Hubbry Logo
Systemic designSystemic designMain
Open search
Systemic design
Community hub
Systemic design
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Systemic design
Systemic design
Systemic design
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Systemic design is an interdiscipline[1] that integrates systems thinking and design practices. It is a pluralistic field,[2][3] with several dialects[4] including systems-oriented design.[5] Influences have included critical systems thinking and second-order cybernetics. In 2021, the Design Council (UK) began advocating for a systemic design approach and embedded it in a revision of their double diamond model.[6]

Systemic design is closely related to sustainability as it aims to create solutions that are not only designed to have a good environmental impact, but are also socially and economically beneficial. In fact, from a systemic design approach, the system to be designed, its context with its relationships and its environment receive synchronous attention.[7] Systemic design's discourse has been developed through Relating Systems Thinking and Design—a series of symposia held annually since 2012.[8]

History

[edit]

1960 to 1990

[edit]

Systems thinking in design has a long history with origins in the design methods movement during the 1960s and 1970s, such as the idea of wicked problems developed by Horst Rittel.[9]

The theories about complexity help the management of an entire system, and the suggested 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, on the basis of the General Systems Theory by Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1968).[10] 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.

1990 to 2010

[edit]

Treating productive organizations as complex adaptive systems allows for new management models that address economical, social and environmental benefits (Pisek and Wilson, 2001.)[11] In that field, cluster theory (Porter, 1990)[12] evolved in more environmentally sensitive theories, like industrial ecology (Frosh and Gallopoulos, 1989)[13] and industrial symbiosis (Chertow, 2000).[14] Design thinking offers a way to creatively and strategically reconfigure a design concept in a situation with systemic integration (Buchanan, 1992).[15]

In 1994, Gunter Pauli and Heitor Gurgulino de Souza founded the research institute Zero Emission Research and Initiatives (ZERI),[16] starting from the idea that progress should embed respect for the environment and natural techniques that will allow production processes to be part of the ecosystem.

Strong interdisciplinary and transdisciplinarity approaches are critical during the design phase (Fuller, 1981)[17] with the increasing involvement of different disciplines, including urban planning, public policy, business management and environmental sciences (Chertow et al., 2004).[18] As an interdiscipline, systemic design joins systems thinking and design methodology to support humanity centred[19] and systems oriented design[20] academe and practice (Bistagnino, 2011;[21] Sevaldson, 2011;[22] Nelson and Stolterman, 2012;[23] Jones, 2014;[24] Toso at al., 2012[25]).

2010 to present

[edit]

Numerous design projects demonstrate systemic design in their approach, including diverse topics involving food networks,[26] industrial processes and water purification, revitalization of internal areas through art and tourism,[27] circular economy,[28][29] exhibition and fairs, social inclusion, and marginalization.

Since 2014 several scholarly journals have acknowledged systemic design with special publications, and in 2022, the Systemic Design Association launched "Contexts—The Journal of Systemic Design." The proceedings repository, Relating Systems Thinking and Design, exceeded 1000 articles in 2023.

Special Publications
Date Publication Title Editors
2014 FORMakademisk[30] Relating Systems Thinking and Design I (Practice Issue) Birger Sevaldson, Alex J. Ryan
2014 FORMakademisk[31] Relating Systems Thinking and Design II (Theory Issue) Peter Jones
2017 FORMakademisk[32] Relating Systems Thinking and Design III Jodi Forlizzi, Birger Sevaldson, Alex Ryan
2018 FORMakademisk[33] Relating Systems Thinking and Design IV Birger Sevaldson
2018 SHE JI Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation[34] The Systemic Turn: Leverage for World Changing Vol 3, Issue 3 Peter Jones
2019 FORMakademisk[35] Relating Systems Thinking and Design V Michael Ulrich Hensel, Defne Sunguroğlu Hensel, Birger Sevaldson
2019 SHE JI Journal of Design, Economics, and InnovationSHE JI Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation[36] Pathways to Systemic Design, Vol 5, Issue 2 Birger Sevaldson, Peter Jones
2020 FORMakademisk[37] Relating Systems Thinking and Design VI Marie Davidova, Ben Sweeting, Birger Sevaldson
2020 Strategic Design Research Journal[38] Special Issue: Relating Systems Thinking and Design. Systemic Design and Co-creation Processes for Territorial Enhancement Silvia Barbero, Amina Pereno
2021 Touchpoint[39] Special Issue: Service Design and Systems Thinking J. Tuomas Harviainen, Josina Vink
2022 Policy Design and Practice[40] Volume 5, Issue 1 Kidjie Saguin, Benjamin Cashore

Relating Systems Thinking and Design (RSD)

[edit]

Since 2012, host organisations have held an annual symposium dedicated to systemic design, Relating Systems Thinking and Design (RSD). Proceedings are available via the searchable repository on RSDsymposium.org.[41]

RSD Symposia
Year Hosts Theme
RSD13-2024 Oslo School of Architecture and Design Rivers of Conversations
RSD12-2023 Georgetown University Entangled in Emergence
RSD11-2022 University of Brighton Possibilities and Practices[42]
RSD10-2021 TU Delft Playing with Tensions[43]
RSD9-2020 National Institute of Design Systemic Design for Well-Being
RSD8-2019 IIT Institute of Design Complex Spaces of Innovation
RSD7-2018 Politecnico di Torino Challenging Complexity
RSD6-2017 Oslo School of Architecture and Design Flourishing Together[44]
RSD5-2016 OCAD University and MaRS Systemic Design for Social Complexity
RSD4-2015 Systemic Design Research Network Developing a Systemic Design Research Network
RSD3-2014 Oslo School of Architecture and Design Relating Systems Thinking and Design
RSD2-2013 Oslo School of Architecture and Design The Systemic Design Movement
RSD1-2012 Oslo School of Architecture and Design Seminar: Relating Systems Thinking and Design

Research groups and innovation labs

[edit]

Academic research groups with a focus on systemic design include:

  • Communication, Culture & Technology lab[45] at Georgetown University, Washington DC, hosts of RSD12 in 2023.
  • Policy Lab is a part of the UK Civil Service with a "mission is to radically improve policy making through design, innovation and people-centred approaches".[46]
  • Radical Methodologies Research Group at the University of Brighton,[47] Brighton, UK, hosts of RSD11 in 2022.[42]
  • Relating Systems Thinking and Design[48] a searchable repository of articles from the proceedings of the annual symposia.
  • Strategic Innovation Lab (sLab) at OCADU, Toronto, Canada.
  • Sys—Systemic Design Lab at the Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy.[49]
  • Systemic Design and Sustainability Research Group at Oslo Metropolitan University.[50]
  • Systemic Design Association[51] the international membership organisation.
  • Systems Engineering Design research group at Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.[52]

Academic programmes

[edit]

Academic programmes in systemic design include:

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Systemic design

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Systemic design is an interdisciplinary methodology that synthesizes with practices to address complex, interconnected challenges, such as wicked problems in social, environmental, and organizational domains, by emphasizing relational structures, feedback dynamics, and holistic interventions over reductionist or linear approaches. It draws on principles from , including emergence, boundaries, and interdependence, to enable the mapping and transformation of large-scale systems through tools like gigamaps and prototyping that reveal hidden patterns and causal loops. Emerging from mid-20th-century convergences of methods and , systemic design gained formal traction in the 2000s through academic frameworks that integrate abductive reasoning with systems models for societal transitions and . Key contributors include Peter Jones and Birger Sevaldson, who have advanced its theoretical foundations via the Relating Systems (RSD) symposia and publications stressing methodological relationships between systems inquiry and designerly action. This evolution distinguishes it from earlier by prioritizing open-ended, collaborative processes that foster adaptability in volatile contexts. Notable applications span , reforms, and initiatives, where core principles—such as recognizing problem interrelatedness, cultivating empathy, and leveraging boundary critique—guide interventions that promote resilience and leverage points for change. Frameworks like those proposed by Alex Ryan emphasize flexible methods for group learning and adaptation, enabling teams to navigate without prescriptive blueprints. While praised for its potential in tackling systemic failures, such as in or , it faces critiques for challenges in practice, though empirical studies affirm its efficacy in fostering innovative outcomes through visual and participatory techniques.

Definition and Core Principles

Fundamental Concepts

Systemic design integrates , which posits that phenomena arise from interactions within wholes greater than the sum of parts, with design practices emphasizing and human-centered iteration to address multifaceted problems in social and environmental contexts. This approach recognizes complexity as inherent in "wicked" problems—ill-defined challenges like urban sustainability or healthcare reform that resist linear solutions due to interdependent variables, stakeholder conflicts, and emergent behaviors. Unlike reductionist methods that decompose issues into isolated components, systemic design employs holistic mapping, such as gigamaps, to visualize relational structures and leverage points for intervention. Central to systemic design are concepts of boundary framing and requisite variety, where designers iteratively define system scopes to align interventions with environmental demands, ensuring matches disturbance levels as per Ashby's law. Feedback coordination incorporates first-, second-, and third-order loops to monitor performance, learn from deviations, and evolve purposes, drawing from cybernetic foundations. is prioritized through generative processes, fostering novel outcomes from stakeholder interactions rather than predefined blueprints, while self-organization enables systems to reconfigure autonomously via distributed agency. Peter Jones outlined ten foundational principles in 2014, derived from of systems and literature, to guide practice in complex social systems:
  • Idealization: Envisioning aspirational states to direct transformative action.
  • : Embracing ill-structured problems through flexible .
  • Purpose: Redefining goals in alignment with values.
  • Boundary Framing: Iteratively scoping environments for fit.
  • Requisite Variety: Balancing internal complexity with external variety.
  • Feedback Coordination: Utilizing loops for adaptive .
  • Ordering: Structuring relations for coherence.
  • Generative : Cultivating unintended innovations.
  • Continuous Adaptation: Enabling ongoing evolution via evaluation.
  • Self-Organizing: Supporting autonomous reconfiguration.
These principles underscore systemic design's emphasis on dialogue-driven co-creation and visualization tools to navigate uncertainty, distinguishing it as a pragmatic extension of systems thinking into actionable design for societal-scale challenges. Systemic design differentiates from primarily through its emphasis on generative intervention and to shape complex systems, rather than confining itself to analytical mapping and holistic understanding alone. While , rooted in principles like interdependence and feedback loops, often exhibits an analytical that prioritizes problem comprehension over solution-oriented action, systemic design integrates 's iterative prototyping and stakeholder convening to enable adaptive transformations in social contexts. This is evident in principles such as generative and continuous , which foster novel behaviors and ongoing evolution in irreducible systems, extending beyond systems thinking's typical focus on steady-state equilibrium. In contrast to , which centers on user empathy, ideation, and for in bounded problems, systemic design expands to multi-scale, multi-stakeholder dynamics, incorporating requisite variety to match environmental complexity and boundary framing to negotiate subjective system edges. Design thinking's generative toward creative outputs frequently overlooks deep systemic interdependencies and value conflicts, whereas systemic design employs tools like multi-domain mapping to address wicked problems involving and resilience across organizational and societal levels. Systemic design further departs from and technical by targeting open, adaptive social systems with emergent properties, rather than closed, decomposable artifacts optimized through deductive verification. assumes objectively definable boundaries and predictable behaviors amenable to hierarchical decomposition and quantitative modeling, principles ill-suited to the subjective, pluralistic boundaries and qualitative uncertainties of complex societal transitions. Instead, systemic design leverages processes and feedback coordination to co-evolve human-centered interventions, as seen in applications to healthcare ecosystems or urban policy, where among stakeholders drives outcomes unattainable via engineering's functional optimization. From , systemic design inherits concepts like feedback coordination but transcends control-oriented mechanisms by prioritizing purpose finding and system ordering for coherent, value-aligned in non-linear environments, avoiding cybernetics' historical emphasis on regulatory stability over transformative agency. These distinctions underscore systemic design's unique orientation toward appreciating complexity through integrated methods, enabling interventions that sustain viability in evolving, high-variety contexts.

Historical Development

Foundations in Systems Thinking and Early Design (Pre-1990)

The foundations of systemic design trace back to early systems thinking, which emphasized holistic analysis over reductionist approaches. Ludwig von Bertalanffy developed General Systems Theory (GST) in the 1930s, positing that systems across disciplines share principles like openness, feedback, and equifinality, formalized in his 1968 book General System Theory. In 1954, Bertalanffy co-founded the Society for General Systems Research to unify scientific inquiry through systems perspectives, influencing fields beyond biology into social and organizational domains. These concepts provided a counter to mechanistic views, stressing interdependence and emergence as essential for understanding complex wholes. Parallel developments in furthered systems foundations relevant to . Norbert coined the term in 1948 with Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, introducing feedback loops for self-regulation in machines and organisms, drawn from wartime servomechanisms research. The (1946–1953) synthesized these ideas, fostering interdisciplinary exchanges that prefigured applications in control systems and early . 's framework influenced design by highlighting adaptive processes, as seen in later cybernetic design theories where feedback enables iterative artifact creation. In design, the 1960s methods movement integrated systems approaches from and to address growing complexity in products and planning. Practitioners at institutions like and Berkeley adapted hard systems techniques, such as optimization models, to elevate design from intuition to systematic inquiry. Herbert Simon's 1969 The Sciences of the Artificial framed design as a of creating purposeful systems interfacing natural environments, emphasizing and in ill-structured problems. This bridged with design abduction, viewing artifacts as adaptive interfaces rather than isolated objects. Critiques emerged to refine these integrations for real-world messiness. Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber's 1973 paper distinguished "wicked" problems in —unique, interdependent, and value-laden—from "tame" ones solvable by , arguing that systems methods alone insufficiently handle evolving stakeholder contexts. Socio-technical systems studies at the in the 1950s had already demonstrated joint optimization of human and technical elements in workflows, laying empirical groundwork for holistic interventions. Collectively, these pre-1990 advancements established as a lens for , prioritizing relational dynamics and iterative adaptation over linear causality.

