#ISSS2016 Boulder

2865 

Wholeness could be explained from an oriental point of view, but in the end it seems to coincide with modern western systems thinking. It starts from the concentration on the parts in Reductionistic thinking, to the concentration on wholeness in Systems thinking. The second step involved the combination of the observer and decision maker with the teaching of Buddha. Finally last step would be to investigate the structure of the environment.

The application of system theory requires the understanding of ourselves, each other, the nature,  the past and future possibilities in a systemic way. That is, we need to understand both the structure and dynamics of our physical body systems, and of our mental observers. Research shows that the composition of our body and that of our mind may be explained by the same system theory relating energy, matter, life and information. We employed this simple ancient system theory as taught by Buddha to investigate how our naturally systemic-structured mind artificially developed all this non-systemic and problematic thinkings.  We use our body to experience the world around us but our mind is the one who is observing and making the decisions to change the world. System theory sees the world composed of observers,decision makers, systems, the environment, the boundaries and the relationships among them. And there are two opposite forces in the world that constantly interacting with each other, creating the flow of energy, matter and information between systems and the environment. On one hand we have the disorder force governed by the second law of thermodynamics that drive everything into a equilibrium state with maximum entropy. On the other hand we have the organizational force governed by the constrains of a system that drive the system into a particular desired  steady state with a low entropy.
 
Our mind are both the observer and the decision maker with a major problem. Throughout our life we have been looking for satisfaction that brings happiness. Our government have been relying on economics to achieve this but 80% of the time we are dis-satisfied with the people and situations around us, bringing craving, aversion and ignorance into our minds and creating all sorts of problems in our society. This is called suffering in the teaching of Buddha, and he offered us with a three step solution for our mind. In this workshop we investigate the systemic view of these three steps namely self protection, concentration and purification of our mind. We also investigate a 10 days Vipassana mental healthcare program for people of all religions including scientific communities. It is believed such a program could bring happiness, peacefulness and harmony for our community. 

Death is the end of our lives or just the beginning of another new life? A system undergoes a transition of system state upon death, but will the system continue in other forms at other places? Or will it just terminate totally? What are the possible new system states and are they sustainable? In this workshop we will investigate the sustainability of Heaven, Hell, Earth and Nibbana (null). And we investigate the way to prepare ourselves to transit into these states.   

2932

The goals of the ISSS include researching a general theory of systems (GST) by discovering isomorphies, unifying science, and transferring models between disciplines. For 45 years, this speaker has been contributing to a Systems Processes Theory (SPT) which some have described as the most advanced and detailed, science-based theory of systems extant in attempting to fulfill that dream of ISSS Founders. This tutorial will condense several graduate, university-level core courses on SPT into one presentation. It will begin with the differences between the popular and widely known “systems thinking” and “systems philosophy” found in ISSS and the criteria for a true science of systems. It will then describe why study of isomorphic systems processes is of fundamental importance, how this school of thought teaches & provides evidence that systems processes are isomorphic between widely different systems, how studies of natural systems using the scientific method leads to strong evidence of how systems work in general, and how to find such GST isomorphies in the voluminous science literature. The results is a science-based theory having both unprecedented descriptive and prescriptive power. While the early Founders of GST focused mostly on the natural sciences and math, the present workers in ISSS mostly ignore the natural sciences and profess that belief in and awareness of systems alone is sufficient to guide applications. This line of research is an antidote to that approach. It will present many more candidate isomorphies than any other extant program of study. It will describe how data is being collected on 110 such candidate isomorphies to fill 26 information categories and produce a massive data base and bibliography. It will add the critically important additional step, not taken by ISSS Founders, of showing how these isomorphies impact and influence each other to achieve systems stability and dynamics (how systems work). It will try to show how such detail can be used to improve systems design, understand the new field of top-down systems pathology (how systems don’t work) to enhance systems repair & curation. It will show how this detail can be used as a stronger, more scientific knowledge base for new fields like sustainability and systems engineering which are themes of this conference. It will also indicate how this overall theory and knowledge base has been used for several funded programs in Systems Education in preparation for a Friday presentation on assessment of those attempts.

Format:
For each hour there will be 40 min of presentation followed immediately by 20 min of open discussion. Lunch will be brought in so that noon to 1 pm can also be used for open discussion. These basics can be supplemented by >17 hours of streaming video. This Pre-conference event will be cancelled if at least seven participants do not contact speaker at lrtroncale@cpp.edu stating intention to attend before the conference.

2735

Globally, information systems are gaining prominence and their proliferation has been substantial considering the rate of adoption by the masses.  Information systems facilitate design of solutions that are useful, usable, desirable, efficient, effective and different. People, technologies, and processes are brought together to address a problem by conceiving a solution that creates value for users. As a result, the world at large is witnessing a massive pace of digitization wherein businesses and governments are adopting different forms of information systems to connect to their customers in order to bring in a difference.  As a result, increasingly the term “Digital” has been utilize to characterize such information systems.

Digital is far more pervasive now than it was previously and its mass adoption has enabled information generation and application in diverse areas.  However, digital by itself is not beneficial to anyone.  Only when Digital enables a sector/domain, it becomes useful.

Businesses have realized the importance of digital as a differentiator in customer engagements so as to stay competitive and relevant in their respective areas of business.
They have also realized that digital has transformed social interactions, customer relationships, as well as reshaped the ability to access and leverage information.  They have experienced that business decisions are no longer based on opinions but on verifiable data.


To cope with this, businesses deal with interconnected, global systems that interact with multiple role players across multiple geographies, addressing multiple concerns of stakeholders across multiple disciplines by utilizing emerging technologies in a dynamic and challenging environment while providing near real time response and rich customer experience.  Over the last few decades, product companies who were traditionally involved in creating digital solutions have moved into service businesses as the market for their core product has reached maturity.  This is further prompted by the change in employment patterns, job opportunities, contribution to GDP and reduction in product sales and license fees.  However, such companies need ways and means for improving and standardizing their services as the reputation for the quality of their services is generally poor affecting their customer’s loyalty and brand image.  Since digital has standardized quality in other domains, it is obvious that digital can provide key advantages to these companies by improving quality of their services.  In this discussion, such digitally enhanced/enabled services are considered as digital services.  Digital service is an integration of people, processes, infrastructure and digital technologies, which are independent and operable, and which are networked together for a period of time to deliver a service for the benefit of another entity or the entity itself in real world.  The formation of the digital service is not a permanent phenomenon but rather a necessity for integrating and networking the different components to achieve the desired quality levels for the service.  The digital service emerges from a combination of the constituent elements (people, processes, infrastructure, and digital technologies), the interactions between themselves and their interactions with the customer’s environment.

While delivering digital services, businesses need to deal with interconnected, global systems, interact with collection of related services, multiple geographies, multiple stakeholders with differing concerns, multiple disciplines, emerging technologies, dynamic and challenging environment, interconnectivity and variety, near real time response and rich customer experience.  Digital services design aims at synthesizing services that are useful, usable and desirable from the consumer perspective, and efficient, effective and different from the provider perspective. It brings together people, skills, technology, methods and tools to address change and create value for customers. It involves solving multiple problems across multiple disciplines. It is iterative and requires participation of several stakeholders’ along with relevant domain experts. Existing service design methodologies are implicitly software/product design methodologies and they require tweaking to be applied in a servicing situation.

Applying the same mind-set to designing a service as to the design of product/software will lead to solutions that are possibly not appropriate to the servicing scenario. Services cannot be treated in the same way that software are treated and it is necessary to have a different perspective for designing services.  Currently, while numerous architectural frameworks and service design approaches as well as numerous digitization case-studies exist, a unified systematic approach for designing digital services does not exist.  In this workshop, the foundational concepts and the underlying processes for an approach to design digital services is presented.  

Keywords: Information Systems, Services, Digital Solutions, Digital Services, Architecting Digital Services, Transforming Digital Solutions, Enabling Services
 

2849

This introductory workshop will teach you the fundamentals of the Spiral Dynamics integral (SDi) theory as developed by Dr. Don Beck. We can go as deep as the class wishes to go, and I will frame the conversation through the lens of SDi. We will balance learning through various styles (teaching, dialogue, a/v) and you will come away with an appreciation of the beauty as well as complexity of the model.Ben Levi has taught certified Level 1 and 2 courses with Dr. Beck for seven years, and has studied SDi and integral theory for sixteen years. 

2948

Living systems analysis includes both qualitative and quantitative sciences.

Qualitative living systems are treated well in James Millers Living Systems.

Philosophers have been trying since the 18thcentury to develop a science of society based on laws of nature. The physical sciences are based on (1) the identification of universal phenomena, the relation among them and their measures (quantification).

The universal phenomena of things that live are: matter, energy, information, and knowledge.

These phenomena have been identified and quantified.  The quantification of living systems phenomena and their relations provide the basis of quantitative living systems analysis 

The universal phenomena of knowledge and information are recent discoveries.

Quantification of knowledge and information are currently at the cellular level.  The task before us is quantify knowledge and information at all levels from the cell up to and including humans and their organizations.   

