Systems and Anticipatory Thinking Carlo Sessa mc 7920mclink

Systems and Anticipatory Thinking Carlo Sessa – mc 7920@mclink. it – www. isinnova. org INTREPID – Winter School – February 2017

Content Systems thinking concepts Future Search Workshop Anticipatory thinking: Three Horizons Framework Systems thinking to improve urban governance

Systems thinking concepts – A basic definition “A system is an interconnected set of elements that is coherently organized in a way which achieves something. . . [it] must consist of three kinds of things: elements, interconnections, and a function or purpose” – Donella Meadows, Thinking in Systems

Systems thinking concepts – Conceptual Models INFLUENCE (constraints) MILIEU SYSTEM Model of socio-ecological processes at the Negev Highlands INPUT (resources) OUTPUT (purpose) Source: Jennifer Holtzer SYSTEM BOUNDARY CONSEQUENCE (impacts)

Systems as networks: Deterministic Network Rail network STRUCTURE: • Most of the nodes have the same number of links • No redundant links (paths efficiency) • Low connectivity (high degree of separation between nodes) Gauss Law BEHAVIOUR: • Predictablity and stability • Deterministic design & hierarchical management (conformity to rules) • High vulnerability/low resilience

Systems as networks: Chaotic Network Flight connections STRUCTURE: • Few nodes have most of the links, many nodes have few links • Most of the links are redundant • High connectivity (low degree of separation between nodes) • Scale free (the same network structure is reproduced at different scales) Power Law BEHAVIOUR: • Preferential attachment to the nodes with the best fitness • Unpredictability and surprise (which node will fit best next? ) • Chaotic design and open/peer-topeer management • Low vulnerability/high resilience

Systems working: order out of chaos (fractal growth)

Future Search Workshop Bringing the “whole system in a room” for shaping the future together

Future Search Workshop – Mind-maps

Future Search Workshop – Action Plan

Anticipatory Thinking: Three Horizons Framework Prevalence NOW TRANSITION Shift to a new dominant paradigm and way of doing things Horizon 1 (Business as usual) Current view and way of doing things Turbulent transition zone (battleground of innovation) n 2 on) o riz ati Ho nov 3 (In t) zon Hori igm shif d (Para Short-term (e. g. 2020) FUTURE The innovation wave is calming down The old way of doing things is transcended Medium-term (e. g. 2030) Long-term (e. g. 2050) Time

Three Horizons Framework: The Future of Urban Transport Automation NOW PREVALENCE ic centr y l o p art rio H 3 sm th scena grow H 2: Transition window of opportunity ED OMAT T U A D TY SPREA OBILI WIDE HARED M AND S TRADITIONAL CITIES H 1 … SUBSTITUTE DRIVERDRIVEN TRAVEL LAG GA H 2 Short-term (2020) *STGs = Sustainable Transport Goals TIC AN … AND SATUR ATE TH E MAR KET CIT OR PAT IES S ITIE HYPER -MOB IL DRIVE ITY ENABLE D BY RLESS CARS YC I PIONEER CITIES NOW RD DRIVERLESS VEHICLES … H 3 STGs* FUTURE TRANSITION Medium-term (2025) H 1 ur ban s prawl scena rio Long-term (2030) TIME

Three Horizons Framework: Anticipatory + Normative Thinking Prevalence NOW TRANSITION 2 for n n o ) riz vatio ility o H no ab n i n I ( sta su n 3 hift) o s z i y r t i il Ho inab a t s (Su Short-term (e. g. 2020) Purpose Shift to a new sustainability paradigm and way of doing things Horizon 1 (Business as usual) Current view and unsustainable way of doing things FUTURE Sustainability transition zone (battleground for responsible innovation) The innovation wave is calming down The unsustainable way of doing things is transcended Medium-term (e. g. 2030) Long-term (e. g. 2050) Time

Systems thinking for urban governance “The benefit of systems theory remained mostly in the realm of computers and communication technology. Computer models have been developed and applied to study urban systems, but despite the inherent logic of system thinking, governments, corporations, foundations, universities, and non-profit organizations still work mostly by breaking issues and problems into their separate parts and dealing with each in isolation” - David Orr, Systems Thinking and the Future of Cities

. . . requires a system perspective. . . • A system perspective to urban governance is not a panacea, but can improve it, if coherently applied to: a) organize and analyze data (and ‘big’ data); b) educate a citizenry to understand the relationships between its behavior and its environmental and economic prospects; c) improve the quality of urban decisions by increasing the understanding and awareness of unintended consequences of actions undertaken in isolation; d) build new communities and organizations around common visions and shared purposes; e) help people and decision makers to be more reflexive and responsible in what they are doing (in Peter Senge’s words, ‘everyone shares responsibility for problems generated by a system’).

. . . and a new co-creative policy approach MILIEU URBAN SYSTEM EU, national, regional systems) Participation Framework Urban Government • • • Deterministic network Conformity to the rules Resistance to change • From electoral democracy to evidence & wisdom based democratic scrutiny of urban policies SUSTAINABLE URBAN INNOVATION Citizenship • • Chaotic network Prefential attachment Surprise Eager for change

Urban Governance: Participation Framework Participation methods Voice Online survey Online Arena Room Influence urban development policy (conception, evaluation, monitoring) Online statement Team work Team Transition Team Face-to-face PURPOSE Online consultation 5 20 Change makers Key stakeholders Voice Participants Collaborate for implementation Change personal/social behaviour Workshops Arena Citizens Raise awareness & mobilize campaigns Meetings Room 1000 100 Public events

Urban Governance: Participation Framework Layers of Participation TEAM A few people (initiators of the participation process) work as a team with frequent face-to-face and/or skype meetings, email exchanges etc. Usually up to 5 Core group of initiators ROOM More, but still few people, that can be easily accomodated in one room meet and discuss openly (brainstorm) without formal facilitation approaches Usually up to 20 Core group (5) + Change makers (15) ARENA A larger group of people meet for a structured discussion in one place (e. g. a conference room) which is moderated by professional facilitators, or respond to a structured online consultation. Up to 100 Core group (5) + Change makers (15) + Key stakeholders (60) VOICE A large public of people interested in voicing their opinions, responding to online surveys, and attending public events. It is a one-way process, without interactions as for the former layers It depends, usually 1000 is a good number for a meaningful survey Interested citizens

Questions for the group exercise (6 groups of 4 cases) • Is any form of future thinking included in your case (formalised or not)? May your methodology contribute to better future thinking and how? 15 minutes individually • Can you map a desirable future your case aims to achieve (mind-map) and devise it now with the help of the three horizons framework (H 1 no change; H 3 radical change; H 2 window of opportunity for change)? • Please discuss your case with the others at your table: a) your case future vision and/or b) any method useful to feed future thinking (cross-fertilization) 15 minutes together for each case • Reporting back from each group 2, 5 minutes for each case