This article serves as an initial reflection on my recent encounters with systemic design. Among these influences, I came across a new article by Brad Frost, known for his concept of "atomic design," titled "A Global Design System." Additionally, I found inspiration in various bachelor theses and recently completed Don Norman's book "Design for a Better World." There's also an interesting report about the skills being needed in jobs in the future due to the rise of AI; it's called "Jobs of the future" being published by universities UK and mostly related to Great Britain. Analytical thinking and creative thinking are the most important skills needed by employers globally; so now is the best time to explore the current landscape from my perspective.
The purpose of this article is to organize my thoughts regarding the concept of systemic thinking in relation to design activities and the challenges faced by humanity. One of the reasons for doing so is the realization, while reading books like "Design for a Better World," that expressing the required skills for future generations of designers is a difficult task. There is no definitive blueprint for addressing such a complex issue. Even renowned individuals like Don Norman struggle to provide precise guidance. From my perspective, it seems that the understanding of this topic is such that everyone can only offer "hunches" based on Steven Johnson's idea of "where good ideas come from."
In the upcoming article, I will share my insights and intuitions that could greatly assist both myself and others in gaining a deeper understanding of the subject.
The need for systemic design
If you have read some more articles on my blog, you might have noticed that I am hugely influenced by all the thoughts of the She Ji Issues on design education (for example those two Part 1, Part 2) and have already tried to adopt some aspects in teaching based on the thought of the 21st century design.
When it comes to the current challenges facing humanity, the importance of thinking in systems and understanding them cannot be overstated. According to Don Norman, designers are particularly well-suited to contribute to our understanding of complex systems.
Taking a humanity-centered design approach, which can be seen as an evolution of the human-centered design perspective, designers must tackle the underlying issues by identifying their root causes. This requires a thorough examination of the entire ecosystem, including people, all living things, and the physical environment. However, this process of identification is not without its challenges, as it necessitates a long-term, system-wide perspective in order to distinguish between root issues and mere symptoms.
To gain a more comprehensive understanding, I highly recommend exploring the resources available on the website "Design of a Better World: resources" In this article, my focus will primarily be on certain aspects of design education.
Design Education: Fostering Systemic Thinking
In my point of view, design education is to a great extent to learn to work in systems. The foundation in design education is mostly related to graphic design. In the early fundamentals it's about learning the system to apply shapes, colors, proportions, grids and typography. So designers need to understand the system about how shapes work and apply them in an appropriate position on the screen, the paper or the target medium in general. The same applies to the use of typography, color, proportions and grids; that's kind of the basic education all designers get.
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.
Pablo Picasso
The main issue is that most students don't realize the connection to understand the importance of what they are already learning in terms of working with systems. In the end I would say design is to a great extent working with a system anyway as there are many rulesets, such a cognitive rules, visual rules, semiotics, about perception and so on. But this kind of system thinking is present in all sciences; one needs to understand the system to be prepared in the best way to master it.
I mostly tell the students, they need to learn to see and though using this sentence for years now, I think what I really mean is telling this sentence: understand how it was built by understanding the applied rules within the systems you learned. In the best case, apply those observations to your own projects.
Expanding horizons in design education
In the current curriculum I am teaching, the scope is broader, which means students also learn about User Experience Design, Motion Design, 3D design or Interaction in space. So looking at the mentioned disciplines, the ruleset gets wider and more complex as other sub-systems come into play.
A good picture to express this rise in complexity are the "four orders of design" by Richard Buchanan, describing the progression from designing products to designing systems and social interactions.
The four orders of Design: navigating complexity
To a certain extent, this distinction refers to a heightened level of complexity within the underlying system. Proficiency in system thinking, which primarily deals with our visual sense and visual representations, is less complex compared to proficiency in a system that engages multiple senses and employs dynamic, interactive visualities. This exemplifies the third order of design. Buchanan defines design as "the human power of conceiving, planning, and creating products that serve human beings in achieving their individual and collective goals." Presently, there are also papers proposing a fifth level of design, such as "ethical design," and the subsequent one, which we will introduce here, adds a layer for relationships.
In "New Design Knowledge and the Fifth Order of Design," the evolving role of design in addressing contemporary challenges such as sustainability, digital transitions, and societal well-being is discussed. The importance of designers bridging technological innovation with ethical and sociocultural responsibilities is emphasized. The impact of AI on design innovation and the need for updated design knowledge are also examined, along with the emergence of fifth-order design challenges.
The paper covers various aspects of the role of AI in reshaping the design innovation process, emphasizing data-driven feedback loops and the involvement of non-human agents. It also proposes a shift in traditional design principles towards learning systems that adapt and evolve, highlighting the role of data types and user-centered perspectives.
The concept of fifth-order design challenges designers to develop sociotechnical solutions involving data feedback loops, new competencies, and values to address complex societal issues. The role of designers is expanding to include problem-setting and transformation support in addition to shape and function design.
If you haven't delved into the discussions on 21st-century design education, you might find the expectations quite high. However, as someone deeply involved in the topic for quite some time, I can attest that the discussion can be somewhat misleading. A bachelor's education typically spans around 3 years, during which students are largely trained in the first three orders of design to a significant extent.
However, the fourth or fifth level may also be included in the curriculum, albeit for only one semester, as was the case with my course on media conception, which I integrated into the broader context of sustainable development goals. Subsequently, students present their bachelor's thesis to demonstrate their grasp of systems thinking, if they choose to do so. However, this represents the extent of the educational time available. I believe that the core of design education begins with a foundation in shaping and then progresses to an interaction-based layer, marking a significant advancement in terms of system complexity.
From my perspective, one glaring issue is the isolation of students. To tackle this, we need to introduce more interdisciplinary courses that foster collaboration between individuals from diverse backgrounds. This necessitates a substantial shift in the selection of projects within design education. We should no longer solely prioritize formal aspects. Instead, we must incorporate social and societal aspects, grounded in genuine co-working experiences with students from other disciplines. Dealing with people can be challenging for designers, but it is a pivotal element in achieving exceptional results.
Thinking in Systems – Cognitive Challenges in Complex Problem-Solving
The more complex the problem spaces get, the more likely it will get that cognitive limitations will hinder designers to work on more complex tasks. Why is that? Because they only want to do beautiful pictures, or they didn't learn the rules like a "pro" as Pablo Picasso said?
It is difficult to judge, I would say. We can't expect every designer to be a strategic designer with a systemic approach. If only designers would be out there, finding their passion in solving complex problems, who would create social Media Assets or other things that need to be produced on a daily basis?
The truth is that AI can also produce assets, and the more you embrace systemic thinking, the more you appreciate AI taking care of mundane, repetitive tasks. Therefore, I believe we should educate students to think in terms of systems. Whether they choose to apply this approach later on is up to them.
Regarding our current Bachelor System, the core question that remains unsolved for me is, how deep could systemic thinking go? The thing with complexity facing today's challenges is also tricky.
Based on two lectures I held in China around one of the most complex topics in the world, Solving one of the Sustainable Development goals, you also notice that groups having some system thinkers might be doing better in coping with complex challenges, than teams without system thinkers. Stop, that's maybe to generic as one aspect is missing here; it's the concept of "muddling through" that might be much more present within the successful groups, as well as smart group decision to progress on a selected path.
Navigating complex challenges
The Sustainable Development Goals require careful topic selection, breaking it down and transitioning to the next topic to establish a relationship. The process itself is incredibly complex, with numerous potential pitfalls even for intelligent groups. Bias can hinder progress when groups cling to ideas that may ultimately be flawed or meaningless. Additionally, a lack of creativity may prevent them from unlocking the brilliant ideas that lie within their analysis. In my opinion, addressing such complex issues always benefits from having a moderator or mentor to guide the groups in the right direction. This is a valuable lesson that can be learned from classical advertising and the applied creativity processes, including the implementation of effective hierarchical structures.
The paper "Systems Thinking and Design Thinking: The Search for Principles in the World We Are Making" explores the relationship between systems thinking and design thinking, emphasizing the importance of creating environments that support and enhance human experiences. It discusses the historical context of systems within design practices and highlights the renewed interest in systems in contemporary design theory and practice.
"Every product is a system of parts working together to accomplish a common purpose, whether in the graphic display of typography, images, color, and pattern in a poster; the integrated workings of a physical artifact; the sequence of planned activities, communications and exchanges of a service or any other human interaction; or the complexities of dynamic and evolving organizations, environments, and systems. " (from Systems Thinking and Design Thinking)
Evolution of design education – problem-solving by system
Buchanan also discusses the historical development of systems within design practices, beginning with early institutions like the Bauhaus and the resurgence of interest in systems within the design community. This renewed interest has been driven by the challenges of modern life, technological advancements, and ethical considerations regarding the values and purposes of systems.
Since the rise of professional design education, the discourse around systems and systems thinking has gained significant relevance. While early thinkers from the Bauhaus movement sparked initial discussions, it was László Moholy-Nagy who delved into the significance of comprehending design and its outcomes within the framework of natural systems, technological systems, biological systems, and numerous social systems. Particularly at the New Bauhaus in Chicago, he emphasized the importance of understanding the economic, psychological, and sociological requirements involved in designing. By establishing connections with these diverse systems, Moholy-Nagy argued, one can uncover the essential elements of functional design.
Before delving deeper into whether problem-solving through functional design is beneficial or if shifting towards mechanisms known from complexity theory would be more effective, let's revisit the foundations of design education and contemporary movements.
With the emergence of AI and AI-generated imagery, there is a notable inclination among students to revisit their design fundamentals and showcase their prowess in manipulating basic shapes and organizing them systematically.
Karl Gerstner, a well known Swiss designer and educator, mainly known for his contributions to visual design systems, that got more popular again, might be called one of the pioneers to transfer systematic design methods to graphic design. Being influenced by other swiss design geniuses such as Armin Hofmann, Emil Ruder and Max Schmid, Gerstner also transformed as a designer, being interested in an own visual language in his early years, to a man of methodology in his elders.
In the book "Designing Programmes" in 1964, he presented a simple morphological method to split the task into single subtasks. As a result, a matrix of possible solutions (whether it be spacing, coloring or typeface) will be created that could be combined with each other.
The process is analytical at first and switches to a curating activity to display possible solutions. So many million possible solutions could be possible, depending on the size of the matrix. But still, the more detailed the analyses, the bigger the creative potential. This morphological analysis is a creativity method developed by Fritz Zwicky and surely influenced Gerstner's application.
Describing the problem is part of the solution. It means making decisions based on intellectual criteria rather than feelings. The more precise and complete the criteria, the more creative the work. The creative process is reduced to an act of selection: picking out determining elements and combining them.
A process that is not unlike creative coding; you define some rulesets and then within the rule-space, you look for solutions generated by the algorithm.
Of course Gerstners publication is only one among many others being published in the flourishing years of swiss graphic design. So also Armin Hofmann published "Graphic Design Manual, Principles and Practise" in 1965 and set his own educational standards at that time. But the key of Gerstners work, that largely influenced modern literature, such as "Flexible Visual systems" by Dr. Martin Lorenz, is that methods are essential in tackling big problems. Finding categories, digging deeper, analyzing and finding the true problem or in other words: scoping, muddling, scoping, muddling, scoping or diverge, converge, diverge, converge,...
I also think the task of designer is often only to choose the right directions, not doing the whole job... that could be done by the machine, and AI is very good at that. Our task is contextualization and also, to some extent, in dialogue with a machine to decide, how much control it should be given to. Whether it be AI or generative coding.
In addition to utilizing methods, scoping, and analysis, the essence lies in interpersonal interaction. It is through conversations that we unearth crucial information and glean valuable insights to inform superior design choices. As the utilization of AI in the realm of tools becomes increasingly significant, designers must grasp the systemic implications in order to prevent the proliferation of poorly informed design decisions, thus averting a further escalation of subpar designs.
