Open Thinkering

Menu

Tag: STiP

TB872: Moving into Part 2 (a systemic inquiry into systems thinking in practice)

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.

A DALL-E 3 created image conveying the concept of growth and preparedness for new challenges through its use of abstract forms and a vibrant colour scheme, representing learning and intellectual development.

There’s no rest for the wicked and, so after submitting my first tutor-marked assessment marking the end of Part 1 of this module, it’s time to get started with Part 2. I’m in Vienna at a conference next week, and then of course it’s Christmas, so I’d like to front-load as much of the work in this part as possible.

Part 2 is designed to enable you to become an effective Systems Thinking Practitioner and to use your STiP literacy and capabilities to undertake systemic inquiries which effect change that can make a difference.

In the course materials, Part 2 starts with some fantastic quotations, some of which I’d like to share here:

A caterpillar grows by getting longer and fatter, but this can only go on for a while before it reaches the limit…. It has to go through a transformation in how it is organised and how it relates to the world around it. The caterpillar changes the pattern of its life, abandoning the old and adopting the new. Similarly, we recognise the need for transformational change when we see that the way things are getting done now has limit; that we cannot get beyond these limits however much we try to improve the existing system, and that we must, as a result, create a new pattern of life for the future we want and need.

(Sharpe, 2020 p. 5; as quoted in Ofir, 2020)

This analogy captures a core principle of Systems Thinking in Practice (STiP) around the necessity for transformational change in systems. Like the caterpillar, systems have inherent limits to incremental growth and ‘efficiency improvements’. At some point, continuous small-scale enhancements are no longer sufficient, so a fundamental reorganisation/overhaul of the system is required.

The caterpillar’s metamorphosis into a butterfly is symbolic of the emergence of new patterns and behaviours in a system. The analogy is also instructive in terms of the need for the proactive creation of new systems aligned with desired future states. In other words, the caterpillar doesn’t become a butterfly by being more caterpillar.

When we must deal with problems, we instinctively refuse to try the way that leads through darkness and obscurity. We wish to hear only of unequivocal results, and completely forget that these results can only be brought about when we have ventured into and emerged again from the darkness.

(Jung, 1933, p. 111)

This quotation from Carl Jung emphasises the importance of embracing complexity and uncertainty in systemic problem-solving. With STiP, complex problems often have many interdependencies and hidden factors (“darkness and obscurity”) meaning that STiP practitioners need to be ready to engage with uncertain and ambiguous situations. Real-world problems rarely have obvious, clear-cut solutions, so journeying into the complexities to find a solution can involve courage to face the uncertain.

Of any stopping place in life, it is good to ask whether it will be a good place from which to go on as well as a good place to remain.

(Bateson, 2001 p. 14)

As I’m learning in the book Systems Thinkers there were quite a few prominent people relating to systems thinking with the surname Bateson. All were related. This quotation is from Mary Catherine Bateson, and emphasises how systems are dynamic. A ‘stopping place’ is therefore not just a static point but part of a larger, continuously evolving process. In others words, every state within a system is provisional and transitional.

This is similar to to something I often say in terms of “every technology is a bridging technology”. In other words, it’s the direction of travel that’s important when thinking about technologies, not whether this or that is the perfect technology for all time. Bateson’s reference to evaluating a place as both good to remain and to move on from resonates with me in terms of continual learning and adaptability.

With STiP, it’s important to keep reassessing situations, acknowledging that strategies and solutions effective in one context may need changing or adapting for future challenges. This mindset is forward-looking, and the value of any current state is assessed not only in terms of its immediate benefits, but but also by its capacity to enable and support future growth.

Image: DALL-E 3

TB872: An inquiry into my practice for managing change with STiP

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.

DALL-E 3 created abstract image representing the concept of systemic inquiry and personal reflection on managing systemic change. It visually captures the complex network of interconnected paths, embodying decision-making processes, problem-solving approaches, and the balancing of different life roles. The elements within the image suggest themes of communication, collaboration, diverse viewpoints integration, stress management, and personal habits, all contributing to a holistic perspective on systemic thinking. This image encapsulates the dynamics of personal and professional life within the realm of systems thinking.

Apparently, the difference between ‘inquiry’ and ‘enquiry’ isn’t simply an example of variation between American and British English. Rather, as the course materials note, “recent British usage enquire has tended to mean ‘to ask’ and inquire has meant ‘to investigate’, but this difference is not apparent everywhere”. The TB872 module therefore uses ‘inquiry’ in the sense of an exploration or investigation.

We understand ‘systemic inquiry’ as a meta-process for project or programme managing suited to some, but not all, situations. A systemic inquiry can precede or run in parallel with a programme or project. Inquiry is a form of practice as well as a disposition and it is enhanced by acknowledging uncertainty from the start i.e. an attitude of avoiding the hubris of certainty.

To be honest, I didn’t really understand Activity 1.18, so I asked my “little robot friend” (I’ve created a GPT using the TB872 course materials, being sure to tick the option not to use them for ChatGPT’s training data). It said that this activity is an exercise in self-examination and a way to align my personal or professional practices with the principles of managing systemic change. This activity, and therefore this blog post, is only about setting it up.

As such, I need to consider:

  • Reflecting on my current practice: particularly in terms of managing changes in complex systems. This might involve considering how I approach problems, make decisions, and interact with others in situations that require systemic thinking.
  • Identifying Practices: I need to think about specific practices or habits I currently use when faced with systemic challenges. This could include both formal methods and informal strategies that I employ in professional or personal contexts.
  • Analysing the effectiveness of these practices: for example, are there areas where my approach works well? Are there aspects that could be improved? Through this analysis, I should be able to recognise strengths as well as areas for development in my systemic practice.
  • Praxis: by connecting my personal practices with theoretical concepts and frameworks I’m learning module, I should figure out how my methods align with or diverge from the principles of systems thinking.
  • Iteration: my systems literacy will improve over time, so I only need to consider what I would call System Inquiry v0.1. As I progress through the module I’ll then integrate new insights and learning.

There are so many areas I could cover, but given that I’m blogging publicly about all of this I think I’ll probably steer clear of anything solely related to my family. Instead I’ll focus more on personal or work-related things.

For example (again, with the help of my little robot friend), I could consider:

  1. Decision-making processes: how do I make decisions, especially in complex situations? Do I consider multiple perspectives? How do I deal with uncertainty or conflicting information?
  2. Problem-solving approaches: how do I approach problem-solving? Do I tend to look at problems in isolation, or do I consider the wider system and potential ripple effects of my solutions?
  3. Communication & collaboration: if I consider my communication and collaboration practices, particularly in group settings or teams, how do I ensure diverse viewpoints are considered? How do I manage conflicts or integrate different ideas?
  4. Change management: by reflecting on a specific instance where I was involved in managing change, what were the strategies I used, the challenges I faced, and the outcomes that were achieved?
  5. Workplace practices: what are the systems and processes within my organisation. How do they impact my work? Are there inefficiencies or areas for improvement that a systems thinking approach could address?
  6. Personal habits & routines: looking at my daily habits and routines, how do these contribute to my overall well-being or goals? Are there systemic factors influencing these habits?
  7. Handling stress & complexity: reflecting on how I handle stress and complex situations, do I have strategies for maintaining a holistic perspective and not getting overwhelmed by details?
  8. Balancing different life roles: considering how I balance different roles in my life (e.g., professional, parent, community member), how do these roles interact and influence each other?
  9. Learning & education: thinking about my approach to learning and education, how do I integrate new knowledge into my practice? Do I consider the broader implications of what I learn?
  10. Community engagement: in terms of community activities in which I’ve involved, I could consider how I contribute and what systemic factors affect the community. How do I approach community issues from a systems perspective?

It was useful to ask for some options, as otherwise I’d probably just have looked about something specific to our co-op. Instead, I think I’ll reflect on my practice in terms of how I remain productive despite all of the different things that could hinder that (health, time pressures due to family commitments, study, etc.)

I’ll refine this further as I get into things a bit more, but thinking about my ‘practice’ in terms of the way I set up my life to be as (sustainably) productive as possible seems like a good start.

Image: DALL-E 3

TB872: Systemic praxis and epistemological devices

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.

As a Philosophy graduate, I’m entirely comfortable both in using terms such as ontology and epistemology, and also unphased when other start throwing them around as well. After all, most of the time, what people are talking about is what exists (ontology), or what/how we can know things (epistemology).

So from a Systems Thinking in Practice (STiP) perspective, it makes sense to be talking about ‘epistemological devices’. These are just ways of knowing about a particular situation. Meanwhile, ‘systemic praxis’ just means ‘theory informed practice within a systems thinking context’.

Diagram of woman thinking about a situation of concern. Text reads: 'Systemic praxis involves a practitioner (s) bringing forth a relational dynamic between a system and an environment mediated by a boundary judgement. For an aware systems practitioner a system of interest is an epistemological device - a way of knowing about a situation.'

Putting it all together makes it seem all academic but really all that’s happening is that we’re saying people look at things in different ways because they have different backgrounds and ways of understanding the world. They also are likely to be thinking about things at different scale. In the example above, which is a screenshot from a video on the course, the person/practitioner could be thinking about the pond in terms of the production of fish, or in terms of increasing biodiversity.

In both cases the ‘boundary’ of the system is the pond itself, within a wider ‘situation of concern’. However the purpose is different. The point when drawing diagrams like this isn’t to try and capture some kind of objective view of a situation, which would be impossible. Rather, it’s a good way of helping understand and communicate with others the way you see it.

I particularly liked the way that the course authors explained how STiP fits, like Russian dolls, inside wider issues — for example, systems literacy and systemic sensibilities. Crucially, they’re then situated within what is labelled the ‘technosphere’ and the ‘biosphere’. In other words, everything is connected.

Person with thought bubble which includes nested ideas from 'Systems thinking in practice capability' through to 'Biosphere'

In addition, it’s fascinating to see how they break down what they’ve learned about studnets on Systems Thinking-related course over the last 50 years or so. There have been over 40,000 students, and they’ve started to notice some patterns.

A ‘rule of thumb’ is now recognised: about one third of students come with a strongly held systemic sensibility. For this cohort, discovering systems thinking through formal study offers solace, and gives credibility to the way in which they intuitively understand the world. It is a great relief for them to know that they are not alone, that there is a language and concepts that make sense of the way they think. For another third, study of Systems creates ‘aha moments’. This is when realisation dawns that you can appreciate your own thinking … and act to change it. For the final third, the courses lead to a sort of personal precipice, one might say a challenge to their sense of identity, because systems thinking challenges what they are good at or how they have succeeded in their world. Fear of change undoubtedly plays a part.

I’m definitely in the first cohort, the ones with a ‘strongly held systemic sensibility’. The reason I’m finding the module so interesting is because it really gives me for the first time a way of explaining something I find innate.

css.php