Notes on-Systems Approaches to Managing

Change: Part 6Critical System Heuristics

A Practical GuideEds. – Martin Reynolds & Sue Holwell

Chapter 6 Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH)

Werner Ulrich and Martin Reynolds

• A framework for reflectiveprofessional practice focused on a centraltool of ‘boundary critique.

• A particular aspect of CSH is the waythat it welcomes, encourages and usesthe natural ‘tensions’ that exist betweenopposing perspectives of management.

• So ‘situation vs. system’, ‘is vs. ought’and judgements which people may havewho are ‘involved vs. affected butuninvolved’

• Boundary critique is a process that isparticipatory – an unfolding andquestioning of judgments that leads topragmatic outcomes.

6.1 What is CSH?

CSH is a ‘philosophical framework to support ‘professional’ reflective practice that through a process of reflection and discussion unfolds the core assumptions held within the thinking through of any system.

In its basic format it consists of 12 ‘boundary’ questions – not to be used as the means to populate the existing but as a tool to understand situations so as to design systems with a view to improvement

1. Making sense of situations: understanding assumptions and appreciating the bigger picture

Making explicit the boundaries of system, to inform thinkingand cultivate an holistic awareness that then widens the issue.

These include:

• Values and motivations

• A stakeholders take on a situation and the efforts to improveit

• Power structures

• Influential forces that define the problem and limit orexpand the reach of suitable outcomes

• The knowledge basis

• What skills and experiences are relevant to the situation inrespect of extracted learning

• The moral basis

• For those who would feel the benefits and costs associatedto our actions but who are not directly involved in thesituation.

These four dimensions in CSH are called ‘sources of influence’

1. Sources of Motivation

2. Source of control

3. Source of knowledge

4. Sources of legitimacy

2. Unfolding multiple perspectives: promoting mutual understanding• The 12 Boundary Questions (now to be referred as CSHq1-12) arethere to help us define what is ‘in’ and what is ‘out’ of the situation.

• The boundary judgements help us examine the most apt frame fromwhich to address the situation.

In reference to the table on slide 237

• Each question is framed in two ways – a normative or ideal model –the ‘what ought to be’ and the descriptive ‘ what is’

• The table allows for comparisons to be made between the foursources of influence – we can compare and contrast the judgements

• Furthermore we can compare and contrast the judgementsbetween stakeholders who are ‘involved’ and those affected

• Finally – we can compare the entire set of boundary judgmentsassociated to one system with that of the boundary judgementsassociated to an entirely different system.

• It is this that allows us to counter the well known managerialsituation of ‘talking at cross purposes’ or ‘talking past each other’

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

3. Promoting reflective practice: analysing situations and changing themIf we know where the boundaryjudgements lie we canunderstand where potentialfriction exists which can onlyhelp us improve the situation aswe widen the gene pool ofperspectives.

Boundary judgements cansometimes be imposed on anindividual, whether involveddirectly or not. CSH helpsdisclose these issues and throughan emancipatory process helpfree people to make their ownjudgements.

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

CSH & the traditions of thought

Systems thinking – as a reference system circumscribed by the 12 questions

• Churchman explored this through his writing and developed the model from a set of nine ‘necessary conditions’ that form a system (CHSq1-9) on which he added three additional conditions relating to the following; philosophers of the system, enemies of the system and significance of the system.

• The enemies created the important CSH heuristic device of ‘tension’ as a creative tool.

Practical philosophy

European traditional ‘critical philosophy’ and the ‘American’ pragmatic philosophy with its action orientated approach blended by Ulrich into critical pragmatism

Critical Systems Thinking lies in the notion that all and every facet of systems thinking is ‘partial’ in that it neither can be inclusive of the entire universe of considerations nor can it be an effective tool for every person involved.

Therefore any systems based approach has to acknowledge what is NOT included and that they must include multiple perspectives

6.2 Applying CSHChallenging

situationBoundary reflection Boundary discourse

NRUA -Botswana

Analysis of existing framework so as to

understand limitations. Address how the

participatory planning can be improved

Report on limitations of existing framework.

Make everyone aware of stakeholders who are

marginalised and those who are represented.

Communicate improvements to the

stakeholders

ECOSENSUS-Guyana

Develop the planning process to make it more

inclusive of wider stakeholder groups

The promotion of a broad range of

stakeholder interests focused on preservation

and development of wetlands.

Two distinct case studies both aroundnatural resource planning but CSH beingused for two distinct purposes:

1. As the means to evaluate an approachthat was being adopted so as toidentify limitations, provide a criticalframework with a view to rebalancethe marginalised stakeholder andsuggest ways the existing planningprocess could be enhanced.

