[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Systemic Design: Design for Complex, Social, and Sociotechnical Systems

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Systems Sciences

  • 357 Accesses

Abstract

Systemic design integrates systems thinking and theory with advanced design methods in an evolving interdisciplinary field to effect anticipatory change in complex social, sociotechnical, and social systems. Systemic design (or systems-oriented design) differs from the commonly designated systems design in that systemic design is a design field (systemic as the modifier of design) and systems design is the design of systems as objects, a practice developed through systems engineering. While systemic design can be simplistically defined as the application of systems approaches to advanced design problems, the field has taken shape as an advanced design discipline, embracing architecture, planning, and social research as critical adjacent practices for its applications. Systemic design studies reveal an overarching scientific philosophy of pragmatism, embracing multiple perspectives to describe a system and its problems and structures.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackoff RL (1993) Idealized design: creative corporate visioning. Omega 21(4):401–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander C (1967) Systems generating systems. Systemat. Inland Steel, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby WR (1958) Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica 1:83–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Banathy BA (1996) Information‐based design of social systems. Behav Sci 41(2):104–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Banathy B (1997) Designing Social Systems in a Changing World. Contemporary Systems Thinking Series. New York: Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville RL, Pries-Heje J, Venable J (2009) Soft design science methodology. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on design science research in information systems and technology (DESRIST ’09), Philadelphia, pp 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer S (1994) Beyond dispute: the invention of team syntegrity; the managerial cybernetics of organization. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair CD, Boardman JT, Sauser BJ (2007) Communicating strategic intent with systemigrams: application to the network-enabled challenge. Syst Eng 10(4):309–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulding K (1966) The impact of social sciences. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  • Braa K, Vidgen R (1999) Interpretation, intervention, and reduction in the organizational laboratory: a framework for in-context information system research. Account Manag Inf Technol 9(1):25–47

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (2000) Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective. Syst Res Behav Sci 17(S1):S11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christakis AN, Bausch KC (2006) How people harness their collective wisdom and power to construct the future in co-laboratories of democracy. Information Age, Greenwich

    Google Scholar 

  • Christakis AN, Bausch KC (2006) How people harness their collective wisdom and power by constructing the future in Co-laboratories of Democracy. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Christakis AN, Dye K (2008) The Cogniscope™ lessons learned in the arena. In: Jenlink P (ed) Dialogue as a collective means of design conversation. Springer, Boston, pp 187–203

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cooperrider D, Srivastava S (1987) Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. Res Organ Chang Dev 1(1):129–169

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curry A, Hodgson A (2008) Seeing in multiple horizons: connecting futures to strategy. J Futures Stud 13(1):1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorst K (2015) Framing innovation. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dubberly H, Pangaro P (2007) Cybernetics and service-craft: language for behavior-focused design. Kybernetes 36(9/10):1301–1317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitz R, Troha J (1977) Interpretive structural modeling and urban planning. In: Proceedings of the 1977 international conference on cybernetics and society. IEEE-SMCS, Oct 1977

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan TR, Christakis AN (2011) Referential transparency for dialogic design science. Int J Appl Syst Sci

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester JW (1994) System dynamics, systems thinking, and soft OR. Syst Dyn Rev 10(2–3):245–256. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.4260100211/abstract

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankfurt HG (1958) Peirce’s notion of abduction. J Philos 55(14):593–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller RB (1981) Critical Path. Estate of R. Buckminster Fuller

    Google Scholar 

  • Geels FW (2005) Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 72:681–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gharajedaghi J (2011) Systems thinking managing chaos and complexity: a platform for designing business architecture. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/id/10480742

    Google Scholar 

  • Glanville R (1999) Researching design and designing research. Des Issues 15(2):80–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson MC (2010) Reflections on the development and contribution of critical systems thinking and practice. Syst Res Behav Sci 27(2):133–139

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones PH (2014) Systemic design principles for complex social systems. In Social systems and design (pp. 91–128). Springer, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones PH (2018) Contexts of cocreation: designing with system stakeholders. In: Jones P, Kijima K (eds) Systemic design: theory, methods and practice, Translational systems sciences series, vol 8. Springer, Tokyo, pp 3–52

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jones PH, Bowes J (2017) Rendering systems visible for design: synthesis maps as constructivist design narratives. She Ji 3(3):229–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaptelinin V, Nardi BA (2006) Acting with technology: activity theory and interaction design. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff K (2007) The cybernetics of design and the design of cybernetics. Kybernetes 36(9/10):1381–1392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour B (2008) A cautious Prometheus? A few steps toward a philosophy of design (with special attention to Peter Sloterdijk). In: Proceedings of the 2008 annual international conference of the design history society, pp 2–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalf GS (2010) Service as mutualism: a question of viability in systems. Serv Sci 2(1/2):93–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 63(2):81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy R, Jones P (2019) Leverage analysis for social complexity: locating points of influence in complex design decisions. Form Akad 12(3):1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson H, Stolterman E (2012) The design way: intentional change in an unpredictable world. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Norman DA, Stappers PJ (2016) DesignX: complex sociotechnical systems. She Ji 1(2):83–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (1985) Actions and rules. Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana State University, Champaign/Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  • Özbekhan H (1969) Toward a general theory of planning. Management and Behavioral Sciences Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton MQ (1994) Developmental evaluation. Eval Pract 15(3):311–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pourdehnad J, Wexler ER, Wilson DV (2011) Systems and design thinking: a conceptual framework for their integration. In: Proceedings of the 55th annual meeting of the ISSS, Hull, 17–22 July

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders EBN, Stappers P-J (2013) Convivial toolbox: generative research for the front end of design. BIS Publishers, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevaldson B (2008) A system approach to design learning. In: Systemisches denken und integrales entwerfen/System thinking and integral design. Präsident der Hochschule für Gestaltung Offenbach am Main, Offenbach, pp 22–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevaldson B (2011) Gigamapping: visualization for complexity and systems thinking in design. In: NorDes, no. 4. Nordic Design Research Conference, Helsinki, 30 May 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1969) The sciences of the artificial Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Thackara J (2006) In the bubble: designing in a complex world. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsivacou I (2005) The ideal of autonomy from the viewpoint of functional differentiation/integration of society. Syst Res Behav Sci 22(6):509–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich W (1983) Critical heuristics of social planning: a new approach to practical philosophy. Wiley, Chichester. Reprint 1994

    Google Scholar 

  • Warfield JN (1990) A science of generic design. InterSystems Publishing, Salinas

    Google Scholar 

  • Winograd T, Flores F (1986) Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Addison-Wesley Professional

    Google Scholar 

  • Yáñez XD, Romesín HM (2013) Systemic and meta-systemic laws. Interact 20(3):76–79

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. OCAD University, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Peter Jones

Authors
  1. Peter Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Jones .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Leadership and Management, Saybrook University, Ashland, KY, USA

    Gary S. Metcalf

  2. Grad Sch of Decision Sci & Tech, Tokyo Institute of Technology Grad Sch of Decision Sci & Tech, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, Japan

    Kyoichi Kijima

  3. CABSSS, Tokyo Institute of Technology CABSSS, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan

    Hiroshi Deguchi

Section Editor information

  1. Faculty of Design, OCAD University, Toronto, Canada

    Peter Jones

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Jones, P. (2020). Systemic Design: Design for Complex, Social, and Sociotechnical Systems. In: Metcalf, G.S., Kijima, K., Deguchi, H. (eds) Handbook of Systems Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0370-8_60-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0370-8_60-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-0370-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-0370-8

  • eBook Packages: Living Reference Business and ManagementReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics