In a previous post, I recreated the STiP heuristic diagram that was introduced in the module materials:
This suggests three ‘conversations’ when using a bricolage approach: conversing with the situation (1), conversing with other practitioners about the situation (2), and conversing with yourself in reflecting on two prior conversations (3).
Activity 1.19 (Open University, 2020) asks what is specific in each conversation about STiP as praxis (i.e. the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted, practised, embodied, or realised)
Conversation 1: Situation
This conversation focuses on sense-making within complex, real-world situations, with the practitioner aiming to explore and examine these situations as an agent of change. As such, it emphasises the importance of developing an understanding of the interrelationships involved.
In addition, the practitioner is seeking through the ‘conversation’ to identify and connect relevant variables in order to form as holistic a picture as possible. It’s important to ensure that they are mindful that complexities do not always fit neatly into pre-defined views.
Third, this conversation centres on traditional Systems Thinking approaches which aim to see both the forest and threes. In other words, it involves understanding the larger system while recognising its individual components.
Conversation 2: Other Practitioners
This second conversation involves engaging with various practitioners to understand and strategise about the situation. This includes modelling different perspectives using systems tools to develop a shared model of action.
In this phase, the need to empathise with, and incorporate diverse, often contrasting, perspectives is foregrounded. The aim here is to develop effective strategies without dismissing views that could hinder their implementation.
The main focus here is on practical challenges, such as capturing perspectives and working with them to understand interrelationships more effectively and empathetically. This could be called collaborative modelling.
Conversation 3: Yourself
The third conversation is an internal, reflective process where the practitioner balances idealised systems models with the realities of the situation. This is a continuous process that involves reflecting on the boundaries and judgements made about the system designed to improve the situation.
Evaluating systemic desirability and cultural feasibilty of the strategies proposed is key to this phase. In other words, is this what people want, and is the change likely be able to happen given the culture surrounding it? Potential difficulties with implementation need to be addressed here, including extremes around holism (including everybody) and pluralism (including everybody’s views).
This conversation addresses the challenges of dealing with partiality and bias in making boundary judgements. Systems are human constructs, so they are inherently partial and biased, which means we must continually adapt to changing circumstances and stakeholder values.
I’ve come to enjoy figuring out boundary judgements over the last few months as I’ve been studying (Conversation 1) and I’m reasonably confident with Conversation 3 in terms of reflecting on my practice. I suppose it’s Conversation 2 in terms of dealing with other people’s differences in use of language and ways of understanding the world that I sometimes struggle with.
It’s also increasingly difficult to deal with people who neither have a background in STiP nor perhaps are ‘natural’ systems thinkers. With that, I found something recently by John Cutler on LinkedIn (thanks Amber and Abi!) which can help with that. I’ve included his full list below, and one of the illustrations by Viktor Cessan:
20 Things I’ve Learned as a Systems (Over) Thinker
Take care of yourself. Your brain is working overtime—all the time. Practice “radical” recovery.
You may spend a lot longer thinking about things than most people. Pace your delivery.
If you go deep first, and then simplify…keep in mind that you don’t need to show all of your work.
Your default description of (almost) any problem will be too threatening/overwhelming.
Do your deepest thinking with co-conspirators (not the people you’re trying to influence).
Informal influence is often not formally recognized. Prepare mentally for this.
The people you’re trying to influence spend 98% of their day overwhelmed by business as usual.
Remember to also do the job you were hired to do (if you don’t you’ll be easier to discount).
Seek “quick wins”, but know that most meaningful things will take a while.
Some things take ages to materialize. It is discontinuous, not continuous.
Make sure to celebrate your wins. They will be few and far between, so savor the moment.
The people who support you in private may not be able to support you in public. Accept that.
Hack existing power structures—it’s much easier than trying to change them.
Consider becoming a formal leader. It’s harder in many ways, but you’ll have more leverage. What’s stopping you?
In lieu of being a formal leader, make sure to partner with people who actually “own” the area of change.
Watch out for imposing your worldview on people. Have you asked about what people care about?.
You’ll need a support network. And not just a venting network. Real support.
“Know when to fold ‘em”. Listen to Kenny Rogers The Gambler. Leave on your own terms.
Don’t confuse being able to sense/see system dynamics, with being about to “control” them. You can’t.
Grapple with your demons, and make sure not to wrap up too much of your identity in change.
It’s been over a decade since I started wondering out loud about whether people really knew what they were talking about when they use the term ‘rigour’. In that particular case, it was whether then UK Education Secretary Michael Gove knew what he was talking about:
What concerns me about Gove’s proposals is the assumption that rigour consists of a very particular method of assessing young people’s knowledge, understanding and skills. I say this as a former teacher and senior leader, as someone who is currently involved in education on a national and international level and, most importantly, a parent. The ability to sit still and concentrate for three hours on examination questions testing feats of memory does not sound to me like a 21st century skill. Which pieces of the complex puzzle of human knowledge, skills and understanding are not captured under such a system? I’d suggest many.
(Belshaw, 2012)
I was reminded of this as I come to work on Activity 1.18 of this module, which introduces the module author’s (Martin Reynolds) views on rigour:
Disciplinary rigour is usually measured by a sense of reliability in the disciplinary tools used. Replicability of tools used in the same way across different situations or for specific situations is usually a good guarantor for reliability. I have argued that relying on one guarantor for rigour might be restrictive, and can lead to a sense of rigor mortis (Reynolds, 2015). For a transdisciplinary area of practice like STiP or evaluation, it is important to have several co-guarantor attributes. In the article (Reynolds 2015) I flag three sets of co-guarantor attributes (CoGs) – reliability/replicability, resonance, and relevance – each interrelated and conforming respectively with the three entities of the STiP heuristic.
(The Open University, 2020)
Reynolds introduces the work of Claude Lévi-Strauss around bricolage, which is a concept referring to a process of improvisation and creativity. Individuals (or organisations) make use of whatever resources they have on-hand to solve problems. The term comes from the French word bricoler which means ‘to tinker’.
Karl Weick leant on the work of Lévi-Strauss in an article entitled ‘Organizing for High Reliability’ (Weick, et al., 1997) and Reynolds presents and expands on Weick’s four attributes of a successful bricolage:
Careful observation and listening – incorporating the idea of conversation; the bricoleur works with others in the village where s/he visits.
Intimate knowledge of resources – each situation is different with different resources, human and non-human; the bricoleur must be adaptable to the resourcefulness of the situation at hand.
Trusting one’s own ideas – whilst situations vary and are always in a state of flux, the bricoloeur remains self–confident, though not arrogant, in the tools and experiences gained.
Self-correcting structures with feedback – bricolage is adaptable to change, accepting a safe-fail environment which allows for errors and experimentation, but embraces the learning emerging from such situations.
(The Open University, 2020)
For example, new tech startups which might have a lot of talent at their disposal but not much cash might use Agile development methodologies, combined with a range of Open Source technologies, rapidly iterating their product. Or healthcare practices in rural, resource-constrained environments might lead to the development of medical devices that operate without electricity. Likewise, urban gardeners often make do with what is available, perhaps turning an abandoned area into a community garden using recycled materials and local knowledge.
In their paper ‘A bricolage perspective on service innovation’ (Witell, et al., 2017) the authors present an approach to bricolage which aligns well with Reynolds’ three co-guarantor attributes (CoGs) of reliability, resonance, and relevance. The table below, created with the help of GPT-4, outlines the overlap:
Bricolage Aspects (Witell et al.)
Bricolage Capabilities
Co-Guarantor Attributes (Reynolds)
Description of Overlap
Making Do with What is Available
Using available resources creatively.
CoG1: Reliability
Both emphasise the use of existing tools and resources in a consistent and adaptable manner. The bricolage principle of ‘making do’ aligns with replicable methods of resource application.
CoG2: Resonance
Making do ensures solutions are contextually appropriate, providing resonance with the immediate environment and its challenges.
CoG3: Relevance
By focusing on available resources, solutions are directly tailored to meet current needs, ensuring relevance.
Improvising When Recombining Resources
Adapting and combining resources in new ways.
CoG1: Reliability
Improvisation in bricolage demonstrates a reliable approach to innovation under constraints, maintaining methodological consistency.
CoG2: Resonance
Improvisation ensures that solutions resonate with stakeholders by adapting to feedback and changing needs dynamically.
CoG3: Relevance
Improvised solutions maintain relevance by adjusting to real-time feedback and evolving challenges.
Networking with External Partners
Collaborating and utilising external insights.
CoG2: Resonance
Networking enhances resonance by ensuring solutions are developed in collaboration with stakeholders and reflect shared insights.
CoG3: Relevance
Networking keeps solutions relevant by incorporating diverse perspectives and resources from a broader community.
Careful Observation and Listening
Engaging with the context and stakeholders.
CoG2: Resonance
Careful observation ensures that the bricolage process is deeply connected to stakeholder needs and contextual cues, enhancing resonance.
CoG3: Relevance
Listening to stakeholder feedback ensures that innovations are aligned with real-world needs, ensuring relevance.
Intimate Knowledge of Resources
Understanding and leveraging what is available.
CoG1: Reliability
Knowing what resources are available allows for consistent application in various contexts, supporting reliability.
CoG2: Resonance
Intimate resource knowledge ensures solutions resonate by using the most appropriate and contextually aligned resources.
CoG3: Relevance
Deep resource knowledge ensures that solutions are relevant by effectively matching resource application to needs.
Trusting One’s Own Ideas
Confidence in the innovative process.
CoG2: Resonance
Trust in one’s own innovative capacity fosters resonance by aligning solutions closely with personal and communal insights.
CoG3: Relevance
Self-trust ensures that solutions remain relevant by adhering to a vision that meets identified needs.
Self-Correcting Structures with Feedback
Adaptability and learning from implementation.
CoG1: Reliability
The ability to self-correct based on feedback enhances the reliability of bricolage by refining methods and outcomes.
CoG2: Resonance
Self-correcting mechanisms ensure resonance by continually adjusting solutions to better align with stakeholder feedback.
CoG3: Relevance
Feedback loops maintain relevance by ensuring that solutions evolve to meet changing needs effectively.
The bricolage paper contains four ‘propositions’ (Witell, et al., 2017, pp.295-296) some of which have an ‘a’ and ‘b part because they present competing hypotheses based on different theoretical perspectives or empirical observations.
Proposition 1
Addressing resource constraints actively is positively associated with strengthening bricolage capabilities of making do, improvising and networking.
This proposition suggests that when organisations or individuals actively confront and address their resource constraints, they enhance their ability to engage in bricolage effectively. This strengthens their capabilities to make do with what is available, to improvise solutions, and to network with others to acquire needed resources or knowledge.
So this highlights the importance of having a proactive stance towards resource limitations. By actively engaging with constraints, instead of bemoaning them, organisations can create a more innovative culture leading to resourceful approaches leveraging bricolage effectively.
Propositions 2a and 2b
Capabilities for making do with what organizations have at hand are positively associated with service innovation outcomes. (2a)
Capabilities for making do with what organizations have at hand are negatively associated with service innovation outcomes. (2b)
Propositions 2a and 2b are competing, or in tension, because they suggest different outcomes from the same bricolage capability. This reflects the ways that innovation can be complex and context-dependent
Proposition 2a suggests that the ability to use available resources effectively (making do) leads to positive service innovation outcomes. That is to say, ‘making do’ helps organisations innovate successfully because it encourages creativity and problem-solving within existing constraints.
In contrast, Proposition 2b suggests that relying solely on available resources (making do) can limit the scope of innovation and lead to less optimal innovation outcomes. This happens because ‘making do’ might prevent organisations from seeking out new resources or methods that could lead to more groundbreaking innovations.
So these competing views reflect the dual nature resource constraints in innovation. On one hand, constraints can spark creativity and lead to novel solutions (2a). On the other hand, too much reliance on limited resources can inhibit the development of more ambitious, potentially more impactful innovations (2b).
Proposition 3
Improvising capabilities are positively associated with service innovation outcomes.
This proposition states that the ability to improvise, that is “creatively recombine resources in novel ways under constraints,” is positively linked to successful service innovations. Improvisation is a core component of bricolage and is essential for adapting to and overcoming immediate challenges.
Proposition 3 supports the idea that flexibility and the ability to adapt quickly are crucial for innovation, especially in environments where conditions and resources can change rapidly.
Propositions 4a and 4b
Networking capabilities are positively associated with service innovation outcomes. (4a)
Networking capabilities are negatively associated with service innovation outcomes. (4b)
Like Propositions 2a and 2b, Propositions 4a and 4b are competing hypotheses regarding the impact of networking on innovation outcomes.
Proposition 4a suggests that the ability to network with external partners and collaborators contributes positively to innovation outcomes. Networking expands the resource pool and can bring in new ideas, both of which can enhance the innovation process.
Conversely, Proposition 4b suggests that networking might sometimes lead to negative innovation outcomes. This could be due to the complexity and coordination costs associated with managing multiple partnerships or because external inputs might dilute the organisation’s focus or lead to conflicts.
These propositions then lead to a diagram which I’ve recreated and adapted slightly. (I’ve used WAO colours and put the logo on because I can imagine us using this with clients!)
I found this activity, and especially the academic paper, really eye-opening. This is exactly the kind of work we do through the co-op, as opposed to, say, large consulting firms who encourage their clients to adopt templated approaches. It’s great to have another framework to apply to be able to show our clients an approach we can offer them.
Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M. and Obstfeld, D. (1997). Organizing for High Reliability: the mindful suppression of inertia’. University of Michigan, Business School, Research Support.
