Systems Practice: How to Act

Ray Ison

Systems Practice:
How to Act
In Situations of Uncertainty and Complexity
in a Climate-Change World
Ray Ison
The Open University
Milton Keynes
UK

First published in 2010 by

Springer London
This second edition published in 2017
in association with
The Open University
Walton Hall, Milton Keynes
MK7 6AA
United Kingdom
www.open.ac.uk

ISBN 978-1-4471-7350-2 ISBN 978-1-4471-7351-9 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017951234

Copyright © 2017 The Open University

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, trans-
mitted or utilised in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without written permission from the publisher or a licence from the Copyright Licensing
Agency Ltd. Details of such licences (for reprographic reproduction) may be obtained from the
Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, Barnard's Inn, 86 Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1EN, UK (website
www.cla.co.uk).
This publication forms part of the Open University module Managing systemic change: inquiry, action
and interaction (TU812). Details of this and other Open University modules can be obtained from the
Student Recruitment, The Open University, P.O. Box 197, Milton Keynes MK7 6BJ, United Kingdom
(tel.: +44 (0)300 303 5303, email: [email protected]).
Whilst we have made every effort to obtain permission from copyright holders to use the material con-
tained in this book, there have been occasions where we have been unable to locate those concerned.
Should copyright holder wish to contact the Publisher, we will be happy to come to an arrangement at
the first opportunity.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer-Verlag London Ltd.
The registered company address is: 236 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1X 8HB, United Kingdom
Preface 1st Edition

I invite the reader to engage with this book as a work in progress. My invitation
arises because I have come to understand that systems practitioners benefit from
appreciating that their practice is dynamic and in transition. It is never complete.
Though this book will be printed, thus reifying my understandings at a moment in
time, my own systems practice continues to develop.
The writing of this book has been carried out at a time of significant personal,
organisational and societal upheaval and transformation – a situation that has been
an emotional roller-coaster and a test of my own juggling praxis.1 Included in
these changes has been the reorganisation of academic groupings at The Open
University which now means that Systems is part of a much larger grouping
within a new faculty structure. Despite these changes, a positive development has
been the significant investment that The Open University (UK), or more specifi-
cally the new Faculty of Maths, Computing and Technology, made in a new MSc
programme in Systems Thinking in Practice.2 This book is a product, in part, of
that investment. It is also this initiative that, to a large extent, has determined the
conceptual boundaries within which I have written and composed.
As a result of the investment made by The Open University in the MSc, four
books including this one were produced. One is devoted to the individuals who
are generally recognised as systems thinkers (Ramage and Shipp 2009). This work
presents a biographical history of the field of systems thinking by examining the
life and work of 30 of its major thinkers. It discusses each thinker’s key contribu-
tions, the way this contribution was expressed in practice and the relationship
between their life and ideas. This discussion is supported by an extract from the
thinker’s own writing, to give a flavour of their work and to give readers a sense
of which thinkers are most relevant to their own interests.
Another book is devoted to the main methodologies that have been developed
by Systems scholars and are often deployed as part of systems practice

1
What I mean by juggling praxis will be explained in later chapters.
2
Now the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) Faculty.

v
vi Preface 1st Edition

(Reynolds and Holwell 2010). In this book, the five methodological approaches
covered are:
1. System dynamics (SD) developed originally in the late 1950s by Jay Wright
Forrester
2. Viable systems method (VSM) developed originally in the late 1960s by
Stafford Beer
3. Strategic options development and analysis (SODA): with cognitive mapping)
developed originally in the 1960s by Colin Eden
4. Soft systems methodology (SSM) developed originally in the 1970s by Peter
Checkland
5. Critical systems heuristics (CSH) developed originally in the early 1980s by
Werner Ulrich
These two books establish two of the boundary conditions for my own book. I
do not dwell greatly on the pantheon of individuals who are recognised as some of
the main systems thinkers, though I do ask the question: how did these people come
to do what they did? Secondly, I do not spend time explicating some of the main
systems methodologies though, through an explication of ‘systemic intervention’
(Chap. 12), I attempt to create a bridge to the material in Reynolds and Holwell
(Reynolds and Holwell 2010).
This book will deal with a simple logic:
1. What are the situations where systems thinking helps?
2. What does it entail to think and act systemically?
3. How can practices be built that move from systemic understanding to action
that is systemically desirable and culturally feasible?
4. How can situations be transformed for the better through systems practice?
The book is introduced in Part I against the backdrop of human induced climate
change. This and other factors create a societal need, I argue, to move towards more
systemic and adaptive governance regimes which incorporate systems practice. I con-
sider how systems thinkers have chosen to characterise situations that they have
encountered and where systems thinking offers both useful understandings and oppor-
tunities for situation improving change in Part II. I will argue that how we see a situa-
tion, and thus how it is engaged with, are critical first steps and that this is a dynamic
heavily dependent on the history, and thus understandings, of the practitioner. For
this reason, I explore the history of the practitioner (as a biological and social person)
and their unfolding relationship with complex situations. My inclusion of the practi-
tioner as a human being means that, unlike many former Systems texts, this book is
not methodology led. Particular understandings coming from second-order cyber-
netics, one of the many systems traditions, will inform aspects of the book.
The systems practitioner referred to in this book is anyone managing in situa-
tions of complexity and uncertainty – it is not a specialist role or that of a consul-
tant or hired ‘intervener’. Thus, the book is structured so as to build a general
model of systems practice. Because thinking and acting systemically is a form of
practice, just as say playing a piano or being a nurse (nursing) are forms of
Preface 1st Edition vii

practice, and because there are many ways of thinking and acting systemically, I
first provide a conceptual model of practice in general. I follow this by focusing
on systemic practice in particular and then invite you to use these conceptual mod-
els to look at your own practice as well as the practice of others.
In Part III, some of the main factors that constrain the uptake of systems prac-
tice are considered. Three very accessible approaches to systems practice, viz.,
systemic inquiry, systemic action research and systemic intervention are then
introduced. I conclude in Part IV by looking critically at how systems practice is,
or might be, valued at levels ranging from the personal to the societal. I do this in
part by looking at the claims we can make about effectiveness and by exploring
different forms of evaluation.
A third boundary condition for this book is established by the fourth book, a reader
that Blackmore (2010) has created concerned with social learning systems and
communities of practice. Her focus is on practice in multi-stakeholder situations that
call for collaborative or concerted action within groups. My primary focus is on the
‘practitioner … in context’ as well as systemic inquiry, systemic action research and
constraints to institutionalising systems practice. Whilst the boundary between the
individual in a context and a group as a whole is harder to demarcate and articulate
than the boundaries that have been created with the other books, I am fortunate to
have collaborated with Chris Blackmore for many years. This has enabled us to
negotiate what we believe to be an appropriate boundary. Further aspects of my own
research appear in Blackmore’s (2010) reader.
When planning this book, I decided that I wished to expose the reader to a range
of ways of doing systems thinking and practice, not just my own. As my preference
was to enable others to ‘speak’ with their own voice, I began to imagine this book as
a type of hybrid. Throughout the text, I will be introducing ‘readings’ of
published material by authors I regard as systems practitioners. For this reason when
you first pick up and scan the book you may find it somewhat different in structure to
others. In organisation, the book is a hybrid between a book and a reader. The latter is
usually a collection of previously published work, brought together for some purpose,
such as presenting the seminal papers in a particular subject area or the
collected works of a particular author (e.g. Blackmore 2010; Reynolds and Holwell
2010). Unlike a reader, this book also draws upon material from my own research,
teaching and life experience as well as work of colleagues and other scholars.
Thus the book is a combination of new work and readings from published
works. The criteria for selection of these readings were:
1. The reading gives a good systemic analysis of a complex situation – and in the
process enables a systemic understanding to be gained (this does not have to
be a case where the author claims to be providing a systemic analysis)
2. They exemplify a range of types of practice in general and systems practice in
particular – which move from understanding a complex situation, to systemic
analysis, intervention, inquiry and process management
3. The examples are not gender biased in selection and reflect different systems
traditions on the part of the authors
viii Preface 1st Edition

4. The situations in which practice is conducted vary and thus exemplify different
contexts in which Systems can be used
5. They describe a complex situation where it seems obvious that some form of
systemic action could have made a difference
6. The papers are written in a style that is accessible to the reader
As you read the book you will come to appreciate, I hope, that this additional
material is designed to introduce different perspectives on what systems practice
is, or might be. My own metaphor for the way I see and use this material comes
from my daughter’s practices of braiding and adding coloured ‘extensions’ to her
hair. The material, which I will call ‘readings’, although they are actually ‘doings’,
is designed to develop your practice in ‘braiding’. The text in parts II–IV will cre-
ate opportunities for you to braid this additional material with my arguments and
concepts as well as your own experience.
You will find that, in my writing, I have a habit of moving between different
conceptual levels. One of the skills essential to systems thinking and practice is
being able to move up and down levels of abstraction.3 In writing this book I have
forsaken the use of in-text Harvard style referencing to aid the flow of the narrative;
all chapters conclude with a set of references. I also provide extensive footnotes
which point to sources and evidence for my claims. These also provide pathways
for further exploration of the points being made. I draw on a range of systems con-
cepts in the book and attempt to explain them when they are introduced.
The book has at least one major weakness for which I feel the need to offer an
apology. The absence of a critical engagement with the French, Italian and
German, possibly Spanish and Brazilian literatures on systems thinking and prac-
tice is an indictment of the Anglo-Saxon systems community in general and me in
particular. Missing from these pages are reflections on the contributions of the
likes of Edgar Morin, Jean-Louis Le Moigne and Frederic Vester. Edgar Morin,
who was very familiar with the revolution in genetics initiated by the discovery of
DNA, contributed to cybernetics, information theory and a theory of systems.4 Le
Moigne is known for his encyclopaedic work on constructivist epistemology and
his contribution to a General Systems theory.5 Frederic Vester was known as a
‘pioneer of networked thinking, a combination of cybernetic and systemic ideas
with complexity issues’.6 There are also many others.7

3
Key systems concepts that depict this are sub-system, system, supra-system or ‘how’, ‘what’,
‘why’ – the latter three are observer dependent and your ‘what’ could be my ‘how’ – which is
one reason why it is so easy to talk across each other in meetings unless the level at which some-
thing is being discussed is clarified.
4
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Morin. Accessed 20 May 2017.
5
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Le_Moigne. Accessed 20 May 2017.
6
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_Vester. Accessed 20 May 2017.
7
Adjustments have been made to Fig. 2.3 in Chapter 2 in the new edition to acknowledge contri-
butions from some of the non-Anglo-Saxon scholars.
Preface 1st Edition ix

The gulf between systems practitioners in the different linguistic and cultural
communities is unfortunately mirrored in the systems and cybernetics field itself.
Whilst many are aware of this and working to rebuild relational capital between
disparate groups there has not been, to my knowledge, a recent synthesis that sets
out intellectually and practically how a reinvigorated cyber-systemic praxis field
might emerge at this time of significant societal need. I hope this work will in
some way contribute to facilitating such a transition.

References

Blackmore CP (ed). (2010) Social learning systems and communities of practice. Springer, London
Ramage M, Shipp K (2009) Systems thinkers. Springer, London
Reynolds M, Holwell S (eds) (2010) Systems approaches to managing change. Springer, London
Preface 2nd Edition

As I write, a group of 115 mature-age students have just successfully completed

studying the Open University (OU) module ‘Managing Systemic Change. Inquiry,
Action and Interaction’ (Code TU812). This STiP (Systems Thinking in Practice)
cohort, like those before it since 2010, comes from all walks of life and a diversity
of cultural contexts. Each cohort has in my experience been gender diverse, discri-
minating, challenging, intelligent and socially and professionally committed. We
are fortunate with this programme, as interest and student numbers are increasing
at a time when overall part-time study in the UK has been falling. I take this as a
positive sign, not only about our programme but also about the growing societal
recognition of need of the sort that prompted me to write this book in the first
place. All our students will have engaged with this book as part of their study of
the TU812 module.
Much has happened since 2010 when I wrote the preface to the first edition.
Figure 5.5 (in Chapter 5) is an image of a surfer catching a wave – in doing what
they are doing the surfer is being a practitioner, knowing how to act (surf), or not.
It is much clearer to me now that a metaphorical wave of interest and investment in
systems thinking in practice has formed and grown over the last 7 years. This is evi-
denced by serious engagements with STiP beginning in mainstream organisations
such as the OECD,8 in innovative NGOs, think-tanks, charities and foundations and
in some, but not enough, university settings. For the practitioner with STiP capabil-
ities, there is a wave to be caught.
There have also been positive institutional changes such as the UN’s SDGs
(though time will tell re-implementation), the Paris Climate Accord and an
expansion in social and other civil-society enterprises committed to transforma-
tion and innovation (Smith et al. 2016). But there have been ‘dumper waves’ as
well; news has just reached me that President Trump will take the USA out of

8
See https://www.oecd.org/governance/observatory-public-sector-innovation/blog/page/adebate
aboutuncertaintyheldintheheartofcertainty.htm. Accessed 2 June 2017.

xi
xii Preface 2nd Edition

the Paris Accord. This action further contributes to the growing evidence
of governance failure operating at project, programme, organisation, state, and
transnational levels (Ison 2016; Chapter 9). In terms of an emotion of hope (see
Chapter 13), I am in a much better space about STiP than I was in 2010.
However, in terms of much-needed governance and institutional reform I am
much less sanguine.
Arrangements with the publishers, Springer, mean that this edition is likely to
more easily reach a wider graduate market. The title change reflects feedback that
the prominent naming of climate-change constrained engagement by a wide and
relevant readership. That said, the first edition was widely read and used in diverse
countries and contexts. For example, McClendon (2016) drew on this book (as did
all others in her programme) to complete her Doctoral Dissertation in marriage
and family therapy at the University of Louisiana at Monroe (USA). In a review
of my book she wrote:
This book is a must-read, must-incorporate for all readers, from college freshmen to
researchers and professionals in a variety of fields. Readers from all backgrounds, profes-
sional fields, biases, and inclinations can make use of the ideas about systems thinking
and practice presented in this world- and mind-changing book – in their interpersonal rela-
tionships and situations as well as in response to larger, world-altering societal issues.
Ison invites readers to challenge the limits of their thinking and acting and to learn new
ways that have the potential to transform society and change the world.

Meeting Karen in Berlin in 2015 and signing, at her insistence, her much-
thumbed, page-highlighted, copy of my book was for me a rewarding experience.
However, I know that not all readers have taken to my book as enthusiastically as
Karen. Yet I also know the book rewards iteration, mulling, and returning-to over
time, as many who have read it tell me this is what they do. So, this is a book for
the long-term appreciation of what it is to engage in systems thinking in practice.
It also presents a conceptually robust framework for thinking about, enacting and
evaluating any form of practice. For these reasons, the structure of the second edi-
tion is unaltered and the same set of readings, of samples of praxis, have been
retained. From my perspective, the fundamentals of the first edition remain just as
relevant today, though pleasingly more examples of effective systems practice can
now be found in the literature (e.g. see the papers in Ison and Shelley 2016).
What has changed? The first edition was written ahead of the latest wave of
enthusiasm for practice studies within the social sciences (e.g. Shove and Spurling
2013). Transformation, transition and transdisciplinarity have become topical con-
cepts. Arguably, all are reliant on systemic praxis, though the praxis dimensions
are often poorly appreciated even when associated with key systems concepts
such as transformation (see Ison 2017). Important and insightful papers such as
Cook and Wagenaar (2012) have appeared which present elegant arguments in
support of my own practice focus. There are potentially fruitful conversations to
be had with political scientists and public policy scholars around the idea of ‘rela-
tional policy development’ (Wagenaar and Bartels 2016) – a mode of systems
praxis in the making? Other framings, important in their underlying systemic
imperatives, run the risk of obfuscating, rather than enhancing a praxis turn as in
Preface 2nd Edition xiii

the rise of the term ‘nexus’ – see Hui et al. (2016). There have also been develop-
ments in complexity-theory-informed modes of praxis that are congruent with my
own arguments (Boulton et al. 2015, p. 1)
a complexity worldview sees the world as essentially interconnected, and rich with forms
and patterns that have been shaped by history and context. A complexity worldview
reminds us of limits to certainty, it emphasizes that things are in a continual process of
‘becoming’ and that there is potential for startlingly new futures where what emerges can
be unexpected and astonishing

Many books, papers, blogs, tweets and other social media postings arguing for,
or evidencing, STiP capabilities – far more than I can reference here – have
appeared since the first edition. One noteworthy trend is to explicitly name
systems and power as equally important elements in practice. In his book ‘How
Change Happens’, Damian Green (2016) asks ‘How can we be sure our proposals
will make things better, and not fall victim to unintended consequences? People
employ many concepts to grapple with such questions. I find “systems” and “com-
plexity” two of the most helpful’ (p. 9). He proposes and articulates a ‘power and
systems approach (PSA)’ and argues that: ‘for those seeking to achieve change in
the world around them … no amount of upfront analysis will enable us to predict
the erratic behaviour of a complex system, a PSA interweaves thought and action,
learning and adapting as we go’ (p. 7). Some might claim my book does not name
power as much as it might. On the other hand, my reading of what others talk
about in praxis terms when they speak about power is little different, in my view,
to that which is in this book. Is the mere naming of power enough in praxis terms,
is a question readers might ponder as they read.
In this second edition, I have more assertively claimed that my use of the juggler
is an isophor rather than a metaphor. These distinctions are explained in Chapter 4.
There are two new figures, each chapter has been edited and situated in contempor-
ary developments germane to that chapter. New references have been added point-
ing to recent work. Completing this task rewarding as it is confronts me with the
challenge posed by the question: what is not being said, that ought to be said?
As a book must not be overwhelming in terms of length and diversity of mate-
rial, there is little or no space to add more material with this current book.
However, the task points to the books that could, or ought, to be written. My next
book will be concerned with systemic governance, or governing, and institutional
innovation. As with Ed Straw (2014) for the UK, I am convinced that the ‘govern-
ance systems’ in most parts of the world are no longer fit for purpose and that
institutional reform should bring with it greater capacity and capability for STiP
(Ison 2016). However, a commitment to develop STiP capabilities must, at the
moment, come with a health warning given current organizational and institutional
ecologies. Naive or highly instrumental praxis can give rise to unintended conse-
quences that can be emotionally and ethically challenging. As I argue here, practi-
tioners need to carry with them an ability to take a ‘design turn’ in their praxis.
My sincere hope is that this new edition contributes to enhancing the transforma-
tions we need to make.
xiv Preface 2nd Edition

References

Boulton J, Allen P, Bowman C (2015) Embracing complexity: strategic perspectives for an age
of turbulence. Oxford University Press, New York
Cook SDN, Wagenaar H (2012) Navigating the eternally unfolding present: toward an epistemol-
ogy of practice. Am Rev Public Admin, 42(1): 3–38
Green D (2016) How change happens. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Hui A, Schatzki T, Shove E (eds) (2016) The nexus of practices: connections, constellations,
practitioners. Routledge, London
Ison RL (2016) Governing in the Anthropocene: what future systems thinking in practice? Syst
Res Behav Sci 33(5): 595–613
Ison RL (2017) Transdisciplinarity as transformation: a systems thinking in practice perspective.
In Fam D, Palmer J, Mitchell C, Riedy C (eds) Transdisciplinary research and practice for
sustainable outcomes. Routledge, London, p 55–73
Ison RL, Shelley M (2016) Editorial. Governing in the Anthropocene: contributions from systems
thinking in practice? ISSS Yearbook Special Issue. Syst Res Behav Sci 33(5): 589–594
McClendon KS (2016) Not power but beauty: how systemic sensing and engaging inspire thera-
peutic change. A dissertation submitted to the University of Louisiana at Monroe in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of
Educational Leadership and Counseling (Marriage and Family Therapy), May 2016
Shove E, Spurling N (eds) (2013) Sustainable practices: social theory and climate change.
London, Routledge
Smith A, Fressoli M, Abrol D, Arond E, Ely A (2016) Grassroots innovation movements.
Routledge
Straw E (2014) Stand and deliver. A design for successful government. Treaty for Government,
London
Wagenaar H, Bartels K (2016) Relational approaches to policy analysis: knowing, intervening
and transforming in a precarious world. https://ecpr.eu/Events/SectionDetails.aspx?
SectionID=578&EventID=95. Accessed 2 June 2017
Acknowledgements

Completion of this book would not have been possible without the support, intellec-
tual contributions, encouragement and hard work of Pille Bunnell. I am immensely
grateful.
A book is but a reification at one moment in time of the product of much joint
activity (participation) and the realisation of this makes a mockery, somewhat, of
the concept of ‘author’. That said, a book is also an act of responsibility – in this
case for what I say and do.
I acknowledge the seminal influences Humberto Maturana and David Russell
have had on my thinking and doing in relation to the focus of this book by dedi-
cating it to them.
My understandings and practices are immensely richer for the cooperative
scholarship and joint projects I have enjoyed with Rosalind Armson (with whom I
first developed the juggler isophor), Peter Ampt, Chris Blackmore, Kevin Collins,
John Colvin, Alexandra di Stefano, Marion Helme, Chris High, Stephany Kersten,
Bernard Hubert, Janice Jiggins, David McClintock, Francis Meynell, Dick Morris,
Martin Reynolds, Pier Paolo Roggero, Niels Röling, Sandro Schlindwein, Patrick
Steyaert, Drennan Watson and Bob Zimmer.
Some of the book is built around and extends material written for The Open
University course ‘Managing complexity: A systems approach’; I am grateful to
members of that course team who provided a creative milieu for the development
of my thinking. My membership of other Open University (OU) course teams,
especially ‘Environmental Decision Making: a systems approach’, brought forth
many new insights which I draw upon, including collaborative writing within
those course teams. My fellow codirectors of the Systemic Development Institute,
Richard Bawden, Bruce McKenzie and Roger Packham, have been a source of
support and inspiration. I have gained much from an ongoing conversation with
Peter Checkland and his writings that has now extended over 20 years.
The final form of the book has been helped by the creative development of
figures by Pille Bunnell, Simon Kneebone, Phil Wallis and staff of the design stu-
dio at The Open University. Simon’s cartoons (described as illustrations in the
chapters) are a pleasure to include. Rosalind Armson, Simon Bell and Tim Haslett

xv
xvi Acknowledgements

kindly helped by supplying copies of Figures. At The Open University, Robin

Asby, Marilyn Ridsdale, Pat Shah, Monica Shelley and Gemma Byrne helped
bring the task to completion. I am also grateful to Ben Iaquinto for his engagement
with the text and work with the references. As ever Cathy and Nicky have,
through their presence, helped to give the task meaning and relevance.
The second edition of the book rests on all the contributions and support out-
lined above. I am further grateful for the support of Gill Gowans, Caz Williams,
Nathalie Richard and Gemma Byrne in clearing all administrative obstacles at the
OU. My reworking was made possible by insightful comment and critique from
over 600 OU STiP (systems thinking in practice) students who have studied with
us since 2010. I acknowledge and thank OU Associate Lecturers on the module
‘Managing Systemic Change: Inquiry, Action and Interaction’ (TU812) for their
engagement with the book and support for students. My STiP colleagues Chris
Blackmore and Martin Reynolds continue to offer friendship and a stimulating
and rewarding academic context. I would like to add special thanks to Jocelyn
Chapman and Karen McClendon whose enthusiasm for the book has been affirm-
ing. Suggestions and friendship from Rosalind Armson and Sandro Schlindwein
are much appreciated. Beverley Ford, Helen Desmond and Nancy Wade-Jones
provided valuable oversight at Springer.
Contents

Part I: Thinking and Acting Differently . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1 Introduction and Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Managing in a Climate That We Are Changing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 What Do We Do When We Do What We Do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3 Living in Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4 A Failure to Institutionalise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.5 Managing in a Co-evolutionary World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Part II: Systems Practice as Juggling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2 Introducing Systems Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.1 Systems Thinking or Thinking Systemically . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2 Systems Thinking as a Social Dynamic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.3 Exemplifying Systems Thinking as a Social Dynamic . . . . . . . . . 25
2.4 Different Systems Lineages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.5 System or Situation?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3 Making Choices About Situations and Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.1 Choices that Can Be Made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.1.1 OU Systems Course Definition of Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.2 Systems Practice as Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.3 Practitioner, Framework, Method, Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.4 Bringing Forth Systems of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.5 Systems Practice – an ‘Ideal Type’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4 The Juggler: A Way to Understand Systems Practice . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.1 Introduction of the Juggler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.2 An Example of Systems Practice as Juggling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

xvii
xviii Contents

4.3 Reflecting on Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5 Juggling the B-Ball: Being a Systems Practitioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.1 Accepting Different Explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.2 Being Aware of the Constraints and Possibilities of the Observer 89
5.3 Understanding Understanding and Knowing Knowing . . . . . . . . 95
5.3.1 Living Within a Network of Conversations . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5.3.2 Thinking and Acting Based on Our Tradition of
Understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.3.3 Learning and Effective Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.4 Being Ethical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.5 Constraints and Possibilities Associated with Our ‘Being’ . . . . . . 109
5.5.1 Technology as Mediator of Our Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.5.2 The Role of Social Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
5.6 An Example of Juggling the B-Ball . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6 Juggling the E-Ball: Engaging with Situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
6.1 Naming Our Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
6.1.1 Naming Situations as ‘Wicked Problems’. . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
6.1.2 Naming Experiences in Similar Ways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
6.2 The Trap of Reification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
6.2.1 Our Inescapable Relational Dynamic with ‘Our World’ . . 130
6.2.2 Making Distinctions and Living with Them . . . . . . . . . . . 130
6.2.3 Reflecting on the Practice of Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
6.2.4 Some Implications Arising from Neologising
and Reifying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
6.3 Exemplifying Juggling the E-Ball . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
6.4 Interpreting the Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7 Juggling the C-Ball: Contextualising Systems Approaches . . . . . . . 155
7.1 What Is It to Contextualise? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
7.2 What Are Systems Approaches? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
7.3 Purposeful and Purposive Behaviour. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
7.3.1 Appreciating the Place and Role of Learning
and Knowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7.3.2 Juggling the C-Ball by Exploring Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
7.4 Tools, Techniques, Method and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
7.5 Contextualising Practice to a Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
7.6 An Example of Juggling the C-Ball . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
7.6.1 Responses to the Four Organising Questions . . . . . . . . . . 183
7.6.2 Implications for Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Contents xix

8 Juggling the M-Ball: Managing Overall Performance in a Situation 189

8.1 Perspectives on Managing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
8.1.1 Transforming the Underlying Emotions of Managing . . . . 192
8.2 Managing with Systemic Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
8.3 Skill Sets for Managing Systemically . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
8.4 Clarifying Purposefulness in Managing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
8.5 Managing for Emergence and Self-Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
8.6 A Case Study: Aspects of Juggling the M-Ball . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Part III: Systemic Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
9 Four Settings That Constrain Systems Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
9.1 Juggling Practice and Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
9.2 Managing Systemic Failure – The Travesty of Targets . . . . . . . . 225
9.3 The Consequences of Living in a Projectified World . . . . . . . . . . 230
9.3.1 Projectification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
9.3.2 Project Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
9.3.3 Governance and the ‘Project State’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
9.4 Making Choices About Framing a Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
9.5 Breaking Down an Apartheid of the Emotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
9.5.1 An Example of Emotionally Aware
Systemic Practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
9.5.2 Generating a Choreography of the Emotions . . . . . . . . . . 245
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
10 Systemic Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
10.1 Clarifying What Systemic Inquiry Could Be . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
10.2 The Opportunity for Systemic Inquiry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
10.3 The Basic Process of Systemic Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
10.4 An Example of Setting Up a Systemic Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
10.4.1 Contracting a Systemic Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
10.4.2 Interpreting Our Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
10.4.3 Enacting Our Systemic Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
10.4.4 Changing Understandings Can Change Practices
Can Change Understandings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
10.4.5 Other Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
10.5 ‘Institutionalising‘ Systemic Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
10.6 Systemic Inquiry and the ‘Design Turn’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
11 Systemic Action Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
11.1 Changing Your Situation for the Better . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
11.1.1 The Nature of the Social World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
11.1.2 The First-Order Research Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
11.1.3 Creating a Second-Order Research Tradition . . . . . . . . . . 281
xx Contents

11.2 What Makes Action Research Systemic?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282

11.3 Doing Systemic Action Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
11.4 Enhancing Action Research with Systems Thinking and Practice. 286
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
12 Systemic Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
12.1 Systems Practice in the National Health Service (UK) . . . . . . . . . 293
12.2 Systemic Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
12.3 Other Possibilities for Contextualising Systems Practice . . . . . . . 310
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
Part IV: Valuing Systems Practice in a Climate-change World 313
13 Valuing Systems Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
13.1 The Emergence of Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
13.2 Perspectives on Valuing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
13.2.1 Appreciating Some of the History of Valuing . . . . . . . . . . 320
13.2.2 Evaluating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
13.2.3 Authenticity and Accountability in Conversations . . . . . . 323
13.3 Valuing Being Systemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
13.4 Doing Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
13.4.1 Committing to Action (Praxis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
13.4.2 An Evaluation Framework for Doing Systems . . . . . . . . . 330
13.4.3 A Framework for Capability Building in Systems. . . . . . . 332
13.5 Acting in a Climate of Hope in a Climate-Changing World . . . . . 336
13.5.1 Valuing in a Context of Hope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
13.5.2 Opportunities to be Cultivated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
 Part I
Thinking and Acting Differently
Chapter 1
Introduction and Rationale

Abstract Systems thinking and practice are not new but individually and socially
our capability to do it is currently limited. A case is made for recovering human
systemic sensibilities, fostering systems literacy and investing in systems thinking
in practice capabilities as a response to the uncertainties and complexities of con-
temporary circumstances typified by the growing demands of living in a human-
induced climate-changing world. Arguments are presented as to why development
of our capabilities to think and act systemically is an urgent priority. The chapter
formulates three inquiries central to building reflexive systems practice as a means
to manage an ongoing, co-evolutionary dynamic, between people and the bio-
sphere. The first is the question: What do we do when we do what we do? The
second is: What are the consequences of living in language? The third is: Why
have we failed to institutionalise systems thinking in our society in general and
our organisational practices in particular? The practice of engaging in systems
thinking in various situations is approached with these inquiry questions in mind.

1.1 Managing in a Climate That We Are Changing

This book is about how we can take responsibility for the world we are creating,
by paying much more attention to how we think and act. If we look around us, it
is easy to see that we are not making a very good job of it at the moment. When
nuclear bombs were invented, human beings, for the first time, had to face the pro-
spect of producing the circumstances for their own destruction. So far, we have
survived the nuclear threat! Now we have human-induced climate change, part of
a complex of interrelated issues, which together mean humans are a force of nature
having changed whole Earth dynamics within recent history. Some claim we have
entered the Anthropocene, others that this new epoch should be called the
Capitalocene or the Econocene (Kunkel, 2017). We face challenges that, for
many, are still beyond imagination. In the face of such complexity and uncertainty
many will be tempted to give up or to feel that nothing can be done. I admit to not
being overly optimistic myself. I certainly do not have a magic wand to wave.

© The Open University 2017 3

Published in Association with Springer-Verlag London Limited
R. Ison, Systems Practice: How to Act, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9_1
4 1 Introduction and Rationale

What I do have, however, is a strong conviction that thinking and acting differ-
ently will have to be at the core of our strategies of action.
The acceptance that humans are changing the climate of the earth (and the con-
sequences for all human activity that flow from this acceptance) is the most com-
pelling, amongst a long litany of reasons, as to why we have to change our ways
of thinking and acting.1 Few now question that we have to be capable of adapting
quickly as new and uncertain circumstances emerge and that this capability will
need to exist at the personal, group, community, regional, national and interna-
tional levels all at the same time. The phenomenon of human-induced climate
change is new to human history and it is accompanied by ‘carbon addiction’, the
break-down of our governance systems, fundamentalism, globalization, rising
population and consumerism, changing demographics and over exploitation of the
natural world. In the face of such complexity and uncertainty it is tempting to say
it is all too hard! It certainly won’t be easy.
At this important historical moment what can we learn from our past? When we
look around us, what different ways of thinking and acting could be helpful? This
book argues that development of our capabilities to think and act systemically is an
urgent priority.2 Systems thinking and practice are not new but individually and
socially our capability to do it is very limited. Unfortunately, these are not abilities
developed universally through schooling or at University. In the latter, the rise of
specialised subject matter disciplines, the focus on science and technology at the
expense of praxis (theory informed practical action) and reductionist research
approaches have driven the intellectual and practical field of Systems,3 a form of
trans-disciplinary or ‘meta’ thinking, from the curriculum. If we humans are born
equipped to develop a systemic sensibility, as I suspect we are, then it would seem
we have developed cultures, particularly in the West, where such sensibilities are
quickly lost. Can we reverse this trend and recover lost systemic sensibilities?
In calling for a new politics to begin to deal with climate change, Anthony
Giddens (2009) argues that ‘as far as possible we have to prepare beforehand –
adaptation must be proactive’ [p. 13]. As compelling as his arguments are, he has
very little to say about the forms of practice or praxis that will be required. I will
argue that re-engaging with and revitalising systems thinking and practice is one of

1
I will make the case as the book develops that changing our thinking and acting is not just what
we as individuals need to do – it is also changing what our ancestors have done – it is their think-
ing that shapes our current institutions (norms, rules of the human game) and thus so much of
what we take for granted in going about our daily lives.
2
There are two adjectives derived from the word ‘system’, i.e. systemic, pertaining to wholes,
though not in the sense that wholes are pre-given, but in the sense of a systemic chemical that has
the capacity, through a network of interactions, to affect a whole organism and ‘systematic’, linear
or sequential thinking and acting. The Systems approaches I am concerned with encompass both.
3
Throughout the text I use the capitalised ‘Systems’ to cover the broad area of scholarship and
practice that could be also described as the ‘systems field’ or the many ‘systems approaches’;
others have described ‘Systems’ as a trans-disciplinary ‘meta-subject’ but in some contexts it
makes more sense to see Systems as a discipline in its own right or as part of interdisciplinary
practices (Ison, 2008; Maiteny and Ison, 2000).
1.2 What Do We Do When We Do What We Do? 5

the most significant opportunities we have.4 One of many reasons for this is because
systems thinkers in the past have recognised that there are particular situations that
we confront that only appear amenable to change and improvement through systems
thinking and practice – these situations have been described as ‘messes’, ‘wicked
problems’ or issues of the real-life swamp. I will argue that it makes sense to see cli-
mate change as part of a lineage of understanding, or framing, these situations in par-
ticular ways. The good news is that we have some experience of how to use systems
thinking and practice to engage with and change such situations for the better. The
bad news is that systems literacy is poor, systems thinking in practice capabilities are
not widespread, often practice is poor and many organisations set up rules and non-
systemic practices that get in the way of thinking and acting systemically.
Change of course starts at home, with each of us but only if the circumstances are
conducive, amongst which includes knowing what change for the better might look
like. In my experience, it is not easy to think and act differently. How we think and
act is patterned into the very fabric of our existence from birth. It is affected by and
sustained by our physiology, particularly our underlying emotions, by the structures
of our language, by our practice of reifying explanations (particular ways of think-
ing) in rules, procedures, techniques and objects, by our culture and our social rela-
tions, all of them as they change over time.5 How technology functions in our
society is an important consideration as well. The result is a hugely complex web, a
web of existence, in which we are immersed and of which we are only partly aware.

1.2 What Do We Do When We Do What We Do?

On the bright side, it is possible to become more aware of the nature of this web.
With awareness, new understandings are possible and from these can flow new
practices.6 One way to raise awareness is to ask new or different questions. The
first question I invite you to explore with me in this book is:
What is it that we do when we do what we do?7
A question like this is not a typical question. Too often we inhabit a taken-for-
granted world where our ways of doing things are not questioned. Questions like

4
In making this claim I am not Utopian in outlook – there are many other priorities as well – and
using systems approaches will not deliver ‘utopian solutions’ but they can increase our capacity
to act effectively.
5
Reifying is the process of converting a concept mentally into a thing. The process can have the
unintended consequence of giving a concept a seemingly material existence, almost as if it was
there all of the time, rather than being ‘invented’ by someone at some historical moment; I
expand on this in Chapter 6.
6
Language constrains me here – I do not imply a linear sequence – awareness, understanding and
practice are all sites for transformation and change. We know this from experience – doing some-
thing, like exploring your new mobile phone, a practice, can result in new understandings.
7
I am grateful to Humberto Maturana for introducing me to this question and for offering the
explanation of how human beings live in the braiding of language and emotion.
6 1 Introduction and Rationale

this that invite critical reflection on our circumstances are not common.
Answering this sort of question is also not easy because we are not used to doing
the thinking needed to supply an answer. To answer questions like this requires us
to take a double look – to look at what we do when we do the original doing and
to look at our looking at what we do! By the end of this book I hope you will be
much more familiar with what this type of question entails.8
Here is an example of what the question means to me. As an academic one of
the common practices I have had to learn is how to mark exam papers. This
usually involves allocating a mark for an answer, perhaps a mark out of ten,
against some criteria that I have specified or have in my head. This practice is
widespread not only in schools and universities, but can be used in judging
research bids, ranking applicants for a job, ranking achievements or evaluating
progress in meeting targets. In fact, the practice of quantifying a process is so
widespread that we tend to take it for granted. But if I reflect on this particular
practice (my doing … or others who do it) then I can become aware of a range of
issues which cause me concern. These include:
• My awareness that practice at the Open University, built around distance teach-
ing, is very different to most other universities because we have to develop
marking schemes in advance that can be used by other staff to do the marking.
In my experience, most academics at other universities do not develop formal
marking schemes but use their own judgement as they mark
• An unintended consequence of not having a marking scheme can be that it
becomes easier for students to score high marks in quantitative subjects or
where there are clear right and wrong answers than in more qualitative subjects
based on essays, mainly because in the latter case academics do not like to
award marks over the full range 0–100, i.e. they do not much like giving marks
over 80 or 90 percent
• An unintended consequence of having a marking scheme can be that the crea-
tive coupling of the answer to a question in context specific ways may go unre-
warded or even unrecognised9
• If I think really deeply about marking then I realise that I am giving a quantita-
tive performance measure to someone else’s learning … or am I? Perhaps I am
giving them a reward for mastering a particular technique, such as answering
exam papers in a particular way? And how do I understand learning?10

8
I will refer to this type of question as a second-order question.
9
At the Open University we attempt to address this by developing marking schemes that operate
at several conceptual levels and leave space for context sensitive judgement, but experience
shows that some tutors are better at this than others.
10
In April 2008 a group of 34 British Academics under the banner of ‘The Weston Manor
Group’ produced a manifesto calling for major changes in how Universities assess their students.
They argued the need to reorientate current assessment fashions characterised by an ‘obsession with
marks and grades to one which puts more emphasis on developing effectiveness for learning, rather
than assessment of what sometimes passes as learning’ (see http://www.timeshighereducation.co.
uk/story.asp?storyCode=401576&sectioncode=26 accessed 17 May 2017).
1.2 What Do We Do When We Do What We Do? 7

• If I am honest with myself I realise that no matter how hard I try I find it hard
to be generous when I find it difficult to understand the handwriting
• If I explore further I might realise that the practice of awarding quantitative
marks to student work began in the 1790s – before that it was not imaginable
that student learning would be treated in such a way (the ‘normal’ methods
then involved discussion, presentation, discourse and professional judgement).
Today quantification seems so much part of our daily life we do not question
it. Yet prior to 1792, when it was first carried out at the University of
Cambridge, this was an unknown practice. Interestingly it was subsequently
fostered mainly by military colleges (Hoskins, 1979; Postman, 1993).11,12
I call practices such as grading and examining, which become incorporated into
a culture, social technologies. Social technologies are all around us. Sometimes
they are beneficial and facilitate effective practices like creating road rules that
minimise accidents. Sometimes they incorporate understandings that, experience
shows, were inappropriate in the first place or that, on reflection, are no longer
valid. So, based on my experience and reflection on ‘marking’, it is legitimate to
ask, or inquire further, as to whether quantification is really in the best interests of
student learning?13
Writing about UK public sector reform John Seddon gives another example. He
describes the ‘inspection industry’ which ‘had become a political instrument’ of
what he called the New Labour regime: ‘Like ministers, it has lost focus on what
works. Instead inspection is concerned with compliance. It is now an integral part of
dysfunction’ (Seddon, 2008, p. 56). If I unpack Seddon’s claims I come to see that
‘inspection’ and the role of ‘inspectors’ are social technologies and that what is good
‘inspection’ or a good ‘inspector’ is open to intellectual and political fashion.14
Social technologies are distinct from artefacts such as a hammer or a computer
considered in isolation, which is what we usually think about when technology is
mentioned. Social technologies are characterised by a set of relationships in which

11
Postman (1993, p. 13) following Hoskins (Fairtlough, 2007, pp. 135–146), attributes this ‘inno-
vation’ to William Farish, a professor of Engineering at Cambridge, and claims that this was a
major step in ‘constructing a mathematical concept of reality’. He makes the further point, valid to
my argument here, that ‘if a number can be given to the quality of a thought, then a number can
be given to the qualities of mercy, love, hate, beauty, creativity, intelligence, even sanity itself’.
12
It is possible to successfully design and run ‘education systems’ which do not rely on quantifi-
cation as part of an ‘assessment system’ – I have been fortunate to be part of doing this – see
Bawden (1989). I would argue that one of the unintended consequences of assessment systems
that primarily rely on ‘quantification of learning’ is that we have collectively become less skilled
in processes of deliberation, which are so important to an effective democracy. But this argument
is not one I wish to pursue here.
13
I return to the role of social technologies in Chapter 6.
14
In this case the process of ‘inspecting’ has become reified at some historical moment into a pro-
fessional role called ‘inspector’. The inspector role brings with it historical connotations about
‘inspecting’ as well as day-to-day political and intellectual considerations that reshape what it is
to be an ‘inspector’. Etymologically the process of inspection means to ‘examine closely’ derived
from ‘en’ (in, within, into) and ‘spek’ (to see or regard) (Shipley, 1984).
8 1 Introduction and Rationale

Fig. 1.1 An application form

is an example of a wide-
spread social technology –
not all are the same but all
have several elements in
common and the ‘forms’
mediate similar social
practices

the technology plays a mediating role just as the document template does in
Fig. 1.1. In my terms management, or decision making, can be a social technology
when it is made up of procedures and rules designed to standardise behaviour – or
in other words, sets of techniques used routinely without awareness of the origins
and implications of the use of such techniques, the role of the practitioner and the
need for user-context relational understanding in a given situation. Social technol-
ogies, as with artefactual technologies, such as my iphone, can be seen to have
affordances. Affordances are not a property of the technology per se but arise in
the relationship between a technology and a user, e.g. an iphone and its ‘fit’ into
my hand.
My examples of ‘marking’ and ‘inspecting’ may seem, at first, a far cry from
responding to climate change. It is my contention however that the profound and
effective responses to major issues will arise when we become more systemically
aware of the ‘what and why’ in the everyday. Marking and inspecting are see-
mingly benign practices that touch on the lives of a significant proportion of the
world’s population. But if we have, in some ways, got these practices ‘wrong’
think about the possible implications for many of our other practices! I say more
about this in Part II.15

1.3 Living in Language

A second question I address is:

What are the consequences of living in language?
Neil Postman made the point that a sentence acts very much like a machine
and that a language enables or constrains our thinking in particular ways. He
points out that neither the form of a question or its content is neutral. The form of
a question may ease our way or pose obstacles. Or, when even slightly altered, it

15
In Part II, I will explain how my use of the term ‘social technologies’ is very close to what
some economists, particularly institutional economists, refer to as ‘institutions’.
1.3 Living in Language 9

Fig. 1.2 The dynamic between an explainer, an explanation and a listener (or reader)

may generate antithetical answers, as in the case of the two priests who, being
unsure if it was permissible to eat and pray at the same time, wrote to the Pope for
a definitive answer. One priest phrased the question: ‘Is it permissible to eat while
praying?’ and was told it was not, since prayer should be the focus of one’s whole
attention; the other priest asked if it was permissible to pray while eating and was
told that it is, since it is always appropriate to pray (Postman, 1993, pp. 125–126).
The form of a question may even block us from seeing opportunities that become
visible through a different question.
A consequence of living in language is that the social and political dynamics of
explanations becomes very important – as a species we appear to live with a crav-
ing for explanations. An explanation does not exist in and of itself – it is part of a
social dynamic between an explainer, an explanation (the form of an explanation)
and a listener or reader (Fig. 1.2). As I outline in Part II, accepting a new or differ-
ent explanation changes who we are; the accepting and rejecting of explanations is
a key dynamic of being human. My invitation in this book is to explore what it is
like to develop systemic explanations and actions in complex and uncertain situa-
tions. I will argue that systems thinking and practice are particular ways of living
in language – a systems language – that is unfortunately not greatly valued nor
well understood or practised.16
Of course, all explanations have a history and it is possible to explore this history.
In my own approach to systems practice I place a lot of emphasis on attempts to
become more aware of the traditions of understanding out of which we think and act.
In Chapter 7, I will describe how this can be done in a practical way by exploring
metaphors and their entailments as part of a process of systemic inquiry. Systemic
inquiry is the focus of Chapter 10. Recent scholarship in the newish academic

16
It can be argued that this in part rests on the contemporary focus on efficiency rather than
effectiveness – achieving the latter is more difficult.
10 1 Introduction and Rationale

disciplines in the history and sociology of science and technology demonstrate the
importance of understanding the history of ideas, practices and explanations.17

1.4 A Failure to Institutionalise18

One of my main arguments will be that we have failed to institutionalise systems

thinking in our society in general and our organisational practices in particular, and
that this has been, to a large extent a failure of knowing what systems practice is,
valuing what it can deliver and knowing how to do it! So, one of the main aims of
this book is to give you, the reader, ideas about how to do it, i.e. to think and act
systemically. I will also try to make apparent the sorts of benefits doing Systems
can provide in a climate-change world. My ambition is that as you read you will
engage in an active inquiry into your own ways of thinking and acting (praxis), or
put another way, that you will transform your situation through changes in under-
standing and practice, where neither understanding or practice are prime (Fig. 1.3).
Changes in practices

towards concerted action

(Sn)

modified
situation
(S3)

transformation
situation
(S2)

Changes in understanding

Fig. 1.3 Situations characterised by complexity, uncertainty interdependencies, multiple stake-

holders and thus perspectives can be transformed (as indicated by the arrows) through concerted
action by stakeholders who build their stakeholding in the process. This leads to changed under-
standings (knowledge in action) and practices (S = situation; S1 [not shown] is the history of the
current situation (S2) which, through changes in understanding and practices of stakeholders, is
transformed to S3 etc. SLIM (Social Learning for the Integrated Management of Water) (2004)

17
Fortunately, explanations are open to historical inquiry and reinterpretation but, in my view,
we need to do much more so as to break out of widespread traps in our thinking, traps that make
it difficult for us to respond to complex situations such as climate change.
18
By institutionalise I mean the failure to create systems practice as an ‘institution’, a norm or
‘rule of the game’. I say more about institutions in Chapter 6.
1.4 A Failure to Institutionalise 11

The transformation I allude to in Fig. 1.3 is towards more effective concerted

action by stakeholders in complex and uncertain situations.19 I could describe this
as cooperative, collaborative or collective action, but I prefer ‘concerted’ (under-
stood as done or performed together or in cooperation) as it evokes for me the
idea that, at scales ranging from the local to the global, we, as a species, have to
develop more effective performances. My organising metaphor here is that of an
orchestra or jazz ensemble. This metaphor enables me to appreciate that what con-
stitutes an effective performance is an emergent property between the actions of
an orchestra (i.e. a group of people with different histories, understandings, emo-
tions, instruments who come together and work hard at some common purpose)
and an audience (i.e. situation), and that this relational dynamic brings forth con-
text sensitive practices.20 A jazz ensemble reveals aspects of improvisation rather
than say performing a set piece as with an orchestra! The processes of generating
concerted action through the dynamics depicted in Fig. 1.3 are what we call social
learning, explored in more depth in Blackmore (2010).

Illustration 1.1

19
It is important to my arguments that Fig. 1.3 is read carefully; as a heuristic device I have found it
very useful in many face-to-face presentations – but it is useful mainly because of what it enables
me to say and the questions it triggers. In Chapter 2, I will say more about how I understand particu-
lar situations and use the term ‘situation’. Figure 1.3 is also built on a theoretical perspective that
sees learning as social rather than individual and learning processes as embedded in the dotted line
(which is rarely unidirectional in practice). Another key aspect of the transformation process, but
not depicted in Fig. 1.3, is that changes in social relations usually accompany a change in practice
or a change in understanding, i.e. in effecting situation improving action one is rarely alone.
20
All metaphors reveal and conceal – what my use of this metaphor conceals is questions about
conductor, score and music composition. I can side-step this partially by deferring to jazz and the
improvisation that is part of jazz practice. In my reading of this metaphor I see many different
performances operating at different scales, playing different music! I also think that in terms of
climate change adaptation we need to write the music as well as perform it!
12 1 Introduction and Rationale

All metaphors can be interpreted in many ways and this one is no different. If I
make clear what I mean by ‘action that is systemically desirable’, then I can take
responsibility for my own normative position, what I would seek in a good perfor-
mance. My position is that it is not the future of the Earth that is threatened by
human actions but our relationship with the Earth, with other species and with other
human beings, including future generations. So, for me, an effective performance
arises from actions that enhance and sustain the quality of these relationships. At this
stage I do not wish to be more specific than this; I will say more about this in Part II.

1.5 Managing in a Co-evolutionary World21

Some readers may by this point be struggling to locate themselves in this book. If
you are a health professional, a civil servant, an engineer, an IT specialist or from
a myriad of other contexts in which systems thinking and practice can be applied
you may not yet have encountered anecdotes or language that resonate with you?
I see this as both a challenge and an opportunity … for reader and author alike.
This is not a book designed for one specific professional sector – it transcends
individual professions. My own experience is that systems thinking and practice
can become a skill that is relevant in all aspects of life, personal and professional,
individual and group. My ambition and motivation is more than the utilitarian,
however. Our circumstances have become such that more of the same, a business
as usual approach, even if done better is no longer good enough. We face an
unparalleled situation, one which requires responses, small and large, in all aspects
of our daily lives.

Illustration 1.2

21
Material in this section comes mainly from Collins and Ison (2009).
1.5 Managing in a Co-evolutionary World 13

Nuclear bombs and human-induced climate change do not mean the end of the
world, but they could ultimately mean the end of the world as we have come to
know it, or a world in which we humans are a part. The situation is as serious as
that! In the discourses that have built up around the acceptance that humans are
actually affecting the climate of the earth, two terms have come to prominence.
These are climate-change mitigation and climate-change adaptation. The former is
concerned with acting now to stop or minimise factors that exacerbate climate
change. Adaptation concerns how we go on living in a world affected by climate
change or any other changing situation. Despite a lot of research and modelling it
will never be fully knowable how, when and where climate change will have
greatest impacts. But it is not climate change per se that is the subject of this
book. My concern is with uncertainty and complexity that emerge from the fragi-
lity of our institutions and governance systems (Connolly, 2013). The greater var-
iation in temperature and rainfall that already seems apparent also brings into
question the adequacy, or not, of current technologies and engineering, architec-
tural and environmental design tolerances created in a more benign world
(Shapiro, 2014; Scranton, 2015).
The word ‘adaptation’ has always been important in scientific fields associated
with evolution, ecology and environmental change. The advent of anthropogenic
climate change has again positioned ‘adaptation’ as a key term and concept.
Etymologically ‘adaptation’ means ‘fitted or suited’ and to adapt is ‘to fit’ or ‘make
suitable’. At the level of metaphor two possible conceptions arise from these mean-
ings which have significant practical and policy implications. The first metaphor,
and the most widespread understanding, is that of ‘adaptation as fitting into’. In this
metaphor, something (predetermined) is fitted into a situation (also predetermined
or knowable in advance) to which it is fit-able or suited, like when doing a jigsaw
(Bawden, 1989).22
The other metaphor is that of ‘adaptation as a good pair of shoes’. This meta-
phor requires a little more explication. What makes a good pair of shoes at a given
moment? Well, usually because you have worn them in, they are comfortable,
flexible etc. But these same shoes may not be a good pair of shoes if you were to
put them in a cupboard for a year before wearing them again. Why? Because your
feet will have changed! Within this metaphor, a good pair of shoes arises from the
recurrent interactions between shoes and feet – this is an example of co-evolution.
This has also been described as the structural coupling of a system to its environ-
ment over time (Ison et al., 2007; Maturana, 2007). For those who understand the
dynamics of co-evolution, and are not so interested in shoes, then the metaphor
can become ‘adaptation as co-evolution’ (Collins and Ison, 2009).
Rather than seeing adaptation as one way, co-evolution is different – the idea
of a separate environment is set aside in favour of processes of mutual interaction
which in human social systems can be seen as processes of learning, change and

22
It can be argued that this is the common, or mainstream, understanding that informs practices
like plant breeding and agronomy.
14 1 Introduction and Rationale

development (Fairtlough, 2007, p. 121; Giddens, 2009). Despite our many human
capabilities, we seem to have room for improvement in the realms of learning,
change and development. If we are to manage in a climate-changing world that is
essentially unknowable in advance, and where we need to take more responsibility
for the systemic effects we as a species have, then adaptation as co-evolution
seems to me the only way forward. This requires an effective form of praxis – a
systems practice.23
An increasing number of policy makers recognise that, in the face of climate
change, a global water crisis and the like, a business as usual approach to govern-
ance is no longer tenable (APSC Australian Public Service Commission, 2007;
Chapman, 2003; Giddens, 2009; Syme et al., 2006).24 These same commentators
recognise that systems thinking and practice are key to delivering effective policy
and practice that address long-term complex and intractable issues (OECD, 2017;
Green, 2016). Noting the long-term nature of many of Australia’s key policy chal-
lenges former Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, argued the need to ‘invest
in a greater strategic policy capability’ by which he meant ‘a greater capacity to
see emerging challenges and opportunities – and to see them not just from the per-
spective of government, but also from the perspective of all parts of the commu-
nity’ and delivering ‘genuine joined-up government’ (Rudd, 2008). But, as
experience in Britain demonstrates, joined-up government is easy to talk about but
much harder to enact (Seddon, 2008).
The material that follows explicates an ‘ideal type’ model of systems practice
that, with investment, has the potential to deliver the missing praxis elements of
joined-up, or systemic and adaptive, governance (Part II). But effective practice is
always contextual and, at the moment, there are various constraints to institutiona-
lising effective systems practice. These constraints as well as opportunities are
explored in Part III. Our governance arrangements call out for transformation but
any transformation has to be built on fundamental shifts in thinking and practice
as well as on what we choose to value (Part IV). In our current situation, systems
thinking and practice is dangerous: dangerous because it may change who you are
and how you act. I can think of no better time than now to live dangerously!

23
Praxis: the means by which a theory or philosophy becomes a practical social action.
Praxeology is the study of human action, based on the notion that humans can engage in purpo-
seful or willed behavior. These are standard explanations of the two terms; my colleague,
Martin Reynolds, has elegant elaborations which I like: ‘practice is understood as human inter-
faced activities – processes, including speech, conversation and knowing – that effect transfor-
mation in situations (what people, or groups, do when they do what they do – a state of
“doing”). Praxis is understood (more as a state of “being” or inquiry) where practices (action)
and understandings (theory) are interfused through purposeful (transformative) design and appli-
cation. Whilst “practice” is measured principally by efficacy, efficiency, elegance, and ethicality,
“praxis” is measured principally by effectiveness – impacts, or transformations including trans-
formations to sustainability’.
24
By governance, I mean the ways and means by which social groups ‘steer’ themselves in rela-
tion to feedback processes as they chart an uncertain future (I take this up again in Chapter 9).
References 15

References

APSC (Australian Public Service Commission) (2007) Tackling wicked problems. A public
policy perspective. Australian Government, Canberra
Bawden RJ (1989) Assessing the capable agriculturalist. Assess Eval High Educ 13:151–162
Blackmore C (ed) (2010) Social learning systems and communities of practice. The Open
University and Springer, London
Chapman J (2003) System failure: why governments must learn to think differently. Demos,
London
Collins KB, Ison RL (2009) Living with environmental change: adaptation as social learning.
(Editorial) Environ Policy Gov 19:351–357
Connolly WE (2013) The fragility of things. Self-organizing processes, neo-liberal fantasies, and
democratic activism. Duke University Press, Durham and London
Fairtlough G (2007) The three ways of getting things done. Hierarchy, heterarchy & responsible
autonomy in organizations. Triarchy Press, Axminster
Giddens A (2009) The politics of climate change. Polity, London
Green D (2016) How change happens. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Hoskins K (1979) The examination, disciplinary power and rational schooling. Hist Educ VIII
2:135–146
Ison RL, Röling N, Watson D (2007) Challenges to science and society in the sustainable man-
agement and use of water: investigating the role of social learning. Environ Sci Policy
10:499–511
Ison RL (2008) Systems thinking and practice for action research. In: Reason P, Bradbury H
(eds) The Sage handbook of action research participative inquiry and practice, 2nd edn. Sage,
London, pp 139–158
Kunkel B (2017) The capitalocence. Lond Rev Books 39(5):22–28
Maiteny PT, Ison RL (2000) Appreciating systems: critical reflections on the changing nature of
systems as a discipline in a systems learning society. Syst Pract Action Res 16(4):559–586
Maturana H (2007) Systemic versus genetic determination. Constr Found 3(1):21–26
OECD (2017) Working with change: systems approaches to public sector challenges. http://beta.
oecd-opsi.org/events/systems-thinking-workshop-2017/. Accessed 30 May 2017
Postman N (1993) Technopoly. The surrender of culture to technology. Vintage, New York
Rudd, K. (2008) Prime Minister’s address to heads of agencies and members of senior executive
service. Great Hall, Parliament House, Canberra, 30 April 2008
Scranton R (2015) Learning to die in the anthropocene. Reflections on the end of civilization.
City Light Books, San Francisco
Seddon J (2008) Systems thinking in the public sector: the failure of the reform regime and a
manifesto for a better way. Triarchy Press, Axminster
Shapiro M (2014) The end of stationarity. Searching for the new normal in the age of carbon
shock. Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont
Shipley JT (1984) The origins of English words: a discursive dictionary of Indo European roots.
The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore/London
SLIM (Social Learning for the Integrated Management of Water) (2004) SLIM framework: social
learning as a policy approach for sustainable use of water. http://slim.open.ac.uk. Accessed
17 May 2017
Syme G, Nancarrow B, Stephens M et al (2006) Volunteerism, democracy, administration and
the evolution of future landscapes: a Land & Water Australia Project. CSIRO Land and
Water project team
 Part II
Systems Practice as Juggling
Chapter 2
Introducing Systems Practice

Abstract This chapter explains why what is accepted, or not, as systems practice
arises in a social dynamic. In this unfolding dynamic, connections are made by sys-
tems practitioners who apply key systems concepts and practise different Systems
lineages for understanding and managing situations. Some of the concepts and
lineages are introduced and described. What constitutes system practice is exempli-
fied by a short reading – an article by Simon Caulkin. The distinction between
systemic and systematic practice, a central theme of the book, is introduced and
explored.

2.1 Systems Thinking or Thinking Systemically

I would like to believe that the ability to think and act systemically is more wide-
spread than seems apparent. It is sometimes surprising for students of Open
University Systems courses to discover that they are already systems thinkers.
Many students describe an ‘Aha…’ moment in the early phases of their study
when they realise that their own way of thinking has a name and is a valid way of
engaging with the world. Others take longer before the ‘aha-moment’ arrives. For
some it never materialises. The limited research on educating the systems thinker
suggests that everyone can develop this ability but for some it is a demanding
journey. For example, Helm Steirlin (2004, p. 164), philosopher, medical practi-
tioner and psychoanalyst, after a lifetime of systems practice said: ‘systemic think-
ing can only be learned through one’s work; it cannot be instilled into others; it
needs time to gather experience and to make mistakes’. Following Steirlin, I invite
you to consider how this book might help you to create the circumstances where it
is safe to fail as you attempt to develop your systems thinking and practice.
I phrase it like this as it is in circumstances where it is safe to fail that learning
is maximised. Engaging with Systems is perhaps like learning a new language –
I could refer to it as learning ‘systems talking’, where ‘talking’ involves thinking
and doing, i.e. practice. It is the sort of learning that can challenge our sense of
identity. It is as if ‘systems talk’ is ‘talk that undermines the boundaries between
our categories of things in the world, [and thus] undermines “us,” the stability of

© The Open University 2017 19

Published in Association with Springer-Verlag London Limited
R. Ison, Systems Practice: How to Act, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9_2
20 2 Introducing Systems Practice

the kinds of beings we take ourselves to be.’1 On this note, ‘systems talk’ can,
depending on your perspective, be transforming or dangerous because of its ability
to transform who we are.
My own learning from being a systems educator for over 30 years is that many
people have what I call a systemic sensibility – they are able to appreciate the inter-
dependencies between people, events and things and, knowingly or not, reject the
idea that simple cause and effect operates everywhere. I fear that all too often the
systemic sensibility of the young human is lost through the vagaries of education
and cultural conditions. However, some people have moved beyond sensibility to
forms of systems literacy – they know some systems concepts and have encountered
the history of systems scholarship. Yet others have moved beyond literacy to what I
call systems thinking in practice (STiP) capability (Ison and Shelley 2016). An
aspiration of this book is to recover or enhance your systemic sensibilities, build on
your systems literacy or facilitate a shift from sensibility, through literacy to STiP
capability.2
If systems thinking and practice were more widespread then my task would be
simpler; it would require awareness raising rather than the more difficult task of
inviting you to consider how you currently think and act in relation to complex
situations, something that can be challenging, resisted and in want of justification.
Those who do not think systemically usually require explanations of what ‘it’ is
and justification or evidence that ‘it works’ or that there is a ‘value proposition’
for engaging with it. There is also a tendency to require explanations of effective-
ness in causal terms of the form: ‘using systems thinking can cause X to happen’
i.e., using a framework of linear causality in which a systemic view is lost because
one cannot understand circularity by making it linear: after-all a matrix is a
complex network of nested and intersecting circular relationships.3
Although a challenge, this book is designed for readers of all backgrounds
when it comes to systems thinking and practice. This challenge can be understood
as a set of interconnected factors that have to be addressed if one is to provide a
reading experience, or build a curriculum capable of ‘educating’ a systems practi-
tioner. It is even more demanding in a distance teaching setting (as in The Open

1
Here I am following positions espoused by John Shotter and Mary Douglass – see Shotter
(1993, p. 4).
2
As I cannot know where a reader may place themselves on a continuum from sensibility through
literacy to STiP capability I am left with a dilemma as to how to pitch this book? Because my
experience is that systemic sensibilities and systems literacy are not well developed in the Anglo-
Saxon countries then my choice is to pitch the book for those who do not know they have a sys-
temic sensibility and with limited systems literacy. Of course I hope there is also much of rele-
vance here for those who would claim they already have some STiP capabilities.
3
Much can be said on this point: My prejudice is that those who demand answers to these ques-
tions often do not make the same demands on what they currently do … or, to rephrase it
slightly, the systemic effectiveness of what it is that they do. I would further claim that it is not
possible to provide arguments for effectiveness in one way of thinking in terms of another way
of thinking. Thus, to impose inappropriate evaluative frameworks is to risk paradigm incommen-
surability or to conflate explanations across different domains.
2.1 Systems Thinking or Thinking Systemically 21

University UK) because my experience, and that of many of my colleagues, is that

systems thinking and practice is best learned experientially.4
If systems thinking and practice is best learnt experientially then that creates
some design difficulties for the author of a book. The simplest challenge is to cre-
ate the circumstances whereby those who already think systemically can be
affirmed in what it is that they do, whether they are aware of it or not. One way to
do this is to develop a language, including conceptual and methodological
insights, to better understand the nature of their systems thinking. For those who
fall into this category it should also be possible to become better at thinking and
acting systemically and to be better able to make choices of when to use or not
use this type of thinking. Regardless of where you would position yourself in your
systems thinking capabilities it makes sense to invite you to engage actively with
the ideas. This is a strategy I pursue. I do so by moving the focus of reading
between different authors – my own text and that of other systems thinkers and
practitioners. My motivation for doing this is to encourage you to look at what,
how and why some systems practitioners do what they do and to compare this to
what you currently do, or could do, in similar situations.5
If you have made it this far with your reading but do not yet regard yourself as
a systems thinker then I would invite you to consider this question:
What is it that you would have to experience that created the circumstances
where you could experiment with thinking and acting systemically?
You may notice that this is a strange question, a bit like asking ‘what would
you have to experience that created the circumstances in which you could experi-
ment with falling in love?’ Thus I cannot answer this question for you so I invite
you to return to it at the end of the book by which time the experience that
answers the question may have arisen. To begin I offer two pointers based on my
own experience: (1) abandon certainty, or to phrase it another way, acknowledge
the certainty of uncertainty and (2) be open to your circumstances.6 Both of these
claims concern attitudes or predispositions, which if adopted realise a particular
emotional dynamic in which another arises as a legitimate other.7 By another

4
Even when one cannot in a course DO the real world application, one can do experiential activ-
ities that are isophoric. I will explain later what an isophor is and how it works.
5
My approach is limited by the format and structure of a book and the act of reading a text –
your systems thinking and practice is something you have to ‘live’ i.e., do. What I write, and my
references to other texts, needs to be understood as an invitation to experiment with your ways
of doing – it is not a prescription or a demand to do as I say!
6
When one is open to one’s circumstances (surrounding conditions) there are generative or inno-
vative possibilities.
7
Among human beings this is best demonstrated when a conversation starts in which mutual
engagement and exploration happens. My perspective is captured in part by Benjamin Whorf
who said: ‘it is not sufficiently realized that the ideal of world-wide fraternity and cooperation
fails if it does not include ability to adjust intellectually as well as emotionally to our brethren in
other countries’ (Carroll 1959, p. 21). To this I add future generations, other species and the inan-
imate, or biophysical, world.
22 2 Introducing Systems Practice

I mean other people with different experiences, cultures, explanations, other

species as well as the biophysical and inanimate world.8

2.2 Systems Thinking as a Social Dynamic

At this point let me say that I have no intention of defining what systems thinking
or practice is, or is not. In my experience definitions are constraining because
(1) they are abstractions and thus a limited one dimensional snapshot of a complex
dynamic and (2) we do not appreciate how definitions blind us to what we do
when we employ a definition. Instead I claim that systems thinking and practice
arise as a particular dynamic in social relations as part of everyday life. So how
might someone recognise systems thinking and practice arising as a social
dynamic? The following are the most common:
1. When someone experiences what you say or do and claims that this is thinking
or acting systemically9
2. When you engage in some form of personal reflection and make the claim for
yourself that you were thinking and acting systemically
3. When your reflection is more formal as in writing a paper, report or book so that
others who read this may agree or disagree to claims about acting systemically
The key aspect of these social dynamics is: Would you, or someone else, agree
that you are doing systems thinking or practice?10 I suggest that the key to agree-
ment in all of these dynamics is the nature and extent of the connection you and
others in the social dynamic make with the history of systems thinking and prac-
tice, including the main concepts that have been developed and continue to be
used (Table 2.1). In practical terms systems practice can arise when we reflect on
our own actions and make personal claims in relation to a history of systems
thinking (a form of purposeful behaviour) or when others observe actions that
they would explain in reference to the history of systems thinking (a form of

8
In making this claim it is important to note that I am not, in the process of legitimising others,
granting them legitimacy. The ‘arise as’ means that we accept them to be already legitimate at
the moment we become aware of them, it or circumstance. Legitimate does not mean you like or
condone, its an acceptance of what appears as present as being what it is, without having to
account for itself or justify itself to you.
9
As I will outline later I understand experience as arising in a distinction we are able to make in
relation to ourselves – thus without a distinction no experience arises. To experience a systems
practitioner I would claim involves being able to distinguish a manner of acting (or living, or
being) in a situation that we choose to describe as ‘systemic’. This is most apparent when we
experience someone making a connection with lineages of ways of thinking and acting systemi-
cally in which congruence between what is said and what is done emerges. My claim does not
preclude people acting systemically even though they may not distinguish it as such.
10
Those interested in this question and its framing may find similarities with Wittgenstein when
he said: ‘It is what human beings say that is true and false; and they agree in the language they
use. That is not an agreement in opinions but in form of life’ (Wittgenstein 1953).
2.2 Systems Thinking as a Social Dynamic 23

Table 2.1 Explanations of some generalised systems concepts likely to be experienced when
encountering a system practitioner (Adapted from Capra 1996; Pearson and Ison 1997; Wilson
1984)
Concept Explanation
Boundary The borders of the system, determined by the observer(s), which define
where control action can be taken: a particular area of responsibility to
achieve system purposes
Communication 1. Communication is understood by some as a simple feedback process
(as in a heater with thermostat) involving information but this should
not be confused with human communication, which has a biological
basis;
2. From a theory of cognition which encompasses language, emotion,
perception and behaviour communication amongst human beings gives
rise to new properties in the communicating partners who each have
different experiential histories
Connectivity The relationships between components or elements (including sub-
systems) within a system based on factors such as influence and logical
dependence
Difficulty A situation considered as a bounded and well defined problem where it is
assumed that it is clear who is involved and what would constitute a
solution within a given time frame
Emergent Properties which arise or come into being at a particular level of
properties organisation and which are not possessed by constituent sub-systems.
These properties emerge from the operational or relational dynamics
between the elements or subsystems that comprise a system
Environment That which is outside the system boundary and which is coupled with, or
affects and is affected by the behaviour of the system; alternatively the
‘context’ for a system of interest
Feedback A form of interconnection, present in a wide range of systems. Circularity
is inherent where the result of a process is taken as an input to the process
so that the process is modified. Feedback may be negative (compensatory
or balancing) or positive (exaggerating or reinforcing)
Hierarchy Layered structure; the location, or embedding, of a particular system
within a continuum of levels of organisation. This means that any system
is at the same time a sub-system of some wider system and is itself a
wider system to its sub-systems
Measure of The criteria against which a system of interest formulated by an observer
performance is judged to have achieved its purpose. Data collected according to
measures of performance are used to modify the interactions within the
system
Mess A mess is a set of conditions that produces dissatisfaction. It can be
conceptualised as a system of apparently conflicting or contradictory
problems or opportunities; a problem or an opportunity is an ultimate
element abstracted from a mess
Monitoring and Monitoring consists of observations related to a system’s performance in
control the form of prescribed measures or data. When these observations are
outside a specified range, action is taken through some avenue of
management to remedy or ‘control’ the situation
(continued)
24 2 Introducing Systems Practice

Table 2.1 (continued)

Concept Explanation
Networks An elaboration of the concept of hierarchy which avoids the human
projection of ‘above’ and ‘below’ and recognises an assemblage of
entities in relationship, e.g. organisms in an ecosystem. Networked
entities may be totally parallel, embedded, or partially embedded
(structurally intersected)
Perspective A way of experiencing which is shaped by our current state and
circumstances as these are influenced by our unique personal and social
histories, where experiencing is a cognitive act
Purpose What the system does or exists for from the perspective of someone; the
raison d’être of a system of interest formulated by someone and achieved
through the particular transformation that has been ascribed
Resources Elements (e.g. matter, energy or information) which are available either
within the system boundary or present outside the system in a manner that
the system can access and which enable a desired transformation to occur
System An integrated whole distinguished by an observer whose essential
properties arise from the relationships between its parts; from the Greek
‘synhistanai’, meaning ‘to place together’
System of interest The product of distinguishing a system in a situation, in relation to an
articulated purpose, in which an individual or a group has an interest
(a stake); a constructed or formulated system of interest to one or more
people, used in a process of inquiry; a term suggested to avoid confusion
with the everyday use of the word ‘system’
Systemic thinking The type of thinking that arises from the evolutionary trajectory of
cognition. In humans this form of thinking takes place through the
systemic action of our own cognitive system in a manner that is not
limited to language and logic (background systemic thinking). Within
language (i.e. in the foreground) it refers to the understanding of a
phenomenon within the context of a larger whole. To understand things
systemically literally means to put them into a context, to establish the
nature of their relationships
Systematic Methodical, regular and orderly thinking about the relationships between
thinking the parts of a whole or the stages of a process. Systematic thinking
usually takes place in a linear, step-by-step manner
Tradition A network of pre-understandings or prejudices from which individuals,
culturally embedded, think and act; how we make sense of our world
Transformation Changes, modelled as an interconnected set of activities or processes
which convert an input to an output which may leave the system
(a ‘product’) or become an input to another transformation.
Transformations are sometimes referred to as ‘processes’
Trap A term derived through analogy with a lobster pot by Geoffrey Vickers; a
way of thinking and acting which is difficult to escape from, and no
longer relevant to the changed circumstances
Worldview That conception or understanding of the world which enables each
observer to attribute meaning to what is observed (sometimes the German
word Weltanschauung, which refers to both attitude as well as concept, is
used synonymously)
2.3 Exemplifying Systems Thinking as a Social Dynamic 25

purposive behaviour).11,12 From this perspective what is accepted (or not accepted)
as systems practice arises in social relations as part of the praxis of daily living.

2.3 Exemplifying Systems Thinking as a Social Dynamic

Some may see my failure to define systems thinking and practice as an abrogation
of responsibility or an intellectual ‘cop out’. It certainly goes against the grain of
most academic practice in which the mainstream perspective seems to be that
definitional clarity promotes both operational and conceptual certainty (a position
that contradicts my point about the need to acknowledge the certainty of uncer-
tainty!).13 For this reason I want to introduce my first Reading to, hopefully, make
my perspective more apparent. Please take some time now to read ‘Dyslexic man-
agement can’t read signs of failure’ by Simon Caulkin (2007). The author is a
well known journalist formerly with a major UK newspaper who has an espoused
commitment to the use of systems thinking.

Reading 1
Dyslexic Management Can’t Read Signs of Failure
Simon Caulkin
The Observer, Sunday November 25 2007

The real British disease is the unerring talent for putting together entities
that are less than the sum of their parts. The comical inability to think in
systems terms – call it management dyslexia – was on dazzling display last
week, all over the front and back pages.
First up, the England football team. Management is supposed to amplify
effort by providing a creative framework for individual expression that bene-
fits the team. But defeat against Croatia was the reverse, the culmination of

(continued)

11
Two forms of behaviour in relation to purpose have also been distinguished. One is purposeful
behaviour, which can be described as behaviour that is willed – there is thus some sense of
voluntary action. The other is purposive behaviour – behaviour to which an observer can attri-
bute purpose.
12
There is another dimension which I will address subsequently – that is the extent to which one
experiences in one’s own actions, or those of others, a congruence or coherence between what is
espoused and what is enacted. I will relate this to the notion of authenticity which as a word has
roots in ‘self – doing’ and ‘accomplishment’ which I argue can be seen as related to praxis (the-
ory informed action).
13
John Shotter (1993) has similar concerns when he poses the question (p. 19): ‘why do we feel
that our language works primarily by us using it accurately to represent and refer to things and
states of affairs in the circumstances surrounding us, rather than by using it to influence each
other’s and our own behaviour?’
26 2 Introducing Systems Practice

Reading 1 (continued)
unmanagement that over several matches has diminished team effort and
turned good players into turnips.
It was the opposite of management that left players individually and
collectively bereft. At least the England rugby players, in the World Cup, took
the initiative to create their own playing system that, although limited, suited
the available talent and took them against the odds to the very brink of triumph.
England’s Premiership is the wealthiest football league in the world. Its
consistent failure to generate a satisfactory national team is deeply rooted
and reflected in other systemic shortcomings. Only one of the top teams,
Manchester United, has a British manager; the starting line-up of the
Premiership leader, Arsenal, contains just one, sometimes no, English
player. Oh, and the new £800m Wembley stadium can’t even produce a
decent surface to play on. From grass upwards, English football is a system
for growing anti-synergies.
Second up, a performance by HM Revenue & Customs that makes it
hard to know where to begin – with the IT outsourcing that makes it an
expensive extra to separate bank details from other personal data, to senior
management’s decision to dispense with encryption to Gordon Brown’s
repeated use of the ‘one bad apple’ excuse: the leak was the result of one
individual’s failure to carry out procedures – at the dispatch box.
The spectacle of a general blaming his troops is always distasteful, but in
this case is also bankrupt. The HMRC leak is primarily the result not of
human error, but poor or non-existent systems design which failed in at least
three respects: not segregating sensitive from insensitive information, allow-
ing the two to be sent out together, and omitting to encrypt it. If any of those
steps had been followed, the further error, of leaving a junior to decide to
put it in the post, would have been harmless. This is called fail-safeing –
part of any good systems design.
And by the way, don’t bother with a witch-hunt or a full-scale investiga-
tion to find out what went wrong: with the help of readers and the junior
HMRC official, this column offers to find the root cause in a day, using a
basic problem-solving technique called the ‘five whys’ (asking ‘why’ five
times over) – and apply the answers to prevent the problem happening
again. The five whys are at the heart of continuous improvement which, in
turn, is the motor of systemic performance enhancement.
Last week’s third outbreak of British anti-synergy syndrome centred on
Norfolk and Norwich Hospital. On Wednesday, the hospital went into ‘major
incident’ alert because it was chocker. At one stage, 10 ambulances (nearly
half Norfolk’s total) were immobilised waiting to unload their patients.
So the hospital’s too small, right? Well, hang on a minute. Why was the
hospital full? Because of high demand, coupled with high bed-occupancy
rates. Why are bed rates so high? Partly because the hospital is ‘efficient’,

(continued)
2.3 Exemplifying Systems Thinking as a Social Dynamic 27

Reading 1 (continued)
operating at occupancy rates of more than 90%. But also because 60 beds
are occupied by patients who have finished treatment but can’t be dis-
charged. Why can’t they be discharged? Because, for financial reasons, the
Norfolk Primary Care Trust is busy closing down the community hospitals
that would traditionally have taken recovering patients, and social care, as
almost everywhere in the country, is utterly inadequate to cope.
And why is demand so high? An epidemic or major accident? Nope. The
extra demand comes from within. It is largely generated by NHS Direct
which, terrified of making mistakes, routinely directs callers to A&E or their
GP – but since GPs are no longer available out of hours, as a result of the
government-imposed contracts, that means A&E.
In other words, the Norfolk NHS crisis, like that of HMRC and team
England, was self-generated, the result of complete and continuing system-
blindness. ‘Problems in organisations,’ points out Russell Ackoff, one of the
first and best systems thinkers, ‘are almost always the product of interactions
of parts, never the action of a single part.’ Treating a single part destabilises
the whole and demands more fruitless management intervention; manage-
ment becomes a consumer of energy, rather than a creator.
Unfortunately, that’s the hallmark of twenty-first century UK manage-
ment. As last week demonstrated, it still shows no sign of recognising it.
Source: Caulkin, S., (2007) ‘Dyslexic management can’t read signs of failure’,
The Observer, November 25th, 2007. Copyright (c) Guardian News & Media Ltd 2017.

As you worked through this reading you may have recognised that Simon satis-
fies my criterion of what it is to be a systems thinker, i.e., he connects, through a
social dynamic, with the history of systems thinking and practice, including the
main concepts that have been developed and continue to be used (Table 2.1). The
social dynamic is played out in the relationship between a journalist and his offer-
ing of a systemic explanation about a set of complex situations. In doing this he
connects with the history of systems scholarship, via a named scholar (Ackoff)
and his use of systems concepts such as emergence, connectedness and purpose
(Table 2.1).14
Let me say a little more about how systems practice arises in social dynamics
through the analogy of family history research. Family history research (FHR),
like systems thinking and practice, is a practice open to anyone. FHR could be
seen as an inquiry process into who we are. Understanding who we are through
constructing narrative explanations about our past creates a new present – perhaps

14
When Simon speaks of ‘entities that are less than the sum of their parts’ he is referring to the
systems concept of emergence; Simon’s ‘why’ questions are associated with purpose and the sys-
tems notion of layered structure i.e., system, supra or sub-system (see Table 2.1).
28 2 Introducing Systems Practice

a new sense of identity – and thus, as we accept new explanations, can create
different futures. This overall process is something many people are interested in
as evidenced by the television programmes that have now developed based on
family history research. The main products and processes of FHR involve the con-
struction of lineages. Some stop with the lineage, the family tree, but often the
most fascinating part is the stories about people, places, historical events and
awareness about the contingency or luck of our own existence. As a form of prac-
tice family history research generally starts from the present and works backwards
before coming back to the present. For those who engage in it, it invariably
changes who they are and thus their future manner of living.
In a manner not dissimilar to family history research, Simon Caulkin referred
to Russ Ackoff, an influential scholar in one of the many systems thinking
lineages (see below). More importantly he used stories with concepts based on
Ackoff’s work to make sense of the situation he was writing about. He thus drew
on a particular lineage of systems thinking and applied it to contemporary circum-
stances.15 Of course lineages are not static, they evolve and change producing
innovative new insights and sometimes conserving unhelpful ideas or ideas no
longer relevant to current circumstances.
You may have already realised that my analogy only partly works – in systems
thinking and practice there are no genes and thus ‘blood ties’. This does not parti-
cularly matter – in my experience family history research often reveals how weak
‘blood ties’ actually are16 – but it does highlight how important social conventions
or institutions (including those in politics, hospitals and academia e.g., through
curricula, reading lists etc.) are in constituting different intellectual lineages. More
importantly in our living we each develop our own intellectual lineage which
I shall call our ‘tradition of understanding.’17 I will say more about this shortly.
In my experience the word ‘system’ is difficult to come to terms with for many
people. I know this from first-hand experience when, for example, at a dinner
party there is often a stunned silence or an awkward initial conversation when, in

15
It is perhaps fair to say that the most obvious aspect of Caulkin’s article is him complaining
about a lack, something missing, rather than offering an alternative. This raises the question:
'what good did it do?' My own response is to argue the following: (1) can a journalist do more
than raise awareness? (2) might it not be systemically undesirable to offer ‘alternatives’ devel-
oped out of context (i.e., without stakeholders etc.)? and (3) is not the alternative he offers, per-
haps implicitly, the development of systems thinking and practice skills for more effective
managing in similar situations? I will return to this issue in Part IV.
16
Using DNA technology it is now easy to determine what geneticists call a ‘non-paternity
event’. It is reported that in any project involving more than 20 or 30 people there is likely to be
‘an oops in it’ (Olson 2007, p. 9).
17
Following Russell and Ison (2007) I use tradition-of-understanding to refer to what arises in
our living – our thinking and acting in the moment – based on our individual development and
the history of our evolving understanding (ontogeny of understanding) situated in, or coupled to,
a cultural context. From the perspective of an observer a culture can also be said to be evolving.
2.3 Exemplifying Systems Thinking as a Social Dynamic 29

answer to the question: What do you do? I reply ‘Well I am a Professor of

Systems’! My explanation in these situations usually varies with context, but
behind all my responses there are a few simple distinctions which I depict in
Figs. 2.1 and 2.2.
The other distinction that informs my responses is how I understand the rela-
tionship between thinking and practice (Fig. 2.2). The terms systems thinking and
systems practice are different ways of being in the same situation. This can be
understood as a recursive dynamic much like the relationship between the chicken

Fig. 2.1 My understanding

of the relationship between
systemic and systematic, the
two adjectives arriving from
the word ‘system’ – the
systematic is nested within
the systemic or, in other
words the systematic is a
special case of the systemic;
together systemic and
systematic form a whole, a
unity, known as a duality

Fig. 2.2 An image of the dynamic relationship between systems thinking and systems practice
30 2 Introducing Systems Practice

and egg – they are linked recursively and bring each other forth – speaking
metaphorically they can be seen as mirror images of each other. Understood as a
recursive dynamic systems thinking and practice can also be described as systems
praxis – theory informed practical action.
On the basis of the distinctions depicted in Figs. 2.1 and 2.2 it might be reasonable
to understand systems thinking and practice as arising from the dynamics of systemic
and systematic thinking and practice operating within a particular set of social
dynamics as I have tried to describe. For me these sets of distinctions help to make
sense of the word ‘systems’ when it is used in a wide range of contexts – such as
‘systems approaches’ or ‘systems disciplines’ or ‘systems lineages.’18

2.4 Different Systems Lineages

This book is not about different systems thinking and practice lineages. On the
other hand to be able to make the most of the book, you will need some awareness
of the territory, a rough road map of the ‘systems field’. The material in this
section provides a short overview – if you are already familiar with this territory
then you can pass it over. If you are not familiar with it there are also many books
and websites available to explore this territory. When you do so I urge you to try
to appreciate where different systems thinkers and practitioners are ‘coming from’
in what it is they do when they do what they do.
The word system comes from the Greek verb ‘synhistanai’, meaning ‘to stand
together’ (the word ‘epistemology’ has the same root). A system is a perceived
whole whose elements are ‘interconnected’ (Table 2.1). Someone who pays parti-
cular attention to interconnections is said to be systemic (e.g. a systemic family
therapist is someone who considers the interconnections amongst the whole
family; the emerging discipline of Earth Systems Science is concerned with the
interconnections between the geological and biological features of the Earth). On
the other hand, to follow a recipe in a step-by step manner is being systematic.
Medical students in courses on anatomy often take a systematic approach to their
study of the human body – the hand, leg, internal organs, etc. – but at the end of
their study they may have very little understanding of the body as a whole because
the whole is different to the sum of the parts, i.e. the whole has emergent properties
such as ‘life’ (Table 2.1). Effective systems practice to change or improve situa-
tions of complexity and uncertainty means being both systemic and systematic
when appropriate (Fig. 2.1).

18
Another term is that of ‘systemics’ which can be understood as an intellectual field – ‘an open
set of concepts and practical tools useful for gaining a better understandings of and eventual
management of complex situations’ (Francois 1997, p. 354).
2.4 Different Systems Lineages 31

Illustration 2.1

Many, but not all, people have some form of systemic sensibility or awareness,
even though they may be unaware of the intellectual history of systems thinking
and practice as a field of practical and academic concern (Fig. 2.3).19 Systemic
awareness comes from understanding:
1. ‘Cycles’, such as the cycle between life and death, various nutrient cycles and the
water cycle – the connections between rainfall, plant growth, evaporation, flood-
ing, run-off, percolation, etc. Through this sort of systemic logic water availability
for plant growth can ultimately be linked to the milk production of grazing animals
and such things as profit and other human motivations. Sometimes an awareness
of connectivity is described in the language of chains, as in ‘the food chain’ and
sometimes as networks, as in the ‘web of life’. Other phrases include ‘joined up’,
‘linked’, ‘holistic’, ‘whole systems’, ‘complex adaptive systems’, etc.
2. Counterintuitive effects, such as realising that floods can represent times when
you need to be even more careful about conserving water, as exemplified by
the shortages of drinking water in the New Orleans floods that followed hurri-
cane Katrina in 2005, and
3. Unintended consequences. Unintended consequences are not always knowable in
advance but thinking about things systemically can often minimise them. They may
arise because feedback processes (i.e. positive and negative feedback) are not appre-
ciated (Table 2.1). For example, the designers of England’s motorways did not plan
for what is now experienced on a daily basis – congestion, traffic jams, emissions,
etc. These unintended consequences are a result of the gaps in thinking that went
into designing and building new motorways as part of a broader ‘transport system’

19
There is an argument that all people have some form of systemic awareness, that it is inherent
in our nervous system and is just not always recognised as such. People will refer to it as ‘hunch’
or ‘gut feeling’ or ‘insight’ … or just act without noticing how they chose to do what they do.
This raises an interesting point about my meaning. I mean awareness of one’s systemic thinking
when I say ‘systemic awareness’ – my concern is how we become better at, or use more of, sys-
tems thinking and practice in our climate-changing world. We cannot do this unless we can culti-
vate our abilities, however developed and to do so means bringing what systems thinking and
practice is into awareness.
 Contemporary cyber-systemic approaches
32

Rand Corporation Systems analysis

Bertalanf
Biology fy
Mil Practical Mesarovic, Rose, Rosen Systems biology
ler
Rappopo
rt Holism Famiglietti Earth systems sciences
Mathematics
Hitchins, Sage Systems engineering
Cannon
Physiology Hildebrand, Sebillotte, Gibbon Farming systems
Boulding Holland, Allen Complex adaptive systems
Economics
General Systems Odum Systems ecology
Buckley Parsons Theory
Sociology Forrester, Meadows, Senge Systems dynamics
Hegel Macy "Whole Earth” SD
Systems as Ontologies

Philosophy b
Cob Vester, Luhmann German approaches
Heraclitus ad Acko
ff Beer Churchma
n
Process Philosophy tehe
Whi Vickers Appreciative judgement
Operations
Dewey Singer Research (OR) Holling, Ostrom Social-ecological systems
Philosophical Pragmatism
Le Moigne, Morin French approaches
Kuhn Bec
Science Studies k Satir, Stierlin Systemic family therapy
Ashb Stowell, Wood, Harper lnformation systems
Mathematics y W
ien
er
Interdisciplinary Ackoff Management Sciences
Computing McCu Studies
lloc Argyris, Schön Management learning
h
Beer, Espéjo Management cybernetics
lnformation Theory Sha
nno
n W Capra Systemic complexity
ea
Engineering Bige
low ve
r Glanville, Scott Educational cybernetics
Complexity
Sciences Systems failure
Control Theory Max
2

wel
l Systemic inquiry
Anthropology Prigogine
Mea Ashby Checkland, Open University Applied systems thinking
d
Soft Systems methodology
Physiology Gera
rd M First-order “Soft OR”
cCullo
ch Cybernetics
Biology of Cognition Matur
ana Spalding, Bawden Systems agriculture

Pask Bateson Systemic development

Conversation Theory
Von Foer
ste Dubberly, Jones Systemic design
Peirce r
Experimental Epistemology Flood, Jackson Critical systems
Second-order
Von Glasersfeld Cybernetics Midgely Systemic intervention
Systems as Epistemologies

Constructivism
Ulrich Critical systems heuristics
Introducing Systems Practice

Fig. 2.3 A model of some of the different influences that have shaped contemporary systems approaches and the lineages from which they have emerged
(Adapted from Ison 2008, 2017).
2.4 Different Systems Lineages 33

Systems thinking embraces a wide range of concepts which most systems

lineages have as a common grounding. Thus, like other academic areas, ‘Systems’
has its own language as shown in Table 2.1. It is worth noting that the word
‘system’ can be used in a number of different ways (Ison 2016): (1) the everyday
sense as in the ‘problem with the system!’; (2) the academic use of the term as in
the phrase a ‘system of interest’ or ‘a complex adaptive system’; (3) the academic
area of study called ‘Systems’ and (4) a systems approach – practice or thinking
which encompasses both systemic and systematic thinking and action.
Many well-known systems thinkers had particular experiences, which led them
to devote their lives to their particular forms of systems practice. So, within the
field of systems thinking and practice there are different traditions, which develop
or evolve through different lineages (see Fig. 2.3).20
Figure 2.3 is best read from right to left in the first instance. Down the right-
hand side are a set of contemporary systems approaches which are written about,
put into practice and sometimes taught. I have added some names of people
(systems practitioners) particularly associated with approaches and lineages
though my choices are far from comprehensive. The approaches are also organised
from top to bottom in terms of what I perceive to be common commitments, or
tendencies, of a majority of practitioners within the given approaches to seeing
systems as entities (ontologies) or heuristic devices (epistemologies).21
On the left I identify seven formative clusters that have given rise to these con-
temporary systems approaches. By following the arrows backwards one can get a
sense of some of the different lineages, though rarely are they as simple as
depicted here. This figure has many limitations and it is not possible to describe
all these influences nor approaches in detail but it does capture a way of under-
standing the ‘Systems field’.
There is a close affinity between systems thinkers and process thinkers. Some
historical accounts of systems lineages start with the concerns of organismic biolo-
gists who felt that the reductionist thinking and practice of other biologists was
losing sight of phenomena associated with whole organisms (Bertalanffy 1968
[1940]). Organismic or systemic biologists were amongst those who contributed

20
I do not clam that this depiction is in any way definitive – a limitation is that it is not precise
about many valid French, German and Spanish, and possibly other, contributions to contempor-
ary systems approaches. This in itself also highlights how the different language communities
give rise to intellectual silos. Many people have contacted me after seeing an earlier version of
this figure to tell me that something, or someone, is missing. If this is the case then I am apolo-
getic, to a certain extent; but in a way it also helps me to make the point that like all disciplinary
fields Systems is not a homogeneous field – how it understands itself is contested. So, please feel
free to take this figure and adapt it as you see fit.
21
I expand on this issue in Chapter 3; some may have chosen to describe this in terms of positivist
or constructivist commitments, respectively. My intention in this figure is not to label or classify
any approach or practitioner – merely to organise, and reflect on, my experience. How others
might order the various systems practitioners/approaches on these dimensions could produce an
illuminating conversation. I also want to make it clear that placement along this spectrum is not
an attempt to rank on my part.
34 2 Introducing Systems Practice

to the interdisciplinary project described as ‘general systems theory’ or GST.

Interestingly ‘systemic biology’ is currently enjoying a resurgence (O’Malley and
Dupré 2005). Other historical accounts start earlier – with Smuts’ (1926) notion of
practical holism or even earlier with process thinkers such as Heraclitus who is
reputed to have said: ‘You cannot step into the same river twice, for fresh waters
are ever flowing in upon you’. Other historical accounts can be found in
Checkland (1981), Francois (1997), Flood (1999), Flood and Bradbury (2001),
Jackson (2000), Midgley (2000), Ramage and Shipp (2009) or on Principia
Cybernetica (2009).
Some of the motivation for the ‘GST project’ in interdisciplinary synthesis can
be explained by the realisation in many disciplines that they were grappling with
similar phenomena. This project had its apotheosis in the interdisciplinary Macy
conferences in the 1940s and 1950s which did much to trigger new insights of a
systems and cybernetic nature and subsequently a wide range of theoretical and
practical developments (Heims 1991). So, although many now argue that GST, as
an intellectual project, has not been sustained it has none-the-less left a rich legacy
(Capra 1996).
A good example of how the lineages have operated is that of the relationship
between Kurt Lewin, the cybernetic concept of ‘feedback’ and the everyday con-
cept of ‘feedback’ (Jackson 2000). Checkland (1981) established a connection
with Kurt Lewin’s view of ‘the limitations of studying complex real social events
in a laboratory, the artificiality of splitting out single behavioural elements from
an integrated system’ (Foster 1972). Checkland goes on to say: ‘this outlook
obviously denotes a systems thinker, though Lewin did not overtly identify him-
self as such...’ (p. 152). A central idea in Lewin’s milieu was that psychological
phenomena should be regarded as existing in a ‘field’: ‘as part of a system of
coexisting and mutually interdependent factors having certain properties as a
system that are deducible from knowledge of isolated elements of the system’
(Deutsch and Krauss 1965, quoted in Sofer (1972)). Whilst Lewin may not have
overtly described himself as a systems thinker, he was none-the-less a member of
the Macy conferences ‘core group’. He attended the first two conferences but died
in 1947, shortly before the third conference, and his influence was lost to the
group (especially his knowledge of Gestalt psychology). His work was taken up
however and has informed the study and description of group dynamics and he is
also seen as the founder of ‘action research’.
Below GST in Fig. 2.3, the next two clusters are associated with cybernetics,
from the Greek meaning ‘helmsman’ or ‘steersman’. The term was coined to deal
with concerns about feedback as exemplified by the person at the helm respond-
ing to wind and currents so as to stay on course. A key image of first order cyber-
netics is that of the thermostat-controlled radiator – when temperatures deviate
from the optimum, feedback processes adjust the heat to maintain the desired
temperature. Major concerns of cyberneticians were that of communication and
control (Table 2.1). As outlined by Fell and Russell (2000) the first-order cyber-
netic ‘idea of communication as the transmission of unambiguous signals which
2.4 Different Systems Lineages 35

are codes for information has been found wanting in many respects. Heinz von
Foerster, reflecting on the reports he edited for the Macy Conferences that were
so influential in developing communication theory in the 1950s, said it was an
unfortunate linguistic error to use the word “information” instead of “signal”
because the misleading idea of ‘information transfer’ has held up progress in this
field (Capra 1996). In the latest theories the biological basis of the language we
use has become a central theme’ (see first and second-order communication in
Table 2.1).
Fell and Russell (2000) go on to describe the emergence of second-order cyber-
netics in the following terms: ‘second-order cybernetics is a theory of the observer
rather than what is being observed. Heinz von Foerster’s phrase, “the cybernetics
of cybernetics” was apparently first used by him in the early 1960s as the title of
Margaret Mead’s opening speech at the first meeting of the American Cybernetics
Society when she had not provided written notes for the Proceedings’ (van der
Vijver 1997).
The move from first to second-order cybernetics is a substantial philosophical
and epistemological jump as it returns to the core cybernetic concepts of circular-
ity and recursion. These scholars applied the core concept of circularity to itself
by recognising that there is a circularity between the observer and their world. An
action on the world changes perception of the world which in turn changes the
action, again. Action and perception develop as a circularity. This leads to the
understanding that observers bring forth their worlds (Maturana and Poerkson
2004; von Foerster and Poerkson 2004). von Foerster (1992), following
Wittgenstein, put the differences in the following terms: ‘Am I apart from the
universe? That is, whenever I look am I looking through a peephole upon an
unfolding universe [the first-order tradition]. Or: Am I part of the universe? That
is, whenever I act, I am changing myself and the universe as well [the second-
order tradition]’. The implications of these two questions are addressed in
Chapter 5. It is worth making the point that understandings from second-order
cybernetics have been influential in fields as diverse as family therapy and envir-
onmental management. Some authors equate a second order cybernetic tradition
with radical constructivism although not all agree. The mutual influences between
cybernetics and systems scholarship has led me in recent work to advocate use of
the term cyber-systemic (Ison 2016).
Operations research (OR) is another source of influence on contemporary
systems thinking and practice. OR flourished after the Second World War based
on the success of practitioners in studying and managing complex logistic pro-
blems. As a disciplinary field it has continued to evolve in ways that are mirrored
in the systems community.
A set of influences, recently popularised again, have come from the so-called
complexity sciences (Fig. 2.3) which is a lively arena of competing and contested
discourses. As has occurred between the different systems lineages, there are compet-
ing claims within the complexity field for institutional capital (e.g. many different
academic societies have been formed with little relationship to each other), contested
36 2 Introducing Systems Practice

explanations and extensive epistemological confusion (Schlindwein and Ison 2004).

However, some are drawing on both traditions to forge exciting new forms of praxis
(e.g. Boulton et al. 2016).
Other recent developments draw on interdisciplinary movements in the
sciences, especially in science studies. These include the rise of discourses and
understandings about the ‘risk’ and ‘networked’ society’ (Beck 1992; Castells
2004), and associated globalisation which have raised awareness of situations
characterised by connectedness, complexity, uncertainty, conflict, multiple per-
spectives and multiple stakeholdings (Ison et al. 2007). It can be argued that this
is the reformulation and transformation of an earlier discourse about the nature of
situations that Ackoff (1974) described as ‘messes’ rather than ‘difficulties’
(Table 2.1), Schön (1995) as the ‘real-life swamp’ rather than the ‘high-ground of
technical rationality’ and Rittel and Webber (1973), as ‘wicked’ and ‘tame’ pro-
blems. Schön, Ackoff and Rittel all had professional backgrounds in planning so
it is not surprising that they encountered the same phenomena even if they chose
to describe them differently.
Unfortunately the systems thinkers and practitioners responsible for the differ-
ent lineages depicted in Fig. 2.3 are more often than not remembered for a particu-
lar method, methodology or technique. These are not insubstantial achievements
but an unintended consequence has been to divert attention away from the
dynamics of systems thinking and practice as depicted in Fig. 2.2 – or in other
words away from systems praxis. Later I draw upon a particular lineage of
systems ideas which is concerned with the relationship between a ‘framework of
ideas’, a method, a practitioner and a context or situation. I will argue that this
relationship is key to effective systems practice and also the essence of methodo-
logy. The point being that the ways in which all these elements are combined are
unique to time and place – much like an actor’s performance.
I do not know to what extent Simon Caulkin has immersed himself in the dif-
ferent systems lineages discussed above; in one sense it does not matter. What is
clear is that he has a sufficiently profound understanding of some of these lineages
to be able to write an insightful article about an important issue. And by his use of
the concepts he shows, to me at least, that he understands what he is talking about
i.e., he displays both systemic sensibility and systems literacy.
In Reading 1 Caulkin also referred to a form of systems practice which he
called ‘system design’. I say more about this form of practice in Part III. A test of
Simon’s effectiveness as a systemic journalist is whether, as a result of reading the
article, you now have: (1) a new (or more) systemic understanding that did not
exist before of some complex situations, or (2) an experience in which your own
systemic understanding has been affirmed. A key element of this social dynamic
is whether you found Simon’s explanations satisfying (in the sense of accepting
them) or not!22

22
I will say more about how explanations arise in a social dynamic in Chapter 3.
References 37

2.5 System or Situation?

Simon Caulkin’s article (Reading 1) can also be explained in terms of the dynamic
depicted in Fig. 1.3 which related changes in understandings to changes in prac-
tices for transforming situations. In his article Simon describes situations in which
something is at issue and, although not strictly in these terms, he argues that the
only way these situations can be transformed for the better is through changes
in understandings and practices that are more systemic. But what is it about
situations that make them more or less amenable to systemic description and
improvement? Is this even a sensible question? In the next chapter (Chapter 3)
I want to answer these questions.

References

Ackoff RL (1974) Redesigning the future. Wiley, New York

Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage, London
Bertalanffy Lvon (1968 [1940]) The organism considered as a physical system. In:
von Bertalanffy L (ed) General system theory. Braziller, New York, p 120–138
Boulton JG, Allen PM, Bowman C (2016) Embracing complexity: strategic perspectives for an
age of turbulence. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Capra F (1996) The web of life. HarperCollins, London
Carroll JB (ed) (1959) Language thought and reality. Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf.
MIT Press, New York
Castells M (2004) Informationalism, networks, and the network society: a theoretical blueprint.
In: Castells M (ed) The network society: a cross cultural perspective. Edward Elgar,
Northampton, p 3–48
Caulkin, S., (2007) ‘Dyslexic management can’t read signs of failure’, The Observer, November
25th, 2007. Copyright (c) Guardian News & Media Ltd 2017
Checkland PB (1981) Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley, Chichester
Deutsch M, Krauss RM (1965) Theories in social psychology. Basic Books, New York
Fell L, Russell DB (2000) The human quest for understanding and agreement. In: Ison RL,
Russell DB (eds) Agricultural extension and rural development: breaking out of traditions.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Flood RL (1999) Rethinking ‘The Fifth Discipline’: learning within the unknowable. Routledge,
London
Flood RL (2001) The relationship of systems thinking to action research. In: Bradbury H,
Reason P (eds) Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice.
Sage Publications, London, p 133–144
Foster M (1972) An introduction to the theory and practice of action research in work organiza-
tions. Human Relations 25(6):529–556
Francois C (ed) (1997) International encyclopaedia of systems and cybernetics. K. Sauer, Munchen
Heims S (1991) Constructing a social science for postwar America: the Cybernetics Group
1946–1953. MIT Press, Cambridge
Ison RL, Shelley M (2016) Editorial. Governing in the anthropocene: contributions from systems
thinking in practice? ISSS Yearbook Special Issue. Syst Res Behav Sci 33(5):589–594
Ison RL (2008) Systems thinking and practice for action research. In: Reason P, Bradbury H
(eds) The Sage handbook of action research participative inquiry & practice, 2nd edn.
Sage Publications, London, p 139–158
38 2 Introducing Systems Practice

Ison RL (2016) Governing in the anthropocene: what future systems thinking in practice? Syst
Res Behav Sci 33(5):595–613
Ison RL (2017) Transdisciplinarity as transformation: a systems thinking in practice perspective,
In: Fam D, Palmer J, Mitchell C, and Riedy C. (eds) Transdisciplinary research and practice
for sustainable outcomes. Routledge, London, pp 55–73
Ison RL, Röling N, Watson D (2007) Challenges to science and society in the sustainable man-
agement and use of water: investigating the role of social learning. Environ Sci Policy 10
(6):499–511
Jackson M (2000) Systems approaches to management. Kluwer, New York
Maturana H, Poerkson B (2004) From being to doing: the origins of the biology of cognition.
Carl-Auer, Heidelberg
Midgley G (2000) Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology and practice. Kluwer/
Plenum, New York
O’Malley MA, Dupré J (2005) Fundamental issues in systems biology. BioEssays 29:1270–1276
Olson S (2007) Who’s your daddy? Australian Financial Review. Friday, 31 August, p 9
Pearson CJ, Ison RL (1997) Agronomy of grassland systems, 2nd edn. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge
Principia Cybernetica (2009) http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/DEFAULT.html. Accessed 17 May 2017
Ramage M, Shipp K (2009) Systems thinkers. Springer, London
Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169
Russell DB, Ison RL (2007) The research-development relationship in rural communities: an
opportunity for contextual science. In: Ison RL, Russell DB (eds) Agricultural extension and
rural development: breaking out of knowledge transfer traditions. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, p 10–31
Schlindwein SL, Ison RL (2004) Human knowing and perceived complexity: implications for
systems practice. Emergence Complexity Organization 6(3):19–24
Schön DA (1995) The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, November/
December, p 27–34
Shotter J (1993) Conversational realities: constructing life through language. Sage, London
Smuts JC (1926) Holism and evolution. Macmillan, London
Sofer C (1972) Organizations in theory and practice. Heinemann, London
Steirlin H (2004) The freedom to venture into the unknown. In: Poerkson B (ed) The certainty of
uncertainty. Dialogues introducing constructivism. Imprint Academic, Exeter, p 153–172
van der Vijver G (1997) Who is galloping at a narrow path: conversation with Heinz von
Foerster. Cybernetics Human Knowing 4(3):3–15
von Foerster H (1992) Ethics and second-order cybernetics. Cybernetics Human Knowing 1:9–19
von Foerster H, Poerkson B (2004) Understanding systems. Conversations on epistemology and
ethics (IFSR International Series on Systems Science & Engineering, 17). Kluwer, New York
Wilson B (1984) Systems: concepts, methodologies and applications. Wiley, Chichester
Wittgenstein L (1953) Philosophical investigations. Basil Blackwell, Oxford
Chapter 3
Making Choices About Situations and Systems

Abstract The case is made that: (1) we are always in situations, never outside
them; (2) we have choices that can be made about how we see and relate to situa-
tions; and (3) there are implications which follow from the choices we make.
Importantly, one of the choices that can be made is to see a situation as a system,
but as is explained, there are many implications in making this choice that can
trap the unwary or uninformed. Through the means of a conceptual model of prac-
tice that enables exploration of the question: What do we do when we do what
we do?, and a reading that exemplifies the Open University (UK) approach to
systems practice, a case is built to see systems practice as a process and a means
of bringing forth systems of interest or relevance in any situation.

3.1 Choices that Can Be Made

I want to start this chapter by pointing out that:

1. We are always in situations,1 never outside them
2. We have choices that can be made about how we see and relate to situations
3. There are implications which follow from the choices we make
Importantly, one of the choices that can be made is to see a situation as a sys-
tem, but as I will explain, there are many implications of making this choice that
can trap the unwary or uninformed! To explain what I mean I am going to go
back on my espoused position about definitions and offer one for ‘system’ which
is contained in Reading 2.
This reading (Morris 2005) comes from a former Open University colleague,
Dick Morris, and is concerned with how Systems, in the academic, as well as

1
The word situation has roots in the Latin, situare, to place or locate. From situs, place, position.
It can also be understood as ‘to set down’ or ‘to leave off’ (Barnhart 2001). From this comes the
‘act of setting or positioning’ and the ‘extended sense of a state or condition’ – in conceptual
terms the act of distinguishing a situation could be seen as part of the dynamics of ‘bringing
forth’ a distinction such as ‘system’.

© The Open University 2017 39

Published in Association with Springer-Verlag London Limited
R. Ison, Systems Practice: How to Act, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9_3
40 3 Making Choices About Situations and Systems

practical sense, might contribute towards achieving sustainable lifestyles – a situa-

tion of considerable complexity! The approach taken is also typical of much Open
University Systems teaching of the last 30 years; thus, as a practitioner, Morris
exemplifies many aspects of the lineage of systems practice developed at the Open
University. As you read try to become aware of the ‘elements’ of his practice.

Reading 2
Thinking About Systems for Sustainable Lifestyles
R.M. (Dick) Morris

The Anglia Schumacher conference is concerned with promoting humane and

sustainable lifestyles in the Region.2 To achieve such lifestyles, we all need to
make decisions about a whole complex of interacting requirements, for food,
housing, livelihood, health, transport, etc., and decisions about one aspect can
have unexpected, and perhaps undesired, effects on others. Choosing to work
from home can save transport fuel, but could involve even more fuel for
home heating! To be effective, we need to consider our whole lifestyle
system, not just separate activities. Schumacher’s aphorism that ‘small is beau-
tiful’ can be interpreted as referring to small, often local, systems of living.
This word system has become so much a part of our twenty-first century
vocabulary, as in ‘the Transport system’ (when it breaks down), ‘the Social
Security System’ (ditto), a ‘stereo system’ etc., that we probably take its use
for granted, and do not consider some of the implications of using it. Really
to think in terms of systems is not necessarily so easy, but is an essential
part of our outlook if we are to develop our world in a sustainable manner.
When thinking in terms of systems, we have at least partially to move away
from our usual manner of thinking, which has been heavily influenced by
the generally science-based model that has characterised European thought,
particularly during the last century. Such thinking in science and its partner,
technology, has produced enormous strides in our material well-being, but
we also recognise that it has also brought some problems. A key feature of
classical science has been to work under carefully controlled experimental
conditions, looking in detail at one factor at a time. The success of this
approach has unintentionally encouraged a widespread popular belief that
we can isolate a single cause for any observed event. How often do we see
headlines suggesting that childrens’ behavioural problems arise from food
additives, street crime is the result of shortage of police on the beat, traffic
accidents or congestion are the result of inadequate expenditure on the roads
etc.? As we read these, we may mentally note reservations about the over-
simplification, but all too often, political or societal responses to these con-
cerns are based on such monocausal explanations. It’s much easier for a

(continued)
2
The East Anglia region in the UK which includes the city of Cambridge.
3.1 Choices that Can Be Made 41

Reading 2 (continued)
politician or a manager to demonstrate that the supposed single cause is
being tackled than to ask the much harder question as to whether it will
really produce the desired result.
A classic example arose from the series of rail crashes in England in the
first years of this century. Tragically, several people were killed, and the
obvious ‘cause’ was problems with the rails. To avoid further loss of life, dra-
conian speed limits were imposed on the trains and repairs to the tracks insti-
gated. This no doubt reduced the chances of further rail accidents, but in the
process, persuaded many people to abandon rail travel in favour of their cars.
Given that the probability of an accident per kilometre travelled is a couple of
orders of magnitude larger for car travel than rail travel, the decisions taken
about the railways may actually have increased the number of travel-related
deaths and injuries, rather than reduced them. A decision taken about the
safety of the railway system may well have had completely the opposite affect
to that intended when considered in relation to the wider transport system.
Similar examples could be drawn from any number of situations, highlight-
ing the need to think beyond single cause-effect relations. One of the responses
to this has been the movement, particularly in some aspects of medicine,
towards so-called holistic methods, which indeed look beyond one-to-one links,
to consider the whole range of factors affecting human health such as diet,
income, social relations, posture, etc. and the complex interactions between
these. This approach undoubtedly has its strengths, but there is always a danger
that it is impossibly time-consuming and may even conceal or confuse simple
solutions. Somewhere between the delightful simplicity of reductionist explana-
tion and the possibly unreal requirements of unrestricted holism, there should
be a pragmatic level of discrimination that is both effective and efficient.
This is where the ideas of systems and of systems thinking are valuable.
When we start to think about sustainability, it is essential that we ask questions
at a range of levels from the local to the global. Questions arise about what
aspects of our existence do we want to sustain, how much are we prepared to
compromise with others’ needs and what unexpected results of our actions
might occur. That is, we need to start asking questions about the systems
involved in sustainable living. To do this, we need some agreed definitions,
and some techniques for thinking about systems. One possible definition of a
system, based on one used in the Open University’s Technology Faculty, is:
• A collection of entities
• That are seen by someone
• As interacting together
• To do something
The implications of the various elements of this definition are that a sys-
tem is not a single, indivisible entity, but has component parts (that may

(continued)
42 3 Making Choices About Situations and Systems

Reading 2 (continued)
themselves
fossil
be regarded as systems and termed sub-systems) andgreenhouse
that the
gases
energy
solar

food/feed fertiliser pesticide energy

agrochemicals production production supply

solar collection processing

energy arable land grain, pulses
and storage and packaging

feedstuffs pigs, poultry

distribution
off-farm
pollution
ruminants

retailing
grassland

stored forage
pollutants consumers

organic wastes sewage wastes

treatment

Fig. 3.1 A possible representation of some of the energy and material flows through
‘a food system’ (the butterfly represents biodiversity and landscape!)

components interact with one another to cause change. So, the land, animals,
machinery, and organisations involved in supplying our food can (and
should) be regarded as a complex, interacting system, rather than just exam-
ined in isolation as crops, retail outlets or consumers. Perhaps the most diffi-
cult aspect of the definition is the subjective one – the collection of entities
is chosen by someone as a system. Different individuals may see different
systems in a particular situation. For example, a farm can be seen as a sys-
tem to produce food, to produce a profit, to maintain a particular landscape,
etc. Equally, a supermarket to a consumer is a source of food, whereas to its
operator and shareholders it is primarily a source of profit. Both farms and
supermarkets can also be seen as part of a wider food supply system, as for
example in Fig. 3.1.
Negotiating and choosing an appropriate system for debate and decision-
making can be crucial, since we cannot solve all the problems of the world
in one go! It is essential to put some boundary round the system we are
debating, and different conceptions of a system of interest can also carry
with them different criteria for the success or otherwise of that system.
Choosing an inappropriate boundary, and with it, inappropriate criteria, can
be misleading. For example, choosing to put a boundary around a system of
using animals for food production can suggest that this is grossly inefficient,

(continued)
3.1 Choices that Can Be Made 43

Reading 2 (continued)
since it takes about 10 kg of feed to produce one kg of meat. However, if
the system is redefined to include the land, then a more interesting measure
may be the amount of food produced from the total area of land available.
In this situation, some ruminant animals are probably essential to obtain use-
ful human food from those areas that can only grow grass or other plant
materials that cannot be used directly by humans. Changing the boundary
and the criteria can produce very different conclusions.
So what are the possible systems associated with sustainable living? We
are all concerned with this, but with different emphases, timescales, and
skills. We are all stakeholders in some sustainable, human-oriented system,
but we are unlikely all to have the same vision of what that involves, or
what affects what. In order to share our visions, and to debate futures, we
need to have some way of explaining what we regard as the system of inter-
est and its key features. We need to have some model of the system which
is necessarily simpler than the whole, complex situation itself, but shows
what we think are the important aspects. It might be possible to do this in
words, but often it is much quicker and more powerful to use some sort of
diagram. Words have to flow in a sequential manner to make sense, and one
of the features of most systems is that the interactions between entities are
often recursive, that is they form loops, where A may affect B, which in
turn affects C, but C can also affect A.3 In such a situation, a diagram can
literally be ‘worth a thousand words’! In the same way that a map highlights
a selection of important features of the landscape, an appropriate diagram
can make clear the key features of our interpretation of a system. Diagrams
can provide the means for sharing different understandings of the world
around us and of the potential outcomes of our actions within the multiple,
complex systems of which we are a part.

In the next part of this Reading Morris introduces systems diagramming (e.g.
systems maps and multiple-cause – alternatively, causal loop – diagrams) as forms
of conceptual modelling. Diagramming can provide a powerful means to explore
or communicate different understandings of the world around us and of the poten-
tial outcomes of actions. Diagramming has become an important ingredient of
how systems practice has been taught at the Open University (UK). The process
of creating a diagram is an important means for individuals and groups to ‘reveal’
how they understand a situation, particularly the different elements, patterns of
causality and the nature of influences they perceive. Eventually they can propose
what ‘systems’ might usefully be seen in some situation as part of an inquiry or

3
The concepts of recursion and circularity are not always well understood – see http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Recursion#Recursion_in_plain_English.
44 3 Making Choices About Situations and Systems

learning process i.e. the diagram ‘captures’ someone’s thinking and ‘mediates’
communication about this thinking with others. Morris continues:

Reading 2 (continued)
Two diagrammatic forms that can be useful here are Systems maps and
Multiple-cause (alternatively, causal loop) diagrams. An example of each is
given below (Fig. 3.2). A systems map uses closed shapes (usually circles or

those who want

to sell houses
the company

estate agents
the Steering
developers
Committee
vendor
of houses
government the Council
(to ease recession)

the building unions those who want

to promote
energy-efficient
houses
materials suppliers

Number of appliances
Area of garden
Housing type
Type of appliances

Climate
(rainfall/temperature)
Number of occupants
Water restrictions

Hosepipe bans
Outdoor use
Indoor use

Total household
Proportion of consumption
households metered

Fig. 3.2 Examples of (a) systems map of a system to promote energy efficient houses
and (b) multiple cause diagram of the factors affecting domestic water use

(continued)
3.1 Choices that Can Be Made 45

Reading 2 (continued)
clouds) to show the components that the person drawing the map regards as
important in the system that they see in some situation. The spatial relation-
ship between the shapes can be used to highlight some of the structural links
between these aspects. So, for example, farms, food processors, the food dis-
tribution network and the supermarkets in Fig. 3.2a are all components of a
food production sub-system, and might be grouped together on a map of a
larger economic, or nation state, system. More dynamic relationships can be
represented on a multiple cause diagram, where arrows are used to show
where one factor causes another to change, or causes some event to occur
(Fig. 3.2b). Such diagrams can be developed into more formal, even compu-
table models of systemic behaviour. However, for many purposes, a diagram
alone is more than adequate.4
Source: Morris RM (2009) Thinking about systems for sustainable lifestyles. Environmental
Scientist, 18(1), 15–18.

Using systems diagrams for creating and communicating understandings, in

order to work towards innovations (i.e., changes) in situations of local human exis-
tence, was one objective of the event where Morris presented this paper.
Delegates worked in small groups to produce diagrams of some ‘relevant systems’
involved in supplying human needs. As you can see Morris addressed conceptual
and praxis issues in his paper; this is a hallmark of the approach taken at the Open
University (Ison 2001). I will say more about systems diagramming in Chapter 6.

3.1.1 OU Systems Course Definition of Systems

You will have noted in the reading that Morris (2005) argues the need for ‘some
agreed definitions, and some techniques for thinking about systems’. The defini-
tion of a system he proposes comes from systems courses developed at the Open
University (UK):
• A collection of entities
• That are seen by someone
• As interacting together
• To do something
The implications of this definition are, he suggests, that ‘a system is not a sin-
gle, indivisible entity, but has component parts (that may themselves be regarded
as systems and termed sub-systems – see Table 2.1) and that the components

4
This material is based on a talk given as the Schumacher Lecture to GreenChoices, Cambridge
and published as Morris (2005).
46 3 Making Choices About Situations and Systems

interact with one another to cause change’.5 But he also talks about the ‘subjec-
tive’ element and makes an important point that:
[T]he collection of entities is chosen by someone as a system. Different indivi-
duals may see different systems in a particular situation.
Morris goes on to explore how aspects of different situations could be ‘seen’ as
different types of systems pursuing different purposes. He suggests that ‘negotiat-
ing and choosing an appropriate system for debate and decision-making can be
crucial, since we cannot solve all the problems of the world in one go!’ He says:
‘It is essential to put some boundary round the system we are debating, and differ-
ent conceptions of a system of interest can also carry with them different criteria
for the success or otherwise of that system.’ If I were to summarise what I discern
to be the main aspects of Morris’s position they would be:
• In many situations it makes sense to avoid monocausal explanations and reduc-
tionism as well as unfettered holism
• In situations such as concern for sustainable lifestyles it makes sense to use sys-
tems thinking
• It is sensible to agree that a system is: ‘A collection of entities that are seen by
someone as interacting together and doing something’
• Amongst people in the same situation ‘systems’ will be perceived differently
and thus have different boundaries – i.e. making boundary judgments and thus
specifying a system of interest is important
• Changing the boundary to a system of interest is something we can actively
choose to do and the criteria employed can produce very different conclusions.
In order to communicate our visions, and to debate futures, we need to have
some way of explaining what we regard as the system of interest and its key fea-
tures. He proposes an approach that involves developing a ‘model of the system
which is necessarily simpler than the whole, complex situation itself, but shows
what we think are the important aspects’.

3.2 Systems Practice as Process

As I intimated earlier many people either implicitly or explicitly refer to things

that are interconnected (exhibit connectivity – Table 2.1) when they use the word
‘system’. A common example is the use of ‘transport system’ or ‘computer

5
Some will argue against the notion that components interacting ‘cause’ change, but few would
dispute that through their interaction change happens. Of contention here is the nature of causal-
ity. Likewise it will be of concern to some that all systems are conceptualised ‘to do something’.
They may suggest that whilst this is appropriate for designed systems, it is not adequate, for
example, for an ecosystem. This is a significant conceptual point with practical implications
which I will address later in the book. For the moment the difficulty can be overcome by saying
‘doing something’ rather than ‘to do something’.
3.2 Systems Practice as Process 47

environment
boundary
system

subsystems

Fig. 3.3 Key elements of systems practice as a process – a system of interest comprising a
system (with sub systems), boundary and environment is ‘brought forth’ or distinguished, by
someone as they engage with a particular situation. In this example the woman could be thinking
about fish for dinner, and hence her conception of what the system does is to produce fish

system’ in everyday speech as outlined by Morris in Reading 2. As well as a set

of interconnected ‘things’ (elements) a ‘system’ can also be seen as a way of
thinking about the connections (relationships) between things – hence a process.
A constraint to thinking about ‘system’ as an entity and a process is caused by the
word ‘system’ being a noun – a noun implies something you can see, touch or dis-
cover, but in contemporary systems practice more attention can be paid to the pro-
cess of ‘formulating’ a ‘system’ as part of an inquiry process in particular
situations. The key elements of this practice are depicted in Fig. 3.3.6
Reading 2 makes many important points that will be central to this book, but
one aspect that is not addressed explicitly is the potential for confusion between
situation and system and between system as ‘process’ and system as ‘thing’. Why
is this discussion relevant at this stage you might well ask? Well because in what I
call aware systems practice it is important not to fall into a historical trap that has
plagued systems scholarship, and held back practice for a long time. The main ele-
ments of this trap are depicted in Fig. 3.4. The practitioner at the top sees the
world as made up of systems. For example, this position applies to many ecolo-
gists who classify, describe and research systems called ‘ecosystems’. An unin-
tended consequence of adopting this position is that too often it is assumed that
there is agreement about the nature of ‘the system’ i.e. what it is, what its elements
are, and most importantly where the boundaries lie and thus what a change for the

6
I have this figure prepared as a process animation which starts with the practitioner in a situation
where something is of interest or concern. All the other elements like boundaries and names then
appear in sequence. This static depiction is, I am afraid, rather inadequate as it hides the process
of bringing forth a system in a situation of concern by making a boundary judgement.
48 3 Making Choices About Situations and Systems

Fig. 3.4 The choices that

can be made about ‘system’
and ‘situation’ that have
implications for systems
practice: practitioner 1 (top)
situates systems in the world
(i.e., conflates system and
situation) whereas practi-
tioner 2 (bottom) understands
‘systems’ to be devices
created as a means of systemic
inquiry about situations
(Adapted from Checkland
1999 and Checkland and
Poulter 2006, Fig. 1.9 p. 21)

better might be!7 In contrast the practitioner at the bottom sees situations that are
complex and confusing and makes a choice to engage with the situation through a
process of inquiry that involves thinking and acting systemically – a process of
systemic inquiry. An ecologist who adopts the perspective depicted at the bottom,
for example, would see the concept ‘ecosystem’ as a particular way of thinking

7
The position depicted at the top in Fig. 3.4 is described theoretically as giving an ontological
status to systems – i.e. proponents of this position, implicitly or explicitly ‘see’ systems as exist-
ing in the world. They may thus claim that the world is populated with systems! The position
depicted at the bottom is described as recognising ‘a system’ as an epistemological device – i.e.
a way or means of engaging with a situation so as to better know or inquire systemically.
3.3 Practitioner, Framework, Method, Situation 49

about a complex set of interactions in particular situations or as a device to

describe and classify so as to enhance communication and understanding.8
My argument is that the effectiveness of systems practice is constrained when a
practitioner confuses or uses interchangeably situation and system. With these
distinctions in mind I make the following claims about my own understanding of
systems practice:
• The place to start is with the situation and not the system
• We have choices we can make about how to characterise and, thus to under-
stand situations and Systems scholars have coined a number of neologisms
(such as ‘ecosystem’, ‘mess’ or ‘difficulty’, ‘complex adaptive system’, ‘system
of interest’, ‘learning system’ etc.)9 that can help in making these choices
• Be aware that ‘distinguishing, or bringing forth’ a system in a situation is a par-
ticular way of knowing the situation (and that no systems exist a priori)
• Having made a choice about a way of knowing a situation do not fall into the
trap of stubbornly staying with only one choice (i.e., reifying the choice) – be
aware of the implications of the choice that is made, and be prepared to make a
different choice if that later appears more useful
I will add further claims to this list as the book progresses but now I want to
present a model, which if properly understood, challenges the mainstream way in
which we have come to understanding situations, such as climate change, which
cause us concern. This heuristic model links how we, as human beings, connect or
engage with situations, including other people. The model is an attempt to move
away from the traditional dualism of subjective (our inner dynamics) and objective
(the outer world, or the ‘reality’ out there) to a dynamic relation between ourselves
and the world we assume to exist outside ourselves.10

3.3 Practitioner, Framework, Method, Situation

To understand systems practice it is first necessary to understand practice as a

particular dynamic. Some of the implications of confusing system with situation
can be understood by developing a simple model of practice as a relational

8
My own interpretation of the conceptual issues at stake in Fig. 3.4 differ from what I understand
Checkland’s position to be, though perhaps not greatly. It is likely that Checkland would see
Fig. 3.3 as depicting a practitioner who sees systems in the world; in contrast I claim it depends
on the awareness of the practitioner. If the practitioner acts with awareness that the act of
distinguishing a system of interest brings forth an epistemological device then I would claim the
end result is similar to that which Checkland claims for the enactment of Soft Systems
Methodology as a learning system. Further it makes sense not to assume another’s epistemologi-
cal commitments – but to explore them, as through conversation.
9
I will expand on this point below – some of these ‘neologisms’ are described in Table 2.1.
10
John Shotter (1993, p. 6) writes of this dynamic relation as the ‘formative uses to which ‘words
in their speaking’ are put and upon the nature of relational situations’.
50 3 Making Choices About Situations and Systems

Fig. 3.5 A conceptual model which can be applied to many forms of practice (e.g. researching,
policy making, leading, etc.) comprising a person thinking about a ‘real world situation’ in which
a person or practitioner (P) (who may be the same as the person who is thinking) engaging with
a situation (S) with a framework of ideas (F) and a method, M (Adapted from Blackmore et al.
2007 and Checkland 1985)

dynamic between certain elements (Fig. 3.5). Figure 3.5 is what is known as a
heuristic device, something that is designed to explore a situation – many of the
figures in this book have a heuristic intent i.e., they do not set out to describe or
claim ‘this is how it is’ but are designed for you to use as a way of challenging
and developing your own understandings.
In its simplest form practice within the logic of Fig. 3.5 involves a practitioner (P)
with a framework of ideas (F), a method or methodology (M) and a situation (S).11
If you are alert you will recognize that this figure abstracts the practitioner (P) out of
the situation (S), yet I said at the beginning of this chapter that all practice is situated.
To hold on to my claim I must ask you to imagine an animation in which the practi-
tioner, P and all the other elements, begin inside S; what Fig. 3.5 depicts is an
expanded abstraction from these initial conditions.
What more can be said about this conceptualisation? Well I could posit that all
practitioners come to situations with existing theoretical frameworks (F). This idea is
captured in a remark attributed to Maynard Keynes: that in his experience ‘all men [sic]
who claimed to be practical were the victim of some theory 30 years out

11
Some refer to this as a ‘real world’ situation to distinguish it from a conceptual or abstract
situation but this is an artificial separation though one that is often useful to help make sense of
what is happening. The inverted commas around ‘real world’ thus denote Checkland’s (1981)
original distinctions between situation and the ‘conceptual world’ of the researcher/practitioner –
this is a distinction to aid praxis, not a commitment, on my part, to a ‘reality’ independent of an
observer. If one is to use the phrase ‘real world situation’ at all, then my preference is to under-
stand it as all that exists within the large thought bubble, i.e. the practitioner, situation dynamic.
3.3 Practitioner, Framework, Method, Situation 51

of date.’12 In social research, medical, nursing and policy circles the idea that a theoreti-
cal framework can be explicitly chosen is more obvious – for example ‘actor network
theory’.13 or ‘transition theory’ (Frantzeskakia and de Haanb 2009) might be chosen as
the theoretical framework from which to answer questions about a particular social
situation, or cardiologists may interpret treatment regimes based on either ‘metaphors
of love’ (Kövecses 2000) or, more likely, on the latest theories about statins, a particular
class of drugs which reduce cholesterol levels.14 So F may arise through historical
acculturation and become implicit or it may be purposefully chosen. Alternatively we
may in our practice seek to be open to the situation we are in so as to experience the phe-
nomena present and only then seek an explanation, which later we may claim is an F.
Method means a way of teaching or proceeding, derived from the Greek ‘méthodos’,
meaning ‘pursuit’, or to ‘follow after’; thus today it commonly means any special proce-
dure or way of doing things (Barnhart 2001). From this the adjectives methodic, or
methodical, arise meaning something done according to a method. In research and prac-
tice fields there is often confusion between method and methodology – in literal terms
the latter means the logos, or logic of method. The place of methodology in every day
practice is not as clear as in, say, research practice, but even then confusion often exists.
On the other hand whenever we act we usually employ some tool, technique, or method
and often sequence these in particular ways. Think about using a street directory to find
out where a friend lives: this involves knowing how a directory is organised, knowing
how to use an index, reading map coordinates, and then taking the right directions and
turns. So when you successfully arrive at your friend’s house you could claim that you
have mastered a particular method – street directory using.15,16

12
I owe this anecdote to Peter Checkland, though I cannot verify its source. On the other hand I
can point to Keynes’ claim that ‘Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from
any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist’ (Keynes 2017).
13
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor-Network_Theory (Accessed 18 January 2009).
14
On the other hand some researchers, engineers, doctors, etc. who are epistemologically naive
empiricists may argue, or imagine, that they come to situations as if they were theory free.
Equally, social researchers who are theoretically adept may forget that the purposeful choice of
any particular theory does not negate the understanding that as human beings with a history they
too have traditions of understanding which they bring forth in the moment, and that these, as
embodied understandings, may be different to the theories they espouse in moments of rational
reflection (Ison 2008a).
15
In some areas of practice the idea of ‘methodology’ is associated with rational choice and with
this choice a range of methods and techniques become deployed. A choice to use a street direc-
tory could also be seen as example of rational choice of a method and might contrast with some
who were native to a locale who had an innate sense of direction or ability to read a landscape. I
will explain why this line of argument is important in Chapter 7.
16
When engaging with systems approaches it is easy to focus on method rather than methodology. I
argue that methodology rather than being simply the logos, or logic of method, is something that has
to be experienced where the key experience is that of the degree of coherence, or congruence between
espoused theory and practice (see Ison and Russell 2000); in my example of a Street Directory it might
be used methodically (i.e. as method) or methodologically (i.e. as methodology). An example of the
latter would be if in response to experiencing the Directory as poorly designed a more effective one
was developed based on a redeployment of the underlying concepts or the invention of new ones.
52 3 Making Choices About Situations and Systems

For the moment let’s accept that a generic description of practice comprises a
practitioner (P) with a history, a tradition of understanding, possibly a chosen
framework of ideas (F), a chosen method (M) and a situation (S) in which they
practise. Let’s further assume that practice is concerned with understanding, disco-
vering, describing or changing some aspect of a situation. Then if Fig. 3.5 is
considered systemically, as a whole, potential emergent properties of practice can
be seen; these include the possibility of:
• Learning about each or all of F, M or S
• Considering the conduct of the practice – the act of connecting F, M and S as a
form of performance – e.g. how effective was the practice (first-order
effectiveness)?
• Taking a meta or second order perspective on the practice system-environment
relationship (as depicted in Fig. 3.5 by the person operating at two levels)17
Exploring this heuristic and moving between first and second–order perspectives
exemplifies the practice of moving between levels of abstraction that is so important
in systems practice. When this skill is mastered it should be apparent that Fig. 3.5
first ‘abstracts’ both the practitioner and the methodology choice out of the ‘situation’
and then moves to yet another level of abstraction that enables us to think about the
systemic relationships between four factors, P, F, M and S as a means of better
understanding what it is that we do when we do what we do! But these are abstrac-
tions as we are always in the situation, although at times we may pretend we are not!
In Fig. 3.6 I present another way of interpreting these dynamics.
Figure 3.5 can be used to explore other aspects of practice – by introducing
more and different actors, e.g. colleagues, other stakeholders, co-researchers, etc.;
by reflecting on the implications of epistemological awareness, but perhaps most
importantly, for becoming aware of the features of situations in which practice is
being conducted. Figure 3.5 used heuristically enables an exploration of what hap-
pens when individuals or groups engage with situations and the choices that are
possible when this is done knowingly. Evidence suggests that practitioners,
including researchers/scientists or policy makers lack a reflexive understanding of
their own practice and the rationalities (or epistemologies) out of which they think
and act (Ison 2002, 2008a, 2008b).
With awareness of the different understandings within the first and second-
order cybernetic lineages depicted in Fig. 2.3 four possible forms of practice

17
In this book I will use the terms ‘meta’ and second-order. Sometimes as in this case I will use
them interchangeably because whilst similar they convey slightly different meanings and have
different histories as terms. ‘Meta’ means ‘beyond, or transcending’ i.e., at a higher conceptual
level which theoretically relates to the systemic notion of levels, i.e. a system is meta to a sub-
system. ‘Second order’ has a history of use in mathematics and logic (see http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Second-order_logic. Accessed 5 April 2009) but my usage can be traced to second-order
cybernetics or, the cybernetics of cybernetics. Within this conception it has a different opera-
tional dynamic – something applied to itself which attains a higher or different conception.
Within this framing second and first order phenomena are understood as different but operating
as part of a whole, a duality, or totality.
3.3 Practitioner, Framework, Method, Situation 53

Framework
First Order Cybernetic Framework
Method

Method Result
Result

Causal Circular

Framework Expanded Situation

Second Order Cybernetic

Situation
S
M

Method
Participatory Praxis Reflective Responsibility

Fig. 3.6 Different practice possibilities within the first and second-order cybernetic traditions of
systems practice

can be identified (Fig. 3.6). Within the first-order tradition the relationship
between F, M and S can be seen as linear or causal or alternatively circular i.e.
with feedback processes operating. In both of these depictions the observer/
practitioner is not in evidence. Within the second-order tradition the observer/
practitioner is always part of the situation and aware that they are as depicted
within participatory praxis. But within this tradition there may be different
levels of awareness: in reflective responsibility the practitioner is aware of, and
thus takes responsibility for, their role in creating an F, M, S dynamic or
‘performance’.
Drawing on initial work by Peter Checkland (1985) and refined through a
decade of research training workshops with Ph.D. students at the Open University
(UK), I have found the heuristic depicted in Fig. 3.5 useful in opening up a con-
versational and reflexive space in which practitioners gain insights into the nature
of their own practice. I usually start by asking participants to develop a conceptual
model of their own practice – they generally find this very hard to do because,
I would contend, of the prevalence of the ‘mainstream understanding’ of situations
existing independent of themselves. It is also because most people are very poor
at understanding and describing phenomena in dynamic and relational ways;
instead the tendency is to rely on linear or monocausal explanations (as noted in
Reading 2).
54 3 Making Choices About Situations and Systems

3.4 Bringing Forth Systems of Interest

When teaching systems at the Open University we have found it useful to talk
about formulating ‘systems of interest’ as a means of engaging with complex
situations in particular. In the process of distinguishing a system a boundary judg-
ment is made which distinguishes a system of interest from an environment
(Fig. 3.3).18,19 It follows that because we each have different perspectives and
interests (histories) then it is likely that we will make different boundary judg-
ments in the same situation, i.e. my education system will be different to yours
because we see different elements, connections and boundary. The same applies to
‘ecosystems’.20 What is more, in the process of distinguishing a system of interest,
a particular relationship is also distinguished – a relationship between a system
and its environment as mediated by a boundary. In doing this certain constraints
and possibilities are also created.
Contemporary systems practice is concerned with overcoming the limitations
of the everyday use of the word ‘system’ as well as seeing the process of formulat-
ing systems of interest as a form of practice (i.e. inquiry) that facilitates changes
in understanding, practice, social relations and, thus, situations as depicted in
Fig. 1.3.
Sometimes it takes some mental gymnastics to make the ‘flip’ from seeing sys-
tems as things in the world to processes as part of an inquiry (Fig. 3.4). You might
like to test out whether you are good at process, or relational thinking. If so take a
short walk and then describe the process by which walking happens (i.e. as a prac-
tice). When I have invited participants in workshops to do this activity it is amaz-
ing, to me, how few are able to describe walking as a practice that arises in the
relationship between a person and a medium, say the floor (Fig. 3.7).21 If you
destroy the relationship person-medium, then the practice does not happen as with
the example of the person hanging from the sky hook!

18
I use the verb distinguish but need to make clear that the ‘system of interest’ does not pre-exist
the act of making a distinction – in a sense it is a process of bringing forth, like getting a bright
idea. Other verbs are possible – formulate, create, invent, generate.
19
I will say more about the act of making distinctions in later parts of the text – for now I mean
the action of distinguishing or discriminating, the noting or making of a difference, the result of
which is a difference made or appreciated (following The New Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary 1993).
20
Tansley (1935) who did most to establish the concept ecosystem said: ‘… the whole method of
science… is to isolate systems mentally for the purposes of study, so that the series of isolates
we make become the actual objects of our study, whether the isolate be a solar system, a planet,
a climatic region, a plant or animal community, an individual organism, an organic molecule or
an atom. Actually, the systems we isolate mentally are not only included as parts of larger ones,
but they also overlap, interlock and interact with one another. The isolation is partly artificial, but
is the only possible way in which we can proceed’ (pp. 299–300).
21
Most people give answers in terms of development of the young human, or in terms of motiva-
tion. Common to most answers is that walking arises because of some internal human cause,
rather than as a relational dynamic.
3.5 Systems Practice – an ‘Ideal Type’ 55

Fig. 3.7 How walking happens, or not, as a relational phenomenon between a person and a
medium, in this case, a pathway

Whilst walking may seem a trivial example it is, I suggest, a profound and not
well appreciated insight that has wide applicability. The key point is that walking,
like all practices, arises from a relational dynamic which we have come to take for
granted. I rarely encounter workshop participants who ‘see’ this dynamic until it is
revealed to them. Instead they tend to see walking as something determined in
early childhood or by internal motivational or physiological factors! When partici-
pants give these answers they are engaging in deterministic and causal thinking
not relational thinking. Others repeat a story they were told – ‘you learned to walk
when you were two’ – or they focus on the acquisition of a skill; we rarely con-
sider the relational dynamics involved in any of our skills, we just do them!
The relational thinking I have just described is important to interpreting the
general model of practice as described in Fig. 3.5 and the process of distinguishing
a system of interest as part of an inquiry (Fig. 3.4). You might like to re-examine
these figures in the light of the example of walking as a relational dynamic. This
type of relational thinking is central to becoming systemic in what you do.

3.5 Systems Practice – an ‘Ideal Type’

In some circles there is a perception that being a systems practitioner is a specialist

role mainly carried out by paid consultants but this does not have to be the case.
Recent research shows that many people who claim to use systems thinking as part
of their practice, whether consultants or managers, do not make this public. This is
56 3 Making Choices About Situations and Systems

in addition to those who do it but don’t know that that is what they do. Much of
systems practice, it would seem, is a ‘silent practice’. This creates a conundrum:
• On what basis could we judge whether someone was engaged in systems practice?
• How would we know if they were doing it well?
• How can demand for more and better systems practice be created if it is a silent
practice?
• How good is systems practice in improving situations for the better?22
At the moment these questions are difficult to answer. In what follows (Chapters 4–
8) I build on my general model of practicing (Fig. 3.5), to develop and present a model
of a systems practitioner as an ‘ideal type’.23 My aim is to make transparent what
occurs in effective systems practice. In creating an ideal type I am not attempting to
prescribe or define, but to create, through the use of a particular isophor, a device to
enable reflection and public discussion. Following Krippendorff (1995) who argued
the need for designers to build their practice through strengthening design discourse,
I want to contribute to a more widespread and rigorous discourse about systems prac-
tice. This can enable those who claim they are systems practitioners to be more
publicly accountable as well as allowing those who would like to develop these
skills to know what to do. It may also allow those who are already systems thinkers/
practitioners, but are unaware of it, to recognise themselves in a different light.24
The ‘ideal type’ model of a systems practitioner is in part based on my personal
experiences of systems practice for managing in situations of complexity. In first
proposing this ‘ideal type’ I was motivated by the question: ‘what is it that we do
when we do what we do?’ In particular, and as depicted in Fig. 3.5, I am con-
cerned with understanding the systemic dynamics of practice in general and more
specifically as applied to systems practice for everyday managing – the everyday
struggle to keep our heads above water when we try to understand and manage
the complexity we experience.25 This ‘ideal type’, which I introduce in the next

22
I raise this point again because I do not want to lose sight of it – but I need several chapters to
present what systems practice might be, before addressing this question.
23
‘Ideal type, also known as pure type, or Idealtyp in the original German, is a term most closely
associated with sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920). An ideal type is formed from characteris-
tics and elements of the given phenomena, but it is not meant to correspond to all of the charac-
teristics of any one particular case. It is not meant to refer to perfect things, moral ideals nor to
statistical averages but rather to stress certain elements common to most cases of the given phe-
nomena’. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_type. Accessed 19 January 2009)
24
I would like to think that the trap which currently seems to exist, of no, or little, institutiona-
lised ‘demand pull’ for systems thinking and practice skills, might be soon overcome.
25
In this book the idea of practice, or practising, is a general one in that it is something everyone
does. The dictionary definition of practice is ‘to carry out or perform habitually or constantly…
to carry out an action’ (The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993). Almost everyone
has some role in which they practise. Most people occupy a number of roles, in their work or in
their community. In these roles it is usual to encounter a number of issues that need dealing with,
improving, resolving, or obviating. For example I am a practising father as well as a practising
academic.
References 57

chapter, has also been particularly useful as part of our practise at the Open
University (UK) as Systems educators and consultants concerned with creating
meaningful learning experiences for mature-age students.26

References

Barnhart R (2001) Chambers Dictionary of Etymology. Chambers, USA

Blackmore CP, Ison RL, Jiggins J (2007) Social learning: an alternative policy instrument for
managing in the context of Europe’s water. Environ Sci Policy 10:493–498
Checkland PB (1981) Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley, Chichester
Checkland PB (1985) From optimizing to learning: a development of systems thinking for the
1990s. J Oper Res Soc 36:757–767
Checkland PB (1999) Soft systems methodology: a 30 year retrospective. Wiley, Chichester
Checkland PB, Poulter J (2006) Learning for action. A short definitive account of soft systems
methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers and students. Wiley, Chichester
Frantzeskakia N, de Haanb H (2009) Transitions: two steps from theory to policy. Futures
41(9):593–606
Ison RL (2001) Systems practice at the United Kingdom’s Open University. In: Wilby J,
Ragsdell G (eds) Understanding complexity. Kluwer/Plenum, New York, p 45–54
Ison RL (2002) Some reflections on a knowledge transfer strategy: a systemic inquiry. In
Farming and Rural Systems Research and Extension, Proceedings Fifth IFSA European
Symposium, Florence, April
Ison RL (2008a) Methodological challenges of trans-disciplinary research: some systemic reflec-
tions. Nat Sci Soc 16:241–251
Ison RL (2008b) Reprising “wicked problems”: social learning, climate change adaptation and
the sustainable management of water. Proc. ANZSYS (Australia NZ Systems Society)
Conference, Perth, 1–2 December
Ison RL, Russell DB (2000) Exploring some distinctions for the design of learning systems.
Cybernetics Human Knowing 7(4):43–56
Keynes M. The General theory of employment, interest and money, Book VI, pp 383–384.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Theory_of_Employment,_Interest_and_Money.
Accessed 17 May 2017
Kövecses Z (2000) Metaphor and emotion. Language, culture and body in human feeling.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Krippendorff K (1995) Redesigning design: an invitation to a responsible future. In: Tahkokallio P,
Vihma S (eds) Design – pleasure or responsibility? University of Art and Design, Helsinki,
p 138–162
Morris RM (2005) Thinking about systems for sustainable lifestyles. Open University Systems
Society (OUSys) Newsletter No 39 (Autumn), 15–19
Shotter J (1993) Conversational realities: constructing life through language. Sage, London
Tansley AG (1935) The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16:284–307
The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993) Oxford University Press

26
The median age of students at the Open University UK is 32.
Chapter 4
The Juggler: A Way to Understand
Systems Practice

Abstract An ‘ideal-type’ model of systems practice is introduced through the

device of an isophor/metaphor of the systems practitioner as juggler. It is argued
that four balls need to be kept in the air for any form of effective systems practice.
These are (1) the B-ball which concerns the attributes of Being a practitioner with
a particular tradition of understanding; (2) the E-ball which concerns the character-
istics ascribed to the ‘real-world’ situation that the juggler is Engaging with;
(3) the C-ball which concerns the act of Contextualising a particular approach to a
new situation, and; (4) the M-ball which is about how the practitioner is
Managing their overall performance in a situation. An account by Donella
Meadows of her own systems practice is introduced as a reading to explore the
juggler metaphor.

4.1 Introduction of the Juggler

It follows from the dictionary definition that a practitioner is anyone involved in

practise – in carrying out an action. But as outlined in the previous chapter prac-
tice can be understood as a series of elements that are combined to produce a type
of performance. If I reflect on my own practice, I am aware that I have a myriad
of factors to consider in any given day. What I do is not a simple interaction
between practitioner and situation. I experience myself as something of a juggler
trying to keep a number of balls in the air as I practise. As a device for learning I
am going to employ the isophor of the systems practitioner as juggler to explore
how systems practice arises through certain relational dynamics. I will focus
on four particular balls I think need to be kept in the air for any form of effective
systems practice (Fig. 4.1).
Based on my experience, I claim that effective practice involves being aware
that all of these four balls need to be juggled – it takes active attention, and some
skill, to keep them all in the air. Things start to go wrong if we let any one of
them slip. To be an effective practitioner, I find it necessary to continuously think
about, and act to maintain, four elements: the processes of being a practitioner, the
means we engage with a situation, putting the approach taken into context and

© The Open University 2017 59

Published in Association with Springer-Verlag London Limited
R. Ison, Systems Practice: How to Act, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9_4
60 4 The Juggler: A Way to Understand Systems Practice

Fig. 4.1 For effective practice, what I have distinguished as four balls are juggled. The B-ball
symbolises the attributes of Being a practitioner with a particular tradition of understanding. The
E-ball symbolises the characteristics ascribed to the ‘real-world ’situation that the juggler is
Engaging with. The C-ball symbolises the act of Contextualising a particular approach to a new
situation. The M-ball is about how the practitioner is Managing their involvement with the
situation

managing my own involvement in the situation (Fig. 4.1). The four verbs, the
activities, I am drawing your attention to are being, engaging, contextualising and
managing.
Practice, which is a systemic dynamic, can only be realised through actions,
hence my focus on verbs, rather than say nouns. For example, I could have
chosen, but rejected, descriptors such as (1) the process, (2) the approach, (3) the
context and (4) the manager.
The isophor of a juggler keeping the four balls in the air is a way to think about
what I do when I try to be effective in my own practice. It matches with my
experience: it takes concentration and skills to do it well. But all isophors, just
like metaphors, conceal or obscure some features of experience, while calling
other features to attention. The juggler isophor obscures that the four elements of
effective practice are related. I cannot juggle them as if they were independent of
each other. I can imagine them interacting with each other through gravitational
attraction even when they are up in the air. Further, the juggler can juggle them
differently, for example tossing the E ball with the left hand and the B ball with
the right hand. These visualisations allow me to say that, in effective practice, the
movements of the balls are not only interdependent but also dependent on my
actions. Also, when juggling you really only touch one ball at a time, give it a
4.1 Introduction of the Juggler 61

suitable trajectory so that you will be able to return to it while you touch another
ball. So it’s the way attention has to go among the various domains, a responsible
moment of involvement that creates the conditions for continuance of practice.1
I’ll describe each ball briefly here, and then in the next four chapters expand on
the praxis that particularly relates to each. But first let me explain what I mean by
an isophor and how it differs from a metaphor. Humberto Maturana who invented
the word ‘isophor’ explains what he meant in the following way:2 ‘The notion of
metaphor invites understanding something by proposing an evocative image of a
different process in a different domain (e.g., politics as war). With the metaphor
you liberate the imagination of the listener by inviting him or her to go to a differ-
ent domain and follow his or her emotioning. When I proposed the notion of
isophor… I wanted it to refer to a proposition that takes you to another case of the
same kind (in terms of relational dynamics) in another domain. So, with an
isophor you would not liberate the imagination of the listener but you would focus
his or her attention on the configuration of processes or relations that you want to
grasp. In these circumstances, the fact that a juggler puts his or her attention on
the locality of the movement of one ball as he or she plays with them, knowing
how to move at every instant in relation to all the other balls, shows that the whole
matrix of relations and movements of the constellation of balls is accessible to
him or her all the time. So, juggling is an isophor of the vision that one must have
of the operational-relational matrix in which something occurs to be able to
honestly claim that one understands it. That is, juggling is an isophor of the vision
that one wants to have to claim that one understands, for example, a biological or
a cultural happening (such as effective system practice)’3
The first ball, Being, is concerned with our own awareness and our ethics of
action, thus the responsibility we take as citizens. Though it may manifest differ-
ently in various situations, Being is primarily a consequence of the background,
experiences and prejudices, or pre-understandings, of being the practitioner. So, to
consider the B-ball it is necessary to focus on some of the attributes of the practi-
tioner. One of these attributes is awareness, awareness of self in relation to the
balls being juggled and the context for this juggling. The nature of this awareness
will be explored.
The second ball is the E-ball – engaging with a ‘real world’ situation. How a
practitioner engages with a situation is not just a property of the situation. The
practitioner can choose how to orient and look, and has choices in how to engage.
Thus the ‘real world’ could be experienced as simple or complicated, as a situation

1
Students of the Open University course/Managing Systemic Change. Inquiry, Action and
Interaction (TU812) have offered other possible isophors such as knitting, guitar playing.
2
It was Kathleen Forsythe’s paper on Cathedrals of the Mind (1986, p. 175) that led Maturana to
invent the term isophor (Bunnell, May 2009, Personal communication. Systems Ecologist,
President of Lifeworks, Vancouver, BC, Canada). Understood as either a metaphor or isophor
can reveal different insights. In this second edition my preference is isophor over metaphor
because of my focus on relational dynamics as central to systems practice.
3
Humberto Maturana (personal communication, 19 August 2009).
62 4 The Juggler: A Way to Understand Systems Practice

or as a system. I will argue that the failure to be aware of the choices we have in
juggling the E-ball has given rise, all too often, to policy failure (APSC 2007) or
some other unintended consequence.
The third ball, the C-ball, is concerned with how a systems practitioner puts parti-
cular systems approaches into Context for taking action in ‘real world’ situations.
One of the main skills of a systems practitioner is to learn, through experience, to
manage the relationship between a particular systems approach and the ‘real-world’
situation she or he is using it in. Adopting an approach is more than just choosing
one of the methods that already exists. This is why I use the phrase ‘putting into
context’, to indicate a process of Contextualisation involved in the choice of
approach in relation to situation. Courses that teach about systems approaches are
often designed to focus primarily on the C-ball; however, they usually teach how to
match an existing systems approach with an area of application.4
The final ball the effective practitioner juggles is that of Managing (M). The
M-ball is concerned with juggling as an overall performance; managing both the
juggling and the desired change in the world. Another way to describe this is as
co-managing self and situation. As the term managing is often used to describe
the process by which a practitioner engages with a ‘real-world’ situation it can
be considered as a special form of engagement, so later I will explore some of the
features associated with what I include in the notion of managing. For example,
managing also introduces the idea of change over time, in the situation, the
approach and the practitioner – of adapting oneself and one’s performance.
I invite you to interpret the juggler isophor in terms of:
• Your relationship with yourself as a practitioner or your sensibilities of being a
practitioner
• The choices you are envisaging about a situation as you and other stakeholders
perceive it (i.e. your mode of engaging with a situation of interest)
• Your manner of adapting your practice to the circumstances (contextualising)
• How you plan to perform your practice through the act of managing the overall
activity.
Having introduced all of the key elements of the juggler isophor I will now
provide some general background as to why I consider these four balls to be
important. I will also introduce a Reading to exemplify how a particular systems
practitioner engages in their ‘juggling’ and draw out some practical implications.

4
For too long in my view the Systems field has been plagued by method and methodology wars –
incessant arguing about the virtues, or otherwise, of particular methods and methodologies, often
in the form of a product offered by a consulting group. Unfortunately, this has constrained both
the institutionalisation of Systems within academic life as well as drawing attention away from
the praxis of systems as described here. As I do not want to perpetuate this unhelpful situation
I want to make it clear that in juggling the C-ball it is not just about choice of a method or appli-
cation of a method but, rather, the question of how a method or methodology can mediate the
emergence of situation-improving action. ‘Putting into context’ could also be understood as a
form of bringing forth (as per Maturana – see Proulx 2008) or as a form of context sensitive
design (Ison et al. 2007).
4.1 Introduction of the Juggler 63

In Parts II and III of the book, I will give examples of my own systems practice,
that is, my own juggling.
Juggling, as practice, results from a set of relationships. A juggler is a person
or living system in a particular context, with body positioned so as to give support
from the floor, and in my use of the isophor, four different balls. If any of these
things is taken away, the juggler, the connection to the floor or all the balls then
juggling will not arise as a practice (as with my example of walking). In some
situations an audience might also be important, especially if juggling for money or
another form of performance. If I chose to see this situation as if it were a ‘system
for making money through a juggling performance’ then taking away the audience
would destroy the ‘system of interest’, the interconnected set of relationships that
was envisioned. But there’s more to this set of relationships than meets the eye.
Take the juggler for example, s/he’s both a unique person and also part of a
lineage of organisms or ‘living systems’. All ‘living systems’ have an evolutionary
past, which means biologically we humans are essentially the same, but an indivi-
dual developmental past that is unique to each individual. For humans this means
we each have a unique set of experiences so that one person’s world is always
different from another person’s world. We humans never truly ‘share’ common
experiences because this is biologically impossible. We can however communicate
with each other about our experiences.
Before I introduce Reading 3, which exemplifies a form of systems practice,
and which can be used to tease out aspects of ‘juggling’ I want to expand on why
I claim juggling is an isophor and how an isophor differs from a metaphor. As I
explained earlier the essence of how metaphor works is to express one thing in
terms of something else, such as in the phrase ‘the office is a warzone’. This meta-
phor invites us to think of the office as if it were a warzone; in operational terms it
provides a sort of gestalt which is often the basis of innovation, i.e. it takes one to
a new place. At no stage do we consider the office to be an actual warzone.
Following this logic of how metaphors work my use of ‘systems practice as jug-
gler’ if it were to be regarded as a metaphor would take you from ‘systems prac-
tice’ as one thing to juggling as something else. But this dynamic is an abstraction
divorced from our doing, our actions – thinking, feeling, experiencing – which
led Humberto Maturana with Kathleen Forsythe to coin the term isophor to
explain the dynamic of experiencing the same thing through another means – in
this case experiencing systems practice by the doing of juggling. To put it rather
simplistically by doing some juggling you begin to feel what it would be like to
be doing systems practice. On the other hand the balls themselves could still be
regarded as metaphors.5

5
In a revealing paper Leung et al (2011) have found that ‘in five studies, findings revealed that
both physically and psychologically embodying creative metaphors promote fluency, flexibility,
and/or originality in problem-solving. Going beyond prior research that focused primarily on the
kind of embodiment that primes preexisting knowledge, we provide the first evidence that embo-
diment can also activate cognitive processes conducive for generating previously unknown ideas
and connections’.
64 4 The Juggler: A Way to Understand Systems Practice

4.2 An Example of Systems Practice as Juggling

Having introduced the ‘juggler’ as a means to appreciate systems practice as well as

the idea that there are choices to make about situations as part of a relational
dynamic (as discussed in Chapter 3 and depicted in Fig. 3.5) I would now like to
introduce a reading (Reading 3) which exemplifies some further aspects of
systems practice in comparison to earlier readings. You will gain much from this
reading in its own right but as I am using readings for a particular purpose I would
like to invite you to do a little extra work as you read. To reiterate, my purpose is to
create the circumstances where you can better appreciate what systems practitioners
do when they do what they do. I also want you to make connections with your own
life and to begin the process of adding variety to your own systems practice.
My invitation is that as you engage with this reading (Meadows, 1997), please
take a particular approach by attending to the following questions:
1. What is the situation and its nature?
2. Who are the main ‘actors’ in the situation?
3. What is at issue?
4. What different ways of understanding and/or engaging with the situation are
described by the author?
5. What does the article reveal about the author?
6. Given your current understanding of the idea of juggling in relation to systems
practice what can you say about Donella Meadows’ juggling?
7. Faced with the same or a similar situation would you think about it similarly or
differently?
8. What does this article reveal about your own ways of thinking and acting?
There is much to be gained from this reading other than answers to my questions.
But through your attempt to answer them you will gain the experience of an inquiry
process based on the isophor of the juggler. This inquiry process could also, of
course, be applied to the earlier readings as well as to readings in later chapters.

Reading 3
Places to Intervene in a System
Donella H. Meadows

Folks who do systems analysis have a great belief in ‘leverage points’.

These are places within a complex system (a corporation, an economy, a liv-
ing body, a city, an ecosystem) where a small shift in one thing can produce
big changes in everything. The systems community has a lot of lore about
leverage points. Those of us who were trained by the great Jay Forrester at
MIT have absorbed one of his favorite stories. ‘People know intuitively where
leverage points are. Time after time I’ve done an analysis of a company and
I’ve figured out a leverage point. Then I’ve gone to the company and disco-
vered that everyone is pushing it in the wrong direction!’

(continued)
4.2 An Example of Systems Practice as Juggling 65

Reading 3 (continued)
The classic example of that backward intuition was Forrester’s first world
model.
Asked by the Club of Rome to show how major global problems poverty
and hunger, environmental destruction, resource depletion, urban deteriora-
tion, unemployment, are related and how they might be solved, Forrester
came out with a clear leverage point:
Growth. Both population and economic growth. Growth has costs among
which are poverty and hunger, environmental destruction the whole list of
problems we are trying to solve with growth!
The world’s leaders are correctly fixated on economic growth as the
answer to virtually all problems, but they’re pushing with all their might in
the wrong direction.
Counterintuitive. That’s Forrester’s word to describe complex systems.
The systems analysts I know have come up with no quick or easy formulas
for finding leverage points. Our counter intuitions aren’t that well developed.
Give us a few months or years and we’ll model the system and figure it out.
We know from bitter experience that when we do discover the system’s
leverage points, hardly anybody will believe us.
Very frustrating. So one day I was sitting in a meeting about the new glo-
bal trade regime, NAFTA and GATT and the World Trade Organization.
The more I listened, the more I began to simmer inside. ‘This is a HUGE
NEW SYSTEM people are inventing!’ I said to myself. ‘They haven’t the
slightest idea how it will behave’, myself said back to me. ‘It’s cranking the
system in the wrong direction: growth, growth at any price!! And the control
measures these nice folks are talking about, small parameter adjustments,
negative feedback loops, are PUNY!’
Suddenly, without quite knowing what was happening, I got up, marched
to the flip chart, tossed over a clean page, and wrote: ‘Places to Intervene in
a System’, followed by nine items:
9. Numbers (subsidies, taxes, standards)
8. Material stocks and flows
7. Regulating negative feedback loops
6. Driving positive feedback loops
5. Information flows
4. The rules of the system (incentives, punishment, constraints)
3. The power of self-organization
2. The goals of the system
1. The mindset or paradigm out of which the goals, rules, feedback
structure arise
Everyone in the meeting blinked in surprise, including me. ‘That’s brilliant!’
someone breathed. ‘Huh?’ said someone else. I realized that I had a lot of
explaining to do.

(continued)
66 4 The Juggler: A Way to Understand Systems Practice

Reading 3 (continued)
In a minute I’ll go through the list, translate the jargon, give examples and
exceptions. First I want to place the list in a context of humility. What bubbled
up in me that day was distilled from decades of rigorous analysis of many differ-
ent kinds of systems done by many smart people. But complex systems are,
well, complex. It’s dangerous to generalize about them. What you are about to
read is not a recipe for finding leverage points. Rather it’s an invitation to think
more broadly about system change. That’s why leverage points are not intuitive.

9. Numbers
Numbers (‘parameters’ in systems jargon) determine how much of a discre-
pancy turns which faucet how fast. Maybe the faucet turns hard, so it takes a
while to get the water flowing. Maybe the drain is blocked and can allow only a
small flow, no matter how open it is. Maybe the faucet can deliver with the force
of a fire hose. These considerations are a matter of numbers, some of which are
physically locked in, but most of which are popular intervention points.
Consider the national debt. It’s a negative bathtub, a money hole. The rate
at which it sinks is the annual deficit. Tax income makes it rise, government
expenditures make it fall. Congress and the president argue endlessly about
the many parameters that open and close tax faucets and spending drains.
Since those faucets and drains are connected to the voters, these are politi-
cally charged parameters. But, despite all the fireworks, and no matter which
party is in charge, the money hole goes on sinking, just at different rates.
The amount of land we set aside for conservation. The minimum wage.
How much we spend on AIDS research or Stealth bombers. The service charge
the bank extracts from your account. All these are numbers, adjustments to fau-
cets. So, by the way, is firing people and getting new ones. Putting different
hands on the faucets may change the rate at which they turn, but if they’re the
same old faucets, plumbed into the same system, turned according to the same
information and rules and goals, the system isn’t going to change much. Bill
Clinton is different from George Bush, but not all that different.
Numbers are last on my list of leverage points. Diddling with details,
arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Probably 95% of our attention goes
to numbers, but there’s not a lot of power in them. Not that parameters
aren’t important, they can be, especially in the short term and to the indivi-
dual who’s standing directly in the flow. But they RARELY CHANGE
BEHAVIOR. If the system is chronically stagnant, parameter changes rarely
kick-start it. If it’s wildly variable, they don’t usually stabilize it. If it’s
growing out of control, they don’t break it.
Whatever cap we put on campaign contributions, it doesn’t clean up poli-
tics. The Feds fiddling with the interest rate haven’t made business cycles
go away. (We always forget that during upturns, and are shocked, shocked
by the downturns.) Spending more on police doesn’t make crime go away.

(continued)
4.2 An Example of Systems Practice as Juggling 67

Reading 3 (continued)
However, there are critical exceptions. Numbers become leverage points
when they go into ranges that kick off one of the items higher on this list.
Interest rates or birth rates control the gains around positive feedback loops.
System goals are parameters that can make big differences. Sometimes a
system gets onto a chaotic edge, where the tiniest change in a number can
drive it from order to what appears to be wild disorder.
Probably the most common kind of critical number is the length of delay
in a feedback loop. Remember that bathtub on the fourth floor I mentioned,
with the water heater in the basement? I actually experienced one of those
once, in an old hotel in London. It wasn’t even a bathtub with buffering
capacity; it was a shower. The water temperature took at least a minute to
respond to my faucet twists. Guess what my shower was like. Right, oscilla-
tions from hot to cold and back to hot, punctuated with expletives. Delays in
negative feedback loops cause oscillations. If you’re trying to adjust a sys-
tem state to your goal, but you only receive delayed information about what
the system state is, you will overshoot and undershoot.
Same if your information is timely, but your response isn’t. For example,
it takes several years to build an electric power plant, and then that plant
lasts, say, 30 years. Those delays make it impossible to build exactly the
right number of plants to supply a rapidly changing demand. Even with
immense effort at forecasting, almost every electricity industry in the world
experiences long oscillations between overcapacity and undercapacity. A
system just can’t respond to short-term changes when it has long-term
delays. That’s why a massive central-planning system, such as the Soviet
Union or General Motors, necessarily functions poorly.
A delay in a feedback process is critical RELATIVE TO RATES OF
CHANGE (growth, fluctuation, decay) IN THE SYSTEM STATE THAT
THE FEEDBACK LOOP IS TRYING TO CONTROL. Delays that are too
short cause overreaction, oscillations amplified by the jumpiness of the
response. Delays that are too long cause damped, sustained, or exploding
oscillations, depending on how much too long. At the extreme they cause
chaos. Delays in a system with a threshold, a danger point, and a range past
which irreversible damage can occur, cause overshoot and collapse.
Delay length would be a high leverage point, except for the fact that
delays are not often easily changeable. Things take as long as they take.
You can’t do a lot about the construction time of a major piece of capital, or
the maturation time of a child, or the growth rate of a forest. It’s usually
easier to slow down the change rate (positive feedback loops, higher on this
list), so feedback delays won’t cause so much trouble. Critical numbers are
not nearly as common as people seem to think they are. Most systems have
evolved or are designed to stay out of sensitive parameter ranges. Mostly,
the numbers are not worth the sweat put into them.

(continued)
68 4 The Juggler: A Way to Understand Systems Practice

Reading 3 (continued)
8. Material Stocks and Flows
The plumbing structure, the stocks and flows and their physical arrange-
ment, can have an enormous effect on how a system operates. When the
Hungarian road system was laid out so all traffic from one side of the nation
to the other had to pass through central Budapest, that determined a lot
about air pollution and commuting delays that are not easily fixed by pollu-
tion control devices, traffic lights, or speed limits. The only way to fix a
system that is laid out wrong is to rebuild it, if you can. Often you can’t,
because physical building is a slow and expensive kind of change. Some
stock-and-flow structures are just plain unchangeable.
The baby-boom swell in the US population first caused pressure on the
elementary school system, then high schools and colleges, then jobs and
housing, and now we’re looking forward to supporting its retirement. Not
much to do about it, because 5-year-olds become 6-year-olds, and 64-year-
olds become 65-year-olds predictably and unstoppably. The same can be
said for the lifetime of destructive CFC molecules in the ozone layer, for the
rate at which contaminants get washed out of aquifers, for the fact that an
inefficient car fleet takes ten to twenty years to turn over.
The possible exceptional leverage point here is in the size of stocks, or
buffers. Consider a huge bathtub with slow in and outflows. Now think
about a small one with fast flows. That’s the difference between a lake and a
river. You hear about catastrophic river floods much more often than cata-
strophic lake floods, because stocks that are big, relative to their flows, are
more stable than small ones. A big, stabilizing stock is a buffer.
The stabilizing power of buffers is why you keep money in the bank rather
than living from the flow of change through your pocket. It’s why stores hold
inventory instead of calling for new stock just as customers carry the old stock
out the door. It’s why we need to maintain more than the minimum breeding
population of an endangered species. Soils in the eastern US are more sensi-
tive to acid rain than soils in the west, because they haven’t got big buffers of
calcium to neutralize acid. You can often stabilize a system by increasing the
capacity of a buffer. But if a buffer is too big, the system gets inflexible.
It reacts too slowly. Businesses invented just-in-time inventories, because
occasional vulnerability to fluctuations or screw-ups is cheaper than certain,
constant inventory costs, and because small-to-vanishing inventories allow
more flexible response to shifting demand.
There’s leverage, sometimes magical, in changing the size of buffers. But
buffers are usually physical entities, not easy to change. The acid absorption
capacity of eastern soils is not a leverage point for alleviating acid rain damage.
The storage capacity of a dam is literally cast in concrete. Physical structure is
crucial in a system, but the leverage point is in proper design in the first place.
After the structure is built, the leverage is in understanding its limitations and
bottlenecks and refraining from fluctuations or expansions that strain its capacity.

(continued)
4.2 An Example of Systems Practice as Juggling 69

Reading 3 (continued)
7. Regulating Negative Feedback Loops
Now we’re beginning to move from the physical part of the system to the informa-
tion and control parts, where more leverage can be found. Nature evolves negative
feedback loops and humans invent them to keep system states within safe bounds.
A thermostat loop is the classic example. Its purpose is to keep the system state
called ‘room temperature’ fairly constant at a desired level. Any negative feed-
back loop needs a goal (the thermostat setting), a monitoring and signaling device
to detect excursions from the goal (the thermostat), and a response mechanism
(the furnace and/or air conditioner, fans, heat pipes, fuel, etc.).6
A complex system usually has numerous negative feedback loops it can bring
into play, so it can self-correct under different conditions and impacts. Some of
those loops may be inactive much of the time, like the emergency cooling
system in a nuclear power plant, or your ability to sweat or shiver to maintain
your body temperature. One of the big mistakes we make is to strip away these
emergency response mechanisms because they aren’t often used and they appear
to be costly. In the short term we see no effect from doing this. In the long term,
we narrow the range of conditions over which the system can survive.
One of the most heartbreaking ways we do this is in encroaching on the
habitats of endangered species. Another is in encroaching on our own time
for rest, recreation, socialization and meditation.
The ‘strength’ of a negative loop, its ability to keep its appointed stock at
or near its goal, depends on the combination of all its parameters and links,
the accuracy a rapidity of monitoring, the quickness and power of response,
the directness and size of corrective flows.
There can be leverage points here. Take markets, for example, the nega-
tive feedback systems that are all but worshipped by economists, and they
can indeed be marvels of self-correction, as prices vary to keep supply and
demand in balance. The more the price, the central signal to both producers
and consumers, is kept clear, unambiguous, timely, and truthful, the more
smoothly markets will operate. Prices that reflect full costs will tell consu-
mers how much they can actually afford and will reward efficient producers.
Companies and governments are fatally attracted to the price leverage point,
of course, all of them pushing in the wrong direction with subsidies, fixes,
externalities, taxes, and other forms of confusion. The REAL leverage here
is to keep them from doing it. Hence anti-trust laws, truth-in-advertising
laws, attempts to internalize costs (such as pollution taxes), the removal of
perverse subsidies, and other ways of leveling market playing fields.

(continued)
6
This claim may warrant critical scrutiny – a common fallacy here is the idea that a goal is
needed, i.e. the signalling device that responds to above or below is all that matters. However,
we interpret the ‘goal’ based on the result. We create a goal with our thermostat setting, but the
‘thermostat system’ itself has no‘goal’. In other words, the goal is only a heuristic invention, not
part of the system (unless the observer/designer with a goal in mind is included), but about our
relation to the mechanism, it represents our value.
70 4 The Juggler: A Way to Understand Systems Practice

Reading 3 (continued)
The strength of a negative feedback loop is important RELATIVE TO
THE IMPACT IT IS DESIGNED TO CORRECT. If the impact increases in
strength, the feedbacks have to be strengthened too.
A thermostat system may work fine on a cold winter day, but open all the
windows and its corrective power will fail. Democracy worked better before
the advent of the brainwashing power of centralized mass communications.
Traditional controls on fishing were sufficient until radar spotting and drift
nets and other technologies made it possible for a few actors to wipe out the
fish. The power of big industry calls for the power of big government to
hold it in check; a global economy makes necessary a global government.
Here are some other examples of strengthening negative feedback con-
trols to improve a system’s self-correcting abilities: preventive medicine,
exercise, and good nutrition to bolster the body’s ability to fight disease,
integrated pest management to encourage natural predators of crop pests, the
Freedom of Information Act to reduce government secrecy, protection for
whistle blowers, impact fees, pollution taxes and performance bonds to
recapture the externalized public costs of private benefits.

6. Driving Positive Feedback Loops

A positive feedback loop is self-reinforcing. The more it works, the more it
has power to work some more.
The more people catch the flu, the more they infect other people. The
more babies are born, the more people grow up to have babies. The more
money you have in the bank, the more interest you earn, the more money
you have in the bank. The more the soil erodes, the less vegetation it can
support, the fewer roots and leaves to soften rain and runoff, the more soil
erodes. The more high-energy neutrons in the critical mass, the more they
knock into nuclei and generate more.
Positive feedback loops drive growth, explosion, erosion, and collapse in
systems. A system with an unchecked positive loop ultimately will destroy
itself. That’s why there are so few of them.
Usually a negative loop kicks in sooner or later. The epidemic runs out
of infectable people, or people take increasingly strong steps to avoid being
infected. The death rate rises to equal the birth rate, or people see the conse-
quences of unchecked population growth and have fewer babies. The soil
erodes away to bedrock, and after a million years the bedrock crumbles into
new soil, or people put up check dams and plant trees.
In those examples, the first outcome is what happens if the positive loop
runs its course, the second is what happens if there’s an intervention to
reduce its power.
Reducing the gain around a positive loop, slowing the growth, is usually
a more powerful leverage point in systems than strengthening negative
loops, and much preferable to letting the positive loop run.

(continued)
4.2 An Example of Systems Practice as Juggling 71

Reading 3 (continued)
Population and economic growth rates in the world model are leverage
points, because slowing them gives the many negative loops, through tech-
nology and markets and other forms of adaptation, time to function. It’s the
same as slowing the car when you’re driving too fast, rather than calling for
more responsive brakes or technical advances in steering.
The most interesting behavior that rapidly turning positive loops can
trigger is chaos. This wild, unpredictable, unreplicable, and yet bounded
behavior happens when a system starts changing much, much faster than its
negative loops can react to it.
For example, if you keep raising the capital growth rate in the world model,
eventually you get to a point where one tiny increase more will shift the econ-
omy from exponential growth to oscillation. Another nudge upward gives the
oscillation a double beat. And just the tiniest further nudge sends it into chaos.
I don’t expect the world economy to turn chaotic any time soon (not for
that reason, anyway). That behavior occurs only in unrealistic parameter
ranges, equivalent to doubling the size of the economy within a year.
Realworld systems do turn chaotic, however, if something in them can grow
or decline very fast. Fast-replicating bacteria or insect populations, very
infectious epidemics, wild speculative bubbles in money systems, neutron
fluxes in the guts of nuclear power plants. These systems are hard to control,
and control must involve slowing down the positive feedbacks.
In more ordinary systems, look for leverage points around birth rates, interest
rates, erosion rates, ‘success to the successful’ loops, any place where the more
you have of something, the more you have the possibility of having more.

5. Information Flows
There was this subdivision of identical houses, the story goes, except that
the electric meter in some of the houses was installed in the basement and in
others it was installed in the front hall, where the residents could see it con-
stantly, going round faster or slower as they used more or less electricity.
Electricity consumption was 30% lower in the houses where the meter
was in the front hall.
Systems-heads love that story because it’s an example of a high leverage
point in the information structure of the system. It’s not a parameter adjust-
ment, not a strengthening or weakening of an existing loop. It’s a NEW
LOOP, delivering feedback to a place where it wasn’t going before.
In 1986 the US government required that every factory releasing hazar-
dous air pollutants report those emissions publicly. Suddenly everyone could
find out precisely what was coming out of the smokestacks in town. There
was no law against those emissions, no fines, no determination of ‘safe’
levels, just information. But by 1990 emissions dropped 40%. One chemical
company that found itself on the Top Ten Polluters list reduced its emissions
by 90%, just to ‘get off that list’.

(continued)
72 4 The Juggler: A Way to Understand Systems Practice

Reading 3 (continued)
Missing feedback is a common cause of system malfunction. Adding or
rerouting information can be a powerful intervention, usually easier and
cheaper than rebuilding physical structure.
The tragedy of the commons that is exhausting the world’s commercial fish-
eries occurs because there is no feedback from the state of the fish population
to the decision to invest in fishing vessels. (Contrary to economic opinion, the
price of fish doesn’t provide that feedback. As the fish get more scarce and
hence more expensive, it becomes all the more profitable to go out and catch
them. That’s a perverse feedback, a positive loop that leads to collapse.)
It’s important that the missing feedback be restored to the right place and
in compelling form. It’s not enough to inform all the users of an aquifer that
the groundwater level is dropping. That could trigger a race to the bottom. It
would be more effective to set a water price that rises steeply as the pump-
ing rate exceeds the recharge rate.
Suppose taxpayers got to specify on their return forms what government
services their tax payments must be spent on. (Radical democracy!) Suppose
any town or company that puts a water intake pipe in a river had to put it
immediately DOWNSTREAM from its own outflow pipe. Suppose any
public or private official who made the decision to invest in a nuclear power
plant got the waste from that plant stored on his/her lawn.
There is a systematic tendency on the part of human beings to avoid
accountability for their own decisions. That’s why there are so many miss-
ing feedback loops, and why this kind of leverage point is so often popular
with the masses, unpopular with the powers that be, and effective, if you
can get the powers that be to permit it to happen or go around them and
make it happen anyway.

4. The Rules of the System (Incentives, Punishments, Constraints)

The rules of the system define its scope, boundaries, degrees of freedom.
Thou shalt not kill. Everyone has the right of free speech. Contracts are to
be honored. The president serves 4-year terms and cannot serve more than
two of them. Nine people on a team, you have to touch every base, three
strikes and you’re out. If you get caught robbing a bank, you go to jail.
Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the USSR and opened information
flows (glasnost) and changed the economic rules (perestroika), and look
what happened.
Constitutions are strong social rules. Physical laws such as the second
law of thermodynamics are absolute rules, if we understand them correctly.
Laws, punishments, incentives, and informal social agreements are progres-
sively weaker rules.
To demonstrate the power of rules, I ask my students to imagine different
ones for a college. Suppose the students graded the teachers. Suppose you

(continued)
4.2 An Example of Systems Practice as Juggling 73

Reading 3 (continued)
come to college when you want to learn something, and you leave when
you’ve learned it. Suppose professors were hired according to their ability to
solve real-world problems, rather than to publish academic papers. Suppose
a class got graded as a group, instead of as individuals.
Rules change behavior. Power over rules is real power.
That’s why lobbyists congregate when Congress writes laws, and why
the Supreme Court, which interprets and delineates the Constitution, the
rules for writing the rules, has even more power than Congress.
If you want to understand the deepest malfunctions of systems, pay atten-
tion to the rules, and to who has power over them.
That’s why my systems intuition was sending off alarm bells as the new
world trade system was explained to me. It is a system with rules designed
by corporations, run by corporations, for the benefit of corporations. Its rules
exclude almost any feedback from other sectors of society. Most of its meet-
ings are closed to the press (no information, no feedback). It forces nations
into positive loops, competing with each other to weaken environmental and
social safeguards in order to attract corporate investment. It’s a recipe for
unleashing ‘success to the successful’ loops.

3. The Power of Self-Organization

The most stunning thing living systems can do is to change themselves
utterly by creating whole new structures and behaviors. In biological sys-
tems that power is called evolution. In human economies it’s called technical
advance or social revolution. In systems lingo it’s called self-organization.
Self-organization means changing any aspect of a system lower on this
list, adding or deleting new physical structure, adding or deleting negative
or positive loops or information flows or rules. The ability to self-organize is
the strongest form of system resilience, the ability to survive change by
changing.
The human immune system can develop responses to (some kinds of)
insults it has never before encountered. The human brain can take in new
information and pop out completely new thoughts.
Self-organization seems so wondrous that we tend to regard it as myster-
ious, miraculous. Economists often model technology as literal manna from
heaven, coming from nowhere, costing nothing, increasing the productivity
of an economy by some steady percent each year. For centuries people have
regarded the spectacular variety of nature with the same awe. Only a divine
creator could bring forth such a creation.
In fact the divine creator does not have to produce miracles. He, she, or it
just has to write clever RULES FOR SELF-ORGANIZATION. These rules
govern how, where, and what the system can add onto or subtract from itself
under what conditions.

(continued)
74 4 The Juggler: A Way to Understand Systems Practice

Reading 3 (continued)
Self-organizing computer models demonstrate that delightful, mindbog-
gling patterns can evolve from simple evolutionary algorithms. (That need not
mean that real-world algorithms are simple, only that they can be.) The genetic
code that is the basis of all biological evolution contains just four letters, com-
bined into words of three letters each. That code, and the rules for replicating
and rearranging it, has spewed out an unimaginable variety of creatures.
Self-organization is basically a matter of evolutionary raw material, a
stock of information from which to select possible patterns, and a means for
testing them. For biological evolution the raw material is DNA, one source
of variety is spontaneous mutation, and the testing mechanism is something
like punctuated Darwinian selection. For technology the raw material is the
body of understanding science has accumulated. The source of variety is
human creativity (whatever THAT is) and the selection mechanism is what-
ever the market will reward or whatever governments and foundations will
fund or whatever tickles the fancy of crazy inventors.
When you understand the power of self-organization, you begin to under-
stand why biologists worship biodiversity even more than economists worship
technology. The wildly varied stock of DNA, evolved and accumulated over
billions of years, is the source of evolutionary potential, just as science libraries
and labs and scientists are the source of technological potential. Allowing spe-
cies to go extinct is a systems crime, just as randomly eliminating all copies of
particular science journals, or particular kinds of scientists, would be.
The same could be said of human cultures, which are the store of beha-
vioral repertoires accumulated over not billions, but hundreds of thousands
of years. They are a stock out of which social evolution can arise.
Unfortunately, people appreciate the evolutionary potential of cultures even
less than they understand the potential of every genetic variation in ground
squirrels. I guess that’s because one aspect of almost every culture is a belief
in the utter superiority of that culture.
Any system, biological, economic, or social, that scorns experimentation
and wipes out the raw material of innovation is doomed over the long term
on this highly variable planet.
The intervention point here is obvious but unpopular. Encouraging diver-
sity means losing control. Let a thousand flowers bloom and ANYTHING
could happen!
Who wants that?

2. The Goals of the System

Right there, the push for control is an example of why the goal of a system
is even more of a leverage point than the self-organizing ability of a system.
If the goal is to bring more and more of the world under the control of
one central planning system (the empire of Genghis Khan, the world of

(continued)
4.2 An Example of Systems Practice as Juggling 75

Reading 3 (continued)
Islam, the People’s Republic of China, WalMart, Disney), then everything
further down the list, even self-organizing behavior, will be pressured or
weakened to conform to that goal.7
That’s why I can’t get into arguments about whether genetic engineering is
a good or a bad thing. Like all technologies, it depends upon who is wielding
it, with what goal. The only thing one can say is that if corporations wield it for
the purpose of generating marketable products, that is a very different goal, a
different direction for evolution than anything the planet has seen so far.
There is a hierarchy of goals in systems. Most negative feedback loops have
their own goals, to keep the bath water at the right level, to keep the room tem-
perature comfortable, to keep inventories stocked at sufficient levels. They are
small leverage points. The big leverage points are the goals of entire systems.
People within systems don’t often recognize what whole-system goal
they are serving. To make profits, most corporations would say, but that’s
just a rule, a necessary condition to stay in the game. What is the point of
the game? To grow, to increase market share, to bring the world (customers,
suppliers, regulators) more under the control of the corporation, so that its
operations become ever more shielded from uncertainty. That’s the goal of a
cancer cell too and of every living population. It’s only a bad one when it
isn’t countered by higher-level negative feedback loops with goals of keep-
ing the system in balance. The goal of keeping the market competitive has
to trump the goal of each corporation to eliminate its competitors. The goal
of keeping populations in balance and evolving has to trump the goal of
each population to commandeer all resources into its own metabolism.
I said a while back that changing the players in a system is a low-level
intervention, as long as the players fit into the same old system. The excep-
tion to that rule is at the top, if a single player can change the system’s goal.
I have watched in wonder as, only very occasionally, a new leader in an
organization, from Dartmouth College to Nazi Germany, comes in, enunci-
ates a new goal, and single-handedly changes the behavior of hundreds or
thousands or millions of perfectly rational people. That’s what Ronald
Reagan did. Not long before he came to office, a president could say, ‘Ask
not what government can do for you, ask what you can do for the govern-
ment’, and no one even laughed. Reagan said the goal is not to get the
people to help the government and not to get government to help the people,
but to get the government off our backs. One can argue, and I would, that

(continued)
7
From a second-order cybernetic perspective it could be claimed that Donella, like most people,
was at this point in her thinking not aware that Control and Goal are both human concepts grounded
in our ability to imagine and desire a particular configuration, with the goal being a description of
the condition of a system under the configuration of being subject to actions named control. It’s our
belief that we can choose to do or not do the actions that turns them into a ‘control’.
76 4 The Juggler: A Way to Understand Systems Practice

Reading 3 (continued)
larger system changes let him get away with that. But the thoroughness with
which behavior in the US and even the world has been changed since
Reagan is testimony to the high leverage of articulating, repeating, standing
for, insisting upon new system goals.

1. The Mindset or Paradigm Out of Which the System Arises

Another of Jay Forrester’s systems sayings goes: It doesn’t matter how the
tax law of a country is written. There is a shared idea in the minds of the
society about what a ‘fair’ distribution of the tax load is. Whatever the rules
say, by fair means or foul, by complications, cheating, exemptions or deduc-
tions, by constant sniping at the rules, the actual distribution of taxes will
push right up against the accepted idea of ‘fairness’.
The shared idea in the minds of society, the great unstated assumptions,
unstated because unnecessary to state; everyone knows them, constitute that
society’s deepest set of beliefs about how the world works. There is a differ-
ence between nouns and verbs. People who are paid less are worth less.
Growth is good. Nature is a stock of resources to be converted to human
purposes. Evolution stopped with the emergence of Homo sapiens. One can
‘own’ land. Those are just a few of the paradigmatic assumptions of our
culture, all of which utterly dumbfound people of other cultures.
Paradigms are the sources of systems. From them come goals, informa-
tion flows, feedbacks, stocks, flows.
The ancient Egyptians built pyramids because they believed in an after-
life. We build skyscrapers, because we believe that space in downtown cities
is enormously valuable. (Except for blighted spaces, often near the skyscra-
pers, which we believe are worthless.) Whether it was Copernicus and
Kepler showing that the earth is not the center of the universe, or Einstein
hypothesizing that matter and energy are interchangeable, or Adam Smith
postulating that the selfish actions of individual players in markets wonder-
fully accumulate to the common good.
People who manage to intervene in systems at the level of paradigm hit a
leverage point that totally transforms systems.
You could say paradigms are harder to change than anything else about a
system, and therefore this item should be lowest on the list, not the highest.
But there’s nothing physical or expensive or even slow about paradigm
change. In a single individual it can happen in a millisecond. All it takes is a
click in the mind, a new way of seeing. Of course individuals and societies
do resist challenges to their paradigm harder than they resist any other kind
of change.
So how do you change paradigms? Thomas Kuhn, who wrote the seminal
book about the great paradigm shifts of science, has a lot to say about that.
In a nutshell, you keep pointing at the anomalies and failures in the old

(continued)
4.2 An Example of Systems Practice as Juggling 77

Reading 3 (continued)
paradigm, you come yourself, loudly, with assurance, from the new one, you
insert people with the new paradigm in places of public visibility and power.
You don’t waste time with reactionaries; rather you work with active change
agents and with the vast middle ground of people who are open-minded.
Systems folks would say one way to change a paradigm is to model a
system, which takes you outside the system and forces you to see it whole.
We say that because our own paradigms have been changed that way.

0. The Power to Transcend Paradigms

Sorry, but to be truthful and complete, I have to add this kicker. The highest
leverage of all is to keep oneself unattached in the arena of paradigms, to
realize that NO paradigm is ‘true’, that even the one that sweetly shapes
one’s comfortable worldview is a tremendously limited understanding of an
immense and amazing universe.
It is to ‘get’ at a gut level the paradigm that there are paradigms, and to
see that that itself is a paradigm, and to regard that whole realization as
devastatingly funny. It is to let go into Not Knowing.

Illustration 4.1

People who cling to paradigms (just about all of us) take one look at the
spacious possibility that everything we think is guaranteed to be nonsense
and pedal rapidly in the opposite direction. Surely there is no power, no con-
trol, not even a reason for being, much less acting, in the experience that
there is no certainty in any worldview. But everyone who has managed to
entertain that idea, for a moment or for a lifetime, has found it a basis for
radical empowerment. If no paradigm is right, you can choose one that will
help achieve your purpose. If you have no idea where to get a purpose, you

(continued)
78 4 The Juggler: A Way to Understand Systems Practice

Reading 3 (continued)
can listen to the universe (or put in the name of your favorite deity here) and
do his, her, its will, which is a lot better informed than your will.
It is in the space of mastery over paradigms that people throw off addic-
tions, live in constant joy, bring down empires, get locked up or burned at
the stake or crucified or shot, and have impacts that last for millennia.
Back from the sublime to the ridiculous, from enlightenment to caveats.
There is so much that has to be said to qualify this list. It is tentative and its
order is slithery. There are exceptions to every item on it. Having the list
percolating in my subconscious for years has not transformed me into a
Superwoman. I seem to spend my time running up and down the list, trying
out leverage points wherever I can find them. The higher the leverage point,
the more the system resists changing it – that’s why societies rub out truly
enlightened beings.
I don’t think there are cheap tickets to system change. You have to work
at it, whether that means rigorously analyzing a system or rigorously casting
off paradigms. In the end, it seems that leverage has less to do with pushing
levers than it does with disciplined thinking combined with strategically,
profoundly, madly letting go.
Source: Meadows (1997).8

I like this Reading a lot. Why? Because it reveals the passion, enthusiasm and
conviction, as well as the analytical and conceptual rigour, of the author. It also,
as with previous readings, provides concepts and examples that I can build into
my own systems practice. Importantly though, the paper gives many rich insights
into Donella Meadows’ form of systems practice. Let me expand on this point by
providing responses (R), from my perspective, to the questions (Q) I posed earlier
(of course I do not expect you to have responded in the same way. Nor are there
right or wrong answers):
Q. What is the situation and its nature?
R. In a first-order sense the situation is the (then) new global trade regime,
NAFTA and GATT and the World Trade Organisation – some would claim
this was ‘the problem’ but it is clear from Donella’s own behaviour that the
nature of the situation was (and still is) contested. ‘This is a HUGE NEW
SYSTEM people are inventing!’ she said to herself. Possibly she assumed the
situation to be a complex system much as she does for ‘a corporation, an
economy, a living body, a city, an ecosystem’. More specifically however the

8
In a later publication the number of places to intervene was increased from 10 to 12. See
Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. Hartland: The Sustainability
Institute.
4.2 An Example of Systems Practice as Juggling 79

situation was Donella’s participation in a meeting where this important, but

complex matter was being discussed and where the conceptualisations and
explanations were at odds with her own: ‘I said to myself. “They haven’t the
slightest idea how it will behave,” myself said back to me. “It’s cranking the
system in the wrong direction: growth, growth at any price!! And the control
measures these nice folks are talking about, small parameter adjustments,
negative feedback loops, are PUNY!”’ It was her experiences in this meeting
that triggered the actions and reflections which she writes about in the paper.
Q. Who are the main ‘actors’ in the situation?
R. These are not made clear; we do not know how Donella came to be in the
meeting or who else was present. She does suggest a main set of actors when
she says: ‘It [NAFTA, GATT] is a system with rules designed by corporations,
run by corporations, for the benefit of corporations. Its rules exclude almost
any feedback from other sectors of society’. Clearly governments, policy
makers, etc. are involved. These are the actors that come to attention if I focus
on the situation as something independent of Donella. If I take on board the
dynamic depicted in Fig. 3.5 other actors become apparent such as (1) Jay
Forrester, of MIT, the ‘founding father’ of ‘systems dynamics’ (Ramage and
Shipp 2009), (2) the ‘systems community’ and ‘systems folks’ who do (3) systems
analysis – thus systems analysts.

Illustration 4.2

Q. What is at issue?
R. A simplistic response would be to say the design of free trade agreements
and other institutional arrangements to foster globalisation and international
trade. This is certainly at issue but it is more than this as when Donella says:
‘my systems intuition was sending off alarm bells as the new world trade sys-
tem was explained to me. It is a system with rules designed by corporations,
run by corporations, for the benefit of corporations. Its rules exclude almost
80 4 The Juggler: A Way to Understand Systems Practice

any feedback from other sectors of society. Most of its meetings are closed
to the press (no information, no feedback). It forces nations into positive
loops, competing with each other to weaken environmental and social safe-
guards in order to attract corporate investment. It’s a recipe for unleashing
“success to the successful” loops’. To me this account amounts to a common,
but often unacknowledged, phenomenon – a contestation over what constitu-
tes a valid explanation and/or design for something. It seems to me highly
possible that for Donella the underlying assumptions, concepts and explana-
tions that were dominating the discussion in the room were, in her experi-
ence, totally inadequate.
Q. What different ways of understanding and/or engaging with the situation are
described by the author?
R. In many ways this question gets to the crux of the article. The emotion needed
to jump up and explicate her intervention strategies reveal that she was emo-
tionally connected to, or engaged with, the situation (which, as I will explain
later, I view as inescapable but desirable when acknowledged and reflected
upon, though in academic circles emotion is often sublimated or censored). As
I outlined above she chooses the concept of ‘system’ or ‘complex system’ as a
means to engage with the situation intellectually, hence the title of her article
‘places to intervene in a system’; I counted 96 uses of the word ‘system’, one
use of ‘systematic’, none of ‘systemic’. Occasionally the ‘problem’ metaphor is
apparent (four mentions). If I use the ten strategies to intervene, that she out-
lines, to analyse her own intervention in the meeting (understood by me as a
complex, possibly conflictual, situation), then my sense is that she was inter-
vening at levels 0 to 2 and possibly 4 (rules). What success, if any, her inter-
vention had in this meeting is unstated but we know pretty much that the
thinking behind international trade and globalisation politics and policy has
remained the mainstream view and still persists despite the global financial col-
lapse and, for me, the validity of her arguments. Yet her example in the publi-
cation has altered the views of many readers.
In this article Donella uses and exemplifies many key systems concepts some
of which are also described in Table 2.1. She thus connects with the theoretical
and historical background of Systems in doing what she does and makes expli-
cit linkages to the systems dynamics lineage depicted in Fig. 2.3 through the
work of Jay Forrester.
Q. What does the article reveal about the author?
R. The article has been written around a key experience of the author’s: jumping
up in a room full of people and using a flip chart to explicate how her under-
standing of the situation differs from the ‘mainstream conversation’. This parti-
cular action is an excellent example of juggling the B-Ball – the author’s own
being (I will say more about this when I discuss the B-Ball in the next chapter).
Importantly for me, she acknowledges her experience within the article – it
could have been written as a rather dry and theoretical paper which was based
on ‘10 ways to intervene in a system’ but it wasn’t. This article as well as the
4.2 An Example of Systems Practice as Juggling 81

action of outlining the intervention points in front of what might have been a
hostile audience is testimony to how well the author knew her material – how
capable and immersed she was within the systems practice lineage of Systems
Dynamics. Her examples also demonstrate how her systems dynamics training
and understandings enable her to see or recognise issues, concerns, opportu-
nities of a systemic nature in many situations.
Q. Given my current understanding of the idea of juggling in relation to systems
practice what can I say about Donella Meadow’s juggling?
R. Well it sounds like it was quite a performance! As I outlined above there is
good evidence of her juggling the B-ball – her own being. Whether she chose
the best way to Engage with the situation is unclear – but it does seem that her
audience were prepared to listen and make sense of what she said. So she was
certainly using the E-ball, not least through the ten different ways of engaging
with a situation (a phrasing I prefer to ‘intervening in a system’). As is com-
mon in the systems dynamics lineage she chose to see the situation as ‘a sys-
tem’ (i.e. as depicted in Fig. 3.4). This is a choice that we can make but as I
have outlined it has implications. Her ‘performance’ as much as we can tell
seems to have been appropriately contextualised (the C-Ball) – her systems
understandings were powerfully brought into play to illuminate a complex
situation. No doubt it was dramatic – but whether effective in the longer term
is an open question which probably has little to do with the adequacy of the
ideas or explanations for the situation. It is also a matter of contextualising
where to look. There is perhaps least evidence of how Donella juggled
the M-ball in the initial situation – but her paper is testimony to effective
‘managing’ of the process of creating a readable and engaging narrative.
At this stage the juggler is my isophor, not yours, and you may experience my
answer as a ‘forced-fit’; in some ways it is. As I write I imagine a conversation
with Donella in which she might argue that her ten interventions are the balls
that she juggles in her practice. Alternatively she may have rejected the isophor
as inadequate. In asking you to engage with these questions and to use the iso-
phor as an inquiry device my main aim is to help you stand back from the
detail of this reading (usually ‘content’ or ‘results’ are the main focus) and
appreciate it as a practice dynamic, a form of performance.
Q. Faced with the same or a similar situation would I think about it similarly or
differently?
R. I think the end result of my own thinking about the situation (i.e. globalisation)
would be very similar to Donella’s. I would use or draw upon many of the
same systems concepts (e.g. self-organisation) but perhaps deploy them differ-
ently as well as using other systems concepts. My own experience of the sys-
tems dynamics lineage is not nearly as strong as Donella’s and so I would not
be able to use the thinking in the way that she did in the meeting – though in
similar circumstances I could draw on my own understandings to make similar
points. I will certainly add these ten points or variations of them to my own
systems practice repertoire. As I outline in my response to the next question
82 4 The Juggler: A Way to Understand Systems Practice

I would choose to use some of the concepts and language differently for both
practical and theoretical reasons.
Q. What does this article reveal about my own ways of thinking and acting?
R. In my response I am going to focus on the insights I have gained from this arti-
cle about my own systems thinking and explore some of the differences and
similarities with the author. In doing so I want to make it clear that I am not cri-
ticising or being critical of this article although what I write could be seen as a
critique. My differences in thinking relate to:
• The way in which ‘system’ is conflated with ‘situation’ (what I mean can be
understood by looking at Fig. 3.4) and, as a consequence
• The absence of attention to who brings forth a system by what means – in sys-
tems theoretical terms this is the issue of who participates in making boundary
judgements about what is in or outside a system of interest
• The focus on goals rather than desired outcomes or questions of purpose
• Some of the implications of certain metaphors e.g. ‘leverage points’, ‘systems
analysis’, ‘analysing a system’, ‘intervening in a system’
• Anxieties as to how misunderstandings could arise about the nature of ‘infor-
mation’ and her use of, and role for, ‘rules’.
This is not such a long list so we have much in common. If I had to highlight
some of the things I particularly like in this paper at the top of my list would be:
• The need for awareness that transcends paradigms – ‘It is to ‘get’ at a gut level
the paradigm that there are paradigms, and to see that that itself is a paradigm,
and to regard that whole realisation as devastatingly funny. It is to let go into
Not Knowing’ or the recognition that ‘there is no certainty in any worldview’
and that systems practice is concerned with ‘disciplined thinking combined
with strategically, profoundly, madly letting go’
• Excellent accounts of the nature and importance of positive and negative feed-
back processes (see also Table 2.1)
• Sound arguments for paying much more attention to creating the circumstances
for self-organisation.
The 10 intervention points are also a useful device to think about where my
own focus has been in developing and using my systems practice. My assessment
is that it has been at levels 0 to 5, though not exclusively – something you will no
doubt find reflected in this book.
In relation to my own ways of acting I find I relate readily to the sense of
frustration that led Donella to jump up in the meeting, triggered I suggest by her
experience of the failure by others to engage systemically with complex situa-
tions. My experience is that it is necessary to act in this way from time to time
to maintain one’s equilibrium but that in the main it is not the most useful form
of practice. Instead, I am now guided by the following question: How is it that I
could create the circumstances whereby others could engage with this situation
systemically? In Part III, I will discuss this under the rubric of the ‘design of
learning systems’.
4.3 Reflecting on Reflections 83

4.3 Reflecting on Reflections

Effective systems practice incorporates reflective practice, including an awareness

of how questions are framed and answered. With this in mind I would like to
draw your attention to some aspects of the questions I posed in Section 4.2.
Considered in isolation some could be seen to be about the situation Meadows
found herself in (1, 2, 3). The next set of questions (4, 5) were more to do with
Donella and her mode of engagement with the situation. So questions 1–5 illumi-
nate the dynamic depicted in Fig. 3.5 but they do so through the question-
responder’s history, or traditions of understanding and this is different to yours
and Donella’s (to which we have no direct access). Finally questions 6–8 were
more focused on you and your understandings, from a position outside, or meta as
depicted in Fig. 3.5. Your answers to questions 1–5 rely heavily on your interpre-
tive skills and thus, on the tradition of understanding from which you interpret.
Historically and as part of daily life there is a tendency to focus only on questions
and concerns associated with ‘the situation’, i.e. questions of the 1–3 type.
Important as these are they are only part of the systemic dynamic that underlies
systems practice that is captured by the juggler isophor. The practitioner with a
chosen framework of ideas (F in Fig. 3.5) is well illustrated in the Reading by the
commitment of the author to the systems dynamics lineage of seeing systems in
the world (in the sense shown in Fig. 3.4) – so this is part of her engaging with
the situation (Meadows 2008). Becoming aware of these distinctions and levels is
part of improving your own system practice.
Having provided a set of answers to the questions I posed for Reading 3,
I want to draw attention back to my primary purpose in offering readings. That is
to provide you with vicarious experiences that give insights into what is entailed
in doing systems practice – your own systems practice – through the lens of the
question: what is it that we do when we do what we do? To do this I want to
briefly return to discussing systems practice as an ‘ideal type’, as introduced
in Chapter 3. In the next four chapters (Chapters 5–8), I will further unpack the
‘juggler isophor’.
So what constitutes an Ideal Systems Practitioner? First, this person is able to
draw on their experience of different systems traditions to enact a systems
approach, or approaches, in managing ‘real world’ situations. Understandably I
will not be overly concerned here with approaches to practise other than systems
approaches and will not be making any extravagant claims that any given systems
approach is better than any other forms of practice (but I will return to the issue of
effectiveness in Part IV). I will, however, develop arguments that support four
claims. These are:
• systems practice has particular characteristics that make it qualitatively different
to other forms of practice
• An effective and aware systems practitioner can call on a greater variety of
options for doing something about complex ‘real-world’ situations than other
practitioners do
84 4 The Juggler: A Way to Understand Systems Practice

• Being able to deploy more choices when acting so as to enhance systemically

desirable and culturally feasible change has important ethical dimensions
• Our individual and collective capabilities to think and act systemically are
under-developed and this situation is a strategic vulnerability for us, as a
species, at a time when concerns are growing for our continued existence in a
co-evolutionary, climate-change world.
These are important claims. They will structure most of the argument made in
the rest of Part II through the vehicle of the juggler isophor. I am not the only one
to approach practice from this perspective or to draw on Meadows’ work as
inspiration as for example, in ‘Navigating the Eternally Unfolding Present:
Toward an Epistemology of Practice’ (Cook and Wagenaar 2012) and ‘Leverage
points for sustainability transformation’ (Abson et al. 2017). Cook and Wagenaar
(2012) make the point, important to my arguments here, that the model of practice
as applied knowledge has many shortcomings, yet it is the mainstream view.
Instead, they argue, as do I, that ‘knowledge and context can be explained in terms
of – and are evoked within – practice, and not the other way round – and that this
transpires within real worlds each of which has its own unique constraints and
affordances, histories and futures’ (p. 13). So just as a juggler performance that is
effective emerges through the embodied, enacted, operational dynamics of the
situated practitioner, so too do context and knowing emerge concurrently in a
form of co-evolutionary drift.
The paper by Abson et al. (2017) draws on Donella Meadows’ ‘places to inter-
vene in a system’ to build a typology of actions that the authors see as central to
‘sustainability transformations’. This paper is of interest to me in terms of what it
reveals and conceals when explored through the question: what do we do when
we do what we do? Like you, these authors have engaged with Meadows’ work
though not through the lens of this particular question. If you have time and inter-
est please explore what they did when they did what they did. Put another way this
question can be used as a device to reflect on reflections and to conduct a systemic
inquiry into practice.

References

Abson DJ, Fischer J, Leventon J, et al (2017) Leverage points for sustainability transformation.
Ambio 46(1):30–39
APSC (Australian Public Service Commission) (2007) Tackling wicked problems. A public
policy perspective. Australian Government/Australian Public Service Commission, Canberra
Cook N, Wagenaar H (2012) Navigating the eternally unfolding present. Toward an epistemology
of practice. Am Rev Public Adm 42:13–38
Forsythe K (1986) Cathedrals in the mind: the architecture of metaphor in understanding learn-
ing. In: Trappl R (ed) Cybernetics and Systems ‘86: Proceedings of the Eighth European
Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research, organized by the Austrian Society for
Cybernetic Studies, held at the University of Vienna, Austria, 1–4 April 1986. D. Reidel,
Dordrecht, p 285–292
References 85

Ison RL, Blackmore CP, Collins KB, Furniss P (2007) Systemic environmental decision making:
designing learning systems. Kybernetes 36(9/10):1340–1361
Leung AK, Kim S, Polman E, et al (2011) Embodied metaphors and creative “acts” [Electronic
version]. From Cornell University, ILR School site: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/
articles/486/. Accessed 29 May 2017
Meadows DH (1997) Places to intervene in a system. Whole Earth, Winter
Meadows D (1999) Leverage points: places to intervene in a system. The Sustainability Institute,
Hartland
Meadows DH (2008) Thinking in systems. A primer. Earthscan, London
Proulx J (2008) Some differences between Maturana and Varela’s theory of cognition and
constructivism. Complicity 5(1):11–26
Ramage M, Shipp K (2009) Systems thinkers. Springer, London
Chapter 5
Juggling the B-Ball: Being a Systems Practitioner

Abstract This chapter starts by offering an explanation about explanations. It then

invites the reader to consider seriously the explanations offered about (i) the nature
of explanations, (ii) the role and place of emotions, and (iii) embodied knowing.
Four aspects of being a systems practitioner are then addressed. The first is being
aware of the constraints and possibilities of the observer. The second is under-
standing understanding and knowing knowing. The third is learning, and the
fourth is being ethical. The concept of social technologies is introduced as a means
to appreciate how technology mediates, thus enhancing or constraining, the effec-
tive juggling of the B-ball; that is, how we are when we are a systems practitioner.

5.1 Accepting Different Explanations

As I write, I imagine this ball is shiny and thus acts as a mirror reflecting an image
of the juggler. The properties of the juggler as systems practitioner come under the
spotlight in this section. In choosing the word ‘being’ I am deliberately playing, meta-
phorically, with different meanings of being – one of which is, of course, ‘human
being’. Some of the features of being human include self-consciousness, language,
emotions and the capacity to reason, rationalise and reflect. Human beings also live
with a desire for explanations they find satisfying. You may have had the experience
of a child repeatedly asking why? how? and then stopping after you have given a
particular answer. The child finally finds your explanation satisfying – it makes
sense within the child’s world – and the child no longer needs to ask (Fig. 1.2).1

1
Following Maturana et al. (2008) I understand the social dynamics of explanations to be a
key aspect of being human and which begins to be learnt in early childhood. Maturana says (ibid,
p. 148) that an ‘explanation is an answer to a question about the origin of some particular experience
of the observer that is asked in such a way that it explicitly or implicitly demands an answer that
satisfies the following two conditions: (i) the answer must consist in the proposition of a mechanism
or process that, if it were allowed to operate, would give rise in the observer as a result of its opera-
tion the experience that she or he wanted to explain; (ii) the generative mechanism or process pro-
posed as an answer must be accepted as doing what it claims to do by an observer, who could be the
same person that proposes it, because it satisfies some other condition that he or she puts in his or her
listening’.

© The Open University 2017 87

Published in Association with Springer-Verlag London Limited
R. Ison, Systems Practice: How to Act, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9_5
88 5 Juggling the B-Ball: Being a Systems Practitioner

Perhaps you have experienced explanations that did not satisfy at all. If you are
aware of this occurring do you remember what it felt like? By this I mean, were you
in touch with your emotions when you became aware that a particular explanation
was satisfying or dissatisfying? By asking this question, I am saying it is legitimate
to acknowledge your emotions – they are part of living and need not be ignored.
What is often not apparent to us is that ‘calm’ is an emotion or that ‘insistence’ is an
emotion, including the ‘insistence on rationality’! We are ALWAYS in one emotion
or another! We only note the odd/extreme ones, such as fear, anger or joy as worth
comment. The fact that I raise this at all reflects deeply held convictions and commit-
ments in particular professions and academic traditions as characterised in Table 5.1.
Take for example Sir Geoffrey Vickers who became a noted systems thinker when
he chose in his retirement to try to make sense of his professional life (Vickers, 1965,
1970, 1983). He coined the term ‘appreciative system’ to describe the cycles of
decision-making about fact and value that were for him key to relationship

Table 5.1 Some contrasting features between the traditional western conception of the disembo-
died person with that of an embodied person (Lakoff and Johnson, 1999, p. 552–557)
Traditional Western conception of the The conception of an embodied person
disembodied person
The world has a unique category Our conceptual system is grounded in, neutrally
structure independent of the minds, makes use of, and is crucially shaped by our
bodies or brains of human beings perceptual and motor systems
(i.e. an objective world)
There is a universal reason that We can only form concepts through the body.
characterises the rational structure of the Therefore every understanding that we can have of
world. Both concepts and reason are the world, ourselves and others can only be framed
independent of the minds, bodies and in terms of concepts shaped by our bodies
brains of human beings
Reasoning may be performed by the Because our ideas are framed in terms of our
human brain but its structure is defined unconscious embodied conceptual systems, truth
by universal reason, independent of and knowledge depend on embodied understanding
human bodies or brains. Human reason
is therefore disembodied reason
We can have objective knowledge of the Unconscious, basic-level concepts (e.g. primary
world via the use of universal reason and metaphors) use our perceptual imaging and motor
universal concepts systems to characterise our optimal functioning in
everyday life – it is at this level at which we are in
touch with our environments
The essence of human beings, that which We have a conceptual system that is linked to our
separates us from the animals, is the evolutionary past (as a species). Conceptual
ability to use universal reason metaphors structure abstract concepts in multiple
ways, understanding is pluralistic, with a great
many mutually inconsistent structurings of abstract
concepts
Since human reason is disembodied, it is Because concepts and reason both derive from, and
separate from and independent of all make use of, the sensorimotor system, the mind is
bodily capacities: perception, bodily not separate from or independent of the body (and
movements, feelings emotions and so on thus classical faculty psychology is incorrect)
5.2 Being Aware of the Constraints and Possibilities of the Observer 89

maintaining, or breaking, in the daily flux of managing (Checkland and Casar 1986;
Vickers 1991). It is clear from his personal correspondence that Vickers found it
very difficult to let go of the rationality of his culture and time, born as he was into
late Victorian society. For him and many of his generation poetry proved to be the
one culturally acceptable outlet for non-rational and even systemic thinking. So, I
argue that an ideal systems practitioner is able to include an awareness of their emo-
tions as well as their rational ideas – in fact I would say that these are inextricably
connected.
Juggling is a particularly apt isophor (see Chapter 4) in regard to one’s being
because good practice results from centering your body and connecting to the floor.
So juggling arises from a particular embodiment. Effective juggling is thus an embo-
died way of knowing associated with our lived history as human beings.2 Lakoff and
Johnson (1999) argue that in the Western world, the most common sense of what a
person is arises from a false philosophical view, that of disembodied reason, that has
influenced almost all of the professions (Lakoff and Johnson 1999). They contrast
this with what they term an ‘embodied person’ (Table 5.1). For example, in medicine
until quite recently the brain was seen as quite distinct from the body – the mind-
body dualism – whereas the brain is only one part of a much larger cognitive system,
a network of molecular relations that we have variously isolated as if they were inde-
pendent, for example as the nervous, endocrine and immune systems (Pert 1997).
I have started this chapter by offering some explanations that are for many
outside of the mainstream. My invitation is to consider seriously the explanations
I have offered about (i) the nature of explanations, (ii) the role and place of
emotions, (iii) embodied knowing.
There is a rigorous and increasing evidence base for these explanations some of
which I will draw upon in the following sections. In the sections that follow I address
four aspects of being a systems practitioner. The first is being aware of the con-
straints and possibilities of the observer. The second is understanding understanding
and knowing. The third is learning, and the fourth is being ethical.

5.2 Being Aware of the Constraints and Possibilities of the

Observer

The essence of a systems approach is that of seeing the world in a special way –
and by ‘seeing’ I mean more than just vision. This immediately prompts the
question of what is meant by the phrase ‘seeing the world’. Because we live so
intimately with the world of objects and people and phenomena, we tend to think
our own way of seeing the world is the only way, or even of thinking, ‘Well that

2
I will say more about embodiment later in this chapter – at this stage it is worth noting that
embodiment is a term I take from theoretical and practical concerns in a number of disciplines
about embodied or embedded cognition, a position in cognitive science, for example, stating that
intelligent behaviour emerges out of the interplay between brain, body and world (See http://en.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodiment. Accessed 17 May 2017).
90 5 Juggling the B-Ball: Being a Systems Practitioner

is my view because the world is like that’. Actually, your perception and cognition
is special in several separate ways:3
1. If your vision is not impaired, you see your surroundings using only light of wave-
lengths between 380 and 780 nm. Bees, for example, see flowers using wave-
lengths much less than 380 nm. You have quite a small visual window on the
world
2. With normal hearing you hear frequencies of sound between 20 and 20,000 Hz
(Hertz). Bats use sound waves of higher frequency than 20 kHz, which we
cannot hear
3. Your ability to detect odours is vastly inferior to a dog’s. A dog’s ‘smell world’
is vastly richer than its visual world
4. Research on colour perception in the 1960s showed that colour was not some-
thing that is fixed in the world, but is a property of our own unique biology
and histories. This led one of the researchers involved to change the question
he was concerned with from ‘how do I see colour?’ to ‘what happens in me
when I say that I see such a colour?’4
5. The language you have learned steers you into categorising your world in ways
you are largely unaware of, just as a fish is unaware of the water it is immersed
in throughout its life. Sometimes it is possible to become aware of this
when speaking another language – when immersed in the other language the
experience is sometimes like being a different person5
6. Your physiological, hormonal and emotional dynamics are interrelated and
affect how you experience the world. This includes neuropeptide dynamics and
aspects of the functioning of your nervous system as these play a role in
cognition; hormonal events such as menstruation and the release of natural
endorphins during exercise are also involved
From birth, unless circumstances are extraordinary, people live in language and
a particular culture or cultures. An individual’s social or cultural history creates
constraints and possibilities to their ways of ‘seeing’ the world. For example, the
role the culture of the society in which you have developed determines what you
see as well as how you can respond in any flow of relationships. Your culture also
determines what you implicitly accept as your perceptions and emotions. So the
ways you learn to see manners, relationships and behaviours is dependent on how
people around you see and act. A consequence is that we get caught in a trajectory
and tend to articulate it ever more finely, rather than change it.
‘Institutional arrangements’ are a particular aspect of living in a culture that is
worthy of highlight because the influences are so pervasive. These are the norms

3
I am grateful to Peter Roberts for his original work on which this is based.
4
My reference to history makes it sound like colour perception is learned – and partly it is. We
learn the names of nuances of wavelengths that are relevant in our culture. But there is also ‘rela-
tivistic colour coding’ that means we see colour by ratios of stimulation of cones, not by wave-
length of light. We don’t work the same way as the instruments we invent to record colour.
5
This may often involve developing and using different muscles, i.e. differences in our body.
5.2 Being Aware of the Constraints and Possibilities of the Observer 91

and rules invented by people which we are born into and which are sometimes
modified and often added to. They operate in the family (e.g. dinner time), com-
munity (e.g. town council) and our governance (e.g. road rules, parliaments etc.).
What is particularly important is that ‘institutions’ are a backdrop to all that we do
and often we are not aware of them, particularly the forms of understanding that
have been built into them at different historical moments.
Another special subset of culture is the particular explanations we accept for
things we experience. The ‘theoretical windows’ through which we interpret and
act are always with us regardless of whether we are aware of them or not. Fig. 5.1
provides a metaphorical account of this phenomenon. The theory or explanation
you accept will determine what you see and thus the meaning you will give to
an experience. Think here of the fundamentally different cosmology, the set of
explanations for the origin and evolution of the universe, developed by the Mayan
civilisation in South America that was entirely coherent but so different to our
own Western cosmology.6 This phenomenon is sometimes described as the theory
dependency of facts.7

Fig. 5.1 A metaphorical account of the way theories (planet on telescope) determine what we
see in the world. The mischief makers represent what happens implicitly with any theory (Open
University, 2000)

6
We usually vilify other cosmologies as ‘myths’ because we know better now.
7
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science: (accessed 17 May 2017) ‘most obser-
vations are theory-laden – that is, they depend in part on an underlying theory that is used to
frame the observations. Observation involves perception as well as a cognitive process. That is,
one does not make an observation passively, but is actively involved in distinguishing the thing
being observed from surrounding sensory data. Therefore, observations depend on some underly-
ing understanding of the way in which the world functions and that understanding may influence
what is perceived, noticed or deemed worthy of consideration’. (Accessed 25 January 2009).
92 5 Juggling the B-Ball: Being a Systems Practitioner

Fig. 5.2 Individuals are

likely to perceive different
things in this image,
depending in part on their
prior experience.
© Chronicle/Alamy

The ways in which perception and cognition work raise important questions
that are relevant to practice. Take for example the image depicted in Fig. 5.2.
When you look at this Figure you may see a young woman wearing a necklace
looking away, or you may see an old woman with a big nose, looking down.
Some of you will see both, one after the other. What you perceive in relation to
this image raises two important questions:
1. What is experience? In this example some people experienced a young woman
whilst others experienced an old woman yet both looked at the same image. It
is thus possible to claim that experience arises by making a distinction – if you
are unable to distinguish a young woman then you have no experience of one!
2. Is it possible to decide on which interpretation, the young woman, the old
woman or merely the ink on the paper, is correct? In other words do we reject
those people who see only an old woman as being ‘wrong’?
The following story also illuminates what I mean by experience. The story
relates to an incident towards the end of a flight I was making from Johannesburg
to East London in the new province of the Eastern Cape, South Africa. I was
doing a consultancy just after the first multiracial elections, which was a time of
good will and enthusiasm and general optimism. As the plane taxied up the tarmac
towards the terminal, I experienced my South African colleague, in the seat next
to me, as becoming agitated and tense. I looked out the window and could not dis-
tinguish anything that might have been the cause of his distress. When I enquired,
5.2 Being Aware of the Constraints and Possibilities of the Observer 93

my colleague pointed to some seemingly innocuous cement pillars, which he

explained were the remains of gun emplacements left over from the state of
emergency in the apartheid era. Until he pointed them out I had not seem them.
Because my colleague’s history was different to mine he had seen what I could
not see, that is, his observation consisted of distinctions that I had not made.
Furthermore, my colleague’s distinctions altered his own mental, emotional and
physiological state – they altered his being.
My colleague made distinctions that I was unable to make and thus he experi-
enced something I did not. The act of making a distinction is quite basic to what it
is to be human. When we make a distinction we split the world into two parts: this
and that.8 We separate the thing distinguished from its background. We do that
when we distinguish a system from its environment as depicted in Fig. 3.3.
It is worth remembering that using the word system is actually a shorthand for
specifying a system in relation to an environment.9 In process terms, this is the
same as drawing a circle on a sheet of paper. When the circle is closed, three
different elements are brought forth at the same time: an inside, an outside and a
border (in systems terminology, a boundary).10 In daily life we have developed all
sorts of perceptual shortcuts that cause us to forget this is what we do – we live,
most of the time, with our focus on one of these three elements: the inside, the
outside, or the border. von Foerster (1984) observed that biologically we cannot
focus on both sides of a distinction at the same time. He then proposed that the
descriptions we make say more about ourselves than about the world (situations)
we are describing.
While the old woman – young woman example is now well known, the impli-
cations that flow from it are not. This simple example demonstrates that in the
moment of experience we cannot distinguish between perception and illusion and
that we do not see that we do not see (Maturana and Varela 1987). Intentional
illusions are a mocking, jesting play with our sense of perception, a role that
Fig. 5.2 and other variations of it, play well. But illusions also operate in daily
life; we become aware of this phenomenon when we think we see a friend, a
lover, a rival and experience a sudden change in our emotions at the prospect of
meeting them, only to find some moments later that we were mistaken because the

8
And at the same time we have specified a domain (a framing) in which that particular split
makes sense. This is probably much more significant than the particular split because people will
discuss the boundary, but never realise they have already accepted the domain, or they will think
they speak of the same split, but it won’t be the same if they have done it in different domains
(Bunnell 2008).
9
In systems theoretical terms the word ‘environment’, as ‘that which surrounds’, is the correct
term but it has little relation to the so-called physical environment which is now seen by many as
something independent of us – when used correctly ‘environment’ is an abstract or conceptual
notion that only arises whenever a system of interest is distinguished by someone.
10
The concept circle is also brought forth in this action – but in every day life most of us have
from an early age, as part of our tradition of understanding, the concept circle and thus when we
distinguish circles in everyday life the boundary usually disappears from view. Mainly we only
become aware of most borders when something is ambiguous.
94 5 Juggling the B-Ball: Being a Systems Practitioner

person we glimpsed turns out to be someone else. It is ironic that we pay money
to go and see illusionists, and marvel at their artistry, yet remain unaware that
illusion is also part of daily life. Perhaps we do this because acknowledging the
interplay between perception and illusion is too challenging. For systems practice
the existence of this phenomenon is challenging in a number of ways:
1. It draws attention to what is involved in the process of modelling of which
diagramming is a subset (as discussed in Reading 2). It raises the question of
whether we model some part of the world or model our mental models, that is,
our set of accepted distinctions, of some part of the world
2. It challenges the certainty of some practitioners who claim they are objective
or they are right in a way that justifies the way they practise
3. It reminds us that our perspective is always partial and a product of our
cognitive history. Thus, when forming a system of interest, the question of
‘perspective, whose perspective?’ is crucial11
4. It invites awareness of the constraints and possibilities of the observer as the
B-ball is juggled in practise
The properties and role of the observer have been largely ignored in science
and everyday culture despite Werner Heisenberg’s finding in 1927 that the act of
observing a phenomenon is an intervention that alters the phenomenon in ways
that cannot be inferred from the results of the observation. This is the essence of
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which limits the determinability of elementary
events.12 The story of how the observer came into focus is an interesting story
in the history of Systems and its associated field of cybernetics as discussed
in Chapter 2, Section 2.4 (Fell and Russell 2000/2007; Glanville 1995a, 1995b;
Mahoney 1988; von Foerster 1992).
Being aware of the constraints and possibilities of the observer enhances the
behavioural repertoire we have at our disposal. Because we are able to communi-
cate with one another, and because we live within cultures, we can take shortcuts:
it makes sense most of the time to act as if we are independent of the world
around us.13 Sometimes it also makes sense to act as if systems existed in the
world and as if we could be objective. But remember, the two small words as and
if are important in the context of our behaviour when managing our own systems
practice. These two small words always go together as in ‘we act as if’. From my
perspective it is always a shortcut when they are left out.

11
This is not BAD, it is how we and language are constituted. We manage just fine, unless we
fall into the trap of certainty. And knowing this is how we operate opens up the option for new
perspectives that better fit our situation.
12
See von Foerster (1994); people assume Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle only pertains to ele-
mentary events but a more useful framing might be to say he invented it for that, but it has far
wider application!
13
We would be so hampered in doing our daily tasks if ALL the time we had to think like this!
Reflecting alters our path, but then for a while we just want to engage. It can be thought of as an
ongoing dynamic between engaging and reflecting.
5.3 Understanding Understanding and Knowing Knowing 95

5.3 Understanding Understanding and Knowing Knowing

In my experience the second-order cybernetic explanation provided for the observer

is challenging for many people. When I attend workshops where these ideas are
expressed for the first time, some people become angry.14 It is profoundly disturbing
to have the basis for your understanding of the world challenged. It seems important
to explore these issues, however, because in my experience, it gives access to new
and practical explanations. I have already acknowledged that some explanations
may be dissatisfying but, in the end, that is all they are – just explanations. If they
are not satisfying they need not be accepted.
Relatively recent findings in cognitive science which are not widely appreciated,
challenge some widely held ‘common sense’ notions. Take information for example.
Many people assume that individuals would be better decision makers if they had
better information. However, any nervous system, including the human one, is closed
in its operation, that is, all it is is a detector of its own changing internal configura-
tions. This means that ‘information’ arises more from the history of the operations of
each person’s unique nervous system than from ‘messages’ from the environment
(this relates also to Table 5.1). Unfortunately this does not stop bureaucrats and
others wasting a lot of money on ‘information campaigns’, as in this example:
Despite a significant evidence base showing that behaviour change can rarely be achieved
by trying to drive it with information, many programmes and projects remain essentially
information driven, even where the organisations concerned have commissioned analysis
which noted that such an approach is unlikely to work. For example the UK Government
Energy Savings Trust is running a web based campaign to get individuals to pledge to cut
personal carbon by 20%, driven by a list of information on why this is a good idea, and
actions you can take (Rose et al. 2007).

It is possible to use this example to place the process of cognition in a different

light to the dominant paradigm prevailing in psychology, computer science and in
the common-sense view (Table 5.1). The prevailing paradigm has been described
as the information-processing model of the mind (Rosch 1992). Since about
1950, when the notion of ‘information’ as a driving force was introduced, the
prevailing view in cognitive science has been that the nervous system picks up
information from the environment and processes it to provide a representation of
the outside world in our brain. But we can now say instead, to paraphrase Varela
(1979), that the nervous system is closed, without inputs or outputs, and its cogni-
tive operation reflects only its own organisation. Because of this, we project our
constructed information – or our meaning – on to the environment, rather than the
other way around. This is much like Fig. 5.1, except this time the image of the

14
This phenomenon is likely to be of interest to systems educators – Bunnell (personal communi-
cation, June 2009) in response to my observation says: ‘I wonder how much that is the approach
to the explanation per se. Though I admit it takes me about 25 h of class time to build up to a
point where no one becomes “angry” though some (less than 10 percent of the class) will not
accept this in the long term. Others do take it as a fundamental shift’.
96 5 Juggling the B-Ball: Being a Systems Practitioner

planet is contained in our nervous system rather than the lens of the telescope. It
implies our interactions with the ‘real world’, including other people, can never be
deterministic, there are no unambiguous external signals.
However, it is clear from lived experience that we do not live an ‘anything
goes’ existence in which we constantly imagine the world into existence – we live
always coupled to the materiality and regularities of our world. Our interactions
consist of various non-specific triggers, which individuals understand strictly
according to their own internal structural dynamics (Fell and Russell 2000/2007).
This has profound implications for how human communication is understood – it
is not signal or information transfer but, as I discuss below, something much more
fascinating and complex.

5.3.1 Living Within a Network of Conversations

Within the line of reasoning I have been developing it has been argued that:
we human beings exist, are realised as such, in conversations. It is not that we use conver-
sations, we are a flow of conversations. It is not that language is the home of our being
but that the human being is a dynamic manner of being in language, not an entity that has
an existence independent of language, and which can then use language as an instrument
for communication (Maturana 1996).

This is a particular feature of our evolutionary trajectory along perhaps with a

few other species (e.g. whales and dolphins). In the opening to his book
‘Conversational Realities’, John Shotter provides several quotes which capture the
essence of my line of argument (Shotter 1993, p. 1):
• ‘The primary human reality is persons in conversation’ (Harré 1983, p. 58)
• ‘Conversation flows on the application and interpretation of words, and only in
its course do words have their meaning’ (Wittgenstein 1981, p. 135)
• ‘Conversation understood widely enough, is the form of human transactions in
general’ (MacIntyre 1981, p. 197)
• ‘If we see knowing not as having an essence, to be described by scientists or
philosophers, but rather as a right, by current standards, to believe, then we are
well on the way to seeing conversation as the ultimate context within which
knowledge is to be understood’ (Rorty 1980, p. 389)15
These explanations are a long way from the ‘mainstream’ understanding in our
society about the nature of language, and thus human communication and action.
But much insightful research has been ignored or become ‘unfashionable’. The
extensive studies by Benjamin Whorf on these matters in the 1920s and 1930s led
him to conclude ‘that the structure of a human being’s language influences the

15
By including this quote I want to make it clear that I am not interpreting it as ‘my right to
believe whatever I like and declare that as knowledge’ but because it offers a perspective that dif-
fers widely from the mainstream understanding of what most scientists do when they claim scien-
tific knowledge.
5.3 Understanding Understanding and Knowing Knowing 97

manner in which he [sic] understands reality and behaviour in respect to it’ (Carroll
1959, p. 23).
For example, when the word nature is used in modern Western discourse it is
often used in such a way that leads us to live as if we human beings are outside
nature. The concept ‘nature’ thus structures who we are and what we do. In some
indigenous, non-western languages the term or concept does not exist. John
Shotter uses another example, that of the words ‘I love you’ to explore how lan-
guage operates (Shotter 1993, p. 3). He discusses the circumstances that might
give rise to someone saying these words and the implications they carry with their
saying. Once uttered these words change irrevocably the whole character of the
future relational dynamics between two people and in the process they change the
being of those in the conversation: ‘so the world of those in love is different from
those who are not – in other words, they are different in their ways of being’.
I am tempted to conclude that human beings are yet to understand the implica-
tions of living in language or, put another way, have failed to see how language
can act as a social technology that mediates our understandings and practices and
thus our relationship with the biophysical world.16 Collectively we have failed to
realise that we do not use language but that language uses us in ways we are
yet to appreciate and master.17 By ‘using us’ I mean in the sense that one dance
partner may ‘use’ another. Obviously, this view has implications for juggling the
‘B-ball’ and thus for the nature of systems practice.
Appreciating how living in language works, and why diversity and difference
in manners of living in language are important, has major implications for how
we, as a species, adapt with changing climate. Evans (2009), a linguist at the
Australian National University who studies Australian Aboriginal languages,
makes the point that:
‘Say a community goes over from speaking a traditional Aboriginal language to speaking
Creole.18 Well let’s just use talking about the natural world as an example. You leave
behind a language where there’s very fine vocabulary for the landscape. Inside the lan-
guage there’s a whole manual for maintaining the integrity of the landscape, for managing
it, for using it, for looking for stuff. All that is gone in a creole’. Unfortunately the scale
of this issue is poorly appreciated – there are 6–7000 languages that remain in use around
the world and at least 40 percent of these will probably by mid-century be replaced by a
few meta-languages – English, Spanish, Mandarin (Evans 2009; Monaghan 2009).

In the sense that I use it conversation can be literally understood, following its
Latin roots, as con versare, meaning to turn together (Russell and Ison 2007). Our
living in language is both an evolutionary and embodied phenomenon that is inti-
mately connected to the dynamics in our emotions or, as Maturana describes it,
our emotioning.

16
I return to the issue of social technologies in Section 5.5.
17
The evidence for this set of claims can be found in the early work of Benjamin Whorf who
found, for example, that ‘the strange grammar of Hopi gives rise to different modes of perceiving
and conceiving’ (see Carroll 1959, p. 17).
18
Creole in this context means a blend or hybrid of English and the speaker’s original language.
98 5 Juggling the B-Ball: Being a Systems Practitioner

5.3.2 Thinking and Acting Based on Our Tradition of

Understanding

Understanding does not depend on information or, put another way, information
does not generate understanding.19 The notion that we exist in language and co-
construct meaning in human communication, much as dancers co-construct the
tango or samba on the dance floor, suggests the need to consider on what basis
we might accept that understanding has occurred? Asking this question is like
opening a Pandora’s box. It raises all sorts of questions that we take for granted,
like: What is learning? What is understanding? How do we know what we know?
In Fig. 5.3 I depict some of the dynamics that come into play when we do what
we do. The figure depicts a person (a living being) over time; as unique human
beings we are each part of a lineage and our individual history is a product of both
ontogeny, which refers to the biological growth and development of the individual

Fig. 5.3 A conceptual model of a practitioner who brings forth their tradition of understanding
as they lay down the path of their walking (doing). All humans have a personal history within a
wider cultural and biological history. A systems practitioner, for example, will from some
moment have a history of thinking, acting or understanding systemically20

19
But what is ‘information’? Is there such a thing at all? I claim it is not a thing, but an arising
within – from the Latin roots in formare; for example, following Bateson, famous for the phrase
‘the difference that makes a difference’, information could be said to arise when someone distin-
guishes a difference in two domains. In this context information is an explanatory principle.
20
Finding an image to depict the concepts that I consider important has been a challenge – this
figure owes much to a Michael Leunig cartoon for inspiration.
5.3 Understanding Understanding and Knowing Knowing 99

organism, and our phylogeny, which refers to biological and socio-cultural devel-
opment, that is our evolution. Thus an individual at any moment is result of both
their own life and the history of their culture: living in language, relationships,
emotional dynamics etc. Together the ontogeny and phylogeny (that is, both the
individual’s biological and cultural development) form what I will call a tradition.
A tradition is those aspects of our past that create an individual’s history, it is the
history of an individual’s being in the world.
Traditions are important because our models of understanding grow out of tra-
ditions; traditions are thus not only ways to see and act in the world but operation-
ally traditions also conceal that aspect of human cultural and biological history
that has not been part of our own experience (Russell and Ison 2000, 2007).
As I explain further what I mean by a tradition of understanding it might be
useful to look at Figs. 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 together, as a set. What is important to
grasp is that when I speak of ‘tradition of understanding’ I am not using it as a
label for something that existed in the past. Instead, as depicted in Fig. 5.3, it
arises in our living and becomes the path on which our living, our doing, unfolds.
This path never has exactly the same features as we learn, change etc. And whilst
I have sited the origin of this path from the head, as I have said it is an embodied
phenomenon, not just a product of a disembodied mind!
Figure 5.4 looks at the dynamics I am concerned with from a different perspec-
tive. In Fig. 5.4a the practitioner lives with changing understandings of situations
over time – as we age and society changes around us. This comes about through
accepting and rejecting explanations, being exposed to new experiences etc. We
may be more or less aware of how we have engaged with situations Engaging in
the past – perhaps with more certainty or different convictions than when we were
younger (Fig. 5.4b). Through reflection on our past engagement, we might claim
that our understandings have changed. This reflection often leads us to realise that
even our current understanding may change, that our future self may look back on
the present moment and see that which we do now as somewhat limited or imma-
ture. Thus we may be willing to accept that no understanding is final, or inherently
right, understanding always evolves.
With growing awareness we may also appreciate that when we engage with situa-
tions from our current understanding(s) – it need not be just one understanding – we
are inherently making connections (engaging) with a ‘real-world’ situation through
the act of making a distinction – selecting a situation from a more or less knowable
broader context (Fig. 5.4c).21 Based on the distinctions made in the situation, the
practitioner can probe, or construct, the history of a situation thus becoming aware
of how social technologies have reified understandings at earlier historical moments

21
As I have outlined ‘making a distinction’ is the basis of new experience but over time the act of
making a distinction falls into the background as we discern a situation according to an accepted
distinction. For example, if we have already distinguished ‘chair’ we can sit on it, pick it up, invite
someone else to sit in it … without having to distinguish it as a chair each time! The reason distinc-
tions are so important is that once made they are taken for granted. This makes operational sense
but when we are not aware that this is what we do we can end up in traps of our own making.
100 5 Juggling the B-Ball: Being a Systems Practitioner

Fig. 5.4 Changing stages of awareness in practice (a is at top, d at bottom). (a) How understand-
ings of situations change over time associated with our personal history. (b) A reflexive turn –
appreciating how our current understandings differ, yet arise from past understandings of
situations. (c) Awareness that our focus of attention – the situation is always part of a broader
context, which includes (d) how understandings that are suitable can be incorporated into a
method which over time is reified becoming a social technology or institution in the present
which constrains how we think and act because it is no longer suited to the situation
5.3 Understanding Understanding and Knowing Knowing 101

(Fig. 5.4d). Thus we have an opportunity to not only reflect on how our tradition of
understanding has developed throughout our life, but also how the cultural context
that colours or situates our understanding has changed over time.
As I have outlined earlier if those in the social dynamic, including the practi-
tioner themselves, bring forth systems understandings in what they do, then we
could claim that this particular practitioner is a systems practitioner.
Figures 5.3–5.5 are elaborations of the dynamics at play depicted in earlier
Figures, especially Figs. 3.3 and 3.5. The main new elements in the figures are
that of history – our own history – and that of the process of constructing histories
and thus understandings of situations.22 Underpinning each figure is an apprecia-
tion that any living system only lives in an ever unfolding present as if we existed
on an ever rolling wave (Fig. 5.5). From this understanding the ‘past’ and the
‘future’ are merely different ways of living in the present.
Figures 5.3–5.5 establish a basis for the processes of being and engaging – two
of the balls being juggled. To reiterate, I use the word ‘tradition’ in a specific way
to mean an individual’s history of making distinctions as part of their living. It
thus follows that a tradition is not ‘some thing’ but what is enacted or brought
forth as we live our traditions of understandings (Fig. 5.3). Another way of
describing a tradition is as our experiential history because experiences arise in the
act of making a distinction in relation to ourselves. To experience in the way that I
mean requires language – if we did not live in language we would simply exist in
a continuous present not ‘having experiences’. Because of language we are able to
reflect on what is happening or in other words we create an object of what is
happening and name it ‘experience’.
Let me try to exemplify what I mean in Figs. 5.3–5.5 by considering the main
fictional character Smilla, in Peter Høeg’s novel ‘Miss Smilla’s Feeling for Snow’

On the wavefront
of the present

Fig. 5.5 Our being is like living on an ever rolling wave – we are always in the present

22
As outlined earlier, for simplicity these figures don’t show a key human dynamic, namely our
conversations with other people, which of course greatly influence how our understanding devel-
ops, how we ‘learn’. The ‘real world’ situation too is an abstraction – we are never apart from or
independent of such situations.
102 5 Juggling the B-Ball: Being a Systems Practitioner

(Høeg 1994). Smilla was born and spent her early years in Greenland. Her mother
was an Inuit and an expert hunter. Being half Danish, Smilla subsequently pursued
a Western education that built on her earlier experiences. She became an expert in
the qualities of ice and snow. It was her understanding of the many different quali-
ties of ice and snow that enabled her to solve the murder of an Inuit child around
which the story is built. Her understanding also enabled her to survive in the snow
and icy water when pursued by the murderers.
As an author, Høeg has grounded the distinctions Smilla is able to make about
snow and ice in the history and culture of the Inuit people. Inuit culture is set
against the background of continuous snow and ice; survival depends on being
able to ‘read’ the snow and ice in detail. This detail can reveal, for example, how
long ago the wolf left its footprints and whether the ice will support the weight of
a dog team. The distinctions the Inuit make assume their importance because of
the actions they allow. They arise as embodied ways of knowing and acting in
which knowledge is not separate from action. The distinctions Smilla, or other
Inuit make, are not distinctions I could make except that, having read the book, I
could claim to know a little about some of the different categories of ice and
snow. But would I, in similar circumstances, be able to escape from the murderers
and solve the case based on what I claim to know? The answer is no, because the
distinctions Smilla makes are invisible to me in my living. They are not part of
my growing up and thus not something I could bring forth, my tradition of under-
standing, in my living. That would remain the case until such times as the distinc-
tions about snow and ice quality and colour became embodied through my
actions: for example running on snow until I became competent to do so without
falling or working with snow and thus learning to make the distinctions about
what kind of snow can be built into a shelter.
From this example, the only connection I can make with my own history is that
of the act of ‘making categories’. This is because I have learnt the process of mak-
ing categories and if I came to understand the different types of snow I could
probably develop a set of categories. In contrast to Smilla, this is a rather poverty-
stricken form of knowing about snow!

Illustration 5.1
5.3 Understanding Understanding and Knowing Knowing 103

A systems practitioner always engages with a ‘real world’ situation by making

distinctions which are grounded in his or her personal history of making distinc-
tions. Based on the distinctions he or she makes, the practitioner can probe the his-
tory of the situation, much like an archaeologist, historian or anthropologist, to
reveal those dynamics which pertain to the distinctions he or she has made. It is
possible to connect with a particular history whenever we make sense of a distinc-
tion in relation to its particular historical context. For example, if you look at
Fig. 5.6 and you are British then you are likely to have little difficulty making
sense of the distinction ‘British dinosaur’ in relation to a history of symbolising
British culture through the image of a bulldog and the union flag. But if you are
not British this history is unlikely to be part of your ‘being’.23
So, after reading Peter Høeg’s novel I could claim to know about the different
categories of snow by listing or categorising them. Perhaps after visiting
Greenland with an Inuit guide I could claim to know the kinds of snow if I could
distinguish them in snow. To claim to understand snow would require me to be
able to explain how, when and where different kinds are formed or found, and
what implications they have for various activities, my own and other animals. In
all cases the categories or distinctions would need to be grounded within the his-
torical context, including ways of acting, of the Inuit, much as I have tried to do
above. However I would need to do much more to embody these distinctions in
my practices in the snow, that is, to know, or practise in, snow (as distinct from
knowing only categories). To know snow I would need to be able to claim,
through evidence of effective action, that I had brought forth my distinctions, i.e.
they emerged as part of my own tradition of understandings. A test would be that
under similar circumstances to Smilla my behaviour had similar results.

Fig. 5.6 A British dinosaur: making a connection with an example of a particular history of
symbolic representation (Source: The Open University)

23
To explain a little further for those who are not British – prominent British leaders such as
Winston Churchill often had or were photographed with a ‘British bulldog’ – a breed developed
in Britain. This breed came to symbolise a form of British nationalism – if you were British – or
a form of oppression if you were subject to British imperial rule. The Union flag itself is a flag
generated as part of nation building from the flags of constituent UK nations – England,
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
104 5 Juggling the B-Ball: Being a Systems Practitioner

My explanation of knowing (or practising) and understanding in the Smilla

example exemplifies how I interpret the two axes depicted in Fig. 1.3. The process
of transforming a situation involves both individual and collective shifts in under-
standings and practices (knowing) which arise, through conversation, in joint
action. Wenger (1998) refers to this as a shared repertoire which is important
when groups need to cooperate. How learning is understood, either individually or
socially (as in groups), is key to effective action.

5.3.3 Learning and Effective Action

I claim that learning is concerned with the processes leading to effective action in
a particular domain. Learning is distinguished when an individual, or another
observer, recognises that they can perform what they were unable to perform
before. Following Reyes and Zarama (1998), I claim learning is an assessment
made by an observer based on a change in an observed capacity for action. From
this perspective, learning is not about ideas stored in our mind, but about action,
action which is always set in a social dynamic. So what makes an action effective?
Reyes and Zarama (1998) make the following claims:
Assessments change through history…. A major blindness we often observe in people is
the almost exclusive attention they pay to learning particular skills as a way to become
effective and successful in the future. However, they do not pay much attention to the fact
that the standards to assess effectiveness in the future may be very different from the ones
used today…. Actions by themselves never generate effectiveness. Only actions that com-
ply with existing social standards can produce it…. A good example … is the importance
granted today to ecological concerns. Based on historical changes in standards of effec-
tiveness, procedures that were considered extremely effective in the past are now dis-
carded because they do not meet ecological standards.

Within this logic ‘effectiveness’ is associated with the process of conserving

(or enacting) over time viable behavioural repertoires. This historical pattern of
changes in what constitutes effectiveness is made in our social communications –
it can be referred to as discourses in the social sciences. Making judgements about
effectiveness is something we do every day when we say, ‘He is a good footballer’
or ‘She is a good manager’. Implicit in these statements are some measures of per-
formance against which effectiveness was judged. An example might be that of a
father whose standards of effectiveness are different to his daughter’s when, after
listening to a CD, he says, ‘She is a good singer’ and she goes ‘What?’!
To be highly competent in practice, any practice, requires that the learning be
embodied – incorporated in the body itself (see Table 5.1). This is clear if we
watch an Olympic hurdler or any other consummate athlete or performer or a very
good teacher articulate a difficult concept or deliver a stimulating lecture. Every
learning involves an alteration of the learner’s body to perform the newly-learned
actions. This takes time, many, many repetitions of the action each one becoming
smoother and smoother as the elements of the action are coordinated as one con-
tinuous and elegant action. This of course is what we mean when we say the
5.4 Being Ethical 105

athlete or performer is ‘practicing’. The same is true for things that we do in other
ways. To be effective in performing mental arithmetic, the person has to do that
over and over again, that is practise. Thus, to be effective, one must practise what-
ever the activity, and the practice ‘embodies’ the action.
For example, I have an aspiration to embody a wider repertoire of systems prac-
tices and the only way I can do that is engage in them. I think I have a long way to
go, but I have also experienced systems practitioners who meet many of the criteria
of the ‘ideal’ model that I am developing. Of course it is not feasible for one person
to embody all the myriad different skills that people might embody; each one takes
a substantive amount of practice. The same is true for the range of possible forms of
systems practice. It is certainly unlikely that one person might embody all the differ-
ent practices associated with the different systems lineages depicted in Fig. 2.3,
even though they may understand the concepts associated with most of them.
I have claimed that central to juggling the B-ball is how we know about our
knowing (which is the subject of epistemology) and that, following Maturana
(1988), all knowing is doing. This suggests a recursive relationship between being
and doing just as there is a recursive relationship between theory and practice,
though it is better expressed as theorising and practicing.24 The same applies also
for ethics and epistemology. All have implications for the relationship between
being and doing, which I will return to in Chapter 13. But now I want to turn to
ethics which is the next element of the B-ball that I want to consider.

5.4 Being Ethical

Heinz von Foerster (1992), citing philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, claimed that
‘ethics cannot be articulated’. Further, ‘it is clear that ethics has nothing to do with
punishment and reward in the usual sense of the terms’. Nevertheless, he contends,
there are desirable and undesirable conditions inherent in any action and in the
consequences of the action. These conditions, he argues, must reside in the action
not in some form or code abstracted from action. As outlined in Chapter 2, von
Foerster went on to consider the epistemological choice we all must make in terms
of the following questions:
• Am I apart from the universe? Whenever I look, am I looking as through a
peephole upon an unfolding universe?
• Am I part of the universe? Whenever I act, am I changing myself and the
universe as well?

24
Maturana argues that ‘we always justify our lack of care with some ad-hoc theory that negates
love blinding us to the fact that love is the fundamental sensory, operational and relational condition
of the harmony of the ecological ambiance in which a living being can exist, and constitutes the
operational relational matrix that makes possible our human living’ (Maturana et al. 2016). In other
words theory can constrain our openness to the other, including situations of our practice. For this
reason taking a grounded theory approach in research practice seeks to create a manner of practice
in which an attitude of openness to the phenomena distinguishable in a situation is adopted.
106 5 Juggling the B-Ball: Being a Systems Practitioner

He then went on to say:

Whenever I reflect on these two alternatives, I am surprised again and again by the depth of
the abyss that separates the two fundamentally different worlds that can be created by such a
choice. Either to see myself as a citizen of an independent universe, whose regularities, rules
and customs I may eventually discover, or to see myself as the participant in a conspiracy [in
the sense of collective action], whose customs, rules and regulations we are now inventing.

The ethical way forward, von Foerster argues, is to always try to act to increase
the number of choices available. By this he seeks in his own practices to act in
ways that do not limit the activities of other people: ‘Because the more freedom
one has, the more choices one has, and the better chance that people will take
responsibility for their own actions. Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.’
(von Foerster and Poerkson 2002, p. 37)25
One of the examples of how von Foerster’s concept of choice, and thus ethics,
operates, that I find illuminating was related to me by Humberto Maturana (1996).
He spoke of how, when his young grandson accidently fell in a swimming pool, he
naturally reacted very quickly, but open to the circumstances realised that his grand-
son was capable of ‘saving himself’. Another person less open to the circumstances
may have immediately rescued the boy, and thus deprived him of choice and thus
responsibility. The choice for the grandson in this context came through an
enhanced behavioural repertoire, and thus more embodied options for the future,
i.e. enhanced capacity for the recursive operation of responsibility with response-
ability. Thus Maturana’s ethical action took into account more than just safety and
he considered the consequences of his behaviour on the future wellbeing of the
child. One of the reasons ethical behaviour cannot be specifically prescribed is that
the extent of implications is always dependent on the immediate situation.
This same awareness of a set of wider implications underpins my own experi-
ence of re-conceptualising my role as an academic from ‘teacher’ to ‘facilitator of
learning’. All too often the former leads to practices which take responsibility
away from the learner; in my experience the best learning occurs when a learner is
able to take responsibility for their own learning and the facilitator works to create
the circumstances in which the learner can be response-able. In this model the
facilitator knows they have succeeded when the students is able to take responsi-
bility for what they have done i.e., the circumstances for response-ability have
been created. This applies equally to this book and your own developing systems

25
By choice von Foerster means enhancing the opportunity to consider the implications of acting
one way or another. This does not happen if one is given rules. Rules preclude consideration of
alternatives because the action is specified. Treated superficially the concepts espoused by von
Foerster can be easily misunderstood, as seems to have been the case with the UK Labour
Government who, when Tony Blair was PM, made much of ‘increased choice’, as in say the opera-
tion of the National Health Service. Simplistically they seem to have reduced the concept of choice
to the provision of options in contexts that did not matter to patients – the choices that were offered
were not choices that mattered to those who used the health service, i.e. the choices were not
grounded in the circumstances of patient’s own lives. As Seddon observes (Seddon 2008, p. 15)
‘to say people have choice when they are in no position to make one is disingenuous’.
5.4 Being Ethical 107

practice. It is one thing for me to try to create a context, through the auspices of
this book, for you to begin to take responsibility for developing your systems
practice. But it is another for me to imagine the myriad of contexts within which a
reader might be situated. None-the-less the responsibility/response-ability ethic
only becomes meaningful if, in understanding systems practice, I conceptualise it
always as a systems practitioner in context relationship.26
For systems practice to flourish contexts in which a practitioner is response-
able need to be created. In Part III (Chapter 9) I identify four contextual factors
that undermine the emergence of responsible systems practice.
Von Foerster’s questions are highly relevant to the ethics of systems practice.
Ethics within systemic practice27 can be seen as operating on multiple levels. Like
the systems concept of hierarchy (Table 2.1), what each of us perceives to be
good at one level might be bad at another – and we may be unaware that the level
we are operating at is different to other stakeholders in the situation (typically con-
fusion over what, why, how). Because an epistemological position (e.g. a choice
about how we understand situations) is available to be chosen, rather than taken as
a given, the choice involves taking responsibility.28 The choices made have ethical
implications; my aim here is to expand the awareness of choice.
Within traditional, mainstream, practice ethics and values are generally not
addressed as a central theme. If there is no awareness, those who follow the main-
stream view are not integrated into the change process because the practitioner or
researcher takes an objective stance that excludes ethical considerations. But recourse
to objectivity can be a means of avoiding responsibility (see also Maturana 1988).
Moral codes are also inadequate; they either have implicit in them an objective ‘right’
view of the world or, if first generated by a thoughtful leader as a guideline, they
become institutionalised to support a power structure of enforcers or other moralists.
A practical tool for acting ethically is to be aware of the language used in a
conversation. For example, by turning away from statements that begin with ‘That
is the way it is!’ A claim such as this, which involves entering a conversation con-
vinced you are right or that your perspective is the only valid one, limits the
choices available to those who wish to pursue a conversation. A reframing to ‘In
my experience I find …’ offers more choices and, through the introduction of the
word ‘I’, it involves taking responsibility as long as in the saying it is experienced

26
In 2017 the UK faced the prospect of leaving the European Union (known as Brexit) based on the
result of a referendum in which less than 35 percent of those who could have voted, voted and
which was won by a small margin (about 4–5 percent) by those wishing to leave. Much has been,
and will continue to be, written and said about this event but few have cast it in terms of the respon-
sibility ↔ response-ability dynamic. The referendum, a particular institutional device rarely used,
gave for the first time in many years a means for many citizens to be response-able in the face of
their frustration, alienation etc. The form of the referendum (also a social technology) was clearly
different to that of voting in an election, though this was not apparent to those in politics at the time.
27
The distinction between systemic and systematic practice was addressed in Chapter 2; I also
return to these distinctions at the end of Part II.
28
This applies only if we don’t remain in the default position of thinking there is no other.
Usually people do not choose their position, they don’t even know they have one!
108 5 Juggling the B-Ball: Being a Systems Practitioner

as authentic by those who listen. Of course this does not mean that in the unfold-
ing conversational dynamic you have to agree with the perspective of others on
offer! Nevertheless, progress in human affairs generally involves some form of
agreement which I understand as achieving accommodations29 between those with
different perspectives, rather than a consensus (see also Chapter 11).
Another example from practice of attempting to be ethical is shown in Box 5.1.
This example comes from work conducted by members of the Applied Systems
Thinking in Practice (ASTiP) Group30 with the English and Welsh Environment
Agency.

Box 5.1 An example of a statement of ethics31

Background
This is not a code of ethics. It is a statement of how we intend to work
together in undertaking a collaborative research project. It is thus about our
ambitions concerning joint practice, our ways of relating and conversing.
There are important distinctions to be made about the connection between
research and ethical practice (Helme 2002). For example, a distinction can be
made between ‘fixed rule language games’ like the judicial system, and ‘emer-
gent rule language games’ (Wittgenstein 1999, p. 1107), as in contract law.
We consider, for the purpose of this research, ethics in research to be an emer-
gent language game, that is, rather than being captured in pre-specified codes,
ethics arise in lived experience. The meaning of what counts as ethical for that
conversation is brought forth in the conversation and in the practices that
emerge from these encounters (e.g. in writing documents, papers, reporting on
what has happened). Thus ‘it is working on developing a Code [of Conduct]
that foregrounds ethical issues rather than the code itself’ (Helme 2002). From
this perspective our project will not predefine what our Ethics are but will carry
this as an ongoing conversation throughout our joint activity. It will not how-
ever be implicit – we will always come back to it in our joint engagements.
The mutuality of conversations is also recognised by Clandinin and
Connelly (1998) who claim that the conversational form in qualitative
research is marked by:
• Equality among participants
• Flexibility to allow participants to establish the form and topics important
to their inquiry

(continued)

29
The action of adjusting or adapting to enable purposeful action amongst those with different
understandings and interests.
30
Based at The Open University, UK – see http://www9.open.ac.uk/mct-ei/research/applied-sys-
tems-thinking-practice Accessed 21 May, 2017.
31
Agreed between The Open University (Open Systems Research Group – incorporating the
SLIM-UK Project), the Environment Agency (EA) funded project ‘WFD (Water Framework
Directive) and River Basin Planning Project – Social Learning’.
5.5 Constraints and Possibilities Associated with Our ‘Being’ 109

Box 5.1 An example of a statement of ethics (continued)

• Listening
• Probing in a situation of mutual trust, and caring for the experiences
described by the other
We agree with this as a starting point in our on-going activities.

An Ethical Agenda
The agenda below is an invitation for us to talk about these matters, not a
set of imperatives:
• We will be open with each other about our mutual expectations
• We will commit to reflective practice
• We acknowledge that certain contractual obligations will need to be codi-
fied and we will work to ensure that these keep open, as much as possi-
ble, the space for our ethical conversation
• We will discuss and agree practices relating to writing-up, reporting and
presenting about our joint activities and we will be clear with each other
about matters of confidentiality and anonymity
• In our practices we will acknowledge the work of others and invite others
with whom we work to accept the same practice

An implication of the ‘contract’ reported in Box 5.1 is that ethics stands on our
emotions as they arise in our living. Ethics do not stand on rationality. An ethical
conversation arises in the awareness and care that what is being discussed has con-
sequences for others.

5.5 Constraints and Possibilities Associated with Our ‘Being’32

5.5.1 Technology as Mediator of Our Being

It seems to me that as human beings no matter how hard we try, we seem always
to be caught up in some form of historical ‘framing’ that presents constraints and
possibilities to what we can do. The most basic and pervasive of these is language
which, as I indicated earlier, I will call a ‘social technology’. Ever since huma-
noids began to use tools, much as a chimp can use a stick to extract ants from a

32
My phrasing here is inspired by the work of Ceruti (1994, p. 117) who said the contemporary
evolutionary sciences do not just emphasise the notions of possibility and constraint as key
notions in the explanation of evolutionary phenomena. They show the existence of a natural
history of possibilities and constraints, of a history of reciprocal co-production of possibility and
constraints. This ‘decisive change consists in placing at the foundation of the evolutionary
sciences the notion of constraint and not the notion of cause’.
110 5 Juggling the B-Ball: Being a Systems Practitioner

Fig. 5.7 A metaphor for the technological framings of our existence from which it is sometimes
difficult to escape

nest, our being began to be mediated by technologies. Technologies are thus

ubiquitous – they provide a pervasive background to our development and
on-going daily life. They are not part of us – but neither are they separate from us.
Technologies mediate who we are and what we do by shifting the constraints and
possibilities for what we can do and since we know according to how we do, they
also change our conception of the world.33
Figure 5.7 is a metaphor for what I mean. Technologies are so pervasive and so
frequently in the background yet so influential on our lives that it is as if we are
living within a large ball. This ‘ball’enables most of our actions most of the time
but at particular times – say if trying to go over rough ground or up or down a
hill – can prove particularly difficult, even dangerous (as in significant technologi-
cal failure or breakdown). But it is only at these moments that we begin to notice
that we are in the ball, a sort of technological cocoon, because for the rest of the
time we are like goldfish, oblivious to the water in which we exist.
As humans spread across the Earth they took with them fire and other technolo-
gies which remain with us in various forms today. Fire created warmth, enabled
cooking and could be used to manage the landscape. If one travels it is possible to
see many variants of technological lineages such as those for heating or cooling.
Thus in many tropical or humid areas (e.g. Florida) humans have expanded their
presence through the development of air-conditioning based on relatively cheap
fossil fuel energy. This, in the case of Florida, has enabled an expansion of the
number of older people who can live in what would have been, without air condi-
tioning, an inhospitable environment. Climate change, through systemic effects
associated with factors such as rising energy costs, technology failures associated

33
As in something between, connected but not directly.
5.5 Constraints and Possibilities Associated with Our ‘Being’ 111

with increasing temperatures and increased hurricane frequency may challenge the
ongoing viability of the forms of human activity that have evolved in Florida. In
future people may no longer be able to live as they have due to breakdown of the
people-technology relationship.
Air conditioning is likely to be widely understood as a form of technology.
However, most people are unlikely to think of ‘language’ and ‘road rules’ under
the same label. For this reason I use the term social technologies and argue (in the
next section) that it makes sense to understand language and other rules, norms
etc. within an intellectual framing informed by the studies of the history and philo-
sophy of technology as well as that of new institutional economics (North 1990;
SLIM 2004). My purpose is to draw attention to (i) the relational nature of tech-
nology; (ii) how understandings become embedded in technologies at particular
historical moments and can remain embedded, and thus ‘out of sight, out of
mind’, even though the historical understandings may no longer be accepted or
useful; (iii) how our own being is a product of these dynamics. My ambition is to
make these dynamics and their implications more transparent as we go about
doing what we do!

5.5.2 The Role of Social Technologies

By social technologies I mean technologies that are often invisible because they
are embedded in daily practices, including our language and use of numbers. As
outlined in Part 1 (Chapter 1) an example based on numbers is the practice of giving
scores as exam marks – this was ‘invented’ in the late eighteenth century but today
it seems unthinkable that we would not quantify scores for exams. A good exam-
ple in my work at The Open University (UK) and in other settings is the use of
‘an agenda’ and ‘minutes’ as part of regular meetings. At some historical moment
someone invented these practices and they have been conserved as practices over
time even though on some occasions our meetings might be more productive and
creative if we did not employ an agenda and minutes. Because I am aware of the
ways in which an agenda and minute taking can help or hinder a meeting I some-
times use other techniques to structure a meeting e.g. a SWOT (Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis can be used as an alternative – it
structures discussion and leaves behind a written record.
Social technologies are distinct from artefacts such as an air conditioner, ham-
mer or a computer considered in isolation, which is what we usually think about
when technology is mentioned. They are characterised by a set of relationships in
which the technology plays a mediating role just as the hammer does in Fig. 5.8.
Examples of social technologies include ‘cost-benefit analysis’, ‘white papers’,
‘public inquiries’, ‘carbon emission schemes’, ‘environmental management
schemes’, ‘regulatory impact assessment’ … the list is seemingly endless. There
are many more examples which are less obvious such as the format of committee
meetings, protocols for ministerial decision-making, templates for public
112 5 Juggling the B-Ball: Being a Systems Practitioner

hammered

hammer

hammerer

Fig. 5.8 When researchers and others talk about the need for new tools (e.g. a hammer) they
usually fail to recognise that the situation of concern, and thus what they desire, is a relational
dynamic between people (a hammerer), a tool, a practice (hammering) and a situation (frustration
with a computer?). The dynamic also produces something we can describe as a result or an
effect, i.e. something is hammered!

consultation, procedures for hiring consultants, etc. Fig. 5.9 depicts just some of
the social technologies that can be seen to be involved in an ‘Israeli water manage-
ment system’. It also refers to ‘desalination plants’ and the like, which I will call
artifactual or engineered technologies.34 This systems map was developed as part
of a multi-perspective, systemic inquiry into the social and institutional aspects of
water managing in Israel.
In my terms management, or decision making becomes a social technology
when it is made up of procedures and rules designed to standardise behaviour, or
in other words, practice becomes reduced to sets of techniques used routinely
without awareness of the origins of, and implications of the use of, such techni-
ques, the role of the practitioner and the need for contextual understanding about
the situation.
My use of the term ‘social technologies’ is very close to what some econo-
mists, particularly institutional economists, refer to as ‘institutions’. There are
multiple uses and interpretations of the term ‘institution’ and in English, it is
often used interchangeably with ‘organisation’ as in a ‘business institution’ or a
‘business organization’. Following North (1990) I use the term institution more
broadly than organisation to describe an ‘established law, custom, usage, practice,
organisation or other element in the political or social life of a people’.35

34
The word ‘artifact’ is revealing in this context. It can be understood as an ‘art-in-fact’ and thus
raises questions about the nature of social facts – an epistemological divide suggests itself.
35
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_institutional_economics New institutional economics for
more background (Accessed 17 May 2017).
5.5 Constraints and Possibilities Associated with Our ‘Being’ 113

International governments
with water interests Institutional Arrangements
Administrative
Water supply sub system
units
sub system Gaza
Jordan Lebanon Israeli ministries
Districts Regional
Mountain Coastal Infrastructure councils
Syria Palestinian Health ×6
aquifer aquifer Egypt Authority Water
Ground water Authority City & Town
Agriculture councils
Sea of Negev Mayors
Galilee aquifer(s) Environmental Finance
“fresh water” Protection Boards,
sources Supreme Tourism Agencies
Court Foreign & Authorities
Yarkon Kishon
Desalinization Recycled affairs P.M. Drainage River River
water Authorities AUthority
plants International Interior Authority
Forestry treaties Kinneret
JNK/KKL River National
service
D1 D2 D3 Kyoto Rehabilitation Authority Planning
Boards Board
Built or commissioned International National
× 27
donors Parks
Water Hydrological
D4 D5 D6 council? Authority service
D7 Planned Mekerot Economic
measures
Water Balancing
er
Seawat Water Infrastructure forum? Tariffs Fund Admin processes
Eilat plants
plant Sewage Water
National treatment Water allocation
Charges Water
water
kish plants
Brac erground carrier x? Water Master
appropriations
d
er un ts Agricultural
Moshavim projects
aquif ater plan ? NGOs Plans
w Desal Unions
tunnel Kibbutz Water Quotas
plants FOEME Laws &
Plans
Regulations

National Emergency Red

River Lines
Mekerot Lab. Universities & research Areva Water Law Peace Treaties
decree Rehab Law
institutes, etc... institute Egypt Palestine
Kinneret Lab
Laboratories Health 1959 Environmental Jordan
Permits Water Flows
Act

Fig. 5.9 One person’s understanding of the Israeli water managing situation depicted using
a systems map of the artifactual and social technology elements of a water managing system

The Oxford English Dictionary defines an institution as ‘a regulative principle or

convention subservient to the needs of an organised community’. Institutions
can be policies and objectives, laws, rules, regulations, organisations, policy
mechanisms, norms, traditions, practices and customs (SLIM 2004). Institutions
influence how we think and what we do. In contrast, an organisation can be
understood as a hierarchy or network of behaviour and roles to elicit desired
individual behaviour and coordinated actions in response to a set of rules and
procedures.
In my use of the term ‘social technologies’ I wish to draw attention to three
matters. Firstly how ‘institutions’ are usually named as ‘things’ independent of the
context of practice in which there is always a relationship between the ‘thing’ (the
hammer in Fig. 5.8), someone (the hammerer) and the context of practice. For
example, a lot of research funds go to develop tools for decision making without
thinking of how the tool will be put into practise. I would go further and claim
that social technologies can orchestrate a performance in the sense that hammering
can be considered a performance. Fig. 5.8 depicts how technology (in this case an
artefact), a person and a situation interact to give rise to a practice – the practice
of hammering. The practice arises (is an emergent property) from the interaction
of the hammerer, the hammer and the hammered. Hammering as a form of
practice would make little sense without each of these elements interacting and
aligning with an espoused purpose, e.g. to destroy the computer or to vent
114 5 Juggling the B-Ball: Being a Systems Practitioner

one’s anger.36 The same logic applies to ‘projects’ or ‘public inquiries’ as to ham-
mering. It should be possible to explore the history of any social technology and
to ask if the thinking and circumstances that gave rise to it are still valid today,
i.e. does it remain a valid social technology?
Secondly, whilst I argue that new governance arrangements are needed that are
more systemic and adaptive for managing in a climate-change world (Chapter 1),
I am also conscious that any such innovation will duplicate the process that gives
rise to a social technology. A line of argument follows that could posit that what I
am actually talking about is ‘antisocial technology’in that when technologies and
routinised practice become embedded or reified beyond awareness of their history
and their role of mediation then they subvert the social nature of being human,
i.e. our living in a manner in which the other arises as a legitimate other.
Thirdly I want to claim that there are useful insights to be gained from under-
standing institutions through the lens of history and through the philosophy of
technology studies.37

5.6 An Example of Juggling the B-Ball

In my experience many who claim they are systems practitioners on closer inspec-
tion actually engage in writing about the value of systems thinking. As Bunnell
(personal communication, June 2003) has observed by ‘doing this they report
explanations that they themselves find satisfying and would have others enact’.
Effective practice in both of these domains (acting and writing about acting) is
highly desirable, but there is a need to be clear what form of practice is being
enacted in particular contexts. The following anecdote exemplifies one of the main
reasons why I think juggling the B-ball is important for systems practice. The
story relates to two practitioners who were able to connect with the history of
organisational complexity ideas. It describes the process they chose to take in
response to a highly specific organisational-development tender document
couched in traditional ways (Shaw 2002):
Our first decision was to challenge the tender document …. When asked to present our
proposals to the tender panel we ignored the presenter/audience structure in which the
room had been arranged by drawing chairs up to the table and conversing with the

36
I am not claiming that all action and thus practice is purposeful – very often the attribution of
purpose, as with intention, arises in reflection, not as a precursor to what we do. In other words
we do what we do and then seek a way of describing why. But we have also evolved a manner
of living or conversing about ‘what is to be done’ of which rationality is but one facet. This book
is based on my experience that enhancing the quality of talking about what might be done bene-
fits the nature and quality of what is done – but I do not make a claim that in the moment we do
what we claim we were going to do, or that we have even done what we claimed.
37
For example see the body of work by Don Ihde including Technics and Praxis (Ihde 1979);
Experimental Phenomenology: An Introduction (Ihde 1986); Technology and the Lifeworld:
From Garden to Earth (Ihde 1990); Philosophy of Technology: An Introduction (Ihde 1993).
5.6 An Example of Juggling the B-Ball 115

client group. We began a discussion about the way those present were thinking about
organisational and cultural change and emphasised the unknowability of the evolution of
a complex organization in a complex environment. Instead of offering workshops or
programmes we proposed an emergent, one step at a time contract … to discover and
create opportunities to work with the live issues and tasks that were exercising people
formally and informally in the working environment … we were subsequently told that
the panel’s decision to appoint us was unanimous.

When reflecting on this experience Patricia Shaw made the following

comments:
We were told by one of the directors, ‘Everyone else made a presentation based on know-
ing what to do. You were the only ones who spoke openly about not knowing while still
being convincing. It was quite a relief’.38 Our success in interesting the client group in
working with us seemed to be based on:
1. Making it legitimate in this situation not to be able to specify outcomes and a plan of
action in advance, by so doing we made ‘not knowing’ an intelligent response
2. Pointing out the contradictions between the messy, emergent nature of our experience
of organizational life and the dominant paradigm of how organizations change through
the implementation of prior intent
This approach helped to contain the anxiety of facing the real uncertainties of such a pro-
ject together. It was an example of contracting for emergent outcomes.

How do I interpret this story? It shows that how we think about the world: our
theories and models that are a result of experience, even if implicit, determine what
we do in the world. Our theories predispose us to engage with ‘real-world’ situations
in particular ways. Unlike the other consultants, Patricia Shaw and her colleague did
not respond to the tender as if it were a problem for which they had the answer.
This approach is potentially able to encompass all of the complexity in the
situation. It is also able to bring forth the multiple perspectives through the
engagement of all the actors in the situation.39 They used conversations, inter-
views and even drama to achieve this. This allows outcomes to emerge from the
process rather than being defined in the form of a plan with outcomes specified in
advance. Sometimes highly specific plans that are not renegotiated iteratively as
the environment changes are called blueprints and the process called blueprint
planning. Shaw and her colleague approached their task as an unfolding process
of ‘engaging’ in which all parties were learning or co-constructing new meanings
in the situation (Shaw 2002). You will, of course, recognise that the behaviour of
Shaw and her colleague is not appropriate in all contexts, although I think the

38
Those experienced in this sort of practice will understand that in similar situations some would
prefer to act in the acceptance of a fiction that those presenting their ideas actually know what to
do. Such an attitude is fostered in some of the main discourses on ‘leadership’.
39
Sometimes ‘I don’t know’ can be an abrogation of responsibility but on other occasions it can
entail the acceptance of a deeper responsibility. The consultants in this example presumably
demonstrated the latter in their initial interview – and evidently followed through. It is easy to
pretend to engage in a collaborative process or to follow a prescription for participation and not
really engage deeply.
116 5 Juggling the B-Ball: Being a Systems Practitioner

approach could be used more. In the case of an engineer responding to some spe-
cific request that required precise technical specifications another response may
have been appropriate. Being aware, or becoming aware of our being, I argue,
increases the repertoire of possible actions available to a systems practitioner.40
Being aware, or not, of the issues I have raised in this chapter creates the initial
starting conditions for engaging with situations; I turn to the implications of
juggling the E-ball in the next chapter.
Before moving on to the E-ball it is important to acknowledge that Shaw and
her colleagues make no claims to being systems practitioners – in fact they have
rather publicly rejected systems approaches, though as I have argued elsewhere,
and with them personally, what they reject is their own misunderstanding of the
diversity and differences within systems thinking and practice (as depicted in
Fig. 2.3).41 In offering this example of systems practice I take responsibility for
the claim that I make, based on my own experience of them doing what they do;
for me they are acting systemically because they create the circumstances for
emergence and they act with (some) awareness of their own being in the situation.

References

Bunnell P (2008) Editor’s foreward. The origin of humanness in the biology of love. In:
Maturana HR, Verden-Zoller G (eds) The origin of humanness in the biology of love. Imprint
Academic, Exeter
Carroll JB (ed) (1959) Language thought and reality. Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf.
MIT Press, New York
Ceruti M (1994) Constraints and possibilities in the evolution of knowledge and the knowledge
of evolution. Gordon and Breach, New York
Checkland PB, Casar A (1986) Vickers’ concept of an appreciative system: a systemic account.
J Appl Syst Anal 13:3–17
Checkland PB, Poulter J (2006) Learning for action: a short definitive account of soft systems
methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers and students. Wiley, Chichester
Clandinin DJ, Connelly FM (1998) Personal experience methods. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS
(eds) Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Sage, London
Evans N (2009) Dying words: endangered languages and what they have to tell us. Wiley-
Blackwell, Maldon, MA
Fell L, Russell DB (2000/2007) The human quest for understanding and agreement. In: Ison RL,
Russell DB (eds) Agricultural extension and rural development: breaking out of traditions.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 32–51
Glanville R (1995a) A (cybernetic) musing: control 1. Cybern Hum Knowing 3(1):47–50

40
Patricia Shaw and I at one period discussed extensively our approaches to practice and found
that we had quite profoundly different preferences. My own is to do much more planning or
designing at an early stage after becoming as aware of the situation as is possible. But then to be
open to the unfolding circumstances in the practice situation and act in an emotion that is free to
change, not one that tries to hold onto the plan or design. My argument for this form of practice
is that it enhances one’s behavioural repertoire in the moment providing the practitioner with
more variety and choices.
41
For a well-articulated critique see Checkland and Poulter (2006, p. 148–153).
References 117

Glanville R (1995b) A (cybernetic) musing: control 2. Cybern Hum Knowing 3(2):43–46

Harré R (1983) Personal being: a theory for individual psychology. Basil Blackwell, Oxford
Helme M (2002) Appreciating metaphor for participatory practice: constructivist inquiries in a
children and young peoples justice organisation. PhD Thesis, systems discipline, The Open
University, UK
Høeg P (1994) Miss Smilla’s feeling for snow. Flamingo, London
Ihde D (1979) Technics and praxis. Reidel, Dordrecht
Ihde D (1986) Experimental phenomenology: an introduction. Putnam, New York
Ihde D (1990) Technology and the lifeworld: from garden to earth. Indiana University Press,
Bloomington, IN
Ihde D (1993) Philosophy of technology: an introduction. Paragon, New York
Lakoff G, Johnson M (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to
Western Thought. Basic Books, New York
MacIntyre A (1981) After virtue. Duckworth, London
Mahoney M (1988) Constructive meta-theory 1: basic features and historical foundations. Int J
Pers Constr Psychol 1:1–35
Maturana H (1988) Reality: the search for objectivity or the quest for a compelling argument.
Ir J Psychol 9:25–82
Maturana H (1996) Personal communication. Professor emeritus, University of Chile
Maturana H, Varela F (1987) The tree of knowledge: the biological roots of human understand-
ing. New Science Library, Shambala Publications, Boston, MA
Maturana HR, Dávila XY, Ramírez SM (2016) Cultural-biology: systemic consequences of our
evolutionary natural drift as molecular autopoietic systems. Found Sci 21(4):631–678. http://
cepa.info/3900
Maturana HR, Verden-Zöller G, Bunnell P (ed) (2008) The origin of humanness in the biology
of love. Imprint Academic, Exeter
Monaghan P (2009) Never mind the whales, save the languages. The Australian, 24 June, 36
North D (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
Open University (2000) Managing complexity a systems approach, course code T306. The Open
University, Milton Keynes
Pert CB (1997) Molecules of emotion. The science of mind-body medicine. Simon & Schuster,
New York
Reyes A, Zarama R (1998) The process of embodying distinctions: a re-construction of the pro-
cess of learning. Cybern Hum Knowing 5:19–33
Rorty R (1980) Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Basil Blackwell, Oxford
Rosch E (1992) Cognitive psychology. In: Hayward JW, Varela FJ (eds) Gentle bridges: conver-
sations with the Dalai Lama on the sciences of mind. Shambala Publications, Boston, MA
Rose C, Dade P, Scott J (2007) Research into motivating prospectors, settlers and pioneers to
change behaviours that affect climate emissions. http://www.campaignstrategy.org/articles/
behaviourchange_climate.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2017
Russell DB, Ison RL (2000) The research-development relationship in rural communities: an
opportunity for contextual science. In: Ison RL, Russell DB (eds) Agricultural extension
and rural development: breaking out of traditions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
p 10–31
Russell DB, Ison RL (2007) The research-development relationship in rural communities: an
opportunity for contextual science. In: Ison RL, Russell DB (eds) Agricultural extension and
rural development: breaking out of knowledge transfer traditions. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK, p 10–31
Seddon J (2008) Systems thinking in the public sector: the failure of the reform regime, and a
manifesto for a better way. Triarchy Press, Axminster
Shaw P (2002) Changing conversations in organizations. A complexity approach to change.
Routledge, London
118 5 Juggling the B-Ball: Being a Systems Practitioner

Shotter J (1993) Conversational realities: constructing life through language. Sage, London
SLIM (2004) The role of conducive policies in fostering social learning for integrated manage-
ment of water. Slim Policy Briefing No. 5. http://slim.open.ac.uk. Accessed 17 May 2017
Varela F (1979) Principles of biological autonomy. North Holland, New York
Vickers G (1965) The art of judgement: a study of policy making. Chapman and Hall, London
Vickers G (1970) Freedom in a rocking boat: changing values in an unstable society. Penguin,
Harmondsworth
Vickers G (1983) Human systems are different. Harper and Row, London
Vickers J (ed) (1991) Rethinking the future: the correspondence between Geoffrey Vickers and
Adolf Lowe. Transaction Publishers, London
von Foerster H (1984) Observing systems. Systems Publications, Salinas, CA
von Foerster H (1992) Ethics and second-order cybernetics. Cybern Hum Knowing 1:9–19
von Foerster H (1994) Foreword. In: Ceruti M (ed) Constraints and possibilities: the knowledge
of evolution and the evolution of knowledge. Gordon and Breach, Lausanne
von Foerster H, Poerkson B (2002) Understanding systems. Conversations on epistemology and
ethics. IFSR international series on systems science and engineering, Vol 17. Kluwer/
Plenum, New York
Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK
Wittgenstein L (1981) Zettel. Basil Blackwell, Oxford
Wittgenstein L (1999) Philosophical investigations. Blackwell, Oxford
Chapter 6
Juggling the E-Ball: Engaging with Situations

Abstract How we choose to Engage with situations as part of systems practice is

the concern of this chapter. It is argued that we all have choices about how to engage
with situations but are generally not aware that choices exist. The process of enga-
ging with situations through the practice of naming, or framing, situations in particu-
lar ways is the main focus of the chapter. We run into problems when the names we
give to situations become reified. The limitations of naming situations as ‘problems’
is discussed and what can be gained by thinking of situations as ‘complex’, or ‘con-
tested’, or ‘wicked’ or ‘messy’ explored. A case study of how a group of systems
practitioners effected positive improvement through a process of changing how they
engaged with a situation is provided to exemplify juggling the E-ball.

6.1 Naming Our Experiences

In this chapter I am concerned with juggling the E-ball, how we choose to engage
with situations as part of systems practice. The word ‘engage’ in its original meaning
meant ‘to pledge’ from which ‘the sense of promise to marry’, or ‘betrothed’, origi-
nates. This historical meaning connects in a metaphorical way with the sense that I
am using ‘engaging with situations’ – to give what is juggled its full expression. My
sense of the mediaeval understanding of ‘granting one’s pledge’ is of an act of distin-
guishing and committing to someone from the many – to single them out in a way
that creates a new form of relationship, a different experience. In the act of distin-
guishing and committing a choice is made against a background of many possible
choices. Following this line of argument I could claim that when a young woman, or
old woman or both is distinguished in the example I gave in the last chapter
(Fig. 5.2) the result is a pledge to one or other descriptions (or explanations) embo-
died in the process of naming our experience, i.e. old woman, young woman etc.
It is this dynamic that I want to unpack and make practical in this chapter.
To illustrate how I interpret the E-ball I will argue that we all have choices
about how to engage with situations. Further, that when we experience situations
with particular characteristics it makes sense to engage with these in particular
ways. My main concern will be with the process of engaging with situations

© The Open University 2017 119

Published in Association with Springer-Verlag London Limited
R. Ison, Systems Practice: How to Act, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9_6
120 6 Juggling the E-Ball: Engaging with Situations

through the practice of naming or framing these situations in particular ways.1

I will point out the limitations of naming these situations as ‘problems’ and
explore what can be gained by thinking of them as ‘complex’, or ‘contested’, or
‘wicked’ or ‘messy’. Thus I am going to elaborate further on the dynamics
of practice depicted in Fig. 3.5; of course a primary concern I have is to illustrate
how the E-ball might be juggled by a systems practitioner.
The practice of inventing a new name and giving it to a situation in response to
an experience, or set of experiences, arises from the act of making a distinction
(i.e., naming an experience). In this process new categories can be created as well
as new identities.2 Much of the time we use names coined by others to name our
experiences but in some instances new names are coined; the process of doing this
can be called neologising, a practice that gives rise to a new expression as well as a
new underlying logic. A recent example of this is the invention of the term ‘com-
plex adaptive system’ but there are other earlier examples which I will explore.
As well as neologizing there is what is now widely called framing choice, i.e.,
choices made, knowingly or not, as to how to frame a situation (much as the frame
distinguishes a painting from it background). Inspired by the work of Lakoff
(2010) I have reframed one of his important claims in the following terms:
All thinking and talking involves ‘framing’. And since frames come with metaphors, or
metaphor clusters, with revealing and concealing features as well as theoretical entail-
ments, a single word typically activates not only its defining frame, but also much of the
systemic set of relations its defining frame is in (Ison 2016).

My reframing of Lakoff’s (2010) explanation seeks to avoid the reification, the

making into a thing, of the concept ‘system’ and thus the idea that ‘a system
exists’ a priori, within which a metaphor, or metaphor cluster sits. Instead, my
reframing invites consideration not of a ‘thing’, a, or the, ‘system’, but a network of
relations, a dynamic in the sense that a tornado is, but at the same time is not,
a thing – i.e., a tornado is a particular dynamic configuration of air particles, from
which a tornado ‘as named thing’ emerges and is constantly reconstituted.

6.1.1 Naming Situations as ‘Wicked Problems’

Systems scholars and practitioners, along with others, have commonly engaged in
neologising.3 One that is better known than most is the ‘wicked problem’. In
2007, the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) (2007), concerned about
the growing number of seemingly intractable policy ‘problems’ produced a very

1
In this chapter I do not propose to develop explanations about how changes in our emotional
dynamics accompany the acts of distinguishing and naming.
2
Here I include the act of coining new names to describe phenomena as well as that of naming new
children – thus I consider a wide range of situations to which the same underlying process applies.
3
I say this with awareness that what I am doing is what I describe! Neologism – literally new
logic or new coinage.
6.1 Naming Our Experiences 121

thoughtful review of ‘wicked problems’. In this review they described ‘wicked

problems’ as problems that
go beyond the capacity of any one organisation to understand and respond to, and [where]
there is often disagreement about the causes of the problems and the best way to tackle
them …. Usually, part of the solution to wicked problems involves changing the beha-
viour of groups of citizens or all citizens. Other key ingredients in solving or at least
managing complex policy problems include successfully working across both internal and
external organisational boundaries and engaging citizens and stakeholders in policy mak-
ing and implementation.

They go on to say that ‘wicked problems require innovative, comprehensive

solutions that can be modified in the light of experience and on-the-ground feed-
back’ and that ‘wicked problems’ ‘can pose challenges to traditional approaches to
policy making and programme implementation’. In my experience this last claim
about policy making and implementation is both valid and profound. In a foreword
to the APSC paper, the Australian Public Service Commissioner makes the very
powerful point that: ‘It is important, as a first step, that wicked problems be recog-
nised as such. Successfully tackling wicked problems requires a broad recognition
and understanding, including from governments and Ministers, that there are no
quick fixes and simple solutions’. This is a strong statement that does not mince
words; it could be seen as a challenge to the way that Australian democracy and
associated bureaucracies function and could be also seen as a call to action in the
light of climate change and other situations seen as ‘wicked problems’.
The authors of the APSC paper identified a number of situations which they
chose to describe as ‘wicked problems’. These included (APSC Australian Public
Service Commission 2007):
Climate change – because it is a ‘pressing and highly complex policy issue invol-
ving multiple causal factors and high levels of disagreement about the nature of
the problem and the best way to tackle it. The motivation and behaviour of indivi-
duals is a key part of the solution as is the involvement of all levels of government
and a wide range of non-government organisations (NGOs)’.
Obesity – because it is ‘a complex and serious health problem with multiple fac-
tors contributing to its rapid growth over recent decades. How to successfully
address obesity is subject to debate but depends significantly on the motivation
and behaviour of individuals and, to a lesser degree, on the quality of secondary
health care. Successful interventions will require coordinated efforts at the federal,
state and local government levels and the involvement of a range of NGOs’.
Indigenous disadvantage – because it ‘is an ongoing, seemingly intractable issue
but it is clear that the motivation and behaviour of individuals and communities
lies at the heart of successful approaches. The need for coordination and an over-
arching strategy among the services and programmes supported by the various
levels of government and NGOs is also a key ingredient’.
Land degradation – because it ‘is a serious national problem. Given that around
60% of Australia’s land is managed by private landholders, it is clear that assisting
and motivating primary producers to adopt sustainable production systems is
122 6 Juggling the E-Ball: Engaging with Situations

central to preventing further degradation, achieving rehabilitation and assisting in

sustainable resource use. All levels of government are involved in land use as is a
range of NGOs’.
Using the above examples I feel sure you will not find it difficult to name some
situations you have encountered as ‘wicked problems’. The term ‘wicked pro-
blems’ was coined by Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber in 1969 (Rittel and
Webber 1973). At the time Rittel was Professor of the Science of Design and
Webber Professor of City Planning at the University of Berkeley in California;
these scholars observed that there was a whole realm of ‘social planning problems’
that could not be treated successfully with traditional linear, analytical approaches.
At the time they contrasted ‘wicked problems’ with ‘tame problems’ (Box 6.1).

Box 6.1 Some features of wicked and tame problems

Wicked problems
Wicked problems are described as ‘ill-defined, ambiguous and associated
with strong moral, political and professional issues. Since they are strongly
stakeholder dependent, there is often little consensus about what the problem
is, let alone how to resolve it. Furthermore, wicked problems won’t keep
still: they are sets of complex, interacting issues evolving in a dynamic
social context. Often, new forms of wicked problems emerge as a result of
trying to understand and solve one of them’ (see http://www.swemorph.
com/wp.html). The following list summarises some of the main features
attributed to wicked problems:
• There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem
• Wicked problems have no stopping rule
• Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but better or worse
• There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked
problem
• Every solution to a wicked problem is a ‘one-shot operation’; because
there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts
significantly
• Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describ-
able) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of per-
missible operations that may be incorporated into the plan
• Every wicked problem is essentially unique
• Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another
problem
• The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be
explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the
nature of the problem’s resolution
• The planner has no right to be wrong (planners are liable for the conse-
quences of the actions they generate)

(continued)
6.1 Naming Our Experiences 123

Box 6.1 Some features of wicked and tame problems (continued)

Tame problems
According to Conklin (2001, p. 11) these:
1. Have a relatively well-defined and stable problem statement
2. Have a definite stopping point, i.e. we know when the solution or a solu-
tion is reached
3. Have a solution which can be objectively evaluated as being right or wrong
4. Belong to a class of similar problems which can be solved in a similar
manner
5. Have solutions which can be tried and abandoned
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem (Accessed 17 May 2017); http://
www.swemorph.com/wp.html (Accessed 17 May 2017).

I think that the invention of ‘wicked problems’ is a good example of creating

neologisms in response to particular experiences (see Ison et al. 2014). In trying to
answer the question: What is it that Rittel and Webber did when they did what
they did? I find it insightful to ask ‘what experiences did they have that led them
to coin these neologisms?’ My question can be answered in part by reading the
original paper by Rittel and Webber (1973). I will spend some time exploring their
work because the ‘wicked and tame problems’ distinction offers a good case study
of how neologisms become conserved (i.e., taken up and used), or not, over time.
Through this dynamic some terms seem to take on a life of their own independent
of their history, and more importantly, independent of an awareness of the nature
of the experiences that were had, when the term was coined.4 Other terms have lit-
tle impact – they are not taken up, or only taken up selectively. As I examine
Rittel and Webber’s paper I will be looking for possible answers to the question:
How did they imagine these terms being used in practice? By posing this question
I want to draw attention to how a neologism, a new concept, can become
employed, or not, as a social technology.
Rittel and Webber’s paper, published in the journal Policy Sciences in 1973
was originally presented to the Panel on Policy Sciences of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, Boston, in December 1969. Drawing
on their paper it is possible to characterise their concerns; they said:
1. ‘There seems to be a growing realization that a weak strut in the professional’s
support system lies at the juncture where goal-formulation, problem-definition
and equity issues meet. Goal-finding (central to planning) is turning out to be
an extraordinarily obstinate task’

4
This suggests a potential ‘reflexive tool’ – namely, when considering any term, to think ‘what
circumstances might have given rise to this term?’ (Bunnell 2009).
124 6 Juggling the E-Ball: Engaging with Situations

2. ‘We are now sensitised to the waves of repercussions generated by a problem-

solving action directed to any one node in the network, and we are no longer
surprised to find it inducing problems of greater severity at some other node.
And so we have been forced to expand the boundaries of the systems we deal
with, trying to internalise those externalities’
3. ‘we are calling them “wicked” not because these properties are themselves ethi-
cally deplorable. We use the term “wicked” in a meaning akin to that of
“malignant” (in contrast to “benign”) or “vicious” (like a circle) or “tricky”
(like a leprechaun) or “aggressive” (like a lion, in contrast to the docility of a
lamb). We do not mean to personify these properties of social systems by
implying malicious intent. But then, you may agree that it becomes morally
objectionable for the planner to treat a wicked problem as though it were a
tame one, or to tame a wicked problem prematurely, or to refuse to recognise
the inherent wickedness of social problems’
4. ‘The difficulties attached to rationality are tenacious, and we have so far been
unable to get untangled from their web. This is partly because the classical
paradigm of science and engineering – the paradigm that has underlain modern
professionalism – is not applicable to the problems of open societal systems’
5. ‘The systems approach “of the first generation” is inadequate for dealing with
wicked problems. Approaches of the “second generation” should be based on a
model of planning as an argumentative process in the course of which an image
of the problem and of the solution emerges gradually among the participants,
as a product of incessant judgment, subjected to critical argument’
I gain the following insights from my inquiry into Rittel and Webber’s paper:
• They were explicitly concerned with the process of problem formulation, parti-
cularly with who participates in formulating ‘problems’ (i.e. equity) and how
and by whom goals are articulated5
• In what might be regarded as an early appreciation of the nature of networks
they recognised that action at one node may induce unintended consequences
at another node. They are implicitly referring to positive and negative feedback
processes (Table 2.1) and the idea of unintended consequences that arise
through connectedness, or its breakdown
• They used the term wicked in a playful way, exploring different metaphors,
whilst at the same time recognising the seriousness of such situations
• They raised at least two implications for practice 1. avoiding treating ‘wicked
problems’ as tame ‘or to tame a wicked problem prematurely, or to refuse to
recognise the inherent wickedness of social problems’ and 2. the need to
develop a second generation systems approach that operates in language (as an
argumentative process) amongst stakeholders to form an image of the problem
as ‘a product of incessant judgement, subjected to critical argument’

5
It is worth noting that they say ‘goal finding’, not ‘goal setting’ – this is a subtle but important
distinction which has practical implications.
6.1 Naming Our Experiences 125

• They recognised a very difficult context for ‘the adoption’ of their understandings,
claiming rational approaches [technical rationality] to be tenacious and unhelpful
and supported by ‘the classical paradigm of science and engineering – the para-
digm that has underlain modern professionalism’…[which] ‘is not applicable to
the problems of open societal systems’
Like many academic papers Rittel and Webber’s is written in the normal aca-
demic style and they do not, for example, ground any of their claims in personal
experience through one is left in no doubt that they have had these experiences.6
They also say little about practice that may lie beyond the labelling of situations
as wicked or tame. I imagine that for Rittel and Webber having policy makers
frame these ‘type’ of situations as ‘wicked problems’ was probably half the battle.
Perhaps they felt that the naming, or representation, of these ‘type’ of situations as
‘wicked problems’ was their most important task.
But naming a situation as a ‘wicked problem’ is not the same as acting to improve
the situation! Doing something in these situations that most would agree leads to a
change for the better is a much greater challenge and in this regard it is tempting to
conclude that little has changed since 1969 – the classical paradigm remains perva-
sive (though human-induced climate change could act as a tipping point) and, as yet,
a second generation systems approach has not taken hold in policy and governance
circles, i.e., systems explanations, and hence practices are not valued in this context.
For example, my experiences of how BREXIT (departure of the UK from the
European Union) has been pursued by governments, policy makers and commenta-
tors is of significant framing failure – a dropping of the E-ball.
Maturana (1996) makes the point that when we accept a different explanation
our world changes. Unfortunately, as the APSC paper (APSC Australian Public
Service Commission 2007) makes clear, the world of policy makers seems not to
have changed in response to the naming of ‘wicked problems’ 40 years ago; even
the emergence of the concept of the ‘super-wicked problem’ seems to have made
little difference (Lazarus 2009). It suggests that the explanations about ‘wicked
problems’ are not widely accepted in policy circles. As a consequence it is also
unlikely that the APSC authors’ recognition that:
tackling wicked problems also calls for high levels of systems thinking… thinking [that]
helps policy makers to make the connections between the multiple causes and interdepen-
dencies of wicked problems that are necessary in order to avoid a narrow approach and
the artificial taming of wicked problems. Agencies need to look for ways of developing or
obtaining this range of skills7

6
For example there is no use of the first person – the author’s experience is abstracted, or written,
out of the situation.
7
It might be concluded that the issue now is that policy makers have not found a way to develop
a new range of skills to match the conception of the problems as wicked? Perhaps the change
that has happened in policy makers is an awareness that they don’t have the skills, nor do they
know how to go about getting them. Perhaps they are stuck?
126 6 Juggling the E-Ball: Engaging with Situations

has been appreciated or accepted in policy circles – though there is evidence of

change as in a report from the OECD (2017) called: Working with Change:
Systems approaches to public sector challenges.
If I stand back from the specifics of Rittel and Webber’s paper some interesting
questions emerge such as ‘How, if at all, have the notions of “wicked and tame pro-
blems” entered our understandings and practices?’ Unfortunately I have not under-
taken or seen a study that sets out to answer these questions in a systematic way.
My experience suggests that the ‘technical rationality’ identified as constraining by
Rittel and Webber is still tenacious and that the professionalism of engineers and
planners has changed little towards skills for managing ‘wicked problems’.8
The APSC paper I referred to earlier can be seen as part of a lineage of attempts
to introduce understandings about ‘wicked’ and ‘tame’ problems’ into policy and
governance discourse. The practices they suggest are outlined in Box 6.2.

Box 6.2 Practices for tackling wicked problems

Tackling wicked problems is an evolving art but one which seems to at least
require:
• holistic, not partial or linear thinking. This is thinking capable of grasping
the big picture, including the interrelationships between the full range of
causal factors underlying the wicked problem. Traditional linear
approaches to policy formulation are an inadequate way to work with
wicked policy problems as linear thinking is inadequate in encompassing
their complexity, interconnections and uncertainty
• innovative and flexible approaches. It has been argued that the public sec-
tor needs more systematic approaches to social innovation and needs to
become more adaptive and flexible in dealing with wicked problems
• the ability to work across agency boundaries. Wicked problems go beyond
the capacity of any one organisation to understand and respond to, and
tackling them is one of the key imperatives that makes being successful at
working across agency boundaries increasingly important. This includes
working in a devolved way with the community and commercial sectors
• increasing understanding and stimulating a debate on the application of
the accountability framework. It is important that pre-set notions of the
accountability framework do not constrain resolution of wicked problems
• effectively engaging stakeholders and citizens in understanding the pro-
blem and in identifying possible solutions
• additional core skills. The need to work across organisational
boundaries and engage with stakeholders highlights some of the core
skills required by policy and programme managers tackling wicked

(continued)
8
I have no doubt that in many local settings understandings of wicked and tame problems have
been generated but my perception is that they are still not widely appreciated and incorporated into
everyday discourse – hence the APSC paper (APSC Australian Public Service Commission 2007).
6.1 Naming Our Experiences 127

Box 6.2 Practices for tackling wicked problems (continued)

problems – communication, big picture thinking and influencing skills

and the ability to work cooperatively
• a better understanding of behavioural change by policy makers. This
needs to be core policy knowledge because behavioural change is at the
heart of many wicked problems and influencing human behaviour can be
very complex
• a comprehensive focus and/or strategy. Successfully addressing wicked
policy problems usually involves a range of coordinated and interrelated
responses given their multi-causal nature and that they generally require
sustained effort and/or resources to make headway
• tolerating uncertainty and accepting the need for a long-term focus
Source: APSC (2007).

Unfortunately little is said in the APSC paper about how and where to develop
these skills, or capabilities, nor whether contemporary institutional arrangements
help to enact such practices.9
From my own perspective there is an unfortunate entailment in the term
‘wicked problem’, namely the concept ‘problem’. Later I will expand upon why I
have come to see the use of the word ‘problem’ as problematic – for now let me
say that my main concern is about what becomes reified whenever the term ‘pro-
blem’ is used.10 And my concern is driven by my understanding of the process of
reifying problems as well as the question of who participates in naming, or reify-
ing, ‘the problem’ in a given context.
In this introductory section about juggling the E-ball, I have explored a particu-
lar dynamic that arises when we reflect on our experiences and create objects (neo-
logisms, categories, etc.) from that experience.11 This is what Rittel and Webber
did when they coined the terms ‘wicked’ and ‘tame problems’. Before I go on to
explore some of the potential unintended consequences of this practice, and the

9
In a presentation to the International Society for Systems Sciences annual conference in Brisbane,
Australia in July 2009, entitled ‘Delivering performance and accountability – intersections with
“wicked problems”’, Briggs (2009), the Australian Public Service Commissioner made the point
that removing unnecessary obstacles to innovation, to improve the quality of outcomes in complex
and uncertain policy areas and developing more variegated accountability and performance manage-
ment arrangements, better suited to new modes of policy implementation were needed.
10
I sometimes speak of ‘wicked situations’ as a hybrid term that acknowledges the lineage of
ideas coming from the work of Rittel and Webber.
11
The traps associated with neologising and reifying extend, in my view, to the practices of
categorising and typologising as well. The act of categorisation is very common – in research
practice the development of typologies is also a frequent form of practice. Typologies and cate-
gorisations can themselves become reified; the circulation of the products of reification in aca-
demic discourse in particular leads us to lose sight of how these ‘things’ came into existence and,
further, the validity or viability in contemporary circumstances, of their ongoing use.
128 6 Juggling the E-Ball: Engaging with Situations

implications for juggling the E-ball, I want to ask: ‘Did others have similar experi-
ences to Rittel and Webber and, if so, what did they do in response to these
experiences?’

6.1.2 Naming experiences in similar ways

At about the time Rittel and Webber were publishing their work, academics in the
newly formed Systems Department at The Open University (OU) were developing
their first teaching programmes. One of their challenges was to invent how to
teach Systems (as there was little experience to go on) and how to do it in a sup-
ported open learning mode where students studied at a distance. Naturally they
engaged with the published literature and explored the ideas of those who were
generally accepted as Systems scholars. In doing this they came across the work
of Russ Ackoff and neologisms that he had created, that of messes and difficulties
(see Box 6.3). These distinctions were incorporated into OU Systems courses and
have been in almost every Systems course since.12 With the value of hindsight
and after a little investigation it is possible to see that Ackoff, Rittel and Webber,
as well as some others – see below – had experiences of a particular type that led
them to coin these new terms to describe the situations in which their experiences
arose.13

Box 6.3 Some features of messes and difficulties

Russell Ackoff first coined the term ‘mess’ in 1974. He did so in response
to the insights of two eminent American philosophers, William James and
John Dewey. These philosophers recognised that problems are taken up by,
not given to, decision-makers and that problems are extracted from unstruc-
tured states of confusion. Ackoff (1974a, 1974b) argued, in proposing his
notion of mess that:
What decision-makers deal with, I maintain, are messes not problems. This is
hardly illuminating, however, unless I make more explicit what I mean by a mess.
A mess is a set of external conditions that produces dissatisfaction. It can be con-
ceptualised as a system of problems in the same sense in which a physical body
can be conceptualised as a system of atoms.

(continued)

12
The distinction between wicked and tame problems also influenced the teaching of Design at
The Open University – see Cross (1984, pp. 134–144).
13
I do not know to what extent Ackoff, Rittel, Webber and later Schön, were influenced by each
other or by earlier scholars, but it is probable that there were interacting influences between
them.
6.2 The Trap of Reification 129

Box 6.3 Some features of messes and difficulties (continued)

From this definition of mess, Ackoff recognised a number of features of

messes:
• A problem or an opportunity is an ultimate element abstracted from a mess.
Ultimate elements are necessarily abstractions that cannot be observed
• Problems, even as abstract mental constructs, do not exist in isolation,
although it is possible to isolate them conceptually. The same is true of
opportunities. A mess may comprise both problems and opportunities.
What is a problem for one person may be an opportunity for another –
thus a problem can be an opportunity from another perspective
• The improvement to a mess – whatever it may be – is not the simple sum
of the solutions to the problems or opportunities that are or can be
extracted from it. No mess can be solved by solving each of its compo-
nent problems/opportunities independently of the others because no mess
can be decomposed into independent components
• The attempt to deal with a system of problems and opportunities as a
system – synthetically, as a whole – is an essential skill of a systems
practitioner
In contrast, difficulties are:
simple situations that can be improved by extracting one problem from them and
solving it. These are called difficulties and they are seen as exceptions rather than
the norm in terms of decisions that are needed in environmental, organisational
and other information-related contexts.
(Following Ackoff 1974a, 1974b)

It is certainly known from our 40 plus years of teaching Systems at The Open
University, UK, that the mess/difficulty distinction has great utility for most stu-
dents; an account is given in Chapman’s publication ‘System Failure’ (Chapman
2005). In many ways the practice response seems clear – recognise these situations
for what they are! But is this a trap awaiting the unwary?

6.2 The Trap of Reification

It seems to me that policy makers and others could make significant progress in
addressing seemingly intractable issues such as climate change or the global water
crisis if only more people were aware of the understandings that the distinction
mess/difficulty or wicked/tame problem evoke. Important though this might be,
would it be enough? And, after all, these terms were coined over 50 years ago!
With these reservations in mind I want to delve further and point to a trap we can
130 6 Juggling the E-Ball: Engaging with Situations

find ourselves in if we reify these terms without being aware of the unintended
consequences that reifying can produce.14 But first I will explain what I mean by
reification. To do so I have to revisit the type of relational thinking that I intro-
duced in Chapter 3 in my example of walking as a form of practice (Fig. 3.7).

6.2.1 Our Inescapable Relational Dynamic with ‘Our World’

Let me start by asking you to think of a typical young child – parent interaction, in
which the child’s name is repeated until the child learns its own name and begins to
associate this name with an identity. The same practice goes on with naming all
sorts of things – a child will be corrected if they have it wrong from the perspective
of the parent or whoever is in the conversation. In other words we come into living
in language in a manner that suggests all of these entities, or things, exist indepen-
dently of our own acts of distinction. What is more, we perpetuate this type of prac-
tice in our daily life when we invent new terms, generate categories or devise new
theories. What has become lost in this short-cut that we have adopted as a manner
of living is the realisation that we have some choice, some agency in how we
engage with situations. Put another way, situations do not have characteristics that
pre-determine how we should engage with them. As Snowden (2003) points out:
Humans have a strong tendency to classification using existing frameworks; this is a form
of pattern matching which also leads to stereotyping (racism being only one of many
examples). [My approach] focuses on sense making. Individually, the term ‘sense making’
describes the complex process by which a person makes sense of the situations they find
themselves in and acknowledges the many subtle influences of perceptions, biases, goals,
identities, and memories. Organisational sense making involves all of this at the collective
level, describing how groups of people develop shared meanings that make sense to the
group (IBM 2003, p. 5).

The process that Snowden describes as ‘sense-making’ is, for me, a key element
of juggling the E-ball.

6.2.2 Making Distinctions and Living with Them

Although we humans probably couldn’t operate if we didn’t describe, classify and

categorise, I argue that somewhere along the way we have lost sight of the implica-
tions of doing this. There are five practices that are poorly understood yet important
for reflecting on what we do when we do what we do. The first, neologising, as I
have outlined, involves using or coining new words or expressions (someone who
does this is a neologist and the result of this practice is a neologism). The second

14
A particular motivation for me arises from reflecting on how distinctions or neologisms such as
‘wicked problems’ are taught as say part of an MBA. If these distinctions are in the curriculum at
all the learner can probably learn and list the features of a ‘wicked’ or ‘tame’ problem but this, as I
argue in Chapter 5, is not the same as ‘knowing a wicked situation’ because they are not exposed
to the same experiences that Rittel and Webber had that motivated them to coin the term.
6.2 The Trap of Reification 131

practice is reification. Etienne Wenger (1998, p. 58) draws attention to some of the
implications of reification in his work on communities of practice (CoPs) (see also
Blackmore 2010). He describes reification as the practice of ‘making into a thing’ or
in other words creating an object in language.15 This is something we do all the time.
Although widespread, the implications of this practice are not well understood. It has
particular implications when we make or treat an abstraction, such as justice or learn-
ing, as a concrete material thing (as exemplified with the common statues of a
blindfolded woman who is justice or attributing a number to learning as described in
Chapter 1). Wenger (1998) says: ‘we project our meanings into the world [through
living in language] and then we perceive them as existing in the world, as having a
reality of their own’ (p. 58). He goes on to use the abstract concept of reification to
refer to ‘the process of giving form to our experience by producing objects that con-
geal this experience into “thingness”’ and points out that he is introducing reification
‘into the discourse because he wants to create a new distinction to serve as a point of
focus around which to organise [his] discussion’ (p. 58).16 As I have already pointed
out Wenger’s notion of ‘creating a new distinction’ is important as it gives rise to
what we call experience.
The other three practices are framing, reframing and deframing. The first hap-
pens all the time (as explained earlier with my adaptation of the Lakoff 2010
quote). Too often we fail to realise what framing choices are being made, or what
exist historically, also that framing choices are something that are always available
to us e.g. to see a situation as if it were a ‘wicked problem’. Reframing involves
purposeful choice to change a current or historical framing. Deframing involves
identifying framings that constrain or stop systemic innovation and change – and
warrant active removal – e.g. clean coal.
Avoiding the traps of reification and framing failure involves moving from a
first-order logic to a second-order logic. To do so involves reflecting on practice
itself (i.e., the practice of practice).

6.2.3 Reflecting on the Practice of Practice

When reflecting on his own professional experience of engaging with complex

situations, Schön (1987), author of Educating the Reflective Practitioner (1987)
had this to say:
In the swampy lowland, messy, confusing problems defy technical solution. The irony of
this situation is that the problems of the high ground tend to be relatively unimportant to

15
As I read it this sentence has an awkward construction that I realise could be made easier to
read if I said ‘the practice of making something into a thing’. But if I did that I would be falling
into the very trap I am trying to escape – of granting thingness an independent existence.
16
In other words Wenger in his coining of ‘reification’ is creating a neologism; he exemplifies
the dynamic he is trying to draw attention to – i.e., he is inviting us to see the term ‘reification’
in a new way – as having a new, underlying logic, which, when we accept it, brings with the
acceptance new distinctions that become ‘useable’ as part of our tradition of understanding.
132 6 Juggling the E-Ball: Engaging with Situations

individuals or society at large, however great their technical interest may be, while in the
swamp lie the problems of greatest human concern. The practitioner must choose. Shall
he [sic] remain on the high ground where he can solve relatively unimportant problems
according to prevailing standards of rigor, or shall he descend into the swamp of impor-
tant problems? (p. 28)

Schön also argued that:

all professional practitioners experience a version of the dilemma of rigor and relevance
and they respond to it in one of several ways. Some of them choose the swampy lowland,
deliberately immersing themselves in confusing but critically important situations. When
they are asked to describe their methods of inquiry they speak of experience, trial and
error, intuition or muddling through. When teachers, social workers, or planners operate
in this vein, they tend to be afflicted with a nagging sense of inferiority in relation to those
who present themselves as models of technical rigor. When physicists or engineers do so,
they tend to be troubled by the discrepancy between the technical rigor of the ‘hard’ zones
of their practice and apparent sloppiness of the ‘soft’ ones. People tend to feel the
dilemma of rigor or relevance with particular intensity when they reach the age of about
45. At this point they ask themselves: Am I going to continue to do the thing I was trained
for, on which I base my claims to technical rigor and academic respectability? Or am I
going to work on the problems – ill formed, vague, and messy – that I have discovered to
be real around here? And depending on how people make this choice, their lives unfold
differently (Schön 1995, p. 28).

In a reflective piece on social work practice, Clark (2008) notes how difficult it
is to ‘think about thinking because this asks professionals who are naturally
oriented to actively solving client and social problems to become unusually reflec-
tive and self-critical’. He goes on to observe that ‘along with philosophical astute-
ness, asking external questions17 demands patience, enthusiasm, humility, and
risk-taking because such queries are often unwelcome and dismissed as irrelevant
or obstructionist – accusations particularly inimical for professionals’ (p. 38).
Donald Schön18 has also concerned himself with what I regard as the dynamics
of juggling the E-ball. He suggests (Schön 1967, p. 7) that ‘when we identify
something as an instance of a concept already given we do nothing to modify our
conceptual scheme, we simply order experienced things in terms of it’. He goes
on to say (p. 8) that ‘once having resolved a problematic area of experience, once
having found a way of looking at (and therefore dealing with) a situation which
was at first novel and puzzling, our impulse to stick with it is overwhelmingly
powerful. We have adapted to it, and through it’. Our concept-forming apparatus
operates under a categorical imperative of ‘let well enough alone’. This serves us
well most of the time but of course it can constrain innovation and change.

17
Following philosopher Ralph Carnap, Clark (2008) identifies ‘external’ questions as involving
inquiry about problems external to any language or symbol system… questions that ask about
the ultimate purpose of a profession’s existence (p. 38) – not a perspective I particularly share
though I agree with Clark’s general point.
18
The Displacement of Concepts (1963) and then re-issued as Invention and the Evolution of
Ideas (1967) (Schön 1967).
6.2 The Trap of Reification 133

An unintended consequence of the processes or practices of neologising and

reifying is that we can become trapped in particular ways of engaging with situa-
tions, of juggling the E-ball. It is interesting that Schön, Ackoff, Rittel and
Webber all had professional backgrounds connected with social planning. It is not
surprising, therefore, that they made similar distinctions when describing, or
accounting for, their experiences in the messy business of planning. What these
planners had in common was that they recognised that if the situation is engaged
with as a difficulty, there will be an outcome that will be different than if a situa-
tion is engaged with as a mess. They also agreed that the traditional ‘problem sol-
ving’ methods, which are often associated with fields such as operations (or in the
UK, operational) research (OR) , or ‘scientific management’, become useable only
after the most important decisions have already been made. In other words, a diffi-
culty is first abstracted from the mess and then the difficulty is treated using a tra-
ditional ‘problem-solving approach’. Reacting to the limitations of the traditional
approach Thompson and Warburton (1985) once sensibly set out to find out what
was wrong with the Himalayas acknowledging that the problem was to know
what the problem was! From this perspective situations such as climate change
adaptation and the ‘global water crisis’ are the new Himalayas!19

6.2.4 Some Implications Arising from Neologising and Reifying

The field of Operations Research (see Fig. 2.3) provides an interesting case study
in changing ways of juggling the E-ball. In recent times special editions of OR
journals have been devoted to ‘problem structuring methods’ (PSMs).20 The edi-
torial to a special issue on PSMs described their concerns as:
Problem structuring methods (PSMs) are a collection of participatory modelling
approaches that aim to support a diverse collection of actors in addressing a problematic
situation of shared concern. The situation is normally characterised by high levels of com-
plexity and uncertainty, where differing perspectives, conflicting priorities, and prominent
intangibles are the norm rather than the exception. Typically, the most challenging ele-
ment in addressing these common managerial situations is the framing and definition of
the critical issues that constitute the problem, as well as understanding the systemic rela-
tionships between these issues. PSMs provide analytical assistance through ‘on-the-hoof’
modelling, which are used to foster dialogue, reflection and learning about the critical
issues, in order to reach shared understanding and joint agreements regarding these key
issues (Shaw et al. 2006).

This special edition reflects a changing perspective within the OR community

and practices that encourage dialogue, reflection and learning as part of practice

19
How does ‘reifying’ differ from being stuck in a concept with a premise, attitude, or an argu-
ment that prevents you from considering something else? From my perspective it differs in the
sense that the product of reification is that it creates ontologies.
20
The Journal of the Operational Research Society (2006) 57 (Shaw et al. 2006), was devoted to
‘Problem structuring methods: new directions in a problematic world’.
134 6 Juggling the E-Ball: Engaging with Situations

are to be welcomed. The perspective of those subscribing to PSM, may be charac-

terised with the approaches associated with traditional OR in the early 1980s
which included (Rosenhead 1989):
• Problems and opportunities are formulated in terms of a single objective that can
be optimised. Trade-offs are made by reducing variables to a common scale
• Doing OR has overwhelming data demands, which leads to problems of distor-
tion, data availability and data credibility
• Subjected to demands of science (scientisation), assumed to be depoliticised
and that consensus exists
• People are treated as passive objects
• Assumes a single decision maker with abstract objectives from which concrete
actions can be deduced for implementation through a hierarchical chain of
command
• Attempts to abolish future uncertainty and pre-take future decisions
One way of interpreting the traditional OR approach is practitioners choosing to
stay on the high ground, of treating the ‘real-world’ situations with which many
practitioners engage, as made up of difficulties to be solved rather than messes to
be improved. In contrast more recent approaches do not seek optimisation as the
only outcome, are prepared to combine qualitative and quantitative methods, may
involve people as active subjects and accepts uncertainty, aiming to keep options
open for later resolution (Rosenhead 1989, pp. 1–20). Yet even the term PSM rei-
fies a conception that problems exist as ‘real states’ that can be structured.
Similarities can be found between the developments within OR and the follow-
ing observation attributed to Richard Dawkins (Plsek 2001):
If I hold a rock, but want it to change, to be over there, I can simply throw it. Knowing
the weight of the rock, the speed at which it leaves my hand, and a few other variables,
I can reliably predict both the path and the landing place of a rock. But what happens if
I substitute a [live] bird? Knowing the weight of a bird and the speed of launch tells me
nothing really about where the bird will land. No matter how much analysis I do in devel-
oping the launch plan … the bird will follow the path it chooses and land where it wants.

Plsek, a change consultant based in the USA, used the ‘rock-bird’ story in an
address to a UK National Health Service (NHS) Conference entitled: ‘Why Won’t
the NHS Do As It Is Told?’ The UK NHS was then the world’s third biggest
employer after the Chinese Red Army and Indian Railways. Understandably many
people involved in the NHS experience it as complex. In his presentation Plsek
evoked different metaphors as a means for the audience to make new distinctions. He
contrasted the machine metaphor (as characterised by traditional OR, scientific man-
agement and the rock governed by Newtonian physics) with an alternative metaphor
of complex adaptive systems (CAS) as exemplified by the bird in the rock-bird story.
I admit to being constantly amazed that the distinctions entailed in the rock-
bird anecdote are so profound for many audiences. To me, immersed as I am in
my own tradition of understanding, this is so obvious! But clearly it is not for
others, and is perhaps reflective of how profoundly the modernist conceptions of
mechanism and linear causality are embedded in our society. Whilst recognising
that for many the CAS neologism creates new distinctions, I fear that its users and
6.2 The Trap of Reification 135

proponents too frequently fall into the trap of reification that I seek to avoid. As a
neologism it combines three concepts to produce a fourth – complex, adaptive,
system and CAS. My own preference is to treat the three concepts which combine
separately, or alternatively to frame my use of CAS through the organising ques-
tion: what might I learn if I were to engage with this situation as if it were a CAS?
In recent times Dave Snowden has elaborated a form of sense making practice
that distinguishes four domains; the known, the knowable, chaos and complex
(Fig. 6.1).
This model, the Cynefin framework, contains many of the elements that I have
been concerned with when I consider the E-ball:
[the framework] is a sense making model designed to allow boundaries to emerge through
the multiple discourses of the decision making group. It is not a categorisation model in
which the four domains are treated as four quadrants in a two by two matrix. None of the
domains described is better than or desirable over any other in any particular context;
there are no implied value axes.… The model has five domains, four of which are named,
and a fifth central area, which is the domain of disorder. The right-hand domains are those
of order, and the left-hand domains those of un-order (IBM 2003, p. 4).

Whilst I do not agree with all of the descriptors placed in the four quadrants in
Fig. 6.1, I do find the approach to practice of interest in respect to juggling the
E-ball; what is of most interest is how such a framework is used as part of praxis
as for example in informing framing choice for particular situations. Snowden illu-
minates this by referring to game playing:
we can look at the Cynefin model and its use in decision making in a more concrete way
by using it to consider the way we all learn to make decisions – by playing games. It is
well known that children’s games reflect the tasks adults face because by and large, play

Complex Knowable
Cause and effect coherent in Cause and effect separated
retrospect do not repeat over time & space
Pattern Management Analytical/Reductionist
PERSPECTIVE FILTERS SCENARIO PLANNING
COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS SYSTEMS THINKING
Emergent Leadership Oligarchic Leadership
Probe-Sense-Respond Sense-Analyse-Respond

Chaos Known
No Cause and effect Cause and effect relations
relationship perceivable repeatable and predictable
Stability focussed intervention Legilimate best practice
ENACTMENT TOOLS STANDARD PROCEDURES
CRISIS MANAGEMENT PROCESS RE-ENGINEERING
Tyranny and Charisma Fedual Leadership
Act-Sense-Respond Sense-Categorise-Respond

Fig. 6.1 The Cynefin framework for sense making in relation to situations (IBM 2003)
136 6 Juggling the E-Ball: Engaging with Situations

fills the function of rehearsing adult life.21 Children’s games tend to start in known space,
move through knowable space as they grow, and end up in complex space. Games in
chaotic space use shock, surprise and opportunity to open up unexpected and unmanage-
able potentialities, and are often played at social occasions where ‘mixing things up’ is
desired.

From my perspective Snowden’s practice constitutes a hybrid of influences

drawing on phenomenology, complexity theory, systems thinking, narrative theory
and other influences that are adapted in context; as such he would seem an adept
juggler of the E-ball, though I have not personally experienced him in action. His
practice reflects a confluence of lineages in that it draws heavily on phenomenol-
ogy, as does Checkland’s (1993, pp. 273–279) applied systems approach, often
labelled as ‘interpretivist’ (see Fig. 2.3).
To conclude this section I want to consider what Ackoff (or Rittel, Webber or
Schön) was doing in terms of a practitioner juggling the E-ball. I will answer this
question by grounding my answer in our everyday use of language. In everyday
speech if we describe our experience of a situation and say ‘it is a mess’, or ‘it is
really complex’, or ‘I find it hard to understand it all’, you will notice I have used
the word ‘it’ each time.22 The word ‘it’ suggests the existence of something, an
entity, a ‘real-world’ situation with which I have engaged. This structure of the
language ties us into a linguistic trap – the naming of an ‘it’ that is independent of
my act of distinction. Getting out of this trap means finding a language that avoids
the implication that there is a pre-existing ‘it’ waiting to be noticed. As someone
once said every noun obscures a verb!

Illustration 6.1

21
This is a common assumption that has to do with the implicit requirement for a ‘purpose’
which is quite different from ‘play [as] activity which has no predetermined outcome’ (Maturana
1996). Maybe the difference is between ‘game’ which has rules and an end point, and ‘play’
which is open?
22
People may also say ‘what a mess’ and ‘I’ve got myself in a mess’ but despite the absence of
an explicit ‘it’ the practical result is the same.
6.2 The Trap of Reification 137

The same could be said of thinking that there is a NHS which is either a
Newtonian machine (i.e., a thrown rock) or a CAS. I can get out of this trap by
claiming a mess or a difficulty arises in the distinctions that a practitioner makes in
a particular situation. If this is the case, a mess or a difficulty is not a property of
the situation but arises as a distinction made by a systems practitioner – someone
aware of the conceptual distinctions between seeing a mess and experiencing a diffi-
culty and being aware that this is a choice to be made – in the process of engaging
with a particular ‘real-world’ situation (see Fig. 3.5). It could be said that we bring
forth the situation.
If, on the other hand, a politician, or a manager were to say, ‘Oh, I know what
the problem is – we just have to do X and that will fix things – then that person
would be implicitly seeing the situation as a difficulty’.23 As I will show in
Reading 4, the use of scientific explanations all too often have the same effect.
We can imagine scenarios where a politician or manager was unaware of the dis-
tinctions between mess and difficulty (as many decision-makers seem to be). This
leads to the search for quick fixes, rather than engaging with situations systemi-
cally (see Seddon 2008). I have represented the implications of this dynamic in
Fig. 6.2. You will notice several trajectories, through the metaphor of ‘the chosen

Fig. 6.2 A metaphorical account of the choices and trajectories that arise from the dynamics of
making distinctions and then reifying them as objects. The choice of a reification without aware-
ness puts you on a fixed path (the walled path)

23
And if they were to do this they would probably be acting in an emotion of certainty – the key
point being that changing the ‘framing’ changes the underlying emotional dynamics and thus
manner of engagement with situations.
138 6 Juggling the E-Ball: Engaging with Situations

path’, which are distinguished by awareness or not.24 If someone is aware of the

operation of the dynamic I am describing then they have a choice to pursue any
trajectory. If they are not aware then what happens is that they conserve a manner
of living that limits choices without awareness that that is what they do.

6.3 Exemplifying Juggling the E-Ball

In my experience one of the main ways that change occurs in human social sys-
tems is when, through travel, we encounter others (situations, people etc.) who
challenge our assumptions. The result is a fresh perspective from which to
engage with our day to day situations. It is in this spirit that I introduce the next
reading – it has the potential to take you into new experiential territory and may
offer insights into your own circumstances and your own practice. I cannot ima-
gine that many readers of this book will have been to Nepal (if you have so
much the better) but the place and subject matter of this reading is not my pri-
mary concern. As with earlier readings I am inviting you to read this with an
awareness of the question: what is it that the authors claimed they did when they
did what they did? As you read focus your attention on your understanding of
juggling both the E and B-balls and how, if at all, the authors exemplify these
practices for you.
This reading describes a case study which illustrates the links between ‘problem
structuring’, multiple epistemologies (ways of knowing about the situation) across
different scales (i.e., subsystems, nested in systems, nested in a supra-system), assess-
ment of what to do and remediation (i.e., action to change things for the better). The
case study initially concerned cystic echinococcosis, a parasitic disease of people
associated with a gastro-intestinal tapeworm of dogs. Since the tapeworm usually
cycles between canids (dogs, wolves, etc.) and other vertebrate animals, the parasite
is linked to food safety through animal slaughtering techniques, which in turn are
related to changes in the characteristics of animal production and household practices.
The researchers found out that these mainly biological issues could not be dealt with
without addressing the socio-economic and cultural aspects of the situation, that is,
what they called ‘the ecosocial narratives’ which people (including scientists) used to
structure their daily lives. A 10 year series of research projects in Nepal demonstrated
that conventional science could provide explanations but had a mixed record at
achieving solutions. Effective solutions were arrived at only after local stakeholders
were engaged in the problem structuring process and the governance (i.e. institutional
and management) structures were also examined and changed. The authors conclude
that assessment (placing values on scientific measurements) and remediation (acting
on those values) requires both citizen engagement and what they describe as ‘a

24
By trajectory I mean a particular manner of unfolding the co-evolutionary dynamic discussed
in Chapter 1.
6.3 Exemplifying Juggling the E-Ball 139

nested, complex systemic epistemic stance’.25 They claim an important role for the
creation of culturally acceptable narratives as the main means to cement or synthesise
the different elements of their practice.

Reading 4
Agro-urban Ecosystem Health Assessment in Kathmandu, Nepal:
A Multi-scale, Multiperspective Synthesis26
David Waltner-Toews and Cynthia Neudoerffer

Introduction
Urban agriculture has become an increasingly important source of food and
income for rapidly growing populations in almost every large city in the
southern hemisphere. In many situations, these agricultural activities in the
midst of dense urban sprawl have arisen when rural peoples have migrated
to the city and set up enterprises doing what they know best. The context
for these urban farms, however, is utterly different from that within which
agricultural practices evolved. Along the banks of the Bishnumati River in
downtown Kathmandu, for instance, gardening and animal slaughtering
practices imported from the countryside had, by the early 1990s, created an
environmentally devastated landscape.
The public health, environmental and ecosocial consequences of such
urban agriculture are both immense and poorly studied. The complementary
problem in the northern hemisphere – the rapid expansion of urban settle-
ments into intensively farmed landscapes – is embedded in a similar proble-
matic situation. The temptation is high to believe that local, technical
assessments and engineering solutions are adequate to the task; that belief has
led – and will continue to lead – to the waste of a great deal of good science.
This paper presents a case study and a general argument for a multi-criteria,
multi-scale, participatory and narrative-based synthesis and management.
Echinococcus granulosis is one of several tiny tapeworms of dogs [canids],
essentially worldwide in distribution, which infects livestock and people. In
canids, which acquire the parasite from eating infective cysts, this parasite is
of little consequence. In people and livestock, who acquire the infection
through exposure to dog faeces, the parasite is expressed clinically as hydatid
disease, a slowly growing parasitic tumour. Depending on where these cysts

(continued)

25
This is not my language – my interpretation of what they mean could be simplified to doing
what the systems practitioner as juggler does, as I argue in this book.
26
This is an edited extract of the paper available at http://www.millenniumassessment.org/docu-
ments/bridging/papers/waltnertoews.david.pdf (Accessed 1 June 2017); see also Waltner-Toews
et al. (2005).
140 6 Juggling the E-Ball: Engaging with Situations

Reading 4 (continued)
reside, they may have major or minor clinical consequences in these other spe-
cies. Dogs are re-infected when cysts are excised from livestock at slaughter
and are cast away. With very few exceptions, for instance where people may
be buried in shallow graves accessible to canids, humans are usually a dead
end host. There are few good treatments other than surgery which, in many
parts of the world, is a high risk undertaking. In the late 1980s and early
1990s, this appeared to be particularly true in Nepal, where some 20 percent
of surgical patients with hydatid cysts died (Baronet et al. 1994).
Phase 1: Epidemiological Approaches
Beginning in the 1990s [researchers] initiated a series of epidemiological
studies to determine rates of disease in animals and people, and identify risk
factors which could – in theory – be manipulated to prevent the disease.27
These risk factors related to human-dog interactions in the community, and
open-air slaughtering along the banks of the Bishnumati River in Wards 19
and 20 in Kathmandu. Our work was based on the premise that many coun-
tries, ranging from Iceland and New Zealand to Chile and Cyprus, have suc-
cessfully undertaken aggressive and intensive control programs based, or
accompanied by, similar research programs (Gemmel et al. 1986). These
programs entailed both strict dog control measures and modernisation and
securing of slaughtering facilities.
The science which informed this work was normal, in the Kuhnian
sense, that is, based on accepted epidemiological ways of thinking.28
Echinococcosis, that is, infection with the parasite regardless of species, is
usually described in terms of its basic life cycle between canids and other spe-
cies (Fig. 6.3). Despite rhetoric about ‘webs of causation’, many epidemiologi-
cal studies reduce their models to the common denominator of their statistical
tools, and produce, at most, complicated models of disease causation (Krieger
1994). Most are basically simplistic, such as that depicted in the linear causal
model, i.e., dogs eating offal lead to people being exposed to infested feces so
they get sick. These were the models that informed our early work in Nepal,
which allowed us to identify risk factors for infection in people and animals,
devise public health statements, and have no impact whatsoever on outcomes.
By the mid-1990s, we had gathered an impressive amount of information
on infection rates in people and animals, dog behaviour and risk factors for
acquiring infection (Baronet et al. 1994). Nevertheless, little had changed in
the communities with whom we were working. Those solutions commonly

(continued)

27
This study, and other similar ones, can be found described at www.nesh.ca, in the ‘projects’
section.
28
Kuhn (1962) referred to ‘normal’ and ‘post-normal’ science.
6.3 Exemplifying Juggling the E-Ball 141

Reading 4 (continued)

Infection rate

Feces disposal
Canine behaviour
Dog
Access to infected offal

Death
Tapeworm Causes and
places of death

Person
with cyst
Hygiene Ruminant with cyst
Cultural and
Human-Dog dietary habits
Relationships
Economics
Occupation

Fig. 6.3 The life cycle of Echinococcus granulosus (inside dotted line) (NESH 2003.
Reproduced with permission)

promoted in other eradication programs – mass killing of stray dogs, restric-

tion and strict control of dog ownership, building of secure, modern slaugh-
terhouses – seemed unlikely to succeed in Nepal. Slaughtering was still done
in the open air along the riverbank, amid piles of offal and manure through
which dogs, pigs and children wandered at will. A survey of community
members at the end of the project listed water quality, health, and waste gen-
eration and disposal, particularly from animal slaughtering, as being their
most important, ongoing concerns.
By the end of the first set of epidemiological studies, we proposed a more
complex model which we termed an ecosystem health model. This model,
which was systemic, but assumed a single ‘correct’ perspective, informed the
beginnings of another set of studies. The model itself, one of several presented
to professionals and scientific experts by one of the researchers, was useful in
stimulating new ways of thinking. Several of the proposed strategies to ‘fix’ the
situation – such as composting and biogas generation – were in fact adopted by
some of the more affluent slaughterhouse owners in the community. The model,
however, omitted key elements of the situation – such as socio-economic, poli-
tical and caste status, gender, and livelihoods. Since the overall ecosocial com-
munity was in fact an emergent property of how local citizens went about their
daily tasks, and since these citizens were not engaged in the processes of pro-
blem formulation and solution-seeking, these new models had minimal impact.

(continued)
142 6 Juggling the E-Ball: Engaging with Situations

Reading 4 (continued)
Phase 2: Eco-systems Approaches
In 1998 [an NGO]29 joined with researchers from Guelph and a variety of
community-based stakeholder groups to carry out a project on ecosystem
approaches to health in the two urban wards of Kathmandu. Thus the focus
of activity shifted from a specific parasite, the research team expanded to
include the community members themselves, and the methods expanded to
incorporate a variety of participatory and qualitative tools.
Details of this study are reported elsewhere (Neudoerffer et al. 2004;
SAGUN, NZFHRC and University of Guelph 2001). The new project encom-
passed a wide range of investigative methods, reflecting both the ambitious
goals of the researchers, and an emerging consensus among scholars in this
field that methodological pluralism must be central to any new science for sus-
tainability (Murray et al. 2002). We used conventional, quantitative scientific
methods including epidemiological surveys, water quality monitoring and a
variety of health assessments. These were complemented with more qualitative
tools, drawn from Participatory Action Research (PAR) and related fields such
as participatory urban appraisal, gender analysis, semi-structured surveys,
focus group discussions, appreciative inquiry and stakeholder analysis.
Community researchers, hired and trained by the research team, and
members of the local community, were key facilitators in such processes.
This was to ensure the development of local capacity for participatory action
and research through generation of awareness among people. Various stake-
holder groups in the community developed action plans based on group nar-
ratives and priorities; these were implemented to varying degrees. However,
there was a sense that the collective narrative of the community was not
being adequately understood or addressed, and that the multiple perspectives
and methods left a sense of fragmentation.
Near the end of the project, the work was re-assessed using AMESH, an
Adaptive Methodology for Ecosystem Sustainability and Health, first devel-
oped in the context of similar projects in Peru and Kenya (Murray et al.
2002; Waltner-Toews et al. 2004; Fig. 6.4)
AMESH brings together critically reflective public participation with
insights from self-organising, holarchic, open systems theories (Kay et al.
1999).30 It calls for methodological pluralism and multi-scalar participation

(continued)
29
Social Action for Grassroots Unity and Networking (SAGUN).
30
Self-organising is described elsewhere in the book – a holarchy, ‘in the terminology of Arthur
Koestler, is a hierarchy of holons – where a holon is both a part and a whole. The term was coined in
Koestler’s (1967) book The Ghost in the Machine. The term, spelled holoarchy, is also used exten-
sively by American philosopher and writer Ken Wilber. The ‘nested’ nature of holons, where one
holon can be considered as part of another, is similar to the term Panarchy as used by Adaptive
Management theorists Lance Gunderson and C.S. Holling’ (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Holarchy). An open system usually refers to a system open to the free flow of energy and matter.
6.3 Exemplifying Juggling the E-Ball 143

Reading 4 (continued)

Presenting Situation: Analysis of

the Entry Point

Presenting Issues: Stakeholders: the

complaints and/or research team,
research agency community, others.
agenda whose issues are they?

The Given History: Issues: ecological, Policy, politics,

ecological, physical, social, and health Governance:
social, economic, who decides?
political governance

People and their Stories

Multiple socio-ecological stories,
Collaborative Learning pictures, and system descriptions.
and Action

Monitoring and Evaluation:

indicators: What? Whose?
Systems Descriptions and Narratives:
Are we getting better?
Developing a Systemic understatnding

Implementation: turning the Systems Analysis:

vision into action Qualitative: rich pictures, conceptual
models, systems diagrams, different
Design of an adaptive approach perspectives across scales
for implementation of the vision Quantitative: simulations, GIS,
and collaborative learning Mathematical models

Seeking solutions: Systems Synthesis:

cross talk, negotiating tradeoffs, Qualitative: narratives, feasible stories;
creating a vision, tradeoffs, opportunities and constraints
a collective future narrative Quantitative: scenarios, tradeoffs,
costs and benefits

Fig. 6.4 An adaptive methodology for ecosystem sustainability and health (AMESH)
(NESH 2003. Reproduced with permission)

of stakeholders. Beginning with a problematic situation and a ‘given’ history,

AMESH then engages all legitimate stakeholders to identify key issues and
their policy and decision-making contexts; from this emerge narratives, which
are then structured into systemic descriptions. These, finally, are used by
decision-makers to choose a course of action, identify indicators, and imple-
ment correct actions. The methodology, which we have now applied in Nepal,
Kenya, Peru and Canada is iterative and self-correcting, that is, adaptive.

(continued)
144 6 Juggling the E-Ball: Engaging with Situations

Reading 4 (continued)
In this paper, the focus is on only one aspect of this complex process –
the changing models of reality we had to incorporate into our activities, and
the critical point at which everything changed.
Systems Descriptions: One Scale, Many Perspectives
After the epidemiological studies, a full review of the situation, followed by
a community-based workshop, led to the new initiative, the ‘Participatory
Action Research Urban Eco-system Health Project’, with a major leadership
role taken on by the NGO. What emerged from an intensive program of
working with a wide variety of stakeholder groups in the community was a
set of ‘ecosystem stories’ or ‘ecosystem narratives’, one for each stake-
holder group. Describing how each stakeholder group perceived the interac-
tions among themselves, other stakeholder groups, and the local ecosocial
system, these narratives were translated into a set of influence diagrams
(see Fig. 6.5).
Using a technique modified from the work of Thomas Gitau, who had
initiated another AMESH project in Kenya (McDermott et al. 2001), these
diagrams were able to identify a wide range of interactions within groups, as
well as point to areas of potential conflict between groups.
Figure 6.5 is the ‘issues and influences’ diagram for the butcher stake-
holder group. The activities of this group – comprised of wholesalers, retai-
lers and butchers – are related to butchering and selling meat. The
ecosystem health issues identified had to do with hygiene, waste manage-
ment and water quality and quantity. The needs and concerns clearly varied
by actor perspective even within this group. [Similar figures were drawn,
and explained, for other stakeholder groups but are not presented here.]
For the final workshop of the project, we brought these influence dia-
grams together in various ways, and presented them back to the community.
Figure 6.6 depicts the concerns and perspectives of the various stakeholders
of the food and waste system. This enabled the community to identify where
there were strongly divergent views requiring negotiation of tradeoffs, future
visions, and possible future actions.
The same food and waste system can be seen as a set of expressed needs
and how those needs were seen to relate to resource states, which were used
as general indicators of ecosystem health.
Although these models were not made explicit until near the end of the
project, it was clear that they reflected the mental models used by partici-
pants in telling their stories. Furthermore, by drawing on these stories, and
through the process of civic engagement, the citizens of these communities
completely transformed their neighbourhoods. Small-scale slaughterhouses
were built and butchers began to compost and recycle; both public and pri-
vate gardens were planted along the river; public toilets were built; and a
program to clean up local water sources was initiated. By 2001, the area had

(continued)
 Actors
Needs Do not perceive Lobby government(?) Small Meat
any environmental Market Want garbage mgt.
Activities
problems Association & hygienic meat prep, Police IIMG
Resource States Want clean, training for hutchers
Concerns public slaughter
Pay houses
Retailers for meat Feel they receive
Want fixed price bad media coverage
in kathmandu
Reading 4 (continued)

Wholesalers Harassment
Sell Sell Sell buffalo (owners)
chicken buffalo (am only) Deliver meat
(all day) and chicken
6.3 Exemplifying Juggling the E-Ball

Employ
Dispose garbage Garbage
Grazing animals Training hutchers
along river
Training in street containers
Protective Butchering Butchers Feel intimidated
(employees) by employers
clothing Quality Leave of Cleanliness Yell & throw
of meat shop hygiene of street stones at squatters
Protective nets sold Garbage Regular
over meat management
Water availability – garbage
Water Low quantity of tap water collection
Refrigerator
availability
storage Hygiene of
Water availability – slaughter houses Garbage
Do not Low quantity of well water container
complain
about quality Hygiene of
Customers Water quality Low
of meat riverbed
(ward citizens) quality tube well water
Wholesalers

Fig. 6.5 Issues and influences in wards 19 and 20, Kathmandu butcher’s version (NESH 2003. Reproduced with permission)

(continued)
145
 146

Feel they Do not perceive Feel intimidated People. esp. from Ward committee
receive bad any environmental by employers disadvantages does not properly
media coverage problems groups w/low enforce rules
Butchers literacy are and regulations
Wholesalers Retailers (employees) not aware of
(owners) Butchers yell garbage mgt
& throw bones
Other Massive amounts slaughter Lack of efficient Community
at them
of garbage from and regular
Reading 4 (continued)

vendors houses leaders

slaughterhouses sweeping exacerbates
Waste & smell garbage mismanagement
Customers produce Squatters
garbage when they Temporary (ward citizens)
purchase from Doko sellers Street sweepers
Temporary
vegetable vendors produce garbage are responsible Sweepers only
Doko sellers
for poor garbage collect paper &
cause traffic
Street management vegetable waste
Expect jams & sell too
vendors cheap leave other garbage
Sweepers to
e.g. dead animals
clean waste Sweepers People throw
Sweepers do garbage out
should not get
All vendors should not sweep Not enough window as soon
weekends off
pay rent for space – regularly enough time to collect they see tractors Citizens ignore
facilitate organisation garbage request to not
carelessly throw
Sense of ownership Doko Better garbage everywhere
‘sweepers’
vendors management ?

Customers Non – vegetarian Vegetarian KMC Police – HMG Small Meat

(ward citizens) hotel hotel Maket Association

Fig. 6.6 Stakeholder concerns, food and waste system, wards 19 and 20 Kathmandu (NESH 2003. Reproduced with permission)

(continued)
6 Juggling the E-Ball: Engaging with Situations
6.3 Exemplifying Juggling the E-Ball 147

Reading 4 (continued)
been completely transformed. Most importantly, some of the key actors in
the community – the butchers – who generated employment, money and
waste, emerged as a potent force for change and renewal.
Systems Descriptions: Many Scales, Many Perspectives
By the end of the project, it became clear that, while many issues could be
dealt with by individuals, in households and in the neighbourhoods, some –
relating to garbage collection and water supplies in particular – required
much larger-scale commitments and engagements. In some cases, local volun-
teer clubs developed garbage collection and recycling programs in lieu of
changes in city-wide garbage collection and disposal programs. These could
be seen as organisational adaptive responses to local issues that emerged
through a combination of improved knowledge and local ‘ownership’. In
other cases, local artesian wells were cleaned up and cloth filters put on public
taps, but it was clear that these were stop-gap measures until changes at the
city or valley scale could be initiated. Presentation of multi-scale models to
the communities and their leaders enabled us to identify the nature of these
adaptive responses and scale issues. For instance one model linked various
formal governance hierarchies with issues being addressed. Another raised
questions about links between formal and informal governance structures
which required further investigation. Some of these hierarchical issues were
already being dealt with, by bringing together neighbourhood (ward) and
including Kathmandu city bureaucrats in water management workshops, and
by promoting national laws and regulations regarding animal slaughtering.
The Meaning of the Models: A Meta-narrative
One of the most useful ways to now stand back and view all of these
multiple models is to incorporate them into a kind of meta-narrative, of the
kind that are implicit in all scientific studies, and usually explicitly denied
by scientists.
This narrative includes a cast of thousands of Newari, Tibetans, Indians
and Bhutanese who have come to Kathmandu in the past few decades flee-
ing soil erosion, food and fuel shortages, rural community breakdown, and
political instability. They bring with them food preferences and trading pat-
terns, thus importing, for instance, goats from Tibet (where hydatid disease
is common) into Kathmandu (where we don’t think it has been).
Family and cultural traditions of butchering perhaps once sustainable in
sparsely populated rural areas are brought into the very different, more
crowded urban setting of Kathmandu. Butchers don’t want to give up family
traditions and become wage labourers in an animal killing factory. Hence a
large Danish project which built a modern slaughterhouse near Kathmandu
in the 1980s was largely unused.
Cow pats are slapped on the walls of buildings where they dry and are
used for fuel. If these are not used, then more wood fuel is needed (to cook

(continued)
148 6 Juggling the E-Ball: Engaging with Situations

Reading 4 (continued)
the offal or the food) from the already deforested countryside – carried
down by young girls who are not then getting an education which would
enable them to escape these traps. If cow pats are used as fuel, then valuable
fertiliser is lost from the countryside. Streets are used for waste disposal,
since the government simply cannot afford to maintain a European-style
sewage disposal infrastructure.
One way to generate more money to solve this problem is to increase the
carpet trade in response to high demands for these from Europe, Germany in
particular. This uses vast amounts of water, making less available for public
health purposes, and creates serious pollution problems of its own. Because the
water system in Kathmandu is ancient and leaky, and because so much water is
used to generate income (and money to pay for a better system) by the carpet
and tourist businesses, riverbanks are used as public toilets and laundromats.
Groups of dogs – sources of rabies and echinococcosis – serve also as
community-watch volunteers for places of worship and meditation. While
our University of Guelph field researcher, Dominique Baronet, was in
Kathmandu, members of the community where she was working noticed
that some of the community dogs died. At the same time, thieves stole some
artifacts from a local temple. Their explanation of these events went like
this: Canadian woman comes into our neighbourhood, injecting dogs with
strange drugs. The dogs, who are our community police, die. The thieves
move in. Our version might be that dogs die all the time, but when they
have fluorescent collars on, people notice them more; thieves are always on
the lookout for portable gods to sell. The events were unconnected. Our
version, however, did not determine their behaviour and was irrelevant to
resolving the issue, however dearly we might have believed it to be true.
Fortunately, Dominique had built up a lot of goodwill in the community and
we could continue our work despite the suspicions. The bottom line is that
people value their dogs for a whole complex of reasons and getting rid of
them – as was done in Cyprus and Iceland – will simply not work.
Rickshaw drivers, taking advantage of increased meat consumption by
tourists and increased economic activity of a small upper class, carry meat to
market in the morning and tourists to temples in the evening. Streets intended
for people on foot are now crowded with families on bicycles and motor-
cycles, and old vehicles burning fossil fuels, choking the air with pollutants.
The economic, cultural, and family bases of human-dog relations, butcher-
ing practices, and their many dependent occupations of small-scale meat trans-
porters and butcher shops throughout the city, cannot simply be altered by
decreeing that it should be so. Butchering and food hygiene practices depend
not only on knowledge, but on the availability of clean water and affordable
fuel and for cooking, thus competing directly with economically powerful
activities such as the carpet industry, which use – and waste – huge amounts

(continued)
6.3 Exemplifying Juggling the E-Ball 149

Reading 4 (continued)
of water. Even if the dogs could all be treated with an antiparasitic drug, it is
clear that the communities involved would still be left with serious public
health, economic and environmental problems, many of which appear to be
considerably more pressing than this particular parasite. Of all the places these
communities could spend what little spare cash they might have, why would
they want to spend it on an antiparasitic drug or control program for dogs?
Changing butchering practices seemed to be an essential part of any strat-
egy, but this involves major cultural and economic changes, and not only for
butchers. The original program which built the large slaughterhouse assumed
that Nepalese people could control the disease (and others) if they behaved
like Danes – in fact, if they reconstructed their culture in the model of
Denmark. Indeed, much of what is promoted as disease prevention worldwide
is based on a science which assumes that its information is objective and glob-
ally true. Because this is actually false, the success of our disease control pro-
grams depend on the degree to which we could convince the Nepalese to
become like Western countries. This explains, in part, why conventional pro-
grams to control echinococcosis in New Zealand have been much more suc-
cessful among settlers of European descent than among the native Maori.
The ultimate effect of conventional public health programs is a narrowing
of the cultural base, and a closing off of options for future adaptability to
change. They tend, thus, to fly in the face of sustainable development. Just
as genetic homogenisation in the populations of plants and animals we use
for agriculture is leading inevitably to global epidemics of animal and
food-borne diseases, so this cultural smoothing, while solving the disease
problems we are focused on, will result in massive public health problems
down the road.
Actually, it was even worse than this, because the European and North
American models of disease control depend on reducing the complexity of
nature to fit the image we have created in our simplistic laboratory models.
The implications of this for species extinction, soil erosion, disease epi-
demics and global climate change we are only now beginning to realise.
Conclusions
The multi-perspective, multi-scale combination of narratives and models
might seem overwhelming and perhaps paralysing to someone seeking glo-
bal quantitative assessments. By starting our system identification from the
inside out, based on the priorities of the local stakeholders such as the squat-
ters, street sweepers, businessmen and political leaders, we can begin to
understand the meaning of integrated assessments. We cannot of course stop
at the ‘local’; even in our cleaned up wards, we found waste floating into
the area from upstream. This is why multi-scale engagements are essential.
In ongoing debate and adaptation across scales, we can incorporate the
insights gained from our scientific models, and the concerns of the wider

(continued)
150 6 Juggling the E-Ball: Engaging with Situations

Reading 4 (continued)
scientific and sustainable development community. This approach to urban
agro-ecosystem assessment, then, is not overwhelming, but sensible, reason-
able, scientifically sound, and can lead directly to meaningful and convivial
changes to the lives of the people with whom we are working.
Waltner-Toews, D., and Neudoerffer, C., ‘Agro-urban ecosystem health assessment in
Kathmandu, Nepal: a multi-scale, multi-perspective synthesis’.

6.4 Interpreting the Reading

I chose this reading to exemplify how a systems practitioner who is also a

researcher juggles the E-ball. In this reading I discern an unfolding evolution in
the practice of juggling the E-ball. The sequence described is:31
• Phase 1 – engaging as traditional scientists (epidemiology researchers) with a
situation framed as a complex biological problem but one which could
be solved (and where knowledge and practices from other contexts could be
applied – i.e., the knowledge generated was generalisable); the models that
informed this early work allowed them to identify risk factors for infection in
people and animals, devise public health statements, BUT have no impact
whatsoever on outcomes
• Phase 2 – the development of a model of the situation ‘which was systemic,
but assumed a single “correct” perspective’ which ‘informed the beginnings of
another set of studies. The model itself, one of several presented to profes-
sionals and scientific experts by one of the researchers, was useful in stimulat-
ing new ways of thinking’. The model, however, ‘omitted key elements of the
situation – such as socio-economic, political and caste status, gender, and liveli-
hoods. Since the overall ecosocial community was in fact an emergent property
of how local citizens went about their daily tasks, and since these citizens were
not engaged in the processes of problem formulation and solution-seeking,
these new models had minimal impact’
• Phase 3 – In this phase the perspectives of the research team broadened as new,
including local, groups joined. The focus of activity also shifted from a specific
parasite to a broader framing of the situation (it could be said that the boundaries
to their systems of interest changed) and the methods expanded to incorporate a
variety of participatory and qualitative tools – described as methodological plur-
alism. However, despite these innovations, ‘there was a sense that the collective
narrative of the community was not being adequately understood or addressed,
and that the multiple perspectives and methods left a sense of fragmentation’

31
By phase, I mean the phases of juggling practice – not the same phases described in the paper.
6.4 Interpreting the Reading 151

• Phase 4 – near the end of Phase 3, as good reflective practitioners, and dissatis-
fied with the effectiveness of what they were doing, they re-assessed their work
using AMESH (an Adaptive Methodology for Ecosystem Sustainability and
Health). The authors claim that ‘AMESH brings together critically reflective
public participation with insights from self-organising, holarchic, open systems
theories’ and ‘calls for methodological pluralism and multi-scalar participation
of stakeholders’. The authors describe how this methodology is applied and
claim experience of application in many contexts. In terms of the E-ball, what
is significant is that they have turned towards a designed systemic methodology
for engaging which, it is claimed, is flexible and adaptive to context (juggling
the C-ball) and involves all ‘legitimate stakeholders’
• Phase 5 – from my perspective this phase was marked by the adoption of parti-
cular forms of diagramming as a means to engage with the situation. They did
this through the ‘capturing’ of systemic depictions of the situation from the per-
spectives of different stakeholder groups. These diagrams were able to commu-
nicate a wide range of interactions within groups, as well as point to areas of
potential conflict between groups. Whilst the exact means of their generation
and use are not described fully, this diagramming practice is extremely similar
to what the OU has taught systems students for over 30 years as the primary
means to engage with complex situations.32 I use diagrams of this type in my
own systems practice and like these authors I often bring these influence and
other types of diagrams together in various ways, and present them back to the
community. I use the metaphor of ‘mirroring back’ what we have heard or
understood and never make claims that the diagrams represent ‘how things
are’. They are thus used as a social technology to mediate a conversation from
which new understandings, practices and social relations might emerge
(Fig. 1.3). The systemic practices arising from this ‘ecohealth’ lineage have
been usefully explored by Bunch (2016). The following table summarises some
of the forms of diagramming that we use at The Open University and the sys-
temic insights their use can reveal (Table 6.1)
• Phase 6 – for me this phase is best described (in my language) as the emergent
awareness amongst the researchers (arising through their juggling of the B- and
E-balls) of what can be gained from the shift towards a more systemic practice.
What was particularly telling was how effective the outcomes of Phase 5
were – ‘by drawing on these stories, and through the process of civic engage-
ment, the citizens of these communities completely transformed their neigh-
bourhoods. Small-scale slaughterhouses were built and butchers began to
compost and recycle; both public and private gardens were planted along the
river; public toilets were built; and a programme to clean up local water sources
was initiated. By 2001, the area had been completely transformed. Most

32
It is perhaps fair to say that at times in the past diagrams were sometimes taught at the OU as a
means to ‘represent’ or to ‘map’ systems rather than as a means to engage with situations experi-
enced as complex.
152 6 Juggling the E-Ball: Engaging with Situations

Table 6.1 Some forms of systems diagramming taught to Open University Systems students for
engaging with situations of complexity and the systems concepts associated with each (see
Table 2.1) (Ison 2008; Blackmore et al. 2017)
Diagram type Purpose System concepts employed or revealed
Systems map To make a snapshot of elements in • Boundary judgements
a situation at a given moment Levels – system, sub-system,
supra-system
Environment
Elements and their relationships
Influence To explore patterns of influence in • Connectivity via influence
a situation; precursor to dynamic Relational dynamics between
modelling elements
Multiple cause Explore understandings of causality • Worldview about causality
in a situation Positive and negative feedback
Rich pictures Unstructured picture of a situation • Systemic complexity
Reveals mental models and metaphors
Can reveal emotional and political
elements of situation
Control model To explore how control may • Feedback
operate in a situation Control action
Purpose
Measures of performance

importantly, some of the key actors in the community – the butchers – who gen-
erated employment, money and waste, emerged as a potent force for change and
renewal’. In the language of Fig. 1.3 (see Chapter 1), what was achieved was con-
certed action amongst multiple stakeholders. Most importantly the circumstances
of the people and context were improved. This occurred through a process that
involved significant changes to how the researchers juggled the B- and E-balls
As a further reflection I note that the authors engaged in their own processes of
neologising – e.g. AMESH, an ‘ecosocial community’. If we are to create the cir-
cumstances for making new distinctions this is unavoidable but, unfortunately, the
practice all too often becomes tied up in ‘branding’ and attempts to make and hold
onto knowledge claims or build institutional capital around a particular group or
organisation – a perverse product of contemporary academic practices. I also
detect in the reading a lack of clarity around the distinctions between situation and
system of the type I raised in Chapter 4. This may have some implications for
how the AMESH methodology is put into practice by different users, though from
this paper it is not possible to say a lot about how AMESH might be enacted.
More importantly though, the breakthrough, in terms of effective and systemic
change in the situation, came about when the researchers abandoned the reification
of their scientific research results as the ‘truth’ about the situation. The science
was important and necessary but in and of itself was not sufficient to effect sys-
temic improvement. The important step was to realise how their science and
References 153

subsequent practices could be more effectively contextualised. This is the concern

of the next ball, the C-ball, juggled by the systems practitioner.

References

Ackoff RL (1974a) Redesigning the future. Wiley, New York

Ackoff RL (1974b) The systems revolution. Long Range Plan. 7:2–5
APSC (Australian Public Service Commission) (2007) Tackling wicked problems. A public pol-
icy perspective. Australian Government/Australian Public Service Commission, Canberra
Baronet D, Waltner-Toews D, Joshi DD, et al. (1994) Echinococcus granulosus infection in dog
populations in Kathmandu, Nepal. Ann Trop Med Hyg 88:485–492
Blackmore C (ed) (2010) Social learning systems and communities of practice. Springer, London
Blackmore CP, Collins K, Foster N, et al. (2017) Understanding and developing communities of
practice through diagramming. In: Oreszczyn S, Lane A (eds) Mapping environmental sus-
tainability: reflecting on systemic practices for participatory research. Policy Press, London,
p 157–184 (in press)
Briggs L (2009) Delivering performance and accountability – intersections with ‘wicked pro-
blems’. The International Society for Systems Sciences annual conference, conference paper.
Brisbane, Australia, July 2009
Bunch MJ (2016) Ecosystem approaches to health and well-being: navigating complexity, pro-
moting health in social–ecological systems. Syst Res Behav Sci 33:614–632
Bunnell P (2009) Personal communication. Systems Ecologist, President of Lifeworks,
Vancouver, British Columbia, April 2009
Chapman J (2005) System failure. DEMOS, London
Checkland PB (1993) Systems thinking, system practice. Wiley, Chichester
Clark JJ (2008) Complex approaches to wicked problems: applying Sharon Berlin’s analysis of
“dichotomous thinking”. Social Work Now 39:38–48
Conklin J (2001) Wicked problems and social complexity. CogNexus Institute. http://cognexus.
org/wpf/wickedproblems.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2017
Cross N (ed) (1984) Developments in design methodology. Wiley, Chichester
Gemmel MA, Lawson JR, Roberts MG (1986) Control of echinococcosis/hydatidosis: present
status of worldwide progress. Bull World Health Org 64:333–339
IBM (2003) The Cynefin Model. The Cynefin Centre for Organisational Complexity. IBM (UK)
Ltd
Ison RL (2008) Systems thinking and practice for action research. In: Reason P, Bradbury H
(eds) The Sage handbook of action research participative inquiry and practice, 2nd edn. Sage,
London, p 139–158
Ison RL (2016) Governing in the anthropocene: what future systems thinking in practice? Syst
Res Behav Sci 33(5):595–613
Ison RL, Collins KB, Wallis P (2014) Institutionalising social learning: towards systemic and
adaptive governance. Environ Sci Policy 53(B):105–117
Kay JJ, Regier H, Boyle M, et al. (1999) An ecosystem approach to sustainability: addressing
the challenge of complexity. Futures 31:721–742
Koestler A (1967) The ghost in the machine. MacMillan, New York
Krieger N (1994) Epidemiology and the web of causation: has anyone seen the spider? Soc Sci
Med 39:887–903
Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
Lakoff G (2010) Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environ Commun 4:70–81
Lazarus RJ (2009) Super wicked problems and climate change: restraining the present to liberate
the future. Cornell Law Rev 94:1153–1234
Maturana H (1996) Personal communication. Professor Emeritus. University of Chile
154 6 Juggling the E-Ball: Engaging with Situations

McDermott J, Gitau T, Waltner-Toews D (2001) An integrated assessment of agricultural commu-

nities in the Central Highlands of Kenya. Final Report to IDRC. Accessible at the website of
the Network for Ecosystem Sustainability and Health (www.nesh.ca). Accessed 3 Aug 2009
Murray T, Kay J, Waltner-Toews D, et al. (2002) Linking human and ecosystem health on the
amazon frontier: an adaptive ecosystem approach. In: Tabor G, Pearl M, Reed M, Ostfeld R,
Aguirre A, Patz J, House C (eds) Conservation medicine: ecological health in practice.
Oxford University Press, New York
Neudoerffer RC, Waltner-Toews D, Kay JJ (2004) AMESH analysis of the urban ecosystem
health project, Nepal. In: Waltner-Toews D, Kay JJ, Lister NM (eds) The ecosystem
approach: complexity, uncertainty, and managing for sustainability. Columbia University
Press, New York
OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development) (2017) Working with change:
systems approaches to public sector challenges. OECD Observatory of Public Sector
Innovation. An initiative of the OECD’s Public Governance and Territorial Development
Directorate (Preliminary version). OECD, Paris
Plsek P (2001) Why won’t the NHS do as it is told? Plenary Address, NHS Confederation
Conference, London, 6 July 2001
Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–69
Rosenhead J (1989) Introduction: old and new paradigms of analysis. In: Rosenhead J (ed)
Rational analysis for a problematic world: problem structuring methods for complexity,
uncertainty and conflict. Wiley, Chichester, p 1–20
SAGUN, NZFHRC and University of Guelph (2001) Final report to the International
Development Research Centre of the participatory action research on urban ecosystem health
in Kathmandu Inner City Neighbourhoods. Accessible through the cybrary at www.nesh.ca.
Guelph, Canada
Schön D (1967) Invention and the evolution of ideas. Tavistock, London
Schön DA (1987) Educating the reflective practitioner: toward a new design for teaching and
learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA
Schön DA (1995) The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, November/
December, p 27–34
Seddon J (2008) Systems thinking in the public sector: the failure of the reform regime... and a
manifesto for a better way. Triarchy Press, Axminster
Shaw D, Franco A, Westcombe M (2006) Problem structuring methods: new directions in a pro-
blematic world. J Oper Res Soc 57:757–758
Snowden D (2003) Organising principles (DRAFT). The Cynefin Centre for Organisational
Complexity, IBM, London
Thompson M, Warburton M (1985) Decision making under contradictory certainties: how to
save the Himalayas when you can’t find what is wrong with them. J Appl Syst Anal 12:3–34
Waltner-Toews D, Kay JJ, Murray T, et al. (2004) Adaptive methodology for ecosystem sustain-
ability and health (AMESH): an introduction. In: Midgley G and Ochoa-Arias AE (eds)
Community operational research: systems thinking for community development. Plenum/
Kluwer: New York
Waltner-Toews D, Neudoerffer RC (2003) Agro-urban ecosystem health assessment in
Kathmandu, Nepal: a multi-scale, multiperspective synthesis. http://www.millenniumassessment.
org/documents/bridging/papers/waltnertoews.david.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2017
Waltner-Toews D, Neudoerffer C, Joshi DD, et al. (2005) Agro-urban ecosystem health assess-
ment in Kathmandu, Nepal: epidemiology, systems, narratives. Ecohealth 2:1–11
Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK
Chapter 7
Juggling the C-Ball: Contextualising
Systems Approaches

Abstract A systems practitioner has to contextualise their practice to their circum-

stances in their choice and use of systems boundaries, concepts, tools, methods,
etc. In this chapter what is entailed in juggling the C-ball is explored. It is argued
that an aware systems practitioner has more choices than the practitioner who is
not aware. A primary aspect of awareness is use of the distinction between
systemic and systematic thinking and action. Arguments are made that an aware
systems practitioner is able to contextualise a diverse array of systems concepts
and methods thereby creating an opportunity for advantageous changes in ‘real-
world’ situations that are systemically desirable, culturally feasible and ethically
defensible. A case study of a systemic inquiry that adapted to unfolding circum-
stances is used to exemplify juggling the C-ball.

7.1 What Is It to Contextualise?

The word ‘contextualise’ can be traced back to the Greek ‘techne’ meaning
‘skill or craft’ and later to the Latin ‘texere’ meaning to weave, construct or
compose (Shipley 1984). The other part of the word, ‘con’ means ‘with’ in the
sense of ‘with [the rest of] the weave or composition’. In my terms the act of
contextualising, of juggling the C-ball, draws on all of these historical mean-
ings. Let me expand a little by explaining what happens when I go swimming,
a form of practice, at my local pool. The lanes in my pool are labelled slow,
medium, fast, and sometimes, aquaplay. Usually there is at least one lane of
each. Over time I have come to contextualise my swimming to a set of circum-
stances in which I understand that what is fast and what is slow differs with
time of day (i.e. who the other swimmers are; whether lap training is happen-
ing, etc.). I have also come to know that at certain times I can swim in the
aquaplay lanes, or that at others I am best to consider myself fast or slow.
Because I have flexibility to adapt my swimming to a changing situation I find
my practice usually works very well for me … and presumably those who

© The Open University 2017 155

Published in Association with Springer-Verlag London Limited
R. Ison, Systems Practice: How to Act, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9_7
156 7 Juggling the C-Ball: Contextualising Systems Approaches

manage the pool.1 For me this is an example of juggling the C-ball in my

swimming practice.
I feel sure many will relate to my example of swimming practice yet as an
example it challenges some deeply held and institutionalised understandings about
practice, knowledge and context. In my example I did not need a priori knowledge
that was then applied to how I could or should swim. It was by doing the
swimming in particular, situated, circumstances that knowing effective swimming
emerged. Cook and Wagenaar (2012) are critical of what they term that ‘main-
stream view’ on this matter: ‘in the Cartesian [mainstream] view, knowledge is
seen as a guarantee of a proper understanding of the world, and in this sense
stands in an hierarchical relation to practice and social interaction, it is understood
as historically and ontologically prior to practice – in particular, our knowledge
of the world enables us to act on it’ (p. 17). Instead these authors (ibid) ‘see an
epistemology of practice as an inquiry into the possibilities and constraints of
being engaged, embodied, contextualized agents’ (p. 19). It is within this spirit of
inquiry that I invite you to consider the C-ball.
Thus, just as a juggler might have to compose a performance contextualised to
an audience – children or seniors or business people – a systems practitioner has
to contextualise their practice to their circumstances including their choice and use
of systems concepts, tools, methods, etc. In this chapter I explore what is entailed
in juggling the C-ball. I will argue that an aware systems practitioner has more
choices than the practitioner who is not aware – one aspect of awareness I will
draw attention to is use of the distinction between systemic and systematic thinking
and action made in Chapter 2 (e.g. Table 2.1).
An aware practitioner, I contend, is able to contextualise a diverse array of
systems concepts and methods creating an opportunity for advantageous changes
in ‘real-world’ situations that are systemically desirable, culturally feasible and
ethically defensible. As the authors of Reading 4 (Chapter 6) outlined, the ultimate
effect of conventional public health programmes, using traditional approaches to
practice, was a narrowing of the cultural base, and a closing of options for future
adaptability to change. The traditional approaches, including scientific practice,
thus tended to fly in the face of sustainable development. In part, traditional
approaches do this because the approach that is taken is generalised as if it were
appropriate across contexts, taking on the form of a ‘blueprint’ or something to be
‘rolled out’. The end result can be much like trying to force a square peg into a
round hole, i.e. failure or a very uncomfortable or ineffective fit! The authors of
Reading 4 advocated a move to what they described as methodological pluralism,
which in colloquial terms is a bit like ‘picking horses for courses’.2 This chapter

1
For example if fast and slow were defined by lap times, this would require a whole assessment
and monitoring system which would become unwieldy.
2
Horses for courses means that what is suitable for one person or situation might be unsuitable
for another (Source: http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/horses+for+courses.html,
Accessed 17 May 2017).
7.2 What are Systems Approaches? 157

explores how, through juggling the C-ball, a systems practitioner might avoid a
narrowing of possibilities on pathways towards effective action.
Systems concepts and language are useful for talking about just about any subject;
this has led some to describe Systems as a meta-discipline or trans-discipline.3
Fortunately, there is a rich tradition of Systems scholarship upon which to draw to
help in meeting the challenges of juggling the C-ball (e.g. Fig. 2.3 and Readings 1–4).
The more aware you are of this history and the more it becomes part of your own tra-
dition of understanding – just as in my example of Smilla and the history of the Inuit
people – the greater will be your ability to embody particular Systems distinctions in
your practice.4
My focus is on the thinking that enables you to use relevant tools, techniques
and methods in the right context for effecting action. First I describe what I mean
by a systems approach and how this relates to purposeful behaviour on the part of
the practitioner. Then I distinguish between tools, techniques, method and metho-
dology. Finally, I consider what is involved in contextualising any approach in a
given ‘real-world’ situation. To do this I will ask you to keep in mind a number of
questions as you work through the chapter:
• Is it the method, technique or tool or how it is used that is important?
• How are learning and action built in?
• Who is, or could be, involved in the approach?
• What could be said about the politics and practicalities of engaging in a ‘real-
world’ situation?

7.2 What are Systems Approaches?

An approach is a way of going about taking action in a ‘real-world’ situation, as

depicted in Fig. 3.5. As outlined earlier, an observer has choices that can be made
for engaging with situations. As I said in Chapter 1, my invitation is to consider
choosing systems approaches, as a means to approach the world systemically
using systems thinking. Other choices of approach could be made. Think of the
everyday ways we use adjectives to describe the word approach. Some that come
to mind are a scientific approach; a reductionist approach; an empirical approach;
a philosophical approach; an experimental approach; a spiritual approach; a practical
approach; a critical approach. You can probably think of more.

3
The challenge for the systems practitioner is to be able to engage in double learning – learning
about the domain in which practice is occurring and learning about the systems approach to the
domain as well as juggling the other balls. This is a lot to manage.
4
The various Systems traditions might equate more to Inuit, Lapp, Anu, or even Tongan, etc.
One can be quite proficient with the richness in any one of the branches without being a scholar
of the nature of the branches.
158 7 Juggling the C-Ball: Contextualising Systems Approaches

Some of these approaches to taking action seem to operate at different levels –

there are certainly scientists who see themselves as systems biologists, for
example, just as there are many scientists who take a reductionist approach and
some, such as Teilhard de Chardin who took a more spiritual approach.5 Thus
Science could also be seen as a meta-discipline and different actions could be
taken in either ‘Systems’ or ‘Science’ by an aware practitioner. I have already
claimed that both a systemic and a systematic approach can be encompassed
within a systems approach by an aware practitioner. Please bear in mind here that
I am saying these are choices to be made; I am not commenting on the appropri-
ateness, quality or efficacy of the options for any particular circumstance, nor am
I saying they are the only options, nor that they are mutually exclusive.
I argued in Chapter 2 that what constitutes systems thinking and practice arises in
social relations but that a key aspect was making a connection with a history of
‘doing systems’. I mapped out, from my perspective, some of the Systems lineages in
Fig. 2.3. This figure also refers to contemporary systems approaches – these can be
understood as approaches to systems practice which appear in current literature and
conversations (in many forms; face to face, on-line, etc.). My explanation opens up
many possibilities for what could be claimed as taking a systems approach. Some
might claim that one of the reasons that Systems has not been widely taken up is its
lack of key or core concepts. This is a concern but not, in my view, the main issue
(see Chapter 13). Instead, I would argue, there exists a great opportunity and need to
build and create effective systems practices for our current circumstances.
The absence of dedicated programmes of Systems study is a constraint on exist-
ing or potential practitioners, given that the intellectual field is substantial. Thus,
whilst the question of choice of systems concepts, methods, etc. is in part illumi-
nated by the phrase ‘horses for courses’, in practice it is much more subtle than
this. The metaphor of juggling seems to say much more than this alternative
image. It is not just a question of matching a ‘horse’ – an approach – with a
‘course’ – or a ‘real-world’ situation.6 This is because taking a systems approach
involves addressing the question of purpose. Let me explain what I mean by this.
One of my pet hates is when people say ‘you should …’ to me – because
I experience them as imposing their purpose on to me whenever they use ‘should’.
This is something we tend to do all the time but attributing purpose to someone
else is different to declaring our own purpose and acting according to that in our
own actions.7 The question of purpose is central to what I call aware systems prac-
tice and the process of contextualising an approach.

5
‘French philosopher and Jesuit priest who trained as a palaeontologist and geologist and took
part in the discovery of Peking Man … Teilhard’s primary book, The Phenomenon of Man, set
forth a sweeping account of the unfolding of the cosmos’ (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin, Accessed 17 May 2017).
6
From my perspective the Systems literature about multi-methodology too often falls into this
trap (see Open University 2000a).
7
I am not claiming that all human action in its doing is purposeful – in many ways we often do what
we do and later attribute purpose to our doing, particularly if an explanation or justification is required.
7.3 Purposeful and Purposive Behaviour 159

7.3 Purposeful and Purposive Behaviour

It is possible, as observers, to ascribe a purpose to what we or others do based on the

actions we see. How particular actions or activities are construed will differ from
observer to observer because of their different perspectives, which arise from their
traditions of understanding. For example, in Fig. 7.1 the people welding may ascribe
their purpose as learning a trade, building a skyscraper or welding joints, whereas an
observer may assume they are all just building a skyscraper, or even propose that
they are just ‘taking out their aggressions!’ Thus, same actions, different purposes.
Within systems thinking, purpose is a contested notion. Historically in the
Systems literature two forms of behaviour in relation to purpose have been distin-
guished. One is purposeful behaviour, which Checkland (1993) described as beha-
viour that is willed – there is thus some sense of voluntary action. The other is
purposive behaviour – behaviour to which an observer has attributed purpose.
Thus, in the example of the government minister discussed in Chapter 6, if I
described her purpose as meeting some political imperative, I would be attributing
purpose to her and describing purposive behaviour. I might possibly say her inten-
tion was to deflect the issue for political reasons. Of course, if I were to talk with
her I might find out this was not the case at all. She might have been acting in a
purposeful manner which was not evident to me (in the sense of Fig. 7.1).
Purpose is always attributed to a system by someone. Within systems practice
the attribution of purpose can be a creative, learning process. I am reminded of
Peter Checkland’s (1993) story of working to improve prison management and
seeing purpose – and thus system – in terms of ‘rehabilitating criminals’; ‘training
criminals’; ‘protecting society’; etc. Stafford Beer once said: ‘the purpose of a sys-
tem is what it does’. He may have meant it tongue in cheek, and he may have meant
that the ‘purpose’ obviously depends on the description of what the system is
doing … but in my view this statement runs the risk of objectifying ‘the system’.

Fig. 7.1 An iconic model of how different ‘actors’ ascribe different purposes to the same action
160 7 Juggling the C-Ball: Contextualising Systems Approaches

I would rather employ the notion of purpose as a perspective within the process of
inquiry. This leads me to ask: What might I/we learn about the situation if I/we
were to think of a prison (for example) as if it were a system to train criminals?
There is also a risk in reducing the notion of purpose to mean an objective or
goal that can be achieved, and in some cases optimised. I make this distinction in
order to emphasise an important aspect of systemic practice as compared with sys-
tematic practice. Namely, systemic practice encourages an approach of exploring
or inquiring of a situation: ‘What would I learn from attributing purpose to a sys-
tem of interest brought forth so as to know, or change, this situation?’ Equally, the
systemic approach might be posed as the question ‘In reflection what purpose do I
attribute to my own actions in this situation?’
The purposive–purposeful distinctions have led some to speak of purposive
and purposeful systems. The former refer to systems that have an imposed purpose
(from outside) and the latter can be seen to be those systems that can articulate as
well as seek their own purposes. Some find these distinctions helpful, but from
my perspective they have the same limitations as the concept of ‘complex adaptive
systems’. As terms they arise from a practice of typologising and classifying and
are thus prone to objectification or reification as I discussed in Chapter 6. With
awareness they sometimes help to create new distinctions and thus understandings.
For example, one of the key features attributed to purposeful systems is that the
people in them can pursue the same purpose, sometimes called a what, in different
environments by pursuing different behaviours, sometimes called a how.
Note that I have deliberately not used the term goals, because of the current
propensity to see goals as quite narrowly defined objectives. Certainly this was the
way ‘goals’ were interpreted in the systems engineering tradition of the 1950s and
1960s and in the traditional Operations Research (OR) paradigm (see Table 7.1).

Table 7.1 The ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ traditions of systems thinking compared (Adapted from
Checkland 1985)
The hard systematic thinking tradition The soft systemic thinking tradition
Oriented to goal seeking Oriented to learning
Assumes the world contains systems Assumes the world is problematical but can be
that can be engineered explored by using system models
Assumes system models to be models Assumes system models to be intellectual constructs
of the world (ontologies) (epistemologies)
Talks the language of ‘problem’ and Talks the language of ‘issues’ and
‘solutions’ ‘accommodations’
Allows the use of powerful techniques Is available to all stakeholders including professional
practitioners
Keeps in touch with the human content of situations
Assumes that there is a right answer Does not produce the final answers and accepts that
inquiry is never-ending
May lose touch with aspects beyond Remains aware that there are dimensions of the
the logic of the problem situation situation to which linear logic does not apply
7.3 Purposeful and Purposive Behaviour 161

Checkland and his co-workers beginning in the late 1960s reacted against the
thinking in systems engineering and OR at that time and coined the terms ‘hard’
and ‘soft’ systems. The terms ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ are now widespread in the Systems
literature, but as outlined in Chapter 2, have some limitations though the thinking
behind the distinctions remains highly relevant.
Like Checkland and colleagues, other systems practitioners have found the
thinking associated with goal-oriented behaviour to be unhelpful when dealing
with situations understood as messes or ‘wicked’ (see Chapter 6). This has resulted
in a move away from goal-oriented thinking towards thinking in terms of learning.
I will also say more about learning now and in Part III of the book.

7.3.1 Appreciating the Place and Role of Learning and Knowing

Practitioners from many fields, not just Systems, advocate a perspective based on
understandings of experiential and action learning. The process is commonly
depicted as a cycle of activity of the form that is described in Fig. 7.2. This depiction
is one of many manifestations of the experiential learning cycle. If this cycle is com-
pleted, it is argued, the purposeful action can be aimed at intended improvements;

Fig. 7.2 An activity-sequence diagram of the experience-action cycle involving purposeful

action (Checkland and Scholes 1990)
162 7 Juggling the C-Ball: Contextualising Systems Approaches

Fig. 7.3 An adaptive, systemic knowing process

improvements that is, in the opinion of those who take the action. Those involved in
this process learn their way to new understandings of the situation from which deci-
sions about change can be made. Many systems approaches are designed to facilitate
cycles of learning of this form. The key shift in understanding that is involved is
from seeing ‘systems’ as having a purpose to seeing purposeful activity as being
organised as a system which has embedded within it the act of building, or bringing
forth, or modelling systems of interest as epistemological devices.
Appreciating the nature of experiential learning is, in my view, critical to develop-
ing good systems practice. That said, I am not convinced that the typical cyclical
representation of the process is adequate. In many ways my isophor of the juggler,
juggling the B, E, C and M-balls can be seen as an alternative conception. Critical to
the juggling process is, I argue, a shift in our ways or patterns of knowing (Fig. 7.3).
Acting in the awareness that bringing forth a system of interest is an epistemo-
logical act opens up opportunities to break out of the inner accepted-knowledge
reinforcing cycle depicted in Fig. 7.3. Elaborating this purposefully as a ‘learning
system’ is a refinement built upon this awareness. Together they offer opportu-
nities for an expansion of our knowing and for changing the premises on which
our knowing is built.
As one develops systems awareness and understanding it is all too easy to
recognise situations in which the main players seemingly have no common sense
of purpose. Through a systems lens one could claim that there is no agreement on
what the system of interest is or what purpose it is seen to have. This seems to be
a common situation. For example, there is no shortage of experts, organisations,
7.3 Purposeful and Purposive Behaviour 163

agencies, governments, and so on engaged in the definition and derivation of

values, targets, principles, indicators and standards against which the achievement
of the measures of performance of a supposed ‘system’ might be evaluated, moni-
tored and audited – but little agreement, or even discussion, about purpose. In the
UK this can be related to the failures and unintended consequences of policy built
around the achievement of imposed targets as discussed in Chapter 9. In other
words many people have a propensity to pursue purposive behaviour that assumes
both purpose and measures of performance, rather than engaging stakeholders in a
dialogue in which purpose is jointly negotiated. This can have unfortunate
consequences.
If a system is conceptualised as a result of the purposeful behaviour of a group
of interested observers, it can be said to emerge out of the conversations and
actions of those involved. It is these conversations that produce the purpose, and
hence the conceptualization of the system. What it is and what its measures of per-
formance are will be determined by the stakeholders involved. This process has
many of the characteristics attributed to self-organising systems.

7.3.2 Juggling the C-Ball by Exploring Purpose

Peter Senge suggested the key to finding a strategy that energises and focuses an
entire business enterprise without constraining imagination lies in building a deep
sense of purposefulness (Senge 1998). Thus, when engaging with situations of
concern, an initial exploration of purpose – for example using the material in
Box 7.1 and Table 7.2 heuristically – can illuminate the question of what a system
of interest is and move the thinking away from a range of contested how’s which
are not connected to a common what.8 Researchers at The Open University have
used West Churchman’s and Werner Ulrich’s notions of purpose to explore how
different stakeholders in the contested debate over the release process for geneti-
cally modified organisms (GMOs) understand the what/how distinction.9 This has
revealed an unarticulated conflict of purpose amongst key members of some gov-
ernment panels charged with advising government on GMO release.

8
It is important to understand how systems thinkers understand the what, how, why distinctions.
In any given conception of a system of interest what refers to the system, how to a sub-system
and why to the supra-system. Of course from another observer’s perspective what might become
why and so on. Conceptually the use of these terms involves understanding the systems concept
of hierarchy or layered structure and an appreciation that these are not fixed but different ways of
looking at (engaging with) a situation.
9
Exploring purpose also surfaces different boundary judgments that are being made, either expli-
citly or implicitly. Thus in the debate on GMOs, within the category GMOs I could choose to
distinguish two different systems – ‘a system of within-species gene manipulation’, e.g. tradi-
tional plant breeding or ‘a system to introduce novel, alien genes into an organism’ – transgenics.
The lack of differentiation of these two possible ways of seeing GMOs has, in my view, seriously
constrained the public understanding of the situation.
164 7 Juggling the C-Ball: Contextualising Systems Approaches

Table 7.2 A checklist of boundary-setting questions for the design of a system (S) of interest
(Adapted from Ulrich 2000)
Sources of motivation
1. Beneficiary or client: who ought to be/is the beneficiary of the service or system (S) to be
designed or improved?
2. Purpose: what ought to be/is the purpose of S?
3. Measure of success: what ought to be/is S’s measure of success (or improvement)?
Sources of control
4. Decision maker: who ought to be/is the decision maker (in command of resources
necessary to enable S)?
5. Resources: what components of S ought to be/are controlled by the decision maker?
6. Environment: what conditions ought to be/are part of S’s environment, i.e. not controlled
by S’s decision maker and therefore acting as possible constraint?
Sources of expertise
7. Expert (or designer): who ought to be/is involved as designer of S?
8. Expertise: what kind of expertise or relevant knowledge ought to be/is part of the design
of S?
9. Guarantor: what ought to be/is providing guarantor attributes of success for S (e.g.
technical support, consensus amongst professional experts, stakeholder involvement,
political support) and hence what might be/are false guarantor attributes of success (e.g.
technical fixes, managerialism, tokenism)?
Sources of legitimation
10. Witnesses: who ought to be/is representing the interests of those affected by but not
involved with S, including those stakeholders who cannot speak for themselves (e.g.
future generations and non-human nature)?
11. Emancipation: to what degree, and in what way, ought/are the interests of the affected
free from the effects of S?
12. Worldview: what should be/is the worldview underlying the creation or maintenance of
S?, i.e. what visions or underlying meanings of ‘improvement’ ought to be/are
considered, and how ought they be/how are they reconciled?

Box 7.1 Conditions for assessing the adequacy of design of any

system of interest

Churchman (1971) identified nine conditions for assessing the adequacy of

design of any system of interest. He argued that these conditions must be ful-
filled for a designed system (S) to demonstrate purposefulness. The conditions
are reproduced in summary below (adapted from Churchman 1971, p. 43):
1. S is teleological (or ‘purposeful’)12
2. S has a measure of performance
3. There is a client whose interests are served by S

(continued)
7.3 Purposeful and Purposive Behaviour 165

Box 7.1 Conditions for assessing the adequacy of design of any

system of interest (continued)

4. S has teleological components which co-produce the measure of perfor-

mance of S
5. S has an environment (both social and ecological)
6. S has a decision maker who can produce changes in the measure of per-
formance of S’s components and hence changes in the measure of
performance of S
7. S has a designer who influences the decision maker
8. The designer aims to maximise S’s value to the client
9. There is a built in guarantee that the purpose of S defined by the designer’s
notion of the measure of performance can be achieved and secured

Similarly one of my colleagues ran a very effective session for one of the
committees of the University’s governing Council in which they were finally,
sometime after being established, able to gain some clarity of purpose (Armson
2011). This was achieved through use of a modified form of SSM (soft systems
methodology) that invited members of the committee to explore their committee
as a system to do P (what) by Q (how) because of R (why).10
Churchman listed nine conditions that he considered necessary for assessing
the adequacy of a design for a system of interest. The first of these addresses the
question of purpose (Box 7.1).11 Please remember as you read this material that
the focus here is on the design of a system and thus the designer, not ‘the system’
even though the language may sometimes suggest the latter.
Churchman (1979, p. 79) later reordered the nine conditions listed in Box 7.1
into three groups of three categories; each group corresponding with a particular
social role – client, decision maker, and planner. Werner Ulrich (1983), a student
of Churchman’s, coined two allied categories which he later termed ‘role specific
concerns’ and ‘key problems’. In Table 7.2 Ulrich’s re-ordered set of questions
are presented; they have come to be known as boundary-setting questions. As
Ulrich (1996) notes:
we cannot conceive of systems without assuming some kind of systems boundaries. If we
are not interested in understanding boundary judgements, i.e. in critical reflection and
debate on what are and what ought to be boundaries of the system in question, systems
thinking makes no sense; if we are, systems thinking becomes a form of critique.

10
See Checkland and Poulter (2006) for an explication of this approach.
11
I have already made clear my own preferences regarding the ontological status of systems; my
preference is to see ‘systems’ as epistemological devices – thus my use of the language: a system
of interest … to someone … which is brought forth (distinguished) as part of practice in a situa-
tion. In presenting Churchman’s ideas I make no claims or commitments to the study of the
evidences of design or purpose in nature, a position I do not find satisfying.
166 7 Juggling the C-Ball: Contextualising Systems Approaches

You will notice that the questions in Table 7.2 are divided into four groups of
three; these are:
1. The sources of motivation of those involved – what is the value basis of the
design?
2. The sources of control – who has power or authority and on what basis?
3. What are the sources of expertise or know-how and is it adequate?
4. What are the sources of legitimation and its basis?
Two features of the questions in Table 7.2 warrant further elaboration (Reynolds
2006). The three questions associated with each source of influence address parallel
issues: the first question in each group (1, 4, 7, and 10) addresses issues of social
role; the second question (2, 5, 8, and 11) addresses issues of role-specific concerns;
and the third question (3, 6, 9, and 12) relates to key problems associated with
roles and role-specific concerns. In more contemporary language, these terms are
best associated with ‘stakeholders’, ‘stakes’, and ‘stakeholdings’ respectively.
As indicated in Table 7.2, each question is also asked in two modes, thereby
generating 24 questions in total. In critical systems heuristics or CSH (the area of
systems thinking developed by Werner Ulrich) all questions need to be asked in a
normative, ideal mode (i.e. what ‘ought’ to be …) as well as in the descriptive
mode (what ‘is’ the situation …). Contrasting the two modes provides the source
of critique necessary to make an evaluation.
I have tracked some of the history of the evolution of these boundary setting
questions here as it offers insights into how several subsequent systems methodo-
logical approaches have been built (e.g. critical systems heuristics; soft systems
methodology). Ulrich’s set of questions can be used as a device to engage with
situations and thus to better contextualise practice. Ulrich’s questions in Table 7.2
are thus worthy of consideration as part of bridging practice when juggling the E
or C-ball. This history also provides a background to ‘systemic inquiry’ which I
discuss in Part III of this book.
I have found in my own practice that variations on these questions can be
used in business and research settings. For example, with colleagues I have
undertaken research into the history of water and river catchment managing in
Victoria, Australia based on interviewing some key figures (Wallis et al. 2013).
Questions that have proven useful in my interviews include ones like: Who is/
ought to be the system’s client? That is, whose interests are/ought to be
served?12

12
From an aware systems practitioner perspective this question does not assume there is ‘a’ sys-
tem to which this question applies, but that different actors will distinguish different systems, i.e.
make different boundary judgments, and that the role that systems research can fulfil is to surface
and explore the implications of the differences as part of a process of change (e.g. as depicted in
Fig. 1.3).
7.4 Tools, Techniques, Method and Methodology 167

7.4 Tools, Techniques, Method and Methodology

As you engage with systems thinking and practice you will become aware of how
different authors refer to systems methodologies, methods, techniques, and tools,
as well as systems approaches. Having explained earlier what I mean by a systems
approach, I now want to distinguish between methodology, method, technique and
tool (Fig. 7.4).
Several authors and practitioners have emphasised the significance of the term
‘methodology’ rather than methods in relation to Systems. I consider a method as
something that is taken or used as a given, much like following a given recipe in a
recipe book. In contrast a methodology can be adapted by a particular user, or users,
in a given situation. A methodology in these terms is both the result of, and the pro-
cess of, inquiry where neither theory nor practice take precedence (Checkland 1985).
For me, methodology involves the conscious braiding together of theory and practice
in a given situation (Ison and Russell 2000) – it is thus a context specific enactment.
A systems practitioner, aware of a range of systems distinctions (concepts) and
having a toolbox of techniques at their disposal (e.g. drawing a systems map) as
well as systems methods designed by others, is able to judge what is appropriate
for a given context in terms of managing a process.
How a practitioner adapts a method, of course, depends to a large extent on the
nature of the role the systems practitioner is invited to play, or chooses to play in

TECHNIQUE METHOD

tool A

skill

adapt methods ...

purpose

... to
situation

METHODOLOGY

Fig. 7.4 Some distinctions between tool, technique, method and methodology
168 7 Juggling the C-Ball: Contextualising Systems Approaches

a given situation. Are they part of a project group in an organisation, someone

with a designated management role, a consultant, etc.? When braiding theory with
practice, there are always judgements being made: ‘Is my action coherent with my
theory?’ as well as, ‘Is my experience in this situation adequately dealt with by
the theory?’ and, ‘Do I have the skills as a practitioner to contribute in this situa-
tion?’ There are also feelings that often represent a systemic understanding that
one is not able to verbalise – ‘Does it feel right?’13
Unlike the hammer in Fig. 7.4, within systems practice a tool is usually some-
thing abstract, such as a diagram, used in carrying out a pursuit, effecting a pur-
pose or facilitating an activity. Technique is concerned with both the skill and
ability of doing or achieving something and the manner of its execution, such as
drawing a diagram in a prescribed manner. An example of technique in this sense
might be as simple as drawing a systems map to a specified set of conventions, or
as complex as designing and conducting a workshop that is experienced as effec-
tive by the board of a major company.
There is nothing wrong with learning a method and putting it into practice. How
the method is put into practice will, however, determine whether an observer could
describe it as methodology or method. If a practitioner engages with a method and
follows it recipe-like, regardless of the situation, then it remains method. If the
method is not regarded as a formula but as a set of ‘guidelines to process’, and the
practitioner takes responsibility for learning from the process, it can become metho-
dology. The transformation of method into methodology is something to strive for
in the process of becoming an aware systems practitioner and of course one can
draw guidelines from several methods to develop a methodology in any situation.

7.5 Contextualising Practice to a Situation

At the beginning of this chapter I posed four questions that I asked you to consider
as you worked through it:
1. Is it the method, technique or tool, or how it is used that is important?
2. How are learning and action built in?
3. Who is or could be involved in the approach?
4. What could be said about the politics and practicalities of engaging in a ‘real-
world’ situation?

13
My perspective on methodologies is grounded in my own practice – particularly that of being a
systems educator and experiencing how mature age students learn about systems tools, techni-
ques and methods. It is challenging for many students to move beyond the application of method
to becoming methodological (not to be confused with ‘methodical’) in their practice. There is
also a danger in treating methodologies as reified entities – things in the world – rather than as a
practice that arises from what is done in a given situation. My own perspective is that texts that
write about ‘systems methodologies’ too often lead to the sort of reification that I discussed in
Chapter 6, thus taking attention away from systemic praxis.
7.5 Contextualising Practice to a Situation 169

Like so much in systems practice, there are no definitive answers to these

questions other than ‘it will depend on the context and your own abilities in that
context’. What I hope is clear is that an aware systems practitioner does not force
a method on to a context, a ‘real-world’ situation, to which it is not suited. Posing
these four questions and attempting to answer them for yourself would be a good
start in juggling the C-ball.
Your ability to contextualise a systems approach, of juggling the C-ball, will be
aided if you look and reflect, before you organise your performance! Because
most systems practice is carried out in some organisational setting, your ability to
contextualise an approach will also be helped if you appreciate that it is not only
people who make judgments about what constitutes relevant knowledge, and thus
relevant practices, in given contexts. All organisations conserve manners of think-
ing and acting that have evolved over time, so much so that organisations them-
selves come to be described as having a culture within which conceptions of what
counts as legitimate knowledge are enacted and maintained. These epistemologies,
built by individuals and groups at some historical moment, are built into institu-
tional structures and practices. Don Schön (1995) cited the example of the typical
elementary school that was organised around what he called ‘school knowledge’ –
knowledge contained in the curriculum, the lesson, the module, in the promotion
procedures for teachers, the practices of teachers, the organisation of rooms and so
on. All of these things enter into the idea of ‘school knowledge’.
Some systems practitioners have paid considerable attention to how to under-
stand and manage the process of contextualisation. For example, as part of their
SSM practice, Checkland and colleagues recognised that there were always three
roles present in the use of SSM in practical situations. These were (Checkland and
Poulter 2006, p. 28):
1. A person or group who had caused the intervention to happen, someone without
whom there would not be an investigation at all – this was the role of ‘client’
2. A person or group who were conducting the investigation – this was the role of
‘systems practitioner’
3. A person or people who could be named and listed by the practitioner who
could be regarded as being concerned about, or affected by the situation and
the outcome of the effort to improve the situation – this was the role of ‘owner
of the issue(s) addressed’.
These distinctions led Checkland and Winter (2006) to differentiate two modes of
doing SSM, what they call SSM(p) – concerned with the process of using SSM to carry
out a study in a given situation – and SSM(c) – concerned with the content of the situa-
tion of concern (study, investigation, etc.). Within the metaphor of the juggler SSM(p)
is more akin to juggling the C and M-balls and SSM(c) to juggling the E-ball.
As I have been at pains to emphasise, systems practice does not have to be
determined by named methods or methodologies. Nor does it have to be in a pro-
fessional consultancy situation. In my own work on systemic and adaptive water
governance the relatively simple act of developing a systems map of the institu-
tions that a river catchment authority has to deal with (Fig. 7.5) reveals the
 170
7
Juggling the C-Ball: Contextualising Systems Approaches

Fig. 7.5 A systems map of the institutions that are involved in river catchment managing from the perspective of senior staff in a Catchment Management
Authority in Victoria, Australia
7.6 An Example of Juggling the C-Ball 171

complexity of the situation as well as providing insights into the different types of
knowledge that would be needed to engage in effective river managing in this par-
ticular situation. In this example of juggling the C-ball, the technique of systems
mapping was adapted to a group-based inquiry process to produce a composite
map which captures the understanding of the senior team. I think it is fair to say
that they were somewhat shocked at the complexity that this revealed and that
they had to grapple with on a daily basis. This was conducted as part of a wider
study examining how institutional and organizational complexity affects water
governance (Wallis and Ison 2011).
Figures 5.8 and 7.5 are both systems maps. In addition to the content, a differ-
ence between them is how the technique of systems mapping was used and who
was involved. Figure 5.8 involved using systems mapping as a device for sense
making in a situation I was experiencing as complex. In contrast Fig. 7.5 was used
as a collaborative process with a group of senior managers. Both uses of systems
mapping reflect the dynamic depicted in Fig. 1.3, though the answer to the ques-
tion ‘who learns’ is different in each context.
To conclude this chapter I wish to introduce another reading (Reading 5) – this
one comes from my own systems practice. It introduces material relevant to both
the C-ball and the M-ball, the subject of the next chapter. It also introduces and
exemplifies aspects of what I mean when I refer to ‘systemic inquiry’, the focus of
Chapter 10 in Part III of this book.

7.6 An Example of Juggling the C-Ball

This reading (Ison 2002) presents a case study of a systemic inquiry into a
knowledge transfer strategy (KTS) by a division of a UK Ministry. My main
motivation in introducing this here is that it demonstrates how systems practice
can be set up (i.e. contextualised) in circumstances that initially do not seem
conducive. On the other hand, it also illustrates the limitations to taking effective
action through systemic practices, even when the evidence seems overwhelming
that things should change. Two main points arise from the Reading. First that it
is possible to ‘build’ a generalisable form of systems practice as a response to
experiences of complexity by initiating a systemic inquiry that fosters the emer-
gence of a learning system. Second, that exploring how metaphors reveal and
conceal offers scope for shifting the ‘mental furniture’ of participants as part of a
systemic inquiry.
This inquiry proceeded with a process designed for the circumstances, recog-
nising that there are no blue-prints. A key design aspiration was that those partici-
pating might experience a coherence, or congruence, between my espoused theory
and theory in use in relation to considering the KTS as if it were a second-order
learning system. In this aim it succeeded. The inquiry suggested two sets of con-
siderations for the design of learning systems and a potentially fruitful line of
further inquiry.
172 7 Juggling the C-Ball: Contextualising Systems Approaches

Reading 5
Some reflections on a knowledge transfer strategy: a systemic inquiry
Ray Ison

1. Systemic inquiry
Systemic inquiry proceeds by enacting a learning process with those who
have a stake in a situation experienced as problematic or as presenting an
opportunity. The possibility of designing a systemic inquiry is open to any-
one who is able to make a connection between a theoretical framework (in
this case concerned with systems thinking and practice) a methodological
approach and a given situation (Open University 2000a). For example,
Checkland (2001) argues that the enactment of Soft Systems Methodology
(SSM) is an exemplar of systemic inquiry that results in changing modes of
thinking. He argues that: ‘It is a process in which the thinking (of individuals
and groups) is shifted to a different level. It produces “meta-thinking” – that
is, thinking about how you are thinking about the phenomenal world’ and
‘This mode of thinking rearranges people’s mental furniture and enables plau-
sible action-to-improve to be achieved’.
This paper presents a case study of a systemic inquiry initiated in
response to a specific experience.

2. The experience
In September 2001 I received an invitation from one of the main organisa-
tions associated with agriculture in the UK to attend a one-day ‘stakeholder
meeting’ concerned with their ‘KTS’. This was a surprise as I had had rela-
tively little to do with UK organisations associated with agriculture since
taking up the chair of Systems at The Open University in 1994. Given my
research experiences in this area (e.g. Ison and Russell 2000) I was intrigued
by the invitation and duly accepted.
The espoused purpose of the KTS was expressed as: ‘to encourage
improved practice in the agricultural industry towards its sustainable devel-
opment and to protect the environment from pollution’. The KTS proposed
to achieve this purpose by pursuing the following sub-aims: (i) to transfer
understanding of environmental issues and natural resource management
[from researchers to farmers]; (ii) to put backbone into what we are doing –
environmental protection – to be able to say what we are aiming for; (iii) to
ensure land managers are using the best available knowledge to do their
farming; and (iv) to change (farmer/land manager) behaviours.
My experience of the day is best described as being in a conversation that
was at least 10 years out of date. This of course says as much about me as it does
about those present. During the day I made a number of contributions which
were designed to elicit some reflection on the nature of the conversation and par-
ticularly the theoretical ideas that I perceived to be operating (whether explicitly

(continued)
7.6 An Example of Juggling the C-Ball 173

Reading 5 (continued)
or implicitly). I also expressed concern at what I perceived to be the narrow range
of ‘stakeholders’ present. From my perspective farmers and other intended bene-
ficiaries of the KTS were very much underrepresented. I also came to reflect on
what the designers of the day had imagined its purpose to be. I wondered how
they might have completed the sentence: ‘Today can be seen as a system to …?’
During the day four individuals approached me with a view to following-
up some of the points I had made. This resulted in two specific invitations
for further conversation and follow-up that form the basis of this paper. The
first was from the organisers of the day. The second was from a person
central to the development of a farmer-based R&D network based on self-
organising groups in the south-west of England (Thomson 2002, Principal,
TACT Consulting, Bath UK, personal communication). In the following
section I outline a negotiated response to the first invitation. I also report
some considerations for the design of learning systems that have emerged
from this experience which I connect to my own tradition of understanding
as embodied in my own research practice (Ison and Russell 2000).

3. Responding to an invitation
3.1. Design considerations
Following the initial meeting I received an invitation to make a presentation
of my ideas to some of the London-based head-office staff responsible for
formulating and delivering the KTS. My response was to propose an alterna-
tive to a standard presentation. My purpose was to attempt to create the cir-
cumstances that had the possibility of initiating a systemic inquiry. That is,
I wanted to avoid going to London to tell people what I thought they should
do! From my perspective, to have done so would have fallen into the same
trap that I was critical of in the KTS, i.e. engaging in the linear, ‘transfer of
technology’ mode of research practice (see Fell and Russell 2000; Ison
2000a; Russell and Ison 2000a for an explication of these ideas). Instead I
proposed a one day process in which I spent time interviewing (listening) to
some of the key managers of the KTS, the outcomes of which I would then
mirror-back, along with my reflections on the initial stakeholder meeting.
Kersten (2000) and Kersten and Ison (1998) report on the role of relation-
ship building and listening in the design of R&D based on dialogue rather
than debate. The process of ‘mirroring-back’ is described in some detail in
Webber (2000). The central feature is that it is a dialogic process in which
those aspects of the researcher’s experience of the interviews which most take
their attention are held up for consideration by participants as a basis for trig-
gering discussion and learning. (A contrasting position would be to use the
output of the interviews as a basis for presenting the facts of the situation).
My proposal was accepted. Subsequently five 20-min interviews were
conducted followed forty minutes later by a joint meeting of researcher and

(continued)
174 7 Juggling the C-Ball: Contextualising Systems Approaches

Reading 5 (continued)
interviewees (9 November 2001). Spray diagramming was the main technique
I used to record and make sense of the interviews (Open University 2000b).
In both the initial stakeholder meeting and during the interviews I paid parti-
cular attention to the metaphors in use that for me revealed and concealed
particular theoretical positions (McClintock 2000). The joint session lasted
almost two hours. The format proposed and followed for this session was:
(i) to mirror back some of the outcomes from listening to multiple per-
spectives on the KTS from some key stakeholders;
(ii) ‘mirroring back’ some of the metaphors I had heard (from listening and
reading project documents);
(iii) Exploring some theoretical and practical implications;
(iv) questions and discussion.
To aid my own learning about the process design those involved in inter-
views were invited some weeks later to provide feedback. The questions and
feedback are outlined in Section 4.

3.2. Revealing and concealing metaphors in the KTS

Metaphors provide both a way to understand our understandings and how
language is used. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we
think and act, is metaphorical in nature. Paying attention to metaphors-
in-use is one means by which we can reflect on our own traditions of
understanding. Our models of understanding grow out of traditions, where a
tradition is a network of prejudices that provide possible answers and strate-
gies for action. The word prejudices may be literally understood as a
pre-understanding, so another way of defining tradition could be as a net-
work of pre-understandings. Traditions are not only ways to see and act but
a way to conceal (Russell and Ison 2000a).
Traditions in cultures embed what has, over time, been judged to be useful
practice. The risk is that a tradition can become a blind spot when it evolves
into practice without any manner of critical reflection being connected to it.
The effects of blind spots can be observed at the level of the individual, the
group, a organisation, the nation or culture and in the metaphors and dis-
courses in which we are immersed. Experience suggests that often we cannot
see what the problem is because we cannot identify our own blind spots. It is
only when we attempt to step out of the situation (reflect) that we can begin
to see it from another perspective or from another level.
Metaphors also both reveal and conceal but because we live in language
it is sometimes difficult to reflect on our metaphors-in-use. The strategy of
mirroring-back particular metaphors or metaphor clusters thus holds open
the possibility for reflection and learning. For example, as outlined by
McClintock (2000) the metaphor countryside-as-a-tapestry reveals the

(continued)
7.6 An Example of Juggling the C-Ball 175

Reading 5 (continued)
experience of countryside as a visually pleasing pattern, of local character
and diversity and of what is lost when landscapes are dominated by mono-
cultures. However the metaphor conceals the smell, danger, noise and activ-
ity of people making a living in the countryside. By exploring metaphors we
are able to make part of our language use ‘picturable’ and thus rationally
visible, publicly discussible and debatable as well as a psychological instru-
ment which can be a practical resource ‘with which and through which we
can think and act’ (Thomson 2002, Principal, TACT Consulting, Bath UK,
personal communication).
In Table 7.3 some of the metaphors elicited from the initial meeting, the
written project material and the five interviews are clustered into three group-
ings. Within each some of their revealing and concealing aspects are sug-
gested. This is not exhaustive as it is not the role of the researcher to classify
and name the revealing and concealing aspects in a process aimed at trigger-
ing reflection and learning. The clusters are indicative of a small sample
of the many metaphors that could have been reported. Within the spirit of
‘mirroring back’ and in terms of making connections with my own traditions
of understanding these have been selected. The first cluster relates to why
I experienced the conversation at the initial meeting as 10 years out of date.
The ‘communication as signal transfer’ cluster reflects traditions that
have become blind spots or have been subjugated, not only in agriculture
but other sectors of the community. As outlined by Fell and Russell (2000)
this is a legacy of the use by Heinz von Foerster of ‘information’ to replace
‘signal transfer’ when writing up the proceedings of the Macy conferences
in the 1950s. Communication as information transfer is based on the mathe-
matical model of Shannon and Weaver (1949). This in turn has been incor-
porated in the technology transfer and its associated ‘diffusion of
innovations’ models. Ison (2000a) outlines how Everett Rogers, in his pre-
face to the third edition of ‘Diffusion of Innovations’, acknowledges that
‘many diffusion scholars have conceptualised the diffusion process as one-
way persuasion’ and that ‘most past diffusion studies have been based upon
a linear model of communication defined as the process by which messages
are transferred from a source to a receiver’.
First-order communication First order is based on simple feedback (as in
a thermostat) but should not be confused with human communication, which
has a biological basis. Second-order communication is understood from a
theory of cognition that encompasses language, emotion, perception and
behaviour. Amongst human beings this gives rise to new properties in the
communicating partners who each have different experiential histories.
Second-order communication reveals the limitations of the ‘knowledge/
knowing as commodity’ metaphor and also reveals the extent emotioning
and power have been ignored in considerations of most KT strategies.

(continued)
176 7 Juggling the C-Ball: Contextualising Systems Approaches

Reading 5 (continued)
Table 7.3 Metaphor clusters associated with the knowledge transfer strategy
Metaphors Reveals Conceals
1. Communication Shannon and Weaver’s The biological basis of human
as signal transfer theoretical model in action communication
Examples ‘Key messages as deliverable’
‘Farmers as knowledge users’
‘Advice as target-able or deliverable’
‘Information as relay-able’
‘Advice as understandable or knowable objectively’
‘Knowledge as transferable’
‘A knowledge transfer strategy as deliverable’
2. Information as Diffusion of innovation theory The nature of networks,
deterministic relationships and co-learning
processes
Example ‘Barriers to uptake of advice and research messages’
3. Advice as The imperative is to change The ethics of practice (i.e.
changing someone else giving advice)
behaviour
Examples ‘Farming industry as able to be influenced’
‘Regulation as command and control’
‘KTS as delivering public goods’
‘KTS as an economic argument’
4. KTS as role Alternative possibilities for How and by whom roles will
clarifying practice and for power be clarified
relationships
Examples ‘Advisers as service providers’
‘Advice provision as able to be pictured’
‘Farmers as champions’
‘Regulation as self-organising (helping themselves)’
‘Thinking outside the box’
‘Farmers (or land managers?) as environmental improvers’

Exploring these ideas enables recognition that the following claim is

made from a first-order communication perspective:
… that is what we are coming to – a melding of computers and communications to
produce knowledge ... If that pool of information, of knowledge is over there, over
here we have the users, the seekers of knowledge, the needful of information. (The
fact that some of them do not yet realise that they need this information or knowl-
edge is not germane to the issue. There is a lot of education needed to show the
people what is available.

(continued)
7.6 An Example of Juggling the C-Ball 177

Reading 5 (continued)
The reference to ‘education needed to show the people’ sounds like a
euphemism for the next metaphor cluster (Table 7.3), that of ‘advice as
changing behaviour’. It was acknowledged during the conversation that
changing landholder’s behaviour was the major aim of the strategy, but in
reflection all those present acknowledged that despite their awareness of
environmental issues they had not really changed their own behaviour. A
second-order explanation of communication posits that information arises
within (from the Latin in formare, formed within) and that knowledge is not
something ‘we have’ but ‘the knowledge of the other is my gift ... which
arises in interpersonal relations’ (Maturana 1988); and that experience arises
in the act of making a distinction, it is not something external to us. These
explanations based on the biology of cognition suggest that ‘all knowing is
doing which arises in daily life.
Within all dominant discourses there is always resistance (following
Foucault 1972); not surprisingly we can all be the repositories of seemingly
paradoxical notions and thus bring forth alternative metaphors. The fourth
metaphor cluster (KTS as role clarifying, Table 7.3) contains some meta-
phors that I considered as evidence of questioning the dominant discourse.
These represented some sites of resistance to the more common metaphors
found in the first two clusters (and the overall name of the strategy). For
example, ‘regulation as self organisation’ was clearly an alternative to that
of ‘regulation as command and control’.

3.3. Exploring some practical implications

Based on my own learning from the interviews I suggested the following
opportunities and threats were worthy of discussion and consideration for
the KTS in the light of the espoused purpose. Opportunities included:
• to move towards a facilitated model of behaviour change which is local
and contextualised (for example a key value driving those present was
that they were responsible for implementing EU legislation such as the
Water Framework Directive. From their perspective responsibility for
implementation was an imperative leaving no scope for systemic,
learning-based approaches. From my perspective they had fallen into the
trap of conflating what with how, i.e. the imperatives of the Directive
were now law so the what was established, but how it was implemented
in local contexts was very much open. This was something that I sensed
had not occurred to those present)
• the Division responsible for KTS becomes a pilot for (organisational)
culture change within the revamped Ministry (this was a choice available
to some divisions in recognition of a need to think smarter and work
in different ways, particularly following recent controversies in UK
agriculture)

(continued)
178 7 Juggling the C-Ball: Contextualising Systems Approaches

Reading 5 (continued)
• avoiding infractions (it became apparent in the interviews that the whole
of England was in imminent danger of being declared a ‘nitrate vulner-
able zone’ (NVZ). The imperative for the civil servants, who saw this as
an opportunity, was to protect their Minister in ways that gave scope for
‘innovative’ action)
• some budgets available (i.e. resources were available but further release
of money required treasury approval. It transpired that meeting treasury
requirements, both real and perceived, was the key design variable for all
policy initiatives)
• realisation that the traditional approach to KT has not worked well in the
past (on reflection all those present admitted that past KTSs had not
worked but that the reasons why were often lost from institutional mem-
ory because of staff transfers and lack of continuity of focus)
Some of the threats included that:
• the strategy (KTS) is swamped in a plethora of initiatives in the Civil
Service (in the light of BSE and foot and mouth and an inquiry into the
future of rural areas this was a valid concern)
• there is a risk of over-selling the KTS strategy (i.e. making promises that
could not be met – from my perspective this seemed a real possibility)
• the KTS is perceived as involving losing control (I think this was one of
the main concerns of the civil servants – perhaps not as individuals but in
terms of civil service culture and the likely reaction of superiors)
• the KTS is perceived as costing to much
• a new chief scientist is about to be appointed (also a possible opportunity)
• the public good arguments are not won with Treasury (if their funding or
agreement is required)
• criteria for success are not conceptualised appropriately (this too seemed
possible from my perspective)
The final part of the session invited those present to consider how they
might use the inquiry results and data at their disposal in the design of one
or many learning system(s) to achieve the espoused purpose of the KTS.

3.4. KTS as the design of learning systems

As I engaged with the KTS I realised that the design considerations we have
used at The Open University (OU) to evolve a pedagogy (a learning
strategy) for Systems course development had features which might be used
in a KTS imagined as ‘a R&D strategy to design learning systems’. The
pedagogy we have evolved at the OU has the features described in
Table 7.4 (Ison 2000a, 2000b).
My conviction that these eight considerations had something to offer was
reinforced in the second conversation that followed the first meeting. This
was conducted with the principal of TACT consulting who had played a

(continued)
7.6 An Example of Juggling the C-Ball 179

Reading 5 (continued)
Table 7.4 Two sets of design considerations for the design of learning systems
Eight design features of Systems courses at Ten design considerations for the
the Open University SWARD project including some key
initial starting conditions
1. Ground concepts and action as much as 1. A perceived issue or need which had
possible in the student’s own experience local identity
2. Learn from case studies of failure 2. Active listening to stakeholder
perceptions of the issue/need
3. Develop diagramming (and other 3. Good staff – in this case young,
modelling) skills as a means for students to motivated and proactive women
engage with and learn about complexity
4. Take responsibility as authors (or 4. No, or very limited forms of, control
researchers) for what we say and do
(epistemological awareness)
5. Recognise that learning involves an 5. Proper resourcing particularly in the
interplay between our emotional and rational early stages
selves
6. Develop skills in iterating – seeing 6. A minimum number of initial group
learning as arising from processes that are leaders who acted as ‘key attractors’
not deterministic
7. Introduce other systems concepts, tools, 7. Scope for self-organisation around
methods, and methodological approaches so particular enthusiasms
as to develop skills in ‘formulating systems
of interest … for purposeful action’ (an
example would be my exploration of
metaphors for this inquiry)
8. Use verbs not nouns! (i.e. verbs denote 8. An appropriately experienced
relationships and activity and are key to the participant conceptualiser
process of activity modelling which is one
of the main features of SSM)
9. Some small ‘carrots’ for participants at
the beginning
10. A supportive local press creating a
positive publicity network

major role in initiating and overseeing the development of a farmer-based R&D

(or learning) network (the SWARD project) in Cornwall and Devon. An
account of the project suggested many successes but also concerns about
evaluation and scaling up. The reflection, which our conversation enabled, sug-
gested ten design features including key initial starting conditions for the project
(Table 7.4). These features emerged in our conversation because it was not clear
whether scaling up the KTS meant expansion or starting again in a new context.
From my perspective (and thus from my own understandings) a poten-
tial way forward for the KTS could have been its conceptualisation as a

(continued)
180 7 Juggling the C-Ball: Contextualising Systems Approaches

Reading 5 (continued)
systemic inquiry that attempts to make transparent understandings and
practices of those involved (e.g. by exploring what metaphors reveal and
conceal) and possibly, rearranging stakeholders’ mental furniture. It could
be argued that a potentially useful starting point would be to consider the
two sets of design criteria described in Table 7.4. This would involve
conceptualising the KTS as if it were a learning or researching system.
Not surprisingly, given my own history, my design for this inquiry had
many features similar to the design features suggested for second-order
R&D (Russell and Ison 2000b). Russell and Ison (2000b) describe second-
order R&D as practice which seeks to avoid being either subjective (particu-
lar to the individual) or objective (independent of the individual) because
the objects of our actions and perceptions are not independent of the
very actions/perceptions that we make. From this perspective problems and
solutions are both generated in the conversations that take place between the
key stakeholders and do not arise, or exist, outside of such engagements.
Second-order R&D is built on the understanding that human beings deter-
mine the world that they experience.
4. Feedback and reflections on process issues
My purpose in inviting feedback was primarily to aid my own reflection and
learning, particularly in terms of process design. It was not designed to
establish cause and effect in terms of outcomes. In inviting feedback I posed
a number of questions; these concerned what, if any change our joint activ-
ity might have triggered in (i) the KTS and (ii) in the understandings or
practices of the participants (the KTS proponents).14 I also asked them about
their experience of the ‘inquiry process’ and an open-ended question invit-
ing any other feedback.
From the feedback it was clear that ‘thinking on KT has shifted ...
towards a more participatory model’. A claim was made that ‘this was hap-
pening before the [initial] event, but the language may not have caught up.
The concept of stakeholder participation and ownership have certainly come
to life as a result of discussions at [the first meeting], and afterwards’. This
feedback in itself is evidence of linguistic shift – these terms were not in
evidence in either written or spoken form prior to my entry into the situa-
tion. From my perspective it remained an open question as to whether think-
ing (i.e. understanding) had genuinely shifted or whether this was merely

(continued)
14
Triggered is used here as a term as an attempt to avoid the more usual application of linear
cause-effect thinking; my understanding of ‘learning systems’ of the form created through this
inquiry is that they are not deterministic but create the circumstances for emergence. I also
invited in feedback an accounting for any changes that had happened – in asking this question
my aim was to provide an opportunity to tell a story, which may, or may not involve a story
about causation on the part of the responder.
7.6 An Example of Juggling the C-Ball 181

Reading 5 (continued)
evidence of a semantic shift that had no concurrent change in practices of
the form depicted in Fig. 1.3.
For some the tension between holding onto central control and allowing
local stakeholding to develop had come into focus: ‘the difficult issue is still
how to ensure some degree of uptake of Government agenda, whilst still
allowing real ownership and decision-making by land owners at local level’.
For another respondent: ‘the need for local issues to be resolved locally
rather than centrally seems to have gelled, but with need for central gui-
dance. Not sure whether funding fits the same bill? Use of local facilitators
seems to be the way forward. And maybe slightly different models will be
appropriate in different areas. I think these developments have been brought
about by continued discussion’.
In response to the question: How has your own thinking/action about
‘Knowledge Transfer’ changed since [the first meeting]? one respondent
reported that: ‘I have become more convinced of the need for local
solutions (within some central guidance), and a need to provide a local con-
text so that farmers, landowners and others understand the state of their
local environment and more clearly how their actions affect the environ-
ment, and how changes to practices could lead to improvements. We need
to be honest about the costs to businesses’. However another respondent
said: ‘So the one thing that bothers me is that we have not sought opinion
or buy in from farmers, etc. – the very people we want to influence. We
can interact with bodies like the NFU [National Farmers Union] and CLA
[Country Landowners Association] – but this does not provide direct feed-
back. And we need to do this in the local context as well’.
There were contradictions in the feedback; another respondent said: ‘my
perception is that KTS has developed gradually but is not that far removed
from where I imagined it might be. The positive factors have been the input
from other stakeholders and some agreement on the issues, ownership or
part ownership of the problems, and possible offers of help’.
In one area it seemed little had changed – that of the commitments to
particular metaphors about human communication as evidenced by one
respondent who said: ‘we have discussed brigading messages in some way
such that the key organisations are seen to be in agreement – this would
reduce confusion and conflict (at least in the subject areas and options for
improvement that we can agree). This will need more discussion and interac-
tion among the stakeholders. We do have some examples of multi-badging
publications already’. And another: ‘and all assuming we can agree a joined
up message on some key activities on the farm’.
In relation to their experience of the inquiry approach one respondent
said: ‘[the] interview technique was interesting – certainly appeared as
‘practice what you preach’. But this same respondent harboured concerns

(continued)
182 7 Juggling the C-Ball: Contextualising Systems Approaches

Reading 5 (continued)
of a cause effect nature: ‘not absolutely convinced conclusions would not
have been the same without interviews – we were a receptive audience and
RLI probably had a reasonable idea of where the strategy was going from
[the first meeting] and our subsequent group discussions on his follow-up
meeting’. Another respondent recognised the value of the personal inter-
views: ‘a one to one is useful to identify key issues and key concerns’.
My main personal reflections are that more time (an extra hour) would
have been desirable for joint discussion, some of which I would have allo-
cated to synthesising some of the interview data for the following session
(as it was it was particularly rushed). I would also have liked more time
working interactively through the metaphors that were elicited. Under simi-
lar circumstances I might in future try to negotiate a more explicit ‘social
contract’ prior to undertaking such a task (other than travel expenses no fees
were paid – and it is often the commissioning for payment that establishes
de-facto the social contract). I was pleased that what I did was experienced
as coherent with my espoused theoretical position.

5. General conclusions
This small inquiry reflects how pervasive particular metaphors (and thus
theories-in-use) are in institutions responsible for environmental and
agricultural policy development and natural resource management.
Regardless of whether they are changing, their pervasiveness is a cause
for concern. It is a concern because language and our underlying concep-
tions both constrain and make possible the choices that are made.
Exploring what particular metaphors reveal and conceal enables a dialo-
gue to begin about our taken-for-granted traditions of understanding. This
is a starting point for triggering change in our ‘mental furniture’. But
clearly this takes time.
In this reflection I present a mode of practice with the potential to trigger
reflections on metaphors-in-use in a manner that is coherent with the theory
that is espoused. I contend that the lack of coherence between espoused the-
ory and theory-in-use acts as a major constraint to researching with people
and the translation of learning theory into practice (Ison et al. 2000). I have
also tried to convey the idea that by thinking about my experience and
responding to the invitation in a particular way a generalisable model of
practice (systemic inquiry) is demonstrated. Further development and refine-
ment is warranted.
What has also emerged from this inquiry is the articulation of two sets of
criteria for the design of learning systems, which despite differing prove-
nance, have features in common. Together with those articulated by Russell
and Ison (2000b) for second-order R&D this suggests a potentially fruitful
line of further research inquiry.

(continued)
7.6 An Example of Juggling the C-Ball 183

Reading 5 (continued)

Illustration 7.1
Source: Ray Ison (2002) ‘Farming and Rural Systems Research and Extension’, Proceedings
from the Fifth IFSA European Symposium, Florence, April

7.6.1 Responses to the Four Organising Questions

In respect of the experiences I report in Reading 5, the answers that I give to the
four questions I posed earlier are:
Q1. Is it the method or how it is used that is important?
R1. From my perspective it is the praxis that is important – not the method.
Unfortunately the civil servants in the situation I encountered were not engaged
in praxis – they were responding to a set of pressures – to Treasury, the
Secretary of the Department, the high turnover of staff and thus loss of ‘organi-
sational’ memory, the felt need to be seen to be doing something, in a manner
that they had done before – they were thus acting out a familiar routine because
it was part of their repertoire, even though they knew it would not work.
Q2. How are learning and action built in?
R2. My response in the situation that presented itself was to build an invitation
upon an invitation. This opened up a reflective opportunity, something that is
quite rare it seems in organisational life. Other systems practitioners may
have offered a method and, possibly, intentionally or not, implied that the
method had capabilities to solve the issues of concern. Thus, whenever a tool,
technique, method or methodology is brought in, then it is wise to be aware
that the underlying concern might be with delivering control of, or certainty
in, the situation. This delivers an underlying emotional dynamic that can pre-
clude learning and sustained action because it involves an abrogation of
responsibility. In these situations systems practice remains a silent practice.
184 7 Juggling the C-Ball: Contextualising Systems Approaches

Juggling the C-ball involves an awareness of how opportunities for learning

and taking responsibility might be opened up. Acting effectively in these
spaces, however, is likely to take time as my inquiry shows.
Q3. Who is, or could be involved in the approach?
R3. On reflection I might have paid more attention to identifying who in the
Ministry might have been capable of supporting the five key stakeholders on
a learning journey and inviting them to be part of the process (I have subse-
quently done this in other situations with positive outcomes). Equally it might
have been worth trying to understand who, if anyone, had the power to hold
open a reflective space in which doing something different could be tried.
With further involvement, it might have been possible to create the circum-
stances for a joint workshop between some of the civil servants and farmers,
so that they could experience how things might be done differently.
Q4. What could be said about the politics and practicalities of engaging in a ‘real-
world’ situation?
R4. If I had been free to continue my engagement with the group then an opportu-
nity for a co-inquiry or co-research could have presented itself.15 Had I pro-
posed this action it is highly possible that it might have happened.
I imagine you might still be left with a number of unanswered questions as a
result of engaging with Reading 5. In Part III, I will be elaborating further on sys-
temic inquiry of the form introduced here; perhaps some of your questions will be
answered then?

7.6.2 Implications for Practice

My Google search on ‘KTS’ in 2009 returned almost two million hits. When I
drop off ‘strategy’ in my search it goes up to 16 million hits. ‘Knowledge transfer’
also has its own Wikipedia site. So clearly the concept and some associated prac-
tices are widespread and not just restricted to agriculture and natural resources
management. In my own experience the phrase has ‘taken off’ in Universities,
business, medicine and those concerned with the ‘adoption’ of any form of new
knowledge or practices. Unfortunately as experiences in the agricultural domain
have shown those who promote it, build it into policies or are employed to do it,
rarely understand what it is they do when they do what they do! All too often the
practice that emerges is that of trying to change someone else’s behaviour without
their genuine participation in the process. In my terms they drop the B-ball –
particularly that pertaining to an ethics of practice.

15
My existing commitments precluded my offering this as a strategy. This is also a limitation of
my engagement as I did not have someone with me as part of the process who may have been
able to take such a strategy forward.
7.6 An Example of Juggling the C-Ball 185

I return to this topic in Chapter 11. However, at this stage I invite you to reflect
upon the following claims in relation to this reading. The claims I make are that:
1. Systems practice can be contextualised to unfolding, changing circumstances
2. The practitioner can actively contribute to making the circumstances conducive
to their systems practice e.g. inviting engagement through an interviewing and
inquiry process rather than merely presenting a seminar
3. Responding to, and creating invitations, because of the underlying emotional
dynamics, creates a different relational and thus practice dynamic to that of
practice understood as an ‘intervention’ – whether as internal change manage-
ment or as an ‘external consultant’ (I have called this the politics of invitation
and intervention)16
4. Systems practice does not have to rely on established methods or
‘methodologies’ – in my case I make connections with second-order cybernetic
understandings of language and communication and the work of Donald Schön
on metaphor and organisational change
5. Systemic change does not rely only on changes in understandings, as there
can be deeply embedded structural impediments to the development and
embedding of systemic understandings and practices, e.g. Treasury demands
and budgetary procedures, high staff turnover and other institutional
arrangements
In finishing this section on the C-ball, and following on from the experiences
I describe in Reading 5, I want to point out that sometimes there are circum-
stances or situations where attempts at juggling the C-ball lead to the realisation
that the opportunities for systemic improvement are minimal or non-existent.
This sometimes leads to a crisis of ethics or an emotion of despondency. John
Seddon exemplifies what I mean when he asks ‘Who is to blame?’ in respect of
the failure of public sector reform in the UK under what he calls the ‘Blair
regime’. He says:
Public sector managers cannot be blamed for doing as they are told; specifiers cannot
be blamed for doing their job, for creating specifications as directed by ministers; minis-
ters justify themselves by pointing to consultations carried out and the advice of consul-
tants, who in turn will point the finger at those charged with implementation … It is a
regime that ensures that no one is responsible. It needs radical reform. The present
regime is systemically incapable. It can’t learn … The public-sector reform that is most
needed is the one that is never talked about – that of the regime itself, the vast pyramid,
hundreds of thousands strong, of people engaged in regulating, specifying, inspecting,

16
See High et al. (2008); an invitation is not an invitation if one is not willing to accept no for an
answer – if one is upset that an invitation is not accepted then what was issued as an invitation
was, more often than not, a demand or an attempt at coercion disguised as an invitation. An invita-
tion and an intervention thus have very different underlying emotional dynamics. Intervene is
derived from the Latin ‘venire’, and has the sense of ‘coming between’. ‘Advice’ has a similar root
(Shipley 1984). On the other hand ‘invitation’ can be traced back to the Sanskrit ‘vita’ meaning
loved (Barnhart 2001).
186 7 Juggling the C-Ball: Contextualising Systems Approaches

instructing and coercing others doing the work to comply with their edicts (Seddon
2008, pp. 192–193).17

Seddon’s (2008) lament needs to be understood in terms of the constraints aris-

ing from mainstream understandings of practice in relation to knowledge/knowing
and context referred to earlier. In contrast, Cook and Wagenaar (2012), drawing
on (Lave 1993, p. 5), ‘treat context as a social world constituted in relations with
persons acting’. In other words, this reframes the concept of context. Instead of it
being a fixed container, it now is seen as a ‘dynamically integrated system of rela-
tions’. Juggling the C-ball is being open to how relations might be reconfigured to
produce more effective practices.
The remaining chapters of the book will provide further answers to the four
questions I posed and answered above. Answers to these questions will also
depend on the role a systems practitioner is playing, e.g. inquirer, problem solver,
facilitator, investigator, consultant, expert. It will also depend on whether your
engagement with a situation comes about through an ‘intervention’ or an ‘invita-
tion’. They are qualitatively different modes of engaging because the underlying
emotions are different. Whatever the role, they will involve managing, juggling
the M-ball, which is the subject of the next chapter.

References

Armson R (2011) Growing wings on the way: systems thinking for messy situations. Triarchy
Press, Exeter
Barnhart R (2001) Chambers dictionary of etymology. Chambers, USA
Briggs L (2009) Delivering performance and accountability – intersections with ‘wicked
problems’. The international society for systems sciences annual conference, Conference
paper. Brisbane, Australia, July 2009
Checkland PB (1985) From optimizing to learning: a development of systems thinking for the
1990s. J Oper Res Soc 36:757–767
Checkland PB (1993) Systems thinking, system practice. Wiley, Chichester
Checkland PB (2001) Presentation to a joint meeting of UKSS/OUSys. OU Systems Society
Newsletter, February
Checkland PB, Poulter J (2006) Learning for action: a short definitive account of soft systems
methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers and students. Wiley, Chichester
Checkland PB, Scholes J (1990) Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley, New York
Checkland PB, Winter M (2006) Process and content: two ways of using SSM. J Oper Res Soc
57:1435–1441

17
Briggs in her 2009 (Briggs 2009) presentation points to the fundamental tensions between the
vertical accountabilities in the Westminster system of Cabinet Government, with its underlying
accountability of individual Ministers to Parliament, where differences are ultimately resolved in
the Cabinet or by the Prime Minister and the horizontal responsibilities in whole of government
approaches, where differences are expected to be resolved within and between agencies and,
potentially, other stakeholders. Thus the current (UK, Australian) governance situation can be
usefully understood as a structure determined system that does what it is structured to do, and no
more. But clearly it is no longer adequate for contemporary circumstances.
References 187

Churchman CW (1971) The design of inquiring systems: basic concepts of systems and organisa-
tions. Basic Books, New York
Churchman CW (1979) The systems approach and its enemies. Basic Books, New York
Cook N, Wagenaar H (2012) Navigating the eternally unfolding present. Toward an epistemol-
ogy of practice. Am Rev Public Adm 42:13–38
Fell L, Russell D (2000) The human quest for understanding and agreement. In: Ison RL, Russell
DB (eds) Agricultural extension and rural development: breaking out of traditions.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 32–51
Foucault M (1972) The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. Pantheon,
New York
High C, Ison R, Blackmore C, Nemes, G (2008) Starting off right: reframing participation though
stakeholder analysis and the politics of invitation. Proc. Working Group 13 ‘The OECD’s
New Rural Paradigm’, XII World Congress of Rural Sociology, Seoul, Korea
Ison RL (2000a) Technology: transforming grazier experience. In: Ison RL, Russell DB (eds)
Agricultural extension and rural development: breaking out of traditions. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 52–76
Ison RL (2000b) Systems approaches to managing sustainable development: experiences from
developing supported open-learning. Invited Paper: Ecological sustainability theme,
Proceedings of 16th symposium of the international farming systems association and 4th
Latin American farming systems research & extension symposium, 27–29 November 2000,
Centro de Extension Universidad Catolica, Santiago Chile
Ison RL (2002) Some reflections on a knowledge transfer strategy: a systemic inquiry. Fifth
European farming systems research conference, Conference paper, Florence, April 2002
Ison RL, High C, Blackmore CP et al (2000) Theoretical frameworks for learning-based
approaches to change in industrialised-country agricultures. In: Cerf M, Gibbon D LEARN
Group (eds) Cow up a tree. Knowing and learning for change in agriculture. Case studies
from industrialised countries. INRA (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique)
Editions, Paris, 31–54
Ison RL, Russell DB (eds) (2000) Agricultural extension and rural development: breaking out of
traditions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 239
Kersten S (2000) From debate about degradation to dialogue about vegetation management in
western New South Wales, Australia. In: , LEARN GroupCerf M, Gibbon D et al(eds) Cow
up a tree. Knowing and learning for change in agriculture. Case studies from industrialised
countries. INRA (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique) Editions, Paris, p 191–204
Kersten S, Ison RL (1998) Listening, interpretative cycles and dialogue: process design for colla-
borative research and development. J Agric Educ Ext 5:163–178
Lave J (1993) The practice of learning. In: Chaiklin S, Lave J (eds) Understanding practice.
Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 3–35
Maturana H (1988) Reality: the search for objectivity or the quest for a compelling argument. Ir
J Psychol 9:25–82
McClintock D (2000) Considering metaphors of countryside in the United Kingdom. In: LEARN
GroupCerf M, Gibbon D et al (eds) Cow up a tree. Knowing and learning for change in agri-
culture. Case studies from industrialised countries. INRA (Institut National de la Recherche
Agronomique) Editions, Paris, p 241–251
Open University (2000a) Managing complexity. A systems approach (T306). The Open
University, Milton Keynes
Open University (2000b) Systems thinking and practice: diagramming (T552). The Open
University, Milton Keynes
Reynolds M (2006) Critical appraisal in environmental decision making. Book 4 (T863).
Environmental decision making: a systems approach. The Open University, Milton Keynes
Russell DB, Ison RL (2000a) The research–development relationship in rural communities: an oppor-
tunity for contextual science. In: Ison RL, Russell DB (eds) Agricultural extension and rural
development: breaking out of traditions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 10–31
188 7 Juggling the C-Ball: Contextualising Systems Approaches

Russell DB, Ison RL (2000b) Designing R&D systems for mutual benefit. In: Ison RL, Russell
DB (eds) Agricultural extension and rural development: breaking out of traditions.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 208–218
Schön DA (1995) The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change November/
December 27–34
Seddon J (2008) Systems thinking in the public sector: the failure of the reform regime … and a
manifesto for a better way. Triarchy Press, Axminster
Senge P (1998) A brief walk into the future: speculations about post-industrial organisations.
Syst Think 9:1–5
Shannon C, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois
Press, Urbana, IL
Shipley JT (1984) The origins of English words: a discursive dictionary of Indo-European roots.
John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD
Shotter J (1993) Conversational realities: constructing life through language. Sage, London
Ulrich W (1983) Critical heuristics of social planning: a new approach to practical philosophy.
Wiley, Stuttgart: Chichester/Haupt (paperback edition)
Ulrich, W (1996) A primer to critical systems heuristics for action researchers. Centre for
Systems Studies, University of Hull, Hull, UK, 31 March 1996, 58pp (ISBN 0-85958-872-6)
Ulrich W (2000) Reflective practice in the civil society: the contribution of critically systemic
thinking. Reflect Pract 1(2):247–268
Wallis P, Ison RL (2011) Appreciating institutional complexity in water governance dynamics: a
case from the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Water Resour Manage 25(15):4081–4097
Wallis P, Ison RL, Samson K (2013) Identifying the conditions for social learning in water
governance in regional Australia. Land Use Policy 31:412–421
Webber L (2000) Co-researching: braiding theory and practice for research with people. In: Ison
RL, Russell DB (eds) Agricultural extension and rural development: breaking out of tradi-
tions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 161–188
Chapter 8
Juggling the M-Ball: Managing Overall
Performance in a Situation

Abstract The M-ball is concerned with juggling as an overall performance,

managing both the juggling and the desired change in the world. Another way to
describe this is as co-managing self and situation. Managing also introduces the
idea of change over time, in the situation, the approach and the practitioner – of
adapting one’s performance. A range of perspectives on managing are introduced
and explored. Managing as a goal-directed practice is rejected in favour of
practices that foster innovation and change through managing for emergence and
self-organisation. The reflections on a 25 year career of a systems practitioner,
primarily immersed in the practice lineage of practising systems dynamics, is
provided to exemplify what might be entailed in juggling the M-ball.

8.1 Perspectives on Managing

My focus in this chapter is on the M-ball being juggled by a systems practitioner.

As I outlined in Chapter 4 the M-ball is concerned with juggling as an overall per-
formance, managing both the juggling and the desired change in the world.
Another way to describe this is as co-managing self and situation. As the term
managing is often used to describe the process by which a practitioner engages
with a ‘real-world’ situation, it can be considered as a special form of engagement.
In this chapter I hope to enable you to appreciate the diversity of activities that
might constitute managing. Managing also introduces the idea of change over
time, in the situation, the approach and the practitioner – of adapting one’s
performance.
I see the M-ball as where responsibility for creating the pattern of an overall
performance resides. So it is not just juggling per se but juggling in context and
with others (Fig. 8.1). Thus managing, for me, involves managing the ongoing
juggler-context relationship, a co-evolutionary dynamic of the form described in
Chapter 1. This involves looking out to the situation as well as looking inwards to
the dynamics of juggling the B-ball.
It seems that many of the situations I encounter, whether personally or through
the media, might well be considered as wicked, messes or complex or uncertain

© The Open University 2017 189

Published in Association with Springer-Verlag London Limited
R. Ison, Systems Practice: How to Act, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9_8
190 8 Juggling the M-Ball: Managing Overall Performance in a Situation

Fig. 8.1 Juggling with awareness opens up different choices for practice (A or B), including
how to build collaborative performances with others (B)

Fig. 8.2 Perspectives on managing – an image to engage with the question ‘Why not think of
“managing” in more generic terms?’

situations. Having these experiences on a regular basis I was attracted to the

research of Winter (2002; Winter and Szczepanek 2009) who asked the question
‘Why not think of “managing” in more generic terms?’ Following his lead I
have illustrated this in the form depicted in Fig. 8.2. Winter’s research and
practice resonated with me as earlier I had carried out a simple exercise of con-
sidering some of the verbs that I associated with the word managing. I came up
with: understanding, surviving, seeing, visioning, allocating, optimising, communi-
cating, commanding, controlling, helping, defending, leading, supporting, backing,
enabling, coping, informing, modelling, facilitating, empowering, encouraging,
8.1 Perspectives on Managing 191

delegating.1 In order to make more sense of my list of verbs I identified three

categories: (1) getting by, (2) getting on top of, (3) creating space for.2 Undoubtedly
if you were to do the same exercise your list and categories would be different. My
motivation for generating this list and categories was similar to Winter’s. I wanted
to understand managing in all its manifestations and particularly how these practices
(as exemplified by the verbs) might become embodied in a particular manager.
I was also reacting to what I considered as a narrowing of consideration and learning
under the rubric of ‘management education’.3
In doing this simple task I was also drawing on an underlying logic that has
been incorporated into soft systems methodology by Checkland and colleagues.
I worked backwards (compared to normal SSM use) from a set of activities
(denoted by verbs), generating a set of higher order concepts or categories (i.e.,
getting by, getting on top of and creating space for) and implicitly recognising a
possible system of interest. Why do I call this a system of interest? Well, because
it has the potential to enhance my learning and thus action, in the situation I am in
by engaging with it systemically. I specified ‘a system to understand managing by
recognising a range of activities in order to appreciate what capabilities might be
needed for juggling the M-ball’.
A key concept in systems thinking is that of transformation (Table 2.1); unfor-
tunately the operational dynamics of the transformation process is generally not
well understood (Checkland and Poulter 2006, p. 47). For example in the system
description I have just developed the transformation, that which the system does,
is the following:
managing not understood → managing understood
Thus, in conceptual terms I have ‘formulated’ a description of a system of
interest comprising three sub-systems – getting by, getting on top of and creating
space for, which through its enactment or operation has the potential to transform
my understanding of managing.
When I first did this exercise I did not make all of my underlying thinking
explicit as I have attempted here. Much of this way of thinking has become part
of what I do – part of my own tradition of understanding. I do remember though
that the transformation I have articulated above happened i.e. the activities meant I
better understood managing. I became aware that:
• ‘Getting by’ could be seen as those activities devoted to personal maintenance,
activities that might be exacerbated or lost with different life-work balances
• ‘Getting on top’ of could be seen in one of two ways – a resort to command
and control procedures associated with hierarchical management or enhancing

1
I generated this list with my colleague Rosalind Armson in the mid-1990s; I make no claim that
this list is definitive or that this is the only way to categorise my list.
2
This is a good example of how, even in my own practice, it is hard to escape the practice of
classifying or typologising – though I would claim that I do so with awareness of what I do
when I do what I do!
3
This is the same issue taken up by Mintzberg (2004).
192 8 Juggling the M-Ball: Managing Overall Performance in a Situation

my juggling so that my performance was always better adapted to context

(these are very different choices)
• ‘Creating space for’ could be seen as delegation (as a generic set of activities)
but for me, more importantly, could be seen as creating the circumstances for
emergence and novelty (innovation) through self-organisation and removing
barriers to others being responsible (i.e., creating response-able circumstances)
If I step back out of the specifics of this inquiry for a moment you might see
that it is of the form: What is the system to which doing X is the answer (the
how)? The systemic exploration of this question enables new systems of interest
to be formulated, which can be used by those in the situation to arrive at new
understandings on which to base their actions.
As a result of this mini-systemic inquiry, when I now think of a manager,
I think of anyone in any context who is engaged in taking purposeful action. The
purposefulness arises whenever we act to open a reflective space, as I have tried to
exemplify when thinking about what managing might be. The emergent property
of this process is enhanced awareness of what we do when we do what we do!
This can be done in all situations with any phenomenon or issue of concern and
may or may not involve systems thinking. In this regard it seems to make sense to
me to envisage a role for the systems practitioner as someone engaged in managing
in everyday situations which are increasingly characterised by surprise or messi-
ness.4 I do not have a new professional management elite in mind – though this
could also exist – but more a citizenry enabled with systems thinking and practice.
As intimated in Chapter 2, juggling the M-Ball could be seen as becoming
aware of your systemic sensibilities, systems literacy and systems thinking in prac-
tice capabilities. Alternatively it may involve being aware of your limitations in
any one of these domains and deciding to take action to change your circum-
stances (Reynolds et al. 2017).

8.1.1 Transforming the Underlying Emotions of Managing

Henry Mintzberg, in his critique of management education, particularly MBAs,

argues that ‘we need balanced, dedicated people who practise a style of managing
that can be called “engaging”’. He goes on to claim that the ‘development of such
managers will require another approach to management education, likewise enga-
ging, that encourages practising managers to learn from their own experience.
In other words, we need to build the craft and art of managing into management
education and thereby bring these back into the practice of managing’ (p. 1). I agree

4
I am aware that my language is not really adequate here – I trust that by now you will have
become at least partially aware that because we are human beings, then it follows that my perspec-
tive is that the practitioner – situation relationship is best understood as a relational dynamic – they
bring forth each other. So whenever I use the word situation I am using a short hand description
for a practitioner (observer) – situation relationship that mutually construct each other.
8.1 Perspectives on Managing 193

wholeheartedly with this critique! However, I find it intriguing that in the index to
Mintzberg’s book there is no listing for ‘emotion’ or ‘ecology’. It would seem that
even in a profound critique such as Mintzberg’s, and thus in management education
discourse, it is still not completely legitimate to talk about emotions or the ecologi-
cal basis on which consumption, and thus business, rests! This is despite the wide-
spread success of Daniel Goleman’s book on ‘emotional intelligence’ (Goleman
1997) and his more recent one on ‘ecological intelligence’ (Goleman 2009).
Part of my thesis in this book is that we can no longer leave emotions and ecol-
ogy out of our concerns and by this I mean all considerations of what we do when
we do what we do! So how might understandings of managing be transformed in
ways that are more sensitive to underlying emotional and ecological dynamics?
As I outlined earlier, I am aware, for example, of the millions of people around
the world who now engage in local and family history research. It seems many live
with a passion for explaining who they are and where they have come from. I would
describe all of these people as small ‘r’ researchers. So for me researchers are not
just confined to laboratories and universities. We can make a choice to see ourselves
as small ‘r’ researchers; such a framing for managing is a way of breaking down a
commitment to certainty. A shift such as this, and this is certainly not the only shift
imaginable, transforms our underlying attitude or predisposition and thus brings our
living onto a different trajectory. Small ‘r’ research in the sense I use it is willed and
reflexive action, done for a purpose, though the purpose may not be clear initially
and involve a mix of emotion and intellect. Others may call this reflexive inquiry,
appreciative inquiry, co-learning, collaborative learning or even co-design.5
In my own practice I have refined my small ‘r’ position to focus more on what
I call systemic inquiry – something that I exemplified in Reading 5 (Chapter 7)
and my relatively simple example above. I will say much more about this in
Part III of the book. Mark Winter, in his own inquiries into managing, has chosen
to draw on the work of Vickers (1978), to cast the act of managing in terms of a
process of relationship maintaining (Fig. 8.3). As depicted, relationships are main-
tained through conversation which as it unfolds creates a matrix of relationships.
When the conversation breaks down, whether through choice or other factors, then
those ‘nodes’ drop out. To paraphrase Vickers, one’s standards of fact and value
emerge out of this network. I consider this a very useful conception, though, as
outlined in Chapter 1, I would want to add additional relationships, that of humans
to the biosphere, to other species and to future generations.6
Another choice that can be made to transform the underlying dynamics of
managing is to think of it in terms of learning. Some of my colleagues, for

5
These are parallel and potentially synergistic traditions to my own (Cooperrider 1998; Oliver
2005).
6
Since the global financial crisis there have been many commentators who argue that what has
been lost is ‘trust’. This is a claim that is hard to disagree with, but much harder to think of in
terms of how trust is built and sustained. I would argue that trust is an emergent property of the
process of relationship building and maintaining. So trust per se cannot be managed; it is about
managing the quality of relationships.
194 8 Juggling the M-Ball: Managing Overall Performance in a Situation

Fig. 8.3 An unfolding network of conversation and relationships. ‘Managing’ involves main-
taining a network of asynchronous relationships in the context of an ever-changing flux of events
and ideas. As any manager engages in one conversation, others are engaged in different conver-
sations. As individuals participate in different conversations a coherent network of conversations
results (Expanded from Winter (2002), p. 67 and 83)7

example, see enactment of systems thinking through the isophor of a juggler as

understandable in terms of enactment of an experiential learning cycle (of the
form depicted in Fig. 7.2). The key here is that in considering practice it is experi-
ence that provides the initial starting conditions. The history of David Kolb’s
articulation of the experiential learning cycle can be traced back to the work of
Kurt Lewin shortly after the Second World War. Lewin is generally recognised as

7
Both Figs. 8.2 and 8.3 take as their inspiration work done by Mark Winter and reported in his
Ph.D. thesis (Winter 2002)
8.2 Managing with Systemic Awareness 195

the originator of the notion of action research. When we connect with this history,
it is possible to recognise the experiential learning model as a model for action
research as well. The idea of the systems practitioner as action researcher is a
powerful one in my experience (e.g. Checkland 1999; Ison 2008). I will say more
about this in Part III (Chapter 11) of the book.
These ideas about managing that take a small ‘r’, or learning, turn also provide
a conceptual framework to imagine what the life-long learner might be, the idea-
lised person that has become so popular in recent discourse in education circles.8

8.2 Managing with Systemic Awareness

A systemic approach involves using systems thinking to construct ways of know-

ing, and thus acting, as part of an inquiry process. This can be done in any type of
situation but my main focus is on those situations which we experience in particu-
lar ways that lead us to call them complex, messy, wicked, uncertain etc. Through
systems practice, the aspiration is that we can generate fresh and insightful expla-
nations which trigger new ways of taking purposeful action that is systemically
desirable. To have arrived at this way of acting requires a systemic sensibility and
some systems literacy – to be aware of the distinctions between systemic and sys-
tematic approaches (as discussed in Chapter 2). This in turn means being willing
to choose and contextualise depending on your mode of engaging with a situation.
What do I mean by choose? All too often when faced with this question the lis-
tener tends to provide a response in either/or terms, i.e. I need to choose systemic,
not systematic! This is not really a choice in a systemic sense because the act of
choosing one is a negation of the other. It has an intrinsic linear logic which is
described as a dualism. Unfortunately dualisms abound in our daily living, e.g.
objective/subjective, right/wrong etc. The alternative, and this is a choice that can
be made, is to regard a pair such as systemic/systematic as a duality, a totality
which together go to make up a whole, or a unity.
Illustration 8.1

8
For example see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifelong_learning (accessed 17 May 2017).
196 8 Juggling the M-Ball: Managing Overall Performance in a Situation

Based on my experience, a choice made to pursue only the systematic route is

inherently conservative and likely to result in first-order change: doing the same
thing more effectively or optimally (Ison and Russell 2000). This has its place.
However, the systemic route opens up the possibility of second-order change,
change that changes the ‘whole situation’.9,10 In Table 8.1, I summarise some of
the features I have come to recognise as being associated with systemic and sys-
tematic thinking and action (remembering that systemic/systematic comprise a
duality, not an either/or, and that the features I describe suffer the limitations of all
generalisations abstracted from context).
Systematic and systemic thinking and practice together build a powerful reper-
toire for juggling the M-ball. It is important therefore to realise that I am not in
any way trying to set up the idea that systemic is good, systematic is bad. In the
hands of an aware practitioner they are not in opposition. My perspective, when
managing or engaging in messy situations, is that it is usually more appropriate to
approach the task systemically. In other words, systemic thinking provides an
expanded context for systematic thinking and action (Fig. 2.1). Thus my ideal,
aware, systems practitioner is one who is able to distinguish between systemic and
systematic thinking and is able to embody these distinctions in practice (Ison
et al. 2014). This has implications for the initial starting conditions for any form
of purposeful action – i.e. to start out systemically or systematically?

Table 8.1 A summary of the characteristics that distinguish systemic thinking and action and
systematic thinking and action
Systemic thinking Systematic thinking
Properties of the whole are said to emerge The whole can be understood by considering
from their parts, e.g. the wetness of water just the parts through linear cause-effect
cannot be understood in terms of hydrogen mechanisms
and oxygen
Boundaries of systems are determined by the Systems exist as concrete entities; there is a
perspectives of those who participate in one to one correspondence between the
formulating them. The result is a system of description and the described phenomenon
interest
Individuals hold partial perspectives of the Perspective is not important
whole situation; when combined, these
provide multiple partial perspectives
(continued)

9
In this section I am reminded of the book by Peck (1978). For me it acts as a metaphor for my
concerns and how to think about systems approaches in an evaluative sense. Thus the systemic is
the road less travelled – but making the choice takes one to different places. Traditional evalua-
tion approaches do not, in my experience, do justice to the implications of making and pursuing
these choices.
10
The same choices face complexity theorists or thinkers. They may choose to see complexity
existing in the world or they may see complexity thinking as providing the means to formulate
an epistemological device, a way of knowing, that is capable of generating new explanations
about the world, as opposed to descriptions of it.
8.2 Managing with Systemic Awareness 197

Table 8.1 (continued)

Systemic thinking Systematic thinking
Systems are characterised by feedback; may Systems are comprised of chains of cause-
be negative, i.e. compensatory or balancing, effect relationships
or positive, i.e. exaggerating or reinforcing
Systems cannot be understood by analysis of A situation can be understood by step-by-step
the component parts. The properties of the analysis followed by evaluation and repetition
parts are not intrinsic properties, but can be of the original analysis
understood only within the context of the
larger whole through studying the
interconnections
Concentrates on basic principles of Concentrates on basic building blocks
organisation
Systems are seen as nested within other Systems are hierarchically organised
systems – they are multi-layered and both
intersect and interconnect to form networks
Is contextual in approach Is analytical in approach
Concerned mainly with process Concerned mainly with entities and properties
The properties of the whole system are The system can be reconstructed after
destroyed when the system is dissected, either studying the components
physically or theoretically, into isolated
elements
Systemic action Systematic action
The espoused role and the action of the The espoused role of the decision-maker is
decision-maker is very much part of an that of participant-observer. In practice,
interacting ecology of systems. How the however, the decision maker claims to be
researcher perceives the situation is critical to objective and thus remains ‘outside’ the
the system being studied. The role is that of system being studied
participant-conceptualiser
Ethics are perceived as being multi-faced as Ethics and values are not addressed as a
are the perceptions of systems themselves. central theme. They are not integrated into the
What might be good from one perspective change process; the researcher takes an
might be bad at another. Responsibility objective stance
replaces objectivity
It is the specification of a system of interest The system being studied is seen as inherently
and the interaction of the system with its distinct from its environment. It may be
context (its environment) that is the main spoken of in open-system terms but
focus of exploration and change intervention is performed as though it were a
closed system
Perception and action are based on experience Perception and action are based on a belief in
in the world, especially on the experience of a ‘real world’, a world of discrete entities that
patterns that connect entities and the meaning have meaning in, and of themselves
generated by viewing events in their contexts
There is an attempt to stand back and explore Traditions of understanding may not be
the traditions of understanding in which the questioned although the method of analysis
practitioner is immersed may be evaluated
198 8 Juggling the M-Ball: Managing Overall Performance in a Situation

Of course, this is an ‘ideal model’ and day-to-day experience is different from

this. No person can expect to become the ideal overnight. It requires active
engagement in a process of experiential learning. And even an aware practitioner
will at times respond to the situation without considering the systemic/systematic
alternatives.

8.3 Skill Sets for Managing Systemically

I now want to describe some of the possibilities for juggling the M-ball that I see
as being available in the repertoire of an aware systems practitioner able to con-
nect with the history of systems thinking (in which I include many of the so-called
theories of complexity).
In a survey where employers were asked to indicate what they most desire in
new employees they said (Robertson 1998): ‘graduates must understand that the
world is not linear – They need the ability to manage ambiguity and connectivity
and to be comfortable with provisionality – making decisions when you don’t
really know what is going to happen, e.g. with e-commerce. They must also be
comfortable with emergence’. These employers said that they considered the tradi-
tional skill set didn’t go far enough if graduates wanted to be employable interna-
tionally. What was missing, they claimed, were ‘complexity skills’. Employers
assessed graduate communication skills, disciplinary knowledge, teamwork, infor-
mation technology and interpersonal skills as ok, leadership as adequate but
understanding of the nature of globalisation, working with cross-cultural sensitiv-
ity and sensitivity to different ethical positions as poor.
Robertson’s (1998) findings make a strong case for graduates with systemic
awareness able to appreciate the nature of globalisation and work with cross-
cultural and ethical sensitivity – this, I would claim, requires recognition and
adeptness in juggling the different balls I have been describing. The same applies
in the public sector. For example, Mulgan (2001) identified seven factors that
increased the relevance of systems thinking to policy making and to the functions
of government. These were:
1. The ubiquity of information flows, especially within government itself
2. Pressure on social policy to be more holistic
3. The growing importance of the environment, especially climate change
4. Connectedness of systems brings new vulnerabilities
5. Globalisation and the ways in which this integrates previously discrete systems
6. Need for ability to cope with ambiguity and non-linearity
7. Planning and rational strategy often lead to unintended consequences
He concluded that out of all these factors has come a ‘common understanding
that we live in a world of complexity, of non-linear phenomena, chaotic processes,
a world not easily captured by common sense, a world in which positive feedback
can play a hugely important role as well as the more familiar negative feedback
8.3 Skill Sets for Managing Systemically 199

that we learn in the first term of economics’. He also recognised that ‘so far
remarkably little use has been made of systems thinking or of the more recent
work on complexity’ and that in part this is ‘to do with the huge sunk investment
in other disciplines, particularly economics’ (see also Chapman 2002). The trends
and imperatives recognised by Mulgan have, if anything, become more pro-
nounced since 2001 (see OECD 2017).
In 2009 the Australian Public Service Commissioner made the point that new
skills in problem framing and boundary setting were needed so as to (Briggs
2009):
• Generate fresh thinking on intractable problems
• Work across organisational and disciplinary boundaries
• Make effective decisions in situations characterised by high levels of
uncertainty
• Be able to tolerate rapid change in the way problems are defined
• Engage stakeholders as joint decision-makers (not just providers or recipients
of services)
She argued that (1) not all public servants will need to work this way all the
time (some may not be affected at all) but many will be confronted by ambiguous
and complex problems at some point, and (2) it is important for senior levels of
the public service to exercise the kinds of leadership that these problems require.11
So what might managing be in these contexts? Shaw (1996) refers to consul-
tants who operate from a complexity perspective, in contrast to what she describes
as a traditional perspective (Table 8.2).
These business and public sector examples point to the contexts in which sys-
temic managing will be required in future. On the other hand, if these understand-
ings are absent in situations you find yourself in (as in the traditional situation in
Table 8.2), then it is highly possible the situation will not be conducive to your
systems practice. This could be challenging – but awareness opens up possibilities
and calls for taking a ‘design-turn’ in your practice. I will say more about what
this ‘turn’ means in Chapter 10.
At the beginning of this chapter on juggling the M-ball, I explored the three
categories I used for making sense of a list of verbs associated with managing (i.e.
‘getting by’, ‘getting on top of’ and ‘creating the space for’). When I did this
work I was not aware of the set of three distinctions made by Fairtlough (2007) as
the ‘three ways of getting things done’. He refers to hierarchy as the most com-
mon and recognises the hegemony of hierarchy in our organisational practices.12
His second category is heterarchy – multiple rule with a balance of powers rather
than a single rule through hierarchy (e.g. a group of partners in a law firm). His
third category is ‘responsible autonomy’ in which an individual or group has

11
I would have said situations rather than problems!
12
He argues that hierarchy becomes hegemonic when everyone accepts that it is normal, that that
is how things are!
200 8 Juggling the M-Ball: Managing Overall Performance in a Situation

Table 8.2 Contrasting perspectives that consultants may hold in undertaking interventions in an
organisational setting (Shaw 1996)
The consultant with a traditional perspective The consultant with a complexity perspective
Designs and implements an educational Stimulates conditions of bounded instability
strategy to realise planned change intended to in which the organisation co-evolves with its
improve the organisation’s position in its environment through self-organisation
environment
Understands organisational change in terms of Understands change dynamics as unfolding in
temporary transitional instability between the ongoing tension between stability and
system-wide stable states instability in which islands of order arise and
dissolve
Contracts to deliver a pre-determined Contracts for a step-by-step process of joint
objective or outcome learning into an evolving future
Sees large scale project plans and political and Dissuades managers from using inappropriate
ideological control strategies as useful only in forms of control to manage the anxieties
circumstances closer to certainty and raised when operating far from certainty and
agreement agreement
Chooses an effective marginal or boundary Becomes an active agent in the life of the
position from which to diagnose the state of organisation, by participating in its shadow
the system as a whole and legitimate systems to engage in complex
learning processes
Tries to create an intended change in people’s Seeks to stimulate and provoke conditions in
shared beliefs, values and attitudes which people’s mental models are
continuously revised in the course of
interaction
Focuses on global, whole system change Focuses on feedback loops operating at a
whether that of groups, individuals or local level through which activity may be
organisations escalated up to system-wide outcomes
Designs and facilitates off-site meetings to Intervenes in the ongoing conversational life
develop strategies and plans and build teams in organisations in which people co-create
and evolve their action-in-contexts or
contexts-in-action
Collects data on generic system variables Invites an exploration of the relationship
through surveys, interviews and other between the system’s formal agenda (what the
instruments to feedback the legitimate system legitimate system says it knows) and the
multitude of informal narratives by which the
organisation is working (what the shadow
system knows). These feedback loops
generate their own outcomes
Emphasises the need for alignment and Amplifies existing sources of difference,
consensus around clear directions friction and contention, so that complex
learning might occur, provided people’s anxiety
in the face of such learning is well contained

autonomy to decide what to do but is accountable for the outcome of the decision
(p. 24). There is conceptual and methodological coherence between Fairtlough’s
categories and the three approaches to power in decision making (and facilitation)
formulated by Heron (1989): (1) power over, or deciding for; (2) power with or
8.4 Clarifying Purposefulness in Managing 201

deciding with, and (3) power to, or delegating deciding to. Sometimes these are
called hierarchical, cooperative and autonomous (see http://www.scalingthe
heights.com/resources/doing/herons-table/. Accessed 31 May 2017).
Within my categories ‘creating the space for’ is the liberating and encompass-
ing systemic category that more closely aligns with the skill set that is desired in
business and the public sector. The same applies to Fairtlough’s category of
‘responsible autonomy’ – they are I think much the same. Because I associate this
category with the question: How can I create the space for emergence? I now
want to address this question in relation to the question of purposefulness and
self-organisation as part of the skill set for juggling the M-ball.

8.4 Clarifying Purposefulness in Managing

Research conducted by Stacey (1993) showed how business managers often

behave in a way contrary to espoused policies and expectations. Rather than
adhering to conventions of long-term planning and accepted orthodoxies and pro-
cedures, in practice they often tend to make a succession of unrelated, adaptive
responses to changing situations as the need arises. This is often, and rather
disparagingly, labelled muddle-through or crisis management but can result in
adaptive action and organisation.
I use these outcomes from Stacey’s research to make clear that when I speak
about purposeful behaviour I am not equating it with behaviour normally asso-
ciated with blueprint planning or other forms of purely rational planning.
Purposeful behaviour is willed behaviour and this may be triggered by personal
circumstances which, on reflection, we regard as being rational or emotional beha-
viour.13 There are widespread and conflicting understandings and assumptions
about the nature of human behaviour, particularly within science and economics.
Within economics and the messy issue of tax policy, the following exemplifies
what I mean:
… all neoclassical [economic] analysis [is] based on an erroneous model of human beha-
viour that assumes the choices we make are always carefully calculated to maximise our
material wellbeing. For the past 20 or 30 years, behavioural economists have been point-
ing out to conventional economists all the flaws in their assumption that people are always
rational, but this seems to have had zero impact on the happy analysis of the tax econo-
mists. Assuming people always behave in the manner economists regard as rational makes
it relatively simple to predict their behaviour in particular circumstances (and to do it
using mathematical equations which economists think is really cool). Only problem is,
since people rarely behave the way neoclassical economists assume they do, the predic-
tions these economists make are frequently way off beam. Funny that (Gittins 2009).

In a study of nine companies, Stacey showed how attempts to overcome ambi-

guity through planning failed completely except over short time periods.

13
I use this expression though I understand being rational as another form of emotion.
202 8 Juggling the M-Ball: Managing Overall Performance in a Situation

Furthermore, at least seven of the companies made significant shifts in how they
operated despite the failure of their attempts to predict and plan. All the changes
emerged unexpectedly and unintentionally. As Stacey observed: ‘The changes
occurred, not because we were planning, but because we were learning in a man-
ner provoked by the very ambiguity and conflict we were trying to remove’.
Managers, he argued, have to strike an appropriate balance between too much and
too little control. They have to balance two tendencies within their organisations,
programmes or projects. Too much control and blueprint-based planning leads to
an inability to respond to change or to an unexpected eventual ossification. Too
little control leads to fragmentation and disintegration. Success, it is argued, lies
somewhere between these extremes.
A key point from Stacey’s research is that too much control or attempts to
intervene according to any pre-conceived view and necessarily partial view, or
blueprint plan, stunts the process of self-organisation. Change and adaptation in
human organisations occur through social interaction. Apparent fixes can inhibit
the emergence of organisation and relationships that are most appropriate to any
particular situation, such that solutions arrived at in this way are likely to be short-
lived. It is in this sense that I see creating the space for spontaneous behaviour and
emergent phenomena as a key element in managing for self-organisation.
Stacey’s perspective is not a strategy for avoiding planning. It allows space for
creative conflict, negotiation, interaction and learning wherein assumptions may
be dashed but the seeds of new perspectives and formulations may be nurtured.
Which seeds eventually develop and emerge depends on politics and negotiation
and on the skills of those promoting or inhibiting the new perspectives. Systemic
approaches in the hands of skilled and aware practitioners contribute to the surfa-
cing of adaptive and innovative actions.

8.5 Managing for Emergence and Self-Organisation

One way of knowing that you are developing your systemic awareness is when
you react with alarm at hearing the phrase ‘roll-out’! It is a good indicator in my
experience of a likely failing in managing, mainly because those concerned will
have metaphorically dropped the C-ball. John Seddon provides an excellent exam-
ple of what happens as a precursor to ‘roll out’ of policies and practices that all
too often subsequently fail (Seddon 2008, p. 24):
The [UK] government’s CBL [Choice-based letting] scheme took an idea that was devel-
oped in Holland, modified it to fit with existing practice and, as a result, removed its
essential value. This is a classic example of copying without knowledge, rather than seek-
ing first to understand the thinking and principles behind the original design. Inadequate
research has subsequently been used to support the scheme; it is though the research prior-
ity is to find support for the policy rather than learn about what works.

This is an example of failure to engage in context sensitive design i.e., to privi-

lege systematic practice over systemic. All too often, even with pilot testing, a
8.5 Managing for Emergence and Self-Organisation 203

‘roll-out’ whether of a policy, a practice or a method fails to be meaningfully

enacted; this is a failure of practice, the practice of creating a context sensitive
design and performance.14 Setting out to manage for emergence, or to create the
circumstances for self-organisation can avoid the limitations of the ‘roll-out’ phe-
nomenon. But even here we have a lot to learn, including whether it is possible to
purposefully create conducive conditions for emergence or self organisation.
The example of Linux is a well-known model of software development based on
self-organising dynamics. Linux development is contrasted with the approach
formerly employed by Microsoft and many other firms, described as ‘the old “closed
shop” model of commercial software producers’ (Naughton 1998). The Linux model
is based on the idea of altruistic programmers, working together across the Net on
freely distributed code that is open for everyone’s perusal and tinkering so that the
result is ‘more powerful and reliable software’ than Microsoft’s. Raymond (2017)
argued that closed models of innovation, as in the case of Microsoft at that time,
stifled creativity and was thus not customer focused.
It is possible to say that Linux emerged through a form of self-organisation.
Self-organisation is the phenomenon associated with a system distinguished by an
observer, which is able to construct and change its own behaviour or internal orga-
nisation. Computer simulations have shown, for example, that the behaviour of a
flock of flying birds can be replicated by a few simple rules, which, if changed,
results in the emergence of new patterns of simulated flock behaviour. Of course,
self organisation in human activities has more dimensions of organisation than the
flight of a flock of birds. Self-organisation is also sometimes considered as the
acquisition of variety by a system or the progressive emergence of novelty when
removal of constraint or control releases capacity for autonomous action. These
features seem to be present in the Linux case. My colleague Naughton (1998), for
example, who writes regularly for the Observer newspaper about technology, con-
sidered the Internet a wonderful example of self-organisation (Box 8.1). Since this
article was written it is clear that globalization and expanded participation in the
net brings both benefits and challenges.

Box 8.1 Open versus systems of innovation – an example of self-

organisation?

There is a saying in the computer business that ‘only the paranoid survive’.
The man who has taken it most to heart is Microsoft’s Boss of Bosses,
Bill Gates. Although he is the richest man alive and his company has a

(continued)
14
For example the introduction of SSM, a systems methodology, into the guidelines for govern-
ment procurement and implementation of information systems failed because it became a blue-
print, in which what could have been a context sensitive methodology became reduced to a
technique (Government Centre for Information Systems (GCTA) 1993).
204 8 Juggling the M-Ball: Managing Overall Performance in a Situation

Box 8.1 Open versus systems of innovation – an example of self-

organisation? (continued)

stranglehold on the world’s computer screens, Gates is forever looking over

his shoulder, trying to spot the newcomer who will wipe him out.
One can understand his anxiety. The pace of change in the computing
industry is such that if you blink you might not spot the threat. Gates him-
self blinked spectacularly in 1994, when Netscape was founded. He failed to
appreciate the looming significance of the Internet and Netscape had cap-
tured a huge slice of the web-browser market before he woke up.
From that moment onwards, Microsoft’s corporate ingenuity was devoted
to finding ways of crushing Netscape. Its crass attempts to do so eventually
stung the US Department of Justice into launching the anti-trust suit which
is currently being decided in an American court. But while the eyes of the
media are on the trial, those of the Net community have been focused else-
where – on a leaked Microsoft internal memorandum which is far more
revealing than anything released in court. For it shows that Gates & Co have
finally realised where the Next Big Threat is coming from. And it’s nothing
to do with Netscape – or browsers. They’re yesterday’s battlegrounds.
The leaked memo is now all over the Net. It was written by a Microsoft
engineer called Vinod Valloppillil last August (1998), but is universally
known as the ‘Halloween Memo’ because it was leaked last weekend
(November 1998). Its purpose is to explain to Microsoft bosses the nature
and extent of the threat posed by a free operating system called Linux and
the ‘Open Source’ software development community that built it.
To appreciate the memo’s significance, you need to remember that
Microsoft dominates the world market in operating systems – the complex
programmes which transform computers from paperweights into machines
which can do useful work. The Windows operating system is the jewel in
Gates’s crown and anything that threatens it threatens his company’s domi-
nance. Microsoft’s long-term strategy is to move us all on to a version of it
called Windows NT (for ‘new technology’). But NT is in trouble. The
release date for the next version has been postponed so often that it has had
to be renamed ‘Windows 2000’. And as NT flounders, the world’s attention
has increasingly focused on a rival operating system called Linux which
offers many of the same facilities as NT, is incredibly stable and reliable –
and is free. Anyone can download it, free gratis, from the Net.
Linux is free because it was developed collectively across the Net by
skilled programmers working in the Open Source tradition which created the
Internet and which holds that software should be freely accessible to the
community. The name comes from the fact that ‘source code’ is computer-
speak for the original version of a programme – as distinct from the version
you buy and install on your computer. If you have the source code you can
do what you like with it – alter it, damage it, improve it, whatever. Linux is

(continued)
8.5 Managing for Emergence and Self-Organisation 205

Box 8.1 Open versus systems of innovation – an example of self-

organisation? (continued)

powerful and stable because it was created by clever people working colla-
boratively on the source code and because it’s been tested to destruction by
more programmers than Microsoft could ever muster. The Halloween Memo
warns Gates that Linux and its ilk pose a serious threat to Microsoft.
It argues that Open Source software is now as good as, if not better than,
commercial alternatives, concedes that ‘the ability of the OSS process to col-
lect and harness the collective IQ of thousands of individuals across the
Internet is simply amazing’, and concludes that Linux is too diffuse a target
to be destroyed by the tactics which have hitherto vaporised Microsoft’s
commercial rivals. The people who built Linux cannot be driven out of busi-
ness, because they’re not ‘in’ business. Henceforth, Microsoft will be fight-
ing not another company, but an idea.
The Halloween Memo provides a chilling glimpse into the Darth Vader
mindset of Microsoft. The reason Linux is so powerful, reasons Valloppillil, is
that its basic building blocks – its technical protocols – are free, openly distribu-
ted and not owned by anyone. The only way to kill it therefore is for Microsoft
to capture the protocols by pretending to adopt them and then ‘extending’ them
in ways that effectively make them proprietary. The new (Microsoft) revisions
will – surprise, surprise! – be incompatible with the ‘free’ versions. Gates calls
this process ‘embrace and extend’. In reality it’s ‘copy and corrupt’.
The coming battle, then, will be between two philosophies – closed shop
versus Open Source, commercial paranoia versus altruism and trust. The
outcome is already predictable. Microsoft’s difficulties with Windows NT
show that some software is now too complex for even the richest, smartest
company. Instead of trying to suborn Linux, what Gates should do is release
the NT code and let the collective IQ of the Net fix it for him. He won’t do
it, of course, which is why his company has just peaked. If you have
Microsoft shares, prepare to sell them now.
Naughton J (1998) ‘Internet–It’s free and it works. No wonder Bill gates hates it’,
The Observer, Sunday 8 November 1998, Copyright Guardian News and Media Ltd.

The key aspects that emerge from the Linux case study relevant to managing
the M-ball are that in the right context (i.e. in a world with internet connections)
and with some relatively simple rules it is possible to create the conditions for
cooperative self-organisation from which a new product, Linux, has emerged.15
That said, it requires on-going cooperation and a constantly evolving governance
system to continue to flourish (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond).

15
However, this is not magic and involves a lot of work by many people and excludes as many
(such as those without internet access) as it potentially includes.
206 8 Juggling the M-Ball: Managing Overall Performance in a Situation

The same is possible, although not always easy, in organisational and project
settings (e.g. through the types of practices undertaken by a consultant with a
complexity perspective as outlined in Table 8.2).16
In my own work on the governance and management of river catchments we
have seen it as appropriate to understand sustainable and regenerated water catch-
ments as the emergent property of social processes and not the technical property
of an ecosystem (Ison et al. 2007; Morris et al. 2004; Steyaert and Jiggins 2007).
That is, desirable water catchment properties arise out of interaction (stakeholders
engaging in issue formulation and monitoring, negotiation, conflict resolution,
learning, agreement, creating and maintaining public goods, concertation of
action) among multiple, inter-dependent, stakeholders in the water catchment. We
describe this overall set of interactions when it occurs in a complex natural
resource arena as social learning (Colvin et al. 2014). I will say more about this
in Part III.17 In taking this perspective we have made a choice to perceive ‘ecosys-
tems’ as bounded by the conceptualisations and judgements of humans, as are
agreements to what constitutes an improvement. This contrasts with the main-
stream position which has come to see ecosystems as having an existence of their
own totally independent of human engagement.
Concerns about managing for emergence and/or self-organization have, since
1998, moved out of the technical domain into the social. Paul Patton writing in
William Connolly’s book (2013) ‘The Fragility of Things’ makes the point that
the book is based on ‘an awareness that human affairs are undertaken in a world
of interacting systems of self-organization that place no special value on human
flourishing or even survival’. Connolly’s book (2013) is a call to self-organizing
activism that enables ‘concerted ways to defeat neo-liberalism, to curtail climate

16
John Naughton when asked for his perspective on these issues in May 2017 said (pers
comm): “the ‘Cathedral’ book was very much of its time – when the world was dominated by
Microsoft and the desktop machine was the dominant mode of connection to the Net. Open
Source remains very significant (most devices with embedded computing – which in effect
means everything in the so-called “Internet of Things” – run Linux). Android was – at least in
concept – an open source software package. And Apple’s IOS and Mac OS X is built on the
BSD4.2 version of Unix, which is also open source. But the switch to mobile operating sys-
tems has changed the world. One of the most sobering things we have learned is that while
open sources software remains central to the underlying architecture of the Net, Raymond’s
confident assertion that “Given enough eyeballs all bugs are shallow” now looks a bit optimis-
tic. As an example, see the “Heartbleed” bug, which remained undetected for years. And when
you dig deeper, you find that the problem with open source was that it doesn’t have a business
model to ensure its sustainability. Huge corporations which rely on it have an indifferent
record in providing resources and support to the volunteers who keep the infrastructure going.
And there’s empirical research which shows that most of the open source projects on GitHub
have only a few active developers. In summary, I’d say that the philosophy underpinning
Raymond’s essays remains sound in principle; but the world has changed so much that it’s
beginning to look like the philosophy of the Quakers who founded Rowntree: admirable, but
somehow quaint’.
17
See also Blackmore (2010) whose book deals more with multi-stakeholder processes, commu-
nities of practice and social learning.
8.6 A Case Study: Aspects of Juggling the M-Ball 207

change, to reduce inequality, and to instill a vibrant pluralist spirituality into

democratic machines’ to emerge.

8.6 A Case Study: Aspects of Juggling the M-Ball

Additional challenges to be faced in managing the M-ball include allowing for the
emergence of new insights from the use of systems methods in their entirety (i.e.
as conceptualised by their developers) as opposed to just picking and using parts
of them. Based on experience I would argue for attempting them in their entirety
first and until they begin to feel familiar or embodied. Another challenge, as
I have mentioned already, is understanding that all practice creates a context or
environment and that what also needs to be managed is the practice-context rela-
tionships. The final Reading in Part II (Reading 6) exemplifies a systems practi-
tioner juggling the M-ball; he addresses in part the two challenges I have just
raised. He does this through reflecting on 25 years of systems practice primarily,
but not exclusively, within the Systems Dynamics (SD) tradition in the business
and government sectors. Importantly his reflection exemplifies how juggling the
M-ball extends beyond a simple focus on systems methods or technique, combin-
ing all the elements of the B, E, C and M-balls. In particular he explores the rela-
tionships between his systems practice and generic aspects of ‘project
management’ which is a major issue I will address in Part III of this book. The
overwhelming lesson, he claims, is that the quality of the work is secondary to the
manner in which projects are managed within organisations.
In choosing this reflection by Tim Haslett as a reading, I am perhaps open to
criticism for ending my account of the four balls juggled by the systems practi-
tioner on a sombre note. However, if we are to employ systems approaches as a
way of acting in a climate-change world, then Tim’s account points to where
future attention and action is required. Fortunately studies are beginning to high-
light many cases of successful systems thinking in practice (OECD 2017;
Hoverstadt and Loh 2017; Pell 2012). One of my reasons for selecting this reading
was that Haslett’s account highlights how inimical institutional settings are to the
establishment and conservation of systems thinking and practice. Institutions are
norms or rules of the ‘human game’ that humans invent. They are everywhere and
differ from organisations. A particular institutional constraint is the projectified
world we inhabit! Without changes in these institutional settings it is unlikely that
systems thinking will be able to make the contribution that it could to the quality
of our co-evolutionary future.
In Part III, I expand on how I understand institutions and examine four major
constraints to the emergence of systems practice into the mainstream. I then look
at three conducive meta-framings for systems practice: systemic inquiry, my
own antidote to living in a projectified world in which, historically, certainty
has been privileged above uncertainty, systemic action research and systemic
intervention.
208 8 Juggling the M-Ball: Managing Overall Performance in a Situation

Reading 6
Reflections on SD Practice (Haslett 2007)
Tim Haslett

Introduction
This paper reflects on a body of work commissioned by commercial clients.
While a number of academic papers have been published as a result, this
work has essentially been pragmatic and driven by the fundamental consid-
eration of the usability of the models that were developed. The process of
making models usable is deeply embedded in the political and organiza-
tional processes of the client. This means that reflection on SD [Systems
Dynamics] practice is about processes much broader than the process of
model building itself.

The clients
The client group has been wide and diverse. The projects have included
modelling the capabilities of the Joint Strike Fighter, the use of golf courses,
restrictions to blood donor groups, the national superannuation system, the
heroin trade, ambulance service demand, patient flows in hospitals, priva-
tized garbage collection, the viability of WorkCover insurers, a call centre,
oil and delivery transport systems, case management in the courts and an
accident repair centre.

SD is inherently difficult to understand and the explanations more difficult

The theoretical foundations of System Dynamics are at once the greatest
strength and the greatest weakness for our discipline. The strength is that we
have very sure foundation upon which to build and proceed with our work.
In this, it is always appropriate that the practitioner should acknowledge the
seminal work of Jay Forrester. We are also fortunate that the body of litera-
ture, particularly that produced in the System Dynamics Review, has helped
to define the methodology and the field of endeavor.
The downside of this however is that the body of theory that is needed to
understand the discipline is relatively complex. For instance, the concept of
feedback is commonly interpreted as meaning what people receive on their
performance appraisals. Engineers understand feedback and control systems
but when dealing with other professional groups this assumption cannot be
taken for granted. When this idea is complicated with the addition that feed-
back is either reinforcing or balancing and that the systemic impact of both of
these types of systems need to be considered, clients begin to view the consul-
tant with the degree of suspicion reserved for door-to-door vacuum salesmen
and snake charmers. While the feedback concept is relatively easy to explain
to an interested audience, the implications of its importance are not as easy.

(continued)
8.6 A Case Study: Aspects of Juggling the M-Ball 209

Reading 6 (continued)
The great power to be able to analyze systems in terms of positive and
negative feedback systems rests in the fact that the results of the analysis are
often counterintuitive and provide insights that have not previously been
possible. The difficulty is that the results of SD analysis can often be at odds
with the thinking of managers and decision-makers whose mental processes
are essentially linear. Linear thinking is characterized by an assumption that
an intervention in a system will have a chain reaction effect uncomplicated
by a feedback from unintended consequences.
Our failure to help a client understand these and other principles of SD
modelling can have a number of important consequences both at the begin-
ning and the end of the project. A recent presentation to a senior parliamen-
tarian set out the preliminary stages of a large project. As the presentation
progresses, signs of glazed eyes and a decreasing attention span became
increasingly obvious. The explanation was clearly not getting through and
as a consequence of this one senior decision maker’s confidence in the tech-
nique was seriously weakened. Within a fortnight, the project had been
cancelled. Attributing causation, particular when the causal structures are
not well known, is always dangerous. However, it is likely that our failure
to communicate clearly what we were able to do was a contributing factor
into the cancellation of the project.

The problem of counter-intuitive outcomes

The more frustrating aspect of the failure to help the client to understand
what SD will deliver is when the consequences of the lack of understanding
become obvious at the end of the project. Clients can be swept up by enthu-
siasm for a technique that has the potential to make the implications of pol-
icy decisions clear, but this is often supported by the hope that it will
provide a justification for current policy. As the project progresses and the
causal structures become clearer, it becomes clear that counterintuitive out-
comes are not going to provide support for current policy. Often the project
will be completed, only to be shelved.
A major motor services company that had developed an Accident Repair
Centre (ARC) designed to act like a production line had encountered pro-
blems with bottlenecks developing within the system. The problem was mul-
tifaceted and involved the manner in which the work was scheduled and the
availability of spare parts. The spare parts problem led to cars being off-
loaded from the production line to the extent that the whole system became
grid locked. The client required a simulation model to see how the problem
could be solved. The complexity of the model is an indication of the com-
plexity of the system that had been developed. It was little wonder that it
was unmanageable. The most noticeable complexity was the complicated

(continued)
210 8 Juggling the M-Ball: Managing Overall Performance in a Situation

Reading 6 (continued)
sets of conditions that had to be met before cars could move from one
station to another.
[…]
The results of modelling can best be captured in the lines of the immortal
poet Hillaire Belloc:
The Chief Defect of Henry King
Was chewing little bits of String.
At last he swallowed some which tied
Itself in ugly Knots inside.
Physicians of the Utmost Fame
Were called at once; but when they came
They answered, as they took their Fees,
There is no Cure for this Disease.
Henry will very soon be dead.

The design of the ARC which had cost millions of dollars to build and
was to revolutionize car repair in Victoria [Australia] was so fundamentally
flawed that it was never going to work properly. This was not what the cli-
ent had expected. They had hoped that the problem would be solved, not
proved to be insoluble. Within a short time, the client closed the ARC and
began building a new one.
The tendency of SD modelling to produce counterintuitive outcomes pro-
duces significant difficulties for some clients. Given that many organizations
do not have an inbuilt capability for Systems Thinking and consequently an
understanding of the impact of feedback, it is highly likely that some of the
results of modelling exercises will run contrary to the accepted wisdom
within the organization.
Some years ago work with a provider of major emergency ambulance
services wished to understand the drivers of demand for emergency ambu-
lance services. The funding model was that ambulances were purchased
when demand went above current capacity and the projected utilization of
the new vehicles demonstrated the demand would be sustained.
The purchase of the new ambulance had the immediate effect that the
ambulance service was under pressure to use the increased capacity. This
was often achieved by using expensive and well-equipped emergency ambu-
lances for tasks such as ferrying patients between hospitals, such as between
acute and sub-acute facilities to ensure utilization of the vehicle. The conse-
quences of this were that the specialized vehicles took out some of the work-
load of less specialized vehicles that then had to look for some way to
utilize their excess capacity. This meant there was a knock on effect down
through the ambulance services with everybody looking for extra work. This
was often achieved by providing a much wider range of services to people
in the communities. Anecdotal evidence existed of emergency ambulances

(continued)
8.6 A Case Study: Aspects of Juggling the M-Ball 211

Reading 6 (continued)
S Short-term
Excess Capacity
S

New Services

S S
Ambulance Ambulance Demand
Purchases Capacity

O O

Fig. 8.4 Endogenous ambulance demand. An ‘S’ indicates that the causal variable has
the Same effect on the dependent variable. As New Services go up then demand for those
services also goes up. An ‘O’ indicates that the causal variable has the Opposite effect on
the dependent variable. If Demand goes up then Ambulance Capacity goes down

being used to take patients to appointments at outpatients units. Very soon

the demand for these services increased so that it was necessary to purchase
new ambulances in a variety of categories where demand had been stimu-
lated. These new ambulances then went out looking for work (Fig. 8.4).
The conclusion was that one of the key drivers of this demand for emer-
gency services is the provision of an increasing range of services from the
emergency service itself. Demand was endogenously driven. This may not
surprise the experienced modeller but it certainly came as a shock for the
service and provided very little help in their budget submissions.
The first difficulty in this situation is that the model has produced a
counterintuitive outcome for the client. This outcome was based on the
well-understood principle that systems generate their own behavior and it
was to be expected that the client would have had a major impact on the
dynamics of the system. What emerges is the question: ‘So what do we do
now?’ The situation was clearly not impossible but was going to require a
major policy and behavioral changes for the client and other major stake-
holders. It’s very easy for these situations to fall into the ‘too high basket’.
Sometimes the opposite happens. A recent project involved in the model-
ling of the impact of compulsory superannuation in Australia. The work that
was conducted in the ATO [Australian Tax Office] Superannuation Branch
was very successful for a number of reasons. The first was the ability of the
client group to accept the possibility of the counterintuitive. One of the criti-
cal dynamics for the introduction of compulsory superannuation was that it
takes 30–40 years before people are retiring with maximum benefits. For
significant periods of time, people would be leaving the workforce with rela-
tively small amounts invested in superannuation. The question at issue was:
‘What will these people do in this situation?’

(continued)
212 8 Juggling the M-Ball: Managing Overall Performance in a Situation

Reading 6 (continued)
The consensus was that people would make additional payments into
superannuation to increase their final benefit. However, it was agreed that
there was no empirical evidence to support what seemed to be a fairly logical
conclusion. The possibility of this assumption being wrong led to a
significant investment in market research. The results of research justified the
investment. Not only was it extremely unlikely that people would top up their
superannuation, it was extremely likely they would take their superannuation
as a lump sum and spend it on a caravan or trip around the world and then
go on the pension. As one of the main thrusts of the superannuation policy
was to make people less dependent upon government funded pensions, it
looked likely that a significant period of counterintuitive outcomes in the
superannuation sector would result. Current policy for superannuation in
Australian now restricts the amount of money that retirees are able to take in
a lump sum and effectively quarantines a proportion for an ongoing pension.

The problem of the short term v long term

By its very nature, SD modelling addresses problems that have a long-term
and strategic focus for the organization. Many organizations have difficulty
integrating long-term and strategic information into their decision-making.
Many organizations are beset by the need to deal with short-term key perfor-
mance indicators and the immediate effects of a turbulent environment.
Some organizations find themselves constantly in ‘semi-crisis’ mode. This is
particularly true of organizations where resources are stretched to meet the
demand of what appears to be an unpredictable environment. Health services
appear to operate in this mode for a good proportion of their time. A recent
modelling assignment from a major hospital was commissioned as a result
of a number of the senior administrators completing SD programs at
Monash. The discussions to develop a long-term modelling capability to pre-
dict and manage demand for hospital beds was frequently interrupted by
quarter-hourly updates on the status of individual patients and a frequent
absence of the manager to head off the latest crisis in bed allocation.
Unfortunately, stamping out spot fires does not stop a major bushfire. While
the immediate and practical reality is that the spot fires need to be fought,
the difficulty is that dealing with the causes of the spot fires needs to be
done at the same time as trying to manage them. This dilemma is most acute
in organizations that become ‘addicted to crisis’. Managers become adept at
dealing with the day-to-day crises of the organization. Often their efforts are
nothing short of heroic and frequently lifesaving. At a personal level, the
hero manager has nothing to gain from improving the structures that provide
opportunities for managerial heroism.
A senior medical administrator accounted with great pride how she had
spent an entire Saturday searching one of our major cities for a compatible

(continued)
8.6 A Case Study: Aspects of Juggling the M-Ball 213

Reading 6 (continued)
blood donor for a dying child. She finally located the child’s aunt and
brought her in to make a donation that saved the child’s life. It is impossible
to question the efficacy or importance of what was done in that situation.
But when the administrator announced with pride that she was the only per-
son who had the power and authority to do this, two questions inevitably
arises: ‘But what if you weren’t there? and What systems do you have in
place to deal with that?’
It is true that structures determined system behavior. It is equally true that
the heroic efforts of individuals can overcome the influence of counter-
productive structures in the short term. It is the heroism of individuals that
often stands in the way of long-term strategic thinking. Structural change is
time consuming, costly and risky. Often SD modelling indicates the need
for significant structural change but when the immediate problems demand
attention, managers rarely have time to make the necessary change.
A recent assignment in a major Victorian Hospital was able to deal with
this problem in a different way. The hospital was building a short-stay facil-
ity and wished to know whether the plans that had been drawn up would
meet the performance criteria that have been set by the government. The cri-
tical dynamic in this case was that between the operating theatres, which
generate patients, and the post-anaesthetic care units (PACU) where they
recover. The new facility with its improved procedures was going to make
significant improvements on patient throughput. While it is possible to bring
about significant improvements in the processes surrounding the operating
theatres, it is not possible to get patients to improve their post-anaesthetic
recovery times. The question was one of operating theatre capacity with
PACU capability.
If PACU reaches capacity, the hospital staff had no options for moving
patients. They can only leave PACU when they are fully recovered and walk-
ing. Once PACU is full and there is no recovery space available, the operating
theatres must stop. Failure to keep the operating theatres working efficiently
has a highly detrimental effect on KPIs (Key Performance Indicators). This
meant that PACU capacity was a key leverage point in the system.
The model simulations indicated that the PACU capacity in the original
plans would not be sufficient to cope with all the services that will be taken
to the new facility. A decision was made to limit the procedures that would
be carried out in the new facility and bring the output of the operating thea-
tres within the PACU capacity.
This application of SD modelling was interesting for a number of rea-
sons. It tested the assumptions of the design of a facility in a way that
allowed the managers to short-circuit potentially problematic situations
before they developed. It also combined architectural plans and SD model-
ling, certainly for the first time in the Victorian health system.

(continued)
214 8 Juggling the M-Ball: Managing Overall Performance in a Situation

Reading 6 (continued)
Internal sponsorship and the rich and famous
SD modelling projects are generally initiated by someone within the
organization who already has a working knowledge of the capabilities of the
technique. In many cases, this has been a student who has studied at
Monash University. It is very important from the perspective of a consultant
to have a very realistic view of the organizational status of the project initia-
tor. The key is to understand whether their budgetary discretion encom-
passes the cost of the project. If this is not the case, then there needs to be a
series of presentations to convince someone higher in the organization to
approve the project. It is important to have a clear understanding of the roles
of the people now potentially involved in the project. The person who
approves the budget now becomes the project sponsor within the organiza-
tion and this role requires careful management on the part of a consultant.
The same applies to the person who originally introduced the project to the
organization who is likely to become the internal project manager.
This is where the concept of ‘rich and famous’ becomes important. In every
consulting assignment, someone must become rich and famous. It is important
to have a very clear understanding of who those people will be. It is the project
sponsor, the approver of budgets, who must become pre-eminently famous. The
consultant becomes rich but never famous. To achieve their fame, the project
sponsor must be in a position to demonstrate the progress, efficacy or importance
of the project. They must be brought up to speed about the nature the SD model-
ling and provided with enough information to be able to speak formally and
informally about the benefits of the project. In doing, this they become famous.
The consultant takes no role in representing the project in the organization. The
emphasis on using the project sponsor and project manager to represent the pro-
ject within the organization means that the emphasis is constantly on relating the
progress and outcomes of the project to organizational objectives. It also enables
the project manager and project sponsor to take ownership of the project.
The communication processes surrounding the project are as important as
the project itself and structures need to be put in place to ensure that they
work well. Stafford Beer’s ‘Viable Systems Model’ provides an excellent
template for structuring not only the project, but also the communication
processes that must support it (Fig. 8.5).
The project team is Beer’s System 1. This is where the work of building
causal diagrams and modelling is done. This group will clearly contain the
project manager and if possible some members of the organization who
have demonstrated enthusiasm for developing SD mapping and modelling
skills. It is from this group that a replacement for the project manager must
be found if the project manager moves to a new role. Developing requisite
variety at all levels of the project serves as a protection against the loss of
expertise as a result of staff movement.

(continued)
8.6 A Case Study: Aspects of Juggling the M-Ball 215

Reading 6 (continued)

System 5

System 4

System 3

System 2
Environment

System 3

System 1a
Management
System 1a
System 2

System 3
System 1a
Management

System 1a
System 2

Fig. 8.5 Stafford Beer’s viable Systems model

The project manager will be effectively a one person System 2 responsible

for coordinating System 1. The project manager and the project sponsor will
be members of System 3 which is responsible for maintaining the stability of
the project, interpreting policy decisions from system five, allocating
resources to System 1 and carrying out audits of progress. System 4 is the
intelligence gathering function that will consist of the various stakeholders
who have input to the modelling process. System 5 has a policy development
role and will ultimately be the user of the models.
Once the VSM has been established within the client organization, it is
necessary to establish the membership of the five systems. The critical
aspect of the membership of the systems is that membership should be mul-
tiple and overlapping. The project manager will need to be a member of
System 5. Their expertise and knowledge of SD modelling will allow them
to act as mentor to the modelling acolytes. They will also need to be a mem-
ber of a least one other system, preferably System 3 that has responsibility
for resource allocation. The project sponsor should also be a member of

(continued)
216 8 Juggling the M-Ball: Managing Overall Performance in a Situation

Reading 6 (continued)
System 3 and also of System 5 where policy is developed and the model
will ultimately be used for scenario planning. Both the consultant and a pro-
ject manager need to be members of System 4 where the major stakeholders
providing information for the model will meet. This multiple membership
ensures that information about the status and progress of the project is held
by a number of people giving them the ability to influence all parts of the
system. This structure has been used in two highly successful modelling
exercises, those at the ATO and ARCBS (Australian Red Cross Blood
Service).
The ATO project provides a number of useful insights into the applica-
tion of the VSM in a client organization. The ATO superannuation project
was initiated as a result of a statement by the [then] Federal Treasurer, Peter
Costello that superannuation reform was ‘on the agenda’. The ATO was
keen to become a major player in the superannuation policy debate and saw
SD modelling as an alternative to the Federal Treasury’s RIM (Retirement
Income Model) model as a source of policy advice. This political imperative
meant that the project sponsor was a Deputy Commissioner within the ATO.
The focus of the Deputy Commissioner was on the macro-political elements
of the Canberra bureaucracy rather than on any of the technical elements
of SD modelling. The project manager was an enthusiastic convert to
Systems Thinking in general and modelling in particular. He was also
exceptionally politically astute and was able to position himself as a member
of all systems within the VSM. The Deputy Commissioner was a member
of System 5.
System 4 was known as the High Level Modelling Team and consisted
of stakeholders from ATO offices across Australia. In addition to this wide
exposure that the project had through System 4, the ATO also ran a series of
workshops on Systems Thinking and SD modelling techniques. It was from
the participants in these workshops that the members of the System 5 model-
ling team were selected.
In addition to this significant level of organizational support, the model-
ling team also had a dedicated modelling room in the ATO offices. As the
causal diagrams for the superannuation scheme were developed, they were
displayed on the walls of the modelling room. ATO staff were free to come
and look at the work and a number of presentations to external bodies were
conducted in the modelling room. This enabled members of the modelling
team to become moderately famous. The project leader became rather
more famous and made presentations on the work to other departments
including one to the Assistant Treasurer. The project sponsor presented the
work to a number of external industry bodies and later left the ATO to work
for a major industry organization. Fame of course comes at a price. The pro-
ject ended when Treasury offered all of System 5 and the project leader

(continued)
8.6 A Case Study: Aspects of Juggling the M-Ball 217

Reading 6 (continued)
jobs in Treasury. All accepted. The move of these key players out of ATO
Superannuation branch effectively removed any policy capability from the
branch.
The counterintuitive outcome of the ATO’s desire to develop its policy
capability in superannuation was that its success led all the key players to
move on to policy roles within Treasury. The deputy commissioner had
moved to work with a superannuation industry body. Everyone was famous
and the consultant was slightly rich.18

The pragmatics of SD modelling

As an academic and a teacher of SD, it is possible, and indeed necessary, to
involve oneself in the more arcane aspects of SD modelling. However, the
concerns of the academic community are rarely reflected in the concerns of
the business and government sectors. Their concerns focus around out-
comes, answers and action. The technical complexity of SD modelling
opens it up to the accusation of being ‘academic’, which is one of the more
pejorative terms used in the business world. This outcomes, answers and
action focus was shown in an exercise modelling the patient flow in a suba-
cute hospital facility. The project was stopped after the development of the
causal diagrams and the early development of the simulation model. The
project team believed that they now understood the problem sufficiently to
be able to take effective action. The change program that arose from the
modelling exercise reduced the patient stay time in the facility from 35 days
to 17 with no change in level of patient care.19
This experience neatly defines the role that our work plays in organiza-
tions. At best, we can be a catalyst for change by providing information for
the decision-makers who must ultimately take responsibility for the change.
We can provide little information about the way to initiate, implement or
evaluate the change. The criteria for our work must be that we are able to
provide information that allows responsible managers to make informed
choices about the changes in their organization.
Haslett T (2007) ‘Reflections on SD practice, systemic development: local solutions in a
global environment. In: James Sheffield (ed) ISCE Publishing.

18
But an unintended consequences was that the capability to do SD modelling was lost – those
who moved to Treasury soon discovered that SD would never displace the extant modelling
approaches already embedded there. Hence all SD practice capacity was soon lost.
19
Tim’s experience is not unique in this regard – within the SD community of practitioners quali-
tative SD practice, based on conceptual modelling rather than conceptual + quantitative model-
ling is now a recognised form of SD practice; as with Donella Meadows and other SD
practitioners ‘systems’ in this reading are referred to in ways that grant them an ontological
status.
218 8 Juggling the M-Ball: Managing Overall Performance in a Situation

A key issue arising for me from Tim’s reflection is how consistent and persis-
tent non-conducive institutional arrangements have been for the pursuit of practice
like his. I would like to think conditions are improving. Take for example the
work of Åge Mariussen (2014) in Norway and Finland which draws on complex-
ity and systems theories for creating policy and practice settings for innovation.
They claim in relation to innovation in ‘leading cities, clusters or networks … the
more differentiated networks, the more connections, the more interactivity, the
more co-evolution, the more potential for innovation through interactive learning
in different, related directions’. (p. 10). Juggling the M-ball so as to remove, or
minimize, constraints to self-organizing emergence and innovation that is ethically
defensible is a major challenge for the future.

References

Blackmore CP (ed) (2010) Social learning systems and communities of practice. Springer,
London
Briggs L (2009) Delivering performance and accountability – intersections with ‘wicked pro-
blems.’ The international society for systems sciences annual conference, conference paper.
Brisbane, Australia, July 2009.
Chapman J (2002) System failure. Why governments must learn to think differently. Demos,
London
Checkland PB (1999) Soft systems methodology: A 30 year retrospective. Wiley, Chichester
Checkland PB, Poulter J (2006) Learning for action: a short definitive account of soft systems
methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers and students. Wiley, Chichester
Colvin J, Blackmore C, Chimbuya S et al. (2014) In search of systemic innovation for sustain-
able development: a design praxis emerging from a decade of social learning inquiry. Res
Policy 43:760–771
Connolly WE (2013) The fragility of things. Self-organizing processes, neoliberal fantasies, and
democratic activism. Duke University Press, Durham and London
Cooperrider DL (1998) What is appreciative inquiry? In: Hammond SA, Royal C (Eds.) Lessons
from the field. Applying appreciative inquiry. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA
Fairtlough G (2007) The three ways of getting things done. Hierarchy, heterarchy and responsi-
ble autonomy. Triarchy Press, Axminster
Gittins R (2009) Tax inquiry reveals economists at their most clueless. The Age, June 29, 2009
Goleman D (1997) Emotional intelligence. Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books,
New York
Goleman D (2009) Ecological intelligence: How knowing the hidden impacts of what we buy
can change everything. Broadway Books, New York
Government Centre for Information Systems (GCTA) (1993) Applying soft systems methodol-
ogy to an SSADM feasibility study. CCTA, Millbank
Haslett T (2007) Reflections on SD practice. In: Proceedings of the 13th ANZSYS conference,
plenary paper, Auckland, New Zealand, 2–5 December 2007
Heron J (1989) The facilitator’s handbook. Kogan Page, London
Hoverstadt P, Loh L (2017) Patterns of strategy. Routledge, Abingdon
Ison RL (2008) Systems thinking and practice for action research. In: Reason P, Bradbury H
(eds) The sage handbook of action research participative inquiry and practice, 2nd edn. Sage
Publications, London, p 139–158
Ison RL, Russell DB (eds) (2000) Agricultural extension and rural development: breaking out of
traditions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 239
References 219

Ison RL, Röling N, Watson D (2007) Challenges to science and society in the sustainable
management and use of water: investigating the role of social learning. Environ Sci Policy
10(6):499–511
Ison RL, Collins KB, Wallis P (2014) Institutionalising social learning: towards systemic and
adaptive governance. Environ Scie Policy 53(B):105–117
Mariussen A (2014) Self-organizing systems of social and business innovation in the periphery.
Nordlandsforskning, Bodø, Norge, p 45
Mintzberg H (2004) Managers not MBAs. A hard look at the soft practice of managing and man-
agement development. Prentice Hall, London
Morris RM, Roggero PP, Steyaert P, et al. (2004) Ecological constraints and management prac-
tices in social learning for integrated catchment management and sustainable use of water.
SLIM Thematic Paper 1. http://slim.open.ac.uk. Accessed 17 May 2017
Mulgan G (2001) Systems thinking and the practice of government. Systemist 23:22–28
Naughton J (1998) Internet – It’s free and it works. No wonder Bill Gates hates it. The Observer,
8 November 1998. http://molly.open.ac.uk/personal-pages/pubs/981108.htm
OECD (2017) Working with challenges. Systems approaches to public sector challenges. OECD,
Paris. https://www.oecd.org/media/oecdorg/satellitesites/opsi/contents/files/SystemsApproaches
Draft.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2017
Oliver C (2005) Reflexive inquiry. A framework for consultancy practice. Karnac Books,
London
Peck MS (1978) The road less travelled. Simon and Schuster, New York
Pell C (ed) (2012) Delivering public services that work: v. 2: the vanguard method in the public
sector: case studies. Triarchy Press, Axminster
Raymond E (2017) http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/. Acccessed 27 May 2017;
see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond. Accessed 27 May 2017
Reynolds M, Blackmore C, Ison R, et al. (2017) The role of systems thinking in the practice of
implementing sustainable development goals. In: World symposium on sustainability science
and research. Implementing the 2030 United Nations agenda for sustainable development,
Manchester, 5–7 April
Robertson D (1998) What employers really, really want. Presentation to the society for research
into higher education
Seddon J (2008) Systems thinking in the public sector: the failure of the reform regime ... and a
manifesto for a better way. Triarchy Press, Axminster
Shaw P (1996) Intervening in the shadow systems of organisations: consulting from a complexity
perspective. In: Complexity and Management Papers No 4, Complexity and Management
Centre, University of Hertfordshire
Stacey R (1993) Strategy as order emerging from chaos. Long Range Plan 26:10–17
Steyaert P, Jiggins J (2007) Governance of complex environmental situations through social
learning: a synthesis of SLIM’s lessons for research, policy and practice. Environ Sci Policy
10(6):575–586
Vickers G (1978) Responsibility – its sources and limits. Intersystems Publications, Seaside, CA
Winter MC (2002) Management, managing and managing projects: towards an extended soft sys-
tems methodology, PhD Thesis. University of Lancaster, United Kingdom
Winter MC, Szczepanek T (2009) Images of projects. Gower, London
 Part III
Systemic Practices
Chapter 9
Four Settings That Constrain Systems Practice

Abstract Four pervasive institutional settings inimical to the flourishing of

systems practice and also unhelpful in equipping us for living and working in
situations typified by a climate-changing world are introduced and described.
These are: (1) the pervasive target mentality that has arisen in many countries and
contexts; (2) living in a ‘projectified world’; (3) ‘situation framing’ failure; and (4)
an apartheid of the emotions. It is argued that for systems practice to flourish it is
necessary to move the focus away from both the individual as practitioner and the
historical concern with methods, tools and techniques. The proposed alternative
is to understand that managing involves maintaining and improving an ongoing
relationship between a systems practitioner and his or her context; that is, a
co-evolutionary dynamic involving design for emergence.

9.1 Juggling Practice and Context

The systems practitioner as juggler introduced in Part II was created as an ideal

type. One of my main aspirations for the juggler isophor was that through its use
I could convey a sense of possibility for engaging in, or further refining your own,
systems practice. Underpinning my conception of the isophor is the view that
anyone can engage in systems practice and that it is, in general, a competence
worth having, not only at a personal level but at a societal level as well. At the
end of Part II, I broached the subject of whether it was enough to develop one’s
juggling (systems practice) in isolation from the contemporary situations in which
systems practice seems needed, yet is not flourishing? Hence, in Part III I first
want to explore four pervasive institutional settings which I consider inimical to
the flourishing of systems practice and which are also unhelpful in preparing us
for our living in and responding to, a climate-changing world (Chapter 9). In each
of the remaining three chapters of Part III (Chapters 10–12) I will introduce a way
of framing systems practice with potential to address one or more of the inimical
settings described in this chapter. I contend that each of these three framings for

© The Open University 2017 223

Published in Association with Springer-Verlag London Limited
R. Ison, Systems Practice: How to Act, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9_9
224 9 Four Settings That Constrain Systems Practice

systems practice has relevance in our current circumstances.1 My ‘framing’

choices are not the only viable options for fostering future systems practice but
highlight some of the different issues at stake.2
When I wrote about a systems practitioner juggling the M-ball in Chapter 8,
I described it as involving managing the ongoing juggler – context relationship
which I understand as a co-evolutionary dynamic: practice and context bring forth
each other (Chapter 1).3 In my experience systems practice which only focuses on
methods, tools and techniques is ultimately limited in effectiveness. This is
particularly so at this historical moment because the organizational and political
situation has generally not been conducive to enacting systems practice. For exam-
ple, in Chapter 1 I referred to the widespread desire for certainty which, in my view,
is inimical to the development and expansion of systems practice capacity. The
desire for certainty is both an attitude or an emotion but also a demand that has
been built into our institutional arrangements through devices like ‘deliverables’,
‘key performance measures’ or ‘goals’. Thus, to be truly effective in one’s systems
practice it may mean that changes have to be made in both practice and situations
so that practice is re-contextualised. This is not easy – but it is not something that
has to be done alone. Many people now recognise the limitations of our current
modes of being and doing. Appreciating this opens up two opportunities: (1) to
spot those contexts which favour the initiation and development of systems prac-
tice and (2) networking with others to bring about changes in situations so that
more conducive conditions for effective systems practice emerge.
In my own professional life I have done my fair share of attempting to spot
favourable situations for usefully developing and deploying systems practice.4
Some have been more successful than others. My overall experience is, however,
that working with others to change our contexts for future systems practice, parti-
cularly some of the institutional settings, is urgently needed. In this chapter the
four contemporary settings that constrain the emergence of systems practice that I
want to address are:
1. The pervasive target mentality that has arisen in many countries and contexts
2. Living in a ‘projectified world’
3. ‘Situation framing’ failure
4. An apartheid of the emotions.

1
I find it difficult to find the right language to express what I mean at this point – I choose ‘fram-
ings’ in the sense that each of the three I have chosen can be understood as incipient social
technologies.
2
For example I could have chosen ‘systemic development’ as explicated by Bawden (2005). One
reason I did not is that material based on the so-called ‘Hawkesbury’ tradition has been included
in Blackmore (2010) which, like this book, also doubles as a set book for the OU course
‘Managing systemic change: inquiry, action and interaction’ (code TU812). Another option could
have been the Imagine Methodology (see Bell and Morse 2007).
3
A juggler-context relationship could be understood as exemplifying the structural coupling of an
organism with its milieu or environment.
4
As an example see Ison and Armson (2006).
9.2 Managing Systemic Failure – The Travesty of Targets 225

My argument put simply is that the proliferation of targets and the project as
social technologies (or institutional arrangements) undermines our collective
ability to engage with uncertainty and manage our own co-evolutionary dynamic
with the biosphere and with each other. This is exacerbated by an institutionalised
failure to realise that we have choices that can be made as to how to frame situa-
tions. And that the framing choices we make, or do not make, have consequences.
In doing what we do we are also constrained by the institutionalisation of an intel-
lectual apartheid in which appreciation and understanding of the emotions is cut
off from practical action and daily discourse. In this chapter I outline the basis for
my claims and mount arguments about the need for ‘antidotes’.5
In Chapter 10, I exemplify my own attempt, assisted by others, to invent a new
social technology, systemic inquiry, as an antidote to targets and the projectified
world. In Chapter 11, I introduce systemic action research, an approach to research
practice in which I and others incorporate understandings of human emotioning.
In keeping with the spirit of this book of introducing other voices, Chapter 12 is
devoted to ‘systemic intervention’ an approach to practice that makes it clearer
how different systems methods and techniques might be successfully combined as
part of systems practice. All three approaches demand awareness of the choices
that can be made in relation to framing of situations.

