2012/02 CS0005 Systemic Thinking for Planners and Designers

This document is accessible (and may be updated) at http://garymetcalf.com/aalto/201202-cs0005 .

jump to: [Pre-course Preparation] [Concurrent Studies] [Tuesday, February 28] [Friday, March 2] [Between sessions] [Tuesday, March 6] [Due (to be decided)]

jump to: [Dialectics] [Grading] [Tools]

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

Course instructors:

This course is listed as CS0005, with the code of Syst Think P D.  Sessions are scheduled as:

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

Pre-course Preparation

This course is accelerated and intensive.  Students can prepare in three ways:

  1. Content relies primarily on access to journal articles (although students are welcomed to buy or borrow books they find of interest).  Web links are provided using the Digital Object Identifier System to journal articles (and previews at Google Books, if available).  Having ensured working access to the university library system before the eight-day lecture period precludes panic as the amount of content covered in lectures rapidly accumulates.
  2. Online communication is preferred in places with public visibility.  Student should (a) establish their own blogs (e.g. wordpress.com provides space for free); and (b) establish an identity on the Systems Community of Inquiry forum for Systemicists at http://syscoi.com/commons/groups/systemicists/forum/ that is used as the online hub for notifications.  The notification system on at syscoi.com will send e-mail summaries once per day, or students can get near-real-time feeds through an RSS reader (e.g. Google Reader).
  3. As a relaxed way of covering some of the course ideas, there are links to web video (e.g. Youtube) in lists of references below.  Watching speakers or lecturers online may provide complementary (or divergent) views to the lectures that will aid learning during the course lecture period.

Having accomplished these three activities in advance of lectures may reduce stress.

Since all materials are available online, students are welcomed to:

Lectures are intended to be interactive learning opportunities.  Active engagement and asking questions in real time takes advantage of higher bandwidth exchanges than can be done via written electronic media.

[jump to top of page]

Concurrent Studies

The February 2012 session of CS0005 recognizes that about half of students in this intensive course are also enrolled in A-36.3600 Sustainable Urban Design offered by the Department of Architecture from January through April. 

A.36.3600 is neither a prerequisite nor a corequisite for CS0005.  Since students are, however, already immersed in a field study analysis for A.36.3600, learning may be compounded by bringing that context in the dialectic group discussions.  Commonalities and contrasts between the mindsets, framework and references between the two courses should enrich learning.

[jump to top of page]

Tuesday, February 28

10:00-10:15 Welcome and course outline [on map 00]
  • Future system (re-)designs through (dialectical) systems approaches
10:15-10:45 Introductions and expectations

How should we design this course?


Presentation and Discussion

  • Review cs0004
  • Planning and Designing
  • IBM Smarter Planet / Smarter Cities
  • System Dynamics
12:00-13:00 Lunch
13:00-14:00 Group activities:
  • Eight cells of four people / two cells per topic:

    (1) education,

    (2) healthcare,

    (3) transportation,

    (4) employment

  • One cell will design on a scale defined as local interests with a horizon of 3 years; the other cell will design on the scale of national / international interests with a horizon of 20-40 years.
  • In your cells with roles as planner/designers, divide up your time to:
    • Start describing the programs and services in the system to be (re-)designed
    • Start outlining the work products, roles and tasks by which you expect to create the final deliverables (for this course, or another project).
14:00-14:30 Lecture: Appreciating the current state [on map 02]
14:30-15:30 Presentation and Discussion
  • Babcock Ranch
  • Applying SSM
    • Identify roles in the problematical situation (SSM Analysis One)
    • Develop a baseline description of roles, norms and values (SSM Analysis Two)
    • Develop a baseline description of the commodities of power (SSM Analysis Three)
    • Reflection:  Where might sustainability enter into worldviews?
15:30-16:00 Reflections, and overview of the readings in the reference clusters
Homework Research:
  • IBM Smarter Cities / Smarter Planet
  • System Dynamics

Learning logs:

  • Post your ideas in Learning Log 1 in the Moodle course site, or sign up to http://syscoi.com, and create a personal blog (e.g. on http://wordpress.com ) and then post the link to your blog in Learning Log 1 and in the syscoi.com forum [syscoi.com Day 1].
  • Write your post / blog after you've done your online research.

