Systemic Design Principles & Methods ISSS 2014

3,398 views

Published on

Research paper presentation at ISSS 2014: Design Research Methods for Systemic Design: Perspectives from Design Education and Practice

The recent development of systemic design as a research-based practice draws on long-held precedents in the system sciences toward representation of complex social and enterprise systems. A precedent article, published as Systemic Design Principles for Complex Social Systems (Jones, 2014) established an axiomatic and epistemological basis for complementary principles shared between design reasoning and systems theory. The current paper aims to establish a basis for identifying shared methods (techne) and action practice (phronesis). Systemic design is distinguished from user-oriented or industrial design practices in terms of its direct relationship to systems theory and explicit adoption of social system design tenets. Systemic design is concerned with higher-order socially-organized systems that encompass multiple subsystems in a complex policy, organizational or product-service context. By integrating systems thinking and its methods, systemic design brings human-centered design to complex, multi-stakeholder service systems as those found in industrial networks, transportation, medicine and healthcare. It adapts from known design competencies - form and process reasoning, social and generative research methods, and sketching and visualization practices - to describe, map, propose and reconfigure complex services and systems.

Published in: Education
2 Comments
18 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Yes, thanks for reading it. There's a paper associated with the presentatoion which should be available on ISSS soon. Its a brief conference paper, but makes the case for design methods, not the final classifications, whcih are notional.

    I agree the two concepts you cited started with cybernetics, as Ashby and Boulding both talked about self-organization. Since autopoesis, I believe the meaning has expanded into one which is recognized by complexity science. Also, continuous adaptation I reference as a means of adapting to complex emergence, not feedback. In a longer paper I can expound and cite this more.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Very nice presentation. Are there more details available in some format: script, audio, video?

    One small remark: I'm a bit puzzled by the classification in slide 7.
    With all due respect of cellular automata, CAS, auto-catalytic networks, swarm behaviour studies and the like done in 70-90s, '9. Continuous adaptation' and '10. Self-organisation' are *cybernetic* concepts (check e.g. 'Design for a brain', 1952) assuming the classification is based on which disciplined first introduced and studied the phenomenon in question. If the classification is based on the number of published articles with the respective keywords, then it's probably fine.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,398
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,403
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
114
Comments
2
Likes
18
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Systemic Design Principles & Methods ISSS 2014

  1. 1. Peter Jones, PhD OCAD University, Toronto Institute for 21st Century Agoras ISSS 2014 July 31, 2014 Design Research Methods  for Systemic Design Peter Jones, PhD OCAD University, Toronto Institute for 21st Century Agoras ISSS 2014 July 31, 2014
  2. 2. Before methods, contexts. • Systems science has preferred theories for system description  (explanation), prediction (control), & intervention (change). • Contributions of modern design disciplines ‐ industrial,  information, service design – are marginal at best. • “Design” as problem solving, or a process of system design • Social systems design as a template for design thinking in  complex socially‐constructed domains. • Which are (now) everything.
  3. 3. 22 Designer Hugh Dubberly (& Nelson)  argues that design processes are embodiments of systems thinking. Banathy (& Gharajedaghi)  advocate a designing  orientation to social systems as designing.
  4. 4. Compatible philosophies, different generations. Generation: First Second Third Fourth Philosophy Rational 1960’s Pragmatic 1970’s Phenomenological 1980’s Generative 2000’s Methods Movement  from craft to  standardized  methods Instrumentality,  Methods  customized to  context Design research and  stakeholder  methods Design cognition Generative,  empathic  &  transdisciplinary Authors & trends Simon, Fuller  Design  Science, Planning Rittel, Jones Wicked problems,  Evolution Schon, Don Norman  User‐centered &  Participatory Design Reflective action Dubberly, Sanders  Generative Design Service Design Systemic design Systems  influences Sciences, OR  Cybernetics Natural systems  System dynamics Systems  engineering System dynamics Social systems Soft systems Complexity Socio‐ecological Dialogic Participatory
  5. 5. Design doesn’t really integrate systems thinking. Tendency to adopt system thinking as method. Systems thinking influenced management practices similarly. • System dynamics too positivist, analytical for design. • Externalizes systems as behaviors, but not artifactual • Senge, Meadows ignored design thinking   • Incompatible with social systems • Ackoff school was not methodological, or “design‐endorsed” • Designers in practice often use what works  & do not care about the pedigree 
  6. 6. 25 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?
  7. 7. 10 Shared Design Principles Design Principle Design Methodologies 1. Idealization   Iteration 2. Appreciating Complexity     Sensemaking 3. Purpose finding  Saliency ‐ Meaning‐making 4. Boundary framing     Provocation and strange‐making 5. Requisite variety  Multiple perspectives 6. Feedback coordination  Modeling 7. System ordering   Structuring 8. Generative emergence Future projection 9. Continuous adaptation   Multiple reasoning modes  10. Self‐organizing   Co‐creation Guidance for complex systems design from  systems, cybernetic & complexity principles.   Foundation for practitioners to enhance  engagement and evolve better practices.  Elicited from systems theoretic concepts, but  propose no new theory.  Elements to form net new frameworks  enabling integration of other concepts for  specific design contexts.    “The primary aim the two systems of thought share today is enabling organized high‐ leverage action in increasingly complex and systemic problems as design situations.” 
  8. 8. Design methods by outcome intent Modes
  9. 9. Design methods associated with principles Principle Design Methodologies 1. Idealization Framing, Iteration 2. Appreciating Complexity     Sensemaking 3. Purpose finding  Saliency ‐ Meaning‐making 4. Boundary framing     Provocation and strange‐making 5. Requisite variety  Multiple perspectives 6. Feedback coordination  Modeling 7. System ordering   Structuring 8. Generative emergence Future projection 9. Continuous adaptation   Multiple reasoning modes  10. Self‐organizing   Co‐creation We might also observe design of:  Time (4), Space (3), Information (3)
  10. 10. (Some) systemic methods by principles Principle Systems Methodologies 1. Idealization   Dialogic design, Idealized design 2. Appreciating Complexity     Problematique 3. Purpose finding  Function hierarchy  4. Boundary framing     Critical system heuristics 5. Requisite variety  System modeling 6. Feedback coordination  System dynamics 7. System ordering   Process models 8. Generative emergence Cellular automata  9. Continuous adaptation   Intervention (leverage points)  10. Self‐organizing   Dialogic design, Developmental Eval
  11. 11. Possible system methods in design process
  12. 12. 31 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
  13. 13. GIGAMAPPING 32
  14. 14. Copyright © 2012, Peter Jones Activity Systems Analysis / as Service Journey S O - O C C R R I
  15. 15. Service System Design / As Work Domain Analysis 34
  16. 16. Adaptive cycles in organizational design 35
  17. 17. Dialogic Design in Policy Making 36 What do we (stakeholders selected for requisite variety) agree are the deep  drivers resisting change in the Canadian healthcare system?
  18. 18. Shared wayview / systemics & design thinking • Framing ‐ Refraining from premature problem solving • Iterative inquiry  • Dialogic processes elicit depth of participation  • By participants with stake in outcome • Selected for requisite variety to the problem • Human centered – across contexts • Complexity embraced as reality in fuzzy situations • Multiple design actions over time • Temporality is critical to decision / intervention • Understanding systemics does not assume design or action. • Design actions need not be systemic in every case!
  19. 19. 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. 
  20. 20. 39 “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?

×