2930 

Ancient, Native, Indigenous and Tribal cultures.

A 2 hour documentary film “Force of Nature” produced by David Suzuki Foundation, CA, will be shown as the main event for the workshop. The filmbuilds on Dr. Suzuki’s personal experiences and contrasts the main stream Western world view with the Indigenous world view for the survival of all life on our planet. An opinion letter to be published in Ancient Science titled “conscious world view Transforming Individuals, Science, its Education and Research by V. Gupta, I. Gupta and J. Saldarriaga, will be distributed to the participants well before the workshop.

2866

The systemic thinking of the unification of nature and man has been the fundamental concept in traditional Chinese culture since around 500BC. The concept is also embedded in the teaching of Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Traditional Chinese Medicine. The traditional Chinese system theories under investigation include the Taichi yin-yang system theory, the Five systems theory of the human mind, and the Traditional Chinese Medicine differential diagnosis-cure process. These theories are found to be related to different modern system theories compared including Viable system model.

Taichi yin-yang system theory describes the relationship between any two entities (element/process) at any level of interest. It concerns the quantitative and qualitative changes between the entities. This is related to causal loop diagram (CLD) in system dynamics which uses reinforcing loop and balancing loop. The observer is not specified in the theories, but the perspectives of the observer actually determine the entities, the unit of quantitative changes, and the ratio of qualitative changes.The Five systems theory of the human mind is one of the important concepts developed in the teaching of Buddha. The Five systems are: awareness, perspective, sensation, action and physical object. These five systems are able to describe the properties of the observer and the decision maker.

The Traditional Chinese Medicine differential diagnosis-cure process is a practical systemic process that has been used daily for more than 2000 years. It is believed that the whole macroscopic-microscopic spectrum of systems is suitable. The system state identification involves three pairs of direction-forming spectrums. The Superficial and Internal spectrum gathers information between the boundary and the system. The Cold and Hot spectrum gathers information between the form and function, or matter and energy within the system. The Deficient and Excess spectrum gathers information between the environment and the system. Strategy can then be formulated to regulate and maintain the system.

Keywords:
Reuniting Nature and Humanity, Buddhism, Causal loop diagram CLD, Confucianism, Five systems of human mind, General System Theory, Health and system thinking, quantitative and qualitative changes, Spirituality and Systems, System dynamics, Taichi Yin-Yang System Theory, Taoism, Buddha's teaching, Traditional Chinese Medicine differential diagnosis-cure process, Unification of nature and man, Viable system model VSM. 

Supporting Agencies:
Ancient Balance Medicine Research and Education Fund Foundation Ltd. 

