International Society for the Systems Sciences: Journals ISSS
Not a member yet
1073 research outputs found
Sort by
New Strategies for the Mexican Petrochemical Industry
No full textIt is necessary to define new strategies for achieving a proper growing and development of the Mexican Petrochemical Industry. As each product can be used as a final product or as raw material the influence of its production is remarkable all over the national production chains. Petrochemicals in Mexico have been classified as basic and secondary ones, by political reasons. These two groups allowed governmental institutions to regulate private activity versus public activity in this sector. At the beginning, the first group was devoted to the first chemical transformation and the secondary one to subsequent transformations. For last 30 years, petrochemical industry has not been developed as the Mexican people wanted. The trends showed that total production has remained at the same level, many installations were left out of service and imports grow very fast. The official explanations to justify the present situation of Mexican Petrochemical industry are diverse : low investments, reduced scale sizes of plants and uncertainty in government rules for new investors and for gas price as a raw material. These are the main reasons which explain the lack of competitiveness in the global market That is why this paper focuses the strategic problem of how to rescue this industry and how to promote a new outline for achieving the desired development
An Aggregated Qualitative Accounting Method for Developing Justified Policies
No full text“Qualitative accounting” is almost an oxymoron. The word ‘accounting’ includes the word ‘count’, and we cannot count qualities. More precisely, we cannot meaningfully add qualities to each other, a quality cannot be measured by a standard unit. Therefore, aggregating qualities for the purposes of accounting might sound like sleight of hand, or deceptive advertising. Fear not. The result will turn out to be quite robust, given a modicum of intelligence and sensitivity. The method is original and useful. The structure of the paper is given by the following sections: (1) an introduction to the topic, by looking at each word in the title, (2) we look at the UN mandate which will be used as an example to illustrate the method, (3) an explanation of the Lirst part of method: working with the UN mandate, (4) the second part of the method: two orders of sensitivity used for reLlection, and why this adds to the robustness of the method (5) broadening the conceptions underlying the method and lastly (6) uses of the method for policy
Triple Action RoundTable: A Practical Three-Entry Point Innovation
No full textPosternumber: 001 (Assigned by Journal editor) Triple Action RoundTable: A Practical Three-Entry Point Innovation Sue Gabriele [email protected] The Triple Action RoundTable is conceptualized to triple the power of the RoundTable to facilitate systemic school or social system renewal, or perhaps even increase its effectiveness to the third power. It builds on the Display/Pickup paradigm. The proposition is that, since learning and performance depend on criteria within the learner, the role of the teacher is display, and the role of the learner is pickup. The Triple Action RoundTable acts at three entry points in the system. I will explain first in the example of a classroom. The first entry point is the 30/30 RoundTable (RT), an activity that is used weekly to develop classroom subject matter. Cued by a carefully designed RoundTable Guide/script, it allows about 30 people to give spontaneous learning reports in 30 minutes. This is a bottom-up entry point, as it allows the views of all the students to be heard by the teacher, as well as each other. The second entry point is the Triple Bottom Line (3BL). Once the RoundTable is established to allow ongoing development of the users’ subject matter, an additional topic, 3BL, is added. 3BL is an in-out-in innovation. In other words, users are invited to reflect on their current goals and outcomes (in), and then think out of the box (out) to consider more comprehensive goals. At the organization or institution level, 3BL might be the 3Ps (profit/budget, people, planet). At the classroom level, 3BL might be student CAP development (cognitive/affective/psychomotor) or PIE (physical/intellectual/emotional). Users then revise their own goals accordingly (in). The third entry point is TPO Thermostat Guide, Here, the teacher uses a thermostat metaphor modified by TPO Theory. TPO Theory explains that lessons (T=Things) must be designed around the needs/abilities of students (P = people) for best Outcomes (O). This is a top down approach. As the teacher manages classwork and students, he/she visualizes three TPO Thermostat system modes for optimal adjustment capacities. Mode One: When class is not in session, the system is OFF. This is the Planning mode, where windows/doors are metaphorically wide open to let in fresh air and ideas. In the next two modes, the windows and doors are metaphorically closed, to preserve the flow of heat/resources/energy, to maximize its distribution among users. Mode Two is ON: Manual for Delivering resources. The teacher is actively displaying the subject matter, perhaps in a temporal audio and visual display. Mode Three is ON: Auto, for passive Monitoring. The teacher keeps the environment optimal as people work independently. This mode is helpfully supplemented by ever-present display of subject-matter (on the walls of the classroom, in textbooks, etc.) Zooming out to a wider view, the Triple Action RoundTable is a tool for whole system or systemic renewal. Thus, it is used by all system members, in one of their existing meetings. Since classrooms typically meet daily, the RoundTable can be held at least weekly for 30 minutes. At other levels of educational system, RoundTables are proposed for use monthly in meetings – including meetings of faculty, parent/teacher-associations, grade-levels, departments, principals, superintendents, government-level educational policy-makers, and so forth
