Using systems thinking for groundbreaking sustainability innovations
By: Dora Hietavirta
Tags: Systems Thinking, Sustainability, Systems Change, Innovation

Interested to learn more about Systems Change Finland and about how to join our community?

Systems Change Finland seeks to cultivate a society that can deal with systemic and complex challenges. The purpose of Systems Change Finland is to promote the application of approaches that help people, organizations and society understand and work with systems and complexity.

Thank you for stopping by and have a great day!

Questions from the session that were left unanswered because of lack of time follow below:

How do you measure impact?

T: That is a huge question :). Many frameworks exist to help measure impact. Social impact. Environmental impact. Resource impact. Economic impact. In my opinion, knowing what the impact is of something can only be of value when you have an idea of what the cost is to achieve that impact, in another area. For example, only knowing what CO2 savings a solution may have, is meaningless if not measured against a broad spectrum of the consequences of such an action in other areas of society. This is an important part of how SiD is set up, to allow a perspective to form on holistic impact. On an object level, as well as on network and systems level. Attempting to have a holistic perspective every step of the way, without getting bogged down in impossibly complex frameworks.

Over the years we have built up many databases that help us. But for each project, we revisit the basics to ensure we have a broad, holistic perspective. When context changes, everything changes.

How do you select your own suppliers or partners?

T: We have a set of principles (listed on our website) we use to ‘measure’ our partners against. We also ask them to comply with these principles. Being a B-Corp also helps a little, although that standard is not enough for us to consider a partner or supplier. Depending on the project or purpose, our criteria for our partners change.

Do you include employment in the area in your wider system analysis or solution proposals, whether short or long-term?

T: Yes, always. These are part of the ‘Economy’ section of the ELSI chart in SiD.

Just as we always consider education, which is part of the ‘Culture’ section.

Do you do Behaviour over Time Graphs of “Success” at the beginning of your projects with the group of people that “holds the intention of the project?”

T: We have different ways of organizing our group sessions, but defining a common goal, and making a roadmap in time to track those goals, is always part of it. I think that is what you refer to?

Any advice on how to integrate these types of thinking into large organizations?

T: Form a coalition of the willing first. Organize and form a group that together recognize the need and importance of systemic change. Then set a roadmap together with ambitious goals, and build support. A systemic analysis for change in an organization requires time and resources. Having enough people to decide that is indeed something that matters is the first step.

Transition theory is a useful thing to delve into for organizational change for large companies. There’s a section in the SiD book on it, but also many other books written on it. They all say more or less the same, which involves making transition maps, which are a form of system map. Very useful. Just make sure you remain looking at the effects of the organization on society holistically. Large organizations have a tendency to oversimplify in a way that hurt themselves, and misses opportunities, as well as potential for change.

How do you get this type of inspirational stage initiated with your clients? Do the clients look for you, and are thus more apt to the change, in the beginning? What were the biggest roadblocks you encountered from a client/partner?

T: In projects where we get hired to help change organizations, while often our direct clients are ‘on our side’, the people they work with, and their superiors, often are not. In these projects we work with people inside of the organizations to help develop, with them, ways to convince others in the organization to see, understand, and take action on systemic change. That is almost always the case when working with large organizations. This can be a long and arduous project, especially if you start all the way at the bottom. Also, when the corporate culture does not allow perspectives from the outside to thrive. Some organizations are actively resisting change. The question one needs to ask themselves then is, is it worth it? Or is there another organization where we can have more impact? We do say no to projects, and we do stop projects when this is the case. But as long as there are people on the inside, willing to fight the fight of change with us, we will back them up.

+1 Have you seen a ripple effect of your work (whether inside organizations or beyond), in terms of policy changes, introducing different methodologies, or any other signs that people’s thinking and behaviour changed after working with you?

T: Yes, especially with the IKEA project. The whole line of thinking, about being the steward of the supply chain rather than just being a player within it, and that that has huge potential for change, has taken hold within IKEA well, and now permeates most of its departments. We have also seen corporations, I will not name them but some of them are huge, that actively cut down that sort of thinking. You can’t win them all, and these have valuable lessons to teach.

My favorite thing I hear from clients every now and then is “You have given us a problem, because now that we know how powerful this approach is, we cannot in good conscience do it any other way again.” I look forward to hearing that more often :)

++1 What was the name of the sushi restaurant?

T: Miya’s Sushi in New Haven.