Russell Ackoff

Russell Ackoff (usually known as ‘Russ’) was a pioneer of the application of systems approaches to management, both through theoretical developments and through a deep and practical engagement with many different organisations. He was a strong advocate of the need for systems approaches to take full account of the complexity of inter-related problems and not simply to present glib technical solutions

Critical systems heuristics

Critical systems heuristics (CSH) is a framework for reflective professional practice organised around the central tool of boundary critique. This paper, written jointly by the original developer, Werner Ulrich, and Martin Reynolds, an experienced practitioner of CSH, offers a systematic introduction to the idea and use of boundary critique. Its core concepts are explained in detail and their use is illustrated by means of two case studies from the domain of environmental planning and management. A particular focus is on working constructively with tensions between opposing perspectives as they arise in many situations of professional intervention. These include tensions such as ‘situation’ versus ‘system’, ‘is’ versus ‘ought’ judgements, concerns of ‘those involved’ versus ‘those affected but not involved’, stakeholders’ ‘stakes’ versus ‘stakeholding issues’, and others. Accordingly, boundary critique is presented as a participatory process of unfolding and questioning boundary judgements rather than as an expert-driven process of boundary setting. The paper concludes with a discussion of some essential skills and considerations regarding the practice of boundary critique. Parts of the account of the NRUA-Botswana study in Section 6.2 of the present paper are reproduced from an earlier publication by one of the authors (Reynolds 2007); we are grateful to the publishers of Edge Press, Point Reyes, CA, for granting us permission to reproduce this material. We do not need the systems concept at all if we are not interested in handling systems boundaries critically

Mediating boundaries between knowledge and knowing: ICT and R4D praxis

Research for development (R4D) praxis (theory-informed practical action) can be underpinned by the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) which, it is claimed, provide opportunities for knowledge working and sharing. Such a framing implicitly or explicitly constructs a boundary around knowledge as reified, or commodified – or at least able to be stabilized for a period of time (first order knowledge). In contrast ‘third-generation knowledge’ emphasizes the social nature of learning and knowledge-making; this reframes knowledge as a negotiated social practice, thus constructing a different system boundary. This paper offers critical reflections on the use of a wiki as a data repository and mediating technical platform as part of innovating in R4D praxis. A sustainable social learning process was sought that fostered an emergent community of practice among biophysical and social researchers acting for the first time as R4D co-researchers. Over time the technologically mediated element of the learning system was judged to have failed. This inquiry asks: How can learning system design cultivate learning opportunities and respond to learning challenges in an online environment to support R4D practice? Confining critical reflection to the online learning experience alone ignores the wider context in which knowledge work took place; therefore the institutional setting is also considered

Introducing systems approaches

Systems Approaches to Managing Change brings together five systems approaches to managing complex issues, each having a proven track record of over 25 years. The five approaches are: System Dynamics (SD) developed originally in the late 1950s by Jay Forrester Viable Systems Model (VSM) developed originally in the late 1960s by Stafford Beer Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA: with cognitive mapping) developed originally in the 1970s by Colin Eden Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) developed originally in the 1970s by Peter Checkland Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) developed originally in the late 1970s by Werner Ulrich

Chapter 1: Introducing systems approaches

The five approaches covered in Systems Approaches to Making Change – System Dynamics (SD) Viable Systems Model (VSM), Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA: with cognitive mapping), Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), and Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) – are introduced. The rationale for their inclusion is described based on their (i) common historic emergence in dealing with complex situations of change and uncertainty, (ii) shared potential and actual constructivist use of the systems idea, and (iii) pedigree of adaptability and versatility of tools in working with other approaches to making change

Thinking differently about sustainability: experiences from the UK Open University

