My calls for ‘systems thinking’ and ‘systems change’ are easily misunderstood or even dismissed. It’s easy for a Democrat from an 85% Democratic legislative district in Seattle to call for bold systems change and systems theory thinking. But my central message is not about left versus right, progressive versus conservative, business versus labor. It is not even about rooting out inefficiency. I am not inherently criticizing the institutional establishment of government itself, I am calling for a more transparent approach to structural challenges. It’s about gracious accountability to ourselves. We embrace the opportunity to bring about systems change not because it’s forced from the outside but because we want to seize the opportunity from the inside.

So what is systems thinking?

In science, it is about the interconnectedness of relationships.

In politics, systems change means having the courage to ask a central, defining question: “If we were designing this system today from scratch, what would it look like and how can we engage people to make it happen?” Systems thinking can be realized because everyday is a new opportunity to begin anew. The old idea that we have too much time, money, resources, pain and experience invested (ie too great of a sunk cost) to try to build something anew should be a yellow canary in the coal mine that you (or me) have been in government too long.

I heard from many that Boeing would “never leave” Washington because their “sunk costs” (people, buildings, infrastructure) were too great. That belief goes to the core of the difference between the public and private sectors. In the private sector, you are encouraged to constantly ask the question of whether it is time to make a strategic change of direction precisely because your sunk costs are just that–sunk! In the public sector, you often find people unwilling to make a strategic change exactly because they perceive the sunk costs are too great. But that is the irony: The time to cut loose and move beyond your sunk costs is usually much, much earlier than you think. How many massive technology projects in Washington state have been cancelled after years of work and millions wasted? A lot.

We can–if we choose–decide to use a systems approach to our greatest challenges. It is a conscience choice. Systems thinking is fundamentally about a deeper sense of ownership of tackling big public policy challenges with courageous honesty and openness and innovation. It is about having the willingness to question old assumptions and ask ‘why not’ when new ideas surface.

My central point is that Democrats in Washington must care deeply about asking the tough questions of why we do things the way we do. Are we getting value for our money? Are we seeing quality outcomes with accountability that can be assessed honestly? Are we investing in policies and programs that are delivering a quality service to the people? Are we linking systems together to tackle root causes or focusing on the veneer of the surface consequences? Are we challenging stakeholders to courageously explore what they know to be the ‘real deal’ issues? Are we self censoring ourselves by failing to explore new approaches simply because it means taking on two of the toughest issues in government–business processes and governance?

Systems thinking does not mean scrapping everything or even criticizing current models. It does not mean being a soulless technocrat and making every decision on the short term issue of efficiency. It means learning the lesson of Watergate to ‘follow the money’ and ensure we have a chance of honestly assessing the value as well as the cost. It means looking deeper and in a way that opens us up to risk and criticism because we stop hiding when things don’t go well.

I offer some examples of systems challenges not in terms of answers, but in terms of questions:

We have a higher education system where our two and four year colleges and universities do not have aligned financial incentives and accountability to educate more people to higher levels. A systems approach means sitting down together and designing a new model.

We spend far more than $1.2 billion on technology each year in state government yet don’t have strategic oversight, management, accountability or transparency over cost and value. A systems approach means sitting down together and creating an architectural roadmap and strategy.

We are building a state data center before we have engaged in a rigorous debate about whether it is even needed. A systems approach means acknowledging that we jumped to one solution before we fully understood the scope, scale, definition and model of the problem.

We spend a crushing percentage of our budget on health care yet don’t push, prod and agitate for aggressive prevention-oriented wellness programs with much enthusiasm. A systems approach means sitting down together and investing in health and wellness instead of prioritizing hospital beds.

We pass tax exemptions without requiring a rigorous analysis of the value proposition to assess the effectiveness. A systems approach means introducing transparency into the true return on investment.

We see wild disproportionality in the education levels of white and African American, Native, Hispanic and other students of color. A systems approach means looking at the undercurrent of reasons and providing local support to empower local communities to better serve local needs.

We fund roads and highways with a protected gasoline tax but avoid battles to include transit in the broader funding strategies. A systems approach means exploring tolls, vehicle miles travelled, technology and other modes of connecting citizens to their transportation usage.

We consider bold environmental proposals–some good, some not–but in either we rarely demand a deep analysis of the true externalities of costs for industry, society or individuals.

We rely upon a regressive, unstable tax structure that crushes small business and low income folks. A systems approach means looking at our core requirements of stability, long term growth, fairness and efficiency and building a new approach from those core assumptions.

We ask cities and counties to operate many front line services but fail to require a coordinated approach. A systems strategy means gaining greater clarity into our objectives in the first place so other levels of government can be more successful.

We see less than 3% of foster youth achieve the dream of a college education while 10 times that number go to prison within 18 months of leaving the state’s care costing lives and money. A systems approach means investing in educational advocacy, tutors and mentors to hold their hands through the process of learning and growth.

I am not a professional. I do not offer answers but rather questions as a citizen legislator should. Sometimes we engage in systems thinking and sometimes we make courageous improvements. So what does it take to build a sense of ownership of systems thinking? The pain of the status quo has to be so great that we acknowledge our inability to hide any longer and back fill the lost dollars.

We face another projected $1.7 billion budget deficit in Washington state. The inability to sustain our old model has become so obvious, and so acute, that we can’t simply raise taxes or cut spending enough to scurry back to the old way of doing things.

It’s time for systems thinking.

Your partner in service,

Reuven.