The case study describes the mess created when the government started the CSA back in the 90s. I remember this happening back in the 90s and it’s interesting that the day I start reading the case study something pops up in the news about it.

I’ve thankfully never had to deal with them, and I seriously hope I never will. Reading the case study suggested a comedy of errors, but I’m sure that it wasn’t at all funny for the people affected by it. It’s a real lesson in how not to implement a large-scale project.

I’ve read it all the way through without taking notes. I shall now read it again, more thoroughly this time and take notes as I go. I shall then draw up a rich picture using my O-level art skills from the 1980s.Demographic changes (lots of single parents) see benefits expenditure on lone parents increase from £2.4 billion in in 1978/79 to £6.6 billion in 92/93. Fewer lone parents receiving payments from ex-partners (50% in 1980 to 23% in 1990). Recovery of costs from absent parents wasn’t happening. Most maintenance payments were also quite small (average £27 a week).

In 1991, 19% of all family types (with dependent children – under 16, or also 16-18 if in full-time education) were lone parents, vast majority of which were lone mothers (18%).

Government (Thatcher!) proposes to set up an agency to trace absent parents and “make them accept their financial obligations”. Will use a “standard administrative formula” to work out required maintenance payments. White paper released called “Children Come First”, although later I suspect this should have been called “Treasury Come First”, as my perspective on this leads me to think that this was more of move to reduce the burden on benefits system.

Having said that, I generally agree with the concept that absent parents should have to contribute to the upbringing of their own children, rather than relying on the government to do it. This is an worthwhile goal, although the we shall see that the way the government carried this out was something way south of perfect.

CSA to be set up. Trace absent parents, work out how much they should pay and enforce it. Parents with care using Income Support would be obliged to apply for maintenance. None-co-operation would result in reduced benefits, or even prison, unless good reason (like rape or incest etc). White paper was criticised by interested parties – like the Child Poverty Action Group – but Child Support Bill passed with hardly any changes (Feb 1991). Some criticism suggests treasury concerns too foremost and that some of those that do not wish to name fathers (for whatever reason) could suffer greatly. Underlying problem of lone-parent poverty not addressed according to many critics.

Income support would be reduced £ per £ against maintenance received from absent parents, so many families would not be better off. Bill passed in July 1991 without much media attention.

Concern that legislative process went very quickly without sufficient debate, considering the potential impact of the bill. Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) say (in 1994) that the future problems of the CSA could have been predicted from the haste of the legislation. Too much secondary legislation and no chance of amending the regulations during debate. Inadequate scrutiny. I think this will be an important part of my rich picture.

One of the main cornerstones of the Act was the all-encompassing formula that would work out the necessary maintenance payments. This was quite complex. The government  would also kindly charge parents for using CSA services (some exemptions, like those on income support, family credit etc).

Child Support Act to be phased in starting April 1993. Target those not on income support etc but no existing maintenance first, then those on benefits, then those with existing court orders or maintenance agreements subsequent to 1996.

CSA starts April 1993. Was this really nearly 20 years ago? Started with “few extant organisational structures”. In other words, nobody really knew what they were supposed to be doing. Fears from lone-parent families that the State will take more from them then give them in return – do not trust the government. This was fairly late on in the extended Tory government. Thatcher was gone but Tories unpopular with many (if I remember rightly).

Goals for CSA in 93/94 included making £530 million in benefit savings with a budget of £115 million, satisfy 65% of clients (that’s a pretty low bar!) and arrange 60% of cases for parents with care making eligible applications. They missed the 60% thing by a long way, partly because the “clients” didn’t trust the CSA. Lots of clients signed declaration forms to show that the process would cause “harm or undue distress” (65,000 by March 1994).

Criticism of CSA started almost immediately it launched. One concern was that it was aiming at the “easy” targets first, like those with existing agreements or with absent parents that were easy to locate because they see their children regularly, whereas neglectful parents were being ignored. So, lone parents with real need were not being helped, but the Treasury was still getting its pound of flesh.

Some allegations that the CSA was causing severe financial hardship with some absent fathers. Some of these cases were true, some exaggerated. However, valid concerns over the inflexibility of the magic formula, and of administrative incompetence. Staff at CSA started receiving hate mail etc and they were getting stressed. Due to the initial problems, government made some recommendations for changes in December 1993.

However, many problems remained. in October 1994 a report from the chief child support officer found that of 1380 assessments only 25% were correct and 39% were incorrect (the rest being too difficult to tell one way or the other). Recommended better staff training, accurate evidence collecting and improvements in calculating earnings etc.

CSA failed to give expected benefit savings (£418 million as opposed to the expected £530 million) and only achieved 31.5% of the eligible applications. Somehow they did achieve 61% client satisfaction (although absent parents were unsurprising less enamoured with 39% rating). How they measured this figure could be described as leading to a higher figure than might have been otherwise gained by just asking “Are you satisfied overall with your experience with the CSA?”.

For the second year, the goalposts were moved. More staff at the CSA and fewer expected cases. If things don’t work very well, expect less? Summer of 1994 Andersen Consulting advise on management structure and procedures. Could they have done this before it started? Horse gone, door still wide open. New head of CSA announced. Would a new broom help?

Answer: not really. Autumn 1994 report shows that over half of all assessments are incorrect. More changes required. Let’s move those goalposts again! Delay next implementation which would have been due in 1996. Criticism continues. CSA accused of abandoning those that really needed their service (those with unrepentant absent fathers) and aimed low to get the easy budget fixes. Accused of putting Treasury first, lone parents second.

By 1995 CSA performance was improving, though lots of mistakes in assessment administration still. Government also highly criticised, as ministers were slow to react to problems. Should have done a pilot study first, but instead rolled the whole thing out in one go. Untrained staff and inadequate supporting technology.

Ann Chant (CSA exec) blamed her clients for “avoiding legal liability”. Claims such problems could not have been anticipated. I might beg to differ there. Why didn’t they anticipate a certain level of non-compliance? Some blame aimed at the relevant ministers who had inadequate oversight over the CSA and were “too easily satisfied with assurances” by CSA officials.

Second year of CSA kept within its budget and exceeded stated benefit savings but failed to meet expected number of assessments and only 47% of assessments were done correctly.

Year 3, some criticisms were taken on board. The magic formula was updated again and more flexibility added into the system. Goalposts were moved again and dropped targets for benefit saving (although they seemed to have been meeting this one already, so I don’t quite get why this was dropped) and also the target for meeting a certain level of arrangements. The latter just seems like they gave up trying to provide a helpful service to people in need. Targets on clearance times were made easier. Rather than try and improve things it seems that they just made their targets easier to meet – lower the bar.

However, it seems that improvements in performance were made in this time. It does seem, though, that the CSA became less crap as opposed to having acceptable levels of performance. Still lots of mistakes and 1 in 6 of all cases were actually complaints about the CSA. Still too many incorrect assessments.

Year four saw some “significant improvements” although there were still far too many assessments to be done (only 1/3rd of lone parents on income support had received an assessment). Still too many mistakes.

Then the CSA decided to write off their IT systems due to its ineffectiveness. It seems that they’re blaming the computing systems for most of the mistakes. Made by EDS. Seems odd that they then decide to give EDS the contract for the new one. The new system could actually wipe out nearly all the benefit savings made so far.

The crux of this whole mess seems to me to be the following points:

• Inadequate parliamentary debate
• Hasty implementation
• Organisational infrastructure not ready at launch
• Initially inflexible formula
• Inadequate staff training causing leading to large numbers of errors
• Poorly designed IT systems
• Resistance from clients due to mistrust of agency/government
• Constantly shifting goals
• Inadequate ministerial control

Rich picture:

Oh crap. Well, I don’t think that I have an effective way of reading. I tend to just, you know, read stuff then hope I remember enough to get by. On previous courses I’ve read a bit here, a bit there and just got on with it, I didn’t really attempt to create some sort of strategy for absorbing the material. I’ve just made do with how my brain works.

However, I don’t think this will do for my next set of activities. I have a 9,000 word case study to read. I’m going to have to do a good job of absorbing this material, so I think I will just read it straight through – probably in more than one sitting – then read it again, making notes as I go. I’m then going to be drawing up a rich picture. This is expected to take five hours.

I’d better get on with that then.

I’m still a little bewildered by it all if I’m to be honest. I’m keeping an open mind about the approach and taking each activity as I see it. I’m willing to change tack if I need to and I’m just seeing where this is all going for now.

So far there hasn’t been much deviation from the systems thinking concepts that I learned in T214, so I’m intuitively pleased about that. At this moment in time I think that things are going to work out OK. I’m worried about the project, but I’m also relatively confident that I can do it well – as long as I can apply myself properly. I do have doubts about that.

I am certainly stimulated. I love to learn and the early stages of a course are the most exciting. This usually wears off after a while!

These attitudes are as follows:

• Being open and sensitive to all kinds of information about a situation: not just so-called factual information but impressions, intuitions and hunches, including other people’s when they express them;
• Being willing and able to see the situation from all kinds of points of view in addition to my own;
• Being as open as I can be to seeing the situation and not letting my theories, presuppositions and assumptions tell me how I ought to see it;
• Not taking terms of reference, boundaries or constraints too seriously; I try to assume they may not be as rigid as they seem to be;
• Trying to find out how other people see the constraints and boundaries;
• Being wary of any solution to a complex question (including my own solutions);
• Enjoying diversity and complexity in a situation; resisting the temptation to discard inconvenient bits of information; paying more, rather than less, attention to awkward facts, impressions or ideas;
• Not minding too much if there are areas of uncertainty in my understanding, or bits of information I don’t have; being sceptical about the facts I do have.

I can do most of this. The trouble I have is with information that will appear, to me, to be irrational. I’m a fan of rational thought and some of the more out-there ideas don’t really appeal to me. I do need to bear this in mind when considering other people’s perspectives.

I’ve struggled in the past with overcoming my own thinking traps, so I do need to acknowledge my own preconceptions about situations and note them down before developing my ideas more fully.

I think I always keep in mind that any particular solution will have problems, and so nothing I produce will be perfect or cover every eventuality. I’m always sceptical about the facts that I have and will try and provide as much evidence as I can. Life, and systems, are not black and white – there’s lots of grey. All we can do most of the time is find the best solution, not necessarily a complete solution.

I think the only way my expectations have changed is in regards to how the course is structured. The Block 1 notes seem to be suggesting that I have to find my own structure. This does worry me a bit; I do like a bit of structure in my life, otherwise I can just disappear off somewhere in my head and not do anything useful for long periods of time.

I had already intended to attempt to complete every activity, so perhaps my learning path will emerge from the chaos. Emergent properties – now there’s a systems thinking concept!

Systems thinking, for me, involves the process of describing and understanding systems as wholes. Rather than taking a reductionist view of a system, a wider scope is strived for and systems thinkers attempt to understand how each component of a system might be connected to (and interact with) other system components. All systems involve some level of connectedness, and this must be understood.

Systems thinkers use intuition to make initial statements about how systems work. This isn’t some ‘new agey’ way of making things up as you go along, but a method for us to use our existing knowledge of a subject and apply it to a system using modelling and reflection. It’s about avoiding over-thinking a problem and taking a high-level view, from which more detail can be gathered.

Systems thinkers will look at problems from multiple perspectives. In systems involving people each person will have their own worldview and perspectives and these must always be considered when attempting to understand social problems.

This will do for now. There are other systems thinking concepts that I haven’t mentioned, but the crux of systems thinking is about understanding the whole (holism) by figuring out how everything is connected.

Update: 25/1/12 12:45

The course notes have brought up an interesting way of looking at systems thinking. There’s that famous saying about “not seeing the woods for the trees”, meaning that we are often so focussed on details that we miss the larger context of situations. Systems thinking is about looking at the wood in order to see the trees in context.

It’s also true to say that as systems thinkers we will never be able to understand everything that might happen within a system. All we are trying to do is improve our understanding of systems enough to see where we might see emergent properties of the situations under study. The study of climate change is a good example of this – our climate is so complex, with many interdependent properties, that a purely reductionist view of certain parts of the system would fail to bring much enlightenment. However, a systemic study – involving a broader look at the whole of the problem – gives us a better idea how all the various parts might interact, giving us a clue as to what may occur in the future.

Once the whole is better understood then reductionist methods can give further understanding to how each connection in the system might work. Reductionism is great for detail in isolation, systemic thinking works for a more high-level, broader view of problems. Using the two together will give better results. This already happens in many sciences, whether they consider it system thinking or not.

What activities do you expect to undertake in studying a level 3 course?

Short answer? Similar to a level 3 course but harder.Longer answer? This course is the older, more difficult-to-understand sibling of T214 (or so I imagine) and will require a deeper understanding of the course material. I’m expecting a lot more research to be needed – rather than relying heavily on course materials – and I already know that I’ll need to be interacting with people I don’t know as part of my project work.

In the past I have found reading through course materials starts off my learning process, then I used to write bits of it out, or copy pertinent pages into some sort log book. In order to cement my earlier learning I’ve always found it helpful to carry out some sort of practical exercise. This is part of the ‘learning by experience’ mentioned in the course guide I suppose. Unfortunately, I often found other things to do and skipped some of this practical activity in earlier courses. My marks did suffer and I really need to find the time to work through all the course materials this time.

T214 had all sorts of course materials; books, on-line coursework, videos and audio tracks. I consumed most of it and even kept a ‘learning album’ on my blog like I am with T306. Unfortunately, I didn’t really maintain the T214 log and struggled to absorb the course material. T214 does have plenty of overlap with this course (modelling, learning cycle etc) and I think I did get a good grasp of those concepts during my work on my assignments, so I’m hoping that I can remember enough of it to make T306 a little easier.

This is my very first level 3 course, so perhaps I’m expecting something much harder than the reality of the course. We shall see.

Which components of your previous learning experience have you enjoyed most? Why?

I’ve always enjoyed learning new things. ‘Dry’ subjects are harder to find interesting, but the systems thinking courses have had real-life repercussions on my way of thinking. I’m now (hopefully) more away of ‘wholes’ when thinking about problems. I’ve always considered myself to be good at thinking from alternate perspectives but T214 has reinforced that, and I do now feel better equipped to imagine myself in other people’s shoes.

So, I’ve most enjoyed those components of courses that have had real effects on my life, either making it more interesting or making me more capable.

I have particularly enjoyed my previous Object Oriented Programming course (M255) because I was able to use some practical programming skills to write working code. I found that making something work highly satisfying. I will be very pleased with T306 if I can complete my project by providing what looks like a working solution to a problem.

I didn’t like subjects that I found boring, or had no particular interest in. I’ve always maintained that I don’t want to be a project manager, but it seems that T306 involves some project management tools. I’m not the most organised person and I’ve always thought that I’d find project management too difficult (and boring) for me. However, I am most certainly going to have to become a temporary project manager for my own coursework. I think that this is the part that I will find most difficult about the course, but we shall see.

All the courses I’ve taken with the OU have taken similar learning patterns: do some theory then do some exercises. I think that T306 will involve quite a lot of both, but the key to my success will be through spending a lot of time practising the methods taught in the course. The more I practise, the better my exam result will be.

Hopefully.

Update 25/1/2012

Having read a bit more of Block 1 it’s become apparent that T306 isn’t a course where you read some theory then do some practice; it’s more about self-discovery to see what works for the individual systems thinker. One practitioner’s methods might not work for another, and so we’re expected to find our own way to Systems Thinking Nirvana. The course sets the environment from which good systems thinkers can grow, or something like that.

I have to ‘take responsibility for my own learning’, apparently.

Add any further thoughts about your expectations.

You may feel some of the expectations you had have already been changed. Add any postscripts about this to the notes you made earlier. Make it clear in your notes these are postscripts and what has happened to change your views.

Um, I’ve not really expanded on any of my expectations after writing about Activity 2. I think I must have had a pretty grip on the requirements for the course, perhaps because T214 has given me a good grounding on systems practice principles.

I’ll be sure to go back and re-read this all later and make adjustments where necessary.

What do you understand the course title to mean?

T306 is called ‘Managing Complexity: a Systems Approach’.

There are two halves to this, so it looks like I need to define “managing complexity” and “systems approach”. I’ve not yet read the course notes on this so this will be my own imagined definitions based on prior learning.

So, ‘managing complexity’ means having a situation that is complex (messy or difficult) and applying some tools to control it, to reduce unwanted effects or to increase beneficial outcomes. I imagine that I will be needing to plan a course of action that will help cope with complex situations.

The ‘systems approach’ bit means (to me, so far) that I will need to take a systemic approach. In order to manage the complexity I will need to use systems practice tools (like diagramming, action learning cycle) to understand how the system under study works as a whole (an holistic approach) and apply some new tools (that I don’t yet have) to some part (or all of) the system in order to control or manage it.

From the course notes I know that there are some project planning tools coming up and lots of new definitions. I’m not too worried about being wrong about my attempted  definitions above, so I will just let these stand and look back later to enhance my reflective learning.

I do not know how on earth I’m going to find 16 hours every week. I’m guessing I’ll be working on my activities every lunchtime at work, along with not watching any TV or otherwise enjoying myself. I’m sorry life; you are on hold.

So, the first activity is about me reflecting on my reasons on taking this course. This is a LOT of reflection to do. Here we go, after the jump:

What is your purpose in doing this course?

T306 is one of two systems thinking courses that are the core of my chosen OU degree B33 (hons) in Computing and Systems Practice.

What do you hope to get from the course?

This module was a mandatory part of my chosen degree, and so I didn’t really specifically choose to take T306 other than as a broader desire to learn about systems thinking. The B33 description sounded interesting to me as a tester, and liked that there were some computing modules along with the systems thinking stuff. I tested telecommunications systems and thought that attempting to learn how to appreciate systems as a whole would be a good career move.

I didn’t really have a good idea what ‘systems thinking’ was until I started T214. I like the idea of taking an holistic approach to understanding and solving complex problems but my rational brain often baulks at properly engaging with my intuition. I found T214 hard at time because of this, and I hope to build on my intuitive abilities as part of this course.

I’m looking forward to learning the tools that will enable me to manage complex problems. These will inevitable give me the confidence and abilities to advance my career in my analytical directions, rather than remain primarily a doer. I’m not very good at planning and I hope that this course will help with that.

The prospect of doing a project that requires me to interact with people for research purposes bothers me. I do not like meeting with people I don’t know – I can be painfully shy – although I also appreciate that I can actually be quite sociable in new situations. Whatever happens I am going to have to jump in with both feet. I had ‘analysis paralysis’ on a number of occasions during T214 and I really don’t want to be stuck worrying about problems with T306, when I should be spending time working on them.

What is your emotional state as you approach the course?

I’m normally a fairly emotionally stable guy – my mood tends not to vary too much – but I am feeling a little stressed. T214 showed me how stressed I could get. There is an enormous amount of work involved and I do not know how on earth I’m going to get everything done, especially with M257 to finish too. I’m worried about the project and the final exam, but I have wonderful support from my wife, along with the usual support functions of the course forums.

Are you excited, bored, eager, puzzled, expectant, tired? What is your present body posture? Does it tell you anything about how you feel? Is it right? Can you improve your physical comfort?

Are you comfortable with your workspace? Are there things you can do to improve it?

I am looking forward to the course very much. I’m also dreading it, but I’ve enjoyed my OU learning experience so far and my overriding emotions are generally positive. Some stress is good, right? I am tired much of the time.

I have a decent workspace at work for my (lunchtime) activities and my desk at home is also big enough to accommodate my lanky frame. My workspaces are comfortable enough. I have uploaded my T306 books onto my iPad so I can read them anywhere I like. If I had a hot-tub, I could read them in there. But I don’t.

I do need to keep an eye on my posture during my study – I really don’t want to get a bad neck or back.

You may be aware there is a project as a part of this course: what anticipations do you have about doing the project?

I anticipate an awful lot of work for the project and that it is going to take me way out of my comfort zone. I anticipate some very uncomfortable situations where I’ll be needing to interact with various stakeholders in a particular situation, and I do not know how I will react to that just yet.

I do know that I will greatly benefit from doing it, but I also know that this will be by far the most stressful aspect of the course.

What sort of skills and capacities do you think you might need for the project? How many of these do you have already? What skills will you need to pick up? What will you need to look for in the course to acquire these skills and capacities?

I will need to call on the systems practice skills I learning in T214 – especially the diagramming and action learning cycle. I wasn’t very good at certain aspect of diagramming, so I will need to practice those techniques again.

Having read the course guide I’m aware that there are certain activities that lead onto project planning skills, something I’ve not really covered before. I shall have to pay special attention to that. There is also a large emphasis on reflection, something that seems to happen for me naturally, but not necessarily to order. For instance, I can fail to reflect on demand but find that my brain decides to do while I’m trying to go to sleep, or driving to band, or any number of occasions when I’m not expecting it. I will need to take notes when this happens so that I don’t forget.

And finally, how do you rate your overall capacity to succeed in this course?

I eventually did well on T214 and I hope to get a similar grade for T306. I think a Grade 2 pass is achievable – with adequate effort on my part – although a Grade 3 would do. I would like to get a 2:1 overall mark but I’m hardly going to cry myself to sleep at night if I get a Desmond 2:2.

I’d be really disappointed if I got a 3rd, but I intend to do well. Aim high. I will try my damnedest to get a distinction – it’s not beyond the realms of possibilities but it is a big ask – and I will be really pleased with any decent pass mark.

I have two main goals for this: achieve a BSc (hons) in Computing and Systems Practice, and to learn some academic tools that will help me in both my work and private life. Taking an holistic view on problems is an important part of understanding all complex situations. Life is not black and white and is full of unintended consequences. I want to better understand the world around me and this degree is a step in that direction. It is far more important to me that I learn new skills than to get a degree.

How does your answer compare with your notes on what you hope to get from the course? Are they congruent or does the answer to this question throw new light on what you hope to get from the course?

I think my two answers are fairly congruent. It’s mostly about learning for me, a challenge and opportunity to improve myself. The more I think about it the more I reveal about my feelings towards taking the course I think.

When you make a judgement about how you rate your capacities, what are you basing it on? Are you taking account of external factors such as the time you have or the circumstances in which you study? Are you basing your judgement on your own evaluation of your intellectual capacities? Do energy, enthusiasm and commitment come into the evaluation?

I based my judgement on my prior success on T214. I did have some poor-ish results during that course, so I’m aware of some of my weakness and ability to sometimes over-think problems. I need to better apply myself this time and I am aiming to do all over the activities on T306, something I failed to do with T214.

I’m more than aware of my crowded schedule, and so I do need to specifically allocate time for study. I do need to watch my health for this and I am relying on support from my wife during periods when assignments are due in. However, I have my own responsibilities to my family and they must take precedence. I need to work around them where I can, not the other way around.

I am committed to doing well. I have to go all out to pass because this is the very last presentation of T306. If I fail it – or pull out – I will not be able to achieve my chosen degree. However, I must be able to be realistic about the time I have. If it is not possible, or I encounter unassailable issues, then I must resign myself to swapping to an Open degree, or swapping to some other named degree and finish a few years later on than planned.

What would it take to improve your prospects of success, measured by whatever criterion is important to you? Can you act to improve your chances of success?

I need to be honest with my study time and just get on with my activities. I must stop pissing about on the Internet when I’m supposed to be studying. I need to engage with the other students in discussions to overcome my own thinking traps and appreciate alternate perspectives. I just need to do.

I can do it and I will do it. I must not worry too much about how uncomfortable I will feel about doing my project research. I need to grasp the nettle and get to it. Do it do it dot.