A Wicked Methodology for the Analysis of Wicked Problems: Integrating the Analysis of Meetings and Networks
No full textOne feature of the Anthropocene is the rise of large-scale environmental problems produced by human actions. A pressing problem is how to manage these environmental problems effectively. Their governance is often challenging because different stakeholder groups disagree on what the appropriate course of action should be. Furthermore, the problems are often complex, and scientific knowledge about them may contain significant gaps and uncertainties. We are interested in understanding the most challenging of these situations, which are often termed “wicked problems,” and what effective environmental governance might look like under those conditions. In this paper, we report on a new, integrative methodology we have developed for analyzing governance processes by examining communications both within an environmental decision-making group and across the stakeholder networks within which the group is embedded. Shaped by a systems perspective, our methodology weaves together multiple theoretical frameworks, methodological approaches, forms of data, and levels of analysis. Very few previous studies have closely examined the actual decision-making process in participatory meetings, or situated these meetings in the broader stakeholder network interactions within which they are embedded. Our approach redresses this significant gap in the literature. For our field site, we selected a commission that was formed to develop recommendations for a new municipal ordinance on hydraulic fracturing (fracking). In order to preserve the anonymity of the commission, we do not identify the geographic region in which the commission was located, other than to say it was in the United States. Fracking exhibits all of the features associated with wicked problems, including multiple stakeholders with conflicting values, scientific uncertainty, and political complexity
Application of the Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) for Management of Laboratory Hazardous Wastes
No full textHigher education institutions generate a significant amount of wastes in their laboratories. Toxic reagents can react to other chemicals and form unknown products which are dangerous to both human and environment. Despite the severity of the situation, these wastes are not always discarded properly due to either lack of awareness by students and employees or lack of follow-up inspection. As education institutions, the universities should be the best example of how to manage their wastes and therefore show concern about the environment. This work is aimed at applying the Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) for management of hazardous wastes in a laboratory at the Federal University of Uberlândia, including their storage and disposal, in order to improve the awareness by those involved in scientific laboratory research about this issu
Developing an Understanding of Violence using the DSRP Theory as a Framework
No full textIntroductionThis paper explores violence in social settings using the DSRP model (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2015) as a framework. First, there is an outline of the DSRP model leading to a definition of violence in systems terms. The nature of human violence is then explored from several perspectives. Shannon’s theory of communication (Shannon, 1948) is followed by Maturana’s (Maturana & Verden-Zoller, 2008) concepts of relational dynamics. This leads into an investigation of the process of othering through which individuals or groups are marginalised and disowned leading to violence. While most people think first of violence in its overt physical forms, it has many other manifestations. Violence can also verbal, emotional, mental, and financial and more. Galtung’s (1990) makes the distinctions between direct, cultural or structural violence demonstrating how violence is fractal, appearing from the individual, family, community, nation and global levels. Structural violence is particularly insidious because it is so hidden, as for example it is observed within dominance hierarchies in organisations. Violence violates our human needs from basic survival needs through to higher spiritual needs. Having explored the many ways that violence and abuse can appear and disrupt the functioning of human systems, systems thinking is proposed as a tool that can help repair the harm caused by violence and provide a way for minimising or avoiding future violence and abuse. DSRPJust as physicists seek the fundamental elements of the material universe, Cabrera and Cabrera (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2015; Cabrera & Colosi, 2008) sought the fundamental building blocks of the cognitive world. They propose four qualities that are evident in anything that arises: distinction, system, relationship and perspective. Distinction: When we make a distinction we create a boundary. There are no inherent boundaries in the world, but they are placed in our minds in order that we can make sense of our experience and act in the world. When a distinction Is made there is a self and an other; a part that is included and a part that is excluded. Often that which is excluded is marginalised and treated differently from that which has been included (Cabrera, 2006; Midgley, Munlo, & Brown, 2014; Ulrich, 2006). System: When a distinction has been made parts become separated off, which then link together into systems. There is a dynamic balance between the parts and the whole. Often when we focus on the parts we lose sight of the whole and vice versa. By looking at the leaves, we do not notice the forest; by looking at the forest we stop looking at the leaves (Ahl & Allen, 1996). Cabrera and Cabrera (2015) talk of needing “Splumpers”, who can both split systems to see the parts and lump the parts to see the whole at the same time. A complex system needs both autonomy and connectivity to maintain itself. The parts need autonomy to make their own decisions without undue external influence, thus creating requisite variety (Ashby, 1947). The whole needs connectivity so the parts connect and interact bringing cohesion to the system. Often an increase in autonomy means a decrease in connectivity and vice versa, so the two must remain in a dynamic tension for the system to remain effective. Relationships: The parts relate to each other and to systems. Systems relate to systems and to parts. There is an action-reaction dynamic that arises between the parts. Beer’s Viable Systems Model (Beer, 1984; Espejo, 2003) look at the five nested sub-systems in a viable system and how they relate to each other. Maturana (2002) writes of the relational spaces between the parts that arises when the parts interact. Perspective: Each part has a point of view from which it has a perspective (Bateson, 2000, 2002; Ulrich, 1983). Taking a point of view enables meaning to be created, but unavoidably makes other perspectives less visible. Definition of violence Starting with these fundamental building blocks we should therefore be able to build understandings of the systems and situations we experience in our lives and their qualities. This paper investigates violence from the perspective of DSRP. Complex adaptive systems (Miller & Page, 2007; Stacey, 2011) have all four qualities mentioned above. They are also dissipative (Prigogine, 1984) in that they require a flow of material, energy and information across the system boundary which counters the entropy within the system and thus sustains the system. If that flow is disrupted then the system is harmed. Within a complex adaptive system the parts are constantly interacting through recursive feedback loops. Boundaries are constantly being crossed as a necessary part of the process of autopoiesis and structural coupling (Maturana & Varela, 1998). The parts are necessarily different, separated by the boundary between them and every part has its own perspective. When parts therefore meet at a boundary, there is inevitably conflict. Conflict can be resolved in a positive way, where the parts are enhanced or it can be resolved in a negative way, where one or both parts are harmed by the interaction. Violence can therefore be defined as the invasion of a boundary, the disruption of a flow across a boundary, or wilfully ignoring an invasion or disruption. Having a definition, we can explore violence from a range of perspectives and see how they relate to the elements of the DSRP model. Boundary invasions and flow disruptions in human interactionsThere are a number of ways boundaries can be invaded or flows across boundaries can be disrupted. Any interaction or communication necessarily involves boundaries coming into contact and thus creates the potential for violence. In any communication a message must pass from one person to another (Shannon, 1948). The message starts with one person (or agent) with information that it wishes to communicate to another, the message must be encoded, in the human case usually into words. There is a transformation process involved in the encoding and then a transmission process with a boundary to be crossed. The message is sent across a medium, another boundary, and noise can enter the system as the message passes through the medium. The message is perceived by the receiver, who must the decode the message and understand the meaning attached. Meaning can be lost or distorted at any point in the chain of communication. Conflict thus arises, which can become violence. This process become much more complex when relational recursive dynamics in human communications are considered.Maturana and Varela (1998) developed the concepts of autopoiesis, structural coupling and structural determination. Autopoiesis is about how a system creates and maintains itself within its own boundaries and how it protects its boundaries to maintain its autonomy. Structural coupling is about the relational connection in the space between autopoietic being or the environment, such that recursive feedback loops in a relational space generate a structural congruence to enable co-ordination and evolution. They will be perturbing each other’s boundaries in ways that enable reciprocally triggered change. Neither is in control, but both participate. As we interact with each other across boundaries differences become apparent that must be negotiated. When a relationship is distorted, the perturbations no longer enhance the mutual co-ordinations, but rather allow one to dominate or abuse the other.Boundary invasions and flow disruptions in human interactionsAs soon as we make a distinction we create a boundary and define self and other. That which is self, be it my body, my community or my nation is familiar. That which is other is less familiar. There will always be difference (Bateson, 2000) between people to be negotiated; between familiar and unfamiliar. Sometimes this difference can be easily resolved by those involved. When the difference is not understood, perhaps through gender, race, class or age, it is easy to make a negative judgement of the other. The other person shifts from being an equal to a threatening adversary. When one person treats the other as an adversary, the other is “invited” to take up the role of adversary and tensions rise. The sense of connectedness and relationship is lost and perspectives become polarised. Those involved then tend to seek out information that supports their polarised view and ignore or disregard information that supports the views of the other. Past grievances are often revived and can lead to intergenerational violence. The other becomes demonised (MacGill, 1995). When the other is demonised and perceived as less than human, violence becomes much more justifiable. In her book Breathing: Violence in Peace out, Milojevic (2013) recounts generations of violence in her family history in the Balkans. She describeseight basic steps by which a nation state typically comes to war that resonate with this analysis of violence: Create the category of otherDifferences are heightened, similarities minimisedAttach the value of lesser to the otherBuild a sense of threat from “them”Say only through the use of force can the threat be quelledSupress alternative opinionsDeny or justify any violence used.Repeat the whole processThough this list is written in regard to ethnic violence, it reflects relational dynamics that are evident at all levels of human interactions from the individual to family to community to nation to the entire globe. Violence and its dynamics are fractal (Mandelbrot, 1982).The fractal nature of violenceHuman beings are multi-dimensional fractal systems of systems (Allison et al., 2004). There are boundaries between all the systems and within each of the systems. Violence can occur at each boundary. Because of the interconnectedness violence at one part of the fractal can have reflections all through the fractal. At the physical level we are formed by nested hierarchical layers from atoms to molecules to tissue to glands to organs to body systems to a complete body. We must protect our bodies to maintain physical health. We come together in social groups to form family, community, nation and globe. We also have non-material dimensions. We develop a sense of identity. We make distinctions about what we include within our identity and what we exclude. That which is within the identity needs to be protected to maintain our psychological wellbeing. Just as we resist perceived threats to our physical well-being, we resist perceived threats to our identity. We have extended our identity into the external world, so we have my house, my car, my family, my money, my country (Latour, 2005). We feel just as threatened when we perceive those external manifestations as being under threat. If someone steals my money or car, or breaks into my house, I feel personally violated. Violence also occurs in various forms. Violence can be clearly visible or deceptive and hidden, and at an enormous range of scales. Galtung (1990) recognised three types of violence: DirectDirect violence is the more obvious forms of violence as a wilful act causing harm. On a personal level this might involve hitting, kicking, or slapping. It might even mean shooting that occurs at a distance, but cause and effect are clearly identifiable. At a larger scale chemical weapons, explosive devices, military drones and so forth might be found where the violence is more orchestrated. But direct violence is not just physical. There are many other forms of violence that are perpetrated: verbal, emotional, mental, spiritual, financial, the threat of violence, and allowing children to witness violence[1]. Often the root of the violence may be cultural or structural, but the expression of it is direct. CulturalCulture arises from an evolved set of shared beliefs about the world and the place of the society in their environment. The emergent culture may be more inclusive and focused on peaceful ways of interacting within itself and with others or it can be more divisive and marginalising of groups internally and externally. In that case the shared perspectives held by a culture, are likely to justify violence through some pretext as noted above (Milojevic, 2013). Historic acts of violence are often glorified through the cultural narrative that may talk of how the culture was established or maintained (Butler, 2004). Whereas the murder of an individual is universally condemned, when it is clothed in a cultural narrative killing on a massive scale often becomes applauded and valorised. Increasingly innocent people killed seemed to be acceptable “collateral damage”. Structural Structural violence occurs when a group is marginalised, disowned or othered and treated abusively and violently. The marginalisation might be because of gender, age, race, class, nationality or any other identifiable distinction. It might also be inherent in the social structures that privileges a certain small group at the expense of the rest, such as those who own capital. There is structural violence inextricably woven into the conventional organisational structures we use. Dominance-based hierarchies rank people and distribute power and resources according to one’s place in the hierarchy. People are divided and the resultant inequality provides the means whereby people are marginalised and treated differentially. The whole neo-liberal agenda is built on the framework of the inequality intrinsic to dominance (Homer-Dixon, 1999; Klein, 2014; Peltzer, 2003). There is a growing peer to peer movement (Bauwens, 2005a, 2005b, 2006), where those involved interact directly with one another without the need for a central organising hierarchy. That includes co-operatives, whether in its more traditional forms like Mondragon (Whyte & Whyte K., 1991) or the Convergence gathering (MacGill, 2014, 2015a, 2015b) or computer based platform co-operatives (Scholz, 2016), commons based enterprises, and decentralised networks (Brafman & Beckstrom, 2006; Nielson, 2004)They are using organisational structures designed to reduce the level of structural violence. Our willingness to use violence is linked to the values and beliefs we have absorbed, particularly when we were young. This is next investigated further. The fractal nature of violenceA new born baby experiences a world without boundaries (Winnicot, 2002). The first boundary to be created is that of self and other (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980a, 1980b; Lakoff, 1992). The baby will come to realise that it has a level of control, however clumsy, over its own body that it does not have with external objects and other people. It recognises that the internal sensations of its hand match what is happening with their perception of their hand as an object in the external world and that this is not so for other external objects. The baby learns to distinguish between its body and its mother’s. Once inside/outside, self/other boundary is formed other spatial boundaries up/down, forwards/backwards, left/right form. As boundaries stretch across all fractal levels, the child learns to work with distinctions, systems, relationships and perspectives forming internal conceptions of themselves, the world about them and the future. To a great extent depending on life circumstances, a child develops beliefs about themselves and their value and worth. If they grow up in a supportive, encouraging world they will tend to develop values and beliefs that support positive self-esteem and competence. They see others as people they can trust, who will help them reach their goals. If the child has not been fortunate to have a supportive upbringing, but have rather abusive and violent surrounding to navigate, the brain actually physically grows differently in response to the environment. They are likely to see themselves as useless and incompetent, see the world as a dog-eat-dog jungle, and the future as a place of gloom and dread. These values and beliefs define our point of view and what we can conceive of and what remains invisible to us. Our thoughts and emotions are shaped by beliefs and values, and therefore also the actions we choose and the world we create for ourselves (Beck, 1979). A new born baby experiences a world without boundaries (Winnicot, 2002). The first boundary to be created is that of self and other (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980a, 1980b; Lakoff, 1992). The baby will come to realise that it has a level of control, however clumsy, over its own body that it does not have with external objects and other people. It recognises that the internal sensations of its hand match what is happening with their perception of their hand as an object in the external world and that this is not so for other external objects. The baby learns to distinguish between its body and its mother’s. Once inside/outside, self/other boundary is formed other spatial boundaries up/down, forwards/backwards, left/right form. As boundaries stretch across all fractal levels, the child learns to work with distinctions, systems, relationships and perspectives forming internal conceptions of themselves, the world about them and the future. To a great extent depending on life circumstances, a child develops beliefs about themselves and their value and worth. If they grow up in a supportive, encouraging world they will tend to develop values and beliefs that support positive self-esteem and competence. They see others as people they can trust, who will help them reach their goals. If the child has not been fortunate to have a supportive upbringing, but have rather abusive and violent surrounding to navigate, the brain actually physically grows differently in response to the environment. They are likely to see themselves as useless and incompetent, see the world as a dog-eat-dog jungle, and the future as a place of gloom and dread. These values and beliefs define our point of view and what we can conceive of and what remains invisible to us. Our thoughts and emotions are shaped by beliefs and values, and therefore also the actions we choose and the world we create for ourselves (Beck, 1979). Boundary placementsAs adults we construct boundaries in line with our perceptions of the ourselves, the world and our future. Largely as a result of our upbringing we place boundaries around ourselves at each level of being from physical to spiritual. The boundaries are placed in ways that are congruent with our nature. Some ways boundaries are placed are more effective in terms of building relationships with