#ISSS2016 Boulder

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.

2724 A changing climate, expanding ex-urban residential development, and increasing pressures on ecosystem services raise global concerns over growing losses associated with wildland fires. New management paradigms acknowledge that fire is inevitable and often uncontrollable, and focus on living with fire rather than attempting to eliminate it from the landscape. A notable example from the U.S. is the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, which aims to bring multiple landowners and stakeholders together to achieve three broadly defined goals: resilient landscapes, fire-adapted human communities, and safe and effective response to fire. Implicit in the structure of these three goals is the nexus of three systems: the ecological system, the social system, and the fire management system, respectively. This systems-based structure reflects a perspective that contextualizes fire as a disturbance agent that influences and is in turn influenced by other agents and processes within a broader socio-ecological system. While the need for transformative system change is well-recognized, at least three central challenges remain: (1) the need to accept that how fires are managed is in many instances the limiting factor of system behaviour; (2) the need to improve our understanding of the characteristics and complexities of the fire management system itself; and (3) perhaps most fundamentally, the need to coherently apply systems analysis principles in order to improve system performance. In this presentation I will attempt to bridge these gaps by applying systems thinking to contemporary wildfire management issues in the U.S. One thread of the presentation will focus on synthesizing findings from various lines of fire-related research and identifying how collectively they reflect systemic flaws stemming from feedbacks, delays, bounded rationality, misaligned incentives, and other factors. Particular attention will be devoted to the “fire paradox,” whereby a legacy of fire exclusion in fire-prone forests has led to hazardous accumulations of flammable vegetation such that future fires burn with higher intensity and are more resistant to control; today’s “success” begets tomorrows failure. The second thread will outline a roadmap for redesigning the fire management system so that behaviour better aligns with purpose. This discussion will focus on recommended actions including breaking down institutional silos, investing in pre-fire assessment and planning, improving monitoring and performance evaluation, and adopting core risk management principles. Ideally this line of research will yield insights that can lead to meaningful systemic change and improved fire management outcomes.

2758 The continuous intensify of ecological crisis has aroused a strong sense of ecological protection. Since the 80s of the 20th century, a serious of movement aimed at environmental protection, ecological movement, and feminism appeared in the developed countries in Western Europe. The movement which is called the Green Movement treated intellectuals and middle class as the main participants. The serious environmental problems also emerged in the process of realizing the rapid development of economy in China. Therefore, the Chinese government focus on the ideas of Green Development. The green development requires the whole society to establish a reasonable value of natural capital, to form new social and moral norms, to promote green lifestyles, and so forth. The way of China's green development has get the world's attention. From the green movement to the green development, it has formed a systems holistic values of socio-ecological system gradually. Firstly, we support the intrinsic value of natural system and oppose the traditional philosophy values which considered the tool value of nature as primary only when it is related to the subjective purpose of human beings or meets the needs of humans. Secondly, we propose that the values of natural system is holistic. The intrinsic value of natural system and the tool value can be converted to each other. As Rolston III said, the intrinsic value and the tool value would be converted among lives, species, systems and surroundings by the transformation of systems, so as to maintain the stability and integrality of systems. In socio-ecological system, the interaction between the natural values and human values and the function of each other formed the value chain of system dynamics and integrity. Thirdly, the order parameter of socio-ecological system is bearing threshold of systems, the order parameter emerged by the synergistic reaction of social system, economic system and natural system will constraint and control the collaboration optimization of each subsystem of the socio-ecological systems in turn. Modern systems science and complexity research has provided a new perspective and theoretical basis to the intrinsic value of natural systems and the holistic values of socio-ecological systems when it refers to the holistic property and emergence, adaptation and evolution, purpose and values of systems. The holistic values of socio-ecological systems pay more attention to the holistic interests of human social system, economic system and natural system. It has great significance to solve serious ecological crisis and realize sustainable futures in socio-ecological systems.

2862 Boundaries of a system are largely determined by human perception. As a result, the boundaries are to an extent arbitrary but to an extent created in response to changing environmental conditions. Given this dynamic, the way a system is framed in terms of its boundaries affects human action on a global scale. Understanding this framing can empower the human agent and enable a recontextualization of human potential such that our planetary system is approached and maintained in an ecologically equitable and sustainable fashion. This paper outlines how such framing relates to different scales of human civilization and what some of the important practical distinctions are related to such an act of framing.

2763 GDP is a linear measure at market prices of the annual production of the (final) goods and services produced in the National Economy. It is gross insofar as it excludes the degradation of the capital stock. The accounts are divided into four categories: (i) P = production/income (i.e., payments for work and/or rent from property), (ii) C = consumption/expenditure (i.e., payments for goods and services), (iii) T = trade with the-rest-of-the-word, (i,e,, payments to/from nonresident consumers/producers), and (iv) K = capital/surplus, (i.e., investment with an expected flow of future income). We shall redefine the categories of GDP as product of the Second Law of thermodynamics: (i) Production = Pe = negentropy. (ii) Ce = consumption = entropy, (iii) Te = international trade in net-valued export/import of entropy production Te = (Pe - Ce), (iv) Ke = Low Entropy Fund (LEF) available for human consumption = Ke = Pe/Ce. The three states of LEF: (a) surplus-state = Pe/Ce > 1, (b) deficit-state = Pe/Ce < 1, and (c) steady-state = Pe/Ce = 1. We shall apply the System of Accounts for Global Entropy Production (SAGE-P) in order to construct Gross Domestic Entropy Production accounts, GDPe. The first step is to calculate to LEF for the Nation x. The second step is a correspondence mapping of LEF on the four categories of GDP. The third step is to introduce the valuation method unique to the domains: (A) Ecosphere, (i.e., values conserved-in-themselves, or intrinsic, (B) Sociosphere, (i.e., values conserved-in-use, or participation) and (C) Econosphere, (i.e., values conserved-in-exchange, or market prices. A, B and C are nested sets in the form: A [B,(C)]. The fourth step is a GDP correspondence mapping of the rate of change of entropy production ∂ Pe/Ce on the value-added to the economy of primary production, (i.e., natural renewable and non-renewable resources), secondary production, (i.e., manufactured goods) and tertiary production (services). The policy objective is to minimise the rate of entropy production per unit of consumption that is: (a) feasible, (b) socio-culturally acceptable and (c) maximise the per capita human welfare.

2764 “Qualitative accounting” is almost an oxymoron. The word ‘accounting’ includes the word ‘count’, and we cannot count qualities. More precisely, we cannot meaningfully add qualities to each other, a quality cannot be measured by a standard unit. Therefore, aggregating qualities for the purposes of accounting might sound like sleight of hand, or deceptive advertising. Fear not. The result will turn out to be quite robust, given a modicum of intelligence and sensitivity. The method is original and useful. The structure of the paper is given by the following sections: (1) an introduction to the topic, by looking at each word in the title, (2) we look at the UN mandate which will be used as an example to illustrate the method, (3) an explanation of the first part of method: working with the UN mandate, (4) the second part of the method: two orders of sensitivity used for reflection, and why this adds to the robustness of the method (5) broadening the conceptions underlying the method and lastly (6) uses of the method for policy. The following is the virtual address for some computer software that does the calculations for you, so that you can experiment with the parameters and indicators. The software was developed by Dolsy Smith http://gwdev-dsmith.wrlc.org:8083/gunas_test.html. The site is free to the public and is offered as an intellectual service.

2770 The development of contemporary China is in a unique complex situation which refers to a nonlinear system situation stems from the complex interactions among elements, structure, function and environment of Chinese social system. One of important features of this complex situation is the unpredictability of system evolution at the edge of chaos. One fundamental dilemma for Chinese social system in transition is how to build a paradigm to adapt to this complex situation.While the endeavors to transplant “linear ideal model”from Western society failed, and the “Simple Science Paradigm”which once dominated Chinese society is deep in crisis now. The serious environmental problems derived from these endeavors force China to build a new approach related to green development. As one of important thought sources to build the paradigm to adapt to this complex situation, process philosophy provides us with enlightening thinking tools. First, ontologically speaking, process philosophy help us to understand interactions between human activity systems and natural systems from the perspective of time-space-matter relationship. Second, epistemologically speaking, process philosophy emphasizes the construction of “organism” knowledge at the level of life community. Third, methodologically speaking, process philosophy attempts to rebuild a co-existence relationship between human activity systems and natural systems with the “prehension” methodology. We believe that the critical steps for solving the fundamental dilemma for the development of contemporary China include--focus on the deep contradictions between current economic development and environmental protection, taking process philosophy as one of important thought sources, based on modern systems science and complexity research, popularizing the new idea of Eco-society, rebuilding a paradigm for social system with the characteristic of the continuous emergence of sustainability, and promoting the continuous evolution of this paradigm in practice.

2780 Santa Isabel rural community is located between the municipalities of Guasca and La Calera in Colombia, it was composed of different stakeholders that coexist around the “El Asilo” creek. The people collect water from this water source for consumption and daily use. The water comes from Chingaza moorland, one of top three of water generation ecosystems in the country. Given the close relationship between the community and the ecological system, the environmental damage of this creek has generated big problems in health and quality of life of the inhabitants. Through joint work with the community was proposed a project called "Improvement of the quality of water in the community of Santa Isabel de Potosi". The group with the community is nowadays performing an analysis based on community-based decision-making taking into account the possible alternatives that could be implemented in order of diminishing in some percentage the impact of the issue and this way try to avoid the complete deterioration of the brook and the ecosystems in the area. Among the alternatives of intervention these are found: generation of a new method of community cooperation in behalf of the sanitation of the brook and the implementation of homemade filters in the improvement of the quality of the drinking water. This paper presents the analysis of the problem taking into account different points of view such as the environmental as well as the organizational one, highlighting the fact that this is not an isolated issue but an evidence of the possible environmental disaster that Colombia could live if nothing is done at the right time. Also this paper presents how engineering and work with the communities has been able to define the guidelines of intervention that are going to allow the next stage of the project, putting in practice the solutions proposed in behalf of a better quality of life.

2795 Civilization in its science-enabled industrial form highlights and gives exponential growth to forms of agency and motivation so removed from the dynamics of eco-systemic mutual constraint that the troubled culture-nature interface has finally assumed the proportions of a sustainability crisis. With the emergence about 12,000 years ago of agriculture and the subsequent rise of the complex, settled societies we refer to as “civilization,” our models of ourselves and of the world transformed in ways that decisively separated the character of human agency and motivation from the behaviors by which other forms of life make a living. The science-enabled Industrial Revolution made central and self-aware the long-nurtured civilized thrust to control and shape the world to our purposes, refining that mindset into what Jacques Ellul has described as the “technological mind,” the probing seach for an improved way of doing whatever we turn our minds to. With this mentality technology has moved to center stage both as our first resort in approaching any kind of problem and as our chief lever for economic growth. We have collapsed the constraints of space and time and the world of nature is quite outflanked by the speed and power with which thoughts and plans in the human mind can reshape and modify environments from the expectations structured into the way other species make a living. This puts a new and critical weight on the thoughts, feelings, and motivation of the human mind-and-heart. All living beings are motivated to act in order to achieve and maintain well-being. But human motivation is far from the direct response to needs and dangers common to other forms of life. Our motivation as action is mediated by technology, and our technology loops back to shape our motivation. As a well-being guided response our motivation is mediated by money, which offers none of the inherent guidance of actual well-being. The “better” achievement of whatever that is the animating thrust of technology promises an open-ended more: more productivity, more speed, more convenience, more ease. And at the heart of money is another more, the profit motive that guides us to proud achievements and likewise to humiliating dysfunction. We market the promise of the technological “more” for profit, and the drive for more profit powerfully fuels the technological drive for all sorts of innovation. Thus the incremental thrusts embedded in technology and money work in synergy to bring us to the exponential burst of transformation in culture and the natural world. In the process guidance of real well-being becomes hit or miss, distorted by a thirst for and expectation of novelty stoked by endless advertising or overshadowed in the anxious pursuit of profit. Seeing the deep structures that have brought civilization so rapidly to such an innovative and world-transforming peak reveals no easy answers: we cannot simply change ourselves without the difficult and uncertain process of reconfiguring elements structured into civilization that make us the kind of unpredictable and uncontrollable species we are at present. But it helps to know there are other ways available, perhaps even other ways of doing a civilization. If those alternatives are in any way open to our deliberate contrivance, that deliberation will have to include serious reflection on how the way we maintain our well-being has come to fit so ill with the well-being as pursued in the rest of the community of life. For humans, understanding is the guide to moving into a better future. Keywords: civilization, technology, money, motivation, Neo-lithic Revolution, Industrial Revolution

2745 It is impossible to make progress in social theory without inquiring about social actions; therefore, many leading sociologists refer to this notion in their work. Max Weber, Talcott Parsons and many other sociologists attempted to ground not only their works but also the science of sociology as a whole on a theory of social actions. Max Weber defined sociology as "the science which attempts the interpretative understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a casual explanation of its course and effects". Moreover, he explicitly singled out social action as the “central subject matter” of his sociology. Hence, comprehensive typology of social actions can be very helpful in sociological analysis. Usually, social actions are classified by actors’ intentions. In this paper, types of social actions are categorized both by actors’ intentions and by the actions’ results, including both the intentional and unintentional outcomes. This was achieved through consideration of the social actions in the framework of J.G. Miller’s living systems theory. This theory regards each living system as composed of 20 subsystems that process information and matter/energy inside the living system and between the living system and its environment. These 20 subsystems are considered at eight levels: cell, organ, organism, group, organization, community, society and supranational systems. The first three constitute the level of biological living systems; the other five comprise the level of social living systems. Social actions are interactions among living systems or among different parts of one living system at the social level. The proposed typology of social actions is based on analysis of developmental, reproductive and interactional processes in the social systems. In order to live and function, living systems must allow their matter/energy-processing subsystems to work, so all social actions in social living systems can be associated with the functioning of these subsystems. Seemingly, the number of goals for social actions as well as the number of their outcomes is very high, however, by relating principal intention and main outcome of the considered social action to specific matter/energy-processing subsystems, their number can be significantly reduced. This is done by determining the main subsystem that was intended to be affected by the planned social action, and the main subsystem that was actually impacted by it. In many cases, it is the same subsystem; that is, the intention coincides with the consequence. As a result of this analysis, the two-dimensional matrix of types of social actions was constructed, and the methodology of assigning any social action to a specific cell in the typological matrix was proposed. Every social action in this typology is designated by the names of the pair of the involved subsystems; if they coincide, the type is labeled by the name of one subsystem. Obviously, as in any classification, there also exists an element of arbitrariness in the relating of the social action to its type. More detailed typology of social actions on the basis of the living systems theory can be developed by including in the analysis the information-processing subsystems.

2762 Like science, systems faces a demarcation problem. How might one specify what counts or doesn’t count as systemic thinking and practice? In this exploratory talk, I will review distinctions that others have drawn, and then describe a framework for understanding dynamics as a basis of distinction. This dynamics-as-demarcation approach has several advantages, including: illuminating various ways that systems thinking and practice have been described, historically and currently, and affording a “sweeping in” from across relevant academic fields of study and practice. A particular advantage of a dynamics-as-demarcation approach is the way in which it can be used to inform understandings of purposeful social change.

2884 This paper looks at the development of Ecological Economic theory through the lens of second-order cybernetics. Ecological Economics aims to integrate Ecological and Economic disciplines while maintaining their distinction. This is required for the concept of “scale” which relates the size of the ecosystem with the size of the economy. Beyond the dynamic and complicated nature of these systems; this task is also conceptually difficult. How can the ecosystem be part of the economy but also distinct from it? How can the economic system be part of the ecosystem and also distinct? Which is the correct framing? While Ecological Economics was conceived in the era of “open systems” and “sub-systems”, second order systems theory may shed light on the paradoxes which naturally arise from this perspective. As second-order systems theory would suggest, this fundamental paradox of observation results in a circularity. This circularity can be illustrated by attempts within Ecological Economics to generate definitions of sustainability; most notoriously through valuation of ecosystem services but also within alternative social and ecologically based models. This yields a tension between a desire for objectivity and submission to relativity. Thus, authors within the field are calling for clarity regarding ontological and epistemological commitments. Second-order systems theory operates within this territory even if it does so on its own terms. By embracing this circularity with second-order cybernetics, a few possibilities open up. Primarily, it is my interest that the “organization” of the Ecological Economy be considered; such that the diversity of activities which considered within the domain of Ecological Economics become coordinated. As a student of both Ecological Economics and systems theory, I have been fascinated by the ongoing efforts within Ecological Economics to construct a perspective. This offers a great example of recursive cybernetics with natural tensions between variety and order.

2895 Socio-technical systems is a systems approach to understanding complex systems when interactions between humans and technology are dominant. Thus, the term socio-technical relates to the relationship between complex human activity systems and the technical infrastructure that governs the nature of the system. Socio-technical systems typically have multiple stakeholders, either in charge of systemic development, governing the system, or being affected (directly or indirectly) by it. Thus, in order to understand a socio-technical system, it is important to understand the different roles the stakeholders have within the system of interest. This research contributes in providing a complementarist and pluralist approach in recognizing the roles of stakeholders within socio-technical systems and categorizing them by introducing a formative taxonomy flexible for any socio-technical system, dependent on its context and purpose. Critical systems thinking and boundary critique are utilized as a foundation for categorizing stakeholders, while the onion model along with soft system methodology are used to delineate the stratified spheres of influence each stakeholder category has on the system. Even though, the obligations vary across the different systems context and purposes, the proposed flexible approach is expected to be beneficial to system thinkers and analysts in realization, recognition and categorization of stakeholders within socio-technical systems.

2937 System Literacy and Systemic Innovation for Thrivable Future 

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. 

2810 This paper explores the similarities, differences and potential synergy between action research, social systems design, and design thinking. As three distinct participatory approaches to systemic change with different origins and assumptions, the authors explore ways in which these approaches can converge for maximum social impact. Kurt Lewin is often referred as the originator of action research within the field of social psychology. In the late 1930s he created the foundation for organizational behaviour and introduced an interactive cycle of reflection, discussion, decision and action which empowered people affected by a problem to cooperate in its solution. Social systems design, as developed by Bela H. Banathy in the 1980s, is a disciplined future creating inquiry that synthesizes and grows from the soft systems science tradition. Its emphasis is in designing the ideal system through a values-driven dialogic process that engages stakeholders into an exploration of “what should be” rather than trying to fix the existing problems. Design thinking is a recent articulation of a similar way of thinking but with the intention of addressing the lack of creativity and innovation capacity in business corporations. Tim Brown coined the buzzword in 2009 and his design company, IDEO, became the leader is popularizing ‘human-centered design” for creative problem solving. Although there are differences in language, assumptions, and methodological approaches, these three participatory processes share the intention of involving people in the creation of new possibilities that will directly impact them. When looking at the complexity of social problems, it is becoming clear than trying to “fix” the current social systems is not sufficient to create a peaceful and sustainable culture. A systemic, future-oriented, and ideal-informed design orientation is necessary to innovate the evolution of human institutions. Education is one of those institutions that is ripe for radical redesign. Rather than continuing to prepare our youth for a broken socio-economic system that does not produce equity and is destroying the environment, we need to empower future generations to engage in a learning process that explores the edge between the known and unknown, and in the spirit of design, involves them in the design and experimentation of new possibilities. As part of the inquiry, the authors share insights, lessons and reflections from the experience of designing an alternative high school program. A group of stakeholders from a charter school in California engaged in the redesign of single subject classes to trans-disciplinary workshops, replacing grades with competency-based assessments such as digital badging, and incorporating deeper experiential learning throughout the high school curriculum. Designing a school in collaboration with the stakeholders was enlightening beyond developing pedagogical innovations customized for the community of learners. Concepts in human-centered design were critical to assist stakeholders, especially traditionally trained teachers, in embracing the systemic changes. Emotional challenges, such as anxiety and apprehension, were addressed through design-thinking principles, such as empathy. The authors learned how elements of each of the three methodologies of action research, social systems design and design thinking each contribute critical components in the process of creating systemic change. This paper explores the similarities, differences and potential synergy between action research, social systems design, and design thinking. As three distinct participatory approaches to systemic change with different origins and assumptions, the authors explore ways in which these approaches can converge for maximum social impact. Kurt Lewin is often referred as the originator of action research within the field of social psychology. In the late 1930s he created the foundation for organizational behaviour