STRATEGIC PLANNING AND SYSTEMIGRAMS: A MIXED-METHODS STUDY OF THE PUBLIC SYSTEM OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

Local Workforce Development as a System

The coordination and collaboration among organizations and across sectors, along with the activities that contribute to society's well-being, are what constitute the workforce development system and what make it complex (Ladyman et al., 2013; Rind, 1999). These interrelations, interactions, and need for collaboration and coordination suggest workforce development is a system, but little research has been conducted in workforce development from a systems perspective. For example, literature supporting a systems perspective in workforce development either comprises conceptual propositions (Bates & Redmann, 2002; Hamilton & Torraco, 2013; Jacobs & Hawley, 2009; Swanson & Holton, 2009; Torraco, 2016), with suggestions for taking a more systemic perspective (Hamilton & Torraco, 2013; Holland, 2016; Torraco, 2016), or field research conducted from a process-level approach, such as in program evaluation research (Nisbet et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2014). Research in workforce development has used diverse methods such as surveys and case studies (Hawley et al., 2005; Meléndez et al., 2015; Scully-Russ, 2015), which could allow for a systemic perspective of workforce development, but none has taken it, perhaps due to the amount of time and resources such a large undertaking would require.

In this study, what is initially meant by a systemic perspective for workforce development is that it includes an understanding of the various programs a local area supports. A systemic perspective also includes how organizations and their programs and services connect to one another, as well as ways in which the stakeholders and other service providers could collaborate more effectively. Finally, a systemic perspective includes collective action toward fulfilling the multiple purposes of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA).

With respect to the design of a workforce development system, there also seems to be a lack of research. On the U.S. Department of Labor's technical assistance website, Workforce GPS, it was proposed that local workforce development areas use “customer centered design” (U.S. Department of Labor, Employment, and Training Administration, n.d.-a). However, there has been no known formal field research conducted on workforce development systems design.

With respect to design thinking, however, at least one well-known piece of literature exists within the field of public administration. The term wicked problems was first introduced to the field of design by Horst Rittel in the 1960s and early 1970s (Buchanan, 1992) and reintroduced within the context of public administration planning problems by Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber in 1973. The authors discussed the wicked problems of planning, including the involvement of multiple stakeholders.

The complex and wicked problems of the public system of workforce development have existed since approximately the time that Rittel and Webber (1973) described the concept. What has not existed is a comprehensive way for workforce development scholars and practitioners to envision the problems, the systems that created them, and potential designs toward their resolution. A visual representation of a system acting as a baseline diagram for the purposes of designing policy, improving performance, developing support structures, or executing other strategic management processes may be useful.

There are many rich and informative diagrams, logic models, and depictions of processes within the workforce development system (U.S. Department of Labor, Employment, and Training Administration, n.d.-b). However, there are no known depictions of a local workforce development system that accurately portray its complexity, boundaries, stakeholders, and customers. An accurate and more thorough illustration of a local workforce development system and ways to affect its design may allow for greater understanding and insight by stakeholders and decision-makers within the system (Mehler et al., 2010).

With respect to wicked problems, workforce development local areas strive for the resolution of problems daily and with a great deal of support from local, state, and federal levels of government (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2012). These local areas also work toward the goals set forth in their local plans, as directed by WIOA. However, the larger purposes set forth in WIOA, such as expanding employment opportunities for vulnerable populations, focusing on prosperity for workers and employers, meeting skill requirements of employers, and improving the quality of the workforce system, are not being fulfilled.

Within single organizations, strategic management processes such as “analysis, development, planning, and implementation” (Eppler & Platts, 2009, p. 43) have been used to assist with goal attainment and problem resolution. However, due to the multiple sectors, layers of government, and numerous organizations involved in the workforce development system, public system strategic management processes may require greater efforts. Due to the increasingly complex nature of workforce development as a public system, a conceptual framework for this study included strategic planning, visualization, systems thinking, and systems design.

Needs for the System's Improvement

The public workforce development system has existed since the enactment of the first public law that created it, the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973 (CETA). Public laws typically contain purpose statements, which may be viewed as the reasons the law was enacted. As such, in this section what will first be discussed are the six purposes of the most recent workforce development system legislation, WIOA. This will be followed by a discussion of the relevance of these purposes to the present state of labor, income inequality, and economic development in the United States.

Section 2 of WIOA states the law's six purposes:

1. To increase, for individuals in the United States, particularly those individuals with barriers to employment, access to and opportunities for the employment, education, training, and support services they need to succeed in the labor market.

2. To support the alignment of workforce investment, education, and economic development systems in support of a comprehensive, accessible, and high-quality workforce development system in the United States.

3. To improve the quality and labor-market relevance of workforce investment, education, and economic development efforts to provide America's workers with the skills and credentials necessary to secure and advance in employment with family-sustaining wages and to provide America's employers with the skilled workers the employers need to succeed in a global economy.

4. To promote improvement in the structure of and delivery of services through the United States workforce development system to better address the employment and skill needs of workers, job seekers, and employers.

5. To increase the prosperity of workers and employers in the United States; the economic growth of communities, regions, and states; and the global competitiveness of the United States.

6. For purposes of subtitle A and B of Title I, to provide workforce investment activities, through statewide and local workforce development systems, that increase the employment, retention, and earnings of participants, and increase attainment of recognized postsecondary credentials by participants and, as a result, improve the quality of the workforce, reduce welfare dependency, increase economic self-sufficiency, meet the skill requirements of employers, and enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the nation. (WIOA, 2018).

The complexity added to the workforce development system through this statement of multiple purposes provides further evidence for a systems perspective as well as the need for systems design to fulfill these purposes. To the professional practicing in the field, it might be assumed that the intention of the legislation is to place as a top priority those individuals with “barriers to employment” (WIOA, 2014) while perhaps authorizing local areas to give less attention to “improvement in the structure of and delivery of services” (WIOA, 2014). Such a linear approach to the implementation of this legislation, however, may risk some or all of the six purposes of WIOA going unfulfilled. Conversely, applying a holistic approach to fulfilling the multiple legislative purposes as stated in the law may mean positively affecting societal issues such as skilled labor, income inequality, and economic development to support the “competitiveness of the United States” (WIOA, 2014).

The fulfillment of these purposes has been an ongoing, unresolved issue of the workforce development system. The Association for Talent Development (2015) discussed skills gaps in the United States, noting the growing gap in middle-skills jobs, defined as “jobs that require more than a high school degree but less than a four-year college degree” (p. 4). The authors discussed potential reasons for the gaps and included a lack of investment in training, a knowledge deficit due to retirements, rapid changes in business needs, students not choosing trades as occupations, and not obtaining soft skills in higher education (Association for Talent Development, 2015). Training for employment has been the cornerstone of workforce development legislation since the enactment of CETA in 1973. Each workforce development law passed since then either contained Training in its name or described it as a central activity.

Income inequality has been a growing trend in the United States since the late 1970s, according to an analysis conducted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO; 2011). The CBO placed incomes into five quintiles, then added a separate, sixth category for the top 1% of incomes. According to the CBO analysis, from the years 1979 to 2007 incomes increased 275% for the top 1%; incomes increased by 65% for those in the uppermost quintile, the 81st–99th percentiles; for those with incomes in the 21st–80th percentiles incomes increased nearly 40%; and for those with earnings that fell below the 21st percentile, incomes increased 18% over that period.

The movement from one income category to another was studied by Silvia et al. (2013), who referred to this movement as “economic mobility” (p. 68). The study reviewed the CBO report's findings, noting that government assistance was a factor that decreased income inequality to some extent, but tighter federal budgets meant that it was not a reliable form of support (Silvia et al., 2013). In addition, studies suggested that assistance provided to people in lower income brackets to increase their economic mobility would in turn help to increase labor, productivity, and long-term business growth (Benner & Pastor, 2015; Silvia et al., 2013). Promotion of the economic mobility of individuals within a workforce development system has not been articulated, but the legislation either refers to assisting those at an economic disadvantage (CETA, 1973; Job Training and Partnership Act of 1982) or to individuals becoming economically self-sufficient (CETA, 1973; Workforce Investment Act of 1998 [WIA]; WIOA, 2014).

The systemic nature of workforce development has also evolved since CETA's passage in 1973. With the passage of WIA and the introduction of one-stop delivery centers, the rhetoric of cross-organizational and cross-sector collaboration has become intrinsic to the daily operations of workforce development. The legislative language of WIA and WIOA refer to the partnerships necessary to support “the workforce investment systems” (WIA, 1998) and “the workforce development systems” (WIOA, 2014).

The language used in the six purposes (or six-part purpose) of WIOA further advances the support of jobseekers and vulnerable populations by articulating the need to support “particularly, individuals with barriers to employment … the increased employment, retention, and earnings of participants,” to “reduce welfare dependency,” and assist with employment that provides “family-sustaining wages” (WIOA, 2014). The language of this law also furthers the notion of workforce development as a system: “To support the alignment of workforce investment, education, and economic development systems in support of a comprehensive, accessible, and high-quality workforce development system… . To promote improvement in the structure of and delivery of services through the United States workforce development system” (WIOA, 2014).

The system of workforce development has evolved in major and minor ways over the past 45 years. The requirements from the U.S. Department of Labor regarding local area plans have become more detailed, requiring a better understanding of strategic planning, plan implementation, and organizational principles for better service delivery. Strategic planning is the starting point and is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for the workforce development system to fulfill its legislative purposes. Given the complexities of the system, the varied nature of the populations served, and their diverse needs, the literature suggests that a visual depiction of the workforce development system may provide utility for its local area professionals and board members with respect to their systemic, strategic efforts.

Purpose of the Study

Considering the complexity, specificity, and systemic nature of the current workforce law and considering the assertion that the legislative purposes of workforce development have yet to be fulfilled, this research has two intentions. First, it is intended to understand the design of a local area workforce development system that fulfills its federally legislated purposes. Second, it is intended to determine the utility of a visual depiction for workforce professionals' and board members' use with systems design and strategic planning, strategic plan implementation, or other strategic management processes.

Research Questions

To guide this study, the following research questions were asked:

1. What is the design of a workforce development system that fulfills its federally legislated purposes?

2. What, if any, utility does a visual representation of the system design provide to local workforce development professionals and board members with respect to strategic management processes?

Strategic Planning

In a supplemental issue of Public Administration Review, Borins (2010) suggested that strategic planning lacked a theoretical grounding and that it could benefit from one. In the same issue, Brown (2010) asserted that theory was presently missing from strategic planning as well as other types of thinking in public sector organizations. Brown's view was that without theory behind the tools, strategic planning and its related actions were unlikely to be successful. Theoretical frameworks provide understanding and support critical thinking, thereby allowing managers more fluidity and creativity in their decision-making and actions toward achieving strategic goals (Brown, 2010).

The importance of effective planning and decision-making in the public sector was highlighted by Head and Alford (2015), who asserted that the wicked problems faced by public administrators called for effective approaches. They defined wicked problems as “those that are complex, unpredictable, open-ended, or intractable” (Head & Alford, 2015, p. 712). They argued that such problems could not be resolved with a rational, analytical, deductive approach: Systems thinking was one approach they recommended. Mintzberg (1994) described the effect the environment can have on planning: “According to the premises of strategic planning, the world is supposed to hold still while a plan is being developed and then stay on the predicted course while that plan is being implemented” (p. 110).

A holistic approach to planning was advocated by public policy researchers in New Zealand. Cina and Cummings (2018) discussed the importance of obtaining feedback on strategies for implementation purposes, from both internal and external stakeholders. In terms of systems, Skyttner (2005) described feedback as “a basic strategy which allows a system to compensate for unexpected disturbances” (p. 82). Taking a systemic view of strategic plan implementation, Cina and Cummings noted several features of feedback collection, based upon a study of several other English-speaking countries' internal revenue service agencies. Feedback was effective, in part, because it was designed into the respective systems and designed as a nearly continuous loop from both within the system and from its environment.

Visualization

Another approach to more effective strategic planning has been to incorporate visualization. How managers understand and communicate the strategies they create is relevant to organizations and scholars alike, but visualization has not been commonly studied in public workforce development settings. However, the qualitative case studies reviewed on this topic were all conducted in workplace settings. Conceptual and theoretical frameworks for the studies varied but did not include systems thinking. Table 1 displays categorizations of the studies based upon their conceptual or theoretical foundations.

TABLE 1 Categories of Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks of Visualization Studies

View Fullscreen

Systems Thinking

Systems thinking, as it is discussed in this article, refers to a group of organizations working together toward a common purpose. This teleological view of systems was most notably addressed by C. West Churchman (1963, 1971), who described systems of inquiry and their designs from an epistemological perspective. Beginning with logic and rational knowledge building, then moving to empiricism, and finally to Hegel's dialectic, Churchman (1971) provided the foundation and justifications for what could be described as a system of systems design of inquiry based on the work of Edgar Singer, Jr., one of Churchman's teachers. Singer's epistemological views included teleology and experimentalism, and he argued that iterative progress toward an ideal image was, in essence, the work of systems design (Krikorian, 1962). Churchman (1971) stated that Singer's inquiry system was based on Hegel's dialectic; purposefully juxtaposing the “real” and the “ideal” in its design (p. 99).

This juxtaposition of real and ideal were used in the design of this research. The real was considered to be the public workforce development system as it has existed until now. This was studied through an in-depth review of workforce development legislation and related literature (Regenold, 2020). The ideal design of a workforce development system fulfilling its federally legislated purposes was addressed through the first research question in this study.

Systems Design

Purpose fulfilment is what distinguishes public sector organizations from private sector organizations. The purposes of the public system of workforce development connote those of a social system. Ackoff and Gharajedaghi (1996) discussed the importance of using models consistent with the type of system under study: Social systems should, among other things, use models that allow for democratic choice, “interactive planning,” and enable “learning and adaptation” (pp. 21–22). Gharajedaghi (2011) noted the importance of design thinking for systems design: “To design a social system is to produce a clear and explicit image of the desired outcome” (p. 138).

Phase 1: Modified Delphi Survey

The Delphi method was modified by presenting participants with prewritten statements to rank in Round 1 and by including the traditional future-based approach (de Loe et al., 2016; Preble, 1983); the policy approach (Manley, 2013; Turoff, 1970, 1975/2002; Turoff & Hiltz, 1996); and the normative approach (Martino, 1999; Novakowski & Wellar, 2008). The traditional Delphi method aims to achieve group consensus (de Loe et al., 2016; Preble, 1983). Policy Delphi studies highlight dissensus (Turoff, 1971). This study included both consensus and dissensus, with the goal of learning about purpose-driven systems and their possible normative designs. Dissensus was anticipated, and it was handled by including it in postround reports reviewed by participants during subsequent rounds. The operationalization of consensus and dissensus is presented in Table 2.

TABLE 2 Operationalization of Consensus and Dissensus, Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance (W; Adapted From Schmidt, 1997)

View Fullscreen

Phase 2: Systems Modeling

Phase 2 of the study concerned systems modeling. The Boardman soft systems methodology (BSSM; Boardman & Sauser, 2013) was applied to several aspects of this research. The BSSM contains seven steps similar to Checkland's soft systems methodology, but the BSSM uses computer software to develop the system diagram instead of Checkland's (1999) freehand drawings.

The first two steps of the BSSM, experiencing the problem situation and describing it (Sauser et al., 2011), were completed in the historical review of the workforce development system (Regenold, 2020). The BSSM steps taken in this system modeling phase were Step 3, “structured text,” and Step 4, “systemigram design” (Sauser et al., 2011, p. 5). A textual description of the workforce development system was completed by developing a “root definition” (Checkland, 1999, p. 18) using the qualitative data collected in Phase 1. Next, the BSSM computer software was used to diagram the workforce development system according to that definition (Systems Engineering Research Center, n.d.). The definition and system diagram were then used during the interviews conducted in Phase 3.

