There is a lot of buzz around "Design Thinking". How is it different from "Systems Thinking"?

The question 'What is it that design thinking can accomplish which systems thinking can not?' is a very meaningful one, but I think it is extremely difficult to answer. Working on this topic towards a scientific publication, we have had to realize that a proper and correct answer cannot be expected without considering the philosophical standing or platform based on which we try to formulate the answer. These platforms are varied and are (in arbitrary order) such as: modernism, rationalism, constructivism, instrumentalism, relativism, pragmatism, scepticism, phenomenologism, realism, positivism, empiricism, materialism, and so forth. In addition the aspect of comparison can also be varied such as historical/chronological, metaphysical, ontological, epistemological, methodological, axiological, praxiological, pedagogical, etc., or any combination of these. This depth of investigation/analysis cannot be traced in the current literature yet. There are many sites and publications, which address this question from a pure managerial or business perspective.

I agree with Prof. Horvath. There must be a theoretical basis for comparing paradigms specially if the comparison is from research perspective. It reminds me of the differences Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr had with respect to the differences between Classical deterministic Physics and Quantum mechanics. The differences could not be reconciled even after years of debate as Classical physics and Quantum mechanics look at physical reality differently. Likewise, we need to know the theoretical underpinnings of Systems Thinking and Design Thinking before we can make any meaningful comparison.

James Humann

The scopes of Design Thinking and Systems Thinking have expanded so much that they largely overlap now. The most concise answer is that Design Thinking focuses on synthesis, building up a solution to a problem, and Systems Thinking focuses on large-scale analysis, understanding a problem's many facets and dependencies, from technology to economics to people. Of course to do proper synthesis, you should have a system-wide understanding of the problem, so the two are firmly intertwined.

Design thinking is ultimately solution-focused in that its aim is to generate a design solution to an often complex problem. Systems thinking is primarily concerned with mapping and understanding the complex relationships within a system. Systems thinking can of course be used in combination with design thinking to generate design solutions.

for me it is very simple. Social sciences has not the same kid of rational as Natural Sciences or Humanities (see e.g. Kegan "The three cutures"). For me, design thinking, and designs for learning, adds a fourth culture, with focus not only on standardized methods (or patterns), but also taking into the account the very framing of a problem, different – and not seldom – contradicory (political) goals and (thus) also changing goals during a process. In spite iof this, learning sciences have a rather robust grounding nowadays (think of mechanisms, structures and context).

Fro another perspective, the two could be differentiated in terms of applied process rather than their theoretical underpinnings. In design process, systems thinking is useful throughout, and especially in the early stages when the 'problem space' is being framed and scoped. When its boundaries have been delineated (influenced by the choice of framing), the process becomes generative in an affective-imaginal sense. I would disagree that design thinking can be defined as "synthesis" because there is an entire iterative process of generative, divergent, intuitive and reflective thinking that comes before synthesis is attempted. Systems thinking requires a more thorough mapping of a system, out of which, extrapolations can lead to predictions about behaviours and probabilities of system properties and elements, with the wild card of emergence always ready to surprise us. Design thinking relies on imaginative emergence to generate solutions. I would suggest that anyone intending to use systems thinking to find solutions to complex 'wicked' problems (where there is no single 'right' answer) engage in creative and/or design process, and design thinkers become well-versed in systems thinking. The two are inherently complimentary.

I see you point and do not disagree. I do not think I said synthetic, but anyhow. Our differences in perspectives may emerge from different ideas of what design is about. For me design is not only form, function and aesthetic values, although that also are parts of my thinking. I lay more emphasis (as an educational researcher) in frame design (c.f. Dorst), and concepts like interactive design, collaborative design related to deigns for - and in -lenring. And including ethical matters as well. This approach also calls for an open attitude to assessment praxisis and cultures of recogonition

I guess a simple answer to Veerendra's original question would be: it depends on your perspective of systems thinking and on design thinking.

By way of illustration: Staffan, I don't disagree with you. In citing Kagan and Dorst you reveal your perspective for framing the issue (this is not a criticism). I think this highlights to some extent the difficulty in comparing design thinking with systems thinking. There is no single frame or right way of doing either and both call for cognitive complexity and multiple perspective thinking from those working with them (in recognising and accepting the tensions and paradoxes and the need for an 'and-also' instead of 'either-or' mindset). All design is creative, including interaction, experience, service, product, and learning design, and inherently requires imaginal and affective consideration (as well as rationality and pragmatism). To pick up on your thread about learning design, if we wish to create holistic learning models we need to take into account multiple ways of being and knowing (Heron, J. 1992) (now I'm revealing my perspective for framing). We must also try to understand the complex psychological, sociocultural and political influences and agendas that constitute learners, teachers, and learning environments. We must also recognise ourselves as taking an active role in framing and imposing our own perspectives and agendas on the problem and solution. Now there's a complex system (set of systems) if ever I saw one!

Rachel, I have to check out some of your writings. Very stimulating discussion! Have a nice weekend!

Best

We have a problem here. I've spent my life writing about how designers think. I don't reaally recognise the highly structured and determined descriptions of design thinking when it is used in the ways it is here. Sadly even after a lifetime of developing our understanding of design I can usually tell whether the writer is actually a designer or not in a professional sense of course.

Hey Bryan, I love 'How Designer's Think'. I mapped your categories of activities to a game design project I did a few years ago, which shows how the design process is non-linear, and is highly iterative and reflective throughout. I wrote a conference paper and gave a presentation to Master's students on it (the slides can be viewed here if you're interested: https://prezi.com/df4xju1_lyb_/categories-of-design-activities/). The only difficulty I found with using your categories of activities to map the process was that big chunks of the design process are of course about not-doing, allowing things to process unconsciously in that space of not-knowing while waiting for inspiration. Not so easy to map those elusive and ineffable processes is it?

To Imre: I think that whatever we want to explain and understand, we have a topic place from where we see the world, filled with concepts, method, and instruments to help us observe (and instruments are materialised thinking). To think that we can observe the world free from any philosophical influence is for me a kind of naive realism. The world is not only what we see (if that was the case we would not need any kind of science), and, we could easily, as Galilei noticed – and as you may well know – give "empirical proofs on the idea that the earth does not move. That is why we need to reflect on our ways of making our knowledge systems rational and "natural". Kuhn had a wonderful example of flogistone vs oxygen theoreticians.

To Bryan: Yes, most of us have spent our lives within a field and within a certain perspective. And yes, design is nowadays used in many (unexpected?) ways. But is that a problem? Are you critcal against design based research or research by way of design? I can also see that learning has been taken out of a psychological or educaional frames, and today we talk about learning sciences etc. I use design in relation to learning in order o reconceptualize the understanding of what learning and education is about today, in a society after modernity (and after postmodernty) "freeing" it from a heavy individually loaded thinking about individual capcities to remember things etc. Of course I do not use design exactly the way you have used it, but I am inspired by design traditions (and there are several).

If you want to see more of my approach, please have a look at the on-line journal Designs for Learning at www.designsforlearning.nu

Rachel, interesting presentation. Have you seen the book I and Kees Dorst did, design expertise. If not you may find it useful given your approach

Ben Sweeting

Design and Systems Thinking cross over in places and get in each other's way in others. There are designerly and non-designerly forms of systems thinking, and systemic and non-systemic forms of designing. In the past systems was invoked to support design, but design might also contribute systems thinking. In this regard you might find interesting the recent work of Wolfgang Jonas, Peter Jones, Ranulph Glanville, Birger Sevaldson, and genuine cross over figures from the previous generation such as Gordon Pask and Horst Rittel. One of my own papers may also be of interest.

A last point would be that "design thinking" as a term can mean several things, sometimes something very important, sometimes something a bit superficial.

Article Try again. Fail again. Fail better: The cybernetics in desig...

Chapter Systemic Design Principles for Complex Social Systems

Article The strengths / limits of Systems Thinking denote the streng...

Article Design Research as a Variety of Second-Order Cybernetic Practice

Article Redesigning Systems Thinking

Is it possible to express the similarities and differences between design thinking and system thinking by comparing the (human) mental models they are associated with, are based on, they build, or they presume? Is not it a meaningful way to get rid of all observable and/or conceivable manifestations, phenomenology, interpretation issues?

Dr. Sweeting, very good point: " ... "design thinking" ((but also system thinking - I.H.)) as a term can mean several things, sometimes something very important, sometimes something a bit superficial. "

Thank you for valuable articles, of which I already new a few. For me their is no absolute nature of design or design-thinking. Design- and system-thinking are made of humans to understand and solve certain problems. Thus, they are both theory-informed and practice-oriented. And value statements are not scientifically grounded utterances. It is, as I undertsand it, not an argument for closing design-thinking to certain kind of social practices. Sometomes I think of the follwing: "[…] the incomplete nature of human sciences is less disturbing than their rigidity […]." (Moscovici, S., 1996, s. 3)

Thanks Prof. Sweeting for your inputs and suggested articles. Your inputs are well taken and I am sure we all will benefit from these articles.

Ben Sweeting

Glad to contribute. The Relating Systems Thinking and Design conference series may also be of interest: https://systemic-design.net

Dear Prof. Sweeting, thanks for sharing the Design conference series. Looks like I have missed the deadline. Would have loved to present at this conference. thanks

Magda Kaspary

I understand DT as a method - IDEO developed a good one. ST is much broader than a method - it encompasses much more content and knowledge than a method for design.

What is good is that DT is part of ST!

Melehat Nil Gulari

I believe it is useful to look at the different approaches in design thinking. For example, Jonas (2011) calls these different streams as traditional design thinking and new design thinking. Traditional design thinkingfocuses on how designers think, design methodologies etc. It is a long history including research from Lawson (1980), Cross (1982), Rowe (1987). You can also include early studies published in Design Thinking Research Symposium (DRTS). The new design thinking aims to improve innovation processes in general- Martin (2009), Brown (2008, 2009), including IDEO, Stanford D school etc.. You can also look at Badke-Schaub, Roozenburg and Cardoso, (2010) paper published in DTRS criticising Brown (2008) and Martin (2009) who “seem to ignore” the 25 years long accepted history of the traditional approach to design thinking.

Similarly, Hassi and Laakso (2011) suggest that there are predominantly two histories of DT that could be constructed: from a management perspective and a design perspective. Although some practitioners consider the notion of Design Thinking as a recent phenomenon being formed in the 2000s referring to Brown, academics regard the roots of the notion to go back to the 1960s. I am not too sure about management/design labelling, but the recognition of two approaches is similar.

Hope this helps,

Badke-Schaub, P., Roozenburg, N., Cardoso, C., 2010. Design thinking: A paradigm on its way from dilution to meaninglessness? In the proceedings of Eight Design Thinking Research Symposium, Interpreting Design Thinking, 19-20 October 2010, Sydney, Australia, pp39-50. http://www.dab.uts.edu.au/research/conferences/dtrs8/docs/DTRS8-Badke-Schaub-et-al.pdf Accessed 20 January 2010.

Brown, T. "Design Thinking. " Harvard Business Review, June 2008. pp84-92 http://hbr.org/2008/06/design-thinking/ar/1

Hassi, L., Laakso M. 2011. Conceptions of Design Thinking in the management discourse, in the proceedings of the 9th Internation European Academy of Design Conference, 4-7 May 2011 the University of Porto, School of Fine Arts, Porto-Portugal.

Jonas, W. 2011. A sense of vertigo design thinking as general problem solver. In the Proceedings of the 9th International European Academy of Design Conference, 4-7 May 2011, University of Porto, School of Fine Arts, Porto-Portugal http://8149.website.snafu.de/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2011/06/EAD09.Jonas_.pdf Accessed September 2011

Lawson, B. 1980, How Designers Think, Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann

Rowe, P. 1987, Design Thinking, Cambridge, MA:MIT Press

There are people here saying design thinking is a method. I've studied it all my life and one thing it most definitely is not is a method!

I think we are talking about operationalized worldviews (including ontological, epistemological, methodological, axiological, praxiological, etc. aspects). So, not only not a method, but not even a methodics or a methodology (though the latter may supposed to be underpinned by some sort of theory or theories)

Vicente Sandoval

For me design thinking is a method and methodology to approach problems and try to solve them. Within design thinking you can hand system thinking depending of the problem, but also can use other way of rationalisation depending of the nature of the problem.

This discussion continues to get very confused. Im afraid that those of us who actually study how designers think no longer really view it as exclusively a problem-solving activity. We certainly dont see it as a 'method' or a 'methodology to solve problems'. Those who are trying to make use of what they call design thinking in other fields are really trying to take the field back a couple of decades if not more. This is very dangerous and those who wish to use the ideas outside design would do us all a favour if they coined a different name.

Dr. Sandoval,

I am afraid the claim that "Within design thinking you can hand(le?) system thinking depending on the problem" is very difficult, if not impossible, to scrutinize. This is somewhat against the whole idea/notion of system thinking as speculated about in systems philosophy and as elaborated upon in systems science/theory.

A world view/mental model/epistemological stance cannot be associated with a method. Any association with a methodology also needs to bridge a large distance.

Best regards, I.H.

Interspersing Systems thinking into Design thinking and vice versa is not supposed to be done. It is neither envisaged in Systems thinking (I am sure) nor in Design thinking (I suppose). Systems thinking is a lens and a philosophy which looks at 'nature of things' in a particular way. The same must hold true for Design thinking, I suppose, though Design thinking is not my area. Interspersing will introduce 'confusion' and 'traceability' become a casualty.

Azam Nemati Chermahini

I did not read all above comments of dear scholars. But I think Dr James Humann is right.

Recently I work on "applying design thinking to spacessuit design project". I determined the sub-systems and then identified which design methods for example would help to solve the project facets.

in conclusion it was clear that here design thinking tends to be a part of system thinking.

So It safe to say that the "context" is determining factor.

Dinesh Kumar Dandapat

I would like to thank Rachael Lovie for her resourceful comparisons and answers. Thanks Lovie. I would like to say in simple sentences that Design thinking mostly incorporates the solution framework of a perceived or actual problem and are more concerned with HUMAN factors related to the matter and where as the system thinking is more of a Management related activity , here i mean management means pertaining to the operational framework of an industry or organisation. I hope that somehow answers to Veerendra Sirs question. Other have already thrown some light on this. So with due respect to their opinion i can say this in a broader sense of application, as mentioned above.Thank you .

Grace Mugadza

I agree with most of the above and the issue to me is that it may not necessarily be the question that what one can achieve that the other cannot but rather that the two are not mutually exclusive but do compliment, supplement and complement each other at many levels. They start from different angles and in their development they are being pulled to each other. Systems thinking starts from a holistic understanding of the problem while Design starts from an empathetic angle that emphasizes what a solution that meets the needs of the affected might be

For anything that is imagined or observed can similarities and differences be defined form many (actually infinite) aspects/perspectives. That applies to Design Thinking and Systems Thinking too. What the above discussion also suggests, as a bottom line, is that they are partly overlaping, partly complementing, and partly disjunctive constituents of human thinking.

Kriti Khadia

I agree with the statement of Dr. Imre Horvath above. Systems thinking is like a Lego structure which has different parts that fit into one another to function in harmony and maintain stability. Even if one part goes missing or is damaged, the whole structure faces different levels of damage. Where as Design Thinking seems like each Lego piece that has its own design and characteristic to fit at a particular place in the structure and make it work smoothly. This way system and design thinking are overlapping and complement each other.

Dear Dr. Khadia,

I like your hands-on example. Yes, design thinking can be characterized by a progression from a composability situation to a compositionality situation in terms of the subject construct, whereas system thinking starts from a compositionality situation and arrives at a composability situation in terms of the subject construct.

Best regards,

I.H.

Be very careful here. The term design thinking is being widely used in fields other than design. In general that usage relies upon a rigid view of design the those of us who research thinking in design rejected many years ago. It is a dangerous situation

Himanshu

It is certainly the case that we now know that design does not proceed exclusively under either of these two umbrellas nor under a procedural process that can be applied universally. Bits of either of these two collections of ideas may be used by designers at various times. To try to list some exclusive sets of cognition or a predicatable sequence of events is certainly not useful in understanding How Designers Think and What Designers Know and Design Expertise.

If I understood a previous answer correctly, it claimed that Design is a science. This is absurd. Certainly the design I see and study in so many fields all over the world is most definitely not a science. Science generally tries to describe the world. Design proposes how it should be. There are times during some design projects when some designers might do things that look like science but this cannot be said to hold generally.

José Julio Ferraz de Campos Jr.

Dear Dr. Singh,

In my interpretation, studying design related phenomena (and the phenomenon of design) by scientifically rigorous manner and interpreting design as one manifestations of the scientific endevour are two (dissimilar) things. There are obvious teleological, ontological, epistemological and methodological differences between them to be seen.

Kind regards, I.H.

The key difference lies in this sentence " Both have feedback loop in their core".

For what design thinking is concerned, its feedback are exclusively structural, i.e., matter cycling throughout the economy (stocks).

System thinking work with functional feedback (reinforcing and balancing), those that change the behavior of the system and its components, and not only its structure.

Both are feedback loop, but of different kinds.

Hence, design thinking works at a less complex level of detail than system thinking.