Ryan leung systemic design canadian case studies v5

4,468 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
4,468
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3,345
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
34
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ryan leung systemic design canadian case studies v5

  1. 1. Systemic Design: Two Canadian Case Studies Alex Ryan Partner, Design Systemics Partner Design Systemics design.systemics@gmail.com Mark Leung Director, Rotman Director Rotman DesignWorks mark.leung@rotman.utoronto.ca
  2. 2. Jeg elsker Norge!
  3. 3. Relationships between Systems & Design
  4. 4. Always design a thing by considering it in its next larger  Always design a thing by considering it in its next larger context – a chair in a room, a room in a house, a house  in an environment, an environment in a city plan —Eliel S i Eli l Saarinen
  5. 5. A systems approach begins when first you see the  y pp g f y world through the eyes of another —C. West Churchman
  6. 6. …a designer can quickly wind up with a crisis of complexity, if his or  her focus on details is not balanced with principles of organization,  h f d l b l d h l f such as systems thinking. A systems approach allows complexity to  be taken into account without leading to paralysis. —Harold Nelson & Erik Stolterman —Harold Nelson & Erik Stolterman
  7. 7. Why haven t systems thinkers haven’t and designers been talking to each other?
  8. 8. Two Canadian Case Studies
  9. 9. Case #1: UofT
  10. 10. UofT Procurement Department p “Mission: To foster cost effective quality purchases by  utilizing the expertise of all staff involved with purchasing  l h f ll ff l d h h and by employing innovative methods in contract  negotiations and group buying initiatives. negotiations and group buying initiatives.”
  11. 11. Project Challenge P j t Ch ll How can Procurement Services effectively  How can Procurement Services effectively communicate its value proposition to the faculty  and staff at the University of Toronto?  and staff at the University of Toronto?
  12. 12. Understanding the Eco-system Real Estate Food & Beverage Ancillary Services Department Of Business Affairs PI’s Staff Procurement Services S i Business Officers PCard Budget Tracking B d T ki Online Grant  Filing OECM U of T IT Department
  13. 13. Christine Ch i ti ‘In the Trenches’ In Trenches “We are people  too…not just  databases.”
  14. 14. Dr. W D Wong ‘Academic Maverick’ “One experiment  and the world  changes.”
  15. 15. I need  TRUSTED  RELATIONSHIPS “When we were  looking for a vendor, I  just went to the people  I used to work with  I used to work with because I knew them.” I need  I need SIMPLICITY I need  FLEXIBILITY We have policies  “We have policies You do what s in the  “You do what’s in the coming out of our  ears.” best interest of the  science.”
  16. 16. Reframe the Problem How can Procurement Services effectively communicate its value proposition i t it l iti the faculty and staff? To How can Procurement Services effectively enhance both research and procurement activities f faculty and staff? l d ff? of f
  17. 17. Reframe the Perception To Enforcers of policy and regulation. A trusted advisor, on your side. “You need follow my rules ” You need follow my rules. “I’ll help you spend your research I ll help you spend your research dollars better.”
  18. 18. Information Visualization Training Sessions Direct Lines EMPOWER THROUGH KNOWLEDGE “Freedom and Flexibility” Audit Vendor Pricing Accessible Language PROVIDE A HUMAN TOUCH “ Building Trusted Relationships” Info Kits Dynamic D i RFP Proactive Outreach Policy P li & Process Simplificati on PROVIDE SIMPLICITY AND CONVENIENCE “Simplicity and Convenience”
  19. 19. Transforming Procurement 40%  40%  99% user retention user retention 1 year pilot  $1.5 million savings 2012 CUABO industry award for their innovative  negotiable RFP process g p 2012 UofT Excellence through Innovation award Procurement adopted a user centred mindset and  competency.
  20. 20. Case #2: GOA
  21. 21. Objectives • Raise awareness of the design methodology as a  systemic approach to messy strategic problems; • Apply the design methodology to a current strategic  problem as a proof of concept to demonstrate  institutional relevance; and institutional relevance; and • Develop design skills in leaders across Government  of Alberta Departments and Divisions to enhance  of Alberta Departments and Divisions to enhance systems thinking and improve collaboration.
  22. 22. Guidance Statement id Develop a three year strategy for the CENRG departments to  improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Alberta  improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Alberta Government’s management of natural resources that will  streamline our interaction with industry, improve environmental  outcomes, and maintain or increase the revenue stream from  t d i t i i th t f industry while increasing public support for our social license to  develop our natural resources.
  23. 23. Stakeholder Mapping
  24. 24. Causal Layered Analysis Litany Systemic  Causes Worldview & Discourse Metaphor & Myth & Myth
  25. 25. Reframe the Mindset To Control of my piece. Collaboration with the collective. “Live and die for the part ” Live and die for the part. “Shared accountability and Shared accountability and  shared rewards.”
  26. 26. Legacy Mental Model
  27. 27. Alternative Mental Model
  28. 28. Participant Feedback “I can think of many situations,  projects and issues we have  encountered in the past in which this  encountered in the past in which this methodology would have been  extremely useful ‐ and we are  already applying it in several current  situations with great success. The  situations with great success The fact that we have senior leaders in  our organization, many with 25 to 30  or more years of experience, eager  to use Design signals that it is not  to use Design signals that it is not ‘flavour of the day’ but a practical  approach to tackling complex issues.”
  29. 29. Outcomes • Helped to create the Integrated Resource Helped to create the Integrated Resource  Management System • Raised awareness of systemic design across Raised awareness of systemic design across  the GOA • Established a systemic design capacity within Established a systemic design capacity within  the GOA • Standing cross‐ministry design team g y g • Systemic design community of practice • Multiple follow‐on design projects
  30. 30. What can we learn by comparing these case studies?
  31. 31. Systemic Design Systemic Design
  32. 32. Commonalities
  33. 33. Holistic view of the challenge  (human, technological and  organizational systems) organizational systems)
  34. 34. Drive to create unconventional paths  Di i l h to goals, as well as questioning the  goals themselves
  35. 35. Embraces complexity to find new  opportunities for profound simplicity
  36. 36. Explores worldviews and surfaces the  mental models of users and stakeholders
  37. 37. Contrasts
  38. 38. Systemic Design Explicit use of empathy Explicit use of empathy Physical prototyping Rapid testing User feedback User feedback Design aesthetic Systemic Design Explicit use of systems maps Explicit use of systems maps Genealogy Theoretical grounding  Narrating the journey of learning  Narrating the journey of learning Combining education with practice
  39. 39. Primary Insight
  40. 40. The strengths and weaknesses of the two methodologies are  complementary. A more centred assemblage of Systems +  g q y y g Design can be qualitatively better than Systems Thinking or  Design Thinking in isolation.
  41. 41. Thank You!

×