This piece is a companion to "Why We Suddenly Have Developers Who Can't Think in Systems"—extending a thread sparked by David Hastings' comment on using the OSI model as a diagnostic instrument, and Simon's observation about early education gaps.
A model can be perfectly memorized and still fail to produce systems thinking.
The OSI stack is a schema. Systems thinking is a way of seeing. They don't automatically co-activate.
Why OSI ≠ Systems Thinking
1. OSI is a taxonomy.
It tells you what exists and where it lives. It does not teach you how behaviors propagate, how failures cascade, or how incentives distort architecture.
2. Systems thinking requires dynamic literacy.
You have to see:
- feedback loops
- delays
- boundary violations
- unintended consequences
- cross-layer coupling
- governance failures
None of that is encoded in the OSI model. It's not designed to teach it.
3. Most people learn OSI as trivia, not as a diagnostic instrument.
They memorize the layers like a song lyric. They never learn to interrogate a system through it.
David Hastings described the difference: he used the OSI model to veto a vendor's protocol choice because he recognized a Layer 4–Layer 7 integration boundary violation. That's not recall—that's recognition. Most engineers know the layers and never make that leap.
4. A scaffold only works if the operator has internalized the logic it encodes.
Otherwise it's just a mnemonic. Scaffolding doesn't create systems thinking; it amplifies it if it's already present.
The Deeper Truth
Systems thinking is not a knowledge artifact. It's an orientation—a habit of mind that constantly asks:
- What is upstream of this behavior?
- What is downstream?
- What boundary is being crossed?
- What feedback loop is being activated?
- What governance assumption is being violated?
- What time horizon is being ignored?
You can teach someone the OSI model and never touch any of those.
The Sovereignty Map
If you treat OSI as a sovereignty map—a layered jurisdictional diagram—then it becomes a systems-thinking tool.
Each layer becomes:
- a domain
- with its own laws
- its own failure modes
- its own responsibilities
- and its own treaties with adjacent layers
But that requires the operator to think in terms of governance, not facts.
Most people never make that leap.
For those interested in the systems dynamics angle, David Hastings recommended Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World by John D. Sterman—a resource for moving from static models to dynamic literacy.
Top comments (0)