Tag: MSc

TB872: Places to intervene in a system

Posted on January 12, 2024May 1, 2024 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.

This image depicts ten distinct, interconnected elements, each symbolizing one of Meadows' systemic leverage points, like a gear for 'Numbers' and a flowing ribbon for 'Material stocks and flows'. The backdrop suggests a global context with a faint outline of a world map or interconnected nodes across a globe. One element stands out, representing the 'power to transcend paradigms', shown as a shining light or an eye-opening motif. The color palette is diverse yet harmonious, with each leverage point in a different hue.

In Chapter 4 of Systems Practice: How to Act, author Ray Ison includes a reading from Donella Meadows. It stands in quite stark contrast to Ison’s writing as it’s more informal, more emotionally-informed, and doesn’t include a million footnotes.

The situation described involves a “meeting about the new global trade regime, NAFTA and GATT and the World Trade Organization” (Meadows, quoted in Ison, 2017, p.65). Given that she passed away in 2001, I’m assuming that this meeting must have taken place sometime in the late 20th century. Meadows describes an internal dialogue which demonstrates her frustration at the seeming lack of understanding that those involved are inventing “a HUGE NEW SYSTEM” which is “cranking the system in the wrong direction”. As she tells it, Meadows “marched to the flip chart, tossed over a clean page, and wrote: ‘Places to Intervene in a System’, followed by nine items”.

This discussion of intervention in a system, then, was itself an intervention in a meeting which could be thought of as a system to set up a global trade regime by focusing on growth. Through her intervention, Meadows was trying to explain that when all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. There are other tools available.

One of the concerns that seems to have led Meadows to march to the flip chart were the “PUNY” negative feedback loops and small parameter adjustments being discussed. She points out that there are “no quick or easy formulas for finding leverage points” and that it can take “a few months or years” to “model the system and figure it out”. When new complex systems are being developed in a matter of days, this speed is not sufficient. Hence the intervention.

The reading details ten ways to intervene in a system, taken from an account published in 1997. A later publication (Meadows, 1999) increased this to 12. The original ten, numbered backwards, are:

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

0. The power to transcend paradigms

The final item in this list is introduced separately once Meadows has gone through the other nine places to intervene. She describes it as a “kicker”, mentioning that 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” (Meadows, quoted in Ison, 2017, p.77).

What’s refreshing about the reading is how much Meadows cares about her work. Rather than sitting superciliously on the sidelines commenting, she rolls up her sleeves and intervenes. I also like her use of ALL CAPS occasionally in the reading. It helps the reader experience a bit of the passion she has for her subject, which can’t help ‘rub off’ and make us want to do something similar.

Relating this reading to the isophor of the juggler, it’s clear that Meadows intuitively ‘juggles’ the BECM balls. As a reminder, they are:

Being (B-ball): concerns the practitioner’s self-awareness and ethics. Involves understanding one’s background, experiences, and prejudices (so awareness of self in relation to the task and context is crucial).
Engaging (E-ball): concerns engaging with real-world situations. Involves the practitioner’s choices in orientation and approach, affecting how the situation is experienced.
Context (C-ball): concerns how systems practitioners contextualise specific approaches in real-world situations. Involves understanding the relationship between a systems approach and its application, going beyond merely choosing a method.
Managing (M-ball): concerns the overall performance of juggling and effecting desired change. Involves co-managing oneself and the situation, adapting over time to changes in the situation, approach, and the practitioner’s own development.

In this example, then, Meadows can be seen as juggling the balls in the following way:

B-ball: the intervention stems from Meadows’ self-awareness that what is happening in the meeting trangresses her personal ethics. The reader is made aware of this through the internal dialogue she presents as having been engaged with before standing up and intervening. While her role in the proceedings isn’t mentioned, she must have had some form of seniority or be wearing the mantle of the expert to (a) be in the room, and (b) have been allowed to continue her intervention once it started. In addition, Meadows discusses how complex systems are ‘counterintuitive’ and that the people involved in the meeting didn’t seem to understand this. She therefore felt personal urgency that she was well-placed to be able to step up and do something in this situation.
E-ball: Meadows could have written a paper after the meeting. Perhaps this would have been the approach of most academics or deep thinkers. However, as I mentioned above, she chose to discuss ways to intervene by intervening herself which is a powerful way of disrupting the status quo and presenting alternative viewpoints. The meeting could not continue ‘as normal’ and therefore would be experienced quite differently by participants who are not used to interventions which make them blink in surprise.
C-ball: the method Meadows used in this situation, to create a list of leverage points, “was distilled from decades of rigorous analysis of many different systems done by many smart people” (Meadows, quoted in Ison 2017, p.66). Although the list may have been new, it did not come from nowhere. Nor did Meadows simply choose a particular template or framework in an attempt to ‘apply’ an approach to the situation. What she discusses are reasonably-generic ways of intervening in a system, but the stimulus was a very specific situation in which she wanted the group to intervene. This was not theoretical speculation, but something which would have consequences.
M-ball: this list, or rather the list that it became in a subsequent publication, is perhaps the thing for which Meadows is best-known. She does not ‘back off’ her list, but towards the end of the reading points out that it is empowering to know that there is “no certainty in any worldview”, that “no paradigm is right” but that “you can choose one that will help you achieve your purpose” (Meadows, quoted in Ison 2017, p.77). Meadows calls her list “tentative” with its order “slithery”, pointing to the fact that “there are exceptions to every item on it” (Meadows, ibid, p.78). However, using the list subconsciously over the years, while not perhaps “not transform[ing her] into a superwoman” has helped her come to the realisation that “the higher the leverage point, the more the system resists changing it” (Meadows, ibid.). So it seems that, although Meadows doesn’t use this term, she is suggesting that the list is somewhat of a heuristic rather than a manual.

I’ve never been shy to share my opinions, as those who know me well will testify. I can certainly imagine (pre-therapy, at least) marching over to a flip chart and sharing my thoughts, especially if I felt that an important gathering of movers-and-shakers were heading in the wrong direction. However, it’s a high-risk strategy, as it’s akin to pushing all of your chips into the middle of the poker table and going ‘all in’ on a particular intervention.

The fact that I consumed the reading mostly with a wry smile on my face would suggest that I very much approve of Meadows’ approach. I like the way that she used her experience to intervene in a targeted way and using an approach which was appropriate to the situation. That is to say she used a flip chart instead of a shiny slidedeck, she presented options (as ‘leverage points’) instead of a single direction, and she suggested urgency by the manner in which she intervened.

These days, being rather more conscious of my middle-age, white guy privilege, I’m perhaps less likely to intervene in the way that Meadows did. But I still have it within me, when I think that I know enough about a particular domain, or have a certain approach which I think could help the situation. I think it’s the way that you present ideas or concepts sometimes that helps them be considered/adopted. In this situation, although it was a gamble, and although we don’t discover exactly what happened as a result, it would seem that it might have paid off for Meadows.

References

Ison, R. (2017). Systems practice: how to act. London: Springer. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9.
Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. Hartland: The Sustainability Institute.

Image: DALL-E 3

TB872: Adding the juggler isophor to the PFMS heuristic

Posted on January 10, 2024May 1, 2024 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.

The image illustrates the PFMS heuristic where a practitioner (P) is engaging in a systemic inquiry within a situation (S). The practitioner is considering various frameworks (F) and methods (M) in an iterative cycle.

F and M are represented as systemic enquiries where a practitioner is juggling balls labelled B, E, C, and M which relate to the juggler isophor. — Image taken from TB872 course materials

This course is accretive in that it builds up student knowledge and understanding, particularly through the use of concepts as they relate to diagrams. In an early post for this module, I introduced the PFMS heuristic. This post adds into the mix the isophor of the juggler.

Placing myself in the position of the practitioner in the above image, I can see how the juggler isophor fits into the PFMS setting: I am not merely an observer but an active participant. I bring with me a history of systems thinking in practice (STiP) as well as the experiences of juggling various aspects of my personal, professional, and academic life.

In this example wehre the practice situation S is my own practice of STiP, I’m engaging with a nested set of frameworks (F) and methods (M). This nested nature reflects the complexity of systems thinking, where ideas are interconnected and inform one another. The first layer of the framework is the domain of Systems itself, as interpreted through the various lineages and the readings incorporated in the course material. This forms a theoretical backdrop against which my inquiry is conducted.

The second layer comprises systemic inquiry, where the juggler isophor serves both as a framework and a method. This duality recognizes the isophor as a conceptual tool informed by second-order systems praxis theory and metaphor theory. These theories are not just academic constructs but are actively developed and applied by practitioners in order to make sense of and navigate our practice.

As we juggle, we’re not manipulating physical objects but relational dynamics over time. This includes me as a practitioner (P), as well as the frameworks (F), methods (M), and situation (S) over time. The performance of juggling in this context is not just about maintaining balance and motion but also about understanding, analysing, intervening, modelling, changing, and interpreting the situation at hand. It’s about how these elements are perceived and assessed by myself as a reflective and reflexive practitioner— somebody who is not just thinking but also evaluating the effectiveness and impact of actions within the practice.

The juggler isophor reminds us that systems thinking is a dynamic and ongoing practice, where the practitioner is continuously engaged with the elements of PFMS; we adapt, learn, and evolve in response to the situation of concern. In doing so we’re trying to achieve an ‘ideal type’, as mentioned towards the end of a recent post. To reiterate: “an ideal type is not a Platonic form, but rather something which is more akin to the Pragmatic idea that something is ‘good in the way of belief’. That is to say that it’s an approach to situations which lead to good outcomes, rather than being a template for all outcomes.”

TB872: The juggler isophor for systems practice

Posted on January 10, 2024May 1, 2024 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.

A person in the centre of the frame against a blurred background, juggling four brightly coloured, slightly squishy balls in red (labelled 'B'), green ('E'), yellow ('C'), and blue ('M').

An ‘isophor’ is different to a metaphor. Coined by Humberto Maturana, the idea is that instead of sparking the imagination, it focuses our attention:

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 different 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)
Maturana, H. quoted in Ison, R. (2017) Systems practice: how to act. London: Springer. p.61. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9.

So to summarise:

Metaphors — help us understand one thing by comparing it to something quite different (e.g. “politics is war”). Involve the use of imagination to think about things in a new way.
Isophors — compare two things that are similar in how they relate or work, but are in different areas. Focus our attention on understanding the patterns and relationships involved.

The example given in Chapter 4 of Ison’s book Systems Practice: How to Act is of a juggler who is juggling four balls:

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 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.
Ison, R. ibid. p.60.

Those four balls, as illustrated in the image at the top of this post, are:

Being (B-ball): concerns the practitioner’s self-awareness and ethics. Involves understanding one’s background, experiences, and prejudices (so awareness of self in relation to the task and context is crucial).
Engaging (E-ball): concerns engaging with real-world situations. Involves the practitioner’s choices in orientation and approach, affecting how the situation is experienced.
Context (C-ball): concerns how systems practitioners contextualise specific approaches in real-world situations. Involves understanding the relationship between a systems approach and its application, going beyond merely choosing a method.
Managing (M-ball): concerns the overall performance of juggling and effecting desired change. Involves co-managing oneself and the situation, adapting over time to changes in the situation, approach, and the practitioner’s own development.

Thinking about the isophor of juggling in relation to my own life and practice is quite illuminating. It’s certainly relevant to parenting, where everything always seems to be a trade-off, but as I promised to focus mainly on professional situations in my reflections for this module, I’ll instead relate this to my work through WAO.

🔴 Being (B-ball)

At our co-op, we believe in living our values and in approaches such as nonviolent communication. Some of this is captured on this wiki page. As an individual member of WAO, I need to understand why I act (and interact) in a particular way in different contexts. This relates to my colleagues, clients, and members of networks of which I’m part.

We also need to think about the way that we as an organisation interact with one another and with other individuals and organisations. We’re interested in responsible and sustainable approaches, so ethics are particularly important to us. (A good example of this is the recent Substack drama.)

🟢 Engaging (E-ball)

There is always a choice in terms of how to engage with a situation, and every client is different. There are plenty of individual consultants and agencies who take a templated, one-size-fits-none approach to situations. But while we learn from our experiences and previous projects, we try to engage based on the specific context.

Client environments can be complex, as there are all kind of pressures and interactions of which we are not always aware. For example, a CEO being under pressure from their board, or an employee being at risk of redundancy can massively change their behaviour. Having tried and failed to change something previously can lead to cynicism or malaise.

Equally, finding the right ‘leverage points’ within an organisation or network can be incredibly fruitful. Success tends to breed success (in terms of validation) and changes most people’s conceptualisation of the situation.

🟡 Context (C-ball)

A lot of ‘systems thinking’ approaches that I see on LinkedIn are simply people taking templates and trying to apply them to a particular situation. While this is part of systems thinking, contextualisation means deploying one or more of a range of techniques.

Some of this involves crafting approaches which resonate with the client’s culture and objectives. For example, there are ‘messy’ clients, ones that thrive in a slightly chaotic environment. They prize relationships over things looking shiny. Conversely, there are those where every slide deck must look polished and interactions are more formal.

What I remind myself (and others that I work with) is that when we’re working for a client, we’re often working for their boss. That is to say, unless we’re working directly with the person who signs off the budget, we need to produce things that fit with how the person holding the purse strings sees the organisation. That perception can change over time, but it can’t be done immediately. Sometimes there has to be an element of smoke-and-mirrors to give space to get the real work done under the guise of something else.

🔵 Managing (M-ball)

Situations change over time. Particularly when working with longer-term clients, it’s important to take a moment and ensure that the strategies we’re using mesh with current realities. For example, as Heraclitus famously said, we can’t step into the same river twice. The way that I understand this enigmatic quotation is that this is because the river has changed and we have changed.

This is why retrospectives and planning sessions are important. Simply allowing a project to float along without them means that the dynamics of the project aren’t being addressed from either our side or the client side. This can include everything from increasing our day rates due to the cost of living going up, to the client pivoting their strategy and neglecting to tell us.

Sometimes, this might mean bringing in different skills, approaches, or expertise to the project. After all, meaningful and sustainable change doesn’t happen simply by doing the same things on repeat. To bring it back to parenting, we don’t treat kids the same way as teenagers as they are as toddlers.

This isophor of the juggler underpins a lot of the rest of Ison’s book, and will inform the next assessment I do as part of this module. So you’ll be coming across it again in future posts!

Image: DALL-E 3