The Purpose of a System is What it Does Now

Back in November last year I wrote an article in which I said, “Systems Thinker, Stafford Beer, coined the term, “the purpose of a system is what it does” (POSIWID). That begs the questions “does what” and “for who?”

I went on to say, “Asking of a system “who does it serve?” and “who is it failing?” will be very telling. If it is failing the powerful it will be changed. If it is failing the powerless it may not change, or not without a fight.”

I have been thinking about this some more and in the title of this article I used that term, but added “NOW.” Let me explain why.

Following the death of British Social Philosopher, Charles Handy in December, I listened to an unpublished recording of an interview I did with him a few years ago. I recalled that we had spoken about his serious concerns about education systems.

I listened to it advance of my interview yesterday with educationalist Neil Hawkes for the SALON, and a call yesterday afternoon with Lene Rachel Andersen, author of "The Nordic Secret" and several other books. She also has an interest in education.

In my interview with Charles we discussed the purpose of the education system, and what it ought to be. In his view it ought to be about “preparing children for the life they will live.” He went on to say, if that is the purpose it is not doing a good job. He then suggested some radical changes.

In his view, rather than preparing all children to go to university to be taught subjects related to jobs that won’t even exist in the future, classroom schooling should stop at 14. Thereafter, teenagers in the “vital years” of their life would discover the path they want to take based on "tutored experiences." He added that. in his view. a maximum of about 20% should then go on to university, straight from school.

Reflecting on his thinking, what Stafford Beer has to say about the purpose of a system, and my comment on that as it applies to the education system, I have had a few more insights.

A criticism of education is that it was initially set up to serve industry need for a better educated workforce, not in the interests of children primarily. Education systems were born to facilitate the demands created by the industrial revolution, in other words.

What the education system did THEN, when it was established, and who for seems clear to most people. But today we hear industry complaining the education system is not serving them. So whose interests is it NOW serving, and how is that reflected in what is does?

Given that over time the school system has “extended childhood” as Dr Neil Hawkes suggested when I spoke to him. And that the system is preparing all students to go to university, as Charles suggested, might we conclude that the purpose of the education system and what it does is designed to serve the interests of itself, the education system?

That suggestion would be controversial, but it might explain why the system seems so unwilling to embrace change.

All very large bureaucratic systems have a tendency, over time, to become almost impossible to change. They resist it, because the system ends up serving itself.

Healthcare is another example. So, does this explain why so many of our large systems and the institutions that run them seem not to be working well?

To conclude.....

Asking of a system who does it serve NOW is more important that thinking about who it was designed to serve when it was set-up, and believing that is still its purpose. Then asking who is it failing, could be very telling. This thinking would lead us to ask, who it should be serving, and ensure they have the voice, the power, to ensure it changes to serve them - or the parents that should represent them do in the case of children.

Perhaps we need national or international inquiries to re-examine the purpose of education, healthcare etc, so we may ensure the system is designed to achieve the right purpose, and it's performance can be assessed using the right measure?