SYNERGIES BETWEEN DESIGN THINKING AND

SYSTEMS THINKING
FABIAN SZULANSKI
System Dynamics Centre Director
Instituto Tecnológico de Buenos Aires
fabiansz@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT:
When tackling the understanding and the design of a possible solution for a type of
complex issue that authors call “wicked problems” – which could never be definitely
defined nor absolutely solved, resulting very elusive to decision makers-, a way of thinking
and doing called Design Thinking –thinking and doing as a designer would- has proven
being very useful. Design Thinking also incorporates Integrative Thinking, which enables
taking into account features from two opposed theories when designing a solution.
In the present work, the author will propose and explain the rationale of incorporating
Systems Thinking to the Design Thinking process, leveraging it,
empowering decision makers while facing a problem of this kind.
Apart from that, the author will comment about how Systems Thinking would be enriched
if Design Thinking, a state of the art methodological
and praxeological framework was integrated to it.

KEY WORDS: Methodology. Systems Thinking. Design Thinking. Wicked Problems. Complexity.

SYNERGIES BETWEEN DESIGN
THINKING AND SYSTEMS
THINKING
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
Being that the so called wicked problems are
more frequent than ever, some hybrid thinking
forms are assumed to be of help. Among others,
Design Thinking and Integrative Thinking.
There are some aspects of systems thinking that
are just not enough for tackling this type of
challenges. Thus the author considers necessary
going on generating academic pieces of work that
tend to lay a methodological bridge between
systems thinking and other methodologies,
illustrating how those could nurture each other.
Also this facilitates the diffusion of systems
thinking in more traditional or diverse academic
and professional practice forums and the eventual
publication in more traditional media, with a
broader scope and reach than system dynamics or
systems thinking.
This paper will explore the mutual contributions
the aforementioned methodologies could offer to
each other.
1.2 How this work will be structured
The author will focus on the description of what
constitutes a wicked problem. Then he will
introduce Design Thinking (which includes
Integrative thinking, stressign the similarities and
de differences compared with systems thinking.
Then he will synthesize how the methodological
synergy would be structured
1.3 Background
In a work about approaching wicked problems in
healthcare with design thinking [7], one could
observe there is depicted a systems thinking look-
a-like diagram. In spite of that, it’s not frequent to
find publications at the organization level of
aggregation that explicitly integrate design and
dynamic-systemic thinking in a synergic way.
2. WICKED PROBLEMS
These types of problems are more frequent when
activities have socio-economic-environmental
impacts. They are very elusive to be tackled even
to be defined and precisely formulated and
structured. .
.
2.1 Examples
Design of a new communication device
Mitigate carbon footprint sustainably
Balance food production with food availability.
Position and lay a new oil pipeline
Define a national budget spending policy.
How to harmonize different political systems,
which are nurtured by opposed ideological
principles.
All these examples demand participation of
people with very diverse backgrounds, who in
turn bring very diverse perspectives to the table.
This is just one of the various causes for these
challenges to be so difficult to tackle.
2.2 Characteristics of wicked problems
Rittel and Webber [1] present ten main
characteristics of this type of problem. The author
will make some comments about each of them
“1. There is no definite formulation of a wicked
problem”.
This blocks the possibility of a unique and stable
underlying causal structure, making the use of
‘pure’ systems thinking tools very difficult.
“2. There are no finalization rules for intervention
in wicked problems”. .
There is no solution, in the classic sense, for a
wicked problem. The gap between desired and
real state is permanent and emergent.
“3. Solutions of a wicked problema don’t look
like “we made it”, but “we’ve reached to a better
situation than it was before we intervened”
And apart from that, they depend on the context
and the perspectives of the different incumbents.
“4. There are no proofs, immediate or not, that
one could find a specific solution for a wicked
problem”
This is because each intervention will reverberate
in intended and unintended consequences that will
evolve over time, not allowing to individually
assess a specific initiative’s effectiveness
“5. Each solution to a wicked problem is a unique
operation. There is no way of learning from trial
and error.”
As the problem space changes after the solution is
created and executed, there is no way of
performing trial and error attempts.
“6. There is not a group of potential solutions for
a wicked problem, nor a specific toolbox that can
be planned in advance”
When tackling a wicked problems, solutions and
tools are frequently incorporated in real time, with
no previous planning. while designing the solution
space.
“7. Each wicked problem is essentially unique”.
Because it depends on the context and on the
incumbents’ perspectives, which frequently
change over time.
“8. Each wicked problem can be considered as the
symptom of other wicked problem.”
It’s highly probable that in a certain domain, and
faced to the fact that there aren’t complete
solutions, wicked problems generate and are
succeeded by other wicked problems over time.
“9. A wicked problem’s causes could be explained
in multiple ways. Choosing a certain explanation
determines the nature of the problem resolution.”
What is difficult is finding a unique and stable
causal explanation, what makes an exhaustive
causal analysis almost impossible to execute.
“10. In wicked problems, who tackles it has no
right to be wrong.”
In scientific analysis, an hypothesis could prove to
be right or wrong. As the incumbents aim to
improve the situation, there is no right or wrong,
but accountability and ownership of being the
solution designers.
3. DESIGN THINKING [2]
3.1 Definition and steps
Design Thinking proposes integrating the way of
thinking of a designer when organizations tackle
complex business decisions and issues.
This way of thinking pursues the search of a
certain mystery or puzzle to solve. Then the
incumbent selects a certain procedure or
heuristics. Consequently, it makes the heuristic
systematic through creating an algorithm, making
this heuristics available for similar problems. And
eventually this algorithm ends embedded in a
software. See Figure 1 of the Annex.
Not all these phases will be positively applied
when dealing with a wicked problem, but the
author has almost quoted the general definition of
Design Thinking.
3.2 Integrative Thinking
Design Thinking implies embracing and utilizing
Integrative Thinking, which discards the ‘this or
that’ option, aiming to reach a creative solution of
the ‘this and that’ kind.
3.2.1 Integrative Thinking Steps [3]
Salience
Is to appreciate a larger quantity of attributes
when observing a wicked problem, compared to
the quantity we’re used to observe when framed in
analytic thinking.
Causality
Causality between variables is considered to be
multidirectional and nonlinear. The author will
make the case that Systems thinking could be of
help because of this reason.
Sequence
Work is done within each subsystem without
leaving out of sight the whole system.
Resolution
What is sought is a creative solution to the
generated tensión between contradicting and
opposed options. And is privileged when
compared to OR.
Figure 2 of the Annex illustrates this process, and
how Systems Thinking could contribute to its
fulfillment.
4. CONTRAST BETWEEN DESIGN
THINKING AND SYSTEMS THINKING
Figure 3 of Annex shows a mind map with a
contrast between the main attributes of both ways
of thinking. It’s the author’s opinion that both
types of thinking complement and could synergize
each other.
5. WHAT DESIGN THINKING
ADDS TO SYSTEMS THINKING
Design Thinking can add an interesting value
added when tackling wicked problems, where
systems thinking alone may be significantly
handicapped.
As design thinking focuses initially in the solution
space, systems thinking might take that input and
use it as material for structuring the solution
space, and so back casting as well, defining which
structures should be set before designing a
systems thinking, structure changing intervention.
Back casting (as opposed to forecasting) is a way
of thinking where one starts with the desired state
in mind, and then determine what should be made
in the present in order to achieve that goal. It is
similar to the concept of Idealized Design [5],
devised by Russell Ackoff.
Design Thinking will serve as an anchor for
defining the solution space, allowing systems
thinking to work more fluently afterwards.
For more details, see Figure 4
6. WHAT SYSTEMS THINKING GIVES TO
DESIGN THINKING
See Figure 5 of the Annex.
7 CONCLUSIONS

Innovation by domain intersection has been
explored by Johansson [4]
Concept Blending has been explored by
Fauconnier & Turner [7]
The autor has introduced in this paper another
intersection and blending of concepts and
frameworks. This allows the design powerful
interventions when facing very difficult situations
which are very difficult to tackle with a single
way of thinking.
Through Systems Thinking, Design and
Integrative thinking find a way of practically
visualize causality and work in the problem space.
Through Design and Integrative thinking, Systems
thinking find its way to collaborate helping
mitigate wicked problems.
8 FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES
Tackle real cases through this blended, hybrid
methodology.
Going on exploring where Systems Thinking
could add more value, by integrating it to other
methodologies and frames of thinking.
[5] Ackoff, R.(2006). Idealizad Design: How to
dissolve tomorrow’s crisis… Today. Wharton
School Publishing, PA. USA
[6] Fauconnier G, Turner, M (1998): Conceptual
Integration Networks. Cognitive Science Vol
22(2) 1998, pp. 133-187. USA Retrieved online
from http://markturner.org/cinLEA.pdf
[7] Fraser. H. (2010) Tackling Wicked Healthcare
Problems. Rotman Design Works. Rotman School
of Business, University of Toronto.
Retrieved from
http://www.rotmandesignworks.ca/Wicked_Probl
ems.pdf
10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank the continuous support I get from Instituto
Tecnológico de Buenos Aires.
11 CURRICULUM
Fabián Szulanski is the System Dynamics
Director, Instituto Tecnológico de Buenos Aires.

9 REFERENCES

[1] Rittel, H., and Webber, M. (1973).

“Dilemmas in a General Theory of
Planning”. Policy Sciences, Vol. 4,
pp 155-169. Elsevier Scientific
Publishing Company, Inc: Amsterdam.

[2] Martin, R. (2009) The design of business.

Why design thinking is the next competitive
advantage. Harvard Business Press. Boston, MA.
USA.

[3] Martin, R. (2009) The opposable mind.

Winning through integrative thinking. Harvard
Business Press. Boston, MA. USA. Softcover
version.

[4] Johansson, F. (2004). The Medici Effect:

Breakthrough Insights at the Intersection of Ideas,
Concepts, and Cultures. Harvard Business Press.
Boston, MA. USA.
ANNEX

Figure 1

Knowledge Funnel in Design Thinking

Starting with a fuzzy, ambiguous, uncertain reality, we

make the attempt of defining what the mystery to solve
is.

Then we will have to device different procedures, ways

of thinking and tools that could help us the mystery
resolution and add clarity to it.

When we reach to different potential solutions, we

could start making systematic the tackling of future
mysteries, in precise and specific ways, called
algorithms.

Systems thinking can add value to these phases,

especially in Heuristics, enriching it with tools
such as systems archetypes, causal diagrams,
among others; and in algorithms, when specifying
causal diagrams, making them become simulation
models, which could serve to test the different
causal prototypes suggested in the previous phase.
Figure 2
Systems thinking adds value to the
Integrative thinking process.

Thinking systemically is of great

help when considering situations
with opposing tensions,
apparently impossible to coexist.

w,
d ’ s e ye vie
r
d a bi nking,
e t ai l ed an s th i
Ad y S ys t em
b .
fueled this phase
a g e
lever

ws t o
i n g allo
hi n k a nd
Systems Thinking allows to ms T tional se.
Syste lti d ir e c
ea
expand our ‘radar’ because it re mu sality with
captu c au
helps us anticipate unintended n ear
nonli
consequences in other
subsystems.
Figure 3
Contrast between Design thinking and
Systems thinking

Figure 4
Design Thinking as trigger for Systems
thinking value added
Figura 5
Design thinking personal knowledge
system, enriched by Systems thinking