Questions about systemic design

Can system design help to shift paradigms and build new systems, new ways of organizing ourselves, new institutions, organizations, new patterns? Or does emergence just happen without it, without intent, and do “system designers” just want to believe their practices and methodologies (contribute to) ‘change systems’?

Thinking and doing around ‘systemic design’ is gaining momentum. There are government teams (Co-Lab in Alberta, Canada), consultancies (Systems Studio in New York), bloggers, conferences and academic journals aligning over this topic. But what is it? Dr. Alex Ryan (ex- Alberta Co-Lab, now MarSS Solutions lab) writes: ‘Systemics (a broad family of systems practices and systems thinking approaches) is an interdisciplinary field for seeing the world in terms of connections and interactions. Design (a wide range of design practices and design thinking approaches) is an interdisciplinary tradition of situated learning through action. Together, they open up a field of possibility for making sense of and making progress in white-water [complex, MK] situations.”

In Systemic Design the ‘Systemic Designer’ plays a special role, writes Ryan: “As [system] designers, we enter complex, gridlocked situations as gridlock smiths. Our job is to disentangle the complex relationships between different parts of the organization and its environment, to get the organization unstuck, and to get it moving again in a direction that better matches the unfolding flow of the situation. This cannot happen by a process of continuous improvement. Design is a discontinuity: a point where something genuinely novel emerges that could not be predicted by extrapolating from the past.” (Ryan, 2017).

This week I get the chance to advance my own thinking and doing on this rather complex theme by participating in the event “Bringing Practice into Words and Words into Practice”, organized by the Watershed Partners in Victoria, BC. Over two days conversations will be facilitated between system theory folks like Nora Bateson (The International Bateson Institute) and Gail Taylor (MG Taylor Methodology), and system practitioner folks from Watershed, Valueweb, Tomorrow Makers and Provincial Government (me!).

The event is organized on the massive rock I now call home, Vancouver Island, BC. That in itself is exciting, these kind of events rarely make it across the pond (thanks, Watershed!). What’s also exciting is that this event is about topics I’ve been learning about for some time: emergence by design, systems theory (Donella Meadows) and systems practice for the ‘common good’* (*note to oneself: always make explicit what that is, and for whom, out loud). The most exciting part however is that strangers get to meet each other.

What can we learn from each others thinking and doing? How can we apply what we’ve learned into our practices? Are there tools or methodologies that facilitate breaking away from patterns?

What do I bring to the event? Well, some experience (success and failure) on the topic. I’ve organized events about systems change (Wicked Series and Lab about Labs), I’ve written some think pieces about design thinking and systems change, and I’ve co-developed two ‘systems change’ methodologies. One was an epic fail (Dynamic Evaluation), one could be considered a small success (Feed Forward Stories). Both methodologies give ‘stories’ (and its story tellers still attached, not designers) the lead role in shifting systems because they emerge from within systems and lend themselves well for contextual research. But mainly I just have questions about systems design, questions I struggle with ever since I first learned about systems and systems design, which was five years ago. So those I will bring.

Question 1: Does systems change need a methodology?

My assumption is that intentional “methodologies” or ‘approaches’ (steps to take, guides to follow, play books to play with, intentional practices) are needed to liberate systemic societal issues. But is that really the case? When does a methodology restrict, instead of liberate a systemic issue? What are the methodological elements that liberate or restrain a systemic issue? Maybe working with principles (ie. bring outside knowledge inside, connect strong social networks with weak social networks, work with stories and numbers) might just be enough to set off (or contribute to) a movement, and institutes, organizations just follow.

I bring this question up because sometimes I feel caught up in my own brain child (“Feed Forward Stories”), and so were the people I worked with (“Marli, we can see the themes now, do we really have to stick to the steps or can we skip them? And: Can we get rid of the citizens on our team now? Thanks!”). Feed Forward Stories proved to be a time consuming change methodology, especially for a small non-profit like Kennisland. And although I was part of its conception, I also started to wonder: is there a way to get to the same outcomes (systemic insights, collaboration, learning) faster, easier, without a strong methodology? What happens when a team is given a systemic challenge, and a team is able to work freely (not following a playbook or service design process or budget or timeline), would they arrive with the same/more/less ease to the same enablers and results? I don’t know.

Question 2: What is the role of stories in systems change?

