Heinz von Foerster (1911–2002) was a seminal figure in the development of second-order cybernetics and a staunch advocate of constructivist epistemology. His work challenged traditional views of knowledge and reality, placing the observer at the center of the systems they engage with, rather than as an external, objective viewer. This shift in perspective has had a profound impact on systems thinking, emphasizing the role of human agency in shaping the realities we encounter.
Constructivism and second-order cybernetics
Von Foerster’s most enduring contribution to systems thinking is his development of second-order cybernetics, which focuses on the role of the observer within a system. Unlike first-order cybernetics, which views systems as separate from the observer, second-order cybernetics recognizes that the observer is an integral part of the system. Von Foerster famously stated, “The observer must be included in the description of that which they observe”. This insight was revolutionary, as it acknowledged that any observation is inherently influenced by the observer’s perspectives, biases, and intentions.
Central to von Foerster’s philosophy was his constructivist view of knowledge, which asserts that reality is not discovered but constructed by individuals through their interactions with the world. He encapsulated this view by declaring, “Reality is a construct of those who believe in it”. This idea challenges the notion of an objective, external reality, suggesting instead that what we consider to be real is shaped by our experiences, perceptions, and social interactions.
Von Foerster extended this constructivist approach to communication and interaction, emphasizing the active role of individuals in creating meaning. He articulated this in his principle that “anything said is said by an observer” and “anything said is said to an observer”. These statements underscore the idea that communication is a dynamic process involving both the speaker and the listener, each of whom plays a role in constructing the meaning of the message.
Ethics and human agency
Von Foerster was also deeply concerned with the ethical implications of his constructivist and cybernetic views. He introduced the concept of the “ethical imperative,” which he phrased as, “Act always so as to increase the number of choices”. This principle reflects his belief in the importance of fostering flexibility and openness in systems, allowing for greater adaptability and creativity. It also highlights the responsibility of individuals to consider the consequences of their actions within the systems they are a part of, reinforcing the idea that we are active participants in shaping our realities.
Legacy and impact
Heinz von Foerster’s constructivist approach continues to influence a wide range of fields, from education to management. His work invites us to reconsider the nature of reality, knowledge, and communication, encouraging a more reflexive and participatory approach to systems thinking. By placing the observer at the heart of the system, von Foerster’s ideas challenge us to acknowledge our role in creating the worlds we inhabit and to take responsibility for the ethical implications of our actions.
References
Ramage, M., & Shipp, K. (2020). Systems Thinkers (2nd ed.). The Open University and Springer.
C. West Churchman (1913-2004) was a key figure in the development of systems thinking, particularly during his tenure at the University of California, Berkeley. His work emphasised the necessity of integrating values and ethics into systems approaches, challenging the field to consider the broader consequences of decisions rather than focusing solely on technical solutions.
Values and ethics in Systems Thinking
Churchman’s philosophy rests on the belief that systems design should not be driven solely by efficiency or technical precision. He argued that systems thinking must incorporate ethical considerations, ensuring that the outcomes benefit society at large and do not cause harm. He critiqued approaches that ignored the human and environmental impact of systems, stressing that a purely technical focus could lead to solutions that, while functional, might be ethically questionable. Churchman’s focus on values is explored extensively in Systems Thinkers (pp. 131-139).
The concept of ‘wicked problems’
Churchman is also known for coining the term “wicked problems,” which describes issues that are complex, multifaceted, and resistant to straightforward solutions. These problems are characterised by their lack of clear definitions, their interdependencies, and the difficulty in finding a resolution that satisfies all stakeholders. For Churchman, tackling wicked problems required a deep engagement with the underlying values at play, as well as an understanding that solutions might create new challenges or exacerbate existing ones. (Ramage & Shipp, 2020, p. 134).
