Total Systems Intervention (TSI) : A Reconstitution: Journal of The Operational Research Society February 1995

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/245280641
Total Systems Intervention (TSI): A Reconstitution
Article in Journal of the Operational Research Society · February 1995

DOI: 10.1057/jors.1995.23
CITATIONS READS
77 1,318
1 author:
Robert Flood
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
115 PUBLICATIONS 4,937 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
The relationship between systemic thinking and action research View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Robert Flood on 18 June 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Total Systems Intervention (TSI): A Reconstitution
Author(s): Robert L. Flood
Source: The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Feb., 1995), pp.
174-191
Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals on behalf of the Operational Research Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2583987
Accessed: 18-06-2018 12:29 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan Journals are collaborating with JSTOR
to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of the Operational Research Society
This content downloaded from 129.241.230.169 on Mon, 18 Jun 2018 12:29:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of the Operational Research Society (1995) 46, 174-191 ( 1995 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved. 0160-5682/95 $9.00
Total Systems Intervention (TSI):

a Reconstitution
ROBERT L. FLOOD
Hull University, UK
Total Systems Intervention (TSI) is a very new approach to 'problem solving', but has enjoyed a
more extensive use than expected at this stage. Early accounts of it have now been explored in some
depth in practice and through theoretical discussion. There have been many new insights generated.
Conditions are now propitious for a thorough reworking of TSI as a practical tool, to bring it right
up-to-date. This article provides a very brief review of uses of TSI, theoretical and practical
reflections, plus an extensive overview of the TSI method as it is employed today. TSI's philosophy,
principles and process are described and explained. Some ideas for further development are given.
Key words: total systems intervention, critical systems thinking, process of problem solving,
unification of sciences
INTRODUCTION
Operational Research, Management and Systems Sciences have grown many branches of
inquiry, each with its own group of 'problem solving' methods. The methods between them
cover a wide scope of aims, concepts and suggested processes. Whilst this growing maturity
and diversity may be accepted as a good thing in principle, in practice it has led to sourness,
bitter disagreements and to fragmentation in the discipline. Debate is rooted on which
method is best rather than the best use of methods. From a systems point of view, this breaks
with the original holistic intent, which is to unify things rather than to divide them.
Total Systems Intervention (TSI) is an approach to 'problem solving' for any organization
that stands firm with the original holistic intent of systems thinking'. TSI does this by
demonstrating that all 'problem solving' methods can be arranged and operated successfully as
an organized whole. With this unification systems thinking contributes to and supports
Operational Research and Management Sciences by helping in the task of making the best use
of methods.
TSI is, in essence, a process that enables 'the problem solver' to employ a spread of
methods, first by creatively 'surfacing' issues an organization faces and then by choosing a
method(s) best equipped to tackle those issues effectively. Choice of method is made using
knowledge about the strengths and weaknesses of each one. This knowledge helps to
determine which issues methods are best at tackling. It is then possible to dovetail methods
concordant with issues that have been 'surfaced'. In this way, issues can be effectively dealt
with. TSI supplies procedures to achieve all of this. This process requires 'the problem solver'
to become equally adept at using a wide range of well-formulated methods irrespective of
their origins (i.e. Operational Research, Management or Systems Sciences).
The original official account of TSI was published in 19912. It is constructed on theoretical
foundations called Critical Systems Thinking (CST): see for example References 3-13.
Reactions to TSI and CST have formed a work that cuts across practical and theoretical issues
(see for example References 14-35). Our own understanding of TSI and CST has taken
several strides forward too36-38. Enough progress has occurred to prepare a way for a
reconstitution of TSI. The aim of this article, therefore, is to report in the learned literature a
reconstitution of TSI.
This reconstitution provides an introduction to TSI as it is employed today by myself and
those practitioners with whom I work. The main aim of this paper is to improve our
Correspondence: R. L. Flood, Centre for Systems Studies, Department of Management Systems and Sciences, University
of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK
R. L. Flood-Total Systems Intervention (TSI): a Reconstitution 175
understanding of TSI as a practical tool rather than justifying TSI through theoretical debate.
The paper is composed as follows. To start with, and to set the scene, a very brief account of
some practical work is given, looking at intervention, training and education using TSI.
Following this, the reconstituted TSI is reviewed. The aim of TSI, its main philosophy,
principles, and the process by which these are brought into action are systematically worked
through. The process of TSI is then studied in depth, focusing on its three phases; creativity,
choice and implementation. The aim and subphases of each phase are detailed. Improvements
that have been made in the reconstitution of TSI following practical experiences and in
response to reactions to published work are then summarized. The paper rounds-off by setting
out further work that remains to be done.
WHAT USE HAS BEEN MADE OF TSI?
To set the scene, I shall briefly introduce the reader to the kind of work that has been
undertaken using TSI. There are three broad areas to be covered; intervention, training and
education. I shall stick to uses with which I have had a close involvement.
Intervention has been undertaken within many organizations. I shall only report on cases
that can be followed up from the literature. Superintendent S. Green used TSI in the North
Yorkshire Police Force to develop strategic options for his area of command and this has
been published22. That effort has been followed by my, David Devlin's and Keith Ellis' long
term involvement in the implementation of TQM through TSI throughout that force. The first
stages of this have been written up (Reference 38, Chapter 15). Another case of the early
stages of implementing TQM through TSI, is a diagnostic biotechnology company in
Singapore, in conjunction with its Managing Director Lim Jui Kok, and has also been written
up (Reference 38, Chapter 12). Peter Wong, a Director in a company in the construction
industry in Hong Kong, is using TSI to diagnose causes of failure of their TQM implementa-
tion and to come up with recommendations for change46. Phil Hearse is Managing Director of
NORMET, a company providing technical services in the mining industry, based in Perth,
Australia. He is using TSI to focus on strategic management with an emphasis on modelling
their decision making process in boom and bust times46. Jeremy Chia, Singapore's entrepre-
neur of the year in 1993 and Managing Director of Utopia Aire Plc Ltd, is using TSI to
improve processes of entrepreneurship, innovation and change in his company46.
- Training in the use of TSI has been undertaken in several companies. Mike Jackson and I
developed a core training module for middle to senior managers in British Telecom. It was
introduced in 1988. Mike and I presented it six times before handing over to their training
group. It has been run regularly ever since. We also presented TSI over several days to senior
consultants from PA Consulting, based in London. More recently, I have presented training
courses for Bahrain Airport Services in Bahrain, and MEXA consultants in South Africa.
Short presentations have been made to many organizations including BATELCO in Bahrain,
the National Economic Development Council in Singapore, Sun Life in South Africa, the
ANC in South Africa, Malaysia's national airline MAS and others. Seminars on TSI have
been run on a commercial basis in the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, South Africa and
the UK.
In education, we have used TSI to provide the basic structure for our MBA program
offered at the University of Hull, UK. Most of our MBA candidates work full time and are
outside the UK. We take our program to them. All seminars are held in their home country.
Currently we are operating in Australia, Bahrain, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi
Arabia, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates. Four of the 12 modules are systems based.
The case study project that completes the degree requires the candidate to undertake a TSI
guided approach to issues that their company is currently facing. Some excellent applications
of TSI have been undertaken by our candidates, all of whom are in work, and are middle or
senior managers.
The reader may be interested to know that a follow up to this article is in preparation, and
it will detail some uses of TSI just mentioned.
176 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 46, No. 2
TSI AS IT STANDS TODAY
Introduction
TSI can be usefully studied through its philosophy, principles and process. The philosophy
informs us what the world looks like when a TSI perspective is assumed. The principles
propose kinds of action we should take if this world view is adopted. The process sets out
how to implement the principles. Each is explored below.
The philosophy
The philosophy informs us how the world looks when a TSI perspective is assumed. When
applied to organizations, TSI provides a systemic view of them. Organizations comprise parts
that are continually interacting. Parts form a system (horizontal) that is a subsystem of a
larger system and has subsystems itself (vertical). An organization is therefore both vertically
and horizontally integrated. At each systemic level the phenomenon emergence occurs,
meaning that the result of the whole activity is more than the sum of the results of activities
which any level comprises. An organization is also open to its environment.
This image of organizations provides a framework on which an ideal whole system view can
be constructed. The whole system view has five stages of construction.
(i) An organization comprises technical and human activities. Interactions in organizations

are represented in terms of an interactive mixture of technical and human activities. The
whole system framework is, then, a horizontally and vertically integrated set of technical
and human activities.
(ii) Activities of an organization must be efficiently and effectively controlled whilst maintain-
ing viability of the organization. Activities are controlled by technical procedures, and
socio-cultural and socio-political rules and practices. Procedures, rules and practices
must attune so that viability can be achieved. Environmental factors may also be
influenced or controlled.
(iii) Activities of an organization must be directed to achieve some purpose. An organization
will normally have an officially declared mission to which these activities are ideally
directed.
(iv) People in organizations appreciate (i) to (iii) above in different ways. Individuals and
groups naturally make their own interpretations of the interacting activities, the way
activities are controlled, and the organization's purpose. They hold a view of their own
role and purpose in the organization which can cause conflict, a lack of cohesion,
inefficiency, ineffectiveness, rigidity and non-viability in the organization.
(v) (iii) and (iv) above must be harmonized through organizational design and management
style. An organizational design and management style must be chosen that balance
people's needs with the organization's needs, remembering that the organization's needs
also reflect the business or organizational context.
(vi) The whole organizational effort must accept responsibility for the impact of policies on
the biological and social environments.
When applied to organizational 'problem solving' TSI extends its systemic interpretation of
organizations. 'Problem solving' actually means managing sets of interacting issues (rather
than solving identifiable problems). Issues to be managed arise from the interaction of
technical and human activities, how they are controlled, interaction of the organization with
the environment, the organization's mission, organizational design and management style, and
people's interpretations of all of these. 'Problem solving' is a particular type of human activity
that is, by definition, a part of the interacting activities. An organization, then, can be
understood in terms of interacting issues and 'problem solving', or intervention, as being part
of a continuous process of managing these issues (which is a part of the interacting activities).
Intervention, accordingly, will go something like this. Issues are 'surfaced' through creative
analysis. By undertaking careful reasoning, an approach most suitable to tackle the issues is
chosen. Change proposals to manage the issues are worked out using the chosen approach.
Implementation of change proposals takes place. Some issues are dealt with purposefully and
directly, some purposefully but indirectly, whilst others are surprisingly impacted on as a
result of counter-intuitive activities (i.e. things that occur counter to our intuitive sense). New
issues arise as a further consequence of intervention. The organization as described by a set of
interacting issues changes and reformulated intervention directed at these issues takes place.
Intervention is therefore a continuous process of managing organizational issues throughout
the whole organization, taking into account wider concerns.
There are a number of principles that promote the implementation of the TSI philosophy
outlined above.
The principles
'Principles' propose kinds of action we should take, in this case if a TSI world view is
adopted. It is possible, and only possible, to evaluate a TSI process using its own principles.
If and only if intervention operates according to these principles can it be said to be a valid
use of TSI. As a minimum, this means in practice moving effectively towards them. There are
four main principles-being systemic, achieving meaningful participation, being reflective, and
striving for human freedom.
A foundational principle tells us to study the world as if it were systemic. This means 'take
into account the whole.' It is crucial to remember that 'the system' under study is a part of a
greater whole. It also comprises interacting parts. For TSI these parts are assumed to be
technical and human activities at three hierarchical levels-'the system', 'the subsystems' and
'the suprasystem'. 'The system' is always the hierarchical level that becomes the focus of
attention, although the level focused on may change during analysis. All interactions between
all parts, of technical and human sorts, at the three levels must be taken into account during
the process of continuous management of interacting issues. This principle helps to prevent
undesirable counter-intuitive consequences from occurring. It therefore leads to more effec-
tive management.
The principle of 'meaningful participation' follows the systemic principle. If we are to
develop an adequate appreciation of all interactions between all parts, of technical and human
sorts, at three levels at any one time, then the perceptions of all people involved and affected
must be drawn into the picture (how this is achieved in TSI is implicit in the discussion on
choice below). If participation does not occur then only a limited understanding of the
organization can be developed. This is not a whole system perspective, meaning that the
systemic principle is violated, which will lead to less than effective management.
The principle of reflection follows the previous two principles. There are two reflective
needs with TSI.
(i) To reflect upon the relationship between different organizational interests-demonstrating

where there is dominance over people who, as a result, cannot meaningfully participate.
(ii) To reflect upon the dominance of favoured approaches to intervention-demonstrating
where the use of one (or a few) method dominates, leaving 'problem solvers' with
limitations in their ability to tackle effectively the full range of technical and human
issues.
The first reflective need is to point out where domination over people exists inside and
outside the organization. Often, a dominant view holds sway. Dominance prevents meaningful
participation of involved and affected people and the inclusion of their perceptions in decision
making. This in turn means that less than a whole system understanding is achieved during
analysis.
The second reflective need is to overcome a common mistake made by 'problem solvers'.
Normally they use a small number of methods with restricted 'problem solving' capabilities.
They do not know about the limitations in the methods they are using. Each method is
limited, however, in the kinds of issue that it is best employed to tackle. A full range of
approaches is required, sufficient to tackle all sorts of technical and human issues. This can be
achieved through critical reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of each method, thus
bringing them to the fore and determining at which kinds of issue each one is best directed.
The reflective principle can be neatly summarized as follows. The first reflective need is to
ensure that a whole system understanding is achieved-surfacing all issues. The second
reflective need is to ensure that all issues are managed-employing all relevant methods.
Achieving both needs promotes effective management.
The fourth principle, in essence the core one, introduces TSI's ideology. TSI argues that an
explicit ideology which promotes human freedom must enter management practice. It is a
principle that stresses achieving freedom for all. It follows the preceding three principles.
Human freedom may be achieved through reflection. Reflection helps to achieve meaningful
participation, which in turn promotes being systemic and taking into account the whole.
Taking into account the whole is an important step toward better informed management,
effective 'problem solving' and avoidance of counter-intuitive consequences. (Whilst this is
TSI's position, it is only fair to point out that there is much debate about such ideas; see for
example Reference 47.) These four main principles shape the process of TSI as set out below.
The process
The process sets out how to implement the four principles introduced above and hence
helps to realize the TSI philosophy. The process of TSI has three phases; creativity, choice
and implementation. Each phase supports, and is supported by, each other phase. They
follow each other as illustrated in Figure 1 (in this figure 'mess' simply means the problem
situation is unstructured). Evidently, this is a continuous process with no predetermined start
or finish point(s). It is a continuous process that 'surfaces' sets of interacting issues and aids
their management. The set of interacting issues is an appreciation of an organization's
complex difficulties arising from technical and human activities and their interrelations as
discussed above. The circular process moves in both directions as indicated in Figure 1. The
clockwise and anticlockwise mode of the process are dealt with below, in that order.
Change proposals
to manage
Qlm-l-mnation changeto
mos e most suitable proposals
best
manage ise irmanage issues surfaced?t
/ Istismehds)u
Metodmot ~~Implement\ ess
/change proposals\
? i s o Surface issues
tm uto be managed
Method most Is this method(san Mess ae t
\*to manage is ues/

manage issues to | m|aIntrage the Itaiati o .
issues? issues to
\ bt be managed /
i~ ~ ~~~th es nteracting Inssuesn

FIG 1.Thr Choose a method(s) a
Chice) Is this an adequate//

I------- appreciation of// Interatin isse
\N1 th//ss to be manacged
The process of creativity, choice and implementation, in the clockwise mode, works as
follows. Each phase has a task, tools and expected outcome. The outcome is passed on to the
next phase. That next phase uses the outcome from the previous phase to help achieve its
given task drawing upon tools relevant to its task. The resulting outcome is passed on to the
next phase, and so the process continues.
Starting with the creativity phase, the process works as follows. The task of the creativity
phase is to surface issues to be dealt with and to demonstrate the interacting nature of these
issues. A range of tools that promotes creative analysis may be employed here (and will be
discussed later). The outcome is passed on to the choice phase.
The task of the choice phase is to choose a method(s) that will best manage the interacting
issues surfaced by the creativity phase. The need is to tackle the most pressing issues whilst
managing as many issues as possible. The key is to remember that the issues are interacting
and that each method will cut across them in a different way, affecting many issues but
managing them differently. The outcome is passed on to the implementation phase.
The task of the implementation phase is to employ the chosen method(s) from the choice
phase to manage the issues surfaced by the creativity phase. The method is used to develop
and implement specific change proposals that tackle the given issues. The outcome is passed
on to the creativity phase.
The task of the creativity phase is to continue to 'surface' issues to be dealt with and to
demonstrate the interacting nature of these issues. By this time the issues will have changed
because the implementation phase has already implemented change proposals. The process
continues from here as described above, taking into account changes occurring as a
consequence of intervention.
The process creativity, choice and implementation, in the anticlockwise mode, works as
follows. The anticlockwise mode is a process of critical reflection that questions the outcome
of the previous phase. The implementation phase receives a method(s) reasoned to be most
suitable to managing the interacting issues surfaced by the creativity phase. Implementation's
critically reflective position asks, 'Is this method(s) most suitable to manage the interacting
issues?'. The choice phase receives details of a set of interacting issues to be managed.
Choice's critically reflective position asks, 'is this an adequate appreciation of the organiza-
tion?'. The creativity phase receives details of change proposals judged to be most adequate
to manage issues surfaced by creative thinking. Creativity's critically reflective position asks,
'Were/are the change proposals most suitable to best manage the issues surfaced?'. It
questions whether current practice needs to be altered.
Each phase, then, passes its outcome to the next phase in a clockwise direction and receives
critical reflections about that outcome from the next phase in an anticlockwise direction. Each
phase has a suitable range of tools that operationalizes the process (the tools are too extensive
to report in this reconstitution but are detailed in Reference 46).
The process of TSI can be thought of as a singularity; that is, it is one integrated whole.
The purpose of drawing out three phases is to explain the singularity and the process. Each
phase distinguishes and focuses on a type of activity that is carried out in the process of TSI.
It must be stressed however that no phase exists independently, as might be mistakenly
assumed from the above presentation. At any one time each phase comes in to play, as I will
indicate later in this article, although one of the phases may be in sharper focusthan the
other two. We will also find a recursive structure where each of the three phases operates
within all of the phases, although in varying guises. A description of each phase will now be
given.
THE THREE PHASES
Creativity
As already mentioned, each of the three phases of TSI can be found within all phases.
They coexist in a recursive structure. Figure 2 illustrates this point. Creativity, the first phase
Implementation Creative Decontextualizing, Contextualizing,

of change development of getting unstuck, five main metaphors,
proposals change proposals 'brainstorming' debate, voting
according to the
principles of the
chosen method
Implementation of hieo sse

choice of issues
Choice of Ji<
change proposals JETVY
< < > j I \ ~~~~~~~~~~CREATIVITY
IMPLEMENTATION
Mess
interacting
issues to
be managed
Implementation of Complementarist
choice of method framework
CHOICE
Creative alignment of
principles of methods to
issues to be managed
FIG. 2. Subphases of the three phases of TSI.
to be covered, is best understood as the subphases: creativity, choice and implementation.

However, each subphase takes on its own meaning within the creativity phase.
The aim of the creativity phase is to surface issues to be managed. The focus is on
decontextualizing, contextualizing and synthesizing the two. These are discussed below.
Decontextualizing satisfies the need to be divergent, to get unstuck, to see the situation
from many different angles. Seeing things from many angles 'surfaces' otherwise obscured
issues to be managed. Tools to help the creativity phase include all approaches that broadly
fall under the heading 'brainstorming'. Examples include brainstorming, Nominal Group
Technique, lateral thinking, the use of any metaphor, idealized design, and Phases 1 to 5 of
Soft Systems Methodology (see References 39-44 respectively for the main sources).
Reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of each tool must be undertaken.
Contextualizing works in conjunction with decontextualizing, and converges on issues to be
managed. Contextualizing attempts to make sense of the diversity of ideas and issues
generated, using concepts and principles reported in the literature on management and
organizations alongside consensus seeking debate and voting procedures. Contextualizing is
discussed further below.
Each of the tools for decontextualizing mentioned above has its own contextualizing or
convergent element that can be drawn upon. An additional guiding component not reported
in the literature as such is a development of the tool originally offered for the creativity phase
in TS145. The tool comprises five metaphors extracted from management and organization
theory. These metaphors are not arbitrarily chosen. Rather, they represent the five main
models of management and organizations that dominate the literature. They result from
decades of work by an army of researchers and are clearly invaluable to anyone wanting to
intervene in organizations. The five metaphors are concentrated stores of knowledge and
reasoning about designing, operating and managing organizations. Each metaphor deals with
these three activities differently. In TSI we look at the strengths and weaknesses of each
metaphor and the organizational contexts to which they are most relevant before using them
in intervention.
The metaphors are machine, organic, neuro-cybernetic, socio-cultural, and socio-political.
They respectively conceive organizations to be mechanistic, organic, organic but intelligent, as
if they were a culture, as if they were a political system. The first three focus on technical
activities of an organization whilst the last two focus on human activities.
This convergent element of the creativity phase and its five metaphors are detailed in the
main account of TSI2. Briefly, the past, present and future of an organization is considered
through each of the metaphors at three hierarchical levels. Attributes of each metaphor
provide the basic means for analysis. The main attributes are recorded in Table 1. Each
attribute is explored in the context of the organization appreciated through the issues surfaced
during decontextualization. Its relevance is noted. On the basis of these notes, models of the
organization are formed-past, present and future. The relevance of the models to each time
period is assessed and judgements are made intellectually about how the organization has
progressed and how it would be best designed, operated and managed in the future. These
issues are carried forward.
In summary, decontextualization provides the creative input necessary to surface a wide
range of issues to be managed. It does this by looking at the organization from many angles
and viewpoints. Contextualization then helps to make choices about which issues should be
managed. Implementation of the choice of issues follows the synthesis of decontextualization
and contextualization. Issues to be managed are passed on to the 'choice' phase.
Choice
The aim of the choice phase is to choose a method(s) that will best manage the interacting
issues surfaced by the creativity phase. The process of 'choice' has choice of method as its
focus, although aspects of creativity and implementation are also found.
Choice is made by employing a complementarist framework. The main structure of this
framework is built on a distinction between the main purposes of 'problem solving' methods.
Three main purposes have been identified38:
(i) designing effective and efficient processes and organizations, and how to implement
them;
(ii) debating human and technical issues arising in organizations and deciding what to do
about them;
(iii) disemprisoning people from dominating designs and dominating outcomes of debate.
These purposes reflect the philosophy of TSI and its systemic view of organizations. TSI helps
us to see organizations as an interactive mixture of technical and human activities. The
purpose of designing is to tackle technical issues that arise from this interaction, whilst the
purposes of debating and disemprisoning are to tackle human issues that arise.
The three purposes are in accordance with the principle of human freedom which, in turn,
provides support to the three other principles, reflection, participation and being systemic.
This addresses the need to guarantee, as far as possible, human freedom. This guarantee can
be shown to exist13 for each of the three main purposes of methods-designing, debating and
disemprisoning-as summarized below.
Technical activities centre on the need for prediction and control. These are catered for by
methods that design freedom into organizations and their processes in the form of efficient
and effective cybernetic processes. For human activities, methods have been established that
encourage conceptual freedom through open and meaningful debate. Also, focusing on
human activities are methods that strive for individual and group freedom by disemprisoning
people from dominating structures and decisions. TSI's principle of human freedom is
therefore taken into account by the three main purposes for methods established in the
complementarist framework.
Each purpose is mutually dependent. We need to have efficient cybernetic designs that
meaningfully involve people at all levels throughout the process, so that organizations can
operate effectively. The amount of efficiency realized from the cybernetic designs depends
-norms InteralcoPsiv-u
Closedytm-bif
Socialprtes
TABLE1.hemaintrbusofvpdcySI
RoutineprasSvl-cgdhDm
MachineOrgNuo-ybtSlp
RationlprchSef-guwsdyD
StandrizepsNobfAgcul:Cv
Activesprdmnao-lwfquyhP
ReptivoransOym-flguWhd?
GoalsndbjectivprmOgz-yP
EficenyFdbak-lrgtoPwsqu
upon there being an adequate understanding about how to operate the designs, roles to be
played by people according to the designs, how each role contributes and fits into the whole
design, appreciation of the benefits and meaningfulness of the whole, etc. This means
developing learning and understanding about these things, which requires open and free
debate. Now, when designs or the outcome of a debate are subject to dominating forces, a
means of overcoming the forces is essential. Disemprisoning-type methods help to achieve
genuine open debate for learning and understanding, which leads to more meaningful work
and realization of maximum efficiency from designs; designs checked against the principle of
human freedom, which all adds up to maximum freedom.
The main structure of the complementarist framework is given depth in its three areas by
the five main metaphors used for contextualization in the creativity phase. This is shown in
Table 2. The table presents the framework and shows how it contains the five main models of
management and organizations proposed by the metaphors (the words 'metaphor' and 'model'
can be and are used interchangeably in this article). The following three links are made.
(i) Three metaphors obviously relate to designs of processes and organizations-machine,
organic and neuro-cybernetic. In effect, they are three different designs for organizations
and how to run them.
(ii) The culture metaphor is linked to debating. The process of debate leads to learning, and
a common and shared understanding. Culture can be understood as common and shared
understanding. Culture change therefore can emerge during the process of debate (not as
an end output of debate).
(iii) The political metaphor is tied to disemprisoning. Disemprisoning aims to discover whose
interests are being served, the structure and processes by which they are being achieved,
and to prevent domination associated with these. Whose interests are being served is a
political issue.
TABLE 2. The main structure of the complementarist framework for

the choice phase, and the five metaphors from the creativity phase
Designing Debating Disemprisoning
Machine
Organic Socio-cultural Socio-political
Neuro-cybernetic
Table 2 is an extremely important step forward for choice of methods. Methods can be
directly linked to the management models. Methods developed in the 'problem solving'
literature strongly reflect one or more of the five models. This link is very natural. For
example, if a mechanistic understanding of organizations is held, then a method that
maintains the organization as if it were a machine will be formulated, achieving machine
efficiency and preventing breakdown. This was the assumed role of early operational research
techniques and systems engineering. In contrast, if an organic understanding of organizations
is assumed, then a method that treats the organization as if it were organic is bound to seem
most relevant. Such an approach will help to achieve efficient homeostasis and prevent or
overcome pathological conditions. Early systems methods set out to achieve such things.
Examples like these can be given for the other three models/metaphors. An important step
for practitioners can now be made.
A usable form of the complementarist framework is provided in Table 3. It utilizes the link
just established. Instead of showing the models/metaphors under the three types of metho
however, principles for intervention are shown that have been extracted from the models/
metaphors. In this case principles propose kinds of action that should be taken when a
particular method is chosen. They are grouped and listed in Table 3. The grouping is
established by and establishes three types of principle.
Hierachy
UniqueprclsRo
Emergnc
Varietyflng
OrganiztospmeGufcl
Typeofmthd
TABLE3.Princplesfotvkdhym
Efectivnsla)
Designbatmpro
causeofrthgniz
thepowrsuc
EmphasionrcetlAugIdfy
EnvirometalysCudbIfgcxp
DistnguhprcleEmaodvfyI
StruceispmAdvalbInfygo
EficenyUdrstagob(.x, ComnpriclesuatPIdfygwhv
EmphasionlctdefIygwbrz
Identifygxprsaho ContrlLeaigkzpwsuc
(i) Common principles. Principles common to one of the three purposes, designing, debating
or disemprisoning.
(ii) Distinguishing principles. Principles common to several methods or techniques aligned to
a particular purpose that distinguish sub-types of method.
(iii) Unique principles. Principles unique to one method in one area.
The principles are extracted from methods I am most familiar with; system dynamics, viable
system diagnosis, strategic assumption surfacing and testing, interactive planning, soft systems
methodology, and critical systems heuristics (refer to Reference 2 as a first source). The table
should be expanded to incorporate the principles of any other method with which the reader
is most conversant or interested.
Choosing a relevant method(s) to tackle the issues brought forward from the creativity
phase is relatively straightforward. There are two steps.
(i) Choose the type of method.
(ii) Choose the actual method(s).
These steps are explored below.
Choosing the type of method is achieved by determining which of the following three
questions is most pertinent given the issues brought forward from the creativity phase.
(i) How should we do it (a question of design)? This assumes there is a consensus view
among participants about what should be done. Designs proposing 'how we should do it'
are most likely to be effective if there is 'a consensus view among participants about what
should be done'.
(ii) What should we do (a question for debate)? This acknowledges that there are differences
in perceptions and opinions about what should be done. Debating 'what we should do' is
necessary when people exhibit 'differences in perceptions and opinions about what should
be done', although these must be 'debated in a non-coercive environment'.
(iii) Who will benefit if this is done, or, why should it be done (a question of disemprisoning)?
This recognizes that there is disagreement where one party can and will bring its
resources to bear to get their own way. 'Disagreement where one party brings its
resources to bear to get their own way' begs the challenge, 'Who will benefit if this is
done?', which may identify the need for disemprisoning.
Confirmation can be made by checking the issues to be tackled against the common
principles under the type of method being considered for use. The common principles must,
of course, recommend action that will tackle the issues surfaced in the creativity phase.
Distinguishing and unique principles are used in the second step to guide choice of actual
method(s). The distinguishing and unique principles most likely to lead to action which will
most effectively tackle the issues at hand are drawn together. A method(s) whose principles
best reflect the issues to be managed is then chosen. This is the output of the choice phase.
(To expedite the choice of actual method(s) the principles for each method used to construct
Table 3 are shown separately in Table 4.)
Finally, attention should be paid to the main model of organizations inherent in the chosen
method(s). Each model has been shown to hold both strengths and weaknesses for
management and organizations2. These are recorded in Table 5. A final consideration of the
method chosen to manage the issues brought forward from the creativity phase should be
undertaken by reflecting upon the strengths and weaknesses of the method(s) as they square
up against the issues to be managed.
In summary, choice of type of method is made by determining the main purpose for
intervention-designing, debating or disemprisoning. Choice of actual method(s) is then made
by identifying the principles for intervention, listed under the type of method chosen, most
likely to tackle the issues carried forward from the creativity phase. These are then aligned to
principles of methods. A most suitable method(s) is chosen. This in itself is a creative process.
Choice is then implemented. The method(s) chosen is taken forward to the implementation
phase.
resach
Variety
UniqueprclsRo
Comnpricles-aTb3
TABLE4.Princplesfoxbmvgthd
TABLE5.StrenghsadwkofivmpucyI
complexrd
Whenpolwiftradsbucyvm
politca
MachineOrgNuo-ybtSlp
contribusedRqalCkmvpz
Foreptivducnflashwg-mSb
anlyse-cotr operatinldymcsgufh
Organiztopme-xs
WeaknsRducptbilvyNgorzFfMxE Recognizsplar StrenghsWakifowdpPml-quy,Hcv
OptimzaonSruceEvlAdsbC-
Requirsmndlogaztcyhwpf -legitmaon
Whentviromsbalcgp
expnsofthrac
singleproductvmWhaPwf
TraditonlSysemVbgcupIvfC Designbatmpro
InastbleviromTpchgzP
coerinpltavmhdfs
NeglctsonfiadrzhHmypbMv machineodstf?EurgvyOwGl
DistnguhprclePodAavfyI
R L. Flood-Total Systems Intervention (TSI): a Reconstitution 187
Implementation
The aim of implementation is to employ the chosen method(s) from the choice phase to
manage the issues surfaced by the creativity phase. The chosen method(s) is used to develop
and implement specific change proposals that tackle the given issues. The process of
implementation has the use of methods as its focus, although aspects of creativity and choice
are also found, as shown in Figure 2. The process of intervention is carried out according to
the principles of the chosen method(s). The task of recounting these here is too massive since
we recommend the use of many well-formulated methods. The philosophy, principles,
methods, models, and strengths and weaknesses of the methods mentioned in this paper are
dealt with extensively in Chapters 4 to 9 in Reference 2, although this does show a bias
toward the systems methods with which we are most familiar. Change proposals are taken
forward to the creativity phase.
Summary
In this section the process of TSI and subprocesses of its three phases have been set out. A
summary of this can be put together by overlaying Figure 1 on Figure 2.
IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO TSI IN THE RECONSTITUTION
So far in this paper the reconstituted TSI has been detailed. The reader may now wish to
know what improvements have been made to TSI in this reconstitution over the original
work2. To achieve this I must first summarize reactions to the original published work'4-23 and
criticisms that have been made by practitioners with whom I have worked. The focus will be
on the utility of TSI, as is the theme of the paper as a whole. Given that the reader is now
quite familiar with the three-phase structure of the process of TSI, it will be used to organize
the reactions and the criticisms, and how they have been dealt with. General comments are
also dealt with.
Creativity
The creativity phase originally amounted to the use of the five metaphors. This has been
criticized as follows:
* having only five metaphors is constraining and limiting;
* not enough explanation has been given as to why the five metaphors have been chosen;
* no method has been given to help people to use the metaphors.
These are addressed systematically below.

Having only five metaphors is constraining and limiting. This point has been responded to
by introducing further methods for creative thinking. First of all, the process has been divided
into decontextualizing and contextualizing. Decontextualizing includes brainstorming, Nominal
Group Technique, lateral thinking, the use of any metaphors, idealized planning and parts of
Soft Systems Methodology (References 39-44 respectively). The five metaphors are now used
for contextualizing, and bringing the results of decontextualizing into an organizational
context.
Not enough explanation has been given as to why the five metaphors have been chosen. An
explanation is given in the above text and is now repeated. The five metaphors are not
arbitrarily chosen. Rather, they represent the five main models of management and
organizations that dominate the literature. They result from decades of work by an army of
researchers and are clearly invaluable to anyone wanting to intervene in organizations. The
five metaphors are concentrated stores of knowledge and reasoning about designing, operat-
ing and managing organizations. Each metaphor deals with these three activities differently.
188 journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 46, No. 2
No method has been given to help people to use the metaphors. A method has been
developed but its description is not within the scope of this paper. It is detailed in a new
publication in preparation46.
Choice
The choice phase originally employed the System of Systems Methodologies3 (SOSM). This
has been criticized as follows:
* the framework is not suitable for practical work;
* methods are difficult to categorize;
* systems methods included in the SOSM are too limited.
These are addressed systematically below.

The framework is not suitable for practical work. The SOSM arguably has value as a
research tool3>-34. However, the SOSM is very difficult for practitioners to relate to and to
translate into practice. I have persistently found that practitioners find it theoretical and
abstract, with concepts and terms that are obscure to them. Consequently, it has been
necessary to rework completely the means of presentation of the SOSM for use with
practitioners, whilst holding firm to the central principles. Redevelopment has led to what is
simply termed a 'complementarist framework'38, which means a framework that demonstrates
complementarity between 'problem solving' methods.
Methods are difficult to categorize. The means of categorization has been simplified in the
complementarist framework; however, we recognize the need to ease things further. The main
effort here is to develop methods from the complementarist framework. New methods will
therefore emerge from the categorization compared with the current way of best fit squeezing
of extant methods into the categorization. This point is developed further in the conclusion
below.
Systems methods included in the SOSM are too limited in their scope. Unfortunately we have
created an impression that our intention is only to use systems methods and not those from
Operational Research and the Management Sciences. Ann Taket's particularly useful review
has demonstrated that this false impression is of our own making16. I hope that this
reconstitution makes absolutely clear that our intention is that all well-formulated methods
may be included in TSI driven intervention.
Implementation
The main criticism here is that the range of methods that we employ is far more limited
than we realize. This point has been addressed immediately above.
General comments
A number of points of a more general nature have been made.

* Is TSI consultant or client centred?
* Who decides on the outcome?
* How sensitive is the outcome to key players in the process?
Frankly, these points still require further work, as suggested in the conclusion. (The work is
an integral part of a new project, see Reference 46.)
Summary of improvements
The main improvements to TSI that are reported in this reconstitution can be summarized
as follows.
* The creativity phase has been enriched.
* The choice phase has been reworked to make it usable by practitioners.
* It has been made clear that our intention is for all well-formulated methods to be included
in the TSI scheme of things.
In addition to these direct responses to reactions and criticisms, it is also reasonable to claim
the following.
* The whole process has been clarified by explaining TSI in terms of its clockwise and
anticlockwise modes.
* Each phase is better understood through the recursive nature of the three phases.
* The whole process is now far more accessible as a tool for use by practitioners.
CONCLUSIONS
TSI has been developed to provide practitioners with a usable approach that sticks to the
original intent of systems thinking, to be holistic. It integrates all approaches to 'problem
solving', be they from Operational Research, Management or the Systems Sciences, in a
process that ensures they are employed only to tackle the issues to which they are best suited.
TS! achieves this by embedding 'problem solving' approaches in an interactive three-phase
process. The phases are creativity, choice and implementation. Each of these three phases has
three subphases that follow in a recursive structure.
The process of TSI remains true to four principles. These principles are, being systemic,
achieving meaningful participation, being reflective, and achieving human freedom. The
principles stand together. They have a need for each other. A valid use of TSI would be able
to demonstrate that each of these principles has been met as far as is reasonably possible.
The process of TSI has matured over about 5 years of practice and reflection upon its
original theoretical foundations. TSI has been used by many practitioners. Its use has
occurred in three ways; in intervention, training and education. (Another paper is being
prepared that will document some of these uses.) The overall process operates well in
practice. I can see no reason at this time to want to change the process as it is expressed by
its three phases, although critical reflection may change this. The task of each phase and the
expected outcome have become well established through application. There are a number of
points that I wish to make, however, about the tools of each phase of TSI.
There is enormous opportunity to develop further the tools of the creativity phase of TSI.
Additions/replacements for decontextualizing and contextualizing need to be explored. The
joint operation of decontextualizing and contextualizing could usefully be reassessed. It would
be wise to apply the fundamental idea of creative thinking to the creativity phase itself.
The choice phase has presented the most demanding challenge of the three. The idea and
principles of choice of method are clear enough. Difficulties seem to arise when translating
these into a format suitable for practitioners. The latest development has been collecting
principles of methods under purposes of methods (designing, debating and disemprisoning).
These have been grouped into three lots, common, distinguishing and unique. This lead
requires further work.
The implementation phase has the most extensive work to be done, if not the most
demanding. A number of extant 'problem solving' methods have been embedded in the
process of TSI. The main difficulty this presents is satisfactorily including them in theprocess.
After all, the methods were designed outside of the philosophy, principles and process of TSI.
In terms of TSI, each one can be shown to push one of the three main purposes identified for
methods (i.e. designing, debating or disemprisoning). None of them, however, are found to
have all their principles relating to only one of the three purposes. In TSI terms they are
hybrids. This is unsatisfactory for TSI. The work to be done, therefore, is to develop methods
for the process of TSI from the principles in the complementarist framework. Each method
must focus on one purpose only and, together, the set of methods developed must adequately
cover all three purposes. The success of this depends on work to be done on the choice
phase.
This leads to another point. Developing the tools of TSI must be done taking into account
other tools used in the TSI process. The aim must be to develop a set of tools that are
complementary. Some progress in this direction has already been made. For example, see
how the five metaphors provide a thread through all three phases.
Finally, it is important that we clarify the role and impact of people in the TSI process. The
following three questions have yet to be adequately addressed. Is TSI consultant or client
centred? Who decides on the outcome? How sensitive is the outcome to key players in the
process?
Much has been achieved using TSI in practice. Much more can be achieved if adequate
efforts are invested in the further work to be done. I hope that I and the rest of the team at
the Centre for Systems Studies at the University of Hull, succeed in persuading disciples of
established 'problem solving' methods to contribute to the wider programme that we are
advocating.
REFERENCES
1. R. L. FLOOD (1994) I keep six honest serving men: they taught me all I knew. Syst. Dynamics Rev. 10, 231-244.
2. R. L. FLOOD and M. C. JACKSON (1991) Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention. Wiley, Chichester.
3. M. C. JACKSON and P. KEYS (1984) Towards a system of systems methodologies. J. Opl Res. Soc. 35, 437-486.
4. M. C. JACKSON (1990) Beyond a system of systems methodologies. J. Opl Res. Soc. 41, 657-668.
5. W. ULRICH (1983) Critical Heuristics of Social Planning, a New Approach to Practical Philosophy. Haupt, Bern.
6. W. ULRICH (1988) Systems thinking, systems practice and practical philosophy: a program of research. Syst.
Practice 1, 137-163.
7. R. L. FLOOD and W. ULRICH (1990) Testament to conversations on critical systems thinking between two systems
practitioners. Syst. Practice 3, 7-29.
8. J. C. OLIGA (1988) Methodological foundations of systems methodologies. Syst. Practice 1, 87-112.
9. R. L. FLOOD (1990) Liberating Systems Theory. Plenum, New York.
10. G. MIDGLEY (1992) The sacred and profane in Critical Systems Thinking. Syst. Practice 5, 5-16.
11. R. L. FLOOD and M. C. JACKSON (1991) Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings. Wiley, Chichester.
12. M. C. JACKSON (1992) Systems Methodology for the Management Sciences. Plenum, New York.
13. R. L. FLOOD (1993) Practicing freedom: designing, debating and disemprisoning. Omega 21, 7-16.
14. A. OSTANELLO (1991) Review of 'Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention' by R. L. Flood and
M. C. Jackson. Ricerca Operativa Anno xxi No. 58 (in Italian).
15. (1991) Review of 'Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention' by R. L. Flood and M. C. Jackson.
Hellenic OR Soc. Info. Bulletin 4 (in Greek).
16. A. TAKET (1992) Review of 'Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention' by R. L. Flood and
M. C. Jackson. J. Opl Res. Soc. 43, 1013-1016.
17. M. ELSTOB (1992) Review of 'Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention' by R. L. Flood and
M. C. Jackson. Kybernetes 21, 62-63.
18. A. GHOSAL (1992) Review of 'Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention' by R. L. Flood and
M. C. Jackson, SCIMA 21, 39-40.
Technologie and Management November (in German).
Siemen's Review (Germany).
SECC Newsletter 2, 7-8.
22. S. GREEN (1993) Total Systems Intervention: a practitioner's critique. Syst. Practice 6, 71-80.
23. S. GREEN (1993) Total Systems Intervention: a trial by jury. Syst. Practice 6, 295-300.
24. S. L. PAYNE (1992) Critical systems thinking: a challenge or dilemma in its practice? Syst. Practice 5, 237-250.
25. R. FUENMAYOR (1990) The boundries between critical systems thinking and interpretive systems thinking: critical
comment on Flood and Ulrich's 'Testament to conversations on critical systems thinking'. Syst. Practice 3,
585-592.
26. H. TsoUKAS (1992) Panoptic reason and the search for totality: a critical assessment of the critical systems
perspective. Human Relations 45, 637-657.
27. H. TsOUKAS (1993) The road to emancipation is through organizational development: a critical evaluation of
Total Systems Intervention. Syst. Practice 6, 53-70.
28. M. C. JACKSON (1993) Don't bite my finger: Haridimos Tsoukas' critical evaluation of Total Systems Intervention.
Syst. Practice 6, 289-294.
29. G. MIDGLEY (1993) A reply to Hardimos Tsoukas, the radical critic of radical critique. Syst. Practice 6, 301-310.
30. H. TsOUKAS (1993) 'By their fruits ye shall know them': A reply to Jackson, Green and Midgley. Syst. Practice 6,
311-318.
31. J. MINGERS (1992) Recent developments in critical management science. J. Opl Res. Soc. 43, 1-10.
32. M. C. JACKSON (1993) The system of systems methodologies: A guide to researchers. J. Opl Res. Soc. 44,
208-209.
33. D. SCHECTER (1993) In defence of the system of systems methodologies. J. Opl Res. Soc. 44, 205-206.
34. J. MINGERS (1993) System of systems methodologies-a reply to Schecter. J. Opl Res. Soc. 44, 206-208.
35. D. C. LANE (1993) With a little help from my friends. CUBS Working Paper, City University, ITM/93/DCL2.
36. R. L. FLOOD (1991) Redefining the management and systems sciences. In Critical Systems Thinking: Directed
Readings 1991. (R. L FLOOD and M. C. JACKSON, Eds) pp. 303-319. Wiley, Chichester.
37. R. L. FLOOD, M. C. JACKSON and D. SCHECTER (1992) Total Systems Intervention: a research program.
Syst. Practice 5, 79-84.
38. R. L. FLOOD (1993) Beyond TQM. Wiley, Chichester.
39. A. F. OSBORN (1963) Applied Imagination. Scribner, New York.
40. M. E. SHAW (1976) Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behaviour. McGraw-Hill, New York.
41. E. DE BONO (1980) Lateral Thinking. Penguin, London.
42. G. LAKOFF and M. JOHNSON (1980) Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
43. R. L. ACKOFF (1981) Creating the Corporate Future. Wiley, New York.
44. P. B. CHECKLAND (1981) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Wiley, Chichester.
45. G. MORGAN (1986) Images of Organisations. Sage, London.
46. R. L. FLOOD (1995) Solving Problem Solving. Wiley, Chichester.
47. M. ALVESSON and H. WILLMOTr (1992) Critical Management Studies. Sage, London.
Received October 1993; accepted May 1994 after two revisions
View publication stats

