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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Design methods by outcome intent
Modes

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. (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. Possible system methods in design process

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. GIGAMAPPING
32

14. Copyright © 2012, Peter Jones
Activity Systems Analysis / as Service Journey
S O - O
C
C
R
R
I

15. Service System Design / As Work Domain Analysis
34

16. Adaptive cycles in organizational design
35

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. 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. 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. 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?