Relating Systems Thinking and Design 4

Abstracts

Table of Contents RSD4 Gigamap ......................................................................................................................... 5

Symposium Program ............................................................................................................... 6

Keynote Speakers .................................................................................................................... 7

Workshops ..............................................................................................................................10

Reshaping the Exceptional Economy of the Design Industry through Systems Thinking: The Design Laboratory Case Study ..............................................................................................10

“It’s Not All Pointless” – Exploring Design Methods to Impact Change in Alberta Human Services ................................................................................................................................11

Systemic Design as Ecologizing: Design Leadership in the Antropeocene ............................12

Intentional Left Blank .............................................................................................................13

Designing Empathy: Systemic Design and the Art of ‘Homo Empaticus’ ................................13

Playing in a Field of Possibility: Groups, Games, and Designing in Complex Systems ..........14

Creating Spaces for Rich Dialogues and Systemic Reflections .............................................15

Session Abstracts – Tuesday, September 1, 2015 – Stream A ............................................17

The Implicit Ethics of Designing .............................................................................................17

A History of Design’s Sense of Complexity ............................................................................19

Formulating the Oslo Questions: A Case Study .....................................................................20

Design and the Conditions that Foster an Ability to Reframe Problems .................................21

Session Abstracts – Tuesday, September 1, 2015 – Stream B ............................................23

On the Same Page, Giving Form to Complexity ....................................................................23

Designing interventions in a complex health care setting: What Could Be Learned from Health Professionals Outside the Project ..........................................................................................23

Reforming the Family Justice System Initiative: A Case Study in Systemic Design ..............26

Session Abstracts – Tuesday, September 1, 2015 – Stream C ............................................28

Designing Technological Apparatuses for Confrontation: Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Collision between Technological Agencies and the Design of Mediations .............................28

Evaluation at the Frontiers of Systemic Design ......................................................................29

Perspectives on the Design of Resilient Systems ..................................................................30

Systems Design Combining Rational Design and Evolution: What Synthetic Biology Has To Teach Us about the Characterisation of Complexity ..............................................................32

Session Abstracts – Wednesday, September 2, 2015– Stream A ........................................35

Systems Thinking for Design Thinking, Towards Proposing a Generic Approach to Design ..35

Giga-maps: Their Role as Bridging Artefacts .........................................................................37

Designing Flourishing Societies as a Practice of Cultural Futures .........................................38

Scaling In: Towards a Paradigm of Abundance within Limits, Part II - A Manifesto for Systemic Design ...................................................................................................................................40

Session Abstracts – Wednesday, September 2, 2015 – Stream B .......................................42

Multi-Modeling: A Systemic Approach to Business Solution Design ......................................42

Professional Application of Systems Oriented Design: GIGA-Mapping and Prioritization .......42

Emergence of a Convergence: Systemic Synergies between Entrepreneurship and Design Processes within Design-led Startups ...................................................................................43

A Case Study on Systems Change in the Charitable Sector ..................................................46

Session Abstracts – Wednesday, September 2, 2015 – Stream C .......................................47

Systemic Design for Food Sustainability: Interpretation of Real Cases and Reflection on Theories ................................................................................................................................47

Ski2LRT Uses Systemic Design to Transform Winter Community in Edmonton ....................49

Co-design for Second-Order Effects and Institutional Change: A Case Stufy in Sustainability ..............................................................................................................................................51

Value Platforms as Compass in System Oriented Design for Sustainability ...........................53

Session Abstracts – Thursday, September 3, 2015 – Stream A ...........................................54

Grounded and Rooted: the Ethics-led Systems Design of Agro-ecological Methodologies ....54

Exploring Relations of Systemic Thinking: Working with the youth community in Dubai to bridge Passion and Innovation Methods ................................................................................55

Public Sector Purchasers as Curators and Value Creators in the Food System: Designing the Public Purse Procurement Mentorship Program ....................................................................57

Session Abstracts –Thursday, September 3, 2015 – Stream B ............................................59

Seeding and Spreading Capacity for Systems Design across Social Service Organisations .59

Systemic Design of an Idea Zone at a Science Centre ..........................................................60

More than the Sum of its Parts: Systems Thinking in Design Education ................................62

Session Abstracts – Thursday, September 3, 2015 – Stream C ...........................................63

Scaling-up Nutrition: Bridging the Great Indian Hunger Divide ...............................................63

The Alberta CoLab Experience: Embedding Systemic Design in Government .......................64

Environment Policy Development and Decision-Making: A Scenarios and Systems Approach to Large-Scale Systems Design.............................................................................................65

Poster Session Abstracts .......................................................................................................67

Toolsets .................................................................................................................................67

Experiencing relations of systemic thinking through the design workbook ..........................67

The Role of Guiding Frameworks in Large-Scale Systemic Design Processes: Lessons from Service Collaboratives ...............................................................................................69

Theory ...................................................................................................................................71

“How Do We Know What We Think We Know?: Systemic Design and the Case for Evaluation” .........................................................................................................................71

Public Service ........................................................................................................................72

The Immigrant Service Journey as an Eye-Opener in the Complex Governmental Systems ..........................................................................................................................................72

A Systems Perspective on Canadian Immigration ..............................................................72

Capacity Building ...................................................................................................................73

Education: Systems Oriented Design .................................................................................73

RSD4 Gigamap

Symposium Program

Keynote Speakers

Donald A. Norman How Can Human Centered Design help with Complex Socio-technical Systems? September 1, 2015 - 8:30 am

Recently, a group of senior designers recognized that we are being called upon more and more to move beyond the design of relatively simple products and services to more complex systems. This requires new methods and more diverse education. We didn’t know what kind of design we should associate with this approach so we simply called it X: DesignX. -- as in the algebraic variable that has not been determined yet, or can take on multiple values. We were not the first to address these issues, as this continuing series of conferences illustrates.

All of us are in this together, trying to characterize the nature of the problems we face and then, more importantly, characterizing the approach. We need to harness existing work together with new approaches, both to define and understand these issues and to change design education, the better to prepare designers for working on these problems.

DesignX problems are complex sociotechnical systems. Our initial analyses identify four distinguishing characteristics of a DesignX problem:

1. Non-Linear Causal Relations: Feedback

2. Multiple Disciplines and Perspectives

3. Mutually Incompatible Constraints

4. Multiple Scale Sizes

This talk examines some of the features of complex systems, presents some examples, and speculates on possible approaches. It is a talk of questions and answers, designed to provoke serious, constructive discussion.

Lia Patricio A Framework for Co-creating Service Platforms. September 1, 2015 – 12:00 pm

As technology has evolved, platforms and ecosystems have emerged to support service solutions for customers. This new context requires better understanding of keystone players' role as service platform providers to end customers, to contributors, and to the service ecosystem as a whole. By integrating the IT, business and service literature, this presentation describes the Service Ecosystem Operational Framework (SEOF) that builds a common ground for systemic understanding of service ecosystems. This framework supports keystone players designing and managing their service platform, by (1) defining the service ecosystem scope, (2) analysing the service ecosystem emergent space (actors, value co-creation interactions, and value co-creation outcomes), and (3) supporting the keystone player designing its service platform – the design space (IT platform, business rules and standards, and platform boundaries). A case study of the application of the Service Ecosystem Operational Framework to the evolution of the Portuguese Electronic Health Record as a service platform for the health information service ecosystem will be presented.

Ann Pendleton-Jullian Designing for Emergence. Working on Radically Contingent Problems in a White Water World September 2, 2015 – 8:30 am

From slimemolds and snowflakes to cities and ant and coral colonies, we see examples of emergence all around us. Paradoxically simple at one level and complex at another, these phenomena have piqued the curiosity of some of the greatest minds of the last few centuries.

Coming from the Medieval Latin verb emergentia, which means to bring to light or to bring forth, emergence refers to a process of coming into existence. But, in philosophy, in the sciences, in art, and specifically within complexity theory, emergence now refers to a very specific process; one in which simple interactions among individual parts or agents form complex behaviors and patterns at the systems level. Understanding emergence lets us see the world in a new way. Designing for emergence lets us put that new vision to work in the world with efficacy and agency at many scales from the small and catalytic to the ecosystemic. From Venice to Shanghai to El Sistema and Twitter, designing for emergence creates new things and new actions that can have an effect much greater than the effort put in. And it is the only way to work on radically contingent, extremely trans-disciplinary problems in complex systems. Mugendi M’Rithaa Renewing Africa’s quest for sustainable energy: a systemic design perspective September 2, 2015 – 12:00 p.m.

This keynote presents an African perspective on a Product-Service System Design for Sustainability approach to the issue of distributed renewable energy via a multi-polar EU-funded project called the Learning Network on Sustainable Energy Systems (LeNSes). Additionally, the broader meta-challenge of climate change and context-informed designerly responses from the global South are interrogated and presented as a work-in-progress. The paradox of the need to attain energy security for development, without a negatory impact an already fragile ecological milieu presents unique opportunities to demonstrate the efficacy of systemic design as a strategic means of proffering novel solutions that not only address pressing local challenges, but more importantly contribute to global discourse on the urgency for radical change in contemporary socio-technical endeavours. Through a decidedly socially transformative agenda, the said projects point to the need to engage all actors in motivating for more enlightened and sustainable solutions to the challenges of development in majority world contexts.

Ursula Tischner ‘Crowd’ based Systemic Design and Innovation for Sustainability September 3, 2015 – 8:30 am Humanity is facing huge systemic challenges, such as climate change, resource scarcity, loss of eco-system-capacity and biodiversity, poverty and injustice, as well as failure of economic systems. These sometimes called ‚wicked problems‘ (Horst Rittel) are too big to be solved by single actors, institutions, or countries.

At the same time collaborative ‘Crowd‘ (the general public) based open innovation and design as well as funding activities, websites, platforms and projects are becoming increasingly popular. How these new Internet and crowd based methods and tools can be used to create

technological and social innovation and design that actually leads to more sustainable life styles has been explored and is demonstrated by the Sustainability Maker project, www.sustainabilitymaker.org, and its open innovation for sustainability platform www.innonatives.com, partly funded by the European Life+ Environment programme. The platform innonatives.com connects actors that have identified and/or suffer from sustainability related problems with actors who have found or would like to contribute to generating solutions for such problems. The platform systematically enables the creation of very divers open systemic sustainability innovation and design solutions through crowd-sourcing, crowd-voting, crowd-testing, and helps to implement them through crowd-funding, an online marketplace for sustainable solutions, an expert system, and educational activities.

The presentation will introduce background, state of the art, case studies, learning and research results of this project, as well as discuss recommendations on how these Crowd-based activities can foster and be best used for creating systemic innovation and design for sustainability to tackle ‚wicked' problems like the ones mentioned above.

Workshops Reshaping the Exceptional Economy of the Design Industry through Systems Thinking: The Design Laboratory Case Study Hannah Park 2:00 pm – Room 201 As a design professor, I am accustomed to receiving numerous phone calls and emails from people asking for students who could provide free design service for them. It is also not difficult to find companies, which offer unpaid design internship programs while they offer paid internship programs to engineering students. The pandemic of spec works, including many of the design competitions, may provide ‘an excellent professional exposure’ to the participating design students, but in actuality, distorts the economic system of the design industry. Pro bono, which was initiated by lawyers, has been falsely utilized in many cases as a vindicatory method to take advantage of design students, who are desperate to obtain real-world experience before they graduate. However, unlike the lawyers who offer pro bono service, many of the unpaid design interns struggle with the financial burdens of tuition and living expenses. It is often found that wealthy non-profit organizations hire design students as unpaid interns. These unpaid design interns are actually replacing part-time and/or full-time designers. In his book, Why Are Artists Poor? Hans Abbing argues that “the poverty in the arts is structural.” Abbing also states that in average, an artist earns “between 30% to 100% less than the other comparable professionals”. Despite the wide variance of economy in the design industry, it is evident that the average salary of a designer is lower than the salary of the other comparable professionals. With the complex correlations of various conditions that contemporary design industry confronts, including the public’s perception, the silo of design education, and the gap between the social value and market value of design, it is critical for design educators to apply systems thinking methodology to navigate resolutions on this predicament. ‘Reshaping the exceptional economy of the design industry through systems thinking’ will be a workshop facilitating discourse on the role of design educators in the exceptional economy of the design industry. Through the lens of systems thinking, the workshop will provide an opportunity for the participants to analyze the economic system of the design field, as well as to investigate ways to make a more sustainable system. The participants will also brainstorm how design educators can take a proactive role to educate not only the students, but also the community to advocate the value of design profession. How can we educate design students to develop a sustainable business model through systems thinking process? How can we develop a professional development program, which is evolved from the typical internship, pro bono, or collaboration programs in an academic setting? The workshop will question how systems thinking can be integrated to develop a design curriculum which responses the emerging emphasis on professional practice in higher education while ensuring the healthy economy of design. As a case study of a professional development program, The Design Laboratory (The Lab) will be presented. Founded in Memphis College of Art, TN, The Lab aims to provide real-world design experience to its students, while providing affordable design service to its surrounding

communities. Functioning as a real design agency, The Lab accomplishes various client-based design projects commissioned by prominent organizations such as Make A Wish foundation and Audubon National Society. Affordable design fees are charged to every client, whether it is a profit or a non-profit organization. The participants of the workshop will examine the successfulness of The Lab based on systemic approach of professional development praxis for higher education. “It’s Not All Pointless” – Exploring Design Methods to Impact Change in Alberta Human Services Ben Weinlick, Brooks Hanewich 2:00 pm – Room 201 Over the last 5 years Ben Weinlick, MA and Brooks Hanewich, MBA of Think Jar Collective have been working on intersecting Human Centered Design and Design Lab approaches with the social sector in order to humanize service experience of marginalized populations and prototype new solutions to complex social issues. In this multimedia workshop Ben and Brooks will share lessons learned from their graduate research around fostering social innovation and showcase the practical side of how they have been applying design principles and aspects of system's thinking from Peter Senge in the labs they steward in Alberta. Why Apply Design In The Social Sector? Poverty, homelessness, and the marginalization of people with disabilities are examples of social challenges that require dedicated solution-seeking space. These are also challenges that require engagement and collaboration with diverse community members to move forward effectively. Seeing that one of the patterns of innovation is to look outside one's usual silos, Ben and Brooks have been applying design principles and disciplined creative problem solving processes to improve the social space. Through action research that Brooks and Ben have led, one of the key areas that were identified to lead positive change has been to design lab experiences where social workers can stretch their thinking, collaborate with different people outside their silos and co-create new knowledge and solutions. Outcomes We Will Share From Applying Design in the Social Sector - Over the last five years Ben has led the Citizen Action Lab which is currently scaling up to reach more people. The Citizen Action Lab think tank he developed for Skills Society was featured in the February 2014 Stanford Social Innovation Review Magazine. - Brooks is currently leading a lab called Fostering Innovation at Chrysalis that uses a Human Centred Design process and techniques to answer the question “how might we increase social connections for the individuals we serve?” While Fostering Innovation is showing promise, the group is grappling with how to scale a Human Centred Design process with the pressures of institutional bureaucracy, sector regulation, and a host of diversely invested stakeholders. - Ben, in collaboration with UX leaders, developers and two social sector organizations to develop a web app that provides a more engaging and humanized experience in how individualized services of people with disabilities are designed with people. The app will launch in January of 2016. - Brooks, along with several social sector agency partners, is developing ConnecTodo, an online marketplace that connects marginalized people to their community to get work done. The marketplace provides a space where marginalized people can promote and develop their skills,

create a work history, increase their social capital, and connect with community members who need to outsource errands and tasks. Who we are Ben Weinlick MA Leading strategy to develop disciplined innovation in organizations, facilitating human centered service design, and being a leader in human services in Alberta over the last decade has provided Ben with a unique perspective on the challenges facing organizations today. Currently Ben is the senior leader of research and social innovation at Skills Society in Edmonton. In this role he leads research, develops training, leads Project Citizenship, and facilitates a social R&D lab using design thinking and processes he developed with a research group in his graduate studies program. The Citizen Action Lab think tank he developed for Skills Society was featured in the February 2014 Stanford Social Innovation Review Magazine. In 2011 he founded Think Jar Collective which is an internationally known innovation resource center and consultancy group. He gives keynotes and consults on social innovation throughout North America. In 2013 he received the MacEwan University distinguished alumni award, and was named one of Avenue Magazine’s Top 40 under 40. In 2014 he received the Government of Alberta Edmonton Community Disability Service Sector Leadership Award for leading innovative approaches in the disability services sector. Brooks Hanewich BA, MBA Starting his career in the private sector, Brooks knew he wanted to translate business practices into social good. Since 2006 he has supported social enterprise through the Community Economic Development Network, developed province-wide strategies for workforce development in the disability sector, lead community building programs in Edmonton, and managed business development for expanding non-profits. Currently, Brooks is the manager of social innovation and enterprise with Chrysalis where he provides research and development in the areas of program innovation and design, and social enterprise formation. Within Chrysalis he has develop a lab group called Fostering Innovation that uses human centred design principles to generate better opportunities for employment and community connections for marginalized people. Brooks is also in the midst of creating ConnecToDo, an online marketplace where marginalized people can promote their skills and connect with fellow community members to get work done. He is a sparse contributor and active consultant with Think Jar Collective. Systemic Design as Ecologizing: Design Leadership in the Antropeocene Peter Jones 2:00 pm – Room 203 Peter Jones convenes a discovery process for participants to construct a design-led approach to collaborative governance in human sustainability contexts. We will relate systemic design principles to guiding future outcomes with the aim of socio-ecological flourishing, based on the different problem domains people are working in today. On a planetary basis we are facing unsustainable futures in the era of the Anthropocene, the geological epoch so named because humanity has affected the entire earth system. We have seen a rapid globalizing of consumptive culture and business practices by modernization (economics, media, education, organized politics). At the same time, these practices degrade the living earth system, and deplete our shared resource commons. Design approaches to these dislocations and cultural threats are have largely appeared as create workarounds, local

and alternative social forms, and local cultural innovations. Unlike systems methods we rarely deal with power directly. The workshop explores systemic design methods and principles to advance practices that redirect policies and education toward socio-ecological balance. The purpose is to learn systemic design thinking by adapting design principles for problem finding and framing for social concerns with deep ecological integration. The 10 principles (Idealization, Boundary framing, Complexity appreciation, etc.) are adaptive to designing contexts from either/both systemics and design perspectives. Outcome: How might design-led systems approaches help us make significant progress in the global ecological crisis over the next 20 years? How can we deploy creative, synthetic methods to resolve multi-causal, complex relationships among problems to cope with these challenges and evolve toward desired societal outcomes? We will create scenarios, sketches and models in small groups working on shared problem areas, with the aim of presenting some of these stories in a conference summary session. Intentional Left Blank Marci Segal and Felicity Edwards 2:00 pm – Room 203 This will be an emergent space. Designing Empathy: Systemic Design and the Art of ‘Homo Empaticus’ Author: Keren Perla, Jonathan Veale 2:00 pm – Room 205 Purpose: The ability for participants to empathize with another person’s condition and perspective is critical for activating a systemic design mindset. It enhances shared understanding by surfacing relationships between perspectives and exposes the shifts in deeply held values, belief and patterns of behavior – acknowledgement that is required for creative and innovative thinking. The purpose of this workshop is to explore how experimentation with art media can enhance the creation of empathy for participants within systemic design spaces. Connecting the use of systemic design with the concept of workshop labs and studios materializes the role that space and a person’s surroundings play for bringing together the disciplinary and social diversity required to tackle complex problems. The following assumptions are embedded in this: 1) the greater the diversity, the greater the potential for innovation 2) a co-creation process generates a better outcome, and 3) these spaces and experiences can better enable individuals to extend the boundaries of their perception to understand – or empathize with – the views, needs, and motivations of others within a problem space or system. To create this emotive link and deepen knowledge of present diversity, common design tools and techniques have strongly simulated ethnographic research’s observational methods. These tools seek to collect and analyze diversity through a variety of techniques that include surveys, statistics, use-monitoring, and immersion. While there is often both a reflexive and aesthetic component to these techniques, a dominant “aesthetic of objectivity” pervades much of the approaches supporting systemic design. Workshop Description: As a specialized Arts and Cultures Institute, the Banff Centre provides participants of the Relating Systems Thinking and Design Symposium with a unique opportunity to explore the implications of more artful, performance-based experiences as a means to enable

thinking and behavior that demonstrate and engrain empathy. In partnership with the Banff Centre, the intention of this workshop exploring artistic impulse as means to interpret and engage with experiences and challenge traditional approaches/mindsets. To enable this participants will circulate through a series of stations inside and outside the Banff Centre where they will have the opportunity to discuss and play with different tools and media – from the digital and visual, to sculpting and photographic printing, to masked performance – as a means of triggering a transition towards empathetic awareness at a sensory-level. Through group experimentation, the workshop will work to surface disruptive practices and offer recommendations for further exploring how we understand, employ and design for empathy as part of systemic design. Playing in a Field of Possibility: Groups, Games, and Designing in Complex Systems Author: Deirdre Duffy 2:00 pm – Room 205 The challenge: As practitioners engaged with, or interested in exploring design approaches to large scale, cross-cutting issues (i.e. wicked problems) within complex human systems, we begin with three propositions:

1. That systems exhibit field phenomena, some of which may manifest only after long delays—or may never perceptibly manifest at all--while nonetheless influencing (sometimes profoundly) the intended outcomes of any design interventions made within a specific system;

2. That upon formally entering into a distinct and bounded human system (such as a school district, non-profit organization, or a corporation), the design practitioner has already altered the operational field of the work and (assuming there is some “gap” she or he is attempting to uncover, discover, or address, as a designer) thus, may (at the outset) have influenced the outcome in unpredictable--and potentially counterproductive—ways; and

3. At the practical level, regardless of the complexity of the problem or the size of the sponsoring entity, the design practitioner is likely to be dealing primarily with fractal components of the whole--specifically, small groups--and the field dynamics within these groups also has the potential to magnify, mute, derail, or otherwise influence efforts to facilitate change.

Given this multi-faceted field phenomena challenge, what theoretical frameworks and practical actions might inform a robust, integrative approach to designing within complex systems? In this workshop, participants will explore how awareness of small group dynamics can be used to inform a designer’s decisions regarding how, and when, to intervene in complex systems. The process: In this workshop, participants will be invited to explore this question by working collaboratively in small groups (of 5-6 people per team) to design an organizational game, and to visually notate their concept in map form. The brief for the game will be based on a case study and on key elements from the first of three advance readings. The first half of the workshop (1 hour) will involve developing maps; the second half (1 hour) will involve a facilitated discussion of the maps, with inquiry into, and reflection about, how the teams’ design approaches reflect or deviate from concepts presented in the second and third reading. The workshop will conclude with the facilitator presenting the design approach used in the case study.

The outcome: Artifacts of group thinking (maps) which will reflect a range of design approaches to the challenge of field phenomena; ideally, participants will also generate some insights regarding small group dynamics, based on the time constraints of the game design. Upon the conclusion of the workshop, participants will be encouraged to consider how similar dynamics may be influencing their design practice. Readings: Meadows, D. (2008). Leverage Points-Places to Intervene in a System. Thinking in Systems. A Primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green. 145-165. Smith, K. & Berg, D. (1987). The Sources of Paradox in Group Dynamics. Paradoxes of Group Life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 62-83. Lawson, B. (2006). Designing with Others. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. Burlington, VT: Elsevier. 233-264. Case Study: The case study outlines the scope and scale of a learning and experience design project within a mid-sized (13,000 employees) industrial shipbuilding environment, and outlines the following areas: organizational history, mission, surrounding communities, employee base, environment, and economy; core design initiative, rationale, key players, and timeline. Materials and Logistics: newsprint, boards, and markers will be provided. To maximize interaction and thoughtful discussion, participation should be limited to no more than 25 people. Creating Spaces for Rich Dialogues and Systemic Reflections Jonathan Romm, Astrid Twenebowa Larssen, & Adrian Paulsen 2:00 pm – Room 305 Over the the last four years Halogen, a digital design consultancy, has worked with Systems oriented design as an approach to further develop strategic design expertise as a business service. This with a focus on service design, design of critical systems, innovation and work processes re-design. The projects carried out are complex and act on and within many levels. A key challenge when working as a consultant in these type of processes is the limitations of being an external consultant. Often working within clients from new sectors, with client of varying maturity and within a defined timeframe. Working with “Digital services” the default is a need for collaboration between interdisciplinary teams. These are processes heavily dependent on co-creation and they therefore rely on creating a shared understanding of what tends to be complex challenges. Creating these spaces allow us to present a holistic representation of the case, visualise interdependencies between project components and multiple stakeholders relations in an accessible way. The search for ways to further improve our processes lead us to the use of rich design spaces. “The Rich Research Space embraces and reflects the complexity of the task. It expands itself to the real sites, and engages stakeholders and users” (Sevaldson, 2008). In our use of rich design spaces we have found that the spaces need to be adjusted according to different factors such as

projects phases (insight, concept or delivery),

locations (at office, temporary space or at clients space),

target groups (project team, stakeholders or users),

special considerations (scale and practicalities) and financial constraints. In addition there are soft skills to be considered - such as facilitation to create ownership, safe space and maintaining motivation when the complexity is exposed. The ability to create the right workspace to navigate a team through complex projects, is a key skill relevant to most projects teams. The project experiences made influenced by applying “Rich Research Spaces” (Sevaldson, 2008) has proven a valuable, but the need to further develop approaches and methods is confirmed by the occasional failure. Projects where where loss of control on scope and therefore momentum in the project has occurred. The reasons for failure or success will lies in small details around for example expectation management, construction of or facilitation within the spaces. From our experience these skills and hard earned lessons are best built on through the same co-creative environment that they were made, in groups of mixed background. “The capacity for holistic thinking and synthesis is nurtured through visualisation and creativity.” (Sevaldson, 2009) The workshop will consist of four parts and focus on facilitated sharing and reflection on the practical application of rich design spaces.

1. Halogen will share case examples and their approach to building rich design spaces. 2. Facilitated prototyping session of rich design spaces based on participants own

experience (scale). 3. Facilitated co-creation of a rich design space in response to a given brief (full scale) . 4. Reflection session on lessons learned and what near future trends could be for the

application of rich design spaces.

The space will be build at the beginning of the conference and will remain in the venue for the duration of the symposium and provide an interactive discussion space during the following days of lecture.

Session Abstracts – Tuesday, September 1, 2015 – Stream A

The Implicit Ethics of Designing

Ben Sweeting Paper The relationship between ethics and design is most usually thought of in terms of applied ethics—as the application of normative ethical theories to design practice, for instance in terms of questions about agency, professional ethics or our relationship to technology. There are, however, difficulties with this, as with any instance of applying theories to design that are external to it, in that it can end up distorting or obscuring what is special about design itself. Two of the most commonly articulated positions in normative ethics, consequentialism and deontology, are both difficult to apply in design practice because both depend on procedures that are problematic in the sorts of complex situations that designers commonly face. The reasons for this mirror the limitations of the attempt to rationalise design according to the scientific method, as became evident in the work of Rittel (1972), Negroponte (1975) and others. Consequentialist ethical theories involve the optimisation of our actions against a predefined overall goal yet, as Negroponte (1975) has pointed out, optimisation is “extremely antagonistic to the nature of architecture” (p. 189). Likewise, while deontological approaches to ethics require that we conform to predefined moral rules, “any axiom or rule can find a situation where it will fail or generate disaster when blindly executed as a truism” (p. 33). Both these aspects follow from the way that, as Rittel (1972) showed in his discussion of wicked problems, the questions that designers are trying to answer change as they explore how to answer them: where there is no clearly defined goal or problem, it is not clear which rules to apply or which goal to seek.

Cross, Naughton, and Walker (1981) argue that, given the epistemological chaos of science, the scientific method is not a fruitful basis for understanding design. Similarly, it is not as if ethics is a settled body of theory that can be straightforwardly treated as an authority with which to guide practice. As Eagleton (2003, p. 229) has noted, we might expect to agree on general principles and diverge on particulars, yet we have no common view on many everyday ethical questions. Cross (1982) and others have argued for understanding design as having its own epistemological foundations as a discipline, rather than seeking to import an epistemology from science or elsewhere. In this paper I argue that we might take a similar approach to the relation between design and ethics: that rather than apply ethics to design, it is possible to identify ethical considerations at the core of what designers do and so to develop a way of reasoning about ethical questions in the context of design in design’s own terms.

There are two principle strands to my account: (1) regarding the sorts of processes that designers act out; (2) regarding the structure of the situations that they commonly encounter and with which they claim expertise.

1. Design, Conversation and Ethics

One analogy for the way designers work is that of a conversation that they hold with themselves and also with others, often through making drawings and models (e.g. Gedenryd, 1998; Glanville, 2007; Schön, 1983/1991). While this is most obviously an epistemologically activity—a way of grappling with the complex situations that designers encounter—it is also one in which a degree of ethical consideration is, at least potentially, implicit. For instance, just as a conversation involves, to use a phrase that von Foerster (1991) attributed to Frankl, us looking “through the eyes of the other”, so

too designers use drawings to “walk through” their proposals from the point of view of those for whom they are designing, many of whom, such as the future users of a building or its passers by, they will not be able to meet, let alone consult. This account is suggested by the close relationship between design and cybernetics which parallel each other to the extent that it has been claimed that “cybernetics is the theory of design and design is the action of cybernetics” (Glanville, 2007, p. 1178). It follows that where cybernetic processes are understood to coincide with, or even to require, implicit ethical considerations regarding, for instance, personal responsibility or our relationships with others (Glanville, 2004/2009; von Foerster, 1992, 1974/2003), similar arguments can be applied to design.

2. Wicked Problems and Ethical Dilemmas

While Rittel’s account of wicked problems was concerned with ethical issues—especially the way the designer has “no right to be wrong” (p. 393)—there is a potential connection not just in terms of content but also structure. That is, there is a similarity between the situations that designers face as a matter of course and those dilemmas with which ethical philosophy is simultaneously most concerned and confused (e.g. MacIntyre, 1981/1985, pp. 6-7) in terms of their over-constraint and the contestability of their criteria. As well as looking to design’s implicit ethical qualities to complement its epistemological foundations as a discipline, we can also therefore look for ways in which design can inform our approach to ethics more generally, thus inverting the usual relation between design and ethics. One such possibility is in exploring von Foerster’s (1992) proposal that we keep our ethics implicit by seeing how designers play this out in practice in complex situations.

Reference List Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221-227. Cross, N., Naughton, J., & Walker, D. (1981). Design method and scientific method. Design Studies, 2(4), 195-201. Eagleton, T. (2003). Sweet violence: The idea of the tragic. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Gedenryd, H. (1998). How designers work: Making sense of authentic cognitive activities. Lund University Cognitive Studies, 75. Glanville, R. (2007). Try again. Fail again. Fail better: The cybernetics in design and the design in cybernetics. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1173-1206. Glanville, R. (2009). A (cybernetic) musing: Desirable ethics. In The black boox, volume III: 39 steps (pp. 293-303). Vienna: Edition Echoraum. MacIntyre, A. (1985). After virtue: A study in moral theory (2nd corrected ed.). London: Duckworth. (Original work published: 1981). Negroponte, N. (1975). Soft architecture machines. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rittel, H. (1972). On the planning crisis: Systems analysis of the "first and second generations". Bedriftskonomen, 8, 390-396. Schön, D. A. (1991). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Farnham: Arena. (Original work published: 1983). von Foerster, H. (1991). Through the eyes of the other. In F. Steier (Ed.), Research and reflexivity (pp. 63-75). London: Sage. von Foerster, H. (1992). Ethics and second-order cybernetics. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 1(1), 9-19.

von Foerster, H. (2003). Cybernetics of epistemology. In Understanding understanding: Essays on cybernetics and cognition (pp. 229-246). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. (Original work published: 1974).

A History of Design’s Sense of Complexity

Joshua Bloom, PHD Candidate, University Paper Designers are exemplary negotiators of complexity when abducting toward promising solution spaces (Charles Sanders Peirce), using bounded rationality to satisfice provisional solutions (Herbert Simon) or targeting system leverage points (Donnella Meadows).

In an everyday sense, Complexity is often understood via its antonym, simplicity. Complex things are not easy to understand and complex problems are difficult to solve.

Some social sciences also make use of this sense of complexity, though often to draw attention to the difficulty of comprehending a system that you are in. When you are a component of a system, and especially when your knowledge about the system can impact on the relations within the system, then it becomes complex to discern the whole of the system. Social systems have the added complexity that the components – communities and individuals – have (more or less, depending on the social theory informing the research) agency to change their values or behaviors unexpectedly.

These two kinds of social complexities prompted Horst Rittel to famously coin the term ‘wicked problems.’ These are social issues to which design responses may be appropriate but whose complexity mean that there is not even a definitive way of defining the problem.

Complexities more quantiative conceptions emerged out of Norbert Wiener’s Cybernetics, von Bertalanffy’s General Systems Theory, and Claude Shannon’s Information Theory, all of which in different ways laid the groundwork for quantitative negotiations of complexity. A direct outcome was the development of modern computing systems following Alan Turing’s Decoding Machine. Mandelbrot and Lorenz’s work in the 1970s developed ways of modelling nonlinear dynamic systems, algorithms that underlie weather forecasting, etc. This work was later popularized under the title of ‘Chaos Theory,’ though that title is confusing as by definition, nonlinear systems are not truly chaotic.

More recently, designers, especially architects, have embrace deterministic chaos, deliberately constructing such systems with generative algorithms in order to create an array of forms that seem more complex and/or innovative than anything a non-computational designer could have imagined.

David Snowden, an information systems researcher and consultant, uses a framework that he calls ‘Cynefin’ (a Welsh word for a sense of place) that further distinguishes situations that are Obvious, Complicated, Complex, Chaotic and then situations that are experienced as Disorder. This is a constraints and causality based framework. Situations that are Obvious or Complicated are tightly constrained with evident causality, though in Complicated situations, a certain kind of expertise is required to discern the constrains and causality. Situations that are Complex and Chaotic are less constrained or unconstrained, and have two-way or non-linear causality. Interventions are needed to make sense of what is emerging in a Complex situation, or what is possible in a Chaotic one. Disorder is the experience of not being able to determine which kind of constraints and causality are operating in a situation. The central point of this framework is to

stress that Complexity is not a system whose structure you need to be able explain, but rather a dynamic experience that you need only try to make sense within, narrating your way toward appropriate actions.

Design’s sense of complexity, and the use of related terms and frames is evolving and remains contentious.

This paper explores the historical sources and senses of complexity as used by designers. We believe disambiguating conceptions of complexity and complexity’s relationship to systems and systems design, can further the theoretical explorations systemic design.

Reference List Cilliers, Paul, and David Spurrett. 1999 Complexity and Post-modernism: Understanding complex systems. New York: Routledge. Protzen, Jean-Pierre, and David J. Harris. 2010. The universe of design: Horst Rittel's theories of design and planning. New York: Routledge. Snowden, David J., and Mary E. Boone. 2007. "A leader's framework for decision making." Harvard Business Review 85.11: 68.

Formulating the Oslo Questions: A Case Study

Birger Sevaldson, Harold Nelson, Alex Ryan Presentation

This is a proposed case study of a team of people engaged in shared inquiry formulating fundamental and foundational questions meant to guide inquiry into the nature of the inter-relationship between systemics and design. One expected outcome of this shared inquiry will be a preliminary ordered list of well-formed questions that will act as ‘feed-forward’ navigational aids for epistemological and ontological inquiries into systemic design in the future.

Inquirers typically have ready-made framing and naming schemes in hand, which they use to guide their intellectual and practical inquires. Everyone uses these judgments-of-discernment to take intentional action. These ready-at-hand determinations are based on vital, foundational or fundamental animating questions. For example ‘frames and names’ may appear as:

desiderata metaphysical assumptions assertions suppositions and presumptions propositions

beliefs values postulates & axioms 1st intensions motivations habits of thought cognitive framework

filters perspectives stances schemata preconceptions archetypes typologies & categories

The preliminary list of questions will include all the implied questions residing among the group that are felt to rise to the level of vital, well-formed questions. The list will also include questions that are considered to be vital but are not yet embodied in the group’s collective framing. This list of questions will run the gamut from meta-questions—e.g. “how are well-formed questions formed?”—, to philosophic ones—e.g. “is there free will in design?”—, to more strategic and tactical questions. Part of the challenge will be to discern a useful hierarchy for these vital questions.

The intension is that the process of formulating vital questions of consequence will be open and emergent rather than argumentative or rhetorical. The list of questions will include questions of import, with no expectation of easy answers, as well as ones that could be considered more accessible and pragmatic. Good questions are never too abstract or conceptual. To paraphrase Lewin : “there is nothing more practical than a well-formed question.”

As a by-product of this shared inquiry, the discernments that can be considered as basic postulates or axioms of systemic design, or questions that imply useful assertions, assumptions, and cognitive frames, or appealing desiderata will be documented for future dialogue. Although there is a danger of becoming sidetracked by argumentation and debate, the team may choose to develop sample insights or thoughtful responses to a sampling of questions as exemplars if there is time.

The case study will also track the self-organization of the individual inquirers as they transition from a group of highly motivated individuals into a team engaged in shared inquiry. Collaborative software will be used to facilitate the team’s dialogues.

Design and the Conditions that Foster an Ability to Reframe Problems

Patrick Suen Presentation

What do a former Olympic risk planner, an ecological restorer, a professional dancer, and a neuropsychologist have in common? They’ve all found ways to apply Design practices and principles to manage complex scenarios in a world that's ambiguous and ever-changing

While typical problem solving approaches consist of a systematized set of methods and tools that must be applied in sequence, the individuals mentioned above have learned to leverage their personal experiences, values, and perspectives to create an approach that is rigorous and flexible; and constantly being evaluated and updated. A key outcome is the ability to reframe problems in a way that uncovers deep and meaningful insights – leading to innovative solutions.

But what are these unique attributes that enable certain people to be more inclined-to, and superior-at, applying Design to re-frame problems? What were the conditions that helped them develop these attributes; taking whoever they are as people and molding them into a force of change? And finally, how can we re-create these conditions to unleash the same potential in others; with a focus on business students and leaders?

This paper is not meant to explain the phenomenon that enables an optimal reframing process, but to provide a trans-disciplinary, trans-cultural view of characteristics that enable an individual to successfully reframe.

Similar to the ‘wicked problems’ that are volatile and highly context dependent, the access to an individual's ability to reframe also has its unique context. Studies in psychology, sociology, neurology, and anthropology all try to converge and abstract the differences in behaviours that we see in the world – and while they do provide interesting insights and explanations – what is necessary, now more than ever, is the ability to help others realize the breadth of opportunities within every unique context, and to open their minds to their own potential.

In this study, 19 individuals were interviewed for their personal experiences and thoughts on the reframing process and key characteristics that enable individuals to reframe for innovation. In sharing their experiences and personal stories, the interviews became almost like a facilitated

personal reflection exercise. Traits that are intrinsic and automatic were revealed to have deeply rooted origins in childhood activities, parental guidance, community upbringing, and of course, education and work experience.

The paper concludes with an overview of challenges of developing reframing capacity and suggestions for overcoming them through an environment and curriculum that models the previously mentioned origin conditions. This will be achieved by referencing practices in creative fields, along with studies in knowledge building, and moral psychology.

Session Abstracts – Tuesday, September 1, 2015 – Stream B

On the Same Page, Giving Form to Complexity

Elizabeth Leblanc Presentation The role of a designer has long been to use their skills to visualise and give form, to make intangible understandable through visualisation. With the growing complexity of the world we live in, this role has evolved and is becoming increasingly relevant. While designers still visualise and give form to physical objects, digital interfaces, and other tangible elements, our role has now started to move into visualising more complex ideas. During the fall of 2014, I worked on a systems-oriented design project with three other masters students at the Oslo School of Architecture and Design. This project sought to benefit the nursing home administration, Sykehjemsetaten’s, ecosystem by giving form to process and conversations happening around governmental reforms. We dove into the system and looked for the places where a designer’s skill set could create positive impact. The elderly care services provided by SYE are undergoing drastic changes. This is in response to the `Samhandlingsreform´ from 1 Jan. 2012, which has highlighted the need for a more cohesive patient journey for all public health services. SYE will be separating patients into short term and long term care facilities in order to provide more effective and specialised treatment. We built a communication tool to facilitate this process. We intended that this seemingly small intervention will have a mayor impact, both on making the planning smoother as well as making it easier to communicate changes within the organisation. This project focused mostly on providing immediate value for our SYE instead of a concept for a future vision. We prototyped this communication tool in their meetings and it is currently being used in their meetings without the need for an outside facilitator (meaning, we are no longer needed to guide the process). The presentation will cover several different topics including the initial deep dive into the system, evaluation of design directions, moments in the project we made errors and overlook elements, prototyping the final communication tool, and transition of ownership of the project. During the semester we focused on documentation of the impact of our work. I plan to use both video and audio footage of before and after systemic interventions to show the impact we have made.

