The practice of the systemic design framework
Part 2. How to apply this in organisations and services
The working method applying the triple diamond framework is derived from the idea of wholistic, systemic and design concepts, that is a far cry from the traditional reductionist (waterfall & project management) principles of change as we have known in organisations popular over the past decades. We have to recognise that with any aspect of change, whether it is digital, or operational, that any change in one will affect all others; and that includes the actions and behaviours of decision-makers. They are a part of this, and leaders and managers understanding and mindset alters as they progress through the triple diamond framework.
The systemic design intervention process is not the diagram, but the body of knowledge and concepts behind the diagram. This is a key statement for any method or framework!
For any change or systemic designer facing whole service complex change, understanding how all the elements fit together can be a daunting prospect. And various techniques and methods have developed over time that help us to achieve this. For instance, we now avoid the approach of the past where we would drop a new design on the lap of the service managers in the hope that they will then adopt our carefully crafted design.
Then there are the people, the staff what duo the work, and the managers that decide. All of this is complex:
- Complexity is inherent in change with regards to the employees; how they communicate, change, behave and work together.
- Complexity may be inherent in the characteristic of the service flow itself, particularly in the public sector.
As designers, we now understand that we should work with the staff from the service. Co-create with them, creating the space for change with the service managers. The outcomes are produced by the activities of the change team as they innovate and decide on the path to take their design. I have seen the success when the team is trusted to apply the design principles, and develop the designs that are right for them, in their context.
The systemic design intervention process is not the diagram, but the body of knowledge and concepts behind the diagram. This is a key statement for any method or framework!
For any change or systemic designer facing whole service complex change, understanding how all the elements fit together can be a daunting prospect. And various techniques and methods have developed over time that help us to achieve this. For instance, we now avoid the approach of the past where we would drop a new design on the lap of the service managers in the hope that they will then adopt our carefully crafted design.
Then there are the people, the staff what duo the work, and the managers that decide. All of this is complex:
- Complexity is inherent in change with regards to the employees; how they communicate, change, behave and work together.
- Complexity may be inherent in the characteristic of the service flow itself, particularly in the public sector.
As designers, we now understand that we should work with the staff from the service. Co-create with them, creating the space for change with the service managers. The outcomes are produced by the activities of the change team as they innovate and decide on the path to take their design. I have seen the success when the team is trusted to apply the design principles, and develop the designs that are right for them, in their context.
It is a model of a framework, a systemic grouping of concepts
This framework, whose core is systemic design and systems thinking, is a purposeful and creative decision oriented disciplined enquiry. Its function is to help us to redesign by exploring, understanding and learning; exploring ourselves and the system we are designing. Key to this is liberating staff to apply the methods that are most appropriate. An organisation is a people system (as a complex adaptive system), as much as it is a physical operational construct.
The use of the framework incorporates both of these areas of the service;
The use of the framework incorporates both of these areas of the service;
|
The people
|
Examine why we (decision-makers, employees) have developed the service to work in the way it currently does. To understand our paradigms and ways of relating to each other. And to challenge ourselves to expand our thinking away from the reductionist and analytical, towards the systemic, holistic and relational.
|
|
The service
|
The operations flow, departments, structures, technology, and data. Re-examining the whole service or organisation from systemic perspectives that give us holistic understanding of how it all works together.
|
The application of the systemic design triple diamond
This video helps to describe the practical application of the systemic design framework, far better than my words can.
This framework is conceptual in that is represents part of a whole body of knowledge. Unless being used to guide a beginner, this 'model' is never a recipe or a tool, despite the fact that it appears linear. It is actually a methodology - a collection of methods.
In John Seddon's words, it is about what to learn, and how to learn it. For me, this is the movement from concepts to practice in the context it resides in. And it must not be a wishful application of new methods, in the hope that we end up with something good. It is defined and determined creative activity that is led by experience and conviction.
The real path taken of a redesign, depends on the context, and it is about applying the concepts only with what is relevant for the application in hand. For instance in complex design contexts, the path taken is often oscillating backwards and forwards between the various stages, emerging into clarity. We continually integrate information, knowledge, insights gained, and the findings of testing into emerging design solutions. This process is not linear, sequential, or systematic, but recursive. Systemic design manifests dynamic interaction between feedback and feedforward, reflection and creation, and divergence and convergence (the diamond). This dynamic process loops until we develop confidence in the viability of one of the solution alternatives.
And surely the role of the interventionist is to both guide those undertaking this activity, the discipline of the design process, and to offer the methods and concepts to them.
The point of whether or not it is the double or triple loop diagram, is never 'the point'. The recursion of learning happens as many times as is necessary. And the number of decision-points forward happen when they are required.
And surely the role of the interventionist is to both guide those undertaking this activity, the discipline of the design process, and to offer the methods and concepts to them.
The point of whether or not it is the double or triple loop diagram, is never 'the point'. The recursion of learning happens as many times as is necessary. And the number of decision-points forward happen when they are required.
Sometimes, the stages may overlap. We may recursively go back, and re-examine past stages. Continuous interaction between definitions and outcomes.
And other times, we might miss out a stage! I did this when we had to respond rapidly to lockdown, and achieve outcomes in a week
The team themselves, once they have completed one full iteration, will have found that they apply this without thinking about it, and continue to refine the design of their service moving forwards on their own; continuous improvement, and adaptability to change.
This description of the triple diamond framework is necessarily an overview of its main aspects of systemic design. As such, we must include an important element that differentiates this from other design methods. And that is Sense-making
A definition of sensemaking;
How are meanings and understanding of situations, events, objects of discourse, or contextual information produced and understood in a collective context?
That means that a close cooperation between all groups involved in the design and decision process, sensemaking process must be maintained. And that means that importantly, since we as collaborative sensemakers are tasked with the processing and interpretation of diverse information, we must be comfortable with interactions, communication and sharing what we know, and, be able to analyse a situation as a wider team.
These elements are:
a) The communication process
b) The learning and knowledge process
c) Developing understanding to develop a shared situation awareness.
d) The process for developing collaborative end to end knowledge and understanding.
These elements are:
a) The communication process
b) The learning and knowledge process
c) Developing understanding to develop a shared situation awareness.
d) The process for developing collaborative end to end knowledge and understanding.
Managers engagement & the decision points
If we see systemic design as a disciplined, decision-oriented enquiry, then the places where the diamonds converge and the movement shifts from one to the other, is a most important step. There are two key activities that happen here;
1. The team have to focus their attention to pulling together and summarising their learning.
2. The decision-makers, who have already been connected to the work, spend two hours with the team and all the artefacts. The team help to describe and use narrative and story-telling to convey what they have done, and learned. They then explore what the implications for this work are. One of my rules is that written reports of the teams output must not created, decision-makers have to visit and engage directly with the team.
However, managers at all levels will have engaged with the team during the previous sections, therefore this decision point is not a surprise.
But ultimately, guiding the work and making decisions is not a one-off activity. It is end-to-end and occurring throughout, active and passively. That is why it is never one decision that defines but rather a chain of decisions. And we are always deciding.
1. The team have to focus their attention to pulling together and summarising their learning.
2. The decision-makers, who have already been connected to the work, spend two hours with the team and all the artefacts. The team help to describe and use narrative and story-telling to convey what they have done, and learned. They then explore what the implications for this work are. One of my rules is that written reports of the teams output must not created, decision-makers have to visit and engage directly with the team.
However, managers at all levels will have engaged with the team during the previous sections, therefore this decision point is not a surprise.
But ultimately, guiding the work and making decisions is not a one-off activity. It is end-to-end and occurring throughout, active and passively. That is why it is never one decision that defines but rather a chain of decisions. And we are always deciding.
Public sector design & GDS
This approach is valid for both the private and public sectors, but the greatest error to be made in public sector service design, is to simply bring in private sector design and apply it without modification. This is an important difference that any designer has to recognise, and this is based around the concept of complexity, and in the idea of using Digital by Default. In the public sector we do have some customers that want a service, but in the majority of cases where resources used are highest, we have citizens who need something to help them live their lives.
We can categorise two types of services;
- Transactional services which are logical and standard - like online shopping. Digital through GDS (Government Digital Service) has been highly successful as an enabler.
- Complex services which include non-logical, are unlikely to be predictable, and have multiple links with other aspects of peoples lives. The focus of sensemaking and service delivery is through personal engagement and working with citizens.
When we consider complex services, we have to incorporate the design to the entirety of the interactions with citizens, and this almost always includes multiple interactions with staff. Therefore digital has go be designed in hand in hand with staff to citizen interaction. And for those who have experienced it, the UK public sector has made some spectacular simplifications in its implementation of digital in local government;
1. Digital by default has standardised service journeys for citizens that has resulted in the further distancing of services and citizens.
2. Health and social care is being designed, often by implementing better ways for the citizens to contact the council. Which bypasses the problem itself.
3. Universal Credit is a nationwide service, consisting of various services, that is inappropriate in dealing with citizens who have complex issues. The cost to the nation has been to increase poverty and difficulty for those who are most in need. And the cost in the operation of this service is far higher than it should be. Simply due to the failure to understand complexity.
Increasingly, it seems, service design is becoming a product that is owned by the IT department.
We can categorise two types of services;
- Transactional services which are logical and standard - like online shopping. Digital through GDS (Government Digital Service) has been highly successful as an enabler.
- Complex services which include non-logical, are unlikely to be predictable, and have multiple links with other aspects of peoples lives. The focus of sensemaking and service delivery is through personal engagement and working with citizens.
When we consider complex services, we have to incorporate the design to the entirety of the interactions with citizens, and this almost always includes multiple interactions with staff. Therefore digital has go be designed in hand in hand with staff to citizen interaction. And for those who have experienced it, the UK public sector has made some spectacular simplifications in its implementation of digital in local government;
1. Digital by default has standardised service journeys for citizens that has resulted in the further distancing of services and citizens.
2. Health and social care is being designed, often by implementing better ways for the citizens to contact the council. Which bypasses the problem itself.
3. Universal Credit is a nationwide service, consisting of various services, that is inappropriate in dealing with citizens who have complex issues. The cost to the nation has been to increase poverty and difficulty for those who are most in need. And the cost in the operation of this service is far higher than it should be. Simply due to the failure to understand complexity.
Increasingly, it seems, service design is becoming a product that is owned by the IT department.
In the UK at least public sector digital service design has been highly successful in transactional services, like passports and driving licenses. We also have a initiatives like - Digital by Default. However, as we move towards more people based services, the principles that we have followed need to be modified. The worst thing we can do when we design public services, is to impose the wrong approach.
An example - pushing demand into digital front-ends in local government councils, has increased the alienation of citizens with getting support, as engaging with a person has become more difficult or impossible. The most obvious example of this is Universal Credit, which has pulled a raft of citizens into greater distress across the country.
An example - pushing demand into digital front-ends in local government councils, has increased the alienation of citizens with getting support, as engaging with a person has become more difficult or impossible. The most obvious example of this is Universal Credit, which has pulled a raft of citizens into greater distress across the country.
We have found that Complex person-centred services have to have certain characteristics:
1. They must engage with citizens, not just at the start, but through the journey of the service.
2. It is often not about 'delivering' a service, but more of understanding and assisting with something.
3. The service delivery often follows a different path for each citizen demand, base don what matters to them.
4. The information used in the service, is often behavioural, ever-changing, multi-faceted. It often cannot be formed into data, but must remain in a systemic narrative.
1. They must engage with citizens, not just at the start, but through the journey of the service.
2. It is often not about 'delivering' a service, but more of understanding and assisting with something.
3. The service delivery often follows a different path for each citizen demand, base don what matters to them.
4. The information used in the service, is often behavioural, ever-changing, multi-faceted. It often cannot be formed into data, but must remain in a systemic narrative.
Public sector design characteristics - Sabine Junginger
There is another aspect to this, and that is the relationship between the designer, organisation, and the citizen. Far more involved than the private sector. Bringing in a private sector paradigm as a designer, may be focused in the top left hand. In reality, a good service is obtained in the bottom right corner. And it is the knowledge of the diamond process, that can take us there.
Moving from the top left, to the bottom right
A case study of the method
Here is an example from a Local Government service - paying bills. Local government collect local taxes, and sometimes rents for social housing. It demonstrates how the steps of the triple diamond framework work together, and the activities and artefacts from one example. Although this is a non-digital example, this is applicable to digital service design.
