Face-to-Face Open Meeting: A series of presentations of interest to Systems and Complexity in Organisation’s members and all comers.
By SCiO – Systems and Complexity in Organisation
Date and time
Mon, 31 Mar 2025 09:30 – 17:00 BST
Location
Manchester Business School MBS West, Booth St West Manchester M15 6PBShow map
SCiO holds Open Meetings to provide opportunities for practitioners to learn and develop new practice, to build relationships, networks hear about skills, tools, practice and experiences. This meeting will be held face-to-face in Manchester, with details of speakers confirmed shortly.
This open meeting explores specific application of systems thinking practice methods and learning, with five sessions. The programme for the day is as follows:
09:30 – Introduction to Systems Thinking (subject tbc)
10:00 – Welcome, SCiO notices and community exercise
10:45 – Fundamentals of Systems Thinking– Matt Lloyd
11:45 – Break
12:15 – Psychological safety as a systemic construct: implications for social services– Joan O’Donnell
13:15- Lunch Break
14:30 –Multi-Methodology Approaches in Systems Thinking – Patrick Hoverstadt, Simon MacCormac
15:30 – Break
16:00 – Fundamentals of System Dynamics – Peter Lacey
17:00 – Later in the Bar for a social
=================================================
About SCiO
SCiO is a community of systems practitioners who believe that traditional approaches to running organisations are responsible for many of the problems we see today. We believe that systemic approaches to designing and running organisations offer radically better alternatives.
SCiO has three main objectives:
Developing practice in applying systems ideas to a range of organisational issues
Disseminating the use of systems approaches in dealing with organisational issues
Supporting practitioners in their professional practice.
Many systems practitioners can feel isolated in their organisations. SCiO provides a way to talk to and get support from a wide range of like minded people and see how they are addressing similar challenges.
SCiO is a non-profit and social enterprise – SCiO started in the UK, but now has groups in several European countries. Please visit our website for further details and sign-up to become a member: http://www.systemspractice.org/
If you have any questions about the event, or booking to attend it, please contact: mike.jones@systemspractice.org
an C. Willems’ behavioral systems theory offers a paradigm shift in understanding dynamical systems by focusing on their ‘behavior’—the set of all possible trajectories—without predefining inputs and outputs. This contrasts with traditional approaches that emphasize input-output relationships.
In this framework, a dynamical system is defined as a triple (T, W, B), where T represents the time set, W denotes the signal space, and B is the behavior comprising all signals that satisfy the system’s laws. This perspective treats all variables equally, allowing for multiple interpretations of cause and effect.
A key advantage of the behavioral approach is its flexibility in modeling complex systems, especially when distinguishing between inputs and outputs is challenging or arbitrary. It has led to new insights in areas such as controllability, where the focus is on the ability to transition between trajectories, and system interconnection, viewed as the sharing of variables among subsystems.
For a comprehensive introduction to this approach, consider the book “Introduction to Mathematical Systems Theory: A Behavioral Approach” by J.W. Polderman and J.C. Willems.
what space of ‘systems theory’ does this belong to? Why, in over ten years of documenting everything I find on www.syscoi.com, have I never come across this before?
ChatGPT said:
Jan C. Willems’ behavioral systems theory is a distinctive approach within systems theory, emphasizing the set of all possible trajectories of a system—its “behavior”—without predefining inputs and outputs. This perspective contrasts with traditional methods that prioritize input-output relationships.
The behavioral approach has been particularly influential in control theory and dynamical systems analysis. It offers a framework that accommodates complex systems where traditional input-output distinctions may be ambiguous or limiting. This methodology has led to advancements in understanding system interconnections and controllability.
Regarding its relative obscurity, several factors might contribute:
Niche Focus: The behavioral approach is primarily applied in specific areas of control theory and mathematical systems analysis. If your research or documentation has concentrated on other aspects of systems theory, it’s possible this particular approach didn’t surface prominently.
Terminology Variations: Differences in terminology can lead to oversight. Willems’ work might be referenced under different terms or within contexts that don’t explicitly label it as “behavioral systems theory.”
Publication Channels: Willems’ contributions are often found in specialized journals and conferences focused on control theory and applied mathematics. If your sources haven’t included these specific outlets, his work might not have been as visible.
To delve deeper into this approach, you might explore Willems’ publications and related literature in control theory and mathematical systems. This could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the behavioral perspective within systems theory.
The Behavioral Approach to Modeling and Control of Dynamical Systems
Jan C. Willems
Dept. of Electrical Engineering University of Leuven Belgium and Mathematics Institute University of Groningen The Netherlands
Abstract
The behavioral approach provides a mathematical framework for modeling, analysis, and synthesis of dynamical systems. The main difference from the classical view is that it does not the input/output partition as its starting point. In this setting, control is viewed as interconnection.
EVA ZERZ Lehrstuhl D für Mathematik RWTHAachen University, 52062 Aachen, Germany e-mail: eva.zerz@math.rwth-aachen.de
We survey the so-called behavioral approach to systems and control theory, which was founded by J. C. Willems and his school. The central idea of behavioral systems theory is to put the focus on the set of trajectories of a dynamical system rather than on a specific set of equations modelling the underlying phenomenon. Moreover, all signal components are treated on an equal footing at first, and their partition into inputs and outputs is derived from the system law, in a way that admits several valid cause-effect interpretations, in general.
The Behavioral Approach to Open and Interconnected Systems
JAN C. WILLEMS
MODELING BY TEARING, ZOOMING, AND LINKING
During the opening lecture of the 16th IFAC World Congress in Prague on July 4, 2005, Rudy Kalman articulated a principle that resonated very well with me. He put forward the following paradigm for research domains that combine models and mathematics: 1) Get the physics right. 2) The rest is mathematics. Did we, system theorists, get the physics right? Do our basic model structures adequately translate physical reality? Does the way in which we view interconnections respect the physics? These questions, in a nutshell, are the theme of this article. The motivation for the behavioral approach stems from the observation that classical systemtheoretic thinking is unsuitable for dealing on an appropriately general level with the basic tenets at which system theory aims, namely, open and interconnected systems. By an open system, we mean a system that interacts with its environment, for example, by exchanging matter, energy, or information. By an interconnected system, we mean a system that consists of interacting subsystems. Classical system theory introduces inputs, outputs, and signal-flow graphs ab initio. Inputs serve to capture the influence of the environment on the system, outputs serve to capture the influence of the system on the environment, while output-to-input assignments, such as series and feedback connection, serve to capture interconnections. A system is thus viewed as transmitting and transforming signals from the input channel to the output channel, and interconnections are viewed as pathways through which outputs of one system are imposed as inputs to another system.
June 15, 2018The Behavioral Approach to Systems TheoryPosted by John Baezguest post by Eliana Lorch and Joshua TanAs part of the Applied Category Theory seminar, we discussed an article commonly cited as an inspiration by many papers1 taking a categorical approach to systems theory, The Behavioral Approach to Open and Interconnected Systems. In this sprawling monograph for the IEEE Control Systems Magazine, legendary control theorist Jan Willems poses and answers foundational questions like how to define the very concept of mathematical model, gives fully-worked examples of his approach to modeling from physical first principles, provides various arguments in favor of his framework versus others, and finally proves several theorems about the special case of linear time-invariant differential systems.
Thank you so much, Tonnie Van der Zouwen, for inviting me onto your podcast to talk about the collaboration that produced the “blueprint” on Funding Governance for Systemic Transformation. Those who are interested can find the paper here on the website of r3.0, the organization that initiated the blueprint development process and invited me to be a co-lead author: https://lnkd.in/exE8QCuF
It’s worth noting that, as we discuss on the podcast, the approach we used to empower a team of thirty people to produce the 170pp paper was greatly influenced by my love of Open Space, the dialogue process that brought the two of us together last summer for the Co-creating a World that Works for All Summit.
With pride I announce the 9th episode of my podcast series on ‘Creating a level playing field for collaboration’. Ben Roberts shares his experience with a collaborative Blueprint writing project.
We delve into the challenges and successes of co-creating a blueprint for systemic transformation. Learn how shared ownership and action learning led to blueprints for innovative funding practices. Hear firsthand accounts of how the team of the Blueprint Project navigated the complexities of shifting power dynamics and fostering a truly inclusive process. Tune in and be inspired by Ben’s stories of regenerative funding, the power of collaboration, and the potential for creating a more equitable future.
Chapters 00:00 Introduction to Ben Roberts and His Background 03:06 Exploring Large Group Engagement and Technology 04:39 Case Study: Collaborative Paper on Funding Governance 08:48 The Process of Collaboration and Its Challenges 13:30 Activating the Blueprint: Moving Beyond the Document 15:19 Reflections on Collaboration and Cultural Differences 19:32 The Importance of Clarity and Vision in Collaboration 23:59 Future Directions and Reimagining Financial Systems
Systems thinking and complexity – incompatible or what?
Join us for the online event exploring Systems Thinking and complexity with our guest speakers Mike Jackson & Jean Boulton.
Mike Jackson styles himself a systems thinker and Jean Boulton ‘embraces complexity’. Both have written recent and very different books. On the surface of it, they seem to inhabit different worlds. But do they? How do these differing views complement each other? Are there incompatibilities; or is it more of a question of what you are trying to do?
Mike and Jean will introduce their perspectives through their books and discuss similarities, differences and whether it matters….
About the Speakers:
Professor Michael C Jackson
Mike is an Emeritus Professor at the University of Hull and MD of Systems Research Ltd. He graduated from Oxford University, gained an MA from Lancaster University and a PhD from Hull. He has worked in the civil service, in academia and as a consultant. Mike was Dean of Hull University Business School, founded the universities Centre for Systems Studies, and he has been President of the IFSR and ISSS. Mike is well known for his contribution of Critical Systems Thinking which suggests diversity can be a strength rather than a weakness, by revealing how different systems methodologies address various aspects of complexity and how they can be used in combination to resolve the messiest of wicked problems. His latest book ‘Critical Systems Thinking: A Practitioners Guide‘ was published by Wiley in 2024.
Dr Jean Boulton
Jean Boulton PhD, MPhil, MBA studied physics at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge and worked in applied physics before turning to management and the social sciences. She is a Fellow of the Institute of Physics and a visiting academic with the Department of Social and Policy Sciences at Bath, and with Cranfield School of Management. Jean consults, writes, researches, and lectures about the science of complexity and its implications for strategy, change and leadership. See www.embracingcomplexity.com. She has held executive management positions in large corporates and consulted to global organisations in the private and not-for-profit sectors. Her latest book ‘The Dao of Complexity: Making Sense and Making Waves in Turbulent Times‘, published by De Gruyter in 2024, introduces process complexity, reflects on its resonance with ideas from many other fields of knowledge – from neuroscience to politics to quantum gravity – and asks how we can ‘make waves’ in a world of increasing fragility, polarisation and alienation.
The SCiO open on Mon, Jul 14th, 2025, 18:30 – 21:00 GMT+1, will feature
Finding A New Rhythm: Exploring VSM for Social Change from Dr. Kim McLear
This talk explores a new interpretation and extends Beer’s VSM model towards the application of social change in times of turbulence and uncertainty. Inspired by music design theory, this talk highlights the importance of creativity and finding your instrument for social innovation.
This led me to search for and find a bunch of interesting ‘cybernetics and music’, including of course several references to Mark Johnson’s work, which is excellent.
Engineering the social: Students in this course use systems thinking to help solve human rights, disease and homelessness ShareRa,úl Ordóñez, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Dayto
In this conversation, Ponch and Mark engage with Sean Manion (@TheUnjournaling), a neuroscientist, to explore the OODA loop’s origins, its applications beyond military contexts, and the influence of cybernetics on decision-making processes. Chapters 00:00 The OODA Loop: Beyond Military Origins 02:36 Introducing Sean Manion: A Neuroscientist’s Perspective 05:14 Exploring John Boyd’s Influence on Cybernetics 09:33 Understanding Cybernetics and Its Historical Context 22:16 Cybernetics: The Science of Control and Communication 31:25 Building Trust in AI and Institutions 36:37 Decentralization and Data Governance 40:36 Neuroscience, AI, and Decision-Making 44:46 Entropy, Information Theory, and Boyd’s Trinity 53:02 Epigenetics and the Legacy of Trauma 57:17 The Intersection of Science and Narrative 59:15 Understanding Biases: Cultural vs. Cognitive 01:01:18 Muscle Memory and Implicit Biases 01:04:18 The Role of the Thalamus in Information Processing 01:06:26 Mimetics: Bridging Genetics and Culture 01:10:55 The Complexity of Intelligence and AI 01:17:50 Emerging Technologies in Neuroscience and
Over the last century, the invitation to improve health-care service quality has taken many different forms: questions, observations, methods, tools and actions have emerged and evolved to create relevant ‘improvement work.’ In this paper we present three phases of this work. The basic frameworks used in these phases have not supplanted each other, but they have been layered one upon the next over time. Each brought important new thinking, new change opportunities and a new set of limits. The important messages of each need to be carried together into the future, as must the sense of curiosity and possibility about the commonalities that has driven this evolution.
Methods
Literature, personal experience and other artifacts were reviewed to develop this description of how the focus on quality work has evolved (and continues to evolve) over the last century.
Results
We describe three phases. Quality 1.0 seeks to answer the question ‘How might we establish thresholds for good healthcare services?’ It described certain ‘basic’ standards that should be used to certify acceptable performance and capability. This led to the formation of formal processes for review, documentation and external audits and a system for public notice and recognition. Over time, the limits and risks of this approach also became more visible: a ‘micro-accounting compliance’ sometimes triumphed over what might be of even greater strategic importance in the development and operations of effective systems of disease prevention and management to improve outcomes for patients and families. Quality 2.0 asked ‘How might we use enterprise-wide systems for disease management?’ It added a focus on the processes and systems of production, reduction of unwanted variation, the intrinsic motivation to take pride in work, outcome measurement and collaborative work practices as ways to improve quality, modeled on experiences in other industries. Quality 3.0 asks ‘How might we improve the value of the contribution that healthcare service makes to health?’ It requires careful consideration of the meaning of ‘service’ and ‘value’, service-creating logic, and prompts us to consider both relationships and activities in the context of the coproduction of health-care services.
Conclusion
Efforts to improve the quality and value of health-care services have evolved over the last century. With each success have come new challenges and questions, requiring the addition of new frames and approaches.
Over the last century, the invitation to improve health-care service quality has taken many different forms: questions, observations, methods, tools and actions have emerged and evolved to create relevant ‘improvement work.’ In this paper we present three phases of this work. The basic frameworks used in these phases have not supplanted each other, but they have been layered one upon the next over time. Each brought important new thinking, new change opportunities and a new set of limits. The important messages of each need to be carried together into the future, as must the sense of curiosity and possibility about the commonalities that has driven this evolution.
Methods
Literature, personal experience and other artifacts were reviewed to develop this description of how the focus on quality work has evolved (and continues to evolve) over the last century.
Results
We describe three phases. Quality 1.0 seeks to answer the question ‘How might we establish thresholds for good healthcare services?’ It described certain ‘basic’ standards that should be used to certify acceptable performance and capability. This led to the formation of formal processes for review, documentation and external audits and a system for public notice and recognition. Over time, the limits and risks of this approach also became more visible: a ‘micro-accounting compliance’ sometimes triumphed over what might be of even greater strategic importance in the development and operations of effective systems of disease prevention and management to improve outcomes for patients and families. Quality 2.0 asked ‘How might we use enterprise-wide systems for disease management?’ It added a focus on the processes and systems of production, reduction of unwanted variation, the intrinsic motivation to take pride in work, outcome measurement and collaborative work practices as ways to improve quality, modeled on experiences in other industries. Quality 3.0 asks ‘How might we improve the value of the contribution that healthcare service makes to health?’ It requires careful consideration of the meaning of ‘service’ and ‘value’, service-creating logic, and prompts us to consider both relationships and activities in the context of the coproduction of health-care services.
Conclusion
Efforts to improve the quality and value of health-care services have evolved over the last century. With each success have come new challenges and questions, requiring the addition of new frames and approaches.
From assurance to coproduction: a century of improving the quality of health-care service
How do you design a system that learns, adapts, and thrives in a world of constant change? The key lies in creating a system that listens, learns, and acts in real time.
A fascinating paper published last week in the New Zealand Medical Journal explores the Viable System Model (VSM) as a blueprint for embedding learning into the core functioning of health systems. At its heart, the VSM focuses on balancing autonomy and coherence, enabling organisations to adapt quickly while maintaining clarity of purpose.
One insight stood out: systems thrive when we design them to absorb lessons, adapt effectively, and make decisions closer to the source of action. The study showed how fragmented processes, poor data flows, and limited autonomy can paralyse even the best intentions, while strong feedback loops and clear coordination create the resilience we need to navigate complexity.
“To fully leverage the lessons learnt from experience, we can no longer rely upon quick fixes that are project-based and ad hoc, and do not reflect the underlying causes of problems”
What makes this approach promising is how it prioritises the people within the system. For a system to truly learn, the individuals within it must feel empowered, informed, and connected.
The authors also highlight the pitfalls to avoid when building a learning system: 1️⃣ Fragmented goals that ignore interconnected challenges 2️⃣ Relying on quick fixes instead of addressing root causes 3️⃣ Centralised control that stifles local decision-making
This feels like a call to action for leaders in every sector: How can we design systems that thrive by learning?
What’s one way your organisation fosters a culture of learning and adaptability?
(pdf is attached in the LinkedIn post, to download maximise it to fill screen then click the download symbol top right)
paper details
Principles for embedding learning and adaptation into New Zealand health system functioning: the example of the Viable System Model
This article makes the case for taking a model-based management approach, specifically using the Viable System Model (VSM), to embed learning and adaptation into the New Zealand health system so it can function as a learning health system. We draw on a case study of a specialist clinical service where the VSM was used to guide semi-structured interviews and workshops with clinicians and managers and to guide analysis of the findings. The VSM analysis revealed a lack of clarity of organisational functioning, and of the systems, processes and integrated IT infrastructure necessary to support the fundamental requirements of a learning health system. We conclude that model-based management, specifically using the VSM, has significant potential for embedding the requirements for a learning health system into core functioning, including identifying technology infrastructure requirements. In addition, the VSM holds promise for improving clinical engagement and enhancing the health system’s ability to achieve financial sustainability, high performance, distributed decision making and efficiency.
Principles for embedding learning and adaptation into New Zealand health system functioning: the example of the Viable System ModelSharen Paine 1, Jeff Foote 2, Robin Gauld 3
Systems Community of Inquiry 
You must be logged in to post a comment.