Welcome back. As many of our longtime readers know NextD Journal endeavors to provide uncommon, dare we say advanced insights, relevant to emerging practice, not found elsewhere. This week a brief post in follow-up to a subject that arose on the Checkland Puzzle 2 diagram thread. It is a puzzle within the Puzzle 2 that has wider implications.
It is not buried treasure, but instead a particular kind of hiccup related to the notion of “context”... missing context. It is a proverbial horse that already left the barn, but its cascading impact remains with us.
One sensemaking device that we use, working across tribes, is Root Source Analysis, looking at the referencing picture presented in historical literature. In this regard it is useful to have original materials.
Perhaps some of you have had this same experience; Over the years, I have from time-to-time, wondered why some friends/work colleagues with systems thinking backgrounds seem to be oblivious to, not aware of several directly related, preceding parallel communities of practice, in particular the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) and the Visual SenseMaking communities. Both contain vast knowledge and have R&D histories that predate systems thinking.
The aha that dawned on me recently is one of those things that can be explained in 5 minutes but took years to figure out. :-)
FIRST ENCOUNTER
My first encounter with this “context” phenomenon was years ago when someone in a LinkedIn discussion group pointed out to me that he had been a practitioner of systems thinking for 20+ years and had never heard of the CPS community of practice. Other instances subsequently occurred and as I reviewed the Checkland explanation of Puzzle 2 in his 1991 "Soft Systems Methodology in Action", my brain finally made the connection.
Long story short: I believe a clue to that oblivious disconnect can be found in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s systems thinking literature. Checkland is just one example.
Not only is there a lot of self-referencing but an odd truncation of context can also be seen there. Methodology scholars could note that while distant historical figures including Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Pythagoras, and Descartes are referenced, often missing are the near-in-time references to knowledge already in play, methods already in existence in parallel communities of practice.
One might wonder; What is that? an oversight? an academic 3D chess maneuver? competitive gymnastics? or simply lack of awareness? If you are today, writing about a subject that you endeavor to appear in, but you leave out the leading contenders already on the playing field, what does that mean? Who does that?
STRIKING ABSCENCE
Scholars of Visual SenseMaking could note that when Checkland depicted “rich picture building” and “modelling human activity systems” in the 1980s, absent was mention of the broader near-in-time cross-community context, that such knowledge already existed for decades elsewhere and in more advanced states. Decades and decades and decades of hard work, development and forward motion had been undertaken in the visualization community before Checkland's “rich pictures” arrived.
If we showed Otto Neurath systems thinking “rich picture building” I am certain that he would exclaim it to be, in effect, an unacknowledged repeating starting point.
Likewise in the same literature, you can find considerable interest expressed in “real world problems,”,"ill-defined problems," “problem solving,” “problem solver,” “problem situation,” "problem evolution," “problem solving system” but oddly no broader orienting attributional contextual reference to knowledge and methods that already existed in near-time in the actual CPS community, in operational existence decades prior to the arrival of soft systems method tabled in 1981. It was, it is, a striking absence.
Did the Checkland soft systems methodology become an instant gold standard for advanced problem finding/solving/evolving when it was tabled in 1981? It did not. Soft systems methodology was largely an unacknowledged repeating starting point.
TIME TRAVEL
Jouralistically this is a difficult subject to unpack and write about..:-) It could be said that repeating starting points are a form of time travel. Participants agree, knowingly or unknowingly, to ignore the known present and have their tribe go back in time to pretend something is just being invented, when something further along in development already exists. I think of repeating starting points as a backwards hiccup in the time continuum. It's not nostalgic. It's presumptive.
As Checkland pointed out in his 1991 book "Soft Systems Methodology In Action":
"We found the Archilles heel of systems engineering...."The management situations we worked in were always too complex for straightforward application of the systems engineering approach."..."The failure of systems thinking engineering to cope with anything other than well-structured problem situations led to the basic rethink of the fundamentals of systems thinking..."It was having to abandon the classic systems engineering methodology...which led ultimately to the distinction between "hard" and "soft" systems thinking."..."Hard systems thinking is appropriate in well-defined technical problems...soft systems thinking is more appropriate in fuzzy ill-defined situations involving human beings and cultural considerations".
Decoded: That turn in the road happened in the 1980s...Soft systems thinking was an 1980s arrival at the complex problem solving party. CPS had been hosting the party in full R&D/operational mode since the late 1940s-1950s. CPS had its early capacity building knowledge codified and in delivery form two decades before soft systems thinking arrived in its initial form.
NO ONE HOME?
The thrust of the effort to move systems thinking into the complexity arenas in 1981 seemed to have assumed it was entering an undiscovered, unoccupied territory, with no one home. That was a presumptuous, naive misreading that is embedded in the truncated literature.
Truth be told; There are multiple repeating starting points embedded in soft systems thinking which then presents as an oddly bumpy subject mess. There are multiple Archilles heels. Part of what makes it so bumpy is that numerous repeating starting points are presented there with a straight face, as scholarly starting points, without near-in-time attribution other than within engineering.
When soft systems method was tabled in 1981 there had already been decades of complex problem/finding/solving methods related development inside the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) community of practice. It's particular focus; human-centered approaches to complex, ill-defined problems.
CPS was/is essentially an older cousin with aptitudes and attributies towards fuzzy, ill-defined problems. CPS was a generous host, organizing its first yearly public conference in 1955. Imagine an ambitious younger cousin eventually arriving, sporting a different set of genes, speaking up with similar interests, writing the older cousin out of the family tree picture. The timelines tell the peculiar story.
As I reflected, it did occur to me that timeline-wise, it would not be difficult for students of systems thinking, across the decades, to get, to have, a distorted impression of what went down, where, when, what already existed, by reading their highly vaulted, truncated, inter-tribal literature from that era.