Designing interventions in a complex health care setting: What Could Be Learned

from Health Professionals Outside the Project

Tanja Enninga, Fenne Verhoeven, Remko Van der Lugt, Aeltsje Brinksma Presentation Abstract Every year 550 children in the Netherlands are newly diagnosed with cancer. Recent research shows that malnutrition in children with cancer has clinical implications, short and long term. During the period of active cancer treatment both adequate eating and adequate exercising are important. Yet little interventions are known to stimulate this behaviour. In a participatory design project, design students designed a first series of interventions. The purpose of this study is to explore what could be learned about the first series of interventions from allied health

professionals who were not directly involved in the project. The findings show different layers in the mental models of the health professionals that intervene with the suggested interventions. Introduction Every year 550 children in the Netherlands are newly diagnosed with cancer. Recent research shows that malnutrition in children with cancer has clinical implications, short and long term (Brinksma et al., 2014; Loeffen et al. 2014) and is associated with worse health related quality of life (Brinksma et al., 2015). Therefore, during the period of active cancer treatment both adequate eating and adequate exercising are important. Yet little interventions are known to stimulate this behaviour (Gibson et al. 2012). Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore what could be learned about the first series of prototypes of interventions from allied health professionals who were not directly involved in the project. This study is a first exploration in order to develop criteria for applicability and assessing the support for the designed intervention prototypes. Context Designing such supportive care interventions aiming at adequate eating and exercising behaviour is complex. Firstly the problem is complex by the nature of the disease and the treatment, as both treatment and well-being differs per individual patient and varies during the time of treatment. Secondly, there are many different people involved in both the hospital and private environment of the patient: the patient and their relatives as well as various professional disciplines to whose wishes the intervention must comply, and whose daily (work) the routine intervention must fit (applicability). Moreover, the interventions should also be supported by all stakeholders involved for the intervention to be properly used (Lugt & Verhoeven, 2014). Therefore, these problems cannot be solved by generic interventions. In 2013 we started a project for participatory design with children diagnosed with cancer, to develop insights and design solutions for adequate eating and adequate exercising. As from the beginning the backgrounds of the people involved in the project were multifaceted and multi-disciplinary. The core project team consisted of designers, clinicians and social scientists. The stakeholders involved were both patients and their relatives, as well as professional stakeholders like nurses, dieticians, nutrition assistants, physiotherapists and pedagogical staff members, all connected with the university hospital project partner. Design students, coached by professional design agencies, designed a first series of interventions - four in total - aiming at adequate exercising in the clinical setting, or adequate eating in the clinical setting or at home. At an early stage concept visualisations and prototypes were designed in order to enhance the dialogue at the interfaces inside and outside the project and enhance the shared understanding (Kleinsmann et al. 2010). Approach At different stages of the project we had dialogues with allied health care professionals with project team members and with professionals who were not directly involved in the project. In 2013 a design student did also research in another university hospital in the Netherlands and interviewed allied health care professionals. In 2014 a student health care management had semi-structured interviews with 8 allied health care professionals about their first impressions of the interventions. We compared those data with the data from people who entered the project at a later stage, both designers and design students as well as allied health care professionals from the university hospital project partner.

Findings The involvement of people both inside as outside the project is high. Students and agencies are highly moved by the positive energy of the clinical ward and of the social relevance of the project and of designing solutions. The same goes for the allied health professionals. All of these professionals are highly involved and motivated to do their utmost best for their patients, and this serves as a frame of reference in assessing the interventions. Another frame of reference for the health professionals seemed to be how the intervention related to the current practice in the hospital. For some professionals this resulted in framing the suggested interventions as something “they already do”. The professionals also assessed the interventions in relation to their professional view. The professional view had different layers: first the explicit professional expertise, e.g. should a child with cancer eat a variety of foods or are proteins more important? Secondly, their view on their own role in the process: is the child the expert of his own experience (Sleeswijk Visser et al. 2005)? Or, following Schein (1990, 2009) is the health care professional the expert or (also) a process consultant? And a third layer related to the professional view was the possibilities to adapt an intervention and make individual decision and modifications according their professional expertise. Examples given by the professionals learned that professional view and some individual actions is not always a full match. These findings about the tacit and explicit mental models (Senge, 1992; Werhane, 2007) add an extra layer to the design challenge in this complex setting. In general the notion of these layers of mental models will also add to the current understanding of systemic designers. References Brinksma, A., Roodbol, P. F., Sulkers, E., Hooimeijer, H. L., Sauer, P. J. J., van Sonderen, E., et al. (2014). Weight and height in children newly diagnosed with cancer. Pediatric Blood & Cancer, doi:10.1002/pbc.25301 Brinksma, A., Roodbol, P. F., Sulkers, E., Kamps, W. A., de Bont, E. S. J. M., Boot, A. M., et al. (2015). Changes in nutritional status in childhood cancer patients: A prospective cohort study. Clinical Nutrition, 34(1), 66–73. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2014.01.013 Gibson, F., Shipway, L., Barry, A., & Taylor, R. M. (2012). What’s It Like When You Find Eating Difficult. Cancer Nursing, 35(4), 265–277. doi:10.1097/NCC.0b013e31822cbd40 Kleinsmann, M., Buijs, J. A., & Valkenburg, R. (2010). Understanding the complexity of knowledge integration in collaborative new product development teams: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 27(1-2), 20–32. Loeffen, E. A. H., Brinksma, A., Miedema, K. G. E., de Bock, G. H., & Tissing, W. J. E. (2014). Clinical implications of malnutrition in childhood cancer patients—infections and mortality. Supportive Care in Cancer, 23(1), 143–150. doi:10.1007/s00520-014-2350-9 Lugt, R. V. D., & Verhoeven, F. (2014). Project Proposal Participatory Design for Child Oncology (pp. 1–28). Utrecht University of Applied Sciences. Schein, E. H. (1990). A general philosophy of helping: process consultation. Sloan Management Review, 31(3), 57–64. Schein, E. H. (2009). Process Consultation Revisited Building the Helping Relationship, 1–6. Senge, P. M. (1992). Mental models. Planning Review, 20(2), 4–44. doi:10.1108/eb054349 Sleeswijk Visser, F., Stappers, P. J., Lugt, R. V. D., & Sanders, E. B. N. (2005). Contextmapping: experiences from practice. CoDesign, 1(2), 119–149. doi:10.1080/15710880500135987 Werhane, P. H. (2007). Mental Models, Moral Imagination and System Thinking in the Age of Globalization. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(3), 463–474. doi:10.1007/s10551-006- 9338-4

Reforming the Family Justice System Initiative: A Case Study in Systemic Design

Author: Michelle Jehn, Jessica Spina, Diana Lowe, Barb Turner Key Words: Causal Layered Analysis, Mental Model, Systemic Change, Systems Design EasyChair Keyphrases: family justice system (206) Abstract: Presentation Introduction Family breakdown is common and brings with it many challenges for parents and their children. These challenges are compounded by the current family justice system, which is adversarial in nature, complex and costly for families. There are gaps in services which need to be addressed, there are processes that are doing more harm than good, and there are many families who are in need of better supports in times of deep personal challenge. Science on brain development demonstrates that unresolved conflict can have significant impact on the healthy development of children growing up in such conditions. These and other concerns were identified in the 2013 reports of the national Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters (the “Action Committee”). Catalysts for Reform While these reports identified the crisis in the family justice system, other emergent knowledge included the science on brain development and recent successful experience with collaborative action in the justice system. Justice Andrea Moen of the Court of Queen’s Bench was determined to bring about change that would protect children from the effects of toxic stress in unresolved family law matters. With the support of the three levels of Courts in Alberta, she approached Alberta Justice, and invited Assistant Deputy Minister Lynn Varty to co-convene an initiative aimed at reforming the family justice system in Alberta. This was done in the context of a one-day Joint Action Forum of leaders in the justice community in Alberta, gathered to consider action on the Action Committee Reports and recommendations. Approach Over the years, the justice community has tried isolated interventions to improve access to justice, and while these projects, reforms and programs have achieved some good, they have not created the system-wide change we desire. We’ve learned from past experience that the only way to bring about meaningful, systemic change is to have a broad collaboration of all the participants in the justice system come together to work collectively to create the change we desire. In the RFJS initiative, we are exploring systemic design processes to address complex problems through systemic change. This case study will include a description of the steps taken to bring together a collaborative alliance made up of approximately 200 individuals and organizations representing ten sectors that work within the broadly defined family justice system. The Convenors lead the initiative and provide guidance, support and expertise through a backbone group that is tasked with guiding the RFJS vision and strategy, supporting aligned activities, establishing shared measurement practices, building public will, advancing policy and mobilizing resources. Over the past year, we have held four workshops designed to build community and relationships among the collaborators; to gather information about the focus of concern within our collaborative alliance; to develop an understanding of systemic change and innovative lab processes; and to ensure that there is a shared commitment to change. We have developed an outcome statement, objectives and guiding principles. Participants are organized into sectors designed to ensure that all of the key actors are involved in the RFJS, and further to strengthen communication within the sector and to break-down silos. We are also using a Sector framework to encourage participants to keep their respective organizations and communities informed, and to bring

information and ideas into the RFJS. This should help to build a broader understanding of the RFJS initiative, strengthen the foundation of our work, and lead to commitments at the institutional level as reforms are underway. We have developed a Theory of Change to ensure a clear, testable and actionable logic of change for the initiative. The main technique and method used throughout this process was Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) developed by Sohail Inayatullah, a futures studies researcher. CLA enabled us to open up a dialogue about current understanding of the family justice system, and to examine the underlying roots of our beliefs, by drilling down through four layers of reality that shape our system: litany, systemic structures, worldview, and metaphors/myths. Through CLA our collaborators have identified problems, strategies and key outcomes, which has enabled them to articulate a Theory of Change that will guide our reform process and enable a framework for evaluation and deep systemic change. While our current family justice system is characterized by a focus on family breakdown and legal responses, the space created through CLA enables us to consider solutions that might exist entirely outside the current understanding. Additionally, the language of the mental model and Theory of Change help us to understand and talk about the system in new ways that are much more focused on helping families to thrive, and recognize that family justice issues are primarily social and relationship problems which contain a legal element. This opens a space for new solutions. Further benefits will be realized over time as the prototypes are implemented and tested, which is the current phase of the initiative. Lessons Learned We will share some of the challenges, unexpected outcomes and lessons learned as part of this workshop. The family justice system can be understood as a complex adaptive system, similar to an ecosystem where one small structural change can open up a space for further changes that impact the system as a whole. We are learning as we move forward, and embracing this new culture of learning. Lasting Benefits This initiative is increasing the knowledge and capacity for systemic change among all participants in the RFJS. We are building an awareness and understanding of innovative approaches, developmental evaluation and collaborative action that has not previously existed among these participants. This project is opening up a space to enable stakeholders (clients, families, and those who work within the system) to reframe the problems that they encounter in family justice. We are creating a culture of learning that allows us to learn as we go forward, and will support continued improvement in the family justice system.

Session Abstracts – Tuesday, September 1, 2015 – Stream C

Designing Technological Apparatuses for Confrontation: Transdisciplinary

Perspectives on Collision between Technological Agencies and the Design of

Mediations

Diego Gomez Venegas Presentation This article seeks to present how aspects of German Media Theory and the Science and Technology Studies (STS) can collaborate on expanding the scope of Systemic Design as field of study, once design is not mainly understood as an applied practice, but fundamentally seen as the processes for materializing culture and knowledge. Accordingly, we propose a conceptual discussion around what we have called the design of technological apparatuses for confrontation, precisely to move the focus of the question concerning design from problem solving and the development of consensus, to the configuration of dissensus and confrontation. Thus, the article proposes to take a transdisciplinary approach on systemic complexities; that is, a transversal perspective instead of a multiple one. Thereby, to the gaze of the applied and social sciences we add in a substantial manner the gaze of the humanities and the arts, inviting to overcome social systems as the Systemic Design’s main object of investigation, moving toward an inquiry on cultural systems. This perspective invites to understand design and technology as mediators in the formulation of the complexities of such systems, and therefore as relevant part of the problem and not as a method to solve it. In that sense, the text will firstly discuss the STS work of the French philosopher and anthropologist Bruno Latour —and his attention to Peter Sloterdijk’s philosophy— as a conceptual and methodological framework to understand the networks of associations that give form to cultural systems, as well as its dynamics, agencies, and actors. At this point it will be also suitable to tangentially consult the work of Gilbert Simondon on technical objects. In a second part, the article will tackle the work of German media theorists Friedrich Kittler and Wolfgang Ernst —with their attention to Foucault, Lacan, and McLuhan— as a model to inquire and analyze technological agencies and media structures, as well as the dissensus and confrontation they produce in cultural systems. This paper stands on the belief that the design of technological apparatuses for confrontation, is a suitable conceptual object and creative method to approach a critical development on Systemic Design. Indications of that have emerged either from theoretical fields, creative practices, as well as from social and cultural events. Clear example of this is the work of the designer and academic, Carl DiSalvo, who has introduced the concept of adversarial design by heavily referencing the political theory of Chantal Mouffe, who in turn, deepened on the concept of agonism by critically discussing Carl Schmidt’s and Martin Heidegger’s philosophies. Moreover, Carl DiSalvo himself has presented in his book Adversarial Design (2012), how projects based on agonism, constitute nowadays an extended practice among designers, architects, and artists. Not very far from that sphere, we find social and cultural actions, which during the last decade, have showed how designed infrastructure and technology have been many times leading actors within events conditioned by dissensus and confrontation. In brief, the paper claims that there is enough evidence to validate efforts in the field of Systemic Design to study technological apparatuses as objects of knowledge and action within cultural systems. This perspective’s goal is then to introduce theoretical frameworks and methods that can allow designers and researchers to build critical analysis on the nature of such apparatuses and inquiring about the technological agencies that condition them.

Evaluation at the Frontiers of Systemic Design

Marah Moore, Claire Nicklin, Keith Miller Presentation Human centered design (HCD) is an iterative approach that hinges on understanding local contexts and then building "good-enough" prototypes of processes or technologies that improve quality of life (IDEO, 2009). These prototypes are generated, tested and evaluated to make sure the final product(s) will be useful and used. Likewise, achieving meaningful change in systems includes understanding the system, fostering innovation and learning from the impacts of those innovations (Eoyang & Holladay, 2013). Good design often lacks the follow-up needed to understand the extent to which it has worked and why, thus it is usually only one element in understanding a complex system. Developmental evaluation is an approach that allows for the understanding and facilitation of systems change by monitoring, evaluating, learning and reacting to changes in the system (Patton, 2011). Evaluation is a cross-disciplinary, applied field that is evolving to address and learn from both design and systems thinking. This paper describes a case study of a research for development program, the Collaborative Crop Research Program (CCRP), whose goal is to nudge agriculture systems to become more sustainable, resilient, and productive for small holder farmers across Africa and Latin America. The CCRP funds roughly 65 collaborative research projects clustered around four regional "communities of practice" (CoP) located in the Andes, Eastern Africa, West Africa and Southern Africa. Since its inception in 1984 the CCRP has funded projects that innovate in complex systems; starting in 2008 a developmental evaluation process (Integrated Monitoring, Evaluation and Planning—IMEP) was initiated to more efficiently and effectively influence system change through iterative and emergent cycles of reflection, and action. The design and implementation of IMEP within the complex ecosystem of the CCRP is an instructive narrative about how evaluative approaches can help to navigate iterative design and through this, nudge action and change within systems. The paper is organized around three key insights from the successes and failures we have experienced over the last five years: the importance of: 1) fostering adaptive capacity; 2) creating explicit theories of change to conceptualize design thinking within systems; and 3) expanding impacts within system through a contextualized approach. It explores the process that unfolded, the successes we achieved, and the challenges we encountered, within these three areas as we strove to support positive changes for farmers through design thinking within complex systems. Fostering Adaptive Capacity As we embarked on IMEP, we realized that moving to an M&E system that supported the complexity of CCRP required a paradigm shift and we had to adjust our expectations and approach. We realized that, in addition to the more traditional role of documenting outcomes, the CCRP evaluation needed to build coherence and guide iterative decision-making about program implementation and improvement across levels—i.e., it needed to help support a “design mindset.” Early stages of the evaluation confirmed what had been suspected—different stakeholders had different interpretations about the purpose and approach that CCRP took and/or should take. Knowing that one important function for the evaluation was to build coherence across the program, the evaluators began by introducing an adaptive action framework—What? So what? Now what? The framework stuck. The leadership team began to use the framework explicitly in their CCRP work and Regional Teams used it with their projects. Regularly structured “evaluative moments” were structured into the work. The adaptive action framework has brought

coherence to the reflective process, and with coherence of process, there was support for building coherence of concepts. Conceptualizing design thinking within systems thinking: the Theory of Change To build “coherence of concepts” we worked with the program to develop an adaptive theory of change. Theories of change (ToC) are a tool that can be used to conceptualize systems change and design interventions. In a complex systems, these ToCs are not static, and must have room to evolve alongside the program evolution. From the program work, we moved to incorporating theory of change into work with the projects. While the research itself was somewhat set, the context within which the research was being conducted and the connections between the research outputs and the farmer-focused outcomes were more dynamic. If, we reasoned, projects could understand and design their work within a larger more dynamic context, then there would be a greater chance that the research would actually have an impact on farmers’ lives. We hoped that by understanding the larger picture, the grantees would be encouraged to develop more effective partnerships and design and implement participatory methods that were more likely to lead to outcomes. We found that the theory of change work helped to bound the creative energy so that the conceptualizing fed a more coherent process. With ToCs in place, results of the project-level reflections now feed up to inform the regional reflections; likewise, the regional reflections inform the program-level reflections. Expanding systems change through a contextualist approach to scaling design The CCRP theories of change and other frameworks support expanded and contextualized thinking about how change happens, and what it looks like. IMEP has provided a structure to talk about “scaling” as something well beyond the replication and dissemination of findings that is more typical in this field. “Success” has been redefined to include adaptive capacity and scale achieved through multiple mechanisms, for example, adaptation, inspiration, innovation and policy change (Hancock, 2012). It asks, what are processes that help take important elements and adapt them in new contexts, or influence large scale processes? The evaluation questions that guide design in a contextualized approach to scale include: What are the factors for success, the principles that weave through difference? What are the drivers and influencers of change—what catalyzes movement, and what helps it continue? What are the constraints and bottlenecks—how can these be mitigated? What is the influence of the enabling environment? What are the external triggers for change—how can these be harnessed to nudge the work towards the desired outcomes? IMEP systems have been put into place to encourage this line of inquiry, and to collect and synthesize data about the what, why, and how of contextualized success.

Perspectives on the Design of Resilient Systems

Eloise Taysom, Nathan Crilly Presentation The systems we design are increasingly interconnected and complex, with stakeholders from different domains working on interdisciplinary projects. Such systems do not just need to perform well at the moment they are implemented, they must also perform well in the future as they change and as their environment changes. Although we cannot predict with certainty what is going to happen over the lifetime of a system nor design for all possibilities, it might still be possible to design systems to generally be able to accommodate change. With this in mind,

there is a growing body of research into design for changeability that looks at system lifecycle properties, or ‘ilities’, such as robustness, adaptability and flexibility. One particular system lifecycle property that has recently risen to prominence in the academic and public discourse is ‘resilience’. However, it is not always clear if a well-defined concept of resilience is being invoked or if the word resilience is being used as an umbrella term for different concepts relating to the ability of a system to change (such as flexibility and adaptability). This ambiguity makes it difficult to understand the requirements that are being placed on the designers of complex socio-technical systems and to account for the expectations of their clients or the wider public. To better understand the issues related to the concept of resilience, a workshop was organised by [a Design Research Centre and a Public Policy Centre - removed for blind review] in December 2014. The selected participants were 21 senior policy makers, academics and industry practitioners. They collectively represented a diverse set of government departments, academic disciplines and industry sectors, including defence, space systems, health care, transport, psychology and urban planning. Although from very different fields of expertise, the participants all worked on complex socio-technical systems and were concerned with how to make those systems more resilient. The workshop comprised of two two-hour chaired discussions, preceded by short presentations. The workshop was recorded and transcribed for analysis, supported by extensive notes taken by two observers. The resulting material was analysed to identify common themes across domains, gaps between practice and theory and opportunities for improving communication about changeability concepts. The specific systems and aspects of those systems that the participants were concerned with were very different in nature, including the performance of cities, the capacity of industries, the emotional state of people and the operation of insurgent groups. Despite this diversity, strong connections could be observed between how these different systems are thought about and how their resilience is considered. Analysing the workshop material revealed four critical questions about the concept of resilience that must be addressed if we are to design systems that can survive in changing or uncertain environments. Here we outline the main issues raised in the workshop discussion about each of these questions. The paper and presentation will elaborate on these issues further, enriched with real-life examples from the participants’ accounts and diagrammatic representations of abstract systems that reveal the connections between them. What is resilience? Three core aspects of resilience emerged from the workshop discussion, all relating to internal or external influences on a system:

• Resilience as resisting influences • Resilience as recovering from influences • Resilience as changing to accommodate influences

Each participant emphasised one or more of these aspects, but what was common across all the participants was the importance of systems thinking when defining what resilience is. The discussion showed that defining a system boundary and system purpose are critical to achieving clarity when defining the resilience of a system. However, these parameters are dependent on the perspective of a specific stakeholder and how well the system is understood. What makes something resilient? Based on the participants’ accounts, several factors could be identified that increased or decreased the resilience of a system. These factors either enhance or degrade the ability of the

system to perform one or more of the three core aspects of resilience listed above. Some of the factors were architectural attributes of the system such as interconnectedness, decentralisation and redundancy. Other factors related to the role of human adaptability in socio-technical systems, which was a key area of discussion not well addressed in the current literature. How can resilience be measured? Discussing the participants’ experiences of attempting to measure resilience in real life systems raised two key issues: defining resilience timescales (e.g. time to recovery) and defining resilience levels (e.g. extent of recovery). There was also a divide between those interested in retrospectively measuring resilience after an event and those wanting to proactively measure resilience in advance of any event (e.g. to audit a system and take corrective action). Some participants raised the point that not all aspects of system resilience can be measured. How can resilience be communicated? To assist in communicating about the relevant concepts, the workshop started with the organisers sharing a set of professionally produced graphics that represented different kinds of changeability. These graphics allowed distinctions to be made without requiring the use of specific terms, the meanings of which may not be consistently shared by the participants. Developing clear and comprehensive terminology and visuals for resilience would be beneficial, especially for communicating across disciplines and at different levels of abstraction in a system hierarchy. Drawing together policy makers, industry practitioners and academics from across domains has demonstrated that many of the same issues arise in apparently disparate systems. Collecting accounts of resilience in real world systems also brings richness and tangibility to a topic that can often be vague and ill-defined. The workshop showed how learning from both the systems and design fields can help us to communicate about resilience by offering abstraction (systems) as well as practicality (design). By answering the questions raised in this workshop we can further our understanding of how we can build resilience into systems and therefore be better equipped to design systems that survive, or even thrive, amidst uncertainty and change.

Systems Design Combining Rational Design and Evolution: What Synthetic

Biology Has To Teach Us about the Characterisation of Complexity

Chih-Chun Chen, Nathan Crilly Presentation Many of today’s design challenges involve understanding, improving and implementing systems that can be characterised as ‘complex’. These are systems whose properties or behaviours can not be predicted from consideration of the properties and behaviours of their elements alone. Examples of such systems include organisations such as health services, infrastructures such as energy distribution networks, and digital tools such as an online collaboration environments. Such systems, are not developed entirely from a ‘rational’ design approach (i.e. reductionist) but instead require a systemic perspective. There are many theories, methods and techniques to support the adoption of such a perspective, ranging from approaches that build on rational design approaches (e.g. systems of systems (SoS) techniques, multilevel design structure matrix methods) to approaches inspired by the process of biological evolution (e.g. genetic programming, evolutionary engineering). One of the key respects in which these approaches differ is in their characterisation of the complexity in the system. For example, a characterisation of complexity in terms of uncertainty might motivate the adoption of stochastic modelling while a

characterisation of complexity in terms of context dependency might motivate the adoption of function mapping. Despite the fact that methods and general practices are heavily dependent on the way in which complexity is characterised, the characterisation assumed is rarely made explicit. To identify such methodologically significant differences in characterisation, we investigated the practice of design in a field that deals with inherently complex systems: Synthetic Biology. Synthetic Biology is a field that designs and constructs novel biological entities or modifies existing biological entities to serve some purpose. It is an interdisciplinary field that was founded on a rational design approach, taking principles from traditional engineering fields. In particular, Synthetic Biology has emphasised the application of compositional hierarchy (from parts to devices to systems) and standardisation (of parts and their assemblies). These design principles are applied in the construction of biological systems that address basic human needs (e.g. food, fuel, medicine) or that have technical applications (e.g. materials with desirable properties). As such, the field of synthetic biology has a track record of importing well established design approaches and applying them to complex systems. To better understand the design approaches applied in Synthetic Biology, we conducted an interview study with ten specialists from different disciplines working within the field. The participants represented a range of disciplines and backgrounds, including Physics, Chemistry, Molecular Biology, Social Policy, Design Theory, Computational Science, Electrical Engineering, and Systems Biology. This disciplinary breadth ensured that we captured both the variety of design practices in this inherently multidisciplinary field and also the differences in familiarity with design thinking and systemic thinking. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed, with the resulting text subjected to inductive thematic analysis by two researchers working independently. The study found that during the early days of Synthetic Biology, efforts were centred around developing a repository of biological parts that could be used to construct biological systems. However, this presupposed a rational design perspective that was not able to deliver reliable products when the diversity and/or number of parts and devices was large. It was further observed that Synthetic Biology has recently begun to apply a more holistic, systemic perspective which addresses the complex nature of biological behaviours. However, within this systemic perspective, there was much diversity in the design approaches employed, spanning the continuum from those building on rational design to those inspired by natural evolution: assembly through compositional hierarchy, quantitative and computational modelling, machine learning methods such as reinforcement learning, and evolution through random variation and selection. The heterogeneity in the approaches adopted by the different participants can be attributed to both their disciplinary diversity and their different characterisations of complexity. Specifically, we could distinguish the following characterisations of complexity (not mutually exclusive): Context dependency (elements behaving differently depending on which other elements they are interacting with). Overlapping hierarchies (elements being described at different levels when considered in the context of different systems). Emergence (properties of the system being nontrivially related to the properties of the elements). Stochasticity (behaviour of elements or system being probabilistic). Unpredictability of the system (behaviour of elements or the system not being completely predictable). Noise (behaviours only being partially realised).

Multiple characterisations of the system (not fully understanding the relationships between different representations, descriptions or models of the system). Crosstalk (many interactions between elements). Incomplete understanding (not having a full understanding of the system). Open structures (system boundaries being in flux with the “environment”). These findings suggest that systemic design should not be thought of as a single approach, but as a set of system characterisations and their associated design methods. Developing a better understanding of how these characterisations and methods relate to each other would enable designers from different disciplines and fields to share their systemic design practices with each other. To this end, we have developed a more structured way of identifying opportunities for sharing knowledge and practices between fields working on the design of complex systems. Figure 1 illustrates how this can be used to explore the opportunities for cross-fertilisation between Synthetic Biology and other systemic design approaches. In Systems of Systems Engineering, the rational design approach is extended to provide Well-defined and systematic ways of designing systems with both complex and noncomplex aspects; this is also the approach that gave birth to Synthetic Biology as a field. More recently, in the field known as “Complexity Engineering”, evolution-inspired random variation and search approaches are combined with the rational design approaches; this combined approach has also been adopted more recently in Synthetic Biology. Our study therefore provides a basis for identifying opportunities for cross-disciplinary learning. This might be between different applied design fields such as Synthetic Biology, Policy Engineering, or Service Design, or it might be between these applied fields and design theoretic fields such as Complexity Engineering.

Session Abstracts – Wednesday, September 2, 2015– Stream A

Systems Thinking for Design Thinking, Towards Proposing a Generic Approach

to Design

John Darzentas, Jenny Darzentas Paper In the world of Design we see an increasing involvement of systems thinking (Nelson & Stolterman 2012, Jones, 2013, Sevaldson, 2011). We feel though, that apart from the holistic view of design problems and the realisation that as much as possible of the whole of the problem space should be considered from the initial stages of tackling it, there should be systemic proposals as far as design praxis is concerned in terms of methods and methodologies. There are of course suggestions from the afore mentioned thinkers and others as to how such approaches should be adopted to Design Thinking by acknowledging and including the use of Systems tenets and principles in general. Also the adoption of existing Systems Methodologies, mainly from the world of Management, has already been suggested (Ng, 2009, Molyneux & Haslett, 2007). It is now perhaps an appropriate time for generic Systems Thinking Design approaches to be formed. This paper attempts to present a general proposal for the systemic tackling of design problems, by utilising systems tenets which can be treated as basic design principles, as well as concentrating on the fact that the forming of the design problem space should be a main design concern. The ‘how’ this space is formed is the main issue here. The arguments as to ‘why’ there should be effort to adopt Systemic Thinking need also to be marshalled. Attempting to justify, yet again, the question of “why Systems?” we have come to realise that perhaps an interesting way to reply is to explain our personal trajectory. In our case a journey from Mathematics to hard Operational Research (including Statistics, and Simulation), to Soft OR, Systems Thinking, to Human Computer Interaction and now Design, on one hand, and Humanities to Human Computer Interaction on the other, led both to the realization that living, growing, and acknowledging positively the creative ‘trouble’ in problem understanding description and understanding. That is, in the world of applications, moving from being:

• Content with disciplinary thinking and praxis tools, solving complicated problems assumed definable but requiring a number of assumptions to be satisfied. Main tendency being the simplification.

• Coping when moving into more specific domain which even at its beginning could be called multi/interdisciplinary, but still treating its problems as complicated and simplifiable mainly by adopting reductionism.

• Embracing the real world of interwoven multi/interdisciplinary problems that comes with a main characteristic of being the move from complication to complexity. The problems are now really complex, basically because they are human centric and not the ‘neater’ complicated engineering ones.

It has taken quite an effort in the last decades from all those involved with complex human centric problems to admit that complexity is a useful thing and must be welcomed and not be ‘bulldozed’ out of the problem space.

Design, as a representative domain of the complex world of problem solving, is evolving in an exciting way, but as every other discipline which must solve problems is always challenged by reasons to apply reductionism. Systems Thinking, on the other hand works with the ‘holon’ which cannot be defined nor easily co-exist with reductionism. In terms of a Design problem it means that if reductionism is imposed then the problem tackled, although of the real world, is a different one from that represented by the whole, and misses out a lot of the actual problem space. Another way of looking at the issue may be through the affordance of the particular design project results, be they tangible or intangible. It could be said that its affordance could be very different if the case where the Design problem space is considered as a whole, from when reductionism is applied. Typical examples are emerging everywhere there is the relatively new challenge: that of “Service Design” which brings with it the very real and revealing quality of being genuinely human centric and complex, and in many cases expecting to bring about results that are “socially innovative”. Currently, a stock set tools and methods are used, such as customer journey mapping and service blueprints both derived from management approaches, but most methodologies are collections of tools and methods and frequently lack a methodological framework of their own to give them a theoretical underpinning. Indeed the rhetoric of work on the subject is often reflecting on the role of the designer in such settings (Meroni & Sangiorgi 2011, Schneider & Stickdorn, 2012). What can be retained from this is that the emergence of new Design paradigms such as Service Design has brought to the surface more robust realization that Systems Thinking approaches are probably a most natural way for Design Praxis, basically because of the inherent complexity and the widening of the spectrum of Design Problems that design teams are increasingly called upon to help with. In the attempt to offer an initial architecture of a Systems Thinking approach to tackling Design Problems the primary step is to justify the claimed importance of ‘how’ its Design Problem Space is discovered understood and formed. In other words ‘how’ to acquire a Systemic representation of that Space, i.e. ‘The System’ with which we Design. Principles and tenets (notions) of Systems Thinking such as Emerging Properties, Requisite Variety, Self Reference, Organisation, Self Organisation, Distinction, etc., can guide the understanding and discovery of a representative System of the Design Problem Space, primarily in terms of its parts (components) and their relations. Notions such as Structure, states, control, attractors, code, etc, support the forming of the System of the Problem Space, mainly in terms of its dynamic characteristics and processes. The main aim being to acquire as representative a System as possible, with its parts and their relations and its ‘life’. The paper then makes a first attempt to propose an approach for Designing with stakeholders in a co-design participatory approach. The proposal here is concentrating on the building of the Systems to be designed and it is our position that this is the front line to successful design interventions. A range of Systems Methodologies such as those coming from the Management domain are expected to complement and aid the Design praxis. It should be said that although it could be claimed that these methodologies can be directly applied to Design, our position here is that the ideas of Systems Thinking have special distinct ways of supporting Design Thinking and these will be picked out and utilised accordingly.

References Jones, P.(2014) Systemic Design Principles for Complex Social Systems Social Systems and Design, in G. S. Metcalf (edn) Translational Systems Science Series, Vol 1,Springer Verlag Japan Meroni, A, & Sangiorgi, D. (2011) Design for Services, Gower, London Molineux, J.& Haslett, T. (2007) The Use of Soft Systems Methodology to Enhance Group Creativity Systemic Practice and Action Research 20 (6), pp 477-496 Nelson, H. & Stolterman, E. (2012 2nd Edn) The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World, MIT Press, Ng, Irene C.L., Roger Maull and Nick Yip, (2009) Outcome-based Contracts as a driver for Systems thinking and Service-Dominant Logic in Service Science: Evidence from the Defence industry, European Management Journal, Vol. 27, No. 6, pp377-387 http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-4-431-54478-4_4#page-1 Schneider, J. & Stickdorn, M. (2012 ) This is Service Design Thinking, BIS publishers, Netherlands Sevaldson, B. (2011) Giga-mapping: visualisation: for complexity and systems thinking in design Proceedings of NorDes (Nordic Design Research) no 4 http://www.nordes.org/opj/index.php/n13/article/view/104/88

Giga-maps: Their Role as Bridging Artefacts

Birger Sevaldson Presentation Gigamapping has been established as an important tool in Systems Oriented Design throughout the last years, especially at the Oslo School of Architecture and Design, but also spreading elsewhere. Through this period the role of gigamapping has been discussed and developed. From the start the role of the gigamap was to be an inclusive and un-dogmatic approach to large scale mapping. Its main purpose was to get at grips of big complexity for the designer. Any hard framing of the Giga-map and any imposed rule set was seen to be counterproductive and limiting. The map was seen as a device to integrate systems thinking with design. Through the map one could harness the design process and the practice of design to become a strong tool for understanding systems as well as designing them. The map was a tool for design inquiry as defined by Nelson and Stolterman who describe design as a separate form of knowledge production. So we started to look at the gigamaps as devices for design inquiries and hence the maps were looked upon as design artefacts. Developing the map through design iterations was a strong way of refining the insights into the complexity of the systems at hand and to cut across scales from myriads of details to large scale patterns. In this development Giga-maps have been regarded by us as soft systems approaches closely related to the SSM rich picture and other visual techniques. At the same time we were aware of the limitations and advantages of harder systems models and therefore adopted a pragmatic view on systems approaches rooted in Critical Systems Thinking. This implied in some cases the inclusion and integration of various systems models into the gigamaps. Revisiting the role of the designer and the role of the Gigamap and Systems Oriented Design has led to a shift in the view on the role of the Giga-map. In design we most often are looking at composed perspectives. This means that we are navigating complexities that are crossing technological, biological and social realms. We deal

with both deterministic and unpredictable systems, framed and tamed ones as well as wild and wicked ones. This implies that we might find ourselves at both soft and hard ends of the systems approaches. Design culture indicates that we are more on the soft, fuzzy and wicked side of that landscape but reality tells us that we more than often work with e.g. technology. Technological systems at large are “hard” and deterministic. Our lack of grips at the hard side we compensate with interdisciplinary collaborations with e.g. systems engineers and other experts. This is not limited to the hard end of the scale but it also expands throughout the field involving in any experts and stakeholders. Giga-mapping has been a central tool for co-inquiry where experts, users and other stakeholders are brought together and immerse in a dialogue across their specialized cultures and terminologies. It is hence not of any importance if the Giga-map submits to any systemic model nor creates its own modelling of systems. The Giga-map is instead the in-between, the infill and the multiple bridge system between expertices, knowledges, models and fields. The presentation will discuss and analyze the nature of Gigamaps and refine the view on how they are part of design inquiries and how this connects to their role as design artefacts. Further on I will discuss the role and limitations of some particular systems models and argue that they only cover limited aspects. Moving on to talk about how to turn the tension between particular models as well as other world views expertices and stakeholder perspectives into a productive richness imperative and how Systems Oriented Design takes on a role of the in-between where the gigamap is the arena of coexistence. Finally I will draw the lines back to the idea of a conglomerate research design first proposed in 2002.

Designing Flourishing Societies as a Practice of Cultural Futures

Peter Jones Presentation We present early theoretical work and a systemic design methodology for identifying leverage and designing strategies for enhancing the flourishing of human societies. I define the society frame as a cooperative social system that identifies itself by forms and material practices of culture. Society can be defined as an object of culture, as culture is a medium for the collective development of social systems. Societies are not designed as such by any deliberative process, but are social entities that emerge over time as response to historicity and cultural development, and function largely by tacit agreement as observed in social norms. In the 1960’s social systemicists such as Ozbekhan , Fuller, and Doxiadis advocated deliberative civic planning as a normative science for designing sustainable and preferable societies and settlements. Even though their original methodologies of normative planning (Ozbekhan), anticipatory design science (Fuller) and ekistics (Doxiadis) did not gain the results hoped in applications over time, these arguments could be lodged against most systems methodologies. Yet when we consider their views of the human capacity to design future outcomes as a serious social and political project, we in our fragmented polities in the postmodern era might take heed. An argument follows that we, as cultural innovators in our own societies, having access to the wisdom of successful past transitions or redirections, have also failed to motivate and enact changes requisite to our common concerns. A systemic design approach is proposed toward constructing such idealizations as a necessary initial condition. The approach reconciles wisdom from our sociocultural histories with collaborative design practices of the current era to construct shared pathways to desired and feasible societal futures.

I first present an initial understanding of the individual, social, and societal factors of human flourishing. Flourishing entails both “a good life” and the sustainment of human and all life, future outcomes for which we might expect to discover significant agreement. Yet there are many common barriers to achieving even partial agreement toward a preferred future idealization. Ozbekhan (1970) identified several of these among his 49 Continuous Critical Problems, with the most compelling barriers being our collective inability to marshal our creative capacity to confront the future and the inability to evolve new values systems. While these leverage points are well-known in social systems theory, we have seen our societies demonstrate little resolution of action toward the wicked problems we share among the 49 CCPs. The lack of agreement with respect to even shared scientific “matters of fact” in sustainability reveals the compelling necessity for well-informed decisions leading to change. Recently, Latour’s (2013) Modes of Existence proposed a normative agenda for cultural renewal remarkably aligned with the seminal social systems thinkers. He proposed a framework for social value analysis and understanding based on the proposal of (at least) 15 modes of existence that would continue in conflict with each other without a common basis in language and valuing. The necessity for such an approach to “an anthropology of the moderns” was proposed due to the continuing lack of action of the most basic problematics of climate change, a monstrous matter of concern faced by all humanity. Latour presents a comprehensive sociological response to the dire consequences of human and environmental catastrophe in the context of climate change by positing a model for inquiry into the multiplicity of perspectives. Taking a realist view of the sustainability predicament, this potential for catastrophe necessitates an inclusive understanding of values and conflicting interests across the multiple ontologies realized by modernism. Across Latour’s configuration of 15 “modes of existence,” consensus on definitions or actions is not considered achievable within a common ontological framework. Instead this model embraces a cross-referencing of concerns and values associated with the modern condition, compatible with reflexive modernization, rethinking of boundaries and values across multiple perspectives, commitments, and social identities. Latour’s project also aims to restore trust to science and other human institutions necessary to assure a common interest in survival and stewardship of the planet, which is also a key tenet of a successful society. The “inquiry into modes of existence” provides a new basis for stakeholder identification and engagement, a process Ozbekhan asserted to be an essential ethical requirement, from which we might develop a research and practice model. My research adapts this model as means of assessing and understanding initial conditions. In this proposal I address the ways in which intentional actors – professional planners and designers, decision makers and engaged citizens – can facilitate the design of civil societies to stimulate and sustain human flourishing. An initial understanding of the social, individual and societal factors of human flourishing is presented, toward the development of an acceptable definition of flourishing across the scales from individual to the context of a globalized society. This normative turn appears to assign our motives and actions to those of social change, or even activism. Will we see these emerging new roles for designers evolve toward ethical, reflective facilitators for social action? The turning toward committed outcomes puts claims to skilled action at risk. Design schools and practices do not teach or research practices for facilitating system-level multistakeholder engagement. Most of the methodologies in contemporary modes are proprietary and under-critiqued models developed in specialized

organizational settings (such as appreciative inquiry or Theory U) and have very little social research to support their efficacy. Design practice enjoys a highly leveraged placement for cultural innovation, a position which offers ethically precarious opportunities for control or mediated power. As Latour would also suggest we must now “extend the question of design to politics.” How might we enable collective valuing and coordinated action toward effective agreements and progress on the complex systems of sustainability problems? For the question of flourishing we are challenged to locate meanings by which a reasonable plurality of fellow humans can agree to resolve various matters of concern to entertain a senior concern, that of sustaining the continuity of human cultures, or civilization. I will present a framework of relevant models that tightly cohere to address these issues, including:

• An evolving system map for collective description of a flourishing society (adaptation of the Flourishing Business Model)

• The formulation of Modes of Existence as guidance for stakeholder analysis and selection for articulating an inclusive, feasible flourishing society model

• The adaptation of dialogic design methodology to facilitate the identification, priorities and agreements necessary to enact the flourishing society model.