2. As the means to understand,communicate and enable sustainableplanning and development whilstaccommodating the needs of wider,disenfranchised stakeholder group

6.2.2 Using CSH as an intervention tool: some basic conceptsCSH is a framework like any of the otherfours system based tools we have looked at.A piece of scaffolding that allows practionersto work in such a way so as to improve thesituation. The basic aims are:

• Making sense

• Inclusivity of multiple perspectives

• Promoting reflective practice

The boundary questions are there to uncoverthe reference systems that inform our view.

CSH provides the means to conduct a wellstructured conversation between systemsand situations that is conducting a systematicboundary critique.

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

6.2.2.1 Systems Versus situation

Systems are conceptual constructs NOT real-world entities, that is they help in the description of complex realities.

• Both SSM and CSH are conceptual tools for learning about reality NOT positioned within reality. SSM looks to compare the practioners perceptions against reality whilst CSH “makes problematic’ the situation perceived to be problematic’ itself” (p251). This is done so that the practioner can connect with and engage with their own assumptions.

• ‘System and situation’ are seen as a continuum in CSH, at two extremes of proximity against reality. By engaging with this we are already considering the two as being abstract and distinct from the infinitely rich domain of the real-world.

• CSH uses three separate but interrelated terms that refer to varying degrees of reality

• Maps – close to reality but never the same as

• Design – less proximate to reality but closer to what ought to be

• Model – heuristic devices to engage with reality through maps and design. CSH itself can be seen as a model of reflective practice.

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY

6.2.2.1 Systems Versus situation

Do not confuse a map with the ‘territory’ nor with the perception of a‘territory’ which of course is a map in its own right.

• Imbedded in the map and situation are own perceptions so takinga system map and comparing this against a situation of ourunderstanding offers no insight. This is critical perspective that theidea of a situation as being a map, influenced by the same thinking –we can though consider the differences between maps as anindication of our judgments as we build different models.

• Maps are descriptions of the real world, and common in our dailylanguage; financial system, hydraulic system, legal system, ecosystem.We understand this notion so why deviate from it?

• Equally – traffic systems, timetables, systems to model climatechange or social conditions – are systems we think of as models notdescriptions of the real-world.

• This definition process, in CSH terms, is called reference systems

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

6.2.2.2 Reference Systems

A reference system is ‘the context thatmatters when it comes to assessing themerits and defects of a proposition’ -Ulrich

So much of what systems thinking is about isapplying models to problematic situations withouta thought as to how that situation has beendefined. We have to see the world through theeyes of another, even through our own eyes in acritical but informed manner. It is therefore crucialthat we are clear on which lens we are lookingthrough. CSH through the notion of referencesystem, allows us to make explicit which lens thisis. By engaging with the 12 boundary questionsand the sources of influence (motivation, control,knowledge and legitimacy) we create a commonlanguage to facilitate the surfacing and review ofthe boundaries. This is NOT the setting ofboundaries but exploring them. We do not do thisbecause we have the answer but because we wantto explore the selective nature of our claims.

6.2.3 A Core Concept of CSH: Systematic Boundary CritiqueThe process of unfolding – that is making both ourselves

and others aware of the prevailing boundary

judgements – those areas of selectivity. This is a deep

reminder that no investigation using system’s

techniques can be ever holistic.

The constant tension between system and situation is

addressed through the critiquing process by first,

reducing selectivity as much as possible and secondly, by

openly acknowledging what selectivity there is.

The boundary judgments of stakeholder, stake and

stakeholding go through a systematic question process

shown in the table opposite. The aim of this questioning

is to explore how well the judgements fit the criteria of:

• Relevance

• Justification

• Ethical defendability

CSH seeks to be the tool to promote discourse and

debate, to lead to more informed decision making based

off the beliefs and tenets of Critical Systems Thinking.

This is the step away from holism to systems practice –

which is no guarantor of rational decision making.

6.2.3.1 Unfolding Boundary judgements

Aims are to uncover prevailing selectivity and partiality withinreference system and inherent in the claim.

How? By examining each claim and how its impacted by boundaryjudgements. We do this by using the 12 boundary questions andapplying them in the most effective way to unfold the issues.

No particular order is needed – but at the start a sequence (opposite)is advisable until you become a seasoned practioner. The sequenceworks as well with ‘ought’ or is. Often best to start with the ‘ought’side as here we are dealing with aspirations. If we are in a groupsession to start with is may create recriminations, blame and a need tosource accountability. If you start with ‘ought’ what you are offeringthem is to share their vision.

