Site icon Coevolving Innovations

Systems Thinking and Futures Studies (Systems Thinking Ontario, 2013-02-21)

daviding

The pre-reading of Emery (1967), “The Next Thirty Years: Concepts, Methods and Anticipations” was introduced as a challenging article for the second meeting of Systems Thinking Ontario on Feb. 21, 2013.  The theme for the evening was “Systems Thinking and Future Studies”, so there was some irony in looking backwards to 1967 to have a discussion on looking forward.

In my role as reviewer in Systems Thinking Ontario sessions, I would prefer to try to stick to the text rather than adding editorializing.  However, since this Emery (1967) article is particular rich, I tried to provide some additional context to make the reading easier.

Fred Emery is especially known for his work with the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations, as one of the pioneers of the field we know today as organization science, including organization development and organization design.  In 1967, systems thinking was new:  The Systems Approach would be published by West Churchman in 1968, and On Purposeful Systems by Ackoff and Emery would follow years later in 1972.  The Club of Rome was founded in 1968.  In this article, Emery was thinking about how systems thinking frames viewing the future.

In I. Prediction and Planning, the systems of interest are in the social sciences.  The longer history of systems thinking prior to 1967 would have been a stronger cybernetics orientation.  The research from the Tavistock Institute on the socio-psychological, socio-technical and socio-ecological systems perspectives would have been fresh.  Emery wrote:

In this section we have sought to argue that:

  • (a) there is a need for developments in the social sciences that go beyond their present concerns;
  • (b) this development needs planning;
  • (c) the planning needs to be in a context of expected social developments for several decades ahead;
  • (d) the planning should be more than projection or forecasting;
  • (e) planning should actively seek to extend the choices men can make, not to dictate them.  [p. 199]

Essentially, the challenge is that human beings can shape their futures, and not just be passive participants in the changes.  Much of the influence that human beings have on the future, particularly when working collectively as a social group, is through planning.

From the article, the figures in II. Conceptual Bases for Predicting the Future were helpful towards deciphering the text.

Figure 1: E == environmental conditions; R == (system) response

In Figure 1, the diagrams might be read bottom-up, from the past (at time t0) upwards to the future (to time t1 and t2).  In the left diamond, some environment conditional Et0 happens, and adaptation occurs either another change in environmental condition Et1, or system response Rt1 to get to the final goal at t2. In the right diamond, consider instead the possibility of reading from the top-down.  To get to the goal at t2, the starting point could be an environmental condition Et0, as before.  On the other hand, there’s also the option that the system could (pre-emptively or anticipatorily) respond with Rt0.

I’ve struggled with these diamonds before.  In the 1969 Penguin paperback edited by Emery, there’s a reference to Sommerhoff (1969), “The abstract characteristics of living systems”.  The story speaks about playing football (soccer) and wanting to score a goal.  Essentially, in the left diamond, the player can wait for the ball to come to him, and then kick it towards the goal.  In the right diamond, the player realizes that he could also move towards where the ball is currently positioned, and that might help him score the goal.

In later writing, Ackoff differentiates between adaptation (as passive) and learning (as potentially active).

Figure 2: Two living processes, can better predict A at t+ than B and t+

Figure 2 brings in some systems language, in process, which can be described as an arrangement in time (as opposed to structure, which is an arrangement in space).  Three living processes are presented.

A has quite a lot of history, and thus provides some foundations from which to predict.

B has some history, giving some foundation for prediction, although probably with less validity than A.

C has no history, and thus would be difficult to predict in the future.  How should we handle that?

Framing a view into the future, in this example of three living processes, leads into questions that are familiar to systems thinkers:  what is the system of interest, and where do we draw the boundary?  Boundary can be be considered both in the structural sense (arrangement in space) and processual space (arrangement in time).

Figure 3: a and b are phases of A, no basis for predicting B

Figure 3 deepens the challenge of time, when changes don’t occur linearly, but instead cyclically.  “While some prediction about the future part of a is theoretically possible, there is no basis for predicting the specific characteristics of phase b” [pp. 204-205].  Learning about A and appreciating that as a cycle may or may not give insight into B.  B might similarly be a cycle, or a cycle of different periodicity, or not a cycle at all.

Consider the problems that would have occurred when astronomers watched points of light in the sky move steadily one direction, and then reverse in direction.  Thinking about the future could lead the scientist to think about the prior patterns as recurring.  The system of interest could be more than just the object itself.

Figure 4: A and B are coextensive in time, B is part process of A, so A easier to predict than B

Figure 4 complicates predicting the future by considering systems where there are whole-part relations.

… A and B are coextensive in time but B is a part process of A.  One would expect that predictions about A would theoretically be easier than predictions about B.  The basis for this expectation is the general property of part-whole relations.  A sets some of the parameters of B and hence, whatever one knows of the values likely to be taken by B, one knows more if one knows how these parameters might change.  The future of B is dependent upon the future of A in a way that A is not dependent upon B.  At the same time, predictions about A will be less specific than could be predictions about B.  [p. 205]

Novices might make sense of futures with part-part interactions, but deeper thinking could uncover part-whole interactions.

Figure 5: Two processes will interact at t+; A and B survive, or larger inclusive system?

Figure 5 covers the case where there might be part-part interactions, but then complicates the matter by opening up the possibility that there could be a new emergent whole from that interaction.

… two processes which are presumed to interact after some point t+ in the futue.  If A and B survive the interaction, some of their system properties may predictably survive.  What seems unpredictable are the processes set up by the interaction and the changes occuring in A and B if they become directively correlated to form a larger containing system.  [p. 205]

An appreciation of emergence is the true mark of a systems thinker.  No matter how much one studies the hydrogen and oxygen as parts of water, the property of wetness occurs in the whole (i.e. water) and not in the parts (i.e. hydrogen and oxygen).

Having covered these conceptual bases above, Emery turned to III. Methodologies for Predicting the Future.

At the session, the shortness of time led to a quick scan over this content:  essentially, the concepts and language of systems thinking can reshape the way that the future is considered.

The reference to Angyal was worth expanding,  Angyal (1941), “A logic of systems” is also excerpted in the 1969 Penguin paperback edited by Emery.  The reading of Angyal had previously been found so overlooked that a session was convened at ISSS San Jose 2012 called “Human Systems are Different: Andras Angyal via Eric Trist” where we solicited the help of some former University of Pennsylvania Social Systems Science program graduates (David Hawk and Rafael Ramirez) to make sense of part-whole and whole-whole relations.

As a brief tangent from the Emery (1967) reading, I drew attention to the importance of environment — in particular, the causal texture of social environments published by Emery and Trist in 1965.

This quick summary was based on some prior research on turbulent environments, supported by Chapter 2, “Historical and Conceptual Overview” by Ramirez, Selsky and van der Heijden (2008).

Two commenters provided their views on the prereading.

Jonathan Resnick reflected on the Emery (1967) in the larger context of the focus question “Where do systems thinking and futures studies (i) intersect, and (ii) diverge?”.

Jeremy Bowes offered the second commentary, in two questions:

(1) What have others said since the Emery (1967) was published?

(2) How does Emery (1967) fit with my thinking on the theme of systems thinking and futures?

The group then broke out into three parallel discussion breakouts.

Allenna Leonard reported that their group had several first-time participants, so the discussion was more on the overall theme than on academic details.

Peter Scott reported that his group started with Emery (1967), and wandered from there.

x

The formal discussion adjourned, as usual, with many of the group continuing their talk over food and drink.

The continuing monthly meetings of Systems Thinking Ontario can be found at http://wiki.st-on.org/.

References

Emery, Fred E., and Eric L. Trist. 1965. “The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments.” Human Relations 18 (1) (February): 21–32. doi:10.1177/001872676501800103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872676501800103.

Emery, Fred E. 1967. “The Next Thirty Years: Concepts, Methods and Anticipations.” Human Relations 20 (3): 199–237. dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679705000802 , or see the manuscrript in the Tavistock Anthology at Modern Times Workplace;

Emery, Fred E. 1997. “Postscript: The Next Thirty Years-A Short Reflection.” Human Relations 50 (8): 931–935. dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679705000803.

Ramírez, Rafael, John W. Selsky, and Kees van der Heijden. 2008. Business Planning for Turbulent Times: New Methods for Applying Scenarios. Earthscan, 2008, preview available on Google Books.

Exit mobile version