Open Thinkering

Menu

Tag: Viable System Model

TB871: Rethinking organisational structure through VSM

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. 

The Viable System Model (VSM) conceptualises an organisation as a network of systems, each with its own purpose and autonomy (Hoverstadt, 2020). This approach helps in managing complexity and promotes a recursive approach to organisational structure, balancing autonomy and control.

Traditional hierarchical models of organisation emphasise top-down control, meaning that decision-making power is concentrated at the higher levels. This approach tries to minimise complexity, whereas the VSM embraces complexity by acknowledging that people at various levels of the organisation are best equipped to handle decisions relevant to their specific areas (The Open University, 2020).

Matryoshka dolls nested inside one another. A small person is inside saying "Keep breaking down the issue..."
CC BY-ND Visual Thinkery for WAO

A key aspect of the VSM is the balance between autonomy and cohesion. Too much autonomy can lead to fragmentation, while excessive control can stifle innovation. The VSM addresses this by allowing different parts of the organisation to operate semi-autonomously within defined constraints. This recursive or fractal nature of the VSM means that each part of the organisation, regardless of its complexity, is viewed as a viable system with similar needs and structures to the whole. (In other words, much like the Matryoshka dolls in the image above, they are nested inside one another.)

Understanding the structure of an organisation through the VSM involves distinguishing between primary and support activities. Primary activities deliver value directly to customers, while support activities sustain the organisation’s operational capabilities. This distinction helps in identifying the organisation’s core identity and value delivery mechanisms, with the idea that each component aligns with the overall purpose. As I have said before, this feels like a wider and deeper approach than that provided by OKRs, for example.

The VSM is a conceptual model rather than a prescriptive methodology. As such, it provides principles, laws, and axioms that guide the management of organisational complexity. It facilitates both diagnosis and design by comparing real-world situations with an idealised model, meaning that weaknesses can be identifyed and mismatches discovered to be addressed.

On a practical level, I see one of the VSM’s key use cases as helping organisations understand how to set up in a recursive way. By managing complexity at each level and devolving responsibility, managers can focus on their immediate areas of influence without micromanaging sub-levels. This approach aligns with the principle that managers should set purposes for the systems they directly manage, leaving sub-management levels to handle their respective systems. (It’s difficult to talk about this non-hierarchically, which is a problem that perhaps I’ll come back to.)

For example, in a software development company, the lead developer manages the development team, dealing with internal complexities, while the project manager oversees client interactions and project timelines. Each level handles its complexity, ensuring that the overall organisation functions smoothly. The recursive approach means that the problems faced by each level are similar, which simplifies management processes across the organisation.

There’s so much more to explore here. For example, I had a fascinating conversation with Steve Brewis yesterday, who knew Stafford Beer personally, and who uses the VSM in his consulting practice. I wanted to talk with him because I saw reference to his ‘snowflake model’ of the VSM which he used while working at BT. However, I think that should be the focus of a separate post.

References

  • Hoverstadt, P. (2020). ‘The Viable System Model’. In Reynolds, M. & Holwell, S. (eds.) (2020). Systems Approaches to Making Change: A Practical Guide. London: Springer, pp.89-138.
  • The Open University (2020) ‘3.3.3 Applying System 1’, TB871 Block 3 Tools stream [Online]. Available at https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=2261487&section=4.3 (Accessed 26 June 2024).

TB871: Modelling myself as a viable system

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. 

Activity 3.12 (The Open University, 2020) asks me to model my (sad little) life as a viable system. So here goes:

Diagram depicting various personal roles around a central photo of Doug, featuring roles like Father, Gamer, Husband, Son, etc. These are connected to other circles with titles such as Friends and Family

My life in systems

Thinking about the roles I play in my life as systems, I can represent them in the following way:

  • Father: I am a system to nurture and support my children.
  • Husband: I am a system to partner and collaborate with my wife.
  • Son: I am a system to support and assist my parents.
  • Gamer: I am a system to enjoy video games.
  • Member: I am a system to engage in work or organisational activities.
  • MSc student: I am a system to learn and apply systems thinking.
  • Runner: I am a system to maintain physical fitness through running.
  • Gym user: I am a system to enhance my physical health.