Opposite we see the four sources of selectivity (influence) mapped tothe three boundary categories – this then shapes a narrative whichallows us to challenge the claims of a system as well as validate it. Thishelps us stand back from the claim and look at the wider, biggerpicture through a discursive reflective effort.

Churchman saw three objectives in using CSH; to generate goals,objectives and ideals from which to plan strategies for each.

The focus has now shifted to ‘value clarification’ rather than a desireto comprehensively understand every detail of the whole – anidealistic goal that inhibited the opportunity to gain distance and seethe selectivity.

6.2.3.2 Questioning Boundary JudgementsIf we define (settle) a boundary it becomes fixed,closed down to further analysis they become ‘given’.The process we engage with is ‘testing’ – we assumethat the claim has had some prior judgements madebut this process is about making these systemicallydefined and the results published for all to see.

In practice, no one can ever claim to have the rightanswer – so we have to approach this from a positionof ‘selectivity but by maintaining transparency,democratic decision making.

How do we know the quality of the decision? Whatare the alternatives? Could we defend our choices toothers?

We need to consider the scope of the claim, itsnature from not just one position but that of others.

Claims have consequences many of which will beeasily managed or easy to determine, some thoughmay need professional help to discern theimplications.

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC

6.2.3.2 Questioning Boundary Judgements (Cont.)

Boundary reflection

• Do the ‘is’ boundaryjudgements relevant to eachof the contexts that matteragree with the ‘ought’boundary judgements? Isthere a discrepancy between‘is’ and ‘ought’ – if so shouldwe revise the boundaryassumptions?

Here we are aiming to handlethe boundary questioning in aself-critical mode

6.2.3.2 Questioning Boundary Judgements (Cont.)

Boundary discourse

• Are there any conflictingboundary issues between thedifferent contexts that matter? Ifthere are then this may help inunderstanding why we disagreewith what the issue is. We may beable to revise boundaryjudgements to accommodateperspectives although we may stillnot agree on a solution.

This mode is all about improvingshared understanding and to helpthrough questioning those whomay not have considered theirjudgements in such a self criticalfashion.

6.2.4.1 Ideal mapping (Identifying the ‘Ought’)

• In the case study presented the authorfirst set out to map and therefore clarify thenormative aspects of the reference systemwith a what ‘ought’ to be analysis.

• This started with a reflection by theauthor on their personal reference systemswhich meant getting comfortable andidentifying their natural bias. From this hedefined (titled) his reference system so as togive it the boundary and at least start to. Anyevaluation needs a starting point, it willchange over times as the process andthinking develops, but the first part is to gothrough the ideal mapping exercise, the 12boundary questions unfolding in a patternsuch as the one shown previously.

• The aim is not to assume we occupy anideal world it is to present what is ‘real’ vs.what is ideal allowing us the distance to becritically aware of what improvement couldlook like.

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

6.2.4.2 Descriptive Mapping (The ‘Is’ Analysis

Two pronged approach – you first identify the stakeholders and then specify roles performed. This allows you to ‘surface’ key problems that may exist between the two.

• Stage 1: Identifying Stakeholder Groups

Be aware that roles may not be mutually exclusive

• Stage 2: Eliciting Concerns and Key Problems

Be aware that you will collect a lot of information presented as maps which will be critiques against the normative maps produced earlier

6.2.4.3 Critique: ‘Ought’ and Is’

A key aspect of CSH is to embrace the concept of creative disruption.

Critiquing the normative and descriptive is not a negative it is a means of providing the platform for improvement. It is the means by which we understand the existing practices, the contexts that they operate in and the means by which we can improve them

6.2.4.4 Extra-discursive and Discursive EvaluationIn the example of systematic boundary critique presented in the text thepractioner utilised the CSH categories in a purposeful way distinct to their needs.This customised approach was broken into three:

i. The perceived stakeholder role

ii. The particulars of the project since stakeholders had multiple stakes indifferent projects

iii. Information that was derived from previous interviews as well as additionalresearch

It is advisable that as the study starts that a culture of journaling is embraced sincethis is the primary source material for the ‘is’ mapping.

The real value of CSH lies in the dialogue it generates through the sharing offindings derived from interviews, informal gatherings and via the interim reportingstage to stakeholders.

Boundaries are key sources of conflict (therefore areas of creativity) – they areareas of power-relations, expert-biases and places were the wider legitimacy ofthe project can be explored.

Report formats can be structured as

• Authors perceptions relating to central issues, underlying values, purpose ofproject, issues of power and decision making, relevant knowledge and moralunderpinning

• A description of authors own role and purpose

This is primarily a qualitative exercise aimed at creating pathways to improvecollaboration and identify responsibility for overall improvement in the situation.

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND

6.2.5.1 Developing CSH LiteracyWe cannot prompt for a discursiveapproach if we do not first create auniversal language. In the practicalapplication of CSH there are two aimsfor developing CSH literacy, the firstto create a language suitable to beput into a system such asCompendium; the second was tocreate accessibility into the work forthose who for whatever reasoncannot access the language. In thepursuit of ‘boundary reflection anddiscourse’ Ulrich created four basictemplates which were crucial inproviding direction of the boundarycritique as well as highlight practicalaspects like raining needs.

The more fluent people are in thelanguage the better the motivationthere is to engage in discursiveactivities.

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

6.2.5.1 Developing CSH Literacy -Four templates for boundary critique

Templates for four basic applications of boundary critique (P.276)

Template (a):Purpose:Guiding question:

Ideal Mapping‘Vision building’What is our vision? (or: Where do we want to go from here?)

Elementary use of boundary questions used in the ‘ought’ mode

Template (b):Purpose:Guiding question:

Evaluation‘Value clarification’Where are we standing? (or: How satisfied are we with the state of affairs?)

Elementary use of boundary questions used in the ‘ought’ and ‘is’ modes

Template (c): Purpose:Guiding question:

Reframing‘Boundary revision’What’s the relevant context? (or: How else can we frame the picture?)

Using this in the ‘ought’ and ‘is’ modes but accompanied by a critique for each

Template (d): Purpose:Guiding question:

Challenge‘Emancipation’Don’t you claim too much? (or: How can we rationally claim this is right?)

Advanced mode of use for boundary critique leading to questions that are countered by suggestions, doubts, contradictions and ‘what-if’ analysis

6.2.5.1 Developing CSH Literacy –Construction of templatesUse of ‘own language’

Where possible to create fluencyin the dialogues and discussionslanguage needs to be madereflective of the participantsneeds. The table opposite is atype of decision tree used for anideal mapping template

Tables such as these can beconstructed for templates b to d,all with increasing levels ofcomplexity

6.2.5.3 Team Building for and by Using Boundary CritiqueThe framework for team developmentunderstands the two prevailingtensions in systems thinking andparticipation:

1. Tension between system andsituations

2. Tension between differingperspectives

Using the concepts of boundarydiscourse areas of conflict can beidentified and the pursuit of sharedpractice derived from mutualacknowledged understanding (thoughnot shared) can be attained.

This commonality helps to developteam cohesion.

6.3 Developing CSH skills and Significance6.3.1 Boundary Critique andPersonal Confidence

Good professional practice isenhanced with an appreciation foran aptitude to uncover and work inthe field of boundary critique. It isnot enough to just recognise thatboundaries exist and treat them ashostile to our views we also needto understand the perspectives ofothers, views and judgements thatare themselves delimited by theirown boundary judgements.

So boundary reflection anddiscourse have much to do with ourown working styles and abilities

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

6.3.2 Recognising Boundary Judgements – Keeping them fluid

• What role does boundary judgements play? On way of familiarising yourself more with boundary judgements is to listen to arguments, trivial to consequential, and bring in the perceptions of boundary’s that you hear. How people misunderstand what others say or talk at cross purposes. Then you gain an appreciation of the value of boundary judgements and you will learn to bring this thinking in continuously. As people discuss with you will be asking yourself what sources of motivation,. Control, knowledge and legitimacy they bring to their arguments and thinking.

• “To understand the role of boundary judgements means to keep them under review and fluid rather than allowing them to become ‘hard’ and taken for granted.” P284

• How do we make boundary judgements visible and fluid?

• Two basic approaches are via ‘systematic iteration’ and systematic triangulation’

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

6.3.2.1 Systematic Iteration of Boundary Judgements

All boundary judgments are interdependent so that newinformation that modifies one judgment will be susceptible tochange.

The process that we follow to unfurl and question is thereforenot a one-off piece of deliberation it is a cycle of multiplerevisions that takes us through a weaving path of changingsequences and reflective as well an iterative process.

There are three important aspects to the iterative process forboundary judgements:

1. As we generate new insights into our reference systemforcing us to revise boundary judgements we need not gethung up on ‘getting them right’ at the start.

2. Since the 12 boundary questions are themselvesinterdependent it does not matter where we start. We canlet the reflection and associated dialogue unfoldorganically

3. And since all of this is ‘iterative’ we can start with anyboundary judgement and then reflect this insight into whatwe have previously discovered, Similarly as we flit between‘is an ought’ we will further create deeper understandingaround the nature of the prevailing boundary

This will become easier over time, the more we use it and engagewith it the greater we are at ease creating a natural ebb and flowto the inquiry.

6.3.2.2 Systemic Triangulation

Boundary judgements are influenced by two other sets ofjudgements – these are:

• What we perceive to be reality that is what we observe orexpect to happen as a response to our actions. Theseconstitute judgements of fact.

• What we intuitively see as ‘improvement’ that is how wemove the existing ‘is’ to a ‘goal’ based on a measure ofworth. These observations judgements of value.

So now we have a triad of judgements, fact, value andboundary. A boundary is defined by what facts and values areincluded – they are seen as being interdependent of eachother and both are reliant upon by the same boundaryjudgements. There is an interplay between each of the threevertices, Ulrich calls this the eternal triangle.

As a systems practioner I need to challenge myself to standback from my own reference system and appreciate it fromanother's perspective. It I a core skill and one that needs tobecome a habit. As Ulrich says

“The triangle figure offers itself since figurativelyspeaking, each angle in a triangle depends on the othertwo. We cannot modify any one without simultaneouslymodifying the other two.

6.3.2.2 Systemic Triangulation (Cont.)Systemic Triangulation serves five critical aims:

1. It underpins reflective practice

2. It helps us communicate our own biases thusqualifying our own proposals

3. It acts as a filter to others selectivity thusallowing us to see and assess the merits oftheir arguments

4. It improves communication by promotingunderstanding and highlighting the differencesthat hinder the ability to share a mutualunderstanding of each others views.

5. It can deliver tolerance of views that can leadto shared productive working. Once we fullyadopt the triangulation mindset we appreciatethat no one person can have a monopoly onfactual accuracy, or he ascendancy in the morerights and values

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

6.3.3 Towards a New Ethos of Professional ResponsibilityThe five critical elements of the previous slide act as a newethos of responsibility for systems practitioners.

It is the tenets of values and behaviours that allprofessional systems thinker need to adhere to.

6.3.3.1 “Context Matters”: Working with the Tension ofSystem and Situation

Context matters – that is the key call to action whenthinking about boundary critique. “What is the relevantcontext?” Or simply “Which context matters and why doesit matter? Broken down – the first part is about relevanceand an invitation to reflect on the situation, the second partwe are asked to consider the validity of the context. Whatare the arguments that support or challenge the context ofthe situation?

Getting to grips with context is about coming to terms withthe tension between system and situation. It helps to standback and judge our own perspective, to continuously askquestions to capture the situation and the perception thatwe have.

Tension of System and Situation

6.3.3 Towards a New Ethos of Professional Responsibility (Cont.)Boundary critique must therefore includeboth system and situation – it must informboth and in doing so make our systemsmaps that much more replete.

A good practioner must remain open toothers perceptions- it is this sense ofopenness and respect that will help bringout the issues that will revise the initialmaps.

It should operate in the background – if wemake our questioning to forthright peoplewill switch off possibly even becomedefensive.

We will approach this practice not from theposition of authority or as an expert but inthe vein of a competent partner, that is onan equal footing with those we work with. This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

6.3.3.2 “Deep Complementarism”: The Significance of Using CSH in Support of Other Methodologies and Methods

This deep appreciation of boundary

critique should help us apply the

thinking to other methodologies. We will

adopt a new openness for what others

see as valuable regardless of whether it

is ‘had’, ‘soft’ or ‘critical’ or any other

approach.

Problem situations are dynamic, shift

around and may well respond to

different approaches; that dos not mean

that application of the eternal triangle is

not valid, far from it, its enhancing.

Boundary critique should be a skill all

practioners adopt not as the means of

replacement but the means of

enhancement. It is the reflective practice

that makes this tool such a potent one.

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY

6.3.3.3 “Seeing the World Through the Eyes of Others”: Systems Thinking a Constructive CritiqueWhat insight or value does CSH contribute in respect of the desire “to see the world through the eyes of another”? Or for that matter how does CSH help us to be constructively critical?

Th world is messy and a significant part of the complexity comes from the context of the situation and accordingly how far that situation impacts, at least from the perspective of interested stakeholders.

As we become more practiced in this process so we will be more adepts at using the process to stimulate our thinking, eventually every situation will present itself as a challenge to understand where the boundary lies and what the context is and ought to be.

“Dare to articulate your own boundary judgements and to question those of others!”

Make this our mantra as we become seasoned systems thinkers

End of Part 6

Notes by James Cracknell BA (Hons.)

As part of TU811 OU Course Systems Tools for Managing Change

Reynolds, M. and Holwell, S. (2010) Introducing Systems Approaches, in Martin Reynolds, Sue Holwell (Eds.) Approaches to managing Change: A Practical Guide. London: Springer in association with The Open University