Martin Reynolds

Critical Systems Heuristics

Critical systems heuristics (CSH) is a framework for reflective professional practice organised around the central tool of boundary critique. This paper, written jointly by the original developer, Werner Ulrich, and Martin Reynolds, an experienced practitioner of CSH, offers a systematic introduction to the idea and use of boundary critique. Its core concepts are explained in detail and their use is illustrated by means of two case studies from the domain of environmental planning and management. A particular focus is on working constructively with tensions between opposing perspectives as they arise in many situations of professional intervention. These include tensions such as ‘situation’ versus ‘system’, ‘is’ versus ‘ought’ judgements, concerns of ‘those involved’ versus ‘those affected but not involved’, stakeholders’ ‘stakes’ versus ‘stakeholding issues’, and others. Accordingly, boundary critique is presented as a participatory process of unfolding and questioning boundary judgements rather than as an expert-driven process of boundary setting. The paper concludes with a discussion of some essential skills and considerations regarding the practice of boundary critique.

Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide

This compilation of readings is a practical guide for practitioners involved with managing complex and uncertain situations. At a time when the media continually tells of a world facing many crises, it provides an opportunity to gain understanding of robust approaches to managing complex and ever-changing situations more effectively. The Reader is used as a teaching resource on the new Open University postgraduate course Thinking strategically: system tools for managing change and it provides an introduction to five systems approaches: System dynamics (SD) developed originally in the late 1950s by Jay Wright Forrester, Viable systems method (VSM) developed originally in the late 1960s by Stafford Beer, Strategic options development and analysis (SODA: with cognitive mapping) developed originally in the 1960s by Colin Eden, Soft systems methodology (SSM) developed originally in the 1970s by Peter Checkland, Critical systems heuristics (CSH) developed originally in the early 1980s by Werner Ulrich.

Introducing Systems Approaches

Systems Approaches to Managing Change brings together five systems approaches to managing complex issues, each having a proven track record of over 25 years. The five approaches are: System Dynamics (SD) developed originally in the late 1950s by Jay Forrester Viable Systems Model (VSM) developed originally in the late 1960s by Stafford Beer Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA: with cognitive mapping) developed originally in the 1970s by Colin Eden Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) developed originally in the 1970s by Peter Checkland Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) developed originally in the late 1970s by Werner Ulrich

Equity-focused developmental evaluation using critical systems thinking

Developmental evaluation can often question the ethical basis of an intervention in terms of whether it’s ‘doing the right thing’ rather than merely ‘doing things right’. Drawing on ideas from critical systems thinking and critical systems heuristics, an evaluation framework with a pro-equity focus is suggested. The framework addresses issues of complexity. It invites theories of change associated with philosophical ethics, and provides a means of surfacing and potentially transforming debilitating relations of power in a complex evaluand. A case study of the long-standing Narmada project in India is used to sketch the workings of the framework. The article describes how the underpinning methodological ideas of critical systems thinking incorporating triple-loop learning can enhance the practice of developmental evaluation.

'Unfolding' natural resource-use information systems: fieldwork in Botswana

My research examines the performance of natural resource-use information systems. I question why such systems, despite receiving substantial financial and human investment, appear to have a weak impact on projects, programs, and policy intended for rural poverty alleviation in developing countries. Drawing on my understanding of the “process of unfolding” introduced by C. West Churchman, and its particular relationship to Habermasian constitutive interests, I reflect on my experiences of using the concept during fieldwork undertaken in Botswana. The concept is found useful on two fronts: first, it provides a purposeful guide for gathering and processing information/knowledge—what I have termed an epistemological intent; second, it provides a useful template for evaluating other information systems; in particular, the role of expertise—what I have termed an ontological intent. The process of unfolding, as I understand it, also provides an invitation for constructive (rather than self-indulgent) personal reflection: what might be termed a constitutive reflexive intent. By making information gathering and knowledge generation less mystical and a more transparent social activity, the conceptual and practical application of the process of unfolding can help toward retrieving inquiry as being a purposeful, openly political, and thereby less deceptive engagement: features which I believe are found particularly wanting in the business of rural development information gathering.

Breaking) The Iron Triangle of Evaluation

Ideas from complexity science and systems thinking are demonstrably helpful in a shift from exploring (systematic) linear net effects of an intervention towards exploring wider (systemic) effects occurring elsewhere. But where these ideas of ‘impact’ are coupled with a narrow use of the contingency approach, some less helpful ‘triangulated’ relationships might be evident. These relationships might be regarded in terms of an ‘iron triangle’, a metaphor used frequently to exemplify pernicious relations of power. The most notable expression of the iron triangle is the ‘military–industrial complex’. This article briefly outlines generic features of the iron triangle in terms of ‘systemic triangulation’ – an idea linking three core systems concepts of interrelationships, perspectives and boundaries. Drawing on a tradition of systems thinking in practice, an associated systemic triangulator is introduced as both a diagnostic and planning heuristic; a device for not only diagnosing symptoms of an evaluation–industrial complex but for prompting ideas towards a more benign evaluation–adaptive complex for impact evaluation.

Community and Environmental OR: Towards a New Agenda

In 1999, the UK-based Operational Research Society granted charitable funding to a systemic intervention project, based in the Centre for Systems Studies at the University of Hull, designed to create an agenda for the future role of operational research (OR) in environmental planning and management. Our final report on the project was published in 2001. This chapter summarises our findings, then focuses in detail on one aspect of these: the outputs from a mini-conference held with OR practi-tioners who participated in developing the agenda.

Epilogue: Systems Approaches and Systems Practice

Each of the five systems approaches discussed in this volume: system dynamics (SD), the viable systems model (VSM), strategic options development and analysis (SODA), soft systems methodology (SSM) and critical systems heuristics (CSH) has a pedigree. Not in the sense of the sometimes absurd spectacle of animals paraded at dog shows. Rather, their pedigree derives from their systems foundations, their capacity to evolve and their flexibility in use. None of the five approaches has developed out of use in restricted and controlled contexts of either low or high levels of complicatedness. Neither has any one of them evolved as a consequence of being applied only to situations with either presumed stakeholder agreement on purpose, or courteous disagreement amongst stakeholders, or stakeholder coercion. The compilation is not a celebration of abstract ‘methodologies’, but of theoretically robust approaches that have a genuine pedigree in practice.

The role of systems thinking in the practice of implementing sustainable development goals

Implementing the sustainable development goals (SDGs) adopted at the UN Summit in September 2015 specifically invites the creation of “an integrated, holistic, multi-stakeholder approach”. This implies the need for systems thinking in practice, a tradition that draws on systems theories, tools and techniques able to facilitate better conversation and cooperation between agencies. As an approach it goes beyond development of competencies through formal education programmes. This paper focuses on SDG 17—the means of implementation—and the role of systems thinking in practice for supporting both competence and SDG implementation capability. Two inter-linked initiatives led by systems thinking practitioners in the field of sustainability science are reported; one is an action research inquiry exploring the praxis (theory-informed-action) challenges of applying systems thinking in practice in contemporary workplaces ranging from in-field development projects to government administrations and business ventures, and another which built on the findings from this inquiry—a proposal for developing an action-learning platform for SDG implementation. Experience suggests that implementing SDGs requires not only competence in systems thinking but a capability of putting systems thinking into practice in a dynamic way, as praxis. The proposed action-learning platform can also be regarded as a learning laboratory in the sense that it will offer learning support and a chance to collaborate and experiment. This platform aims to be co-designed with multi-agency practitioners from international development, government planning, business/social enterprise and NGOs. The proposed platform draws on open-source resources, and ideas of social learning, developmental evaluation and systems thinking in practice traditions.

Thinking Differently About Sustainability: Experiences from the UK Open University

Systems thinking is often invoked as a panacea for dealing with issues of sustainable development. Imperatives towards being more holistic—getting the bigger picture—are often coupled with a need for greater interdisciplinarity—joined-up-thinking—particularly amongst triple bottom line disciplines of economics, social studies and natural sciences. So why are systems thinking courses not more prevalent? And how might the teaching of systems thinking enhance the value of thinking differently about sustainable development? The Open University, UK, is a recognised international leader in the provision of Systems education for over 40 years. More recent experiences with the launch of a postgraduate Systems Thinking in Practice suite of qualifications at Certificate, Diploma, and Masters level, suggest an appetite for systems thinking amongst mature-age part-time students from a variety of professional backgrounds with an interest in learning for sustainability. This paper outlines three key features of the two core modules of the programme—epistemic understanding, active pedagogy, and design praxis. Significantly, these attributes have helped to complement rather than replace existing skill-sets amongst professionals from different sectors working in the field of sustainable development.