2. What is the distinction between systems thinking and complexity science?
Based on the sources, the distinction between systems thinking (specifically the “soft” tradition) and complexity science (often associated with “hard” systems or management science) centers on epistemology, the role of meaning, and the objective of the inquiry.
• Epistemology vs. Ontology: The “soft” systems tradition, championed by Peter Checkland and rooted in Sir Geoffrey Vickers’ work, regards system models as epistemological devices—tools for arguing and learning about the world—rather than ontological statements about how the world actually is[1][2]. In contrast, more technically-oriented complexity science often seeks to create “models of the world” that can be quantified or programmed into digital computers[2][3].
• Meaning vs. Information: Vickers argued that human activity is constituted around meaning rather than the prevailing scientific paradigm of information[4]. While complexity science often focuses on the “arid logic” of algorithms and information processing, systems thinking focuses on how human beings and groups agonizingly struggle to make sense of their “world of affairs” through a history of ideas and values[5].
• Goal-Seeking vs. Relationship Maintenance: Traditional complexity and management science often adopt a goal-seeking model, where the task is to optimize parameters to maximize utility or reach a given end-state[8][9]. Systems thinking, as defined by Vickers, views life as a process of maintaining satisfactory relationships and eluding unsatisfactory ones, where goal-seeking is merely a special, occasional case[8][10].
• Predictability vs. Learning: Hard systems thinking and certain branches of complexity science aim for prediction and control through science-like application of method[11][12]. The soft systems approach rejects the idea that human affairs can be reduced to linear causal chains, focusing instead on continuous learning and the “art of governance,” which involves regulating many conflicting relations without wrecking the system[12].
• Technological Delusion: Vickers was highly critical of “systems technologists” who attempted to “beat our problems into a shape that our computers can handle,” a tendency he called a “manifest delusion”[12][15]. He argued that systems thinking should be used to understand “interactive fields” that are not reducible to component causes, whereas complexity science often seeks to reduce complexity to intellectually manageable, quantifiable proportions[13].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. How is the concept of environment used and what differentiates the environment from the system, and why is this important to the approach presented here?
In the appreciative and soft systems approach, the concept of environment (or milieu/surround) is central to defining the boundaries and the regulatory tasks of a system.
• Definition of Environment: The environment consists of those aspects of the physical or social world that influence system behavior but cannot be controlled from within it[18]. It is the “interacting flux of events and ideas” (the Lebenswelt) within which the system exists[6][19].
• Distinction from the System: A system is a set of regulated relationships maintained within critical limits by a regulator[20][21]. The environment provides the “external relations” that the system must manage to survive[22]. For example, a business must exchange goods and services with its environment to “make good its losses,” much like a cow must maintain an intake of grass and air[23][24].
• Observer-Dependency: Crucially, the distinction between a system and its environment is not absolute but reflects the interest of the observer[25][26]. Boundaries are not fixed; they are subject to continual redrawing based on the observer’s shifting purposes and their “readiness to see” certain facts as relevant[27][28].
• Importance to the Approach:
    ◦ Open System Dynamics: Human systems are viewed as open systems that exchange not just matter and energy, but information with their environment[29][30]. This makes them fundamentally different from mechanical systems because they must constantly “self-adjust” based on interpretations of environmental signals[31][32].    ◦ The Art of Governance: The primary task of governance (or management) is to keep internal and external relations within permissible ranges[22]. This requires a constant matching of internal “norms” against external “reality”[33].    ◦ Stability and Sustainability: Understanding the relationship between the system and its environment is the foundation of stability[34][35]. If the disparity between what the environment requires and what the system can provide becomes too great, the system “spins off into irreversible change” or dissolves[35].    ◦ Co-Evolution: In human affairs, the environment is increasingly man-made (anthropogenic), meaning that our actions change the environment, which in turn changes the “maze” we must navigate, creating an iterative cycle of mutual adaptation[28]. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. What is the gist and principles behind this collection from this author?
The “gist” of Sir Geoffrey Vickers’ work is the transition from a technological/goal-seeking worldview to a human/relationship-maintaining one. He sought to create an epistemology that accounts for how human beings actually deliberate, judge, and act in the “world of affairs”[39][40].
Core Principles:
• The Principle of Appreciation: The central mechanism of human organization is the Appreciative System[41][42]. This is a recursive loop of three judgments: Reality Judgment (What is the case?), Value Judgment (What ought to be the case?), and Instrumental Judgment (What can be done about it?)[19].
• Relationship Maintenance over Goal-Seeking: Human life is primarily about regulating and sustaining satisfactory relationships over time, rather than the pursuit of once-and-for-all goals[8].
• The Primacy of Norm-Seeking: Regulation in human systems is driven by internal standards or norms which are themselves modified by experience[48].
• The Dialectic of Enablement and Constraint: All systems provide enablements (capacities to act) but only at the price of constraints (responsibilities and limitations)[36]. As technology increases our powers, it must also increase the constraints we accept to maintain stability[36][55].
• Governance as an Art: Governance is the art of maintaining stability by keeping critical system parameters within viable limits through the “passionate but patient struggle to bring significant form into being”[20].
• The Ethical Dimension: Human systems are sui generis because they are governed by ethical criteria and the capacity for self-determination, distinguishing them from natural and mechanical systems[57][58].
• Responsibility as the Ultimate Regulator: The stability of social systems depends on individual and collective responsibility—the commitment to contribute to the common good and accept the constraints of membership[59].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Can you provide a how-to guide for an investigation including the questions to ask?
Based on the Vickerian and Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) approaches, an investigation into a complex situation should follow an iterative, non-linear cycle of learning.
**Step 1: Perceiving the “Flux” (Sense-Making)**The goal is to understand the situation without rushing to solutions.
• Question: What is happening? (The Reality Judgment)[19][43].
• Question: What is the history of this situation? How did we get here?[62].
• Question: What are the “predetermined elements”—events that have already occurred whose consequences are yet to unfold?[63][64].
• Task: Map the “flux” of events, ideas, people, and organizations on a timeline[65].
**Step 2: Defining the Standards (Valuing)**Compare the perceived reality against standards of what is acceptable.
• Question: What ought to be the case? (The Value Judgment)[19].
• Question: What are the “norms” or standards of success currently governing this system?[41][44].
• Question: What transformations are intended, and from whose perspective do they make sense?[66].
• Task: Identify the Weltanschauungen (worldviews) that make the current activities meaningful to the participants[67][68].
**Step 3: Finding the “Mismatch” (Problem Setting)**Identify the gap between “is” and “ought.”
• Question: Is there a match or mismatch between our observations and our expectations?[69].
• Question: What are the “issues” or “messes” (interrelated problems) that arise from this mismatch?[1].
• Question: What does this situation require of me/us?[62].
**Step 4: Exploring Options (Instrumental Choice)**Determine the best means to reduce the mismatch.
• Question: What can be done? (The Instrumental Judgment)[19][43].
• Question: What resources (time, money, attention, power) can be marshaled?[45].
• Question: Who is affected by the potential outcomes, and who will take part in the activities?[66].
Step 5: Action and MonitoringImplement change and begin the cycle again.
• Question: Is a relatively stable, sustainable relationship possible after this action?[74][75].
• Task: Monitor and review stakeholder participation and system feedback[65][76].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Can you produce a process map from this material which provides a simple guide on how to deal with situations of complexity including a mermaid diagram?
Handling complexity requires moving from linear problem-solving to a recursive cycle of appreciation and learning.
Simple Guide:
1. Enter the Situation: Engage with the “flux” of events and ideas[6][77].
2. Surface Perspectives: Elicit the various Weltanschauungen (worldviews) of the stakeholders[67][68].
3. Perform Reality Judgments: Determine “what is the case” by gathering facts and discerning patterns[19][43].
4. Perform Value Judgments: Determine “what ought to be” based on norms and standards[19][43].
5. Identify Mismatches: Signal discord where reality fails to meet standards[44][69].
6. Perform Instrumental Judgments: Debate “what can be done” to maintain or modify relationships[19].
7. Seek Accommodation: Find an agreement to act despite differing worldviews[1][79].
8. Take Action: Implement the chosen means to maintain stability[44][80].
9. Reflect and Repeat: Use the feedback from action to reset the appreciative system for the next cycle[49].
Process Map (Mermaid):
graph TD
A[The Flux: Events and Ideas] --> B{Appreciative System}
B --> C[Reality Judgment: What is the case?]
B --> D[Value Judgment: What ought to be?]
C --> E[Match/Mismatch Signal]
D --> E
E --> F[Instrumental Judgment: What can be done?]
F --> G[Seek Accommodation among Stakeholders]
G --> H[Action: Maintaining/Modifying Relations]
H --> I[New State of Reality]
I --> A
B -- Modifies --> J[Appreciative Settings/Standards]
J -- Informs --> B
(Sources for map structure:[77])
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Can you extract the key concepts, principles and theories in the form of keywords and an attached glossary?
**Keywords:**Appreciation, Appreciative System, Reality Judgment, Value Judgment, Instrumental Judgment, Norm-seeking, Relationship Maintenance, Governance, Stability, Weltanschauung (Worldview), Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), Responsibility, Institutional Behavior, Social Cohesion, Strategic Conversation, Moral Inversion, Technical Rationality, Lebenswelt (Lifeworld), Accommodation.
Glossary:
• Accommodation: A state where individuals with different worldviews reach an agreement to act together despite conflicting interests; contrasted with consensus[1].
• Appreciation: A three-step mental process for making sense of the environment involving judgments of facts (Reality), their significance (Value), and appropriate responses (Instrumental)[4].
• Appreciative System: A mental/cultural mechanism of related categories and criteria that determine what we notice, how we value it, and how we respond[40].
• Constraint and Enablement: The principle that systems both enable action and impose necessary limitations/responsibilities; increasing “enablements” (powers) requires increasing “constraints” (regulation)[36].
• Double-Loop Learning: Learning where error detection leads to modifying the underlying norms, policies, and objectives of the system[91].
• Governance: The “art of maintaining stable relationships over time” within human systems[36].
• Human Activity Systems: Purposeful systems consisting of people who interpret the world through worldviews and interact through social processes[93][94].
• Instrumental Judgment: A judgment concerning “what can be done” or the best means to reduce a mismatch between reality and norms[19].
• Lebenswelt (Lifeworld): The “interacting flux of events and ideas” experienced through time[6].
• Moral Inversion: (Outside information: displaced moral passion onto society while rejecting individual responsibility). Vickers notes that “rights” are often prioritized over the “duties” needed to sustain the institutions that provide them[97][98].
• Norm-seeking: The principle that human behavior is primarily about maintaining standards or “governing relations” rather than just seeking goals[4].
• Reality Judgment: A judgment of fact concerning “what is the case” or the state of a system, both internally and externally[19].
• Relationship Maintenance: The concept that human activity consists of sustaining satisfactory relationships over time; proposed as a richer alternative to “goal-seeking”[8].
• Responsibility: The state of having accepted a commitment and the constraints it imposes; the fundamental regulator of human society[59].
• Soft Systems Methodology (SSM): An inquiry approach using systems models as epistemological devices to structure a debate about the world[1].
• Stability: Maintaining key system parameters within critical limits[34].
• Technical Rationality: A mindset emphasizing scientific-analytic logic and technological progress, often ignoring contextual and ethical dimensions[12].
• Value Judgment: A judgment concerning “what ought to be” or the significance/acceptability of facts compared to norms[19].
• Weltanschauung (Worldview): The unexamined assumptions that make a human activity system meaningful to an observer[67].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Can you explain how the dynamics of different people holding different perspectives and opinions are handled in the author’s methodology? How are different points of view between different observers handled?
The author’s methodology handles diverse perspectives not as “errors” to be corrected, but as essential, legitimate components of a human system that must be managed through communication and learning.
• Recognition of Subjectivity: Vickers and Checkland emphasize that the “situation” is not a “given” but a construct of the mind[104]. Because every individual operates from a different “appreciative setting” (history, values, and experiences), they will validly analyze the same situation differently[24].
• Weltanschauung (Worldview): In Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), the concept of Weltanschauung is central. Each statement about a problem is recognized as being tied to a specific worldview that makes that statement meaningful[67]. The methodology purposefully surfaces these conflicting worldviews to make them explicit[68][109].
• Accommodation over Consensus: The goal is not “consensus” (total agreement on values), which is often impossible in pluralist societies[1][110]. Instead, the methodology seeks accommodation—an agreement between parties with different worldviews to act together in a way that respects their various interests[1].
• The “Structured Discussion”: SSM uses models (holons) to facilitate a “structured discussion” among stakeholders[81][109]. The model is used to compare different “predicates” (what people say about the situation) to reveal “what most merits attention and how it should be regarded”[104][111].
• The Intersubjective Domain: Vickers argues that social reality is intersubjective—an artifact of mutual expectations built through communication[88]. Handling differences requires dialogue, which he distinguishes from threat or bargaining, as it involves the mutual resetting of each other’s appreciative systems[111][114].
