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

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

Carbon storage and DNA absorption in allophanic soils and paleosols

Andisols and andic paleosols dominated by the nanocrystalline mineral allophane sequester large amounts of carbon (C), attributable mainly to its chemical bonding with charged hydroxyl groups on the surface of allophane together with its physical protection in nanopores within and between allophane nanoaggregates. C near-edge X-ray absorption fine structure (NEXAFS) spectra for a New Zealand Andisol (Tirau series) showed that the organic matter (OM) mainly comprises quinonic, aromatic, aliphatic, and carboxylic C. In different buried horizons from several other Andisols, C contents varied but the C species were similar, attributable to pedogenic processes operating during developmental upbuilding, downward leaching, or both. The presence of OM in natural allophanic soils weakened the adsorption of DNA on clay; an adsorption isotherm experiment involving humic acid (HA) showed that HA-free synthetic allophane adsorbed seven times more DNA than HA-rich synthetic allophane. Phosphorus X-ray absorption near-edge structure (XANES) spectra for salmonsperm DNA and DNA-clay complexes indicated that DNA was bound to the allophane clay through the phosphate group, but it is not clear if DNA was chemically bound to the surface of the allophane or to OM, or both. We plan more experiments to investigate interactions among DNA, allophane (natural and synthetic), and OM. Because DNA shows a high affinity to allophane, we are studying the potential to reconstruct late Quaternary palaeoenvironments by attempting to extract and characterise ancient DNA from allophanic paleosol

High EMSY expression defines a BRCA‐like subgroup of high‐grade serous ovarian carcinoma with prolonged survival and hypersensitivity to platinum

Background Approximately half of high‐grade serous ovarian carcinomas (HGSOCs) demonstrate homologous recombination repair (HR) pathway defects, resulting in a distinct clinical phenotype comprising hypersensitivity to platinum, superior clinical outcome, and greater sensitivity to poly(adenosine diphosphate‐ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. EMSY, which is known to be amplified in breast and ovarian cancers, encodes a protein reported to bind and inactivate BRCA2. Thus, EMSY overexpression may mimic BRCA2 mutation, resulting in HR deficiency. However, to our knowledge, the phenotypic consequences of EMSY overexpression in HGSOC patients has not been explored. Methods Here we investigate the impact of EMSY expression on clinical outcome and sensitivity to platinum‐based chemotherapy using available data from transcriptomically characterized HGSOC cohorts. Results High EMSY expression was associated with better clinical outcome in a cohort of 265 patients with HGSOC from Edinburgh (overall survival multivariable hazard ratio, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.38‐0.88; P = .011] and progression‐free survival multivariable hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.40‐0.96; P = .030]). Superior outcome also was demonstrated in the Medical Research Council ICON7 clinical trial and multiple publicly available data sets. Patients within the Edinburgh cohort who had high EMSY expression were found to demonstrate greater rates of complete response to multiple platinum‐containing chemotherapy regimens (radiological complete response rate of 44.4% vs 12.5% at second exposure; P = .035) and corresponding prolonged time to disease progression (median, 151.5 days vs 60.5 days after third platinum exposure; P = .004). Conclusions Patients with HGSOCs demonstrating high EMSY expression appear to experience prolonged survival and greater platinum sensitivity, reminiscent of BRCA‐mutant cases. These data are consistent with the notion that EMSY overexpression may render HGSOCs HR deficient

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

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

Trametinib versus standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer (GOG 281/LOGS): an international, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial

BACKGROUND: Low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum is characterised by MAPK pathway aberrations and its reduced sensitivity to chemotherapy relative to high-grade serous carcinoma. We compared the MEK inhibitor trametinib to physician's choice standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma. METHODS: This international, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial was done at 84 hospitals in the USA and UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma and measurable disease, as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1, had received at least one platinum-based regimen, but not all five standard-of-care drugs, and had received an unlimited number of previous regimens. Patients with serous borderline tumours or tumours containing low-grade serous and high-grade serous carcinoma were excluded. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral trametinib 2 mg once daily (trametinib group) or one of five standard-of-care treatment options (standard-of-care group): intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; intravenous pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 40-50 mg/m2 by body surface area once every 4 weeks; intravenous topotecan 4 mg/m2 by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; oral letrozole 2·5 mg once daily; or oral tamoxifen 20 mg twice daily. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region (USA or UK), number of previous regimens (1, 2, or ≥3), performance status (0 or 1), and planned standard-of-care regimen. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival while receiving randomised therapy, as assessed by imaging at baseline, once every 8 weeks for 15 months, and then once every 3 months thereafter, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02101788, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Feb 27, 2014, and April 10, 2018, 260 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the trametinib group (n=130) or the standard-of-care group (n=130). At the primary analysis, there were 217 progression-free survival events (101 [78%] in the trametinib group and 116 [89%] in the standard-of-care group). Median progression-free survival in the trametinib group was 13·0 months (95% CI 9·9-15·0) compared with 7·2 months (5·6-9·9) in the standard-of-care group (hazard ratio 0·48 [95% CI 0·36-0·64]; p<0·0001). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the trametinib group were skin rash (17 [13%] of 128), anaemia (16 [13%]), hypertension (15 [12%]), diarrhoea (13 [10%]), nausea (12 [9%]), and fatigue (ten [8%]). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the standard-of-care group were abdominal pain (22 [17%]), nausea (14 [11%]), anaemia (12 [10%]), and vomiting (ten [8%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Trametinib represents a new standard-of-care option for patients with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma. FUNDING: NRG Oncology, Cancer Research UK, Target Ovarian Cancer, and Novartis

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

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