Conway et al.’s 2017 paper entitled “From Design Thinking to Systems Change” (Conway, Masters, & Thorold, 2017, p.1) spoke most directly to me out of all the readings for this unit. In 2019, the organization for which I work started to undertake a “comprehensive review” of its work (CNSC, 2020), called Project Athena. It is expected to be complete in fiscal year 2021-2022, according to Departmental Reports, which are filed in the Parliament of Canada through the Minister of Natural Resources (CNSC, February 2021). The goals of the project align with the organization’s four strategic priorities, specifically the “agile” pillar (CNSC, n.d.). As one of the early activities in the review, all staff were invited to design thinking sessions where they were canvassed to see what they thought needed to be changed. As a staff member, having my input requested was novel and refreshing.
The design thinking sessions were open exercises where nothing was off limits. They were “substantial and varied” as Conway et al. discussed (Conway, Masters, & Thorold, 2017, p. 7). Hundreds of ideas were generated and many of these were actioned quickly, especially in situations where there was little to no cost involved and the changes were expected to negatively affect other areas. The rest have been categorized and folded into a project plan that will be actioned by senior management, in coordination with a management consultant (Government of Canada, n.d.).
From my point of view, the “think like a system, act like an entrepreneur” approach (Conway, Masters, & Thorold, 2017, p. 9) seems to have been followed. My hope is that the barriers identified by Conway et al. do not cause the project to fail or slow down. The way that these types of complex systems “mired in complexity” (Conway, Masters, & Thorold, 2017, p. 10) can hit barriers to change, such as regulatory frameworks, media backlash, and cultural norms and send “the innovation back to square one” (Conway, Masters, & Thorold, 2017, p. 13). Specifically, the media backlash and cultural norms noted by Conway et al. in 2017 could not have seen 2020-2022 coming.
This year has shown unbelievable challenges to the project that make Conway et al.’s statement describing the reality of the “route from innovation to scaling” being “fraught with obstacles” (Conway, Masters, & Thorold, 2017, p. 12) as the understatement of the epoch. As I write this, the neighborhood in which the organization’s headquarters in Ottawa, Canada sits has just been cleaned up from a month’s long occupation ostensibly related to the COVID-19 pandemic (Paperny, A. M, 3 March 2022). The Doomsday Clock sits at 100 seconds to midnight (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 20 January 2022), although this is likely closer to zero, given the war in Ukraine and recent shelling of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant (AP News, 4 March 2022). Given that my organization stands ready “to offer coordinated support” (CNSC, 4 March 2022, para. 3) to the international nuclear regulatory community in these tense times, all these external barriers to change could certainly derail such an ambitious project as Project Athena. I hope that since Canada already “a mature, well-established nuclear regulatory framework” (CNSC, 2020, para. 2) and Project Athena is a further push for regulatory excellence, rather than a shoring-up of foundations, we may experience a slowing of the project rather than a “system immune response” (Conway, Masters, & Thorold, 2017, p. 13). I know that my own practice will be informed by international and domestic events, and they have taught me how fast things can change.
In summary, we are experiencing incredible barriers to change and the future will show how much impact these will have my organization’s change project.
References:
AP News. Russia attacks Ukraine nuclear plant as invasion advances. (2022, March 3). https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-a3092d8e476949ed7c55607a645a9154
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. (n.d.). Current Time—2022. Retrieved March 5, 2022, from https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). (2021, August 16). Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Annual Report 2020–21. http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/publications/reports/annual-reports/ar2020-2021/index.cfm?pedisable=true
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). (2021, January 27). 2021–22 Departmental Plan. https://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/publications/reports/rpp/dp-2021-2022/index.cfm
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). (2022, March 4). CNSC Statement on the ongoing situation in Ukraine[Statements]. https://www.canada.ca/en/nuclear-safety-commission/news/2022/03/cnsc-statement-on-the-ongoing-situation-in-ukraine.html
Conway, R., Masters, J., & Thorold, J. (2017). From design thinking to systems change. How to invest in innovation for social impact. RSA Action and Research Centre.
Government of Canada. (2020, September 24). Management Consulting Support for Project Athena: CNSC Strategic Review (5000049497/C). https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-20-00927612
Paperny, A. M. (2022, March 3). Ottawa police misjudged protesters who besieged Canada’s capital—Testimony. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/ottawa-police-misjudged-protesters-who-besieged-canadas-capital-testimony-2022-03-03/
