I’m writing this before the EUROs final between Spain and England but after Carlos Alcaraz absolutely demolished Novak Djokovic in the Wimbledon Men’s singles final. I’m tired after having a migraine this morning due to a disturbed night’s sleep — for reasons I’d rather not get into. I’ve also spent time in the swimming pool with my daughter walking backwards and forwards through the water for rehabilitation as she recovers from a knee injury.
This week I’ve decided to have a bit of a summer digital detox, and tried to catch up with some MSc work:
WAO had the internal kick-off meeting for the new Job Readiness Credentials project we’re starting with JFF, IRC, and Participate. I wrote about it in this blog post. The client kick-off meeting is tomorrow. I’m looking forward to getting stuck into it. Somewhat cheekily, I’ve already submitted a proposal related to it for ePIC 2024 which will be in Paris in November. I’ve also submitted a workshop proposal based on mapping Open Recognition skills using AI.
I did some work on the comms and storytelling project with the DCC as we finish that off, sent out the ORE announcement for this month, and submitted a proposal to Friends of the Earth for some Mozilla-funded work around ‘Greening AI’. I’ve set up an instance of Writebook, which has a fantastic UI and with which Laura and I have already started experimenting. She’s also been working on designing us a new website (still WIP).
There’s not much else to say other than we had an exercise bike delivered which syncs with various apps so we can do some virtual cycling, I booked my place for the Systems Innovation Conference 2024 (London, September), and I’ve done a bit more planning for our family holiday to the Azores in just over two weeks.
Next week, I’ll be working on the Job Readiness Credentials project, putting in proposals for more new work, collaborating with my colleagues during a co-op half-day, and supporting my family. It’s the last week of school for our two teenagers, and for our youngest it’s her last week at middle school!
Phenomenology is a philosophical approach focusing on subjective experience and perception. It’s one of those long, impressive-sounding words that actually means something reasonably straightforward:
[Phenomenology] seeks to investigate the universal features of consciousness while avoiding assumptions about the external world, aiming to describe phenomena as they appear to the subject, and to explore the meaning and significance of the lived experiences
(Wikipedia)
As such, phenomenology plays a significant role in systems thinking. In what follows, I want to explore how phenomenology contributes to a deeper grasp and more effective practice of systems thinking.
Systems thinking involves understanding and addressing complex problems by viewing them as interconnected wholes rather than isolated parts. Phenomenology complements systems thinking by providing a method to capture and analyse human experiences and perspectives within these systems.
One practical application of phenomenology in systems thinking is cognitive mapping. This tool captures an individual’s reasoning about a situation, helping to weave together multiple perspectives into a comprehensive cause map. By reflecting on the cognitive processes and subjective experiences of stakeholders, systems practitioners can gain valuable insights into the dynamics of the systems they are analysing.
The MSc module I am studying (TB871) provides detailed guidance on using cognitive mapping to analyse reasoning and develop strategic options. As the module materials note, recognising the significance of multiple perspectives is crucial in organisational problem-solving and collaborative decision-making (The Open University, 2020).
SODA is an approach that exemplifies the integration of phenomenology in systems thinking. It involves creating cognitive maps to capture the reasoning and perceptions of individuals involved in a situation. These individual maps are then combined to form a collective understanding, which helps in identifying strategic options and making informed decisions.
The approach taken when using the SODA approach recognises that different stakeholders have different perspectives and experiences, and these are critical to understanding the full scope of a problem. By using cognitive mapping, SODA captures these diverse viewpoints, facilitating a richer and more comprehensive analysis of the situation. This method supports collaborative decision-making by ensuring that all voices are heard and considered.
Integrating phenomenology into systems thinking offers several benefits:
Enhanced understanding: by focusing on subjective experiences, phenomenology helps to uncover deeper insights into complex systems.
Improved decision-making: considering diverse perspectives leads to more informed and effective decisions.
Collaborative problem-solving: a phenomenological approach fosters mutual understanding and collaboration among stakeholders, which is essential for addressing complex issues.
While phenomenology offers significant benefits, integrating it with systems thinking can also present challenges. Balancing subjective insights with objective analysis requires careful consideration, and practitioners must be skilled in both phenomenological methods and systems thinking tools to effectively combine these approaches.
In conclusion, then, phenomenology enriches systems thinking by bringing in human experiences and subjective realities. This integration enhances our grasp of complex systems, leading to better decision-making and collaborative problem-solving.
Russell Ackoff was a key figure in systems thinking who left an enduring impact through his innovative approaches and concepts. His work spanned various domains, from organisational theory to systems science, and he is well-known for his emphasis on holistic thinking and interactive planning. I mentioned his work in a previous post.
Ackoff didn’t like being called a ‘consultant’, preferring the term ‘educator’ as he believed consultants impose solutions, whereas educators help people discover their own solutions. This distinction is a good example of his underlying philosophy of empowering individuals to solve their own problems rather than providing predefined solutions (Ramage and Shipp, 2020, p. 141).
Ackoff embodied wholeness, seamlessly integrating complementary opposites. He combined forcefulness with kindness, illustrating the harmonious merging of seemingly contradictory qualities (Ibid., p. 142). He observed that society has moved from the machine age, which focused on analytical thinking, to the systems age, emphasising synthetic thinking and understanding wholes. He viewed all objects and experiences as parts of larger systems, reflecting a holistic perspective on the world (Ibid., pp. 143-144).
Complex situations as ‘messes’
Ackoff introduced the concept of a “mess” to describe complex systems of interacting problems. He argued against breaking down a mess into parts, as this approach can worsen the situation. Instead, he advocated for managing messes holistically, considering all interrelated aspects simultaneously (Ibid., p. 144).
What Ackoff termed ‘interactive planning’ involves designing a system that one would ideally want to replace the existing one with. He outlined five stages of interactive planning:
Formulating the mess
Ends planning (designing the desirable future)
Means planning (finding ways to reach the desirable future)
Resource planning (deciding what resources are required and how to obtain them)
Design of implementation and control (putting changes into place and monitoring them)
Ackoff also introduced the hierarchy of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom (DIKW), describing the progression from simple data to valuable wisdom. This hierarchy is widely used in knowledge management (Ibid., p. 144).
Ackoff’s concept of interactive planning was proactive, aiming not just to solve problems but to dissolve them by changing the environment that generates them. This forward-thinking approach aligns with his belief that organisations should aim for idealised designs, envisioning the best possible future and working towards it rather than merely reacting to issues as they arise.
Fun and philosophy
Ackoff’s philosophy on work and pleasure is encapsulated in his statement, “For me, there has never been an amount of money that makes it worth doing something that is not fun” (Ibid., p.145). I can definitely agree with that!
In his career, he identified five sources of fun:
Denying the obvious and exploring its consequences: Ackoff found enjoyment in challenging widely accepted truths and exploring the outcomes. This approach not only sparked curiosity but also led to innovative thinking and solutions. For instance, he questioned the effectiveness of traditional educational methods, advocating for experiential learning over rote memorisation.
Proving that large social Systems often pursue incorrect objectives: He demonstrated that large social systems frequently aim for the wrong goals. For instance, the educational system prioritises teaching over learning, which obstructs the latter. Similarly, corporations often focus on enhancing the quality of life for managers rather than maximising shareholder value (Ibid., pp.146-147). Ackoff argued that these misaligned objectives lead to inefficiencies and systemic failures.
Producing conceptual order where there was ambiguity and confusion: Creating order from chaos was another source of fun for Ackoff. He achieved this by identifying the DIKW hierarchy, defining the three traditional types of management and proposing the interactive manager as a fourth type, and finding ways to control the future through methods such as vertical and horizontal integration, cooperation, incentives, and responsiveness (Ibid., pp.147-148). His ability to synthesise complex ideas into coherent frameworks helped organisations navigate uncertainty and make better decisions.
Disclosing intellectual ‘con men’: Ackoff took pleasure in exposing the flaws of popular management trends like TQM, benchmarking, downsizing, process reengineering, and scenario planning. He criticised these trends for offering simplistic solutions to complex problems without considering systems thinking (Ibid., p.148). He argued that many of these approaches were fads, lacking the depth required to address real organisational issues effectively.
Designing organisations that avoid common traps He enjoyed designing organisations that bypass common management pitfalls. His innovative designs included democratic hierarchies, internal market economies, multidimensional structures, and systems that support learning and adaptation (Ibid., pp.148-149). Ackoff’s organisational designs aimed to empower employees, encourage innovation, and create environments where continuous learning and improvement were integral to the corporate culture.
Russell Ackoff exemplified his principles of systems thinking through his actions, embodying the philosophies he advocated. He consistently applied holistic thinking and participatory methods in his work with organisations, ensuring that his theoretical concepts were grounded in practical application.
Ackoff’s approach to problem-solving was not just academic; he actively engaged with real-world issues and demonstrated the effectiveness of his ideas in practice. He famously said, “The only thing harder than starting something new is stopping something old,” highlighting his commitment to continuous improvement and innovation within systems (Ackoff, 1999, p. 426). This dedication to both theory and practice solidified his reputation as a practitioner who truly ‘walked the talk.’
References
Ackoff, R. L., 1999. On Passing through 80. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 12(4), pp. 425-430.
Ramage, M. and Shipp, K., 2020. Systems Thinkers. 2nd ed. Milton Keynes: The Open University/London: Springer.
