Why designers should find the balance between systems thinking and design thinking?
By: Tyler La
Tags: Product Design, Design Thinking, Design, Design Process, UX

What is Systems Thinking?

ST is often misunderstood due to its vast collection of tools and methods. However, just like DT, it is a philosophy. The philosophy of ST can be traced back to the work of Ludwig Von Bertalanffy in 1968 and other contributors. ST is an approach that considers how elements within a system interact and influence one another.

A system could be an ecosystem, an organization, or a specific problem domain. It recognizes that there’s a role of structure and order in the conditions that we face. It observes closely the relationships of events and data in a system, trying to identify common patterns, and anticipating the potential impact of each trade-off.

With ST, there’s always a need to assess the overall picture and find a cause or a reason. Because of this characteristic, ST is often recognized by the Iceberg model. The model typically has 4 levels: events, patterns/behaviors, structures, and mental models. It indicates that the piece of information above the surface is only a single “event”, in other words, a mask for the real issue. To gain increased leverage for solving the problem, there’s a need to understand the system as a whole, and all levels submerged below the tip of the iceberg. It’s also useful to move up and down the underlying levels and improve the model throughout the process.

ST became widely accepted and other industries such as economics, marketing, management, etc. began to adopt its practice. Using ST as a foundation, each industry created its own systems methods and frameworks. Many thinkers associated with cybernetics, operation research, chaos theory, complexity theory, etc. also developed their own interpretation of the same concepts and applications. As technology and business problems became more complex over time, the original philosophy of ST and its tool kits became fragmented.

Even though DT considers itself to be a new discipline, the philosophy behind it was an iteration of ST. The design industry also borrowed and tweaked many terms and methods to accommodate its design process. Terms like ‘mental model’ or framework like ‘competitive analysis’ were carried over from ST.

Pros

✅ Problem framing

ST is sensitive to the circular nature of the world we live in. It has a tendency to explore as much as possible to find structures that hurt the system. As a result, it’s a good diagnostic tool to put the problem in its appropriate context. ST helps examine the problem more holistically and accurately before acting and jumping into conclusion.

✅ Themes and patterns recognition

ST seeks to uncover relationships among elements within a system; the process of analysis helps in understanding the interconnectedness and how each element relates to one another.

Cons

❌ Analysis paralysis

Because ST requires an extensive assessment of the system as an input, it creates an environment where all decisions require thorough theoretical analysis. The analysis is time-consuming, risk-taking is less prevalent, and the process could produce so much data it is impossible to act.

❌ Self-detachment

In ST, there’s a split between theory and practice. The philosophy gives the impression that an individual can step out of an organization and sees it as a system, thinking in abstract terms and changing it from the point of view of an outsider. The act of self-detachment eliminates nuances that are critical to the system. The actual experience of being in the organization is hardly considered.

What is Design Thinking?

Rapid technological development throughout the twentieth century brought about a need for a formal academic study of the science of design. The 1960s in America was the ‘design science decade’. It started with the first attempt to distant industrial and product design from engineering and science; the goal was to ‘scientise’ design processes and bring the field within the objective of rational sciences. Horst Rittel and the term ‘Wicked Problems’, Herbert Simon and the book ‘The Sciences of the Artificial’, Nigel Cross and the paper “Designerly Ways of Knowing” etc. are all pioneers in bringing design to the forefront.

The term DT was coined by David Kelly and IDEO was one of the companies that helped bring DT to the mainstream. Stemming classical product philosophy, DT has a systematic approach to problem solving. While the starting point is unknown, it is structured based on the desired outcome. The process is developed on the notion that you do not know what the real problem is, which requires problem solvers to focus on the needs and desires of the end-users.

DT was initially applied to business, especially product design to craft product requirements that meet people’s needs. Because of its human-centric mindset and versatility, DT is able to solve a wide range of complex problems. The philosophy is now being employed in various domains ranging from product development to organizational and societal problems.

Once DT entered the management domain, it was confronted by “wicked problems”. The cause of wicked problems cannot be traced back easily until after the formulation of a solution; it requires a more structured and systematic approach than the original DT ideology. To accommodate this, the discipline started to create its own set of methods and tool-kits. As a result, DT has adopted a systemic stance even though design thinkers do not necessarily use ST language.

A well-recognized framework of the DT process is the Double-Diamond model developed by the British Design Council in 2005. It breaks down the design process into 4 phases: Discover, Define, Develop, and Deliver. The model places an emphasis on 2 modes of thinking: ‘diverge’ and ‘converge’ from which many ideas are generated, before narrowing down and selecting the best one. This happens at least twice in the design process where designers need to switch between divergent and convergent modes to confirm the problem definition and craft a solution.

Pros

✅ Need finding

Because of its human-centric nature, DT places a heavy emphasis on identifying human’s needs and desires. Applying DT early on in the process can help designers build rapport and develop empathy for the people they’re designing for.

✅ Iterability

With divergent and convergent thinking, DT has an iterative approach to problem-solving. Initially, the design process values the number of ideas over the individual’s quality. This opens the door for designers to come up with out-of-the-box solutions to problems.

Cons

❌ Lack of business integration & constraints

Unlike ST, designers with a DT mindset do not perform a comprehensive analysis of the system and the relationships among its components. The solution produced by DT reflects the needs of the end-users yet it might not be feasible or central to the organization as a whole.

❌ The term DT still signifies a heavy emphasis on “thinking” and not “making”

At the end of the day, DT is a mindset. It’s impossible to extract thinking from doing; thinking alone doesn’t solve problems. Many short-term programs and school seminars aim at teaching DT within a few weeks or days; they neglect the fact that DT requires years of practice. Good designers are good thinkers, makers, and craftsmen.