At Villages in Partnership (VIP), we work to end extreme poverty in Malawi villages. We don’t just focus on one issue, but look at the big picture of many connected problems.
A recent doctoral paper by Rachel Gibson showed that our methods follow an approach called “systems thinking.” This means we consider how different areas like water, food, education, and health are all related when tackling a complex issue like extreme poverty.
Gibson’s paper is titled “Thinking Holistically: The Implicit Use of DSRP and Systems Thinking Models.” It explains how VIP’s strategies line up with a systems thinking framework called DSRP (Distinction, Systems, Relationships, Perspectives).
The paper discusses how VIP works with whole village areas instead of single projects. It shows how we adapt our plans based on what each community needs most. And it looks at how we bring together donors, staff, and villagers to share in the same vision.
We’re proud Gibson highlighted VIP as an example of taking a “systems thinking” approach, even if we don’t use those exact words. Thinking about all the connected causes of poverty helps create lasting changes in Malawi.
Check out Gibson’s full paper below to learn more…
Thinking Holistically: The Implicit Use of DSRP and Systems
Thinking Models
Rachel Shaver Gibson
January 26, 2024
Cabrera and Cabrera (2018) state that systems thinking is driven by four simple rules: distinction, systems, relationship, and perspectives (p. 47-50). These rules, they contend, are universal in their ability to solve wicked problems and “[provide] a foundation upon which to build” all systems thinking models (p. 159). Curious if these four rules, known as DSRP (p. 45), would show up in the decision-making processes of an organization, even if its leadership did not explicitly utilize system mapping models, I interviewed Aaron Shaver, the Digital Operations Specialist for Villages in Partnership (VIP), a nonprofit “partnering with 26 villages and impacting over 21,000 lives” (Villages in Partnership, 2023b). For much of the nonprofit’s existence, it has worked to increase and improve access to clean water for the residents in various villages of Malawi, Africa.
Through our interview, it became clear that although neither he nor the small leadership team use the term “systems thinking” to describe their approach to fighting extreme poverty in Malawi, their process can be mapped using the DSRP model.
VIP’s Holistic Vision
Overall, VIP’s mission is to eradicate extreme poverty in their partner villages. However, as Aaron acknowledged, extreme poverty is “one of those complicated, wicked problems.” To address this unwieldy issue, VIP has identified six areas they call “critical needs of human development” (Villages in Partnership, 2023c). These areas are water, food security, education, health care, infrastructure, and economic development. As described by Aaron, these six areas are “interconnected” and “all overlap.”
Although they do not use a specific mapping tool to illustrate the links between these areas, the VIP website does give an example of how these areas of life intersect to limit a young girl’s access to education in narrative form (Villages in Partnership, 2023c). Despite not using systems thinking explicitly, this narrative shows that VIP does consider their work using implied systems thinking processes. For example, Figure 1 shows the website narrative mapped using DSRP (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2018).
VIP leadership uses systems thinking without labeling it as such, as evidenced by their embrace of the interconnectedness of poverty-related issues. Their approach aligns with Shaked and Schechter’s (2017) assessment of systems thinking: “it examines systems holistically… it focuses attention on how the system’s constituent parts act together in networks of interactions” (p. 10). In thinking holistically, VIP is set apart from other development organizations operating in the same area. As Aaron explained, some organizations might only drill and install wells, and then move on. In such cases, their impact, he noted dryly, “is not very deep.” He continued by speculating, “Can they say that they are impacting millions of lives? Yes, but did they stick around? Do they know what’s next for the people?” Noting the systemic approach of VIP, he added, “one thing that I like about our approach is that rather than being project focused, we are geographically focused, and our projects are very wide ranging.”
By “geographically focused,” Aaron was referring to VIP’s partner villages. The organization’s impact model relies on word-of-mouth recommendations from one village leader to another, and a resulting invitation to partner. As one village reaches out and then experiences improvements due to their partnership with VIP, a feedback loop is created, as shown in Figure 2. As neighboring village leaders see a VIP partner village’s progress, they are then inspired to become a partner, as well. In this way, VIP has increased their impact area over time and in a sustainable way.
Significantly, Aaron pointed out that VIP does not have a “formula” for working with a new village partner. Rather, “it depends on the village.” Working together with village leadership, VIP staff create an improvement plan individually curated for the specific needs of the village. Their process, as described by Aaron, closely follows Cabrera and Cabrera’s (2018) DSRP model.
Distinction
When beginning their work, Aaron said the “stakeholders,” or village leaders, meet with the VIP team to “prioritize what their village and community needs next. So, we listen to that first, and do that assessment, and then we put a plan together.” As he described their process, they begin with what Cabrera and Cabrera (2018) term distinction, or the D in DSRP. Aaron noted that most village leaders come to VIP looking for assistance in securing access to clean water. In this case, the stakeholders are distinguishing their primary focus as water, as opposed to everything else (i.e., not-water). From there, the distinction process continues, as the group makes more decisions. Aaron explained that they look at where the water is “needed most,” as well as what resources they already have and what location is best. Using the DSRP model then, the first step is focused on defining resources, such as water/not-water, this location/not-this location, sand/not-sand, labor/not-labor, and cash/not-cash. After making important decisions about what is needed and what is available, the VIP team carefully considers the systemic nature of building and maintaining a well.
Systems
As it relates to the S of the DSRP model, VIP’s approach shows that they consider a well project to be a system, with many parts – both physical and cultural. Aaron explained that sometimes villages partner with VIP even when they already have a well, but still lack reliable access to water. This is because some wells were previously dug “as they should be,” but “[have] fallen into disrepair” because community members were not trained on how to use them or how to repair them. Thus, maintenance and education are included as a part of any well project.
Moreover, VIP considers the financing of the well to be a large part of the overall well project. Gathering the cash on hand is a system nested inside the bigger project system, as shown in Figure 3. In Aaron’s words, every fundraiser is a
smaller scale [system], but also very complex. With event planning, it [includes] the logistics of how [are] we actually going to take a donation? [The] website has to be set up, the donation forms have to be set up, attached to a payment processor, which is attached to our bank. All those pieces have to be in line. And then there’s marketing. I’ve got to take the photos and the language and the content and make that available on our website, and in the automated emails.
Relationships
As mentioned earlier, VIP places a high emphasis on the interconnectedness of the six areas in which their projects are situated. According to their website, the VIP method is “to work with local development experts in Malawi to implement programs designed to simultaneously address the inter-connected web of root causes of extreme poverty” (Villages in Partnership, 2023a, emphasis added). This mindset is not only aligned strongly with relationship element, or R of DSRP, but is also echoed in Shaked and Schechter’s (2017) definition of systems thinking as “seeing the whole beyond the parts [and] seeing the parts in the context of the whole” (p. 11) and in Goodman’s (1997) explanation that systems thinking involves “sensitivity to the circular nature of the world we live in” (What Does Systems Thinking Involve section, para. 1)
Additionally, the VIP process, as described by Aaron, illustrates the point made by Arnold and Wade (2017) that systems thinkers must both “gain insight” and “use insight” (Two Facets of Systems Thinking section, para. 1). In this case, VIP staff located in the United States and VIP staff located in Malawi share insight with each other, as well as with each villages’ stakeholders and with the nonprofit’s funding partners. In this way, the relationship element of the VIP approach encompasses more than just actions and reactions between products and processes, but also includes the important consideration of people.
Perspectives
As an organization, VIP employs six staff members in the United States and nineteen staff members in Malawi. The programs have impacted over 20,000 people and in 2023, they worked with over 1,200 donor households, according to Aaron. Much of VIP’s work centers on developing a shared, or collective, vision for eradicating extreme poverty in their impact areas. In this, VIP’s approach carefully considers the P of DSRP, perspective.
Aaron explained, “two or three times a year, we do take small groups over to Malawi, see the work firsthand, [to] get their hands dirty.” He continued, “that’s a huge learning opportunity for American donors to actually see with their own eyes, smell with their own noses, [and recognize] this isn’t just something that we can throw money at and it is [going to get] fixed.” The trips, like all of VIP’s fundraising efforts, are designed to help Americans realize “how intertwined all these issues are.” Communicating this perspective is an important part of their project work, because “in an American context, you would never think that access to water could affect education.” The different perspectives on barriers to education here can be mapped in what Cabrera and Cabrera (2018) call “P-Circles” (p. 93), as shown in Figure 4.
In terms of the global nature of their work, Aaron did note that sensitivity to cultural perceptions is important. For example, when taking Americans to Malawi to see the work firsthand, adhering to Malawi cultural norms of dress and behavior are paramount. Additionally, in their working relationships, American staff have learned that “hierarchy is a much bigger cultural consideration.” For example, Aaron explained “we can’t go directly to one of the lower staff members. We really need to go through a supervisor, and they’ll delegate to the person who actually needs to do a task.” This mindset is supported by Coldwell and Fried’s (2012) study that highlighted the role that culture plays in systems thinking. While Cabrera and Cabrera (2018) are right that the rules of systems thinking are universal (p. 159), the actions taken must be considered as part of the holistic system, including perspectives and the relationship between cultural mental models.
Adapting Mental Models and Vision
Importantly, Shaked and Schechter (2017) note that systems thinking also includes the consideration that “systems change over time” (p. 10). Understanding this requires systems thinkers to think about their systems systemically, meaning they look for patterns within the system itself. Additionally, they consider their own mental models and vision regarding the system. Kim (1999) states that mental models are “assumptions” that can be understood as “system structure generators” and that vision is “the guiding force that determines the mental models we hold as important as we pursue our goals” (p. 5).
When asked about the patterns they consider in the strategic decision making for VIP, Aaron detailed a survey that was conducted of “every household in our impact area” to evaluate the relative impact of VIP programs on village members. Using an “economic opportunity slide” as a metric, improvements to the lives of village members were measured. To explain, Aaron used the example of diet. If a person is eating a basic dish of cornmeal mash, then that would be an indicator that the person is on level one of the scale. However, “if you have a varied diet with fresh vegetables and occasionally meat, then that’s a level two diet.” Using indicators of diet, housing materials, access to transportation, and other factors, VIP compared the living conditions of village members in their impact area relative to the number of VIP programs they have participated in or befitted from. The results were strong enough to shake up the leadership’s mental models.
The survey showed that around 90% of people living in VIP’s partner villages had convenient access to clean water, while the national average in Malawi is significantly lower. The result of this survey demonstrated to VIP staff that “the water problem is just about solved, and… now we’re making this pivot [to focus on food insecurity]. It affects our language and our marketing, too.” As they move forward, Aaron noted, VIP may begin to highlight food insecurity more; however, they will have to continue to balance “our holistic approach and offer multiple programs and interventions” because the survey results also showed that families who utilize three or more VIP interventions were more likely to move up the economic opportunity slide in significant and measurable ways. Figure 5 shows this process illustrated as a causal loop diagram. If VIP leadership were to stop highlighting and offering additional programs, the village improvement cycle would break down.
Conclusion
In the end, although they do not use visual modeling or systems thinking language specifically, VIP staff clearly use systems thinking processes in their decision making and strategic planning. This fact underscores Cabrera and Cabrera’s (2018) assertion that the rules of DSRP are universal, providing a “foundation” for solving all wicked problems, including leveraging American wealth to combat systemic poverty in remote Malawian villages (p. 159).
References
Arnold, R. & Wade, P. (2015). A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44, 669-678.
Cabrera, D. & Cabrera, L. (2018). Systems thinking made simple: New hope for solving wicked problems (2nd ed.). Pelectica Publishing.
Coldwell, D. A., & Fried, A. (2012). Learning organizations without borders? A cross-cultural study of university HR practitioners’ perceptions of the salience of Senge’s five disciplines in effective work outcomes. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 12(1), 101-114.
Goodman, M. (1997). Systems thinking: What, why, when, where, and how. The Systems Thinker, 8(2), 6-7.
Kim, D.(1999). Introduction to systems thinking. Pegasus Communication Inc.
Shaked, H., & Schechter, C. (2017). Definitions and development of systems thinking. Systems thinking for school leaders: Holistic leadership for excellence in education, 9-22. Chicago.
Villages in Partnership. (2023a). Our mission. https://villagesinpartnership.org/our-mission/
Villages in Partnership. (2023b). Our story. https://villagesinpartnership.org/our-story/
Villages in Partnership. (2023c). The six critical needs of human development. https://villagesinpartnership.org/six-critical-needs/
Leave a Reply