Special Integration Group on Syntegration -- Markus Schwaninger (chair) -- July 8, 2003

47th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS), Hersonissos, Crete, July 8, 2003.

July 8, 2003, 9:40 a.m., Parallel Session

This digest was created in real-time during the meeting, based on the speaker's presentation(s) and comments from the audience. These should not be viewed as official transcripts of the meeting, but only as an interpretation by a single individual. Lapses, grammatical errors, and typing mistakes may not have been corrected. Questions about content should be directed to the originator. These notes have been contributed by David Ing (daviding@systemicbusiness.org) at the IBM Advanced Business Institute ( http://www.ibm.com/abi ).

Four speakers today, for this SIG.

• Three speakers, then discussion, then a closing invitation to another session.

Angela Espinosa

Ministry of the Environment in Colombia

• Decided to try syntegration in one of the sectors.
• Ecological preserve.
• Issue:  how to improve the organization:  ministry and agency

Successful

• Facilities weren't easy, but the meeting was nice and the participants were satisfied.
• Created a manifesto.
• 12 statements, creative and open to understand the most important issues.
• In a 4 to 5 day format, wasn't intended to be a permanent impact.

Recognized some patterns

• 5 years later, these ideas still have influence.

Possibility to apply syntegrity to promote sustainable development.

In the proceedings, there's a second paper with Stuart Umpleby discussing agoras in Fuschl conversation.

• Can combine other systemic methods.
• Using social system design by Bela Banathy.

Third paper with student in Columbia, on critical systems thinking, improvement by creating active learners.

• Being learners required connectedness.

Allenna Leonard

[Diagram of Icosahedron]

Plato's dialogue with Georgios

Melian dialogues:  no threat to anyone, should be left alone; killed anyway

Syntegration process is about making tribes talk to each other.

• Less used to thinking of organizations as tribes
• Beer:  problem of no appreciation of people of A level on the B level, and then B level to C level.
• Living in an environment of power and wealth is as much a challenge as living in an environment of tundra or bush.

Other end of stick from critical system theory

• Critical systems theory based on Habermas, getting authentic dialogue.
• Getting someone to speak authentically is good, by syntegration is about getting people on the other end to listen well.

Process begins with an opening question, e.g. what should the ISSS be doing over the next few years?

• Broad topic, starts discussion.
• Typically 12 questions.
• Sit around a table, each table with 5 members, plus a chorus
  • Each groups gets about one hour
  • 3/4 of the time is members, and rest is to critics, to keep them on topic.
• No top, no bottom.
  • Each person plays four roles:  two roles as members, thus each member is a unique strut between two meetings.
  • Each member is with a member or critic of another team.

Risks with catastrophe issues

• Beck:  Risks to Society -- generation of unintended side effects.
  • e.g. mad cow disease, accelerating by feeding cows other diseases, and then saving money by not heating the feed
  • In Canada, one mad cow.
• Need more talk on risk.
  • In Canada, SARS -- 350 people sick, 35 older people died, but no community spread, each with direct contact.

Syntegration with Israelis and Palestineans, able to find some things to work together on.

Another done for trade union council in Britain, on what would make young people interested in joining a union.

Asaf Zohar

Introduced to syntegration process 1-1/2 years ago.

Reporting on an action learning approach, using syntegration

Client:  Canadian federal health agency on policy

• Multiple stakeholders, difficult to get together.
• Looking for someone to facilitate.

Reviewed some processes that were non-hierarchical, collaborative, to study a mutual interest.

• Included Open Space, Search Conference.
• Tension:  too much structure causes a perceived agenda, i.e. the health agency has an answer beforehand.
• If this type of problem persists, lack of trust, then no buy-in, and no action.

Paper tells the story of the engagement.

• Studied about how the process resulted in a new order.
• Principles of design of self-organizing systems, Morgan (1996)
• Minimal requisite function, variety.

Icosahedron is a metaphor for the way the meeting is conducted.

• A person as a strut.
• Instead of saying the reason we're here is to start a strategy, starts with an opening question.
  • Appreciative systems also starts with an opening question.
  • e.g. what will resolve this problem?  Generates many responses
• Consolidate response into 12 topics (represented by each node).
  • Then each person is a member of two groups, and then also a critic in two other groups.
  • In addition, can observe other groups.
  • Meetings usually take over 3 days, and each group meets in three iterations.
• Emergent order through constant information flow:  reverberations.
  • Infosets:  corners of the world.
  • People understand that solving one corner of the earth can create problems in other corners of the earth.
• The 12 topics can't all be discussed at the same time.
  • Two groups meet simultaneously, and there is time for people either to relax or observe other sessions.
  • Why 12? 
    • Best answer is that what's we're doing.
    • Brainstorming with sticky paper.
    • [Observation:  experience that group came up with 7 categories, or 9 if they're really smart]
  • Electronic version:  40 cyberneticians produced 250 statements.

