Skip to main content

Systemic Design Principles for Complex Social Systems

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Social Systems and Design

Part of the book series: Translational Systems Sciences ((TSS,volume 1))

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ackoff, R. L. (1993). Idealized design: Creative corporate visioning. OMEGA, 21(4), 401–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff, R. L. (2004). Transforming the systems movement. Third International Conference on Systems Thinking in Management, May 19, 2004, Philadelphia, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Alexander, C. (2004). The nature of order: An essay on the art of building and the nature of the universe. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, R. (1958). Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica, 1(2), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Banathy, B. H. (1996). Designing social systems in a changing world. New York: Plenum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bousbaci, R. (2008). “Models of man” in design thinking: The “bounded rationality” episode. Design Issues, 24(4), 38–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2009a). Design for social impact. New York: Rockefeller Foundation: IDEO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2009b). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: HarperBusiness.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter, 2010, 31–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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-thinking

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (1990). The nature and nurture of design ability. Design Studies, 2(3), 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crutzen, P. J. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature, 415, 23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espejo, R. (2000). Giving requisite variety to strategic and implementation processes: Theory and practice. Lincoln: University of Lincolnshire and Humberside.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Fox, W. (1995). Sociotechnical system principles and guidelines: Past and present. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 31, 91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fry, T. (2009). Design futuring: Sustainability, ethics and new practice. Oxford: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, R. B. (1981). Critical path. New York: St. Martin’s.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Glenn, J. C., Olsen, T. D., & Florescu, E. (2012). 2012 State of the future. Washington, DC: The Millennium Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, M. (2010). Reflections on the development and contribution of critical systems thinking and practice. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 27, 133–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jantsch, E. (1975). Design for evolution: Self-organization and planning in the life of human systems. New York: George Braziller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, P. H. (2008). We tried to warn you: Innovations in leadership for the learning organization. Ann Arbor: Nimble Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Jones, P. H. (2012). Design for care: Innovating healthcare experience. Brooklyn: Rosenfeld Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Krippendorf, K. (1996). A second-order cybernetics of otherness. Systems Research, 13(3), 311–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Luhmann, N. (1986). The autopoiesis of social systems. In F. Geyer & J. van der Zouwen (Eds.), Sociocybernetic paradoxes. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Metcalf, G. S. (2010). Service as mutualism: A question of viability in systems. Service Science, 2(1/2), 93–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadler, G., & Hibino, S. (1998). Breakthrough thinking: The seven principles of creative problem solving. Roseville: Prima Lifestyles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H. (1994). The necessity of being undisciplined and out of control: Design action and systems thinking. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 22–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Owen, H. (2008). Wave rider: Leadership for high performance in a self-organizing world. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özbekhan, H. (1968). Toward a general theory of planning. Santa Monica: System Development Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

  • Paton, B., & Dorst, K. (2011). Briefing and reframing: A situated practice. Design Studies, 32(6), 573–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rittel, H. W. J., & Weber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, E. B. N., & van Stappers, P.-J. (2013). Convivial toolbox: Generative research for the front end of design. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevaldson, B. (2011). Gigamapping: Visualization for complexity and systems thinking in design. Helsinki: Nordic Design Research Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. E. (1969). The sciences of the artificial (1st ed.). Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, R. (1999). Futures for the third millennium: Enabling the forward view. Sydney: Prospect.

    Google Scholar 

  • SSHRC-CRSH (2013). Imagining Canada’s future. Technical Report. Ottawa, Canada: Government of Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockholm Memorandum. (2011). Stockholm Memorandum. Third Nobel Laureate Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden, May 16–19, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Upward, A. (2013). Towards an ontology and canvas for strongly sustainable business models: a systemic design science exploration. Unpublished thesis. York University, Toronto, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • van Alstyne, G., & Logan, R. (2007). Designing for emergence and innovation: Redesigning design. Artifact, 1(2), 120–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Varela, F., Maturana, H., & Uribe, R. (1974). Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. Biosystems, 5, 187–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warfield, J. N. (1990). A science of generic design: Managing complexity through systems design. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warfield, J. N. (1995). Spreadthink: Explaining ineffective groups. Systems Research, 12(l), 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warfield, J. N. (1999). The problematique: Evolution of an idea. Systems Research, 16, 221–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warfield, J. N. (2001). Measuring complexity. Integrative Sciences Working Paper. Retrieved from http://digilib.gmu.edu/dspace/handle/1920/3411

  • Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics, or control and communication in the animal and the machine. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition. Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanez, X. D., & Maturana, H. (2013). Systemic and meta-systemic laws. Interactions, 20(3), 76–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter H. Jones .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Japan

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jones, P.H. (2014). Systemic Design Principles for Complex Social Systems. In: Metcalf, G. (eds) Social Systems and Design. Translational Systems Sciences, vol 1. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-54478-4_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics