Open Thinkering

Menu

Tag: systems practice

TB872: Four pervasive institutional settings inimical to the flourishing of systems 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. 

On one side, there is an explosion of hyper-vivid, surreal organic forms in a kaleidoscope of ultra-bright, neon colors, representing the full force of human emotions in their most extreme expression. The forms are so intense and lively that they seem to leap out of the image. The opposite side presents the zenith of sterile, mechanical coldness: a stark, lifeless landscape of rigid, ultra-precise geometric shapes and complex machinery in grayscale, symbolizing an absolute void of emotion and type of dystopia. The dramatic disparity between the two sides creates a powerful visual shock, emphasizing the extreme dichotomy between unbridled emotional expression and absolute emotional suppression.

This post builds upon a previous one about ‘projectification’ and ‘apartheid of the emotions’ and deals with Chapter 9 of Ray Ison’s Systems Practice: How to Act in which he outlines four settings that constrain systems practice.

They are:

  1. A pervasive ‘target mentality’
  2. Living in a ‘projectified world’
  3. Failures around ‘situation framing’
  4. An ‘apartheid of the emotions’

When I wrote the previous post, because of the way this module is structured I had not studied the juggler isophor. Reading this chapter again with a new frame of reference is enlightening:

In my experience systems practice which only focuses on methods, tools and techniques is ultimately limited in effectiveness. This is particularly so at this historical moment because the organizational and political situation has generally not been conducive to enacting systems practice… [T]o be truly effective in one’s systems practice it may mean that changes have to be made in both practice and situations so that practice is re-contextualised.

Ison (2017, p.224)

A couple of days ago, I wrote about exactly this: that, from what I can see, governmental approaches to ‘systems thinking’ are very much about “methods, tools and techniques” in a world of targets and projects. Instead of understanding context and emotions, systems are framed as being ‘out there’ in the world (rather than human constructs).

While discussing the characterisation of natural resource issues as ‘resource dilemmas’, Ison (ibid., p.238-9) outlines a ‘framing shift’ which incorporates five elements:

  1. Interdependencies
  2. Complexity
  3. Uncertainty
  4. Controversy
  5. Multiple stakeholders and/or perspectives

What I like about this in relation to my own work is that these are often exactly the kind of things that hierarchical organisations (and most clients) want to minimise or avoid talking about. And I would suggest that it is this reticence that leads to an over-use of targets, rampant projectification, failures around situation framing, and an apartheid of the emotions.

What is possibly missing from all of this is the psychological element of working with others. This is related to, but separate to emotions, and is perhaps most easily understood through the grouping that Buster Benson has made of over 200 cognitive biases to which we as humans are subject:

  1. “There’s too much information to process, and we have limited attention to give, so we filter lots of things out.”
  2. “Lack of meaning is confusing, and we have limited capacity to understand how things fit together, so we create stories to make sense of everything.”
  3. “We never have enough time, resources, or attention at our disposal to get everything that needs doing done, so we jump to conclusions with what we have and move ahead.” (Benson, n.d.)

I’ve had the following image on the wall of my office for the last five years:

Buster Benson's Cognitive Bias Codex
(click to enlarge)

Just like the PFMS example, we deal in heuristics because of our human psychology. That means that we tend to simplify things based on prior experience, reducing complexity and uncertainty where possible, doing uncontroversial things so that we don’t have to get input from lots of people (and deal with their needs). It’s entirely understandable. But, as the subtitle and context of Ison’s book suggests, this isn’t going to cut it for dealing with “situations of uncertainty and complexity in a climate-change world”.

In terms of my own experience, I’m not even sure where to start. I began my career in UK schools, that is to say in institutions that are extremely hierarchical, deal in social reproduction, and are filled with staff members who (mostly) did well at school themselves. In addition, change is exogenous in this sector, coming from politically-motivated announcements from ambitious government ministers eager to placate the right-wing tabloid press.

As such, my experience of working in schools was of hard-working and well-meaning staff cosplaying what they thought people do in a business setting. Young people were reduced to numbers on a spreadsheet, and things might have worked very well in the classroom in practice, but they didn’t work well in theory, so they were canned. I loved teaching. I didn’t enjoy everything that was wrapped around it.

If education is a system to inspire the lifelong learning of young people by introducing them to a range of experience, which would be my framing, then the system was failing when I was a teacher, and is failing my own children.

