2016/02 Systems Thinking 2 MUO-E8004 Course Outline

This document is accessible (and may be updated) at http://coevolving.com/aalto/201602-st2-muo-e8004/ .  The pages are listed in ~index.html.

• This is revision 0117a (as posted at January 16, 21:00 ET).  All maps 1 through 8 complete.

A more readable map is at http://coevolving.com/aalto/201602-st2-muo-e8004/201602-st2-muo-e8004-map00-context.svg (or try the png version if SVG looks bad in your browser).

jump to: Course orientation -- [Learning approach] [Grading]

jump to: Sessions -- [Tuesday, January 12] [January preparations] [Tuesday, February 2] [Friday, February 5] [Tuesday, February 9] [Friday, February 12] [Tuesday, February 16] [Friday, February 19] [Due: Appreciation Synthesis]

jump to: References -- [Cluster 0] [Cluster 1] [Cluster 2] [Cluster 3] [Cluster 4] [Cluster 5] [Cluster 6] [Cluster 7] [Cluster 8]

Course orientation

Course instruction team:

• David Ing, http://coevolving.com, https://plus.google.com/+DavidIng, isss@daviding.com.
• Aija Staffans, aija.staffans@aalto.fi
• Susu Nousala, https://plus.google.com/u/0/112093238106785699723
• Glen Forde, glen.forde@aalto.fi

This course is a complement and continuation from Systems Thinking 1 (MUO-E8003).  Since each student in the Creative Sustainability program comes from a different disciplinary background, different aspects of systems thinking will already have resonated to varying degrees.

This course has two aims:

• (i) to encourage a high-level understanding of the systems thinking (amongst the class of students, as a collective); and
• (ii) to develop an appreciation for systems thinking ideas of most relevance (to an individual).

The course instruction team will facilitate students, both in groups and as individuals, to shape their understandings of systems theories, methods and practices.

Learning approach

This course is accelerated and intensive. To cover the broad range of content, students collaborate to lead learning discussions in February.

At the course orientation commencement on January 12, students will form groups.  In 8 sessions, each of these groups will in turn lead a learning discussion by staking a collective position on the topic cluster.  Members of two other groups will then challenge the presented position by probing on claims and questioning premises.  A rich dialectic can serve to deepen understanding amongst all participant.

Individual students will write five appreciation diary logs, and a concluding appreciation synthesis, following an academic style of referencing.

[jump to top of page]

Grading

Grades will be assigned in the following scheme:

• (1) Group discussion engagement, group position poster exhibition and class attendance: 60%
• (2) Individual appreciation diary logs: 15%
• (3) Individual appreciation synthesis: 25%

(1) Groups will each collaborate:

• (i) by preparing presentation materials (e.g. slides, maps, charts, models, exercises) including references to sources;
• (ii) as presenter-facilitators, sharing highlights from an assigned research reference cluster (for 45 to 60 minutes);
• (iii) as challengers, responding to presenters with lines of inquiry that will deepen learning (for 15 to 30 minutes); and
• (iv) by producing a concluding group position on the most salient system ideas from the course (not just the assigned research topic cluster) on exhibition posters for the last class meeting.

Groups should draw on their collective disciplinary backgrounds and experiences, and create highlights by extending their understanding of the research topic clusters.  Extending the pattern language approach, the following framework may be helpful in structuring content:

• What and how [affordance]:  What do the core system ideas (in the cluster) say about seeing the world?  How might these system ideas fit (or misfit) with common sense, disciplinary knowledge and/or other systems ideas?
• Who and why [issues]:  Who is most likely (and least likely) to be interested these system ideas?  Why would parties be motivated to advance (or dismiss) these system ideas?
• Where and when [range of contexts]:  Where are the domains in which these system ideas are most applicable (and least applicable)?  When -- in which time scales and frequencies -- do the system ideas manifest?

Consensus within each group on interpretations of the research reference clusters is not necessary.  Multiple perspectives may be reflected in dialectic (i.e. exposing shades of grey between black and white).  Critical thinking on systems ideas is respected.  Presentation materials should be made available to classmates (and potentially the world) immediately after the group discussion session.  In the interest of simultaneous co-editing of presentations, teams may want to use Google Slides, Powerpoint Online or iCloud Keynote.  Co-editing of text can be done on an Etherpad Lite site, and co-editing of drawings can be done with draw.io.

After all of the groups have shared their knowledge (i.e. February 19), each group should have gained a concluding position on learning from the course as a whole, different from their understanding in the January preparation period.  A group reflection on the accumulated "what, how, who, why, where and when" will embed the learning at a deeper level.

Since each group can be seen as a systemic whole, the grading for the group position(s) and challenges will be the same for all members.  Differentiation amongst individuals shows up in the remaining 40% of the grade.

(2) Individual appreciation diary logs track personal learning on (i) insights gained and (ii) questions provoked from the group discussions and class sessions.  These should be written as short (i.e. four or five paragraphs, maybe 750 to 1000 words) reflections within a few days following the intensive group discussions.  (Of the six intensive class days, four each cover two research topic clusters, so learning doesn't map linearly, and is cumulative).  Extending the appreciative systems approach, the following framework may be helpful in structuring a log entry.

• Facts [reality judgement]:  Are the system ideas (so far) connecting together, or are they fragmented?
• Significance [value judgement]:  Which systems ideas (so far) are resonating for me, and which ones remain a mystery?
• Potential action [instrumental judgement]:  Where and when might these systems ideas be useful in my research, my career and/or my life?

Appreciation of the systems thinking subject matter is partially shared within the group, and partially independent to each individual.

The individual appreciation diary logs can be completed as a public blog post on the Internet (preferred) or limited to class participants on Moodle (less preferred).  Writing in openly in public welcomes comments and responses by a larger audience who may contribute to your learning.

• Writing an appreciation diary in public requires two steps:  (i) blogging, and (ii) social sharing.
• (i) Blogging is easy.  If you already have a blog on which systems thinking ideas are not inappropriate, you can use that.  If you don't have a blog, you can sign up on Wordpress at http://wordpress.com for free.  (If you decide that you want to move your content elsewhere in the future, it's easy to export and migrate from Wordpress).
• (ii) Social sharing ensures that your writing is noticed.  One place where systems thinkers congregate is on the Systems Science Community at https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/117647110273892799778. We can have a new thread there for each of the intensive days.  Please append a comment with a one-sentence synopsis that describes your appreciation blog, and paste in the web link.
• Writing the appreciation diary on Moodle should be as straightforward as handing in an assignment from any other course.

Blog posts should include links to references at the bottom of the entry.  If you're looking for a way to ease managing references and citiations, try Zotero with a Firefox browser.

(3) Individual appreciation synthesis essays can include (and should extend) the prior writing in the diary logs, as well as the group positions.  The essay should target 1500 to 2500 words.  Visual maps supplemented by full text descriptions are welcomed.  Write in an academic style (i.e. use references, so that we appreciate those ideas that are originally yours, and other ideas that came from a cited source). You should not feel restricted to only the articles mentioned on the reference below, and may find alternative writings by these (and other) authors, journals and books. Wikipedia is not a citable source, although it may be helpful on introductory understanding.

An essay is more than bullet points!  The structure can follow the appreciative systems framework described in the diary logs (i.e. facts, significance, potential action).

Submission of the individual appreciation synthesis essay follows the same pattern as the appreciation diary, i.e. either in public, or on Moodle.  You may receive coaching on your writing over the Internet, if you post work-in-process and revise.

[jump to top of page]

Sessions

Tuesday, January 12

[jump to top of page]

January preparations:  Friday 15, Tuesday 19, Friday 22, Tuesday 26, Friday 29

[jump to top of page]

Tuesday, February 2

[jump to top of page]

Friday, February 5

[jump to top of page]

Tuesday, February 9

[jump to top of page]

Friday, February 12

[jump to top of page]

Tuesday, February 16

[jump to top of page]

Friday, February 19

[jump to top of page]

Due: Appreciation Synthesis

The individual appreciation synthesis essay is due on Friday, March 18.

[jump to top of page]

References

The systems literature is broad and deep. Some representative articles are clustered below. Students should not feel constrained to just these references, and may find similar content written by a variety of authors in a variety of venues.

1. Content relies primarily on access to journal articles (although students are welcomed to buy or borrow books they find of interest). Web links are provided using the Digital Object Identifier System to journal articles (and previews at Google Books, if available). Having ensured working access to the university library system before the intensive sessions precludes panic as the amount of content covered rapidly accumulates.
2. If a book or article is not readily available electronically, you may find a simple online search (e.g. at http://scholar.google.com) will often surface an alternative source.  Many researchers now post preprint paper and older works at ResearchGate and Academia.edu, and/or links to make direct requests for a personally-shared version.
3. Some books may be available at Aalto University as e-books (e.g. MyILibrary or ebrary).  Another source could be through public libraries.  The Helsinki City Library has e-books.  The book may be available by searching on Overdrive, and then you can make an acquisition request.  To get just a feel for the content, a preview at Google Books or Amazon may be sufficient.  The most enthusiatic students might try a short term unlimited e-book subscription.  (Let us know how that works out).
4. Background context (opinion) from an instructor's view may be available by going to the blog at http://coevolving.com/blogs/ and searching on a term.  The evolution of thinking dates back from December 2006.

Having accomplished these activities in advance of the intensive sessions may reduce stress.

