an attempt to integrate service design, systems thinking and complexity

Moving service design forward to incorporate systems thinking , allows us to expand the depth of how we can assist organisations to redefine what they do

My definition of Systems Thinking for a service organisation is conceptually very simple;

it is a wholistic way of looking at the service, its customers, operating environment, its service delivery, and all the elements that go to making this happen.

 When people start to perceive their organisation and role with this mindset, they gain a perspective that leads them to understand how that service can work in a fundamentally different way to traditional mechanistic & reductionist principles that operate today. However for the curious, if you begin to search for what Systems Thinking is to then apply it, it can often ends up creating more confusion than it solves. But here, we will keep this very simple and leave the theory for later.

What is an Organisation when Viewed as a System?

A system isn’t just any old collection of things. A system is an interconnected set of elements that is coherently organized in a way that achieves something.
If you look at that definition closely for a minute, you can see that a system must consist of three kinds of things: elements, interconnections, and a function or purpose.  Meadows

So What is Systems Thinking?

Systems thinking is a way of seeing a service, from the customers perspective, all the way through the service delivery. It understands everything that goes into that delivery. Therefore we can begin to redesign the service from that customer centric perspective, incorporating the staff, managers, behaviours, leadership, and the culture of that organisation.
We move away from a rational and often reductionist way of thinking, that designed the service before. And replace it with wholistic understanding.
We will see problems, from a new perspective, allowing us to create novel solutions.
Complexity and uncertainty are dealt with, by recognising that they are addressed by using approaches that may be very different to those we traditionally use.

If anyone now wants a definition of Systems Thinking that makes any sense in the real world, and you have 12 minutesd to spare, listen to Ackoff talking about systems thinking, and see how it fits into Design:

Making Service Design expand to Systemic Design

There is no fixed approach to take, to incorporate service design and systems thinkig. What follows now is simply one approach, that incorporates systems thinking, behaviour, organisation design, and change methodologies.

The diagram is applicable for practitioners within organisations. It also brings with it knowledge from various specialisms. Design and systems htinking is not complete in themselves; they require a host of kowledge behins them.
A particular aspect of this framework that is worth noting, is that feedback from experience in organisations is the primary way that this model develops into a successful methodology. It is no coincidence that the Experience & Learning bubble is the largest.

Looking at this framework, it does demonstrate something, that different routes taken by different people will create different methodologies, and that we should recognise this difference as positive and providing necessary comparison to learn from. Design Thinking has mushroomed because its fertile ground is a myriad of service design agencies, operating within various industries. And it continues to evolve.

The quote below is one that has transformed my fundamental attitude from one of talking and arguing, to one of doing and being open to learning. For me, doing is the core that drives the model above.

"What you’ve achieved is what matters, not what you’ve suggested or said."
Taiichi Ohno

Service Design with Systems Thinking = Systemic Design

This is a diagramatic way of demonstrating trhe difference between customer experience service design, and systemic service design that starts from the customer and what matters to them.

Traditional thinking & practice	Systems thinking & practice
applying rationality, reductionism, expertise and functionality to an organisation may take us away from the understanding of that whole.	That the whole service should be understood as a system.
Service functions have their own purpose, working against each other.	The whole service is defined by its purpose. And as such the service must be understood end to end, creating an outside-in view of the organisation as a system
Staff are cogs in a machine, they have little control over their work	People are the heart of any organisation, and they are the embodiment of the system. Staff bring their whole selves to work
Reductionist thinking	Holistic understanding
Impose standard services on the customer	Absorb variation in the design and operations
Internal focus, and satisfy stakeholders	Design around the customer
Leaders think that staff perceptions need to change, not theirs	Recognition that leaders mindsets creates the system, allows us to help leaders to change their fundamental understanding of how they see organisations work
Change is done to staff	The staff in the organisation undertake the change

Moving Forward

What do I suggest for others to move forward? Start from where you are today; and begin to learn about the more straightforward systems thinking concepts (without going into theory), and attempt to incorporate them into your approach. Seek those who are not service designers. Certainly I would encourage learners to seek out those who they resonate with, and reject those who they don't. Read, connect, visit, and work with those you find attracted to. Thats what I did, and it has helped me. Oh, and the most important thing, practice it, do it, make mistakes and apply and learn.