I’m not going to rehearse my career history, but instead I’ll compare and contrast this with my current practice as part of the co-op of which I’m a founding member. In this work, although we have better and worse clients, we get to lean into the ambiguity, the uncertainty, and the complexity that results when humans work with one another.

We endeavour to call the way we work with clients a ‘partnership’ rather than simply working on a ‘project’. I’ve been inspired by people like Kayleigh Walsh, who we interviewed in Season 4 of our podcast, and how they bring their full selves to work. Even with straight-faced, straight-laced people who work for ‘serious’ organisations it’s possible to treat one another as human beings subject to good days, bad days, and all of the emotions that go with the various seasons of our lives.

Some of this has been brought home to me in the last week or so, with the contrast between two organisations. One, partly because of funding constraints, asked us to go through an involved, time-consuming process in order to respond to an Invitation to Tender (ITT). Despite the situation we were potentially going into being essentially unknowable without doing the research, we were being asked for project plans and all kinds of details at which we could only guess.

It reminded me very much of what Ison describes in Chapter 10 of Systems Practice, except we weren’t particularly in a position to suggest another approach; we just wouldn’t have got the work. To be fair to the people involved in the organisation, I think they knew that a different approach was needed, but they were constrained by the logic of the systematic approach imposed upon them. In other words, systematic thinking prevented a systemic approach.

If we compare this with a Theory of Change workshop we ran yesterday for a different organisation, then the difference in approach is clear. An example of the basic template we use for this, based on work by Outlandish, is below:

Theory of Change template with 'Final goal', 'Outcomes' and 'Activities'
(click to enlarge)

During the session, we surfaced differences between what came out of the user research with staff members compared with what is included in the reports they publish. We used this as an entry point for each member of the small team to fill in boxes underneath the prompts:

  • What we do…
  • …to influence these people…
  • …to have this impact in the world

As expected, this is not an easy thing to do, and each team member surfaced something slightly different. We then went round the circle twice, first asking everyone to give some context to the text they entered in their three boxes, and then asking for things that someone else mentioned that with which they would definitely agree (or disagree). From there, we attempted through structured conversation a synthesis to create an overall goal.

Sometimes, you just need someone to do some work which fits in as a piece of an extremely well-designed jigsaw. But the number of situations in which this is true is much smaller than most people imagine. In my experience, siloed working and cognitive biases mean that few of us can answer more than a couple of ‘why’ levels deep even in relation to work that is important to us.

As I’ve said before, what I really appreciate about this module, hard and time-consuming though I’m finding it at times, is that it’s a justification of an approach to life that I’ve carried with me from the start of my career. It’s refreshing to realise that I’m not alone in thinking that putting on a suit and tie and talking about KPIs and OKRs is not the right way to improve the world.

References

  • Benson, B. (no date). Cognitive biases. Available at: https://busterbenson.com/piles/cognitive-biases/ (Accessed: 31 January 2024).
  • Ison, R. (2017). Systems practice: how to act. London: Springer. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9.

Image: DALL-E 3

TB872: Outstanding leadership and making the case for developing 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. 

a more prominent central human-like figure, surrounded by detailed patterns of interaction. It conveys a strong sense of unity and collaboration, emphasizing the richness of human connections in leadership.

A 2010 research report by The Work Foundation entitled Exceeding Expectation: the principles of outstanding leadership outlined differences between good and outstanding leaders. For the purposes of this post, I’ve stuck to the executive summary (Tamkin, et al., 2010) which outlines three principles of outstanding leadership:

  1. They think and act systemically: they see things as a whole rather than compartmentalising. They connect the parts by a guiding sense of purpose. They understand how action follows reaction, how climate is bound and unravelled by acts, how mutual gains create loyalty and commitment, how confidence provides a springboard to motivation and creativity and how trust speeds interactions and enables people to take personal risks and succeed.
  2. They see people as the route to performance: they are deeply people and relationship centred rather than just people-oriented. They give significant amounts of time and focus to people. For good leaders, people are one group among many that need attention. For outstanding leaders, they are the only route to sustainable performance. They not only like and care about people, but have come to understand at a deep level that the capability and engagement of people is how they achieve exceptional performance
  3. They are self-confident without being arrogant: self-awareness is one of their fundamental attributes. They are highly motivated to achieve excellence and are focused on organisational outcomes, vision and purpose. But they understand they cannot create performance themselves. Rather, they are conduits to performance through their influence on others. The key tool they have to do this is not systems and processes, but themselves and the ways they interact with and impact on those around them. This sense of self is not ego-driven. It is to serve a goal, creating a combination of humility and self-confidence. This is why they watch themselves carefully and act consistently to achieve excellence through their interactions and through their embodiment of the leadership role.

