'Systems Practice' Reviewed

My 2010 book Systems Practice. How to Act in a Climate-Change World (Springer and The Open University) has just been reviewed by Howard Silverman in the journal Ecopsychology. His review is replete with understanding. The first page is available on open access.

Howard opens his review with:

"The surest view into Ray Ison’s perspective on systems practice, as described in his 2010 book Systems Practice: How to Act in a Climate-Change World, begins with his definition of a system. Ison cites a four-part formulation developed at the Open University, where he is Professor in Systems:

• A collection of entities
• That are seen by someone
• As interacting together
• To do something

This might seem like boilerplate stuff, but that’s only partially correct. Compare it for example with Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s definition: an entity that maintains its existence through the mutual interaction of its parts (Davidson, 1983). Or Donella Meadows’ in the book Thinking in Systems: a set of things, interconnected in such a way that they produce their own pattern of behavior over time (Meadows, 2008). Or one based on the three properties laid out by Russell Ackoff in Redesigning the Future: a whole, consisting of parts that can interdependently affect the behavior or properties of the whole (Ackoff, 1974).
 
Three aspects of systems—elements, interactions, and identity or behavior or purpose—are cited by each of the three systems luminaries. The Open University formulation includes these three aspects and also a fourth: point of view.  This top-line emphasis on point of view recalls a diagram by two additional luminaries, Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson. In it, they describe two perspectives on systems—first-order and second order cybernetics—distinguished by whether or not one sees oneself as a participant in the system under examination.."

He concludes with:

"What becomes apparent on reading is that, in Ison’s perspective on systems thinking and practice, the functionalist impulses that have dominated the systems field are held in check. He elaborates on acting in a climate-change world without mention of international protocols or planetary boundaries or stabilization wedges. He criticizes target-based management without reference to that favorite target of environmentalists: 350. For better or worse, the reader is left to contemplate the broader applications and implications of Ison’s approach. Yet for anyone interested in what the systems field might contribute to a reflexive understanding of situational inquiry and engagement, there is hardly a better book with which to start."

Further reviews of Systems Practice can be found in Agricultural Systems (by Ika Darnhofer) and Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, Volume 14, Issue 4, 2012, pp.481-483 (by Lauren Rickards).  Lauren writes:

"As the ‘wicked’ and ‘messy’ nature of contemporary problems becomes increasingly apparent, the need to better understand and appropriately engage with the complex systems we are part of is of growing importance. Systems Practice: How to Act in a Climate Change World is rich in insight into the challenges and joys of developing this was of thinking and acting. It is itself a highly valuable but challenging book, in part because of the depth of the problems in modern society it reveals (including, for example, the very concept of ‘problems’, with its implicit simplistic corollary: ‘solutions’). It is also challenging because of the richness of strategies it provides for engaging with these ‘problems’ and becoming a ‘systems practitioner’... Its breadth and depth of thinking is stimulating and the intellectual and emotional challenges it poses reflect the situations we are in rather than weaknesses with the book itself, which is instead carefully and cleverly crafted."

Governing science - emerging systemic failures?

The governance of science has attracted institutional innovation (in the new institutional economics sense) since the founding of The Royal Society. The Royal Society formed outside government and ostensibly remains that way.  In recent times one of the most significant institutional ‘innovations’ has been that of ‘chief scientist’, a role within government. Beginning in 1964 the “UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA) [has been] the personal adviser on science and technology-related activities and policies to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet; and head of the Government Office for Science.”  According to Wikipedia “he has a significant public role as the government's most visible scientific expert”; nothing is said about the gendered nature of the role – a woman has yet to be appointed. 

Later, Chief Scientific Officers were appointed to all ministries. The UK model has, in part, been followed in other places such as Australia and in the private sector.

Those in the role have championed particular concerns and have, at times, attracted a certain amount of controversy. In 2005 there were criticisms of Australia's chief scientist, particularly his links to 'big mining'. In 2007 in an 'own goal' display, Jim Peacock, Australia's then Chief Scientist speaking at a conference in Melbourne, said those circulating misinformation about GM were largely "self-serving organic farmers and ill-informed environmental activists". There are other perspectives. James Wilsdon provides an easy to read overview of the Chief Scientist role in the UK following the latest appointment. But be warned it is an overview of a particular flavour.

