Is it too late? Have we lost this choice? Can we regain possibilities of autonomy?
See Marc's Notes on Meta See System of Models
# ORGANIZING OURSELVES AS NEIGHBORHOODS AND WATERSHEDS AGAINST PRESENT AND FUTURE THREATS # BECOMING RESILIENT LOCALLY
**Challenge:** Become capable of local self-sufficiency, especially during times of global instability.
(Discovering a few good design rules to demystify resilience.)
References: Viable System Model wikipedia 
and Cynefin Framework wikipedia
The problems experienced during global and regional societal disruptions will be: 1. Massively interlinked 2. Multi scale 3. Multi dimensional and multi-functional 4. Not knowable, in the normal sense of observable and computable 5. Mostly chaotic and complex in nature; whereas,
Our traditional system tools are mostly designed for simple and complicated situations or very restricted complex situations
**Therefore:** When looking at a set of simultaneous highly complex problems, one is led to a non-traditional, multi-scale, poly-centric decision making approaches. If the people, places and **structures** that are exposed to nontraditional threats are to be viable systems, then, through the lenses of David Snowden’s Cynefin framework and of Stafford Beer’s **Viable System Model** we can start to design our metasystems and the functional components which are capable of sensing non-traditional threats, responding, surviving, learning, and restructuring at local-to-national levels. From this adaptive perspective we can can begin to ask relevant questions for the coming challenges—COVID-19’s effect on economies being the current one. Solutions to these problems go beyond technical solutions—they require shifts of mind and more complex levels of decision making and rethinking how we live and work together. It requires seeing our communities and the country as **living organisms**—far beyond the complicated machine metaphor that often guides our analyses and policy recommendations. Far far beyond the thinking most economists advising our policy makers. E. F. Schumacher was my kind of economist, not a monetarist. (money-terrorist)
A fundamental concept, one essential to understanding and living with truly complex problems, is Ross Ashby’s **Law of Requisite Variety ** and the related **Good Regulator Theorem **.
Every homeostat is a communication mechanism for managing variety so the decision makers have more choices than the situation has need for. Stafford Beer structures his Viable Systems Model (VSM) specifically to have requisite variety in ever changing complex situations, across multiple scales. VSM functions are wired to one another and to the relevant environment with homeostats. Additionally Beer reminds us that the fundamental source of viable systems lies in the **smallest units of a system and their environments**. From there we can begin designing structures (sets of homeostatic relationships—ongoing conversations) that are capable of matching solutions to the complexity of the problem. Additionally, Beer and Elinor Ostrom make it clear that providing requisite variety requires an almost Escher-like structure of **nested recursions **—systems supported by metasystems supported by metasystems. It is not turtles all the way down, but it is structural recursions all the way up.
The **connections** between a set of interacting (sub)systems and their metasystem are of several types. Most of these connections are **homeostatic feedback loops**. Each of the five types of connections are designed to take care of a different kind of problem. 1) Alerting—algedonic channel. 2) Command and control channel. 3) Negotiation channel. 4) Coordination channel. 5) Auditing channel. Under normal conditions, most of the communication is handled by two channels—negotiation and coordination channels. Emergencies sensed near the environment are conveyed by algedonic channels. Emergencies sensed near the global environment are conveyed by the command and control channel. The auditing channel is used to sense weak signals before it is too late to recover.
As countries and communities design their approaches to non-traditional threats, such as COVID-19 it will be rewarding to consider each and all of these VSM functions, communication channels, and their nested recursions.
We will necessarily need to use, invent, and develop **graph-based tools and technologies** to make these complex relationships and patterns visible, sensible, and influenceable.
----------------- Before continuing along this line of reasoning, I want to digress and suggest that leaders become familiar with David Snowden’s **Cynefin framework**. This is a very straightforward and useful way for leaders to understand the difference between complex-chaotic situations and complicated-simple situations. The models, methods and tools are entirely different across these two domains and confusion here can have catastrophic consequences.
------------------- The **ability to aggregate and disaggregate** into viable systems at various scales seems to have both survival value and resilience value. Slime mold and Swiss Cantons come to mind. These are examples of autonomous systems which, when stressed, can either aggregate to become subsystems of the larger entities with surprising new capabilities or disaggregate returning to the effectiveness and efficiency inherent in local autonomous entities finely attuned to their local environments temporarily devoid of some of their remote dependencies. We would do well to remember that the brain is not telling liver cells or even muscle cells how to do their jobs. Only people seem to make this kind of error—mistaking coordination and influence with top down control. Of course during a crisis we can and will try to address the damage once it has entered systems at any level.
What I am suggesting is that we prospectively (going forward) design our interconnections at every level so that they can be temporarily closed until each potential epidemic-pandemic or economic contagion has played itself out. To do this we need to begin redesigning our subsystems to be remain viable when disconnected. Connection should remain a choice, not a necessity.
These two examples, slime mold and Swiss cantons, invite a shift of mind and perspective. Instead of only thinking of the organs as subservient to the head, we can also see the reciprocal—the head serving the organs. With this perspective, we can realize that most of the work of a biological being is carried out autonomously by each organelle, each cell, each organ, each organ system. True, these systems are coordinated, but most of the metabolism (local action) is self controlled, a dance with their environment, rather than externally and remotely controlled by another entity. This may inform our **designs for resilient networks** consisting of technologies and people. Designs for necessary resilience requires designs which preserve autonomy while also structuring relationships to form metasystemic support functions. The trick is to design the balancing, homeostatic, mechanisms that prevent the loss of autonomy while providing for supporting metasystems.
The idea is to learn what risks and capabilities exist at each level of aggregation and **design systems to survive or even thrive at that level even when or especially when disconnected**. A beneficial side effect of this approach may be decreasing the cost of the metasystem—the overhead, bureaucracy and inevitable errors in timing and finesse. This can seem counterintuitive since we are accustomed to ascribe metasystemic benefits to efficiencies of scale, but large remote systems have their own costs (see Elinor Ostrom) and if they are less than ideally responsive to the component subsystems the costs due to ineffectiveness and inefficiency tend to sore—the metasystems become cancers from the perspective of the component systems. (The size and shape of the head becomes monstrous compared with the size of the supporting body. Of course, from the perspective of the large head, the body is simply too small so they peruse a strategy of enlarging the body to support the large head—usually creating catastrophic policies for both head and body parts.) It is likely that the auditing and coordinating infrastructure should encompass the whole nation and more, but the day-to-day operating decisions should be keep as near the inhabitants as possible—right down in to neighborhoods where regular face-to-face conversations can occur. Before considering efficiencies we must always protect effectiveness. To do this, metasystemic decisions will need to have ongoing input from the component systems.
We have the opportunity to learn about and understand both the **benefits and costs of aggregation and disaggregation at various scales**. This may be one of the most important ideas to keep in play.
Day-to-day operations, as seen by the metasystem, should generally run though voluntary coordination channels and symmetric negotiation channels.
To **detect non-traditional threats** as early as possible will require innovative design of algedonic and auditing channels as well as a robust research and development function.
To **respond to non-traditional threats** will require all channels including the command and control channels. The key is to get the scale and balance right—matching scales and their channels to situations. This requires that leaders as well as designers have a good grasp of these concepts and their use. This kind of balance is an ongoing act that requires constant attention. This is the work of being and staying alive.
Additionally, leaders must formally recognize **semi-autonomous recursion levels** and the critical role each recursion plays in the viability of the whole. This leadership behavior requires art (improvisation) and science. The complexity of nested recursions may run against dome leaders and some followers desire for simplicity, command, and control. Command and control is appropriate for some short term emergencies, it is not a viable global ongoing strategy.
Perhaps the key point to be made here is that **leaders need to deeply understand these patterns: requisite variety, nested recursive systems, metasystems, homeostatic channels, and all VSM functions at the base system level and at metasystemic levels.** Leaders must always be exploring opportunities for co-ordination, co-operation, co-design, and co-identification. Perhaps most significantly, leaders must adopt a **metacognitive and metasystemic approach** that is an “indirect” approach, one that depends upon the relative autonomy of component parts. And each of these subsystems, each closer to people living in neighborhoods, will in turn be dependent on the relative autonomy of that level’s components parts—ultimately the individual or household.
