The 128th meeting of Systems Thinking Ontario was convened in person.  The classroom was filled with current students, alumni, our regular participants, and a few curious newcomers.

Moderated by Zaid Khan, the conversation was sparked by Stephen Davies and myself (David Ing) on the evolving styles in learning systems thinking.  Stephen has been leading SFIN-6011 “Understanding Systems” since the beginning of this winter session.  I had previously taught in the course in winter 2020 (almost completing the term before the COVID-19 pandemic shutdown), and have been volunteering some time this winter with current students.

The master’s program in Strategic Foresight and Innovation was launched in 2009, with systems thinking at its core.

Our strategic innovation model … illustrates the integration of design, business, and futures thinking through systems thinking. This integration allows our students to move through an iterative design thinking process, understand the business context to ensure viability and develop deeper insights into the challenges a sector or organization might be facing through futures thinking. Systems thinking and mapping locates these complex challenges in a larger system and makes clear the patterns and interconnectedness of the issues; and visual thinking ensures more effective communication of complex data (Richards, 2015, p. 360).

In the earliest days, there were two courses listed:  (i) “Understanding Systems” in Year One, Winter semester, and (ii) “Social Systems” in Year Two, Fall semester (OCADU, 2011).

SFIN 6B02 Social Systems
In this introduction to complex systems, students will examine the dynamic arrangement of three interconnected and adaptive human systems; social, market and political. Developing the essentials of a systems approach, students will study structure, evolution, patterns of behaviour, and the impacts of change in these systems through case study review and systems model analysis. Working in teams, students will select a specific sector, define an objective and then will explore the potential direct and indirect consequences of a number of proposed solutions.

SFIN 6B04 Understanding Systems
In this second course on systems thinking, students will study non-human systems, specifically the ecosphere, biosphere and technosphere. Applying systems thinking approaches, students will compare these natural and man-made systems and discuss methods for understanding and respecting their interdependencies and interactions. The nature of adaptive life systems will be studied as well as examples of the unintended and often negative impacts of human action. Significant technological inventions and their impact on human and societal development and on the environment will be discussed. Included in this discussion will be the key role that information technology has played in accelerating change. Emerging and pivotal technologies and their potential value and impact will be studied. The social, legal, economic and ethical issues concerning technology innovation will be considered through case study analysis.

Within a few years, the two courses became one.  The launch of the Relating System and Design Symposiums in 2012 would be related to a style of systemic design associated with synthesis maps.  Peter Jones had originally led “Understanding Systems” with Jeremy Bowes, until the Design for Health program required more intensity.  Lorraine Randell took over “Understanding Systems” from 2021, finding by 2024 that her professional workload outside of the university was too great.  Stephen Davies had previously taught at OCADU until 2019, and was brought back to lead this course.  This presented an opportunity revisit the course design, and refresh its approach.

In the ST-ON session, the conversation flowed freely.  An audio recorder partially captured some voices in the large room.  Digital editing with noise reduction and compression has partially clarified some voices.

Audio
Feb. 13 (1h57m)	[20250213_ST-ON_NR_Comp_198kbps.m4a] (198kbps, 167 MB) 20250213_ST-ON_NR_Comp_128kpbs.mp3] (128kbps, 107 MB)

In this age of generative AI, we can experiment with voice-to-text summarizations.  For educational purposes, the results from two alternative platforms are provided.

---

With Google NotebookLM, the audio recording could be directly loaded to the browser. Here’s the resulting Briefing Document, with errors uncorrected.

Briefing Document: Systems Thinking Ontario – Evolving Learning Styles and Systems Thinking

Date: 2025-02-13 (Based on file name)

Overview:

This document summarizes a recorded session of Systems Thinking Ontario, a group focused on discussing and learning about systems thinking. The session, held in person at OKAD (presumably OCAD University), involves a casual conversation about evolving learning styles in the context of systems thinking. Key themes include the journey of individuals into systems thinking, different learning modalities, the role of theory versus practice, and the impact of technology and societal shifts on the field. A central topic was a discussion and reflection on the content and approach of a Systems Thinking course being taught at SFI, including the use of synthesis maps.

Key Themes and Ideas:

1. Individual Journeys into Systems Thinking:

• The session begins with introductions, revealing diverse backgrounds and motivations for being interested in systems thinking. Participants include current and former SFI students, professors, consultants, designers, and individuals from various fields (law, advocacy, product development).
• Personal experiences often sparked interest in systems thinking:
• Stephen’s early experience with Legos demonstrates emergent understanding of systems through building and experimentation. He states, “systems thinking for me started when I got my first box of Legos.”
• David’s introduction came through business architecture at IBM, requiring him to learn about Russell Ackoff.

1. Evolving Learning Modalities:

• The discussion covers various learning modalities, including:
• Apprenticeship: Highlighted as a valuable model, particularly for practical application. Stephen emphasizes the importance of informal mentorship, stating that he got “my kind of master’s degree in systems thinking through an informal apprenticeship with Stafford in Potter’s Pub on Wall Street.”
• Human-to-Human Dialogue: Conversations and discussions are seen as crucial for deeper understanding, exceeding what can be gleaned from books alone.
• Experiential Learning: David stresses the value of practical application, stating “system thinking fills in the parts that you don’t know.” The use of examples like the “beer game” in systems dynamics is discussed.
• Visuals and Artefacts: The creation and interpretation of models is highlighted.
• Video resources: Mentioned as underdeveloped resource.
• The importance of “working metaphors” or analogies to understand complex concepts is emphasized.

1. Theory vs. Practice in Systems Thinking:

• A central debate revolves around whether a deep understanding of systems theory is necessary to effectively practice systems thinking.
• Stephen and David made a design choice to “lead with methodology”, teaching just enough theory to support the methods and artefacts, and offering deeper dives for those interested.
• Some participants argue that practical application and problem-solving should come first, with theory providing a framework for codifying and augmenting understanding later. One person stated, “There’s nothing as practical as a good theory.”
• The discussion touches upon the historical context and philosophical underpinnings of different systems thinkers.

1. The Impact of Technology Changes and AI:

• The conversation addresses the impact of technological changes such as online learning platforms and AI on teaching and learning systems thinking.
• The use of AI tools like Perplexity for literature reviews and research is being explored, but ethical concerns and limitations in AI’s ability to synthesize complex systems thinking concepts are acknowledged. One person says “Everyone’s talking about AI. So we have and we have a we’re redoing this course. We have two options. We can ignore it and just say, you know, we’ll teach you or we’ll actually try to level students up.”
• There are differing views on the ethical implications of AI use, particularly regarding copyright and critical thought.

1. Synthesis Maps and Storytelling:

• Synthesis maps, a traditional tool in SFI’s curriculum, are discussed at length. There’s a recognition that past synthesis maps were not always effective or accessible.
• There’s a push towards storytelling and narrative as a way to make systems thinking more understandable and impactful. Participants recognized the need for, “an additive storytelling device. It has to help you understand differently in and communicate that.”
• The discussion touches upon the challenges of creating effective synthesis maps, including knowing where to begin and how to guide the viewer.
• The need for visual communication skills is noted.

1. Addressing Challenges in the SFI Program:

• The limitations of a single, 12-week systems thinking course are acknowledged, given the breadth and depth of the field.
• There are issues with varied student backgrounds and the large vocabularies and competing models. There is concern to meet the students where they are at.
• A common complaint is the challenge of connecting learnings in different courses and using the courses to enhance a future career.
• There are calls to update or change the program to meet all of the students’ needs and goals and to enhance the opportunities available after completing it.

1. The Question of Careers in Systems Thinking:

• Participants question what jobs in systems thinking might look like. Is there a standard way to make a living with these skills?
• The idea emerges that systems thinking is not a job in itself, but an enabler for increased impact, influence, and leadership in various fields.
• The conversation concludes that, “system thinking is the enabler to increase impact. To have influence, to show leadership, to be the change.”

1. Diversity and Inclusion in Systems Thinking Education:

• There is a recognition of the need to decolonize the systems thinking curriculum and introduce feminist perspectives.
• Stephen mentions Suzanne’s challenge of, “how might you decolonize the curriculum and how might you make it how might you introduce some feminist perspectives?”
• The conversation highlights the need to include diverse voices and perspectives in the field.

Key Takeaways:

• Systems thinking education is evolving to incorporate new technologies, learning modalities, and perspectives.
• The balance between theory and practice is a key consideration in curriculum design.
• Storytelling and visual communication are essential for making systems thinking accessible and impactful.
• Systems thinking is a valuable skill for a wide range of fields and can enable individuals to become change agents.
• There’s a need for more diversity and inclusion in the field and in the curriculum.
• The group hopes to continue to evolve and expand on the ways that systems thinking is taught and applied.

Actionable Insights:

• Explore opportunities for mentorship and apprenticeship programs in systems thinking.
• Develop additional video and multimedia resources to support learning.
• Incorporate storytelling and visual communication techniques into systems thinking courses.
• Ensure that systems thinking concepts are integrated across different courses in the SFI program.
• Actively seek out and incorporate diverse voices and perspectives in the curriculum.
• Consider offering additional, optional courses in systems thinking.
• Consider including practical experiences that are less intimidating for beginners.

---

Alternative AI chatbots, on the free tier, won’t process audio directly. Voice-to-text can be processed on a personal computer with OpenAI Whisper AI. Here’s a resulting summary from Microsoft Copilot, also uncorrected.

Meeting Summary by Microsoft Copilot, based on voice-to-text transcription via OpenAI Whisper

Provide a summary of about 3 pages in length of the meeting provided as a text file, about alternative ways that systems thinking might be learned at the master’s level in a design program, and how it has continued to evolve since the program started in 2009.

The Systems Thinking Ontario meeting, moderated by Zaid Khan and featuring discussants Stephen Davies and David Ing, revolved around the evolution of learning styles and systems thinking methodologies at the master’s level in a design program. The discussion highlighted the experiences and perspectives of the participants, who ranged from current students to alumni and professionals, emphasizing the diversity of backgrounds and interests in systems thinking.

Introduction and Participant Backgrounds:
The meeting began with participants introducing themselves and sharing their interests in systems thinking. The diverse group included current students, alumni, and professionals from various fields, all united by a common interest in systems thinking and its applications. This set the stage for a rich exchange of ideas and experiences.

Stephen Davies’ Journey:
Stephen Davies recounted his journey into systems thinking, starting from his early fascination with Lego and continuing through his academic and professional experiences. He highlighted key moments in his education, such as studying mathematics and electrical engineering at the University of Waterloo and discovering chaos theory through James Gleick’s book “Chaos.” This introduction to open systems significantly influenced his perspective on systems thinking. Davies also discussed his involvement with Stafford Beer and the Teams Integrity Protocol, which further shaped his understanding of management cybernetics and social systems.

David Ing’s Path:
David Ing shared his introduction to systems thinking during his time at IBM, where he was exposed to the work of Steve Haeckel on adaptive enterprise. This led him to explore the ideas of Russell Ackoff and other prominent systems thinkers. Ing emphasized the importance of practical experience and continuous learning, recounting his interactions with the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS) and the impact of conferences and personal connections with other systems thinkers. He also discussed his teaching experiences in Finland and the evolution of systems thinking education in different cultural contexts.

Evolution of Teaching Systems Thinking:
The conversation then shifted to the challenges and opportunities in teaching systems thinking at the master’s level. Davies and Ing discussed the importance of practical application and storytelling in making systems concepts accessible and engaging. They emphasized the need to balance theoretical foundations with practical methodologies, advocating for an approach that leads with methods and artifacts. This approach was seen as beneficial in helping students grasp complex systems concepts without being overwhelmed by jargon.

Participant Insights and Experiences:
Participants shared their experiences and insights, highlighting the value of diverse perspectives in systems thinking education. They discussed the challenges of integrating systems thinking into different educational and professional contexts, emphasizing the importance of adaptability and openness to new ideas. Several participants mentioned the use of technology and AI tools, such as Proclexity and Notion, to enhance their learning experiences and manage the vast amount of information in the field.

Alternative Learning Methods:
The discussion also touched on alternative ways of learning systems thinking, such as the use of practical projects, apprenticeships, and the importance of storytelling. Participants emphasized the need for a more integrated approach that connects different courses and perspectives, allowing students to see the bigger picture and understand the interconnectedness of various systems. There was a consensus on the importance of creating a supportive learning environment where students can experiment, fail, and learn from their experiences.

Storytelling and Visualization:
One of the key takeaways from the meeting was the importance of storytelling and visualization in systems thinking education. Participants noted that effective storytelling helps make complex systems concepts more relatable and easier to understand. Visualization, through synthesis maps and other tools, was seen as a critical skill for systems thinkers, enabling them to communicate their ideas effectively to diverse audiences.

Evolving Curriculum:
Davies and Ing discussed the evolution of the systems thinking curriculum at the master’s level since the program started in 2009. They highlighted the need for continuous improvement and adaptation to changing student needs and technological advancements. The integration of feminist perspectives and decolonization of the curriculum were identified as important areas for future development. The goal is to create a more inclusive and diverse learning environment that reflects the complexities of the modern world.

Conclusion:
Overall, the meeting underscored the dynamic and evolving nature of systems thinking education. It highlighted the importance of practical experience, continuous learning, and the integration of diverse perspectives in fostering a deeper understanding of systems. The session concluded with a recognition of the need for ongoing dialogue and collaboration among systems thinkers to address the complexities of the modern world.

---

As a poor substitute for attending a meeting in person, generative AI summarization at least provides some gist of discussions. There’s some judgement as to whether it is, or is not, accurate.

With strong participation by attendees, we didn’t follow the agenda as we had originally described in the announcement.

References

Jones, Peter, and Jeremy Bowes. 2017. “Rendering Systems Visible for Design: Synthesis Maps as Constructivist Design Narratives.” She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation 3 (3): 229–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2017.12.001.

Ontario College of Art and Design. 2011. “MDes in Strategic Foresight and Innovation – Program Requirements.” Graduate Studies. January 3, 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20110103155200/http://www.ocad.ca/programs/graduate_studies/mdes_strategic_foresight_innovation/program_requirements.htm.

Richards, Lenore. 2015. “Understanding of Change, Leading Innovation: OCAD University’s Master of Design in Strategic Foresight and Innovation.” In Higher Education in Transformation Conference, Stream 4: Enterprising University, 358–68. Dublin, Ireland: Technological University for Dublin. https://arrow.tudublin.ie/st4/5.  Cached at https://openresearch.ocadu.ca/id/eprint/1087/

Sevaldson, Birger. 2012. “Relating Systems Thinking and Design 1 Oslo 2012.” Blog. Systems Oriented Design (blog). September 13, 2012. https://systemsorienteddesign.net/relating-systems-thinking-and-design/.