TB872 Part 01 Week 02 Review

—

by

alexmakes
in ,

In week two of module TB872 Managing Change with Systems Thinking in Practice, we continue to look at our own experiences with managing change, practice identifying features of systems and effective systemic change, and look further into how we can utilise reflexive practice to engage with situations of concern.

I thought about a recent personal situation of change and how I managed it, looking for ways that I may have applied systems thinking despite not having the language to describe it as such. I recently had to move to a new town, away from my family and where I had grown up. Although I made the choice to move, it was in difficult circumstances and the process was a massive challenge. I had to do a lot of internal psychological work to cope with the huge change and the feeling of isolation. It felt necessary to somehow take control and ‘turn the situation around’. I was looking for ways to continue improving my situation by creating opportunities for myself. Inspired by my siblings that were working hard at school and university, I remembered that I had previously been successful in academic studies and it could be a way to regain control and self-confidence.

I was able to make changes to improve my living situation by evaluating the situation I was in, systematically making realistic plans based on evaluation of predicted potential futures, and taking action. The situation was changed by actions that were based on my beliefs, but the process was somewhat chaotic and I then had to deal with a new set of circumstances (the changed situation). Having learnt from my experiences, I was also changed in terms of my feelings and goals. I thought that having loosely structured studies could be useful for creating a sense of balance or control by providing a point of focus and direction in a situation that felt otherwise quite uncertain.

The situations that we are in, are part of systems of continuous change with feedback from the changing situation or the elements within, causing change within ourselves that informs the next action in the sequence. Every experience we have originates from a series of physical reactions that we interpret and add to our history of experiences. All of these inform our future decisions, the actions we make, and the situations we experience. We exist in a system of our own making, trying to make sense of informational inputs through our biological senses—a continuous process of experiencing, learning and adapting through the knowledge we have built upon in every moment of our lives.

We choose to focus on the systems that matter to us. We create them, bounded by our own conceptualisation using the information we deem important. Sometimes enough people agree on what they consider to be a systemic issue, that they see the value of working together to find and fix problems in their joint situation of concern. In Activity 1.13, we looked at two news articles (Cox, C. (2018) ‘Systemic failures’ by Network Rail led to Northern and TransPennine timetable crisis, rail regulator says. Manchester Evening News and Spero, J. (2018) ‘Indefensible optimism’ behind UK’s rail timetabling debacle. Financial Times to identify features of an incident that led the commentators to describe it as a systemic or ‘system-wide’ failure.

Both articles provide references to features of the 2018 ‘Northern and TransPennine timetable crisis’ that describe the incident as a systemic failure. The authors mention the various individuals and member organisations of the formally unified public rail service, now privatised network of operators attempting to provide a connected service. The Financial Times (FT) article refers to their previous report that remarked on “the astonishing complexity of a disaggregated railway” where private train operators ran on public infrastructure with “competing commercial interests”.

Network Rail, which owns and managed the UK’s rail infrastructure, and the Department for Transport apparently did not meet expectations for effective communication, planning and oversight, resulting in delays to infrastructure projects that could have improved efficiency. As a hierarchical structure, with Network Rail being responsible for supporting lower levels of the system to be productive, all failures by Network Rail to function optimally cause problems throughout the system. The transport select committee commented that “no one took charge of the situation”, implying that those at the “top of the system” had a responsibility to take action for the sake of the whole system.

A series of compounding delays were reported to be the cause of massive disruption for passengers, as parts of the network failed to deliver expected services. Each delay caused knock-on effects, and failure of the managing body to deliver on projects caused difficulties for rail operators to manage their services without further delays. For example, delays to electrification projects led to driver shortage, which led to delays and cancellations. A seven week delay in provision of a timetable to operators meant that timetables couldn’t be finalised on time, affecting passengers and breaching license requirements. Despite this, a parliamentary report said that parts of the industry demonstrated an “indefensible optimism bias”—could this be a sign of the archetypal ‘Drift to Low Performance’ as discussed by DH Meadows in Thinking in Systems?

When perceived performance slips, the goal is allowed to slip. “Well, that’s about all you can expect.” “Well, we’re not doing much worse than we were last year.” “Well, look around, everybody else is having trouble too.”

The balancing feedback loop that should keep the system state at an acceptable level is overwhelmed by a reinforcing feedback loop heading downhill. The lower the perceived system state, the lower the desired state. The lower the desired state, the less discrepancy, and the less corrective action is taken. The less corrective action, the lower the system state. If this loop is allowed to run unchecked, it can lead to a continuous degradation in the system’s performance.

Meadows, D.H. (2008) Thinking in systems: A Primer

Anthony Smith, chief executive of consumer organisation Transport Focus, described how the design of the system was not suited to its current function due to “competing interests” from the different actors: “It was a structure designed for a very different kind of railway from the kind that’s operating.” Smith also said that the service lacked local and national accountability to the end users. Network Rail’s chief executive Andrew Haines, acknowledged the systemic approach required to managed the rail service, stating that a “whole-system approach to timetable planning and implementation, with effective oversight and accountability, must be the way forward”.

Although undoubtedly many rail passengers would have been affected by the situation, it was interesting to consider how the language used could have possibly contributed to the situation being seen by many people as ‘systemic’, ‘a failure’, ‘a crisis’. The language also helps to distribute responsibility in a situation where apparently it was unclear who was in charge. Network Rail have responsibility to oversee the various parts of the system, but with several private companies with their own sub-systems of interest and not enough of a unifying goal it seems that systemic problems with information flows and delays were exaggerated. This brings up issues that may be inherent with systems made up of competitive elements and not enough incentive to collaborate to keep the whole functional. Bounded rationality can result in harmful reinforcing feedback loops and requires regulation especially where there could easily be a common goal that, if served well, benefits all stakeholders.

In a video by Royal Society of Art, Emeritus Professor Stein Ringen of the University of Oxford talks about systemic failure in UK governance. The talk references his research and book titled The Economic Consequences of Mr Brown (2009). I recall many of the videos from RSA that I enjoyed because of the engaging animations illustrating the topic alongside the speaker. The drawings are edited to flow with the content, translating the spoken word into memorable visuals. In this video, the visual scribe, Andrew Park, skilfully simplifies concepts through graphic depiction, making a potentially complex topic easily digestible to a wider audience. This is an example of how diagramming is a useful tool when exploring systems, especially if the communication is between stakeholders of varying areas of expertise and understanding. It would be especially helpful in a group setting where individuals may need a quick way to express their understanding of a system, whereas in video format, there are a variety of visual ways for creators to communicate. By using simple illustrations in their videos, the RSA appeared relatable by explaining things the way we might explain something to someone in an informal context where it matters to us that everyone involved is understood.

The drawings were helpful in communicating Ringen’s systemic analysis of the effects of governmental policy over time, and the scanning of the camera back to certain areas of the diagram reiterate the importance of learning from the past. The human figures literally humanise parts of the system and actions taken, forcing us to consider the people who are responsible for certain actions, and the people that are affected. Ringen wants us to remember those people, and directly mentions Margaret Thatcher’s ‘legacy of reckless inequality’, and the failings of New Labour in correcting the mistakes of previous governments. However, the focus of the talk remains on the system of governance and constitution.

The study that Ringen talks about conducting, looks at inequality across several indicators that government policies directly affected, namely national healthcare, crime, education and child poverty. It is clear that the level of inequality is the major indicator for Ringen of whether the societal system is functioning well—if it isn’t functioning well, we will see that the population suffers from poor health and education, high crime levels, and children not having access to resources that would allow them to thrive or perhaps even survive. According to Ringen, inputs from the government in regards to funding, policy, and tools to manage areas of inequality were sufficient but positive outcomes were negligible with inequalities persisting.

Analysis of the system of government shows that it is very centralised, with leaders at Downing Street in command, as Thatcher’s conservative government intended. Labour chose to continue with this system structure and the same systemic issues persisted. Local populations, health institutions, schools, and neighbourhoods were not mobilised to solve the serious problems they were facing. Ringen suggests that distribution of power could be the answer: restoration of the House of Commons; reinvention of local democracy and devolution of power; changing political funding to be more transparent, no longer sponsored by lobbyists, and more fairly distributed with voters having control. These actions are systemically desirable if we agree with Ringen that we do not want a society that continues to be stifled by persistent structures of inequality for decades to come.

By comparing Ringen’s research with that of Lixian Qian and Juelin Yin (2017) in Activity 1.15, I began to think more about how important it is to consider not only systemic desirability, but also cultural feasibility when we think about enacting change within a system. The study by Qian and Yin (2017) exploring consumer attitudes to electric vehicles (EVs) looked into cultural values that may affect decision-making. The study is based on human perception rather than factual outcomes, which is appropriate for the purpose but may be more difficult to assess subjective factors. Nevertheless we can surmise that cultural values are affected by differing circumstances in different places. For example, EVs may be considered to have great environmental benefits in countries where fossil fuel consumption for transportation, and carbon emissions from vehicles are problematic. However, in China, electricity is largely generated by coal, and coal power plants are one of the main sources of air pollution. There would need to be major systemic changes for the benefits of EVs to the environment to be applicable.

A switch to electric vehicles might require a multitude of factors such as societal awareness of environmental issues, knowledge of where electricity comes from, the pros and cons of different energy sources, personal interest in environmental issues, cultural value placed on environmental consciousness. There is likely to be less cultural value if the benefits of EVs are not likely or not visible. It would be difficult for policy-makers and marketers to convince people to care about switching to a different type of vehicle.

Depending on the intention, various methods may be employed to manage the situation. Is the goal to protect the environment or to sell cars? If we want to protect the environment, then maybe encouraging people to use public transport, cycle or walk, would make more sense than trying to sell electric cars in China. Even in countries where EVs are better for the environment than other vehicles, the purchase of a new electric vehicle is still more harmful than ride-sharing or getting the bus. As Vigo (2018) says, “part of the problem of resolving the issues around ecological solutions to transport like EVs begins with the proposition that many people don’t need to own personal vehicles in the first place.”

Unlike the Ringen study, Qian and Yin’s work reflects both on whether certain actions are culturally feasible and systemically desirable. This provides an additional dimension to the evaluation of potential effectiveness of actions. We can see that in China it is not systemically desirable to promote widespread uptake of electric vehicles without there first being systemic changes to how electricity is produced. Because it is not a systemically desirable action, it is also not culturally feasible because people would need to believe that buying electric vehicles is beneficial to the system and themselves. This has implications for policy and marketing because if, for example, businesses want to sell EVs regardless of the minimal environmental benefits in China, then studies like Qian and Yin (2017) would be very useful in informing those businesses on the factors preventing uptake of EVs by consumers, and therefore how they might market their products differently.

I feel disappointed, sad, and frustrated thinking that the outcome of research studies into environmentally sustainable technologies is likely to be used by corporations and wealthy individuals to make more money by further exploiting the environment. Sourcing unsustainable materials in destructive ways, manufacturing millions of units of things that will end up in a non-biodegradable pile of garbage for millions of years, selling harmful products to people that don’t need them… and we help them do it whether we want to or not, because we live in systems designed for exploitation and unsustainable growth benefitting only a small percentage of the Earth’s population.

What I liked about Ringen’s research is that it seems to be based on the premise that equality is systemically desirable which reflects a specific point of concern, refined further by the areas of study—health, education, crime, poverty. By studying the factors that promote inequality in society, we can start to look for culturally feasible methods to reduce inequality and support the parts of the system that do the systemically desirable thing. If we start with the question “how can we sell a thing?” rather than “how do we do the systemically desirable thing?”, how likely are we to come up with a systemically desirable solution? What we choose to inquire about reflects our area of interest or concern. Despite having systemically desirable suggestions for actions, Ringen’s ideas were unfortunately not very culturally feasible at that time although that may not be true in future. And just as corporations may use marketing to convince us that their product is systemically desirable or necessary, there are also ways to change the cultural feasibility of a concept. Unfortunately, most marketing is purposefully manipulative (or deceptive) and whether we can expect systemically desirable or culturally feasible outcomes is unknown, sometimes until it is too late.

If we want to conduct our practice and inquiry in a more ethical way we can be more transparent about our own thinking—what we value, what we want to achieve, what our purpose is when we act systemically. Analysis of ourselves in relation to systems is also useful for getting feedback on our practice, and building understanding within groups. A primary tool for thinking about our relationship to systems (and progressing through the TB872 module) is the PFMS heuristic.

Diagram depicting module map for TB872 as proposed by the course designers
Diagram depicting module map for TB872 as proposed by the course designers

The PFMS heuristic is a learning tool to help us understand systems as we relate to them. The acronym PFMS stands for Practitioner-Framework-Method-Situation. As part of the TB872 Managing Change with STiP module, it is useful for thinking about how we manage change, and how we do things when we are doing them. When thinking about managing change, there is usually a situation of interest with which we are engaging. Our ‘practice’ exists in that engagement and places us within the situation as a practitioner and participant.

The situation is contextual, so there are meanings attached to it by anyone that thinks about or engages with it. Our understanding of the situation is shaped by our own histories, experiences, opinions—our tradition of understanding. It would be very difficult to think about a situation without building on existing connections in our brains and minds, as this is how we learn things. Our worldviews form the basis of our interpretations of situations, how we go on to engage with the situation, effect change and learn from the process.

The way we think about the situation is the ‘framework’, and the way we act is the ‘method’ of managing the situation. As Practitioners thinking about the Framework and Method that we use to explore and engage with a Situation, we are able to have a more holistic or systemic way of thinking that takes into account the relational, reflexive nature of our practice.

After my first reading of Ison, R. (2010) Systems Practice: How to Act in a Climate-Change World, the author states that the PFMS model “…is an attempt to move away from the traditional dualism of subjective (our inner dynamics) and objective (the outer world, or the ‘reality’ out there) to a dynamic relation between ourselves and the world we assume to exist outside ourselves”, and therefore in regards to systems practice, “the place to start is with the situation and not the system”. The most profound and challenging part of this is bringing constant awareness to the way that our existence, our ways of thinking, being and doing, impacts the mental models we create. Through our dynamic relations to a situation, we develop models, language, and practices built entirely on our own constructions of reality on the shaky foundations of just more conceptual structures going all the way down. How much has our attachment to models of our own making affected the stability of the systems we engage with? What differences could be made by looking at ourselves before making judgements about systems of interest?

Everything we understand is a model, and the way we communicate our understanding adds another layer to the reality we have constructed. There is no freedom from limited subjective interpretation of the situation we find ourselves in, so the next best thing to objectivity is gaining awareness of how we do the things we do so that we can at least filter out some of the biased contributions we make. At some point, maybe we can collaboratively find some version of reality through the process of elimination that allows us to make more informed decisions with fewer systemically harmful consequences.

We naturally think about situations with input from subconscious biases, and specific interests and values that determine which parts of a system we focus on. Practitioners that are aware of their part in the system can consciously decide on a system of interest within a situation of concern, and think about the parts of the system from different perspectives. Awareness allows us to see that other people do not have the same backgrounds as us, so they will likely assign different purposes or functions to the system, and have different systems of interest. We can use this understanding in many ways, for example, to learn more about the situation, reduce or resolve conflict amongst stakeholders. We can also decide to choose different ways to think about the situation, system elements and interconnections, and alternative definitions of system boundaries for deeper exploration of a situation of concern.

