Open Thinkering

Menu

Month: November 2023

TB872: The PFMS heuristic

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category.


The word heuristic comes from the Ancient Greek and means ‘to find’ or ‘discover’. In modern usage we use heuristics as practical tools for problem-solving, decision-making, or self-discovery. The idea is that they’re not something that necessarily generate ‘perfect’ results, but that they nevertheless lead to a satisfactory solution.

For example, a simple (and somewhat trivial) heuristic where I live in the north east of England would be to wear waterproof shoes when going out from October until March. It might not be wet when you go out, but the chances are the weather could turn at any point. It’s not a perfect solution, as your feet could overheat, or you might not look as stylish as you would otherwise have wished, but on the whole this is outweighed by mostly having dry feet.

PFMS heuristic

In module TB872, students are presented with the PFMS heuristic which I mentioned in my first post about this MSc. We discussed this in the tutorial I attended last night. Here’s my understanding of the different elements:

  • Practitioner (P): this represents me, either in the context of the module or in the situation to be examined. Everyone is a practitioner in terms of the various aspects of our lives; this could be studying but also in our working lives, parenting, etc. Recognising that our practice is situated and embodied is essential as it means acknowledging that we are central to our own practice — and that we are influenced by our surroundings, experiences, and history.
  • Framework (F): this is the theoretical and conceptual base from which you can understand and approach the situation under consideration. We all have a ‘tradition of understanding’ which we bring to situations under consideration. I currently think of this in terms of W.V. Quine’s web of belief, in which we have things which are more core or more to the periphery of our belief systems. So, for example, the ‘framework’ which we bring to a situation could be a formal one, but equally it could be a hodge-podge of correct, incorrect, useful, and tenuous ideas.
  • Methods (M): these are the things that you use to practically apply theoretical concepts from the framework of ideas. They can also be thought of as ‘tools’ to help engage with, explore, and understand the situations we encounter as practitioners. So, for example, whereas the idea of ‘interconnectedness’ or ‘holism’ might be a framework, the method by which we instantiate this could be through rich pictures, which help us visually see how everything is connected.
  • Situation (S): this refers to the specific context or situation in which we find ourselves practicing. In TB872, the situation is the module itself, whereas in my day-to-day work this might be the organisational change that we’re helping a client with. In my personal life, a ‘situation’ could be managing my migraines through a combination of nutrition and exercise.

The PFMS heuristic is a tool to help us think about our practice within the module. What I like about it is that it helps us think about praxis (i.e. theory-informed practice) and gives us a way of separating out, for example, the theoretical frameworks from the methods by which we apply them to a situation.

TB872: Culturally feasible change

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category.


DALL-E 3 created collage that visually represents the contrast between systematic feasibility and cultural feasibility in the adoption of electric vehicles, as you described. The image harmoniously blends various elements such as an electric vehicle, a charging station in an urban setting, renewable energy sources, a family using an EV in a semi-rural setting, diverse people around an EV, political and policy symbols, and natural environments. This portrays the balance and interaction between technical practicalities and societal cultural factors in EV adoption.

One of the examples given about the difference between systematic feasibility and cultural feasibility in the context of change is around electric vehicles (EVs). This is of particular interest to me, as less than two months ago I took delivery of a Polestar 2, an EV that I’m leasing through my business.

By way of context, I thought long and hard about this, as it was an upgrade to a much-loved 10 year old Volvo V60 that did over 700 miles on a tank of diesel. It was getting to the age where repairs cost quite a bit, but it was still a wonderful car that could get us to the in-laws in Devon and back on a single tank.

In fact, I did the maths and worked out that the ’embodied emissions’ of manufacturing an EV such as the Polestar 2 didn’t actually make the switch worthwhile over the two-year leasing period. However, there are other things at play. One of these is the perception that you are eco-conscious, of walking the talk. Owning an older diesel car just doesn’t seem as environmentally-friendly as driving an EV. This is an issue around cultural feasibility, as the pendulum swings against polluting cars. See my previous post reflecting on the ‘ripples’ caused by mapping this against systematic change over time.

