Information Pack

INFORMATION PACK

2014 SALSA DEVELOPMENT SEMINAR

Presented by SALSA (The Secretaries’ Association of the Legislatures of South Africa on behalf of the South African Legislative Sector)

8 – 10 December 2014 Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

“Building Stronger Legislatures – 20 Years and Beyond”

Contents Page

1. Programme 4

2. Profiles of Presenters 10

3. Briefing Document 16

Core Reading

4. Overview of System Thinking 26

5. Biomatrix Systemic Brainstorming 29

6. Methodology of the Biomatrix Transformation Programme 40

Supplementary Reading

7. What Is Systems Thinking? A Personal Perspective 64

8. Unleashing Understanding 76

Programme

2014 SALSA Development Seminar

8-10 December 2014 Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

THEME

Building Stronger Legislatures – 20 Years and Beyond

OBJECTIVES

• To highlight the transformational role of the South African Legislative Sector in the last 20 years and beyond;

• To strategise towards realising the vision of building a stronger Legislative Sector;

• To ensure the development of the Legislative Sector through shared knowledge.

5 Programme

Sunday, 7 December 2014

Arrival of Delegates 14:00 – 19:00 Registration of Delegates

Day 1 – Monday, 8 December 2014

Programme Director: Ms N Naidoo (SALSA Executive Member & Secretary to KwaZulu-Natal Legislature)

Time Item Presenter 07:30 – 09:00 Registration of delegates 09:00 – 09:15 Welcome & Opening Ms L Johnson, MPL Speaker of KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Legislature 09:15 – 10:00 Reflection on 20 years of Legislative Work towards Mr P Skosana strengthening the South African democracy Chairperson of SALSA 10:00 – 10:45 Opening address: Focus on determining strategic priorities Mr S L Tsenoli, MP and interventions for the South African Legislative Sector Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, RSA Parliament 10:45 – 11:15 TEA 11:15 – 12:30 Utilising the Systems Thinking approach in strategising Dr Elisabeth Dostal towards realising the vision of building a stronger Legislative Director of BiomatrixWeb Sector Presentation: 45 minutes Q&A: 30 minutes 12:30 – 13:30 LUNCH

Programme Director: Mr P Skosana (Chairperson of SALSA & Secretary to Gauteng Legislature)

Time Item Presenter 13:30 – 13:45 Arrangements for group sessions Programme Director 13:45 – 15:30 Group 1-4 Facilitators 15:30 – 16:30 Report back: Group sessions Day 1 & Questions Rapporteurs 16:30 – 16:45 Closing remarks Programme Director

19:00 Opening Ceremony (Formal Dinner hosted by KwaZulu-Natal Legislature) 6

Programme

Day 2 – Tuesday, 9 December 2014

Programme Director: Mr T L Mofokeng (Secretary to SALSA & Deputy Secretary to Free State Legislature)

Time Item Presenter 09:00 – 09:15 Overview of Day 1 Ms M Gaoretelelwe Secretary to North West Provincial Legislature 09:15 – 09:45 Introduction of international guests International Representatives 09:45 – 11:00 Perspectives on the National Development Plan and the role Mr T A Manuel of the Legislative Sector Deputy Chairman: Presentation: 20-25 minutes Q&A: 45 minutes Rothschild (South Africa) & Former Minister of Finance, National Planning Commission 11:00 – 11:15 TEA 11:15 – 13:15 Considering key strategic interventions and questions Mr J Bundi towards realising the vision of the Legislative Sector – Clerk to the Parliament of sharing experiences Kenya Presentation: 20-25 minutes Q&A: 45 minutes Representative of the European Parliament (TBC)

13:15 – 14:15 LUNCH 14:15 – 14:30 Arrangements for group sessions Programme Director 14:30 – 16:15 Group 1-4 Facilitators 16:15 – 16:30 Closing remarks Programme Director

16:30 – 17:15 Conference group photos Free evening for Delegates

18:00 SALSA function (Hosted by SALSA for International Guests and Presenters)

Programme

Day 3 – Wednesday, 10 December 2014

Programme Director: Adv M E Phindela (SALSA Executive Member & Secretary to the National Council of Provinces)

Time Item Presenter 09:00 – 09:15 Overview of Day 2 Ms N Naidoo SALSA Executive member 09:15 – 11:30 Report back: Group sessions Day 2 & Questions Rapporteurs 11:00 – 11:30 TEA 11:30 – 12:00 Overview of SALSA Development Seminar & Mr T L Mofokeng Recommendations Secretary to SALSA 12:00 – 12:45 Discussions & Way Forward Programme Director 12:45 – 13:00 Closing remarks Mr P Skosana Chairperson of SALSA 13:00 – 14:00 LUNCH

15:30 Legislative games (Hosted by KwaZulu-Natal Legislature) 19:30 Informal dinner function (Hosted by SALSA Executive)

Thursday, 11 December 2014

Departure of delegates

8 GROUP SESSIONS

Day 1 – Monday, 8 December 2014 (13:45 – 15:30)

Strategising towards realising the vision of building stronger Legislatures – utilising systems thinking

Group Topic Facilitator 1 Strengthening synergy by breaking down the barriers to Ms M Gaoretelelwe cooperation – through the systems approach: Legislature (North West Provincial focus (inward-looking) Legislature) 2 Strengthening synergy by breaking down the barriers to Mr P Ndamase cooperation – through the systems approach: Legislative (Eastern Cape Provincial Sector focus (outward-looking) Legislature) 3 Enhancing the value chain of the Legislative environment Mr M Xaso through the systems approach: Legislature focus (inward- (RSA Parliament) looking) 4 Enhancing the value chain of the Legislative environment Adv T Mokoena through the systems approach: Legislative Sector focus (Free State Provincial (outward-looking) Legislature)

Day 2 – Tuesday, 9 December 2014 (14:30 – 16:15)

Group Topic Facilitator 1 Considering key strategic interventions towards realising the Mr P Moopelwa vision of building stronger Legislatures – exploring planning (Northern Cape and enhancing legislative performance towards a capable Provincial Legislature) state: legislature & sector focus 2 Considering key strategic interventions towards realising the Mr S Mothoa vision of building stronger Legislatures – focus on enhancing (Limpopo Provincial oversight, accountability and law-making Legislature) 3 Considering key strategic interventions towards realising the Ms R Begg vision of building stronger Legislatures – focus on optimizing (Western Cape Provincial public participation Parliament) 4 Considering key strategic interventions towards realising the Mr J B Silinda vision of building stronger Legislatures – focus on building a (Mpumalanga Provincial stronger parliamentary administration Legislature)

Profile of Presenters

2014 SALSA Development Seminar

Focus on determining strategic priorities and interventions for the South African Legislative Sector

Current Position Mr Tsenoli was elected Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa in May 2014. Previous Positions/Activities/Membership of Organisations Mr Lechesa Tsenoli’s political career spans several decades and this year 2014 marks his 20th year as a public representative. Previously, Mr Tsenoli served in the Executive branch of government, first as Deputy Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform from October 2011 and then as Minister for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs from July 2013 until May 2014. As a Member of Parliament from 1994 to 1999, Mr Tsenoli served on the Portfolio Committee on the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) as chairperson. He also served in the Portfolio Committee on Constitutional Development and Local Government, the Portfolio Committee on Housing, the Ad Hoc Committee in Represented Political Parties, the Special Ministerial Committee on the Transformation of the Independent Development Trust (IDT), the Special Ministerial Committee on Removing Obstacles to Housing Delivery, the Special Ministerial Political Committee on the White Mr S L Tsenoli, MP Paper on Local Government and the Inter-Ministerial Committee on (Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, RSA Parliament) HIV/AIDS. From 1999 to 2004 he served as the MEC responsible for Local Government and Housing in the Free State Provincial Government. Date and place of birth He returned to Parliament in 2004 where he briefly chaired the Portfolio 10 February 1955, Bultfontein Committee on Arts and Culture. Subsequently, he was elected Free State. Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government (now Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs), a position he held from 2004 to 2011, when he was appointed Deputy Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform. Mr Tsenoli has a long history of political activism in communities, youth and civic organisations. He was the Publicity Secretary of the United Democratic Front (UDF) in Natal, served as the founding National Deputy President and later President of the South African National Civics Organisation (SANCO) and was an active member of the ANC underground. He was part of and served as Chairperson of the Khanya African Institute for Community-Driven Development from 2001 to 2009. From 2009 to 2013 Mr Tsenoli served on the board of directors of the Isandla Institute, a public interest think tank concerned with democratic urban settlements and convenor of a number of dialogue initiatives, such as, the Good Governance Learning Network. He is currently a member of the Central Committee of the South African Communist Party (SACP) following his re-election in the SACP’s 2012 Congress. Qualifications - Mr Tsenoli has certificates in adult education, public policy, facilitation and is a graduate of The International Program of the Gestalt Institute of Cleveland on Organisation and Systems Development. A keen lifelong learner, Mr Tsenoli is currently a student leadership, organisational and life coach. 11

Perspectives on the National Development Plan and the Role of the Legislative Sector

Mr Trevor Manuel is a senior advisor to the Rothschild Group worldwide and Deputy Chairman of Rothschild in South Africa. He served as a Cabinet Minister from 1994 to 2014 under the first four successive Presidents, Mandela, Mbeki, Motlanthe and Zuma in democratic South Africa. His cabinet responsibilities included Trade and Industry (May 1994 to April 1996), Finance (April 1996 to May 2009), and in the Presidency, responsibility for the National Planning Commission (May 2009 to May 2014). During his two decades as a Cabinet Minister he also served as a Member of Parliament, representing the African National Congress. As Minister of Trade and Industry he led the process of reintegration of South Africa into the global economy after decades of sanctions, and he introduced extension support measures for small, medium and micro-

enterprises. During his lengthy tenure as Minister of Finance he Mr T Manuel (Deputy Chairman to stabilised the macro-economy, significantly transformed the fiscal Rothschild in SA & Former system in respect of taxation, expenditure and the intergovernmental Minister of Finance & in the system. As Chairperson of the National Planning Commission he oversaw Presidency: National the drafting of the broadly accepted first-ever National Development Planning Commission) Plan for the country. As Minister he assumed a number of ex officio positions on International bodies, including the United Nations Commission for Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the World Bank, the IMF, the G20, the African Development Bank and the Southern African Development Community. In these institutions, he was also frequently elected by his peers to chair several of these bodies. Mr Manuel was also appointed as Special Envoy for Financing Development on two occasions (2001 and 2008) by successive Secretaries General of the United Nations. He served on various international commissions including the Task Force on Global Public Goods (2002/3), the Africa Commission (2005), the Commission on Growth and Development (2006 to 2010), the Global Ocean Commission (2012/4) (that he co-chaired) and the Commission on the New Climate Economy (2013/4). He was requested to chair various Task Teams including on IMF Governance Reform (2007/8) and the World Bank Doing Business Report (2013). Mr. Manuel has received a number of awards and presentations, including Africa's Finance Minister of the Year, the Woodrow Wilson Public Service Award, and 7 honorary doctorates. He has served as the Chancellor of the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT) since May 2008. Mr Manuel was born in 1956 and matriculated from Harold Cressy High School in Cape Town. He has a National Diploma in Civil and Structural Engineering from the Peninsula Technikon and completed the Executive Management Programme in a joint programme between Stanford University and the National University of Singapore. He is married to Maria Ramos and they live in South Africa.

Utilising the Systems Approach in strategising towards realising the vision of building a stronger Legislative Sector

Dr Elisabeth Dostal is a leading systems thinker who co-developed Biomatrix systems theory. As a futurist, systemic management consultant and educator, she has done much research and gained considerable experience on the nature and causes of (un)sustainable business, organisation development and the role of different types of change interventions in it. Dr Dostal has applied this knowledge in the context of management consulting in the private, public and NGO sectors over many years. She has also taught on several South African and European MBA programmes. She is the founder and director of BiomatrixWeb, an organisation concerned with delivering the Biomatrix Transformation Programmes.

She learned that the causes of humanity’s most perplexing problems Dr Elisabeth Dostal (Director & Founder of are mostly understood, but their solutions not. She therefore joined BiomatrixWeb) an interdisciplinary PhD programme to explore systems thinking and its application to complex problem solving. With fellow students (the Biomatrix Group) she co-developed Biomatrix Systems Theory. In the course of her consulting experience, she developed a coherent and systemic methodology for organisational and societal transformation based on this theory. Her experience from management education in interaction with consulting made her aware of the effectiveness of action learning in managing change and made this the foundation of the Biomatrix Programmes. Prior to the foundation of BiomatrixWeb in 2004, Elisabeth was a management consultant with Vision in Management, an international management consulting network which she co-founded. Between 1977 and 1991 she held the position of Senior Researcher at the Institute for Futures Research at the University of Stellenbosch in South Africa. She specialised in socio-economic and political forecasting, scenario development and planning. Since 1994 she has been a part-time lecturer in futurism, systems thinking and systemic management at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa (1994-2011), University of Johannesburg, South Africa (2001-2010), Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands (2002- 2006). Elisabeth holds a PhD in Systems Theory from the University of Cape Town, South Africa and a Master’s Degree in Social Sciences from Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Austria. She has presented papers at and addressed various South African and international conferences on futurism and systems thinking (see her speech at the WFS-SA conference in 2010 on biomatrixtheory.com). She (co-)authored various scientific articles on Biomatrix Systems Theory and its application (see biomatrixtheory.com) and published two books: Biomatrix: A Systems Approach to Organisational and Societal Change, in collaboration with Anacreon Cloete and György Járos. 2005 (third edition). BiomatrixWeb, Cape Town, South Africa. (First edition published in 2004 by SUN Press, Stellenbosch, South Africa). Biomatrix Systems Theory in Graphics, written in collaboration with Anacreon Cloete and György Járos. BiomatrixWeb, Cape Town, South Africa.

Key strategic interventions and questions towards realising the vision of the Legislative Sector – sharing experiences

Mr. Justin Bundi was appointed the Clerk of the National Assembly of Kenya in October 2012. In March 2004, He became the Clerk of the East African Legislative Assembly in Arusha, Tanzania. A position he held up until March 2009, when he returned to the National Assembly of Kenya. He served on several committees, including the Board of Management and Chair of the Project Implementation Committee, which foresaw institutional development projects, i.e. Physical and Human Development, Chair: National Assembly Tender Committee, Training Committee, Audit Committee and Vice chairman for Centre for Parliamentary Studies and Training. Earlier in his career, Mr. Bundi worked in the Public Service, office of the President – Provincial Administration as District Officers in several Mr Justin N Bundi districts (1982 to 1990) before joining the National Assembly as Clerk (Clerk to the Parliament of Assistant, where he served in various departments including the Kenya) Clerk’s Chambers and the Speaker’s Office, rising to the position of Deputy Clerk. He has vast experience in Public Administration and legislative Management. He attended several conferences which are parliamentary related, and include the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association: in Kenya, Australia, Trinidad and Tobago, and the Inter Parliamentary Union in Kenya, Chile, Indonesia, Switzerland, and the National Council of State Legislatures in Charlestown, South Carolina; Inter Parliamentary Relations Seminars in Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, and Kenya. He has visited several regional Parliaments, including Parliaments of the European Union, ECOWAS Parliaments and SADC, United States Congress and the Pan African Parliamentary Forum. He is a member of the Society of Clerks- At- the Table, and the Institute of Directors. Mr Bundi was born on 21ST March, 1957, and holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree from the University of Nairobi in 1981. In 1990, he attained a Certificate in Advanced Public Administration from the Kenya Institute of Administration (now Kenya School of Government). He is currently undertaking a Masters Degree in Business Administration (MBA) from Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology. He is married with five children.

Briefing Document

2014 SALSA DEVELOPMENT SEMINAR

Presented by SALSA (The Secretaries’ Association of the Legislatures of South Africa on behalf of the South African Legislative Sector)

8 – 10 December 2014 Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

“Building Stronger Legislatures – 20 Years and Beyond”

OBJECTIVES OF THE SEMINAR

• To highlight the transformational role of the South African Legislative Sector in the last 20 years and beyond;

• To strategise towards realising the vision of building a stronger Legislative Sector;

• To ensure the development of the Legislative Sector through shared knowledge.

