SYSTEMS

Systems PRACTICE
Practice Toolkit

A toolkit to help you think, act and work systemically

NPC 2024
Seth Reynolds, Abigail Rose 1
Contents

Introduction Mapping Tool 2: Multiple Cause Diagrams

What is systems practice and why do we need it? Mapping Tool 3: Casual Loop Diagrams

Using this toolkit Systems Analysis Questions

Section 1: Understand Tool 5: Three Horizons Framework

Tool 1: Cake, Rocket, Child Section 3: Act

Tool 2: The Complexity Canvas Tool 6: Spheres of System Change

Tool 3: The Iceberg Systems Thinking Model Section 4: Learn

Section 2: Design Tool 7: Triple Loop Learning

Tool 4: Systems Mapping Tool 8: Reflexive Practice Model

Mapping Tool 1: Cluster Diagrams

2
Introduction: What is systems practice and why do we need it?
It has become commonplace to hear problems described as systemic— meaning they are entrenched, structural, intractable. We hear it when
discussing the revolving doors of reoffending, the cycles that trap people in generational poverty, and the seemingly relentless increase in carbon
emissions.

This apparent intractability of our social problems leads many to question the ways we’ve traditionally worked as a sector– our approaches to
social change, our assumptions and beliefs about how change happens, and our methodologies, tools, and practices for bringing about that
change.

The cartoon below and on the front cover of the publication gets to the nub of the problem: the tools we use are too often the wrong ones for the
job. We are meeting complexity with simplicity.

3
Why we need to think and act differently

Duncan Green, author of ”How Change Happens”, describes this mismatch as: “facing out to complex systems and facing back in to linear
systems”. This is what is happening in the above cartoon—a team generating simple, linear interventions for a complex, sprawling reality within
which their interventions will be subsumed. This describes the daily experience of many social change practitioners.

The problems that we ‘face out’ towards are often a bewildering mess of interconnected factors—personal, relational, social, political, cultural—that
are virtually impossible to untangle. This entanglement defies attempts to isolate problems from single causes, making singular solutions unlikely to
succeed. This makes it virtually impossible for any single organisation to ‘solve’ a problem.

Yet these simple linear interventions define much of how our sector operates. We reduce complex problems to simplistic solutions in part because
it suits our organisational narrative. This isn’t our fault. It’s how the sector works.

Funding is often provided on the promise of such solutions. Many of the tools we use (our strategic plans, logframes, monitoring frameworks) feed
into this by assuming an unrealistic level of predictability, and linear relationships between cause and effect that don’t work in complex systems.

We have developed social change practice based on singular, linear solutions implemented by individual organisations working alone towards
unachievable mission accomplishment.

The mismatch is not just in the tools but also the mindset that created them—as the cartoon illustrates. To minimise this mismatch, we need to think
and act more systemically. We need tools and practices that are better suited to complexity.

The roots of non-systemic thinking

Although it might seem like ‘the new thing’, in fact systems thinking has always been around, just with different language. Da Vinci wrote: “Learn
how to see: everything is connected to everything else.”

4
This idea has underpinned the worldview of different indigenous and pre-industrial cultures over time. However, in many societies, some of that
thinking has been lost. We instead became highly proficient at zooming in—separating parts from their wholes and understanding them in
extraordinary detail.

This ‘zoomed in’ approach of separation and specialisation has defined our ways of working and thinking. It is the core ‘mental model’ underpinning
much of how our society operates, whether in medicine, education, or social change.

It has led to incredible advancements and achievements. But it has also led, whether in healthcare or social science, to separating things from the
wholes they belong to and a tendency for siloed thinking and working.

The social sector has traditionally, if subconsciously, applied this mindset of ‘problem separation and solution’ to highly complex social systems
that do not operate in that way.

In many fields, people are now trying to zoom out again. To understand not just one part of a system, but those that it connects to, the ways they
connect, and the effects they have on each other. ‘Systems thinking’ has become a broad umbrella for such approaches.

It emphasises the multiple and dynamic causal factors around an issue, the structural patterns that keep producing the same issues, and the
mindsets, beliefs and worldviews that invariably underpin how and why our systems developed in the way they did. In doing so, it tries to identify
more effective ways to work with those systems and affect change within them.

But this is not a case of either/or. It is ‘both/and’. We need multiple mindsets to work with the problems we face. We need to become adept at
moving between the micro and the macro: zooming out to see, and zooming in to act. We need to improve our capacity to work with wholes as well
as parts; to understand and improve the relationships between them.

We call this ‘systems practice’. If systems thinking is the mindset and systems change is the goal, then systems practice is how we get there.

Developing our systems practice

Developing systems practice means developing the mindsets, behaviours and skills that allow us to work effectively in highly complex systems.

5
As we will start to explore in these resources, complex systems are unpredictable, adaptable, and dynamic. This means:

• We need to continually challenge ourselves about what we know and assume.

• We need to expand our perspectives, to facilitate and collaborate rather than control and compete.

• We need to make our planning more responsive and adaptive to the systems we hope to affect.

• We need to improve our capacity to work across complex systems with multiple actors, each with their own perspectives, roles and needs.

This developing set of resources is designed to be an accessible, practical introduction to this field, providing a selection of tools, frameworks,
concepts and practices to help you on your systems change journey.

6
Using this toolkit

We’ve organised these resources using a simple programme cycle of Understand,

Design, Act, Learn, which means you can find a systems practice tool for any stage
of a programme journey.

We start with ‘Understand’ because the first step in systems practice is to step back
and try to understand your situation and the system that is creating it. This is
important before going straight into a planning stage.

Except in particular contexts that require urgent action, such as a disaster response,
stepping in too quickly will likely mean you are making implicit assumptions about the
issue and your intervention, and are perhaps missing important information that could
undermine it. Not paying sufficient attention to this step might not only waste
resources, but also lead to a range of unintended consequences.

The tools in Part 1 are designed to help you understand complexity and how it affects
your issue and intervention. So, even if you are not currently at the start of a programme cycle, we would recommend you start here.

Some of the tools and frameworks are drawn from the existing systems field and have been adapted or built on for this guide, whilst others have
been developed by NPC.

This toolkit is meant as an introduction to systems practice and its key concepts. Space limitations mean it’s not possible in these guides to provide
step-by-step instructions for every tool. While some are relatively straightforward, others may require further explanation and support in
implementing. In those cases, we include links to further resources. NPC can also provide support for working with these tools if required.

We are keen to hear your experience working with these tools, and any successes, challenges, and insights from your systems practice journey, so
please get in touch.

7
SYSTEMS PRACTICE
A toolkit to help you think, act and work systemically

Section 1: Understand Tool 1: Cake Rocket Child

8
‘Cake Rocket Child’: A problem typology tool

What is it and why is it useful?

Cake Rocket Child is a tool to help you think about the nature of the problem you’re working with. We call it ‘Cake Rocket Child’ because the
original version, which the below is adapted from, compared the characteristics of three different types of problems (simple, complicated, and
complex) with three examples:

• baking a cake (simple problem)

• sending a rocket to the moon (complicated problem)

• raising a child (complex problem)

A fourth category, ‘wicked’ problems, was added in later versions.

Wicked problems are entrenched, highly complex, societal problems. For example,
biodiversity loss, childhood obesity, or illegal immigration. Most social sector
organisations are dealing with complex or wicked problems.

The original framework was designed to show how our ways of solving social problems
often fail because they are mismatched to the nature of the problem they are trying to
address.

The model is not saying that raising a child is harder or easier than sending a rocket to the moon, just that the characteristics of the problem are
different. Understanding the characteristics of the problem you’re dealing with is vital to designing an effective solution. For example, multi-causal,
fluid problems won't be solved by singular approaches with rigid, long-term plans.

9
The table below can help you consider the nature of the problem you are working on and whether your approach is appropriate for that kind of
problem.

Type Simple Complicated Complex Wicked (highly complex)

Example Baking a cake Sending a rocket to the Raising a child Preventing biodiversity loss
moon

Nature of the Consensus exists on Problem can be scientifically Each situation is unique. No consensus on nature of problem
problem problem definition and approached and resolved. Formulae have limited or solution.
solution. application.

Predictability Highly predictable: There are known and/or The problem has a high Problem is multi-causal, dynamic,
following standard predictable characteristics degree of uncertainty. fluid; activity hard to predict or
operating procedures identified by sufficient testing. Predictions cannot be relied control.
can achieve desired upon.
outcome.

Expertise Problem can be solved Success possible by highly Insight and experience across Requires cross-system working but
by small teams or skilled teams from a variety fields is required, although will high potential for conflict due to
individuals with little of fields. not necessarily ensure multiple perspectives and actors.
conflict. success.

Approach Expertise creates the Although challenging, Highly dynamic problem, Highly contextualised solutions
solution which can be repetition increases chances resistant to predetermined required at multiple levels.
implemented with of implementing solution. solutions which need to be
training. contextualised.

10
Application: Do I have a complexity problem?
We have created a tool based on the original Cake Rocket Child table to help you think about how these four categories of problems apply to your
issue and what kind of approaches might be appropriate.

We have added a row to help you think about not just the overall problem, but also different sub-problems or tasks within that overall issue. Where
do they sit along this simple-wicked scale? Although a problem may fall into the highly complex or wicked category overall, there will likely be
problems within it that have different characteristics and require a different approach.

Becoming complexity literate involves being able to shift modes according to the nature of the problem or situation faced. We have used the
example of Covid-19 to illustrate how the tool works. Even though the issue as a whole was highly complex, different aspects of it fell into different
categories—as shown in the table on the next page.

11
Issue: Covid-19

Simple Complicated Complex Wicked (highly complex)

Problem/ task Administering a vaccine Developing a vaccine Vaccinating a population Preventing the next pandemic
to an individual

Nature of the Standard operating Problem can be approached Unpredictable and uncertain Problem is multi-causal, dynamic,
problem procedure applies using accepted scientific situation, solutions must be fluid: effects of activity hard to
processes contextualised predict or control

Predictability Predictable: follow Known unknowns: Unpredictable—e.g., High degree of uncertainty and
SOPs uncertainty in methodology resistance from different unpredictability in how / where
but sufficient testing and population groups; specific pandemics may emerge
investment ensured result supply chain challenges
hard to predict
Expertise Experts created SOPs Success made possible by Applied insight required Technical expertise crucial but not
that can be followed by high level of technical across multiple fields— sufficient; relational / diplomatic
those without expertise expertise in skilled teams technical and social— in skills needed to establish trust,
response to emerging understand agendas and build
situations shared approach

Approach Create operating Test, trial, monitor, review, Test rollout approaches / Continual sensing across multiple
instructions, train iterate messaging and adapt to social, political and medical
administrators, Repeat until solution found responses of target groups spheres
implement vaccine Use live data to ensure Continually engage with diverse
feedback loop and inform global stakeholders
decision making Establish trusting relationships of
shared interest

12
You can use this blank table to repeat the process for your own issue. This template can also be downloaded in our resources section.

Your Issue:

Simple Complicated Complex Wicked (highly complex)

Problem/ task

Nature of the Standard operating Problem can be approached Unpredictable and uncertain Problem is multi-causal, dynamic,
problem procedure applies using accepted scientific situation, solutions must be fluid: effects of activity hard to
processes contextualised predict or control

Predictability

Expertise

Approach

13
Further reading on ‘Cake Rocket Child’

• Complicated and Complex Systems: What Would Successful Reform of Medicare Look Like? This article by Glouberman and Zimmerman
considers types of problems in relation to US medical care. We believe this is where the original ‘simple, complicated, complex’ typology
appeared.

• Simple, Complicated and Complex Problems. This article by Glouberman and Zimmerman applies the problem typology tool to programme
evaluation. This article explores applying the problem typology tool to programme evaluation.

14
SYSTEMS PRACTICE
A toolkit to help you think, act and work systemically

Section 1: Understand Tool 2: The Complexity Canvas

15
What is the Complexity Canvas and why is it useful?

The first complexity tool in our toolkit, “Cake Rocket Child”, is designed to shed light on the level of complexity within an issue. This tool, the
Complexity Canvas, helps us to think in more detail about how those systems behave and why. It describes five accepted characteristics of
complex systems—Interdependent, Dynamic, Emergent, Non-Linear, and Adaptive—which are based on complexity theory.

Understanding these characteristics helps us see how they show up in the systems we are working with and how they impact on our interventions.
This helps us design and
implement strategies with a more
nuanced understanding of their
potential trajectory within such a
complex environment.

This resource contains a graphic

showing these five
characteristics along with their
descriptions (right), a table
showing how these complexity
characteristics impact on
possible interventions, an
example of the canvas applied to
a criminal justice sector
intervention, and a blank
template of the canvas, in both
graphic and table form, for you to
apply to your own issue.
16
What is a complex system?

Complex systems contain many dynamically interconnected parts. These parts are often themselves complex, thereby multiplying the level of
complexity in the system. For example, the prison system is a highly complex system made up of many complex actors—institutions, individual
prisons, individuals within those prisons—which are in continual, dynamic interaction with each other.

These actors are both autonomous and interdependent. This means that within the system what each part does will affect the others, yet those
parts also operate independently according to their own needs, behaviours, and goals. For example, prison officers, prisoners, and Ministry of
Justice politicians are all part of the prison system, but have their own needs and agendas. This also applies to actors that work within but are
partially separate to those systems, such as the many social sector organisations that work in prisons. What each actor does affects others in
multiple, dynamic ways. This fluid interdependence creates cause and effect relationships that are hard to predict and so require continual
adaptation.

Most social sector interventions will take place in complex systems. They will be affected by the characteristics of those systems, so will need to
understand and respond to how the system works if they are to succeed.

Application

We have created a ‘canvas’ (a simple graphic with space for accompanying text) to help you apply these characteristics to the system and
intervention you are working on. We have provided an example to show how this canvas works, focusing on the criminal justice system and using a
proposed policy of tougher sentencing for minor crimes. We have considered how each of the five characteristics might show up in that system
and how they might impact on the example policy.

We recommend you first read through the table on the following page with definitions and descriptions, then our example canvas. Then you could
use the blank version of the diagram 6 to think about the ways in which these five complexity characteristics show up within a system you are
working with, or how they might impact on the trajectory of a proposed (or current) project or intervention.

17
 There is also a table version of this canvas which some people may find easier to use. Both the canvas and table are available as downloadable
resources from NPC’s Systems Practice Toolkit page.

This table suggests some ways in which each of the five complex systems characteristics might impact upon interventions.

Characteristic Meaning Implications

Interdependent The parts of the system (whether The parts of a system that an intervention is looking to affect will be connected to many
people, policies, beliefs, or behaviours) other parts. These relationships need to be understood. If an intervention is seeking to
are all interlinked with each other. change a situation, it should consider the many other factors connected to that situation.

Dynamic Changes in one element in the system Systems aren’t static, therefore any intervention in that system must have a
lead to change in the parts it is correspondingly dynamic approach. It’s important to be aware of how the part of the
connected to, and then the parts they system you are trying to influence is affected by other changes, and also what changes the
are connected to etc. intervention itself is creating. Social sector organisations are not separate from the system
but a part of it, so what they do will also generate chains of cause and effect. Ignoring
these could lead to unintended consequences.

Emergent Continuous interactions between parts To be effective, social sector organisations should continually sense and respond to new
of the system lead to new system and unexpected shifts in the system, working with what emerges.
behaviours or activities that are hard to
predict.

Non-Linear Change does not follow linear rules of Most social sector organisation interventions will be designed to impact a particular ‘target ’
cause and effect. Effects can be indirect (i.e. an individual or group's behaviour). But many other forces and factors will also be
and disproportionate. impacting that same ‘target’, making it difficult to isolate the impact of one intervention.
Interventions therefore need to think about ‘contribution’ to change rather than attribution
(claiming credit).

18
Adaptive The above characteristics mean that Their adaptive, changing nature makes it very difficult to control or manage these systems
whole systems (not just the parts) will from top-down interventions. There is no single point of entry or control and every action
be continually adapting in response to will produce a plethora of unpredictable reactions. In the words of celebrated systems
changes in the internal and the external theorist, Donella Meadows: “We can’t control systems… but we can dance with them!”
environment.

19
Example: Proposed ‘get tough’ policy of increased sentencing for minor crimes

20
Blank canvas template

21
Table version of canvas

Characteristic How it shows up in your system How it might affect your intervention

Interdependent

Dynamic

Emergent

Non-Linear

Adaptive

22
SYSTEMS PRACTICE
A toolkit to help you think, act and work systemically

Section 1: Understand Tool 3: Iceberg Model

23
What is the Iceberg Model?

Social sector organisations can often feel like they’re just mopping up messes
and/or plugging endless leaks without ever managing to fix the underlying fault in
the plumbing system. There is good reason to attend to the leaks: leaks are
urgent, and not doing so might cause flooding or even drowning. But eventually
the question needs to be asked: what’s wrong with this system that it keeps
leaking?

Figuring that out whilst water is gushing forth and people are at risk of drowning
is extremely challenging. So it is with our social systems.

In social systems, many organisations are focused on helping those in urgent

need. But, without understanding and addressing the deeper structural, systemic
patterns that keep producing these needs, that work will never end.

Unfortunately, the deeper we go into those patterns and structures, the harder it
is to see the connection to (or impact on) the day-to-day events. Models such as
this are designed to help us understand and work with that increased
complexity.

The Iceberg Model is a simple, accessible systems thinking tool which uses the
metaphor of an iceberg to illustrate how the surface-level events we react to are
underpinned by less visible patterns, structures, and beliefs.1 These less visible
structures cause visible events to keep repeating.

1 The original Iceberg Model was developed by Edward Hall in 1976 but applied to culture in organisations. It was then adapted and evolved by systems and management theorists.
24
How it works

The layers of the Iceberg Model are:

• Events: Day-to-day events and situations. These tend to generate a reactive, ‘after the event’ response to ameliorate their effects.
For example, the event may be someone becoming homeless, and the intervention may be to provide food or temporary shelter.

• Patterns: Trends or patterns of related events and situations. Continuing with the above example, the ‘patterns’ here would be increasing
rates of homelessness. Intervention at this level might be a larger scale programme such as increasing available accommodation for people
experiencing homelessness.

• Structures: The ways that a system works which keep producing the trends or patterns, such as policies, processes, and practices.
For the homelessness example, these may be policies that have reduced social housing or tenant security and rights. Interventions at this
level would include policy change.

• Mental models: The shared beliefs, mindsets, attitudes, and values that created the system and how it operates. Some mental models
relating to homelessness might include, for example, the beliefs that sleeping rough is a “lifestyle choice”. Interventions here seek to change
attitudes and societal behaviours.

Why is it useful

The Iceberg Model is a simple tool to help you start to analyse your system. Some of its benefits and uses include:

• Accessibility: The iceberg is an easily understood metaphor that can provide a way in to thinking about the underlying factors in your
system. Its visual nature offers the opportunity to map these factors on a flip chart or digital canvas.

• Surfacing: We recommend using the Iceberg Model within a group exercise, bringing different perspectives on the system together to
surface some of those underlying patterns and structures. In doing so, you can increase shared visibility of what may not be visible to all.

25
 • Leverage: You can use the right-hand side of the model to consider what level a current or proposed intervention is working at, and therefore
what kind of ‘leverage’ (potential impact) it might have in the system. Is it reacting to events, anticipating/preventing patterns, designing
alternative structures, or transforming how we think about and respond to an issue? How could it intervene at a deeper level?

• Focus on mental models: Possibly the most important element of the Iceberg Model is its emphasis on understanding the ‘mental models’
at the foundation of all our social systems. Real transformation is impossible without changing the mental models which created the system in
its current form, as emphasised in the quote below. Changing systems means changing how we think about those systems.

What are its limitations?

There is a famous quote (by statistician, George Box), which says: “All models are wrong, some are “If a factory is torn down but the
useful.” Models are abstractions designed to help us understand and work with a more complex reality. rationality which produced it is
But they are not reality, and each has its limitations. The Iceberg Model’s limitations include: left standing, then that
rationality will simply produce
• Over-simplicity: The iceberg’s strength is also its weakness. It works as an entry point for thinking
another factory. If a revolution
about systems and surfacing underlying issues. It is too simplistic to provide a thorough analysis on
destroys a government but the
a system that might lead to more comprehensive strategies. We therefore suggest using it as an
systematic patterns of thought
initial brainstorm to start thinking about your system and perhaps kick-off a deeper analysis of that
that produced that government
system.
are left intact, then those
• Subjectivity: What is invisible or obscured to some may be quite visible to others. For example, patterns will repeat
people experiencing homelessness are likely to have a better understanding of the underlying themselves.”
patterns and structures—and the mental models underpinning them—than people who have not.
Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art
We therefore recommend involving people with lived experience of the system in your analysis.
of Motorcycle Maintenance

26
Application

We have provided an example, on the next page, of the Iceberg Model applied to reoffending cycles in the criminal justice system. The data and
information is taken from NPC’s systems analysis and report on this issue.

This is a summary version due to space limitations. We have included suggestions of an intervention for each level.

We have provided a blank template on the following page. This is available as a downloadable template from the Systems Practice Toolkit
webpage. You could print a larger version of this blank version and use post-its to brainstorm at each level, working your way from top to bottom.
You could also import it to an online canvas for a virtual workshop.

Another use of the iceberg model is to think about how you might build better systems. With this approach, you can start by imagining the surface
level events you want to see, then work out what patterns and trends you would observe; what structures would be needed to produce those
patterns and events, and what mental models (shared beliefs) the new system would need to be built upon.

27
Example of the Iceberg Systems Thinking Model: Criminal Justice System

28
The Iceberg Systems Thinking Model: blank template for you to use

29
SYSTEMS PRACTICE
A toolkit to help you think, act and work systemically

Section 2: Design Tool 4: Systems Mapping

30
Toolkit section 2: Design

This section of the toolkit includes tools to help analyse your system and design interventions. There are many tools to support the more detailed
process of designing interventions, from Design Thinking to Theory of Change. These are not currently covered in our toolkit. However, NPC’s
website contains extensive information and guidance on Theory of Change, and we recommend the Acumen courses on Design Thinking.

What is systems mapping?

Systems mapping is a process for both analysing how a system works and
generating ideas for intervention in that system. It therefore bridges both the
‘Understand’ and ‘Design’ phases and could be used at either stage.

Systems mapping analyses the parts of a system and the relationships between
them. There are broadly two types of maps: actor maps and factor maps. Actor
maps generally map the people or organisations within a system. Stakeholder
maps fall into this category. Factor maps analyse the causes and effects around
a situation or issue – such as policies, processes, behaviours, and beliefs.

In this toolkit section we cover three factor mapping tools. These begin at the
simpler end of the scale and progress in technical complexity. They can either
be used separately or in sequence as you develop your map. The three types
are:

1. Cluster diagrams

2. Multiple cause diagrams

3. Causal loop diagrams.

31
Examples: Section of NPC systems map on hygiene poverty (above) and NPC systems map on reoffending (below)

32
Uses and benefits of mapping

Systems mapping can help you understand the dynamics and behaviours of a system and identify opportunities for change. This can be useful
when feeding into a strategy or theory of change, as it roots your plan in a systemic view. Systems mapping offers:

• A structured way of developing a systemic view of your issue / situation. Understanding complex systemic factors can be challenging.
Visually representing information about the system, its parts and their connections can help better conceptualise that system and how it works.

• A process to convene around. It provides a focal point for bringing together people from different parts of a system to share their perspectives
and experiences—perhaps of what is and what isn’t working—and develop a shared understanding and more complete picture than you would
have got analysing the system alone. From there, it can build participation in a broader collaborative process, creating new relationships and
partnership opportunities. In this sense, the process is often as important as the product.

• A way for people to engage with a complex issue. People are often attracted to visual models and outputs more than reports—they can be
an engaging way to explain an issue. Some systems mapping tools are particularly designed for this purpose (see Mapping Tool 2).

• Provide insight for strategy and action. This is the most important function. In fact, analysis is only as useful as the insight and action that it
produces. Systems mapping helps identify new opportunities to intervene. If the process has been done well, these should offer potential for
systemic change (see Leverage Points section).

Limitations of mapping

As with the Iceberg Model (Tool 2), systems maps are a simplification of reality and it’s important to bear in mind their limitations.

• Systems maps are subjective: they are built from the perspectives of contributors, so it’s important to include a diverse range of
perspectives as possible in your process.

• Mapping can risk generalising people’s experiences. Although there may be patterns in people’s experiences of a system, there will
also be differences. For example, different racial groups experience systems such as the courts, prisons, or even health systems quite
differently. It’s therefore important to find ways of representing this diversity of experience in your mapping process.

33
Mapping Tool 1: Cluster Diagrams

Our first mapping tool, the cluster diagram (also known as a spray diagram), is similar to a
mind map. It is a good entry point to creating factor maps.

Cluster diagrams help you quickly explore the broad factors surrounding an issue and
create connections between them.

Beginning with a description of your topic in the centre of the map, you can carry out a short
brainstorming exercise to map out connections, causes, and consequences surrounding the
issue. It may end up looking like the image on the right.

How to use a cluster diagram Cluster Diagram. Disruptive Design

This tool is best used as a quick exploration of an issue, either as a solo brainstorming or in a small group exercise. It can be used to surface the
range of factors that are connected to the issue, and the ways they’re connected to each other. Essentially you’re exploring the root causes of a
situation or problem by repeating the question ‘Why?’.

• To start with, we recommend using sticky notes that can be moved and grouped. This can also be done with digital whiteboards.

• Working outwards from your central topic, jot down a few primary causal factors that you think directly contribute to the situation. Take one
of those factors and continue outwards again, describing other factors that in turn contribute to that situation.

• Once you have mapped a few factors along a branch, return to another one of your primary factors and repeat the process.

• After you have completed a few of these branches, you might want to cluster factors together that relate to each other.

• Finally look at how factors connect horizontally across the branches as well as vertically to the central topic.

This process should help you to explore the various chains of causal relationships around an issue. Each time you think of a cause, ask yourself,
‘And what’s causing that?’, and then ‘what’s causing that?’, and so on.
34
Application

We have provided an example cluster diagram to show

how the process works. Two of the branches have been
developed (from the primary nodes highlighted), with
chains of causal factors explored along each. We have
also started to link a few factors across branches. Three
branches are still to explored. You could print out the
diagram and have a go at completing it.

35
Here is a blank template (downloadable from our resources section) if you wish to create a cluster diagram from scratch for your own issue.

36
Mapping Tool 2: Multiple cause diagrams

Multiple cause diagrams can build on your cluster diagram to create a narrative about the systemic causes of your problem.

While the cluster diagram uses one or two words to describe broad factors, factors in multiple cause diagrams tend to be more detailed and use
arrows to show how they are connected.

The example below shows the interplay of factors behind the failure of a of a ‘get tough’ policy on sick leave at work. (Source)

37
When to use a multiple cause diagram

Multiple cause diagrams provide an overview of the connections and causes in a system. They are often used externally to share a summary of a
systems analysis.

They are good for telling a story about your issue and are more accessible than some of the more technical systems maps, although will inevitably
lack the detailed analysis.

We recommend starting with a cluster diagram and then using the multiple cause diagram to create a clearer narrative from it.

How to create a multiple cause diagram

To create your multiple cause diagram:

• Take your previous cluster diagram and select the components that you think have particularly strong causal relationships or are especially
relevant to your analysis or intervention.

• If you are telling a story externally, you need data to back it up. Following your brainstorming for the cluster diagram, use research and
evidence to verify your initial assumptions about causal factors. You might want to use a mixture of quantitative data (statistics) and qualitative
data (interviews, workshops) data.

• Convert the relevant factors in your cluster diagram to more detailed descriptions. For example, ‘people use their cars more’ rather than just
‘traffic’.

• Use arrows to illustrate the direction of causation to show how these situations influence each other.

38
Mapping Tool 3: Causal loop diagrams

Causal loop diagrams are the most technical of our factor maps. As with multiple cause diagrams, they map the factors in a system and the causal
relationships between those factors.

They also analyse how those relationships create certain behaviours in the system, such as feedback loops. They are based on a methodology
known as ‘Systems Dynamic’, popularised by systems thinker, Donella Meadows.

Some of the core concepts in this methodology include:

• Stocks: Stocks are the parts of the system, which might increase or decrease in quantity. For example, in a health system, stocks could be
healthy people, doctors, or money.

• Flows: Flows are the connections, or relationships, between the stocks. These determine whether a stock increases or decreases.

A causal loop analysis in the health system, for example, might be interested in how to increase stocks of healthy people through their
connection with other parts of the system, such as social housing, green spaces etc. Arrows between these parts are usually labelled either +
or - to indicate a positive or negative link.

These ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ relationships indicate whether an increase in one stock causes an increase in the other (positively linked) or a
decrease (negatively linked). It doesn’t make a judgement as to whether that change is good or bad.

For example, increasing tree stocks leads to a decrease in carbon and would therefore be referred to as a negative correlation (even though it’s
undeniably a good thing), whereas increasing fossil fuel emissions causes an increase in carbon and would therefore be referred to a positive
link (despite it definitely not being a good thing).

