Systems Planning℠ works well because it is being prepared carefully through R&D over many years, building on the knowledge of both systems and non-systems paradigms. At the practical level of application, refined methods and custom-crafted techniques make the work not only sophisticated and insightful, but also natural. By intent and design, Systems Planning℠ is far more dialectic, soul-searching, and contemplative than its mainstream counterparts.
The praxis unit of Systems Planning℠ builds experience with difficult problems (e.g. of complex dynamic nature), empowering the stakeholders (incl. decision-makers) to comprehend ‘how things work’ instead of just ‘being informed’.
Complementing its position on the cross-cuttingeducation and publishing activities, Systems Planning℠ marks its uniqueness in the field-related praxis regarding governance, management, and planning.
Situations —
The complexity or ‘obscurity’ of situations hinders the understanding regarding structure and function necessary for a contemplated intervention. System governance done the ‘right way’ is expensive and tiresome — it calls for method, experience, and attention, which is hard, specialised, and careful work that takes time — but well worth the investment. After all, who needs a half-hearted job?
Systems —
Laying out a situation or state of affairs as a ‘system’ raises issues of viewpoint, aggregation, and dynamics — some of them of political, and others of technical nature. Negotiations and open-mindedness help, while hidden assumptions hinder a healthy mental-modelling process. ‘Point thinking’ is awkwardly inadequate, while computational relations are markedly artificial.
Resolution —
Facilitated mental-modelling is a group challenge; through argument visualisation it achieves understanding of otherwise obscure ‘mechanisms’ and alternative points of view (as well as interests); through conjoint exploration it promotes healthy communication, search, and debate. Indeed, cutting through complexity and obscurity ends up being a deeply satisfying experience.
Variability —
The scientific exploration of natural processes is formal and employs registers such as chemical equations or time charts. On the other hand, humanly managed processes — i.e. operations — have registers (e.g. procedures, protocols, workflows) of varied formality: e.g. informal in social contexts, formal in business contexts, and demanding in the medical profession or the aerospace industry.
Predicament —
Specialists aside, or those who ‘have got it right’ with general techniques for coordinating operations (e.g. project management), a number of organisations still have daedalian communication protocols, legendary procedural confusions, and consequently delays, frustration, and waste of precious resources as well as opportunities. Such situations can only improve.
Resolution —
Deciphering or designing processes requires a clear definition of sequence (i.e. states and actions) and relevant attributes (e.g. parameters, methods), aggregation (e.g. detail), resources (e.g. people, materials, money), and disclosure (i.e. the information revealed to each stakeholder). Dealing with processes is prone to oversights and misjudgements, which are kept in check with operational care — and largely with education.
Tradition —
There are many ways to make high-level action plans — commonly known as ‘strategy’ — for organisations of the private and/ or the public domain. The traditional way is based on intuition and secrecy, as the master plan is conceived and remains in the director's mind. Modern popular practice relies on ‘scientific’ methods based on metrics and analyses — and what could be more reliable than science?
Philosophy —
Surprisingly, both the ‘intuition’ and ‘science’ models overlook confident understanding, and ways to clearly visualise and share the plan as well as the reasoning and assumptions behind it. Systems Planning℠ provides this ‘missing part’ — in association with original R&D and an empowering coaching/ consulting engagement, complemented by teaching/ training quanto baste.
Community —
The way of Systems Planning℠ is not ‘natural’ for everyone, as rigour and reasoning are also expected of the beneficiaries. Hence, Systems Planning℠ seeks progressive and demanding people in enterprise, institutions, or government, curious to understand ‘how things work’ and in a position to ‘make things right’ — from start-up entrepreneurs, to experienced CEOs, to community leaders, to prime ministers.
Prototyping takes place within a drafting process, while review and revision take place within an overhauling process — both in unique configurations that set Systems Planning℠ apart from mainstream praxis.
The drafting process features the original and creative prototyping operation, and results in novel planning artefacts (e.g. plans, processes).
Inputs and outputs are thoroughly checked, while feedback allows for further adjustments/ improvements.
The overhauling process features the methodic and constructive review and revision operations, and results in advanced planning artefacts (e.g. plans, processes).
Inputs and outputs are thoroughly checked, while feedback allows for further adjustments/ improvements.
Induction — i.e. inferring from particular instances — helps to conceive and formulate hypotheses.
Deduction — i.e. extracting from the general — helps to draw conclusions from research documentation and/ or corroborated hypotheses.
Heritage—
Systems Theory (L. Bertalanffy);
Systems Engineering (S. Ramo);
Soft Systems Methodology (P. Checkland); System Dynamics (J. Forrester);
Systems Thinking (P. Senge);
Systems Planning℠ (A. Perdicoulis) Learning— How to map (examine, share, etc.) our ideas (i.e. mental models) about ‘how things work’ (or should work) Artefacts—
systems (e.g. causal mechanisms),
processes (e.g. setups, protocols),
plans (e.g. oriented and conditioned action) Usage—
praxis (e.g. enterprise, public administration),
education (e.g. SPML™, DLC) Examples— documented experience (e.g.
case studies,
knowledge base,
model sampler,
photo gallery) Fun— interviews (consensual exploration), idea analysis (cf. psychoanalysis/ ‘the couch’)
SummaryCreation of planning artefacts (e.g. plans, processes) with displayed reasoning regarding structure and function in appropriate communication media DescriptionConception and formalisation of new mental models of systems, processes, or action initiatives (e.g. projects, plans, policies, strategies) FunctionsConceive, register, report, visualise, develop, create, design NextReview & revision (directly or after some experience) ProcessDrafting (full)
SuggestionTry the Explicative Causal Thinking (ECT) method to (a) formulate a hypothesis (e.g. re: structure, function) and (b) create a corresponding prototype
SummaryStructural and functional analysis with register of shortcomings regarding (a) content and/ or (b) reasoning and communication in planning artefacts DescriptionDiagramming and qualitative simulation of documented mental models of systems, processes, or action initiatives (e.g. projects, plans, policies, strategies) FunctionsRead, understand, ask, check, seek, simulate, appreciate, assess NextRevision (directly or after some experience) ProcessOverhauling (part 1/2)
SuggestionFollow the Diagrammatic Causal Analysis (DCA) method to (a) diagram and simulate whether/ why/ how the proposal ‘will work’ and (b) save your formal annotations
ProjectFoz Tua power lines MissionsTraining (DLC) ContributionReduction of uncertainty in the communication of impacts (DCD) and improvements in the verification of the causal argument (QSM) through EIA Light™
Process review and revision
ProjectBIT Culture MissionsTraining (PLC); Learning (HTW) ContributionCurrent and suggested process protocols (CPD) through Process Layout™; ‘pain-point’ analysis (TMU); team building (RBP); ‘economic spirit’ (RBP)
SummaryRectification of structural and/ or functional shortcomings in reviewed planning artefacts (v. Review) DescriptionRegarding (a) content and/ or (b) reasoning and communication — applicable to reviewed mental models (v. Review) FunctionsImprove, tweak, curb risks, raise effectiveness, increase efficiency NextFollow-up (including performance assessment) ProcessOverhauling (part 2/2)
SuggestionFollow the Diagrammatic Causal Analysis (DCA) method and a reviewed proposal to (a) formulate a better hypothesis and (b) create a corresponding prototype
ProjectFoz Tua power lines MissionsTraining (DLC) ContributionReduction of uncertainty in the communication of impacts (DCD) and improvements in the verification of the causal argument (QSM) through EIA Light™
Process review and revision
ProjectBIT Culture MissionsTraining (PLC); Learning (HTW) ContributionCurrent and suggested process protocols (CPD) through Process Layout™; ‘pain-point’ analysis (TMU); team building (RBP); ‘economic spirit’ (RBP)
Both the subject matter and objects of interest span (and relate to) a range of professional fields such as organisation, operation, design, which correspond to functions such as governance, management, planning.
Fields & functions are detailed in market-PoVbusiness sectors and provider-PoV industries: core with formal planning praxis (e.g. city, state, enterprise) and extended with informal planning praxis (e.g. civil society).
