Governance networks and collaborative systemic innovation approaches are increasingly being used by western democracies to address wicked problems (Sørensen, 2016, p. 419; Kania and Kramer, 2011; Davies et al., 2012; Eggers... [ view full abstract ]
Governance networks and collaborative systemic innovation approaches are increasingly being used by western democracies to address wicked problems (Sørensen, 2016, p. 419; Kania and Kramer, 2011; Davies et al., 2012; Eggers and Muoio, 2015). In order for governance networks to successfully undertake systemic innovation approaches, governments need to skilfully metagovern them in a manner that subtly and indirectly influences the governance network’s processes and outcomes and does not revert to a traditional command and control approach (Sørensen and Torfing, 2016, p 2). It is recognised that tools can assist elected politicians and public managers to metagovern governance networks in this manner (Sørensen and Torfing, 2009, p. 247).
Approaches informed by complexity theory are recommended for addressing wicked problems (Klijn 2008, p. 314; Australian Public Service Commission 2007, p. 14; Bentley & Wilsdon 2003, p. 26) and an understanding of complex adaptive systems has been recognised as an advantage when taking a systemic innovation approach (Davies et al., 2012, p.8). Despite this recognition, there is relatively little research on complexity tools for practitioners (Tait and Richardson, 2011, p. V).
This paper will address this identified gap by describing how a complexity-informed diagnostic tool can be used by elected politicians and public managers to metagovern governance networks that are addressing wicked problems. This tool was developed during a research project with the City of Onkaparinga in South Australia that used a pragmatic process of inquiry to decide how best to increase the systemic impact of a program that was addressing a wicked problem (Zivkovic, 2014).
The tool incorporates complexity thinking and centres on nine focus areas and thirty-six associated initiative characteristics for creating systemic change. Five of these focus areas and their associated initiative characteristics support the creation of systemic innovation and change in communities by building their adaptive capacity. These five focus areas are informed by four complex systems leadership theories and align to a ‘now well understood path’ (Thietart and Forgues, 2011, p. 61) that supports the emergence of new ways of working when taking action in complex adaptive systems such as and communities (Catto & Parewick 2008, p. 125).
The remaining four focus areas of the diagnostic tool and their initiative characteristics concentrate on enabling government systems to balance the unplanned exploration of solutions with communities and the planned exploitation of knowledge, ideas and innovations that emerge from community-led activities. It is difficult for governments not to take a command and control approach and to instead focus on creating conditions for emergence due to their having needs which are more easily met when there are clear relationships between cause and effect. These needs include time pressures for making government policy and the requirement of governments for simplicity, repetition, clarity, and accountability (Mulgan 2001). In order for governments to be able to take a complexity approach, government systems need to have the ability to balance unplanned exploration and planned exploitation (Duit and Galaz, 2008, p. 319; Moobela, 2005, p. 35).
