Content uploaded by Michael C Jackson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael C Jackson on Mar 04, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Total Systems Intervention: A Practical Face to Critical Systems Thinking
Abstract
This is the first exposition of a new methodology (or perhaps meta-methodology) for systems practice known as Total Systems Intervention (TSI). Designed to overcome the weaknesses of hard, cybernetic, and soft systems approaches and build on their strengths, TSI represents a practical face of critical systems thinking. It advocates combining three building blocks-systems metaphors, system of systems methodologies, and individual systems methodologies—in an interactive manner which is deemed to be particularly powerful and fruitful. In this paper the philosophy, principles, and phases of the TSI methodology are set out and two very different examples of its use are provided.
... He denies the possibility of pluralism forming part of a new unique paradigm. Total systems intervention was created by Flood and Jackson [18] and was originally defined as a novel approach to planning, designing, "problem solving", and evaluation. TSI, a type of meta-methodology, is underpinned by the main tenets of critical systems thinking (CST), which can be summarised as follows. ...
... This is particularly true when the situation involves the use of power relations among stakeholders. As Jackson informs us: "TSI signalled its embrace of the philosophy of CST by declaring its commitment to 'sociological awareness', 'complementarism', and 'human well-being and emancipation'" [18]. The project in this study embraced efficiency, effectiveness, and viability. ...
... Table 1. The TSI meta-methodology (from [18] (p. 54)). ...
The paper proposes a ‘Systemic Multi-methodological Framework’ for multi-methodological management science/operational research (MS/OR) interventions. Based on John Mingers’ framework for mapping MS/OR methodologies/methods/techniques, we advance a systemic framework to enhance systemic intervention. The framework draws from the key elements of Robert Flood and Mike Jackson’s and Mingers’ concepts for multi-methodological practice. We discuss both the practical difficulties of applying Mingers’ notional systems in the real world and the cultural and psychological obstacles that prevent the viability of a multi-method and multi-paradigm intervention. We discuss the insights that are useful for overcoming the obstacles inherent to a multi-methodological intervention. By proposing an original framework, we aim to contribute to the debate about increasing systemic interventions and multi-methodological practice in MS/OR.
... Thus, critical and post-modern researchers developed alternative soft methods, including the method of critical systems heuristics by Ulrich (1993) and the method of participatory appraisal needs and the development of action by Taket and White (1998). These methods also faced critiques such as lack of empirical techniques and methods, idealism (Flood and Jackson, 1991) and lack of a clear methodology and too local and limited view of issues (Jackson, 2003). Moreover, socio-technical systems, in addition to having the characteristics of social systems, also include structural complexity, emergent and evolutionary behaviours that result from the interaction of social and technical aspects and components of the system with each other. ...
... Fully combined or partially combined? (for example, Flood and Jackson, 1991). The third important issue in combining methods is strategy and how to combine methods with each other. ...
To capture the complexity and diversity of systems with both technical and social features, modeling methods are needed that similarly provide various tools and concepts. The study of developed methods shows that despite all their advantages and strengths, there is a need for a method that with a holistic approach integrates perspectives, strengths and tools of the developed methods and models different aspects of socio-technical systems. The main aim of the current study is to design a method for modeling complex socio-technical systems. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to design a method that is based on creativity and existing knowledge base. Therefore, Design science research is used as a research strategy to design proposed method. For the first time, design science research in the field of operations research has been used to design a modeling method. The current study also presents new tools and concepts for modeling socio-technical systems
... The call was for methodological pluralism (sometimes also called "multimethodology" [68]), and a rapidly-growing group of researchers contributed to defining what this meant [13,43,60,61,[66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84]. Essentially, the focus was drawing upon a wide range of methodologies to address a correspondingly wide range of purposes in interventions, instead of favoring just one relatively narrow methodology and pretending it can address every context we might encounter in systems practice. ...
This paper presents a systemic intervention methodology that starts with boundary critique: exploring different boundaries and values that might matter to stakeholders when framing the purposes of an intervention. Boundary critique helps people develop an enhanced understanding of the situation being addressed, and it focuses attention on dealing with conflict and marginalization. Systemic intervention also offers a theory and practice of methodological pluralism: creatively mixing methods from a diverse range of methodological sources in response to the initial boundary critique, so systemic improvements can be designed. This creative mixing of methods yields a much more flexible and responsive approach than might be possible with a narrower range of methods. The value of a systemic intervention approach is illustrated through several practical examples.
... Generally, CST is defined by three shared commitments: critical awareness, examining, and re-examining of underlying assumptions; orientation towards emancipation and/or improvement defined temporarily and locally; and methodological pluralism [14]. CST can be defined as having two strands: one encompassing CSH, which focuses on critical awareness and emancipation/improvement, and another on theoretical and methodological pluralism often associated with the work Flood and Jackson [15] on selecting systems methods for particular problem contexts [16]. Scholars within each strand hold differing views on and visions for CSH [7,17]. ...
It is not possible to examine a situation or system of interest in its entirety or from all possible perspectives. Boundaries inevitably determine what is included and excluded, which can have practical, political, and ethical consequences. Critical systems heuristics (CSH) offers a framework of questions posed in descriptive (what is) and normative (what should be) modes that can inform boundary setting and resetting in any inquiry, intervention, or evaluation. This chapter first introduces CSH and its early developments and influences. The next section highlights recent examples on the use of CSH from Colombia and New Zealand. The subsequent section identifies several open questions regarding CSH and its applicability. The chapter concludes with reflections on future directions.
... Similar to WSR methodology, it emphasizes a holistic view and humanistic care, but its unique module levels may limit its ability to capture high-level conceptual information. Total Systems Intervention (TSI) was developed by Flood and Jackson in 1991 to help practical managers apply "critical systems thinking" principles in three stages: creativity, choice, and implementation [53]. While it shares some similarities with WSR in selecting appropriate problem solutions, TSI has a wider application scope. ...
With the promotion of Engineering Procurement Construction mode in railway construction projects, collaborative management between design and construction has faced increasing challenges due to complexities of the participants and the various professional fields involved in railway EPC projects. This paper aims to analyze the issues present in the collaborative management of railway EPC project design and construction. Utilizing the social network analysis methodology combined with the Wuli–Shili–Renli (WSR) system methodology, a network model was established to explore relationships between design and construction management. This study investigates network-influencing factors and proposes targeted measures to enhance project management efficiency. The findings indicate that coordination and communication mechanisms, organization building, interface management systems and design management systems represent core network elements that significantly impact railway EPC collaborative management. These elements are closely related to other network factors. The research not only advances design and construction coordination theory, but it also introduces new ideas for engineering practice.
This paper explores the application of critical systems practice (CSP) in the context of supply chain management to address disruptions caused by the COVID‐19 pandemic. The study examined the theoretical application of CSP to a real‐world food supply chain case, reviewing how systems thinking can enhance resilience by addressing systemic issues. The case analysis reveals the tactical approaches taken in response to the disruptive effects caused by the pandemic. A causal analysis reveals the presence of unreconciled elements, for example, a lack of inventory transparency between firms, classified as unresolved systemic issues that negatively affect the ability of the wider supply chain to manage the discontinuity of the supply chain. A conceptual framework and retrospective theoretical application articulate CSP's utility in addressing unreconciled systemic issues. This paper is one of the first applications of CSP in a supply chain context, providing a novel lens for examining resilience. Limitations include the research approach (retrospection), with further longitudinal studies, suggested to empirically assess the conceptual framework postulated in this paper.
Cross‐sector partnerships are essential for addressing wicked problems but are typically ineffective because of messy human and organisational dynamics. Systemic approaches are needed to re‐design collaborations for a collaborative advantage. While the Viable System Model (VSM) is suited to this task, little guidance is provided on managing multiple perspectives or marginalisation in VSM interventions. Hence, we trial and evaluate the utility of a novel multimethodology approach combining the VSM with Team Syntegrity (TS), which is a workshop protocol for supporting fair dialogue and stakeholder pluralism. Our findings show this combination supports joined‐up thinking about improvements for viability and synergies from combining these methodologies. We propose that before a VSM diagnosis, an understanding of ‘what a system does’ and existence of VSM functions is established to ensure more meaningful selection of intervention participants and consideration of the VSM's insights. We also identify four avenues for marginalisation that need careful consideration in critical systems interventions.
Cause-and-effect arrows are drawn from genotype (G), environment (E), and agronomic management (M) to the plant phenotype in crop stands in a useful but incomplete framework that informs research questions, experimental design, statistical analysis, data interpretation, modelling, and breeding and agronomic applications. Here we focus on the overlooked bidirectionality of these arrows. The phenotype-to-genotype arrow includes increased mutation rates in stressed phenotypes, relative to basal rates. From a developmental viewpoint, the phenotype modulates gene expression, returning multiple cellular phenotypes with a common genome. The phenotype-to-environment arrow is captured in the process of niche construction, which spans from persistent and global to transient and local. Research on crop rotations recognizes the influence of the phenotype on the environment but is divorced from niche construction theory. The phenotype-to-management arrow involves, for example, a diseased crop that may trigger fungicide treatment. Making explicit the bidirectionality of the arrows in the G×E×M framework contributes to narrowing the gap between data-driven technologies and integrative theory, and is an invitation to think cautiously of the internal teleonomy of plants in contrast to the view of the phenotype as the passive end of the arrows in the current framework.
Ambiguity is often recognized as an intrinsic aspect of addressing complex sustainability challenges. Nevertheless, in the practice of transdisciplinary sustainability research, ambiguity is often an ‘elephant in the room’ to be either side-stepped or reduced rather than explicitly mobilized in pursuit of solutions. These responses threaten the salience and legitimacy of sustainability science by masking the pluralism of real-world sustainability challenges and how research renders certain frames visible and invisible. Critical systems thinking (CST) emerged from the efforts of operational researchers to address theoretical and practical aspects of ambiguity. By adapting key concepts, frameworks, and lessons from CST literature and case studies, this paper aims to establish (1) an expansive conceptualization of ambiguity and (2) recommendations for operationalizing ambiguity as a valuable means of addressing sustainability challenges. We conceptualize ambiguity as an emergent feature of the simultaneous and interacting boundary processes associated with being, knowing, and intervening in complex systems, and propose Reflexive Boundary Critique (RBC) as a novel framework to help navigate these boundary processes. Our characterization of ambiguity acknowledges the boundary of a researcher’s subjective orientation and its influence on how ambiguity is exposed and mediated in research (being), characterizes knowledge as produced through the process of making boundary judgments, generating a partial, contextual, and provisional frame (knowing), and situates a researcher as part of the complexity they seek to understand, rendering any boundary process as a form of intervention that reinforces or marginalizes certain frames and, in turn, influences action (intervening). Our recommendations for sustainability scientists to operationalize ambiguity include (1) nurturing the reflexive capacities of transdisciplinary researchers to navigate persistent ambiguity (e.g., using our proposed framework of RBC), and (2) grappling with the potential for and consequences of theoretical incommensurability and discordant pluralism. Our findings can help sustainability scientists give shape to and embrace ambiguity as a fundamental part of rigorous sustainability science.
This paper offers some thoughts on the present state of management science as a discipline and a profession, and considers possible developmental strategies. The growth of management science, and the optimism this engendered, was largely premised on the successful use of scientific methodology and quantitative techniques to solve a relatively narrow range of management problems. In the 1970s, however, this positivist/quantitative 'traditional management science' became subject to increasing critical assault from those who wanted to broaden the impact of the discipline. Alternative management science approaches were born--soft systems thinking, organisational cybernetics, critical management science--and succeeded in establishing themselves. The existence of these alternative strands of work, alongside traditional management science, raises important questions about the future development of the discipline and profession. In this paper four developmental possibilities are set down and examined to see what future prospects they hold out for management science. It is argued that three of these--the isolationist, imperialist and pragmatist strategies--would lead the discipline into a dead end. A pluralist option, however, offers excellent opportunities for successful, future development.
In this paper six scenarios for the future of systems problem solving are investigated in order to ascertain whether an approach can be identified (a) that offers prospects for the long-term survival and success of systems problem solving in practice and (b) that does this without incorporating theoretical contradictions. The six approaches come under the four class headings pragmatism, isolationism, imperialism, and pluralism. The theoretical foundations of each approach are explored in a discursive fashion. This makes explicit to systems practitioners the underlying principles on which their activities are overlaid and puts such approaches into the theoretical context of the six approaches identified herein.
In the modern world organisations are faced with innumerable and multifaceted issues which cannot be captured in the minds of a few experts and solved with the aid of some super-method. It would be equally wrong to revert to a trial and error approach. We need to retain rigorous and formalised thinking, while admitting the need for a range of problem-solving methodologies. The future prospects of management science will be much enhanced if (a) the diversity of issues confronting managers is accepted, (b) work on developing a rich variety of problem-solving methodologies is undertaken, and (c) we continually ask the question: 'What kind of issue can be 'managed' with which sort of methodology?'
This volume, 'Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention', amounts to the bringing together of a huge human effort in the area of the management sciences. Each particular methodology that we have presented in the book is the realisation of years of work by many people, and the management and organisation theory to which we refer goes back nearly a century and has employed armies of researchers. Total Systems Intervention stands at the top of this mountain of effort and is able to offer an overview of the management-oriented disciplines which enable managers and decision makers to gain a command over how to employ them as a whole.
Zeroing in on total quality
- J Thorn
Thorn, J. (1988). Zeroing in on total quality, lndust. Soc. Mag. Sept.: 20-21.
Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention
- R L Flood
- R. L. Flood