Total Systems Intervention (TSI) : A Reconstitution: Journal of The Operational Research Society February 1995

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Total Systems Intervention (TSI) : A Reconstitution: Journal of The Operational Research Society February 1995

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Total Systems Intervention (TSI): A Reconstitution

Article in Journal of the Operational Research Society · February 1995

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Total Systems Intervention (TSI):

WHAT USE HAS BEEN MADE OF TSI?

TSI AS IT STANDS TODAY

(i) An organization comprises technical and human activities. Interactions in organizations

(i) To reflect upon the relationship between different organizational interests-demonstrating

Method most Is this method(san Mess ae t

\*to manage is ues/

i~ ~ ~~~th es nteracting Inssuesn

Chice) Is this an adequate//

THE THREE PHASES

Implementation Creative Decontextualizing, Contextualizing,

Implementation of hieo sse

FIG. 2. Subphases of the three phases of TSI.

to be covered, is best understood as the subphases: creativity, choice and implementation.

TABLE 2. The main structure of the complementarist framework for

Designing Debating Disemprisoning

WeaknsRducptbilvyNgorzFfMxE Recognizsplar StrenghsWakifowdpPml-quy,Hcv

IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO TSI IN THE RECONSTITUTION

These are addressed systematically below.

These are addressed systematically below.

A number of points of a more general nature have been made.

Received October 1993; accepted May 1994 after two revisions

You might also like