Open Thinkering

Menu

TB871: Russell Ackoff as a systems thinking pioneer

Posted on by Doug Belshaw

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. 

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:

  1. Formulating the mess
  2. Ends planning (designing the desirable future)
  3. Means planning (finding ways to reach the desirable future)
  4. Resource planning (deciding what resources are required and how to obtain them)
  5. 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).

The DIKW pyramid, with Data at the bottom, followed by Information and then Knowledge. Wisdom is at the top.

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.

TB871: Chris Argyris and his influence on systems thinking and organisational development

Posted on by Doug Belshaw

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. 

Chris Argyris is an influential figure in organisational theory who made significant contributions to our understanding of how individuals and organisations learn and develop. His work, often in collaboration with Donald Schön, offers insights into the mechanisms of learning and the barriers that can hinder effective organisational development. (Note: I discussed some of Schön’s work in my work on module TB872)

Adult-like working environments

Argyris observed that hierarchical structures within organisations often create environments inconsistent with adult-like work settings. He argued that such settings can lead to frustration among employees who value autonomy and responsibility. This observation is encapsulated in his statement:

If hierarchies had their way, they would create work worlds for human beings that were consistent with the features of infancy … those workers who valued adult-like work settings would likely experience a conflict and would likely be frustrated

(Ramage and Shipp, 2020, p. 288)

This critique highlights the tension between hierarchical control and the need for more democratic, participative work environments. Argyris believed that when employees are treated as adults, they are more likely to be motivated, satisfied, and productive.

Espoused theories vs. Theories-in-use

One of Argyris’ most notable contributions is the distinction between ‘espoused theories’ and ‘theories-in-use’. The former are what individuals claim to follow, while the latter are the actual principles that govern their behaviour in practice. Argyris and Schön explain:

Espoused theories, which people believe in, advocate, and claim to be those which govern their actions; and theories-in-use, which in real situations actually govern a particular individual’s actions.

(Ibid., p.289)

This distinction is crucial because it reveals the often significant gap between what people say they do and what they actually do. Recognising this gap is the first step toward more honest self-assessment and organisational improvement.

Theories-in-use comprise three interconnected elements:

  1. Governing variables: These are the assumptions and factors that individuals aim to keep within acceptable levels.
  2. Action strategies: These are the methods individuals employ to maintain the governing variables.
  3. Consequences: These are the outcomes of the actions, which can be either intended or unintended.

Understanding these elements helps clarify why individuals often behave differently from what they profess. For instance, a manager might espouse the value of teamwork but, in practice, might prioritise individual achievements due to underlying beliefs about competition and reward.

Argyris illustrated the concept of theories-in-use with simple, everyday examples to demonstrate their automatic and often subconscious nature. For instance, he noted:

If we had to think through all the possible responses every time someone asked, ‘How are you?’ the world would pass us by.

(Ibid.)

This example highlights how ingrained and automatic our responses can be, guided by deeply held theories-in-use. Such automatic responses can be beneficial in routine interactions but problematic in situations requiring thoughtful reflection and change.

Single and Double-loop learning

Argyris introduced the concepts of single-loop and double-loop learning to describe how organisations adapt and evolve. Single-loop learning involves making adjustments to actions to better meet existing objectives. In contrast, double-loop learning involves questioning and altering the underlying assumptions and goals themselves. He stated:

If observing the consequences of actions results in changes in assumptions about what outcomes are desirable, that would be double-loop learning.

(Ibid.)

A diagram illustrating single and double-loop learning can effectively visualise these concepts:

The diagram illustrates single-loop and double-loop learning. It shows that governing variables influence actions, which lead to consequences. In single-loop learning, if a mismatch between actions and desired outcomes is detected, adjustments are made to actions to better align with governing variables. In double-loop learning, a mismatch prompts reassessment and potential changes to the governing variables themselves. This represents how single-loop learning corrects actions, while double-loop learning reevaluates underlying assumptions.
Diagram showing single-loop and double-loop learning (Ramage and Shipp, 2020, p. 289)

The diagram shows that governing variables influence actions, which lead to consequences. In single-loop learning, if a mismatch between actions and desired outcomes is detected, adjustments are made to actions to better align with governing variables. In double-loop learning, a mismatch prompts reassessment and potential changes to the governing variables themselves. This represents how single-loop learning corrects actions, while double-loop learning reevaluates underlying assumptions.

So, single-loop learning is like a thermostat that adjusts heating or cooling to maintain a set temperature. Double-loop learning, however, questions whether the current temperature setting is appropriate.

Model I and Model II behaviour

Argyris identified two typical patterns of behaviour in organisations: Model I and Model II. Model I behaviour focuses on unilateral control, striving to win, suppressing negative feelings, and acting rationally. This behaviour is closely linked to single-loop learning and often results in defensive reasoning:

Model I behaviour is closely linked to single-loop learning: its values include being in unilateral control of situations, striving to win rather than losing, suppressing negative feelings in oneself and others, and acting rationally. (Ramage and Shipp, 2020, p. 290).

In contrast, Model II behaviour encourages valid information sharing, promoting free choice, and assuming personal responsibility. It aligns with double-loop learning and fosters a more open and reflective organisational culture:

Model II behaviour is linked to double-loop learning: its values include utilizing valid information, promoting free and informed choice, and assuming personal responsibility to monitor effectiveness.

(Ibid., p.290)

Defensive reasoning

Defensive reasoning is a significant obstacle to organisational learning. Argyris explained how individuals use defensive reasoning to protect themselves from threats or embarrassment, which can stifle learning and innovation:

Individuals keep their premises and inferences tacit, lest they lose control; they create tests of their claims that are self-serving and self-sealing.

(Ibid.)

This behaviour creates an environment where mistakes are hidden, and learning opportunities are missed. Defensive reasoning leads to a culture of blame and fear, rather than one of openness and continuous improvement.

Four basic values

Argyris identified a universal human tendency to design actions based on four basic values:

  1. To remain in unilateral control.
  2. To maximise ‘winning’ and minimise ‘losing’.
  3. To suppress negative feelings.
  4. To be as ‘rational’ as possible.

These values often lead to defensive behaviours and the defensive reasoning mentioned above, which can hinder genuine learning and adaptation (Ibid., p. 293). By recognising these tendencies, individuals and organisations can begin to adopt more open and reflective practices.

References

  • Ramage, M. and Shipp, K. (2020) Systems Thinkers. 2nd edn. Milton Keynes: The Open University/London: Springer.

TB871: Introduction to Strategic Options and Development Analysis (SODA)

Posted on by Doug Belshaw

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. 

Moving into the Block 4 Tools stream for this module means being introduced to Strategic Options and Development Analysis (SODA). There is no Wikipedia page (yet) for this, which is a shame because I found the chapter on it in the course text, Systems Approaches quite hard-going. As a result, I’ve reviewed a recorded tutorial and done a lot of prompting of GPT-4o. Both have been incredibly useful in helping me understand what’s going on.

It seems that, fundamentally, SODA is about addressing complex problems using interviews and cognitive mapping. This surfaces not only goals, key issues, and options, but also affective issues and group dynamics. Ultimately, the SODA approach produces transitional objects for use when setting organisational strategy.

The why, what, how approach of SODA can be recursively applied to the book chapter, resulting in the following table:

Hierarchical Structure of Cognitive MapSummary of SODA as an Action Plan from Chapter 4 in ‘Systems Approaches‘
Why? (goals)1. avoid ambiguity in any strategic action plan
2. engage more meaningfully with stakeholders regarding strategic action.
What? (strategic directions)1. reveal core issue(s) – for individuals and/or for an organisation – in the situation of interest in terms of taking meaningful strategic action
2. highlight options, causes and constraints perceived within the situation
3. reveal significant feedback loops perceived operating within the situation.
How? (potential options)1. practise concepts and technique
2. practise cognitive mapping
3. practise cause mapping
4. practise SODA analyses
5. practise group problem structuring and resolution.

SODA diagrams look similar to the following (The Open University, 2020a):

The image consists of two diagrams side by side demonstrating the concept of Strategic Options and Development Analysis (SODA). On the left side (Diagram a), the diagram has a layered pyramid structure divided into three horizontal sections labeled "Goals" at the top, "Strategic directions" in the middle, and "Potential options" at the bottom. Each section contains circles connected by arrows which cascade down the pyramid, illustrating the relationships between goals, strategic directions, and potential options. Some arrows point straight down, while others diverge and converge, emphasizing different pathways. On the right side (Diagram b), there is an explanation of the constructs and arrow connections within the SODA diagram, displayed on a black background. The diagram is split into sections identical to the left side (Goals, Strategic directions, Potential options) with lines of text explaining each level. Blue dashed lines separate the sections. Arrows extend from each section with text annotations describing various strategic options and directions.

The following example from the module materials (The Open University, 2020b) give an example which might start with the desire to ‘Enhance equality and diversity in the workplace’ which can be seen in the centre of the diagram:

A concept map showing the Strategic Options and Development Analysis (SODA) approach with sections on goals, strategic directions, and potential options.

The ellipses (…) are used to indicate ‘rather than’ before an opposite meaning. This is important, as there might be more than one alternative. For instance, in the above example, we could have:

  1. Enhance equality and diversity in the workplace … leave unchanged
  2. Enhance equality and diversity in the workplace … adopt superficial policies
  3. Enhance equality and diversity in the workplace … implement a different progressive policy

There’s a big difference between choosing to do (1) i.e. something as opposed to nothing, as opposed to (2) i.e. pay lip service, and (3) use the time/attention/budget to bring in another policy.

Using SODA in practice

The process of using SODA begins with individual interviews to gather personal views and insights. These interviews are converted into cognitive maps, which visually represent the thoughts, goals, and concerns of each participant. These individual maps are then combined into a group map, serving as a tool for facilitating discussions and negotiations. This combined map helps visualize value systems, strategic issues, and potential options, ensuring all stakeholders’ perspectives are considered.

Once the cognitive mapping is complete, the group uses the map to explore and analyze the problem from multiple angles. This involves several types of analyses:

  1. Domain Analysis: understanding the broader context and relevant stakeholders.
  2. Central Analysis: focusing on key strategic issues and central nodes in the map.
  3. Cluster Analysis: grouping related concepts to reveal significant themes.
  4. Hierarchical Set Analysis: organising goals and strategies hierarchically to understand their relationships and dependencies.

These analyses help identify core issues, reveal significant feedback loops, and highlight options, causes, and constraints perceived within the situation. Specialised software can be used to help with analysis, especially with extensive maps containing over 80 concepts.

When is SODA useful?

SODA can prove beneficial in various scenarios, when:

  • A group of stakeholders or an organisation needs to make collective sense of a change.
  • An individual is reviewing a situation of interest without a clear way forward.
  • There is a need to surface and organise the views and needs of stakeholders.
  • It is important to make explicit the cognitive processes of a group of stakeholders.

By offering a structured approach to problem-solving, SODA helps create a shared understanding among participants and supports the development of actionable strategies that reflect the diverse perspectives and needs of all involved.

Analysing cognitive/causal maps

SODA can create insights into a cognitive or causal map by examining various aspects of its structure. These analyses are most useful when dealing with large maps containing numerous concepts. Conducting these analyses manually can be laborious and time-consuming, hence the use of software to handle large amounts of information efficiently. These tools help identify feedback loops and other critical relationships that might be missed through manual inspection, providing useful insights that inform decision-making and strategic planning.

‘Laddering Up’ and ‘Laddering Down‘

Diagram illustrating laddering up and down in Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA) with sections for Goals, Strategic Directions, and Potential Options.