Scaling In: Towards a Paradigm of Abundance within Limits, Part II - A Manifesto

for Systemic Design

Perin Ruttonsha Presentation Inward expansion is the virtue of a contained life. Social innovation discourse illuminates processes of cascading, cross-scale systems transformation as mechanisms of ‘scaling out’ and ‘scaling up’ (Westley & Antadze, 2009). Inspired by the premise that constraints can, at times, stimulate creativity, and therefore innovation, this paper introduces a complementary concept: scaling in. “As any artist or designer knows, constraints actually serve the creative process — providing the medium, conditions and context for the play of creativity” (Henderson, 1995, p.267). The idea of ‘scaling in’ is intended to characterize an approach to systemic design innovation that responds to Rockström’s (2015) pitch for an ‘abundance within limits’ paradigm to replace the established growth paradigm, with consideration of how civilizations might seek out “a new basis to generate creative economies and quality of life, without destroying the resources on which life ultimately depends” (Mehaffy, 2014). If creative invention is considered part of a culture of prosperity, then this raises the challenge of achieving a net reduction of resource investment in current systems, directly or indirectly, through innovation — rechannelling the breadth of human endeavor within a tighter range of parameters. This paper considers how one might embrace an abundance within limits mantra to inform a process of strategic collapse (Gunderson & Holling, 2002) and transformation of current social-ecoTechnological regimes along sustainability and resilience (Folke, 2006) pathways; however, it is not yet clear that such a paradigm is within reach. Examination of a cumulative complexity view (Arthur, 2009) can lend insight into how this approach might unfold. Such a view, of course, speaks to the often self-complexifying trajectory of human cultural change — a progression that is credited to the amalgamation and inheritance

of knowledge over time (Gould, 1996), but also called out for a resulting increase in resource exploitation and systems fragility (Christian, 2004; Homer-Dixon, 2007). This work asks if all variations of complex civilizations necessarily demand high levels of consumption, or to what extent the refinement and enrichment of ideas and technologies through recombination might lead to systems simplicity and efficiency (Whitesides, 2010). This is fundamentally a dilemma for systemic design, as an analysis of trade-offs and benefits would necessarily extend across sectors and scales. For example, this could imply stacking (Whitesides, 2010) a multiplicity of purposes, functions, and exchanges within any given network, rendering the activities of specific locales both complex and contained. Drawing on Fuller’s notion of ephemeralization, or ‘doing more with less’ (Edmonson, 1986), this paper will examine how one might ‘do more with what one has’. Reference List Arthur, B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. New York, NY: Free Press. Christian, D. (2004). Maps of time: An introduction to big history. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Edmonson, A. (1986). A fuller explanation: The synergetic geometry of R. Buckminster Fuller. [NetLibrary version] Retrieved from http://www.bfi.org/about-bucky/resources/books Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The Emergence of a Perspective for Social-Ecological Systems Analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253-267. Gould, J. (1996). Full house: The spread of excellence from Plato to Darwin. New York, NY: Harmony Books. Gunderson, L.H. & Holling, C.S. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, D.C. Island Press. Henderson, H. (1995). Paradigms in progress: Life beyond economics. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Homer-Dixon, T. (2007[2006]). The upside of down: Catastrophe, creativity and the renewal of civilization. Toronto, ON: Vintage Canada. Mehaffy, M. (2014, Sept 19). Five key themes emerging from the new ‘science of cities’. The Atlantic CityLab. Retrieved from http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/09/5-key-themes-emerging-from-the-new-science-of-cities/380233/. Rockström, J. (2015, Mar 26). Big world, small planet: Abundance within planetary boundaries [Guest Lecture]. Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), University of Waterloo. Westley, F. & Antadze, N. (2009). Making a difference: Strategies for scaling social innovation for greater impact. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 15(2-2), 1-18. Whitesides, G. (2010, February). Toward a science of simplicity [Video File]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/george_whitesides_toward_a_science_of_simplicity?language=en#t-715568

Session Abstracts – Wednesday, September 2, 2015 – Stream B

Multi-Modeling: A Systemic Approach to Business Solution Design

Narayana Mandaleeka Presentation Objective of the talk: To share an approach (Multi Modeling) used for consulting in business contexts in India using systems thinking and cybernetics platform. Background: The consulting scenario in India has a unique flavor to deal with. The existence of business in a society which is complex and having different shades to deal with is a good case for the approach which will be shared in this talk. These problems can be classified predominantly as those relating to business, government and society, but influencing each other. Overview of the talk: In order to deal with this context a methodology based on the systems and cybernetics was developed and practiced by our organization in India. It was named as Multi-Modeling methodology and the types of problems for which it is suitable are: all aspects of human activity systems (business/government or any other enterprises) either part or whole (Information Systems design, Information Systems and Technology Plan (ISTP), Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Business Process Re-engineering (BPR), Perspective or Strategic Planning, Mission and Role Statements, Organizational Restructuring, etc.). The methodology provides conceptual support to consultants using the Multi-Modeling approach to designing business solutions. It covers all the phases of a consulting assignment, namely discovery, diagnosis, design and implementation. The method consists of a checklist of various dimensions to be probed and patterns to be unearthed to get a holistic understanding of the client’s problem situation or enterprise behavior. The Multi-Modeling methodology is largely independent of the scale of the problem The approach recognizes that different stages of problem solving, i.e., discovery, diagnosis, design and implementation require different ways of thinking. For instance, during discovery one has to be open and actively listen to, during diagnosis one has to explore deep into the situation to seek rigorous explanation. And design requires creativity. In other words, the focus shifts from seeking information through seeking interpretation to seeking ideas. However, every stage requires divergence and convergence of views. This methodology was practiced in around 50 assignments across different domains like Government, Public Sector, Business, and Society. In the course of this the methodology was made more rigorous and robust, through addition of more systemic models. The journey also led to development of models based on cybernetic principles for unearthing the cybernetic nature of problems.

Professional Application of Systems Oriented Design: GIGA-Mapping and

Prioritization

Jonathan Romm, Astrid Twenebowa Larssen, Adrian Paulsen Presentation Halogen is one of the leading digital design consultancies in Norway, with expertise in design of critical systems and applications, websites, intranets, products and processes. One common denominator in all of Halogen’s services and projects is a human-centered design approach

aiming for holistic user experiences. Over the the last four years Halogen has worked with Systems oriented design as an approach to further develop strategic design expertise as a business service. This with a focus on service design, design of critical systems, innovation and work processes re-design. Over the last couple of years the turnover of SOD projects at Halogen has increased by 59 %. SOD has become a substantial part of the company revenue increasing from 11% in 2013 to 16 % in 2014. Halogen has established a partnership with the Oslo School of Architecture and Design (AHO) by applying the proven methods and techniques of Systems Oriented Design into a practical and commercial context. Through the last couple of years Halogen has carried out around 40 projects using System Oriented Design as a central approach. This paper will describe and discuss strategies and tools, that have evolved through our work with and reflections about using SOD and GIGA-mapping in a commercial setting. Specifically, it addresses the transition phase between collecting and recording information towards prioritizing and taking action. We hope that these reflections will help other Systems oriented designers to:

1. Analyse GIGA-maps (Sevaldson 2011) and Rich Design Research Spaces (Sevaldson 2008) and

2. determine criteria for prioritise actions, activities, directions on multiple levels, including strategies, tactics, operations, and design.

The task of exploring and representing the inner workings of complex organizations is demanding. The amount of collected data in the form of notes, images, drawings, written material can be enormous. Project members often find themselves in a situation of information overload, a feeling of “lost in the woods”. The phase is however critical in moving projects from observations and recordings towards planning and developing actions - new routines, new services and new tools. A key activity in this phase is prioritization, both by project members on the client side and prioritizations that designers carry out. In this paper we will outline how we have gone about this phase in different types of SOD projects with various clients. We will describe our key learnings and takeaways as well as reflect on how our practice evolved over time References: Sevaldson, B. (2008). Rich Design Research Space. FORMAkademisk, 28 Vol.1 Nr.1. Retrieved from:https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/formakademisk/article/view/119/108 Sevaldson, B. (2011) - GIGA-Mapping: Visualisation for complexity and systems thinking in design. NORDES 2011, 30th May 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.nordes.org/opj/index.php/n13/article/view/104/88

Emergence of a Convergence: Systemic Synergies between Entrepreneurship

and Design Processes within Design-led Startups

Michel de Blois, James Eaves Presentation Inquiry The developed world is rapidly transitioning from an industrialized economy to one powered by startups. This trend, referred to as the “startup movement”, harbours two main sub-trends: one that is fuelled by traditional entrepreneurship, the other by the field of design. Within startups, both join forces on the innovation arena.

What’s intriguing is that previous studies in project and design management have highlighted that traditional entrepreneurship and design operate in parallel throughout the project timeline. It appears that the rapidly growing startup movement is changing that trend. More and more entrepreneurs who are building companies (startups) with the ambitious goal of disrupting existing markets «designers, and vice-versa. The speed at these entrepreneurs need to navigate is driving the development of new theoretical foundations, practices, methods and tools at a speed that’s challenging the ability to understand their implications of academics and seasoned practitioners, in both fields. The main objective of this research is to try to establish the path of this trend, explore and map the synergies between design and startup-entrepreneurship. Context and Theory To accomplish the latter, these synergies need to be put into context, both historically and theoretically. Historically, in order to trace back the respective evolution of practices in management and design in regards to their contribution to entrepreneurship and startups. Theoretically, in order to situate their epistemological foundations and to understand the differences and similarities pertaining to their methods, tools and processes. Traditionally, design and entrepreneurship operate from distinct perspective. Entrepreneurship is more positivist, quantitative and operates predominantly in a linear fashion. Design is constructivist in nature, adopts a systemic approach and operates through iterativity. Furthermore, startups emerge from an amalgam of sub-domains that are of interest in studying the emergence of this convergence. In order to map this startup landscape, we gathered sources from a theoretical perspective as well as from popular literature. On the management theory side, we identified: organizational design, project management, innovation and entrepreneurship. From design, we identified: design thinking, design process, creativity, design methods and innovation. From popular literature, we gathered the following authors as to allow a fair representation of what is reflected from practice: (Aulet, 2013; Blank & Dorf, 2012; Keeley et al., 2013; Kumar, 2012; Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010; Van Wulfen, 2013) (Insert Table here) Methodology We then explored consistencies and inconsistencies within the synergies of startup-entrepreneurship and design in two ways. First, based on case studies (Yin, 2004), by observing and documenting behaviour within two living laboratories: (i) Startup Weekend, a three day event that primarily embraces startup management-strategies; (ii) Startup Fuze, a one-month, intensive program developed by the authors, which interweaves both design and startup management strategies in a fashion that aims to maximize their synergies. Second, we projected these observations onto our theoretical canvas. We compared previous established theories and methodologies of management and design against what actually happens in practice, allowing for the exploration and mapping of these actual and potential synergies. Systemic principles The aim of this exploration is to provide a systemic view of the startup process from multiple perspectives, where all the domains interweave, generating the anticipated and elusive « convergence ». Basic systems principle (Le Moigne, 1999) were used to that end. It is often argued that systemic approaches are complementary to the analytical approach, which focuses on structure (Bonami et al., 1996; Jackson, 1995). Based on the theory of complexity (Morin, 1977), however, second generation system principles emphasize the dynamic nature and behaviour of interrelations over time (Daft & Weick, 1984; Durand, 2004; Le

Moigne, 1977; 1999), evolving in a system affecting and affected by its own environment. The systemic vision, therefore, focuses on interrelations, interactions and processes between components and their overall organization. Through modelling efforts, it renders “intelligible a phenomenon that is perceived complex, by amplifying the actor’s reasoning while he is projecting an intentional intervention within the phenomenon” (Le Moigne, 1999, p. 5). Unlike traditional project management approaches, systemic modelling does not represent a situation or the state of a system. It rather helps to understand a system of actions, by establishing and naming relations between components. This research is of importance in view of the fact that few studies have analyzed the specific convergence of these two disciplines under the angle of entrepreneurship-innovation / designer-creator. (Brem, 2008; 2011) Therefore, the following question guides our research: how can design/creation processes, through innovation, inform entrepreneurial processes, and vice versa? Based on previous research results (de Blois, 2012) obtained from case studies of design and construction project behaviour, it is proposed that: a systemic synergy between these two main domains generate a series of processes that allows projects to organize and self-organize according to the project’s own specific and unique characteristics, occurring at both the processual and structural levels. Reference List Aulet, B. (2013). Disciplined entrepreneurship: 24 steps to a successful startup. John Wiley & Sons. Blank, S. & Dorf, B. (2012). The Startup Owner’s Manual: The Stepby-Step Guide for Building a Great Company. Vol. 1. Pescadero, CA: K&S Ranch. Bonami, M., De Hennin, B., Boqué, J. M. & Legrand, J. J. (1996). Management des Systèmes Complexes, Pensée systémique et intervention dans les Organisations. Bruxelles: De Boeck Université. Brem, A. (2011). Linking innovation and entrepreneurship--literature overview and introduction of a process-oriented framework. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 14(1), 6-35. Brem, A. (2008). The boundaries of innovation and entrepreneurship. Springer. Daft, R. L. & Weick, K. E. T. (1984). Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems. The Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284-295. de Blois, M. (2012). Le projet organisant: vers une ontologie du projet d’aménagement. Unpublished Thèse, Université de Montréal, Montréal. Durand, D. (2004). La Systémique (9ième ed. Vol. 1795). Vendôme: Presse Universitaire de France. Jackson, M. C. (1995). Beyond the fads: Systems thinking for managers. Systems Research, 12(1), pp. 25-pp. 42. Keeley, L., Walters, H., Pikkel, R. & Quinn, B. (2013). Ten types of innovation: The discipline of building breakthroughs. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Kumar, V. (2012). 101 design methods: A structured approach for driving innovation in your organization. John Wiley & Sons. Le Moigne, J.-L. (1977). La théorie du système général. Paris: Presse Universitaire de France. Le Moigne, J.-L. (1999). La modélisation des systèmes complexes. Paris: Dunod. Osterwalder, A. & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation–a handbook for visionaires, game changers, and challengers. NewYork Wiley. Van Wulfen, G. (2013). The Innovation Expedition: a Visual Toolkit to Start Innovation. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers. Yin, R. K. (2004). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Fourth ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

A Case Study on Systems Change in the Charitable Sector

Gena Rotstein Presentation At Dexterity Ventures we are harnessing the power of data to create a paradigm shift in how philanthropic activities in North America are conducted. We believe that by focusing on how donors give, rather than on how charities ask for funds, we can shift the fundraising model from “Please sir can I have some more,” to use market trends and models to make informed investment decisions that will drive effective and meaningful social change. An example of how our data is used in the marketplace to drive systems change is through mapping information. We can show funders how capital infusions can impact change. We can apply predictive analytics models to better understand a charity’s lifecycle thereby provide boards and funders relevant information to make informed, strategic decisions. By shifting the conversation from charities asking for funds to markets driving funding solutions we can develop policies, support governments and communities in planning and create a system of accountability that is standardized and consistent. One of the new technologies we are developing is a Charity Census. Similar to what Google has done regarding their SEO schema, we are using our charity profiling tool to improve the accessibility of charity information. This presentation highlights how our technology is shifting conversations and has the potential to redirect billions of dollars in charitable funds around North America.

Session Abstracts – Wednesday, September 2, 2015 – Stream C

Systemic Design for Food Sustainability: Interpretation of Real Cases and

Reflection on Theories

Silvia Barbero Presentation This paper investigates how systems and complexity theories applied to the food sectors can contribute to wellbeing and decent life for all, maintaining the global ecological capacity for future generations. This topic comes highly over the people’s lives (everyone can daily have experience on it), however the level of real awareness on it is very low. A healthy and safe feeding is the key element to ensure a sustainable development for the entire planet and for the diverse territories. The theme of food is one of the major challenges for the near future, indeed it involves every aspect of our lives: a correct behaviour in relation with the territory means respect for ourselves and our health. In that sense food can be an "index" for the sustainability of a community, that takes into account many different elements. The theories about complexity help the management of the entirely food systems and the design approaches help the planning of different divergent elements. The complexity theories evolved on the basis that living systems continually draw upon external sources of energy and maintain a stable state of low entropy, as the physicist Erwin Schrödinger asserted after the WWII, on the basis of the General Systems Theory by Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy. Some of the next rationales applied those theories also on artificial systems: complexity models of living systems address also productive models with their organizations and management, where the relationships between parts are more important than the parts themselves. Treating productive organizations as complex adaptive systems allows a new management model to emerge in economical, social and environmental benefits (Pisek & Wilson, 2001). In that field, Cluster Theory (Porter, 1990) evolved in more environmental sensitive theories, like Industrial Ecology (Frosh & Gallopoulos, 2989) and Industrial Symbiosis (Chertow, 2000). Those theories are the lens with which the Systemic Design research team (SDrt) at Politecnico di Torino faces and analyses the different complex situations of the presented cases. The design thinking, as Buchanan said in 1992, means the way to creatively and strategically reconfigure a design concept on a situation with systemic integration. This needs a strong inter-and trans-disciplinarity during the design phase (Fuller, 1981), with the increasing involvement of different disciplines including urban planning, public policy, business management and environmental sciences (Chertow, Ashton, & Kuppali, 2004). The design thinking is the way used by SDrt to formulate the new projects presented in this paper. Systems and complexity theories and design thinking redesign a pretty new discipline (Jones, 2009): the Systemic Design (Bistagnino, 2009). All the presented cases are designed and implemented following the Systemic Design approach by the SDrt in the last decade. These real cases include a wide range of food sectors and different local contexts, so it is possible to interpret them in a more theoretical level in order to define the new frontiers of systemic approach in food design toward more sustainable communities that produce and consume food in conscious and responsible way. The purpose is to give empirical and theoretical contributions with developed, developing and transition perspectives. The actual society of over-consumption is affected also by over-waste, and the food sector is one of the most engaged since it produces huge amounts of rubbish. In terms of volume these

products take up from 60% to 70% of the volume and what remains is almost exclusively organic material, like food remains (FAO, 2011). Final consumers approach food without knowing what it actually is and what it involves in terms of complex systems, human relationships, ecological and cultural impacts (C. Petrini et al., 2007). So it is needed a new way facing the food productive processes in order to obtain ecological good, planning the flows of matter and energy that go from a system to another one towards zero emissions. It creates a new economic-productive model, a community of strongly related people and a conscious connection with the territory (L. Bistagnino, 2014). In the last ten years the SDrt in Politecnico di Torino, in which I am active part, have been working a lot in practical application, in order to have field experiences of first hand reliability, so now we can interpret the results of real cases with important considerations also at theoretical level. In this occasion, I would like to underline especially the wicked problems that we faced in each project because they help us to learn and to better navigate the new frontiers. First of all, I group the cases in three main macro-subjects in order to underline their peculiarities and the different scales: territory, society, and communication. The territory scale includes the cases where the Systemic Design approach works in a very complex environment in order to develop a defined region. One case is “EN.FA.SI.” (co-funded by the Piedmont Region) in which the value chain related to the PGI bean (Fagiolo Cuneo) endorses the entire area involving the small family producers and the local SMEs. The other one is “Fondo Noir” (funded by Lavazza company) in which the spent coffee ground from the coffee bars in the metropolitan city centre is collected by cargo-bike in order to generate many new businesses. The society group creates a network of subjects, initiatives, experiences, in order to define a food governance integrated with the territory and a mutual enhancement of daily food supply/consumption. One case is “Fa bene.” (runs by Plug and Liberi Tutti no-profit associations, co-funded by Snodi, Caritas, and Compagnia di San Paolo), it collects the food surplus and donations in street markets for redistributing it to families with economic problems, in return of practical actions for the local community. The second one is “HFW” (Hospital Food Waste), that gives short and long time solutions to reduce the food waste in the distribution of meals in the hospitals and to redistribute the food no corrupted and no eaten to poor local families. The communication cases have a strong calling to sensitise and educate. The first case is “Dégust'Alp” (co-funded by the European Commission) and it is a communication campaign to increase the knowledge on local food products with high quality and to promote their consumption directly in companies’ canteens. The second one is “Healthy Sauce” (funded by the European Commission) and it is a direct communication on the labels of sauces produced by a small local enterprise (Tuttovo) that explain the complex system behind and beyond it and its relations with health and social issues. Then, from all these cases I can map significant problems faced directly in the design and implementation phases and reflect on the possibility or not to define future ways to overcome them. Finally, all these cases show how the complexity of food systems impacts the simplicity of the everyday life solutions. Its role is crucial in the environmental context and in the development of the local territory. So, I can get some conclusions on the new perspective for the food system, promoting social and environmental development. Thinking about a food territorial system means the guidance of politic, scientific, organisational, designing processes, based on the generation of increased relationships, shared visions and strategies (cross, pervasive, and fundamental ones).