2886 This workshop will further develop the initiatives of the Systems Research Team (SRT), which met for the second time at the 2016 IFSR Conversation in Linz, Austria. This workshop furthers the development of the SRT’s work by integrating the 2014 and 2016 teams into a collaborative cohort of researchers, scholars and practitioners in the Systems Sciences. The combined SRT consists of: Mary Edson (team leader), Pam Buckle Henning, Tim Ferris, Debora Hammond, Andreas Hieronymi, Ray Ison, John Kineman, Louis Klein, Gary Metcalf, George Mobus, Nam Nguyen, David Rousseau, Shankar Sankaran, and Will Varey with consulting team member, Peter Tuddenham. Some of the primary goals of the SRT are to educate, inform, and invite engagement by interested individuals and institutions from diverse fields and disciplines in the Systems Sciences through Systems Research and Systems Literacy. BackgroundThe two meetings of the SRT have developed two streams of value to the Systems Sciences. The first stream, started in 2014, focused on development of systems researchers and the body of knowledge. The second stream, started in 2016, focuses on role of Systems Research in the Systems Literacy Initiative. The 2014 SRT’s focus was answering the question, “What distinguishes Systems Research from other types of research,” an internal focus intended to provide grounding for researchers new to the Systems Sciences. The outcome of this phase of the SRT’s work was the publication of a book, A Guide to Systems Research: Philosophy, Processes and Practice (Springer, 2016). The 2016 SRT’s focus is on reaching out to a broader community to provide a foundation for Systems Literacy. The team’s Conversation revolved around the question, “How can Systems Research be in service to Systems Literacy?” The team’s conversations were directed into two essential aspects, separate and integrated, of this question. In one aspect, Systems Research serves Systems Literacy by providing a credible foundation for the principles and practices of Systems Science and Systems Thinking in both systematic and systemic modes. In the other aspect, Systems Research provides a neutral frame for development of ethical applications of those principles and practices. The development of Systems Research in support Systems Literacy is the ongoing collaboration of the SRT. This workshop focuses on that development.Workshop DescriptionThe workshop will be conducted in two parts. In the first part, the SRT will review and revisit the team’s work to date, creating a foundation for development during this session. Two of the three hours of this workshop will be a working session devoted to unpacking the eight critical factors identified during the 2016 IFSR Conversation. These factors will serve as a basis for a Knowledge Base (KB) and an Investment Portfolio (IP) for Systems Literacy (SL). This portion of the workshop will be guided by David Rousseau (KB) and Ray Ison (IP). A Systems Analysis, guided by George Mobus, will further define and distinguish these critical factors as part of a SR/SL KB and IP. Further details of this process are provided in the following description (see Background). In the second part (the third hour) the SRT invites students, as well as researchers and other interested participants, to join a discussion about the newly published, Guide to Systems Research (see above). In this part of the session, how Systems Research contributes to establishment of a reliable KB from which SL can create a set of foundational principles will be explored, as well as identify systemic sensibilities for a broader audience.Why: Systems Research in Service to Systems LiteracyMotivation for development of a KB through SR for SL comes from theoretical and practical sources. The SRT recognizes the exigency in development of foundational principles of Systems Science and Systems Thinking that can be effectively adopted and disseminated through Systems Literacy. The team’s narrative begins with an understanding the urgency for application of Systems Sciences and Systems Thinking to wicked problems (Malik, 2016; Churchman, 1967; Rittel, 1973) and messes (Ackoff, 1974/97). Systems Research is typically a slow generation of results; however, the body of knowledge gained through this process can be confidently used to address complexity in timely ways. The criticality of the need for salient approaches to complexity is shown in a graphic representation of some possible trajectories of applying or not applying these Systems principles in practice. The ApproachThe choice of how we respond to these issues relates to a process model that can be applied. Through understanding the relationship of the process model to the trajectory, the team directed its focus to developing a MindMap of eight essential aspects or features of how Systems Research can support Systems Literacy. These include: Systems Science knowledge base, roles and personas, maturity models, role profile, ontology/vocabulary, perspective/framing choice, frameworks, and political ecology. Each of these eight has its own process of unpacking, which was demonstrated to the Conversation participants using the knowledge base. The eight relate to unpacking the Systems landscape in a coherent but loosely coupled investment portfolio (economic, social, and relational) for building systemic sensibility in such a way as to be dis/aggregated for different audiences.  After identifying eight, critical factors or components that form the structural aspects of the process our team decided to explore these factors further. The team developed a mind map of the critical factors (or ways of knowing) and developed separate mind maps of each of the factors. These factors need further unpacking (clarification, definition, and distinction), as well as systems analysis, to refine the process model that was developed during the Conversation. The purpose of this process is not about increasing the amount of systems books and papers in the KB, but to connect the relevance of this KB in supporting SL toward effecting change in the world as ethically determined through stakeholder engagement. As a natural result of this discussion, a cascade of more questions emerged such as, “How can we bridge the perceived gap between academic knowledge and real-world practice,” and “What are the necessary intermediary factors from insight to impact?”
Systems Landscape and Systemic SensibilitiesRay urged the team to frame the next steps of the contribution of the SRT (or rebranded as  the ‘Landscape of Systems Knowing Inquiry’) as we devised a ‘first-cut’ model (Figure 2 and Table 1) of an ‘investment portfolio’ as a device to aid on-going inquiry by us, as well as a means to organize and report on our work and that of other groups committed to supporting transitions to systemic literacy (systemic sensibility + [systems science + systems thinking in practice or STiP]) (Blackmore, C., Reynolds, M., Ison, R. & Lane, A., 2015).  We understand investment to include financial, individual, intellectual, group, organizational, philanthropic, among other characteristics or attributes, and the ‘portfolio’ to be designed drawing on concepts of self-organization, open-source protocols, and easy refinement for different purposes/investors.  As outlined earlier we identified eight elements of a possible system to enhance the quality of systems knowing, though the possible systemic relations among these eight are yet to be established, understood and articulated (e.g. there may need to be more or less). We suggest that in a 'first-cut' portfolio design each of these eight elements needs to utilize/complete the following template:• What is the element - characterize it?• Why is it important?• What is a story (narrative) or case study about it - of need, failure, success, etc.?• Suggest possible 'investment' agendas or pathways - who; how; when?Monitoring and evaluation systems against agreed, yet adaptable, measures of performance are needed ‘in service’ of moving towards systemic literacy. Controlling action will also be needed. These ‘systems’ will also require a conducive institutional/organizational platform from which to operate and thrive.Conclusions and RecommendationsThe SRT’s Conversation focused on the question, “How can Systems Research be in service to Systems Literacy?” To reiterate, discussions were coalesced into two essential aspects. First, Systems Research serves Systems Literacy by providing a credible foundation for the principles and practices of Systems Science and Systems Thinking in both systematic and systemic ways. Second, Systems Research provides an impartial, dispassionate frame for development of ethical and effective applications of those principles and practices.In the team’s view, successful programs in Systems Literacy will be grounded in Systems Research encompassing: 1.) a history of systems thinking (context, sources, and development of key ideas – principles expressed in clear language); 2.) literature of systems (a canon of essential theory, results of practice, and criticism); and 3) tr...