Another issue, which can’t be discounted, is what is usually called in the UK “keeping up with the Joneses”. In other words, the reputational benefits of having a new car.

Over and above these individual personal decision, however, are some wider issues. For example, as a business owner, the government provides incentives towards EVs in the form of lower ‘Benefit in Kind‘ (BIK) tax payments. This means that EVs become a ‘no brainer’ compared to their more (tailpipe) polluting counterparts.

Other considerations around systematic feasibility include:

  • Infrastructure readiness: the availability of charging stations, along with the ability of power grids to support widespread EV charging. Given that EVs tend to be heavier than cars with internal combustion engines (ICE) due to their batteries, there’s also the the overall readiness of existing transportation systems to consider.
  • Technological advancements: this includes the development and availability of efficient battery technology, the range of electric vehicles (range anxiety is real when you get a new EV!), as well as the integration of renewable energy sources into the mix in terms of electricity generation.
  • Economic factors: it’s usually cheaper to charge EVs at home, but we’ve ended up in a situation where we can’t do this. Interestingly, one of the new council charging stations appears to be, at least temporarily, free of charge. Over and above that, though, are the costs associated with purchasing and maintaining EVs, incentives for buyers/leasers (as discussed above), and the economic viability of transitioning from ICE vehicles to EVs.

On the other hand, when it comes to cultural feasibility (the acceptance and adoption of EVs within a particular social or cultural context) we need to consider:

  • Consumer attitudes & behaviours: people don’t make decisions in a vacuum. We were tipped over the edge of leasing an EV after a neighbour made the leap and didn’t seem to have many issues. This aspect is also influenced by their beliefs, values, and perceptions about environmental issues, technology, and change. For example, I’m always up for being a (relatively) early adopter and have strong opinions about fairness, social justice, and the environment.
  • Social norms & traditions: it’s interesting to see that Scandanavian countries, which tend to have a more egalitarian culture, are leading the way on EV adoption. Ingrained practices and traditions, like car ownership patterns, commuting behaviors, and perceptions about new technologies, impact the adoption of EVs. Some say that people in this day and age don’t need a car, but we do actually need two in order to get our kids to sporting activities in semi-rural Northumberland. The public transport infrastructure just isn’t there.
  • Political/policy environment: as we’re witnessing as the Conservative Party shapes up to fight the next general election, these kinds of issues can be ‘weaponised’. See, for example, the drama around the London ULEZ. Support or resistance from political entities (not just governments but think tanks, etc.), policy frameworks, and regulatory bodies that can facilitate or hinder the adoption of EVs.

It’s interesting to think of systemic vs cultural issues using this lens, particularly given that we’re still new to EVs. Any time you do something which is not culturally mainstream, it seems you get a barrage of questions or excuses why others don’t do similarly.

For example, 20 years ago during our first year of marriage, and while we were doing our teacher training, my wife and I chose not to have a TV (we still watched films on a computer). Lots of the questions that people asked about that were similar in nature to the questions I get about EVs. They’re largely about anxiety and fitting in with expected cultural norms.


Image: DALL-E 3

TB872: Systemic failure in UK governance

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category.


This was a fascinating 10-minute video going through how, despite competence, a mandate, and lots of money from economic prudence, New Labour didn’t manage to make a difference in child poverty and crime, and a only a negligible difference in education.

The point that Prof. Stein Ringen makes is that, if this government, with all of its advantages couldn’t get done what they were sent to do, then nobody can. He therefore comes up with a recipe, which involves some systemic ‘fixes’ — which are largely around decentralising the power that 10 Downing Street (i.e. the office of the Prime Minister) has gained over the last 30 years.

I’m not one for sitting through YouTube videos, but this one was engaging because of the work of the visual scribe, Andrew Park. What he helps bring to life is how a ‘command and control’ approach can fail to mobilise those who need to be involved in making the change happen.

css.php