I am excited to begin applying some of the information and understanding I have gained through the course so far, with some guidance through the course activities. My concern is that I do not have many ways to facilitate efficient co-inquiry at the moment, aside from the module forum and I have already confessed to my tutor that it has become somewhat overwhelming to interact with it. Students are working at different paces, and sharing their work on the forums with frequent updates. These are some of the benefits of doing online courses, but there are some factors that I struggle with, especially as it is expected that we post to the boards and benefit as much as possible from social learning (especially as part of the module is about social learning and communities of practice). Unfortunately, it does not always feel natural posting in the forums, maybe because we are encouraged to do so…

It is hard to ascertain from forum posts what people are like, if they want to engage with you or are doing so because it is encouraged on this course. I can’t tell whether we are on the same level, or if I am correct to listen to my anxiety telling me that I can’t keep up. My tutor was reassuring that all students have similar concerns. Logically, I know that I am completing activities at the recommended pace so I’m not technically behind. It is just a different experience to the Bachelor’s Degree that I did which was very practical and involved a lot of in-person group workshops. In those workshops, we could get all sorts of useful feedback from the tutors and other students throughout creative processes. You know where you are with people when they tell you to your face.

You can pick up a lot more about people’s thinking styles, why they think the way they do, through in-person conversation. If nothing else, we could find commonality in the fact that we all lived in the same city and had access to the same student bars. We may not have all had the same direction in our studies, but we shared jokes, formed some meaningful (and not so meaningful) companionships, found friendship as well as a diversity of viewpoints that contributed to our learning experience. Maybe I’m just getting nostalgic as I am realising how different this educational experience will be, but also because TB872 is focused on introspection and evaluation of how we manage the situations we are in.

There are, of course, pros and cons to both online and offline group learning. For example, in my experience, in-person groups can get cliquey after some time, and subconscious biases may limit our openness to different perspectives. Although we can see names on the online forum and some people have (compressed, blurry) profile pictures, it’s harder to figure out how old people are, what they look like, where they might be from etc. All we can see is what they share about their jobs, and what we can assume is that everyone is intelligent and educated.

Formal networking has always made me feel weird and awkward. I’m sure there are plenty of extroverts that feel differently, but it would be worthwhile to find ways of building community that were inclusive of diverse personality types and their ways of socialising or communicating. There’s a lot more to it that just having compatible communication styles though. In the book Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice, Chris Blackmore (2010) writes “Certainly communities of practice are networks in the sense that they involve connections among members; but there is also identification with a domain and commitment to a learning partnership, which are not necessarily present in a network.” Perhaps this is part of the reason why interactions with the forum feels forced, and I feel anxious—we haven’t had time to form community, and I don’t feel that we have a shared identity. At the moment it just feels like all we have in common is that we all chose to study this module. Maybe this will change with time and with a more analytic, reflective eye as we progress through the module, we will be able to note the changes and features of the group that made it a community. For now, I’m not sure that I can comfortably engage whilst being authentic. There is a fear of judgment and exclusion which I think is natural for a lot of people in new situations with new people. I could easily convince myself that I can do anything on my own but I also know that there is so much to be gained through the sharing of ideas, feedback, critique, and encouragement.

References:

Read more:

Hello! 👋
It’s nice to meet you.

I hope you’ll stay in touch 🙂

Subscribe to get updates on products, special offers, projects, blog posts and reviews. It’s free!

There’ll be no spam or sneakiness here, but it’s important you agree with the privacy policy before subscribing.

Share:

Browse Tags:

NB: These articles/essays are a record of my personal thoughts, theories, opinions, reviews, and of my learning process and understanding at time of writing (unless otherwise stated). These all change over time and I do not claim to know anything as a fact. Please refer to any source materials cited to form your own opinions (and then come back so we can talk about it!)

Comments

Leave a Reply