There are so many things I’ve come across in this module so far that help me understand situations I’ve been in during my career. While I wish I’d known about ways to conceptualise these situations before I encountered them, I realise that it’s only after experiencing them that I’m able to make sense of them.
One example of this is a situation where problems are inherent to a system and the system itself perpetuates it. One could think of systemic racism, or the DWP costing a lot of money to, ultimately, make people poorer.
The concept of a system-determined problem is a means of framing situations when a problem-determined system fails to dissolve because it has become institutionalised and those within fail to be open to changing circumstances (through learning, reframing, new language, understandings and practices). Thus it can be said that the existing system is itself perpetuating the problem – it is a system-determined problem (though as I have said elsewhere it could be that it is the lack of a purposeful system that is the issue). In many cases the attempts to ‘solve the problem’ are a large part of the dynamic of perpetuating the system that gives rise to what we perceive as the problem. Hierarchical organisations and governments often perpetuate system-determined problems through their structures (e.g. silos) and practices in effect constraining change to first-order change. DAD is an example of the perpetuation of a system-determined problem.
Ison, R. and Blackmore, C. and the TB872 module team (2020) ‘Part 2: A systemic inquiry into systems thinking in practice’ TB872: Managing change with systems thinking in practice. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=2171589 (Accessed: 19 December 2023)
I could write a lot more, but I’m a little behind in this module due to my birthday and Christmas preparations. So I’ll leave it there and move on.
As I explained in my last post, systemic inquiries can be thought of as a meta-form of purposeful action. In other words, it provides a setting for programmes and projects. So we’re not setting one against another, but rather understanding that systemic inquiry is a cyclic process focused on learning and so without ‘outcomes’ or ‘deliverables’ defined at the start.
Aspect
Traditional Projects
Systemic Inquiry
Definition
A structured process with a specific goal, end product, or result to be achieved within set parameters.
An adaptive approach to practice, focusing on continuous learning and adaptation to changing circumstances.
Approach
Linear and sequential; follows a set plan from start to finish.
Cyclic and dynamic; not strictly linear and evolves as the inquiry progresses.
Outcomes
Specific outcomes or deliverables are defined at the beginning.
Outcomes are not pre-specified; open to new possibilities and adaptations.
Flexibility
Limited flexibility; changes often require formal processes to revise initial plans.
High flexibility; able to adapt to surprises and changes in circumstances.
Focus
Typically focuses on achieving specific, tangible results within a certain timeframe and budget.
Focuses on understanding and learning, often dealing with complex issues requiring adaptive change.
Management Style
Often managed through traditional project management methodologies.
Managed through principles of systems thinking, action research, and adaptive management.
Suitability
Suitable for projects with clear objectives and stable environments.
Suitable for complex situations with uncertainty and evolving requirements.
Time Frame
Generally operates within a fixed timeframe with specific deadlines.
Timeframes might be more flexible, with a focus on the process rather than strict deadlines.
Budget
Usually has a predetermined budget.
Budget might be more flexible, accommodating changes in the inquiry process.
Quality Standards
Quality and performance standards are often specified and measured against pre-determined criteria.
Quality is assessed in terms of learning outcomes and adaptability to changing scenarios.
Emotional Underpinning
Often characterized by a focus on efficiency, control, and predictability.
Embraces uncertainty and maintains an openness to surprise and adaptability.
Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
Working software over comprehensive documentation
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
Responding to change over following a plan
It doesn’t always work like that in practice, and there are plenty of un-agile ‘Agile’ approaches in the wild. But that speaks more to it becoming a dead metaphor in command-and-control environments, rather than the original ideas not being sound.
Agile approaches usually centre around the learn-build-measure cycle, with an important element of the process being ‘discovery’. This involves talking to stakeholders to figure out their problems, find leverage points, and unearth users’ jobs to be done.
Conceptualising agile approaches as systemic inquiries (which I haven’t done previously) helps explain the value of user research. Systemic inquiry foregrounds social relations: it’s not just about the theory or method, but how these are applied and evolve through collaboration.
The scary thing for most people is that recognising that life is uncertain and unpredictable is a little scary. Traditional project management, with its outcomes, deliverables, and Gantt charts looks impressive but is likely to bear little relation to reality. In addition, not only is the world constantly changing, but our interactions with our environment change it and us. So our plans need to be adaptable; it’s not about doing things to a group of people, but rather doing it with them.
They say that the best way to learn something is to teach it, and the above images come from work that WAO did as part of an emergency response during the pandemic with Catalyst-funded charities. We helped them move away from pretending they knew what their stakeholders wanted to actually asking them. Although this sounds obvious, in the grant-funded world, where organisations have precious little time to reflect on their processes, delivery is hard enough.
What was interesting was how transformational this shift was for participants in the programme. Although it wasn’t couched in the language of systemic inquiry, the iterative nature of what we helped them do, along with understanding that they needed to learn from their successes and mistakes, really helped them.
What I’m still getting to grips with is how to explain systemic inquiry to others. The boxes-in-the-arrow approach and reference to Agile software development only takes me so far — especially for those who are less technical.
In the work we do with clients, there is often a tendency to for them to want to decide something on behalf of a group they serve. This is usually done with good intentions: people within organisations have expertise, can move relatively quickly, and are aware of any restrictions around funding they have for a project.
To use an example which I’ll keep anonymous, during the pandemic there was funding available to help young people who were isolated due to lockdowns. One organisation I spoke with ‘knew’ exactly what was needed, started implementing a digital solution, and were surprised when very few people used it.
The acronym DAD (decide-announce-defend) describes this approach, where an individual or organisation decides on something, announces it to stakeholders, and then has to defend the decision when things don’t go to plan. Although it may seem speedier to decide things behind closed doors and then get on and implement things, if stakeholders are resistant then the overall implementation can be delayed or even stopped entirely.
It might be that what is proposed is fantastic and exactly what is required. Or it might be that what is proposed is terrible and does not take account of some key information. Either way, change management involves stakeholder engagement, without which even the best of plans can be thwarted. It’s often actually faster and cheaper, in terms of the overall implementation, to get people involved from the start. It’s just a lot messier.
Note: in the absence of knowing why something is happening, people make up all kinds of stuff. I remember overhearing a conversation among retirees in a coffee shop about technology which took on an almost mystical flavour; because they didn’t know why some things happened, they’d invented all kinds of conspiracy theories!
Another approach, which is the one that WAO usually champions, can initially take longer. Sometimes, much longer. It involves stakeholder engagement, usually through user research and convening meetings. This takes facilitation skills which draws on both nonviolent communication and creating psychologically-safe environments with consent-based decision making. It’s challenging work in its own right, and so I can understand why technocratic-minded people and organisations seek to skip it. As I often say, it’s harder to work with people than technology.
I’m pleased to now have a name for this approach: EDD (engage-deliberate-decide). One of the biggest problems with a DAD approach is that stakeholders don’t understand the why and the how of the situation, as they have not been consulted. In the example given in the course materials, the UK’s Environment Agency worked behind closed doors to figure out a plan for a town at risk of flooding from the sea. When the plan is presented to the people of the town as a fait accompli, they only see the negative impacts of the flood defences. Unlike the staff who have worked on the plan, the townspeople have not engaged with the risks or options for prevention and mitigation.
Contrast that with the other example given in the course materials, after the Environment Agency learned its lesson and switched from a DAD to an EDD approach when working with another town. In this case, a much more holistic approach meant that the project was successful and seen as beneficial, came in under budget, and proceeded smoothly. In fact, because the liaison group which was established was separate to the Environment Agency, they could go beyond the agency’s brief to increase the system boundary to include all different kinds of flooding.
One thing mentioned in passing which I don’t think should be underestimated is that an EDD approach can lead to stakeholders seeing themselves as active participants in creating a shared future. This is what we mean by ‘civil society’: people and organisations on the ground working together to improve the local situation, rather than technocrats at a distance deciding what is ‘appropriate’ or ‘efficient’.
Let’s compare and contrast DAD and EDD approaches using the PFMS heuristic:
DAD Approach
EDD Approach
Participants
Mainly Environment Agency staff and decision-makers. Limited local involvement. Stakeholders as ‘victims’.
Broad range including Environment Agency staff, local residents, business owners, local authorities, and other stakeholders. Stakeholders as active participants.
Frameworks
Top-down decision-making. Consultation as a formality. Rational, technocratic, and ‘efficient’.
Collaborative, inclusive, and transparent process. Emphasis on building trust. Emotions welcome, holistic approach.
Methods
Decisions made behind closed doors, followed by public announcement and defence.
Engagement from the outset, deliberation, and collective decision-making.
Situation
Flood prevention in Teignmouth with public unaware of the risk, leading to shock and opposition.
Flood prevention in Shaldon with proactive engagement to understand and address local concerns and knowledge.
Now let’s look at the benefits of DAD vs EDD in this particular situation:
DAD Approach
EDD Approach
Outcome
Resistance and failure to address local concerns effectively. Huge delays to the project.
Effective solution accepted by the community, demonstrating the value of diverse perspectives and a holistic approach.
Community Involvement
Minimal to none. Decisions imposed on the community.
High. Community actively involved in the decision-making process.
Transparency
Low. Lack of information and communication with the public.
High. Open dialogue and information sharing.
Flexibility
Rigid. Sticking to the pre-decided plan despite opposition.
Adaptive. Open to changing plans based on community input and new information.
Efficiency
Inefficient in the long term due to opposition and delays.
More efficient overall: initial time investment led to smoother implementation.
Trust and Respect
Low. Community suspicious and distrustful of Environment Agency.
Medium to High. Improved trust and respect for Environment Agency, and constructive ways of working established.
I found working through this example extremely instructive when it comes to my own work. For example, we’ve got some potential work with a client onto which the DAD vs EDD approaches map almost perfectly. They’ve come to us wanting an implementation in a hurry based on limited interaction with stakeholders (DAD), and we’re pushing back against this suggesting starting with finding out what problems actually need to be solved, and to engage their stakeholders (EDD).
