Systems Practice Crossroads, Is It Worth the Effort?

The current effort has come to a crossroads, so some territory will be gone over again. The purpose of this blog series on Systems Practice was not to persuade anyone unfamiliar to use either Systems Practice or Systems Thinking. The systems map displayed in the last blog post would have discouraged that, a collection of colored dots connected with swirling yellow lines. One might have discerned that the color of the dots corresponded with different categorizations, the Systems Practice themes and that the connection between different dots formed some type of relationship. At this point, it was merely that one dot (factor) was roughly upstream (cause) or downstream (effect) of another. The why, not only of individual connections but of the larger complex structure rising out of those connections is far less apparent. At this point, it would be impossible to unravel the myriad of decisions that went into that particular final configuration.

The effort was instead to test certain ideas that have been featured on this blog as well as to evaluate the Acumen Systems Practice course for a second round. The first round considered not to be a proper assessment since the program wasn't followed, jumping too soon ahead with systems mapping. The approach was undertaken again in an attempt to assess how Systems Thinking and especially Systems Practice could be utilized in a system of community governance based on direct, or both participatory and deliberative, democracy. Such an approach has been examined more theoretically with the blog post, A Map for Direct Democracy and Systems Thinking, related Kumu map, Direct Democracy and Systems Thinking and the Kumu presentation, Using System Thinking for Better Deliberative and Participatory Democracy.

Special attention was paid to how community groups might use Systems Thinking to develop projects and programs that could potentially be of benefit to the entire community. As an extension (or as an appendage of), a system of Community Based Virtual Collaboration was also explored in the blog post NCP + VSI = A Potential Path for Meaningful Community Change.

The crossroads is the transition from an upstream-downstream systems map to a more comprehensive Causal Loop Diagram map that more explicitly expresses the different multiple relationships making up what has been deemed a Plastic Pollution Production system, specifically in Bangkok, Thailand.

It would seem that while not quite as early as with the first attempt at the course, I still started systems mapping too early, at least there is an argument for such. I touched on this argument in the last post.

There may be two reasons for this splintering between what the course calls for and my own natural inclinations. First is my natural inclination to map a system in question to better understand it. Trying to conceptualize the upstream and downstream relationships of the collection of different factors we had collected together as a team would have been frustrating for me if I couldn’t map. Second, the Systems Practice approach seems to be more suited to teams that are physically in the same location.

Our current efforts were not a good example of Virtual Systemic Collaboration. With the Homeless Food Truck Systems Practice Project, the team members were primarily in the United States so time differences were less of a factor. Communication being not only asynchronous but also far more distant geographically made communication too difficult this time. The Homeless Project also had a larger team to start with, offering a greater diversity of ideas, and more people not only came up with ideas but also contributed their own systems maps. I worked both the group and, as mentioned before, had started with my own systems maps on the topic.

Arguably, I still started too early with systems mapping this time. My interpretation of the Acumen Systems Practice group approach is that far more time is spent on working with the factors as components prior to solidifying them into a system that can be mapped out. My contributions to the collection of initial factors regarding plastic pollution in Bangkok, Thailand were overly generic in my view. The others made far more precise and applicable contributions. I then took those and came up with the systems map cited above.

Analogies help understand the difference in approaches. I created a root system for the Causal Loop Diagram maps that I would go on to make. The more official Systems Practice approach seems more akin to building an automobile. Everybody in the group brings in what could be used as parts and discussed together how they could best be fitted together.

With the Systems Practice Homeless Project, I could argue that my individual approach was better suited for deeper analysis. Too often, from my personal perspective, online collaboration efforts try too hard to come up with solutions that satisfy everyone regardless of how inviable a solution it may actually be in the long term. Unintended consequences are deferred in favor of current compromise. Systems Thinking that stays true to its principles has a way of telling people what they often don’t want to hear. One, in particular, is how very, very hard it is to permanently change entrenched systems, especially entrenched, legacy derived, institutional systems or the systems arising because of them.

The creation of a root system for the Plastic Pollution Production system would likely define to a great extent the specifics of the type of system that would grow from it. Doesn’t mean what grows from it is wrong but it does limit possible and potentially better solutions. More maps using both the organic method and the construction method to be evaluated together would seem to be a better approach.

Unfortunately, the MOSS team was not able to hold together. Dohn at this juncture had decided to pursue his real world academic pursuits. Shawn joined too late after the Causal Loop Diagram maps had been largely developed, and as discussed in the last post felt unable to make any meaningful contributions. A result perhaps of having created a far too solid appearing system structure. Steve (and Sander) had been communicating that the projects which with they had been working were demanding more of their time. This Systems Practice project was only to be a possible part of that larger project for which they were responsible. My understanding was that the Systems Practice project was not the primary purpose. Both Steve and Sander presumedly then pursued their primary purpose and stopped participating in the Systems Practice project.

So I began creating the causal loop diagrams from the root of the aforementioned upstream-downstream systems map and continued on until it reached what I felt was a state (actually states) of completion. I continued to proceed in the effort despite not being able to obtain any feedback. Systems mapping becomes more of an internal process based on logically building upon previously established factors, connections, links, and loops.

Basically, what I was doing was creating a story or play based on the factors, let's think of them as analogous to characters, props, scenes in a play, given to me by the others. There seems to be a positive albeit passive acknowledgment of the story that was created. I received a few likes and positive comments but not really any critique.

Even with the best of intentions, there are a number of errors that can arise in developing a Causal Loop Diagram map intended to explain or elucidate some particular system or component of a system. I could have misunderstood the factors or could have placed them into an incorrect configuration. I could have gotten both correct but made wrong inferences when developing the relationships further.

Even if I am right in all of these aspects, my approach could still be suspected by many. My satellite-oriented vantage point of the larger system took, I believe, a Systems Practice perspective of looking at the system’s health rather than devising some path to mission accomplished, understanding the patterns comprising that system and endeavoring to find the means of change internal to the system rather than imposing from the outside. As I said elsewhere, “However, none of the causal loops directly cause plastic pollution as their intended purpose”. Three different systems, capable of existing independently on their own came to be seen as being subsystems of the larger Plastic Pollution Production system - Retail Market, Business Perspective and Governance Environment. (This effort has long held that there is a difference between government and governance.) Any perspective taken solely from any one subsystem vantage point might very likely miss insights required to understand the entire system.

This then brings us to the real question behind this effort. Is it worth it? Does systems thinking and its practical application Systems Practice make a difference that is worth the effort that a group needs to put into it? That question has still not been answered.

I create systems maps of any kind first as an explanatory vehicle for myself then as an explanatory vehicle for others. It is the later, explaining to others, that is obviously the greater challenge, especially for complex systems. Using Systems Thinking means that others must not only become familiar with changing from solely longitudinal thinking to also incorporating latitudinal thinking but also delving deeper into both the content and context of the system in question. People, however, often desire to be persuaded rather than to convince themselves by taking the time to develop a deeper understanding. A simplified and persuasive explanation often does not have the necessary explanatory power needed to understand how to make changes to a complex system that don't have detrimental unintended consequences. Understanding is easier if they have participated directly in building the relevant systems map. It can still be possible by taking them through a guided tour using Kumu presentations. The following presentation is the first attempt to find that balance, Addressing Plastic Pollution in Bangkok, Thailand - Essential Factors Pathway (Deep Structure).

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.

Back to Systems Practice USA Again

The previous post will be the last one on the SP UK course or OpenUniversity course on Mastering Systems Thinking in Practice for at least a while. There was a gap between the last post and the one previous of about a month. During that time, a second SP USA course was started, which is what I will be calling the Systems Practice: A Practical Approach to Move from Impossible to Impact, and am now finishing up with the fourth week.

While there was an overall philosophical disagreement with the SP UK course, there were a number of valuable insights gleaned from the course. There are also distinct differences in approach between SP UK and SP USA.

The lead instructor for the SP USA course is again Rob Ricigliano, (intro video). This time was not begun with immediately starting with mapping on one’s own as was the case the first time. That over-eagerness put me out of sync with the SP USA process and made any post critique problematic. The process, for the most part, worked well. The course was successfully passed, the other team members who saw the process to the end seemed happy with the results though there was also an issue for me of not having pushed far enough with the systems analysis.

The SP USA course, for the first time, helped bring everyone to a consensus on a potential approach to addressing homelessness in Portland, Oregon through food trucks to feed homeless living in camps and others unsheltered. An idea that was first considered in the Modeling the Last Mile to Feed the Homeless series during an Acumen Financial Modeling course.

The process followed by the team was generally in line with that put forward by the SP USA course. The independent but parallel path I took, along with helping with the SP USA processes, however, revealed potential issues further along. Throwing a wrench into the effort at the very end of what was a first time educational experience for everyone else did not seem a positive step. The question that could not be answered at the end was whether the outcome would have been different if I had followed the SP USA path more closely.

This time there will be no jumping the gun, sprinting ahead, or going off with completely separate explorations. So far, that intention has been followed, with perhaps some pushing interpretations of other's intentions, pretty closely. Hindsight though tells me the balance remains elusive.

Attempts, begun later than they should have, were made to join about six different groups. This time the objective was to be subordinate instead of taking the lead. Whichever team I could get on would decide the direction of the challenge chosen and I would do my best to support that vision.

MOSS, the last group, accepted making me one of a four member group with two of the members being associated with the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University in the Netherlands. Dr. Steve Kennedy, Academic Director - MSc Global Business and Sustainability and Sander Fleuren, a Learning and Development Manager, work closely together.

Dr. Kennedy (Steve, using the egalitarian practice applied in the course) has provided the general direction for the endeavor, addressing plastic pollution in Bangkok Thailand. Also part of the team, Dohn Taylor from Australia, and recent addition, Shawn Ng with connections to Malaysia, East Africa, and Rome, Italy. This creates some challenges with communications which are all asynchronous being that we are in GMT+8, 2 in GMT+1, and GMT-8 time zones, and that we only communicated through the course.

With introductions made, the next step was letting my fellow teammates know of my previous participation in the course and of the intention to blog about the experience as is being done now.

Despite having some resources in the NCP Wiki, Environment and Sustainability, are not my primary focus and my general knowledge is limited. It is even more limited regards to the current state of Thailand though having lived there, as a member of the United States Air Force, during the time around 1975-76 when the US was turning bases over to the Thai government. Any impressions that were held from that time were quickly proven false during the early stages of the SP USA course. 

This relative lack of knowledge though helped test my own particular hypothesis explored through the Direct Democracy and Systems Thinking wiki page. That systems thinking can be used by a group in a civic setting to help develop a better understanding of a complex situation and addressing it. One that is better enough to make the necessary extra effort, and there is extra effort, worth the trouble. The challenge is to create a system practice that is efficient enough that it allows others to concentrate on effectiveness. 

This hypothesis was first developed in the post A Map for Direct Democracy and Systems Thinking and Kumu map Direct Democracy and Systems Thinking.

The first assignment of the SP USA course was to present the system challenge to be addressed through a Complexity Spectrum, consisting of sets of spectrums made up of polar choices, to select one or somewhere between them.

• Level of Understanding: 
• Well understood vs Not Understood 
• Engagement: 
• Consensus vs Diversity of Opinion 
• Environment: 
• Stable vs Dynamic 
• Self-contained vs Interconnected 
• Goals: 
• Small Scale vs Broad Change 
• Short-term vs Sustainable 

While relational Kumu mapping was curtailed at the start, there had been recent experimentation with Plectica which arguably fitted rather well with the first SP USA course assignment, in this instance, proving more helpful than Kumu. The configuration made possible with Plectica allowed me to create a map that reflected the Complexity Spectrum’s hierarchical nature and provided spaces for each of the members of the team to provide their individual input. Plectica has, unless you sign up for it, an interfering banner across the screen. Here are the results of the Complexity Spectrum in a narrative nutshell.

Plastic pollution and its impact on Bangkok

The level of understanding regarding plastic waste pollution was seen as high by team participants, although likely not consciously considered by most people having less of a general public awareness of the consequences of social and ecological functioning and the sources of the pollution. What may be less understood is the interaction of economic inequality and environmental degradation within communities.

The Diversity of Opinion regarding solutions to the issues is seen as high based in part on the diversity of opinion on what parts of the system need to be addressed, individual consumer buying habits, government interventions, or the market extracting rents but sourcing cleanup to the local communities, moving to a petroleum-free economy or creating a circular economy which processes at or near 100% efficiency or creating substitutes for the petroleum-based products.

Plastic pollution is seen as a highly connected problem to the local and global consumption and production systems. The root causes may be found outside of the locality - plastic being produced outside of Bangkok and transported into the city in the shape of products and packaging.

The problem is ever-changing, governments seeking a solution often pass the problem to someone else. These types of projects may gain momentum and a life of their own through community involvement, despite the government. When people decide to act government often plays catch-up.

The problem of plastic pollution in terms of the quantity of material flows is seen as relatively predictable. However, it was envisioned that the system has a high potential for self-organization and the emergence of new dynamics.

The project aims at small-scale operations making a sustained and broad change. The goal(s) of the social entrepreneur would be relatively small scale - considering perhaps impacts on the neighborhood or perhaps stopping pollution events of one particular input. However, if this can be somewhat replicated or incentivized by others to pursue the goal (potentially even the local administration) then a much broader scale change could be achieved. The change being sought in the reduction of plastic pollution seems broadly applicable, particularly if scaled up. Likely several steps will need to be taken with intervening objectives. These solutions need to be long-term and sustainable and infer a change to the system's purpose.

The Complexity Spectrum map also became the basis for an early systems concept map using first Plectica and later Kumu. As was stated above, some of these ideas would later be further tested or revised later in the process. I, in particular, learned a good deal more about plastic pollution in Asia and especially Thailand. More on those details will be provided 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.

Virtual Systemic Inquiry - GPS for New Community Paradigms?

The next segment of the STW/STiA course moves back by two segments and three blog posts. The Kumu map for this section covers the development of a process termed Virtual Systemic Inquiry or VSI.  It is designed to provide a review and means of collaborative communication in developing a systemic approach, as involving an entire system, to community wicked challenges.

An extended and updated multi-video explanation of this Predicament (updated 1/30/2019) is available to begin providing an extensive explanation, for a fairly involved process in which both the steps and the rationale behind them.

The basic Predicament is that difficult and wicked challenges require sets of multiple individuals with diverse backgrounds but geographic or other logistical factors make working together difficult.

Short version, it is a process using web-based resources such as Cacoo, Debategraph, Gmail, Google Docs, Insight Maker, Kumu, LinkedIn, Lucid Chart, MediaWiki, Prezi and Skype or other similar programs to communicate and collaborate through systemic process interventions with others in an effective and efficient manner. despite being geographically, and therefore also time zoned separated, 

A series of Insight Maker, some of which are highlighted and expanded upon below will help make the argument in support based on insights from this course and past new community paradigms articles. 

The logistical challenge of selecting the most appropriate people to participate in the collaboration and developing the means of interaction to improve the likelihood of effecting the intended results remains.

According to a VSI perspective, it's not reasonable or appropriate to expect a single individual or even a small group to determine how to intervene meaningfully and effectively to address a complex wicked situation. That is, however, exactly what we do in most local governments, selecting five individuals for four years who then head a complicated oriented management system based on a solitary figure setting a top-down agenda to address complex issues and when it doesn't work we get another person and repeat. 

Large-scale collaboration then is essential if one wants any hope of addressing wicked problems at a community level in a meaningful and effective manner. Collaboration though presents a number of challenges itself because it, in truth, it brings in more complexity. The goal is to have it become, along with the issues being addressed, closer to what has been termed coherent complexity. 

Complexity though, its true nature, can still remain hidden for a number of reasons despite the significant complexity inherent in the wicked challenges facing our communities being immense. Many of these wicked challenges are the result of emergent properties of larger, even global systems that cannot be understood or fully comprehended by individuals or even by individual components (institutions, political parties, countries) of a larger system. Even if understood, they often cannot be adequately addressed by any of the individual components or subsystems alone. 

Wicked problems have become so complex, incoherently complex, that they're broken down and perceived as complicated by not only the general public but also those tasked with addressing them with top-down complicated and reductionistic based management systems, sometimes tending to reach high levels of bureaucratic complicatedness. 

Not only are the wicked challenges or situations themselves complex but the environment in which they exist, as an integral part of the challenge, and thereby the processes by which they must be addressed, particularly the social aspect, is also complex.

The model Perspectives on Csikszentmihalyi's views on Complexity vs Complicated illustrates important differences between complicated oriented problems and complex oriented problems which makes such an approach even more problematic.

Based on this Realization that situations warranting collaboration are invariably complex, and wicked problems are highly complex, collaboration is logically envisioned then as the most likely means to produce meaningful and effective outcomes. The complex nature of the wicked problems have and are expected to continue to overwhelm previously employed tools and methods.

The problems most successfully addressed by management systems based on reductionism and complicated algorithms are seen as being highly differentiated with little integration. Solutions then tend first towards greater differentiation followed hopefully then by integration. Seldom though are they able to achieve both differentiation and integration at the same time with any long-term success. Complex systems though can be both highly differentiated and highly integrated. This means that when imposing a complicated management system upon a complex system challenge that either differentiation or integration is going to be disregarded and therefore not adequately addressed. 

This then requires an integrated toolset, for which the VSI method provides both Tool Requirements and Tool Evaluation. VSI uses a wiki, as does New Community Paradigms, but as a focus page for the collaborations because of the ease of multi-user updating, allowing anyone involved in the collaboration to know that whatever aspect of the investigation they're searching for that the appropriate links can be found. 

Concept maps could be developed in Insight Maker and Kumu then linking those concept maps to the wiki with issue exchanges on the concept map being conducted through attached discussions. More formal models could also be developed in Insight Maker and Kumu. Again, once initiated, a link to the model could be added to the wiki and issue exchanges on the model again conducted through discussions. Kumu could potentially become the apparent heir simplifying the architecture by combining multiple pieces of the puzzle, focus page, discussions, concept maps and formal models together. It might though be too specialized and internalized though for use with larger groups.

Tools alone though will not be sufficient to ensure meaningful and effective outcomes. The participants must also be able to develop an integrated mindset to offset the natural and, in the right context, still definitely useful differentiations that they bring to the effort.  This will be different for different levels of the process but to be collaborative, a mindset founded on a shared vision is important with participants being on the same wavelength.

It is of critical importance for everyone involved to understand the intent of the collaboration by having them involved in the early establishment and the refinement of the intent from the beginning. Having the collaborators engaged in the development of the intent helps develop a sense of ownership which provides a basis for individuals to stay engaged and contributing. The challenge from a new community paradigms perspective is how to expand upon this to include an entire community.

Even with a well defined intent and community or group ownership of the challenge, working with a distributed group of individuals through multiple applications will require efforts expended on an ongoing basis to maintain focus. It is essential that all the component tools that may be employed be glued together in a manner that allows collaborators to keep track of their contributions and the overall development.

The Enabling Generative Interactions requires an integrative mix of differentiation and integration meaning that it can potentially become coherently complex in a manner that complicated top-down management systems cannot. 

Micro-worlds are models of the relevant relationships of a challenging situation or wicked problem set up in a manner with which people can interact to study the implications of their actions and as such are hopefully better able to understand the situation. A problem is that people often create these Micro-worlds unconsciously then tend to treat them as video games, seeking to understand only enough to win the game and miss the deeper underlying set of relations that are responsible for that micro-world working the way it does.

This review of Virtual Systemic Inquiry will continue in the next two blog posts and will be integrated with the Participatory Democracy with Systems Thinking Insight Maker model in the next post and later as a Kumu map.