• Inter-individual Trust: For diverse perspectives to lead to action, the system must restore trust, communication, and co-operation[4][115]. Without these, competing perspectives lead to alienation and the “fog of uncertainty”[59].
• Role-Playing as a Mediator: The system of roles (e.g., father, manager, citizen) helps handle different perspectives by providing a shared set of mutual expectations that support stability even when personalities differ[116].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Structure based on Questions
The Vickerian approach suggests that human systems and education should be structured around fundamental questions rather than fixed answers or disciplines.
**The Four Questions of Human Existence:**Vickers proposed that education should provide the best answers an age can give to:
1. What am I?[62]
2. Where am I?[62]
3. How did we get here?[62]
4. What does it require of me?[62]
**The Three Structural Judgments of Appreciation:**Every organizational action is structured by three recurring questions:
1. The Reality Question: What is the case?[19][43].
2. The Value Question: What ought to be the case?[19][43].
3. The Instrumental Question: What can be done about it? (or “What shall I do?“)[19].
**The Categorization of Human Endeavor:**Vickers used questions to distinguish between different types of inquiry:
• Scientific Questions: “Why?” (Seeking causal laws)[119][120].
• Technological Questions: “How?” or “How best?” (Where criteria are given)[119].
• Policy Questions: “What is best?” (Where criteria are multiple, conflicting, and must be decided)[119][120].
**Methodological Framing (SSM):**Peter Checkland structures the systems inquiry process into:
• The “What” Question: What is the system and its worldview?[67].
• The “Where” Question: Where do these understandings reside? (Individual vs. Relational)[124][125].
• The “How” Question: How do we convert diverse viewpoints into action?[126].
**Research and Sense-Making:**The primary objective of Futures Studies and scenario planning is not finding answers, but finding the important questions to be researched[64].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. How does the author interpret uncertainty?
Sir Geoffrey Vickers interprets uncertainty not as a temporary lack of data, but as a permanent, inescapable feature of the human condition and a product of our own technological success.
• A Source of Stress: Vickers identifies “certainty-uncertainty of expectation” as a core human value. Humans scan the present for confirmation or disproof of their expectations[127]. Confirmation reassures the agent of the validity of their reality judgment, while disproof erodes the “structure of expectation” and causes psychological stress[127][128].
• The Unintended Result of Technology: He argues that “increased power to alter the environment meant reduced power to predict or control it”[90][129]. Technology converts “Acts of God” into “acts of man,” making the world increasingly unpredictable because every intervention produces a host of unintended consequences[52].
• The Erosion of the Past as a Guide: Because change is now so rapid, the past is a “faulty guide” for the future[130]. We are left with appreciative systems “ill-suited to our needs,” trapped in situations we cannot fully understand[76].
• Epistemological Groundlessness: Vickers adopts the phrase “moored in vacancy” to describe his epistemology. There are no absolute dogmas or “given” starting points; human systems must create their own standards of reality and value in a world that offers no objective validation[133].
• The “Problem of Unconceived Alternatives”: In scientific inquiry (like astrobiology), uncertainty is interpreted as the possibility space we have yet to explore. We cannot be fully confident in an explanation until we know how many “unconceived alternatives” might also account for the data[136][137].
• Muddling Through: Vickers recognizes that much of human behavior is characterized as “muddling through” rather than goal-seeking, as we attempt to negotiate a “blooming buzzing confusion” of experience[128][138].
• Limits of Modeling: He argues that while statistical laws can predict some behavior, human systems are “Interactive fields” where uncertainties often prevent us from predicting the future course even if we can explain the systematic relations involved[17][139].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. What is complexity and what is the advice in how to deal with complexity?
What is Complexity?
• Multiple Interacting Relationships: Complexity is defined as a state of “multiple interacting relationships”[6]. It is a property of systems where the whole is both more and less than the sum of its parts—more because of emergent capacities, less because of the constraints imposed by organization[140][141].
• Messes: Complexity in human affairs is often characterized as a “mess”—a system of strongly interacting problems that cannot be solved in isolation[72].
• Dynamic Flux: The real world is in a state of endless dynamic flux, where facts, perceptions, and evaluations are inextricably mixed[9][143].
• ** constituents of Complexity:** Complexity is composed of uncertainty combined with a lack of agreement among stakeholders[144].
Advice on How to Deal with Complexity:
• Avoid Reductionism: Do not “carve off part of the mess” and treat it as a simple puzzle, as this often serves to “intensify the mess”[142][145]. Avoid reductionist management that ignores facts deemed “irrelevant” by a narrow model[146].
