Driving Systems Change Forward Webinar Registration
Driving Systems Change Forward
Multisite, cross-sector initiatives bring together stakeholders to tackle difficult issues – housing, health, education, and more – facing communities across the United States.
In the new report Driving Systems Change Forward, authored by the Urban Institute and published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, you’ll learn key lessons from initiatives from across the country about what it takes to advance systems change forward by shifting power and promoting racial equity.
Join us for a virtual coffee chat on August 31 from 4pm – 5pm ET with one of the report authors—Corianne Scally—from the Urban Institute and contributing practitioner, Andrea Akita, who leads the Communities of Opportunity Initiative for King County, Washington. They’ll discuss the report findings and how initiatives can build on this learning to change the structures, relationships and attitudes that keep racism rooted in place and communities struggling.
Can’t make the exact time to join? Registering also means you’ll be notified when the recording is available, normally within 24 hours of live event.
Joining us for this discussion are:
Andrea Akita, Communities of Opportunity Director, King County Public Health
Corianne Payton Scally, Principal Research Associate, Urban Institute
Title: Driving Systems Change Forward Date: Monday, August 31 Time: 4pm – 5pm ET Cost: Free
A slate of multisite, cross-sector initiatives has emerged to address structural root causes of inequities by changing the systems that shape community conditions and individual well-being. These new, connected sets of activities were planned and implemented to achieve a goal that spans more than one site (e.g., a neighborhood, school, city, region) and involve a mix of institutions from the public, nonprofit, philanthropic, and/or private sectors. This report reflects on recent progress and shortcomings and provides strategies for initiative funders, intermediaries, sites, and evaluators who wish to evolve their efforts in ways that drive systems change forward. The findings highlight the complex intersections of systems, racial equity, and power that can work for or against systems change.
The executive summary and full report are available here.
Editors’ note: This article was excerpted, with minor edits, from Ideas Arrangements Effects: Systems Design and Social Justice (Minor Compositions, 2020),for the summer 2020 edition of the Nonprofit Quarterly. This edition of the magazine is about the need to understand the often unacknowledged and unspoken design principles behind some of the practices and structures that pervade our work. We recommend the book highly. All illustrations are by Ayako Maruyama.
Activists, artists, philanthropists, young people, academics—all manner of folks—constantly battle injustices and negative effects in their lives and the lives of others. We take to the streets, to the Internet, to the voting booth, and more to fight for better outcomes. To the same degree, we argue vehemently about the ideas that underlie these injustices—from notions of public and private to ideas about categorizing our bodies, to all the “isms” that say some categories (and people) matter more than others.
But the arena for intervention that we at DS4SI want to make a case for is a less obvious one: that of the multiple, overlapping social arrangements that shape our lives. We believe that creating new effects—ones that make a society more just and enjoyable—calls for sensing, questioning, intervening in, and reimagining our existing arrangements. Simply put, we see rearranging the social as a practical and powerful way to create social change. And we want those of us who care about social justice to see ourselves as potential designers of this world, rather than simply as participants in a world we didn’t create or consent to. Instead of constantly reacting to the latest injustice, we want activists to have the tools and time to imagine and enact a new world.
As Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, wrote in her 2018 debut op-ed for the New York Times:
Resistance is a reactive state of mind. While it can be necessary for survival and to prevent catastrophic harm, it can also tempt us to set our sights too low and to restrict our field of vision to the next election cycle, leading us to forget our ultimate purpose and place in history….Those of us who are committed to the radical evolution of American democracy are not merely resisting an unwanted reality. To the contrary, the struggle for human freedom and dignity extends back centuries and is likely to continue for generations to come.1
With the weight of lifetime Supreme Court appointments or healthcare or climate change seeming to hang in the balance of our elections, it is easy to get stuck there. But as Alexander points out, our fixation with politics and policies as the grand arrangement from which all other forms of social justice and injustice flow serves to “set our sights too low.”2 When do we get to imagine the daily arrangements of “human freedom and dignity”?3 We know this won’t happen overnight. It takes time and investment for social arrangements to institutionalize and endure, and it will take time to change them. But it is critical that we try. And to do that, we need to be better at sensing arrangements, intervening in them, and imagining new ones.
This article provides the most current guidelines for nurse educators and nurses to use systems thinking to manage COVID-19 in health systems. A working definition of systems thinking is offered, with a review of basic knowledge and care in the context of the system awareness model (SAM). Seven key messages assist nurse educators and nurses in the management of COVID-19 patients culminating in leadership of complex health care systems using systems thinking. [J Contin Educ Nurs. 2020;51(9):402–411.]
In this in-depth interview, David Zilber, director of the fermentation lab at Noma—named the best restaurant in the world—discusses how food is culture, but fermentation is culture on a deeper level.
“Culture” and “culture” mean two different things to a biologist and an anthropologist, but in fermentation, they overlap completely.
Open events and development days, in addition to the core content, provide valuable opportunities for systems practitioners to network and mingle. Since our events are now online, this will be hard – or certainly different.
Therefore we’re running virtual networking events. Hosted by SCiO director Benjamin Taylor, with deep experience of online facilitation from five to over a hundred people, this will combine some initial small group work, Open Space-style discussions, and completely open opportunities to mingle as individuals.
Please note that you will need to attend using a desktop computer (not a tablet or phone) to get the best experience.
In today’s post, I am looking at the Conant-Ashby theorem, “The Good Regulator Theorem”, named after Roger C. Conant and W. Ross Ashby. Ashby is one of the pioneers of the Cybernetics movement. This theorem states that:
Every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system.
A really good version of this theorem comes from Daniel L. Scholten, who says – Every good key must be a model of the lock it opens. The key must match the lock in order for it to open it. As Conant and Ashby put it:
Any regulator that is maximally both successful and simple must be isomorphic with the system being regulated… Making a model is thus necessary. The theorem has the interesting corollary that the living brain, so far as it is to be successful and efficient as a regulator for survival, must proceed, in learning, by the…
We’re at a unique moment in the 200,000 years or so that Homo sapiens have walked the Earth. For the first time in that long history, humans are capable of coordinating on a global scale, using fine-grained data on individual behaviour, to design robust and adaptable social systems. The pandemic of 2019-20 has brought home this potential. Never before has there been a collective, empirically informed response of the magnitude that COVID-19 has demanded. Yes, the response has been ambivalent, uneven and chaotic – we are fumbling in low light, but it’s the low light of dawn.
At this historical juncture, we should acknowledge and exploit the fact we live in a complex system – a system with many interacting agents, whose collective behaviour is usually hard to predict. Understanding the key properties of complex systems can help us clarify and deal with many new and existing global challenges, from pandemics to poverty and ecological collapse.
In complex systems, the last thing that happened is almost never informative about what’s coming next. The world is always changing – partly due to factors outside our control and partly due to our own interventions…
In the early days of Scrum we were steeped in complex adaptive systems theory and autonomous intelligent systems. This area of research is emerging in a new form called Ambient Intelligence (AmI) due to the proliferation of intelligent devices on the internet. This proliferation and the applications we use with them caused Wired Magazine to declare “The Web is dead” in September 2010.
Work in this area can help us understand Scrum better and ensure that basic collaboration mechanisms are in place to make Scrum work. The environment must be set up so that people have an incentive to help one another in order to optimize the whole, rather than optimizing their individual niche at the expense of the larger community. Failure to do this will prevent individuals and companies achieving the full benefits of Scrum.
ACM Transactions on Autonomous Adaptive Systems has many articles worth reading to understand the issues in more depth. In particular, the article below reviews much of the literature upon which Scrum is based and proposes a better approach to achieve cooperation among networked systems.
We address the problem of cooperation in decentralized systems, specifically looking at interactions between independent pairs of peers where mutual exchange of resources (e.g., updating or sharing content) is required. In the absence of any enforcement mechanism or protocol, there is no incentive for one party to directly reciprocate during a transaction with another. Consequently, for such decentralized systems to function, protocols for self-organization need to explicitly promote cooperation in a manner where adherence to the protocol is incentivized.
In this article we introduce a new generic model to achieve this. The model is based on peers repeatedly interacting to build up and maintain a dynamic social network of others that they can trust based on similarity of cooperation. This mechanism effectively incentivizes unselfish behavior, where peers with higher levels of cooperation gain higher payoff.We examine the model’s behavior and robustness in detail. This includes the effect of peers self-adapting their cooperation level in response to maximizing their payoff, representing a Nash-equilibrium of the system. The study shows that the formation of a social network based on reflexive cooperation levels can be a highly effective and robust incentive mechanism for autonomous decentralized systems.
Categories and Subject Descriptors: I.2.11 [Artificial Intelligence]: Distributed Artificial Intelligence— Multiagent systems; C.2.1 [Computer-Communication Networks]: Network Architecture and Design—Distributed networks
General Terms: Algorithms Additional Key Words and Phrases: Cooperation, decentralized systems, self-organization ACM Reference Format: Allen, S. M., Colombo, G., and Whitaker, R. M. 2010. Cooperation through self-similar social networks. ACM Trans. Autonom. Adapt. Syst. 5, 1, Article 4 (February 2010), 29 pages.Comments are moderated and may take up to 24 hours to appear.
The Covid-19 crisis is a cataclysmic event and caught us all by surprise. It is considered a health and economic crisis, but at the same time and rarely discussed, it also reveals the weaknesses in the systemic processes in our society and organizations. The Viable System Model (VSM) by Stafford Beer allows us to structure the various weaknesses and to put them into a coherent framework. The VSM postulates that all social systems need a minimum set of systemic functions to become viable. This article explains the vital role of these systemic functions during the Covid 19 crisis. It discusses how their (in)adequate functioning decides about the prevention and mastery of the crisis. The VSM offers thus a formal framework to better understand the systemic processes needed for the prevention and mastery of crisis.
Collective computation: Complexity can arise from simple interactions among components but does it happen this way in nature—complexity at the microscale suggests not (https://t.co/RxLubGc758). The origins of this view lie in model systems like cellular automata yet von Neumann pic.twitter.com/SHDLxepzAu
Launching the Decision Support Tool for Systems Thinking
The Systems School presents a new online, open access Decision Support Tool for Systems Thinking.
—
In our work building capacity for systems thinking with individuals, teams, and collaborations , we have found that the greatest hurdles to application are:
understanding which systems method to use and when
access to clear instructions on how to apply the method
indications of potential outcomes from application
analytical questions to reflect and makes sense of the new insights gained
Our development of the Tool aims to support these systems learning and application needs.
In this event we will share what the Tool is and how it works, followed by an opportunity for questions.
On 15-17 June 2020, the Skoll Centre’s Map the System competition held its Global Final virtually. As a member of this year’s judging panel, Ed Straw shares his insights.
The more researchers are conscious of their ‘traditions of understanding’ in relation to the subject, the less biased will be the output. Through culture, education and experiences of many forms, everyone holds preconceptions about their field of study – their ‘positionality’. The tendency for many is for US-European norms in economics, democracy, science and so on to be the starting point. As a judge for the Map the System competition, surfacing my own inbuilt assumptions in relation to each of the 31 finalists is a tenet of systems thinking. This was not easy. The entries ranged from the Youth Suicide Crisis in India to Why Women-Owned Businesses in South African Townships Fail, from Consumer Food Waste in Navarre to Affordable Housing in Utah. Everywhere is different.
Yet, I came away with the sense of ‘Yes, and Everywhere is the Same.’ What struck me most was the commonalities in many of the entries. The most obvious example is menstruation. This is actually an issue that affects over 3.5bn people for long parts for their lives. Normalising periods, treating them as just another bodily function requiring proper facilities and materials to be readily available in every institution, being able to talk about them in an understanding and knowledgeable way, not stigmatizing and so on would benefit so many lives. It is a common global issue. ‘There will be blood’ as one entry put it so succinctly. At its root, it is about shifting social norms.
This theme extended to several other entries where appalling norms in the treatment of women are underlying high adolescent pregnancy in Peru, female genital mutilation in Somalia and modern slavery in Papua New Guinea. But where is the global learning in shifting social norms?
Youth homelessness in Vancouver brought out another commonality – the lack of coordination and integration by public and third sector agencies. Funding is not the issue: masses of it appear to be available. As so often, it is poor overall governance leaving lots of intermediate interventions with few aimed at the whole person and the purpose of the funding. How often have I seen that. At what point will the world of government know instinctively that sound governance is where any solution has to start?
Poor plastic waste disposal in Accra Ghana, fake news in Germany, systemic barriers to public transportation in Boston US, the flooding crisis in Canada, type 2 diabetes in Latino-American communities, and depression in China are all entries with universal insights. Yet few of them get transported around the world, as a matter of course.
This led me on to thinking about the sort of ‘global learning engine’ that has been so effective in developing world class manufacturing from Japanese practice in automotive and consumer electronics from the 80s onwards, which is now almost universal in its application. It is the reason we can buy products of such extraordinary complexity, use and reliability, and at such comparatively low cost. These learning engines consist of management gurus, consultants, trade and specialist journals and news media, design authorities, business schools, industry analytics, trade associations, professional institutes, software developers, state funded R&D institutions and more. All of them are intent on scouring the world for what works best, why, and how, and transferring this knowledge.
Could world class governing and government be developed through a global learning engine? Bits and pieces of knowledge transfer do happen. The OECD’s Observatory of Public Sector Innovation is working hard in this direction. A few university departments are active (e.g. Arend Lijphart at the University of California). This competition is a fine example. But the total is tiny compared to the billions spent on knowledge acquisition and application in the commercial world. And typically governments are spending 40% of a country’s GDP, a vast sum that would be spent so much better stimulated by universal knowledge transfer and application.
The faster this learning platform can be activated and institutionalized, the faster governments will improve. None of the situations of concern analysed by the entrants would be solved through the application of today’s, often ramshackle political processes. Politics is more often an obstacle than an answer. Systems thinking works. In 2017 the UN, the WHO and OECD all called for the use of systems thinking to deal with highly complex problems. Which issue in government these days is not? Rise up systems thinkers – our time has come.
Author:
Ed Straw, Visiting Research Fellow at the Open University’s Applied Systems Thinking in Practice unit, headed by Professor Ray Ison, with whom he recently co-authored a book on The Hidden Power of Systems Thinking, and its application to governments and governance.
The SSG is closely following the evolution of the global Covid-19 pandemic. We will identify important reports on understanding and coping with this dangerous virus, as well as plans for less-restricted post-Covid-19 futures. Our focus will be on economic and social impacts, especially concerning health security and the Sustainable Development Goals.
The Security and Sustainability Guide seeks to identify and briefly describe international organizations, and nation-oriented organizations of possible international interest, that are focused on the two basic human goals of Security and Sustainability–both broadly defined.
Security Organizations are concerned with human security, human rights, peacekeeping, conflict prevention, terrorism, nuclear issues, weapons, cyber-security, military organizations, etc. Sustainability Organizations focus on climate change mitigation and adaptation, sustainable development, food security, water security, energy security, economic security, oceans, biodiversity, human population, green business and economics, etc.
There are thousands of guides to countries and cities, as well as flora and fauna. It is time for some guide to the rapidly growing number of security and sustainability organizations. But this is no easy matter, because human organizations are in flux, intertwined, and more difficult to classify.
Please excuse errors and inconsistencies; the S&S Guide is a continuing work-in-progress.
Access to these hundreds of organizations is provided here in several ways:
In addition to providing information on like-minded organizations and the wide range of organizations associated with security and sustainability, the S&S Guide has three key findings:
Remarkable Growth
The remarkable growth of Security and Sustainability organizations (see Chart) , with a median start-up date of 2002, is greatly under-appreciated by media and researchers; this is especially true for organizations supporting green business as a new type of capitalism.View Businesses»
Alliances, Coalitions & Networks
Formation of alliances, coalitions, consortia, and networks to overcome fragmented efforts is important; the Guide identifies nearly a hundred such groups, and more are probably desirable.View Networks »
Security + Sustainability
A small but growing group of organizations is linking both security and sustainability concerns realizing that we cannot have security without sustainability and vice versa.Why Security & Sustainability? »
Research concerning the relationship between the thermodynamic quantity entropy and the evolution of life began around the turn of the 20th century. In 1910, American historian Henry Adams printed and distributed to university libraries and history professors the small volume A Letter to American Teachers of History proposing a theory of history based on the second law of thermodynamics and on the principle of entropy.[1][2]
The 1944 book What is Life? by Nobel-laureate physicistErwin Schrödinger stimulated further research in the field. In his book, Schrödinger originally stated that life feeds on negative entropy, or negentropy as it is sometimes called, but in a later edition corrected himself in response to complaints and stated that the true source is free energy. More recent work has restricted the discussion to Gibbs free energy because biological processes on Earth normally occur at a constant temperature and pressure, such as in the atmosphere or at the bottom of the ocean, but not across both over short periods of time for individual organisms.
You must be logged in to post a comment.