source:
Ben Sweeting: Architectural roots of ecological crisis – Systemic Approach to Architectural Performance
continues in source, with video:
JANUARY 22, 2021 BY SYSTEMICAPPROACHTOARCHITECTURALPERFORMANCE Ben Sweeting: Architectural roots of ecological crisis
Ben Sweeting: Architectural roots of ecological crisis – Systemic Approach to Architectural Performance
source:
Welcome to the 2021 SCT Conference
| An Innovative Approach to Sustainable Change |
| In a Different World:Dealing with Differences DifferentlyOnline • March 13-19, 2021 Early bird rates til February 15! |
 |
| Dear SCT Friends & Colleagues, Systems-Centered Training offers a systems model for psychotherapy with individuals, couples, families and groups, and for work with organizational teams and organizations-as-a-whole. SCT methods and tools provide groups (and the professionals who work with them) with ways to identify, clarify and explore the impact of system dynamics. If this sparks your curiosity, we’d love for you to join us in our first-ever online conference. Register by February 15 to take advantage of the lower rates for early registration. Full details of the 2021 Systems-Centered Training Annual Conference are now available on the SCTRI website. You can review the program and register. We look forward to seeing you there!Janneke Maas, Dayne Narretta, Jane Steinberg, and Debbie Woolf2021 Conference Co-Directors |
| Please help us tell others about the conference by sharing this email with colleagues & friends using the “Forward this email” link at the bottom of this email & by posting this to social media using the buttons at the bottom. The brochure & flyer are also available to download – see the links below. A personal recommendation from you is our best promotion. Click the links below to download the brochure & flyer:BrochureLetter size flyerA4 size flyer |
source:
Systems-Centered Training Annual Conference March 13-19, 2021 In a Different World: Dealing with Differences Differently SCTRI is presenting this online conference through its Training and Resource Center
Welcome to the 2021 SCT Conference
source:
The VSM Guide: Case Study 3 – One Mondragon Co-operative
| This case study is a diagnosis.I visited Mondragon in February 1991 in order to look at the way they handle federations of co-operatives. However, much of what I learned about the organisation of a single enterprise was of such relevance to the use of the VSM, that I felt bound to include it in these case studies.Many of the conclusions I made concerning Suma have been reached by the Mondragon co-ops, presumably by entirely different routes.And in many cases they have adopted practical solutions which fit in exactly with some of my more theoretical proposals. |
My visit to Mondragon was primarily to study the way that they manage to get 173 different co-ops to collaborate. However, the structure of their manufacturing plants has been changing recently, and these changes were of direct relevance to the conclusions I have been coming to through VSM diagnosis.
Mondragon are the most successful group of co-ops that I know, and during the visit I made in February 1991 I was continuously impressed by their commitment to both co-operative ideals and to state-of-the art production techniques. All the factories are full of computer controlled machine tools and robots. They have huge warehouses run entirely by computer. And most of the steel presses and control gear are made by other factories within the Mondragon group.
continues in source:
The VSM Guide: Case Study 3 – One Mondragon Co-operative
What ‘systems thinking’ actually means – and why it matters for innovation today
What ‘systems thinking’ actually means – and why it matters today | World Economic Forum
…and quite some critique of this piece when someone shared it on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/systemsthinkingalliance_what-systems-thinking-actually-means-activity-6757182084651061248-yss8
Impact Lab Open Series: Demystifying Systems Change
Impact Lab Open Series: Demystifying Systems Change – YouTube
| Demystifying Systems Change“Some people might say in that case it’s not a system change approach, but here I’m going to argue the opposite, that it’s also systems change because when we are addressing symptoms of wicked, broader problems, we are also planting the seeds for structural change, that small is beautiful, and experiments are valuable.” – Dr Paulo SavagetSystems are constantly changing – though not always coordinated, intentional or for the better. In October 2020, the Systems Change Observatory (SCO) postdoctoral researchers, Dr Sudhir Rama Murthy and Dr Paulo Savaget, led an Impact Lab Open Series on Demystifying Systems Change. Some key takeaways: ‘the system’ is deeply interconnected, and greater than the sum of its parts. Systemic problems are often self-reinforced, evolving and cannot be solved by a single organisation. |
| Building on this introductory session, in December 2020, Sudhir and Paulo, co-delivered a full Impact Lab module on systems change. Paulo introduced the idea of systems hacking: whilst systems thinking often emphasises the importance of understanding the full picture and root causes, sometimes we need to reframe systemic problems to also see and address their symptoms – even if that means acting in ‘incomplete’ ways, or having to ‘muddle through’. Sudhir introduced a supply chain perspective on systems change – which can offer clarity around system boundaries, interconnectedness, and performance. This session highlighted corporate responses to COVID-19 through localisation of their supply chains. |
source:
Radical Uncertainty and Critical Systems Thinking | LinkedIn
Centre for Systems Studies
This article discusses similarities between Kay and King’s approach to ‘radical uncertainty’ and ‘critical systems thinking and practice’ (CST).
Radical Uncertainty: Decision-making for an unknowable future (Bridge Street Press, 2020), by the distinguished economists John Kay and Mervyn King, has deservedly received glowing reviews. The book argues that radical uncertainty is everywhere in our world; analyses the limitations of models in getting to grips with the phenomenon; and proposes a ‘narrative paradigm’ as a better way of thinking about how we exercise judgement and take decisions in the context of radical uncertainty.
continues in source:
Radical Uncertainty and Critical Systems Thinking | LinkedIn
source:
ASC Speaker Series #2 – Lombardi/Clough/Pangaro – YouTube
18 Jan 2021
American Society for Cybernetics – ASC
Cybernetics and humans’ knowing: A present past toward a future Jude Lombardi will facilitates a conversation with Patricia Ticineto Clough and Paul Pangaro, all three connected to cybernetics for decades. The session is an opportunity to introduce Pangaro as the new ASC President and who started in cybernetics with Lettvin and Pask in the 1970s, and to explore Clough’s history with the storied Biological Computer Lab from 1971-1976 with Heinz von Foerster, Humberto Maturana, Herbert Brün, Gotthard Günther, and others. The conversation explores how each became associated with cybernetics, who they knew and know as cybernetic thinkers influencing their work, how cybernetics has oriented their practice since those earlier days, and where the field may go. The first 50 minutes of this 90 minute session will be Lombardi in conversation with Pangaro and Clough, followed by 40 minutes of questions and comments from the audience.
[www.isss.org and https://asc-cybernetics.org/ are doing some really amazing events at the moment – as are http://cybsoc.org/ and www.systemspractice.org (I’m on the Board of SCiO).
I regularly share from the latter two as they are free or cheap events, but some ISSS events and ASC are members only – so while membership is good value, I often don’t share. But I encourage you to look at their websites and get involved if interested!]
source
Beyond the modern synthesis: A framework for a more inclusive biological synthesis – ScienceDirect
Volume 153, July 2020, Pages 5-12
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2020.02.002Get rights and content
It is argued here that the time has come to replace the Modern Synthesis. Many recent developments go beyond or contradict this venerable paradigm. The case against the Modern Synthesis is briefly summarized. An alternative called an “Inclusive Biological Synthesis” is proposed. Tinbergen’s four key questions are advanced as a common research agenda.
Abstract
Many theorists in recent years have been calling for evolutionary biology to move beyond the Modern Synthesis – the paradigm that has long provided the theoretical backbone for the discipline. Terms like “postmodern synthesis,” “integrative synthesis,” and “extended evolutionary synthesis” have been invoked by various critics in connection with the many recent developments that pose deep challenges – even contradictions – to the traditional model and underscore the need for an update, or a makeover. However, none of these critics, to this author’s knowledge, has to date offered an explicit alternative that could provide a unifying theoretical paradigm for our vastly increased knowledge about living systems and the history of life on Earth (but see Noble 2015, 2017). This paper briefly summarizes the case against the Modern Synthesis and its many amendments over the years, and a new paradigm is proposed, called an “Inclusive Biological Synthesis,” which, it is argued, can provide a more general framework for the biological sciences. The focus of this framework is the fundamental nature of life as a contingent dynamic process – an always at-risk “survival enterprise.” The ongoing, inescapable challenge of earning a living in a given environmental context – biological survival and reproduction – presents an existential problem to which all biological phenomena can be related and comprehended. They and their “parts” can be analyzed in relation to ethologist Niko Tinbergen’s four key questions. Some basic properties and guiding assumptions related to this alternative paradigm are also identified.
source:
Beyond the modern synthesis: A framework for a more inclusive biological synthesis – ScienceDirect
pdf: https://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.se/science/article/abs/pii/S0079610720300109
Some comments prompted by John Seddon’s book “Systems Thinking in the Public Sector: the failure of the reform regime – and a manifesto for a better way” … based on some comments initially prepared for a seminar among those promoting
The Learning Society (Scotland))
(www.learningsociety.org.uk)
John Raven
Version Date: 19 December 2008
pdf http://eyeonsociety.co.uk/resources/sedncommntsart.pdf
Raven, J. (2020). ‘Closing the gap’: Problems with its philosophy and research – A keynote address prepared for BPS Education Section Conference, September 2019 The Psychology of Education Review, Vol. 44, No. 3, Special Issue, 2020 pages 2 – 40. ISSN: 1463-9807. https://shop.bps.org.uk/the-psychology-of-education-review-vol-44-no-3-special-issue-2020-0 also available at: http://eyeonsociety.co.uk/resources/CAT-2376.pdf
John says this paper was originally titled “Some abuses of science, logic, and authority illustrated from research and policy in relation to early childhood education”. It ends up as a critique of non-systemic (reductionist) science.
Raven, J. (2020). Diving in where angels fear to tread: Pre-requisites to evidence-based interventions: Initial Paper. The Psychology of Education Review, 44 (1), 4-17. Also available at http://eyeonsociety.co.uk/resources/diving-in-main-article.pdf
Raven, J. (2020). Diving in where angels fear to tread: Pre-requisites to evidence-based interventions: Continuing the dialogue. The Psychology of Education Review, 44(1), 48-56. Also available at http://eyeonsociety.co.uk/resources/diving-in-continuing-the-dialogue.pdf
And also:
Raven, J. (2019). “Toward a Sustainable Society: Science, Public Management, and the Role of the University”: an address to the Rektor and Senate of the Katholic University of Lublin on the occasion of the granting of the title Doktor Honoris Causa. Page 95-111 in Profesor John Raven. Doktor Honoris Causa, KUL, Lublin, Poland. Also available at http://eyeonsociety.co.uk/resources/KUL19.pdf
Call for Papers – 8th International Conference on Cybernetics & Informatics (CYBI 2021) | International Journal on Natural Language Computing (IJNLC) – Academia.edu
International Journal on Natural Language Computing (IJNLC)2021, CYBI17 Views2 Pages2 Files ▾Robotics,Information Retrieval,Artificial Intelligence,Computer Vision,Informatics …more ▾Show more ▾8th International Conference on Cybernetics & Informatics (CYBI 2021) is a forum for presenting new advances and research results in the fields of information, control and system theory, understands the design and function of any system and the relationship among these applications. The conference will bring together leading researchers, engineers and scientists in the domain of interest from around the world. This conference aims to provide a platform for exchanging ideas in new emerging trends that needs more focus and exposure and will attempt to publish proposals that strengthen our goals. Authors are solicited to contribute to the conference by submitting articles that illustrate research results, projects, surveying works and industrial experiences that describe significant advances in the following areas, but are not limited to.
source:
Call for Papers – 8th International Conference on Cybernetics & Informatics (CYBI 2021) | International Journal on Natural Language Computing (IJNLC) – Academia.edu
source:
Orchestrating Systems-Level Change in the Battle Against COVID-19
How individuals and coalitions are orchestrating and activating neglected resources to help end the pandemic and build more resilient health systems.
By Jeff Walker & English Sall Jan. 13, 2021
The news in December 2020 was filled with hopeful stories about the arrival of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines. Yet the end of the pandemic remains a significant distance away. As of today, no group or institution—no corporation, business consortium, government entity, or international agency—can single-handedly design and implement a system to provide the vaccine to all seven billion people on Earth. In the United States, the lack of planning for vaccine delivery may be even more stark: While the United States is mounting the largest vaccination development effort in history, there is a serious lack of strategy for building trust and for distributing the vaccine, especially to the most-marginalized and highest-risk populations. Meanwhile, enormous problems driven by the ongoing spread of the virus—including shortages of vital medical equipment, overwhelmed hospital emergency rooms, and the massive human suffering resulting from shut down businesses and schools—continue to fester.
When we face a problem this big and this complicated, people and organizations must work together to diagnose it, then design, plan, implement, and coordinate disparate activities across every social and economic sector to solve it. In other words, we need to build coalitions that can create systems-level change.
continues in source:
Orchestrating Systems-Level Change in the Battle Against COVID-19
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/x/perceptual-control-theory-pct-and-how-it-transforms-our-understanding-tickets-129027439545
JAN 26
by CybSights: The Insights Series
How does Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) explain behaviour, purpose, the self, and society? Warren Mansell & Tom Scholte engage
The Insights Series is an eclectic and learned collection of monthly events on the 4th Tuesday of each month hosted by Cybernetics Society. There will be lectures, seminars, conversations, debates, participation, all advancing our knowledge of cybernetics and related disciplines and their applications to real world needs.
Cybernetics is the science of achievement, the great meta-discipline of our time.
The CybSights Insights series is normally curated and hosted by the Secretary, Angus Jenkinson, FCybS. Attendance is free. Non-members are invited to make an optional donation or to Join.
We are particularly delighted to be able to welcome an eminent member of a discipline introducing what is of the first importance and relevance to members of the Society and their friends. (And he is engaging.)
This session will take the form of an interview by Prof Tom Scholte, UBC, Vancouver, who will ask Dr Warren Mansell to describe his first encounter with PCT, the development of PCT by William T. Powers in the 1950s onwards, explain PCT’s unique conceptualisation of behaviour, demonstrate and explain MOL, and survey the diverse range of applications of PCT to date. Warren will demonstrate some of his experiments to enable participants to see how PCT provides a revolutionary set of insights and logic for understanding behaviour.
“To orient this for the members of the Cybernetics Society, PCT is a powerful theoretical paradigm and set of models for understanding behaviour in human and other living organisms. Its founder, Bill Powers, had close ties with the cybernetics community and many cyberneticians value it greatly as an adjunct to our core fields. Wwth Method of Levels (MoL), Warren has also added a signifcant cognitive innovation ,” says Angus Jenkinson, FCybS.
Dr Mansell encountered PCT in the late 1990s when it provided an integrative framework for his work on psychological interventions for mental health problems. Since 2006, he has researched, practised and trained professionals in Method of Levels Therapy (MOL), a universal form of active listening that is based on PCT and designed to help people with wide ranging problems and severities reduce their distress and regain control over their lives. Over the last five to ten years, his work has diversified to include research and innovation within the fields of carer communication in dementia, human performance, motor control, and robotics, all based on PCT. Dr Mansell has over 100 publications on PCT, he has hosted the International Association of Perceptual Control Theory in 2007, 2010, and 2019, and is an active member of the PCT global community. He edited the (“Excellent” —AJ) Interdisciplinary Handbook of Perceptual Control Theory, published by Academic Press in 2020.
Join us, and find out just how deep the question, “What’s my motivation?” can take us!
Tom is a seasoned interviewer and will help the conversation...
Tom Scholte s the Vice-President elect of the American Society for Cybernetics and a Professor of Acting and Directing for both stage and screen at the University of British Columbia. Tom’s interviews with authors is a valuable online asset about cybernetics. As a writer, actor, producer, his work has been seen at such venues as the Toronto, Berlin, and Sundance Film Festivals. He is the Faculty Lead of Conflict Theatre@UBC; a joint initiative of his home department, UBC Human Resources, and UBC Office of Equity and Inclusion. His research into complex social contexts can be found in such journals as Kybernetes, Constructivist Foundations, and Futures.
Today’s post is almost a follow-up to my earlier post – The Truth about True Models. In that post, I talked about Dr. Donald Hoffman’s idea of Fitness-Beats-Truth or FBT Theorem. Loosely put, the idea behind the FBT Theorem is that we have evolved to not have “true” perceptions of reality. We survived because we had “fitness” based models and because we did not have “true models”. In today’s post, I am continuing on this idea using the ideas from Heinz von Foerster, one of my Cybernetics heroes.
Heinz von Foerster came up with “the postulate of epistemic homeostasis”. This postulate states:
The nervous system as a whole is organized in such a way (organizes itself in such a way) that it computes a stable reality.
It is important to note here that, we are speaking about computing “a” reality and not “the” reality. Our nervous…
View original post 744 more words
source:
The ‘Thou Shalt Nots’ of Systems Change
Enthusiasm for systems change is not new, and a broader historical perspective will help systems change enthusiasts learn from the past what NOT to do: replicate the ineffective mindsets and engineering approaches that have defined so much of the systems change work in our sectors.
By Christian Seelos, Sara Farley & Amanda L. Rose
Jan. 14, 2021
We are currently witnessing a new wave of systems enthusiasm among philanthropic and development organizations eager to be identified as system leaders, with a host of implementing organizations and development partners aligning around reinvigorated calls for “systems change.” But systems change is not new: since the beginning of the last century, disciplines ranging from biology to psychology adopted system perspectives to, as Magnus Ramage and Karen Shipp put in their historical reflection on systems thinkers, “make sense of the complexity of the world [by looking] at it in terms of wholes and relationships rather than splitting it down into its parts and looking at each in isolation.”
In 1956, Ross Ashby wrote that the new systems science of Cybernetics “offers the hope of providing the essential methods by which to attack the ills—psychological, social, economic—which at present are defeating us by their intrinsic complexity.” Utopia seemed to be within mankind’s grasp, as Ashby and other cyberneticians expanded this discipline beyond machines, applying systems thinking to everything from organizations and medicine to the “reengineering” of entire countries. And in 1966, inspired by the new possibilities of space travel that emerged from systems science, Senator Gaylord Nelson introduced his vision of “A Space Age Trajectory To The Great Society” by asking:
“Mr. President, why can not the same [scientists and engineers] who can figure out a way to put a man in space figure out a way to keep him out of jail? Why cannot the engineers who can move a rocket to Mars figure out a way to move people through our cities and across the country without the honors of modern traffic and the concrete desert of our highway systems? Why cannot the scientists who can cleanse instruments to spend germ free years in space devise a method to end the present pollution of air and water here on earth?”
Within a few years, system analysis contracts created a multi-billion dollar industry driven, as Ida Hoos put it, by the “mythology” of Nelson’s proposal and an “aura of precision lent by a plethora of formulas, charts, and diagrams.” Hoos argued that this new mantra of engineering systems change was “exploited by a myriad of vested business and professional interests, and fostered by government officials eager to be identified with and to take advantage of advanced concepts of management science.”
But does this perspective inform effective action? After all, despite ambitious intentions and great efforts, the utopian Great Society did not emerge. Indeed, the convergence of social problems like COVID-19, systemic racism, food insecurity, and education disparities only further confound our efforts to achieve positive social outcomes. Have the supply of social problems increased and exceeded the supply of otherwise effective system solutions? Is system thinking a naïve mythology rather than a framework for bringing about effective solutions? Are we implementing the principles of systems thinking in ineffective ways?
We recently hosted a “Frank Conversation about Systems” with senior decision-makers from the philanthropic and development sectors to explore these questions. And although the conversation found no consensus on the first two, the group identified a long list of pathological behaviors upheld by numerous organizations deemed incompatible with a system perspective, what we’ve come to call the “Thou Shalt Nots” of systems thinking. For those committed to adopting system perspectives in their work and in their organizations, we offer the following account of our “frank conversation” as a reality check intended to ground decisions in a realistic assessment of the opportunities and potential stumbling blocks.
We’ve organized these stumbling blocks into four key areas: Processes, Cognition and Attitudes, Values, and Roles and Success Criteria.
Continues in source:
The ‘Thou Shalt Nots’ of Systems Change Enthusiasm for systems change is not new, and a broader historical perspective will help systems change enthusiasts learn from the past what NOT to do: replicate the ineffective mindsets and engineering approaches that have defined so much of the systems change work in our sectors. By Christian Seelos, Sara Farley & Amanda L. Rose Jan. 14, 2021
The ‘Thou Shalt Nots’ of Systems Change
Systems Community of Inquiry 
You must be logged in to post a comment.