• Focus on Understanding, Not Solving: Use systems thinking as a means of understanding situations rather than a technique for solving problems[147][148]. Deepen understanding before attempting to “abate anxiety” through action[149].
• Embrace “Bounded Instability”: Accept that the future is unknowable and focus on living with uncertainty through interactive feedback rather than seeking perfect harmony or predictability[150].
• Use Models as Epistemological Devices: Use abstract systems models to conceptualize different perceptions and structure debate, rather than trying to create a single, definitive map of reality[2][151].
• Practice “Gardening” rather than “Engineering”: Weaken the urge to treat social management as engineering (where ends are given); instead, view it as gardening, where one aspires to impose an organized polity on a state of nature through patient cultivation of relationships[152].
• Seek Accommodation: Do not wait for consensus. Learn to reach accommodations that allow for purposeful action despite irreducible differences in values[1].
• Slow Down Linear Trends: Since indefinite linear change in any one element reduces a system to collapse, the most effective regulation often involves halting or reversing linear trends that are approaching critical limits[153].
• Restore Trust and Communication: Stability in complex systems is impossible without restoring trust, communication, and co-operation, which are the vital components for stabilizing social interaction[4][115].
References
[1] The Appreciative Cycle.pdf [2] The Appreciative Cycle.pdf [3] Checkland 2005 - Webs of Significance - the work of Geoffrey Vickers.pdf [4] Appreciative systems.pdf [5] Checkland 2005 - Webs of Significance - the work of Geoffrey Vickers.pdf [6] Checkland 2005 - Webs of Significance - the work of Geoffrey Vickers.pdf [8] Checkland 2005 - Webs of Significance - the work of Geoffrey Vickers.pdf [9] Heijden 2008 - Towards a framework to understand purpose in futures studies the role of Vickers Appreciative System.pdf [10] Vickers - relationship maintenance as an alternative to goal seeking.pdf [11] Adams - Appreciation Sir Geoffrey Vickers.pdf [12] [Book] Vickers - The Art of Judgment - A Study of policy making.pdf [13] Brocklesby 2007 - The Theoretical Underpinnings of Soft Systems Methodology - Comparing the work of Geoffrey Vickers and Humberto Maturana.pdf [15] [Book] Vickers - The Art of Judgment - A Study of policy making.pdf [17] [Book] Vickers - Rethinking the Future.pdf [18] Triple_E_model_chapter.pdf [19] Brocklesby 2007 - The Theoretical Underpinnings of Soft Systems Methodology - Comparing the work of Geoffrey Vickers and Humberto Maturana.pdf [20] Blunden 2000 - Enablements and constraints geoffrey vickers and the politics of stability.pdf [21] Vickers The Problem of Problem Solving in [Book] Mayon-White - Planning and Managing Change.pdf [22] Vickers The Problem of Problem Solving in [Book] Mayon-White - Planning and Managing Change.pdf [23] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf [24] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf [25] Triple_E_model_chapter.pdf [26] [Book] Vickers - The Art of Judgment - A Study of policy making.pdf [27] Triple_E_model_chapter.pdf [28] [Book] Vickers - The Art of Judgment - A Study of policy making.pdf [29] [Book] Vickers - Rethinking the Future.pdf [30] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf [31] Appreciative systems.pdf [32] vicker appreciation diagram.pdf [33] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf [34] Blunden 2000 - Enablements and constraints geoffrey vickers and the politics of stability.pdf [35] Judgment from [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf [36] Blunden 2000 - Enablements and constraints geoffrey vickers and the politics of stability.pdf [39] Brocklesby 2007 - The Theoretical Underpinnings of Soft Systems Methodology - Comparing the work of Geoffrey Vickers and Humberto Maturana.pdf [40] Checkland 2005 - Webs of Significance - the work of Geoffrey Vickers.pdf [41] Adams - Appreciation Sir Geoffrey Vickers.pdf [42] [Book] Vickers - The Art of Judgment - A Study of policy making.pdf [43] Heijden 2008 - Towards a framework to understand purpose in futures studies the role of Vickers Appreciative System.pdf [44] Lewis 1991 - The decision making basis for information systems the contribution of Vickers appreciation.pdf [45] ebook_b718_unit7-reading-4.5_the-art-of-judgment_l3.pdf [48] 4531518.pdf [49] Lewis 1991 - The decision making basis for information systems the contribution of Vickers appreciation.pdf [52] Blunden 2000 - Enablements and constraints geoffrey vickers and the politics of stability.pdf [55] Blunden 2005 - Geoffrey Vickers and a systemic approach to globalization.pdf [57] Blunden 2005 - Geoffrey Vickers and a systemic approach to globalization.pdf [58] [Book] Vickers - The Art of Judgment - A Study of policy making.pdf [59] Appreciative systems.pdf [62] 25610337.pdf [63] Heijden 2008 - Towards a framework to understand purpose in futures studies the role of Vickers Appreciative System.pdf [64] Heijden 2008 - Towards a framework to understand purpose in futures studies the role of Vickers Appreciative System.pdf [65] Blackmore - Laerning for communication about climate change using Vickers apprecative inquiry.pdf [66] Triple_E_model_chapter.pdf [67] Brocklesby 2007 - The Theoretical Underpinnings of Soft Systems Methodology - Comparing the work of Geoffrey Vickers and Humberto Maturana.pdf [68] The Appreciative Cycle.pdf [69] Appreciative systems.pdf [72] Triple_E_model_chapter.pdf [74] Appreciative systems.pdf [75] Appreciative systems.pdf [76] Blackmore - Laerning for communication about climate change using Vickers apprecative inquiry.pdf [77] Lewis 1991 - The decision making basis for information systems the contribution of Vickers appreciation.pdf [79] Vickers - relationship maintenance as an alternative to goal seeking.pdf [80] Vickers - relationship maintenance as an alternative to goal seeking.pdf [81] The Appreciative Cycle.pdf [88] [Book] Vickers - The Art of Judgment - A Study of policy making.pdf [90] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf [91] Heijden 2008 - Towards a framework to understand purpose in futures studies the role of Vickers Appreciative System.pdf [93] Triple_E_model_chapter.pdf [94] Triple_E_model_chapter.pdf [97] [Book] Vickers - Making Institutions Work.pdf [98] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf [104] Brocklesby 2007 - The Theoretical Underpinnings of Soft Systems Methodology - Comparing the work of Geoffrey Vickers and Humberto Maturana.pdf [109] Checkland 2005 - Webs of Significance - the work of Geoffrey Vickers.pdf [110] [Book] Vickers - Making Institutions Work.pdf [111] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf [114] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf [115] Appreciative systems.pdf [116] Williams 2005 - Geoffrey Vickers Philosopher of Responsibility.pdf [119] [Book] Vickers - Making Institutions Work.pdf [120] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf [124] Brocklesby 2007 - The Theoretical Underpinnings of Soft Systems Methodology - Comparing the work of Geoffrey Vickers and Humberto Maturana.pdf [125] Brocklesby 2007 - The Theoretical Underpinnings of Soft Systems Methodology - Comparing the work of Geoffrey Vickers and Humberto Maturana.pdf [126] Brocklesby 2007 - The Theoretical Underpinnings of Soft Systems Methodology - Comparing the work of Geoffrey Vickers and Humberto Maturana.pdf [127] Vickers 1963 - Appreciative Behaviour.pdf [128] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf [129] [Book] Vickers - Rethinking the Future.pdf [130] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf [133] Brocklesby 2007 - The Theoretical Underpinnings of Soft Systems Methodology - Comparing the work of Geoffrey Vickers and Humberto Maturana.pdf [136] Vickers - The Problem of Unconcieved Alternatives.pdf [137] Vickers - The Problem of Unconcieved Alternatives.pdf [138] The Appreciative Cycle.pdf [139] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf [140] geo_vick.pdf [141] geo_vick.pdf [142] Triple_E_model_chapter.pdf [143] [Book] Vickers - Rethinking the Future.pdf [144] Triple_E_model_chapter.pdf [145] Triple_E_model_chapter.pdf [146] The Appreciative Cycle.pdf [147] Vickers The Problem of Problem Solving in [Book] Mayon-White - Planning and Managing Change.pdf [148] [Book] Vickers - The Art of Judgment - A Study of policy making.pdf [149] Vickers The Problem of Problem Solving in [Book] Mayon-White - Planning and Managing Change.pdf [150] Triple_E_model_chapter.pdf [151] The Appreciative Cycle.pdf [152] Adams - Appreciation Sir Geoffrey Vickers.pdf [153] Blunden 1994 - Vickers and postliberalism.pdf