User talk:Kcastelle/sandbox

Complex Systems Governance (CSG) is an emerging field focused on purposeful development of control, communication, coordination, and integration functions necessary to produce and sustain desirable levels of system performance necessary to maintain viability (existence) of a complex system. It was founded in response to a need to more effectively deal with complex systems and their problems. Governance functions must be performed by any system that maintains viability. CSG is focused on enabling practitioners to better diagnose and effectively respond to deeper level systemic issues that impede system performance. The field is dedicated to identifying and ‘designing through’ fundamental system issues.

Reference Model for Complex Systems Governance
Reference model goes here

Methodology for Complex Systems Governance
A three staged approach to CSG development is suggested by Keating et al. This approach includes three primary stages for developing CSG: Initialization, Readiness Assessment, and Development.

Complex Systems Problems
Complex systems problems are considered a plague to modern complex systems that otherwise have considerably improved human societies, such as the intertwined systems that are essential to provide energy, utilities, healthcare, transportation, commerce, defense, security, and services.

Problems of complex systems are consistent with Ackoff’s notion of ‘messes’ (interrelated sets of problems that are not well formulated, understood, or easily resolved) as well as Rittel and Webber’s ‘wicked problems’ (problems that are intractable with current levels of thinking, decision, action, and interpretation).

Arguably, problems associated with complex systems have been in existence as long as man has been designing, operating, and maintaining systems, although, the landscape for modern systems has become a much more complex problem space, encountering technical, organizational, managerial, human, social, information, political, and policy difficulties. This elaborate problem domain is considered the ‘normal’ for complex systems in that it is inherent in their nature.

The problems of modern complex systems appear to be escalating in terms of frequency and severity, permeating human endeavors. The ability to isolate a complex system problem and bound it, in order to address it by traditional means of analytical disposition, seem somewhat shortsighted for many of our most vexing problems. It is also difficult to pinpoint cause and effect of complex systems problems, making their understanding and resolution quite difficult, as they are not reducible to the precision demanded by the current state and abstraction capabilities of our best mathematical applications. Likewise, true optimization is not possible and cannot be confirmed for these systems. Efforts to address complex systems problems at the surface level, may provide temporary ‘fixes’ but fail to resolve the deeper fundamental system issues.

Characteristics of Complex Systems Problems
The problem domain is marked by the following characteristics:
 * Uncertainty - incomplete knowledge casting doubt for decision/action consequences as well as the appropriate approach to proceed
 * Ambiguity - lack of clarity in understanding/interpretation of both the system, context (circumstances, factors, conditions) within which it exist, and the nature of problems stemming from system operation
 * Emergence – occurrence of events and system behaviors that result from interactions, cannot be predicted, and are only known after they occur
 * Complexity - systems so intricate and dynamically interconnected that complete understanding, knowledge, prediction, control, or explanation is impossible
 * Interdependence - mutual influence among systems, where the state of each system influences, and is influenced by, the state of interrelated systems

Engaging in CSG Development
Charles B. Keating articulates a path forward for continued elaboration of the first generation CSG development methodology in Complex System Governance Development: A First Generation Methodology. A reference model has also been developed for CSG. To engage in CSG development, several issues must first be considered. CSG development issues must be examined for their potential to impact the effectiveness of a CSG effort, particularly the design, execution, and the ultimate evolution of CSG.

Stages of CSG Development
The first generation CSG development methodology consists of three primary stages. Because each system is unique, existing in a unique context, the specific approach to CSG development must be tailored to appreciate the uniqueness of the particular system of interest.


 * 1) Initialization - establishes the present state of complex system governance, including framing of governance (meta)system and unique context.
 * 2) Readiness Level Assessment - establishes the feasibility of success for engaging activities to improve system governance
 * 3) Governance Development - establishes, executes, and evaluates the continuous development of governance through activities to enhance system governance and improve readiness level.

While these stages of CSG development are presented with a clear degree of separation for purposes of explanation, in the reality of development their separation is not clear cut, and actual execution is more likely to be emergent and overlapping. CSG is also iterative in following subsequent development after an initial ‘first pass’ through the three stages. This is represented by an interrelated nature of the three stages

Because this perspective of CSG development is in the embryonic stages of development, depiction of the methodology for CSG development stands as the initial articulation of this important aspect of the emerging CSG field. Its basis can be found in the previously developed grounding works of CSG, including the CSG Reference Model and the emerging CSG field.

Initialization
The first stage of CSG development is Initialization, in which the goal is to obtain an initial understanding of the situation by determining the current level of execution of the metasystem, as well as the essence of the context within which the metasystem operates. This understanding encompasses two primary facets:
 * 1) The nature and structure of the system of interest is established, which serves to articulate the current state of the system under exploration.
 * 2) The context within which the system of interest is embedded is explored.

Once these two elements are completed, a rigorous understanding of the system and its context is established. Completion of the Initialization stage provides a foundation prior to entering the second stage of CSG development, Governance Readiness Level (GRL) Assessment.

The first objective of CSG development initialization is to examine and represent the context within which the system is embedded in order to provide a critical set of insights into what might be influential in the execution of CSG development.

Activities and their purposes for establishment of the context for the Initialization stage of CSG development are as follows:

Contextual Assessment
Identifies the nature of forces that constrain or enable the design, execution, or evolution of the metasystem.

Individual Capacity for Systemic Thinking
Establishes the level of systemic thinking that exist among those (owners, operators, designers, or performers) with responsibilities for design, execution, and development of the metasystem.

Entity Competence for Systemic Thinking
Provides the level of knowledge, skills, and abilities related to systemic thinking for organizations (systems) contemplating engagement in CSG development.

Supporting Infrastructure Compatibility
Establishes the degree to which the basic physical and system support infrastructure (e.g. support systems, processes, procedures, facilities, and resources) are consistent with the systemic execution and development of CSG.

System Leadership Assessment
Identifies the degree to which the existing state of leadership in CSG is consistent with that required for expectations of development.

Initialization also involves ‘framing’ the current metasystem of interest by providing a set of representations that serve to depict the metasystem in relationship to the system(s) that it governs. This effort establishes the design configuration and execution of the metasystem, articulating the technical design details of the metasystem as well as the effectiveness in execution of that design. The major elements of the framing activities and their purposes are as follows:

System of Interest and Environment Identification
Identifies the system for which CSG will be examined, noting the boundary conditions, metasystem governance configuration, and the environment within which the system is embedded.

Governance Architecture Development
Establishes and represents the particular ‘architectural’ views in a CSG Architecture Framework.

Reference Model Requirements Assessment
Provides an examination of the function of CSG against the requirements specified for the CSG Reference Model.

Metasystem Pathologies Identification and Assessment
Establishes the degree to which variations from systems principles is perceived to impact performance of CSG.

System Archetype and Tensions Classification
Identifies the classification for a system of interest and positions the system along design, change, and control.

The product of the initialization stage is the CSG profile which represents the current state of CSG and the context for the system of interest.

Governance Readiness Level (GRL) Assessment
The second stage of CSG development is GRL assessment. This stage is targeted to the understanding generated from the analysis of the mosaic constructed from the Initialization stage. The nature of this stage suggests an interpretative examination of the initialization stage, requiring deep introspection by the practitioners of the system. Practitioners examine artifacts from initialization in order to evaluate the state of system governance and implications for development. Ultimately, the results of this stage provide an indication of two critical elements. First, acknowledgement of the current state of CSG within a classification schema for governance. Second, based on this state classification, classes of CSG development activities (classes) can be selected based on feasibility and the notion that they may be undertaken with a reasonable chance of success.

The GRL assessment is the least mature of the three stages of in the development methodology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcastelle (talk • contribs) 04:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Governance Development
This third stage of CSG development initiates the feasible activities that will be engaged in support of CSG development. However, there are three important aspects to this stage.
 * 1) While many initiatives seem appealing, there are constraints on what might be wise to pursue based on the current status of CSG in the system. Feasibility is a function of both the state of CSG, and the corresponding ‘classes’ of development activities that are compatible with that classification of CSG.
 * 2) Activities must be prioritized based on the overall condition of governance. Therefore, more informed decisions can be made with respect to the ‘highest’ payoff development investments.
 * 3) Activities should be targeted to make either ‘contextual’ improvements or metasystem governance improvements, in order to evaluate the success of initiatives against the shifting profile of context and GRL to which they are targeted. While not absolute in their attribution, a much clearer articulation of initiatives can be established against the enormity of the CSG landscape to ensure the fit of any particular initiative against the entire CSG development effort. Hence, the continuous development of CSG signifies its evolutionary develpment.

The purpose of the third stage is to identify and engage in a set of interrelated activities designed to establish, execute, and evolve the continuous development of the CSG functions. Ultimately, this effort enhances system performance through progression of the GRL to desirable, feasible, achievable, and sustainable levels. This stage also attempts to influence the context in ways that will enhance the ability of the metasystem to perform at a higher level.

There are five interrelated elements that comprise the Governance Development stage:


 * 1) Exploration – Holistic analysis and synthesis of metasystem design, execution, and pathologies.
 * 2) Innovation – Definition of compatible and feasible metasystem development strategies, initiatives, actions, and priorities.
 * 3) Transformation – Implementation of systemic metasystem governance strategy, actions, and initiatives to influence system trajectory, GRL advancement, and contextual development.
 * 4) Evaluation – Assessment of the effectiveness of metasystem initiatives and performance of the metasystem.
 * 5) Evolution – Setting and monitoring the maturation and trajectory of metasystem governance and system identity.

Challenges in CSG Development
CSG development is continuous process that requires purposeful design, execution, and evolution; it is not a one-time effort. Minimally, success requires existence or development of sufficient levels of: (1) individual capacity to engage in holistic systemic thinking and action necessary to implement CSG, (2) organizational competency for governance that focuses on generation of knowledge, skills, abilities to collectively engage in deeper analysis, design, and evolution of CSG, and (3) support infrastructures’ compatibility with the expectations related to CSG development. Although the pursuit of CSG development seems enticing, it should not be entered into lightly as it is difficult and has limitations (as do all systems-based approaches attempting to deal with complex systems and their associated problems).

It is not guaranteed that all elements of CSG development (e.g. improvement in individual systems thinking capacity) will be beneficial nor that deployment of all activities will be necessary for the system of interest. What can be achieved by CSG development is dependent on the commitment invested in development efforts. Additionally, the challenges experienced in CSG development serve to focus researchers to areas that must be taken into account for the continued development of the CSG field, as well as the CSG development methodology to support practitioners and applications to improve practice.

Opportunity and Value
CSG is advocated as an emerging field with significant opportunity to provide value in the many areas. CSG development value can span practitioner, enterprise, support infrastructure, context, and system levels.

Enhanced practitioner capacity
The capacity of individual practitioners to engage in the level of systems thinking necessary to more effectively deal with the entire range of complex system problems is enhanced through CSG development. Effectiveness is achieved through development and propagation of CSG language, methods, and tools to assist practitioners in their efforts to design, analyze, execute, and evolve complex systems and their respective problems.

Developing competencies
CSG development provides opportunity to develop competencies at the organizational level for dealing with complex systems and their derivative problems. At the organizational level for dealing with complex systems and their derivative problems. This involves generation of knowledge, development of skills, and fostering abilities beyond the individual level to embrace problems holistically.

Assessment of infrastructure
Another value in CSG development is assessment of infrastructure compatibility necessary to support systems based endeavors. Compatibility is an important consideration as it allows contextually consistent formulation of approaches to problems, in order to create conditions necessary for governance system stability, and produce coherent decisions, actions, and interpretations at the individual and organizational levels.

Governance Readiness Level Identification
By identifying the governance readiness level, it is possible to establish the current state of CSG and the nature and type of feasible initiatives that can be undertaken with confidence in their successful achievement. This does not limit the frequency or severity of the system's inadequacies that become discovered, but instead forces careful consideration concerning what might be reasonably ‘taken on’ as initiatives to advance the state of CSG.

Explicit Models for Understanding
CSG efforts generate models that can provide insights into the structural relationships, context, and systemic deficiencies that exist for a system of interest, regardless of whether or not specific actions to address issues are initiated, as the models can be constructed without system modification. This allows alternative decisions, actions, and interpretations to be selectively engaged based on consideration of insights and understanding generated through modeling efforts.

Purposeful Governance Development
While all viable (existing) systems perform the CSG functions, it is rare that they are purposefully articulated, examined, or developed in a comprehensive fashion that is conducive to future evolution of the system. Purposeful CSG development helps produce a ‘blueprint’ against which development can be achieved by purposeful design, including establishment of a set of ‘dashboard indicators’ for CSG performance.

Coherent Strategic Decision Support
Coherent strategic decision support is achieved through the ‘big picture’ view of the governance landscape, which includes identification of highest leverage strategic impact areas, including their interrelationship to the larger CSG performance gaps. This supports decisions for resource allocation in order to demonstrate the highest substantial benefit to the larger ‘systemic’ governance concerns.

Rigorous Guided ‘Self-Study’
Self-study into CSG can provide significant insights as to how the system actually functions. Practitioners who engage in deep reflection as to why, how, and what they do from a systems point of view are capable of achieving significant improvements. Reflective self-examination from a systemic point of view can reveal insights far beyond traditional methods of examination (e.g. Strategic Planning, SWOT analysis, etc.), allowing a different level of analysis through ‘self-study’ and experience insights in a ‘safe-to-fail’ setting. Self-study can also be useful in suggesting the level of education/training that might be necessary for individuals and the organization, in order to increase individual capacity and organizational competence for systems thinking essential to CSG development.

Kcastelle (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Governance (systems of systems conceptualization)
Governance of complex systems is the set of functions that manage the system to achieve its goals while the system experiences change. No less than eight types of perspective on governance have been identified: process-centric, structure-centric, hybrid, corporate governance, new public management, public policy, international security, and social and political governance.

Calida and Keating utilized a system-of-systems (SoS) conceptualization of governance that relates (1) a ‘governed’ system—the target of governance, with (2) a ‘governing’ system—the direct controller of the ‘governed’ system, (3) a ‘metagovernance’ systems—a metasystem that strategically influences the ‘governing’ system directly and the ‘governed’ system indirectly, and (4) its contextual environment—as anything external to the supposed SoS boundary.