Finding Our Stars Near and Far to Navigate the System

This is the third post on the current Systems Practice course, what Acumen is calling A Practical Approach to Move from Impossible to Impact and what I am calling SP USA. There hasn’t though been as of yet any use of what is usually considered systems thinking tools, particularly systems mapping tools such as Kumu or Insight Maker to reveal systemic relationships. Plectica was used but primarily as a quick sketch to help organize information on a more analytical basis. Before systems mapping though, we needed to establish some system mindsets, including seeking system health, not mission accomplished, seeing patterns, not just problems, unlocking not imposing change and being adaptable.


Systems Practice Mindsets from Systems TOG on Vimeo.

The SP USA course takes its time to have participants in the process work together prior to committing to mapping the destination and journey they wish to take. The first step was having the fellow travelers have to come together.

The first post of this series called attention to the Kumu map Direct Democracy and Systems Thinking as a possible template under a community governance model. This turns out not to be the case. Although there was a diversity of different ideas there was not a diversity of differing ideas as there was with the first Systems Practice course, likely because there are fewer people this time. The Kumu Community Based Virtual Collaboration map may be a more applicable model because of our geographical separation. Each member of the team could be seen playing a different role. Steve Kennedy and Sander Fleuren could be seen as experts, Dohn Taylor and Shawn Ng as community activists though external ones, and I could be seen playing the role of a New Community Paradigms advocate. As such, there is no claim on my part as to the in-depth subject knowledge of the experts or the passion of the community activists. Simply the belief that using systems thinking or more specifically systems practice would add notable value to the process.

When first thrown together, we did not have a common vision. That slowly began to come together through the creation of the Complexity Spectrum and our, what might be considered online brainstorming. An issue, as mentioned in the last post, was that the ideas were not being directed at a better understanding the system under question but rather finding silver bullet solutions to the problem. It had been a matter of reacting rather than proactively planning to navigate to a desired future state by a Guiding Star and a Near Star as well as a Framing Question.

Yeu Wen, our course catalyst, introduced in the last post, again provided advice:

"Guiding stars are best described as a vivid future state that provides a direction rather than measured goals. In that respect, do every member of your team share a common understanding of the difference between a system state that is healthier than a previous state? In your case, a less plastic-polluted state than another? Counting plastic items is not a good idea. So what is?

The framing question can be more targeted towards discovering the forces at the bottom of the iceberg, i.e. the beliefs and perceptions of stakeholders. Here in also lies the crux of the direction your guiding star can provide :-)"

He made the point that there is more to being healthy than merely not being sick. He recommended the use of the "Systems Thinking Iceberg", which I have also found useful. Another resource is "Donella Meadows 12 places to leverage systems" which also emphasizes paradigm shifts in the beliefs and perceptions of stakeholders.

Guiding Star (The aspirational state or desired future)

We are trying to move the City of Bangkok and the entire country of Thailand from both being blighted by and blighting oceans with plastic pollution to being plastic pollution free.

One discussion was on whether our focus on the locale for the Guiding Star should be larger than Bangkok. One consideration was whether Bangkok, as an instance of a system being described, was basically segregated or isolated from the rest of Thailand, suspected by me to be due to rapid urbanization, and how this might have impacted other areas in Thailand. Is the mismanagement of waste solely within the region of Bangkok or merely its impact? Or conversely, the source is Bangkok but the impact is spread across fishing communities along the coast?

Those more recently familiar with Thailand due to travels there agreed that the problem of plastic pollution is not exclusive to Bangkok but also extended across the country. There was also though the perspective that Bangkok is segregated and stand-alone from the rest of the country. It is by the far the largest city and has problems that are unique or at least magnified compared to other cities in the country. It can be noted that Bangkok is twenty-one times larger than the second largest city Nonthaburi

An implication considered of broadening the guiding star would be to influence the selection of solutions or business models working in a close-knit metropolis would likely not work in rural areas and visa-versa. Another question was whether the social entrepreneurs were local or from the outside through international agencies? The working assumption regarding the social entrepreneurs is that they are local.

Not having included entrepreneurs, particularly social entrepreneurs, more prominently in the Complexity Spectrum became to be seen as a mistake. Entrepreneurs can be seen as being part of a system and capable of being integrated into the larger social system and therefore should be considered. Systems of weak entrepreneurialism will operate differently than those with strong systems. However, at this point, how they would be integrated was not clear.

Near Star (near-term 5-10 year desired but provisional outcome)

Stakeholders, who can affect and are affected by plastic pollution in Thailand are able to work effectively toward the elimination of plastic waste.

The first Near Star we came up with was:

Bangkok city actors are able to work effectively toward reducing plastic pollution.

As a recovering city bureaucrat, the term “city actors" sounded too institutional or government oriented. The more community-based term “stakeholders” was suggested though it can have similar issues. It can include community actors but often from the perspective of those in power.

The aforementioned Rwanda article, "Smugglers work on the dark side of Rwanda’s plastic bag ban" is a good example of unintended consequences arising from not really understanding the system that is being changed in great part from imposed top-down solutions, without concern for the economic needs of those at the lower rungs of the economic ladder. The imposed solution was made though through the concept of Umuganda which, although a top-down government intervention, is based on a grassroots community legacy.

The term stakeholder was decided upon with the definition being an entity that can affect or is affected by the wicked problem contingent with being as inclusive as possible.

Steve came up with the final version of the Framing Question.

Framing Question (focus on understanding a system to be analyzed)

What forces account for the current levels of plastic pollution in Bangkok?

When coming up with ideas there is an attempt to prototype ideas that could be considered by the entities working on the ground in Thailand.

Having no current first-hand knowledge of the situation, one tries to be as open as possible. There will no doubt be a great deal of groundwork required before attempting to actualize the insights of the systems map, bringing to mind the work of Ernesto Sirolli. So everything written here needs to be taken with more than a grain of salt, making endeavoring to remain open to new and alternative pathways important.