2886 This workshop will further develop the initiatives of the Systems Research Team (SRT), which met for the second time at the 2016 IFSR Conversation in Linz, Austria. This workshop furthers the development of the SRT’s work by integrating the 2014 and 2016 teams into a collaborative cohort of researchers, scholars and practitioners in the Systems Sciences. The combined SRT consists of: Mary Edson (team leader), Pam Buckle Henning, Tim Ferris, Debora Hammond, Andreas Hieronymi, Ray Ison, John Kineman, Louis Klein, Gary Metcalf, George Mobus, Nam Nguyen, David Rousseau, Shankar Sankaran, and Will Varey with consulting team member, Peter Tuddenham. Some of the primary goals of the SRT are to educate, inform, and invite engagement by interested individuals and institutions from diverse fields and disciplines in the Systems Sciences through Systems Research and Systems Literacy. BackgroundThe two meetings of the SRT have developed two streams of value to the Systems Sciences. The first stream, started in 2014, focused on development of systems researchers and the body of knowledge. The second stream, started in 2016, focuses on role of Systems Research in the Systems Literacy Initiative. The 2014 SRT’s focus was answering the question, “What distinguishes Systems Research from other types of research,” an internal focus intended to provide grounding for researchers new to the Systems Sciences. The outcome of this phase of the SRT’s work was the publication of a book, A Guide to Systems Research: Philosophy, Processes and Practice (Springer, 2016). The 2016 SRT’s focus is on reaching out to a broader community to provide a foundation for Systems Literacy. The team’s Conversation revolved around the question, “How can Systems Research be in service to Systems Literacy?” The team’s conversations were directed into two essential aspects, separate and integrated, of this question. In one aspect, Systems Research serves Systems Literacy by providing a credible foundation for the principles and practices of Systems Science and Systems Thinking in both systematic and systemic modes. In the other aspect, Systems Research provides a neutral frame for development of ethical applications of those principles and practices. The development of Systems Research in support Systems Literacy is the ongoing collaboration of the SRT. This workshop focuses on that development.Workshop DescriptionThe workshop will be conducted in two parts. In the first part, the SRT will review and revisit the team’s work to date, creating a foundation for development during this session. Two of the three hours of this workshop will be a working session devoted to unpacking the eight critical factors identified during the 2016 IFSR Conversation. These factors will serve as a basis for a Knowledge Base (KB) and an Investment Portfolio (IP) for Systems Literacy (SL). This portion of the workshop will be guided by David Rousseau (KB) and Ray Ison (IP). A Systems Analysis, guided by George Mobus, will further define and distinguish these critical factors as part of a SR/SL KB and IP. Further details of this process are provided in the following description (see Background). In the second part (the third hour) the SRT invites students, as well as researchers and other interested participants, to join a discussion about the newly published, Guide to Systems Research (see above). In this part of the session, how Systems Research contributes to establishment of a reliable KB from which SL can create a set of foundational principles will be explored, as well as identify systemic sensibilities for a broader audience.Why: Systems Research in Service to Systems LiteracyMotivation for development of a KB through SR for SL comes from theoretical and practical sources. The SRT recognizes the exigency in development of foundational principles of Systems Science and Systems Thinking that can be effectively adopted and disseminated through Systems Literacy. The team’s narrative begins with an understanding the urgency for application of Systems Sciences and Systems Thinking to wicked problems (Malik, 2016; Churchman, 1967; Rittel, 1973) and messes (Ackoff, 1974/97). Systems Research is typically a slow generation of results; however, the body of knowledge gained through this process can be confidently used to address complexity in timely ways. The criticality of the need for salient approaches to complexity is shown in a graphic representation of some possible trajectories of applying or not applying these Systems principles in practice. The