A Map for a Pathway to New Community Paradigms

The last four blog posts dealt with the month and a half that I spent interacting online with the Dialogue, Deliberation, and Systemic Transformation community or DD&ST, revealing my own journey with them.  

The four blog posts that had steered me towards the DD&ST, before those four had dealt in part with the concepts of dialogue and deliberation,  indirectly involving the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD), examining how systems thinking could scaffold efforts at direct democracy. 

Despite the time spent on and the number of posts written, things still did not seem sufficiently settled or satisfactory. It was obvious that only the surface of possible interactions and explorations opened up by the DD&ST had been touched upon but that which had been covered still needed to be put into a better perspective. Particularly in light of the original question of systems thinking and direct democracy that drove the inquiry in this direction.  

So in order to get my bearings, I created another Kumu map. After finishing and traveling through it a few times, the realization arose that it was in a general fashion depicting a Pathway to New Community Paradigms. It is by no means anywhere near a final map, it does though bring together concepts that have become important components of New Community Paradigms. It is necessary though to first take a number of steps back.

It has always been recognized that the interactions, defined by the Direct Democracy and Systems Thinking map as a basis for this line of inquiry, would be done by groups of diverse, independent agents, not single entities, and in accordance with Michael Jackson’s System of Systems Methodologies would be pluralist, possibly conflictual and very likely often complex.  Jackson used this to differentiate hard and dynamic system thinking methodologies from soft systems thinking methodologies. This duality was to be brought together in a generative manner with the R1 Deliberative  Democratic Dialogue and R2 Working with  Systems Thinking loops of the Direct Democracy and Systems Thinking map. 

A follow-up self-critique blog post, which is still applicable, on that original related blog post brought out calls from LinkedIn discussion groups covering both ends of the continuum or sides for greater incorporation of resources or approaches related to their particular perspective. For the participatory, soft systems side, it was for the inclusion of Appreciative Inquiry methodologies, and for the harder, dynamic, goal-oriented side it was the inclusion of the insights from the Knowing-Doing Gap article by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert I. Sutton.

The opportunity then came to interact with real people asking real questions regarding dialogue and deliberation and how it could be used as a “…positive transformational impact in the face of emerging global crises” through participation with the Dialogue, Deliberation, and Systemic Transformation community. The guiding beacon for the DD& ST was: 

"What do we, as members of the dialogue and deliberation community of practice, have to be and do to enable our most positive transformational impact in the face of emerging global crises which fundamentally challenge our business-as-usual habits and systems?"

The primary focus for my explorations was on the DD& ST question of ‘What is Possible?’ in a world, “besot with breakdowns, positive uprisings and major windows of opportunity potentially arising in 2015 and asking how the Dialogue, Deliberation and Systemic Transformation Community could use dialogue and deliberation tools to amplify and bring coherence to an impulse for change from which would emerge the co-creating elements of ‘the more beautiful world our hearts know is possible?’.”

The searching for insights in these matters, especially with the DD& ST and subsequent interactions with others making up the dialogue and deliberation community strengthened an appreciation that, in accordance with the systems thinking iceberg model, we are not only speaking in terms of different methodologies or perspectives but more importantly in terms of different mindsets.

The realization arose quickly that one was dealing with significantly different mindsets than were more usually familiar, resulting in a Stranger in a Strange Land vibe but the DD& ST community was truly welcoming and I pressed forward learning as much as I could. There was, far, far too much available in the journey’s short duration for gathering all but a few ideas on the first visit, though subsequent explorations are still possible. 

A good part of any limitations was no doubt mine. The general approach taken so far to systems thinking based on personal inclination and applied through certification has, by way of causal loop diagramming, leaned towards a harder or more dynamic approach as compared to softer or more participative approaches. It was recognized though that the later would be essential to systems of direct democracy. The question was how to integrate the two approaches together? 

The Pathway to New Community Paradigms map (Advisory, the actual Kumu map is designed to be more self-contained than is this external narrative.) reflects the unification of both of these perspectives but this was not merely a given. Instead, both approaches, hard, dynamic, goal-oriented system and participatory, inclusive soft system, labeled Creating the Future and Transforming the Future respectively, were explored separately through unfolding storylines from a bird's eye vantage point, revealing what were seen as potential inherent weaknesses in each. 

The two were then laid out together from a space shuttle vantage point to find some means of bridging the two. The common juncture of Complexity was seen as being the point at which bridging the two approaches were either successful or failed. This then provided the components needed to build a bridge across the complexity by the double loop interaction of ‘Opening Up to What is Possible’ and ‘Attaining What is Achievable' revealed to be at the heart of the New Community Paradigms map.