• Feedback loops: Each part of a system has causal relationships with other parts in the system. This complex and sprawling network of
relationships eventually means that ‘output from one part will eventually influence input to that same part’. This is known as a feedback loop.

39
Feedback loops can either be ‘balancing’ which maintain stocks in their current state,
or ‘reinforcing’ which occur when system behaviours become self-perpetuating.
Reinforcing loops can become ‘vicious cycles’ in a system, such as debt cycles or
generational poverty.

The diagram on the right, taken from NPC’s systems map of reoffending cycles in the
criminal justice system describes a reinforcing loop in which ‘tough on crime’ policies
fuel support for punitive sentencing, which further stigmatises offenders, which
encourages further ‘tough on crime’ policies, and so on. These kinds of loops can be
hard to break.

Working with loops

Feedback loops happen in systems by themselves, but they can also be used to influence the quantity of stocks in a system to get a particular
outcome.

In NPC’s systems mapping workshops, we use the example of depopulation on the island of Sardinia, where Italy’s low birth rate problem has
become even more accentuated. As fewer children are born, there are fewer services such as maternity facilities or age-specific classes in
schools. This reduction in services further decreases the incentive to have children on the island, creating a reinforcing loop – or vicious cycle.

Similarly, with fewer young people, there are fewer businesses such as bars, restaurants, etc. This further disincentivizes young people to
stay, further damaging the economy, and so the cycle continues. To create balancing inputs in this otherwise runaway cycle, the government
have recently been investing in more maternity services, and even offering financial incentives for people to remove to rural areas on the
island. This shows how policy can be used to work with loops in complex systems. As it’s hard to know how the system will respond, policy
implementation should be done on a ‘test and learn’ basis.

40
How to make a causal loop diagram
Causal loop diagrams are more technical and resource-intensive than multiple cause and cluster diagrams, but they offer a more in-depth analysis
of the system and can help identify areas for intervention that could lead to systemic change. Because of their more technical nature, it can be
helpful to get specialist support to produce a causal loop map.

The process of making a causal loop map broadly consists of four stages: Set-Up, Research, Build, and Analyse.

Stage 1: Set Up

• Define the purpose: Spend time upfront to ensure you have clarity of purpose for your map. How do you want it to be used, and by whom? Is
it for internal or external purposes, or both? Is it just to get a better understanding of the system or to inform a strategy? How will you present
and share the insights? These questions will determine what kind of map you develop, the process you use, and how you present it.

• Define the boundaries: Systems are amorphous and interconnected. The health system is connected to the housing system, the financial
system, and so on. It’s therefore important to set a boundary around your map, to avoid it becoming impossible to manage.

Setting a boundary doesn’t make your analysis blind to the factors outside the boundary but it provides focus, without which you will struggle to
create a map that is useful and navigable. Where you set your boundary will depend largely on the scope of your analysis, which may come
from your sphere of influence.

Which specific aspect of the system are you most interested in? The health system in its entirety? Or just the medical equipment supply system
or the system of support for junior doctors? What is within your potential sphere of influence?

41
• Set the output: Causal loop diagrams work best when they are
focused on analysing factors contributing to a specific output.
Without that, the mapping can lack focus and risk being quite
generic.

For example, if conducting a causal loop map of the health system,

the output you build it around might be ‘healthy people’ or ‘junior
doctor resignations’ and your map might illustrate the system factors
contributing to improved population health, or to low junior doctor
retention.

The image to the right shows a section of NPC’s causal loop diagram
on reoffending cycles.

The ‘output’ of this systems map, shown in the red circle, is the
likelihood of reoffending post-release. The map then explores the
factors contributing to that. Being clear on the output will help identify
opportunities for interventions that might affect that output.

42
Stage 2: Research

• Gather data: As with any analysis tool, maps should draw on a range of inputs. NPC typically include literature/ evidence reviews, interviews,
and workshops within those inputs. This will give your maps greater rigour and prevent them being too subjective. In your interviews and
workshops, you should draw on diverse perspectives from across the system. For example, you should speak to stakeholders working in
different parts of the current system, as no one actor can see the whole system. In the online version of our reoffending cycles map, each
element of the map (each circle) is referenced with source data, which users can see by clicking on that element.

• Centre the user: It’s surprising how many systems analyses forget about the people that a system is often designed for: the end users. Your
analysis should place the user at the centre, to ensure that any subsequent intervention or systems change strategy is designed for them, not
for the system. This means bringing users into your analysis through interviews, workshops, or both. In the health system examples, users
could be patients or the junior doctors.

• Identify contributory factors: From your research, pull out the factors which your sources suggest contribute to the output.

Stage 3: Build

• Create elements: Using a mapping/ diagramming application (such as Kumu), create elements (or nodes) for each contributory factor. These
are the stocks in your system.

Remember that in this methodology you’re analysing the system in terms of stocks and flows, which can be increased or decreased according
to inputs and levers, so use neutral language in your elements. Think of the system as sets of behaviours rather than problems.

So instead of ‘a lack of medical equipment’, an element might say ‘supply of medical equipment’, enabling you to then analyse the things that
increase or decrease the presence of that ‘stock’.

• Connect: Link your elements according to their causal relationships. Don’t connect everything to everything, or the map will come to resemble
a spider’s web and be hard to navigate.

43
 Instead, focus on primary connections—i.e., the elements
that each element is most directly connected to. Use +/- to
indicate whether the connection is positively or negatively
linked.

• Organise and iterate: As you progress, you will need to

organise, cluster, and structure the elements to ensure the
map is coherent and readable. It’s best to share early
versions with stakeholders and iterate together. There are
seven sections in our criminal justice map, each colour coded
and clickable to zoom into that section.

Stage 4: Analyse

• Add loops: It’s likely that some feedback loops came up in

the research and building stages. For example, economic
cycles such as debt or poverty, or behavioural cycles such as
addiction or violence.

You might notice more as you analyse the map. Mark these
on your map and give them a summary label.

It may be that there are loops within loops, as in the example on the right, taken from NPC’s hygiene poverty systems map (created for hygiene
charity, In Kind Direct).

It shows a loop of self-reinforcing factors affecting hygiene and a sub-loop within that which describes a vicious cycle of isolation.

• Leverage points: Once your map is edited and refined, it’s time to look for leverage points.

44
These are the places in the system which offer the greatest potential for systemic change: points where ‘leverage’ can be strategically applied
to maximise impact across the system.

For example, in our reoffending cycles map, coordination between agencies was identified as a leverage point as it is a key transition point
between parts of the system.

Increasing this factor would lead to increases in two downstream factors highlighted by prison leavers as critical in reducing the likelihood of
reoffending.

This leverage point is shown in the graphic of the map section below, with a blue circle around the relevant element.

Some places to look for leverage in your system include:

o User experience: Which factors do your system users point to (in interviews and workshops) as having had particularly significant
influence in the outcomes you're looking at?

45
 o Convergence points: Elements that lots of factors
link to in your map. Logically, affecting change in
that element will therefore have knock-on effects
on a range of other elements.

o Upstream: Upstream factors refer to those that

are higher up the chain of causation. Another
commonly used metaphor for this is root causes.
In your map, this means looking for those more
structural factors which other factors stem from.

o Transitions: Transition points between different

systems are often weak points. Strengthening
those transition points – helping systems
interconnect more smoothly – can improve
outcomes. Returning to our criminal justice
example, the transition between prison and
probation is a time of particular vulnerability as the
two systems don’t always connect well with each
other. This is therefore a critical intervention point to reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

Stage 5: Share

• Write a narrative: It is generally helpful to provide a written summary to accompany your map. This can pull out the key elements of your
analysis and your proposed leverage points. Some mapping platforms have built in presentation tools to make this easier.

46
Getting started

The best way to learn mapping is to map—just have a go! You can start with simple, paper-based sketches before moving on to more technical
diagrams. For simple maps, you can even use desktop applications such as PowerPoint. Some more advanced online mapping tools include:

• Kumu: A specialist system mapping app for stakeholder maps or different kinds of factor maps. Free for public maps, paid for private maps.

• Miro: Although primarily an online whiteboard, is has useful templates for systems maps and is good for using in online workshops to start to
build out diagrams and maps in a group. You could then migrate it to other platforms afterwards.

47
Systems analysis questions

Although the visual output is a useful way to understand the system, and can offer a focal point for a group process, systems analysis can also be
done without the graphic component. This offers an alternative approach for those with visual impairments or simply for those who prefer words to
visuals. In this process, you can work through questions such as those suggested below to help analyse your system.

These questions can also be used within a visual mapping process.

Defining the issue and system

• What’s the issue / situation you are concerned with?
• What system or systems are relevant to this problem?
• What other systems are connected / most relevant?
• Which of these systems are within your potential sphere of influence?
• Where should we draw the boundary to make sure your map is covering the right issues but is manageable in size and scope? Would it be
helpful to set boundaries according to local geography, subsystems or other thematic focuses?
• What is the focal point of your system? This may be the core issue you are targeting or a particular outcome you want the system to produce.

User experiences
• Who are the users at the centre of this system? Can you plot some of their journeys / pathways through it?
• How do users experience the system? What are the factors that influence those experiences?

People, power, roles

• How and where is power (access to resource and agency) held and exercised in the system?
• Who is the system working for and who is it not working for?

Causes and effects

• What are some of the direct/ immediate causes of the situation? What are the causes of those causes—and of those? (Brainstorm to surface
the range of causes—think about personal, social, cultural, environmental, political, economic, etc.)
48
• How do these causal factors connect and interact with each other?
• How do effects of these causes then then cause other situations?
• Do any of these produce ‘reinforcing loops’ (vicious cycles) which contribute to the system continuing to produce the outcomes that you want to
change?

Systemic patterns and behaviours

• Which of these factors are particularly entrenched / structural? What has entrenched them?
• Where are the barriers and blockers that prevent the system from working in the way you would like it to?
• What maintains the system as it is? Are there persistent cycles within it that are especially hard to shift? What are they?

Interventions and outcomes

• What kinds of interventions are common in this system?
• What have been some unintended consequences of previous interventions? What can you learn from those?
• Where are there concentrations / duplications of efforts? Where are the gaps?

Leverage points
• Which areas of the system offer promising opportunities for systemic impact? These may be ‘upstream’ areas which influence what happens
elsewhere in the system. They may be places where lots of issues converge, or where there are particular points of vulnerability for people.
• Where are the opportunities for preventative intervention, which could stop problems from becoming crises.
• Are there any coordinated, cross-system movements for change that you can support/ align to? Where?
• Where is the energy for change? Where are there promising innovations that you think could lead to systemic change?

49
SYSTEMS PRACTICE
A toolkit to help you think, act and work systemically

Section 2: Design Tool 5: Three Horizons Framework

50
What is the Three Horizons Framework?
Three Horizons (3H), originally developed by futurist Bill Sharpe, is a framework for creating a shared vision of a new system and a plan for moving
towards it.

It is a simple and effective tool that lets you and your stakeholders move
away from focusing on current problems and instead envisage the
system you want to build, before then considering what may be needed
to bring about that new system.

Each of the three horizons, plotted on a graph like the image on the
right, represents a different phase in the lifespan of a system.

• Horizon 1 (H1) represents the current system, or the paradigm of

‘business as usual’.

• Horizon 2 (H2) represents innovations which, if appropriately

developed, can help bring about a different system.

• Horizon 3 (H3) represents the desired future system.

These horizons are not sequential. We can be dealing with elements of

each simultaneously. For example, at a global level, we live within a consumer capitalist system based on natural resource extraction (H1).
However, within that system, there are those envisaging different systems (H3)—such as communities trying to live “off-grid” according to principles
of ecological sustainability. There are innovations now that can help move towards those new systems, e.g. permaculture (H2).

The Three Horizons framework is designed to help you and your stakeholders conceptualise these phases, and in doing so plot a path towards
changing your systems.
51
Benefits and uses of Three Horizons

Three Horizons is a useful tool for teams and stakeholders seeking to bring about different ways of working over the long-term. It helps you to plot
out where you are, where you want to get to, and how to move between these two places.

For example, the case study below describes how teams of health practitioners in Scotland used Three Horizons to help them change their system
of elderly health care over a period of 10 years. The framework offers the following benefits:

• Accessible: Part of the appeal of Three Horizons is its simplicity. It is fairly easy to understand and
“3H encourages you to look
doesn’t require technical knowledge; although it can be helpful to get an experienced Three Horizons
in both directions. We must
facilitator to help manage the process, particularly if it involves external stakeholders.
be hospice workers for the

• Collaborative: It provides a focal point around which you can convene stakeholders to envisage new dying culture and midwives

systems together, which can be motivating and energising, before then considering the practical steps for the new. Most tools

you make take together towards creating that change. encourage the latter and
ignore the former. 3H
• Pragmatic: Three Horizons does not demonise the current system. It emphasises that elements of any encourages both.”
current system (H1) will be needed in any new system and encourages users to think about which
elements of H1 are ’luggage’ (the things they want to take with them) and which are ‘baggage’ (the things Graham Leicester, International
Futures Forum
they want to leave behind).

Limitations

Three Horizons is best used when setting your vision, although it can then be referred back to throughout your subsequent implementation
process. It is a preliminary design tool rather than a detailed planning tool, so it’s best to combine it with a tool such as Theory of Change which
can take the emerging ideas through a more granular process.

52
 Case Study: SHINE, Fife

In 2001 in Fife, Scotland, a group of health practitioners, facing a system of elderly health care unable to cope with winter pressures, convened
to envisage what a different system for structuring and delivering care might look like.

The group used Three Horizons to map the landscape and explore alternatives. They explored H3 and sought examples of an aspirational
future system already in existence. This led them to the Nuka healthcare system in Alaska, based on indigenous models of community care. The
team visited and got to know the Nuka leaders, using their system as inspiration for their own transformation process. They explored the
differences in approach and underlying values between their H1 and the desired H3, and devised a series of success paths to get the ‘best of
both worlds’, introducing the new in the presence of the old. These pathways became the basis for their H2 and formed the overall design of the
SHINE project

SHINE focused on a shift in culture, building strong, one-to-one relationships with patients, understanding their interests and goals. They moved
from an approach of ‘what’s the matter with you’ to ‘what matters to you?’ and acted on the answers they received. Requests could be as
simple as returning to things they had done before they got ill, such as going to the bowling club. Health professionals worked alongside patients,
families, neighbours and local activity providers to find ways of helping patients achieve their goals. Alongside clinical care, their role was to
support overall wellness, focusing on helping people to ‘thrive, not just survive’, which depends on feeling connected, purposeful and engaged.

SHINE had a small innovation grant to start their pilot and had only worked with six people with their new model after a year. Despite the risk of
losing funding with such low numbers, the team—a cross-sector group of practitioners—believed in the approach. They had been encouraged
with the results in those few cases and understood the long-term nature of the process. In the following years, they worked with dozens, and
then hundreds, and then thousands of people. Within six years they had worked with over 30,000 patients using this new model of care. As they
had envisaged in their early 3H process, their new approach had become the standard approach for healthcare in Fife: H3 had become H1.

• Evaluations of the project showed its extraordinary impact, leading to local and national recognition. It has seeded and inspired many similar
initiatives and spread to other areas of clinical practice. Three Horizons played a key role in helping this transformation process.

53
Application

You can use the Three Horizons template graphic below, or the table version on the following page, to apply the 3H framework to the issue you are
working with. These templates can be downloaded in our Systems Practice Toolkit resources area.

We recommend conducting this exercise in group sessions. If doing this in-person, you may want to print or draw a large paper version of this
diagram and allow participants to add post-its under each section. Alternatively, you could use online whiteboard software and import the graphic.

In your process, consider these five elements of the H1 to H3 transition: Three voices exercise

1. Present concerns (baggage) - H1: What are the signs that the current system is When doing a Three Horizons process, people tend
no longer fit for the present. What should we leave behind? to gravitate towards the third horizon—the new

2. Desired system - H3: What would you like the system to look and feel like? system, and the role and value of H1 and H2 can be
missed. Three Horizons emphasises that all the
3. Inspiring examples - H3: Where are these hoped-for features already happening,
horizons are needed in the transition to new systems.
even if only on a small scale, within or outside the current system?
Doing a ‘Three Voices’ exercise can help balance this
4. Promising innovations - H2: What innovations are already contributing to system
out. Once you have defined your 3H vision,
transition by creating the conditions for H3 to grow? What are you or others doing
participants role-play characters in each horizon. For
that is helping with this system transition? What's missing?
example, a H1 character may might be a current
NB: Most innovations are just prolonging existing systems, perhaps by improving business manager; H2 might be an innovator with a
efficiency. These are referred to as ‘H2-’ (H2 minus), while innovations that are new concept. Inhabiting these roles helps participants
helping usher in a new system are H2+. For example, innovations that make understand and draw out the value of each horizon. It
industrial farming more efficient but further damage ecosystems are H2-, while also helps them engage better with individuals in the
sustainable agriculture innovations supporting greater biodiversity would be H2+. real world whose current affiliation is to other
horizons.
5. Enduring features (luggage) - H1: What should we retain from the current system
as we move into the future? See this page on Leaders Quest for further info.
54
The Three Horizons Framework (diagram adapted from International Futures Forum)

55
Application table

Stage Questions Response

Present concerns What are the signs that the current system
(baggage) - H1 is no longer fit for the present? What
should we leave behind?
Desired system - What would you like the system to look
H3 and feel like?

Inspiring examples Where are these hoped-for features

- H3 already happening, even if only on a small
scale, within or outside the current
system?

Promising What innovations are already contributing

innovations - H2+ to system transition by creating the
conditions for H3 to grow? What are you
or others doing that is helping with this
system transition? What's missing?

Enduring features What should we retain from the current

(luggage) - H1 system as we move into the future?

56
Further reading

• H3Uni – Three Horizons: https://h3uni.org/tutorial/three-horizons/

• IFF Three Horizons Resources: https://www.iffpraxis.com/3h-resources

• Three Voices, Leaders Quest: https://leadersquest.org/three-horizons-three-voices/

• IFF Transformative Innovation Resources: https://www.iffpraxis.com

• Short article on Shine programme: https://medium.com/@britishholistic/the-fife-shine-programme-49751695769f

• Full Shine case study https://www.iffpraxis.com/tih-shine-case-study `

Thanks to International Futures Forum for sharing their inspiring work and supporting us to develop this resource.

57
SYSTEMS PRACTICE
A toolkit to help you think, act and work systemically

Section 3: Act Tool 6: Spheres of Systems Change

58
What is the Spheres of Systems Change Model?
The Spheres of Systems Change model illustrates different dimensions of change within a system (the spheres) and how changes dynamically
interact across those dimensions. It encourages you to be aware of cause and effect relationships within and between each of the spheres,
responding and adapting to those changes as you move through them.

Figure 1: Spheres of Systems Change

Model 59
How it works

Our Spheres of Systems Change model sets out 8 spheres in which change needs to
happen for that change to become systemic.
The model draws on and expands another model, Bronfenbrenner’s socio-ecological
systems model (right), which describes the ways that different systems interact on a child’s
life to influence their development.
This version has five levels, but other versions simplify this to three2:

• Micro level: individual and family

• Meso level: local community and institutions
• Macro level: wider society and culture

As illustrated by the arrows in the diagram, these systems interact with and influence each
other.

Our Spheres of Systems Change model takes this concept of interacting systems at different
levels and applies it to the process of managing systemic change.

We have expanded the three micro / meso / macro levels to eight spheres, which represent different dimensions of change: Internal, Behavioural;
Relational; Organisational; Collective; Infrastructural; Political; Societal. Each of these spheres is explained in more detail below.

2 In Bronfenbrenner’s original model, ‘exosystem’ refers to culture, mass media, societal behaviours, and the ‘macrosystem’ refers to policies. Other versions of the model combine
this exosystem dimension with the macrosystem, which we have also done in the interests of simplicity.

60
Although Bronfenbrenner’s model was created to understand influences on a child’s development, the principles of the model do not only apply to
children. They describe how individuals are shaped and changed by a range of influences—from familial to societal, and how those levels interact
with each other. These concepts are fundamental to understanding how change in systems happens.

At the centre of Bronfenbrenner’s model is the individual. In our model, the starting point is the person—you—initiating a change process. Around
you are the spheres, or dimensions, that will be involved and affected by that change process.

We are all in a continual cause-effect relationship with the systems around us—whether local, organisational or societal. We are affected by them,
and we affect them—especially if we are seeking to bring about change.

The model emphasises that change in complex systems is a dynamic and two-way process: changes in one area leads to changes in another,
which then cause further changes in adjacent ones, and back again.

These concepts echo the core characteristics of complex systems, explored in Tools 1 and 2, such as interdependence and unpredictability. The
model encourages you to be aware of each of these spheres within your change process, and to continually sense and adapt to interacting
changes within them as your process unfolds.

The levels & the spheres

This section describes in further detail the eight spheres of systems change and the levels they sit within.

Micro level

Our model starts with the micro level. Systems change tends to focus on the outer levels—the meso and the macro—and undervalue the micro.

We tend to think of both systems and change as external to ourselves, as something we are trying to do to or for a group of people. Through this
toolkit, we have sought to emphasise that we ourselves—and our organisations—are the first spheres of that change.

61
Indeed, NPC’s 2018 publication on systems change begins in Chapter 1 (‘Know Yourself’) with a similar call to ‘turn the mirror on ourselves’:
emphasising that seeking change in others without considering and changing our own behaviour is unlikely to be successful.

1. Internal: If our ability to affect change in others starts within ourselves, then the first sphere to consider is the internal sphere. As one
organisational leader, Bill O’Brien, CEO of Hanover Insurance, said about leading change: ‘The success of an intervention depends on
the interior condition of the intervener.’ (Source)

In other words, the success of our actions as changemakers depends not on what we do but how we do it, and this starts from how we are
internally.

This includes our ‘mental models’ 3, which were explored in the Iceberg Model section of our toolkit. These are the assumptions, stories, beliefs,
mindsets that determine how we observe, judge and interact with the world. It is also includes our psycho-emotional make-up; how we feel,
process, react. It includes how we respond to external events, which further affects our ‘interior condition’. Systems practice means being
aware of this internal / external change dynamic and becoming skilful at managing it.

2. Behavioural: Our internal condition is expressed by our external behaviour and actions. How people experience us will have a huge influence
on any potential change we are asking of them. This sphere invites us to be aware of how our own behaviour aligns with the behaviour we want
from the system as a whole.

If we want, for example, a more compassionate and fair system, how well are we embodying those traits ourselves? If we think greater
collaboration is needed within the system, how open and collaborative is our own behaviour and actions?

3. Relational: Systems change is often described as ‘relational practice’. All social change processes ultimately come down to asking, inviting or
encouraging other people to do something different to what they’re currently doing: whether that’s different policies, behaviours, actions.
Systems change means doing that across a whole system.

3 Peter Senge, Fifth Discipline, 1992

62
 Relationships are the channels through which those changes are proposed, encouraged or facilitated. The better the relationships, the higher
the chance of change occurring. Relationships are also a central part of the culture (shared behaviour) within a system, and people’s
experience of those systems is often determined by the quality of the relationships within them.

For example, in NPC’s systems analysis of reoffending cycles, people who had been in prison spoke of the impact that relationships with prison
officers (whether good or bad) had on their experience. Similarly, people’s experiences of social services or government systems can be either
bureaucratic or compassionate, which is in part determined by how relationships are conducted in the system. This will strongly influence
people’s engagement with that system and subsequent outcomes.

Bringing about change at a system level requires partnerships, collaborations and movement building, which are built on relationships. We
recommend the work of The Relationships Project to further explore the role of relationships in social change.

4. Organisational: Organisations are the primary mechanism through which people come together around shared goals and so are a critical
dimension of change. In this sphere, we include organisations of all sectors and types, including community groups and informal associations.

There is a clear relationship between the internal, behavioural and organisational spheres: organisational behaviour tends to reflect the shared
behaviours, beliefs and mental models of their members, and particularly of their leaders, so your own organisational behaviour should reflect
any system change you want to see. For example, a children’s charity advocating for childcare policy change to make it easier for parents to
work must also ensure their own employment policies and practices are parent friendly.

Meso level

The middle ‘meso’ level sits between the micro (local) level and the macro (societal) levels. It is what social theorist, Frank Geels, refers to as ‘the
regime: the combination of institutions, technologies, markets and organisations that give [the] system its structure’. If the macro level sets the
operating parameters for the system, the meso level is where it actually operates. It is the ‘engine room of the system’.

Any systemic change strategy must therefore consider the changes needed at the meso level, and how the other levels interact with them.

63
The diagram on the right, taken from the International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, is
an example of the macro, meso and micro levels applied to
systems of mental health intervention.

The meso level is the most complex and will include many
different kinds of agencies and entities. Our model
separates the meso level into two spheres, collective and
infrastructural.

5. Collective: This is the sphere in which your change

initiative moves beyond the organisational. It could
involve communities, whether geographic or thematic,
or any collaborative work across organisations, such as
partnerships, alliances or movements.

Affecting change at this level will require any

protagonist organisations/ actors to align around
shared goals and build effective shared working
cultures. This is likely to involve change at the micro
levels.

6. Infrastructural: This refers to structures of the system such as umbrella bodies, regulatory regimes and public institutions. There is a two-way
relationship of change between the infrastructure and the collective sphere.

For example, infrastructure bodies such as the Care Quality Commission regulate mental health services which influence how groups of
organisations deliver services. In the other direction, changes can be brought about in schools by parent groups mobilising for change or in
hospitals by coordinated action from patient groups.
64
 There is also a two-way relationship between the infrastructural sphere and policy (which sits at the macro level). Umbrella bodies might
achieve policy change through campaigns, while national policies set regulatory parameters that such institutions have a role in implementing.

Macro level

The macro level includes the broadest, societal spheres. Our model contains two that are particularly relevant for social change initiatives: the
political and the cultural.

7. Political: This does not mean party political but refers to anything pertaining to policies: the national, regional or local level policies that set the
parameters for what can happen in a system.

Most systemic change initiatives will eventually interact with policy: whether policies determining how resources are allocated for services, how
much social housing can be built, or how courts sentence convicted individuals.

8. Cultural: This sphere refers to culture at the societal, rather than, for example, the organisational level. Shared societal beliefs, values,
behaviours are at the heart of many of our systems and have cascading influence across all other spheres in the system, from policies to
personal behaviour.

For example, our NHS system is built on the shared belief in free healthcare at the point of use. If that belief were to change, then that would
likely lead to wholesale change across the entire health system.

This cultural sphere is particularly important for initiatives that target behaviour change at a population level, for example reducing alcohol
harms or promoting volunteering.

65
Example situation: how internal mindsets can block systemic change

This scenario illustrates how achieving systemic change involves a complex chain of cause and effect across multiple spheres.

An organisational leader is part of a third sector collaboration advocating for national policy change. This collaboration involves working with
organisations that have historically been competitors. The leader knows that ‘speaking with one voice’ is key to achieving political change.
However, he is reluctant to trust these partners, who he sees as competitors and with whom there has historically been disagreements.

He is holding firmly to his own strategies, which he perceives are important for his organisational positioning within the sector. His territoriality
and mistrust is felt by others, who respond in kind. Disagreements on positions go unresolved, as partners subtly seek to foreground their
agenda, and so necessary compromise is not achieved. Although others in the organisation are keen for the collaboration to succeed, the
leader is occupying the space and so the organisation’s participation fades. Momentum for the initiative dissipates.

To achieve the change he sought at the political level, changes were required of this leader at the internal level. He needed to increase
openness and trust. To do that he needed to first increase self-reflection so as to better understand his own reactions and resistance.

If he was able to do this, his behaviour may have exhibited greater openness and trust. This would lead to improved relationships within the
partnership, making it easier for others to reciprocate. In addition, changes may have also been needed in the organisational sphere,
perhaps embedding more collaborative practices and strategies to ensure the partnership wasn’t only dependent on the one leader. If the
leader could embed these changes it would lead to a stronger and more effective collective, which would increase their chances of achieving
the change they seek in the political sphere, as well as the wider cultural changes regarding societal prioritisation of early years.

Even if they were successful in achieving this policy change, the chain of connected changes would not end there. The focus would then
move to change at the infrastructural level to support policy implementation—processes, institutions, service delivery systems, etc. The
partners would need to regroup, refocus, and the dynamics would continue throughout the organisational, behavioural and internal spheres.

This example demonstrates the relationship between the internal and the external spheres. It shows the need for alignment but also flexibility
and responsiveness between the individual, organisational, collective and political spheres. It shows how change moves up and down the
spheres, requiring continual awareness and adaptation if the desired changes are to be achieved.
66
Application

We have created a canvas for you to apply the Spheres of Systems Change model to a process that you either are, or have been, involved in. In
this canvas, on the page below, we have separated out the spheres from the concentric circles model to make it easier to work with. You can
download a template of the canvas in our resources section. We have completed an example canvas to show you how it works using the scenario
above. We have also provided a table version for those who prefer to use that format.

1. Target sphere: Start by identifying the sphere you are/were primarily targeting. It’s likely your process is seeking change in multiple spheres.
Select which sphere you think is the most critical one. For example, you might be seeking a policy reform. Although this would involve change
within the infrastructural sphere (institutions and regulatory systems), this is likely to be directed by macro level policy change, so that’s your
primary target. Alternatively, you might select the sphere that represents your point of entry to the system. For example, in the scenario above,
the point of entry for the leader was the partnership—the collective sphere. When you have selected it, write your target/ primary / entry sphere
in the central circle on the canvas.

2. Target change: You can then use the box underneath to write the target change.

3. Connected spheres – required: Next, think about what other spheres are/ were connected, and what changes will be / were required in those
spheres for your desired change to happen. In our previous example, for change to happen in the political sphere mindset changes were
required at the internal and organisational sphere, as well as relational changes such as increased trust. You can use this level to think through
the connections of changes between the spheres a bit like a Theory of Change.

4. Connected spheres – actual: As explored in our complexity tools, the chain-reactions of cause and effect are continual and
unpredictable– and rarely go to plan. This box provides a space to think about how change interacted between the spheres in reality. If yours is
a current example, you may not be able to complete all the spheres but could come back to the canvas later to reflect on some of the ‘change
reactions’ you observed. If your example is in the past, you can think through what changes led to other changes, and how all these connected
changes influenced your target outcome. In our example above, the desired change didn’t take place because of the consequences cascading
from the internal and behavioural spheres, but we can summarise in the box how each was affected the other.

67
Spheres of System Change Canvas – Example

68
Spheres of System Change Canvas – blank for you to fill in

69
Spheres of System Change Table – Example

1. Target 2. Intended 3. Connected 4. Required changes 5. Actual changes

sphere changes spheres

Political Policy Internal Self-reflection; humility, willingness to Distrust, desire for control, instinct for territoriality /
change compromise, acceptance of other tribalism
towards perspectives/ positions
greater
Behavioural Increased openness and flexibility. Unwillingness to compromise; lack of openness on
investment in
Letting go of control strategies; allowing disagreement to go unresolved
early years
and childcare Relational Improved relationships based on Relationships kept transactional; not deepened
system increased trust and reciprocity through trust and openness; distance is maintained;

Organisational Embedding collaborative culture and Control of partnership space by leader prevented
practice through the org; support staff wider organisational collaboration;
with time and skills for collaborations

Collective More collaboration in the sector; stronger Collaboration dissipates; no change in collective
partnership, more members sphere

Infrastructural Large national institutions get behind the No change in infrastructural sphere
campaign.

Policy National level policy change on early No change in policy sphere

years/development and expanding
professional childcare support

Cultural Gradual shifts in societal attitudes No change in cultural sphere

prioritising early years development

70
Spheres of System Change table – blank for you to fill in
1. Target 2. Intended 3. Connected 4. Required changes 5. Actual changes
sphere changes spheres

71
SYSTEMS PRACTICE
A toolkit to help you think, act and work systemically

Section 3: Learn Tool 7: Triple Loop Learning

72
Triple Loop Learning Learning and systems change

The triple loop learning model supports learning and reflection within teams and individuals. Learning is a core systems practice. Tools 1 and
It highlights three modes of learning, as shown on the cover graphic. Understanding these 2 showed how working with complex problems
modes helps teams to reflect in different ways: from the day-to-day activities to the wider requires testing, reflecting, and adapting, none of
context in which they take place. which is possible without embedding learning
cultures and practices.
• Loop 1 helps problem-solving and course-correction, asking: ‘Are we doing things right?’.
To support systemic change, learning needs to
• Loop 2 questions the assumptions a set of activities are based on, and asks: ‘Are we
be embedded across that system. People from
doing the right things?’4.
different parts of the system learning together can
• Loop 3 questions the questions, and asks: ‘How do we decide what’s right’? generate insights, ideas and solutions that lead to

It digs into the underlying assumptions and values that shape the activities’ approach, a richer understanding of complex issues and

inviting ’continual reflection on the learning process, the contexts within which learning more innovative approaches to problem-solving.

occurs, and the assumptions and values motivating the learning’5. Many different inputs, spaces and processes are
needed for this, from centring lived experience
‘Reflection isn’t new—'plan, do, review’ has been with us forever and is and shared data to embedding feedback loops
arguably one of the most important human traits of all. The triple loop and decentralising decision-making.
learning model sheds light on the different levels that we operate on in
The Learning section of our toolkit includes two
the 'review' element. It is a model that can help [actors] in any field
tools: Triple Loop Learning, which supports team
have greater self-awareness and tap into deeper levels of questioning.’
learning, and the Reflexive Practice Model, which
Alex Atkinson on LinkedIn.
supports individual learning.

4 Circular organizing and triple loop learning: Romme and Van Witteloostuijn, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 1999.
5 Beyond Agency and Structure: Triple-Loop Learning: Yuthas, K., Dillard J., Rogers R., Journal of Business Ethics, 2004.
73
A framework for learning
As shown in the diagram below, this framework actually has four loops—three learning loops and one ‘defensive reasoning’ loop. This first loop is
not a learning loop as it is a loop of self-justification that blocks learning. The framework shows what is happening in each loop: its primary concern,
the questions it poses, and the learning approach it enables.

74
Guidance for use

There are different versions of the Triple Loop Learning framework. This is a natural part of collective learning, as different people test and iterate
concepts over time. Our version particularly draws on the work of systems practice consultant and academic, Joan O’Donnell, which itself draws on
the original Double Loop Learning Framework created by Argyris and Schön6.

The following rules of thumb can help guide your use of this framework:

1. It’s non-judgmental: Everyone will find themselves in each of these loops at different times. While we might aspire to be strategic and
enquiring at all times, sometimes we are in ‘reactive’ and even ‘defensive’ modes. This framework does not say that Single Loop Learning—
the reactive model—is intrinsically bad: course correction is a necessary part of day-to-day learning and improvement. The important thing is
not to just stay in this loop and avoid the broader questions and enquiries in Loops 2 and 3. The aim should be to achieve balance between
Loops 1, 2 and 3.

2. It’s non-linear: Learning is never linear. Although there is a logic of moving from the micro-level daily details of Loop 1 out to the bigger
picture questions of Loops 2 and 3, in reality we may do some Loop 2 reflections within Loop 1 conversations, or ask some Loop 3 questions
within a Loop 2 strategy assessment. The purpose of this framework is to increase our consciousness of these different learning modes and so
create spaces for them.

3. Its use can be spontaneous or structured: The framework can be used in either a spontaneous or structured way. Sometimes you might
bring the tool into a project review meeting to consider learning at different levels, or you might use it to intentionally structure and plan
learning conversations, creating explicit spaces for the different loops at different points in your process.

4. It can be used by individuals or teams: As well as the team uses described above, the framework can also be used as a personal reflection
tool. You might print out the framework and think about when you might have found yourself in each of the loops. You might ask yourself some
of the questions in Loops 2 and 3 to consider your own approaches to, or assumptions about, a situation.

6 Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective

75
Triple Loop Learning and System Change
Reflection allows us to consciously direct change. It helps us to understand the existing dynamics of change in a situation and our own role in and
relationship to them. By doing this, we are more able to intentionally influence them. Triple loop learning encourages learners to reflect at different
levels, and so be able to influence change within them.

The graphic below summarises the kind of change that each learning loop can facilitate.

• Loop 1: Reviewing actions to identify errors and improvements can lead to changing actions.

• Loop 2: Challenging assumptions about current actions and the course set can lead to changing approaches to situations.

• Loop 3: Challenging assumptions about the approach and the context in which the activities exist can change perspectives and opens the
possibility of changing wider norms and structures.

76
This table provides further detail on using the framework, along with examples of questions to ask, situations in which you might use these
approaches, and potential changes that might happen as a result of using these tools.

Loop Mode Description Questions Example Possible

changes
Defensive Self- • Although this is a loop, it is • How do I / we A team in a youth charity seeking to None
justifying: one that blocks learning. cover up flaws reduce youth violence has not met the
How do I / and ensure projected engagement targets for a
• It avoids feedback and what
we protect ‘business as funded project. Participant data is
it perceives as criticism. It
my / our usual’ continues? adjusted to meet the targets.
believes that if it can
own convince others that its • How can we Unaware of these issues, the funder
interests? actions are correct then its present a positive accepts the project reports, and
position / status will be picture at all similarly presents the positive
secure. times? programme achievements to its
stakeholders and funding is renewed.
• This mode is often one born
of insecurity and fear– the Although this may bring benefit in the
belief that accepting short-term, this is unlikely to hold, and
feedback and correction will opportunities for learning about how
undermine position, status or engagement can be more effective will
advantage. be inhibited.

Single Reactive: • Single loop learning focuses • How do we The programme team use data to • Higher numbers
Am I / are on correcting actions and correct errors or analyse how many young people they of young people
we doing it behaviours without improve have reached, compared to their are engaged.
right? questioning the fundamental processes and targets.
assumptions or beliefs that practices to meet They look at what engagement
underpin those actions. existing goals? methods have been successful and
haven’t, then decide to concentrate
77
 • The emphasis is on problem- • What is their resources on the more successful
solving and achieving contributing to engagement approaches.
desired outcomes more achieving our In doing so, they are able to improve
efficiently through goals and what is their engagement data.
improvements in working hindering them?
However, this reactive learning, which
practices and operations.
focuses mainly on the numbers, may
miss opportunities to understand why
unsuccessful approaches haven’t
worked or to develop new approaches.

