A systemic design & systems thinking approach, that embraces complexity, to develop a customer centred design
Why add anything to designing services?Systems thinking has the ability to expand the role of service design today, to include all the elements of the whole of the service delivery.
|
|
How important is systems thinking?
You don’t fix a problem by solving it. You solve a problem by dissolving the problem. We do that by redesigning the system so that the problem does not exist. Ackoff.
You don’t fix a problem by solving it. You solve a problem by dissolving the problem. We do that by redesigning the system so that the problem does not exist. Ackoff.
There is so much written and so much effort expended on discussing systems thinking and complexity, that this effort perhaps exceeds the actual learning and personal development that we gain from it.
Therefore I am keeping any discussion about systems thinking and complexity, and design in this page here, well away from what we are trying to actually work on. And I am quite critical of this type of armchair discussions because I dont think they are the right way to learn and understand about such deep 'thinking' concepts. They are too deep and ethereal, rather than scientific and the best way to learn about this is through other means.
Therefore I am keeping any discussion about systems thinking and complexity, and design in this page here, well away from what we are trying to actually work on. And I am quite critical of this type of armchair discussions because I dont think they are the right way to learn and understand about such deep 'thinking' concepts. They are too deep and ethereal, rather than scientific and the best way to learn about this is through other means.
The Triple Diamond - How this Works
Design gives us a way to create different ways of thinking and working. The sequence of working with a service to help them to change can be summarised in this diagram
Triple diamond service design framework
|
|
|
The divergent-convergent model and simply indicates that at the start of a process, we expand our perception. Then we converge as we conceptualise and learn from it. And this occurs in most meetings, and in most activities.
Problem solving models has been around for a very long time. But there is a real and important distinction between the hard problem solving, in a complicated and logical context. And problem solving in complex systems, like social systems like organisations. Social systems are inherently complex adaptive systems, and approach to understanding and dealing with them fundamentally differ to logical methods.
Banathys original work created what he called Systems Design, and was the foundation of the 1996 Double Diamond model. His work combines Systems Thinking with Design Thinking, and recognises that change in complex situations requires a multi-disciplinary approach. He incorporated iterative design, complexity, emergent properties and boundaries, and an emergent design process. These are different to the way that we approach traditional problem solving, that is often missed by those engaged in a more superficial comparison of the different methods.
Osborne Parnes 5 step problem solving model describes how in the 1950's change and design were focused into problem solving. The five step process was a process to follow, that assumed changes in perspective and innovation, and was based on behaviours. But I dont believe that it was based on the application within social systems and underlying complexity. Make no mistake, despite the apparent similarities, approaches like the Osborne Parnes 5 step model of problem solving, and Banathys social design methodology appear to be quite different in their purpose and context to each other. The 1960's were a creative time where these differences were brought to the attention of thinkers and academics.
Banathys principles and methodology comes primarily from various disciplines, but importantly systems thinking; notably the methods from Ackoff and Churchman. Much of that background emerged from the 1960's. The core of the approach consists of a vast array or elements, that are attempted to be summarised in two diagrams; the Dynamics of Design (spiral), and the Dynamics of Divergence and Convergence (double diamond). Oner cannot be considered without the other. The whole book attempts to describe the various elements, and because of that it is often tricky to read and has to be read as a whole book to understand it.
The introduction of the SECI concepts by Ikujiro Nonaka and others explains how tacit and explicit knowledge are converted into organizational knowledge. This concept is that the heart of how to use the triple diamond, and takes it from a logical process to a spiral one. This is also the concept of action learning,
1. Sharing through direct experience.
2. Discussion and reflection with each other.
3. Redefining concepts.
4. New breakthrough in thinking and ideas.
Problem solving models has been around for a very long time. But there is a real and important distinction between the hard problem solving, in a complicated and logical context. And problem solving in complex systems, like social systems like organisations. Social systems are inherently complex adaptive systems, and approach to understanding and dealing with them fundamentally differ to logical methods.
Banathys original work created what he called Systems Design, and was the foundation of the 1996 Double Diamond model. His work combines Systems Thinking with Design Thinking, and recognises that change in complex situations requires a multi-disciplinary approach. He incorporated iterative design, complexity, emergent properties and boundaries, and an emergent design process. These are different to the way that we approach traditional problem solving, that is often missed by those engaged in a more superficial comparison of the different methods.
Osborne Parnes 5 step problem solving model describes how in the 1950's change and design were focused into problem solving. The five step process was a process to follow, that assumed changes in perspective and innovation, and was based on behaviours. But I dont believe that it was based on the application within social systems and underlying complexity. Make no mistake, despite the apparent similarities, approaches like the Osborne Parnes 5 step model of problem solving, and Banathys social design methodology appear to be quite different in their purpose and context to each other. The 1960's were a creative time where these differences were brought to the attention of thinkers and academics.
Banathys principles and methodology comes primarily from various disciplines, but importantly systems thinking; notably the methods from Ackoff and Churchman. Much of that background emerged from the 1960's. The core of the approach consists of a vast array or elements, that are attempted to be summarised in two diagrams; the Dynamics of Design (spiral), and the Dynamics of Divergence and Convergence (double diamond). Oner cannot be considered without the other. The whole book attempts to describe the various elements, and because of that it is often tricky to read and has to be read as a whole book to understand it.
The introduction of the SECI concepts by Ikujiro Nonaka and others explains how tacit and explicit knowledge are converted into organizational knowledge. This concept is that the heart of how to use the triple diamond, and takes it from a logical process to a spiral one. This is also the concept of action learning,
1. Sharing through direct experience.
2. Discussion and reflection with each other.
3. Redefining concepts.
4. New breakthrough in thinking and ideas.
Banathy dynamics of design for social systems
|
Banathy Dynamics of Divergence and Convergence
|
Checkland's soft systems methodology
What is inappropriate to do, is to simply compare the different approaches. What is appropriate to do is to look at the concepts behind the models, and use those to understand the methodology of each. That exercise is a substantial one, that I am not going to go into here, except to describe some interesting highlights.
Firstly Banathys consists of two high level models, and a raft of principles and underlying methods. The two main models are conceptual, not procedural. In addition, they are designed to apply to complex adaptive systems. They are designed for synthesis and sense-making. And they are designed to help mould the direction of the understanding, and influence outcomes. In some cases there will be no outcomes as such. The other characteristic that is very important is that the approach is spiral, iterative.
Other models by other authors, are based on other principles, and many are designed to be used as step by step processes, some with regard to problem solving. They are mostly used to create specific outcomes.
Checklands SSM is interesting, as it is designed to delve into the mindsets of people. His principles behind the SSM are;
The triple diamond that I am putting forward here is primarily aligned with Banathys methodology, rather than simply a problem solving method. although an element of its application does have a connection to those like the Osborne Parnes 5 step process, and the CPS 4 stage (clarify, ideate, develop implement), which anyone who works with the Toyota and Quality methods of the past century will recognise. It uses SSM, in the context of an organisation.
And, there is another aspect to this that we cannot ignore, and that is the inclusion of Change expertise, typically known as Change Management. I am going to input some details regarding change in this space at a later date, as this incorporates important aspects of the theories and methods of change, including behaviour, power, action learning methods, ownership, co-creation, etc.
In this site, I am going to use the term Systemic Design to describe how all of this is combined..
Firstly Banathys consists of two high level models, and a raft of principles and underlying methods. The two main models are conceptual, not procedural. In addition, they are designed to apply to complex adaptive systems. They are designed for synthesis and sense-making. And they are designed to help mould the direction of the understanding, and influence outcomes. In some cases there will be no outcomes as such. The other characteristic that is very important is that the approach is spiral, iterative.
Other models by other authors, are based on other principles, and many are designed to be used as step by step processes, some with regard to problem solving. They are mostly used to create specific outcomes.
Checklands SSM is interesting, as it is designed to delve into the mindsets of people. His principles behind the SSM are;
- Each of us will have a different perception of a situation
- There will always be different world views, different interests will be being pursued, world views are not fixed, they change.