[jump to top of page]

Friday, March 2

10:00-10:30 Discussion on questions from the learning logs, and status report from each cell
10:30-11:30 Presentation and Discussion
  • An overview of systems methods
  • Educational systems as service systems
11:30-12:30 Lunch
12:30-13:30 Group activities in cells (i.e. local interests with a horizon of 3 years; or  national interests with a horizon of 20-40 years).
  • Create a reference projection of the system to be designed (i.e. if current trends continue, what potential limits would be reached), using the interactive planning approach?
  • Conduct ends planning with an idealized design, (i.e. describe the properties of a system that you would like to to have right now, ensuring that it is (i) technologically feasible, (ii) economically viable, and (iii) capable of rapid adaptation and learning), using the interactive planning approach
  • Specify (i) a reason-for-being and governing principles, and (ii) the high level business design (i.e. roles and accountabilities for the senior leaders) following the adaptive enterprise approach.
13:30-14:30 Presentation and Discussion: Ecological complexity and scale  [on map 04]
14:30-15:30 Group activities in dialectic:
  • Compare the future state designs of each cell to each others, and discuess how they sustainable in terms of (i) of what, (ii) for whom, (iii) for how long, and (iv) at what cost.
  • Assess how the future state designs do or do not meet the five principles of supply-side sustainability.
  • Consider how the future state designs might be modified for greater sustainability to be either increased in complicatedness (i.e. decomplexified with elaboration of structure in horizontal differentiation, towards a lower gain design) or increased in complexity (i.e. complexified with elaboration of organization in vertical differentiation, towards a higher gain design)
15:30-16:00 Reflections, and overview of the readings in the reference clusters

Check questions, for each cell:

  • Have you made progress on motivations for your system of interest to be redesigned (e.g. a reference projection)?
  • To what level of completeness can you describe the purpose(s) and bounds for the enterprise (either as an idealized design or an adaptive enterprise)?
  • Is the future state design more sustainable (from the perspective of ecological complexity) that the current state design?

Learning logs:

  • What are your thoughts or reflections about the process of systems design and sustainability at this point in the course?
  • Post questions/comments into the Moodle forum, and link them to [syscoi.com Day 2] if you would like.

[jump to top of page]

Between sessions

Either individually, or in cells:

[jump to top of page]

Tuesday, March 6

10:00-10:30 Discussion on questions from the learning logs
10:30-11:30 Lecture: Social-ecological systems [on map 05]
11:30-12:30 Lunch
12:30-13:30 Activity in cells:
  • Continue on the future state designs from the prior meetings.
  • Discuss how the future state design might better include nature (the ecological system) in a complete social-ecological system
  • Prepare for a short report by your cell (mostly verbal, maybe a flip chart) on your progress
13:30-14:30 Progress reports by cells: 10 minutes each
  • In what ways has your systemic thinking progress (or not progressed) during this course?
    • Learning through the exercise / dilemmas
    • Insights from the references you chose
  • What systemic thinking ideas interested you?
14:30-15:30 Lecture: Coevolution and turbulence [on map 06]

Transitioning to course completion:

  • Overview of the readings in the reference clusters
  • Students' feedback on the course for future redesigns
  • Practicalities for the research papers

Learning logs:

  • What are your thoughts or reflections about creative sustainability at this point in the course?
  • Post questions/comments into the Moodle forum, and link them to [at syscoi.com Day 3] if you would like.

[jump to top of page]

Reflection week 1 (March 12 - 18)

Review the materials from Reference Cluster 1 (including at least two of the articles) and summarize what you believe are the most important ideas in Learning Log 4.

Reflection week 2 (March 19 - 25)

Review the materials from Reference Cluster 2 (including at least two of the articles) and summarize what you believe are the most important ideas in Learning Log 5.

Reflection week 3 (March 26 - April 1)

Review the materials from Reference Cluster 3 (including at least two of the articles) and summarize what you believe are the most important ideas in Learning Log 6.

Reflection week 4 (April 2 - 8)

Review the materials from Reference Cluster 4 (including at least two of the articles) and summarize what you believe are the most important ideas in Learning Log 7.