Systems thinking is often invoked as a panacea for dealing with issues of sustainable development. Imperatives towards being more holistic - getting the bigger picture – are often coupled with a need for greater interdisciplinarity - joined-up-thinking – particularly amongst triple bottom line disciplines of economics, social studies and natural sciences. So why are systems thinking courses not more prevalent? And how might the teaching of systems thinking enhance the value of thinking differently about sustainable development? The Open University, UK, is a recognised international leader in the provision of Systems education for over 40 years. More recent experiences with the launch of a postgraduate Systems Thinking in Practice suite of qualifications at Certificate, Diploma, and Masters level, suggest an appetite for systems thinking amongst mature-age part-time students from a variety of professional backgrounds with an interest in learning for sustainability. This paper outlines three key features of the two core modules of the programme - epistemic understanding, active pedagogy, and design praxis. Significantly, these attributes have helped to complement rather than replace existing skill-sets amongst professionals from different sectors working in the field of sustainable development

Ch. 6. Critical Systems Heuristics: The Idea and Practice of Boundary Critique

Critical systems heuristics (CSH) is a framework for reflective professional practice organised around the central tool of boundary critique. This chapter, written jointly by the original developer, Werner Ulrich, and Martin Reynolds, an experienced practitioner of CSH, offers a systematic introduction to the idea and use of boundary critique. Its core concepts are explained in detail and their use is illustrated by means of two case studies from the domain of environmental planning and management. A particular focus is on working constructively with tensions between opposing perspectives as they arise in many situations of professional intervention. These include tensions such as ‘situation’ versus ‘system’, ‘is’ versus ‘ought’ judgements, concerns of ‘those involved’ versus ‘those affected but not involved’, stakeholders’ ‘stakes’ versus ‘stakeholding issues’, and others. Accordingly, boundary critique is presented as a participatory process of unfolding and questioning boundary judgements rather than as an expert-driven process of boundary setting. The paper concludes with a discussion of some essential skills and considerations regarding the practice of boundary critique

Individual Actions as Community Informative Resources. A Collective Informative Systems Approach

This paper conceives communities (in this case, partnerships) as being able to become collective informative repositories of individual and collective actions that may better-inform their members. This paper presents one approach for studying if a community has become such an informative repository. The approach used here consists of introducing a formal language (Viable Systems Modelling, VSM) into one of the community nodes (a participant) and tracing if its use is seen in another node (another participant) - indicating the presence of a process of diffusion. This research design has been tested in a crime-reduction partnership in the UK. One of its members was asked to engage in the design and testing of this approach as a co-researcher. As a result, a questionnaire to map communication and control devices inside an organization was jointly developed. In keeping with VSM principles, the questionnaire encouraged participants to reflect on attenuation and amplification processes within their communications channels. To test the quality of the outcomes of this approach, members from another crime-reduction partnership were also invited to answer the survey; this was to confirm that VSM notions were not evident for those outside the development and testing of the questionnaire. The questionnaire indicated also its capability to make visible communication and organizational processes within collectives and its potential to stimulate self-organization, for those individuals who became familiar with VSM. Furthermore, this approach provided the authors with the capability to study information flows inside the two collectives, and contributed to an understanding of these flows as a model for building and maintaining a Community Informative System

Enabling political legitimacy and conceptual integration for climate change adaptation research within an agricultural bureaucracy: a systemic inquiry

The value of using systems approaches, for situations framed as ‘super wicked’, is examined from the perspective of research managers and stakeholders in a state-based climate change adaptation (CCA) program (CliChAP). Polycentric drivers influencing the development of CCA research pre-2010 in Victoria, Australia are reflected on, using Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) to generate a boundary critique of CCA research as a human activity system. We experienced the complexity of purpose with research practices pulling in different directions, reflected on the appropriateness of agricultural bureaucracies’ historical new public management (NPM) practices, and focused on realigning management theory with emerging demands for adaptation research skills and capability. Our analysis conceptualised CliChAP as a subsystem, generating novelty in a wider system, concerned with socio-ecological co-evolution. Constraining/enabling conditions at the time dealing with political legitimacy and conceptual integration were observed as potential catalysts for innovation in research management towards better handling of uncertainty as a social process using systemic thinking in practice (StiP)