Background

• Sustainable Management of the Helidon Hills project. In part 6 of this RealKM Magazine series, I discuss the 1998-1999 Sustainable Management of the Helidon Hills project¹ as an example of how tacit knowledge engagement and deliberative conversations can be used to facilitate ways forward in the face of complexity.
• Stakeholder resistance and denial. As I discuss in part 6, some stakeholders expressed strong opposition to the Helidon Hills project² in its early stages, and this was symptomatic of community disenchantment with mainstream government in the wider area and in some other parts of Australia at the time. There was also denial by some stakeholders of the negative impacts of a range of land use activities on the significant natural values of the area. To achieve the successful implementation³ of the Sustainable Management of the Helidon Hills project, I needed to overcome this stakeholder resistance and denial in the relatively short time of just a few months.

Why it’s complex

• Multi-layered with complex interactions and inter-dependencies. We could think that stakeholder resistance and denial is simply because they are “reacting against our project or initiative.” But this thinking considers our project or initiative to be one-dimensional and linear, when in reality it is multi-layered with complex interactions and inter-dependencies between the layers. In the case of the Helidon Hills project, the simple statement “sustainable management” presents a complex situation to stakeholders.
• The example of private landholders. For example, just looking at the situation of private landholders (among the wide range of stakeholders), the issues they are confronted with in regard to sustainable management include: Does my land have significant natural values? If it does, how do I deal with these values? Will they prevent me from doing other things on my land, and will this impact on my livelihood? Will governments just impose rules and regulations on me? Or could they even resume my land and turn it into a national park? How will this affect my family and community, now and into the future? Will a decision that seems right at the present time end up being wrong in the future in a world of constant change? Do my neighbours share my views, or do they have very different ideas about how to use and manage their properties? Or, will they criticise me for the way I want to use and manage my property? What if I have compatible neighbours now, but in the future, their properties change hands to people with very different views? How will increased extreme weather due to climate change affect my property? How do I deal with the feral animals and environmental weeds that are progressively invading the area? When my children inherit my property in the future, will they think about things the same way I do? And so on…

Approach

• Two effective approaches. To overcome stakeholder resistance and denial, I have long used two approaches that I learnt over 30 years ago: problem-solving communication skills and lateral thinking.
• Problem-solving communication skills. The three aspects of problem-solving communication skills have been identified by Bob Dick as “expressive skills for stating a point of view non-defensively; listening skills for learning another’s point of view; and process skills for managing the overall interaction.” He summarises these skills⁴ as part of his action learning resources. Further detail can be found in his unfortunately now long out-of-print book Learning to communicate⁵ which was the workbook for his subject that I completed at The University of Queensland in 1991. Through the application of problem-solving communication skills, knowledge can be successfully communicated to stakeholders in an effective and non-threatening way, and emotion can be overcome to gain an accurate understanding of the perspectives and issues of concern of stakeholders (such as those listed above). This greatly reduces stakeholder resistance and denial. Problem-solving communication skills were used in the tacit knowledge transfer and deliberative conversations steps of the Sustainable Management of the Helidon Hills project, as described in part 6 of this series.
• Lateral thinking and “win-win” outcomes. I first experienced the effectiveness of the lateral thinking approach in the Ipswich Heritage Program, which is discussed in part 2 of this series. The term “lateral thinking” was coined by Edward de Bono⁶ in 1967, and can be defined⁷ as “a way of solving a problem by thinking about it in a different and original way and not using traditional or expected methods.” Too often, the proponents of an initiative or a project and their stakeholders will become locked in a battle between option A and option B, when through the application of lateral thinking an option C could be identified that addresses everyone’s concerns. Note that option C isn’t a compromise solution between options A and B, where both sides suffer some degree of loss. Rather, option C is a new, creative and innovative solution that addresses everyone’s issues, so I often describe it as a “win-win” outcome. This greatly reduces stakeholder resistance and denial. Lateral thinking was used in the deliberative conversations step of the Sustainable Management of the Helidon Hills project, as described in part 6 of this series.

Outcomes

• Problem-solving communication skills outcomes. Problem-solving communication skills greatly assisted the tacit knowledge transfer and deliberative conversations steps of the Sustainable Management of the Helidon Hills project, as described in part 6 of this series.
• Lateral thinking outcomes. Two examples of lateral thinking outcomes in the Helidon Hills are the establishment of environmental tourism enterprises and working with the Australian Rainforest Conservation Society (ARCS) to establish the Centre for Native Floriculture at the nearby University of Queensland Gatton Campus.
• Environmental tourism as a win-win outcome. Environmental tourism enables landholders to derive an income from their property through a land use that is sympathetic to, rather than competing with, the natural values of their property. Option A was to impose conservation measures on landholders without any consideration of livelihood, while option B was to do nothing to address land uses that were incompatible with the natural values of the area. Option C, environmental tourism in the Helidon Hills⁸, addresses both livelihood and the conservation of natural values.
• Native floriculture as a win-win outcome. The wild harvesting of native flora was one of a number of activities identified as having a detrimental impact on the natural values of the Helidon Hills. Option A was to ban wild harvesting, or to at least try to regulate it with measures that would have been very difficult to monitor and enforce in such a large area of forest with rugged terrain. Option B was to allow the impacting practice of wild harvesting to continue. However, option C was to look at bringing wild plants into cultivation, which was already an emerging enterprise in the area⁹. To advance this, I worked with Dr. Aila Keto of the Australian Rainforest Conservation Society (ARCS) to secure funding for the Centre for Native Floriculture¹⁰ at the University of Queensland Gatton Campus as part of the South East Queensland Forest Agreement (SEQFA). The SEQFA addressed the conservation of the natural values of the state forests in the Helidon Hills, and as it was being negotiated at the same time as the Helidon Hills project I established links between the two initiatives.

Lessons

• Repeatedly effective. In my work, problem-solving communication skills and lateral thinking have repeatedly proven to be effective in addressing stakeholder resistance and denial. Further examples will be the subject of future articles in this series, for example, the win-win solutions achieved through the Gatton Shire Biodiversity Strategy¹¹.

Editor’s note: This article was first published on 6 January 2016 as “Case Study: How to overcome resistance and denial when engaging stakeholders.” It has been revised and updated for inclusion in the case studies in complexity series.

Header image source: Knowledge sharing in the Helidon Hills. © Bruce Boyes, CC BY-SA 4.0.

References:

In May 2009, the Australian Government announced up to $77.4 million of funding for the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Recovery Program with the aim of improving the health of an iconic river system in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. The program comprised seven projects carried out by six different NSW Government agencies.

I commenced in the role of overall Program Manager in June 2009. The program concluded two and a half years later, having exceeded its intended outcomes. It was completed on time and under budget, despite significant challenges, and subsequently won two major awards.

Pivotal to the success of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Recovery Program was the overall program management approach that I used, as well as the project management approaches used by the six project managers.

In this article, I discuss this approach, with the aim of stimulating the further development and application of agile methods to program management.

Agile methods

An agile method relies upon incremental and iterative completion of goals with a self-managing team. It is often presented in opposition to a “waterfall” process (Figure 1) that sequentially gathers requirements, completes a design, and then builds a final product.

Hirotaka Takeuchi and Ikujiro Nonaka proposed the core agile concept of iterative, continuous delivery in 1986¹. They are acknowledged² as the inspiration for Scrum (Figure 2), a popular methodology for delivering IT projects today.