Since all materials are available online, students are welcomed to:

• (a) use laptops to class to refer to links, take notes (and/or fact-check the instructor!); and
• (b) record the lectures (e.g. if English isn't your first language), with the warning that listening twice may be less productive than just doing the readings!

Lectures are intended to be interactive learning opportunities. Active engagement and asking questions in real time takes advantage of higher bandwidth exchanges than can be done via written electronic media.

The list of references reflects the orientations towards communities. Book chapters may be more comprehensive and historic, whereas articles are more current and generally available electronically (depending on the privileges of your library)

Cluster 0. Foundations for a systems approach

How is a systems approach different?

Recommended articles:

1. Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. 2007. Systems thinking: a case for second-order-learning. The Learning Organization 14, no. 6: 473-479. doi:10.1108/09696470710825088. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696470710825088.
   • Some systems basics, including function, structure and process; and synthesis and analysis.
   • Earlier draft is also available as Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. 2004. Systems Methodology: A Holistic Language of Interaction And Design Seeing Through Chaos and Understanding Complexities. Ackoff Center Weblog, March 9. http://ackoffcenter.blogs.com/ackoff_center_weblog/2004/03/systems_methodo_1.html.
2. Ackoff, Russell L., and Jamshid Gharajedaghi. 1996. Reflections on Systems and their Models. Systems Research 13, no. 1: 13-23. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1735(199603)13:1<13::AID-SRES66>3.0.CO;2-O. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1735(199603)13:1<13::AID-SRES66>3.0.CO;2-O.
   • A classification of systems models, .
   • Republished as Chapter 2, pp. 27-43 in Ackoff, Russell L. 1999. Ackoff's best: his classic writings on management. Wiley. [preview at Google Books]
3. Emery, Merrelyn. 2000. The current version of Emery's open systems theory. Systemic Practice and Action Research 13, no. 5: 623–643. doi:10.1023/A:1009577509972. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009577509972.
   • OST(E) has evolved from the heritage in Socio-Technical Systems.
4. Boulding, Kenneth E. 2009. Systems research and the hierarchy of world systems: General systems in special chaos. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 26, no. 5: 505-509. doi:10.1002/sres.994. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.994.
   • Have we advanced?  This article was originally published in Systems Research Vol 2. No. 1 pp. 1–5. 1985.
5. Flood, Robert. 2010. The Relationship of ‘Systems Thinking’ to Action Research. Systemic Practice and Action Research 23, no. 4: 269-284. doi:10.1007/s11213-010-9169-1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11213-010-9169-1.
   • The history of systems thinking, and formalization with action.
6. Beer, Stafford. 2002. What is cybernetics? Kybernetes 31, no. 2: 209-219. doi:10.1108/03684920210417283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03684920210417283.
   • A view of systems emphasizing control and governance.

Recommended book chapters:

1. Ramage, Magnus, and Karen Shipp. 2009. “Introduction.” In Systems Thinkers, 1–8. Springer London. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-525-3.
   
   • One way into systems thinking is from sampling representative readings as a history of science.
2. Ramage, Magnus, and Karen Shipp. 2009. “Ludwig von Bertalanffy.” In Systems Thinkers, 57–65. Springer London. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-525-3_7.
   
   • The father of general systems theory, looking beyond mechanisms to organisms.
3. Ramage, Magnus, and Karen Shipp. 2009. “Kenneth Boulding.” In Systems Thinkers, 67–75. Springer London. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-525-3_8.
   
   • One of the founders of the Society for General Systems Research, accused of not being an economist while president of the American Economic Association.
4. Ackoff, Russell L. 1994. The Emerging Concept of an Enterprise. In The Democratic Corporation, 3-35. New York: Oxford University Press [preview at Google Books]
   • Includes mechanistic view, organismic view, social system view, and the nature of systems with synthesis and analysis
5. Ackoff, Russell L. 1981. Our Changing Concept of the World. In Creating the Corporate Future: Plan or Be Planned For, 3-24. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
   • An alternative version of the 1994 content.
   • Republished as Chapter 1, pp. 3-26 in Ackoff, Russell L. 1999. Ackoff's best: his classic writings on management. Wiley. [preview at Google Books]
6. Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. 1999. Systems thinking: managing chaos and complexity : a platform for designing business architecture. [preview at Google Books]
7. Brand, Stewart. 1994. How buildings learn: what happens after they're built. New York: Viking. [preview at Google Books]
   • The idea of pacing layers (or shearing layers) appreciates the impact of process (as arrangement in time) on structures (as arrangement in space).
8. Kay, James J. 2008. An Introduction to Systems Thinking. In The ecosystem approach: complexity, uncertainty, and managing for sustainability, ed. David Waltner-Toews, James J Kay, and Nina-Marie E. Lister. Columbia University Press. [preview at Google Books]
   • Emphasizes non-linearity and self-organization.

Recommended multimedia:

1. Ackoff, Russell L. 2010. Doing It Wrong. Web Audio. In Business. BBC Radio 4, January 14. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pr72d/In_Business_Doing_It_Wrong/.
   • This interview was conducted in 2007, and was broadcast in the months following Ackoff's passing in fall 2009.
2. Brand, Stewart, and James Runice. 1997. Flow. Vol. 1. 6 vols. How Buildings Learn. BBC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvEqfg2sIH0.
3. Brand, Stewart, and James Runice. 1997. The Low Road. Vol. 2. 6 vols. How Buildings Learn. BBC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09pekAKuXjc.
4. Brand, Stewart, and James Runice. 1997. Built for Change. Vol. 3. 6 vols. How Buildings Learn. BBC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSaWdp833YM.
5. Brand, Stewart, and James Runice. 1997. Unreal Estate. Vol. 4. 6 vols. How Buildings Learn. BBC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuKPknFLHno.
6. Brand, Stewart, and James Runice. 1997. The Romance of Maintenance. Vol. 5. 6 vols. How Buildings Learn. BBC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_dozoqw4To.
7. Brand, Stewart, and James Runice. 1997. Shearing Layers. Vol. 6. 6 vols. How Buildings Learn. BBC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTSbtM12IZw.

Extended articles:

1. Boulding, Kenneth E. 1956. General Systems Theory -- The Skeleton of Science. Management Science 2, no. 3 (April): 197-208. http://jstor.org/stable/2627132.
   • The foundational work.
2. Ackoff, Russell L. 1971. Towards a system of systems concepts. Management Science 17, no. 11: 661–671. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2629308.
   • Clear, but extremely terse.
   • Republished as Chapter 4, pp. 46-62 in Ackoff, Russell L. 1999. Ackoff's best: his classic writings on management. Wiley. [preview at Google Books]
3. von Bertalanffy, Ludwig. 1972. The History and Status of General Systems Theory. The Academy of Management Journal 15, no. 4: 407-426. http://jstor.org/stable/255139.
   • A description from the father of General Systems Theory.
4. Drack, Manfred, and Wilfried Apfalter. 2007. Is Paul A. Weissʼ and Ludwig von Bertalanffyʼs system thinking still valid today? Systems Research and Behavioral Science 24, no. 5: 537-546. doi:10.1002/sres.855. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.855.
   • Foundations of General Systems Theory
5. Drack, Manfred. 2009. Ludwig von Bertalanffy's early system approach. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 26, no. 5 (September 1): 563-572. doi:10.1002/sres.992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.992.
   • A review of the background leading to the father of General Systems Theory.
6. Ing, David. 2010. Service Systems in Changing Paradigms: An Inquiry through the Systems Sciences. In The Science of Service Systems. Service Science: Research and Innovations (SRII) in the Service Economy. Springer. http://coevolving.com/commons/201003-service-systems-in-changing-paradigms.
   • Includes a list of ten systems features

There's more opinions on systems at http://coevolving.com/blogs/

[jump to top of page]

Cluster 1. Appreciative systems, futures

Since human beings have will and can influence their trajectories, an alternative way of moving towards desirable futures is to start from more idealized positions to which we can aspire.

Recommended articles:

1. Burt, George, and Kees van der Heijden. 2008. “Towards a Framework to Understand Purpose in Futures Studies: The Role of Vickers’ Appreciative System.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75 (8): 1109–27. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2008.03.003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.03.003.
   
   • In addition to be directly applied in policy setting, futures research can be framed through appreciative systems.
2. Holt, J.E. 1997. “The Designer’s Judgement.” Design Studies 18 (1): 113–23. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(96)00013-0. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(96)00013-0.
   
   • Judgement isn't only on for policy-makers.  Appreciative systems can also be useful to designers and engineers.
     
3. Nelson, Harold G., and Erik Stolterman. 2003. “Design Judgement: Decision-Making in the ‘Real’ World.” The Design Journal 6 (1): 23–31. doi:10.2752/146069203790219344. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/146069203790219344.
   
   • Design theorists extend Vickers' appreciation system with additional types of judgements.
     
4. Ackoff, Russell L. 2001. A brief guide to interactive planning and idealized design. May 31. http://www.ida.liu.se/~steho/und/htdd01/AckoffGuidetoIdealizedRedesign.pdf. Accessed via Jerry Michalski at http://ackoffcenter.blogs.com/ackoff_center_weblog/2003/10/a_brief_guide_t.html .
   • An unpublished manuscript endorsed for release by Russell Ackoff.
5. Haeckel, Stephan H. 2004. Peripheral Vision: Sensing and Acting on Weak Signals: Making Meaning out of Apparent Noise: The Need for a New Managerial Framework. Long Range Planning 37, no. 2 (April): 181-189. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2004.01.006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2004.01.006.
   • Instead of designing a system with learning as secondary, shorter and shorter planning periods have driven the need for adaptive enterprises.
6. Ozbekhan, H. 1977. The Future of Paris: A Systems Study in Strategic Urban Planning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 287, no. 1346: 523 -544. doi:10.1098/rsta.1977.0158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1977.0158.
   • Creating a reference projection

Recommended book chapters:

1. Ramage, Magnus, and Karen Shipp. 2009. “Geoffrey Vickers.” In Systems Thinkers, 77–86. Springer London. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-525-3_9.
   
   • A big influence in the development of systems thinking in the UK (and the program at the Open University, in particular), with reflections on the governance of institutions.
2. Ramage, Magnus, and Karen Shipp. 2009. “Russell Ackoff.” In Systems Thinkers, 139–47. Springer London. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-525-3_15.
   
   • The most cited author in system thinking, originating from architecture, becoming an earlier academic in operations research.
3. Vickers, Geoffrey. The Art of Judgement: A Study of Policy Making. Centenary Edition 1995. Thousand Oaks, CA: Chapman & Hall, 1965.
   • Leaders govern institutions by regulating systems.
   • The 1995 edition features a foreword that summarizes the larger context for Sir Geoffrey Vickers' work.
   • Chapter 2 "Appreciation"
   • Chapter 4 "The Appreciative System"
   • Some online excerpts from the book have been shared by John L. Jerz in 2013 at http://www.johnljerz.com/superduper/tlxdownloadsiteMAIN/id1005.html
4. Ackoff, Russell L. 1969. The Nature and Content of Planning. In A concept of corporate planning, 1-22. Wiley-Interscience.
   • Defines tactical and strategic planning
   • Excerpted as "The Nature of Planning", Chapter 6, pp. 100-103 in Ackoff, Russell L. 1999. Ackoff's best: his classic writings on management. Wiley. [preview at Google Books]
5. Ackoff, Russell L. 1981. Our Changing Concept of Planning. In Creating the Corporate Future: Plan or Be Planned For, 51-76. New York: John Wiley and Sons [preview at Google Books].
   • A description of interactive planning, with goals, objectives and ideals
   • Excerpted as "Ends Planning" in Chapter 10, pp. 119-124 in Ackoff, Russell L. 1999. Ackoff's best: his classic writings on management. Wiley. [preview at Google Books]
6. Ackoff, R. L. 1997. Systems, messes and interactive planning. In The Social Engagement of Social Science: The socio-ecological perspective, ed. Eric L. Trist, Hugh Murray, and Frederick Edmund Emery. Vol. 3. University of Pennsylvania Press. http://www.moderntimesworkplace.com/archives/ericsess/sessvol3/Ackoffp417.opd.pdf. Accessed via http://www.moderntimesworkplace.com/archives/ericsess/sessvol3/sessvol3.html
   • An accessible softcopy version of many of Ackoff's key ideas.
7. Haeckel, Stephan H. 1999. Adaptive Enterprise: Creating and Leading Sense-and-Respond Organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. [preview at Google Books]
   • Design of organizations in an new era when the pace of change is too rapid.
   • Some of the content is available on the Sense and Respond web site.

Extended articles:

1. Britton, G. A., and H. McCallion. 1994. An overview of the Singer/Churchman/Ackoff school of thought. Systemic Practice and Action Research 7, no. 5: 487–521. doi:10.1007/BF02173378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02173378.
   • Commonalities between Churchman (e.g. design of inquiring systems) and Ackoff (e.g. interactive planning) sharing common philosophical foundations.
2. Haeckel, S. H. 2003. Leading on demand businesses—Executives as architects. IBM Systems Journal 42, no. 3: 405–413. doi:10.1147/sj.423.0405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1147/sj.423.0405.
   • Organizational design can follow the style of an architectural approach to business.
3. Leemann, J. E. 2002. Applying Interactive Planning at DuPont: The Case of Transforming a Safety, Health, and Environmental Function to Deliver Business Value. Systemic Practice and Action Research 15, no. 2: 85–109. doi:10.1023/A:1015236423688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015236423688.
   • Application of the interactive planning approach.

Extended book list:

1. Brand, Stewart. 1999. The clock of the long now: time and responsibility. Basic Books.
   • Lots of material at http://longnow.org.
2. Ackoff, Russell L. 1981. Creating the Corporate Future: Plan or Be Planned For. New York: John Wiley and Sons. [preview at Google Books]
   • The interactive planning approach is described in various publications to vary depths.
   • Chapter 4 pp. 79-103 "Formulating the Mess"
   • Chapter 5 pp. 104-125 "Ends Planning I: Idealized Design"
   • Chapter 6 pp. 126-148 "Ends Planning II: Design of Management Systems"
   • Chapter 7 pp. 149-168 "Ends Planning III: Organizational Design"
   • Chapter 8 pp. 169-194 "Means Planning I: Formulating Alternatives"
   • Chapter 9 pp. 195-210 "Means Planning II: Evaluating Alternatives"
   • Chapter 10 pp. 211-232 "Resource Planning"
   • Chapter 11 pp. 233-250 "Implementation and Control of Plans and Planning"

[jump to top of page]

Cluster 2. Boundary, inquiry, perspectives

How do we ensure that we have appropriate levels of engagement and participation by those who will be impacted by systems interventions?

Recommended articles:

1. Ulrich, Werner. 2000. Reflective Practice in the Civil Society: The contribution of critically systemic thinking. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives 1, no. 2: 247. doi:10.1080/713693151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713693151.
   • Thinking about systems critically involves considerations of boundary judgements.
   • Excerpts from this article have been provided by the author as A Mini-Primer of Boundary Critique at http://wulrich.com/boundary_critique.html and A Mini-Primer of Critical Systems Heuristics at http://wulrich.com/csh.html .
2. Jackson, Michael C. 2010. Reflections on the development and contribution of critical systems thinking and practice. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27, no. 2: 133-139. doi:10.1002/sres.1020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.1020.
   • Critical systems thinking, in reflection.
3. Parrish, James L., and James F. Courtney. 2009. Churchman's inquirers as design templates for knowledge management systems. Communications of the ACM 52, no. 7: 126-129. doi:10.1145/1538788.1538817. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1538788.1538817.
   • A short summary including the Design of Inquiring Systems, recently published.
4. Courtney, James F. 2001. Decision making and knowledge management in inquiring organizations: toward a new decision-making paradigm for DSS. Decision Support Systems 31, no. 1: 17-38. doi:10.1016/S0167-9236(00)00117-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(00)00117-2.
   • Includes a concise summary of the basic ideas of the Design of Inquiring Systems.
5. Linstone, Harold A. 1981. The multiple perspective concept : With applications to technology assessment and other decision areas. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 20, no. 4 (December): 275-325. doi:10.1016/0040-1625(81)90062-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(81)90062-7.
   • Technical, organizational and personal perspectives.
6. Linstone, Harold A. 2010. Multiple perspectives redux. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 77, no. 4 (May): 696-698. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2010.02.009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.02.009.
   • Multiple perspectives, as compared to diversity.
7. Zhu, Zhichang. 2010. Theorizing systems methodologies across cultures. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27, no. 2: 208-223. doi:10.1002/sres.1026. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.1026.
   • Western and eastern approaches, with a strong historical context.

Recommended books:

1. Ramage, Magnus, and Karen Shipp. 2009. “C. West Churchman.” In Systems Thinkers, 131–38. Springer London. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-525-3_14.
   
   • A philosopher influencing many systems thinkers in the 1970s-1980s (he was Russell Ackoff's Ph.D. supervisor), and research at Berkeley (including NASA).
2. Ramage, Magnus, and Karen Shipp. 2009. “Werner Ulrich.” In Systems Thinkers, 159–67. Springer London. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-525-3_17.
   
   • Carrying on West Churchman's work in ethics, in developing Critical Systems Heuristics.
3. Ramage, Magnus, and Karen Shipp. 2009. “Michael Jackson.” In Systems Thinkers, 169–76. Springer London. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-525-3_18.
   
   • Michael C. Jackson, OBE, further developed Critical Systems Thinking.
4. Mitroff, Ian I., and Harold A. Linstone. 1993. The unbounded mind: Breaking the chains of traditional business thinking. New York: Oxford University Press. [snippet view at Google Books]
   • An easier read of Churchman 1971, written for a business audience.
5. Churchman, C. West. 1971. The design of inquiring systems: basic concepts of systems and organization. Basic Books. [snippet view at Google Books]
   • The original work, classified as a publication in philosophy.
6. Hayakawa, Samuel Ichiyé. 1978. Language in thought and action. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. [preview at Google Books]
   • Going down the abstraction ladder towards the concrete helps in communication of ideas.

Extended articles:

1. Fan, Dongping. 2010. The tension between holism and pluralism: Comment on ‘creative holism’. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27, no. 2 (March 1): 200-207. doi:10.1002/sres.1025. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.1025.
   • Criticism of Jackson (in the interest of debate)
2. Jackson, Michael C. 2010. Response and comments on the special issue: ‘Systems methodology and social development: a global conversation in China’. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27, no. 2: 241-244. doi:10.1002/sres.1028. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.1028.
   • Perspectives on the critiques.
3. Mulej, Matjaz, and Vojko Potocan. 2007. Requisite holism – precondition of reliable business information. Kybernetes 36, no. 3: 319-332. doi:10.1108/03684920710746986. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03684920710746986.
   • Creative holism (from Jackson) extended.
4. Leleur, Steen. 2008. Systems science and complexity: some proposals for future development. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 25, no. 1: 67-79. doi:10.1002/sres.860. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.860.
   • A critical view on critical systems theory

[jump to top of page]

Cluster 3. Learning categories, postnormal science, ignorance

How does our understanding of systems progress (or not progress) over time?

Recommended articles:

1. Bateson, Gregory. 1972. The Logical Categories of Learning and Communication. In Steps to an Ecology of Mind, 279-309. Jason Aronson, Inc. [preview reprint from 2000 at Google Books]
   • Five learning levels (which are often reduced to fewer, by people who can't count that far).  The original work was published in 1972, so reprints may have pages renumbered to allow for a preface.
2. Ravetz, Jerome R. 2004. The post-normal science of precaution. Futures 36, no. 3: 347–357. doi:10.1016/S0016-3287(03)00160-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(03)00160-5.
   • Why is post-normal science different from normal science?
3. Ravetz, Jerome R. 2006. Post-normal science and the complexity of transitions towards sustainability. Ecological Complexity 3, no. 4: 275–284. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.02.001. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.02.001.
   • What can we do when science fails?
4. David Ing, Minna Takala, and Ian Simmonds, "Anticipating Organizational Competences for Development through the Disclosing of Ignorance", Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the System Sciences at Hersonissos, Crete, July 7-11, 2003. http://systemicbusiness.org/pubs/2003_ISSS_47th_Ing_Takala_Simmonds.html .
   • Includes the map of ignorance by Witte, Kerwin and Witte.
5. Q-cubed Programs. 2006. What Is Ignorance? University of Arizona Health Sciences Center. http://ignorance.medicine.arizona.edu/about-us/what-ignorance.
   • An accessible version of the institute on medical ignorance.

Recommended books:

1. Ramage, Magnus, and Karen Shipp. 2009. “Gregory Bateson.” In Systems Thinkers, 11–17. Springer London. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-525-3_2.
   
   • Gregory Bateson with an earlier collaborator in the Macy Conferences from 1942, that led to the cybernetics movement.

Extended book list:

1. Witte, M. H, A. Kerwin, and C. L Witte. 1998. Curriculum on medical and other ignorance: shifting paradigms on learning and discovery. Memory distortions and their prevention: 125–156. [preview on Google Books]
   • The curriculum on medical ignorance is the foundation for other fields.
2. Waltner-Toews, David, James J. Kay, and Nina-Marie E. Lister, eds. 2008. The ecosystem approach: complexity, uncertainty, and managing for sustainability. Columbia University Press. [preview at Google Books]
   • Ecosystems and health are focuses
3. Westley, Frances, Brenda Zimmerman, and Michael Quinn Patton. 2007. Getting to Maybe: How the World Is Changed. Random House of Canada. [preview at Google Books]
   • The foundations of social innovation generation, see http://www.sig.uwaterloo.ca/ .

Extended articles:

1. Sardar, Ziauddin. 2010. Welcome to postnormal times. Futures 42, no. 5 (June): 435-444. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.028. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.028.
   • Notice the responses and rejoinders!
   • Cubitt, Sean, Robert Hassan, and Ingrid Volkmer. 2010. Postnormal network futures: A rejoinder to Ziauddin Sardar. Futures 42, no. 6 (August): 617-624. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.021.
   • Gidley, Jennifer M. 2010. Postformal priorities for postnormal times: A rejoinder to Ziauddin Sardar. Futures 42, no. 6 (August): 625-632. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.022.
   • Ringland, Gill. 2010. Frameworks for coping with post-normal times: A response to Ziauddin Sardar. Futures 42, no. 6 (August): 633-639. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.029. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.029.
2. Barton, John, and Tim Haslett. 2007. Analysis, synthesis, systems thinking and the scientific method: rediscovering the importance of open systems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 24, no. 2: 143-155. doi:10.1002/sres.816. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.816.
   • Revisiting Peter Checkland's perspective.
3. Bowers, Todd David. 2010. Ontological Support for Multiparadigm Multimethodologies: Isomorphic Process–Structures and the Critical Moment. In Proceedings of the 54th Meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences. Waterloo, Canada, July. http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings54th/article/view/1466.
   • Dealing with plurality.

Extended multimedia:

1. Bateson, Nora. 2010. An Ecology of Mind: A Daughter’s Portrait of Gregory Bateson. Documentary. http://www.anecologyofmind.com/.
• Gregory Bateson's ideas have lived on, not only in his writings, but also through his daughters.
2. Bateson, Mary Catherine. 2014. Cybernetics in the Future. Web Video. George Washington University: American Society for Cybernetics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXQraugWbjQ.
   
• Evolution and time has a human perspective.

There is a lot of content at the Resilience Alliance Network at http://www.resalliance.org , including the online journal Ecology and Society at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/

[jump to top of page]

Cluster 4. Dialogue, engagement, intervention

What approaches can we use for community engagement?

Recommended articles:

1. Metcalf, Gary S. 2008. Dialogue and Ecological Engineering in Social Systems Design. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the ISSS. Madison, WI. http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings52nd/article/view/983.
   • Includes a description of Banathy's generative and strategic dialogue (in a context of ecological engineering)
2. Walton, Douglas C. 2004. Designing within: Dr Bela H. Banathy's contributions to the self-organization of public discourse. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 21, no. 3: 281-293. doi:10.1002/sres.622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.622.
   • Describes generative and strategic dialogue in a context of guided evolution and evolutionary systems development.
3. Checkland, Peter, and John Poulter. 2010. Soft Systems Methodology. In Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide, ed. Martin Reynolds and Sue Holwell. London: Springer London. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-809-4_5.
   • Uses excerpts from Checkland, P. and Poulter, J. (2006), Learning for Action: A Short Definitive Account of Soft Systems Methodology and its use for Practitioners.
4. Yan, Zexian, and Xuhui Yan. 2010. A revolution in the field of systems thinking—a review of Checkland's system thinking. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27, no. 2: 140-155. doi:10.1002/sres.1021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.1021.
   • A summarization of Checkland's approach, and criticisms (sometimes at philosophical levels).
5. Ing, David. 2008. Offerings as commitments and context: Service systems from a language action perspective. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of the UK System Society. Oxford, UK. http://coevolving.com/commons/2008_Systemist_v30_n2_p154_Ing_Offerings-Language-Action .
   • Recognizing the variety of types of commitments.
6. Wilby, Jennifer. 1996. Developing total systems intervention (TSI): The critical review mode. Systems Practice 9, no. 3: 231-261. doi:10.1007/BF02169016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02169016.
   • In choosing a method to proceed on an intervention, a critical review should be kept in mind.
7. Walter-Toews, David, and James J. Kay. 2005. The Evolution of an Ecosystem Approach: the Diamond Schematic and an Adaptive Methodology for Ecosystem Sustainability and Health. Ecology and Society 10, no. 1. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/articles/1214.html.
   • Describes the AMESH approach
8. Kay, James J., Henry A. Regier, Michelle Boyle, and George Francis. 1999. An ecosystem approach for sustainability: addressing the challenge of complexity. Futures 31, no. 7: 721-742. doi:10.1016/S0016-3287(99)00029-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(99)00029-4.
   • Describes a Self Organizing Holarchic Open (SOHO) systems approach.
   • Excerpted at http://www.jameskay.ca/about/diamond.html (1999) with pointers to alternative approaches.
9. Upward, Antony, and Peter Jones. 2016?. “An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models.” Organization & Environment earlyview. doi:10.1177/1086026615592933. http://oae.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/07/14/1086026615592933.abstract
   
   • How would we describe an organization with a business model beyond just profit-oriented enterprises?  (This article was published in earlyview in July 2015, and at January 2016, hadn't yet been given an official issue.  The research group can be found at http://slab.ocadu.ca/group/strongly-sustainable-business-model-group-ssbmg.

Recommended books:

1. Ramage, Magnus, and Karen Shipp. 2009. “Peter Checkland.” In Systems Thinkers, 149–57. Springer London. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-525-3_16.
   
   • Soft Systems Methodology originated from Checkland's work amongst engineers.  The approach is well-known in the engineering community.
2. Checkland, Peter, and Jim Scholes. 1990. Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester: Wiley. [preview at Google Books].
• As compared to the 1981 Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, the 1990 book has the aim" to give a mature account of SSM as it is in the 1990s" [pp. xiii-xiv].
3. Banathy, Bela H. 1996. Designing social systems in a changing world. Springer.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9981-1 [preview at Google Books]
   • Includes a description of generative dialogue and strategic dialogue

Recommended multimedia:

1. Mackness, John. 2007. Soft Systems Methodology. Web Video. Martin Wells Video. UK, August 16. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZn8QrZI7OI.
   • A brief clip from the former director of programmes at Lancaster University, where SSM was nurtured.
2. Shankaran, Shankar, and Chris Stevens. 2010. How Do Project Managers Benefit from Systems Thinking? Web Video. Vol. 8965054. Soft Systems Thinking, Business 21C. Indexed from http://www.business21c.com.au/2010/01/soft-systems-thinking-a-more-holistic-approach-to-project-management: University of Technology Sydney, January 25. http://vimeo.com/8965054.
   • The context of soft systems thinking in project management that has traditionally be oriented towards hard systems.

Extended articles:

1. Sinn, J. S. 1998. A comparison of interactive planning and soft systems methodology: enhancing the complementarist position. Systemic Practice and Action Research 11, no. 4: 435–453. doi:10.1023/A:1023098025076. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1023098025076.
   • Checkland and Ackoff are contemporaries, on either side of the Atlantic.
2. Checkland, Peter. 2010. Researching real-life: Reflections on 30 years of action research. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27, no. 2: 129-132. doi:10.1002/sres.1019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.1019.
   • The way the originator of Soft Systems Methodology sees its development.
3. Zhang, Huaxia. 2010. Soft systems methodology and ‘soft’ philosophy of science. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27, no. 2 (March 1): 156-170. doi:10.1002/sres.1022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.1022.
   • Philosophical foundations for SSM.
4. Checkland, Peter. 2010. Comments on the conference and special issue. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27, no. 2: 240. doi:10.1002/sres.1032. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.1032.
   • The context as conversation, and acknowledgement that more dialogue and practice is needed.
5. Jackson, Michael C. 2010. Response and comments on the special issue: ‘Systems methodology and social development: a global conversation in China’. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27, no. 2: 241-244. doi:10.1002/sres.1028. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.1028.
   • Includes some commentary on SSM.
6. Barton, John. 2009. Action Research: Its Foundations in Open Systems Thinking and Relationship to the Scientific Method. Systemic Practice and Action Research 22, no. 6: 475-488. doi:10.1007/s11213-009-9148-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11213-009-9148-6.
   • Social ecology and action research.
7. Waltner-Toews, David, James J. Kay, Cynthia Neudoerffer, and Thomas Gitau. 2003. Perspective changes everything: managing ecosystems from the inside out. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1, no. 1 (2): 23-30. doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0023:PCEMEF]2.0.CO;2. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0023:PCEMEF]2.0.CO;2.
   • Describes engagements in Kenya, with influence diagrams and the perspective of participants.
8. Bausch, Ken. 2008. Practical ethics for group decisions in complex situations. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 25, no. 2: 277-281. doi:10.1002/sres.885. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.885.
   • Structured dialogic design as a method
9. Schafft, Kai A., and Davydd J. Greenwood. 2003. Promises and Dilemmas of Participation: Action Research, Search Conference Methodology, and Community Development. Journal of the Community Development Society 34, no. 1: 18. doi:10.1080/15575330309490101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15575330309490101.
   • Participatory approach: search conference.
10. Espinosa, Angela, and Roger Harnden. 2006. Team syntegrity and democratic group decision making: theory and practice. Journal of the Operational Research Society 58, no. 8 (7): 1056-1064. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602261.
    • Syntegration approach.
11. Oels, Angela. 2002. Investigating the emotional roller‐coaster ride: a case study‐based assessment of the Future Search Conference design. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 19, no. 4: 347-355. doi:10.1002/sres.437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.437.
    • Future search in practice.
12. Winograd, Terry, and Fernando Flores. 1986. Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. [preview at Google Books]
    • Describes conversations for action.  One of the most read books in computer science.  Abstracted at http://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/conversations-for-action-commitment-management-protocol/ .
13. Winograd, Terry. 1986. A language/action perspective on the design of cooperative work. In Proceedings of the 1986 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, 203-220. Austin, Texas: ACM. doi:10.1145/637069.637096. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/637069.637096.
    • Extends the conversations for action with other types of conversations:  for clarification, for possibilities, for orientation.  Abstracted at http://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/conversations-for-action-for-clarification-for-possibilities-for-orientation/ .
14. Denning, Peter J. 2003. Accomplishment. Communications of the ACM 46, no. 7: 19–23. doi:10.1145/792704.792722. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/792704.792722.
• A simpler description of the language action perspective and trust.

Extended books

1. Isaacs, William. 1999. Dialogue and the art of thinking together: a pioneering approach to communicating in business and in life. Currency. [preview at Google Books].
• This version of dialogue on the ideas of Peter Senge's Fifth Discipline and David Bohm.
2. Block, Peter. 2009. Community. ReadHowYouWant.com. [preview at Google Books]
• Leadership and communications in small groups.
3. Fisher, Roger, William Ury, and Bruce Patton. 1991. Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. [preview at Google Books]
• Techniques from the Harvard Negotiation Project.

In practice:  Triple bottom line

1. Elkington, John. 1998. Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st‐century business. Environmental Quality Management 8, no. 1: 37-51. doi:10.1002/tqem.3310080106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tqem.3310080106.
   • The original for triple bottom line.
2. Norman, Wayne, and Chris MacDonald. 2004. Getting to the Bottom of "Triple Bottom Line". Business Ethics Quarterly 14, no. 2 (April): 243-262. http://jstor.org/stable/3857909.
   • The triple bottom line as not helpful?
3. Hacking, Theo, and Peter Guthrie. 2007. A framework for clarifying the meaning of Triple Bottom-Line, Integrated, and Sustainability Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28, no. 2: 73-89. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2007.03.002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.03.002.
   • Working through terminology.
4. Hubbard, Graham. 2009. Measuring organizational performance: beyond the triple bottom line. Business Strategy and the Environment 18, no. 3: 177-191. doi:10.1002/bse.564. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.564.
   • Proposes sustainable balanced scorecard.

[jump to top of page]

Cluster 5. Ecosystems, collapse, resilience

How can we appreciate resilience, as an alternative to the possibility of a system collapse?

Recommended articles:

1. Allen, Timothy F. H., Joseph A. Tainter, and Thomas W. Hoekstra. 1999. Supply-side sustainability. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 16, no. 5: 403-427. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199909/10)16:5<403::AID-SRES335>3.0.CO;2-R. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199909/10)16:5<403::AID-SRES335>3.0.CO;2-R.
   • A complete exposition of the theoretical work underlying supply-side sustainability. The differentiation between complicatedness and complexity is fundamental to the understanding.
2. Allen, Timothy F. H. 2009. Confronting economic profit with hierarchy theory: The concept of gain in ecology. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 26, no. 5: 583-599. doi:10.1002/sres.998. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.998.
   • Is the restructuring of system hierarchies an answer?
3. Odum, Howard T., and Elisabeth C. Odum. 2006. The prosperous way down. Energy 31, no. 1 (January): 21-32. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2004.05.012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2004.05.012.
   • Can we be proactive to a low-energy future?
4. Holling, C. S. 2001. Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Ecosystems 4, no. 5: 390-405. doi:10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5.
   • Hierarchies and adaptive coming together as panarchies
5. Ostrom, Elinor. 2008. Polycentric Systems as One Approach for Solving Collective-Action Problems. Working Paper. SSRN. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1304697.
   • Suggests matching governance to the appropriate level of scale, with examples including community policing.
6. Ostrom, Elinor. 2010. Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems. American Economic Review 100, no. 3: 641-672. doi:10.1257/aer.100.3.641. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.3.641.
   • A formal version of the presentation at the 2009 Nobel Prize.  (Drafts may be available elsewhere on the web).

Recommended multimedia:

1. Ostrom, Elinor. 2009. Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems. Web Video. The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Stockholm, December 8. http://nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=1223.
   • This 28-minute web video covers the same content as the paper with the same name, as a more colloquial description.  The associated visuals of 35 slides are available at http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2009/ostrom-lecture-slides.pdf
   and the text of the prize lecture is available at http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2009/ostrom_lecture.pdf .
2. Ostrom, Elinor. 2010. Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems. National University of Singapore, August 20. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5ZPGeF2ics.
   • A 90-minute presentation at the Lee Kwan Yew School of Public Policy, with references to institutional theory (e.g. Mancur), and then the history of Ostrom developing the research in common pool resources.

Recommended books:

1. Tainter, Joseph A. 1990. The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge University Press, [preview at Google Books].
   • Preferred over Jared Diamond's view
2. Allen, Timothy F. H., Joseph A Tainter, and Thomas W. Hoekstra. 2003. Supply-side sustainability. New York: Columbia Univ Press, [preview at Google Books] .
   • Ecosystem thinking compatible with economics (i.e. marginal cost, margin benefits). Provides 5 principles of supply-side sustainability, as well as a blending of Tainter's work on collapse with research directly from ecology.
3. Odum, Howard T., and Elisabeth C. Odum. 2011. A Prosperous Way Down. University Press of Colorado. [preview at Google Books].
   
