Peter Jones, PhD OCAD University, Toronto

Co-design for Complexity: Deepening Design &

Systems Sciences

Publications Papers / Blog designdialogues.com Research sLab.ocad.ca Healthcare designforcare.com Practices Design / Research Redesign Dialogic Design globalagoras.org Products Cdling.com Procedures Consult ScienceDirect

designforcare.com

Peter Jones, Ph.D.

Senior Fellow, Strategic Innovation Lab Faculty of Design, Strategic Foresight & Innovation

SYSTEMS

Systems thinking draws from system theories. Tools & perspectives for understanding & reasoning. Don’t mistake the map (method) for territory. Theory guides everything in systems practice.

1.

Design practices generate concepts & intervene for change. Design sidesteps entrenched systems, unpredictable leaps. Creative orientations to products & services based more on human behavior & culture than systems understanding.

DESIGN

2.

SYSTEMS

3.

DESIGN

+ r

- b

Design Practice

x

Systems Theory

y

How can we enhance the outcomes that matter?

Creating an inquiring system … A collective anticipatory system … A dialogic social system

Our challenge seems to be “improving design practices by integrating best knowledge of systems thinking” – Do we really have that best knowledge? We’re at a bit of a new starting point & yet ... – Systemic problems go beyond planning & politics …

7 Systemic problems are real.

A second order cybernetics … By anticipating evolution in design practice we select for influences we envision helping in certain problems. • How close are we to those problems ? To understanding?

• How well can our clients perform outcomes from systemic

design? (i.e., how far do we go? Total service system design?)

• Can systemic solutions really “scale across”?

• What are the risks? Can we make things work? Or worse?

Systems tend to oppose their own design function.

How do we co-design systems with design?

– Systems & design thinking converge in cycles With each “methods movement” – Is a durable co-relationship emerging? – What perspectives of systems thinking? What theories & practices of design? What are the precedents? (Why did we stop?)

10

Where does design show in systems lineage?

Based on R. Horn, 2004, Adapted with permission.

11

Hugh Dubberly makes the case that design processes are embodiments of systems thinking.

Banathy (1997) advocated social systemics

as designing.

12

Happens to be a current conversation What do you think?

SYSTEMS

DESIGN

+ r

- b

Systems Theory

y

What systems theories are really applicable to complex design? What if they were enriched so that designers could employ them? What if systems sciences were strongly influenced by design?

14

SYSTEMS THINKING SEES DESIGN AS PROBLEM SOLVING INTERNALIZED IN SYSTEMS THEORY DESIGN IN SYSTEMS THINKING HAS NOT EVOLVED (As systemicists believe they are indeed designing) IF WE DON’T ACKNOWLEDGE, IT WON’T IMPROVE.

How Systems Appropriated Design

15

Systems & Cybernetics grew from scientific disciplines. Creative fields were not historically contributors. Systems theorists redefined design in Design Science terms. Simon Design Science (Sciences of Artificial) Fuller Comprehensive Design Science Warfield Generic Design Science (ISM) Christakis Dialogic Design Science (SDD) Banathy Social Systems Design By reframing design as intention, cybernetics assumed it captured relevant processes. Times change. Design has caught – and passed - systems thinking.

Underconceptualization goes both ways.

Tendency for design thinking to adopt system thinking as method.

Systems thinking popularized as a management practice • System dynamics is a positivist scientific paradigm • Externalizes systems as “out there” • Senge, Meadows ignored design thinking • Incompatible with social systems • Ackoff’s Idealized Design – was not methodical, not “design-

endorsed” • Designers in practice often use what works

& do not care about the pedigree

17

What Might We Do About It?

(Who are “we”?)

OK - What are the purposes of systems theory?

To understand phenomena in complex systems? To better communicate systemic patterns affecting social & ecological outcomes? To better organize sociotechnical systems?

To design better, socially preferable systems? That requires better design practice.

Recent ISSS papers on any design topic

2006 – 2011 1. Handling the variability of information processing in complex systems: an

information systems design perspective 2. Systems & design thinking: A conceptual framework for their integration 3. Systemic design for the recycling of solid and liquid organic waste and the

hydroponic growth of organic food: a natural cycle of life 4. Product design as a key to a business system perspective that promotes

sustainable forestry 5. Syntegral design: group-based creativity through aesthetic processes 2012: Toward the Integration of Visual Languages for Systemic Design

Design languages for systems theory

Design approaches differ from systems in many respects: • Successive approximations toward emerging goals • Continuous interpretation by multiple perspectives • Action-oriented, making artifacts & prototypes • Visual representations, from sketching to blueprints However we still lack good theory & practices of systemic design.

21

Design thinking also deals with complexity. Design must become more systemic – as we confront wicked problems. Complex domains have > stakeholders Design 1.0 Craft design, Advertising Design 2.0 Industrial, Products, Web Design 3.0 Organizational & institutional Design 4.0 Distributed social systems Mixed stakeholders

What are equivalent units in systems theory?

Adapted from Humantific with permission

Visual systems models

System Dynamics Causal loop diagrams Warfield Influence maps / directed graphs Checkland Soft Systems / Rich Pictures Boardman Systemigrams Robert Horn Infographics Recently?

23

Systemic Design in HEALTHCARE SERVICE

SYSTEMS

Arguments for re-designing system sciences

Service Systems – Integrated design of services with: • Customer-facing service • Sociotechnical systems (e.g. clinical practice) • Organizational resources & networks • IT & technology • Front-stage & back-stage operations • Complex business models

• Not service design as you know it. Think: Healthcare, Universities, Cities & Communities

25

Each level sets the context for activities in next unit

Units of system analysis AND design

Design / Systems pairs D4.0 Policy / Dialogic Design D3.0 Org Process / Social Systems, Panarchy D2.0 Practice & Information / Service Systems D1.0-2.0 Product, Comm / Activity Systems

26

A spectrum of experienced health services … Touches every system & level –

..as services become MORE COMPLEX

Atrial Fibrillation Care (visualized) Many health services treat chronic & complex illness as exceptions. Patients fall between the cracks & are shuttled around, getting fragmented care. By not adapting to the changing reality of the chronic demographic, costs rise as hospitals increase their exception cases.

Morra, et al (2010). Reconnecting the pieces to optimize care in Atrial Fibrillation in Ontario.

USER-CENTERED DESIGN is insufficient – reinforces existing systems for current users

28

Atrial Fibrillation Aftercare Pathway Human-Centered Design is not inherently systemic. Individual experience enhancement is an outcome of healthcare service.

VISUALIZATION is insufficient to design complexity.

29

Atrial Fibrillation System Redesign Human-centered Design is not inherently systemic. The improvement of individual experience is an effect in healthcare. Nice but not systemic. Service systems reinvent institutional practices & business models.

Morra, et al (2010). Reconnecting the pieces to optimize care in Atrial Fibrillation in Ontario.

30

Design / Systems pairs D4.0 Policy / Dialogic Design D3.0 Org Process / Social Systems, Panarchy D2.0 Practice & Information / Service Systems D1.0-2.0 Product, Comm / Activity Systems

Copyright © 2012, Peter Jones

Activity Systems Analysis / as Service Journey

S O - O

C

C

R

R

I

Service System Design / As Work Domain Analysis

32

Panarchy concepts - Organizational Systems

33

Dialogic Design for Policy Making

34

What do we (stakeholders selected for requisite variety) agree are the deep drivers resisting change in the Canadian healthcare system?

Common principles - systemics & design thinking

• Framing - Refraining from premature problem solving • Iterative inquiry • Human centered – Different contexts • By participants with stake in outcome • Selected for requisite variety to the problem • Dialogic process ( • Complexity embraced as reality of situation • Multiple design actions over time • Temporality is critical to decision / intervention

• Understanding systemics does not assume action. • Design actions need not be systemic in every case!

36

DESCRIPTIVE SYSTEMS METHODS

And DESIGNERLY PRACTICES

Interactive Sketching

unpacking the problem elements

38

Scenarios: • Timeline • Headlines • Milestones • Solutions

39

40

making sense through visualization & critiques

Flow & Feedback - Causal Loops as a Visual Language

41

Diagram of Practicing Physicians in Ontario Josina Vink, Jessica Mills, Phouphet Sihavong Social Systems project, Strategic Foresight & Innovation, OCAD U The average age of family physicians in Ontario is 52 years old. 9.8% of family physicians in Ontario practice in rural communities, where as 13% of Ontarians live in rural communities. One third of physicians in Canada practice family medicine, but to meet the need, it should be closer to one half of all physicians.

Uncovering root causes and Influence Mapping

42

Healthy Healthcare Oksana Kachur, Jonathan

Resnick, Karl Schroeder,

Social Systems project,

Strategic Foresight &

Innovation, OCAD U

What are the most significant issues affecting the quality of healthcare in Ontario? The outcome of this Interpretive Structural Modelling session was the influence map shown.

Influence Mapping and points of intervention

43

Dialogic Design methodology Map generated in collaboration by Warfield’s Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) model with Cognisystem II Intervention via deep drivers

the GIGAMAP as a visual synthesis

44

GIGAMAPPING

45

Rheinfrank, J. and Evenson, S. From Winograd, Terry. 1996. Bringing design to software. New York: Addison-Wesley.

Design Languages for Systems Methods

Rheinfrank, J. and Evenson, S. From Winograd, Terry. 1996. Bringing design to software.

47

“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.”

Birger Sevaldson, Oslo School Of Architecture & Design Giga-Mapping: Visualisation For Complexity & Systems Thinking In Design

Nordic Design Research Conference 2011

why has Systems Thinking ignored Design?

Systems principles in a design context

Implications for PEDAGOGY

OCADU MDes in Strategic Foresight & Innovation Understanding Systems & Systemic Design

Originally 2 courses: 6 modules, 2 projects

• Systems concepts System mapping selected problem • Natural systems Mapping studio • Social systems & service systems Gigamapping studio • Social systems design methods Systemic design research • Structured dialogic design SDD lab • Final team project based on systemic design research

Learning systems principles in a design context

Implications for PEDAGOGY

Course in OCADU Strategic Foresight & Innovation MDes: Understanding Systems & Systemic Design

• Systems concepts Gharajedaghi & Meadows texts + Depth readings • Natural systems Iterative system mapping Ostrom, Hollings • Social systems & service systems Small team map & analysis Rittel, Buchanan

• Social systems & design methods Gigamapping Beer, Spohrer, Warfield

• Structured dialogic design Global problematique Christakis, Ozbekhan

• Social / service system design project

Build on a base of design thinking. Visual language integrated throughout, required with every project. Builds base for systemic design for foresight-led innovation.

Peter Jones, PhD Jeremy Bowes, AOCA OCAD University, Toronto OCADU

Thanks.

Peter Jones, PhD @redesign OCAD University Strategic Innovation Lab sLab.ocadu.ca