Phase 3: Postsurvey Interviews and Revisions to the Model

Phase 3 of the study involved postsurvey interviews. The interviews fulfilled Steps 5 and 6 of the BSSM: “dramatization and dialogue” and “feasible, desirable changes” (Sauser et al., 2011, p. 5). Interviews were conducted with participants using the systemigram of an ideal local area workforce development system created in Phase 2. Interviews were conducted online, and explanations of how the diagram was developed and how to read it were provided. Participants were then asked how they would revise the systemigram so that it would more thoroughly depict a system that fulfilled the six purposes of WIOA. Participants were also asked what, if any, utility such a visual depiction of a workforce development system might have for local area strategic planning. The interview protocol is displayed in Table 3.

TABLE 3 Interview Protocol

View Fullscreen

Revisions to the systemigram were made after all of the interviews were complete. A revised version of the systemigram was sent to interview participants for any further input. Final input was incorporated and a final version of the systemigram was distributed to interview participants.

Phase 1: Modified Delphi Survey

The majority of participants were executive directors or those in equivalent positions (n = 15), followed by local workforce development board chairs (n = 4) and board members (n = 2). The years of experience participants had in their roles ranged from 2 years to over 20 years. The majority of participants were women (n = 12), had master's degrees (n = 12), and identified as White (n = 19). One participant identified as Asian, one participant identified as Black or African American, and two participants identified as Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish descent.

Participants were supplied with a link to a website and were asked to complete the survey. After all responses were completed for each round (each round lasted a maximum of 2 weeks), data analysis occurred. The statistical program SPSS was used to calculate a measure of concordance, Kendall's W. The results from Round 1 indicated a Kendall's W of 0.37. The results from Round 2 indicated a Kendall's W of 0.41. The results from Round 3 indicated a Kendall's W of 0.41.

During the first round of the survey, participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with the following statement: “A visual depiction of a local workforce development system would be useful for a local board's strategic planning process.” Response options ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree on a 6-point Likert-type scale. A majority of participants strongly agreed with the statement (n = 13), and the remainder either agreed (n = 7) or somewhat agreed (n = 1).

Participants were also asked to rank statements according to their importance to fulfilling the purposes of the current workforce development law. Using SPSS, the average rank of each statement was calculated after each round. Statements were arranged according to their average, from the lowest numbers (indicating highest rankings) to the highest numbers (indicating the lowest rankings). Table 4 displays the five top-ranked statements from Round 3.

TABLE 4 Average Ranks of the Top Five Statements From Round 3

View Fullscreen

Participants were asked to explain their reasoning for ranking the statements in the order they did. The question was voluntary, and participants typed their responses into a text box. The data were downloaded from the survey website and placed into an Excel spreadsheet. Data were then lightly edited and placed in a table for review by participants in subsequent rounds. Examples of the reasoning participants provided for ranking statements the way they did in Round 3 is displayed in Table 5.

TABLE 5 Examples of Participants' Statements of Reasoning for Rankings: Round 3

View Fullscreen

Phase 2: Systems Modeling

Qualitative data collected from the modified Delphi survey were analyzed and coded according to Checkland's (1999) CATWOE analysis. The acronym stands for “customers … actors … transformation process … weltanschauung [worldview] … owners … and the environmental constraints” (Checkland, 1999, p. 18). For example, a reasoning statement from Round 3 that noted “Business should be our primary customer and should play a key role in guiding the workforce system design” was coded as a system “Customer.” During the analysis it was discovered that owners were not explicitly identified by participants (i.e., chief local elected officials, the Department of Labor, governors were not mentioned). The role of owner was therefore not included in the “root definition” (Checkland, 1999, p. 18). Table 6 displays examples of these qualitative data and their corresponding CATWOE element(s).

TABLE 6 Examples of CATWOE Analysis

View Fullscreen

Three “root definitions” (Checkland, 1999, p. 18) were developed from these data and were shared with the panel of reviewers. Panel members were asked to discern which of the three definitions best represented the data and the resultant themes. Panel members agreed on the following root definition as the best representation of the data and themes:

The local board selects, oversees, and authorizes funds for workforce development programs and services in the area. This oversight is conducted with integrity and accountability and allows the local board to flexibly adapt to changing economic and business needs while also serving the rural parts of the area. Businesses are the primary customer of this demand-driven system. Workforce development programs and services such as career pathways are designed and aligned with industry sectors in the area and these programs are provided the proper resources to span skill levels. Apprenticeship programs are clearly connected with WIOA programs and services as well. Work-based learning is provided to existing employees, and talent is developed from an early age to encourage jobseeker potential, creativity, and entrepreneurship. The state workforce board is responsible for policies only at the state level. The local board designs performance and accountability structures for the local area, giving one-stop operators the authority to ensure partners work together; training job center staff to use holistic, team-based approaches when providing services; and encouraging the consolidation of economic development and workforce development departments. (Root Definition, Option 3)

Next, based on this definition of the system, a system diagram, or systemigram, was created using Boardman and Sauser's (2013) SystemiTool, a free software program downloaded from the Systems Engineering Research Center (n.d.) website. Nouns and verbs from the root definition were used to create nodes and links in the system diagram. After the systemigram was created, it was storyboarded (Boardman & Sauser, 2013), or separated into segments in a PowerPoint presentation for participants to view. The PowerPoint presentation of the systemigram was delivered to participants during interviews conducted in the third and final phase of the study.

Phase 3: Postsurvey Interviews and Revisions to the Model

Phase 3 of this study involved interviewing participants to obtain their initial feedback about the systemigram design, to gain their feedback about the utility of a visual depiction of the workforce development system, and to provide them a revised version of the systemigram to obtain final feedback.

A total of 12 interviews were conducted using the web conferencing platform Zoom, and each lasted an average of 45 minutes. Each interview began with the lead author thanking participants for their participation and asking if they were able to see the slides and hear the researcher clearly.¹ The lead author explained the purpose of the interview: to present a diagram (systemigram) of the ideal workforce development system and to obtain each participant's input on the systemigram by asking them specific questions about it. Participants were told the agenda for the interview: (a) an explanation of how the diagram was developed and would be reviewed; (b) a showing of the systemigram in sections; (c) a display of the whole systemigram would follow; (d) questions would be asked of them throughout the presentation; and (e) notes on their remarks would be typed concurrently.

The lead author next explained the interview topic and how the systemigram was created: that qualitative data from the modified Delphi were used to develop both a textual and visual depiction of the ideal workforce development system. The final ranked statements from Round 3 of the modified Delphi were shown to the participants in a PowerPoint slide presentation, along with the textual description or “root definition” (Checkland, 1999, p. 18) of the ideal local workforce development system. The first segment of the systemigram was displayed and the first question from the interview protocol was asked and answered.

The lead author explained that each section of the systemigram was to be read beginning in the upper left corner and working down to the bottom right corner of the diagram. For example, “Local workforce development boards serve designated geographical areas (rural, metro, and suburban) with primary customers, considered to be industry sectors, applying needed skills to create and support a demand-driven system fulfilling the six purposes of WIOA.” After reading a section that way, the lead author asked participants the first question in the interview protocol: “Compared to the final ranked statements from Round 3 of the modified Delphi survey and to the ‘root definition,' (Checkland, 1999, p. 18) what revisions to this systemigram would you suggest?” The first section shown to participants is displayed in Figure 1.

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

The lead author typed notes of participants' responses. Several of the participants discussed the dual nature of customers the system serves. Some participants remarked that who the primary customers are depends on the economy and whether there is a recession. One participant noted, “Three months ago, the [economic] landscape was dramatically different” (Participant 1).

A few of the participants noted that, concerning job seekers, vulnerable populations and barriers were not mentioned. Regarding the inclusion of vulnerable populations, one participant commented, “That's what makes us different from a placement agency” (Participant 8). Another participant noted:

The system as designed was always about those who had the greatest barriers, and our job was to get them ready … and now we've got many, many, many more [due to the] displacement of people in the restaurant industry—maybe they had multiple jobs—those went away. That gap has been widened. It's now a chasm, it seems. (Participant 10)

After participants indicated that they were ready for the next section, the slide displaying the second section was presented. As the questions were asked, the lead author returned to previously viewed slides in the deck, to the Round 3 rankings slide, or to the slide containing the root definition, if needed. In so doing, participants were able to refresh their recollection and make a comparison to the systemigram in response to the first question.