and introduced an interactive cycle of reflection, discussion, decision and action which empowered people affected by a problem to cooperate in its solution. Social systems design, as developed by Bela H. Banathy in the 1980s, is a disciplined future creating inquiry that synthesizes and grows from the soft systems science tradition. Its emphasis is in designing the ideal system through a values-driven dialogic process that engages stakeholders into an exploration of “what should be” rather than trying to fix the existing problems. Design thinking is a recent articulation of a similar way of thinking but with the intention of addressing the lack of creativity and innovation capacity in business corporations. Tim Brown coined the buzzword in 2009 and his design company, IDEO, became the leader is popularizing ‘human-centered design” for creative problem solving. Although there are differences in language, assumptions, and methodological approaches, these three participatory processes share the intention of involving people in the creation of new possibilities that will directly impact them. When looking at the complexity of social problems, it is becoming clear than trying to “fix” the current social systems is not sufficient to create a peaceful and sustainable culture. A systemic, future-oriented, and ideal-informed design orientation is necessary to innovate the evolution of human institutions. Education is one of those institutions that is ripe for radical redesign. Rather than continuing to prepare our youth for a broken socio-economic system that does not produce equity and is destroying the environment, we need to empower future generations to engage in a learning process that explores the edge between the known and unknown, and in the spirit of design, involves them in the design and experimentation of new possibilities. As part of the inquiry, the authors share insights, lessons and reflections from the experience of designing an alternative high school program. A group of stakeholders from a charter school in California engaged in the redesign of single subject classes to trans-disciplinary workshops, replacing grades with competency-based assessments such as digital badging, and incorporating deeper experiential learning throughout the high school curriculum. Designing a school in collaboration with the stakeholders was enlightening beyond developing pedagogical innovations customized for the community of learners. Concepts in human-centered design were critical to assist stakeholders, especially traditionally trained teachers, in embracing the systemic changes. Emotional challenges, such as anxiety and apprehension, were addressed through design-thinking principles, such as empathy. The authors learned how elements of each of the three methodologies of action research, social systems design and design thinking each contribute critical components in the process of creating systemic change.

2812 What is the difference between people outside, or within, organizations that look at a problem with a lot of limits and see unusual and new possibilities, and those who look at a problem with a lot of limits and see no way out? How would an organization intentionally transform its worldview and its problem-solving practices to creatively reconsider its own structures, policies, and assumptions when solutions to key needs and complex problems are limited or prevented by institutional or resource constraints? Education, government, and business leaders agree that creativity and innovation are essential for future organizational success and even survival, yet leaders are often blinded by past policies, organizational goals, or assumptions about resources and systems relationships when faced with complex and changing problems. However, research suggests that there are qualitative differences between individuals, teams, and organizations that become cleverly, resourcefully innovative in the face of complex problems under constraints, and those who do not. The culture and practices that activate shrewd, transdisciplinary, and unconventional problem-solving in the face of resource limits and other constraints are associated with a familiar, but largely unexamined, concept called ingenuity. Most frequently, ingenuity has been used to describe innovative solutions that are surprisingly smart, unconventionally resourceful, and contextually superior, often completely changing an institution or social-technical culture. In this messy intersection where creative, innovative problem-solving is at once demanded and prevented, ingenuity is the human factor necessary to hack the hairball, to pursue the impossible by being willing to seek unconventional connections arising from diverse knowledge, skills, and perspectives; dialogue at the margins; resilience; imagination; creative and resourceful improvisation; and systems thinking. The culture and practices of organizational ingenuity integrate systems thinking into a framework designed to provoke the unconventional approaches to complex problems that produce exponentially better solutions for sustainable business and a sustainable world. As organizations develop broad-based cultures and capacities for ongoing innovation, there is a need to distinguish the concept and value of an innovation culture that integrates systems thinking and the resilient, empathetic, value-driven, collaborative, improvisational, diverse, counter-intuitive, paradoxical capacities of ingenuity. Keywords: systems thinking, innovative, business, resilience, human factor

