Systemic Thinking for Policy Making

14. Introducing Systems Thinking into Public Sector Institutions: Learning by Doing?

Piret Tõnurist

Elena Rovenskaya

Reinhard Mechler

Fabian Wagner

J. Linnerooth-Bayer

Abstract

The need to overhaul systems thinking in public sector management is discussed. While systems thinking as the methodology behind purpose‑driven change could be used to accomplish missions, the public sector is not necessarily interested or ready to use it for that. Systems thinking inside the public sector is generally a ‘sense-making’ tool to make interconnectedness visible (usually with the help of outside experts) rather than a day-to-day practise that helps guide everyday action and decision-making. Even if policy makers as individuals are systems thinkers, it does not mean the policies they design are systemic; one needs institutions to support systems policymaking. OECD’s and IIASA’s work shows that public sector leaders face an uphill battle: there is little clarity on who should promote systems thinking in public organisations and who should assure their capacity.

Introduction

Complexity is the core feature of most policy problems today. Globalisation has introduced new interdependencies in most policy areas, meaning that governments do not have the sole control over the success or failure of policies, or how citizens perceive their actions. Moreover, societies are faced with wicked problems – problems that do not have a single cause or a solution. Furthermore, digitalisation of society and the economy is both creating new business models, services and demands, but also destroying existing practices, skill-sets and thus producing new inequalities that the public sector has to contend with. To put it bluntly, governments are dealing with a volatile and shifting policy context, where interventions that previously worked do not work anymore and where government has to be reactive as policy solutions by default create unforeseen and unintended effects. This means that ‘how’ the public sector works becomes increasingly more important than ‘what’ it specifically does, because the idea of permanence and best practice is disappearing. The ability to adapt to change and see systemic effects rippling through policy domains becomes critical to long-term success. Are today’s public sector institutions and systems equipped to adapt to this change? Probably not.

The public sector management systems that were created over the last decades under the New Public Management concentrated on precision-target systems, focussing on the performance of programmes/agencies from the ‘frog view’, the view from with the system (Bouckaert and Peters, 2002) rather than on the cross‑organisation outcome level. Thus, the effects of interventions were analysed within their specific domains or policy silos, while the broader interdependencies and outcomes received little attention. This has provoked a lot of critique with the rise of new mission-oriented policies, which are horizontal by nature and require different capabilities and working methods from the public sector (Kattel and Mazzucato, 2018). Indeed, government capacity should not remain static; it needs to adapt to societal and technological changes (Tõnurist, 2018). Thus, public sector intuitions need to change their working methods and innovate the functioning of the public sector itself. How should the sector accomplish the former and how could systems thinking help?

There are of course diverging capabilities that the public sector needs to cultivate. For example, the Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) has proposed a new model for public sector innovation based on the level of uncertainty and directionality of (desired) change (Figure 14.1). The model defines four different facets: enhancement oriented innovation, mission oriented innovation, adaptive innovation, and anticipatory innovation, all requiring different strategies and working methods to be successful. Systems thinking works best in the context of purpose-driven change, when the goals and problems are known or can be collectively defined (OECD, 2017).

Figure 14.1. Public sector innovation model

Note: The model is developed as part of the work of the Observatory of Public Sector Innovation, OECD

Source: OECD

Applying a systemic lens to complex problems can help map the dynamics of the system, explore the ways in which the relationships between system components affect its functioning, and ascertain which interventions can lead to better results. Thus, systems thinking can help clarify the need for innovation in the public sector itself and systems thinking tools and methods could be the solution for 21st century missions, where the public problems and purposes are shifting and methods to adapt the institutions need to also reflect the shifts.

Systems thinking practice in the public sector

While systems thinking as the methodology behind purpose-driven change could be used to deliver on 21^st century missions, this does not mean that the public sector is interested or ready to use it for that aim. So far, systems thinking inside the public sector has been used as a ‘sense‑making’ tool to make interconnectedness visible (usually with the help of outside experts – see box 14.1) rather than as a day‑to‑day practice that helps guide everyday action and decision‑making.

Box 14.1. Systems thinking in the practice of IIASA

Strategic planning of water resources and water infrastructure in the context of conflicting stakeholder interests, high risks and uncertainty.

In July-December 2018, IIASA and OECD conducted a gamified participatory capacity building exercise for policymakers and experts from the EU’s Eastern Partnership countries. Its aim was to present to participants how a strategic planning process in the water sector can be organised to come up with robust water strategies by eliciting the collective wisdom of relevant experts and stakeholders. The approach builds on a fusion of a number of qualitative systems analysis methods, including multicriteria decision analysis, systems mapping, morphological analysis, scenario building, and robust decision‑making. It enables a group of stakeholders and experts to collectively produce a set of agreed strategic objectives; analyse enabling factors, which allow one to achieve these objectives; understand key uncertainties involved in the underlying processes; and derive robust policies.

In this project, IIASA involved individuals representing relevant stakeholders from Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine and ran a process implementing the participatory strategic planning approach for an imaginary country. As a result, the process participants, facilitated by IIASA researchers, worked out a prototype of a national water strategy of this imaginary country. This particular process was designed to help participants to acquire a deeper understanding of the role of uncertainty in decision making, to enhance their experience in developing resilient water strategies and to raise their awareness about strategic planning methods taking into account the nexus of water with other sectors, notably, food and energy. In this way, this exercise strengthened the capacity of the participants in strategic planning, which was its primary purpose.

IIASA put forward this participatory strategic planning approach as a tool to support a sustainable water management in a country by recognising and operationalising systems thinking, which allows one to reduce the risks of unintended consequences and optimises the use of water by multiple consumers.

Source: IIASA

Yet, sense making or visualisation of the system alone does not a priori lead to more systemic action or increase understanding of what needs to be changed in practice (OECD, 2017). If the systems thinking capacity in the public sector is not high or there is no mandate or window of opportunity to change things, it falls under the complexity-decision making paradox: systems thinking exercises are viewed as ‘interesting’ to policymakers, but not useful for them in their specific context.

Systems thinking becomes a source of innovation in the public sector when there is actually room to change the structures and functioning of government in line with systemic needs. Otherwise, the public sector can only ignore the complexity connected to policy problems, because they do not have means to do anything about it efficiently. Alternatively, public servants start to concentrate heavily on selected technical details – the frog view – that civil servants feel that they can control and deliver on, creating a false sense of certainty and purpose of action. Sometimes a number of incremental changes becomes a source of cumulative change; often however, many-layered policy interventions, well intended though they may be, will not make any difference at all, because they do not address the interconnected issues or the scale of issues adequately. This is not to blame policymakers or civil servants: the existing performance management and budgetary systems influence them to be reductionist in their work. Thus, part of the inability to use systems thinking in the public sector comes from the fact that established systems and government silos are created to deliver on goals and problems defined by a previous mass‑production era and they are highly path-dependent in nature. Hence, systemic reform of the public sector is needed towards more adaptive, reflexive processes, so that systems thinking can be effectively applied in specific policy fields.

What makes the application of systems thinking even more difficult in the public sector is that existing systems cannot be turned off, redesigned and restarted, because there is high need for continuous service provision (e.g. healthcare, education). Although an interesting exercise, the public sector does not have the luxury of doing zero-based budgeting with the help of systems thinking every year. Thus, the government needs to learn to introduce change in an iterative manner even if the change itself is contradictory to current practice.

Making systems thinking actionable in the public sector

Creating room for open-ended processes and synergistic feedback – more holistic practices inside the public sector – is not easy; yet it is not impossible. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation has been working with OECD member countries to introduce systems thinking methods in the public sector starting with Slovenia, Scotland, and Finland. The methods have been applied to review existing systemic reforms, for example the introduction and implementation of the National Performance Framework (NPF) in Scotland (Box 14.2). The Scottish experience showed that even if from the top-down the need for systems change is acknowledged and supported, it does not lead to uniform effects if the government and its capacities are not internally reformed to support action in a systemic manner.

Box 14.2. From sense-making to roadmaps: building collective scenarios for the Scottish NPF

Outcome-based management has been a trend in many OECD countries in the last decades, supported by performance-based budgeting and whole-of-government approaches. This has also led to more nuanced and welfare-oriented national goals. Many countries (e.g., Ecuador, France, Italy, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) are moving to measure welfare beyond-GDP and Scotland has been one of the early movers in this arena. Yet, there are many – political, process, measurement etc. – barriers connected to the adoption of such goals and their measures in policymaking. Consequently, even though more and more national governments have taken on the challenge of developing well-being measures and frameworks, and these are often well-documented in reports and websites, much less has been recorded about how, or even if, these indicators are actually being used to inform their policy decision-making.

The Scottish government’s NPF was first published as part of the 2007 Spending Review, and was refreshed in June 2018. The aim of the NPF was to unite the government under a single overarching purpose connected to sustainable, inclusive growth and wellbeing of its citizens and set high-level, measurable targets for the government (figure 14.2). The content (the underlying values, aims, and national indicators), can be accessed on a central website, where the government reports on the performance of the framework

Figure 14.2. Scottish National Performance framework

Source: https://nationalperformance.gov.scot/

In 2018, the Scottish government worked together with the Observatory of Public Sector Innovation using systems approaches to find out how much progress had been made over the previous ten years and what the systemic barriers inside the government were. The work culminated with a collective workshop on scenario-building to address some of the systemic barriers in the government. This enlightened innovative approaches to some of the issues faced by the public sector and the potential to push the transformation process further. Thus, systems thinking can be used as a way to spur on collective innovation around missions.

Source: OECD

The OECD’s practice has shown that making systems thinking actionable in the public sector does not rely on capacity alone. Public sector institutions and their ecosystems need to be adapted to new types of missions/challenges to be fit for purpose (budget cycles, organisational silos, feedback mechanisms etc.). Sometimes there are very concrete issues – such as political mandates, constitutional structures and behavioural influences from political interest (e.g., coalition governments) ‑ that cannot be changed, but influence systemic change profoundly. This does not have to paralyse action, but these should be analysed as boundaries for action that need to be designed around.