Co-created by Ken Schwaber, Jeff Sutherland, John Scumniotales and Jeff McKenna, the term “Scrum” is often used interchangeably with “agile”. However, properly speaking, “Scrum” is a specific methodology whereas “agile” can be any technique that focuses on iterative delivery and empowerment. Agile primarily focuses on efficiently segmenting the business processing cycle of the problem-solving pattern into “chunks” that can be executed in parallel.

While initially focused on IT projects, agile methods have now been extended to wider business and management applications. For example, the late Mike Beedle, an Agile Manifesto signatory and described as a business agility visionary, developed Enterprise Scrum which “offers a way to agilize and entire company from top to bottom (hierarchy), or from “side to side” (collaboration), or even in subsumption (dependent knowledge levels).”

Program management vs. project management

Before exploring the application of agile methods to program management, an understanding of the differences between program and project management is necessary.

As discussed in the paper Program and Project Management: Understanding the Differences³, the terms “program management” and “project management” are often used interchangeably, but the two are actually distinctively different disciplines. The three most important differences are:

1. Program management is strategic in nature, while project management is tactical in nature … program management focuses on achievement of the intended strategic business results through the coordination of multiple projects.

2. Program management is entirely cross-functional, while project management focuses on a single function, or limited cross-functional alignment at best.

3. Program management integrates the individual elements of the projects in order to achieve a common objective.

Additionally:

Coordinated management of multiple projects means that the activities for each project are synchronized through the framework of a common lifecycle executed at the program level. If an organization is using a phase-gate lifecycle model for example, all projects within the program pass through the phases and gates simultaneously. Program management ensures the effective coordination and synchronization of the multiple projects through the lifecycle.

This article focuses on the application of agile methods to program management rather than project management, in this case an agile approach to the overall program management of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Recovery Program rather than any of its seven projects.

Applying agile methods to program management

With the degradation of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River having been the focus of considerable media attention, both the Australian and NSW Governments were keen to ensure that the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Recovery Program was delivered successfully in accordance with its original objectives.

Consistent with this, the Australian Government required three-monthly progress reporting, rather than reports on the normal six-monthly cycle. The reports were required to be reviewed by a Program Steering Committee before being submitted to the Australian Government. I recommended that the Program Steering Committee primarily comprise the project managers of the seven projects, and determined that the three-monthly reports the project managers submitted to the Program Steering Committee at the review meeting would include more than just the basic reporting of progress.

I also included the following additional requirements in the three-monthly project reports:

• An explanation of any delays that occurred in the reporting period and the actions to be taken to address the delays

• Risk assessment review, involving the review of the project schedule of the comprehensive risk management report prepared at the beginning of the program, as discussed in part 7 of this series

• A detailed explanation of the work to be undertaken in the next reporting period

• Any potential difficulties, issues or risks anticipated in the next reporting period and the actions that would be taken to mitigate these potential difficulties.

These requirements have parallels with the three questions asked in the daily meetings that are a fundamental part of the Scrum framework mentioned above.

The additional requirements had the effect of turning each three-monthly reporting period into an incremental and iterative agile stage. Breaking down the overall program timeline into the smaller iterative cycles meant that the project teams were focused on reaching immediate and much more readily achievable goals, rather than feeling overwhelmed and highly stressed by everything that must be achieved in the overall program.

To emphasise the three-monthly cycles, they were also tracked through Basecamp where information from across the program was also shared.

Critically, through the three-monthly iterative approach, unexpected “Black Swan” events that could otherwise have derailed the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Recovery Program were identified and addressed at the earliest possible opportunity.

In his book The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable⁴ Nassim Nicholas Taleb proposes what has become known as “Black Swan Theory”.

He uses the unexpected discovery of black swans to highlight the limitations of knowledge:

Before the discovery of Australia, people in the old world were convinced that all swans were white, an unassailable belief as it seemed completely confirmed by empirical evidence. The sighting of the first black swan might have been an interesting surprise for a few ornithologists (and others extremely concerned with the coloring of birds), but that is not where the significance of the story lies. It illustrates a severe limitation to our learning from observations or experience and the fragility of our knowledge. One single observation can invalidate a general statement derived from millennia of confirmatory sightings of millions of white swans.

He describes such “Black Swan” events as having three attributes:

First, it is an outlier, as it lies outside the realm of regular expectations, because nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility. Second, it carries an extreme impact. Third, in spite of its outlier status, human nature makes us concoct explanations for its occurrence after the fact, making it explainable and predictable.

He states that rather than trying to predict such events, we should instead build resilience against the impacts of negative “Black Swans” and be poised to take advantage of positive ones.

There’s no shortage of examples of programs that have failed or run over time or budget due to the occurrence of unexpected events. However, because of our tendency to concoct explanations after the fact, we draw the wrong conclusions about what went wrong, for example we believe that our risk management was inadequate. But while risk management can often be done better, Black Swan Theory tells us that it is impossible to anticipate outlier events. Rather, we need frameworks that enable us to quickly respond to such events when they do occur.

An example of a “Black Swan” event experienced during the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Recovery Program is delays in the water sharing plan for the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment, which created serious problems in regard to securing water savings from the program. The three-monthly incremental and iterative cycle created the drive to quickly identify this issue and resolve it through an interim legislative amendment.

As Program Manager, I was located within the former NSW Office of the Hawkesbury-Nepean, a separate entity to the agencies responsible for the projects. I was not the line manager of the project managers, rather having the role of a central coordinator. The recommendations of the Final Report⁵ of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Recovery Program include that:

Future programs should appoint a central coordinating body with overall responsibility for the program. The Office of the Hawkesbury-Nepean played a critical role as broker and coordinator for the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Recovery Program.

The Program Steering Committee always met face-to-face for its three-monthly meetings despite being widely dispersed, and for much of the program the meetings were followed by one or two days of field visits to inspect sites from all seven projects. This further enhanced both the three-monthly cycle emphasis and knowledge sharing across the projects of the program.

Cycles shorter than three months at a program management level would negatively impact on the effective management of the projects, and cycles longer than three months would make issue identification and resolution too slow.

See also: Does discomfort help to explain the effectiveness of agile and other incremental / cyclic methods?

Editor’s note: This article was first published on 3 March 2016 as “Case study: An agile approach to program management.” It has been updated and added to the series of articles on knowledge management (KM) in project-based and temporary organisations.

Header image source: Alvaro Reyes on Unsplash.

References:

Background

• Helidon Hills. The Helidon Hills¹ is located about 100km west of Brisbane, the capital city of the Australian state of Queensland. It is one of the largest areas of mostly continuous native forest still remaining in the southeastern region of Queensland, and has a large number of rare and threatened flora and fauna species. This includes a large number of species that are found only in this area, for example Eucalyptus helidonica².
• Sustainable management project. Recognising the values of the Helidon Hills and the need to conserve them through the sustainable management of the area’s various land uses, the Western Subregional Organisation of Councils (WESROC) implemented the Sustainable Management of the Helidon Hills project³ in 1998-1999. I was appointed as Project Coordinator, with support from two part-time staff seconded from Queensland Government agencies.