1. Overview The development seminar is hosted by the Secretaries’ Association of the Legislatures of South Africa (SALSA) under the auspices of the South African Legislative Sector (SALS). The development seminars are conducted on a biennial basis with the aim of building the capacity of the legislative sector through exposure to new knowledge and sharing of ideas and experiences in order to consistently enhance performance. The main focus of the 2014 Development Seminar is to utilise or embed the systems theory or systems thinking approach in guiding the legislative sector on its long-term path to realising the vision of a stronger South African Legislative Sector (SALS) – reflecting on 20 years and beyond.

As outlined by Chapter 4 of the RSA Constitution, the legislative authority, as the direct representatives of the people, have a critical role to play in scrutinising and overseeing executive action and spurring the entire state machinery towards the aspirations of a developmental state as outlined in the National Development Plan (NDP). It is crucial for the development seminar to contemplate the question of what kind of action and performance is desirable to register incremental progress by the SALS in achieving its ideals. 17

A prerequisite for such discussions is the integration of the elements of cooperative government, synergy and cohesion in order to achieve economies of scale and optimise the impact of the legislative sector locally and globally. The SA Legislative Sector has formalised its cooperative government through a memorandum of understanding which seeks to follow a collaborative approach between National Parliament and Provincial Legislatures on common matters. In integrating this collaborative way of working, it assists with transforming legislative institutions and strengthening the legislative arm of state to ensure accountability to the ordinary people of South Africa. Collectively, the legislative sector are the main guardians of democracy with the vital strategic role of safeguarding and deepening democracy. This role should be considered, extrapolated and find expression in the strategic framework and policies of the SALS, going forward.

For the legislative sector to be dynamic and responsive in fulfilling its role effectively and efficiently, there is a need for coherent and integrated strategic and visionary thinking that involves a full understanding of the dynamic processes that informs planning, conceptualisation, coordination and implementation of sector work. Strong leadership, creativity and innovation are key elements in achieving these goals.

2. Purpose of the Seminar The main purpose of the 2014 SALSA Development Seminar is to explore the theoretical depth of systems thinking and interrogate the feasibility of using or translating some systems thinking properties to determine a coherent and integrated long term strategic path for the SALS in advancing the

18 implementation of the constitutional mandate of the South African Legislative Sector.

The seminar is aimed at stimulating debate on: • The transformational role of the South African Legislative Sector in the last 20 years and beyond; • Strategising towards realising the vision of building a stronger Legislative Sector; • Ensuring the development of the Legislative Sector through shared knowledge.

3. Seminar Approach The seminar will run over a 3 day period and take the format of plenary sessions combined with group discussions in order to maximise exposure and participation of delegates. As part of the 3 day seminar the intention is to reflect on gains made over the past 20 years with a view to inform discussions on positioning the legislative sector for long-term success in realising South Africa’s vision. Linked to aspects of strategy, the management of performance to ensure attainment of the vision will feature strongly whilst emphasis will be placed on harnessing creativity and stimulating innovation throughout the legislative value chain. Underpinning all seminar discussions will be the aspect of the systems thinking approach.

The seminar is by invitation only, which will bring together the leadership and key drivers of legislative work in South Africa with invitations extended to identified colleagues continentally and globally. It is anticipated that there will be a total of approximately 330 to 350 delegates in attendance. Thematic

19 plenary sessions will be supplemented by parallel focus groups each comprising a diverse range of participants wherein specific topics will be discussed aimed at contributing to the plenary theme and speaking to the set seminar objectives or intended outcomes. The seminar is also aimed at building the cohesive spirit of the team of legislative leaders, providing opportunity for networking and building relations between legislative colleagues in a formal and social context.

4. Seminar Programme A complete programme with theme, objectives, topics and presenters are attached. The following conceptualisation is offered for critical consideration.

4.1 Systems Thinking: An effective way to reach the 2030 SALS vision and beyond? The world or organisation is viewed as complex. There are varying assumptions and constructs of what strategic planning is. The assumptions span the spectrum from one-day retreats to a year-long process that involves in depth research into the various corporate metrics as well as internal and external environmental scans. The hope of the organisation embarking on strategic planning is one where the ‘right’ plan is the final expected product. This final plan is the map that the organisation needs to move into the future or, at the very least, help the organisation to its mandate and objectives for the next three to five years. The organisations that participate in the extensive data collection express the conviction that if they gather the correct amount of quality data, then they can avoid the pitfalls that have befallen other organisations, thus bringing about the very desirable outcomes for their organisation.

Strategic planning, since it came into the forefront of prominence in the 1970s, is now a method for scrutinising an organisation’s mission and positioning the organisation to handle prospective future challenges. Traditional strategic approaches and concepts that have been used as the standard weaponry in the strategic planning arsenal include the SWOT analysis, Porter’s Five Forces framework, strategic portfolios, and the concept of competitiveness. Recent developments emphasise new approaches to strategic planning such as the Complex Adaptive Systems under Systems Theory.

Some interesting strategic planning hybrids have come about as practitioners have incorporated the emerging approaches with traditional ones. These approaches assume that the starting point is revisiting the organisation’s purpose, vision and mission. ‘Systems Thinking, Theory and Approach’ is concerned with the understanding of synergistic complexity and the design of systems that produce desirable synergies. The theory attempts to understand how physical, biological, and social systems operate and interact. In the complex adaptive systems thinking, the agents are interconnected by commonly held criteria for decision-making and a shared purpose that informs the way they relate to each other and the external environment.

The ‘Complex Adaptive Systems of the Systems Thinking Approach’ are interconnected through commonly held criteria for decision-making (operational values) and a shared purpose. The coordinating group of this approach needs to involve the whole organisation in clarifying and reaffirming the desired achievement, and the values/criteria that will influence the practices, methods, and resources used to achieve the desired outcomes.

It is argued that ‘Systems Thinking’ could add value to the strategic processes of the South African Legislative Sector. Furthermore, the integration of systems thinking, strategic planning and performance management, provides an opportunity to maximise capacities and performance through building relationships and creating synergies and explore future possibilities through dialogue and networking among the South African legislative community and colleagues from around the globe. There is also a larger role in generating information for decision-making and nurturing relationships that will contribute and encourage self-organisation. The ‘Systems Approach’ could be relevant for the strategic planning processes of the core business of the South African Legislative Sector by means of the following:

• Perspectives of the National Development Plan (NDP) and the role of the Legislative Sector. • Developing a common five Medium Term Strategic Framework for the South African Legislative Sector with long-term strategies. • Recognising the emerging strategies and practices that continue to advance the Sector. • Indicate how to sustain and further advance these strategies and design goals and objectives to achieve these. • Identify key strategic questions to be discussed by the executive authority, presiding officers, parliamentarians and staff.

5. Audience and Participants Attendance is by invitation only. Formal invitations has been extended to Legislatures to determine their delegations based on the following guidelines and criteria:

• Secretaries to Parliament and Provincial Legislatures; • Leadership and senior officials of the South African Parliament and Provincial Legislatures; • Delegations which incorporate representatives of the various Forums of the Legislative Sector.

5.1 Special Delegates – Collaboration and Partnership SALS seeks to partner and work in collaboration with organisations that share similar ideas and programmes that are relevant to its objectives. SALS has been able, through its partnerships with other organisations, to grow to develop new ideas, provide and develop solutions to emerging sector challenges and improved ways of coordinating legislative functions.

These networks and collaborative efforts have in a great deal contributed in strengthening the sector’s capacity in research, training, knowledge and information management. Prospective participants may include the following key organisations: • All Clerks/Secretaries of the national branches of CPA and SOCATT Africa Region; • Australia and New-Zealand Association of Clerks-at-the-Table (ANZACATT); • Canadian Association of Clerks-at-the-Table & Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of SASKATCHEWAN; • American Society of Legislative Clerks & Secretaries (ASLCS). • EU Parliament and EU Delegation to South Africa

6. Organisation and Proceedings The Legislative Sector Support (LSS) in close conjunction with SALSA will be responsible for the organisation and implementation of the SALSA Development Seminar in consultation with KZN Legislature as the host province providing relevant support.

The length of each paper by presenters should not be more than 10 pages or 3000 words at one and a half spacing, with 12 font size. Harvard style referencing is preferred to ensure consistency. All papers should consist of an Abstract, not more than 150 words, followed by an Introduction, Main Body, Recommendations and Conclusion.

The Group Sessions will be facilitated by Secretaries of Legislatures. Soft copies of the presentations will be made available on the sector website – www.sals.gov.za. Additional reading material will also be made available to the seminar participants in order to provide more information and guidance.

Participants will be offered the opportunity to participate and express their views on various selected topics. The flow of discussion will be subjected to the arrangements considered by the Chairperson, Programme Directors and Facilitators of the Group Sessions. Vibrant and open discussion or debate shall be encouraged to enhance the proceedings.

Rapporteurs, Audio and Visual, as well as Photographic Services will be employed to record the proceedings. Arrangements will also be made for coverage with Electronic and Print Media. Proceedings will be conducted in English.

7. Intended Outputs The seminar is expected to deliver on the following: • Draft Declaration (summary) and Recommendations; • Following the seminar, an operational plan will be developed to implement and track the implementation of the seminar recommendations; • Published report of the SALSA Development Seminar of the South African Legislative Sector (SALS).

8. End Note Interested parties are encouraged to consult LSS for information regarding the seminar. The contact details are: Ms R Scott (Project Manager), Legislative Sector Support, Parliament of RSA, Cape Town. Email: [email protected], Tel: 27 (21) 403 8809, www.sals.gov.za.

BIOMATRIX Systemic Brainstorming

2014 SALSA Development Seminar

BRAINSTORMING EXERCISES

Purpose of brainstorming The purpose of systemic brainstorming is to generate insights and ideas for the redesign of the system under investigation. In the case of the SALSA Development Seminar 2014 the systems under investigation are the legislation (external view) and

legislative (internal view). The information gathered from seminar participants will be categorised and integrated into design notebooks for further processing.

How to do the brainstorming The brainstorming exercises prescribed in this document can be done through an individual online survey or in facilitated workshop sessions.

Individual online survey The individual online brainstorming is done before the seminar starts. It involves sending an online questionnaire to each seminar participant about 10 days before the seminar. The participant needs to: Identify him / herself, as well as his / her organisation, functional department and personal work function (the name is treated as confidential and serves administrative purposes within BiomatrixWeb only).

Read through the document in order to understand the theoretical basis and nature of the questions (without this understanding, it is difficult to do the brainstorming exercises effectively or even at all).

Fill out the various tables and send them to BiomatrixWeb. The brainstorming outputs will be integrated by BiomatrixWeb into design notebooks according to related themes. During the seminar, each team works on one of the themes raised by the brainstorming.

Facilitated team work The brainstorming can also be done during the seminar by means of facilitated team sessions. This involves • Explanation by the facilitator regarding the theoretical basis and nature of the exercises (as outlined in this paper).

• Facilitating the exercises as prescribed by the tables in this document. (Further instructions will be given to facilitators by BiomatrixWeb regarding the most effective way of facilitating the exercises.) Description of brainstorming exercises This document explains two types of brainstorming, namely problem-based and success- based brainstorming. We suggest starting with the success-based brainstorming and later proceed towards the problem-based approach.

Success-based brainstorming Proceed as follows: Step 1: Identify 2-3 of the biggest successes associated with the system. (Insert in Column 1 in the Success Brainstorming Table). Step 2: Identify 3 co-factors (i.e. reasons, causes) for each success. (Insert in Column 2 in the Success Brainstorming Table). Step 3: Determine 1-3 strategies for each co-factor on how to magnify the success in future. (Insert in Column 3 in the Success Brainstorming Table).

Problem-based brainstorming Step 1: Identify the most important problems associated with the system (Insert in Column 1 in the Problem Brainstorming Table). Step 2: Analyse problems. Systemic problem analysis involves - amongst others - the identification of the reasons (or causes, or co-factors) that are responsible for each problem. (Insert in Column 2 in the Problem Brainstorming Table). Notes: Some persons have difficulties in some cases to identify three co-factors. Think and you will find them. In reality, there will be more than three in each instance. Step 3: Brainstorming ideals and strategies Step 3-1: Brainstorm an ideal for each problem and problem co-factor you identified in the previous steps. More specifically, describe the ideal you want to put in the place of each problem and problem co-factor. (Insert the ideals in Column 3 in the Problem Brainstorming Table). Step 3-2: Write down three strategies (or courses of action) that would be required to move the system towards its ideal.

(Insert the strategies in Column 4 in the Problem Brainstorming Table). Notes: Please proceed with one problem or one problem co-factor at a time: identify its ideal and then the strategies on how to achieve it, before going on to the next problem or problem co-factor. Formulating an ideal involves answering the question “What would I like to put - as an IDEAL - in the place of the current problem co-factor?” Please note we do not ask: “How do I want to solve this problem?” In general, finding a good ideal is the most difficult part of brainstorming. If one has a good ideal, the strategies are easy and almost suggest themselves. Sometimes two or more ideals come to mind. Write them all down and develop three strategies for each. You could also experience a repetition of ideals and strategies as you go on. Do not hesitate to write the same or a similar idea in a different context. This is typical for systemic issues and the method of systemic problem dissolving. An ideal is formulated as an end (i.e. an ideal outcome), a strategy should be formulated as a means (i.e. a course of action). The ideal is an idealistic and abstract description of an unattainable outcome, while a strategy must be concrete, realistic and doable within the resource limitations of the system.

2014 SALSA Brainstorming Proposal It is proposed to use the brainstorming exercises in the group sessions of the 2014 SALSA Development Seminar and apply them to the following two themes:

• Problems and solutions for the legislative sector (outward looking)

• Problems and solutions for the legislature (inward looking)

BRAINSTORMING TABLES

Table: Success-based brainstorming

Success experience Co-factors of success Strategies for multiplying the success Success experience 1 Co-factor 1.1 Strategy 1.1.1

Strategy 1.1.2

Strategy 1.1.3

Co-factor 1.2 Strategy 1.2.1

Strategy 1.2.2

Strategy 1.2.3

Co-factor 1.3 Strategy 1.3.1

Strategy 1.3.2

Strategy 1.3.3

Etc. Success experience 2 Etc. Etc.

Table: Problem-based brainstorming

Problem Problem / Co- Ideal Strategy factor Problem 1 Ideal for problem as Strategy P 1.1 a whole Strategy P 1.2

Strategy P 1.3

Co-factor 1.1 Ideal for co-factor Strategy 1.1.1 1.1 Strategy 1.1.2

Strategy 1.1.3

Co-factor 1.2 Ideal for co-factor Strategy 1.2.1 1.2 Strategy 1.2.2

Strategy 1.2.3

Co-factor 1.3 Ideal for co-factor Strategy 1.3.1 1.3 Strategy 1.3.2

Strategy 1.3.3

Etc. Problem 2 Etc.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Systems thinking The theoretical basis of the brainstorming exercises is general systems theory. As a worldview, it is referred to as systems thinking. It perceives the world as a whole consisting of interconnected and interrelating parts that are wholes in their own right (i.e. sub-wholes). It also looks at how a whole changes in interaction with its changing environment. The essence of systems thinking can be described by the following three concepts: • Co-production: This concept states that every system in the universe is co- produced (or co-caused) by other systems and in turn co-produces (or co-causes) other systems. As soon as its environment changes, the system will be affected by it and will respond to it in one way or other. Thus the environment co-produces the system. In turn the system also impacts on the systems in its outer and inner environment co- causing change in them also. For example, the development of a person is co- produced by his or her genes, environment and own efforts. In turn, the person impacts on systems in the inner environment (e.g. health and mental development) as well as the outer environment (e.g. the family and society). Likewise, an education system is co-produced by other systems from different dimensions (e.g. psychological, cultural, political, economic, technological and ecological systems) at different levels (e.g. persons, organisations, institutions, societies, and planet). In turn, education co-produces the development of systems at these levels. • Emergence: The famous slogan that “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” describes emergence. It implies that in interaction with each other, systems produce qualities in the containing system that are not inherent in the interacting systems. For example, in a discussion new ideas can emerge that were not thought of before by the persons participating in the discussion. Likewise, problems can be an emergence, as for example a person’s unhappy marriage, an organisation’s stagnant business, poverty in a society, or climate change at the planetary level. • Dynamic change: Because systems continuously impact on each other and respond to the impacts, they are in constant motion. (Other terms used to describe impacts are feedback and feed forward). Usually, a change set in motion in one system ripples through other systems in an ongoing manner, co-producing often unpredictable responses in other systems, as well as unpredictable emergence from their interaction. For example, the last finance crisis which was set in motion in one financial system rippled through the economies of different countries, as well as impacting on other systems in society and nature.

