This has resulted in a multitude of frameworks and varied vocabulary, often describing quite similar things. Many existing frameworks—such as WHO’s building blocks, USAID’s 5Rs, or the RISE 5×4 Framework—tend to emphasize certain dimensions of the system (e.g., supply-side inputs, accountability relationships, or institutional structures) while overlooking others. For example, the WHO-inspired building blocks framework is strong on the ‘what’—the tangible elements of the system—but less clear on the ‘who’ (actors), ‘why’ (purpose), and ‘how’ (change processes), highlighting that historical frameworks have not been without their limitations.

This also raises the question: Why has the international community not coalesced around one framework? Of course there will be a multitude of reasons, perhaps organizations want to put their stamp on systems thinking, perhaps the frameworks that were developed were static and never iterated, or perhaps it was just never mandated by a donor. I would assess that the systems thinking frameworks that exist, have struggled to identify components of a system because they have remained in the realm of the academic and have often failed to consider how to translate the conceptual to the practical. For example, how many systems thinking frameworks have paired systems strengthening tools to support practitioners to action these concepts? This is where FHI 360 UK and FHI 360 are different.

FHI 360 UK and FHI 360 prefer a simple framing of ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘where’, ‘why’, ‘when’, and ‘how’ which offers a simple yet powerful heuristic for navigating complexity and complements the framing of many political economy analyses, most importantly this framework is linked to a series of practical tools that support advisors and implementers to facilitate conversations, diagnose the system in partnership with Government representatives, conduct political economy analyses, and develop response plans. By applying the ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘where’, ‘why’, ‘when’, and ‘how’ framing, practitioners can more holistically interrogate the system:

• What are the components, resources, and structures of the system?
• Why do the components of the system behave in this way —what are the incentives, histories, policies, and power dynamics at play? Why are the component part not generating the desired results?
• Who are the key actors and stakeholders, which relationships are influential, who are the gatekeepers?
• Where are the leverage points, bottlenecks, or gaps—geographically or institutionally?
• When do opportunities for change arise—what are the rhythms, cycles, or windows of influence? Is it aligned to national planning cycles?
• How can the system be influenced or strengthened, how can we intervene effectively—what strategies, tools, or partnerships are needed?

This framework is easy to understand, unlike other frameworks also looks at the importance of timing through the ‘when’, and has been linked to practical tools. For example, to understand the ‘what’ our teams pick from a toolkit of: Political economy analysis, process mapping, network analysis, systems mapping, and tailored facilitated workshop guides.

As this blog has explored, systems thinking is not a silver bullet, it’s a mindset—a way of seeing and working that embraces complexity, values relationships, and prioritizes long-term institutional change over short-term fixes. Systems strengthening isn’t a quick fix. It’s a long-term investment in the structures, relationships, and capacities that make education work. It’s about building systems that can adapt, endure, and deliver learning for all—especially in the face of crises and change. As we continue to explore frameworks and tools in this series, we invite readers to reflect on how they can apply systems thinking in their own work to support more sustainable and equitable education outcomes.

For more information on FHI 360 UK’s approach to systems strengthening please contact Holly-Jane Howell hjhowell@fhi360uk.com or Kate Pavelich kpavelich@fhi360.org at FHI 360

Notes:
i The USAID 5Rs framework was developed and formally introduced in 2014 through USAID’s Local Systems Framework, and actively used across programming from 2014 to early 2025. As of July 1, 2025, the 5Rs framework is no longer the guiding approach for remaining USG development programs, which now operate under the US State Department.