Systems Planning℠ R&D projects make conceptual and practical advances (e.g. innovation, refinement) in a variety of topics (e.g. decision-making models, cognition in planning, forms of argumentation), aiming for the benefit of the wider community.
Zoom in
Zoom in — Systems Planning℠ R&D projects consist of original undertakings (i.e. prototyping, review, revision), complemented by integration events carried out at the scholarly clubs™.
Zoom out
Zoom out — Systems Planning℠ R&D projects are carried out as part of professional activities, and the documented experience constitutes case studies with significant value as learning resources.
Systems thinking for HR — from static hierarchy to ‘pool dynamics’
Participants: public/ private organisations — e.g. service industry, public administration
Problem definition in the work environment — stakeholder mental models and negotiated consensus
Participants: public/ private organisations — e.g. service industry, public administration
Factors and relations in local government — from fact-based alerts to dynamics-based understanding
Participants: local/ central government, wider community — e.g. municipal council
Primary R&D explores ‘theoretical’ problems (e.g. decision-making, formulation of mental models). Projects typically involve research students and are funded by public bodies (e.g. research councils).
REFFCT-MIA-2016 Term2016–2019 TopicSpatial planning; Urban metabolism; Systems modelling (e.g. flows, causality) Lead PartnerRG-1: Planning and Environmental Assessment, CITTA, FEUP, PT Case studiesSelected urban plans and major urban development projects FundingFCT (PTDC/ECM-URB/5973/2014) Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis ParticipationThrough CITTA, Porto, Portugal Systems Planning℠ contributionWorkflow optimisation (CPD)
REFESPON-TIA-2010 Term2010–2012 TopicSpatial planning; Plan assessment; Territorial Impact Assessment (TIA) Lead PartnerSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, UK Case studiesSelected EU directives FundingEuropean Observation Network, Territorial Development and Cohesion (ESPON) Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis ParticipationThrough CITTA, Porto, Portugal Systems Planning℠ contributionReduction of uncertainty: impacts (DCD) and processes (CPD) DisseminationArticle in ‘European Planning Studies’
REFEU-GKEYS-2005 Term2005–2008 TopicSpatial planning; Urban landscape Architecture Lead PartnerLeibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional Development (IÖR), DE Case studiesSelected European cities FundingINTERREG III B CADSES (Central, Adriatic, Danubian and South-Eastern European Space) Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis ParticipationThrough UFZ, Leipzig, Germany Systems Planning℠ contributionDecision model analysis (DMA) DisseminationAdministrative report (internal/ confidential)
Aleu/ Municipal systems modelling — System prototyping
REFVRMP-SYS-2002 Term2002–2004 TopicSystems modelling; formalisation of the planning problem IntentDraft a municipal system model and identify points of concern Case study (practice)Municipality of Vila Real, Portugal PatronMunicipality of Vila Real, Portugal (Service Director: J.C.C. Fernandes) Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis Systems Planning℠ missionsTraining (DLC); Learning (HTW) Systems Planning℠ contributionMunicipality-wide system models (SFD) at different aggregations PreparationEnvironmental Dynamics seminars DisseminationPresentations at ISDC 2002 and ISDC 2003
Alijó/ Municipal environmental indicators — System prototyping
REFALIJ-SET-2001 Term2001–2002 TopicSystems modelling; indicator sets IntentIdentify points of concern (set of indicators) for the municipality Case study (practice)Municipality of Alijó, Portugal PatronMunicipality of Alijó, Portugal Project teamEnvironmental engineering students, UTAD Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis Systems Planning℠ missionLearning (PPM); Prototyping (ISC) Systems Planning℠ contributionMunicipal environmental indicators DisseminationStudent Report (internal/ confidential)
Syros/ Island-wide development plan — System–Plan prototyping
REFSYR-SYS-1993 Term1993–1996 TopicPlanning methodology; plan appraisal/ assessment IntentDraft an island-wide system model and identify points of concern; define the planning problem and seek solutions; select best option by scenario simulation Case study (practice)Syros, Greece PatronEnvironmental Resources Unit (ERU), University of Salford SupportMunicipal and regional authorities, Syros, Greece Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis Systems Planning℠ missionsLearning (PPM); Training (HTW) Systems Planning℠ contributionIsland-wide quantitative system model (SFD); alternative development scenarios; quantitative simulations; scenario assessment and selection DisseminationPhD Thesis;
Perdicoulis and Power, 1995;
Perdicoulis, 1997 ImagesPhoto gallery (section)
Applied R&D/ Community
Applied R&D solves case-specific problems (i.e. original undertakings), typically involving cooperations with scholars as well as with direct beneficiaries (e.g. public administration, industry).
