Coevolving Innovations

… in Business Organizations and Information Technologies

Systems Thinking and the Learning Aesthetic (Systems Thinking Ontario, 2013-03-21)

When can learning about system thinking be fun (and when can’t it be)?  This was the focus question for the third Systems Thinking Ontario meeting. We had a slight change in format from the reading-oriented prior agendas, as Steve Easterbrook led us through a more experiential approach to systems thinking.  As usual, participants were provided with pre-readings, this time from Linda Booth Sweeney.  As a change for the in-person meeting, Steve went directly to exercises from the Systems Thinking Playbook, which he has been using in classes such as Systems Thinking for Global Problems.  While the exercises are appropriate for students down into the primary school level, Steve has found that graduate students also enjoy and learn from them.  In the short time available, we played through two exercises and then broke out into discussion subgroups.

The first exercise was called “Frames”.  Steve provided each of us with a piece of paper with a small aperture cut out of the centre.

di_20130321_174830_st-on_sme_frame.jpg

The playbook gives the following directions.

Geographic Framing

Step 1:  Ask all participants to hold their viewing holes out at arm’s length.

Ask them to look through the holes and focus on a specific object; for example, a cluster of tennis balls on a table, a poster, you, or whatever object you choose.  [….]

Step 2:  Ask the following questions, pausing for 10-20 seconds after each, so participants have time to ponder their answer.

  • “What do you see within this frame?”
  • “What questions could you answer with the information available to you through your frame?”
  • “What professions might be interested in the data you are gathering?”
  • “What actions could you take to influence the objects or processes that you see?”  [Sweeney and Meadows 2010, pp-140-141]

Steve had scattered a variety of toys around the room, on the floor and on a desk.  Some people looked at the periodic table on the wall, since we were in a chemistry lab.

di_20130321_175124_st-on_discussion_south.jpg

After the discussion about the frame at arm’s length, the playbook next directs bringing the aperture closer.

Step 3:  Now ask players to bring the hole halfway to toward their eye while keeping the same object centered in the whole.  Ask the same four questions above, once more pausing for several seconds after each.

Now ask players to bring the hole as close as they can to their eye while keeping the same object centered in the hole.

Again ask the same four questions, pausing for participants to form a mental answer to each.  Point out that the object that each player viewed through his or her hole remained exactly the same during the three different inspections.  Explain that you asked the same questions with each inspection, then ask participants whether their responses to the questions changed.  Solicit actual responses from the audience.  Ask, “Why did your answers change?  Which do you think was the best perspective?  Which one did you prefer?  Of course, no perspective is intrinsically better than another.  It depends on the goals and the questions of the person who is looking through the frame.  [Sweeney and Meadows 2010, pp-140-141]

Reactions to the change perspective varied.  A water bottle that was intriguing in a narrow focus was recognized as garbage left behind by another student.  A plastic object that had an interesting texture became more mundane when recognized as a toy.

di_20130321_175130_st-on_discussion_north.jpg

Following the playbook, the exercise turned from “Geographic Framing” to “Temporal Framing”.  Sometimes the frame isn’t “where”, but “when.

For the second exercise, Steve brought out a long pole, and asked participants to queue in two lines.

di_20130321_180256_st-on_pole_explanation.jpg

This second exercise is called “Avalanche”.  The playbook reads:

One of your assistants is going to rest a long pole between the two lines across the tops of your fingers.  (Make sure your fingers are all at the same height.)  On the end of the pole, a washer will be hanging loosely.

Your team’s goal is to lower the pole smoothly to the floor, rest it there, and remove your fingers — all while making sure that the washers stay on the pole ends.  There are three rules:

Rule #1:  You cannot hold onto the pole; you can only support it with the top of your finger.

Rule #2:  You absolutely must not lose contact with the pole at any time. If your finger does lose contact with the pole, raise your free hand.  The assistants will seize the pole, and your group will start over.

Rule #3:  If one or both washers fall off the pole, the assistants will seize the pole, and your group will start over.

