How to Untangle Ourselves: Cybernetic Action for Social Change

10 Apr 2021 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X5IAJiqZu4

American Society for Cybernetics – ASC

But my problem is complex! Aidan Ward

But my problem is complex!. How much can you read about any current… | by Aidan Ward | Apr, 2021 | Medium

Public Understanding of Artificial Intelligence Seminar Series 21/04/21: Conversation, fun, and boredom | Centre for Digital Media Cultures

Public Understanding of Artificial Intelligence Seminar Series 21/04/21: Conversation, fun, and boredom

Join us on Wednesday, 21 April, 14:00-15:00 for the second talk in our Public Understanding of AI seriesConversation, fun, and boredom: Cybernetic approaches to intelligent environments in the work of Gordon Pask

Dr Ben Sweeting, University of Brighton

Event Link:  https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cybernetic-approaches-to-intelligent-environments-dr-ben-sweeting-tickets-149907012911

In this talk I explore the work of British cybernetician Gordon Pask through his participation in and influence on architectural projects during the 1960s and 1970s. Pask’s approach offers a paradigm for an intelligent environment that not only adapts to its use but also actively puts this use in question, requiring new actions from its users. This conversational back and forth is an example of the sort of circular interactivity with which the field of cybernetics is concerned more generally, and recentres the question of intelligence on the mutual understanding of participants. Connecting Pask’s work in architecture to the educational context of much of his other work, I ask what is being taught to and learnt by human participants in their experiences of machine learning, and how technologically interactive environments might be conceived so to elicit new questions and understanding.

Ben Sweeting teaches architecture and design at the University of Brighton. Ben’s research explores intersections between cybernetics, ethics, and architecture, including topics such as how design might contribute to ethics as well as vice versa, and historical intersections between architecture and cybernetics as Ben will speak to here. Ben serves in elected positions in the American Society for Cybernetics and the UK Cybernetics Society, and is an active member of the International Society for the Systems Sciences and the Systemic Design Association.

Find out more about Ben’s work at: https://research.brighton.ac.uk/en/persons/ben-sweeting

source:

Public Understanding of Artificial Intelligence Seminar Series 21/04/21: Conversation, fun, and boredom | Centre for Digital Media Cultures

Edit: TLDR

The oldest find so far is claimed to be

Although new historical discoveries can be made, as of this writing, the answer is 1938 in a book entitled, “Interpretations and Misinterpretations of Modern Physics” by Philipp Frank. There are many misconceptions and an abundance of misinformation on Google search of when the term “Systems Thinking” (or “System Thinking”) was first used. This publication identifies the first documented use of the term. Note that the first use of the term is not the same as the first discussion of systems, systems, sciences, thinking about systems, complexity, etc. In this article, we are simply looking for the first documented use of the specific term.

The quote given in the article is:

All expressions like « holism », « wholeness consideration », « system thinking », « gestalt conception », and the like, are altogether ambiguous. They waver between genuine anthropomorphism on the one hand, which is logically comprehensible but primitive, and as the experience of centuries of scientific development teaches, comparatively unfruitful; and broad and provisional, but nevertheless physical, hypotheses on the other, which may be of scientific value. In the case of the latter it is not, however, conceded that they are quite ordinary physics, because of the desire to satisfy somehow the longing for the return of pre-scientific spiritualism

(This is, in my opinion, a hostile witness!)

This is in a journal piece published by Derek Cabrera, in the Cabreras’ journal: https://journalofsystemsthinking.org/index.php/jost/article/view/1383 (registration required – no charges)
[edit: now offline – reference link
https://web.archive.org/web/20211006014220/https://journalofsystemsthinking.org/index.php/jost/article/view/1383%5D

An early version of that journal article was
http://web.archive.org/web/20210719012335/https://help.cabreraresearch.org/origin-term-st
________

The other earliest claims found so far are:

1947
Safety in Air Navigation. Hearings … Jan. 22-23, 28-31, 1947
United States Congress HouseCommittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce
https://www.google.rs/books/edition/Safety_in_Air_Navigation_Hearings_Jan_22/SNJEAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22systems+thinking%22&pg=PA1253&printsec=frontcover
“The Army and Navy have already established separate organizations, assigning to them the responsibilities of research and development, including such tasks as long-range planning, systems thinking, and coordination”
Regarding Safety in Air Systems Navigation, Statement of Loren F Jones, Radio Corporation of America, Camden, NJ
(This appears to be contrasting ‘systems thinking’ to ‘equipment thinking’; I think it qualifies, though it may be debatable!)

1952
RATIONAL AND IRRATIONAL AUTHORITY
Kelman, Harold. American Journal of Psychoanalysis; New York Vol. 12, Iss. 1, (Jan 1, 1952): 50.

1963
Two references:
Michael Michaelis
Rear Admiral Frederick L Ashworth, Naval Aviation News
(links to both given below)

The full blog and the comments below reflect incoming contributions and builds, and the publication of the Cabrera piece, so are a little higgledy-piggledy, as befits a Fool’s Quest.

________

(In which our hero is once again spending Too Much Time on pointless things, and is quietly disappointed to find maybe the first use of the phrase embedded in systems engineering and the military).

A recent social media discussion had me doing ‘a quick google’ as I’ve heard many claims over the years for the ‘origin of the term’. I found out some interesting things!

Note that this is *not* a quest for the origins of the *thinking* – see these quotes https://stream.syscoi.com/2019/10/28/some-quotes-on-the-theme-complexitythinking-is-systemsthinking-is-cybernetics/ for evidence that the concepts are very very old – we can certainly go back to the first thinking traditions we still have preserved to find out some pretty good stuff. And there is some stuff including a bunch of maps at https://stream.syscoi.com/2019/12/21/why-i-hope-we-could-do-better-than-the-castellani-complexity-map/ on the origins and tracery of the concepts.

(NB also that in a comment to that post I asked ‘who first used the expression ‘complex systems’, and when?’ – I had W. Ross Ashby, An Introduction to Cybernetics, 1957 – but I got some good earlier proposals including Talcott Parsons, “The Structure of Social Action II” from 1937, Sir Donald Ficher’s work on soil in the 1920s (cited by Ashby as a precedent), and William Bateson from 1888 – worth a look).

Systems thinking – origins of the phrase

There are many claims that the phrase ‘systems thinking’ was first used in the 1980s. This is clearly bunk because there are many earlier references.

It seems well-accepted that the phrase broke through into generally accepted usage with Emery’s Systems Thinking: Selected Readings in 1969. Though this is clearly not true on face value, since C. West Churchman’s The Systems Approach was one year earlier in 1968 – abstract from one who knows it well – https://csl4d.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/the-systems-approach-and-its-enemies-churchman-1979-abstarcts.pdf), the Emery compilation is explicitly about historic references so it is there I am looking for origins.

And (of course), m’colleague and former president of the International Society for Systems Sciences, David Ing, has resurrected the contents of that, mostly through the 1981 re-issued and extended version: https://ingbrief.wordpress.com/2020/08/08/1969-1981-emery-system-thinking-selected-readings/
The contents only otherwise available in disappointing ‘snippets’ on google books: https://books.google.rs/books?id=G2tHAAAAMAAJ&dq=editions:ISBN0140800719&lr= and https://books.google.rs/books?id=AdVEAAAAIAAJ&dq=editions:ISBN0140800719&lr=

But the contents PAGE is available here: https://archive.org/details/systemsthinkings00emerrich/page/n5/mode/2up

(I have ordered two copies of ‘the book’ from Amazon just now – but I’ve ordered at least twice before, and these appear to be ‘ghost books’ which are never delivered – my previous orders were cancelled).

Which gives Bertalanffy’s 1950 Theory of open systems in physics and biology https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.sci-hub.se/15398815/ – there’s also An Outline of General System Theory (1950) http://www.isnature.org/Events/2009/Summer/r/Bertalanffy1950-GST_Outline_SELECT.pdf but both reference systems, not ‘systems thinking’

(Though this wonderful ‘front matter’ with adverts from the same edition of Science magazine is a lot of fun: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/111/2872/local/front-matter.pdf )
leads to several pre-1950s sources:

Angyal (1941)

Tantalisingly, Angyal’s 1941 ‘A logic of systems’ https://www.york.ac.uk/language/ypl/ypl1/06/YPL-06-03-Bell.pdf looks interesting (also referenced in ‘On the use of the term systems in logistics, Roger T Bell, likely 2006, which yields other deep roots in linguistics).

More intriguing things to follow up in ‘systems theory in the social sciences’ by Hugo Reading (assumed to be 1979) – https://ejournals.epublishing.ekt.gr/index.php/ekke/article/viewFile/6829/6552 – these are principally talking about ‘systems in the world’ not ‘systems in the mind’.

The Methodological Basis of Systems Theory, Phillips, 1962 also looks interesting: https://www.jstor.org.sci-hub.se/stable/255142?seq=1

There is also Angyal’s paper The Structure of Wholes, from 1939 – I can’t find a pdf at the moment, but I can see this talks of ‘Wholes and Wholism’ more than ‘systems’ https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/286531
Angyal as a foundational figure is also referred to here: https://books.google.rs/books?id=oE_9_BXarx4C&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=%22the+structure+of+wholes%22+angyal&source=bl&ots=2HJ8iTU_rk&sig=ACfU3U3c1LkifmmedI4Ys6YUyfKqpWBEww&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8-NG40YfwAhUxi8MKHVLoCbAQ6AEwDnoECAkQAw#v=onepage&q=%22the%20structure%20of%20wholes%22%20angyal&f=false (Systems of Art: Art, History and Systems Theory By Francis Halsall, 2008) who, happily for my ‘integrational’ thesis, states “Systems theory emerged in the mid-20th century along with related theories such as Cybernetics and Information Theory. Recently it has included Complexity Theory, Chaos Theory and Social Systems Theory.”

Feibleman and Friend, 1945

Their ‘The Structure and Function of Organization’ talks extensive of systems and interdependency, but does not include the phrase ‘systems thinking’: https://www.jstor.org.sci-hub.se/stable/2181585?seq=1

Then there is:
•Koehler, “closed and open systems” 1938 (to which I can find no direct links), though Systems theory: forgotten legacy and future prospects (Harney, 2019, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335905615_Systems_theory_forgotten_legacy_and_future_prospects ), shows it as making a key distinction between closed and open systems. (And the paper also says: ”There is a rich and interdisciplinary underpinning to systems logic stretching back to classic research in work and organisations (Burns and Stalker, 1961), Dunlop’s (1958) Industrial Relations Systems, and foundational organisation theory (Katz and Kahn, 1966)”)

Selznick , 1948

For completeness, Selznick’s Foundations of the Theory of Organization, another pre-1950s paper: http://courses.washington.edu/ppm504/Selznick_Foudnations.pdf

Earliest discovered references

All the above is just chuff and flimflam, inasmuch as the google n-gram has clearly identified the two earliest published references to the specific phase that I have found so far:

Michael Michaelis in 1963 (November or December)

Nation’s Manpower Revolution: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Employment …
By United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare
p.3180
https://books.google.rs/books?id=_P10IM5ffIoC&pg=PA3180&dq=%22%22systems+thinking%22%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi4z_DpuofwAhVQtIsKHWymD_EQ6AEwBHoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=%22systems%20thinking%22&f=false

“it is in this context [to bring understanding of technology to bear on serving the collective needs of our people] that I am speaking about “systems thinking”. Systems thinking is a composite derived from a great variety of professional disciplines : it must also draw its talent from all relevant agencies in Government, industry, and labour. The power of the process of systems engineering is well known and demonstrated both in public and private enterprise”

(This is reiterated in a ‘greatest hits’ at https://books.google.rs/books?id=EBs2AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA872&lpg=PA872&dq=%22michael+michaelis%22+systems&source=bl&ots=LIPftoFsAi&sig=ACfU3U17q2bF5zXXysaxhSUpS3J1fNMCFw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiH_qXM24fwAhXqlYsKHal-ClMQ6AEwDnoECA8QAw#v=onepage&q=%22michael%20michaelis%22%20systems&f=false )

Amusingly, there is an extant Michael Michaelis working for BAE Systems – I’ve asked him if he is a relative.

The original Michael Michaelis was well published: https://www.tandfonline.com/author/Michaelis%2C+Michael

Rear Admiral Frederick L Ashworth, Naval Aviation News, 1963

https://books.google.rs/books?id=KPAmAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA4-PA37&dq=%22%22systems+thinking%22%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi4z_DpuofwAhVQtIsKHWymD_EQ6AEwAHoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=%22systems%20thinking%22&f=false

Under “Here are some of the forces and ideas I see shaping the weapons of the Seventies:”
“Systems thinking. The realization is fast spreading that mission capability is the product of a total system. Weapons hardware is only one element of that total system Other elements are people to maintain and operate the hardware and logistic backup – spare parts, handbooks, technical schools, support equipment, etc”

And

(Part of the Manhattan Project – and he’s the man who “served as the weaponeer on the B-29 that dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki” – https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-dec-11-me-ashworth11-story.html )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Ashworth

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/research-guides/modern-biographical-files-ndl/modern-bios-a/ashworth-frederick-l.html

Biography: http://www.americanveteranscenter.org/wp-content/uploads//2016/02/VADM-Frederick-Ashworth-Autobio_Part1.pdf

Bogdanov, 1912

Of course, there has been real interest of late in Tektology from Alexander Bogdanov, which Wikipedia states as “a discipline that consisted of unifying all social, biological and physical sciences by considering them as systems of relationships and by seeking the organizational principles that underlie all systems.” It would be very interesting to know if there was a direct equivalent of ‘systems thinking’ in there, since Tektology: Universal Organization Science was published in Russia between 1912 and 1917.

Tracking the development of the Emery-Trist systems paradigm (ETSP) Oǵuz N. Babüroǵlu 

Tracking the development of the Emery-Trist systems paradigm (ETSP) | SpringerLink

source

Building Smart Communities through Network Weaving | Community-Wealth.org

Building Smart Communities through Network Weaving

Valdis Krebs and June HolleyDate of Publication: 2006Publisher: Appalachian Center for Economic NetworksPublisher Location: Athens, OH

source

Building Smart Communities through Network Weaving | Community-Wealth.org

source

Allostasis – Wikipedia

Allostasis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to navigationJump to search

Allostasis proposes that efficient regulation requires anticipating needs and preparing to satisfy them before they arise,^[1] as opposed to homeostasis, in which the goal is a steady state.

Contents

• 1Etymology
• 2Nature of concept
• 3Mechanism
• 4Types
• 5Allostatic load
• 6Controversy
• 7See also
• 8References
• 9Further reading

Etymology[edit]

Allostasis /ˌɑːloʊˈsteɪsɪs/ from the Greek prefix ἄλλος, állos, “other,” “different” + the suffix στάσις, stasis, “standing still”.

Nature of concept[edit]

The concept was named by Sterling and Eyer in 1988. Allostasis was coined from the Greek allo, which means “variable;” thus, “remaining stable by being variable”.^[2][3] Allostatic regulation reflects, at least partly, cephalic involvement in primary regulatory events, in that it is anticipatory to systemic physiological regulation.^[2][4] This is different from homeostasis, which occurs in response to subtle ebb and flow. Both homeostasis and allostasis are endogenous systems responsible for maintaining the internal stability of an organism. Homeostasis is formed from the Greek adjective homoios, meaning “similar,” and the noun stasis, meaning “standing;” thus, “standing at about the same level.”^[2]

The term heterostasis is also used in place of allostasis, particularly where state changes are finite in number and therefore discrete (e.g. computational processes).^[5]

Wingfield states:

The concept of allostasis, maintaining stability through change, is a fundamental process through which organisms actively adjust to both predictable and unpredictable events… Allostatic load refers to the cumulative cost to the body of allostasis, with allostatic overload… being a state in which serious pathophysiology can occur… Using the balance between energy input and expenditure as the basis for applying the concept of allostasis, two types of allostatic overload have been proposed.^[6]

Sterling (2004) proposed six interrelated principles that underlie allostasis:^[7]

1. Organisms are designed to be efficient
2. Efficiency requires reciprocal trade-offs
3. Efficiency also requires being able to predict future needs
4. Such prediction requires each sensor to adapt to the expected range of input
5. Prediction also demands that each effector adapt its output to the expected range of demand
6. Predictive regulation depends on behavior whilst neural mechanisms also adapt.

continues

Allostasis – Wikipedia

souce:

COMPLEXIS 2021 – Conference 2022 conference: http://www.complexis.org/?y=2022

COMPLEXIS – The International Conference on Complexity, Future Information Systems and Risk, aims at becoming a yearly meeting place for presenting and discussing innovative views on all aspects of Complex Information Systems, in different areas such as Informatics, Telecommunications, Computational Intelligence, Biology, Biomedical Engineering and Social Sciences. Information is pervasive in many areas of human activity – perhaps all – and complexity is a characteristic of current Exabyte-sized, highly connected and hyper dimensional, information systems.

CONFERENCE AREAS

1 . Complexity in Informatics and Networking

2 . Complexity in Biology and Biomedical Engineering

3 . Complexity in Social Sciences

4 . Complexity in Risk and Predictive Modeling

5 . Complexity in AI/Edge/Fog/High-Performance Computing

Research Examples

CONFERENCE CHAIR

Victor Chang, Teesside University, United Kingdom

PROGRAM CHAIR

Reinhold Behringer, Knorr Bremse GmbH, Germany

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS

Ling Liu, Georgia Institute of Technology, United States
Witold Pedrycz, University of Alberta, Canada
Constantin Blome, University of Sussex Business School, United Kingdom

PUBLICITY CHAIRS

Anna Kobusinska, Poznan University of Technology, Poland
Dan Mønster, Aarhus University, Denmark

direct link to webinar at source:

CCSS Societal Discussion #12: Foundations of Complexity Economics

Thursday 22nd April 2021 from 15.00 – 16.30CCSS Societal Discussion #12: Foundations of Complexity EconomicsOn Thursday afternoon (15.00-16.30) we will be hosting our 12th Societal Discussion with Prof. W. Brian Arthur (External Professor, Santa Fe Institute).Link to Webinar (Thursday 22nd April at 15:00) >> >> Keynote speaker: Prof. W. Brian Arthur W. Brian Arthur is well known for his early work on positive feedbacks (or increasing returns) in the economy, in particular their roles in magnifying small random events in the economy. He has been associated with the Santa Fe Institute since 1987, where he led the team that brought complexity economics into existence. He has served many years on SFI’s board of trustees and science board. Arthur has been Morrison Professor of Economics at Stanford (1983-1996), and Citibank Professor at SFI. He is the recipient of the inaugural Lagrange Prize in Complexity Science in 2008, the Schumpeter Prize in Economics in 1990, and two honorary doctorates. His books include Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy (1994); The Nature of Technology (2009); Complexity and the Economy (2016); and Complexity Economics, ed. with A. Stanger and E. Beinhocker, (2021).Presentation Overview Foundations of Complexity Economics Abstract: The talk will follow Arthur’s recent paper, Foundations of Complexity Economics, Nature Reviews Physics, 2021. Conventional, neoclassical economics assumes perfectly rational agents (firms, consumers, investors) who face well-defined problems and arrive at optimal behavior consistent with — in equilibrium with — the overall outcome caused by this behavior. This rational, equilibrium system produces an elegant economics, but is restrictive and often unrealistic. Complexity economics relaxes these assumptions. It assumes that agents differ, that they have imperfect information about other agents and must, therefore, try to make sense of the situation they face. Agents explore, react and constantly change their actions and strategies in response to the outcome they mutually create. The economy becomes something not given and existing but constantly forming from a developing set of actions, strategies and beliefs — something not mechanistic, static, timeless and perfect but organic, always creating itself, alive and full of messy vitality.There will be a 50-minute presentation, followed by a 40-min Q&A.

source:

CCSS Societal Discussion #12: Foundations of Complexity Economics

source:

Building systems practitioners one conversation at a time: A quest to build a body of practitioners – YouTube

Building systems practitioners one conversation at a time: A quest to build a body of practitioners

CST

Webinar held on Thursday, March 11th from 13:00​-14:00​ (GMT+2 Pretoria) In this session, we will reflect on more than fifteen years of Samual Njenga’s journey as a student of systems thinking. A key part of that journey has been a quest to build a body of systems thinking practitioners by raising awareness and also equipping others with some tools of systems inquiry and practice. That journey has been assisted by the use of storytelling, fun and play, a heuristic of Systems Thinking in Practice as well as resources that he has acquired from the field of family systems theory. Our discussion will include his own journey, experiences of fireplace conversations, the metaphor of journeying with a question, and also some insights on organisational anxiety from the field of family systems thinking. He will also reflect on the experiences of teaching systems thinking approaches for executive development through business schools and the relevance of short learning programmes in business schools to workplace learning. Discussants: Samuel Njenga (Systems Thinking Africa & associate lecturer at various business schools in Africa) Moderator: Dr Rika Preiser Samuel Njenga works as a management consultant involved in process facilitation. He has worked with many organisations in the areas of leadership development, change management, organisational restructuring, strategic alignment as well as in organisational transformation and renewal. His interests include how organisations create and share knowledge; how to promote organisational learning as well as how to lead and manage change processes in a way that enhances individual and organisational performance. Storytelling is especially meaningful in times of transition and change and also where new people have joined a team. Facilitated storytelling processes enable teams to develop a shared meaning on experiences or on programmes that they run. Sammy is a visiting faculty at Henley Business School, the University of the Free State Business School and also at the University of Stellenbosch-Business school Executive Development. Sammy is a student of Systems theory and Practice and has a Bachelors of Education (Hons) from Kenyatta University, an MA in Organisational Leadership (Eastern University, USA) and a Master of Commerce in Organisational Management and Systems (UKZN). He is currently doing a PhD at UFS looking at the relevance of short learning programmes in business schools to learning in the workplace. Music: AshamaluevMusic Video: GRYS

I’m not quite sure how I missed this up until now!

ASC Speaker Series #5 – American Society for Cybernetics

A Causal Ontology of Nature
by Angus Jenkinson

April 18, 2021, 9:00 PT, 12:00 ET, 18:00 CET

ASC Speaker series: Cybernetics and humans’ knowing

Register

Abstract

Lecture presentation: From Determinism to Determination: Revising the Causal Ontology of Nature

When considering the significance of the revolution that cybernetics brought to the meta-paradigm of science, it may be useful to re-consider the cybernetics of causality and its radical implications. During his presentation Jenkins will introduce a framework for doing so.

According to Jenkins, the implications of such a model underpin practices of prediction, planning and intervention into the social and natural order. He argues that without clarity about the natural orders of causal flow and nexus, many fail to tackle major issues of our era in concert.

This introduction will focus on clarifying the proposed causal orders enabling the conversation to further explore implications and responses. An interesting aspect is a potentially useful review of the notion of “second-order” in cybernetics.

Participant’s bio

Angus Jenkinson’s studies in literature, business organization, scientific consciousness and education. His practice as a teacher include; computing, information systems, executive leadership; service and organization consultancy. He conducts independent research into integrated cybernetic organizing and viable life of corporate organizations (propriopoiesis). He is also the Secretary of the UK-based Cybernetics Society. He has published four books and exhibited photography internationally.

Register

source:

ASC Speaker Series #5 – American Society for Cybernetics

a powerful way in to systems thinking in public policy

‘Superpolicies’ and ‘policy-omnishambles’ – ScienceDirect

‘Superpolicies’ and ‘policy-omnishambles’

GerryMcCartney^a

LyndaFenton^ab

GeorgeMorris^c

PhilMackie^d

Citehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhip.2020.100003Get rights and content

Under a Creative Commons licenseopen access

Keywords

SustainabilityClimate changeHealthEquity

1. Background

Policymaking can be complex because changes in one area can have impacts on a range of other diverse outcomes and generate interactions and feedback loops that can be difficult to predict.[1] It is recognised that the most effective policies to improve health and reduce health inequalities lie outside the remit of government health departments. As such, actors wishing to improve public health have to influence a wide spectrum of policymakers across government departments and levels of government. This approach, often termed ‘Health in All Policies’, seeks to ensure that the health consequences of policy is prioritised in the decision-making process.[2] However, it is not just public health actors who face this challenge. For example, those seeking to ensure ecological sustainability and to avoid climate chaos also require coherent and effective policies across all parts of government (and across national jurisdictions). There is thus a need for policymaking to consistently seek to generate benefits in other policy areas (and not just by happy coincidence, as is often implied by the term ‘co-benefits’).

This short contribution introduces the concepts of ‘superpolicies’ and ‘policy omnishambles’ to describe the extremes of policy approaches that have very positive or very negative impacts on outcomes that were not the original target of the policy (according to Wikipedia, the term ‘omnishambles’ was first coined in the BBC political satire ‘The Thick of It’).

2. Superpolicies

We propose the term ‘superpolicy’ for policies that achieve positive outcomes across a wide range of areas beyond that which was the primary intention, and which do not have unintended negative outcomes (Fig. 1). This is a familiar concept in the literature examining health and sustainability, where the term ‘co-benefit’ is often used. In the examples below we examine outcomes in just three areas: health, equality and sustainability. The term “triple-win solutions” has been used to denote situations where positive outcomes can be secured in all of these three areas through a specific policy or initiative [3].

Historically, the urban environment has been a crucible for public health activity and it is notable that triple-win, and by extension, superpolicies are likely to achieve greatest traction in that highly complex social, economic and physical context. It is also unsurprising that policy-omnishambles is potentially most damaging to the social, economic and physical fabric of our towns and cities. It is notable, against a backdrop of accelerating urbanisation, that cities account for 60–80% of all greenhouse gas emissions, consume 75% of natural resources and account for 50% of all waste [4] making them crucibles for public and planetary health activity. However, we submit that despite its clear public health and equity relevance in an era of global environmental threat to health environment and equity, the concept of superpolicies has near-universal applicability to all outcomes which are valued in society. It is also possible that some superpolicies might be powerful enough to generate positive feedback loops to fundamentally shift outcomes across society [5].

There are many examples of policies which are likely to achieve at least two of these outcomes. For example, building cycling infrastructure within cities is likely to promote a modal shift from car use (and potentially public transport) to active travel. As a result, health benefits are likely to accrue from increased physical activity and environmental benefits from reduced carbon emissions. However, the distribution of the benefits can be much less clear, and inequalities may be worsened if those who live closer to the city centre, are more able to arrange and afford flexible childcare, or who have the confidence and skills to actively commute accrue the greatest benefits.

Other transport policies such as free public transport funded through progressive taxation might be more likely to achieve positive outcomes across all of these outcomes.[6] For example, this would likely achieve a modal shift of people from cars to public transport which would increase physical activity slightly as public transport does not run from door-to-door. Furthermore, the reduction in air pollution that would be expected from such a modal shift would be likely to improve respiratory health. If the scheme would be funded through progressive taxation, the impact would be to narrow disposable incomes and thereby support greater equity. Free public transport is therefore a candidate ‘superpolicy’.

Installation of high standard thermal insulation within rented housing through government funding is another candidate ‘superpolicy’. Rented accommodation is predominantly inhabited by those at the lower end of the income scale and therefore any benefits of the policy are likely to improve equity. It is likely that the improved thermal comfort will improve a range of health outcomes, and, potentially (although less certainly as many people living in need of improved insulation prefer to increase the thermal comfort of their homes rather than to save money) reduce carbon emissions [7].

Increasing the progressivity of taxation is another candidate superpolicy. The basis for this is that increased incomes disproportionately improve the health of those on lower incomes, those on the highest incomes disproportionately emit the most carbon, and the progressive nature of the taxation would ensure greater equity. It has also been proposed that a ‘contraction and convergence’ approach to incomes or carbon emissions (either through a ‘degrowth’ or ‘carbon rationing’ approach) would be an even more profound ‘superpolicy’.[8] Clearly, both would enhance equity through redistribution, and both would achieve lower carbon emissions by reducing consumption. The health impacts of such policies are less certain however and depend on the interpretation of the literature on economic growth, recession, and economic development.

3. Policy-omnishambles

On the other side of the superpolicy is the ‘policy-omnishambles’. We define this as a policy which has negative impacts across a wide range of outcomes. A true policy-omnishambles would also fail to achieve the primary aim of the policy. Although it is possible that a policy-omnishambles was created with mal-intent, in order to cause harms, it is perhaps more likely that it is simply zemblanitous (zemblanity is the opposite of serendipity, in that it is the occurrence of unplanned negative outcomes. It was first coined by William Body, according to http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-zem1.htm, in relation to a barren area of northern Russia).

Clearly, many policies have unintended negative consequences for secondary outcomes and a variety of impact assessment techniques to identify, mitigate or avoid such impacts, have been developed. War, particularly for the losing side, is probably the most powerful example of a policy-omnishambles: invariably it has substantial negative consequences for the environment and health, although the impact on equity can be more mixed. Brexit is often cited as an example of policy-omnishambles as it may fail to achieve its primary goal (‘take back control’) if trade arrangements are entered into where the UK has less democratic oversight of the rules of trade, and there are a wide range of potential negative impacts on health (through disrupted medical supplies, healthcare staff shortages and economic change such as higher unemployment), equality (e.g. through withdrawal from social legislation) and sustainability (e.g. through more lax environmental regulations).[9] However, it may be possible that in time the new democratic arrangements could be used for good – for example to bring back into public ownership aspects of the economy that were previously privatised and which EU rules restricted the scope of government to nationalise them. Other examples of policy-omnishambles could be the privatisation processes in the NHS in England, which has failed in its primary objective (the containment of costs) and has had negative impacts on other outcomes such as equity.

Being able to discern the difference between a superpolicy and a policy-omnishambles is essential. Take, for example, the recent call by The Lancet Commission on Obesity on the need for common actions to address poverty and the “Global Syndemic” (obesity, malnutrition, and climate change).[10] The Commission’s analysis is a clear. Current approaches are a policy-omnishambles, and there is an urgent need to overcome policy inertia across multiple sectors. However, a call for concerted action is not, of itself, a superpolicy. One of the more insidious consequences of policy-omnishambles is that it can lull policy- and decision makers into a false sense of security. Without due consideration of the need to co-create meaningful superpolicies, it is likely that action taken will lead to a belief that a superpolicy is being delivered, whilst simply perpetuating the existing policy-omishambles.

4. Discussion

Designing policy in a complex system is difficult and requires broad thinking to understand the likely impacts across all relevant outcomes. Where the outcomes of most interest are determined and influenced by a wide range of policy areas, as is the case with public health and sustainability, this is particularly important. We propose two heuristic devices for describing policies which have positive or negative impacts across a wide range of outcomes: superpolicies and policy-omnishambles.

A number of impact assessment tools exist that encourage decision-makers to consider outcomes beyond the primary target of a particular policy decision. These include the impacts on health, health inequalities, equalities and sustainability. It would be possible to build on such tools to allow comprehensive impact assessments to be undertaken that facilitate the identification of superpolicies and policy-omnishambles. How broad such tools become, and what is prioritised and valued within them, and the extent to which they can be and are used, will clearly determine how influential they become on policymaking. It is also worth noting that the impact of some policies can vary depending on the manner in which they are implemented.

Recognition of anthropogenic damage to the earth’s biophysical systems unites environmental scientists and public health actors in common cause. In simple terms, the aspirations of policymakers and others to secure improved health and wellbeing quality healthcare or anything approaching equity in these areas simply cannot be achieved in the medium to longer term without placing environmental sustainability at the heart of the public health project and vice versa. Thus, public health’s enduring quest to navigate in human social complexity to identify the policies capable of delivering health and equity, so dominant in health thinking and rhetoric for four decades, has acquired a new and alarming planetary dimension. Terms such as planetary health and ecological public health have emerged to describe the combined challenge and the required societal responses. We submit that only through embracing superpolicies as a concept and organising to counter policy omnishambles can society overt catastrophe

References and full pdf in source: ‘Superpolicies’ and ‘policy-omnishambles’ GerryMcCartneyaLyndaFentonabGeorgeMorriscPhilMackied

‘Superpolicies’ and ‘policy-omnishambles’ – ScienceDirect

source:

Complex Potential States. Thinking in terms of complex potential… | by Bonnitta Roy | Perspectives on Complexity | Medium

Complex Potential States

Thinking in terms of complex potential states instead of complex adaptive systems may be helpful in our times

Bonnitta RoyFollowingJun 27, 2019 · 6 min read

Something about the epistemological foundations of complex adaptive systems has been bothering me. It is very hard to think of complex systems without framing agency in the context of adaptation — in complexity science we see it everywhere. This alone is cause for suspicion, since when certain descriptions of reality are seen everywhere we look, it most likely means that the description is a feature of a limiting paradigm, an epistemological boundary, as it were, rather than a feature of the world. Buzz Holling, for example, became suspicious of his own panarchy framework when people started applying it to everything everywhere. It’s the “when the only thing you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” syndrome. This usually means it is time to design new epistemological tools that can take us beyond that horizon of meaning. Since complex adaptive processes are deeply woven into evolutionary theory, in this case, we are looking for a new theory of change.

continues in source:

Complex Potential States. Thinking in terms of complex potential… | by Bonnitta Roy | Perspectives on Complexity | Medium

source:

#14: Yes, they’re all complex – Pig on the Tracks

#14: Yes, they’re all complex

On classification and complexity.

I’m Luke Craven; this is another of my weekly explorations of how systems thinking and complexity can be used to drive real, transformative change in the public sector and beyond. The first issue explains what the newsletter is about; you can see all the issues here.✓

Hello, dear reader,

Boy, the weeks fly by! Increasingly, I’m only managing to get my posts half cooked by my self-imposed Tuesday afternoon deadline. So, this week’s newsletter should be read as a series of fragments that are still rolling around my brain in search of a narrative to hold them together. Hopefully you’ll permit me an indulgence, just the once 🙏🙏

It’s more complicated than calling it complicated

I have received a lot of feedback on the earlier issue of this newsletter that argued that all systems are complex systems. Feedback has broadly centred on whether simple or complicated problems can exist inside complex systems. We all, in our attempts to make sense of complexity, draw boundaries around particular problems or areas of exploration to make them meaningful and actionable. But, we should always treat those boundaries with a healthy scepticism. The overemphasis on closure that comes with calling something simple or complicated always leads to an understanding of the problem that underplays the role of the environment. In practice, this plays out in a number of ways:

continues and sign up in source:

#14: Yes, they’re all complex – Pig on the Tracks

source:

How systems thinking enhances systems leadership – Integration and Implementation Insights

How systems thinking enhances systems leadership

April 13, 2021

By Catherine Hobbs and Gerald Midgley

Systems leadership involves organisations, including governments, collaborating to address complex issues and achieve necessary systemic transformations. So, if this is the case, how can systems leadership be helped by systems thinking?

Systems leadership is concerned with facilitating innovation by bringing together a network of organisations. These then collaborate between themselves and with other stakeholders to deliver some kind of service, influence a policy outcome or develop a product that couldn’t have been achieved by any one of the organisations working alone.

Recognising that a network of organisations can achieve something that emerges from their interactions involves a certain amount of implicit systems thinking. After all, the classic definition of a ‘system’ is an identifiable collection of two or more parts that has properties, or achieves outcomes, that can only be attributed to all of the parts interacting, not any one of the parts in isolation. These properties or outcomes may be intended (eg., a service, policy or product), unintended (eg., contributing to climate change), or both.

However, systems thinking, when pursued explicitly, involves much more than just recognising that a network of collaborating organisations is a system. It helps leaders review a wide range of opportunities for change by encouraging them to question the existing system – the boundaries of it, different perspectives on it, the relationships within it (and between it and its wider environment) and how the parts cohere into a system with particular emergent properties, achievements or impacts. Any or all of these forms of questioning could be relevant to addressing a complex issue and achieving a transformation.

Through systems thinking, leaders can generate deeper insights, guard against unintended consequences and co-ordinate action more effectively. Various systems thinking approaches exist. They can help guide (but should not dictate) processes of deliberation to improve complex problematic situations and develop more desirable futures.

Although each individual systems thinking approach has its own strengths and weaknesses, the true power of systems thinking comes from exploring the unique context at hand and designing a bespoke programme that draws on the best of many approaches. Principles and methods may be borrowed from one or more of the available approaches and creatively combined. Some of these are discussed below.

continues in source:

How systems thinking enhances systems leadership – Integration and Implementation Insights