ApproachThe choice of how we respond to these issues relates to a process model that can be applied. Through understanding the relationship of the process model to the trajectory, the team directed its focus to developing a MindMap of eight essential aspects or features of how Systems Research can support Systems Literacy. These include: Systems Science knowledge base, roles and personas, maturity models, role profile, ontology/vocabulary, perspective/framing choice, frameworks, and political ecology. Each of these eight has its own process of unpacking, which was demonstrated to the Conversation participants using the knowledge base. The eight relate to unpacking the Systems landscape in a coherent but loosely coupled investment portfolio (economic, social, and relational) for building systemic sensibility in such a way as to be dis/aggregated for different audiences.  After identifying eight, critical factors or components that form the structural aspects of the process our team decided to explore these factors further. The team developed a mind map of the critical factors (or ways of knowing) and developed separate mind maps of each of the factors. These factors need further unpacking (clarification, definition, and distinction), as well as systems analysis, to refine the process model that was developed during the Conversation. The purpose of this process is not about increasing the amount of systems books and papers in the KB, but to connect the relevance of this KB in supporting SL toward effecting change in the world as ethically determined through stakeholder engagement. As a natural result of this discussion, a cascade of more questions emerged such as, “How can we bridge the perceived gap between academic knowledge and real-world practice,” and “What are the necessary intermediary factors from insight to impact?”
Systems Landscape and Systemic SensibilitiesRay urged the team to frame the next steps of the contribution of the SRT (or rebranded as  the ‘Landscape of Systems Knowing Inquiry’) as we devised a ‘first-cut’ model (Figure 2 and Table 1) of an ‘investment portfolio’ as a device to aid on-going inquiry by us, as well as a means to organize and report on our work and that of other groups committed to supporting transitions to systemic literacy (systemic sensibility + [systems science + systems thinking in practice or STiP]) (Blackmore, C., Reynolds, M., Ison, R. & Lane, A., 2015).  We understand investment to include financial, individual, intellectual, group, organizational, philanthropic, among other characteristics or attributes, and the ‘portfolio’ to be designed drawing on concepts of self-organization, open-source protocols, and easy refinement for different purposes/investors.  As outlined earlier we identified eight elements of a possible system to enhance the quality of systems knowing, though the possible systemic relations among these eight are yet to be established, understood and articulated (e.g. there may need to be more or less). We suggest that in a 'first-cut' portfolio design each of these eight elements needs to utilize/complete the following template:• What is the element - characterize it?• Why is it important?• What is a story (narrative) or case study about it - of need, failure, success, etc.?• Suggest possible 'investment' agendas or pathways - who; how; when?Monitoring and evaluation systems against agreed, yet adaptable, measures of performance are needed ‘in service’ of moving towards systemic literacy. Controlling action will also be needed. These ‘systems’ will also require a conducive institutional/organizational platform from which to operate and thrive.Conclusions and RecommendationsThe SRT’s Conversation focused on the question, “How can Systems Research be in service to Systems Literacy?” To reiterate, discussions were coalesced into two essential aspects. First, Systems Research serves Systems Literacy by providing a credible foundation for the principles and practices of Systems Science and Systems Thinking in both systematic and systemic ways. Second, Systems Research provides an impartial, dispassionate frame for development of ethical and effective applications of those principles and practices.In the team’s view, successful programs in Systems Literacy will be grounded in Systems Research encompassing: 1.) a history of systems thinking (context, sources, and development of key ideas – principles expressed in clear language); 2.) literature of systems (a canon of essential theory, results of practice, and criticism); and 3) tr...