- The ideas in your head cause you to have the experiences you have in the world.
- Human groups always contain people who are trying to take purposeful action.
The triple diamond that I am putting forward here is primarily aligned with Banathys methodology, rather than simply a problem solving method. although an element of its application does have a connection to those like the Osborne Parnes 5 step process, and the CPS 4 stage (clarify, ideate, develop implement), which anyone who works with the Toyota and Quality methods of the past century will recognise. It uses SSM, in the context of an organisation.
And, there is another aspect to this that we cannot ignore, and that is the inclusion of Change expertise, typically known as Change Management. I am going to input some details regarding change in this space at a later date, as this incorporates important aspects of the theories and methods of change, including behaviour, power, action learning methods, ownership, co-creation, etc.
In this site, I am going to use the term Systemic Design to describe how all of this is combined..
The Fundamentals of Systems Thinking
An organisation systems thinker is someone who is self aware of how we create organisation as systems. Here are some systems traits:
- See the service truly from outside-in. Far more than simply customer requirements, or Digital flow.
- Start from the whole, and understand all the aspects of an organisation and how they interact and influence each other.
- Create new forms of management behaviours and leadership traits.
- Demolish and liberate the behaviours that build silo working and functionalisation.
Defining what something is, is often better understood by defining what it is not, so comparing systems thinking to its opposite may be helpful.
Reductionist thinking, for our purpose, can be seen as being the opposite of systems thinking; designing services according to a machine mindset, where the organsiation is designed around what is best for the organsiation.
Understand the whole, not the individual parts.
This difference is encapsulated in Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS). Understanding an organisation like a CAS rather than a machine, is a fundamental paradigm that transforms everything we understand of organisation design.
Reductionist thinking, for our purpose, can be seen as being the opposite of systems thinking; designing services according to a machine mindset, where the organsiation is designed around what is best for the organsiation.
Understand the whole, not the individual parts.
This difference is encapsulated in Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS). Understanding an organisation like a CAS rather than a machine, is a fundamental paradigm that transforms everything we understand of organisation design.
Systems Thinking, like Design Thinking, is a practice
What is systems thinking for you? I find that we all have our own root definition of what we think systems thinking actually is.
For some, it is competence of a list of system thinking tools; like a checklist. When you have learned them you have passed!
For others, it is about how we actually think about how we see reality, and our place in it.
For the purpose of this approach, I am assigning systems thinking to how we think; how we perceive organisations, and the underlying understanding of how they actually work. Here, systems thinking is more of a verb, rather than a noun. It is a lens through which to view what we understand.
'The systems approach begíns when first you see the world through the eyes of another."
C. West Churchman
For some, it is competence of a list of system thinking tools; like a checklist. When you have learned them you have passed!
For others, it is about how we actually think about how we see reality, and our place in it.
For the purpose of this approach, I am assigning systems thinking to how we think; how we perceive organisations, and the underlying understanding of how they actually work. Here, systems thinking is more of a verb, rather than a noun. It is a lens through which to view what we understand.
'The systems approach begíns when first you see the world through the eyes of another."
C. West Churchman
What is an Organisation when Understood as a System?
The core of a system is an interconnected set of people and technology that are coherently organized in a way that achieves something.
A service as a system is a collection of people, how they interact and communicate with each other, their competence, activities and actions and value created (the flow of the work). It is about its decision-making, rules, measures, mental models and paradigms, values & assumptions, power and politics, relationships, responsibilities, intrinsic purpose, reactions, its ability to learn, its culture and behaviours, its information & knowledge, its wisdom, and its technology. The system includes its environment outside the organisation that has any effect upon it; the competitors, suppliers, partners, the economy and political decisions, legislation, the weather...
Systems thinking iceberg model
Adapted from Linda Booth Sweeney and Dennis Meadows
This model is a very simple representation of an organisation as a system. It uses the metaphor of an iceberg to illustrate that our services are deeply influenced by dynamics we cannot easily see: the structures that form the framework within which we operate, and the beliefs we hold about how things work. Systems thinking is about understanding the interplay between all these, before we attempt to do anything else.
Purpose...
Almost lastly and most importantly, it is the customers or the public that create the need for the organisation or service to exist in the first place, the purpose that serves them, and their effect when they group into communities and trends.
(Deming)
To understand the system, we can construct a boundary around it, so that we can stand outside of it to observe and understand it, operate it, and change it. We decide where that boundary is, dependent on what we intend to do. From a design perspective and for an intervention to take place in that service, we are primarily focused on the service itself; the workflow. Therefore I find it helpful to treat this work as more of a closed rather than open system. If we do this we can look at the service as a system itelf, with the boundary set at an agreed level with the leaders.
Almost lastly and most importantly, it is the customers or the public that create the need for the organisation or service to exist in the first place, the purpose that serves them, and their effect when they group into communities and trends.
(Deming)
To understand the system, we can construct a boundary around it, so that we can stand outside of it to observe and understand it, operate it, and change it. We decide where that boundary is, dependent on what we intend to do. From a design perspective and for an intervention to take place in that service, we are primarily focused on the service itself; the workflow. Therefore I find it helpful to treat this work as more of a closed rather than open system. If we do this we can look at the service as a system itelf, with the boundary set at an agreed level with the leaders.
Systemic Service Design Principles
One way of understanding how this is different, is by comparing this with traditional change
Systems thinking & practice |
Traditional thinking & practice |
|
That the service & should be understood as a system. |
applying rationality, reductionism, expertise and functionality to an organisation may take us away from the understanding of that whole. |
1 |
The whole service is defined by its purpose. And as such the service must be understood end to end, creating an outside-in view of the organisation as a system |
Service functions have their own purpose, working against each other. |
2 |
People are the heart of any organisation, and they are the embodiment of the system. Staff bring their whole selves to work |
Staff are cogs in a machine, they have little control over their work |
3 |
Holistic understanding, immersive systemic knowing |
Reductionist analytical thinking |
4 |
Liberate staff to absorb variation in the design and operations |
Impose standard services on the customer |
5 |
Design around the customer |
Internal focus, and satisfy stakeholders |
6 |
Recognition that leaders mindsets creates the system, allows us to help leaders to change their fundamental understanding of how they see organisations work |
Leaders think that staff perceptions need to change, not theirs |
7 |
The staff in the organisation undertake the change to develop experiential knowing to learn and design |
Change is done to staff |
8 |
Driven by Purpose
if we wish to help to create a new system, we must first look at the purpose of the service:
“A change in purpose changes a system profoundly, even if every element and interconnection remains the same.” Donella Meadows
“A change in purpose changes a system profoundly, even if every element and interconnection remains the same.” Donella Meadows
If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea. Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Fundamentally, the purpose (mission) of a service is defined by those for whom it is there for (often the customer). This creates two things; the first is that the central focus of the design of the service must be driven by that purpose, and what matters to those customers is what is paid attention to to design how the service interacts with customers.
The second is that the purpose, when shared by all in the system, will enable each to contribute and collaborate fully by aligning all departments and teams to a common goal.
If the true purpose, from an outside-in perspective, is not understood by the leaders of the business, then how can those leaders truly understand their service systemically?
The second is that the purpose, when shared by all in the system, will enable each to contribute and collaborate fully by aligning all departments and teams to a common goal.
If the true purpose, from an outside-in perspective, is not understood by the leaders of the business, then how can those leaders truly understand their service systemically?
Human learning systems
Here is the page where I describe Human Learning Systems in full
GEEK ALERT. The section below is for those who want to get into the real detail of what is behind all of this.
(This framework and approach is not unique or mine - that is almost entirely developed from others. But I describe it here for those service designers who wish to understand more about how those who work in my space do their work. )
People and the Complex Adaptive System
The system as an organisation or service does not exist as a physical thing, it is the complete elements that make up how the whole service works within its environment. How you define the system depends on the situation we are trying to understand. (Ackoff Morgan and Meadows).
A Complex Adaptive System (CAS) is a metaphor for how social groups work. This model is deriverd from various elements of systems thinking and other disciplines, in particular social and behavioural science, and Checkland and the Human Activity System.. The understanding of how CAS can help us to model parts of an organisations and its evolution, is an important step away from the mechanistic and static view of old. However, it is only a metaphor that is valid depending on the reason and aspect that we have chosen to examine an organisation. CAS, when looked at strategically and environmentally, gives us the powerful understanding that change is a constant. This phrase is one of the most powerful when helping leaders to undertand their role in modern management.
The reality is that the various metaphors, incuding the Taylorist scientific paradigm, have value according to the observer and their reason.
We, as humans are far more conerned with Power, Ego, Individuality, Social groups, Trust, Motivation, Desire, Passion, etc. How can the theoretical and scientific be applied to this?
...
Smuts, we shall see, was able to make the exploratory shift into another dimension of truth; beyond 'brute' empirical fact, as he put it, or against simplistic belief. We will also track how his insights developed. Importantly he did not see them as 'fixed', as ultimate truths, but rather as a way of thinking anew, of exploration, of generating, through trial and error, a new epistemology.
“To assume that anything can be known in isolation from its connections with other things is to lose the key to the traits that distinguish an object as known. . . . The more connections and interactions we ascertain, the more we know the object in question.” John Dewey, 1929 Bringing brain and heart knowledge together
A Complex Adaptive System (CAS) is a metaphor for how social groups work. This model is deriverd from various elements of systems thinking and other disciplines, in particular social and behavioural science, and Checkland and the Human Activity System.. The understanding of how CAS can help us to model parts of an organisations and its evolution, is an important step away from the mechanistic and static view of old. However, it is only a metaphor that is valid depending on the reason and aspect that we have chosen to examine an organisation. CAS, when looked at strategically and environmentally, gives us the powerful understanding that change is a constant. This phrase is one of the most powerful when helping leaders to undertand their role in modern management.
The reality is that the various metaphors, incuding the Taylorist scientific paradigm, have value according to the observer and their reason.
We, as humans are far more conerned with Power, Ego, Individuality, Social groups, Trust, Motivation, Desire, Passion, etc. How can the theoretical and scientific be applied to this?
...
Smuts, we shall see, was able to make the exploratory shift into another dimension of truth; beyond 'brute' empirical fact, as he put it, or against simplistic belief. We will also track how his insights developed. Importantly he did not see them as 'fixed', as ultimate truths, but rather as a way of thinking anew, of exploration, of generating, through trial and error, a new epistemology.
“To assume that anything can be known in isolation from its connections with other things is to lose the key to the traits that distinguish an object as known. . . . The more connections and interactions we ascertain, the more we know the object in question.” John Dewey, 1929 Bringing brain and heart knowledge together
The system is the whole, and if take this apart for a moment, we can look at:
- the customer,
- the people (the doers and the decision-makers), value creation of the product/ service,
- the workflow; rules, decisions, process, infrastructure, interaction mechanisms with the customers, internal staff communication and interaction mechanisms, the controlling mechanisms (reports and measures),
- the behaviours within the culture, scope of the work, design of the system, power dynamics, hierarchy dynamics (politics), inter-personal communication, human-ness,
- the thinking that underpins our beliefs about how the work works.
- the customer,
- the people (the doers and the decision-makers), value creation of the product/ service,
- the workflow; rules, decisions, process, infrastructure, interaction mechanisms with the customers, internal staff communication and interaction mechanisms, the controlling mechanisms (reports and measures),
- the behaviours within the culture, scope of the work, design of the system, power dynamics, hierarchy dynamics (politics), inter-personal communication, human-ness,
- the thinking that underpins our beliefs about how the work works.
Originators
All of those listed here are some of those who have contributed to this methodology, (that is not mine) and influenced my approach. The foundation to this derives from the seminal work of John Seddon, and supported by Ibrar Hussain. The others are those that then influenced the understanding and development of the methodology. Some have managed to help us to bridge that gap of theory and successful practice. A rare breed...
deming, sarasohn
Deming and certainly Sarasohn are not particularly well known in todays management circles, maily because their famous work occured in the 1950's and in Japan, and was focused on Quality. Deming, whilst known as a statistician, to those who know what he has achieved he defined a powerful way to see organisations from a systems perspective. Sarasohn was key in developing participative and progressive management in Japan; something that was completely alien to managers. Moving forward in this text I simply refer to Deming as including others like Sarasohn (because their roles overlap heavily). The key learning for me has been in his definition and practice of:
Interestingly Deming was less of a theorist and more of a realist and doer. He was well versed in statistics, and appeared to know virtually nothing about systems theory. He was able to use systems thinking to understand organisations, and help others to do the same. Through a mix of luck of being at the right time in the right place, and having an intuitive outside-in systems view, he helped senior business leaders, JUSE (Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers), and politicains in Japan to recognise something that they were at that time (just reconsrtucting after WWII) very willing to learn about. This learning was the way that the government, support agencies, suppliers and producers can understand their industries systemically, and work together to nuture that system. Deming ansd others have been credited to being a significantly contribution to the post WWII boom where Japan became the world production powerhouse in the 20th century. A meteoric rise. Perhaps one of his greatest contributions here is in the recognition of the workflow through a service is the core of the system, and everything else should be driven by that.
Deming has largely been ignored in the West, when compared to his influence in Japan. Partly because his key contribution was really a paradim shift, and that has been largely ignored by many who simply have read about some of his work, rather than absorbed it. Unfortunately, Deming's approach to engaging with senior leaders, and his direct and abrupt communication style, resulted in his fundamental ideas not being grasped by many. His audio and video recordings attest to this, epecially when we was asked to participate in areas outside of his comfort zone - like education. Sarasohn had a quiet and retiring attitude to his work, and as such his influence appears to have been eclipsed by Deming.
Highlighting some of Deming's key principles of what he called Profound Knowledge (via John Willis):
Senior leaders in the West failed to grasp the fundamentals of his approach, and converted his message into discrete customer focus and quality based activities that were passed to those in their organisations that had Quality in their titles. What is most interesting is that today modern management is finally catching up with some of Deming's key aspects of his work. His core principles, and Theory of Profound Knowledge are more in line with creating progressive management than with traditional management. This view was the beginning of the Customer Focus movement in popular writing, where CX grew from, and Design Thinking established a model of intervention design that became Service Design.
Could it be said that Deming et al have had one of the greatest systems thinking practical influence in the world of business so far?
- Understanding your service, organisation, industry and country as a system but with diffferent boundaries according to what you are trying to achieve. (Midgley)
- The power of understanding the organisation outside-in, and therefore whole and driven by the customer purpose. (Deming)
- The move of management thinking from reductionist and traditional to systems thinking. (paradigm shift, Forrester)
- The understanding that people in the organisation are the core of the organisation, and as such the effort must be to ensure that staff are seen as core to the organisation. (Taichi Ono, Deming)
- That the working culture must be underpinned with trust, cooperation, personal fulfilment, and teamwork. (Deming, Toyoda)
- The customer drives the purpose, and the single purpose drives all the elements within the system. (Deming, Meadows)
- The majority of failures in the operations are caused by deficiencies in the system. The role of management is to lead the change in the system rather than badgering staff to do better. (Deming)
- It is leaders and managers that create the system and the conditions that the system behaves. They need to recognise this and fundamentally changing the system requires changing their mindset. (Deming)
- The importance of understanding how variation should be interpreted, so that it can be linked to elements in the system that can then be altered to match the variety with the response of the service. (Ashby)
Interestingly Deming was less of a theorist and more of a realist and doer. He was well versed in statistics, and appeared to know virtually nothing about systems theory. He was able to use systems thinking to understand organisations, and help others to do the same. Through a mix of luck of being at the right time in the right place, and having an intuitive outside-in systems view, he helped senior business leaders, JUSE (Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers), and politicains in Japan to recognise something that they were at that time (just reconsrtucting after WWII) very willing to learn about. This learning was the way that the government, support agencies, suppliers and producers can understand their industries systemically, and work together to nuture that system. Deming ansd others have been credited to being a significantly contribution to the post WWII boom where Japan became the world production powerhouse in the 20th century. A meteoric rise. Perhaps one of his greatest contributions here is in the recognition of the workflow through a service is the core of the system, and everything else should be driven by that.
