Viable System Model its Provenance Development Methodology - Essay Example

C-Nomis Project: Problem Solving using TSI/ VSM. [3521] Table of Contents I. This is an essay about the application of Total Systems Intervention into creative problem solving. The project being assessed is the Integrated National Management Information System (NOMS) project C-NOMIS which is was assessed by the National Audit Office (NAO) as having failed its initial plans on budget schedule and scope. The paper begins with a brief introduction of TSI and the project. It then goes through the TSI process of identifying the problems, developing a solution and implementing change. In identifying the problem, the metaphor method was discussed. Based on the metaphor chosen, methodology of Viable Systems Method (VSM) was used to redesign the critical parts of the project execution. The paper ends with the action steps necessary to implement the redesign. A summary and list of references are included at the end. II. Introduction to the Problem Solving Process Total Systems Intervention (TSI) is an approach to problem solving for any organization that stands firm with the original holistic intent of systems thinking (Flood 1994). It provides principles, processes and tools to look at problems and organizations from a macro point of view that needs to be considered as the problem is scrutinized and analyzed into its micro components. The micro components must be approached not as a stand-alone entity itself, but as part of a complex system of the whole. This in consideration allows for a more comprehensive analysis and resolution process of the problem. The whole system view, according to Flood (1995, p.176) is based on five stages of construction as follows: a. An organization comprises technical and human activities, the interactions of which comprise the dynamics of the problem; b. Technical procedures, socio-cultural and socio-political rules and practices must be used to efficiently and effectively control the activities of the organization while maintaining viability; c. Activities of an organization based on a mission, allows direction to achieve purpose; d. There is a variety of appreciation by members of the organizations (a) to (c) and they will interpret such based on the mission and activities conducted; e. The mission and various interpretations must come together at some point, through organizational design and management style, balancing the needs of both the organization and the member ensuring the bottomline business needs is reflected. The TSI process has three phases: creativity, choice and implementation (Flood 1995, p.178). In creativity phase, issues are identified and brought about through the use of decontextualization, or breaking down the issue into micro components, and making sense of such components by contextualizing them into the interacting issues that needs to be managed. This feeds into the choice phase where the use of methods will be implemented to find the most suitable to manage the issues. The methods will have its own strength and weakness, and so depending on how the issues are viewed, the resolution will be influenced by such strengths and weaknesses. The resolution, happening in the last phase of implementation will capture changes needed to be made on the organization, specifically and holistically in order to address the issues identified in the creativity phase. Assuming the change is implemented and issues addressed, the whole cycle begins again with new issues that will surface. TSI has been used and implemented in various problems areas dealing with intervention, training and education (Flood 1995, p.175). In this paper, the system is applied to education, as this is the output as well as a quasi use of intervention, where actual project implementation will be analysed for improvement. III. Project Overview The National Offender Management Information System (NOMIS) project C-NOMIS was launched in June 2004 to implement, by January 2008, a single offender management IT system across prison and probation services (Burr 2009). The approved lifetime cost of the project was £234 million from June 2005 to 2020 (Burr 2009). In two years after budget approval, the project has spent 66% of its budget, two years behind schedule and estimated to increase its lifetime cost to 190% of its original estimate. The Minister of State intervened with a moratorium to control project execution and re-evaluate it and bring it back to fore. A year after the moratorium, the project was re-launched to begin implementation in April 2009 and final completion by 2011 with an overall cost of £513 million including sunk costs (Burr 2009, p.13). The original scope of the project was an end-to-end single system solution to integrate offender status and management all over the country. Such an integrated system’s purpose was to improve information sharing about offenders; address the lack of continuity and follow up of interventions with offenders as they move within the prison system and between prison and the community; and to provide a clearer alignment of prison and probation work with offenders (Burr 2009). Post the moratorium and upon re-launch, the scope was modified into having five different projects not entirely on a single system, but integrated still through various interfaces with the five packages. It was not as integrated as originally planned, but can be executed at the revised budget and time-frame as approved for re-launch. IV. Problem Identification, Creativity Phase By the simple fact that the project experienced a delay in schedule execution, increase in actual and projected spending and more importantly, a deviation from the original scope intended for the project, such manifestations indicate a problem. In this section we use the creativity phase of TSI in order to identify the issue and hopefully develop it towards a recommended solution. In order to bring out the NAO provided a list of issues that caused delays and increased cost for the project. Using this as basis, the concepts of TSI can be applied to find and recommend solutions to the problem. In applying the neuro-cybernetic or brain metaphor as the dominant metaphor, we take the view that the C-NOMIS project is a viable system. The end-to-end, fully integrated solution is one that is real and possible to happen, and indeed will serve its full functionality. With such a paradigm, the macro view of full integration must be considered vertically when defining the system parts. The system comprise of three parts, the prison service, probation service and the offender management service. All three parts have independent legacy systems pre-C-NOMIS and is intended to replace all such and integrate the three. To take the metaphor view would be to constantly check the plans in place for the execution of the parts in order to contribute to the viability of the whole. In a horizontal point-of-view, the viability of the system will also depend on the agreement of the three parts with each other, thus full integration. The intent is to allow for continuity in the offender management system without duplication of effort or worse, negligence on the assumption of another Prison service already managing the situation. In any case, for the three parts to work as effective part of the whole and as harmonious partner to the other parts of the whole, information exchange is key. In a brain metaphor, information prime is the strength of the metaphor. In order to function as a brain, the correct information must be provided in order to make viable decisions. Unfortunately for the C-NOMIS project, information management was poor. NAO sites that the complexity of the project was underestimated (Burr 1994, p.16). Instead of fully understanding the current system and what it entails to migrate to the fully integrated solution, what was decided was to continue an already advanced phase of implementation of prison service migration system. If the brain metaphor was applied, a full review of the three parts, the prison service, probation service and offender management, would have been comprehensively conducted. The desired outcome would show that where the parts converge, were very little and so migration to one common system would mean a highly complex and expensive migration. This affects both the viability of the system and the integration of the parts (horizontal) to each other and to the super system (vertical), the C-NOMIS project. Complexity can further be analyzed applying the Law of Requisite Variety which Ashby (n.d.) introduces a regulator of a system to regulate the outcomes of a disturbance transformed into the coenetic variable and limiting the outcome, thus reducing complexity and improving viability (cited in Beer 1984, p. 10). In this case, the disturbances that each of the three parts of the project would have undergone were direct transformations into the integrated system, which can be considered here as the coenetic variable. While all converge into one variable, the process of transformation of each of the systems are very complex requiring complete transformations of the existing systems from each of the three parts and transforming them into the integrated system. From the point-of-view of the parts, their definition of the integrated system varies, i.e., the transformation of the prison system to the fully integrated system is entirely a different transformation to the probationary system migration into the fully integrated system. Just putting both together already is a whole complex system, adjunct to it the complexity of transforming the offender management system into a single unified system, where the transformation process is entirely different from the prison and probation transformations. The next sections will discuss how this problem can be addressed. Another dimension to look at is the organization. NAO identifies governance and resource issues hounded the project to failure (Burr 2009, p. 20). Various issues were identified, from conception of the agency responsible to the project, to instability in organization structure, and the shortage of skilled resources from its board, project management, financial management team and change control team. In addition, organizational factors outside of the project team like work process changes (other than IT systems changes) as well as supplier integrity management also presented opportunities for improvement. In this aspect, we take a dependent metaphor, the organic metaphor to analyse the problem. An organic metaphor takes an open system view of a complex but homeostatic environment that adapts to its external environment (Ragsdell, West and Wilby 2002, p.232). In this case, the NOMS project team will be the open system that needs to self-regulate and be sensitive to assessment to ensure that it properly adapts into the external: the project execution, its customer (supplier) organizations and consumer (UK prison system) organizations. Opportunities based on the report will show lack of open and transparent communication especially of issue identification and surfacing (Burr 2009, p. 21). This process is important in taking feedback for the improvement of an open system. It seems that the project team has opportunities in adapting and more specifically coping with the external environment, thus the failure of the organization to function effectively. In summary, the issues identified in the creativity phase are system viability, uncontrolled complexity and inorganic organization dynamics. V. Choice Phase: Use of VSM The outcome of the creativity phase