System Mapping for Future Organizations – Book Release & Interview

We’re very happy and honored to have had the opportunity to collaborate with Dark Horse Innovation on the chapter on System Mapping in their new book “Future Organization Playbook”.

As the publications of Dark Horse always mark a milestone in the innovation ecosystem in Germany and beyond, this was especially exciting for us. It’s great to see that System Mapping is becoming a core method in the realm of organizational change. The chapter especially focuses on the potential of system mapping for organizational change including lots of practical tips and examples of our work from the last years. You can order the book here.

In the course of our collaboration we also gave this interview about the method of System Mapping and its application in various contexts.

Q: From your practical point of view, what are the biggest stumbling blocks for people who are trying out system maps for the first time?

Good question! With a little experience, you can already create very good and helpful maps, but especially in the first system mapping projects in organizations, there are a few stumbling blocks that you should be aware of: When working on system maps, it can quickly happen that we feel overwhelmed by the complexity. There is a risk that we get lost in the multitude of influencing factors, dynamics and opinions. At the beginning, it is important to define exactly which goals we want to pursue with map- ping and which problem we want to solve.

Compared to the fast world of design, system mapping is a rather slow process. We are trying to understand something that has so far eluded our understanding. This takes time and energy. We live in a world where fast results are demanded. This creates a tension that can be challenging for some organizations. Good expectation management towards partners and stakeholders is very important here. Especially when working in complex systems, there are many different perspectives and it is not always easy to put oneself in the others' shoes and find a consensus. There is a risk that differences of opinion within the team will harden or that some perspectives will be more strongly represented than others. Agreeing on common principles of collaboration can counteract this, such as valuing all perspectives, active and focused listening, or a willingness to question one's own assumptions.

Furthermore, a clear process and professional moderation - especially with larger groups - are enormously important in order to achieve a successful result together despite the complexity. In order to avoid these and other stumbling blocks and to make it as easy as possible to get started with system mapping, we have developed our "System Mapping Toolkit". It is based on our project experience with organizations and partners and guides you step by step through the most important system mapping activities.

“A system map is always problem-oriented. This helps us not to lose sight of the big picture, even during intensive discussions. At the beginning, it also helps to limit the scope to certain parts of the system, in order to prevent an initial overload and then to carefully widen the boundaries.”

Q: When is the development of a system map worthwhile?

In general, system mapping is always about how to use limited resources as effectively as possible in order to achieve sustainable change. The system mapping process offers particularly great added value when we want to solve persistent challenges in complex systems. These are problems that have existed for some time and which we have not been able to get under control despite our best efforts. For example, if the next corporate transformation fails to improve collaboration between business units and problematic patterns persist.

We recognize the complexity in the large number and diversity of stakeholders, the many interdependencies and seemingly random patterns of behaviour in the system that we have not been able to explain to date. For example, dealing with the COVID pandemic led to interdisciplinary and systemic cooperation in order to jointly consider and weigh up health, social and economic effects.

But in our experience, it is also worth taking a systemic view of smaller projects. Whenever we want to solve a problem and achieve long-term effects, we must first understand the existing factors and dynamics. This does not always have to be a large mapping workshop with many participants. Mapping alone or in a small team on the whiteboard can also bring many new insights and improve communication with the participants.

Q: And how can you imagine the effort for system mapping in terms of time?

The time aspect depends strongly on the objective of the mapping and the stakeholders involved. If the goal is to create a system map individually or as a small team for a largely known problem, the whole process can be completed in a few hours or days. In one mapping project, for example, we helped a neighborhood initiative reflect on and summarize its project experience. Here, we jointly framed, designed, and analyzed the system map within one day.

In other projects, however, we develop the system map over several weeks or months. For example, we supported the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in understanding the factors and dynamics that are accelerating development in the Peruvian rainforest. To do so, we integrated existing stakeholder knowledge by conducting diverse interviews and inviting over 40 stakeholders from government, business, and ci- vil society to a three-day map- ping workshop. Integrating the different perspectives and ite- ratively developing the system map takes more time in such large projects. After just under four months, we developed a comprehensive map that brought together the collected knowledge of the various stakeholders, uncovered many new insights and now serves as a basis for decisions on joint projects to protect the rainforest.

Q: What are the biggest "aha"-experiences that you often observe in your work with participants?

The aha experiences are very project-specific. It is important that the insights do not only come at the end, but that we can learn a lot in every step of the process. For example, framing at the beginning can trigger very exciting discussions, especially about what the actual problem in the system is and what questions we want to answer at the end.

“In our work we ask questions like: Are housing prices the essential problem, or is it actually the poor infrastructure and lack of access to work and education?”

Of course, the mapping process itself is rich in aha experiences: We discuss and visualize how individual factors affect other parts of the system, and connections suddenly reveal themselves that were seemingly invisible before. In the innovation system project with the Stifterverband, mapping made it obvious that developing new trusting partnerships between organizations takes a lot of time and energy. Therefore, organizations strongly tend to expand collaborations with already established partners. From an entrepreneurial point of view, this is understandable, but from a systemic point of view, this increasingly leads to "silos of cooperation" with increasing alignment of the cooperation partners and less interdisciplinary cooperation, which we need for innovative solutions.

Aha experiences often also arise on an emotional level. Through the cooperative exchange, the joint search for clues and the view beyond one's own nose, a better understanding for other perspectives develops. From a system map, it becomes apparent not only what others are doing, but also why and what circumstances lead them to do it. This creates greater empathy between the participants and a stronger basis of trust for future joint action.

Q: Where do you see the biggest differences between system mapping and agile methods like Design Thinking, Service Design and Co.?

System mapping is not about developing ideas for solutions as quickly as possible. We first want to take a step back and try to understand the dynamics and interrelationships that have brought us to the current situation.

“Changing a system takes time, and therefore system mapping aims to develop long-term strategies with sustainable effects.”

In contrast to Design Thinking, system mapping is not (only) based on the needs of the users and does not per se claim to solve these needs. When applying system mapping, the focus is on the long-term health of the entire system. Instead of asking ourselves, "How can we make life easier for our target group?", we ask, "How can we influence the system together so that it develops in a positive direction for all involved - also under ecological aspects!"

A common feature with design thinking and service design is the collaborative and iterative approach. A system map is only as good as the knowledge and experience that flow into the process. Direct exchange with stakeholders and experts is therefore important. At the same time, our understanding of complex systems and thus our system map is never perfect. We need iterations, to learn from the system, from the actors and to re-evaluate our own assumptions.

System mapping is considered one of the most important methods within the growing field of "Systemic Design". It integrates systemic principles and methods to further develop Design Thinking and other user-centered approaches. Only the combination of agile methods with the systemic way of thinking enables us to develop innovative and sustainable solutions for the complex challenges of our time.