A good introduction and a sensible overview (apart from a *really* annoying sliding text gimmick). Of course, it frustrates me that there are only a couple of their key quotes from before 1980, and that they seem to have entirely missed the origins of complexity in systems thinking – which is odd given the 111 esteemed contributors. I dunno. But it’s a nice site.
Source: Complexity Explained
McGinnis, M. D., and E. Ostrom. 2014. Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society 19(2): 30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387-190230
Source: Ecology and Society: Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges
[Also https://www.tias-web.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Frameworks-for-SES-analysis_CB-small.pdf
Frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems
Claudia R. Binder, Claudia Pahl-Wostl, Christian Knieper
Concepts, frameworks and methods for the comparative analysis of water governance
October 28 to November 6, 2015]
Insight, part of a special feature on A Framework for Analyzing, Comparing, and Diagnosing Social-Ecological Systems
The social-ecological system (SES) framework investigated in this special issue enables researchers from diverse disciplinary backgrounds working on different resource sectors in disparate geographic areas, biophysical conditions, and temporal domains to share a common vocabulary for the construction and testing of alternative theories and models that determine which influences on processes and outcomes are especially critical in specific empirical settings. We summarize changes that have been made to this framework and discuss a few remaining ambiguities in its formulation. Specifically, we offer a tentative rearrangement of the list of relevant attributes of governance systems and discuss other ways to make this framework applicable to policy settings beyond natural resource settings. The SES framework will continue to change as more researchers apply it to additional contexts; the main purpose of this article is to delineate the version that served as the basis for the theoretical innovations and empirical analyses detailed in other contributions to this special issue.
WWF’s annual Kathryn S. Fuller Science for Nature Symposium convenes scientists and entrepreneurs in science, policy, business, and development to stimulate conservation dialogue for actionable knowledge and dynamic learning for a priority conservation issue. The 2018 Symposium, presented in collaboration with National Geographic inspired thinking on why and how to integrate principles of systems theory in conservation. We brought together a diverse array of leading experts to challenge our current way of working—and to devise creative solutions to complex conservation and development challenges in the context of our dynamic planet. Learn more here: worldwildlife.org/fuller2018.
My conversation today is with naturalist and author Paul Krafel. We talk about why you shouldn’t go with the flow, how to discover opportunities for generative service in all domains of life, how to use multiple perspectives to see in ‘3D’, the game of creating upward spirals, and how to observe the natural world in a way that discovers patterns & fit. Enjoy! Paul’s book Roaming Upwards —- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/emerge/support
>>Paul Krafel is very worth googling
Source: Leading systems change: nine strategies to transform the way the world works | Forum for the Future
We know that we are facing increasingly complex and interconnected challenges, from poverty and water scarcity to rising global temperatures and crashing biodiversity. We also know the world doesn’t work in simple or linear ways and that, therefore, only a systemic approach will create what’s desperately needed: a more sustainable world.
But what are systems? And what is an effective systemic approach? Both were key questions recently explored by leaders across multiple industries and sectors at an event convened by Forum for the Future in New York in May.
Forum defines a system as a set of elements interconnected in such a way that they produce their own pattern of behaviour over time. Systems can be tiny, like a microorganism, or huge, like an entire economy. They can be naturally formed, or created by us. System change is a deliberate process designed to transform the system’s fundamental behaviours so that a new, sustainable pattern can emerge.
Achieving this kind of long-term, transformational change, at both the scale and pace needed, is incredibly hard. There are no silver bullets. There’s no one individual, business, government or community able to do it alone.
That’s why Forum brought together more than 40 senior leaders from civil society and the philanthropic, corporate and investment communities to share insights on how to effectively drive systemic change. The event was hosted by Paul Polman, Chair of the International Chamber of Commerce, and attended by representatives from Unilever, Walgreens Boots Alliance, the UN Foundation, the Milken Philanthropy Institute, the Nature Conservancy and more. All joined in much-needed cross-sector debate and discussion on how change really occurs, and how organisations can be more deliberate in taking systemic approaches.
So how does system change actually happen?
At Forum, we use the ‘Multi-level Perspective’ framework to understand what’s happening in the world around us and identify where in the change process we are. It has three components: the regime – the mainstream and the way things get done today; the niche – where new and unstable technologies, ideas, concepts and innovations emerge until they mature into the mainstream, and the landscape – the external context shaping the way the niche and regime interact.
System change happens when pressures from the landscape (such as political transformations) and the development of strong alternative solutions in the niche combine to disrupt the regime.
Simply put, it takes time, with different actions from different actors operating at different levels. Based on our work, Forum has identified nine strategies that we believe are key to creating system change, and it’s these that formed the basis of discussions in New York.
1. Create a robust case for change
Our first strategy is about using science-based information to help key stakeholders understand the problem and how it affects them. Doing so is the first step to creating the case for change, which must be grounded in a compelling vision of what a sustainable future looks like; something everyone can really get behind.
As Charlotte Ersbøll of the UN Global Compact commented on the night: “The Sustainable Development Goals are massive drivers for systems change at the corporate level: [there is an] incredible willingness to step up and take this agenda forwards.” Or as Roy Steiner of the Rockefeller Foundation said: “If leaders can make the vision, the future, real in a way that local people can really understand and connect with, it could play a really critical role.”
Making a robust case now is not only the right ethical and environmental move but a way of reaping long-term competitive and economic benefit. As Paul said: “Increasingly the economic forces are driving you to do the right thing. Everywhere we look the financial cost of not acting is higher than the cost of acting.”
2. Make information accessible
Our second strategy considers the need to raise awareness and develop a shared understanding of key issues, challenges and solutions. As Danielle Azoulay of L’Oréal USA observed: “Transparency needs to be the ‘guiding light’ for sustainable business.”
3. Create collaborations
Thirdly, we need to create collaborations that help align mindsets and goals, enable shared learning and spark new innovations. Complex challenges often require complex solutions with multiple sectors, industries and interests at play. We need to recognise that, as Kathy Calvin, CEO & President of the UN Foundation observed: “We see the food sector with the land sector with the climate sector – they’re all starting to recognise they’re in the same shared space. The sectors are seeing solutions… where they might not have previously looked for them.”
The complexity of the challenges we face means business-as-usual no longer applies. We need to work differently, as Kriss Deigelmeier of the Tides Foundation highlighted: “When you want your ideas to stick you need to bring in unlikely partners – that often means business, civil society and government.”
4 / 5.Create disruptive innovations, and routes for them to scale
This is about bringing something new. How can we develop alternative, sustainable solutions that have the potential to mainstream – from products and services to entirely new ways of operating? We need to demonstrate proof of concept and provide new ingredients for the system to reconfigure around.
But an innovation is only effective if it’s taken to scale. Our fifth strategy is about how we allow for innovations in the niche to enter the regime, or replace it altogether.
6. Create the right incentives, business models and financing
This focuses on changing how the mainstream operates. It’s about adapting to change, allowing the mainstream to respond to pressures. “NGOs need to do the brokering of pre-competitive action in a more efficient way. To understand what the ROI is… and how to drive and mainstream a solution” said Santiago Gowland of The Nature Conservancy. “The Nature Conservancy used the multinational business model to drive and accelerate change [in restoring water systems]. [We] used global ‘economies of knowledge’ to develop solutions, strong teams in countries to influence policy and government, and built the capacity of local NGOs. In Colombia the government has committed to restore every water basin the country.”
7. Develop policies that facilitate and reinforce systemic change
Our seventh strategy uses economic tools like taxation and subsidies, as well as political influencing, to shift behaviours and goals, albeit gradually.
8. Shift culture, mindsets and behaviours
The hardest of all the system change strategies is potentially the most powerful. It’s how we profoundly shift the big picture context in which the system operates and in doing so, shift culture, mindsets and behaviours. I echo Paul’s comment from the evening: “Unless we unlock that humanity… and start to care again, we will not find the answers that we desperately need.”
Change needs all of us as individuals, not just as part of influential organisations, governments or communities. From what and how we choose to buy, consume and throw away, to how we travel every single day, our decisions and behaviours have profound implications on our planet.
9. Develop rules, measures and standards for the ‘new normal’
Our ninth strategy is used in the later stage of any change cycle. It comes in once a new system is beginning to emerge and we’re seeing real signals of change.
So what will you do?
With nine strategies to delivering system change, we have the know-how. It’s not easy, but it’s the way forward, and Forum continues to engage wide-ranging organisations and civil society in shaping sustainability strategies with the potential for transformational change. I encourage you to really consider your role in a system and in tackling the challenge you or your organisation faces – and to explore how you can work with Forum on this.
As Paul concluded on the night:“We can all make a difference, that’s what we must unlock in every one of us. We need leaders with a bigger sense of purpose, that can think intergenerational, that understand the true sense of partnership.” I couldn’t agree more.
Sign up to Forum’s monthly newsletter at the bottom of this page for our latest news and insights on all things related to systems change for sustainability.
The nine strategies above draw upon transitions theory (Geels et al) and look at where and how change might be leveraged. It was developed from and for use in practice by Forum’s System Innovation Lab.
Deloitte (US), their Aligned Action Practice, the Deloitte Monitor Institute (https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/monitor-institute/solutions/monitor-institute-services.html) produce a case study of the Reimagine Learning network, about systems change. Interestingly, the pdf is titled SRU-prevention-and-early-intervention.
Full pdf: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/5139_shifting-a-system/DI_Reimagining-learning.pdf
via the Systems School newsletter
Source: Transforming the education system through Reimagine Learning | Deloitte Insights
Some problems are simply too big for any one organization. One solution: a network of like-minded leaders working toward a common goal. Reimagine Learning, taking on systemic education issues, offers a successful model.
IN an increasingly complex business and social environment, many are looking for collective solutions to big problems. Networks can address sprawling issues in ways that no individual organization can, working toward innovative solutions that are able to scale.
Fortunately, the collective capacity to address persistent problems is deepening in real and exciting ways. A set of tools, processes, and mindset shifts has emerged to help leaders align a set of diverse actors around a shared understanding of a problem and then create a coordinated plan of attack.1 This approach to large-scale problem-solving is a powerful way to catalyze progress.
Our full-length report, Shifting a system, presents a case study of how a group of leaders and their organizations can coalesce behind a shared vision for change.
The Reimagine Learning network came together to tackle big education issues, ultimately aggregating and deploying US$38 million in philanthropic capital. Over six years, members worked to create teaching and learning environments aimed at helping to unleash creativity and potential in all students, including those who have been historically underserved. The group—launched with 32 members, now grown to more than 700—helped build and scale organizational models that embed a focus on both social emotional learning and learner diversity, ultimately funding 25 organizations that collectively serve 7 million students nationwide.
The experience of Reimagine Learning’s members suggests lessons about effective steps that leaders might take in constructing a network:
In 2012, when Reimagine Learning began forming, the US education system showed serious signs of struggle, with less than 40 percent of K–12 students proficient in math or reading and 1 million dropping out of school every year.2 Meanwhile, 12 million school-aged people had experienced three or more adverse childhood experiences, such as abuse, neglect, or household dysfunction, and 21 percent of all school-aged people lived in poverty.3
Leaders in education had formed well over 100,000 education nonprofits, aiming to address some of the issues, but the scope was simply too broad for any one organization to have a significant impact. In addition, even as a growing body of research highlighted the importance of supporting diverse learners—including students dealing with poverty-related trauma—educators, researchers, and advocates for students with learning and attention issues felt excluded from the general education-reform conversation.4
The Reimagine Learning network was launched to empower groups focused on learning differences, social emotional learning, and trauma. Catalyzed by Boston-based venture philanthropy organization New Profit and US$38 million of funding, this diverse network of change agents aimed to support an approach to education based on a deep understanding of how students learn.
Reimagine Learning’s goal was audacious and desperately needed: to fundamentally reimagine how learning happens for children in this country and to offer a new vision of how to meet the needs of a set of learners typically underserved by the education system. It was a call to action that galvanized people and organizations across the country to participate in a collaborative process to craft a vision and in a strategy to shift a system.
This six-year initiative demanded a major reframe in thinking about the role of education and how to make it more effective. And changing the mindset or paradigm out of which a system arises is one of the most powerful leverage points in a system you can affect.5 But gaining a hard-won mindset shift is only the first step in a journey. In the case of Reimagine Learning, getting to that point took years, and it was only the beginning of the process to get to action on the ground that would drive outcomes for young people and families. What followed was a series of changes—within and among individuals and organizations, in classrooms and boardrooms, at the dinner table and on the floor of the US Senate—that reflected this reimagining, allowing the effort to come one step closer to unleashing the potential of all students.
Participants’ involvement in shaping Reimagine Learning’s vision and strategy prompted them to reshape their own organizations, which collectively serve 7 million students nationwide.6 At its core, engagement in the network succeeded in changing the mindsets of many of its participants, who in turn influenced practices in school districts across the country and created a deeper understanding of what supports a “whole child’s” learning in a classroom.
Obviously, not every organization—or organizational goal—is best served by developing and engaging in a network. It’s a mode of problem-solving that asks leaders to assume a network mindset and demonstrate a willingness to work with and through others.
Ultimately, working in a network requires the integration of three key dimensions: an understanding of human dynamics—the people you need to build solutions and make them stick; an ability to craft collective strategy—getting smart about the problem and developing a point of view and action plan; and developing the right network configuration—designing and weaving a different kind of structure to support a group as it forges its own path forward.
It is a way of working that defies command-and-control posturing, in which insights come from the collective—and connections among them—rather than experts. It’s a journey on which there are no short cuts, and it will try the patience of those tied to short-termism. Yet it is an approach to problem-solving that we hope continues to be tested and developed.
See our full-length report, Shifting a system—a case study developed by the Monitor Institute by Deloitte in collaboration with New Profit—for a full account of how Reimagine Learning’s members came together to accomplish real change.
“To kick things off, I’m going to be running an Ask Me Anything session
this Friday (June 28) at 12pm Australian Eastern Standard Time (AEST)”
One tap mobile +61280156011,,246205382#
Source: Newsletter 1 – The Systems School
https://www.the-systems-school.org/
We introduce five measures describing the system-wide behaviour of complex ecological systems. Within an information-theoretic framework, these measures account for changes in both species diversity and total biomass to describe (i) overall system change, (ii) sustainability to external pressure, (iii) shift from a baseline state and two types of resilience: (iv) ability to recover from local pressures and (v) overall potential to return to a baseline state. We apply these measures to study the behaviour of three computer models: a large 59-functional groups complex ecological model (Ecopath with Ecosim) of north Western Australia undergoing internal dynamics, a smaller 6-group coral reef model subjected to various combinations of single and multiple stressors and a prey–predator model displaying limit cycles. We demonstrate the state-dependency of properties like resilience and sustainability by showing how these measures change in time as a function of internal dynamics and external forcing. Furthermore, we show how our…
View original post 55 more words
We review the concept of ecosystem resilience in its relation to ecosystem integrity from an information theory approach. We summarize the literature on the subject identifying three main narratives: ecosystem properties that enable them to be more resilient; ecosystem response to perturbations; and complexity. We also include original ideas with theoretical and quantitative developments with application examples. The main contribution is a new way to rethink resilience, that is mathematically formal and easy to evaluate heuristically in real-world applications: ecosystem antifragility. An ecosystem is antifragile if it benefits from environmental variability. Antifragility therefore goes beyond robustness or resilience because while resilient/robust systems are merely perturbation-resistant, antifragile structures not only withstand stress but also benefit from it.
Equihua Zamora M, Espinosa M, Gershenson C, López-Corona O, Munguia M, Pérez-Maqueo O, Ramírez-Carrillo E. 2019. Ecosystem antifragility: Beyond integrity and resilience. PeerJ Preprints 7:e27813v1
Source: peerj.com
Community member post by Jen Badham
Jen Badham (biography)
The most familiar models are predictive, such as those used to forecast the weather or plan the economy. However, models have many different uses and different modelling techniques are more or less suitable for specific purposes.
Here I present an example of how a game and a computerised agent-based model have been used for knowledge synthesis and decision support.
The game and model were developed by a team from the Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), a French agricultural research organisation with an international development focus. The issue of interest was land use conflict between crop and cattle farming in the Gnith community in Senegal (D’Aquino et al. 2003).
Agent-based modelling is particularly effective where understanding is more important than prediction. This is because agent-based models can represent the real world in a very…
View original post 1,296 more words
Fundamentals and History of Cybernetics – Stuart A. Umpleby
The George Washington University
Washington, DC
www.gwu.edu/~umpleby
In which our hero speaks quite slowly about some of our other heroes.
Source: Podcast: Buddhism and cognitivism | Meaningness
This is a 19 minute audio monologue about the intellectual history of some interactions between Buddhism and cognitive science, prompted by a blog discussion of doubts about modern meditation systems.
It’s a podcast, sort of? It’s an experiment… I deliver pedantic rambles like this practically every day, hours in a row sometimes. Rin’dzinrecently started recording some and encouraging me to make them public. I’m reluctant because I want to be careful, and when I’m ranting off-the-cuff I say things that are false and/or offensive. On the other hand, I often cover material that’s unusual and could be useful or interesting for someone, and which I’m never going to have time to write up properly.
You can listen to the audio file here or download it. I haven’t uploaded it to any of the podcast clouds yet because who knows how that works. If it’s a problem for you that it’s here, not there, please let me know!
Adaptive networks are a versatile approach to model phenomena such as contagion and spreading dynamics, critical transitions and structure formation that emerge from the dynamic coevolution of complex network structure and node states. Here, we study critical transitions in contagion dynamics on multilayer adaptive networks with dynamic node states and present an application to the governance of sustainable resource use. We focus on a three layer adaptive network model, where a polycentric governance network interacts with a social network of resource users which in turn interacts with an ecological network of renewable resources. We uncover that sustainability is favored for slow interaction timescales, large homophilic network adaptation rate (as long it is below the fragmentation threshold) and high taxation rates. Interestingly, we also observe a trade-off between an eco-dictatorship (reduced model with a single governance actor that always taxes unsustainable resource use) and the polycentric governance network of multiple actors…
View original post 134 more words
Thanks to recent email from Ben Sweeting on the CYBCOM list for reference to this – always a big event in the systems – and design – calendars.
Source: RSD8
There is an emerging concern to address the pragmatics of large-scale social system change across all contexts. Organizations can no longer go it alone if they want to achieve scaled and sustainable impact. Building, activating, and amplifying capacity to co-design and co-produce with real stakeholders has always been a challenging commitment. Successful system change models are still emerging across different sectors, and their results are simultaneously challenged by massive global trends. Achieving systems-level transformation requires activating, cultivating and galvanizing networks—technological, infrastructural, and social—that support new collaborative activities, processes, and mindsets.
The role of systemic design in informing equitable and sustainable choices increasingly demands that designers re-orient toward “design and…”. Together, we’ll explore real-world contexts where organizational behavior, entrepreneurship, policymaking, and design are already colliding, as well as new tools and methodologies to evolve our individual and collective points of view about leadership and the transformative practices—and challenges—of large-scale collaboration.
Our thematic questions include the following:
How can organizations engage and activate networks for reimagining livelihoods and the platforms for supporting them?
What is the role of leaders—including designers—in designing sustainable solutions that reimagine the interconnectivity of social, technical and ecological infrastructures?
How can socially-focused entrepreneurs prototype large-scale transformations that weave together new technological developments and more equitable and inclusive solutions?
Where might we learn from alternative or emerging models of developing and scaling access, inclusion, and equity in large-scale transformation initiatives involving multiple stakeholders?
What ethical and ecological principles — such as social justice, regenerativity, transparency, and “fit”— should inform how we enable systemic change in action?
We invite submissions from researchers and practitioners in systemic design, and who work at the intersection of systems thinking and design, for an exhibition at RSD8. This exhibition aims to showcase new tools, processes and methods for achieving systemic change through activating, cultivating and galvanizing networks. Submissions could be either in the format of posters or prototypes.
Systems Community of Inquiry 
You must be logged in to post a comment.