These concepts determine how problems should be analysed and solved.

Problem solving versus dissolving Systems thinking distinguishes between problem solving and problem dissolving. The following concepts (i.e. current versus ideal future and inherent versus emergent problems) explain this difference in approach.

Current versus ideal future If a system continues with its current functioning (i.e. doing more of the same) it will arrive in a current future.

However, even if the system continues with current functioning, its future outcomes will be different because the environment will change. The more the environment will change, the more the system will get out of sync with it and gradually deteriorate. In futures research we use the analogy of the boiling frog to describe this. Apparently, if one puts a frog into cold water and heats it very slowly, the frog adapts to the rising temperature until it is too late to jump out before it dies. This is the tipping point of no return when system collapse is imminent. For example, our personal and collective lives are full of boiling frogs, ranging from deteriorating health or marriage to declining market shares, population explosion and climate change. When the seriousness of the problem is noticed, it could be too late to rescue the system. Depending on how the environment will change and impact on the system, the future of the system will be different. We therefore speak of alternative current futures. These could range from “high road” scenarios (e.g. a person getting to a ripe old age in spite of bad health habits; minimal effects of climate change on a society) to various “low road” scenarios (e.g. early death of a person; catastrophic impacts of climate change). Some systems (i.e. systems of nature) can display a tipping point, which marks a point of no return, while other systems (i.e. social systems) can change and reinvent (i.e. transform) themselves. However, the larger the system, the more time it could take to effect a system transformation. The ideal future of a system denotes the desirable state that the system wants to achieve in future. Once the system knows what it wants, it can take steps to create a better future. For example, once we know what a happy marriage looks like, we can develop strategies for changing current behaviour and circumstances and create a more pleasant relationship, dissolving the unhappy one. Likewise, once we know how a business or the education system of a society can function differently, we can change the current system and gradually implement a new one. The choice regarding a current and ideal future rests with the system itself. Any system can choose to carry on with its current behaviour and end up in a current future, or make an effort to formulate its ideal future and develop strategies to move towards it. The future of a system is created by default or design. Leadership is associated with designing a desirable future and facilitating others to move towards it.

Solving inherent versus dissolving emergent problems Inherent problems typically refer to a malfunctioning part in an otherwise well-functioning system. By using root-cause analysis one can identify the malfunctioning part and develop strategies to “fix” it. This restores the system to the way it functioned before the problem occurred, or it eliminates the errors that prevent it from functioning according to the way it was designed to function. This approach is referred to as problem solving. Solving the problem moves the system towards the future inherent in the design (i.e. a current future). It is based on the logic according to which the system has evolved / is designed to function. By understanding this logic, one can solve the problem. For example, to fix the broken gearbox of a car requires knowledge about getting the gearbox to work again according to the way the car was designed. A heart by-pass operation or fitting of a pace maker requires knowledge of the evolved functioning of the heart. Emergent problems arise from the interaction of systems. They change with each new interaction and are therefore often unpredictable. To deal with them, the interacting systems (i.e. stakeholders) need to participate in the change. Moreover, they need to change their behaviour in order to produce different outcomes. This approach is referred to as problem dissolving.

Dissolving problems requires the redesign of a system in such a way that the problems are not recreated anymore but are dissolved by the new behaviour of the system. This new behaviour is derived from a different logic and involves different strategies. For example, to change from creating health instead of disease, a person needs to change to a healthier lifestyle. Or, to turn around an outdated and unprofitable business requires a business and organisational transformation. Redesigning a system involves creating an ideal design (or vision) of the future and developing strategies that will allow the system to move towards the desired ideal state. As the system starts functioning in the new way and approaches its desirable state, its current problems dissolve. The system transforms itself. Problem riddled systems typically contain both types of problems: those that are due to malfunctioning parts of the system and need to be solved, and those that arise from a dissynergistic interaction between parts (even well functioning ones) and need to be dissolved. Thus ideal system redesign involves both problem solving and dissolving. For example, in a health crisis one will attempt to solve the problem (e.g. cutting out a tumour and taking antibiotics to eliminate harmful bacteria), as well as dissolve it by changing to a health promoting lifestyle. Likewise, turning around an organisation will involve eliminating mistakes (i.e. problem solving) as well as redesigning business strategy and organisational structure (i.e. problem dissolving through redesign).

Higher order logic of problem dissolving Our slogan “the logic of the problem is not the logic of the solution” (which is a reformulation of Einstein’s observation that “the level of thinking that gave rise to a problem cannot solve that problem”) refers to emergent problems. It is a reminder that analysing an emergent problem will not reveal the solution. One needs to shift to a different logic or level of thinking, analogous to the shift from the logic associated with a specific disease to the logic of creating health. Moreover, the new logic on which problem dissolving is based is a higher order logic. For example, creating health eliminates or prevents all diseases, while a treatment tries to solve a specific disease. Likewise, an organisation transformation based on an ideal redesign aims to dissolve all problems, while specific interventions aim at eliminating one problem at a time (and often creating more problems as side effects). To help in shifting our thinking to a new and higher order logic that can drive a system transformation we use a systemic brainstorming method, the Frog into Prince Method. This involves transforming the identified problems and problem co-factors (i.e. the boiling frogs) into their ideals (i.e. princes). The metaphor of the frog into prince is derived from the fairy tale called The Frog Prince, in which the kiss of the princess (i.e. the intuition) transforms a frog into a prince. It illustrates the potential of transforming something undesirable into something desirable. The more frogs a system has, the greater its potential (and motivation) to change. By comparison, perfect systems cannot be changed and are therefore boring. This method is used in the problem-based brainstorming exercise. It prompts participants to identify the problems (i.e. frogs) they experience with the system under observation, as well as identifying the co-factors of each problem (i.e. more frogs) and to transform them into ideals (i.e. princes) and to develop strategies with which the ideals can be achieved. (See following section on Ideal system (re)design for more detail.) The brainstorming output is used as input to the (re)design of the system.

Ideal system (re)design Systems are purposeful. They formulate aims and work towards them. To transform a system requires the formulation of new, higher order aims. As the system begins pursuing the new aims, its problems dissolve. The more visionary and loftier the aims of the system are, the more developed the system will be. Mediocre aims create mediocre systems. Grand visions inspire great system development. The most difficult part of an ideal system (re)design is to formulate high level and visionary aims. The brainstorming exercises assists you to brainstorms such aims by using your current problems to jumpstart your creativity (i.e. to derive princes from your frogs).

Ends (outcomes) and means (strategies) Aims can be ends or means: • Ends refer to intended outcomes. These can range from a timeless ideal and vision via longer- and medium-term objectives to short-term goals. Ideally, the system formulates its objectives and goals on the basis of a timeless ideal that remains valid over long periods of time (even throughout the lifespan of the system). By comparison, the objectives and goals will change in the course of time as the system keeps developing in harmony with a changing environment. For example, the ideal of efficiency means something different in different activities and at different times. • Means refer to intended courses of action or strategies. These can range from broad and overarching strategies that remain valid for a long time, to (sub)strategies that change with a changing environment and short-term action steps. The (re)design of a system requires the formulation of broad • ends of what the system wants to be and the generic outcomes it wants to achieve and • means of how it wants to achieve those ends (i.e. through which strategies or courses of action). Once the system has chosen its ideal design, it can plan its manifestation (i.e. initially through implementation planning and then ongoing strategic and operational panning). The brainstorming exercises are concerned with brainstorming ideas for the design, both as ends and means. The brainstormed ideas are integrated with other ideas produced by other stakeholders, categorised and evaluated on the basis of systemic principles and the finally selected ideas are integrated into a design according to a systemic framework. The following discussion provides some more input to formulating ends (i.e. ideals and visions) and means (i.e. strategies).

Formulating ideals The terms ideal and vision can be used interchangeably, depending on how they are defined. An ideal is an abstractly formulated outcome that is by definition unattainable or only temporarily attainable (like a moving target). A vision is a vividly imagined outcome that is described as if it had already happened. However, most vision statements encountered in the management literature are actually ideals.

An example of an unattainable ideal in sport would be “hitting the goal with every shot”, or the famous “zero defect” of manufacturing. An example of an interpretable and moving target ideal is “beauty”. Even if one thinks one has achieved it, it is but in the moment, as one can immediately think of how the object of beauty can become even more beautiful or beautiful in a different way. Also, what is meant by beauty can be re-interpreted in different contexts and at different times. Likewise, the ideal of service excellence can be continuously improved and re-interpreted. It is an unobtainable aim as well as a moving target. If one formulates a finally attainable outcome, it is not an ideal but most likely a solution derived from the current problem logic. For example, increasing market share by to 30 percent in 10 years is not an ideal, but an attainable objective. Once it is achieved, the system needs to formulate another aim and generate motivation around it. By comparison, “continuously increasing market share” would be an ideal of the moving target kind. The reason for formulating ideals is that they keep inspiring and motivating. One can formulate numerous intermediate aims along the way towards the unattainable or transient ideal. And one can keep developing and become a better and better system. For example one can get fitter, healthier, and more beautiful as one proceeds through life. Or, as AUDI “Leaps ahead through technology” its cars become better and better. Living by ideals inspires thinking according to a higher order logic, as explained previously. By comparison, a solution to the problem keeps the thinking in the current logic. For example, asking what I would like to put in the place of this disease as an ideal will provide the answer “health”. The strategies that create health could involve for example changes in lifestyle that strengthen the immune system, prevention of disease, etc. By comparison, the question of how does one treat this disease (e.g. an infection or tumour) will provide a solution (e.g. take antibiotics or cut it out). Both types of strategies can be valid. If the overarching aim is formulated as an deal (e.g. health), the current logic solutions (e.g. treating a current disease) can make important contributions in the short term. If, however, there is no higher order ideal to contextualise them, they keep the system at a current level of development that is likely to deteriorate as the environment changes. The following are some examples of how to turn a problem co-factor (“frog”) into an ideal (“prince”): For example, if one of the co-factors of my unhappy marriage is that “my partner never listens to me”, what would I like to put as an ideal in its place? Maybe something like “my partner always listens to me”. This co-factor was easy to deal with, because it is formulated as a negation of the ideal. However, there are other co-factors that do not necessarily have a logical sequel, like disease and health. Another typical marriage co-factor could be that “we have divergent ideas” (or as I formulated it during my marriage crisis some years ago: “we are like chalk and cheese and can’t see eye to eye”). We transformed this into the ideal of “variety delights” and made an effort to participate in each other’s interests, thereby mutually enriching each other’s development. It is important to keep the ideal as closely related to the co-factor as possible. For example, if the co-factor is disease, then happiness is not the related ideal. Health is. Some ideals are negations (e.g. zero defect). As a rule it is better to avoid them. But sometimes they can lead to interesting strategies. For example, MBA students have always problems with “too little time for studying”. The formulation of “no time needed for studying” is, of course an unattainable ideal, but it can lead to useful strategies such as dividing reading and lecture attendance between team members and sharing the learning; listening to lectures while driving; involving the kids in internet searches and using a project done at work as an education assignment, amongst others.

Formulating strategies While an ideal is formulated as an end (i.e. an ideal outcome), a strategy should be formulated as a means (i.e. a course of action). For example, moving towards the ideal outcome that “my partner always listens to me” might involve several strategies such as taking greater care in what one communicates to the partner; a better choice of circumstances for communication; education in listening skills; prompters and reminders that something important should be or is being said and requires listening; setting aside quality time; amongst numerous other possible strategies. Also, unlike an ideal which is idealistic, abstract and unattainable, a strategy must be realistic and doable within the abilities and resource capacity of the current system. For example, the strategy that “we need to treble our HR staff” is not realistic, if the system does not have the according resources. One should rather think of strategies that can reduce the workload, or make the existing staff more effective. Likewise, telepathy as a strategy for achieving perfect communication is not realistic. Some generic strategies in the context of resource limitations are multi-functional resource use (i.e. “doing more with less”) and adding information to the system (e.g. capacity building and automation).

2014 SALSA Development Seminar

Methodology of the Biomatrix Transformation Programmes

This document is based on a paper on Systemic In-formation Leadership delivered at the AfricaLeads Conference on 18-21 November 2012 at Spier Wine Farm, Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Why the Biomatrix Programmes are needed As humanity moved through various ages and stages of development, such as hunting- gathering, agrarian, industrial and more recently the advent of the information age, its cultural, economic and political institutions have undergone fundamental transformations. Their reach has changed from the extended family to the tribal, national and global interaction. Technological development has diversified and accelerated and worldviews have changed fundamentally with each stage of societal development.

The transition from the industrial to the information age started a mere few decades ago, hence our mindsets and institutions are still grounded in the industrial age, even if some changes have taken place. For example, the nation state with its number based representative governance is still the dominant governance unit in international relations and we still have the same (or very similar) formal education systems, corporations, financial institutions and economic theories that evolved during the industrial age.

We would argue that unlike the previous shifts, the shift to the information age is more fundamental, because it embodies a shift from predominantly organizing physical (i.e. material) reality to one that embraces the conceptual reality associated with information. The significance of this shift is that matter and energy (at least the harnessing thereof) are finite and scarce. For example, if physical things like land or goods are shared, one party loses at the expense of the other, while the total amount remains the same (i.e. it is zero sum). If resources are scarce, this win / lose paradigm gives rise to competition. By comparison, in sharing information, it is not lost. Both parties can possess it. Moreover, information sharing can give rise to new information that was not previously present in the interacting parties and it can change. This is referred to as synergy or emergence. Thus information sharing gives rise to win / win.

While the competitive mindset and scarcity thinking is appropriate in the context of dealing with physical (i.e. material) reality, it is inappropriate in the context of information (i.e. conceptual) reality. If information is not shared, the synergy does not occur. In the information economy, synergy is the core competitive advantage.

The synergistic reality of information also provides a challenge to some scientific theories. For example, the economic law of diminishing returns evolved in the context of evaluating physical goods and services which indeed diminish in value with their increasing supply. By comparison, the wealth of Microsoft and Google could be explained by a law of increasing returns of information. One could also argue that the continuing financial crisis is a manifestation of the synergistic nature of information for at least two reasons. The first is that information has 41 become the main means of production (as opposed to land in the agrarian age and physical capital in the industrial age). Being synergistic, it is not governed by the law of diminishing returns and takes on its own synergistic reality, as exemplified by the dot com bubble some years ago. Different approaches for managing are required. The second reason is that deregulation allowed the financial system to evolve from mostly dealing with information about real economic value and providing according services to the economy to generating information from this information (i.e. derivatives) and trading with it. Being synergistic and unlimited by regulation this has a run-away effect and becomes increasingly unrepresentative of the physical economy. By 2008 the traded derivatives amounted to 13 times the global GDP (i.e. the physical reality of the collectively produced goods and services). Since then it must have increased even more. Or more recently, the 2013 maize crop was sold 27 times. Thus, the financial reality (which is an information reality) has ceased to be a reflection of the physical reality of the economy. It is synergistic. Since the financial markets use the same currency as exchange in the physical economy, they have a disturbing influence on it and can even destroy it.