Moving from an atomistic view of the world to a holistic view
Writing this headline, I directly thought about atomic design again and the recent article by Brad Frost "on a global design system". The text discusses the creation of a Global Design System to provide common UI components for web designers and developers worldwide. It highlights the need to reduce duplication, improve accessibility, and enhance the quality of web experiences. The article emphasizes the benefits of a centralized system and proposes using Web Components for this purpose. The article is a good read and an understandable perspective, the web in its current state is kind of a mess; we have far too many systems out there and there are so many frameworks, no one is even able to name all of them.
In my point of view, the messy web is also an issue for design education at the moment that will increase with more and more AI builders, building the same stuff over and over and repeating the current issues about accessibility or inclusion errors.
What I like most about the article is Brad Frost doing his morphology on pointing to the problem. The problem itself is understandable, but I'm too far away to do any interpretations on how to solve this issue.
It is really a mess that there's not a unified language on components and components behavior is different in different systems (only to name accordions, or is it a toggle or is it a collapse?); If you have been to web design for quite a time, you know what I am talking about. I would love to have more meaningful standards, not standards leading to the same design with different contents as we had it in the early days of bootstrap; we bootstrapped the beautiful diverse world of flash dominated websites to streamlined bootstrap sites on the web and still most of the web is a 12 grid based design; sorry, that's another topic 🙂 (and I am not saying that everything about flash websites was great – such as excessive use of intros and flaws in accessibility).
Ok, how to move from an atomistic view of the world to a holistic view of the world?
Is that even possible?
Maybe start with the work environment in the last years; except the isolation period from covid, designers and their tools moved more and more into collaborative workspaces; most tools could be used by more people at once and social media is mostly part of the workspace itself; so on the surface, one could say, that communication from person to person got better. Maybe – the interpersonal is still best if in person.
My starting point to learn to get a holistic view of the world would be the same as I tell students; learn to see; in this case I explicitly mean consciously seeing, analyzing and staying open for change. Our current world around us is greatly described as "the age of average" as mentioned in the article by Alex Murrell.
If you are aware of the fact that the need for originality and creativity is bigger than before to break away from this age of average conformity and homogeneity, you have done one step in understanding our current world in terms of visuals. Similar applies to other domains of our surrounding; we first need to break down the status quo, to analyze and understand what is going on and then look and identify the right problem (you notice, I am still problem focused, a better approach would be working on the root cause) to have the basis for moving into the right direction.
Embracing Systemic Thinking
I don't believe in one holistic view. We couldn't have a holistic perspective on everything; we are shaped by our experiences, impressions, our bubbles and so forth. What we can do is break down a big topic to smaller junks and understand the relationships of the smaller topics.
In my lectures and experience with student work on sustainable development goals, it became evident that when a significant challenge was broken down into smaller ones, the solutions and ideas generated were often more effective and creative.
In addition to analyzing and grasping the root of a problem, various methods prove to be extremely useful in breaking down challenges such as functional fixedness. Notably, the principles of contest, comprehension, change, checking, and connection provide invaluable assistance in shifting perspectives and reorganizing issues to reimagine the topic at hand, thereby gaining a more profound understanding (the reframing matrix can also be employed for this purpose).
At its essence, this thinking approach revolves around the pursuit of insights and the identification of problems. Thus, it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that we have, indeed, engaged in the art of problem-solving.
The same applies to the use of Design Thinking methods in courses to collaborate on challenges. As mentioned earlier, this is not a process carried out solely by one person or a group of students themselves; it requires moderation to get started. I am uncertain whether current lecturers have the experience to moderate workshops, work with timeboxes, and guide students in tackling significant challenges, as we ourselves lack some expertise in problem-solving on such a large scale.
However, to be candid, anyone claiming to be highly experienced in solving the world's biggest challenges is a liar. Instead, we should focus on the core skills that designers possess. We are trained to communicate effectively, to translate complex concepts into clear and understandable messages for the recipient. These translation skills, along with our methodical approach and creativity, are the valuable assets we can contribute.
