Peter Scott served as the moderator for the afternoon.  Greg Van Alstyne spoke about the sLab, as a unit first founded in 2008, now perhaps in a version 2.0 evolution.

In 2008 when “design thinking” was new, the label of “Strategic Innovation Lab” was coined.  In the 2026 reinvigoration, the branding is now just sLab, where the “s” might signify “systemic design”, “social innovation”, or any variety of other descriptors.  sLab continues to welcome scholarly practitioners interested in collaborating on research in a participatory style.

For the second part of the agenda, the Problematique Dialogue was overviewed, with a new website, and reference to the Advance Call for Participation in the previous Systems Thinking Ontario.

Organizing this event is in the Connecting phase, towards a maximum of 4 topics with 8 participants each.  In the Agreeing phase of self-organizing, teams experience the dance between (i) topics seeking participants, and (ii) participants seeking topics.  There may be 2 or 3 online meetings as individuals feel out which of the 4 topics with which they most resonate.  The advance preparation will be complete when each team has established a Triggering Question.

When we’re in-person in May, most of the Exploring phase will be spent in the group of 8 participants, with some opportunities for cross-pollination at the end of each day. … Read more (in a new tab)

Since fall 2025, the reinvigoration of the sLab at OCAD University has led to evolving this 5-day co-learning approach.  The event is targeted for May 10-15, 2026, in Toronto.  The original design of secluded residential events (e.g. a converted Austrian monastery, a Swiss cultural centre, an Iowa farmhouse) is being modified for an urban university campus.  Returning closer to the original spirit initiated by Bela H. Banathy, the event has been renamed as a Problematique Dialogue applying the Banathy Conversation Methodology.  For this Systems Thinking Ontario session, I presented an (Advance) Call for Participation, with the formal announcement a few weeks away.

We’re currently in a Connecting phase where contributors to the event are invited.  The 2026 event will be limited to 32 participants, as 4 groups of maximum 8 persons each.  This is a negotiated dance, between candidate participants seeking a topic, and topics seeking candidate participants.  Team leaders are yet to be appointed.  Candidates will be asked to contribute a position paper (e.g. two pages with a brief biography, and interest in a topic).  We expect dialogue teams to then move on to an Agreeing phase.… Read more (in a new tab)

Three months ago, I presented a paper on “Refreshing a Curriculum in Systems Thinking and Social Systems Designing for Learners in a Graduate Program” reflecting the experiences with a winter 2025 class.  Just a few weeks from incrementing the course for January 2026, I summarized the earlier presentation, and previewed a plan to deepen the instruction on using Generative AI for research and diagramming.  A recording of the presentation is available on Youtube, as well as on the Internet Archive .

The original audio was recorded at HICSS-59, as a foundation for reconstructing the visuals.

With only a 10-minute slot, including questions and comments, the presention was only 6 slides.

After the break, a panel on “Education in the Time of AI: Challenges, Opportunities and the Road Ahead” was moderated by Eman El-Sheikh from the University of West Florida.  As I represented OCAD University from Canada, the other panelists included Leonard Przybilla from SAP Germany, and Jeremy Straub, from U.… Read more (in a new tab)

Zaid led the presentation for about 40 minutes.  With animation a better medium to convey the foregrounding of temporality, an animated slide preview (59 seconds) gives some sense of the content.

After the presentation, I led the discussion.  Since I’ve been visiting Finland for academic studies since 2003, some familiar friends came online.

This recording is available on Youtube , as well as on the Internet Archive .

The audio was ripped from the online meeting.

Here’s the abstract for the talk.

How do you approach systems change when there’s no “pause” button? This presentation shifts how we see systems: from the default spatial-static to a more processual-dynamic perspective. We integrate concepts drawn from this living systems perspective found in anthropology, architecture, and classical Chinese medicine, amongst others. Pacing Changes is introduced as a method for working with the multiple layers and differing paces of a system.

With this maturity of appreciation, this presentation orients towards an audience mostly of designers, listing 9 (non-exclusive, non-exhaustive) approaches to systems changes. To aid understanding, short movies were included as metaphorical imagery.  An animated slide preview preview (85 seconds) gives an overview of the presentation.

Here’s the abstract from the associated research article.

