Systems thinking approach to housing delivery

(i) Complex problems and systems thinking

In 1973 urban planners Rittel and Webber introduced the term ‗wicked problems‘ to refer to complex policy problems (Rittel and Webber, 1973). The term ‗wicked‘ in this context is used not in the sense of evil, but used to describe an issue that is highly resistant to resolution (like the housing problem).

According to the Commonwealth of Australia (2007), wicked policy problems are difficult to tackle effectively using the techniques traditionally used by the public sector. Traditional policy thinking suggests that the best way to work through a policy problem is to follow an orderly and linear process, working from problem to solution. The process would usually start by understanding and defining the problem. This involves gathering and analysing data and other evidence, and consulting with stakeholders. Once the problem is specified, and the evidence and stakeholder views are analysed,

options and a preferred option can be determined. Outcomes and output are identified, implementation plans are designed and performance targets specified. It is often thought that the more complex the problem is, the more important it is to follow this orderly flow. The consensus in the literature, however, is that such a linear, traditional approach to policy formulation is an inadequate way to work with wicked policy problems. This is because part of the wickedness of an issue lies in the interactions between causal factors, conflicting policy objectives and disagreement over the appropriate solution. Linear thinking is inadequate to encompass such interactivity and uncertainty.

The shortcomings of a linear approach are also due to the social complexity of wicked problems (Commonwealth of Australia, 2007).

According to Chapman (2004) and Rhodes (2006), systems thinking is a useful tool for tackling issues that are embedded in complexity, particularly where human activity is involved. This may be one of the keys to unlocking the door of cause-and-effect relationships in the public service delivery arena, such as housing. The gap identified in the research on housing provision systems is the lack of a systems thinking approach to housing development that results in the failure to appreciate the importance of the contribution of various stakeholders in housing development.

Rittel and Webber (1973) averred that the search for scientific bases for confronting problems of social policy is bound to fail, because of the nature of these problems. They are wicked problems, whereas science has developed to deal with tame problems. Policy problems cannot be described.

Moreover, in a pluralistic society there is nothing like the indisputable public good; there is no objective definition of equity; policies that respond to social problems cannot be meaningfully correct or false; and it makes no sense to talk about optimal solutions to social problems unless severe qualifications are imposed first. Even worse, there are no solutions in the sense of definitive and objective answers.

Part of the solution to wicked problems involves changing the behaviour of groups of citizens or all citizens. Other key ingredients in solving or at least managing complex policy problems include successfully working across both internal and external organisational boundaries, and engaging citizens and stakeholders in policymaking and implementation. Wicked problems require innovative, comprehensive solutions that can be modified in the light of experience and on-the-ground feedback.

All the above can pose challenges to traditional approaches to policymaking and programme implementation (Commonwealth of Australia, 2007).

(ii) Definition of a system

A system is, according to Jackson (2003), a complex whole comprised of a number of parts that interact with one another, and the functioning of the whole system is depended on the interaction of the components of the system. According to Senge (1994), a system is a perceived whole that is comprised of elements that continually interact with one another to achieve a common goal, and in the process affect one another. This means that since systems have systems (sub-systems) within them, one therefore needs to be clear about the relationships between the components of the system and the whole system in focus. This also means that only by viewing any system problem as just one small part of the whole system, can one start to work together with stakeholders to find a solution.

Concurring with the above, Midgley (2000) suggests that the world can be described as a hierarchy of systems, each of which contains and is contained by other systems where larger systems are just as dependent on the existence and healthy functioning of the smaller ones (their components) as the smaller ones are on the larger ones of which they are part (their environment).

Housing is not a discrete entity and therefore never isolated. Housing is part of other systems.

According to Shlomo (2000), housing production is a part of the construction sector; housing investment is a part of overall capital formation; residential property is a part of the real estate sector;

housing finance is a part of the financial sector; housing subsidies are a part of social welfare expenditures; and residential development is a part of urban development. It is therefore important that stakeholders in these other systems are engaged in the development of housing policies and programmes and the implementation thereof.

(iii) Definition of systems thinking

Churchman (1968), the father of systems thinking, posited that a systems thinking approach begins when one sees the world through the eyes of another. Systems thinking is a scientific discipline concerned with organisation, relationship and seeing the overall pattern. Whatever is observed from a systems thinking point of view, is looked at as it relates to the whole (Checkland, 2000; Evitts et al., 2010).

