Just another ‘religion’…or something much more?

February 17, 2023 giantknave Brain Farts Approaches, Method, Mike Jackson, Patrick Hoverstadt, Principles, Systems Thinking, Theory

I feel like the phrase ‘Systems Thinking’ is, unfortunately, regularly abused/ misused/ confused and I wanted to write a post that causes me to set this out.

Further, I’ve read several articles online that attempt to define systems thinking and many of them (I think) fall into the same hole.

It’s a tricky area (no one ‘owns’ language) …so you’ll have to judge how I do…and where it can be refined and matured.

Context:

There have been a couple of triggers for me to write this post:

I heard about a conversation whereby a member of staff asked a senior manager if their organisation would continue its ‘systems thinking’ journey and the response was “well, there are many religions” and then referred to Agile, Design Thinking etc. as if these were competing and it was a matter of choosing which one to concentrate on (“because we can’t do them all”)
I regularly read blog posts comparing ‘systems thinking’ with various approaches (such as Agile, Design Thinking…), often in some sort of ‘battle of methods’

I don’t think the phrase systems thinking is being used well. It might even be the wrong phrase¹. My point is (I believe) that the ‘many religions’ response shows a big problem (in understanding, and in enabling meaningful systemic change).

I’d like to set out the important difference between the words ‘theory’ and ‘method’…and then re-examine the ‘systems thinking thing’.

Theory

Beginning with the word ‘theory’: It’s used a fair bit, and in different senses, so what do I mean when I use it within this post?

In everyday parlance, the word ‘theory’ might be used to mean a hunch/ guess/ feeling/ intuition [ref. a hypothesis].

“I’ve got a theory that the dog did it whilst we weren’t looking!”

However, for a scientist, the word theory means virtually the opposite. A theory refers to something that has a clearly substantiated explanation, and thus can be relied upon to understand, explain, and predict (albeit within the limits of a theory’s boundaries).

The theory of gravity can be used to explain why the apple falls to the ground…and can be used to reliably predict how other objects will behave.

And so we get the distinction between a hypothesis (I think that this explains it…which I could go on to explore) and a theory² (this really does explain it…so I’d be wise to act accordingly).

Perhaps the most important point about theory is that I can use it to intervene and bring about change.

By understanding the theory of gravity, I can make use of it to handily move objects from one place to another (e.g. down a chute).

Conversely, if I try to go against the theory of gravity, I could make life extremely hard for myself. I could find myself stuck…or going in the opposite direction!

Note that the words ‘principle’ and ‘law’ fit in a similar space with, and are relatable to, the word ‘theory’.

Method

Turning to the word ‘method’: which means a way of doing something, hopefully with the aim of achieving something useful.

The words ‘technique’ and ‘approach’ fit with the word ‘method’.

Putting the two together:

If you consistently act in accordance with the theory (which probably requires you to understand it at some level), then lots of different methods could provide value to you³. You might even be able to ‘mix and match’ methods
However, if you fall foul of the theory, then it won’t matter which method you use or how meticulously you attempt to follow it⁴. Your failure to conform with the theory will hinder, and perhaps prevent, you from achieving the desired outcome

…and so to the phrase ‘Systems Thinking:

Put simply: When people write/ talk about this thing called ‘systems thinking’ there is often confusion as to whether they are referring to theory or method.

When I refer to systems thinking, I’m thinking about theory, and I realise that there are many methods out there that can assist.

In respect of theory: there are some fundamentals that we would do well to understand⁵.

The work of Mike Jackson

I’ve got a rather nice book on my shelf by Prof. Mike Jackson titled ‘Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity’.

Mike’s book brilliantly demonstrates the point: He catalogues, organises, sets out and critiques a compilation of ‘systems thinking’ approaches⁶.

Just to give you a flavour of what I mean, here’s the set of approaches that Mike’s book covers:

Type of Approach	Example Approaches (with a note on their origin in brackets)
For Technical complexity	Operational Research Systems Analysis Systems Engineering
For Process Complexity	The Vanguard Method (Seddon)
For Structural Complexity	System Dynamics (Forrester)
For Organisational Complexity	Social-Technical Systems Thinking (Tavistock Institute) Organisational Cybernetics & The Viable Systems Model (Beer)
For People Complexity	Strategic Assumption Surfacing & Testing (Churchman inspired) Interactive Planning (Ackoff) Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland)
For Coercive Complexity	Team Syntegrity (Beer) Critical Systems Heuristics (Ulrich)

In addition to these approaches, there are lots of other methods out there that, whilst not formally attached to systems science, are ostensibly aimed at making our work systems⁷ ‘better’ (such as Agile, Design Thinking,…). Whether they do or not, well, that would depend on how their usage fits with the theory…

A side note on the ‘religion’ thing:

With reference to the trigger for writing this post, I was struck when the senior manager used the ‘many religions’ analogy as this (to me) reflects an ancient homo sapiens mess:

Each religion is (I think) a method/ approach for how a community might live together. If you have a darker view of the world, you might see them as a method by which to control the masses
Underlying each religion is likely some fundamental truths (theory) of how a group of people can best live together (probably learned through an evolutionary process)…which is perhaps why so many of the basics are the ‘same but different’ across the world’s religions

…and so, we get to the same underlying point: Don’t get stuck on ‘which religion to adopt’ or in arguing that “my religion is better than yours!”. Rather, ponder what any social grouping is trying to achieve…and move forwards accordingly⁸.

Going back to the beginning:

For anyone and everyone in management: Rather than trying to juggle the selection and implementation of (supposed) competing methods, go beneath them, to a principled level. Then use appropriate methods, grounded in the theory, to help you.

Footnotes:

1. Re. might be the wrong phrase: I often find myself saying ‘systemic thinking’ because, for me, it conveys my message better.

2. For those deep philosophers out there: I recognise that I am barely scratching the surface of what the word ‘theory’ means, that there are different types of theories, and that there is whole body of knowledge around theory. My intent is simply to make the clear distinction between theory and method.

3. Re. Theory: I’ve seen people ‘do amazing things’ because they intuitively understood about people, about inter-relationships, about purpose. They had great success, often without having any idea about specific methods.

4. Re. Method: I’ve observed loads of (as an example) ‘Lean Six Sigma’ initiatives over the years, trying to push a method whilst falling foul of basic principles about systems and people. They (told themselves that they had) delivered lots of little ‘projects’ and yet transformed nothing.

5. Fundamentals: I’ve recently enjoyed reading an interesting book by Patrick Hoverstadt called ‘The Grammar of Systems’, in which he usefully sets out a core set of nine systems principles (from Emergence, through Holism…right through to Complexity and Uncertainty)

6. Mike Jackson’s compilation: I expect that others more knowledgeable than me might critique Mike’s selection of approaches and his considered opinion on how to usefully label/ structure them. My point is not that Mike has a perfect answer, but that he nicely demonstrates that there is a huge difference between the theoretical ideas within systems thinking, and that different approaches may be chosen (and perhaps partnered together) depending on the context.

I’ve also stuck with Mike’s use of the word ‘approach’ in the table rather than substituting the word ‘method’…as I didn’t want to take up words discussing the difference between a method and a methodology. If you are interested, then Checkland had much to say on this.

7. Systems: I ‘get’ that, in the tradition of hard vs. soft vs critical vs complexity vs…, we could discuss what’s a system anyway. I’ve got a post half written on the importance of this question (but then I’ve got lots of half written posts!)

8. Just as an FYI (if you are wondering): I’m not religious. In fact, quite the reverse. I simply make the observation about ‘any given religion’ vs. ‘the rationale for religions’ (or any approach to living, such as humanism).

My ‘Snowden – Seddon’ Venn diagram

September 28, 2022September 30, 2022 giantknave Brain Farts Complex, Cynefin, Dave Snowden, Intersections, John Seddon, Systems Thinking, Vanguard Method

This post is a long, meaty one. So, if this interests you, make yourself a cup of tea and settle in. If it’s not for you, no worries, ‘as you were’…but still make yourself that cuppa 🙂

I first ‘got into’ systemsy stuff about 20 years ago¹. I began with W. Edwards Deming (a peripheral figure in the systems literature) and then went in a variety of directions.

These include:

A number of ‘systems theorists’, such as Forrester, Meadows, Beer, Ackoff & Checkland
John Seddon’s work (noting his down-to-earth writings²)
Dave Snowden’s work (noting his desire for precision³)

As an aside: I’m a big fan of Mike Jackson’s work⁴ to clearly lay out ‘who’s thought what’ in the systems space, and his aim of providing a balanced ‘value vs. critique’ review on each.

During my journey – and most recently via the wonders (or is that curse?) of social media – I’ve noted what I might describe as various ‘turf wars’ going on. If you’ve been following along (e.g. Twitter, LinkedIn,…) then you could be forgiven for believing that the three groups noted above (or at least their thinking) are ‘poles apart’.

I’d agree that it’s very healthy for people to robustly test their thinking against others⁵ – it’s incredibly useful to understand a) boundaries of application and b) where there is more work to be done.

However, I feel that those trying to follow along could end up ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’ because we fail to see (or acknowledge) the significant intersections between the groups.

This post is about me exploring (some of) what I see as useful intersections.

I love a diagram, so I’ll use the one below to anchor what follows. It’s the typical Venn diagram, highlighting three sets and the relationships between them. The overlaps are the intersections:

I’m mainly concerned with the ‘Snowden – Seddon’ intersection within this post (because this currently interests me the most). You’ll have to bear with me on this because the intersections may not be apparent to those reading their work or listening to them speak. Further, they themselves may not accept my (current) view about if, and how, they intersect.

As an aside: I’d note that it’s not uncommon for similar things to be discovered/ worked out by different people in different settings…and this (almost inevitably) means that they will talk about similar things but use different language (or notation) to each other.

A couple of celebrated examples that I’m aware of:

Newton and Leibniz re. the invention of calculus
Darwin and Wallace re. the theory of evolution

The trick (so to speak) would be to spot the intersections and then build upon them. Newton and Leibniz (and their supporters) had an argument. Darwin and Wallace entered a collaboration.

I’ve thought about the following ‘Snowden – Seddon’ intersections:

On making sense of the problem space
On working with complexity
On the importance of failure
On facilitating change within the complex domain
On scaling change within the complex domain
On measurement
Combining quantitative with qualitative
On the use of tools
On systems theory

Each explanation below will have two halves. I’ll start with a Snowden perspective, and then move to a Seddon viewpoint. Each half will deliberately begin with “as I understand it” (I’ll underline these so that you can clearly see me swapping over).

Here goes…

1. On making sense of the problem space

As I understand it, Snowden’s Cynefin framework⁶ aims to help decision makers make sense of their problem space…so that they respond appropriately. It very usefully differentiates (amongst many other things) between ordered and complex domains. In short:

An ordered system is predictable. There are known, or knowable cause-and-effect relationships and, because of this, there are right answers;

A complex system is unpredictable. The elements (for example people) influence and evolve with one another. The past makes sense in retrospect (i.e. it is explainable) BUT this doesn’t lead to foresight because the system, and its environment, are constantly changing. It’s not about having answers, it’s about what emerges from changing circumstances and how to respond.

