On 15-17 June 2020, the Skoll Centre’s Map the System Competition held its Global Final virtually. The ‘African Transformers’ team from Ashesi University competed against 30 other finalists from institutions around the world at the event, reaching the live public final as one of six finalists in the competition. Team members Lloyd Teta, Denver Chikokonya, Munyaradzi Madzoma, Nadine Afkwah Tim and Marshal Ruzvidzo tell us how they mapped the system to understand the root causes of improper waste management in Ghana.
African Transformers is a team of five undergraduate Engineering students at Ashesi University in Ghana. We come from two countries: Zimbabwe and Cameroon. In our freshman year, we connected over a common problem of plastic waste management in our Foundation of Design and Entrepreneurship class. Despite completing the course, we decided to continue the project because we could attest to the fact that improper waste management is not only a problem in Ghana but also in our home countries of Cameroon and Zimbabwe. When we were introduced to Map the Systems, we saw it as an opportunity to learn about the systems thinking approach of problem-solving and to expand our research and work.
To understand the root causes of the problem and its effects beyond what we had seen in our communities, we conducted 22 interviews with students, itinerant plastic collectors, plastic waste buyers, market vendors and representatives from recycling companies. We also carried out secondary research by studying and analyzing research papers, academic literature, national policy publications, news articles, websites, and Governmental reports. Our study of existing solutions made us realize that the problem of improper plastic waste management would be almost impossible to solve if we cannot identify why the problem persists.
Gaps in Existing Solutions
Waste Collection Companies fail to segregate plastic waste from other solid waste after collection
The Government: No proper regulation on the operation of waste management agencies. Poor implementation of plastic management policies.
Informal Waste Collectors: Lack of credibility, since high volumes of plastic waste are required as minimum selling quantity.
Recycling Companies: Only a small range of plastics is recycled
Sensitization by NGOs: These organizations are not consistent with campaigns for plastic waste management due to a lack of funding and sensitization strategies to draw the local people’s attention.
Based on our research, we came up with a map that shows the different stakeholders within our system and how they interact. Modelling these interactions helped us see that stakeholders such as Informal Waste Collectors are often neglected but they contribute largely to solving the issue of improper plastic waste management. They are said to collect, sort and recycle up to 18% of the total municipal waste generated in small communities within Accra and can reach rural communities that other stakeholders cannot reach. So, we hope to leverage this information to create a sustainable business model that will connect these waste collectors to recycling companies and allow them to deliver waste to the companies at a standard fee.
Key Insights and lessons learned
We thought that turning to biodegradable plastic was the way forward to manage plastic waste, but we realized that drastic change would take many years before implementation, the reason being that biodegradable plastics are still expensive to produce.
We also realized that sustainable solutions are the ones that come from within society. Solutions should blend with the typical lifestyle of the people.
Solutions that work in other countries may not work in Ghana. So, there is a need for appropriate technologies built for the context of Accra.
We believe that everyone has a part to play in saving our land, sea life and our communities from the effects of plastic waste. The governments alone cannot eliminate plastic waste from the environment, neither can an individual, but with collective action we can reduce improper plastic waste disposal.
Our journey to the top six finalists was interesting due to the transition online. We had to adjust to changes and meeting other teams virtually gave us the chance to connect on various platforms like Slack and share ideas. Moving forward, we will use what we learnt from the Map the System competition to continue our research and publish our findings as an open-source document for other researchers to build on our work.
The Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, in collaboration with Forum for the Future, also organised a session at the Skoll World Forum 2018 on measuring systems change, engaging academics, practitioners, and researchers.
Our research team has identified key challenges to overcome to measure the impact of a system focused intervention:
Time and distributed impacts: Systems change interventions typically require a concerted effort, involving many actors, over a long period of time, during which both challenges and opportunities shift. While the timeline of progress in the social impact sector is slow, the funding available is short term and outcomes focused. Researchers and practitioners agree that these arelong-term efforts with no agreed finish line or point at which you can say you are done.
Attribution: Because of these complex features of systems change undertakings, it is often difficult to collect consistent, over time data at the ‘systems level’. This complicates the aspiration to attribute causality to the interventions and to cumulate efforts. There are typically several different steps between the intervention and eventual outcome, along with a large gap in timing of the intervention and the resulting outcome.
Consensus: We do know from scores of efforts, that a key element is common ground and agreement about some basics of measurement and interpretation. Building this kind of shared view across a sector is itself a challenge. But it is crucial to have this broad base of agreement on how to measure systems change. If we do not have consensus on an approach in the social impact sector, it is very difficult to mobilise funding or encourage concerted action.
“There are still disputes about what is social enterprise and what is systems change. Another dispute is how you measure it. You can lose a lot of people from the debate if you decide to measure following one approach.”
Systems Thinking educator working with a Foundation, USA
Our contributors shared some principles that they follow when designing a strategy for measuring systems change.
Integrity of approach: Since we cannot measure change at the system level and progress is slow, we start by looking at the approach of the organisation.
“As an example, if we take a lab that is working on a cure for cancer, suppose they have been working for decades with no cure in sight. This does not imply that they have failed in their mission. However, how do we measure the impact of their work? This requires us to do ‘system sensing’ beyond the scope of the intervention or product. Instead, you measure the quality of the lab and their adherence to scientific protocol.”
Systems Thinking educator working with a Foundation, USA
Similarly, you use a somewhat rigorous way of assessing impact to look at change over time. This change can be non-linear. However, you must spot the ability to adapt and maintain focus on a goal but be open to changing tactics and strategy.
Guiding star: It is crucial that at the beginning of an intervention, a team has plotted the dynamic of the current system that they wish to change in order to measure the effect of their intervention. After this dynamic has been mapped, they need to envision an end-state that they want to achieve in order to create a guiding star for their intervention.
Innovation versus transformation: It is important to differentiate between systems innovation, which implies working within a system to create incremental change, and systems transformation, which is working on transforming the dynamic of the system itself. For our interviewees, systems innovations are more provisional and contextual, they don’t necessarily change the status quo. These contrast with the much rarer system transformations, the ones that profoundly transform the system by addressing root causes of problems or by changing how agents relate to one another.
Spill overs: Funders must determine the spill over effects from engaging in a specific systems change venture. There are other organisations operating in a system that funders can disempower by funding one specific enterprise. What if we back one organisation that inadvertently leads to the failure of nine others? In such cases, we can typically only use estimates.
Metrics to keep in mind
Custom Metrics: One of our contributors is running a multi-sector coalition developing custom metrics early in the intervention based on a sound theory of change. For them, they measure how many new actors they are bringing into the solution, placed in a system where they can affect change. They also measure how they are impacting funding strains in their problem area.
Impact levels: You can also differentiate between the levels of impact you are exploring, whether it is short- or near-term outcomes, or impact on more complex system dynamics. As an example, when examining impact, we can look at correlations with better outcomes in the system itself, ripple effects on other outcomes and the non-linear spread of impact. You can also look for evidence that the system itself as gotten healthier in some way. In fact, a key question for funders is, what are the indicators aligning to make deeper progress in making systems healthier?
Failures: We also must look at people who have failed to achieve their desired outcomes and walked away. This is a critical piece of information on what tactics might not achieve systems change and helps to eliminate self-reporting bias.
Using a secondary data source: A secondary data source is always helpful to get feedback from outside the organization. If we have self-reported data, we must enquire about independent sources of data on the health of the system. This can also help us find a baseline or control along with self-reported data.
From our contributors, those who are funders expressed a keen interest in the ability to spot early signals from ventures that are geared to create systems change. Identifying proxy-indicators for what makes an organisation more effective at influencing systems and shifting the status quo can help them optimise their funding strategy.
As we can see, impact measurement for systems change is a work in progress. The principles stated above are currently used by our contributors to define their individual approaches to measuring their activities.
Author: Nikhil Dugal is a systems change consultant with the Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship. He is a Skoll Scholar, having completed his MBA from the Saïd Business School in 2018.
On 15-17 June 2020, the Skoll Centre’s Map the System competition held its Global Final virtually. As a member of this year’s judging panel, Ed Straw shares his insights.
The more researchers are conscious of their ‘traditions of understanding’ in relation to the subject, the less biased will be the output. Through culture, education and experiences of many forms, everyone holds preconceptions about their field of study – their ‘positionality’. The tendency for many is for US-European norms in economics, democracy, science and so on to be the starting point. As a judge for the Map the System competition, surfacing my own inbuilt assumptions in relation to each of the 31 finalists is a tenet of systems thinking. This was not easy. The entries ranged from the Youth Suicide Crisis in India to Why Women-Owned Businesses in South African Townships Fail, from Consumer Food Waste in Navarre to Affordable Housing in Utah. Everywhere is different.
Yet, I came away with the sense of ‘Yes, and Everywhere is the Same.’ What struck me most was the commonalities in many of the entries. The most obvious example is menstruation. This is actually an issue that affects over 3.5bn people for long parts for their lives. Normalising periods, treating them as just another bodily function requiring proper facilities and materials to be readily available in every institution, being able to talk about them in an understanding and knowledgeable way, not stigmatizing and so on would benefit so many lives. It is a common global issue. ‘There will be blood’ as one entry put it so succinctly. At its root, it is about shifting social norms.
This theme extended to several other entries where appalling norms in the treatment of women are underlying high adolescent pregnancy in Peru, female genital mutilation in Somalia and modern slavery in Papua New Guinea. But where is the global learning in shifting social norms?
Youth homelessness in Vancouver brought out another commonality – the lack of coordination and integration by public and third sector agencies. Funding is not the issue: masses of it appear to be available. As so often, it is poor overall governance leaving lots of intermediate interventions with few aimed at the whole person and the purpose of the funding. How often have I seen that. At what point will the world of government know instinctively that sound governance is where any solution has to start?
Poor plastic waste disposal in Accra Ghana, fake news in Germany, systemic barriers to public transportation in Boston US, the flooding crisis in Canada, type 2 diabetes in Latino-American communities, and depression in China are all entries with universal insights. Yet few of them get transported around the world, as a matter of course.
This led me on to thinking about the sort of ‘global learning engine’ that has been so effective in developing world class manufacturing from Japanese practice in automotive and consumer electronics from the 80s onwards, which is now almost universal in its application. It is the reason we can buy products of such extraordinary complexity, use and reliability, and at such comparatively low cost. These learning engines consist of management gurus, consultants, trade and specialist journals and news media, design authorities, business schools, industry analytics, trade associations, professional institutes, software developers, state funded R&D institutions and more. All of them are intent on scouring the world for what works best, why, and how, and transferring this knowledge.
Could world class governing and government be developed through a global learning engine? Bits and pieces of knowledge transfer do happen. The OECD’s Observatory of Public Sector Innovation is working hard in this direction. A few university departments are active (e.g. Arend Lijphart at the University of California). This competition is a fine example. But the total is tiny compared to the billions spent on knowledge acquisition and application in the commercial world. And typically governments are spending 40% of a country’s GDP, a vast sum that would be spent so much better stimulated by universal knowledge transfer and application.
The faster this learning platform can be activated and institutionalized, the faster governments will improve. None of the situations of concern analysed by the entrants would be solved through the application of today’s, often ramshackle political processes. Politics is more often an obstacle than an answer. Systems thinking works. In 2017 the UN, the WHO and OECD all called for the use of systems thinking to deal with highly complex problems. Which issue in government these days is not? Rise up systems thinkers – our time has come.
Ed Straw, Visiting Research Fellow at the Open University’s Applied Systems Thinking in Practice unit, headed by Professor Ray Ison, with whom he recently co-authored a book on The Hidden Power of Systems Thinking, and its application to governments and governance.
On 15-17 June 2020, the Skoll Centre’s Map the System Competition held its Global Final virtually. The team from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign competed against 30 other finalists from institutions around the world at the event, coming in second place in the competition. Team members Angela, Ajaita and Jiho tell us their key learnings from taking part, and how they mapped the system to explore menstrual inequity in the United States.
Choosing Our Topic
We were originally nervous about this topic, unsure of how much information we’d find on menstrual inequity, especially for such an economically privileged country like the United States. Menstrual inequity is often focused in regions within the Global South, such as Kenya and India, but its debilitating consequences affect menstruators from nearly all nations and cultural backgrounds.
Our team is composed of menstruators from across the United States, from California to Illinois to New Jersey. However, we all shared something in common: we were menstruators and people of color who came to the table with stories. Ajaita was diagnosed with hormonal imbalance after four consecutive weeks of menstruating. Jiho’s sister thought she was dying when she got her first period, as she grew up as the oldest daughter in a family that didn’t talk about periods openly. On a happier note, Angela’s father was very supportive and helped with numerous stains around the house, but she soon realized her experience was unique.
We are lucky to say that we are among the more privileged menstruators in our country, but there are millions who face regular in access to clean menstrual products; stigma from peers, family members, and general society; as well as systemic power abuses that maintain sexist and harmful practices. Notably, we were shocked by the treatment of incarcerated individuals, trans and intersex menstruators, and the persistent ignorance by our government.
Learning Systems Thinking
The people we interviewed were especially receptive and eager in teaching us more about the menstrual justice space, and we can’t thank them enough for their help and passionate activism, even through this pandemic. A special shout out to our mentor, Valeri Werpetinski, who not only encouraged us to pursue this topic, but also consistently believed in our team (with several hour long sessions of constructive feedback and advice).
However, systems thinking was a completely new territory for us to explore, and our initial and final iterations looked vastly different from each other. Our campus presentation had strong storytelling components, but our focus on individual stakeholders and institutions caused a disconnect within the visual map. After researching systems-thinking tools, we realized that the information we compiled needed to be presented with more depth and complexity. Our final iteration for the global competition reflects this mind-set change, as we seeked to deliver a holistic view of menstrual inequity and its tangential systems.
Systems thinking has taught us to dig beyond the surface. Breaking down each entrenched aspect of this intimidatingly enormous issue became empowering as we learned that by dismantling one system, we could impact and help dismantle others. By deepening our understanding of the movement, we learned to stand with stakeholders and to view them as people who are stuck in cycles driven by an unjust system. Instead of researchers looking in from the outside, we became active members within the space.
What We’re Doing Now
This project has allowed us to access an incredibly welcoming space, with all of us joining the nonprofit Operation Period. While funding product donations and spreading awareness, OP has also taken a de-colonization and abolitionist approach to tackle menstrual injustice effectively. Ajaita, as Co-Art Director, is currently working on projects to spread awareness across the country. Jiho, as Podcast Producer, is lifting voices from different spaces in the movement. Angela, as Education Director, is updating the onboarding and shared curriculum to reflect their systemic approach. Through this, we aim to keep educating ourselves while transitioning our Map the System project onto our own independent website and resource to menstrual systems.
We’re thankful for all the support we’ve received, and for the opportunities given to us by Map the System. We hope you’ll join us in our fight against menstrual inequity.
On 15-17 June 2020, the Skoll Centre’s Map the System Competition held its Global Final virtually. The team from Mount Royal University competed against 30 other finalists from institutions around the world at the event. Team member Jillian Mah shares her learnings from the process of mapping the Canadian charity system for the competition.
Over the past 10 months, I joined a team at Mount Royal University to compete in the Map the System Competition alongside two wonderful people, Ashley Dion and Matthew Taburadaf for whom I am incredibly grateful to have worked with.
I won’t speak for them, but here are a few of the many things I’ve learned over the course of the project.
1. You don’t know complexity until you’re sucked into 100 holes, but it’s good learning!
When we started this project, we had no idea how big it would grow into. What began as a small curiosity about a trend quickly grew into a massive exploration of human psychology and behaviour, feedback loops, organizational dynamics, funding models, ideologies, statistics, data, policy, and philosophy. Being a beginner in most of these areas, it was a lot to take on, but in a way, it was an advantage to take a birds-eye view of these things and make connections between them. Because of the freedom we allowed ourselves to explore, Map the System was one of the best educational experiences I’ve had.
2. Systems maps mean nothing unless they tell a story.
Speaking of complexity, making sense of the complexity is a challenge on its own. Language and representation are powerful, and the smallest details make such a difference. The implications of representation, narrative, language, visuals, hierarchy, centering, and production are many. Further, representation cannot be done without bias, and I’ll be the first to say my biases were challenged during this project. Turning complex research into a clear, simple story is an act that requires careful attention.
3. Systems and human experiences cannot be separated.
Systems are created and maintained by people. Our ideas, histories, and values inform every part of our systems. Systems also affect people, and understanding people needs to be at the centre of the conversation. Consequently, within Canada, there are many different ways of thinking about social good, and even ways more globally. Questions like whose job it is to create social good, how to go about it, and what our expectations are of each other and ourselves have no single answer.
4. Building on this, there is no single way of creating change
A question that we were asked multiple times throughout the course of the project was, unsurprisingly, “so what?” What should we do to make sure people are taken care of? What do we need to fix?
Fair enough, that’s a good question. And our answer? Well, there is no simple answer, since there is no single definition of social good. What we do know is that meaningful, sustainable change comes from systemic change, and the part of the system that change comes from is our people and their mental models. The systems we design and our fundamental ways of knowing are closely intertwined.
Change is not a one-way street. Shifts in the system require a shift in mental models, just as shifts in mental models require a shift in the system. It’s not enough to just focus on local or systems levels; both are necessary.
Importantly, however, this leads me right back to my first point about complexity. The complexity of systems is what makes them so wicked, yet so intriguing to explore. Systems will always be hard to fully understand, and even harder to change. Systems mapping is nothing short of a challenge, but one of the most worthwhile challenges to take on. Awareness, intent, learning, and finding wonder are values I hold close to my heart, and the Map the System challenge offered me every opportunity to embrace these values.
If you are interested in learning more about our project or otherwise, please feel free to reach out to me.
On 15-17 June 2020, the Skoll Centre’s Map the System Competition held its Global Final virtually. The team from University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy competed against 30 other finalists from institutions around the world, making it to the final six and presenting their work to a public audience. Sara Surani and Annie Kuster entered the Map the System competition as an excuse to dive deeper into a topic and a community they had been interested in working alongside for years, and here they share how they mapped the system to address adolescent pregnancy in Peru.
Sara and Annie met in November of 2018 in Lima, the capital city of Peru. They were both on a Fulbright fellowship studying similar topics in different regions of the country: Annie was researching the efficacy of storytelling methodology among teenage mothers in Cusco (mountain region); Sara was researching barriers to access health and education in Lima (urban region) and communities along the Amazon and Marañón Rivers in northern Peru (jungle region).
Over a combined nearly 30 months in Peru, Annie and Sara formed deep connections with the young women they were working with, and found themselves inspired by their stories of empathy, resilience, and strength. Structural issues in Peruvian society became more personal as challenges like “health care access” were explained through the eyes of Joanna, the 15-year-old mother who had experienced human trafficking while searching for an illegal abortion, and Maria, who had to travel a full day in canoe to reach the nearest clinic before dark, only to have the clinic refuse health services.
While listening to stories of girls and their communities, Sara and Annie realized that their journey supporting and amplifying the voices of these girls had just begun. After her grant finished, Sara stayed in Peru to continue working with youth in the northern Amazon, and Annie pursued a Master’s degree in International Development & Policy at the Harris School of Public Policy.
Through Harris, Annie was introduced to the Oxford “Map the System” competition and immediately reached out to Sara. They were still intent on finding the best way to support community development efforts targeting the health and well-being of these girls, and Annie saw the Oxford competition as an opportunity to leverage their existing contacts and dive deeper before attempting their ultimate goal: founding a community-based organization focused on promoting reproductive health and youth empowerment. They decided to name their organization “Nayaraq”, or “one with many dreams” in the Peruvian native language of Quechua.
To formulate their ideas, systems map, and final report, Annie and Sara read through secondary reports in English and Spanish, published by internal entities like the Peruvian government and local think tanks, as well as external organizations criticizing and comparing the Peruvian handling of the issue, including UNFPA and Oxfam. Annie and Sara also reached out to contacts across Peru, including healthcare workers and midwives, stakeholders in the Ministries of Health and Education, local NGOs, and thought leadership at women’s rights organizations like Promsex, Plan International, and APROPO.
Although they spoke to over 130 stakeholders in the public and private sectors, Sara and Annie prioritized understanding adolescent perspectives. In what ways is the current system failing them? How can we collaborate with and empower youth to address their needs in order to improve reproductive health agency? How can the Nayaraq team help support catalytic change?
Sara and Annie realized that existing solutions were not efficiently collaborating across sectors and geographies. There is currently a deep divide between resource access in rural and urban regions, and strong communication gaps between the public and private sector. Existing programming relies heavily on eliminating financial barriers to healthcare access and nominally promoting comprehensive sex education without adapting to the diverse cultural contexts of each region. Furthermore, the majority of existing solutions are targeted specifically and exclusively for adolescent girls without consideration of boys’ roles in the reproductive health of their communities.
Therefore, Annie and Sara identified the following critical gaps in existing programming, leading to what they believe to be important levers of change:
Participating in Map the System not only deepened their understanding of a topic that they hope to devote their lives to, but also allowed them to share that understanding and passion with people from all over the world. It has opened opportunities to collaborate across countries and communities with others who are similarly excited about empowerment and community health. The opportunity and conversations that have come from these connections have reignited the spark that inspired them to begin this work in the first place. As they look ahead to what the future holds, they will strive to remember what participating in this competition has taught them: that focusing on amplifying voices and supporting community-lead efforts is the only way to truly achieve systemic change.