Wikia

Psychology Wiki

Twelve leverage points

Talk0
34,140pages on
this wiki
Revision as of 21:11, February 28, 2006 by Lifeartist (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative | Cognitive | Developmental | Language | Individual differences | Personality | Philosophy | Social |
Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology |

Industrial & Organisational : Introduction : Personnel : Organizational psychology : Occupations: Work environment: Index : Outline


The twelve leverage points to intervene in a system were proposed by Donella Meadows, a scientist concerned with the environment. The leverage points, first published in 1997, were inspired by her attendance at a NAFTA meeting in the early 1990s where she realized that a very large new system was being proposed but the handles to control it were very small.

Meadows, who worked in the field of systems analysis, proposed a scale of places to intervene in a system. Awareness and manipulation of these levers is an aspect of self-organization and can lead to collective intelligence.

Her observations are often cited in energy economics, green economics and human development theory.

She started with the observation that there are levers, or places within a complex system (such as a firm, a city, an economy, a living being, an ecosystem, an ecoregion) where a "small shift in one thing can produce big changes in everything" (compare: constraint in the sense of theory of constraints).

She claimed we need to know about these shifts, where they are and how to use them. She said most people know where these points are instinctively, but tend to adjust them in the wrong direction. This understanding would help solve global problems such as unemployment, hunger, economic stagnation, pollution, resources depletion, and conservation issues.

Meadows started with a 9-point list of such places, and expanded it to a list of twelve leverage points with explanation and examples, for systems in general.

She describes a system as being in a certain state, and containing a stock, with inflows (amounts coming into the system) and outflows (amounts going out of the system). At a given time, the system is in a certain perceived state. There may also be a goal for the system to be in a certain state. The difference between the current state and the goal is the discrepancy.

For example, one might consider a lake or reservoir, which contains a certain amount of water. The inflows are the amount of water coming from rivers, rainfall, drainage from nearby soils, and waste water from a local industrial plant. The outflows might be the amount of water used up for irrigation of nearby cornfield, water taken by that local plant to operate as well as the local camping site, water evaporating in the atmosphere, and trickling surplus water when the reservoir is full.
Local inhabitants complain about the water level getting low, pollution getting higher, and the potential effect of hot water release in the lake on life (in particular, the fish).
This is the difference between the perceived state (pollution or low water level) and the goal (a non-polluted lake).

Leverage points to intervene in a system (in increasing order of effectiveness)Edit

12. Constants, parameters, numbers (such as subsidies, taxes, standards) Edit

Parameters are points of lowest leverage effects. Though they are the most clearly perceived among all leverages, they rarely change behaviors and therefore have little long-term effect.

For example, climate parameters may not be changed easily (the amount of rain, the evapotranspiration rate, the temperature of the water), but they are the ones people think of first (they remember that in their youth, it was certainly raining more). These parameters are indeed very important. But even if changed (improvement of upper river stream to canalize incoming water), they will not change behavior much (the debit will probably not dramatically increase).

11. The size of buffers and other stabilizing stocks, relative to their flows Edit

A buffer's ability to stabilize a system is important when the stock amount is much higher than the potential amount of inflows or outflows. In the lake, the water is the buffer: if there's a lot more of it than inflow/outflow, the system stays stable.

For example, the inhabitants are worried the lake fish might die as a consequence of hot water release directly in the lake without any previous cooling off.
However, the water in the lake has a large heat capacity, so it's a strong thermic buffer. Provided the release is done at low enough depth, under the thermocline, and the lake volume is big enough, the buffering capacity of the water might prevent any extinction from excess temperature.

Buffers can improve a system, but they are often physical entities whose size is critical and can't be changed easily.

10. The structure of material stocks and flows (such as transport network, population age structures)Edit

A system's structure may have enormous effect on operations, but may be difficult or prohibitively expensive to change. Fluctuations, limitations, and bottlenecks may be easier to address.

For example, the inhabitants are worried about their lake getting polluted, as the industry releases chemicals pollutants directly in the water without any previous treatment. The system might need the used water to be diverted to a waste water treatment plant, but this requires rebuilding the underground used water system (which could be quite expensive).

9. The length of delays, relative to the rate of system changes Edit

Information received too quickly or too late can cause over- or underreaction, even oscillations.

For example, the city council is considering building the waste water treatment plant. However, the plant will take 5 years to be built, and will last about 30 years. The first delay will prevent the water being cleaned up within the first 5 years, while the second delay will make it impossible to build a plant with exactly the right capacity.

8. The strength of negative feedback loops, relative to the effect they are trying to correct againstEdit

A negative feedback loop slows down a process, tending to promote stability (stagnation). The loop will keep the stock near the goal, thanks to parameters, accuracy and speed of information feedback, and size of correcting flows.

For example, one way to avoid the lake getting more and more polluted might be through setting up an additional tax, relative to the amount and the degree of the water released by the industrial plant. The tax might lead the industry to reduce its releases.

7. The gain around driving positive feedback loopsEdit

A positive feedback loop speeds up a process. Dana indicates that in most cases, it is preferable to slow down a positive loop, rather than speeding up a negative one.

The eutrophication of a lake is a typical feedback loop that goes wild. In an eutrophic lake (which means well-nourished), lots of life can be supported (fish included).
An increase of nutrients will lead to an increase of productivity, growth of phytoplankton first, using up as much nutrients as possible, followed by growth of zooplankton, feeding up on the first ones, and increase of fish populations. The more nutrients available there is, the more productivity is increased. As plankton organisms die, they fall at the bottom of the lake, where their matter is degraded by decomposers.
However, this degradation uses up available oxygen, and in the presence of huge amounts of organic matter to degrade, the medium progressively becomes anoxic (there is no more oxygen available). Upon time, all oxygen-dependent life dies, and the lake becomes a smelly anoxic place where no life can be supported (in particular no fish).

6. The structure of information flow (who does and does not have access to what kinds of information)Edit

Information flow is neither a parameter, nor a reinforcing or slowing loop, but a loop that delivers new information. It is cheaper and easier than changing structure.

For example, a monthly public report of water pollution level, especially nearby the industrial release, could have a lot of effect on people's opinions regarding the industry, and lead to changes in the waste water level of pollution.

5. The rules of the system (such as incentives, punishment, constraints)Edit

Pay attention to rules, and to who makes them.

For example, a strengthening of the law related to chemicals release limits, or an increase of the tax amount for any water containing by a given pollutant, will have a very strong effect on the lake water quality.

4. The power to add, change, evolve, or self-organize system structureEdit

Self-organization describes a system's ability to change itself by creating new structures, adding new negative and positive feedback loops, promoting new information flows, or making new rules.

For example, microorganisms have the ability to not only change to fit their new polluted environment, but also to undergo an evolution that make them able to biodegrade or bioaccumulate chemical pollutants. This capacity of part of the system to participate to its own eco-evolution is a major leverage for change

3. The goal of the system Edit

Changes every item listed above: parameters, feedback loops, information and self-organisation.

A city council decision might be to change the goal of the lake from making it a free facility for public and private global use, to a more touristic oriented facility or a conservation area. That goal change will effect several of the above leverages : information on water quality will become mandatory and legal punishments will be set for any illegal polluted effluent.

2. The mindset or paradigm that the system — its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters — arises out of Edit

A society paradigm is an idea, an unstated assumption that everyone shares, thoughts, or states of thoughts that are sources of systems. Paradigms are very hard to change, but there are no limits to paradigm change. Dana indicates paradigms might be changed by repeatedly and consistently pointing out anomalies and failures to those with open minds.

A current paradigm is "Nature is a stock of resources to be converted to human purpose". What might happen to the lake were this collective idea changed ?

1. The power to transcend paradigmsEdit

Transcending paradigms may go beyond challenging fundamental assumptions, into the realm of changing the values and priorities that lead to the assumptions, and being able to choose among value sets at will.

