Trickle downs and trickle ups

This is a brief excerpt from the Guidebook on systems approaches I recently wrote (for Porticus , with Avance Impact ). You can download the guide here: https://www.dhirubhai.net/posts/wrijneveld_guidebook-for-systems-change-practitioners-activity-6977528490921181184-fGqH

Systems are often nested. They have sub-systems and are also a sub-system of a higher level system. System change is often intended to take place at different levels in a system. For example in municipalities and provinces. In Parishes and Dioceses. At national and global level. In individual companies and at sector level.

The question is how system change travels from one level to another. One basic rule I wrote in the Guidebook is “never assume trickle up and never assume trickle down”. Sounds easy, but I have seen interventions that do in fact make such assumptions. There are complaints about ‘pilotitis’ among those who intend to change systems, and there is good literature about why pilots “almost never fail and almost never scale” (p.39).

Three directions to spread change.

First some basics. When we consider two different levels in a system, change can travel in three directions: up, down or sidewards.

• Sidewards or horizontal change implies that change spreads across the same level. From one village to another. From one company to another. The units or actors that are being changed are similar to the initial change. Confusingly, this is often referred to as ‘scaling up’, though others refer to ‘scaling out’. Roger’s theory of diffusion of innovation can be placed here.
• Upward change implies that the change moves from lower to higher levels of scale. Different entities or actors are being changed than at the initial change. This is the dream of many development interventions: developing a good example, so that the government then adopts it and turns it into policy.
• Downward change implies that the change moves from higher to lower levels of scale. Again, a different set of actors is being changed than at the initial change. After adoption and ratification of legislation, it is now being implemented by government agencies. A sector organisation adopts a code of conduct and the members start behaving differently.

In systemic interventions, it is helpful to reflect on these directions of change. And probably about the combinations of those. For example, first sidewards in order to reach some scale. Then upward, by convincing authorities of its use. Then downward when authorities roll it out to all under their jurisdiction. Or first upward, then downward. Or only sideward. One of the key system skills is to be sufficiently flexible (and have the freedom to maneuver) to juggle one’s pushing change in one direction or the other. If upward change doesn’t work out, go sidewards first. If downward change doesn’t work, push it one more level up. Sounds easier than it really is…

Facilitating change to higher or lower levels

In the guidebook, I describe a number of specific mechanisms through which change travels upward or downward. Recognizing these is a first step toward facilitating or strengthening these mechanisms and developing the flexibility to shift or to use multiple mechanisms as pathways toward change.

Facilitating change from higher to lower level (see p.37/38 for some elaboration). This is a list of four key ways through which change can be facilitated from higher levels in a system to lower levels.

1. Compulsory roll-out
2. Moral authority
3. Capacity and resources
4. Communication

Facilitating change from lower to higher level (see p.40/41 for some elaboration). This is a list of nine key ways to facilitate spread from lower to higher levels (including sidewards spread of change).

1. Upward calling
2. Champions and coalitions
3. Linking networks horizontally and vertically
4. Communication
5. Status and competition
6. Nudging
7. Replication and adoption (ok, that is horizontal)
8. Values, stories and frames (which some call ‘scaling deep’)
9. Tipping points and balancing loops

These lists are not exhaustive. And the suggestions how to use these processes aren't either. This is meant to trigger system practitioners to enlarge their range of options to facilitate change.