Is Your Program Actually Viable?

I was recently introduced to the Viable System Model (VSM) developed by Stafford Beer as part of a Complex Project Management certification with the International Complex Centre for Complex Project Management (ICCPM). I was immediately drawn to its usefulness as a diagnostic tool for organisational health and, in my mind, project and program governance. It has now become part of my consulting toolkit to:

• Assess whether an organisation has all the essential functions for viability
• Identify structural gaps causing dysfunction
• Design governance frameworks that balance autonomy and cohesion
• Understand why coordination breaks down across silos
• Check program or project health beyond surface metrics

Why is VSM powerful?

VSM is a powerful diagnostic when you’ve been asked to assess the effectiveness of an organisation, program, or project. It shows where the cracks are forming so you can fix the real problem, not just work harder. VSM helps you see what’s wrong before it breaks or allows you to work out why an organisation is broken. Instead of fixating on surface symptoms such as missed dates, stressed teams, and endless meetings, it lets you see inside the system. It treats a project like a living organism, where work, coordination, decision-making, future awareness, and clear direction all need to function together. When one of these weakens, the project or organisation usually quietly starts to fracture.

How does it work?

Every viable organisation or project requires five interconnected systems working together in harmony:

System 1: Operations

This is where the actual work gets done. Multiple operational units deliver products, services, or outcomes directly to customers or stakeholders. These are often represented by business units, projects or sustainment areas.

System 2: Coordination

Coordination prevents operational units from colliding by managing conflicts, synchronising activities, and keeping autonomous operations working smoothly together. In the project world this may be a PMO.

System 3: Control/Assurance

Provides internal oversight and optimisation. Ensures operational units follow agreed protocols while monitoring performance and resource allocation. In the project world, this is likely a Board or Steering Group. Control should also include independent assurance function(s).

System 4: Intelligence

Looks outward and ahead. Scans the external environment, identifies emerging threats and opportunities, and models future scenarios. I’ve seen this represented through futures teams, business architecture, strategy functions, or small groups tasked with asking what’s changing and what that means for the system.

System 5: Policy

Holds purpose and identity. Sets direction, resolves tensions between present optimisation and future adaptation, and maintains organisational values.

Practical Application (technique)

By way of example, I have used VSM alongside Managing Successful Programmes (MSP) when designing programs and program governance. I recently road-tested VSM in a Defence consultancy setting (picture below). The VSM model I sketched (de-identified) showed that while all five systems were visible, not all of them were functioning effectively, and in this case, the connections between systems were loose.