Why it’s complex

• Competing and conflicting objectives. The Helidon Hills area is one-third National Park and two-thirds private freehold land. The approximately 250 freehold landholders were engaged in a range of pursuits including timber harvesting, sandstone mining, ecotourism, nature conservation, and farming. Some of these pursuits were competing or in direct conflict with each other. The area also has Aboriginal and European cultural heritage. Management policy for the area was the responsibility of various local governments and state government agencies. This divergent array of objectives and perspectives made it very difficult to find a way forward that would not be opposed by at least some of the landholders and/or land managers.
• Lack of understanding and awareness. Compounding the complexity of widely divergent objectives and perspectives, it was apparent at the commencement of the project that most stakeholders lacked important knowledge in regard to the Helidon Hills area. Many stakeholders had a poor understanding of the natural values of the area and what needed to be done to conserve them, and a low awareness of the activities and issues of concern of other stakeholders. (In nature conservation in Australia, the term “stakeholders” is used to collectively refer to the people within an area or with an interest in an area, and in this case included landholders, government agency representatives, and members of the wider community).
• Landholder rights and disenchantment with mainstream government. At the commencement of the project, some landholders expressed strong opposition to it. Particularly strong feelings were evident in regard to private land ownership, with the view expressed that people should have the right to manage their land as they see fit without any government influence, control, or intervention (Figure 1). This opposition was symptomatic of community disenchantment with mainstream government in the wider area and in some other parts of Australia at the time, with the project coinciding with the rise of the controversial One Nation political party⁴. During the course of the project, the Lockyer State electorate, in which most of the Helidon Hills was located, elected a One Nation candidate as its local member. This community disenchantment with mainstream government added to the complexity faced by the project, for example, early in the project I experienced acts of attempted intimidation including death threats and the spiking of the rear tyres of my car (Figure 2).
• Rural decline. A number of authors have attempted to explain⁵ the voter support received by One Nation. However, from my own experiences and observations, the support for One Nation in the Lockyer electorate and associated values position against government programs such as the Helidon Hills project was due to the declined emphasis on agriculture since the 1970s⁶, the impacts of the recession of the early 1990s, and government programs that had not adequately involved the community. Most of the farming families in the Lockyer were second or third generation, and adapting to the decline of agriculture from the heydays they had previously experienced was difficult. The recession of the early 1990s compounded the difficulties. Further compounding the pressure that the community was feeling were government programs such as the mid-1990s Regional Open Space Scheme⁷ which triggered a backlash because it had not effectively engaged the community.

Approach

1. Protecting nature conservation and cultural heritage values. An initial action I took was to decide that the nature conservation and cultural heritage values of the Helidon Hills area must be protected as a non-negotiable given, based on studies and assessments by ecological scientists and cultural heritage experts in consultation with First Nations representatives. There are very sound evidence-based reasons for this. Environmental management in Australia is extremely poor, with the country having one of the world’s worst biodiversity conservation records⁹. Protecting the conservation values of areas such as the Helidon Hills is essential if Australia is to halt and then ultimately reverse its worsening biodiversity crisis. Similarly, Australia has a shocking record of Indigenous heritage destruction¹⁰ that needs to be halted.
2. Recognizing and respecting landholder rights. A further initial action I took was to commit to recognizing and respecting landholder rights in the project, in response to the strong concerns expressed at the commencement of the project in regard to private land ownership (as discussed in the “Why it’s complex” section above). Consequently, the management plan (see below) devotes an entire chapter to the issue (Chapter 3).
3. Tacit knowledge transfer. In addition to convening twice as many public meetings as had been originally planned, I then talked directly with as many people within the area and with an interest in the area that I could. This involved discussions individually (such as with individual landholders and state and local government agency representatives) and in groups (such as with the sandstone miners and people with an interest in ecotourism). These direct discussions had the purpose of two-way knowledge transfer: me educating stakeholders in detail about the nature conservation and cultural heritage values of the area, and, very importantly, them giving me an in-depth and nuanced understanding of their land use and land management intent and issues. As discussed in part 7 of this RealKM Magazine series, I used problem-solving communication skills to significantly increase the effectiveness of the discussions. To the greatest extent possible, I met people onsite – such as on their property, at their sandstone mine, or at their timber mill – because tacit knowledge can’t be effectively transferred using just words. Collectively experiencing the nuances and intricacies of land use and land management issues directly facilitates tacit knowledge transfer. To encourage people to engage in the public meetings and direct discussions, landholders and other stakeholders were sent newsletters inviting participation and contact. The newsletters included “Have your say” forms so that people could provide written input if they preferred. The forms could be mailed back or returned at comment stations established in public locations in towns adjacent to the area. Copies of the newsletter were placed at the comment stations to enable members of the wider community to provide comment and/or make contact to request discussions. The public meetings used the nominal group technique¹¹.
4. Deliberative conversations. Finally, I facilitated numerous deliberative conversations to chart agreed ways forward that both protected the values of the area and maximized stakeholder land use and land management objectives. This included bringing people with conflicting issues together to work through and resolve their concerns in creative friction. The conversations created space for the emergence and development of win-win solutions to address the issues that were identified in the tacit knowledge transfer step above. All of the deliberative conversations were facilitated on-site in the Helidon Hills because, as with tacit knowledge transfer, emergence can’t occur using just words. Collectively experiencing the nuances and intricacies of land use and land management issues while seeking ways forward in addressing them facilitates emergence. A notable aspect of the deliberative conversations was that many people ended up having far more common ground than they had first expected. As discussed in part 7 of this RealKM Magazine series, I used problem-solving communication skills and lateral thinking to significantly increase the effectiveness of the deliberative conversations. For example, to address the rural decline issue discussed in the “Why it’s complex” section above, the win-win solutions identified through lateral thinking included establishing new environmental tourism enterprises in the Helidon Hills and a Centre for Native Floriculture at the nearby University of Queensland Gatton Campus.
5. Draft management plan. The Sustainable Management of the Helidon Hills Draft Management Plan¹² prepared from the above process was different to what might be expected for such a plan. Rather than specifying outcomes, the plan recognized that outcomes were a long way off, and instead describes a framework and ongoing tacit knowledge processes for achieving sustainable management that is sensitive to the diverse interests of the area and creates space for the adaptive ongoing emergence of win-win solutions. Direct quotes of stakeholder knowledge appear throughout the plan.
6. Coordination body. Recognising that the tacit knowledge processes described in the management plan needed ongoing human coordination, landholders established the Helidon Hills / Murphy’s Creek Landcare Group at the end of the project to coordinate the ongoing implementation of the plan.

Outcomes

• Significant praise. The Sustainable Management of the Helidon Hills project was very successful, receiving significant praise from the local government that had hosted the project, as shown in the newspaper article excerpt below (Figure 3).
• Pioneering work on tacit knowledge engagement and emergence in the face of complexity. The approach I took in the Sustainable Management of the Helidon Hills project was innovative pioneering work at the time. It was inspired by my earlier such work on the WWF South-East Queensland Vineforests Project (1996-1997), which had in turn been inspired by my experiences of collaborative knowledge co-creation in the Ipswich Heritage Program (1991-1994) and my earlier experiences with complexity in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) (1982-1991). The approach I took was several years ahead of similar approaches to complexity that would be documented later: probe, sense, respond¹³ in organizational knowledge management (KM) (2007), collaborative learning and governance¹⁴ in environmental management (2009), decisions from deliberation¹⁵ in international development (2011), and multiple knowledges and multi-stakeholder processes¹⁶ in KM for international development (2013).

Lessons

• Not transforming tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. In KM, there is a misguided view that organizations and managers should always seek to transform tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Contributing to this view has been Nonaka’s SECI model¹⁸ which is unfortunately accepted as a universal fact by many, despite serious criticisms¹⁹. To have sought to transform tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge in the Helidon Hills project would have been an inappropriate reductionist response in the face of complexity. Tacit knowledge is dynamic, involving multiple ever-changing and adapting sources and users of knowledge that are in a constant state of flux. This creates the space for ideas and ways forward to emerge. Trying to turn this tacit knowledge interplay into explicit knowledge kills the adaptive and emergent capacity. Most of the explicit knowledge that needed to exist in the Helidon Hills project already existed before the project: in-depth ecological surveys, resources studies, land use planning overlays etc. But that explicit knowledge will achieve little because sustainability happens through the decisions of a myriad of human decision-makers, and those decisions are primarily driven by tacit knowledge. The project acted to have that tacit knowledge better informed by explicit knowledge, but not the other way around because for ongoing success it’s vital to stay in the tacit knowledge space.
• Top-down vs. collaborative consensus. In KM, there is a view²⁰ that in the face of complexity, “instead of attempting to impose a course of action, leaders must patiently allow the path forward to reveal itself.” However, as this Sustainable Management of the Helidon Hills case study shows, there are some key actions that leaders can and should readily identify and impose before then patiently allowing the remaining path forward to reveal itself. In this case, these actions were that the nature conservation and cultural heritage values of the area must be protected as a non-negotiable given, and that landholder rights would be recognized and respected. A further example demonstrating the success of this layered decision-making approach in the face of complexity is China’s Loess Plateau recovery, where environmentally destructive grazing was banned on the fragile Loess landform while rural communities were then engaged in processes that enabled a new sustainability pathway to reveal itself. For further insights into this layered decision-making approach, see the RealKM Magazine article “Top-down vs. collaborative consensus: using the most appropriate approach for the decision-making level.”
• Inspiration. Just as the approach I took in coordinating the Sustainable Management of the Helidon Hills project had been inspired by my previous experiences, my experiences in this project in turn inspired me to further develop and apply similar approaches in numerous other environmental programs and projects. These case studies will be the subject of future articles in this series.
• Undemocratic power plays. Towards the end of the Sustainable Management of the Helidon Hills project, the Queensland Government agency responsible for mining strongly objected to the high level of stakeholder ownership over decision-making processes. The agency did this in reaction to having had their desire for the entire Helidon Hills area to be declared a mining reserve rejected by nearly all other stakeholders. In response, project sponsor WESROC (see “Background” section above) sought to dismantle the community ownership through the appointment of a new project coordinator above me. I then took what I considered to be the only morally responsible action, which was to resign. As a Helidon Hills landholder discusses in the paper “The Human Factor in Biodiversity Conservation” on pages 38-39 of the Proceedings of the 2000 South-East Queensland Biodiversity Recovery Conference²¹, this action derailed WESROC and preserved the success of the project. Having learnt from this experience, I sought to try to prevent such undemocratic power plays from affecting future projects. However, as a future article in this series will reveal, I would later experience a far worse case of this, in which the actions of a very powerful individual in the media would destroy a project that would have both saved a now nearly extinct ecological community and provided significant community benefits.

Editor’s note: This article was first published on 29 October 2015 as “Case Study: Knowledge transfer and sharing through collaborative learning and governance.” It has been revised and updated for inclusion in the case studies in complexity series.

Header image source: Knowledge sharing in the Helidon Hills. © Bruce Boyes, CC BY-SA 4.0.

References:

When academia and business converge, it piques interest. In their recent book Bridgebuilders: How Government Can Transcend Boundaries to Solve Big Problems, Professor Donald Kettl, renowned for his work Escaping Jurassic Government: How to Recover America’s Lost Commitment to Competence, and William Eggers, the executive director of Deloitte’s Center for Government Insights, bring a unique perspective.

They confess to having been in the realm of enhancing government efficiency and effectiveness for longer than they care to admit. They have witnessed an array of reforms aiming to expand, contract, devolve, privatize, and rewire government.

However, they cannot ignore the prevailing sense that government programs frequently fall short of their intended impact. Whether addressing homelessness, opioid abuse, crime, or immigration, the government often struggles to fulfill its promises.

The authors attribute this predicament to the traditional vending-machine model of government, where a problem is identified, an organization is established to address it, and money is allocated with the expectation of results. Alas, this model no longer suffices, as funds flow in, but results do not adequately materialize.

Solving problems in a complex world

To better enable government to solve problems in a complex world, they identify ten crucial behaviors that governments need to adopt:

1. Knock down barriers, as most problems will involve stakeholders from across society, so it’s important that government is able to act effectively with those from profit, non-profit, and academic sectors.
2. Seek mutual advantage, with this especially important when projects have multiple stakeholders who will need to have common strategies.
3. Nurture private partners, as it’s vital that private partners are instilled with a public spirit for success to be achieved.
4. Build trustworthy networks, because developing trust in government will require collaboration across sectors.
5. Grow catalytic government, as governments usually do more to shape and integrate solutions as they do to cultivate them themselves.
6. Focus on outcomes, because too often governments get bogged down by internal procedures rather than focusing on what they ultimately hope to achieve.
7. Make data the language, because its through data that both information is shared and actions are delivered.
8. Redefine accountability, so that rather than traditional, top-down authority, we have more modern systems.
9. Cultivate cross-boundary leaders, because when working across boundaries, leaders will need to learn to share responsibility.
10. Make the exceptional routine, as the new era of public management requires the ability to deploy bridgebuilding across government.

The authors attribute much of this shift in mindset to the COVID-19 pandemic. They highlight the success of Operation Warp Speed—a notable public-private collaboration that yielded tangible and significant results, with the development and distribution of vaccines.

Climate change, considered the wickedest problem of all, requires collective efforts. The authors contend that no individual, community, country, or continent can address this issue in isolation.

Public-private partnerships

These developments signify a broader trend of public-private mission-based transformations, countering Mariana Mazzucato’s notion that big government is the sole solution to wicked problems. The authors point out that even NASA has begun procuring space vehicles through a competitive marketplace and forming partnerships with various companies for its ambitious projects.

The authors present numerous arguments countering the supposed “failure of capitalism” put forth by Mazzucato. They highlight that since the late 1980s, business spending on research and development (R&D) has exceeded that of the federal government.

Additionally, foundations and private individuals are investing substantial capital in the pursuit of major innovations. Philanthropists in the United States have donated billions of dollars, with the Gates Foundation alone outspending the World Health Organization on global health issues.

Indeed, the authors assert that public policies necessitate private partners. They emphasize that venture capital is unlikely to fund highly risky endeavors such as deep space exploration, which typically falls under the purview of government. However, private investment excels in supporting early-stage innovations.

If this partnership can be effectively harnessed, it can lay the foundation for enhancing democratic governance in the twenty-first century.

Article source: Government Needs To Build Bridges To Solve Wicked Problems.

Header image source: Created by Bruce Boyes with Perchance AI Photo Generator.

Complexity is all around us, from the daily fluctuations of financial markets to the intricate web of neurons in our brains.

Understanding how the different components of these systems interact with each other is a fundamental challenge for scientists trying to predict their behaviour. Piecing together these interactions is like deciphering a code from an intricate set of clues.

Scientists have developed hundreds of different methods for doing this, from engineers studying noisy radio channels to neuroscientists studying firing patterns in networks of interacting neurons. Each method captures a unique aspect of the interactions within a complex system – but how do we know which method is right for any given system sitting right in front of us?

In new research published in Nature Computational Science, we have developed a unified way to look at hundreds of different methods for measuring interaction patterns in complex systems – and working out which ones are most useful for understanding a given system.

A scientific orchestra

The science of complex systems can be, well, complex. And the science of comparing and combining different ways of studying these systems even more so.

But one way to think about what we’ve done is to imagine each scientific method is a different musical instrument playing in a scientific orchestra. Different instruments are playing different melodies with different tones and in different styles.

We wanted to understand which of our scientific instruments are best suited to solving which types of problems. We also wanted to know whether we could conduct all of the instruments to form a harmonious whole.

By presenting these methods as a full orchestra for the first time, we hoped we would find new ways of deciphering patterns in the world around us.

Hundreds of methods, more than 1,000 datasets

To develop our orchestra, we undertook the mammoth task of analysing more than 200 methods for computing interactions from as many datasets as we could get our hands on. These covered a huge range of subjects, from stock markets and climate to brain activity and earthquakes to river flow and heart beats.

In total, we applied our 237 methods to more than 1,000 datasets. By analysing how these methods behave when applied to such diverse scientific systems, we found a way for them to “play in harmony” for the first time.

In the same way that instruments in an orchestra are usually organised as strings, brass, woodwind and percussion, scientific methods from areas like engineering, statistics and biophysics also have their traditional groupings.

But when we organised our scientific orchestra, we found that the scientific instruments grouped together in a strikingly different way to this traditional organisation. Some very different methods behaved in surprisingly similar ways to one another.

This was a bit like discovering that the tuba player’s melody was surprisingly similar to that of the flute, but no one had noticed it before.

Our weird and wonderful new orchestral layout (which sometimes places cello and trumpet players next to the piccolo player), represents a more “natural” way of grouping methods from all across science. This opens exciting new avenues for cross-disciplinary research.

The orchestra in the real world

We also put our full scientific orchestra to work on some real-world problems to see how it would work. One of these problems was using motion data from a smartwatch to classify activities like “badminton playing” and “running”; another was distinguishing different activities from brain-scan data.

Properly orchestrated, the full ensemble of scientific methods demonstrated improved performance over any single method on its own.

To put it another way, virtuosic solos are not always the best approach! You can get better results when different scientific methods work cooperatively as an ensemble.

The scientific ensemble introduced in this work provides a deeper understanding of the interacting systems that shape our complex world. And its implications are widespread – from understanding how brain communication patterns break down in disease, to developing improved detection algorithms for smartwatch sensor data.

Time will tell what new music scientists will make as they step up to conduct our new scientific orchestra that simultaneously incorporates diverse ways of thinking about the world.

Ben Fulcher, Senior Lecturer, School of Physics, University of Sydney

Article source: This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Header image source: Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 2.0.

Would systems thinking realize its potential as a force for good in the world if it rediscovered and developed its pragmatist roots? Does the link between the past and future of systems thinking lie through critical systems thinking and practice?

In brief, I suggest that:

• Pragmatism provides an appropriate philosophy for systems thinking.
• Systems thinking has pragmatist roots.
• Critical systems thinking and practice shows how to develop those roots.
• Pragmatism can help systems thinking realize its potential and systems thinking can help pragmatism achieve what it set out to do.

What is pragmatism?

Kant was in awe of Newton’s science but believed it could supply certainty only about the physical world. In most areas of human endeavor, he argued, we have to use ‘pragmatic belief’ to guide our actions.

Charles Sanders Pierce, William James, and John Dewey borrowed the term when founding the philosophy of pragmatism. They viewed the realm in which we are forced to act on the basis of pragmatic belief as vast and hoped to make philosophy relevant again by offering guidance to help navigate it. In particular, they argued that:

• There are no universal truths. Cognition is an adaptation intimately related to our biological and historical evolution, and has developed to help us cope with the world.
• Truth should, therefore, be judged in terms of its consequences. James said – “The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instants of our life, if this world-formula or that world-formula be the true one”.
• The ‘multiverse’ which we inhabit allows multiple truths. James calls this ‘pluralism’, introducing the term for the first time into English-language philosophy. A multiplicity of theories should be encouraged and tested according to their consequences.
• Theories should not be seen as attempts to mirror the world but as instruments of purposeful action that can be used to change existing realities and make the world better. James said – “The truth of an idea is not a stagnant property inherent in it. Truth happens to an idea. It becomes true, is made true by events”. (The sources for this and other quotations are referenced in Jackson, 2022a.)

Systems thinking’s pragmatist roots

Warren Weaver follows a Kantian rationale in setting out the challenge posed by complexity, stating in 1948 that:
“… science has, to date, succeeded in solving a bewildering number of relatively easy problems, whereas the hard problems, and the ones which perhaps promise most for man’s (sic) future, lie ahead”.

These ‘hard’ problems – human, political, economic, social, and environmental – cause difficulties for classical scientific tools. They are, he argued, made up of too many variables to yield to simple mathematical formulae and the variables are too interrelated to yield to probability statistics. They constitute ‘a great middle region’ of ‘organized complexity’. ‘Something more is needed’, Weaver wrote, to help decision-makers tackle problems of this type. It is systems thinking that set out to provide that ‘something more’.

The three pioneers of the systems approach – Alexander Bogdanov, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, and Norbert Wiener – all adopted a pragmatist orientation in seeking to get to grips with ‘organized complexity’. For example:

• Bogdanov saw truth as “a tool for living … for the general guidance of human practice”
• von Bertalanffy championed ‘perspectivism’, arguing that all forms of knowledge can only capture certain aspects of the truth because any perspective is dependent on a “…multiplicity of factors of a biological, psychological, cultural, linguistic, etc., nature”
• Wiener gloried in taking ‘epistemological short-cuts’ on the basis of what worked.

All wanted their endeavours to secure improvement in the world:

• Bogdanov hoped his ‘tektology’ would enable people to become competent ‘world-builders’
• von Bertalanffy regarded ‘general system theory’ as entailing a rejection of the ‘robot model’ of people and as demanding “a basic reevaluation of problems of education, training, psychotherapy, and human attitudes in general”
• Wiener saw cybernetics as having major implications for the organization of society and the ‘human use of human beings’.

Critical systems thinking and practice as a development of systems thinking’s pragmatist roots

Many later systems thinkers see themselves as indebted to von Bertalanffy and/or Wiener and some acknowledge pragmatist roots (eg., C. West Churchman and Russell Ackoff). However, this is far from universal. Recently, I have been explicitly developing critical systems thinking and practice on the basis of pragmatism and seeking to show that this can enable systems thinking to realize its potential. In particular, critical systems thinking and practice argues that:

• General complexity (with interacting ontological and cognitive elements) resists universal truth. All attempts to model it are partial and, therefore, the fundamental problem posed is “epistemological, cognitive, paradigmatic” (Edgar Morin) – concerned with the ways we seek to understand and manage complexity.
• In engaging with general complexity, systems thinking should make use of ‘systemic perspectives’ which have enabled the human species to secure coherent encounters with ‘reality’. In other words, those systemic perspectives have provided for our successful functioning in the physical and cultural worlds – specifically, the machine, organism, cultural/political, societal/environmental, and interrelationships perspectives.
• Systems thinking should embrace ‘pluralism’. It must make use of the variety of insightful systemic perspectives to view the world in different ways, and employ their associated systems methodologies to learn which of these can bring about beneficial change in a particular context.
• The purpose of critical systems thinking and practice is to bring about improvement in the world. This is not just in terms of increased efficiency and efficacy but also effectiveness, mutual understanding, resilience, antifragility, empowerment, emancipation, and sustainability.

A brighter future for both systems thinking and pragmatism

By explicitly embracing pragmatism, and taking it forward through critical systems thinking and practice, systems thinking can realize the hopes of the original pioneers and chart a bright future for itself. A shared philosophical orientation will bring greater mutual understanding between the currently disparate strands of the systems movement and more unity of purpose.

It will enable systems thinking to engage more fully with, and have greater influence on, contemporary debates in the specialist disciplines. Much of that debate, in philosophy and the social sciences, centres on pragmatist themes. It is not just systems thinking that stands to benefit from an alliance with pragmatism. As an applied transdiscipline, systems thinking can assist pragmatism in achieving what it set out to do – make philosophy relevant to everyday affairs.