Designers engaging in initiatives aspiring towards “systems changes” may be challenged to define what that entails. What distinguishes a “change” from “systems changes”? Under stable conditions where minor fluctuations from an equilibrium are expected, systems typically absorb irregularities without altering their fundamental nature or identity. In turbulent fields where disorder prevails, systems may be transformed as adaptations and developments unfold.

(Re-)designing can be grounded in paradigms drawn from Social Theory, and/or General Systems Theory. Depending on context, certain systems approaches may prove more suitable than others. Efforts to identify a universal “one best way” towards solving (or dissolving) problems (or problematic messes) are likely to lead to disappointment. In the evolution of the systems movement since the 1950s, design thinking and transdisciplinary stances have gained prominence. Contemporary mindsets increasingly embrace pluralistic perspectives, drawing from postmodern thought and non-Western philosophies.

Through a multiparadigm inquiry, well-established mainstream systems perspectives from the 20th century are reviewed. Since 2019, the Systems Changes Learning Circle in Toronto has been rethinking systems thinking, shifting the focus from stability to navigating constant change.

The 136th meeting of Systems Thinking Ontario coincided with the RSD14 Relating Systems Thinking and Design Symposium, and our evenings lined up with Australians meeting in the mornings for the Pacific Edition.  Greg Van Alstyne and Peter Scott were featured in the conversation on history and prospects for sLab.

The history is a preamble for an in-person workshop on Friday, October 17, 3:30-5:30pm at the RSD14 hub at OCADU, 100 McCaul Street.  A description of the “Where Do Systemic Designers Go To [BLANK]?” workshop is posted in the preprints for the proceedings.

Here’s the original description for the recorded ST-ON session above.

— begin paste —

This session offers a reflection on the history of the Strategic Innovation Lab’s (sLab) at OCADU. We’ll discuss the potential for its renewal in the context of a vibrant systems thinking and design community, both locally and nationally.

sLab, at OCADU, was host to an active community of students, alumni, faculty, and stakeholders from 2002 to 2020. In this time, it produced notable projects such as Digital Governance, Economic Futures of Ontario 2032, Design Jams, amongst others. These projects and workshops used many strategic foresight methods, which have since become more well-known.… Read more (in a new tab)

I attended both the full-time and part-time sections of the class in progress, and observed where our anticipations as instructors were correct and incorrect. In addition, the standard OCADU procedure includes course evaluations, that gave us more directions for future adjustments.

With multiple conferences running in parallel, authoring a report on the experience took us past many deadlines.  A systems colleague from many years back, Nikitas Assimakopoulos, sent a call for presentations for the Hellenic Society for Systemic Studies (HSSS) conference at the University of the Peloponnese, where I could participate online. … Read more (in a new tab)

The collaboration with the Systems Changes Learning Circle since 2019 has always been on systems practice.  However the emphasis on changes (even overshadowing systems) led not only to reading philosophy, but proposing a new World Hypothesis through philosophizing.  Redefining a philosophy of science leads to theorizing, that provides foundations for continuing work on methodizing.

The resulting 30-minute talk was dense — but possibily more understandable than reading the 12-page article.

This recording is available on Youtube , as well as on the Internet Archive . The International Institute of Informatics and Cybernetics has a history spanning multiple decades, so the comments from participants were well-informed on the body of work in systems thinking.

The audio was ripped from the online meeting.

Review of the manuscript followed a double-blind review process.  The first reviewer was encouraging, picking up on my leaning more towards the tradition of General Systems Theory than Cybernetics.

The article titled “Rethinking Systems Thinking for Systems Changes Learning: Philosophizing, Theorizing, and Methodizing” offers an important and timely reframing of systems thinking by introducing a rhythm-based, cross-cultural, and ethically grounded paradigm that enriches both theory and practice, despite some underexplored connections to the cybernetic tradition.

For this audience, we decided that Zaid would lead the presentation, and I would take questions at the end. With content foregrounding time over space, motion pictures are better than snapshots. An animated slide preview (60 seconds) gives the sense of the flow.

Here’s the abstract for the talk.

Do we think about systems mostly as (i) stable structures with occasional unfreezing-moving-refreezing, or as (ii) living rhythms as processual threads, weaving into unfolding textures of time?

