Jeremy England: Low rattling: a principle for understanding emergent computing behavior in driven many-body collectives
Publication date 2020-10-21Topics self-organizationTalk by Jeremy England of the Department of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology. Given to the Redwood Center for Theoretical Neuroscience at UC Berkeley, via Zoom. Abstract:Self-organization is frequently observed in active collectives, from ant rafts to molecular motor assemblies. General principles describing self-organization away from equilibrium have been challenging to identify. We offer a unifying framework that models the behavior of complex systems as largely random, while capturing their driven response properties. Such a “low-rattling principle” enables prediction and control of fine-tuned emergent properties in disordered mechanical networks, random spin glasses, and robot swarms. Jeremy England is a Principal Research Scientist in the Department of Physics at the Georgia Institute of Technology. He serves as a Senior Director in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning at GlaxoSmithKline. From 2011 to 2019, he was Assistant and then Associate Professor in the Department of Physics at MIT, where he led a research group in studying the nonequilibrium statistical mechanics of life-like self-organization.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to navigationJump to searchFor the computer game, see Independence War 2: Edge of Chaos.“The truly creative changes and the big shifts occur right at the edge of chaos,” said Dr. Robert Bilder, a psychiatry and psychology professor at UCLA’s Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior.[1]
The edge of chaos is a transition space between order and disorder that is hypothesized to exist within a wide variety of systems. This transition zone is a region of bounded instability that engenders a constant dynamic interplay between order and disorder.[2]
The phrase edge of chaos was coined by mathematicianDoyne Farmer to describe the transition phenomenon discovered by computer scientistChristopher Langton. The phrase originally refers to an area in the range of a variable, λ (lambda), which was varied while examining the behavior of a cellular automaton (CA). As λ varied, the behavior of the CA went through a phase transition of behaviors. Langton found a small area conducive to produce CAs capable of universal computation. At around the same time physicistJames P. Crutchfield and others used the phrase onset of chaos to describe more or less the same concept.
In the sciences in general, the phrase has come to refer to a metaphor that some physical, biological, economic and socialsystems operate in a region between order and either complete randomness or chaos, where the complexity is maximal. The generality and significance of the idea, however, has since been called into question by Melanie Mitchell and others. The phrase has also been borrowed by the business community and is sometimes used inappropriately and in contexts that are far from the original scope of the meaning of the term.
Adaptation plays a vital role for all living organisms and systems. All of them are constantly changing their inner properties to better fit in the current environment.[7] The most important instruments for the adaptation are the self-adjusting parameters inherent for many natural systems. The prominent feature of systems with self-adjusting parameters is an ability to avoid chaos. The name for this phenomenon is “Adaptation to the edge of chaos”.
Adaptation to the edge of chaos refers to the idea that many complex adaptive systems seem to intuitively evolve toward a regime near the boundary between chaos and order.[8] Physics has shown that edge of chaos is the optimal settings for control of a system.[9] It is also an optional setting that can influence the ability of a physical system to perform primitive functions for computation.[10]
Because of the importance of adaptation in many natural systems, adaptation to the edge of the chaos takes a prominent position in many scientific researches. Physicists demonstrated that adaptation to state at the boundary of chaos and order occurs in population of cellular automata rules which optimize the performance evolving with a genetic algorithm.[11][12] Another example of this phenomenon is the self-organized criticality in avalanche and earthquake models.[13]
The simplest model for chaotic dynamics is the logistic map. Self-adjusting logistic map dynamics exhibit adaptation to the edge of chaos.[14] Theoretical analysis allowed prediction of the location of the narrow parameter regime near the boundary to which the system evolves.[15]
Funders invited to test practical tools for place-based systemic change
John Hitchin describes the scenarios and issues that move people to begin to work differently and invites funders to test some practical tools to help places and organisations move towards systemic change in a place.
At Renaisi we talk and write about place a lot. We have worked in neighbourhoods and places for years, we have tried to define it, categorise it, and support lots of places and organisations to learn within it.
