Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.Contents .

.

.

.

.List of Figures .

.

.4

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Abstract Methods

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[2]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

1. Introduction 2. Background 3. Forming systemic perspectives 4. Design that projects 5. A new systems-based design paradigm 6. Discussion 7. Conclusion

References

5 5

6 6 12 26 35 55 58

60

the submission for the degree of Master .This text represents . . . of Arts at the Royal Danish Academy. .

This copy has been supplied for the purpose of research for private study, on the understanding that it is copyright material, and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper citation.

.

.

.© 2022 Hildward . JJ Werleman .

.

.

.

.

.

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

[3] Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Char. Count: 106.122 (Excl. abstract/methods)

A special thanks goes to my supervisor Dag Petersson for his attetion and guidance.

Thank you Stefan and Ellie for all your support.

.

.

Institute of Architecture & Design Strategic Design & Entrepreneurship Supervisor: Dag Petersson

. .

.List of .Figures

.

.

.Figure 1 .Traditional Design . vs Critical Design .

10

.

Figure 2 Steps in the Systems Thinking Method . . . .

13

.

Figure 3

The Problem-solving Process as a Casual Loop

14

Figure 4

Traditional Thinking vs Systems Thinking

15

.

. .

.

.

.Figure 5 .The Holistic Thinking . Perspectives .

18

.Figure 6 .The Big Picture Perspective . .

19

.Figure 7 .Factors Thinking.vs Operational Thinking .

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

. .

Figure 8

The Continuum of Solutions

21

.

Figure 9

Software Project Outcomes Diagram

25

Figure 10 The AB Manifesto

29

.

.

.

.

.Figure 11 .The Scenario Matrix . .

[4]

20

.

. . . . .

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

31

.

.Figure 12 .The Cone of Futures . .

32

.

.

33

.

Figure 14 The Pillow 33

.

Figure 13 Destruction of Lassù Chair

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Figure 15 The Audio Tooth Implant by James Auger

.Figure 16 .The Alternet by .Sara Gold .

34 35

.

.Figure 17 .Centring Design.Diagram .

36

.

extra systemically .Figure 18 .The process of designing . .

44

.

Figure 19 The Cause and Effect Chart

47

Figure 20 The Decryption of Systems Diagram

48

.

.

.

.

.

.Figure 21 .The Modular Systemic . Model . .Figure 22 .The First Level Extra . Systemic Model . .Figure 23 .The Second Level. Extra Systemic Model . .

.

.

.

49 51 52

. . .

53

.

Figure 25 Phoneblocks 56

.

Figure 24 The Third Level Extra Systemic Model

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Figure 26 The Handmaid’s Tale

57

.

.Abstract . .

.“The

.

.

.

.

.

.

problems that we currently face have been stubbornly resistant to solutions,

particularly unilateral solutions.” (Richmond, 1993) Systemic defects, as defined in this dissertation,

.typify these. problems that .characteristically refuse to .be assimilated into existing paradigms. This. explores the synergies between systemics and design. By combining Systems Thinking’s .dissertation . . . . scientific approach with Speculative Design’s futuring agency a new way of tackling these systemic

.defects is established. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.As

an alternative to normative design approaches, a new edifice of concepts and

presuppositions is constructed to introduce Extra Systemic Design as a new practice within the pluralist

design. .field of systems-oriented . . Methods used in Speculative . Design, from Anthony Dunne and Fiona.

Raby’s viewpoint, in combination with frameworks found in Systems Thinking, from Barry Richmond

.and Joseph. Kasser’s viewpoint, . are integrated in an attempt . to advance the role the designer could. play in facing the systemic challenges of today.

.

.

.

.

.

The primary hypothesis of the dissertation argues that countering the scientification of

.methods-oriented . . the reflexive tendencies in. Speculative Design may lead to a new way. design and

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[5]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

of informing speculation. This process of centring design typifies Extra Systemic Design as a practice

.unconstricted . by today’s systemic . limitations.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Methods

This paper engages in theoretical development through concept analysis and theory

Therefore. the predominant method . in this dissertation is analytical reading. The. .supplementation. . compatibility of systems of thought and principles of design are assessed by mapping out the fields

.of Systems. Theory and Critical . Design to understand.the historical, practical and applied origins. of Systems Thinking and Speculative Desing. Subsequently, both domains are broken down into

.their elemental . parts (tenets. and methods) to detect and . learn from similarities, points of friction. and potential openings in the two fields, which led to a series of hypotheses arguing for theoretical

.supplementation . in both fields. . .

.

.

.The process behind . this dissertation is characterised . by a wide cone that gradually.

.themes and. patterns across.diverse concepts, frameworks . and approaches are related to overarching. narrows, remaining open to new literature to the very end. By opting for a generalist perspective,

.presuppositions . stemming from . the fields of science and. foresight discipline, which are purposely let. to critically engage with another in a balance between pragmatism and imagination.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.1.

.

.introduction . .have

.

.

.

.

.

.

In the course of the last century, the impacts of the systems that we have built as a species . . . . become increasingly evident. “The negative dimension and consequences of design have

.had a profound . worldly impact.” . (Fry, Dilnot & Stewart,.2015) Our society is at the brink of collapse.

(Herrington, 2020). With the rapid increase of existential challenges, we risk a colossal disfiguration

of the .and total disintegration . . weakening systems and.infrastructures that determine everyday life..

We need to “recognise that unless we make a very large shift at the systemic level, the fallouts will be

.massive. The . more we increase . our thinking in scales and. systems, the bigger our influence over time”,. said Banny Banerjee, director and co-founder of Stanford Changelabs. Since the mid 20th century,

.there has been . an increasing. need for a body “of systemic. theoretical constructs which [discusses] the. relationships of the empirical world,” which has been the ultimate “quest of General Systems .general . . . .

Theory.” (Boulding, 1956) Increasing enthusiasm in the pluralist field of systems-oriented design has and design with the aim to fulfil this essential aim. The field of .seen mergers . between systemics . . . systemics has “something very powerful to offer to our increasingly troubled world. We can offer a way

.of thinking,. doing, and being. that can help the planet’s .citizenry to achieve a much saner day-to-day. existence as well as a more promising longer-term future.” (Richmond, 1994)

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

.

.

.

.

Equivalently, Design has had much more significant historical agency than has been

and propositions, designers occupy a. .realized. (Fry, . et al., 2015) As. “creators of models, prototypes, . dialectical space between the world that is and the world that could be.” Thus, designers “whose grasp

.of the future. will continue to. determine how we live in the . present,” are to some degree implicated in. the future that we are facing. (Margolin, 2007) “The designer’s ultimate responsibility can only be to

.contribute .to the production.of a habitable world.” (Dunne, . 2006) .

.

.Paradoxically, “designers . . class could be inordinately powerful, and. united as a professional

yet their voices in the various fora where social policies and plans are discussed and debated are rarely

.present.” (Margolin, . . . .

2007) In an attempt to advance this essential role that designers could play in .addressing.today’s challenges, . this paper introduces the.Extra Systemic Design practice by combining.

Systems Thinking with Speculative Design in response to a growing cautionary omen. The aim is to

.pave the way . toward a future . led by forward-thinkers that . are willing to accept the implications of. innovation, a path that could “be considered dangerous, at least to the status quo” (McDonald, 2016).

.In the 1930s,. French entomologist . August Magnan noted.the bumblebee’s inability to fly. An assertion.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[6]

that was later on rebuked. Clearly bumblebees can fly despite their physics-defying aerodynamics.

.Could we as. the human species . also defy our limits to shape . a future that increasingly is imaged to be. .

impossible?

.

.

.

.

.2.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.Background .

Before probing into a new systems-based design paradigm, it is necessary to introduce and

.define the supporting . . and domains of theory. This . chapter is dedicated to such. subjects

.

.

.

.

.

.

.2.

.1.

.

.

.

.Systems .

.

.

.

.

.“Many who speak about systems . is uneasy with ‘system’.” (Jordan, 1968).

.

.person saying it and . the recipient. The context.in which ‘system’ is conveyed also plays a role.

.

.tracking system,.while an astronomer may refer . to a planetary system. Biologist Ludwig.

.

.1940s, developed. and characterised a unified. framework to describe systems as entities.

.

.and interact with. their environments.” (Von. Bertalanffy, 1956) In the abstract, a system.

.

.is perceived when. several elements interact.with one another with a distinct purpose to.

.

.parts; just like one. plus one is two, one cannot. be two by itself. A system by definition is: .

.

.

.

.form an integral .whole, and to function, operate . or move in unison and, often, in obedience.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[7]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

The word ‘system’ can express different meanings and connotations depending on the

in perceiving and understanding it. For instance, an economist may refer to an investment

von Bertalanffy arguably one of the first to explore and define the notion of ‘system’ in the

that “have inputs and outputs, […] a complex of interacting elements that are open to,

become something more than what they are by themselves. A system is a conjuncture of

.“An aggregation or assemblage . of objects united by some form of regular.

interaction or interdependence; a group of diverse units so combined by nature or art as to

to some form of control; an organic or organised whole.“ (Webster’s New International

.

.Dictionary, 1959).

.

.

.

.

.To identify systems, we look.to nature, science, society, economic contexts,.

and information systems. “The smallest system is a single unicellular organism; the largest

.

.one is represented . by the universe.” (Mele, Pels, . & Polese, 2010) Unknowingly, we interact.

.

with and within countless systems every day. In the way we tell time, we either use the

.analogue 12-hour. system or the 24-hour digital . system. Drinking water comes from a.

.

water supply system. Connecting to the internet relies on an intricate network .complex . . . system. Inside our bodies, infection triggers our immune systems. When one can pinpoint

.

.or explain a set of. elements and how they interact, . one can perceive/conceive the set as an.

.

.

.

.

.

.2.

.2.

.

.

.

.

.

.Systems

.

.

.

method. Systems Theory is a theoretical perspective. It asserts .general model building . . .

.

.of the system but. also adopt a global perspective . to underline its functioning. Therefore,.

entity, a system. (Mele et al., 2010)

Systems Theory

Theory has been developing since mid 20th century as a

that to understand an entity, a system, one must not only identify the elementary parts

understanding a system’s mechanisms relies on comprehending the interdependencies

.

.and interrelationships . between its components . besides opting for a global perspective. This.

.

approach suggests a dialogue between Aristotle’s holism; the conviction that knowledge

.is derived from .understanding the whole, and . Galileo’s reductionism; a belief that the.

.

.complex whole can . be easily explained through . its minimal parts. (Mele et al., 2010)

.

.

.

.

.Theory

.

(Boulding, 1956), such as; managerial sciences, ecological sciences, chemical/ .sciences . . . biological disciplines, sociology, psychology, and information technology. On one hand,

.

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

[8]

from the analytical and mechanical archetype that characterises classical sciences. Systems

.

.

.

developed in response to increasing interdisciplinary enthusiasm in modern

.Systems Theory .“aims to point out similarities . in the theoretical constructions of different. disciplines, where these exist, and to develop theoretical models having applicability to at

.

.least two different . fields of study.” On the other . hand, Systems Theory “hopes to develop.

.

.function of a ‘gestalt’ . . in theoretical construction.”

(Boulding, 1956) These approaches.

.

.therefore, an interdisciplinary . . . theory about every system in nature, society, and in many

.

domains, as well as a framework with which phenomena can be investigated .scientific . . . from a holistic approach. (Mele et al., 2010) Because systems theories co-exist across various

.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.Von Bertalanffy introduced.‘system’ as a new scientific object diverging.

something like a ‘spectrum’ of theories — a system of systems which may perform the

reveal and direct research toward gaps of knowledge in various fields. Systems Theory is,

.fields and disciplines, . they sometimes conflict.with one another. This is why it is essential to. be explicit about the context in which systems theories are conveyed and applied.

.

.

.

.Understanding the . interactions between a system’s . components reveals that the behaviour.

.

if a car is seen as a .system, its functioning depends on countless. .interaction. For instance, .

.

.is another core tenet . of Systems Theory. This. is a way of perceiving, understanding and.

.

.exchange energy,. matter, people and information . with their environment. Closed systems.

.

exchange energy with their environment. In isolated systems, there is no exchange of .only . . . elements. In reality, there are no truly isolated systems; the idea of one reflects a theoretical

.

.

.

.

One of Systems Theory’s cornerstones is its focus on interaction.

of an isolated component is different from the behaviour of the collective components in

interactions between its parts. The distinctions between open, closed and isolated systems categorising different types of systems. Open systems have external interactions; they

.ideal attempting. to isolate endless factors of. real life with the aim to “limit them into a. manageable range.” (Weinberg, 1975) Besides understanding systems as coherent wholes,

.

their boundaries .perceiving and understanding . . is also important. Being aware of this when.

.

analysing systems helps to distinguish internal and external elements of the system, which

.reveal input and. output throughput relating. to and deriving from the system. (Cabrera,.

.

.

.

.distinction between . open, closed and isolated . systems, other key concepts of Systems.

.

.feedback loops, .a system’s ability to actively. improve itself through subsystems analysis.

.

and 3) a systems’ ability to influence another system through .and reciprocal transactions; . . .

.

.Systems Theory .in chapter 3.0; Forming Systemic . Perspectives.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

2006)

.

.

.

Besides interaction, boundaries, interdependency, coherency, and the

Theory are; 1) adaptation and emergence, a system’s ability to adapt and evolve; 2)

cyclical interactions with one another. We will dive deeper into these concepts and applied

.2.

.3.

.

.

.

.Literature on Critical Design . practices tend to lean toward examples.

.

a term introduced in this context, is. .Raby’s work in .the late 1900s. But Critical Design, .

.

.product and industrial . design history. Radical. Design, Anti-Design, and Conceptual Design.

.

.1960s and the technological . . shift from the mechanical to the digital. These design practices.

.

.practice. (Malpass, . 2017)

.

.

.

.consumer society.. This provocative design culture . associated with Critical Design practices.

.

.emerged from this . period in Italian design history . and further expanded through the works.

.

was increasing dissatisfaction with. .2017) One of the.drivers behind this design movement .

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[9]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

.Critical Design .

.

.

.

.

associated with the Royal College of Art (RCA) in London and Anthony Dunne’s and Fiona

relatively new. Design practices of a critical nature have been a part of a diverse trajectory in are examples of design domains that arose as a response to the political turmoil of the

are widely seen as antecedents of the current popular understanding of Critical Design

.

.

.During Italy’s Bel Design era . (1956-1970), product designers sought to.

disassociate themselves from commerciality to inspire critical discourse in capitalist

of New German designers and the Droog design collective in The Netherlands. (Malpass, the designer’s role merely in serving production and consumption. During the 1980s, many

.

.of the objects and. images of this design movement . ended up on display in high design/art.

.

.2006) This setback. to the field of what we now . know as Critical Design might explain why.

.

.history of Critical.Design made way for the formation . . of the core tenets of the practice.

.

.

.

that uses design as critique. In its contemporary popular understanding, Critical .practice . . .

Design has the universal aim to challenge the current state of things, especially modernity

.

.in industrial design . and conventional production . and consumption. (Dunne & Raby, 2013).

.

.beyond

galleries; arguably, the ‘critical’ in Critical Design was considerably diluted by this. (Julier, most of its history is omitted from the majority of its literature. Nonetheless, this ‘forgotten’

.For Dunne and Raby, Critical . Design is a valuable term to indicate a.

As a practice, Critical Design focuses on expanding “design methods, tactics, and strategies

.

.

.

generating consumer products.” (Malpass, 2017) In doing so, Critical Design

critiques orthodoxy by presenting and defining interrogative, discursive, and experimental

.

.approaches in design . practice to subvert ordinary . conditions; more specifically,“the doctrine.

.

.industrial design.. Critical Design practitioners. defy general design theory and mainstream.

.

.design’s disciplinary . foundation.” (Malpass, 2017) .

.

.

.

through the design of objects and the communication of an object’s narrative .established . . . of use.” (Malpass, 2017) Therefore for Critical Design objects to remain ‘critical’, they must

.

‘almost-product’ design prototypes. This encourages the viewer/ .be asserted as tangible . . .

.

.in discourse and.criticism around the objects. and their contexts. (Auger, 2013) There are.

of practical functionalism, optimisation, efficiency, and commercial orientation” that inhibit

.

design methods with the “aim to develop a critical tradition that contributes to product

.Critical Design proposals “act. as a form of critique and argument that is.

user to consider the objects in an everyday context of use, allowing critical engagement

.

.growing concerns. that Critical Design as a field . risks being rendered obsolete if its objects.

.

.is because the objects . and images would then . be separated from everyday concerns and.

.

of use. This growing challenge to the field of Critical Design will be further explored .contexts . . . in chapter 4.0; Design That Projects.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[ 10 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

and images are mainly perceived as art or entertainment. (Mazé & