Proceedings of the 2018 IFSR Conversation, Linz, Austria Systems Practice Team: Long Report Nguyen, N.1, *, Malik, C.2, *, Brugman, O.3, Hieronymi, A.4, Mitschke-Collande, v. J.5, Nguyen, V. T.6, Pierson, M.7 1 Malik Institute, Australia/Vietnam and University of Adelaide Business School, Australia 2 Malik Institute, St. Gallen, Switzerland 3 Rabobank, The Netherlands and Brazil 4 University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland 5 The Innaxis Foundation & Research Institute, Zurich, Switzerland 6 Ministry of Public Security, Hanoi, Vietnam 7 Community Healthcare, USA 1. Executive Summary This report summarises the activities and outcomes of the Systems Practice Team (SPT) at the 2018 International Federation for Systems Research (IFSR) Conversation in Linz, Austria. The 2018 SPT consists of mainly systems practitioners: Dr Nam Nguyen (team coordinator), Dr Constantin Malik (co-team coordinator), Dr Olaf Brugman, Mr Andreas Hieronymi, Ms Joséphine von Mitschke-Collande, Asso. Prof. Dr Thanh Van Nguyen (Dr. Thanh) and Dr Marc Pierson. The discussed topic (Systems Practice) is relevant to a new type of membership in the IFSR constitution. It is also ‘close to hearts’ of many systems scientists, whom would really like to take systems sciences more into practice. This topic is also closely related and complementary to several recent IFSR Conversation topics, e.g. “Systems Research”, “Systems Literacy” (an effort to educate/inform a broader audience about systemic approaches to research and practice). The SPT shared their experience of applying systems approaches in practice. The team also discussed how to make systems approaches, systems tools more applicable to their respective fields and practice, with specific cases such as public security, smart city and leadership development in Vietnam, community healthcare in the US, cyber-security in Europe, etc. A systems model, capturing the key variables of Systems Practice, was developed. Systemic roles and interconnections of the variables were diagnosed, leading to the identification of several important ‘leverage points’ that could help enhancing the system. The following sections describe the SPT’s Conversation in more details. 2. Expectations for the week These were shared among the SPT members and submitted in advance to the IFSR Conversation organisers: · Sharing the various applications of systems approaches in practice · Exploring the ‘untouched’ potentials of systems approaches in practice · Discussing ways to make systems approaches become more applicable to practice · Discussing the most effective ways of communicating the results of this conversation to different end-user audiences (e.g. other systems scientists, systems practitioners, decision makers in government and funders of projects) · Forming an action plan of the team · Finding synergies among practitioners to foster joint applications · Identifying ways to make systems approaches the preferred solution for decision-makers 3. Brainstorming the Systems Practice ‘landscape’ The SPT commenced with a brainstorming session of the Systems Practice ‘landscape’. To get familiar with the main topic of our team and also to explore the team members’ thoughts and associations with the topic, an exploratory brainstorm was conducted with regard to the main topic: “Systems Practice”. Ideas were individually generated and written on coloured sticky notes paper. Next, the group identified similarities and synonyms in the ideas laid out. Through a group conversation, the thoughts and associations were clustered around common topics, such as “learning”, “practice”, “leadership”, “tools” etcetera. Also, the relationships between the ideas were explored and assessed. This procedure proved to be an inspiring pre-exercise to get to more formalised and structured modelling of our main topic and problem area, and also made the members familiar with the richness of each other’s thinking. It paved the way for a faster and structure model building using the Sensimod tool, since all Team Members were already more familiar with each other’s thinking. Figure 1: Systems Practice ‘Brainstorming’ 4. Sharing Experiences and Applications SPT members then shared their experiences and practical applications of systems approaches in various contexts and places, which included: · Application of systems science in leadership and management on non-traditional security threats in Vietnam · Application of systems science in building up smart cities meeting indicators of security–welfare–safety in the context of the 4th industrial revolution · Malik SuperSyntegration for Smart Cities (Brainport Smart District, the Netherlands) · Technical infrastructure for self-organizing in US counties · Application of systems science for large scale societal transformation toward sustainability in Europe · Experiences of applying systems thinking and gamification in educational setting · Application of systems science at the national level for a community bank in Brazil · The Art of Interconnected Thinking – Starting with the young (Malik simulation Ecopolicy program), in Germany, Australia and Vietnam · Application of systems thinking for everyone 5. Key questions from the team After the ‘sharing’ session, the SPT discussed further and posed some key questions on the ways moving forward: · How can systems thinking and systems approaches help to address and prevent the emerging and non-traditional security issues and threats? · How can systems thinking and systems approaches help to improve the indicators to manage smart cities for the need of safety, welfare and security? · How can systems thinking and systems tools help to enhance effective leadership and management? · How can we interconnect the key factors of ‘Systems Practice’ and identify the ‘leverage points’ for intervention and improvement? · What are our next steps and actions? 6. Systems Practice: 14 key variables Various elements were discussed and thought of as relevant factors to Systems Practice, which were then categorized into 14 key variables, namely: 1 Global transformation 2 Effectiveness of leadership and management 3 Sharing experience (inside) 4 Local transformation 5 Co-operation (inside) 6 Problems 7 Effective communication 8 Effective systems practice 9 Effectiveness of tools and methods 10 Effectiveness of indicators 11 Transformation control centre (TCC) 12 Flourishing (inside) 13 Ability to transcend paradigm 14 Systems training 7. Systems Model «Systems Practice» and the interconnection The Malik Sensitivity Model (SensiMod) was used to develop a causal loop diagram (systems model) of the key variables of Systems Practice (Figure 2). SensiMod is a very effective tool to find and visualize the inter-connectedness and dependencies of complex systems. With the computer based SystemTool it is easy to integrate insights about complex environments, markets, innovations, organizational culture and more. It is a powerful thinking-tool which enables the Systems Practice Team to grasp the complex system of “Systems Practice” holistically, to visualize its inter-connectedness and to get to know the dynamics and behaviour of this complex system. Consequently, it discloses the most powerful levers for controlling and steering the system into the desired direction, with lowest possible resource efforts. Figure 2: causal loop diagram (systems model) of the key variables of Systems Practice : Confirming effect between two variables: The more/less, the more/less : Opposing effect between two variables: The more/less, less/more The diagram provides far more value than just the aforementioned ‘list’, Figure 2 illustrates the key topics of the systems practice discussion. The colors of the variables show their systemic roles (as discussed further in the following sections). The systems model consists of 14 variables and 42 interrelations. There are 157 feedback loops with 125 reinforcing feedback loops and 32 stabilizing/balancing feedback loops. This system is strongly interconnected (degree of networking 3.00 = 20% more than average). Strong interconnection and the dominance of reinforcing feedback loops show that the system can be activated. However, for gaining active control of such a strongly interconnected system, single measures will not be sufficient. Concerted and simultaneous intervention at different parts of the system is needed. 8. Assessing strength of interconnection – Impact Matrix The Impact Matrix (Figure 3) is used to assess the interaction between the relevant variables in the system context. This is essential because the role of a variable is never recognizable on its own, what important are the interactions between the variables. An overview and common understanding of the strengths of the interactions are obtained by asking the question “If variable A changes, how does this change the direct effect on variable B?”, rated with the values 0,1,2 or 3 (none, slight, proportional, or disproportionate relationship). Figure 3: Impact Matrix of the key variables of Systems Practice 0: Strong change in variable A causes little or no change in variable B (A and B range from 1 to 14) 1: Strong change in A causes only a slight change in B 2: Change in A causes an equally strong change in B 3: Weak change in A causes a very strong change in B 9. ‘Rainbow’ Effect Levers Based on the impact matrix, the distribution of roles are created, effect on the variables is hereby clarified. Due to the distribution of roles, the capabilities of the system and the cybernetic role of the variables are visible (Figure 4). This allows the assessment of the behaviors and influence of the overall system and of each variable. Various recommendations and findings can be obtained, such as: · Where we can find possible control levers · What are the components that can jeopardize the system · What are the indicators that make good improvements to the system · The nature of the system, respectively showing the behavior of the system (rigid, inert, stable, critical, volatile, ...) · Identification of possible levers, indicators (measuring sensor) and critical points Figure 4: Systemic Role of the key variables of Systems Practice Active variables: Variables in this area are the strongest drivers which significantly affect the system performance. They are therefore suitable - if directly influenced - as a shift lever. When you find the right approach, these variables can stabilize the system after a change. Buffering variables: Area where interventions and controls serve no purpose. Unless its change affects very specifically an active component. Critical variables: Variables in this area have a critical effect; they can lead to large positive or negative effects. They are suitable for "initial sparks", but have to be used carefully. Neutral variables: These are highly interconnected variables (in relation to other variables). They are important for the self-regulation of the system. Reactive variables: Variables in this field are system indicators which reflect the changes of the system. These variables are strongly dependent on other variables, but have a weak effect themselves. 10. “Effectiveness of leadership and management” is the most essential variable for moving the system «Systems Practice» Results of models always depend on the quality of initial inputs. Based on the limited time available for building our model, we derived the following provisional insights. System diagnosis (Figure 5): “Effectiveness of leadership and management” is the variable that is part of the highest number of reinforcing feedback loops (105 of 125 = 80%). If it is deactivated, the number of reinforcing feedback loops is reduced to 16% (20 instead of 125). The system can only be activated if “Effectiveness of leadership and management” is achieved. Critically important: “Effectiveness of leadership and management” will directly improve the status of nine variables in all parts of the system. This essential variable is itself directly influenced by four other variables (‘leverage points’), most importantly: “Systems training”, “Transformation control center”, “Ability to transcend paradigm” and “Effectiveness of tools and methods”. Figure 5: The most important variable of Systems Practice 11. Partial Scenario: Simulation Given the time constraint, the SPT only undertook a partial scenario to see the possible impact of changing the ‘leverage points’ in the system on the most important variable (Figures 6 & 7). Figure 6: Partial scenario of Systems Practice (‘current situation’) Colour of variable’s status – red: not good; yellow: alarming; green: good Small changes have big effects on the system: making small changes in the three leverage points (D, C, F), for only three rounds already enhances significantly the effectiveness of leadership and management (see Figures 6 & 7). Figure 7: Partial scenario of Systems Practice (simulation after three rounds) Colour of variable’s status – red: not good; yellow: alarming; green: good 12. Key suggestions and actions Below are some key recommendations of the Systems Practice Team: 1. Building a framework to steer, regulate and control the various issues that Dr. Thanh presented and the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) has to deal with; 2. The above framework could be used as a basis to further develop a Transformation Control Centre (TCC) – both for managing the non-traditional security issues and enhancing the smart cities indicators; 3. The TCC would have tools and systems that enable the leaders and managers to visualize the actions as they are happening, with real-time checking and controlling; 4. The Malik SuperSyntegration (MSS) methodology would also be useful to deal with the issues that Dr. Thanh presented (e.g. examples of MSS applications for Brainport Smart City in the Netherlands, Cybersecurity for one of the biggest finance and insurance companies in the world, etc); 5. It is also important to design the right customized training courses in systems thinking, systems tools, effective management, etc. in order to enhance the effectiveness of leadership and management. All of the above will help to increase the impact that the leadership of MPS has on the Ministry. It will also have a self-re-enforcing positive effect among the people in MPS. Furthermore, the aforementioned actions would contribute to the global effort* of making systems thinking and systems approaches become more applicable to practice and the preferred solutions for decision-makers, managers and leaders. Figure 8: Systems Practice Team …. GO Figure 9: Dr. Thanh – presenting and ‘having fun’ with the SP team members Figure 10: Systems Practice Team – social activity (on the top of Linz) Appendix: a team member’s ‘reflections’ Systems Practice as the Art of Connected Thinking - Olaf Brugman 28 April 2018 The Conversations on Systems Science were the first I participated in. They have proven to be an almost priceless opportunity to converse and work for a week with fellow-systems practitioners and to discuss, define and elaborate solutions for challenges in our societies. We worked on Systems Practice: how can we equip system practitioners with the collective system science skills to observe, understand and steer complex systems. We focused on social systems: organizations and networks of institutions, organizations and people: how do we define the purposes of such systems, how do we model them, how do we understand them and develop solutions? And more importantly even: how do we promote that we, systems practitioners, learn to further apply our skills, and how do we promote that complex systems have those skills available to their better functioning? In other words, we worked on both the professional and the systems level. We were object and subject at the same time. We were observers and the observed. We were a dynamic, forming, learning, and intervening system at the same time. We derived our learning from public health, security, problem solving methods, deep reflection, and also from over 160 years of combined professional experience. And we applied our knowledge back to it. Of the group of seven fellow-system practitioners in our working group, I already knew three of them and have had the pleasure to work with them before. This helped us as a group to get a head start in our proceedings. However, getting in touch with three new colleagues added new perspectives and options to the group, which I felt was very beneficial to all of us. It was striking how entering in conversations with well-intended colleagues whom I had not had the pleasure to work with before always leads to different understanding of systems, and new views on making them function better. Even more than expected. The methods at least of the group members were familiar with were management cybernetics in the tradition of Stafford Beer, Fredmund Malik and others. And also with management cybernetics learning and problem solving methods based on Systems Practice for Everyone (Ockie Bosch, Nam Nguyen, Nguyen Van Thanh). We used these methods to formulate our leading questions, to model the complex systems dynamics and find solutions. What struck me exceptionally was the insight, from five days of conversations, that systems function is an outcome of a whole set of different factors: training and educating professionals, leadership, technology, health etc. And also how connected several aspects of our societies are - economy, environment, social relationships, climate, health, innovation, well-being, public security. The conversations and group work led to some new and surprising insights. We were able to go beyond the usual training and educational approach by visualising how to enable professionals to develop their skills. Our methods led us to see that we can also look at how certain skills and qualities are available in the system, even if they are not present in each and every individual, such as monitoring, capacity increasing systems’ responsiveness, and the interconnecting between economic, environmental and social factors all influence each other, representing both challenges and leverage points for solutions. Also, it became clear how difficult it is to arrive at new knowledge: complex social systems tend to reinforce around their current homoeostats: governance structures, power structures, personal roles and individuals all work to maintain the status quo. Leaders and those in power who ‘see’ are not always able to ‘speak’ since the system may relentlessly fall unto them in an attempt to preserve the system. Interactions with other groups or other we had relatively few, mainly because we as a group had several activities in the evening, and also since I had to take care of ongoing business concerns outside the Conversation hours. Therefore the opportunities for interaction were rather limited, or at least more than I had wanted. That was a missed opportunity, but it also enabled more in-depth learning on our working group’s main theme. All in all, the systems practice week in Linz, organised by the International Federation for the Systems Sciences (IFSR) was extremely rich and insightful, inspiring, and it deepened experiences that enhanced my skills as a systems practitioner. I am grateful to the event organisers and hosts, my working group’s members and coordinators, the IFSR and also the wider group of the IFSR Conversations in Linz.