I. Introduction
Systemic change is not an area in which I have had any prior experience. In my field, mathematics education, there has not been a big push for systemic change. Instead, most changes have occurred by adapting the system which was already in place. The major reason for this is the fact that mathematics textbooks are usually the driving force behind mathematics curriculum. This causes districts to be limited in the types and amounts of changes that can occur. While the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has tried to call for changes in curriculum and mathematics teaching, there has never been mention of a model to facilitate such change, systemically or otherwise.
So what is systemic change? While this term has been used in many contexts, the underlying idea of systemic change is that it occurs on a global level and takes into account the interconnectedness and the inter-relatedness of all parts of a system. Systemic change is not linear, and therefore cannot be brought about in a linear, systematic way. Instead, systemic change looks at the whole picture and tries to establish how the entire system functions. Systemic change is not looking for ways to adapt the current system. Instead, systemic change looks for ways to break free from the current system and design, develop, and implement a new one. Finally, systemic change should involve all of the stakeholders to the system and design for systemic change should not occur in isolation of its members.
How does systemic change take place? This paper will compare, contrast, and evaluate three different systemic design models based on the criteria set forth in the previous paragraph. The models that will be looked at are: 1) Checkland's Model (1981), 2) Banathy's Model (1992), and 3) Frantz's Model of Idealized Design Inquiry (date unknown). Next, I will present my own model which integrates the key aspects of the above models as well as presents some new ideas that I feel should be included in the systemic design process.
II. Interconnectedness and Inter-relatedness
As stated in the introduction, the underlying idea of systemic change is that it occurs on a global level and takes into account the interconnectedness and the inter-relatedness of all parts of a system. While all three models do take the relevant systems into account during the design phase, the approach that is taken varies. By placing a different amount of emphasis on this area, the models clearly show the amount of importance that the designer of the model places on interconnectedness and inter-relatedness.
Checkland's model seems to minimize this area the most. By dividing the model into real world and systems thinking, he implies that the two areas can be separated and therefore are neither interconnected nor inter-related. While an attempt is made to connect the stages just above and just below the dividing line in the model, Checkland clearly delineates the two areas. The model seems to imply two separate design areas: (1) The real world, where the problem is identified, expressed, changed, and implemented; and (2) The systems thinking area, where the relevant systems are looked at and conceptual models are developed. While stage 5 does attempt to compare the ideas developed in stages 2 and 4, there is no mention of what happens after the comparison is made and how any differences are accounted for.
The design of Banathy's model does a better job of showing the interconnectedness and inter-relatedness of systemic design. Clearly, there is no dividing line between the different parts of the design process and the presentation style implies interconnectedness. Four out of the five areas of Banathy's model look at some aspect of the enabling and connected systems. These areas include: Societal characteristics, enabling systems, future system environment, social systems, and core values of society. By taking this approach, Banathy's model suggests a way of looking at systemic change from the perspective of all of the involved systems. This approach is more practical because it does not involve design in isolation of relevant systems. Therefore, any systemic change that might occur after the use of this model will have more success and is less likely to meet opposition from those affected by the change.
The overall design of Frantz's model is the best example of the interconnectedness and inter-relatedness of both systemic design and systemic change. There is no delineating between each portion of model and every stage is connected to every other stage in some way. Along the same lines as Banathy's model, Frantz's model also emphasizes the need to take relevant systems and societal values into account during the design phase. The number of interactions between each of the stages of this model also imply interconnectedness and inter-relatedness by giving the designer the feeling that each phase is linked and cannot operate in isolation of the other parts.
III. Linear vs. Wholistic
Systemic change is not linear, and therefore cannot be brought about in a linear, systematic way. Instead, systemic change looks at the whole picture and tries to establish how the entire system functions. In this particular area, there is a clear distinction between models.
Checkland's model clearly takes the linear approach to systemic change. Checkland seems to believe that there is an established path that should be taken during the design phase and that no changes can take place once the process begins. With respect to systemic change, this approach holds little promise. Instead, it implies a systematic approach that will only create change within the existing system.
On the other hand, Banathy's model does present a less linear approach. By using multi-directional arrows between each area of the model, Banathy suggests a design process that relies on movement back and forth between phases. However, since not all phases of the model are connected, a linear approach still exists and therefore may create problems for the designers if they need to make any revisions to their overall design. While this model does show more promise for systemic change, its somewhat linear approach still suggests a systematic design process and may only result in changes to existing systems.
Frantz's model is the most wholistic of the three models. Not only is there no defined starting or ending point to the model, but it also indicates no clear path that should be taken during the design process. This allows the systemic designer the freedom to move in and out of the design solution space and therefore does not stifle creativity. Another plus for this particular model is that it clearly illustrates the leap that is necessary for systemic change to occur. By embodying the stages of design as well as all of the relevant parts of the system inside one complete unit, Frantz implies a breaking free from the current system. The natural result of this process would be the development of an entirely new system.
IV. Adapting an Existing System vs. Development of a New System
As previously mentioned, systemic change is not looking for ways to adapt the current system. Instead, systemic change looks for ways to break free from the current system and design, develop, and implement a new one. The underlying assumption is that this is the ultimate goal of all three of the models. However, the structure of both Checkland's and Banathy's models do not readily facilitate systemic change.
Stages one, two, and seven of Checkland's model state that the problem situation must be identified, expressed, and improved. Just as Checkland delineates between the real world and systems thinking, the constraints that these stages place on the designers cause them to become trapped not only within the current system but also within their current mindset. The implication here is that the goal of this model is not to develop a new system; but instead, to change and adapt the existing one.
Banathy's model does come closer to producing systemic change than the Checkland model. Banathy's model does show interconnectedness and looks at creating images of future systems. While no clear steps to the design process are presented, the model makes no reference to looking at what is already in place and trying to find ways to fix it. However, a crucial element that is left out of the model is what happens when change is implemented and doesn't work. This is where the slightly linear and less wholistic approach weakens the model. By neglecting to link all phases of the model together, leaps from one area to another are not easily facilitated and therefore the burden is placed on the systemic designer to retrace their steps back through the model. This, in turn, suggests a more systematic approach to the design process with the end result being less systemic change.
Once again, Frantz's model illustrates the best hope for the development of a new system. As previously stated, this model clearly shows the leap that is necessary for effective systemic change. While Frantz does included a stage in which prior experience is explored, it is presented in such as way as to lead the designers down the road toward a new system. Realistically, no change design can take place without some reliance on those values and characteristics from the old system. However, Frantz's model does not suggest any adaptations of the present system. On the contrary, terms such as dreams and images of what could be, as well as specific references to the creation of a new system give the designer the hope and encouragement to continue with the development of purely systemic change.
V. Stakeholder Involvement
Systemic change should involve all of the stakeholders to the system and design for systemic change should not occur in isolation of its members. This is especially important if the proposed change is to be successful. Without the backing, support, and involvement of the stakeholders during the development and design phases, systemic changes are almost guaranteed not to work. This is evidenced by the lack of success of the current changes that are being made in education today. Due to the fact that most decisions are made without consultation of the members that will ultimately be involved, most changes don't work and are usually met with adversity and sometimes sabotage.
The three models that are compared in this paper do not make direct reference to the use of stakeholders during the design phases of systemic change. This is one of the areas where I feel improvements are needed in order for successful systemic change to occur. Checkland's model makes no reference as to who will be used in the design phase. Therefore, I have many doubts as to whether or not this model will ever produce successful systemic change. While Banathy's model does take into account society and environment as part of the systemic change process, once again no reference is made as to what parts of the system the designers will come from. Finally, Frantz's model does mention a community of designers and also takes stakeholders into account in the future system phase, but there is no mention as to the inclusion of stakeholders in the actual design process.
VI. Lane's Model of Systemic Change Design
After carefully analyzing the models above, I have decided to use a slightly modified form of Frantz's model as the one that represents my optimal change process model. The reason for using Frantz's model as the catalyst for optimal change is that it best fits the criteria that I feel are necessary to facilitate systemic change. Once again, those criteria include: (1) Representation of the interconnectedness and inter-relatedness of a system, (2) Representation of the wholistic nature of the systemic change, (3) Use of stakeholders as part of the design community, and (4) Development of an entirely new system.
Systemic change requires the acknowledgment of the interconnectedness and the inter-relatedness of the parts both within and outside of the system to be changed. The model that I propose presents this by conceptually representing each area as being connected to all others. Not only does this give the designer the freedom to move about from phase to phase but also suggests the idea that no phase can operate in isolation of the other parts of the model. The model has been laid out in such a way that the design community becomes the background for the entire design process. This format best serves to remind the design community that they are one small piece of the entire system as well.
The lay-out of the model is an excellent representation of the wholistic nature of systemic change. By showing no clear path to follow during design, development, and implementation of the proposed change, designers are free to move about throughout the model as it best fits their needs. Another feature of this model is that by staying away from a linear approach to design, the design community is given the sense that they are operating within the whole model at once. This should translate into a more systemic view of the entire change process.
The only change that I have made to Frantz's model is to add a more well-defined description of who should be included in the design community. While the original model did take stakeholders into account during the future system phase, the changes that have been made to the model include stakeholders as part of the design community itself. This has been done not only as a way of incorporating them into the design process, but also as a way to insure a more successful systemic change process once changes begin to be implemented. As with any type of change, people are less willing to give up if they feel that they have an ownership to the process itself. By including a wide representation of stakeholders in the design community, people will begin to feel that their needs have been represented in the change process and therefore a sense of ownership will emerge.
Finally, the model that I present does not look for ways to adapt the current system. Instead, the model focuses on the development of an entirely new system. Even though the inclusion of stakeholders will invariably cause some of the old beliefs to remain, it is assumed that the members of the design community will realize that change is desirable and are not afraid to make the 'leap' necessary to facilitate the emergence of a new system. It would be naive to assume that every part of the old system would be thrown out, but the model that I propose gives the sense that it is okay to break free from the current system and to follow any dreams that result in successful systemic change.
VII. Conclusion
This paper compared and contrasted three different change models to determine whether or not they would in fact produce systemic change. While it was assumed that systemic change was ultimate goal of all of the models, definite flaws were found. I believe that these flaws would not produce systemic change but instead, cause a more systematic type of change to occur. Furthermore, even if systemic change was produced, it would ultimately meet with failure because stakeholders to the system were not included as part of the design community.
Finally, I have presented a modified version of Frantz's model as an alternative to the three that were reviewed. The model that I present does fit the criteria set forth in the introduction to this paper as well as including the involvement of stakeholders during the design, development, and implementation of systemic change. I believe that this new model provides much promise for bringing about effective, systemic change to the entire educational system.
References
Banathy, B. (1992). A Map of the Design Journey. As contained in INSYS 597A Course Packet for Spring semester 1996. p. 85
Checkland, P. (1981). Model for Soft Systems Methodology. As contained in INSYS 597A Course Packet for Spring semester 1996. p. 77
Frantz, T. G. (date unknown). Conceptual Model of Idealized Design Inquiry. As contained in INSYS 597A Course Packet for Spring 1996. p. 97
Reigeluth, C. M. (1995). A Conversation on Guidelines for the Process of Facilitating Systemic Change in Education. As contained in INSYS 597A Course Packet for Spring semester 1996. pp 43-50.
Click here to return to the Change Comparison Page.
Home | Personal | Professional | Portfolio
