6 ms·

Please don’t use Design Thinking. Design Thinking is a subset of Systems Thinking (this is the polite interpretation). Design Thinking does with its sole exis

by gond 8mo ago

Please don’t use Design Thinking. Design Thinking is a subset of Systems Thinking (this is the polite interpretation). Design Thinking does with its sole existence what Systems Thinking tried to avoid: Another category to put stuff into, divide and conquer. It is an over-simplified version of the original theories. Better: Jump directly to Systems Thinking, Cybernetics and Systems Theory (and if measurements are more your thing, even try System Dynamics). I can only recommend that anyone interested in this topic take a look at the work of one of the masters of Systems Thinking, Russel Ackoff: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9p6vrULecFI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9p6vrULecFI This talk from 1991 is several dozen books heavily condensed into one hour. (Russell Ackoff is considered one of the founders of Operations Research and ironically came to be regarded an apostate as he tried to reform the field he co-founded. He subsequently became a prominent figure of Systems Thinking) My 2c. I'll show myself out.

baxtr 8mo ago
Someone tried to explain systems thinking to me with respect to a planning effort we had. I have to admit that it was very hard to me to follow what they were saying. Maybe I’m dumb, maybe the person didn’t explain it well, or, maybe system thinking is really complex and thus hard to convey and use. Design thinking on the other hand is easy to understand and apply.
- user_7832 8mo ago
  I have no idea what the exact topic is, but > maybe system thinking is really complex and thus hard to convey and use. I'm pretty sure that's not true. If you can follow how A leads to -> B, then that's about it all. Systems thinking is the same principle at a larger scale, with interesting side effects at times (eg network effects/group think/emergent phenomenon showing up).
turnsout 8mo ago
Design Thinking (and more broadly, human-centered design) is a pragmatic framework for doing product design in an effective and productive manner. Systems Thinking is a massively more general superset. I'm not really sure how you'd operationalize that on a design project, except by following first principles, which would essentially get you to DT / HCD.
- gond 8mo ago
  That is exactly the point. Taking a theory (Systems Thinking), a mental model which has the primary goal of holistically identifying, describing, and understanding wholes and reducing it down to a set of methods/framework out of ease of use (the pragmatism) is exactly the wrong approach in my opinion. Systems Thinking and all of its applications scenarios are based on epistemology. To turn it into a recipe is a wrongdoing. The whole notion is that one size does not fit all. The operationalization of Systems Theory for a given case at hand is the responsibility and the transfer function of the operator whose approach this is. The process itself yields understanding and should not be abbreviated.
  - turnsout 8mo ago
    I practiced Design Thinking at IDEO for 10 years, and I can assure you it's not "one size fits all." And you can onboard an intern or a client CEO in days, without requiring them to internalize a very abstract system for decomposing problems.
    - gond 8mo ago
      >I practiced Design Thinking at IDEO for 10 years That may possibly explain your motivation but even ten years do not make it right, nor the speed of teaching. You are saying it yourself: internalising the very abstract system for decomposing and adapting it has a value of its own you cannot replicate by pre-solving it. The spinning-off of Design Thinking only accomplished further segmentation of a space which was already too fractured and was a disservice to the field. I don’t think we will approach a consensus here, and that’s fine.
      - turnsout 8mo ago
        It's always valuable to have a generalizable skill. But design is fundamentally a craft; an applied art. It's problem-solving. And like any craft, there are tools and techniques that are tried and true. You could approach woodworking with a ground-up Systems Thinking approach, but would you turn down the advice of a carpenter with 30 years of experience? Technically all you need to understand woodworking is a physics textbook and maybe an organic chemistry textbook. My guess is you're a software developer (as I am), and in my opinion the fatal flaw of our group is the incorrect belief that we could do anything or solve any problem by simply decomposing it into smaller and smaller components. The thing is, for a big enough problem, there are an almost infinite number of ways to break it down and then build it back up. In optimization terms, complex projects are highly nonlinear problems, so you may be able to understand what the inputs are, but it sometimes takes wisdom and experience to tune the parameters.
logicprog 8mo ago
I've been very interested in cybernetics and systems thinking lately — would you be able to recommend some good books? I'm not afraid of difficult academic or philosophical reading, but I'm looking for stuff that's large in scope, applies to general fields, etc.
- gond 8mo ago
  There are so many subsets of the theory and I have no idea what would interest you and what you already know. Have you seen this paper? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220231906_The_Origins_and_Purposes_of_several_Traditions_in_Systems_Theory_and_Cybernetics https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220231906_The_Origi... It leans a bit more on the cybernetic side but gives an overview and has what is possibly equally important as the text itself: some 7 pages of references. I started with openly accessible academic papers instead of books. If you find something interest there, you will surely have the direct reference to proceed further into that direction right at hand. Papers are shorter, you can switch the direction more easily. The price to pay is to miss the bigger picture a couple of times (which a book may convey) until some loose ends come together and create an aha moment. (given what you said I would stay clear of all reinterpretations/popular science books. I would read something straight from the source, the people in the field, in whatever form it may show up.)
  - logicprog 8mo ago
    Thanks for that paper! It looks like a good jumping off point. I am primarily interested in the cybernetics side (feedback loops, etc) but applied to social or economic systems, as well as the intersections with Deleuze and Guattari style process philosophy (looking at how every level of the social system, including individuals, is composed of nodes in a network of flows (of desire/memesis, knowledge, material resources, ideas) that the nodes are both somewhat composed by and also transform/switch/break)
    - gond 8mo ago
      The social side is, among others, massively covered by Niklas Luhmann, the Zettelkasten guy. [1] is pure 2nd Order Cybernetics. The entry to it is a bit tough, it uses its own language. The precision presented, however, is brutal and you can’t get larger in scope, as it encompasses society as a whole, corporations, law, communication, all of it. [1] Theory of Society, Volume 1+2 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann
eleventyseven 8mo ago
Well my 0.2c: in that case it sounds like Systems Thinking is just a subset of Thinking when we live in a world of systems

by gond 8mo ago

baxtr 8mo ago

Someone tried to explain systems thinking to me with respect to a planning effort we had. I have to admit that it was very hard to me to follow what they were saying. Maybe I’m dumb, maybe the person didn’t explain it well, or, maybe system thinking is really complex and thus hard to convey and use. Design thinking on the other hand is easy to understand and apply.

user_7832 8mo ago
I have no idea what the exact topic is, but > maybe system thinking is really complex and thus hard to convey and use. I'm pretty sure that's not true. If you can follow how A leads to -> B, then that's about it all. Systems thinking is the same principle at a larger scale, with interesting side effects at times (eg network effects/group think/emergent phenomenon showing up).

turnsout 8mo ago

Design Thinking (and more broadly, human-centered design) is a pragmatic framework for doing product design in an effective and productive manner. Systems Thinking is a massively more general superset. I'm not really sure how you'd operationalize that on a design project, except by following first principles, which would essentially get you to DT / HCD.

gond 8mo ago
That is exactly the point. Taking a theory (Systems Thinking), a mental model which has the primary goal of holistically identifying, describing, and understanding wholes and reducing it down to a set of methods/framework out of ease of use (the pragmatism) is exactly the wrong approach in my opinion. Systems Thinking and all of its applications scenarios are based on epistemology. To turn it into a recipe is a wrongdoing. The whole notion is that one size does not fit all. The operationalization of Systems Theory for a given case at hand is the responsibility and the transfer function of the operator whose approach this is. The process itself yields understanding and should not be abbreviated.
- turnsout 8mo ago
  I practiced Design Thinking at IDEO for 10 years, and I can assure you it's not "one size fits all." And you can onboard an intern or a client CEO in days, without requiring them to internalize a very abstract system for decomposing problems.
  - gond 8mo ago
    >I practiced Design Thinking at IDEO for 10 years That may possibly explain your motivation but even ten years do not make it right, nor the speed of teaching. You are saying it yourself: internalising the very abstract system for decomposing and adapting it has a value of its own you cannot replicate by pre-solving it. The spinning-off of Design Thinking only accomplished further segmentation of a space which was already too fractured and was a disservice to the field. I don’t think we will approach a consensus here, and that’s fine.
    - turnsout 8mo ago
      It's always valuable to have a generalizable skill. But design is fundamentally a craft; an applied art. It's problem-solving. And like any craft, there are tools and techniques that are tried and true. You could approach woodworking with a ground-up Systems Thinking approach, but would you turn down the advice of a carpenter with 30 years of experience? Technically all you need to understand woodworking is a physics textbook and maybe an organic chemistry textbook. My guess is you're a software developer (as I am), and in my opinion the fatal flaw of our group is the incorrect belief that we could do anything or solve any problem by simply decomposing it into smaller and smaller components. The thing is, for a big enough problem, there are an almost infinite number of ways to break it down and then build it back up. In optimization terms, complex projects are highly nonlinear problems, so you may be able to understand what the inputs are, but it sometimes takes wisdom and experience to tune the parameters.

logicprog 8mo ago

I've been very interested in cybernetics and systems thinking lately — would you be able to recommend some good books? I'm not afraid of difficult academic or philosophical reading, but I'm looking for stuff that's large in scope, applies to general fields, etc.

gond 8mo ago
There are so many subsets of the theory and I have no idea what would interest you and what you already know. Have you seen this paper? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220231906_The_Origins_and_Purposes_of_several_Traditions_in_Systems_Theory_and_Cybernetics https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220231906_The_Origi... It leans a bit more on the cybernetic side but gives an overview and has what is possibly equally important as the text itself: some 7 pages of references. I started with openly accessible academic papers instead of books. If you find something interest there, you will surely have the direct reference to proceed further into that direction right at hand. Papers are shorter, you can switch the direction more easily. The price to pay is to miss the bigger picture a couple of times (which a book may convey) until some loose ends come together and create an aha moment. (given what you said I would stay clear of all reinterpretations/popular science books. I would read something straight from the source, the people in the field, in whatever form it may show up.)
- logicprog 8mo ago
  Thanks for that paper! It looks like a good jumping off point. I am primarily interested in the cybernetics side (feedback loops, etc) but applied to social or economic systems, as well as the intersections with Deleuze and Guattari style process philosophy (looking at how every level of the social system, including individuals, is composed of nodes in a network of flows (of desire/memesis, knowledge, material resources, ideas) that the nodes are both somewhat composed by and also transform/switch/break)
  - gond 8mo ago
    The social side is, among others, massively covered by Niklas Luhmann, the Zettelkasten guy. [1] is pure 2nd Order Cybernetics. The entry to it is a bit tough, it uses its own language. The precision presented, however, is brutal and you can’t get larger in scope, as it encompasses society as a whole, corporations, law, communication, all of it. [1] Theory of Society, Volume 1+2 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann

eleventyseven 8mo ago

Well my 0.2c: in that case it sounds like Systems Thinking is just a subset of Thinking when we live in a world of systems