source: https://harishsnotebook.wordpress.com/2020/06/28/the-conundrum-of-autonomy-in-systems/

The Conundrum of Autonomy in Systems:

In my previous post, I talked about the idea of the Copernican revolution in philosophy by Immanuel Kant. In today’s post, I am expanding upon the ideas originated by Kant, especially autonomy and how it poses challenges in how we view human systems. I am also heavily relying on the ideas of Ralph Stacey. Kant had a lot to say about human autonomy. Autonomy stands for the ability to set laws or regulate oneself or the ability to perform actions that are not directed by someone else. Kant viewed humanity as an end in itself and not a means to an end. Humans should not be used simply as a means to get something done. Humans, Kant noted, have the power to act according to his conception of laws.

Kant was one of the pioneers of systems thinking. He understood the idea of circular causality and self-organization. Kant proposed that all living beings can be viewed as self-organizing systems rather than mechanisms such as a clock. The idea of a self-organizing system meant that the idea of feedback is important. However, Kant made an important distinction when it came to human beings. He proposed that humans cannot be understood as merely being a part of the “system” of nature. For this he used some ideas from Aristotle. Kant noted that all other living beings follow a formative causality, where the structure determines the unfolding of the living being itself. For example, a tree follows the unfolding of their lifecycle from a seed. The same formative causality is applicable to the human body; however, this is not applicable to the human being as a whole who has autonomy. 

Continues in source: https://harishsnotebook.wordpress.com/2020/06/28/the-conundrum-of-autonomy-in-systems/

source

Systemic Perspectives and the Covid-19 Crisis | OECD OPSI Webinar | 25 June 2020 – YouTube

 

OECD Observatory for Public Sector Innovation

 

 

The world has gone through a shock in the past few months, and through this time, the vulnerabilities and inefficiencies present in our systems have become more apparent. These include vulnerabilities to healthcare, food and trade system, employment and social security systems, risks posed by biodiversity and climate change, the push for digital transformation and automation, growing socio-economic inequalities, and many more. The effects of the crisis are manifold and cascading. Confronted with these challenges, it is not surprising that more and more voices are calling for true transformation of existing governance systems. Yet, we are already heading back towards the ‘normal’ or the ‘new normal’ and the window of the opportunity for systemic change may go unused. We need to ensure that governments sieze this opportunity for change rather than “wasting the crisis.” In this webinar, we will discuss how systems approaches could be used for true transformation in a post-Covid19 world. We will be joined by special guests with specialized and practical experience in the field: – Dr. Andrea Cooper, Deputy Director of the Policy Innovation Unit at the UK Cabinet Office – Marco Steinberg, the Founder of Snowcone & Haystack – Prof. Dr. Ira Helsloot, Professor of Governance of Safety and Security at the Radboud University – Laurent Bontoux, Senior Foresight Expert, European Commission Joint Research Centre This webinar is part of our European Commission Horizon 2020 webinar series exploring topics in public sector innovation. Find out more about OPSI’s work through Horizon 2020 here: https://oecd-opsi.org/our-work/horizo… The Observatory for Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) is a global forum for public sector innovation. In a time of increasing complexity, rapidly changing demands and considerable fiscal pressures, governments need to understand, test and embed new ways of doing things. Learn more about OPSI here: https://oecd-opsi.org/ Follow us on twitter: https://twitter.com/OPSIgov

source

Systemic Perspectives and the Covid-19 Crisis | OECD OPSI Webinar | 25 June 2020 – YouTube

source

Understanding Society: STS and big science

Understanding Society

Innovative thinking about a global world

Thursday, June 25, 2020

STS and big science

A previous post noted the rapid transition in the twentieth century from small physics (Niels Bohr) to large physics (Ernest Lawrence). How should we understand the development of scientific knowledge in physics during this period of rapid growth and discovery?

One approach is through the familiar methods and narratives of the history of science — what might be called “internal history of science”. Researchers in the history of science generally approach the discipline from the point of view of discovery, intellectual debate, and the progress of scientific knowledge. David Cassidy’s book  Beyond Uncertainty: Heisenberg, Quantum Physics, and The Bomb is sharply focused on the scientific and intellectual debates in which Heisenberg was immersed during the development of quantum theory. His book is fundamentally a narrative of intellectual discovery. Cassidy also takes on the moral-political issue of serving a genocidal state as a scientist; but this discussion has little to do with the history of science that he offers. Peter Galison is a talented and imaginative historian of science, and he asks penetrating questions about how to explain the advent of important new scientific ideas. His treatment of Einstein’s theory of relativity in Einstein’s Clocks and Poincare’s Maps: Empires of Time, for example, draws out the importance of the material technology of clocks and the intellectual influences that flowed through the social networks in which Einstein was engaged for Einstein’s basic intuitions about space and time. But Galison too is primarily interested in telling a story about the origins of intellectual innovation.

continues in source

Understanding Society: STS and big science

Can We Truly See the Other?

The Seeing Systems Blog: Can We Truly See the Other?

Source

Decision-Making In A Vuca Environment | CIPFA

Decision-Making In A Vuca Environment

Event summary

COVID-19 has posed a series of unexpected challenges to many different sectors and organisations. One trait that these organisations share is the need to have leaders who can make informed decisions, even in a challenging environment. VUCA stands for volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity – even in pre-COVID times, this could form a recipe for disaster within an organisation. CIPFA’s Brendan McCarron and Benjamin Taylor from Red Quadrant join us in this webinar focused on how to make the best decisions for yourself and your organisation in a VUCA environment.

DATE

02 July 2020
Starts: 11:00
Ends: 12:00

Free event

Book now

About this event

The phrase VUCA only arrived with us in the late 1990s, but has gripped our imaginations – representing the apparent unmanageability of the scale and pace of change we face. The era of COVID-19 seems only to reinforce that point. 

Brendan will focus on defining a new VUCA – vision, unity, courage and analysis in the face of challenge. He’ll provide the tools needed to be clear about what success looks like even in volatile situations and how you can be part of a greater whole that can process information and create alternatives. He’ll also emphasize the importance of courage and the need to reflect on the meaning of information before making decisions.  

Benjamin will outline the dimensions of the complexity we face, and why TUNA – Turbulent, Uncertain, Novel, and Ambiguous – might be better than VUCA. He will discuss how we can think and orient in ways which don’t make assumptions about basic stability. The presentation will touch on the dimensions of requisite agility that organisations need to develop in VUCA conditions – sense making at operational and strategic levels and co-ordination within the organisation. The emotional impacts of VUCA and the core practices we need to adopt to manage them will form part of the discussion, with the aim of providing a new lens to consider your response to complexity and that of your organisation. 

Who should attend

This webinar is free for all to attend but may be especially relevant for public sector professionals looking to make better decisions in times of change or increased stress such as the post-COVID world.

How you will benefit

The series will better enable delegates to:

• learn techniques and strategies to make informed decisions for your organisation 
• have the opportunity to ask industry professionals questions and engage in discussion 
• gain insight on how to navigate a VUCA environment, whether it be the COVID-19 pandemic or another unexpected challenge 
• be provided with tools to boost your leadership skills.

Speaker – Brendan McCarron: Senior Consultant

Brendan is a senior leadership and professional consultant for CIPFA consultancy and training. He leads CIPFA’s CFO Leadership Academy in the UK and for the Government of Canada. He is also heavily involved in CIPFA’s finance business partnering work and in change management assignments in the UK and in Europe. He can be contacted on E: brendan.mccarron@cipfa.org, T: 07810 547 226.

Benjamin is chief executive of the Public Service Transformation Academy, a not-for-profit social enterprise which delivers the Cabinet Office Commissioning Academy, and managing partner at RedQuadrant.

Speaker – Benjamin Taylor

He studied philosophy, politics, and economics at Oxford University before becoming co-ordinator of a youth development charity. He has worked in public service transformation since 1998, with seven years at the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham as Adviser to Leader, eGovernment Manager, and procuring a strategic partner. At PwC and Sector, his work included customer strategy for Birmingham City Council and advice to the Government of Armenia.

Benjamin is a leading thinker on system leadership, culture, and transformation. He holds a lean six sigma black belt and is an accredited power+systems trainer. He is a visiting lecturer in applied systems thinking at Cass Business School, City University, and has lectured at Nottingham Business School and Oxford Said/HEC Paris. He has spoken at LGC Summit, the PSTA’s State of Transformation event, and LGA Conference etc.

Source

Decision-Making In A Vuca Environment | CIPFA

source:

Complex Systems Consultant | PA Consulting | LinkedIn

source:

Complex Systems Consultant | PA Consulting | LinkedIn

summary of: Lawrence, P., and Lorsch, J., “Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations” Administrative Science Quarterly 12, (1967), 1-30.

Lawrence & Lorsch – Contingency Theory

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1. doi:10.2307/2391211  url to share this paper: sci-hub.tw/10.2307/2391211 Sci-Hub is a projectSci-Hub | Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1 | 10.2307/2391211 (full pdf)

podcast: https://www.talkingaboutorganizations.com/e16/

source

Self-organized criticality – Wikipedia

Self-organized criticality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to navigationJump to search

In physics, self-organized criticality (SOC) is a property of dynamical systems that have a critical point as an attractor. Their macroscopic behavior thus displays the spatial or temporal scale-invariance characteristic of the critical point of a phase transition, but without the need to tune control parameters to a precise value, because the system, effectively, tunes itself as it evolves towards criticality.

The concept was put forward by Per Bak, Chao Tang and Kurt Wiesenfeld (“BTW”) in a paper^[1] published in 1987 in Physical Review Letters, and is considered to be one of the mechanisms by which complexity^[2] arises in nature. Its concepts have been applied across fields as diverse as geophysics,^[3] physical cosmology, evolutionary biology and ecology, bio-inspired computing and optimization (mathematics), economics, quantum gravity, sociology, solar physics, plasma physics, neurobiology^[4][5][6] and others.

SOC is typically observed in slowly driven non-equilibrium systems with many degrees of freedom and strongly nonlinear dynamics. Many individual examples have been identified since BTW’s original paper, but to date there is no known set of general characteristics that guarantee a system will display SOC.

source

Self-organized criticality – Wikipedia

A famous anecdote describes a scheme the British Colonial Government implemented in India in an attempt to control the population of venomous cobras that were plaguing the citizens of Delhi that offered a bounty to be paid for every dead cobra brought to the administration officials. The policy initially appeared successful, intrepid snake catchers claiming their bounties and fewer cobras being seen in the city. Yet, instead of tapering off over time, there was a steady increase in the number of dead cobras being presented for bounty payment each month. Nobody knew why.

https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/systems-thinking-and-the-cobra-effect

Other sources:

Anne-Laure Le Cunff: https://nesslabs.com/cobra-effect

“Delhi, beware of the cobra effect” https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/in-perspective/delhi-beware-of-the-cobra-effect-762366.html

Freakonomics podcast: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-cobra-effect-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

Sketchplanations: https://www.sketchplanations.com/post/186110724996/the-cobra-effect-the-story-goes-something-like

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect

source

Mapping the Evolution of Socio-Technical Systems

[The reference to STS is a reference to ‘Wardley Mapping’, and later, Argyris is transcribed as ArcGIS, which I rather like]

Mapping the Evolution of Socio-Technical Systems

source

Mapping the Evolution of Socio-Technical Systems

source:

(PDF) Action Research: Its Foundations in Open Systems Thinking and Relationship to the Scientific Method | Tim Haslett – Academia.edu

Syst Pract Action Res (2009) 22:475–488
DOI 10.1007/s11213-009-9148-6

ORIGINAL PAPER
Action Research: Its Foundations in Open Systems
Thinking and Relationship to the Scientific Method
John Barton – John Stephens – Tim Haslett
Published online: 22 August 2009
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Abstract

This paper considers those interpretations of action research that can be traced to Kurt Lewin at the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the University of Michigan, and the work in social ecology by Emery and Trist at the Tavistock Institute. It locates the logical basis of these interpretations in the philosophy of pragmatism, particularly as it relates to Peirce’s inferential logic and inquiry system. Drawing on this argument, and on the significant developments in approaches to systemic thinking over the past 40–50 years, a normative set of criteria is established for action research. The paper concludes that both positivist science (which relates to closed systems thinking) and action research (which relates to open systems thinking) are essential to any complete scientific approach.

Keywords Action research Open systems Scientific method Peirce
Pragmatism Abduction

source:

(PDF) Action Research: Its Foundations in Open Systems Thinking and Relationship to the Scientific Method | Tim Haslett – Academia.edu

Management Cybernetics and the Force in organisational life https://bit.ly/3dtanpG

Tuesday, July 7, 2020, 6-8pm

I recognise that geezer!

“Well, the Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It’s an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.” ―Obi-Wan Kenobi

The Force in organisations is real. It can shape and control you and your organisation – or you can learn to shape them. This will be an introduction to the jedi arts of management cybernetics.

Management Cybernetics and the Force in organisational life

Tuesday, Jul 7, 2020, 6:00 PM

agile² Webinars (online)
Zoom webinar Heidelberg, al

32 Members Attending

“Well, the Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It’s an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.” ―Obi-Wan Kenobi The Force in organisations is real. It can shape and control you and your organisation – or you can learn to shape them. This will be an introduction to the jedi arts o…

Check out this Meetup →

source

Homeostats and cybernetic regulation – GentlySerious – Medium

One of the very few things I remember from school is a visit to the local trading standards people. I can remember two stories. A mouse was baked into something sold in Marks and Spencer, and M&S would not allow the story to be linked to them, letting the baker take all the flak. The other was about farmers who had watered down their milk, saying things like “the cows have been eating wet grass”.

Now when you think about it, the fact that all milk from all cows is similar enough in its composition, and constant enough over time, to allow trading standards to prosecute cheating farmers is truly remarkable. It means that there are few if any factors in the farming environment that can distort the milk a cow makes for its calf. That is a good model for a homeostat: something that keeps things pretty much constant, no matter what.

As a slightly edgier, more policy-oriented example, take John Adams and his work on accidents at road junctions. If there is an accident blackspot and you put in extra warning signs and a high-friction road surface what happens? The accidents happen at the next junction down.

continues in source:

Homeostats and cybernetic regulation – GentlySerious – Medium

source

Human Dynamics In System Change | Meetup

Tuesday, June 30, 2020

Human Dynamics In System Change

Catarina vM

Hosted byCatarina vM and 3 others

SystemsThinkingTOPublic group?

Tuesday, June 30, 2020
6:30 PM to 8:30 PM EDT

Details

RSVP to get Zoom link!

Many of us are frustrated with slow change. This slow change is (in part) due to the human systems (aka people and their motivations, the 4th facet of Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge). People are often treated as subordinate to larger systems; it is assumed they will adapt (with some training) in response to the larger system change. However, larger systems are collections of processes+ and people (systems nested within systems). Therefore, larger systems are (in part) subject to people. Individuals and groups can intentionally and unintentionally influence larger systems, sometimes quite profoundly.

To generate constructive, sustainable system change, we need to choose whether we will continue trying to subjugate human dynamics, or whether we will learn to leverage the power of human dynamics. To deepen our understanding of human dynamics in system change, Catarina von Maydell will present an overview of connected ideas (how we approach our systems, group dynamics and individual processes). This 2-hour session will be fast moving with several ideas introduced that can be explored in greater depth at a later date.

The expected outcomes of the session include:

– An overview of factors that influence human dynamics.
– Breakout group discussions.
– Identify possible topics of interest for future ST-TO+ sessions.

Please join us on Tuesday, 30th June 2020 from 6:30pm to 8:30pm. The Zoom link will open at 6:15pm to allow for informal networking.

To reduce the sense of ‘drinking from a firehose’ during the session, and to get a sense of the direction of the conversation, you might want to read this LinkedIn article before the session: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-make-systems-thinking-more-natural-act-catarina-von-maydell/

Please note: there will be no recording of the session, however, a summary of the discussion will be provided a few days after the session.

source:

Human Dynamics In System Change | Meetup

source:

Understanding Society: Guest post by Nicholas Preuth

Understanding Society

Innovative thinking about a global world

Saturday, June 20, 2020

Guest post by Nicholas Preuth

Nicholas Preuth is a philosophy student at the University of Michigan. His primary interests fall in the philosophy of law and the philosophy of social science. Thanks, Nick, for contributing this post!
Distinguishing Meta-Social Ontology from Social Ontology

Social ontology is the study of the properties of the social world. Conventional claims about social ontology proceed by asking and answering questions such as, “what is the existential status of social entities (e.g. institutions, governments, etc.)?”, “can institutions exert causal influence?”, “what is the causal relationship between micro, meso, and macro-level social entities?”, etc. Daniel Little is one of the many philosophers and sociologists who has written extensively on the topic of social ontology (see discussions here, here, and here). The types of arguments and discussions found in those blog posts represent conventional social ontology discussions—conventional in the sense that the content of the posts constitute the sort of commonly agreed-upon purview of social ontology discussions.

continues in source:

Understanding Society: Guest post by Nicholas Preuth