Systems thinking enabled by boundary conditions of purpose
Kalle Reflect on Systems thinking enabled by boundary conditions of purpose
This Reflection is about a specific layer of science: a special kind of systems dynamics framed by robust boundary conditions for purpose. Although we developed this special area within Design science, as an essential step in developing the FSSD, please read this Reflection as a general, free-standing essay exploring this particular science. It is rich in innovative ideas and analogies within its own domain, so spend most of your time reading this essay as such. The fact box below is only there to touch upon its connection to FSSD which, if you want to read more about this, is better approached amongst other Reflections, Comments and Podcasts specifically devoted to it.
So, why this Reflection? Together with the forthcoming one on the even more fundamental layer of Physics and Chemistry, this Reflection is just intended to offer a glimpse behind the curtain of how the needed specific brand of Design was explored. Just like you can become a chess champion without even knowing about the history of chess.
Takeaway for leaders at all levels everywhere.
As you probably already know, since you are interested to learn a bit about the developments of the FSSD, this is a structure developed to cover everything needed at the systemic level (the whole world), the systematic level (stepwise processes), and the strategic level (improved ROI from the first step).
To take all those aspects into account touches upon huge amounts of data on unsustainability-related impacts, solutions to such problems, models for decision support, monitoring and communications, and many more. This calls for a meta-layer of science to make the interface between all this data on the one hand, and a framework for elegantly managing all the data on the other.
Previous efforts to manage the complexity across the above interface have, to various degrees, relied on various models built on “Systems thinking”, i.e. a field of science exploring things like multi-dependencies between myriad aspects in complex systems, feed-back loops, delay mechanisms, thresholds beyond which impacts appear, modelling, simulation etc. But, as such, taking all that knowledge into account rather adds than deletes complexity to the already complex mission of Strategic Sustainable Development, the vision of FSSD developments.
So people are, on good grounds, confused by the terms “Systems Thinking,” “Systemic,” “System Dynamics,” and “Holistic.” But what does it mean to think “holistically” about everything in a complex system? Nobody can do that. Nor is it necessary. Whereas boundary conditions for a particular purpose help us systematically select the knowledge and information needed from the system. They help us avoid seeking knowledge while drowning in information. Simple as that.
More in Detail
• A piece of good news is that people are generally mentally prepared to learn about complex missions in complex goals by boundary conditions for purpose. At very high levels too! Looking closer at it makes ordinary people appear like geniuses when it comes to managing complexity. People do this naturally and effortlessly in everyday life, for instance when they learn their first language, play chess, or move to a new house, see the examples below.
• Also scientists and experts are clever at applying this inborn skill within their specific domains. This is what cancer clinicians do as they cure cancer by use of the two boundary conditions for cancer cure (kill the last cancer stem cell but don’t kill the patient). Or winners of chess tournaments as they model- and re-model the game as it unfolds – all the time by using the same four boundary conditions defining checkmate.
• From the boundary conditions follow naturally the completely intuitive logics of (i) modelling possible goals within them, (ii) followed by processes of stepwise progress, (iii) allowing strategic learning-by-doing. This feels psychologically inclusive rather than prescriptive. It invites players, teams, scientists, communities, regions, value chains and much larger stakeholder groups to co-create attractive scenarios and strategic pathways towards goal-fulfillment together. This way of reaching complex goals in complex systems is easier than any alternative approach. Beginning with robust overviews has that effect. It is more enjoyable too!
• The size of a system is largely irrelevant when it comes to the challenge of complexity, something people often address as a proposed reason why Sustainable Development is limping a bit behind other examples of systems thinking by purpose. But even an atom is a cosmos of interrelationships between matter and energy, far too much to consider if the mission is not clear, for instance splitting it, fusing its nucleus with another nucleus, combining it with another atom, or looking at a specific and newly detected elementary particle. Human imagination is the (advanced) limit for systems thinking, not the size of the system.
• Without robust boundary conditions for purpose, strategic planning towards complex goals in complex systems is not merely difficult; it is impossible. Without boundary conditions, we drown in data and are bound to solve one problem by creating another. We run into unforeseeable sub-optimizations, blind alleys, and unnecessary costs along the way.
• There is one robust and generic set of Boundary Conditions for Sustainability, applicable to all sustainable goals namely the ones explored within the FSSD.
• Understanding this is among the most fundamental elements of strategic systems thinking, yet one of the most commonly and dangerously overlooked realities in sustainable development. Not least when it comes to bottom lines and return on investment. If you mean well regarding sustainability but lack the necessary strategic framework, you risk losing money and other resources along the way. Perhaps the greatest waste of all.
You Are Already a Genius at This
Being a champion at chess or sports of any kind, curing cancer, or studying atoms all sound like tasks for experts.
Yet the good news is that people in general are born geniuses when it comes to managing complex systems by means of boundary conditions and learning about systems in that way.
Imagine that you have obtained a new job far from where you currently live, in a region you have never visited.
You need to move.
This is a highly complex task involving a huge number of considerations.
In this case, the basic boundary conditions may be:
• You must be able to afford the new home.
• It must allow commuting within a reasonable time.
• It must satisfy the basic needs of your family in the new geographic environment.
• It must be free on the market.
These boundary conditions help you constrain your search, and it is within these 4 generic boundary conditions you can model very large numbers of possibilities. The “affordable” first condition of new living is, for instance, modelled by aspects such as the money you get from the old living, your new salary, loans, perhaps selling a car and begin biking which, in turn, is influenced by the commuting distance, in turn, perhaps, being perceived differently by the family members. But “affording” and “making it in time for office hours” are not optional per se. So they are robust for dynamically considering your options.
This is an example of modelling within boundary conditions.
People may later regret how they prioritized details within those boundary conditions, perhaps the choice of wallpaper in a room, but they generally do not fail on the absolute boundary conditions themselves.
Thus, it is rare for someone to find themselves living in a leaking castle ruin that is affordable for only one week and located a thousand miles from the new workplace, wondering how everything went so wrong.
Is this relevant to our topic?
Indeed.
Humanity now needs to move into a new sustainably designed “house.”
The prefix eco- in ecosystem means “house.” Similarly, economy originates from the concept of “householding”: the management of limited resources within the house.
So, when it comes to our current life-threatening mismanagement of our common global house and its householding/economy, why do we not apply the same capability that we otherwise use so effectively? The reason is that our senses are not capable of perceiving most violations of the boundary conditions; for that, we need science. But science is typically organized such that scientists are generally not trained to organise knowledge according to the universal boundary conditions that connect their respective fields of expertise.
________________________________________
Advice to Teachers and Moderators of FSSD Workshops
Begin by explaining the need for system boundaries in complex missions in complex systems.
The moving-house example above works well. So do, depending on the audience, examples from chess, cancer treatment, football or atomic physics.
On the other hand, when teachers move directly from the start into the sustainability boundary conditions themselves, an important opportunity for clarity can be lost.
Again, the pedagogical sequence should first explain why boundary conditions are necessary for managing complex goals in complex systems. Only then should the specific sustainability boundary conditions be introduced.
Once the underlying logic is understood through familiar examples based on data our senses can peceive, the sustainability boundary conditions create a natural “cliff-hanger.”
This is a powerful pedagogical technique before introducing the sustainability principles themselves.
________________________________________
Two Common Misunderstandings About Apps for Sustainable Development
In the statement:
“Yes, yes, there are many models…” there often lurk a superficial but surprisingly common misconception.
(i) Would the Operative System be Better Than Any of the Apps?
Of course not.
These are fundamentally different things that relate to one another in a precise and complementary way.
The FSSD’s Operative System, “ABCD in the Funnel,” is unique by design. Its purpose is to place all decision-support applications within their proper strategic context.
It clarifies:
• what aspects of sustainable development are covered by a particular App,
• what aspects are not covered,
• and where the App can add value within a broader strategy.
Thus, the Operative System strengthens the value of all Apps.
(ii) Is the Choice of Apps Merely a Matter of Personal Preference?
No.
That would be intellectually lax.
It would be as unreasonable as attempting to choose between an operating system and a GPS App as though they were competing alternatives.
The two play fundamentally different roles.
________________________________________
Choosing Between Apps Occurs After Establishing a Tailor-Made ABCD Process
The choice among Apps is important because different Apps have been developed for different purposes in sustainable development.
For example:
• Indicators support measurement and monitoring.
• Life Cycle Assessment supports evaluation of goods and services.
• Modelling supports multidimensional analyses.
• Simulation supports predictive calculations within developed models.
• ISO 14001 is an administrative tool for management systems and communications of such.
• Ecological Footprinting is a way of making some sustainability impacts more accessible for communication.
• Circular Economy economizes resource cycling.
• The UN Sustainable Development Goals paint attractive narratives for different areas of a sustainable civilization.
There are many Apps available.
But how does this help if no Operative System exists to bring them together into a coherent strategic framework without major gaps?
The answer is simple:
It does not.
________________________________________
How Did the Breakthrough of the Boundary Conditions Occur?
Below follows the logic behind the thought processes and research breakthroughs that eventually led to the unique Operative System and its equally unique sustainability boundary conditions for (re)design.
i. Boundary Conditions Robust for any type of (Re)Design in any complex goal
If you want to systematically approach complex goals in complex systems, for example winning chess games, curing cancer, or curing unsustainability, you are inevitably referred to the boundary conditions of the goal you seek to achieve.
At the detailed level, all such goals can be realized in many different ways, where specific solutions are modelled to comply with the boundary conditions together.
The boundary conditions themselves do not change as planning unfolds into reality, any more than the boundary conditions for checkmate or cancer cure change according to how the game or the patient’s clinical journey develops.
________________________________________
ii. Five Necessary Criteria for Robust Boundary Conditions
In order for boundary conditions of any complex goal in any complex system to be robustly generic, they should meet five criteria.
They should be:
• Necessary, but no more than that, otherwise arguable values and preferences become embedded within them.
• Sufficient, otherwise important aspects have been overlooked.
• General, allowing multidimensional modelling and collaboration across sectors, disciplines, missions, and scales.
• Concrete, so that they genuinely guide action and decision-making.
• Mutually Exclusive, so that overlap is avoided and ambiguities in interpretation and monitoring are minimised.
________________________________________
iii. How Did We Discover the Boundary Conditions for Sustainable (Re)Design?
The solution was perhaps somewhat counterintuitive, yet both logical and psychologically appealing.
The myriad symptoms of today’s unsustainability are consequences of ongoing damage caused by the design of human activities.
It therefore became logical to search not for descriptions or prescriptions of a sustainable society as such, but rather for the fundamental mechanisms through which human activities systematically destroy the biosphere’s ecological and social systems.
Again, the focus was not on describing every aspect of those systems, but on identifying the basic mechanisms behind their destruction.
The goal was to explain the countless sustainability-related problems encountered downstream through design flaws upstream, a limited number of upstream mechanisms of degradation.
Once those mechanisms were identified, the solution became surprisingly simple:
Place a “not” in front of them.
The result became boundary conditions for sustainable redesign.
________________________________________
iv. Why Negative Formulations of Boundary Conditions Are Both Logical and Appealing
This approach is not only logically robust, but psychologically powerful.
At first glance, a formulation based on “not” may appear negative.
In reality, it tends to have the opposite effect.
It opens the door to innovation.
“You may develop any solution you like, provided it does not violate the boundary conditions.”
This creates freedom within a shared framework.
It also supports a flatter and more inclusive leadership culture.
By contrast, positively formulated instructions such as:
“You are allowed to do this and that” can easily become prescriptive.
Such formulations tend to encourage compliance with predefined solutions rather than innovation.
Negative boundary conditions therefore support creativity while preserving strategic direction.
_______________________________________________________________________________
v. Developing Detailed Scenarios Within the Boundary Conditions
Once the boundary conditions are established, multiple possible future scenarios can be explored.
These scenarios are continually modelled, evaluated, and refined as circumstances evolve. In other words, the modelling continues as the future unfolds, just like a chess game.
The goal is not merely to reach sustainability, but also to create futures that are attractive, meaningful, and worth striving for – the modelled contents within the boundary conditions.
The boundary conditions define the playing field; the details remain open to creativity.
