Critical Systems Thinking Towards Enhancing Community Engagement in Micro-insurance

Original Research
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

This paper attempts to build a conceptual framework for community engagement in micro-insurance scheme design and deployment. The framework is founded on critical systems thinking literature that introduces the characteristics of openness, flexibility, and agility. The authors have focused on a community-led micro-insurance model, where the nature of the engagement itself underpins the success or failure of a scheme, due to their very nature of operations. Select systems thinking tools are introduced to better understand issues that arise in enhancing community engagement and flexibility, both of which are regarded as a critical aspect in the development of micro-insurance schemes. Reference and learning are drawn from an on-ground scheme in India implemented by the Micro Insurance Academy. The second author of this paper was the lead for this scheme. This is a proposed framework and is yet to be tested on ground.

Keywords

Community engagement Critical systems thinking Flexibility Micro-insurance 

References

  1. Ackoff, R. L. (1971). Towards a system of systems concepts. Management Science, 17(11), 661–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackoff, R. L. (2001). A brief guide to interactive planning and idealized design. Retrieved May 31, 2001 from http://www.ida.liu.se/*steho/und/htdd01/AckoffGuidetoIdealizedRedesign.pdf.
  3. Beer, S. (1972). Brain of the firm. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  4. Beer, S. (1994). Beyond dispute: The invention of team syntegrity. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Brett, E. A. (2003). Participation and accountability in development management. Journal of Development Studies, 40(2), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  7. Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking systems practice. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Checkland, P. (2000). Soft systems methodology: A thirty year retrospective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17, 11–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chowdhury, R. (2012). Organizational design and firm-wide collaboration: Retrospective appreciation of a change-led consulting intervention in India within a systems thinking paradigm. Systems Research and Behavioral Sciences, 29(4), 402–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chowdhury, R., Clarke, S., & Butler, R. (2007). Healthcare IT project failure: A systems perspective. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 9(4), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Churchman, C. W. (1970). Operations research as a profession. Management Science, 17, 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dror, D. M., & Firth, L. A. (2014). The demand for (Micro) health insurance in the informal sector. Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance.  https://doi.org/10.1057/gpp.2014.24.Google Scholar
  13. Dror, D. M., & Jacquier, C. (1999). Microinsurance: Extending health insurance to the excluded. International Social Security Review, 52(1), 71–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dror, D. M., & Piesse, D. (2014). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2434501. Accessed 13 Nov 2017.
  15. Forrester, J. W. (1969). Principles of systems. Cambridge, MA: Wright-Allan Press.Google Scholar
  16. Habermas, K. (1974). Theory and practice. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  17. Hall, A. D. (1962). A methodology for systems engineering. Princeton, NJ: D Van Nostrand Co.Google Scholar
  18. Heyer, R. (2004). Understanding soft operations research: The methods, their application and its future in the defence setting, command and control. Division Information Sciences Laboratory, Australian Department of Defence. Retrieved from http://bayanbox.ir/view/2159266497151440758/Understanding-Soft-Operations-Research.pdf. Accessed 13 Nov 2017.
  19. Iles, V., & Sutherland, K. (2001). Organisational change: A review for health care managers, professionals and researchers. London: National Coordinating Centre for the Service Delivery and Organisation.Google Scholar
  20. Jackson, M. C. (2000). Systems approaches to management. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.Google Scholar
  21. Jackson, M. C. (2003). Systems thinking: Creative Holism for managers. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, M. P. (2012). In M. P. Johnson (Ed.), Community-based operations research: Introduction, theory, and application. community-based operations research: Decision modeling for local impact and diverse populations (pp. 3–36). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Kant, E. (1969). What is enlightenment?. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. (Reprint).Google Scholar
  24. Levy, J. K., Hypel, K. W., & Howard, N. (2009). Advances in drama theory in managing global hazards and disasters. Part I: Theoretical foundation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 18, 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. (1981). Challenging strategic planning assumptions. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Micro Insurance Academy (MIA). (2016). Business process handbook. New Delhi.Google Scholar
  27. Midgley, G. (1996). What is this thing called CST? In R. Flood & N. R. A. Romm (Eds.), Critical systems thinking: Current research and practice (pp. 11–24). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Midgley, G. (2001). Systemic intervention: Philosophy, methodology and practice. New York: Plenum/Kluwer.Google Scholar
  29. Midgley, G. (2003). Science as systemic intervention: Some implications of systems thinking and complexity for the philosophy of science. Cuadernos de Administración, 16(25), 7–30.Google Scholar
  30. Midgley, G. (2006). Reflections on the CPTS model of interdisciplinarity. In S. Strijbos & A. Basden (Eds.), In search of an integrative vision for technology: Interdisciplinary studies in information systems. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Midgley, G. (2008). Systems thinking, complexity and the philosophy of science. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 10(4), 55–73.Google Scholar
  32. Midgley, G. (2014). Systemic intervention. Research memorandum, 95. Hull: Hull University Business School.Google Scholar
  33. Mingers, J. (1997). Multi-paradigm methodology. In J. Mingers & A. Gill (Eds.), Multimethodology: The theory and practice of combining management science methodologies (pp. 1–20). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge and Keagan Paul.Google Scholar
  35. Sushil (1994). Flexible systems methodology. Systems Practice, 7(6), 633–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sushil (2018). Is management science applicable at the top level? Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 19(1), 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Taket, A., & White, L. (1996). Pragmatic pluralism: An explication. Systems Practice, 9(6), 571–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical heuristics of social planning: A new approach to practical philosophy. Haupt: Wiley.Google Scholar
  39. Van der Heijden (1996). Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  40. Williams, T. (2008). Management science in practice. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The PRacticeNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Climate Risk InsuranceGIZ GmbHBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations