That question nagged at me as I read the explanations by John Seddon and Simon Caulkin of how the British Governments' imposition of a hugely-expensive, computerised, performance-reducing activity control-system had prevented Haringey's social workers from saving Baby P from his piteous fate.
Think about it. Even the most successful and respected of systems thinkers are little more than frustrated spectators as politicians, economists, corporate executives, civil servants pile one major system failure on another. Nobody takes much notice of us when we offer a our perspectives on the case of Baby P, the global financial melt-down, the futility of carbon-reduction targets in the face of global warming, and the multitude of other fundamental errors that have led, or will lead, to actual and potential disasters. So much of what we see around us cries out for the systems approaches that we understand so well. Yet, after decades of effort, as systems thinkers, we still have little or no influence on the obsolete, dysfunctional, and potentially lethal policy-forming processes that will be as disastrous for the future of our children and grandchildren as they were for poor little Baby P.
Read more: Why are systems thinkers so politically ineffective compared to the charlatans and snake-oil salesmen? [click]