The challenge of complexity has been an important consideration for New Community Paradigms since near its inception and specific positions have been taken regarding the right way and a wrong way of addressing it. It has been contrasted with the concept of ‘complicatedness’ involving processes exhibited by many institutions, particularly by those of the local public sector, causing unresolved dissatisfaction resulting in disengagement in many communities. Complicatedness is seen as while being recognized as often being applicable, top-down command and control management processes but on steroids, providing a needed fix to entrenched political centers of local power.

Even if not pushed to the extreme limits of complicatedness, there is an important difference between complicated challenges and complex challenges. One perspective on the basic differences between Complex and Complicated systems based generally on Csikeszenmihalyi's "The Evolving Self" is illustrated by an InsightMaker model with additional discussion in Knowledge Management: Emerging Perspectives.

Wicked problems can become so complex, incoherently complex, that they can be broken down and erroneously perceived as complicated (and therefore seemingly addressable solely by complicated as opposed to complex means) by not only the general public but also by those tasked with addressing them with top-down complicated and reductionistic based management systems which may tend to reach high levels of bureaucratic complicatedness.

There had also already been an evolving perspective on goal-oriented approaches to resolving wicked challenges before having any interactions with the DD& ST, in particular questioning the relation and limits to those endeavors to achieve so-called 'concrete' results within the complex realities that give rise to those wicked challenges. These models or system shortcomings were still being seen from a dynamic systems perspective though.  The time spent with the DD& ST exposed me to a variety of other expanded possibilities and, while I did not convert, the mapping leading up to the convinced me even more that both perspectives, even both mindsets were needed. 

From a newcomer and relatively still outsider vantage point, the dialogue and deliberation community has in general been having, if not a crisis of faith with dialogue and deliberation, has at least been raising serious questions about it and its proper role today.  Personally, I don't have many answers and certainly not the answer. I am still working on constructing the right questions. The insights offered here may seem obvious to some but I would argue that the differences are deeper and more systemic than might be appreciated and some may choose to stay entirely on their own vantage point but I believe we lose far too much and the endeavors of both the DD& ST and New Community Paradigms becomes all the more difficult when each side fails to or only gives meager recognition and respect to the other.

Direct Democracy and System Thinking Map - Some Potholes on the Journey

The previous blog post featured a relational map combining, Direct Democracy and Systems Thinking, which made a reasonably sound argument that such a system of governance could be possible, someday. 

It has been suggested before that systems thinking could serve as a scaffolding for efforts at direct democracy. More recently, from the other side of the coin, it was argued that the implementation of a systems thinking process could derive benefit from means of participatory democracy through deeper participation by stakeholders. This extends that argument to a community setting.

There are, however, limitations to both the model and to the actual proposed system being represented that need to be recognized and addressed before any of that will ever happen.

First, as for the model or map, the George Box principle still applies, "All models (or maps) are wrong, Some models are useful.” It is not intended to be a complete representation of reality. The advantage is that we can change and hopefully improve the model far more readily. One such update has been made.

The "Direct Democracy and Systems Thinking" relational map now incorporates the concept, as discussed in "Systems Thinking - Sailing through Wicked Problems on Complex Seas” post, of the consolidation between systems thinking and direct democracy involving  a dual track approach related to systems thinking, a soft approach and a dynamic approach, each serving different purposes. 

Soft Systems Methods, such as Appreciative Inquiry, Idealized Design, and Soft Systems Methodology, could be employed for purposes of exploration and understanding in connection with reinforcing loop R1 “Deliberative Democratic Dialogue”, to obtain a compatible vision. These methods are useful for exploratory purposes to attain a greater understanding and potentially draft a compatible approach to the wicked problem, treating the issue as a question of epistemology, as in what can we know or find out about the world?

Dynamic Systems Methods are typically employed for improving goal seeking and viability once a compatible or finally determined upon vision has been obtained. The hard or dynamic system takes a more ontological approach. Systems Dynamics, in particular, can be seen in contrast to more general, often relatively qualitative modeling systems, as a rigorous methodology employing the development and use of formal computer models. These methods would be more involved in the prototype development of systems thinking models for the purpose of future community intervention and would occur in reinforcing loop R2 "Working with Systems Thinking" through the collaboration between the "Systems Thinking Facilitator”, "Staff" and "Civic and Community Groups”. 

The R3 “Group Facilitation for Systems Thinking” reinforcing loop sees the two different systems thinking methodological approaches begun in R1 (Soft Systems) and R2 (Dynamics Systems) begin interacting together.

The flow of process within R5 "Group Development Systems Thinking" leads both through "Facilitated Systems Thinking Learning" and "Employment of Systems Thinking Models and Methods" is seen as leading to greater "Understanding of Systems Thinking" which when combined with enhanced R4 “Maintains Respect  for Individuals and Time” reinforces the entire system.

The actual R6 “Implementation of  Systems Thinking  Intervention” within the community would be a result of "Outcomes and Decisions" arising from "Perceived and Defined Meaningfulness of Deliberation". 

The second issue, it is based on a world that doesn’t yet exist. It implicitly presumes that systems thinking has become an integral part of the K-12 school curriculum as envisioned by the Waters Foundation and that dialogue and deliberation are the principal tools for community governance and not campaigning and debate. It goes beyond the current institutional based concept of democracy, which is seen as often being entrenched and moves instead toward a more community based direct democracy. 

There are other limitations to the model. In terms of a working reality, the map assumes only smooth sailing. In truth, the 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 something can go wrong at each step of the actual process, necessitating a thorough review and response but that each step is important in its own right and is not merely a stepping stone to a final outcome. It does not provide for the actual creation of the infrastructure necessary to make such a system possible. It also does not look to any elements or processes outside the proposed system which could interfere with the implementation and continued existence of such a system which are present in our current system. Finally, it does not offer a process or program as for how to disrupt that existing system so that the system envisioned by this relational map could be put in place. 

Even with all these constraints, the effort is still worthwhile in seeking new avenues for community governance. This blog leans towards raising theoretical questions or lines of inquiry, providing its own wrestled with insights, as well as those of others with more knowledge, and pointing to available resources, though not necessarily in that order.

For further future development, the model defined by the relational map and the system of governance it proposes to represent also needs to recognize that there would still be an aspect of persuasion, both positive and negative. Some models or systems are built to be inspirationally (or manipulatively) persuasive rather than logically or rationally convincing. Both inspiration and rationality though are important if we want long term and sustainable impact. Understanding social networking influences would also be important.

It would need to be designed, as Vivien Twyford recently discussed, as means of Recognizing and Responding to Complexity.  It could involve extensive use of the Internet, as would Virtual Systemic Inquiry, in mutual support of the previously proposed use of online communities to encourage direct democracy for on-the-ground communities. It would, however, still carry the caution to run the technology; don't let the technology run you.

There would be a need for mechanisms for when optimal solutions could not be attained and some form of compromise or otherwise determined final outcome, including not taking an action, would need to be implemented. 

It should also be recognized as the course instructor Gene Bellinger has suggested, "Given the same set of facts different people come to different conclusions... because? And isn't it the because we should seek to understand? A systems perspective should enable us to do that... shouldn't it?" 

The answer is yes, we should seek to understand the 'because' and a systems perspective should enable us to do that but that doesn't address a community's need for a resolution. It could help eliminate personal and perhaps irrational biases from community decisions as Google is attempting with their hiring practices. I am basically a liberal but if this proposed system of governance was implemented in a community that was authentically of a tea party, libertarian philosophy then that outlook should be reflected if this system is truly democratic at a community level.

One can also expand upon this question and have it address the asserted audacious step of Enabling a Better Tomorrow. This endeavor, though idealistic in destination and often contrary to standard institutional government thinking, contains, (we won't say, 'concrete'), meaningful examples found in the New Community Paradigms Wiki, both in terms of process and results, from different approaches to community governance.

Recently, this blog has taken pains to distance itself from what is seen as the overused and misused metaphor of 'concrete' and to stop running away from the absolute necessity of abstract thinking. Absolute necessity may seem overblown but abstract thinking is seen as being at the heart of systems thinking. Even though the word concrete will no longer be used unless speaking of driveways or such, we still need to start talking about making things real. Something can be considered real if it is connected in a meaningful way with what is considered to be of importance. The hurdle is successfully asserting that it is possible to change the present and create the future through such connections.  A systematic approach to community governance through systems thinking generally, and Virtual Systemic Inquiry specifically, could be considered real if it can be meaningfully applied to New Community Paradigms and other similar efforts.

Better Deliberative and Participatory Democratic Community Based Governance through Systems Thinking

This blog post is on incorporating principles of systems thinking into a system of direct deliberative and participatory community based governance by using a systems thinking model, Participatory Democracy with Systems Thinking.  The concept of deliberative and participatory community based governance was first discussed in the early stages of this effort with Using Online Communities to encourage Direct Democracy for On-The-Ground Communities and was related with resources found under the People’s Governance in California and Community Governance wiki-pages.

Systems thinking has also been previously discussed.  Resources gathered and organized so far and related blog posts can be found under the Systems Thinking Approaches wiki-page.  However, until the blog post before this one, those blog posts had been about system thinking working within various areas of concern related to new community paradigms with a vantage point looking from the outside in.  This post and the one before it are the first time using system thinking means of conveying concepts through system thinking models. The last post focused more on factors regarding the mechanisms of systems thinking. This post will expand upon that to include direct deliberative and participatory community based governance. 

The last post dealt with a systems thinking model developed by Gene Bellinger. Gene runs the (STiA) Systems Thinking in Action LinkedIn group, and a host of other systems thinking learning resources on the Internet including STiA Brain and Systems Thinking in Action Wiki. Gene used Insightmaker.com to make a systems thinking (ST) model that told a story by unfolding the presentation of elements and links making up the system under consideration.  This particular ST model dealt with factors that would likely encourage groups or organizations to use and continue using systems thinking principles.  From a systems thinking perspective, few people could make a better argument for this than Gene.

Any model not made private in Insightmaker.com can be ‘cloned’ or copied, so I cloned Gene’s model and renamed it, A 'Better World' thru Systems Thinking, other than that, I made no other changes.  Gene had used his model in an online community discussion regarding the future of the now Systems Thinking in Action LinkedIn group, so it was designed to have a relevant impact upon the nature of the group.

My purpose in cloning the model was to demonstrate how systems thinking could be used by a group as a means of collaborative communication, particularly in comparison with written means such as blog posts.  The last blog post provided ‘a build a watch to tell the time’ explanation of the A 'Better World' thru Systems Thinking model. This was, of course, redundant but it made explicit how the story could be presented by the model unfolding. It also made the point that writing as opposed to the ST model was far less efficient in conveying the information.

The Participatory Democracy with Systems Thinking model is going to be allowed to speak more for itself.  It works in the same manner as the previous model.  Clicking the [Step Forward] button at the bottom right hand corner of the model’s page moves the ‘story’ one step forward revealing elements and links, developing their relationship. Relevant information is provided at the bottom bar of the model with each step. Additional information can be found in each element (or in each link), by placing the mouse over the element and clicking on the ‘i’ icon that is revealed. The model will demonstrate the potential relationship between systems thinking and direct deliberative participatory democracy. This blog post will deal more directly with pertinent aspects of the model itself. 

I will describe some of the differences between the two models. When you open up the Participatory Democracy with Systems Thinking model, the embedded A 'Better World' thru Systems Thinking is already on the page in a dimmed state. I kept the A 'Better World' thru Systems Thinking model almost unchanged, wanting to show how it is possible to build upon models to develop and expand upon ideas. 

Instead of starting with ‘A Better World’ as the end goal, the new model starts with ‘Civic Community’, which is quickly explained to be made up of various community and civic groups.  A more relevant point is that the system is then bifurcated into two separate dynamic subsystems, direct deliberative participatory democracy and systems thinking. 

This bifurcation is made readily apparent with this latest ST model, whereas with the A 'Better World' thru Systems Thinking model, the group dynamics were somewhat more subsumed under the development of the systems thinking process. Another change made in the more current model is that links are labeled.  This allows you to more precisely define the relationship between the elements. The label ‘adopts' was chosen because the principles defining direct deliberative participatory democracy and the principles defining systems thinking would in turn be used in defining the community, as a system, from that point on. Another change with the links is that some are made bi-directional with the premise being that the influence or affect can go both ways. 

The elements and links of the A 'Better World' thru Systems Thinking were maintained, but reformatted so that the participatory democracy elements are gathered in the top right hand corner of the new model and the systems thinking elements are gathered in the bottom left hand corner. Most of the new links for the Participatory Democracy with Systems Thinking model are purple or violet (depending upon how big your crayon box was when you were young). The A 'Better World' thru Systems Thinking model links are blue, making it easy to determine where the two models interact. Based on the design decision to keep the original model and work around it, the unfolding of the A 'Better World' thru Systems Thinking component of the current model is for the most part in reverse order.  

The new model also introduces two new re-enforcing loops similar to those found in the previous model.  Under the new model, each R loop is provided a title, as proposed in the last blog post, under the ‘i’ icon. R5, Deliberative Democratic Dialogue defines the relationship with the group dynamics of the A 'Better World' thru Systems Thinking model. R6, Creating Proto-type ST models, introduces an additional component of systematic intervention with the community group and other staff, based hypothetically on design thinking concepts. (The differences between design thinking and systems thinking and how they can be related needs to be explored more in the future.)

One change made from the A 'Better World' thru Systems Thinking model is that the Discussion Perceived Meaningfulness was renamed Discussion Perceived and Defined Meaningfulness. As is explained in the related ‘i’ icon for the element, “‘Defined’ meaningfulness is added as good or bad the decisions will define and provide meaning for the community. BD” The element Discussion Perceived and Defined Meaningfulness is in the center of the new model with multiple links connecting to it.

A new element is also included, by repurposing a variable ‘primitive’. Under Insightmaker.com, primitives are the various text boxes, pictures, stocks, links, flows and variables that can be used in making up the models. The variable primitive is usually used to set a value for something defined numerically or mathematically, such as the interest rate on money in a bank. I wanted to convey values in a different manner and differentiate it from the other elements in the model.  In this case the focus is on the possible values created by the system.  This hierarchy is admittedly hypothetical at this point.

“Decisions or outcomes between competing proposals are endeavored to be reached through a collaborative process that may or may not work. This means that such decisions could reach a level of: 1. Synthesis, 2. Collaboration, 3. Compromise, 4. Prioritization, 5. Competitive Selection.”

A third new re-enforcing loop, R7 Enhancement of Systems Thinking, is revealed, delineated by green links.  The model finishes off asserting that, ‘A Better World’ helps to create ‘A Better Community’. 

The Participatory Democracy with Systems Thinking model is a simple, even simplistic model. It only provides positively re-enforcing loops. It could perhaps be demonstrated more openly that a balancing loop is inherent within the system between systems thinking and deliberative democracy, with each one influencing the other to be maintained within certain parameters.  There are no negatively re-enforcing loops. One could imagine an element being included within the deliberative and participatory democracy subsystem being made up of a small group of individuals allowed to dictate the outcomes of the larger group.  Using A Ladder of Citizen Participation by Sherry R. Arnstein as a metric, those factors at the bottom of the ladder of engagement would be apparent if the group excessively limited the engagement of the larger community, and at the top if the group was exceedingly open and transparent or perhaps even not in existence. The same could happen with the systems thinking subsystem with a manager that only selected certain projects that specifically benefited those in the selected group and in turn helped guarantee continued employment. Taken together, these two elements could create an ‘entrenched’ government institution within the community that could continue under a facade of democratic protocols despite not truly adhering to democratic principles. It doesn’t demonstrate how two or more proposed alternative interventions might work through the entire model.

If you wish to learn about systems thinking in more detail, I am again going to recommend the book Beyond Connecting the Dots Modeling for Meaningful Results, Copyright © 2013 Scott Fortmann-Roe and Gene Bellinger featured in the right hand column of this blog.

Systems Thinking as a disciplined process for Community Governance

Throughout this effort to establish new community paradigms, the case has been made for greater direct community governance as opposed to the standard representative institutional form of governance, i.e. City Council/City Manager, one typically finds. This means enhancing community empowerment beyond city hall and establishing a form of governance that is not only of, for and by the people but that works through the people. Community governance is seen as arising not through the permission of institutions but through the set of community relations making up civil society.  It should also consider what mechanisms are required to ensure community prosperity is enhanced through governance by the community.  

It still needs to be demonstrated how this is to be fully established. It requires breaking the hold of the existing institutions of local community government and engaging the community to establish viable systems of direct democratic community governance.  

It also means devising a system of addressing complex challenges facing a community which fully uses all the resources of that community in coming up with innovative, sustainable solutions and avoiding unintended detrimental consequences. Simply putting the community in power is not enough to ensure the effective establishment of new community paradigms.

Fortunately, a community-based system of direct deliberative governance is by its nature a more collaborative system than the usual city council form of a government institution.  Standard local government institutions are, as are many of our institutions, based on adversarial competition.  For local communities, this means elections in which candidates oppose each other and this adversarial relationship is often continued in day-to-day governance until the next election. Groups or cliques form around candidates and too often energy is spent in trying to stop the opposition rather than coming up with solutions more beneficial to all.  

The argument has been made elsewhere to how institutional local government, ostensibly seen as expressions of the democratic will of a community, are examples of entrenched political power serving only the interests of the few.  Even when there is some attempt to work together it is very difficult to get a clear picture of what the challenges actually are because information must too often go through a maze of supposed expertise created by staff professionals in support of the politically self-interested prism of city council members.  

The personal or political preferences of individual city council members or the council as a whole take precedences over what may be a different perspective by a majority of the community.  The community, to the extent that it hasn’t become disengaged, is often given limited and slanted information then being persuaded to take sides too often based on emotional likes or dislikes created through unsubstantial but persuasive arguments rather than reason. Community members become cheerleading spectators in the political process rather than truly empowered participants.

What though if a method or means could be established by which the community collaboratively dealt with decisions of resource allocation in a more objective manner?  Instead of first choosing sides then having that side put forward an idea to compete with an opposing side, the community used one of the forums available through the Governance Through Community wiki-page and then defined the challenge together so that all perspectives were considered.  

This does not mean that there would always have to be agreement, only that other perspectives would have to be considered up front.  The objective would not be to beat the competition but to make sure that a complete model of the challenge was created so that all aspects were thoroughly addressed.  

One means of doing this is establishing a Systems Thinking approach to community governance.  A wiki-page, Systems Thinking Approaches, has been created to explore this area further under the wiki-section Community Management and Technology.  

In addition, insights learned from a system thinking related course on Model Thinking from the University of Michigan taught by Professor Scott E. Page through Coursea will be applied. 

According to Professor Scott, models are important because they help us to be Intelligent Citizens of the World being able to not only recognize relevant factors but when those factors do and do not apply.  System Thinking Models are successfully used in economics, biology, sociology, political science, linguistics, law and game theory. 

Professor Page makes a strong argument throughout the course for the usefulness of models in addressing challenges facing us as individuals and as community members.  One benefit is that models, properly used, can help communities to reason, decide, strategize and design different approaches to community challenges.  They can serve as decision aids, provide comparative statistics and counterfactuals, help create experimental designs and help convert those experimental designs into institutional designs. Finally, they can assist in choosing among multiple policies and the institutional means of implementing those policies.  

That is if they are used properly.  Institutional forms of city government often use models put forward by professional staff and consultants.  The problem is that they too often pick and choose the methodology to come up with the politically desired answer and discourage further questioning or debate by giving the proposed strategy a veneer of approval through supposed expertise.  Not that staff professionals and consultants don’t know what they are doing, it is that they often do not use their expertise to its fullest extent because of imposed self-serving limitations set by city councils and city management. Nor does this mean that this is always done explicitly, in many instances a long-term process of enculturation takes place by which it becomes the way things have always been done without question.

A good model not only endeavors to predict points or outcomes but also to produce bounds or ranges of outcomes.  It can seek to test itself through retrodiction by looking at past results to see if they fit a particular model.  It can be used to predict other related issues and help define or inform future Data Collection.  Proper use of models also makes it possible to calibrate for better measurement in the future and to estimate hidden parameters.

This means, however, taking a radically different approach to problem-solving than what is often found in city halls.  It requires participants in this process to be clear, reasonable thinkers rather than getting their way by being the most likable or loudest.  Professor Scott puts forward a process, similar to that put forward by other resources found at Systems Thinking Approaches, to achieve this.  

1. Name The Parts
2. Identify Relationships
3. Work Through Logic
4. Inductively Explore
5. Understand Class of Outcome

Rather than being based on persuasion which is then subsequently supported by selected data, System Thinking Models start with the goal to understand through reason, using data then seeking to understand patterns found in that data. This is where professional staff and consultants could be of assistance, in working directly with the community, through the facilitation of this process. 

What is more important is that we are more successful in coming up with answers to problems when we use models than we are when we address them on our own. Phil Tetlock demonstrated that people who use models, particularly formal models, or use multiple models and perspectives (foxes) were better in making predictions than those using single models or perspectives (hedgehogs) or no models (Why Foxes Are Better Forecasters Than Hedgehogs). The logic of modeling can often help to show us where our intuition fails us. 

This may all sound great (then again it may be so different to what we are used to that it still requires further means of convincing) but there are still inherent challenges to convincing others of implementing such a system.  First is a basic truth of thinking with models put forward by George E. P. Box that, "Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.”  This requires being able to handle some degree of ambiguity but it can remain far too easy to be persuaded by voices professing to be absolutely certain that they are right.  

Another issue is the nature of outcomes.  The challenge that the increasing complexity of the world poses to our institutions has been discussed before.  People are more comfortable with a system that creates outcomes that have seemingly obtained some form of equilibrium or are cyclic in nature but have a far harder time dealing with issues or outcomes that are random or complex in nature.  This makes this endeavor a necessary but extremely complex undertaking.  Political persuasion would still exist and community leaders would still be needed but this would fundamentally change the relationships of governance within a community between the community with professional staff and consultants, between the community and its leaders, and between the community and its members.  

Related Past Blog Posts

Community Empowerment

Still Looking for Non-Experts to Create New Community Innovations? Look outside City Hall.

Looking for Non-Experts to Create New Community Innovations then Make sure They are Disruptive

An Example of Civic Renewal From Broken City: The City of Bell

Governance by the Community or Not - Getting with or past City Hall

Of, For, By the People and now Through the People. Community Governance Revisited

Community paradigms as a set of community relations

Civil society as a platform for new community paradigms

Budgeting for Community Prosperity requires a Clear View

Governance through Community

Systems Thinking

Formally Introducing the New Community Paradigms Mind-map

Complexity

Why is this so hard? It's complicated and it's complex but that's OK

Run the technology; don't let the technology run you

Breaking through the complications to face the complexities and coming out whole.

Governance by the Community or Not - Getting with or past City Hall

Yesterday's post took a second look at the concept of community governance in which a community could potentially govern itself without handing over a  major influence on their collective lives for four years to a city council.  This is taking the perspective to its most extreme.  In practice, communities would likely maintain some form of city government within a city hall.  What it points out is that anyone, whether through a civic organization or just getting together a group of friends, could arrange for community meetings to allow people through a deliberative decision-making process to have their say on matters affecting their community.  There are a number of organizations that can assist with this as can be found in the Community Governance.  This is not to discount the challenges in doing so but it is not necessary to get permission from an institutionalized form of government power.

Taking a decision process that has substantial effect on our communities out of an arena of adversarial political competition and instead using organizations such as The World Cafe Community to create and experience deep and meaningful conversations about those things that really matter or using AmericaSpeaks to create an opportunity to have a strong voice in public decision-making on issues affecting our communities is achievable.

If such a community meeting were put together by some concerned citizens, it could be with the sponsorship of city hall.  Often times this happens through such efforts as strategic plans or economic development studies.  Unfortunately, because direct deliberative democracy is not the norm there is a flurry of activity for a short time then these plans and studies often end up on the shelf without follow-up and without any substantial changes being made. It could also be done in parallel or independent of city hall.  Any group organizing community meetings and wishing to maintain independence from city hall for its own reasons could still upon completion present its finding to the public from the city hall dais. Finally, such an effort could be against an entrenched city hall culture.  Community paradigms are not intended as a tactic to use for the benefit of one particular politician against another.  Rather it is designed to make a significant transformation in a community which has devolved into a culture of entrenched political and economic power that is no longer truly serving the needs of the community.

The challenges that need to be faced under these three scenarios become increasingly greater depending upon the openness of city hall, both in establishing the changes and implementing them.  Success under each scenario presumes that the community group will take a large role in the governance of the community.  Idealistically, at some point, the divisions between city hall and community-based governance effectively disappears.  Only idealistically though because there are too many problems communities with which have to deal and too many opposing interests even if city hall is not entrenched and in opposition.

There is a difference though between governance and government.  New community paradigms do not assume that people will take turns being the city planner or a city council member for a day.  It does work under the premise that the relationships with community leaders and city employees (maybe better would be community-based employees) need to change and become different. How community needs are met and community standards enforced would also likely be different.  How to make this would work is another challenge for new community paradigms.

This moves from the concept of 'governance through community' and using deliberative democracy to decide the future path of a community to the concept of 'governance by the community' and acting as a community working to build that path.  'Governance by the community' under new community paradigms has not been addressed yet as it is more difficult to convey in concrete terms and it took time to build on the concept.

Community governance at this point stops taking a potential advisory role whether requested or not by city hall and moving from deliberation to implementation, from strategy to tactics.

The concept of 'governance by the community' fully realized is related to the concepts found under People’s Governance (wiki page) which offers resources for direct democratic participation but usually in opposition to an unresponsive political power.  It also relates to its applications in specific areas of public concern such as participatory budgeting (a concept which needs to be examined further by this blog in the future) which happens most often with communities that have the political leadership that understands the benefit of inclusion by the community.

It can also relate philosophically with the concept of Civil Society (wiki page) as it recognizes and differentiates those aspects of society or community that do not have to be dependent upon institutional forms of government.  The blog posts Community paradigms as a set of community relations and Civil society as a platform for new community paradigms provide some discussion of this perspective.

Any group or organization reaching this point in the creation of new community paradigms should take a second and third look at its inclusionary efforts to make sure it was doing its best involving the entire community to avoid simply becoming another political competitor.  This might not happen at first but it should be a constant and primary goal or full community governance will never be attained.

An important resource that has been around for a while in helping to ensure this is  A Ladder of Citizen Participation by Sherry R. Arnstein.

This article is about power structures in society and how they interact. Specifically it is a guide to seeing who has power when important decisions are being made. It is quite old, but never-the-less of great value to anyone interested in issues of citizen participation. The concepts discussed in this article about 1960's America apply to any hierarchical society but are still mostly unknown, unacknowledged or ignored by many people around the world. Most distressing is that even people who have the job of representing citizens views seem largely unaware, or even dismissive of these principles. Many planners, architects, politicians, bosses, project leaders and power-holder still dress all variety of manipulations up as 'participation in the process', 'citizen consultation' and other shades of technobabble.

1. Citizen participation is citizen power

1.1. Empty Refusal Versus Benefit

2. Types of participation and "nonparticipation"

2.1. Limitations of the Typology

3. Characteristics and illustration

3.1. Manipulation

3.2. Therapy

3.3. Informing

3.4. Consultation

3.5. Placation

3.6. Partnership

3.7. Delegated Power

3.8. Citizen Control

I will repeat Most distressing is that even people who have the job of representing citizens views seem largely unaware, or even dismissive of these principles. Many planners, architects, politicians, bosses, project leaders and power-holder still dress all variety of manipulations up as 'participation in the process', 'citizen consultation' and other shades of technobabble.  This is the working toolbox of entrenched city hall power brokerages.  Breaking this hold over the community would be a major accomplishment for any group wishing to instill new community paradigms within their community.  This still leaves the requirement to work on meeting the communities needs.

The Results That Matter Team provides a more pragmatic working definition of community governance that goes beyond processes and a model for achieving that.

Community governance” refers to the processes for making all the decisions and plans that affect life in the community, whether made by public or private organizations or by citizens. For community governance to be effective, it must be about more than process, it also must be about getting things done in the community. And what gets done must make a difference. 

A Model of Effective Community Governance

The Effective Community Governance Model recognizes engaging citizens, measuring results, and getting things done as three “core community skills” that help people and organizations make decisions about what actions to take in a community and help them measure the community’s performance in achieving results. Citizen engagement invests legitimacy in those decisions and performance measures. To be effective, a community—or community serving organization—will align two or all three of them to perform the “advanced governance practices” of the governance model.

Another model of effective community governance came originally from "Challenge and Choice: Options for Local Governance in Ottawa-Carleton" Township of Goulbourn's World Wide Web Site and is made available by the Global Development Research Center or GDRC.

Characteristics of a Governance Model that is sensitive to a community's needs:

• Accessible
  Citizens will have easy access to the elected and staff decision makers who are responsible for municipal services.
• Accountable
  Elected and appointed officials will owe responsibility to the public.
• Inclusive
  The community will be recognised as an important component of decision making.
• Representative
  Citizens will be fairly and democratically represented.
• Comprehensive 
  All municipal functions and services will be addressed; services will be delivered at a level communities believe to be appropriate; clear and logical responsibility for service-delivery will be identified; voluntary citizen participation will be acknowledged.
• Comprehensible 
  It will be easy to understand who does what.
• Cost-effective 
  Appropriate quality service will be delivered efficiently and in a manner that makes citizens feel they are receiving a reasonable return on their tax money.

GDRC | The Urban Governance Programme deals with governance as the science of decision-making. 

The concept of governance refers to the complex set of values, norms, processes, and institutions by which society manages its development and resolves conflict, formally and informally. It involves the state, but also the civil society at the local, national, regional and global levels.

The GDRC | The Global Development Research Center is an independent nonprofit think tank that carries out initiatives in education, research and practice, in the spheres of environment, urban, community and information, and at scales that are effective.

There are also other resources available.  Another resource found during the journey to this point is Government To You | Gov2U | which bridges the concerns of governance through community and governance by the community from a global perspective.  This effort to create new community paradigms readily seeks solutions from around the entire globe that benefit the entire globe.

Our Policy and Citizen Engagement Unit works to enhance the legislative process and its outcomes by promoting representative, transparent and accountable governance. By improving the interface between citizens and decision-makers we aim at increasing civil society's input in policy-making. Because Democracy is not only about votes, it's also about deliberation.

Gov2U Facebook also provides a valuable set of technological resources that can be found on the World Wide Web.

Here's why: the internet offers virtual spaces where citizens, in absolute equality, can reclaim an active role in the political process. In essence, these virtual rooms today have the same function as the public squares in ancient times, where citizens gathered to exchange ideas and jointly agree to common solutions. So ironically, it is only through sophisticated information and communication technology that we will successfully revive the fundamental principles of democracy and citizenship, and confront the global issues of our time.

Prior to this point, the concept of community governance has been viewed as a theoretical assumption and even though there is a long road to making it a reality it should be set as a guiding principle of new community paradigms.  To do that future posts will work under the premise that there is an unnamed independent organization in a community working to define and implement new community paradigms for the community in question.  The goal of this blog and related online resources will be to assist in achieving that.