This process was followed until the final slide depicting the entire systemigram was displayed, at which point the remaining questions were asked. The first of those questions was “Are there any elements of this systemigram that do not fit the culture of workforce development (i.e., are not feasible)?” The next question asked of the participants was “Are there any other revisions you think would technically be an improvement (i.e., are desirable)?”

Notes were made in response to these questions. One comment made was that the “Local Workforce Development Board” node (originally presented in green) was too simplistic. The participant did not think that node depicted the diversity of thought that exists on a local board, nor did it indicate the complexity of making decisions amid such diversity of thought. Similarly, with the ending node (originally presented in purple), “A Demand-Driven System Fulfilling the Six Purposes of WIOA,” the participant asked, “What are the six purposes again?” (Participant 10), pointing to a sense of completeness that was missing from the original version of the systemigram being viewed.

Other remarks about the whole systemigram included those that reflected participants' individual concerns about their specific local area versus the ideal workforce development system. For example, one participant commented, “It doesn't include the state office, which to me has been a problem” (Participant 4). The participant was referring to the state administration office. The state administration office was not discussed during the modified Delphi rounds and was not included in the textual or visual description of the ideal workforce development system.

Upon seeing the whole systemigram, another participant chuckled and said, “It looks like a stargazer map. You need a sextant to figure this out!” (Participant 10). Other participants thought that the diagram reflected the complexity of the system: “It makes me think that the root definition is very easy, in and of itself, but once you get into it, it looks kind of like this” (Participant 6). Another participant noted: “It is an impressive snapshot of our system. This is how many pieces—if just one color changes or one pathway changes—it changes the whole thing” (Participant 8). The whole systemigram presented during interviews is displayed in Figure 2.

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

Revisions to the Systemigram

Participants' responses to specific questions about the systemigram were transferred to an Excel spreadsheet. The data were analyzed for suggestions of potential nodes and links with which to revise the systemigram of the ideal workforce development system. A copy of the systemigram displayed during interviews was saved and coded for each interview participant. The revisions each participant suggested were included along the top margin of their respective systemigram in the form of nodes and links. The suggestions were reviewed, duplications were removed, and revisions were then added to the main diagram. The revised main systemigram was then storyboarded for presentation to the participants and their final input was obtained. The revised version of the whole systemigram is displayed in Figure 3.

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

Participants were asked to review the slide presentation and to provide any final comments or suggestions for revisions to the systemigram. Suggestions for final revisions were received from two participants and their revisions are included in the revised systemigram in Figure 3. The two participants each had a suggestion for final revisions about the same area of the systemigram, and the suggestions were similar enough that they were incorporated into one item. Those revisions were approved by the participants who suggested the changes.

Limitations

First, this study examined only the local area level of workforce development and did not include the state or federal levels. Second, participants in this study held the roles of executive directors, board chairs representing business, and board members representing economic development; yet, board membership in local areas comprises more diverse roles. Third, the sample of 18 participants was not representative of the more than 500 local areas that make up the public system of workforce development in the United States. Fourth, this study examined several structures of the workforce development system but did not include communication structures. Fifth, the study's methods relied on self-reporting and voluntary participation. Although data were triangulated between the modified Delphi survey and the interviews and member checking was conducted concerning revisions to the systemigram, participants were purposively sampled and likely already interested in strategic planning or systems thinking. Finally, the systemigram is a model of the system, an abstraction of the system described by participants familiar with the real system to the researcher: As such, the researcher's perspective and interpretation also informed the development of the systemigram and the revisions to it.

Recommendations for Future Research

Future research should include input and visual depictions of the workforce development system as perceived by those at the state and federal levels of government. Further research also needs to be conducted on the support structures of the workforce development system. Beyond an exploration of the perspectives of state- and federal-level administrators, an understanding of the design and purposes of technical assistance provided to local levels may lead to improved system planning through feedback. Finally, future research into the communication structures of the system is warranted. Communication could be studied between local boards and other entities, between levels of government, executive directors within states or across the country, customers and one-stop centers, and so forth. Communication is an important systems principle (Checkland, 1999), and its impact on the complex social system of workforce development should be explored.