others and living without violence. WallPeople who have learned that the world is an unsafe place, full of people who would harm you if possible are likely to build wall type boundaries. Their life experience has taught them the world is not a safe place to be. These people are defensive and tend to see the world in very black and white terms, such as “You are for me or against me”. People with wall boundaries are a little like a gang headquarters with high walls, barbed wire fences, guard dogs, and cameras. While their boundaries keep them save, they also exclude positive influences. No boundaryPeople who were brought up without a sense of discipline in their upbringing can end up as a person with no boundaries. There is no restriction on what the person is able or willing to do and is easily led by others. Intrusions through their boundaries are unnoticed and unchallenged. Their lives move from chaos to chaos. They are like a house with no boundaries: people will come and steal the mail, break windows and dogs will mess on their lawns. FragmentedFragmented boundaries often arise from inconsistent boundaries being set when young. Such a person does not have the insight to know when they should be excluding someone and when they should allow them closer. This is like a house with broken fences and someone who lets people in through the gate that it is not wise to allow in. IntactIntact boundaries tend to indicate a positive upbringing where the person learned to be aware of the boundaries and keep control over them. They have a good understanding of who should be allowed past the gate and who should be shut out of the house. A further perspective on the psychological aspects of violence is considering violence as a misguided response to perceived unmet needs. Meeting human needsAll people have needs at many different levels. Experiencing violence often means our needs are not met, or if we feel our needs are not being met, using violence is a tempting response towards others. Though controversial (Heylighen, 1992), Maslow’s (1943) well-known model, the hierarchy of needs provides one way of understanding human needs. Maslow proposed that we have levels of need. The basic level is the level of basic physiological needs of food, water and shelter, sex and sleep. Money is often necessary to maintain physiological needs. At the next level we have safety needs. Threats to life must be kept at bay. The law is often involved in maintaining this security. We tend to build safety through coming together with others of our kind to protect us against external threats. Next up is belonging. If we come together in groups we must find ways of bonding and holding the group together, love and connectedness. This is also the level of social contracts, forming the shared agreements and rules that will enable community members to live together successfully. The next level is self-esteem. Have a need to feel good about ourselves and feel valued in our family and community. Self-esteem is often linked to status in the community. If we are well connected within our community self-esteem is likely to be stronger. Obeying the rules of the community usually helps us gain ac
On the Domesticated Bodies of North Korean Residents
No full textNorth Koreans‘ social ecological resilience may be recovered by removing their vulnerability and facilitating their adaptability to a changing environment. North Koreans must improve their social relationships with inner or outer environments. Idolatrous social relations have enslaved the bodies of the inhabitants of North Korea. Only changes in the ruling ideology will enable the North Koreans to heal and transform their bodies in a social ecological recovery
A Theoretical Framework to Capture Stakeholder's Perspectives for the Design of Collaborative Communication Structures for Specializedl Organization
No full textSmall consults business often specializes in one aspect of the business analyst. This specialized focus is done by necessity due to scarcity of resources and to maintain a proprietary market niche. However, this specialized focus results in a growth inhibitor due to their lack of ability to address all the potential client’s needs. Moving to a multiple entity collaborative approach can provide a competitive advantage. By having many specialized business analysts and interactions can provide different value generation objects to co-produce a product or service to best serve customer requirements. Yet, interacting with multiple entities that do not communicate with each other well can be dysfunctional and unsatisfying for themselves and most importantly for clients. When multiple interests and beliefs are in place, soft systems methodology (SSM) and CATWOE tool can assist leaders to find the “middle” ground for all participants to collaborate. However, SSM is based on the observer doing all the design work, a feature not desirable when designing collaborative structures. In this research, a participative version of Soft Systems Methodology for energy analysis was developed to assist E3 (Economic, Energy, and Environment) practices and principles by using a set of questionnaires to capture information regarding the diversity of stakeholder's perspective. The resulting data then lead to the creation of root definition and the design of communication structure in the collaborative organization. The resulting version is capable of assisting collaborative specialized organization’s leaders in the design of communication structures to coordinate collaborative efforts. 
How to Design Alltogether? The Triple Bottom Line
No full textBusiness´ owners want their enterprises are profitable, and that profits stay forever. In other words, they want business economic and financially sustainable. Citizens want business socially responsible, and also environmentally careful, and contribute to recover it.The liquid societies (Bauman, 2000) create and destroy markets very quickly, and shareholders demand CEOs adapts their enterprises to those changes, maintaining profitable. Corruption scandals promote strong society claims, demand ethic behaviors. There are more sights about the environment. Paris signature authorities tell “these are not enough” (Paris Climate Agreement, 2016). There are theoretical papers about each of these aspects, but there aren’t a holistic view trying to find systemic answers.How have enterprises that are simultaneously sustainable, ethically behavior in all domains, and environmentally responsible: Are enough to choose a CEO who can make the triple goals?Can move the enterprise with a consulting work to the triple ends?Must promulgate laws, with strong penalties, to force enterprises to obtain the triple line?Is it necessary to (re-) design the enterprise to put on the way to the triple results?The first three questions are not enough. To choose a CEO with those capabilities is possible only for a few numbers of organizations, if it is possible. Consulting is, by definition, limited in time, and it needs a corporation’s behavior for the entire life. And if we have laws about, they cannot explain how to do it. It’s necessary that ALL the company, their members and all around collaborate and coordinate to have a chance to arrive.In recent times there are proposals to a new way of enterprises, with linked profit business with social impact and environment, call hybrid organizations. They try to generate at the same time, economic, social and environmental value (triple bottom line). Combine the current concepts of sustainability and systemic impact on all the dimensions requires a new design.In general, it is observed that the treatment of comprehensive way concerned is omitted. It focuses from one or another aspect, emphasis on certain features, but not about taking the overall design, which makes it difficult to appear companies at the same time achieve sustainability on all fronts. Those that exist are shown as successful examples, but is veiled how they succeeded, and the small number shown not allow inferring a viable design. It is about advancing the design companies that meet all requirements and work in line with the systemic dimensions that define Sustainability. Design tools and business models wide target.How to design organizations broad objectives that are sustainable from economic, social and environmental perspective, taking into account its surroundings and prospects?Cybernetic models available, such as VSM, systemic tools developed in recent decades, as models of Ackoff, Ulrich, Jackson, Checkland, Bosch, among others, suggest that counted with enough devices to address the design of this new type of companies.It is necessary to consider the behaviors of businessmen, culture and expectations, since what is being proposed are, to some extent, a Copernican shift in the way of acting and directing companies. It is necessary to consider that it will be necessary not only explain the design, especially its possible results and advantages compared to traditional.Today, when Millennium Development Goals post 2015 seeking simultaneously to defeat the scourge of poverty, and lead humanity to sustainable development, we must make all the productive forces in each place are aligned to work simultaneously on all fronts: economic, social, environmental, etc. This requires having previously developed academic responses, otherwise treated no objectives or goals but mere wishful thinking. Perhaps this is a small step in the right direction