This document discusses adaptive challenges and the importance of adaptive learning skills for collective impact efforts to successfully address complex social problems. It defines adaptive challenges as problems where there are no clear solutions and learning is required. Collective impact aims to guide communities through adaptive learning processes to solve adaptive challenges. However, many collective impact efforts fail because they lack certain adaptive learning skills. The document identifies three key adaptive learning skills needed: systems thinking to identify high leverage intervention points, conversational capacity for open dialogue across boundaries, and improvisational or "yes to the mess" learning to adapt solutions along the way. Developing these skills can help communities learn faster and work together to effectively address adaptive challenges.

1. Adaptive Learning for Collective Impact
Adaptive Learning for Collective Impact
September 25, 2016
Adaptive Learning
Pivotal Skills for Collective Impact
Craig Weber and Chris Soderquist
Communities around the globe face an expanding range of tough, interconnected,
complex problems: poverty, racism, violence, police and community tensions,
environment degradation, access to education, obesity, mental illness, climate
change, and health inequity, just to name a few. These problems—and many others
like them—are what we refer to as adaptive challenges. What do we mean by that?
Here’s a brief description:
All our difficulties fall somewhere on a spectrum; at one end of this spectrum
we find routine problems, and, at the other end, adaptive challenges. A
routine problem isn’t considered routine because it happens regularly, but
because we have a routine for dealing with it—a protocol, a process, or
expert on which we can depend for a reliable fix. A routine problem may be
irksome and expensive, but at least we’re in familiar territory and know what
to do about it.
When we’re facing an adaptive challenge, on the other hand, we’re off the
familiar trail in uncharted territory where there are no proven routines,
protocols, solutions, or experts. To successfully negotiate an adaptive
challenge we must work and learn with others to navigate the alien terrain.
All the problems we face in life fall somewhere between these two distinct
poles.
. . it’s more important than ever to recognize the distinction between routine
and adaptive issues because they each require a profoundly different

2. Adaptive Learning for Collective Impact
Adaptive Learning for Collective Impact
September 25, 2016
problem solving approach. For a routine problem a bias for action is
appropriate. We have a routine, we know what to do, so as Nike suggests, we
should “just do it.” But for an adaptive challenge—where there is no clear
routine, no proven process, and no ready expert who can save the day—a
bias for learning is essential. Why? To navigate our way over unfamiliar
ground we must roll up our cognitive sleeves and work with others to figure
out the best way forward. We must orchestrate, in other words, a process of
adaptive learning. 1
If they’re to effectively resolve adaptive challenges, communities must do just that—
orchestrate a process of learning—and success hinges on how well they can
encourage a diverse set of interest groups to honestly share and learn from their
contrasting and sometimes competing perspectives. This work can get messy.
Collective Impact is a process that has been developed to help guide communities
and networks through such “messy,” adaptive learning processes. In their article,
Collective Impact, Kania and Kramer make this point: “Reforming public education,
restoring wetland environments, and improving community health are all adaptive
problems. In these cases, reaching an effective solution requires learning by the
stakeholders involved in the problem, who must then change their own behavior in
order to create a solution.”2
If implemented effectively, Collective Impact has the potential to produce an agile
process of learning. But in far too many cases it fails to live up to this potential
because the process bogs down and loses momentum. Many of its once passionate
leaders become disillusioned and drop out of the process. These are almost
universally smart, passionate, committed people, so what’s going on here. Why does
this happen?
It happens because simply understanding these challenges isn’t enough. Collective
Impact requires powerful new mindsets and skills to be effective, once the laborious
task of choosing a path forward has been accomplished.
Here’s a way to think about the need for
specific skills that support a strategy.
Running a Collective Impact process can be
compared to running a complex play in
basketball. A team may have a strategy for
how to execute a perfect triangle offense,
for example, but their strategy is useless if
the players don’t know how to pass,
dribble, and shoot. Their strategy is
nothing more than a pipedream if they lack
the basic skills necessary for playing the
1 http://www.weberconsultinggroup.net/leaning-into-difference-the-key-to-solving-tough-
problems/
2 Kania, J. & Kramer, M., Collective Impact, Social Innovation Review (2011)
“Just as there are
fundamental skills needed
to run complex plays in
basketball, there is a set of
adaptive learning skills
needed to run an effective
Collective Impact process.”

3. Adaptive Learning for Collective Impact
Adaptive Learning for Collective Impact
September 25, 2016
game.
We think the same thing often happens in Collective
Impact efforts. Communities have a process and a
strategy, and they have smart, passionate people, but
they’re lacking basic skills to put their smarts, passion,
and strategy into useful play. Just as there are
fundamental skills needed to run complex plays in
basketball, there is a set of adaptive learning skills
needed to run an effective Collective Impact process.
So what are these skills? We think there are three
essential and interrelated competencies for adaptive
leadership and learning: systems THINKING, Conversational Capacity, and
Improvisational Learning. These three enabling competencies help you find the
leverage needed for fundamental improvement, by accelerating a process of
learning in which community members engage in rigorous and balanced
conversations about highly emotional topics. Put differently, adaptive learning skills
help people and communities learn faster, smarter, and together.
1. Systems THINKING
Systems THINKING is essential for identifying high
leverage places to intervene. With limited time and
resources, it helps communities identify changes
that provoke the most profound and sustainable
improvements. Low leverage occurs when you fight
the “physics” of the system, when the more you push
it to change, the more it pushes back. High leverage
occurs when you work with the laws of physics. Low
leverage also occurs when today’s problems come from yesterday’s solutions
because you failed to predict unintended consequences. High leverage occurs
when you identify the fulcrum of a problem and design your intervention
around it. Low leverage activities, on the other hand can even hinder you when
performance has been improved—when your improvements are limited
relative to the amount of effort applied to the problem. Identifying and
exploiting places of high leverage fundamentally improves the way the system
behaves, generating the optimal behavior you desire.
This high leverage competency is referred to as systems THINKING. Thinking is
capitalized because this type of systems thinking emphasizes how we think
about systemic issues instead of adopting the overly simplistic (and mostly
unhelpful) perspective that “it’s all complex and connected.” At its core, systems
THINKING is based on a foundational principle: Behavior is generated by
structure. How we’ve “structured” our resources, organizations, and
communities is generating the behaviors we like and those we don’t. If we’re to
create the future we’ve envisioned, we’ll need to understand how we’ve

4. Adaptive Learning for Collective Impact
Adaptive Learning for Collective Impact
September 25, 2016
structured things and how we’ll have to change that structure to produce the
behaviors we want.
The mindset required for systems THINKING is an unwavering commitment to
understanding the whole set of relationships (structure) that drive important
“real world” behaviors. We assume we’ve been using boundaries that are too
narrow to understand the problem, focusing on our little part of the system—
our silo (e.g. education, health, public safety, etc.)—as if it’s the most important.
It also assumes we’ve not been thinking hard enough about how the world
“really works”, by overlooking time delays, vicious cycles (and other feedback
loop behavior), and unintended consequences.
The skills of systems THINKING provide a rigorous way to frame issues,
broaden and deepen your understanding, map out assumptions about cause
and effect, and focus on the issues that really matter -- making sense of the
system, in effect, so you can actually see it. This is critical. If you can’t see the
system you’re trying to improve there is no way to identify the best ways to
make constructive change. Systems THINKING makes you stronger and smarter.
It takes you from a place of being stuck as a reactive, “woe is me,” victim of
circumstance, to a place where you have the wisdom and confidence to
intervene in ways that make a profound difference.3
3 For more information about Systems THINKING, visit http://findinghighleverage.com/
The resources page includes a link to the following video: https://vimeo.com/122034667

5. Adaptive Learning for Collective Impact
Adaptive Learning for Collective Impact
September 25, 2016
2. Conversational Capacity4
In our world of mounting complexity and change,
building organizations, teams, and projects that
work well under pressure is more important than
ever. But while it’s easy to put together a team that
works when facing simple problems, building a team
that performs when things get tough remains an
elusive and frustrating task. The reason, according
to Craig Weber, is that traditional team building
overlooks the most important piece of the puzzle.
That missing piece is conversational capacity—a team’s ability to have open,
balanced, learning-focused dialogue about difficult subjects, in challenging
circumstances, and across tough boundaries. A group with high conversational
capacity can perform well, remaining on track even when dealing with their
most troublesome issues. A group lacking that capacity, by contrast, can see
their performance derail over a minor difference of opinion. In this sense,
conversational capacity isn’t just another aspect of effective teamwork—it
defines it. A team that cannot talk about its most pressing issues isn’t really a
team at all—it’s just a group of people that can’t work together effectively when
it counts.
This is a critical competence for a successful Collective Impact process that
requires people to communicate and collaborate about tough issues and across
challenging boundaries.
Sounds simple, right? All a team has to do is boost its conversational capacity
and all will be well. Unfortunately, it’s not that easy. In the quest to build
capacity we face a formidable obstacle: human nature. It turns out that reliably
effective teams are hard to build because primal aspects of our nature, rooted in
the powerful fight-flight response, actually work against teamwork.
Fortunately, there’s hope. There’s a proven discipline—a veritable
conversational martial art—that allows people and their teams to remain open,
balanced, and learning-focused as they tackle their most troublesome issues.
Armed with this discipline, communities, organizations, and teams can respond
to tough challenges with greater agility and skill, performing brilliantly in
circumstances that incapacitate less disciplined teams.
4 Weber, Craig. Conversational Capacity, McGraw-Hill, 2013

6. Adaptive Learning for Collective Impact
Adaptive Learning for Collective Impact
September 25, 2016
3. “Yes To The Mess” Learning (aka Agile
Learning)
Agile learning—which is often associated with
software development—can most easily be
understood as the skill of improvisation. Two key
aspects of the improvisational mindset are
particularly useful for Collective Impact work: an
affirmative bias, and a “learn as you go” approach.
Our friend and colleague Frank Barrett, author of
the wonderful book Yes To The Mess, explains this
better than anyone:
Managers frequently find themselves in the middle of messes not of their
own making, in over their heads, having to take action even though there is
no guarantee of a good outcome, and relying on imperfect information. Jazz
players face the same issues, but what makes it possible to improvise, to
adjust and fall upon a working strategy is an affirmative move, an implicit
‘yes’ that allows them to move forward even in the midst of uncertainty.
Problem solving by itself will not generate novel solutions. What’s needed is
an affirmative belief that a solution exists and that something positive will
emerge. 5
The improvisational mindset assumes that no matter how messy, how difficult,
or how confusing the current predicament, there is always a creative and
constructive path forward. At its core, the improvisational process stems from
an affirmative mindset.
But in addition to an affirmative bias, other essential skills of improvisation are
rapid experimentation and embracing errors. This approach reflects the
observation of Kurt Lewin who noted that the best way to learn about any
system is to try and change it. Rather than sitting back and waiting to intervene
until all the necessary information is available, you get to work with the best
information available and then learn as you go.
An Über Competency
Without these three competencies a group will
almost always underperform, especially when it’s
facing an adaptive challenge. They combine to form
an über competence—a meta-skill—that
turbocharges the effectiveness of a person, team,
organization, or community. Systems THINKING
can help a group identify the high leverage actions
that will spark the most constructive change,
5 Barrett, Frank. Yes to the Mess: Surprising Leadership Lessons from Jazz, Harvard Business
Press Books, 2012

7. Adaptive Learning for Collective Impact
Adaptive Learning for Collective Impact
September 25, 2016
Conversational Capacity enables a group of smart people to work smart by
balancing candor and courage and curiosity and humility under pressure, and Agile
Learning helps people work in more open, flexible, experimental ways in situations
where rapid learning is the key to progress. Together these competencies empower
people and groups to come together to tackle their most pressing issues in a more
focused and cogent way.
We’ve compared these competencies to
the skills needed to play music, a sport, or
other similar endeavors. But they’re more
than that. They’re the skills needed to
excel at these activities. What
distinguished basketball players like
Larry Bird and Magic Johnson from their
peers wasn’t just their skills at dribbling,
passing and shooting—it was their über ability to see the full court and imagine how
things were playing out, their ability to selflessly pass the ball and to work with all
players on the team, and their ability to turn a broken play into a basket.
The same thing is true of jazz. “The model of jazz musicians improvising collectively
offers a clear and powerful example of how people and teams can coordinate, be
productive, and create amazing innovations without so many of the control levers
that managers relied on in the industrial age,” says Barrett. “An improvisation model
of organizing creates a kind of openness, an invitation to possibility, rather than
leaning toward a narrowness of control.”6
This is why the interrelated skills of Systems THINKING, Conversational Capacity, and
Improvisational Learning are so important to Collective Impact endeavors. Ensuring
the process performs at its potential requires building and using the adaptive-
learning skills we’ve just described. They’ll not only help you make the constructive
changes you’re seeking, they’ll also help you build an even more connected, resilient,
and learning-focused community.
6 Barrett, Frank. Yes to the Mess: Surprising Leadership Lessons from Jazz, Harvard Business
Press Books, 2012. Pgs. xiv-xv
“These competencies
empower people and
groups to come together to
tackle their most pressing
issues in a more focused
and cogent way.”

8. Adaptive Learning for Collective Impact
Adaptive Learning for Collective Impact
September 25, 2016
CONTACT INFORMATION
Chris Soderquist
Pontifex Consulting
chris@findinghighleverage.com
findinghighleverage.com
Craig Weber
The Weber Consulting Group
weberconsulting@earthlink.net
weberconsultinggroup.net

9. Applied Systems THINKING
Behavior Over Time Graphs – Types and Tips
Behavior Over Time Graphs (aka Trend Graphs)
Purpose
Developing Behavior Over Time Graphs (BOTGs) expands the field of vision being
applied to an issue. The activity of expanding the field of vision facilitates the causal
thinking (why is this behavior happening?) required to take a systems view. The
systems view creates an opportunity to find leverage for improvement.
• A BOTG is a graph over time that captures the essence of a problem or issue of
interest.
• BOTGs often contain a historical (“as is”) component as well as a projected (“to
be”) component.
• In creating a BOTG, it is often helpful to normalize (e.g. average, %, outcome/
patient) the variable.
• The unit of time (day, month, quarter, year, etc.) for the BOTG helps to set a
temporal boundary for what to include in your analysis
1 © 2017 Pontifex Consulting
Graduation rates
months years
“As Is”
“To Be”
Now% population
requiring
Medicaid

10. Applied Systems THINKING
Behavior Over Time Graphs – Types and Tips
BOTGs – Historical Narrative Graphs
Purpose
The purpose of Historical Narrative Graphs is to communicate the history / story of
issue(s) in visually, compelling and causally-based way. This can be used to help an
audience shift from narrow temporal boundaries (event thinking) to broader temporal
boundaries…and to shift from reactionary activities to proactive strategies. It facilitates
the development of an operational (causal) mental model of the issue.
How to…
• Select 1 (or more) variable(s) that captures the issue you wish to describe
• Normalize if possible (e.g. %s, averages, $/person, output/$)
• Draw the trend line(s)
• Highlight stories/events…
✴ Times when something happened to cause the issue to get better
✴ External events
✴ Places where interventions were tried
✴ Other
2 © 2017 Pontifex Consulting
http://healthblog.ncpa.org/obamacares-effect-on-uninsured-is-trivial/

11. Applied Systems THINKING
Behavior Over Time Graphs – Types and Tips
BOTGs – Stakeholder Interest Diagram
Purpose
The purpose of Stakeholder Interest Diagrams is to understand and communicate the
landscape of issues / interests from – and across – a broad constituency.
How to…
• Map the stakeholder landscape
• Determine 1-2 trend over time graphs that “speak to” each group
• Speaking to can be…
✴ The pain if the issue continues
✴ The benefit of implementing a proposed solution
✴ Other
3 © 2017 Pontifex Consulting
The Big
Kahuna
Issue
Stakeholder
Group A
Stakeholder
Group B
Stakeholder
Group C
Stakeholder
Group D

12. Applied Systems THINKING
Behavior Over Time Graphs – Types and Tips
BOTGs – Projecting Goals & Initiative Impacts Graph
Purpose
The purpose of Projecting Goals & Initiative Impacts Graphs is to visualize the different
goals and trajectories propose for future interventions
How to…
• Select 1 (or more) variable(s) that captures the issue you wish to describe
• Draw the trend line(s)
• Highlight stories/events…
✴ Describe how the intervention is causing the hypothesized future curve
✴ Seriously consider worse before better as one potential future! (or better
before worse!)
4 © 2017 Pontifex Consulting
1.Persons A-C all believe
the initiative can achieve
about a 75% participation
rate. However, they
disagree dramatically on
what will happen to get
there. A thinks it will
happen quickly and level
off, B thinks it’s a steady
increase, and C thinks
there might be a “worse
before better” dynamic
2.Person D thinks it’s
impossible to achieve
more than 50% and thinks
it will happen after about 2
years and level off

13. Applied Systems THINKING
Behavior Over Time Graphs – Types and Tips
BOTGs – Leading / Lagging Indicators Graph
Purpose
The purpose of Leading / Lagging Indicators Graphs is to visualize the trajectories of
variables in a way to tell a more “causal story” and identify leading indicators
How to…
• Select 2 (or more) variables that capture the issue you wish to describe
• Draw the trend line(s)
• See if you can identify variables that move first, that indicate they are “leading
indicators”
5 © 2017 Pontifex Consulting
An initial influx of
grant funding (budget
available) allows the
stakeholders to get
engaged, the main
leading indicator.
This then drives
ability to attract local
“sustaining”
funding…the next
leading indicator.
And ultimately,
system performance
improves… the
lagging indicator.

14. Applied Systems THINKING
The Systems THINKING Questions
Overview
You can apply the Systems THINKING Mindset to your most important issues. The Mindset
improves any process (e.g. strategic planning, process improvement, lean/agile development,
and collective impact). It’s not an add-on, something additional to do. It doesn’t require a1
different process than one you’re following; it is an enabling competency to make your chosen
process achieve better results. It is particularly helpful in dealing with wicked, complex problems
– problems referred to as adaptive challenges.2
Adopting the Systems THINKING Mindset improves your ability (in any activity) to achieve
higher leverage impact. Achieving high leverage means:
• Fundamentally improving system performance with the minimum investment of
resources (time, money, effort)
• Avoiding negative unintended consequences
• And where possible, simultaneously solving several issues
There are four goals (and inquiry behaviors) to the Systems THINKING Mindset
• Expand Your Field of Vision
• Focus on the Physics
• Search for Leverage
• Build a Shared, Useful Picture
Build a Shared, Useful Picture
This element means to move away from making rigid
decisions in a vacuum and instead develop understanding
through collaborative learning. And to understand that we’ll
never have the full, complete truth – it is statistically,
scientifically impossible – but will need to constantly adjust
our thinking as we learn more about the world. The purpose is
to build collective understanding, seeing the same thing. The
fundamental question is: How can we learn together – and
improve that learning – as rapidly as possible?
Expanding Your Field of Vision
This element of the ST Mindset moves the focus away from a
short term, “what’s in front of us” perspective by recognizing
that we’re not getting the full picture, that we may be missing
something. Instead, we analyze over expanded ranges of
It seems since the beginning of time, organizations become enamored with the process du jour. We’ve seen TQM,1
reengineering, lean engineering, six sigma, and Kotter’s leading change process. In the public sector we have
collective impact and emergent strategy. The reason many of these fail to achieve desired improvement isn’t because
the process / approach is ineffective, but that those implementing lack a systemic approach to following them. In our
experience the missing ingredient is a set of enabling capacities for adaptive learning; one of these capacities
includes a Systems THINKING mindset. This document focuses on the application of the Systems THINKING
mindset.
Adaptive challenges were first described by Ron Heifetz as problems without a clear diagnosis (are messy,2
complex), don’t have a routine or agreed-upon solution, and lack an obvious expert. Refer to Leadership without Easy
Answers, Heifetz, R.
1 © 2017

15. Applied Systems THINKING
The Systems THINKING Questions
time (longer temporal dimension), and space (broader spatial
dimension…e.g. beyond our department, organization, or
discipline). Doing so improves our ability to see how this issue
relates to issues others may be experiencing. The
fundamental question is: What am I missing?
Focusing on the Physics
This element moves the analysis away from correlational,
complex, abstract thinking and toward developing a rigorous,
comprehensive, causal theory about the issue. The
fundamental question is: How does this work?
Search for Leverage
Often there is a place in a system where with a little exertion or
intervention, performance will begin to improve. Usually we are
pulling the wrong levers while thinking they are high leverage.
Sometimes we may be pulling the right ones but in the wrong
way. Searching for leverage is an unreserved, determined3
search for the place where there’s a chance to fundamentally
improve performance. The fundamental question is: Where
can I intervene to create maximum improvement?
The Mindset & Inquiry Behaviors
In conclusion, the mindset results in a particular form of analysis – a specific type of inquiry –
that manifests through four major areas of questioning.
Purpose Mindset Inquiry Behaviors
Learn Build a Shared, Useful Picture How can we learn together – and improve that
learning – as rapidly as possible?
Frame the Issue Expand Your Field of Vision What am I missing?
Develop Insight Focus on the Physics How does this work?
Have Impact Search for Leverage Where can I intervene to create maximum
improvement?
Frame the Issue Expand Your Field of Vision What am I missing?
A classic example is developing demand for a product or service. In business that might occur when using price for3
business growth. Often organizations feeling a cash crunch will reduce price to increase demand. But if capacity is an
issue, this can sometimes create so much demand that can’t be filled the organization will eventually frustrate
customers by lower quality or longer fulfillment times. Raising price is counterintuitive! But raising price can increase
revenue, while simultaneously slowing demand to a manageable pace. This gives time to increase capacity so that
eventually lowering price could increase demand and sales…and the organization would have the capacity to meet
the demand. This is a far more sustainable strategy. But it requires pulling the right lever in an unconventional way.
2 © 2017

16. Applied Systems THINKING
The Systems THINKING Questions
The ST Questions
There are many tools to help apply the ST Mindset. These tools include simple and complex
graphs, causal loop maps, stock and flow maps, and simulation models (including learning
labs). Many of the tools require some training (e.g. graphs and maps). Some require years of4
skill building (e.g. simulation models).
For many it seems daunting – or even a waste of time – trying to apply Systems THINKING
because of an unfortunate high level of difficulty in learning and using the tools,. However, we
have found anyone can immediately use a wide range of Systems THINKING questions (ST
Questions) to leverage the power of the mindset…without the tools.
On the following pages are sets of questions you can use to better frame the issue you are
trying to address, determine how to address, and to build a process of collaborative learning.
You can quickly see there are too many questions to use all at once! However, based on your
needs – your current context, including where you are in the process of analysis or strategy
development – you can pick those that are most applicable. We recommend perusing all to
choose the most useful.
Graphs can be simple trend graphs that include how one variable has changed (or will/should)4
change over time). Sometimes they include multiple variables to describe how the variables
relate. Causal maps will show cause and effects between variables, providing a visual
description of the relationships in the system., or they may include several variables.
3 © 2017

