The final part of Notes on Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide. Edited by Martin Reynolds and Sue Holwell. This section cover Critical Systems Heuristics - it is part of OU Module TU811 and is a part of a Master in Systems Thinking

1. Notes on-
Systems Approaches to Managing
Change: Part 6
Critical System Heuristics
A Practical Guide
Eds. – Martin Reynolds & Sue Holwell

2. Chapter 6
Critical Systems
Heuristics (CSH)
Werner Ulrich and Martin Reynolds
• A framework for reflective
professional practice focused on a central
tool of ‘boundary critique.
• A particular aspect of CSH is the way
that it welcomes, encourages and uses
the natural ‘tensions’ that exist between
opposing perspectives of management.
• So ‘situation vs. system’, ‘is vs. ought’
and judgements which people may have
who are ‘involved vs. affected but
uninvolved’
• Boundary critique is a process that is
participatory – an unfolding and
questioning of judgments that leads to
pragmatic outcomes.

3. 6.1 What is CSH?
CSH is a ‘philosophical framework to
support ‘professional’ reflective practice
that through a process of reflection and
discussion unfolds the core assumptions
held within the thinking through of any
system.
In its basic format it consists of 12
‘boundary’ questions – not to be used as
the means to populate the existing but as
a tool to understand situations so as to
design systems with a view to
improvement

4. 1. Making sense of situations: understanding assumptions and
appreciating the bigger picture
Making explicit the boundaries of system, to inform thinking
and cultivate an holistic awareness that then widens the issue.
These include:
• Values and motivations
• A stakeholders take on a situation and the efforts to improve
it
• Power structures
• Influential forces that define the problem and limit or
expand the reach of suitable outcomes
• The knowledge basis
• What skills and experiences are relevant to the situation in
respect of extracted learning
• The moral basis
• For those who would feel the benefits and costs associated
to our actions but who are not directly involved in the
situation.
These four dimensions in CSH are called ‘sources of influence’
1. Sources of Motivation
2. Source of control
3. Source of knowledge
4. Sources of legitimacy

5. 2. Unfolding multiple
perspectives: promoting
mutual understanding
• The 12 Boundary Questions (now to be referred as CSHq1-12) are
there to help us define what is ‘in’ and what is ‘out’ of the situation.
• The boundary judgements help us examine the most apt frame from
which to address the situation.
In reference to the table on slide 237
• Each question is framed in two ways – a normative or ideal model –
the ‘what ought to be’ and the descriptive ‘ what is’
• The table allows for comparisons to be made between the four
sources of influence – we can compare and contrast the judgements
• Furthermore we can compare and contrast the judgements
between stakeholders who are ‘involved’ and those affected
• Finally – we can compare the entire set of boundary judgments
associated to one system with that of the boundary judgements
associated to an entirely different system.
• It is this that allows us to counter the well known managerial
situation of ‘talking at cross purposes’ or ‘talking past each other’
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

6. 3. Promoting
reflective practice:
analysing situations
and changing them
If we know where the boundary
judgements lie we can
understand where potential
friction exists which can only
help us improve the situation as
we widen the gene pool of
perspectives.
Boundary judgements can
sometimes be imposed on an
individual, whether involved
directly or not. CSH helps
disclose these issues and through
an emancipatory process help
free people to make their own
judgements.
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

7. CSH & the traditions
of thought
Systems thinking – as a reference system circumscribed by
the 12 questions
• Churchman explored this through his writing and
developed the model from a set of nine ‘necessary
conditions’ that form a system (CHSq1-9) on which he added
three additional conditions relating to the following;
philosophers of the system, enemies of the system and
significance of the system.
• The enemies created the important CSH heuristic device
of ‘tension’ as a creative tool.
Practical philosophy
European traditional ‘critical philosophy’ and the ‘American’
pragmatic philosophy with its action orientated approach
blended by Ulrich into critical pragmatism
Critical Systems Thinking lies in the notion that all and every
facet of systems thinking is ‘partial’ in that it neither can be
inclusive of the entire universe of considerations nor can it
be an effective tool for every person involved.
Therefore any systems based approach has to acknowledge
what is NOT included and that they must include multiple
perspectives

8. 6.2 Applying CSH
Challenging
situation
Boundary reflection Boundary discourse
NRUA -Botswana
Analysis of existing
framework so as to
understand limitations.
Address how the
participatory planning
can be improved
Report on limitations of
existing framework.
Make everyone aware of
stakeholders who are
marginalised and those
who are represented.
Communicate
improvements to the
stakeholders
ECOSENSUS-
Guyana
Develop the planning
process to make it more
inclusive of wider
stakeholder groups
The promotion of a
broad range of
stakeholder interests
focused on preservation
and development of
wetlands.
Two distinct case studies both around
natural resource planning but CSH being
used for two distinct purposes:
1. As the means to evaluate an approach
that was being adopted so as to
identify limitations, provide a critical
framework with a view to rebalance
the marginalised stakeholder and
suggest ways the existing planning
process could be enhanced.
2. As the means to understand,
communicate and enable sustainable
planning and development whilst
accommodating the needs of wider,
disenfranchised stakeholder group

9. 6.2.2 Using CSH as an
intervention tool:
some basic concepts
CSH is a framework like any of the other
fours system based tools we have looked at.
A piece of scaffolding that allows practioners
to work in such a way so as to improve the
situation. The basic aims are:
• Making sense
• Inclusivity of multiple perspectives
• Promoting reflective practice
The boundary questions are there to uncover
the reference systems that inform our view.
CSH provides the means to conduct a well
structured conversation between systems
and situations that is conducting a systematic
boundary critique.
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

10. 6.2.2.1 Systems Versus
situation
Systems are conceptual constructs NOT real-world entities, that is they
help in the description of complex realities.
• Both SSM and CSH are conceptual tools for learning about reality
NOT positioned within reality. SSM looks to compare the practioners
perceptions against reality whilst CSH “makes problematic’ the
situation perceived to be problematic’ itself” (p251). This is done so
that the practioner can connect with and engage with their own
assumptions.
• ‘System and situation’ are seen as a continuum in CSH, at two
extremes of proximity against reality. By engaging with this we are
already considering the two as being abstract and distinct from the
infinitely rich domain of the real-world.
• CSH uses three separate but interrelated terms that refer to varying
degrees of reality
• Maps – close to reality but never the same as
• Design – less proximate to reality but closer to what ought to be
• Model – heuristic devices to engage with reality through maps and
design. CSH itself can be seen as a model of reflective practice.
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY

11. 6.2.2.1 Systems
Versus situation
Do not confuse a map with the ‘territory’ nor with the perception of a
‘territory’ which of course is a map in its own right.
• Imbedded in the map and situation are own perceptions so taking
a system map and comparing this against a situation of our
understanding offers no insight. This is critical perspective that the
idea of a situation as being a map, influenced by the same thinking –
we can though consider the differences between maps as an
indication of our judgments as we build different models.
• Maps are descriptions of the real world, and common in our daily
language; financial system, hydraulic system, legal system, ecosystem.
We understand this notion so why deviate from it?
• Equally – traffic systems, timetables, systems to model climate
change or social conditions – are systems we think of as models not
descriptions of the real-world.
• This definition process, in CSH terms, is called reference systems
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

12. 6.2.2.2
Reference
Systems
A reference system is ‘the context that
matters when it comes to assessing the
merits and defects of a proposition’ -
Ulrich
So much of what systems thinking is about is
applying models to problematic situations without
a thought as to how that situation has been
defined. We have to see the world through the
eyes of another, even through our own eyes in a
critical but informed manner. It is therefore crucial
that we are clear on which lens we are looking
through. CSH through the notion of reference
system, allows us to make explicit which lens this
is. By engaging with the 12 boundary questions
and the sources of influence (motivation, control,
knowledge and legitimacy) we create a common
language to facilitate the surfacing and review of
the boundaries. This is NOT the setting of
boundaries but exploring them. We do not do this
because we have the answer but because we want
to explore the selective nature of our claims.

13. 6.2.3 A Core Concept of
CSH: Systematic
Boundary Critique
The process of unfolding – that is making both ourselves
and others aware of the prevailing boundary
judgements – those areas of selectivity. This is a deep
reminder that no investigation using system’s
techniques can be ever holistic.
The constant tension between system and situation is
addressed through the critiquing process by first,
reducing selectivity as much as possible and secondly, by
openly acknowledging what selectivity there is.
The boundary judgments of stakeholder, stake and
stakeholding go through a systematic question process
shown in the table opposite. The aim of this questioning
is to explore how well the judgements fit the criteria of:
• Relevance
• Justification
• Ethical defendability
CSH seeks to be the tool to promote discourse and
debate, to lead to more informed decision making based
off the beliefs and tenets of Critical Systems Thinking.
This is the step away from holism to systems practice –
which is no guarantor of rational decision making.

14. 6.2.3.1 Unfolding
Boundary
judgements
Aims are to uncover prevailing selectivity and partiality within
reference system and inherent in the claim.
How? By examining each claim and how its impacted by boundary
judgements. We do this by using the 12 boundary questions and
applying them in the most effective way to unfold the issues.
No particular order is needed – but at the start a sequence (opposite)
is advisable until you become a seasoned practioner. The sequence
works as well with ‘ought’ or is. Often best to start with the ‘ought’
side as here we are dealing with aspirations. If we are in a group
session to start with is may create recriminations, blame and a need to
source accountability. If you start with ‘ought’ what you are offering
them is to share their vision.
Opposite we see the four sources of selectivity (influence) mapped to
the three boundary categories – this then shapes a narrative which
allows us to challenge the claims of a system as well as validate it. This
helps us stand back from the claim and look at the wider, bigger
picture through a discursive reflective effort.
Churchman saw three objectives in using CSH; to generate goals,
objectives and ideals from which to plan strategies for each.
The focus has now shifted to ‘value clarification’ rather than a desire
to comprehensively understand every detail of the whole – an
idealistic goal that inhibited the opportunity to gain distance and see
the selectivity.

15. 6.2.3.2
Questioning
Boundary
Judgements
If we define (settle) a boundary it becomes fixed,
closed down to further analysis they become ‘given’.
The process we engage with is ‘testing’ – we assume
that the claim has had some prior judgements made
but this process is about making these systemically
defined and the results published for all to see.
In practice, no one can ever claim to have the right
answer – so we have to approach this from a position
of ‘selectivity but by maintaining transparency,
democratic decision making.
How do we know the quality of the decision? What
are the alternatives? Could we defend our choices to
others?
We need to consider the scope of the claim, its
nature from not just one position but that of others.
Claims have consequences many of which will be
easily managed or easy to determine, some though
may need professional help to discern the
implications.
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC

16. 6.2.3.2 Questioning
Boundary
Judgements (Cont.)
Boundary reflection
• Do the ‘is’ boundary
judgements relevant to each
of the contexts that matter
agree with the ‘ought’
boundary judgements? Is
there a discrepancy between
‘is’ and ‘ought’ – if so should
we revise the boundary
assumptions?
Here we are aiming to handle
the boundary questioning in a
self-critical mode

17. 6.2.3.2 Questioning
Boundary
Judgements (Cont.)
Boundary discourse
• Are there any conflicting
boundary issues between the
different contexts that matter? If
there are then this may help in
understanding why we disagree
with what the issue is. We may be
able to revise boundary
judgements to accommodate
perspectives although we may still
not agree on a solution.
This mode is all about improving
shared understanding and to help
through questioning those who
may not have considered their
judgements in such a self critical
fashion.

18. 6.2.4.1 Ideal
mapping
(Identifying the
‘Ought’)
• In the case study presented the author
first set out to map and therefore clarify the
normative aspects of the reference system
with a what ‘ought’ to be analysis.
• This started with a reflection by the
author on their personal reference systems
which meant getting comfortable and
identifying their natural bias. From this he
defined (titled) his reference system so as to
give it the boundary and at least start to. Any
evaluation needs a starting point, it will
change over times as the process and
thinking develops, but the first part is to go
through the ideal mapping exercise, the 12
boundary questions unfolding in a pattern
such as the one shown previously.
• The aim is not to assume we occupy an
ideal world it is to present what is ‘real’ vs.
what is ideal allowing us the distance to be
critically aware of what improvement could
look like.
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

19. 6.2.4.2 Descriptive
Mapping (The ‘Is’
Analysis
Two pronged approach – you
first identify the stakeholders
and then specify roles
performed. This allows you to
‘surface’ key problems that may
exist between the two.
• Stage 1: Identifying
Stakeholder Groups
Be aware that roles may not be
mutually exclusive
• Stage 2: Eliciting Concerns
and Key Problems
Be aware that you will collect a
lot of information presented as
maps which will be critiques
against the normative maps
produced earlier

20. 6.2.4.3 Critique:
‘Ought’ and Is’
A key aspect of CSH is to
embrace the concept of
creative disruption.
Critiquing the normative and
descriptive is not a negative it
is a means of providing the
platform for improvement. It is
the means by which we
understand the existing
practices, the contexts that
they operate in and the means
by which we can improve
them

21. 6.2.4.4 Extra-discursive and
Discursive Evaluation
In the example of systematic boundary critique presented in the text the
practioner utilised the CSH categories in a purposeful way distinct to their needs.
This customised approach was broken into three:
i. The perceived stakeholder role
ii. The particulars of the project since stakeholders had multiple stakes in
different projects
iii. Information that was derived from previous interviews as well as additional
research
It is advisable that as the study starts that a culture of journaling is embraced since
this is the primary source material for the ‘is’ mapping.
The real value of CSH lies in the dialogue it generates through the sharing of
findings derived from interviews, informal gatherings and via the interim reporting
stage to stakeholders.
Boundaries are key sources of conflict (therefore areas of creativity) – they are
areas of power-relations, expert-biases and places were the wider legitimacy of
the project can be explored.
Report formats can be structured as
• Authors perceptions relating to central issues, underlying values, purpose of
project, issues of power and decision making, relevant knowledge and moral
underpinning
• A description of authors own role and purpose
This is primarily a qualitative exercise aimed at creating pathways to improve
collaboration and identify responsibility for overall improvement in the situation.
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed
under CC BY-NC-ND

22. 6.2.5.1
Developing CSH
Literacy
We cannot prompt for a discursive
approach if we do not first create a
universal language. In the practical
application of CSH there are two aims
for developing CSH literacy, the first
to create a language suitable to be
put into a system such as
Compendium; the second was to
create accessibility into the work for
those who for whatever reason
cannot access the language. In the
pursuit of ‘boundary reflection and
discourse’ Ulrich created four basic
templates which were crucial in
providing direction of the boundary
critique as well as highlight practical
aspects like raining needs.
The more fluent people are in the
language the better the motivation
there is to engage in discursive
activities.
This Photo by Unknown Author is
licensed under CC BY-SA

23. 6.2.5.1 Developing CSH Literacy -
Four templates for boundary critique
Templates for four basic applications of boundary critique
(P.276)
Template (a):
Purpose:
Guiding question:
Ideal Mapping
‘Vision building’
What is our vision? (or: Where do we want to go from
here?)
Elementary use of boundary
questions used in the ‘ought’
mode
Template (b):
Purpose:
Guiding question:
Evaluation
‘Value clarification’
Where are we standing? (or: How satisfied are we
with the state of affairs?)
Elementary use of boundary
questions used in the ‘ought’
and ‘is’ modes
Template (c):
Purpose:
Guiding question:
Reframing
‘Boundary revision’
What’s the relevant context? (or: How else can we
frame the picture?)
Using this in the ‘ought’ and
‘is’ modes but accompanied
by a critique for each
Template (d):
Purpose:
Guiding question:
Challenge
‘Emancipation’
Don’t you claim too much? (or: How can we rationally
claim this is right?)
Advanced mode of use for
boundary critique leading to
questions that are countered
by suggestions, doubts,
contradictions and ‘what-if’
analysis

24. 6.2.5.1 Developing
CSH Literacy –
Construction of
templates
Use of ‘own language’
Where possible to create fluency
in the dialogues and discussions
language needs to be made
reflective of the participants
needs. The table opposite is a
type of decision tree used for an
ideal mapping template
Tables such as these can be
constructed for templates b to d,
all with increasing levels of
complexity

25. 6.2.5.3 Team
Building for and
by Using
Boundary Critique
The framework for team development
understands the two prevailing
tensions in systems thinking and
participation:
1. Tension between system and
situations
2. Tension between differing
perspectives
Using the concepts of boundary
discourse areas of conflict can be
identified and the pursuit of shared
practice derived from mutual
acknowledged understanding (though
not shared) can be attained.
This commonality helps to develop
team cohesion.

26. 6.3 Developing
CSH skills and
Significance
6.3.1 Boundary Critique and
Personal Confidence
Good professional practice is
enhanced with an appreciation for
an aptitude to uncover and work in
the field of boundary critique. It is
not enough to just recognise that
boundaries exist and treat them as
hostile to our views we also need
to understand the perspectives of
others, views and judgements that
are themselves delimited by their
own boundary judgements.
So boundary reflection and
discourse have much to do with our
own working styles and abilities
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

27. 6.3.2 Recognising
Boundary Judgements
– Keeping them fluid
• What role does boundary judgements play? On way of
familiarising yourself more with boundary judgements is to
listen to arguments, trivial to consequential, and bring in
the perceptions of boundary’s that you hear. How people
misunderstand what others say or talk at cross purposes.
Then you gain an appreciation of the value of boundary
judgements and you will learn to bring this thinking in
continuously. As people discuss with you will be asking
yourself what sources of motivation,. Control, knowledge
and legitimacy they bring to their arguments and thinking.
• “To understand the role of boundary judgements
means to keep them under review and fluid rather than
allowing them to become ‘hard’ and taken for granted.”
P284
• How do we make boundary judgements visible and
fluid?
• Two basic approaches are via ‘systematic iteration’ and
systematic triangulation’

28. This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA
6.3.2.1 Systematic
Iteration of
Boundary
Judgements
All boundary judgments are interdependent so that new
information that modifies one judgment will be susceptible to
change.
The process that we follow to unfurl and question is therefore
not a one-off piece of deliberation it is a cycle of multiple
revisions that takes us through a weaving path of changing
sequences and reflective as well an iterative process.
There are three important aspects to the iterative process for
boundary judgements:
1. As we generate new insights into our reference system
forcing us to revise boundary judgements we need not get
hung up on ‘getting them right’ at the start.
2. Since the 12 boundary questions are themselves
interdependent it does not matter where we start. We can
let the reflection and associated dialogue unfold
organically
3. And since all of this is ‘iterative’ we can start with any
boundary judgement and then reflect this insight into what
we have previously discovered, Similarly as we flit between
‘is an ought’ we will further create deeper understanding
around the nature of the prevailing boundary
This will become easier over time, the more we use it and engage
with it the greater we are at ease creating a natural ebb and flow
to the inquiry.

29. 6.3.2.2 Systemic
Triangulation
Boundary judgements are influenced by two other sets of
judgements – these are:
• What we perceive to be reality that is what we observe or
expect to happen as a response to our actions. These
constitute judgements of fact.
• What we intuitively see as ‘improvement’ that is how we
move the existing ‘is’ to a ‘goal’ based on a measure of
worth. These observations judgements of value.
So now we have a triad of judgements, fact, value and
boundary. A boundary is defined by what facts and values are
included – they are seen as being interdependent of each
other and both are reliant upon by the same boundary
judgements. There is an interplay between each of the three
vertices, Ulrich calls this the eternal triangle.
As a systems practioner I need to challenge myself to stand
back from my own reference system and appreciate it from
another's perspective. It I a core skill and one that needs to
become a habit. As Ulrich says
“The triangle figure offers itself since figuratively
speaking, each angle in a triangle depends on the other
two. We cannot modify any one without simultaneously
modifying the other two.

30. 6.3.2.2 Systemic
Triangulation
(Cont.)
Systemic Triangulation serves five critical aims:
1. It underpins reflective practice
2. It helps us communicate our own biases thus
qualifying our own proposals
3. It acts as a filter to others selectivity thus
allowing us to see and assess the merits of
their arguments
4. It improves communication by promoting
understanding and highlighting the differences
that hinder the ability to share a mutual
understanding of each others views.
5. It can deliver tolerance of views that can lead
to shared productive working. Once we fully
adopt the triangulation mindset we appreciate
that no one person can have a monopoly on
factual accuracy, or he ascendancy in the more
rights and values
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

31. 6.3.3 Towards a
New Ethos of
Professional
Responsibility
The five critical elements of the previous slide act as a new
ethos of responsibility for systems practitioners.
It is the tenets of values and behaviours that all
professional systems thinker need to adhere to.
6.3.3.1 “Context Matters”: Working with the Tension of
System and Situation
Context matters – that is the key call to action when
thinking about boundary critique. “What is the relevant
context?” Or simply “Which context matters and why does
it matter? Broken down – the first part is about relevance
and an invitation to reflect on the situation, the second part
we are asked to consider the validity of the context. What
are the arguments that support or challenge the context of
the situation?
Getting to grips with context is about coming to terms with
the tension between system and situation. It helps to stand
back and judge our own perspective, to continuously ask
questions to capture the situation and the perception that
we have.
Tension of System and Situation

32. 6.3.3 Towards a
New Ethos of
Professional
Responsibility
(Cont.)
Boundary critique must therefore include
both system and situation – it must inform
both and in doing so make our systems
maps that much more replete.
A good practioner must remain open to
others perceptions- it is this sense of
openness and respect that will help bring
out the issues that will revise the initial
maps.
It should operate in the background – if we
make our questioning to forthright people
will switch off possibly even become
defensive.
We will approach this practice not from the
position of authority or as an expert but in
the vein of a competent partner, that is on
an equal footing with those we work with. This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

33. 6.3.3.2 “Deep
Complementarism”: The
Significance of Using CSH in
Support of Other
Methodologies and Methods
This deep appreciation of boundary
critique should help us apply the
thinking to other methodologies. We will
adopt a new openness for what others
see as valuable regardless of whether it
is ‘had’, ‘soft’ or ‘critical’ or any other
approach.
Problem situations are dynamic, shift
around and may well respond to
different approaches; that dos not mean
that application of the eternal triangle is
not valid, far from it, its enhancing.
Boundary critique should be a skill all
practioners adopt not as the means of
replacement but the means of
enhancement. It is the reflective practice
that makes this tool such a potent one.
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY

34. 6.3.3.3 “Seeing the World
Through the Eyes of Others”:
Systems Thinking a
Constructive Critique
What insight or value does CSH
contribute in respect of the desire “to see
the world through the eyes of another”?
Or for that matter how does CSH help us
to be constructively critical?
Th world is messy and a significant part of
the complexity comes from the context of
the situation and accordingly how far
that situation impacts, at least from the
perspective of interested stakeholders.
As we become more practiced in this
process so we will be more adepts at
using the process to stimulate our
thinking, eventually every situation will
present itself as a challenge to
understand where the boundary lies and
what the context is and ought to be.
“Dare to articulate your own boundary
judgements and to question those of
others!”
Make this our mantra as we become
seasoned systems thinkers

35. End of Part 6
Notes by James
Cracknell BA (Hons.)
As part of TU811 OU
Course Systems
Tools for Managing
Change
Reynolds, M. and Holwell, S. (2010) Introducing Systems Approaches, in
Martin Reynolds, Sue Holwell (Eds.) Approaches to managing Change: A
Practical Guide. London: Springer in association with The Open University