Emergence and Institutionalization (1990-2010)

During the and early , systemic design practices began to coalesce in academic as responses to the limitations of traditional methods in addressing interconnected social, environmental, and technological challenges. Influenced by advances in science and , practitioners emphasized holistic mapping and relational dynamics over linear problem-solving. At the Oslo School of Architecture and Design (AHO), Birger Sevaldson initiated experimental approaches to in , focusing on visualizing extensive relational networks to manage "wicked" problems. These efforts laid groundwork for handling systemic interdependencies without reducing to simplistic models. By the mid-2000s, emerged as a structured under Sevaldson's leadership at AHO, with core practices developing organically through studio-based experimentation around 2005. integrated with design abduction, prioritizing iterative mapping of stakeholder relations, feedback loops, and emergent properties. A pivotal tool, the gigamap—large-scale visual representations of —was introduced in 2009 during an AHO design studio, enabling teams to chart multi-scalar interactions across temporal and spatial dimensions. This visualization technique addressed gaps in conventional diagramming by accommodating vast data volumes and qualitative relations, fostering shared understanding in collaborative settings. Institutionalization accelerated in through research labs dedicated to applied systemic methods. At in , Peter Jones advanced systemic approaches in healthcare and , emphasizing for complex service systems. The Strategic Innovation Lab (sLab), co-founded in 2007, institutionalized participatory foresight and systemic research, integrating design with for policy and organizational challenges. sLab's projects during this period explored canvases and foresight scenarios, bridging academic theory with practical outcomes in areas like urban sustainability. These developments marked a shift from applications to formalized curricula and funded initiatives, establishing systemic design as a viable interdiscipline by 2010, though the term itself gained wider traction post-decade.

Contemporary Expansion and Key Milestones (2010-Present)

The field of systemic design experienced significant institutional and communal growth following the foundational work in systems-oriented design and related practices during the preceding decades. This period marked a shift from isolated academic explorations to organized networks fostering collaborative , , and application in addressing complex socio-technical challenges such as sustainability transitions and . Key drivers included the proliferation of interdisciplinary symposia, formal associations, and peer-reviewed publications that codified methodologies integrating with designerly abduction and visualization. A pivotal milestone was the inaugural Relating Systems Thinking and Design (RSD) symposium, RSD1, held in 2012 at the , which convened researchers and practitioners to advance systemic design as an emerging interdiscipline. This event initiated an annual series promoting theory development and practical applications, with subsequent symposia—such as RSD2 in 2013 at Chalmers University, —producing proceedings that documented evolving tools like gigamaps for representing relational complexity. By the mid-2010s, contributions from figures like Peter Jones emphasized methods tailored for systemic inquiry, including boundary framing and requisite variety principles, as articulated in publications distinguishing systemic approaches from traditional . Birger Sevaldson furthered this through systems-oriented design (SOD), refining visual and relational mapping techniques for handling indeterminacy in complex systems. The establishment of dedicated networks accelerated dissemination. In 2011, the Systemic Design Research Network (SDRN) formed through collaboration between Toronto's and AHO, laying groundwork for structured knowledge exchange. This evolved into the Systemic Design Association (SDA) on October 23, 2018, registered as a non-profit in , which formalized governance, membership, and research hubs focused on ethical and relational practices in systemic interventions. The SDA launched Contexts: The Journal of Systemic Design to peer-review advancements, publishing issues on leverage points and methodological pluralism by the early 2020s. Into the 2020s, RSD symposia expanded globally, reaching RSD10 in 2021 at and RSD11 in 2023 in , , with over 1,000 cumulative participants evidencing community maturation and applications in fields like and policy innovation. Publications such as Sevaldson's Designing (2022) synthesized SOD methodologies for practical systemic change, while Jones co-edited works on systemic integrating . These developments underscored systemic design's maturation as a rigorous practice, evidenced by its adoption in institutional frameworks like the 's Council Systemic Design Framework (2021), prioritizing relational dynamics over linear problem-solving. Empirical outcomes from RSD-documented projects demonstrated efficacy in territorial enhancement and redesign, though scalability remains constrained by the field's emphasis on contextual specificity over generalized models.

Methodologies and Frameworks

Integration of Systems Theory with Design Abduction

Design abduction, as articulated by design theorist Kees Dorst, constitutes a form of reasoning that simultaneously addresses two unknowns—the intended purpose ("what") and the enabling mechanism ("how")—to generate innovative frames for ill-defined problems, distinguishing it from deductive or inductive logics prevalent in scientific inquiry. In systemic design, this abductive process is augmented by systems theory's emphasis on relational structures, feedback loops, and emergent properties, enabling designers to hypothesize interventions within complex, non-linear systems rather than isolated components. This fusion counters the cognitive limits of unaided abduction, as human reasoning struggles with dual unknowns in high-complexity contexts, by leveraging systems models to bound and scaffold hypothesis generation. Systems theory provides the ontological foundation for refining abduction, shifting from atomistic problem-solving to mapping interdependent elements and causal dynamics across scales. For example, tools like gigamaps in systemic visualize system boundaries and interactions, informing abductive leaps by revealing leverage points where small changes can yield disproportionate outcomes, grounded in empirical observations of real-world systems such as urban ecosystems or organizational . Proponents argue this integration fosters "systemic rationales," where abductive hypotheses are iteratively tested against systems principles like and , reducing the risk of oversimplified solutions that ignore . Empirical applications, such as in transitions, demonstrate that abductive frames informed by —e.g., hypothesizing mechanisms within industrial —achieve greater robustness than traditional methods, as validated through case studies tracking long-term systemic outcomes. Critically, this methodological synergy addresses limitations in pure design abduction, which can devolve into speculative intuition without systemic constraints, by incorporating verifiable systems diagnostics like boundary critique and polycontextural analysis to evaluate hypothesis plausibility. Key frameworks emerging from this integration, developed through symposia like Relating and (RSD) since 2012, emphasize iterative abduction cycles: observe states, abduce frame shifts, and simulate impacts via agent-based modeling or . While academic sources in often overstate abduction's universality without rigorous systems validation—reflecting a toward creative over causal —this approach prioritizes empirical falsification, as seen in peer-reviewed evaluations where systemically abduced designs outperformed benchmarks in metrics like resilience and adaptability by 20-30% in controlled simulations.

Tools and Visualization Techniques

Systemic design utilizes visualization techniques to represent and navigate the multifaceted dynamics of complex systems, facilitating , stakeholder , and intervention design. These methods extend beyond traditional diagramming by incorporating iterative sketching, multi-scale mapping, and relational analysis to capture emergent properties, feedback loops, and non-linear interactions. Key approaches include gigamapping and synthesis mapping, which enable designers to externalize vast relational data that textual or numerical representations cannot adequately convey. Gigamapping, introduced by Birger Sevaldson in 2009, serves as a foundational visualization tool in systems-oriented , a subset of systemic design practices. This technique involves creating expansive, multi-layered visual maps that depict systems at a "giga" scale, integrating actors, processes, relations, and temporal dimensions to reveal structures. Practitioners apply gigamaps during inquiry and stages to organize heterogeneous data—such as stakeholder inputs, environmental factors, and causal links—into coherent overviews, allowing for the identification of leverage points amid uncertainty and richness. The method supports iterative refinement through digital or analog sketching, emphasizing relational thickness over exhaustive detail. Synthesis maps, developed by Peter Jones, provide a constructivist framework for rendering sociotechnical and human-ecological systems visible. These maps synthesize diverse evidence sources, including research observations and stakeholder perspectives, into layered diagrams that highlight system boundaries, causal structures, and proposed interventions. Used in collaborative settings, they foster shared mental models by combining formal modeling elements—like stocks, flows, and feedback loops—with design-oriented provocations, enabling teams to evaluate complexity and co-create options. Guidelines for synthesis mapping stress tangibility and , ensuring maps evolve through processes to bridge disciplinary gaps. Complementary tools enhance these visualizations by focusing on relational and analytical depth. ZIP-analysis, part of systems-oriented design, employs zooming and panning across system layers to pinpoint potentials, problems, and intervention zones, often visualized alongside gigamaps for targeted exploration. The of systemic relations, curated by Sevaldson, categorizes interconnection types—such as symbiotic, competitive, or hierarchical—to systematically dependencies, informing in leverage point identification. Sketching permeates all stages, serving as a flexible medium for appreciating and prototyping visual artifacts like rich pictures or boundary frames. These techniques collectively prioritize empirical relational over simplified models, aligning with systemic design's emphasis on causal realism in addressing real-world messiness.

Evaluation and Measurement Approaches

Systemic design evaluation confronts the inherent difficulties of complex systems, where linear cause-effect metrics prove inadequate for capturing emergent behaviors, feedback loops, and long-term adaptability. Instead, approaches emphasize multi-scale assessment, integrating qualitative with quantitative indicators to gauge properties like resilience, coherence, and leverage points. These methods prioritize iterative, stakeholder-inclusive processes over static endpoints, acknowledging that systemic interventions evolve through ongoing interactions rather than fixed outcomes. Qualitative techniques dominate initial evaluation stages, leveraging visualization and tools to and interpret states. GIGA-mapping serves as a core artifact for representing relational structures, human behaviors, and organizational processes, enabling stakeholders to evaluate intervention coherence and boundary framing through visual synthesis. and design methods support by fostering and , allowing designers to probe systemic relationships via participatory and feedback coordination. Challenges include securing stakeholder buy-in for these methods amid multi-actor , often requiring from traditional to handle higher-order social . Quantitative measurement draws from systems dynamics and network analysis to operationalize abstract properties. Leverage measures, adapted from social network analysis, quantify intervention points that amplify systemic change, while system dynamics simulations model feedback effects for predictive evaluation. Resilience indicators, such as those in the Systemic Resilience (SyRes) model, assess capacities to absorb disturbances, maintain core functions, and adapt structures, providing metrics like recovery time and transformation potential in empirical tests. In social applications, continuous scanning, measuring, and judging processes track evolving impacts, often via questionnaires quantifying collaboration patterns for community resilience. Mixed-methods frameworks combine these for comprehensive appraisal, as seen in transformation evaluations using . Bateson's logical types of learning guide assessment of and relational preservation, employing to reflect on transformative processes in interventions. Process evaluation alongside system design prediction ensures alignment with principles like requisite variety, validating outcomes through evidence of adaptive change rather than isolated performance. Such pluralism addresses evaluation gaps in complex scenarios, prioritizing causal realism over simplified proxies.

Key Organizations and Events

Relating Systems Thinking and Design (RSD) Symposia

The Relating and (RSD) Symposia serve as the primary annual gathering for scholars, practitioners, and researchers advancing the integration of with design methodologies, emphasizing relational and holistic approaches to complex challenges. Initiated as a platform for dialogue on systemic design, the symposia facilitate peer-reviewed presentations, workshops, and discussions that contribute to the field's theoretical and practical development, often resulting in published proceedings and journal articles. The series originated from efforts at the Oslo School of Architecture and Design (AHO), where Birger Sevaldson and Marit Helgesen organized the inaugural event as a two-day , with formal symposia commencing in 2013 under the RSD banner. RSD2 marked the beginning of annual proceedings, establishing a tradition of documenting contributions through dedicated publications that archive mappings, gigamaps, and theoretical advancements in systemic design. Subsequent events have rotated hosts across international institutions, adapting formats to include hybrid and multi-location models, particularly post-2020, to broaden participation amid global constraints. Key symposia have addressed evolving themes such as , , and relationality, with RSD7 (October 23–28, 2018) hosted by Politecnico di Torino under the theme "Challenging by Systemic Design towards ," featuring contributions on environmental and social systems. RSD10 (2021) was organized by TU as a hybrid event, incorporating online sessions alongside a single in-person day in to explore systems-oriented . RSD12 (2023) adopted a distributed format, with hybrid sessions spanning two weeks across thirteen global locations, coordinated virtually by to foster transdisciplinary exchanges.
SymposiumYearHost/LocationNotable Features
RSD72018Theme: Challenging Complexity; focus on ; peer-reviewed proceedings.
RSD102021Hybrid format; integration with Design Research Society events.
RSD122023 (virtual hub); 13 global sitesMulti-week distributed sessions; emphasis on collective mapping.
RSD142025Online with thematic hubsWorkshops, 20+ peer-reviewed papers; theme exploring relationality in health and .
The symposia are closely affiliated with the Systemic Design Association (SDA), established on October 23, 2018, as a Norwegian-registered non-profit to support RSD activities, including an online forum, workshops, and publication initiatives that extend the events' outputs into accessible resources for the community. Through these gatherings, RSD has catalyzed empirical advancements, such as visualization tools for complex systems and case studies in policy and innovation, while maintaining a commitment to rigorous, evidence-based discourse over speculative narratives.

Systemic Design Association and Research Networks

The Systemic Design Association (SDA), founded on October 23, 2018, as a not-for-profit scholarly organization registered in , serves as the primary international hub for advancing systemic design practices and . It fosters collaboration among designers, scholars, practitioners, and students engaged in design-led approaches to complex systems, emphasizing empirical methods for addressing societal, environmental, and organizational challenges. Membership is open to academic, industry, and creative professionals, promoting democratic governance and knowledge-sharing through events, publications, and online resources. The SDA maintains an active role in curating directories of systemic designers and frameworks, such as the Systemic Design Framework, to standardize and disseminate methodologies. Beyond its core membership, the SDA coordinates research networks through affiliations with the Relating and (RSD) symposia, which produce peer-reviewed proceedings serving as a repository for empirical studies in systemic design since 2012. These networks facilitate interdisciplinary collaborations, including publishing partnerships with journals like FormAkademisk and She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, which prioritize rigorous, data-driven contributions over theoretical speculation. The association also supports specialized initiatives, such as the Systemic Design Toolkit, developed in collaboration with practitioners like Namahn, focusing on practical tools for organizational and societal interventions backed by case studies in transitions. Emerging regional research networks extend the SDA's influence, exemplified by the Systemic Design Expertise Network launched in the around 2023 by institutions including University of Applied Sciences (THUAS). This network initiates multi-year projects applying systemic design to concrete issues like chemical industry sustainability at sites such as Chemelot, involving cross-sector teams for empirical evaluation of transition outcomes over eight years. Similarly, university-based labs, such as the Systemic Design Lab at the established prior to 2020, contribute networked research on product-service systems and , integrating with design abduction validated through prototypes and stakeholder data. These networks emphasize verifiable impacts, such as measurable reductions in resource waste, rather than untested ideals, aligning with the SDA's commitment to causal mechanisms in complex systems.

Applications and Empirical Outcomes

Sustainability and Environmental Challenges

Systemic design applies systems-oriented methods to environmental challenges by mapping interconnections across ecological, social, and economic domains, identifying leverage points for interventions that minimize and promote regenerative outcomes. Unlike reductionist approaches, it emphasizes relational ontologies and iterative prototyping to address issues like and , as evidenced in frameworks that integrate productive cycles with environmental limits. This has been operationalized in territorial design models, where systemic mapping reveals causal loops in socio-ecological systems, enabling strategies for sustainable and circular economies. Applications include food system redesigns, where systemic design interprets real cases to balance with ecological preservation; for instance, projects in have used these methods to prototype low-impact supply chains, reducing through closed-loop flows documented in case analyses from 2015 onward. In built environment planning, systemic thinking underpins by modeling energy and feedbacks, with studies advocating for its adoption to counteract linear consumption patterns contributing to impacts. Another domain involves interactive systems for ecological transitions, drawing on systemic methods to embed environmental metrics into digital tools, as explored in RSD11 proceedings for transitioning user behaviors toward lower emissions. Empirical outcomes remain context-specific and often qualitative, with case studies showing improved systemic but limited large-scale quantification. In rural transitions, systemic design facilitated community-level planning in mountain regions, yielding adaptive strategies that enhanced resilience to environmental stressors through pluralistic methodologies engaging local stakeholders. Educational interventions integrating systemic design reported measurable gains in students' ability to address environmental trade-offs, with one 2021 study finding and simulation increased comprehension of interdependencies by fostering causal modeling skills over traditional lectures. However, broader adoption faces barriers like measurement gaps in long-term ecological impacts, highlighting the need for more longitudinal data to validate causal efficacy beyond pilot scales.

Social Systems and Innovation

Systemic design addresses social systems by integrating with practices to tackle the interconnected dynamics of human behaviors, institutions, and networks, enabling innovative interventions that promote adaptive change rather than isolated fixes. In social innovation contexts, it emphasizes mapping relational structures, feedback loops, and emergent properties to foster resilience and equity in areas like and public services. Practitioners apply tools such as gigamapping and causal layered analysis to visualize multi-scale influences, revealing leverage points for systemic shifts. A study of expert practices in public and social identified five core principles derived from case analyses: acknowledging problem interrelatedness to avoid siloed solutions; cultivating empathy through immersive ; iterative learning via prototyping and feedback; leveraging stakeholder heterogeneity for diverse perspectives; and enabling to empower local agency. These principles, observed across projects in and social welfare, contrast with traditional design by prioritizing long-term evolution over immediate outputs, though empirical validation remains qualitative due to the nascent field. For instance, in a Danish municipal initiative documented in 2024, systemic design informed a model incorporating 12 tools—like diagnostics and cross-sector protocols—resulting in enhanced coherence for social challenges such as integration services. Empirical applications demonstrate innovation outcomes in social systems, such as accelerated adaptation in community networks. In one analyzed case from the 2020 study, systemic interventions in a initiative led to emergent collaborations among NGOs and government bodies, yielding scalable models for service delivery that reduced redundancies by integrating fragmented resources. Similarly, designerly experiments in projects highlighted four principles—provoking agency, surfacing tensions, prototyping relations, and enacting multiplicity—that catalyzed structural shifts, with documented increases in participant-driven initiatives over 18-month trials. However, measurable impacts like quantifiable gains or equity metrics are limited in peer-reviewed literature, often relying on practitioner narratives rather than controlled longitudinal data, underscoring gaps in causal evidence for broader scalability.

Governance and Policy Design

Systemic design in governance and policy integrates with design abduction to address the inherent complexity of public decision-making, emphasizing interconnected variables, emergent behaviors, and multi-stakeholder dynamics over siloed, linear approaches. This method prioritizes mapping feedback loops, leverage points, and causal structures to formulate adaptive that mitigate . Practitioners employ visualization techniques such as giga-maps and causal loop diagrams to represent policy ecosystems, enabling policymakers to simulate interventions and foster participatory . A core application involves stakeholder co-design within the quadruple helix model—encompassing government, industry, academia, and —to bridge policy gaps. In the RETRACE project (2016–2020), funded by Interreg Europe, systemic design supported transitions across five regions: (), Basque Country (), (), Northeast Romania, and . The methodology combined holistic diagnosis of economic, cultural, and regulatory barriers with selection of 30 good practices from 65 analyzed, yielding 22 regional action plans categorized into policy strategies, funding calls, pilot projects, and initiatives. Tools like infographics and co-design workshops facilitated bottom-up input, aligning actions with EU 2030 targets; short-term outcomes included funding allocations and programs, though medium-term implementation faced delays in three actions due to resource constraints, and six failed amid engagement challenges. In contexts, systemic design enhances policy robustness by promoting cross-silo collaboration. The has applied and rich pictures to restructure governance, as in the Ministry of Justice's redesign of a tax system for 9 million users via causal loop mapping, which secured expanded budgets and unified departmental efforts. For net zero goals, causal loop tools mapped interconnections in heat, buildings, and sectors during workshops with diverse experts, informing the 2021 Net Zero Strategy and enabling adaptive interventions toward 2050 targets. Post-Brexit reform engaged 500 staff across four areas using participatory systems mapping, revealing leverage points for sustainable outcomes. These efforts demonstrate causal evidence of improved shared understanding and policy coherence, though empirical gaps persist in scaling due to institutional inertia. Frameworks for participatory policymaking further operationalize systemic design by sequencing problem framing, ideation, and prototyping phases tailored to public . One such approach, tested in community services , underscores principles like relational mapping and iterative evaluation to embed equity in processes. Emerging practices advocate transitioning service designers into roles via critical , normalizing radical participation to address systemic inequities in operations. Overall, these applications yield measurable gains in stakeholder alignment and foresight, yet require rigorous evaluation to validate long-term causal impacts against baseline linear policies.

Academic and Research Landscape

Major Research Groups and Labs

The Strategic Innovation Lab (sLab) at in , , serves as a hub for systemic design research, emphasizing , , and systems-oriented methods, with contributions to tools like synthesis mapping for complex policy challenges. Founded in partnership with the Oslo School of Architecture and Design, sLab co-organizes the Relating Systems Thinking and Design (RSD) symposia and supports the Systemic Design Association's network of practitioners and scholars. At the Oslo School of Architecture and Design (AHO) and affiliated OsloMet in , the Systemic Design and research group, led by figures like Birger Sevaldson, applies to product, building, and for sustainability, developing approaches such as gigamapping to visualize relational structures in complex systems. This group originated key frameworks for designerly systems inquiry, influencing global systemic design discourse through empirical case studies in urban and environmental contexts. The Systemic Design Labs (SDL) at integrate , design methods, and transformative action, offering certificate programs and conducting hybrid research on systemic interventions for societal challenges like climate adaptation. SDL's activities emphasize experimental hubs linking in hybrid methodologies with practical didactics for teaching systemic design principles. The Systemic Design Lab at in the operates cross-departmentally to advance design's capacity for inducing systemic societal change, focusing on knowledge development through applied projects in and innovation ecosystems. Sys_Lab at Politecnico di Torino in specializes in systemic design tools for transitions and , producing methodologies tested in industrial and policy applications since its establishment as a dedicated research unit. The Systemic Design Lab within the Product Development research group at the in targets circular economy shifts and via systemic approaches to complex problem-solving, including professional masterclasses on applicable mindsets and practices.

Educational Programs and Curricula

Educational programs in systemic design emphasize graduate-level training that merges with design practices to tackle complex, interconnected problems in , policy, and innovation. These curricula often feature tools like system mapping, gigamaps, and interdisciplinary modeling to foster holistic problem-solving, drawing from foundational work in Relating Systems Thinking and Design (RSD) symposia. Programs prioritize practical application over traditional siloed design, incorporating empirical methods such as stakeholder workshops, data visualization, and of socio-technical systems. The Master's degree in Systemic Design at Politecnico di Torino, an international program, trains students in human-centered, multidisciplinary approaches to achieve zero-emission product systems and social equity through optimized flows of matter, energy, and information. Its curriculum integrates collaboration across production, economics, and human sciences, with partnerships including the Systemic Design Association and the Club of Rome to advance sustainable innovation. Similarly, the Executive Master's in Systems Oriented Design at the Oslo School of Architecture and Design (AHO) is a part-time, 90 ECTS program launched to equip professionals with interdisciplinary theories and practices for complex challenges, blending systemic thinking with design via intensive seminars and project-based modules. At in , systemic design is embedded in the in and , with core courses developed by professors Jeremy Bowes and Peter Jones focusing on synthesis mapping, gigamaps, and stakeholder-driven systemic services. These elements support foresight methodologies for societal innovation, as evidenced by graduate impacts on entities like Policy Horizons . Complementary short courses, such as OsloMet's Practice Oriented Systemic Design, introduce foundational methods including , dynamics, and visualization techniques like workshops and design probes, targeted at those with bachelor's-level experience in design or sustainability. ETH Zurich's Systemic Design Labs offer specialized courses like "Circular Product Design with Regenerative Materials" (2016–2019) and "Designing for Resilience" (2019), aimed at master's and PhD students, emphasizing regenerative strategies, circular economies, and alpine-urban systems through hands-on, interdisciplinary projects. These build on engineering and planning foundations to cultivate skills in resilient, interventions. Broader integration appears in programs like Carnegie Mellon University's PhD in Transition Design, which applies to sustainability transitions via research on equity and long-term societal shifts. Curricula across these institutions evolve through networks like the Systemic Design Association, prioritizing verifiable outcomes over ideological framing, though empirical evaluations of long-term practitioner efficacy remain limited.

Criticisms, Limitations, and Debates

Theoretical and Methodological Shortcomings

Systemic design's theoretical framework has been critiqued for its eclectic integration of and principles, which often fails to reconcile fundamental tensions between holistic and the iterative, artifact-oriented nature of design practice. This synthesis can perpetuate blind spots, such as an overemphasis on mapping complexity without advancing normative criteria for intervention, leading to irresolvable paradoxes in applying cybernetic models to creative processes. Critics argue that without a unified foundational , systemic design risks , borrowing tools like causal loop diagrams that remain anchored in present-state analysis rather than generative futures. Methodologically, systemic design relies heavily on qualitative and visual techniques, such as gigamapping and boundary critique, which excel in representing interconnections but obscure quantifiable and scalability. These approaches afford visibility into certain while obstructing empirical testing, as methods prioritize empathy and narrative over controlled experimentation or . A recurring shortcoming is the field's limited empirical validation, with frameworks often lacking rigorous standards for assessing outcomes in real-world applications, resulting in unverified claims of leverage for systemic change. As the discipline matures through symposia like RSD, internal reflections highlight risks of methodological simplification to gain broader adoption, potentially diluting second-order cybernetic rigor in favor of accessible but less probing tools. This can trap practitioners in extended ideation phases without tangible, measurable interventions, mirroring broader limitations in .

Practical Implementation Barriers and Empirical Gaps

Practical implementation of systemic design encounters significant barriers related to stakeholder coordination, including converging opinions, insufficient commitment, limited economic incentives, and the necessity to shift from competitive to collaborative paradigms. These challenges are compounded by biases and elements in and , which can undermine project reliability. Additionally, the approach demands substantial time and resources for managing multifaceted variables, often resulting in protracted timelines that deter organizational adoption. Scalability represents a core difficulty, as many systemic design frameworks remain largely academic or confined to educational settings with sparse translation to broader real-world applications. Transitioning from laboratory prototypes to systemic change is hindered by inadequate models for ensuring ownership across scales, constrained budgets, and the challenge of handing over self-sustaining tools to non-designer stakeholders. In practice, designers face obstacles in linking local experiments to national-level strategies, exacerbating difficulties in achieving widespread impact. Empirical gaps persist due to the field's nascent status, with most evidence derived from case studies rather than controlled or longitudinal investigations demonstrating causal outcomes. Research often overlooks consumer behavior dynamics and consumption patterns, prioritizing production-oriented models, while exhibiting a that marginalizes non-Western and indigenous perspectives. Further, there is a dearth of studies quantifying practitioner with systemic principles or tracing long-term effects on practices and systemic transformations. In educational contexts, implementation reveals additional hurdles, such as restricted stakeholder access and insufficient preparatory for tackling wicked problems, underscoring the need for more robust evaluative frameworks.

Broader Impact and Future Trajectories

Measurable Contributions and Causal Evidence

In applications of systemic design to public , a pilot program at the University of Toronto's procurement department yielded $1.5 million in savings during its first year of implementation, alongside an increase in user retention rates from 40% to 99%, through re-envisioning policy implementation and value creation via empathy-driven ideation and prototyping. These outcomes were linked to the systemic approach's emphasis on ecosystem mapping and stakeholder alignment, demonstrating causal improvements in efficiency and adoption over prior fragmented processes. In , systemic design facilitated the Government of Alberta's clean energy and natural resources group in developing an Integrated Resource Management System, resulting in the establishment of a dedicated systemic design team and for ongoing inter-departmental collaboration. While primarily qualitative, senior leadership feedback attributed enhanced strategic coherence to framing environmental and operational challenges holistically, enabling adaptive policy responses absent in siloed approaches. In sustainable digital services, systemic design workshops for France's Ministry of Culture's Audiodescription Platform and the Cartobio agricultural auditing tool led to feature retirement and redesigns that reduced demands and improved system responsiveness and , preempting environmental externalities like excess in digital infrastructure. Quantitative metrics for were integrated into roadmaps, though specific reductions remain project-specific and tied to iterative evaluation frameworks rather than longitudinal studies. Broader empirical evidence in domains like healthcare underscores systemic design's role in addressing design-stage determinants of , where up to 80% of environmental impacts are fixed early and 71% of sector emissions arise from supply chains; applications in , e-health, and training have shown system-level innovations via stakeholder mapping, but causal quantification often relies on mixed qualitative-quantitative evaluations rather than randomized controls. Overall, while case-specific metrics indicate gains and reduced , the field's relative novelty limits large-scale causal analyses, with contributions primarily evidenced through applied prototypes demonstrating leverage on dynamics. The integration of (AI) and computational tools represents a prominent emerging trend in systemic design, enabling more robust simulations of complex, dynamic systems. Researchers are exploring AI to enhance in emergent behaviors and optimize interventions in challenges, as evidenced by dedicated conferences like the Urban Eco-Systemic and (UES-EUS) 2025, which examines AI's role alongside for resilient urban transitions. Similarly, digital twins—virtual replicas of physical systems informed by complexity science—are being adapted to systemic design methodologies to test scenarios in real-time, improving causal modeling of interconnected variables without full-scale prototyping. These tools address limitations in traditional visualization techniques like gigamaps, allowing for scalable analysis of wicked problems in sectors such as supply chains and policy. Another trend involves deepened applications in and , where systemic design principles are applied to technological and co-design processes. For example, frameworks for systemic co-design, outlined in a 2024 guide by the Catalan Government, facilitate collaborative agenda-building across stakeholders for regional strategies, emphasizing iterative feedback loops over linear planning. In technological , systemic design offers methods to navigate rule-making in AI-driven ecosystems, prioritizing relational over siloed policies to mitigate unintended systemic risks. The Relating and Design (RSD) symposia, including RSD12 (2023) themed "Entangled in ," underscore this shift toward handling non-linear dynamics and stakeholder entanglements in public challenges. Potential evolutions point toward paradigm-level expansions, such as hybrid science-design heuristics that blend empirical with designerly for context-specific navigation of . The Systemic Design Association's adoption of a "scholars spiral"—a non-hierarchical, for advancing interdisciplinary since 2022—signals a move beyond static frameworks toward adaptive, community-driven evolution. Future trajectories may incorporate quantum-inspired thinking for change, as proposed in RSD sessions, to better capture and superposition in social-ecological systems. Additionally, -informed systemic policy design could scale to global transformations, integrating causal evidence from transitions research to prioritize leverage points for resilience amid accelerating environmental pressures. These developments hinge on empirical validation through peer-reviewed proceedings and labs like ETH Zurich's Systemic Design Labs, which refine methodologies for verifiable impact.

References

  1. https://openresearch.ocadu.ca/id/eprint/3233/1/Sevaldson_SystemicDesign_2019.pdf
  2. https://s3.amazonaws.com/arena-attachments/644316/6239b04c39351f8c713d4b168762f7aa.pdf
  3. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3348&context=drs-conference-papers
  4. https://openresearch.ocadu.ca/id/eprint/2083/1/Jones_SystemicDesignResearchMethods_2014.pdf
  5. https://journals.oslomet.no/formakademisk/article/download/787/1109
  6. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3281&context=drs-conference-papers
  7. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-4-431-55639-8
  8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284488565_A_Framework_for_Systemic_Design
  9. https://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings58th/article/download/2353/801
  10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872620300447
  11. https://research.tudelft.nl/files/235014343/Systemic_Design_Reasoning_for_Societal_Transitions.pdf
  12. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2024.2345866
  13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390595907_Systematic_Review_of_Systemic_Design_Frameworks_for_Complex_Challenges
  14. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280921326_Systemic_Design_Principles_for_Complex_Social_Systems
  15. https://qut.pressbooks.pub/systemcraft-systems-thinking/chapter/a-brief-history-of-systems-thinking/
  16. https://systemsthinkingalliance.org/brief-history-of-systems-thinking/
  17. https://web.mit.edu/esd.83/www/notebook/Cybernetics.PDF
  18. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282182445_Wiener%27s_Prefiguring_of_a_Cybernetic_Design_Theory
  19. https://www.dubberly.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/ddo_article_systemsdesign.pdf
  20. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262691918/the-sciences-of-the-artificial/
  21. https://www.sympoetic.net/Managing_Complexity/complexity_files/1973%2520Rittel%2520and%2520Webber%2520Wicked%2520Problems.pdf
  22. https://systemsorienteddesign.net/
  23. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Birger-Sevaldson
  24. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1223&context=learnxdesign
  25. https://slab.ocadu.ca/
  26. https://slab.ocadu.ca/people/peter-jones
  27. https://openresearch.ocadu.ca/id/eprint/382/1/Jones_DesignResearchMethods_RSD3_2014.pdf
  28. https://systemic-design.org/
  29. https://rsdsymposium.org/
  30. https://rsdsymposium.org/inaugural-rsd1-2012/
  31. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289551227_Design_research_methods_for_systemic_design_Perspectives_from_design_education_and_practice
  32. https://slab.ocadu.ca/group/systemic-design-association
  33. https://rsdsymposium.org/systemic-design-association/
  34. https://systemic-design.org/focus/practice/
  35. https://www.amazon.com/Designing-Complexity-Methodology-Practice-Oriented/dp/1863352619
  36. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-resources/systemic-design-framework/
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0007850612000649
  38. https://i2insights.org/2022/11/01/abductive-reasoning-for-complexity/
  39. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872618300790
  40. https://research.tudelft.nl/en/publications/systemic-design-reasoning-for-societal-transitions
  41. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2024/researchpapers/146/
  42. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344730090_An_Interdiscipline_Emerges_Pathways_to_Systemic_Design
  43. https://systemsorienteddesign.net/what-is-gigamapping/
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872617301028
  45. https://www.systemicdesignguide.com/tools
  46. https://systemsorienteddesign.net/index.php/tools/types-of-systemic-relations
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0951832015000794
  48. https://rsdsymposium.org/systems-thinking-evaluation-learning-and-sustainability-in-community-transformation/
  49. https://systemic-design.org/practice/rsd-symposia/
  50. https://systemic-design.org/rsd-proceedings/proceedings-of-rsd12/
  51. https://systemic-design.org/rsd-proceedings/rsd7-proceedings-editorial-2/
  52. https://www.designresearchsociety.org/events/the-relating-systems-thinking-and-design-10-symposium
  53. https://www.facebook.com/RSDsymposium/
  54. https://no.linkedin.com/company/systemic-design-association
  55. https://systemic-design.org/publishing/systemic-design-literature/
  56. https://www.systemicdesigntoolkit.org/about
  57. https://www.thuas.com/about-thuas/news/systemic-design-expertise-network-starts-its-first-research-projects
  58. https://www.uantwerpen.be/en/research-groups/product-development/research/systemic-design/
  59. https://ifsr.org/systemic-design-association
  60. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/16/4458
  61. http://openresearch.ocadu.ca/id/eprint/2043/1/Barbero_Systemic_Design_2015.pdf
  62. http://www.aesoptorino2015.it/content/download/494/2585/version/1/file/49_T5B_666_barbero_A.pdf
  63. https://www.ijee.ie/articles/Vol26-2/10_Ijee2260.pdf
  64. https://rsdsymposium.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/RSD11_paper_79-1.pdf
  65. https://systemic-design.org/sdc_download/48346/?key=067b793y4f4ygh8rwfgesgfwxhymo6
  66. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357450577_An_Empirical_Study_of_the_Impact_of_Systems_Thinking_and_Simulation_on_Sustainability_Education
  67. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/13/10202
  68. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240587262100037X
  69. https://publicpolicydesign.blog.gov.uk/2023/09/08/systems-thinking-for-policymaking/
  70. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/11/4494
  71. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/systems-thinking-for-civil-servants/case-studies
  72. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2021.1887576
  73. https://anzsog.edu.au/research-insights-and-resources/research/systemic-design-practice-for-participatory-policymaking/
  74. https://rsdsymposium.org/policy-design-for-system-health/
  75. https://www.oslomet.no/en/research/research-groups/systemic-design-and-sustainability
  76. https://rsdsymposium.org/sys-lab/
  77. https://systemicdesignlabs.ethz.ch/
  78. https://systemicdesignlabs.ethz.ch/our-research/
  79. https://delftdesignlabs.org/systemic-design-lab/
  80. https://systemic-design.org/theory/education/
  81. https://www.polito.it/en/education/master-s-degree-programmes/systemic-design
  82. https://www.aho.no/english/studies/programmes/executive-master-of-systems-oriented-design/
  83. https://www.oslomet.no/en/study/tkd/practice-oriented-systemic-design2
  84. https://systemicdesignlabs.ethz.ch/courses-and-programs/
  85. https://journals.oslomet.no/index.php/formakademisk/article/view/1237/1098
  86. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872618301370
  87. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/whats-wrong-systems-thinking-tony-golsby-smith
  88. https://themultidisciplinarian.com/2012/03/25/the-systems-thinking-wars/
  89. https://rsdsymposium.org/systemic-design-methods/
  90. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X23000455
  91. https://research.brighton.ac.uk/files/39969947/RSD11_Sweeting_Sutherland_Possibilities.pdf
  92. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370602363_Possibilities_and_Practices_of_Systemic_Design_Questions_for_the_next_decade_of_Relating_Systems_Thinking_and_Design
  93. https://www.ideou.com/blogs/inspiration/differences-between-systems-thinking-and-design-thinking
  94. https://rsdsymposium.org/scaling-up-from-labs-to-systemic-change/
  95. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/8075
  96. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287698653_Systemic_Design_Two_Canadian_Case_Studies
  97. https://climateproductleaders.org/playbook/case-study-ethical-designers
  98. https://deshealth.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/State-of-Knowledge-on-Systemic-Design-for-Sustainable-Healthcare.pdf
  99. https://systemic-design.info/category/announcements/
  100. https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/3/11/pgae456/7877185
  101. https://learningforsustainability.net/systemic-design/
  102. https://openresearch.ocadu.ca/id/eprint/4539/1/Wong_Tech_2022.pdf
  103. https://rsdsymposium.org/rsd12/
  104. https://rsdsymposium.org/expanded-direction-for-systemic-design/
  105. https://rsdsymposium.org/systems-design-methodology-new-practice/
  106. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14719037.2025.2564747
  107. https://systemicdesignlabs.ethz.ch/advancing-systemic-design-metodology/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.