In today’s complex world, driving meaningful social and policy change requires more than incremental improvements—it demands systemic shifts. In this blog, I describe and reflect on my experience of drawing from a tool from Problem Driven Iterative Adaptation and applied the Four Keys for shifting systems to facilitate a strategy discussion with policy researchers from ODI Global’s Global Risks and Resilience team. The objective of the online discussion was to design a policy engagement strategy focused on climate adaptation and resilience in Somalia. This blog centers on the design and facilitation process rather than the content of the discussion.
The Four Keys to Unlock System Change
In early 2021, I discovered a paper by Charles Leadbeater and Jennie Winhall of the System Innovation Initiative , titled “Building Better Systems: A Green Paper on System Innovation.” While I found it thought-provoking at the time, I struggled to see how its concepts could be practically applied. Later, I read their 2021 paper, “The Power to Shift a System,” which provided a more practical lens for understanding and driving systemic shifts.
Leadbeater and Winhall argue that systems often resist change because power, relationships, and resource flows are locked into patterns that reinforce the system’s existing purpose. They suggest that systemic change begins when these patterns are disrupted, allowing a new configuration of power, relationships, and resource flows to emerge.
The Four Keys framework identifies four core elements essential for enabling systemic change:
Purpose: The underlying purpose of a system shapes how people, activities, and resources are organized. Influencing and redefining this purpose is one of the most powerful ways to drive systemic shifts.
Power: Power determines who has the ability to shape outcomes, allocate resources, and set priorities within a system. Shifting power dynamics is critical for altering a system’s purpose and creating opportunities for change.
Relationships: Systems consist of interconnected parts. Transforming the relationships within a system is vital to addressing tensions and fostering new patterns of collaboration.
Resource Flows: Resources—such as money, technology, and knowledge—dictate how systems operate. Introducing new resources or reallocating existing ones can reconfigure a system and unlock its potential for change.
Using the Four Keys (and PDIA) to Map Barriers and Leverage Points in Somalia’s Climate Policy System
In early 2024, I facilitated two online workshops with a team of 10 policy researchers from ODI Global’s Global Risks and Resilience programme (LINK). The team was working on a policy engagement project focused on climate adaptation and resilience in Somalia. The workshops aimed to:
Map and discuss the key elements of Somalia’s climate adaptation policy system, identifying challenges and constraints in the capabilities needed for effective policy formulation and implementation of climate adaptation measures.
Outline a potential portfolio of actions or areas for policy engagement that the team could contribute to in collaboration with relevant stakeholders.
Additionally, the workshops provided an opportunity to test the Four Keys framework as a tool for problem mapping and portfolio design. This was complemented by elements of the Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA) approach to map barriers to change and identify entry points within the system.
Workshop #1: Exploring the Barriers and Constraints
The first workshop began with an introduction to the work of the System Innovation Initiative and the principles underpinning the Four Keys framework. The aim was to demonstrate how the Four Keys could serve as a lens to identify and map barriers and potential leverage points in Somalia’s climate adaptation policy system.
The Four Keys were used to structure the team discussion and organize insights. We tested incorporating the Four Keys into a Fishbone diagram, commonly used in the PDIA process. This approach was chosen because the Fishbone diagram requires the team to articulate the central, “wicked-hard” problem in the system (i.e., the problem now) and place it at the top of the diagram. Defining a core problem helps focus and set boundaries for the discussion, while the contributing factors are mapped as connected issues.
Using the Four Keys framework, we explored contributory problems and challenges in terms of system purpose, power dynamics, relationships, and resource flows. The workshop included group discussions on each Key, with findings shared in a plenary session. The resulting map was a populated version of the example diagram below.
Workshop #2: Identifying a Portfolio of Possible Actions to Shift the System
The second workshop, held about a week after the first, focused on reviewing and refining the map developed during Workshop #1. The goal was to design potential actions the team could take to address constraints within the Four Keys framework, creating momentum toward overcoming the main challenges.
The guiding question for the discussion was:
Given the set of problems we have mapped, what changes and reforms would be desirable to help shift the system and strengthen policy capabilities?
The team engaged in small group discussions to brainstorm possible actions. Each action was evaluated based on two criteria:
Feasibility: How practical is the action within the current context?
Systemic Influence: How likely is the action to catalyze broader system changes?
The team identified 26 potential actions, which were then mapped across three Keys: Purpose, Power and Relationships (merged into one category), and Resource Flows. The team further refined the map by highlighting actions for immediate implementation—those with high feasibility and potential for short-term impact—using red dots. The resulting map closely resembled the example below.
Reflections and Key Insights
The feedback from the team on the facilitation process and the use of the Four Keys framework was positive, aligning closely with the workshop’s objectives to map systemic challenges and identify actionable steps for policy engagement toward reform. They identified a concrete set of actions along with some initial sequencing. While these actions will need further refinement, the workshops provided a solid foundation for the team to build on.
From my perspective, the Four Keys categories proved useful in focusing the team’s discussions and structuring their insights. For example, using the Relationships Key helped the team uncover critical dynamics between different stakeholders, such as how partnerships and collaborations were either facilitating or hindering policy implementation. This focus provided a tangible entry point for identifying actionable changes. However, at times, the categories felt a bit too high-level, particularly when addressing Purpose. The team found it challenging to articulate the constraints within the system that explain the current purpose of the policy systems. This difficulty reminded me of Donella Meadows’ “Thinking in Systems. A Primer”, where she notes that understanding a system’s purpose is often the most challenging part of systems analysis.
In contrast, discussions about Relationships, Power distribution, and Resource flows were easier. The overlaps between the identified problems and proposed actions also highlighted an area for refinement. Some actions could be associated with multiple Keys, which is why, in the second workshop, the Power and Relationships categories were merged for clarity.
The integration of an element of PDIA, such as the Fishbone diagram, worked well. The visual structure provided a clear way to capture and display the team’s insights, ensuring everyone could follow the flow of ideas. For online workshops, having such a tangible artefact helped maintain engagement and foster collaborative thinking despite the virtual setting.
Conclusion
Overall, the workshops underscored the value of combining structured frameworks like the Four Keys with tools like the PDIA Fishbone diagram to facilitate discussions on systemic challenges. While some elements, such as exploring the system’s purpose, proved challenging, the process fostered actionable insights and a clear direction for the team. This experience highlights the importance of adapting facilitation approaches to the context and using collaborative tools to drive meaningful progress in systems change.
*Cover image from Leadbeater, C. and Winhall, J. (2021). System Innovation On Purpose. Copenaghen: Systems Innotaion Initiative. Available here.