Theory of Systemic Change and Action

Last updated Mar 7, 2023 | Originally published Mar 7, 2023

Theories of Change are one of the fundamental tools of changemakers and program evaluation (Mackinnon, 2006). However, when addressing wicked problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973), theories of change are too reductive and linear to properly account for the systemic phenomena, structures, and dynamics that perpetuate the issues we’re trying to address (Murphy & Jones, 2020).

Theories of Systemic Change and Action (ToSCA) are a systemic design tool that combine theories of change with systemic understanding. The result is a theory of change that is useful for understanding, communicating, and evaluating systemic change projects.

Here’s a rough guide to develop a ToSCA:

Model the system (e.g., with causal loop diagrams; Kim, 1992).
Develop systemic strategies from the model.
Reorganize the modelled phenomena. From left to right:
1. Capability building and resource mobilization for the initiative (Inputs)
2. Inteventional activities the initiative will take on (Activities)
3. Immediate outputs of those activities (Outputs)
4. Results of those outputs on the overall system (Outcomes)
5. Downstream effects of those outcomes on higher-system structures (Impacts)
Reiterate on step 3 as necessary.

The resulting diagram will look somewhat like an iceberg model (Stroh, 2015, p. 46] on its side: visible events and behaviour are on the left, while the actual patterns and structures in the system fall to the right.

The ToSCA can then be simplified as necessary to suit different needs. For instance, if presenting the model briefly to a potential funder, you may want to collapse major feedback loops into one element on the model with a “loop” icon. This way you can still show inputs and outputs on that loop while obscuring the complexity within it for the purposes of the presentation.

A Case Study of Theories of Systemic Change and Action — The Ecotrust Canada Home-Lands initiative

Last updated Mar 7, 2023 | Originally published Mar 7, 2023

In this presentation, we reported on a case study of the Ecotrust Canada Home-Lands initiative. Lewis and I worked with Ecotrust Canada to understand the challenges they were addressing from a systemic design lens and, using that approach, to develop a theory of systemic change and action for the initiative.

An interesting development in the work was the development of a novel systemic evaluation technique: resonance and dissonance tests. The tests were designed as a way of testing our understanding of the system without interrupting or intruding on the processes of the initiative. The general idea behind resonance and dissonance tests is to identify a set of phenomena in your understanding of the system and to search for disconfirming evidence that those phenomena are complete and accurate. So, for instance, if you think a key phenomenon in the system is “community distrust of bureaucracy”, look for examples of the community trusting bureaucracy. If you can’t find any, it increases the integrity of the theory you’ve created.

Leverage theory

Last updated Mar 7, 2023 | Originally published Feb 24, 2023

We seek leverage to find the best ways of making change.

Leverage points are places in systems where a little effort yields a big effect (Meadows, 1997). They are also ideas that help us grab on to strategic ways forward when we’re working in complexity (Klein & Wolf, 1998).

Acting on leverage points may accelerate systemic change towards progress and reform, but acting on the wrong ones may instead accelerate systemic change towards regression and deformity. Well-designed leverage strategies may be catalyzing or even transformative, but poorly designed ones may merely be futile (figure 1).

One way of finding leverage points is to think through your system with reference to Meadows’s (1997) 12 types:

Table 1. Twelve types of leverage points, in order of increasing power (adapted from Meadows, 1997).

Twelve types of leverage points, in order of increasing power	Example
12. Constants, parameters, numbers (such as subsidies, taxes, standards)	Wages, interest rates
11. The sizes of buffers and other stabilizing stocks, relative to their flows.	Current levels of debt/assets
10. The structure of material stocks and flows (such as transport networks, population age structures)	An individual’s financial structure (e.g., fixed costs and incomes)
9. The lengths of delays, relative to the rate of system change	How long it takes to find a higher-paying job
8. The strength of negative feedback loops, relative to the impacts they are trying to correct against	Rising costs of living vs. fixed income
7. The gain around driving positive feedback loops	Recession causing reducing spending
6. The structure of information flows (who does and does not have access to what kinds of information)	How aware you are of impending recession/future rising costs
5. The rules of the system (such as incentives, punishments, constraints)	Who suffers as a result of poorly-managed recessions
4. The power to add, change, evolve, or self-organize system structure	Central banks, Ministries of Finance
3. The goals of the system	GDP Growth
2. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system—its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters—arises	Growth above all
1. The power to transcend paradigms	Sustainable development, flourishing

Another approach, which may be complementary to the above, is to model the system as a causal loop diagram (e.g., Kim, 1992) and then to conduct leverage analysis (Murphy & Jones, 2020) on the model.

An understanding of leverage in a system allows us to generate systemic strategies (Murphy & Jones, 2020). These strategies can also be adapted into Theories of Systemic Change (Murphy & Jones, 2020).

# Background

Donella Meadows (1997) popularized the idea of leverage in systemic change with her essay “Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in Complex Systems.” She proposed a typology of phenomena in a system, suggesting that acting on certain types of phenomena are higher-leverage than others.

In an article published in the Contexts journal of systemic design, I challenged Meadows’s (1997) paradigm, proposing a few other possible ways of viewing leverage. My aim was to link the search for leverage directly to the design of powerful strategies for systemic change, and to propose a few ways forward in advancing our understanding of leverage in complex systems.

Roger Martin, Bianca Andreescu, and systemic strategy

Published Apr 11, 2020

According to designer/strategist Roger Martin, a strategy is an imagined possibility with which we ask the question “What has to be true for this possibility to become real?”

In this episode IDEO U’s Creative Confidence podcast, Roger talks about how that approach helped unlock Bianca Andreescu’s success at the Grand Slam singles championship in 2019.

One of the fascinating things about this approach is that it acknowledges the need for system-wide changes. By asking “What has to be true?”, a strategist must consider all of the conditions of a system that should shift to make the imagined possibility a reality. Of course, most approaches to strategy do require some appreciation of the state of the strategic environment (e.g., the five forces model). None, however, emphasize the need to guarantee these systemic conditions quite as explicitly as asking “What must be true?”

Systemics and design principles in support of Tiago Forte's PARA framework

Published Mar 29, 2020

Tiago Forte's PARA system is a popular new approach to organizing your digital materials. I explain its usefulness with reference to some principles from systemic design.

Can Snow Clearing Be Sexist?

Published Mar 25, 2020

And so the Swedish gender equality initiative team began to explore whet her snow clearing was sexist. Sure enough, they found the routine of clearing snow typically benefited men over women. In the winter, snow was cleared first on main roads leading into the city, benefiting commuters—who were mostly men. Foot- and cycle-paths were cleared last—not so good for pedestrians and cyclists, who were very often women traveling with children in pushchairs.

There was a cost to all this: 79% of pedestrian injuries occurred in winter, of which 69% were women. The estimated cost of these falls was SKr36m per winter, about USD$3.7m / £3m / €3.4m / Indian ₹279m. By clearing paths first, accidents decreased by half and saved the local government money.

Great action-based response to a stupid remark (“At least snow-clearing was something those ‘gender people’ can keep their noses out of,” someone had said, prompting this investigation).

Applied Systems Thinking

Published Jan 23, 2019

# Applied Systems Thinking

Based on the Applied Systems Thinking workshop, I’ve collected a variety of resources to help you map complex problems below. The buttons link directly to files to save you some trouble. Be mindful that most of these files are published documents or books, so if you really like them, you should buy a copy and support the authors!

If you have questions or if you’re looking for more resources, never hesitate to reach out to me via ryan@fulcra.design.

SLIDES - DAY 1 (2.0 MB)

SLIDES - DAY 2 (4.1 MB)

# Introduction

What are systems? Interconnected sets of elements whose interactions lead to emergent, “purposeful” behaviour. (A system’s purpose is not necessarily what someone intends of it, though, nor can it be derived from rhetoric about the system. A system’s purpose can only be defined by examining its actual behaviour.)

Systems—and the actors within them—do exactly what they are “designed” to do. That is, systems act perfectly in tune with the structures and incentives that they have. Only by understanding these complex structures and incentives can we begin to make real progress on the challenges we’re addressing.

# Key Things To Remember

The most important thing about mapping is not the map itself. It is the conversations that the map (and the mapping process!) can spark.
Stay focused on answering complex questions. Mapping is not an end in itself. You are “finished” mapping when you’ve answered your focusing questions (more below).