9.2 Managing Systemic Failure – The Travesty of Targets

There are seemingly no shortage of situations in which failing to think and act
systemically leads to breakdown or some form of ‘failure’ (Fortune and Peters
1995, 2005), either of policy or practice. Several commentators have, for example,
described the GFC (Global Financial Crisis) as exemplifying systemic failure.
Others recognize the importance of systems thinking for implementing the United
Nations (UN) sustainable development goals (SDGs), but by their institutional
form, ‘goals’, can entrench silos and undermine situated design and contextualiza-
tion of practice. A goal is, after all, a form of target. Draper (2016) calls for
systems thinking to ‘unlock … the SDGs’.
By its very nature there are many factors that give rise to any case of systemic
failure. However, when choosing to describe situations as if they were systemic
failures there has been a tendency, in recent years, for Government Ministers,
bureaucrats, CEOs etc. to use the term ‘systemic failure’ as a means to abrogate
responsibility. Whilst the claims these people make may have some validity it is,
from my perspective, unacceptable for such claims to be made without some
accompanying appreciation of how the systemic failure came to happen! By so
doing these commentators fail to recognise that they are a participant and the

5
The word antidote means to ‘give as a remedy’ – it is often linked to health matters as in ‘an
antidote for the poison’.
226 9 Four Settings That Constrain Systems Practice

opportunity (or part of the opportunity) to shift the dynamic may reside in their
jurisdiction, hence there is an ethical responsibility, i.e. a higher calling to
respond! When the explanation ‘systemic failure’ is not accompanied by a com-
mitment and openness to inquiry into the circumstances of the ‘failure’ then an
abrogation of responsibility occurs. Responsibility is denied when those involved
are not open to learning and change.6 Otherwise the claim to systemic failure is no
better than an attempt to explain something away through a sort of magic!
In my first example I want to address the failings of what some have called the
‘targets culture’, a culture that became endemic in the British New Labour govern-
ment as well as widespread in other countries and in other areas of government
and corporate life (Ison et al. 2018). I have come to understand this situation as
exemplifying the privileging of systematic approaches over systemic, sometimes
at considerable social cost. Take for example the case described by Simon Caulkin
(2009) in Reading 7.7

Reading 7
This Isn’t an Abstract Problem. Targets Can Kill
Simon Caulkin8

MRSA, Baby P, now Stafford hospital. The Health Commission’s finding

last week that pursuing targets to the detriment of patient care may have
caused the deaths of 400 people at Stafford between 2005 and 2008 simply
confirms what we already know. Put abstractly, targets distort judgment, dis-
enfranchise professionals and wreck morale. Put concretely, in services
where lives are at stake – as in the NHS or child protection – targets kill.
There is no need for an inquiry into the conduct of managers of Mid
Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, as promised by Alan Johnson, the

(continued)
6
Russell Ackoff (undated) argues that we cannot learn from doing anything right. In exploring
why organisations fail to adopt systems thinking he points to a general phenomenon – that of
failing to embrace and learn from mistakes. He cites August Busch III, then CEO of Anheuser
Busch Companies, who told his assembled vice presidents, ‘if you didn’t make a serious mistake
last year you probably didn’t do your job because you didn’t try anything new. There is nothing
wrong in making a mistake, but if you ever make the same mistake twice you probably won’t be
here the next year’. Of particular concern is organisations and individuals who transfer responsi-
bility for their mistakes to others thus avoiding learning.
7
This reading concerns situations connected with the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) National
Health Service (NHS), a very large and complex organisation. MRSA, or methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus, is a bacterium responsible for difficult-to-treat infections in humans
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus. Baby P, Accessed
17 May 2017) (also known as ‘Child A’ and ‘Baby Peter’) was a 17-month-old boy who died in
London in 2007 ‘after suffering more than 50 injuries over an 8-month period, during which he
was repeatedly seen by social services’ (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Baby_P,
Accessed 17 May 2017).
8
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/22/policy, Accessed 17 May 2017.
9.2 Managing Systemic Failure – The Travesty of Targets 227

Reading 7 (continued)
health secretary, because contrary to official pronouncements, it is excep-
tional only in the degree and gravity of its consequences. How much more
evidence do we need?
Stafford may be an extreme case; but even where targets don’t kill, they
have similarly destructive effects right across the public sector. Targets make
organisations stupid. Because they are a simplistic response to a complex
issue, they have unintended and unwelcome consequences – often, as with
MRSA or Stafford, that something essential but unspecified doesn’t get done.
So every target generates others to counter the perverse results of the first one.
But then the system becomes unmanageable. The day the Stafford story broke
last week, the Daily Telegraph ran the headline: ‘Whitehall targets damaged
us, says Met chief’, under which Sir Paul Stephenson complained that the tar-
gets regime produced a police culture in which everything was a priority.
Target-driven organisations are institutionally witless because they face the
wrong way: towards ministers and target-setters, not customers or citizens.
Accusing them of neglecting customers to focus on targets, as a report on
Network Rail did just 2 weeks ago, is like berating cats for eating small birds.
That’s what they do. Just as inevitable is the spawning of ballooning bureau-
cracies to track performance and report it to inspectorates that administer what
feels to teachers, doctors and social workers increasingly like a reign of fear.
If people experience services run on these lines as fragmented, bureau-
cratic and impersonal, that’s not surprising, since that’s what they are set up
to be. Paul Hodgkin, the Sheffield GP who created NHS feedback website
Patient Opinion (www.patientopinion.org.uk) notes that the health service
has been engineered to deliver abstract meta-goals such as 4-hour waiting
times in A&E and halving MRSA – which it does, sort of – but not indivi-
dual care, which is what people actually experience. Consequently, even
when targets are met, citizens detect no improvement. Hence the desperate
and depressing ministerial calls for, in effect, new targets to make NHS staff
show compassion and teachers teach interesting lessons.
Hodgkin is right: the system is back to front. Instead of force-fitting ser-
vices to arbitrary targets (how comforting is hitting the MRSA target to the
50% who will still get it?), the place to start is determining what people
want and then redesigning the work to meet it.
Local councils, police units and housing associations that have had the cour-
age to ignore official guidance and adopt such a course routinely produce results
that make a mockery of official targets – benefits calculated and paid in a week
rather than two months, planning decisions delivered in 28 days, all housing
repairs done when people want them. Counterintuitively, improving services in
this way makes them cheaper, since it removes many centrally imposed activ-
ities that people don’t want. Sadly, however, the potential benefits are rarely
reaped in full because of the continuing need to tick bureaucratic boxes; and in

(continued)
228 9 Four Settings That Constrain Systems Practice

Reading 7 (continued)
the current climate of fear, chief executives are loath to boast of success built on
a philosophy running directly counter to Whitehall orthodoxy.
The current target-, computer- and inspection-dominated regime for public
services is inflexible, wasteful and harmful. But don’t take my word for it: in
the current issue of Academy of Management Perspectives, a heavyweight US
journal, four professors charge that the benefits of goal-setting (i.e. targets) are
greatly over-sold and the side-effects equally underestimated. Goal-setting
gone wild, say the professors, contributed both to Enron and the present sub-
prime disasters. Instead of being dispensed over the counter, targets should be
treated “as a prescription-strength medication that requires careful dosing, con-
sideration of harmful side effects, and close supervision”.
They even propose a health warning: ‘Goals may cause systematic problems
in organisations due to narrowed focus, increased risk-taking, unethical beha-
viour, inhibited learning, decreased co-operation, and decreased intrinsic motiva-
tion’. As a glance at Stafford hospital would tell them, that’s not the half of it.
Caulkin, S., (2007) ‘This isn’t an abstract problem. Targets can kill’, The Observer,
March 22nd 2009. Copyright (c) Guardian News & Media Ltd 2017.

Simon Caulkin has been one of the leading critics of the adoption by govern-
ments of a target’s mentality. From this article it is easy to appreciate the distorting
effects of the woolly thinking associated with imposing common targets across
diverse contexts and the ill-informed use of ‘goal-oriented’ thinking. This example
is an archetypical, though shameful, case of dropping all of the balls of concern to a
systems practitioner as juggler! It is in such situations where systemic inquiry can
find a place – as an institutionalised form of practice – particularly as a replacement
for, or complement to regulation, policy prescriptions (blueprints) and targets. As I
outline in Chapter 10 traditional policy instruments are, in a climate-changing
world, increasingly blunt or totally inappropriate instruments because, once formu-
lated, they generally:
1. Fail to be institutionalised in an adaptive manner that is open to revision as the
situation evolves
2. Are easy to develop but much more difficult and expensive to monitor and police
(i.e. the effectiveness of many regulations is often not known until after some form
of breakdown in the situation where the regulations were designed to operate)9
3. Preclude context sensitive local design and the establishment of more effective
measures of performance of a policy or practice in relation to a situation, issue
or phenomenon of concern.

9
And of course the monitoring and policing becomes a self conserving praxis… which blinds
people to the indicators that mean something!
9.2 Managing Systemic Failure – The Travesty of Targets 229

How to institutionalise adaptive practice is a key but by no means simple issue.

Why? Because of the propensity for designing and enacting institutions in man-
ners that tend to simplify, or at least focus, their feedback measures on whatever is
easy to ‘measure fairly and consistently’ whether or not that is relevant to the
work! Together these factors militate against the fostering and development of
capability for systemic and adaptive governance.
Once engaged in a systemic inquiry process other factors begin to reveal them-
selves. Are, for example, the failures described in Reading 7 symptomatic of an
even bigger issue? Goals or targets imposed in the way that Caulkin critiques,
whether knowingly or not, perpetuate a command and control mentality. In many
ways Caulkin’s article epitomises the failure of the pervasive hierarchical model
of getting things done in our organisational life as described by Gerard Fairtlough
(2007) – see also Chapter 8. With these distinctions in mind what is it that New
Labour sought to control? The espoused aim was to control the phenomena to
which the targets were aimed, e.g. hospital waiting lists. However was this really
the case?
Some other commentators have seen the ‘targets mentality’ from another per-
spective, claiming that:10
Why were targets introduced? The Government [UK, Labour] would have you believe it
was to drive up standards; but in reality they were a means of showing that Labour
“cared”. They were a political device. Whenever ministers were challenged about high
levels of offending or poor levels of literacy they could say: “But we have a target to
reduce it/increase it/scrap it, so we must be good.” Targets were ostensibly introduced to
hold the Government to account, but were used as a means of deflecting criticism.

If such a situation could be shown to be the case (good ethnographic research

would probably be needed) then this situation might be better understood as a pro-
duct of Caulkin’s observation that increasingly many government ‘organisations
are institutionally witless because they face the wrong way: towards ministers and
target-setters, not customers or citizens’. Elsewhere I have observed that it may be
useless railing against politicians for what they do or do not do because they them-
selves are trapped in a structure determined context in which it is really only
possible to do what they do. This does not mean that structures, and thus change,
are immutable; but serendipity and drift are luxuries in a climate-changing world.
By being open to on-going systemic failure an active citizenry can begin to create
the circumstances for transformation by breaking out of constraining structural
determinisms and moving towards systemic governance.11

10
Source: The ultimate turnaround from Labour, the dying Government. By abandoning targets,
Labour is admitting the depth of its failure, says Philip Johnston (2009).
11
A structure determined system is a delicate concept to get across. It should not be confused
with causal determinism or pre-determinism. A system (or thing) can only do that which it has
an appropriate structure for. I can’t fly, no matter how you poke me. Thus something’s structure
determines what is possible for it.
230 9 Four Settings That Constrain Systems Practice

Illustration 9.1

Geoffrey Vickers (1965, 1970), using an analogy of the lobster pot, speaks
of traps in our thinking and doing that are of our own making. The concept of a
trap has been found useful by generations of OU systems students because it
invites a practice of thinking about traps in our own being as well as in the
social technologies we have invented. Western style democracy in its current
bureaucratic and administrative form may be such a trap but my second con-
straint to effective systems practice is with something that is less obvious but
none-the-less pervasive in its effects.

9.3 The Consequences of Living in a Projectified World

9.3.1 Projectification

As soon as you think about it, it becomes patently obvious that we live in a pro-
jectified world. I can hardly remember a time when a project was not part of what
I did – whether at school or throughout my professional life. The word project has
its origins in the Latin projectum, ‘something thrown forth’ from which the current
meaning of a plan, draft or scheme arises. It would seem that the meaning, now
common across the world, of a project as a special assignment carried out by a
person, initially a student, but now almost anyone, is first recorded in 1916
(Barnhart 2001). From that beginning I am not really sure how we came to live
with projects in the manner that led Simon Bell and Stephen Morse (Bell and
Morse 2005) to speak of a ‘projectified-world order’. Perhaps mass education car-
ried forth the project into all walks of life? Whatever this history, my experience
9.3 The Consequences of Living in a Projectified World 231

suggests it is no longer tenable in a climate changing world to have almost all that
we do ‘framed’ by our invention of ‘the project’.12
Bell and Morse (2007) describe a project as ‘defined activities carried out by defined
people with a defined end point in mind at a defined cost and over a defined period of
time’ (p. 97). They go on to outline how ‘projects are popular with those responsible
for spending money’ and ‘embrace a targeted set of activities with a clear aim (and
hence cost), and hence accountability [that] can be maximized’. This allows, they
argue, limited time-horizons for spending the budget and the achievement of targets
allow a long-term commitment to be circumvented or even negated altogether. This
‘fits neatly into the short-term time-frames that politicians inhabit’ they claim (p. 98).
It is possible to capture the double sense of the meaning of project if one thinks of
what we do when we project our projects onto the world. I have this image of shelves
upon shelves, and now electronic files galore, of projects that have been labelled
‘finished’ and thus are hardly ever engaged with again. When I express my concerns
in this way I imagine a grotesque expansion of the E-ball (discussed in Chapter 5) to
the extent that our collective capacity to juggle the rest of the balls effectively and
systemically is lost. In making this connection to the E-ball I am pointing out how
the project has become one of the most pervasive of social technologies.
The contemporary project process has been characterised by Bell and Morse
(2007) in the form shown in Fig. 9.1. These authors describe Fig. 9.1 as the ‘pro-
ject ideal’. They note that ‘while the diagram is circular in the sense that what the

Puts demands upon

Produce
Donors
Implementors
National government
agencies Researchers
Multi-lateral agencies Pratitioners
Transformations
Non-governmental agencies
(the ‘do-ers’)
Pressure groups Knowledge
(the ‘visioners’) Publications
Technology

‘change’

Has needs of ..

Has needs of

Public
Intended Beneficiaries
Taxation, donations
(the ‘wanters’) Sustainable
improvements for ...
Project context

Fig. 9.1 The project process from the perspective of systems practitioners involved in doing
sustainable development projects (Source: Bell and Morse 2007, Fig. 1, p. 98)

Take this book for instance – for me it is really an exercise in reification of an ongoing inquiry into
12

what it means to be an effective systems practitioner. However my framing does not hold for staff in
my University or at the publisher who see it as a project – with all that that entails re deadlines etc.
232 9 Four Settings That Constrain Systems Practice

projects set out to do should have an impact in wider society, and society provides
the funding, the circularity does not necessarily imply a continuation or longevity
of the benefits that should accrue from the projects’ existence’ (p. 98). They
express my own concerns and experience when they go on to say that their special
concern is that there is rarely any lasting benefit to the situation from the doing of
the project. They observe that ‘the projectified-world order significantly fails to
meet long-term needs and goals’ (Bell and Morse 2007).
Bell and Morse’s experiences arise in the domain of sustainable development
practice, primarily through ‘development assistance’ in poorer countries. What of
other domains?

9.3.2 Project Management

Along with projectification of the world a new specialised discipline has also
arisen, namely that of ‘project management.’ Particular understandings of what a
project is and how it should be managed have become reified within the main-
stream or conventional ‘project management’ community (Box 9.1). Now, some
of the traditional approaches to project management are coming under critique in a
number of areas. Winter and Checkland (2003) for instance argue that conven-
tional project management theory only represents a particular and limited image of
project management practice rather than comprising an all-encompassing theory as
many of the college textbooks seem to imply. They argue that in the mainstream
literature of the project management community the term ‘project’ ‘is usually a
reference to some product, system or facility, etc. that needs to be created, engi-
neered or improved’ with this need ‘or requirement for a new or a changed
product being defined at the start.’ Although this need may only be expressed in
broad terms nonetheless it is assumed as known or ‘given’ from the outset.’

Box 9.1 Examples of the ‘Mainstream’ Understanding of ‘Projects’

(Winter and Checkland 2003)

• A project involves a group of people working to complete a particular end pro-

duct, or to achieve a specific result, by a specified date, within a specified bud-
get and to meet a specified standard of performance (quality) (Levene 1997).
• [A project is] an endeavour in which human, material and financial resources
are organised in a novel way, to undertake a unique scope of work, of given
specification, within constraints of cost and time, so as to achieve beneficial
change defined by quantitative and qualitative objectives (Turner 1999).
• A project is a human activity that achieves a clear objective against a
time scale (Reiss 1992).
• A project is an endeavour to accomplish a specific objective through a
unique set of interrelated tasks…. A project has a well-defined objective –
an expected result or product. The objective of a project is usually defined
in terms of scope, schedule, and cost (Gido and Clements 1999).
9.3 The Consequences of Living in a Projectified World 233

In their work, Winter and Checkland (2003) seek to ‘show that conventional
project management theory embodies a particular way of seeing the practice,
which is, simultaneously, a way of not seeing it’. For them this way of ‘seeing
and not seeing is the paradigm of “hard” systems thinking’, which ‘has been a
prime influence on the development of project management ideas and practices
over the last 40 years’ (p. 188). The main characteristics of the ‘hard systems’
paradigm as reflected in the material in Box 9.1 are (Winter and Checkland 2003):
• There is a clear objective or goal to be achieved, within some specified scope,
schedule and cost
• Achieving the goal – the process dimension – is the primary task of project
management
• The project is carried out through a sequence of stages as defined by the project
life cycle, involving the application of various techniques such as critical path
analysis, product-based planning and work breakdown structures.13
The main thrust of this critique is that historically project management has been
built on particular theoretical assumptions that have been found wanting or are no
longer valid. In Winter and Checkland’s (2003) case they point an accusatory finger
at hard systems thinking and approaches. In the language of earlier chapters the cul-
prit is the overreliance on systematic, rather than systemic thinking. However, they
are also at pains to say that both ‘paradigms’ are required. What is principally miss-
ing, they argue, is lack of awareness that the particular image of mainstream project
management practice represents the conventional wisdom which the practice has
itself generated. In turn the understandings upon which these practices have evolved
have been reified into social technologies known as ‘good project management’. In
‘Images of Projects’, Winter and Szczepanek (2009) reject ‘outright the idea of a
one “best way” to view all projects and also the idea of following a prescriptive
approach’. They ‘encourage a more pragmatic and reflective approach, based on
deliberately seeing projects from multiple perspectives’.
I have my own experiences of project management practices that are more
systematic than systemic and unsuited to the context in which they were employed.
A particular example involved understandings that have been reified into project
management procedures known as PRINCE2 as sponsored by the UK government.
The acronym PRINCE stands for Projects IN Controlled Environments. The first
PRINCE standard was published in 1990 and whilst it is subject to Crown Copyright
it is available in the public domain. PRINCE2 was released in 1996 for use in more
than just IT (information technology) projects (Field 1999). My particular experience
was based in the Environment Agency of England & Wales (EA), a large statutory
body with about 12,000 employees (in 2005–2008), responsible for most aspects of

13
Winter and Checkland (2003) also say that this core image of practice can also be seen in
many of the college textbooks on project management and in many of the official sources of
information about project management. It can also be seen operating in project management edu-
cation and training programmes, and is generally the dominant image in much of the literature on
project management, both academic and popular.
234 9 Four Settings That Constrain Systems Practice

environmental monitoring, regulation and compliance in England and Wales. At the

time we were engaged in research related to the implementation of the European
Water Framework Directive (WFD), an ambitious policy designed to improve the
quality and ecological status of Europe’s water in river basins from 2000 to 2027.
PRINCE2 was mandated for use within the UK civil service on projects above
a certain size. PRINCE2, it was claimed, was needed in order to manage the
complexity of the structure, including the complex inter-dependencies between
individual projects and work packages that were employed in implementing the
WFD. The establishment of these project management procedures was done with
good intentions; without them WFD implementation would undoubtedly have
come adrift very rapidly. In practice, however, this approach has not proved to be
satisfactory. It was not satisfactory because, in implementation, PRINCE2 led to
the systematic fragmentation of a very large and complex activity with the result
that all involved lost sight of the whole. In addition no one was responsible for
managing the connectivity between the different elements. On entering the organi-
sation we encountered isolated individuals in seemingly discrete projects lacking
in awareness of overall purpose and how what they were doing related to others.
The understandings on which PRINCE-type methods are built perpetuate and
reproduce practices that privilege a ‘technical rationality’. This rationality has been
pervasive in organisations such as the EA, responsible for water policy and manage-
ment. As I will explain below this rationality is not well suited to managing in situa-
tions of complexity, uncertainty nor where ‘stationarity’ as described by (Milly et al.
2008)14 has applied to practice (Collins et al. 2005; Ison and Wallis 2017).
In other words we have arrived at a point where those who do project mana-
ging are not fully aware of what they do when they do what they do! Ironically
this is largely due to the reification or projectification of project management itself.
This has major implications for governance and, ultimately, how we respond in a
climate-changing world.

9.3.3 Governance and the ‘Project State’

In addition to the understandings of projects outlined in the previous two sections

some practitioners conceive of projects as ‘temporary organisations’, though often
embedded in or between permanent organisations. From the perspective of those
who are trying to understand projects in a wider social setting, project proliferation
is seen as a consequence of the shift from government to governance. It is argued

14
‘Stationarity – the idea that natural systems fluctuate within an unchanging envelope of
variability – is a foundational concept that permeates training and practice in water-resource
engineering. It implies that any variable (e.g., annual stream- flow or annual flood peak) has a
time-invariant (or 1-year–periodic) probability density function (pdf), whose properties can be
estimated from the instrument record’ (Milly et al. 2008). These authors explain why, in a cli-
mate changing world this central set of assumptions that have guided practice no longer apply
i.e., stationarity is dead!
9.3 The Consequences of Living in a Projectified World 235

(Wikstrom and Rehn 1999) that ‘the project has become a post-modern symbol of
adaptability and contingency – it is thought of as a superior way of reacting to
unforeseen and non-standard situations’. In part, it is argued, this has happened by
opening up who participates in projects. Others argue it has arisen because of the
moral weakness of the state.
Governance is a much broader idea than management, it encompasses the totality
of mechanisms and instruments available for influencing social and organisational
change, especially adaptation, in certain directions (Fisher 2006). Sjöblom (2006)
claims that the shift from government, which many regard as associated with top
down or command and control practices, to governance is ‘one of the mega-trends in
industrialised societies’ (p. 9). Governance, as a concept, has of course the same ori-
gins as cybernetics (meaning steersman or helmsman – see Ison 2016). In practice it
means adjusting to circumstances by ensuring feedback processes function and are
acted upon – it could be argued, for instance, that a project is a device to stall, or
attenuate, important feedback processes in organisations, society and in relation to the
biophysical world. Perhaps more significantly in the context of a climate-changing
world the question becomes: how do we as a species chart a course within a rapidly
changing co-evolutionary dynamic given we now live in a projectified world?15
Within these different discourses about the emergence of a ‘projectified world’
there are competing claims as to what a project enables or not. Thus, some see
them positively as a means to be adaptive with context – ‘as mechanisms for
joined-up governance with a horizontal approach to governing and organizing’
(Pollitt 2003, p. 67). Yet others see them as part of a failed ‘rationalistic dream’
which creates a pervasive normative pressure on what it is we do under the rubric
of ‘a project’ (Sjöblom 2006).16 At its worst the project state has come to repre-
sent an ‘unholy marriage between bureaucratic and managerialist rationalities,
while pretending to privilege citizen engagement and direct participation in
governance’ (High et al. 2008).
What seems clear to me is that the pervasiveness of systematic thinking and
practices associated with goals, targets and projects, what Winter and Checkland
(2003) call the ‘hard systems paradigm’, does not augur well for adapting in a
climate-changing world. We need to invent something better.17

15
As noted by Bateson (2001) systems and cybernetics ‘can be a way of looking that cuts across
fields, linking art and science and allowing us to move from a single organism to an ecosystem,
from a forest to a university or a corporation, to recognise the essential recurrent patterns before
taking action’.
16
For further background see papers associated with the seminar ‘Theory and Practice of
Governance in the Project State’, the Swedish School of Social Science at the University of
Helsinki, October 2003.
17
Winter and Checkland (2003) propose the use of SSM as an alternative model for project concep-
tion and managing. They argue (p. 92) for: ‘a broader image of project management practice than
that which has been dominant in the past’. They advocate a new perspective ‘with a focus on the
process of “managing,” rather than the life-cycle process of “project management,” this new per-
spective seeks to enrich and enlarge the traditional life-cycle image of project management. It also
offers to provide a new foundation for future research in the project management field’.
236 9 Four Settings That Constrain Systems Practice

In the next section I offer an explanation as to why targets and projects have
proliferated in society i.e., through the understandings and practices we have rei-
fied we collectively fail to realise that we have choices that can be made about
how to frame situations, which is an extension of juggling the E-ball (Chapter 6).

9.4 Making Choices About Framing a Situation18

Framing situations is a choice we have … and one we always make whether

knowingly or not (Schön and Rein 1994). As George Lakoff (2010, pp. 71–72)
notes:
All thinking and talking involves ‘framing’. And since frames come in systems, a single
word typically activates not only its defining frame, but also much of the system its defin-
ing frame is in.

Although framing of situations is inescapable, let me say from the outset that in
drawing attention to the choices we can make for framing situations I am not
advocating engaging with situations with an a priori set of possible choices in
mind. My primary concern is to privilege experience, understood as that which we
distinguish in relation to ourselves, in a process in which one is as open to the cir-
cumstances as possible. This, as I have outlined in Chapter 5, involves attempting
to be aware of the traditions of understanding out of which we think and act.
As an example of framing and reframing I can point to my research concerns
with situations associated with water, river and catchment managing. In recent his-
tory, understanding and managing of rivers has been heavily influenced by hydrol-
ogists, engineers and physical geographers i.e., rivers were framed as physical,
hydrological, or sometimes ecological systems (but with people as active agents
outside of the ecology). In the past a river or a water catchment was rarely under-
stood as if it were a human activity system. But having made this framing shift a
river catchment or watershed exemplifies what some describe as a multi-
stakeholder situation. But it is a multi-stakeholder situation of a particular type in
that the connectivity, or lack of it, between humans and the biophysical dimen-
sions are of critical importance. Thus some would choose to describe a catchment
as a coupled socio-ecological system.19 This framing shift opens up many new
possibilities for change and effective governance.

18
The work described in this section comes from a number of research situations, mainly in
Europe in the period 2000–2009. A major component was work with the Environment Agency
of England & Wales (EA) associated with implementation of the European Water Framework
Directive. Over this period what I would once have referred to as ‘research projects’ or pro-
grammes were purposefully framed as systemic inquiries, although not all of them in contractual
terms.
19
In many ways a river catchment is no different to any business or other form of human activity
in that they are, knowingly or not, coupled with a biophysical environment – it is just that in
most circles this is not appreciated and all too often the environment is treated as an externality.
9.4 Making Choices About Framing a Situation 237

Fig. 9.2 Choices that can be made about the framing of a situation such as water governance
and catchment management situations (Adapted from SLIM 2004)

For those who are not aware there is a growing global water crisis that is mani-
fest in similar yet specific ways in almost all countries. It is likely that in many
areas climate change will make the current situation worse. Both globally and
locally these situations have many or all the features of situations that others have
described as wicked problems, messes or complex adaptive systems as described
in Chapter 6.20 Aware of this history and drawing on a literature associated with
the ‘framing’ of such situations as ‘resource dilemmas’ (Ison et al. 2007; Schön
and Rein 1994; Steyaert and Jiggins 2007) my research colleagues and I purpos-
fully chose to characterise river catchments in terms depicted in Fig. 9.2 (SLIM
2004). The figure draws attention to how we selected a new lens with which to
engage (understand) river situations. I elaborate on the terms that make up our
new lens in Box 9.2.

20
Roux et al. (2009) for example refer to social-ecological systems, as well as organisations,
as complex systems. They go on to say that ‘complex does not mean complicated. An engine
is complicated. It is also predictable, at least by those who put it together. A complex system has
particular properties that make it inherently unpredictable. Being able to recognise a system as
complex allows one to better understand that system at least to the extent that one understands
why, in a general sense it is the way it is. It is the unpredictability of such systems that has funda-
mental implications for their management.’
238 9 Four Settings That Constrain Systems Practice

Box 9.2 Characterising Natural Resource Issues as Resource Dilemmas

1. Interdependencies
The use of natural resources through one type of human activity affects
ecological processes in ways that interact with other people’s uses of nat-
ural resources, both across geographic and ecosystem boundaries and
time scales. Integrated Catchment Managing and the sustainable use of
water, for example, address interdependencies among:
Human activities, relative to:
• Their qualitative and quantitative effect on water
• Their water-related needs
Linked geographical areas:
• Such as upstream areas, lowland wetlands and estuaries
• Aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
2. Complexity
Natural resources are under the influence of a complex mix of enmeshed
natural, technical and social processes, including changes in public pol-
icy, organisations and a diversity of stakeholders, each with their own
perceptions. When considering water as a resource for human uses as
well as a part of nature, we are compelled to make the link between ecol-
ogy and societal processes such as technological development, the mar-
ket, public policies and interpersonal relations. Integrated Catchment
Managing and the sustainable use of water operate within a set of inter-
linked and assorted elements that create a high level of complexity.
3. Uncertainty
The complexity of such circumstances makes them impossible to explain
comprehensively and accurately, and the effects of proposed solutions
cannot be forecast because of uncertainties. The realms of uncertainties
are also diverse:
Technical and ecological, regarding:
• The relationship between human activities and ecological processes
• Fragmented and sector-specific technical and scientific knowledge
Socio-economic, relative to:
• Market and consumer trends
• Changes in social demands
• The emergence of new sorts of crises
• The proliferation of institutional arrangements
Political, with respect to the increasing diversity and number of:
• Public policies generating contradictions
• Decision-making levels and organisations implementing these policies.

(continued)
9.4 Making Choices About Framing a Situation 239

Box 9.2 Characterising Natural Resource Issues as Resource Dilemmas

(continued)
4. Controversy
Uncertainty and interdependencies result in different perceptions and lasting
disagreements on which issue is to be addressed. Controversies emerge from
questioning the existence of problems, their origins, how cause-and-effect
relations are understood, how they should be managed and by whom.
5. Multiple Stakeholders and/or Perspectives
In situations understood as ‘resource dilemmas’ there is likely to be a mix
of people, each with multiple, partial views if a situation; some will have
strong stakes (stakeholding) in what is at issue in the situation, others’
stakes will be less well developed even though the implications or potential
impacts may be equally great for both groups. Thus the nature of what is
at issue and what constitutes an improvement is likely to be contested.

In my experience there are many situations that could be usefully framed in the
terms we now employ in relation to water catchments (Box 9.2). By useful I mean
making them amenable to some form of action that leads to systemic improve-
ment. My use of this framing is an example of how I juggle the E-ball. I do so
with an appreciation of the history of the use of the terms ‘interdependencies’,
‘complexity’, ‘uncertainty’, ‘controversy’ and ‘multiple stakeholding and/or
perspectives’ (Box 9.2) as well as that of ‘messes’, ‘wicked problems’ and the
‘swamp of real life issues’ as discussed in Chapter 6.
As I outlined earlier (Section 8.6), in my recent research with colleagues on sys-
temic and adaptive governance of natural resource situations we have made a choice
to understand sustainable and regenerated water catchments as the emergent property
of social processes and not the intrinsic property of an ecosystem (Ison et al. 2007).
That is, desirable water catchment properties arise out of interaction among multiple,
inter-dependent, stakeholders in the water catchment as these stakeholders engage in
issue formulation and monitoring, negotiation, conflict resolution, learning, agree-
ment, creating and maintaining public goods, concertation of action. When it occurs
in a complex natural resource arena we describe this overall set of interactions as
social learning (Steyaert and Jiggins 2007). I will say more about this in Chapter 10.
We have made a choice to perceive ‘ecosystems’ as bounded by the conceptualisa-
tions and judgments of humans as are agreements to what constitutes an improve-
ment. This contrasts with the mainstream position wherein ecosystems are regarded
as having an existence of their own (Collins and Ison 2009).21

21
Many scientists and non-scientists alike hold the view that ‘a natural system is a whole created
by nature’. These few simple words represent ideas that have been the subject of many books. In
the way in which I experience use of these terms I understand the users to reify ‘nature’ (as if
nature existed) and system ‘as in the world’.
240 9 Four Settings That Constrain Systems Practice

Making a choice about a situation that appropriately acknowledges complexity

and uncertainty is a key starting point for managing (juggling the M-ball). Failure
to account for complexity and uncertainty leads, all too often, to treating situa-
tions, whether consciously, or unconsciously, as difficulties, ‘tame problems’ or
amenable, only, to scientific explanation.22 The particular framing we chose in our
work on river catchment managing is one of many choices that could have been
made.
The use of particular tools and techniques are important in preventing prema-
ture boundary closure and thus in remaining emotionally and conceptually open to
the circumstances. Such an approach also helps to avoid premature framing of
situations. For example I have used metaphor analysis (as described in Reading 5
in Chapter 7). This can be a particularly insightful approach when dealing with
published reports and policy documents or professionals immersed in particular
lineages with strong organising and foundational metaphors (Ison et al. 2015).
Other techniques involve simple shifts of understanding and language – such as a
move away from use of ‘the problem’, or ‘problem situation’ to ‘the situation of
concern’ or a shift to ‘scenarioing’, a form of systemic practice, rather than the
production of reified scenarios (Ison et al. 2014).
In SSM (soft systems methodology), Checkland and co-workers advocate the
use of ‘rich pictures’ a particular form of diagramming as a means of engaging
with situations of concern. As a form of diagram they have particular advantages
(see Table 6.1). Generating rich pictures like Fig. 9.3 can be used to mediate con-
versations between pairs or small groups and in the process surface multiple per-
spectives, deeply held views and underlying conceptions and emotions. Surfacing
this material – i.e. bringing it into conversation is a useful precursor to inviting a
shift in reframing of a situation. Underlying emotions are often significant, but
rarely admitted in conversation. I will discuss this in the next section.
The practice imperatives in relation to framing are (1) be aware that knowingly
or not we and others always frame situations/issues etc. – thus become reflexive in
relation to this understanding; (2) develop your agency in surfacing differences in
framing choices and work with others in making new framing choices that are sys-
temically desirable in the situation; (3) develop praxis skills, preferably with

22
There is a generic problem of privileging science, in the sense that science normally treats what
it studies as a discrete, separate-from-humans object i.e., as ‘objective’. This led Maturana (1991)
to characterise his concerns on the privileging of particular aspects of science and technology in
the following terms: ‘In our modern Western culture we speak of science and technology as
sources of human well-being. However, usually it is not human well-being that moves us to
value science and technology, but rather, the possibilities of domination, of control over nature,
and of unlimited wealth that they seem to offer…. We speak of progress in science and technol-
ogy in terms of domination and control, and not in terms of understanding and responsible coex-
istence.… What science and the training to be a scientist does not provide us with is wisdom….
Wisdom breeds in the respect for the others, in the recognition that power arises through submis-
sion and loss of dignity, in the recognition that love is the emotion that constitutes social coexis-
tence, honesty and trustfulness and in the recognition that the world that we live is always, and
unavoidably so, our doing’.
9.5 Breaking-Down an Apartheid of the Emotions 241

Fig. 9.3 A rich picture generated as part of a two person dialogue in a situation where traditional
project managing was not working.

others, in framing, reframing and de-framing (i.e., getting rid of unhelpful histori-
cal framings). Importantly a shift in framing can also lead to a shift, or break-
down in emotioning apartheid, my fourth major constraint to effective systems
practice.

9.5 Breaking-Down an Apartheid of the Emotions

Being open to one’s circumstances is a matter of emotion more than anything

else. The underlying emotional dynamics in a situation can be understood as what
makes possible, or not, the emergence of new distinctions and thus experiences.
This phenomenon, perhaps more than any other, opens up the spaces for change
in what we as humans do.23 I exemplified the type of emotional apartheid that
concerns me in Section 8.1.1. For me it has its apotheosis in academic discourse
and practice which is my main praxis domain.24

23
I do not claim that some people are more open to circumstances than others but I do claim that
our capability is a product of our history (structural coupling) and the relational milieu we find
ourselves in at any moment, which of course also includes language or conversation. Thus differ-
ent relational dynamics bring forth different emotions.
24
I do not use apartheid to be deliberately emotive but as a descriptor for my experience of pro-
fessional academic practice in particular and organisational life in general. By apartheid I mean
separateness as in the Afrikaans use of the term i.e., emotions are still not considered a legitimate
topic of consideration in most workplaces.
242 9 Four Settings That Constrain Systems Practice

As noted by Russell and Ison (2004) the proposition that our experience and
subsequent action is shaped by a particular emotion is not a new one in experi-
mental psychology. Beginning in the late 1800s William James (1890/1950) sug-
gested that ‘my experience is what I agree to attend to’ (p. 402). Research by
Arne Öhman and his colleagues (see Öhman 1997, for a review of the relevant
experimental studies) clearly shows how attention is controlled by the currently
activated emotional system, that emotion appears to drive attention, and that emo-
tions are assumed to be functionally shaped by evolution. Öhman presents evi-
dence that emotions, particularly those of fear and anxiety, can be aroused by
events that are ‘outside the spotlight of conscious attention’ (p. 265). The finding
that an emotional change can be elicited by a pre-attentive, automatic analysis of a
stimulus, with an absence of any conscious recognition of that stimulus, is particu-
larly relevant to any model of conversational behaviour.
Following Maturana et al. (2008) emotioning is a process that takes place in a
relational flow. This involves both behaviour and a body with a responsive physiol-
ogy that enables changing behaviour. Thus, ‘a change of emotion is a change of
body, including the brain. Through different emotions human and non-human ani-
mals become different beings, beings that see differently, hear differently, move and
act differently. In particular, we human beings become different rational beings, and
we think, reason, and reflect differently as our emotions change’. Maturana et al.
(2008) explain that humans move in the drift of our living following a path guided
by our emotions. ‘As we interact our emotions change; as we talk our emotions
change; as we reflect our emotions change; as we act our emotions change; as we
think our emotions change; as we emotion… our emotions change. Moreover, as
our emotions constitute the grounding of all our doings they guide our living’.25
I find examples of what Maturana means all around me. Let me give an exam-
ple of systemic practice in which, as you will see, emotions play a part.

9.5.1 An Example of Emotionally Aware Systemic Practice?

I, like many others around the world, was impressed by the actions and words of
US President Barack Obama when he was first elected. At first I experienced his
words as profound, sincere and aspirational – a set of characteristics that is

25
Since writing this section Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics laureate Daniel Kahneman pro-
duced his book Thinking Fast and Slow (Kahneman 2011). ‘The central thesis is a dichotomy
between two modes of thought: “System 1” is fast, instinctive and emotional; “System 2” is
slower, more deliberative, and more logical. The book delineates cognitive biases associated with
each type of thinking’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow, Accessed 28
May 2017). My concerns in this section could be framed as paying attention to System 1, to use
Kahneman’s term. To be honest I, as a scholar of Maturana, found little in this book that offered
fresh insights other than to reaffirm my experience of how siloed science praxis is – Maturana as
far as I can tell was not cited in this work.
9.5 Breaking-Down an Apartheid of the Emotions 243

sometimes described in the learning literature as authentic. I know something

about ‘authenticity’ because in the early 1980s I took part in developing a radical
education programme that threw traditional approaches to curricula out of the door
and rebuilt a whole degree programme based on experiential learning, systems
agriculture and effectiveness in communication (Russell and Ison 2005).26 From
that experience I came to understand and appreciate the power and utility of
authentic communication. Later, amongst the millions of words that have been
written about the President at the time of his election in 2008, I came across an
article by Jonathon Freedland that gave me insights into Barrack Obama’s practice
up to that time (i.e. what he did when he did what he did). Not surprisingly, to
me, many of these practices were similar to those I ascribe to a systems practi-
tioner in my juggler isophor. These are some of the practices that Freedland
described that caught my attention (Freedland 2008):
• ‘…he was a good listener, often spending hours with individuals at a time to
hear the full story of their lives. It is as if he wanted to learn from them as
much as to help them..’ (p. 6).
• He was efficient. ‘He once arranged for 600 residents to talk with officials
about contaminated water. He stood at the back, clipboard in hand with a dia-
gram setting out the names of all those who would speak and what points they
would make’ (p. 6).
• ‘He was learning the centrality of preparation – and organization – to making
political change’ (p. 6).
• ‘He won [election as the first African-American president of the Harvard Law
Review] thanks, in part, to the votes of conservatives on the Review. They did
not agree with him on issues, but they were impressed that he truly listened to
them, that he seemed to take them seriously’ (p. 6).
• ‘On one occasion he made a speech defending affirmative action that effec-
tively articulated the objections to it. Rightwingers believed Obama had shown
them deep understanding and respect. It was a mode of discourse that Obama
would employ again and again…’ (p. 6).
• ‘A former teacher at Harvard, Martha Minow, has said that “he spoke with a
kind of ability to rise above the conversation and summarise it and reframe it”’.
• ‘He always listens, and he might not agree with you, but you never felt he was
brushing you off..’ (p. 6).
• ‘…Obama learned a crucial lesson in Springfield – that progress wouldn’t
come through smart policy papers or stirring speeches. Relationships were the
key….’ (p. 7).
• ‘…at least one aspect of Obama’s modus operandi should travel with him into
the White House. By all accounts, it’s the same working method he employed
at the Harvard Law Review. He would ask his policy advisers to convene the

26
A concern in the many versions of experiential learning is that of ‘authenticity’ – the relationship
of learning to the world of practice. The concept, it is argued, lies at the heart of the attempts by
educators since John Dewey to address the relationship between learning and life (Maharg 2002).
244 9 Four Settings That Constrain Systems Practice

top experts in a given field for a dinner. Obama would make introductory
remarks, then sit back and listen – hard. Similarly when convening his own
staff for a key decision he might stretch out on a couch on his office, his eyes
closed, listening… he asked everyone in the room to take turns sharing their
advice, insisting on the participation of even his most quiet, junior staffers. He
particularly encouraged internal argument among his advisers thrashing out
both sides of an argument’ (p. 7).
To anyone familiar with practice in fields such as community or rural develop-
ment, grassroots activism, social work and organisational change management, the
list of practice characteristics attributed to President Obama in Freedland’s article
will not be that surprising. What is surprising of course is that these attributes are
held by someone who became US President. As Freedland observed, ‘after eight
years of a president who ostracised those advisers who dared tell him what he
didn’t want to hear, the Obama style will be quite a change’ (p. 7).
If asked to explain, on the basis of this sample of attributes, what the key ele-
ments of Barack Obama’s practice have been that contribute to his success, I
would point to his:
• Encountering of the other as a legitimate other27
• Predisposition to learning (which in itself is a way of abandoning certainty)
• Capacity for listening – such that he creates for those in the conversation the
experience of being actively listened to
• Capacity and technique of ‘mirroring back’ his understanding of the position of
others28
• Understanding and valuing of multiple perspectives in respect to a situation or
issue of concern
• Ability to move between different levels of abstraction and to synthesise differ-
ent strands of an argument
• Awareness that change comes through relationships29
• Ability, knowingly or not, to be both systemic and systematic (the latter typi-
fied by his being organised)
• Use of diagrams as a ‘mediating object’ in his practice
After two terms of an Obama presidency what can be said of Freedland’s analy-
sis and my own interpretation of it? Much could be said and there is little room
here to say it. Critical questions arising from reflections on Obama’s presidency are:
(1) are emotional literacy, integrity and authenticity enough? (2) what constitutes

27
This is how Maturana explains the arising of love – thus when enacted it generates an underly-
ing emotional dynamic that brings forth ‘love’.
28
We use ‘mirroring back’ as a form of practice in our research that acknowledges that what we
say following, for example, a series of interviews, is our interpretation of what we heard, not a
statement of ‘how things are’ (see Webber 2000).
29
Geoffrey Vickers referred to this as an appreciative system in which choices about relationship mak-
ing and relationship breaking are made, through which one’s standards of fact and value also change.
9.5 Breaking-Down an Apartheid of the Emotions 245

effective power to change things for the better? and (3) are our governance systems
failing us?
Let me first explain what attracted me to Freedland’s original analysis.
Underpinning several of the attributes accorded to Obama is a systems practice
skill that David Russell and I have described as the choreography of the emotions
(Russell and Ison 2005). In this work we draw on Maturana’s biology of cognition
and claims that each conversation is shaped interactively by a particular flow of
emotion. Our contention is that with practice we are capable of being aware of
exactly which emotion is being enacted at any one moment and thus are free to
maintain or change the nature of the conversation, and of the relationship in which
the conversation is embedded, by modifying the emotion (Russell and Ison 2005,
p. 134).30 An analogy is Donella Meadows dancing with systems as an exemplar
of dancing with the emotioning.31 How one dances becomes part of the flow – as
we emotion our emotions change. Evidence of the underlying emotional flow of
Donella’s own practice can be gleaned from Reading 3 in Chapter 4.
Having accepted this understanding it became a guiding influence for our
research and consulting activities for over 20 years (see Russell and Ison 2017).
The notions of chorographer (one practised in the experiencing of territory, or
situations) and choreographer (one practised in the design of a dance arrangement)
become a way of describing our concerns. Mapping the initial relationships locates
which emotions are getting which results and offers reflections on how a particular
workplace, social, and/or personal culture (pattern of relationships embedded over
time) has come about. Designing conversations and actions, itself an ongoing pro-
cess, is thus an essential role for the systems practitioner. This role, as creative as
it is responsible, is at its heart the strategic management of emotions where an
emotion is defined as that flow of desire predisposing one towards a particular
action. The emotion determines the nature of the action: it is emotions not
resources that determine what we do!

9.5.2 Generating a Choreography of the Emotions

What was striking for me about the practices attributed to Obama in 2008 was the
seeming congruence between what he espoused and what he had done to that
time. Unfortunately, this congruence did not persist throughout the two terms of

30
We do not mean exact in the sense of a universal set of categories but exact in relation to the
history of that person, their manner of living.
31
See Meadows (2001) in which she describes the following dance: (1) Get the beat, (2) Listen
to the wisdom of the system, (3) Expose your mental models to the open air, (4) Stay humble.
Stay a learner, (5) Honour and protect information, (6) Locate responsibility in the system, (7)
Make feed-back policies for feedback systems, (8) Pay attention to what is important, not just
what is quantifiable, (9) Go for the good of the whole, (10) Expand time horizons, (11) Expand
thought horizons, (12) Expand the boundary of caring, (13) Celebrate complexity, (14) Hold fast
to the goal of goodness.
246 9 Four Settings That Constrain Systems Practice

his presidency; personally, I still experience an authenticity in his saying what he

says, but not in the doing of what he does! This leads me to claim that emotionally
aware systems practice is necessary but not sufficient when managing systemic
change. That said, I have little doubt that Barrak Obama entered politics to effect
change for the better, which of course raises the questions of: (1) better from
whose perspective? and (2) how is change effected?32 Within systems practice in
general, and systemic inquiry in particular, surfacing and valuing of multiple par-
tial perspectives is an important means to address the question of what constitutes
change for the better. There is never one single right answer or perspective in rela-
tion to complex and uncertain issues. Hence processes of judgement, or decision
making, that employ and value different perspectives are likely to lead to decisions
that are more robust and fit for purpose. They achieve this because in part they
have a more effective grasp on what, in the circumstances, constitutes better. In
my experience the act of acknowledging other perspectives also profoundly
changes the underlying emotional dynamics; done well emotions of enthusiasm,
tolerance, mutual respect and living with ambiguity and/or uncertainty are
realised.
In my experience the emotion that most limits change is fear; fear closes us
down and limits our behavioral repertoires. It is also the emotion that is most
exploited by the political classes and those not open to any perspective other
than their own. My colleague Simon Bell has made a study of what he calls
‘Project Fear’ (Bell 2017). He says: ‘we are all victims of fear. Project Fear has
been with us for hundreds of years. So far, we have made little attempt to map
fear or understand how it is used’. Employing systems methods he sets out
to explore how fear is weaponised and targeted and how to act so as to avoid
making things worse (see http://www.open.edu/openlearn/project-fear, Accessed
29 May 2017).
Too often change is understood systematically rather than systemically. From a
systemic perspective change takes place in a relational space, or dynamic, includ-
ing the space of one’s relationship with oneself (i.e. through personal reflection).
Russell and Ison (2004, 2005) have argued that it is a shift in our conversation
and the underlying emotional dynamics that more than anything else brings about
change in human social systems. We devised the following procedures as part of
our systemic practice as a means to engage with the desires, wishes, fears, interests
(the full gamut of emotions) of participants in the situations of concern with the
aim of achieving an experience of systematic reflection through which there is
either: (1) a change in the emotion shaping a particular behaviour or set of beha-
viours, or (2) a maintenance of that behaviour because the circumstances have not
been conducive to a change in the underlying emotion(s). From this perspective

32
The situation in which the US President operates can also be understood as a structure deter-
mined situation so what President Obama can and cannot do is not merely reliant on a set of per-
sonal attributes, unfortunately!!
9.5 Breaking-Down an Apartheid of the Emotions 247

having a choice is understood as creating the circumstances for choosing between

alternative emotions. The procedure included:
1. Offer the invitation to tell of one’s experience vis-à-vis a specific set of circum-
stances (What is happening to you? What is your interest in what’s
happening?)
2. From the above account, identify the dominant metaphors and image schemas
3. Ascribe determining emotions to the imaginative structures (metaphors; orga-
nising image). Assisting a participant to become aware of a determining emo-
tion is clearly a crucial step
4. Reflect the emotions back to the participant embedded in the same or in ampli-
fied imaginative structures and couched as an invitation to further engage
5. The sequence begins over again and finishes when either party considers that
there is something better to do elsewhere
You may recognise this as a refinement of the process that I described in
Reading 5 (Chapter 7) in which active listening was a key element of my systemic
inquiry practice which also involved mirroring back my understandings as well as
those metaphors in use with their entailments. Another ‘choreographic opportu-
nity’ exists through inviting others to reflect on what they do when they do what
they do! In this regard I have found it helpful to invite others to explore systemi-
cally how they understand practice (e.g. Fig. 3.5) and to recognise that we have
choices that can be made about the framing of situations.

Illustration 9.2

Choreography is concerned with dance which is a common practice across all

human societies. Significantly dance is one of the most obvious of embodied prac-
tices and in the doing and observing (as part of an audience) its emotional flow is
readily apparent. But it also needs a good stage, set or setting. In reflecting on the
sensibilities of her parents (Gregory Bateson and Margaret Mead) Mary Catherine
Bateson observed that ‘both Margaret and Gregory grew up to regard the arts as
higher and more challenging than the sciences. This sense of humility in relation
to the arts lasted right through their lives’ (Bateson 2001).
248 9 Four Settings That Constrain Systems Practice

Unfortunately, the realisation of an holistic, artistic practice, in the sense

imagined by Mary Catherine Bateson, is significantly constrained by a misplaced
targets culture, the uncritical acceptance of projectification, our collective failure
to be open to circumstance and its contingent nature, as evidenced by inadequate
awareness of the choice we make or do not make in framing situations, and the
self-imposed apartheid we place on the role of emotions in our doings. These all
combine to both create a need for systems practice but at the same time make the
circumstances for its uptake and enactment less than conducive. The four
constraints I outline here are but four of many. The Obama phenomenon, and my
limited analysis of it here, point to widespread systemic failure of governance and
governments. As I and co-authors have said elsewhere (Ison et al. 2018):
‘There is increasing evidence coming from numerous countries that many
“governance systems” are not fit for purpose under contemporary circumstances’
(e.g., Straw 2014; Ringen 2014a, b; Micklethwait and Wooldridge 2014; Tingle
2015; Johnson 2015). ‘Symptoms of a governance deficit vary across policy domains,
and scales (from local to the global), occurring within nations, organisations and
multilateral projects and programs (Ison and Schlindwein 2015)… Straw (2014)
argues that in the UK “the present system as a whole is itself what stands in the way
of successful government”. Piecemeal innovation and incremental changes are unli-
kely to work, instead he proposes reinvention of the British “governance system”’.
New governance systems are needed. These will need institutions, or social
technologies, better suited to our circumstances and enabling of systems practice.
In the next chapter I explore the opportunities that investment in ‘systemic
inquiry’ might create.

References

Ackoff, R (undated) Why few organizations adopt systems thinking. Keynote Address, UK
Systems Society Annual Conference, Hull
Barnhart R (2001) Chambers Dictionary of Etymology. Chambers, USA
Bateson MC (2001) The wisdom of recognition. Cybernetics Human Knowing 8(4):87–90
Bawden RJ (2005) Systemic development at Hawkesbury: some personal lessons from experi-
ence. Syst Res Behav Sci 22:151–164
Bell S (2017) Formations of terror. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge
Bell S, Morse S (2005) Delivering sustainability therapy in sustainable development projects.
J Environ Manag 75(1):37–51
Bell S, Morse S (2007) Story telling in sustainable development projects. Sustain Dev 15:97–110
Blackmore CP (ed) (2010) Social learning systems and communities of practice. Springer,
Dordrecht
Caulkin, S., (2007) ‘This isn’t an abstract problem. Targets can kill’, The Observer, March 22nd
2009. Copyright (c) Guardian News & Media Ltd 2017
Collins KB, Ison RL (2009) Living with environmental change: adaptation as social learning.
Environ Policy Governance 19:351–57
Collins KB, Ison RL, Blackmore CP. (2005) River basin planning project: social learning (Phase 1)
Environment Agency, Bristol (see www.environment-agency.gov.uk)
References 249

Draper S (2016) Systems thinking: unlocking the sustainable development goals. https://www.
forumforthefuture.org/blog/systems-thinking-unlocking-sustainable-development-goals.
Accessed 28 May 2017
Fairtlough G (2007) The three ways of getting things done. Hierarchy, heterarchy & responsible
autonomy in organizations. Triarchy Press, Axminster
Field M (1999) Project Management. Unit 7. Standard methods. Computing for commerce and
industry program. The Open University, Milton Keynes, p 72
Fisher DE (2006) Water resources governance and the law. Australas J Natl Res Law Policy
11(1):1–41
Fortune J, Peters G (1995) Learning from failure: the systems approach. Wiley, Chichester
Fortune J, Peters G (2005) Information systems. Achieving success by avoiding failure. Wiley,
Chichester
Freedland J (2008) The Obama story. The improbable journey. The Guardian, Thursday,
November 6 2008, pp. 1–8
Gido J, Clements J (1999) Successful project management. International Thompson Publishing,
Boston
High C, Ison R, Blackmore C, et al (2008) Starting off right: reframing participation though sta-
keholder analysis and the politics of invitation. Proc. Working Group 13 ‘The OECD’s New
Rural Paradigm’, XII World Congress of Rural Sociology, Seoul, Korea
Ison RL (2016) Governing in the Anthropocene: what future systems thinking in practice? Syst
Res Behav Sci 33(5):595–613
Ison RL, Armson R (2006) Think, Act & Play im Leadership der Kybernetik zweiter Ordnung.
Lernende Organisation. Zeitschrift fur systemishes Management und Organisation No 33,
September/Oktober (www.lo.isct.net) ISSN 1609-1248 pp. 12–23. [Published by: Institut für
Systemisches Coaching und Training, Zielorientierte Entwicklung von Menschen, Teams &
Unternehmen GmbH, Lange Gasse 65 A-1080 Wien, Austria]
Ison RL, Schlindwein S (2015) Navigating through an ‘ecological desert and a sociological hell’:
a cyber-systemic governance approach for the Anthropocene. Kybernetes 44(6/7):891–902
Ison RL, Röling N, Watson D (2007) Challenges to science and society in the sustainable
management and use of water: investigating the role of social learning. Environ Sci Policy
10(6):499–511
Ison RL, Wallis P (2017) Mechanisms for inclusive governance, In: Karar E (ed) Freshwater gov-
ernance for the 21st century, Global Issues in Water Policy 6. Springer, Switzerland, p 159–185
Ison RL, Grant A, Bawden RB (2014) Scenario praxis for systemic and adaptive governance: a
critical framework. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 32(4):623–640
Ison RL, Allan C, Collins KB (2015) Reframing water governance praxis: does reflection on
metaphors have a role? Environ Plann C Gov Policy 33:1697–1713
Ison RL, Alexandra J, Wallis PJ (2018) Governing in the Anthropocene: cyber-systemic anti-
dotes to the malaise of modern governance. Sustainability Science (submitted)
James W (1890/1950) The principles of psychology, Vol 1, Dover: New York
Johnson RW (2015) How long will South Africa survive? The looming crisis. Jonathan Ball,
South Africa
Johnston P (2009) The ultimate turnaround from Labour, the dying Government. By abandoning
targets, Labour is admitting the depth of its failure. Telegraph.co.uk
Kahneman D (2011) Thinking fast and slow. Allan Lane, New York
Lakoff G (2010) Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environ Commun 4:70–81
Levene R (1997) Project management, in Concise Encyclopaedia of Business Management.
International Thompson Business Press, Boston, p 578–597
Maharg P. (2002) Authenticity in learning: transactional learning in virtual communities. http://
zeugma.typepad.com/Publications/Prof20Paul20Maharg20ISAGA20article1.doc. Accessed
17 May 2017
Maturana HR (1991) Response to Berman’s critique of The Tree of Knowledge. J Humanist
Psychol 31(2):88–97
250 9 Four Settings That Constrain Systems Practice

Maturana HR, Verden-Zöller G, Bunnell P (ed) (2008) The origin of humanness in the biology
of love. Imprint Academic, Exeter
Meadows D (2001) Dancing with systems. Whole Earth, Winter
Micklethwait J, Wooldridge A (2014) The fourth revolution: the global race to reinvent the state.
Penguin, London
Milly PCD, Betancourt J, Falkenmark M et al. (2008) Stationarity is dead: whither water
management? Science 319(5863):573–574. doi:10.1126/science.1151915
Öhman A. (1997) On the edge of consciousness: pre-attentive mechanisms in the generation of
anxiety, In: Fuller R, Walsh PN, McGinley P (eds) A century of psychology: progress, para-
digms and prospects for the new millennium. Routledge: London
Pollitt C (2003) The essential public manager. Open University Press, Glasgow
Reiss G (1992) Project management demystified. E & FN Spon, London
Ringen S (2014a) Is American democracy headed to extinction? The Washington Post (March 28)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-american-democracy-headed-to-extinction/2014/
03/28/70e2c7f4-b69f-11e3-8cc3-d4bf596577eb_story.html. Accessed 12 March 2015
Ringen S (2014b) Reflections on the counter-revolution in America. Letter intended to have been
sent to a gentleman in Washington. Lecture delivered to the Rothermere American Institute,
University of Oxford, 29 January 2014
Roux DJ, Murray K, Hill L (2009) A learning strategy framework for natural resource manage-
ment organizations. Water Research Commission, South Africa
Russell DB, Ison RL (2004) Maturana’s intellectual contribution as a choreography of conversa-
tion and action. Cybernetics Human Knowing 11(2):36–48
Russell DB, Ison RL (2005) The researcher of human systems is both choreographer and choro-
grapher. Syst Res Behav Sci 22:131–138
Russell DB, Ison RL (2017) Fruits of Gregory Bateson’s epistemological crisis: embodied mind-
making and interactive experience in research and professional praxis, Can J Commun
42(3):485–514
Schön DA, Rein M (1994) Frame reflection: toward the resolution of intractable policy contro-
versies. Basic Books, New York
Sjöblom S (2006) Introduction: towards a projectified public sector – project proliferation as a
phenomenon. In: Sjöblom S, Andersson K, Eklund E, Godenhjelm S (eds) Project prolifera-
tion and governance – the case of Finland. Helsinki University Press, Helsinki
SLIM (2004) SLIM Framework: social learning as a policy approach for sustainable use of
water, p 41. Available at http://slim.open.ac.uk. Accessed 17 May 2017
Steyaert P, Jiggins J (2007) Governance of complex environmental situations through social
learning: a synthesis of SLIM’s lessons for research, policy and practice. Environ Sci Policy
10(6):575–586
Straw E (2014) Stand and deliver. A design for successful government. Treaty for Government,
London
Tingle L (2015) Political amnesia. How we forgot how to govern, Quarterly Essay, 60.
Melbourne: Black Inc
Turner RJ (1999) Handbook of project-based management, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, London
Vickers G (1965) The art of judgment: a study of policy making. Chapman and Hall, London
Vickers G (1970) Value systems and social process. Penguin Books, London, [First published by
Tavistock Publications, London in 1968]
Webber L (2000) Co-researching: braiding theory and practice for research with people. In: Ison
RL, Russell DB (eds) Agricultural extension and rural development: breaking out of tradi-
tions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 161–188
Wikstrom K, Rehn A (1999) As cited in Sjöblom S (2006)
Winter M, Checkland PB (2003) Soft systems: a fresh perspective for project management. Civ
Eng 156(4):187–192
Winter MC, Szczepanek T (2009) Images of projects. Gower, London
Chapter 10
Systemic Inquiry

Abstract Systemic inquiry is a form of systems practice designed to engage with

uncertainty. It can be conducted over a long or short time depending on circum-
stances; there is no blueprint as to how it should be enacted but is possible to
design, manage, facilitate and evaluate a systemic inquiry. When conducted with
others it becomes systemic co-inquiry. Systemic inquiry is an antidote to being
driven by targets or goals and living in a ‘projectified world’, a world that seeks
certainty in advance of acting and thus learning. Systemic inquiry is also a institu-
tional form, or social technology that can contribute to systemic governing of
situations. Enactment of systemic inquiry facilitates making choices about framing
of situations and breaking out of an apartheid of the emotions that operates in
organizational life.

10.1 Clarifying What Systemic Inquiry Could Be

The failings highlighted in the previous chapter associated with goal-focused

thinking, a targets mentality and a project culture suggest two related needs.
Firstly, inventing a different way of organising how things are done in certain
situations, something that is more than a project or a collection of projects as in a
programme. Once this way of organising has been invented, the second need is to
have different thinking and practice employed which, in its enactment, encom-
passes making choices about framing of situations and breaking out of the apart-
heid of the emotions that exists in most organisations. Users of such an approach
must be capable of:
1. Understanding situations in context (both current and historical)
2. Appreciating multiple stakeholders and thus perspectives
3. Addressing and clarifying questions of purpose
4. Distinguishing what, how, and why, and clarifying when it is appropriate to
address each

© The Open University 2017 251

Published in Association with Springer-Verlag London Limited
R. Ison, Systems Practice: How to Act, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9_10
252 10 Systemic Inquiry

5. Facilitating action that is purposeful and which can be judged as systemically

desirable and/or culturally feasible as well as ethically defensible1
6. Developing a means to orchestrate understandings and practices across space
and time in a manner that continues to address social concerns when it is
unclear at the start as to what would constitute an improvement (i.e., to adap-
tively manage a co-evolutionary dynamic)
7. Institutionalising on-going use of the approach in a manner that does not trivia-
lise and instrumentalise the premises on which it is built.
In our research we have experimented with Systemic Inquiry as an approach
that meets these needs, recognising that, as outlined in Part II of this book, it is
not the approach alone that is important but how it is enacted by a user in context
specific ways (Collins et al. 2005; Ison 2005). We understand systemic inquiry as
a meta-platform or process for ‘project or program managing’ (Fig. 10.1) as well

mainstream process

Program

data
design &
results

different project types

inquiry
social learning
&
conversation changing situation

systemic inquiry process

Fig. 10.1 A way of conceptualising systemic inquiry as a meta-form of purposeful action able
to make better use of contextualised programmes and projects of different institutional form

1
The idea that something is ‘systemically desirable’ is a key feature of SSM thinking as articu-
lated by Checkland and colleagues (Checkland 1999; Checkland and Poulter 2006). I use it to
mean a possible action(s) that is understood to be systemically coherent as the result of some
form of inquiry or investigation into a situation, including, but not only conceptual and/or quanti-
tative modelling. What is systemically desirable however may not be culturally feasible to imple-
ment. However, if the right people learn through a process of systemic inquiry then what is
culturally feasible, or not, can change.
10.1 Clarifying What Systemic Inquiry Could Be 253

as a particular means of facilitating movement towards social learning (understood

as concerted action by multiple stakeholders in situations of complexity and uncer-
tainty). When conducted with others it can be called systemic co-inquiry.
Inquiry-based practice has been a concern within different systems practice
lineages for many years (Helme 2002). Blackmore (2009) traces some of the ante-
cedents in the systems field to current practices associated with ‘inquiries’. She
identifies the following lineages:
1. What Schön (1995) calls ‘Deweyan Inquiry’ (1933) i.e. thought is intertwined
with action and inquiry begins with ‘problem situations’
2. Inquiry based on Vickers’ idea of appreciative systems (Checkland 1994;
Vickers 1965, 1970)
3. Churchman’s (1971) inquiring systems, particularly in the sense of recognising
that there are many possible worldviews and perspectives.
As was discussed in Chapter 6, in the 1950s and 1960s concern within some
systems lineages developed around effectiveness for planning and decision-
making in uncertain and complex situations. This led West Churchman (1971),
for example, to address what he called the ‘design of inquiring systems’. He
reflected that the tendency, then prevalent, was to bolster science and its research
as the paradigmatic exemplar of an inquiring system. He rejected this and
observed that ‘in every age when men [sic] have struggled to learn more about
themselves and the universe they inhabit, there have always been a few reflective
thinkers who have tried to learn how men learn, and by what right they can claim
that what they profess to learn is truly knowledge. This is reflective learning in
the literal sense: it is the thinking about thinking, doubting about doubting, learn-
ing about learning, and (hopefully) knowing about knowing’ (p. 17). He defined
‘inquiry’ as an activity which produces knowledge (p. 8); put another way inquiry
facilitates a particular way of knowing which, when enacted, makes a difference.
Churchman (1971) recognised the central role of the practitioner in any process
of inquiry as exemplified by his exploration of the metaphor of a ‘library
of science’. He argued that the common definition of science as a systematic col-
lection of knowledge is ‘almost entirely useless for the purposes of designing
inquiring systems … in other words knowledge resides in the user not in the
collection … it is how the user reacts to the collection… that matters’ (p. 10). For
Churchman an ‘inquiring system’ was a descriptor of a process of inquiry dis-
cernable in a given situation. As I will describe in more detail below an inquiring
system or a learning system can both be seen as products of the enactment of a
systemic inquiry.2

2
Systemic inquiry builds on and extends Churchman’s epistemological assumptions; it is con-
cerned with the design of inquiring (or learning) systems and is grounded in various traditions of
systems scholarship including second-order cybernetics (Maturana and Poerkson 2004; von
Foerster and Poerkson 2002) and applied systems studies (Checkland 1999, 2002; Open
University 1998).
254 10 Systemic Inquiry

Figure 10.1 depicts how systemic inquiry could be conceptualised as a meta- form
of purposeful action that, with appropriate praxis and institutional arrangements,
could provide a more conducive, systemic setting for programmes, and projects with
a diversity of forms of practice and institutional arrangements that are appropriate to
the context (i.e. contextualised) e.g. scientific projects; action research projects, sys-
temic action research projects, systemic interventions etc. Why is this form of innova-
tion needed? Because:
1. Of the dynamics of situations we are having to engage with
2. We live in a ‘projectified-world’ and there is increasing evidence that ‘projects’
deal poorly with complex, long-term phenomena e.g. PRINCE2 project man-
agement package
3. There is considerable rhetoric about being more joined-up, holistic, ‘inte-
grated’ … but theory-informed practice is often weak
4. An inquiry-based approach enables managing or researching for emergence –
adaptive managing
5. In systemic inquiry ethics arise in context-related action (they are not reduced
to a code – as discussed in Box 5.2 in Chapter 5)
The broader rationale for such an innovation is to better manage our ongoing
structural coupling with the biosphere in a climate-changing world in a manner
that could be understood as a form of on-going systemic development (Collins
et al. 2009; Ison et al. 2007a).3

10.2 The Opportunity for Systemic Inquiry

Systemic inquiry is a means for enabling systems practice that acknowledges and
addresses uncertainty. It is a conceptual and institutional framing to avoid the
worst excesses of living in a projectified and programmatic world (Fig. 10.1).
Systemic inquiry can thus be understood as a compound noun – a systemic
inquiry can be invested in, set up, funded – as well as a framing for doing systems
practice as systemic inquiry – i.e. a process. As yet, there is no definitive advice
to give on how to set up, or institutionalise a systemic inquiry, though I will
provide a case study later in this chapter of one way of doing it. There are
also examples of using systemic inquiry being published (see Foster et al. 2016;
Ison et al. 2014) or of related practice approaches that, depending on enactment,
can have many similarities e.g., collective leadership (Kuenkel 2015) or co-design
(VCOSS 2015).
Having created a systemic inquiry there is also no one way to enact it. But, as I
see it, appreciating and embodying, over time, the different aspects of the juggling
practices I described in earlier chapters is a key requirement. I have already

I do not plan to expand upon systemic development here – see Bawden (2005).
3
10.2 The Opportunity for Systemic Inquiry 255

exemplified some aspects of how a systemic inquiry might be enacted in Reading 5

in Chapter 7.
Systemic practice can be distinguished from other forms of inquiry e.g. appre-
ciative inquiry (Cooperider and Srivastva 1987; Gotches and Ludema 1995),
action inquiry (Torbert and Cook-Greuter 2004), first, second and third person
inquiry (Reason and Rowan 1981; Rowan 2001), networked systemic inquiry
(Burns 2007) in that those who pursue it purposefully connect with the different
lineages of doing systems (Chapter 2).4 Also, I am not aware that other inquiry prac-
titioners are as concerned as I am about systemic inquiry as a social technology or
institutional device (i.e., something that is meta to projects or programmes). In
process terms, all forms of inquiry have the potential to be mutually supportive as
ways of understanding practice. All have as primary concerns reflexivity, the
abandoning of certainty and being open to circumstances.
Systemic inquiry is above all else an approach to practice which is adaptive to
changing circumstances and which draws explicitly on understandings of systems
thinking, theories of learning, action research, cooperative inquiry and adaptive
management. Like many inquiry processes systemic inquiry can be conceptualised
as a cyclic process but it is much more than a linear sequence drawn as a circle!
Of course, much more than systemic inquiry needs to be done to build systemic
practice as an alternative form of institutionalised practice. In doing this, however,
there are many potential pitfalls for the unwary, including the mistaken belief that
my claim that systemic inquiry is conceptually meta to programmes or projects
means that they are always bigger or longer lasting. They do not have to be.5
Inquiry is as much about predisposition as it is about institutional form. So, for
example, systemic inquiry could be part of everyday managing in circumstances
where we choose to acknowledge uncertainty and complexity. Or it could be a
useful replacement, both conceptually and practically, for ‘problem structuring
methods’ as currently understood in the operations research community (as dis-
cussed in Chapter 8). Equally it could be built into government’s practices as a way
of avoiding high staff turnover, the loss of organisational memory and thus the
propensity to ‘reinvent the wheel’ in the face of long-term issues that need mana-
ging beyond the current time frames of elections and other human constructed
political and economic cycles. To achieve such a shift means that those inclined to

4
The lineage of doing systemic inquiry that we enact is not the only lineage amongst systems
scholars. Burns (2007, p. 8) refers to networked systemic inquiry as a more organic form of
action inquiry, sets of inquiry practices that underpin systemic action research. For him an
‘inquiry stream is a series of linked meetings which explore issues and constructs action over a
period of time.’ On the other hand Klein (2005) describes Systemic Inquiry as they enact it as
a methodology for organisational development on the basis of applied narratives.
5
For example thinking of a systemic inquiry as akin to a ‘Royal Commission’ or ‘Board of
Inquiry’ would be a mistake. Both of these institutional arrangements have become reified in
ways that mean they are either open to political manipulation (e.g. by specifying terms of refer-
ence in a Royal Commission) or are closed to changing context. Another way of thinking of a
systemic inquiry is as a device to enact deliberative decision making, or as a cornerstone of more
deliberative democracy.
256 10 Systemic Inquiry

innovate in this way will need to appreciate a little more what might be entailed in
doing systemic inquiry.

10.3 The Basic Process of Systemic Inquiry

Peter Checkland (2002) has described the enactment of SSM (soft systems metho-
dology) as a form of systemic inquiry (Fig. 10.2). Checkland’s articulation of the
use of SSM as a systemic inquiry can be understood as an ‘ideal type’ (as discussed
for my juggler isophor in Chapter 3). He conceptualises the enactment of SSM as
an iterative process in which deciding when it is complete is a matter of contextual

set up structured
exploration of situation
considered problematical

make sense of situation

by exploring context
(culture, politics)
using systems models
as devices

tease out possible

accommodations between
different interests

define possible actions

to change; that are
systemically desirable and
culturally feasible

take action to change -

creating a new situation

monitor

take control
action

define criteria:
efficacy, efficiency,
effectiveness

Fig. 10.2 An activity model of a system to conduct a systemic inquiry (Adapted from
Checkland 2002)
10.3 The Basic Process of Systemic Inquiry 257

judgment. It is an action-oriented approach – that is to say, the intention of enact-

ment is to produce a change. It is not about introducing or creating ‘a system’.
Change is mainly manifest as changes in understandings and practices (Fig. 1.3),
changes in social relations amongst those involved (including power relations),
changes in process or changes in structure. The products of SSM enacted as a sys-
temic inquiry are conceptual (systems) and sometimes quantitative models which
are both prescriptive models and devices to make sense of the situation of concern.6
From Checkland’s perspective the role of the systems practitioner sits some-
where between being a consultant, brought in from outside to analyse the situation
and advise on change, and a facilitator, who helps the participants understand their
own situation so as to make changes for the better. In his work with Winter,
Checkland (Checkland and Winter 2006; Winter and Checkland 2003) marshals
many of the arguments for understanding systemic inquiry as a particular form of
practice that could be institutionalised within the ‘project management’ field.
Figure 10.2 depicts an activity model for conducting a systemic inquiry. The
focus is identifying the linked activities. A number of systems levels are depicted
in Fig. 10.2. The large system (the main shape) has two main activities:
1. Set up structured exploration of a situation experienced as complex or
uncertain
2. Take action to change in the situation
However, to operate as a system this larger system depends on the activities of
one sub-system (represented by an inner circle within the large shape). The sub-
system has three activities depicted by the verbs (actions):
1. ‘Make sense of’
2. ‘Tease out… accommodations’
3. ‘Define possible actions’.
In Fig. 10.2 systemic inquiry begins with a process of sense-making of differing
contexts, identifying areas where differences can be accommodated and moves on
to defining possible actions. The overall inquiry (system) has to be monitored, mea-
sures of performance articulated against acceptable criteria (the three e’s depicted
here) and control action taken. It is important to appreciate that the measures of per-
formance are always present but always contextualised, not imposed from the out-
side. In practice the steps in this process are never systematic. Iteration and
concurrent action in different stages are common. When joint action to change is
taken as a result of key stakeholders learning their way to an understanding of what
needs to be done then social learning has occurred because both changes in under-
standing and practices result and the situation is changed or transformed (Fig. 1.3).7

6
Figure 10.2 is itself a conceptual systems model – sometimes also referred to as an activity
model. At the core of SSM-style systems practice is an appreciation that the ‘modeling language’
is all of the verbs in the (English) language – hence the focus within SSM on activity
(Checkland and Poulter 2006).
7
This section draws extensively on Collins et al. (2005).
258 10 Systemic Inquiry

Box 10.1 gives a very brief summary of how we have come to understand social
learning through our recent research.8

Box 10.1 Social Learning

Social learning can be interpreted as one or more of the following processes

(Collins and Ison 2009a):
• The convergence of goals (more usefully expressed as agreement about
purpose or purposes), criteria and knowledge leading to awareness of
mutual expectations and the building of relational capital (a dynamic
form of capital that integrates the other forms, viz: artificial, natural,
social and human – see SLIM (2004a)
• The process of co-creation of knowledge, which provides insight into the
history of, and the means required to transform, a situation. Social learn-
ing is thus an integral part of the make-up of concerted action
• The change in behaviours that results from the understanding gained
through doing (‘knowing’) that leads to concerted action
• Arising from these, social learning is thus an emergent property of the
process of transforming a situation (Fig. 1.3); (Collins and Ison 2009b;
SLIM 2004b)
The metaphor of an orchestra helps to reveal what we mean by both
social learning and systemic inquiry: an orchestra is something that can be
invested in; it is thus referred to and understood as an entity. At the same
time what is being invested in is the on-going capacity to create, adapt and
deliver performances by a group of people with different instruments, skills,
perspectives, histories and so on, that satisfy some socially determined
purpose – such as a performance that people pay to attend, or as an iconic
investment that communicates a city’s artistic and cultural commitments. In
terms of progressing climate change adaptation, for example, social learning
can also be understood as a governance mechanism or policy instrument and
systemic inquiry as an incipient social technology.9
With awareness, systemic inquiry invites a consistent way of being
within an on-going inquiry process (e.g. living life as inquiry). Systemic
inquiry has another primary concern – that of taking ‘a design turn’, the pro-
ducts of which can be understood as ‘learning or inquiring systems’.

8
In presenting Checkland’s model for enacting a systemic inquiry I am not presenting a blueprint
or plan for doing systemic inquiry. As I have, or will outline, I am not committed to all the verbs
that Checkland uses in his model nor am I committed to the problem metaphor. Consistent with
SSM practice one should always feel free to act with awareness and change the verbs (activities)
in the model recognising that in the process a new system of interest is created.
9
Our theoretical approach to social learning is discussed in full elsewhere (see Blackmore et al.
2007; Collins et al. 2007; Collins and Ison 2009a; Collins et al. 2009).
10.4 An Example of Setting Up a Systemic Inquiry 259

10.4 An Example of Setting Up a Systemic Inquiry

Beginning in 2003, with colleagues, I was engaged in a systemic inquiry within the
Environment Agency of England and Wales (EA). The purpose of our engagement
was to undertake research to support the implementation of the Water Framework
Directive (WFD) through introduction and use of social learning approaches.
Integration was and remains a key theme for the WFD. This includes not only inte-
gration across media – land, surface and ground waters – but also between different
stakeholder interests: environmental, economic and social. Within the Agency, tack-
ling this task of integration was initially supported through an ambitious WFD
Program structure. This included a large number of projects and within some of
these, such as River Basin Planning (RBP), a large number of work packages.
At the same time, a strategy for engagement with diverse stakeholder interests
at multiple geographical levels had to be developed through a Public Participation
work package. Subsequent to our initial scoping work there was growing recogni-
tion that project management protocols which set out in detail each stage of a
project were hindering learning and effective achievement of that project’s overall
objectives. This was because the focus on ‘doing’ the activities identified in
the project specification prevented attention being given to what was actually
being learned during the project. We argued that apart from being an emerging
issue in the RBP Project, in the longer term, this was an important lesson for
the Agency’s approach to the WFD Program as a whole and to its operational
implementation.
We noted that a systemic, learning approach required a shift in thinking/
practice and the development of new skills. This is because ‘social learning’ for
concerted action depends on the perceived interdependencies of stakeholders.
This meant that continuing to operate as individuals (or individual functions)
was unlikely to enable these interdependencies to be perceived and acted upon
whereas a systemic learning approach can help stakeholders explore and make
sense of their inter-dependencies and work out how their collective roles can be
complimentary.

10.4.1 Contracting a Systemic Inquiry

The work we did with the EA between 2003 and 2008 was framed by us, and in
an initial contract, as a systemic inquiry. Some extracts from the contract which
framed our initial research work with the EA are given in (Box 10.2).10

10
I have already provided detail on the ethics statement included in the contract in Chapter 5 –
see Box 5.2).
260 10 Systemic Inquiry

Box 10.2 Details of the Systemic Inquiry Set Up Under Contract

with the Environment Agency (England and Wales)

Objectives
The overall objective of this work is to inform the development of the River
Basin Planning strategy and more broadly, to make a timely improvement to
the effectiveness of the Agency’s WFD (Water Framework Directive)
Programme, drawing on social learning practices and concepts.
The specific objectives are:
1. To introduce the concept of ‘social learning’ to the Environment Agency,
applying it initially as a tool to facilitate the development of, and decision-
making within, the River Basin Planning (RBP) and Programme of
Measures (PoMs) projects. This will also inform the emerging Public
Participation strategy and help ensure its ability to evolve over successive
WFD cycles to meet external aspirations, as well as the requirement to
achieve ‘active involvement’ of stakeholders in the operational implementa-
tion of the WFD
2. To develop capacity building for social learning at Programme Board/
Functional Head level. The Agency has expressed a preference for ‘evo-
lution rather than revolution’ in WFD implementation, but in the medium
term, difficult decisions will have to be made if implementation is to be
fully effective in achieving an integrated approach to environmental man-
agement. Social learning could provide a critical aid to effective decision
making in this context
3. To begin to build capacity for social learning at the local level through
the Business Implementation project. Making it Happen commits the
Agency to increasing partnership working with external bodies. The con-
cept of social learning will ultimately be embodied in the WFD Public
Participation strategy and social learning approaches will not only ensure
that ‘active involvement’ is demonstrable, but also help develop local
skills that will be increasingly important outside our WFD activities.
Content and Outputs
Building on SLIM-UK’s original tender to the Agency for the Public
Participation (PP) strategy work and the subsequent Agency ‘Form A’ on
social learning derived from this, a meeting was held on 25 November 2003
between the Agency’s RBP project and the Open University’s SLIM-UK
team (hereafter referred to as the ‘OU team’).
At this meeting five content areas11 (referred to hereafter as ‘work
streams’) were agreed as a way of structuring the research. We also agreed

(continued)
11
The fifth work stream was the production of a refereed scientific paper with our co-researchers –
thus I only deal with the first four here.
10.4 An Example of Setting Up a Systemic Inquiry 261

Box 10.2 Details of the Systemic Inquiry Set Up Under Contract

with the Environment Agency (England and Wales) (continued)

that for each of these work streams there would be activities and outputs we
could specify in advance; and others that by the very nature of this work,
would be emergent. These five work streams were further discussed at a
meeting on 1 December and agreed as follows:
Work stream 1: Intellectual framing of social learning
This first work stream will focus on literature (including ‘grey literature’)
reviews of social learning, its origins and its application, for example in the
context of water management and planning. The purpose being to support
intellectual framing and understanding of this area of practice. For example,
this could be focused on recovering Agency stories that are illustrative of
social learning and setting them in the context of a theoretical discussion.
Reports to be produced for key (internal and/or external) audiences, as
and when specified under work stream 4.
Focus of literature reviews also to be specified, as above.
Output: report.
Work stream 2: Participant conceptual advice and feedback
This second work stream is concerned with specific pieces of conceptual
advice and feedback where we consider that the advice of the OU team
would ‘add value’ to work currently being undertaken/planned in different
parts of the public participation (PP) work package/RBP project/WFD
programme. The term ‘participant advice’ refers to the supporting and
co-development rather than leading nature of this advice.
An initial specification would need to be worked up around the targeting of:
• Key elements of the Public Participation work package, including those
concerning social learning, but potentially also including others e.g. mod-
els of public participation
• Other elements within the RBP project
• Elements within the wider WFD programme e.g. skills and capacity
building within the Business Implementation project.
Outputs: papers and editorial work to be mutually agreed.
Work stream 3: Systemic inquiry
This refers to the process of embedding social learning within the RBP and
PoM projects (objective 1) the Business Implementation project (objective 3)
and the wider WFD programme (objective 2). ‘Systemic inquiry’ is con-
ceived of as a cyclic process of learning by doing (experiencing), reflecting,
conceptualising (and then planning a further cycle of learning). For each pro-
ject we will work with a bounded ‘community of inquiry’ (within which

(continued)
262 10 Systemic Inquiry

Box 10.2 Details of the Systemic Inquiry Set Up Under Contract

with the Environment Agency (England and Wales) (continued)

there might be several cycles and orders of learning occurring). The purpose
of these systemic inquiries would include:
• Learning about the benefits and risks of social learning, especially in sup-
porting more effective River Basin Planning; Programme of Measures;
and Business Implementation
• Learning how social learning can be extended to the engagement between
Agency staff and stakeholders, and between Agency staff and contractors
• Evaluating how social learning approaches have benefited RBP tasks.
We anticipate that the bulk of research will fall within this work stream.
Output: a brief (evaluative) report of the process (including recommenda-
tions for further inquiry cycle(s)) to be produced on completion of one or
more bounded inquiry cycles (see Collins et al. 2005).
Work stream 4: Project management
The first three work streams should be nested within a project management
work stream which itself involves a cycle of reflective evaluation and manage-
ment. The aim of the fourth work stream is to gain a better understanding of
the constraints and opportunities for social learning within the Agency culture.
One or more management cycles should be designed within the total budget.
The project will be managed by a small Steering Group. Steering Group
meetings will be held as needed and should also include enthusiastic indivi-
duals who wish to contribute to the development of insights about social
learning under this work stream. The OU team will be responsible for pre-
paring minutes of these meetings that shall be a simple record of agreed
actions, decisions and emerging learning points.
At the start of each management cycle there should be agreement as to
what work is specified within that cycle and how much room there is for
emergent work within that cycle.
Outputs: Minutes of steering group meetings. Each cycle should end with a
brief evaluation report plus a more comprehensive report at the end of the final
cycle.

10.4.2 Interpreting Our Contract

All contracts arise out of certain circumstances and ours was no different. The con-
tract detail in Box 10.2 therefore requires some interpretation. If you read the mate-
rial in Box 10.2 closely some lack of clarity between the terms ‘inquiry’ and
‘project’ will be apparent. I would argue that this was not lack of conceptual clarity
on our part but indicative of the circumstances i.e., an organisation in which
10.4 An Example of Setting Up a Systemic Inquiry 263

all external supplies of services were organised through contracts and where the
dominant form of service was to ‘undertake a project’. Thus, for us the fourth
inquiry ‘project management’ was actually ‘systemic inquiry management’ but as
we were already challenging the boundaries of common practice we were obliged to
stay with the known language. Work streams four and three can thus be understood,
in our terms, as nested inquiries conceptualised in the manner depicted in Fig. 10.1.
Of course, contracts do not just happen – there is always the work leading up to
the issuing and framing of a contract. As with any form of purposeful activity the
initial starting conditions usually determine what is, or is not feasible. It thus becomes
interesting to ask: when did our systemic inquiry begin? My answer would be: ‘well
before the contract formulation and signing stage’. With this in mind, I want to out-
line some of the main activities that comprised the enactment of our systemic inquiry.

10.4.3 Enacting Our Systemic Inquiry

In this section I want to highlight some of the main activities we undertook as part
of our systemic inquiry, remembering that systems practice is the key praxis ele-
ment in enacting a systemic inquiry. In reading this section it is important to
appreciate that there was never at any stage a grand plan – a systematic procedure
or recipe to follow because at the same time as enacting our systemic inquiry we
were trying to work out what doing a systemic inquiry was, or could be! We were
thus always trying to juggle our thinking and doing at two conceptual levels.
Fortunately, we were also guided by Checkland’s articulation of a system to do a
systemic inquiry (Fig. 10.2) though at no stage did this become a blueprint.
In the case of our EA systemic inquiry this is what we did:
1. We provided the head of Social Science research in the EA and some of his
colleagues, through the conduct of semi-structured interviews, the experience
of being actively listened to – in the sense discussed in Chapter 9
2. When invited to tender for a project to do with EA concerns about public parti-
cipation and social learning we critically examined their expression of need
and found it wanting (from our perspective). We wrote back but did not submit
a tender bid against the specifications. Instead we wrote saying what we would
do and why if given the chance. In this sense, our practice resembled that of
Patricia Shaw outlined in Chapter 5 (Section 5.6). The outcome of this action
was an invitation from the EA to submit a proposal based on what we proposed
3. Before finalising a contract, we rapidly immersed ourselves in the context of the
EA’s RBP programme. This included meetings with key stakeholders within the
EA and then conducting an initial workshop which was designed to ‘make
sense of the situation’ by surfacing multiple partial perspectives and to build a
conversational milieu between those who we found isolated from each other
through the unintended consequences of the PRINCE2 project management pro-
cedures. This workshop included the use of group-based systems diagramming
e.g. Fig. 9.3. This experience helped to shape the final form of our contract and
convinced us that it made sense to frame the situation we were entering as one
264 10 Systemic Inquiry

characterised by complexity, uncertainty, interdependencies, controversy, and

multiple stakeholdings12
4. Over the period of a year we ‘teased out accommodations’ (e.g. by using an
understanding of the politics of the situation to design workshops) and
5. ‘Defined possible actions’ (e.g. by orchestrating debate about the congruence,
or lack of it, between systemic models and what was happening or not).
The overall inquiry (system) was monitored, measures of performance articu-
lated against mutually acceptable criteria that worked specifically in this situation
(the three e’s of efficacy, efficiency and effectiveness) and control action taken
(see Collins et al. 2005 for more details).
The engagement with the EA around river basin planning (RBPlg) began in late
2004 and continued until early 2006. During this period, we convened six work-
shops on various aspects or topics relating to RB Planning such as ‘decision-mak-
ing’; ‘integration’; convergence [of organisational practices]; and ‘stakeholding’.
The exact format, methods and tools utilised in the workshops varied according to
the issues under discussion, the audience, the purpose of the event and its duration.
As outlined in Ison et al. (2007b) ‘in broad terms, the workshops were divided into
four main parts. The first part of the workshops aimed to expose differences in under-
standing among the participants. This was done in activities using non-linear ways of
presenting, using and analysing information (through, for example, developing rich
pictures, metaphors, conversation maps). The second part of the workshops helped
define the nature of the issue emerging from the earlier discussions. This was often
done through plenary discussion and reflection on what had emerged from the first
part, with some element of distillation of the core themes. The third part identified a
series of activity models to enable participants to gain more systemic understanding of
the issues and enable staff to progress the situation. The workshops ended with a plen-
ary, in which proposals for next steps and review of learning and evaluation occurred.’

10.4.4 Changing Understandings Can Change Practices

Can Change Understandings

The contract outlined in Box 10.2 was a first for the EA. In follow up evaluation
at the end of the first phase (after 1 year) some of the EA managers with whom
we worked, who in the main had a technical (e.g., engineering) or scientific back-
ground were able to say:
• After months of work, it was such a relief finding out that the WFD was diffi-
cult and it was not just me being stupid
• We use the word integration all the time. But this is the first time we’ve ever
had a conversation about its meaning!

12
Although this particular framing has its origins in natural resource dilemmas our experience is that
it can be equally useful as a framing of situations in large and complex organisations such as the EA.
10.4 An Example of Setting Up a Systemic Inquiry 265

• We need to learn our way into this because we’ve never done anything like
this before; and it’s obviously a new form of learning that involves doing it
together. So it’s social rather than technical
• We know through the work of the RBP project that the only way to do this thing
called river basin planning is through a learning and adaptive management pro-
cess. We will never be able to get sufficient agreement (either internally or from
our stakeholders) to operate in a stable environment. There are consequences of
this reality that we seem unable to face up to … there is a fundamental issue some-
where that we as managers have failed to manage. It’s broken. We need to fix it.
What happened that these managers felt able to say what they said? From my per-
spective, they engaged in a systemic inquiry which created the circumstances in
which they came to realise the need to abandon certainty and to value the benefits of
a social learning systems approach. It is my contention that systemic inquiry and
social learning are important elements of a much-needed form of governance that is
systemic and adaptive and fit for managing our co-evolutionary trajectory.13 Whilst a
governance framework moves beyond management, our experience is that it is
important that the praxis (theory informed practical action) elements associated with
enacting governance are not lost. For example, Collins and Ison (2009b) argue the
case for building a praxis of ‘integrated catchment managing’ rather than the more
widely accepted ‘integrated catchment management’ because they see the latter as
mainly descriptive and missing an effective form of praxis.
There is still more to be understood about how best to set up and institutiona-
lise a systemic inquiry. Our experience with the EA was a positive one for all con-
cerned. At the same time I and other colleagues had initiated a significant
systemic inquiry within the Open University. Our experience over 5.5 years with
this inquiry provides other evidence to support a case for further investment in,
and capability building for, establishing and enacting systemic inquiries. The
effectiveness of systemic inquiry, or co-inquiry, designed and run by systems
practitioners, to generate changes in understandings and practices i.e., social learn-
ing, is, in my experience beyond doubt. There are however major on-going chal-
lenges in terms of investment in, adoption of, and institutionalising the approach.

10.4.5 Other Evidence

The PersSyst Project represented an investment of about £1 million over 5 years

by The Open University (OU) to develop systems thinking and practice skills as a
basis for ‘distributed leadership’ for managing complexity. An initial aspiration
was to explore whether it was possible to provide evidence for claims that the
University could be understood as a ‘learning organisation’.14 PersSyst, a title

13
Of course I do not make the claim that these are the only innovations necessary.
14
I have sadly come to the conclusion that as currently constituted within a globalising Higher
Education sector it is virtually impossible for any University to become a learning organisation.
266 10 Systemic Inquiry

coined from the words Personnel and Systems, was an ambitious collaboration
between staff in an academic unit (formerly Systems) and staff within the organi-
sational development arm of the Personnel, now HR (Human Resources) Division.
PersSyst was not set up as a traditional project (and thus managed in a typically
first-order project managing manner) but rather as a systemic inquiry encompass-
ing systemic action research elements. Consistent with second-order cybernetic
understandings the academics involved recognised that as researchers, facilitators,
etc. they were part of the situation – there was no external ‘objective’ position.

Illustration 10.1

PersSyst was set up as a systemic inquiry as we did not know how to introduce
systems thinking and practice capability into a large and complex organisation
like the OU. We realised that we had to learn our way towards effective action.
Space does not permit me to describe the many features of this endeavour – see
Armson (2011), Armson et al. (2010) and Ison and Armson (2006) – but I would
like to outline some of our initial design principles which remain relevant:
• Someone able to enact systems practice – a ‘good juggler’ is a central need15
• It is possible to work with others in a large organisation to develop capability
(and responsibility) for managing complex, messy situations and in the process
improving the situation
• Well crafted workshops can foster enthusiasm and build capability – thus creat-
ing a new cadre of systems practitioners (but this cannot be done quickly)

15
We need to ‘apprentice’ systems practitioners as jugglers. They can’t be ‘trained’ except for
some basic concepts and techniques. My experience is that they need to learn on the ground with
an experienced ‘juggler’ understood perhaps as the progression from apprentice, to journeyman
juggler and then master juggler!
10.5 ‘Institutionalising’ Systemic Inquiry 267

Over the period that PersSyst ran, the issues for which PersSyst interventions
were requested from OU staff included:
• Lack of team working
• Lack of a clear sense of purpose
• Issues around leadership
• Tensions between individuals
• Lack of synergy between different groups or projects and
• The need to deal with substantial changes.
In an independent evaluation, all PersSyst activities were shown to have had a
number of positive outcomes. These varied across interventions and included:
• More effective team working and performance
• Highlighting of important issues which could subsequently be addressed
• Improved collaboration or synergy between different teams, units, or departments
• Changes in work approaches
• Improved sense of clear purpose
• Improved leadership, and
• Improved strategic thinking.
In HR terms PersSyst was not a large investment yet it brought significant
returns to the University including a cadre of systems practitioners distributed
throughout the organisation responding to their circumstances more effectively.
In a celebration of PersSyst in September 2009 the former Director of HR was
able to reflect back on his experience of nearly 20 years of HR innovation and
claim that PersSyst was in the top two. Unfortunately, in praxis terms it proved
exceptionally difficult to hold on to the systemic inquiry framing for our activ-
ities beyond the first 3 years. ‘Mainstreaming’ all but spelt the death of the sys-
temic inquiry bringing as it did all the organisation’s ‘sunk’ resources in
‘projectification’. Ironically the act of mainstreaming commissioned PersSyst to
the margins!

10.5 ‘Institutionalising’ Systemic Inquiry

I want to provide two recent examples of institutional innovation that, from my

perspective, might more usefully have been set up as systemic inquiries. I offer
these examples in the spirit of Anthony Giddens (2009, p. 8) who argues that ‘to
develop a politics of climate change, new concepts are needed’. One might equally
add that to develop a praxis of climate change adaptation new, conducive, institu-
tional arrangements are also needed.
My first example is that of the Australian Murray-Darling Basin Authority
(MDBA) established at the end of 2008 as the organisation responsible for overseeing
the Water Act 2007 which transfers many powers previously held by State
Governments to the Australian Federal Government. The Murray-Darling, Australia’s
268 10 Systemic Inquiry

largest ‘river system’, is severely degraded and suffering the consequences of climate
change (i.e., increased temperatures and reduced rainfall which seems beyond the nor-
mal drought cycle that is common in Australia). As noted by Foerster et al. (2008):
A key element is a new level of planning and regulation. Federal water legislation sets
tight parameters for a new round of water allocation planning at the scale of the MDB
with plans for individual catchments to be accredited within this framework, with plans to
set environmentally sustainable limits on diversions. The Basin plan will also include
rules for the operation of water markets basin-wide, and for the delivery of environmental
water to environmental priorities across the MDB. The primary regulatory planning
responsibility is given to a new Commonwealth body, the Murray Darling Authority,
which will replace and absorb the MDB Commission. The Basin plan is intended to be
prepared in consultation with Basin States and communities, and the Act does make some
provision for consultation during the planning process, including the establishment of a
Basin Community Committee to assist in a process of community engagement. The depth
of the proposed consultation, particularly the extent to which it will move beyond consul-
tation with high level stakeholder groups, is not yet clear. There is much scepticism
among commentators over whether the new Commonwealth package will indeed achieve
its noble aims of reforming governance arrangements in the MDB to enable sustainable
water management in the national interest.

The new basin Plan was available for preliminary consideration in 2010 but
was highly contentious and divisive; for various reasons on-the-ground enactment
of the new plan will only begin in earnest in 2017–2019 (see Ison et al. 2018). In
the face of a crisis of nationwide significance this seems unacceptable. In using
this example I wish to make the point that in the face of the uncertainties, com-
plexities, interdependencies and multiple stakeholdings in the MDB an approach
to its managing is needed that is adaptive and contingent. In such situations, a
national systemic inquiry could have been chosen as an alternative governance
mechanism instead of a traditional regulatory, legislative and planning approach.
An effectively constituted systemic inquiry – after all the issues are unlikely to go
away in the short to medium term, if ever – could become a vehicle for the
deployment of social learning approaches and the adoption of systems practices.
Current forms of government in most western democracies despite their many
strengths are not well suited for managing long-term complex issues. My second
example is that of the ‘Climate Change Committee’ set up in Britain to oversee
climate legislation (the Climate Change Bill 2008). It has the task of advising
government on the level of carbon budgets and thus the optimal path towards
emission reduction targets (Giddens 2009, p. 81). The terms of reference for this
committee are anything but systemic; seemingly it is also not fit for purpose
because its role is only advisory to government. Giddens (2009, p. 116) argues
that it should have ‘capacity to intervene in legislation by, for example, having
clearly specified rights to take government to the courts if it has gone back on its
obligations’. He also notes that its composition is crucial and appointments
should not be made by ministers of the day. I would go further and claim that
this is exactly the situation for a national on-going Systemic Inquiry that institu-
tionalises and facilitates the key learning and strategic intelligence gathering
and responding necessary to enact climate change adaptation as a systemic
10.6 Systemic Inquiry and the ‘Design Turn’ 269

co-evolutionary practice.16 Recourse to the courts should be built in as an institu-

tional means to address the inadequacies of contemporary political power.
Capability building in systems practice throughout the public sector – the
necessary wherewithal to set up and enact a systemic inquiry – is an urgent need.
Seddon (2008, p. 196) argues, based on UK experience, that to change the current
regimes of government requires a new philosophy: ‘Instead of compliance we
need innovation, and to foster innovation we need freedom. People need to feel
free to act in the best interest of their stakeholders or, in Moore’s terms, to do
what is best in terms of their particular circumstances. To achieve that, we have to
make public-sector managers responsible. They have to be able to choose what to
do, free from the obligation of compliance. The way to foster innovation is by
changing the locus of control from the regime, which compels compliance, to the
public-sector manager, who is the person who actually needs to change’.17 One
way to achieve the transformation Seddon refers to would be to equip civil
servants and citizens as practitioners to take a ‘design turn’ in their practice.

10.6 Systemic Inquiry and the ‘Design Turn’18

There is no prescription for a systemic inquiry, they have to be designed. It can be

argued that in the context of systems practice, design is an involvement in an
activity that has many players and that translates human culture, technology and
aspiration into form (Coyne and Snodgrass 1991; Ison 1993; Ison et al. 2007b).
My concern for design grew initially from a recognition that the future form of
Australia’s semi-arid rangelands was more a question of design than the applica-
tion of rationalistic planning or science. My design focus was in part a response to
Hooker’s (1992) observation that: ‘The direct consequence of the profound
changes in the character and role of organised knowledge is that the future must
now be regarded as increasingly a human artefact – an art-in-fact. The future can
no longer be regarded as a natural object, a fact already there or objectively deter-
mined by present trends. Rather it must be chosen’.
What followed from these understandings was concerns, in our teaching and
research, for participation in designing (e.g. of research questions; research

16
In using these two examples I am trying to make the point that systemic inquiry is something
that can be run at the level of the nation or as an international ‘platform’. Examples of systemic
inquiry that can be set up and institutionalised as part of personal practice or in organisational
settings have already been given. Nor am I claiming that there are no examples already; perhaps
some international commissions, or the Club of Rome, could be understood in terms of a ‘sys-
temic inquiry’ but the point is they have not been institutionalised as such and it is not an option
that is currently considered by decision makers.
17
Mark Moore at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government coined the term ‘Public Value’ in
the mid 1990s. Seddon (p. 162–171) outlines how the concept of ‘public value’ has been taken
up and fostered in the UK (Seddon 2008).
18
This section draws heavily on Ison et al. (2007b).
270 10 Systemic Inquiry

projects; management plans, environmental decision making, etc.) and more

recently processes of deliberative systemic and adaptive governance, including
social learning. Our current understanding of design is similar to that of Glanville
(2002) who argues that ‘all research and all knowing/knowledge is a matter of
design’ (p. 120). In recent years, the primary vehicle for enacting our understand-
ings of design has been through designing and developing ‘learning systems’
(Blackmore 2005; Collins and Ison 2009b; Ison 1994, 2001; Ison and Russell
2000a), including curricula, and constituent courses, as well as ‘research-based
inquiry’, situation-improving action and for the ‘education’ of the ‘systems practi-
tioner’ (Blackmore and Morris 2001; Ison 2001).
What do I mean by a ‘learning system’? For Blackmore (2005) a learning sys-
tem comprises interconnected subsystems, made up of elements and processes that
combine for the purpose of learning. The placement of a boundary around this
system depends on both perspective and detailed purpose. From a first-order per-
spective the design of a learning system might seemingly involve combining ele-
ments and processes in some interconnected way as well as specifying some
boundary conditions – what is in, what is out – for the purposes of learning. The
specification of learning outcomes (often expressed as aims and/or objectives) in
the absence of any real contextual understanding about learners or stakeholders
predisposes, or restricts, most first-order learning system designs to this approach
(e.g. most Open University (UK) distance-learning courses). However, in our own
learning-system- design practice we have made the shift described by Bopry
(2001) as moving from prescription of instructional methods and means to the
development of cognitive tools to provide support for the activity of the learner.
With this shift we see a ‘learning system’ as moving from having a clear ontologi-
cal status (e.g. a course or a policy to reduce carbon emissions) to becoming an
epistemic device, a way of knowing and doing (sensu Maturana – see Maturana
and Poerkson 2004).
For example, it is possible to imagine systematically engaging in a systemic
inquiry into one’s own systems practice (a first order inquiry). By taking a design
turn – a shift in perspective and level, as well as in critical reflexivity – one can
take responsibility for the systemic design of one’s practice (e.g. at a personal
level) and context of practice (e.g., in the workplace). The shift in perspective by
moving to a second-order understanding is consistent with Blackmore’s (2005)
claim that appreciative systems (sensu Vickers 1983) are learning systems. This in
turn suggests a systemic design practice perspective that is more organic and
observer dependent viz: let us consider this situation as if it were a learning system
or how can I contribute to the design of a context in which my systems practice
flourishes?19
Reflecting this turn, Ison and Russell (2000b) suggest it is a first-order logic
that makes it possible to speak about, and act purposefully to design or model a

19
Thus Vickers’ retirement work could be framed as ‘I have found it useful to think of my life’s
work in terms of appreciative systems’.
10.6 Systemic Inquiry and the ‘Design Turn’ 271

‘learning system’. A second-order logic appreciates the limitations of the first-

order position and leads to the claim that a ‘learning system’ exists when it has
been experienced through participation in the activities in which the thinking
and techniques of the design or model are enacted and embodied. An implication
of this logic is that a ‘learning system’ can only ever be said to exist after its
enactment – that is on reflection. The second-order perspective is not a negation of
the first – they can be understood as a duality. The same logic applies to the
design of a systemic inquiry.20
First-order designing is synonymous with first-order cybernetic understandings, in
which goal seeking behaviour is the norm, control is considered possible and designs
have a blueprint quality. These parallel systematic, or goal seeking, ‘hard systems’
approaches (Checkland 1999), rather than systemic practice. Second-order designing
arises when the designer acts with awareness that they and their history are part of
the design setting. First-order design delivers an output, second-order design delivers
a performance better adapted to the circumstances (Collins et al. 2009).
These distinctions can be considered through the metaphor of a symphony
orchestra that I introduced earlier: one reading of the metaphor is that the music is
an output of the design of a set of instruments, another is that a musical perfor-
mance is an emergent property of a set of interacting factors – musicians each
with a history, orchestral practice, a score, and audience etc. In the second-order
case it is understood that each practice setting has (1) a context in which a perfor-
mance is enacted; (2) a person or persons – the practitioner(s) and (3) tools, tech-
niques, methods, methodologies etc. As outlined in Chapters 5–8 there is also a
fourth aspect which is not always so apparent – each element in the performance
has a history which can be explored and understood. There are always elements
with a history in a situation, the practitioners (each is a unique individual and
thinks and acts differently even though they may come from similar cultures) and
the tools, techniques, etc. (Fig. 3.5). There is also a history of performing in a par-
ticular way – what is recognised as good practice in one setting may not be the
same in another setting. The systemic connections between these elements are
important if a performance that is effective is to ultimately emerge.
These design considerations apply in any arena of practice, including that of
policy makers. Just as an OU academic is concerned with a student at a distance, a
civil servant policy maker is concerned with citizens at a distance (those who will
take up or be affected by a policy). In both cases the pedagogy and other elements

20
Jitse van Ameijde reflecting on what the design turn, entails said (pers comm. 2011): I would
say that the word ‘turn’ here is used in a similar way in which Werner Ulrich describes the notion
of taking a ‘critical turn’ - i.e., a change in how we appreciate our situation and subsequently
engage with it by incorporating a new (second-order) awareness. My understanding of the notion
of ‘design turn’ can perhaps best be related to the E(ngaging) and C(ontextualising) balls. In that
sense, it opens up a space in which we can reflect on our engagement with a situation as a pro-
duct of our own design i.e., rather than adopting a pre-conceived set of ideas or principles embo-
died in a given approach – such as project management, we start to appreciate the options we
have available for engaging with a situation in different ways and start to adjust (design) our
approach to the specific dynamics, requirements and constraints of the situation.
272 10 Systemic Inquiry

of the practice setting can trigger a first-order response (utilitarian or instrumental

learning or a knowledge transfer strategy), or a second-order response – creating
the circumstances whereby the learner/stakeholder in context is able to take
responsibility and orchestrate their own evolving praxis.
In the next chapter I turn to systemic action research which is an additional
way to frame systems practice and is complementary to systemic inquiry.

References

Armson R, Holwell SE, Ison RL et al (2010) Managing organizational complexity: project devel-
opment for building a university-based leadership community for systems thinking and sys-
tems practice (unpublished)
Armson R (2011) Growing wings on the way. Systems thinking for messy situations. Triarchy
Press, Axminster
Bawden RJ (2005) Systemic development at Hawkesbury: some personal lessons from experi-
ence. Syst Res Behav Sci 22:151–164
Blackmore C (2005) Learning to appreciate learning systems for environmental decision making –
a “work-in-progress” perspective. Syst Res Behav Sci 22:329–341
Blackmore, CP (2009) Learning systems and communities of practice for environmental decision
making. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, Communication & Systems Department, The Open
University, UK
Blackmore CP, Morris RM (2001) Systems and environmental decision making – postgraduate
open learning with the Open University. Syst Pract Action Res 14(6):681–695
Blackmore CP, Ison RL, Jiggins J (2007) Social learning: an alternative policy instrument for
managing in the context of Europe’s water. Environ Sci Policy 10:493–498
Bopry J (2001) Convergence toward enaction within educational technology: design for learners
and learning. Cybernetics & Human Knowing 8:47–63
Burns D (2007) Systemic Action Research. A Strategy for Whole System Change. Policy Press,
Bristol
Checkland, P (1994) Systems theory and management thinking, In Blunden, M. and Dando, M.
(eds) special issue of American Behavioural Scientist 38 (1), 75–91
Checkland, P (2002) ‘The role of the practitioner in a soft systems study’, notes of a talk given
to OuSyS and UKSS, Saturday 8th December 2001, in Quarterly Newsletter of the Open
University Systems Society (OUSyS), Open University: Milton Keynes, No. 27, March 2002,
pp. S5–S11
Checkland PB (1999) Soft Systems Methodology: A 30 Year Retrospective. Wiley, Chichester
Checkland PB, Winter M (2006) Process and content: two ways of using SSM. Journal of the
Operational Research Society 57:1435–1441
Checkland PB, Poulter J (2006) Learning for Action. A short definitive account of soft systems
methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers and students. Wiley, Chichester
Churchman CW (1971) The Design of Inquiring Systems: basic concepts of systems and organi-
zations. Basic Books, New York
Collins K, Blackmore C, Morris D et al (2007) A systemic approach to managing multiple per-
spectives and stakeholding in water catchments: Some findings from three UK case studies.
Environmental Science & Policy 10(6):564–574
Collins KB, Ison RL (2009a) Jumping off Arnstein’s ladder: social learning as a new policy para-
digm for climate change adaptation. Environmental Policy & Governance 19:358–373
Collins, KB and Ison, RL (2009b) Trusting emergence: Some experiences of learning about inte-
grated catchment science with the Environment Agency of England and Wales. Water
References 273

Resources Management (Published online: 27 May 2009) see http://www.springerlink.com/

content/f262271h16517072/ (accessed 17th May 2017)
Collins, KB, Ison, RL, and Blackmore, CP (2005) River basin planning project: social learning
(Phase 1). Environment Agency, Bristol, UK (http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/
epages/eapublications.storefront/461d27cd009bdf4e273fc0a80296067e/Product/View/
SCHO0805BJHK&2DE&2DE Accessed 17th May 2017
Collins KB, Colvin J, Ison RL (2009) Building ‘learning catchments’ for integrated catchment
managing: designing learning systems and networks based on experiences in the UK, South
Africa and Australia. Water Science & Technology 59(4):687–693
Cooperider, DL, Srivastva, S (1987) Appreciative inquiry in organizational life, In: R. Woodman
and W. Passmore (eds) Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 1: JAI
Press: Greenwich, CT.
Coyne R, Snodgrass A (1991) Is designing mysterious? Challenging the dual knowledge thesis.
Design Studies 12:124–131
Dewey J (1933) How We Think. A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the
Educative Process, revised edn. D.C. Heath, Boston
Foerster A, Ison RL, Godden L (2008) Systemic and adaptive water governance: Reconfiguring
institutions for social learning and more effective water managing? Concept Paper for a
Program of Research prepared for a seminar to explore the role of social learning in water
policy and law Friday 5 December 2008 (unpublished).
Foster N, Collins KB, Ison RL, Blackmore CP (2016) Water governance in England: Improving
understandings and practices through systemic co-inquiry. Water 8:540. doi:10.3390/
w8110540
Giddens A (2009) The Politics of Climate Change. Cambridge, Polity
Glanville R (2002) A (cybernetic) musing: some examples of cybernetically informed educa-
tional practice. Cybernetics Human Knowing 9:117–126
Gotches G, Ludema J (1995) An interview with David Cooperider on appreciative inquiry and
the future of OD. Org Dev J 13:5–13
Helme Marion (2002) Appreciating metaphor for participatory practice: constructivist inquiries in
a children and young people’s justice organisation. Unpublished PhD Thesis. The Open
University, Milton Keynes
Hooker CA (1992) Value and system: notes toward the definition of agriculture. Proc. Centenary
Conference, Agriculture and Human Values. UWS-Hawkesbury
Ison RL (1993) Changing community attitudes. Rangeland J 15:154–66
Ison RL (1994) Designing learning systems: how can systems approaches be applied in the train-
ing of research workers and development actors? Proceedings International Symposium on
Systems-oriented Research in Agriculture and Rural Development Vol. 2. Lectures and
Debates. pp. 369–394. CIRAD-SAR, Montpellier
Ison RL (2001) Systems practice at the United Kingdom’s Open University. In: Wilby J,
Ragsdell G (eds) Understanding complexity. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New
York, p 45–54
Ison RL (2005) Traditions of understanding: language, dialogue and experience. In: Keen M,
Brown VA, Dyball R (eds) Social learning in environmental management. Towards a sustain-
able future. Earthscan, London, p 22–40
Ison RL, Armson R (2006) Think, Act & Play im Leadership der Kybernetik zweiter Ordnung.
Lernende Organisation. Zeitschrift fur systemishes Management und Organisation No 33,
September/Oktober (www.lo.isct.net) ISSN 1609-1248 pp 12–23. [Published by: Institut für
Systemisches Coaching und Training, Zielorientierte Entwicklung von Menschen, Teams &
Unternehmen GmbH, Lange Gasse 65 A-1080 Wien, Austria]
Ison RL, Russell DB (2000a) Exploring some distinctions for the design of learning systems.
Cybernetics Human Knowing 7(4):43–56
Ison RL, Russell DB (eds) (2000b) Agricultural extension and rural development: breaking out
of traditions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (pp 239)
274 10 Systemic Inquiry

Ison RL, Bawden RD, Mackenzie B, et al (2007a) From sustainable to systemic development: an
inquiry into transformations in discourse and praxis, Invited Keynote Paper, Australia New
Zealand Systems Conference 2007, “Systemic development: local solutions in a global envir-
onment” 2–5 December 2007, Auckland, New Zealand
Ison RL, Blackmore CP, Collins KB et al (2007b) Systemic environmental decision making:
designing learning systems. Kybernetes 36(9/10):1340–1361
Ison RL, Carberry P, Davies J et al (2014) Programs, projects and learning inquiries: institutional
mediation of innovation in research for development. Outlook Agric 43(3):165–172
Ison RL, Alexandra J, Wallis PJ (2018) Governing in the Anthropocene: cyber-systemic anti-
dotes to the malaise of modern governance. Sustain Sci (submitted)
Klein L (2005) Systemic inquiry – exploring organizations. Kybernetes 34(3/4):439–447
Kuenkel P (2015) Navigating change in complex multi-actor settings. A practice approach to
better collaboration. J Corp Citizensh 58. doi:10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2015.ju.000012
Maturana H, Poerkson B (2004) From being to doing: the origins of the biology of cognition.
Carl-Auer, Heidleberg
Open University (1998) Environmental decision making. A systems approach (T860). Open
University, Milton Keynes
Reason P, Rowan J (eds) (1981) Human Inquiry: a sourcebook of new paradigm research. Wiley,
Chichester
Rowan J (2001) The humanistic approach to action research. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds)
Handbook of action research. Sage, London
Schön DA (1995) The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change November/
December, 27–34
Seddon J (2008) Systems thinking in the public sector: the failure of the reform regime… and a
manifesto for a better way. Triarchy Press, Axminster
SLIM (2004a) Developing conducive and enabling policies for concerted action. SLIM Policy
Briefing No. 5. 4p. SLIM. Available at http://slim.open.ac.uk/objects/public/slimpb7final.pdf
SLIM (2004b) SLIM Framework: social learning as a policy approach for sustainable use of
water. 41p. Available at http://slim.open.ac.uk. Accessed 17 May 2017
Torbert WR, Cook-Greuter SR (2004) Action inquiry: the secret of timely and transforming
leadership. Berrett – Koehler Publishers, San Francisco
VCOSS (Victorian Council of Social Service) (2015) Walk alongside: co-designing social initia-
tives with people experiencing vulnerabilities. VCOSS, Melbourne
Vickers G (1965) The art of judgement: a study of policy making. Chapman and Hall, London
Vickers G (1970) Freedom in a rocking boat: changing values in an unstable society. Penguin,
Harmondsworth
Vickers G (1983) Human systems are different. Harper and Row, London
von Foerster H, Poerkson B (2002) Understanding systems. Conversations on epistemology and
ethics. IFSR International Series on Systems Science and Engineering, Vol 17. Kluwer/
Plenum: New York
Winter M, Checkland PB (2003) Soft systems: a fresh perspective for project management. Civ
Eng 156(4):187–192
Chapter 11
Systemic Action Research

Abstract Systemic action research, the focus in this chapter, can be understood as
an antidote to non-reflexive research practice. The chapter begins by reflecting on
research practice because it is the practice most associated with the production of
new knowledge. A critique is provided from the normative position that any prac-
tice that only concerns itself with the so-called ‘discovery of new knowledge’ falls
short of responsible practice. It does so, whether implicitly or explicitly, through
the failure to recognise that any research practice is first and foremost a socially
embedded practice. Action research is transformed into systemic action research
whenever those involved act, or strive to act, with epistemological awareness. The
motivation for distinguishing systemic action research from action research is to
draw attention to the need for the researcher to take responsibility for their episte-
mological commitments. Examples of systemic action research are provided.

11.1 Changing Your Situation for the Better

In Chapter 6 I offered some reflections by the late Donald Schön in which he

talked about the ‘dilemma of rigor or relevance’ that all professional practitioners
face at some time or another. Some, he said, ‘stay on the high ground of technical
rationality’ whereas others descend into ‘the swamp of real-life issues’ (Schön
1995). When I first read Schön’s words I was surprised by his perspicacity. In the
1980s I began the process of making such a choice; from 1984 I ran my research
on parallel tracks – traditional plant biological/ecological research on the one hand
and action research projects, beginning with the Australian Seed Industry Study
on the other (Ison et al. 1989; Potts and Ison 1987). Now, having considerable
experience of both types of research, I am in a position to appreciate the strengths
and limitations of both.
Much has been written about action research. It is not my aim to add to this
literature but to make the case as to why systemic action research (a significant
elaboration of action research as I outline below) constitutes a useful and under-
exploited vehicle for enacting systems practice in situations of complexity and
uncertainty. I have been engaged in action research projects since the mid-1980s

© The Open University 2017 275

Published in Association with Springer-Verlag London Limited
R. Ison, Systems Practice: How to Act, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9_11
276 11 Systemic Action Research

and have seen the acceptance of action research in most, but not all, circles grow
during that period. Along with the now vast literature is a plethora of approaches
to action research praxis (Barton et al. 2009; Bradbury and Reason 2001; Flood
2000; Ison 2008; Reason and Bradbury 2008). On the other hand, less has been
written about systemic action research (see Bawden and Packham 1991; Burns
2007; Ison and Russell 2000a; Russell 1986).
In this chapter I want to begin by reflecting on research practice because that is
the form of practice that most people associate with the production of new knowl-
edge. As I have outlined in several chapters this common view – research pro-
duces knowledge – is not one that I hold personally (Ison and Russell 2000b).
This quote from Reichelt et al. (2016) describes the mainstream view, the dominant
paradigm:
It is claimed that ICT [information and communication technologies] provide incalculable
opportunities for communication, knowledge sharing and social networking by collapsing
time and space …. Framing ICT this way implicitly or explicitly constructs a boundary
around knowledge as reified, commodified – or at least able to be stabilized for a period
of time (first-order knowledge) (p. 238).

As outlined by these same authors the mainstream paradigm has been found
wanting in multiple contexts triggering a shift described as (Reichelt et al. 2016):
from first- to third-order KM [knowledge management] [that] involves a boundary expan-
sion, encompassing more elements, greater awareness that practice necessarily is situated,
and explicit statement of participants’ theoretical assumptions and of the operating condi-
tions that shape knowledge/knowing practices. This shift tends to surface conflicts related
to each individual’s prior epistemological commitments, resource investment (time, effort,
money) and preferred praxis. (p. 239).

My preferred position is to recognise, that all knowing is doing and all doing is
knowing (see Chapter 5). As I do not want to trigger a defensive response on the
part of the reader let me state from the outset that I value highly the contributions
that scientific and other forms of research can make to our society. On the other
hand, although I see the doing of science and the conduct of evidence-based
research as necessary for dealing with our contemporary circumstances, I don’t
think it is sufficient.1 From my perspective systemic action research, my focus in
this chapter, can be understood as an antidote to non-reflexive research practice
and widespread scientism.
I start from a premise that much, if not most, that is done under the rubric
of research practice has a concern on the part of the practitioner with changing
situations for the better. From this normative position, any practice that only con-
cerns itself with the so-called ‘discovery of new knowledge’ falls short of

1
I could at this point have provided a critique of evidence-based decision making from a systemic
perspective but space does not allow – for some of the elements of such a critique see Mitchell
(1999) who argues for nursing ‘that the notion of evidence-based practice is not only a barren
possibility but also that evidence-based practice obstructs nursing process, human care, and pro-
fessional accountability.’
11.1 Changing Your Situation for the Better 277

responsible practice.2 It does so, whether implicitly or explicitly, through the

failure to recognise that any research practice is first and foremost a socially
embedded practice. As Law and Urry (2004) observe the ‘social sciences work
upon, and within, the social world, helping in turn to make and to remake it’. The
same applies, I would argue, to the so-called ‘natural sciences’. In this chapter I
will briefly look at some of the ways that social reality can be understood before
characterising mainstream research practice as a first-order practice. Drawing on
Russell and Ison (2000a) and Ison and Russell (2011), I will then outline the fun-
damentals of a second-order research practice exemplified by systemic action
research. I will pose the question: what makes ‘systemic action research’ sys-
temic? In the final part of the chapter I will exemplify from my own practice what
is entailed in doing systemic action research.

11.1.1 The Nature of the Social World

The question of what constitutes the ‘social’ is, in my experience, rarely engaged
with – it is a sort of taken for granted assumption that we all know! Having con-
cerned myself with this question the answer I find most satisfying is, following
Maturana, those instances when another arises as a legitimate other. From this per-
spective, I could claim that when President Obama did what he did prior to 2009
(if Freedland’s descriptions were accurate – see Chapter 9) then in his interactions
with others the social emerged. However, it seems very apparent that the hostile
Congress and Senate during his presidency meant that what constitutes the social
according to my explanation rarely happened. In other words, for much of
Obama’s Presidency the US government was not a social system.
Within the logic of bringing forth our worlds, as discussed in Chapter 5, it fol-
lows that those who describe themselves as social and natural scientists could all
be understood to bring forth the social when they do what they do i.e., in bringing
forth understandings and descriptions of other humans, other species or the bio-
physical world. From this perspective, the common understandings of social and
natural create an unhelpful dualism. Such a dualism is not conducive to enacting
and enhancing the quality of a co-evolutionary dynamic between humans and the
biophysical world as described in Chapter 1.
John Law and John Urry (2004) claim to be concerned with the power of social
science and its methods, arguing that social inquiry and its methods are productive
because ‘they help to make social realities and social worlds – that is they do not
simply describe the world as it is, but also enact it’. They speak of future social
investigation getting involved in ‘ontological politics’ but now being stuck in a

2
In establishing the Open Systems Research Group and later the Applied Systems Thinking in
Practice (ASTiP) Group at the Open University we explicitly recognised that research was pur-
sued for a social purpose, in our case the pursuit of social justice.
278 11 Systemic Action Research

‘nineteenth century nation-state based politics that produces nineteenth century

realities.’ They go on to claim that the ‘social sciences’ need to re-imagine
themselves, their methods and their ‘worlds’ for a twenty-first century where
social relations appear increasingly complex, elusive, ephemeral and unpredict-
able. Also, that there is a need for ‘messy methods’ that deal more effectively with
‘the fleeting, distributed, multiple, non-causal, chaotic, complex, sensory, emo-
tional and kinasthetic’.3 From the perspective of their arguments systems practice
could be considered to exemplify a ‘messy method’.
Law and Urry (2004) also explore some implications for social science arising
from complexity theory particularly as a source of ‘productive metaphors and the-
ories for twenty-first century realities’. In their concerns for a new form of social
science research practice they note:
• ‘There is no innocence. But to the extent social science conceals its performa-
tivity from itself it is pretending to an innocence that it cannot have’
• ‘If methods are not innocent then they are also political. They help to make rea-
lities. But the question is which realities?’
Law and Urry implicitly invite a (re)consideration of what has to be experi-
enced to claim that something is ‘social’ as well as what is involved in generating
a scientific explanation and thus doing ‘social science’? I will return to these
points below, but first I want to characterise mainstream research as a form of
practice – what David Russell and I term first-order R&D.

11.1.2 The First-Order Research Tradition4

As Russell and Ison (2000a) note: ‘Knowledge’ and ‘applying knowledge’ are the
very language of R&D (research and development),5 a language that does not
acknowledge its dependency on interpretation. The notion of ‘information’ as it is
commonly used implies that an ‘external world’ is knowable in a way that is
independent of the user of the language. In the mainstream rationalistic tradition,6
the information and the knowledge are ‘out there’ and one can collect more and
more information about the external world and the greater the ‘knowledge base’,
the greater the chances of useful technology and better interventions. The current

3
Kinesthetic learning is when someone learns things from doing or being part of them. It is claimed
that learners have different learning styles which include visual learners, kinesthetic learners, and
auditory learners (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinesthetic_learning, Accessed 20 May 2017).
4
The material in this section and the following is edited and extracted from Russell and Ison
(2000a) and Ison and Russell (2011).
5
We use R&D as a noun to break out of the trap of the linear conception of research … and then
development.
6
See Understanding computers and cognition: a new foundation for design by Winograd and
Flores (1987).
11.1 Changing Your Situation for the Better 279

trend to make technology ‘user-friendly’ is indicative of the questioning of the

naive equation that more information equates with better results. While this ques-
tioning might not lead to a questioning of the theoretical paradigm itself, it will
lead to the increased development of a technology designed ‘to facilitate a dialo-
gue of evolving understanding among a knowledgeable community’ (Winograd
and Flores 1987, p. 76).
In a review of rural extension (Russell et al. 1989, 1991) the existing model of
agricultural or rural extension was shown not to work well at all. It constituted
neither good practice nor good theory. Promotion of innovative technology to the
rural community has been based predominantly on the linear extension ‘equation’:

research → knowledge → transfer → adoption → diffusion

A study of the effectiveness of this model showed that research results were
adopted by only a specific minority of farmers and that for the majority it was not
a viable strategy for agricultural improvement. Experience of the deficiencies of
this model in actual practice has led to the emergence of a very different concep-
tual system based on the idealised ‘farmer-led’ model (Chambers et al. 1989).
Despite the very real differences, both models incorporate current ways of think-
ing about and doing ‘extension’. We concluded, on the basis of experiences contri-
buting to our book in 2000 (Ison and Russell 2000b), that it was time to abandon
the term ‘extension’ altogether because of what it has come to mean in practice
along with a network of faulty assumptions embedded in its core.

Illustration 11.1

The term ‘extension’ arose from a particular tradition – from the North
American land grant university model meaning ‘to extend knowledge from a cen-
tre of learning to those in need of this knowledge.’ Extension in its practice
has remained captive of this initial western conception despite differences cultu-
rally apparent in say the German ‘beratung’ (to counsel or deliberate) and the
French move from ‘vulgarisation’ (to render popular) to ‘development agricole’
280 11 Systemic Action Research

(involving the whole farming community). More recently in Victoria, Australia

the term extension has been dropped in favour of ‘practice change’ but it is far
from clear that the conceptual underpinnings, and thus practice, have changed
significantly.
What I find particularly disturbing is that the experiences in agriculture and
rural development are not well appreciated in other domains of practice such as
medicine, but especially in those practices now emerging under the banner of cli-
mate change adaptation. It is possible to spot praxis traps whenever one encoun-
ters the language of information, knowledge or technology transfer.
The belief that knowledge could be ‘transferable’ has derived from the asso-
ciated belief that ‘communication’ was the process of transmitting information.
The media is convinced that we are now in the ‘Information Age’ so it is not sur-
prising that the most widely used metaphor for the practice of extension is that of
‘information transfer’. So embedded is this notion, so pervasive has been the
obviousness of electronic communication, that challenging the appropriateness of
continuing to use this metaphor, is to risk being considered absurd. Risky or not,
it must be done! The effectiveness of current practice continues to be judged and
to be judged negatively (Russell et al. 1989; Scoones and Thompson 1994). Not
only has the simple notion that knowledge can be transferred from one person to
another, as if it were a case of one computer ‘talking’ to another, been shown to
not work in practice, but biologically (as was discussed in Chapter 5), it is clearly
not possible.
Shannon and Weaver (1949) were the first to use the model of electronic infor-
mation transfer to refer to human communication. Simply put, they proposed that
ideas were coded into signals, the messages (by the sender), and then transmitted
to another person (the receiver) who then decoded the message back into the origi-
nal ideas. The root metaphor has had numerous elaborations in its application
such as those variously described as evidencing the conduit metaphor (Reddy
1979) or the hypodermic metaphor. In the first instance, ideas were seen as being
packaged into words so as to gain access to the original ideas. The hypodermic
understanding was obvious when there was an intention to persuade the other to
follow a certain course of action. The effective communicator could ‘get under the
skin’ of the other if he or she could present the information ‘persuasively’. David
Sless (1986) analysed a number of communication models showing how the basic
‘information transfer’ metaphor still dominated the thinking of many communica-
tion theorists.
The prevalence of this established way of understanding communication,
despite all the evidence to the contrary (Krippendorff 1993, 2009; Sless 1986)
shows how difficult it is to unearth a deeply embedded metaphor when it has taken
root in the society’s unconscious. The process of constructing more fitting meta-
phors will initially be awkward and cumbersome because we will inevitably
have a foot in the old camp of fixed reality, a condition of the knowledge transfer
idea, and a foot in the camp of multiple realities, the prerequisite for any new
constructions.
11.1 Changing Your Situation for the Better 281

The stages of the mainstream, first-order tradition can be characterised as:

1. The ‘problem’ is seen as a mismatch between what is scientifically known and
technically feasible, and what is current practice. The new technology is
designed by research scientists and is then transferred to the end-users who put
it into action to address the problem
2. Built into the belief of a technological solution is a conception of the benefits
that could be derived from better ‘production or innovation systems’ or, in the
case of the environment, a return to the ‘natural ecosystem’ state, without con-
sideration of who participates in defining ‘better’ nor how what is perceived as
‘natural’, by some, has come to be constructed
3. Social and political insights are specifically added to the R&D equation –
usually ex poste and in ways that desire social scientists to enhance the uptake
or adoption of research results
First-order R&D in its enactment is heavily influenced by the four factors I out-
lined in Chapter 9 as inimical to the flourishing of systems practice. First-order
R&D usually embraces the language of goals and targets. The project is usually
the main vehicle for practice. Awareness that there are choices to be made as to
how to frame situations rarely enters practice contexts and it is an arena in which
the apartheid of the emotions is firmly entrenched. Within research practice
second-order R&D and systemic action research offer an alternative and comple-
mentary framing for practice. With awareness, first and second-order R&D can be
understood as a duality – as potentially gaining the best of the systemic with the
systematic (Fig. 2.1).

11.1.3 Creating a Second-Order Research Tradition

Second-order R&D is built on our scientific understanding that human beings

determine the world that they experience (see Chapter 5). The application of science
demands that we reflect upon how we operate as perceiving and knowing ‘obser-
vers’ who bring forth their experiential worlds through the actual functioning of
their nervous systems and the cognitive operation of making distinctions: You have
to look in order to see!
The characteristics of second-order R&D can be summarised as:
• The doing (the praxis) is grounded in the extending of an invitation to, and the
willing acceptance by, another to join in making a space for mutually satisfying
action
• The reality that is brought forth includes the researcher. The relational process of
‘bringing forth’ constitutes a duality. Thus, it is not subjectivity – subjectivity
belongs to objectivity
• All participants share the responsibility associated with every outcome
282 11 Systemic Action Research

• It involves the study of relationships, particularly their nature and quality rather
than entities or objects (in its doing, relational capital is built)
• As science, it is grounded in the explanation of what is experienced (observed)
and, unlike philosophy, is not concerned with adherence to, or the explication
of, principles. It has no imperative character.
The need for explicit contextual grounding is at the heart of this conceptual devel-
opment. This contextual grounding has to do with an increasing understanding of
the social construction of the very concepts of the ‘research-development relation-
ship’, or any other form of practice and any situation to be understood or improved.
As outlined by Ison and Russell (2011) ‘each manner of engagement can be
considered as if a conversation – from the Latin, con versare, meaning to turn
together. From this perspective, a conversation is a form of action because one of
the implications of being human, and living in language, is that conversation is
the primary means by which we coordinate our behaviours. In a coupled first/
second order R&D system each manner of conversation can be usefully expressed
as a metaphor, and underpinning each metaphor is an epistemology (or theory of
knowledge) that has implications for understanding and action. For example, a
first-order engagement is often based on a conversation between the stakeholders
which is shaped by an emotion of satisfying a known need (information transfer to
solve a first order problem). In biological terms, this is the “seeking” and “reward”
sub-system. The root metaphor in this case is hunger/feeding relationship – the
need to satisfy some espoused need’.
The second-order features arise in a conversation between stakeholders that is
shaped by a very different emotion, namely, the desire to honour the other’s world-
of-experience as ‘other’. The overarching metaphor in this case is communication
understood in terms of the dance-ritual metaphor which is characterised by:
• Continuity and repetitiveness
• Its cooperative nature, and
• Its after effect … it is individually satisfying to all participants (Russell and
Ison 2005).
In epistemological terms, the second-order system builds relational capital and
follows a second-order logic. The practical implication is that the aware profes-
sional, working in the field, needs to be fluent (able to operate) in the two
‘language’ systems and the two emotional-flow systems in order to be able to deal
with both first and second order issues (Russell and Ison 2017).

11.2 What Makes Action Research Systemic?

My understanding of and approach to systemic action research has been heavily

influenced by collaborative work with David Russell and within the Hawkesbury
milieu and particularly the CARR (Community Approaches to Rangeland
11.3 Doing Systemic Action Research 283

Research Project) (Bawden 2005, Russell and Ison 2005, 2017). Working with
stakeholders in the semi-arid pastoral zone of New South Wales, Australia (Ison
and Russell 2000b) we used our understanding of systems thinking and systemic
action research to develop an approach to doing R&D (research and development)
relevant to the context of the lives of pastoralists in semi-arid Australia. Our
experience had been that many action researchers, whilst espousing a systemic
epistemology, often privileged in practice a systematic epistemology without
awareness that that was what they were doing i.e. in practice they wished to con-
serve the notion of a fixed reality and the possibility of being objective. My dis-
tinction between action research and systemic action research is grounded in the
ideas contained in Table 8.1. Expressed simply, the difference is that within sys-
temic action research the ‘researcher’ understands and acts with awareness that
they are part of the researching system of interest under co-construction, rather
than external to it.
The motivation for distinguishing systemic action research from action research
was to draw attention to the need, we believed, for the researcher to take responsi-
bility for their epistemological commitments. Following Bateson (1999/1972) we
understood epistemology as the exploration of the underlying premises of our
knowing, deciding and action. From this understanding it follows that any practice
that claims to be a form of research practice must account for shifts in the bases of
knowing, deciding and effective action. Action research is transformed into sys-
temic action research whenever those involved act, or strive to act, with epistemo-
logical awareness. It is this which ensures that what is done under the rubric of
action research is more than mere activity.
Burns (2007) argues also, ‘that systemic action research offers a “learning
architecture“ for change processes that draw on in-depth inquiry, multi-stakeholder
analysis, experimental action and experiential learning’ (p. 1). He has developed
his own approach to systemic action research (SAR) which is a ‘structured learn-
ing and research process which allows participants to engage with complex sys-
tems’ (Burns and Worsley 2015, p. 101).

11.3 Doing Systemic Action Research

An outcome of our CARR project was the design of a process to enable pastoral-
ists to pursue their own R&D activities – as opposed to having someone else’s
R&D outcomes imposed on them. Our design was built around the notion that
given the right experiences peoples’ enthusiasms for action could be triggered in
such a way that those with similar enthusiasms might work together. We under-
stood enthusiasm as (Ison and Russell 2000a; Russell and Ison 2000c):
• A biological driving force (enthusiasm comes from the Greek meaning ‘the
god within’. Our use of ‘god’ in this context has no connection with organised
religion – our position was to question the commonly held notion that
284 11 Systemic Action Research

‘information’ comes from outside ourselves rather than from within in response
to non-specific triggers from the environment)
• An emotion, which when present led to purposeful action
• A theoretical notion – in the sense of explanatory principles
• A methodology – a way to orchestrate purposeful action.
We spent a lot of time designing a process that we thought had a chance to trig-
ger peoples’ enthusiasms. Our process did in fact enable peoples’ enthusiasms to
be surfaced and led to several years of R&D activity on the part of some pastoral-
ists supported by ourselves but never determined by us – see Dignam and Major
(2000), for an account by the pastoralists of what they did. The process we
designed did not lead to R&D actions (purposeful activity) in any cause and effect
way, rather the purposeful activity taken was an emergent property of peoples’
participation in the systemic, experiential learning process that we had designed.
Our work has led to a four-stage model for doing systemic action research
grounded in second-order cybernetic understandings (Fig. 2.3). In summary, these
were:
• Stage 1: Bringing the system of interest into existence (i.e., naming the system
of interest)
• Stage 2: Evaluating the effectiveness of the system of interest as a vehicle to
elicit useful understanding (and acceptance) of the social and cultural context7
• Stage 3: Generation of a joint decision-making process (a ‘problem-determined
system of interest’) involving all key stakeholders
• Stage 4: Evaluating the effectiveness of the decisions made (i.e., how has the
action taken been judged by stakeholders?).
The way we went about designing the process (i.e., of doing each stage) is
described in detail in Russell and Ison (2000b, 2017). The enactment of the four
stages requires awareness of the systemic/systematic distinctions in action i.e. as
practice unfolds – they are not just abstracted descriptions of traditions. Our
experience is that this is not easy as our early patterning predisposes us to take
responsibility for someone else (tell them what to do), and to resort to an assump-
tion about a fixed reality and to forget that my world is always different from your
world. That is, we never have a common experience because even though we may
have the same processes of perceiving and conceptualising it is biologically
impossible to have a shared experience – all we have in common is language (in
its broadest sense) with which to communicate about our experience.
In Box 11.1 I describe the process for triggering enthusiasm which was gener-
ated from our research (Ison and Russell 2000a; Russell and Ison 2000a, b, 2000c).
I might add, that in the doing of this systemic action research project we also pro-
vided a scientific explanation of how enthusiasm operates. We did so by following
the steps identified by Maturana and Varela (1988) and Maturana (1988). Based on

7
In expressing it in this way it is not my intention to exclude the ‘ecological’ but to recognise
that what we regard as ecological is always brought forth in specific instances and contexts.
11.3 Doing Systemic Action Research 285

their neurobiological research and their concern for the question ‘how is it that we
can know’ they proposed that doing science, or providing a scientific explanation
for a phenomenon, can be best described as:
1. Describing a phenomenon that has been experienced and doing this in a way
that allows others to agree or disagree as to its existence
2. Proposing an explanation for the existence of this phenomenon. This explana-
tion functions as a ‘generative mechanism’ in the sense that when the mechan-
ism operates the phenomenon appears
3. Deducing from the first experience other experiences that are coherent with the
first, and which would result from the operation of this mechanism that has
been proposed as an explanation and
4. Experiencing the other phenomena that were deduced in step 3.8

Box 11.1 Triggering of Enthusiasm for Action as a Four Stage Process

• When potential stakeholders are invited to talk (to tell of their experience
past, present and anticipated future), the emotional connection occurs
through active listening – ‘I really want to hear what you have got to
say’. Genuine concern for the other is manifest in the conversation (lan-
guage in all its manifestations). Practices to create the environment for
enthusiasm to emerge through narrative were also developed (Russell and
Ison 2000c).
• In the course of being listened to (showing respect, not prejudging, nor
pushing one’s own agenda) an invitation is made consciously or uncon-
sciously. This provides space for options which lead to mutually satisfy-
ing action to be generated. In this process one is not naming these
options for the other. In this form of interaction there is the possibility of
self awareness and triggering of latent ideas or concepts.
• Action is taken in the domain of interactions – to maintain the conversa-
tion. Processes (1) and (2) will not lead to all individuals joining the con-
versation. Action does and continues to occur in other domains. For
some, however, new ways of being are triggered, the possibilities for
which existed all the time. Thus, there is no transfer of anything nor
working towards predetermined plans or goals. What is triggered is what
Maturana (1988, p. 42) describes as emotions and moods or body dispo-
sitions for actions and where he distinguishes ‘moods as emotions in
which the observer does not distinguish directionality or possibility of an
end for the type of actions that he or she expects the other to perform’.

(continued)

8
Maturana notes that while quantification is not essential to this process it may be useful in the
deductive phase.
286 11 Systemic Action Research

Box 11.1 Triggering of Enthusiasm for Action as a Four Stage Process

(continued)

• External resources (e.g., money, technology) become amplifiers or

suppressors of enthusiasms for action. In our research, we have encoun-
tered both.
A further two stages are necessary for the development of enthusiasm as
R&D methodology:
• Careful attention is necessary in the design of processes to bring people
together who share common enthusiasms for action. We came to understand
that consensus suppresses enthusiasm for action and that at many levels of
activity the search for consensus is an inappropriate objective. We experi-
ence this in everyday life when in our relationships we are often forced to
compromise and lose our energy and vitality for action. The alternative
to consensus is to value diversity or difference (Blackmore et al. 2007).
• Prior to about 1829 the word ‘enthusiasm’ was associated with the emer-
gence of the new radical religions and was seen as an emotional driving
power devoid of reason and rationality. To avoid the prospect of enthu-
siasm giving rise to ‘disordered intellect and action’, we propose the
need for cycles of critical reflection to be an essential part of the use of
enthusiasm as methodology. There are no doubt many ways which this
could be achieved (see Russell and Ison 2000c).

I include a description of this process for generating a scientific explanation to

make the point that one does not have to appeal to an independent reality to pur-
sue the generation of scientific explanations. In my experience, systemic action
research is also capable of generating rigorous, publically verifiable ‘knowledge’.

11.4 Enhancing Action Research with Systems Thinking

and Practice9

Many action researchers, including Kurt Lewin, often regarded as the originator of
Action Research (AR), have been influenced by systems thinking but what is not
always clear is the extent to which this is done purposefully – with awareness of
the different theoretical and practical lineages depicted in Fig. 2.3. Engaging with
systems offers a set of conceptual tools which can be used to good effect in AR
(e.g. Table 2.1). There are other potential advantages for AR practitioners. Firstly,

9
This section is an edited version of parts of Ison (2008).
11.4 Enhancing Action Research with Systems Thinking and Practice 287

systemic understandings enable reflections on the nature of research practice,

including AR practice itself. This, I suggest, can be understood by exploring
purpose. Secondly, there is a rich literature of how different systems approaches
or methodologies, including systems tools and techniques, have been employed
within AR projects to bring about practical benefits for those involved (e.g.
Checkland and Poulter 2006 – see also Chapter 12). I explore some of these
potential benefits in this final section.
The distinctions between what constitutes research (within the phrase systemic
action research or action research) and how it might be differentiated from ‘inquiry’
or ‘managing’ is, I suggest, contested. AR has been a concern within the ‘applied
systems’ lineage (Fig. 2.3) for over 30 years (Checkland and Holwell 1998a);
within this lineage Holwell (2004) proposes three concepts that constitute action
research as legitimate research: recoverability, iteration, and the purposeful articula-
tion of research themes. She exemplifies her claims with a description of ‘a program
of action research with the prime research objective of understanding the … nature
of the contracting relationship [within the UK National Health Service] with a view
to defining how it could be improved’ (p. 5). The project was ‘complex in execu-
tion, including several projects overlapping in time’ covering work from different
bodies of knowledge, and was undertaken by a seven-member multidisciplinary
team with different intellectual traditions. The issues explored crossed many organi-
sational boundaries; the work was done over a 4-year period and followed a three-
part purposeful, but emergent design (Checkland and Holwell 1998b).
Within the Checkland and Holwell lineage they emphasise that the research
process must:
1. Be recoverable by interested outsiders – ‘the set of ideas and the process in
which they are used methodologically must be stated, because these are the
means by which researchers and others make sense of the research’
2. Involve the researcher’s interests embodied in themes which are not necessarily
derived from a specific context. ‘Rather, they are the longer term, broader set
of questions, puzzles, and topics that motivate the researcher [and] such
research interests are rarely confined to one-off situations’ (I assume here they
might also claim that themes can arise through a process of co-research or
‘researching with’ (McClintock et al. 2003) and thus can be emergent as well)
3. Involve iteration, which is a key feature of rigour, something more complex
than repetitions of a cycle through stages ‘if thought of in relation to a set of
themes explored over time through several different organizational contexts’
(Holwell 2004) and
4. Involve the ‘articulation of an epistemology in terms of which what will count
as knowledge from the research will be expressed’ (Checkland and Holwell
1998b). As with Russell (1986) they further claim that the ‘literature has so far
shown an inadequate appreciation of the need for a declared epistemology and
hence a recoverable research process’ (p. 20)
What is at issue here, as described in Chapter 8 (Section 8.2.1) are the differ-
ences between what I have called big ‘R’ (a particular form of purposeful human
288 11 Systemic Action Research

activity) and little ‘r’ research (something that is part of daily life, as is learning
or adopting a ‘researching or inquiring’ attitude) although the boundaries are not
always clear. Take recoverability. How in practice is this achieved? The most
common form is to write an account of what has happened ensuring that certain
elements of practice and outcome, including evidence are described (e.g. FMS in
Fig. 3.5). But writing is itself a form of purposeful practice (done well or not
well) that is always abstracted from the situation – it is always a reflection on
action and is never the same as the actual doing. Of course, recoverability could
be achieved by other means – by participation (i.e. apprenticeship and the evolu-
tion of ‘craft’ knowledge) or through narrative, which may or may not be writ-
ing. It seems to me the key aspiration of recoverability is to create the
circumstances where an explanation is accepted (by yourself or someone else –
see Fig. 1.2) and as such to provide evidence of taking responsibility for the
explanations we offer. It has a ‘could I follow a similar path when I encounter a
similar situation’ quality about it. The alternative, as von Foerster (1992) puts it
is to avoid responsibility and claim correspondence with some external or trans-
cendental reality.
As I outlined at the beginning of this chapter, in my own case I came to action
research through my awareness that my traditional discipline-based research was
not addressing what I perceived to be the ‘real issues.’ I had a crisis of relevance
and rejected the high ground of technical rationality for the swamp of real-life
issues. Warmington (1980) was a major initial influence but my purpose was to do
more relevant big ‘R’ research for which I sought and successfully gained funding
(Potts and Ison 1987). It was during subsequent work on the CARR project, as
reported in Ison and Russell (2000b), that my own epistemological awareness
shifted – something that I claim is necessary for the shift from action to systemic
action research. My experience is that such a shift has an emotional basis; mine
stemmed from an emotionally experienced crisis of identity in which I had to con-
front the question of whether I cared more for what worked or for the belief sys-
tem I had implicitly accepted.
I have now come to an appreciation that the core concerns for systemic AR
practice are (1) awareness; (2) emotioning; and (3) purposefulness. As I outlined
in Chapter 9 the epistemologically aware researcher can be seen as both chorogra-
pher (one versed in the systemic description of situations) and choreographer (one
practised in the design of dance arrangements) of the emotions (Russell 1986). As
also acknowledged in the distinctions between participatory action research and
action science (Argyris and Schön 1991; Dash 1997) and first, second and third
person inquiry (Reason 2001) there is a need to be clear as to who takes responsi-
bility for bringing forth a researching system. Any account of big ‘R’ research
needs to ask the question ‘who is the researcher at this moment in this context? Is
it me, us or them?’ Answers to this question determine what is ethical practice,
bounding for example, what is mine from what is ours and what is yours (Bell
1998; Helme 2002; SLIM 2004). These same questions apply in any purposeful
intervention into a situation with the espoused intent of trying to make things bet-
ter. Systemic intervention is the subject of the next chapter.
References 289

References

Argyris C, Schön D (1991) Participatory action research and action science compared.
A commentary. In: Whyte WF ed. Participatory action research. Sage, Newbury Park, p 85–96
Barton J, Stephens J, Haslett T (2009) Action research: its foundations in open systems thinking
and relationship to the scientific method. Syst Pract Action Res 22:475–478
Bateson G (1999/1972) Steps to an ecology of mind. University Press, Chicago
Bawden RJ (2005) Systemic development at Hawkesbury: some personal lessons from experi-
ence. Syst Res Behav Sci 22:151–164
Bawden RJ, Packham RG (1991) Improving agriculture through systemic action research. In:
Squires V, Tow P (eds) Dryland farming systems: a systems approach. Sydney University
Press, Sydney, p 262–271. Chapter 20
Bell S (1998) Self-reflection and vulnerability in action research: bringing forth new worlds in
our learning. Syst Pract Action Res 11:179–191
Blackmore CP, Ison RL, Jiggins J (2007) Social learning: an alternative policy instrument for
managing in the context of Europe’s water. Environ Sci Policy 10:493–498
Bradbury H, Reason P (eds) (2001) Handbook of action research. Participative inquiry and prac-
tice. Sage, London
Burns D (2007) Systemic action research. A strategy for whole system change. Policy Press,
Bristol
Burns D, Worsley S (2015) Navigating complexity in international development. Practical
Action Publishing, Rugby
Chambers R, Pacey A, Thrupp L (eds) (1989) Farmer first. Intermediate Technology
Publications, London
Checkland PB, Holwell S (1998a) Action research: its nature and validity. Syst Pract Action Res
11:9–21
Checkland PB, Holwell S (1998b) Information, systems and information systems. Wiley,
Chichester
Checkland PB, Poulter J (2006) Learning for action. A short definitive account of soft systems
methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers and students. Wiley, Chichester
Dash DP (1997) Problems of action research – as I see it. Working Paper No. 14, Lincoln School
of Management, University of Lincolnshire and Humberside, p 9
Dignam D, Major P (2000) The graziers’ story. In: Ison RL, Russell DB (eds) Agricultural exten-
sion and rural development: breaking out of traditions. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, p 189–204
Flood RL (2000) The relationship of systems thinking to action research. In: Bradbury H,
Reason P (eds) Handbook of action research. Sage, London, p 133–144
Helme M (2002) Appreciating metaphor for participatory practice: constructivist inquiries in a
children and young people’s justice organisation. PhD Thesis, Systems Department, The
Open University
Holwell SE (2004) Themes, iteration and recoverability in action research. Information Systems
Research: Relevant Theory and Informed Practice (IFIP working group 8.2 conference),
Manchester, 15–17 July 2004, Kluwer
Ison RL (2008) Systems thinking and practice for action research. In: Reason P, Bradbury H
(eds) The Sage Handbook of action research participative inquiry and practice, 2nd edn.
Sage, London, p 139–158
Ison RL, Potts WHC, Beale G (1989) Improving herbage seed industry productivity and stability
through action research. Proc. XVI International Grassland Congress, Nice, pp 685–686
Ison RL, Russell DB (2000a) Exploring some distinctions for the design of learning systems.
Cybernetics Human Knowing 7(4):43–56
Ison RL, Russell DB (eds) (2000b) Agricultural extension and rural development: breaking out
of traditions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 239
290 11 Systemic Action Research

Ison RL, Russell DB (2011) The worlds we create: designing learning systems for the
underworld of extension practice. In: Jennings J, Packham RP, Woodside D (eds) Shaping
change: Natural resource management, agriculture and the role of extension. Australasia-
Pacific Extension Network (APEN), Australia, p 66–76
Krippendorff K (1993) Major metaphors of communication and some constructivist reflections
on their use. Cybernetics Human Knowing 2:3–25
Krippendorff K (2009) Conversation. Possibilities of its repair and descent into discourse and
computation. Constr Found 4(3):138–150
Law J, Urry J (2004) Enacting the social. Econ Soc 33(3):390–410
Maturana HR (1988) Reality: the search for objectivity or the quest for a compelling argument.
Irish J Psychol 9:25–82
Maturana HR, Varela FJ (1988) The tree of knowledge: the biological roots of human under-
standing. Shambhala, Boston
McClintock D, Ison RL, Armson R (2003) Metaphors of research and researching with people.
J Environ Plann Manag 46(5):715–731
Mitchell GJ (1999) Evidence-based practice: critique and alternative view. Nurs Sci Q
12(1):30–35
Potts WHC, Ison RL (1987) Australian Seed Industry Study. Occasional Publication No. 1,
Grains Council of Australia, Canberra. Vol. 1. 239 pp. Vol. 2 (Appendices). p 316
Reason P (2001) Learning and change through action research. In: Henry J ed. Creative manage-
ment. Sage, London
Reason P, Bradbury H (eds.) (2008) The Sage Handbook of action research participative inquiry
and practice, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, London
Reddy MJ (1979) The conduit metaphor – a case of frame conflict in our language about lan-
guage. In: Ortony A (ed.) Metaphor and thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Reichelt NT, Wallis PJ, Ison RL et al (2016) Mediating boundaries between knowledge and
knowing: ICT and R4D praxis. Outlook Agric 45(4):238–245
Russell DB (1986) How we see the world determines what we do in the world: Preparing the
ground for action research. Mimeo, University of Western Sydney, Richmond
Russell DB, Ison RL (2000a) The research-development relationship in rural communities: an
opportunity for contextual science. In: Ison RL, Russell DB (eds.) Agricultural extension
and rural development: breaking out of traditions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
p 10–31
Russell DB, Ison RL (2000b) Designing R&D systems for mutual benefit. In: Ison RL, Russell
DB (eds) Agricultural extension and rural development: breaking out of traditions.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 208–218
Russell DB, Ison RL (2000c) Enthusiasm: developing critical action for second-order R&D.
In: Ison RL, Russell DB (eds) Agricultural extension and rural development: breaking out of
traditions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 136–160
Russell DB, Ison RL (2005) The researcher of human systems is both choreographer and choro-
grapher. Syst Res Behav Sci 22:131–138
Russell DB, Ison RL (2017) Fruits of Gregory Bateson’s epistemological crisis: embodied mind-
making and interactive experience in research and professional praxis, Canadian Journal of
Communication 42(3):485–514
Russell DB, Ison RL, Gamble DR, et al (1989) A critical review of rural extension theory and
practice. Australian Wool Corporation/University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, p 67.
Russell DB, Ison RA, Gamble DR, et al (1991) Analyse Critique de la Theorie et de la Pratique
de Vulgarisation Rurale en Australie. INRA, France. p 79
Schön DA (1995) The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change November/
December 27–34
Scoones I, Thompson J (1994) Beyond farmer first: rural people’s knowledge, agricultural
research and extension practice. Intermediate Technology Publications, London
References 291

Shannon C, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois

Press, Urbana
Sless D (1986) In search of semiotics. Croom Helm, London
SLIM (2004) SLIM Framework: social learning as a policy approach for sustainable use of
water, p 41. http://slim.open.ac.uk. Accessed 22 May 2017
von Foerster H (1992) Ethics and second-order cybernetics. Cybernetics Human Knowing
1:9–19
Warmington A (1980) Action research: its methods and its implications. J Appl Syst Analysis
7:23–39
Winograd T, Flores F (1987) Understanding computers and cognition: a new foundation for
design. Addison Wesley, New York
Chapter 12
Systemic Intervention

Abstract ‘Systemic Intervention’ is a form of systemic action research formulated

by Gerald Midgley and his collaborators. This chapter exemplifies how different
lineages of systems practice form and are conserved amongst practitioners.
Practitioners are needed to maintain the viability of any practice. In systemic inter-
vention an emphasis on intervention is contrasted ‘with the usual scientific focus
on observation’ by Midgley. My purpose in introducing systemic intervention is
threefold: (1) to exemplify how in this form of practice different systems methods
and methodologies have been, or could be, applied as part of practice; (2) to
exemplify systems practice in the medical and health field which is a domain in
need of more effective systems practice, and (3) to introduce another practitioner
voice by allowing the systems practitioner who developed ‘systemic intervention’
to speak for himself.

12.1 Systems Practice in the National Health Service (UK)

Before introducing the reading that explicates systemic intervention I want to pro-
vide some evidence of how the study of Systems has led to change in situations
for the better in the health and medical field.
Many thousands of mature age students have studied systems courses at The
Open University (UK) but apart from examination results we know surprisingly
little about them – who they are, whether they use systems thinking in practice
and if not, why not! This situation was, for me, very unsatisfactory so I commis-
sioned work to find out something about students who had studied Systems with
us (Helme 2002; Open University 2003). The focus of the inquiry that was
initiated was how the study of Open University Systems courses made a difference
to the professional and personal lives of individuals who are working or have

© The Open University 2017 293

Published in Association with Springer-Verlag London Limited
R. Ison, Systems Practice: How to Act, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9_12
294 12 Systemic Intervention

worked in the National Health Service (NHS).1 The main conclusions from the
interviews in relation to the focus of the inquiry were:
1. People from a very wide range of posts and responsibilities in primary and sec-
ondary NHS Trusts usefully apply Open University Systems course learning at
work, and they would all recommend Open University Systems courses for
people in the NHS, including for those doing the same job as themselves
2. Studying Systems makes a difference by opening up a different way of think-
ing about situations to the way that some people learn in other educational
experiences, for example, professional clinical training. For some people,
Systems thinking was a revelation; for others, Systems thinking ‘fitted’ and
supported how they thought already, but previously experienced as ‘different’
from other people
3. Systems concepts, methodologies and techniques were found to be particularly
useful for interdisciplinary work and projects. Those specifically mentioned
include patient pathway and patient access improvement, patient/service user
community health care involving social workers and health professionals, the
management of challenging behaviour in hospital, and risk assessment
4. Systems thinking is also particularly useful for preparing clinicians for manage-
ment roles, especially for those working in hospitals (secondary care), and
Open University Systems teaching could be a bridge between current NHS
short introductory sessions for prospective managers, and management training
for those in post
5. This usefulness for practice and management in NHS work derives from learn-
ing from Open University Systems courses concerning:
• A way of thinking that is based on a holistic understanding and appreciation
of interconnectivities in complex situations, such as those experienced in
the NHS, but also draws on systematic approaches.
• Recognising and attending to different perspectives, specifically those of
different professions in interdisciplinary work and management roles, and
the perspectives of patients and carers.
• A tool set of methodologies and techniques – those identified included
diagramming and modelling, Soft Systems Methodology, Systems Failures
and material concerning change management (hard and soft systems
approaches).
6. Practice-based exercises and assignments enabled people to relate the material
to their own current experiences in and out of work. For example, several peo-
ple associated their Systems courses project work with improving practices and
services at work as well as significant personal learning.

1
The report that was produced was based on 20 individual semi-structured interviews in August
and September 2002. All people interviewed were working or had worked for the NHS in
England, Wales or Scotland. All had experience of OU Systems courses. Most (16) held the OU
Diploma in Systems Practice and studied OU Systems courses at undergraduate level 2, level 3
and Summer School.
12.1 Systems Practice in the National Health Service (UK) 295

Other insights emerged through this inquiry. For some, Systems has a latency
in terms of learning and change. This was illustrated by examples of people dust-
ing off their Systems course notes when they had a tricky problem at work, and
then going on to adapt the techniques for other work situations. People continued
to develop and adapt their systems practice long after their study had concluded.
There were some glimpses of contextual issues that prevented systems thinking
making a difference in people’s practice, for example uninterested managers, lim-
ited power (actual and perceived).
As I have explained earlier, Open University students have been taught histori-
cally to engage with situations of concern through the use of some form of sys-
tems diagramming. This may be part of a particular method or methodology (e.g.,
rich picturing as part of SSM practice) but more often than not it is as a precursor
to a choice about method or tool. In this way, the Open University pedagogic
approach has attempted to facilitate those learning Systems to be as open to their
circumstances as possible. Systems diagramming is an approach worthy of inclu-
sion in systemic inquiry, systemic action research or systemic intervention.
Under climate-change scenarios human health issues will emerge to add to the
already complex issues associated with technological innovation, cost, over servi-
cing, inequalities and the need for paradigm shifts away from illness towards well-
being Box 12.1 outlines many of the systemic factors associated with the shifting
medical/health paradigm and provides a rationale for significant investment in
building STiP capability in this field. Health and wellbeing are clearly arenas or
domains in need of systems practice skills and understandings and, as evidenced
by my small survey, and a growing literature (e.g., Foresight 2013; Wutzke et al.
2016; Chughtai and Blanchet 2017) health professionals find systems thinking and
practice useful for what they do.

Box 12.1 From precision medicine to systems medicine: clinical and

social implications
Christian Pristipino

‘Due to rising health needs in several populations, for several years medicine
has been witnessing a cumbersome transition from an insufficient pre-
molecular model of medicine based upon anatomy and clinically-classified
diseases, to a more comprehensive perspective that encompasses genetic,
epigenetic, biochemical and biophysical processes. The two approaches still
coexist; but several contradictions stretch the capacity that each model has
to adapt to the other…, The incomplete adaptations of these two models
unveil the need for an epistemological approach, which becomes even more
evident when striving to personalize healthcare solutions.
The first step in this endeavor has been to develop systems biology
approaches, in which - thanks to advances in information communication

(continued)
296 12 Systemic Intervention

Box 12.1 From precision medicine to systems medicine: clinical and

social implications (continued)
technology and the availability of high-throughput techniques – comprehensive
complex cellular processes have been computed to enhance the potential
for in silico experiments and the conceptualization of new cellular altera-
tion models. The natural evolution of this paradigm has been precision
medicine, a breakthrough associated with complex network interactions
at whole-organism multidimensional level that now are becoming a new
target in the shift towards personalized medicine. ….
Although incipient at the level of systems biology, this shift implies a
more thorough consideration of emergence properties and multidimensional
feed-back processes in complex systems, and cannot be addressed with clas-
sic approaches. Indeed, in humans, very strong interactions between quanti-
tative and qualitative dimensions occur, in which psychological, emotional,
cognitive and cultural variables invariably influence disparate biological pro-
cesses within every bodily system. The result is the need for a combined
bio-psycho-social/environmental approach to complex phenotyping. This
more comprehensive description is achieved with systems medicine, which
will enable a real transition to a more personalized model.
At a societal level, diagnostic costs may rise. However, savings might still
be achieved via the development and use of treatments that are more
individual-patient appropriate therefore reducing public expenditure and
increasing public health. For this to occur, however, several things must
occur, including new models of public-private collaboration; new agreements
on drug development; infrastructure changes like the implementation of com-
plex phenotypization stations that should be made available for everyone; the
marketing of wearable devices for dynamic phenotypization and constructing
large data repositories to allow for broad access to relevant healthcare data;
more elastic and adaptive, ‘glocalistic’, models of public healthcare to monitor
the personal histories of patients and promptly respond to varying individual
health needs despite similar diseases, by classical definitions; a redefinition of
privacy and legal issues considering ethical issues in systemic approaches; a
new culture addressing the implications of complexity in medicine; the
empowerment of patients and professionals, including relevant changes in
healthcare university curricula; and, finally, an overall shift towards systems
science epistemology, methods and technologies’.
Abstract extracts, Keynote address to WOSC2017 (World Organisation of
Systems and Cybernetics) Conference, Rome, Jan 2017 – http://wosc2017rome.
asvsa.org/index.php/christian-pristipino. Accessed 30 May 2017.

The next Reading adds to the evidence base of how Systems can contribute to
situation improvement in the health domain through a ‘framing’ for systems prac-
tice called systemic intervention by Gerald Midgley.
12.2 Systemic Intervention 297

12.2 Systemic Intervention

In this Reading Gerald offers a response to the many calls that have been made for a
systems approach to public health. His response is to offer a methodological approach
for systemic intervention that emphasizes ‘(1) the need to explore stakeholder values
and boundaries for analysis; (2) responses to the challenges of marginalization pro-
cesses; and (3) a wide, pluralistic range of methods from the systems literature and
beyond to create a flexible and responsive systemic action research practice’.
(Midgley 2015). He presents and discusses several well-tested methods with a view
to identifying their potential for supporting systemic intervention for public health.
As with earlier readings I invite you to read with a critical awareness. The question I
would pose at the outset is: what is it that is done when doing systemic intervention?

Reading 8
Opportunities and demands in public health systems: systemic
Intervention for public health2,3
Gerald Midgley

Introduction
Because of the Complexity of many public health issues, where numerous
interacting variables need to be accounted for and multiple agencies and
groups bring different values and concerns to bear, it is not uncommon for
people to call for a systems approach [1–5]. This should not be surprising,
as the whole concept of public health is founded on the insight that health
and illness have causes or conditions that go beyond the biology and beha-
vior of the individual human being. If I can give an overly simplistic defini-
tion of systems thinking as “looking at things in terms of the bigger picture”
(not a definition I would want to defend in a rigorous academic fashion, but
adequate for my purposes), then it should be immediately apparent that
public health is already founded on a systemic insight.
Because many public health professionals are calling for a systems
approach, I offer a set of methodological concepts that I have found useful
in my own practice to frame systemic inquiry. Of course, many different

(continued)

2
Midgley, G., (2006) ‘Opportunities and demands in public health systems: systemic intervention
for public health’ American Journal of Public Health, Vol 96, No 3. pp 466–472. Reproduced by
permission of Sheridan.
3
Gerald Midgley has had a long association with the University of Hull, originally with the
Centre for Systems Studies. He was for a period with the Institute of Environmental Science and
Research, Christchurch, New Zealand and the School of Management, Victoria University of
Wellington, New Zealand. He is currently Professor of Systems Thinking in the Business School
at the University of Hull, England.
298 12 Systemic Intervention

Reading 8 (continued)
systems methodologies have been developed over the years. There are far
too many to list, let alone review (see Midgley [6] for a wider set of read-
ings). However, the methodology I want to introduce here, which I have
called systemic intervention (more detailed information can be found else-
where [7]), has the advantage of taking a pluralistic approach to the design
of methods. It provides a rationale for creatively mixing methods from a
variety of sources, yielding a more flexible and responsive approach than
might be possible with a more limited set of tools.
I will outline this methodology before reviewing a selection of other
systems approaches that have been designed for different purposes. We can
borrow some useful methods from these approaches, which can then be woven
into systemic intervention practice (and more traditional scientific methods
plus methods from other sources can be drawn upon in the same way). Two
brief practical examples of systemic intervention illustrate my argument.

Systemic Intervention
I define intervention as “purposeful action by an agent to create change.”
[7 p. 8] (I accept that this definition raises questions about purpose and
agency, but these are addressed in other writings [7, 8]). Note that this
emphasis on intervention contrasts with the usual scientific focus on obser-
vation – although, unlike some authors who champion intervention [9], I do
not regard it as incompatible with scientific observation. Methods for obser-
vation can be harnessed into the service of intervention [8].
Building on the above definition, I characterize systemic intervention as
“purposeful action by an agent to create change in relation to reflection
upon boundaries [italics in original]”| [7 p. 8]. One common assumption
made by many systems thinkers is that everything in the universe is either
directly or indirectly connected with everything else [10–18]. However,
human beings cannot have a “God’s-eye view” of this interconnectedness
[19]. What we know about any situation has limits, and it is these limits that
we call boundaries [19, 20]. Comprehensive analysis is therefore impossible
[19–21]. Nevertheless, by acknowledging that this is the case, and by expli-
citly exploring different possible boundaries for analysis, we can, paradoxi-
cally, achieve greater comprehensiveness than if we take any single
boundary for granted [7, 20–22]. I call this process of exploration “boundary
critique,” which, for me, is the crux of what it means to be systemic [7].

Boundary Critique
As far as I am aware, the term boundary critique was first coined by Ulrich
[23] to refer to his own methodological practice, but here I am using it more
broadly as a label for the concern with boundaries that is present in the writ-
ings of several authors, starting with Churchman [19].

(continued)
12.2 Systemic Intervention 299

Reading 8 (continued)
Churchman’s [19] basic insight is that boundary judgments and value
judgments are intimately linked. Values direct the drawing of the boundaries
that determine who and what is going to be included in an intervention, so
the most ethical systems practice is one that involves pushing out the bound-
aries as far as possible so that a wide set of stakeholder values and concerns
can be accounted for (but without compromising comprehension through
over inclusion).
However, Ulrich [20] argues that in practice it is often difficult to push
out the boundaries in this way: time, resource, and other constraints can
intrude. Ulrich therefore stresses that boundary critique should involve the
justification of choices among boundaries, and should be a rational process
(the widest boundary not necessarily being the most rational, given practical
considerations). For Ulrich [20] (following Habermas [24]), all rational argu-
ments are expressed in language, and language is primarily a tool for dialo-
gue, so a boundary judgment is only truly rational if it has been agreed upon
in dialogue with all those involved in and affected by an intervention.
Stakeholder participation (i.e., all those involved or affected) in decision
making is therefore crucial to boundary critique.
In my own research on stakeholder participation, I am interested in what
happens when 2 or more groups of people make different value/boundary
judgments and the situation becomes entrenched. As an aid to understanding
such situations, I offer a generic model of marginalization processes that
explains the persistence of conflict between stakeholders [7]. Stakeholders
and issues can both be marginalized, and this marginalization can become
institutionalized. The generic model and some detailed examples of margin-
alization have been published elsewhere [7, 25–27].
I suggest that the focus of boundary critique on stakeholder participation
and marginalization makes it strongly relevant to the “new public health,”
[28] which is particularly concerned with addressing disadvantage and social
exclusion. For details of how boundary critique can be operationalized in
health-related and other interventions, see some of the practical examples in
the literature [7, 29–32].
As a brief illustration, in the late 1990s I worked with 2 colleagues (Alan
Boyd and Mandy Brown) on a project to facilitate the design of new ser-
vices for young people (aged less than 16 years) living on the streets [32].
We recognized (and all the relevant stakeholders concurred) that it was cru-
cial for young people to be core participants in the research. This was a
boundary judgment about participation that would have important conse-
quences for the issues to be considered in the design process. The young
people had quite specific concerns that they wanted to be addressed, and
some of these would almost certainly have been omitted if participation had
been limited to professionals alone.

(continued)
300 12 Systemic Intervention

Reading 8 (continued)
However, when involving young people, we had to be aware that there
was a double danger of marginalization: in general, young people under 16
years of age are viewed as less “rational” than adults. Also, these particular
young people could easily have been stereotyped as troubled and untrust-
worthy teenagers (because, in order to survive on the streets, many of them
had to resort to begging, petty crime, or prostitution). Therefore, in setting
up design workshops, we gave the young people space out of the hearing of
professionals to develop their ideas (an empowerment technique) and we
used exactly the same planning methods as we used with the adult partici-
pants to generate proposals for change. This allowed a direct comparison to
be made between the ideas from the young people and adults, and prevented
the kind of marginalization that might have occurred if we had used a more
“playful” approach with the young people and a more traditional “rational
planning” method with the professionals. It would have been easy, if we had
done the latter, for the professionals to have viewed only their own output
as the “proper” plan. This was just 1 of many issues that we explored and
addressed through our boundary critique.

Methodological Pluralism
In addition to boundary critique, I also advocate 2 forms of methodological
pluralism. The first is learning from other methodologies to inform one’s
own. This way, each agent has a continually developing systems methodol-
ogy. We no longer have to accept a situation where people build a metho-
dology like a castle and then defend it against others who want to breach the
castle walls. Rather, if people begin to see methodology as dynamic and
evolving, they can learn from others on an ongoing basis [7].
The second form of methodological pluralism is about drawing upon
and mixing methods from other methodologies. The wider the range of
methods available, the more flexible and responsive our systems practice
can be [7, 33–43]. No methodology or method (whether it comes from the
systems tradition or elsewhere) can do absolutely everything people might
want. Therefore, being able to draw upon multiple methods from different
paradigmatic sources can enhance the systems thinking resource we have
available for intervention. See Luckett and Grossenbacher [44] and Boyd
et al. [32] for some practical examples of methodological pluralism in sys-
temic public health planning.
As a brief illustration, the aforementioned project to facilitate the design
of new services for young people living on the streets used a number of dif-
ferent inter-linked methods and techniques:
• Individual interviews with young people, foster caretakers, and retailers
• The use of photographs and cards with evocative pictures to stimulate ideas
• A focus group with staff working in a children’s home

(continued)
12.2 Systemic Intervention 301

Reading 8 (continued)
• Rich pictures (visual depictions of the problem situation using drawings
and arrows showing the links between key issues – see the “Soft Systems
Methodology” section of this article for the origins of this technique)
• A synergy of 2 systemic planning methods (see the “Interactive
Planning” and “Critical Systems Heuristics” sections of this article for
details) implemented in separate stakeholder and multiagency workshops
• Values mapping (a method we developed to visualize people’s values
and the logical connections between them)
• Small group, multiagency action planning
• The production of reports, magazines, and posters for multi-audience dis-
semination; and
• Formative evaluation (feedback questionnaires filled in by participants)
• In the view of the research team, [32] no existing methodology was able
to provide all the methods needed for this project. Methodological plural-
ism was absolutely necessary
Added Value
Arguably, the main added value of systemic intervention compared with earlier
systems approaches is its synergy of boundary critique and methodological
pluralism [32]. If boundary critique is practiced on its own, it is possible to gen-
erate some interesting sociological analyses, but there is a danger that these
will not effect change unless other more action-oriented methods are used too
[37]. Also, embracing methodological pluralism without up-front boundary cri-
tique can give rise to superficial diagnoses of problematic situations. If a com-
plex issue is defined from only one limited perspective without reflecting on
values and boundaries, and issues of marginalization are neglected, then the
outcome could be the use of a systems approach that misses or even exacer-
bates significant social problems [7, 45] The synergy of boundary critique and
methodological pluralism ensures that each aspect of systemic intervention
corrects the potential weaknesses of the other [7, 32].
Other Resources for Systems Thinking
Arguably, one of the great strengths of the systems movement is the variety of
methods that have been developed to serve different purposes over the years [6].
If we can begin to harness this variety into a form of systems practice that still
keeps the idea of reflecting on value and boundary judgments at its core, I believe
we will have a great deal to offer public health in the coming years. Below I pro-
vide some examples of other systems approaches, which have methods that can
be incorporated into systemic intervention. These have been widely applied in
practice and offer tools that I have found useful in my own public health research.

System Dynamics
System dynamics [46–51] offers methods for modeling complex feedback
processes and considering possible impacts of changes to the system of

(continued)
302 12 Systemic Intervention

Reading 8 (continued)
concern. By experimenting with a model, decision makers are able to
anticipate possible emerging scenarios that could follow from a new policy
initiative or intervention.
System dynamics has been used to address a number of significant public
health issues [52, 53]. It gives public health professionals some useful tools to
model feedback processes in a manner that can not only help to make trans-
parent why certain health effects might occur at the population level, but can
also help policymakers anticipate counterintuitive effects of public health
initiatives. As Forrester [54] has demonstrated, some policies, introduced with
the best of intentions, have the opposite effects of those that are desired. By
modeling the feedback loops that stabilize and/or destabilize the system of
concern, the approach can highlight surprising side effects of policy options
that might not otherwise have been visible in advance of implementation.

The Viable System Model4

The second methodology of interest is the viable system model, [55–60]
which proposes that for an organization to become and remain viable in a
complex and rapidly changing environment, it must carry out each of the
following 5 functions.
• Operations: the provision of products or services that address particular
needs in the organizations environment
• Coordination: ensuring that the operational units work together and com-
municate effectively
• Support and control: especially with regard to distributing resources, pro-
viding training, gathering and distributing information about quality, etc.
• Intelligence: the forecasting of future needs, opportunities, and threats.
This involves a comparison between the external requirements placed
upon the organization and its internal capacity; and
• Policymaking: setting long-term goals and objectives
According to the viable system model, the key to effective organization
is not only to make sure that all 5 functions exist, but also to ensure that
communications among the functions are appropriate and effective.
Together, these functions manage the information and decision flows neces-
sary for effective organization, and consequently each function is of equal
importance. The model can be used to diagnose current organizational fail-
ings or to design entirely new organizations.
Given the complexities of public health policymaking and service deliv-
ery, organizational viability is an important factor. For professionals to be
able to respond adequately to the issues they face, they need to have an

(continued)
See Fig. 8.5 – the viable system model.
4
12.2 Systemic Intervention 303

Reading 8 (continued)
effective organizational infrastructure behind them. The viable system model
could make a useful contribution to organizational development.

Interactive Planning
Although system dynamics and the viable system model involve modeling
ecological, social, and/or organizational systems, other methodologists have
moved away from modeling to focus on the facilitation of dialogue among sta-
keholders who bring different insights to bear on complex issues. An example
is Ackoff [61–63], whose methodology of interactive planning seeks to liber-
ate and harness the knowledge and creative abilities of everybody in (and
often including stakeholders beyond) an organization to produce a plan of the
ideal future that the organization can work toward. The plan may take some
time to implement, perhaps many years, but it offers a feasible set of targets
for the longer term. A key idea is that the plan should be wide enough and
creative enough to “dissolve” any disagreements among participants. The
transformation it proposes should result in the commitment of all concerned.
The approach can be represented in the form of 3 stages: (1) establishing
planning boards (every role in the organization should be represented in
planning, with participation as widespread as possible); (2) generating
desired properties of the organization’s products and/or activities (this is
“ends planning,” conducted under conditions of minimum constraint with
only technological feasibility, viability, and adaptability limiting proposals);
and (3) producing the plan itself (“means planning,” where all sections of
the organization agree on how to move forward).
I have used aspects of Ackoff’s work in my own public health research,
for example, to look at how the mental health and criminal justice systems
would have to be changed to prevent people with mental health problems
from inappropriately ending up in prison [7, 64]. If organizations are willing
to commit the resources to participative planning, I believe this is a useful
approach that can help people move beyond everyday fire fighting toward
the formulation of inspiring (but still feasible) long-term visions of how pub-
lic health can be improved. My only caveat is that in the area of public
health it will usually be important to extend participation beyond the bound-
aries of a single organization to take in other agency representatives and
community groups. I have always used interactive planning in this wider
participative manner, and it puts some responsibility on the systems practi-
tioner to ensure that marginalized groups are properly included [7].

Soft Systems Methodology

Another approach that can be used to facilitate dialogue among stakeholders is
soft systems methodology [65, 66]. This encourages participants in intervention
to generate issues through ongoing explorations of their perceptions, allowing

(continued)
304 12 Systemic Intervention

Reading 8 (continued)
people to model desirable future human activities. These models of future
human activities can then be used as a basis for guiding actual human activities
in the world. However, to ensure that the models will indeed be useful, it is
necessary for participants to relate them back to their perceptions of their cur-
rent situation. In this way, possibilities for change can be tested for feasibility.
The methods of soft systems methodology, which are often operationa-
lized in a workshop format, can be summarized as follows: (1) Consider the
problem situation in an unstructured form; (2) Produce a “rich picture” (a
visual representation – with pictures and arrows to represent links between
issues – of the current situation); (3) Identify possible “relevant systems”
that might be designed to improve the situation, and harmonize understand-
ings of these by exploring who should be the beneficiaries of a proposed
system change, who should carry it out, what the transformation should be,
what worldview is being assumed, who could prevent the change from hap-
pening, and what environmental constraints need to be accepted; (4)
Produce a “conceptual model” for each relevant system (a map of the inter-
connected human activities that need to be undertaken if the system is to
become operational); (5) Refer back to the rich picture to check the feasibil-
ity of the ideas; (6) Produce an action plan; and (7) Proceed to implementa-
tion. Of course, participants need to move backward and forward among
these activities, harmonizing the outputs from each one with the others – the
activities should not be implemented mechanistically in a linear sequence.
Soft systems methodology has been used in several public health and
health management interventions [67, 68]. It provides a useful language to
ensure that ongoing planning retains a systemic focus, and can support peo-
ple in making accommodations to find acceptable ways forward when they
have different perspectives on an issue. I have found it particularly useful
for multiagency planning – for example, when facilitating a debate among
19 agency representatives who wanted to cooperate on the design of a coun-
seling service that could be activated in the event of a major disaster, but
their different perspectives were obstructing progress. Over 6 days, the agen-
cies came to an agreement that resulted in the design, funding, and imple-
mentation of the counseling service [7, 69].

Critical Systems Heuristics

The final methodology I want to review is Ulrich’s critical systems heuris-
tics [20, 70]. As mentioned previously (in the section on “Boundary
Critique”), Ulrich asks, when people make decisions on who to consult and
what issues to include in planning, how can people rationally justify the
boundaries they use? [20] An important aspect of Ulrich’s thinking about
boundaries is that boundary and value judgments are intimately linked [20]:
the values adopted will direct the drawing of boundaries that define the

(continued)
12.2 Systemic Intervention 305

Reading 8 (continued)
knowledge accepted as pertinent. Similarly, the inevitable process of drawing
boundaries constrains the values that can be pursued. Being concerned with
values, boundary critique is an ethical process. Because of the focus on dia-
logue among stakeholders in dealing with ethical issues, a priority for Ulrich
is to evolve practical guidelines that planners and ordinary citizens can both
use equally proficiently to conduct boundary critique [20]. For this purpose,
he offers a list of 12 questions that can be employed by those involved in
and affected by planning to interrogate what the system currently is, and
what it ought to be. These 12 questions cover 4 key areas of concern: moti-
vation, control, expertise, and legitimacy.5
In my view, there is significant potential for using Ulrich’s 12 questions
in public health planning, not least because they cut to the heart of many
issues that are of fundamental concern to people in communities who find
themselves on the receiving end of policies and initiatives that they either do
not agree with or find irrelevant. In my own research, I have used these
questions with people with mental health problems recently released from
prison, [7, 64] older people in sheltered housing [7, 29, 71], young people
who have run away from children’s homes [7, 32, 72], and others. Ulrich
claims that his questions can be answered equally proficiently by “ordinary”
people with no experience of planning as they can by professionals [20],
and my experience tells me that he is right – with the caveat that the ques-
tions should be made specific to the plans being discussed, and also need to
be expressed in plain English. If the questions about what ought to be done
are asked early on in planning a new public health initiative, I have found
that “ordinary” people are usually able to think just as systemically as pro-
fessionals (indeed, sometimes more so) [7].

A Practical Example
To further ground this presentation of methodology, I briefly outline another
systemic intervention that I undertook, again with 2 colleagues (Isaac Munlo
and Mandy Brown). Only a sketch of this intervention is provided, and there-
fore many of the social dynamics that were important to it have been omitted.
However, more detailed expositions can be found elsewhere [7, 29, 71, 73].
The initial remit of the project, funded by the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation, was to work with local governments in the United Kingdom to
find out how information from assessments of older people applying for
health, housing, and welfare services could be aggregated to inform the
development of housing policy. However, some initial interviews with sta-
keholders quickly revealed that there were 2 major problems with the
boundaries of our study.

(continued)
These ‘questions’ are discussed in Chapter 7 (see Section 7.3.2).
5
306 12 Systemic Intervention

Reading 8 (continued)
First, it became apparent that if the housing “needs” expressed by older
people fell outside local government spending priorities, they were not
recorded. This meant that aggregating information from assessments would
paint an artificially rosy picture, making it seem as if all needs were being
met. Second, many urgent problems with service provision, assessment, and
multiagency planning were being raised by stakeholders (including older peo-
ple themselves). We felt that ignoring these would be unethical – especially as
we had already come to the conclusion that the initial remit of the intervention
was flawed. As a consequence, we worked with the funder to expand the remit
of our study to look at the wider system of assessment, information provision,
and multiagency planning for older people’s housing, and what could be done
to improve it.
Semi-structured interviews with 131 stakeholders from a wide variety of
organizations (including older people themselves) yielded data that we used
to create a ‘problem map.’ This is similar to a system dynamics model,
except that problem mapping is purely qualitative. The purpose is to demon-
strate to stakeholders that their problems are strongly interdependent and,
therefore, to be resolved, they require changes to the wider system.
Having demonstrated the systemic nature of the issues, the next stage
was to ask what kind of system change was needed. To answer this, we held
a series of interactive planning workshops, asking what ideal (but still tech-
nologically feasible, viable, and adaptable) housing services would look
like. We integrated the critical systems heuristics questions so we could
explore issues of motivation (or purpose), control (including governance),
expertise, and legitimacy. To prevent the marginalization of older people,
we worked with them separately from professionals, allowing them more
time and space to develop their views. The interactive planning/critical sys-
tems heuristics workshops demonstrated a widespread agreement among sta-
keholders on housing policy, with only a few relatively minor disagreements
needing resolution.
We then brought together senior managers from health, housing, and wel-
fare organizations to look at what kind of organizational system could deliver
the housing services that the stakeholders had asked for. We introduced the
viable system model as a template for the organizational design, and systemati-
cally evaluated this design using criteria derived from the earlier work with
older people and frontline professionals (thereby ensuring that these perspec-
tives were not marginalized now that participation had been narrowed to
managers). In this way, we could be reasonably confident that the managers’
proposals would either meet the stakeholders’ requirements directly or would
provide the organizational means to address them in future years.
This example of systemic intervention demonstrates the benefits of
boundary critique: The initial problematic remit of the project was usefully

(continued)
12.2 Systemic Intervention 307

Reading 8 (continued)
expanded, and the potential for marginalizing older people was identified
and addressed. It also demonstrates the value of methodological pluralism.
In my view, no single set of methods yet developed could have addressed
all the issues in this intervention. It took a combination of semistructured
interviewing, problem mapping, interactive planning, critical systems heuris-
tics, and viable system modeling to support stakeholders in both defining
the issue and responding to it systemically.

Conclusion
I have presented a methodology for systemic intervention (incorporating
boundary critique and methodological pluralism), and have discussed several
systems approaches from which we can borrow useful methods. I have also
provided 2 practical examples of systemic intervention.
I suggest that this kind of approach is not only able to address issues
of values, boundaries, and marginalization in defining complex problems (mak-
ing it particularly relevant to the “new public health” [28]), but it also has the
potential to deliver all the utility of other systems approaches because it expli-
citly advocates learning about and drawing methods from those approaches to
deliver maximum flexibility and responsiveness in systemic interventions.
In my view, systems thinking has the potential to make a significant dif-
ference to public health, so (if you have not already done so) I invite you to
try out some of the ideas and methods touched upon in this article, and share
your experiences with others so that the whole public health research com-
munity can be enriched in the process.

References
1. Laporte RE, Barinas E, Chang Y-F, Libman I. Global epidemiology and public
health in the 21st century: applications of new technology. Ann Epidemiol. 1996;
6:162–167
2. Holder HD. Prevention of alcohol problems in the 21st century: challenges and
opportunities. Am J Addict. 2001; 10;1–15.
3. Best A, Moor G, Holmes B, et al. Health promotion dissemination and systems think-
ing: Towards an integrative model. Am J Health Behav. 2003; 27 (suppl 3):S206–
S216.
4. Best A, Stokols D, Green LW, Leischow S, Holmes B, Buchholz K. An integrative
framework for community partnering to translate theory into effective health promo-
tion strategy. Am J Health Promot. 2003; 18: 168–176.
5. World Health Organization and World Bank. World Report on Road Traffic Injury
Prevention. World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2004.
6. Midgley G. Systems Thinking. Volumes I–IV. Sage Publications: London, England,
2003.
7. Midgley G. Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology, and Practice. Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers: New York, NY, 2000.
8. Midgley G. Science as systemic intervention: Some implications of systems thinking
and complexity for the philosophy of science. Syst Pract Act Res. 2003; 16:77–97.

(continued)
308 12 Systemic Intervention

Reading 8 (continued)
9. Seidman E. Back to the future, community psychology: Unfolding a theory of social
intervention. Am J Community Psychol. 1988; 16:3–24.
10. Bogdanov AA. Bogdanov’s Tektology. Dudley P, ed. Centre for Systems Studies
Press: Hull, England, 1996 [first published in Russian 1913–1917].
11. Koehler W. The Place of Values in the World of Fact. Liveright: New York, NY.
1938.
12. Boulding KE. General systems theory – the skeleton of science. Manage Sci. 1956;
2:197–208.
13. Kremyanskiy VI. Certain peculiarities of organisms as a “system” from the point of
view of physics, cybernetics and biology. General Systems 1958; 5:221–230.
14. Von Bertalanffy L. General Systems Theory. London, England: Penguin; 1968.
15. Bateson G. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Jason Aronson Publishers: Northvale, NJ,
1972.
16. Miller JG. Living Systems. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, 1978.
17. Prigogine I, Stengers I. Order out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature.
Fontana: London, England, 1984.
18. Laszlo E. The Interconnected Universe: Conceptual Foundations of Trans-
disciplinary Unified Theory. World Scientific Publishing: London, England, 1995.
19. Churchman CW. Operations research as a profession. Manage Sci. 1970; 17:B37–B53.
20. Ulrich W. Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical
Philosophy. Verlag Paul Haupt: Bern, Switzerland, 1983.
21. Cilliers P. Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems.
Routledge: London, England. 1998.
22. Midgley G, Ochoa-Arias AE. An introduction to community operational research. In:
Midgley G, Ochoa-Arias AE, eds. Community Operational Research: OR and
Systems Thinking for Community Development. Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers: New York, NY, 2004.
23. Ulrich W. Critical Systems Thinking for Citizens: A Research Proposal. Centre for
Systems Studies Research Memorandum #10. Centre for Systems Studies, University
of Hull: Hull, England, 1996.
24. Habermas J. Communication and the Evolution of Society. English ed., 1979.
Heinemann: London, England, 1976.
25. Midgley G. The sacred and profane in critical systems thinking. Syst Pract. 1992;
5:5–16.
26. Midgley G. Ecology and the poverty of humanism: A critical systems perspective.
Syst Res. 1994; 11:67–76.
27. Yolles M. Viable boundary critique. J Operat Res Soc. 2001; 52: 35–37.
28. Baum F. The New Public Health: An Australian Perspective. Oxford University
Press: Melbourne, Australia: 1998.
29. Midgley G, Munlo I, Brown M. The theory and practice of boundary critique:
Developing housing services for older people. J Operat Res Soc. 1998; 49:467–478.
30. Córdoba J, Midgley G. Addressing organisational and societal concerns: An applica-
tion of critical systems thinking to information systems planning in Colombia. In:
Cano J, ed. Critical Reflections on Information Systems: A Systemic Approach. Idea
Group Publishing: Hershey, Pa: 2003.
31. Baker V, Foote J, Gregor J, Houston D, Midgley G. Boundary critique and commu-
nity involvement in watershed management. In: Dew K, Fitzgerald R, eds.
Challenging Science: Issues for New Zealand Society in the 21st Century.
Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press; 2004.
32. Boyd A, Brown M, Midgley G. Systemic intervention for community OR:
Developing services with young people (under 16) living on the streets. In: Midgley G,

(continued)
12.2 Systemic Intervention 309

Reading 8 (continued)
Ochoa-Arias AE, eds. Community Operational Research: OR and Systems Thinking
for Community Development. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers;
2004.
33. Jackson MC, Keys P. Towards a system of systems methodologies. J Operat Res
Soc. 1984; 35:473–486.
34. Flood RL. Liberating Systems Theory. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1990.
35. Jackson MC. Systems Methodology for the Management Sciences. New York, NY:
Plenum Press; 1991.
36. Flood RL, Jackson MC, eds. Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings.
Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons; 1991.
37. Flood RL, Jackson MC. Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention.
Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons; 1991.
38. Midgley G. Pluralism and the legitimation of systems science. Syst Pract. 1992;
5:147–172.
39. Flood RL, Romm NRA, eds. Critical Systems Thinking: Current Research and
Practice. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1996.
40. Gregory WJ. Discordant pluralism: A new strategy for critical systems thinking? Syst
Pract. 1996; 9:605–625.
41. Mingers J, Gill A, eds. Multimethodology: The Theory and Practice of Combining
Management Science Methodologies. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons; 1997.
42. Jackson MC. Systems Approaches to Management. New York, NY: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers; 2000.
43. Jackson MC. Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers. Chichester, England:
John Wiley and Sons; 2003.
44. Luckett S, Grossenbacher K. A critical systems intervention to improve the imple-
mentation of a district health system in KwaZulu Natal. Syst Res Behav Sci. 2003;
20:147–162.
45. Ulrich W. Some difficulties of ecological thinking, considered from a critical systems
perspective: A plea for critical holism. Syst Pract. 1993; 6: 583–611.
46. Forrester JW. Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press; 1961.
47. Sterman JD. Learning in and about complex systems. Syst Dyn Rev. 1994; 10:291–330.
48. Morecroft JDW, Sterman JD, eds. Modeling for Learning Organizations. Portland,
Ore: Productivity Press: 1994.
49. Vennix JAM. Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System
Dynamics. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons; 1996.
50. Coyle RG. System Dynamics Modelling: A Practical Approach. London, England:
Chapman and Hall; 1996.
51. Maani KE, Cavana RY. Systems Thinking and Modelling: Understanding Change
and Complexity. Auckland, New Zealand: Prentice Hall; 2000.
52. Sudhir V, Srinivasan G, Muraleedharan VR. Planning for sustainable solid waste
management in urban India. Syst Dyn Rev. 1997; 13: 223–246.
53. Townshend JRP, Turner HS. Analysing the effectiveness of Chlamydia screening.
J Operat Res Soc. 2000; 51:812–824.
54. Forrester JW. Counterintuitive behavior of social systems. Theory and Decision.
1971; 2:109–140.
55. Beer S. Cybernetics and Management. Oxford, England: English Universities Press;
1959.
56. Beer S. Decision and Control. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons; 1966.
57. Beer S. Brain of the Firm. 2nd ed. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons; 1981.
58. Beer S. The viable system model: Its provenance, development, methodology and
pathology. J Operat Res Soc. 1984; 35:7–25.

(continued)
310 12 Systemic Intervention

Reading 8 (continued)
59. Beer S. Diagnosing the System for Organisations. Chichester, England: John Wiley
and Sons; 1985.
60. Espejo R, Harnden RJ, eds. The Viable System Model: Interpretations and Applications
of Stafford Beer’s VSM. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons; 1989.
61. Ackoff RL. Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to Societal Problems.
Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons; 1974.
62. Ackoff RL. Resurrecting the future of operational research. J Operat Res Soc. 1979;
30:189–199.
63. Ackoff RL. Creating the Corporate Future. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons; 1981.
64. Cohen C, Midgley G. The North Humberside Diversion From Custody Project for
Mentally Disordered Offenders: Research Report. Hull, England: Centre for Systems
Studies; 1994.
65. Checkland P. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester, England: John Wiley
and Sons; 1981.
66. Checkland P, Scholes J. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chichester, England:
John Wiley and Sons; 1990.
67. Checkland P. Rhetoric and reality in contracting: Research in and on the NHS. In:
Flynn R, Williams G, eds. Contracting for Health. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press; 1997.
68. Fahey DK, Carson ER, Cramp DG, Muir Gray JA. Applying systems modelling to
public health. Syst Res Behav Sci. 2004; 21:635–649.
69. Gregory WJ, Midgley G. Planning for disaster: Developing a multiagency counsel-
ling service. J Operat Res Soc. 2000; 51:278–290.
70. Ulrich W. Critical heuristics of social systems design. Eur J Operat Res. 1987;
31:276–283.
71. Midgley G, Munlo I, Brown M. Sharing Power: Integrating User Involvement and
Multi-Agency Working to Improve Housing for Older People. Bristol, England:
Policy Press; 1997.
72. Boyd A, Brown M, Midgley G. Home and Away: Developing Services with Young
People Missing from Home or Care. Hull, England: Centre for Systems Studies;
1999.
73. Midgley G. Ethical dilemmas: A reply to Richard Ormerod. J Operat Res Soc. 1999;
50:549–553.

If, as Gerald Midgley advocates, you are able to take from this reading insights
as to how to ‘address issues of values, boundaries, and marginalization in defining
[I would say formulating] complex problems’ then you will have enhanced your
systems practice repertoire and be well positioned to make your practice ‘relevant
to the new public health’ he describes and that is further elucidated in Box 12.1.

12.3 Other Possibilities for Contextualising Systems Practice

Changing circumstances creates new opportunities for different forms of systems

practice. For example, the seeming failure of many public-sector reforms in
Britain over the period of the New Labour government (1997–2007) and during
12.3 Other Possibilities for Contextualising Systems Practice 311

the ‘austerity years’ of subsequent governments, has created opportunities for

the proponents of an approach to practice called the ‘lean systems approach.’
The lean systems (LS) approach is said (Seddon 2003) to provide: ‘a method
for… achieving the ideals many managers aspire to: a learning, improving,
innovative, adaptive and energised organisation’. According to Jackson et al.
(2008):
it provides the means to develop a customer-driven adaptive organisation; an organisation
that behaves and learns according to what matters to customers. It was developed by John
Seddon, originally an occupational psychologist, who had become interested in change
programs and why they often failed (Open University 2003). LS incorporates aspects of
intervention theory and systems thinking (the work of Deming (1982) and Senge (1990)
being particularly influential), together with lessons from Toyota’s ‘lean manufacturing’
adapted for service organisations (p. 187).

Seddon and his colleagues have continued to develop and report on their forms
of systems practice (O’Donnovan 2014; Dunnion and O’Donovan 2014); impor-
tantly though, their practice is not simplistic, non-reflexive application of ‘lean
and agile’ which carry with them practice conundrums overlaying deeper episte-
mological issues. For example, Browaeys and Fisser (2012) in an investigation of
lean and agile from the French intellectual traditions of systems scholar Edgar
Morin propose: ‘contrary to traditional ways of thinking about lean and agile … an
approach using complexity thinking, which recognizes three causalities – linear,
circular retroactive, recursive – as being present at all levels of a complex
organization’.
From my own perspective, the Seddon approach and systemic intervention,
when in the hands of aware practitioners can exemplify taking the ‘design turn’
that I wrote about in Chapter 10. The latter particularly invites design considerations
through the device of making and re-making boundary judgments to a given system
of interest. Seddon influenced LS practitioners’ claim that when appropriately
enacted this method is based upon the systems principle that ‘operations or organiza-
tions should be viewed as wholes serving a purpose’ (Jackson et al. 2008):
In Vanguard’s case the purpose of a system is always seen in terms of its customer –
‘what matters is what matters to the customer’. Once the customer’s purpose has been
established, attention can be given to how the parts or tasks must be fitted together in
order to best achieve that purpose. Here, in line with systems thinking, it is the interac-
tions between the parts that are viewed as being critical. LS insists that a customer focus
remains central throughout an intervention. The design of support systems, such as IT sys-
tems, should follow design of the primary customer serving system. Evaluation must be
in terms of overall system performance in pursuit of customer purposes. Inappropriate tar-
gets can distort the behaviour of the system in ways that are not beneficial to its custo-
mer’s purposes (p. 187).

The emergence of new framings and labels for systems practice is to be

expected even though it causes confusion for those outside the field. In part this is
natural as any new field is being developed; and in part the proliferation arises as
a consequence of the social context in which systems practitioners find themselves
operating. Branding is a device to gain market entry and share in competitive
312 12 Systemic Intervention

fields, as is much of the consultancy world. Unfortunately, the same is true of the
academic world where academic practitioners, or their universities, pursue recog-
nition and citation in an increasingly perverse world of performance measures.
In this book, I have striven to surpass these concerns by developing a generic
‘ideal type’ model for systems practice. Through the isophor of the juggler it
should be possible to inquire of all forms and accounts of practice where claims
for systems practice are made: what is it that they did when they did what they
did? In pursuing this inquiry, the question of value will arise. In Chapter 13
(Part IV), my concluding chapter, I turn my attention to the question of how we
might value systems practice.

References

Browaeys M-J, Fisser S (2012) Lean and agile: an epistemological reflection. Learning
Organization 19(3):207–218
Chughtai S, Blanchet K (2017) Systems Thinking in Public Health. Health Policy Plan, 1–10
doi: 10.1093/heapol/czw159
Deming WE (1982) Out of crisis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Dunnion J, O’Donovan B (2014) Systems thinking and higher education: the Vanguard method.
Syst Pract Action Res 27(1):23–37
Foresight (2013) Tackling obesities: future choices – Project Report, 2nd Edition. Government
Office for Science, UK
Helme M (2002) Research project: systems thinking, systems practice and the NHS. Summary
and outcomes. The Open University, Milton Keynes, Unpublished Research Report
Jackson MC, Johnston N, Seddon J (2008) Evaluating systems thinking in housing. J Oper Res
Soc 59:186–197
Midgley, G., (2006) ‘Opportunities and demands in public health systems: systemic intervention
for public health’ American Journal of Public Health, Vol 96, No 3. pp 466–472. Reproduced
by permission of Sheridan
Midgley G (2015) Systemic intervention. Research Memorandum 95, Centre for Systems Studies,
Hull University Business School
O’Donovan B (2014) Editorial for special issue of SPAR: the Vanguard method in a systems
thinking context. Syst Pract Action Res 27:1–20
Open University (2003) Waving not drowning. How systems thinking and practice benefit NHS
practitioners. Open University, Milton Keynes
Seddon J (2003) Freedom from command and control: a better way to make the work work.
Vanguard Education Ltd, Buckingham
Senge P (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Random
House, New York
Wutzke S, Morrice E, Benton M, Wilson A (2016) Systems approaches for chronic disease pre-
vention: sound logic and empirical evidence, but is this view shared outside of academia?
Public Health Res Pract 26(3):e2631632. doi:10.17061/phrp2631632
 Part IV
Valuing Systems Practice
in a Climate-Change World
Chapter 13
Valuing Systems Practice

Abstract The primary concern of this chapter is to ask and imagine what conditions
and processes might create the circumstances for the emergence of social value in
relation to systems practice. How effectiveness comes to be judged in relation to
systems practice is illuminated. Different perspectives on valuing are first explored
and situated in the history of valuing and the related practice of evaluating. Through
the lens of a final reading, the transition from being systemic to doing Systems is
explored. Within the modes of ‘doing Systems’ there is a need to understand how
capability can be built. How capability-building processes are designed and enacted
is a reflection of valuing and evaluating. Frameworks to consider these issues are
provided. The chapter concludes by considering how, in a climate-changing world,
the valuing of systems practice can be understood in an emotion of hope.

13.1 The Emergence of Value

On what basis do we value what we do when we do what we do? Why is it that

we value some practices above others? In this final chapter I want to consider the
act of valuing based on an understanding of valuing as a social process from which
value emerges.1 My primary interest is to ask and imagine what conditions and
processes might create the circumstances for the emergence of value in relation to
systems practice. The origins of the word value are related to that of ‘valiant’ in the
sense of being strong or being well; in its earliest uses it was a verb, not a noun.
When writing about his experiences with Shell and his own biotechnology
company Gerard Fairtlough made it clear that he valued a shift away from hierar-
chy. In the latter part of his life he became convinced of the need for contempor-
ary organisations to be capable of radical transformation. He even went as far as
setting up his own publishing company to help effect transformations in the

1
Another way of exploring this is to ask: ‘what is it we see when we say we value what is hap-
pening? What happens if we reify values?’ Framing this as ‘you can create a map from the terri-
tory, but you can’t create the territory from my map’ – which is a subtly different concept than
‘the map is not the territory’ – has helped to communicate my intended meaning (i.e., you can
create the value from the happening, but you can’t create the happening from the value).

© The Open University 2017 315

Published in Association with Springer-Verlag London Limited
R. Ison, Systems Practice: How to Act, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9_13
316 13 Valuing Systems Practice

thinking, and thus the practices of those who work in organisations. In doing what
he did he created possibilities for a particular way of valuing organisational life.
He had also made a choice about how to frame the situations – to understand the
world as complex and to recognise that simplicity, though appealing, can be mis-
leading and sometimes dangerous. He concluded that (Fairtlough 2007):
Hierarchy will not easily withdraw. Understanding inventiveness, balance and bravery will
be needed to shift it. But there is good reason to hope that it can be shifted. Vast energy
presently goes into propping up hierarchy. Releasing this energy for constructive use will
bring great and clearly recognizable benefits. It will allow organizations to emerge that are
more effective for getting things done and much better places in which to work (p. 101).
My introductory anecdote about Gerard Fairtlough exemplifies what I mean by
actions that operationalise a process of valuing. In this concluding chapter I am
not concerned with the traditional way of understanding values.2 Consistent with
my overall approach in this book I am concerned with the praxis of valuing –
those practices through which what we can distinguish as ‘value’ emerges. From
this perspective value does not exist in and of itself, it always arises in praxis and
is firmly grounded in the emotions that give rise to our doings. In Chapter 11
I described how the emotion of enthusiasm could be triggered. In its enactment –
in the pursuit of something for which we have enthusiasm – value emerges
because it satisfies some characteristic of what it is to be human. What these char-
acteristics are is never fully generalizable because, as I have outlined in Chapter 5,
we all think and act out of unique traditions of understanding (see Fig. 5.3).
Illustration 13.1

In Chapter 1 I invited consideration of the question: what is it that you would

have to experience that created the circumstances where you could experiment
with thinking and acting systemically? Here, at the end of this book, it is appropri-
ate to revisit this question. In essence this is a question about what you have come
to value. In posing the question I said that I could not answer it for others but

2
The traditional approach that holds little appeal for me is to see values as a property of someone
or reducible to a description or classificatory schema. Again, language does not help. On the one
hand ‘values’ are often given noun form. Whenever the phrase ‘what value do we put on that’ or
‘how do you value that’ is used this usage implies something in which value exists. This
obscures the praxis elements in which valuing emerges as a result of a context specific dynamic.
13.1 The Emergence of Value 317

encouraged (1) the abandonment of certainty (or the acknowledgment of the

certainty of uncertainty) and (2) openness to circumstances.
I have purposefully taken as a backdrop to this book the emergence of human
induced climate change and all the uncertainty this contested situation creates.3 A
key concern I have is whether as individuals, groups or nation states and beyond
we will become open to these circumstances in time to develop practices that are
more effective. A major claim of this book is that investment in systems practice,
as both a generic and specific practice, offers significant opportunities, especially
if embedded in more conducive systemic and adaptive governance arrangements
supported by enabling institutions (Chapter 9). In Chapter 4 I said I would develop
arguments that support four claims:
• Systems practice has particular characteristics that make it qualitatively differ-
ent to other forms of practice
• An effective and epistemologically aware systems practitioner can call on a
greater variety of options for doing something about complex uncertain situa-
tions than other non-aware practitioners
• Being able to deploy more choices when acting so as to enhance systemically
desirable, and culturally feasible change has also to be ethically defensible; and
• Our individual and collective capabilities to think and act systemically are
under-developed and this situation is a strategic vulnerability for us, as a spe-
cies, at a time when concerns are growing for our continued existence in a
co-evolutionary, climate change world.

Illustration 13.2

3
A fear I have is that commentators, scientists and policy makers will continually attempt to
reduce uncertainty to risk as exemplified by Giddens (2009) who rather disingenuously argues
that ‘risks associated with climate change, as I have often stressed in this book, shade so far over
into uncertainty that they often cannot be calculated with any certainty’ (p. 174).
318 13 Valuing Systems Practice

You may or may not accept that these arguments have been made. If you have
then the dynamic depicted in Fig. 1.2 is at play – you will have concluded that as
explanations they are acceptable. But as I have said, the acceptance or not of my
explanations will probably depend on your own circumstances and the relational
dynamics from which what you have come to value has emerged.
In this chapter I first want to explore some different perspectives on valuing
and situate these in the history of valuing and the related practice of evaluating. In
doing this my concern is to illuminate how effectiveness comes to be judged in
relation to systems practice. Through the lens of a final reading I then want to
explore the transition from being systemic to doing Systems.4 I do so because how
these two modes are understood is, it seems to me, contested within the Systems
community. At the core of this issue is how those in Systems understand their
own intellectual and praxis domain and thus how they value what they and others
do. Within the mode of ‘being systemic’ and ‘doing Systems’, there is a need to
understand how capability can be built. How capability-building processes are
designed and enacted is a reflection of valuing and evaluating. Three frameworks
to consider these issues are provided. I conclude by considering how the valuing
of systems practice can be understood in an emotion of hope.

13.2 Perspectives on Valuing

Valuing, and thus what emerges as value, happens at the personal, interpersonal,
organisational and societal level in an unfolding dynamic. Frequently it seems that
what each generation comes to value is undervalued by the preceding generation.
But it is dangerous to attribute values to groups or sectors rather than to be con-
cerned with the question: how is the act of valuing conserved through our manners
of living? An answer to this question requires an appreciation that manners of liv-
ing are conserved as part of a lineage. This is the same process that operates in the
conservation of different manners of doing systems practice.
In Chapter 1 I claimed that failings in our governance arrangements called out
for transformation based on fundamental shifts in thinking and practice as well as
what we choose to value. But what value do we place on getting our thinking
sorted out – of doing different things rather than the current things more effi-
ciently? Take the field of human genetics and the revolution in biology. As Steve
Talbott (2009) has observed, a few years ago biologists thought they had the basis
of life all sorted out. But they were wrong. Talbott explores how, in doing what
they did, biologists put at stake the ‘nature of biological explanation – our under-
standing of understanding itself’. Particularly at issue, he concluded ‘are the

4
In Chapter 5 I spoke of being and doing as recursively related. So, with awareness, to do one is
also to do the other. I have chosen to capitalise the word Systems here to denote the process of
making a connection with the intellectual and social history of doing Systems (as per Fig. 2.3)
and of acting with awareness of both systemic and systematic practice.
13.2 Perspectives on Valuing 319

distortions introduced by a one-sidedly logical-causal habit of thinking – distortions

worsened by the continuing failure to enter into the more organic sort of under-
standing that so many have hoped for over the years and even centuries’. His
excellent essay reveals how misunderstood this whole field of endeavour is, not
least by scientists themselves, for:
nothing less than the dynamics of cell, whole organism, and environment can make sense
of any particular tract of DNA – can interpret it and turn it into a fitting expression of its
larger context. The genome, perhaps we could say, is not so much an instruction manual
as a dictionary of words and phrases together with a set of grammatical constraints. And
then, from conception through maturity, the developing organism continually plays over
this dictionary epigenetically, constructing the story of its destiny from the available
textual (genetic) resources.5

What Talbott holds up for critical consideration is the explanations we offer

and accept about the nature of life, and, as he says, the very understanding of
understanding.6 How we engage with such issues, the practices that we pursue,
and the explanations that are offered frame what is or is not valued. One might
reflect that our prospects for managing an on-going co-evolutionary dynamic
between humans and the biosphere is not good if the fundamentals of how we
understand life and understanding are built on shaky foundations. However, I
would like to think that in Talbott’s analysis lie seeds of transformational change.
He connects with the systems biologists who, in the early part of the twentieth
century, became concerned that other biologists, in doing what they did, had lost
sight of the properties of whole organisms (Bertalanffy 1968). He also adds weight
to the rationale for the re-emergence of systems biology as a legitimate area for
research and understanding (O’Malley and Dupré 2005).7
Elsewhere there have been calls for critically rethinking approaches to interdis-
ciplinarity in systems practice in ways that value ‘epistemological pluralism’. This
is understood as an approach to practice that recognises that there are different
ways of knowing that warrant valuing and accommodation (Miller et al. 2008).
Such calls are driven by an emerging framing which breaks away from the histori-
cal dualistic focus on ‘ecosystems’ and ‘social systems’ to seeing these in more
relational terms as ‘social-ecological systems’.8

5
Epigenesis is a concept worth understanding in the systems domain. In biology it literally means
development on top of (epi) development. Thus it refers to the current development based
sequence of further development in an organism. It was originally coined to refer to embryonic
development of a plant or animal from an egg or spore through a sequence of steps in which
each step creates the conditions for the next step so that cells differentiate, organs form, and the
shape of the living system results (see Carey 2012).
6
For a critique that reaches similar conclusions, though from a different worldview, see Hodges
(2009).
7
A speculative thought is that perhaps his understanding of the operation of DNA could also be
seen as an isophor for the systems practitioner, an embodied juggling act!
8
Donald Schön made similar arguments quite early-on in his long and productive career.
320 13 Valuing Systems Practice

When preparing to write this chapter I asked Peter Checkland what he had
come to value from his 40 odd years of doing systems practice. His answer was:
‘its the penny dropping in the people in organizations … that something makes
them realize that they are now thinking in a completely different way i.e., they are
thinking about their own thinking and this is a huge step for most people …. This
shift in thinking, when the penny drops, is when the paradigm shifts.’9
Checkland’s reflections parallel my own experience and that of many of my col-
leagues who are systems educators. But why is it that it is this particular facet of
our doing that we have come to value so highly?
Before I respond to my own question I want to explore some aspects of the his-
tory of valuing so as to create a context for what I want to say.

13.2.1 Appreciating Some of the History of Valuing

In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries the dominant mode of practice
in relation to valuing has been appropriated by the discipline, politics and ideology
of economics. How this has come to pass is a topic worthy of a book in its own
right, but the main points of contention can be summarised as (Straton 2006):
The classical conceptualization of value [in economics] is related to supply; it is also
objectivist, locating the origin of value in the things from which objects are made, such as
land or labour … In contrast, the modern neoclassical conceptualisation of value incorpo-
rates a convergence of supply and demand that produces an equilibrium or market-
clearing price. Value is considered to originate in the minds of individuals, as revealed
through their subjective preferences. In short, value is determined by the market-place.

Ecological resources complicate the modern neoclassical approach to determin-

ing value due to their complex nature, considerable non-market values and the dif-
ficulty in assigning property rights. Application of the market model through
economic valuation only provides analytical solutions based on virtual markets,
and neither the demand nor supply-side techniques of valuation can adequately
consider the complex set of biophysical and ecological relations that lead to the
provision of ecosystem goods and services (p. 402).10
It is not only ecological resources that complicate the neo-classical paradigm
(some might claim ideology). As I outlined in Chapter 8 (Section 8.5), the under-
standing of human behaviour and rationality that is at the core of the neo-classical
paradigm has been shown to be both limiting and flawed. In addition, situations

9
This is a particularly British expression usually meaning to convey the moment when a pre-
viously confused or mistaken person finally understands something, generally something impor-
tant and maybe something painfully obvious to others’ (see http://horizon.bloghouse.net/
archives/000204.html); it refers to the same phenomenon as my ‘aha moment’ referred to in
Chapter 2.
10
And these goods and services are distinguished specifically in relation to what we take/use
(and hence value) from ‘the ecosystem’ – i.e., they are not about ecology!
13.2 Perspectives on Valuing 321

such as climate change are best understood as non-equilibrial yet for decision
making we rely on a paradigm that is built on concepts of equilibrium. This is sig-
nificant as the treasuries of the world are, in the main, places where this type of
thinking is institutionalised.
However, the failings of economics and the mainstream ways of valuing are
not my concern here. I want to introduce some other perspectives, but before I do
I need to turn to the process of evaluating.

13.2.2 Evaluating

At its simplest the process of evaluating can be understood as a device to bring

questions of value into the conversation. Expressed crudely it can be understood
as a means to abstract value from a process. As in economics and project
management a mainstream view has come to exist to which there are alternative
conceptions and discourses (Williams and Imam 2007). Patton (1990, p. 11)
observed that:
Human beings are engaged in all kinds of efforts to make the world a better place. These
efforts include assessing needs, formulating policies, passing laws, delivering programs,
managing people and resources, providing therapy, developing communities, changing
organizational culture, educating students, intervening in conflicts and solving problems.
In these and other efforts to make the world a better place, the question of whether the
people involved are accomplishing what they want to accomplish arises. When one exam-
ines and judges accomplishments and effectiveness, one is engaged in evaluation. When
this examination of effectiveness is conducted systematically and empirically through
careful data collection and thoughtful analysis, one is engaged in evaluation research.

Wadsworth (1991, p. 1) has a perspective on evaluation that exemplifies the

process of valuing that is of concern to me. She argues that:
We evaluate all the time. From the minute we meet someone new, or sift through the
day’s mail, or walk into a shop or office, or decide on the week’s activities, we are evalu-
ating. We decide whether things are valuable or unimportant, worthwhile, or not ‘worth
it’, whether things are good or bad, right or wrong, are going OK or ‘off the rails’, are
attractive, difficult, exciting, offputting, useful, undesirable, functional, effective, boring,
expensive, too much, too little, just right, interesting, too simple, much too complex, or a
disaster! Every time we choose, decide, accept, or reject – we have made an evaluation.

But it is only when we distinguish in language that we have done so, that we
have ‘evaluated’. Otherwise what happens just happens in the flow of living with-
out awareness (Christie et al. 2005). Wadsworth goes on to say (Wadsworth
1991, p. 1) that evaluation begins when we notice a discrepancy between what we
expected (or did not expect) or wanted (or did not want) and what actually has
occurred:
A difference between an ‘is’ and an ‘ought’ (or an ‘ought not’). Or more accurately, the
difference between a valued (or it might be an unvalued) ‘is’ and a valued (or unvalued)
‘ought’ or expectation.
322 13 Valuing Systems Practice

Wadsworth’s and my own understanding differ from the mainstream under-

standing. For example, a common, mainstream, definition of evaluation used in
environment and development contexts, particularly in relation to projects, is:
An examination, as systematic and objective as possible, of an ongoing or completed pro-
ject or program, its design, implementation, and results, with the aim of determining its
efficiency, effectiveness, impact, sustainability, and the relevance of its objectives. The
purpose of an evaluation is to guide decision makers (OECD 1986).

Wadsworth’s perspective challenges this narrow focus on evaluation. My own

perspective is that evaluation needs to be practised as an ordinary, everyday part
of what we do. If it is thought of otherwise it always ends up looming as the
thing that has to be done at the end of a project, and which in practice there is
never enough time left for, so it is often done only to satisfy a directive. If
evaluation is left to the end, how do we know that we are still on track as we
proceed? My approach also suggests that evaluation is not something that needs
to be left to an outside expert to do. Obviously, there are cases where this might
be desirable or the only practical way to evaluate but I am suggesting the need to
break out of a trap in our thinking which sees evaluation as ‘difficult, uncom-
fortable, time consuming and done by someone else, preferably an “expert”’
(Wadsworth 1991, p. 7).
Wadsworth (1991, p. 8) claims that evaluation is:
meant to be self-consciously value-driven (although some evaluation pretends to proceed
as if it isn’t). This makes it both easier and also more difficult to sort out whose values are
predominating. On the one hand it is easier because it is clear – even just from the term
‘evaluation’ – that values are being used to judge practices. On the other hand, it can be
more difficult because evaluation can try to appear ‘objective’ (for purposes of legitimacy,
certainty, agreement, etc.) but without real agreement around values. This may make it
more difficult to realise that value is not inherent in what is being evaluated, but is
ascribed by those observing it.

The underlining in the quote above is my added emphasis. McCallister (1980)

goes further, arguing (p. 280) that ‘evaluation can rightly be considered a branch
of ethics’ (but a form of ethics that arises in the doing as I outlined in Chapter 5).
How ethics arises can be understood through the difference between ‘open inquiry
evaluation’ and ‘audit review evaluation’. The former can be seen as systemic,
illuminative and process- and learning-based. In contrast the latter is undertaken
as systematic, objective and standards-based (see Wadsworth 1991, p. 34).
What emerges for me from the perspectives of Patton and Wadsworth is an
appreciation and preference to understand evaluation, and thus effectiveness, in
relation to systems practice as:
1. Always arising in a specific context (relating to both performance and situation)
2. Enacted through praxis
3. Beginning when any purposeful behaviour begins (i.e., at the start)
4. More robust when informed by multiple perspectives
5. Valuing difference (or requisite variety) – the differences that make a
difference
13.2 Perspectives on Valuing 323

6. Based on systemic, circular rather than linear models of causation

7. Always socially constructed and thus relational
8. Related to articulated measures of performance (of a system of interest), parti-
cularly effectiveness (why), or efficiency (how) or efficacy (what)
9. Enabling the emergence of new and different narratives (accounts) which result
in different emotional dynamics.
Systemic evaluation is a form of systems practice that could well have been a
topic of focus in Part III. Bob Williams explains it in the following terms
(Williams 2009):
The systems field comprises methodologies, methods and tools that are deeply evaluative.
But it is not just about method. As a friend said recently, the biggest benefit of systems
ideas in her work was that it enabled her to ask more powerful questions. And questions,
especially powerful questions, are the lifeblood of good evaluation.
For me, systems concepts provide me with very powerful ways of exploring inter-
relationships, perspectives and boundaries. These are important issues within evaluation:
• Inter-relationships are the key to understanding how programs behave
• Perspectives provide insight into motivations and thus how people behave
• Boundaries determine who wins and who loses from an intervention, what is ‘in’ and
what is ‘out’ of an assessment of that intervention. In other words indicate value or
worth
More than evaluation, the systems field has thought deeply about these three concepts and
come up with approaches that can transform the way in which evaluation does its job.

Systemic evaluation has been the focus of an anthology edited by Williams and
Imam (2007), and is quickly emerging as a new lineage within the Systems field
(see Reynolds et al. 2016a). This expansion provides a rich literature to draw upon
which I have chosen not to replicate here.11 I do however want to return to the
dynamics of living in language, particularly conversations, and notions of authen-
ticity and accountability. I do so because I want to widen the usual horizon of
thinking about these matters, to create opportunities, hopefully, for making more
choices and thus for the emergence of different ways of valuing.

13.2.3 Authenticity and Accountability in Conversations

Krippendorff (2009) proposes an explanation of authenticity as:

the pleasure of participating in togetherness in which one is free to speak for oneself, not
in the name of absent others, not under pressure to say things one does not believe in, and
not having to hide something for fear of being reprimanded or excluded from further con-
versation (p. 141).

11
There are many commonalities between what Patton (2010) calls Developmental Evaluation
and systemic-evaluation.
324 13 Valuing Systems Practice

He points out that authentic conversation is not easily, if at all, identifiable

from the outside and suggests that participants in authentic conversations, whether
as speakers or listeners, may experience conversations as:
• Occurring in the presence of addressable and responsive individuals
• Maintaining mutual understanding – evident only in performance (since cogni-
tion cannot be observed) and sometimes indicated by statements such as ‘I
understand’, ‘tell me more’, ‘I agree’12
• Self-organising and constituted in the contributions their participants make to
each other (i.e., conversations are not abstract but embodied in real participants)
• Intuitive, not rule governed (e.g. children born into a community need to learn
how to join in conversations not a set of rules about a conversation)
• Dialogically equal (i.e., everyone in the conversation has an equal opportunity
to contribute)
• Creating possibilities of participation (e.g. opening up possibilities to increase
the number of possibilities for subsequent action)
• Irreversible, progressive and unique (each turn is experienced as unique)
• Coordinating constitutions of reality (i.e., what becomes institutionalised as a
consequence of being in a conversation)
• Continuable in principle.
Ironically authentic conversation seems more obvious when it isn’t present –
when faced with breakdown and dysfunctionality. In a sense the same applies to
systems practice – for those who understand what systems practice is, the lack is
what becomes most obvious.
Why is this relevant to valuing and evaluating? From a personal perspective I
gain a great deal of satisfaction from being in an authentic learning relationship,
whether with students, family, colleagues or clients. I suggest something similar
leads Checkland to value what he does when doing his systems practice.
Krippendorff (2009) notes that ‘authentic conversation is typical among trusting
friends but also among strangers who, having nothing to lose, feel alive in each
other’s presence’ (p. 143). In my experience the doing of systems practice creates
the possibilities for the emergence of authenticity understood in the terms
described above. Furthermore, I would claim that the seeds of a ‘good perfor-
mance’ amongst stakeholders in an issue are to be found in the experiencing of
authenticity. Unfolding authenticity creates the circumstances for building and
re-building relational capital, that form of capital that synthesises the other forms
of capital (natural, manufactured, social, cultural and institutional) (see SLIM
2004) – and that is so easy to destroy in modern organisational life.
Krippendorff (2009) illuminates another aspect of living in language relevant to
my concerns here. He contends that: ‘everything said is said not only in the expecta-
tion of being understood, but also in the expectation of being held accountable for

12
Krippendorff (2009) makes the important point that ‘acknowledging understanding does not
mean similarity or sharing of conceptions, its affirmation constitutes an invitation to go on,
including to other subjects’ (p. 142).
13.3 Valuing Being Systemic 325

what was said or done’ (p. 143).13 The most typical accounts are (1) explanations;
(2) justifications; (3) excuses and (4) apologies. Explanations are the least disruptive
of conversations and best coordinate understandings and thus behaviour.
Explanations are expansive. Justifications and apologies admit the speaker’s agency,
unlike excuses. Of these only apologies and explanations admit responsibility.

13.3 Valuing Being Systemic

In my explication of the B-ball (Chapter 5) I presented a range of factors that are

worthy of valuing as part of one’s systems practice and that, for me, seem central
to being systemic. I think there is a case for fostering more systemic ways of
being. In this final chapter I have chosen to synthesise what I mean by introducing
a final reading (Reading 9). Having been fortunate to have met Mary Catherine
Bateson, as well as having read her work, I experience her as exemplifying a sys-
temic being. This can be understood most readily by reading her book ‘Willing to
Learn: Passages of Personal Discovery’ (Bateson 2004).14 Reflecting on the influ-
ences of her parents (Gregory Bateson and Margaret Mead) Mary Catherine
Bateson said that she sometimes ‘thought that she learned social engagement from
her mother and abstraction from my father’. She also observed that their different
styles eventually drove them apart. That a couple could be driven apart by their
different manners of being is testimony to the power of ways of thinking and act-
ing. This essay (Bateson 2001), based on a presentation to the American Society
of Cybernetics, but also reproduced in her reflective essays (Bateson 2004) is cho-
sen because of the authenticity I experience when reading it.15

Reading 9
The Wisdom of Recognition
Mary Catherine Bateson

In spite of the tighter and tighter economic and electronic interlinking of the
world we live in, our vision is ever more fragmented by specialization.
Cybernetics can be a way of looking that cuts across fields, linking art and
science and allowing us to move from a single organism to an ecosystem,

(continued)
13
See also Shotter (1984, 1993) who claims that speakers tend to articulate their contributions to
a conversation not merely in response to other speakers but also with possible accounts in mind
in case their contribution is challenged.
14
As observed on her website Bateson’s book is constructed around the proposal that lives should
be looked at as compositions, each one an artistic creation expressing individual responses to the
unexpected; to learn more about Mary Catherine Bateson see http://www.marycatherinebateson.
com/reviews.html (Accessed 31 May 2017) and http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/govan/?page_id=88
(Accessed 31 May 2017).
15
I cannot claim that in your reading you will experience the authenticity that I do.
326 13 Valuing Systems Practice

Reading 9 (continued)
from a forest to a university or a corporation, to recognize the essential
recurrent patterns before taking action. I want you to have in the back of
your minds today how this spectrum is built into the tradition of the
American Society for Cybernetics, and how it has been obscured in activ-
ities that bear the label ‘cybernetics’.
It has been my task to deal with the dual intellectual heritage of my par-
ents, Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson, which is also part of the heritage
of the cybernetics movement – both belonged to the original Macy confer-
ences. Their approaches to issues of aesthetics and action are part of our
common history, and relevant today. Both Margaret and Gregory grew up to
regard the arts as higher and more challenging than the sciences. This sense
of humility in relation to the arts lasted right through their lives and seems to
connect with their concern for whole systems. Their attitudes toward action
in the world, however, differed sharply, and I believe the difference came out
of World War II. Margaret’s war work used her professional training to
increase understanding between allies, while Gregory’s role was sowing con-
fusion among the enemy. This year is the Mead centenary, using her quote,
‘Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change
the world’. She believed that you could use social science to improve society.
Gregory did not, and even in psychiatric contexts, he resisted the transforma-
tion of his ideas into specific strategies of intervention and looked at
Margaret’s activism very much askance. Both would have seen the observer
as part of the system, but emotionally Gregory was an outsider, alienated
from the society in which he lived, while Margaret was always very much
engaged and felt that her commentary was made as a participant.
Margaret and Gregory shared an orientation toward whole systems. In
those days, anthropologists spoke of ‘salvage anthropology’. The concept
was that every human group has developed an integrated and unique adaptive
pattern passed on from generation to generation – myths, subsistence technol-
ogy, family structure, language. The urgency, analogous to the danger today
of species loss, was the loss of alternative ways of being human. If you went
into a preliterate community that had never been studied, you knew you
couldn’t get the whole thing, but you got as much as you possibly could,
because you might be the last person with the opportunity to write it down.
Today we divide the world between groups of specialists, but anthropology
in those days was a training ground for thinking about whole systems.
After the war, Gregory drifted away from ethnography, but the way he
thought was grounded in biology and natural history, and he continued to think
in terms of systems and analogies. He went from studying Bali to studying
alcoholics and the families of schizophrenics, and dolphins, and octopuses, and
philosophical issues around the biosphere. He seemed to be flitting from one
interest to another and of course it was held against him. I think many of us
have had the same problem. It was not until the late sixties, I believe, that it

(continued)
13.3 Valuing Being Systemic 327

Reading 9 (continued)
became fully clear to Gregory that he had been struggling to develop a way of
thinking that would be transferable, systematically, from one subject matter to
another, so that what looked like a group of random essays was recognizable
as steps – to what he called an ecology of mind (Bateson 1999/1972).
Margaret got into a different kind of trouble. She wrote for the general
public, drawing the parallels from every society she studied to issues in wes-
tern society. She was criticized for talking to ordinary people and for talking
about a very wide range of topics. She seemed to have opinions about every-
thing under the sun – but that’s what anthropologists did, they looked at
everything under the sun of whatever community they were in. (She did
write specialized monographs, designed for expert colleagues, but most of
her colleagues don’t read them, they read the popular books.)
Mead wrote a column for Redbook Magazine, a women’s magazine. The
majority of readers in those days were housewives with a high school educa-
tion, but Mead had been studying ordinary people, after all, in small societies
where being an adult meant that you understood your culture in a way that
none of us today can. Mead argued that ‘The way in which people behave is
all of a piece’ (Mead 2000/1942). The lullaby that a mother sings, the classes
in school, and the way marriages are negotiated … are interlocked and rein-
forced. There were really two approaches to the unity of cultural systems. One
was ‘functionalism’, which emphasized the causal interconnections between
different aspects of culture, associated with Malinowski; and the second, asso-
ciated with Ruth Benedict, emphasized the stylistic congruence of different
aspects of culture, so they added up to a single ethos, and this was an aesthetic
concept. Both of these approaches fit with the argument that you can neither
understand a culture nor act on it effectively in terms of little pieces.
In 1968 Gregory convened the Conference on Conscious Purpose and
Human Adaptation in Gloggnitz Austria, which focused on the damage done
in pursuit of conscious purposes without a sense of the whole (Bateson 1972).
By that time Gregory was deeply worried about environmental degradation, but
whenever a member of the group would propose action, Gregory would dig in
his heels and say, ‘We don’t understand well enough yet to feel that we can act
without making things worse’. At the end he called for a theory of action that
would be moral in the sense of not disrupting the larger systems in which
it occurs, and he suspected that this would have to do with aesthetic judgment
that might transcend the need for a complete description of the state of a system
and the implications of a particular action. Some people, he argued, have a
‘green thumb’. They know how to look after a plant, just as some doctors
simply have a sense of how to care for a patient, just as a painter or a composer
or a poet produces a work of art without a complete and detailed theory of what
she is doing, but recognizes the aesthetic value (Bateson 1991/1968).
‘Is it the first virtue of art’, he asked, ‘…to force the player and the
listener, the painter and the viewer, and so on, to surrender to that necessity

(continued)
328 13 Valuing Systems Practice

Reading 9 (continued)
which marks the boundary between conscious self-correction and uncon-
scious obedience to inner calibration?’ (Bateson and Bateson 1987) That
inner calibration corresponds to one of the many meanings of Gregory’s
most famous phrase, ‘the pattern which connects’. Not only do all living
systems have certain characteristics in common, but this similarity can be a
basis for relationship, so some individuals, not knowing fully in conscious-
ness what it is to be alive, might perceive living systems on the basis of an
internal template or calibration. This recognition, like the ancient mariner’s
recognition of the beauty of the tropical water snakes around his becalmed
ship, makes it possible to act with wisdom (Bateson and Bateson 1987,
p. 73). Interestingly enough, Kant’s third critique, the Critique of Judgment,
makes the same kind of connection between the purposive and the aesthetic
(Nuzzo 2008).16 There too there is something like a template within the self,
that makes possible the recognition of aesthetic order in the other. We reveal
something about ourselves in judging something beautiful.
Groups, like organisms, are systemic, perhaps in ways more accessible to
awareness than our individual systemic characteristics. Interestingly, both
Margaret and Gregory saw the potential of groups for wiser decision mak-
ing. At the Gloggnitz conference we finally felt that the best wisdom we had
came out of the diversity of the members of the group and the mingling of
thought and emotion in their interactions, so that together they constituted a
whole that could model a kind of wisdom (Bateson 1972). Mead had been
creating groups to do just that, starting during World War II with carefully
designed working groups of various sorts. From her point of view the cyber-
netics group was a model of precisely the kind of thinking organism com-
posed of a diverse group of people that can take on a life of its own and
spin that vitality into sensitivity (Mead 1999/1964).
We repeatedly slip back into the same kinds of fragmented visions, saying
we are interested in facts instead of responding to patterns. Since my parents’
time, anthropology, which was one of the only disciplines that could try to
understand being human holistically, has deconstructed itself. In fact, the
same thing has happened with cybernetics, so that increasingly we think not
of cybernetics as a unifying way of seeing the world, but as a tool to be
applied here and there, for purposes of manipulation. Society is becoming
newly infatuated with simple causal models. Just within the last half decade,
I see a worrying new wave of simplistic biological determinism coming
along not only as a form of explanation, but also as a model for intervention.
All of us here have clues to addressing this problem, part of a common
heritage created not by our genes but by our having participated in overlapping
conversations over half a century, and we have a common responsibility to

(continued)
16
Later published as Nuzzo (2008).
13.4 Doing Systems 329

Reading 9 (continued)
preserve and develop this heritage. In the American Society for Cybernetics
there is a significant continuing reservoir of shared understanding of a way of
being in the world, acting on the wisdom of recognition, which is badly needed.
Reprinted from/first published in Cybernetics Human Knowing, 8(4):87–90. Copyright
© Imprint Academic, Exeter, UK.

This essay provides a window into the world of cyber-systemic understanding

and practice as it can be understood today. Manifest in the essay are tensions
between understandings of systems as ontologies and systems as epistemologies
(as depicted in Fig. 2.3)17 as well as tensions between being systemic and doing
Systems i.e., the tension over the extent that one commits to action in the world.
What I particularly value about Bateson’s piece is the reflexive and systemic nat-
ure of her concerns. Gerard Fairtlough similarly arrived at an understanding,
through structured inquiry and reflection, that innovation is epitomised by the
reflective practitioner, especially one who has been involved in business, scientific
research, education, government and NGOs. Geoffrey Vickers is another example
of the reflective, systems practitioner. Yet Vickers came to Systems as a means to
reflect on his life’s work whilst Fairtlough drew on it to act in the world through
the setting up and managing of a business.18 Both pathways seem meaningful.
It seems to me that being systemic is particularly important for understanding
situations, for making judgments, and entering into and fostering particular types
of conversations. But in a sense being systemic is not enough – it is, after all, only
one of the balls to juggle. The phrase ‘doing Systems’ has come to exemplify for
me the transition from being to doing, and can be seen as a rubric or descriptor
which encompasses all of the balls juggled by the aware systems practitioner.

13.4 Doing Systems

13.4.1 Committing to Action (Praxis)

My concern with the transition from being to doing is theoretically informed and
practically and politically important. I share the perspective of Will McWhinney
(2001) who articulates his concern as the ‘uncritical acceptance of an unbounded
holism’ (p. 93). He describes a New Yorker cartoon of a man reading a small

17
This is evident in the use by Bateson of the phrase ‘whole systems’ which within the logic of
the arguments I have mounted in Chapter 2 is not a particularly helpful or meaningful term.
18
See also Scholes (2005) and Haynes (1995) whose systems practice is part of a lineage of SSM
thinking and practice.
330 13 Valuing Systems Practice

handbill posted on a brick wall of an old building, the title for which is: ‘The
cosmos, a detail’. The point he makes is that this situation applies to us all – our
view is always but a detail. McWhinney argues that systems practitioners need to
take responsibility for selecting ‘what we can best put to use’ on the basis that
‘finding alternatives is the work of intelligence and selecting what we can manage
is a creative act.’ In other words systems practice has to involve purposeful action
for situation improvement – it is learned and enacted through doing.
Through the isophor of the juggler I have presented and explicated an ‘ideal
type’ model for an aware systems practitioner. Importantly the juggler is an iso-
phor for embodied systems practice – for doing Systems. The juggler is not a blue-
print but a device for understanding and learning about your own systems practice
or the systems practice of others. In addition I have purposefully set out to create
the circumstances for different forms of systems practice to be appreciated and
valued. In all, nine readings appear in the book written by eight different systems
practitioners. Each account reveals aspects of value that has emerged from their
practice and raises questions in relation to effectiveness.

13.4.2 An Evaluation Framework for Doing Systems

In Chapter 10 I referred to the PersSyst project at The Open University (UK)

which set out to effect systemically desirable and culturally feasible changes
within the organisation through building capability amongst staff for systems
thinking and practice. Naturally in undertaking this systemic inquiry we had to
address both effectiveness and evaluation. Armson (2007) described the situation
faced in the following way:
It can be argued that evaluation requests are often based on a model in which the results
of a development intervention, such as a workshop or training programme, are traceable
through a linear chain of causation (intervention leads to improved performance that leads
to organizational benefit). Those involved (trainers, participants and others) will under-
stand that the effects of an intervention are much more diverse and that the chain of
causes and effects is neither linear nor fully traceable…. those engaged in the action know
that success or otherwise is not reducible to simple metrics.

As a part of the ongoing systemic inquiry that underpinned PersSyst, Armson

(2007) developed a conceptual model of a systems practitioner working in an
organisation understood as part of a system of influences (Fig. 13.1). The model
exemplifies how a person’s perceived performance in their role can be understood
as an emergent property of a system of influences, viz.:
• The systems practitioner with their history
• The choice about the framing of a situation
• The approaches the practitioner uses
• The stakeholders, including their boss and their colleagues.
Armson’s conceptual model can be used as means to understand and evaluate
systemically an HR intervention such as a training event – these ideas are fleshed
13.4 Doing Systems 331

performance

the situation

the systems the

practitioner practitioner’s
practice

the approaches
the systems
the stakeholders practitioner uses

An influence diagram of systems practice

Fig. 13.1 An influence diagram of the factors that give rise to systems practice as a performance
which can also act as (1) a design for capability building and/or (2) a framework for evaluation
(Armson 2007, 2011).

out further in her book (Armson 2011). In the case of PersSyst, training events
were conducted to build systems practice capability. Historically, evaluation of a
training workshop was focused on the individual out of context, not the network
of influences shown in Fig. 13.1.19 However, the model provides a much richer
and thus satisfactory framework for designing and evaluating HR activity. With
elaboration, the model can be used to demonstrate how a typical HR intervention
(e.g. a one off workshop) in itself has no direct influence on the employee’s per-
formance. Armson also makes the point that the model ‘carries the clear implica-
tion that individual employees are the only stakeholders who can attribute a
connection between the intervention and improved performance. They are the
only stakeholders engaged at the systemic level from which performance
emerges.’ This is because the system of influences is the ‘practice’ of the indivi-
dual shown in Fig. 13.1.

19
In my experience many change management activities in complex organisations believe naively
that enhanced performance can be achieved through staff development forgetting that the capa-
city to respond – to use new skills or understandings – may be constrained by a range of factors
such as structure, processes, relationships (this is a similar set of phenomena as described in
Chapter 9 for systems practice).
332 13 Valuing Systems Practice

This model is also a framework that can be used to evaluate (whether through
self, or ‘external’ evaluation) the efficacy and effectiveness of an initiative such as
PersSyst. The effective introduction of Systems into an organisation requires
working with the full set of influences if one is to effect changes to both individual
and organisational performance. This model can also be used to explore what I
call the responsibility ↔ response-ability relational dynamic. For example, an
employee cannot be held responsible for effecting change in a workplace situation
on the basis of only learning a new approach. If institutions in the change situation
and the abilities of other stakeholders constrain change then the circumstances for
response-ability have not been created. Aware of these challenges an effective sys-
tems practitioner can take a ‘design turn’ (Chapter 10) and seek, probably with
others, to reconfigure the relational dynamics in the situation.
Illuminating as Fig. 13.1 is, it says nothing about the particular capabilities that
might be of concern when educating or enabling enhanced performance or evalu-
ating a systems practitioner.20

13.4.3 A Framework for Capability Building in Systems

When reflecting on his systems consultancy practice, Jim Scholes (2005, p. 142)
highlighted an experience that arose from a day’s mentoring of a senior executive:
‘I don’t recall that we solved any problems but his comments at the end of the ses-
sion remained with me. He said that he had found it one of the most useful days
he had spent on his own development and asked “why don’t they teach this stuff
in Business Schools?”’ Scholes goes on to pose an important question in relation
to valuing doing Systems: ‘why is it that in a world that is becoming increasingly
complex for managers, and so many talk about the need for “joined up thinking,”
so few have heard about systems thinking, let alone understand or use it in any
shape or form?’ In response to his own question Scholes notes that of the top 10
business schools ranked by FT.com21 ‘none has a Systems Department … and we
can conclude that all would-be leaders of tomorrow emerging from the top schools
“won’t be carrying systems thinking in their kit bags”’ (p. 143).22
It has been apparent for some time in both the UK and Australia (and doubtless
elsewhere) that there is a mismatch between the espoused need for systems think-
ing and practice and the capacity and capability to do it. This no doubt contributes
to the current widespread conceptual emergency identified by folk at the

20
I use capabilities in the sense of being able to act, to create an effective performance. Thus cap-
ability is associated with doing or enactment.
21
This is the url for the Financial Times online – see for example, http://rankings.ft.com/
businessschoolrankings/global-mba-rankings (Accessed 22 May 2017).
22
As far as I am aware in May 2017 little has changed since Jim Scholes wrote this.
13.4 Doing Systems 333

International Futures Forum (Leicester and O’Hara 2009). At the moment there
is little remaining capability within UK Higher Education to deliver systems-
based education and the institutional arrangements for the conservation and
flourishing of what capacity there is are not good. From my perspective this
appears to be a growing strategic weakness though in the period 2010–2017 the
outlook has changed under increasing international demand for systems thinking
in practice (STiP) capabilities (Edson et al. 2017) and the success of the OU’s
taught MSc in STiP (Ison 2012; Blackmore and Ison 2012; Ison and Blackmore
2014). Institutionalising expressions of need for STiP and accompanying invest-
ment remains a great challenge. Let me exemplify the case with one line of
argument.
At The Open University we were in conversation for some time with staff of
the then National School of Government (NSG)23 about running a number of
events for civil servants to develop systems thinking and practice capability as
part of overall capability building in the area of ‘sustainability’. The concept note
to which we were responding was prepared by the NSG. It was written to describe
what they wanted the Higher Education sector to provide and was entitled Skills
and principles for cross-government working – systems thinking. In this concept
note they argue that:
Cross-government working remains a high ideal but very hard to make happen in practice.
It has been identified as a high priority in the recent capability reviews … At the National
School we think that ‘systems thinking’ and ‘systems practice’ skills will become increas-
ingly important knowledge and skill areas for civil servants, especially as we expect to
encounter problems that are increasingly opaque, complex, uncertain and include conflict-
ing evidence or priorities … The underlying purpose of systems thinking is to sharpen the
ability of civil and public servants to anticipate unwanted outcomes and side-effects long
before they ‘go critical’ and to work from a belief that coherent and complementary policy
making across government is possible and achievable, even in very challenging areas.

These needs are not limited to the UK; they pertain to other regions as well.
For example, in Australian research (but relevant internationally) published as
Shifting towards sustainability. Six insights into successful organisational change
for sustainability it was found that the keys to successful change towards sustain-
ability involved an:
ongoing learning process which actively involves multiple stakeholders in change to
achieve sustainability … Learning for Sustainability or Education for Sustainable
Development, they found … involves five key components: Visioning (imagining a better
future); Critical thinking and reflection; Participation in decision making; Partnerships;
and Systemic thinking.24

23
The NSG was the business school for government operating from its heart [Whitehall] and
dedicated to the public sector but it was closed under the UK Conservative government.
24
Unfortunately this research suggests that the five key components are additive – my own per-
spective, based on the arguments of this book is that investing in systemic thinking and practice
would deliver all of the other components (see Hunting and Tilbury 2006).
334 13 Valuing Systems Practice

Table 13.1 An heuristic for considering the design of ‘learning systems’ for capability building
for systems practice. Two learning systems are described, domain specific and generic. Each
have different design considerations and learning outcomes (Adapted from Jones et al. 2009)
Main Learning system model
learning
outcome
Domain specific Generic
Summary: Having the ability to Summary: Having the ability to
integrate systems approaches into one understand, apply and relate systems
or more disciplines or situations concepts in multiple contexts and/or to
add to the Systems knowledge base.
Sense- Having the ability to use basic Systems student; Systemically aware
making systems concepts to make sense of citizen
phenomena, objects and processes in
the world
Practical Having the ability to competently Systems practitioner
mastery apply Systems concepts for research
or practice or the ability to facilitate
the learning of Systems by others
Theoretical In a position to add competently to Systems facilitator; Creator of
mastery the body of Systems knowledge (viz., circumstances for systemic ways of
philosophy, theory, methodology and knowing
praxis) as well as areas of practical
application in specific contexts.
Praxis Able to braid theory and practice in Systemic designer; Aware systems
mastery their situation of concern and to practitioner (able to be reflexively
manage for emergence responsible) and to operate
systemically and systematically

Despite these expressions of need and demand, grounded in solid scholarship,

investment and institutionalisation still lags. As mentioned in Chapter 6, some gov-
ernments have become aware of consistent policy failure around intractable and
‘wicked’ situations’ but at the same time they seem unaware of how to respond or
to even know what capability needs to be built. Table 13.1 is a heuristic adapted
from a ‘systems education matrix’ developed by a group of systems practitioners
(educators) who met in a ‘Fuschl Conversation’ in 2008.25 Their concern was the
nature of systems education (Jones et al. 2009).

25
‘Fuschl Conversations’, now known as an IFSR conversations, were initiated in 1980 in the
Austrian village of Fuschl. They are based on the process of dialogue, of ‘meaning flowing
through’ (see Isaacs 1996; Kersten 2000). It can be understood as a collectively guided disci-
plined inquiry comprising (1) an exploration of issues of social/societal significance, (2) engaged
by scholarly practitioners in self-organised teams, (3) who select a theme for their conversation,
(4) which is initiated in the course of a preparation phase that leads to an intensive learning phase
see http://www.ifsr.org/index.php/international-academy-systems-cybernetic-sciences/ (Accessed
1 June 2017).
13.4 Doing Systems 335

The heuristic operates with two learning system models – one called ‘domain
specific’ and one ‘generic’ (the right hand columns in Table 13.1). These models
apply to the type of work modes that can be pursued by any systems practitioner –
to apply or integrate systems thinking and practice in specific domains (e.g. health;
IT; local, state or national governance; manufacturing, business, etc.) or into other
disciplines (e.g., systems geographer; systems engineer; systems ecologist, etc.) or
to develop systems practice as a generic capability able to be applied anywhere.
Within each learning system model I have identified four levels – the first three,
sense making, practical mastery and theoretical mastery emerged from the Fuschl
conversation. I have taken the liberty of adding an extra dimension, praxis mas-
tery, which I distinguish from the others. In my use of the heuristic I would con-
sider the set of capabilities under ‘generic’ to include (in an additive sense) those
within the same row (i.e., those listed under ‘domain specific’).
The heuristic can be further understood as the reification, at this moment in
time, of the valuing of different systems practice capabilities – a valuing that has
emerged from the conversation and engagement of an expert group.26
What is not made readily apparent in Table 13.1 is how effectiveness might be
judged or valued in relation to awareness in systems practice, i.e., in effectively
juggling all of the balls that were explicated in Chapters 5–8. Table 13.2 is an
assessment matrix for projects undertaken by students in The Open University’s
former undergraduate course Managing complexity: a systems approach that
was largely constructed around the isophor of the juggler (Open University 2007).
Although not presented here, the schema has been further elaborated against each
of the four balls, Being, Engaging, Contextualising and Managing. It should be
possible for anyone concerned with context specific design of leaning systems or
engaging in systemic evaluation to draw upon, and adapt, these two frameworks
(Tables 13.1 and 13.2).
Unfortunately, awareness within the extant systems community of need and
how to go about capability building seems difficult to translate into mainstream
curricula, national capability frameworks and the like; there is however develop-
mental work being undertaken by employers, professional bodies and NGOs
(e.g. Reynolds et al. 2016b). With awareness and effort the current situation can
be changed. It will require continued building of a discourse for systems practice
as a key enabler for living and adapting in a climate-change world as is happening
around the implementation demands for the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals (see Chapter 9). To succeed such a discourse needs to create
and foster practices built on an emotion of hope. Hope, after all is a manner of
living in the present; it has to do with how we do what we do now, rather than
simply imagining a possible future.

26
It is not my intention to expand upon what is known about educating the systems practitioner.
There is a significant literature to which I and colleagues have contributed. For those interested
see (Blackmore 2010; Ison 1999; Ison et al. 2007; Lane and Morris 2001; Salner 1986) as a start.
336 13 Valuing Systems Practice

Table 13.2 A marking scheme for projects completed by students undertaking an Open
University course designed around the systems practitioner as juggler
Projectmark Broad guidelines Being systemically aware
85–100 Demonstrates ownership in the use of Demonstrates self-awareness,
concepts/skills and applies ideas in a awareness of others and an ethical
logical way, reflectively varying focus. In particular, Project Log and
approach with context. Adapts the other reports use second-order
systems approach in creative ways. language (essentially using ‘I’ and
The tutor learns from the student as ‘we’)
well as vice versa. Clear evidence
demonstrated by the student of
realistic, astute, practical judgment and
perception as an action researcher.
70–85 Demonstrates a solid grasp of the Demonstrates self-awareness and an
material and can apply it over a wide ethical focus, as shown by frequent
range of contexts. Lacks the completely use of second-order language.
imaginative reflection of the 85–100
answer. Evidence that report and
conclusions are well reasoned.
Gives evidence of potential as an
action researcher but needs to develop
reflective capability.
55–69 Demonstrates an understanding of the Demonstrates some self-awareness
course and the ability to manage an and ethical focus, but not
inquiry. Understanding of arguments consistently. Language used is
appears to be incomplete. mainly first-order.
Demonstration of engaging reflectively
is limited.
Demonstrates some evidence of being
a systems practitioner.
40–54 Demonstrates that the course material Demonstrates some awareness of
has been read and paid attention to. An self and of own effects as a
instrumentalist approach to the course is practitioner. Gives little evidence of
adopted. Demonstrates difficulties in ethical focus, as corroborated by use
contextualising approaches to changing of only first-order language.
circumstances. Little evidence of
engaging reflectively.
The fail mark in undergraduate courses at The Open University (UK) is set at 40% – hence the
cut-off point in this table.

13.5 Acting in a Climate of Hope in a Climate-Changing

World
13.5.1 Valuing in a Context of Hope

Steve Maharey when Vice-Chancellor of Massey University, New Zealand, and a

former minister in the NZ government, made convincing arguments about how
modern environmentalism has failed because it has not cultivated a climate of
13.5 Acting in a Climate of Hope in a Climate-Changing World 337

hope.27 Whether you agree with this claim or not does not matter here. The
impetus I gained from his claim was to reflect on what the underlying emotional
dynamics were in the various discourses about change (or not) in a climate-
changing world. What seems clear is that we will not succeed in transforming our
situation when the underlying emotions are fear or fundamentalism (Bell 2017).
Graham Leicester (2009, p. 4) claims that there are three choices we can make in
the face of uncertainty and complexity in challenging times; to be: (1) defensive –
deny our confusion, reinforce our certainty, stick ever more doggedly to what we
know – become fundamentalists; (2) destructive by throwing up our hands in despair
and admitting that it is all too confusing (thus deciding to remain lost) and (3) open
to growth and transformation. These are essentially personal choices. As choices
they can be linked to the claims he and colleagues at the International Futures
Forum make about being in a conceptual emergency (Leicester and O’Hara 2009).
For Leicester et al. a conceptual emergency is a personal condition, not an
abstract one. They make the very valid points that ‘you cannot respond to a con-
ceptual emergency until you know you are in one’ and that ‘conceptual emergen-
cies are acknowledged by many organizations but often are a product of the fact
no single organization has a budget line or sense of responsibility for them’. They
also claim that ‘it is better to respond by taking action, at any scale, rather than
planning to take action – because action triggers learning’ (p. 41). I am not con-
vinced that this last point is automatically the case as I have experienced a lot of
action without much learning!
But what of scales beyond the personal? Reflecting on his 40 years of doing
systems within a context of the history of ideas, Peter Checkland recently
observed that this was ‘but the blink of an eye’.28 His reflection was in the context
of concerns for the uptake of systems thinking and practice and particularly the
paradigm shift from ‘hard’ (systematic) to ‘soft’ (systemic) that he has done much
to elucidate. But are these time frames acceptable in a climate changing world?
And if the answer is no, what is to be done to change the situation?
Illustration 13.3

27
‘People First: How to make environmental sustainability something we can all live with’ 53rd
Meeting of the International Society for Systems Sciences (ISSS), University of Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia, 12–17 July 2009. See http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms//About%20Massey/
Vice-Chancellors-office/Speeches/2009/People_First_July_2009.pdf (Accessed 22 May 2017).
28
Personal communication, 3 October 2009, Bourn, UK.
338 13 Valuing Systems Practice

Perhaps an answer is to collaborate in building a social climate (discourse) of

imagination and hope? Leicester (2009, pp. 15–16) argues that in the face of
complexity and uncertainty the ‘first horizon is failing, the second horizon is
innovating, but if there is no vision of a desirable third to which an innovation
is heading, change is merely opportunistic’. From this perspective a third meta-
phor for ‘adaptation’ can be added to ‘adaptation to’ and ‘adaptation with’ that I
introduced in Chapter 1. This third metaphor is ‘adaptation for’. Individually,
nationally and globally we need a discourse and praxis response to this, for as
Leicester (2009) notes: ‘without a third horizon vision pulling us forward there
can be no such distinction [between innovation that props up the old way and a
new, sustainable way] and all innovation will inevitably draw us backward
towards the past’ (p. 16).
Earlier I asked the question what was it that Checkland, I and other colleagues
were valuing in relation to ‘the penny dropping’ experience of which he spoke.
Why is this so important to us? My response is that through the systems practice
that we are concerned with the ‘penny dropping’ phenomenon gives rise to an
expansion of what it is to be human. It does so by providing new and different
ways of knowing. Choosing to engage with situations as if they were complex and
uncertain and engaging in systems practice built on learning and inquiry always
results in a wider, more systemic view, thus opening up more choices in a given
situation. New horizons of knowing, and thus doing seem essential if one is to
build a discourse and praxis of hope.29

13.5.2 Opportunities to be Cultivated

I want to finish the book by laying out an agenda for action around some opportu-
nities for building systems practice within a discourse of hope in a climate-
changing world. This is not an exhaustive listing, but one that might be taken up
by policymakers concerned with enhancing horizontal accountability in cabinet-
based governance, or developing systemic and adaptive governance arrangements
more generally. In concluding with a list I am conscious that this is not a particu-
larly systemic way to finish a book on systems practice (it is however systematic).
Hence my final invitation is for you to consider these points in the light of your
own circumstances. If they seem germane then incorporate them into your own
systemic inquiry into opportunities for building systems practice. By so doing you

29
My own favoured mechanism for reviving my emotion of hope has been, since 2010, to scan
the on-line Forum associated with the OU module TU812 (Managing Systemic Change.
Inquiry, Action and Interaction) and to experience the quality of learning, insight, empathy
and emergent understanding that is apparent. Admittedly, a wide range of emotioning is often
evident as well!
13.5 Acting in a Climate of Hope in a Climate-Changing World 339

will have taken the ‘design turn’ I spoke about in Chapter 10. The points I make
based on my experience are:
• Identify opportunities to create demand-pull for systems practice – this is a gen-
eric point that needs to be pursued in context specific ways (several of the
points below can be seen as ‘hows’ for this ‘what’)30
• Create systems practitioner posts to company boards, cabinets, major committees,
senior teams, large projects31 (e.g. to avoid repetitions of the failed £12 billion
National Programme for IT, known as NfIT, in the UK NHS). Practitioners could
be charged with emulating the role of the joker or jester of mediaeval courts32
or create new professional roles e.g. one of our STiP alumni has reconfigured
her profession as a ‘systems practitioner’ here: https://systemspractitioner.com/
systems-thinking/ (Accessed 1 June 2017)
• If your current systems practice is a ‘silent practice’ then take actions to ‘come
out’; acknowledge good systems practice when you experience it
• Build systems practice capability into public sector senior executive recruitment
and into the policy development process – this includes new modes of ‘rela-
tional policy development’ (Wagenaar 2017) and appropriate use of systems
modelling (Lane 2016)
• Recognise systems practice as part of sustainability capability and build this
into recruitment and promotion criteria and institutional arrangements to under-
pin the implementations of the SDGs
• Make the case to national skills councils, as exist in the UK, or create new
apprenticeships (see http://www.semap.co.uk/, Accessed 1 June 2017) to invest
in systems practice capability33
• Introduce systems practice into secondary curricula – the model used in the
International Baccalaureate of teaching ‘theories of knowledge’ is one that
could be followed
• Commission and experiment with systemic inquiry as an alternative to projecti-
fication in all situations that might better be framed as uncertain, complex,
‘wicked’ or require on-going systemic governance etc.

30
This can be described as a ‘demand pull’ strategy compared to a ‘supply push’ strategy.
31
I base this suggestion on experience of a person who once played this role within the Dupont
company. He operated at board level answerable only to the CEO of the day. Given this history
in Dupont I have found the current CEO’s responses to the global financial crisis of interest (see
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2273#, Accessed 22 May 2017).
32
This suggestion needs to be understood within an appreciation of the historical and political
significance of a court jester, i.e., ‘in societies where freedom of speech was not recognized as a
right, the court jester – precisely because anything he said was by definition “a jest” and “the
uttering of a fool” – could speak frankly on controversial issues in a way in which anyone else
would have been severely punished for’ (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jester, Accessed 20
May 2017).
33
e.g. see the UK Commission for Employment and Skills at http://www.ukces.org.uk/
(Accessed 22 May 2017).
340 13 Valuing Systems Practice

• Create opportunities to do more systemic action research and at the same time
improve quality and conceptual rigour of your practice
• See staff induction as a form of systemic inquiry into an organisation – as an
opportunity for learning and for building relational capital based on praxis
amongst new staff (see Armson et al. 2001)
• Build STiP capability into the overall HR function of organisations, particularly
training – see the advice of OU STiP alumnus Hopkins (2016)
• Experiment with breaking out of hierarchy in organisations through building
capability for systems practice. Fairtlough (2008) conceptualised the changes
he felt were needed to break out of hierarchy as ‘creative compartments’ which
were openness, interaction, smallness, focus and innovation
• Cultivate and find ways to openly enact and discuss your ‘emotional intelli-
gence’ as part of everyday organisational life
• Name power as part of all that you do if you think naming it helps your praxis;
remember that your reflexive systems praxis has the potential to reconfigure
relational dynamics in situations of concern and is thus a praxis that can ‘undo’
configurations, dispositions and discourses of power
• Appreciate relational thinking and act with awareness that humans are engaged
in a co-evolutionary dynamic with the earth. Take responsibility for the futures
we can ‘design’ (i.e., embrace a design turn)
• Seek to recover systemic sensibility wherever it lurks, build systems literacy
and invest in systems thinking in practice capability (Ison and Shelley 2016)
• Contextualise and add to this list as you see fit
• … and act on any of these items wherever they are relevant and you find an
opening to do so.

References

Armson R (2007) How do we know it’s working? Addressing the evaluation conundrum. In:
Sheffield James (ed) Systemic development: local solutions in a global environment. ISCE
Publishing, USA, p 253–262
Armson R (2011) Growing wings on the way. Systems thinking for messy situations. Triarchy
Press, Axminster
Armson R, Ison RL, Short L et al. (2001) Rapid institutional appraisal (RIA): a systemic approach
to staff development. Syst Pract Action Res 14:763–777
Bateson, G (1991/1968) The moral and aesthetic structure of human adaptation. In: Donaldson R
(ed) Sacred unity. HarperCollins: New York
Bateson G (1999/1972) Steps to an ecology of mind. University Press, Chicago
Bateson G, Bateson MC (1987) Angels fear: towards an epistemology of the sacred. Macmillan,
New York
Bateson MC (1972) Our own metaphor. Knopf, New York
Bateson MC (2001) The wisdom of recognition. Cybernetics Human Knowing 8(4):87–90
Bateson MC (2004) Willing to learn: passages of personal discovery. Steerforth Press, Hanover
Bell S (2017) Formations of terror. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
References 341

Bertalanffy Lvon (1968) General systems theory. Braziller, New York

Blackmore C (ed) (2010) Social learning systems and communities of practice. Springer, London
Blackmore CP, Ison RL (2012) Designing and developing learning systems for managing sys-
temic change in a climate change world. In: Wals A, Corcoran PB (eds) Learning for sustain-
ability in times of accelerating change. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Education and
Sustainable Development Series, Wageningen, The Netherlands, p 347–364
Carey N (2012) The epigenetics revolution. Icon Books, London
Christie CA, Montrosse BE, Klein BM (2005) Emergent design evaluation: a case study. Eval
Program Plann 28:271–277
Edson M et al. (2017) (Team 3): Systems research team – Exploring the relationship of systems
research to systems literacy. In: Edson MC, Metcalf GS, Tuddenham P, Chroust G (eds)
Systems literacy. Proceedings of the Eighteenth IFSR Conversation 2016, St. Magdalena
Linz, Austria
Fairtlough G (2007) The three ways of getting things done. Hierarchy, heterarchy and autonomy
in organizations. Triarchy Press, Axminster
Fairtlough G (2008) No secrets. Innovation through openness. Triarchy Press, Axminster
Giddens A (2009) The politics of climate change. Polity, London
Haynes M (1995) Soft systems methodology. Modes of practice. In Ellis K, et al. (eds) Critical
issues in systems theory and practice. Plenum Press, New York
Hodges J (2009) Foundations, fallacies, and assumptions of science for livestock in development:
use of transgenic animals. UN IAEA-FAO International Symposium on Sustainable
Improvement of Animal Production and Health, Vienna 8–11 June
Hopkins B (2016) Learning and performance. A systemic model for analysing needs and evaluat-
ing training. Routledge, London
Hunting SA, Tilbury D (2006) Shifting towards sustainability: Six insights into successful organisa-
tional change for sustainability. Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability
(ARIES) for the Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and
the Arts, ARIES, Sydney
Isaacs WN (1996) The process and potential of dialogue in social change. Educ Tech January/
February:20–30
Ison RL (2012) A cybersystemic framework for practical action. In: Murray J, Cawthorne G,
Dey C et al. (eds) Enough for all forever. A handbook for learning about sustainability.
Common Ground Publishing, Champaign, pp 269–284
Ison RL (1999) Guest editorial: applying systems thinking to higher education. Syst Res Behav
Sci 16:107–112
Ison RL, Blackmore C (2014) Designing and developing a reflexive learning system for mana-
ging systemic change. Systems 2(2):119–136. doi:10.3390/systems2020119
Ison RL, Shelley M (2016) Editorial. Governing in the Anthropocene: contributions from
systems thinking in practice? ISSS Yearbook Special Issue. Syst Res Behav Sci 33(5):
589–594
Ison RL, Blackmore CP, Collins KB et al. (2007) Systemic environmental decision making:
designing learning systems. Kybernetes 36(9/10):1340–1361
Jones J, Bosch O, Drack M et al. (2009) On the design of systems-oriented university curricula.
Res Rep Shibaura Institute of Technology Soc Sci Humanit 43(1):121–130
Kersten, S (2000) From debate to dialogue about vegetation management in Western New South
Wales Australia. In: LEARN Group (eds) [M. Cerf, D. Gibbon, B. Hubert, R. Ison, J. Jiggins,
M. Paine, J. Proost, N. Röling] Cow up a tree. Knowing and learning for change in agricul-
ture. Case Studies from Industrial Countries. INRA (Institut National de la Recherche
Agronomique) Editions, Paris. pp 191–204
Krippendorff K (2009) Conversation. Possibilities for its repair and descent into discourse and
computation. Constr Found 4(3):138–150
Lane AB, Morris RM (2001) Teaching diagramming at a distance: seeing the human wood
through the technological trees. Syst Pract Action Res 14(6):715–734
342 13 Valuing Systems Practice

Lane DC (2016) ‘Till the muddle in my mind have cleared awa’: Can we help shape policy using
systems modelling? Syst Res Behav Sci 33:633–650
Leicester G (2009) Beyond Survival. A short course in pioneering in response to the present
crisis. International Futures Forum, Fife
Leicester G, O’Hara M (2009) Ten things to do in a conceptual emergency. International Futures
Forum, Fife
McCallister DM (1980) Evaluation in environmental planning. Assessing environmental, social,
economic and political trade-offs. The MIT Press, Cambridge
McWhinney W (2001) Enabling embodiment in education. Cybernetics Human Knowing
8(4):91–93
Mead M (1999/1964) Continuities in cultural evolution. Transaction Press, New Brunswick
Mead M (2000/1942) And keep your powder dry. Berghahn Books, New York
Miller TR, Baird TD, Littlefield CM et al. (2008) Epistemological pluralism: reorganizing inter-
disciplinary research. Ecol Soc 13(2):46
Nuzzo A (2008) Ideal embodiment. Kant’s Theory of Sensibility. Series: Studies in Continental
Thought. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
O’Malley MA, Dupré J (2005) Fundamental issues in systems biology. BioEssays 27:1270–1276
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1986) Methods and proce-
dures in AID evaluation. OECD, Paris
Open University (2007) Managing complexity: a systems approach (T306) Technology: Level 3
course, Project Guide. Prepared on behalf of the Course Team by Graham Paton, Bob
Saunders, Eddie Hurst, Bob Zimmer and Sue Holwell. Open University, Milton Keynes.
Patton MQ (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd edn. Sage Publications,
Newbury Park
Patton MQ (2010) Developmental evaluation: applying complexity concepts to enhance innova-
tion and use. Guilford Press, New York
Reynolds M, Gates E, Hummelbrunner R et al. (2016a) Towards systemic evaluation. Syst Res
Behav Sci 33:662–673
Reynolds M, Shah R, Wedlock E, et al. (2016b). Enhancing systems thinking in practice at the
workplace: eSTEeM final report. The OU Centre for STEM Pedagogy.
Salner M (1986) Adult cognitive and epistemological development in systems education. Syst
Res 3:225–232
Scholes J (2005) Reflections on the relevance of systems thinking to management practice.
Systemist 27(2):132–145
Schotter J (1984) Social accountability and selfhood. Basil Blackwell, Oxford
Schotter J (1993) Conversational realities. Constructing a life through language. Sage, Newbury
Park
SLIM (2004) The role of conducive policies for fostering social learning for integrated manage-
ment of water. SLIM, Open University: Milton Keynes. http://slim.open.ac.uk. Accessed 20
May 2017
Straton A (2006) A complex systems approach to the value of ecological resources. Ecol Econ
56(2006):402–411
Talbott, S (2009) On making the genome whole. Part 1: Twilight of the Double Helix.
NETFUTURE. Science, Technology, and Human Responsibility Issue # 175 (March 12).
http://www.netfuture.org/2009/Mar1209_175.html. Accessed 1 May 2017
Wadsworth Y (1991) Everyday evaluation on the run. Action Research Issues Association (Inc.),
Melbourne
Wagenaar H (2017) Why prostitution policy (usually) fails and what to do about it? Soc Sci
6(2):43–43
Williams, B (2009) Systems and evaluation. http://www.bobwilliams.co.nz/Systems_Resources.
html. Accessed 20 May 2017
Williams B, Imam I (eds) (2007) Systems concepts in evaluation: an expert anthology.
EdgePress/American Evaluation Association, California
Index

A Amplifiers, 286
Abandoning certainty, 21, 244, 255, 265, 317 Analogies, 24, 27, 228, 245, 326
Abrogate responsibility, 225 Anthropologists, 103, 326, 327
Abstractions, 22, 52, 63, 101, 129, 131, 325 Antidotes, 225
Accommodation(s), 108, 257, 264, 304, 319 Apartheid of the emotions, 224, 241–248, 251,
Accountability, 72, 126, 127, 186, 231, 276, 281
323–325 Apology/apologies, 33, 325
Ackoff, R., 27, 28, 36, 128, 129, 133, 136, 303 Applied systems, 136, 253, 287
Action inquiry Appreciative inquiry, 142, 193
learning, 255 Apprenticeship, 288
research, 255 Armson, R., 191, 224, 266, 330, 331
Activity model, 256, 257, 264 Artefacts, 7, 111
Actor network theory, 51 As if, 63, 94
Adaptation Attributing purpose, 158, 159, 160
as a good pair of shoes, 13 Audit review evaluation, 322
as co-evolution, 13 Australian Murray-Darling Basin Authority, 267
as fitting into, 13 Australian Public Service Commissioner, 121,
for, 338 127, 199
as jigsaw, 13 Australian Seed Industry Study, 275
with, 338 Authentic, authenticity, 25, 108, 243, 323–325
Adaptive Methodology for Ecosystem Authentic conversation, 324
Sustainability and Health (AMESH), Awareness, 5, 6, 8, 20, 28, 30, 31, 36, 49, 52,
142, 151 53, 61, 82, 83, 89, 94, 99, 100, 106,
Adaptive practice, 227 107, 109, 112, 114, 116, 120, 123, 125,
Aesthetic judgment, 327–328 137, 138, 142, 151, 156, 160, 162, 177,
Aesthetics, 326, 327, 328 183, 190, 191, 192, 199, 206, 225, 233,
Affordance(s), 8, 84 234, 248, 258, 271, 276, 281, 283, 284,
Agency boundaries, 126 285, 286, 288, 297, 318, 321, 328, 335,
Agile….and lean, 311 336, 340
Agricultural policy, 139, 172, 184, 279
Agro-ecosystem assessment, 150
‘Aha…’ moment, 19 B
Air pollution, 68 Bali, 326
Alcoholics, 326 Bateson, G., 247, 283, 325, 326, 327, 328
American Society of Cybernetics, 325 Bateson, M.C., 98, 235, 247, 283, 325

© The Open University 2017 343

Published in Association with Springer-Verlag London Limited
R. Ison, Systems Practice: How to Act, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9
344 Index

Bawden, R.J., 7, 224, 254 Causal structures, 209

B-ball, 61, 80, 81, 94, 97, 105, 114, 138, 184, C-ball, 62, 81, 151, 153, 202
189, 325 Change management, 185, 244, 280, 294
Bed allocation, 212 Chaos, 67, 71, 135
Beer, S., 159, 214 Checkland, P., 34, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 116,
Behaviour, 8, 23, 25, 45, 78, 89, 94, 95, 97, 103, 136, 159, 160, 161, 165, 169, 172, 191,
106, 112, 113, 115, 121, 127, 140, 148, 232, 233, 235, 240, 252, 256, 257, 258,
159, 161, 163, 175, 177, 184, 201, 202, 263, 287, 320, 324, 337, 338
203, 242, 246, 271, 294, 311, 320, 325 Choice-based lettings, 202
Behavioural economists, 201 Choices, 21, 33, 39–46, 48, 49, 52, 61, 62, 64,
Behavioural repertoires, 94, 104, 106, 116 84, 106, 107, 116, 119, 120, 131, 137,
Being 138, 156, 157, 158, 182, 190, 192, 196,
ethical, 89, 105–109 201, 217, 224, 225, 236, 240, 244, 247,
systemic, 318, 325–329, 336 251, 281, 299, 317, 323, 337, 338
Bell, S., 224, 230, 231, 232, 246, 288, 337 Choreography of the emotions, 245–248
Belloc, H., 210 Chorographer, 245, 288
Beratung, 279 Chosen path, 137
Big picture thinking, 127 Churchman, W., 163, 164, 165, 252, 253,
Biological determinism 298, 299
driving force, 283, 328 Circularity, 20, 23, 35, 43, 231
evolution, 328 Circular relationships, 20
Biology of cognition, 245 Citizen engagement, 126, 138, 144, 150,
Blackmore, C., 11, 152, 270, 333 151, 235
Blair regime, 185 Civil servant, 12, 178, 183, 184, 269, 271, 333
Blueprint, 115, 156, 201, 202, 226, 263, 271, Classical paradigm of science/engineering,
330 124, 125
Body dispositions, 285 Climate change
Boundary adaptation, 11, 258, 267, 268
critique, 124, 298, 304 Bill 2008, 268
judgments, 46, 54, 163, 166, 299, 301, 311 Committee (UK), 268
-setting questions, 164, 165 mitigation, 13
Braiding, 167, 168 Clinicians, 294
Bring forth, 35, 73, 101, 102, 115, 137, 177, Closed shop model, 203, 205
224, 277, 281 Club of Rome, 65, 269
British dinosaur, 103 Cognition, 23, 24, 90, 92, 95, 175, 245, 278
Buffers, 68 Cognitive tools, 270
Bunnell, P., 95, 114 Colour perception, 90
Bureaucratic boxes, 230 Co-managing, 62, 189
Business schools, 332 Communication
as signal transfer, 175
conduit metaphor, 280
C dance-ritual metaphor, 282
Capability/Capabilities first-order, 34, 175
building, 210, 265, 269, 331, 332–335 hypodermic metaphor, 280
frameworks, 332–335 second-order, 175, 185
Capacity for listening, 244 Shannon and Weaver, 175, 280
Capital(s) Communities of practice (CoPs), 131, 206
Artificial, 258 Community researchers, 142
Human, 258 Commuting delays, 68
Natural, 258, 324 Complex adaptive system (CAS), 31, 33, 49,
Relational, 258, 282, 324 120, 134, 160, 237
Social, 258, 324 Complexity
Categorisations, 127, 135 practice, 30, 56, 151, 171, 209, 217, 335
Caulkin, S., 25, 28, 36, 37, 226, 227, 228 praxis, 14, 36, 135, 276, 340
Index 345

sciences, 35 D
skills, 198 Debate, 42, 43, 46, 121, 126, 149, 163, 165,
theory, 136, 278 173, 216, 264, 304
Compulsory superannuation, 211 Decision maker, 95, 134, 165, 197, 209, 269,
Computer simulations, 203 302, 322
Concealing, 120, 174, 175 Deliberation, 7
Concept-forming, 132 Deliverables, 224
Conceptual advice Demand for hospital beds, 212
emergency, 332, 337 Demand pull, 56, 339
levels, 254 Democracy, 7, 69, 121, 228, 255
model, 50, 53, 98, 217, 257, 330 Design/designer, 7, 8, 21, 46, 62, 122, 162,
system, 88, 163, 174, 191, 279 227, 252, 279, 298
Concerted action, 10, 11, 152, 252, 258, 259 Designing conversations, 245
Congruence, 22, 25, 51, 171, 245, 264, 327 Design of inquiring systems, 252
Connectivity, 23, 31, 46, 198, 234, 236 Design turn, 258, 269–272, 311, 332, 339,
Consensus, 108, 122, 134, 142, 212, 286 340
Constraints and possibilities of the observer, Deweyan Inquiry, 252
109–113 Dewey, J., 128, 243, 252
Constructivist epistemology, 105 Diagrams
Consultants, 55, 57, 112, 115, 185, 199 arguments for, 11
Consumerism, 4 diagramming, 43, 45
Context sensitive design Dialogue, 133, 163, 173, 182, 241, 279, 299,
local design, 227 303, 305, 334
performance, 227 Different questions, 5, 9
Contextualising, 60, 62, 81, 310–312, 335, 336 Difficulty, 23, 49, 103, 129, 133, 137, 209,
Control systems, 208 211, 212
Conversations, 96, 101, 108, 115, 158, 163, Diffusion of innovation theory, 176
180, 194, 240, 323–325, 328, 329, 334 Dilemma of rigor and relevance, 132
Coordination, 121, 302 Disadvantage, 299
Counterintuitive effects, 31, 302 Discovery of new knowledge, 276
Coupled socio-ecological system, 236 Disembodied person, 88
Craft knowledge, 288 Distinction, 22, 29, 39, 50, 61, 93, 99, 103,
Creating space for, 191, 192 107, 108, 123, 124, 128, 129, 130, 131,
Creative compartments, 340 136, 137, 156, 160, 163, 283, 338
Criminal justice system, 303 Doings, 242, 248, 316
Crisis management, 201 Doing systems, 10, 22, 63, 83, 158, 254, 255,
Critical path analysis, 233 318, 320, 329–335, 337
Critical reflection, 6, 165, 174, 286 Double look, 6
Critical systems heuristics (CSH), 166, 301, Douglass, M., 20
304, 306, 307 Driving positive feedback loops, 65, 70
Cross-government working, 333 Dualism, 49, 195, 277
Culture, 5, 7, 28, 74, 76, 89, 90, 91, 94, 99, Duality, 29, 52, 195, 196, 271, 281
102, 103, 149, 169, 174, 177, 178, 226,
229, 240, 245, 248, 251, 262, 269, 296,
321, 327 E
Curricula, 28, 243, 270, 296, 335 Earth Systems Science, 30
Customer-driven adaptive organisation, 311 E-ball, 60, 61, 62, 81, 116, 169, 231, 236, 239
Cybernetics, 34, 52, 94, 235, 253, 325, 326, 328 Ecological resources, 320
Cybernetics group, 328 Ecologist, 48
Cyber-systemic praxis, 329 Ecology, 13, 193, 236, 238, 327
Cycles, 31 Ecology of mind, 327
Cynefin framework, 135 Economists, 8, 69, 73, 74, 112, 201
Cystic echinococcosis, 138 Eco-social narratives, 138
346 Index

Ecosystem, 46, 47, 48, 49, 54, 64, 78, 139, European Water Framework Directive, 234, 236
141, 142, 143, 144, 150, 206, 235, 238, Evaluating, 6, 262, 284, 318, 321–323, 324,
239, 281, 320, 325 331, 332
Eco-system approaches, 142, 153 Evaluation research, 321
Effectiveness, 6, 9, 14, 20, 36, 49, 83, 104, Evolution, 13, 14, 73, 74, 75, 91, 99, 115,
151, 224, 226, 243, 252, 260, 264, 265, 150, 166, 218, 242, 260, 288, 296
279, 280, 284, 318, 321, 322, 323, 330, Excuses, 325
332, 335 Experiential learning cycle, 161, 194
Efficacy, 14, 158, 213, 214, 264, 323, 332 Explanation, 5, 9, 29, 41, 51, 80, 87, 87–89,
Efficiency, 9, 14, 264, 322, 323 88, 91, 95, 104, 109, 120, 122, 125,
Electricity consumption, 71 148, 158, 177, 209, 226, 236, 277, 282,
Embodied knowing, 89 285, 288, 318, 323, 328
Emergence Externalities, 69, 124
of authenticity, 324
managing for, 202–207
Emergence, 27, 35, 62, 76, 107, 116, 125, F
171, 180, 192, 198, 201, 202, 203, 207, Fairtlough, G., 199, 200, 201, 227, 315, 316,
218, 224, 235, 238, 241, 254, 279, 286, 329, 340
296, 311, 315–318, 319, 323, 324, 334 Family history research (FHR), 28, 27
Emergency ambulance service, 210 Farm, 42, 45, 139, 181
Emergent property/properties, 11, 23, 30, 52, Farming, 172, 183, 236, 280
113, 141, 150, 192, 193, 206, 239, 258, Fear, 88, 229, 230, 242, 246, 323, 337
271, 284, 330 Feedback, 14, 23, 31, 34, 53, 65, 67, 69, 70,
Emotion(s) 71, 72, 73, 75, 79, 80, 121, 152, 174,
emotional dynamics, 90, 99, 120, 137, 175, 180, 181, 197, 198, 208, 209, 210,
185, 241, 246, 284, 323, 337 227, 229, 235, 245, 261, 301, 302
emotional intelligence, 193, 340 Feedback loops, 200
emotioning, 61, 97, 175, 225, 241, 242, First order
245, 288, 338 communication, 35, 175
emotion of despondency, 185 cybernetics, 34, 271
Endangered species, 68, 69 effectiveness, 52
Engaging logic, 131, 270
with complexity, 54 practice, 277
with situations, 49, 52, 99, 116, 137, 151, R&D, 278, 281
157, 163, 166, 236, 240, 295, 338 Florida, 110, 111
Engineer, 12, 51, 116, 126, 132, 204, 208, 236 Focus group discussions, 142
Enron, 230 Food, 40, 42, 43, 45, 139, 144, 146, 147
Enthusiasm (explanation) Formative evaluation, 301
as emotion, 284 Forrester, J., 64, 65, 76, 79, 80, 208, 302
as methodology, 284 Foucault, M., 177
as theory, 284 Framework of ideas, 36, 50, 52, 83
Environment Agency (EA) of England and Framing, 5, 22, 52, 93, 94, 109, 111, 120,
Wales, 233, 236, 259 125, 131, 133, 135, 137, 150, 193, 199,
Environmental management, 35, 111, 260 223, 224, 225, 230, 236–241, 247, 248,
Environmental protection, 172 251, 254, 261, 263, 264, 267, 281, 296,
Epidemiological approaches, 140 319, 330
Epistemology deframing, 131
epistemic (epistemological) device, 270 reframing, 131
epistemological awareness, 52, 179, 288 Freedland, J., 243, 244, 245, 277
pluralism, 319 Freedom, 70, 72, 106, 269, 339
Equity, 123, 124 Functionalism, 327
Ethics, 61 Fundamentalism, 4, 337
Ethnographic research, 227 Fundamentalists, 337
Ethnography, 326 Fuschl Conversation, 334, 335
Index 347

G I
GATT, 65, 78, 79 Ideal type, 14, 55–57, 83, 223, 256, 312, 330
Gender, 141, 142, 150 Ideology, 320
General Systems Theory, 34 IFSR, 334
Generative mechanism, 87, 285 Ihde, D., 114
Genetically modified organisms (GMO), 163 Illusion, 93, 94
Gestalt psychology, 34 Imagination, 3, 61, 163, 338
Getting by, 191, 199 Imagine Methodology, 224
Getting on top of, 191, 199 Immune system, 73, 89
Giddens, A., 4, 267, 268, 317 Indicators, 143, 144, 163, 212, 213, 227
Glanville, R., 94, 270 Indigenous disadvantage, 121
Global financial crisis, 193, 225, 339 Infectious epidemics, 71
Goal(s) Influence diagrams, 144
-finding, 123, 124 Influencing skills, 127
-formulation, 123 Information flows, 65, 71, 72, 73, 76, 198
Goleman, D., 193 Information transfer, 35, 96, 175, 280, 282
Governance, 4, 13, 14, 91, 114, 125, 126, 138, Innovation, 7, 63, 74, 114, 126, 127, 131, 132,
147, 169, 171, 186, 205, 206, 234–236, 192, 203, 218, 248, 254, 267, 269, 281,
237, 245, 248, 258, 265, 268, 306, 318, 295, 329, 338, 340
335, 338 Inquiry
Governing, 235 appreciative, 142, 193
Groups, 14, 43, 104, 121, 144, 148, 151, 169, first-person, 255
172, 200, 239, 267, 297, 299, 317, 318, process, 27, 47, 64, 171, 180, 185, 195,
326, 328 227, 255, 258
second-person, 255, 288
systemic, 48, 84, 112, 166, 171, 172, 173,
H 180, 182, 184, 192, 193, 207, 225,
Hammering-as practice, 112, 113 226, 227, 246, 247, 248, 252, 253,
Hawkesbury tradition, 282 255, 258, 259, 269, 271, 295, 297,
Health, 12, 40, 41, 106, 121, 139, 140, 141, 330, 338, 339, 340
142, 143, 144, 148, 149, 150, 156, 213, third-person, 255, 288
225, 229, 230, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, Institution(s), 4, 8, 10, 13, 28, 91, 112, 113,
299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 114, 169, 170, 182, 207, 227, 248,
307, 309, 310, 335 317, 332
Health professional, 12, 294, 295, 297 Institutional design, 169
Hearing, 90, 202, 300 Institutional economists/economics, 8, 112
Heisenberg, Werner, 94 Institutionalise, 10, 227, 254, 265, 268
Heraclitus, 34 Institutional settings, 207, 223, 224
Heroism, 212, 213 Intelligence, 7, 193, 215, 268, 302, 330
Heterarchy, 199 Interactive planning, 301, 303, 306, 307
Hierarchy, 23, 75, 107, 113, 142, 163, 199, Interdisciplinary practices, 4
315, 316, 340 Interdisciplinary work, 294
Higher education, 265, 333 International Baccalaureate, 339
History of ideas, 10, 337 International Futures Forum, 332, 337
History of the practitioner, 196, 271, 330 Interpretation, 43, 49, 92, 96, 112, 139, 244,
Høeg, P., 101, 102, 103 262, 278
Hope, 209, 316, 318, 335, 336–340 Inuit culture, 102
Horizontal accountability, 338 Invitation, 9, 64, 66, 89, 109, 157, 172, 173,
Hospital waiting lists, 227 182, 183, 185, 186, 247, 263, 281,
Housing, 40, 68, 229, 305, 306 285, 338
Human emotioning, 225 Isophor, 21, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 81, 83, 84,
Humility, 65, 132, 247, 326 89, 162, 194, 223, 243, 256, 312, 319,
Hurricane Katrina, 31 330, 335
348 Index

Israeli water management system, 112 architecture, 283

Iteration, 257, 287 and development, 13
organisation, 265
outcomes, 270, 334
J system, 49, 162, 171, 173, 178, 182, 253,
James, W., 128, 242 270, 271, 295, 334, 335
Jazz ensemble, 11 Legitimacy, 22, 305, 306, 322
Jester, 339 Legitimate other, 21, 114, 244, 277
Johnson, M., 89, 248 Le Moigne, J-L., viii
Joined-up government, 14 Levels of abstraction, 52
Juggler-context relationship, 189, 224 Leverage points, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71,
Juggler metaphor, 62 75, 78, 82, 84
Juggling, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 80, 81, 89, 97, Lineage, 5, 28, 36, 40, 63, 81, 98, 126, 127,
105, 114, 116, 119, 127, 128, 130, 132, 151, 255, 287, 318, 323, 329
133, 135, 136, 138, 150, 151, 155, 156, Linear causality, 20, 134
157, 158, 162, 166, 169, 171, 185, 186, Listener, 9, 61, 195, 243, 324, 328
189, 191, 192, 196, 198, 199, 201, 207, Livelihood, 40, 141, 150
223–225, 236, 240, 254, 319, 335 Living in language, 9, 97, 99, 130, 131, 282,
Justifications, 20, 158, 209, 299, 325 323, 324
Living systems, 63, 73, 328
K Local government(s), 306, 305
Kathmandu, 139 Love, 7, 21, 51, 71, 97, 105, 240, 244
Key attractors, 179
Keynes, M., 50
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), 213 M
Kinesthetic learning, 278 Macy conferences, 34, 35, 175, 326
Knowing, 89, 95–105 Maharey, S., 336
about knowing, 253 Mainstreaming, 267
as doing, 105, 177 Making a distinction, 54, 92, 93, 99, 101, 120,
knowing, 87, 95–96, 253 177
a situation, 49, 130, 138 Management education, 191, 192, 193, 233
Knowledge transfer strategy (KTS), 171, 172, Managing for emergence, 202–207
272 Manner of acting, 22
Koestler, A., 142 Manner of living, 28, 114, 130, 138, 245, 335
Kolb, D., 194 Marginalization, 297, 299, 300, 301, 306, 307,
Krippendorff, K., 56, 323, 324 310
Kuhn, Thomas, 76, 140 Material stocks and flows, 65, 68
Maturana, H., 61, 63, 97, 105, 240, 242, 244,
285
L M-ball, 60, 62, 81, 162, 169, 171, 186, 224, 240
Lakoff, G., 89 McWhinney, W., 329, 330
Land degradation, 121 Meadows, D., 64, 78, 83, 84, 217, 245
Land managers, 172 Measure of performance, 164, 165
Language, 5, 8, 9, 12, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, Mechanism, 69, 74, 87, 113, 134, 196, 235,
31, 33, 35, 82, 87, 90, 94, 96, 97, 98, 258, 268, 285, 338
101, 107, 108, 109, 111, 124, 131, 132, Mediating object, 244
136, 139, 151, 152, 157, 165, 166, 174, Medical and health field, 293
175, 180, 182, 185, 192, 224, 233, 240, Mental furniture, 171, 172, 180, 182
241, 257, 263, 278, 280, 281, 282, 284, Mental health, 303, 305
285, 299, 304, 316, 321, 326, 336 Mess(s), 5, 36, 128–129, 134, 161, 189, 237,
Leadership, 115, 144, 198, 199, 254, 265, 267 239
Lean manufacturing, 311 Meta
Lean systems approach (LS approach), 311 discipline, 157, 158
Learning, 333 narrative, 147–149
about learning, 157, 253 thinking, 4, 172
Index 349

Metaphor Neoclassical economics/economists, 201,

of an orchestra, 11, 258 320
clusters, 174 Neologising, 120, 127, 130, 133, 152
-in-use, 174 Neologism(s), 49, 120, 123, 127, 128, 130,
Method, 36, 49–53, 54, 62, 100, 157, 167, 131, 135
168, 169, 183, 197, 203, 243, 278, 295, Nepal, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 150
300, 301, 311, 323 Nervous system, 31, 90, 95, 96, 281
Methodological pluralism, 142, 150, 151, 156, Network, 4, 20, 24, 45, 51, 89, 113, 120,
300, 301, 307 124, 173, 174, 179, 193, 194, 279,
Methodology, 284 296, 331
Methodology wars, 62 Networked systemic inquiry, 255
Midgley, G., 34, 296, 297 Network of conversations, 96–97, 194
Mintzberg, H., 192, 193 New institutional economics, 111, 112
Mirroring-back, 173, 174 New public health, 299, 305, 307, 310
Mistake, 19, 27, 69, 226, 255 Nitrate vulnerable zone, 178
Modelling, 13, 43, 94, 133, 152, 162, 190, Normative position, 12, 276
208, 210, 211, 212, 214, 215, 216, 217, Not knowing, 77, 82, 115, 328
252, 294, 339 Noun(s), 47, 60, 76, 254, 278, 315, 316
Model of systems practice, 14 Numbers, 7, 14, 33, 41, 49, 56, 59, 65, 66,
Monitoring and control, 23 67, 78, 89, 94, 106, 110, 111, 120,
Monocausal explanations, 41, 46, 53 121, 129, 131, 157, 172, 180, 184,
Moods, 285 208, 209, 211, 212, 213, 216, 232,
Moral codes, 107 236, 238, 257, 259, 267, 280, 300,
Morin, E., 311 302, 324, 333
Morris, D., 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 Nursing, 51, 276
Motorways, 31 Nutrient cycle(s), 31
Move between different levels of abstraction,
244
Mulgan, G., 198, 199 O
Multiagency planning, 304, 306 Obama, B. President, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246,
Multiple-cause–alternatively, causal 248, 277
loop–diagrams, 43 Objectivist, 320
Multiple epistemologies, 138 Observer, 25, 28, 35, 50, 53, 87, 89–94,
Multiple perspectives, 36, 115, 142, 150, 174, 95, 104, 157, 159, 168, 192, 203,
233, 240, 244, 322 270, 285
Multiple stakeholdings, 36, 264, 268 OECD, 126, 199, 207
Multi-stakeholder processes, 206 Ontogeny, 28, 98, 99
Multi-stakeholder situations, 236 Ontological politics, 277
Mutual understanding, 324 Ontology/ontologies, 33, 48, 133, 329
Open inquiry evaluation, 322
Open Source tradition, 204
N Operational-relational matrix, 61
Naming situations, 120–128 Operations, 75, 95, 122, 133, 160, 255, 302,
Narratives, 139, 142, 143, 144, 149, 311
255, 323 Operations research (OR), 35, 133, 160
Narrative theory, 136 Opportunities, 5, 9, 14, 81, 111, 115, 129,
National Health Service (NHS), 106, 226, 134, 162, 177, 183, 185, 212, 224, 248,
293–296 262, 276, 297, 302, 310, 311, 317, 323,
National School of Government (NSG)-UK, 338–340
333 Orchestra, 11, 258, 271
National skills council(s), 339 Orchestrate a performance, 113
Natural resource management, 172, Organisational boundaries, 121, 126,
182 287
Natural system(s), 234, 239 Organismic or systemic biologists, 33
Naughton, J., 203, 206 Overarching metaphor, 282
350 Index

P 213, 240, 243, 245, 257, 269, 277, 286,

Paradigm, 20, 65, 76, 77, 82, 95, 115, 124, 295, 325, 340
125, 160, 233, 235, 276, 279, 295, 296, Power of rules, 72
320, 321, 337 Practical holism, 34
Participant conceptualiser, 179, 197 Practice change, 280
Participatory Action Research (PAR), 142, Practice-context relationships, 207
144, 288 Praxeology, 14
Pastoralists, 283, 284 Praxis, 4, 10, 14, 25, 30, 36, 45, 50, 53, 61,
Patient access improvement, 294 62, 114, 168, 183, 227, 240, 241, 242,
Patient pathway, 294 254, 265, 267, 272, 276, 280, 281, 316,
Pattern matching, 130 318, 329–330, 334, 335, 338, 340
Pattern which connects, 328 Praxis of valuing, 316
Patton, M.Q., 321, 322 Preventive medicine, 70
Peck, S.M., 196 PRINCE2, 233, 234, 254, 263
Penny dropping phenomenon, 320, 338 Principia Cybernetica, 34
Perception, 23, 35, 55, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, Problem-definition, 123
126, 130, 175, 180, 181, 197, 238, 239, Problem formulation, 124, 141, 150
303, 304, 336 Problem metaphor, 258
Performance, 227 Problem structuring methods, 133, 255
indicators, 212 Professional clinical training, 294
Performance management arrangements, 127 Programme implementation, 121
Perspective, 11, 14, 20, 21, 25, 28, 48, 52, 75, Program managing, 252
78, 84, 94, 96, 99, 104, 107, 108, 112, Project
127, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, 136, 138, management, 207, 259, 232–234, 262, 321
141, 144, 149, 150, 151, 158, 160, 161, projectified world, 207, 224, 225, 230–236
163, 166, 168, 170, 173, 174, 176, 177, projectified world order, 230, 232
178, 179, 180, 183, 189–195, 196, 197, Public health programs, 149, 156
199, 200, 202, 206, 214, 225, 227, 231, Public Participation, 142, 151, 260, 261, 263
234, 235, 246, 247, 257, 263, 265, 267, Public sector managers, 185, 269
270, 271, 276, 277, 278, 282, 295, 301, Public-sector reform, 185, 310
311, 316, 318–325, 329, 333, 338 Public value, 269
PersSyst Project, 265, 330 Purpose, 11, 22, 46, 64, 108, 132, 157, 196,
Phenomenology, 114, 136 234, 251, 277, 297, 317
Philosophy, 14, 206, 230, 269, 282, 334 Purposeful behaviour, 22, 25, 157, 159, 163,
Philosophy of technology, 111, 114 201, 322
Phylogeny, 99 Purposefulness, 163, 164, 192, 201–202, 288
Physiology, 5, 242 Purposive, 25, 159, 160, 163, 328
Pilot testing, 202
Planners, 122, 126, 132, 133, 305 Q
Planning as an argumentative process, 124 Quantitative scientific methods, 142
Pluralistic approach, 298
Poetry, 89
Policy R
failure, 62, 334 Radical constructivism, 35
knowledge, 127 Radical transformation, 315
making, 50, 121, 198, 333 Rationalistic dream, 235
Politics of invitation and intervention, Rationality, 88, 89, 109, 114, 124, 234, 286, 320
185 Rational planning, 201, 300
Positive and negative feedback, 31, 82, 124, Reading(s), 25, 36, 37, 40, 43, 47, 53, 62, 63,
152, 209 64, 78, 83, 94, 137, 139, 156, 171,
Postman, N., 7, 8 183, 184, 185, 193, 207, 226, 227, 240,
Power, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 245, 247, 255, 296, 297, 325
77, 107, 166, 175, 184, 200, 201, 209, Real-life swamp, 5, 36
Index 351

Recoverability, 287, 288 S

Recurrent patterns, 235, 326 Salvage anthropology, 326
Recursion, 35, 43 Scenario
Red Cross Blood Service, 216 scenarioing, 240
Redesigning, 229 Scholes, J., 332
Reductionist research, 4 Schön, D., 36, 128, 131, 132, 133, 136, 169,
Reflection upon boundaries, 298 185, 236, 252, 275, 319
Reflective responsibility, 53 School knowledge, 169
Reflexive inquiry, 193 Science
Reflexive tool, 123 scientific explanation, 137, 240, 278, 284,
Reflexive understanding, 52 285, 286
Reflexivity, 255, 270 scientific management, 133, 134
Regulating negative feedback loops, scientisation, 134
65, 69 scientists, 74, 138, 158, 239
Reification, 120, 127, 130, 131, 133, 135, 137, SD modelling, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217
152, 160, 168, 230, 234, 335 Secondary curricula, 339
Reifying problems, 127 Second generation systems approach, 124,
Relational capital, 340 125
Relational dynamics, 23, 55, 59, 61, 97, 152, Second-order
241, 318, 332, 340 communication, 35, 175, 185
Relational thinking, 54, 55, 130, 340 cybernetics, 35, 52
Relationship(s), 7, 8, 12, 29, 34, 35, 36, 45, logic, 131, 271, 282
52, 53, 54, 62, 88, 105, 107, 111, 119, question, 6
173, 192, 193, 200, 224, 238, 243, 244, R&D, 180, 182, 281
245, 246, 282, 287, 324, 328 research practice, 277, 281
Requisite variety, 214, 322 Seddon, J., 7, 106, 137, 185, 186, 202, 269,
Research, 51 311
practice, 51, 105, 127, 173, 225, 276, 277, Seeing, 9, 13, 33, 54, 83, 89, 90, 96, 137, 159,
278, 286, 297 162, 163, 190, 233, 319
themes, 283, 287 Self-awareness, 336
Researching with, 182, 287 Self-organization, 65, 73, 74, 206
Resource dilemmas, 237, 239, 264 Semantic shift, 181
Response-ability, 106, 107, 332 Semi-arid Australia, 283
Responsibility, 3, 12, 14, 23, 25, 53, 61, 106, Semi-structured interviews, 263, 294, 306
107, 115, 116, 168, 177, 183, 184, 189, Senge, P., 163, 311
215, 217, 226, 245, 266, 268, 270, 272, Sense making, 130, 135, 171, 335
281, 283, 284, 288, 303, 325, 328, 330, Services for young people, 299, 300
332, 337, 340 Shaw, P., 115, 116, 199, 263
Revealing, 63, 112, 120, 174, 175, 204 Shotter, J., 20, 25, 49, 96, 97
Reynolds, M., 14, 192, 323, 335 Silent practice, 56, 183, 339
Risk assessment, 294 Simulated flock behaviour, 203
Rittel, H., 36, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, Situation, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, 23, 28, 29,
128, 130, 133, 136 36, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49,
River basin planning (RBP), 259, 260, 262, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63,
264, 265 64, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 94, 99,
Rock-bird story, 134 100, 101, 103, 105, 106, 107, 109, 112,
Rolled out, 156 113, 115, 116, 120, 125, 131, 132, 133,
Root metaphor, 280, 282 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 143, 144,
Rudd, K., 14 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158,
Rural extension, 279 160, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169,
Russell, D., 27, 28, 34, 35, 128, 175, 180, 171, 172, 173, 174, 180, 183, 184, 186,
182, 226, 242, 245, 246, 270, 277, 278, 189, 191, 192, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199,
282, 284, 286, 287, 288 202, 211, 213, 224, 226, 227, 231, 236,
352 Index

237, 239, 240, 241, 244, 246, 252, 253, Stationarity, 234
257, 258, 263, 264, 266, 268, 270, 271, Steirlin, H., 19
282, 288, 293, 296, 298, 299, 300, 301, Strategic options development and analysis
304, 317, 322, 330, 332, 334, 335, 337, (SODA), vi
338 Strategic thinking, 213, 267
Situation framing failure, 224 Street directory, 51
Small ‘r’ researchers, 193 Street sweepers, 149
Smilla, 101, 102, 103, 104, 157 Structural coupling, 13, 224, 241, 254
Smuts, Jan, 34 Structure determined system, 186, 228
Snowden, D., 130, 135, 136 Sub-prime disasters, 230
Socially constructed, 323 Supermarket, 42, 45
Social Supply push, 339
dynamic, 9, 22, 27, 30, 36, 87, 101, 104, 305 Suppressors of enthusiasm, 286
-ecological systems, 237, 319 Sustainability capability, 322, 333, 339
exclusion, 299 Sustainable development, 149, 150, 156, 172,
learning, 11, 206, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 231, 232, 333
263, 265 Sustainable development goals (SDGs), 225,
learning systems, 206, 239, 252, 257, 261, 335
265, 268, 270 Sustainable lifestyles, 40, 46
planning problems, 122, 133 Swimming practice, 156
realities, 277 Synthesis, 34, 139, 150
relations, 5, 11, 22, 25, 41, 54, 151, 158, Systematic thinking, 24, 30, 33, 156, 157,
257, 278 161, 197
relationships, 27, 90, 97, 111, 113 System dynamics (SD)
research, 51 lineage, 30, 33, 35, 36, 80, 81, 83, 105,
safeguards, 80 158, 252
sciences, 104, 277, 278 modelling, 209, 210, 212, 216
technologies, 7, 8, 99, 111, 112, 113, 224, Review, 208
225, 228, 231, 233, 248 Systemic
workers, 132, 229, 294 action research, 207, 254, 255, 256, 272,
worlds, 277–278 295, 297, 335
Soft Systems Methodology and adaptive governance, 317, 227, 239,
SSM, 165, 169, 172, 240, 256, 257, 295 270, 338
SSM(c), 169 awareness, 195–198, 31, 198, 202
SSM(p), 169 biology, 34
Sources of control, 166 co-inquiry, 252
Sources of expertise, 166 design, 270
Sources of legitimation, 166 development, 224, 254
Sources of motivation, 166 evaluation, 323
South Africa, 92 explanation, 9, 27
Speculative bubbles, 71 failure, 225–230
Spray diagramming, 174 family therapist (therapy), 30, 35
Stacey, R., 201 governance, 228, 339
Staff induction, 340 improvement, 153, 185
Stakeholder(s) inquiry, 9, 48, 84, 112, 166, 171, 172, 173,
analysis, 142, 283, 297 179, 182, 184, 193, 207, 225, 226, 227,
participation, 180, 299 246, 247, 248, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256,
values, 297, 299 257, 258, 259, 263, 265, 266, 267, 268,
Stakeholding, 10, 166, 181, 239, 264 269, 270, 271, 272, 295, 297, 330, 338,
Standards, 65, 96, 104, 132, 163, 227 339, 340
Standards of fact and value, 193, 244 insight, 151, 297
Staphylococcus aureus, 226 intervention, 207, 225, 254, 311
Statement of ethics, 108 institution, 10
Index 353

knowing, 162 Technology, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 28, 40, 70, 73, 74,

sensibility, 195 97, 100, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113,
thinking, 24, 30, 31, 33, 89, 156, 196, 233, 114, 123, 151, 175, 198, 203, 204, 225,
235, 333 233, 240, 255, 258, 269, 278, 279, 280,
System of interest, 23, 33, 42, 43, 46, 47, 49, 54, 281, 286, 295, 326
55, 63, 82, 93, 94, 160, 162, 163, 164, Teilhard de Chardin, 158
165, 191, 197, 258, 283, 284, 311, 323 Temporary organisations, 234
Systems The Open University, 6, 40, 41, 43, 45, 53,
agriculture, 243 54, 57, 61, 111, 128, 129, 151, 163,
approaches, 4, 5, 30, 32, 33, 51, 62, 83, 172, 178, 260, 265, 277, 293, 295, 330,
116, 126, 196, 207, 287, 294, 298, 301, 333
307, 334 Theoretical windows, 91, 284
boundaries, 47, 165 Theory dependency of facts, 51, 91
definition, 45 Theory of action, 327
diagramming, 43, 152, 263, 295 Thingness, 131
discipline(s), 30 Tibet, 147
ecologist, 335 Tipping point, 125
education, 7, 334 Trade-offs, 134, 144
engineer, 160, 161, 335 Traditions of understanding, 9, 51, 83,
failures, 129, 294 101, 159, 174, 175, 182, 197, 236,
geographer, 335 316
hard, 161, 233, 271, 294 Trans-disciplinary, 4
intuition, 73, 79 Trans-discipline, 157
lineages, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 105, 158, 286 Transfer of technology, 173
literacy, 5, 20, 36, 192, 195 Transformation process, 11, 191
maps, 43, 44, 171 Transforming situation, 10, 37, 104,
practice, 9, 10, 14, 19, 22, 25, 27, 29, 30, 258, 337
33, 36, 40, 43, 46–49, 52, 54, 55–57, Transition theory, 51
59, 63, 64, 78, 81, 82, 83, 94, 97, 105, Transport, 31, 40, 41, 46, 208
106, 107, 114, 116, 158, 159, 162, 168, Trap, 10, 24, 47, 49, 56, 99, 127, 129, 131,
169, 171, 183, 185, 195, 199, 207, 223, 135, 136, 137, 158, 173, 177, 228, 280,
224, 225, 228, 241, 245, 246, 248, 252, 322
254, 257, 263, 266, 269, 270, 272, 275, Treasury, 178, 183, 185, 216, 217
278, 281, 293–296, 299, 300, 301, Triggered, 79, 82, 180, 201, 283, 285, 316
310–312, 315, 317, 318, 319, 322, 323, Truth, 69, 77, 88, 153
324, 325, 329, 330, 331, 333, 334, 335, Turbulent environment, 212
338, 339, 340 Typologies, 84, 127
soft, 49, 169, 172, 191, 294, 301, 303, 304
thinking in practice capability, 210
U
UK Labour Government, 106, 227
T UK Ministry, 171
Talbott, S., 318, 319 UK National Health Service (NHS), 134, 287,
Tame problems, 122, 123, 126, 128, 240 293–296
Tansley, A., 54 Ulrich, W., 163, 164, 165, 166, 271, 298, 299,
Tapeworm, 138, 139 304, 305
Target mentality, 224 Uncertainty, 3, 4, 10, 13, 21, 25, 30, 36, 75,
Targets, 163, 205, 225–230, 231, 235, 236, 94, 126, 127, 133, 134, 199, 207, 225,
281, 303 234, 238, 239, 240, 246, 252, 254, 255,
Tax policy, 201 264, 275, 317, 337, 338
Teachers, 72, 132, 169, 229 Understanding, 28, 91, 95–105, 264–265, 318,
Team working, 267 319, 322
Technical rationality, 36, 125, 126, 234, 275, and valuing of multiple perspectives, 244
288 Unethical behaviour, 230
354 Index

Unintended consequence, 5, 6, 7, 31, 36, 47, Water management/managing, 147, 261, 268
62, 124, 128, 129, 133, 163, 198, 209, Water markets, 268
217, 263 Way of seeing, 76, 89, 233, 328
Urban agriculture, 139 Webber, M., 36, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127,
Unrestricted holism, 41 128, 130, 133, 136, 173
Web of existence, 5
Wellbeing, 106, 201, 295
V Weltanschauung, 24
Values mapping, 301
Wenger, E., 104, 131
Valuing, 10, 244, 246, 316
Western cosmology, 91
Varela, F., 95, 284
Whitehall, 229, 230, 333
Verbs, 54, 60, 76, 190, 191, 199, 257, 258
Whorf, B., 21, 96, 97
Vertical accountabilities, 186
Wicked problem(s), 130
Vester, F., viii
Wicked situation(s), 127, 130
Viable system method (VSM), 215
Wilber, K., 142
Von Foerster, H., 35, 93, 94, 105, 106, 107,
Williams, B., 323
288
Winter, M., 169, 190, 191, 193, 232, 233,
Vulgarisation, 279
235, 257
Wisdom, 210, 233, 240, 245, 325, 328, 329
W Wiser decision making, 328
Wadsworth, Y., 321, 322 Wittgenstein, L., 22, 35, 105
Walking as a practice, 54 Workshops, 53, 54, 95, 115, 147, 216, 264,
Water Act 2007 (Australia), 267 266, 300, 301, 306
Water cycle, 31 Worldview, 24, 77, 82, 152, 304, 319