   • Some for the work of Howard T. Odum continues at http://prosperouswaydown.com/
4. Gunderson, Lance H., and C. S. Holling. 2002. Resilience and Adaptive Cycles. In Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems, ed. Lance H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling, 25-62. Island Press. [preview at Google Books]
   • Describes the adaptive cycle, with two dimensions (potential and connectedness)
5. Gunderson, Lance H., C. S. Holling, and Gary D. Peterson. 2002. Sustainability and Panarchies. In Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems, ed. Lance H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling, 63-102. Island Press. [preview at Google Books]
   • Panarchies (as alternative to hierarchies) capture adaptive and evolutionary nested across space and time scales.
6. Berkes, Fikret, and Carl Folke. 2002. Back to the Future: Ecosystem Dynamics and Local Knowledge. In Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems, ed. Lance H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling, 121-146. Island Press. [preview at Google Books]
   • Practices in indigenous cultures.
7. Homer-Dixon, Thomas. 2006. The Upside of Down. Toronto: Knopf. [preview at Google Books]
   • Can we learn?
8. Brand, Stewart. 2009. Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto. Viking. [preview at Google Books]
   • Do we need to embrace some heresies?
   • Annotated footnotes are available at http://web.me.com/stewartbrand/DISCIPLINE_footnotes/Contents.html

Extended articles:

1. Allen, Timothy F. H., Joseph A. Tainter, and Thomas W. Hoekstra. 1999. Supply-side sustainability. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 16, no. 5: 403-427. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199909/10)16:5<403::AID-SRES335>3.0.CO;2-R. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199909/10)16:5<403::AID-SRES335>3.0.CO;2-R.
   • A complete exposition of the theoretical work underlying supply-side sustainability. The differentiation between complicatedness and complexity is fundamental to the understanding.
2. Tainter, Joseph A. 1995. Sustainability of complex societies. Futures 27, no. 4 (May): 397-407. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(95)00016-P. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(95)00016-P.
   • Some of the foundational work on collapse, leading up to development of the concepts of supply-side sustainability.
3. Tainter, Joseph A. 2006. Social complexity and sustainability. Ecological Complexity 3, no. 2 (June): 91-103. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2005.07.004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2005.07.004.
   • A variant of the perspective on ecological complexity, with an explicit focus on socio-political complexity.
4. Allen, Timothy F. H., Peter C. Allen, Amy Malek, John Flynn, and Michael Flynn. 2009. Confronting economic profit with hierarchy theory: The concept of gain in ecology. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 26, no. 5: 583-599. doi:10.1002/sres.998. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.998.
   • Extends the work on supply-side sustainability with a deeper understanding of low gain and high gain resources (with biological examples)
5. Allen, Timothy F. H., Joseph A. Tainter, John Flynn, Rachael Steller, Elizabeth Blenner, Megan Pease, and Kristina Nielsen. 2010. Integrating economic gain in biosocial systems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27, no. 5: 537-552. doi:10.1002/sres.1060. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.1060.
   • The idea of low gain and high gain is applied more directly to biosocial domains.
6. Tainter, Joseph. 1996. Complexity, Problem Solving and Sustainable Societies. In Getting down to earth: practical applications of ecological economics, ed. Robert Costanza, Olman Segura Bonilla, and Juan Martínez Alier. Island Press. http://dieoff.org/page134.htm.
   • An extract from the book.
7. Carpenter, Stephen R. 2002. Ecological Futures: Building an Ecology of the Long Now. Ecology 83, no. 8: 2069-2083. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2069:EFBAEO]2.0.CO;2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2069:EFBAEO]2.0.CO;2.
   • Ecology, borrowing the ideas from Stewart Brand.
8. Folke, Carl, Thomas Hahn, Per Olsson, and Jon Norberg. 2005. Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30, no. 1: 441-473. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511.
   • Dealing with governance at a local level.
9. Folke, Carl. 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16, no. 3: 253-267. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002.
   • Describes the history of developing ideas in resilience, with interpretations in social-ecological contexts
10. Handoh, Itsuki C., and Toshitaka Hidaka. 2010. On the timescales of sustainability and futurability. Futures 42, no. 7 (September): 743-748. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.023. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.023.
    • Sustainability as static, with futurability as dynamic?
11. Ostrom, Elinor. 2009. A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science 325, no. 5939: 419-422. doi:10.1126/science.1172133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133.
    • The "core subsystems" for "analyzing socio-ecological systems" has the "social, economic and political settings" as separate from the "related ecosystems".
12. Ostrom, Elinor. 2009. A polycentric approach for coping with climate change. Policy Research Working Paper. World Bank. http://go.worldbank.org/X7M9CTVOD0.
    • Takes the climate change challenge as a common pool resource issue (with unfortunately only a few pages describing polycentrism).  A simpler version appears as "A Multi-Scale Approach to Coping with Climate Change and Other Collective Action Problems", Solutions Journal, http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/565.
13. Duit, Andreas, Victor Galaz, Katarina Eckerberg, and Jonas Ebbesson. 2010. Governance, complexity, and resilience. Global Environmental Change 20, no. 3 (August): 363-368. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.04.006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.04.006.
    • Introduction to a special issue of the journal, that brings together political science, cybernetics and ecosystem ecology.
14. Laszlo, Alexander. 2010. Redefining success: designing systemic sustainable strategies. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27, no. 1: 3-21. doi:10.1002/sres.982. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.982.
    • Where do human beings fit into sustainability?
15. King, Christine A. 2008. Community resilience and contemporary agri‐ecological systems: reconnecting people and food, and people with people. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 25, no. 1: 111-124. doi:10.1002/sres.854. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.854.
    • Does localization make a difference?

In practice:  Smarter planet

1. IBM. 2010. The World's 4 Trillion Dollar Challenge: Using a system-of-systems approach to build a smarter planet. Institute for Business Value. http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/gbs/bus/html/ibv-smarter-planet-system-of-systems.html.

Extended journals:

• Ecology and Society is an open access journal at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/

[jump to top of page]

6. Coevolution, turbulence, anticipatory systems

In world of systems of systems, changes at multiple scales means coevolution. There's a 2010 special issue of Ecological Economics focused on coevolutionary ecological economics.

Recommended articles:

1. Emery, Fred E., and Eric L. Trist. 1965. The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments. Human Relations 18, no. 1 (2): 21-32. doi:10.1177/001872676501800103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872676501800103.
   • One of the foundational articles in organizational theory, directly influenced by systems theory at the Tavistock Institute.
2. Hawk, David L. 1999. Innovation versus environmental protection presumptions. Systemic Practice and Action Research 12, no. 4: 355–366. doi:10.1023/A:1022444229252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022444229252.
   • Can we create self-reinforcing systems?
3. Parhankangas, Annaleena, David Ing, David L. Hawk, Gosia Dane, and Marianne Kosits. 2005. “Negotiated Order and Network Form Organizations.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 22 (5): 431–52. doi:10.1002/sres.717 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.717.
   
   • What should the balance be, between negotiated order and rule-based order?
4. Kallis, Giorgos, and Richard B. Norgaard. 2010. Coevolutionary ecological economics. Ecological Economics 69, no. 4: 690-699. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.09.017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.09.017.
   • Bringing together the environmental and the social.
5. Louie, A.H. 2010. Robert Rosen's anticipatory systems. Foresight 12, no. 3: 18-29. doi:10.1108/14636681011049848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14636681011049848.
   • The basics of the Rosen worldview:  natural systems, anticipatory systems, life.
   • A. H. Louie has a description of relational biology at http://ahlouie.com/relational-biology/
6. Rosen, Judith, and John Jay Kineman. 2005. Anticipatory systems and time: a new look at Rosennean complexity. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 22, no. 5: 399-412. doi:10.1002/sres.715. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.715.
   • If we approach complexity seriously from the perspective of life (as opposed to coming from a physical foundation), time fits into a relational biology.
7. Rosen, Robert. 1987. On complex systems. European Journal of Operational Research 30, no. 2: 129-134. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(87)90089-0. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(87)90089-0.
   • Complex systems with information encoding, leading to anticipation.

Recommended books:

1. Ramírez, Rafael, John W Selsky, and Kess van der Heijden. 2008. Conceptual and Historical Overview. In Business Planning for Turbulent Times: New Methods for Applying Scenarios, ed. Rafael Ramírez, John W. Selsky, and Kees van der Heijden, 17-30. Earthscan. [preview at Google Books]
   • Extends causal textures and turbulence (from Emery and Trist) with scenarios.
2. Trist, Eric L., and Hugh Murray. 1997. “Historical Overview: The Foundation and Development of the Tavistock Institute to 1989.” In The Social Engagement of Social Science: The Socio-Ecological Perspective, edited by Eric L. Trist, Frederick Edmund Emery, and Hugh Murray, 3:1–35. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.  Preprint versions available at http://moderntimesworkplace.com/archives/archives.html
   
   • Coevolution with the environment is closest to the third of three perspectives (i.e. socio-psychological systems perspective, social-technical systems perspctive, socio-ecological systems perspective) from the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations.
3. Rosen, Robert. 1985. Anticipatory Systems: Philosophical, Mathematical & Methodological Foundations. Vol. 1. IFSR International Series on System Science and Engineering. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press. [preview at Google Books].
   
   • The 1985 book was republished in 2013 by the IFSR.  Judith Rosen maintains the legacy of her father, with a web site at http://www.rosen-enterprises.com/ and a discussion list at http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-HOME.exe?A0=rosen

Extended articles:

1. Ehrlich, Paul R., and Peter H. Raven. 1964. “Butterflies and Plants: A Study in Coevolution.” Evolution 18 (4): 586–608. doi:10.2307/2406212.
   
   • The original article bringing forth the idea of coevolution.
2. Ehrlich, Paul R. 1986. “Coevolution and the Biology of Communities.” In News That Stayed News 1974-1984: Ten Years of CoEvolution Quarterly, edited by Art Kleiner and Stewart Brand, 3–9. Berkeley, California: North Point Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=y6KGQgAACAAJ.
   
   • Crossing over from biology to systems in general.  See also http://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/coevolutionary-understanding-a-larger-system/.
3. Jiménez, Jaime. 2008. How Do Scenario Practices and Search Conferences Complement Each Other?. In Business Planning for Turbulent Times: New Methods for Applying Scenarios, ed. Rafael Ramírez and Kees van der Heijden, 31-46. Earthscan. [preview at Google Books]
   • Lists comparisons of scenario planning with search conferences in a table, and suggests how they could be complementary
4. Lang, Trudy, and Lynn Allen. 2008. Reflecting on Scenario Practice: The Contribution of a Soft Systems Perspective. In Business Planning for Turbulent Times: New Methods for Applying Scenarios, ed. Rafael Ramírez, John W. Selsky, and Kees van der Heijden, 47-64. Earthscan. [preview at Google Books]
   • Sees parallel emergence and development of SSM and scenarios practice.
5. Rosen, Robert. 1974. Planning, Management, Policies and Strategies: Four Fuzzy Concepts. International Journal of General Systems 1, no. 4: 245. doi:10.1080/03081077408960784. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03081077408960784.
   • Where anticipatory systems go wrong.
6. Poli, Roberto. 2010. An introduction to the ontology of anticipation. Futures 42, no. 7 (September): 769-776. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.028. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.028.
   • An easy reading version of Robert Rosen's work.
7. Gual, Miguel A, and Richard B. Norgaard. 2010. Bridging ecological and social systems coevolution: A review and proposal. Ecological Economics 69, no. 4: 707–717. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.020.
   • Biotic and cultural

In practice:  Interface Inc.

1. Anderson, Ray C. 2010. Editorial: Earth Day, Then and Now. Sustainability: The Journal of Record 3, no. 2: 73-74. doi:10.1089/SUS.2010.9795. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/SUS.2010.9795.
   • Reflections on progress.
2. Anderson, Ray. 2009. Confessions of a Radical Industrialist: Profits, People, Purpose - Doing Business by Respecting the Earth. McClelland & Stewart. [preview at Google Books]
   • I haven't read this book! I saw Anderson speak in 1998, see http://www.isss.org/98transc/jl231110.htm .

[jump to top of page]

Cluster 7. Living systems, viable systems, metabolism

How can we describe the well-being or health of systems that both have physical form and evolve over time?

Recommended articles:

1. Miller, James Grier, and Jessie L. Miller. 1990. Introduction: The nature of living systems. Behavioral Science 35, no. 3: 157-163. doi:10.1002/bs.3830350301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830350301.
   • In the eight levels of living systems, describes the 20 critical subsystems.
2. Miller, Jessie L. 1990. The timer. Behavioral Science 35, no. 3: 164-196. doi:10.1002/bs.3830350302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830350302.
   • As an example of one of the critical subsystems, a detailed description of the timer is given.
3. Miller, Jessie L, and James Grier Miller. 1992. Greater than the sum of its parts. I. Subsystems which process both matter‐energy and information. Behavioral Science 37, no. 1: 1-9. doi:10.1002/bs.3830370102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830370102.
   • A focus on two subsystems.
   • Miller, Jessie L., and James Grier Miller. 1992. Subsystems which process both matter-energy and information: The Reproducer. Behavioral Science 37, no. 1: 10-22. doi:10.1002/bs.3830370103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830370103.
   • Miller, Jessie L., and James Grier Miller. 1992. Subsystems that process both matter-energy and information: The boundary. Behavioral Science 37, no. 1: 23-38. doi:10.1002/bs.3830370104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830370104.
4. Miller, James Grier, and Jessie L. Miller. 1995. Applications of living systems theory. Systems Practice 8, no. 1: 19-45. doi:10.1007/BF02249174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02249174.
   • Descriptions of applications at 7 of the 8 levels of living systems.
5. Beer, Stafford. 1984. The Viable System Model: Its Provenance, Development, Methodology and Pathology. The Journal of the Operational Research Society 35, no. 1 (January): 7-25. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2581927.
   • History, principles, axioms and pathologies of viable systems.
6. Schwaninger, Markus. 1990. Embodiments of organizational fitness: The Viable System Model (VSM) as a guide. Systems Practice 3, no. 3 (6): 249-264. doi:10.1007/BF01062731. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01062731.
   • Use of the VSM in a managerial context.
7. Leonard, Allenna. 2008. Integrating sustainability practices using the viable system model. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 25, no. 5: 643-654. doi:10.1002/sres.937. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.937.
   • Cities, neighbourhoods and households are defined as levels of recursion, that can be facilitated towards high-variety mutual futures.
8. Nechansky, Helmut. 2010. The relationship between: Miller's living systems theory and Beer's viable systems theory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27, no. 1: 97-112. doi:10.1002/sres.955. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.955.
   • A comparison of two historically leading systems models that are used in a wide variety of contexts.
9. Odum, Howard T., and Eugene P. Odum. 2000. “The Energetic Basis for Valuation of Ecosystem Services.” Ecosystems 3 (1): 21–23. doi:10.1007/s100210000005.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s100210000005
   
   • The idea of emergy (energy memory) was proposed as a valuation concept alternative to embodied energy and exergy.
10. Graedel, Thomas E., and Reid J. Lifset. 2016. “Industrial Ecology’s First Decade.” In Taking Stock of Industrial Ecology, edited by Roland Clift and Angela Druckman, 3–20. Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20571-7_1.
    
    • The development of research into industrial ecology, dating back to 1972, then rising in the 1990s.
11. Pauliuk, Stefan, and Edgar G. Hertwich. 2016. “Prospective Models of Society’s Future Metabolism: What Industrial Ecology Has to Contribute.” In Taking Stock of Industrial Ecology, edited by Roland Clift and Angela Druckman, 21–43. Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20571-7_2.
    
    • How should researchers move from studies of Life Cycle Analysis to more interdisciplinary inquiries?
12. Kennedy, Christopher A. 2016. “Industrial Ecology and Cities.” In Taking Stock of Industrial Ecology, edited by Roland Clift and Angela Druckman, 69–86. Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20571-7_4.
    
    • It's only in the 21st century that the idea of metabolism in cities has been developed.
13. Stahel, Walter R., and Roland Clift. 2016. “Stocks and Flows in the Performance Economy.” In Taking Stock of Industrial Ecology, edited by Roland Clift and Angela Druckman, 137–58. Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20571-7_7.
    
    • While the idea of a circular economy has become popularized, the performance economy has a different perspective.

Recommended books:

1. Ramage, Magnus, and Karen Shipp. 2009. “Stafford Beer.” In Systems Thinkers. Springer London. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-525-3_20.
   
   • A key figure in management cybernetics, developing both theories (e.g. Viable Systems Model) and methods (e.g. Syntegration).
2. Ramage, Magnus, and Karen Shipp. 2009. “Howard Odum.” In Systems Thinkers, 87–95. Springer London. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-525-3_10.
   
   • Developed the idea of emergy (embedded energy), ideas that would evolve into resilience science.
3. Miller, James Grier. 1978. Living systems. McGraw-Hill. [preview at Google Books]
   • Exhaustive, at over 1100 pages.  An abstract at http://www.panarchy.org/miller/livingsystems.html may or may not be helpful.
4. Beer, Stafford. 1981. Brain of the Firm: The Management Cybernetics of Organizations. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons. [Snippet view at Google Books].
   
   • The foundational presentation of the Viable System Model.
5. Espejo, Raul, and Alfonso Reyes. 2011. Organizational Systems: Managing Complexity with the Viable System Model. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19109-1.
   
   • Applying the viable system model in organizations.
     
6. Odum, Howard T. 2013. Environment, Power, and Society for the Twenty-First Century: The Hierarchy of Energy. New York: Columbia University Press. [preview at Google Books].
   
   • A posthomously published book accumulating the work of Howard T. Odum.

Extended articles:

1. Swanson, G. A., Kenneth D. Bailey, and James Grier Miller. 1997. Entropy, Social Entropy and Money: A Living Systems Theory Perspective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 14, no. 1: 45-65. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199701/02)14:1<45::AID-SRES151>3.0.CO;2-Y. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199701/02)14:1<45::AID-SRES151>3.0.CO;2-Y.
   • Moving beyond concrete systems towards money, which has more to do with information.
2. Leonard, Allenna. 2006. Walking the Line: Making and Dissolving Distinctions with the Viable System Model and Team Syntegrity. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the ISSS. International Society for the Systems Sciences. http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings50th/article/viewArticle/307.
   • Clarifications separating VSM and syntegration (since they're both from Stafford Beer)
3. Adams, Denis, and Doug Haynes. 2007. Stafford Beer's contribution to management science – renewal and development. Kybernetes 36, no. 3: 437-450. doi:10.1108/03684920710747057. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03684920710747057.
   • History of science on the originator of VSM.
4. Schwaninger, Markus. 2004. City planning. Kybernetes 33, no. 3 (January 1): 557-576. doi:10.1108/03684920410523571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03684920410523571.
   • A case study demonstrating the use of the VSM and the St. Gallen Management Model.
5. Jackson, M. C. 1998. An Appreciation of Stafford Beer's 'Viable System' Viewpoint on Managerial Practice. Journal of Management Studies 25, no. 6: 557-573. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1988.tb00047.x. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1988.tb00047.x.
   • An overview of the VSM, and blindspots in the application that should be watched.
6. Harnden, Roger J. 1990. The languaging of models: The understanding and communication of models with particular reference to Stafford Beer's cybernetic model of organization structure. Systems Practice 3, no. 3: 289-302. doi:10.1007/BF01062733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01062733.
   • Models as a means for communication.
7. Espejo, Raul. 2000. Giving Requisite Variety to Strategic and Implementation Processes: Theory and Practice. In JAIST Conference. Ishikawa, Japan. http://www.syncho.com/pages/pdf/Giving Requisite Variety.pdf.
   • Maintaining requisite variety is a design principle.
8. Schwaninger, Markus. 2006. Design for viable organizations. Kybernetes 35, no. 7 (January 1): 955-966. doi:10.1108/03684920610675012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03684920610675012.
   • A clear example applying the VSM.
9. Schwaninger, Markus. 2001. System theory and cybernetics. Kybernetes 30, no. 9 (January 1): 1209-1222. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000006551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006551.
   • Describes the St. Gallen Management Model
10. McDavid, Douglas W. 1999. A standard for business architecture description. IBM Systems Journal 38, no. 1: 12-31. doi:10.1147/sj.381.0012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1147/sj.381.0012.
    • Applying the knowledge of living systems theory and the viable systems model to information systems.
11. Burkhard, Benjamin, Irene Petrosillo, and Robert Costanza. 2010. Ecosystem services - Bridging ecology, economy and social sciences. Ecological Complexity 7, no. 3 (September): 257-259. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.07.001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.07.001 .
    • Introduction to a special issue on "Ecosystem Services – Bridging Ecology, Economy and Social Sciences".
12. Costanza, Robert, Ralph d'Arge, Rudolf de Groot, Stephen Farber, Monica Grasso, Bruce Hannon, Karin Limburg, et al. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, no. 6630 (May 15): 253-260. doi:10.1038/387253a0. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/387253a0.
    • What is natural capital worth?
13. Swanson, G. A. 2009. The relationship of entropy-related measures to money information. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 26, no. 3 (May 1): 331-341. doi:10.1002/sres.945. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.945.
    • If the world doesn't move towards equilibrium, then we need to consider the entropy law.
14. Lane, David C. 2008. The emergence and use of diagramming in system dynamics: a critical account. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 25, no. 1: 3-23. doi:10.1002/sres.826. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.826.
    • Systems dynamics sics.
15. Leonard, Allenna. 2007. Symbiosis and the viable system model. Kybernetes 36, no. 5: 571-582. doi:10.1108/03684920710749677. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03684920710749677.
    • A management cybernetics-oriented view of symbiosis.
16. de Groot, R.S., R. Alkemade, L. Braat, L. Hein, and L. Willemen. 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity 7, no. 3 (September): 260-272. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006.
    • The ecosystem service approach and ecosystem service valuation are associated, but different challenges.

[jump to top of page]

8. Social-ecological systems, regime shifts

Coming from the perspectives of ecologists (in social-ecological systems), there's a 2006 special issue of Ecology and Society focused on Social-Ecological Systems.

Recommended articles:

1. Folke, Carl. 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16, no. 3 (August): 253-267. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002.
   • A history of the developing ideas that led to establishing the resilience perspective, and the current focus on social-ecological systems. This presumes some of a background appreciation of resilience already exists, from ....
     • Holling, C. S. 2001. Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Ecosystems 4, no. 5: 390-405. doi:10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5.
2. Gunderson, L., E. Universitry, A. Kinzig, C. Folke, S. Carpenter, and L. Schultz. 2006. A Handful of Heuristics and Some Propositions for Understanding Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society 11, no. 1: 13. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art13/.
   • Beginning the research program into socio-ecological systems, a scientific approach with five preliminary heuristics and 14 propositions leading to questions.
3. Folke, Carl, Steve Carpenter, Brian Walker, Marten Scheffer, Thomas Elmqvist, Lance Gunderson, and C.S. Holling. 2004. “Regime Shifts, Resilience, and Biodiversity in Ecosystem Management.” Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35 (1): 557–81. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105711.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105711
   
   • An early article describing the idea of regime shifts.
4. Andersen, Tom, Jacob Carstensen, Emilio Hernández-García, and Carlos M. Duarte. 2016. “Ecological Thresholds and Regime Shifts: Approaches to Identification.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24 (1): 49–57. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.07.014.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.07.014
   
   • Is there a way to detect a regime shift about to happen, before it happens?
5. Rocha, Juan Carlos, Garry D. Peterson, and Reinette Biggs. 2015. “Regime Shifts in the Anthropocene: Drivers, Risks, and Resilience.” PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134639.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134639
   
   • Research on regime shifts, after accumulating data at regimeshifts.org.

Recommended books:

• Gallopín, Gilberto. 2003. A systems approach to sustainability and sustainable development. Economic Commision for Latin America and the Caribbean 64. United Nations Publications. http://www.eclac.org/publicaciones/xml/8/12288/lcl1864i.pdf. Accessed from http://www.eclac.org/cgi-bin/getProd.asp?xml=/publicaciones/xml/8/12288/P12288.xml .
  • A simple 48-page descriptive work providing some useful definitions.

Recommended multimedia: The Resilience video school at the Stockholm Resilience Centre has experts providing definitions.

1. Carpenter, Stephen. 2008. What is a social-ecological system? Web Video. Resilience video school. Stockholm Resilience Centre. http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/whatisresilience/resiliencevideoschool/whatisasocialecologicalsystem.4.aeea46911a31274279800012606.html.
   • An 18-second sound bite, from a leading ecologist.
2. Peterson, Garry. 2008. What are the pros and cons of economic evaluation of ecosystems? Web Video. Resilience video school. Stockholm Resilience Centre. http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/researchvideos/whataretheprosandconsofeconomicevaluationofecosystems.5.2b8975271278f4c2de580001974.html.
   • A short (2:40) description on issues associated with measures.

Extended articles:

1. Cumming, G. S, D. H.M Cumming, and C. L Redman. 2006. Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecology and Society 11, no. 1: 14. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art14/.
   • Since socio-ecological systems span a variety of scales, mismatches between the scale(s) of management and scale(s) of ecosystem processes may be at the foundation of problems.
2. Janssen, M. A, Ö Bodin, J. M Anderies, T. Elmqvist, H. Ernstson, R. R.J McAllister, P. Olsson, and P. Ryan. 2006. Toward a network perspective of the study of resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11, no. 1: 15. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art15/.
   • Human beings can interact in social networks beyond physical ecosystems, leading to unusual behaviours in social-ecological systems.
3. Gattie, D. K, N. N Kellam, and H. J Turk. 2007. Informing ecological engineering through ecological network analysis, ecological modelling, and concepts of systems and engineering ecology. Ecological Modelling 208, no. 1: 25–40. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.04.027. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.04.027.
   • An overview with an impressive list of references (Odum, Allen, Rosen).
4. Ochoa Arias, Alejandro. 2008. An interpretive systemic appraisal of corporate social responsibility and learning. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 25, no. 3: 361-370. doi:10.1002/sres.897. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.897.
   • What does CSR mean?
5. Maclagan, Patrick. 2008. Organizations and responsibility: A critical overview. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 25, no. 3: 371-381. doi:10.1002/sres.903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.903.
   • Stakeholders and ethics
6. Jensen, Hanne Birgitte. 2007. From economic to sustainable development: unfolding the concept of law. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 24, no. 5: 505-513. doi:10.1002/sres.851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.851.
   • Does globalization change our perspective on sustainability?

Extended books/reports:

1. European Communities. 2008. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: An interim report. Ed. Pavan Sukhdev. http://www.teebweb.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=u2fMSQoWJf0%3d&tabid=1278&language=en-US.
   • This interim report follows from the Potsdam Initiative for biodiversity described at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/
   • Variants of the report (for business in July 2010, for policy makers in November 2009, and a climate issues update in September 2009) are available at http://www.teebweb.org/InformationMaterial/TEEBReports/tabid/1278/Default.aspx
2. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: General Synthesis.  Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Synthesis.aspx. This is a summary of the 3-volume report.  A "popularized version" is accessible as "Scientific Facts on Ecosystems Change" at http://www.greenfacts.org/en/ecosystems/index.htm
3. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends. Ed. Rashid Hassan, Robert Scholes, and Neville Ash. Vol. 1.  Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Condition.aspx#download.
   • "The Condition and Trends Working Group found that over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fiber and fuel. This has resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth. In addition, approximately 60% (15 out of 24) of the ecosystem services it examined are being degraded or used unsustainably, including fresh water, capture fisheries, air and water purification, and the regulation of regional and local climate, natural hazards, and pests. "
4. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Scenarios. Ed. Steve R Carpenter, Prabhu L Pingali, Elena M Bennett, and Monika B Zurek. Vol. 2.  Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Scenarios.aspx#download.
   • "The Scenarios Working Group considered the possible evolution of ecosystem services during the twenty-first century by developing four global scenarios exploring plausible future changes in drivers, ecosystems, ecosystem services, and human well-being."
5. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy Responses. Ed. Kanchan Chopra, Rik Leemans, Pushpam Kumar, and Henk Simons. Vol. 3.  Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Responses.aspx#download.
   • "The Response Options Working Group assessed the effectiveness of various types of response options, both historical and current, examining the strengths and weaknesses of various response options that have been used to manage ecosystem services. Their report also identifies some promising opportunities for improving human well-being while conserving ecosystems. "
6. Think tank in Denmark http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/CCC%20Home%20Page.aspx

[jump to top of page]

Aalto University, MUO-E8004 "Systems Thinking 2" (February 2016 course) by David Ing is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.