Recently we led an enquiry into ‘place-based systemic change’ with support from Save the Children UK and a steering group of charities and funders. We created a framework for thinking, acting and funding in a way that uses place as the vehicle for social change, with long-term, systemic change being the outcome.
John Hitchin will be presenting the learning from the Funding Place-Based Systemic Change project with the chair of the project steering group, Natsayi Sithole of Save the Children UK and Stephen Skeet from Volunteering Matters online at 12.30-2pm on 4th November. Register here.
What is place-based systemic change?
We define place-based systemic change as an approach to social change, rather than an outcome of it, that is defined by focus, time horizon, approach, scale and intentionality.
What’s interesting when you start to look across the areas where work of this kind is happening, is that there tends to be a set of issues which encourage them to start a new or different way of working. These triggers include, but are not limited to, things like siloed local bureaucracies, good things slipping through the gaps, valuing process over relationships and an inequity of outcomes.
When organisations or individuals repeatedly butt up against these issues it can lead to a malaise, or it can ignite a desire for a different way of working and thinking about social change. What then happens is funders, commissioners, providers, and communities need to get together to think differently about how to make change happen in their area.
Why is place-based systemic change hard to fund?
In the second learning paper we highlighted the sorts of issues that can make it hard to fund in a place based and systemic way. You can find that paper here, but a short list of questions for funders to think about is:
Strategy – how does place fit with your ambitions and strategy?
Place – which places are you thinking about and why?
Role – what role do you want to take on?
Partnership – who are you going to work with and how? (there should be no heroes here)
Once you’ve started to explore these questions, then we believe our framework can really help with both the language of change, and the thinking about the needs of the place, and how it can move on.
In our research we found that funders were taking on different roles (the convenor, the instigator the holder of ambition), but our work on developing the framework highlighted types or changes in practice that could be invested in and are important to consider. These ‘step-changes’ moved places and organisations towards more systemic practice.
Get involved
We think this is an important conversation and we’re interested in talking to funders about testing some practical tools that help places and organisations move through the steps in the framework.
John Hitchin will be presenting the learning from the Funding Place-Based Systemic Change project with the chair of the project steering group, Natsayi Sithole of Save the Children UK and Stephen Skeet from Volunteering Matters online at 12.30-2pm on 4th November.Register to attend the Funding Place-Based Systemic Change event.
Get involved in the place-based systemic change project
Find out how you can get involved in a community of places and organisations thinking and working differently to achieve systemic social change.
In the Funding Place-based Systemic Change project, we built a framework for thinking, acting and funding in a way that focusses on using place as the vehicle for social change with long-term, systemic change being the intended outcome.
We see place-based systemic change as an approach to social change, rather than an outcome of it, that is defined by focus, time horizon, approach, scale and intentionality.
This working definition doesn’t refer to any one type of organisation or approach. Through our research we saw lots of examples – from large national charities to small community organisations and our framework is approach agnostic.
We grouped the approaches but what is more important are the stages that the different organisations and approaches shared:
Intention – an awareness that place-based working may be relevant
Established – focus on the provision of a defined programme
Connection – making sense of the interconnectedness of multiple interventions
Mutuality – sharing space and assets to engage with
Systemic – a long-term, place-wide approach to social change
What was interesting is how organisations move through the framework to do more systemic work. Sometimes they do it with support, sometimes it was individual or organisational effort and resources.
The really interesting place-based practice is in the movement from ‘connected’ to ‘mutuality’. This is the point at which organisations are trying to push the boundaries of their approach into systemic work collaborating with partners.
Find out more and get involved
We think this is an important conversation and the Funding Place-Based Systemic Change learning papers are just the start of how we understand and improve the way in which place-based systemic work is resourced and supported in the UK.
While there are examples of impact, the project showed that no organisation is currently working systemically because it requires all funders, commissioners and stakeholders in the place and the system to work together.
In the next phase of this work we’re inviting:
1.Places and organisations that are moving towards systemic change to join a community of practice.
2. Funders who are interested in the steps towards systemic change to test some practical tools to help places and organisations move through the steps in the framework.
Register below if you’d like to be involved.
Register for the event
John Hitchin will be presenting the learning from the Funding Place-Based Systemic Change project with the chair of the project steering group, Natsayi Sithole of Save the Children UK, and Stephen Skeet from Volunteering Matters online at 12.30-2pm on 4th November.Register to attend the Funding Place-Based Systemic Change event.
Recently there have been a lot of discussions about which is best – Lean, Six Sigma or Theory of Constraints? Is Lean Six Sigma better than Lean or Six Sigma?
In this brief post, I will try to view this question from my viewpoint. There is a saying based on the 9th century Zen Buddhist teacher Qingyuan Weixin which I have paraphrased loosely below;
“At first I saw the mountain as a mountain. Then when I learned more and more, I realized that the mountain is not a mountain. But now that I have learned it even more, I see that the mountain is a mountain again.”
If you change the term mountain with “Lean” and “a set of tools”, we can paraphrase it as follows;
“At first I saw Lean as a set of tools. Then I learned more and more, I realized that Lean is not a set…
I recently came across Dr. Donald Hoffman’s idea of Fitness-Beats-Truth or FBT Theorem. This is the idea that evolution stamps out true perceptions. In other words, an organism is more likely to survive if it does not have a true and accurate perception. As Hoffman explains it:
Suppose there is an objective reality of some kind. Then the FBT Theorem says that natural selection does not shape us to perceive the structure of that reality. It shapes us to perceive fitness points, and how to get them… The FBT Theorem has been tested and confirmed in many simulations. They reveal that Truth often goes extinct even if Fitness is far less complex.
Hoffman suggests that natural selection did not shape us to perceive the structure of an objective reality. Evolution gave us a less complex but efficient perceptual network that takes shortcuts to perceive “fitness points.” Evolution by natural selection…
The COVID‐19 pandemic is a crisis with high complexity and should be understood as such by scholarship. A complexity science approach situates increasingly divergent ideological and epistemological perspectives about the crisis within the practical exigencies of containment and mitigation measures. We ask which of the seven stages of soft systems methodology contributes to deeper understandings about COVID‐19 as a policy issue, beyond the contributions of current and conventional perspectives. The discussion outlines implications for practice and places them within broader debates about tensions between scientific facts and political values.
Is it possible to organise complex ecosystems to achieve a shared purpose? Indeed is it possible to organise something which by nature is emergent, uncertain and comprised up of autonomous and semi-autonomous parts? Often with powerful agents? Are there clear guidelines that might help?
The questions this chapter seeks to answer.
What are the general principles of large systems design? For example – does a shared sense of purpose exist or is latent and requires articulation? What are the activities taking place in the system and are they broadly understood?
What are the characteristics of large systems leadership?Achieving progress among diverse, often conflicting part of a large scale systems requires different skills from those running an enterprise.
What is Street Epistemology?While definitions vary, it’s generally accepted that Street Epistemology is a conversational tool that helps people reflect on the quality of their reasons and the reliability of their methods used to derive one’s confidence level in their deeply-held beliefs.Why use Street Epistemology?Although practitioners’ objecives will differ, Street Epistemology is generally used to understand a claim, identify the actual reasons and reliability of the method supporting the claim, and see if one’s confidence in their claim is justified.Where to use Street Epistemology?While every venue has pros and cons, Street Epistemology can be practiced virtually anywhere, including face-to-face, video chat, audio chat, text chat, and social media, just to name a few.When to use Street Epistemology?If you have willing participants and applied good judgment of the situation, it’s probably a great time to use Street Epistemology on someone’s claim with them.Who is Street Epistemology for?While this method originated in the atheist community, we think everyone should learn Street Epistemology, regardless of where someone happens to stand on any claim.How to use Street Epistemology?This website is your entry point to all of the resources and communities currently available to help you learn, practice, conduct, and improve Street Epistemology, and we’re very happy to have you here.https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/DwkU4-AyT7gFeatured Video of the Month
In 1990, specialists from the Russian School of Transdisciplinarity began to develop the type of systems transdisciplinarity proposed by Erich Jantsch in 1972. He argued for the coordination of all disciplines and interdisciplines in the education and innovation system on the basis of a generalized axiomatic and an emerging epistemological pattern.
Since this approach has a philosophical rationale, conceptual and methodological basis, and appropriate technological methods, it can be considered as an independent metadiscipline – systems transdisciplinarity.
Transdisciplinarity as a meta-discipline has the following basic attributes:
a meta-theory; and,
a meta-narrative.
The purpose of the meta-theory of transdisciplinarity is to create a picture of the one and only world. Disciplinary (local) pictures of the world, in this case, are considered as abstract models of certain areas (fragments) of the one and only world. As a result, the meta-theory of transdisciplinarity appears to be a scheme that defines the way and context of building scientific models of the researched areas (fragments) of reality. Such a scheme, because of its abstract nature, provides a transdisciplinary interpretation of the results of modeling the fragments of reality within the framework of different disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches.
Meta-narrative is a universal system of notions, signs, symbols, and models, which aims to create a single type of description of objects and the presentation of interrelated events in the picture of the one and only world. This meta-narrative summarizes the knowledge and languages of scientific disciplines, as well as cultural and semantic discourses (areas of interaction).
General provisions of a systems transdisciplinary approach
The systems transdisciplinary approach is based on the philosophic principles of unicentrism. In a broad sense, unicentrism is a position in philosophy and in science that is based on the problem of the correlation between the unity and its fragments.
This position is based on the isomorphism (similarity) of the general order of the structure of fragments of space, the attributes of information, and the periods of time that are able to describe the one and only world. Any objects at all levels of the reality of the one and only world are its natural elements and fragments.
Therefore, the main condition for the existence of the one and only world is the existence of a general order in it (transdisciplinary system). As the name implies, it follows that this order must manifest itself everywhere: in every element and fragment of this world and in every interaction of these elements and fragments at every level of reality.
As a result, the same order should ensure the achievement of activity goals and results of all these elements and fragments. In addition, it should synchronize these goals and results. For this reason, the one and only world is a One Orderly Medium.
Therefore, the order determining unity is not revealed in the course of systems transdisciplinary research of a complex object. It is not formed subjectively as happens in other types of systems approaches. Instead, it is postulated through systems transdisciplinary models of the spatial, informational, and temporal units of order:
The model of a spatial unit of order provides substantiation for the physical and/or logical object boundaries and the nature of relations between elements within these boundaries.
The model of an informational unit of order provides substantiation for the necessary and sufficient amount of information on the object.
The model of a temporal unit of order shows the organization of converting the internal potency of an object from the original volume to the results that will be used in the subsequent processes of its conversion.
The world in the form of vertical functional assembly and the system in the form of the general order, which make the conditions for the unity of this assembly, are close to the vision of Ludwig von Bertalanffy with respect to the general systems theory. In 1968 he wrote:
A unitary conception of the world may be based, not upon the possibly futile and certainly farfetched hope finally to reduce all levels of reality to the level of physics, but rather on the isomorphy of laws in different fields. Speaking in “material” language, it means that the world, i.e., the total of observable events, shows structural uniformities, manifesting themselves by isomorphic traces of order in the different levels or realms. (pp. 48-49)
Recognising transdisciplinarity as a metadiscipline
Endowing transdisciplinarity with the traditional attributes of scientific discipline – philosophical substantiation, concept, methodology, technological solutions – makes it possible to organically integrate it into the existing classification of scientific directions and scientific approaches.
In turn, the creation of textbooks, manuals, and training programs, as well as the organization of special training and retraining of teachers will allow us to organically integrate this transdisciplinary meta-discipline into the educational process of universities. This will then make it possible to change the attitude towards the transdisciplinarity of academic researchers and practitioners as a marginal experience not integrated into the structure of universities.
What do you think of the proposal that systemic transdisciplinarity is a metadiscipline? How would you like to see it integrated into the educational processes of universities? What problems can arise with such a targeted reform of higher education?
To find out more: Mokiy, V. S. (2019). International standard of transdisciplinary education and transdisciplinary competence. Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 22: 73-90. (Online – open access) (DOI): https://doi.org/10.28945/4480
References: Bertalanffy, L. V. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. George Braziller: New York, United States of America
Jantsch, E. (1972). Towards interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in education and innovation. In Interdisciplinarity: Problems of teaching and research in universities. OECD Publication 99, 105-106, Paris, France. (Online): https://archive.org/details/ERIC_ED061895/page/n101
Biography: Vladimir Mokiy PhD is Head of the Russian School of Transdisciplinarity and Director of the Institute of Transdisciplinary Technologies, Nalchik, Russia. His research focuses on creating the philosophy and methodology of a systems transdisciplinary approach as an independent scientific discipline.
2 thoughts on “Systems transdisciplinarity as a metadiscipline”
Teodor GHITESCUI consider that the transdisciplinary approach is synonymous with the systemic approach with the two currents: cybernetic and realistic, which are distinguished by understanding and applying the concepts of “information-interaction” and by descriptive and mathematical modeling of systems. The treatment of “transdisciplinarity” as a meta-science, I do not think is possible not only from the perspective of the biological limits of the human intellect but also from the perspective of the professionalization of the new generations towards narrow specializations due to the division of labor.I believe that the “transdisciplinary” approach to knowledge presupposes the acceptance by most intellectuals, similarly, of the semantics of a minimum number of concepts, models and principles common to all sciences, based on the isomorphism of systems even if each science has as object of study a certain system.It should be promoted in higher education, especially in managerial, economic and legal fields, the areas most susceptible to intellectual manipulation by ignoring the common results of the basic sciences (mother tongue, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology). In fact, transdisciplinarity (the systemic approach) should be the basis for preparing all specialists for the teaching profession!After decades of studies and experience in management and execution positions in three different fields: military, economic and educational, I found that the lack of consensual understanding of basic concepts of knowledge, such as energy, process, system, information, natural self-adaptability, human self-adaptability, etc., is the main cause of the absurdities existing in higher education and implicitly in the current types of government of nations.For example, the consensual misunderstanding of the concept of “energy” (transdisciplinary concept, because it is the universal cause of all transformations in nature and society), leads to the absurdity of positioning the education system in sector III-services, ie where nothing new happens it just moves money from one pocket to another. Also due to this conceptual dissonance in the current pedagogy and in the law of education, THE PRODUCT OF SCIENTIFIC EDUCATION AND RESEARCH IS NOT CLARIFIED, from the perspective of the common results of the fundamental sciences.If not even the most performing intellectuals can reach consensus on even 5 concepts (system, energy, information, self-adaptability) and approx. 9 universal principles, based on the isomorphism of systems, the NEED FOR A SYSTEMIC (transdisciplinary) APPROACH TO SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IS OBVIOUS!The practical problems that could arise could be: 1. What to start with? I believe that the training of teachers should be rethought through a new pedagogy, systemic pedagogy, through which to promote this type of approach. A model: https://www.academia.edu/38067783/Presentation_The_Systemic_Pedagogy_and_the_Performance_of_the_Future_Education; 2. Which governments will accept such an approach, which will simplify knowledge so much that dogmatic intellectual manipulation will no longer be possible?Reply
Gerald MidgleyI find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with your proposal.First the agreement. It worries me that the meaning of ‘transdisciplinarity’ is being watered down in some research communities. The idea that transdisciplinary research involves the development of theoretical and/or methodological ideas that go beyond the boundaries of the conventional disciplines is really important. However, for a lot of people, transdisciplinarity now means problem-focused research in partnership with decision makers and stakeholders. This is transcendent in the sense that it goes beyond just academic researchers, and the problem focus means the work could end up going beyond one discipline, but it seems to me that this is little more than “big interdisciplinarity”. What makes transdisciplinarity different from interdisciplinarity is that there are theoretical and/or methodological ideas being researched, and these are transferable/adaptable so they can be transported into other domains. In this respect, transdisciplinarity has the characteristics of a discipline, in that a specialist language evolves. You call it a “meta-discipline”. I would not use the term “meta” myself, but that is a relatively small difference between us. In many other respects I agree with you on the need for a transdisciplinarity that does not throw the baby (transferable theory and methodology) out with the bathwater in the rush to build a stakeholder-focused research practice.Now the disagreement. It seems that your “one and only world” focus reduces transdisciplinary inquiry to something that is very traditional in terms of the sciences: the pursuit of truths (with all the epistemological caveats that need to accompany that word). Yes, this is consistent with the original work of Bertalanffy and Jantsch. However, I spent the first decade of my research career arguing against this, saying that we need multiple ideals of inquiry: truth, yes, but also ‘rightness’ and ‘subjective understanding’. The problem is, a transdisciplinarity that only focuses on questions of truth marginalizes more than half of what is needed in systems inquiry. What about all the methodologies developed by systems thinkers to support people in deciding on normative action? It is a problem that non-systemic science marginalizes the normative and subjective, and I argue that we should not reproduce this problem in the field of systems science.My way forward on this is to argue that pursuing the ideal of the unity of science is dependent on methodological pluralism, and this requires a new systems philosophy that allows for multiple types of inquiry with truth, rightness and subjective understanding (and understanding their interactions) as goals. I could end up writing a whole essay on this, but that would be pointless, as I have written many such essays before. Let me instead just recommend a single one of my papers. I have written the reference and copied the abstract below.Midgley G (2001). Rethinking the Unity of Science. ‘International Journal of General Systems’, 30, 379-409.This paper reconstructs the traditional systems notion of the unity of science to take account of criticisms that have been made of it over the years. It then examines a number of disciplinary sciences, comparing them with systems science. It is shown that disciplinary scientists embrace different philosophical and methodological positions, depending on their chosen subject areas. This presents a major problem for systems science. Systems science brings all the subject areas from the disciplines together, and with them come their associated philosophical and methodological ideas. These rub together abrasively, and the result is that the integrity of systems science itself is brought into question. The solution proposed in this paper is the promotion of methodological pluralism. This involves the development of a philosophical theory that explains the methodological diversity that is needed if we are to conduct transdisciplinary research. The paper ends with the presentation of a pluralist theory that begins the job of freeing systems science from methodological and philosophical restrictions.Reply
Systems transdisciplinarity as a metadiscipline October 27, 2020 By Vladimir Mokiy
A synthesis of work done over my undergrad, and a generator of future thought: project maplesync
ABSTRACT: Exploring price systems as emergently designed information technology: a heuristic approach for externalities with climate change applications
OD41: Being a Systems Thinking Practitioner ∙ New Operating Models Handbook
Published on October 27, 2020
Welcome to the OrgDev newsletter
We’re curating weekly resources that you can use for making your organization more effective. If you want to get the weekly edition straight to your inbox every Thursday, you can subscribe here.
1. OD Goodies
Curated starters for this week’s edition:
Care4: Paul Tolchinsky is hosting a unique series of stories and lessons learned about leading change, inspired by the nearly 6 decades of doing this work. Food for thought from the session last week:
The wisdom is in the conversations we have.
PolicyLab: recently revisited the 56 distinct actions in the Government as a System toolkit featured back in OD23. Good source of inspiration for enabling change.
Sketchplanations: sketch about the Cobra Effect – “(…) an unintended (and disastrous) consequence arises from a well-meaning solution.” detailed a bit back in OD32.
2. Being a systems thinking practitioner
If you’re applying systems thinking in your work or if you’re just curious about this topic, you might be interested in a comprehensive occupation standard that details many aspects of this type of work.
(…) to support decision-makers in strategic and leadership roles to understand and address complex and sometimes even ‘wicked’ problems through provision of expert systemic analysis, advice and facilitation.
Examples include: providing joined-up health and social services, reducing plastics use in the bottled drinks industry, developing sustainable international food production and supply systems, developing combined diplomatic and military options for unstable regions, and addressing climate change.
These problems have no single ‘owner’ or cause, and no simple solution; they require multi-disciplinary, multi-organisational responses with sensitive attention to diverse viewpoints, behaviour, culture and politics.
Here the 5 knowledge areas associated with this occupation:
K1: Systems thinking
Understands core systems concepts and laws that underpin and inform the practical methodologies and methods. • Aware of the inter-relationships between Systems Thinking approaches (including methods and methodologies), enabling comparisons of paradigms and underpinning philosophies. • Understands provenance of Systems Thinking methodologies and approaches in context of ‘schools’ of systems thinking and own ontology and epistemology. • Understands essential concepts of systems: complexity, emergence, boundaries, inter-relationships, multiple-perspectives, randomness, non-linear relationships, feedback loops, sensitive dependence on initial conditions, and unpredictability.
K2: Systems approaches
Has a sound working knowledge of at least three modelling approaches, as defined in the Systems and Complexity in Organisations (SCiO) professional standard framework, including at least two of the widely-used systems methodologies or approaches: Critical Systems Heuristics, Soft Systems Methodology, System Dynamics, Viable Systems Model. • Understands the applicability, benefits and limits of each systems approach for each situation, and how to integrate them into a broader methodological design. • Understands relevance of, and knows methods for, determining appropriate scope, scale and systemic levels, for understanding, diagnosing and modelling situations, or for system design.
K3: Intervention and engagement
Knows a range of approaches for delivering systems interventions with differing levels of complexity and ambiguity, including double loop learning, change methods, and learning cycles. • Has a working knowledge of at least two methods or methodologies for: intervention planning, information gathering, engagement and change implementation. • Understands strengths and limitations of each approach; knows when and how to use each approach to gain insight to the organisational/ societal/ political context. • Understands the principles of effective relationship building and stakeholder management and their application in a system intervention.
K4: Ethics
Working knowledge of ethics as applied to systems interventions generally, and as applied specifically to sector where practitioner is working. • Appreciates the regulatory environment, and the legal, health and safety and compliance requirements of the sector the practitioner is working in.
K5: Assessment and evaluation
Understands a range of quantitative and qualitative assessment and evaluation methods for determining the outcomes and impact of interventions, and for evaluating the effectiveness and impact of intervention decisions and processes.
We think that the world needs more systems thinking practitioners. This standard will guide us in our aspiration of improving our systems thinking practice and we hope it will be a useful read for you too – you will also find a summary of the occupation, 12 duties, 11 skills and 9 behaviors in the standard description. Enjoy! Link: Systems Thinking Practitioner
3. New Operating Models Handbook
Another pick that you might find interesting is a “practitioners’ guide to new ways of working that enable upstream innovation in local government”.
The New Operating Models Handbook captures the ideas and experience of the 20 pioneering local authorities who made up the Upstream Collaborative.
These local government innovators are all experimenting with different ways to address complex challenges, by moving attention and resources upstream of service delivery to create the conditions that enable citizens to thrive. To do this they have adopted new ways of working – new operating models – that acknowledge the complexity and interconnectedness of social issues and the people and organizations that aim to tackle them.
The work of these innovators, and the experiences of the communities they serve, has informed the development of a framework which characterizes what new operating models in local government look like in practice.
This handbook consists of 6 parts:
Introducing New Operating Models for Local Government – link
From the Margins to the Mainstream: How to create the conditions for new operating models to thrive – link
Reframing Risk: How to adopt new mindsets around risk that enable innovation – link
Asset-Based Community Development for Local Authorities: How to rebuild relationships with communities through asset-based approaches – link
Meaningful Measurement: How a new mindset around measurement can support a culture of continual learning – link
A Catalyst for Change: What COVID-19 has taught us about the future of local government – link
Among the most ambitious and highest potential initiatives are those that aim to tackle the underlying causes of social problems by heading ‘upstream’ to create the economic, social and community conditions for both people and place to flourish. Or, put simply, initiatives designed to solve problems before they happen.
Councils shared repeatedly that these new ways of working are simply “the right thing to do” and are driven by wanting people to live happier, more fulfilling lives. This is underpinned by a common belief within many councils that the status quo is ineffective and unsustainable.
Upstream initiatives are architectural innovations. To deliver them effectively at scale requires the adoption of new operating models.
New operating models don’t completely reject and replace the tools and approaches of the past decades, but are often overlayed on top of existing operating models where both systems continue to coexist. These new approaches are, however, starting to become more embedded and as they do so may supersede the legacy model.
If these snippets resonated with you, we invite you to explore the whole handbook:
This academic year, the Centre for Complex Systems Studies will be organising some new activities to bond our community in these extraordinary circumstances. We will introduce two new (online) series of lectures for you to attend with the titles Scaling in Complex Systems and Complex Systems Views on Fundamental issues. For Master’s students and PhD candidates, we have recently launched the CCSS Complexaton to encourage interdisciplinary collaboration with generous prizes. We are excited to see the teams take up the complex systems challenges provided by our members!
The board of the CCSSCCSS Complexaton The Centre has recently launched CCSS Complexaton, a brand new competition for Master’s students and PhD candidates with an attractive €1,000 cash prize for the winning team. Our main goal in setting up this competition is to encourage students to connect with their peers in these challenging times. We also encourage students who participate in this competition to connect with people from other disciplines and hence broaden their knowledge and skills.
Our CCSS members and external partners have provided some very interesting social challenges for this competition. The topics include sustainable diets, biodiversity, bacteria metabolism, knowledge flows in industries, plastic littering in oceans, chemical reactions in oil paintings and geoengineering for CO2 reduction. These challenges cover most scientific disciplines and all require an interdisciplinary team effort. The CCSS Complexaton Kickoff Meeting will be held on Monday, 16 November.More information and registration »Lecture series: Scaling in Complex Systems The monthly talks in the series Scaling in Complex Systems focus on scaling in both space and time. Scaling is one of the important features found within the stochastic dynamics of complex systems. In this series we will cover mechanisms of scaling, with topics including self-organised criticality, preferential processes, multiplicative processes and sample space reducing processes.We invite you to join the upcoming meeting Scaling in Regulatory Networks: Basic Theory and Implications for Systemic Evolution on Thursday, 29 October 2020.More information »Lecture series: Complex Systems Views on Fundamental issues In the new series Complex Systems Views on Fundamental Issues, we will focus on the philosophical impact of complex systems research and address the overarching issues of complex systems. The guest speakers will discuss their research and reflect on the fundamental issues related to complex systems research. This series will host lectures on a quarterly basis.
I started using the phrase “shared meaning” a couple of years ago to describe the outcome we were focusing on in the organisations we were working with, but I wasn’t prepared for just how quickly the phrase came to be taken up by clients, colleagues and the world at large. It became the subtitle of the book I co-wrote earlier this year, and the more I talk about it, the more I hear it in other people’s conversations. While I ponder how on earth to find time to write another full-length book on the subject, here’s a short summary of what I mean by shared meaning, and why I think the world needs it.
Shared meaning is two things: one is the outcome we are seeking to achieve, and the other is the discipline that seeks to achieve that outcome. The outcome is defined at greater length elsewhere on this blog, but as a quick reminder:
Gerald Midgley
CENTRE FOR COMPLEX SYSTEMS STUDIES
Message from the boardDear reader,
The Centre has recently launched 
Experienced researchers can request NWO funding for research concerned with the way in which separate but interlinked complex systems operate: the national crisis organization on the one hand, and the decentralized system of the security regions and/or medical institutions on the other. 
Systems Community of Inquiry 
You must be logged in to post a comment.