Putting a meshwork of rhythms into the foreground draws attention to the propensity in situations at hand, with auspicious or unfavourable intervals for willful action. Rhythmic shifts may be anticipated, or shrouded in complexity.

Pacing changes can be approached in two ways. Tracing from a thread to the texture, external conditions causing illness or dysfunction can be diagnosed, leading to consideration of prognoses most conducive to recovery. Alternatively, parsing from a living texture into threads may uncover options to expedite opportunities for greater advantage, or to preempt adverse paths leading towards trouble.

Living systems may have a greater affinity for kairos (as felt time) over chronos (as clock time). With each thread predisposed towards a natural rhythm, organizations and or individuals may pace towards diachronous coordination (codeveloping through time) rather than synchronous coordination (rushing or dragging to simultaneously arrive at a point in time).

Panelists to spark the conversation included Michelle Zhou, David Ing, and Gary Metcalf.  The event was moderated by Jim Spohrer. The ISSIP Ambassadors added more insights, recorded for streaming on YouTube.

Michelle started the discussion on negotiation skills and essential human services.  I recalled the socio-technical systems of coal mines reorganizing into autonomous workgroups, and then accountabilities established through language-action commitments.  Gary spoke to his experience in graduate education beginning in distance learning, that evolved into online learning over the Internet, and now the possibilities with asynchronicity and AI.  These seeds bloomed into group discussions about critical thinking, working in teams, and the potential for AI to provide personality insights that might better guide collaborations.  Opening up the conversation to others on the call built on these themes.

For those to prefer to read, there’s an AI summary and transcript produced by Zoom.

In having this conversation in real time, the roundtable cocreated knowledge that probably isn’t readily available through a generative AI.  Above all, we had fun!

Here’s the original invitation to participation.

Intelligence Augmentation (IA) enhances and elevates human’s ability, intelligence, and performance with the help of information technology.… Read more (in a new tab)

The presentation is available on Google Slides.

There are two sections for SFIN-6011.  On the Monday evening, the part-time cohort convened online.

On the Wednesday morning the full-time cohort convened in person.

Zaid is a cofounder of the Systems Changes Learning Circle, that started in 2019 as a 10-year journey. For novices, he’s better at explaining the approach than me. I tend to get wrapped up into the minutiae of philosophy and theory.

The recordings are available on YouTube for the part-time cohort, and the full-time cohort. Alternate copies are available on the Internet archive for the part-time cohort and the full-time cohort.

The audio from the March 17 session is ripped from online meeting.  The March 19 session was recorded live in a classroom.

Living in a “polycrisis” time can be characterized by an increasing rate, severity, and scale of emergencies. Viruses, war, extreme weather – societies today are facing an increasingly unstable and unpredictable landscape.

It’s with this in mind we ask ourselves what insights does a systems-oriented view of emergency management offer us? How might this perspective better prepare us in both a material and cognitive sense for the risks we face?

We’ll explore this connection with Carly Benson and Donna Dupont, who both have experience in the fields of emergency management, disaster recovery, and resilience. We’ll gather insights and reflections on the connections between these topics and systems thinking.

Co-Discussants

Carly Benson is an accomplished emergency management professional with over a decade of experience in emergency management practice and policy in Canada. She has worked directly with communities such as High River and Fort McMurray, Alberta, to respond to and recover from devastating disasters, with a focus on improving resiliency and reducing future risk. In her current role, Carly works on disaster risk reduction policy for the Government of Canada, applying systems thinking to how the federal government creates incentives for and funds disaster response and recovery. Most recently, Carly played a pivotal role in the review and redesign of Canada’s disaster financial assistance program (which is more than 50 years old), an initiative that has won several awards.

The 2009 Program Overview for OCAD (i.e. Ontario College of Art and Design, before the institution was granted university status) was designed for those “who may be working full or part time”, with “courses are normally clustered on Thursdays or Fridays”.  It outlined “45 credits of work including the following”:

• 12 credits of directed studio work
  • SFIN 6C01: Research Methodologies (6 credits)
  • SFIN 6C02: Foresight and Innovation Studio (6 credits)
• 21 credits of seminar courses (combined studio/academic)
  • SFIN 6B01: Business and Design Thinking (3 credits)
  • SFIN 6B02: Human Systems (3 credits)
  • SFIN 6B03: The Human Factor (3 credits)
  • SFIN 6B04: Non-human Systems (3 credits)
  • SFIN 6B05: Business Modeling and Policy Innovation (3 credits)
  • SFIN 6B06: Strategic Communications (3 credits)
  • SFIN 6B07: Leadership Excellence (3 credits)
• 12 credits of self-directed major project research and development
  • SFIN 6E01: Major Project (12 credits)

The 2010 Program Requirements showed a little more structuring in terms for the 45 credits.  “Human Systems” became “Social Systems”.  “Non-human systems” became “Understanding Systems”.

• Year One
  • Fall semester (9 credits)
    • SFIN 6B01: Business and Design Thinking (3)
    • SFIN 6C01: Research Methodologies (6)
  • Winter semester (6 credits)
    • SFIN 6B03: The Human Factor (3)
    • SFIN 6B04: Understanding Systems (3)
  • Summer semester (3 credits)
    • SFIN 6B05: Business Modeling and Policy Innovation (3)
• Year Two
  • Fall semester (9 credits)
    • SFIN 6B02: Social Systems (3)
      SFIN 6C02: Foresight and Innovation Studio (6)
  • Winter semester (6 credits)
    • SFIN 6B06: Strategic Communications (3)
    • SFIN 6B07: Leadership Excellence (3)
  • Summer semester (12 credits)
    • SFIN 6E01: Major Project (12)

The 2011 Program Requirements shows the Major Project extended in year 2 from summer into the fall.   … Read more (in a new tab)

The CSRP Institute 2024 Banathy Conversation validated that the Systems Changes philosophy and theory developed since 2019 is comprehensive for Ph.D. and master’s level audiences.  For less academic audiences, the label of “Pacing Changes” may be more appealing.  This direction is compatible with the human systems orientation of social systems design, while more sympathetic to the broader scope of living systems (associated with General Systems Theory).

Living systems aren’t static, with change occurring as unfreeze-move-refreeze.  Living systems are alive, wayfaring as lines in time in textures (i.e. lines alongside other lines, in weaves).  With a long history of presentations with static clipart, or boxes and lines, I’m now motivated to convey ideas with moving images instead.  The presentation slides ae posted on the Coevolving Commons.

The recording of the slide presentation and live demonstration is available on Youtube, with an alternate retention on the Internet Archive .

The standalone audio may be less enlightening through the demonstrations, but are also available.

Here’s the agenda for the talk:

• A.

The article is available as open access. To complement the structured abstract required by the jounrnal, here’s an outline of the sections.

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Post-pandemic labour movements set a scene for metatheoretical development

• 2.1 In 2021, increased job-to-job mobility was labelled as the Great Resignation
• 2.2 In 2022, workplace disengagement has been labelled as quiet quitting
• 2.3 Beyond earning money, theories of work are focused primarily on job satisfaction
• 2.4 Pandemic disruptions cumulatively encouraged reflecting on theories of life, and of work

• 3.1 Four world hypotheses were proposed by Pepper, each with a root metaphor
• 3.2 A schema for hypotheses arranges ways for evidence to be recognized and interpreted
• 3.3 Socio-technical is part-whole organicism; socio-ecological is whole-whole contextualism
• 3.4 (Con)textural dyadic thinking modifies contextualism with yin qi + yang qi

• 4.1 Slowing in rhythmic pacing might entail late spring or permanent climate change
• 4.2 Dyadic imbalance might entail recuperation from acute injury, or chronic illness
• 4.3 Delayed transformative reifying might entail stunted or delayed life transitions
• 4.4 (Con)textural-dyadicism joins the four historic world hypothesis as theory-building

Moderated by Zaid Khan, the conversation was sparked by Stephen Davies and myself (David Ing) on the evolving styles in learning systems thinking.  Stephen has been leading SFIN-6011 “Understanding Systems” since the beginning of this winter session.  I had previously taught in the course in winter 2020 (almost completing the term before the COVID-19 pandemic shutdown), and have been volunteering some time this winter with current students.

The master’s program in Strategic Foresight and Innovation was launched in 2009, with systems thinking at its core.

Our strategic innovation model … illustrates the integration of design, business, and futures thinking through systems thinking. This integration allows our students to move through an iterative design thinking process, understand the business context to ensure viability and develop deeper insights into the challenges a sector or organization might be facing through futures thinking. Systems thinking and mapping locates these complex challenges in a larger system and makes clear the patterns and interconnectedness of the issues; and visual thinking ensures more effective communication of complex data (Richards, 2015, p. 360).

In the earliest days, there were two courses listed:  (i) “Understanding Systems” in Year One, Winter semester, and (ii) “Social Systems” in Year Two, Fall semester (OCADU, 2011).

SFIN 6B02 Social Systems
In this introduction to complex systems, students will examine the dynamic arrangement of three interconnected and adaptive human systems; social, market and political.

From week 3 on, groups of students will lead short presentations on some systems approaches (e.g. system dynamics, soft systems methodology, viable system model).  With short lead times to prepare literature reviews, the primary class activity for these master’s students is the facilitation of peer discussions that will surface key ideas.  They aren’t expected to become experts on these topics at this point.  They can get a sense of when and where a specific systems approach might be prioritized as useful, or deselected in favour of alternatives.  After the presentation leaders have concluded with their slides, the instructors can fill in a few blanks.… Read more (in a new tab)

The January 2025 Systems Thinking Ontario session, included:

• the progression of patterning of information, in a simile of a recipe collection, from the days of cookbooks on library shelves, through the now familiar technologies of search engines and data science, to the new transformer and retrieval augmented generation techniques;
• some Q+A chat challenges, feeding the same question and observing the differences in responses across (i) OpenAI ChatGPT, (ii) Microsoft Copilot, (iii) Mistral LeChat, (iv) Anthropic Claude, (v) Google NotebookLM, and (vi) Preplexity.ai;
• five inquiring systems described in a mini-lecture, followed by summarized descrptions by each of the six generative AI products; and
• a hypothetical scenario requesting the how the five inquiring systems might guide ways of deciding about Small Modular Reactors for Canada.

The discussion closed with an outline of Type 1 errors, Type 2 errors, Type 3 errors, and Type 4 errors, as structured by Ian Mitroff.… Read more (in a new tab)

The invited paper on “Reifying Socio-Technical and Socio-Ecological Perspectives for Systems Changes: From rearranging objects to repacing rhythms” was reviewed by the STPIS chairs.  Here’s the abstract:

Purpose: The rise of Socio-Technical Systems (STS) and Socio-Ecological Systems (SES) perspectives originated in the industrialization of the 1950s and 1960s. With ubiquitous computing and globalization compressing time and space, interests in systems thinking by the 2020s have turned towards systems changes. This refocusing on changes has encouraged hypothesizing an alternative world theory of (con)texturalism-dyadicism with a root metaphor of yinyang dancing through [eight] seasons. Through post-colonial sciencing in constructionist philosophizing across Western and Classical Chinese traditions, SES alongside STS are recast as kairotic rhythms casting on and binding off weaves in time.

Approach: This inquiry began with behavioral histories of open-sourcing-while-private-sourcing, in an inductive approach to theory building. Curiosity on the origins of causal texture theory led to plunging into the history of pragmatism, and its associated metaphilosophy. An exploration of processual philosophies revealed a better appreciation through a non-Western approach, via yinyang at the foundation of Classical Chinese Medicine. Developing a (con)textural-dyadic world theory enables conjoining SES and STS as diachronic complements.

Findings: Changes in SES and STS based on Western philosophy presuppose functions and structures as primordial, evoking systems conceptions of rearranging objects.

Zaid Khan moderated  a discussion including me (David Ing), Tim Lloyd, Allenna Leonard, and Kelly Okamura.

We recollected starting as a spinoff from Design with Dialogue, adopting their tradition of meeting in a circle in the Lambert Lounge at OCADU.  In the summers, we’ve celebrated the Synthesis Maps created by Master of Design students from the Strategic Foresight and Innovation program in the Visual Analytics Lab.  The COVID-19 pandemic saw us shift to online meetings, with a few in-person opportunties taken in the summer.

This video recording is available for download, on Youtube, and also on the Internet Archive .

An audio version was also created during the meeting.

In 2025, Systems Thinking Ontario meetings are planned to continue.  We’re shifting to a different evening, to enable inclusion of students currently in the SFI program.  With an increase in the number of sessions where we’ll meet in person, we hope that novices will join our regulars.  Stay posted at https://wiki.st-on.org.