Laddering up and laddering down, as shown in the diagram above (The Open University, 2020c) are techniques in SODA to explore and clarify goals, strategic directions, and potential options within a cognitive map.

Laddering up involves asking “Why is that important?” to move from specific actions or options up to broader goals and strategic directions. This process helps understand the underlying reasons and higher-level objectives that justify particular strategies or actions. For example, if a specific option is “Collaborate with others,” laddering up would involve asking why collaboration is important, which might reveal a higher goal such as “Building relationships” or “Pooling resources.”

On the other hand, laddering down involves asking “How might that be done?” to move from broad goals and strategic directions down to specific, actionable options. This technique breaks down high-level objectives into practical steps that can be implemented. For instance, if the strategic direction is “Building relationships,” laddering down would involve identifying specific actions that could achieve this, such as “Collaborate with others” or “Develop equality awareness resources and learning events.”

By laddering up and down, SODA facilitates a comprehensive exploration of the problem space, linking high-level goals with actionable options and ensuring that all strategic actions align with the overall objectives. This technique can help enhance clarity, focus, and coherence in strategy development and decision-making.

Benefits and Drawbacks of SODA

Benefits

SODA offers several advantages for organisations and individuals tackling complex, messy problems. One of the primary benefits is its ability to capture and integrate diverse perspectives through cognitive mapping, which ensures that all stakeholder views are considered. This inclusive approach leads to a more comprehensive understanding of the problem and encourages a sense of ownership and commitment among participants. Additionally, SODA facilitates structured negotiation and strategy development, helping groups identify viable options and make informed decisions. By linking high-level goals with actionable steps, SODA provides a clear pathway from problem identification to solution implementation, enhancing the effectiveness of strategic planning efforts.

Another significant benefit of SODA is its focus on both the content and process dynamics of group work. The methodology not only addresses the technical aspects of problem-solving but also pays attention to the emotional, political, and social dimensions within the group. This holistic approach helps to build consensus, manage conflicts, and ensure that the strategies developed are realistic and acceptable to all stakeholders. Moreover, the use of cognitive mapping software can streamline the analysis process, making it easier to handle large amounts of information and identify critical relationships and feedback loops.

Drawbacks

Despite its many benefits, SODA also has some limitations. The cognitive mapping and aggregation process can be time-consuming, especially in large groups or when dealing with particularly complex issues. Conducting detailed interviews, creating individual maps, and synthesising these into a comprehensive group map requires significant effort and resources. This can be a drawback for organisations with limited time or capacity for extensive analytical work.

Additionally, the success of SODA heavily relies on the skills of the facilitator. Effective facilitation is crucial for managing group dynamics, ensuring active participation, and guiding the analysis process. Inexperienced facilitators may struggle to keep discussions focused and productive, potentially leading to less effective outcomes.

Another potential drawback is the need for specialised software to analyse large cognitive maps. While tools can greatly enhance the efficiency and depth of analysis, they also require technical expertise and may involve additional costs. Organisations that lack the necessary software or skills may find it challenging to fully leverage the benefits of SODA.

Finally, while SODA provides valuable insights and supports decision-making, it does not replace sound judgment. There is always a risk that the focus on mapping and analysis could overshadow practical considerations and common sense, leading to overcomplicated or impractical solutions.

Conclusion

SODA is a powerful methodology for addressing complex problems, capturing diverse perspectives, and facilitating effective strategy development. Through cognitive mapping and structured analysis, SODA helps organisations and individuals understand and navigate intricate issues. The techniques of laddering up and laddering down enhance the process by linking high-level goals with practical, actionable options.

Despite some challenges, such as the need for skilled facilitation and specialised software, the benefits of SODA in creating shared understanding and developing actionable strategies are substantial. By integrating both technical and social dimensions of problem-solving, SODA ensures that all stakeholder views are considered, fostering ownership and commitment. Whether facing organisational changes or individual challenges, SODA offers valuable tools for effective decision-making and strategic planning.

References

css.php