ArticlePDF Available

Systems & Design Thinking: A Conceptual Framework for Their Intergration



This paper explores the relationship between Systems and Design Thinking. It specifically looks into the role of Design in Systems Thinking and how looking at the world through a systems lens influences Design. Our intention is to show the critical concepts developed in the Systems and Design Thinking fields, their underlying assumptions, and the ways in which they can be integrated as a cohesive conceptual framework. While there are many important distinctions that must be considered to understand the similarities and differences of these concepts, gaining a complete understanding of these factors is more than can be covered in this paper. Nevertheless, the most critical classifying variable used to distinguish these concepts will be discussed in order to make their integration possible. This variable, the recognition of purposeful behavior, will be used to develop a conceptual vision for how a combined approach can be used to research, plan, design and manage social systems…Systems in which people play the principle role.
University of Pennsylvania
2("/*:"4*0/"-9/".*$3 02,*/("1&23 2("/*:"4*0/"-9/".*$320(2".3
% !  &!"
University of Pennsylvania+1$0/35-4"0-$0.
University of Pennsylvania&27&8-&2"-5./*51&//&%5
  
University of Pennsylvania7%&//*33"351&//&%5
0--074)*3"/%"%%*4*0/"-702,3"4 )@12&103*402951&//&%50%!702,*/(!1"1&23
"240'4)& 1&2"4*0/3&3&"2$)934&.3/(*/&&2*/("/%/%5342*"-/(*/&&2*/(0..0/3
=*31"1&2*31034&%"4$)0-"2-90..0/3 )@12&103*402951&//&%50%!702,*/(!1"1&23
02.02&*/'02."4*0/1-&"3&$0/4"$4 -*#2"292&103*402910#0851&//&%5
052%&)/"%0)/ &8-&22*$""/% *-30/&//*3934&.3&3*(/=*/,*/(0/$&145"-2".&702,'02=&*2
/4&2(2"4*0/ Organizational Dynamics Working Papers
% !  &!"#&
=*3702,*/(1"1&2*3"6"*-"#-&"4$)0-"2-90..0/3 )@12&103*402951&//&%50%!702,*/(!1"1&23
Systems & Design Thinking: A Conceptual
Framework for Their Integration
John Pourdehnad, PhD, University of Pennsylvania
Erica R. Wexler, MSOD, University of Pennsylvania
Dennis V. Wilson, University of Pennsylvania
This paper explores the relationship between Systems and Design Thinking. It
specifically looks into the role of Design in Systems Thinking and how looking at the
world through a systems lens influences Design. Our intention is to show the critical
concepts developed in the Systems and Design Thinking fields, their underlying
assumptions, and the ways in which they can be integrated as a cohesive conceptual
While there are many important distinctions that must be considered to understand the
similarities and differences of these concepts, gaining a complete understanding of these
factors is more than can be covered in this paper. Nevertheless, the most critical
classifying variable used to distinguish these concepts will be discussed in order to make
their integration possible.
This variable, the recognition of purposeful behavior, will be used to develop a
conceptual vision for how a combined approach can be used to research, plan, design and
manage social systems…Systems in which people play the principle role.
Key Words
Analysis, Design Thinking, Integrative Thinking, Problem Solving, Synthesis, Systems
Relevance to Design Practice
How well we deal with emergent problematic conditions depends on the quality of the
approaches we use and try to implement. These approaches depend more on our
philosophy and "world view" than on science and technology. Design practices will
benefit from consciously integrating the System’s world view into its methodology.
Introduction: Context, Systems World View and Design Thinking
World views integrate experience and influence the way we frame and approach
problems. A world view (also known as a mindset, mental model, or paradigm) controls
what questions we ask and what answers we consider legitimate. The demand to change
the prevailing world view of any situation arises when we are unable to fit the facts,
assumed problems or observations into the existing paradigm. Any of these anomalies
can create a dilemma. Russell L. Ackoff (1981) defined a dilemma as "a problem, which
cannot be solved within the current world view." A set of dilemmas generates new
approaches to thinking about them. The anomalies are worked on and studied, and some
are eventually addressed as a new and different paradigm emerges. Ackoff went on to
note that a change in paradigm is underway in our society and has been set in motion by a
set of dilemmas.
This sentiment has recently been echoed by many systems and design thinkers
faced with the complexity of today’s business challenges. During the Creative Industries
Convention 2010, designers identified the growing interest in developing new business
models that can help them work in different ways. While it was acknowledged that there
is some fear in the pending paradigm shift, it is becoming clear to designers that change
toward a collaborative way of approaching problems is imperative.
The need for change in paradigm is further emphasized by the use of Einstein’s
famous quote that says: “Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that
created them.” Much of the confusion we encounter in problem solving today results
from misconceptions about the nature of change in social systems and their environments.
Moreover, it has become evident that traditional organizational forms, planning
methodologies and response strategies are inadequate for addressing complex problems.
This is especially true when applied to emerging conditions having an increased rate of
change, increased complexity and increased uncertainty. This inadequacy, in large part,
stems from the nature of the traditional paradigm which relies on existing knowledge --
knowledge gained by studying traditional approaches.
Gareth Morgan (2006) posits that metaphors play an important role in understanding
organizations and management. The use of metaphor implies a way of thinking and a way
of seeing that pervade how we understand our world generally. The resulting mindsets
that develop are the products of historical circumstances. Currently, most of the
metaphors used to describe organizations and their complex problems are derived from
the “machine” age and the mechanistic world view.
The world views that we develop and the metaphors that we use to describe what we
see directly influence the underlying assumptions we make about the situation we are
looking at, and therefore, the approach we take. Since our understanding of organizations
is informed by looking at organizations through multiple metaphors or images, it is
important to approach problems from more than one framework.
This paper, among other things, will explore two of the possible frameworks that are
used to approach problems: a Systems Thinking approach and a Design Thinking
approach. Systems Thinkers look to formulate and subsequently dissolve complex
problems from a systemic world view, while Design Thinkers approach the same
complex problems from a variety of perspectives. Consciously selecting a conceptual
model that combines the differing Systems and Design approaches to problem resolution
will increase the probability of successful and sustainable implementation.
Systems Thinking World View
"Systems thinking" or the "systems view of the world" is evolving as an alternative to
the old paradigms. (Flood and Jackson, 1991). Mattesich (1982) writes that "systems
thinking is first and foremost a point of view and a methodology arising out of this view
point." It is a lens through which you can look at the world and that lens determines what
you see. Also, it often determines what you do about what you see.
Systems thinking as a mindset evolved from General Systems Theory, with the work
of Austrian biologist Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy in 1937. Systems Thinking has been
adapted by many circles since WWII. In its current manifestation, it is used to provide a
different perspective to understand the world (including organizations) and our
conception of its nature.
Systems thinking replaces reductionism (the belief that everything can be reduced
to individual parts), cause and effect (environment free theory of explanation), and
determinism (fatalism) with expansionism (the system can always be a sub-system of
some larger system), producer-product (environment-full theory of explanation) and
indeterminism (probabilistic thinking). Additionally, it replaces analysis (gain knowledge
the system by understanding its parts) with synthesis (explaining the role of the system in
the larger system of which it is a part). Analysis is useful for revealing how a system
works but synthesis reveals why a system works the way it does. (Ackoff, 1999)
Many methodologies are derived from the systems thinking world view including
interactive planning, soft systems thinking, systems dynamics, and the viable model to
name a few. Regardless of methodology, the essence of systems thinking is encapsulated
in the concept of systemic wholeness, which is grasped by looking at the whole instead of
the parts. As a result, when an organization is considered a system, it implies an
interconnected complex of functionally related components. Failing to consider the
systemic properties as derived from the interaction of the parts leads to sub-optimization
of the performance of the whole.
One of the consequences of Systems Thinking is the willingness to sacrifice the
performance of the part for the performance of the whole. This is in opposition to
maximizing the performance of any one given part at the risk of sub-optimizing the
performance of the whole. With systems thinking, managers and designers must learn
how the parts of their organization interact, not how they perform
independently. Otherwise, unintended consequences may emerge as changes made
within one part of the system may adversely affect other parts of the system not initially
considered. Often, these new problems are much worse than those addressed initially. It
is for this reason that Ackoff (1999) suggests many performance-improvement initiative
fail and actually throw fuel on the fires they seek to extinguish.
Design Thinking Defined
In recent years and independent of the systems thinking movement, there has been a great
interest in “Design Thinking.” But design in management is not something new. Design
philosophy in management has its roots in Egyptian and Mesopotamian bureaucracies.
Even Taylorism was considered a new design philosophy in the early 20th century!
However, it is important to note that design thinking does not adhere to a specific
worldview. This is a significant difference from systems thinking.
Currently, there are many contrasting and even widely divergent concepts of the
design process and what makes someone a designer. Additionally, there are many
organizations that are cited as examples of companies promoting a Design Thinking
culture (e.g., P&G). What does this mean?
Buckminster Fuller, in his introduction to a book written by Victor Papanek (1971)
says that design for him can mean either a mental conception or a physical pattern. The
essence of design for him is the notion of a pattern of events organized into discrete and
interacting elements. For him, "the opposite of design is chaos." The ubiquity of the
design process and the variety of criteria used in its actualization is described by Papanek,
who on "what is design" writes:
“All men are designers. All that we do, almost all the time, is design, for design is
basic to all human activity. The planning and patterning of any act towards a desired,
foreseeable end constitutes the design process. Any attempt to separate design, to make it
a thing-by-itself, works counter to the inherent value of design as the primary underlying
matrix of life. . . . Design is the conscious effort to impose meaningful order.”
To illustrate, however, that the general design function does have some structure,
Papanek further asserts that the general design function must incorporate considerations
of: Methods (tools, processes); Use (does it work?); Need (real vs. evanescent
requirements); Telesis (reflection of the times and conditions surrounding the project);
Association (psychological connections with aspects of the project); and Aesthetics
(shaping colors, textures, etc. into pleasing forms).
According to Nigel Cross (2006), designers have specific abilities to "produce novel
unexpected solutions, tolerate uncertainty, work with incomplete information, apply
imagination and forethought to practical problems and use drawings and other modeling
media as means of problem solving." He further argues that designers must be able to
resolve ill-defined problems, adopt solution-focusing strategies, employ
abductive/productive/appositional thinking and use non-verbal, graphic and spatial
modeling media."
Architects are examples of designers who operate from this mode of thinking. Bryan
Lawson (2004) has conducted research which shows that when the same problem is given
to architects and Ph.D.s, architects develop the best solution in no time. Boland and
Collopy (2004) experienced more or less the same thing. When working with architects
they noticed that these "design thinkers" do not adhere to the traditional model of
decision making/problem solving. Instead of developing options and evaluating the
alternative options, they design the best option from the start! 
The term Design Thinking, as recently defined by one of its proponents, is now
generally referred to as applying a designer's sensibility and methods to problem solving,
NO MATTER WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. Tim Brown (2009) explains that it is not a
substitute for professional design or the art and craft of designing, but rather "a
methodology for innovation and enablement." There are many who argue that Design
Thinking is the third culture (area) in education besides science and humanities (arts).
(Nigel Cross, 2006) It seems that lately some in the management sciences think that
there is a lot to be learned from the way that designers think (including the abductive
logic) and the way they "know" that could help us with innovative solutions (compared to
the role of research in science).
Jonathan Baron (2008) says that "thinking is important to all of us in our daily lives.
The way we think affects the way we plan our lives, the personal goals we choose, and
the decisions we make." We've already mentioned how at one end of spectrum you have
analytical thinkers who hone and refine their existing models even as they get less and
less valid. At the other extreme are intuitive thinkers who say it's all gut and deny they
are using any logic at all. Einstein stated that “The workings of intuition transcend those
of the intellect, and as is well known, innovation is often a triumph of intuition over
logic.” (Holton, 1997)
Charles Sanders Peirce (Hawthorne, 1958) was most interested in the origin of new
ideas. It was this interest in new ideas that ultimately led him to argue that no new ideas
could ever be proven via the application of Deductive or Inductive reasoning and that it
required what he called a “logical leap of the mind.” He further argued that when new
data exists, and that data does not neatly fit into a currently understood model, the first
activity to be performed by the mind is to wonder. Wondering, as opposed to observing,
is the key to Abductive reasoning. It is the act of creatively thinking about what can be
done with the data in order to orient it to the environment that sets Abductive reasoning
apart from Deductive or Intuitive reasoning. Since the data is new, there is no method of
reliably determining the appropriate method of dealing with the data; therefore, a
practitioner must rely on, as stated earlier, a “logical leap of the mind” to make sense of
the new data.
