SYSTEMS
BOUNDARY
IDENTIFICATION
TOOL
TOOLS - CHEAT SHEET SERIES
OCTOBER 2025
1
Contents
TOOLS - CHEAT SHEET SERIES
INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE
What is it and why do we need it?
INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE
Why do we need it?
We use the Systems Boundary identification tool to define the foundational scope and focus of a systems transformation initiative — clarifying what we are trying to understand, influence, or change. Essentially, as we're doing systems transformation work, we have to first identify what system we want to change.
Additionally, the boundary shapes how we see the system. Where we draw the boundary line affects how we understand the system — including or excluding certain functions and roles effects which dynamics and relationships we want the initiative to focus on.
We treat the Systems Boundary as a practical tool — it is not perfect, but it is useful for building a “good enough” understanding of what is in and out of scope within the project initiative.
Failing to draw the right systems boundary undermines the effectiveness of systems transformation work. A boundary that is too narrow can overlook root causes and systemic drivers, leading to shallow or misdirected interventions; too broad, and the system understanding becomes unmanageable, diluting focus and stalling action. For transformation to be effective, the boundary must be wide enough to reveal key dynamics, yet focused enough to enable strategic, coordinated change.
What is it?
Systems Boundary identification is a process of drawing a conceptual line that defines what is inside and outside of scope of a systems transformation initiative. It is a constructed concept, developed to establish a shared understanding and ownership of the scoping decisions. The boundary is not static, it is not set in stone, and therefore can be refined, adapted and iterated throughout following systemic analysis steps.
When do we use it (in the Step-by-Step process)?
INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE
The Systems Boundary feeds into and connects with other tools across the Step-by-Step process, as follows:
Step Two
Step One
When do we use it?
As the Systems Boundary is a shared foundational understanding across the initiative project team, it leads the way for the other tools and steps to take shape across the Step-by-Step process. Therefore, we use the Systems Boundary identification tool at the beginning of Step One - Gaining Clarity, before the Stakeholder Mapping and Systems Mapping, which it will inform.
As the Step-by-Step process unfolds, we will return to the Systems Boundary regularly — to check assumptions, stay aligned, and refine our focus as new insights emerge. If necessary, the Systems Boundary definition can be amended if new insights are formed throughout the Stakeholder Mapping and Systems Mapping problem analysis tools development, which may highlight that some element or theme may have been missed or miscategorised.
When do we use it (in the Step-by-Step process)?
INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE
The Systems Boundary feeds into and connects with other tools across the Step-by-Step process, as follows:
Step Two
Step One
When do we use it?
As the Systems Boundary is a shared foundational understanding across the initiative project team, it leads the way for the other tools and steps to take shape across the Step-by-Step process. Therefore, we use the Systems Boundary identification tool at the beginning of Step One - Gaining Clarity, before the Stakeholder Mapping and Systems Mapping, which it will inform.
As the Step-by-Step process unfolds, we will return to the Systems Boundary regularly — to check assumptions, stay aligned, and refine our focus as new insights emerge. If necessary, the Systems Boundary definition can be amended if new insights are formed throughout the Stakeholder Mapping and Systems Mapping problem analysis tools development, which may highlight that some element or theme may have been missed or miscategorised.
GETTING TO KNOW THE TOOL:
THE BASICS
Key definitions and terms (1 of 2)
GETTING TO KNOW THE TOOL: THE BASICS
Systems boundary | Conceptual line drawn to decide what sits “inside” of our focus around our primary system versus what lies “outside” in the external environment. It can be considered the “project scope”. |
Primary system | Central system that is the focus of analysis and intervention. It serves as the anchor point for identifying sub-systems (within) and wider systems (around). |
Nested systems and nested wholes thinking | Systems have a pattern of nested hierarchy, where each system is both a whole in itself and a sub-system within a wider system. Every system has its own identity and function, yet contributes to the performance and functionality of the broader systems it belongs to. Nested Wholes Thinking is key to the Systems Boundary identification as it helps to position the primary system in context, and therefore understand systems holistically. For example:
|
System elements | Elements are the core components, entities, or factors that are believed to be relevant to the functioning, structure, or behaviour of the system, such as actors, resources, processes, rules or policies, technologies, or outcomes (e.g. emissions). For example., Climate tech investment, scientific research, infrastructure. |
Key definitions and terms (2 of 2)
GETTING TO KNOW THE TOOL: THE BASICS
Guiding star | A vision that is framed as the desired future system your team is working toward. It serves as a navigational tool for the long haul as your team impacts the system and adapts over time. |
Near star | A near star is a 5- to 10-year goal that is framed as a distant, but foreseeable outcome that could be attained. It should be a significant step toward the guiding star. The near star is provisional, since it is highly likely that the near star will be revised as the project team continues to learn new things about the ever-changing primary system along your systems journey. |
System health | Overall state and functioning of a system. Instead of aspiring for a concrete end state, it is understood as the ongoing pursuit of a healthier version of the system. What defines “health” can vary depending on the system’s functions, structure, and stakeholders. However, a healthy system is generally one that can sustain its core functions and regenerate its foundational resources, allowing it to stay in balance. System Health is assessed using System Health Indicators. |
System health indicators | Central elements we track to assess overall system health. They reflect the final outcomes we aim to achieve — such as net zero carbon emissions, biodiversity, and community well-being. They are not intermediate interventions (like specific projects or enabling conditions), but measurable factors of the ultimate goals we are working toward. The indicators should be quantifiable but not necessarily quantified, e.g. measurable vs measured. In the systems mapping tool later in the process, these indicators are typically shown as the core variables. |
High level overview
1. Key objectives:
The objectives of the Systems Boundary Identification Tool are to:
In order to clearly articulate which of these systems (subsystems or wider systems) are out of scope, and why.
GETTING TO KNOW THE TOOL: THE BASICS
2. Inputs
The inputs for the Systems Boundary identification are tacit knowledge of the context and the system that the project team already hold as they enter the Systems Boundary workshop. Additionally, an input of the boundary is the overall initiative level systems question, used as a starting point to align understanding.
High level overview
3. Outputs
A clear definition of the primary system we are focused on, and what is intentionally included and excluded. This is represented with two artifacts:
A diagram visually representing the defined boundary line of the primary system in the context of wider systems and subsystems.
GETTING TO KNOW THE TOOL: THE BASICS
4. Outcomes
A clearly defined systems boundary sets the stage for the systems transformation initiative and enables:
A clear brief for the forthcoming stakeholder and systems mapping exercises, to ensure all wider stakeholder input and analysis is focused on the primary focus of this initiative.
GETTING TO KNOW THE TOOL:
HOW TO DELIVER
What to expect
The Systems Boundary Identification Tool is typically an intuitive process to identify where the conceptual boundary line should sit.
We lean on nested wholes thinking to gain a holistic view of where the primary system sits in the context of wider systems and subsystems.
Incorporated into the process is the use of the familiar PESTLE framework as a scaffold, not to constrain thinking, but to gently guide and structure conversations, so participants uncover potential blind spots and arrive at a holistic understanding of what sits within the boundaries of the system.
GETTING TO KNOW THE TOOL: HOW TO DELIVER
Illustrative example of a systems boundary
Identify the primary system
GETTING TO KNOW THE TOOL: HOW TO DELIVER
Goal: Clarify and name what system we are focusing on and why
Systems are often conceptualised as noun-based entities — that is, we refer to them as “things” we can talk about, analyse, or intervene in. This type of system is often defined by the service it provides for society. Examples include: The UK Climate Innovation System, the Education System, or the Political System. These are not static things, but dynamic sets of relationships we name for clarity and shared understanding. In most cases, these systems are “managed” or stewarded by government ministries.
While noun-based system naming is not the only way to define or name a system, (for example problem-oriented system definition), we find this approach the most suitable for the types of systems and problem statements present in the TCE pilot initiatives.
Questions to explore:
NB. The primary system can be understood differently depending on who is in the conversation. This first step is to bring something to the table to build upon in the following steps.
Activity 1
Identify key system elements
GETTING TO KNOW THE TOOL: HOW TO DELIVER
Goal: Understand how the system operates by defining the elements that are present
Here we use PESTLE to guide participants to think expansively through what is happening across the system, including Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and Environmental lenses.
We are looking to define the elements of the system. Elements are the core components, entities, or factors that are believed to be relevant to the functioning, structure, or behaviour of the system, such as actors, resources, processes, rules or policies, technologies, or outcomes (e.g. emissions). For example, “Research & Development (R&D) – generating new knowledge and ideas for climate technology”; or “Financing – supplying capital to support innovation”.
Questions to explore:
Activity 2
Position the primary system within nested systems
GETTING TO KNOW THE TOOL: HOW TO DELIVER
Goal: Place the primary system in the context of wider systems and subsystems
Here we activate nested wholes thinking by exploring the questions below.
An example: Taking the “UK Climate Innovation System” as the primary system, this may be informed by wider systems such as global climate innovation, climate change science and research, environmental planetary systems, political systems and so on; while within the “UK Climate Innovation System” this may include subsystems such as the Climate tech finance and investment and the Climate tech startup system.
Questions to explore:
Activity 3
Draw preliminary systems boundaries (1 of 2)
GETTING TO KNOW THE TOOL: HOW TO DELIVER
Goal: Agree on what elements should be included or excluded in the boundary, and why
A Systems Boundary is not a fixed or absolute line — it is a tool for sensemaking. Some elements may not fit neatly inside or outside the boundary. Instead of forcing clarity, allow for fuzzy edges, overlaps, or grey zones to surface. These are often the places where systems are most complex, and where the greatest insight or transformation can occur.
Questions to explore:
Considerations:
Activity 4
Draw preliminary systems boundaries (2 of 2)
GETTING TO KNOW THE TOOL: HOW TO DELIVER
Input the synthesised information from the discussion into a template on the Miro board:
We are focusing on creating a clear definition of the primary system that we will focus on, including clarity on what is intentionally included and excluded in the boundary. This is represented with two artifacts:
Considerations:
Activity 4
Guiding Star, near star, and framing question
GETTING TO KNOW THE TOOL: HOW TO DELIVER
Goal: Create a shared definition of the guiding star (future system), the near star (5-10 year goal), and the framing question
Here, we aim to create an inspiring and memorable narrative that offers a high-level vision of the ideal system — a guiding star that helps orient our efforts. The near star represents a more foreseeable, tangible version of this vision — practical outcomes we can move toward in the short to medium term.
Questions to explore:
After agreeing on these definitions, now collectively write out your framing question.
The framing question will guide the systems mapping exercise. It helps to structure the question as follows: What factors enable or inhibit the [primary system] to achieve [systems health - as defined in the guiding star]?
Activity 5
Test and challenge the boundary
GETTING TO KNOW THE TOOL: HOW TO DELIVER
Goal: Validate the first draft of the boundary identification with alternative perspectives
This activity involves the team putting on different metaphorical hats, to step into the shoes of others.
Questions to explore:
NB. As the stakeholder and systems mapping processes develop, the project team gains more understanding of the system, and therefore it may become clear that the Systems Boundary identification is missing key functions, or that something that has previously been excluded should be included. There is a possibility to refine and iterate on the Systems Boundary on a needs basis, for example at the beginning of the system mapping challenge space.
Activity 6
Recap and ensure clarity for all participants
GETTING TO KNOW THE TOOL: HOW TO DELIVER
Goal: Iterate key findings from the boundary exercise and get clarity for all participants
The final activity of the process of identifying a Systems Boundary is to ensure that the most important elements in focus within the systems boundary are clear to participants, including the nuances of relative importance of the wider topic represented by the positioning of the different elements.
Do a recapitulation of the discussion and decisions made during the exercise, and then explore the following questions.
Questions to explore:
After reaching a common understanding and agreement of the elements within and outside the boundary, make a note of them and include them in an ‘executive summary’ that reiterates these findings and that can be shared. We suggest including as well the key insights that provide the extra nuance of the rich conversations held during the identification process.
Activity 7
Optional closing activity: Mapping to the MLT
GETTING TO KNOW THE TOOL: HOW TO DELIVER
Broadly speaking, the primary system will sit in the current practice level of MLT, the wider systems in the long term trends level, and some of the subsystems, particularly innovation sectors, will sit in the niche level.
Spend some time adding key insights that came up during the workshop to the MLT framework, to help in your communication later.
FREQUENTLY ASKED
QUESTIONS (FAQs)
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQs
Q: Is the use of Systems Boundary Identification Tool from the position of what can be controlled by TCE or where TCE’s agency for change lies?
A: No, it is not. The Systems Boundary identification should not be limited to TCE’s position, as this may lead to a warped or limited understanding of the whole system developed during the Stakeholder Mapping and Systems Mapping processes. The Systems Boundary identification should offer a framework for which the project team sees the broader primary system of which they are part, ensuring that parts of the system they are not typically familiar with are still included.
Q: What’s the difference between the Systems Boundary identification tool and a scoping exercise?
A: Essentially, these can be seen as the same exercise, but scoping tends to have a less systemic context, whereas the Systems Boundary specifically asks: what is the scope of the primary system we are looking at, in the context of wider systems, for the purpose of systems transformation work?
Frequently Asked Questions (cont.)
FAQs
Q: How are biases addressed in the Systems Boundary identification? Are they inherently present?
A: The identification of the System Boundary is subjective and negotiated. While the Systems Boundary aims to be as objective as possible, we understand that boundaries, and what is in or outside of them, is a deliberate choice made by the project team and can be perceived differently by different stakeholders. Depending on the type of stakeholders in the room when defining the boundary, this can influence where the boundary is drawn and what is included or excluded. Activity 6 is designed to counter this bias by asking the project team to step into the shoes of others and to bring awareness to the potential biases present.
Q: How is the Systems Boundary identification tool different from Stakeholder Mapping?
A: The Systems Boundary identification tool is specifically designed to define the scope and focus of the primary system at the centre of the initiative, specifically looking at the definition of the primary system by exploring its functions, and the processes that make the system “work”. On the other hand, a Stakeholder Mapping exercise focuses on the people that are operating within the functions, exploring their positions, relationships and dynamics. The output from the systems boundary will feed into the stakeholder mapping.
THANK YOU