As I understand it, Seddon realised that there is a seriously important difference between a manufacturing domain and a service domain and that this difference had huge implications as to how decision makers should act.

A widget being manufactured requires a level of consistency. Further, it is an inanimate object (ref: I’m just a spanner!);
A human being needing help from a service is unique. Further, they have (a degree of) agency;
As such, any system design needs to properly take this into account. An ordered response (e.g. pushing standardised ‘solutions’) to a complex problem space will not work out well (ref. failure demand⁷).

Of interest to me is that, whilst the widget production line may fit the ordered problem space, it usually involves human beings to run it. So, at a 2^nd order level, it is complex – those workers are unique and possess agency. It would be a good idea to design a system that engaged their brains and not just their motor skills.

From reading about the Toyota Production System (TPS) over the years, I believe that this is perhaps what Taiichi Ohno and his colleagues knew… and what those merely trying to copy them didn’t (ref: Depths of ‘Transformation’).

As I understand it, Seddon would suggest that there are a number of service archetypes⁸ (from transactional…through to people-centred). I see people-centred as being the closest intersection with Snowden’s complex problem space, which leads on to…

2. On working with complexity

As I understand it, Snowden would suggest that the appropriate way to work with complexity would be to:

encourage interactions
experiment with possible ways forward
monitor what emerges and adjust accordingly
be patient: allow time for outcomes to emerge, and for reflection

I understand that this may be summarised as probe – sense – respond.

As I understand it, Seddon would suggest that the appropriate way for people-centred services to work would be to:

provide ‘person – helper’ continuity, to build trusting relationships between them
take the time to understand the person, their situation, and their needs
provide ‘person – helper’ autonomy: to try things, to reflect, to adjust according, to go in useful directions according to what emerges

I understand that this may be summarised as designing a system that can absorb variety rather than trying to specify and control.

I see a very strong intersection between the two. I see Seddon as arguing against an ordered response within a people-centred domain.

I note that Snowden uses the metaphor of the resilient salt marsh as compared to the robust sea wall. The former can absorb the variety of what each ‘coming of the tide’ presents, whilst the latter predictably responds but can’t cope when its utility is breached. Seddon is arguing for a ‘salt marsh’ people-centred system design, rather than the conventional sea wall.

3. On the importance of failure

As I understand it, Snowden is clear that we humans learn the most from failure – because we are exposed to the unexpected, and have to wrestle with the consequences (ref. reflection).

We may learn little from supposed ‘success’, where everything turns out as expected. We risk complacency.

As I understand it, Seddon arrived at the definition of failure demand⁷ because he realised that:

those accountable for the performance of a system are often (usually) not aware of the types (and frequencies) of failure demands caused by its current design
the act of seeing, and pondering, failure demand exposes them to reality, and provides a powerful lever for reflection as to why it occurs…and to new ways of thinking about design.

I would link the idea of ‘inattentive blindness’ (as regularly explained by Snowden) – where we may not see what is in plain sight (ref. the case of the radiologists and a gorilla).

Seddon’s method of uncovering failure demand is to enable management to begin the journey of seeing their gorilla(s).

4. On facilitating change within the complex domain

As I understand it, Snowden and his colleagues have defined a set of principles to follow, a key tenet of which is to design the change process in such a way that participants ‘see the system’ and discover insights for themselves (as opposed to being given answers).

As such, the role of the facilitator [interventionist] is to provide an environment in which the participants’ learnings can emerge. Those facilitating do not (and should not) act as ‘experts’. Further, the responsibility for producing an outcome shifts from facilitator to the group of participants.

As I understand it, Seddon’s life work centres around intervention theory and that ‘true human change is normative’ – people changing their thinking, where this is achieved through experiential learning. This would be the opposite of rational attempts at change via ‘you talk, they listen’.

As such, the role of the interventionist is to provide a method whereby they act as a ‘mirror, not an expert’ (ref. ‘Smoke and mirrors’). Further, the responsibility for outcomes lays squarely with those who are accountable for the system in question (ref. ‘leader-led’). ‘Change’ cannot be outsourced to the interventionist⁹.

5. On scaling change within the complex domain

Given the intersection above, it follows that it matters how we go about scaling change.

As I understand it, Snowden lays out the principle that:

“you don’t scale a complex system by aggregation and imitation. You scale it by decomposition and recombination.”

This area of thinking is currently a stub within the Cynefin wiki, which suggests that it is yet to be clearly set out. However, (to me) it is stating that you can’t just ‘copy and paste’ what apparently worked with one group of humans onto another. Well, you could try…. but you can expect some highly undesirable outcomes if you do (ref. disengagement, disenfranchisement, defiance…)

It also says to me that you can expect different ‘solutions’ to come from different groups, and this is completely fine if they are each ‘going in a useful direction’. Further, they can then learn from each other (ref. parallel experiments and cross pollination of ideas).

As I understand it, Seddon makes clear the problem with ‘rolling out’ (attempting to implement) change onto people. Instead, he defined the concept of ‘roll in’:

“Roll in: a method to scale up change to the whole organisation that was successful in one unit. Change is not imposed. Instead, each area needs to learn how to do the analysis for themselves and devise their own solutions. This approach engages the workforce and produces better, more sustainable results.”

It’s not about finding an answer, it’s about moving to a new way of working whereby it is the norm for those in the work to be experimenting, collaborating, learning, and constantly moving to better places (ref. Rolling, rolling, rolling)

6. On measurement

As I understand it, Snowden holds that the appropriate way to measure change within a complex system is with a vector – i.e. speed and direction, from where we were to where we are now. This is instead of acting in an ordered way of setting a goal and defining actions to achieve it (which incorrectly presumes predictability).

As I understand it, Seddon’s colleague, the late Richard Davis, set out measurement of people-centred help in a similar ‘speed and direction’ manner (ref. On Vector Measurement for a more detailed discussion).

“But what about ‘Purpose’?”: You may know that Seddon is laser-focused on the purpose of a service system, from the point of view of those that it is there to help (e.g. the customer). This purpose acts as an anchor for everyone involved.

You might think that Seddon’s ‘purpose’ view clashes with Snowden’s ‘don’t set a goal within a complex system’ view.

I don’t see ‘purpose’ (as Seddon uses it) to be the setting of an (ordered) goal. I see it more as setting out the desirable emergent property if the system in question was ‘working’.

I probably need to set that out a bit more clearly. Here goes my attempt:

Definition: Emergent system behaviours are a consequence of the interactions between the parts.

Example: The individual parts of a bird (its bones, muscles, feather etc) do not have the ability to overcome gravity. However, when these parts usefully inter-relate, they create the emergent property of ‘flight’…and yet ‘flight’ is not a part that we can point at. It is something ‘extra/ more than’ the parts.

…and so to Purpose: The definition of the desirable emergent property (i.e. what we would ideally want ‘the system’ to be achieving) allows a directional focus. It’s not an ordered goal, with a set of specified actions to achieve. It’s a constant sense-check against “are we (metaphorically) flying?”

In a people-centred service, it would be “are we actually helping people [with whatever their needs are]?”

7. Combining quantitative with qualitative

As I understand it, Snowden would say that there is a need to combine stories and measurement.

“Numbers are objective but not persuasive. Stories are persuasive but not objective. Put them together.” (Captured from Snowden workshop Aug. ‘22)

The power in stories is that they are authentic – they possess many useful qualities such as:

an actuality (evidence rather than opinion)
showing variation (noting that ‘the average’ doesn’t exist)
revealing ambiguity (causing us to think deeply about)
…etc.

However, given this, those wanting to understand at a ‘system level’ need to combine the micro into a macro picture – to see the patterns within (ref. Vector Measurement as per above).

As I understand it, Seddon tells us to study ‘in the work’ (get knowledge) and that this can be done by observing demands placed on the system in focus, and in following the flow of those demands – from need through to (hopefully) its satisfaction, and everything that happens (or doesn’t) in-between.

A case study can be a powerful story, providing an authentic understanding (from the customer’s point of view) of:

why this particular scenario arose
what happened¹⁰ and the associated ‘lived experience’, and
(with the appropriate reflection) why it occurred in this manner (ref. system conditions)

However, whilst such case studies can be eye-opening, they may be dismissed as ‘not representative’ if used on their own – the risk of ‘just dealing in anecdotal stories’.

They need to be combined with macro measures that show the predictability of what the stories evidence (ref. demand types and frequencies, measures of flow,…[measures against that desirable emergent purpose])

In short, the micro and the macro are complimentary. Both are likely to be necessary.

8. On the use of tools

As I understand it, Snowden and his collaborators are clear that there may be ‘lots of tools out there’ but its very important to ‘know enough’ before applying a tool (ref: ‘bounded applicability’):

“If we work with tools without context, in other words we don’t know enough to know the tool doesn’t fit the situation, the intervention will suffer, as will the overall outcome.” (Viv Read, Cynefin: weaving sense-making into the fabric of our world)

As I understand it, Seddon sets out the dangers of attempting to produce change via merely applying tools (ref. Seddon’s ‘Watch out for the Toolheads’ admonition) and the risk of using the wrong ‘tool’ on the wrong problems:

“The danger with codifying method as tools is that, by ignoring the all-important context, it obviates the first requirement to understand the problem” (Seddon)

I believe that Snowden and Seddon would concur that the start is to understand the problem space, and then (and only then) pick up, or design, applicable tools to assist. Conversely, I believe that they would rebuke anyone carrying around a codified method (‘tool’), looking for any place to use it.

9. On ‘Systems Theory’

As I understand it, both Snowden and Seddon are critical of aspects of systems theory.

Snowden argues against the (so called) hard forms of systems theory (ref. Cybernetics, System Dynamics)
Seddon argues for a practical approach that starts with studying ‘in the work’, to get knowledge.

Whilst their critiques may differ, the fact that they think differently to others re. systems theory is an intersect 🙂

I think that they would align with the following quote:

“[Theory] without [method] is a daydream. [Method] without [theory] is a nightmare”

“What a load of rubbish!”

To those ‘Seddonistas’¹¹ or ‘Snowdenites’ out there who may baulk at the intersections above, I’m not suggesting that John Seddon and Dave Snowden think the same. I’m also not suggesting any superiority (of ideas) between them. Far from it. I believe that they’ve been on very different journeys (haven’t we all?).

“So, it’s nirvana then?”

Nope – I’m not proposing that I’ve solved anything/ moved things to new places. I just find (what I see as) intersections to be interesting and potentially useful to ponder/work with/ build on.

I don’t expect that Snowden and Seddon are fully aligned – I’m (almost) sure that there’s plenty in the Venn diagram that doesn’t overlap.

As an aside, I think that Snowden and Seddon have both developed a reputation for ‘saying what they think’. I really like their desire, and ability, to provide solid critique – that ‘cuts through the crap’.

I do hope, though, that those geniuses amongst us ninnies (e.g. Snowden, Seddon) focus on education, rather than guru status.