Besides the synergistic nature of information, the unsolved problems that emerged in the industrial age (e.g. poverty, population explosion, impacts of industrialization on nature) have become global challenges. They are beyond the reach of governing bodies which are still largely grounded in the nation based reality of the industrial age. The paradigm and institutions established in the industrial age are unable to deal with them. We need information savvy and globally orientated leaders.

The challenges associated with dissolving humanity’s complex problems can be summarised and illustrated by the following comments:

• We know what caused the finance crisis, but we don’t know what to do about it. (Statement by the G20, March 2009)

• With current strategic thinking, global poverty is not only unsolvable, but could get worse. (Comment by a World Bank Official, 2010) (Note: There can be a decline in poverty in relative terms, yet an increase in absolute numbers, due to population growth.)

• We know what needs to be done, but we don’t know how it can be done. (German Chancellor Merkel commenting on the Euro-crisis, 2012)

The first two statements illustrate a need for reviewing what needs to be done to solve our problems (i.e. our designs and strategies of systems), whereby the first statement illustrates that we don’t know the solutions to some problems, while the second statement refers to the ineffectiveness of current solutions. The third statement indicates that we need to rethink of how we go about solving them (i.e. our change management and governance approaches). Both are derived from the way we view the world (i.e. our paradigm). The current problems of humanity arise from the current paradigm. (Dis)solving them requires a new paradigm. We propose that systems thinking and more specifically, Biomatrix systems theory, because of its meta-systems approach, can be this paradigm.

Worldview of the Biomatrix Programmes

Systems theory

The underlying worldview of the Biomatrix Organisation and Societal Transformation Programmes is Biomatrix systems theory.

Systems theory is a holistic body of knowledge, often referred to as General Systems Theory (GST). It is a conglomerate of concepts from different areas of knowledge such as cybernetics, operations research, systems dynamics, ideal systems (re)design, complexity theory, chaos theory and ecological thinking.

Major thinkers who contributed significantly to its development include Ashby, Ackoff, Bateson, Von Bertalanffy, Beer, Boulding, Capra, Checkland, Checkland and Scholes, Churchman, Forrester, Flood and Jackson, Gharajedaghi, Gomez and Probst, Koestler, Laszlo, Maturana and Varela, McNeil, Meadows, Senge, Vester.

Systems thinking has been evolving since the 1960s, although some concepts were conceived earlier (e.g. the concept of holism which was coined by Smuts in 1926). Since then, many other thinkers contribute to its further development. More recently, complexity theory and chaos theory have added some new insights.

Biomatrix systems theory is an attempt to integrate and synergise the various concepts, models and approaches associated with GST into an internally consistent meta-systems theory with a coherent language. This integration was possible due to unique conceptual contributions by the Biomatrix Group, a multi-disciplinary research team that co-produced the theory in the context of a PhD programme at the University of Cape Town. The theory has been presented in scientific articles, as well as defended and applied in several PhD and Master Theses in different scientific disciplines. (http://www.biomatrixtheory.com).

Systems theory and its application in systems thinking provides concepts, frameworks and principles that guide the understanding of how systems are organised, function and change. It is also concerned with the emerging complexity and interrelatedness of the systems in nature (i.e. the naturosphere), psychological and societal systems (i.e. the psycho- sociosphere) and technological systems (i.e. technosphere).

While specific systems of nature, society and technology are researched by a range of scientific disciplines in great detail and with excellent results, there is a lack of knowledge about the emergence from the interaction of these systems. Since complex societal problems (e.g. poverty and climate change) are emergent problems from the interaction of systems studied and shaped by different scientific disciplines, their (dis)solving require a trans- disciplinary approach to (dis)solving them. Yet there is little trans-disciplinary exploration in theory or praxis.

The concept of sustainability, for example, would be the realm of a trans-disciplinary exploration, as it is associated with the interaction of social, technological and natural 43 systems. Yet there is no universal trans-disciplinary theory of sustainability that could guide the design of sustainable systems and their management. We believe that the Biomatrix Transformation Programmes can make a significant contribution to this.

Systems methodology

The approach and methodology of the Biomatrix Transformation Programmes are based on a problem (dis)solving methodology in the tradition of ideal system redesign. They incorporate the ideas of other systems thinkers of both the

• system dynamics approach (Forrester, 1969; Flood and Jackson, 1991; Keys, 1990; Meadows et al. 1974; Gomez & Probst, 1987; Roberts et al. 1983; Senge, 1990, 1999) and

• ideal design approach (Ackoff, 1974, 1999; Ackoff & Rovin, 2003; Banathy, 1994; Checkland, 1981; Churchman, 1971; Cross, 1984; Dostal et al. 2005, 2012; Flood and Jackson, 1991; Gharajedaghi, 1985, 1986, 2006; Nadler, 1981; Warfield, 1990).

They also include new contributions based on Biomatrix systems theory (Dostal et al. 2005, Dostal, 2012), including generic frameworks for problem analysis and design and organizing principles for an ideal design.

Key challenges of systemic change management

In facilitating the dissolving of complex societal problems and the redesign of current systems to ensure their sustainability, the following challenges of system behaviour need to be considered:

Systems change continuously

Systems impact on each other. The effect of making a change in one part of a system ripples through to other parts of the system and to the systems it interacts with. These effects are largely unpredictable, due to emergence. Likewise, systemic problems spread from one system to another, across levels and dimensions, as exemplified by the domino effect of the finance crisis or the impacts of climate change.

Moreover, these problems interact with and reinforce other problems (e.g. the finance crisis reinforces unemployment, poverty, declining public services, etc.)

Systems thinkers have described the nature of interacting systemic problems as being systems of interacting problems and given them different names, such as “mess” (Ackoff, 1974), “problematique” (Checkland, 1981; Ozbekhan, 1977), “wicked problems” (Churchman, 1976) and “complex problems” (Senge, 1990; Flood and Jackson, 1991), amongst others. We use these terms interchangeably.

Through their mutual impact on each other systems co-produce each other. They also co- produce unpredictable outcomes (i.e. emergence).

The interaction of systems leads to emergence

Emergence implies that characteristics emerge from the interaction of systems that are not present in those systems and therefore no single system can be held responsible for it. For example, climate change emerges from the interaction of humanity’s economic, cultural, political and technological systems. We cannot blame corporations if we keep investing in them, consuming their products, demanding lower prices, higher wages, tolerate non- transparent governance systems, support a growth philosophy and follow the logic of the legal system that seeks a guilty party, to mention a few of the “conspiring” systems.

Systemic problems can even emerge from systems that in themselves seem to be functioning well, or from solutions in other areas. For example, the more successful the education system is in reducing school drop-outs, the greater will be the problem of youth unemployment.

The Biomatrix Transformation Programmes dissolve emergent problems by facilitating the redesign of the interacting systems so that instead of co-producing the problem they begin to co-produce more desired shared outcomes. In the course of creating the more desirable outcomes, the problems dissolve. For example, as partners co-produce a more happy marriage, the unhappy one dissolves. Or, as organisations co-produce a sustainable energy supply chain, the problems associated with unsustainable energy production and use dissolve.

The logic of the problem is not the logic of the solution

Knowing the causes of a complex problem but not its solution is typical for systemic problems. Albert Einstein observed: We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them. Yet this is typically what we do.

We tend to react to problems with the logic of current thinking. The probably worst example of current logic problem solving was rescuing the finance system by throwing trillions at it without addressing its underlying problems or even making a serious and sustained effort at redesigning the problem producing system.

Such strategies exacerbate the problem and keep recreating it. For example, banks which did not trade in derivatives before 2008 have added them since to their services, thereby increasing the problem in future.

We keep “doing more of the same” even if we know that it will not deliver the desired results, merely because we do not know what else to do. For example, the above mentioned comment that with current strategic thinking poverty is unsolvable implies that more of the same problem solving approaches will not yield better outcomes. Yet, we keep advocating them, such as promoting the trickling down effect of economic growth, or more of the same type of education which results in youth unemployment and growing numbers of educated unemployed. 45

Moreover, as the environment changes, strategies that worked in the past will not produce the same outcomes and even create new problems, as exemplified by the concerns with an outdated education system, including management education, which is an outflow of the functional separation of the industrial age.

The brainstorming methods used in the Biomatrix Transformation Programmes facilitate a shift to a new solutions orientated logic.

Distinction between problem solving and dissolving

The distinction between problem solving and dissolving is related to that of a problem and solutions logic.

• Problem solving restores a system to its original functioning as determined by its design (e.g. repairing a malfunctioning car) or evolved functioning (e.g. inserting a heart pace maker). The method of problem solving starts with problem analysis to find the cause of the problem (typically involving root cause analysis) in order to identify the solution and implement it.

The problem solving approach works well with systems that malfunction and need to be restored to their previous functioning. Even well designed social systems that experience a temporary problem (e.g. because a member is making mistakes) can benefit from problem solving.

The logic of the design of the system dictates the solving of the problem. The logic of the problem therefore IS the logic of the solution.

• Problem dissolving changes the functioning of the interacting systems so that they co- produce new outcomes that do not reproduce the problem. For example, by creating peace, conflict dissolves, or by creating health the disease dissolves. The method involves creating an ideal design of the interacting systems and designing and implementing the strategies that allow the systems to co-produce the outcomes intended by the design. The functioning based on the problem logic is replaced with a functioning derived from a new solutions producing logic.

The problem dissolving approach is required in the context of complex systemic problems. It demands that systems function on the basis of a new logic. To arrive at such a logic requires creativity.

In praxis, systemic problems require a combination of the two approaches. For example, finding a vaccine for HIV / AIDS would imply solving the problem of that epidemic. However, the implementation of a worldwide vaccination drive requires problem dissolving in many related areas. Likewise, technological developments in electricity generation can provide solutions to many problems. However, implementing them within the current system will require system redesign and according changes in behaviour by the relevant stakeholders.

Multiple stakeholders

Interacting systemic problems are always co-produced by different stakeholders and require their cooperation in (dis)solving them. This includes stakeholders from different dimensions (e.g. cultural, economic, political, ecological and technological) and levels (e.g. societal, organisational, individual, as well as levels associated with natural systems like the planetary, physiological, cellular, atomic, etc.)

Decision-makers associated with the different dimensions and levels of systemic problems need to cooperate in order to co-produce their dissolving.

Unfortunately the current atomistic paradigm (e.g. the separation of science into independent disciplines, the autonomy of self-governing organizations, nation states and other social systems, as well as the emphasis on self-interest in economic thinking, reinforced by MBA education) leads to an ignoring and abdication of responsibility for impacts by the individual system on the collective. While systems are interdependent in reality, their governance is disjointed. Their self-governance is not coordinated. Thus any cooperation between the stakeholders is largely voluntary, at least until we evolve different governance paradigms. This is the challenge faced by leaders at all levels. Even if leaders would know how to solve societal problems (i.e. because they have facilitated a systemic redesign of the system), they still face obstacles in implementation, if a stakeholder is not willing to cooperate because their self-interest is affected (even if it is only reduced or temporarily affected).

Especially in a global problem (dis)solving context, our political (i.e. collective change management) processes become increasingly ineffective and leaders are powerless. For example, the recent Rio+20 conference had its outcomes determined before it started - a sad illustration of our global impotence. As globalization proceeds, even large nation states and regional alliances of states become impotent against powerful transnational economic and political lobbies which pursue their self-interest at the expense of the other stakeholders.

This state of affairs demands new thinking in management / leadership theory and praxis. It requires a guiding theory capable of imposing a trans-disciplinary order on the management of change. However, even with a guiding theory leaders face a huge change management challenge in facilitating a system redesign and its implementation. The redesign of problem producing systems is urgently needed. Before we know how such systems could function differently, we cannot know what changes to initiate. Fortunately, stakeholder representatives can voluntarily participate in redesign exercises to create new possibilities for humanity. This can involve online applications, as for example the BiomatrixJam which is a systemically structured online design application (this methodology is explained in more detail on www.biomatrixweb.com).

Methodology of the Biomatrix Programmes

Overview

The change management approach used in the Biomatrix Organisation and Societal Transformation Programmes is based on the generic organising frameworks and systemic organising principles of Biomatrix systems theory and involves the following steps:

Step 1: Identifying and analyzing complex problems within a system Unlike the problem solving logic that identifies root causes, the systemic problem logic is one that is an emergence from the interaction of multiple causes. The co-factors need to be identified and the logic of their interaction explored (e.g. in a systems dynamics model).

Step 2: Collecting existing and brainstorming new solutions Since systemic problems have no pre-determined solutions, new ideas have to be generated. This requires systemic brainstorming techniques.

Step 3: Creating a redesign of the system The collection of diverse and even “way out” ideas that is produced by brainstorming needs to be reviewed and integrated into a coherent design. This is facilitated by a generic design framework and generic principles of systemic organization that need to be incorporated into the design.

Step 4: Making an implementation plan While problem solving is associated with established functioning, problem dissolving requires the establishment of new behaviour, as well as different resource use. This needs to be carefully planned in a step by step manner.

Step 5: Making a change management design (i.e. how to engage stakeholders in all steps) Systemic change management refers to how the above steps are planned and facilitated. Thus change management is a parallel process to the sequential steps outlined above. Because systemic problems do not have pre-determined solutions, the change management approach needs to elicit the creativity of the participating stakeholders and needs to ensure their synergistic integration in an internally consistent and containing ideal design, as well as its implementation.

Step 6: Implementing the design In problem solving, the implementation is easier, because the system is familiar with the required behaviour. In a redesign situation new behaviour needs to be learned. This requires support, reinforcement and careful monitoring of outcomes, including more changes in behaviour if necessary.

The Biomatrix Organisation and Societal Transformation Programmes guide participants in making drafts for steps 1-5 by providing them with the theoretical knowledge and the application templates, as well as facilitating their application. 48

Once the delegates have made the draft designs and plans, they iterate through the steps again with the relevant stakeholders of the system in order to refine and amend the designs and plans and manage stakeholder alignment.

Once the designs have been accepted, they facilitate the more detailed implementation planning, as well as the implementation of the plans.

The programme participants have become certified Systemic Organisation or Societal Change Managers.

Discussion of each step

This section explains each step of the methodology in more detail.

Step 1: Problem analysis The purpose of problem analysis is to identify problems within a system and explore their magnitude and nature. It is also useful to explore the dynamics of the system to show how the problems arise, spread throughout the system and affect its various parts.

Methods of problem analysis

The methods employed during problem analysis include the following:

Identifying problems and problem co-factors Stakeholders identify problems they experience with regard to the societal issue under investigation, as well as the co-factors of the problems. The latter refer to the causes of each problem.

Exploring the dynamics of the system The mutual interactions between the problems and problem co-factors can be explored through a systems dynamics model.

A systems dynamics model shows the logic of current systems behaviour. In the case of nature’s systems which have evolved relatively fixed functioning, this can reveal solutions to the problem. In the case of psycho-social systems, the current logic will not reveal the solutions for the transformation of the system, in order to dissolve its problems. Nevertheless it can be useful to explore the systems dynamics to reveal to stakeholders the systemic nature of the problems and their role in co-creating them.

Biomatrix systems theory offers a generic method for exploring the dynamics of a system, called telentropy tracing. It is especially useful for fine-tuning and optimizing the performance of a system.

Forecasting current futures A current future describes what could happen if the current behaviour of the system persists. Depending on anticipated future environmental changes, alternative futures can be forecast. Often these are presented as alternative scenarios.

In problem riddled social systems the current futures are not desirable. They imply a further deterioration of the system in interaction with a changing environment.

Theoretical and methodological considerations Systemic problems arise from the interaction of many stakeholders associated with systems in the outer and inner environment, the system itself and its various parts. Thus they are multi-dimensional and span many levels (i.e. from the planetary, societal, organisational and individual to the cellular, molecular, atomic and sub-atomic levels).

By exploring the role of each stakeholder, a collective systemic truth can be approximated, which may well contain contradictions and shift according to context. For example, we need to understand the functioning of the current financial system or what brings about climate change from the perspective of stakeholders at all relevant levels and in all dimensions, both in overview as well as detail.

Change management considerations

Problem analysis serves more than one purpose, such as: • understanding of the complex nature and dynamics of the issue under investigation

• understanding of the magnitude of the change required and the areas that need changing

• change in the worldview of the participating stakeholders (i.e. to replace one- dimensional thinking and oversimplified and “naive” solutions thinking with the understanding that a fundamentally new approach is required)

• emotional satisfaction to stakeholders about their problems being heard and considered (e.g. those that are ignored by the stakeholders with more power), or relieved of a burden of guilt and blame (e.g. “perpetrators” that are believed to cause the problem)

• identification of the root cause (in the case of a system characterised by fixed functioning)

• use of problems as input to brainstorming solutions.

Depending on the nature of the analysis, the facilitator incorporates all or only some of the above considerations.

It is also our experience that in problem dissolving situations, the discussion of the problem(s) keeps stakeholders stuck in the problem logic and reinforces it. It will not lead to a new, problem transcending logic and is therefore counter-productive. We therefore prefer that individuals identify the problems and co-factors in written form and without discussion. All problems are clustered on the wall (or in a design notebook) and become the collective responsibility of all stakeholders to solve. By analogy: if one part of the body is sick, the whole body is sick and needs to deploy its resources towards healing.

(Exceptions to this rule are problems associated with trauma, which need discussion for emotional reasons, even if not for rational ones).

In the context of large scale societal problems, we suggest to use online surveys (e.g. the BiomatrixJam) to allow many diverse stakeholders to contribute their problems and problem co-factors. This method also allows the zooming in to great detail and zooming out to broad overviews. Thus collective wisdom about the systemic nature of problems gets deepened.

Step 2: Brainstorming solutions

The purpose of brainstorming is to identify existing solutions and brainstorm new ones, as well as stimulating creativity amongst participating stakeholders.

Brainstorming methods There are many brainstorming methods available. We like to group them into success-based, problem-based and a-rational brainstorming methods.

Identifying existing solutions Whatever the issue, there is typically an abundance of researched and intuited, tested and untested solutions for different parts of the problem that exist amongst stakeholders. These need to be collected, contextualized and explored in a brainstorming manner. Even if they have been rejected in the past for a variety of reasons, in the context of a larger whole they can become a valuable part solution or spark new ideas.

Success-based brainstorming Success-based brainstorming input can be derived from an exploration of the past successes of the system and its current strengths, as well as best practice and role models.

The aim is to enhance and amplify successful strategies and performance and to reproduce it (e.g. in the system itself, its various parts, as well as in other systems). The output of this type of brainstorming is usually not derived from a new systems logic.

Problem-based brainstorming Problems are very useful for kick-starting creativity. The more problems a system has, the more opportunities there are for inducing change. Only perfect systems cannot be changed, besides being boring.

A useful method for inspiring a higher order systems logic is the frogs / prince method. It proceeds by transforming problems (i.e. frogs) into their ideals (i.e. princes) and designing strategies to achieve the ideal.

We refer to this as the frogs / prince method, based on the metaphors of the “boiling frog” as an illustration for a deteriorating problem and the prince which is liberated from the frog by the kiss of the princess (i.e. the intuition) according to the famous fairy tale “The Frog Prince”.

A-rational brainstorming

This refers to brainstorming methods like drawing, sculpting, mood boards, song-writing, dancing, story-telling, using images, symbols, analogies and metaphors, amongst others. These methods tap into the creativity of the subconscious mind and its pattern recognition ability. They can yield amazing results, besides being fun.

Theoretical and methodological considerations

If a social system (e.g. a marriage, education, finance or energy supply system) is problem riddled, it can choose to transform itself. Since there is no “law of nature” determining how social systems should function, they have a wide choice on how the transformed system could and should look like. In all cases, however, it implies that the system needs to change its thinking and behaviour fundamentally. It needs to operate according to a new logic. While the analysis of a problem riddled system reveals the current problem logic of the system, brainstorming needs to create a problem transcending solutions logic.

Change management considerations

Most facilitators are familiar with brainstorming techniques and know how to facilitate them. To make brainstorming systemic requires the • inclusion of systemic brainstorming techniques (e.g. the frogs / prince method) • use of a systemic framework (e.g. as derived from Biomatrix systems theory) in order to ensure that brainstorming is comprehensive (i.e. covers all parts of a system, all categories of the systemic framework and all stakeholders) • clustering, categorising and integrating of the brainstorming output according to the systemic framework.

The online BiomatrixJam can also be used for brainstorming.

Since systemic problems have many sub-problems, the brainstorming output can be considerable. It is therefore important to cluster the output according to a design framework, in order to allow stakeholders to view the brainstorming output associated with different parts of the system and according to different systemic categories. One can zoom in and out to view the ideas pertaining to different parts (i.e. levels) and categories. Iterating between categories and levels typically contributes to the emergence of a higher order solutions logic.

Step 3: Ideal system (re)design

The purpose of creating a new design for a system is to show how the system could function differently. Before we cannot imagine something, we cannot create it.

The purpose of creating an ideal design of the system is that ideals are timeless and can be reinterpreted according to different contexts and therefore can guide the development of the system throughout its lifespan. For example the AUDI ideal of “Leaping ahead through technology” implies that AUDI can stay ahead of its competitors forever, provided it understands how technology changes and how it can harness this.

Design method

To make a systemic design requires knowledge of how systems are organized and how they function, based on a comprehensive systems theory.

The design team needs both function specific expertise (e.g. financial knowledge for redesigning the finance system) and generic knowledge about how systems can be changed (e.g. how any industry can be transformed). The latter involves systemic frameworks, generic organizing principles and systemic principles of change management, which guide the selection, interpretation and integration of the function specific brainstorming output into an ideal design of the system.

Theoretical and methodological consideration

Sub-designs

To dissolve a systemic societal problem (e.g. poverty, problems with education or energy supply) requires participation of relevant stakeholders from different levels (e.g. societal, organisational and individual) and dimensions (e.g. economic, political. cultural, technological, ecological) in the redesign of the shared system.

For example, Germany’s renewable energy vision (i.e. to move from non-renewable to renewable energy use) involves all stakeholders along the electricity supply chain, from suppliers to electricity generators, the generators of electricity (both renewable and non- renewable ones), organizations associated with the storage and transmission of electricity, the various consumer groups, as well as various governing bodies.

The ideal design must inspire stakeholders to design strategies that will co-produce the intended outcomes of the design. These become sub-designs for the overarching design. Thus the overarching design automatically coordinates the strategies of autonomous stakeholders. Since these strategies are typically associated with different stakeholders, each stakeholder will need to make a design around the strategy.

In the context of making a renewable energy vision succeed, one of the required strategies would be to use energy generated from non-renewable resources like coal, as back-up for when renewable energy (from sun and wind) is not available. For the coal industry this would 53 imply the redesign of its business model from being a continuous electricity generator to becoming a complementary one that increases and decreases generation according to demand. Amongst others, this requires a change in the generating technology they use.

Thus to transform a societal issue (e.g. electricity generation in a country or region) according to an overall design (e.g. renewable energy generation) requires coordinated change within and between the co-producing stakeholder systems. This typically involves a strategic reorientation of these systems. This could involve multiple changes such as use of new technologies, reorientation of strategic aims and even embracing new business models, as exemplified by the changing role of coal-fired electricity generation.

Iteration

Systems design is not a linear process. It requires iterations between the various sub-designs as well as between the overarching design and its sub-designs.

This allows stakeholders to explore and reconsider their options in relation to the overarching design and the impacts they have on each other and the containing whole. For example, the speed at which the coal industry can transform itself (given the legacy technologies that are still in place) could have an effect on the strategies of other stakeholders as well as the country and region as a whole. It will also affect the overall implementation plan for the country’s transition to renewable energy use.

Balancing self and collective interests

A systemic ideal design (e.g. of an industry supply chain, or a regional development) should deliver win / win outcomes for all stakeholders. This evolves through iteration between considerations inspired by self-interest and consideration of the shared interests of the containing whole.

The current systemic problems are largely an emergence from the “bottom up” uncoordinated strategies and decisions of autonomous decision-makers (e.g. independent organizations working for maximizing their growth and return on investment) and inadequate “top down” governance (e.g. lack of systemic regulation).

The “bottom up” causality is reinforced by the current atomistic worldview which still believes that the sum-total of self-interest adds up to the common good and ignores the fact that they co-produce unsustainable societal development.

This paradigm is also responsible for the “top-down” co-production of systemic problems, due to inappropriate governance. Appropriate governance would arise from an understanding of systems thinking, including the need for ideal designs for the collective wholes (e.g. like an industry supply chain) and an understanding of systemic governance principles (e.g. that there are different types of governance which need to be balanced).

Note: By “top down” we do not refer to decision-making by an authoritarian regime, as demonstrated by the demise of the centralized economies of former communistic regimes, and which would not work in a complex world. Instead, systems thinking advocates 54 coordinated self-governance for the benefit of the whole, as well as its interacting parts, as demonstrated by the systems of nature. This coordination is derived from generic organizing principles (analogous to the laws of nature). They align, contextualize and limit the autonomy of the individual decision-makers from the perspective of a larger whole of which they are part and which they co-design and co-produce.

An inspiring design provides each stakeholder with a long-term strategic direction for its self- governance. It also acts as an incentive for bridging over short-term disadvantages until longer-term benefits are reaped.

Sustainability

Most societal issues are an interface between social (i.e. psychological, cultural, economic and political) systems, technological systems and systems of nature (i.e. ecological, physiological, biological and physical).

To be sustainable, the design needs to accommodate the laws of nature and limits imposed by the carrying capacity of natural systems. For example, in redesigning the energy supply chain, environmental considerations are a major factor in choosing between different technologies. The sovereignty and integrity of nature must be respected. If they are not, the long-term survival of humanity and other life forms are threatened.

Within the limits imposed by natural systems, the social systems are free to determine their own form and functioning. They can change and transform. For example, the competitive economic ethos, behaviour of financial markets, or the representative democracy model are created by humans, not by inevitable laws and can be redesigned.

Change management considerations

Design team

The design of a system (using the brainstorming output, a systemic framework and systemic principles) is best done in a small design team. Large groups paralyze a design process and tend to yield the lowest common denominator output.

It is also important to note that the design team - or at the very least its facilitator - should have knowledge of systems theory and how to apply it. Some team members should also have patterned thinking skills (i.e. not every personality type is good at making a design), as well as function / issue specific knowledge.

The most important consideration of a design is that it is formulated as a high level ideal. The loftier the ideal is, the more innovative the strategies will be. By comparison, mediocre aims give rise to mediocre systems. Thus visionary leaders need to be involved in shaping the content of the design.

The art of design also involves balancing the benefits of the whole and parts in the long-term and short-term and from multi-dimensional perspectives. This demands skills in managing paradox.

Depending on the size of the issue, there could also be sub-designs, involving sub-design teams. These need to be coordinated (e.g. a representative of each sub-team is also a member of the overarching design team).

Brainstorming input

The design team uses the brainstormed information (as clustered in the relevant design notebook) and reflects it against the generic systemic frameworks and organising principles.

However, not all brainstormed solutions will necessarily be incorporated into the design. Each idea needs to be evaluated within the larger whole of the design. For example, the evaluation of a solution from an economic perspective could reveal that it is economical at the level of the organization, but not at the level of society, or vice versa. Or benefits in the short-term may become uneconomical in the long-term and vice versa. Or a solution would be viable if supported by changes in other systems (e.g. political or legal changes, or changes in values or consumption patterns).

Design iterations

The design made by a design team is merely a draft design. Stakeholders need to review it and give their input. This involves a series of design iterations (see also the later section on change management).

In facilitating design iterations, the design team must stay open to new input from stakeholders and willing to change the draft design accordingly. At the same time they need to ensure that the design remains coherent and systemic and they need to inspire stakeholders accordingly. (The redesign of Paris, described in the following section on Systemic Change Management, serves as an inspiration for the design iterations.)

The design is accepted as final when sufficient alignment amongst stakeholders is reached and the design is approved by the relevant authority (e.g. a government department or industry body).

Step 4: Implementation planning

The purpose of implementation planning is to demonstrate that the design can be implemented with current abilities and resource availability.

Method of implementation planning

Implementation planning follows a project management approach and its principles.

It determines the strategies and (sub-)strategies needed for implementing the design and who is responsible for each. It describes the intended outcomes for each (sub-)strategy and plots the goalposts along the way under consideration of the sequencing and timeframes associated with each (sub-)strategy. It also estimates the resources required for each (sub)strategy and considers their availability.

Theoretical and methodological considerations

Ideal design versus implementation plan Without an implementation plan, a design is merely a daydream. Put differently: the design shows that the system could function in a different way and produce more desirable outcomes, while the implementation plan demonstrates its feasibility, namely that it can be manifested in the current physical reality. Failing to plan the implementation will not only result in a failure of the design, but could also make current problems worse. The South African education and health care systems are sad examples of having been seriously damaged through failing to carefully plan the implementation of the Outcomes-Based Education and Primary Health Care designs.

Cascading The principle of cascading in space (from the containing whole to its parts) and time (from the time-less ideal to long and medium-term strategic plan and short-term operational plan) apply. It ensures that strategies are coherent.

Feasibility During implementation planning the feasibility of the design in terms of available resources is assessed. Once the implementation has been thought through in planning, it can be implemented.

Iteration If resources are insufficient for implementing the design, different strategies need to be considered. It is also possible that there is a need for changing the design. Thus there could be iteration between the design and implementation planning steps.

There could also be iterations between the broad implementation plan of the overarching design that in-forms all stakeholders and their sub-designs and according implementation plans. Thereby the overarching and more specific designs and implementation plans will mutually in-form each other.

Change management considerations The broad collective implementation planning is done by a task team with according expertise. They represent the various stakeholder systems. The participation of the design team ensures continuity and coherence between the (sub-)design(s) and the respective implementation plan(s).

Since a design is implemented by the sum total of actions by the co-producing stakeholders, implementation planning also occurs within each stakeholder system. This involves cascading the aims from the design and the collective implementation plan into system specific ones. 57

Participation by a member from the collective implementation planning team ensures coherence and continuity.

In praxis, there are overlaps between the design and implementation phases which mutually in-form each other, involving increasingly detailed planning.

Step 5: Change management design

The purpose of the change management design is to determine how all steps of the intervention – from problem analysis to design implementation should ideally be facilitated.

Methodology

The generic change management approach of the systemic in-formation leader is using problem analysis, brainstorming, ideal design and implementation planning not only in order to design and plan the change of the system, but also as tools for

• changing the mindsets of stakeholders to become more systemic

• aligning them around a shared design of the containing whole and

• committing them to the implementation of their share of strategies to co-produce the desired outcomes inspired by the ideal design.

Dwight D Eisenhower, commander of the Allied Forces in World War II and later president of the US, proclaimed a similar approach through his famous statement: Plans are nothing. Planning is everything.

The power of stakeholder co-design and planning as a methodology of change management was demonstrated most powerfully in the redesign of Paris which was facilitated by Ozbekhan (1977). It started with an initial ideal design of Paris made by a small design team, who interacted with widening circles of stakeholders in order to amend and flesh out the design. After two years of iterations, the design was unanimously accepted and determined the development of Paris during the following decades.

Theoretical and methodological considerations

Unless stakeholders have bought into a shared vision and are committed to bring it about, the desired change will not happen.

Participation in design and planning generates this. The biggest learning from the redesign of Paris was its demonstration of the power of a collective creativity that is unleashed by a participatory process. In hindsight, it was the process of engaging stakeholders in a participatory process of interacting with the design, rather than the specific content of the original design, that contributed to its success. This change intervention has inspired the systems thinking community ever since and set a powerful benchmark. 58

As (parts of) systems participate in the formulation of a shared ideal design, they bring their unique information to bear on it, making it more holistic. Participation also implies interacting with the ideas of the design, becoming familiar with it and owning it (i.e. the design becomes part of the guiding ethos of each stakeholder).

By participating in implementation planning, the design acts as a force of inspiration for making according changes in the own system to help bring about the collective design. This type of planning entrenches practical application.

As circumstances change and new threats and opportunities arise in the changing business environment, strategic changes in some or all stakeholder systems will be required. The overarching design, being ideal and therefore continuously relevant, will ensure that the changes made by different systems in response to their changing environment and inspired by the overarching ideal will maintain coherence with those made by the other systems. For example, the overarching vision of renewable energy generation will inspire the organizations along the electricity supply chain to choose from various technological options to comply with this vision.

Change management considerations

The Paris redesign used a variety of ways of stakeholder participation, ranging from workshops, written submissions, surveys and Delphi studies, to discussion in the public media. These are relevant approaches and widely used in public policy facilitation, as well as in organisational change interventions.

However, since the redesign of Paris, the worldwide web has changed all aspects of life, including public planning. Thus additional approaches are advocated, such as the BiomatrixJam and the Biomatrix Outcomes Based Conferencing approach. Both apply systemic frameworks and organising principles derived from Biomatrix systems theory to engage large numbers of participants in systemic problem analysis, brainstorming and ideal design around function specific issues in the public domain in such a way that integrated and synergistic outputs are created.

The BiomatrixJam produces brainstorming output by stakeholders, which can be processed by the conference delegates during a Biomatrix Outcomes Based Conference. Instead of listening to experts, the delegates discuss the brainstorming output and reflect – together with functional experts and experts of systemic change management – about incorporating those ideas into a redesign of the system under investigation (e.g. an industry supply chain or organisation). The conference publications appear as an outcome of the conference. They can be amended through more design iterations, both online and in stakeholder workshops.

By comparison, the current conference model lacks coordination, let alone systemic integration and practical application to a larger whole. For example, where is the categorised and in overview summarised output of the apparently 6000 papers presented at one of the largest HIV congresses held in Durban, South Africa, several years ago? How can such amount

59 of information be meaningfully presented – in overview - to stakeholders and their members for collective understanding, or as coordinated input to collective decision-making?

Also, most conference papers contain a mixture of both problems and solutions. By separating and then coordinating and integrating them within a larger context demonstrates the dynamics of the current system and its underlying problem logic on the one hand and the emergence of a higher-order systemic solutions logic on the other.

Instead, the conventional conferencing approach yields a conglomerate of isolated solutions to isolated (i.e. separated from a larger context) aspects of larger systemic problems, argued in highly specialized conference papers or working groups (the latter often “behind the scenes”). Thereby the current problem producing logic is maintained in both analysis as well as reactive and isolated solutions design.

To integrate and clearly present large volumes of information (to make it in-formation that changes the reality of current systems) would have been a daunting task in the industrial age (that is why representative decision-making in a majority based democracy model became so important). With the data processing capabilities and the development of the www of the information age, new ways of problem solving and decision-making present themselves, provided they are coupled to systemic frameworks that guide the processing of the output.

By applying systemic frameworks and principles to both problem analysis and solutions design, the Biomatrix Transformation Programmes facilitate a higher order sense making. The stream of puzzle pieces can be integrated into a clearly distinguishable picture (i.e. the kind of pictures that form the basis of visionary leadership).

Besides allowing direct participation of large number of stakeholder representatives in online applications (like the BiomatrixJam), the systemic design allows zooming out to summarize overviews within the framework categories, as well as zooming in to increasing detail. Thereby each idea is contextualised by and becomes part of a larger whole.

While the jam organizes complexity, the face to face interaction during the design sessions of the conference synergize the jam data and facilitate the emergence of designs based on a new, problem transcending logic.

We like to believe that the BiomatrixJam and the Biomatrix Conferencing are useful contributions to the emergence of a function specific participatory stakeholder governance.

Step 6: Implementation

The purpose of implementing the design is to dissolve the problems of the current system, create benefits for all stakeholders (i.e. win / win) and to ensure the sustainable development of the system.

Method of implementation

Implementation occurs according to the implementation plan. Each stakeholder is responsible for implementing its planned strategies. An overarching monitoring and evaluation body monitors progress and – if necessary – initiates a design and / or implementation planning iteration for a sub-system.

Theoretical and methodological considerations

The creation of ideal designs in the public domain (e.g. public policy designs), their implementation and the continued performance of these systems are the function of public government.

From a systemic perspective, the current nation state and majority based representative model of democracy is insufficient to deal with the challenges of global systemic problems and problem-riddled legacy systems, such as education, finance, transport, energy and governance systems.

The current governance model is numbers-based, representative democracy within national boundaries. From the perspective of systems theory this is an entity system governance model. The main function of entity system governance is balancing its different functions and prioritizing between them. It is not sufficient for functional governance, such as the governance of industries and public goods and services delivery.

Functional governance requires stakeholder involvement and the recognition of the equality of each function for the optimal working of the larger whole. It requires stakeholder democracy.

The challenge of such a governance model includes the following:

• activity systems form supply chains that cross national boundaries (e.g. no nation can by itself manage the dissolving of the finance crisis or pollution and resource depletion of the planet, or control its electricity generating systems).

• each stakeholder is equally important to the functioning of the whole, irrespective of size (be it number of persons or amount of any other resource). For example, the stakeholders of a school are the pupils, parents, teachers, school principal, administrators and department of education, amongst others. Each stakeholder has a different function. The success of the education system depends on the fulfilment of each function.

Representative and stakeholder democracy would need to complement each other, analogous to the organizational and functional governance perspectives within an organization.

Change management considerations

The desired outcomes of the overarching design cannot be attained unless each stakeholder implements its share of strategy.

Since most of the co-producing stakeholders are relatively independent decision-makers, this requires commitment by each stakeholder. Their commitment can be reinforced by

• Visionary leadership: Leaders within each stakeholder organisation need to uphold the vision of the stakeholder design and its contribution to the overarching design of the containing whole.

• Regulation: If the overarching design is systemic, it will incorporate appropriate regulation. Adherence needs to be monitored and sanctioned.

• Public / private sector partnership: The establishment of such a partnership is typical in the context of societal issues in the public domain. Its role is to monitor outcomes, provide strategic support, make strategic changes (if necessary) and motivate stakeholders, amongst others.

Conclusion

The Biomatrix Programmes impose a systemic order in terms of frameworks of problem analysis and system design, organising principles that need to be adhered to in the system redesign and change management procedures based on systemic insights of how systems change. There is top down order imposed on the process.

By comparison, most change interventions follow a bottom up procedure, allowing the participating stakeholders to determine the change process. As this is based on current thinking and the existing logic of behaviour, it recreates current behaviour and is in itself a major co-producer of systemic problems.

List of references

Ackoff, RL 1974. Redesigning the future. New York: Wiley. Ackoff, RL (1999). Re-Creating the Corporation: A Design of Organizations for the 21st Century. New York: Oxford University Press. Ackoff, RL and Rovin, S (2003). Redesigning Society. Stanford: Stanford Business Books. Banathy, BH 1994. Designing social systems in a changing world: A graduate level text in systems design. 25781 Morse Drive, Carmel, CA: Bela H. Banathy. (Field test version, June 1994.) 62

Bohm, D. 1980. Wholeness and the implicate order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Capra, F. 1982. The turning point: Science, society, and the rising culture. London: Wildwood House. Capra, F. (1996). The web of life. A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Anchor Books. Checkland, P. 1981. Systems thinking, systems practice. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Churchman, WC 1976. Wicked problems. Management Science. Vol.14, (4). Cross, N. 1984. Development in design methodology. New York: John Whiley. Dostal, E. in collaboration with Cloete, A and Járos, G. (2005). Biomatrix. A Systems Approach to Organisational and Societal Change. Cape Town, South Africa: BiomatrixWeb. Dostal, E. in collaboration with Cloete, A and Járos, G. (2012). Biomatrix. A Theory in Graphics. Cape Town, South Africa: BiomatrixWeb. Flood, RL and Jackson, MC 1991. Creative problem solving: Total systems intervention. Chichester: John Wiley. Forrester, JW 1969. Principles of systems. Cambridge Mass: Wright-Allen Press. Gharajedaghi, J. 1985. Towards a systems theory of organisation. California: Intersystems. Gharajedaghi, J. 1986. Prologue to national development planning. New York: Greenwood Press. Gharajedaghi, J. 2006. Systems Thinking. Managing Chaos and Complexity: A Platform for Designing Business Architecture. Amsterdam: Elsevier Gomez, P and Probst, JB 1987. Vernetztes Denken im Management. Die Orientierung. No 89. Bern: Schweizerische Volksbank. http://www.wikipedia.net http://www.biomatrixtheory.com http://www.biomatrixweb.com Laszlo, E. 2007. Science and the Akashik Field: An integrated theory of everything. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions. Meadows, DH. et al. 1974. The limits to growth. New York: Universe Books (2nd. Edition) Meadows, DH. et al. 2004. Limits to growth: the 30 year update. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company. Beyond the limits. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Nadler, G. 1981 The planning and design approach. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Ozbekhan, H. 1977. The future of Paris: A systems study in strategic urban planning. Philadelphia: The Wharton School of the University of Pensylvania. Roberts, N, Anderson, D. Deal, R, Garet, M and Shaffer, W. 1983. An introduction to computer simulation: A systems dynamics approach. Reading, Mass: Wesley. Senge, PM 1990. The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning organisation. New York: Doubleday. Senge, PM et al. 1999. The dance of change. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Warfield, J. 1990. A science of general design. Salinas, CA: Intersystems Publishers. Yaneer Bar-Yam (2005). Making Things Work: Solving Complex Problems in a Complex World. Cambridge, MA: Knowledge Press.

Systems Thinking World Journal

What is Systems Thinking? A Personal Perspective

Author: Barry Clemson. Volume 1. Issue 1. June 19, 2012.

Abstract: This paper answers the questions: What sort of critter is systems thinking? What might we expect it to do for us? It distinguishes between Systems Theory (science), Systemic Perspectives (methods) and Systems Thinking (worldview). It articulates the main criteria for assessing each of these three and considers the ethical implications of various worldviews. The terms “systems” and “systems thinking” include a vast conglomeration of concepts, principles, laws, and perspectives. These notions come from sources as varied as pure mathematics, biology, physics, computer science, and many others. Important contributions to systems thinking have come under disparate banners of e.g., systems theory, cybernetics, complex adaptive systems, and complexity science (and often with these various groups seemingly fairly ignorant of each other). The practical applications of systems thinking span the range of human interests. Given this wild variety of sources and even more astonishing range of applications, it is no surprise that we have difficulty agreeing on basic definitions, or on the scope of systems thinking, or even what sort of critter systems thinking is and what we might expect it to do for us. This paper takes aim at the latter questions: What sort of critter is systems thinking? What might we expect it to do for us? My answers are not going to end our disagreements, but understanding “what sort of critter is systems thinking?” may make our arguments more productive.

Theory, Perspective, & Thinking

Several distinctions seem useful (Bellinger, personal communication): • Systems Theory – the science of systems. • Systemic Perspectives – methods, the practical applications of systems methods and models in real-life situations. • Systems Thinking – the paradigm or world view.

I also use the term “systems” when I want to point at the general arena but want to be a little vague. I try to be rather precise when I use the terms systems theory, systemic perspectives, and Systems Thinking.

Systems Theory. Systems Theory consists of testable propositions, mathematical / logical theorems, and the associated definitions. The primary criteria for evaluating systems theory is its ‘truth”. I put “truth” in quotes because an important part of ST is the recognition that “truth” is at best a pretty slippery concept. Further, while systems theory is science, science is never able to prove anything. Experiments, at best, falsify hypotheses and thereby reveal errors in thinking. When we say that a hypothesis has been experimentally verified, what we really mean is that we failed to disprove the hypothesis. Nevertheless, the defining characteristic of Systems Theory is that it consists of statements we believe to be correct and which are capable of being falsified. Systems Theory is science.

Systemic Perspectives. Systemic Perspectives are methods, heuristics or recipes for doing something in the world. For instance, System Dynamics is a method for understanding system behaviour, especially those systems characterized by feedback loops. To take a second example, the Viable System Model (VSM) is a model of what is required for an organization to be effective in the short term and adaptable in the long term. The VSM includes a language and a set of graphical conventions for diagnosing organizational pathology or health and for designing organizations such that they will be viable. There are many different Systemic 64

Perspectives, each designed for specific purposes. For instance, Bellinger (2010), building on Michael Jackson’s framework for a System of Systems Methodologies, lists numerous Systemic Perspectives at http://bit.ly/g1uaAx.

The “truthfulness” (or not) of a Systemic Perspective is not a valid question. The primary criteria for evaluating a Systemic Perspective are its utility. Utility, of course, is a little slippery. For instance an eight-pound sledgehammer has great utility if I need to break up concrete. That same sledgehammer has zero (or perhaps negative!) utility for putting small nails into a dollhouse. Similarly, the utility of a given Systemic Perspective depends on my particular situation and what I am trying to do. We make general evaluative statements such as “System Dynamics is the best available tool for understanding complex systems dominated by feedback loops” and such a statement could be empirically tested but the evaluative statement is not part of the System Dynamics method.

Systemic Perspectives tell us what to pay attention to. For instance, Beer’s Viable System Model (1972, 1979) tells us to look for specific kinds of functions / information flows within the organization of interest. Ackoff’s Circular Organization (1994) tells us to focus on the superior- subordinate relationships and the peer relationships within an organization.

Some of the Systemic Perspective methods tell us not only what to pay attention to, but also suggest a specific sequence: do A, then do B, and so on.

Box (1987) aptly said, “All models are wrong, some models are useful”. Gregory Bateson (1972) put it this way “the map is not the territory”. I say, “all methods are wrong, some methods are useful”. Systemic Perspectives are useful when we remember that the map is not the territory and when we select a perspective that is appropriate for our particular purpose. Selecting a perspective that is inappropriate for our given situation simply blinds us to the critical aspects of that situation. A number of scholars (Beer, 1975; Malik, 2009) say that this is a fundamental problem with most of our business schools. These scholars argue that the business schools emphasize the technical and financial aspects of businesses to the near exclusion of the engineering and systemic aspects of the companies, thus blinding their graduates to the real problems of the contemporary corporation.

Systems Thinking. Systems Thinking (ST) is my third category but it is not logically on the same level as the other two categories (Systems Theory and Systemic Perspectives).

• Systems Thinking includes all of Systems Theory. The science is part of ST. • Systems Thinking includes all of Systemic Perspectives. The methodological heuristics are part of ST. • Systems Thinking includes all of Systems Theory and Systemic Perspectives and more.

This “more than” is the part of ST that is difficult to articulate, in part because it is still evolving and in part because it is very broad.

The diagram below is intended to show these relationships. Systems Thinking includes all of the other two and more. Systemic Perspectives build upon and include aspects of Systems Theory.

Figure 1. The relationships among Systems Thinking, Systems Theory and Systemic Perspectives.

The following is my personal attempt to articulate those aspects of ST not contained within Systems Theory or Systemic Perspectives:

• Everything is connected to everything else • Life evolves toward greater connectivity and complexity • The future is in principle unpredictable. Minute disturbances can cause large differences (the butterfly effect). • The universe is one (Zen). • Spirituality and science are one unity (Eastern religions) • Man and nature are inseparable • The pattern that connects (Bateson, 1972) • Our nervous systems compute our own reality (von Foerster, 1974, von Glaserfeld, 1990) within the constraints imposed by what we point to (but cannot truly know) as “external reality”. The opposite of objectivity is not subjectivity or solipsism but responsibility (von Foerster, 1974)

Others would probably make a considerably different list … but this is the best that I can do at this point in time. Those interested in other views of ST can find a plethora of sources by googling “systems thinking”. Closely related topics include cybernetics, complexity science, and complex adaptive systems.

So What Kind of Thing is ST?

Is Systems Thinking a paradigm? A paradigm, according to Thomas Kuhn (1962) consists of a scientific framework shared by a community of scientists. A paradigm provides model problems and a sense of what would count as solutions. The paradigm suggests what is to be observed, the kinds of questions to be asked, and how to interpret results of investigations. The ST paradigm is still being formed, still emerging, in that we are not yet able to get agreement among practitioners on any one articulation of ST. Thus, ST probably does not yet fully meet the criteria for a paradigm.

Is Systems Thinking a Worldview? A worldview is “a particular philosophy or conception of the world” (Apple dictionary, 2005). A worldview is the cognitive orientation of an individual or group and it includes the entirety of the group’s knowledge and beliefs, including values,

66 emotions, and ethical principles. A worldview is a network of assumptions and beliefs, not verified by science, but nevertheless the framework by which every aspect of knowledge and experience is interpreted and understood.

According to Apostel (2012), a worldview is an ontology, or a descriptive model of the world. A worldview has several different elements, including an explanation of the world and where it is headed, answers to ethical questions, a methodology or theory of action, and several other attributes. von Bertalanffy (1968, pg. vii) called ST a worldview. It seems to me that ST, in its current state of development, is somewhere between a worldview and a paradigm.

Evaluating Systems Thinking

I said earlier Systems Theory is science (criteria = truth) and Systemic Perspectives are methods / models / heuristics (criteria = utility). What then are the criteria for evaluating Systems Thinking? How does one evaluate or choose among paradigms or worldviews? Let us detour for a moment to briefly consider several of the worldviews that I believe ST is replacing.

Newtonian or clockwork universe. In this worldview the universe is a giant machine. Given precise data on initial conditions, future states are precisely predictable, at least in principle. This view is sometimes called the “billiard ball” universe, i.e., the parts have hard boundaries and for given initial velocities and positions, future states are predictable. In this view, man occupies a privileged position relative to nature which is here to be exploited by mankind.

Social Darwinism. Society is made up of individuals and groupings that compete with each other for power and wealth. While there is also a degree of cooperation within society, the primary dynamic is this ruthless competition. The best win and the inferior individuals and groups lose and, in the long run, this improves the society. This view holds that government services to support society’s “losers” harms society as a whole. Radical capitalism. This worldview is also called neo-liberalism and the Milton Friedman or Chicago School of economics. Ayn Rand’s books (1943, 1957) popularized this worldview. In this view, government regulations and social safety nets distort the workings of the free market. Unions are bad. Government functions should be severely restricted and almost everything should be privatized. Greed is good and, given that governments are sufficiently restricted, the pursuit of private wealth will lead to the greatest social good.

The American Cowboy. This worldview may be peculiar to the USA. We celebrate and revere the heroic individual, self-contained and independent. We no longer have many cowboys, but we have Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, the self-made entrepreneurs who through hard work and superior ability earn great wealth and power. Key to this worldview is the conviction that this sort of success is open to anyone sufficiently talented and hard working to deserve it and that wealth is generally a result of the talents and hard work of the wealthy person.

Evaluating Paradigms / Worldviews

Thomas Kuhn claims that paradigms are incommensurable. According to Kuhn, not even the science aspect of the paradigms can be rationally compared because the concepts are, in effect, orthogonal to each other.

Are there any criteria by which a paradigm / worldview such as Systems Thinking can be evaluated? The first thing we should notice is that few of us even attempt to make a conscious choice among paradigms or worldviews. For the vast majority of us, this is something that is learned through our unconscious interpretation of experience.

“Language has a subtle, yet powerful effect on the way we view the world. English, like most other Western languages, is linear — its basic sentence construction, noun-verb-noun, translates into a worldview of “x causes y.” (Balasubramaniam, 2012). Someone growing up in a concrete jungle and then working on an assembly line where the influence of language is reinforced by his experience is likely to feel that linear, reductionist thinking is natural and the only possible way to think.

Alternatively, if we grow up on a family farm or as a hunter-gatherer, our entire life experience as an intimate part of nature will predispose us toward systems thinking. With this sort of background, we are likely to feel Systems Thinking is natural and the only possible way to think.

The second thing we should notice about a worldview is that it is probably not internally consistent. When I am honest with myself, I realize that my own belief system is something of a mishmash of half-baked ideas from several of these worldviews and, even worse, there is a distinct lack of consistency in my ideas. If you, dear reader, make the effort to articulate what you believe, I strongly suspect you will discover the same thing about yourself.

The third and perhaps most distressing aspect of this whole business is that there are large gaps between our espoused beliefs and our behaviour. Argyris and Schon (1978) studied managers’ espoused beliefs, which, for American managers, almost universally included for example a high value on teamwork and creativity. When those same managers were observed, their normal behaviour was to ridicule new ideas and to undercut team behaviour at every point. Argyris found that our “thinking” and our behaviour diverged quite substantially. Argyris concluded that all of us have these gaps between our tacit knowledge (our behaviour) and our explicit knowledge (our thinking). It thus becomes difficult to even know what we mean by our “beliefs”.

Permit me a story to illustrate Argyris’ argument. I once worked for a software development company headed by a brilliant man whom I will call Harry. Now, Harry maintained (at least) two quite different views or frames for thinking about his company. One might be characterized as the “contracts / finances” view and the other was the “company as family”. Within the frame of “contracts / finances” Harry was ruthless. Anyone not covered by a contract, no matter how long and loyally he/she had been with the company, was likely to be fired and given a very stingy severance package. Alternatively, Harry truly liked to think of his company as a family. Within the “family” frame, Harry was quite generous.

I think Harry rarely if ever noticed that he switched back and forth between contradictory frameworks … and this made working for him something of an adventure. A decision made one day out of one frame was likely to be reversed when it was reconsidered from the standpoint of a different frame. Some of us realized that there was a method for getting the decisions we wanted from Harry: the method involved evoking a framework that implied the desired decision.

When I decided to leave the company, I used this method by beginning my resignation talk with Harry with reminiscing about company picnics and parties. I got Harry into the “family” frame and received a very generous severance package, even though I was leaving voluntarily.

What can we conclude from Harry’s story and the incoherent nature of our ‘beliefs”? First, that these beliefs do in fact influence our behaviour. Second, that the connection between “beliefs” and thinking is relatively consistent and therefore, e.g., policy-making should track pretty well with our “beliefs”. Third, the connection between “beliefs” and interpersonal behaviour is not at all consistent. Our interpersonal behaviour seems to be based on habits learned from

68 experience with parents, teachers, bosses and peers and is largely unconscious, i.e., we are largely unaware of our own behaviour patterns when we interact with others.

This section has argued that our worldview develops largely without self-conscious choice or even much reflection … and that it is likely internally inconsistent. As a scientist and a Systems Thinker, the idea that a worldview simply happened to me is rather unpalatable.

The constructivists (von Foerster 1974, von Glaserfeld 1990) argue that our “reality” is a result of our nervous system’s computation of a (relatively) stable framework for making sense out of our sensory perceptions of the world. In the constructivist understanding, our individual reality, while it is self-constructed, is not arbitrary or random. There is some “fit” in an evolutionary sense between our personal, self-constructed reality and the “actual” reality “out there”. Whatever that “actual” reality is, it puts limits on us. For example, large trucks and cliffs can kill us whether or not we “believe” in them.

Most of our computation of our personal reality is necessarily below the level of conscious awareness. Thus, most of the development of our worldview is also below the level of conscious awareness.

So, then, how do I personally assess my worldview? How do I decide if my worldview is good, bad or indifferent? Specifically, why do I claim to be a Systems Thinker?

My personal answer is that the worldview of Systems Thinking is aesthetically and emotionally satisfying.

At first blush, claiming that the criteria for evaluating ST are aesthetic / emotional seems a rather unpleasant conclusion: as a scientist, I would like to consider myself a rational being. However, Godel (1992) proved that all logical systems are incomplete, that they contain undecidable propositions. Further, a logical / rational framework does not contain criteria for selecting it as compared to some other logical / rational framework. The choice of a rational framework is therefore outside of the framework itself and is necessarily made on some basis other than the rational.

Johnson, speaking in the context of psychotherapy, (2012) says: “Science suggests that emotion is anything but primitive and unpredictable. It’s a complex, exquisitely efficient information-processing system, designed to organize behaviour rapidly in the interests of survival. It’s an internal signalling system, telling us about what matters in the flood of stimuli that bombard us and tuning us in to our own inner needs. Research with brain- damaged subjects shows that without emotion to guide us, we can’t make even the most elementary of decisions; we’re bereft of preferences and have nothing to move us toward one option rather than another.”

Johnson concludes “The idea that emotion isn’t the poor cousin to reason but a ‘higher order of intelligence’ has been around for decades, but now the evidence for this assertion is clear.”

An anecdote from Stafford Beer adds another bit of evidence. Stafford was with Heinz von Foerster and Ross Ashby at a dinner where Heinz was trying to recruit Stafford to come join him at the Biological Computing Laboratory. As the dinner went on, Ross became uncharacteristically morose. When Heinz tried to cheer him up, Ross complained that nobody ever tried to recruit him. Heinz was astonished and made him an offer on the spot. Ross got up, went to the phone, called his wife in England and told her to sell the house, they were moving to America. It was Stafford’s turn to be astonished and he asked Ross how he could make such a snap decision. Ross, an eminent psychiatrist and leading expert on cybernetics, replied that it was no good trying to analyse a decision of this complexity. One could either flip a coin or go with a gut feeling and he had a strong feeling about this. It may be significant that

Ross spent the rest of his professional career with Heinz at the Biological Computing Laboratory.

Mathematicians recognize the importance of the non-rational when they speak of beauty and simplicity as two of the three criteria for evaluating proofs (along with “truth”). The aesthetic and emotional are more fundamental than the rational.

This does not mean that there are not strong rational elements in the assessment of a worldview. As I said earlier, the criterion for Systems Theory is truth and the criterion for Systemic Perspectives is utility and both of these are aspects of Systems Thinking. But finally and at bottom we come down to aesthetics and emotions in assessing Systems Thinking. To sum up, we have three aspects or categories of Systems Thinking.

• Systems Theory, the science (criteria = truth) • Systemic Perspectives, methods and models, heuristics (criteria = utility) • Systems Thinking, worldview or paradigm which includes Systems Theory, Systemic Perspectives, and a set of still evolving beliefs and assumptions (criteria = aesthetics and emotion).

The Ethics of Systems Thinking?

Can we say anything useful about the ethics implied by Systems Thinking? Individuals often employ their worldview to support what they want, for good or ill (Bellinger, personal communication). Worse yet, terrorists frequently demonstrate Systems Thinking in the tactics they use (McConnell, personal communication).

Nevertheless, I believe that each worldview implies some ethical principles. For instance:

• The Newtonian “clockwork universe” that puts humanity outside of nature rather explicitly devalues all species other than our own. Since humankind is supposed to exploit the natural world, it is obvious (in this worldview) that we are more important, more valuable, than the rest of nature. • Social Darwinism makes competition into the greatest good. Evolution is seen as primarily about competition and survival of the fittest. Competition within society becomes the greatest good. • Radical capitalism makes greed into the greatest good. Further, by explicitly stating the corporation’s objective as that of maximizing shareholder profit, it also ensures that values such as worker or community well-being are not to be considered in decisions. • The cowboy rugged individualism worldview values the individual above the group.

Does Systems Thinking suggest a different set of ethical principles? Granted that this is a notoriously slippery arena, but I think we can usefully suggest a few things.

Our modern understanding of ecology (and ST) moves humanity from its privileged position outside of nature into being a part of nature and ultimately dependent upon the health of the biosphere. The environmental movement and the animal rights movement are both a result of this recognition.

We now see evolution as primarily a process, not of unbridled competition for “survival of the fittest”, but as a web of co-evolving species. Even the predator-prey relationship, from the perspective of the ecosystem, is a collaborative process of each species helping the other improve. Of course, this is small consolation to the antelope being eaten by the lion or to the aged lion that can no longer catch an antelope. Cooperation is seen as the greatest good (rather than competition).

ST maintains that we are all connected and that we exist in a complex web of relationships. The ethos of radical capitalism (greed is good) and that of the Cowboy-rugged-individualist both seem antithetical to the inter-connectedness that is central to ST. Notions such as the Golden Rule and Karma (what goes around comes around) seem much more in tune with ST.

The constructivist position certainly has ethical implications. If, as the constructivists believe, we largely create our own reality, then we are responsible for that reality. Von Foerster (1974) insisted that the opposite of objectivity is not relativity but responsibility. He concluded “On constructing a Reality” with these two (pg. 380):

• The Ethical Imperative: Act always so as to increase the number of choices. • The Aesthetical Imperative: If you desire to see, learn how to act.

Now, it is certainly true that an individual firmly rooted in any of these worldviews might also be passionately committed to, e.g., the Golden Rule. The argument about ethical implications is not that a given worldview determines our ethical framework. Rather, the worldview tends to nudge us toward certain ethical principles and away from others. The constructivists go further by arguing that we are personally responsible for our beliefs.

New Frontiers in ST?

Thirty years ago Allenna Leonard and I (1984) collected 22 “Laws, Principles, and Theorems” of cybernetics. Heylighen (1992) articulated 11 “Principles of Systems and Cybernetics” that he considered basic to the field. Are there additional “laws” we might be able to add? Where are they likely to come from?

Disclaimer: I have certainly not kept up with all the developments over the last two decades that may add to ST, so please remember that the following is my idiosyncratic list and other equally or more important developments may have escaped my notice. Further, the authors noted in this section are added merely as aides to the reader who may want to explore a given area rather than as formal citations.

My short list of important threads that are continuing to shape Systems Science / ST:

• Irreversible thermodynamics, dissipative structures, thermodynamics of systems far from equilibrium, Ilya Prigogine • Chaos theory, deterministic chaos, dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. • Fractals, fractal geometry, Benoit Mandelbroit, • Panarchy, continual adaptive cycles of growth, accumulation, restructuring, and renewal, the interplay between increasingly “adapted” and decreasingly resilient, C. S. Hollings. • Complexity science, Complex adaptive systems (Santa Fe Institute and Stephen Wolfram) Also genetic algorithms (John Henry Holland). Complexity science and Complex Adaptive Systems have become new buzzwords, partially replacing ST and cybernetics. It seems to me that while these scientists have extended the insights of ST and cybernetics, they also seem unaware that they are building on the earlier work of ST and cybernetics. • Biology of cognition and constructivism (Francisco Varela, Humberto Maturana, Ernst von Glaserfeld, Heinz von Foerster). • Multiple ongoing efforts to develop new methods for the organizational / governmental / societal arenas. These efforts fall within what I termed Systemic Perspectives and they involve both new methods and combinations / syntheses of existing methods.

My conclusion from all this is that systems theory is continuing to grow and expand. Therefore, since Systems Theory is the foundation, System Thinking is also growing. The ongoing discussions and disagreements within ST are a healthy sign of this growth.

Why is ST needed?

I began this paper with the questions: What sort of critter is systems thinking? What might we expect it to do for us?

The answer to the first is that ST is a still evolving worldview that includes Systems Theory (a still evolving science) and Systemic Perspectives (a still growing set of methods). The answer to the second question is that ST has the potential to do a great deal for us.

Ross Ashby (1956), in his classic “An Introduction to Cybernetics” said that if one could achieve their practical aims without use of cybernetics they should do so because cybernetics is complex and difficult. Ashby’s advice should be applied to ST generally.

I don’t need a bulldozer to pull dandelions. Similarly, I don’t need Systems Thinking to deal with simple situations. I need Systems Thinking to deal with complex messes, situations where there are many interacting elements causing big problems.

The prevailing Newtonian worldview is universally failing to deal with the critical problems of our day and is actually making the mess worse. Einstein famously said “Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.”

By this definition the governments of the world are uniformly insane. Systems Thinking is needed to even understand the critical issues confronting humanity. Figuring out what needs to be done requires consideration of a large number of interacting parts, each of which is also complex. This seems utterly impossible without ST.

I personally am convinced that humankind is poised on a cusp between catastrophe and renewal.