________________________________________
vi. The Pedagogy of Boundary Conditions as a Cliff-Hanger
Only now is it time to explain why the boundary conditions within the FSSD’s Operative System, “ABCD in the Funnel,” are unique.
They were specifically developed to fulfil the five criteria described under 9(ii) above.
This allows goals and processes to be:
• Systemic, because the boundary conditions derive from the entire socio-ecological system of the biosphere.
• Systematic, because ABCD provides a structured stepwise approach towards reaching goals within the boundary conditions.
• Strategic, because each prioritised step under D of the ABCD process creates technical, economic, and organisational opportunities for subsequent steps further into the Funnel, improving possibilities for ROI along the way.
Again, experience has shown that examples such as chess, cancer treatment, moving to a new home, and atomic physics often help audiences understand these ideas.
Such analogies effectively build curiosity up to the cliff-hanger, where the sustainability boundary conditions themselves are introduced.
________________________________________
vii. Uniqueness Demonstrated Through Collaboration with Pioneers
We are not aware of any other framework that has been developed through such extensive collaboration with pioneers behind many of the leading “Apps” in the sustainability field.
That particular journey of FSSD began as a UNEP-initiated project, where pioneers behind leading tools and concepts met in Paris to explore how their respective contributions related to the FSSD Operative System.
The development has continued ever since.
Examples include collaborations and exchanges regarding:
• Life Cycle Assessment (Yale University)
• ISO 14001 (British Standards Institution)
• Ecological Footprints (Mathis Wackernagel)
• Factor 4 (Ernst von Weizsäcker)
• Factor 10 (Friedrich Schmidt-Bleek)
• Planetary Boundaries (Johan Rockström)
The FSSD has never sought to isolate itself around its own concepts.
On the contrary, it has consistently taken other frameworks seriously and explored their relationship with the Operative System, for the mutual benefit of both the Operative System and the Apps.
________________________________________
viii. “ABCD in the Funnel” – The Operative System Built Upon the Boundary Conditions
Only at this point does it become fully clear why the FSSD truly functions as an Operative System.
Once an organisation has established a first version of an attractive vision within the sustainability boundary conditions (A), it becomes easier to identify both strengths and challenges in relation to that vision (B).
This, in turn, stimulates the generation of potential actions and measures (C).
The subsequent task is to strategically prioritise among those options and shape a stepwise implementation plan (D).
The process is iterative and continuously informed by experience as the journey unfolds.
________________________________________
ix. Choosing Supporting Tools Through the ABCD Lens
From this operational overview, it now becomes possible to assess how different Apps may contribute to the specific ABCD process.
The fundamental question becomes:
“Would we like to add, amend, or change anything under A, B, C, or D with the help of Life Cycle Assessment, Modelling, Simulation, Circular Economy, the UN Sustainable Development Goals, Footprinting, or any other App?”
In this way, Apps become supporting resources within a coherent strategic framework rather than disconnected initiatives competing for attention.
Concluding Summary:
Since nobody can look into the future at any level of detail, such design-definitions of strategic goals in complex systems should only occur by basic principles of successfully designed goals, Boundary Conditions. Without this, strategic planning towards complex goals in complex systems is not difficult, it is impossible. You are then bound to solve one problem by inventing another, running into costly blind alleys, or picking “solutions” with insufficiently low grades of scalability. So, any scenario of details within robust boundary conditions means “winning” that is, fulfils your goal setting. Whereas any scenario outside of the robust boundary conditions does not. Be it a chess player reaching the four boundary conditions of checkmate which can look in myriad different ways. Or be it a strategic cancer clinician reaching boundary conditions of cancer-cure ((i) killing the last cancer stem cell (ii) without killing the patient). Whether a scenario satisfies the boundary conditions is binary: yes or no.
Informing complex missions within complex systems by boundary conditions for successful outcomes of missions, opens for stimulating “out-of-the-box” thinking. You are then not a slave of “improving” what is already there but can creatively produce truly new innovations towards attractive goal(s). However, being crystal clear about the boundary conditions should not include attempts to tamper with the myriad possible scenario details within such boundary conditions. We leave this with our clients, who only get support to reach their dreamed-of contents within the boundary conditions. This appeals to strategic learning by doing, feels psychologically inclusive rather than prescriptive, invites communities of regions and value chains to co-create attractive scenarios within the boundary conditions, and is easier. It is more fun too.
[1] Fact Box
The FSSD operative system, “ABCD-in-the-Funnel,” is the shared foundation behind Stepwise Global, Stegvis, Kalle’s Reflections, their associated podcasts, and related applications:
Funnel
The term funnel refers to the global context within which ABCD planning takes place. Many essential ecological and social systems are currently in systematic decline and, if current trends continue, will gradually undermine society’s ability to sustain itself. Examples include forests, cropland, groundwater reserves, biodiversity, and social trust.
Boundary Conditions
The funnel opening, representing sustainability for any system, organization, product, project, or society, is operationally defined by eight boundary conditions that are robust for planning. In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing:
1. Concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth’s crust (e.g., fossil carbon and metals).
2. Concentrations of substances produced by society (e.g., naturally occurring like nitrogen oxides, or synthetic like PFAS).
3. Degradation by physical means (e.g., overfishing and large-scale clear-cutting).
And, in that society, people are not exposed to structural barriers to:
4. Health (e.g., unsafe working conditions).
5. Influence (e.g., referendums leading to change).
6. Competence (e.g., access to education and learning).
7. Impartiality (e.g., fair representation in rooms of decion making).
8. Meaning-making (e.g., opportunities for purpose and contribution).
ABCD
(Not an acronym, but a simple sequence of four steps: A, B, C, and D.)
A = A vision of success, framed within the eight sustainability boundary conditions.
B = An assessment of current reality, including assets and challenges in relation to that vision.
C = A broad range of possible actions that could help bridge the gap between the current situation and the desired future.
D = A prioritized strategic action plan consisting of stepwise measures selected from the C-list.
For deeper exploration, please refer to the resources listed below.
References
The Science Behind the Operative System
Robèrt, K.-H. et al. Operative System for Strategic Sustainable Development: Coordinating Analysis, Planning, Action, and Use of Supports Such as the Sustainable Development Goals, Planetary Boundaries, Circular Economy, and Science-Based Targets, published in Sustainable Development, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp. 4759-4774.S
This paper provides the scientific foundation of the Operative System and includes references to the underlying research and methodology.
For further Reflections, Podcasts, Applications, and Courses
Find all of them on Stepwise Global https://www.stepwise.global/
The Stepwise Global platform contains a broad range of reflections, podcasts, applications, educational resources, and courses related to strategic sustainable development and the use of the FSSD.
Among the reflections addressing important aspects of the methodology itself, readers may find particular value in:
• Backcasting from Principles: the conceptual foundations and scientific logic of backcasting from sustainability principles with examples. https://fssd.global/kalle-reflects/kalle-reflects-on-backcasting-for-strategic-thinking-and-ways-of-muddying-waters/
• ABCD Workshops and Their Psychology: how the methodology is applied in practice and how group dynamics influence outcomes. https://fssd.global/kalle-reflects/kalle-reflects-on-the-psychology-of-abcd-in-funnel-workshops/
• An Attractive Sustainable World (Step A): Because every system is nested within the larger global system, a model of a sustainable world within the boundary conditions determines the ultimate scalability of any specific organization, project, region, product, or other topic. https://fssd.global/kalle-reflects/kalle-reflects-in-concrete-terms-on-an-attractive-sustainable-world-at-a/
• The C-list of ABCD planning: If the C-list is too thin or superficial, you run into the classic “poor data in, poor results out” problem when you reach D, where actions are prioritized.
• The overriding success factor: when leaders are actively involved in intellectual performance https://fssd.global/kalle-reflects/kalle-reflects-on-success-and-failure-respectively-from-the-operative-systemabcd-in-funnel/
• Risky myths about economic growth: https://fssd.global/kalle-reflects/kalle-reflects-on-a-four-headed-elephant-in-the-economic-room/
• Risky myth about low consumption society: https://fssd.global/kalle-reflects/kalle-reflects-on-low-consumption-society/
These resources provide additional perspectives on the practical implementation of the Operative System and its role in strategic planning for sustainability.
