Navigating Higher Education Using Complexity Thinking

Intervene rather than solve

By Harrison Kellick, University of Technology Sydney, University Innovation Fellow

Approaching innovation through complexity thinking invites innovators to address the interconnected nature of the complex system behind any problem. A significant shortcoming of traditional problem-solving is that proposed solutions are often linear, destined to fail in a system that is naturally non-linear. Complexity thinking, pioneered by Brian Walker, instead promotes intervention in the current state of a system, pushing towards the tipping point of a more desirable state.

The “Ball in a Basin” metaphor illustrates the resiliency of complex systems. In this model, an innovator aims to intervene in order to trigger a disturbance in the system, nudging it towards a more desired state. For this method to be successful, the innovator must have a clear picture of what defines the current state, the desirable state and the tipping point in between. An innovator must also be aware of any alternate undesirable states and prepare for perverse effects of their intervention.

The system of higher education is extremely complex. If an innovator were to propose a solution aiming to improve a student’s performance, most would begin by considering academic results. Complexity thinking instead invites us to explore and understand the connection between further internal and external factors within the higher education system that may contribute to academic success. Through approaching the problem through this lens, we see that the problem space is also influenced by family members, social circles, teachers, mental and emotional health, technology, geography, attitude, and many other factors.

At the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), the University Innovation Fellows are focused on improving engagement with innovation and entrepreneurship (I&E) through increasing awareness and accessibility. My initial strategic priority was a four-step roadmap focused on the early incorporation of I&E in a student’s university life and the subsequent retention of those students. This initial solution attempted to challenge and replace the existing system.

Through applying complexity thinking to my role as a UIF, I was able to place boundaries on the system of higher education and focus on I&E at UTS. I could recognize the enablers, amplifiers and disruptors within the system.

An increased interest in the Future of Work among first year students acted as an amplifier for my project. Many jobs and careers that current university students will work in don’t exist yet. To combat this, I&E can be used to teach skills that will be applicable across all disciplines.

Academic staff who incorporate I&E into their subjects are a crucial enabler of my project. By introducing these concepts in a student’s first year of university, we hope to integrate I&E into their routine. It is clear through interviews with students and staff that once a routine is in place for university, it is very difficult to change.

Alongside this, transdisciplinary electives have been introduced at UTS in 2021 and are available to all students with elective space. These subjects provide an opportunity to deep dive into problem-solving skills and shed light on the benefits of I&E, including increased employability.

The Innovation Hub (iHub) acted as a disruptor within the system. Introduced by previous UTS UIFs, the iHub promoted a physical, student-led space where any student could bring projects to life. While the COVID-19 pandemic limits the amount of students who can be in this space, I believe there is now an opportunity to revamp the space to showcase successful I&E projects.

The factors allowed me to refine my solution into three intervention points: introducing I&E during orientation, incorporating I&E into first year classes and promoting successful I&E projects. University has taught me to remain in the problem space for as long as possible when working towards a solution. Complexity thinking revealed to me that a solution is useless if you don’t fully understand the system it sits within.

The next time you’re problem solving I implore you to think with complexity by considering the following: • Map out the current system state — what are the internal factors? What are the external factors? • Place a boundary around your focus within the system. It’s not feasible to solve for everything — and that is to be expected. • Visualize the desired alternate state, and the undesired. Recognize the tipping points or shifting boundaries for both. Not all systems reach tipping points. • Explore the effects of a potential intervention. What other variables within the system does it affect? Did you expect the outcome? • Test your interventions.

Once you begin to recognize complexity, you won’t stop.