Site Logo

STPrism

👑Assessing the Health of Systems Practice

13 min read

Contents

A Wicked Problem Improve Coherence Inquiry Framework Workshop Instructions

A Wicked Problem

Gary Smith of Connect to Change initiative on the built environment is talking about a system of systems how to get the different tribes to work together - factors of clarity, capability, potential, direction beauty, stewardship - how do the ideas in 'v2-combined' help address this problem, the metrics we put in place make the situation worse

STPrism said

The problem Gary Smith identifies—getting different tribes in the built environment to work together without destructive metrics—is a classic “wicked problem” or “mess”. In such situations, traditional reductionist management (breaking the whole into parts and optimizing each locally) inevitably fails because it ignores the interdependencies that define the system’s success.

The collective wisdom in the provided file suggests that to solve for “clarity, capability, potential, direction, beauty, and stewardship,” you must shift from a paradigm of Control to one of Inquiry and Relationship Maintenance.

1. Why Metrics Make it Worse: The “Measurement Trap”

The provided sources explain why current metrics are likely backfiring:

  • The Reification Fallacy: Metrics often treat abstract concepts (like “efficiency”) as if they were physical things. Managers end up managing the “spreadsheet” (the map) rather than the “work” (the territory).

  • Sub-Optimization: Following Systems Thinking principles, optimizing a part of a system (one “tribe”) almost always sub-optimizes the whole. For example, if a metrics-driven tribe cuts costs locally, it may create “Failure Demand” (extra work/waste) for another tribe downstream.

  • The Command-and-Control Loop: Rigid metrics treat professionals as “trivial machines” whose behavior can be programmed. This destroys the very autonomy and “Questioning Insight” (Q) required to solve complex problems on a construction site.

2. Practical Strategies for “Connecting the Tribes”

To move toward the factors Smith identifies, the methodologies suggest the following shifts:

A. Establish “Clarity” through Boundary Critique

Clarity is often missing because each tribe draws a different “boundary” around the project.

  • Use Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH): Ask the tribes to answer: “Who is the intended beneficiary (client)?” versus “Who ought to be?”. This exposes power imbalances and identifies the “Witnesses” (those affected but ignored).

  • Rich Pictures: Instead of formal flowcharts, use informal “Rich Pictures” to capture the emotional climate, conflicts, and hidden agendas between tribes.

B. Foster “Potential” and “Capability” through Variety Engineering

In the built environment, the environment (the site, the market, the weather) has massive Variety (complexity).

  • The Law of Requisite Variety: To manage this, the organization must possess at least as much internal flexibility (variety) as the environment throws at it.

  • Distributed Authority: “Only variety can absorb variety”. Instead of centralizing decisions, Capability is increased by pushing decision-making power down to the “Sharp End” (the people on the ground) who have the local, time-critical knowledge.

C. Find “Direction” and “Beauty” via Idealized Design

Christopher Alexander and Russ Ackoff argue that “Beauty” and “Direction” are not subjective but systemic properties of a whole that has “Life”.

  • Idealized Design: Ask all tribes: “If the current system were destroyed last night, what ideal system would we build right now to achieve our goal?“. This often reveals that tribes share identical ultimate values, even if they disagree on short-term means.

  • Wholeness-Extending Transformations: Ensure every intervention preserves the “existing wholeness” of the site rather than imposing a “lump” development that ignores the context.

D. Ensure “Stewardship” via the Viable System Model (VSM)

Stewardship requires a structural balance between the “Now” and the “Future”.

  • The 3-4 Homeostat: There must be a healthy tension between System 3 (those running the current build) and System 4 (those looking at future risks, technologies, and stewardship). If System 3 dominates, you get burnout and no innovation; if System 4 dominates, the project becomes an ivory-tower dream.

3. How to Start: The “Intervention Strategy”

If you were to investigate this situation today, the Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) suggests a learning cycle:

  1. Map the Mess: Identify the “Action Programme” the tribes are currently in.

  2. Define Root Definitions: Use CATWOE to formalize the worldview (W) of each tribe (e.g., the Architect vs. the Contractor).