Undisclosed/ Confidential — Plan review and revision
REFUND-PRR-2021 Term2021–present — in progress Case studyInstitutional strategy RequestStudy the official version, revise at a higher level, and accompany the implementation PatronUndisclosed/ confidential Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis Systems Planning℠ missionsLearning (PPM, HTW) Systems Planning℠ contributionSystem–Plan (RBP–DCD) hybrid diagrams (review phase); high-level system RBP based on core-values (revision phase) DeliverablesHierarchical analysis with tier sorting (RBP–DCD, L1–L3); system evolution (RBP, L1) — internal/ confidential
REFCONT-KPI-2019 TermPhase I (panel): 2019–2020; Phase II (S/W): 2021–present — in progress Case studyAutomotive industry RequestDeploy a management cockpit for the visualisation of dynamics and control of operations, advancing current KPI practice PatronContinental Advanced Antenna [Managing Director: M. Pinto] Institutional hostECT-UTAD [President: J.B. Cunha] ParticipantsM. Pinto, A. Martins, C. Araújo, B. Carneiro, D. Vicêncio, S. Vilas, L. Araújo (intern) Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis Systems Planning℠ missionsLearning (HTW); Prototyping (TQM) Systems Planning℠ contributionSystems view (RBP); operations view (CPD); plan view (DCD) DeliverablesAnnotated system, process, and plan models — internal/ confidential
ECT Activity Plan 2020 — Plan prototyping
REFECT-PLN-2019 Term2019 Case studyActivity plan RequestPrepare ECT's activity plan for 2020, based on UTAD's 2017–2021 strategy PatronEscola de Ciências e Tecnologia (ECT), UTAD DelegatesJ.B.R. Cunha, V. Filipe, J.M.C. Reis, P. Martins, V. Amorim, A.P. Aires, A. Borges, J.P. Cravino, M. Amraui Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis Systems Planning℠ missionsLearning (PPM); Training (HTW); Prototyping (TQM) Systems Planning℠ contributionPlanning facilitation (e.g. prototyping, assessment, revision) DeliverablesActivity Plan 2020 — internal/ confidential
ECT Digital Presence 2019 — Process prototyping
REFECT-PRC-2019 Term2019 Case studyWeb and social media RequestCoordinate ECT's digital presence PatronEscola de Ciências e Tecnologia (ECT), UTAD Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis (Communication officer) Systems Planning℠ missionsTraining (HTW); Prototyping (TQM) Systems Planning℠ contributionInformation flow (IFD); information campaigns (HBS); website map (HBS); news bulletin (HBS) DeliverablesCoordination documents — internal/ confidential
Cockpit Wiring — System–Plan prototyping
REFKATH-WIRE-2019 Term2019 Case studyAutomotive industry RequestRelate the performance indicators of the administrative cockpit PatronKathrein [Managing Director: M. Pinto] Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis Systems Planning℠ missionsLearning (PPM, HTW) Systems Planning℠ contributionViewport Design™ — original cockpit panels (HBS); target system (RBP); operational plan (DCD) DeliverableProject Report DisseminationInnovation Masterclass (PBS, 2019) Kudosmodel sampler
ECT Activity Plan 2019 — Plan prototyping and monitoring
REFECT-PLN-2018 Term2018–2019 Case studyActivity plan RequestPrepare ECT's activity plan for 2019, based on UTAD's 2017–2021 strategy and monitor its implementation PatronEscola de Ciências e Tecnologia (ECT), UTAD DelegatesJ.B.R. Cunha, V. Filipe, J.M.C. Reis, P. Martins, P. Couto, L. Roçadas, C. Avelino, J.P. Cravino, M. Amraui Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis Systems Planning℠ missionsLearning (PPM); Training (HTW); Prototyping (TQM) Systems Planning℠ contributionPlanning facilitation (e.g. modelling, simulation, assessment, revision); plan in complementary formats (e.g. lists, DCD, Gantt); plan implementation monitoring; progress report DeliverablesActivity Plan 2019; Plan Progress Report — both internal/ confidential