“The Systems Approach is not a bad idea”
Churchman’s famous remark, “the systems approach is not a bad idea,” reflects his cautious optimism about the potential of systems thinking. He saw it as a valuable tool for addressing complex issues but was keenly aware of its limitations. In The Systems Approach (1968), he stated, “however a systems problem is solved—by planner, scientist, politician, anti-planner, or whomever—the solution is wrong, even dangerously wrong” (p. 32). This highlights his view that every solution, regardless of how well-intentioned, carries risks and unintended consequences. Churchman believed that while systems thinking could offer valuable insights, it must be applied with an awareness of its inherent limitations and the ethical dilemmas it might create.
Churchman’s emphasis on values and ethics directly influenced the development of Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), particularly in its approach to handling complex, human-centred problems. SSM, pioneered by Peter Checkland, incorporates many of Churchman’s ideas, especially the importance of considering multiple perspectives and the ethical dimensions of systems. SSM’s focus on exploring different viewpoints and understanding the subjective nature of problem situations can be seen as a practical application of Churchman’s broader philosophical concerns. His balanced perspective reminds us that systems thinking is not a panacea and must be applied thoughtfully and critically.
The architect and boundary judgements
In his book The Design of Inquiring Systems, Churchman provides a useful example involving an architect tasked with designing a house. This example illustrates the importance of drawing boundaries and working at different levels of abstraction:
Narrowly, he may think of a particular instance of a design as the specification of a physical house, designated by a complete set of architectural drawings and specifications. In this case, the components may be the rooms, and the relations between the components may be the geometrical scheme of the house in three-dimensional space. But the architect may ask himself a broader question: whether the house is not a component of a larger system, consisting of the family (or its activities) and the house. When he does ask himself this question, he may wonder whether his design task should include the design of a part of the family’s activities. For example, he may wonder whether he can change the family’s typical way of using the kitchen facilities. Still more broadly, he may ask whether the house plus family is not a component of an urban social system, and whether he ought not to consider alternative designs of this entire community. If he perceives his task in the narrowest sense, then he tells himself that the larger system is not his concern; how the family behaves is entirely up to them, or how the community is planned is entirely up to the planners and politicians. In such a case, he believes that the maximum size of the system is the house (plus, say, its location on the land). He may believe that there is a larger system that may concern some other designer; such a larger system may be the city in which the house is to be placed. But as far as he is concerned, larger systems are not relevant to the effectiveness of his choices. (Churchman, 1971)
Churchman used this scenario to highlight how decisions about boundaries shape the final outcome and how important it is to consider these decisions at multiple levels of analysis. This example is a good example of his belief that systems thinking requires careful consideration of the ethical and practical implications of our choices.
Conclusion
Churchman’s legacy in systems thinking is deeply rooted in his commitment to ethics and his recognition of the complexities involved in addressing real-world problems. His contributions continue to influence how we approach and solve difficult issues, reminding us to integrate ethical considerations into our decision-making processes. As we face increasingly complex challenges, Churchman’s ideas about the role of values and the nature of wicked problems offer valuable guidance for anyone engaged in the design and implementation of systems.
References
Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. John Wiley & Sons.
Churchman, C. W. (1971). The design of inquiring systems: Basic concepts of systems and organization. Basic Books.
Churchman, C. W. (1968). The systems approach. Dell Publishing.
Ramage, M., & Shipp, K. (2020). Systems thinkers (2nd ed.). Springer.
In this post, I’m going to explain SSM at a high level, using diagrams from a video which forms part of the module materials (The Open University, 2020) and from Chapter 5 of Systems Approaches to Making Change, one of the course texts. I’ll include examples, but I’m not going to apply it to just one particular situation.
Overview
Diagram: The Open University, 2020
We identify a real-world situation which is perceived as ‘problematical’ and start an inquiry and intervention process made up of:
Finding out about the situation
Exploring the situation using purposeful activity models based on different worldviews
Discussing and debating insights in relation to the situation
Defining and taking action to improve the situation
This, in turn, changes perceptions of the situation. Meanwhile, we critically reflect on the process which feeds further insights.
0. The role of the systems thinking practitioner
It’s important to note that the systems thinking practitioner is not a neutral observer:
Diagram: The Open University, 2020
The practitioner is someone who brings their own values, expectations, and biases. They are partial, and crucially are part of the situation.
1. Finding out about the situation
To get started with SSM, we create a ‘rich picture’. This is an diagram which can be created individually or in a group setting:
In making a Rich Picture the aim is to capture, informally, the main entities, structures and viewpoints in the situation, the processes going on, the current recognized issues and any potential ones. (Checkland & Poulter, 2006, p.219)
The following example depicts a decision that a new headteacher has to make about whether to provide school meals in-house, or outsource them.
Diagram: Checkland & Poulter, 2006, p.220
Rich pictures help us build models of a situation as they provide a basis for conversation and different ways of looking at the problematical situation.
As I mentioned in a previous post, the systems thinking practitioner now performs three different analyses to create a purposeful activity model:
Analysis One: identifying the client, practitioner, and issue owners
Analysis Two: exploring the roles, norms, and values within the situation
Analysis Three: examining power dynamics and political aspects
Let’s look at each of these in turn.
Analysis One
In the first analysis, we figure out who:
Caused the intervention to happen (the client)
Conducts the investigation (the practitioner)
Constitute the people who are concerned about or affected by the situation (owner(s) of the issue(s) addressed, or owner)
Note that these are roles. For example, the headteacher in the rich picture above could be the client, practitioner, and the owner. It’s more usual, though, for the client being someone with responsibility within an organisation, the practitioner to be some form of external consultant, and the owner to be stakeholders.
Analysis Two
In the second analysis, we figure out the socio-cultural context within which the problematical situation exists. This is done by figuring out the following:
Roles — social positions that distinguish individuals within a group or organisation, which can be formal (e.g. chief executives) or informal (e.g. being known as a ‘rebel’)
Norms — expected behaviours that define a role (e.g. people behaving appropriately in formal and informal situations)
Values — standards used to judge behaviour within a role (e.g. she’s an efficient product manager who runs meetings well)
It’s worth noting that these are not static elements of an organisation or situation, and that they interact with one another. Performing this analysis is as simple as (i) creating a table, placing roles, norms, and values along the top, (ii) identifying the various roles, (iii) filling in the rest of the boxes in the ‘norms’ and ‘values’ columns.
Analysis Three
In the third analysis, we look at politics and power. This is done by figuring out what is ‘desirable’ and ‘culturally feasible’. The latter point is important, and (to my mind) is much like the Overton Window when thinking about a range of policies acceptable to the mainstream population at any given time. It’s also similar to the consent-based decision making we used in our co-op.
Analysis Three uses the metaphor of a ‘commodity’ that represents power. It identifies the ‘commodities’ indicating power and explores how these are obtained, used, protected, and transferred. For example, power can come from commodities such as:
Personal charisma
Membership of a particular group
Access to influential individuals or informatoin
Intellectual authority
Control over communications
Again, this analysis can be performed by creating a simple table listing the various commodities of power, and how they are obtained, used, transferred, protected, defended, and relinquished.
2. Exploring the situation using purposeful activity models based on different worldviews
The next step builds on the rich picture(s) and analyses from the previous step. Systems practitioners use the PQR Formula and the CATWOE mnemonic to create a Root Definition.
Diagram: Checkland & Poulter, 2006, p.230
The diagram below shows how it’s possible to create a very structured purposeful activity model by using the PQR Formula and the CATWOE mnemonic. This example is related to cybersecurity and comes from the module materials.
Diagram: The Open University, 2020
P can be thought of as ‘what’, while Q is ‘how’ and R is ‘why’. The CATWOE mnemonic helps inform and enrich the diagram, enabling a root definition such as:
A senior management-owned system operated by IT and company staff for the benefit of company senior management to limit security vulnerabilities posed by company staff practices. This improvement in security is done by means of improving staff awareness of the practices of malicious hackers in order to protect sensitive data and infrastructure from being exposed. This is guided by the belief that each organisation has a responsibility for the security of its sensitive data and infrastructure and to protect it from malicious actors. It takes into account constraints surrounding budget, time, and motivation of staff, and buy-in from senior management. (The Open University, 2020)
We can now construct a purposeful activity model to show how we might intervene in the problematical situation. Note that this includes a monitoring function to the bottom-right of the diagram focused on:
Efficacy: measures whether an activity or intervention achieves its intended outcome.
Efficiency: assesses how well resources (time, money, effort) are used to achieve the desired outcome.
Effectiveness: evaluates how well an activity or intervention is successful in achieving stated goals.
Diagram: The Open University, 2020
Unlike other approaches such as the Viable System Model (VSM) in ‘design’ mode, purposeful activity models are not meant to be aspirational constructs:
The models do not purport to be accounts of what we would wish the real world to be like. They could not, since they are artificial devices based on a pure worldview, whereas human groups are always characterized by multiple conflicting worldviews (even within one individual!) which themselves change over time – sometimes slowly, sometimes remarkably quickly. (Checkland & Poulter, 2006, p.236)
3. Discussing and debating insights in relation to the situation
It’s hard enough to be able to explain quickly and succinctly the differences between the similarly-sounding terms efficacy, efficiency, and effectiveness, never mind answering performance-related questions about them in a complex and problematical situation. This is why we need an organised monitoring process which can uncover underlying implicit worldviews, prompt the development of new models, and stimulate discussion by challenging assumptions.
This process can be carried out informally, but it’s also possible to use a table (or ‘matrix’) to systematically address questions in a more formal way.
Diagram: Checkland & Poulter, 2006, p.238
Whichever way the models are used to structure discussion, the aim is the same: to find a version of the real situation and ways to improve it which different people with different worldviews can nevertheless live with. Outside of the arbitrary exercise of power, this is the necessary condition which must be met in any human group if agreed ‘action to improve’ is to be defined.
[…]
[I]n order to cope with the complexity of human affairs, SSM uses a much more subtle idea than ‘consensus’. It works with the idea of finding an accommodation among a group of people with a common concern. This does not abandon the possibility of consensus; rather it subsumes it in the more general idea of accommodation. (Checkland & Poulter, 2006, p.239-240)
This idea of ‘accommodation’ is what I have referred to above in relation to the consent-based decision making of Sociocracy. Everyone has both needs and preferences, and distinguishing between the two is important.
4. Defining and taking action to improve the situation
Diagram: Checkland & Poulter, 2006, p.241
As discussions using purposeful activity models progress, worldviews may be revealed, positions may shift, and potential accommodations might arise. These accommodations require changes to make the situation less problematic, and the focus should shift to identifying changes that are both desirable and culturally feasible.
Significant changes often involve altering structures, processes, and attitudes. Structural changes are relatively easy to implement, but usually need new processes and attitudes — which are more challenging to achieve). While structures can be changed by authority, altering processes and attitudes is more complex and less predictable.
Diagram: Checkland & Poulter, 2006, p.242
Two final points in relation to the above diagram:
Enabling actions: any attempts to improve a problematical situation may require other, enabling actions, which are not part of the change itself (i.e. to change the social context)
Success criteria: how will ‘success’ or ‘completion’ of the intervention in the problematical situation be judged? by whom?
SSM is a never-ending learning process which focuses on practical, focused, interventions within a situation which is perceived as problematical. It helps foreground worldviews and biases, using diagrams to help with this. It is a methodology, rather than a ‘method’ or technique. That means “it is a set of ongoing principles which can be adapted for use in a way which suits the specific nature of each situation in which it is used” (Ibid., p.212). It’s specific enough to be a useful guide, but generic enough to be useful in any situation where people want to take action to improve a situation they regard as problematical.
References
Checkland, P. & Poulter, J. (2006) ‘Soft Systems Methodology’, in Reynolds, M. and Holwell, S. (eds.) Systems approaches to making change: a practical guide. 2nd edn. Milton Keynes: The Open University/London: Springer, pp.201-253.
