Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label systemic design

Strategy — Aiming Systemic Design

Strategy is a term that is in constant use nowadays, or misuse, as is often the case. Strategy means different things to different people and different kinds of organizations. The variety of understandings and definitions of what strategy is is expansive. Strategies differ in kind, scale, and purpose. Some strategies are grand. For example, strategies for securing improvement in the human condition. Some strategies are less so, although still of value, such as strategies for selling more goods and services to potential customers. The following discourse advocates for an approach to strategy from a systemic design perspective: https://open.substack.com/pub/hnelson/p/strategy?r=asq7d&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

thinking amid complexity

Reality—real life—is complex, more complex than has been imagined or can be imagined. The majority of our pressing challenges or issues of concern are overwhelmingly complex in overwhelmingly complex environments and contexts. People are more complex than appreciated or understood. Complexity is the essence of being human, of life, of existence. When there isn’t the competency or ability to deal with complex situations, they are referred to as being too complicated and ‘wicked’ — e.g., ‘wicked problems’. But the perceived ‘wicked’ quality of a situation is actually a reflection of a change agent's inability to engage successfully with the complex situation at hand. As Annis Nin observed, “We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.” Unfortunately, the characterization of a situation as wicked rather than the competency of a change agent to successfully engage with complexity short-circuits the selection of appropriate methods of inquiry, replacing them with more ...

An Undisciplined Look at Systemic Design

 30 years ago I wrote an article that has remained one of the most enduring of all my writings. reference Nelson, H.G. (1994),  The Necessity of Being “Un-Disciplined” and “Out of Control” : Design Action and Systems Thinking. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7: 22-29.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1994.tb00634.x [30 years later, we (RSD 13) asked Harold Nelson to revisit this article, written and published in Performance Improvement Quarterly in 1994—30 years ago. Eds.] Original abstract This paper introduces design, integrated with systems thinking, as a necessary if not sufficient means for meeting the challenge of how to create or recreate organizations and institutions that better serve the needs and desires of clients, customers, and stakeholders in a rapidly changing world. Design is a dramatically different way of moving conceptual thinking into concrete action as contrasted to the scientific or artistic traditions which are primarily designed to describe...

design not problem solving

  Systemic design was mentioned recently in the British Design Council’s publication on Medium ( https://medium.com/design-council/challenging-the-brief-tackling-the-climate-crisis-through-design-153da39babc8 ) "An approach that tackles complex problems by considering all the interconnected parts of a system. " Like Horst Rittel’s term ‘wicked problem” — taken in directions quite different from Horst’s original thinking — which is too often mischaracterized, I feel it is important to give an alternative approach to ‘systemic design’ from that proposed by the Design Council. I don’t have a copyright on the term ‘systemic design’ but I do have a long personal history with the idea and the term. I have been developing and applying systemic design ideas over a very long period and want to offer a generable alternative to the ‘problem-focused’ definition of the Council. Systemic design should be considered as ‘design’ and not ‘problem-solving’: The Reconstitution of Sophia-the Wi...

Give Someone a Fish....Teaching & Learning

  During the process of developing a series of   master classes in systemic designing    (www.haroldgnelson.com/masterclasses) I became aware of a critical issue. Many of the terms I was using, such as ‘learning’ and ‘teaching’, had been hollowed out by the predominance of AI-related terms in public discourse like ‘machine learning’ and ‘artificial intelligence’ (AI). In addition, the dominating hype or shallow understandings of the ideas behind the terms I was using further hampered any meaningful communication with others. Even the term ‘masterclass’ had lost common meaning — much like the term ‘equal’ has lost shared meaning among mathematicians.     Common terms like ‘innovation’, ‘change’, ‘creativity’, ‘agent’, or ‘paradigm shift’ are among a growing list of words that have become mere tags or indicators rather than carriers of useful information in shared discourse. In my  master classes,  for example, key terms like ‘learning’, ‘teaching’,...

Natural Thinking vs Artificial Thinking

  Watched the whole series from the perspective of a systemic designer. I lost count of the number of times that: “…we didn’t think’, “….we didn’t know’. “…we didn’t connect the dots” etc etc. was mentioned. I think that our leaders and advisors could benefit with some competence in systemic designing. I don't think AI or related algorithms will make things better without increased ability to think more competently about complex, entangled events. It is not about 'artificial' thinking. It is about elevated 'natural' thinking. https://lnkd.in/gaQmV8rH   Watch Turning Point: 9/11 and the War on Terror | Netflix Official Site

The Humanities crisis isn't academic

This is an excellent article concerning the crisis with The Humanities that is so prevalent in public discourse nowadays. The author makes the assertion that the crisis is not academic ie with universities. Hopefully this article will begin a longer conversation on the relationships among The Arts and Humanities, Science and Technology and  serious Design—a Systemic conversation. https://open.substack.com/pub/tedgioia/p/the-real-crisis-in-humanities-isnt?r=asq7d&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email   

systemic design 'progress' motto

    A great deal has been, and is being, said about the necessity of repairing, reforming or transforming existing means and methods for the development and innovation of technology. However, from a systemic design perspective, very little significant change can be accomplished without ‘re-scoring’ (reorganizing algorithmic steps) the present process of  ‘progress’—particularly technologic progress. The dominant ‘spirit of the times’ for scoring progress was captured in the 1933 World Fair’s motto:   Science Finds • Industry Applies • Man Conforms   20 th  Century ‘score’ for technologic progress   The historical enablers for each step include:   Science Finds • university research • business R&D programs • government research programs •            • Industry Applies • innovates • disrupts • persuades •             • Man (sic...

Center for Systemic Design draft prospectus

    PROSPECTUS Center for Advanced Systemic Designing Introduction  Our futures can be approached in four ways: 1) drifting—adapting to whatever happens,  2) colliding—reacting and enduring,  3) retreating—backing away from undesirable states or conditions, or   4) advancing—navigating into desirable states-of-affairs. The norm nowadays is to drift, collide or retreat into the future. The fourth approach, the proactive approach, is the more apt response given the complex challenges and rising expectations that are the new norm for the foreseeable future.  The fourth approach depends on the agency of individuals who have the capacity to handle the challenge of securing desired outcomes in indeterminate situations on behalf of concomitant stakeholders and clients. They achieve this by serving—design agency—as members of design teams and design cohorts. These systemic designers are skilled polymaths who have the ability to create assem...