References Bistagnino L. (2009). Systemic Design: Designing the productive and environmental sustainability. Bra, Italy: Slow Food. Bistagnino L. (2014). microMACRO micro relazioni come rete vitale del sistema economico e produttivo. Milano, Italy: Edizioni Ambiente. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8 (2), 5-21. Chertow, M.R. (2000). Industrial Symbiosis: Literature and Taxonomy. Annual Review of Energy and Environment, 25, 313-337. Chertow, M. R., Ashton, W., & Kuppali, R. (2004). The Industrial Symbiosis Research Symposium at Yale: Advancing the Study of Industry and Environment. New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. Frosh R.A., & Gallopoulos, N.E. (1989). Strategies for Manufacturing. Scientific American, 3 (189), 94-102. Fuller R.B. (1981). Critical path. Ney York City, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Gustavsson J., Cederberg C., Sonesson U. (2011). Global Food Losses and food waste. Extent causes and prevention. Rome, Italy: FAO. Jones, P.H. (2009). Learning the lessons of systems thinking: Exploring the gap between Thinking and Leadership. Integral Leadership Review, IX (4). Petrini C. et al. (2007). Slow Food Nation: Why Our Food Should Be Good, Clean, And Fair. New York City, USA: Rizzoli Ex Libris. Pisek P.E., & Wilson, T. (2001). Complexity, Leadership, and Management in Healthcare Organizations. British Medical Journal, 323, 746-749. Porter M.E. (1990). Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York City, NY: Free Press. Schrödinger E. (1946). What is Life? The physical aspects of living cells. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press - The Macmillan Company. Von Bertalanffy L. (1968). General System theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York City, NY: George Braziller.

Ski2LRT Uses Systemic Design to Transform Winter Community in Edmonton

Michelle Jehn and Shauna Rae Presentation This abstract looks at two complex human systems and how they co-exist, separate from one another. Using Causal Layered analysis as a futures method and the identification of underlying worldviews helps to uncover new mental models that shift the current duality of these two systems into one that is integrated under a 3rd and overarching worldview that helps in the catalyst for change. Edmonton is very lucky for many reasons. Light Rail Transit (LRT) and extensive green space are just two reasons. During the winter months, however, the green belts that surround our neighborhoods and run along our utility corridors become white belts. These white belts are usually ignored until spring. Many residents retreat to their homes and opt to use cars to escape the cold, creating a sense of gloom at the onset of winter. There are many enthusiastic winter-sport participants in Edmonton, and cross country skiing is growing in popularity every year. Communities are beginning to spring up around this sport; for some it is mainly recreational, with amateurs seeking out alternate space and opportunities to cross country ski in unspecified areas around the city, and for more professional skiers, it is a

deeply ingrained part of their daily lives. Both the amateur and professional ski communities are small with growing numbers, seeking out opportunities to become more widespread and integrated into Edmonton’s identity. Winter is the universal criticism of our city. We’ve seen attempts to battle the cold and recreate warm-weather commuting: increased ped-ways, large malls, heated bus terminals, and other mechanisms. Yet we still experience increased traffic congestion and longer commutes in the winter, which compounds our winter depression and experiences of isolation. The more we treat winter as something to be accommodated and worked around, the more we retreat, hibernate, and use our cars, the greater our negativity about winter. And so the question remains: How can we shift our thinking around winter and reclaim our abundant public space and corridors in a way that is inherently meaningful for Edmontonians? A group of community enthusiasts in southwest Edmonton sat down one evening. One expressed her frustration of living so close to an LRT station and not being able to access it because of poor bus schedules and full park-and-ride lots (especially in the winter). What if we could ski to work, or to the LRT? As the group perused the notion, they realized a new possibility without added infrastructure. Some locals had even set tracks along a white belt surrounding the neighborhoods near the LRT station. The nature of the two systems—LRT linked by interconnected white belts and a series of amateur neighborhood skiers—lent itself perfectly to alternate uses. But the local skiers weren’t connected to each other, leaving the white belts underused, the domain of those already in the know. A systems approach Systems mapping, using rich picture as a design method, helped the group understand commuting practices and available green space (white space) in the area. What they found was a vast amount of interconnected white space linked to the train line. Cross-country ski commuting might be possible! How could they connect these snow belts directly with the LRT system and more importantly get people to actually cross country ski? The group used causal layered analysis to better understand the systemic causes, worldviews, and mental model underlying why these two transportation systems had never interacted before. As the group dove into an understanding of these two systems, what became clear was a common link around a broader overarching system: winter. The group framed a new mental model for how to tap into this potential. From this premise, a participatory, community based initiative, #Ski2LRT, was formed. #Ski2LRT launched as an emergent movement that attempted to shift mindsets around three concepts: Winter, cross-country skiing in urban settings and LRT usage. A simple Facebook page was designed, with participatory ski track setting, open-sourced mapping, and one simple goal: to build a ski rack at Century Park LRT station (the southernmost station in the city). The rack was to be the stimulus for change; in an attempt to shift Edmontonians’ mindset and present a new choice that would ultimately change the way we think about winter commuting and the season itself. Six months later, a cross-country ski rack was placed at Century Park LRT station. The intended outcome was to introduce cross country skiing as an alternate mode of transportation and shift the way winter is understood. What happened next and the unintended ripple effects went beyond the original intention.

It was unknown that neighborhood ski enthusiasts felt isolated. Unintentionally, this initiative connected a community and gave like-minded individuals a space to convene. This initiative and shift, impacted the identity of the city and a new municipal group called “SkiWay” formed, connecting the ski clubs in the city, alongside urban transportation initiatives, to reinvigorate cross country skiing in the city. Key outcomes:

• 170 active participants • A crowd sourced ski trail map that grew from 5kms to 20kms • A lockable ski rack at Century Park LRT station ( the rack was full of skis upon launch) • #Ski2LRT is became part of policy design for Edmonton’s Winter City Strategy,

introducing a new term to the city’s urban way finding initiative; “White-of-ways”. • Partnership and recent involvement with a Historian from the University of Alberta. • A community initiative by SkiWay is now looking at grooming tracks throughout the city

and the city’s river valley. • Made news across six large media stations and several online and community-based

newsletters

Co-design for Second-Order Effects and Institutional Change: A Case Stufy in

Sustainability

Evan Barba and Audrey Stewart Paper Sustainability is a natural place to study systemic design. Understanding the triple bottom line of economic, social, and ecological sustainability requires an intuitive comprehension of systems concepts. Likewise, those in design professions are the ones most often charged with creating sustainable interventions by managing real-world trade-offs. We describe a case study of a graduate level course, Sustainability: Theory and Practice, which used sustainability as a context for introducing interdisciplinary students to the principles of systems science and design. However, we also undertook the development of this course as an action research study in systemic design for institutional change. Through a co-design methodology we were able to teach our students a set of practical design skills while also using the course to reconfigure the institutional network around sustainability by initiating new partnerships between our institution and local agencies. We will discuss both the direct effects of the course and its pedagogy on student learning and the second-order effects the course had at the institutional scale. By using the term second-order effects we mean to evoke two ideas. The first is a textbook definition describing an effect in one part of a system that is caused by a direct attempt to change another part of that system. In our case we attempted to change the way sustainability was taught by introducing outside experts, using experiential learning in the context of an authentic real-world project, and treating the campus as a living laboratory for experimentation and intervention. The second order effect that resulted from this instructional approach occurred at the institutional scale. Specifically, we were able to impact the process for defining and achieving sustainability goals for the university and local municipality. The other meaning of second-order effect that we wish to evoke is in regard to the idea of “second-order cybernetics,” in which the observer of the system acknowledges and accounts for their role in the system itself. Rather than simply plan and implement our course, we also looked for opportunities to leverage stakeholder involvement through our co-design methodology. University and municipal officials became essential components of the course, and this mutual interest provided a

common ground for discussions about identifying and aligning institutional goals and enabled our course to become a catalyst for change at the institutional scale. Our course allowed DC Water to begin needed evaluation work on the campus, identifying drainage areas and problems and coordinating campus infrastructure maps with municipal ones to improve recordkeeping and facilitate future planning. For its part, the university has begun incorporating DC Water’s stormwater management goals in its current master-planning efforts and in a campus-wide sustainability plan currently being developed. At the course level we wanted to introduce students to systems concepts particularly relevant to environmental sustainability, including carrying capacity, feedback and delay, adaptation, and others. These topics were introduced in the first half of the course through lecture and discussion and were referenced throughout. However, halfway through the course the focus shifted as we operationalized systems thinking in the context of a project on stormwater management, an environmental priority for our region. We used systems concepts to understand the specific challenges related to urban development and stormwater management that plague our region. Georgetown University sits on the banks of the Potomac River, which drains into the Chesapeake Bay. Polluted runoff from development in this area drains into the river and eventually pollutes the bay with both nutrients from fertilizer and industrial by-products. Students employed systems concepts to understand how effects from different aspects of campus life (food choices, bathroom habits, commuting) ultimately effected the accumulation of pollutants in the bay. An additional pedagogical goal was to introduce students to authentic design practices employed by sustainability professionals in the development of green infrastructure. Facilitators from the municipal water authority (DC Water) introduced the students to water and sewer infrastructure and led the students in weekly design charrettes focused on designing green infrastructure for stormwater management. During these charrettes students stepped through the entire design process including documenting site walks to identify areas for intervention, creating bubble diagrams to think-through solutions, and collaborating through multiple iterations of design boards that depicted the designs and communicated their impacts. These design boards became the centerpieces of the group’s submission to the Rainworks Challenge, a yearly design contest organized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and focused on stormwater management. The time won honorable mention, (essentially 3rd place) out of over sixty entries from across the country. By employing a co-design methodology in which stakeholders were continually brought into the activities of the class we were able to create relationships between institutional partners that are still ongoing. Through bi-weekly stakeholder meetings between the students, DC Water, and the campus facilities team we were able to achieve buy-in for the designs the students created and identify the most feasible designs. Through these frequent stakeholder meetings determined the most mutually beneficial designs, and students were given a valuable education in how decisions are made at the institutional level. The students’ design for a green roof over the university library is planned for construction in 2017. We will discuss our approach and these outcomes in detail including lessons learned at both the pedagogical and institutional scales. We will identify the key elements that made this effort a success and some that nearly derailed it entirely. Assessment of the students’ learning will be discussed through an examination of the artifacts they created, including interim documentation and self-reports. We will suggest how these might be organized into a learning progression for systemic design that can inform future pedagogical efforts. Finally, we will introduce the idea of

designing for second-order effects as a key component of a theoretical approach to systemic design that we refer to as multiscale design.

Value Platforms as Compass in System Oriented Design for Sustainability

Kristin Storen Wigum Presentation System Oriented Design is a natural approach in Design for Sustainability. Products must be designed and evaluated in a longer time-lap, as well as in a wider perspective of human needs, desires, culture, and material life cycles (and more). However, the dimension and choices of non-material values are also critical, although not seldom a neglected factor, when aiming for ecological, economical and social sustainability. On the one hand, during the last five years the society in general has become stronger aware of the challenges humanity is facing in ecological care and social development. Public economic support has been increased for environmental profiled projects. On the other hand, solutions asked for and suggested by the businesses, researchers and government are not always convincing. Are we actually able to design for change within the same value-frame as before? One basic principle for sustainability is manifold. In nature a manifold of species create a totality of strength that sustains the ecological systems as such. If we try to learn from nature in life cycle thinking and material qualities, we will come far, however, is even this enough? A researcher and pioneer within Industrial Ecology, John Ehrenfeld, pinpoints that a new care-structure within design and development also is critical for us to succeed (Ehrenfeld, 2009). What does this actually mean? This article describes how two projects include design of a value platform as guideline for co-design with all stakeholders. A bottom up and research related approach is necessary for strong individual and organisational ownership to the success criteria and challenges. This approach also generates other qualities than traditional hierarchic power structures or systems for monoculture. This type of approach results in value-based systems open for individual manifold, as well as the creative interplay between people, nature and culture.

Session Abstracts – Thursday, September 3, 2015 – Stream A

Grounded and Rooted: the Ethics-led Systems Design of Agro-ecological

Methodologies

John Cassel Presentation This submission regards a paper engaging theoretical questions by engaging a design system as a case study. By engaging in discovery activities, designers can find better designs by discovering more criteria, stakeholders, design alternatives, scenarios of operating conditions, and additional such factors to create and evaluate their design from. If these activities are effective and low-cost, this means that more factors can be discovered, or that fewer resources are spent in discovery, in either case allowing better outcomes (Cassel, 2014). This breadth can be encouraged not only through careful selection of activities and participants, but also by checklists of different categories of factors that mitigate fixation on what is already known (Linsey et al., 2010). However, these checklists not only encourage breadth, but also bring up those types of factors that are commonly significant, highlight concerns of situational appropriateness, or suggest alternatives which are usually of very high quality across concerns. What can be the basis for common significance or cross-cutting quality? Is it not true that each stakeholder will have their own criteria? Moreover, is it not true that our knowledge of what goods and harms are brought about by actions provisional, undermining the credibility of any approach being good without a neutral analysis? This paper will look at one agro-ecological systems design approach, called permaculture, that develops an ethics-led approach to these questions. Namely, not only does permaculture look to address human needs, it implores everyone to take responsibility for their own resource use and that of their children (Mollison, 1988). The checklists that then develop from this focus into the systems of basic needs (for example: water, food, shelter, air, fiber, personal development, establishing relationships, and community organization) provide a grounding force that directs design activities to not only address current concerns, but needs inherent to lifeways not resilient to infrastructure-changing developments such as energy transitions, which until those transitions occur manifest only as ambient anxieties. What this paper will show is that, by examining the ways that people have no alternatives but to be (at place, in time, undertaking resource change, undertaking activity, ...), we can establish a more robust approach to needs by designing each of these factors to be as richly conceived as is actually always present (in habitat, on occasions, in stewardship, with intention,...). This focusing is one of permaculture's primary contributions to systemic design. This paper will first establish that permaculture is a systemic design practice. Its practitioners undertaking a similar, though more informal professional development. Undertaking permaculture consists of taking ethics-led discovery activities that match contextually appropriate techniques with discovered goals. Finally, the relationship between permaculture and agronomy shares the same uneasy history (Ferguson, 2014a) as design practice and design science (Cross, 2001), and perhaps comes to rest as a third way between the sciences and humanities (Cross, 1982).

The paper then moves to seeing how a particular ethical core compliments designs ability to focus attention humanely, as elaborated above. From here we look into permaculture design's other key contribution to systemic design, a vocabulary. This vocabulary practically encodes many systems elements in a way not specific to agro-ecological design but readily suggesting approaches through the biomimickery of ecological analogy. This vocabulary focuses on designing the arrangement and interaction between system elements, based upon the suitability for interaction with each other and with factors outside of system boundaries, as well as needs for interacting with each other. Finally, this paper looks to areas where permaculture could use help. Though permaculture's ethical grounding is powerful, no human endeavor is perfect (Scott, 2010; Ferguson, 2014b). Let us take a moment to summarize what these issues are and how they are systemically related to each other. The broad number of potential objectives for permaculture designs often lead to shifting exactly which beneficial effects of those design approaches are being pursued, leading to problems of technology assessment in permaculture approaches. This shifting in what one is up to, but an ethical certainty in its appropriateness, can lead to unfortunate outcomes in engaging other stakeholders. Sometimes this poor social engagement and mistaken use of technique, along with questionable business viability, leads to the downfall of particular projects. Overall, this contingency of success in particular projects erodes the capability to harvest permaculture's yields and set down regional roots. However, regional institutions are necessary for production and distribution chains to establish and take on longer-term ecological goals such as regionally appropriate varieties. The ability to take on these longer-term ecological goals is further undermined by the previously lack of technology assessment. These issues are largely recognized and being tackled, and I hope to point out points of light during this paper. However, systemic design can help each of these problems. Of first importance is discovering, clarifying, and organizing potential objectives as to prevent them from shifting. With those clarifications in place, real and appropriate frameworks for technology assessment are possible. The systems language of permaculture only will take a little bit of extension from systemic design to better cover stakeholder engagement, deployment logistics, and business modeling. Overall, this paper hopes to begin an engagement between agro-ecological design systems such as permaculture and holistic management and design research more broadly.

Exploring Relations of Systemic Thinking: Working with the youth community in

Dubai to bridge Passion and Innovation Methods

Yunsun Chung-Shin Presentation The Background It has been an exciting and nurturing process to co-design with the youth of Dubai, a programme that empowers young individuals in an urban community to be active, creative and social thinkers. Global Youth Empowerment (GYEM) started in 2009 from my living room with my daughters and has grown to be an ambitious UAE-driven enterprise aiming to inspire youth to realize and utilize use their passion for social impact and through it, discover their purpose for a greater good. My many roles as GYEM’s co-founder and partner, a design educator and a mother, has lead me to work closely with many creative youth and experts on the program development of GYEM-XYZ. Having limited knowledge of the power of systems thinking

practices at the time, GYEM persistently sought to map out relations of individuals and groups in society working closely with other youth and experts on the program development. GYEM workshop XYZ is a certified 3-tier transformative youth program that equips its graduates with the necessary tools to hone their skills and unlock their passions to create value and impact for themselves and society. The XYZ is a core GYEM empowerment activator, which aims to enable youth to ultimately become independent leaders of initiating and developing social ventures of their own. The workshop flow has a content structure of INNOVATION + SELF DISCOVERY + SOCIAL IMPACT; each workshop is designed to provide learning environments where participants might open up to an opportunity to see themselves as game changers. Each session is designed to engage youth 1) to recognize themselves as creative being, 2) to broaden their perspectives to see a true potential of the self, society, and humanity, and 3) to envision a solution where problems are tackled while their passion/interests are enriched. Some unconventional workshop environments are the outcomes manifesting GYEM’s vision that learning can be fun, active, co-created and meaningful. Each activity is thoughtfully designed and tested integrating few effective methodologies; co-design, learning by doing, and design thinking etc. And each activity is driven by learning objectives to maximize the transformation time where participants can become active change agents. This is an effort to build an engaging, content-rich and hands-on learning workshop where creative critical thinking exercises are practiced, diverse perspectives embraced, critical issues consulted, and self-investigation of truth encouraged. The workshop goal is to empower participants to connect their passion and potentials in a service project for the betterment of the world. The Methods It focuses on engaging youth in service through our methodology of KnowIt + DigIt + ActIt. Each activity is carefully designed and tested integrating few effective methodologies; mind-mapping, co-designing, learning by doing, and design thinking. This methodology is developed to facilitate a youth journey of discovering their passion and developing an innovative idea through it; 1) KnowIt (emphatic understanding of self and the world) 2) DigIt (investigate deeper into knowledge and skills) 3) ActIt (build a prototype and experience welcoming failures). This process requires a few hands-on activities such as interacting with users/the public, mapping out problems and solutions by mind-mapping, rapid-prototyping by visualizing their ideas, and discussing with peers and expertise from multidisciplinary fields. These methods were improved by working with youth, sociologists, experts, youth and community activists. The Resources Victor Papanek wisely foresaw in his book, Design for Real World, "All men are designers. All that we do, almost all the time, is design, for design is basic to all human activity.” Generation Waking Up (genup.net) workshop, The meaning of 21 century by James Martin, Impact: Design for Social Change at SVA, Creative confidence by David and Tom Kelly, innovation engine by Tina Seelig, Genious Collaboration by Linda Hills, d School design thinking crash courses on gift giving and the wallet project, Biz Model Canvas Model by Alexander Osterwalder, Nesta Creative Enterprise Toolkit, Human-centered design tool kit by OpenIdeo, OpenIdeo tool kit, Collective Action Tool Kit by Frog, Marshmallow challenge by Tom Wuwick, and other open source platforms are available online such as TED, good.id, openIDEO.com. The Practices for Systemic Impacts The main focus has been empowering youth through the GYEM workshop one participant at a time aiming to create a greater impact. It was also critical to train youth facilitators to maintain

the quality of the workshop and empower youth to continue to lead the movement. Hence developing a Facilitator’s Guide and training program have been high priorities. At the same time to be able to embrace diverse interests and passions identified by workshop participants, various relevant activities were designed and implemented in the area of art, design, service, philosophical dialogues, etc. To name a few activities, Open Mic Night (Noble expressions with poem, songs, music, drama, etc), Graffiti Tunnel of Hope (community invited project for public art), Service Projects (volunteering at Terri Fox Run + Bucket Water), Sikka Art Fair (Local creative youth engagement), Summer Booth camp (XYZ in 7 days) and Hot Spot (Meaningful Conversations building community clusters). It has been an organic growth to refine the program for the maximum impacts. The Process The workshop is designed to empower young people to think about their identities, communities, and the true meaning of service to humanity. It started as a 2 day World-Self-Service public workshop in a community youth center we built, the program has evolved into GYEM XYZ targeting high school students. GYEM X (Innovation) is a 6-hour unconventional workshop that focuses on community engagement where participants meet new people, explore their sense of identity, test their ability to think on their feet and gain practical experience working in teams. GYEM Y (Self-Discovery) is a three day workshop split into 1) Emphatic understanding of Self and World, 2) Power of service to humanity, and 3) Interdependency in self and society. Participants go through a process of self-discovery, exploration of the world, identification of a need they are passionate about, learning the basic skills for idea formation, and the creation of a project plan and team. GYEM Z (Social Impact) is an extensive program that acts as an incubator for social ventures. Youth come with an idea, a team and a plan. Their idea undergoes an iterative process of analysis and refinement. They learn skills related to entrepreneurship, project management and team management. The outcome of the GYEM XYZ program is the launch of a sustainable social venture; with a solid business/social venture plan, a mentor and a team. The workshop aims to deepen the content and cohesive integration between knowledge acquisition to knowledge practice through various service project development and implementation. The Next Innovation process by nature is unpredictable and collaborative. It requires a creative eco-system where everyone can contribute to collective genius to make systemic solutions, which invite us to work together and co-design a step closer to a greater social impact. This paper will present a vision for social innovation, stories of challenges and achievements, workshop/booth camp outcomes, lessons learned and the direction GYEM/Innovation will take by seeking constructive feedback to refine the methods and processes.

Public Sector Purchasers as Curators and Value Creators in the Food System:

Designing the Public Purse Procurement Mentorship Program

Hayley Lapalme Presentation The Public Purse Procurement (3P) Mentorship Program is a community of practice that convenes institutional food buyers around a shared vision to use the $750 million purchasing power of the Ontario public sector to foster resilient local food systems. The program ran as a pilot in 2014-2015 with a first cohort of four institutional mentees: a hospital, a university, a college, and a long term care home, each represented by a manager influencing the institutions’ food procurement. Historical analysis and informal interviews led to the understanding that

institutional food buyers viewed themselves as passive consumers of value from the food system. The design challenge meant addressing the gap between the mentees’ espoused theories and theories in use, in order to maximize the institutions’ positive impact on the food system. The program attempted to be a minimally disruptive intervention that would guide mentees to re-claim or re-imagine their institutions as creators of value, in a position to curate the “reconfiguration of roles and relationships among [the] constellation of actors” in the food system, with the strategic intention to invest in the capacity of the local food system (Normann and Ramirez, 1993). The first cohort generated promising early evidence of the ability for different types of public institutions to collaborate on a shared vision for a more sustainable food system, including an average 14% increase from baseline in local sustainable food purchases across the mentees’ institutions. The case will discuss the principles that led to the mixed-institution cohort model for the program and use a systems map to locate stakeholders and the potential for future coordinated public sector procurement efforts to play a transformative role in food systems.

Session Abstracts –Thursday, September 3, 2015 – Stream B

Seeding and Spreading Capacity for Systems Design across Social Service

Organisations

Manuela Aguirre, Sarah Schulman Presentation Meet Wendy. She is a frontline support worker that provides 1:1 care to people who have cognitive disabilities (I.D.). Meet John. He finds and makes connections between people with I.D. and their communities. Meet Bouwe, he is the HR director that oversees and manages all employees, like the 1:1 service Wendy provides and the larger connections John makes. Wendy, John and Bouwe normally work at different agencies that deliver social services in the disability sector, however the Fifth Space (InWithForward, BACI, PosAbilities, 2015) brings them together. This is a case study about grounded systemic change at the four domains of design (Jones, 2014); from individuals served, to frontline staff, to teams, and to organizations. It is about embedding R&D capacity in a world where time is exhausted by delivering the same old services, and little time devoted to effectively designing new ones. This capacity building R&D social model is not a series of workshops for public servants and it is not a training program either. It is called the Fifth Space because selected employees from different social agencies in the disability space obtain one-fifth of their paid time to practice new roles and work across different agencies and levels of hierarchy. During one-day a week over a period of six months, they challenge themselves to work structurally and methodologically different. Unlike other social systems change approaches, where only a few stages of the process are conducted in the “real-world” (Banathy, 1996; Checkland, 2000; Nadler, 1982), the methodology used here is immersive, where the staff conduct action research among their own colleagues or the individuals they serve. We are seeing a shift from having a user-centered philosophy while practicing as usual to conducting immersive ethnographic research and learning about people from their own perspective. The Fifth Space fellows are moving away from problem-solving based on their own assumptions and towards understanding by triangulating observation, conversation and projection tools (Sanders & Stappers, 2012). They are challenging top-down standardized programs and adopting a social scientist role, by testing what works and prototyping small-scale versions of solutions with different user segments. In sum, from practicing ethnographic research to prototyping techniques, the Fifth Space envisions to transform, from the ground up, the way social services are organized and their capacity to design for systems change. There’s no need to elaborate on why systems design is needed in the disability space. Cognitive disability services are a huge cost for the welfare system having little developmental impact for people. At least in the province of British Columbia in Canada, people with cognitive impairment go to school just like any other young person until the age of 18. After that, if they qualify for welfare support, they receive services like day programs, group programs, shared living or group residential homes. As they are in school, they develop themselves cognitively costing the government little more than any other student. However, when they start receiving disability benefits, their cognitive skills starts declining as their service life becomes repetitive while costing the public system around $60k yearly per person. Today, social services are designed and delivered to protect people from harm, but not to enable them to flourish (Schulman, Piet, Kasdani, & Mohr, 2014). Agencies across the sector face similar challenges; they clog their time

with delivering services, without making space or time for questioning status quo. In this sector, there are little sources of new ideas, and even less resources for testing if new ideas could actually even work. Without the Fifth Space, Wendy would still be doing the amazing work she does 1:1, but without the possibility to make her techniques accessible to others in the sector. Without the Fifth Space, John would still be a great community connector, but now he has a team and resources to look into other key components to make people flourish, like exploring intimacy and relationships. The implications for the Fifth Space can result in new hiring practices for the social sector, which may allow for agencies to join-up easier. It could enable that external new ideas to be sustained with internal capacity – or new solutions, grounded in people, could be developed within social organizations. It could imply shifting from working in meeting rooms to working in the field. Shifting from strategic planning to prototyping. Shifting from managing resources to activating them. All of this, with the purpose of transforming social systems from safety nets to trampolines (Schulman et al., 2014). References Banathy, B. H. (1996). Designing social systems in a changing world. Springer (p. 372). doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-9981-1 Checkland, P. (2000). Systems thinking, systems practice: includes a 30-year retrospective. Chichester: John Wiley. InWithForward, BACI, PosAbilities, S. F. S. for C. L. (2015). The Fifth Space. Retrieved from http://fifthspace.ca Jones, P. H. (2014). Systemic Design Principles for Complex Social Systems. In Social Systems and Design (Vol. 1, pp. 91–128). doi:10.1007/978-4-431-54478-4_4 Nadler, G. (1982). Bonding the planning and design professions. Design Studies, 3(1), 3–4. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(82)90072-2 Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2012). Convivial toolbox: Generative research for the front end of design. BIS. Schulman, S., Piet, J., Kasdani, M., & Mohr, D. (2014). 7 Reasons Why Our Social Services Keep Failing: An Argument for Grounded Change. Creative Commons (pp. 1–25). Rotterdam. Retrieved from www.inwithforward.com

Systemic Design of an Idea Zone at a Science Centre

Frederick Steier, Travis Thompson Presentation In this presentation, we bring key systems and cybernetics ideas to the design of an Idea Zone in a large regional science center. Most notably, we bring the ecology and systems approaches of Gregory Bateson and the cybernetic systems design approaches of Ranulph Glanville, to this evolving design project. We use the occasion of a systemic design of the Idea Zone to then explore how our learning from this particular case may also inform more general systemic design principles. This will include issues of context at many levels, movement across boundaries, as well as the importance of the design of a communication process for the design of an Idea Zone. For the latter, we will bring in key principles of The World Café. The Museum of Science and Industry (MOSI) is a large, 72-acre science center located in Tampa, Florida, USA. It is a prominent feature of the Tampa Bay region and attracts more than 800,000 visitors annually. MOSI attempts to be both a tourist attraction and a learning resource

for its community (Steier & Ostrenko, 2000), and in 1995 established the first public library in the country located inside a science center as a way of continuing its commitment to being a learning resource. In the presentation, we offer a detailed description of the library, as its use is important to understanding the history of interactions that people brought with them to MOSI, including those involving learning and play. In 2011, however, county budget cuts forced the library to close. In keeping with its commitment to the community, MOSI sought a way of inviting the community to participate in redesign of the library space. With its history of action research projects and a focus on learning conversations at multiple levels of organization, from learning conversations among visitors and floor staff called “Interactors” to learning together as an organization, MOSI invited us to help with this design. This included hosting a series of World Cafés (Brown & Isaacs, 2005) to facilitate a process of inviting community ideas for design of the emerging “Idea Zone” being modeled on the MIT Fab(rication) Lab. In setting up the context for the World Café’s designed discussion format, we drew heavily from systems approaches. In particular, from Bateson we built on his orders of learning (1972) as well as his ecological perspective on recursive patterns of all human communication (1979). Glanville’s work on cybernetics (2009) and recursion also featured prominently. In building on the work of key systems thinkers, we sought to holistically design a communication process for design of the Idea Zone. By undertaking this effort within an action research framework (Greenwood & Levin, 2007), a number of key features emerged through a participatory design engagement process. Two of those key features include the larger context of design and the embeddedness of design in that larger context, as well as how systems ideas inform efforts to focus attention on the design process (contrasted against a focus primarily on design products). In our focus on the embeddedness of design in larger contexts, we had to focus not only for the physical space of the Idea Zone and how it fit in to the whole scene at MOSI, but also for the relationship of MOSI within the broader scene of its community - geographically and professionally. We explore how an understanding of MOSI’s location (in Florida) related to the variety of frames (in Bateson’s sense) of visitor engagement with the space. More broadly, too, the embeddedness of MOSI within its community of science centers also informed the design process, particularly as MOSI seeks ways of connecting to the Civic Science scene as well as other ways of inviting public dialogue in key controversial issues. A second key feature that emerged in relation to systemic design was the recursive and mutual connection among the design process and the communication process of design. Here, the World Café, with its systemic basis, allowed for seeing the parallel work of designing communication process for design and the work of designing the Idea Zone space as metaphors for one another (Thompson, Steier & Ostrenko, 2014), as well as informing the larger exhibit/exhibition design process within MOSI. We focus on context, product, and process as three constituent parts of systemic design, but then also on a fourth key aspect of design: the inter-relationships among context, product, and process. Importantly, these inter-relationships emerged through and were attended to in ways that afforded key stakeholders, to include MOSI and its communities, spaces where shared futures might be explored together jointly through dialogues designed around mutual learning. References Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature. New York, NY: Bantam Books. Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2005). The World Café: Shaping our futures through conversations that matter. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Glanville, R. (2009). A (Cybernetic) Musing: Design and Cybernetics. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 16, 175-186. Greenwood, D., & Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to Action Research: Social research for social change (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Steier, F., & Ostrenko, W. (2000). Taking cybernetics seriously at a science center: Reflection-in-interaction and second order organizational learning. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 7, 47-69. Thompson, W. T., Steier, F., & Ostrenko, W. (2014). Designing communication process for the design of an Idea Zone at a science center. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42, 2, 208-226.

More than the Sum of its Parts: Systems Thinking in Design Education

Eric Benson, Yvette Perullo Presentation Design is much bigger than the sum of its parts. The connected combinations of vendors, manufacturers, transportation services and end users are all part of an interwoven fabric of relationships that also further relies on people and natural resources to play important roles in the sustainability of our planet, people and economic systems. Visualizing the impacts of our profession in this manner is akin to thinking in systems. Thinking in systems is a very different design process than the one that is currently and historically taught in higher education. It requires not only moving beyond a limited focus on form and function but to also understanding the biological systems of our planet and how what we create can limit our chances to make into the future. Furthermore, it is also a process that is increasingly more important to teach and practice as our society faces growing ecological and economical problems caused by global warming and overconsumption. This paper first critiques the design process predominantly taught in higher education with an emphasis on how it leads to outcomes that require excessive use of resources and consequently has deleterious environmental and social impacts up and down the supply chain that threaten our economic prosperity. This paper also, most importantly, introduces a new four-step approach to effectively introduce systems thinking into design education and practice to guide students and professionals toward creating with the triple bottom line front of mind. This process relies on existing design vocabularies, Gestalt theory, and borrows from Charles and Ray Eames’ film Powers of Ten. As in the film, this systems thinking design process zooms in incrementally to examine the connected concerns of a design problem and zooms out to look at the larger picture students and professionals can better understand that designing is more than sum of its parts. It allows for a nearly seamless introduction of a systems thinking approach to student learning outcomes that work in conjunction with existing design curricula and after can be translated into professional practice. The authors use two case studies to demonstrate the various levels of success in teaching and designing with this systems thinking design process. One example was implemented in an interdisciplinary design course while the other in design practice at Fresh Press – an agricultural fiber paper lab. At Fresh Press, this process was used to rethink the future of paper products by changing the design of the supply chain from forest to farm. These two case studies demonstrate that students can learn to design responsibly by making systems thinking an inherent part of their creative process while design practitioners can work to adopt this new methodology in their own professional lives.

Session Abstracts – Thursday, September 3, 2015 – Stream C

Scaling-up Nutrition: Bridging the Great Indian Hunger Divide

Ishani Ghosh, Praveen Nahar Presentation This research reflects on the wicked problem of malnutrition in India by a case study of a student academic project, carried out in National Institute of Design, India, titled ‘Bridging the Great Indian Hunger Divide through Systems Thinking and Design’. The project is an inquiry into the perplexing ubiquity of hunger, poverty and malnutrition in a fast growing economy like India. The project involved understanding the food system of India, design opportunities mapping and conceptualising possible interventions in the system. It is alarming that India accounts for almost a fourth of the world’s hungry and malnourished despite being agriculturally self-sufficient country. Although systems design for food security is largely an unexplored territory in India, malnutrition in India isn’t a manifestation of the absence of systems to tackle it. However the state of malnutrition and hunger is evidence of a system in disarray. India is at the helm of unprecedented economic growth and despite all its efforts, it is not able to rapidly extract children out of the malnutrition cycle. Thus the children cannot engage in the bright future that the government envisages for them. Malnutrition is a vicious cycle. An individual with malnutrition is unable to utilise the nutrition from the food consumed making them susceptible to illnesses and infections that can cause further malnutrition and so on and so forth. This project is an attempt to understand and analyse the multi-dimensional complexity of the myriad branches of the food system in India and the various components that back it. The key questions was- ‘How can the Indian food system be designed to ensure food security?’ With a vision of a nourished India, the project concluded with the mapping of opportunities across all dimensions and conceptualisation of possible interventions that can bolster the existing system. The project began with understanding the National Food Security Act of India which was introduced in 2013 to support farmers and give legal rights of access to food to almost 8.1 crore intended beneficiaries. This number translates into 50% of the urban population and 75% of the rural population. The act leverages three existing food schemes in India to address the unmet needs. The ICDS (Integrated Child Development Scheme), MDMS (Mid Day Meal Scheme) and the TPDS (Targetted Public Distribution System) work with collaboration of the central and state governments. In the project the issue of malnutrition and hunger linked the existing government food schemes with contemporary concerns such as female empowerment, caste system, child labour, right to education, maternal healthcare, rural electricity and water supply, information technology and internet accessibility, micro and macroeconomics, culture and diets, personal hygiene and household nutrition. The study expanded into the global and national political, legal, historical, social, economic, logistical, emotional, aspirational, cultural and futuristic angles of food, eating and cooking and agriculture in order to find all possible interdependencies in the system. The principles of systems thinking helped simultaneously assemble and disassemble the food ecosystem as the project progressed. There are five determinants of food security- availability, accessibility, affordability, adequacy and utilisation of food that are measured, monitored or implemented across international, national, state, local and individual levels. However there are barriers to each of these that are endemic to India. At the onset of the project it was evident that food grains (the physical grains and their production, storage, transportation, sale and disbursement) and money (budgetary allocations for food security and nourishment programs,

subsidies, cash transfers and monetary allowances) were the main ingredients of the Indian food system which has been clearly delineated in the National Food Security Act of 2013 (NFSA). But it became evident that policies that ensure and clarify the implementation of the NFSA-2013, vigilance mechanisms, infrastructure supporting the system, data that informs the system’s economics and also the administration which delineates the roles and jurisdictions of the various authorities, all play crucial roles in the system as well. Areas of concern and opportunities for interventions, that could answer the question raised in the earlier stage of the project, emerged from the mapping of all these aspects. Some of the key findings of the project and areas of systemic intervention were- 1. The Indian food security system works on a top down charity model, with government initiated schemes and subsidies. This has given a rise to a blatant black market which is detrimental to the intent of the policies. The emergent design direction was to evolve the system from a linear charity model to a cyclic and/ or self-sustainable model. One of the solutions proposed ways of community training and participation in systems vigilance and monitoring. 2. The government based food schemes contribute to the subsidisation of rice and wheat for poorer households and an age appropriate nutrient dense meal per day for children and pregnant and lactating women. However these can only contribute to a component of one’s daily nutritional requirement. This led to the design of concepts of micro-systems, sub systems and policies that could help scale up nutrition. One of the solutions looked design of low cost food grain storage product, which would prevent rodent and microbial infestation and contamination. 3. Another key design direction was to empower the intended beneficiaries to help themselves extract maximum benefits from the system. One of the solutions looked at training school going children as the nutrition knowledge bearers of impoverished and malnourished households, by integrating class-room education with school meal programs and social studies. This was an academic project that concluded with multiple system design concepts within the designated time frame. But beyond the scope of this project, the current ground reality is very different. Two years after the National Food Security Act of India was passed, hunger is still a very relevant concern in India. While the project attempted to conceptualise a comprehensive solution space, nation-wide malnutrition is a wicked problem that is not just an individual’s concern nor is it an individual concern.

The Alberta CoLab Experience: Embedding Systemic Design in Government

Alex Ryan, Keren Perla Presentation As design has moved upstream from product design to the design of experiences, services, organizations, and strategies, designers have increasingly folded systems theories into their practices to account for the escalating complexity and ambiguity of design challenges. The increasing maturity of the emerging practice is evidenced by postgraduate courses in systemic design at Universities such as the Oslo School of Architecture and Design and the Ontario College of Art and Design, and in the existence of standing systemic design teams in private and public organizations. The Alberta CoLab is a systemic design and strategic foresight team engaged in the design of cross-ministry strategy, policy, and programs for the Government of Alberta. The theoretical framework for systemic design used by Alberta CoLab has been presented previously at the Relating Systems Thinking and Design symposium (Ryan, 2013) and published in (Ryan, 2014).