I guess I didn’t include ‘friend’ as one of the eight things on there, but it’s implied 😅

Identifying sub-systems

If we take one of these roles, let’s say father and identify sub-systems, then we get:

  • Provider: helping ensure financial stability and resources for my family.
  • Educator: guiding and teaching my two teenagers in terms of values, knowledge, and life skills.
  • Caregiver: providing emotional support, care, and attention.
  • Disciplinarian: enforcing rules and standards to ensure appropriate behaviour and development.
  • Companion: engaging in leisure activities (i.e. play) to build bonds.

Sub-sub-systems?

Going a stage further, we could take one of the above sub-systems, let’s say educator and go a stage further. Kind of like the film Inception (2010) which I watched again recently with my son:

  • Helper: assisting with school assignments and educational activities to help my children understand and complete their schoolwork effectively.
  • Life skills teacher: educating my children in terms of practical skills (e.g., putting together furniture, digital literacies) so that they are prepared forindependent and responsible living.
  • Moral guide: inculcating ethical values and appropriate social behaviour to instil a strong moral foundation and social awareness.
  • Supporter of interests: encouraging and supporting my children’s sports and hobbies to help them develop their talents and curiosity.
  • Problem solver: assisting my children in developing critical thinking and problem-solving skills by guiding them through challenges and obstacles.

References

TB871: Context and perspective in systems thinking

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. 

Lion lying down on green grass field with trees in background

As people in both my personal and professional lives are probably sick of me saying, context is everything. Just because this project looks like one we’ve done previously, doesn’t mean much. Just because we managed to move house in a stress-free way last time doesn’t mean we will this time. And so on.

Part of this is because we think in nouns rather than verbs. The module materials, which talk of the Viable System Model (VSM) as drawing on Eastern traditions, give a good example of this:

You might normally think of the lion in the zoo as the same animal as the lion in its natural habitat. The focus of this deduction is on the shape, colour and form of the lion, i.e. the lion as an object. But the lion in each of these cases is not the same system. If you focus on the relationship between the lion and its environment, then it is easily seen that there are great differences between the two situations. In the first case, the lion’s role is to be a supreme attraction for people to the zoo; in the second, it is to enact the role of supreme predator in the wild.

(The Open University, 2020)

We usually think of systems as relatively static things which are made up of nouns. But this is not the way the world works. The VSM represents the parts of a system as part of a transformation process defined by the purpose you assign to it: for example, the lion is transformed from being a ‘supreme predator’ to a ‘supreme attraction’.

In addition, not only can contexts change, but perspectives can be different too. These can be differing perspectives between stakeholder groups, within stakeholder groups, or different perspectives taken at different times and in different contexts by the same stakeholder. For example, I might frame something much more negatively when I’m angry compared to other times.

Activity 3.8 asks us to identify and define different perspectives in our area of practice. So let’s consider five different stakeholder groups:

  1. Library Management
  2. Library Staff
  3. Visitors/Users
  4. Community Members
  5. Local Government

1. Library management

Managers of libraries focus on the efficient use of resources so that they can improve service delivery and attract more visitors. A system definition for them might therefore be something like “a system to manage library resources and services efficiently to enhance user satisfaction and engagement.”

2. Library staff

Staff members in libraries are interested in ongoing training and development to improve their skills, so they can better serve visitors. So a system definition might be framed as “a system to ensure continuous staff development and effective service delivery.”

3. Visitors/users

Visitors to the library are primarily concerned with the availability and quality of library resources such as books, digital access, and study spaces to meet their educational and recreational needs. A system definition for them could be “a system to provide accessible and diverse library resources and services.”

4. Community members

Some visitors aren’t necessarily interested in the library as being anywhere other than a place to meet. So if we conceptualise these ‘community members’ we can appreciate their view of the library as a hub for social interaction and support services. A system definition for this group might be phrased as “a system to enhance community engagement and support through library services.”

5. Local government

Northumberland County Council has responsibility for all public services, so needs to ensure that they contribute effectively to community development and public welfare. This happens through adequate funding(!) and policy support. A system definition from this perspective is “a system to integrate library services into the broader public service infrastructure to support community development.”

Perspective 5: Local Government

  • System Definition: A system to integrate library services into the broader public service infrastructure to support community development.
  • Reason: Local government aims to ensure that public services, including libraries, contribute effectively to community development and public welfare through adequate funding and policy support.

References

Photo by Zdeněk Macháček

css.php