CIV Insights — System prototyping
REFCIV-INS-2018 Term2018 Case studyAcademic degree RequestThink of a ‘refreshed’ degree (e.g. international, modern, organised, reflective) PatronCivil Engineering Degree, ECT, UTAD DelegatesN. Cristelo, A. Sá, A. Perdicoulis Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis Systems Planning℠ missionsLearning (PPM); Training (HTW); Prototyping (TQM) Systems Planning℠ contributionModelling facilitation; mental models (RBP) Related projectCIV Assessment 2018 DisseminationRecalling quality in scholarly publications — oestros №28
QSJ Database — System–Process prototyping
REFQSJ-DB-2018 Term2018 Case studyWinery RequestDevelop a relational DB for stock management and sales support PatronQuinta de S. José (QSJ) DelegatesP. Martins, A. Perdicoulis, A. Marques, J. Brito e Cunha, C. Clemente, D. Guerra, P. Teixeira, T. Aniceto Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis Systems Planning℠ associateG. Glavas Systems Planning℠ missionsLearning (PPM); Prototyping (TQM) Systems Planning℠ contributionProcess protocols (CPD), information flow diagrams (IFD) Related projectQSJ Logistics DeliverableDatabase with Web user interface (internal/ confidential)
CIV Assessment 2018 — System–Process prototyping
REFCIV-DEG-2018 Term2018 Case studyAcademic degree RequestAssess the current state of affairs (with a SWOT deliverable) and suggest amelioration actions PatronCivil Engineering Degree, ECT, UTAD DelegatesN. Cristelo, A. Perdicoulis, C. Dominguez, C. Reis Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis Systems Planning℠ missionsLearning (PPM); Training (HTW); Prototyping (TQM) Systems Planning℠ contributionModelling facilitation (e.g. procedure, language, example [SP 43]); state of affairs (RBP) with Graphic SWOT™; development process with scenario analysis (CPD) and Graphic SWOT™ Related projectCIV Insights DeliverablesSWOT list-set; Amelioration list (international assessment committee/ confidential)
ECT Activity Plan 2018 — Plan prototyping and monitoring
REFECT-PLN-2017 Term2017–2018 Case studyActivity plan RequestPrepare ECT's activity plan for 2018, based on UTAD's 2017–2021 strategy and monitor its implementation PatronEscola de Ciências e Tecnologia (ECT), UTAD DelegatesJ.B.R. Cunha, V. Filipe, J.M.C. Reis, P. Martins, P. Couto, L. Roçadas, A.P. Aires, J.P. Cravino, M. Amraui Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis Systems Planning℠ missionsLearning (PPM); Training (HTW); Prototyping (TQM) Systems Planning℠ contributionPlanning facilitation (e.g. modelling, simulation, assessment, revision); plan in complementary formats (e.g. lists, DCD, Gantt); plan implementation monitoring; progress report DeliverablesActivity Plan 2018; Plan Progress Report — both internal/ confidential
QSJ Logistics — Process prototyping, review, and revision
REFQSJ-LOG-2017 Term2017 Case studyWinery RequestOptimise internal processes PatronQuinta de S. José (QSJ) DelegatesJ. Brito e Cunha, C. Clemente, S. Prazeres Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis Systems Planning℠ associateG. Glavas Systems Planning℠ missionsLearning (PPM, HTW) Systems Planning℠ contributionCurrent and suggested process protocols (CPD), problem definition and solving (XYZ), information flow diagrams (IFD) Related projectQSJ Database DeliverablePilot Study (internal/ confidential)
HEI Enhancement — System–Plan prototyping
REFHEI-SYS-2017 Term2017 Case studyUniversity administration (abstracted) RequestEnhance the function of a higher education institution (HEI) Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis Systems Planning℠ missionsTraining (DLC, PLC) Systems Planning℠ contributionSystems view of the institution (RBP); thematic enhancement provisions (DCD); global prospect view (DCD–RBP) DeliverableProject Report (situation and institutional strategy) Kudosmodel sampler