Many today see Nature as a stock of resources to be converted to human purpose. Many Native Americans see Nature as a living god, to be loved, worshipped, and lived with. These views are incompatible, but perhaps another viewpoint could incorporate them both, along with others.

See also Edit

ReferencesEdit

{{enWP|The twelve leverage points to intervene in a system were proposed by Donella Meadows, a scientist concerned with the environment. The leverage points, first published in 1997, were inspired by her attendance at a NAFTA meeting in the early 1990s where she realized that a very large new system was being proposed but the handles to control it were very small.

Meadows, who worked in the field of systems analysis, proposed a scale of places to intervene in a system. Awareness and manipulation of these levers is an aspect of self-organization and can lead to collective intelligence.

Her observations are often cited in energy economics, green economics and human development theory.

She started with the observation that there are levers, or places within a complex system (such as a firm, a city, an economy, a living being, an ecosystem, an ecoregion) where a "small shift in one thing can produce big changes in everything" (compare: constraint in the sense of theory of constraints).

She claimed we need to know about these shifts, where they are and how to use them. She said most people know where these points are instinctively, but tend to adjust them in the wrong direction. This understanding would help solve global problems such as unemployment, hunger, economic stagnation, pollution, resources depletion, and conservation issues.

Meadows started with a 9-point list of such places, and expanded it to a list of twelve leverage points with explanation and examples, for systems in general.

She describes a system as being in a certain state, and containing a stock, with inflows (amounts coming into the system) and outflows (amounts going out of the system). At a given time, the system is in a certain perceived state. There may also be a goal for the system to be in a certain state. The difference between the current state and the goal is the discrepancy.

For example, one might consider a lake or reservoir, which contains a certain amount of water. The inflows are the amount of water coming from rivers, rainfall, drainage from nearby soils, and waste water from a local industrial plant. The outflows might be the amount of water used up for irrigation of nearby cornfield, water taken by that local plant to operate as well as the local camping site, water evaporating in the atmosphere, and trickling surplus water when the reservoir is full.
Local inhabitants complain about the water level getting low, pollution getting higher, and the potential effect of hot water release in the lake on life (in particular, the fish).
This is the difference between the perceived state (pollution or low water level) and the goal (a non-polluted lake).

Leverage points to intervene in a system (in increasing order of effectiveness)Edit

12. Constants, parameters, numbers (such as subsidies, taxes, standards) Edit

Parameters are points of lowest leverage effects. Though they are the most clearly perceived among all leverages, they rarely change behaviors and therefore have little long-term effect.

For example, climate parameters may not be changed easily (the amount of rain, the evapotranspiration rate, the temperature of the water), but they are the ones people think of first (they remember that in their youth, it was certainly raining more). These parameters are indeed very important. But even if changed (improvement of upper river stream to canalize incoming water), they will not change behavior much (the debit will probably not dramatically increase).

11. The size of buffers and other stabilizing stocks, relative to their flows Edit

A buffer's ability to stabilize a system is important when the stock amount is much higher than the potential amount of inflows or outflows. In the lake, the water is the buffer: if there's a lot more of it than inflow/outflow, the system stays stable.

For example, the inhabitants are worried the lake fish might die as a consequence of hot water release directly in the lake without any previous cooling off.
However, the water in the lake has a large heat capacity, so it's a strong thermic buffer. Provided the release is done at low enough depth, under the thermocline, and the lake volume is big enough, the buffering capacity of the water might prevent any extinction from excess temperature.

Buffers can improve a system, but they are often physical entities whose size is critical and can't be changed easily.

10. The structure of material stocks and flows (such as transport network, population age structures)Edit

A system's structure may have enormous effect on operations, but may be difficult or prohibitively expensive to change. Fluctuations, limitations, and bottlenecks may be easier to address.

For example, the inhabitants are worried about their lake getting polluted, as the industry releases chemicals pollutants directly in the water without any previous treatment. The system might need the used water to be diverted to a waste water treatment plant, but this requires rebuilding the underground used water system (which could be quite expensive).

9. The length of delays, relative to the rate of system changes Edit

Information received too quickly or too late can cause over- or underreaction, even oscillations.

For example, the city council is considering building the waste water treatment plant. However, the plant will take 5 years to be built, and will last about 30 years. The first delay will prevent the water being cleaned up within the first 5 years, while the second delay will make it impossible to build a plant with exactly the right capacity.

8. The strength of negative feedback loops, relative to the effect they are trying to correct againstEdit

A negative feedback loop slows down a process, tending to promote stability (stagnation). The loop will keep the stock near the goal, thanks to parameters, accuracy and speed of information feedback, and size of correcting flows.

For example, one way to avoid the lake getting more and more polluted might be through setting up an additional tax, relative to the amount and the degree of the water released by the industrial plant. The tax might lead the industry to reduce its releases.

7. The gain around driving positive feedback loopsEdit

A positive feedback loop speeds up a process. Dana indicates that in most cases, it is preferable to slow down a positive loop, rather than speeding up a negative one.

The eutrophication of a lake is a typical feedback loop that goes wild. In an eutrophic lake (which means well-nourished), lots of life can be supported (fish included).
An increase of nutrients will lead to an increase of productivity, growth of phytoplankton first, using up as much nutrients as possible, followed by growth of zooplankton, feeding up on the first ones, and increase of fish populations. The more nutrients available there is, the more productivity is increased. As plankton organisms die, they fall at the bottom of the lake, where their matter is degraded by decomposers.
However, this degradation uses up available oxygen, and in the presence of huge amounts of organic matter to degrade, the medium progressively becomes anoxic (there is no more oxygen available). Upon time, all oxygen-dependent life dies, and the lake becomes a smelly anoxic place where no life can be supported (in particular no fish).

6. The structure of information flow (who does and does not have access to what kinds of information)Edit

Information flow is neither a parameter, nor a reinforcing or slowing loop, but a loop that delivers new information. It is cheaper and easier than changing structure.

For example, a monthly public report of water pollution level, especially nearby the industrial release, could have a lot of effect on people's opinions regarding the industry, and lead to changes in the waste water level of pollution.

5. The rules of the system (such as incentives, punishment, constraints)Edit

Pay attention to rules, and to who makes them.

For example, a strengthening of the law related to chemicals release limits, or an increase of the tax amount for any water containing by a given pollutant, will have a very strong effect on the lake water quality.

4. The power to add, change, evolve, or self-organize system structureEdit

Self-organization describes a system's ability to change itself by creating new structures, adding new negative and positive feedback loops, promoting new information flows, or making new rules.

For example, microorganisms have the ability to not only change to fit their new polluted environment, but also to undergo an evolution that make them able to biodegrade or bioaccumulate chemical pollutants. This capacity of part of the system to participate to its own eco-evolution is a major leverage for change

3. The goal of the system Edit

Changes every item listed above: parameters, feedback loops, information and self-organisation.

A city council decision might be to change the goal of the lake from making it a free facility for public and private global use, to a more touristic oriented facility or a conservation area. That goal change will effect several of the above leverages : information on water quality will become mandatory and legal punishments will be set for any illegal polluted effluent.

2. The mindset or paradigm that the system — its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters — arises out of Edit

A society paradigm is an idea, an unstated assumption that everyone shares, thoughts, or states of thoughts that are sources of systems. Paradigms are very hard to change, but there are no limits to paradigm change. Dana indicates paradigms might be changed by repeatedly and consistently pointing out anomalies and failures to those with open minds.

A current paradigm is "Nature is a stock of resources to be converted to human purpose". What might happen to the lake were this collective idea changed ?

1. The power to transcend paradigmsEdit

Transcending paradigms may go beyond challenging fundamental assumptions, into the realm of changing the values and priorities that lead to the assumptions, and being able to choose among value sets at will.

Many today see Nature as a stock of resources to be converted to human purpose. Many Native Americans see Nature as a living god, to be loved, worshipped, and lived with. These views are incompatible, but perhaps another viewpoint could incorporate them both, along with others.

See also Edit

ReferencesEdit

This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki