ownership in the public sector

[Donella.H.Meadows@Dartmouth.EDU]

I am fascinated by the ongoing discussion on this list about "ownership,"
"buy-in," what we used to call "implementation," and what in a larger context
we could call "social change" or even "paradigm shift."

I have several questions for those of you who have developed wisdom in these
matters from business consulting:

Would your experience translate directly into the public sector? If not, what
would have to change to create significant systems insight and change there?

Given that many of the most dysfunctional systems and inadequate mental models
and insufficiently long time horizons are outside of the business world, how do
we go to work on those?

Given that the business world itself is imprisoned in an increasingly
dysfunctional super-system, namely the market with all its externalities,
success-to-the-successful loops, blindness to nonpriced values, growth
fixations, shrinking time horizons, increasing monopolies, and growing hubris,
where are the levers for "buy-in" for systems analyses of the market?

The way I see it, the businesses so many of you are successfully working with
are embedded in larger systems that REALLY need help. I dont think I need
elaborate for this list the many global trends that are accelerating in
terribly destructive directions, some of them driven by perfectly logical
business decisions. No matter how successful you are in transforming the
behavior of a single business client, the client is still forced by the larger
system into behaviors that are disastrous for society (and ecosystems) as a
whole, and therefore, after a lot of long-term feedback loops come home to
roost, disastrous for that business as well. The Natural Step is trying hard
to enlarge the context of business thinking, but can those who are trapped
within a system really challenge the basic structure of that system? Dont we
need to spend at least as much time and energy on public sector clients and on
the general public?

How can we direct more excellent systems analysis and change-expertise to the
big systems (where the money isnt, where there are no obvious single clients,
where there isnt a whole lot of perceived need for change -- at least not on
the surface, and where the very mention of change or the honest discussion of
problems causes instant loud denial)?

What is going to happen if we dont?

Is the predominance of industrial consulting in our field due to the greater
immediate financial rewards? Or to the fact that we have given up on the
overarching, difficult, ultimately determining systems?

Donella Meadows
From: Donella.H.Meadows@Dartmouth.EDU (Donella H. Meadows)

[Jay Forrest - SDSG]

Hi Donella!

I will honor Bob Eberleins request to quiet the ownership issue and
respond to you directly offline. However there is one item you raise which
I would like to address within the listserve.

>How can we direct more excellent systems analysis and change-expertise to=
the
>big systems (where the money isnt, where there are no obvious single
clients,
>where there isnt a whole lot of perceived need for change -- at least not=
on
>the surface, and where the very mention of change or the honest discussion=
of
>problems causes instant loud denial)?

It is my perception that there are problems people truly want to solve and
others that they do not want to solve. As an agent of change I feel it is
very important to discriminate between these two and avoid the latter for
they are a waste of time and effort. While I may talk of single clients,
the key lies more in a singular goal to which the client (group) is=
committed.

SDSG has set a target of putting 25% of our client time into pro-bono
projects. We are very selective and generally deal only with clients who
are committed to addressing the problem. Most of our work has been in
health care, transportation, and finance in Latin America. Success in
narrower issues can open the door to address broader, more substantial=
issues.

Both the futures studies community and the system dynamics community have a
history of striving for proactive change to avoid future problems. I would
like to challenge the system dynamics (and systems thinking) community to
devote a portion of their client work to non-profit projects for the public
good. (I am confident many of you already are, but how about formalizing
that commitment as an organizational or personal goal.)

Now to address your other comments off-line!
Jay Forrest




SDSG,LLC=A0 - The Strategic Decision Simulation Group=20
11606 Highgrove Drive
Houston, Texas 77077
Tel:=A0 281-493-5022
Fax: 281-558-3228
E-mail: jayf@sdsg.com

["Marc Abrams"]

>From [ Marc Abrams (980811.0923) ]

Although Bob E. in a note to Bob Gallagher suggested the "ownership"
thread had run its course for the time being ( I agree ) I wanted
to answer Donella last post

>Would your experience translate directly into the public sector? If
not, >what would have to change to create significant systems insight
and >change there?

Absolutely yes , What needs changing ( in my view, of course )
are the current theories we walk around with with regard to human
behavior. Whether you are in the public sector or private it _always_
comes down to the individual.
>
>Given that many of the most dysfunctional systems and inadequate
>mental models and insufficiently long time horizons are outside of
the >business world, how do we go to work on those?

By _understanding_ how individuals work. Bill Powers developed a
theory on human behavior based on the concept of "control" ( yes. the
same concept SD is based on ) its called Perceptual Control Theory
PCT ) George Richardson wrote about it in his fabulous book
_FeeedBack Thought in Social Science and Systems Theory_. Thats a
beginning.

>...really challenge the basic >structure of that system? Dont we need
>to spend at least as much time >and energy on public sector clients
>and on the general public?

Yes, A systems structure is based on the interaction of the individual
elements. Systems ( businesses, govt org, non-profits ) are the way
they are because thats what the collective interactions of individuals
produce. The power of SD is in allowing individuals to "see" what
part they play in the development and maintance of such a collective.

>How can we direct more excellent systems analysis and
>change->expertise to the big systems

It is impossible to:
1) _direct_ change
2) Make people "see" a need.
3) lead people who do not want to be led.
4) change people who dont wnat to change.

Ithink the word for it is hubris.


>What is going to happen if we dont?

The same things that would happen if we tried.

>Is the predominance of industrial consulting in our field due to the
greater
>immediate financial rewards? Or to the fact that we have given up on
the
>overarching, difficult, ultimately determining systems?

Youd have to ask each person that question. As for myself, I think
that _if_ change is going to occur it needs to start at the very
bottom. You cant be concerned with making all kinds of money at that
level. If you think your going to be able to change organizations by
dealing with the upper levels of management ( where the money is )
I think your pis---g in the wind.

Marc
From: "Marc Abrams" <msa@panix.com>