2010/10 CS0004 Systemic Thinking of Sustainable Communities -- Course Outline

This document is accessible (and may be updated) at http://coevolving.com/aalto/201010-cs0004 .

• This is revision 1018a (as posted at October 18, 08:30 ET).

jump to: [Friday, October 1] [Monday, October 4] [Between sessions] [Friday, October 8] [Due November 1]

jump to: [Dilemmas] [Grading] [Tools]

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

Course instructors:

• Aija Staffans, aija.staffans@tkk.fi
• Katri-Liisa Pulkkinen, katri.pulkkinen@opendesign.fi
• David Ing, http://coevolving.com and http://syscoi.com/commons/members/daviding/

The course is listed as CS0004, with the code of Syst Think Su C, as part of the Master's Degree program in Creative Sustainability at Aalto University.  Sessions are scheduled as:

• 01.10.10, fri 10.00-16.00
• 04.10.10, mon 10.00-16.00
• 08.10.10, fri 10.00-16.00

From a systemic perspective, this course is seen as a complement to Systemic Thinking for Planners and Designers, CS0005, with the code of Syst Think P D.  While the core systems concepts between the two courses are compatible, the underlying philosophy, models and methods have different emphases.

Friday, October 1

[jump to top of page]

Monday, October 4

[jump to top of page]

Between sessions

Either individually, or in cells:

• Continue developing the map of ignorance, filling in areas that are knowns
• Map out potential interests/arguments in the future system (re-)design, with clusters of factions

[jump to top of page]

Friday, October 8

[jump to top of page]

Due November 1

Individually, submit a research paper (as an electronic document or a blog entry) a summary of experiences with the course:

• Questions that arose during your learning (and their resolution either with answers, directions for further research, or unknowns), as what you learned.
• Insights gained on the evolving knowledge/content on the (re-)design over the during of the course
• Experiences (and criticisms) of the processes of designing dialogue (including the debates and final convergence/divergence).
• The usefulness/applicability of references associated with the course.

It will probably be hard to write less than 5 pages (i.e. 2500 words) or more than 15 pages (i.e. 7500 words).

[jump to top of page]

Dilemmas

Experiential activities in this course include the development of skills around dialogue on dilemmas, where "easy answers" are unlikely.  Students should organize in multi-disciplinary teams (e.g. we want diversity, not all of the designers or all of the architects clumping together).

Students will cluster into cells of two or three people.  Cells are twinned into two polar positions, so that there are dilemma groups of four to six people.  Joining a cell to argue a polar position does not mean that an individual is necessarily invested in those ideas, but instead encourages that the range of perspectives on an issue is appreciated.  Taking a position as a "devil's advocate" is not an uncommon way to prepare for discussion.  Students may learn more by taking a position opposite to their native beliefs.

Topics can include:

The purpose behind these dilemmas is not to get to an answer but to (i) frame issues as the (re-)design of future systems (e.g. boundary, stucture, process); (ii) develop an appreciation for the stakeholders who may be included or excluded in the (re-)design of a system; and (iii) consider alternative methods of dialogue leading to resolution and/or choices as a result.

In-class interactions will accelerate individual learning through collaboration on a dilemma.  Writings (e.g. blogs) from individual points of view can extend the conversations online.

[jump to top of page]

Grading

This course has been designed as intensive, with classroom sessions, between-class written reflections, and end-of-class research papers.  Grades will be assigned in the following scheme:

• (1) Class attendance and participation:  60%
• (2) Learning logs: 15%
• (3) Research paper:  25%

(1) Class attendance and participation enables learning in interactions between the instructors and the students, and between the students in peer-to-peer collaborations.  Active participation is encouraged and noticed by the instructors.

(2) Learning logs are personal reflections on (i) insights gained and (ii) questions provoked from the classroom sessions.  The best method of communication will be to (a) create blog posts on an open web site of your choosing -- if you don't already have one, http://wordpress.com provides space for free; and (b) post a weblink to the on the Systems Community of Inquiry forum for Systemicists at http://syscoi.com/commons/groups/systemicists/forum/ . 

When you create a post on a web site, it is date-stamped. so the instructors will notice your activity.  Your learning logs can be brief, and they will be accessible to commentary by the public (including members of the systems community who are active on the Internet).

(3) The research paper may take a form as selected by the student, including:

• (a) a long-form essay, (in the range of 2500 to 7500 words);
• (b) a series of short-form essays (totalling in the range of 2500 to 7500 words); or
• (c) a series of visual maps (e.g. an argument map, a concept map, a mind map) supplemented with descriptions written as full text (i.e. complete sentences, proper punctuation).

The research paper can include (and should extend) the prior writing in the learning logs.  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.

A research paper is more than bullet points!

The medium for the research paper may be chosen by the student as:

• (a) a publically-accessible electronic composition, with a web link posted at the forum at http://syscoi.com ; or
• (b) a private communication to the instructor, sent via e-mail ( aija.staffans@tkk.fi ).

You may receive coaching on your writing over the Internet, if you post work-in-process and revise.

Tools

Personal reflections and questions about content can be posted online at a blog of your choosing (e.g. on http://wordpress.com ).  As an alternative to sending pointers to the blog post via e-mail, messages can be posted to the Systemicists forum on the Systems Community of Inquiry, which is visible not only to the instructors, but also other systems thinkers around the world.  Threads have been set up for Day 1, Day 2 and Day 3.

Writing can be done online directly onto a blog, or offline and then copied online.  You may want to avoid using Word as an offline editor, as the results format badly when transferred (i.e. DOC doesn't play well with HTML).  Alternative editors that do play well include Wordpad (on Windows), TextEdit on Mac, Amaya (if you're really hardcore about writing correct HTML) and JEdit (if you want to write like a programmer)

Some free and easy offline mapping tools include (i) VUE (Visual Understanding Environment) that handles network diagrams well, and (ii) Freemind, that allows folding and unfolding tree structures.  Common general purpose drawing tools include (i) OpenOffice Draw, and (ii) Inkscape .  An alternative online drawing tool is Google Docs Draw, that should allow public viewing and/or exporting to a blog.

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.

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 1. Foundations for a systems approach

How is a systems approach different? [This is the same content across two courses]

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. 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
2. 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]
3. Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. 1999. Systems thinking: managing chaos and complexity : a platform for designing business architecture. [preview at Google Books]
4. 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).
5. 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 Video. 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. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8639555925486210852.
3. Brand, Stewart, and James Runice. 1997. The Low Road. Vol. 2. 6 vols. How Buildings Learn. BBC. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5088653796598486022.
4. Brand, Stewart, and James Runice. 1997. Built for Change. Vol. 3. 6 vols. How Buildings Learn. BBC. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6141960341438553915.
5. Brand, Stewart, and James Runice. 1997. Unreal Estate. Vol. 4. 6 vols. How Buildings Learn. BBC. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8761299882173964035.
6. Brand, Stewart, and James Runice. 1997. The Romance of Maintenance. Vol. 5. 6 vols. How Buildings Learn. BBC. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5407846553590755822.
7. Brand, Stewart, and James Runice. 1997. Shearing Layers. Vol. 6. 6 vols. How Buildings Learn. BBC. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2283224496826631552.

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, forthcoming. 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 2. Boundary, inquiry, perspectives

How do we ensure that we have appropriate levels of community engagement and participation?

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. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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
6. 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.
   • Requisite variety comes from Ross Ashby, and was applied by Stafford Beer.

Recommended books:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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. 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.
2. 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)
3. 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.
4. 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.

[jump to top of page]

Cluster 3. Learning categories, postnormal science, ignorance

How do we understand and approach ecologies (both natural and social)?

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://www.ignorance.medicine.arizona.edu/ignorance.html.
   • An accessible version of the institute on medical ignorance.

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.

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. 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/ .
4. 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/ .
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.

Recommended books:

1. Banathy, Bela H. 1996. Designing social systems in a changing world. Springer. [preview at Google Books]
   • Includes a description of generative dialogue and strategic dialogue

Extended articles:

1. 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.
2. 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
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

[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.
   • Collapse of human civilizations, we do to ourselves.
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 book chapters:

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)
3. 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)
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Homer-Dixon, Thomas. 2006. The Upside of Down. Toronto: Knopf. [preview at Google Books]
   • Can we learn?
7. 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. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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
5. 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?
6. 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".
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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?
10. 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?

Extended books:

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

[jump to top of page]

Cluster 6. System design frameworks

How will we know when we've been successful?

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. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.

Recommended books:

1. 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.
2. x

Extended articles:

1. 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)
2. 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.
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. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.

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]

Cluster 7. Case study examples

Where are systems approaches evident (both explicitly and implicitly)?

a. UNESCO biospheres

1. Nguyen, Nam C., Ockie J.H. Bosch, and Kambiz E. Maani. 2010. Creating ‘learning laboratories’ for sustainable development in biospheres: A systems thinking approach. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: earlyview. doi:10.1002/sres.1044. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.1044.
   • (not yet accessible)

b. Eco-towns

1. Four sites to become 'eco-towns' : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8152985.stm
2. Bonham-Carter, Claire. 2009. Sustainable Communities in the UK. In Sustainable Communities, ed. Woodrow W. Clark, 135-153. New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0219-1_10.
   • Ecohomes, and the carbon challenge, with case studies
3. Schumacher Society http://www.schumacher.org.uk/

c. Community-supported agricuture (CSAs)

1. Resistance to the Farm Bill http://www.ecoliteracy.org/essays/food-fight-2007-farm-bill.

d. Local currencies

1. Schumacher Society http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/local_currencies.html

e. Crowdsourcing / open source

1. Open government data http://www.opengovdata.org/

f. Online Jams

1. World Urban Forum. 2006. 70 Actionable Ideas. In Habitat Jam. Vancouver, BC, Canada. http://sustainablecities.net/projects-overview/projects-past/habitat-jam.
   • Stories at http://www.globaldialoguecenter.com/exhibits/backbone/index.shtml .
   • Described at http://www.backbonemag.com/Magazine/CoverStory_10270601.asp

[jump to top of page]