One of the most essential skills for designers, in my experience, is the ability to go with the flow - the flow of the team, of ideas, of impulses, and of thoughts. It's about knowing when to pause, try something new, iterate, and test, and then seamlessly rejoin the flow before halting for another draft, repeating the process until we finally arrive at something we believe has the potential to be further developed.
This process doesn't feel confident at first and could be even painful, but I guess we are trained by design education to get more and more confident with the unknown to solve complex issues.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I believe that a solid foundation in graphic design is crucial before delving into more complex topics within the field. There should be an emphasis on helping students understand the systems they work within, fostering early contextualization and exploration. Moreover, interdisciplinary collaboration with other faculties, particularly engineering and social sciences, is essential for a well-rounded education.
As students approach the end of their bachelor's degree, they should have the autonomy to choose their specialization, knowing that expertise in visual systems, digital environments, and ethical considerations requires continuous development. The integration of AI into education presents both challenges and opportunities, making it vital for students to learn its appropriate usage and understand its impact within the courses.
Around the sixth semester, introducing courses on design thinking and methods-based design, followed by projects focused on societal, environmental, or ethical issues, would be highly beneficial. Collaboration with other student programs could further enrich this experience.
As teachers, we need to ensure that our lectures incorporate more contextual elements to enhance understanding. This is particularly challenging when it comes to topics like UX, as time constraints often prevent us from fully addressing aspects such as accessibility or user testing. As the subject becomes more complex, it becomes even more difficult to cover everything within the allocated time. The same applies to courses that cover multiple topics, such as interaction in spaces, exhibition design, IoT, Extended Realities, and generative coding. Teaching these courses requires a high level of focus and careful planning in terms of defining the course modules. Alternatively, we can choose to scratch the surface of multiple subjects or dive deep into one particular subject. I would also say that it would be beneficial if the ones being responsible for the overall direction of a program would be given some time to mentor each single course to focus on a certain outcome.
In the next 5 years, we can expect that no more than 5% of students will be deeply interested in tackling big and complex issues. While we can work on slowly increasing those numbers, it's also important to recognize the value of expertise in graphical design, UX design, and other related areas. Perhaps we can shift the focus from "I want to be a designer addressing global issues" to "I need to be a designer addressing these issues."
One lingering question for me is whether it would be wise to promote the notion that everything in the world can be broken down into systems and manipulated. Isn't this exactly what mankind is doing? Instead of squandering our potential, we strive to comprehend and manipulate existing systems, potentially leading us into the complications we face in society and the environment. While this perspective may seem negative, it is crucial to remain aware of it, as Don Norman pointed out, nearly everything is artificial, as it was created by someone.
My current gut feeling is that the concept of moderation (not executed by one person only), combined with a good understanding of the causes being tackled within the realm of design orders 4 and 5 and a transferred concept of "rewilding" would be interesting to see. Rewilding is primarily about ecological restoration, which means reinstating natural processes to enhance biodiversity and revive the natural environment. Considering that many things are artificially designed and have contributed to present-day issues, it could be wise to reverse our thinking. What if we first comprehend a system and then, based on that understanding, consider how removing certain designed elements could facilitate rewilding?
From my viewpoint, delving deeper into a specific sub-system would undoubtedly be advantageous... However, it is essential to note that my perspective is purely subjective, and this article serves as a contemplation of personal thoughts. Feel free to share your thoughts.
Additional Ressources
- Design for a better world – resources
- She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation
- Design Research and the New Learning
- New Design Knowledge and the Fifth Order of Design
- Systems Thinking and Design Thinking: The Search for Principles in the World We Are Making
- Applying 21st century design – my experiences in working on sustainable development goals with students
- Design for the 21st Century with Don Norman – my review of the course of Don Norman, with some background notes on education
- Interaction Design Foundation – Design for the 21st Century with Don Norman
- Interaction Design Foundation – Design for a better world with Don Norman