  • Imagine that the pole is a complex task that your group needs to accomplish.  One washer represents your budget constraints; the other, your quality standards.  You need to finish the job withoug “dropping” either. [Sweeney and Meadows 2010, p. 220]

The pole was rested on the fingers of the group.

di_20130321_180326_st-on_pole_touch.jpg

While the directions to individuals were to try to lower the pole, the collective result was the opposite:  the pole started to rise.

di_20130321_180454_st-on_pole_rise.jpg

In a moment, the pole had risen up so far than the shorter people protested that they were going to lose contact.

di_20130321_180504_st-on_pole_top.jpg

One participant had a suggestion:  on a count of three, everyone was to lower simultaneously.

di_20130321_180552_st-on_pole_lowered.jpg

The lowering tactic worked.  However, the ends were not descending at the same pace.  The risk of the ring falling off one end increased.

di_20130321_180638_st-on_pole_angled.jpg

A few more words of coordination, and the pole evened out.

di_20130321_180744_st-on_pole_lowering.jpg

Lower and lower, everyone had to squat.

di_20130321_180818_st-on_pole_squat.jpg

With a little more time, they could have let the pole all the way to the ground.  The group decided the lesson had been learned.

di_20130321_180846_st-on_pole_bottom.jpg

The full group broke out into two smaller subgroups.  One group focused specifically on answering the question.  Stephen Davies gave a concise report on the subgroup findings.

di_20130321_184236_st-on_breakout_north.jpg

When can learning about systems thinking be fun?

  1. When games are used to make a simple system concrete and participatory.
  2. When we explore our experience playing the game afterwards or upon reflection.
  3. When learning occurs though our direct action and we have a chance to discover things empirically.  Time in the game is important, as feedback happens in a matter of minutes, not hours, days, or weeks.
  4. When features of the game make it fun, i.e. the rules, the goals/objectives, emergent behaviour, unexpected challenges, etc.
When can learning about systems thinking not be fun?
  1. When we’re unsure about how many variables need to be considered.
  2. When the rules of the game are unclear or incomplete.
  3. When you can’t connect the concept or principle to the game or trust the people who are playing it.
  4. When the stakes are too high to fail or failure is too likely.
The other group approaches the questions from an alternate path.  Katie Kish reported:

di_20130321_184218_st-on_breakout_south.jpg

What makes it fun?

  • Features of the game make it fun:  there’s permission to express oneself and to be “silly”.
Is there a threshold into when it is not fun?
  • It can be about egos in the room.
  • Some people struggle to overcome one another.
  • People who do not respond to ego may step back and become a weak link (or, potentially, a stronger link).
  • Dominating people may end up competing with one another to try and control the system.
  • Aggressive, passive and/or controlling behaviours may emerge.
The way that the game is played, the managing of behaviour, and the demographics in the room can make it more fun and/or interesting.
  • A study of the same game could be created, played with (i) all women, (ii) all men, (iii) all friends, (iv) all strangers, etc.
  • Is diversity an enabler or an inhibitor?
  • Is it necessary for people to be willing to have fun?  Might some step back?
Why do we want games to be fun?
  • Efficiency can be fun but controllers are not.
  • Diversity can be fun but being silenced is not.
  • Games can be interesting, engaging and enlightening, and still not necessarily fun.

With the group back together, we had a brief reflection on the meeting process.  At prior events, we’ve had three subgroups rather than two subgroups.  With sufficient attendees, (at least) three subgroups may be a better pattern, to reduce the possibility of “us versus them” comparisons.  The motivation for subgroups is to improve inquiry, as more voices can be followed in smaller groups.  The discussions help individuals make sense of the domain for that meeting.

Look out for monthly Systems Thinking Ontario sessions at http://wiki.st-on.org .  The group focuses on a different theme each month.

[See the album of 21 ST-ON webphotos (with a slideshow option)]

References

Sweeney, Linda Booth, and Dennis L. Meadows. 2010. The Systems Thinking Playbook. Chelsea Green Publishing. http://books.google.ca/books?id=rNSNtQ8cPYUC.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • RSS qoto.org/@daviding (Mastodon)

    • daviding: The #GlobalBusinessN April 8, 2020
      The #GlobalBusinessNetwork has been temporarily reformed including #PeterSchwartz and #StewartBrand in a report released by #PunitRenjen at #Deloitte and #Salesforce. https://discuss.openlearning.cc/t/a-world-remade-by-covid-19-scenarios-as-the-passing-storm-good-company-sunrise-in-the-east-lone-wolves/107.
    • daviding: A young man stares o April 5, 2020
      A young man stares out a window and the caption reads “Bus windows: the ultimate philosophy school.” writes #MarkKingwell All the canonical philosophers of boredom have believed that boredom was eventually edifying – a painful experience that, like mortality itself, educates and enhances the mind. Because we’re all addicts of our own desires for stimulation, […]
    • daviding: Provocative statemen February 1, 2020
      Provocative statement by Canadian automobile reviewer. > There isn’t now and likely never will be enough electricity available worldwide to replace all the petroleum for the vehicles we currently drive.> And given that at least in Canada, only 11 per cent of fossil fuel emissions come from passenger vehicles (that’s not from some climate-change-denying website […]
    • daviding: Lecture on "Are Syst January 23, 2020
      Lecture on "Are Systems Changes Different from System + Change?" at #OCADU_SFI #SystemicDesign master's, web video and digital audio now at http://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/are-systems-changes-different-from-system-change/ . Lecture of 1h18m covered 37 of 55 slides, all online for #SystemsChange #SystemsThinking #theoryofchange
    • daviding: The 2019-2020 fires January 5, 2020
      The 2019-2020 fires in Australia are associated with a slow history of human activity. > Three hours north, in Sydney, the air quality was worse than in Jakarta. [....] > There is no doubt that the fires are growing more ferocious. Even without the changing climate, it would be inevitable; 250 years of land mismanagement […]
  • RSS on IngBrief

    • Plans as resources for action (Suchman, 1988)
      Two ways of thinking about practice put (i) “plans as determinants of action”, and (ii) “plans as resources for action”. The latter has become a convention, particularly through research into Human Computer Interaction (HCI) and Computer Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW). While the more durable explanation appears the Suchman (1987) book (specifically section “8.2 Plans as […]
    • The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago
      Does “the best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago and the second best time is now” date back further than 1988? It is time to look long and hard at the value of the urban forest and create the broad-based efforts — in research, funding and citizen participation — needed to improve […]
    • 2019/11/05 13:15 “Barriers to Data Science Adoption: Why Existing Frameworks Aren’t Working”, Workshop at CASCON-Evoke, Markham, Ontario
      Workshop led by @RohanAlexander and @prof_lyons at #CASCONxEvoke on "Barriers to Data Science Adoption: Why Existing Frameworks Aren't Working". For discussion purposes the challenges are grouped within three themes: regulatory; investment; and workforce.
    • Own opinion, but not facts
      “You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts” by #DanielPatrickMoynihan is predated on @Freakonomics by #BernardMBaruch 1950 “Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts”. Source: “There Are Opinions, And Then There Are Facts” | Fred Shapiro […]
    • R programming is from S, influenced by APL
      History of data science tools has evolved to #rstats of the 1990s, from the S-Language at Bell Labs in the 1970s, and the
    • Bullshit, Politics, and the Democratic Power of Satire | Paul Babbitt | 2013
      Satire can be an antidote, says Prof. #PaulBabbitt @muleriders , to #bullshit (c.f. rhetoric; hypocrisy; crocodile tears; propaganda; intellectual dishonesty; politeness, etiquette and civility; commonsense and conventional wisdom; symbolic votes; platitudes and valence issues).
  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • RSS on daviding.com

    • 2020/03 Moments March 2020
      The month started with a hectic coincidence of events as both a teacher and student at two universities, abruptly shifting to low gear with government directives for social distancing.
    • 2020/02 Moments February 2020
      Winter has discouraged enjoying the outside, so more occasions for friend and family inside.
    • 2020/01 Moments January 2020
      Back to school, teaching and learning at 2 universities.
    • 2019/12 Moments December 2019
      First half of December in finishing up course assignments and preparing for exams; second half on 11-day family vacation in Mexico City.
    • 2019/11 Moments November 2019
      Wrapped up paperwork on closing out family buildings in Gravenhurst, returned to classes and technical conferences in usual pattern of learning.
    • 2019/10 Moments October 2019
      Tightly scheduled weekdays at Ryerson Chang School, weekends in Gravenhurst clearing out family building as we're leaving the town permanently.
  • RSS on Media Queue

  • Meta

  • Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
    Theme modified from DevDmBootstrap4 by Danny Machal