The key for any socio-economic-ecological-technical system is to define the **metasystemic purposes** . Know what is important, what is worth defending. Only from there we can begin to handle asymmetric non-traditional threats. Get the meta purpose wrong, relative to non-traditional threats, and the ability to cope worsens. One may decide that the purpose is the viability of the parts and the viability of the protective governance structure—rather than any preconceived strategy such as retaliation or “impenetrable” defenses, or a level of GDP. Let’s not replicate the mistakes of the Maginot Line simply because we have new defensive technologies. My experience suggests that this kind of hyper-complex problem requires ongoing capability and capacity for rapid and robust self-organizing and rapid response. My experience also suggests that the problem itself is structural and that the solutions will need to be structural. Structures are configurations of **networks**.
We will need **network designs and implementations** that work simultaneously for: 1. Minimum delay 2. Autonomous or semi-autonomous action (coordinated) 3. Very sensitive sensing 4. Very robust filtering 5. Very quick local responding—including defense and repair 6. Very quick participation in the whole nation’s response The understanding and use of rapidly developing **network / graph technologies** may separate the successful from the unsuccessful. Full investment in people who develop and design in this domain is critical.
Ideally every part of the system at every scale should be able to exist for a while completely **isolated** from the rest—a temporary medieval city with moat and drawbridge. At all levels, in the event of disruptions, the system should be able to reconfigure itself in real time to provide new connections and to enhance it’s autonomy until prior connections are safe and reliable. This type of system capability is best conceived of as an emergent property of the system rather than only a plan to be enacted. This is an example of navigation superimposed on a plan. Again, a balancing act. The dance of staying alive.
It is conceivable that in non-threatening times there is still a benefit to the parts and to the whole in this kind of **semi-autonomous design**. Local economies, local food production, local water systems, local communication (more face-to-face conversations), local education. Everything is modular and scaled to the watershed level or smaller—face-to-face scale.
While all of this may seem too complicated, actually it is only too complicated for a top down approach, but it is **simply complex** and can be “easily” configured organically from the bottom up. This will require an openness to variety, to local solutions. The challenge will be in communicating the kinds of threats that exist and providing the political and economic support for developing these diverse responses capabilities. ———-
In Linz, Austria six systems practitioners were requested to consider how to **support systemic problem solving** among the leadership that is responsible for non-traditional threats to the country of Vietnam. It turned out that **leadership** is the most a critical focus area and that there are three supporting areas that must be enhanced simultaneously and robustly at the start. These are 1) a system of handy and easy to use **system tools and methods**, 2) **training of leaders** in systems practices, methods, and tools and 3) a created **place with appropriate culture **for learning by doing, designing systems and metasystems, overseeing implementation, and ongoing monitoring and enhancing responses to non-traditional threats.
How to do these three things is an open question. We can start by providing 1) a configurable system’s **toolbox** that allow one to choose the appropriate tools for the tasks at hand, 2) an overview of an appropriate approach to leaders **learning** to cope with complex systems, and 3) a conceptual **design of a place** for managing and learning to manage decision making about complex non-traditional threats as teams in an ongoing fashion.
In order to configure **tool boxes** we need to understand the types and stages of problems to be solved. To get us started I will propose three frameworks. Snowden’s Cynefin Framework. Flores’ Conversations for Action, and finally a stepwise sequence that can orient us as we move from ideas to products-in-use. The proposed sequence starts the moment a human has a sensation of possibility for something to be done differently. Having mastery of Flores’ Speech Acts and David Snowden’s Cynefin frameworks are prerequisites to mastering this sequence. On needs to know the type of complexity one is dealing with (Cynefin) and have the skill to manage through human commitments made in conversations. -------------
The sequence is this: # 15 Ps
From sensation to sale and lifecycle, there is an immutable process or system for creating products and services.
1. Perception (resonance with person and environment) 2. Possibility (deepening resonance with person and environment) 3. Purpose (deeper resonance with person and environment) 4. Passion (limbic resonance—emotion and meaning emerge) 5. Promise (will, embodied commitment, even if only to one’s self) 6. Political Action (social resonance—repeating of the above five in others) 7. Policy (cognitive—organizational decision to act) 8. Program (plan of action, with resources and due dates) 9. Project (sub-plan with resources and due dates) 10. Process (create a reliable sequence for producing products and or services) 11. Product 12. Persuade 13. Purchase 14. Provide (deliver the goods or services) 15. Protect (against liabilities including failure effects and environmental impact through maintenance and disposal-recycling)
We each have our favorites in this list, steps that we have experience and success with; however, if any are missing the product may not be created or purchased.