INSIDE / OUTSIDE
Unfortunately an odd sense of INSIDE and OUTSIDE was created via that truncated literature. Considerable misreading and misunderstanding followed, much of which remains present today. Of course, once noted, that absence is difficult to unsee. Certainly the odd juxtaposing of holistic thinking rhetoric combined with context truncation is a bit of a head spinner even for seasoned veterans. Such is the literature of that subject.
Our savvy readers will know; It is no secret that marketplace competition and or faculty member academic thought leadership expectations often drive the creation of repeating starting points, achieved via a combination of ignoring others already on the playing field and over-writing.
As I reflected, it felt like the obliviousness puzzle had been decoded at last. I had found a plausible and quite viewable explanation; Absence. To celebrate I took a walk around the block on that sunny day. During that stroll I reflected and realized the story was not yet complete.
ADDED TWIST
As if all that was not complex enough to decipher, I knew there was an added twist in the story, an added complexity in that the goal posts had unexpectedly shifted since that influencial, truncated systems thinking literature bubble appeared decades ago.
While in its various forms, systems thinking struggled for years, and by itself, never really took off, much of what was OUTSIDE, much of what got missed in that truncated literature bubble has since then, let's not miss the irony, become central to the multidimensional shift, the organizational and societal change underway today. The truncation missed alot of nuances, including deep humanization, open challenge framing, think balance, root behavior orchestration, operational clarity, system coherence and deliberate cognitive inclusion.
In contrast, apart from holism, many of the engineering mechanics/dynamics embedded INSIDE the truncation literature bubble did not make the jump to light speed, as they say.
OTHER SIDE
Today organizational and societal changemaking practice is less about engineering control, orienting to "managers" in decision support, or championing convergent thinking (decision-making) and more about enabling inclusive innovation, modeling open systemic framing, speaking up for ThinkBalance and regenerative thinking.
Now on the other side of the shift; How to build sustainable inclusive culture systems geared for complexity navigation and changemaking has trumped; How to tackle complex managerial problems or help managers construct decision support systems.
Decision support and enabling innovation are two very different things. The mission for the new era systemic toolset now needed must be, and is, broader then just solving complex management problems.
Central to that differencing is that while much of the CPS influenced literature is directed at everyday folks, the later arriving systems thinking truncation literature was designed for and directed at engineers. As participatory adoption and capacity building become central, this makes a tremendous difference, that won't go away anytime soon.
Systems Thinking Systems Practice, Checkland, 1981: "The model will contain the minimum number of verbs necessary for the system to be the one named and consisely described in the root definition."
Creative Behavior Guidebook, Parnes, 1967: "Obviously there is an urgency for developing in people the ability to live with constant change in a dynamic society."
What's interesting today is to see so much energy being expended in shifting the INSIDE truncation dynamics towards the missed OUTSIDE dynamics in a now changed world.
That mind bending hodgepodge, in part explains the many Design for Complexity dialects that now exist, some still align with the systems thinking truncation literature, some unfortunately extend the truncation, some still do framing according to truncation literature, some do not, some are engineering oriented, some more humanizing and inclusive. Recognizing that each dialect has its own spirit, it is not difficult to see, not only what is driving various trains but where some spirits are present and some are not.
CLOSING
Clearly the subject of omission and missing near-in-time context by oversight, design, academic maneuvers, narrow casting, or by accident is a bumpy one to be sure.
Whether we all like it or not, the literature truncation bubble is a complex perplexity, a context hiccup that cascades forward into systems thinking community presumptions and tonalities today.
In high contrast, for others in the emerging practice community hard at work on forward motion, the assumptions and tonalities of truncation hold no value and no interest. That truncation has been superceeded by real world practice long ago.
Objection to buying into academic repeating starting points can be as simple as not wanting to go back to engage in time continuum hiccups and restart bubbles. With the state of the world in mind there is no more time for repeating starting points. Not wanting to go back tends to create options in the marketplace now. Having choices is a good thing.
Some other good news is that the Design for Complexity movement is broader than the systems thinking literature truncation. Always has been, Always will be.
Sunny skies are when we have the puzzles within puzzles decoded, shared and can arrive at renewed appreciation of OUTSIDE.
OUTSIDE acknowledges that the building on shoulders of many is a good place to be.
Since the tabling of the truncation dance-step, decades have passed and the world has changed, is changing.
In our Humantific practice we are happy to be working with: OUTSIDE the hiccup back-then is INSIDE the SenseMaking and ChangeMaking circle now. :-) This work of engaging in the complexity arenas of organizational and societal changemaking is not finshed. Much work remains to be done.
It feels good to graduate from this long standing puzzle. A page has turned.
Hope this is helpful readers. Good luck to all.
END.
EPILOGUE: Shortly after writing this post I was riding a bike on 22nd Street here in NYC and remembered a two part NextD Journal conversation that I had in 2007, Rethinking Wicked Problems, where the notion of a Buffalo/Berkely Divide was surfaced. I guess this post completes that circle. We now can add into our consciousness awareness of a Buffalo/Lancaster Divide and a Neurath/Checkland Divide. We think of Think Blending / Hybrid Methods as authentically acknowledging and bridging/transcending the historical hiccups and divides. So be it.
NOTE TO READERS: On purpose, the struggles of design / design thinking to adapt itself to more complex challenges beyond the assumptions of product, service, experience creation and CrossOver is not overlaid into this story. Generally speaking that is a struggle still in progress for many in the design community, including much of graduate design education. Unlike CPS, design does not have a long history of working with complex, fuzzy, ill-structured, organizational or societal challenges. That shift is underway.
Related:
Comments