What do you think? If you are a systems thinker, does this argument look like it provides a way forward? If you are not a systems thinker, what would help you better connect with our field?

To find out more:

Jackson, M. C., (2022a). Rebooting the systems approach by applying the thinking of Bogdanov and the pragmatists. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 1-17 (Online) (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2908

Key references to critical systems thinking and practice:

Jackson, M. C. (2019). Critical systems thinking and the management of complexity. John Wiley & Sons: New Jersey, United States of America.

Jackson, M. C. (2020). Critical systems practice 1: Explore—Starting a multimethodological intervention. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 37, 5: 839– 858. (Online) (DOI): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/sres.2746

Jackson, M. C. (2021). Critical systems practice 2: Produce—Constructing a multimethodological intervention strategy. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 38, 5: 594– 609. (Online) (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2809

Jackson, M. C. (2022b). Critical systems practice 3: Intervene—Flexibly executing a multimethodological intervention. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 39, 6: 1014–1023. (Online) (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2909

Jackson, M. C. (2022c). Critical systems practice 4: Check—Evaluating and reflecting on a multimethodological intervention. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 1–16. (Online) (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2912

Biography:

Michael C. Jackson PhD OBE is an emeritus professor at the Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull, UK. His teaching and research interests are systems thinking, organizational cybernetics, creative problem solving, critical systems thinking, management science and systems science.

Article source: Pragmatism and critical systems thinking: Back to the future of systems thinking. Republished by permission.

Header image source: Diego Dotta on Open Clipart, Public Domain.

What is Inclusive Systemic Thinking and how can it be effective in achieving transformational change? How can it contribute to a more inclusive and equitable world?

Introducing Inclusive Systemic Thinking

We have coined the term Inclusive Systemic Thinking to describe an approach that is influenced by a field of systems thinking called ‘Critical Systems Thinking,’ as well as by the social and behavioural sciences, fourth-wave feminism, and more recently, our work in the global development sector. Inclusive Systemic Thinking uses the ‘GEMs’ framework for complex systemic intersectional analysis based on: Gender equality/equity (non-binary), Environments (natural and/or contextual) and Marginalised voices (human and non-human). We described the GEMS framework in a recent i2Insights contribution, A responsible approach to intersectionality.

In our work, Inclusive Systemic Thinking is inclusive because we actively reflect on, advocate, mentor, and adapt our practices through an ethos of engagement that is widespread and that uses non-conventional approaches. We engage with local voices and collectively identify other relevant stakeholders, including non-human voices, as well as people pushed to the margins. In our global development practitioner and academic work, we aim to contribute to the present-day decolonization of knowledge, access, and power. What that means is that we practice two crucial activities:

1. critical reflexivity on all our ideas and decisions; and
2. in partnership with our country level colleagues, creating a mutual learning environment to design and implement our projects.

These practices get to the heart of a systems thinking truism, ‘we don’t know, what we don’t know’ and to find out at least some of what we don’t know.

Why is Inclusive Systemic Thinking needed for transformative change?

Transformation ideally means the ability to sustain wanted changes in attitudes, behaviours and practices, that can result in lasting societal change to create a world that works for everyone, now and in the future, for human and non-human alike.

This then requires us, in all that we do, to explore the root causes of inequality and ensure that discussions of the conditions needed for lasting social change, at the household, community and institutional levels, are grounded in participant perspectives. This, in turn, requires practices grounded in Inclusive Systemic Thinking.

Diversity here is key: diversity of participants and priorities, diverse settings and contexts, and multiple tools and methods. Research processes must unpack intersecting inequalities, discriminations and vulnerabilities that push some further to the margins than others. This is where the GEMs Framework comes into effect because it does not predetermine what these intersecting factors will be but gives space for them to emerge and arise from dialogue, story- and truth- telling with the people living with the experience.

Genuine decolonising practice

The most prevailing driver of our work is the acknowledgement that the work we do, using Inclusive Systemic Thinking, is an urgent, yet daunting reality, responding to the global polycrises. Polycrises occur when “multiple global systems become entangled in a way that significantly degrades humanity’s prospects” (Lawrence et al., 2022). Put simply, we are motivated to respond to global injustice and wish to do this without reinforcing or creating more of it. As well as prioritising engagement with stakeholders in a way that does not reinforce or risk further discrimination, we reflect and ask whether our work contributes to a desirable, transformational change.

Decolonizing practice is an attempt to challenge Eurocentric practices by prioritising local knowledge and experiences of marginalised population groups.

Inclusive Systemic Thinking provides the mindset needed for a decolonising practice and using the GEMs framework can enable practitioners to seek out and drive transformational change and contribute to an intersectional analysis that is determined by the people and environmental systems, central to the setting in focus.

Mutual capacity development

A key value inherent in Inclusive Systemic Thinking is mutual learning, also known as two-way learning. This is about balancing the power and processes in our relationships. Capacity is not developed by one party or given by another. It is recognition of the systemic nature of learning, of reciprocity, feedback, curiosity, transparency, and enquiry. It is the commitment to reflective behaviour that looks to understand one’s true impact. At the end of the process, it is finding ways to exit that don’t leave others with a bigger mess to clean up than when you entered the scene, or with a financial, strategic, and logistical burden. It is also about a mutual transfer of knowledge.

An emerging practice in our work in Colombia, East Timor and Kenya is to collaboratively develop consulting contracts with local teams which we deliver together. This includes writing in our own redundancy within ten years giving local teams full ownership to lead change in their own country and regions. Simultaneously, those local teams are building country teams that they can mentor and support.

Conclusion

Addressing the polycrises starts by being present, supporting others to participate meaningfully and equitably to bring about the transformative change they wish to see happen, while supporting learning so that our own place in the process is temporary.

Are there ways that Inclusive Systemic Thinking might be used in your work or life? What are the key lessons you take from our example? Do you have lessons to share that could improve our practice?

Reference:

Lawrence, M., Janzwood, S. and Homer-Dixon, T. (2022). What Is a Global Polycrisis? And how is it different from a systemic risk? Version 2.0, Discussion Paper 2022-4, Cascade Institute: Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. (Online – open access). https://cascadeinstitute.org/technical-paper/what-is-a-global-polycrisis/

Biographies:

Ellen Lewis PhD is an organization development consultant and systems thinker, as well as co-founder and co-director of Ethos of Engagement Consulting (EoE). She is based in Portugal. She advises and designs with systems thinking for organisational change, leads EoE’s training and professional development as well as teaching, and conducting research and evaluation projects.

Anne Stephens PhD is a sociologist, as well as co-founder and co-director of Ethos of Engagement Consulting (EoE). She is based in Australia. She is the Vice President of the Australian Evaluation Society and leads human-rights and gender responsive evaluations, as well as supporting in-country teams. She is a lecturer, writer and researcher and Adjunct of the Cairns Institute at James Cook University in Cairns, Australia.

Article source: Inclusive Systemic Thinking for transformative change. Republished by permission.

Header image source: © Ethos of Engagement Consulting.

How can communities, businesses, regions, and nations – which can all be thought of as organisations – be designed to be capable of dealing quickly and effectively with environmental fluidity and complexity?

The Viable System Model, often referred to as VSM, is a theory that posits that a complex organisation is more capable of responding to a changing and unpredictable environment, if it is:

• composed of autonomous, effective, and agile subsidiary organisations,
• highly connected to each other, and
• cohesively operating with shared ethos, purpose, processes, and technologies.

A complex organisation therefore has multiple levels of nested organisations, each adhering to these principles.

The building blocks of the Viable System Model are five interconnected systems. These are illustrated in the figure below which depicts a simple Viable System Model, and which also shows the interactions between the organisation and its environment (E).

The two main components of the viable system model are the operation (O) and the management (M) and these apply to each nested organisation in the complex organisation. The operation is System 1 and is composed of three operational elements (labelled 1a, 1b, and 1c in the graphical model; there can be more in an actual organisation). The management is composed of Systems 2, 3, 4 and 5. The various arrows represent the many and often highly complex interactions among the five systems and between the systems and the environment.

An understanding of the theory begins with the observation that operational units must be as autonomous as possible. The Viable System Model proposes that any organisation is a cluster of autonomous operational parts which bind together in mutually supportive interactions to create a new, larger whole system.

The job of management is to provide the “glue” which enables this to happen. The role of the systems in management is as follows:

• System 2 deals with the inevitable problems which emerge as a number of autonomous, self-organising operational parts interact. There will be conflicts of interest which must be resolved. System 2 is there to harmonise the interactions, to keep the peace, to deal with the problems.
• System 3 is concerned with synergy. It looks at the entire interacting cluster of operational units and considers ways to maximise effectiveness through collaboration. System 3 ensures that the whole system works better than the operational parts working in isolation.
• System 4 ensures that the whole system can adapt to a rapidly changing and sometimes hostile environment. It scans the outside world in which it operates, looks for threats and opportunities, undertakes research and simulations, and proposes plans to guide the system through the various possible pathways it could follow.
• System 5 provides closure to the whole system. It defines and develops the vision and values of the system through policies. System 5 creates the identity, the ethos, the ground rules under which everyone operates. It aligns the tasks of everyone in the organisation.

For an organisation to be a viable system these criteria for organisational robustness should be maintained recursively at each level of a nested organisation.

The overall Viable System Model is defined by the interactions among the 5 systems and the way they respond to and affect the external environment. The essence of these interactions is as follows:

• The operational units are given as much autonomy as possible so they can respond quickly and effectively. This is limited only by the requirements of system cohesion.
• Systems 1, 2 and 3 make up the internal environment of the viable system – the Inside and Now. The autonomous parts function in a harmonising internal environment which maximises its effectiveness through creating mutually supportive relationships.
• System 4 is concerned with the Outside and Then. It formulates plans in the context of both the outside world and its intense interaction with System 3 which ensures that all plans are grounded in the knowledge of the capabilities of the organisation.
• System 5 monitors the interaction between System 3 and System 4 to ensure all plans are within policy guidelines. If not, it steps in and applies its ultimate authority.
• All parts of the system work together holistically. Information is designed to flow throughout the structure in real-time, binding together Systems 1-5 within and across each level of a nested organisation.

The Viable System Model as originally designed by Stafford Beer works for organisations with a range of values. It has been tested in several types of businesses, public and not-for-profit organisations and communities in a variety of countries and contexts.

When the values are aligned with an ethos of sustainability and social responsibility, the organisations can become more resilient and capable of developing sustainable self-governance. Practitioners can use the Viable System Model to co-design such organisations. This involves critically reflecting on each of the five systems in the current organisation and how they can be improved to develop more adaptive and self-governance capabilities.

Do you have experience to share with applying the Viable System Model? If you are new to this theory, can you see ways in which it could be applied in your work?

To find out more:

Beer, S. (1979). The Heart of the Enterprise. John Wiley & Sons: London, United Kingdom.

Espinosa, A. (2023). Sustainable Self-governance in Business and Societies: The Viable System Model in Action. Routledge: London, United Kingdom. (Online – book details): https://www.routledge.com/Sustainable-Self-Governance-in-Businesses-and-Society-The-Viable-System/Espinosa/p/book/9781032354972

Website: Metaphorum: A Community of Practice Developing and Applying the Work of Stafford Beer. (Online): https://metaphorum.org/

Biography:

Angela Espinosa PhD develops Organisational Cybernetics, a theory for effective organisation pioneered by Professor Stafford Beer. She worked closely with Stafford Beer and when he passed away in 2002, she co-founded and still leads the Metaphorum, a non-governmental organisation to develop his legacy. She has advised governments, businesses, and communities in more effective ways of self-organising and being socially and environmentally responsible in several countries in Latin America, the United Kingdom and Europe. She is an Emeritus Fellow at the Centre for Systems Studies at the University of Hull, UK.

Editor’s note: See also Managing in the face of complexity (part 4.6): Appropriate approaches – 6. Viable System Model (VSM).

Article source: Viable System Model: A theory for designing more responsive organisations. Republished by permission.

Header image source: Metaphorum.

What are some effective approaches for developing causal maps of systems in participatory ways? How do different approaches relate to each other and what are the ways in which systems maps can be useful?

Here we focus on seven system mapping methods, described briefly in alphabetical order.

1. Bayesian Belief Networks: a network of variables representing their conditional dependencies (ie., the likelihood of the variable taking different states depending on the states of the variables that influence them). The networks follow a strict acyclic structure (ie., no feedbacks), and nodes tend to be restricted to maximum two incoming arrows. These maps are analysed using the conditional probabilities to compute the potential impact of changes to certain variables, or the influence of certain variables given an observed outcome.

2. Causal Loop Diagrams: networks of variables and causal influences, which normally focus on feedback loops of different lengths and are built around a ‘core system engine’. Maps vary in their complexity and size and are not typically exposed to any formal analysis, but are often the first stage in a system dynamics model.

3. Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping: networks of factors and their causal connections. They are especially suited to participatory contexts, and often multiple versions are created to capture diverse mental models of a system. Described as ‘semi-quantitative’, factors and connections are usually given values, and the impacts of changes in a factor value on the rest of the map are computed in different ways.

4. Participatory Systems Mapping: a network of factors and their causal connections, annotated with salient information from stakeholders (eg., what is important, what might change). Maps tend to be large and complex. They are analysed using network analysis and information from stakeholders to extract noteworthy submaps and narratives.

5. Rich Pictures: a free-form drawing approach in which participants are asked to draw the situation or system under consideration as they wish, with no or only a handful of gentle prompts. This method is part of the wider group of soft systems methodologies.

6. System Dynamics: a network of stocks (numeric values for key variables) and flows (changes in a stock usually represented by a differential equation), and the factors that influence these. Normally, these maps are fully specified quantitatively and used to simulate future dynamics.

7. Theory of Change Maps: networks of concepts usually following a flow from inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes to final impacts. Maps vary in their complexity and how narrowly they focus on one intervention and its logic, but they are always built around some intervention or action. Maps are often annotated and focused on unearthing assumptions in the impact of interventions.

How do these methods relate to each other?

The following three figures show how these methods relate to each other. While individual projects could use any of these methods in a different way, these figures give a rough sense of where these methods sit in relation to one another, and what some of the most important axes on which to differentiate them are.

The first figure looks at the overall focus and nature of the different system mapping methods.

The second figure focuses on the mode and ease of use of the different system mapping methods.

The third figure presents the outputs and analysis the different system mapping methods produce.

How can systems mapping be useful?

We next suggest five broad types of use, which also apply to most types of modelling or analysis.

1. Helping us think: system maps of all types force us to be more specific about our assumptions, beliefs, and understanding of a system. Many types of systems mapping also force us to structure our ideas using some set of rules or symbols (ie., creating boxes and lines to represent concepts and their relationships). This will introduce simplifications and abstractions, but it will also make explicit our mental models.

2. Helping us orient ourselves: a systems mapping process will often also help us orient ourselves to a system or issue. Whether a map helps us see our, and others’, positions in the system, or whether it helps us quickly develop a fuller understanding of an issue, we will be better oriented to it. This helps people navigate the system better, be aware of what else to think about when considering one part of a map, or know who is affected and so should be included in discussions.

3. Helping us synthesise and connect information: the more flexible types of mapping are particularly good at bringing together different types of data, evidence, and information. They can all be used to inform the development of a map, making connections that would not otherwise be possible. Different types of visualisation, hyperlinking, and map structure can also be used to help people return to the information underlying a map.

4. Helping us communicate: whether we build maps in groups, or alone, and then share them, all system maps should help us communicate our mental models and representations of systems. The process of mapping with others, and the discussions it generates, unearths a multitude of assumptions which can then also be challenged and unpicked. The end product of a mapping process can also help us communicate our ideas about a system. Maps can become repositories for our knowledge which can be accessed by others, and updated, becoming a living document.

5. Helping us extrapolate from assumptions to implications: systems mapping approaches which can be turned into simulations, or which can be analysed in a formal way, also allow us to follow through from the assumptions we have embedded in them, to their implications.

Concluding questions

Are there other methods that you use to develop causal maps of systems and that can be used in participatory ways? What’s the main value that you have found in systems mapping? Do you have other lessons to share from your experience of systems mapping?

To find out more:

Barbrook-Johnson, P. and Penn, A. S. (2022). Systems Mapping: How to build and use causal models of systems. Palgrave-Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland. (Online – open access): https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-01919-7

Biographies:

1. Pete Barbrook-Johnson PhD is a social scientist and complexity scientist working on a range of environmental and energy policy topics, using systems mapping, agent-based modelling, and other related approaches. He is a Departmental Research Lecturer at the University of Oxford in the UK and a member of the Centre for the Evaluation of Complexity Across the Nexus (CECAN) hosted by the University of Surrey in Guildford, UK.

2. Alexandra S. Penn DPhil is a complexity scientist working on combining participatory methodologies and mathematical models to create tools for stakeholders to understand and ‘steer’ their complex human ecosystems. She is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Surrey and a member of the Centre for the Evaluation of Complexity Across the Nexus (CECAN) hosted by the University of Surrey in Guildford, UK.

Article source: Seven methods for mapping systems. Republished by permission.

Header image source: Pete Barbrook-Johnson, Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford.

How can those in public service – be they researchers, policy makers or workers in government agencies, private businesses managers, or voluntary and community organisation leaders – think more effectively about improving people’s lives, when they understand that each person’s life is a unique complex system?

A good starting point is understanding that real outcomes in people’s lives aren’t “delivered” by organisations (or by projects, partnerships or programmes, etc). Outcomes are created by the hundreds of different factors in the unique complex system that is each person’s life.

In other words, an outcome is the product of hundreds of different people, organisations, and factors in the world all coming together in a unique and ever-changing combination in a particular person’s life. Very little of what influences the outcome is under the control or influence of those who undertake public service.

All of this means that it is not possible to plan to “deliver” an outcome in the same way as one can plan to “deliver” a workshop. The reality of creating outcomes in a person’s life requires a different approach to planning and organisation. It requires continuous exploration, experimentation and learning.

This continuous exploration requires an alternative paradigm for public management: human learning systems. Let’s review each aspect of this paradigm

Human – the moral purpose

Human learning systems is based on the belief that the purpose of public service is to support human freedom and flourishing. This provides the moral purpose for public service. It also provides a view of what it means to be human in a public service context. It means understanding human beings intersubjectively – as people who live in a web of relationships (a “system”) which helps to define who they are. In other words, understanding a human being requires understanding their world.

Learning – the management strategy

If each person determines what matters to them, and each person’s life context is a constantly changing system that is unique to them, how can public service help people create their own outcomes? This question demonstrates that the task of creating public service outcomes is complex.

In complex environments, learning is the only viable management strategy. Public service must build a learning relationship with the public – a relationship which seeks to understand the detail of each life context, and, together, continuously explores how the patterns of results (“outcomes”) in their “life as system” might change.

Systems – the unit of analysis

If the purpose of public service is to help people create positive outcomes in their lives, then public service needs to understand how outcomes are made. Outcomes in people’s lives are created by the workings of complex systems. In other words, outcomes are emergent properties of people’s lives as systems. Therefore, creating outcomes requires these complex systems to produce different patterns of results. Put simply, if we want good outcomes, we need healthy systems – systems in which people collaborate and learn together, because this is how outcomes are made.

Let’s explore learning as management strategy in more detail.

Learning as management strategy

The heart of learning as management strategy is enacting a process of understanding and experimenting with complex systems to try to get those systems to produce a different pattern of results (a better outcome). It is this learning process that researchers and managers are tasked with planning and organising.

Framing that process as a learning cycle is one way for researchers and managers to plan and organise this work. A learning cycle has five elements or phases of work:

• Understand the system (that produces the desired outcome)
• Co-design of experiments/explorations (to get that system to produce different outcomes)
• Experimentation/exploration
• Embedding and influencing (from the results of the explorations/experiments)
• Managing and governing learning cycles (system stewardship).

Learning cycles exist at many different system scales:

• A person’s life as a system (person/practitioner scale)
• A team as a system (team scale)
• An organisation as a system (organisation scale)
• A place as a system (place scale)
• A region/country as a system (region/country scale).

The task of creating and running learning cycles, and making sure they are managed and governed effectively, is called system stewardship.

The purpose of naming the role of system stewardship is to highlight that learning cycles do not create themselves. Learning cycles are processes that require planning and organisation: resources must be identified, time must be allocated, people must be engaged, and they will require some sense of the journey they are undertaking. It is the responsibility of a system steward to do all of this.

The task of system stewardship can be a role for a particular person, or it can be taken on by a range of people acting together. The key point is that this is a crucial leadership task – it must be someone’s role or an identified shared responsibility to ensure that learning cycles function as healthy systems, and this work must be recognised and valued within the organisation or partnership.

In order to play this role, system stewards require:

• Legitimacy – they must be recognised by actors in the system as the appropriate person/people to play this convening role
• Resources – they must be able to influence the allocation of human, material and financial resources to enable learning cycles to function
• Learning competencies – they must have the skills, knowledge and curiosity required to recognise and coordinate effective experimental and learning activity.

Systems stewardship is underpinned by a shift in mindset and culture. It depends on nurturing intangible qualities such as empathy and trust. It requires humanising all aspects of research and other public service workplaces.

Concluding remarks and questions

Human learning systems was developed with government service provision in mind, but I think it works equally well in a research context. What do you think? Do you think researchers could adapt to become system stewards taking a human learning systems approach?

To find out more:

These ideas have been further developed in:

Lowe, T., Brogan, A., Eichsteller, G., Hawkins, M., Hesselgreaves, H., Plimmer, D., Terry, V., Charfe, L., Cox, J., French, M., Hill, B., Masters, J., Norman, R., Sanderson, H., Smith, M. and Wilson, R. (2021). Human learning systems: Public service for the real world. ThemPra Social Pedagogy: Allithwaite, United Kingdom. (ISBN: 978-1-9161315-2-1). (Online – open access): https://realworld.report/.

Lowe, T., Padmanabhan, C., McCart, D. and McNeill, K. (2022). Human learning systems: A practical guide for the curious. Centre for Public Impact: London, United Kingdom. (Online – open access): https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/assets/pdfs/hls-practical-guide.pdf (PDF 8.7MB).

Biography:

Toby Lowe PhD is a visiting professor of Public Management, Centre for Public Impact Europe, on secondment from Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK. He is interested in public management/administration, complexity and systems thinking.

Article source: Managing complexity with human learning systems. Republished by permission.