Or, more briefly:

  1. Systemic thinking — outstanding leaders view organisations holistically, understanding the interconnectivity of components and actions. They create an environment of shared purpose, recognising how mutual gains and trust help motivation and creativity.
  2. Focus on people — outstanding leaders place the utmost importance on people and relationships as the key to sustainable performance. They invest a lot of time in nurturing team capabilities and engagement, recognising that people are central to achieving excellence.
  3. Appropriate self-confidence — outstanding leaders leaders balance self-confidence with humility, focusing on organisational goals while understanding their role as facilitators. This approach involves self-awareness and a commitment to influencing others positively, avoiding arrogance.

Thinking about my own career history, perhaps like most people I’ve had the misfortune of experiencing more poor and average leadership than good and outstanding. However, I can think of a couple of examples of outstanding leadership which would certainly back up these three points. In both cases, the people involved were understanding of the differences between the people they led, meaning that they had to help create an environment where all could flourish.

At the same time, in each case there was very much a ‘team’ ethos with an understanding of how we both related to one another and to the bigger picture. With one of the examples, the outstanding leader made us very aware of some of the politics involved and how they were representing and positioning us (as a team) in relation to this. I think that is a good example of systemic thinking.

A search of both the academic and popular literature around systems thinking in relation to leadership brings back a whole range of results. I was struck by the number of links to GOV.UK web page there were, which took me to a list of National Leadership Centre research publications. Of the 19 listed, eight mention ‘systems’ in the title, including one entitled Systems Leadership: How systems thinking enhances systems leadership by Catherine Hobbs and Gerald Midgley, both from the Centre for Systems Studies at the University of Hull.

The authors set the scene by talking about “systemic leadership” which they define as “systems leadership + systemic thinking” (Hobbs & Midgley, 2020, p.1). This is required because of the ‘wicked problems’ facing society:

Systems leadership views organisations as composed of interrelated parts, and it focuses on coordination of these parts to achieve a given purpose. When the issue being addressed is too complex for a single organisation to deal with alone, multiple organisations can become involved. Nevertheless, the idea is the same: constituent parts of an existing system must be ‘joined up’ into a greater whole.

(Hobbs & Midgley, 2020, p.1)

It’s a short paper at only four pages, but I was still surprised not to see any mention of anything resembling ‘B-ball’ and the role of the practitioner. Instead, a range of approaches is discussed with the focus on the importance of joined-up action. ‘System change’ here seems to be used systemically but the focus seems to be on changing the way (i.e. systematic) way that ‘delivery’ is done by public-sector bodies. Instead, argue the authors, we need an “exploratory, design-led, participative, facilitative, and
adaptive” future (Hobbs & Midgley, 2020, p.4).

Although I’ve never worked directly in government, as an informed (and often concerned) British citizen I have a keen interest in how it works. I’m also connected with a lot of people who work in various government departments. So I was interested to stumble across guidance on the GOV.UK site for civil servants entitled Systems Leadership Guide: how to be a systems leader. Although the word ‘systemic’ is mentioned six times in the overview, the approach outlined seems to be more systematic in nature.

For example, the following diagram seems like quite a standard circular diagram that you would see on ‘leadership’ slides in every sector around the world:

Circular diagram entitled 'Systems Thinking Journey'

The linked page, The civil servant’s systems thinking journey, goes into more detail with the above steps to make them feel less prescriptive. In addition, a systems thinking toolkit and systems thinking case study bank provide seem useful. What is still missing is discussion of the practitioner reflecting on their own ‘tradition of understanding’ and biases.

Although there is discussion of systems being both things you can see and things you can’t, the assumption still seems to be that systems are ‘out there’ in the world, and that systems thinking is an approach to increase performance or outcomes. It seems to be just another approach:

Systems thinking can be used alongside existing project management and stakeholder management techniques like Agile, P3M and Prince2 to strengthen them for dealing with complexity, uncertainty, multiple perspectives and broader interdependencies.

