Humanitarian Innovation Needs Systems Thinking — Part 1

Illustration by Hans Park

By Annie Neimand, Ph.D. and Ann Christiano. Part 2 is available here.

Innovation to improve the work of protecting and serving refugees requires problem solving methods that uncover structural and human barriers, and tools for thinking through, testing and experimenting with possible solutions.

Innovation and organizations scholars Dave Francis and John Bessant (2005) have identified four types of innovation within an organization: changes to products and services, changes in the way those products and services are created and delivered, changes in how products and services are communicated, and changes in what the organization actually does.

To drive these innovations, innovators need to understand the systems they are working within, whether those are internal systems created by human resources or local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) crucial for delivering emergency aid. They need to understand the motivations of the various stakeholders, the norms and values shaping the organization’s culture, and policies and procedures that create formalized standards within the organization.

To identify the right problem to solve, innovators use systems thinking. Systems thinking is a methodology for identifying the root causes of complex problems and identifying interventions for systems change. This holistic approach to problem solving is critical for humanitarian innovation that works to create change within the sector by both introducing new ways of doing work or improving current practices (Warner, 2017).

What is Systems Thinking?

Whether you are trying to improve an internal process within an organization, or change how services are provided to communities, systems thinking helps us look beneath surface-level problems, to deeply understand a problem and to identify solutions. Without adopting this way of thinking, you may create unintended consequences that, at best, address the symptoms but not the causes of a problem. At worst, you may cause more harm than good.

There are lots of different types of systems: mechanical, ecological, biological and human-made. From our own bodies, to our families, to the cities we live in, we all exist among various types of systems (Kim, 1999). A system is made up of interrelated parts that work together to form a complex whole for a particular purpose. Each part serves a function within the system, has relationships to other parts, and all work together to produce a particular outcome.

Systems are made up of elements (the parts) and their interconnections (the relationships of the parts to each other). All elements work together to produce a particular outcome, which is the purpose of the system. For example, the purpose of a toaster is to toast bread, the purpose of a school is to educate children, and the purpose of an innovation team is to improve the functions and services of an organization. If the elements within the system are not interacting and interconnected, then you do not have a system (Meadows, 2008).

Let’s think about the hiring system within an organization. The purpose of a hiring system is to hire the most qualified candidate for an open position. In general, a hiring system is likely made up of elements such as available positions, hiring managers, job descriptions, advertisements, hiring committees, interviews, physical space, and financial resources for salary and benefits. All of these elements are interconnected. The hiring manager is responsible for writing and advertising the job description. How he or she does that will likely be influenced by organizational norms, culture and policies, as well as personal beliefs and experiences. Within a system, you need all the elements for the system to function. If you take out any of the parts, it will not function as a system. Without financial resources, a hiring manager or a job description, the hiring system can not serve its function.

How might we look at humanitarian interventions as a whole made of parts that do — or sometimes do not — work together? Delivering new and creative solutions requires engagement with different actors and sectors. For example, if internet connectivity is available but is not being used by refugee communities in a specific location, we’d want to understand the root cause of this issue rather than make assumptions. To better understand what problem we are trying to solve with an intervention would require collaboration not only with local communities but with regulators, governments, and mobile network operators. These players would provide insight into where there is a weak link within the larger connectivity system–whether that is cost, access or something else preventing refugees from having the choice to connect.

In order to address systems problems, we have to be able to identify all of the elements and their interconnections to look at the system as a whole. This will allow us to see how the parts are interrelated to produce a particular outcome.

Systems are constantly seeking to maintain stability in order to function. They do so through feedback loops. Systems thinking and sustainability expert Leyla Acarouglu wrote, “Since everything is interconnected, there are constant feedback loops and flows between elements of a system. We can observe, understand, and intervene in feedback loops once we understand their type and dynamics…Understanding feedback loops is about gaining perspective of causality: how one thing results in another thing in a dynamic and constantly evolving system.”

Systems problems can often be found in feedback loops. According to a report produced by the Humanitarian Innovation Fund, “The humanitarian system features perverse incentives and many other institutional blockages to change. These arise as a result of broken feedback loops between users and producers” (Obrecht and Warner, 2016).

There are two main types of feedback loops used in systems thinking: reinforcing and balancing. Reinforcing feedback loops, sometimes referred to as “snowballing,” occur when change happens in one direction. Think of an untouched savings account accruing interest, a business booming because of word of mouth, or the theory of self fulfilling prophecy where someone’s expectation of another’s behavior leads them to behave in ways that reinforce that expectation (often used in looking at teacher-student dynamics). In the context of UNHCR, a reinforcing feedback loop can be as simple as an increase in funding from government donors that increases cash-based forms of humanitarian assistance, and improves accountability to donors for the assistance that communities receive. Reinforcing feedback loops ultimately lead to another action which reinforces the first action.

Balancing feedback loops seek stability by resisting change in one direction by producing change in the opposite direction. For example, if your body temperature reaches over 37 degrees celsius while you’re exercising, your sweat glands open up to cool your body. Or, if you are running for re-election, you might seek out information from your constituents to identify gaps in your performance to identify how you can win their support by adjusting your actions.

Putting the Pieces Together

Systems thinking requires that we identify elements, interconnections, feedback loops and the purpose of a system in order to take a holistic view. Once we have identified these pieces, we can begin to develop a deeper understanding of the systems we are trying to change.

For example, in 1979, the Sharjah City for Humanitarian Services (SCHS) was established as a non-profit organization to serve people with disabilities within the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The organization is partially supported by the local government of Sharjah through legislation and financial resources that cover some salaries, and provide buildings and land. While the organization receives some support from the government, it has financial and administrative independence, and relies partially on donations. As the largest organization working in this space, it helps Sharjah serve its goal to support persons with disabilities, serving more than 2,000 people each year. The organization’s work spans services, including intervention, education, rehabilitation, counseling, community awareness, teacher training and facilitation of services for people with physical and mental disabilities (Karake, Park, and Qasimi, 2005).

In the early 2000s, the UAE public sector had seen a reduction in donations to humanitarian organizations. This posed a challenge for Sharjah. While they received some support from the government, they relied greatly on support from their community, which includes funding from school fees, the donations of individuals and organizations, fundraising projects, and sales of books and training from the organization.

In 2005, Zeinab Karake Shalhoub, an organizational scholar at the University of Maryland, College Park, and Jameela Al Qasimi, Deputy Chairperson of the Family Supreme Council and Director-General of Sharjah City for Humanitarian Services, conducted an analysis to identify the root causes of the problem and potential interventions. They conducted interviews with 10 people at various levels of the organization, examined financial reports, and led brainstorming sessions at staff meetings (Karake, Park, and Qasimi, 2005).

As a part of this process, they mapped the organization’s programs and stakeholders, including their perceptions of SCHS. This included:

• The local Government of Sharjah and the UAE federal government.
• SCHS programs and services, including income generating programs. The organization has government support to create income generating projects, such as running workshops from their buildings, and developing small businesses to employ people with special needs.
• Community members: beneficiaries and their families, staff, and donors. One perception they found was that some community members believed that the government covered the expenses of the organization, which likely had an impact on their willingness to give.
• Charities that create competition for donations.
• Expatriates that make up 80% of the UAE population. Most of this community does not speak Arabic, yet much of the communications coming from the organization is in Arabic.
• Economic and political factors, such as the Iraq war, that had a negative impact on the economy and charitable donations. The researchers found a general drop in donations to the organization, which they believe is a result of a general disengagement from charitable services.
• The organization’s communications channels for sharing information with the community, including attending events, a monthly magazine, a weekly television show and regularly scheduled school and organization visits.
• Partners: other organizations doing this work, the private sector committed to supporting people with disabilities, and the general community that provides moral support in public spaces

By mapping out the system, the researchers were able to identify potential interventions to solve their fundraising problem. These included:

• Building stronger community engagement by increasing income generating programs that promoted community interactions with people who have special needs and also were personally benefiting from SCHS programs.
• Improving how the media and public relations departments communicate about its programs, including reaching out to expatriates with materials in English, and by strengthening trust and transparency.

In order to solve complex problems, like the one facing SCHS, we need tools to break apart those problems and identify their root causes. Systems thinking allows us to identify potential programs to test, and stops us from jumping in with assumptions and quick fixes. As Shalhoub and Qasimi write, this approach allows us to “Gain perspective of a system from all the different stakeholders to see complexity, situational, perceived degree of order to or interconnections.”

