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
We are very excited to be hosting this event in a few weeks, where we will be starting a conversation about where we are with systems thinking as a movement and what it might take to move forward.
We will hear from Louis Klein of the IFSR, Gary Smith from the ISSS, and Linda Booth Sweeney in a roundtable discussion format before engaging in a workshop to ideate on possible future collaborations and opportunities.
Gemma Smith and I have been asked to chair a Systems Thinking stream at the European Operational Reseach Societies (EURO) conference in Leeds later this year (22-25 June). This exciting event is being held in partnership with The OR Society promises insightful presentations, stimulating discussions, and ample networking opportunities, all designed to inspire collaboration and growth in the field of Operational Research.
We will be publishing details relating to the Systems Thinking stream next week, however abstract submission for the event is already open. If you have any ideas or questions please don’t hesitate to contact Gemma or myself.
Systems Community of Inquiry 
You must be logged in to post a comment.