My approach was with very broad brush strokes having limited familiarity with the topic. Each of us had a different perspective even if limited by differences in knowledge. With this particular assignment, we didn’t want to be using one common set of answers for everybody. This meant some ideas were similar and arguably could have been combined stripping away supposedly minor differences. However, according to Professor Scott E. Page, diverse groups outperformed groups of the best individuals at solving problems because “smart individuals” tended to think similarly, "diversity trumps ability". Retaining the diversity allowed for multiple causal pathways to be developed.

We then began the process of individually coming up with inhibitors and enablers and then grouping them to create themes and pick our top ones for SAT analysis. Next, we focused on the factors and worked both backward and forwards— asking both what that factor causes and what causes that factor— so as to later in the process to assemble them into feedback loops. In terms of mechanics, we used a Google spreadsheet to gather the data with which we each came up.

Using Systems Practice to Unravel Complexity (Hands on)

The previous post dealt with some of the more conceptual aspects of managing complexity through a group process. Week four of the SP UK course, which this blog is addressing after week 5, deals with the more hands-on aspects of creating different types of systems diagrams or systems maps, what they can do and why to use them. The course describes a systems diagram as simply a special arrangement of words, symbols and lines of one sort or another that expresses someone’s thinking about what has happened or about how certain things are or about how they might be. It is meant to help to express one’s thinking about some situation or some system.

Writing and speech are the usual means of expressing thinking, systems thinking adds systems mapping or systems diagraming providing a more visual mode. The SP UK course sees all three as means to basically the same thing with the capacity to convert one to the other, highlighting different aspects.

Text (or speech) can run linearly along a line of print in a single dimension. So branching of complex ideas requires navigating complex grammar but such arrangements of words are hard to take in and hold in the mind. One reads or hears one phrase at a time, followed by the next in an algorithmic step-like fashion, requiring holding the overall structure of a description in one’s head making important interconnections difficult to pick out and to express. This often necessitates that text contains lists, sub-sections, and tables in some hierarchical format. The NCP Wiki follows such a format as does this blog, while the NCP Kumu Map does not (being closer to an influence map).

Diagrams can be very different from text or speech, expanding in dimensions on a visual basis making working with complex connections easier. It is arguably easier to comprehend the ideas of other people, especially in a group setting, by displaying the ideas in a diagram and then discussing them, than it is with either only speech or writing. It is scanned more easily by a group of eyes when projected on to a screen, messaging information to the eye based on its shape even before fully decoding the details.

Drawing a diagram can serve as a simple representation of a situation to help sort things out for one’s own use or a diagram can be a draft statement, as a basis for explaining what you think to other people. A diagram can also be created by several people working together, displaying differing viewpoints, allowing new common perspectives to emerge, conflicts to be discussed and expert knowledge of different members to be harnessed.

Another advantage a diagram has over especially text is that the phrases or flow of information in a diagram can be followed in different sequences triggering new insights, suggesting creative viewpoints and making holistic interpretations. One can choose to start following a path within a diagram from anywhere to anywhere it may lead. As one finds out more about a situation and understands more, one can add things at the fringes of the diagram or in between existing components of the diagram.

Drawing a diagram though, can according to the course, often require two different, difficult but still related tasks. First is getting the thinking straight and knowing what it is you want to express. The second is choosing an appropriate way of representing those thoughts

The SP UK course asserts that a diagram is never finished nor completed, but merely accepted as being the most useful representation so far, again echoing George Box. In truth, putting in too much should be also be avoided. It is far too easy, for myself included, to put everything into a diagram, losing the fundamental point of saying something clearly and economically.

A diagram is a compromise between breadth of scope, depth of information and clarity of presentation all of which should be kept in balance according to the SP UK course. One should try to focus on the purpose, what it is trying to achieve, by adding a title that sets out what the diagram is all about. The layout of a diagram is as important as the composition of a picture, using as a picture does different colors and sizes to differentiate between kinds of things.

Here is the somewhat summarized course instructor's set of diagraming best practices, and as admitted by him, not necessarily exhaustive. Diagrams can take several endeavors to help one’s thinking and understanding in learning about a situation, expect new insights and expect to redraw to incorporate those new insights. A diagram is not just words and lines but space as well. Cramped diagrams are always unclear, spread out. Use recognizable diagram types, especially if unfamiliar. Each diagram should have a title describing the type of diagram it is and its purpose. Use a key to explain different sorts of lines or label the arrows, if the meaning of lines and arrows is not fairly self-evident. However, diagramming is not an exact science but a craft skill with a distinctly personal element, developed through practice. Clarify your own purpose in drawing a diagram. What aspects of the issues you are considering are you trying to represent? This is essential when you are to choose an appropriate type of diagram within which to work, though this is sometimes a challenge having started the exploration before knowing the destiny.

Below are various types of systems diagrams or systems maps. Systems Maps seems a more general term, essentially a snapshot of the system and its environment at a given point in time. The main use of systems maps is helping one to decide how to structure a situation and to communicate to others your perspective of that system. A map may convey no more information than a list of components but because it can be easier to grasp it can have more impact. The different types of systems diagrams or maps listed below seem to move along a continuum of increasing complexity and information robustness. A distinction can also be made between focusing on issues of structure, with spray diagrams, systems maps and influence diagrams which sometimes include 'agents' or stakeholders but little or no detail on their precise 'agency' and focusing on issues of agency, multiple cause diagrams, causal loop diagram and stock and flow diagrams, illustrating the agency (the process) of change. Various causes of a certain event or situation are represented, and relationships between variables in a given situation are investigated. The definitions are taken from the SP UK course and other sources. Different uses, among many, of systems mapping, include Kumu Systems Mapping, An Introduction to System Mapping by FSG and Systems Mapping Disruptive Design.

Spray Diagrams are used to represent the structure of an argument, encapsulating relationships between the ideas of others or for note-taking. A simple fast technique for getting ideas down without being concerned about details of the structure.

Rich Picture Systems Diagrams, explore and express situations through diagrams to create a preliminary mental model, helping to open discussion and to come to a broad, shared understanding of a situation.

Influence Diagrams serve to represents the main structural features of a situation and important relationships existing among them. Influence diagrams can be developed from a systems map by adding arrows or as the starting point for a multiple cause diagram by determining a clearer definition of the type of influence.

Multiple Cause Diagrams explore why a given event happened or why a certain class of events tends to occur or why something went wrong or keeps recurring so that steps can be taken to prevent its recurrence. While not intended to predict behavior, it may be able to develop a list of factors to be aware of when considering comparable future circumstances. A multiple cause diagram, focusing on actual causes over a period of time showing the causes themselves and how they are interlinked, goes a step further than an influence diagram which describes the capacity of structural components to exert weak and strong influences at any one time.

Before going further, there is a need to confess that any critiques, implied or not, concerning the course's approach to complexity, especially dynamic complexity were not warranted. The course is intentionally designed not to deal with a level of dynamic complexity, especially as envisioned by the recently completed Complexity Explorer course. The SP UK course, therefore, does not include either Causal Loop Diagrams (CLDs) or Stock and Flow Models (SFMs) as both of these are seen as being tools more for Systems Dynamics.

Causal Loop Diagrams consist of four basic elements: variables (Kumu elements), links between them (Kumu connections), with signs showing how they are interconnected, and loops with signs showing what type of behavior the system produces, representing problems or issues from a causal perspective, making one more aware of structural forces producing puzzling behavior. The difference with multiple cause diagrams, as far as I can discern, is that causal loop diagrams involve reinforcing and balancing feedback loops which arguably would make the system persistent over time.

Stock and Flow Diagrams are also used in system dynamics modeling. Dynamic behavior is thought to arise due to the Principle of Accumulation, more precisely, this principle states that all dynamic behavior in the world occurs when flows accumulate in stocks.

These two aspects of addressing the complexity of situations and systems could be seen as different sides of the matter. There could also be seen to be a chicken and egg relationship in developing an understanding with a better understanding of one enhanced by the other, which comes first though is another question. An unaddressed question is what dynamic tools are out there to assist in this endeavor? The two are Kumu and Insight Maker though there are many others.

Systems Thinking, Complexity, Chaos and New Community Paradigms

Currently, while still exploring what was learned through the Digital Advocacy course and experimenting with how it fits into the NCP wiki and systems map, I have been taking a course in Dynamical Systems and Chaos taught by Prof. David P. Feldman through ComplexityExplorer.

I am now questioning what my most recently created Causal Loop Diagram maps are really telling me. What I present here, as a rough summary, is in consideration of my questions and should not be thought of in any way as an even partial substitute for the course. It is simply an attempt to try to apply someone"q new learning. It gets abstract because it involves some mathematical concepts but the ideas in the course are for a general audience and are presented here as general as possible.

A dynamical system is simply a rule for how something changes in time. The NCP systems maps are also intended to provide this type of information though at a different level of precision. The ComplexityExplorer course deals with two types of dynamical systems, iterative functions and differential equations.

f(x) = rx(1-x)

The logistic equation, shown above, is a simple model of population growth. It's an iterated function which might tell us how a population changes from year to year. We do the same thing, apply the same function, this logistic equation with a fixed r value, over and over again, using the output for one year as the input for the next. In the standard form of the logistic equation r is a growth rate parameter, r then is something that could change, and we could then see how the behavior of the equation changes. As an iterated function time is discrete, we are not monitoring the population at every instant. A continuous change would involve a differential equation.

The logistic equation is a second order polynomial, a parabola; a very simple function studied in high school, not an exotic or complicated function. The course offers a couple of simple tools for single iterations and comparisons. It is also pretty simple to create a spreadsheet which can push beyond the parameters set by the web tools. The logistic equation is deterministic. Simply an iterated function, an action repeated again and again which ought to be completely predictable.

The first question is whether the simple circles making up the various loops of a Causal Loop Diagram convey smooth transition rather than the more likely true jumps both positive and negative found with iterative functions, then whether additional loops are sequential or occur more or less simultaneously?

The logistic equation deals with populations, as in a finite collection of items under consideration dealt with as a whole, more specifically for our purposes, a community of living entities in which interbreeding occurs among members and is subject to a growth rate parameter from internal and external forces. There is a natural positive increase in population through procreation that exceeds the forces that work against it by some factor greater than 1. The population is changeable to the point that it can be annihilated, from lack of resources, inability to compete for resources, inability to reproduce and maintain the population, and by destruction from environmental or external forces.

The logistic equation is not a means of measurement, in the same way, say as using a Newtonian Law to determine the rate of cooling of an object. As the course explained, the logistic equation is more of a caricature than a detailed portrait or photo. The NCP maps then are a few brush strokes but as has been said many times before, while wrong in terms of the totality of information provided can still be useful, in some cases more useful in conveying insights or at least a different level of insights.

If this year's population is larger than last year’s, based on r, the growth factor considered alone, is greater than 1 then next year's will be larger still tending if without bound towards infinity. If r is 1 then the population stays fixed. If r is less than 1 but greater than 0, the population diminishes approaching 0. If r, for example, is 0.5 then next year there will be half as many say rabbits and half again the following year.

The idea that populations grow without bound is though unrealistic. There is some limit to the growth. There is some maximum population beyond which the population can't pass. There will always be some limit to the number of rabbits, or whatever it is being studied. A term is then added to the equation, a term known in this case as the "Annihilation" population or "Apocalypse" population; meaning that if the rabbits ever reach this “A” population then the next year there will be no more rabbits. The rabbits eat all their food, so the following year there are no rabbits left. The maximum possible number of rabbits is determined by this function in which x is measured as a fraction of the annihilation parameter so the equation can be display as:

f(P) = rP(1-P/A)

Which through algebraic manipulation as demonstrated by the course becomes the equation provided at the beginning of this post.  Note that the Annihilation term is not actually a set number like 5,947 is reached and an entire rabbit population disappears. The logistic function does not explain why a population is annihilated. It simply applies an upper bound and defines population growth in terms of that.

For small populations very far away from annihilation, with P much less than A, we should have the potential for rapid growth. When, however, P gets to be large, enough that the rabbits start running out of food, is when population growth starts slowing down approaching its limit. Once the population gets large, the Annihilation term starts to matter more and population growth slows down. There is an absolute upper limit, at the annihilation or apocalypse number, which if reached the population completely crashes.

Nobody should think, however, that the logistic equation actually controls real rabbit populations or fox populations or moose and wolves populations for that matter. It is simply a thought experiment to interpret as the reality, what's actually happening, and what will happen. A rabbit population once established and under normal circumstances would be unlikely to reach either the maximum of the Annihilation Population or total collapse. If an increase in foxes decreases a rabbit population then there will likely be a subsequent decrease in the fox population from a lack of prey and the rabbit population may rebound, explaining the parabolic shape of the curve of the function.

Arguably, many of the elements of the NCP maps could be considered to be populations serving different even opposing functions within a community. There has to be a certain portion of the community population comprising or utilizing the elements making up these maps. I am not sure how to determine an Annihilation population equivalency but the annihilation of elements is possible fundamentally changing the system. The NCP CLD maps denote positive and negative forces or influences by blue and red connections, respectively. The actual nature of Community Advocacy portrayed by the Kumu map then is a result of the net influences making up the particular configuration of the system at that point in time. Causal Loop Diagrams also repeat but adding in more loops, at likely different rates of growth or influence, can create numerous complex outcomes. With the NCP maps, increased calls for greater transparency and open data in government could result in greater pushback by entrenched government institutions. How much of an equivalency is there then with the logistic equation applied to rabbits? Open Data and transparency are ideas made manifest. Can they be propagated and annihilated the same as rabbits or perhaps viral infection would be a better analogy?

The logistic equation is capable of cyclic behavior that is stable or attracting. Different r values can also give rise to cycles of different periodicities, a cycle of period 2 takes two iterations to complete a cycle. The logistic equation with an attracting cycle of period 4 takes four iterations to cycle back then it repeats. It’s attracting because nearby orbits are pulled towards it. If a population is in such a cycle and gets pushed off, it will return back to that cycle.

While the NCP CLD maps are cyclic in nature, they don’t convey periodicities even though subsequent revolutions along the paths could result in far different outcomes with each completion. InsightMaker would seem to be better at this than Kumu. There is though a great probability for interacting cycles to move towards stable orbits regardless if they are desired, particularly when involved with Entrenched Government Institutions. Entrenched Government Institutions have been dealt with before, most recently with Active Citizens in a Digital Age Embracing Organized Complexity. This might raise the question whether the ideas being considered here apply to Warren Weaver's concept of Organized Complexity in "Science and Complexity". I believe it does as the parameters set by the equation don't depend upon the actions or consequences of any individual member but the community as a whole.

However, for a logistic equation with r=4, and other values, the orbit is aperiodic. The orbit doesn't hit some regular cycle, it just keeps bouncing around all over, never repeating. An incredibly repetitious process which always produces something new. The orbit and never settles into periodic behavior. In other words, it is chaotic, a concept which needs to be explored further.

Sailing Complex and Wicked Seas with Icebergs (Systems Thinking)

It has, once again, been some time since the last posting on these pages. As usual, it was in part because of discovering new learning opportunities and exploring them with different systems thinking models. It is now past the beginning of a new year and a good time again to take stock and establish some sense of bearings before plotting future courses.

For about the last two years, and particularly since attaining a Systems Thinking Certification, this blog has focused on exploring how systems thinking could be utilized by change efforts in improving community engagement and by promoting participatory and deliberative democracy as part of community governance. Whether this actually could be beneficial and how it could best be used is still being tested.

In making the case that systems and systems thinking really are a thing that could be applied to these areas of change requires at the same time keeping true to the course with systems thinking principles. Both are needed, like using both longitude and latitude to keep a ship on course. Both are part of the same global grid but each is determined differently, together requiring new means of navigation. The danger is not in getting lost east and west or north and south but being either marooned by one's own limited perspective or being lost in a complex sea of interactions. A primary tool for navigating systems is the systems map.

All system maps, whether by Kumu, Insight Maker or the newly discovered DSRP Meta maps are self-contained, in a box both figuratively, in focusing on only relevant determined connections and literally, being displayed on a screen or paper to be used jointly by everyone on the same journey.

There is still a struggle in communicating systems thinking concepts to those not only not familiar but who also tend to more direct, concrete results-oriented approaches. A difficulty with communicating between on-the-ground, pragmatic change efforts and systems thinking is that even when using the same terms, we often don't mean the same thing even with the word system itself.

Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a founder of general systems theory, defined a system as an entity which maintains its existence through the interaction of its parts, the key element being "interaction," rather than "parts". It is the interaction of its parts that brings about emergent, 'bigger than the whole' and often nearly impossible to contain, complex characteristics of a system. The actual system, not the map which merely contains one's journey through the real system.

We often talk about fighting, “The System”. Classifying something as “The System” though has one of two problems. It either implies some impenetrable edifice that we have no control over or that we are the center and controlling entity of the system. Also, when we attempt to define, “The System, as something other than evil, we invariably get it wrong, not only its scope but in creating any collective definition of what the “System” actually is that we are attempting to change.

It is, 'a system'. A system which will have attributes, regardless of size or complexity in common with other systems. Strategies that can work in one system can work in another system depending upon how well we map them. Seeing something as a system rather than as, "The System" gives it a lot less power. What we need then is a better understanding of what a system is, what we can do to change one, and what we cannot or should not do.

The need to verify that basic principles of systems thinking are being followed is constant. Especially in terms of the George Box principle, "All models are wrong, some models are useful." Not only wrong in being incomplete copies or maps of reality but as in being limited perspectives, especially one's own. This can involve more ambiguity and abstraction than which some are comfortable. Systems thinking can push us to consider issues and their influences that are larger than with what we feel we can manage, especially on our own. Wicked problems can be analogous to sailing through a massive storm on the sea. The system surrounding the ship can be overwhelming to the system on the ship so people end up arranging deck chairs.

One’s own frame of reference is also a box, arguably the most constraining box in exploring a system with others. One is always in a box and knowing that one is in a box is necessary for bridging one's own frame of reference and the frame of reference of another. This often involves bringing larger boxes or expanding the boundary of the map so the system mapped includes both or better all perspectives. In many instances going up to a larger box can be instructive but there is a point of diminishing returns and we may need to agree that a larger box is not a focus of our agreed upon inquiry.

Another principle is that something shouldn't be considered systemic, as in related to being a system, without causal feedback loops. The common dictionary definition of feedback, as information returned to a source to improve performance, is different though from that used by systems thinking as a circular chain of cause and effect or operationally in a variety of fields.

There is a particular Collective Impact perspective on feedback based on the importance of incorporating community feedback into the work of the larger partnership. Building up essential feedback loops could enable collective impact type work such as addressing persistently wide gaps in educational attainment between white and non-white within the education system. Efforts at making a change can call for the tangible prototyping of ideas, sharing what has been made, and then further iterating based on the feedback obtained as getting it right on the first go seldom happens.

Communities could though react and in trying to find some means of balancing conflicting influences such actions could feedback in unintended ways if not adequately understood. We need to go even further to understand the feedback loops comprising the system as what may be presumed to be working within a system may not always be the case.

Through Systems Thinking Certification, it was demonstrated that interactions can feedback to their point of origination into a loop changing the nature of those interactions over time with Moose and Wolves (IM-8590) and Sustaining the Forest Model (IM-8889). A system might break down at each stage of the process and resulting feedback can debilitate the entire system. Debilitate doesn't mean destroy and such systems can maintain their existence despite their lack of usefulness.

Feedback of causal loops can be chains or pathways of multiple positive and negative influences of either information, motivation or causal/correlation creating, at differing levels and degrees, the source of complexity within democratic systems of governance or any system. The essential aspect of looped causal feedback is that it is closed and therefore capable of being reiterated, meaning that the same looped pathway is followed but not that it results in the same outcome. A complex system could over time produce widely different results.

Not all chains of causal influences will be looped and only repeated on command or condition. I am terming these as processes which are the focus of complicated oriented top-down control management. Processes may be contained in looped causal pathways but perhaps not recognized as being as such because they require looking at a more encompassing level of systemic interaction to find the causal feedback loops.

One quick, easily, applied tool integrating systems thinking principles with effective change management at multiple levels is the Systems Thinking Iceberg model. The Systems Thinking Iceberg model doesn't have any feedback loops so how does it help? What role can it play in both systems thinking and applied fields of community engagement and change management?

The Systems Thinking Iceberg model can be a framework to assist bridging different frames of reference or perspectives and collaborating on choosing a course. The Systems Thinking Iceberg model can be applied to any system regardless of its size, level of abstraction or complexity.

The Systems Thinking Iceberg involves the entire system under consideration, the whole box, in which causal loop diagrams can help explain why events give rise to patterns and structures arise, and why from an overlaying structure emerge mental models of the system helping us to find leverage points.

Taken a further step, the organizing principles of the Systems Thinking Iceberg model can help us to better understand and utilize or leverage the feedback loops making up systems. It has been used by this blog in attempting to explain abstract principles of how external causal loops could influence a specific system to the extent that it becomes, in reality, part of a larger system needing to be addressed as with Complexity Assailing Our Communities, to develop deliberative systems to understand multiple, intertwined issues across multiple sectors as with Healthcare Costs, and to organize diverse entities to take action across different sectors to address common concerns through Collective Impact efforts. The organization, StrivingTogether can be seen as being directly connected with central themes making up the Collective Impact endeavor, particularly improving patterns displayed through the Feedback Culture Sector Map.

The question then still remains, what specific system are we defining? Are we all talking about the same system, in terms of scope, abstraction, complexity, understanding and potential action? The Systems Thinking Iceberg is adaptable to both finding and of assistance in navigating the system under consideration by whichever map is agreed upon. Once bearings have been established, there are more developed resources in navigating new courses such Donella Meadows 12 Leverage Points or System Archetypes but in sailing complex seas the Systems Thinking Iceberg Model is a useful navigation tool.

Feedback Loops Keep Collective Impact Impacting

In a recent Google Plus comment on the last NCP post, online colleague Daniel Bassill asked, “Do you know of any college that is using your articles and maps in an extended learning process? There's quite a bit of information, particularly if one visits the articles linked to in each node on the map.” The quick answer is no (it was a kind but undeserved compliment). He went on to make the valid point that, “A casual visitor might be overwhelmed and not stick around long enough to begin to understand the big picture the maps represent.” , in a vein similar to Ryan Mohr’s comment on the Collective Impact and Kumu Relational Mapping - Creating New Ways of Seeing Our Community post. We can look to start following some of Ryan Mohr’s advice addressed in the last post though it will still be more exploration than presentation. What should be kept in mind is that Collective Impact, systems thinking and design thinking all involve a different way of looking at the world. Kumu maps give us a different way of looking at those different ways of looking at the world.

The first thing that should be noted about the Kumu Module 3 Feedback map is that there aren’t any persistent feedback loops in the systems thinking sense of the term. There could be a repeat reading of connected articles and if article A helped one to understand article B and then article B in turn helped to better understand article A, and repeated as needed, that could be considered a feedback loop but it would likely be completed fairly quickly.

This is mentioned early on because the end of the last post promised to look at a topic particularly relevant to systems thinking — feedback loops. The information on feedback as it relates to Collective Impact can be found within the articles and other resources contained in the elements making up the Feedback map. Hopefully, it does not need to be mentioned that one has to actually read the associated material and not depend upon the still developing summaries provided in the narrative sections of a Kumu map. An attempt will be made to establish feedback relationships as defined by systems thinking as well.

The Kumu Module 3 Feedback map is organized on a branching or tree model. Certain elements serve as nodes, connecting and branching out to other element nodes. Admittedly, when presented at a single viewing, it can be daunting as was discussed in the last post.

Going first into the main narrative section of the Feedback map and mousing over to highlight and then clicking on the "Week 3 Feedback Loops Purpose" text takes one to the Week 3 Kumu loop which is in actuality a selected portion of the larger map focused on related content. Clicking on Week 3 Selected Map in the narrative section will focus only on that specific portion of the map. Week 3: Creating Community Feedback Loops to Fast Track Change is the central element node, with associated url, of the section map.

The resulting map is now far simpler. In addition to the main article on community feedback loops there are according to the legend in the bottom left corner, two blog posts, two reports and one journal article supporting the main article.

This is the same information provided by the Living Cities course except, rather than branches to other element nodes, with Living Cities the additional information is within the primary article, one, two or more layers behind links to other articles and resources. These relationships become more apparent with the maps. The original Living Cities' Week 3 related articles are the territory. We want to study the stones making up the road but we also want to know where the road can lead us or choose different paths. We will still need to expand into more complex maps if we wish to cross more difficult territory.

Once a section map is selected the focus remains even if returning to the Module 3 map by specifically clicking a relevant link or clicking on the background of the map area. One can go to the narrative of the section map and in this case click on 'Week 3 Clear' to clear the specific focus and then 'Back to Module 3' to return to the full Module 3 map. One can also return to the Module 3 map, with the selected focus maintained and add other selected focused map sections.

The journey through the extensive material can then be made easier by jumping directly to other selected specific map sections within the Feedback map. The next section map is 3 Flavors Feedback. Clicking on 3 Flavors Feedback Selected Map again focuses on the specific portion of the map. The central element node 3 Fabulous Flavors of Feedback Culture is not directly connected to the Week 3 section of the map but does connect through elements related to other section maps. Again, this section map is fairly simple consisting of three blog posts, including the initial one, a news release on a County PFS program, a news article on How to Achieve Big, Hairy, Audacious Goals, and the organization StriveTogether, introduced in Module 1 and cited in the central blog post.

The next section map to visit, Is Pay for Success CI?, which again can be focused on. It is directly connected to Week 3: Creating Community Feedback Loops to Fast Track Change. There are more element nodes within this section of the map because this section of the map extends out another degree or, if this was the Living Cities course, another layer of linked articles. The element nodes include the Week, the type of Work undertaken by Living Cities in this arena, five blog posts, a news article, two different organizations, one financial and one an outcomes-driven organization, and a report on the joint work undertaken by these organizations.

The next map section is 4 Keep It Real Community Impact Insights, repeating the step to focus then to the similarly named central element node takes us to the related Living Cities blog post. It is again separated by a degree or layer from the originating Week 3 section of the map. The element nodes associated with this section of the map include two blog posts, including the preceding post Is Pay for Success Collective Impact?, a set of resources on decision makers and do-ers, a news article, an organization and two books. If the Module 3 map were drawn vertically as with the systems thinking iceberg model then this section map would be at the lower levels providing a foundation for the rest of the map.

The final selected map section is Creating Feedback Loops. This is the busiest of the section maps with twenty directly related element nodes, seven blog posts, two from previous map sections, three related but different types of organizations, the resources from one of the organizations, a FSG resource with associated webinar and finally a connection to the previous Week 2 Amplifying the Voices of Community Members in Collective Impact.

Feedback within systems does not stop, however, once the interviews or reports are finished. There also exists feedback loops within the systems that we are attempting to impact and within the systems we devise as means of impact, necessitating again, feedback from those being served. Feedback is also an important component of the personal stories defining those making up the client audience. These feedback loops change each node making up the loop and can change further with sequential loops with multiple nodes and loops capable of raising emergent transitions throughout an entire system.

Feedback loops have to be considered in establishing optimal levels of service. Ideally, city budgets endeavor to reach optimal levels of expenditures to fund the programs which are beneficial to the community. In an example from Getting Deep into ST - Systems Thinking Certification they may fund road improvements to increase the capacity of the streets to allow an optimal number of vehicles. (The community question is what is that optimal number?) These three properties, budget, roads and cars can interact together in a variety of different ways. Built roads in a community can be increased but not easily and not indefinitely. Traffic, particularly if it originates outside of the community, could increase exponentially overtaxing the community’s circulation system. The community could try to find some means of balancing these conflicting influences but its actions might feedback in unintended ways.

As was pointed out in Direct Democracy and System Thinking Map - Some Potholes on the Journey, there are also limitations to our models or devised systems. In terms of a working reality, our maps or systems often assume only smooth sailing. In truth, any system could break down at each stage of the process and feedback to debilitate the entire system. It should also be appreciated that not only can something go wrong at each step of the actual process, necessitating a thorough review and response, but that each step can be important in its own right and is not merely a stepping stone to a final outcome. Feedback loops, especially those separated significantly by distance, time or aggregation, are a major source for unintended consequences.

Finally, as was pointed out in Exploring with the Dialogue, Deliberation and Systemic Transformation Community to Discover New Possibilities Part 3 of 3, it is the synthesis of the different ways of understanding systems that can lead us to the elements of storytelling helping to define complexity in a manner similar to what makes a great story. The elements in determining in what way a problem is complex are also the elements of an engaging story and feedback can be a meaningful part of that story.


1. Many interacting “agents”

2. Individuals and processes influence each other in feedback loops

3. Reactions may be affected by current and past circumstances

4. Influenced by the external environment

5. Events have multiple causes and multiple effects

6. Large events can have small effects and small events can have large effects

7. Events emerge in surprising ways, spontaneously in the absence of a “controller”

8. Events display a complicated mix of ordered and disordered behaviour

9. It is an emotional Issue


Stories can help make our complex world more coherent.

Digging Systematically Deeper into Designing for a Public Participation Process

So far, in digging deeper into a systemic approach to a Collective Impact effort, we have focused on a process to Amplify the Voices of Community Members through the concepts for Designing for a Public Participation Process system. We have looked, narratively, at both the overall aspects and the internal aspects of such a system.

This inclination to dig deeper into some of the material making up the Living Cities Collective Impact online course has led to the creation of a new map, using a different design to illustrate Designing Public Participation Processes, consisting of four different aspects of the system, suggested by the Designing for a Public Participation Processes article, with each including three of the article's twelve design guide elements.

The Overall Aspect or perspective is how the Designing for a Public Participation Process system works in achieving its stated goal or purposes. Mousing over the “Overall Aspects” text in the narrative box of the map will highlight that section of the map. Underneath it is the three design guidelines seen as being part of this specific aspect. These particular guidelines are seen as being closely related to each other. This is a different functional perspective from the “Internal Aspects” of the system. These and the other two aspects are all part of the same total system and it would make little to no sense to isolate any of them.

These are not the physical components of the system, like the engine of a car, but different perspectives of the functions of the system. A car has a subsystem which provides the necessary power for movement. It could be gasoline, electric or Hydrogen powered but to be mobile, the car needs a means of propulsion to be incorporated into its design.

The maps used so far have been composites consisting of elements, containing various resources, related or connected together. Each element, whether a blog post, journal article, video, organization, or other resource is connected to others based on a graphic organizing of the Living Cities Collective Impact course, with a few other resources added in.

The Designing for a Public Participation Processes map defines relationships differently. It reflects a single, integral system, taking different perspectives on various, separate functions of that system. There is more of a functional relationship between elements, either through belonging to common system aspects or active, mutual connections. What has not been developed are causal connections or loops as used in previous efforts.

There are no connections displayed from inside the system to outside the system. The nature of the outside boundary is defined both by the system and by the environment or community in which it exists. The boundary of the system is permeable but the exact manner of connections across it is not specified. Some individual elements can belong or relate to both within the system and outside of it. All elements or aspects of the system are directly or indirectly related to each other. Some, but not all of these have been identified and displayed.

Conflicts or breakdowns in connections are as important. Conflicts do not exist within the system, these would be better designated breakdowns. Conflicts, originating outside the system though could be manifested as intended breakdowns within the system. Conflicts, such as those cited by the article about the authenticity and legitimacy of the participation processes, which would cross the boundary of the system, could stem from different expectations rather than purposely attempting to manipulate the participation process.

In the past, this blog has railed against the notion of concrete results. Russell L. Ackoff in Toward a System of Systems Concepts spoke though of concrete systems. There is, however, no disagreement between the two. A so-called concrete result is a supposed state within a moment of time of a concrete system, meaning a system that contains at least two elements which are objects. The Design for Public Participation system is mostly an abstract system, meaning it is made up of concepts which are defined in large part by the relationship between them and preset assumptions, axioms or postulates.

There are also agents involved in the system. It is a purposeful system, which Ackoff defined as one that can, “…produce the outcome in different ways in the same (internal or external) state and can produce different outcomes in the same and different states". More importantly, it is also an Ideal-seeking system requiring consideration of differences between goals, objectives, and ideals and some concepts related to them. This puts it more in line with the Deliberative Systems map than with the Institutional Democratic Theory map cited in Creating Democracy is Complex, which means there is an inherent tension. How it could be integrated into the Deliberative Systems map and where it could be placed in the Integrative Deliberative Systems map would depend upon the final manifested design.

How this might play out, in reality, can be demonstrated through another systems thinking modeling tool, an InsightMaker model titled, New Community Paradigms Entrenched City Halls. The Design for Public Participation system could be seen as navigating between the Overt Reality and Underlying Reality of that process.

There also needs to be an aspect which provides foundational, infrastructure or support for the various elements, going beyond each separate aspect.

Foundational Aspects

7. Creating an appropriate set of rules to guide the overall work to be done, operational decision making, and a project management team structure to facilitate if needed. This, as the article asserts, involves recognition of rules, the substance of rules, and structures for enforcing rules.

Who gets to be involved in decision making and in what ways, regarding operational rules, general policies about the work to be done, and constitutional rules regarding who gets to make what kinds of decisions are based on influences prior to and outside the system. The rules, as part of the system, could help provide a pathway to the system's goals of allowing a process for participants, all participants not only a few, to build commitment among themselves, make or contribute to important decisions and self-monitoring.

8. Securing adequate resources and designing and managing participation processes to generate additional resources to produce a generally favorable benefit-cost ratio for the participation process.

Implementing a public participation designed to be inclusive of different self-interests and motivations to address problems, could generate unexpected resources, such as knowledge, commitment to follow-through, and enthusiasm, for decision making and policy implementation. Participants may provide new information and new ways of understanding issues generating better projects and policies, securing buy-in for decisions, limiting delays, mistakes, and lawsuits and enhancing government–community trust, social capital, and infrastructure for ongoing community action. These are difficult metrics to quantify and control though.

9. Establishing the legitimacy of the participation process, for both internal and external stakeholders, as an effective form of engagement and a source of trusted interaction among participants. The form that participation takes must be seen as:

1. Legitimate by key stakeholders 
2. Able to attract internal and external support and resources 
3. Producing interactions building trust and legitimacy among participants 
4. Promoting necessary communication 

The article cites the International Association for Public Participation or IAP2’s widely used community engagement continuum of goals, as featured in the first module and the nature of promises to be made to stakeholders and the community as first brought up in the post, Beginning an Exploration of Collective Impact.

For each strategy, regarding different levels of permitted participation, there are different kinds of engagement ranging from ignoring, engaging as a data source, informing, consulting, involving, collaborating, and finally to empowering stakeholders to make all decisions themselves. This also implies the use of different kinds of tools and techniques.

Logistically, a project management team, as mentioned above, could also be required for important, broader scale, and more time-consuming processes. This has been made a distinct element of the map. It could include sponsors, champions, and facilitators, as well as others. It would also lead to a need for adequate support staff and other resources to function effectively, depending on the scope and scale of the process, challenging a favorable benefit-cost ratio outcome. There will also be another aspect providing more of the actual interface with the community. Both will be examined more closely in the next post.

Community VSI - GPS for Herding Cats?

The last blog post started to look at Virtual Systemic Inquiry as a viable method of collaboration in addressing difficult or even wicked problems. That first stage, and the original concept, was designed for a relatively small team of individuals, disconnected geographical coming together, albeit only virtually, for the purpose of addressing a specific issue. Individuals could perhaps serve on multiple VSI teams but it would be circumstances that would govern the make up of a specific team. It is unlikely, under this scenario, that many of the VSI team participants would be serving in the role of on the ground stakeholders to a truly significant extent.

It is no longer likely that the essential participants at the various stages of the process are all going to be located geographically close together. Traditional meetings will make little logistical sense. The manner in which we usually communicate ideas will not work, either because, as mentioned before, geographical separateness, time schedule conflicts or due to the size of the group or community involved. So if within the context in which we operate, virtual collaboration is appropriate but as the old tools and processes don't work well enough, what then are the options?

What then is the potential for expanding the concept of Virtual Systemic Inquiry into a larger community context, which would significantly involve stakeholders, and how could that be made to work? In this post we will look to the remaining elements of the VSI process and how they could start to be incorporated into a community context.

A good deal of virtual interaction has already been integrated into local institutions of government.  Most cities have a webpage, and possibly other systems of web based community governance, expanded with the inclusion of Facebook pages and Twitter for many advocacy groups. The next step is incorporating systemic inquiry into a systematic process. This, however, means reexamining not only how we work with virtual tools of community governance but how we engage in Virtual Collaboration.

The Internet and World Wide Web, provide much of the context in which we typically work today. How collaborators should go about effecting a meaningful result within such an environment is still a relevant question. The more traditional word processing and spreadsheets and even basic email will likely not suffice in this new context and will simply further overload any potential participants. It is not merely having a set of tools with which we've developed a level of comfort or that could be easily learned. 

It is also not a matter of having the latest apps freely available but also including changes as to how they are to be used. The rise of data journalism, as an example, not only incorporates new tools but also entirely new technical approaches to information with 'Big Data' and other community engagement approaches with 'Open Data'. At the same time, the simple excel type spreadsheet remains a very effective research tool and more importantly, the underlying principles of journalism still apply.

It is a matter, as was asserted earlier in this effort that one should run the technology; don't let the technology run you. It is a matter of how the tech tools are used by increasingly larger populated networks with correspondingly larger number of connections resulting in greater complexity with at least the potential for emergent attributes.

Discussion Groups are the standard first response to the question of collaboration, virtual or otherwise. It should be recognized though that there are important differences between discussion, dialogue and deliberation. Our community based discourse, including virtual discourse on web platforms such as LinkedIn, phpBB, etc. is too often stuck at the level of discussion. We need to find ways to evolve those discussions to the level of both dialogue and deliberation as envisioned together by the NCDD. We will use the term, 'means of discourse' or 'discourse' to cover all three.

The expectation or hope seems to be that thoughts initiated in a discussion will lead to other thoughts in a reinforcing manner finally leading to a better understanding of the situation as well as an approach for dealing with the situation. More often than not this turns out to be a fix that fails for structural reasons. Discussion groups seldom achieve consensus, particularly if it is perceived that there is little need for a consensus to be achieved. The unfolding of the content remains essentially linear although in truth is conceptually intertwined. It is very difficult for multiple participants to build on separate dimensions of understanding within this linear environment in any meaningful manner.

It seems the basic nature of discussion groups is to be divergent which is not necessarily a bad thing. From a design thinking perspective it can be a good thing. It is the nature of thoughts to provoke other thoughts, this divergence though can wear people down and cause them to lose interest because of being pulled in multiple directions by tangents of thought seemingly only slightly on topic, if at all. Keeping the discussion on track, from the perspective of those responsible for managing the collaboration, might seem as an impossible a task as herding cats.

The last post was on the first set of steps in the VSI process. Step one was Enabling Generative Interactions in which we looked to Integrating Interactions. If the stakeholders are seriously interested in understanding a situation as a basis for developing a project, program or a strategy to improve a particular situation then developing and working with models is seen as essential. Allowing collaborators then to keep track of the development of the model and their contributions to it is essential. The component tools should then be employed in a manner that glues things together.

The first thing that should be created is a focus page. A wiki is one means that could be used as the focus page because of the ease of multi-user updating allowing everyone involved in the collaboration to know that whatever aspect of the investigation they're looking for that the appropriate links can be found on that focus page. Discourse could be initiated with a link to the Focus Page with multiple discussion threads focusing on particular aspects on the inquiry.

Concept maps could be developed in Insight Maker and in Kumu. Once initiated a link to the concept map is also added to the wiki with thought exchanges on the concept map conducted though the discussions (at this phase it is discussion). Formal models have also been developed in Insight Maker and Kumu, again once initiated a link to the model is added to the wiki and exchanges on the model are conducted through discussions. Kumu is beginning to be seen as the best means of simplifying the architecture and integrating the multiple pieces of the puzzle, being Focus Page, Discourse, Concept Maps and Formal Models.

What is most essential for stakeholders engaged in developing a strategy for dealing with a difficult or complex situation or wicked problem facing their community is to optimize their understanding of the situation by understanding the relevant relationships and the implications of those relationships.

The most viable approach to accomplishing this is for stakeholders to work together to understand the particular relationships by building their own models. In this way they not only develop a better understanding of the relationships, someone else doesn't have to later help explain the resultant model to them. They gain ownership of the issue and can instead help explain the model to others when it is presented to larger portions of the community through a process of community discourse that rises to dialogue and deliberation.