Exercise set the context of what would happen over the next few days.

• Papers had strengths and weaknesses, but this millions of dollars had been spent to try to get people together.
• Within 2 hours, had order.

Discussion

What is the aim of the process?

• Firstly, don't use this process (syntegration) for a trivial problem.
  • Need to have multiple people.
  • At the end of the day, posting of comments, opportunity to give feedback.
• Next stage:  phase planning
  • People choose which triangles they work on.
  • Orthogonal sets:  6 people of 30 on the other side.
• If people are all in the same organization, the outcome is what they would do anyway.
  • In Israel-Palestinean conflict, results were recommendations
  • Unfortunately, Rabin assasinated 3 weeks later.
• Depends on people having a structure to implement later.

Not specific action?  Only to generate understanding of complexity?

• No, more than that.
• First, brainstorming, variety
• Second, conceptualization, structuring
• Third, action plan, writing up

James Brian Quinn at Dartmouth:  why do we need this in the human genome project?

• Young person:  this person is not designed to the work of human genome project, but would have been a good way to frame the project.

NASA orbiter:  failed because some people were using English measures and some were using metric.

• It's a launchpad for further discussion.
• In South Africa, people had enough time to learn who they could go to with other problems.

Syntegration to honour Stafford Beer in Scarborough, England

• Agenda not to create an action plan, yet managed to organize selves to create a web page to carry on the ideas.
• Dependent on the opening question.

If you think it works, it works, but more concerned with those who don't think it works.

• Meeting in Finland about the factory of the future.
• An architect, under Buckminister Fuller, thought should have form:  infinite sausage.
• CEO of Toyota got up, but didn't think could help with infinite sausage, and people left.
• Other people got up and left.
• 12 people left worked on infinite sausage for 2 years, created a report.
• Some people bound with form, others aren't bound by form.

Like to see things that make a difference.

• Some people bothered by language of the protocol.
  • They would have benefited more by not having names such as "infoset".
  • Would have been better to not talk about the sausage.
• Other people like the structured approach, e.g. today we're on this iteration, and doing this report.

Proof in the action, e.g. to write a book amongst 30 theoreticians throughout the world.

• Form is secondary.
• If have less than 24, may go to other forms.
• Not rigid frames.

Syntegration is not always the best choice

• e.g. American Society of Cybernetics meeting, wanted to just talk with each other.

How to make people accept this protocol or form, at the beginning?  Easier in a situation like a classroom where there's a teacher.  Adults prefer some spontaneity.

Want content to unfold.

• Would like process to allow unfolding naturally.
• If more than face-to-face teams, i.e. 7 people, how do you help them towards a goal?
• Take the load of organizing themselves from these people.
• Hasn't been much comparison to other large group processes.

Stafford Beer inferred from Ashby said that if wanted the process more free, had to specify more content.

• This is container, and the participants provide content.
• Future Search has more content, and provides structure.

Process need to feel independent, to create some freedom.  Ethics of interdependence.

Process forces people to share time.

• Meeting is democratic.
• Protocol forces people to interact with as many people as possible, which results in more exchange of information.
• Then emergence of social consciousness.
• Democratic structure.

Ethics of interdependence?

Minimum number of participants?

• No less than face-to-face.
• Maximum can do recursively.
• If you have 36, can break into two 18s.

Jose Perez Rios

A self-designing network for the systems community

Motivation for tool:

• Systems thinking field has grown, lots of people working in isolation.
• Interests vary.

A tool to help, e.g. 3 waves of Midgely:

• First wave, systems eingeering
• Second wave, SAST, SSM, Systems Dynamics
• Third wave:  power relations:  Critical systems heuristics, etc.

Communication difficulties.

Systemsnet.org

• Designed based on Viable Systems Model, and requisite function.
• Recursive structure, due to growth of approaches.

First level:  groups, nets, communities.

• Provoke birth of more groups, unfolding complexity of the community.
• Any net will have an availability to all functions:  information, persons/institutions, forums, ...

All nets ensure the structure, System 1 to 5.

• Could have any number of subnets.
• e.g. sub-net 3: information, messaging, CSCW
• e.g. system 2: agenda
• Can create nets, subnets.

Collaboration nets into the system.

• Keyword search on nets.
• Can join an existing net.
• Authentication.
• E-mail messaging.
• Agenda.

Plan to add:

• CSCW (load audio, video)
• Delphi studies
• VSM applications
• Research bourse (e.g. meeting point, supply and demand).,

VSMod:  Viable system module.

Create a map of subsystems.

• Channels with loops.

Planned improvements:  addition to Internet.

rios@offcampus.es