A **purpose** or idea or concept is experienced and recognized by someone. The human domain of imagination, insight, induction, deduction, association, reference, aesthetics, culture, all come into play in this wellspring of new and used ideas. This is a rather mysterious and magical domain—preconscious interaction of our histories and our environments yielding little emotional moments of cognition or recognition or “ah ha” or surprise. This is the place where differences are experienced. Some differences are felt to be significant or insignificant. Some are felt to be true or potentially true. Some are felt to be useful or potentially useful. This is a dream-like domain where we may be more or less comfortable, where we spend more or less of our time.
This space deals with Donella Meadow’s three highest leverage points:
Some of these experiences find meaning and emotion and drive—**passion**.
A few people with sufficient interest (passion) may engage in conversation about the purpose and they may commit, **promise**, to carry this idea forward.
They then bring others (polis) into the picture, through organizing—**political** action.
This space deals with Donella Meadow’s next three leverage points.
The make some key enabling decision(s)—**policies**.
Then the organize the work into a overall implementation plan to realize the policies—**programs**.
Programs are carried out through a set of **projects**.
Each project must develop **processes** that create the parts and assemble them.
The finished **product** is then marketed.
If it meets a need at an affordable price that is lower than alternatives it is **purchased** and an enterprise has a chance of becoming viable.
————
Think tank like social constructions may incubate the first five stages: **Purpose, passion, promise and micro politics**may yield **policy** recommendations. Snowden’s Cynefin framework can be helpful here. We must determine what kinds of a problem—solution spaces are we dealing with and then we must apply fitting frameworks methods to dealing with them; e.g. act-sense-respond, probe-sense-respond, sense-analyze-respond, sense-categorize-respond.
**Macro politics, policies, and programs** must be considered and handled as a set to get an idea delivered into the world of action. This requires skilled politicians who understand the context and culture, the resources and constraints available, the power dynamics and the location of land mines.
However, **between politics and policies** lives the mostly ignored space of dynamics—addressed by Meadow’s next three leverage points. Most people are neither familiar nor comfortable in this space. It is the space most often associated with **dynamic systems and systems thinking.** Because it is often ignored it is critical and is likely the difference between success and failure. If the dynamics are merely complicated, engineers and experts can be engaged to carry us through this stage. **If the system is massively complex...**MUCH TO BE SAID HERE.
Only when we understand well enough how the system works or how to navigate the uncertainty should we have confidence in the final stage of implementation (programs, projects, processes, products, and purchases. Mistaking complex for complicated or simple problem-solution spaces is common and tragic.
Once there is a **potentially viable program** (with defined action with funding) We enter the world of program management. Here we must be clear what program or parts of programs are repeats of known engineered patterns and which are substantially new inventions. We can use normal robust program-project management tools and methods for the former and agile or scrum based program-project management tools for the latter. We can Map Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model onto the program to increase the likelihood that the essential functions are operating. ———-
One role of the **superordinate systems** is to recognize and even create patterns that could not be recognized at smaller scales—currently made difficulty due to signal to noise issues, due to technological limitations, due to metacognitive issues. However, usually the more local situations are where sensors are located and where actions will need to be taken. Therefore it is critical that they are actively engaged with meta systemic enterprises (VSM systems 2-5).
**Voltaire’s advice** may provide insight into possibilities for safety in an increasingly complex world. After suffering horribly in the large world, Candide, Cunégonde and Pangloss finally learn to return home and “cultivate our garden.” Not such a bad outcome, and a piece of wisdom passed down in multiple traditions. ———-
More concrete suggestions:
**Vester’s Sensitivity Model** has integrated several tools that aid people when defining a system, discovering relevant components, determining the relative influence of the components, running scenarios to determine the dynamics—how long will it take to work. Merely using this tool will teach leaders through experience many of the concepts discussed above.
**Syntegration** allows people to get on the same page very quickly, in order to tackle complex situations.
Community **Linkage Maps** make the relevant complexity visible in ways that people can discover connections and design connections. They can be extended and interconnected to provide the necessary sensing and responding networks. They can become the central and peripheral nervous system for a resilient country in the 21st century.
(img) _Author: Marc Pierson, protected by Community Commons—Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)_ (img)