(The civil servant’s systems thinking journey, 2023)

The thought of using Prince2 alongside systemic approaches actually blows my mind.

One of the realisations I’ve had since starting this module is how pernicious the provision of pretty diagrams is. As with the GOV.UK example above, with systems thinking it’s problematic not to start with the individual practitioner reflecting on their own role in the world.

So how do we define what ‘systems thinking’ is. Can we use a systems thinking approach to define it? Now, given that I wrote my doctoral thesis explicitly trying to avoid ‘one definition to rule them all’, you’d expect me to appreciate an approach (Arnold & Wade, 2015) which uses a systemigram instead of simply presenting a contextless word-based definition.

A systems thinking systemigram

Although potentially ‘scarier’ for those new to systems thinking (like me!) than the GOV.UK diagram, it’s so much richer.The resulting definition of systems thinking is: “The capability of identifying and understanding systems, predicting their behaviors, and devising modifications to them in order to produce desired effects.”

This may not be exactly the definition I would choose, but I appreciate being able to see how they arrived at it. It’s the kind of thing I’ve called for with frameworks for years. Just as with learning a new language, developing a systemic sensibility involves understanding what is and what is not useful when it comes to resources and discussion of systems practice.

References

Image: DALL-E 3

TB872: Juggling the C-ball (Contextualising)

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. This particular post is part of a series which is framed and explained here.

A green ball, representing the 'C' ball of the BECM juggler isophor.

Chapter 7 of Ray Ison’s Systems Practice: How to Act focuses on the C-ball (Contextualising). This concerns the ways that systems practitioners contextualise specific approaches in real-world situations. It involves understanding the relationship between a systems approach and its application, going beyond merely choosing a method. So, in what follows, I’m going to reflect on what I’ve learned in the chapter, applying it to Systemic Inquiry 1 (me as a learner developing my systemic practice) and Systemic Inquiry 2 (my ‘situation of concern’).

Systemic Inquiry 1

As I’ve commented in previous posts, I think my assumption on starting this MSc was that I’d learn a bunch of approaches (‘methods’) and how to apply them to situations. What I’m actually learning is much more valuable, and deeply philosophical, than that. In the words of Ison, it’s not simply ‘horses for courses’ where a ‘horse’ (i.e. approach) is matched with a ‘course’ (i.e. situation). “This is because” he says “taking a systems approach involves addressing the question of purpose” (Ison, 2017, p.158).

Despite many and varied literature and statements to the contrary, it is not possible to generalise an approach across all contexts, as the climate emergency is showing. A one-size-fits-none approach has led to unsustainable approaches and destroyed or deprecated indigenous ways of knowing. As a competitive swimmer in my youth, and an occasional visitor to the pool at our local leisure centre, I quite liked Ison’s analogy which kicks off the chapter:

The lanes in my pool are labelled slow, medium, fast, and sometimes, aquaplay. Usually there is at least one lane of each. Over time I have come to contextualise my swimming to a set of circumstances in which I understand that what is fast and what is slow differs with time of day (i.e. who the other swimmers are; whether lap training is happening, etc.). I have also come to know that at certain times I can swim in the aquaplay lanes, or that at others I am best to consider myself fast or slow. Because I have flexibility to adapt my swimming to a changing situation I find my practice usually works very well for me … and presumably those who manage the pool. For me this is an example of juggling the C-ball in my swimming practice.

Ison (2017, p.155)

The temptation as a consultant working with other organisations is to think that you’ve seen the exact situation being presented before; that it is the same as a system in which you’ve previously intervened. Although there are, of course, great overlaps and similarities between organisations and the way the people within them approach the world, no two situations are identical.