In a recent interview, Roger Martin (2009) was asked "What do you mean by the
term design thinking?" He responded that "design thinkers are willing to use all three
kinds of logic to understand their world.” We infer this to mean that he was referring to
deductive, inductive and abductive thinking. Martin says that Design Thinking is the only
mode of thought that will allow an organization to move knowledge through the
Knowledge Funnel, the path taken when an organization travels from mystery to a
heuristic of its business environment, and finally to a reliable algorithm for its behavior
within that environment. Further, Martin says that it is the interplay between these two
extremes of the exploration of a mystery and the exploitation of an algorithm where
Design Thinking emerges.
Martin to greater extent explains that neither Analytic nor Intuitive Thinking alone is
enough to sustain competitive advantage since each, while providing tremendous strength,
also create scenarios of systemic weakness if applied in isolation. He also makes clear
that the goal of abductive reasoning is not to declare a conclusion to be true or
false. Instead, it is to posit what could possibly be true. And so it is theorized that design
thinkers are using abductive logic but failing to make it explicit to themselves or anyone
else. It is this mode of thinking that allows a designer to seek out new ways of doing
things, challenge old ways of doing things and infer what might be possible. It is the
careful, balanced application of the reliable lessons of the past and the logically valid
leaps of what might be in the future.
The design thinker bridges these two worlds, and works to make the abductive logic
which design thinkers use more explicit so that it can be shared and refined. Fred
Collopy (2009) recently wrote in Fast Company:
So if thinking is at the center of the activity that we want to encourage, it is not the kind of thinking
that doctors and lawyers, professors and business people already do. It is not a feet up, data spread
across the desk to be absorbed kind of thinking. It is a pencil in hand, scribbling on the board sort of
And while that may be obvious to those close to the process already, we are afraid it
is not what folks conjure up when they first hear the phrase design thinking. From this
perspective, then, it is ultimately the Design Thinker’s responsibility to know which
method to apply and when. However, it has been pointed out by many current
practitioners, including Roger Martin, that there is little or no formal training provided in
our institutions for executives or management in the creative design process.
The appeal of Design Thinking lies in its human-centered heuristics and growing
track record of success. Numerous examples of these successes can be cited, such as
IDEO (a design company in California that has designed many successful products). As
more is written about the application of design thinking in the business world, what is
becoming clearer is that it is most commonly applied to product-oriented problems
despite its clear value to the design of innovative services, systems and processes. While
successful applications do exist in this area, they are less commonly highlighted.
Language matters. We cannot help thinking that we are selling our ideas short given
the momentum behind the current choice of language. And, we wonder, how much
designing and/or thinking has actually gone into DESIGN THINKING? While the
strengths of taking a design approach are seen in the successful outcomes, the term
design thinking is becoming so common that this approach is facing the risk of becoming
yet another meaningless fashionable term without true business value. 
The Role that Design Plays in Systems Thinking
Design in Systems Thinking is not the same as design in Design Thinking. We
acknowledge that there are many divergent views on design within the systems process;
however, there is agreement upon a number of underlying principles that systems
thinkers take when planning toward a desired future. While a full explanation of these
principles goes beyond the scope of this paper, systems thinkers, generally, aim to do
something today to improve the system tomorrow.
In systems thinking, design (based on Aristotelian/Singerian teleological imagery) is
a core concept that is characterized as "a creative act which attempts to estimate how
alternative sets of behavior patterns would serve specified sets of goals." In the Systems
community, Design became the preferred approach to problem solving and planning for a
variety of reasons: the belief in the synthetic mode of thought; the belief that the future is
subject to creation (design being the creative process); the belief that you need to dissolve
problems (and not solve) through redesign of the system; etc.
Van Gigh (1978) and Warfield (1983) argue that "design" is to the systems approach
as "continuous improvement" is to the scientific approach. They point out that design is a
process, which requires the ability to question prior or existing assumptions regarding the
ultimate state to be achieved. We think this raises a question as to who the designer is and
whether he or she is a specific breed with superior cognitive capabilities.
To understand the role of Design in Systems Thinking, it is helpful to look at
Ackoff’s (1981) view on planning. Ackoff describes four orientations to planning:
Reactivism, Inactivism, Preactivism and Interactivism. Reactivists are those planners who
embrace the past. Inactivists are those planners who are generally satisfied with the way
things are in the present and seek to avoid making mistakes within the current system;
they seek to avoid errors of commission. Preactivist planners are unsatisfied with the past
as well as the current environment and seek change. The Preactivist planner seeks to
understand all aspects of the future that may affect the success of the phenomenon they
are planning for; they seek to avoid errors of omission. Professional planners forecast the
future and organizational officers set objectives based on the planners’ predictions.
Finally, Interactive planners believe the future is subject to creation. They believe the
best means of revealing a desirable future is by enabling the stakeholders to do it
Not surprisingly, the Ackoffian systems thinker embraces the Interactive Planning
perspective. The Interactive Planner believes our failures are often due to misguided
assumptions made when planning for how our future ought to be. They believe
knowledge of the past does not enable the ability to solve complex problems and they
seek to avoid both errors of commission as well as omission.
Given Papenak’s (1979) view that “design is basic to all human activity” and
Ackoff’s view that the future is subject to creation, Interactive Planning is Design. It is
Interactive Design…more specifically, it is the execution of Design Thinking with a
Systems worldview.
On Designing, With and Without the Systems World View
Bausch (2002) says that:
Design literacy is the crying need of our age. To accomplish its goals, system design cannot be a
top-down operation nor can it be expert driven. It must actively involve the stakeholders of the design
in shaping a shared vision that represents their ideas, aspirations, values and ideals.
Taking this view, a Social Systems Designer, one who plans, redesigns, manages
and organizes Social Systems, embraces a Systems world view when designing the future
of a given Social System. And given this, it is the role of the stakeholders in the design
process that separates the Systems Thinkers approach to design from that of the Design
We believe we have identified the core differences in the Systems Thinking and
Design Thinking approaches to problem resolution:
Systems Thinking methodologies arose from the consideration of social systems.
The stakeholders are the designers.
Design Thinking methodologies arose from the consideration of products and
artifacts. The problems are ultimately resolved by people identified as a designer
by trade. The stakeholders are observed and studied by the design team (cf
Deep Dive approach as practiced by IDEO)
An integrated approach to problem resolution requires design thinkers to expand
their understanding of good systems design principles with a purposeful consideration of
the social systems they are working within. During the Creative Industries Convention
2010, Andrea Goetze (2010) noted that today’s design industry can no longer take a
structured development approach, where a single creative genius locks himself in a room
for three years before emerging with a solution. Instead, she explained that designers
must find a way to change their role from one of the sole expert to one of a service
provider or facilitator. Goetze also commented that designers will need to become more
flexible and open to input from others and put the product in the middle of the process
instead of the design practitioner. It is important to involve more people who collaborate
together, including the users of the product, because only this way will they have
ownership and make the implementation easier.
These comments show that design thinkers are moving away from First Generation
of Design, where the act of designing is the prerogative of a certain talented group called
“designers.” (Olsen, 1982) The First Generation Design Methods rely heavily on
professionalism, in the sense that the professional is viewed as the holder of knowledge
that is critical to design, and inaccessible to the user of the design. The professional
creates a design and, because of his expertise and sense of responsibility, is under no
obligation to go further. This approach is the one typically taken in the past in the design
of operating systems. It is frequently described as an "over the wall" approach. In this
approach the designer develops an operating system design on paper, and supplies all the
documentation and blueprints to a contractor who converts the paper design to a physical
system. This mode of supplying is, figuratively, to throw the design over the wall that
separates the professional design organization from the contractor or user.
Designers today more often operate from the Second Generation of Design. As
Goetze (2010) noted, they recognize the need for collaboration among designers and
external perspectives to guide them. Deep Dive methodology, as practiced by IDEO, for
example, has made it standard practice for designers to gain input from many different
stakeholders, including the end user. The design team observes and interacts within the
larger system environment (in order to immerse themselves in the situation) before going
back to the design table to piece the data together and design a solution. There is no
question that such ethnographic and anthropological studies have added tremendous
value to the solutions that are generated. This is where Design Thinking today seems to
incorporate some aspects of Systems Thinking.
There is still risk with this approach, however. Even though there are many
perspectives involved in parts of the design process, they are observed and give feedback
in parts. The stakeholders give input based solely from their individual experiences and
never see how it fits into the whole system. It is still, therefore, the role of the designer to
piece it all together. They need to get into the heads of the stakeholders and attempt to
interpret what they think. Because neither the organization nor the end user has been
involved in the entirety of the design process, there is a need to elicit their buy-in. There
is also the risk that a key stakeholder group will be missed. We caution that there are
often unintended consequences when interdependent pieces of the larger system have not
been consciously considered in the context of the whole system.
As mentioned previously, Tim Brown’s (2009) defines Design Thinking as “an
approach that uses the designer's sensibility and methods for problem solving to meet
people's needs in a technologically feasible and commercially viable way. In other words,
design thinking is human-centered innovation." It is in the use of the “designer’s
sensibility…to meet people’s needs” where the Design Thinker strays from the System
Thinkers worldview.
Even Brown (2008) worries about this risk when he says:
One of the principles of design thinking is that it requires empathy for users to inspire ideas.
Normally we think about getting that from ethnographic style research. Diving deep into the lives of a
relatively small number of people, understanding the environment they live in, their social networks,
seeing things first hand. We have lots of evidence that this works, but I sometimes wonder if we
aren’t also missing something. The problem with looking deeply at a few people is that you miss the
opportunity for insights that might come by connecting more broadly across cultures.
This reliance on professionalism is strewn throughout the Design culture. Take for
instance a recent blog post by Designer Kevin McCullagh (2010):
Let's agree that all of humanity are designers, and that design is one of the things that separates us
from the apes. As Jonathan Ive put it: 'Design is not important. Good design is important.' First, when
we talk of designers, we usually mean professional designers, who have reached an accepted level of
competence. They have survived a Darwinian selection process (there are far more graduates than
jobs) and have clocked up well over 10,000 hours of practice on projects. We should remember that
designers learn by doing, not by learning and practicing a theory, designing involves a lot more tacit
knowledge than in other areas of business. It's therefore hard to believe that senior managers can
change their thinking habits of a lifetime after a workshop or two working with designers. And, to be
frank, to suggest as much devalues what designers do.
Additionally, a key factor in creating good design that really does make a difference is great
designers. These talented individuals are few and far between and provide critical competitive
advantage. Let's forget about design thinking as a magic process, and focus on how designers and
managers should best work together to deliver great quality outputs.
The Systems Thinking world view offers a method of doing just that. We propose
that by taking this approach, Design Thinkers can move into a Third Generation of
Design, which builds in a purposeful consideration of Systems Thinking principles. It
therefore addresses many of the challenges of trying to get into the heads of others. A
successful design is not one which is imposed on or provided to the organization from a
source external to the system. The best way to ensure that the design will serve the
purpose of the organization is to include the stakeholders in the formulation of the design.
Hence, the success of a design is directly related to the level of stakeholder participation
in the development of the design.
In the Third Generation of Design, the stakeholders are the designers. They are
not external sources of input. Instead, they are the concept generators and concept
implementers (Barabba, 1995). An underlying principle of interactive planning is that
people must be allowed to plan for themselves (Jackson, 2003). In fact, to reach
objectivity in social systems, the process must involve the interaction of groups of
individuals with diverse values. It becomes the role of the design facilitator to therefore
create an environment where these differing views are honored within the context of the
larger system. Creating a shared vision of the future can also be described as finding
“common ground”, a place where participants are able to get past the current situation
and make decisions based on what is good for the system. (Weisbord, 2003) In fact,
designing creative solutions becomes much more straightforward if the practitioner is
able to address the conflicts that arise due to differing stakeholder values, beliefs and
world views. (Jackson, 2003)
By empowering all stakeholders from the beginning, it is possible to tap the creative
energy of every participant so that innovative ideas emerge from the collective of the
differing perspectives. This concept was described as “authentic engagement” in one of
the seven laws of Dialogic Design. Laouris’ Law of Requisite Action, another of the
Dialogic Design Laws, asserts that “action plans that are not founded on authentic
engagement of the stakeholders in the dialogue and deliberation are unethical and are
bound to fail.” (Christakis, 2006)
One thing that design practitioners using a systems approach bring to the table is
ability to help an organization take ownership of the ideas that emerge through the design
process. This is a critical consideration for today’s designers. It is much more likely that
the ideas generated will be implemented and maintained if the stakeholders involved
were the one who came up with the solutions in the first place. When people within an
organization have had input throughout a change process and believe they have
influenced the direction things are going in, the resistance to new ideas dissipates. (Rehm,
It is important for designers to be able to help an organization and the participants
uncover the underlying assumptions they are making about the problem they think needs
to be solved. Often cultural assumptions and traditions contribute to the problem they are
working on. (Shuman, 2006) Cultural assumptions include those specific to leadership,
both formal and informal. This can have a direct affect on how effectively they approach
the assumed problem. A designer applying Systems Thinking principles can help
participants recognize the assumptions the organization and the individual participants
hold. In this way a designer can provide them with the means to develop a new
framework and shared world view.
Case Study: An Integrated Approach to Problem Resolution in
In 2009 Johns Hopkins Hospital was anticipating their 2011 relocation to new
multibillion dollar quarters. Relocation projects, especially ones as large-scale as a
hospital, always come with planning challenges, which in turn come with different
strategies to reach a plan.
The hospital administration had a choice. They could simply move their current
operating procedures to the new location with a basic plan for relocation procedures.
They could bring in ”design thinking” folks to look at the needs of the different units,
gather some ethnographic data, and then lay out a plan with recommendations for the
relocation. Instead, Johns Hopkins took a different approach. They looked at the move as
an opportunity to redesign their current situation into a more desired future. The hospital
would upgrade its system as they upgraded its physical environment. Their change would
be systemic and not purely geographic.
Championed by a number of VPs, Johns Hopkins formed design teams comprised of
the hospital’s stakeholders. They defined stakeholders to mean anyone who could either
impact or be impacted by the decisions made in the design teams. This included not only
administration and management, but representatives from all of the hospital’s units,
including, for example, doctors, nurses, technicians, customer services representatives,
and custodial staff. Most importantly, the design teams included the end users: the
Before starting with the redesign of the subsystems, the design teams were given a
short course on systems thinking. The orientation created a shared understanding of how
the hospital operated as a system.
During the initial design meetings, information and data was also shared from
research that had been conducted prior to the design meetings. This research had been
done across different hospitals with the goal of finding out how patients thought about
and described the care they received. The trends showed that there was more to a hospital
stay than the level of care that was received. Patients who had successful procedures with
a high quality of medical care, in some instances, stated they would never return to that
hospital again. Examples of some of the reasons provided included: poor treatment by
diagnosticians; multiple room switches; unsanitary bathroom conditions; and long waits
for transportation for tests. It had nothing to do with the quality of the medical care
provided by the doctors. It had everything to do with how they perceived their experience
with the hospital (experience was defined as a systemic property of the hospital system
that is derived from the interaction of the essential components of the hospital system).
There were significant implications from these early steps in the design process;
they gave people who often never communicated before a common language and
common point of reflection. It also took the risk of blame and finger pointing off of the
Johns Hopkins staff and redirected the focus to patterns that were happening in the larger
environment of hospital care in general. From that point, even though there were initially
people with different experiences and frameworks at the table, there was a shared
understanding that any design created and implemented must meet two systems thinking
Identification and consideration of the essential parts of the system
Whatever the design, it would be decided by the amount of improvement to the
system as a whole, not just to individual parts or units
Once these criteria had been agreed upon, the group was charged with the next
If John Hopkins is a system, what does the hospital do to support
the PATIENT EXPERIENCE versus simply considering PATIENT CARE?
As doctors, janitors, technicians, and other hospital staff interacted with patients, the
interdependence of their contribution to the hospital as a whole began to emerge. This led
to what can only be described as an “A-HA!” moment. The participants realized that two
essential components of the hospital were traditionally overlooked, yet had a great impact
on the patient experience. Those two units were Patient Transportation (responsible for
moving patients from one part of a hospital to another) and Environmental Services
(responsible for cleaning services throughout the hospital).
Realizing that these two units are the essential components of the system had a
significant implication for the new design. The additional awareness that they directly
impacted both the hospital experience and the bottom line produced exciting designs. But
most importantly, all of these considerations resulted in a new approach to recruitment,
training, and compensation for employees within these departments.
Within Patient Transportation, an innovative and effective design resulted by
measuring how long it took to move patients between various locations in the hospital in
a manner that was pleasant and timely. Additionally, this consideration helped the design
team to determine where to place the wheel chairs in a logistically optimum place in the
new buildings. This will result in their ability to move patients quickly (e.g. diagnostics
will no longer stay idle waiting for patients). Furthermore, the design team was able to
improve the internal communication system. This will eliminate the additional work and
time lost by the nurses trying to contact patient transporters (information regarding
patient’s discharge by the attending physician will be shared with the patient
transportation services).
The same types of new designs occurred with the Environmental Services design
team. One solution improved the “bed turnaround” time (similar to plane turnaround in
the aviation industry, hospitals don’t generate funds unless there is a patient in the bed).
However, this improvement also means that patients won’t be left waiting in the hall for a
room at the new facility. What also emerged from this design team was a new awareness
that the Environmental Services unit does more than simply change over the rooms. They
also impact the overall quality of care in the hospital, specifically as it relates to
infectious diseases. This was an epiphany for everyone.
The approach Johns Hopkins took shows the instrumental role that taking a systemic
world view plays in design. It also highlights how important the design is to any
consideration of the system. By starting with an overview of systems thinking principles,
everyone was operating from a shared mindset. By sharing trends collected from the
larger health care environment they operated within, Johns Hopkins was able to develop a
shared context of the current situation. In any design process involving systems thinking,
such opportunities are designed based on the organization’s specific situation and tied to
the purpose of the design process.
Moreover, by bringing everyone to the design meetings together, stakeholders who
rarely had a voice were heard, and throughout the design process they expressed that this
was the first time they felt valued. There was a level power dynamic for the first time,
which was a monumental shift from the traditional hierarchy of respect with surgeons and
doctors at the top of the ladder. The perception of the employees in those two units
changed. Johns Hopkins had achieved its goal of a system redesign with the ownership of
those most impacted.
If Johns Hopkins had simply brought in designers to look at the problem, interview
various stakeholders, and design recommendations based on the compiled feedback, they
would not have achieved such a rich redesign of their system. They definitely would have
missed the opportunity for the interdepartmental perceptions of each other’s value to
change. There is a high probability they would have missed the impact of the two
essential parts identified in this process. The system would have likely been redesigned
based on the wrong assumptions of where improvement was needed. It was only by
having everyone in the same room, under the same shared context of hospital trends in
the larger environment, using the same systems language, throughout the entire process,
that the resulting design had the input and ownership of the entire system
In today’s business world Design Thinking and Systems Thinking are being considered
disjointedly. Specifically, the role of design in either approach is not transparent. For
all of us the challenge remains how the "DESIGN THINKING" community can learn
from the "SYSTEMS THINKING" community and vice versa.
We believe that SYSTEMS THINKING should be intentionally integrated with
DESIGN THINKING to enhance the chances of creating the RIGHT designs! We have
shown that Systems Thinking can help the designer to better understand the world around
them. As an example, in systems thinking design is considered the methodology for
planning because there is a belief that the future is subject to creation and design is the
creative process for this purpose. Furthermore, SYSTEMS principles can inform the
designers to achieve more SUSTAINABLE designs.
Design can be greatly enhanced if it improves the performance of the system as a
whole (even if you are redesigning the part). Design Thinking can also be enhanced by
purposefully considering the principle of unintended consequences, etc. Yet the most
valuable principle that Systems Thinking can add to Design Thinking is the need to bring
the whole system to the discussion from the beginning, not just in parts. The stakeholders
within the system must plan for themselves. If problem formulation is the first step in
design process, taking a systems mindset can help with "framing and especially with
re-framing" the problems.
We have proposed that the two approaches complement each other and each
incorporates components of the other implicitly. We believe it is possible – and necessary
- to create an approach that explicitly incorporates the strengths of each, thereby
addressing their gaps and increasing the chance of creating sustainable solutions to the
wicked problems facing organizations and society today.
Presented at the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS)
55th Annual Conference, "All Together Now: Working Across Disciplines,"
at University of Hull, Hull, UK, July 17-22, 2011. Reprinted by permission.
1. Ackoff, R.L. (1981). Creating the corporate future. New York: John Wiley and
2. Ackoff, R.L. (1981, February). The Art and Science of Mess Management.
Interfaces II. 11 (1), 20-26.
3. Ackoff RL. (1999). Re-Creating the corporation: a design of organizations for the
21st Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Ackoff, R.L. & Emery, F.E. (1972). On purposeful systems. Chicago:
5. Barabba, V.P. (1995). Meeting of the minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
6. Baron, J. (2008). Thinking and deciding. (Chinese translation of 4th edition.)
Cambridge University Press (errata). (Original work published 1988, 1994, 2000)
7. Bausch. K.C. (2002, June). Roots and branches: a brief, picaresque, personal
history of systems theory. Wiley InterScience, 19(Syst.Res. pp 417-28). Retrieved
September 2009, from
8. Boland, R. & Collopy, F. (2004) Managing as design. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
9. Brown, T. (2008, June). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review Paperback
Series,"pp 1-10.
10. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. New York: Harper Collins.
11. Checkland, Peter.(1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
12. Churchman, C. West. (1968). The systems approach. New York: Dell Publishing.
13. Christakis, A. & Baush, K. (2006). How people harness their collective wisdom
and power to construct the future in co-laboratories of democracy. North Carolina:
Information Age Publishing, Inc.
14. Collopy, F. Thinking about design thinking. Fast Company blog. Retrieved July 9,
15. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer-Verlag.
16. Flood, R. & Jackson, M. (1991). Creative problem solving. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
17. Flowers, J. (1993). The power of chaos: A conversation with Margaret J.
Wheatley. Healthcare Forum Journal, (Sept/Oct), 48-55.
18. Follet, M.P., (1940). The psychology of control. In Metcalf, H.C. & Urwick, L.
(Eds). Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follet (pp.
183-209). New York and London: Harper & Brothers Publishers.
19. Goetze, A. (2010). Creative Industries Convention 2010 Interview. Retrieved
May 20, 2010 from
20. Holton, G. (1997). Albert Einstein: Historical and cultural perspectives. New
York: Dover Publications.
21. Jackson, M.C. (2003). Systems thinking: Creative holism for managers. University
of Hull, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
22. Johnson, L. (1997). From mechanistic to social systemic thinking: A digest of a
talk by Russell L. Ackoff. Innovations in Management Series. Cambridge, MA:
Pegasus Communications.
23. Mattesich, Richard. (1982, November). The systems approach: Its variety of
aspects. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 33(6).
24. McCullagh, K. (2010), Design thinking everywhere and nowhere: Reflections on
the big re-think. Core 77 Design Magazine and Resource, Retrieved, March 29,
2010, from
25. Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
26. Olsen, Shirley A. (Ed.). (1982). Group planning and problem-solving methods in
engineering management. New York: Wiley Interscience.
27. Papanek, Victor. (1971). Design for the real world. New York: Pantheon Books.
28. Papanek, Victor. (1983). Design for human scale. New York: Van Nostrand.
29. Hawthorne, C. & Weiss, P. (Ed. Vols 1-6) and Burks, A.W. (vols.
7-8). (1931-1958) Collected Papers. 8 Vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP..
30. Rehm, Robert. (1999). People in charge: creating self managing workplaces.
Gloucestershire, UK: Hawthorn Press.
31. Shuman, S (Ed.) (2006). Creating a culture of collaboration: The International
Association of Facilitators handbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
32. Weisbord, M. (2004). Productive workplaces revisited. San Francisco, CA:
... Practical and physical skills are mostly manual skills, which must adopt and manage objects, a set of tools or devices and artefacts to achieve specific results (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2019b). There is also persistence and repeated practice skills that help manufacturing technicians improve their technical expertise and enable them to understand that it is necessary to make an effort to persist after failure and be able to succeed (Pourdehnad et al., 2011). ...
... On the other hand, bag designers, manufacturing technicians and patternmakers should also have the skills to use the newest ICT devices in order to cope with the era of automation and information. In addition, due to the different job attributes, manufacturing technicians should have persistence and repeated practice skills to enhance their professional skills, and also make them understand that it is necessary to make an effort to persist after failure, and be able to produce success (Pourdehnad et al., 2011). Hand stitchers need to have the skills of care and perseverance so that they can work long hours and have the perseverance so that they will try to accomplish their goals even if they encounter setbacks (Taguma and Anger, 2016). ...
