Systems Design Thinking: Theoretical, Methodological, and Methodical Considerations. A German Narrative

  • Wolfgang JonasEmail author
Part of the Translational Systems Sciences book series (TSS, volume 8)


The chapter presents a facet of the hidden histories of systems design. It focuses on the German development, especially the trajectories that emerged from the Heidelberg-based Studiengruppe für Systemforschung (SfS) (1958–1975). The group gathered a number of important systems researchers and contributed, at least indirectly, to the development of the author’s theoretical and methodological position. System concepts are examined from a design perspective and the crucial notion of the “inquiring system” is elaborated, the latter providing the basis for dealing with the mix of facts and values inherent in design research. This sets the stage for methodological developments, especially the generic APS model of design and research processes: Analysis – Projection – Synthesis (Jonas W. Viable structures and generative tools – an approach towards ‘designing designing. In: Proceedings of EAD conference, Stockholm, April, 1997a; Jonas W. N-th order design? Systemic concepts for research in advanced methodology. Submitted to Design Issues special issue on design research (unpublished), 1997b) and its practical implementation. Three authors will be presented in some more detail. Their approaches complement each other and provide a flexible model and toolbox for systemic design processes.


  1. Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the synthesis of form. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, E. (2006). The epistemology of democracy. Episteme, 3(1–2), 8–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arrow, K. J. (1963). Social choice and individual values (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Archer, B. (1981). A view of the nature of design research. In R. Jacques & J. Powell (Eds.), Design:Science:Method. Guildford, UK: Westbury House.Google Scholar
  6. Baecker, D. (2000). Wie steht es mit dem Willen Allahs? Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie, 21(1), 145–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brinckmann, A. (2006). Wissenschaftliche Politikberatung in den 60er Jahren. Die Studiengruppe für Systemforschung 1958 bis 1975. Berlin: edition sigmaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, V. A. (2010). Collective inquiry and its wicked problems. In V. A Brown, J. A. Harris, & J. Y. Russell (Eds.), Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination (pp. 61–83). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar
  10. Buchanan, R. (2001) Design research and the new learning. Design Issues, 17(4, Autumn), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chow, R., Grand, S., & Jonas, W. (2013) Alternative design doctorates as drivers for new forms of research. Or: Knowing and not-knowing in design. In A.-Chr. Engels-Schwarzpaul, M. A. Peters (Eds.), Of other thoughts: Non-traditional ways to the doctorate (pp. 183–202). Rotterdam, the Netherlands/Boston/Taipei, Taiwan: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Christakis, A. N. (1996). A people science: The CogniScope ™ systems approach. SYSTEMS (official journal of the Polish Systems Society), 1(1).Google Scholar
  13. Churchman, C. W. (1968). Challenge to reason. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  14. Churchman, C. W. (1971). The design of inquiring systems. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Cooper, R., & Press, M. (1995). The design agenda. A guide to successful design management. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Courtney, J. F., Chae, B., & Hall, D. (2000). Developing inquiring organizations. Knowledge and Innovation, 1(1), 132–145.Google Scholar
  17. De Zeeuw, G. (1996) Three phases of science: A methodological exploration. Working paper No. 7 of the Centre for Systems and Information Sciences, University of Humberside, 1996, ISBN 1 86050 025 0.Google Scholar
  18. De Zeeuw, G. (2010). Research to support social interventions. Journal of Social Intervention: Theory and Practice, 19(2), 4–24.Google Scholar
  19. Der Spiegel. (1970). System Orakel. Der Spiegel, No. 44/1970, 41–42.Google Scholar
  20. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
  21. Findeli, A. (2010). Searching for design research questions. In R. Chow, W. Jonas, & G. Joost (Eds.), Questions, hypotheses & conjectures, discussions on projects by early stage and senior design researchers (pp. 286–303). iUniverse.Google Scholar
  22. Fallman, D. (2008). The interaction design research triangle of design practice, design studies, and design exploration. Design Issues, 24(3), 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gausemeier, J., Fink, A., & Schlake, O. (1996). Szenario-Management: Planen und Führen mit Szenarien. München, Germany/Wien, Austria: Carl Hanser Verlag.Google Scholar
  24. Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2010). The dynamics of transitions: A socio-technical perspective. In J. Grin, J. Rotmans, & J. Schot (Eds.), Transitions to sustainable development. New directions in the study of long term transformative change (pp. 93–101). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Gerhold, L., et al. (Eds.). (2015). Standards und Gütekriterien der Zukunftsforschung. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Glanville, R. (1997). A ship without a Rudder. In R. Glanville & G. de Zeeuw (Eds.), Problems of excavating cybernetics and systems. Southsea, UK: BKS+.Google Scholar
  27. Glanville, R. (1980). Why design research. In R. Jacques & J. Powell (Eds.), Design:Science:Method (p. 93). Guildford, UK: Westbury House.Google Scholar
  28. Inayatullah, S. (1998). Causal layered analysis: Poststructuralism as method. Futures, 30(8), 815–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jonas, W. (1994). Design – System – Theorie. Essen, Germany: Verlag die Blaue Eule.Google Scholar
  30. Jonas, W. (1997a). Viable structures and generative tools – An approach towards ‘designing designing. In Proceedings of EAD Conference, Stockholm, April 1997.Google Scholar
  31. Jonas, W. (1997b). N-th order design? Systemic concepts for research in advanced methodology. Submitted to Design Issues special issue on design research (unpublished).Google Scholar
  32. Jonas, W. (2007). Research through DESIGN through research: A cybernetic model of designing design foundations. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1362–1380. Special Issue on Cybernetics and Design.Google Scholar
  33. Jonas, W. (2014). Research for uncertainty. Überlegungen zur Forschung durch Design. In M. Buchert (Ed.), Reflexives Entwerfen. Berlin, Germany: jovis Verlag.Google Scholar
  34. Jonas, W., Zerwas, S., & von Anshelm, K. (Eds.). (2015). Transformation design. Perspectives on a new design attitude. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  35. Jones, J. C. (1970). Design methods: Seeds of human futures. New York/Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  36. Jones, J. C. (1999). The internet and everyone. London: Ellipsis.Google Scholar
  37. Jones, P. (2014). Systemic design principles for complex social systems. In G. Metcalf (Ed.), Social systems and design (pp. 91–128). Tokyo: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Joost, G., Bredies, K., Christensen, M., Conradi, F., Unteidig, A., & Board of International Research in Design (Eds.). (2016). Design as research: Positions, arguments, perspectives. Birkhäuser: Basel, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  39. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  40. Kossoff, G., Tonkinwise, C., & Irwin, T. (2015). Transition design: The importance of everyday life and lifestyles as a leverage point for sustainability transitions. Retrieved from
  41. Krauch, H. (1972). Computer-Demokratie. Hilft uns die Technik entscheiden? München, Germany: Goldmann.Google Scholar
  42. Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton, FL/London/New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  43. Kumar, V. (2013). 101 design methods: A structured approach for driving innovation in your organization. Hoboken NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  44. Latour, B. (1998). From the world of science to the world of research? Science, 280(5361), 208–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Latour, B. (2003). Assembly or assemblage? Politics and polytechnics. Lecture presented at Politecnico di Milano, 17 November 2003. Retrieved 10 April, 2015, from
  46. Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  48. Luhmann, N. (1996). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Lykins, C. (2009). Social science and the moral life. In Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy Annual Conference, March 2009. Retrieved from
  50. Malik Management Zentrum St. Gallen. (n.d.) Sensitivity Model Prof. Vester®. The computerized system tools for a new management of complex problems.Google Scholar
  51. Maser, S. (1972). Einige Bemerkungen zum Problem einer Theorie des Designs. Braunschweig, Germany: Selbstverlag.Google Scholar
  52. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1987). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston: Shambhala.Google Scholar
  53. Max-Neef, M. (1991). Human scale development: Conception, application and further reflection. New York/London: The Apex Press.Google Scholar
  54. Meadows, D. H. (2008) Thinking in systems – A primer. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  55. Michl, J. (2002). On seeing design as redesign. Retrieved from
  56. Mielke, J., Vermaßen, H., Ellenbeck, S., Milan, B. F., & Jaeger, C. (2016). Stakeholder involvement in sustainability science—A critical view. Energy Research & Social Science, 17, 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nicolescu, B. (2002). Manifesto of transdisciplinarity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  58. Nicolescu, B. (2008). Transdisciplinarity: Theory and practice. New York: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  59. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way. Intentional change in an unpredictable world. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  60. Nowotny, H. (2006, May). The potential of transdisciplinarity. Interdisciplines. Retrieved from
  61. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in the age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  62. Pourdehnad, J., Wexler, E. R., & Wilson, D. (2011). Integrating systems thinking and design thinking. Systems Thinker, 22(9), 2–7.Google Scholar
  63. Riedl, R. (2000). Strukturen der Komplexität. Eine Morphologie des Erkennens und Erklärens. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1972). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Working Paper No. 194, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  65. Schneidewind, U., & Singer-Brodowski, M. (2014). Transformative Wissenschaft: Klimawandel im deutschen Wissenschafts- und Hochschulsystem. Weimar b Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
  66. Schwartz, P. (1991). The art of the long view. Planning for the future in an uncertain world. New York: Currency Doubleday.Google Scholar
  67. Seefried, E. (2015). Zukünfte. Aufstieg und Krise der Zukunftsforschung 1945–1980. Berlin, Germany/Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  68. Sen, A. (2008). Social choice. In The new palgrave dictionary of economics (2nd ed.). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  69. Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  70. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. The art & practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.Google Scholar
  71. Simon, K.-H. (2011) Systemforschung—Politikberatung: Beiträge von und im Umfeld von Helmut Krauch und der Studiengruppe Systemforschung. Kassel, Germany: Kassel University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Simon, H. A. (1969, 1981, 1996). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  73. Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Turner, F. (2006). From counterculture to cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the whole earth network, and the rise of digital utopianism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ulrich, W. (1979). Zur Metaphysik der Planung. Eine Debatte zwischen Herbert A. Simon und C. West Churchman. Die Unternehmung, 33(3), 201–211.Google Scholar
  76. Ulrich, W. (1994) Can we secure future-responsive management through systems thinking and design? In Interfaces 24, no. 4, pp. 26–37. Rev. version, 20 March 2009. In: A tribute to C.W. Churchman. Retrieved from
  77. Van Patter, G. K., & Jones, P. (2013). Understanding design 1,2,3,4: The rise of visual sensemaking. In T. Poldma (Ed.), Meanings of designed spaces (pp. 331–342). New York: Fairchild Books.Google Scholar
  78. Vester, F. (1972). Design für eine Umwelt des Überlebens. Umweltgestaltung im Systemzusammenhang – eine Herausforderung an das Design der Welt von morgen. In: form 60 Zeitschrift für Gestaltung IV 1972.Google Scholar
  79. Vester, F. (1988). Leitmotiv vernetztes Denken. Für einen besseren Umgang mit der Welt. München, Germany: Wilhelm Heyne Verlag.Google Scholar
  80. Vester, F. (1990). Ausfahrt Zukunft. Strategien für den Verkehr von morgen. Eine Systemuntersuchung. Wilhelm Heyne Verlag: München, Germany.Google Scholar
  81. Vester, F. (1997). The art of interconnected thinking: Tools and concepts for a new approach to tackling complexity. München, Germany: MCB Publishing House.Google Scholar
  82. WBGU. (2011). Welt im Wandel. Gesellschaftsvertrag für eine Große Transformation. Berlin: WBGU (Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen).Google Scholar
  83. Weick, K. (1969). Social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  84. West Churchman, C. (1970). The artificiality of science. PsycCRITIQUES, 15(6), 385–386.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Braunschweig University of ArtBraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations