Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
WorkshopJohannesburg
Date: June 2015
Conversing with ComplexityDeveloping systems thinking in practice
Martin Reynolds, PhDApplied Systems Thinking in Practice (ASTiP) GroupThe Open University, UK
Samuel NjengaSystems Thinking AfricaJohannesburg, South Africa
Whole-group work for
developing understanding:
plenary sessions & mini-
lectures
Personal journaling
for reflecting on STiP
framework in our own
practice
Small-group work for
developing practice:
engaging with
perspectives
Workshop (systems)
practitioners
Working with the STiP
framework
(a system for) Enhancing systems thinking in practice (STiP)Three threads of workshop activities
Workshop enhanced
systems thinking
practitioners
Introductions and own story• Round-robin introductions: (briefly…) Describing your
own practice: name, work position (if any), and your
dominant feature of practice at workplace (including,
possibly, domestic situations)…max 1 minute each (if
possible?)
• Programme for 3 days
Programme for 3 days
Day 1. Systems thinking in practice heuristic & understanding inter-relationships
Opening 3 core ideas of systems: inter-relationships, perspectives, boundaries
Idea 1 Understanding inter-relationships
(influence diagramming)
Day 2. Modelling perspectives
Idea 2 Engaging with multiple perspectives -1
(simple modelling)
Engaging with Multiple perspectives -2
(purposeful modelling)
Day 3. Reflective praxis and summary
Idea 3 Reflecting on boundary issues
(boundary critique)
Closure Pulling it together / summing up
Why systems thinking?
• Real world situations are complicated…many variables
• Real world situations are complex…many perspectives
• Real world situations are conflictual…
• Mechanistic (linear) thinking has
limitations
• Mechanistic thinking can be
dangerous and unrewarding
• Systemic crises are becoming
more evident
Systemic Failure?
Think of a situation where there has been both
• Systems failure (minor ‘problem’), and
• Systemic failure (recurring ‘mess’ or crisis)
1. Make a note on the situation and identify one or two
key causal factors or influences that may have
contributed to the failure
2. Describe the failure to a workshop colleague
Systems failure: invites ‘thinking about systems’
e.g. an organisation or information technology etc.
= failure in systematically fulfilling ascribedpurposes
Which is part of:
Systemic failure: invites ‘systems thinking’
i.e. cognitive, social and political processes for learning, planning, and acting etc.
= failure in systemically allowing for purposefuldevelopment
Illustration from Ison, R. (2010). Systems Practice: how to act in a climate-change world. London. Springer.
Two dimensions of failure
System thinking as conversation between systemic and systematic
Systems thinking practitioner = yin-yang
Yin and yang can be thought of as complementary (rather than opposing) forces
that interact to form a dynamic system in which the whole is greater than the
assembled parts. (wikipaedia)
Systems thinking is both systemic (being holistic) and systematic (…remaining grounded)
Reductionism: not framing
situations (inter-relationships)
appropriately
"Only Connect ..... " E. M. Forster
Systemic failure 1
Dogmatism: not appreciating other
framings (perspectives)
“A systems approach begins when first you see the world through the eyes of another” C.W. Churchman
Systemic failure 2
Managerialism: not reflecting on
limitations of systems in use
(boundaries)
"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" Abraham Maslow
Systemic failure 3
Systems thinking practitioner = yin-yang
Yin and yang can be thought of as
complementary (rather than opposing)
forces that interact to form a dynamic
system in which the whole is greater
than the assembled parts. (wikipaedia)
Systems thinking is both systemic (being
holistic) and systematic (…remaining grounded)
Systems Thinking - 1
….going up a level of abstraction
Systems Thinking - 2
….‘viewing’ from multiple perspectives
“The core aspects of systems
thinking are
1. (gaining a bigger picture (going
up a level of abstraction) and
2. appreciating other people’s
perspectives”
Jake Chapman (2004)
“A systems approach begins when first you see the world through the eyes of another”
C. West Churchman(1968)
1. (inter-relationships) gaining a bigger picture
2. (perspectives) appreciating other viewpoints
+…
3. (boundaries) reflecting on limitations of ‘big
pictures’ and ‘perspectives’
Systems thinking -3
…boundary critique
Activity
Think back on the situation of
Systemic failure (or crisis)
Make brief bullet notes on the failure regarding
1. Disconnect amongst inter-relationships (structural dilemmas e.g. silo effects)
2. Difference in viewpoint/ perspective (ethical dilemmas e.g., talking at cross purposes)
3. Contrasting relations of power and boundaries (political dilemmas e.g., institutionalised thinking and/or practices)
Systemic failure example 1: the economy
1. Understanding interrelationships and interdependencies
? Investment and retail banking (capital crisis)
? Present and future generations (debt crisis)
? Economic and political (euro crisis)
2. Engaging with multiple perspectives
? Bankers (single line responsibility: economic)
? Media (double line responsibility: economic/social)
? Politicians (triple line responsibility: regulation)
3. Reflecting on boundaries
? Doing the wrong things righter (euro…‘try harder’)
? Models of economy (growth or prosperity)
? Capitalism (other configurations of labour, capital, value)
e.g. Banking system
Systemic failure example 2: Arab spring and IS
1. Understanding interrelationships and interdependencies
? ?
2. Engaging with multiple perspectives
? ?
3. Reflecting on boundaries
? ?
e.g. system of national rebellion
Systemic failure example 2: Arab spring and IS
1. Understanding interrelationships and interdependencies
? Intra-national groupings and disputes
? National and international support
? Collective and bilateral support
? Present and future planning
2. Engaging with multiple perspectives
? Retributive and restorative justice: law and order
? National security: water, energy, food
? International security: energy and terrorism (UN and NATO)
? Religious beliefs and fundamentalisms (spiritual leaders)
? Marginalised groups (women and minorities)
3. Reflecting on boundaries
? Liberal interventionism
? Freedom fighting and terrorism
? Models of democracy and/or theocracy
e.g. system of national rebellion
Systemic failure example 3: English riots
1. Understanding interrelationships and interdependencies
? Police and communities
? Media and education and communities
? Public expenditure cuts and youth unemployment
? surveillance and social networking technologies
2. Engaging with multiple perspectives
? Rioters motives (boredom, fun, criminal intent…)
? Parents in urban communities
? Police and local businesses
? Political representations (MPs etc.)
3. Reflecting on boundaries
? ‘big society’
? Criminal justice system guidelines
? Custodial sentencing and prison systems
? Law and order enforcement (kettling…)
? Retributive justice: evictions, benefits,
e.g. System of law and order
3 CORE FEATURES OF STIP
From systemic failure to systems thinking in practice (STiP)
1. Complex situations or
Contexts of change
and uncertainty2. People
or stakeholders
or practitioners
including clients,
decision makers,
managers, consultants,
workers etc…
3. Systems and other
conceptual Tools
(i) Framing interrelationships
and interdependencies
(ii) Framing engagement
with multiple perspectives
Systems thinking in practice (STiP) heuristic: 3 entities and 3 systems activities
iii) Reflecting & appreciating limits
on, and opportunities for,
developing boundaries (framings) of
interrelationships and perspectives
Systems idea as a tooltwo ways of using systems
1. Thinking about systems
Natural systems: living species, individual organisms (including people), planet Earth, solar system, ecosystems, etc
Mechanical (purposive) systems: cars, boilers, computers, irrigation, clocks etc.
2. Systems thinking (purposeful – human activity systems)
Social systems: financial, health, education, legal, etc.
Intervention (‘learning’) systems: projects, programmes, policies etc.
Systems idea as a tooltwo ways of using systems
1. Thinking about (situations of reality) as systems
Natural systems: living species, individual organisms (including people), planet Earth, solar system, ecosystems, etc
Mechanical (purposive) systems: cars, boilers, computers, irrigation, clocks etc.
2. Systems thinking (purposeful – human activity systems)
Social systems: financial, health, education, legal, etc.
Intervention (‘learning’) systems: projects, programmes, policies etc.
Two risks in using the systems tool
Mistaking the ‘system’ for the ‘situation’ … the ‘map’ for the ‘territory’…e.g., ‘the’ economy as an object (ontological device) rather than an idea (epistemological ‘learning’ device)
Mistaking purposeful systems as (mechanistic) purposive systems…eg., an economy as a well-oiled machine with fixed purposes rather than a human designed system open to revised purposes (‘there is no alternative’!)
Systems approaches: ‘hard systems’ ontologies and ‘soft system’ epistemologies
Systems Thinking in PracticeUsing systems idea as an epistemological device towards
Postgraduate qualifications from the Open University
2 Core modules part-time study - each
with 6 months:
Thinking strategically: systems
tools for managing change TU811 – 30 credits
Managing systemic change:
inquiry, action and interaction TU812 – 30 credits
3 key traditions in systems thinking in practice
Understanding inter-relationships (‘hard’ systems tradition)
System dynamics (SD) Jay W. Forrester
Viable systems model (VSM) Stafford Beer
Engaging with perspectives (‘soft’ systems tradition)
Strategic options development and analysis (SODA &
cognitive mapping) Colin Eden
Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) Peter Checkland
Reflecting on boundaries (‘critical’ systems tradition)
Critical systems heuristics (CSH) Werner Ulrich.
Thinking strategically: systems tools for managing change TU811 – 30 credits
Summary: using the systems idea3 dimensions of systems thinking in practice
1. Understanding inter-relationships and interdependencies
"Only Connect ..... " E. M. Forster
‘universe’ - developing the ‘bigger picture’: going up a level of abstraction
2. Engaging with multiple perspectives
“A systems approach begins when first you see the world through the eyes of another” C.W. Churchman
‘multiverse’ or ‘pluriverse’ - developing perspectives: appreciating different viewpoints
3. Reflecting on boundaries
“No problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it. We have to learn to see the world anew.” Albert Einstein
‘re-verse’ - developing critical space: revising big pictures and revising viewpoints
Systems
Thinking
In
Practice
1. Complex situations or
Contexts of change
and uncertainty2. People
or stakeholders
or practitioners
including clients,
decision makers,
managers, consultants,
workers etc…
3. Systems and other
conceptual Tools
(i) Framing interrelationships
and interdependencies
(ii) Framing engagement
with multiple perspectives
Systems thinking in practice (STiP) heuristic: 3 entities and 3 systems activities coming from 3 systems thinking traditions
iii) Reflecting & appreciating limits
on, and opportunities for,
developing boundaries (framings) of
interrelationships and perspectives
PERSONAL JOURNALING
Systems thinking in practice as ‘conversation’
• Personal reflections (diary entries and updates)
• Paired conversation reflections
How might the STiP framework be relevant to your existing practices?
Contexts matter: Interrelationships
holistic thinking – ‘universe’ (getting real – the ‘big picture’)
Dynamics (feedback)… system dynamics, viable systems model etc.
People matter: Multiple perspectives
interpretivist thinking - ‘multiverse’ (getting it right)
+ ethics (norms and values)…cognitive mapping, soft systems etc.
Ideas matter: Boundaries
critical thinking - (getting a grip)
+ politics (relations of power)… multimethodology, critical systems
thinking
Three core systems ideas
conceptual
Tools
e.g., systems
Either … Despair…at complexity
of socio-economic- ecological
Issues
i.e. Leave it alone …
Either…Apathy…with distancing
from decision making
i.e. Leave it with ‘the
experts’…
Either…Cynicism…directed at political and
socio-economic systems
i.e. Leave it to those
in power…
3. Managerialism1. Reductionism 2. Dogmatism
3 traps associated with systemic failure
Or
practice… Or
practice…
Or
practice…
Covering 3 core ideas of systems thinking
Day 1. Systems thinking in practice heuristic
3 core ideas of systems: inter-relationships, perspectives, boundaries
Jenga
Case studies: working for water programme (WWP) and 2 working case studies
Core idea 1 Understanding inter-relationships
(influence diagramming)
Day 2. Modelling perspectives
Core idea 2.1 Engaging with multiple perspectives -1
(simple modelling– what/how/why )
Core idea 2.2 Engaging with Multiple perspectives -2
(purposeful modelling and TWO CAGES)
Day 3. Reflective praxis
Core idea 3 Reflecting on boundary issues (boundary critique)
Pulling it together / summing up
JENGA
Exploring inter-relationships, perspectives and boundaries
Group work: gaming and systems practice (competition and/or collaboration)
CASE STUDIES
Exploring inter-relationships, perspectives and boundaries
• Whole-group case study: Working for water programme
• (WWP) Group-work case studies (x2)
Case study: a complex interventionWorking for water programme (WWP)
The ‘what’? (Issues)
(technical issue…reduce the population of non-native plants in South Africa)
Context: 1995 post-apartheid South Africa 14 million citizens without adequate water supplies
Competing demands for water (domestic, agric., industrial, ecosystems)
Unemployment 37%
50% classified as poor
Invasive alien plants (IAPs) obstructs water flow - reduce availability of water (key resource)
reduces biodiversity
increase soil erosion risks of wildfires and flooding
The ‘how’? (Processes)
Multi-agency effort 240 projects clearing 450000 hectares of invasive plants
Hiring of citizens to physically remove plants (42000 new jobs)
Interdisciplinary approach to ‘problem’
Integrated programme; health, education, childcare, community development
Local participation in decision-making
Legislation (1998) water as public resource
Your case studyActivity (group work)
What are the key issues?
How is the situation currently being resolved?
Core idea 1: inter-relationships
Systemic
start with a focus on ‘the whole’ and interconnections.
Getting the big picture
RATHER THAN…
Systematic
focus on the parts, step-by-step.
This should come
later
= +
Inter-relationshipsWWP and brainstorming ideas
Rich pictures relationships, connections, ideas, influences, cause and effect
unstructured
Inter-relationshipsWWP and connections
Spray diagrams relationships and connections more organised (mind maps)
Inter-relationshipsWWP and cause and effect
Multiple cause diagrams relationships and connections and cause and effect more
structured
Inter-relationshipsWWP and layers of decision making
Cognitive maps relationships and connections more hierarchically structured
Inter-relationshipsWWP and bounded relationships
Systems maps relationships and connections more bounded
Inter-relationshipsWWP and influences -1
Influence diagrams relationships and connections bounded exploration (from a systems
map)
Inter-relationshipsWWP and influences -2
Influence diagrams relationships and connections less bounded exploration (from fresh
start)
Exploring inter-relationshipsActivity: WWP and doing an influence map (animated tutorial)
Influence diagrams relationships and connections unbounded exploration
Influence diagramming and animated tutorial (start with button 7 to begin the second influence mapping
tutorial
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/computing-and-ict/systems-
computer/diagramming-development-2-exploring-interrelationships/content-section-3.1
Diagramming for development – 2 Exploring relationships (WWP– influence, multiple–cause, cognitive
mapping
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/computing-and-ict/systems-
computer/diagramming-development-2-exploring-interrelationships/content-section-0
Diagramming for development – 1 Bounding realities (WWP – rich pictures, spray diagrams, system
maps
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/computing-and-ict/systems-
computer/diagramming-development-1-bounding-realities/content-section-0
You may like to make notes during the tutorial
Inter-relationshipsActivity Group-work: Doing your own influence map
(i) Collectively think of at least 9 key influences associated with your
case study and record them separately on post-it notes
(ii) Collate factors of influence on your case study situation by grouping
together similar influences
(iii) Join up the influences with arrows on flip chart sheet
(iv) Assign different weights of influence (thickness in arrows)
(v) Note any likely points of intervention on your map
(vi) Note any insights gained in the process
(vii) Explain your influence diagram to your workshop colleague(s)
Inter-relationshipsActivity Plenary and personal journaling
Plenary
1. (briefly) Explain your influence diagram to workshop colleagues
2. Suggest any insights, problems and challenges associated with doing
the exercise
Personal journaling
Record insights and challenges gained from the exercise in your journal
From messes to modellingfrom understanding inter-relationships to engaging with perspectives
Video 1 (John Marshall Roberts - history of human thinking – 6 mins)
Video 2 (Glenda Eoyang – getting unstuck adaptive action – 15 mins)
Video 2: Get unstuck (15 mins)
• http://www.adaptiveaction.org/blog/201405/Get-Unstuck-Dr-Glenda-Eoyang-presents-Adpative-Action-at-TEDx
Get Unstuck! Dr. Glenda Eoyang presents Adapative Action at TEDx
by Glenda Eoyang on May 5, 2014
Glenda H. Eoyang is founding executive director of the Human Systems Dynamics (HSD) Institute. Since 1986 she has pioneered applications of chaos and complexity to improve people's adaptive capacity. She leads a network of 450 scholar practitioners around the world who use her models and methods to engage with issues such as conflict, school transformation, public policy advocacy, healthcare delivery, and innovation
Core idea 2.1 Capturing multiple perspectives through simple conceptual modelling
Engaging with multiple perspectivesActivity Plenary
Video 2 – get unstuck
From…
• what? so what? now what?....or….. What? why? how? In complex adaptive systems
to….
• What? How? Why? (PQR) in purposeful systems design
Capturing multiple realities? Perspectives as conceptual modelling
Situation of
interest
Site of interest (mess,
swamp, wicked
problem, noise..)
Understanding complex
interrelationships
through, for example,
diagramming
(systems)
Practitioners
‘Getting real’ with non-
linearity through
Systems diagramming
‘Getting real’ with non-
linearity through
Systems diagramming
Systems thinking = simplifying complexity
P (what?) Q (how?) R (why?)
A simple systems model
A system to do P (the ‘what’)
by means of Q (the ‘how’)
in order to R (the ‘why’)
PQR neatly provides a shorthand way of focusing perspective on a complex situation.
PQR (i) makes simple the complex (ii) from a particular perspective
“… making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity” Charles Mingus
Simple modellingSimple systems: what? how? why? (PQR)…
What? How? Why?
a simple example: a system for planting tulip bulbs what should the system do?
create a hole in the garden
how should the system do it?
using a spade
using a hand trowel
bringing in a digger
using explosives
why is the system useful or important? to plant a tulip bulb
The ‘why’ is the wider context that gives the ‘what’ a meaning. It allows for coherence between how something is done and why it is being done.
Thus creating a hole in the garden to plant a tulip bulb would most likely invite the use of a hand trowel rather than explosives
Always do the sequencing What? Why? How? to achieve the desired system
What? How? Why?
Working for Water Programme (WWP)
what should the system (WWP) do?
why is WWP useful or important?
how should WWP do it?
But various possible perspectives on the programme (‘systems’) might be modelled depending, for
example on:
1 differences in focus on interests: economic development, social justice, ecological protection......
2 differences in focus on stakeholder groups: intended beneficiaries, decision makers,
experts/consultants...
A system to do P by means of Q in order to R
for example WWP might be described as:
a system to reduce invasive plants by means of multiple projects in order to support development in South Africa
What? How? Why? Modelling WWP perspectives: x 3 different interests
what should the system (WWP) do?
how should WWP do it?
why is WWP useful or important?
Model 2 perspective: Social justice
What Promote equitable access to clean water
How Local participation and empowerment in programme/project management
Why Reassert disenfranchised rights of black South Africans
Model 3 perspective: Ecological protection
What Reduce population of invasive species in water catchment areas
How Use as effective a means as possible including mechanised tools
Why Preserve biodiversity of vulnerable ecosystems
Model 1 perspective: Economic development
What Preserve water as a key resource for economic development
How Mobilise unemployed communities for manual clearing of water catchments
Why Sustainable national water security accompanying food and energy security
What? How? Why? Modelling WWP perspectives: x3 different stakeholder groups
what should the system (WWP) do?
how should WWP do it?
why is WWP useful or important?
Model 5 perspective: Decision makers (with an emphasis on efficient management)
What Mobilise necessary resources including international finance
How Use as efficient a means as possible including low-cost labour
Why Secure control over ecological preservation and ecological services
Model 6 perspective: Experts (with an emphasis on assured management)
What Ensure appropriate expertise to support WWP
How Use a wide range of different expert groups with appropriate know-how
Why To provide assurances and lessen uncertainty regarding programme success
Model 4 perspective: Intended beneficiaries (with an emphasis on effective
management)
What Reduce rural unemployment and improve rural livelihoods
How Invest effectively in South African black rural communities
Why For poverty alleviation and social justice
Modelling perspectivesActivity: group-work Doing What? How? Why? Modelling
Model your case study ‘a systems to do P (what?) by means of Q (how?) in order to R (why?)’
from 2 perspectives
You may also like to note any insights gained in the process in your personal journal
Model 2 perspective: Decision makers (with an emphasis on efficient management)
What ?
Why ?
How ?
Model 1 perspective: Intended beneficiaries (with an emphasis on effective
management)
What ?
Why ?
How ?
What? How? Why? (PQR): evaluating systems
criteria for evaluation
Systems thinking
What is the
entity?
P
How does it
function?
Q
Why does it
function?
R
P: A system to (do what?) ………………………………………
efficacy
Q: By means of (how?) ………………………………………
efficiency
R: In order to (why?) ………………………………………
effectiveness
Criteria for evaluation 3 ‘e’s
Efficacy(does it work?)
Efficiency(does it work well?)
Effectiveness(does it change things
for the better?)
Bean bagsActivity: plenary whole-group ‘shake-up’ work
Engaging with multiple perspectives
Shaking up the teams
TWO CAGE (from beneficiary and decision maker to ‘expert’ perspective)
TWO CAGES (sub-system activities)
Core idea 2.2 Capturing multiple perspectives through purposeful modelling
Moving from multiple perspectives (e.g. intended beneficiaries or decision
makers) to a consolidated (‘expert’) perspective of an intervention to
improve the situation
Purposeful modellinghuman systems design: TWO CAGES
What? How? Why? (PQR)=
quick check on multiple perspectives
perspectives driven by ‘purpose’ – what? why?
good for avoiding ‘talking at cross purposes’
reference system or model for measuring efficacy, efficiency and effectiveness
TWO CAGES =
PQR = shorthand for more elaborate conceptual modelling associated with TWO CAGES pneumonic (Transformation, Worldview, Owners, Clients, Actors, Guardians, Environment and Sub-system activities) where:
P (what?) = T and S
Q (how?) = C, A, and O
R (why?) = W, G and E
Purposeful modellingfrom what? how? why? (PQR)… to TWO CAGES
Transformation from inputs into outputs
Taking account of different perspectives on the situation
for example
1. Perspective of intended beneficiaries (PQR) – what/how/why)
2. Perspective of decision makers (PQR – what/how/why)
i.e. consolidating contrasting perspectives with….
3. Perspective of an ‘expert’ …losely defined!
Ideal modelling and purposeful interventionPurpose: ideal change in the situation
what ought to be Transformation (purpose)?...TWO
CAGES
who ought to be Customers or this system’s beneficiaries?...
who ought to be Actors fulfilling purpose?...
What ought to be Worldview giving meaning/ value judgement?...
Who ought to be Owner causing this system not to exist?...
What/ who ought to be in Environment influencing this system?...
TWO CAGES modelling normative modelling (ideal planning)
who ought to be Guardians – keeping a watching brief if system goes wrong…
What ought to be in the Sub-systems of this system?...
TWO CAGE normative modelling of WWP(not including Sub-systems)
Transformation: (purpose) Proliferation of alien invasive species (AIPs) to removed AIPs
Worldview: (rationale/ reason) AIPs cause a reduction in water supply which affects national water
security which in turn effects local and national economies and hinders wider social
development. Appropriate management of water can provide leverage over wider socio-
economic aims
Owners: (key decision makers in control of resources) Government of South Africa, funding
benefactors
Customers: (intended beneficiaries) Rural poor in South Africa
Actors: (‘experts’ …people with know-how) Government officials from central government
Departments (Water Affairs, Agriculture, and Environment and Tourism) and from 9 state
provinces, programme and project managers, scientists from range of disciplines, local
contractors and community representatives
Guardians: (representatives of marginalised ‘voices’) Local residents, project and programme leaders,
national and local government bureaucrats, national and international non-government
organisations (NGOs)
Environmental
constraints:
(unintended and unforeseen events outside of control of ‘owners’) Political will, national
economy, international funding support, biophysical events
Modelling - 2Activity (group-work) Doing TWO CAGE Modelling
Model your case study as an ideal system bringing together the previous PQR
perspectives of intended beneficiaries and decision makers
In the TWO CAGE model some stakeholder perspectives were modelled through what/how/why basic modelling in previous PQR activity. In an ideal situation, the more advanced TWO CAGE model would be generated interactively with the relevant stakeholders associated with the WWP.
Transformation:
Worldview:
Owners:
Customers:
Actors:
Guardians:
Environmental
constraints:
Modelling - 2Activity (personal journalling) Doing TWO CAGE Modelling
Note any insights gained in the process
Transformation:
Worldview:
Owners:
Customers:
Actors:
Guardians:
Environmental
constraints:
Keep in mind that what you are modelling is just one perspective. Be aware
that this model needs to ‘speak’ to other perspectives – other models that
might be constructed on similar TWO CAGE
TWO CAGES (sub-system activities)
The subsystem activities (S) associated with a purposeful system should
derive from attention to
what’s at stake with respect to the immediate purpose (T) in
conjunction with the wider purpose (W),
who the relevant stakeholders are (O, C, A, G) and in
the wider stakeholding context in which the model is to be enacted
(E).
Try and keep the number of activities to around 7 (plus or minus 2), and
not more than 9.
TWO CAGES (sub-system activities)Working for Water Programme (WWP)
Subsystems
activities:
(i) find out extent of AIP impact on regional provinces including impact on rural livelihoods
(ii) identify key participants from different sectors of community and key tasks or roles, including
possible victims of the proposed programme
(iii) explore ways of using extracted AIPs to promote other livelihood development initiatives (wood
fuel, furniture, toy manufacturing..)
(iv) ensure long-term funding commitments
(v) identify, or enable set up of, local community contractors and community trusts to negotiate
appropriate payments for ecosystem services (PES)
(vi) provide employees with necessary infrastructure support (training, healthcare, education, housing,
etc.)
(vii) develop legislative capacity to ensure responsibilities and obligations amongst key stakeholders
including landowners
(viii) establish a way of effectively coordinating progress with other related national, regional and local
efforts
(ix) monitor the programme using appropriate criteria for ongoing evaluation of ecological,
agricultural, institutional development, economic development and socio-economic effects,
particularly as distributed amongst different population groups
Modelling - 2Activity (group-work): Doing Sub-systems
List the key activities - 7 (plus or minus 2) - and not more than 9 . For our purposes, the
activities can be listed in a systematic manner as a series of stages. For managing and
evaluating programmes and projects, it is good practice to think of these stages in terms
of an iterative learning cycle – finding out, planning, acting and evaluating.
Activity 1
Activity 2
Activity 3
Activity 4
Activity 5
Max. 9!
(ii) identify key
participants from different
sectors of community and
key tasks or roles,
including possible victims
of the programme
(i) find out extent of AIP impact
on regional provinces including
impact on rural livelihoods
(iii) explore ways of using
extracted AIPs to promote
other livelihood
development initiatives
(wood fuel, furniture, toy
manufacturing..)
(viii) establish a way of
effectively coordinating
progress with other related
national, regional and local
efforts
(vii) develop legislative capacity
to ensure responsibilities and
obligations amongst key
stakeholders including
landowners
(v) identify, or enable set up of, local
community contractors and community trusts
to negotiate appropriate payments for
ecosystem services (PES)
(ix) monitor the programme using
appropriate criteria for ongoing
evaluation of ecological, agricultural,
institutional development, economic
development and socio-economic
effects, particularly as distributed
amongst different population groups
(vi) provide employees
with necessary
infrastructure support
(training, healthcare,
education, housing, etc.)
(iv) ensure long-
term funding
commitments
Activity model of S (sub-system activities)Working for Water Programme (WWP)
Modelling – 2 Activity modellingActivity (Group-work)
Use post-it notes for each activity and construct a purposeful
systems activity model from the activities listed.
Activity 1
Activity 2
Activity 3
Activity 4
Activity 5
Max. 10!
Activity 5
Activity 4
Activity 6
Activity 3
Activity 2
Activity 1
Outcomes-based modelling
Activity 1
Activity 2
Activity 3
Activity 4
Activity 5
Max. 9 excluding monitoring & evaluation
Activity 5
Activity 4
Activity 6
Activity 3
Activity 2
Activity 1
Define criteria for monitoring and
evaluating outcomes: efficacy,
effeciency, effectiveness, equity
(measures of success)Monitor and
evaluate
GALLERY WALK
Make notes with post-it notes on how your activity model might be improved through conversation with others about the implementation of the activity model designed
Look at other groups’ activity models and judge the challenges and opportunities of their real world implementation
CONVERSING WITH REALITY:
VALUE JUDGEMENTS VS FACTUAL JUDGEMENTS
Core idea 3 Reflecting on boundary judgements
(conversing with complexity)
German poet
(1749-1832)
Making judgements
1. Complex situations or
Contexts of change
and uncertainty
(sites of intervention –
the ‘territory’)
2. People
or stakeholders
or practitioners
(doing the intevention)
3. Systems and other
conceptual Tools
Purposeful Models or
human activity systems
(plans) of intervention (the
‘map’)
(i) Factual judgements Understanding
interrelationships
and interdependencies
(ii) Value judgements… Engaging with multiple
perspectives
Conversing with reality:value judgements vs factual judgements
Systemic design of interventions including
1. plans
2. Projects
3. Programmes
3. Policies
4. Evaluations of interventions
Reflective practice: Conversing with Complexity
Judgements of ‘fact’ in the
‘universe’ of an interdependent
and inter-related world of
complicatedness, complexity, and
conflict
1st order ‘conversation’ between
practitioners and reality
Conversation 1
Mental models: thinking
about systems
Thinking about
inter-relationships
Judgements of ‘fact’
in the ‘universe’ of
an interdependent
and inter-related
world of realpolitik
Value
judgements in
‘multiverse’
world of
multiple
stakeholders
with multiple
perspectives
1st order ‘conversation’
between practitioners
and reality
2nd order conversation
amongst practitioners
about the ‘reality’
Conversations 1 and 2
Mental models:
‘thinking about systems’
Purposeful models:
‘systems thinking’
2. Engaging with
perspectives
1. Thinking about
inter-relationships
Reflective practice: 2 Conversing with others about complexity
Making factual and value judgementsdiagramming and modelling?
Two insights from a systems
perspective
1. All entities in a situation are
interrelated: (unbounded?)
judgements of ‘fact’… holistic
(universe) thinking
2. there are multiple perspectives
on these interrelationships:
(unbounded?) value judgements
pluralistic (multiverse) thinking:
Two core aspects of systems thinking
1. Gaining a bigger picture (going up a
level of abstraction)
2. Appreciating other people’s
perspectives
Holistic diagramming?
Pluralistic modelling?
critical systems thinkingboundary critique
Two insights from a systems perspective:
1. (Bounded) Judgements of ‘fact’ …Holistic (universe) thinking: all entities in a situation are interrelated
but not all entities can be included.
2. (Bounded )Value judgements …Pluralistic (multiverse) thinking::there are multiple perspectives on these
interrelationships
but not all perspectives can be equally ‘privileged’
An additional third insight can be derived from critical systems tradition:
3. Boundary judgements …Critical systems thinking: boundaries inevitably need to be made in the art of being holistic and being pluralistic, but therefore questioned
We are simply unable to be completely ‘holistic’ and/or ‘pluralistic/multiverse’
Frameworks are always imperfect
Don’t get trapped by them
Conceptual modelling: ‘Real world’ vs ‘Systems world’Different types of judgements
messes/ wicked problems / conflicts etc.
Judgements of fact
Systems thinking
about real world: e.g.
activity models
Boundary judgements
Value judgements
1. Complex situations or
Contexts of change
and uncertainty
2. People
or stakeholders
or practitioners
including evaluators,
users, clients, decision
makers, etc…
3. Systems and other
conceptual Tools
(iii) Reflecting & appreciating
limits on boundaries of
interrelationships and
perspectives
(i) Framing interrelationships and
interdependencies
(ii) Framing engagement with
multiple perspectives
Making boundary judgements:bounding entities and activities
Systems thinking as
1. Holistic framing – e.g., influence diagramming… etc
(getting the big picture)
and
2. Pluralistic framing –modelling multiple perspectives e.g.
TWO CAGES … etc
(participation and social learning)
1. Partial
realities
in complex situations
of evaluand
2. Partial
perspectives
amongst many stakeholders
including evaluators
3. Selective
boundaries
of evaluation
Boundary critiquesystemic triangulation of 3 entities
Reflective praxis and the ‘eternal triangle’
Werner Ulrich’s boundary critique: The eternal triangle presents a rich systemic dimension of continual interplay. It
reminds us not to be complacent with an understanding of the situation, but to be alert to changing circumstances regarding
the situation (the ‘facts’) and our own internal changes for evaluating the situation (our ‘values’). In turn, such judgements
inform and are informed by change in our framing devices (our boundary judgements) which can effect change in the
situation.
Boundary critique
dealing with partiality (Ulrich 2003 and Reynolds, 2008)
(adapted from Ulrich 2003 and Reynolds, 2008)
“No problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it.
We have to learn to see the world anew” Albert Einstein
Three mind traps
• Traps regarding our understanding of situations
(confusing maps for territory)
• Traps regarding our practice with others in attempting to improve
situations
(‘best’ practice, business as usual, blueprint modelling)
• Traps in rigidly keeping with our maps, models, systems, frameworks,
approaches
(not allowing conceptual space for developing and even junking systems)
Boundaries and traps of thinking
Reflections on diagramming and modelling with WWP case study:
1. Factual judgements: issues not represented Influence diagramming
• Competing NGOs across WWP projects
• Bureaucratic capacity in administration of payments
2. Value judgements: viewpoints not expressed in TWO CAGES modelling
• Communities with long-standing grieviences of being displaced
• local authorities
3. Boundary judgements: use of diagramming and modelling as tools for evaluating WWP
• Influence diagramming may not be enough for evaluating precise causal relationships
between commercial interests and alien invasive species (AIS)
• TWO CAGES may be too western-centric for use by indigenous populations in Africa
Boundary critique in WWPpartiality in evaluating WWP
Reflect on your use of diagramming and modelling tools in your case study:
1. (Influence diagramming) What entities may have been omitted or not made prominent?
2. (TWO CAGES modelling) Whose perspectives were not given expression or privilege?
3. How might you improve the diagramming and modelling to make them more inclusive and
less partial?
Discuss the possibilities and limitations of better framing
Boundaries of your case study intervention
The politics of systems intervention
Interrelationships
From technical concerns over mapping the territory…(power over)
To learning by investigating malign and benign relationships (cybernetics and complex adaptive systems)
Multiple perspectives
From pluralistic concerns with including multiple disciplines, paradigms and methods… (power with)
To learning by doing, engaging and adapting with contrasting expertises and experiences (problem structuring methods and social learning)
Boundary judgements
From internal concerns towards developing appropriate (meta-) methodologies… (power to)
To learning by reflecting on partiality of models used and errors encountered through using them (pragmatism, triple loop learning, and critical systems thinking)
Systems learning and systems entrenchment(adapted from Reynolds, 2008, p.386; Reynolds & Howell, 2010)
(i) Making judgements
of ‘fact’ about an
interdependent world
(ii) Making value
judgements amongst
multiple stakeholders
People matter!
Interpretive frameworks
Being practical
Engaging with multiple
perspectives involved with
and affected by intervention
Systems matter!
Systems issues & boundary management
Being creative
Justifying boundaries circumscribing intervention given
limitations of (i) capturing complex realities and (ii) being
without bias
Contexts matter!
Complexity theory
Being adaptable
Appreciating complex
realities associated with
intervention
(iii) Making boundary
judgements in systems thinking
in practice Or
Systems
entrenchment
(status quo)
Emergent
Systems
development
Related examples of systemic triangulation and systems entrenchment:
The ‘iron triangle’ (Ralph Pulitzer, 1919)
“If the Peace Conference is allowed to remain between governments instead of between peoples it is apt to degenerate…”
Pulitzer died in 1939 just prior to the outbreak of World War 2.
• Military industrial complex and the Affluent Society (J.K. Galbraith)
• Development industrial complex and the Anti-Politics Machine (James Ferguson)
• Political economy of rural development (Henry Bernstein)
• Political economy of famine and ‘the idea of justice’ (Amartya Sen)
• Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (Robert Pirsig)
• Education system and American health care provision (Ivan Illich)
• Narmada valley dams project and Indian anti-corruption movement (Arundhati Roy)
• Scientific Revolutions and paradigms (Thomas Kuhn)
Some reflective practitioners
(political) viewpoints in systems learning
Geoffrey Vickers (1894-1982) on appreciative systems: “…[It] seems to me to carry with those linked connotations of interest, discriminationand valuation which we bring to the exercise of judgement and which tacitly determine what we shall notice [judgements of fact], how we shall discriminate situations from the general confusion of ongoing events [boundary judgements] and how we shall regard them [value judgements]” (Vickers 1987 p.98-99 My italics).
Charles Peirce (1839-1914) nineteenth century semiotics and theory of representation: objects being represented – judgements of ‘fact’, those who make representation – value judgements, and actual representations – boundary judgements)
John Dewey (1859-1952) To overcome the harmfulness of an acquisitional society –judgements of fact – a utopian education system requires loving relationships (value judgements) and a developing sense of social justice (boundary judgements)
Some more reflective practitioners
(political) viewpoints in systems learning
C. West Churchman (1913-2004): ‘But then [a systems practitioner], when he becomes very serious about his own models in which “all” of the objectives are represented and a “proper” compromise is created is also deceived. In the straight-faced seriousness of his approach, he forgets many things: basic human values (value judgements), and his own inability really to understand all aspects of the system (judgements of ‘fact’) , and especially its politics.’ (boundary judgements) (Churchman, 1979, Conclusion)
Peter Checkland on soft systems: LUMAS model (Learning for a User by a Methodology-informed Approach to a problem Situation) distinguishing between ‘methodology as words on paper’ –boundary judgements –, the ‘user of methodology’ – value judgements – , and ‘the situation addressed’ – judgements of ‘fact’(Checkland, 2000 p.37).
Jurgen Habermas’ three worlds (the natural world - judgements of ‘fact’, our social world – value judgements, and my internal world – boundary judgements).
Critical systems heuristics (CSH)A more in-depth use of boundary critique involving inter-relationships, perspectives and boundaries
CSH Template
on perspectives
Stakeholder
(social role)
Stake
(role concern)
Stakeholding issue
(key problem)
Sources of
motivation
1 Beneficiary 2 Purpose 3 Measure of improvement
‘ought’
‘is’ ? ? ?
critique ‘is’ against
‘ought’
? ? ?
Sources of
control
4 Decision-maker 5 Resources 6 Decision environment
‘ought’
‘is’ ? ? ?
critique ‘is’ against
‘ought’
? ? ?
Sources of
knowledge
7 Expert 8 Expertise 9 Guarantor/ assurance
‘ought’
‘is’ ? ? ?
critique ‘is’ against
‘ought’
? ? ?
Sources of
legitimacy
10 Witness 11 Emancipation 12 Worldview
‘ought’
‘is’ ? ? ?
critique ‘is’ against
‘ought’
? ? ?
Pulling it togetherUsing systems thinking in practice
Anxiety in organisations
•In the midst of change there is often the perception of a threat and the
subsequent response of anxiety often leading to stuckness.
•The conversational processes of such groups are "characterized by
habitual, highly repetitive patterns" in which the interactions "are
lifeless, depressing and compulsive" thus losing "their potential for
transformation“. (Stacey, 2003, p. 79).
•Acute anxiety is fed by fear of what is; chronic anxiety is fed by fear of
what might be"
Systems Thinking and the self
Anxiety can be triggered… Change of leaders Shortfall in the budget Large Project Influx of new members Loss of members Significant changes announced Exclusion from important decisions
Systems Thinking and the self
Stuckness describes a particular situation where peopleexperience an inability to make progress with thingssuch as problem solving, conflict resolution, futureplanning, broken relationships, etc
Systems Thinking and the self
Symptoms of chronic anxiety- stuckness
•Reactivity
•Herding
•Blame- scapegoating
•Quick fix mentality
•Lack of well differentiated leadership
•Preoccupation with past successes
•Focus on fixing image and perception rather than ‘the problem’.
Systems Thinking and the self
Taken from the Seed Education Trust training manual
Systems Thinking and the self
The collective/ dominant
stories of an organisation
Self differentiated
leadership
FollowershipMeasurements
Structure
Systems Thinking and the self
The Right Question?
The leadership role
•Leadership is an interactive relationship between individuals.
•Learning to lead does not mean learning methods to change yourself to fit a leadership role. Rather it means learning how to bring more of who you truly are. (Short, 1991, p. viii).
•Thus, leadership is more about clarity of self than it is about technique or data.
Short, R (1991) cited in http://www.jimforce.ca/DifferentiatedLeadership.pdf
Systems Thinking and Decision Making
Self-differentiated presence
•having clarity about one's own life principles, vision and goals,
•being able to remain calm in the presence of others' anxiety and reactivity,
•being separate while being connected,
Force, J (2007) Holding Anxiety in the Midst of Chaos. A differentiated leadership position. Retrieved from http://www.jimforce.ca/DifferentiatedLeadership.pdf
Systems Thinking and Decision Making
The leadership role
• Focus on the system not the individual. The individual is the symptom bearer. The sickness is resident in the system.
• The leader’s greatest gift to a system is the power of presence.
Systems Thinking and Decision Making
Whole-group work for
developing understanding:
plenary sessions & mini-
lectures
Personal journaling for
developing relevance on STiP
framework in our own practice
Small-group work for
developing practice:
engaging with
perspectives
Systemic triangulation in developing systems thinking in practice (STiP)
Workshop (systems)
practitioners
Workshop enhanced
systems thinking in
practice practitioners
A system for developing systems thinking in practice (STiP)
A workshop system for
developing STiP
Evaluating your systems thinking in practice (STiP)
Summative evaluation of
workshop
1. Whole-group work (Plenary
sessions)
2. Small-group work
3. Personal journaling
Formative evaluation of your own
practice
1. Understanding inter-relationships
2. Engaging with perspectives
3. Reflecting on boundaries
Reflect on the use of your own workplace tools:
1. Which tools are more holistic and which are more reductionist? How do they deal with
what’s in and what’s out?
2. Which tools are more pluralistic (participatory) and which are more dogmatic? How do
they deal with contrasting perspectives?
3. How might you improve existing evaluation tools to make them more inclusive and less
partial?
Plenary: discussion on possibilities and limitations of improving existing professional tools
Boundary critique of your own tools
Pulling it togetherusing systems thinking in practice
Systems ideas presented as complementary to other tools
not necessarily as alternatives
Systems ideas presented as tools for practice
not just for thinking
What are potential areas of applying systems thinking in practice through the future innovative developments of your own practice?
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