Systems thinking has a long pedigree in both the natural sciences and the social sciences (Midgley, 2003). Academics have been exploring the properties of ‗complex‘ systems (Holland 1995;

Prigogine 1997; Anderson 1999) with the goal of improving understanding of surprising, non-linear behaviour in either or both the natural sciences and the social sciences. Anderson (1999) in his review of a number of different perspectives on complex systems suggests that complex systems are characterised by many differentiated components, interacting with one another and with their

environment, exhibiting adaptive capabilities and responding to feedback. Each of these elements may contribute to surprising, nonlinear behaviour. Several authors (Boston & Pallot 1997; Chapman, 2003) have suggested that systems effects may be one of the keys to unlocking the door of cause-and-effect relationships in public service delivery arenas, such as housing, health and education. Within the broad area of complex systems, there are many different frameworks that may be applied to an empirical phenomenon to describe its behaviour. Complex adaptive systems (CAS) theory has been seen as considerable potential for understanding organisational systems (Holland, 1998, Anderson, 1999).

A complex adaptive system is, according to Stacey (2003), comprised of a huge number of diverse agents that interact with one another and whose interaction is informed by sets of rules that require the adjustment of the behaviours of agents to those of fellow agents in a system. Similarly, Lewin (1999) defines a CAS as a system comprised of a number of diverse agents that are mutually affected by one another during their interaction with one another. Agent interactions result in the generation of a behaviour that is novel for the system as a whole. This behaviour is not constant due to the fact that the behaviour of the system as a whole changes when the system‘s environment changes. This means that the system constantly adapts to the environment around it and therefore evolves through continuous adaptation. Systems have to fit with the complexity of their environment either to achieve an appropriate alignment with the environment or to free themselves from any potential adverse impact or constraints the environment might impose (Boisot & Child, 1999).

According to Lucas (2004), the level of agent interactions in a system is three-fold: (i) intra-system or intra-level interaction: these are interactions of agents within the system, (ii) inter-system interaction:

this is where agents interact with each other across the boundaries of the system, and (iii) hierarchical or inter-level interaction: in this case agents interact within a vertical hierarchy. What this means is that because of these interactions at various levels, every change, regardless of size, has the capacity to change the entire hierarchy of levels since the perturbation affects internal, horizontal and vertical levels simultaneously as it follows all the available paths of influence.

According to Holland (1998) and Anderson (1999), the main features of a complex adaptive system are (i) agents that may act independently, but that are dependent to varying degrees on other agents in the system, (ii) the environment in which the agents operate, (iii) the objectives that agents are pursuing and their perceptions of how best to pursue these objectives, (iv) the nature of the connections between agents (e.g., information exchange, resource dependencies), (v) the initial conditions that were present at the start of the system and (vi) the outcomes of the system that create feedback which influences agents‘ subsequent actions. Housing, because of its huge number of stakeholders, some of whom are responsible for the supply of land, infrastructure, building materials,

technology, labour, housing finance, and developers, communities, beneficiaries, professionals, and politicians, housing fits well with this definition of a complex adaptive system. It is therefore a typical CAS.

Chapman (2004) posits that one way of understanding systems thinking is to contrast it with the reductionist approach to tackling complexity. Reductionist thinking has been remarkably successful, particularly in developing successful theories and models for an inanimate world when combined with scientific procedures. The essential aspect of the reductionist approach is therefore that complexity is simplified by dividing a problem into sub-problems or lesser components. The process of sub-division is continued until the resulting bits are simple enough to be analysed and understood (Evitts et al., 2010). The operation of the original complex entity is then reconstructed from the operation of the component. Unlike reductionist thinking, systems thinking strategy for simplifying complexity is going up a level of abstraction, to provide a holistic approach to understanding and managing complexity. This is unlike the Newtonian, mechanistic way of seeing the world, which is criticised for being an approximation and therefore inaccurate, and that it is an incomplete view of the world (Evitts et al., 2010). Evitts et al. (2010) further suggest that systems thinking also provides the possibility of ‗popping‘ levels, or switching viewpoints, from a ‗30,000 foot‘ view to a ‗weeds‘ view.

Seeing from the ‗30,000 foot‘ view is to see the big picture, to see how it all works together. Seeing from a ‗weeds‘ view is to see the connections and elements that are local to the viewer. Seeing from multiple views gives rise to an emergent property termed depth perception, which exists in neither place but only emerges when you put the two views together.

The following are some characteristics of a complex system according to Kirshbaum (2002);

van Inwagen (1986); Ortegon-Monroy (1999); Stacey (1996); 2003); Fortune and White (2002);

Pavard and Dugdale (2003); Richardson (2005) and Evitts, Seale and Skybrook (2010): self-organisation, emergence, non-linearity, non-determinism and non-tractability, edge of chaos, and unpredictability.

(iv) Application of the systems thinking approach to housing provision

The rational policymaking process, according to Chapman (2004), follows the following four steps:

(i) clarifying objectives (which are assumed to be unambiguous), (ii) identifying the alternative means of achieving those objectives (perfect rationality requires that all possible options are identified), (iii) identifying the consequences, including all the side effects, of each alternative means, and (iv) evaluating each set of consequences in terms of the objectives so that the best policy can be selected and implemented. Chapman, however, suggests that this current model of public policymaking, based on the reduction of complex problems into separate, rationally manageable

components, is no longer appropriate to the challenges faced by government and changes to the wider environment in which they operate. Systems thinking, which allows policymakers to see a bigger picture and treats public services as complex adaptive systems will offer an alternative route to developing solutions and enhancing the effectiveness of government policies (Chapman, 2004).

According to the Commonwealth of Australia (2007), the Australian Public Service is increasingly being tasked with solving very complex policy problems. Some of these policy issues are so complex they have been called ‗wicked‘ problems. Successfully solving or at least managing these wicked policy problems requires a reassessment of some of the traditional ways of working and solving problems in the Australian Public Service. Tackling wicked problems calls for high levels of systems thinking; in other words, holistic thinking capable of grasping the big picture rather than linear thinking. This big picture thinking helps policymakers to make the connections between the multiple causes and interdependencies of wicked problems that are necessary in order to avoid a narrow approach and the artificial taming of wicked problem (Commonwealth of Australia, 2007).

Mulgan (2001) suggests the following as factors that justify the need for the systems thinking approach to policy development for complex social problems: (i) the ubiquity of information flows, especially within government itself, (ii) the pressure on social policy to be more holistic, (iii) the growing importance of the environment, especially climate change, (iv) the connectedness of systems, bringing new vulnerabilities, (v) globalisation and the way in which this integrates previously discrete systems, (vi) the need to be able to cope with ambiguity and non-linearity, and (vii) planning and rational strategy, which often lead to unintended consequences.

Dealing with complex problems is dependent on (i) how the problem is framed; (ii) stakeholders‘

different world views and different frames for understanding the problem; (iii) the constraints that the problem is subject to the resources needed to solve it and that the resources change over time; and (iv) that the problem is never solved definitively (Rittel & Webber, 1973). A systems approach according to Churchman begins when first you see the world through the eyes of another, and that ethical decisions can only be made by considering the perspectives of those whose views you may oppose (Reynolds & Williams, 2012). Williams and Hummelbrunner (2010) argue that systemic approaches to managing interventions can be understood as the confluence of three concepts, namely (i) interrelationships, (ii) perspectives and (iii) boundaries. Boundaries delineate between what is ‗in‘

and what is ‗out‘, what is ‗fair‘ and what is not. Similarly, Reynolds and Holwell (2010) identified the following three purposeful orientations for the use of a systems approach in any intervention:

a. Making sense of, or simplifying (in understanding) relationships between different entities associated with a complex situation

b. Surfacing and engaging (through practice) contrasting perspectives

c. Exploring and reconciling (with responsibility) power relations, boundary issues and potential conflict amongst different entities and/or perspectives.

(v) Critical systems heuristic (CSH)

In 1983 Werner Ulrich developed critical systems heuristics (CSH) as an approach to dealing with boundary judgements systematically. It was hailed as a landmark in the field of systems thinking (Ulrich & Reynolds, 2010). This is because systems thinking is relevant because all problem definitions, solution proposals, evaluations of outcomes, and so on, depend on prior judgements about the relevant ‗whole system‘ to be looked at. The CSH approach calls these underpinning judgements boundary judgements, as they define the boundaries of the reference system that is constitutive of the meaning of a proposition and for which it is valid (Ulrich, 2005). Ulrich (2003) argued that justifying systems interventions required continually redrawing the boundaries to sweep in stakeholders previously excluded from consideration.

According to Jackson (2003), CSH described for the first time an approach that took as a major concern the need to counter possible unfairness in society, by ensuring that all those affected by decisions had a role in making them. According to Rothkegel (2000), the CSH framework was established to make systems thinking practically applicable, and to educate professionals and citizens in problem solving for planning situations to acquire a critical competence that is not depending on theoretical knowledge as a basis for cogent critical argumentation.

Ulrich (2003) (quoted in Jackson, 2003) suggests that those who design systems make assumptions about what is part of the system‘s environment and what is inside the system. He further suggests that management must develop a way of evaluating systems designs in order to expose boundary judgements being made currently and a way of asking what other boundary judgements might be possible. He suggested that to reveal boundary judgements the 12 boundary questions in Table 3.2 must be asked. Boundary judgements are raised to achieve three things: (i) making sense of situations to understand assumptions and appreciate the bigger picture; (ii) unfolding multiple perspectives to promote mutual understanding and (iii) promoting reflective practice to analyse situations and change them where necessary (Ulrich & Reynolds, 2010).

Table 3.2: Ulrich’s 12 boundary judgement questions Group of

stakeholders

Boundary judgement question

Client 1. Who is the client or system beneficiary?

2. What is the purpose of the system?

3. What is the system‘s measure of success?

Decision maker 4. Who is the decision maker?

5. What resources and constraints of the systems are under the control of the decision maker?

6. What resources are part of the system environment, in other words, not under the control of the decision maker?

Designer 7. Who is involved as part of the designers of the systems?

8. What expertise is required to ensure proper design of the system?

9. Who is the guarantor of the system?

Witnesses 10. Who belongs to the witnesses that represents the concerns of those citizens who are affected by the design of the system?

11. To what extent and how are the affected citizens allowed an opportunity to be emancipated from the involved people‘s premises and promises?

12. On what world view of either the involved or the affected citizens did the designers base the system‘s design

Source: Ulrich (2003).

It is therefore critical that the multiple stakeholders in the delivery of housing be identified, and that the state coordinates their participation in the development of housing policies and programmes, the planning and implementation thereof, and the allocation of housing units. This will assist in ensuring that conflicting perspectives and expectations from the housing delivery system are considered when decisions are taken on housing policies, housing programmes, housing planning, roles and responsibilities, resources required, the implementation and the allocation of housing, as well as the evaluation of the effectiveness of the housing delivery system.

3.3 CONCLUSION

This chapter addressed the gaps identified in housing provision frameworks that were overlooked in previous housing provision frameworks reviewed. The gaps identified form important constructs in the housing provision framework of this study. The three gaps identified are (i) community participation in the delivery of housing; (ii) capacity development for communities to enable them to participate meaningfully in the housing delivery value chain activities; and (iii) the systems thinking approach to housing delivery, which is operationalised in this study by ensuring the coordination of stakeholders in the delivery of housing. In addressing the gaps on the participation of communities in housing delivery (gap 1), the study draws on a number of works, but the seminal work of Turner and Crane respectively is important. This research relates to the importance of dweller control on the

realisation of their right to adequate housing (Turner) and aided self-help housing where communities are supported to realise their housing needs. To address the gap on capacity development for communities, the study draws on the works of Morgan and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). It was established that capacity development is the engine of human development and that people are best empowered to realise their full potential when the means of development are sustainable – home-grown, long-term, and generated and managed collectively by those who stand to benefit. To address the gap on the coordination of the participation of stakeholders in housing delivery (gap 3) the study draws on the research of a number of authors (e.g., Senge, Chapman, Stacey, Lewin, Jackson), but the seminal works of Churchman and Ulrich on the systems thinking approach and the CSH framework respectively were used in addressing the two gaps. The present study establishes that

realisation of their right to adequate housing (Turner) and aided self-help housing where communities are supported to realise their housing needs. To address the gap on capacity development for communities, the study draws on the works of Morgan and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). It was established that capacity development is the engine of human development and that people are best empowered to realise their full potential when the means of development are sustainable – home-grown, long-term, and generated and managed collectively by those who stand to benefit. To address the gap on the coordination of the participation of stakeholders in housing delivery (gap 3) the study draws on the research of a number of authors (e.g., Senge, Chapman, Stacey, Lewin, Jackson), but the seminal works of Churchman and Ulrich on the systems thinking approach and the CSH framework respectively were used in addressing the two gaps. The present study establishes that