8 minute read
Theoretical understandings of complex problems and systemic change
Although we have long been aware of many of the 'wicked', complex problems that are not easily solved, there is still a mismatch between the complexity of the challenges and the way we attempt to solve them as a society. The problems persist because they transcend the standardised procedures of the welfare state and cannot solved by singular approaches or reforms within existing silos or sectors.
In 1973, Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber introduced the concept ’wicked problems’ to capture problems related to social issues and planning so large and complex that well-known solutions do not suffice. These ’malicious’, ’wicked’ or just ’complex’ problems are now a broadly recognised way of describing societal challenges showing imminent resistance to a clear definition and a common solution (e.g. Alford & Head, 2017, Winter Nielsen, 2021, Mazzucato, 2021).
Systemic change as possible problem solving
In the best-case scenario, for decades we have been able to treat the symptoms of several of the complex challenges using traditional management principles and policy development, but we have not been able to create fundamental changes in the systems in which the problems are embedded. This has led to the current situation, in which multiple sources point to the fact that the state is under pressure. Public management is too inert, political reforms are rolled out at a pace that implementation of the solutions cannot keep up with, and many of the major problems we are facing cannot be solved by, or within the nation state alone.
Across challenges and societal levels there is a dawning recognition that collaboration between local contexts, arenas, and sectors is called for, if we truly want to solve this kind of problem. And that we must change our entire way of regarding the problems to handle their complex nature. We must work to change the system.
In recent years there has been a growing interest in systemic change both in Denmark and internationally. The cases presented in this report should be seen as just that: a number of initiatives that seek to test new ways of consciously addressing complex societal challenges to change the status quo and create an impact at a systemic level.
To place the cases in a framework of understanding, we introduce here a brief overview of relevant understandings of systems and approaches to systemic change – based on research literature, practice, and application-oriented models. The aim is to contribute to a general theoretical background about systemic change that can illustrate the complexity of, and provide reflections for understanding the work in practice, presented subsequently in the cases.
Characteristics of systems
System thinking and systemic change thinking are often attributed to the American environmental scientist, Donella Meadows, who presented her system thinking in her books
‘Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System’ (1999) and ‘Thinking in Systems’ (2008). Since then, a number of schools have arisen within system theory. Across these schools there is no single definition that everyone can agree upon, though there are several common denominators that illuminate several general characteristics of systems:
• They are often complex.
• They contain several tangible components, including for example people, resources, policies, and services, but also a number of more abstract components such as relationships, routines, values and understandings.
• They exist in a larger context, have boundaries, even though they are often hard to define, and are mutually dependent on and connected with each other.
• They are characterised by the fact that changes in one part of a system will influence other parts of the system.
Marking the boundaries of a system
Across the literature on systems and systemic change there is a consensus that systems are connected. They overlap and work together but can also oppose each other. Significant social challenges usually cross the boundaries of public, private, and social systems. In
‘Building Better Systems - a green paper on system innovation’ (2020), systems innovation experts Leadbeater and Winhall point out that a first step in working for systemic change is therefore to draw system boundaries in a way that makes this change a real possibility. If the boundaries of a system are drawn too narrowly, it will not be possible to see everything that affects the system and opportunities to change it will be missed. If, on the other hand, the boundary is drawn too widely, the range of factors to be taken into account will be too broad and change will seem an impossibly large task.
In a Danish context, the ROCKWOOL Foundation's system innovation initiative has also helped to pinpoint the fact that in a countries like Denmark, where 'system' is often used as a synonym for 'public administration', it can be helpful to think of systems as two different types. There are the formalized, designed organizational systems, such as the public administrative systems around an institutionalized function such as health care. On the other hand, there are ecosystems. Ecosystems draw our attention to the more complex relationships between organisms, actors and actions that exist in interaction with each other and the surrounding society. These may be understood as relationships across arenas and sectors that affect a given problem, such as homelessness.
Understanding the dynamics of systems
Systems appear to change by chance, unless we think consciously in terms of systems and examine their dynamics, including how we are part of and act through the logics of systems. One of the most thoroughly studied models for understanding the dynamics of change from one system to another is that developed by Professor Frank Geels (2006).
Changing the conditions that perpetuate the problem.
Source: Kania, Kramer & Senge, (2018)
Based on historical cases, Geels describes the dynamics that lead to shifts from one system to the next, and shows how systemic change occurs across and in interaction with developments at different societal levels.
Another approach to enhancing the understanding of systems and supporting the assessment of whether and how systemic change was actually sought is to examine what contributes to sustaining systems. The American non-profit organization, FSG, has synthesized six conditions that research most often indicates as contributing to sustaining systems (Kania, Kramer & Senge, 2018). The model identifies six interdependent conditions or elements and distinguishes between three levels. An explicit layer, which includes policies, practices, and resource flows. Changes in this layer can therefore be understood as structural changes. A semi-explicit layer, which includes relationships, connections and power dynamics. Finally, there is an implicit layer, referred to as the transformative change layer, which is the most fundamental. This is where we find the mental models; the ways we intuitively understand and act in the world.
Models of systemic change emphasize that the individual components and levels of systems not only interact but build on each other. Therefore, if systemic change is to be sustained, it is not enough to make structural changes such as reallocating resources or introducing new policies. Working only at the structural level will lead to fixing parts of the system and not changing it radically. Moving from one system to the next requires changes that cut across levels.
Six Conditions of Systems Change Systems change conditions Definitions
Structural Change (explicit)
Relational Change (semi-explicit)
Policies Practices
Relationships & Connections Power Dynamics
Transformative Change (implicit)
Mental Models
Resource Flows
Policies Policies: Government, institutional and organizational rules, regulations, and priorities that guide the entity’s own and others’ actions.
Practices Espoused activities of institutions, coalitions, networks, and other entities targeted to improving social and environmental progress. Also, within the entity, the procedures, guidelines, or informal shared habits that comprise their work.
Resource Flow How money, people, knowledge, information, and other assets such as infrastructure are allocated and distributed.
Relationships & Connections Quality of connections and communication occurring among actors in the system, especially among those with differing histories and viewpoints.
Power Dynamics The distribution of decision-making power, authority, and both formal and informal influence among individuals and organizations.
Mental Models Habits of thought—deeply held beliefs and assumptions and taken-for-granted ways of operating that influence how we think, what we do, and how we talk.
Different approaches to deliberate systemic change
In relation to working consciously to bring about systemic change, there are different approaches and methods that can be used as a framework in practice.
One of the most widely used methods for working systematically across sectors to create systemic change and solve complex problems is Collective Impact, which has also been the starting point for the case stories included in this collection. Collective Impact was developed by studying local initiatives and programmes in a North American context which have been successful in bringing about major structural change in a geographically defined area, in relation to complex social problems. Collective Impact as a model for cooperation has since been adopted worldwide by foundations, NGOs and the United Nations. Realdania has been one of the pioneers in testing the method in a Danish context.
Collective Impact is based on the premise that, when dealing with complex societal issues, there is no way round committed and systematic collaboration across sectors and organisations in a given area, if real and lasting change is to be achieved. From a Collective Impact perspective, the barriers to lasting and systemic change that addresses the root causes of malignant problems include the fact that agents too often pursue their own agendas and steer their organisations towards their own goals with the methods and tools at their disposal. Also, silo and box thinking stand in the way of more fundamental change. But ambitious cross-sectoral collaborations do not happen by themselves. That's why Collective Impact offers a structured working framework. The framework consists of five elements, which set up systems, focus points and something like rules of conduct around bringing together a range of actors in an alliance to tackle a complex social problem. The alliance commits the actors to coordinating their different and joint initiatives in the field towards achieving common goals of change.
Create a common agenda
Establish shared measurement
The Five Conditions of Collective Impact. Source: collectiveimpactforum.org
This means coming together to collectively define the problem and create a shared vision to solve it.
That means tracking progress in the same way, allowing for continuous learning and accountability.
Mutually reinforcing activities
That means integrating the participants’ many different activities to maximize the end results.
Encourage continuous communications
That means building trust and strengthening relationships.
A strong backbone
That means having a team dedicated to aligning and coordinating the work of the group.
Another approach to working with systemic change is mission-driven innovation. Internationally, Mariana Mazzucato (2013; 2021) has presented a model for systemic change in which, inspired by the American approach to making the moon landing in the 1960s a reality, she argues that states should become even more actively involved in defining objectives for society that will solve the large and complex problems we face.
In a Danish context, the approach to working with systemic change in a mission-driven perspective has been adapted by the Danish Design Center (DDC) and also promoted by Sigge Winther Nielsen (2021). The DDC has developed a Mission Playbook (2021) which describes a design-driven approach to launching and driving missions based on three pillars: setting direction, mobilising the ecosystem and building capacity.
Neither the mission-driven approach nor Collective Impact are the solution in themselves, but both address the orchestration and establishment of frameworks for broad collaborations to address complex challenges and achieve systemic change. While Collective Impact is rooted in a bottom-up community perspective, the mission-driven approach is rooted in a top-down government perspective.
