A good discussion going on (again) on the systems thinking for K-12SD discussion list (which I think is some kind of age based testing level in the American testing system) at: http://www.clexchange.org/cle/k12listserve.asp
The original question was
Paul Newton offered the notes and link: Some good references relating systems thinking and scientific thinking are Barry Richmond’s writings on systems thinking skills. He discusses scientific thinking as one of the twelve systems thinking skills he discussed in multiple papers (see attached slides and references). See page 131 in http://clexchange.org/ftp/documents/whyk12sd/Y_1993-05STCriticalThinking.pdf, and pages iii, 4, especially page 29, and 34.
It might also be helpful to suggest that your audiences reflect on similarities/differences with the scientific method of John Sterman’s iterative five-step modeling process in Chapter 3 of his book Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. I like to use John Sterman’s process because it is simpler and more readily communicated to most people than arethe processes of which I’m aware that have been published by other authors. It is worth looking at the book chapter to see the graphics, but the five iterative steps are:
1) Problem articulation (boundary selection, reference modes) 2) Dynamic hypothesis 3) Formulation 4) Testing 5) Policy Formulation and Evaluation
Hi, If you’re interested in current thinking about the what and how of deep thinking regarding strategic thought and leadership, visit our site at www.thinkingstrategically.net and check out our podcasts and webinars. Also, a list of current podcasts can be found on this Google document. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PUDQ3bxcJzwuakgiIY9uJDbQIEjt9iAJzHlsvJjc2Gs/edit?usp=sharing
Hope to see you there.
Very Respectfully!
Timothy “Tim” Williamson 1-660-362-1377 (o) 1-205-765-6090 © 1414 Rockford Dr. Warrensburg, MO 64093 www.thinkingstrategically.net
To UNSUBSCRIBE click HERE tim@thinkingstrategically.net
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 2:47 PM, antlerboy-benjamintaylor < antlerboy-benjamintaylor@model.report> wrote:
A Framework for Systemic Design Alex Ryan
https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/formakademisk/article/download/787/1109
From Vol 7, No 4 (2014)
Relating Systems Thinking and Design II
This paper presents a framework for systemic design as a mindset, methodology, and set of methods that together enable teams to learn, innovate, and adapt to a complex and dynamic environment. We suggest that a systemic design mindset is inquiring, open, integrative, collaborative, and centred. We propose a systemic design methodology composed of six main activities: framing, formulating, generating, reflecting, inquiring, and facilitating. We view systemic design methods as a flexible and open-ended set of procedures for facilitating group collaboration that are both systemic and designerly.
Three Levels of Systemic Design
Our framework conceives of systemic design as consisting of three mutually reinforcing levels: mindset, methodology, and method.
By method, we mean a set of procedures for facilitating group process that specifies how group members should work together to generate and externalise ideas.
By methodology, we mean a logic for selecting and combining methods in a coherent sequence to move between deepening understanding of the challenge and generating actions to improve the situation.
By mindset, we mean the values and habits the systemic designer brings to the challenge, which guide judgement during the application of methodology and shape selection of methods.
Methodology is meta to the level of method: it is about method, providing principles that justify the use of a particular method or methods (Checkland, 2000).
Similarly, mindset is meta to the level of methodology: it justifies the choice of methodology and guides interpretation through the values the mindset promotes.
The methodology presented here has its origins in Shimon Naveh’s theory of systemic operational design (Naveh et al., 2009), although the terminology has been modified as a result of reflective practice in other settings. The methodology is composed of six main activities:
**-inquiring,
-framing,
-formulating,
-generating,
-reflecting, and
-facilitating.**