At the end of November, I was asked to come up with a learning contract. You can see my post about it here, and the table I produced can be found below. I’ll call this one Version 1 (v1).
As part of the learning process, we’re asked to go back and revisit this based on what we’ve learned since doing this. So below is my updated version (v2), with new additions to the ‘Notes’ section in bold, a new colour to differentiate it, and strikethrough formatting on words I’ve removed.
I’ll admit to being quite confused by the difference between S1 and S2. I still am to some degree, although I’ve got more of a grip on it than before. As you can see, my S1 in v1 applies to a client situation, which is actually an S2. In v2 of my learning contract, I correct that.
The words in bold that I’ve added show my additional learning over the past month or so. In particular, what I’ve learned from Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of Ray Ison’s Systems Practice: How to Act about systems thinking as a social dynamic and as a process. I’ve also realised through some of the readings just how important it is to take a holistic view of a particular situation of interest. This is crucial for those in leadership positions, but it’s also important for everyone in an organisation to have some kind of understanding of the whole.
One of the things that’s fascinating is to see how my own understanding of “what I do when I do what I do” has developed over the weeks since I started this module. As my (second) rich picture shows, I’ve been reflecting on tendencies that I have to fight against in terms of perfectionism and control.
What I’ve noticed is how I have come to learn about STiP at pretty much an ideal time in my life. As I was explaining to someone recently, if I had studied systems thinking earlier, I wouldn’t have been ready; I need the lived experience for it to be worthwhile. Coupled with the academic study I’ve done and the approach I took to my doctoral thesis, what I’m doing here feels like a logical extension.
I’m particularly interested in leverage points, and have come to realise that it’s only really possible to identify them once you’ve spoke to plenty of people within a particular situation of concern, and (visually) mapped it out. I’m really looking forward to doing more of this, both for the course, and in terms of my work with clients.
Towards the end of Chapter 3, in a footnote, Ray Ison discusses Max Weber’s concept of an ‘ideal type’:
An ideal type is formed from characteristics and elements of the given phenomena, but it is not meant to correspond to all of the characteristics of any one particular case. It is not meant to refer to perfect things, moral ideals nor to statistical averages but rather to stress certain elements common to most cases of the given phenomena.
Ison, R. (2017) Systems practice: how to act. London: Springer. p.56. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9.
In that regard, 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. At least, that’s the way I’m thinking about this at the moment, before moving on to the next section of the book.
11 years ago I gave a TEDx talk on digital literacies. Around the 12 minute mark, I mentioned that it’s useful to consider literacies as developing in terms of ‘progressive encoding’ rather than ‘sequential encoding’. This is a bit of a geeky analogy from the early days of internet when images could take a while to download.
In other words, as the slide below shows, the development of literacies happens by progressively adding detail to our understanding. It is not best developed through a course where (to use a gaming analogy) a ‘fog of war’ prevents you from knowing what comes next.
I mention this as at the start of Chapter 2 of Systems Practice: How to Act by Ray Ison, he talks about how people move from having a systemic sensibility, through to having a form of systems literacy, and then on to systems thinking in practice (STiP) capability. I see this spectrum as being similar to the holistic approach I was advocating for in that TEDx talk.
Engaging with Systems is perhaps like learning a new language — I could refer to it as learning ‘systems talking’, where ‘talking’ involves thinking and doing, i.e. practice. It is the sort of learning that can challenge our sense of identity. It is as if ‘systems talk’ is ‘talk that undermines the boundaries between our categories of things in the world, [and thus] undermines “us,” the stability of the kinds of beings we take ourselves to be.’
Ison, R. (2017) Systems practice: how to act. London: Springer. pp.19-20. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9.
If systems thinking is like learning a new language, then it can be challenging to talk using a new vocabulary and grammar to people who do not understand it. Ison gives words to something I’ve come up against in my work; it can seem ‘reasonable’ to want evidence and examples and proof but… the world doesn’t work like that?
Those who do not think systemically usually require explanations of what ‘it’ is and justification or evidence that ‘it works’ or that there is a ‘value proposition’ for engaging with it. There is also a tendency to require explanations of effectiveness in causal terms of the form: ‘using systems thinking can cause X to happen’ i.e., using a framework of linear causality in which a systemic view is lost because one cannot understand circularity by making it linear.
Ison, R. ibid. p.20.
I totally get having a ‘theory of change’ and working backwards from a desired future state. But to require evidence that a new approach will work, or that one that has worked elsewhere will work in a different context, is to essentially ask us to get out a crystal ball. As Ison notes, it’s an attempt to turn something holistic and systemic into something which is linear and systematic.
One of the things that a background in Philosophy allows you to do, I think, is to be more comfortable with ambiguity. Or it may be simply that my own studies have led to me being interested in, and therefore more comfortable with it. Either way, Ison believe ‘abandoning certainty’ to be a good way to provide the conditions to start thinking and acting systemically (Ison, ibid. p.21). He also talks about being ‘open to your circumstances’ which I’ve discussed elsewhere as cultivating a larger serendipity surface.
The interesting thing here is that, while the world (and especially the corporate world) is set up to remove emotion from our working environments as much as possible, abandoning certainty and being open to your circumstances requires an emotional response. To use a flamboyant metaphor: instead of trying to reduce us to a monochrome grey, it allows us to interact with one another’s rainbow colours.
I have a lot in common with what I’ve read of Ison’s work. For example, he refuses to give a definition of systems thinking or systems practice. In my doctoral thesis and subsequent ebook, I did likewise, calling for people to come up with their own definitions based on eight essential elements of digital literacies I identified.
In my experience definitions are constraining because (1) they are abstractions and thus a limited one dimensional snapshot of a complicated dynamic and (2) we do not appreciate how definitions blind us to what we do when we employ a definition.
Ison, R. ibid. p.22.
As a Pragmatist, I’m not so against definitions as Ison seems to be, as I think they can be ‘useful in the way of belief’ for a community of inquirers. In fact, I’d argue that the discussion that leads to the definition is what’s important. The trouble comes when a definition becomes what Richard Rorty would call a ‘dead metaphor’, no longer doing any work. That’s why we need to continually return to and reassess our assumptions, using the Sigmoid Curve.
To relate another concept of Ison’s to my own work, in a footnote on p.25 he quotes John Shotter (1993) as saying “why do we fell that our language works primarily by us using it accurately to represent and refer to things and states of affairs in the circumstances surrounding us, rather than by using it to influence each other’s and our own behaviour?” I see this as similar to my discussion of voodoo categorisation based on the work of Clay Shirky. We create a model that (we believe to) perfectly represent the world, says Shirky, then manipulate the model and are surprised when the world does not change as a result.
I don’t often read books in any way other than from start to finish, but Ison, as the author of this book, has instructed us to read this one in a bit of a topsy-turvy way. For example, I’ve already read Chapter 9, 10, and 13, and now I’m on Chapter 2.
As a result, I’ve come across concepts and phrases for which I haven’t had a clear definition. I was therefore pleased, to come across this explanation of the link between systems thinking and practice:
The terms systems thinking and systems practice are different ways of being in the same situation. This can be understood as a recursive dynamic much like the relationship between the chicken and egg — they are linked recursively and bring each other forth — speaking metaphorically they can be seen as mirror images of each other. Understood as a recursive dynamic systems thinking and practice can also be described as systems praxis — theory informed practical action.
Ison, R. ibid. p.30.
Doing systems thinking with systems practice is a bit like spending time coming up with a privacy policy and then not acting in a way which would be in accordance with it. In other words, it’s useful, but it’s not praxis; it makes little difference to the world.
Finally, as I come to the end of Chapter 2, what is the difference between a ‘situation’ and a ‘system’?
A situation is the context in which things happen. A real-world setting such as an office, or a family household, or a natural habitat. Situations are usually complex, messy, and characterised by both uncertainty and multiple perspectives. For example, the boss has a different perspective to the cleaner; the parent has a different perspective to the child; the biologist has a different perspective to the economist. Situations are the starting point for any STiP process.
A system, on the other hand, is a construct, a mental model used to make sense of some aspects of a situation. It’s an abstract representation which helps us understand the situation’s dynamics, for example by identifying patterns, structures, and behaviours that might not be immediately apparent. For example, a system might be a company’s project management system, or a family’s meal planning system (including recipes, shopping lists, cooking rota, budgets, etc.), or a wildlife monitoring and management system (including methods for tracking animal populations, habitats, the impact of human activities, conservation strategies, etc.)
So the situation represents the broader context with all its complexities and dynamics, while the system represents a more focused, structured approach to understanding and managing specific aspects of that situation.
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.
