22
MERRELYN EMERY AND DONALD DE GUERRE
Evolutions of Open Systems Theory
We must build a new world, a far better world—one in which the eternal dignity of man is respected.
—Harry S. Truman
Adapting to the Global Economy
When the city of Brandon in Manitoba, Canada, faced a challenging set of competing demands, it turned to the most recent advances in Open Systems Theory (OST). Brandon needed to:
• Maintain its rural values and quality of life while renewing its economy
• Engage its citizens toward participative democracy
Brandon used OST because, while most sectors had expertly developed strategic plans, they were uncoordinated, wasteful, and increasing either citizen apathy or resistance. In the fall of 2001, the city began to create adaptive organizations and governance. They chose a creative mix of Search Conferences (SC), Participative Design Workshops (PDW), and Unique Designs (UD). In 2003, Brandon won the “best place to work in Western Canada” award. In 2004–2005, citizens were selected through the community reference system (see “Search Conference,” chapter 35) and engaged in participative strategic planning. Figure 1 shows the social map.
The initial process consisted of:
• Two 1.5-day SCs of 35 participants to the point of deciding a desirable future (strategic goals),
• A 1-day integration event with 10 persons from each SC, and
• A third 1.5-day modified PDW with more than half the original participants to design an organization to do action planning and oversee goal implementation.
Figure 1. Community Strategic Plan Daisy
The SCs were differently composed, but in the integration event, participants became very excited when they realized that they had agreed to work together across sectors, something never achieved before. Brandon could maintain its traditional values and also become the biotechnology center of Canada.
During the final one-day organization design and action-planning meeting, nine self-managed action-planning groups formed around the strategic goals for education, health, socioeconomic development, youth, environment, agriculture, and government. A steering group took responsibility for coordination. They developed a nested series of action plans to implement the goals and prepared to take the work back to the community.
Since then, self-managing groups have refined their plans with widespread support and bright ideas such as the integration of federal, provincial, and municipal government activities. The steering group secured broad citizen support at a Town Hall meeting in the fall of 2005. The city staff team is now announcing new strategic collaborations and citizen involvement through the new democratic organization.
Brandon shows that while OST methods look event-based, they are designed to be a self-sustaining, continuous learning process. The reality-based theory means people grasp it quickly and intuitively. The events are structured to produce high and sustained motivation. There has been no follow-up facilitation. Brandon is shaping its own future.
The Basics: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
WHAT ARE THE OST EVOLUTIONS?
There are two major evolutions; the two-stage model and unique designs (UDs). Chapters 35 (Search Conference) and 43 (Participative Design Workshop) describe the original methods. The two-stage model is the integration of a Search Conference (SC) and a Participative Design Workshop (PDW) modified specifically for this purpose. UDs are processes that by definition are idiosyncratic to the unique purpose of the work that needs to be done, covering problems as well as puzzle solving. They consist of relevant OST principles and processes rearranged into unique events. These evolutions complement the original methods by providing flexibility to deliver reliable results for virtually any type of work. Since the first edition of The Change Handbook, these evolutions have grown fast, meeting the needs of clients and practitioners alike. Understanding these evolutions requires some OST history.
ACKNOWLEDGING THE PROBLEMS
Until 1990, OST practitioners concentrated on developing the SC and PDW for high reliability. There were two problems: The first was that many practitioners struggled to design events that were not strategic planning (addressed by SC) or organizational redesign (addressed by PDW).
The second problem was that some SCs were failing in the implementation phase. Conditions for universal success were not widely understood. Participants often created committees to implement their plans, but committees are bureaucratic structures that sap energy and motivation. SC participants needed to better understand the genotypical organizational design principles and participative democratic structures (see chapter 35).
SOLVING THE PROBLEMS—THE TWO-STAGE MODEL
Merrelyn Emery returned to the theory (figure 2). She discovered that the connection between the two parts of active adaptation—specifically (1) between the system and its environment and (2) within the system—had been lost as the SC and PDW developed as separate methods.
She reconnected the two parts by developing and testing a modified PDW for designing new structures where none existed (communities or new start-up organizations). The PDW modified for design differs from the original in each phase. Early tests including Region 9 of the U.S. Forest Service and the Athabasca Oil Sands in Alberta confirmed that the two-stage model could overcome the implementation problem.
UNIQUE DESIGNS
UDs share all OST concepts and principles. While UDs are by definition one-off events, each UD employs some concepts and steps from the original methods appropriate to its purpose and circumstances.
Figure 2. The Two-Stage Model of Active Adaptation
A Unique Design is designed backward such that:
• The first step is defining the outcome, clearly and precisely.
• The second step is deciding exactly what information the participants will need to accomplish the task. For example, would participants benefit from reviewing the history of the problem? Do they need to analyze the current context in which the problem has reappeared? Each of these pieces of information forms a discrete, participative step of the UD.
• The third step is arranging the required information into a smooth, logical flow of work that delivers the outcome.
Large projects like Brandon involve many unique events such as carefully designed integration events for cohesion.
Examples of UDs include:
• A university internship
• Gaining ISO certification
• Working within new budget constraints
• U.S. Forest Service Economic Action Group
• Reform in Marysville Middle School
• Organizational change in a shoe manufacturer
• Knowledge management in a telecom
• Planning in Groton Community (New York State)
• Sudbury Socioeconomic Planning
• Kahnawake Parental Governance of Schools
Participants can be inside or outside the system. Numbers vary from four to hundreds. Even short meetings can benefit from design work. As the original events are only as good as the preparation for them, so too are the evolutions. OST aims to make participants self-sufficient.
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS
It is easy to mistake UDs for an “anything goes” approach to design. However, the design of UDs is particularly demanding. There are two general misconceptions about all OST methods and particularly UDs:
• OST methods are easy to design and manage. Experienced managers make them look easy, as participants immediately work creatively. Casual observers do not realize the depth of theoretical understanding required to produce these effects.
• OST methods are based on a system of concepts. Many practitioners are not aware of the incompatibility of OST and some other frameworks. Mixing them can cause confusion, dependency, or resistance.
The rapid growth of these evolutions is a hopeful sign for our democracies.
Table of Uses
About the Authors
Merrelyn Emery ([email protected]) has been developing OST methods now for more than 35 years, many of them spent working with Fred Emery. She holds a first class honors degree in psychology and a Ph.D. in marketing. She has worked with innumerable communities and organizations in the public, private, and volunteer sectors. She continues to teach the state of the art of open systems theory around the world.
Don de Guerre ([email protected]) has worked with OST methods for 30 years in both organizations and communities. He is now a faculty member in the Department of Applied Human Sciences at Concordia University in Montréal. He teaches graduates and undergraduates in the domains of human systems intervention and action research, consulting process and skills, organizational design, and small group development. His research is focused on the further development of OST and its methods.
Where to Go for More Information
REFERENCES
Cabana, S. “Participative Design Works, Partially Doesn’t.” Journal for Quality and Participation 18, no. 1 (1995).
de Guerre, D. W. “Variations on the Participative Design Workshop.” In The Collaborative Work Systems Fieldbook: Strategies, Tools, and Techniques, edited by M. M. Beyerlein, G. Klein, and L. Broedling, 275–286. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, 2002.
Emery, F. “Participative Design: Effective, Flexible and Successful, Now!” Journal for Quality and Participation (January/February 1995).
Emery, F., and M. Emery. “The Participative Design Workshop.” In The Social Engagement of Social Science: A Tavistock Anthology: The Socio-technical Perspective, Vol. II, edited by Eric Trist and Hugh Murray, 599–613. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.
ORGANIZATIONS
Centre for Human Relations and Community Studies, Concordia University, Montréal—[email protected].
For information about training courses and current projects.
Fred Emery Institute, Melbourne—contact AMERIN Pty. Ltd., www.amerin.com.au.
The authors would like to thank Tom Devane for his editorial help.