2949  What is it like to be Trans-Gendered? Is it easier to comprehend through the Anticipatory Systems Lens of Robert Rosen's scientific work?In this dual presentation, we will explore these ideas and hopefully arrive at a much clearer understanding of what Gender Dysphoria is like to live with as well as a greater comprehension of what causes it, from a model-based, model-guided Systems Science perspective.Donna Rosen is a trans-gendered woman who has already undergone the process of transition and surgery that is currently the standard of medical care in the United States. She has written a book about her experiences and will share what it's like at the age of 3 to realize you are stuck in a strange situation that other people cannot see but you can't tell anybody about it, either.Judith Rosen will discuss Anticipatory Systems Theory and show how the human mind and body represent an evolutionary development as a dual-Anticipatory System in one living organism. The interaction between mental models and somatic models can often be dysfunctional, particularly when they are each defining the “self” in conflicting ways. Gender Dysphoria is precisely that situation.

Background: Borne of the practical turn in social science epistemology, action research typically espouses claims of personal, team, organizational, and community improvement/ transformation. It is also widely promoted as an effective framework of empowerment and emancipation to improve a social situation or condition (Reason & Bradbury, 2008; Stringer, 2007): an intent which appeals to leaders wishing to create improvement, particularly in low socio-economic and disadvantaged communities (Sankaran 2016). Validity of such espousals has been substantially unexplored, and where evaluations have occurred they have been focused more on process than impact. A group of international researchers are engaged in an evaluative study of over 100 action research initiatives (ESAR study) using a variety of methods, tools and conceptual frameworks. The Maturity Model is one of the conceptual frameworks adopted in the ESAR study. 
Maturity models have their origins in the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) developed through research to address the poor performance of software projects delivered to the US department of defence in the 1980’s. The purpose of the CMM model was to help contractors increase capability to improve their software engineering processes from an ad-hoc state to more formal and repeatable state and eventually to optimise the processes to be able to deliver consistent outcomes. Maturity models have found their way into many other organisational contexts such as project management, knowledge management, process management, research capability and even for information systems action research project management.
A typical maturity model consists of a sequence of levels that form a path to follow to move from an initial to an advance stage of maturity. These models help organisations to evaluate their current level of maturity of a process and set goals to move towards a higher maturity level.
While maturity models often use ‘business speak’ in their definition and terms used to describe  levels of maturity the authors feel that they can be made palatable and useful to action researchers to improve the ways in which they can manage their projects to deliver sustainable outcomes. This resulted in the development of the maturity profile.
The international ESAR research team have developed a framework of process and outcome indicators to represent stages of implementation and accomplishment for AR initiatives.  Data from pilot case studies were used to develop a maturity profile for AR initiatives, representing levels of maturity and evaluative outcomes at different stages of a project.  A questionnaire has also been developed for key attributes of a maturity profile that will be used at the proposed workshop to be validated and trialled by action researchers..The proposed workshop will be conducted using a ‘World Café’ format with the following schedule (Overall 90 minutes)
• Welcome and Introductions (10 minutes)• Welcome to the workshop –• Key Question to discuss today• Introduction of the facilitators• Allocation of participants to tables• Introduction to the process – (5 minutes)• World Café Rounds (50 minutes)• Break (10 minutes)• Prioritization (15 minutes)• Close 
The results from this workshop will be compared with similar workshop s that were held at the ALARA World Congress held in Pretoria in November 2015 and a workshop proposed at the next ALARA World Congress being held in November 2016 held in Adelaide.
The data from the three workshops will be analyzed and submitted as a journal paper by the authors in Systemic Practice and Action Research.

References:
Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (EDs.) 2008. The SAGE handbook of action research, 2nd. ed., London: Sage.
Sankaran, S. (in press). Taking action using systems research. In M. C. Edson, P. Buckle Henning, & S. Sankaran (Eds.), A guide to systems research: Philosophy, processes and practice. Singapore: Springer.
Stringer, E. T. (2013). Action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

2937 System Literacy and Systemic Innovation for Thrivable Future 

2783   This workshop will expand upon the content and ideas provided in the earlier session: Outdoor Adolescent Rites of Passages: Theoretical Foundations, Contemporary Shortcomings, and the Emerging New Model. Participants will be engaged by exploring personal connections to the outdoors and meaningful experiences they have had in the wilderness. A practical and working model of a community-based outdoor youth engagement initiative will then be presented. Participants will be asked to contribute to the development of this model through critical feedback, generative dialogue, and human-centered design. Participants will leave the workshop with a deeper understanding of how outdoor rites of passage can be offered in any community, as well as having contributed to the development of a practical initiative in Colorado.

2949  What is it like to be Trans-Gendered? Is it easier to comprehend through the Anticipatory Systems Lens of Robert Rosen's scientific work?In this dual presentation, we will explore these ideas and hopefully arrive at a much clearer understanding of what Gender Dysphoria is like to live with as well as a greater comprehension of what causes it, from a model-based, model-guided Systems Science perspective.Donna Rosen is a trans-gendered woman who has already undergone the process of transition and surgery that is currently the standard of medical care in the United States. She has written a book about her experiences and will share what it's like at the age of 3 to realize you are stuck in a strange situation that other people cannot see but you can't tell anybody about it, either.Judith Rosen will discuss Anticipatory Systems Theory and show how the human mind and body represent an evolutionary development as a dual-Anticipatory System in one living organism. The interaction between mental models and somatic models can often be dysfunctional, particularly when they are each defining the “self” in conflicting ways. Gender Dysphoria is precisely that situation.