Further work: On the other intersections

I expect that there are lots of ‘thinking things’ that fit into the other intersections:

Where Snowden overlaps with the systems theorists
Where Seddon overlaps with the systems theorists
Where all three overlap

You may also be able to point to yet more ‘Snowden – Seddon’ intersections.

You are welcome to take this on as ‘homework’ 🙂

Addendum: Please see this link to an addendum referring to a response from Dave Snowden.

Footnotes

1. I’m not claiming expertise. I am but an amateur with a great deal more to learn.

2. An enjoyable read: John has written a number of books to date. I’ve found them a joy to read. This contrasts with other books, which can be torture.

3. Precision and words: If you know of Snowden’s work, you’ll probably be aware that it’s littered with (what I see as) ‘new words’, or at least new uses for them.

4. Mike Jackson’s book is called ‘Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity’.

5. Robust testing: personally, I’d like such testing to be carried out in a highly respectful (mana enhancing) way.

6. The Cynefin framework is set out (amongst other places) in Snowden and Boone’s ‘A Leader’s framework for decision making’, HBR Nov. 2007.

7. Failure demand was defined by Seddon as “Demand caused by a failure to do something, or to do something right for the customer”. It might also be called/ thought of as ‘preventable demand’. Its opposite is Value demand.

8. Service archetypes: See ‘Autonomy – autonomy support – autonomy enabling’ for an explanation from my perspective.

9. Attempts at outsourcing change: This is why all those outsourced improvement projects, carried out by specialist improvement roles don’t result in transformational change (ref. all those typical Lean Six Sigma ‘Green belt’ projects etc.).

10. What happened: the scope of a case study could range from a journey:

- over a couple of days (likely relevant to a transactional archetype)
- over weeks/ months (likely relevant to a process archetype)
- to many years (a people-centred archetype)

11. ‘Seddonistas’ is a playful term I read in Mike Jackson’s book (ref. the chapter on the Vanguard Method). It refers to those that passionately ‘support’ John Seddon. I’ve made up the ‘Snowdenites’ word to provide a pairing (I think it’s fair to do so as I believe that I have noted a similar ‘supporters club’ phenomenon for Dave Snowden).

12. Image credits: Climber scaling cliff image by ‘studio4rt on Freepik’

“I’m confused…what are we doing?”

September 20, 2018May 26, 2023 giantknave Brain Farts Agile, Habits, Labels, Lean, Philosophy, Systems Thinking

So I heard a really good question at a meeting recently, which (with a touch of poetic licence) I’ll set out as follows:

“We seem to be talking about all sorts of different things at the moment, such as ‘Agile’ and ‘Systems Thinking’…this can be quite confusing (and/or frustrating)…can we be clear as to what we are doing?”

The question nicely highlights the problem with giving something a label, and of having multiple labels ‘out there’ all at the same time.

Most ‘things with a label’ in the world of organisational change relate to a specific philosophy, with defined methods, and a collection of associated tools and techniques. Perhaps they arose from a seminal business article (e.g. in the Harvard Business Review) or ‘meeting of minds’ (e.g. at a conference) …which got turned into a best-selling book…which became a movement…and then a healthy¹ consulting revenue stream.

People often say that “we are doing [name of current thing]”, with some becoming quite fanatical in its application.

Conversely, some will (properly) argue that the philosophy is the important bit…but they are often (usually?) still trying to ‘implement’ it…which doesn’t make much sense (see intervention bit near the end).

Consider, compare and contrast

So, the two labels in the quote above are ‘Agile’ and ‘Systems Thinking’. Let’s examine them a bit:

Agile:

In the beginning…: Computing is a relatively new phenomenon, well at least in terms of human years. (If you believe in evolution then) we’ve been roaming around this planet as Homo Sapiens for roughly 300,000 years…but the first computer that could store and run programs didn’t get built until around 70 years ago².

Early computer programming efforts borrowed the existing thinking derived from the mature discipline of engineering – such as up-front customer requirements, robust planning and estimates, detailed documented specifications and ‘sign offs’, and clear stages and processes within.

However, around the 1990’s the use of such a ‘heavyweight’ approach (often referred to as ‘waterfall’) was becoming a big problem: software development projects were taking many years from start to delivery and regularly didn’t achieve what was actually required…and were often un-useable and even scrapped!

The new science/art of software development was clearly different to a classical engineering project, in two particular ways:

– Dynamic: the customer/ worker/ user environment is constantly changing…what you needed today may be quite different tomorrow; and

– Emergent: ‘an answer’ isn’t (and usually can’t be) known ‘up front’…because what is desirable and possible is constantly evolving.

What is ‘Agile’ and where did it come from? Software engineers were getting frustrated with the situation and, rather than sitting on their hands, were experimenting with doing things differently, to make their work more timely and responsive to actual needs. A whole bunch of (so called) ‘lightweight’ software development ideas were being tried.

A group of software development ‘thought leaders’ began collaborating. A seminal moment occurred in 2001 when they met (at Snowbird, Utah) to discuss the lightweight software development methods that had been developed so far.

Together, they published a ‘Manifesto for Agile³ Software Development’. This short and concise document⁴ proposes four values and twelve principles

…and that’s it!

Some things to note: It was explicitly about software development. There were no methods, no tools, and no techniques mentioned…and if you read the values and principles, then there’s a lot to like within. In fact, (I think that) it would be hard to objectively argue with them.

And so where did ‘Agile’ go, and what has it become? I’ll start this bit by putting up a diagram to express how I see it:

The starting point (green box) is the software development values and principles (a.k.a ‘The Agile Manifesto’). This then feeds into a whole bunch of potential methods, which include:

– some that already existed and were then aligned and further developed; and

– new methods that have since been derived.

As such, in ‘Agile Manifesto’ terms, there aren’t right or wrong methods – what matters is whether they fit, and are carried out in accordance, with the values and principles.

If we go below methods, we can get to a whole set of techniques that people use. Many of these techniques may be used across multiple methods…and that’s fine. But, again, the important bit is how they are being used. For example: anyone can do a ‘stand-up’⁵…but it’s not much good if I ‘commanded and controlled’ my way through it.

“A fool with a tool is still a fool” (Grady Booch)

(If you want to get a good understanding of the important difference between techniques, methods, and principles then please read my earlier post ‘Depths of Transformation’ that uses another (related) label of ‘Lean’ to explain.)

And so, at this point, you can imagine that we’ve got lots of different teams working towards constantly delivering useful software in a timely manner, and each such team will have arrived at a method (and set of techniques) that works for them. Nice.

The next thing that happened was the desire, usually within large ‘IT shops’ to co-ordinate all this (now labelled as) ‘Agile’ work together into a portfolio…and we get the birth of approaches⁶ aiming to scale the method – to align and co-ordinate all those agile teams. It sounds like a reasonable thing to do but there’s a big risk here: such attempts at scaling can obliterate the simplicity, add top-down hierarchy and cause inflexibility and confusion…all things that the Agile Manifesto was trying to cut through….and putting the well-intended ‘Agile’ label in jeopardy.

Further, the ‘Agile’ label, having been created for the specifics of software development, has been pushing its boundaries to become more generalised. Those that (might be said to) ‘love the label’ are applying it to wider areas, such as project management and product development.

And yet further, the word ‘Agile’ is being used to describe an even higher aspiration for business agility…which is taking us to a literal dictionary definition:

“Agile: Able to move quickly and easily. Synonyms: nimble, alert.” (Oxford Dictionary)

Now, whilst this might be a commendable (and valuable) aim, it’s a long way from (just) software development. As such, it definitely needs to come back to (i.e. be grounded in) philosophy rather than methods and techniques.

Right, so that’s a short trip around ‘Agile’….moving on to:

System Thinking:

What is ‘Systems Thinking’? Unlike ‘Agile’ (or its relation ‘Lean’⁷), there wasn’t a seminal moment when people sat around in a meeting and invented/ derived something and labelled it as ‘Systems Thinking’. There isn’t some ‘central body’ that (might attempt to) define and regulate it….however there have been a number of (what I would term) ‘Systems Thinking’ giants over the years.

Rather, ‘Systems Thinking’ is a discipline (heavily based in the fields of science and logic) that has been developing over hundreds (if not thousands) of years, sometimes splitting into new fields, sometimes coming back together again.

“Systems Thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes rather than parts, for seeing patterns of change rather than static snapshots, and for understanding the subtle interconnectedness that gives living systems their unique character.” (Peter Senge)

It’s about a shift of mind from seeing problems as caused by someone or something ‘out there’ – to seeing the role that our actions (and inactions) have in creating the problems that we experience.

(If you want a bit of a Systems Thinking history lesson then please read my earlier post ‘Hard, Soft or Laminated?’)

“Er, okay Steve…that’s about as clear as mud…so what does it actually involve?

Well, put simply, it is about:

understanding what is meant by a system⁸, and the implications that flow from this;
observing how a system behaves, over time, to better understand:
- how it actually works;
- whether it is stable or changing; and therefore
- what interventions may be beneficial, when considered against the system’s purpose
understanding how human beings think (rationally…and irrationally);
designing intervention experiments, towards the system’s purpose; and
measuring whether, and how these interventions alter the system (for better or worse) and therefore whether to attempt to amplify or dampen them.

Here’s another nice ‘Systems Thinking’ definition:

“a disciplined approach for examining problems more completely and accurately before acting. It allows us to ask better questions before jumping to conclusions.” (thesystemsthinker.com)

What habits need to be learned and practised to enable ‘Systems Thinking’?

I’ve deliberately used the word ‘habits’ rather than ‘skills’ as they mean different things. I’ve also held back from talking about methods and techniques.

It wouldn’t be right (in my view) to say that person X is a systems thinker and person Y is not.

Systems’ thinking is something for each and every one of us to work on….which is a nice link to the Waters Foundation’s one-page poster⁹ setting out (with useful pictures) the ‘Habits of a Systems Thinker’…go on, have a quick look – it’s very good.

These habits:

can (and should) be used in any and every setting, whether at work or home, and with regards to society or our environment…and everywhere in-between; and
are lifelong practises, to be constantly explored, matured and extended.

In this sense, it doesn’t make sense to say “we are ‘doing’ Systems Thinking here”…rather, it’s a journey.

Commonality

I’d argue that ‘Agile’ and ‘Systems Thinking’ are two very different things, and it’s a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

If I absolutely had to link them together then I quite like this diagram because:

‘Agile’ began as being about improving software development;
‘Lean’ began as being about improving value streams (from customer need to its satisfaction)…where software might be a useful enabling component within this; and
‘Systems Thinking’ is about navigating through, and improving our whole world…where (true) ‘Lean’ and ‘Agile’ thinking fit very well within this endeavour.

In fact, the extension of the meaning and usage of the ‘Agile’ label from its software development roots outwards kind of shows that it was all about the foundational system thinking.

Intervention

I shouldn’t end this post without making a comment about intervention.

You can want the philosophy behind ‘Agile’, ‘Lean’….[and the next label] but you’ll only truly move towards it when you understand about how to intervene successfully.