Double Reflective: • Double-loop learning • What Here, the programme team question • Change in
Am I / are encourages learners to not assumptions are whether the activities they are offering strategy and
we doing only correct actions but also we making about are the right ones – they had approach
the right question the underlying how to achieve previously assumed young people leading to
things? assumptions that guide those our goals? would want to come, but perhaps the possible
actions. problem is the activity itself. Perhaps innovations in
• Are they correct?
young people aren’t interested. youth
• Rather than correcting
• Do we need to try engagement.
course, it doesn’t assume the They consider their broader violence
different
course previously set is itself prevention goals and they engage • Change in
approaches?
correct. young people in exploring what mentality and
What might they
activities they might be more interested understanding
• This compels teams to look be?
in attending, which could deliver the about the
harder at whether their
same overall outcomes. They may drivers of
actions offer the best chance
they do this as part of a strategy violence
of achieving their goals, and
review process, for example. affecting young
opens the possibility of
people.
exploring alternative
approaches.

78
Triple Subjective: • The third loop goes beyond • Are our goals the In this loop, the programme team
actions to examine the right ones? Why decide to establish ongoing reflection
How do we
context– the norms, have we set those sessions.
know
structures, patterns– in which goals? Are there
what’s In these sessions, members are invited
the actions occur. other views on
right? to reflect on what their experiences are
this problem/
• It questions the relationship telling them about youth violence in the
situation or other
between the actions taken local area and why it isn’t improving.
goals that could
and the wider context, how
be set? This may lead them to question the
these contribute to each
other and how patterns of • What are the basis for the actions and the approach
wider norms and they take.
behaviour are created.
structures that are
• Loop 3 moves from a They bring in external perspectives,
creating this
subject-object view of the and again seek the perspectives of the
problem?
team/ individual as the young people themselves, to help
protagonist acting upon a • Are there ways in develop a fuller picture of the issue.
situation/ group of people, to which we are
They consider what role they are
one acting with it. This contributing to it
playing and how they might use their
engages those groups/ ourselves
role in a different way– considering
people in the process, (perhaps
how their activities might contribute
shifting power relationships unwittingly)?
more towards breaking cycles of
and democratising learning. • What role do we
violence.
• In Loop 3 we are zooming play in this
out from our normal mental system /
frameworks to question the situation? Are
situation and our agency, there different
role and motives within it. roles we should
This is deepening our be playing? What
reflective capacity. do others think?

79
Template
You can use this blank template (downloadable from our resources section) to help structure your own triple loop learning.

Loop Mode General questions Your questions Reflections Possible changes

Defensive Self-justifying: • When have we acted in a way to

How do I / we cover up flaws and ensure
protect my / our ‘business as usual’ continues?
own interests? • How have we sought to present a
positive picture at times rather
than an authentic one?

Single Reactive: • How do we correct errors or

Am I / are we improve processes and practices
doing it right? to meet existing goals?

• What is contributing to achieving

the goals and what is hindering
them?

80
Double Reflective: • What assumptions are we
Am I / are we making about how to achieve our
doing the right goals?
things? • Are they correct?
• Do we need to different
approaches? What might they
be?

Triple Subjective: • Are our goals the right ones?

How do we Why have we set those goals?
know what’s Are there other views on this
right? problem / situation or other goals
that could be set?
• What are the wider norms and
structures that are creating this
problem?
• Are there ways in which we are
(unwittingly) contributing to it
ourselves?
• Are there different roles we
should be playing in this
situation? What do others think?

81
SYSTEMS PRACTICE
A toolkit to help you think, act and work systemically

Section 4: Learn Tool 8: Reflexive Practice Model

82
Reflexive Practice Model

The Reflexive Practice Model7, originally developed by Prof. Ray Ison for the Open University’s Systems Thinking in Practice MSc programme, is
designed to help individuals embed ongoing learning in their daily practice.

While ‘reflective’ is a retrospective act, involving looking back on something, ‘reflexive’ brings reflective into the present moment as a continual
process. This model reinforces the principle that our ability to affect change in a system is strongly influenced by our awareness of self and
situation, and how the two interact. It emphasises that we bring a combination of our process and our person to situations. These are separated in
the two areas of the graphic shown as ‘M‘– methodologies (the process), and ‘F’– frameworks (our attitudes, perspectives, experiences).

The key components in the diagram are:

• P = Practitioner: the individual.

• S = Situation: the thing you’re interacting with.

• M = Methodologies. These are the processes, activities,

and interventions that are driving your interaction. This
might be a project plan, some research, a partner
meeting, a monitoring or funding process, etc. They are
illustrated with icons such as graphs, a PC, a clipboard.

• F = Frameworks. These are your beliefs, perspectives,

judgements, mental models– everything that makes up
you and determines how you interact with a situation.

7 Ison, RL (2017) Systems Practice: How to Act in Situations of Uncertainty and Complexity in a Climate-Change World. 2nd Edition Springer, London and The Open University.

83
Insights of the model

The model contains some vital insights for those wanting to affect change in complex systems, in which situations are dynamic and unpredictable:

1. Your ‘what’ drives interactions, but your ‘how’ drives outcomes.

We generally enter a situation focusing on our ‘methodologies’ (M)—what we are doing—but we are less aware of our personal ‘frameworks’
(F) - our worldview, judgments, biases and mindsets. Yet whilst M will likely be driving and providing the motive for an interaction, how it unfolds
will largely be determined by F. Our ability to be successful in what we want to achieve in a situation will be determined by the appropriateness
of our tools (M), but also the skill and care with which we use them (F).

2. Move from ‘reflective’ to ‘reflexive’ to make learning a continuous activity.

The diagram shows two processes of reflection. The large thought bubble shows the person retrospectively reflecting on their interaction with a
situation. The ‘continuous cycle’ symbol in the person’s head shows how she is also reflecting in the moment. This represents two levels of
reflection—retrospective and present. This is known as reflexivity. To be optimally effective in a dynamic complex system, it is not enough just
to reflect after the fact, for example in a learning session. We need to also bring reflective awareness into the present moment, so we can
adjust our actions in response to the situation. This will allow us to influence the situation more effectively.

3. Increasing self-awareness increases self-control.

The model emphasises that we are not just affecting situations, but are also affected by them, in a continual cycle of action, reaction, and
response. The more conscious we can be of how we are acting and reacting, the more effective we can be in the situation. This is illustrated
with the image of the person observing herself interacting with the situation.

In this sense, reflexivity is similar to the skills of detached awareness within mindfulness or meditation practice. Developing such practices
allow us to not be completely subject to a situation, but to be more in control of our actions. For example, if a process isn’t unfolding as we
would have wanted, we are more likely to become frustrated with a situation (or the people in a situation) without that detached awareness.
This will likely produce a negative response in return, thereby further reducing the possibility of a positive outcome. Observing our reaction
opens up a space in which we can step away from it, and therefore be less controlled by it.
84
Practicing Reflexive Practice
Exercise
It is of course extremely difficult to always have in-the-moment • Think of a situation you have been in recently which didn't unfold as
awareness of how and why we are acting and reacting within you had hoped. Perhaps there was a response from the situation that
situations. This is an aspirational model: something we can practice. you weren’t anticipating. Perhaps there was conflict or frustration.
Reflecting back on our performance within previous situations will • What were the M – methodologies – (the processes, transactions)
help to slowly develop this awareness. The exercise in the box on that were driving the interaction? For example, a project planning
the right helps you apply the model to a past situation and suggests meeting, a review session, a partner engagement.
questions to ask yourself.
• Then jot down some of your F – frameworks – that you were
There is a blank table on the final page of this guide, downloadable
bringing to the situation. You might find it helpful to think about
from our resources section, which you can print and use for this
relevant past experiences, any assumptions, beliefs, biases,
exercise. You may find it helpful to refer to the Reflexive Practice
perspectives, prejudices, or values that may have been affecting how
graphic as you work through the exercise.
you acted and reacted. How do you think your F interacted with the M
and affected how you carried out the ‘process’ part of the interaction?

• How did the situation (or the people in it) – react to what you were
bringing? How did you then respond to that reaction? What was the
outcome? How do you think your F influenced this sequence of
reactions? How did it help or hinder your ‘performance’ within that
situation, and the outcomes you achieved?

• Lastly, how aware were you of these dynamics playing out? How
conscious were you of how and why you were acting and reacting as
you did? How might you increase your in-the-moment awareness for
future situations?

85
Group situations: a collision of frameworks, actions and reactions

To add further complexity, the situation you are interacting with will, at some time, involve various people. While this tool is designed to help
develop our own individual learning practice, it is also important to remember that everyone else in a situation will also be bringing their own
internal frameworks.

They will also be having internal reactions (based on their own Fs!) and then externally responding to the situation. In group situations we are all
constantly interpreting, reacting and responding to each other according to our own internal frameworks. It can be helpful to be mindful of this
complexity of colliding frameworks and responses when interacting with these situations.

86
Reflexive Practice Exercise

Element Question Response

Situation Briefly describe the situation.

Methodologies What were the processes / transactions that

were driving the interaction? For example, a
project planning meeting, a review session, a
partner engagement. Who was bringing them?

Frameworks What personal frameworks do you think were

particularly present for you in that situation?
(Think about relevant past experiences,
assumptions, beliefs, biases, perspectives,
prejudices, values). How might they have
affected how you acted and reacted? How do
you think your F interacted with the M?
Outcome What was the outcome?

Performance How well do you think you managed the

dynamics in this situation? To what extent did this
help achieve a positive outcome?

Awareness How aware were you of these dynamics playing

out? How conscious were you of how and why
you were acting and reacting as you did? How
might you increase your in-the-moment
awareness for future situations?

87
Further reading

• Open University Systems Thinking resource hub, OpenLearn

• Systems Practice: How to Act in Situations of Uncertainty and Complexity in a Climate-Change World, Ison, RL (2017), Springer, London and
The Open University
• Enhancing Systems Thinking in Practice at the Workplace, Reynolds, M, 2016, Open University

88