In working on systemic challenges, Nora Bateson writes about the importance of developing and using something she calls “Warm Data”. “Warm Data” is data with a nest of relations still intact, as opposed to Cold Data (quantitative or qualitative data taken out of its context). It is “information about the interrelationships that integrate elements of a complex system.” Bateson thinks producing and using this kind of contextualized research is key to finding loopholes in systemic challenges.

Now .. I wholly and fully admit that this “warm data” stuff is a really complex concept to wrap my head around in practice. Under different names (ie. “generative potential of relationships”, “design with relationships in mind”) I’ve tried to understand it for the past five years, ever since meeting and working with thinkers like David Lane (Ontological Uncertainty and Innovation) and Gerard de Zeeuw in the “Emergence by Design” project.

Over the years I think it’s safe to say that I never fully understood their systems theories, and I think it’s also safe to say the ‘theorists’ never really fully understood my ‘systems practice’ (as in that “thing”, where you have to “do” something with actual people who need/want things). There was a void, and the way out was never found. So in this void I (the Anthropologist) intuitively turned towards working with ‘stories’. Stories don’t leave the context out (especially when they stay tied to the storyteller) and stories can contain experience and instructions for change. And different stories (and their storytellers) become a very powerful tool when they are intentionally connected over a topic or a theme, hence “Feed Forward Stories”.

So how to work with stories when changing paradigms and systems? I still don’t fully know or understand. Bateson writes a little bit about stories:

The role of stories is (or should be) gaining momentum in the field of systems design. How do others work with stories? The most recent and most powerful example I’ve seen comes from my old colleagues in the Emergence by Design project. Their work on the Open Care project, and Massive Open Online Ethnography (MOOE) is fascinating and promising. I can’t get enough of seeing those webs of storytellers, their stories, and the emerging themes, and I can only dream of what a storytelling project would look like for a government working together with stakeholders and citizens over a systemic challenge in society (ie. new services for elderly care, mental health). But I also see its faults. How to ‘value’ connections beyond counting them? How to not only collect but also collectively analyze & interpret “warm data”?

Question 3: how to be a systems leader and leave your own ‘power’ hat at home?

“Design may be complicit in supporting elites”. This article by Otto von Busch and Karl Palmas rightly critiques IDEO, a large design firm, for celebrating design thinking as the solution for every complex problem (ie. democratizing capitalism, complex warfare). The authors advocate for better use of ‘participatory design techniques’. However, I feel that that in itself is even not enough to start shifting systems, because if the system design power lies with a designer who operates in a dominant power system or if the designer comes from a certain cultural background, then the invitation to participate in this process to people with backgrounds that historically had less or even no institutionalized power, is an unfair deal.

Consequently the power imbalance will be represented in any new direction the group comes up with. This article on design for (not with or by) First Nations — aboriginal communities in Australia is illustrative: “Co-design with community groups cannot work if government asks for input after the big decisions have already been made or rush consultation” (..) “Without systematic change in mainstream attitudes and practices, and incorporation of Aboriginal peoples in all stages of policy design, health policies will remain unproductive.”

That brings me to the question of leadership. Who can best lead systemic design processes, and how? In her book “Small Arcs of Larger Circles: Framing Through Other Patterns” Bateson writes about ‘contextual leadership’: “Leadership does not reside in a person, but in an arena that can be occupied by offerings of specific wisdom to the needs of the community. So leadership produced collectively in the community, not the individual. The individual’s responsibility is to be ready and willing to show up, serve, and then, most importantly, stand back. Leadership for this era is not a role or a set of traits; it’s a zone of inter-relational process. Step in, step out.’ (p. 87).

The closest I’ve come to seeing her idea of contextual leadership come to life is in the concept of “Teal Organizations”, by Frederic LaLoux. He writes on his Wiki: “Teal organizations are characterized by self-organization and self-management. The hierarchical “predict and control” pyramid (…) is replaced with a decentralized structure consisting of small teams that take responsibility for their own governance and for how they interact with other parts of the organization.” (..) “the organizational structure in Teal is characterized by rapid change and adaptation, as adjustments are continuously made to better serve the organization’s purpose.”. This YouTube does an excellent job in further explaining his ideas about “Teal” (*don’t mind the agile/lean part):

What do contextual leadership and “Teal Organizations” mean in the context of systemic design? And what could Teal mean for systemic designers in government structures?