First Course in Critical Systems Thinking & The Management of Complexity – Sept ’21
Updated: Apr 30
Having recently announced the newly created courses in “Critical Systems Thinking for the Management of Complexity,” we can now announce the start date of the first program, and news that places can now be reserved.
STARTING TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 7TH
The program will begin on Tuesday 7th September. Each of the 12 sessions will then be offered bi-weekly with a short-break for the December holidays. So, the exact dates will be: 7th & 14th September, 5th & 19th October, 2nd, 16th, 30th November, 14th December, 4th & 18th January and 1st & 15th February. The sessions will run from 3.30-5pm UK time.
Each session in the program will be delivered live online via Zoom and will last 90 minutes.
Further program details, the agenda and who should attend can all be found in the brochure.
INCLUDED IN THE PRICE
The price of the program includes:
Access to all the live sessions
Private access to video recordings of the program
A copy of Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity
All course materials
First Year Annual Membership of the Critical Systems Institute
PLUS A FREE PRACTIONER’S GUIDE
Participants of programs starting in 2021 will get a free copy of the forthcoming book “Critical Systems Thinking; A Practitioner’s Guide”, also by Michael C Jackson. Participants will also credited in the book as they are likely to contribute insights.
THE PRICE
The all inclusive price is £1,200 as a single payment. or as 4 x £320 monthly payments.
RESERVATIONS
A limit of 20 participants means you are advised to reserve a place now. Payment can be made easily online using most major credit or debit cards:
A revealing and surprising look at how classification systems can shape both worldviews and social interactions.
What do a seventeenth-century mortality table (whose causes of death include “fainted in a bath,” “frighted,” and “itch”); the identification of South Africans during apartheid as European, Asian, colored, or black; and the separation of machine- from hand-washables have in common? All are examples of classification—the scaffolding of information infrastructures.
In Sorting Things Out, Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star explore the role of categories and standards in shaping the modern world. In a clear and lively style, they investigate a variety of classification systems, including the International Classification of Diseases, the Nursing Interventions Classification, race classification under apartheid in South Africa, and the classification of viruses and of tuberculosis.
The authors emphasize the role of invisibility in the process by which classification orders human interaction. They examine how categories are made and kept invisible, and how people can change this invisibility when necessary. They also explore systems of classification as part of the built information environment. Much as an urban historian would review highway permits and zoning decisions to tell a city’s story, the authors review archives of classification design to understand how decisions have been made. Sorting Things Out has a moral agenda, for each standard and category valorizes some point of view and silences another. Standards and classifications produce advantage or suffering. Jobs are made and lost; some regions benefit at the expense of others. How these choices are made and how we think about that process are at the moral and political core of this work. The book is an important empirical source for understanding the building of information infrastructures.
Abstract: In mid-2020, the World Economic Forum (WEF) announced the Great Reset, an initiative launched to assert, describe, and shape the direction of an epochal transition brought about by the global coronavirus crisis. Rooted in a European tradition of social theory, this article aims to articulate the broader social context of this scenario and pinpoint its […]
Complexity science provides the framework for understanding the behavior of social and natural systems. However, there is a huge gap between understanding and applying the principles and methods from complexity science in order to solve real problems. In this satellite we will cover applications of complex systems in multiple domains. We expect to raise awareness about how to manage and intervene in complex systems, including the risk we face when societies become global, the opportunities that are created, and the role of complexity in strategies and analytics.
How cybernetics can help improve the quality of training programmes
Published on May 30, 2018
Bryan HopkinsLearning and development consultant, writing book on facilitating organisational learning about sustainability
Cybernetics. A word which evokes thoughts of robots, of Dr Who’s cybermen, or of ‘transhumanists’, people who are looking to improve human performance by integrating technology into their bodies. But that is only one aspect of cybernetics, and one which does not readily suggest how cybernetics can contribute to learning.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines cybernetics as “the science of communications and automatic control systems in both machines and living things”. Thinking about the ‘living things’ part of this definition, cybernetics therefore looks at how organisms interact with their environment, exchanging information and materials in feedback mechanisms which, if functioning correctly, ensure the organism’s survival.
Of course, organisations are organisms, being composed of living, human beings. Cybernetic principles have therefore been used to analyse organisational behaviour, and one thread of thinking, sometimes called organisational cybernetics, is of interest to us here.
Within this perspective, each individual worker interacts with their operational environment, exchanging information and other resources. By extrapolation, so does the overall organisation (of course, in a one-person organisation, the individual is the organisation!), and it is therefore reasonable to assume that we can apply principles of cybernetics to how individuals and their parent organisations operate. Each person’s ‘environment’ includes both external entities (clients, suppliers and so on) and internal entities (colleagues, other departments and so on). We therefore have potentially a complex set of interacting feedback loops, which can make it somewhat difficult to understand what is happening.
However, there exists a very powerful tool called the Viable System Model (or VSM) which can help us to make sense of things. VSM is based around the interrelationship of five distinct but interconnected systems of information and resource exchange. Within the VSM literature, these are typically shown in a diagram like the one below.
The key concept in VSM is viability, of being able to survive successfully in the face of whatever variety exists in the environment. Essentially, the organisation must be able to show enough variety in its own behaviour to match the variety it has to deal with. To explain this with an example, if we are looking at a healthcare organisation working with an environment of people who are old, young or have disabilities, its internal organisation must be structured so that it can look after people who are old, young or who have a disability. This may seem blindingly obvious, but it is all too common for training programmes to be limited in scope and inflexible of message, making it harder for people to learn how to work flexibly and function as a viable system. It is also very important to remember that environments are constantly changing, so each worker’s capacity for dealing with variety (and the training required to enable this) must also be changing.
This VSM diagram showing how an organisation operates looks completely different to the classic organisation chart, structured by function. But it has a major advantage in that it shows how the organisation works (or should work), whereas the organisation chart simply shows a structure, and says nothing about interactions or operation. This is because it is derived from a hierarchical, bureaucratic mindset, and goes a long way to explaining why people often complain about “working in silos”: if that is how we think about an organisation’s structure, then that is the way we behave.
So briefly, how does this VSM diagram work?
The various System 1s are the operational (or implementation) activities, what delivers value to customers or clients, such as sales, procurement, fulfilment and so on. Every individual System 1 must be viable, in that it can respond appropriately to changes in its environment.
System 2 is coordination between the operational activities, making sure that, for example, increased sales activity is matched by an increase in procurement of raw materials or other resources.
System 3 is the delivery (or control) function, making sure that the different System 1s and System 2 all have the resources that they need. It actually works in two directions, and what is often called System 3* is a monitoring function, where each System 1 and 2 reports back so that System 3 provides what is needed.
System 4 takes information from both the internal and external environment and makes sure that the organisation remains in tune with what its customers and clients want, passing this information on to Systems 3 and 5.
System 5 sets the policy for the whole organisation, making sure that organisational activity remains in line with its vision and goals and is appropriate for the environment.
Crucially, this structure is recursive, and we should be able to see this structure within each different System 1 throughout the organisation. So we could look at the sales function and break this down into a number of separate System 1s and corresponding Systems 2 to 5. We see then that, for example, at every level of analysis the organisation should be taking appropriate information from its environment and feeding this into what it does.
If we use a VSM approach to look at how training is designed and delivered, we can identify principles which will make sure that training promotes viability.
Firstly, there is a major distinction between System 1, the operational activities, and the other four systems, which broadly represent what we would call ‘management’. Training for Systems 2 to 5 is often subsumed in what we call ‘management development’, so it is interesting to think about how traditional management development activities deal with cybernetically desirable activities. A key observation here is that traditional approaches to management development are often based around the hierarchical, bureaucratic model of organisations, with an emphasis on up and down relationships: for example, leadership, delegation, accountability and so on. Less importance may be attached to coordination and collaboration, monitoring or environmental awareness.
Operational training (System 1) needs to make sure that people can deal with all of the variety that they experience in every day, working life (being viable). This means that training should be learner-centred, practical and problem-based. This is well known empirically, being a core part of andragogical, adult learning principles, but here we can see how it is a requirement from cybernetic first principles.
Training designers should also recognise what relationships there are between different primary functions and make sure that these are incorporated into the training (System 2). Training programmes which focus on strengthening a System 1 without taking into account its dynamic relationship with other operational systems can cause more problems than they solve. This may mean that the scope of training needs to be widened, with related training or information being provided for people in other functions. Existing protocols and standard operating procedures may need to be revised to reflect different patterns in primary functions. There is a particular role here for informal learning, with people being encouraged to exchange information within and across teams so that coordination improves. ‘Training’ often ignores the need to promote informal learning, but it is crucial if the overall organisation is to be viable.
Training itself is an example of a System 3 activity (provision of necessary knowledge and skills). However, the VSM shows that what this provision should be needs to be based on information provided by System 3* (internal) and System 4 (external), which is, of course, what a training needs analysis (TNA) should do. Of course, this process may show that there are weaknesses in other System 3 or 3* activities. If there are System 3* weaknesses, reporting systems may need to be strengthened (while not becoming disproportionate or onerous): this would subsequently form an important source of information for training evaluations.
Training should make sure that people have the skills and tools needed to gather information from relevant parts of their environment, about what the environment needs and how it is changing (System 4). They should also be able to use this information appropriately. Training management should also be constantly monitoring the environment to make sure that training remains appropriate to what will be constantly changing patterns of variety: TNAs should be ongoing.
Finally, training should always be related to the broader aims of the organisation or department (System 5). This means that people working in a System 5 role should make sure that TNAs are taking place and that what they recommend is consistent with strengthening overall viability.
Too often training carried out in organisations is not planned from a systemic perspective. Training needs analyses may be perfunctory, with little thought being given to the complex web of decisions and interactions which contribute to effective performance. Training programmes are often reductionist, focusing on one small area of knowledge, skills and attitudes which seem to be appropriate to that particular silo of activity. Thinking about training for a cybernetic perspective can help to avoid this, making sure that training being delivered is closely integrated with all aspects of organisational activity so that the organisation continues to be viable in relation to its environment.Report this
Published by
Bryan HopkinsLearning and development consultant, writing book on facilitating organisational learning about sustainability
How cybernetics can help improve the quality of training programmes Published on May 30, 2018 Status is reachable Bryan Hopkins
A global conversation on how to teach, learn, support and measure equitable systems change.https://www.youtube.com/embed/sOHLkkquJmA?autoplay=0&start=0&rel=0Play video
Introduction to Systems Week 2021
Registeration open
Book your virtual seat for a week of thought-provoking and action-inspiring content.
Tickets are now available, so please book your space. This convening is completely free to attend online. Register now
Convening a global community of systems thinkers
Virtual event, 7-11 June 2021
The Covid-19 pandemic has exposed and exacerbated structural inequity throughout our global systems. Systems Week is a convening of practitioners, educators, researchers and students to reimagine more equitable systems, and how to teach, learn, support and measure systems change. These conversations will explore relationships between systems actors, systemic problems and solutions; resistance to incumbent systems and inequitable power dynamics; and the resources needed to support systemic change.
Developed in collaboration with the Centre for Knowledge Equity and the Centres’ inaugural Knowledge Equity Fellows, the convening will coalesce around the Skoll Centre’s 2021 Systems Reset theme, which has been examined in our Reimagine Podcast, the change ideas from Oxford MBA students in the Global Opportunities and Threats Oxford programme, and undergraduate and graduate students from 51 institutions around the world in our Map the System programme. The Systems Reset theme is focused on four grand challenges related to Covid-19 recovery, and the intersection of equity in all its forms across them:
Health Reset: In an age of pandemics, how can we build resilient health systems that deliver for all?
Climate Reset: As governments consider fiscal stimulus to reboot economies and business works to recover, how can we use this opportunity to achieve urgent climate goals?
Economic Reset: How can we build more inclusive and sustainable economies from the wreckage of the pandemic?
Social Reset: The pandemic demonstrated the precarity and possibilities of our social systems. What must we understand about our social systems to reimagine a new way forward?
I had an aha! moment recently that helped me figure out what it means to exit the culture wars. Not a high-minded martyr flounce that only looks like an exit, while keeping you as entangled as ever, or a checked-out retreat that cedes stakes and agency for sanity, but an actual exit, where the conflict becomes incapable of co-opting your presence or agency within it. A vaccine of sorts.
The key is to appreciate what happens when good people meet wicked problems, and what to do about your own desire to be good.
Yuanzhao Zhang, Jorge L. Ocampo-Espindola, István Z. Kiss, and Adilson E. Motter
PNAS May 25, 2021 118 (21) e2024299118
Synchronization among interacting entities is a process that underlies the function of numerous systems, including circadian clocks and laser arrays. It is generally believed that homogeneity among the entities is beneficial for synchronization. This work shows theoretically, numerically, and experimentally that the opposite is not only possible but also common in systems with interaction delays. In such systems, heterogeneity among the entities is shown to promote synchronization, even when the heterogeneity is completely random. This finding advances our understanding of the interplay between order and disorder in the collective behavior of complex systems. We suggest that the phenomenon can be observed for diverse coupling schemes and has implications for real-world systems, where heterogeneity and delays are common and often unavoidable.
MATURANA H. R.
ONTOLOGY OF OBSERVING: THE BIOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE PHYSICAL DOMAIN OF EXISTENCE
Cite as: Maturana H. R. (1988) Ontology of observing: The biological foundations of self-consciousness and the physical domain of existence. In: Donaldson R. E. (ed.) Texts in cybernetic theory: An in-depth exploration of the thought of Humberto Maturana, William T. Powers, and Ernst von Glasersfeld. American Society for Cybernetics (ASC). Available at https://cepa.info/597
A delicious discovery. I missed something I was quite committed to attending because I was enthralled by this.
I’ve always loved MacIntyre (since undergrad exposure to After Virtue led to me writing a typically overwrought undergraduate thesis and (in the spirit of “A man’s work is noting but this slow trek to rediscover, thorugh the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened” Albert Camus quoted on the cover art for Scott IV), I seem to continually rediscover him in different aspects.
And this is just a reminder of what I, of all, people should know – that’s there’s nothing that’s really that new.
Here, with the simple thesis that you cannot predict in the social sphere in the way you might in the physical sphere, Alasdair Macintyre covers scientific approaches as applied to prediction in the social space, complexity, the Battle of Gettysburg, (un)predictability, retrospective sense-making, degrees of freedom and competition, pattern, nebulosity, framing, Gödel‘s theorem (albert incorrectly stated), and more. Touching on OODA loop like thinking, also multiplicity (or lack) of context. Almost like chaos theory. Seven years before Godel, Escher, Bach.. A tad different from the slightly-Hegelian worldview of his later years (and his early Marxim) but yeah… well worth a listen or a read, I’d say
Alasdair MacIntyre – the Sources of Unpredictability in Human Affairs (1972)
More or Less Useful: Cybernetics and Organisation is a series of recorded conversations between John Beckford and Chris Heald. The series recorded during the 2021 UK spring Covid lockdown sets out to elaborate the principles and core ideas of cybernetics starting with this broad overview.
A new episode will be uploaded each week until the series of seven is complete. In order to comment or engage in discussion, you will need to sign up.
We plan to run ‘More or Less Useful: Cybernetics and Organisation: Live’ at the end of the series so subscribing will ensure you are invited to joins us.
A Workshop Satellite of the Conference on Complex Systems 2021 October 27 – 28, 2021 Submission deadline: July 06, 2021 Acceptance notification: July 09, 2021
Cities are massive systems whose tremendous complexity requires even greater efforts to be modeled, analyzed, understood, and governed. The city is the expression of a multitude of strongly intertwined systems that vary from people sociality to transport systems, from the cultural fabric to urban planning. Each of these city facets already represents in itself a complex system but their interconnection represents what is certainly one of the systems created by human beings with the highest complexity in the world. The aim of this event is to bring together researchers and practitioners from around the world interested in urban systems from the perspective of complexity science.
Systems Community of Inquiry 
You must be logged in to post a comment.