Deming has largely been ignored in the West, when compared to his influence in Japan. Partly because his key contribution was really a paradim shift, and that has been largely ignored by many who simply have read about some of his work, rather than absorbed it. Unfortunately, Deming's approach to engaging with senior leaders, and his direct and abrupt communication style, resulted in his fundamental ideas not being grasped by many. His audio and video recordings attest to this, epecially when we was asked to participate in areas outside of his comfort zone - like education. Sarasohn had a quiet and retiring attitude to his work, and as such his influence appears to have been eclipsed by Deming.
Highlighting some of Deming's key principles of what he called Profound Knowledge (via John Willis):
- Theory of knowledge, how our thinking links in to the concepts and actions we take.
- Understanding variation, and how that affects our work and design.
- Humans - psychology and how we learn, work and act together.
- Systems thinking in practice.
Senior leaders in the West failed to grasp the fundamentals of his approach, and converted his message into discrete customer focus and quality based activities that were passed to those in their organisations that had Quality in their titles. What is most interesting is that today modern management is finally catching up with some of Deming's key aspects of his work. His core principles, and Theory of Profound Knowledge are more in line with creating progressive management than with traditional management. This view was the beginning of the Customer Focus movement in popular writing, where CX grew from, and Design Thinking established a model of intervention design that became Service Design.
Could it be said that Deming et al have had one of the greatest systems thinking practical influence in the world of business so far?
important influencers
Holism, by Smuts in the 1920's. Emphasising the opposite of reductionism as a principle way of thinking (paradigm).
Spiral dynamics from Clare Graves, that helps to understand how different people percieve and understand their world. And how we all have our limitations and ability to comprehend.
Reinventing Organisations by Laloux; a good place to become engrossed in stories of what is possible when moving away from Command & Control thinking.
Concepts like Dan Pink's motivational theory, which were not really 'invented' by anyone, but whose discovery was made popular simply because management had retreated so far into the machine paradigm.
Complexity by Ritter and Webber, and taking wicked problems and complexity, and recognising that complexity is a fundamentally different type of aspect. That then needs fundamentally different principles and approaches. We cannot deal with complexity using the methods used for logical situations.
Spiral dynamics from Clare Graves, that helps to understand how different people percieve and understand their world. And how we all have our limitations and ability to comprehend.
Reinventing Organisations by Laloux; a good place to become engrossed in stories of what is possible when moving away from Command & Control thinking.
Concepts like Dan Pink's motivational theory, which were not really 'invented' by anyone, but whose discovery was made popular simply because management had retreated so far into the machine paradigm.
Complexity by Ritter and Webber, and taking wicked problems and complexity, and recognising that complexity is a fundamentally different type of aspect. That then needs fundamentally different principles and approaches. We cannot deal with complexity using the methods used for logical situations.
taiichi ono and eiji toyoda
Like so many others, Toyoda was a designer at heart. He first created machines, then he created Toyota. Central to his beliefs about organisatons were the same as those that Deming and others above were working towards.
When Taichi Ono started developing a new approach to making cars, the human side of staff was developed to the full because Toyoda believed that workers, and managers in the hierarchy should not be based on power, but on mutuality. Toyoda also understood his organisation as a system, together with the development of so many aspects of Teal based organisations. Toyota has achieved great heights of modern management, and continues to be a beacon today.
Its main learning has been in the implementation of practice within organisations (as opposed to theory). Taichi Ono was a master of development and implementation. He spearheaded what is known as the Toyota Production System (TPS), which then developed far into a modern and dynamic system:
When Taichi Ono started developing a new approach to making cars, the human side of staff was developed to the full because Toyoda believed that workers, and managers in the hierarchy should not be based on power, but on mutuality. Toyoda also understood his organisation as a system, together with the development of so many aspects of Teal based organisations. Toyota has achieved great heights of modern management, and continues to be a beacon today.
Its main learning has been in the implementation of practice within organisations (as opposed to theory). Taichi Ono was a master of development and implementation. He spearheaded what is known as the Toyota Production System (TPS), which then developed far into a modern and dynamic system:
- Bringing in the staff to become the heart of the organisation flow and its culture that drives the organisation forward.
- Continuous improvement as a mindset, rather than a process.
- Seeing workflow as a flow rather than a process.
- Eliminating waste in the workflow.
- Enabling front line staff to develop themselves as people with ambition, development, and teams.
- Teamwork that has clarity of purpose and allows empowerment and growth to be a hallmark.
- Everyone has a sense of their part in the organisation as a system.
- Creating unique management approaches and behaviours, that we now recognise as empowering systemic leadership.
- The mindset of leaders has to shed its traditional mentality to embrace the new.
- Learning and management happens by being connected to the work.
JOhn seddon & systemic design
Seddons inclusion here is that he has managed to take systems thinking, psychology, and management theory, and combine it with proven change theory and methods, to create a new intervention approach - the Vanguard method. He has brought to light some unique insights and techniques, and developed a methodology that is both systems thinking as a foundation, and practical in its approach. Used with flexibility rather than as a prescription, it can be very powerful for transformation, as well as less invasive service design within a service. The core of this approach is infused throught these writings, and is the methodology that I primarily use. John Seddon describes how this approach 'liberates method'. In the public sector, Mark Smith has coined this method The liberated method,
To learn about the Vanguard Method as created by John Seddon, it is necessary to separate ourselves from Seddons rhetoric and individual behaviour, which some find problematic. The method, which is in fact a methodology, is specifically designed for service organisations. It can usually only be comprehended by being involved directly in observing it in operation. There are many who have experienced this approach and have been changed by it. And there are others who have only read about the approach, who usually then assess it rationally, often with inaccurate conclusions. Theoretic analysis is quite useless for approaches like these, as witnessed by the bickering and arguments of grown middle aged (often males) in a room or social media! The Vanguard Method is different in that it was developed to structure interventions and improvement in service organisations who wish to find ‘a better way to make the work work’ (Seddon 2003) by first moving them away from command and control thinking, liberating method, and subsequently redesigning their services according to systems principles. Seddon himself differentiates his work from other systems theorists by referring to a statement by Stafford Beer:
Although we may recognise the systemic nature of the world, and would agree when challenged that something we normally think of as an entity is actually a system, our culture does not propound this insight as particularly interesting or profitable to contemplate (Beer 1974, p 3)
Design Thinking needs no introduction here, merely to say that what it has contributed somewhat to the nuts and bolts of design, but more in the particular principles of understanding and seeing. Some of these are;
- design is not science, it encapsulates art and intuition. It should experienced, not argued about.
- what makes us human is key to what and how we then do things.
- we are all different and therefore we learn, do, act, percieve, create, understand and think differently.
- we respect others, their differences, and where they are in their learning journey.
- the more we learn, the more we create, the more we evolve.
There are many others that are recognised as systemic design contributors. One of those is of course Russ Ackoff, and Peter Checkland with Soft Systems Thinking design. But the other, perhaps less known, is Bela Banathy; and his seminal book, Designing social systems in a changing world. This, perhaps more than any other, is the most aligned with the concepts I use.
