Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012

1,071

Published on

Published in: Design
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,071
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
43
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Rheinfrank and Evenson (1996) From Winograd, Terry. 1996. Bringing design to software. New York: Addison-Wesley. 1. Characterization - Characterization reveals the underlying assumptions and “traditions” of the design process. By surfacing assumptions about design and users, designers can bring forward alternatives and create space for new possibilities to arise outside of the traditional design.2. Reregistration - This activity creates the new working set of assumptions to guide the design process forward. Tasks such as market and field studies and user analysis assist designers in understanding the new set of operating principles to enable creative openings and to guide future design. “Results are best when customers, users, engineers, salespeople, and executives can all participate in this reregistration process, since each brings unique and relevant domains of knowledge and experience” (p. 77).3. Development and demonstration - This activity is described in terms of developing the appropriate design language for design work. Development constructs the elements of design to be employed in a design process, through techniques such as scenarios and prototypes. Demonstration provides the space and designed objects for interaction of participants with these new elements. 4. Evaluation - Evaluation provides the opportunity to place the demonstration artifacts in a context of use and get feedback from interaction. Both formal (usability evaluation) and informal (comments on a prototype) processes qualify as evaluation.5. Evolution - Evolution enables the design language to be modified and extended through learning and continual evaluation. Evolution allows the design language to change as needed when the business and the context of products change.
  • Rheinfrank and Evenson (1996) From Winograd, Terry. 1996. Bringing design to software. New York: Addison-Wesley. 1. Characterization - Characterization reveals the underlying assumptions and “traditions” of the design process. By surfacing assumptions about design and users, designers can bring forward alternatives and create space for new possibilities to arise outside of the traditional design.2. Reregistration - This activity creates the new working set of assumptions to guide the design process forward. Tasks such as market and field studies and user analysis assist designers in understanding the new set of operating principles to enable creative openings and to guide future design. “Results are best when customers, users, engineers, salespeople, and executives can all participate in this reregistration process, since each brings unique and relevant domains of knowledge and experience” (p. 77).3. Development and demonstration - This activity is described in terms of developing the appropriate design language for design work. Development constructs the elements of design to be employed in a design process, through techniques such as scenarios and prototypes. Demonstration provides the space and designed objects for interaction of participants with these new elements. 4. Evaluation - Evaluation provides the opportunity to place the demonstration artifacts in a context of use and get feedback from interaction. Both formal (usability evaluation) and informal (comments on a prototype) processes qualify as evaluation.5. Evolution - Evolution enables the design language to be modified and extended through learning and continual evaluation. Evolution allows the design language to change as needed when the business and the context of products change.
  • Rheinfrank and Evenson (1996) From Winograd, Terry. 1996. Bringing design to software. New York: Addison-Wesley. 1. Characterization - Characterization reveals the underlying assumptions and “traditions” of the design process. By surfacing assumptions about design and users, designers can bring forward alternatives and create space for new possibilities to arise outside of the traditional design.2. Reregistration - This activity creates the new working set of assumptions to guide the design process forward. Tasks such as market and field studies and user analysis assist designers in understanding the new set of operating principles to enable creative openings and to guide future design. “Results are best when customers, users, engineers, salespeople, and executives can all participate in this reregistration process, since each brings unique and relevant domains of knowledge and experience” (p. 77).3. Development and demonstration - This activity is described in terms of developing the appropriate design language for design work. Development constructs the elements of design to be employed in a design process, through techniques such as scenarios and prototypes. Demonstration provides the space and designed objects for interaction of participants with these new elements. 4. Evaluation - Evaluation provides the opportunity to place the demonstration artifacts in a context of use and get feedback from interaction. Both formal (usability evaluation) and informal (comments on a prototype) processes qualify as evaluation.5. Evolution - Evolution enables the design language to be modified and extended through learning and continual evaluation. Evolution allows the design language to change as needed when the business and the context of products change.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Peter Jones, PhD OCAD University, Toronto Co-design for Complexity: Deepening Design & Systems Sciences
    • 2. Publications Papers / Blog designdialogues.com Research sLab.ocad.ca Healthcare designforcare.com Practices Design / Research Redesign Dialogic Design globalagoras.org Products Cdling.com Procedures Consult ScienceDirect designforcare.com Peter Jones, Ph.D. Senior Fellow, Strategic Innovation Lab Faculty of Design, Strategic Foresight & Innovation
    • 3. SYSTEMS Systems thinking draws from system theories. Tools & perspectives for understanding & reasoning. Don’t mistake the map (method) for territory. Theory guides everything in systems practice. 1.
    • 4. Design practices generate concepts & intervene for change. Design sidesteps entrenched systems, unpredictable leaps. Creative orientations to products & services based more on human behavior & culture than systems understanding. DESIGN 2.
    • 5. SYSTEMS 3. DESIGN + r - b Design Practice x Systems Theory y How can we enhance the outcomes that matter?
    • 6. Creating an inquiring system … A collective anticipatory system … A dialogic social system Our challenge seems to be “improving design practices by integrating best knowledge of systems thinking” – Do we really have that best knowledge? We’re at a bit of a new starting point & yet ... – Systemic problems go beyond planning & politics …
    • 7. 7 Systemic problems are real.
    • 8. A second order cybernetics … By anticipating evolution in design practice we select for influences we envision helping in certain problems. •How close are we to those problems ? To understanding? •How well can our clients perform outcomes from systemic design? (i.e., how far do we go? Total service system design?) •Can systemic solutions really “scale across”? •What are the risks? Can we make things work? Or worse? Systems tend to oppose their own design function.
    • 9. How do we co-design systems with design? – Systems & design thinking converge in cycles With each “methods movement” – Is a durable co-relationship emerging? – What perspectives of systems thinking? What theories & practices of design? What are the precedents? (Why did we stop?)
    • 10. 10 Where does design show in systems lineage? Based on R. Horn, 2004, Adapted with permission.
    • 11. 11 Hugh Dubberly makes the case that design processes are embodiments of systems thinking. Banathy (1997) advocated social systemics as designing.
    • 12. 12 Happens to be a current conversation What do you think?
    • 13. SYSTEMS DESIGN + r - b Systems Theory y What systems theories are really applicable to complex design? What if they were enriched so that designers could employ them? What if systems sciences were strongly influenced by design?
    • 14. 14 SYSTEMS THINKING SEES DESIGN AS PROBLEM SOLVING INTERNALIZED IN SYSTEMS THEORY DESIGN IN SYSTEMS THINKING HAS NOT EVOLVED (As systemicists believe they are indeed designing) IF WE DON’T ACKNOWLEDGE, IT WON’T IMPROVE.
    • 15. How Systems Appropriated Design 15 Systems & Cybernetics grew from scientific disciplines. Creative fields were not historically contributors. Systems theorists redefined design in Design Science terms. Simon Design Science (Sciences of Artificial) Fuller Comprehensive Design Science Warfield Generic Design Science (ISM) Christakis Dialogic Design Science (SDD) Banathy Social Systems Design By reframing design as intention, cybernetics assumed it captured relevant processes. Times change. Design has caught – and passed - systems thinking.
    • 16. Underconceptualization goes both ways. Tendency for design thinking to adopt system thinking as method. Systems thinking popularized as a management practice •System dynamics is a positivist scientific paradigm •Externalizes systems as “out there” •Senge, Meadows ignored design thinking •Incompatible with social systems •Ackoff’s Idealized Design – was not methodical, not “design- endorsed” •Designers in practice often use what works & do not care about the pedigree
    • 17. 17 What Might We Do About It? (Who are “we”?)
    • 18. OK - What are the purposes of systems theory? To understand phenomena in complex systems? To better communicate systemic patterns affecting social & ecological outcomes? To better organize sociotechnical systems? To design better, socially preferable systems? That requires better design practice.