Institutions, like that of Chief Scientist, should not be immutable though too often they are. Recent controversies around the role suggest a need for some critical reappraisal including an examination of some of the systemic consequences of the institution as contexts change. This might well extend to modes of enactment of the role. Peter Ellerton in an article in The Conversation asks: 'what are chief scientists for?' 

George Monbiot has perhaps been the most strident UK critic. He writes 'Beware the rise of the government scientists turned lobbyists. From badgers to bees, government science advisers are routinely misleading us to support the politicians' agendas'.  In response Roger Pielke Jr and James Wilsdon outline Why Monbiot's attack on Walport misses the mark: 'it is unfair of Monbiot to write off Walport as a corporate stooge in search of a peerage' they write. 'What this episode highlights are a set of broader tensions and dilemmas in the chief scientific adviser role, which Walport needs to bear in mind and address more openly'.

One of the more contentious issues of late was the response by the UK government (and Chief Scientist) to the proposed EU-wide ban on the use of neonicotinoids. The UK stood out against the EU position which was eventually passed into law. In follow-up reporting it was noted in The Guardian that the main scientist advising the UK government on this issue 'is to join Syngenta, the chemical giant that manufactures one of the insecticides'. There have been further reports in the UK press of studies showing that insecticide-polluted water  has 70% fewer invertebrate species.

It is not only the UK where there has been recent controversy as this story from Canada exemplifies: The Rise of The Science Philistines: Canada’s Chief Science Regulator Announces That “Scientific Discovery Is Not Valuable Unless It Has Commercial Value.”  The reponses to this posting make for fascinating reading. I was struck in particular by a posting from Richard Smith (Institute for Policy Research & Development, London) with a link to his article in Real World Economics (no. 64) called Capitalism and the Destruction of Life on Earth: Six theses on saving the human species.

The linking of science with traditional models of economic growth, a mantra of the current UK government (despite intelligent papers arguing for alternatives published prior to the last election by Conservatives Selwyn Gummer and Zac Goldsmith), caught Walport out yet again and invoked, justifiably a strong critique from George Monbiot: "Speaking at the Centre for Science and Policy at Cambridge University, Walport maintained that scientific advisers had five main functions, and the first of these was "ensuring that scientific knowledge translates to economic growth". No statement could more clearly reveal what [French philosopher, Julien] Benda called the "assimilation" of the intellectual. As if to drive the point home, the press release summarising his speech revealed that the centre is sponsored, among others, by BAE Systems, BP and Lloyd's."

Importantly Monbiot extends his critique beyond the chief scientist to scholars themselves and thus to universities: OxfordUniversity won't take funding from tobacco companies. But Shell's OK.  As Monbiot says: 'If scholars don't take an ethical stance against corporate money, where's the moral check on power?'  

At 'the other' place some moral fortitude was exhibited: Oxford alumni condemn choice of Shell to fund Earth sciences lab.  It is a pity my own alma matar, the University of Queensland was not more morally discerning as it seems to be playing both sides. On the one hand research there has shown that: "a shift from coal-fired to gas-fired power generation will not significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions" (the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland) whereas in other areas it seems to have signed up, uncritically, to 'frackademia'. 

At this historic moment there is no intellectual or moral justification for scholars and Universities accepting funding that prolong our carbon-based society. Fracking and coal seam gas are in the same league as Big Tobacco and should be resisted at all costs.  It is perverse to me that so much money has been (foolishly) spent on carbon sequesteration on the one hand and now the world has gone mad about the exact opposite - the release of yet more safely stored carbon, methane and other toxics into the atmosphere. This morally indefensible attitude has been apparent in the 'official' UK government response to the report by MPs on the Environmental Audit Select Committee who have called for a moratorium on drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic. As this Alaskan example demonstrates, it is clear to me that we are rapidly moving from  human-induced ecocide to to a form of eco-genocide.

Phil Macnaghten and Jason Chilvers have researched some of the governance issues in the UK. They conclude in their 2013 paper: "The future of science governance: publics, policies, practices" in Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, the following:  

 Abstract. In this paper we develop new insights on science governance at a time when an emphasis on public engagement in responding to questions of trust in science is giving way to a more systemic and networked perspective. In a meta-analysis across seventeen UK public dialogue processes we identify five spheres of public concern about the governance of science and technology relating to: the purposes of science; trust; inclusion; speed and direction of innovation; and equity. Forty in-depth interviews with senior UK science policy actors reveal highly partial institutional responses to these concerns and help explain the underlying processes that close down, and at times open up, reflection and response on public values. Finally, we consider the implications of this analysis for the future of science governance, prospects for more anticipatory, reflexive, and inclusive forms of governing, and the roles for critical social science inquiry.

It is to be hoped that their findings have 'impact' and that some institutional reform is forth-coming. Importantly reform needs to involve the governing bodies of our main publicly-funded Universities, and not least, academics themselves.

John Beishon Memorial Lecture at ASC 2013

The 2013 John Beishon Memorial Lecture will be presented at the American Society of Cybernetics (ASC) annual conference in Bolton.

It will be delivered by Professor Noam Cook, San Jose State University, California. The title of the lecture is "Distinction Not Separation: The Need to Make Systems Thinking Even More Influential".
 
John Beishon was the first Professor of Systems at the OU. He was an academic and administrator, born November 10 1930; died April 29 2001.

The first John Beishon Memorial lecture was delivered on 14 May 2004 by Christopher Price, Labour MP 1966-83, former Principal of Leeds Metropolitan University and member of the OU Council (1996-2002).

A downloadable video of the lecture including Geoff Peters and John Naughton's contributions can be found here.

The second John Beishon Lecture took place on 19 June 2006. This was given by Professor (now Emeritus Professor) John Naughton, Professor of the Public Understanding of Technology.
This was also John’s Inaugural Professorial lecture entitled “The Social Life of Networks”. 

It is possible to attend the conference dinner as an option (rather than whole conference) at a negotiated price of £35 per head. 

Avoiding systemic failure in health systems?

Will the litany of systemic failures in the English NHS give pause to those responsible for public sector governance to rethink what it is that they and others do?  The quality of the parliamentary debate suggests little hope for optimism. But there are other approaches.

Some health policy practitioners advocate a turn to systems thinking. The video below was "produced by the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research and was filmed during the launch of the Alliance's 2009 Flagship Report: Systems Thinking for Health Systems Strengthening, at the Global Forum for Health Research in Cuba in November 2009. It features experts and policy-makers from LMIC's providing their views on Systems thinking and its potential contribution to health systems strengthening in developing countries."  

There are no reasons the arguments mounted by this group should not be appplied to the UK NHS.  It is also clear that parties of all political persuasions have consistently failed because of the thinking that informs governance and managment.  Simon Caulkin, former management editor of The Observer, has been consistent in his reporting of the failures in understanding on which public sector management (or mis-managment) has been built...and continues to be built.  An excellent article, "'Kittens are evil': heresies in public policy" summarises many of the key points and offers alternatives that need to be considered with some urgency.  It is to be hoped that in the wake of the Keogh Report there will be more investment in the approaches outlined in the Caulkin article. And in greater capacity building in systems thinking in practice more generallly.

CADWAGO water governance project up and running

Global programme will pool knowledge to improve water management

A global project, run jointly by The Open University, is aiming to improve the management of unexpected events due to climate change – such as floods, water shortages and pollution incidents – by forging links between river planners and policy makers. The consortium behind the project has been awarded one million Euros by funders to build bridges among governments and policy-makers so that there is more collaboration over water issues. The three-year project will look at 10 case studies from Canada, Australia and across Europe (one in the UK) and in each one it will focus on the governance of the social and the natural aspects of water catchments, in association with a range of policies such as biodiversity, climate change, water pollution, the ecological status of water and the impact of flooding. Open University Professor in Systems Ray Ison, the lead OU researcher on the consortium, explained: “Water quality, security and the health of rivers are among our biggest global issues. From climate change - where there might be too much water or too little - to problems about water quality which is currently under threat, it seems likely that the future will be even more volatile and challenging. Even historical engineering works may no longer be adequate.  “Water is one of the biggest global issues and we are very pleased that the funders saw this programme as sitting right up there with other challenges facing Europe including financial and social problems.” "Droughts, flooding and a range of pollution incidents have been widely experienced in Europe in recent years. But the issues arising vary enormously, with some parts of Europe having more in common with non-European countries,” says Professor Ison. Complex issues cannot be addressed in isolation and what is needed is collaboration by all the policy-makers with the aim of encouraging more effective policies, embracing both environmental and social needs, he said. “The consortium, called CADWAGO will be able to make some broader comparisons building on what has been learnt within and outside of Europe. Climate change adaption in particular is likely to challenge many, if not all, historical river management practices, so much can be learnt from places where climate change impacts are greatest.” The project follows a call put out by the funders as part of a Europe and Global Challenges Programme. The funders are a trio of European Foundations including Compagnia di San Paulo from Italy, Volkswagen Stiftung from Germany and Riksbankens Jubileumsfond from Sweden. The programme will have a four-stranded remit: to clarify how researchers and policy-makers understand ecosystems; to provide knowledge of the workings of institutions involved in water catchment; to critically examine how different organisations and citizens work together to manage water holistically and to design governance learning events for policy-makers. One of the special features is that alongside the research, the team – which includes consortium partners from Sweden, Australia, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands and the USA – are inviting other policy researchers to be joint “learners” with them. The OU has a history of researching and facilitating “social learning” in complex and contested situations, so is ideally placed to take part in this programme, added Professor Ison. The programme is closely linked to the OU’s Systems Thinking in Practice (STiP) postgraduate programme. Students of STiP learn how to improve complex and problematic situations across a range of job roles, organisation types, and industrial sectors. Press Release from the Open University 02 Jul 2013 Information about recent UK water governance policy can be found here: The Principal Investigator on CADWAGO is Dr Neil Powell. The project is managed by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI).

OU (UK) in THES top 100 under 50 Unis

Rankings are pervasive. Because the criteria are never readily apparent, and unlikely to be systemic, rankings always need to be treated with caution.  That said it is good to have some differentiation in the rankings system as with the global top 100 under 50 year old universities. From my perspective ranking still has a long way to go to capture the essence of what a university's purpose is - the transformation of learners and society in line with an espoused social mission.  This makes the traditional ranking system, which puts Oxbridge etc at the top, very dubious from a policy perspective.  I feel sure the current top crop would come much further down the list if the value they added via transformation was the key measure. For this reason I am delighted the OU features in top 100 (just) in the new rankings.

The OU ranks 99 in the 100 global under 50 years old universities 2013 published by the Times Higher Education (THE).  The Times Higher Education 100 Under 50 is a ranking of the top 100 global universities under 50 years old.  

It provides a glimpse into the future, showcasing not those institutions with centuries of history, but the rising stars which show great potential.  The ranking was described by THE editor, Phil Baty as “the next generation of world class universities”. 

The latest edition of University World News contains a number of reports on ranking, incuding one from a 2011 UNESCO sponsored conference. 

Political troubles with the new MDB plan

Governing and managing the MDB (Murray Darling Basin) in Australia is regarded by many as a classic 'wicked problem' but it has rarely been framed as such by policy makers.  Developing, and now adopting a MDB plan has been a frought process.  The saga continues.  Victoria, the ACT and South Australia have formally signed on to the plan but not NSW or Queensland as this piece 'Murray-Darling stoush helps no-one' notes:

26 June 2013

"The standoff continues between State and Federal Governments on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The Queensland and New South Wales Governments believe the current deal on offer leaves them holding the short straw, and now say they won’t sign up until they are offered a fair compromise. The Federal Government’s plan is technically legally binding, so there may not be a great deal the States can actually do. Jonathan La Nauze from the Australian Conservation Foundation says, “The Commonwealth now has the power to set limits on how much water can be taken out of river  valleys... that's an important independent power that they have to look after our shared interests”, “but those rivers are still managed on a day-to-day basis by State Governments. They're the ones who actually own and manage most of the dams and the channels, the regulators that control where water flows... if the Commonwealth actually has to intervene and force them to comply, it'll be quite an expensive exercise that's really not the best way to achieve the outcome”.

Queensland Premier Campbell Newman seems resolute in his stance, saying the Plan would have dire consequences for rural communities, and he won’t accept funding or take responsibility for implementing the plan until changes are made.

Ultimately the states must conform to the Federal Government’s impositions, reports say that trying to impede progress would only chew up taxpayer funds before finding in the Commonwealth’s favour."

I wonder if the Liberal (Conservative) premiers of NSW and Queensland know something others do not? For example is there a 'behind-closed doors' deal within the Liberal-National Party that parts of the legislation will be repealed or manipulated when (if) they are elected federally?


