Social Systems and Design pp 91-128

Part of the Translational Systems Sciences book series (TSS, volume 1) | Cite as

Systemic Design Principles for Complex Social Systems

Abstract

Systems theory and design thinking both share a common orientation to the desired outcomes of complex problems, which is to effect highly-leveraged, well-reasoned, and preferred changes in situations of concern. Systems thinking (resulting from its theoretical bias) promotes the understanding of complex problem situations independently of solutions, and demonstrates an analytical bias. Design disciplines demonstrate an action-oriented or generative bias toward creative solutions, but design often ignores deep understanding as irrelevant to future-oriented change. While many practitioners believe there to be compatibility between design and systems theory, the literature shows very few examples of their resolution in theoretical explanation or first principles. This work presents a reasoned attempt to reconcile the shared essential principles common to both fundamental systems theories and design theories, based on meta-analyses and a synthesis of shared principles. An argument developed on current and historical scholarly perspectives is illuminated by relevant complex system cases demonstrating the shared principles. While primarily oriented to complex social systems, the shared systemic design principles apply to all complex design outcomes, product and service systems, information systems, and social organizational systems.

Keywords

Design theory Framing Service systems Social systems Systems theory 

References

  1. Ackoff, R. L. (1993). Idealized design: Creative corporate visioning. OMEGA, 21(4), 401–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackoff, R. L. (2004). Transforming the systems movement. Third International Conference on Systems Thinking in Management, May 19, 2004, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  3. Ackoff, R. L., & Emery, F. E. (1972). On purposeful systems: An interdisciplinary analysis of individual and social behavior as a system of purposeful events. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Alexander, C. (2004). The nature of order: An essay on the art of building and the nature of the universe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Ashby, R. (1958). Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica, 1(2), 1–17.Google Scholar
  6. Ashby, W. R. (1962). Principles of the self-organizing system. In H. Von Foerster & G. W. Zopf Jr. (Eds.), Principles of Self-Organization: Transactions of the University of Illinois Symposium (pp. 255–278). London: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  7. Banathy, B. H. (1996). Designing social systems in a changing world. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baskerville, R. L., Pries-Heje, J., & Venable, J. (2009). Soft design science methodology. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST '09) (pp. 1–11), Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  9. Bendor, J., Huberman, B. A., & Wu, F. (2009). Management fads, pedagogies, and other soft technologies. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 72(1), 290–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bousbaci, R. (2008). “Models of man” in design thinking: The “bounded rationality” episode. Design Issues, 24(4), 38–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, T. (2009a). Design for social impact. New York: Rockefeller Foundation: IDEO.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, T. (2009b). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: HarperBusiness.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter, 2010, 31–35.Google Scholar
  14. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Christakis, A. N., & Bausch, K. C. (2006). How people harness their collective wisdom and power to construct the future in co-laboratories of democracy. Greenwich: Information Age.Google Scholar
  16. Ciborra, C. U., & Lanzara, G. F. (1994). Formative contexts and information technology: Understanding the dynamics of innovation in organizations. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 4(2), 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cisneros, R. T., Hisijara, B. A., & Bausch, K. C. (2013). Strategic articulation of actions to cope with the huge challenges or our world: A platform for reflection. Atlanta: Institute for 21st Century Agoras.Google Scholar
  18. Collopy, F. (2009). Lessons learned: Why the failure of systems thinking should inform the future of design thinking. Fast Company, June 7, 2009. Retrieved from fastcompany.com/1291598/lessons-learned-why-failure-systems-thinking-should-inform-future-design-thinkingGoogle Scholar
  19. Cross, N. (1990). The nature and nurture of design ability. Design Studies, 2(3), 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Crutzen, P. J. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature, 415, 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dubberly, H. (2008). Design in the age of biology: Shifting from a mechanical-object ethos to an organic-systems ethos. Interactions, 15(5), 35–41. doi:10.1145/1390085.1390092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5(4), 512–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Espejo, R. (2000). Giving requisite variety to strategic and implementation processes: Theory and practice. Lincoln: University of Lincolnshire and Humberside.Google Scholar
  25. Evenson, S., & Dubberly, H. (2010). Designing for service: Creating an experience advantage. In G. Salvendy & W. Karwowski (Eds.), Introduction to service engineering (pp. 403–413). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Fox, W. (1995). Sociotechnical system principles and guidelines: Past and present. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 31, 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fry, T. (2009). Design futuring: Sustainability, ethics and new practice. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  28. Fuller, R. B. (1981). Critical path. New York: St. Martin’s.Google Scholar
  29. Gharajedaghi, J. (2011). Systems thinking managing chaos and complexity: A platform for designing business architecture. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/id/10480742
  30. Glenn, J. C., Olsen, T. D., & Florescu, E. (2012). 2012 State of the future. Washington, DC: The Millennium Project.Google Scholar
  31. Holland, J. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  32. Jackson, M. (2010). Reflections on the development and contribution of critical systems thinking and practice. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 27, 133–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jantsch, E. (1975). Design for evolution: Self-organization and planning in the life of human systems. New York: George Braziller.Google Scholar
  34. Jones, P. H. (2008). We tried to warn you: Innovations in leadership for the learning organization. Ann Arbor: Nimble Books.Google Scholar
  35. Jones, P. H. (2009). Learning the lessons of systems thinking: Exploring the gap between thinking and leadership. Integral Leadership Review, IX(4), 1–8.Google Scholar
  36. Jones, P. H. (2012). Design for care: Innovating healthcare experience. Brooklyn: Rosenfeld Media.Google Scholar
  37. Jones, P. H., & Van Patter, G. K. (2009). Design 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0: The rise of visual sensemaking. New York: NextDesign Leadership Institute (article). Retrieved from http://humantific.com
  38. Krippendorf, K. (1996). A second-order cybernetics of otherness. Systems Research, 13(3), 311–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Latour B. (2008). A cautious Prometheus? A few steps toward a philosophy of design. Meeting of the Design History Society, September 3, 2008, Falmouth, Cornwall.Google Scholar
  40. Luhmann, N. (1986). The autopoiesis of social systems. In F. Geyer & J. van der Zouwen (Eds.), Sociocybernetic paradoxes. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth: A report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. New York: Universe Books.Google Scholar
  42. Metcalf, G. S. (2010). Service as mutualism: A question of viability in systems. Service Science, 2(1/2), 93–102.Google Scholar
  43. Mol, M. J., & Birkinshaw, J. (2009). The sources of management innovation: When firms introduce new management practices. Journal of Business Research, 62(12), 1269–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nadler, G., & Hibino, S. (1998). Breakthrough thinking: The seven principles of creative problem solving. Roseville: Prima Lifestyles.Google Scholar
  45. Nelson, H. (1994). The necessity of being undisciplined and out of control: Design action and systems thinking. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 22–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  47. Ostrom, E. (1985). Actions and rules. Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, February 28, 1985, Champaign, IL. Bloomington, IN: Indiana State University.Google Scholar
  48. Ostrom, E. (2009). Design principles of robust property-rights institutions: what have we learned?. Property Rights and Land Policies. K. Gregory Ingram, Yu-Hung Hong, eds., Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.Google Scholar
  49. Owen, H. (2008). Wave rider: Leadership for high performance in a self-organizing world. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
  50. Özbekhan, H. (1968). Toward a general theory of planning. Santa Monica: System Development Co.Google Scholar
  51. Özbekhan, H. (1969). The predicament of mankind: A quest for structured responses to growing world-wide complexities and uncertainties. New York: Club of Rome.Google Scholar
  52. Özbekhan, H. (1970). The predicament of mankind: A quest for structured responses to growing world-wide complexities and uncertainties. Club of Rome proposal. Retrieved from http://globalagoras.org/publications
  53. Paton, B., & Dorst, K. (2011). Briefing and reframing: A situated practice. Design Studies, 32(6), 573–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pourdehnad, J., Wexler, E. R., & Wilson, D. V. (2011). Systems and design thinking: A conceptual framework for their integration. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the ISSS, July 17–22, 2011, Hull, UK.Google Scholar
  55. Rittel, H. W. J., & Weber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sanders, E. B. N., & van Stappers, P.-J. (2013). Convivial toolbox: Generative research for the front end of design. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.Google Scholar
  57. Sevaldson, B. (2011). Gigamapping: Visualization for complexity and systems thinking in design. Helsinki: Nordic Design Research Conference.Google Scholar
  58. Simon, H. E. (1969). The sciences of the artificial (1st ed.). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  59. Slaughter, R. (1999). Futures for the third millennium: Enabling the forward view. Sydney: Prospect.Google Scholar
  60. SSHRC-CRSH (2013). Imagining Canada’s future. Technical Report. Ottawa, Canada: Government of Canada.Google Scholar
  61. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stockholm Memorandum. (2011). Stockholm Memorandum. Third Nobel Laureate Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden, May 16–19, 2011.Google Scholar
  63. Upward, A. (2013). Towards an ontology and canvas for strongly sustainable business models: a systemic design science exploration. Unpublished thesis. York University, Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  64. van Alstyne, G., & Logan, R. (2007). Designing for emergence and innovation: Redesigning design. Artifact, 1(2), 120–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. van Patter, G. K., Pastor, E., & OPEN Innovation Consortium. (2013). Innovation methods mapping: De-mystifying 80+ years of innovation process design. New York: OPEN Innovation Consortium.Google Scholar
  66. Varela, F., Maturana, H., & Uribe, R. (1974). Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. Biosystems, 5, 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Warfield, J. N. (1990). A science of generic design: Managing complexity through systems design. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Warfield, J. N. (1995). Spreadthink: Explaining ineffective groups. Systems Research, 12(l), 5–14.Google Scholar
  69. Warfield, J. N. (1999). The problematique: Evolution of an idea. Systems Research, 16, 221–226.Google Scholar
  70. Warfield, J. N. (2001). Measuring complexity. Integrative Sciences Working Paper. Retrieved from http://digilib.gmu.edu/dspace/handle/1920/3411
  71. Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics, or control and communication in the animal and the machine. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  72. Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  73. Yanez, X. D., & Maturana, H. (2013). Systemic and meta-systemic laws. Interactions, 20(3), 76–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.OCAD UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations