From design thinking to systems thinking

Over the past fifteen years, DT - short for Design Thinking - has become a very popular approach in education as well as in companies. It can be described as a human-centred method to creativity and innovation, inspired by the way designers think and work. 

Design thinking has sometimes been presented as a method meant to address wicked problems creatively, but in the light of the theory of wicked problems (outlined in a previous article of this series), we argue that it is not the case and that, as said before, wicked problems positively require a systemic perspective. 

For those familiar with design thinking or creativity approaches like CPS (Creative Problem Solving), the shift from design thinking to systems thinking calls for a better understanding of the main differences between the two perspectives. 

In this article, I propose a systematic comparison between design thinking and systems thinking. To describe the main characteristics of design thinking I’ll rely on the article of Carlgren, Rauth and Elmquist (2016) (1). To describe the main characteristics of systems thinking I’ll use my own understanding of this perspective, based on my reading and research. 

Characteristics of design thinking

Carlgren, Rauth and Elmquist carried out a field study in 6 companies applying design thinking approaches and were led to conduct more than 30 interviews with different people involved in these processes. They came up with a set of five themes characterizing design thinking in practice. 

1. User focus

DT approaches involve a deep user understanding through what is often called empathy building. Sometimes users are invited to contribute and engage in idea generation, idea validation or prototyping.

2. Problem framing

Problem framing appears to be a core feature of design methods which do not try to solve a problem but rather to challenge it and reframe it. This is often perceived as difficult and counter-intuitive by engineers and managers, who are mostly trained to think in terms of solution seeking. 

3. Visualisation

This refers to making things tangible by means of sketching, mock-ups, role-playing or video-skits. These artefacts are not only for testing but they also create consensus among the teams. 

4. Experimentation

Experimentation is about testing and using an iterative way with the famous mantra “fail often and fail soon”. The iteration comes from a combination of both divergent and convergent thinking. The purpose of experimenting is to gain new knowledge by confronting the ideas or prototypes to other participants or real users. 

5. Diversity

The last theme refers to cooperation in diverse teams and the integration of diverse outside perspectives all along the process. It implies that the mix of competences, skills and also personalities relate to each other in order to create a sort of democratic spirit. 

Characteristics of systems thinking

In order to compare the two approaches, I will try and see how these different themes may resonate with each other in a systemic perspective and what the main differences would be. 

1. From user focus to stakeholder focus

Systems thinking is clearly not focused on a particular user, but rather on the different stakeholders and their relationships within the system. For example, if you deal with the problem of childhood obesity, you would not focus only on children or parents, but on the whole system of health, education, media, food production and so forth. 

2. From problem framing to problem modelling

Systems thinking is based on multi-level representations, from the global (for instance laws concerning compulsory warnings attached to food advertising) to the local (food education in a particular school). The issue is to identify a relevant level of intervention, that is to say a particular action that has the potential to shift the trajectory of the system. 

3. From visualisation to mapping

Like in design thinking, systems thinking approaches promote the use of different types of visualisation, often under a form of mapping, in order to share a diagnosis of the problem at hand and support an open conversation between different stakeholders or team members.Here below is for example a work we did at the School of System Change about the risk of water shortage in the East of England. Of course, such a representation may appear difficult to read for people outside the project but it helped us a lot in summarizing our findings and insights on the problem. 

4. From experimentation to intervention

The systems thinking and systems change vocabulary often refers to the term “intervention” to designate the practice of “trying something”, even at a very local level. Rather than proceeding through divergence and convergence, systems thinking proceeds through zooming out and zooming in, from the global to the local. This notion of social intervention is also in line with the tradition of “social labs” relying on communities to experiment new initiatives. See for example “The Social Labs Revolution” here 

5. From diversity to conflict recognition

The assumption about diversity in design thinking is that it can help reach consensus and a more informed view of diverse ways of apprehending the problem at stake. Even this is a view also adopted in systems thinking, the latter approach also considers that any attempt to change systems will face opposition and resistance and that an action plan should take this into account. Dealing with childhood obesity, to continue with our example, will inevitably raise resistance and lobbying actions among the food industry with actors willing to keep on selling highly sugared and fat foods. 

The following table summarizes our propositions about the shift from design thinking to systems thinking. 

I will conclude with a comment on the valuation of both approaches. On one side, a design thinking innovative project will be evaluated positively if the new concept meets the three criteria of desirability, viability (in economic terms) and feasibility. On the other side, an experimentation led according to systems principles will be evaluated positively if it has the potential of moving the trajectory of the system towards a more sustainable and more resilient one. 

Next time, I will address strategic modes of intervention in social systems. 

(1)   Carlgren, L.; I. Rauth; M. Elmquist (2016). « Framing Design Thinking : The Concept in Idea and Enactment », Creativity & Innovation Management, Vol. 25, N° 1, p. 38-57.