feeds into the choice phase, where methods will be chosen to best manage the issues surfaced. The choice phase has three main purposes according to Flood: a. Designing effective and efficient processes and organizations, and how to implement them; b. Debating human and technical issues arising in organizations and deciding what to do about them; c. Disemprisoning people from dominating designs and dominating outcomes of the debate (1995, p. 181). Flood further recommends that the three purpose above complements the five metaphors used in the creativity phase (1995, p. 183). Those metaphors that relate to design, such as the example used here, the dominant metaphor of neuro-cybernetics and the dependent organic metaphor will correspond to the first purpose, which is modification in design. Understanding that design modification is required in rectifying the issues identified for the C-NOMIS project, we can use Beer’s Viable System Method to address the issues. Applying Ashby’s homeostatic model, VSM applies the control of complexity by using five necessary and sufficient subsystems that are involved in the organization, capable of maintaining its identity independently of other such organisms within a shared environment (Beer 1984, p.14). The method identifies systems one to five of the organization and identifies changes to each system in order to maintain homeostatis with the rest of the external environment and the entire system. System one in this case is the project itself, it is the over-all system that needs to be viable and must be complemented by the other four systems for it to work. The three parts of the system one, the prison service, probationary service and offender management system can be considered part of system two. They are actually three separate system twos that have independent functions, but are connected to each other and to system one in a firm relationship to ensure viability. In this connection, already we can recommend for the three systems to operate independently from each other, yet harmoniously at the same time in order to preserve the viability of each independent system while ensuring viability of the whole project. Taking this view, we can suggest to check the integrity of each system independently, i.e., identify how the prison service can continue to effectively function to serve the objective of the prison service, and then connect it to both the probation service and offender management as part of system one. By taking this view, it would necessitate not to drastically modify the prison system by fully replacing the entire system, but make use of the existing database and modify it to find a common language that can interface with the other system twos and eventually with system one. Applying the same theory with the probationary system, where the changes and upgrades to the prison system will drastically change the current, effective stand-alone system, taking this view can also maintain the current infrastructure and just find a way to communicate with a shared data system with that of the prison service in order to integrate the two. This is the revised plan as assessed and recommended by NAO (Burr 2009, p. 15). System three is a regulatory system, again to support system one, as it functions together with the other four. In the case of this project, the financial management system should provide regulatory function to systems one and two. Again, looking at the financial management system as a separate entity from the others, it should mandate independent functionality serving the regulatory and financial function. Unlike the current situation where some aspects of the project estimate were missed, such as contingency and VAT, as well as underestimating the biggest chunk of the spending which is the software (Burr 2009, p. 17), system three could have internally remained open and focused on the basic functions it should have performed, e.g., zero-based budgeting to capture all items no matter how conservative it can be, rather than miss the unknown and be unprepared for it, which ensures over spending as what actually happened after the original launch. As an independent system functioning a regulatory role, the developments in system two and eventually rolling up to system one would have been monitored to ensure compliance to the estimate. Erroneous as it is to begin with, an earlier anticipation of the over-spending due to wrong assumptions would have been made prior to actually overspending the budget. Such dynamics could be an input for system four and vice versa. System four deals with self-reference, simulation and planning (Beer 1984 p. 15). Here we can consider the project organization as a separate system that deals with taking a bird’s eye view of the project and looking at the four independent yet intermingling systems to be separate mechanisms to control. As an issue identified in the creativity phase, organization effectiveness can be improved as system four. Clarifying roles and responsibilities, defining a matrix of approval and decision-making are some of the dynamics that need to happen and be established, if looking at the project organization as a separate system. A specific dynamic between system three and system four must happen, i.e., there is a cyclical exchange of inputs and outputs between the two systems that improve the situation. When the financial management system identifies a problem, it feeds the organization the problem and allows for it to come up with a solution, which in turn can be implemented by the financial system to systems two and one. The implementation will then be assessed by system three and feed into system four again for assessment and further improvement. This dynamic, it seems have not been consciously happening upon launch of the project, thus the lack of control in scope cost and schedule. Without the systems thinking, the project proceeds without self-regulation and monitoring, thus the lack of control. This assurance of monitoring then is the function of system five. System five for the C-NOMIS project is the project board or the agency responsible for the project. They are of a higher entity than the project team and are the tie to the compelling business reason for the existence of the project. In this case, the previous set-up was to have NOMS Project Board rely on the C-NOMIS project board to escalate issues. In the revised set-up, the Ministry of Justice has been tasked oversight into the project, which ties its success to the success of the agency (Burr 2009, p.5). This is a good solution, ensuring the correct level of management and capability to monitor and address deviations to the plan from a business compliance model. Effective monitoring by a separate, higher entity, not directly involved with the project but functioning as an independent system to the other four will allow for effective self-regulation and monitoring of itself and the other four systems. VI. Implementation Phase Having used VSM to redesign the neuro-cybernetic and organic model assessed, the implementation phase is next in line. The following action steps need to be implemented: a. Establish the three parts (prison service, probation service and offender management) as independent systems and assess the current and future state with minimal impact to the effectiveness of the independent system. Doing so will minimize the impact of changes that will be implemented while ensuring the continued effectiveness of each system. As such, the current plan to completely replace the existing infrastructure of each with a single infrastructure for all is not applicable and viable. The solution is to find a common language among the three and modify each of the existing infrastructure to share this common language and allow each system to interface; b. Design a successful homeostatic relationship among the three independent systems in consideration of the homeostatic relationship with the over-all system. By modifying the independent systems using a common language, such ties them together to support the viability of system one. In addition, the modifications will have less impact to each independent system than completely replacing the existing with new ones, which may experience major start-up issues. Such less complexity will reflect into the viability of the whole; c. Define and document the roles and responsibilities of the organization, consider the decision-making capabilities of all members and accountability of each. Authority must be openly discussed and agreed, and therefore recognized in the team. The Project Manager should act as integrator to ensure all players in the team contribute to the viability. Accountability and acknowledgement of it by each party is important to ensure that each fulfil their responsibility with their respective areas. Operations and start-up must be involved as early as possible to ensure a smooth transition from project phase to operational phase. It also ensures that the ultimate consumer’s needs are indeed given the right focus as the project progresses; d. Implement a regulatory function for the financial and change control entities involved in the project. Provide for open and transparent environment for the entities to properly function and freely self-regulate its system as well as the rest of the four systems involved in the project; and e. Assign the right-level Project Board with monitoring as its primary function. VII. Summary This paper used the Total Systems Intervention as a method in addressing the project failure of the C-NOMIS project. It went through the creativity phase in identifying the issues that caused failure of the project, used such input to develop the solution in the choice phase and come up with a list of changes to be executed in the implementation phase. The use of the neuro-cybernetic metaphor as the dominant metaphor allowed for the proper assessment the compelling issues surrounding the project. Adjunct to that is the organic metaphor which complements the governance and resource issues identified by NAO (Burr 2009, p.20). As a general strategy in developing the solution in the choice phase, the Viable System Method was used to address the viability of the system necessitating a redesign as identified in the two metaphors used. The project itself being the system one, where all the other components, the three parts of the project (prison service, probationary service and offender management), the financial and control management, the higher and more encompassing Project Board under the Ministry of Justice, should independently function, yet maintain viability and homeostasis with system one. With such redesign, changes executed should address the issues. VIII. References Beer S. 1984. The Viable System Model: its provenance, development, methodology and pathology. The Journal of the Operational Research Society [Online] , Vol. 35, No. 1 (Jan., 1984), pp. 7-25. Accessed on [10 May 2010] at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2581927. Burr T. 2009, March 10. National offender management information system. Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (HC 292 of 2008-2009). London: NAO. Flood R. L. 1995. Total Systems Intervention (TSI): a reconstitution. The Journal of the Operational Research Society [Online], Vol. 46, No. 2 (Feb., 1995), pp. 174-191. Accessed on [7 May 2010] at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2583987. Ragsdell G., West D., & Wilby J. [Eds.] 2002. Systems theory and practice in the knowledge age. New York (NY): Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers. Read More