In my view Australian water governance suffered another blow this past week when Indpendent MP Tony Windsor announced his intention to resign from Federal Parliament.  We gave evidence before a Parliamentary Committee he chaired and I found him open and receptive and above all polite - more than could be said for some of the National Party members of his committee. Tony Windsor had a systemic sensibility.  He has also achieved a lot in parliament (e.g. his role in recent legislation restricting coal seem gas exploitation), particularly over his period of minority government, as this testimonial from GetUp outlines:

"I just wanted to let you know about some good news this week – and share an opportunity to say thank you to the MP who helped make it happen. Parliament passed the ‘water trigger bill’ which will ensure the impact on water is considered before CSG or coal projects are approved.
One of the many scary things about CSG mining is the threat it poses to our water supply. Pumping huge volumes of chemicals underground, at high pressure, can have a detrimental impact on our water reserves. 

Until now, the Federal Government has had no legal power to intervene in cases where water resources could be put at risk. This week, Parliament agreed to change that. As a result, the Federal Government is already contacting scores of mines and CSG projects to demand a thorough analysis on the impact of their plans on ground and surface water.

Independent MP Tony Windsor introduced and championed the Bill to make this happen. It’s been a long fight, and we reckon he deserves a huge “congratulations”.

We’ve booked a huge “thank you” advertisement in Mr Windsor’s local paper so his constituents can see what he achieved this week. Wouldn’t it be great if thousands of us from across the country signed it, to show that good deeds and hard fights pay off?"


Bernard Keane writing in Crikey made excellent points about Windsor and his fellow Independent Rob Oakeshott:

 "For much of the last three years, Windsor and Oakeshott have looked like the only adults in Parliament -- particularly Windsor, who always seemed to take seriously the stuff that needed to be taken seriously but knew that most of the rest was nonsense. Windsor also had a healthy scepticism of the media, deriding the pretensions of News Ltd, which openly declared war on Oakeshott, and noting the inability of press gallery journalists to cope with the idea of a hung parliament and the scary idea that legislation might actually be debated, negotiated and amended rather than being rubber-stamped by Parliament."

"Tony Windsor began and ends his political career with hung parliaments. He was elected as an independent to the New South Wales Parliament in 1991, at the same election that reduced Nick Greiner, remarkably, to a minority government. As for why Windsor was an independent, rather than the Nationals MP he originally was a candidate to become, you can ask the NSW Nationals. As they would learn repeatedly over the ensuing two decades, you mess with Tony Windsor at your peril.
Greiner himself didn't last much longer after the Metherell affair. But the Greiner-Fahey government, despite its minority status, ran full term, with Windsor's support -- demonstrating that hung parliaments can be stable and deliver outcomes. Bob Carr only narrowly won power in 1995.

Windsor, knowingly or not, created a brand -- the independent who saw how much for granted the Nationals, particularly in NSW, took the bush, and offered an alternative. He held his seat in 1995, again in 1999, and then in 2001 tried for a federal seat. And not just any federal seat, but New England, Nationals heartland and the one-time kingdom of Nats leader Ian Sinclair. Windsor handily defeated Sinclair's successor, Stuart St Clair. Six years before, Peter Andren had entered politics and seized Calare from the Nationals."

Systemic water governance - what prospects?

An international conference on water governance called 'Water in the Anthropocene: Challenges for Science and Governance' has recently been held.  I had hoped to attend but some personal matters interferred.  Several friends and colleagues attended so I have been asking for feedback.  I have been keen to know what was discussed and where they felt, as a result of their attendance, water goverance (including research and policy) was heading.

The conference organisers have been very professional - they have an excellent website and already most (but not all) of the presentations have been posted (though at least one is attributed to the wrong presenter).  Among these is a presentation Catherine Allan (Charles Sturt University) and I co-developed:  Exploration of metaphors to transform water governance praxis. A copy of the abstract of the talk is given at the end of this post. I also participated vicariously in a session concerned with transboundary water governance.

One of the outcomes of the conference was the Bonn Declaration on Global Water Security. It can be signed here. Also produced was 'a film charting the global impact of humanity on the global water cycle' [because] 'evidence is growing that our global footprint is now so significant that we have driven Earth into a new geological epoch: the Anthropocene. Human activities such as damming and agriculture are changing the global water cycle in significant ways.'

Despite these achievements many of my collegues were disappointed with what was discussed. Most felt that, in the 'mainstream' sessions at least, little new and needed was adequately addressed. This is clearly the perspective held by Brian Richter in his artcle: 'My fellow scientists: no more chicken little'. He says:

"When I heard that the Bonn conference participants had issued a new “Declaration on Global Water Security” I couldn’t wait to get my hands on it.

I’m under-whelmed.
Not to take anything away from the wonderful work that these scientists have been doing to document the changes the Earth has experienced under the heavy hand of humankind.  But they have not yet learned how to translate their science knowledge and findings into tangible, implementable solutions.

The Declaration proclaims that we need six things: (1) More science. (2) More science. (3) Train more scientists. (4) Expand monitoring (i.e., more science).  (5) Consider ecosystem-based alternatives to costly structural solutions for climate proofing. (6) Change water institutions."

Other comments I received included:

"I had high hopes in the opening session of this conference; all sorts of ideas about changing approaches needed for the big changes happening....but by the time I gave my paper on day two I was feeling a bit frustrated. I have a list of Words I heard a lot at the conference and these include trade off, models, trade offs, models....and lots and lots of global maps with colours on them. There was plenty of identification of the need to talk with stakeholders, and policy makers, but almost always in terms of "them", and never once in my hearing any consideration that the people in the room were also stakeholders. There has been some talk of language, but almost invariably in the form of how do we get our message across to policy makers in a way they will understand, never about co-creation of messages. And then I was in a session where the need to engage with stakeholders was raised with the comment that we need to do it but we don't know how to engage yet, we don't have the methods, or something like that. I mean, honestly, we don't know how to engage with stakeholders? Anyway, what this meant was by the time I presented yesterday I was calling for revolution...and began the presentation with that call.'

So I am left with the sense that I have had for some time that there remains a major failure to adequately frame the issues of systemic water governance and to appreciate the praxis elements needed to effect on-going systemic governance.  Fortunately there were exceptions to this generalisation such as the presentations by James Patterson, Ryan Plummer and colleagues, Rob de Loe and Andrea Gerlak and colleagues.  Those who participated are listed here. Related projects and initiatives mentioned included:

GWSP: Global Water System Project   http://www.gwsp.org/

GLOWA: Global Change and the Hydrological Cycle  http://www.glowa.org/

Water Challenges for a Changing World Joint Programming Initiative: http://www.waterjpi.eu/

European Innovation Partnership on Water: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/innovationpartnership/

Future Earth: http://www.icsu.org/future-earth

UN Economic Commission for Europe:  http://www.unece.org/

UN Watercourses Convention:  [regarding cooperation on the equitable and reasonable use and management of international watercourses, with a view to attaining their sustainable utilization and adequate protection].

GEF International Water Programme: http://www.getf.org/our-projects-partnerships/undp/

Abstract: Exploration of metaphors to transform water governance praxis

Catherine Allan, Ray Ison & Kevin Collins

Failure to slow or reverse anthropogenic climate change in the next decade will have catastrophic economic and social consequences. Radical action is required to maintain human wellbeing, action that includes not only mitigation, but also ‘adaptation’. Adaptation is urgently needed within contexts of water governing and managing, but the record of innovation and reform in these contexts is poor. Internationally and nationally there has been a shift in the discourse around rivers and their management away from water management to water governance. This presents an opportunity  to develop processes and techniques to draw attention to fresh understandings of operational framings and narratives, which in turn will enable and encourage adaptation. 

The processes and techniques we discuss in this paper are based on the exploration of metaphor.  In doing so we build on two emerging traditions in metaphor research: (i) the purposeful use of chosen metaphors to learn about and reframe organisational activity and (ii) the emergence of what is now called Contemporary Theory of Metaphor (CTM, formerly Conceptual Metaphor Theory).  Our recent experiences in Australia and the UK suggest that metaphors associated with two contrasting, yet pervasive rationalities are conserved in the latest ‘water governance experiments’. In Australia metaphors that enable neo-classical economic theory to operate can be found, such as ‘waterway assets’ and ‘water assets management’. Others such as ‘river or waterway health’ conserve a particular lineage of ecological rationality. In the UK, as part of the enactment of the Water Framework Directive, metaphors such river “condition” and “pressures” on that condition suggest a new ecological rationality is competing with an older technical rationality.

Systems thinking expanding in the health field?

Like in most fields there is no shortage of systemic health issues that would benefit from attention by practitioners and researchers well versed in Systems Thinking in Practice (STiP). It is thus good to discern a trend of increasing interest and application of STiP in the health field.  Take this paper for example:

Rethinking health systems strengthening: key systems thinking tools and strategies for transformational change

1. R Chad Swanson¹,*,
2. Adriano Cattaneo²,
3. Elizabeth Bradley³,
4. Somsak Chunharas⁴,
5. Rifat Atun⁵,
6. Kaja M Abbas⁶,
7. Korina Katsaliaki⁷,
8. Navonil Mustafee⁸,
9. Benjamin Mason Meier⁹ and
10. Allan Best¹⁰

+ Author Affiliations

1. ¹Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA, ²Health Services Research and International Health, Institute for Maternal and Child Health, Trieste, Italy, ³Yale School of Public Health, Global Health Leadership Institute, New Haven, CT, USA, ⁴National Health Foundation, Bangkok, Thailand, ⁵Imperial College Business School and Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, UK, ⁶Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA, ⁷International Hellenic University, Thessaloniki, Greece, ⁸Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, UK, ⁹University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA and ¹⁰Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, University of British Columbia, West Vancouver, BC, Canada

1. ↵*Corresponding author. Brigham Young University, 1668 North 1590 West, Provo, UT 84604, USA. 

 Abstract

While reaching consensus on future plans to address current global health challenges is far from easy, there is broad agreement that reductionist approaches that suggest a limited set of targeted interventions to improve health around the world are inadequate. We argue that a comprehensive systems perspective should guide health practice, education, research and policy. We propose key ‘systems thinking’ tools and strategies that have the potential for transformational change in health systems. Three overarching themes span these tools and strategies: collaboration across disciplines, sectors and organizations; ongoing, iterative learning; and transformational leadership. The proposed tools and strategies in this paper can be applied, in varying degrees, to every organization within health systems, from families and communities to national ministries of health. While our categorization is necessarily incomplete, this initial effort will provide a valuable contribution to the health systems strengthening debate, as the need for a more systemic, rigorous perspective in health has never been greater.

My colleague Helen Wilding advises that Chad Swanson has recently been working with a group of interns to disseminate the potential of systems thinking to build capacity in global health.  They received funding from Doris Duke Charitable Foundation to do this. They are planning a social media launch (facebook, twitter, a blog and LinkedIn) and are also preparing a number of 'white papers'.

Their website/blog is up and running.  

I wish them well 

Sometimes our institutions work...but not often enough

Last week the US Supreme court ruled out patenting of natural human DNA.  This was an important ruling. It was pleasing to see a unanimous decision. But as noted in this article there are still doubts raised in a myriad ways.  What about patenting genes in other species?  What about distortion of R&D investment due to the attenuation of action?  By this I mean that this action - which may not turn out to be that major - still does not address the main social issues that the technology provokes.  We have an institution-attention attenuation disorder!  Or in other words our historical institutions are not agile enough in our contemporary circumstances. Whilst this ruling overturns 30 years of patent laws it still leaves open the right to patent synthetic genetic material thus raising questions about what the boundaries will become beween synthetic and natural?

I am using institutions here to include organisations, policies, rules and norms i.e., in the new institutional sense.  Collectively we need to be more aware of institutional shortcomings as the news reporting this week was replete with examples of institutions heading for systemic failure!  Firstly there was the English graduate loans leak pointing to a potential systemic failure of governance (i.e., a failure to honour commitments and back-dating new rules). The leak also raises questions about the on-going viability of the institution of student loans itself. Policy makers seem to be seeking incremental, perhaps devious, changes to an insitution that is deeply flawed in the first place. This is a recipe for ultimate systemic failure as incremental tinkering gets nowhere.  

Another example appeared in today's edition of The Observer.  I refer to the undoing (or abandoning) by the Conservatives of a genuinely innovative institutional reform - an 'open primary' that resulted in the election of Sarah Wollaston.  The institution worked like this: 'in 2009 every registered voter in Totnes was sent a form' by the Conservatives and a paid envelope to return it... the selection process was 'thrown open to the people'.  It is clear that the current government no longer has the stomach for this important democratic innovation.  It is bad enough that citizen engagement is being undermined,  but Helm's article also points to more profound examples of systemic failure of governance. Top of my list are the ways in which the House of Commons operates. As any viewer of Borgan - the fictional show about the Danish PM - knows the Danish Parliament has a very sophisticated electonic means of voting. One can speculate that this allows for more democracy compared to the Whip controlled (read Executive controlled) voting process in Westminster. It is the institutions that have passed their use by date (such as voting procedures in the Commons) that we need to fear and get rid of. As Helm's article shows many of these are associated with process issues that undermine democracy in action. 

Michael Rosen's well argued open letter to Education Secretary Michael Gove (Michael Rosen's letter from a curious parent) explicates yet another example of governance reform heading off in the wrong direction. Behind these institutional innovations sit Ministerial powers that have never been so great.  The governance checks and balances (e.g. local authorities; boards of governors) have all but disappeared in the key decision-making processes.

Writing in 1980 the late Russ Ackoff claimed that the 1940s marked the start of the 'systems age'.  If such an age has ever really been with us then examples of the type above point to a descent into a new 'dark age'  in which the doctrines of reductionsim, mechansm and analytical mode of thought along with unfettered and outdated ideology (and in Australia rampant misogyny) have gained a new supremacy.

Rhine Walking

A walking holiday in the Middle Rhine (Mittel Rhein) in the last week of spring seemed a good bet weather wise.  But with only 1.5 sunny days our bet only sort of paid off!!  None-the-less we enjoyed the walking, much of it on the well marked Rheinsteig.

We set off from Bingen am Rhein on Saturday 25th May and arrived here in Koblenze today, the 1st June - and a very cool and overcast beginning to summer.  Our overnight stays were in Oberheimbach, Kaub, St Goarshausen (two nights), Bornhofen, Rhens and Koblenze.  There was much to take in for a systemic muser!  The decline of the small-holder based Middle Rhine wine industry (whilst at the same time discovering some very fine dry Reislings and Spateburgunders); effects of volatile weather on the local tourist industry; the complex and busy river traffic on the Rhine; the impact of history on the landscape; good food and overall excellent hospitality.

Systems news from publisher Triarchy

From Triarchy Press:

"Our ‘Systems Thinking in practice’ books – like John Seddon’s or Simon Guilfoyle’s on policing – don’t require any previous knowledge of the subject. But many people who've used them do get curious about Systems Thinking and how it works.

 

In my office, or at conferences, visitors will often pick up Systems Thinking for Curious Managers and say, ‘Ah, this is what I’ve been looking for - short and clear’. It starts from Russ Ackoff’s view of Systems Thinking and sets out 15 Systems Thinking principles with a brief explanation of how each of them works in practice.

• For example, the section on Change introduces a simple but radical Systems Thinking way to plan and introduce change in any organisation. It also explains why benchmarking and continuous improvement aren’t such good ideas.

• And the section on Feedback Loops (which are at the heart of all Systems Thinking) explains about unintended consequences, shows why democratic politics often sinks into a populist slanging match and explains how that same downward spiral can happen in any organisation, leaving leaders/managers watching helplessly.

If you or colleagues need a short guide to the basics of Systems Thinking, Systems Thinking for Curious Managers is the ideal place to start. [Use promotion code altThink to get a 20% discount any time before 23rd May.]"

"Pretty much everyone who knows the work of Russ Ackoff agrees that he offers fascinating insights into leadership, management, strategy and business.

 

Ackoff invites us to look at work and organisations differently, but usually avoids suggesting many practical techniques and approaches. Which is why we’ve encouraged our authors to develop and elaborate his Systems Thinking/Design Thinking approach in very practical ways.

 

Amongst the Triarchy books that do this best are:

• Bill Tate’s book on leaders and leadership
• David Wastell's book on 'Technomagic' - IT-based solutions to public sector problems
• Simon Guilfoyle’s book on targets, measurement, performance and statistics (it's about policing but applies to any organisation)
• Rose Armson’s book on problem-solving and decision-making using a Systems Thinking approach
• John Seddon’s books on Systems Thinking in the Public Sector.

If you or colleagues need clear, practical guides to applying Ackoff's Systems Thinking in practice, do have a look at any of these books. [Use promotion code altThink before 23rd May to save 20%]"