What I found fascinating about this chapter was the way that Ison explicitly rejects the common ‘cyclical’ approach to systems thinking where knowledge leads to action, which leads to reflection, then more knowledge, and so on. Instead, he includes the following diagram, which is a system of interest which as “an epistemological act opens up opportunities to break out of the inner accepted-knowledge reinforcing cycle” (Ison, 2017 p.162)

Figure 7.3 from the book 'Systems Practice' shows an adaptive, systemic knowing process diagram. It features two unlabelled overlapping circles and one labelled 'Accepted Knowledge'. Arrows indicate a flow from the two unlabelled overlapping circles to 'Influences perception and action' and then to 'Determines what happens in the situation' This leads to a person with a thought bubble 'Do I see anything unexpected?'. The arrow indicating 'No' leads to 'Accepted knowledge' while the arrow indicating 'Yes' leads to 'Snap to', 'Expansion of knowledge', and 'Changes in premises'. These three arrows lead back to the unlabelled overlapping circles. 'Accepted Knowledge', signifying 'Changes in Premises' and 'Expansion of Knowledge'. Another arrow leads from 'Accepted Knowledge' to a thought bubble from a person who is pondering, which reads 'Do I see anything unexpected?'. If the answer is 'No', an arrow leads back to 'Accepted Knowledge', indicating a 'Snap to' effect. If 'Yes', the arrow loops from the thought bubble to 'Determines what happens in the situation', which then influences 'Perception and Action', completing the cycle back to 'Patterns of Knowing'.

To me, this is reminiscent of Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions but on a more personal level. During the process of ‘normal science’ (i.e. accepted knowledge or ways of doing things) ‘anomalies’ are observed in the phenomena. These in turn lead to explanations to try and explain them within the bounds of accepted knowledge. When these anomalies accumulate, a period of ‘revolutionary science’ occurs where new frameworks (which are always being proposed) become more appealing. Eventually, the ‘revolutionary science’, in the form of a different framework, becomes the new ‘normal science’.

Kuhn’s approach is something I’ve been aware of since my first year at university as an undergraduate, so it’s something I’ve had at the back of my mind for more than half of my life. Applying it here may or may not be appropriate, but it helps develop my understanding of what is going on when a practitioner contextualises their approach to a situation. Challenging accepted knowledge is part of why a consultant is brought in to help an organisation. As I mentioned in a previous post, organisations can seem to have no common sense of purpose, which I suppose is because they’re drifting along in the comforting fiction of accumulated accepted knowledge.

Returning to my assumptions on starting this MSc, I’m pleased that Ison specifically calls out that systems practice “does not have to rely on established methods or ‘methodologies'” and that it “can be contextualised to unfolding, changing circumstances” (Ison, 2017, p.185). We were talking during one of our WAO co-working sessions yesterday about how soul-crushing it must be to run the same workshop or give the same presentation time after time. Just because other people share that they have done something on LinkedIn does not make it good practice.

Another useful diagram which aided my thinking in this chapter was the one that illustrates the difference between a technique, a method, and a methodology:

An illustation of the distinctions between tool, technique, method, and methodology. The first panel labelled 'TECHNIQUE' shows a man using a hammer, tagged with the word 'skill' pointing to the tool. The second panel labelled 'METHOD' depicts a sequence 'A' with illustrations of a hand using various tools: a saw, a hammer, a screwdriver, and a drill, with arrows indicating a process flow. The third panel shows a person with a thought bubble labelled 'purpose' looking at three sheets marked 'A', 'B', and 'C'. The final image within this panel shows three people around a table (the 'situation'), implying a discussion.

You see a lot of people sharing ‘tools and techniques’ and perhaps running workshops on ‘methods’. However, the systems thinker goes beyond this to adapt methods, based on a particular purpose, to a situation. This means that they have to have a wide range of methods in their methodological toolkit.

There is nothing wrong with learning a method and putting it into practice. How the method is put into practice will, however, determine whether an observer could describe it as methodology or method. If a practitioner engages with a method and follows it recipe-like, regardless of the situation, then it remains method. If the method is not regarded as a formula but as a set of ‘guidelines to process’, and the
practitioner takes responsibility for learning from the process, it can become methodology. The transformation of method into methodology is something to strive for in the process of becoming an aware systems practitioner and of course one can draw guidelines from several methods to develop a methodology in any situation.

Ison (2017, p.168)

This is a really key bit of learning for me in terms of how I approach both this module and my everyday work. For example, it is of course absolutely fine to use a similar method with multiple clients, but the way that I/we use it has to be contextualised. Also, the choice of method has to be intentional and reflexive, and not be merely ‘just the way we do things’.

I thought it was interesting that Ison pushed back a little on Stafford Beer’s famous quotation that “the purpose of a system is what it does” (Ison, 2017, p.159). He wonders whether Beer meant it in a tongue-in-cheek way, which I hadn’t considered, but is concerned that “this statement runs the risk of objectifying ‘the system'” (Ison, ibid.) The way that I have understood this quotation since coming across it relatively recently is that there is no one ‘purpose’ of a system, so if you are going to ascribe it a single, teleological aim, then, well, that is just what it currently does. So if, to use an example from my own professional experience, the DWP’s benefits system marginalises and excludes people who find it difficult to claim Universal Credit, then this is the ‘purpose’ of the system.

The final thing I want to include from this chapter in terms of the development of my own systemic practice is the comparison of ‘hard’ versus ‘soft’ traditions of systems thinking. Ison adapts a table from Checkland (1985) on p.160. Below are my highlights in bullet point form, with the fundamental difference in approach being that the ‘hard’ tradition aims to apply systematic methodologies to solve problems, akin to engineering, while the ‘soft’ tradition is more interpretive, and emphasises understanding and learning over finding a single correct solution.

  • Both traditions use system models as a means to engage with the complexities of the world, but have different foundational assumptions. ‘Hard’ systems thinking approaches consider models as direct representations of reality (ontologies) and soft systems viewing them as frameworks for understanding (epistemologies).
  • Each tradition adopts a specific linguistic framework. ‘Hard’ approaches to systems thikningfocus on the terminology of ‘problems’ and ‘solutions,’ which indicates a desire for ‘definitive answers’. This is in contrast to the ‘soft’ systems thinking language of ‘issues’ and ‘accommodations,’ which reflects perhaps a more nuanced engagement with situations.
  • The ‘hard’ tradition focuses on ‘goal seeking’, as opposed to the ‘soft’ tradition’s focus on learning. ‘Hard’ systems thinking approaches aim to engineer precise solutions to problems, whereas the ‘soft’ systems thinking tradition is more interested in continuous inquiry, and acknowledges the absence of absolute answers.
  • ‘Hard’ systems thinking approaches tend to neglect the human and subjective elements of situations, instead favouring logic and objectivity. ‘Soft’ systems thinking, meanwhile, maintains an awareness of the limitations of linear logic and the importance of human factors.
  • While both approaches are grounded in systems thinking, the ‘hard’ tradition is more prescriptive and oriented towards ‘techniques’. This might be suitable for stakeholders looking for structured approaches. The ‘soft’ tradition is more inclusive and adaptable to professional practice, emphasising the inescapability of the human side of situations.

Systemic Inquiry 2

Now, I’ll move onto my situation of concern (S2), which is the work that We Are Open Co-op (WAO) is doing with the Digital Credentials Consortium (DCC) around Verifiable Credentials (VCs). We’re helping with documentation and asset-creation.

To me, the image below is key in helping understand how we can make a difference in helping the DCC with the adoption of VCs. There is no one view of the ecosystem and, as I have said in previous posts, everyone has different incentives.

An illustration of three workers welding metal beams at a construction site. Each worker has a speech bubble expressing a different perspective on their activity: The first says 'I'm learning a trade,' indicating a focus on skill development. The second proclaims 'I'm building a skyscraper,' suggesting a view on the larger goal of the project. The third states 'I'm welding joints,' which reflects a task-oriented mindset. The caption reads 'An iconic model of how different 'actors' ascribe different purposes to the same action'."

For example, some people are interested in making money, others in saving it through ‘efficiency’. Some are just interested in the technological innovation involved, while others just don’t want to be left behind. What I think is perhaps missing from this diagram is the emotions involved: for example ‘fear’ or ‘enthusiasm’. Quite often, people adopt other people’s approaches to situations they don’t know much about, particularly if it means they err on the side of caution.

One of the things we need to consider with S2 is that, especially in the realm of Higher Education (HE), there is ‘legitimate knowledge’ which “conserve[s] manners of thinking and acting that have evolved over time”. This happens to such an extent that “organisations themselves come to be described as having a culture within which conceptions as what counts as legitimate knowledge are enacted and maintained” (Ison, 2017, p.169).

This takes me back to discussions around mental models and metaphors, and my post about the meta-narrative for this systemic inquiry. In particular, it’s increasingly clear as I get into this module that the ‘institutional antibodies’ of the HE system were in full effect when dealing with the threat of Open Badges. This is why they were ‘reinvented’ and reconceptualised as microcredentials, fully owned and operated by the HE sector. It seems clear, then, that positioning VCs as ‘legitimate knowledge’ could be key for wider adoption

In a prior post, I outlined the difference between purposeful and purposive framing:

  • Purposeful framing – refers to framing directed towards a specific goal or objective (i.e. focused on my learning and development as a practitioner)
  • Purposive framing – refers to framing that is intentional but with a broader or more holistic focus (i.e. not just about my goals, as it considers dynamics, stakeholders, and potential outcomes)

It’s always tempting to think that you know what is best, and particularly so when there’s a technology involved for which you personally have a utopian vision. However, this purposeful framing is not always useful in creating change. A purposive framing can be more useful, but even that comes with a health warning:

[M]any people have a propensity to pursue purposive behaviour that assumes both purpose and measures of performance, rather than engaging stakeholders in a dialogue in which purpose is jointly negotiated. This can have unfortunate consequences.

Ison (2017, p.163)

One of the things that I’ve ‘struggled’ with during my career (and I don’t often use that word) is setting appropriate boundaries. I don’t mean this in a weird sense, but in a systems sense! As Ison quotes Ulrich (1996) as saying, “we cannot conceive of systems without assuming some kind of systems boundaries”. Otherwise “systems thinking makes no sense” (Ison, 2017, p.165).

Thankfully, Chapter 7 includes some help in terms of boundary-setting, both from Ulrich (2000) and Churchman (1971). I’ll quote the latter for the sake of brevity, which are adapted by Ison and found on p.164-165. These are the conditions which need to be fulfilled for a designed system (S) to demonstrate purposefulness.

  1. S is teleological (or ‘purposeful’)
  2. S has a measure of performance
  3. There is a client whose interests are served by S
  4. S has teleological components which co-produce the measure of performance of S
  5. S has an environment (both social and ecological)
  6. S has a decision maker who can produce changes in the measure of performance of S’s components and hence changes in the measure of performance of S
  7. S has a designer who influences the decision maker
  8. The designer aims to maximise S’s value to the client
  9. There is a built in guarantee that the purpose of S defined by the designer’s
    notion of the measure of performance can be achieved and secured

When coupled with the three roles that seem to be always present in Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), this seems quite a powerful approach. The following is taken from Checkland and Poulter (2006) via Ison (2017, p.169):

  • A person or group who had caused the intervention to happen, someone without whom there would not be an investigation at all – this was the role of ‘client’
  • A person or group who were conducting the investigation – this was the role of ‘systems practitioner’
  • A person or people who could be named and listed by the practitioner who could be regarded as being concerned about, or affected by the situation and the outcome of the effort to improve the situation – this was the role of ‘owner of the issue(s) addressed’.

I think I need to spend some more time thinking about this and potentially applying it to this situation, probably with the help of Laura’s brain. I’ve already included a lot of images from this chapter, but I’m going to include one more and deal with the potential copyright issues later (fair use for learning!)

The image shows a cartoon of two characters in a rural setting, likely a farm. On the left, someone is heaving an amorphous package out of a van. A speech bubble reads, 'Where would you like us to put this information we're delivering to you...?' On the right, a farmer stands leaning on a fence, looking perplexed by the question, with a large tractor behind him. The image comically represents the concept of delivering information in a non-digital, traditional context.
Illustration 7.1 from Ison (2017, p.183)

This image makes a mockery of the idea of ‘information transfer’, especially in a non-digital context. It’s something we need at the forefront of our minds when dealing with all of our clients, not just in the situation of concern I’m labelling S2. For example, I’ve pulled out of working with one particular network we’re part of, with the last straw being a complete lack of understanding of how learning actually happens. What they wanted is extremely well depicted in the illustration above. It doesn’t work. It never has.

This chapter around Contextualisation has helped me understand that helping successful change come about in my situation of concern depends on several factors. I need to ensure that we have a clear boundary on the system in which we’re intervening. We need to understand the motivations of different actors (stakeholders) involved. I have to make it clear that we’re not ‘delivering information’. We need to have a purposive framing which draws on the ‘soft’ tradition of systems thinking, adapting methods to our context.

In this post, I didn’t go into the reading that’s included in this chapter because it was actually included in a previous activity. This module is a bit ‘weird’ in that it encourages us to read Systems Practice in a non-linear order.

References

  • Ison, R. (2017). Systems practice: how to act. Springer, London.

Top image: DALL-E 3

css.php