Abstract
This paper introduces two novel applications of systemic design to facilitate a comparison of alternative methodologies that integrate systems thinking and design. In the first case study, systemic design helped the Procurement Department at the University of Toronto re-envision how public policy is implemented and how value is created in the broader university purchasing ecosystem. This resulted in an estimated $1.5 million in savings in the first year, and a rise in user retention rates from 40% to 99%. In the second case study, systemic design helped the clean energy and natural resources group within the Government of Alberta to design a more efficient and effective resource management system and shift the way that natural resource departments work together. This resulted in the formation of a standing systemic design team and contributed to the creation of an integrated resource management system. A comparative analysis of the two projects identifies a shared set of core principles for systemic design as well as areas of differentiation that reveal potential for learning across methodologies. Together, these case studies demonstrate the complementarity of systems thinking and design thinking, and show how they may be integrated to guide positive change within complex sociotechnical systems.
Highlights
The currently fragmented state of ‘systems + design’ praxis is curious in light of the affinities between the two interdisciplines
West Churchman said: “A systems approach begins when first you see the world through the eyes of another” (1968). This resonates with a basic tenet of design thinking: begin with empathy for users/stakeholders
Our first case study concerns a public procurement project within the University of Toronto, where design and a systems mindset helped the Central Procurement Department re-envision how public policy is implemented and how value is created in the broader university purchasing ecosystem
Summary
The currently fragmented state of ‘systems + design’ praxis is curious in light of the affinities between the two interdisciplines. Over the course of a few days, the team tested the prototypes with users in workshops and in the field, receiving highly valuable feedback: what they liked, didn’t like and would change They learned that to be the trusted advisor: procurement needed to be talking with the researcher on Day 1 when the funds are approved and the start of planning rather than at the purchasing implementation stage which was conventional practice and frustratingly late; and simple artifacts like tip sheets within easy access and simple language can go a long way to stay on top of researchers’ busy minds and save time. This helped to build shared understanding and avoid premature convergence on the recieved problem implied by the original guidance statement
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: FormAkademisk - forskningstidsskrift for design og designdidaktikk
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