    • 19. Recent ISSS papers on any design topic 2006 – 2011 1.Handling the variability of information processing in complex systems: an information systems design perspective 2.Systems & design thinking: A conceptual framework for their integration 3.Systemic design for the recycling of solid and liquid organic waste and the hydroponic growth of organic food: a natural cycle of life 4.Product design as a key to a business system perspective that promotes sustainable forestry 5.Syntegral design: group-based creativity through aesthetic processes 2012: Toward the Integration of Visual Languages for Systemic Design
    • 20. Design languages for systems theory Design approaches differ from systems in many respects: • Successive approximations toward emerging goals • Continuous interpretation by multiple perspectives • Action-oriented, making artifacts & prototypes • Visual representations, from sketching to blueprints However we still lack good theory & practices of systemic design.
    • 21. 21 Design thinking also deals with complexity. Design must become more systemic – as we confront wicked problems. Complex domains have > stakeholders Design 1.0 Craft design, Advertising Design 2.0 Industrial, Products, Web Design 3.0 Organizational & institutional Design 4.0 Distributed social systems Mixed stakeholders What are equivalent units in systems theory? Adapted from Humantific with permission
    • 22. Visual systems models System Dynamics Causal loop diagrams Warfield Influence maps / directed graphs Checkland Soft Systems / Rich Pictures Boardman Systemigrams Robert Horn Infographics Recently?
    • 23. 23 Systemic Design in HEALTHCARE SERVICE SYSTEMS
    • 24. Arguments for re-designing system sciences Service Systems – Integrated design of services with: •Customer-facing service •Sociotechnical systems (e.g. clinical practice) •Organizational resources & networks •IT & technology •Front-stage & back-stage operations •Complex business models •Not service design as you know it. Think: Healthcare, Universities, Cities & Communities
    • 25. 25 Each level sets the context for activities in next unit Units of system analysis AND design Design / Systems pairs D4.0 Policy / Dialogic Design D3.0 Org Process / Social Systems, Panarchy D2.0 Practice & Information / Service Systems D1.0-2.0 Product, Comm / Activity Systems
    • 26. 26 A spectrum of experienced health services … Touches every system & level –
    • 27. ..as services become MORE COMPLEX Atrial Fibrillation Care (visualized) Many health services treat chronic & complex illness as exceptions. Patients fall between the cracks & are shuttled around, getting fragmented care. By not adapting to the changing reality of the chronic demographic, costs rise as hospitals increase their exception cases. Morra, et al (2010). Reconnecting the pieces to optimize care in Atrial Fibrillation in Ontario.
    • 28. USER-CENTERED DESIGN is insufficient – reinforces existing systems for current users 28 Atrial Fibrillation Aftercare Pathway Human-Centered Design is not inherently systemic. Individual experience enhancement is an outcome of healthcare service.
    • 29. VISUALIZATION is insufficient to design complexity. 29 Atrial Fibrillation System Redesign Human-centered Design is not inherently systemic. The improvement of individual experience is an effect in healthcare. Nice but not systemic. Service systems reinvent institutional practices & business models. Morra, et al (2010). Reconnecting the pieces to optimize care in Atrial Fibrillation in Ontario.
    • 30. 30 Design / Systems pairs D4.0 Policy / Dialogic Design D3.0 Org Process / Social Systems, Panarchy D2.0 Practice & Information / Service Systems D1.0-2.0 Product, Comm / Activity Systems
    • 31. Copyright © 2012, Peter Jones Activity Systems Analysis / as Service Journey S O - O C C R R I
    • 32. Service System Design / As Work Domain Analysis 32
    • 33. Panarchy concepts - Organizational Systems 33
    • 34. Dialogic Design for Policy Making 34 What do we (stakeholders selected for requisite variety) agree are the deep drivers resisting change in the Canadian healthcare system?
    • 35. Common principles - systemics & design thinking •Framing - Refraining from premature problem solving •Iterative inquiry •Human centered – Different contexts •By participants with stake in outcome •Selected for requisite variety to the problem •Dialogic process ( •Complexity embraced as reality of situation •Multiple design actions over time •Temporality is critical to decision / intervention •Understanding systemics does not assume action. •Design actions need not be systemic in every case!
    • 36. 36 DESCRIPTIVE SYSTEMS METHODS And DESIGNERLY PRACTICES
    • 37. Interactive Sketching
    • 38. unpacking the problem elements 38 Scenarios: •Timeline •Headlines •Milestones •Solutions
    • 39. 39
    • 40. 40 making sense through visualization & critiques
    • 41. Flow & Feedback - Causal Loops as a Visual Language 41 Diagram of Practicing Physicians in Ontario Josina Vink, Jessica Mills, Phouphet Sihavong Social Systems project, Strategic Foresight & Innovation, OCAD U The average age of family physicians in Ontario is 52 years old. 9.8% of family physicians in Ontario practice in rural communities, where as 13% of Ontarians live in rural communities. One third of physicians in Canada practice family medicine, but to meet the need, it should be closer to one half of all physicians.
    • 42. Uncovering root causes and Influence Mapping 42 Healthy Healthcare Oksana Kachur, Jonathan Resnick, Karl Schroeder, Social Systems project, Strategic Foresight & Innovation, OCAD U What are the most significant issues affecting the quality of healthcare in Ontario? The outcome of this Interpretive Structural Modelling session was the influence map shown.
    • 43. Influence Mapping and points of intervention 43 Dialogic Design methodology Map generated in collaboration by Warfield’s Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) model with Cognisystem II Intervention via deep drivers
    • 44. the GIGAMAP as a visual synthesis 44
    • 45. GIGAMAPPING 45
    • 46. Rheinfrank, J. and Evenson, S. From Winograd, Terry. 1996. Bringing design to software. New York: Addison-Wesley. Design Languages for Systems Methods Rheinfrank, J. and Evenson, S. From Winograd, Terry. 1996. Bringing design to software.
    • 47. 47 “Though a handful design thinkers have made some substantial contributions to systems thinking in general, hardly anybody has developed a systems practice from within design, specially informed by design thinking and design practice. This is remarkable when we compare us with other fields where proprietary adaptations of systems perspectives are normal.” Birger Sevaldson, Oslo School Of Architecture & Design Giga-Mapping: Visualisation For Complexity & Systems Thinking In Design Nordic Design Research Conference 2011 why has Systems Thinking ignored Design?
    • 48. Systems principles in a design context Implications for PEDAGOGY OCADU MDes in Strategic Foresight & Innovation Understanding Systems & Systemic Design Originally 2 courses: 6 modules, 2 projects •Systems concepts System mapping selected problem •Natural systems Mapping studio •Social systems & service systems Gigamapping studio •Social systems design methods Systemic design research •Structured dialogic design SDD lab •Final team project based on systemic design research
    • 49. Learning systems principles in a design context Implications for PEDAGOGY Course in OCADU Strategic Foresight & Innovation MDes: Understanding Systems & Systemic Design •Systems concepts Gharajedaghi & Meadows texts + Depth readings •Natural systems Iterative system mapping Ostrom, Hollings •Social systems & service systems Small team map & analysis Rittel, Buchanan •Social systems & design methods Gigamapping Beer, Spohrer, Warfield •Structured dialogic design Global problematique Christakis, Ozbekhan •Social / service system design project Build on a base of design thinking. Visual language integrated throughout, required with every project. Builds base for systemic design for foresight-led innovation.
    • 50. Peter Jones, PhD Jeremy Bowes, AOCA OCAD University, Toronto OCADU Thanks. Peter Jones, PhD @redesign OCAD University Strategic Innovation Lab sLab.ocadu.ca

    ×