I’ve written a fair bit about this¹⁰ so I won’t repeat it here…but I will say that it’s not about (attempting to) do things to people, it is about helping people discover, experiment and learn for themselves….just give them a clear purpose and conducive environment to do so.

“People don’t resist change, they resist being changed” (Scholtes)

You don’t ‘implement’ Systems Thinking…you constantly learn about, and question, your thinking, whilst experimenting towards a system’s (customer) purpose.

To close

I started this post using the word ‘label’…because a label can become really problematic¹¹. Here’s a great quote that (hopefully) puts labels into perspective:

“Don’t call it anything: If it has a name, then people, including you, will waste time arguing about what ‘it’ is and isn’t… but

Call it something: otherwise nobody can ever talk about.” (Thinkpurpose.com)

i.e. when thinking about labelling something, you are ‘damned if you do and damned if you don’t’.

Footnotes:

1. Healthy – I mean large 🙂

2. Computers: If you want a history of the term ‘computer’ and the dates of various advances in computing then see this informative webpage

3. The informal use of the word ‘lightweight’ got given the label ‘Agile’.

4. The Agile manifesto can be found here

5. Stand-up: A regular (e.g. daily) meeting where team members have a collaborative conversation about what they’ve done towards the current goal, what they are doing next and any impediments preventing them from making progress. It’s called a stand up because it is intended as a short meeting (hence people usually stand).

6. Scaling methods: Two well-known methods are called SAFe (Scaled Agile Framework) and LeSS (Large Scale Scrum). There are others.

7. Lean: I mention Lean because it may be seen as a parallel (and related) development to ‘Agile’. The ‘Lean’ label came about from the study of how Toyota were making high quality cars in a highly efficient manner.

8. Definition of a system: “a network of inter-dependant components that work together to try to accomplish the aim [purpose] of the system” (Deming)

9. Habits poster: It’s worth printing out and putting on your wall…and getting into the habit 🙂 of looking at.

10. Intervention: Here’s an earlier post that should assist ‘What do germs have to do with modern management?’

11. Misuse of Labels: If someone attempts to justify prescribing a specific tool or technique by saying ‘this is Agile’ or ‘this is ‘Systems Thinking’ then I hope that you can politely point out that this is unlikely to be the case. A tool/ technique could be useful…but not if you are unclear as to why it is being used or if it is being forced upon you.

Hard, Soft…or Laminated?

March 7, 2018November 2, 2023 giantknave Brain Farts Operational Research, Organisational Cybernetics, Peter Checkland, Soft Systems Methodology, System Dynamics, Systems Thinking, worldviews

This post is about something that I find very interesting – Systems Thinking as applied to organisations, and society – and about whether there are two different ‘factions’….or not.

I’ve had versions of this post in mind for some time, but have finally ‘put it on paper’³.

In the beginning there was…Biology

Well, not the beginning⁴. I’m referring to the beginning of modern systems thinking.

Back in the 1920s the Biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy challenged the ability of 19^th Century Physics to explain living things – in particular the dynamics of organisms.

Reductionist Physics back then treated things as ‘closed systems’: reducing them into their parts and, through studying the forces acting on them, establishing principles of their behaviours. Such an approach works well for mechanistic systems.

However, von Bertalanffy’s research showed that:

“A whole organism demonstrably behaves in a way that is more than the sum of its parts. It exhibits synergy. Furthermore, much of an organism’s existence is characterised by increasing, or at least maintaining order.” [Flood⁵]

He went on to develop ‘Open Systems theory’, which considers an organism’s co-existence with its environment.

The interesting bit (to me at least) is that, rather than just maintaining a steady state (homeostasis) or, worse, declining into disorder (entropy), an organism can continually improve itself (self-organisation).

Whether it will or not, well there’s the thing!

Von Bertalanffy, wanting to realign the sciences through his new understanding, went on to develop ‘General Systems theory’ (1940s) – the derivation of principles applicable to systems in general.

…and so the modern systems movement was born.

Onwards and upwards (a.k.a ‘Hard’ systems thinking)

The study of systems really got moving from the 1940s onwards, with many offshoot disciplines.

Some notable developments include:

World War II and Operational Research⁶ (analytical methods of problem solving and decision making): A team of scientists were brought together to advise the British army. They used mathematical techniques to research strategic and tactical problems associated with military operations. Their work aimed to get the most out of limited resources (the most efficient usage, for greatest effect).

Following the war, much effort was put into translating and developing the OR methods and learnings into (usually large) organisations, and their management.

Stafford Beer and Organisational Cybernetics (the scientific study of control and communication within organisations): Beer analysed how the human body is controlled by the brain and nervous system, and then translated this to model how any autonomous system (such as an organisation….or a country) should be organised in such a way as to meet the demands of surviving in the changing environment (ref. Beer’s ‘Viable System Model’)

Jay Forrester⁷ and System Dynamics (understanding the behaviours of complex systems over time): Forrester and his MIT department set about modelling (using computers) how systems behave over time, employing the science of feedback, and thus seeing (often counter-intuitive) patterns within the complexity. The aim being to discern effective levers for change.

Their work grew from ‘industrial dynamics’ (e.g. the study of an organisation over time), to ‘urban dynamics’ (e.g. a society over time) to ‘world dynamics’.

Donella Meadows (a member of Forrester’s team) took up world dynamics, and research regarding the limits of Earth’s capacity to support human economic expansion.

Peter Senge (another MIT team member) wrote the popular management book ‘The Fifth Discipline’, which sets out the disciplines necessary for a ‘learning organisation’⁸. He identifies systems thinking as the “cornerstone”, though his explanations are heavily based on his System Dynamics heritage.

Those involved with System Dynamics articulated a set of (thought provoking) system archetypes – which are commonly occurring patterns of system behaviour, due to specific combinations of feedback loops (reinforcing and balancing) and delays. For example, you might have heard of ‘The tragedy of the commons’ (see system model diagram above) or ‘Success to the successful’.

Note: (it is my belief) that there are (understandably) huge overlaps between each of the above disciplines.

All of the above is centred around being able to:

identify ‘a system’ i.e. the subject of analysis (as if it were a real thing);
create a well-defined problem statement;
take a scientific approach to problem solving; and thus
reach some (presumed) solution to the problem

This has been labelled as the school of hard systems thinking (explained later), where a system is something that, if we studied it together, we would all describe/ articulate in a similar way – as in a ‘thing’ that can be set out and agreed upon….and almost touch!

If we combine that we can define, model and understand ‘it’ then, hey presto, we should be able to solve ‘it’…as if there is a solution. Excellent! Let’s get modelling and improving.

But there’s a lot more to it – ‘Soft’ systems thinking

So where did that ‘hard’ term come from and why?

It was coined by Peter Checkland in the 1970’s to label what he thought of the current approaches, and to propose an alternative ‘soft’ view. Here’s his explanation:

“[hard systems thinking believes that] the world contains interacting systems…[that] can be ‘engineered’ to achieve their objectives…

…[however] none of these [hard systems thinking] approaches pays attention to the existence of conflicting worldviews, something which characterises all social interactions…

In order to incorporate the concept of worldviews…it [is] necessary to abandon the idea that the world is a set of systems.

In [soft systems thinking] the (social) world is taken to be very complex, problematical, mysterious, characterised by clashes of worldviews. It is continually being created and recreated by people thinking, talking and taking action. However, our coping with it…can itself be organised as a learning system.”

Now, I’m not saying that understanding everything that Checkland writes is easy – it isn’t (at least not for me) – but whatever you think of his ‘Soft Systems Methodology’ and the various models within, I believe that the fundamentals are substantial…such as his human-centric thinking on:

Problematic situations; and
Worldviews

I’ve previously touched on the first point in my post titled “what I think is…”, which perhaps can be lightly summarised as ‘problems are in the eye of the beholder’, so I’ll move on to worldviews, nicely explained by Checkland as follows:

“When we interact with real-world situations we make judgements about them: are they ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘acceptable’ or ‘unacceptable’, ‘permanent’ or ‘transient’?

Now, to make any judgement we have to appeal to some criteria or standards, these being the characteristics which define ‘good’ or ‘bad’ etc. for us. And where do such criteria come from? They will be formed partially by our genetic inheritance from our parents – the kind of person we are innately – and, most significantly, from our previous experiences of the world.

Over time these criteria and the interpretations they lead to will tend to firm up into a relatively stable outlook through which we then perceive the world. We develop ‘worldviews’, built-in tendencies to see the world in a particular way. It is different worldviews which make one person ‘liberal’, another ‘reactionary’. Such worldviews are relatively stable but can change over time…”

This ‘worldview’ concept is easily understood, and yet incredibly powerful. At its most extreme, it deals efficiently with the often-cited phrase that ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’.

I think that Checkland’s worldview explanation is profound (and yet, when thought about, bloody obvious). All worldviews (and hence perceived problems within) are personal, and a proper understanding of them (and why they are held) must be central to any meaningful approach of moving a social group (whether a family, an organisation or a society) to a better place.

It is just too simplistic for someone in a position of power⁹ to say ‘this is the system, this is the current problem, let’s get on and solve it.’

Checkland talks of “getting people to think about their own thinking about the world.

Many people do that naturally and many people never ever do that – they simply engage with the world in an unreflective way.

If you are going to [really change the world then] you have to become [conscious about] thinking about your own thinking. You have to be able to stop yourself in a situation and ask yourself ‘how am I thinking about this? How else could I be thinking about this?

This is a meta-level of thinking, which is not obvious in everyday life – we don’t normally do it in day-to-day chat.”

Over in America

Whilst Checkland and his colleagues in the UK were questioning 1960s systems thinking (and deriving his ‘Soft Systems Methodology’⁹), two of his contemporaries were doing similar over in the US.

C. West Churchman and Russell Ackoff were there at the very start of Operational Research (OR) in 1950s America, but by the 1970s they understood the essential missing piece and felt the need for radical change. Ackoff broke away from his OR faculty and initiated a new program called ‘Social Systems Sciences’, whilst Churchman wrote:

“The systems approach begins when first you see the world through the eyes of another. [It] goes on to discover that every world-view is terribly restricted. There are no experts in the systems approach.”

A side note: Sadly, I expect that Churchman and Ackoff would be ‘turning in their graves’ if they could be made aware of the lack of thinking, particularly of worldviews, by Donald Trump and his band of (ahem) ‘patriotic’ followers. Patriotic seems to have become proudly re-defined by them as ‘closed minded’.

…but, hey, that’s just my worldview speaking 😊.

Laminating the two together

I’m not a champion of ‘soft’ over ‘hard’ or vice versa. Rather, I find real interest in their combined thinking…as in laminating the two together.

I personally like to think about systems in a hard and soft format.

‘hard’ because a logical model to represent a ‘thing’ (as if I can touch it) is incredibly useful for me; yet
‘soft’ because it requires me:
- to accept that I merely have a perspective…with a need to surface my beliefs and assumptions, and;
- to understand the relevant worldviews of those around me….and change myself accordingly.

Similarly, some 30 or so years after first deriving the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ terminology, Peter Checkland ends his last book with the following:

“New approaches (now thought of as ‘soft’), underpinned by a different social theory, have emerged. They do not, however, suggest that the 1960s theory was ‘wrong’ and should be abandoned. Rather the ‘new’ theory sees the ‘old’ one as a special case, perfectly adequate in certain circumstances, but less general than the social theory behind the ‘soft’ outlook.”

Perhaps the modern terminology for Checkland’s ‘Worldviews’ wording is ‘Mental Models’ – our internal pictures of how the world works – and this has become a major area of focus.

The need to surface, test and improve our mental models has, pleasingly, become entwined with systems thinking.

To summarise

Meadows, a giant systems thinker, embraced the need to expose our mental models:

“Remember, always, that everything you know, and everything everyone knows, is only a model. Get your model out there where it can be viewed. Invite others to challenge your assumptions and add their own. Instead of becoming a champion for one possible explanation or hypothesis or model, collect as many as possible.”

Nice!

…and finally, where to from here?

Checkland’s incredibly important softening of systems thinking (i.e. to include the reality of human beings into the mix) leads on to the question of how meaningful interventions into social systems are to be approached…which (I’m hoping) will be the subject of my next post: on ‘Action Research’.

Footnotes

1. Laminated: “Bonding layers of materials together”.

2. Post Image: I was searching for an image that showed a human made up of two complimentary materials and found this lovely plywood sculpture.

3. Trigger: I partially wrote this post after reading a ThinkPurpose post way back in Nov. ’16. That post was a light-hearted critique of Peter Checkland’s ‘Soft Systems Methodology’ (SSM) and, whilst I enjoyed reading it (as ever), I had many thoughts going on…which were far too verbose to put into a comments section.

4. In the beginning: My understanding is that, before Biology, there was Chemistry (necessary for life to start), and before that Physics (back to a big bang and, potentially, the multiverse)…and we (human beings) are ‘still working on’ what (if anything) came before that.

Personally, I’m a fan of the never-ending loop (ref. Louis Armstrong Guinness advert). Every time science finds something bigger (as it regularly seems to do)…there’s always another bigger. Every time science finds something smaller (e.g. at CERN using the Large Hadron collider)…there’s always another smaller – surely it must just all wrap back round 🙂 If there’s a name for this proposition/ delusion, let me know.

5. Book reference:- Flood, Robert Louis (1999): ‘Rethinking the Fifth Disciple – Learning within the unknowable’. The first half of this book sets out the work and thinking of a number of the main 20^th century systems thinking giants.

6. The origin of Operational Research is regularly attributed to Charles Babbage’s study of England’s mail system (the costs of transport and sorting), resulting in the Penny Post (1840).

7. Forrester wrote the original System Dynamics text book (‘Principles of Systems’, 1968) setting out definitions and system modelling.

8. Senge’s five disciplines are: Personal Mastery, Mental Models, Shared Vision, Team Learning and….drum roll…Systems Thinking, though obviously you’d need to read the book to understand what is meant by each of these phrases.

Senge’s chapter on ‘Mental Models’ is based primarily on the work of Chris Argyris (whom I wrote about in ‘Double Trouble’).

9. Power: It is highly likely (and unsurprising) that a person’s worldview is heavily influenced by where they ‘sit’ within an organisation’s hierarchy. It’s always informative (and often amusing) to compare and contrast the organisational beliefs of a CEO with, say, a front line worker.

10. Misunderstanding SSM: I should note that, probably rather frustratingly for Checkland, people (including many an academic) seem to misinterpret (and/or perhaps misunderstand) what he was putting forward within SSM. He wrote a whole chapter at the end of his last book titled ‘Misunderstanding SSM’.

Memo to ‘Top Management’ – Subject: Engine Technology

June 28, 2017June 28, 2017 giantknave Brain Farts Command and control, H. Thomas Johnson, Incentives, Management system, Performance Management, Systems Thinking

I’ve just been searching for a post that is hugely relevant to a recent conversation, and have found that it was an old piece that didn’t get published onto this blog…so here it is:

“Management thinking affects business performance just as an engine affects the performance of an aircraft. Internal combustion and jet propulsion are two technologies for converting fuel into power to drive an aircraft.

New recipes for internal combustion can improve the performance of a propeller-driven airplane, but jet propulsion technology raises total performance to levels that internal combustion cannot achieve. So it is with management thinking.

Competitive businesses require jet (even rocket!) management principles. Unfortunately, internal combustion principles still power almost all management thinking.” (H. Thomas Johnson)

And so Johnson nicely compares and contrasts the decades old ‘command and control’ management system with a new ‘systems thinking’ way.

Let’s take incentives as an important example:

You report to a manager, who reports to a manager, who…etc. You have ‘negotiated’ some cascaded objectives and you will be rated and then rewarded on your ‘performance’ in meeting them. Sound familiar?

Here are the fundamental problems with this arrangement:

You will tell your manager what you think he/she wants to hear, and provide tailored evidence that supports this, whilst suppressing that which does not;
If you are ‘brave’ and tell your manager something that they might not like, you will do so very very carefully, like ‘walking on eggshells’…and, in so doing, likely de-power (i.e. remove the necessary clout from) the message;

You realise that it’s virtually suicidal to ‘go above them’ and tell your manager’s manager the ‘brave’ thing that they should hear…because you fear (with good reason) that this will most likely ‘come back to bite you’ at your judgement time (when the carrots are being handed out);
You are locked into a hierarchy that is reliant on a game of ‘Chinese whispers’ up the chain of command, with each whisperer finessing (or blocking) the message to assist in the rating of their own individual performance;
Each layer of management is shielded (by their own mechanism) from hearing the raw truth and, as such, they engineer that they ‘hear what they like, and like what they hear’.

…and therefore this system, whilst fully functioning, is perpetually impotent! It has disabled itself from finding out what it really needs to know.

“Hierarchies don’t like bad news…. bad news does not travel easily up organisations” (John Seddon)

If you’ve been in such a system and HAVE broken one of the rules above through your passion to make a real difference for the good of the organisation you work for (or perhaps worked!), then you’ve probably got some scars to show for it.

If you’ve always played it safe, then this is probably because you’ve seen what happens to the others!

The ‘Bottom line’ for ‘Top Management’:

If you want to transform your organisation, change ‘engine technology’! Tinkering with your existing one is simply not going to work.

Managers should not be rating the performance of individuals. Rather, they should understand what the system is preventing the individual from achieving…and then work with them to change that system to release their untapped potential;
Managers should not be incentivising individuals to comply. Rather, they should be sharing the success of the organisation with them. (These are very different things!)

Neither of these fundamental changes is in the gift of ‘middle management’ – they belong to those that determine the management system.

… and so, if (and this is a big ‘if’) ‘top management’ want to know the raw truth (‘warts and all’) they must constantly remove, and guard against, system conditions (e.g. incentives, performance ratings) that would prevent the truth from easily and quickly becoming lucid and transparent.

Afterthought, to counter a likely retort from ‘Top management’:

I have often (professionally) provided well intended feedback to ‘management’ as to what’s actually ‘happening out there’, particularly when I believe that they may not be aware of this. Many an Executive has derived great worth from this feedback (and thanked me accordingly).

This isn’t saying that I’m always right, or that I know everything. Obviously I’m not, and I don’t. But I do know what I see and hear.

However, there has been a subset of deeply command-and-control executives that confidently respond with “no Steve, you are wrong – that’s not the case at all. My people tell me exactly what’s happening…and there’s no problem here”.

I find this interesting (sometimes amusing, but mostly disappointing).

A manager can never be sure that people are being totally open and honest with them…but they can constantly look for, and understand, what mechanisms and practices would put this desired feedback in doubt or at risk….and then tirelessly work to remove these system conditions, for the good of all.

Footnote: I wrote this post before I wrote ‘Your Money or your Life!’…which considers the question as to whether ‘Top management’ in large corporates CAN change.

“Citizens face many front doors…”

June 7, 2017 giantknave Brain Farts Demand, failure demand, Integrated teams, Jeremy Cox, John Seddon, Joined up government, Purpose, System, Systems Thinking

Governments all over the world want to get the most out of the money they spend on public services – for the benefit of the citizens requiring the services, and the taxpayers footing the bill.

Government officials regularly devise initiatives, and even new departments, aimed at getting their myriad of agencies to work better together.

However, looking at this from the outside, the media regularly uncover seemingly daft (and sometimes tragic) instances where government agencies have failed to effectively act, connect and co-operate with each other. In such instances, each agency appears to ‘the person on the street’ to have been wearing blinkers with their ‘common sense’ radars turned to ‘exceedingly low’.

But is it right to lay blame on the agencies or, worse, the people acting within them? In the majority of cases, I’d suggest that the answer would clearly be ‘no’. We should be looking at the bigger ‘whole of public service’ system that they are designed to operate within.

A new phrase was termed some years back called ‘Joined up government’. The Oxford dictionary defines it as:

“A method of government characterized by effective communication between different departments and co-ordination of policies.”

When a dictionary defines a word, it usually provides the reader with an example sentence showing its proper usage. In this instance, the first example sentence given is a negative one, as in:

“There is an obvious lack of joined-up government here” (Oxford Dictionary)

i.e. Governments openly recognise that there is a big problem (a lack of togetherness)…and that they would love to ‘solve’ it…but it’s regularly in the ‘too hard basket’!

The purpose of this post is to share (what is to me) an important (and very well presented) 30 min. video by Jeremy Cox¹: Budget Management and People Centred Services that nicely explains, by way of reference to a real case study, the ‘multi agency’ problem and how to go about changing it.

If you are interested (particularly if you work within the public sector) then I’d expect that watching it should be a worthwhile (and thought provoking) use of your time.

Right…if you’ve got to here then I’ll assume that you’ve watched the video…the rest of this post pulls out (what I believe to be) key things said by Jeremy Cox in his presentation (blue italics below) and my ‘wrap-around’ narrative.

Note: What follows is incomplete and not a substitute for watching the video. It’s just an aide-memoire so that I (and you) don’t have to watch the video every time to pull out the key points or discuss it with our colleagues.

Jeremy Cox starts at a summary level by walking us through “four critical steps”:

1. The first thing to do is to study your system…and, just to be crystal clear, YOU (those responsible for the system) have to study it, and do so WITH those who operate it. A consultant cannot do this for (i.e. to) you².

“You have to go and study because if you see it with your own eyes, you can’t deny it. If someone ‘tells you’, then you can ‘rationalise’ it away quite easily.”

2. From studying your system, you can then see and understand the effects of (supposed) ‘controls’ on its performance.

3. Only when we understand (at a root cause) WHY the system operates as it does, should we redesign…because then, and only then, is such a redesign based on meaningful evidence…as opposed to the usual ‘conventional wisdom’ or ‘current in-vogue ideology’;

and finally:

4. Devise new measures, and move to a new model of leadership.

Cox then goes into each step in some detail.

Going back to Step 1: Cox talks about studying demand.

He takes us through a case study of a real person in need, and their interactions with multiple organisations (many ‘front doors’) and how the traditional way of thinking seriously fails them and, as an aside, costs the full system a fortune.

“Understand demand in context….don’t understand people from the point of view of your organisation, understand the person and what matters to them about living a better life.”

The case study is sad…and yet not really a surprise – we all kind of know that it’s true. It shows the huge power of following some cases around the full system.

In explaining Step 2, Cox opens up the madness within silo’d (i.e. single department) thinking, which is driven by their ‘budgetary controls’.

He identifies three survival principles in play, and the resulting anti-systemic controls that result:

a) “We must prioritise [our] services for the most in need” which leads to attempts to stop entry into the service, and then the requirement to break through escalating thresholds of eligibility.

Such ‘screening out’ logic creates the following madness: “Your case isn’t serious enough yet…go away until things get worse!”

b) “We must stick to what we do” which leads to “I can see that you need A and B for you to get better…but, here, we only do A.”

Cox gives a real example of an alcoholic with depression being turned away by mental health practitioners because “we don’t work on alcoholism – you need to solve that first and then come back with your depression”. We can predict that such unhelpfulness will lead the needy citizen towards a rather large drink!

c) “We must limit service delivery” which leads to attempts at closing cases, doing things on the cheap, and setting time limits…all of which are about pushing things through at the expense of the needy citizen…which will lead to failure demand (probably popping up unexpectedly in another department…and therefore not seen as linked).

The redesign at Step 3 requires different principles.

Cox makes the obvious point that the actual redesign can’t be explained up-front because, well…how can it be -you haven’t studied your system yet!

…but, generally, it is likely that “genuinely integrated, local-by-default problem solving teams will emerge from [following the steps]”.

A clarification: ‘Genuinely integrated’ doesn’t mean a multi-disciplined shared building where people regularly come together for, say, case review meetings…and then go back to their ‘corners’ and work to their existing (i.e. competing) policies and procedures.

A nice test from Cox:

“How do you know a team is genuinely integrated rather than co-located?…All you have to do is look in the fridge – nobody’s written their department’s name on the milk!”

And so to Step 4: New measures and new leadership

[Once you’ve successfully redesigned the system] “The primary focus is on having really good citizen-focused measure: ’are you improving’, ‘are you getting better’, ‘is the demand that you’re placing reducing over time’.”

Notice that these measures are about the purpose of the system (i.e. for the citizen), and NOT about the activities performed within the system. It’s not about the volumes of calls taken or visits performed or payments made or cases closed or…[carry on naming activities].

“You have to shift leaders from managing the budget top-down to adding value to the process of studying, and improving outcomes for individuals.”

The point here is that you are never done. The outcomes from a redesign can radically shift performance, but you’ll quickly be ‘back at square one’ if you haven’t grasped the WHY and don’t ‘kick on’ to yet more learning, and yet more improvement – becoming better every day – for the good of citizens, and (importantly) for the pride of your employees.

To close

What’s most interesting to me from the video is the graphic explanation of one unit of demand, a needy citizen in a really shitty situation, being bounced around – presenting at public service ‘front doors’ in multiple and seemingly unrelated ‘cases’, with each agency doing what they can but not what is required….and the needy slip ever further into their personal quagmire.

“We limit what we do to ‘what we do’, not to what the person needs.”

Cox makes the hugely important point that, once you open your mind, then the study and redesign of the work is relatively easy. The hard bit is re-conceiving the ‘system of management’. This takes real leadership and (perhaps most importantly) self-development.

Cox closes with the following comment:

“Some of the most rewarding work that I have ever done is just working with these integrated teams who are out…on the ground, with good leadership, learning how to solve problems for citizens. You actually see people’s lives turned around and people who otherwise would have been dead who are now still alive.”

This is powerful stuff! There can’t be much more meaning to anyone’s working life than that.

Footnotes:

1. The video covers one session within a ‘Beyond Budgeting’ event run by Vanguard Consulting over in the UK. The first 3 mins. is an introduction from John Seddon, and then Jeremy Cox (a Vanguard consultant) presents the rest.

Note: Cox refers to names of UK government departments (e.g. The DWP). If you live elsewhere in the world then you are likely to have similar agencies, just with different names.

2. A consultant cannot do it for you: I should clarify that an experienced ‘systems thinking’ coach CAN facilitate you through studying your system and its redesign….BUT they aren’t ‘doing it’ – you are!

I have a post with the ink half dry that explains and expands this point called ‘Smoke and Mirrors’. I guess I should get on and finish it now.

3. The NZ government is setting up a Social Investment Agency. Its “focus is fundamentally about changing the lives of the most vulnerable New Zealanders by focusing on individuals and families, understanding their needs better, and doing more of what is most likely to give the best results”. I like the intent. I hope that those involved watch (or have already watched) the Jeremy Cox video, and consider the messages within.

“Why is your proposed change so profound?”

November 3, 2016November 3, 2016 giantknave Brain Farts All Blacks, Donella Meadows, Elements, Interconnections, Purpose, System, Systems Thinking, transformation

My recent serialised post titled “Your Money or your Life!” proposed that every ‘large corporate’* should make a meaningful change…that would be for the good of all.

Wow, that would be great!

* Where ‘large corporate’ is short form for ‘controlled by free-floating short-term thinking shareholders’.

I got thinking (as is often the case after pressing the ‘publish’ button) about readers thinking:

“Erm, okay – interesting perspective – but why is the suggested change supposedly so profound?”

…and this caused me to question whether I had got the ‘this is a potential game changer!’ point across.

Note: What follows is relevant when considering ANY proposed change, not just the contents of my last post!

And so to a ‘systems thinking’ explanation:

First, a definition:

“A system is an interconnected set of elements that is coherently organised in a way that achieves something.

If you look at that definition closely for a minute, you can see that a system must consist of three kinds of things: elements, interconnections, and a function or purpose¹.” (Donella Meadows)

Going back to an organisation (yours, mine,…wherever) as a system to ponder:

The Elements are pretty obvious – they include the people, the products and services offered, the physical buildings and resources, lots of intangible pieces (distinct departments, teams within) and so on…;

The Interconnections are the “the relationships that hold the elements together” e. g. the physical flows of work, the business policies and guidelines, external laws and regulations, the communications (including the gossip!), and flows of information (signals that go to decision or action points…which may or may not trigger reactions);

The Purpose of a system, whilst essential, is often hard to see (even if you think you know what it is!):

“The best way to deduce the system’s purpose is to watch for a while to see how the system behaves…Purposes are deduced from behaviour, not from rhetoric or stated goals.”

What you see may be very different to what you are told.

…and so, if you want to change an organisational system, presumably through a desire to improve (and even transform) it, then you have three “kinds of things” to play with.

Taking each ‘kind of thing’ in turn:

Elements

“Changing elements usually has the least effect on the system.”

Using rugby and the All Blacks to illustrate the point: The coaches can change one or two players but, if they keep everything else the same, then not too much will change.

Now, sure, some elements may be very important (perhaps the introduction of a brilliant goal kicker) but, even then, the worth of such a change is hugely constrained by the rest of the system.

You might change ALL the elements (e.g. players) but if you keep the interconnections (such as the game plan, methods of communication, information sharing, the environment of trust and respect…) and purpose the same, then very little change may occur.

A positive example of this phenomenon: The All Blacks won the rugby World Cup in 2011 and 2015, making them the first team ever to achieve ‘back-to-back’ rugby World Cups. They did this with a core of extremely influential world-class players³…who then promptly retired!

The world rugby media wondered how the All Blacks would rebuild, given the apparently gaping holes these players would leave. Many a pundit envisioned dark days ahead.

And yet a few weeks ago (on 22^nd Oct 2016), despite introducing many new players, the All Blacks broke the world record for the number of consecutive international games won against ‘Tier one’ rugby nations (18 games). In short, rather than going backwards, they have ‘kicked on’ to even higher levels.

Their purpose and interconnections have clearly been shown to be stronger than the elements (e.g. players).

To the world of work: and organisational ‘restructures’. If you re-jig your hierarchical structure, changing the departments and faces within, but keep the methods of interconnection (the management system) and the underlying purpose the same (whether profit or political ideology), then not much has really changed.

“A system generally goes on being itself, changing only slowly if at all, even with complete substitution of its elements – as long as its interconnections and purposes remain intact.”

Further, you may have convinced yourself that your problems were ‘because of’ individuals…but consider that you may have ‘cut out’ the symptom and not the cause. If you don’t learn from this then you can expect another (costly) restructure in maybe 12 months time…and again…and again.

Interconnections

“Changing interconnections in a system can change it dramatically.”

So, staying with rugby, let’s move to the English national team. In contrast to the All Blacks, they have had two terrible World Cups.

In 2011: they travelled to New Zealand and were awful (I know – I watched them!) They were heavily criticised for their attitude, and off field behaviour – they acted as if they were on an all expenses paid holiday…and, in the end, they were! The coach (Martin Johnson) resigned.

In 2015: they had home advantage – hopes were high. The whole of England was supporting them…but they exited the competition at the pool stages – the first time in their history. The coach (Stuart Lancaster) resigned.

So how has 2016 gone? Well, they’ve played 9, won 9…which includes:

achieving the Grand Slam (which they haven’t done for 13 years);
a 3-0 tour whitewash of Australia (a rare achievement); and
rising to be ranked 2^nd in the World (from 8^th)…just behind those mighty All Blacks.

So what’s changed? Well, England appointed a new manager (Eddie Jones)…but he has stuck with the core of previous players (those elements).

Instead of wholesale changing of the elements, he’s changed the interconnections – how they work together – resulting in players that had become labelled as ‘bad boys’, ‘past their best’ and ‘donkeys’⁴ being reborn, putting in controlled, consistent and herculean performances.

We don’t yet know whether the change will be long lasting…but it has most definitely been profound.

Back to the world of work: Perhaps the best known modern(ish) example of keeping the elements but changing the interconnections has to be NUMMI:

General Motor’s Fremont car plant was one of the worst performing plants in the whole industry, with high costs, low quality and terrible worker relations. GM closed the plant in 1982.

Toyota, wanting to start production in America, struck a joint-venture agreement with GM and the Fremont plant reopened as NUMMI in 1985. They rehired 85% of the original workforce (who still belonged to the Union – considered by GM as a serious problem). After taking 100s of the workers over to Japan to experience totally different thinking (involving a high degree of meaningful worker interacting), these learning’s were put into practise and the factory went on to produce the lowest cost, highest quality cars within its first year!

“Toyota took a bunch of [apparent] F Players, retrained them, put them into a great system, and magically they became superstars.” (Pfeffer and Sutton)

In short: Changing from a command-and-control management system to one that better understands systems and people will be dramatic.

Purpose

“A change in purpose changes a system profoundly, even if every element and interconnection remains the same.”

So, to switch from rugby to football: There’s an annual knockout competition in English Football, known as ‘The FA cup’. First played in 1871, it is the oldest football competition in the world. There is something rather magical about it because, given that it is open to any eligible club down to level 10 of the English football league system, it allows amateur minnows to mix it with the millionaire mega-stars…and, every now and then, create an upset – a minnow becomes a giant killer!

I searched for a game between a low-league minnow and a 1^st division giant…and came up with Wrexham vs. Arsenal back in 1992⁵. Both appeared to have had the same purpose – to win the game – but I suggest that their true purposes were rather different (and not so obviously stated).

Arsenal’s stars were probably trying to keep themselves injury free, to focus on other important matters – win their league (the 1^st division) and perhaps get into their respective national sides (it was European Cup year)….and maybe avoid the embarrassment of defeat.

In contrast, every man in the Wrexham team was aiming to become a legend!

Wrexham won 2 – 1. The crowd went nuts!

But here’s an interesting point: Wrexham, the giant killing minnow, went back to their low-league competition the following weekend and drew 0 – 0 at home with Maidstone United. Maidstone who? Exactly! The same players and staff, same coaching system, same methods of communications…different purpose!

This example, I hope, serves to illustrate the point that a (true) change in purpose will be profound, even whilst retaining the same elements and interconnections.

To the world of work: Even better than a transient change in purpose (like Wrexham’s), would be a permanent one!

…and so we finally come to that ‘profound point’ from my recent serialised post: long-term profit sharing. Bringing ‘Live Money’ into an organisation permanently changes its purpose, for the good of all…which would lead to experimentation with new interconnections…which would reinvigorate the elements (or at least naturally sort through those that fit vs. those that wish to pursue something else).

All in all – a profound change to the system. It would be…well…‘Transformed’.

To close: So, what if your ‘leader‘ changes?

Let’s say your organisation hires a new CEO – an element, but a central one. Everyone’s chattering about this ‘big change’…but will it change much?

The answer is “it depends”.

It will depend upon whether the leader understands systems and people (through education and experience, or perhaps instinctively)…because:

if the new leader goes on to change interconnections and, even better, the (actual) purpose then transformational change will likely occur; but
if that leaders attempts change merely through changing the elements (new people, new departments, a new IT system, some new products and brands….) then not much will actually change.

Changing the interconnections relates to the management system.

Changing the purpose relates to why the organisation exists, and for whom.

…and I hope I don’t need to say that a fancy new ‘purpose statement’ doesn’t, of itself, change a thing!

Footnote:

1. The word ‘Function’ is generally used for non-human systems and ‘Purpose’ for human systems.

2. Quote source: All quotes (unless otherwise stated) are taken from the excellent book ‘Thinking in Systems’ written by the late Donella Meadows (a giant to add at some point).

3. All Black players that retired after 2015 rugby World Cup:

Richie McCaw (148 caps): Regarded by many as the greatest ever rugby player, Most capped rugby player of all time, 3x World Rugby Player of the Year….and his accolades go on and on;
Dan Carter (112 caps): Regarded by many as the greatest ever no. 10 (fly half) player, Highest international test points scorer of all time (1,598), 3x World Rugby Player of the Year…and on and on;
Ma’a Nonu (103 caps) and Conrad Smith (94 caps). Most successful mid-field pairing;
…and other great players: Kevin Mealamu (132 caps), Tony Woodcock (118 caps)

4. England players: If you are a rugby fan then I’m referring to the likes of Dylan Hartley (‘bad boy’), Chris Robshaw (‘has been’) and James Haskell (‘donkey’). Sorry chaps…but this is what you had seemingly become!

5. FA Cup Giant Killing Context: Wrexham came last in League 4 the year before (i.e. came 92^nd out of all the 92 league 1 – 4 clubs). At the complete opposite end of the spectrum, Arsenal won League 1 (i.e. came 1^st out of these 92 clubs).

6. Explaining the main post Image: The system is made up of ropes (elements), knots (interconnections) and purpose (what it is intended to achieve)….which may be to look pretty or to hold a heavy load.

7. Clarification: This post is NOT saying that purpose is the only lever you should focus on. It is merely explaining the likely impact of working on each type of lever. We should be working on improving all three ‘kinds of things’ and, being a system, they are all related!

The gift that keeps on giving

July 26, 2016November 2, 2023 giantknave Brain Farts Positivity, Systems Thinking, ThinkPurpose

I’m a big fan of the Think Purpose blog. It gives me a good hearty laugh, and long may it continue.

Some time ago the author promoted the blog’s most viewed post to a ‘page of its own’ status under the heading ‘It’s not all cream cakes and beer in systems thinking’. Go on, have a read.

I enjoy this post immensely (it has so many truths within) and, as such, I have it on my wall in an attempt to keep me sane.

I was pondering it the other day as yet more madness happened around me and something struck me: I wanted to add something of an optimistic/ positive nature to the list (‘item no. 8’ if you will)….and here it is:

Once you begin to understand the basics of systems thinking and intervention theory then much of what you observe around you becomes ‘the gift that keeps on giving’.

There isn’t a day that goes by in which I don’t read an email or intranet communication or become involved in (or overhear) a conversation in which I start to chuckle (even ending up crying with laughter) at what is happening before and around me.

So, yep, I’d add to the list that systems thinking is the gift that keeps on giving. Just think – all that comedy was occurring around you beforehand…and you never knew! How could you?

…and to follow up this positivity, ‘item no. 9’ is that ‘systems thinking’ conversations are hugely stimulating.

Since starting my journey, and in particular from when I began to write this blog, I have never had such fabulous, important, liberating, energising, therapeutic, cathartic etc. etc. conversations with some truly inspirational, humble, genuine, passionate and well-meaning people, searching for a ‘better way’ for them, for society and for our planet.

Sure, much of the command and control cr@p still remains around them but it’s a great feeling to be able to talk to a fellow human and ‘you know that they know’ and ‘they know that you know’! It’s a bit like having a magical secret.

Obviously it gets better the more of you there are¹…but even just two of you can hugely enjoy a daily exchange about another “you couldn’t write this stuff” instance of ‘item 8’ comedy (see above).

Conversations beforehand were just so bland, boring and irrelevant to the world.

Ho hum, roll on tomorrow’s fun 🙂

Footnote:

1. I see these stimulating conversations as the pioneers of a ‘new way’ connecting and nourishing themselves along the lines of the Berkana Institute system change model. (Thanks to Charles Beauregard for sharing this video in the comments section of a much earlier Think Purpose post.)

Oh…so that’s why ‘Command and Control’ doesn’t work very well!

July 11, 2016July 11, 2016 giantknave Brain Farts Animated, Command and control, Deterministic, Henry Ford, Management model, Peter Checkland, Russell Ackoff, Social, Stafford Beer, System, System types, Systems Thinking

Warning (or advert for some): Sometimes I write long(er) ‘foundational’ type posts – this is one of them 🙂

Russ Ackoff researched and wrote a great deal about systems.

It is within his writings¹ that I find an excellent explanation about why many organisations adopted the command and control management model, why there is a major problem with this and, most importantly, why there is a better way.

First, A recap:

Before looking at types of systems, I should allow Ackoff to remind us what is meant by ‘a system’ and why this matters:

“A system is a network of inter-dependant components that work together to try to accomplish the aim of the system…

The two key pieces here are that:

there is an aim; and
it is made up of parts that need to work together (either directly or indirectly) to achieve that aim

If you have parts but no aim then you don’t have a system…you simply have a ‘collection’.

If you have a part that (truly) isn’t required to achieve the aim then it isn’t actually part of the system…which is why your ‘appendix’ body part got its name.

…If each part of a system, considered separately, is made to operate as efficiently as possible, the system as a whole will not operate as effectively as possible…

The heart and lungs are parts of the body but if they function according to what’s best ‘for themselves’ then they won’t function as required for the overall good of the whole. It’s no good if the brain is telling the heart and lungs to ‘work flat out’ to run like hell from a chasing pack of lions and these organs both respond with a “no thanks, this doesn’t suit us!” The same is true for parts of (e.g. functions within) organisations.

…The performance of a system depends more on how its components interact than on how they act independently of each other…

You can buy a ‘light as a feather’ carbon frame, an awesome set of aero wheels and a precision engineered 11-speed group set but you can’t ride them as a bike if they don’t fit together. Further, someone with a basic ‘sit up and beg’ bike frame with cheap wheels and components that do fit will easily beat you in a bike race.

…When a system is taken apart it loses its essential properties.”

If you take apart an alarm clock, you will have all of the parts necessary for the system but the disassembled collection of parts isn’t sufficient to tell you the time.

The above has huge implications.

So, on to Ackoff’s system types:

Ackoff defined a number of types of systems² and the problems that occur when an organisation adopts a management model that does not match the correct system type.

Here goes….

Type 1: Deterministic (e.g. mechanisms)

A deterministic system is one which has no purpose and neither do its component parts. This might seem rather strange…”Erm, I thought you said a system had to have an aim?!” – the point is that a deterministic system normally serves a purpose of an entity external to it, such as its creator. Its function, and that of its parts, is simply to provide that service when required.

Mechanisms are the most obvious examples of deterministic systems: An alarm clock is such a system. Its purpose (to tell the time) has been provided to it by its creator (the clock maker)….and that is what it is for, nothing more and nothing less. It can’t decide to do something else!

Even a computer, whilst incredibly more complicated than an alarm clock, is such a system – it is reliant on the inputs and programs provided to it by its external sources.

Type 2: Animated (e.g. most organisms)

An animated system is one which does have a purpose of its own but its parts don’t.

Animals (and therefore humans) are the most obvious example. They have a purpose of their own – where this might be argued as (at a minimum) survival, and (more optimistically) to enjoy doing so, in the manner of their own choosing.

The animal is made up of parts (e.g. organs) and whilst these parts have a necessary function for the good of the whole, they do not have a purpose of their own.

In this way we can compare a computer to a person and see that they are fundamentally different. The computer’s purpose is provided to it whilst the person provides their own.

Type 3: Social (e.g. organisations, societies)

A social system is one which has a purpose of its own and so do its parts (the people within).

Indeed each social system is usually part of a larger social system (e.g. a family is part of a community, which is part of a nation, which is part of ….)

And even more complex, a person belongs to multiple social systems – which have different, sometimes conflicting, purposes³.

So, bringing these three types together, we have:

System Type⁴:	The whole is:	The Parts are:
Deterministic (e.g. a mechanism)	Not purposeful	Not purposeful
Animated (e.g. a human)	Purposeful	Not purposeful
Social (e.g. an organisation)	Purposeful	Purposeful

These three system types form a sort of hierarchy: The deterministic alarm clock is given purpose by the animated (clock making) person who also lives within their social group. The linkages don’t go the other way….or at least they shouldn’t…which leads on to…

Okay, interesting stuff but what’s the point?

Well, now that we have an understanding of three different types of systems, we can see the consequences of the misunderstanding of an organisation as a system:

A ‘deterministic’ model applied to an organisation:

Adam Smith (often referred to as the father of economics and of capitalism) wrote a famous book called ‘The wealth of nations’ (1776). In it, he used the example of a pin factory to explain the concept of ‘the division of labour’. He explained that one person performing all the steps necessary to making a pin could perhaps make only 20 pins a day but if the pin-making process were broken up into a series of limited operations, with separate people performing them in a joined-up line, productivity could rise to thousands of pins per day per worker.

Now that sounds fantastic doesn’t it! But for who?

Smith’s thinking was taken on board by industrialists who went on to employ vast factories of ‘unskilled labour’ in the new concept of ‘manufacturing’ (and who likely still do in the sweat shops of 3^rd world countries).

Standing back, we can see that this is using people as replaceable machine parts i.e. we have a defined mechanism (the manufacturing process) which is given its purpose externally by its creator (e.g. make pins)…and wow, this mechanism sure can make pins!

Henry Ford’s phenomenal success worked in the same way. He designed a mechanism to make Model T Fords (his mass production factory) and installed workers as the mechanism’s parts. He (and other ‘owners’ at this time) could use workers in this mechanistic way because:

unskilled workers, whilst poorly educated, were adequate for the simple tasks required of them;
such workers were willing to tolerate being treated as a machine part since there was high unemployment and virtually no social security safety net…giving them little option (i.e. work as required or starve);
there was a large pool of available labour – the human parts of the machine were easily replaceable; and
such business owners were subject to very little societal controls (such as governmental interventions and constraints) limiting their treatment of their worker ‘parts’⁴.

It’s worth noting that, even though worker conditions were massively in his favour, Ford’s ‘mechanism’ had an astounding 370% turnover of workers in 1913, with new hires staying an average of only 3 months. Many workers simply ‘walked off the job’ without notifying anyone…which is what happens if you ask humans to perform monotonous (demoralising) work without having to use their brains.

An ‘animated’ model applied to an organisation

So times moved on. We had two world wars that caused/ enabled major societal changes – a major shakeup of the class system, the birth and rise of the Labour movement and worker unions, massive improvements in education, social security and welfare, and great advances in technology.

The other significant change was the raising of capital (necessary for post war growth and development) from the public and the consequent birth/ rise of publically owned corporations. This separated the ownership and management of these new organisations.

A big difference from before was that:

the workers were now far more educated and empowered; and
the required work had become far more skilled (utilising new technologies).

Managers were no longer able to treat workers as merely replaceable cogs in a machine – it took time to train them, and they now had worker rights and choice.

Now, rather than seeing an organisation as a deterministic system with the all-powerful owner dictating its purpose (as the likes of Ford had done), they operated as an animated system would⁶: with a ‘brain’ (senior management) and a ‘body’ (the various operating functions performing the work).

Such a model works by senior management providing the instructions (the what: commands) and procedures (the how: controls) and then the operating units carrying them out accordingly.

“Command and control represents the division of labour between decision-making and doing the work.” (Seddon)

We all know that the ‘operator’ parts within the organisations ‘body’ are actually human beings but the ‘command and control’ management instruments don’t really recognise this fact:

the organisational ‘brain’ (often annually) decides the strategy and breaks this down into a set of objectives for the parts of the ‘body’ and locks these into a cascaded grand plan;

the organisational ‘brain’ provides incentives for the ‘body’ to act as it requires: thus assuming that it is simply a matter of extrinsically motivating each part to comply as required;

the organisational ‘brain’ considers the performance of each part of the ‘body’, scores it and delivers this judgement back: thus assuming that each part can and will accept such feedback for the good of the whole;

the organisational ‘brain’ performs (frequent) reorganisations on the ‘body’ parts, as if shifting pawns around a game board. The brain does this by dictating such redesigns to the body rather than asking the body if (and how) it could better rearrange itself;

The organisational ‘brain’ thinks that the answer to an increasingly complex environment is simply to increase the quantity and regularity of communication with the ‘body’ parts. This fails to realise that communication is not the underlying problem.

But the reality for every organisation is that they have purposeful parts – you and I – whether they like it or not…and so to treat these parts as merely having a function for the whole is to inevitably generate conflict.

A social model applied to an organisation

…and so we reach the point at which we conclude the obvious that:

the organisation (hopefully) has a purpose;

AND

the humans working within it have separate purposes.

…and therefore any management model that doesn’t understand and work within such a social system will be very limiting – causing loss of immeasurable value to the organisation AND to the people within.

Now you might say “okay, interesting stuff, but treating an organisation as an animated system and using command and control methods has worked fine so far…why do we need to change?”

The rate of change in our world has been massively accelerating. It used to be that change was seen as generational and this made it relatively easy for people to adapt but this no longer holds true.

Organisations are operating in more complex and less predictable environments with the result that:

“Over the last 50 years, the average lifespan of S&P 500 companies has shrunk from around 60 years to closer to 18 years.” (Source: The art of corporate endurance )

Here’s a classic Deming quote: “It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory.”

But if survival is desired, then the best chance that an organisation has is to operate a management model that actually fits with the correct type of system! In so doing, it can get the best out of everyone within.

What might this model look like? Studying ‘Deming’s 14 points for Management’ would be a great start. A post to follow next.

Who’s been successfully operating a social model for decades? Two brilliant examples are Toyota and Handelsbanken.

Footnotes:

1. Credit: The core of this post comes from learnings derived from a classic Ackoff essay entitled ‘Reflections on systems and their models’ which can be found in the book ‘Ackoff’s Best: His classic writings on management’.

2. I’m aware that other system thinkers have created other, more sophisticated, classification schemes (e.g. Boulding, Beer). Ackoff’s system types nicely serve the purpose of this post.

3. This fact is probably relevant to the need for, and creation of ‘soft systems thinking’…which is where Peter Checkland’s work fits in (A ‘giant bio’ currently in draft)

4. For those ‘system’ geeks out there: Ackoff explained a 4^th system type, that of an ecological system – where the parts are purposeful but the whole is not. Ecological systems contain interacting mechanistic, organismic and social systems, but do not have a purpose of their own. However, their function(s) serve the purpose of the systems that are their parts.

Example: the purposeful use of fluorocarbons as propellants by humans (a purposeful part of the ecological system) affects the ozone layer in a way that is determined, and not a matter of choice for our planet (the whole)…the planet cannot decide that it is harmful to it and decide to ‘do something about it’– the outcome (even though we may not understand it) is determined.

5. Henry Ford realised the problem and, in an attempt to compensate for their conditions, paid his workers well as compared to what they could earn elsewhere.

6. Stafford Beer wrote a famous book called ‘The brain of the firm’ (1972) that explored in detail the analogy of an organisation working as the human body does.

“What I think is…”

July 6, 2016 giantknave Brain Farts C. West Churchman, Peter Checkland, problem solving, Soft Systems Methodology, Systems Thinking, worldviews

I’d suggest that every day in our working (and home) lives we are asked for our opinion on something. In fact, such a situation probably occurs dozens of times every single day.

Let’s drill down into a single instance and consider the basic pattern of dialogue: we listen to someone state, and maybe explain, their thinking with regards to what they deem to be a problematic situation (explained below) and then we start an immediate response with words like “I think that…”. Worse, we may state our ‘thinking’ (perspective) as fact and we may mistake our feelings as rational logic.

I have a constant battle with myself to avoid, pull back from, or recognise my fall into this vast pit.

A sideways look at ‘everyday life’:

Peter Checkland, in his ‘Soft Systems Methodology’ (SSM), came up with a rather nice device that assists – the idea of ‘problematic situations’.

“As a member of the human tribe we experience everyday life as being quite exceptionally complex. We feel ourselves to be carried along in an onrushing turbulent stream, a flux of happenings, ideas, emotions, actions, all mediated through the slippery agency of language, all continually changing.

Our response to our immersion in this stream is not simply to experience it. Beyond that, we have an innate desire to try to see it, if we can, as meaningful. We attribute meaning to it – the ability to do this being one of the characteristics which marks us out as human.

Part of this meaning attribution is to see chunks of the ongoing flux as ‘situations’. Nothing is intrinsically ‘a situation’; it is our perceptions which create them as such, and in doing that we know that they are not static; their boundaries and their contents will change over time.

Some of the situations we perceive, because they affect us in some way, cause us to feel a need to tackle them, to do something about them, to improve them.” Thus we perceive such situations as ‘problematic’ i.e. something to intervene in.

This neatly dovetails with my last post in respect of Ackoff and messes vs. abstract problems. Just as Ackoff didn’t like the simplistic word ‘problem’, neither does Checkland. …and for the same reason: ‘problem’ implies ‘solution’ but, as he puts it, “real life is more complex than that!”

Back to that opinion we have been asked for

How do we arrive at our thinking? Do we have enough knowledge to justify a response?

Here’s another useful passage from Checkland:

“In human conversation, each of the persons involved influences others and is also influenced by them. Out of this two-way process comes what the participants are creating as their notion of changing ‘reality’. These acts of creating reality are never complete, and so have to be examined as only a part of a never-ending process.”

i.e. Any response we provide isn’t, and cannot be, ‘concrete’*. We have, and will always have, much to learn. Of course, it’s absolutely the case that our mindset (and where it sits on the ‘fixed – growth’ spectrum) will determine in which direction(s) and how far our thinking will travel during, and following human interactions.

(*yet, in many situations, we are easily satisfied with superficial response(s) and make key decisions based upon them)

I’d like to propose a few ‘alterations’ to our language to more accurately express the reality whenever we offer our opinion. How about we start our replies with:

“what I currently think is…”; or even better

“what’s just popped into my head as a response is…”

Because, let’s be honest – we weren’t thinking about it 5 minutes before we were asked and we have press-ganged our brain into providing a timely reply. Further, our ‘answer’ isn’t exactly complete. It’s just an initial train of thought based on what we have been exposed to, and heavily weighted by its recency.

Even thinking about adjusting our replies to being less certain is likely to help us contemplate what we actually know to respond.

I could be flippant here and say that, if you ask me what I think, I should reply that I don’t know yet – ask me on my death bed…because that’s when I will have finished* assimilating all the information available to me. (* though likely, I presume, not by my choice)

Rather than taking this unhelpful line of reasoning…let’s look at what lies within:

Knowledge, not opinions

i.e. the idea that I need to take my time, gain (and therefore seek out) experience, understand the facts and expose differing perspectives before I provide a hypothetically useful reply.

So, even better than the “what I currently think is…” response would be to clearly explain the basis, extent (and therefore limitations) of our experiences in respect of the topic in play…so that we and the listener can appreciate why we currently think as we do…and our listener is encouraged to reflect in the same manner. Gosh, we might end up educating each other!

“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance” (Confucius)

In a work scenario our response should often simply be:

“I don’t have the facts to make a valuable response…but I can do something about that…I’ll get straight to the gemba!”

…and if we do this, we will collect the facts, appreciate the environment in which they arise, and understand other perspectives…leading to meaningful change, towards purpose.

…which is an excellent link to three previous posts:

…and I’ve also set myself up for a follow-up post on the ‘soft systems thinking’ topic of ‘Worldviews’. Here’s a teaser to end with:

“The systems approach begins when first you see the world through the eyes of another. [It] goes on to discover that every world-view is terribly restricted. There are no experts in the systems approach.” (C. West Churchman)