Content uploaded by Birger Sevaldson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Birger Sevaldson on Sep 20, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Nordic Design Research Conference 2011, Helsinki www.nordes.org
GIGA-MAPPING: VISUALISATION
FOR COMPLEXITY AND SYSTEMS
THINKING IN DESIGN.
BIRGER SEVALDSON
OSLO SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN
OCEAN DESIGN RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
BIRGER.SEVALDSON@AHO.NO
ABSTRACT
Designers and design is facing ever growing
challenges from an increasingly complex world.
Making design matter means to cope with these
challenges and to be able to enter new important
design fields where design can play a crucial role.
To achieve this we need to become better at coping
with super-complexity. Systems Oriented Design is
a new version of systems thinking and systems
practice that is developed from within design
thinking and design practice. It is systems thinking
and systems practice tailored by and for designers.
It draws from designerly ways of dealing with
super-complexity derived from supreme existing
design practices as well as refers to established
perspectives in modern systems thinking, especially
Soft Systems Methodology, Critical Systems
Thinking and Systems Architecting. Further on it is
based on design skills like visual thinking and
visualisation in processes and for communication
purposes. Most central are the emerging techniques
of GIGA-mapping. GIGA-mapping is super
extensive mapping across multiple layers and
scales, investigating relations between seemingly
separated categories and so implementing boundary
critique to the conception and framing of systems.
In this paper we will present the concept of GIGA-
mapping and systematize and exemplify its
different variations.
Fig 1: A mixed GIGA-map of the possibilities for distributed small scale energy harvesting and how this would impact human behaviour.
Zoom in to see some more details. (Student: Francesco Zorzi 2009)
Nordic Design Research Conference 2011 Helsinki www.nordes.org
INTRODUCTION
This paper presents research by design on one of
several particular techniques (GIGA-mapping)
developed for and within an emerging approach to
design for complexity called Systems Oriented
Design. The background and status of the research
into Systems Oriented Design (SOD) and some of
its different aspects has been reported on before and
will not be discussed in depth here (Sevaldson 1999
a,b, Sevaldson 2000, Sevaldson 2001, Sevaldson
2005, Sevaldson 2008 a,b, Sevaldson, Hensel,
Frostell 2010, Sevaldson & Vavik 2010). The scope
of the paper is limited to the special theme of
GIGA-mapping though the wider context and the
relevance of this approach are touched upon as far
as the format of the paper allows doing so. Another
limitation to this paper is that it merely gives an
overview and a series of examples and a general
discussion on GIGA-mapping. In a forthcoming
article we will report on the techniques and details
of GIGA-mapping as a design activity.
Systems Oriented Design as well as GIGA-mapping
has been developed by the author and colleagues at
the Oslo School of Architecture and Design. During
the last ten years we have investigated methods and
techniques that address the challenge of complexity
in working with products, services, large scale
systems, information, media types and
representations of design processes. The presented
studies are bottom up research based on findings
from mainly master level student projects in
collaboration with partners from business and
organisations, and in workshops for several
consultancies and organisations.
This initiative has been driven by the increasing
complexity that confronts designers individually
and the design profession in general. Very severe
and crucial problems need to be solved in the future
and designers are in a special position to make a
difference to make design matter. Designers work
with many levels of innovations and they are
inherently trained to work with very complex
problems in a holistic manner. But designers need
to become better at dealing with complexity. This is
rarely trained especially and it is our intention to
contribute to improve this field of design practice.
SOD is systems thinking tailored by and for
designers. While this research started from within
experimental design in the OCEAN design research
association (1995) it was reaching a new stage
when we started to address and relate complexity in
design with systems thinking in 2005. Today the
research refers to three main conceptual
frameworks:
• Design thinking and design practice
• Visual thinking and visual practice.
• Systems thinking and systems practice
These will shortly be described below, only
touching upon issues I found especially relevant for
the theme of the paper.
GIGA-mapping, the topic of this paper is embedded
in this context of design, systems thinking and
visualisation. GIGA-mapping is creating an
“information cloud” from which the designer can
derive innovative solutions. While mapping in
general is a way of ordering and simplifying issues,
so to say “tame” the problems, GIGA-mapping
intends not to tame any problems. GIGA-maps try
to grasp, embrace and mirror the complexity and
wickedness of real life problems. Hence they are
not resolved logically nor is the designerly urge for
order and resolved logic allowed to take over too
much and hence bias the interpretation of reality.
DESIGN THINKING AND DESIGN
PRACTICE
Design Thinking has been defined as inseparable
from design practice (Lockwood, 2010, Cross,
2007, Cross, 2011, Brown and Katz, 2009).
Research by Design manifests the nature of Design
Thinking. New knowledge emerges and is
externalized before, during, and post practice
(Sevaldson 2010). Synthesis is the central aspect of
design thinking. The process of synthesising,
though debated, remains enigmatic and resists strict
methodological framing. I base my conception of
this process very much on the five stage model by
Wallas (1926), later by most writers reduced to four
stages. The four stages are Preparation, Incubation,
Illumination, and Verification.
Incubation and illumination is found and described
by an overwhelming majority of very creative
people (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Though both
incubation and illumination resist a deeper
understanding beyond what can be derived from
observations and testimonies, nevertheless we can
influence the process of synthesis. Incubation is
typically a process where complex information is
processed over time. It is in the preparations, the
information collection and in the tentative, iterative,
and heuristic development that we can do things
differently. Incubation and illumination is then not
really phased but appears more or less integrated in
preparation and verification activities.
VISUAL THINKING AND VISUAL
PRACTICE
Visualisation, visual thinking, descriptive and
generative diagramming are central in this heuristic
process. Visualisation is a field described by e.g.
