Systems innovation is about understanding and changing complex wholes. But before you can change something, you have to be able to see it. That’s why systems mapping is one of the most powerful methods in systems thinking. Creating a map of a system doesn’t just mean visualizing how different parts are connected; it also changes the way we think. When we see a system in front of us, it becomes possible to discover connections, actors, and dynamics that were previously hidden.
Systems mapping is therefore not just a tool for analysis, but a tool for insight. It makes complexity tangible.
Why mapping changes the way we understand
When we try to understand a complex problem, such as climate change, public health, or urban development, it can feel like we’re standing in the middle of a thicket of facts, actors, and conflicting goals. Our thinking tends to be linear. We look for cause and effect in a straight chain. But reality is circular, feedback-driven, and full of interdependencies.
Mapping a system is a way to free yourself from linear logic. It is to let your brain think visually and relationally. When you draw the system, you quickly see how many more connections there are than you first thought. You see where feedback loops arise, where the system is sluggish and where there is potential for change.
Research on cognitive visualization shows that we understand complex connections better when we can see them. System mapping therefore becomes a way of thinking with our eyes. It allows people with different perspectives to come together in a common understanding and start thinking together.
Different types of system mapping
There are many types of mapping depending on what you want to understand. Some of the most common in systems innovation are stakeholder mapping, cause–effect mapping and flow mapping.
Stakeholder mapping is about making the actors in a system visible – those who influence and are influenced. By mapping their roles, relationships and interests, you get a picture of power structures and opportunities for collaboration. In a project on sustainable urban development, such a map can show how the municipality, construction companies, citizens, energy companies and civil society are interconnected. It can also reveal who has key roles but lacks influence, and thus where collaborative efforts can make the biggest difference.
Cause-effect mapping, sometimes called causal loop mapping, is about understanding the dynamics of the system. Here, arrows are drawn that show how different factors affect each other. For example, increased car traffic can lead to more emissions, which worsens air quality, which in turn can create political pressure to build more public transport. But the same map can also show how access to cheap parking reinforces car dependence, which is a negative loop. By making these connections visible, it becomes possible to find levers, points where small changes can have big effects.
Flow mapping is used when you want to understand how resources, information or energy move in a system. This can apply to everything from water use in agriculture to data flows in digital platforms. This type of mapping often shows where resources are stuck, wasted or duplicated, which in turn opens up innovation.
Which mapping should you start with?
When starting a system innovation process, it is tempting to immediately create large complex maps. But the most effective thing is often to start simple. A stakeholder mapping is often a good first step, as it provides a common understanding of who is in the system. This can then be supplemented with a cause-effect mapping to understand the dynamics between the actors.
It is also wise to start with a map that is drawn together in a workshop rather than by an individual person producing it. The collective process creates consensus and makes the map a common point of reference.
When mapping is relevant and when it is not
System mapping is most relevant when the problem is complex and where cause and effect are not obvious. It is particularly useful in issues that affect multiple sectors, actors or levels of society, such as food systems, energy transition or education policy.
But mapping is not always the right tool. If the problem is well-defined and the solution clear, mapping can actually become a hindrance. It risks creating the feeling that you have to understand everything before you do anything at all. The strength of mapping lies in opening up perspectives, not in creating perfect models.
A good rule of thumb is to use system mapping when you feel that the discussion is going in circles, when many people are talking about the same thing but mean it differently, or when you want to understand why a problem seems to recur despite repeated efforts.
An example: food waste in the food system
Suppose you want to reduce food waste in a city. A traditional solution could be to create campaigns that encourage households to throw away less food. But with system mapping you can see that food waste is not just about households. A stakeholder mapping shows that the problem also affects food producers, restaurants, wholesalers, schools and municipal purchasers.
When a cause-effect mapping is then done, it becomes clear that overproduction in retail is linked to irregular deliveries, which in turn are affected by planning routines and demands for aesthetic standards. This shows that the root problem may not lie in household behavior, but in how the system is designed.
With such a map, you can identify system-level solutions, such as creating flexible procurement systems or digital platforms to match surpluses with needs. This is a completely different approach than just trying to change the behavior of individuals.
Mapping as a tool for scenario thinking
System mapping is also a powerful tool for thinking about scenarios. By visualizing how the system could change, you can test different futures without having to implement them directly.
For example, if you are working on the mobility of the future, you can map how a system looks today and then create a new map of what it would look like if sharing services and electric power dominate. You can then see which actors need to change their behavior, which policies need to be adjusted and which resources need to be moved. In this way, scenarios can become concrete and the discussion can be conducted with a real understanding of the complexity.
The biggest gain is to gain a new way of thinking
The real effect of system mapping is not the map itself, but the change in thinking that occurs when people create it together. When participants see how their activities are connected to others, a collective learning occurs. They begin to see their role not as an isolated part but as part of a living system.
System mapping is therefore both analysis and culture change. It trains people in systems thinking, in seeing connections and in understanding that no part can change without affecting the whole.
To see the system is to begin to change it
In a world filled with complex challenges, the ability to see connections is crucial. System mapping is a way to create that overview. It helps us understand how the world is connected and where we can put our power to create real change.
When we see the system, we also begin to see ourselves in it, and that is where systems innovation truly begins.