This paper presents the business model for the Alberta CoLab and reflects on the first two years of applying systemic design to over 40 projects. Our framework for systemic design has been applied to diverse projects that include: developing the province's energy strategy; reframing early childhood development; designing a stakeholder engagement framework; developing a blueprint for health system transformation; prototyping open government; and designing a whole of government platform for international engagement. We discuss both successes and failures in stewarding cross-ministry projects from the fuzzy front end through to prototyping and implementation of strategies and public policies. Based on this experience, we explore the challenges and implications of designing in an environment that is both political and bureaucratic. We recognize the tension between being part of the system you are trying to transform while bringing outside perspectives to bear on challenges that transcend organizational boundaries. We share lessons on how to build a systemic design capacity from scratch within government capable of justifying its existence against conventional measures of performance, while also transforming the way government performs and evaluates its policy and strategy interventions. By making our business model legible, we hope to inspire and inform the creation of labs in other jurisdictions to build the systemic design capacity our collective future demands of us. References Ryan, Alex. (9-11 October, 2013). A Theory of Systemic Design. Proceedings of the Relating Systems Thinking and Design Symposium 2. Oslo School of Architecture and Design: Oslo, Norway. Ryan, Alex. (2014). A Framework for Systemic Design. FORMakademisk 7(4).

Environment Policy Development and Decision-Making: A Scenarios and

Systems Approach to Large-Scale Systems Design

Brian Woodward, Arden Brummel Presentation Taking Stock was a year-long project undertaken by Alberta Eco-Trust to understand and address long-standing issues with respect to the way Albertans create and use environmental policy to make decisions concerning land, air, water and bio-diversity in the Province. The Taking Stock project had a number of objectives. This paper describes the methodology used in the project: Scenario Development, Systems Mapping and a form of Systems Design. These three approaches, used in combination, represent a substantive interdisciplinary approach to a complex multi-stakeholder problem area. The project consisted of three primary, but mutually informing, methodological phases: 1. The development of scenarios describing four possible futures for environmental decision-making and their effects. This work generated a set of future, aspirational challenges that were converted to ‘systems requirements’ that were used later in the design phase as broad design criteria; 2. The mapping of Alberta’s current system (of policy development and decision-making) consisting of actors, their relationships as well as the main systems processes. This work generated a set of system and sub-system dynamics that were used as the focus of potential change in the design phase; and, 3. A design component that generated three alternative designs for how the current system could be changed to meet the design challenges generated by the future scenarios. The

designs took the form of three different sets of strategic intentions represented as ‘renovations’ to the current structure of the system. A series of workshops were commissioned with invited participants (‘seasoned policy practitioners’) from government, ENGOs, industry, agriculture and other sectors to work in a collaborative manner throughout the three phases. The project generated a number of findings describing the cultural context of decision-making, the dynamics and character of the systems and the roles of stakeholders. This paper, however, takes a ‘look-back’ approach to critique the project framework and methodological elements used in the project for the purpose of building ‘confident practice’. The project framework is best described as a ‘renovation’ approach to change in that future challenges are identified for an existing system rather than ‘designing from scratch’ to create a new system. The current system was seen as the necessary beginning point for new designs. Among the methodological elements are the value/use of the time required, the order of work, engagement of participants, role of developmental evaluation, participant reaction to the three phases of work and utility of various scenario and systems representations. General findings conclude that engaging ‘seasoned policy practitioners’ with widely different perspectives in all work phases has promising potential but comes with a number of additional ‘care points’. The ‘renovation’ project framework provided ‘realistic anchoring’ that allowed participants to engage in what they saw as meaningful activity. The aspirational form of the scenarios proved to be a useful format for participant understanding but required ‘expertise’ in creating the necessary narratives and articulation of the challenges. The systems mapping format brought to life the complexity and structure of the current system dynamics but required sufficient learning time to ‘read the maps’. The representational form of the systems maps proved to be a useful (but restricted) format for the design phase with the systems requirements generated by the scenarios work providing the ‘design criteria’.

Poster Session Abstracts

Toolsets

Experiencing relations of systemic thinking through the design workbook Yunsun Chung-Shin and Tina Sleiman Background A collective effort to position current design education is poignantly questioned by Holly Willis in New Contexts/New Practices: “A vital next step in design education centers on taking seriously the notion of systems and systems thinking, which are inherently transdisciplinary, holistic and focused on the interrelationships and patterns of things, not on fixed and isolated parts of a larger process.” As design tools, specializations, and possibilities expand; students are finding it harder to grasp what, why, and how they should be studying, or conceive that their acquired skills and knowledge are part of one path. We recognize that students’ knowledge and skills are fragmented, therefore, we hope to translate the abstract into more tangible visual language. In this increasingly complex learning field, a holistic conceptual framework and/or systematic thinking tools are required to assist students in this process. The Workbook and its Objectives We propose a virtual workbook as a multifaceted self-exploratory tool developed with the design methodology of ‘Prepare-Discover-Consider-Observe-Apply’ and supported by an online platform where interaction and exchange are possible. This workbook offers an array of diverse playful activities and cross-collaborative exercises designed to assist students in understanding design thinking, and help them plan their future professional practice. The website designworkbook.co is currently in the prototype phase. As we have tested the clarity and efficiency of content with various groups of students, the content is being refined and the interface has been improved to maximize the easy of use and fun. It is our hope that this workbook ultimately would influence design education and practice in the region on both the individual and collective levels believing that design can connect the students' passions to building visual characteristics and voices for the region. The purpose of the projects is to reinforce students’ understanding of how design is connected to the big picture in regards to scope and time, and how it is integrated in their lives. We hope to strengthen a foundational layer to a design curriculum that fosters confident designers who are able to think critically, addresses the rapid shift in the design industry with increasingly demands, and understand how design is connected to various different industries. This study strives to facilitate students to become designers with a capacity to rebalance nature, humanity, and technology by harnessing their capacities in experiencing multiple layers and complex webs of information, perspectives, and wisdom. In other words, we hope to provide students with a holistic foundation for becoming active and independent learners, preparing them with cross-collaborative and interdisciplinary capacities. The overall learning objective is to help students enhance their understanding of the relationships between themselves and their environments. More specifically, the five chapters and their objectives or learning outcomes are as follow: - Prepare: to warm up with an introduction to systems thinking by learning about design thinking and practicing visualizations.

- Discover: to build confidence by acknowledging our roots and links, understanding that we, as people, are not alone in the process, but rather, connected to everything around us (the world, other people, and our inner self). - Consider: to gain understanding about what design is, why it is important, how it is connected to everything around us (nature, humanity, technology), and which resources are available. - Observe: appreciating visual culture as a system with various points within time and space (historical/contemporary and local/regional/international), and finding links to participate in or initiate contemporary endeavors. - Apply: applying all tools that were acquired previously in planning and conducting a workshop with all its stages and components and coming up with a manifesto for future practice to manage their learning path. The goal of this tool is to strengthen a foundational layer to a design curriculum that fosters confident designers who are able to think critically, addresses the rapid shift in the design industry with increasingly demands, and understand how design is connected to various different industries. In our workbook, we aimed to build a user-centered interface with qualities that most of the workbooks listed above have achieved: easy to use and fun to explore. Since the aim of our workbook is to help students find their learning path, the exercises are more focused on the individual and what he/she can contribute based on his/her background, personality, and interests. The workbook is adaptable, meaning that it should remain relevant to social changes, individual needs and industry expectations. Design workbook is a research and course development aiming 1) to test out how we might assist students’ learning with design thinking and system thinking integrated process and tools, 2) to reinforce students’ understanding of how design is connected to the big picture in regards to scope (world, people, self) and time (history, stories), 3) to facilitate how it is integrated in their professional and personal lives, and 4) to integrate the system thinking in the foundation level to prepare students for their learning path. In this paper we will discuss why we needed this systemic approach in design education, how we structure 5 chapters and 18 activities as an online learning tool (www.designworkbook.co) and how the features of the website has evolved, what technical and instructional challenges we have faced, what we have learned by running 2 semesters special topic course, Art 397X Design Thinking and Practices at Zayed University in Dubai and Abu Dhabi campuses, and final how we plan to promote and integrate this content into a foundational design courses for greater systemic impact on design education. As we have tested the clarity and efficiency of content with various groups of students, the content has been refined and interface has been modified to maximize the easy of use and fun. The plan is then to start user testing at various institutions from multiple countries in the MENA region: The Middle East Design Educators Association (MEDEA) has suggested that it could facilitate participation from students and faculty from Egypt, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco and Qatar. Following that, content revision will be expected based on the above testing and focus groups, rewriting and possibly some reprogramming would be expected. It is our hope that this workbook ultimately would influence design education and practice in the region on both the individual and collective levels believing that design can connect the students' passions to building visual characteristics and voices for the region.

The Role of Guiding Frameworks in Large-Scale Systemic Design Processes: Lessons from Service Collaboratives Josina Vink and Shauna MacEachern What is the value of employing guiding frameworks in a large-scale systemic design process? Can these frameworks help us to realize more meaningful change on the ground? Where do they fall short in application? How should they be best integrated? Reflecting on the first three years of the Systems Improvement through Service Collaboratives (SISC) project in Ontario, this presentation uncovers emerging lessons from using strategic frameworks to guide a geographically dispersed, cross-sectoral & community-led systems change process in mental health and addictions. Through insights and examples from practitioners supporting 18 Service Collaboratives throughout Ontario, we unpack how these frameworks were used, what was most effective, what influenced the failures along the way, and begin to define the ideal role of these frameworks in future systemic design processes. About SISC The Systems Improvement through Service Collaboratives (SISC) project is one initiative within Open Minds, Healthy Minds: Ontario’s Comprehensive Mental Health and Addictions Strategy, a ten year plan that commits to the transformation of mental health and addiction services for all Ontarians. Within the first three years of the SISC project, 18 Service Collaboratives were created to support local systems change and improve coordination of services across sectors to better support individuals with mental health and addictions needs. While working towards common goals, each Service Collaborative is unique with different local needs, stakeholders and contexts. In total Service Collaboratives engage more than 2,500 members including service providers (from health care, education, justice, social services, culture-specific services, etc.), family members, and individuals with lived experience of mental health and addictions needs. The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) is sponsoring the project and guiding the process of each Service Collaborative, with support from six ministries of the Ontario government. Guiding Frameworks In hopes of improving the success of this provincial project, several guiding frameworks were identified and integrated into the local systems change processes. These frameworks included: 1. Implementation Science – An evidence-informed approach to ensuring the faithful implementation of interventions.1 2. Health Equity – An approach to strive for the highest level of health for all by addressing significant inequities in health outcomes between population groups.2 3. Use of Evidence – A commitment to the integration of the best available findings from the external research, service provider expertise, and lived experience.3 4. Developmental Evaluation – An approach to evaluation that supports innovations and guides adaptation within complex environments.4 5. Quality Improvement - An approach to analyzing processes and systematically improving them to realize positive systems change outcomes.5 6. Sustainability – The process of ensuring an adaptive preventative system that can be integrated into ongoing operations.6 Emerging Lessons This presentation will reveal the strengths and tensions of applying these frameworks to the messy and complex process of large-scale systemic design. By gathering the humble stories

and impressions of those at the frontiers of this pioneering work, the presentation will sketch out: • How these frameworks were utilized on the ground • The benefits to integrating these guiding frameworks in systems change projects • The challenges and failures of the application of these frameworks to inform future plans • The ideal role for these frameworks in systemic design Some examples of these insights from practitioners include: • The Implementation Science framework has helped to ensure the systemic design processes is focused on realizing tangible changes through a support for behavior change. • Working within a health equity framework has brought more marginalized groups into the collaborative process and decision-making. • Service Collaboratives have worked in an ad-hoc way toward the sustainability of interventions, with some promising emerging strategies. • These frameworks were useful in clarifying goals, but did not always provide practitioners with the methods needed to realize these goals in specific situations. • Many of these frameworks are an important compass for the work, but a tool box of other engagement and design methods also emerged as a necessary requirement. Strategic frameworks provide a hopeful structure to direct the more abstract process of systemic design toward intentional, actionable change, if utilized effectively. We can look to innovative large-scale projects, like SISC, that have tested and adapted approaches in a variety of contexts to better understand how to fully realize the value of integrating these frameworks into evolving systemic design practices. References Bertram, R., Blasé, K., & Fixsen, D. (2013). “ Improving programs and outcomes: implementation frameworks 2013”. Bridging the Research and Practice Gap Symposium. [article] Retrieved from: http://www.uh.edu/socialwork/news/events/05292012-bridging%20the%20gap%202013/Bertram-Blase-Fixsen_Improving%20Programs%20and%20Outcomes%20Implementation%20Frameworks_2013.pdf Braveman, P. (2014). “What are health disparities and health equity? We need to be clear”. Public Health Reports. 2014 Supplement 2. Volume 129. [article] Retrieved from: http://www.publichealthreports.org/issueopen.cfm?articleID=3074 National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (2012). “A model for evidence-informed decision making in public health.” [fact sheet] Retrieved from: http://www.nccmt.ca/pubs/FactSheet_EIDM_EN_WEB.pdf Patton, M. (2010). Developmental evaluation applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press. [book] The Health Foundation (n.d.). “Quality improvement made simple”. [report] Retrieved from: http://www.health.org.uk/public/cms/75/76/313/594/Quality_improvement_made_simple.pdf?realName=uDCzzh.pdf Centre, H., Daley, C., Hays, C., & Johnson, K. (2004). “Building capacity and sustainable prevention innovations: a sustainability planning model.” Evaluation and Program Planning. 27. p. 135-149. [article] Retrieved from: http://www.prev.org/resources/documents/BuildingCapacityandSustainablePrevention.pdf

Theory

“How Do We Know What We Think We Know?: Systemic Design and the Case for Evaluation” Brent Wellsch The 2015 Relating Systems Thinking and Design Conference will provide an opportunity for practitioners from diverse backgrounds to gather and collectively examine case-studies and stories that offer insight into the successes and failures of practicing systemic designers. This paper seeks to support this effort by adopting a theoretical lens to examine how Systemic Design, as a trans-discipline, can enhance its understanding of important questions that practitioners should be motivated to ascertain responses for. They include: What impact has Systemic Design had on a particular initiative? Where and why does failure exist? Are there opportunities to positively refine the practice to better meet client needs? By addressing these questions, this paper explores how systemic designers can better evaluate their work. Patton formally defines evaluation as “an applied inquiry process for collecting and synthesizing evidence that culminates in conclusions about the state of affairs, value, merit, worth, significance, or quality of a program, product, person, policy, proposal, or plan.” (Patton, 2004.) Evaluation as a professional discipline evolved out of the growing interest of organizational decision-makers in the 1960s to better understand if their programs were achieving their intended purpose(s). Evaluation in its traditional form has often struggled to provide evaluative results that persuade decision-making in an evidence-based direction. In response, evaluation as a professional and academic discipline has developed a diverse array of evaluation communities, with many advocating for evaluative inquiry to be less focused on analyzing and synthesizing evidence and more careful about understanding the end-users and their needs. Moreover, evaluators have asserted that program evaluations cannot take place in isolation from the complex environments in which they live, and as such, innovative evaluative approaches that are capable of reconciling this disconnect are needed. Such approaches include utilization-focused evaluation, developmental evaluation, and evaluative approaches for organizational learning and development, all of which serve to address gaps and have derived from the short-comings of more traditional evaluation practice. This paper argues that the evaluative theory espoused by these alternative approaches may offer systemic designers with approaches and techniques capable of surfacing key insights into the nature of their work. This assertion is supported by demonstrating the strong alignment between the mindset required by evaluators within this “alternative realm” and systemic designers. A focus on the end user, an acceptance and incorporation of complexity theory, and an emphasis on a flexible methodological tool-kit are shared character traits between the two disciplines. In making this connection, the paper suggests that systemic designers are already predisposed to utilize alternative evaluative methods. All that may be lacking is a designerly road-map that articulates and describes how to evaluate systemic design initiatives. The paper will attempt to address this gap through a two-part analysis. The first part focusses on the theory of evaluation design and which elements of this theory systemic designers may find valuable. To be clear, this paper does not advocate for one specific evaluative approach for Systemic Design. To do so would violate one of the paper’s key tenants: meaningful evaluation is tailored to meet the needs of the end user. Instead, the paper harvests three important insights from the evaluative field to serve as heuristics to inform the development of evaluative approaches for Systemic Design. The first two rules address the why, what, and how of

evaluation. The third highlights the need and importance for Systemic Design as a field to build evaluation capacity. These rules are: • Rule One: The evaluation questions of the end user must be identified and considered at the outset (the why and what); • Rule Two: The evaluative methodology should be flexible and reflect the evaluative questions of the end user (the how); • Rule Three: Systemic designers should adopt and practice principles of evaluative thinking. Evaluative thinking goes beyond formal evaluation and is embodied by behaviors that seek clarity in understanding “how do we know what we think we know” (Patton, 2005). Evaluative thinking offers a path for building evaluation capacity. With this theoretical frame in place, the paper will transition to the second part of the analysis which will provide an overview of a prototype evaluation framework developed through a systemic design workshop. The evaluation framework is being employed by a Systemic Design team working for the Government of Alberta, and is informed by the rules listed above. The purpose of this section is to reflect upon the theoretical assertions made in the paper’s first section and articulate how the theory manifested itself in guiding the developers of the evaluation framework in practice. This section also reflects on insights and lessons learned from Systemic Design practice for the theory of evaluation, and for systemic designers needing to evaluate their own efforts

Public Service

The Immigrant Service Journey as an Eye-Opener in the Complex Governmental Systems Helena Sustar This paper focuses on implementing human centred design (HCD) in Finnish siloes structured governmental immigrant system by adopting service design approach to foster human scale view. The research adopt customer service journey as a way to establish engagement, common language between different system levels and visual perception of the system. To answer “How to establish a holistic understanding of system complexity through a human centred design approach?” research question several preliminary HCD studies were conducted; the paper reports results from the most resent one. A Systems Perspective on Canadian Immigration Uma Maharaj Canada relies on immigration for its future prosperity. Its population is not growing fast enough to replenish the large number of workers set to retire and this means that the country cannot maintain its economic status nor can it develop and advance. Immigration is a solution to this problem. Yet, despite years of policy changes designed to improve the immigration system, certain problems continue to exist. Immigrants continue to experience economic and cultural hardships in the settlement phase. Using systems thinking methodology, system mapping and semi-structured interviews with several key stakeholders in the immigration system, this study explores how stakeholders interact with each other to produce outcomes that negatively impact immigrant settlement. Using a systems map of stakeholders of varying power and influence, the exploration seeks out points of intervention to improve the immigration system’s efficiency and effectiveness in settling immigrants in Canada. The paper offers overall recommendations for

the immigration system and for addressing settlement related problems such as access to settlement services, immigrant employment, culture shock and immigrant stereotypes.

Capacity Building

Education: Systems Oriented Design Linda Blaasvær :: What is :: I have lectured and tutored SOD students for two years now. A reflection on my experience and a tendency is that there is a gap in the students understanding of systems thinking, or a potential for bridging systems thinking into design practice on an educational level, due to the abstract nature of systems theory. I am very often asked what is Systems Oriented Design. Need to write a paper on that. Potential: Due to this I am very interested in bringing more system dynamic models into the education in our classes at AHO. I would also like to bring back physical modeling for teaching systemic behavior. And an immediate want I have is that I want to make easy workbook with systems tasks. This should be a small book a SOD student can have a the beginning of the semester to bring in his / hers bag. I have started a draft of this kind of book as our students ask me questions about systems thinking regularly. Content of workbook: Understanding Systems Oriented Design - A workbook for Students or Anyone who want to understand and recognize systems and become a system literate. - And for Designers who want to design for real change and through working with the nature of systems to make effective change. The book is full of simple tasks for the students to solve and learn about systems and systemic behavior. Because I strongly believe to understand any topic you have to answer the questions your self. The tasks should be about; Fun, Push creativity, Observation; Simple tasks to solve e.g. some tasks will be about observation in various time length, advises, Comparing systems, Examples of systems, Every day examples, Systems dynamic models, Relational understanding, Experimenting, Sketching,

Visualizing, Prototyping, I am very much inspired by Birger Sevaldson and Linda Booth Sweeney for the idea of this workbook. :: What could be :: I strongly believe that if we can educate systems literate designers we can contribute to effective and long-term change. Student cases: However we have a lot a great Systems Oriented Design projects coming out of our studios, preformed by our great students. I will present some student cases for augmenting for the relevance of systemic design. With referrence to and inspired by: Birger Sevaldson, Harold Nelson, Peter Jones, Manuela Aguirre, Russ Achoff, Donella Meadows, Peter Checkland, Linda Booth Sweeney