The path toward catastrophe is “business as usual” for governments and the economy. Degradation of the environment, global warming, critical resource shortages (cheap energy, potable water, food, etc.), and too many people seeking a life-style of conspicuous consumption pose immense challenges which the governments of the world are not only failing to address but are mostly trying to ignore. This path probably leads to the destruction of human civilization, mass deaths, and (for the relatively small number of survivors) a society on the technological level of the 1700s. This path of “business as usual” seems almost inevitable in the absence of ST.

The “renewal” path leads to sustainable economies and lifestyles and much more effective governance models. Within the United States and elsewhere there are currently underway an enormous number and variety of experiments in actually building a sustainable society. Yes! Magazine has been chronicling these efforts for some time and a new series of reports “the Rise of the New Economy” (Alperovitz, 2012) summarizes these efforts. These experiments in a new economy are occurring at the levels of the neighbourhood, city, and state. It is especially important that this outpouring of creativity is happening here in the US because we are in many ways leading the charge toward catastrophe.

If we manage the “renewal” path toward sustainable societies it will be in part because ST has helped us to understand both the mess and the way forward.

Kenneth Boulding, more than thirty years ago in a paper whose citation I can no longer find, catalogued the emerging crises facing humankind. After developing this long list of potential catastrophes, he concluded in approximately these words “an ill-founded optimism is still to be preferred to a well-founded despair”. When I get overwhelmed with the negative, my wife reminds me “God is still in charge”. For those of you who are agnostic, I would simply note that the human spirit has a habit of rising to challenges.

Let us face the challenges ahead with clear eyes, steadfast optimism and ST. If we manage this, we shall overcome.

Barry Clemson

I worked in custom manufacturing, community development, educational evaluation, software development, university teaching (organizations & ST), consulting, construction (as a small contractor and carpenter), and as a novelist (in roughly that order). My study has been as eclectic as my work experience and has ranged broadly over the sciences. I started studying systems / cybernetics in 1967 when I discovered Stafford Beer. Stafford became a friend and my most important intellectual mentor and “management cybernetician” indicates my worldview / biases. I am committed to helping turn the current global mess into an opportunity for renewal. www.barryclemson.net

Staff helping with this article: Editor: Steven Schneider, Reviewers: Gene Bellinger, Anne Maguire, George McConnell.

References

Ackoff, Russell L. (1994). The Democratic Corporation: A radical prescription for recreating corporate America and rediscovering success. New York: Oxford University Press.

Alperovitz, Gar. (2012). The Rise of the New Economy Movement. In Common Dreams. May 22. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/22-2

Apostel, Leo. (2012). Center Leo Apostel for Interdisciplinary Studies, http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/

Argyris, Chris & Schon, Donald A. (1978). Organizational Learning: a theory of action perspective. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley

Ashby, Ross. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall.

Balasubramanian, T. A. (2012). Comment posted to LinkedIn System Thinking World discussion: “Has Systems Thinking, as “discipline”, an explicit purpose? Which is it?”, April 26.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. Bellinger, Gene, (2010). SystemWiki.

Beer, Stafford. (1972). The Brain of the Firm. New York: Herder and Herder.

Beer, Stafford. (1979). The Heart of Enterprise. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

Beer, Stafford. (1975). Platform for Change. London: John Wiley.

Box, George E. P. & Draper, Norman R. (1987). Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces. New York: John Wiley. p. 424

Clemson, Barry. (1984). Cybernetics: A new management tool. Kent, UK: Abacus Press. Einstein, Albert. (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/5543).

Godel, Kurt. (1992). On Formally Undecidable Propositions Of Principia Mathematica And Related Systems, tr. B. Meltzer, with a comprehensive introduction by Richard Braithwaite. Dover reprint of the 1962 Basic Books edition.

Heylighen Francis. (1992). Principles of Systems and Cybernetics: an evolutionary perspective. in R.

Trappl (ed.). Cybernetics and Systems ’92. Singapore: World Science. 3-10 Johnson, Susan. (2012). Why We Have Emotions (and why we should not fight them).http://www.alternet.org/health/155547/. Reprinted from Psychotherapy Networker. Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Malik, Fredmund. (2009). Comments at “Cybernetics of Crisis” conference, Malik Zentrum. St. Gallen, Switzerland.

Rand, Ayn. (1957). Atlas Shrugged. New York: Random House

Rand, Ayn, (1943). The Fountainhead. Indianapolis, Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill

Von Bertalannffy, Ludwig. (1968). General Systems Theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: George Braziller

Von Foerster, Heinz. (1974). On constructing a Reality. Cybernetics of Cybernetics.pg 376, B.C.L. Report No. 73.38.

Von Glaserfeld, Ernst. (1990). An Exposition of Constructivism: Why Some Like it Radical. In: R.B. Davis, C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings (eds.) Monographs of the J. for Research in Mathematics Education, #4. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 19– 29.

Citation details for this article:

Clemson, Barry. 2012. What is System Thinking? A personal perspective. Systems Thinking World Journal: Reflection in Action. [Online Journal]. Vol. 1 Issue 1. [Referred 2012-06-19]. Available: http://stwj.systemswiki.org . ISSN-L 2242-8577 ISSN 2242-8577.

Systems Thinking World Journal

Unleashing Understanding

Author: Gene Bellinger. Volume 1. Issue 1. Article Date: April 26, 2012.

Keywords: Developing Systems Thinking, Learning & Development, Systems Thinking.

Abstract: This paper shows how to improve your systems thinking immediately … without doing a university course or reading 15 books.

Dedicated to The Knights Who Say Nee! for the other words they cannot hear.

Experience is something between complete novelty and boring confirmation (Jantsch, 1980). Between those two extremes, experience connects with past learning, and where that experience extends our understanding it represents learning. And we are unaware of much of that learning because it happens in the background while our focus is on other things. With an improved awareness of this learning one can substantially improve their capacity to create the future desired with far fewer unintended consequences. This paper supports that improved awareness and is dedicated to all those who claim that Systems Thinking is too hard, too complicated, or has too many discipline unique words.

While we may ponder the past, or the future, we live in the moment, and what we are consciously aware of are events that manage to get our attention. Though we may not be consciously aware of networks of interactions we learn from recurring patterns of interactions just the same. Consider the following… (Bellinger, Castro, Mills, n.d.).

• I have a box. • The box is 3′ wide, 3′ deep, and 6′ high. • The box is very heavy. • The box has a door on the front of it. • When I open the box it has food in it. • It is colder inside the box than it is outside. • You usually find the box in the kitchen. • There is a smaller compartment inside the box with ice in it. • When you open the door the light comes on. • When you move this box you usually find lots of dirt underneath it. • Junk has a real habit of collecting on top of it. • What is it?

Somewhere in the midst of reading this list of clues, most people realized “refrigerator”. And while different people might connect after a different number of clues, the order of the clues isn’t really that relevant. Seldom does one think about a refrigerator as a network of relationships, though somewhere along the way this “refrigerator” network of relationships was learned. The list represents 100% confirmation of something you already know, though for

76 anyone that had never experienced a refrigerator the list would represent 100% novelty (Jantsch, 1980), and they would still be wondering what was being described.

We have actually been learning about recurring networks of relationships our entire life, though because events of the moment are what get our attention, we’ve generally not been aware of this subconscious learning. Consider the following…

• All day it has been extremely hot with very high humidity though now all of a sudden the temperature has started to drop rapidly and the wind is picking up. Depending on where one lives it’s either about to rain or there’s going to be a tornado? This network of relations has been experienced so many times that one doesn’t even have to consciously think about it to know what’s about to happen. There is an endless array of networks of relations we have learned over time and they serve us well (Bellinge, KM). And while this endless array of networks of interactions is responsible for the events we experience, the majority of them fall into a small number of recurring patterns. • After a fix is applied, in time the problem returns • An applied fix seems to overshoot the goal or there is oscillation • An applied fix creates new problems or declines elsewhere • Over time there is a tendency to allow standards to slip • Partners for growth become adversaries • Limitations experienced are believed to result from insufficient capacity • Removing one limitation to growth reveals new limits • Shared limited resources are exhausted by participants

What we learn about networks of relations generally serves us well, though there are times when a network of relations is more complex than we realize and operates in a counterintuitive manner. In these cases we need to develop a better understanding of the network of relations. Our subconscious understanding is inadequate. We might think this is a difficult undertaking, though actually it takes only one question: AND? There’s an old Sufi saying regarding AND…

Because you understand 1 you think you understand 2 because 1 and 1 = 2. But first you must understand AND.

If networks of relations sometimes act counter-intuitively, how might we employ AND? to sort them out?

It’s always good to start with a focus question that warrants more than a yes or no answer, and helps us to stay focused.

So here’s an example: “Why is it that every year I have to spray more to kill the insects damaging my crops?”

Before we delve into this, let’s think back to the refrigerator and the impending rain for a moment. For these networks of relations there is an image that one can relate to. It’s the image, or the picture, in our mind that allows us to keep track of, or pull all the pieces of the network of relations together into something coherent. The same is true as we work out the implications of AND? During the next few paragraphs we’ll work out a notational convention to keep track of the network of relations while investigating the insects damaging my crops.

The first conventions deal with insects and crops, which actually represents the focus question, and we’ll depict this as follows (Aronson, n.d.) …

Fig. 1 – Insects Eating Crops [IM-295]

In Fig. 1 we have two elements of the network of relations we’re endeavouring to uncover, i.e., crop eating insects and crop damage. There are actually two relations between these two elements; first, the leads to part indicating what the influence is; and second, the relation is in blue with an arrow pointing to crop damage to indicate that crop eating insects adds to or moves crop damage in the same direction, e.g., more insects results in more crop damage. The Plus Sign “+” has the same meaning as the blue relation and can be used in situations where colour is not available.

The question is “AND now what?” Since the crop damage is unwanted the most natural response is to apply pesticide.

Fig. 2 – Spray for Insects [IM-295]

Here again in Fig. 2 we have another adds to or moves in the same direction relation because more crop damage would provide an even stronger influence to apply pesticide. And all of this is done, as depicted in Fig. 3, to get rid of the crop eating insects.

Fig. 3 – Control Insects [IM-295]

Fig. 3 adds the relation between apply pesticide and crop eating insects as which kills. This is represented in red because the relation is meant to reduce or move in the opposite direction, i.e., more pesticide kills, or results in fewer, insects. The B1 graphic in the centre is meant to indicate the loop is a Balancing Loop meant to Control Insects, and 1 meaning the first one, i.e., crop eating insects leads to action meant to limit the crop eating insects therefore creating a balance.

As an aside, with the completion of the loop in B1 the traditional notion of cause and effect falls by the wayside. The interaction of the elements of a loop structure operating together have far more impact than a simple cause and effect relation and in a sense everything becomes its own cause. We can think of this as Crop eating insects are responsible for their own death and they use the farmer to accomplish that. Not to worry, the headache caused by this won’t last too long.

If this network of relations is intended to take care of the pest problem, and it doesn’t, then an appropriate question might be, “AND what else is happening that’s not represented in this picture?”

Fig. 4 – Insects Multiply (R2) [IM-295]

Crop eating insects have insect births which increases the number of crop eating insects. This relationship R2 Population Growth is referred to as a Reinforcing Loop because the

79 relationship encourages more of whatever is happening. Because pesticides don’t kill all the crop eating insects the ones that survive multiply and add to the crop eating insects requiring spraying next year. R2 also serves as another example of a loop structure where all the elements are their own cause.

Does this answer the question of why more and more spray is required every year? We should ask, “AND what else does the pesticide do besides kill crop eating insects?”

Fig. 5 – Pesticide Immunity (R3) [IM-295]

Insects are marvellously resilient creatures and as depicted in Fig. 5 insects tend to develop an immunity to pesticide. And it just so happens that this immunity creates Reinforcing Loop (R3) where apply pesticide promotes pesticide immunity which tends to counteract the result from apply pesticide thus resulting in more crop eating insects leading to more crop damage which promotes more apply pesticide. We have created a very vicious reinforcing loop R3 Immunity which essentially says, “The more you spray the more you’ll have to spray.” which is not at all a desirable situation.

If pesticides are taking me in the absolutely wrong direction and I wasn’t overrun by pests before I started spraying, “AND what else is happening here?”

Fig. 6 – Predator Insects (R4) [IM-295]

Fig. 6 shows that there are natural predators for the crop eating insects and these controlling insects devour the crop eating insects. Unfortunately, apply pesticides also kills these controlling insects as well as the crop eating insects. This results in a another very vicious Reinforcing Loop (R4) where apply pesticides kills controlling insects and fewer of them devour fewer crop eating insects which leads to more crop damage which encourages me to apply pesticides even more, though it’s absolutely the wrong thing to do.

Addressing the balance between both kinds of insects before the initial planting might have been an even more insightful approach to actually avoiding the situation.

AND so what’s the answer? Actually the answer is right in front of us in the diagram and part of the basis for Organic Gardening. If we stop applying pesticides and promote the development of more controlling insects they will keep the crop eating insects in check. However there are always one more AND’s to consider.

• AND once the controlling insects decimate the crop eating insects what will they eat next? • AND with more crop eating insects what is likely to show up to eat them? 81

• AND? • AND? • AND?

This long winded example intended to show that developing a better understanding of a complex network of relations requires only the simplest question AND?. For each element in the network we ask AND what else does this element affect, AND what else affects this element. This is Systems Thinking in action.

We can’t continue asking AND? forever. We have to establish a boundary that defines what to include and what to ignore. The boundary is a key part of system thinking because the boundary, improperly defined, may include far too much or may omit crucial elements. Getting other to help us think about our network of relations is helpful. And the diagram of relationships provides an excellent foundation for discussion.

While further elaboration is possible I will stop here, AND has the point been adequately made? Developing pictures of networks of relations is essential to understand because there are generally too many interactions to keep track of without a diagram. The only way to fully understand the implications of a network of relations is with a quantitative simulation, though that represents a substantial jump in the expertise required.

In closing I suggest that there are numerous opportunities to improve our systems thinking and unleash our understanding. For example, why is it that…

• Adding additional resources to a late project only makes it later. • Building more low income housing in a community only increases the need for low income housing. • Practicing time management only increases the need for time management.

There are an endless number of counter intuitive situations in which it is helpful to use the simple system thinking technique of asking AND?

System thinking can be approached as a doctoral level program of study. In fact, MIT offers a PhD in System Dynamics, which is where our diagramming conventions originated. However, not all of us need a PhD and everyone can do entry level systems thinking with the simple question AND? AND, no one begins with the PhD. We all begin with small steps and, if interest or need takes us deeper, we then proceed with further small steps into this world of system thinking.

Gene Bellinger has been a passionate Systems Thinker since reading Stafford Beer’s “Platform for Change” over three decades ago. Having worked in numerous industries Systems Thinking has continued to be the consistent thread running through all the various engagements. Gene is the creator of SystemsWiki.org and host of the Systems Thinking World discussion group on LinkedIn and continues to promote the broader adoption of Systems Thinking as a meaningful worldview.

Staff who worked on this article. Editor: Barry Clemson. Reviewer: Nicolas Stampf.

References

Ackoff, R. L. (n.d.). Why Few Organizations Adopt Systems Thinking. Retrieved May 2012

Aronson, D. (n.d). Targeted Innovation: Using Systems Thinking to Increase the Benefits of Innovation Efforts. Retrieved May 2012 Bellinger, G. (n.d.) Knowledge Management: Emerging Perspectives. Retrieved May 2012

Bellinger, G., Castro, D. and Mills, A. (n.d.). Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom. Retrieved May 2012.

Forrester, J. W. (1995). Counter Intuitive Behaviour of Social Systems. Retrieved May 2012

Jantsch, E. (1980). The Self-Organizing Universe: Scientific and Human Implications of the Emerging Paradigm of Evolution. Pergamon

Citation details for this article:

Bellinger, Gene. (2012). Unleashing Understanding. Systems Thinking World Journal: Reflection in Action. [Online Journal]. Vol. 1 Issue 1. [Referred 2012-04-26]. Available:http://stwj.systemswiki.org . ISSN-L 2242-8577 ISSN 2242-8577