# Case Studies

Remember the story of the development worker trying to support water access in rural Malawi. (37.4 kb) By identifying someone else who was working on a similar problem (community health workers), the development worker was able to gain substantial leverage over their problem with minimal effort. Systems work helps is to identify leverage points.
Remember the story of The After Prison Initiative (TAPI). (37.4 kb) By helping changemakers working on the same issue see the whole system, each was able to recognize the problems with the system that they were responsible for. Systems help us recognize that every participant in a system has responsibility for the whole system, not just their part.
Remember the story of the spruce budworm. (37.4 kb) The Atlantic Canadian lumber industry made itself addicted to insecticide by beginning and sustaining insecticide sprays before they understood the long-term forest ecosystem. Systemic innovation is often counterintuitive; the wrong fix in the wrong place can make matters worse.
Remember the story of the well-intended conference organizers. (37.4 kb) This story teaches two lessons. First, systemic problems are rarely shifted by simple solutions. If you account for only one part of the problem, your fix may fail. Second, it is difficult to understand a systemic problem without involving all of the key stakeholders, particularly the beneficiaries you aim to serve. Involve them in order to see the whole system.

# Developing A Focusing Question

# Why Are “How Might We..?” Questions Useful?

“How” invokes a sense of opportunity. Therefore, “How might we..?” questions are appreciative.
“Might” invokes a sense of pluralism. Therefore, “How might we..?” questions are open-ended: there is more than one possible solution.
“We” invokes togetherness. Therefore, “How might we..?” questions are pursued collaboratively, particularly by asking and answering questions with stakeholders.

Rittel & Weber’s principles of wicked problems.

However, “How might we..?” questions aim to provide solutions. Before we can “solve” systemic issues, however, we must understand them. And unfortunately for us, these are usually wicked problems.

To understand a problem, we must begin to explore causality. Systemic designers seek to understand complexity by searching for the patterns that cause our problems—and finding the underlying structure of those patterns that enable their persistence.

To that end, David Stroh suggests developing a “focusing question” in systems work. The purpose of systems mapping, he says, is not to map a system; it is to answer the focusing question.

A focusing question has the form “Why does this problem persist?” or “Why, despite our best efforts, intentions, and resources, have we been unable to achieve a certain goal or solve a particular problem?”

# FOUR TYPES OF SYSTEMS MAPPING

# Rich Pictures

LEARN MORE ABOUT SOFT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY & RICH PICTURES (400 KB)

Rich pictures come from Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). Akin to a sketchy infographic, these maps are illustrated and make heavy use of labels and symbols to help the mapper or the reader understand a messy situation.

# Actor Maps

LEARN MORE ABOUT ACTOR MAPPING (1 MB)

Actor maps graph the relationships in a social system. Who (or what organizations) influence who? Who funds who? How is the vision of the system determined? By identifying different stakeholders, including who are the most important beneficiaries and victims of a system, systemic designers might catch gaps, missed connections, or other issues.

# Causal Loop Diagrams

LEARN MORE ABOUT CAUSAL LOOP DIAGRAMS

Also known as influence diagrams and effect maps, Causal Loop Diagrams graph the phenomena of a system. What are we trying to stop from happening (or what do we want to happen more often)? What encourages or limits those phenomena? Then, what encourages or limits _those_causes or limits? By drawing causal connections between the phenomena of the system, we can recognize the complex interactions that lead to the (frequently counterintuitive) emergent patterns of behaviour normally invisible.

# Stock And Flow Diagrams

LEARN MORE ABOUT STOCK AND FLOW DIAGRAMS (CHAPTER 6; P. 192; 1.2 MB)

How much of what quantities flow at what rates? Stock and flow diagrams make explicit the system’s stores (e.g., the heat in a cup of coffee) and its rates of change (e.g., how quickly heat escapes from the cup). These diagrams also recognize what controls these rates of change.

# Applied Systems Thinking

# Dimensions Of A System:

Dimensions and obstructions of systems.png

Add detail to your systems maps by exploring the different dimensions along which influence might flow: wealth, power, values, knowledge, or beauty. Different types of obstructions—poverty, maldistribution, and insecurity—can cause different types of problems in each of these dimensions.

# Leverage Points:

Leverage points are places within a system with which a little effort yields great reward. Likewise, bottlenecks are places within a system which resistance could cause significant problems.

# Leverage Points:

Leverage points are places within a system with which a little effort yields great reward. Likewise, bottlenecks are places within a system which resistance could cause significant problems.

# Systems Archetypes:

Systems archetypes are common patterns identified in causal loop diagrams or stock-and-flow diagrams. Archetypes exhibit similar behaviours and can be resolved by similar solutions.

# The Systems “Business Idea”:

Do you need a particular actor or phenomena to receive resources/power/etc.? Where would that resource come from? What influences how much of the resource gets distributed? How can you increase those influencing forces? The business idea uses a causal loop diagram to map the systemic structure of an organization’s strategic sustainability. It makes explicit the phenomena that generate resources for the system to reinvest—and the strategic competencies that the organization can use to enhance those phenomena.

# Systemic Theories Of Change:

What is the change strategy you’re adopting? Similar to the business idea, a systemic theory of change plots a theory of change model in systemic form, identifying the goal phenomena to enhance (or limit), the key activities that can support that enhancement (or limitation), and the inputs required to sustain and scale those activities.

# Systems Stories:

Never explain a systems map in a pitch or to a general audience. Instead, follow the iceberg model to distill a systems story.

Describe what happened (an example of the event or phenomena the systemic designer seeks to address);
Describe what has been happening (the pattern of events that lead to the problem or issue); and
Describe why (the underlying causal structure that enforces the persistence of these problematic patterns).

# Technology For Systems Mapping

Mural

Mural.co is a collaborative tool for design sprints. As such, it provides features for collaborative whiteboarding and sticky noting, voting via dotmocracy, and a variety of other neat and helpful tools. It is very free-form (and as such has no features specifically made for systemic design) but that open-endedness may be useful.

Loopy

Nicky Case’s Loopy is a simple tool that allows you to simulate systemic behaviours. It is very unsophisticated (e.g., it is challenging to provide precise system settings) but it is extremely gestural and is therefore fun to use to illustrate and explore ideas.

Plectica

Plectica is a “visual mapping software”. It allows you to nest and draw connections between cards representing anything. The goal of the app is to provide a simple interface for complex ideas.

Kumu

Kumu is a web app built specifically for systems mapping. It features extensive features and documentation and a lively support community full of fellow systems mappers who like to help one another. The developers/founders are active participants in that community and regularly provide customer support, too. Develop actor maps, systems maps, and all kinds of other interesting interactive visuals with Kumu.

# ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

I’ve collected and described resources on related topics at https://systemic.design/resources. In particular, you may want to check out the items on organizational change (e.g., the “Notes on Leadership and Language in Regenerating Organizations” paper and the article on organizational learning).

Finding the Emic in Systemic Design

Published Oct 26, 2018

# Finding the Emic in Systemic Design

A paper presented at RSD7 in Turin, Italy.

# ABSTRACT

I argue that an under-emphasized but crucial variable of success in systemic design is the perspective through which systemic design processes are implemented and executed. While rooted in design (a consciously empathetic discipline, especially in recent years; cf. Kimbell, 2011), it is easy for systemic designers to conduct the research required for their projects in externalized ways. These approaches risk misrepresenting the stakeholders who contribute to projects and, in turn, they are a danger to the potential impact of these misresearched problem systems. I propose to advance a theoretical argument for this danger, the development of an assessment framework to check whether an internalized perspective has been effectively achieved, and provide a proof of concept of this framework through hermeneutic case study analysis.

As I will show, systemic design processes that are not executed with the direct and explicit engagement of stakeholders – to the extent of achieving an emic (or from within) understanding of the system – may be flawed at their foundation. By fostering recognition of the importance of an emic perspective, and by providing a framework of principles, practices, and process to accomplish systemic design with this perspective, I hope to ensure that systemic design processes are as accurate and valid as possible with respect to the stakeholders of the system.

This is not to suggest that systemic design practice is “too etic”. In fact, with roots in design, systemic design is often deliberately emic. Systemic designers make use of designerly tools that help the researcher to build empathy with system stakeholders (e.g., soft systems methodology, critical systems heuristics, appreciative inquiry; Jones, 2014). They often seek to engage stakeholders in the systemic design process and include reflective analysis of what has been learned in order to assess where deeper engagement with the system is required (Ryan, 2014). That said, with the advent of crowdsourcing (the facilitated involvement of the general public in problem solving, usually using online tools; Lukyanenko & Parsons, 2012) and data science (the use of computational tools to analyze and understand large quantities of data; cf. Scepanovic, 2018), it is likely that data-driven methods will increasingly influence systemic design practice. One recent example sought input from hundreds of people to identify opportunities for change in Canadian post-secondary systems through an iterative online survey (cf. Second Muse, Intel, & Vibrant Data, 2016). This data-driven direction is a powerful opportunity, of course, but it underscores the need to develop principles and best practices for assessing and supporting emic understanding as we gain more data from these tools.

This proposal consists of two steps. First, I will look to the principles and theorists of ethnography to develop a framework for assessing the emic/etic perspective of a given research project. Namely, Geertz’ “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture” (found in The Interpretation of Cultures, 1973, chapter 1) provides a foundation for the process of emic research, while Creswell and Miller (2000) provide a set of procedural principles for emic validity. Taken together, we generate a critical research framework with which we may assess a given research project’s emic perspective. Second, I will provide a proof-of-concept of this framework (and its theoretical underpinnings) via a casebased assessment of three systemic design projects. Case studies provide an effective venue for learning about the context-dependent manifestations of the phenomena being studied (Flyvbjerg, 2006). One of these case studies is one I have developed through my experience in participating and contributing to the development of the Canadian National Youth Leadership and Innovation Strategy framework, which convened hundreds of youth and youth-serving organizations in order to understand the youth leadership and innovation system in Canada (cf. MaRS Studio Y, 2017). The second and third case studies are those profiled by Ryan and Leung (2014).

In order to interpret and analyze the chosen case studies, I turn to the methodology of phenomenological hermeneutics (Eberle, 2014, p. 196; cf. Wernet, 2014). Phenomenological hermeneutics are appropriate as I have access to the described phenomena of the systemic design projects captured by the chosen cases, but these phenomena are not explicitly captured with reference to emic or etic perspectives – thus some construction of the inherent emic or etic data is necessary in order to make judgments about the perspectives found in the projects.

In each case, I will use identify phenomena representing the practice of emic (or etic) understanding in the research orientation of the work, as acknowledged by the above framework. In each case, I will examine the step-by-step procedure and any associated notes about the experience of the researchers and participants involved. In each step or experience, I will look for evidence of the four steps of emic understanding or the six techniques of emic validation reported above.

# References

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2

Eberle, T. S. (2014). Phenomenology as a Research Method. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (pp. 184–202). Los Angeles, Calif. [u.a.]: Sage. Retrieved from https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/228374/

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (Vol. 5019). Basic books.

Jones, P. (2015). Design Research Methods for Systemic Design: Perspectives from Design Education and Practice. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the ISSS - 2014 United States, 1(1). Retrieved from http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings58th/article/view/2353

Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.2752/175470811X13071166525216

Lukyanenko, R., & Parsons, J. (2012). Conceptual modeling principles for crowdsourcing (pp. 3–6). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2390034.2390038

MaRS Studio Y. (2017). A strategic framework for youth leadership & innovation in Canada: Insights from the 2016 National Youth Leadership and Innovation Strategy Summit. Toronto, ON. Retrieved from http://www.studioy.marsdd.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/MaRS_NYLISstrategic_framework_Final.pdf

Ryan, A. (2014). A Framework for Systemic Design. FORMakademisk–research Journal for Design and Design Education, 7(4). Retrieved from https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/formakademisk/article/view/787

Ryan, A., & Leung, M. (2014). Systemic Design: Two Canadian Case Studies. FormAkademisk - Research Journal of Design and Design Education, 7(3). Retrieved from https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/formakademisk/article/view/794

Scepanovic, S. (2018). Data science for sociotechnical systems - from computational sociolinguistics to the smart grid. Aalto University. Retrieved from https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi:443/handle/123456789/30187

Second Muse, Intel, & Vibrant Data. (2016, May 11). What Your Data Says: Post-Secondary Education Mapping Survey Highlights. RECODE. Retrieved from http://re-code.ca/whats_happening/watch-recodewebinar-what-your-data-says/

Wernet, A. (2014). Hermeneutics and Objective Hermeneutics. In U. Flick, The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (pp. 234–246). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243.n16

Leverage analysis in systemic design

Published Oct 26, 2018

Applying graph theory to understand the structure of complex problems

Global Steering Group for Impact Investment systemic theory of change

Published Sep 2, 2018

# The Global Steering Group for Impact Investment’s (2018) systemic theory of change

A systems model I helped visualize for the Global Steering Group on Impact Investment in 2018:

Mapping the course toward scale

Download the model here.

Tag: Systemics

# Background

# Related

# Applied Systems Thinking

# Introduction

# Key Things To Remember

# Case Studies

# Developing A Focusing Question

# Why Are “How Might We..?” Questions Useful?

# FOUR TYPES OF SYSTEMS MAPPING

# Rich Pictures

# Actor Maps

# Causal Loop Diagrams

# Stock And Flow Diagrams

# Applied Systems Thinking

# Dimensions Of A System:

# Leverage Points:

# Leverage Points:

# Systems Archetypes:

# The Systems “Business Idea”:

# Systemic Theories Of Change:

# Systems Stories:

# Technology For Systems Mapping

# ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

# Finding the Emic in Systemic Design

# ABSTRACT

# References

# The Global Steering Group for Impact Investment’s (2018) systemic theory of change