David McCandless (2009).Visual thinking is earlier
described by Rudolf Arnheim (1969), and
diagramming e.g. by Tufte (1983). While
infographics are mostly occupied with
communicating information to a passive audience,
visualisation in GIGA-mapping intends to be
applied in processes as well as for communication
and involves participation and collective production
of information.
I will return to this topic when discussing it in
relation to GIGA-mapping.
SYSTEMS THINKING AND SYSTEMS
PRACTICE.
The aim of the reported research is to develop
systems thinking as a design proprietary knowledge
and to develop it as a skill and a practice.
Designers are to a certain degree trained in working
with “wicked problems” (Buchanan, 1992, Rittel
and Webber, 1973) and to generate holistic
resolutions from complex project information.
Designers are often positioned very close to
decision making. Designers do often also have a
special holistic overview spanning from technical,
via socio-cultural aspects to economic aspects. This
provides the designer with power to induce change.
Recent developments with impacts of globalisation
and requirements to sustainable production pose
increasing challenges to the designer. It is required
that designers respond not only to singular aspects
of the design task, like the concept, usage and shape
of the product and service, but also that they
increase their understanding regarding e.g.
technology, client-specific frameworks, cultural
aspects, market analyses, sustainability and ethical
concerns. In practice some of these requirements
tend to be emphasised on the cost of others. Often
the holistic perspective is sacrificed because of a
lack of ability to maintain complexity though-out
the design project. The ability of designers to
address many aspects simultaneously and to
generate holistic, and at their best, synergistic
responses is in fact a type of soft systems practice.
This has been recognized by others who made an
effort to systematize and learn such abilities. One
example is Mayer and Rechtin (Maier and Rechtin,
2000, Rechtin, 1999) who have coined the term
Systems Architecting. The term is used in a new
type of project management profession working
along with the traditional project managers not to
replace them but to supplement the hard logistics
with more artistic, intuitive and holistic
perspectives. The term Systems Architect is
inspired by the building architects ability to keep a
holistic overview, to negotiate the views of experts
and to hold the threads of a complex project
together. If we look into ‘normal’ design education
and practice, it is apparent that we do not really live
up to be honoured like that. We do not teach and
develop those assumed advantages of the design
professions very actively. We do not have good
concepts for dealing with super-complexity.
Systems thinking is one of few general frameworks
to deal with complexity. It is used in most sciences
and practices where different variations and
approaches to systems thinking are developed.
Systems thinking in design is currently not very
widely spread though there is a growing attention.
But there were a number of people who have
referred to systems thinking like Rittel, Alexander
(1964), Harold Nelson and Erik Stolterman (2003)
Glanville (1994) Jonas (1996) and others. Though
a handful design thinkers have made some
substantial contributions to systems thinking in
general, hardly anybody has developed a systems
practice from within design, specially informed by
design thinking and design practice. This is
remarkable when we compare us with other fields
where proprietary adaptations of systems
perspectives are normal. We find those in
engineering, sociology, management, military
operations, psychology, economy etc. But not in
design. When we want to build the proprietary
version of systems thinking and systems practice in
design we need to build on the inherent abilities of
designers to cope with complex problems.
FRAMEWORK
Parts of this new framework of SOD has been
defined in earlier publications and will only be
referred to very shortly here (Sevaldson, 2008b,
Sevaldson, 2009b, Sevaldson, 2009a, Sevaldson et
al., 2010, Sevaldson and Vavik, 2010). Its
theoretical basis is found in systems theories
especially Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland,
2000), Critical Systems Thinking (Ulrich, 2000,
Midgley, 2000) and Systems Architecting
mentioned before, and especially in the reinvention
of diagramming in architecture as a generative tool
(Allen, 1999, Berkel and Bos, 1999, Davidson et
al., 1998, Eisenman, 1999, Massumi, 1998,
Sevaldson, 1999a, Somol, 1998, Bettum and
Hensel, 2000). This shift freed the diagram from
sheer representation and clarified its potential for
being a central device in generative and creative
work.
SOD brings together these different design and
systems practices with Critical Systems Thinking,
foresight and scenario thinking. Critical Systems
Thinking applies different systems frameworks
critically in relation to what purpose they are
serving. Design practice has especially much to
contribute to established systems thinking.
Significant is the ability to incubate and synthesise
solutions within fields and applications where there
are no singular and clear responses to be found, and
where the value of responses is evaluated iteratively
through practice and by gathering experience,
expertise and intuition over time.
METHODS
The work presented below is Research by Design
conducted over the last years by the author,
colleagues and students at the Oslo School of
Architecture and Design and in the framework of
the OCEAN design research association. In an
Nordic Design Research Conference 2011 Helsinki www.nordes.org
earlier paper the author has described seven modes
of practice research in design (Sevaldson, 2010).
While earlier studies were of the type six,
Experimental Design Practice, where the practice
is experimentally changed and modified to explore
and develop specified investigations, research
questions or effects the research into Systems
Oriented Design is of type seven. This is The
inductive and iterative theory-driven & theory-
driving experimental design research practice
(pp.28). This indicates that the development of a
new design technique is conducted in an intimate
relation between different modes of practice and
different modes of reflection. For further
elaboration on Research by Design methods and
perspectives please review these publications
(Sevaldson, 2000, Sevaldson, 1999b, Sevaldson,
2010).
It is from the practice of GIGA-mapping that we
have gathered the experience we needed to start
systematising it in this paper. The approach to
analyse this research by design is a soft
categorizing of the different maps we have
produced with students and colleagues and business
associates. The sorting is done according to two
types of criteria: the structural and graphical type of
maps and the functional usage of the maps.
GIGA-MAPPING: VISUALISING FOR
COMPLEXITY
One of the most important, but also
underdeveloped, advantages of designers regarding
design for complexity is that they have special
abilities to use visualisation as tools for analyses, as
process tools and for communication. Visualisation
and visual thinking has increased in importance
after design computing has become standard
(Sevaldson, 2001). Visualisation in design is used
for representation, drawing sketches and renderings
of possible solutions. More recently visualisation in
design has been inspired by information
visualisation and visualisation of dynamic actions
like e.g. service design blue prints and story boards.
Most of these applications and other uses of
diagramming in design do have specific limitations
to theme and scope. Service design blue prints are
mostly framed by the emerging disciplinary
boundaries. Information visualisation as a field is
almost entirely concerned with communication and
less with processes. The use of diagrams in design
projects as well as in design research is not well
developed and in many cases there is a wide spread
misuse of diagrams like the Venn diagrams or
Pournelle diagrams leading to oversimplification of
complex problems.
With GIGA-mapping we intend to brake these
diagramming clichés as well as other schemata and
prejudices. GIGA-mapping is a tool to increase and
aid our capacity to grasp and work with super
complexity. Visualisation skills can also be used in
more abstract phases of the processes. Fields of
knowledge can be visualised so that a better
overview is achieved. The complexity of a problem
can be mapped out and visualised. Structures of
systems and processes can be diagrammed. Very
valuable are the tentative iterative “not-always-
knowing-what-one-is-doing” states of sketching
and visualisation. The potential of true visual
thinking emerges not only from documenting
thoughts but by visualising and dynamically
forming the analyses and developing the thinking
from the visualisation. Generative visualisation is
one of the central advantages of the designer.
THE RELATION TO OTHER WAYS OF
DIAGRAMMING
GIGA-mapping is nothing principally new. We find
similar approaches like mind mapping or concept
mapping. Especially the Rich Picture introduced by
Checkland (1981) is relevant as a predecessor of
GIGA-mapping, especially because it was
introduced as a means of working with Soft
Systems Methodology, e.g. human activity systems.
The intentions of the Rich Picture are pretty much
similar to the ones of GIGA-mapping. The
difference are qualitative and quantitative rather
than principal. They are found in the practice. The
way the Rich Picture is practised is still quite
limited in scope and numbers of issues on the plate.
Its main aim is to create an overview, ordering and
simplification. Also the Rich Picture is mainly
practised as an illustrated network diagram.
GIGA-mapping breaks the barriers of information
quantity by separating the process tasks and the
communication tasks. The GIGA-map needs in its
first phases only to communicate to its creators.
This allows for a dramatic increase of information
amount, since creating the map internalizes far
larger information amounts than what would be the
case when approaching it as an outsider. Also the
graphic means and the designer’s ability are central.
The GIGA-map is regarded as a design artefact
itself. This nested design process has proven to be
very efficient in getting at grips at a higher level of
complexity.
Another way that GIGA-maps might differ is in the
fact that they should layer many types of
information. Categorically separated information
channels needs to be interrelated.
Yet another difference is the multi scalar approach
in GIGA-mapping, spanning from the global scale
down to small details.
RUPTURES IN THE DESIGN PROCESS
A central aspect of working with very complex
tasks is to keep as many aspects of a problem field
in play for as long as possible throughout the
process. A natural progression in the design process
is narrowing down aspects and possible solutions
towards the end of the process where the windows
of opportunities are closing and when the resources
invested are increasing and errors would have
Nordic Design Research Conference 2011 Helsinki www.nordes.org
increasingly serious consequences. This process is
often hampered with problems. One problem is that
the amount of information is so large that not
everything is properly taken into consideration.
Small issues that seem unimportant can become
crucial for the process at certain moments. If they
are forgotten because of sheer information
overload, the result can be a costly rupture in the
process. Another typical rupture may occur when
the client organisation is not understood properly.
Different sections of the organisation are not
always well coordinated which can lead to ruptures
in the design process. An early anchoring of the
project in the relevant sections of the organisation
can be crucial. Such sections would be marketing,
economic, strategic management, technology and
production.
Another example of ruptures is caused by problems
occurring in the implementation phase when the
product or service system is to be launched into the
real world where it becomes a player in complex
emergent systems like stock markets, trends, raw
material markets etc. A careful early forecasting of
the implementation phase and investigations into
worst case scenarios and risk evaluation might
induce early interventions in the design that could
prevent some of these problems.
To help avoid such ruptures, and to engage with as
many as possible issues and keep them in the play
as long as possible, the author has developed the
concept of the Rich Design Space (Sevaldson,
2008a). GIGA-maps are the central device in the
Rich Research Space which includes social spaces,
media spaces and physical spaces. All information
throughout the process needs always to be highly
accessible to remain active for a longer period in
the process. This allows back tracking and
rechecking information at any time to reduce risks
of errors.
Designing “builds” material for decision making.
This material is both textual and visual, abstract and
figurative. The complex information in a design
process should be “alive” throughout larger parts
of the process ether spontaneously or at checkpoints
or iterations.. This means that designing generates
information that will modulate itself along the
process.
Re-examining the design material at points of
iteration will help secure that the information is
brought into play and developed while it is updated
and re-understood through the designing process
(Fig. 2).
GIGA-mapping is the central tool for such
sampling, re-aligning and synchronizing of
complex information through out the design
process.
Needless to say the suggested techniques will not
entirely remove any ruptures, but they ensure that a
proper effort is made to avoid them as much as
possible or to be prepared for them should they
occur.
Fig 2: Diagram of a guided process for design process iterations. The spiral diagram indicates how the design process went through four
iterations where the same themes or issues where rechecked. These were Project description, Ideas, Research, Matrix, Dinners, Sketches /
testing, Evaluation and Specification. Not all of these were re-examined for each iteration. Some issues required more rework i n the iteration
and the rework would vary in different stages. This diagram was directly used as a process tool to check each stage in iterations. Zoom in to
see details. (Students: Balder Onarheim, Pål Espensen, 2008)
Nordic Design Research Conference 2011 Helsinki www.nordes.org
Nordic Design Research Conference 2011 Helsinki www.nordes.org
BEYOND THE HORIZON
GIGA-maps are ultimately tools for drawing
systems boundaries. Boundaries are needed to
frame the system. They define the simplified and
manageable framework for the design intervention.
But simplification is often done too early and too
quickly. Before one can draw the boundary of a
system or frame the problem we need to unfold the
field way beyond what we assume is the horizon of
relevance. Only when we know the landscape past
that horizon we can withdraw and draw the
boundary in an informed manner. Small things far
out on a chain of effects can become crucial to
make a project live. We need to find those crucial
triggers that are not immediately visible. GIGA-
mapping ensures that all efforts are taken to track
down what is relevant and to include it in the
design. This approach is our answer to boundary
critique, a well known perspective in systems
thinking (Midgley, 2000).
TYPES OF GIGA-MAPPING
There is no definite number of types of GIGA-
maps. I arrived at a tentative list of maps by going
through a large number of GIGA-mapping
exercises. It is possible and probably beneficial
sometimes to design a new type specially adapted
to the problem at hand. Possible mappings include:
• Hierarchical maps: Mind maps
• Non-hierarchical maps: Concept maps
• Time based maps: Gantt
• Time based maps: Timelines (non-Gantt)
• Time based maps: “Key Frame Mapping”
• Time based maps: Flow charts and similar.
• Time based maps: Digital animated maps.
• Time based mapping: Story boards.
• Image maps: Qualitative information in
maps,
• Images, video,s soundtracks.
• Spatial maps: Geographic maps or
construction plans. Flow patterns.
• Intensity maps: Gradients and
interpolation of continuous intensity fields.
• Mixed maps
USAGE OF GIGA-MAPPING
Our bottom up and practice based research on
GIGA-maps compiled a possible list of the
following functions:
• Learning: Mapping and coordinating pre-
existing knowledge.
• Research: Including and organizing
knowledge gained from targeted research.
• Imagination: Generative, iterative design.
• Management: Working with the involved
organisation as a complex social organism.
• Event mapping: Working with
orchestrating of complex events.
• Planning: Registering, describing and
modifying complex processes.
• Innovation: Defining areas and points for
intervention and innovation.
• Implementation: Engaging in all details
and agents ecologies and environments of
complex implementation processes.
A MATRIX OF GIGA-MAPS
The matrix below shows how the different mapping
types have been preferably combined with the
different themes (Fig.3).
Nordic Design Research Conference 2011 Helsinki www.nordes.org
Research Learning Generative Management Event mapping Planning Innovation Implementation
Mind maps X X
Concept maps X X X X
Gantt diagrams X X X X
Timelines X X X X X X
Key frames X X X X
Flowcharts X X
Animations X X X
Story boards X X X X X
Image maps X X X X
Spatial maps X X X X X
Intensity maps X X X X
Mixed maps X X X X X X X X
Fig. 3: The matrix shows the different types of design activities and types of maps and suggests what type of map is best suited for what
activity. This is suggestive and not to be taken as a rule.
ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS OF GIGA-MAPPING
The matrix is far from exhausting the functions of
GIGA-mapping. There are many functions that are
generic and applicable across all types of maps.
Amongst them are: 1) Building expert networks and
communicating with them, mapping a field
involving stakeholders; the GIGA-map can be used
to define where expert knowledge is needed; 2)
Defining the boundaries of a system in an informed
manner as mentioned before; and 3) Visualisation
and communication of the final projects.
APPLICATION AREAS
In the following section we will go through a series
of examples to demonstrate some of the usage areas
mentioned in the matrix. The samples are following
the same order as the matrix above. Because of
issues of confidentiality most of the mappings with
professionals cannot be shown.
RESEARCH
A good way to build knowledge for a project is to
start with mapping out the things one already
knows and what one assumes. This is a superior
tool to register and coordinate knowledge form
several collaborators and to jump-start the project.
When this first mapping is done the maps are used
as starting platforms to do literature and internet
search for missing information which is filled into
the map. The next step is to define spots and areas
where more substantial knowledge is needed. This
indicates how to compose an ideal expert network
for the project and helps meeting the experts well-
prepared. New versions of the mapping are
produced including the experts contribution. Then
the maps are used to define zoom in areas and zoom
out areas. These are areas where a shift in
resolution is needed to grasp more detailed insight
or to get a more global overview. Finally areas for
innovation are searched for.
Example: Research mapping for the design of an
electric car: The example shows the areas that need
to be researched in a design process for an electrical
car (Fig. 4). The diagram does not show the
necessary research itself but it shows the themes
that need to be researched. The unique quality of
this map is that it immediately gives an overview of
the extent of the task and then will help planning
the research phase in a more realistic manner and it
ensures that the needed knowledge level is achieved
as fast as possible. It also helps to sort the research
into the areas that need to be researched in depth
and those where one can rely more on experts.
Fig. 4: Research mapping: The GIGA-map shows the mapping of the needed research to design an electric car. The map shows all the
market-related, cultural, user-related inputs to the left and the technological requirements to the right, forming a double mind map with two
focal centres. The map was first developed in the soft ware MindMap and later refined in Illustrator. Zoom in to study details. The visibility
of the details is limited in this format but it gives an impression of the amount of information that was included. (Students: Thor Henrik
Bruun and Fredrik Bostad, 2010)
.
Nordic Design Research Conference 2011 Helsinki www.nordes.org
LEARNING
GIGA-mapping and a systems-oriented approach is
very useful for extreme learning situations. It helps
to map out the knowledge field early, to jump-start
targeted quick research and to start with
establishing the expert network early. GIGA-
mapping helps to take an active role with the
experts and to pose well-grounded questions. It also
helps to make scenarios for problems one might
face ahead.
Example: Story porcelain lamps. The case of the
porcelain lamp indicates a very fast learning
process, where a new material technology had to be
learned and where there was no time for trial and
error (Fig.5). The learning process started with,
and was very much dependent on, a “meta-map”
that depicted a narrative travel through the learning
process. The challenges were extreme: To learn a
very difficult material and material technology, to
design a product for this material, to produce molds
and prototypes and to test sandblasting on the
material to create patterns, something that hardly
was done before in this way. The early
establishment of an expert network was crucial.
Though the experts initially were very skeptical to
the success of the project, the process was
successful and the porcelain Lamps produced
within the deadline, the Milan Fair 2010.
Fig. 5: The map shows the interlinking of several stages and maps in a systems oriented learning process. A for the student unknown material
(porcelain) was researched and learned in an exceptionally short time. Porcelain is a very difficult material and the learning process was
successful so that the final product, a lamp, was exhibited at the Milan fair after a period of only three months. The map shows start-up
activities, research, experts and risk evaluation, materials and technology and evaluation activities. It also demonstrates a mixing of different
mapping principles applied at different stages of the design process. Zoom in to see details. (Master’s student: Ida Noemi Vidal, with Vibeke
Skar ,2011)
Nordic Design Research Conference 2011 Helsinki www.nordes.org
GENERATIVE DIAGRAMMING
Generative dynamic diagramming is used for
mapping out and manipulating information that is
imaginative and will form structural bases for
design. Generative dynamic diagramming is closely
tied to design computing, and animation processes.
This emphasises the flexible and dynamic features
of the information field. Also such diagrams often
operate on field intensities rather than on entities
and relations.
This strand of research is now about to be taken up
again and related to GIGA-mapping in future
planned projects.
Example: Ambient Amplifiers (Sevaldson and
Duong, 2000a). This urban project was based on
seed-information that was tentatively fed into a
process of generative diagramming. Then these
diagrams were interpreted and formed the template
for design intervention. The process of
interpretation was highly informed by an extensive
research of the site (Sevaldson and Duong, 2000b)
touching all kinds of issues from social structures,
topographical features, political intentions and
understanding the main actors at the site (Fig. 6).
The uniqueness of this approach is bringing
together generative visualisation based processes
with large amounts of real life information.
Fig. 6: Ambient Amplifiers: The project started with un-programmed spatial structures generated from an intricate setup of particle
animations derived from the topographic model of the site and the influence of the main institutions (top row). Through several graphic
stages (second row) the generative diagrams were slowly programmed by using them to inform the design interventions for the site (third
row). These were a freely distributed path / play surface (fourth row, dark blue) a programmable road system (light blue and red) a flexible
fence to the botanical gardens (white) and a system of “islands” (yellow) as institutional devices for collaboration between actors on the site.
These are shown in the four different stages in the lower row. This process of interpretation was informed by a big amount of back ground
information. (Author, 2000).
Nordic Design Research Conference 2011 Helsinki www.nordes.org
MANAGEMENT
GIGA-mapping, and especially time-line mapping showed to be an excellent tool for meetings that are
addressing especially complex issues, like strategic discussions, cooperation and processes. The meeting format
allows dropping a written agenda. By only agreeing upon a theme the issues are unfolded in collaboration around
the map. The meeting becomes open ended but still focussed and communication is very much eased when the
map is used actively.
GIGA-mapping is used with success in groups where they help to establish a shared image of the complex field
at hand. Mapping is then a social activity where all should contribute.
Example: Mapping of research landscape at Institute of Design Oslo School of Architecture and Design. The
mapping produced a new information access to the richness of the research landscape. The first map was
organised in a clustered fashion that goes beyond the established types of maps. On the global level it is
structured like a concept map and on the local level, for each cluster built up around each project, it is organised
like a mind map (Fig. 7). It revealed the complexity of each research project and its layering and how they are
theme-wise related. It created the bases for more synergies and the foundation for building overviews,
consensus, relate knowledge activities, for resourcing and to plan for future projects (Fig. 8). The process
demonstrates how different types of maps are useful to depict the same information and read it in different ways.
Fig. 7: GIGA-map that was a product of a two hours workshop unfolding the complexity of the research activities at the Institute of Design at
AHO. Each project (depicted in black frames) is surrounded with a network of collaborators, experts and financing bodies. Zoom in to see
details. (Design research colleagues, AHO, 2010).
Nordic Design Research Conference 2011 Helsinki www.nordes.org
Fig. 8: At a later stage the projects where mapped along a time line in a “quasi-Gantt” diagram. This would draw the picture in a different
way, loosing some information but displaying other. (Design research colleagues, AHO, Adrian Paulsen, 2010).
Nordic Design Research Conference 2011 Helsinki www.nordes.org
EVENT MAPPING
Mapping out events on spatial maps will provide
the information needed to create well-timed
experiences and to produce worst-case scenarios to
prevent disasters from e.g. crowding.
Example: Miniøya festival for children. In the
Music festival for children it was essential to avoid
crowding. Therefore the project intended to plan for
a careful orchestrating of resources and attractors
throughout the event. When a special popular group
was on the stage several other actors were triggered
to prevent over-crowding. Additional attractors
where activated elsewhere to “stretch” the field of
spectators so to avoid too dense crowding. Also the
security staff was directed to the needed points to
be ready for preventive action. It was possible to
forecast and orchestrate the distribution and
densification of crowding by looking at the spatial
map and a time line with the activity program of the
festival simultaneously. The achievements and
innovations were: Crowd management through
attraction control and balancing. The activation of
several operational levels when needed. Just-in-
time security management. Mapping of events in
the form of snapshots was developed further and
later lead to the concept of “Key Frame Mapping”
(Fig. 9).
Fig. 9: Event mapping in scenario snapshots. “Key Frame Mapping” showing many different imaginable scenarios of crowding on a festival
for children. Each “key frame” indicates a particular scenario between which it is possible to interpolate. Zoom in to study the variations.
(Student: Ingunn Hesselberg, 2009)
Nordic Design Research Conference 2011 Helsinki www.nordes.org
SEQUENTIAL ANALYSES AND SCENARIOS
The mapping out and unfolding of complex
sequentially ordered scenarios can be diagrammed
in several additional ways. Typical are Gantt
diagrams, Flow charts and Pert diagrams. Also
casual loop diagrams are used to find feedback
loops. Most often one is better off in a design
project to disregard strict diagramming rules like
the flow diagram conventions.
Example: A suggestion for an oil spill prevention
system based on risk calculation and social
networking. The example shows a diagram that is
treating sequential analyses in a designed way
where rich information is combined. The analytic
and systemic approach led to an innovative solution
that coordinates all stakeholders and that makes risk
evaluation accessible and useful so that the
stakeholders can act for prevention rather than for
repairing damages (Fig. 10).
Fig. 10: The GIGA-map shows a sequence of a typical oil spill disaster. This sequence is the key to map out and understand all actors,
communication channels, technology and procedures involved and to pose critical questions for improving the response to oil spill disasters.
This chart takes some features of the traditional flow chart breaks its conventions and adds new information in the form of a mind map
structure and additional diagrams. (Student: Adrian Paulsen, 2010
Nordic Design Research Conference 2011 Helsinki www.nordes.org
PLANNING
GIGA-mapping is very useful for super-complex
planning of processes.
Example: Training software. The intention in this
case was to use the addictive features of computer
games for reinforcing physical activity. Levelling
points, goals, social networking and status are built
into the game in a similar way as in a massive multi
player on-line game. The orchestrating of progress
was developed along a complex mixed time line
diagram. The result was an innovative genre-
blending new software. Mixed time line diagrams
are useful to work with when orchestrating complex
multi-layered events that stretch over a long period
of time (Fig. 11). (Student: Erik Falk Petersen).
Fig. 11: The shown GIGA-map is based on a Gantt diagram principle but has added qualitative information. The
map, arranged along a time line, mixes elements from Gantt with other diagramming and qualitative information
in the form of images. Zoom in to see details. (Student: Erik Falk Petersen, 2009).
INNOVATION
GIGA-mapping leads to innovation because of the
unfolding of potential points of interventions.
Example: Fire Rehearsal Centre. Through GIGA-
mapping the student discovered the psychological
aspect of fire prevention equipment. This
equipment is by most people used very rarely or
never. But it still plays a role even when not in use
by providing a psychological effect of security.
Through GIGA-mapping the focus-point was
moved from the fire situation to a point before an
eventual fire. This could easily become a fire
prevention project, but the new angle of approach
was the psychological factor. By addressing the
user’s knowledge and skill the feeling of security
was improved by rehearsing (Fig. 12).
The result was a genre-crossing mobile edutainment
centre for practising and testing all kinds of fire
equipment (Fig. 13). A trustworthy financial model
included co-financing from insurance companies,
product manufacturers, fire prevention
organisations, government and individual users of
the centre. (Student: Heidi Borthne).
Nordic Design Research Conference 2011 Helsinki www.nordes.org
Fig. 12: The GIGA-map to the left shows the initial research where the redesign of fire products was at stakes. The systems analyses revealed
other points for innovation with a bigger potential for having an impact. Especially the psychological factor was identified as important. The
focus was moved towards prevention and education addressing the psychological factor by providing confidence. The GIGA-map to the right
is redesigned with this new focus. The resulting new map was different from the original one in only a few areas. Zoom in to see more
details. Some information is too small to see in this format. (Student: Heidi Borthne, 2009)
Fig. 13: The suggested training centre. This was a mobile unit designed to fit into a standard container size. Activities like testing escape
ladders and ropes, jumping onto fire escape cushions and finding the way in smoke filled labyrinths are indicated. (Student: Heidi Borthne,
2009)
Nordic Design Research Conference 2011 Helsinki www.nordes.org
IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation processes are super-complex
because it is in this process the design intervention
meets real life. GIGA-mapping is useful for
creating very complex implementation scenarios.
Examples: Customized aid for disabled children in
development countries. In this unique concept,
learning processes in developed countries and
developing countries are tied together, to create
synergies and to enable mutual knowledge transfer.
The aim is to provide highly customized aid for
disabled children. The higher education system in
Norway is suggested to cooperate with local
organizations and homes for disabled in Uganda to
achieve this. The implementation is designed down
to the smallest detail in a circular GIGA-map
(Fig.14). It is circular because the process is started
with repetitive iterations engaging in new sites over
time.
Fig. 14: Synergistic education system for disabled children in developing countries. The implementation follows a series of defined steps and
is restarts with reusing experience for the next project when finalized. (Student: Terese Charlotte Aarland, 2009)
Nordic Design Research Conference 2011 Helsinki www.nordes.org
CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
The research by design presented here has generated
new knowledge on visualization of super-complexity in
design. GIGA-maps are rich multi-layered design
artefacts that integrate systems thinking with designing
as a way of developing and internalizing an
understanding of a complex field. It also is clear that the
research needs further development and registration.
Still some major realisations have been made and tasks
for further investigations are uncovered. These will be
reported on in forthcoming publications.
Typically, the shown examples are not “pure”. They are
categorised according to their most dominating feature,
but it is important to recognise that all examples do
break established diagramming conventions. As a
consequence, they mix and juxtapose information sets
and ways of visualising this information.
Conventional diagrams (with numerous exceptions) tend
to represent information in far too limited ways. They
work like diagrammatic “strait jackets” on the
information because they tend to lead towards a tidy
sorting and “over-designing” of the information. The
conventions strive for categorical clarity on the cost of
interlinked richness. Their main purpose is to
communicate information. This limitation is not useful
when dealing with super-complexity as a process, where
much larger complexities can be handled by the
involved parties. Mixed diagramming techniques and
frequently inventing new ways of depicting information
are crucial in GIGA-mapping.
The innovations found in the processes and modes of
mapping are not only that very rich diagramming and
visualisation are useful in complex processes, compared
to less rich visualisation, but that they also demonstrate
the necessity of interconnecting and juxtaposing
information that is categorically separate, and to
investigate and create their connections. Investigation,
research, involvement, action, generation and creativity
are interlinked and facilitated through the GIGA-map.
GIGA-mapping has shown, by ways of varied Research
by Design experiments that it can play an important role
in the challenges increasing complexity poses to
designers. It is a tool for generating concepts that are
very well rooted in real life conditions. It incorporates
design thinking and intuitive approaches to systems
thinking and it is a good tool for rapid learning and for
collaboration.
Future challenges are:
Pedagogical challenges: The challenges of teaching
design students to work with and within super-
complexity needs further addressing. These problems
have been touched upon earlier (Sevaldson, 2008b). These
problems seem partly to be on an individual level (individuals
vary greatly in their ability to cope with super-complexity and
systems thinking) partly in the field (design education is not
geared towards systems thinking) and in the specifically
developed techniques (e.g. SOD needs better pedagogical
approaches).
Development of practice: The practice of GIGA-
mapping is not yet fully developed and errors and
pitfalls not fully investigated. Though some experience
that is not reported here is registered, it needs further
research.
Validification: GIGA-mapping needs to be fully tested
and further developed in business and out of the
academic context. The reported research is moving ever
closer to the state of real life implementation and has
already been tested amongst consultants and in
companies, and will be tested in a large innovation
project in the near future.
Synthesis: A critical point is the process off deriving
emergent points of interventions potential innovations
and synthesising new solutions and synergies form the
maps. Though quite some achievements have been
reported it still needs to be reported in a larger amount
and to a deeper degree.
Building criticality: The GIGA-mapping technique
would benefit from a critical modus e.g. a way of
triangulating different information sets to reach more
robust renderings of super-complexity. Though this is
already addressed within the multiplicity of GIGA-
mapping and the relations to Critical Systems Thinking,
this needs further development.
Additional development of the techniques needs to be
reported. Amongst this is the further development of
GIGA-mapping techniques according to the following
lines:
• An investigation and further recapturing of generative
dynamic diagramming techniques and how they can
better merge with the current developed GIGA-
mapping.
• Further investigation into the use of software for
GIGA-mapping, including the benefits of using
interactive maps and animation.
• Reporting on the practice of GIGA-mapping where
many approaches and techniques have tentatively been
defined and tried. These need further development and
systematisation to prescribe and open out for practices
of GIGA-mapping in design.
This paper presented a series of cases where the ability
to handle large amounts of information has been shown
to be beneficial for innovative yet realistic design
suggestions. The training of how to handle super-
complexity is urgent within design so as to meet the
challenges posed by globalization and sustainability.
Improving these abilities and skills are crucial for
designers to be able to make substantial contributions to
society and in the process also gain in their own
importance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my colleagues at the Oslo School
of Architecture and Design especially Michael Hensel
for many years of support and valuable comments and
Andrew Morrison for valuable comments and always
being a willing reader.
Nordic Design Research Conference 2011 Helsinki www.nordes.org
REFERENCES
Ackoff, R. and R. Sheldon (2003) Redesigning Society.
Stanford University Press
Alexander C. (1964) Notes on the Synthesis of Form.
Cambridge Massachusets, Harvard University
Press.
Allen, S. 1999. Diagrams Matter. ANY, 23.
Arnheim, R. 1969. Visual Thinking, Berkeley,
University of California Press.
Berkel, B. V. & Bos, C. 1999. Diagrams - Interactive
Instruments in Operation. ANY, 23.
Bettum, J. & Hensel, M. 2000. Channeling Systems:
Dynamic Processes and Digital time-based
Methods in Urban Design. Contemporary
Processes in Architecture. AD Whiley.
Brown, T. & Katz, B. 2009. Change by design : how
design thinking transforms organizations and
inspires innovation, New York, Harper
Business.
Buchanan, R. 1992. Wicked Problems in Design
Thinking. Design Issues, 8, 5-21.
Checkland P. 1981 Systems Theory, Systems Practice,
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons LTD
Checkland, P. 2000. Soft Systems Methodology: a 30-
year retrospective. In: Checkland, P. (ed.)
Systems Thinking, Systems Practice.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons LTD.
Cross, N. 2007. Designerly Ways of Knowing, Basel,
Birkhäuser.
Cross, N. 2011. Design thinking: understanding how
designers think and work, Oxford, Berg
Publishers.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1996. Creativity, Flow and the
Psychology of Discovery and Invention, New
York, HarperCollins.
Davidson, C. C., Berkel, B. V., Bos, C. & Henninger, P.
(eds.) 1998. Diagram Work, New York,
Anyone Corporation.
Eisenman, P. 1999. Diagram Diaries, New York,
UNIVERSE.
Glanville, R. 1994. A Ship without a Rudder [Online].
Southsea: CybernEthics Research. Available:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.37.7453&rep=rep1&type=pdf
[Accessed 2010].
Jonas W. (1996) Systems Thinking in Industrial Design.
Paper presented at Systems Dynamics,
Cmbridge Massachusets.
Lockwood, T. 2010. Design thinking : integrating
innovation, customer experience and brand
value, New York, Allworth Press.
Maier, M. W. & Rechtin, E. 2000. The Art of Systems
Architecture, Boca Raton, CRC Press.
Massumi, B. 1998. The Diagram as Technique of
Existence. Any, 23, 42-47.
Nelson, H. G. and E. Stolterman The Design Way:
Intentional change in an unpredictable world:
foundations and fundamentals of design
competence. Englewood Cliffs, Educational
Technology
McCandless, D. 2009. Information is Beautiful, London,
Collins.
Midgley, G. 2000. Systems Intervention: Philosophy,
Methodology, and Practice, New York, Kluver
Academic / Plenum Publishers.
OCEAN design research association. 1995. www.ocean-
designresearch.net [Online].
Available:Sevaldson [Accessed 1995].
Rechtin, E. 1999. Systems Architecting of
Organisations: Why Eagles Can't Swim, Boca
Raton, Florida, CRC Press LLC.
Rittel, H. W. J. & Webber, M. M. 1973. Dilemmas in a
General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences,
4, 155-169.
Sevaldson, B. 1999a. Dynamic Generative Diagrams.
In: eCAADe conference, Weimar. 273-276.
Sevaldson, B. 1999b. Research Design in Design
Research. In: Cumulus Conference, 12-16
April, Rome. Cumulus.
Sevaldson, B. 2000. The Integrated Conglomerate
Approach: A Suggestion for a Generic Model
of Design Research. In: Durling, D. &
Friedman, K. (eds.) Proceedings of the
conference Doctoral Education in Design:
Foundations for the Future, 8-12 July 2000, La
Clusaz, France. Stoke-on-Trent: Staffordshire
University Press.
Sevaldson, B. 2001. The Renaissance of Visual
Thinking. Konference om Arkitekturforskning
og IT, Aarhus School of Architecture, Aarhus,
Nordisk Forening for Arkitketurforskning.
Sevaldson B. 2005 Developing Digital Design
Techniques, Oslo School of Architecture and
Design, Oslo.
Sevaldson, B. 2008a. Rich Research Space.
FORMakademisk, 1,1.
http://www.formakademisk.org/index.php/form
akademisk/article/view/17
Sevaldson, B. 2008b. A System Approach to Design
Learning. In: Menges, A. (ed.) Systemisches
Denken und Integrales Entwerfen / System
thinking and Integral Design. Offenbach:
Präsident der Hochschule für Gestaltung
Offenbach am Main.
Sevaldson, B. 2009a. Systems Oriented Design [Online].
Available:
http://www.systemsorienteddesign.net
[Accessed 2009].
Sevaldson, B. 2009b. Why should we and how can we
make the design process more complex? In:
Berg, M. L. (ed.) Fremtid Formes / Shaping
Futures. Oslo: Oslo School of Architecture and
Design.
Sevaldson, B. 2010. Discussions and Movements in
Design Research: A systems approach to
practice research in design. FORMakademisk,
3, 1.
http://www.formakademisk.org/index.php/form
akademisk/article/view/62/85
Sevaldson, B. & Duong, P. 2000a. Ambient Amplifiers,
Oslo.
http://www.birger-
sevaldson.no/ambient_amplifiers/competition/
Sevaldson, B. & Duong, P. 2000b. Ambient Amplifiers
Intranet, Oslo.
Nordic Design Research Conference 2011 Helsinki www.nordes.org
http://www.birger-
sevaldson.no/ambient_amplifiers/
Sevaldson, B., Hensel, M. & Frostell, B. Year. Systems-
oriented Design and Sustainability. In:
CESCHIN, F., VEZZOLI, C. & ZHANG, J.,
eds. Sustainability in Design: NOW!, 29th
October to 1st November 2010 Bangalore.
Greenleave Publishers, 465-474.
Sevaldson, B. & Vavik, T. 2010. Exploring relations
between Ergonomics and Systems Oriented
Design NES 2010. Proactive Ergonomics -
implementation of ergonomics in planning of
jobs, tasks, systems and environments.
Stavanger: Nordic Ergonomic Society.
Somol, R. E. 1998. The Diagram of Matter, New York,
Any Magazine.
Tufte, E. R. 1983. The Visual Display of Quantitative
Information, Connecticut, Graphic Press.
Ulrich, W. 2000. Reflective Practice in the Civil
Society: the contribution of critical systemic
thinking. Reflective Practice, 1, 247-268.
Wallas, G. 1926. The Art of Thought, London,, J. Cape.
Nordic Design Research Conference 2011 Helsinki www.nordes.org