Designing cumulative systemic processes becomes even more important when different levels of governance are needed to make interventions effective. The case of air pollution is one of the most indicative here, because its determinants and effects transcend the usual areas of interventions.

A case for soft systems thinking?

Decision processes have often been one-way, meaning experts provide facts and a preferred decision option to responsible authorities, which may be chosen or not. This is opportune when there is a clear societal objective and various methodological approaches for illuminating policy paths to these goals. In contrast, when policy issue are ill-defined, even “wicked” in the sense that there are irreconcilable views on the problem and its solution (what cultural theorists refer to as “contested terrain”) multi-actor involvement can be essential for policy legitimisation and implementation. IIASA has been unique in structuring expert-stakeholder deliberative processes that bridge the gulf between systems models and practical policy options, what has been called soft systems science. The methodological approach encompasses a process of interaction, communication, and policy-making among the complex web of actors involved, including governments, international negotiators, businesses, conservationists, and civil society. As a book IIASA contributed to demonstrated across more than ten cases, policies made without participation from “all the voices” were significantly less robust than those with inclusive deliberation (Verweij, 2011).

Box 14.3. Local policy impact by implementing inclusive stakeholder processes

Soft system science for informing disaster risk management in Nocera Inferiore, Naples, Italy

In the city of Nocera Inferiore located at the base of landslide-prone Mount Albino close to Naples, Italy, experts worked with the municipality and jointly decided to build a landslide protection wall at the foot of the mountain, which was met with intense public protest (Amendola, 2013). The municipality welcomed a IIASA-led public participatory process to resolve the issue as there had been little guidance on how to institutionalise a two-way model for disaster risk management; that is, how to design deliberative processes that involve stakeholders and scientific experts to elicit their worldviews and co-produce knowledge for the policy process. The core feature of the IIASA-designed Nocera Inferiore process was the interactive coupling of expert-formulated policy options (including hazard and risk modelling) with stakeholder discourses. To generate alternatives to the wall, and ultimately resolve the issue of how to protect residents against landslides, IIASA designed and led a three-year process that made use of extensive stakeholder interviews, a public questionnaire, public meetings, an interactive web platform, and an extended citizen deliberative process. Based on respect for diverse stakeholder views and rejecting the notion of “consensus”, the process ended with a workable compromise in terms of a set of risk management measures to reduce landslide risk that were accepted by the municipality and other responsible authorities and are seeing implementation.

Sources: Linnerooth-Bayer, 2016.

Conclusion

This chapter highlights that the public sector itself needs a systemic change to be ready to use systems thinking tools for not only sense-making, but also as a methodology to deliver on 21^st century missions. It is not enough to talk about what types of systemic change are needed in different policy fields without connecting it to the ability of public sector institutions to implement the desired changed. As such, systems approaches cannot be introduced in the public sector through theory alone – they need to be learnt by doing and their implementation has to be continuous and inclusive, not ad hoc. This is needed as systems thinking is necessary to tackle complex problems and help reach compromise on complex public sector goals (such as missions) as it helps avoid or deal with unexpected and unwanted consequences. Consequently, systems thinking is a practice, not a theory; hence, civil servants and public sector partners should learn to apply it in actual examples.

Nevertheless, even if policymakers as individuals are systems thinkers, it does not mean that policies they fabricate are systemic; one needs institutions to support systems policymaking. Yet, clearly systems thinking, hard and soft, is and will continue to be an important part of the public sector toolbox in dealing with complex challenges and upcoming missions. OECD’s and IIASA’s work in this field has shown that public sector leaders face an uphill battle: there is little clarity on who should promote systems thinking in public organisations and who should assure their capacity.

References

Bouckaert, G. and B. Peters (2002), “Performance Measurement and Management”, Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 25/4, pp. 359-362, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2002.11643672

Kattel, R. and M. Mazzucato (2018), “Mission-oriented innovation policy and dynamic capabilities in the public sector”, IIPP Working Paper WP 2018-05, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/sites/public-purpose/files/iipp-wp-2018-05.pdf

Linnerooth-Bayer, Joanne (2016), “Multiple perspectives for better risk management”, IIASA, Laxenburg https://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/about/news/160418-nocera.html

OECD (2017), “Systems Approaches to Public Sector Challenges: Working with Change”. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264279865-en

OECD (ed.) (2018), “New approaches in policy design and experimentation”, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_in_outlook-2018-16-en

Tõnurist, P., V. Lember & R. Kattel. (2018). “La capacité technologique dans le secteur public : le cas de l’Estonie” Revue Internationale des Sciences Administratives. Vol. 84 https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-des-sciences-administratives-2018-2-page-221.htm

Verweij, Marco (2011), “Clumsy Solutions for a Wicked World: How to Improve Global Governance”, Palgrave Macmillan UK, London