Comparing and Contrasting a Program versus System Approach to Evaluation: The Example of a Cardiac Care System

This paper focuses on the application of systems thinking concepts to evaluate systems.  The terms systems and systems thinking concepts are first defined.  The use of systems thinking concepts in program and system evaluation are then highlighted.  It is noted that while there are methods available to assist evaluation practitioners in applying systems thinking concepts to program evaluation, there is a need for similar guidance in applying systems thinking concepts to evaluating systems.  System Evaluation Theory (SET) is then reviewed as one evaluation theory designed to apply systems thinking concepts to evaluating systems. A case illustration is presented to help teach practitioners how to apply SET’s three steps.  The discussion focuses on comparing the differences between evaluation questions answered by applying systems thinking concepts versus those using program logic models

(WP 2011-01) Kenneth Boulding as a Moral Scientist

Kenneth Boulding’s AEA presidential address argued that economics is a moral science. His view derived from his general systems theory thinking, his three systems view of human society, and his early contributions to evolutionary economics. Boulding’s argument that economics could not be value-free should be distinguished from other well-known views of economics as a moral science, such as Gunnar Myrdal’s. This paper discusses the development and nature of Boulding’s thinking about economics as a moral science in the larger context of his thinking

Community and Environmental OR: Towards a New Agenda

About the book: Community Operational Research: OR and Systems Thinking for Community Development sets out the current concerns of Community Operational Research (Community OR for short) and explores new possibilities for its continued development. Leading Community OR writers, with international reputations in operational research and systems thinking, have contributed chapters that illuminate different aspects of Community OR theory and practice. There is a focus on the value of systems approaches, and other significant perspectives are also represented. The result is a rich mix of theories, methodologies and case studies that will be a significant resource for both practitioners and academics engaged in community development

Individual emergence in contextual analysis

Located within the tradition of Hermeneutic Dialectics (HD) this paper offers an approach which can further an analysis of a fit between information and organizational systems. Drawn upon Information Systems Development projects a relationship between theory and practice is aided through a multi-disciplinary approach to sense making activity. Using a contemporary version of contextual analysis to understand a way in which individuals construct adapt and create meaning from their environment offers a route to improve a systems analysis process. This type of enquiry into contextual dependencies of knowledge creation can help direct a development of systems that have the intention to serve specific organizational actors and their needs. Combining methods outside of a traditional polar divide, sense making research undertaken within a systems thinking arena can enrich understanding by complementing qualitative and / or quantitative analysis with reflective depth. Drawing together interdisciplinary strands through a critical systems thinking approach offers new levels of professionalism for computer- and management-, practitioners or researchers in the 21st Century

Systems Practice: How to Act in a Climate-Change World

It is now accepted that humans are changing the climate of the Earth and this is the most compelling amongst a long litany of reasons as to why, collectively, we have to change our ways of thinking and acting. Most people now recognise that we have to be capable of adapting quickly as new and uncertain circumstances emerge: this capability will need to exist at personal, group, community, regional, national and international levels, all at the same time. Systems Practice is structured into four parts. Part I introduces the societal need to move towards a more systemic and adaptive governance against the backdrop of human-induced climate change. Part II unpacks what is involved in systems practice by means of a juggler metaphor; examining situations where systems thinking offers useful understanding and opportunities for change. Part III identifies the main factors that constrain the uptake of systems practice and makes the case for innovation in practice by means of systemic inquiry, systemic action research and systemic intervention. The book concludes with Part IV, which critically examines how systems practice is, or might be, utilised at different levels from the personal to the societal. The development of our capabilities to think and act systemically is an urgent priority and Systems Practice aims to show how to do systems thinking and translate that thinking into praxis (theory informed practical action) which will be welcomed by those managing in situations of complexity and uncertainty across all domains of professional and personal concern

Recreation in the ME or is it WE jungle

At this years Thinking Recreation symposium I was inspired by the enthusiasm delegates shared for debating, rather than seeking solutions to, a range of issues such as youth deviance, physical inactivity, resource allocation, and managing the environment. However, it was the discussion about some of the invisible influences on our work that really aroused my curiosity. In particular, the thought-provoking workshop by Robyn Cockburn on Systems Theory inspired some critical ‘thinking about recreation’. In his review of the symposium published in the 06 Spring Issue of Australasian Parks and Leisure, Geoff Canham said that this (i.e. Systems Theory) session “drew the most feedback and stimulated much discussion long after it ended”. It was evident many delegates had a desire to look beyond the pragmatics of recreation although this can pose challenges of the intellectual kind. I recall one delegate saying, “I liked the session on that theory but it can be frustrating when talking about something that seems quite vague even though you know it relates to what happens in your work.” Although ideas such as those espoused by Systems Theory are complex and often seem a little distant from the reality of our work, they are useful in helping explain something about the why and what we do

Webs of activity in online course design and teaching

In this study, we followed three faculty members' experiences with designing and teaching online courses for the first time. In order to complete the activity, the faculty members had to work -collaboratively with others across the university. Activity theory provided a framework within which to study faculty members' collaborative activities with members of different activity systems that had different goals, tools, divisions of labor and accountabilities. In concordance with activity theory, such differences led to contradictions, disturbances, and transformations in thinking and work activities. The results of the study have implications for individuals and systems undertaking technology integration in teaching

A New Distribution-Free Concept for Representing, Comparing, and Propagating Uncertainty in Dynamical Systems with Kernel Probabilistic Programming

This work presents the concept of kernel mean embedding and kernel probabilistic programming in the context of stochastic systems. We propose formulations to represent, compare, and propagate uncertainties for fairly general stochastic dynamics in a distribution-free manner. The new tools enjoy sound theory rooted in functional analysis and wide applicability as demonstrated in distinct numerical examples. The implication of this new concept is a new mode of thinking about the statistical nature of uncertainty in dynamical systems

Moving on - beyond lean thinking

Lean Thinking is currently often positioned as the underlying theory of lean production among practitioners and academics, although its originators, Womack and Jones, seem not to have presented it as a theory. This paper endeavors to analyze whether Lean Thinking can be viewed as a theory of lean production. For this purpose, a critical assessment of Lean Thinking is carried out. Lean Thinking is argued to lack an adequate conceptualization of production, which has led to imprecise concepts, such as the term “value”. The five principles of Lean Thinking do not orderly cover value generation, and they do not always encapsulate the core topics in their respective areas. The failure to trace the origin of lean concepts and principles reduces the opportunity to justify and explain them. Despite claims for generality, the application area of the five lean principles is limited to the transformation of mass production, with, for instance, one-of-a-kind production and construction being largely out of scope. It is concluded that it is opportune to move on beyond Lean Thinking, towards a generic theory of production, for acquiring a solid foundation for designing, operating and improving production systems

An Instrument to Assess Individual Capacity for System Thinking

The purpose of this research was to develop and deploy a new systems thinking instrument to assess individual capacity for systems thinking using an inductive research design. While technology has been increasing exponentially, the corresponding methods to harness those technological advances, and the problems they have spawned, is lagging. While there is a broad collection of systems based methods, techniques, technologies, and tools that can be used in dealing with complex problems, these are predicated on an individual\u27s capacity for engaging a level of systems thinking commensurate with their effective, deployment. Research based methods to determine individual capacity for systems thinking were not found in the literature. This research addressed the literature gap by developing an instrument to determine the individual capacity for systems thinking. To establish the characteristics for systems thinking, over 1000 systems based articles were analyzed and coded. Following grounded theory, as articulated by Strauss and Corbin (1990), a rigorous methodology was executed to inductively build the framework for systems thinking characteristics. Specialized software to support grounded theory, Nvivo (QRS International, version 10, 2014) was used to navigate and manage the large amount of qualitative and quantitative data for the research. A mixed method approach was used to collect and analyze qualitative and quantitative data in the initial instrument development. After deriving the set of systems thinking characteristics, a non-domain specific systems thinking (Sc) instrument was constructed to capture and measure the state of systems thinking at the individual level. The instrument consists of 39 binary questions with fourteen scored scales to measure seven main systems skills preferences. Following a pilot study for application of the instrument, it was administered to 242 participants. To establish validity, multiple validity checks including face validity, internal validity, conclusion validity and content validity were performed. Reliability testing was also conducted, including Cronbach\u27s Alpha Test and Parallel Test, with excellent results. The results of the research show significant promise for the instrument to capture the capacity of individuals to engage in systems thinking. The document concludes with directions for future research and implications for practitioners related to the capacity of individuals for systems thinking