**4. The need for a systemic programming framework for community resilience**

The need for a systemic or holistic programming framework for community resilience and improved livelihoods advocated in this paper is justified by three assertions. Firstly, there is a growing paradigm focused on improving community resilience against the shocks and stresses of climate change. Secondly, non-governmental organisation (NGO) work in Zimbabwe has been highly fragmented, and uncoordinated. Finally, there is a dearth of literature that chronicles good practices in rural development facilitation.

NGO activities in Zimbabwe have been highly fragmented in practice. Social experiments by these organisations have in most instances focused on isolated projects which tend to ignore the holistic nature of community life and make abstract assumptions from reality. In essence, such individual projects should be a part of a bigger puzzle and avoid duplication. Within the context of resilience being addressed in this paper, the components of building resilient communities should not be piecemeal but rather be integrated and have emergent properties. In recent years, it has become increasingly clear that, through encouraging systems-based thinking the concept of resilience has the potential to radically transform the compartmentalised and somewhat fragmented ways of developing vulnerable rural communities [31]. By recognising the complex interplay of the conditions of vulnerability, resilience could provide a means for more holistic understandings of such complexity by shifting attention away from individual project approaches toward addressing the complex milieu of community conditions.

This paper focuses on how resilience programming can be facilitated in practice. Although several NGOs have implemented various programming approaches, there is a dearth of literature on how such processes are conducted. Such a scenario is understandable as programming approaches determine the competitiveness and comparative advantage among NGOs. Thus, it becomes irrational to expose the 'secrets' of their programming successes. However, in recent years, potential approaches to building community resilience against the impacts of climate change have been conceptualised and documented but need to be tested empirically [29, 32]. It is against this scenario that this paper is premised. The key research questions addressed are: What are the critical components of a systemic programming framework for livelihoods and resilience? And how is such a framework facilitated in practice?

### **5. Conceptual framework**

The concepts of soft systems methodology provide conceptual building blocks for the development of a systemic or holistic programming approach for building community resilience. Laslo and Krippner [37] define a system as, "a complex of interacting components together with the relationships among them that permit the identification of a boundary-maintaining entity or process". The underlying principle

#### *A Framework for Facilitating Holistic Interventions for Building Community Resilience… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102977*

of systems theory is that the effects or outputs of a system are dependent on the interactions among various components. Studying the components in isolation will not provide an accurate picture of the system [38–40]. Unlike the reductionist research approaches that rely on drawing samples, systems theory does not separate individual components under study but focuses on how these components interact with each other in their entirety [40]. Central to systems theory is the concept of wholeness that aims at bringing together fragmented research findings in a comprehensive view of man, nature, and society. Systems thinking is championed on the premise that there are emergent properties of systems that do not exist when systems are decoupled into smaller parts [41, 42].

There is a diverse array of system thinking methodologies including system dynamics, critical systems thinking, viable systems, and critical systems heuristics, among others [43]. This paper adopts soft systems methodology (SSM) as a conceptual framework. The core of SSM is the construction of models of the system(s) being studied. These models are used to discuss how to bring about organizational/community change. They allow the community to engage in debate and the practitioner/facilitator to elicit multiple perspectives. The learning that takes place leads to purposeful3 action systems. The models constructed through SSM are regarded as learning systems, instead of incontestable representations of reality. Within the context of this paper, therefore, the term 'system' refers to the process of inquiry, *i.e.,* the analysis of a situation, rather than to an "objective" view of the world that the observer assumes to be capable of managing. SSM is premised on structuring coherent debates and allowing those involved in the problem situation, and those likely to be affected by any solutions to define the problem to be addressed [44]. It allows those with differing perspectives to understand each other sufficiently, so that they may act in the world in a way that all parties can live with ([43], p. 143). This paper adopts the classical SSM4 implemented following a seven-step process as illustrated in **Figure 1**.

The first stage explores the situation within a framework of the real world. It focuses on the mapping of cultural history, stakeholder analysis, community perspectives and assumptions, historical trends, among other factors. The purpose is not to define the problem but to solicit holistic unstructured parameters of the problem situation through dialogue and debates with all the affected and those capable of bringing relevant choices. Stage 2 expresses the problem situation through development of a rich picture from the unstructured problem in stage 1.

Stage 3 provides root definitions of relevant systems in the problem situation. This is a departure from the real world and provides perceived choices. A root definition is a statement defining what is relevant to the system and who is either affected or affects it. Defining root definitions is guided by a CATWOE analysis (Customers, Actors, Transformation process, *Weltanschauung*, Owner, and Environmental Constraints). Customers are the victims/beneficiaries of the purposeful activities. Actors are responsible for the activities while the transformation process is expressed as inputs, transformation, and outputs. *Weltanschauung* are the worldviews for a meaningful system and owners are community members who can stop the system from functioning. Environmental constraints are taken as 'given' and difficult to influence, affect, and change (**Figure 2**).

<sup>3</sup> A system is purposeful if it allows debate and reflection.

<sup>4</sup> SSM has gone through reviews over the last three decades based empirical studies from different discipline. See for example Checkland and Scholes [45].

#### **Figure 1.**

*The seven-step process in classical soft systems methodology adopted from Mingers [46].*

#### **Figure 2.**

*CATWOE analysis. Adopted from Wang et al. [47].*

*A Framework for Facilitating Holistic Interventions for Building Community Resilience… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102977*

Stage 4 is the construction of conceptual models that present holistic stakeholder perspectives about the desired system and associated human activities. It prepares for the dialogical process that will take place during the implementation of SSM-based interventions. For each root definition, the analyst makes a conceptual model. The conceptual model is the structured set of activities that logic requires in a system, defined in the root definition. Stage 5 compares the conceptual model with the realworld problem situation. It provides a dialogic process and debate on the perceived situation and an opportunity for stakeholders to critique their assumptions. Stage 6 determines the desirable and feasible systemic changes. Checkland [44] identifies three types of changes: structural, procedural, and attitudes. Within the rural development discourse, structural might refer to community groupings, communication, social capital, and functional responsibilities. Procedural will include community and other stakeholder modes of operation, while attitudes include changing mental models, and practices. Stage 7 is the implementation stage and outlines the implementation strategy, resources, and skills requirements. According to Mingers [46], in practice, these steps are not taken sequentially and some may be omitted and combined.

### **6. Methodology**

This paper utilised (a) experiential knowledge and expert experience from action research by the author based on more than a decade of engagement in rural development facilitation in Zimbabwe and (b) document reviews. The experiential knowledge was acquired through an action research process where the author engaged in action research between 2002 and 2014, under the WK Kellogg foundation programs as a development facilitator in Manicaland Province of Zimbabwe. Experiential knowledge is based on a participative inquiry paradigm and grounded in the belief that experiential encounter with the presence of the world is the ground of our being and knowing [48]. It assumes the creative shaping of a world through the transaction of imaging it, perceptually and in other ways. Experiential knowing thus articulates reality through inner resonance with what there is, and through perceptually enacting its forms of appearing. It further asserts that to experience, anything is to participate in it and to participate in both to mold and to encounter, hence experiential reality is always subjective/objective. Document review included reviewing the literature on systems thinking and rural development facilitation.
