In this conversation, Ponch and Mark engage with Sean Manion (@TheUnjournaling), a neuroscientist, to explore the OODA loop’s origins, its applications beyond military contexts, and the influence of cybernetics on decision-making processes. Chapters 00:00 The OODA Loop: Beyond Military Origins 02:36 Introducing Sean Manion: A Neuroscientist’s Perspective 05:14 Exploring John Boyd’s Influence on Cybernetics 09:33 Understanding Cybernetics and Its Historical Context 22:16 Cybernetics: The Science of Control and Communication 31:25 Building Trust in AI and Institutions 36:37 Decentralization and Data Governance 40:36 Neuroscience, AI, and Decision-Making 44:46 Entropy, Information Theory, and Boyd’s Trinity 53:02 Epigenetics and the Legacy of Trauma 57:17 The Intersection of Science and Narrative 59:15 Understanding Biases: Cultural vs. Cognitive 01:01:18 Muscle Memory and Implicit Biases 01:04:18 The Role of the Thalamus in Information Processing 01:06:26 Mimetics: Bridging Genetics and Culture 01:10:55 The Complexity of Intelligence and AI 01:17:50 Emerging Technologies in Neuroscience and
Over the last century, the invitation to improve health-care service quality has taken many different forms: questions, observations, methods, tools and actions have emerged and evolved to create relevant ‘improvement work.’ In this paper we present three phases of this work. The basic frameworks used in these phases have not supplanted each other, but they have been layered one upon the next over time. Each brought important new thinking, new change opportunities and a new set of limits. The important messages of each need to be carried together into the future, as must the sense of curiosity and possibility about the commonalities that has driven this evolution.
Methods
Literature, personal experience and other artifacts were reviewed to develop this description of how the focus on quality work has evolved (and continues to evolve) over the last century.
Results
We describe three phases. Quality 1.0 seeks to answer the question ‘How might we establish thresholds for good healthcare services?’ It described certain ‘basic’ standards that should be used to certify acceptable performance and capability. This led to the formation of formal processes for review, documentation and external audits and a system for public notice and recognition. Over time, the limits and risks of this approach also became more visible: a ‘micro-accounting compliance’ sometimes triumphed over what might be of even greater strategic importance in the development and operations of effective systems of disease prevention and management to improve outcomes for patients and families. Quality 2.0 asked ‘How might we use enterprise-wide systems for disease management?’ It added a focus on the processes and systems of production, reduction of unwanted variation, the intrinsic motivation to take pride in work, outcome measurement and collaborative work practices as ways to improve quality, modeled on experiences in other industries. Quality 3.0 asks ‘How might we improve the value of the contribution that healthcare service makes to health?’ It requires careful consideration of the meaning of ‘service’ and ‘value’, service-creating logic, and prompts us to consider both relationships and activities in the context of the coproduction of health-care services.
Conclusion
Efforts to improve the quality and value of health-care services have evolved over the last century. With each success have come new challenges and questions, requiring the addition of new frames and approaches.
Over the last century, the invitation to improve health-care service quality has taken many different forms: questions, observations, methods, tools and actions have emerged and evolved to create relevant ‘improvement work.’ In this paper we present three phases of this work. The basic frameworks used in these phases have not supplanted each other, but they have been layered one upon the next over time. Each brought important new thinking, new change opportunities and a new set of limits. The important messages of each need to be carried together into the future, as must the sense of curiosity and possibility about the commonalities that has driven this evolution.
Methods
Literature, personal experience and other artifacts were reviewed to develop this description of how the focus on quality work has evolved (and continues to evolve) over the last century.
Results
We describe three phases. Quality 1.0 seeks to answer the question ‘How might we establish thresholds for good healthcare services?’ It described certain ‘basic’ standards that should be used to certify acceptable performance and capability. This led to the formation of formal processes for review, documentation and external audits and a system for public notice and recognition. Over time, the limits and risks of this approach also became more visible: a ‘micro-accounting compliance’ sometimes triumphed over what might be of even greater strategic importance in the development and operations of effective systems of disease prevention and management to improve outcomes for patients and families. Quality 2.0 asked ‘How might we use enterprise-wide systems for disease management?’ It added a focus on the processes and systems of production, reduction of unwanted variation, the intrinsic motivation to take pride in work, outcome measurement and collaborative work practices as ways to improve quality, modeled on experiences in other industries. Quality 3.0 asks ‘How might we improve the value of the contribution that healthcare service makes to health?’ It requires careful consideration of the meaning of ‘service’ and ‘value’, service-creating logic, and prompts us to consider both relationships and activities in the context of the coproduction of health-care services.
Conclusion
Efforts to improve the quality and value of health-care services have evolved over the last century. With each success have come new challenges and questions, requiring the addition of new frames and approaches.
From assurance to coproduction: a century of improving the quality of health-care service
How do you design a system that learns, adapts, and thrives in a world of constant change? The key lies in creating a system that listens, learns, and acts in real time.
A fascinating paper published last week in the New Zealand Medical Journal explores the Viable System Model (VSM) as a blueprint for embedding learning into the core functioning of health systems. At its heart, the VSM focuses on balancing autonomy and coherence, enabling organisations to adapt quickly while maintaining clarity of purpose.
One insight stood out: systems thrive when we design them to absorb lessons, adapt effectively, and make decisions closer to the source of action. The study showed how fragmented processes, poor data flows, and limited autonomy can paralyse even the best intentions, while strong feedback loops and clear coordination create the resilience we need to navigate complexity.
“To fully leverage the lessons learnt from experience, we can no longer rely upon quick fixes that are project-based and ad hoc, and do not reflect the underlying causes of problems”
What makes this approach promising is how it prioritises the people within the system. For a system to truly learn, the individuals within it must feel empowered, informed, and connected.
The authors also highlight the pitfalls to avoid when building a learning system: 1️⃣ Fragmented goals that ignore interconnected challenges 2️⃣ Relying on quick fixes instead of addressing root causes 3️⃣ Centralised control that stifles local decision-making
This feels like a call to action for leaders in every sector: How can we design systems that thrive by learning?
What’s one way your organisation fosters a culture of learning and adaptability?
(pdf is attached in the LinkedIn post, to download maximise it to fill screen then click the download symbol top right)
paper details
Principles for embedding learning and adaptation into New Zealand health system functioning: the example of the Viable System Model
This article makes the case for taking a model-based management approach, specifically using the Viable System Model (VSM), to embed learning and adaptation into the New Zealand health system so it can function as a learning health system. We draw on a case study of a specialist clinical service where the VSM was used to guide semi-structured interviews and workshops with clinicians and managers and to guide analysis of the findings. The VSM analysis revealed a lack of clarity of organisational functioning, and of the systems, processes and integrated IT infrastructure necessary to support the fundamental requirements of a learning health system. We conclude that model-based management, specifically using the VSM, has significant potential for embedding the requirements for a learning health system into core functioning, including identifying technology infrastructure requirements. In addition, the VSM holds promise for improving clinical engagement and enhancing the health system’s ability to achieve financial sustainability, high performance, distributed decision making and efficiency.
Principles for embedding learning and adaptation into New Zealand health system functioning: the example of the Viable System ModelSharen Paine 1, Jeff Foote 2, Robin Gauld 3
We are very excited to be hosting this event in a few weeks, where we will be starting a conversation about where we are with systems thinking as a movement and what it might take to move forward.
We will hear from Louis Klein of the IFSR, Gary Smith from the ISSS, and Linda Booth Sweeney in a roundtable discussion format before engaging in a workshop to ideate on possible future collaborations and opportunities.
Gemma Smith and I have been asked to chair a Systems Thinking stream at the European Operational Reseach Societies (EURO) conference in Leeds later this year (22-25 June). This exciting event is being held in partnership with The OR Society promises insightful presentations, stimulating discussions, and ample networking opportunities, all designed to inspire collaboration and growth in the field of Operational Research.
We will be publishing details relating to the Systems Thinking stream next week, however abstract submission for the event is already open. If you have any ideas or questions please don’t hesitate to contact Gemma or myself.
[Not recommending this, it was just shared by someone I know – but looks very interesting]
How to grow networks where value, money and leadership flow
An 8-week online course that will help you take your collective, community, or distributed organization to the next level and find support from peers to address common challenges around money, value and leadership.
Next cohort starting February 6th, 2025
Thriving NetworksHow to grow networks where value, money and leadership flowAn 8-week online course that will help you take your collective, community, or distributed organization to the next level and find support from peers to address common challenges around money, value and leadership.Next cohort starting February 6th, 2025
Mercy Borbor-Cordova , Sadie Ryan, Rachel Lowe, Rosa von Borries & Anna Stewart Ibarra Part of the book series: Sustainable Development Goals Series ((SDGS))
Abstract Emerging and persistent infectious diseases are global threats that have evidenced the interconnectedness and interdependence of the environment, animal, and human systems. To identify solutions to these complex real-world challenges, a systemic approach is needed to understand the interactions among natural and human systems. Collaborative partnerships among researchers from diverse disciplines with policy practitioners and societal actors are also key. Research and public health practice frameworks based on systems thinking approaches have been developed to address the complexity of infectious diseases and other global health threats from local to global scales. For example, the Planetary Health framework focuses on human health and the interactions with the natural systems upon which it depends, stating that the health of human civilization depends on a healthy planet. The One Health approach aims to achieve optimal health and well-being outcomes by recognizing the interconnections between people, animals, plants, and their shared environment. Indigenous Peoples recognize that humans are inextricably interconnected with all life on the planet. Accordingly, the climate crisis and disease threats constitute a “relationship problem.” These holistic knowledge paradigms support a better understanding of infectious disease risks and the development of contextspecific interventions to reduce disease transmission through transdisciplinary research and strong multinational partnerships. The theoretical concepts of these perspectives are described in this chapter and illustrated by the authors’
How to understand the relation between design and research is a longstanding question in design theory and practice. It is also a question in design pedagogy, especially in taught postgraduate programmes where students are expected to engage with and conduct research in formal ways, often for the first time. In this article, we discuss a curriculum that we have developed for introducing research literacy to taught postgraduate students in architecture and design disciplines. The curriculum draws both explicitly and implicitly on an analogy between designing and researching developed through the lens of cybernetics, a transdisciplinary field that relates to both design and science. When cybernetics has been invoked in the context of design, it has usually been as a form of explanatory theory, contributing to the theoretical foundations of design research and its relations with other disciplines. Our approach instead positions cybernetics as a mode of transdisciplinary engagement within students’ own learning where an unfamiliar topic (research) is approached through analogy to a familiar one (design). We begin by contextualizing the curriculum and introducing the rationale for this approach in the context of design research. We then summarize key moments in the curriculum and our observations of its impact in students’ work. We conclude by speculating on the extent to which enacted analogies such as the example presented here may be taken up in other practical situations, and the potential value of doing so in reformulating cybernetics in ways that are practiced (rather than abstract) and methodological (not just explanatory).
Systems Community of Inquiry 
You must be logged in to post a comment.