To learn about the Vanguard Method as created by John Seddon, it is necessary to separate ourselves from Seddons rhetoric and individual behaviour, which some find problematic. The method, which is in fact a methodology, is specifically designed for service organisations. It can usually only be comprehended by being involved directly in observing it in operation. There are many who have experienced this approach and have been changed by it. And there are others who have only read about the approach, who usually then assess it rationally, often with inaccurate conclusions. Theoretic analysis is quite useless for approaches like these, as witnessed by the bickering and arguments of grown middle aged (often males) in a room or social media! The Vanguard Method is different in that it was developed to structure interventions and improvement in service organisations who wish to find ‘a better way to make the work work’ (Seddon 2003) by first moving them away from command and control thinking, liberating method, and subsequently redesigning their services according to systems principles. Seddon himself differentiates his work from other systems theorists by referring to a statement by Stafford Beer:
Although we may recognise the systemic nature of the world, and would agree when challenged that something we normally think of as an entity is actually a system, our culture does not propound this insight as particularly interesting or profitable to contemplate (Beer 1974, p 3)
Design Thinking needs no introduction here, merely to say that what it has contributed somewhat to the nuts and bolts of design, but more in the particular principles of understanding and seeing. Some of these are;
- design is not science, it encapsulates art and intuition. It should experienced, not argued about.
- what makes us human is key to what and how we then do things.
- we are all different and therefore we learn, do, act, percieve, create, understand and think differently.
- we respect others, their differences, and where they are in their learning journey.
- the more we learn, the more we create, the more we evolve.
There are many others that are recognised as systemic design contributors. One of those is of course Russ Ackoff, and Peter Checkland with Soft Systems Thinking design. But the other, perhaps less known, is Bela Banathy; and his seminal book, Designing social systems in a changing world. This, perhaps more than any other, is the most aligned with the concepts I use.
pioneering systems thinkers
This group have further contributed to the application of system thinking to service organisations.
Margeret Mead and Heinz von Foerster underpinned Second order Cybernetics, allowing social and organisational developments to develop within System Theory.
Ackoff in particular was someone who managed to motivate many in the direction of applied systems thinking, taking the theoretical concepts and attempting to make them more well known in day to day language. Ackoff also focused on dissolving messes, and helped us to recognise and deal with complexity. Ackoff's aphorisms have become well quoted. In particular, one of the most useful for us is: ‘doing the wrong thing righter’. Ackoff and Meadows, unlike others, were happy to view organisations as systems. (Ackoffs hierarchy of systems). Ackoff's Idealised design is a framework that follows closely with the methodology here; where mission = purpose, formulating the mess = Understand, realzation = development. A foundation of Ackoffs approach was to help us to move our paradigm of understaing how organsiations work, away from Reductionism, and towards Holism.
Drucker once wrote of Ackoff: you saved me from descending into mindless ‘model building’ – the disease that all but destroyed so many of the business schools.
Prof Michael Jackson has defined an approach that helps us to select systems thinking to apply it in the context that it is most suited. This works to bring together different aspects of systems thinking, that are often seen to be at odds with each other. His analysis of different methodologies is extensive, and he is a creator of Critical Systems Practice that also incorporates complexity, as well as a flexibility for interventions. And CSP widens our perspective to incorporate Design Thinking phases; Creativity - Choice - Implementation - Reflection, or the double diamond.
Prof Roy Ison is an experienced consultant with the UK government, public sector and political parties. His approach and experience is very closely related to this approach.
C Argyris & Schon who developed espoused theories, and theories in use. Helping us to understand how people can alter their mindset and paradigm. And the concept of single and double loop learning (from Norbert Wiener 1894–1964 an early pioneer of cybernetics) In particular Argyris work on intervention theory has perhaps contributed the most is central to this approach. He also includes how to understand mental maps and the use of knowledge and choice, with regard to successful mindset development, and the ladder of inference. This is a cornerstone of this methodology. This built on interesting work by Chinn + Benne on changing thinking.
Peter Senge contributes how to move from the theory to practice, and is seen as having developed Demings work further. In particular Senge has focused on management, learning, people, and systems; The way organizations are is a product of how we think and interact; they cannot change in any fundamental way unless we can change our basic patterns of thinking and interacting. His mental models are fundamental to helping leaders to grasp new ways of seeing. The learning organisation is key in understanding how to evolve. Team learning and shared vision is essential as a cornerstone to implementation.
Gareth Morgan's metaphors help us to examine the complicatedeness of organisations, by focusing on their aspects, and help us to avoid reductionism.
Myron Roger's maxims have been very helpful to confirm the approach to ensure that an intervention is on solid ground, including his well known Maxims. And his profound thoughts with Wheatley, moving away from flawed machine based Taylorist principles.
Peter Checkland was a pioneer for 'soft' systems, that was more applicable to social systems, and complexity. Checkland’s method was devised for solving complex management problems. He describes how the worldviews (Weltanschauungen) that we all hold have to be considered in any application of systems thinking. However, his description of the nature of systems being defined according to the eyes of the beholder, can be less relevant to purposeful service organisations. Focus on the purpose of the service overcomes this apparent need for consensus that proves to be so difficult for several systems thinking approaches. Checkland developed a soft methodology SSM, that has been very helpful in considering interventions wider than what has been before. His SSM is fundamental to the design of this methodology.
Stafford Beer was a consultant and creator of the Viable Systems Model, a scientific model of effective organisation structure, from second order cybernetics based on a biological system design. However, iots usefulness is less relevant in networked organsiations that are non-linear in design. POSIWID is an important insight into the difference between stated vs actual, or de-facto purpose of an organisation, or group of people, that I use in every intervention. Adaptability to change was one of his contributions to this approach, and in the way that an organisation can be modelled, and how it has to be adaptive.
Charles Churchman emphasised the fact that boundaries drawn around a system determine what is taken into account, and that they are dependant on the knowledge and values of the observers. Which points us towards the importance of incorporating all major elements of the organisation and those what are connected to it. This then helped when combined with Midgley.
Gerald Midgley has been helpful in describing the intervention approaches with the an ability to define a system with boundaries, that then relate that to the problem that we are trying to solve. He then went on to formulate the Multi-methodology approach, that demonstrates the flexibility that is required to develop interventions in real organisations. And in particular Systemic Intervention. He also recognised the 'waves' or eras of systems thinking. These waves also help us to distinguish why different people see systems thinking differently. It also helps to understand why, with some people, systems thinking has become so opaque, and narrow-minded.
Cabrera has taken Midgleys wave metaphor, and given us the courage to move into the fourth wave.
Rajagopalan has opened our narrow eyes to help us to see that it is not white, Western men that have created analytical systems thinking, but that the ways of knowing and perceiving can be far more diverse, especially through experiential knowing. The concept of immersive systemic knowing.
Mingers and Bhaskar then took this forward to an even higher level of Critical Realism as focused on social reality. To me it implies that our application of theory and science to the issues we deal with is only one way of percieving; it is about us being human rather than logical beings. (MELD categories)
von Bertalanffy emphasises consideration of the organism as a whole or system, and sees the main objective of biological sciences in the discovery of the principle of organisation at its various levels. He also helped us to distinguish closed and open systems, equilibrium, the recognition that living organisms flow through; take in, process sand transport out , and helped to get systems thinking into the organisational & management arena.
Tolman and Brunswick 1935, developed complicated theories regarding the nature of organisms and organisations to their environment. The depth and theoretical nature of the causual texture work, takes it out of the realm of the casual reader. And is only mentioned here as a foundation for others in this list.
Ashbys law of Requisite variety helps us to understand the nature of variation, and how a system reacts with external signals. Cybernetic systems are subject to information to allow then to operate. This material appears simple, but it is deep rooted and fundamental when applied at the level of thinking. It is also a cornerstone of this methodology.
Donella Meadows with developing systems thinking in a less academic way, and transcending paradigms and places to intervene in a system, and leverage points. (overlap with J Forrester). She and Senge share much in their application of systems thinking and the role of purpose, but Meadows focus is more on complex social systems, rather than organisations.
Ranulph Glanville, developing cybernetics and design that developed into practical thoughts on how we should use systems thinking and design. He manages to combine the notion of the machine with human-ness. For me, it has parallels with Argyris work on understanding and choice. Conversation is the bridge between cybernetics and design.
Margeret Mead and Heinz von Foerster underpinned Second order Cybernetics, allowing social and organisational developments to develop within System Theory.