2946  Systems Literacy is a coordinated ongoing effort to create a greater awareness and understanding about “Systems” in society, schools and universities and engineering and to develop a comprehensive set of big ideas, supporting concepts and learning progressions. This Plenary is an invitation to join this initiative throughout the conference and beyond.

The presentation will describe the work completed in the past 12 months since this project began at last year’s ISSS Annual conference in Berlin 2015. The International Society for Systems Sciences is partnered with the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) and the International Federation for Systems Research (IFSR) to develop Systems Literacy. In 2000 work began at the National Geographic to encourage geographic literacy. This work progressed with the support of U.S. Government agencies such as the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, Department of Energy, Department of Interior and many varied not for profit and educational organizations, to embrace projects on ocean literacy, earth science literacy, atmospheric literacy, climate literacy and energy literacy. These subject areas are a good foundation and models for exploring how Systems Literacy can be a path towards realizing sustainable futures.  The specific case of the Ocean Literacy project will be described as a model for Systems Literacy.  It was started in 2004 and has now influenced US Ocean Policy, the development of the recently published Next Generation Science Standards and now European Union sponsored projects on ocean literacy in Europe. A similar aspiration and challenge for Systems Literacy will be described. Connections to other conference plenaries and the themes of this conference will be made. Learning opportunities and ways to contribute will be outlined. A look forward to Plenary X will be made with the intent of building a richer picture of the Systems Literacy project development possibilities and plans by the Friday of the conference. 

2784  The workshop develops a network thinking lens then builds inter-organizational networking capacity with participants using Network Weaving principles and processes (Holley, 2010). Participants interact using Liberating Structures (Lipmanowicz & McCandless, 2014) to build relationships in the session and unleash collective intelligence to form inclusive networks of diverse stakeholders. An exercise makes the group’s structure visible first on butcher paper and then modeled in a free on-line network mapping tool (Kumu). An appreciation of the power of network thinking is developed. Techniques for building action-oriented, intentional, relationship-rich, and supportive networks can be applied to participant’s respective domain practices. Facilitated structures that achieve surprisingly good group engagement are easily adopted upon returning to participant home organizations. And we have fun!
This highly participatory workshop addresses the challenge of sustainability in human collectives working for change together by harnessing their diversity through intentional and systematic relationship building.  It uses information technology to make relationship structure visible (Kumu). It uses a “social technology of discourse” (Liberating Structures) to engage the active intelligence and diversity of every participant to build a social structure (Community of Practice) that can affect change through harnessing and coordinating their common intention.

Participants learn and take away:
1. A network thinking lens• Use a network thinking lens to engage differently in organizations • Use Network Weaving principles to begin to build out intentional networks for action• Holley, J. (2012). Network weaver handbook: A guide to transformational networks. Network Weaver Publishing
2. Use Liberating Structures to enable surprisingly good outcomes for groups• Learn the Liberating Structure called “1-2-4-all” to enhance the generative potential of any meeting• Learn the Liberating Structure “Social Network Webbing” so face-to-face groups visualize their networks• Capture the value diversity brings through full participation; encourage every voice• Lipmanowicz, H., & McCandless, K. (2014). The surprising power of liberating structures: Simple rules to unleash a culture of innovation.
3. Connect with people doing similar work, create Communities of Practice• Use Kumu to capture and model those relationships• Get support from like-minded network builders in the session when we return to our practices• https://kumu.ioParticipants discuss how and why building intentional networks based on strong, supportive relationships result in action. We’ll demonstrate Network Weaving concepts and methods applied to organizational networks. We’ll make networks visible by actually capturing and modeling the network of participants. Using Liberating Structures that hold both the individual and collective in the session enables participants to try them in their practices. Participants leave with new perspectives, increased skills in facilitating conversations, and accessible demonstrations of simple tools that support ongoing organizing.

The session is a micro-iteration of a participatory action research cycle. By observing, thinking, acting, and reflecting, the participants move together through cognitive and behavioral transformation about network thinking. The session uses a series of generative and participatory interactions (Liberating Structures) to engage people to learn and build a Community of Practice (CoP) for thinking from a network perspective and for building effective networks. The community structure is modeled in a tool (Kumu) that will allow participants to easily access each other after the session and use the tool to model their own native relationship and intentional networks.Impact? Effective large-scale collaborative relationship building and network thinking can be part of sustaining structures of intention and agency. Networks can address the challenge of systemic power imbalance; encourage peer relationships, valuing everyone’s unique contribution. Network thinking can empower everyone to step into leadership roles. Networks reach across a diversity of stakeholders drawing them near to each other in adaptive interaction. Promoting network thinking in a group of passionate change practitioners can lead to changes at scale.

2905