System vs Sub-System
I was first introduced to this concept when I transitioned from individual contributor to manager. I worked at LinkedIn at that time and had the chance to attend a management training. One of LinkedIn Exec's at that time kicked it off and shared the System vs Sub-System framework.
To explain it simply, he used an analogy with a phone (the system) and its components (the sub-systems).
Here it is:
You want to build the most competitive phone (system). To do so, your goal is to have the most competitive components (sub-systems): storage, camera, battery, speed, wifi etc...
However, if you design the most powerful camera, that will affect the storage capacity. And if you build a phone that has the best speed, you will damage the battery. So different sub-systems could clash. Their interdependencies are complex and not linear.
To take the best decision here, the phone manufacturer will assess the tradeoffs and prioritize what are the best settings to be competitive overall.
Do you see the parallel?
It goes the same way with a company and its departments. The company is the system and the departments are the sub-systems. For the best company interest, some tradeoffs have to be made: budget allocation, human resources, material resources, products features etc.
Sometimes you're part of the sub-system that takes advantage of the system strategy. And that's great, this is the best setup to perform. Other times, the department you're in has to take a hit for the sake of your company development. It can be unfair and frustrating, I have been there few times myself!
How to use this framework?
If you have a major change in your company and your team doesn't see the value of it, this framework is an effective way to communicate a holistic view.