through the main patterns: Limits to Growth, Shifting the Burden, Fixes that Fail, Tragedy of the Commons, Escalation, Success to the Successful.
2. Ask each sub-group or pair to identify which archetype (if any) matches the loops on the map. "Does any part of this map behave like one of the archetypes you've just read about?"
3. Have each group share their match and explain why. Other groups can push back.
4. If an archetype fits, note its name on the map near the relevant loops. If no archetype fits, that is fine. Do not force it.

Watch for: Participants trying to make the map fit an archetype. The archetypes are a lens, not a target.

Step 6: Identify Leverage Points

Time: 15 to 20 minutes

Purpose: Move from understanding to action by finding where small changes might produce large effects.

1. Stand back from the map with the group. Ask: "Where could we intervene and get real movement? Where would a small change ripple through the system?"
2. Capture suggestions as sticky notes placed directly on the map at the intervention point.
3. Distinguish between weak leverage (changing parameters, adding resources) and strong leverage (changing the rules of the system, changing what gets measured, changing the goal of the system). Both are valid; stronger leverage is harder and usually more impactful.
4. Narrow to 3 to 5 leverage points the group thinks are worth pursuing.

Watch for: The urge to jump straight to solving things outside the system ("If only senior management would..."). Bring it back to what this group can influence.

Closing

Time: 15 minutes

1. Take a photo of the final map from several angles.
2. Go round the group. Each person shares one thing they see now that they did not see before.
3. Agree three concrete next steps: who will do what, by when, and how you will check whether the system is shifting.
4. Agree who owns the map. Maps left on walls degrade quickly. Digitising it within a week keeps it alive.

Facilitator Guidance

What Makes This Work

Systems Mapping works because it externalises each person's mental model and forces the group to negotiate a shared one. Most problems that persist in organisations persist because different people hold incompatible theories of cause and effect, and the group never makes these theories visible. The map is a truce zone. It lets people disagree productively by pointing at arrows rather than at each other. The second thing it does is shift attention from events to structure. Groups that see the loops driving their situation stop chasing symptoms and start looking for leverage. The facilitator's job is to hold the group in the discomfort of complexity long enough for structure to emerge, then help them get back to action without losing the insight.

Common Pitfalls

• Too many variables: Groups routinely end up with 40 or 50 variables and a map so dense nobody can read it. Enforce a cap. If it creeps beyond 25, ask "what can we absorb into something else?"
• Actions dressed as variables: "Do training" is not a variable. "Staff capability" is. Catch this early in Step 2 before the map gets polluted.
• Polarity confusion: Facilitators themselves often get tangled on negative effects of bad things. Practice a few out loud before the session. The rule is simple: same direction is plus, opposite direction is minus, regardless of whether the outcome is good or bad.
• Skipping the loop-naming step: An unnamed loop is forgotten within a week. Always push the group to give each loop a plain-English story title.
• Rushing to leverage points: If the group jumps to solutions before the structure is clear, the solutions will be the same ones that have already failed. Protect Steps 3 and 4.
• Facilitator drawing the map: If you draw, the map becomes yours. Make participants draw, even if their arrows are crooked. Ownership matters more than neatness.

Adaptations

• Virtual/remote delivery: Miro, Mural, or Kumu work well. Kumu is purpose-built for systems mapping and handles large maps better. Use pre-built templates for variables and loop labels to save time.
• Larger groups (16 to 40): Break into sub-groups of 6 to 8 working on the same problem. Compare maps in the final hour. The differences between the maps often reveal the most useful insight.
• Shorter timeframes (45 to 60 minutes): Skip archetype testing and leverage point analysis. Focus on getting a simple map with 2 to 3 loops named. This still delivers the core "aha" moment without the full analytical depth.
• Group Model Building variant: For strategic questions, use the full Vennix approach: scripted roles (facilitator, modeller, recorder, gatekeeper), structured scripts for each stage, and multiple sessions over days or weeks.
• Archetype-first variant: For groups completely new to systems thinking, start by showing the archetypes and asking "which one feels most like our situation?" Then map backwards from there.

Real-World Applications

A health charity planning a smoking cessation programme: The leadership team mapped why their previous campaigns had stalled. The map revealed a Shifting the Burden archetype: short-term nicotine replacement was being promoted so heavily that long-term behavioural support had become under-funded, which meant relapse rates kept climbing, which justified more nicotine replacement. They redesigned the programme around the balancing loop they had been neglecting.

A software company investigating declining delivery speed: Engineering, product and customer success each had a different explanation for slow releases. The map surfaced a reinforcing loop between rushed releases, incidents, firefighting, and delayed features. Naming the loop "the firefighter trap" gave the three teams a shared phrase and a shared intervention point: capping incident response time to protect engineering focus.

A school improving pupil attendance: Teachers, pastoral staff and the senior leadership team built a map of attendance. They found a Fixes that Fail pattern: punitive consequences for absence were temporarily boosting attendance but damaging the relationships that supported longer-term engagement. The map led them to invest in early-intervention conversations before escalating to sanctions.

A council consulting on a housing policy: Community representatives, council officers and developers mapped the local housing system together. The process exposed an unspoken assumption that building more homes would reduce prices. The loops showed how investment demand, planning delays and infrastructure constraints created a far more tangled picture, which led to a revised strategy with more nuanced interventions.

A mental health team redesigning their service pathway: Clinicians, administrators and service users built a map of the patient journey. Service users identified a loop nobody else had seen: the administrative load of repeat referrals was using up clinical time, which was lengthening waits, which was driving more repeat referrals. The insight led to a single-point-of-access redesign that the team had been considering for years but had never had a clear case for.