Systemic Analysis and Co-creation

This is the creative heart of the SiD process. Everything before this phase was preparation. Everything after it is implementation. In the systemic analysis and co-creation phase, the team takes everything they have gathered, maps the system deeply, develops true understanding, and then works with stakeholders to co-create solutions and build a roadmap. This is where analysis becomes insight, and insight becomes action.

The phase has two interconnected sub-phases. First, the team performs deep systemic analysis to develop a thorough understanding of the system. Then, that understanding is brought into collaborative sessions where stakeholders contribute to solutioning and roadmap construction.

Sub-Phase A: Systemic Analysis

##### Climbing the Mountain of Understanding

Systemic analysis is fundamentally about moving between perspectives. You begin with objects: concrete, tangible things you can name and measure. You map their connections, building a picture of the network: how things relate, what flows between them, what patterns emerge. You then rise further to the system level: the behavior of the whole, the dynamics that emerge from the network, the patterns that no single object or connection explains.

This is the Mountain of Understanding. You climb from object perspective (the base) through network perspective (the middle) to system perspective (the summit). At the summit, you have a wide view over the entire system. You can scan the horizon. You can see where the system is strong, where it is fragile, where leverage exists. Then you descend, bringing new insights back to the object level where they manifest as concrete opportunities for intervention.

The ascent and descent are not metaphorical luxuries. They are the mechanism by which systemic understanding is achieved.

##### Pattern Recognition

With your system maps in front of you and your understanding developing, look for patterns. Where does the system exhibit reinforcing loops (dynamics that accelerate in one direction)? Where are balancing loops (dynamics that resist change and maintain the status quo)? Where are delays between cause and effect that create oscillation or overshoot?

Pattern recognition is what separates superficial analysis from deep understanding. It is the ability to see that a housing crisis, a transport problem, and an energy dependency are not three separate issues but three symptoms of a single underlying system dynamic.

##### Leverage Point Identification

Once patterns are recognized, look for leverage points: places where a small intervention can create disproportionately large change. In system dynamics, leverage points are often counterintuitive. The obvious intervention (build more roads to reduce congestion) often fails or makes things worse. The effective intervention (invest in mixed-use development to reduce the need for travel) operates on a different part of the system entirely.

Donella Meadows' hierarchy of leverage points is useful here, from least to most powerful:

• Numbers (subsidies, taxes, standards)
• Material stocks and flows
• Regulating negative feedback loops
• Driving positive feedback loops
• Information flows
• Rules of the system (incentives, punishments, constraints)
• Power over the rules (who sets the rules)
• Goals of the system
• Mindset or paradigm from which the system arises

The most powerful leverage points are the hardest to change. But they are where systemic transformation happens.

##### Immersion Techniques

Understanding complex systems requires more than intellectual analysis. It requires immersion. SiD uses several techniques to develop the intuitive "feel" for a system that produces genuine insight:

Relax and reflect. Upload the data into your brain through mapping and analysis. Then stop. Take a walk. Work in the garden. Let your subconscious process. The Archimedes principle: breakthroughs come during rest, not during strain.

Play and learn. Turn the system into a game. Serious gaming is a powerful technique for complex social, policy, and economic issues. A well-designed game can help a large group of people explore a highly complicated system over several hours and walk away with intricate understanding.

Role reversal. Take the position of a specific stakeholder and try to maximize their interests in interaction with others. This builds empathy and reveals dynamics invisible from your own perspective.

Simulation. For systems with quantifiable flows (energy, materials, logistics), computer simulations can provide insight. Thermal modeling, agent-based modeling, resource flow simulation. These are "play" in digital form.

Walk down SiD Road. Go through object, network, and system indicators one by one and probe them with "what if" questions. What if you increased transparency? What if connectivity doubled? What are the strongest drivers of resilience? Do this systematically, as a team, parameter by parameter.

Talk and reconsider. Discuss the system with others. Try to explain it to someone not initiated into the process. Try to explain it in three sentences. Many of the deepest realizations happen during conversation with someone whose perspective you respect.

The Viable Systems Model (VSM). Developed by cybernetician Stafford Beer, VSM is a powerful tool for analyzing organizational structures, internal logistics, and supply chain complexity from a network perspective. It can complement SiD's qualitative approaches with structured quantitative analysis.

Sub-Phase B: Co-creation

Once the team has developed systemic understanding, it is time to bring stakeholders into the process. Co-creation is collaborative solutioning: working with the people who will be affected by and responsible for implementing the transition.

##### Three Levels of Solutioning

Solutions are developed at three levels, generally working from most powerful to most concrete:

System-level solutioning produces the highest-leverage interventions. Block transition strategy (tilt the table, do not just push individual blocks). Before/after solution maps. Largest-factor approach. Re-visioning. Training the system.

Network-level solutioning targets network parameters. Resilience analysis using CRAFTDCCV scoring. Optimizing connectivity, transparency, diversity, redundancy. Identifying and strengthening the weakest links.

Object-level solutioning works on the concrete layer. Gap finding and closing loops. Object culling (removing what the system does not need). Circular economy strategies. Biomimicry. Dematerialization (the default should always be: can you solve this without adding a new physical object?).

##### Brainstorming Rules

During co-creation, brainstorming generates raw solution ideas. Enforce the classic rules:

• Defer judgment. No idea is evaluated during brainstorm phase.
• Welcome wild ideas. The crazier, the better. Wild ideas can be tamed. Timid ideas cannot be made bold.
• Quantity over quality. Generate as many ideas as possible. Curation comes later.
• Build on others' ideas. "Yes, and..." not "No, but..."

After brainstorming, cluster, filter, and evaluate. Use the evaluation matrix from Step 5 of the method: score solutions against goals and edge conditions. Combine competing solutions. Eliminate what does not serve the goal.

##### Solution Clustering and Gap Analysis

Group solutions by theme (using ELSI or other logical divisions). Identify gaps: what is missing? If your solutions address energy and materials but ignore culture and governance, you have blind spots that will undermine the transition. Use the clustering to ensure comprehensive coverage.

##### Roadmap Construction

With a refined set of solutions, build the roadmap using the ten-step process from M7. This is typically done during a co-creation session with stakeholders, so that the people who will implement the roadmap are the same people who built it.

For large projects, roadmap construction may span multiple sessions. A first session maps solutions and clusters. A second session identifies gaps, assigns responsibilities, and sets milestones. A third session refines the action plan and secures commitments.

##### Jury Evaluation

For projects with significant impact, assemble a panel of external experts to review the work. Fresh eyes will identify blind spots the team has become accustomed to. External evaluation does not replace self-evaluation. It supplements it. Schedule the jury at the end of a co-creation cycle, after the team has done their own evaluation but before finalizing the roadmap.

Duration and Format

The systemic analysis and co-creation phase varies enormously:

• Intensive workshop: 2 to 5 days, combining analysis and co-creation. Suitable for focused challenges with a small stakeholder group.
• Multi-session process: Multiple rounds over weeks or months. Each session deepens analysis and expands stakeholder involvement. The Schiphol Catalyst project used three sessions: 5 days (core team only), 4 days (22 people), and 4 days (40 stakeholders in revolving groups).
• Ongoing program: For city-scale or national transitions, systemic analysis and co-creation become an ongoing activity integrated into governance structures.

Deliverables

At the end of this phase, you should have:

• A systemic understanding document capturing the team's analysis
• A comprehensive set of solutions at system, network, and object levels
• A draft roadmap with channels, milestones, and responsibilities
• An evaluation report from the jury (if applicable)
• An aligned group of stakeholders ready to move to execution