Academic Mobility — Process prototyping
REFMOB-PRC-2017 Term2017 Case studyAcademic mobility (abstracted) RequestIllustrate key processes and communication protocols of student exchange programmes Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis SupportInternational Office, UTAD; ECT, UTAD Systems Planning℠ missionsLearning (HTW); Networking (TEN) Systems Planning℠ contributionDiagrammatic views of administrative processes (EPD) and information flows (IFD) DeliverableProcess protocols (outgoing/ incoming students; LA processing) DisseminationAcademic Mobility — Systems Planner №41
BIT Culture — Process review and revision
REFSONAE-BITC-2016 Term2016 Case studyProject management/ team culture RequestOptimise project practice regarding process protocols and the associated team spirit and culture PatronBusiness Information Technology (BIT), SONAE DelegatesD. Alves, A. Moreira, T. Oliveira, P. Torres, A. Gonçalves, and B. Mourão Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis Systems Planning℠ missionsTraining (PLC); Learning (HTW) Systems Planning℠ contributionCurrent and suggested process protocols (CPD) through Process Layout™; ‘pain-point’ analysis (TMU); team building (RBP); ‘economic spirit’ (RBP) DeliverablePilot Study (internal/ confidential)
LDF Transform — Process prototyping
REFLDF-TRF-2015 Term2015–2016 Case studyBusiness innovation — sales protocol; client/ product profiles RequestDevelop an efficient sales protocol based on client and product profiles PatronLDF — Sistemas de Comunicação [CEO: F. Novais] ParticipationP4S — People for Success [F. Novais, M. Serra] Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis Systems Planning℠ associateC. Alves Systems Planning℠ missionsTraining (PLC, HTW) Systems Planning℠ contributionClient and product profiles (HBS); sales protocol (CPD) through Process Layout™; sales pitch (DCD) Other contributionsMBTI® personality type DeliverableProject Report Kudosmodel sampler
AAP Overhaul — Plan review and revision
REFAAP-RR-2016 Term2016 Case studyActivity plan RequestExamine an annual activity plan (AAP) for shortcomings and make the necessary rectifications Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis Systems Planning℠ missionsLearning (PPM); Training (PLC) Systems Planning℠ contributionIdentification and correction of shortcomings; AAP in annotated RBPs DeliverableProject Report Kudosmodel sampler
Newspaper — Process–System–Plan prototyping
REFNEWS-INNOV-2015 Term2015 Case studyBusiness innovation RequestAdapt the current publishing model to the new reality of the digital age DelegatesC. Alves, F. Costa, J. Carvalho Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis Systems Planning℠ missionsTraining (DLC, PLC) Systems Planning℠ contributionProcess view of the business operation (CPD); the business in a causal context (RBP); new options for action with simulated outcomes (DCD) DisseminationRebirth of the newspaper — Systems Planner №33
Foz Tua power lines — EIS review and revision
REFECOB-EIS-2014 Term2014 Case studyImpact statement (selected sections, causality content) — Linhas de Muito Alta Tensão, Foz Tua RequestInspect and improve the causal communication of impacts PatronEcobase Consulting Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis Systems Planning℠ missionsTraining (DLC); Prototyping (TQM) Systems Planning℠ contributionReduction of uncertainty in the communication of impacts (DCD) and improvements in the verification of the causal argument (QSM) through EIA Light™ DeliverablePresentation at CNAI’14
Consolidation R&D/ Monographs
Consolidation R&D documents first-hand experience (e.g. composition or revision of scholarly works), relates it with other works, and opens the way for network cooperations.
REFMON-ORGGOV-2015 Term2015–2016; 2018 FocusAdministration based on understanding and explicit reasoning PatronPerdicoulis Publishing℠ Systems Planning℠ missionsTraining (PLC); Learning (HTW) Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis DisseminationThe ‘Organisation Governance’ book
Research communication — System and process efficiency
REFMON-RESCOM-2012 Term2012–2015; 2018 FocusThe dissemination of scientific research PatronPerdicoulis Publishing℠ Systems Planning℠ missionPrototyping (ACS) Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis DisseminationThe ‘Research Communication’ book
Project management — Process efficiency
REFMON-PROJMAN-2014 Term2014–2015; 2018; 2020 FocusThe preparation and conduct of engineering projects PatronPerdicoulis Publishing℠ Systems Planning℠ missionPrototyping (TQM) Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis DisseminationThe ‘Project Management’ book
Academia — System evolution
REFMON-ACAD-2012 Term2012–2013; 2018 FocusThe community and mission of academia PatronPerdicoulis Publishing℠ Systems Planning℠ missionTraining (HST) Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis DisseminationThe ‘Academic Life’ book
Impact continuum — EIA and EMS integration
REFMON-EIAEMS-2011 Term2011–2012 FocusEnvironmental impacts at the project and operation phases Case studiesOil and gas, renewables, waste, flood risk, transport PatronEdward Elgar Publishing EditorsA. Perdicoulis, B. Durning, L. Palframan Systems Planning℠ missionPrototyping (IMC) Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis DisseminationThe ‘Furthering EIA’ book
Planning methodology — The planning process
REFMON-PLCOMP-2010 Term2010–2011 FocusPreparation and conduct of the spatial planning operation Case studies Process revisionsEast of England Plan, The London Plan, Wales Spatial Plan PatronRoutledge/ Taylor & Francis Systems Planning℠ missionTraining (PLC) Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis DisseminationThe ‘Building Competences’ book & study packs
The dynamic objects of planning — Plans, systems, and processes
REFMON-SYSTHNK-2009 Term2009–2010 FocusSystems thinking geared towards spatial and sectoral planning Case studies I: Plan reviews/ revisionsHousing plan, health policy, arts strategy Case studies II: Impact assessment reviews/ revisionsOffshore drilling project, local transport plan Case studies III: Plan prototypesRegional development, urban development PatronEdward Elgar Publishing Systems Planning℠ missionsTraining (PLC, DLC); Learning (PPM) Systems Planning℠ anchorA. Perdicoulis DisseminationThe ‘Systems Thinking’ book
Systems Planning℠ guidance for praxis (e.g. applied R&D projects) is carried out at a small scale, to allow for the necessary personal and collective development (e.g. holistic perspective, causal understanding).
Systems Planning℠ experience indicates that undertakings are best accompanied in a facilitative mode (Cognitive Coaching℠) that empowers people through discovery and understanding.
Alternatively, Boutique Consulting℠ caters to study-intensive projects of interesting or challenging cases in a counselling mode that empowers people through culture- and/ or perspective-oriented guidance.
Reference technical folios: Support (consulting, coaching); Organisation (accompaniment styles)
Owing to its mindset and innovation, Systems Planning℠ is a select alternative to mainstream ‘non-system’ (e.g. data-based) and speciality conventional systems (e.g. un-marked problem structure) praxis.
Systems Planning℠ functions alongside its own systems heritage of System Dynamics and Systems Thinking (e.g. causal loops, system behaviour, simulation), and planning heritage of its subject matter (e.g. strategic planning).
The contrast to mainstream praxis is approached with a cooperative attitude, even in more ‘distant’ cases such as the Balanced Scorecard, Design Thinking, and Business Analysis — always looking at the bright side.
The Systems Planning℠ approach to problems manifests in practice with a distinctive workflow for their definition and solution, quite different from the mainstream data- or diagnostics-based protocols.
Interactions with the mainstream alternatives (e.g. joint courses, Pro Utilities™) are in the spirit of cooperative development™ (e.g. complementarity, synergy) and are organised in frameworks (e.g. re: system models, praxis methodology).
Monoculture
Mainstream consultants have established a culture that defines and unites the economic world, where clients find comfort in belonging (e.g. ideology, language), but also creates dependencies (e.g. on consulting services or techniques).
Sustainability
As monocultures rarely create stable systems, eventually they can be blamed for systemic failures. Mainstream consultants may either risk becoming the culprits, or learn and refresh with empowering alternatives in select cooperations.
Common ground— Formal system models in qualitative terms (SD: CLD; SP: RBP) Complementarity— SD: numeric simulations of system behaviour over time (SFD); SP: stakeholder perspectives; formal problem (e.g. ‘XYZ’) Synergy— Enhanced understanding (e.g. CLD/ SFD with ‘XYZ’); tandem qualitative and numeric simulations of action plans
Common ground— ‘Significant factors’ in situations (SP: ‘system elements’); stakeholder perspectives Complementarity— SWOT: ‘plain’ assessment marking (e.g. ‘good/ bad’); SP: formal dynamics between factors/ elements (e.g. causality, information flows) Synergy— Visualisation of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in associated mechanisms (e.g. cause-effect relations, feedback loops); insights into possible intervention (e.g. action with anchor points)
Common ground— ‘Significant factors’ in situations (SP: ‘system elements’); stakeholder perspectives Complementarity— KPI: data/ trends at each node; SP: formal dynamics between nodes (e.g. causality, information flows) Synergy— Visualisation of node values and/ or trends in associated mechanisms (e.g. cause-effect relations, feedback loops); insights into possible intervention (e.g. action with anchor points)
Systems Planning℠ works well because it is being prepared carefully through R&D over many years, building on the knowledge of both systems and non-systems paradigms. At the practical level of application, refined methods and custom-crafted techniques make the work not only sophisticated and insightful, but also natural. By intent and design, Systems Planning℠ is far more dialectic, soul-searching, and contemplative than its mainstream counterparts.
The praxis unit of Systems Planning℠ builds experience with difficult problems (e.g. of complex dynamic nature), empowering the stakeholders (incl. decision-makers) to comprehend ‘how things work’ instead of just ‘being informed’.
Systems —
Laying out a situation or state of affairs as a ‘system’ raises issues of viewpoint, aggregation, and dynamics — some of them of political, and others of technical nature. Negotiations and open-mindedness help, while hidden assumptions hinder a healthy mental-modelling process. ‘Point thinking’ is awkwardly inadequate, while computational relations are markedly artificial.
Differentiation manifestos:
Education
|
Publishing
|
Governance
|
Management
|
Planning
Specialists aside, or those who ‘have got it right’ with general techniques for coordinating operations (e.g. project management), a number of organisations still have daedalian communication protocols, legendary procedural confusions, and consequently delays, frustration, and waste of precious resources as well as opportunities. Such situations can only improve.
Resolution —
Deciphering or designing processes requires a clear definition of sequence (i.e. states and actions) and relevant attributes (e.g. parameters, methods), aggregation (e.g. detail), resources (e.g. people, materials, money), and disclosure (i.e. the information revealed to each stakeholder). Dealing with processes is prone to oversights and misjudgements, which are kept in check with operational care — and largely with education.
Surprisingly, both the ‘intuition’ and ‘science’ models overlook confident understanding, and ways to clearly visualise and share the plan as well as the reasoning and assumptions behind it. Systems Planning℠ provides this ‘missing part’ — in association with original R&D and an empowering coaching/ consulting engagement, complemented by teaching/ training quanto baste.
The way of Systems Planning℠ is not ‘natural’ for everyone, as rigour and reasoning are also expected of the beneficiaries. Hence, Systems Planning℠ seeks progressive and demanding people in enterprise, institutions, or government, curious to understand ‘how things work’ and in a position to ‘make things right’ — from start-up entrepreneurs, to experienced CEOs, to community leaders, to prime ministers.
Prospects
Prospects
Prospects