2815 A sizeable body of research and literature is developing about toxic leadership and workplace bullying. Our earlier work found distinctions between tough bosses and true bullies in the workplace. A later study showed that military officers were able to clearly identify differences between hard but effective leaders and toxic leaders. That work was extended into the organizational climates which seem to promote toxic leaders and bullies. Other colleagues have explored potentials for changes in bullying behavior through executive coaching interventions, noting that some executives simply lack awareness of their behaviors, or the effects on those around them. The focus of this paper is the synthesis of earlier findings, to begin a more systemic understanding about the relationships between individual, organizational, and societal behaviors with respect to bullying and toxic leadership.

2753 The nonprofit and public sectors are in the midst of a paradigm shift from addressing community concerns individually and competing with each other for existing funding to working collaboratively and thinking collectively across sectors to solve some of our most intractable social problems. This transition requires new approaches that challenge assumptions and generate new knowledge. Existing models for change, while theoretically sound, are difficult to adapt to multi-sector transformational change. Undertaking multi-sector transformational change is substantially different than the vast majority of change efforts that take place within a single organization, differing in scope, complexity, and leadership. This paper describes a new model specifically designed to address the unique needs of multi-sector change efforts. It is built on the theoretical framework of complexity science and complex adaptive systems, organization development, transformative and organizational learning, and multi-sector transformational change. Multi-sector transformational change efforts take place within highly complex systems, where stakeholders (components of the system) come together to do work that none of them can accomplish alone. This work requires participants to develop their adaptive capacity in response to a constantly changing environment where outcomes are uncertain and thus, cannot be planned for. Participants must also be capable of surfacing and challenging their own assumptions through transformative and organizational learning in order to create space for generative dialogue. These frameworks are essential to the success of multi-sector transformational change. The model consists of five phases: (1) discovery and dialogue; (2) deepening, refining, and assessing; (3) infrastructure, communication, and coordination; (4) ongoing implementation and progress reporting; and (5) learning, celebration, and sustainability. Phase 1 focuses on understanding current reality, identifying key stakeholders, building relationships, and creating a shared vision. Phase 2 continues to deepen and refine the work of Phase 1 while at the same time establishing a practice of reflection. Phase 3 initiates implementation and establishes feedback mechanisms. Phase 4 delves deep into implementation, launches feedback mechanisms, and looks ahead to sustainability. Phase 5 provides more formal evaluation of the project outcomes and processes and requires participants to decide whether the effort is completed or if it continues. These five phases represent a cycle that is designed to be iterative, building on new knowledge gained from the previous cycle. Aside from providing a new approach to multi-sector transformational change, the significance of this model is its adaptability and flexibility, with the caveat that certain critical processes not be omitted. Broad stakeholder representation is essential to mobilize and engage those who care about or are affected by the particular issue. Building strong relationships with those stakeholders, as well as sponsors, funders, and partner organizations, establishes robust connections that will serve to propel the project forward and reinforce the project during challenging periods. Identifying influential champions, those who reduce barriers, open doors, and make connections, provides the project with loyal advocates. Fully funding a facilitation, communication, and support organization enables organizational and community leaders to focus on the creation of new knowledge and provides a level of oversight that will maintain the momentum throughout the project. Developing the transformative learning capacity of all participants and weaving that together to create a learning organization will ensure that the wisdom of all participants is brought forth to understand the nuances of the issue and explore possibilities. These five processes provide the backbone for any multi-sector transformational change effort. Keywords: Multi-sector, Transformational Change, Transformative Learning, Organizational Learning, Complexity, Complex Adaptive Systems, Organization Development, Dialogue, Stakeholders

2781 Learning networks combine multistakeholder collaboration with community-spanning interaction and exchange across sites and scales. They are inter-organizational voluntary collaboratives that support innovation and social learning to promote systemic change. Learning networks are often attempted in situations where existing institutional arrangements cannot address looming challenges, and change is thwarted by a combination of lack of capacity and a powerful status quo. The four learning networks we are examining address the challenges of ecological fire restoration, urban resilience, fostering adaptive capacity to climate change and other unprecedented challenges in developing countries, and the deep cultural divide between the academy and the public (also see our team website www.brugo.org). We will consider how these LNs increase capacity to transform complex adaptive systems in which they are embedded. Our definition of resilience is grounded in how collective action can purposefully reconfigure systemic relationships to promote a new and desired state. We will explore how learning networks can balance the autonomy that individual organizations and communities require with the cohesion required to catalyze transformative change in policy and institutions operating at higher spatial/temporal/organizational scales. Different kinds of learning take place at each of different network levels – it is the effective interweaving of these heterogeneous interactions that fosters transformative capacity. Learning networks are bridging organizations: they form a bridge between different ways of knowing in communities and organizations, and they bridge to alternative futures by fostering innovation. Learning networks disrupt old habits and foster new collaborative relationships, reinforcing participants’ shared ties and purpose while providing freedom to experiment with innovative approaches. Learning networks rely on effective design and ongoing facilitation to function effectively. Network facilitators or “netweavers” may be formally identified or may emerge from among network participants. These netweavers collaborate with participants in identifying goals and an effective network topology and infrastructure. Netweavers initiate activities that build community and promote a shared identity that provides the foundation for common practice and purpose. Ties within the network deepen over time as participants identify collaborative solutions. We will explore these features by drawing insights from the origin, design and netweaving of our four learning networks. We will show how effective learning networks possess a loose, light structure that allows them to learn and adapt as their membership becomes more confident and experienced, as new needs and opportunities are recognized, and as resources and institutional support require. We will also consider how network design is cross-scalar, combining interpersonal and group collaboration with network-spanning interaction and exchange. Finally, we will reflect on how networks foster transformative capacity, an idea that is both conceptually subtle and difficult to detect over the short timescale of our fieldwork. To the extent possible, our work is conducted by our being embedded in network leadership teams and actively participating in ongoing discussion about the network design and facilitation. We will also discuss how participatory action research and developmental evaluation frameworks enable this balance between participation and analytical engagement.

2786 It is widely understood that the complexity of the challenges we face globally and locally in this increasingly interdependent and VUCA world require our collective intelligence to create emergent adaptive approaches that sustain. Benyamin Lichtenstein has developed a framework for emergence that synthesizes previous scholarship and has gone further to identify the concept of “opportunity tension” that is at the core of the individual and collective entrepreneurial spirit that can create generative emergent social structures through acts precipitating sufficient disequilibrium in a system. Opportunity tension combines the extensive entrepreneurial literatures of both opportunity and motivation. This paper posits the critical and pivotal nature of opportunity tension as a driver of emergence. Five factors are identified that contribute to a nonlinear increase in the sense of opportunity tension. 1) The sense of opportunity tension perceived by those involved is expanded in a mutually reinforcing way as participants bring their capital (physical, human, social, cultural) to the endeavor. The more capital, the more opportunity surface is exposed. 2) Positive organizational behaviors (positive emotions, high-quality connections, enhanced knowledge creation, positive human traits, etc.) are mutually reinforcing and are consistently associates with positive outcomes in groups. They are attractive and inherently motivate participation. 3) Mutual reinforcement creates an upward spiral (nonlinear) sense of increased opportunity 4) All of these factors operate from the micro to the meso to the macro creating a web of reinforcing forces across scale and across units of analysis. This cross-hierarchical web becomes a powerful driver of cross scale action and cross-scale disequilibrium. 5) Emergence manifests across scale as a result contributing to a rising tide effect. The evidence for this deepening theory of opportunity tension comes from very extensive literatures in positive organizational scholarship, recent frameworks for types of emergence, and a developing body of thought around complexity leadership. The paper draws together these bodies of literature and the empirical evidence to create a richer theory of generative emergence of collective social structure from individual intention and sense of opportunity. Understanding this process is critical to developing organizations that use positive organization behaviors grounded in a relational calculus of organization as organism rather than organization as machine.