17. Applied Systems THINKING
The Systems THINKING Questions
To better learn…
Build a Useful, Shared Picture: How can we
learn together – and improve that learning – as
rapidly as possible?
Strategic planning processes (most processes actually) are
usually thought of as short term, build the strategy with the
executive team, create the 5 section binder, and go implement it. It’s assumed that execution
will happen and the strategy will lead to the promised land. Few teams reach that land. Why?
Because the real world and strategy isn’t a static, easy to understand place. There are
dynamics unfolding. Things change. And our strategies are usually incomplete and inaccurate.
So, rather than rigidly hold to the strategy or any process, what’s needed is a strategy as
learning process. How can we develop understanding of the world in a way that brings together
diverse perspectives in a useful way? How can we test that understanding before and during
implementation? And how can we modify the strategy when it needs to be…before it’s too late?
These are a few of the questions to address when employing this element of the Systems
THINKING Mindset.
How do we get on the same page?
• What can we do to build same page understanding, to create a shared picture of the issue
and potential solutions?
• Is our understanding clear and unambiguous? What’s needed to make it more so?
• Is it rigorous? Does it contain essential elements of reality? What’s needed to make it more
rigorous/realistic?
How do we build confidence in understanding/insight and strategy?
• How do we build confidence in our theory of how it (the business, the community, the
system) works?
• Are we able to mentally simulate how it works? Can we create a credible story of how
different actions will trace out through the system…and into the future?
• If there appears to be important feedback loops (e.g. vicious cycles or system “push back”),
would we learn more by developing causal loop maps?
• Would we understand more by developing stock and flow maps?
• Should we build a computer simulation model…and would that add enough value to
warrant the effort?
How do we make insight useful?
• How do we keep the shared picture (mental model/explanatory theory) as simple as
possible, but no simpler?
• If we believe we need multiple measures to track, what would be the most important
handful?
• Are there elements of the theory that are part of the reality, but not necessarily a major
factor in explaining the issue or potential solutions? Are there unnecessary complexities in
the theory or strategy that you can remove?
4 © 2017

18. Applied Systems THINKING
The Systems THINKING Questions
How do we learn as we go?
• How do we develop a plan to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy?
• What are some leading indicators that will help us evaluate the strategy (changes we would
see soon that indicate longer term improvement will occur…that the strategy is on track)?
• How can we create measures that can be updated regularly? How regularly (in most cases
there’s benefit to greater frequency)?
• How do we determine if the strategy is off track?
• How do we evaluate the reasons for being off track?
• Where is our shared picture inaccurate or incomplete in ways that limit effectiveness?
• How do we adjust our thinking about the issue/strategy? How do we improve it?
5 © 2017

19. Applied Systems THINKING
The Systems THINKING Questions
To better frame the issue…
Expand the Field of Vision: What are we
missing?
It’s important to make sure we choose the right
issues and skillfully frame the problem of inquiry
before following the typical tendency of knee-jerk problem solving and/or reacting. The
following questions will help make sure you choose the right issues, not overlook places you
should focus, and include all the perspectives needed to build understanding and generate
insight. If this step is skipped over, or even done ineffectively, your efforts will suffer later by
failing to improve performance or creating more (worse?) problems.
Where are we? Where have we been? (Current Reality)
• What are the most significant/troublesome trends (patterns of important system
performance measures)? They can be tangible or intangible, quantitative or qualitative.
• What’s been the trend for each over the past several years?
• How broad a time horizon is useful in order to really understand each? (1 year, 5 years, 10
years, decades?)
• Where are the trends going (especially if left unaddressed)?
• What will be the future price paid if left to continue as expected?
Where do we want to go? (Vision)
• How do we want the future to play out? What’s our desired future trend – dynamic vision?
• What is the long-term goal or outcome change of interest? What system performance do
we want to see?
• If we were to pick one measure to improve in the future, what would it be? And what would
the improvement look like?
• How far into the future do we need to look to see the change we want?
• If we were gathering in the future (5 years? 10 years?) to celebrate achieving “beyond our
wildest dreams” success, what we see that indicates we’ve succeeded?
• What are the more routine aspects of the issue and our vision? More importantly, what are
the more adaptive elements?
How do we see further, expand our view of the issue?
• What other perspectives/stakeholders are concerned about this issue or something related
to it?
• What other trends or system behaviors would these others see as related – perhaps even
more important – to the issue?
• How does this impact more than just our area of interest?
• Think about expanding the area of focus. If we make a change to the issue as we wish,
where else will there be an impact?
• Would this (these) be a positive or negative unintended consequence(s)/impact(s)?
6 © 2017

20. Applied Systems THINKING
The Systems THINKING Questions
To better develop insight…
Focus on the Physics: How does this work?
Often we employ correlational thinking, comparison thinking or
factors thinking to building understanding and taking action.
What are the major factors associated with this issue? What
seems to correlate with the trends we are seeing? How does
our situation compare to another situation?
Those adopting the Systems THINKING Mindset will instead focus on understanding how
something works. If all the causal connections were drawn, can I understand how this systems
fits together to create the behavior I wish to improve. When modifying or tuning a car to run
more efficiently, it is important to shift focus from the dashboard and look at how the different
sub-systems (engine, drive train, cooling system, etc…) work together. It’s only when you see
where the most leverage in that system of system lies that you are then able to optimize
performance.
How do we create a broad perspective on metrics?
• If we could stop time right now and look at the system – counting or measuring something
– what would we focus on to assess system health?
• What are the important metrics of performance? (think broadly…economic, physical,
social)
How do we identify important conditions and rates of change?
• What’s accumulating? What are the key conditions?
• In what direction are the important accumulations going? Increasing? Decreasing? How
fast?
• Do there appear to be any time delays in the system (places where something happens a
long time after what seems to be a significant cause)?
How do we identify important Reinforcing Loops?
• Is there an obvious virtuous cycle (where things continue to get better and better)?
• Is there a vicious cycle (where things continue to get worse and worse…maybe
accelerating!)?
How do we identify important Balancing Loops?
• Is there a “push back” in the system? How has resistance occurred in the face of attempts
to improve?
• Does the system appear to be trying to stay in equilibrium? Why do you think it does?
7 © 2017

21. Applied Systems THINKING
The Systems THINKING Questions
To better achieve impact…
Search for Leverage: Where can we
intervene to create maximum
improvement?
In searching for leverage, we are looking for ways to
maximize impact. We aren’t looking to tweak performance marginally in a better direction. We
want to fundamentally improve it. Leverage is a big deal, and yet we rarely talk about it. We get
lost in 5 point plans, and 7 step processes. But the goal should be finding leverage when
dealing with big, hairy, adaptive issues. Here are some questions that help take our
understanding of the physics and convert that into high leverage interventions.
How do we identify previous ineffective interventions?
• Where have there been efforts to improve performance (the system)?
• Often past efforts were applied to the easiest place(s) to influence…or easiest to see…not
necessarily the highest leverage. How do any of the past efforts appear to fit the “easy to
do” or “easy to see” definition?
How do we identify potential high leverage interventions?
• Based on understanding the physics better, where might there be places of leverage you
should consider?
• Can you influence feedback loops to achieve leverage?
• If there is already a major influencing factor contributing, do you need to support it to
improve likelihood of success, dismantle it (having a negative influence), or modify it?
• Previous efforts may have focused on building up a condition or asset (e.g. customers,
supplies, morale), while ignoring what causes losses (e.g. churn, spoilage, morale loss).
What interventions might be effective by focusing on the loss/erosion of a condition/asset?
• Previous efforts may have focused on stemming the loss/erosion of a condition or asset
(e.g. expenses, morbidity/deaths, quitting/attrition), while ignoring what causes build up
(e.g. revenue from developing a superior product, developing chronic disease/incidence,
relative attractiveness of the organization). What interventions might be effective by
focusing on building a condition/asset?
How do we predict how interventions will work?
• It often takes a long time – perhaps years – before the metric you want to influence starts
to improve. What other metrics might you see change in the near term (i.e. leading
indicators)? In the intermediate term (i.e. secondary leading indicators)?
• Have you thought through the various time delays in the system? Which ones are longer
and may require earlier phasing?
8 © 2017

22. Applied Systems THINKING
The Systems THINKING Questions
• How might the transformation from lower performing to higher performing have different
phases? Which parts of the strategy should you emphasize initially? Later?5
Often strategies only focus on key success factors, assuming they can be implemented with equal emphasis and all5
at once. Instead, strategies are often more effective when timed: Emphasize parts of the strategy now, and different
parts later. It is helpful to evolve the strategy as it unfolds! This is called systemic orchestration. And systemic
orchestration is another important systems competency that is rarely discussed or achieved.
9 © 2017
Chris Soderquist
Pontifex Consulting
PO Box 64
Hanover, NH 03755
(603) 276-0203
chris@findinghighleverage.com
findinghighleverage.com