Sectors and systems: Both useful, not the same
In my work with multi-stakeholder collaboration, I often find that people use the words “sector” and “system” interchangeably. This has led me to ask myself about the difference and whether we might benefit from differentiating these two notions more clearly from one another. What is the difference between the health sector and the health system? Between the justice sector and the justice system?
Both notions are useful, but they are not the same.
Looking up the meaning of sector in the Cambridge Dictionary, I find:
- “one of the areas of activity that a country’s economy is divided into”
- “a part of society that can be separated from other parts because of its own special character”
- “an area of land or sea that has been divided from other areas”
The notion of a sector is thus used to denote a boundary, a separation, a division. What is in and what is out? This is very helpful for statistical and planning purposes for example when you want to know what portion of the economy falls in what category, what part of GNP is coming from manufacturing vs. services sectors, what portion of the education budget is going to primary vs. secondary education sectors, how much is being invested in health and education vs. the military, and so on. It is also helpful for structuring institutions and allocating accountability and authority over certain domains and deliverables. This all requires us to have some differentiated categories to work with.
A system, on the other hand, is — according to leading systems thinker Donella Meadows — “an interconnected set of elements that is coherently organised in a way that achieves something. … a system must consist of three kinds of things: elements, interconnections and a function or purpose”. Through a system lens, the world is an interconnected and overlapping web of systems and sub-systems, that are defined more by their relationships and their common purpose or shared functions than by their boundaries.
In fact, on the question of boundaries, Meadows notes: “It’s a great art to remember that boundaries are of our own making, and that they can and should be reconsidered for each new discussion, problem, or purpose.”
Thus while the justice sector for example consists of a set of actors and institutions including courts, judges, lawyers, and the ministry of justice, the justice system includes all actors and elements involved in producing justice outcomes in a given territory. The actors of the justice system may include for example mediators, traditional leaders, community-based organisations, and disruptive innovators, as well as “users”. In the case of the justice system users would include both victims and perpetrators, in the case of the education system, students and parents, and in the case of the health system, patients, and so on.
Who is a part of the system is dependent on who has agency, influence, and connection in relation to the outcomes. It is not a function of job titles.
What does this mean for multi-stakeholder work and social change?
Usually social change work is rooted in a desire to produce a different outcome. One common strategy for improving outcomes in education, health, security, or justice is to set up committees for “sector reform”, as a way to deliberately change rules and make structural changes for the sector to work better. The focus of such processes tends to be the public sector and existing institutions, and the membership of the committees tends to be experts from the sector itself.
This is useful. And it’s different from systems change processes in the following ways:
- Outcomes or challenges at the center:
Systems change processes will tend to center around a common purpose defined by outcomes, eg. delivering better health, education, or justice outcomes, or a shared challenge, for example: how can we make insurance more inclusive, how can we build a more circular economy for critical minerals, how can we reduce deforestation, etc. They will not be defined by virtue of addressing a particular set of institutions.
2. Aligning people with purpose:
Based on the challenge a systems change effort is aiming to address, the convenors consider afresh, who can contribute to this effort? What boundary is appropriate in light of this particular purpose? Here, diversity is key because we need to bring in fresh perspectives and break out of echo chambers in order to address thorny challenges that are not being solved by existing ways of working. By loosening the limited perspective of a task set that is the prerogative and territory of a delineated sector, we can ask ourselves, who is involved in producing the problematic situation we are addressing and who could be involved in understanding and solving it?
3. Cross-system inclusion:
Since a system view does not preclude but rather acknowledges overlaps between systems, it invites us to include people who are part of other sectors to discover interdependencies and shared responsibilities. What is for example the role of educators and the mental health system in delivering better justice outcomes for society? Can we include educators and mental health providers to think together with traditional justice actors in a systems change effort that is about delivering better justice outcomes? Are they in fact also a part of the justice system if we think of systems as overlapping and interconnected? Taking a system approach allows people to talk to each other across sectors and silos.
4. Seeing and changing the system:
By having diverse actors from across a system in the room, a more complete picture can arise of how the system currently functions and malfunctions. How are needs currently being met in the system whether through formal or informal means? What do different user journeys look like through the system? Where are people falling through cracks? What are the roles that are being fulfilled and by whom? What are the underlying mindsets and paradigms at play? A system approach also allows for exploring more intangible phenomena such as information flows, incentive structures, and feedback loops, in an open hunt for the most high leverage places to intervene. It does not stop at the boundaries of the sector, but sees the key influences on and of the sector in a broader perspective, and where different sectors may be undermining each other’s efforts. It could be that the place to intervene is in the relationship between two sectors rather than within one.
There is a fundamental difference between a sector perspective rooted in separation and a systems perspective rooted in connection. Both sectors and systems exist and serve a function, but it is important not to confuse them. We need to be aware of the lens we are viewing the world through, and how this is affecting what and whom we are bringing into view and our ability to drive better outcomes. When we can “see” the system, not only the sector, new possibilities arise.