Ackoff in particular was someone who managed to motivate many in the direction of applied systems thinking, taking the theoretical concepts and attempting to make them more well known in day to day language. Ackoff also focused on dissolving messes, and helped us to recognise and deal with complexity. Ackoff's aphorisms have become well quoted. In particular, one of the most useful for us is: ‘doing the wrong thing righter’. Ackoff and Meadows, unlike others, were happy to view organisations as systems. (Ackoffs hierarchy of systems). Ackoff's Idealised design is a framework that follows closely with the methodology here; where mission = purpose, formulating the mess = Understand, realzation = development. A foundation of Ackoffs approach was to help us to move our paradigm of understaing how organsiations work, away from Reductionism, and towards Holism.
Drucker once wrote of Ackoff: you saved me from descending into mindless ‘model building’ – the disease that all but destroyed so many of the business schools.
Prof Michael Jackson has defined an approach that helps us to select systems thinking to apply it in the context that it is most suited. This works to bring together different aspects of systems thinking, that are often seen to be at odds with each other. His analysis of different methodologies is extensive, and he is a creator of Critical Systems Practice that also incorporates complexity, as well as a flexibility for interventions. And CSP widens our perspective to incorporate Design Thinking phases; Creativity - Choice - Implementation - Reflection, or the double diamond.
Prof Roy Ison is an experienced consultant with the UK government, public sector and political parties. His approach and experience is very closely related to this approach.
C Argyris & Schon who developed espoused theories, and theories in use. Helping us to understand how people can alter their mindset and paradigm. And the concept of single and double loop learning (from Norbert Wiener 1894–1964 an early pioneer of cybernetics) In particular Argyris work on intervention theory has perhaps contributed the most is central to this approach. He also includes how to understand mental maps and the use of knowledge and choice, with regard to successful mindset development, and the ladder of inference. This is a cornerstone of this methodology. This built on interesting work by Chinn + Benne on changing thinking.
Peter Senge contributes how to move from the theory to practice, and is seen as having developed Demings work further. In particular Senge has focused on management, learning, people, and systems; The way organizations are is a product of how we think and interact; they cannot change in any fundamental way unless we can change our basic patterns of thinking and interacting. His mental models are fundamental to helping leaders to grasp new ways of seeing. The learning organisation is key in understanding how to evolve. Team learning and shared vision is essential as a cornerstone to implementation.
Gareth Morgan's metaphors help us to examine the complicatedeness of organisations, by focusing on their aspects, and help us to avoid reductionism.
Myron Roger's maxims have been very helpful to confirm the approach to ensure that an intervention is on solid ground, including his well known Maxims. And his profound thoughts with Wheatley, moving away from flawed machine based Taylorist principles.
Peter Checkland was a pioneer for 'soft' systems, that was more applicable to social systems, and complexity. Checkland’s method was devised for solving complex management problems. He describes how the worldviews (Weltanschauungen) that we all hold have to be considered in any application of systems thinking. However, his description of the nature of systems being defined according to the eyes of the beholder, can be less relevant to purposeful service organisations. Focus on the purpose of the service overcomes this apparent need for consensus that proves to be so difficult for several systems thinking approaches. Checkland developed a soft methodology SSM, that has been very helpful in considering interventions wider than what has been before. His SSM is fundamental to the design of this methodology.
Stafford Beer was a consultant and creator of the Viable Systems Model, a scientific model of effective organisation structure, from second order cybernetics based on a biological system design. However, iots usefulness is less relevant in networked organsiations that are non-linear in design. POSIWID is an important insight into the difference between stated vs actual, or de-facto purpose of an organisation, or group of people, that I use in every intervention. Adaptability to change was one of his contributions to this approach, and in the way that an organisation can be modelled, and how it has to be adaptive.
Charles Churchman emphasised the fact that boundaries drawn around a system determine what is taken into account, and that they are dependant on the knowledge and values of the observers. Which points us towards the importance of incorporating all major elements of the organisation and those what are connected to it. This then helped when combined with Midgley.
Gerald Midgley has been helpful in describing the intervention approaches with the an ability to define a system with boundaries, that then relate that to the problem that we are trying to solve. He then went on to formulate the Multi-methodology approach, that demonstrates the flexibility that is required to develop interventions in real organisations. And in particular Systemic Intervention. He also recognised the 'waves' or eras of systems thinking. These waves also help us to distinguish why different people see systems thinking differently. It also helps to understand why, with some people, systems thinking has become so opaque, and narrow-minded.
Cabrera has taken Midgleys wave metaphor, and given us the courage to move into the fourth wave.
Rajagopalan has opened our narrow eyes to help us to see that it is not white, Western men that have created analytical systems thinking, but that the ways of knowing and perceiving can be far more diverse, especially through experiential knowing. The concept of immersive systemic knowing.
Mingers and Bhaskar then took this forward to an even higher level of Critical Realism as focused on social reality. To me it implies that our application of theory and science to the issues we deal with is only one way of percieving; it is about us being human rather than logical beings. (MELD categories)
von Bertalanffy emphasises consideration of the organism as a whole or system, and sees the main objective of biological sciences in the discovery of the principle of organisation at its various levels. He also helped us to distinguish closed and open systems, equilibrium, the recognition that living organisms flow through; take in, process sand transport out , and helped to get systems thinking into the organisational & management arena.
Tolman and Brunswick 1935, developed complicated theories regarding the nature of organisms and organisations to their environment. The depth and theoretical nature of the causual texture work, takes it out of the realm of the casual reader. And is only mentioned here as a foundation for others in this list.
Ashbys law of Requisite variety helps us to understand the nature of variation, and how a system reacts with external signals. Cybernetic systems are subject to information to allow then to operate. This material appears simple, but it is deep rooted and fundamental when applied at the level of thinking. It is also a cornerstone of this methodology.
Donella Meadows with developing systems thinking in a less academic way, and transcending paradigms and places to intervene in a system, and leverage points. (overlap with J Forrester). She and Senge share much in their application of systems thinking and the role of purpose, but Meadows focus is more on complex social systems, rather than organisations.
Ranulph Glanville, developing cybernetics and design that developed into practical thoughts on how we should use systems thinking and design. He manages to combine the notion of the machine with human-ness. For me, it has parallels with Argyris work on understanding and choice. Conversation is the bridge between cybernetics and design.
DEVELOPING systems thinking
Cabrera 4 waves of systems theory
Midgley and others have noted the 'waves' of systems thinking as a discipline. Recently, there has been a recognition that systems thinking is far more than is defined by the formal theoretical structures. Systems thinking is now far more free to be explored and understood, and that has led to an explosion in its application.
David Bohm - quantum physisist, and Holistic thinker. Taking systems thinking and Holism to another level of understanding. He engaged with metaphysics and philosophy, came to prominence in the 1990's, Art Meets Science and Spirituality in a Changing Economy. The systems thinking of Bohm, points to an even further widening of its definition.
David Bohm - quantum physisist, and Holistic thinker. Taking systems thinking and Holism to another level of understanding. He engaged with metaphysics and philosophy, came to prominence in the 1990's, Art Meets Science and Spirituality in a Changing Economy. The systems thinking of Bohm, points to an even further widening of its definition.
Spiral dynamics from Clare Graves helps us to recognise the diverse nature of how we are as humans, and how we interact within organisations. This certainly points to alignment with Critical Realism, and complex adaptive systems together with behavioural learning.
A Systemic way of Seeing
The diagram below attempts to simplify a learning development model that moves from theory and learning, to practice through what works. Systems thinking is a core that keeps everything focused, and that core is exemplified by the moving away from the Taylorist machine paradigm; developed well over a hundred years ago, to one that recognises a person centred, dynamic design paradigm.
In Argyris and Schon’s model, humans make meaning in two distinct contexts: abstracted thought and embedded action. A belief or understanding that is held in thought (espoused) may or may not hold true in experience (theory in use).
In Argyris and Schon’s model, humans make meaning in two distinct contexts: abstracted thought and embedded action. A belief or understanding that is held in thought (espoused) may or may not hold true in experience (theory in use).
The Depth of Systems Thinking
For those of us who intervene in organisations, who help to design services, one consideration that is paramount to ask is, at what level to we design? This fundamental question is not one to be answered here, as it is the result of a myriad of considerations. But here we can refer to Donella Meadows and her Leverage Points. And I have to state that, it is not necessary for all Service Design, I almost always try to intervene at level 1, Why do I do this? Well, I usually end up creating fundamental and sustained change within the operations itself, and that means deep change than encompasses most of what is within the organisation.
|
Paradigms are the sources of systems Donella Meadows, 2009 |
the process you use to get to the future is the future you get
Myron Rogers
Implementation
Service Design can act at various levels within an organsiation. This diagram attempts to describe various levels
What have I learned about service design in practice, the hard way?
- Start small with a dedicated team. They should separate themselves from the rules and procedures of the current organisation.
- Allow that team to develop following a set of new principles.
- Managers engage and resolve problems to clear the way for that team to move forward.
- The team do real work in a new way, and summarise their learning to senior managers.
- Once this has been accepted as the new way forward, others from the current service are rolled-in to the new team, so that new entrants become immersed in the new team, by their colleagues.
- Managers and leaders need to co-create the fundamentals of the new service to support the new emergent service.
- Allow that team to develop following a set of new principles.
- Managers engage and resolve problems to clear the way for that team to move forward.
- The team do real work in a new way, and summarise their learning to senior managers.
- Once this has been accepted as the new way forward, others from the current service are rolled-in to the new team, so that new entrants become immersed in the new team, by their colleagues.
- Managers and leaders need to co-create the fundamentals of the new service to support the new emergent service.
“A systemic worldview is a system of thought that considers all the factors and elements involved, including how they relate to each other, how they work together as a whole, what the system needs in order to survive, thrive, and evolve in its environment, and how the system impacts and interacts with its surrounding environment, including how the system will be able to respond and evolve as needs and the surrounding environment change.”
Those who have upgraded to a systemic worldview are not just systems thinkers. They are systems actors.
Jack Leith
Those who have upgraded to a systemic worldview are not just systems thinkers. They are systems actors.
Jack Leith
...
if the systems community is to develop, a typically postmodern understanding of systemic inquiry to fit into todays world, then it should relinquish the goal of producing a single (privileged) representation and instead understand that each representation is but one perspective among many.
David Matthews
if the systems community is to develop, a typically postmodern understanding of systemic inquiry to fit into todays world, then it should relinquish the goal of producing a single (privileged) representation and instead understand that each representation is but one perspective among many.
David Matthews
As a starting point it would be helpful to clarify a point, it helps me to group together at least three fundamentally different approaches to systems thinking;
- those that attempt to focus on unbounded issues like world social problems, climate change, community issues, etc,
- those that we want to use it for organisations and services,
- those that are working with engineering or scientific issues.
Many varieties of systems thinking exist. Each is based on a different set of assumptions, and there is not much common ground.
Jack Leith
- those that attempt to focus on unbounded issues like world social problems, climate change, community issues, etc,
- those that we want to use it for organisations and services,
- those that are working with engineering or scientific issues.
Many varieties of systems thinking exist. Each is based on a different set of assumptions, and there is not much common ground.
Jack Leith
... There’s a third kind of person; one that embodies the becoming, the abstraction/application process. These people are a conduit, fundamentally bridging the two worlds. There’s a certain art to explaining just the core of Theory in the words of someone who Practices, and there’s a certain art to combining the essences of Practices and presenting it to those who Theorise. Building this bridge is an act of creation, of building, an opening of space.
Steve Klabnik
Steve Klabnik
It is, in fact, the whole. So lets start from the other direction. Understand the whole organisation from its place in its environment, with its customers, and the economy. This is starting from a Holistic (Smuts) view of an organisation. We use systems thinking to start from this Holistic understanding. And then we delve into its various aspects.
Holism puts the study of wholes before that of the parts. (Jackson)
Deming's quote emphasis the immersive systemic knowing nature of this methodology.
One way to understand a service as a system, is by engaging directly in that organisation, and observe and experience it working at all its levels and components.
(Deming).
Holism puts the study of wholes before that of the parts. (Jackson)
Deming's quote emphasis the immersive systemic knowing nature of this methodology.
One way to understand a service as a system, is by engaging directly in that organisation, and observe and experience it working at all its levels and components.
(Deming).
Here is an expression of alternative views: how about considering these metaphors to vision aspects of organisations?
Flood & Jackson Metaphors:
1. Machine Metaphor (closed system view)
2. Organism Metaphor (open system view)
3. Brain Metaphor (learning system view)
4. Culture Metaphor (emphasis on norms and values)
5. Team Metaphor (unitary politicalsystem)
6. Coalition Metaphor (pluralist political system)
7. Prison Metaphor (coercive political system)
Flood & Jackson Metaphors:
1. Machine Metaphor (closed system view)
2. Organism Metaphor (open system view)
3. Brain Metaphor (learning system view)
4. Culture Metaphor (emphasis on norms and values)
5. Team Metaphor (unitary politicalsystem)
6. Coalition Metaphor (pluralist political system)
7. Prison Metaphor (coercive political system)
Ackoff; explanation (understanding) never lies inside of a system.
A system cannot understand itself, so we use synthesis to understand the system.
How do you get people to think systemically? Study the whole. An idealised redesign, design the system as a whole, and then derive the property of the parts.
A system cannot understand itself, so we use synthesis to understand the system.
How do you get people to think systemically? Study the whole. An idealised redesign, design the system as a whole, and then derive the property of the parts.
This is what I am trying to move away from... peek inside if you want a glimpse...
How much background do we have to study? Do we actually need to learn all this before we can move forward?
The Aristotelian-Ptolemaic universe was a purposeful, goal-directed universe.
Nicolaus Copernicus & Galileo Galilei 1473 - 1642
René Descartes & Isaac Newton 1596 - 1727
The industrial revolution 1760 - 1840
Daniel C. McCallum, Organisation chart 1855
Max Weber, Bureaucracy 1864 – 1920
Frederick Winslow Taylor, Organisation as a machine 1856 – 1915
Mary Parker Follett, 1868 – 1933
Smuts, Holism 1923
Alex Osbor, brainstorm 1939
Kurt Lewin, resistance to change, Gestalt 1890 – 1947
Peter Drucker, MBO, Culture eats strategy 1959
Eric Trist (Tavistock Institute) and Ken Bamforth, multi-skilled groups
Douglas McGregor, Theory X theory Y
W. Edwards Deming, Japan, Quality, 14 points
Systems theory:
Participative systemic change methods 1985
Shareholder value, 1970
David Cooperrider: Appreciative Inquiry
Michael Hammer, Business process reengineering
Peter Senge, The Fifth Discipline, 1990
Leadership
Stephen Bungay: The executive’s trinity — management, leadership and command
Coaching
Action learning
Organisational culture
Core values
Strategy
John Kotter, Book: Leading Change (1996).
Staff engagement, 1990
Agile, 2001
Frederic Laloux: Reinventing Organizations (2014)
Holacracy
The Aristotelian-Ptolemaic universe was a purposeful, goal-directed universe.
Nicolaus Copernicus & Galileo Galilei 1473 - 1642
René Descartes & Isaac Newton 1596 - 1727
The industrial revolution 1760 - 1840
Daniel C. McCallum, Organisation chart 1855
Max Weber, Bureaucracy 1864 – 1920
Frederick Winslow Taylor, Organisation as a machine 1856 – 1915
Mary Parker Follett, 1868 – 1933
Smuts, Holism 1923
Alex Osbor, brainstorm 1939
Kurt Lewin, resistance to change, Gestalt 1890 – 1947
Peter Drucker, MBO, Culture eats strategy 1959
Eric Trist (Tavistock Institute) and Ken Bamforth, multi-skilled groups
Douglas McGregor, Theory X theory Y
W. Edwards Deming, Japan, Quality, 14 points
Systems theory:
- General Systems Theory, Ludwig von Bertalanffy; 1940s.
- Cybernetics; Norbert Weiner, Ross Ashby, Warren McCulloch, Gregory Bateson; 1950s.
- Second-order cybernetics, Living systems: Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela; Autopoiesis—1972.
- Management cybernetics (Stafford Beer; 1959).
- System dynamics (Jay Forrester; 1950s).
- Soft systems methodology (Peter Checkland; 1970s).
- Socio-technical systems (Fred Emery, Eric Trist, Ken Bamforth; 1950s).
- Complex systems (e.g. Ralph Stacey; 1990s).
- Ecosystem metaphor.
Participative systemic change methods 1985
Shareholder value, 1970
David Cooperrider: Appreciative Inquiry
Michael Hammer, Business process reengineering
Peter Senge, The Fifth Discipline, 1990
Leadership
- Tao Te Ching (4th century BC).
- Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958).
- Managerial grid (Robert Blake and Jane Mouton, 1964).
- Situational leadership (Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, 1970s).
- Outdoor leadership development (1990s).
- Leadership Development Framework
- (Bill Torbert & David Rooke, 1990s).
- Servant leadership (Robert Greenleaf, 1991).
- Host leadership (Mark McKergow, 2014).
Stephen Bungay: The executive’s trinity — management, leadership and command
Coaching
Action learning
Organisational culture
Core values
Strategy
John Kotter, Book: Leading Change (1996).
Staff engagement, 1990
Agile, 2001
Frederic Laloux: Reinventing Organizations (2014)
Holacracy
What I have tried to do, is to learn from those who have already read the detail of many of the books, but also to learn from a very important place - the real work. We shoud leave behind the arrogance of measuring superiority by how many facts one knows...
Learning from the real, and using science and theory as supportive, is described as the way forward by several academics. In particular C. Churchman (The Development of the Systems Approach) and Checkland (from a video on the origins of SSM) who believed that the reality of systems thinking lay in its practical application, and in the creation of learning and results through real managers - not academics. The reality defines the systems thinking.
"When you get into the implementation, you change the nature of the problem"
Churchman.
Learning from the real, and using science and theory as supportive, is described as the way forward by several academics. In particular C. Churchman (The Development of the Systems Approach) and Checkland (from a video on the origins of SSM) who believed that the reality of systems thinking lay in its practical application, and in the creation of learning and results through real managers - not academics. The reality defines the systems thinking.
"When you get into the implementation, you change the nature of the problem"
Churchman.
Ackoff observed:
The characteristics of the system are not found in examining each part of the system. When you disassemble a system, you lose the essential properties of the parts. This is the critical element for us; if you improve the performance of a part of the system, then you decrease the performance of the system as a whole.
The characteristics of the system are not found in examining each part of the system. When you disassemble a system, you lose the essential properties of the parts. This is the critical element for us; if you improve the performance of a part of the system, then you decrease the performance of the system as a whole.
Hard & soft systems
In classical systems thinking there are two main types of systems and their understanding; hard and soft. Hard systems are typically those that might be physical, they are logical and they can be engineered or designed. Soft systems are not actually present in the physical as a system that can be defined with clear boundaries; an example would be how a community living in a certain area works together.
An organisation is make up of its physical process of business, that creates value, the mechanical flow of work, the measures, and management mechanisms - the hard system.
An organisation is made up of its people, its decision-making, its relationships, its expression through values and its culture, how it learns, its politics - the soft system. A human Activity System that is focused within an organisation. Mike Jackson calls these Purposeful systems approaches, and include Ackoff, Checkland and Churchman amongst others.
A few systems theorists are focused in one camp of Systems thinking, and like to snipe at the other. And they then snipe at other disciplines like complexity science. All quite ridiculous.
The key to the successful understanding of systems thinking is to understand that both hard and soft systems thinking are important concepts, and that the real situations we come across, are often a mix of the both, at the same time. Systems thinking is Pragmatic, not a science. Systems thinking understanding does not come from an external observer, but dependent on the context and the view of the observer. There are rarely actual truths, just partial truths.
An organisation is make up of its physical process of business, that creates value, the mechanical flow of work, the measures, and management mechanisms - the hard system.
An organisation is made up of its people, its decision-making, its relationships, its expression through values and its culture, how it learns, its politics - the soft system. A human Activity System that is focused within an organisation. Mike Jackson calls these Purposeful systems approaches, and include Ackoff, Checkland and Churchman amongst others.
A few systems theorists are focused in one camp of Systems thinking, and like to snipe at the other. And they then snipe at other disciplines like complexity science. All quite ridiculous.
The key to the successful understanding of systems thinking is to understand that both hard and soft systems thinking are important concepts, and that the real situations we come across, are often a mix of the both, at the same time. Systems thinking is Pragmatic, not a science. Systems thinking understanding does not come from an external observer, but dependent on the context and the view of the observer. There are rarely actual truths, just partial truths.
Sensemaking
A definition of Sensemaking;
How are meanings and understanding of situations, events, objects of discourse, or contextual information produced and represented in a collective context?
That means that a close cooperation between all entities involved in the sensemaking process must be maintained. Most importantly, since collaborative sensemakers are tasked with the processing and interpretation of diverse information, they must be comfortable with interactions, communication and sharing “what they know’, and, be able to analyze a situation as a team.
These elements are:
a) The communication process
b) The learning and knowledge process
c) Developing shared situation awareness and understanding process.
d) The process for developing collaborative knowledge and understanding.
Methods of sensemaking and communicating that I use include;
Rich pictures
Narratives
Story-telling
Gemba (direct interaction wit the workplace)
Team innovative reflective discussion
Experimentation
How are meanings and understanding of situations, events, objects of discourse, or contextual information produced and represented in a collective context?
That means that a close cooperation between all entities involved in the sensemaking process must be maintained. Most importantly, since collaborative sensemakers are tasked with the processing and interpretation of diverse information, they must be comfortable with interactions, communication and sharing “what they know’, and, be able to analyze a situation as a team.
These elements are:
a) The communication process
b) The learning and knowledge process
c) Developing shared situation awareness and understanding process.
d) The process for developing collaborative knowledge and understanding.
Methods of sensemaking and communicating that I use include;
Rich pictures
Narratives
Story-telling
Gemba (direct interaction wit the workplace)
Team innovative reflective discussion
Experimentation
Complexity
I dont quite understand why we have made the understanding of complexity so difficult! I remember reading so much about it, just trying to figure out what it is, how to identify it, and what to do with it when I find it. Until, I was working in an organisation and realised that I was immersed in it. Then I could perceive it directly, and understand that it is the most straightforward thing to understand.
Put aside our scientific mind and look at your life for a moment, What did you do when you left school? Did you know exactly what you were going to do form that moment onwards? Were the steps for you to get the job you have already planned out from the start? Did you manage to plan the steps you needed to do to find the partner you had now? No, almost all of these life experiences happen by a set of seeming chances. You might walk into a cafe and meet your future partner. You happen to read a job advert at a friends house whilst reading their newspaper, for the the job you have today.
These activities, or should we say, the path that those activities take are uncertain and unpredictable. They are complex, and they embody the definition of complexity.
When we look back at those events, we see the logic behind them, and the route they took. But they cannot now be used to repeat that journey.
Sensemaking is understanding in complexity.
Put aside our scientific mind and look at your life for a moment, What did you do when you left school? Did you know exactly what you were going to do form that moment onwards? Were the steps for you to get the job you have already planned out from the start? Did you manage to plan the steps you needed to do to find the partner you had now? No, almost all of these life experiences happen by a set of seeming chances. You might walk into a cafe and meet your future partner. You happen to read a job advert at a friends house whilst reading their newspaper, for the the job you have today.
These activities, or should we say, the path that those activities take are uncertain and unpredictable. They are complex, and they embody the definition of complexity.
When we look back at those events, we see the logic behind them, and the route they took. But they cannot now be used to repeat that journey.
Sensemaking is understanding in complexity.