A Systems Approach to Benefit Refugees in Uganda

Even within large or complex institutions, systems thinking can drive sustainable change and is a tool for more holistic problem solving. The UNHCR’s Connectivity for Refugees initiative aims to increase the inclusion of displaced populations in accessing telecommunication services across UNHCR operations around the world. There are multiple actors, networks and relationships at play in the system that the Connectivity for Refugee initiative operates, including internal teams such as the Financial Inclusion team but also governments, local actors and private sector stakeholders such as mobile network operators (MNOs) who provide connectivity. It’s crucial that all these actors must be considered when thinking about how we can facilitate innovative solutions alongside refugee communities, because they all have unique roles in the goal of refugees being included in telecommunication services.

Systems thinking is critical for this initiative because it enables effective multi-stakeholder engagement with the government and private sector. For example, in order to provide displaced and host communities with internet connection in Uganda, a coalition of actors engaged government agencies and bodies to instigate a policy change. This policy change, in turn, enabled MNOs to accept refugee attestation papers as a proof of identity for SIM card registration. Systems thinking allowed the Connectivity for Refugees project to identify where we needed to act to address some of the root problems associated with connectivity.

Having mapped the system in Uganda, a number of strategic decisions were made on how to achieve the project objectives:

• Undertaking interdivisional engagement on UNHCR’s ‘Displaced and Disconnected’ research project with UNHCR’s Cash-Based Interventions team and other internal stakeholders at the HQ and operational level;
• Focusing UNHCR’s local efforts more strategically on the inclusion of refugees in national systems and the registration of refugees’ population data for targeted assistance;
• Strengthening the partnership with the GSMA, an industry organization that represents the interests of mobile network operators worldwide, who supported and collaborated on UNHCR’s research and coordination in Uganda and shared best practice policy frameworks on connectivity for refugee communities;
• Hiring the first-ever country-level focal point to support connectivity as a priority programme and;
• Developing a strong relationship with the Uganda Communications Commission and other national and local actors through a dedicated technical working group on the topic.

With over a dozen relevant actors and complex objectives, the Connectivity for Refugees initiative in Uganda explored the elements and interrelations of its system. They identified the cogs that would have to move, and experimented with the collaborative levers necessary to do so. This approach enabled the Connectivity for Refugees team to target the relationships to be developed, the technical factors serving as bottlenecks and barriers, and the actors from whom a joint effort and chorus could nudge a national system into the sustainable digital inclusion of displaced people.

In the next chapter, you will learn when to apply systems thinking, and a framework for integrating it into the innovative practices to produce a systems change. We will also include an exercise to help you begin to map your system.

For more general overviews of systems thinking, we recommend checking out the readings below:

• Unlocking the Power of Systems Thinking, The Unschool
• The Systems Thinker
• Thinking in Systems, Donella Meadows
• Systems Thinking for Social Change, David Peter Roth

Works Cited

Acaroglu, L. (2017, September 7). Retrieved from https://medium.com/disruptive-design/tools-for-systems-thinkers-the-6-fundamental-concepts-of-systems-thinking-379cdac3dc6a

Francis, D., & Bessant, J. (2005). Targeting innovation and implications for capability development. Technovation, 25(3), 171–183.

Kim, D. H. (1999). Introduction to systems thinking (Vol. 16). Waltham, MA: Pegasus Communications.

Kim, D. (2017, January 7). Reinforcing and Balancing Loops: Building Blocks of Dynamic Systems. Retrieved from https://thesystemsthinker.com/reinforcing-and-balancing-loops-building-blocks-of-dynamic-systems

Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. chelsea green publishing.

Obrecht, A., & Warner, A. T. (2016). More than just luck: Innovation in humanitarian action. HIF/ALNAP Study.

Shalhoub, Z. K., & Al Qasimi, J. (2005). A soft system analysis of nonprofit organizations and humanitarian services. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 18(5), 457–473.

Warner, A. T. (2017) Working paper: Monitoring humanitarian innovation. HIF/ALNAP Working Paper. London: ODI/ALNAP.