I have found that Systems Thinking that is published is often applied to world problems, social, or natural systems, or derived from the early days to Engineering. If we look at the models and concepts that are created to communicate that type of application of Systems Thinking, I find that they can be often unhelpful to learn from, when we are focused on services and organisations. I sometimes fail to recognise the relevance that an organisation has, with a natural element like a cell or a human body.  And as such perhaps be courageous enough to create your own understanding of organisations when helping yourself to think more systemically, especially in the light of organisational trends as described by Frederic Laloux in the book Reinventing Organisations.

The way I understand how able someone is to see an organisation through a Systems Thinking lens is to have a conversation with them, and listen to how they see and therefore describe about that organisation. Their concepts and how they express them will link to their thinking.

Complexity & Grint, a systems thinking partner

Complexity, it messes with our rationality. Let go of that rationality as a cage and allow complexity to become normal.

Understanding complexity, and therefore moving away from my prevailing and rational mindset, has helped me to understand why I often failed to sustain much of what I was trying to achieve in the past, with managing operations and people, implementing change, creating and implementing IT systems. I, like so many others, have looked back and seen the frustration and struggle to ‘get things to stick’ and how I used to blame others for that failure.

What I now realise, apart from a different style of management in general, is that the mechanisms (control, skills, behaviours, etc) that are required to operate with complexity, need to be quite different to the mechanisms that are needed to dealing with complicated but rational services and problems.

Understanding when to use a particular approach, helps managers to understand why sometimes their efforts are successful or futile.

In both the public and private sectors, managers that I see assume that their learned understanding of management is rooted in those derived from complicated rational systems. Especially those based on the Command & Control paradigm. There are many resources now available at the click of a button to help us to understand complexity and how to deal with it, so I won't go into details here, but I have found the simplicity of Grint a very helpful starting point.

My Experience of Outcomes of Good Service Design

As an exercise, which I do not know if has any value out not, I have decided to write a first draft of a set of Good Service Design principles. (I was inspired by Rams the product designers principles). Any feedback would be welcome, as I expect these principles to change significantly:

• It is innovative — based on the new rather than a rehash of the current approach. It is unique.
• It is an elegant design — it has been designed end to end, and flows to fit the value it creates.
• The system the Service is a part of can be described systemically and simply to anyone.
• It is efficient, in that the work performed contains only those activities necessary to its achievement.
• It is designed from an outside-in perspective, and therefore achieves the purpose of the service by default.
• It is sustainable and has the ability to adapt to the nature of the changes in the organisation and wider system.

The Foundations of what I do

These are some of my Systems Thinking & Change principles, that I use as a foundation to what I do.

• The Service workflow is understood and designed end to end.
• That the fundamentals of the design is created from the Purpose of the service. Purpose is primarily defined by the user of the service. This immediately places the focus of the design starting from an outside-in perspective.
• That the leaders thinking, assumptions and behaviours creates the whole environment within which the Service operates in. These need to align to managing complexity and systemic view, to create a new organisation design.
• The thinking and approaches of leaders and managers, create the system, which then drives the behaviours of the staff and the culture.
  
• The change is done by those in the service itself, I merely ast as the facilitator.
  

• How leaders design, control, act and communicate within their hierarchy has to match the characteristics of the Service, with regard to complexity, variety, and responsiveness.
• Real learning through fundamental mental shifts are difficult to achieve. This often happens whilst people are connected to the work itself. It hardly happens in a rational environment through teaching or reading. (Ref Argyris & Schon). Systems thinking is real, and that reality is not possible to directly comprehend through human forms of communication, it should only be experienced. Its understanding lies directly in the human-ness that we are, with regard to our individual world views.

I hear things, and I forget them. I see things, and I remember them. I do things, and I understand them. Confucious

---

We now delve into the background and theory. Recommended for those who wish to know more of the issues I have faced breaking boundaries of what is deemed acceptable.

Getting into the Background and Theory - Using Different Approaches

Systems thinkers can collide because they see the world in different ways, or they can see this as essential. We should examine the different ways they see the world rather than argue about the way the world ‘actually is’. In some circumstances one viewpoint will give you the traction to bring about improvement, in others a different viewpoint is needed. You can make an informed choice of which viewpoint ( and associated systems approaches) to start with but you will never really know until you are engaged in the process of using it. And you should be ready to switch as a project progresses. Best is to have a variety of viewpoints (and associated systems approaches) at your disposal. This ‘second-order’ thinking - concentrating on the nature of the systems approaches and what they can achieve, rather than pinning down what the world is like - is called critical systems thinking, perhaps most well defined by Prof Michael Jackson, OBE.

• Change is led by those responsible for the service, working together with those who work in the service, to create the change.
• Real change and changing thinking/ mindset/ paradigm, is a journey that each person has to take themselves, and in their way. It rarely can be forced, or ‘done to’. This is about helping those to undergo the journey; I facilitate, lead, encourage, create the path.

this is primarily about human beings working together to solve the problems of other human beings.

Digital Design then follows from this Service Design, after the human and formal interactions that are created.

It is easy to remember theory with the mind; the problem is to remember with the body. The goal is to know & do instinctively. Having the spirit to endure the training & practice is the first step on the road to understanding.
Taiichi Ohno.

Qualities Required to Learn about Thinking things

1. The ability to put aside ones own views, beliefs, stated positions and truly learn from others that do not share your perspective.
2. Realise that judging other is in itself a limiting action, and it inhibits point 1.
3. Realising that others are different to ourselves, so their journey, whilst different to ours, may be valid for them.
4. That to truly understand, words that have been written, data, presentations, case studies, none are a substitute to actually visiting a situation with that person, and witnessing what they are doing to gain true understanding.

Design Thinking

Background

Design Thinking has always existed, but the term was coined in the 20th century. It became the subject of ‘papers’ and then become increasingly recognised through very practical and successful product development. Then, others came along and made some significant and new strides in the direction of Service Design based on Design Thinking. An interesting and important characteristic about Design Thinking, is the reluctance for those operating in that field to strictly define it from an academic perspective, and critically, to resist attempts to standardise and codify it. According to many practitioners, the day that codification happens will probably be the day it begins to die.

Section by Stefanie di Russo
We have come to realize that we do not have to turn design into a limitation of science, nor do we have to treat design as a mysterious, ineffable art. We recognize that design has its own distinct intellectual culture; its own designerly ‘things to know, ways of knowing them, and ways of finding out about them’ (Nigel Cross 1999, p. 7)

Schön aggressively refuted the idea that design needs to ground itself in science to be taken seriously. Like his peers, he made an attempt to individualise design as a unique practice through cognitive reflections and explanations on its process.

Schön’s main approach on design practice was not focused on analysing the process but rather framing and contextualizing it. He describes the idea of ‘problem setting’ as a crucial component that holds together the entire process. The point of focusing on this was to allow designers to best understand how to approach the problem before they go about processing how to solve it.

Let us search, instead, for an epistemology of practice implicit in the artistic, intuitive processes which some practitioners do bring to situations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness and value conflict (Schön 1982, p. 49)

The Grouping of Design and Systems Thinking

So, we’re all doing some 'Design Thinking' out there, and we all have slightly different approaches and techniques. We are learning from each other, and learn from when we dont do it very well. In the last 20 years Design Thinking has made a significant impact in modern business. And perhaps an attribute to this success is what Design Thinkers are not doing, and that is to create academic works that define it.
​
Systems Thinking on the other hand, seems to have been defined early on by different  groups who were primarily academically focused. While there is nothing wrong with that, much of what we call Systems Thinking still seems to be defined more by those who have focused on the academic aspect almost exclusively.

Therefore at fist glance, it may be difficult for those who wish to learn to get appropriate help in understanding the first rungs of the ladder of Systems Thinking. For me, this seems to be a hangover of its history; starting in the realms of engineering, systems thinking written concepts appear to be rooted in theory through analytical analysis, rather than practical evidence and holistic understanding. However, this is not quite true. If we examine the lives of those known system thinker creators, they often had deep conceptual and holistic thinking. And it is this that is often hidden by academic writings.

On the other hand there are many who use Systems Thinking more connected to the workplace, and less connected to the theory, who are successfully developing. But they have no united voice or way to group together as a community that Design Thinking has.

Learning Systems Thinking? It’s not so Straightforward, lets ask Russ Ackoff

So I want to separate Systems Thinking from systems theory. They are different but yet related. I want separate the two because Theory itself, by definition, is a rational, scientific and reductionist way of looking at anything. Academia primarily engages in theory and research analysis.

As an example, when we use a model to describe something, we are not describing that thing directly. The model is and always will be an artificial construct that we create to help us understand. And often the model is a poor relation to the real thing, in that we have to embellish or move away from the model when applying it. We use models and theories to help us analytically to understand Systems Thinking, and for some this is the ideal route for them. But for others it could also confuse and only teach us about structured constructs and models, if we limit ourselves to this approach. Looking at Systems Thinking through a holistic lens, we would never reduce it to its component parts and then ‘teach’ those.

Ideally, systems theory and practice should inform one another,
Prof Mike Jackson OBE

So, for some it is far better to explore and experience Systems Thinking in action.

We need methodologies to help others in organisations to learn, but that methodology is not or ever will be Systems Thinking itself. The methodology or approach anyone takes is their way of undergoing a journey of Systems Thinking learning or application.

The more difficult part of understanding Systems Thinking, is a cognitive one; getting to that place of removing our dependence on reductionism and learning to think systemically. Unfortunately there are no clear ways of doing that, and I have come across many weird and wonderful interpretations of how to get there. In this blog I will use Design Thinking as an analogy, because there are similarities with Systems Thinking (ST) due to the fact that they are both ways of seeing and understanding that are more fundamental than logical analysis. They both can underpin how we percieve nad interpret what we see and understand. They are both 'thinking' things.

Navigating the Systems thinking Environment

Focusing on the the correct definition of theory above all else can sometimes be characterised by people expressing particular behaviours, especially visible on social media. I have found that these not only hinder learning, but often do not help others to learn. Examples are:

1. A belief that the more theory you know, the more ‘right’ you must be. Egos can expand this into outright battles of words.
2. If its not based on theory then it cannot be Systems Thinking. This view becomes increasingly ridiculous when we delve into social systems and complexity, that can leave science far behind.
   
3. A strange aggressive, negative and egoistic mindset and behaviour that often belittles and ridicules those who are not in agreement with their way of approaching this. They often attack and deride others who are simply trying to learn. Fundamentalism beats pragmatism in this ‘game’ and it becomes a battle of clever words mixed in with quiet bullying.
4. An increasingly closed mindset that prevents that person from having their existing paradigms challenged, that hinders their learning.

If you go to the world of systems thinking and cybernetic groups you will find that they are very often antagonistic. Its not necessary to behave in that way, its juvenile.
...We should curate our different modes of thinking, rather than moving towards uniformity.
Ranulph Glanville

The splintering of the systems movement into warring factions championing soft systems thinking against hard systems thinking and critical systems thinking against soft systems thinking may provide amusement to academics but is alienating to practitioners.
Prof. MICHAEL C. JACKSON OBE

In contrast, and the world of Systems Thinking can learn from, is the approach of Design Thinkers - free from historic trends, allow for the refreshing of the definitions, and be what they decide they want to be, free of judgement.

When applied to organisations, Systems Thinking should be reversing the impact of reductionist thinking, Taylorism and rigid mechanistic thinking; it should be pointing us to novel ways of seeing and managing through people, that results in positive outcomes for the organisation, and for the staff themselves. It could be heralding new horizons that coincide with Design Thinking and its associated mindset and culture; Design Thinking and Systems Thinking should go hand in hand. For me, part of the beauty and power of Systems Thinking is its inclusion of everything that incorporates all aspects of organisations, especially the recognition that people are at the core of this.

And as for my journey, I was lucky enough to meet some people who have spent much time analysing theories and creating approaches, but more importantly, learning from the reality of current organisations and how we operate within them. Putting that theory into practice. For myself, the understanding and application of Systems Thinking has developed through experience, a mindset of learning, and the application of ideas and concepts to discover their impact. Design Thinking could have gone down the same sorry path as Systems Thinking, but it luckily got led by those who were open, flexible and understood emergence of knowledge and learning through experience.