Full-text available
Aim This research aimed to explore the professional literacies that should be possessed by Taiwan’s bag manufacturing industry talents. This understanding will also help the technical and vocational education system to cultivate talents in Taiwan’s bag manufacturing industry. Methods A qualitative research design was adopted. The outline of the interview on the professional literacy of Taiwan’s bag manufacturing industry talents was compiled, and seven interviewees were selected by purposive sampling from those who had worked (including supervisors) in Taiwan’s bag manufacturing industry for 21 to 42 years. One-on-one in-depth interviews with semi-structured interview questions were conducted. Using grounded theory, the content of the in-depth interviews was analyzed and discussed. Results and discussion This study discusses what professional literacy of Taiwan’s bag manufacturing industry talents should possess from the practical perspective of Taiwan’s bag manufacturing industry leaders or senior managers. This study shows that bag manufacturing industry talents should possess knowledge, skills, and attitudes and values of common professional literacies. Moreover, bag designers, manufacturing technicians, patternmakers, hand stitchers, and production supervisors should acquire these professional literacies. The results of this study will help Taiwan’s bag manufacturing industry leaders or senior managers to highlight the importance of professional literacy that Taiwan’s bag manufacturing industry talents should possess. Conclusion This study summarized the professional literacy of bag manufacturing industry talents into three major aspects: knowledge, skills, and attitudes and values. Based on this, suggestions are made as a reference for the implementation of curriculum development for talent cultivation in higher education institutions, and a reference for the learning and on-the-job training of bag manufacturing industry practitioners in the workplace.
... A system involves an interconnected complex of functionally related components. "Failing to consider the systemic properties as derived from the interaction of the parts leads to sub-optimization of the performance of the whole" [14]. The integration of system thinking and design thinking occurs when the system's stakeholders being analyzed become designers of the shared vision of the future they want. ...
... For example, when a change is introduced in a system, it affects other parts of it. Taking only one of the approaches could lead to missing the perspective of the system's behavior, leaving aside elements that would leverage both situations that were addressed initially and those that emerge during the project's development [14]. ...
CJ Digital is the academic and procedural platform implemented by the Legal Aid Clinic (LAC) of a private University in Colombia. This technological platform seeks to transform the academic space where students of the School of Law continue their training process by giving legal advice to people in vulnerable situations with the support of a professor. With the dissemination of Covid-19, the LAC platform underwent an accelerated validation of its functionality, which revealed usability issues and opportunities for improvement. Among the problems was the difficulty in managing and visualizing case files and the academic management by advisors. The article presents a case study of a LAC platform based on the relation between design thinking and systems thinking approaches applied to interaction design and user experience (UX). System thinking was used to understand the dynamics related to consultations and cases of the areas and legal clinics of the LAC. Design thinking was used to understand the needs and motivations of students and advisors. Based on the findings, we developed a concept for the platform that integrates to main features a new architecture for shared folder management and the development of a procedural timeline. Also, some support functions were improved, such as auto-save, editable grading rubrics, notifications, a text editor, and space for coaching, tutorials, and FAQs. These functionalities can make CJ Digital a national and international reference in creating and deploying legal services. CJ Digital remains a platform for the management of internal processes between students and advisors.KeywordsUser experienceSystem thinkingParticipatory and interaction designLegal servicesLegal Aid Clinic
... A fourth generation of design perspective encouraged the participatory viewpoint of interdisciplinary projects: "design, when everyone designs" [4]. The key difference between the traditional design thinking and system thinking is that the stakeholders are the designers in the innovation of social systems [33]. During the projects, the stakeholders in design practices are observed and engaged by design students. ...
Full-text available
The role and responsibilities of our creative Higher Education are evolving in our ever-changing society. Systemic design thinking equips our design students with the means to promote sustainable development objectives via engagement, community building and discourse. This study reflects on interdisciplinary resource recovery projects for the City of Adelaide (CoA) during a final-year systemic design course in the Product Design programme at the University of South Australia. Since 2015, the core design team has collaborated with external partners outside of HE sectors, including NGOs, local councils, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) government and the South Australia (SA) government, to promote social innovation towards sustainability. Systemic design is one of the core courses of the Bachelor of Design, Product Design programme within the faculty of Creative, University of South Australia. In this course, system thinking combined with project-based learning (PBL) was adapted and illustrated to demonstrate good systemic design practice for social innovation. This study was focussed on how we can collaborate on a variety of interdisciplinary projects to contribute to the realisation of the United Nations’ (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) from a human-centred systemic design perspective.
... Design thinking is increasingly promoted as methodology with actionable steps for designing sustainable and equitable solutions (Gould et al., 2017). Originally a methodology from product design, it is now recognized as a methodology of the systems thinking tool kit (Buchanan, 2019;Pourdehnad et al., 2011), and has found new applications in sustainability science (Maher et al., 2018). Its principles can be associated with innovation in general (Beckman and Barry, 2007) and increasingly with systems design and transformation (Sevaldson and Jones, 2019;Visser, 2020). ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
Design thinking is becoming increasingly relevant for AR4D in the context of developing and scaling actionable innovations for food system transformation. However, to date there is limited experience in facilitating design thinking processes in different innovation spaces, i.e., with different multi-stakeholder groups that have different aims and different working styles. This working paper discusses learnings from four different design thinking initiatives that were designed and facilitated in the context of CCAFS and in collaboration with the CGIAR-GIZ Task Force on Scaling. Recommendations can be useful for further design thinking initiatives in the AR4D context, with regards to their set-up, potential dilemmas in their pathways through the problem-solution spaces, and the respective most suitable facilitation styles.
... In particular, there is a scarcity of research examining the commonalities and differences between the systems engineering process and models of designing in other disciplines. Existing studies focus on the unique skills and competences required in systems engineering, especially with respect to those in design thinking (Greene et al. 2019;Li 2002;Patel and Mehta 2017;Pourdehnad et al. 2011). Yet, there has not been any detailed comparison of the process models used in the different domains, except for a few hypothesised mappings between process phases across different models on a high level. ...
Full-text available
This paper investigates how the core technical processes of the INCOSE model of systems engineering differ from other models of designing used in the domains of mechanical engineering, software engineering and service design. The study is based on fine-grained datasets produced using mappings of the different models onto the function-behaviour-structure (FBS) ontology. By representing every model uniformly, the same statistical analyses can be carried out independently of the domain of the model. Results of correspondence analysis, cumulative occurrence analysis and Markov model analysis show that the INCOSE model differs from the other models in its increased emphasis on requirements and on behaviours derived from structure, in the uniqueness of its verification and validation phases, and in some patterns related to the temporal development and frequency distributions of FBS design issues.
... That is, (1) leadership, according to design theory, can only be effective when it forges links with the collective experiences, attitudes, and worldviews of the group of belonging, and also, (2) design thinking integrates humanness with technology while striving for innovation and creativity (Himsworth, 2018). The approach in design thinking and design leadership is systemic, in that it commences from the philosophical bases of expansion and indeterminism (Pourdehnad et al., 2011) in an attempt to address complex problems in the context of meso-and macro-level strategic, economic, social, environmental, and political projects and questions (Irbite & Strode, 2016). According to Brown (2016), design leadership should address complex global problems, such as the need for new health concepts, healthy food systems, technological opportunities and challenges, future-oriented work designs and cooperation, as well as government services which are citizen-oriented and decisions which serve the global poor. ...
Design leadership, a conceptual component in design theory, provides a useful template for leaders in an ever-changing world. Design leadership has gained importance in global leadership and decision-making processes in contemporary politics.
In today’s security landscape we find ourselves confronted with problems of dynamic complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity with disruptive technologies being exploited in the criminal domain. Such key technological developments such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), machine learning algorithms, quantum computing, 5G, Dark web networks and cryptocurrencies, the Internet of All Things, 3D printing, molecular biology and genetics are all influencing the criminal landscape and shaping the future digitalization of law enforcement capabilities. For policing, these strategic challenges require a strategic response that is rooted in innovation and agility. As described in Policing in the UK, ‘…policing will need to get better at anticipating emerging threats, think more innovatively about the best policies and interventions for addressing them and mobilise responses quickly to maximise chances of success (College of Policing in Policing in England and Wales future operating environment 2040., 2020, p. 3). Moving towards the development of solutions to this complex problem space characterized by disruptive technologies for criminality depends on the lens we use to examine them and how we frame the problem. Futures thinking and foresight analysis figure prominently in shaping law enforcements ability to understand how emerging technologies and criminality intersect and thereby how law enforcement can position itself for the future through anticipatory innovation. This chapter introduces futures thinking and foresight as problem framing approaches that will inform the digitalization of the law enforcement domain.KeywordsProblem framingSystems thinkingAnticipatory innovationFutures thinking
Full-text available
The startup failure rate in Egypt exceeds 95%, while research approaches this issue quantitatively, this study aims to understand entrepreneurs’ challenges through a designer’s lens. As research continues to explore how design adoption is growing in business in the West (Sheppard, Sarrazin, Kouyoumjian, & Dore, 2020), the contribution to knowledge in this study is defining how the Egyptian entrepreneurial ecosystem perceives and uses design, and generates internal factors of startup’s success, which are founder’s experience, hired caliber and culture. The qualitative investigation used Grounded Theory as the primary method, it starts by a simple aim, which is to understand three entrepreneurial ecosystem stakeholders’ design perception (entrepreneurs, designers and business experts). Accordingly the following research objectives were achieved; understanding designer and non designer entrepreneurs’ failure reasons, understanding the entrepreneurs’, business experts’ and event makers’ view of design, understanding designers’ feedback on working with startups and understanding the success factors of Expansion phase startups’ entrepreneurs. The results direct towards four main issues; that failure reasons and challenges are submerged from lack of knowledge when it comes to self cognizance and practical skills. While the designers’ challenges are overwhelming, their miscommunication with their clients resulted in a lot of them. Also, numerous of similarities and linkages take place between findings in the first and final research objectives listed above. In conclusion, through one open business model, three proposed services are presented to tackle the problems faced by designers and entrepreneurs. This research sheds light on the importance of defining design in Cairo’s entrepreneurial ecosystem by observing it through several stakeholders, then using design (Design as Storytelling + Service Design) as means to solve entrepreneurs’ challenges.
This paper is devoted to Design Thinking as a method of project-based education in COVID-19 Era. COVID-19 has dramatically changed all spheres of our life, including education. Traditional teaching methods have been replaced by online and distance ones. The study analyses the advantages of Design Thinking in the New Reality, including in the online format, and some of its disadvantages. Real examples of remote project work formulated according to the principles of design thinking include participation of a team of students in the “Stanford Rebuild” global eight-week innovation sprint held by Stanford Graduate School of Business. In the course of that sprint they developed a comprehensive socially oriented online platform “COHELP-19”. Another example is the successful participation of Plekhanov University students in the first international research “Ideathon” organized by the University of Munster, “Higher School of Economics” National Research University and SAP that resulted in the development of a prototype application for people experiencing psychological, environmental, and physiological discomfort due to the coronavirus pandemic. Based on the conducted surveys, the authors have shown that the remote project work of students based on the Design Thinking method allowed them to get a useful experience of interaction in a team, taught them to think “outside the box”, brightened up their days spent at home, brought new emotions, and reduced the level of fatigue from video conferences.
The design-oriented planner has a major responsibility for providing inputs to the planning process, in organizing and guiding it, in educating those involved in it, in specifying the nature of the output that is required, in providing criteria by which the output can be evaluated, and in facilitating such evaluation. The design-oriented planner must be competent in the use of the methods, techniques, and tools of both the clinician and the researcher. He need not be as skilled in the use of their instruments as they are, but he must know them well enough to be able to use those who have these skills effectively. He must do more than this: he must know how to design and invent, and he must be able to encourage and facilitate the efforts of others to do so. He must be a generalist who is familiar with the capabilities and limitations of relevant specialists; he must be a humanist as well as a scientist; and he must be as much at home with art as he is with technology. Finally, he must be as concerned with the qualities of life as he is with its quantities.
The concept of 'designerly ways of knowing' emerged in the late 1970s in association with the development of new approaches in design education. Professor Nigel Cross first clearly articulated this concept in a paper called 'Designerly Ways of Knowing' which was published in the journal Design Studies in 1982. Since then, the field of study has grown considerably, as both design education and design research have developed together into a new discipline of design. This book provides a unique insight into a field of study with important implications for design research, education and practice. Professor Nigel Cross is one of the most internationally-respected design researchers and this book is a revised and edited collection of key parts of his published work from the last quarter century. Designerly Ways of Knowing traces the development of a research interest in articulating and understanding the nature of design cognition, and the concept that designers (whether architects, engineers, product designers, etc.) have and use particular 'designerly' ways of knowing and thinking. There are chapters covering the following topics: •the nature and nurture of design ability; •creative cognition in design; •the natural intelligence of design; •design discipline versus design science; and, •expertise in design. As a timeline of scholarship and research, and a resource for understanding how designers think and work, Designerly Ways of Knowing will be of interest to researchers, teachers and students of design; design practitioners and design managers.
This article offers a concise survey and glimpse of the vast literature presently available in the field of systems thinking and cybernetics. The first part discusses the areas of systems philosophy, systems analysis (mathematical systems theory), empirical systems research, and systems engineering, while the second part offers some details about the contributions of the following selected scholars: von Bertalanffy, Bogdanov, Ackoff, Churchman, and Herbert A. Simon. A bibliography of some 150 books and papers closes the article.