Reflection week 5 (April 9 - 15)

Review the materials from Reference Cluster 5 (including at least two of the articles) and summarize what you believe are the most important ideas in Learning Log 8.

Reflection week 6 (April 16 - 22)

Review the materials from Reference Cluster 6 and Reference Cluster 7 (including at least two of the articles from each) and summarize what you believe are the most important ideas in Learning Log 9.

Final Project (due May 12)

Individually, submit a research paper (as an electronic document or a blog entry) a summary of experiences 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]


Experiential activities in this course include the recognition of a variety of views on current state design (i.e. worldviews), as well as future state alternatives and options. 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 dialectic groups of four to six people. One cell will take the position of local interests with a 3-year horizon, while the other will take the position of national interests with a 30-year horizon.

The course overview for A-36.3600 Sustainable Design describes two modules:

Course consists of two modules.

Module 1 is an analysis phase, which builds the base for justifying the arguments for a sustainable design concept. Discovered social and economical phenomena, such as lifestyles, mobility and housing typologies, are analyzed and discussed. Landscape analysis is applied to demonstrate spatiality, topography, hydrology and geology of a place. Analysis module sets the goals for the design of the case study. Small design tasks are carried out simultaneously to provide models and examples for the case study on latter part of the course.

Lectures are arranged under four themes:

Module 2 is a case study, which is carried out on specific site with real boundary conditions. The task is executed in small groups, and it continues the multidisciplinary approach in the analysis phase. The aim is to build a creative synthesis, which corresponds with the analysis phase and set design objectives. Energy efficiency, relation to landscape and city ecology are assessed by experts from the specific area of research with the latest tools and knowledge.

Course includes three workshops on specific themes. The preliminary topics for the workshops:

The analyses and case study above can be approached from joint learning on systems thinking and sustainability.  Making the scale (local vs. national) and time horizons (3-year vs. 30-year) should span the variety of values and perspectives across a community of citizens.

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

[jump to top of page]


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 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:

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:

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

[jump to top of page]


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.

[jump to top of page]


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. Method frameworks

As planners and designers, how should we go about designing a system of engagement?

Recommended book chapters:

  1. IfM, and IBM. 2008. Succeeding through Service Innovation: A Service Perspective for Education, Research, Business and Government. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing. http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/ssme/.
  2. Hipel, K. W, M. M Jamshidi, J. M Tien, and C. C. White. 2007. The future of systems, man, and cybernetics: Application domains and research methods. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews  37, no. 5: 726–743. doi:10.1109/TSMCC.2007.900671. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC.2007.900671.
  3. Government of Ontario Ministry of Government Services. 2010. Defining Programs and Services in the OPS, Appendix A. In Information Technology Standards. Architecture Standards GO-ITS 56.1, version 1.3. Queen's Printer for Ontario. http://www.mgs.gov.on.ca/en/IAndIT/STEL02_047303.html.
  4. Government of Ontario Ministry of Government Services. 2010. Defining Programs and Services in the Ontario Public Service. In Information Technology Standards. Architecture Standards GO-ITS 56.1 version 1.3 Appendix. Queen's Printer for Ontario. http://www.mgs.gov.on.ca/en/IAndIT/STEL02_047303.html.
  5. Eclipse Foundation. 2010. Open Unified Process -- Getting Started: Basic Process Concepts. http://epf.eclipse.org/wikis/openup/.

Recommended articles:

  1. Spohrer, Jim, Paul P. Maglio, John Bailey, and Daniel Gruhl. 2007. Steps Toward a Science of Service Systems. Computer 40, no. 1 (January): 71-77. doi:10.1109/MC.2007.33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MC.2007.33.
  2. Cameron, John. 2002. Configurable development processes. Communications of the ACM 45 (March): 72–77. doi:10.1145/504729.504731. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/504729.504731.

  3. Haumer, Peter. 2005. IBM Rational Method Composer: Part 1: Key concepts. IBM developerWorks. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/dec05/haumer/.
  4. Haumer, Peter. 2006. IBM Rational Method Composer: Part 2: Authoring method content and processes. IBM developerWorks. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/jan06/haumer/.
  5. International Council on Systems Engineering, and Object Management Group Systems Engineering Domain Special Interest Group. 2011. Model-Based Systems Engineering Wiki. http://www.omgwiki.org/MBSE/doku.php.

Recommended multimedia:

  1. Spohrer, Jim. 2010. Smarter Planet: Region by Region, City by City, and University by University. Web Video. CITRIS: Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society. California, September 23. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9NNeWBc-ro.
  2. Wiseman, Roy. 2010. Modeling the business of government. Web Video. IBM Rational Innovate 2010. http://www.livestream.com/ibmrational/video?clipId=flv_26334ca7-c08b-4375-a7e0-19818d19f0f7.  Also available at http://www.youtube.com/user/IBMRational#p/u/0/kY6dgRwOu9E
  3. MISA Canada. 2008. Providing a Context for the Municipal Reference Model. Web Video. Vol. 1. 3 vols. Municipal Reference Model v2. Indexed from http://www.golcommunications.ca/MRM2/webcast_references.html, July 8. http://my.adobe.acrobat.com/p31277957/.  Presentation slides at http://www.golcommunications.ca/MRM2/july8_webcast.pdf .
  4. MISA Canada. 2008. Where We are Today? Where are We Moving To? Web Video. Vol. 2. 3 vols. Municipal Reference Model v2. Indexed from http://www.golcommunications.ca/MRM2/webcast_references.html, July 8. http://my.adobe.acrobat.com/p79758609/. Presentation slides at http://www.golcommunications.ca/MRM2/july10_webcast.pdf
  5. MISA Canada. 2008. How to Take the First Step? Challenges, Strategies, Competencies. Web Video. Vol. 3. 3 vols. Municipal Reference Model v2. Indexed from http://www.golcommunications.ca/MRM2/webcast_references.html, July 15. http://my.adobe.acrobat.com/p48696364/.  Presentation slides at http://www.golcommunications.ca/MRM2/july15_webcast.pdf
  6. Kroll, Per. 2007. The Eclipse Process Framework. Web Video. Agile 2006. Indexed from http://live.eclipse.org/node/357, September 6. http://www.infoq.com/interviews/per-kroll-OpenUp-EFP.
  7. Friedenthal, Sanford. 2010. Model-Based Systems Engineering using SysML. Web Video. The Institute for Systems Research, University of Maryland. Indexed from http://www.isr.umd.edu/events/index.php?mode=4&id=5401: College Park, MD, November 1. http://vimeo.com/16618093.

Extended articles:

  1. Spohrer, James C. 2010. Service Science: Progress and Directions. Presentation slides June 18. http://www.slideshare.net/spohrer/service-science-progress-and-directions-20100620.
  2. Wiseman, Roy. 2010. The Municipal Reference Model: Smarter Government by Design. Municipal Interface, January. http://www.misa.on.ca/en/municipalinterface/municipalinterface.asp.
  3. Government of Canada, Treasury Board of Canada. 2004. Business Transformation Enablement Program (BTEP). Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071125180244/http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/btep-pto/index_e.asp.
  4. Chartwell Group. 2005. Public Sector Business Design: The Alignment of Government to Citizen Outcomes. Presentation slides September 12. http://www.chartwell-group.com/resources/pdfs/presentations/Business Design - Better Outcomes - JB .pdf.
  5. Henderson-Sellers, Brian. 2003. Method engineering for OO systems development. Communications of the ACM 46 (October): 73–78. doi:10.1145/944217.944242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/944217.944242.
  6. Eclipse Foundation. 2010. Eclipse Process Framework (EPF) Downloads. http://www.eclipse.org/epf/downloads/downloads.php.
  7. SysML Partners. 2010. SysML: Open Source Specification Project. http://www.sysml.org/.
  8. Object Management Group. 2010. OMG Systems Modeling Language. http://www.omgsysml.org/.

[jump to top of page]

Cluster 2. Appreciating the current state

Before we suggest changing the world, we should first attempt to understand how it currently operates.

Recommended book chapters:

  1. Checkland, Peter, and Jim Scholes. 1990. Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester: Wiley. [preview at Google Books].

Recommended articles:

  1. Checkland, Peter, and John Poulter. 2010. Soft Systems Methodology. In Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide, ed. Martin Reynolds and Sue Holwell. London: Springer London. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-809-4_5.
  2. Yan, Zexian, and Xuhui Yan. 2010. A revolution in the field of systems thinking—a review of Checkland's system thinking. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27, no. 2: 140-155. doi:10.1002/sres.1021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.1021.

Recommended multimedia:

  1. Mackness, John. 2007. Soft Systems Methodology. Web Video. Martin Wells Video. UK, August 16. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZn8QrZI7OI.
  2. Shankaran, Shankar, and Chris Stevens. 2010. How Do Project Managers Benefit from Systems Thinking? Web Video. Vol. 8965054. Soft Systems Thinking, Business 21C. Indexed from http://www.business21c.com.au/2010/01/soft-systems-thinking-a-more-holistic-approach-to-project-management: University of Technology Sydney, January 25. http://vimeo.com/8965054.

Extended articles:

  1. Checkland, Peter. 2010. Researching real-life: Reflections on 30 years of action research. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27, no. 2: 129-132. doi:10.1002/sres.1019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.1019.
  2. Zhang, Huaxia. 2010. Soft systems methodology and ‘soft’ philosophy of science. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27, no. 2 (March 1): 156-170. doi:10.1002/sres.1022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.1022.
  3. Checkland, Peter. 2010. Comments on the conference and special issue. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27, no. 2: 240. doi:10.1002/sres.1032. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.1032.
  4. 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.
  5. Barton, John. 2009. Action Research: Its Foundations in Open Systems Thinking and Relationship to the Scientific Method. Systemic Practice and Action Research 22, no. 6: 475-488. doi:10.1007/s11213-009-9148-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11213-009-9148-6.

In practice:

a. Triple bottom line

  1. Elkington, John. 1998. Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st‐century business. Environmental Quality Management 8, no. 1: 37-51. doi:10.1002/tqem.3310080106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tqem.3310080106.
  2. Norman, Wayne, and Chris MacDonald. 2004. Getting to the Bottom of "Triple Bottom Line". Business Ethics Quarterly 14, no. 2 (April): 243-262. http://jstor.org/stable/3857909.
  3. Hacking, Theo, and Peter Guthrie. 2007. A framework for clarifying the meaning of Triple Bottom-Line, Integrated, and Sustainability Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28, no. 2: 73-89. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2007.03.002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.03.002.
  4. Hubbard, Graham. 2009. Measuring organizational performance: beyond the triple bottom line. Business Strategy and the Environment 18, no. 3: 177-191. doi:10.1002/bse.564. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.564.

[jump to top of page]

Cluster 3. Futures

Since human beings can plan, an alternative way of moving towards desirable futures is to start from more idealized positions to which we can aspire.

Recommended book chapters:

  1. Ackoff, Russell L. 1969. The Nature and Content of Planning. In A concept of corporate planning, 1-22. Wiley-Interscience.
  2. Ackoff, Russell L. 1981. Our Changing Concept of Planning. In Creating the Corporate Future: Plan or Be Planned For, 51-76. New York: John Wiley and Sons [preview at Google Books].
  3. Ackoff, Russell L. 1981. Creating the Corporate Future: Plan or Be Planned For. New York: John Wiley and Sons. [preview at Google Books]
  4. Ackoff, R. L. 1997. Systems, messes and interactive planning. In The Social Engagement of Social Science: The socio-ecological perspective, ed. Eric L. Trist, Hugh Murray, and Frederick Edmund Emery. Vol. 3. University of Pennsylvania Press. http://www.moderntimesworkplace.com/archives/ericsess/sessvol3/Ackoffp417.opd.pdf.  Accessed via  http://www.moderntimesworkplace.com/archives/ericsess/sessvol3/sessvol3.html
  5. Haeckel, Stephan H. 1999. Adaptive Enterprise: Creating and Leading Sense-and-Respond Organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.  [preview at Google Books]

Recommended articles:

  1. Ackoff, Russell L. 2001. A brief guide to interactive planning and idealized design. May 31. http://www.ida.liu.se/~steho/und/htdd01/AckoffGuidetoIdealizedRedesign.pdf.  Accessed via Jerry Michalski at http://ackoffcenter.blogs.com/ackoff_center_weblog/2003/10/a_brief_guide_t.html .
  2. Haeckel, Stephan H. 2004. Peripheral Vision: Sensing and Acting on Weak Signals: Making Meaning out of Apparent Noise: The Need for a New Managerial Framework. Long Range Planning 37, no. 2 (April): 181-189. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2004.01.006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2004.01.006.
  3. Haeckel, S. H. 2003. Leading on demand businesses—Executives as architects. IBM Systems Journal 42, no. 3: 405–413. doi:10.1147/sj.423.0405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1147/sj.423.0405.
  4. Ozbekhan, H. 1977. The Future of Paris: A Systems Study in Strategic Urban Planning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 287, no. 1346: 523 -544. doi:10.1098/rsta.1977.0158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1977.0158.

Extended articles:

  1. Britton, G. A., and H. McCallion. 1994. An overview of the Singer/Churchman/Ackoff school of thought. Systemic Practice and Action Research 7, no. 5: 487–521. doi:10.1007/BF02173378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02173378.
  2. Leemann, J. E. 2002. Applying Interactive Planning at DuPont: The Case of Transforming a Safety, Health, and Environmental Function to Deliver Business Value. Systemic Practice and Action Research 15, no. 2: 85–109. doi:10.1023/A:1015236423688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015236423688.
  3. Sinn, J. S. 1998. A comparison of interactive planning and soft systems methodology: enhancing the complementarist position. Systemic Practice and Action Research 11, no. 4: 435–453. doi:10.1023/A:1023098025076. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1023098025076.
  4. Linstone, Harold A. 1981. The multiple perspective concept : With applications to technology assessment and other decision areas. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 20, no. 4 (December): 275-325. doi:10.1016/0040-1625(81)90062-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(81)90062-7.
  5. 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.
  6. Schwaninger, Markus. 2006. Design for viable organizations. Kybernetes 35, no. 7 (January 1): 955-966. doi:10.1108/03684920610675012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03684920610675012.
  7. Schwaninger, Markus. 2001. System theory and cybernetics. Kybernetes 30, no. 9 (January 1): 1209-1222. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000006551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006551.
  8. x
  9. Poli, Roberto. 2010. An introduction to the ontology of anticipation. Futures 42, no. 7 (September): 769-776. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.028. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.028.
  10. Linstone, Harold A. 2010. Multiple perspectives redux. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 77, no. 4 (May): 696-698. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2010.02.009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.02.009.
  11. Schwaninger, Markus. 2004. City planning. Kybernetes 33, no. 3 (January 1): 557-576. doi:10.1108/03684920410523571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03684920410523571.
  12. Jackson, M. C. 1998. An Appreciation of Stafford Beer's 'Viable System' Viewpoint on Managerial Practice. Journal of Management Studies 25, no. 6: 557-573. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1988.tb00047.x. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1988.tb00047.x.

Extended book list:

  1. Brand, Stewart. 1999. The clock of the long now: time and responsibility. Basic Books.

In practice:

a. Singapore

  1. Lee, Kuan Yew. 2000. From Third World to first: the Singapore story, 1965-2000. HarperCollins Publishers. [preview at Google Books]
  2. Singapore Economic Development Board "What We Do" at http://www.sedb.com/edb/sg/en_uk/index/about_edb/what_we_do.html
  3. Singapore Land Tranport Authority on Environmental Initiatives at http://www.lta.gov.sg/projects/index_proj_environ.htm , and engaging the community at http://www.lta.gov.sg/projects/index_proj_engaging.htm
  4. Singapore PUB (national water agency) on Water for All at http://www.pub.gov.sg/water/Pages/default.aspx
  5. Singapore Intelligent Nation Masterplan "Digital Future for Everyone" at http://www.ida.gov.sg/insg/post/iN2015-Masterplan-Offers-a-Digital-Future-for-Everyone.aspx
  6. Singapore CleanTech Park (eco-business park) at http://www.sedb.com/edb/sg/en_uk/index/news/articles/jtc_and_edb_unveil.html

b. Masdar, UAD

  1. Nader, Sam. 2009. Paths to a low-carbon economy--The Masdar example. Energy Procedia 1, no. 1 (February): 3951-3958. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.199.

c. Songdo City, Korea

  1. Whitman, Christine Todd, Charles Reid, James von Klemperer, Josh Radoff, and Anthony Roy. 2008. New Songdo City -- The Making of a New Green City. In 8th World Congress, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. Dubai. http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/Repository/T11_WhitmanVonKlemperer.cf720bde-f92c-4231-94ad-c44207ee53e6.pdf.

d. Babcock Ranch, Florida

  1. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2005. Babcock Ranch, Preliminary Fact Sheet. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/secretary/news/2005/babcock/.
  2. Audubon of Florida. 2006. Ranches as Habitat. Florida Naturalist. http://fl.audubon.org/PDFs/Audubon_Naturalist_Spring06.pdf.

[jump to top of page]

Cluster 4. Ecological complexity and gain

Can we design our futures?

Recommended book chapters:

  1. Allen, Timothy F. H., Joseph A Tainter, and Thomas W. Hoekstra. 2003. Supply-side sustainability. New York: Columbia Univ Press. [preview at Google Books]

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.
  2. Tainter, Joseph A. 1995. Sustainability of complex societies. Futures 27, no. 4 (May): 397-407. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(95)00016-P. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(95)00016-P.
  3. Tainter, Joseph A. 2006. Social complexity and sustainability. Ecological Complexity 3, no. 2 (June): 91-103. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2005.07.004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2005.07.004.
  4. Allen, Timothy F. H., Peter C. Allen, Amy Malek, John Flynn, and Michael Flynn. 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.
  5. Allen, Timothy F. H., Joseph A. Tainter, John Flynn, Rachael Steller, Elizabeth Blenner, Megan Pease, and Kristina Nielsen. 2010. Integrating economic gain in biosocial systems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27, no. 5: 537-552. doi:10.1002/sres.1060. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.1060.

Extended articles:

In practice:

a. Smarter planet

  1. IBM. 2010. The World's 4 Trillion Dollar Challenge: Using a system-of-systems approach to build a smarter planet. Institute for Business Value. http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/gbs/bus/html/ibv-smarter-planet-system-of-systems.html.

[jump to top of page]

5. Social-ecological systems

Coming from the perspectives of ecologists (in social-ecological systems), there's a 2006 special issue of Ecology and Society focused on Social-Ecological Systems.

Recommended books:

Recommended articles:

  1. Folke, Carl. 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16, no. 3 (August): 253-267. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002.
  2. Gunderson, L., E. Universitry, A. Kinzig, C. Folke, S. Carpenter, and L. Schultz. 2006. A Handful of Heuristics and Some Propositions for Understanding Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society 11, no. 1: 13. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art13/.

Recommended multimedia:  The Resilience video school at the Stockholm Resilience Centre has experts providing definitions.

  1. Carpenter, Stephen. 2008. What is a social-ecological system? Web Video. Resilience video school. Stockholm Resilience Centre. http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/whatisresilience/resiliencevideoschool/whatisasocialecologicalsystem.4.aeea46911a31274279800012606.html.
  2. Peterson, Garry. 2008. What are the pros and cons of economic evaluation of ecosystems? Web Video. Resilience video school. Stockholm Resilience Centre. http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/researchvideos/whataretheprosandconsofeconomicevaluationofecosystems.5.2b8975271278f4c2de580001974.html.

Extended articles:

  1. Cumming, G. S, D. H.M Cumming, and C. L Redman. 2006. Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecology and Society 11, no. 1: 14. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art14/.
  2. Janssen, M. A, Ö Bodin, J. M Anderies, T. Elmqvist, H. Ernstson, R. R.J McAllister, P. Olsson, and P. Ryan. 2006. Toward a network perspective of the study of resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11, no. 1: 15. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art15/.
  3. Gattie, D. K, N. N Kellam, and H. J Turk. 2007. Informing ecological engineering through ecological network analysis, ecological modelling, and concepts of systems and engineering ecology. Ecological Modelling 208, no. 1: 25–40. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.04.027. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.04.027.
  4. Ochoa Arias, Alejandro. 2008. An interpretive systemic appraisal of corporate social responsibility and learning. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 25, no. 3: 361-370. doi:10.1002/sres.897. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.897.
  5. Maclagan, Patrick. 2008. Organizations and responsibility: A critical overview. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 25, no. 3: 371-381. doi:10.1002/sres.903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.903.
  6. Jensen, Hanne Birgitte. 2007. From economic to sustainable development: unfolding the concept of law. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 24, no. 5: 505-513. doi:10.1002/sres.851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.851.

[jump to top of page]

6. Coevolution and turbulence

In world of systems of systems, changes at multiple scales means coevolution. There's a 2010 special issue of Ecological Economics focused on coevolutionary ecological economics.

Recommended books:

  1. Ramírez, Rafael, John W Selsky, and Kess van der Heijden. 2008. Conceptual and Historical Overview. In Business Planning for Turbulent Times: New Methods for Applying Scenarios, ed. Rafael Ramírez, John W. Selsky, and Kees van der Heijden, 17-30. Earthscan. [preview at Google Books]

Recommended articles:

  1. Emery, Fred E., and Eric L. Trist. 1965. The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments. Human Relations 18, no. 1 (2): 21-32. doi:10.1177/001872676501800103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872676501800103.
  2. Kallis, Giorgos, and Richard B. Norgaard. 2010. Coevolutionary ecological economics. Ecological Economics 69, no. 4: 690-699. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.09.017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.09.017.

Extended articles:

  1. Jiménez, Jaime. 2008. How Do Scenario Practices and Search Conferences Complement Each Other?. In Business Planning for Turbulent Times: New Methods for Applying Scenarios, ed. Rafael Ramírez and Kees van der Heijden, 31-46. Earthscan. [preview at Google Books]
  2. Lang, Trudy, and Lynn Allen. 2008. Reflecting on Scenario Practice: The Contribution of a Soft Systems Perspective. In Business Planning for Turbulent Times: New Methods for Applying Scenarios, ed. Rafael Ramírez, John W. Selsky, and Kees van der Heijden, 47-64. Earthscan. [preview at Google Books]
  3. Hawk, David L. 1999. Innovation versus environmental protection presumptions. Systemic Practice and Action Research 12, no. 4: 355–366. doi:10.1023/A:1022444229252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022444229252.
  4. Gual, Miguel A, and Richard B. Norgaard. 2010. Bridging ecological and social systems coevolution: A review and proposal. Ecological Economics 69, no. 4: 707–717. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.020.
  5. Burkhard, Benjamin, Irene Petrosillo, and Robert Costanza. 2010. Ecosystem services - Bridging ecology, economy and social sciences. Ecological Complexity 7, no. 3 (September): 257-259. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.07.001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.07.001 .
  6. Costanza, Robert, Ralph d'Arge, Rudolf de Groot, Stephen Farber, Monica Grasso, Bruce Hannon, Karin Limburg, et al. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, no. 6630 (May 15): 253-260. doi:10.1038/387253a0. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/387253a0.
  7. Swanson, G. A. 2009. The relationship of entropy-related measures to money information. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 26, no. 3 (May 1): 331-341. doi:10.1002/sres.945. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.945.
  8. Lane, David C. 2008. The emergence and use of diagramming in system dynamics: a critical account. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 25, no. 1: 3-23. doi:10.1002/sres.826. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.826.
  9. Leonard, Allenna. 2007. Symbiosis and the viable system model. Kybernetes 36, no. 5: 571-582. doi:10.1108/03684920710749677. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03684920710749677.

In practice:

Interface Inc.

  1. Anderson, Ray C. 2010. Editorial: Earth Day, Then and Now. Sustainability: The Journal of Record 3, no. 2: 73-74. doi:10.1089/SUS.2010.9795. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/SUS.2010.9795.
  2. Anderson, Ray. 2009. Confessions of a Radical Industrialist: Profits, People, Purpose - Doing Business by Respecting the Earth. McClelland & Stewart. [preview at Google Books]

[jump to top of page]

7. Discourses (addenda from CS0004)

Appreciating how people communicate can be fundamental to system redesigns.

Recommended books

Recommended articles:

[jump to top of page]