  3. Seek Accommodation, Not Consensus: Don’t try to make them all agree on everything. Find a course of action they can all “live with” that is both systemically desirable and culturally feasible.

Would you like me to create a specific “Inquiry Framework” for Gary Smith’s team based on these principles to help them run a cross-tribe workshop?

Improve Coherence

Insufficient coherence across the sectors and boundaries in the general human activity system - different levels of systems sensibility good for beginners and experts - does v2-combined have any recommendations

STPrism said

The provided material in V2-Combined offers a profound set of recommendations for addressing the “insufficient coherence” across sectors and boundaries within human activity systems. It suggests that coherence is not achieved through more rigid control, but through a multi-level shift in “systems sensibility”—moving from simple observation to critical, self-reflective practice.

Below are specific recommendations tailored for different levels of expertise.

1. Recommendations for Beginners: Building Foundational Sensibility

For those starting to navigate sectoral boundaries, the focus is on shattering linear assumptions and learning to see the “mess” without immediate judgment.

  • Adopt “Multi-Screen” Vision: Before acting, beginners should use the “System Operator” to view a problem across nine screens: the system, its subsystems, and the super-system (environment) across the past, present, and future.

  • The “Enemy is Out There” Syndrome: Recognize that “the outside” is an illusion. Beginners must learn that they are part of the system they are trying to fix; the cause of the problem is often internal structural dynamics rather than external forces.

  • Use Rich Pictures: Instead of formal flowcharts, beginners should draw “Rich Pictures” to capture structures, processes, conflicts, and the emotional climate of a situation. This preserves the complexity of different “tribes” without forcing a premature, reductionist solution.

  • The 5-Why Reality Check: Use “5-Whys” to trace symptoms back to critical root causes, but ensure the focus is on the system condition (rules, metrics) rather than individual blame.

2. Recommendations for Intermediate Practitioners: Engineering Variety

At this level, the focus shifts to managing the “muddle” and ensuring that the organization’s internal complexity matches its environment.

  • Apply Ashby’s Law (Requisite Variety): Practitioners must understand that “only variety can absorb variety”. If a sector is too rigid, it will fail to absorb the complexity of customer or environmental demand.

  • Separate “What” from “How”: Complexity often arises from the “hows”—the messy ways things are currently done. Intermediate practitioners should model the logical necessities (“whats”) of a system first, independent of current fads or technologies.

  • The “Italian Flag” Logic: Use a ternary logic to evaluate evidence across boundaries: Green (evidence for success), Red (evidence of failure/constraint), and White (recognized ignorance/uncertainty). This legitimizes “not knowing” as a structural part of the decision-making process.

  • Idealized Design: Instead of incrementally fixing a broken status quo, design the system you would build right now if the current one were destroyed.

3. Recommendations for Experts: Transcending Paradigms

For experts, the challenge is ethical boundary critique and the maintenance of “Dynamic Quality” across deeply entrenched sectoral divides.

  • Boundary Critique: Experts must realize that boundaries are not natural facts but normative choices. Use Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) to ask: “Who is the beneficiary?” vs. “Who ought to be?” and “Who is the witness representing the marginalized?“.

  • Navigate the “Edge of Chaos”: Maintain a state of metastability—poised between total order (rigidity) and total chaos (dissolution). This allows the system to remain adaptive and creative without collapsing.

  • Systemic Responsiveness: Shift from “managing over” a system to “being in” its relationships. This requires tuning into “emotional rhythms” and using Triple Loop Learning to question not just efficiency and effectiveness, but the underlying power and ethics of the design.

  • Negative Explanation: Stop asking “What caused this?” and start asking “Why this rather than that?“. Focus on identifying the constraints that preclude all other possibilities.

4. The Unified Process Map for Coherence

To address insufficient coherence, the material recommends an iterative cycle often termed the “EPIC” framework:

  1. Explore: Gaining a rich appreciation of the “mess” from multiple perspectives (Mechanical, Organismic, Purposeful, etc.).

  2. Produce: Selecting a complementary set of methodologies based on whether the context is Unitary, Pluralist, or Coercive.

  3. Intervene: Deploying “strategic nudges”—small, well-focused actions that leverage the system’s own potential for change.

  4. Check: Continuously monitoring the outcomes across efficacy, efficiency, effectiveness, and ethics.

Would you like me to focus on a specific sector (e.g., policy, engineering, or ecology) to provide more tailored questions for your investigation?

Inquiry Framework

Can you produce a specific 'inquiry framework' for gary smith's team

STPrism said

To address the lack of coherence across sectors in the built environment, Gary Smith’s team can utilize this Inquiry Framework synthesized from the v2-combined collection. This framework moves from surface-level events to the deep “water” of mental models and power structures.

Phase 1: Framing the “Mess” (Initial Entry)

Before attempting solutions, the team must appreciate the problem as a “system of interacting problems” (a mess) rather than a simple technical difficulty.

  • The Rich Picture: Map the situation visually. Include clashing interests, “tribal” boundaries, emotional climates, and physical constraints.

    • Question: What is the “water” we are swimming in that we currently take for granted (e.g., Victorian legacy infrastructure, rigid procurement laws)?

  • POSIWID Check: Apply the principle: “The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does.”

    • Question: Regardless of our stated mission (e.g., “build a sustainable city”), what are the actual emergent outcomes of our current inter-sector behavior?

  • The System Operator (9 Screens): View the problem across levels (System, Sub-system, Super-system) and time (Past, Present, Future).

    • Question: How have past “solutions” become the source of today’s coherence problems?

Phase 2: Boundary Critique & Perspective Triangulation

Incoherence often stems from sectors drawing different boundaries around the same project.

  • CATWOE Analysis: For each sector involved, define their unique worldview (W).

    • Question: How does the Architect’s “Transformation” process conflict with the Contractor’s or the Environmentalist’s?

  • Critical Systems Heuristics (Is vs. Ought): Interrogate the ethics of the current design.

    • Question: Who is the actual beneficiary of this inter-sector setup, and who ought to be?

    • Question: Who represents the “witnesses”—those affected by the built environment but excluded from the planning “tribe”?

  • The “Oracle” Question: Uncover hidden environmental anxieties.

    • Question: If you had an oracle who knew the future of this project, what one question would you ask to reveal our biggest shared blind spot?

Phase 3: Structural & Operational Diagnosis

Analyze the “plumbing” and variety-handling capacity of the cross-sector system.

  • The Law of Requisite Variety: Ensure internal complexity matches environmental complexity.

    • Question: Does our management structure have enough “variety” (flexibility/responses) to absorb the “variety” (unpredictability/diversity) of the site and stakeholders?

  • The VSM 3-4 Homeostat: Balance the “Now” with the “Future.”

    • Question: Is there a dedicated “System 4” (Intelligence/Stewardship) looking at long-term potential, or are we entirely consumed by “System 3” (Delivery/Immediate Metrics)?

  • Italian Flag Evidence: Categorize information to manage ignorance.

    • Question: What data is settled “Green” (adding value), what is settled “Red” (non-negotiable constraints), and what is “White” (pure entropy/uncertainty we must accept)?

Phase 4: Strategy & Intervention (The “Strategic Nudge”)

Move from analyzing the mess to “dissolving” it through design.

  • Idealized Design: Plan backward from the ideal.

    • Question: If the current built environment system were destroyed last night, what ideal replaced system would we build right now that satisfies all tribes’ needs?

  • Negative Explanation (Why This, Not That?): Identify constraints.

    • Question: What specific constraints are currently making any alternative (better) behavior impossible?

  • Safe-Fail Probing: Instead of a master plan, use experiments.

    • Question: What small, parallel “safe-to-fail” experiments can we run across sectoral boundaries to see what “Direction” or “Beauty” naturally emerges?

Summary Matrix for Gary Smith’s Team

DimensionCore Inquiry QuestionSystems Tool
ClarityOn what basis are we drawing the line between “us” and “them”?Boundary Critique (CSH)
CapabilityDoes the “sharp end” have the authority to absorb site variety?Law of Requisite Variety
PotentialWhat unmodeled degrees of freedom are we currently ignoring?Modeling Relation (Rosen)
DirectionDoes this action satisfy a constitutive rule to create value?Constitutive Rules
BeautyDoes this transformation strengthen the existing wholeness?Wholeness-Extending Cycle
StewardshipHow do we balance today’s delivery with tomorrow’s adaptation?VSM (System 4/5)

Workshop Instructions

develop a set of "workshop instructions" for the team to use when applying the "Italian Flag" logic to a specific project boundary?**

STPrism said

This workshop guide is designed for Gary Smith’s team to operationalize the Italian Flag logic to address cross-sector incoherence. The objective is to move tribes from arguing over subjective opinions to negotiating based on a shared assessment of evidence, constraints, and ignorance.

Workshop: “The Italian Flag” Boundary Assessment

Objective

To collaboratively map the “System of Systems” by distinguishing between settled value (Green), non-negotiable constraints (Red), and recognized ignorance (White).

Preparation

  • Participants: 5–12 key “power brokers” or stakeholders from different tribes (Architects, Engineers, Developers, Policy Makers).

  • The Canvas: A large wall or digital board divided into three horizontal bands: Green, White, and Red.

  • The Trigger: A specific project boundary or “System-in-Focus” (e.g., “The procurement process for low-carbon materials”).

Step 1: Splat Mapping & Perspective Catching

Don’t start with solutions. Ask each tribe to write down every observation, requirement, or assumption they have about the system-in-focus on separate cards.

  • The “Rather Than What” Rule: For every observation, ask the contributor: “Rather than what?“. This clarifies the specific polarity and meaning of their perspective.

  • Focus on ‘Whats’ over ‘Hows’: Force people to describe what must be achieved logically, rather than how it is currently being done.

Step 2: Triple-Logic Classification

Ask the group to move their cards into the appropriate color band based on settled evidence.

  • 🟢 The Green Zone (Settled Evidence of Value):

    • Question: What do we know is working or creating value across all tribes?.

    • Examples: Agreed-upon sustainability targets, shared technical standards that both engineers and architects trust.

  • 🔴 The Red Zone (Settled Evidence of Constraint):

    • Question: What are the “un-adaptable” physical, legal, or geographic constraints we are “swimming” in?.

    • Examples: Legacy Victorian infrastructure, non-negotiable fire safety regulations, rigid budget ceilings.

  • ⚪ The White Zone (Recognized Ignorance/Entropy):

    • Question: What is uncertain, unproven, or currently just a “hunch”?.

    • The Rule: Legitimate “not knowing” here. This is the space for “unknown unknowns”.

Step 3: Boundary Critique (CSH Interrogation)

Look at the Red and White zones and apply Critical Systems Heuristics to find power imbalances.

  • Client vs. Beneficiary: Ask: “Is what we’ve marked as ‘Red’ (fixed) truly a constraint of nature, or is it just a rule that benefits one tribe at the expense of others?“.

  • Representing the Witness: Look at the White zone. Ask: “What information are we missing because the ‘Witnesses’ (those affected by the build but not in this room) haven’t been heard?“.

Step 4: The “Strategic Nudge” (Action Strategy)

Do not try to “solve” the whole map at once. Look for high-leverage “nudges”.

  • Narrow the White Space: Pick one item in the White zone. What small, parallel “Safe-to-Fail” probe can we run this week to get enough feedback to move it into Green or Red?.

  • Exploit the Red: For items in the Red zone, stop fighting them. Ask: “How can we use this non-negotiable constraint as a resource to drive innovation?” (e.g., using a restrictive site layout to force a unique architectural beauty).

Closing: The “Italian Flag” Dashboard

The resulting map becomes the team’s “Corporate Observatorium”.

  • Management by Exception: Stop spending meeting time on the “Green” (what is settled).

  • Focus on the White: Direct all cross-tribe creativity toward reducing the entropy in the “White space”.

Would you like me to provide a sample “Reflection Sheet” for participants to fill out during Step 3 to ensure they are thinking systemically rather than defensively?

Graph View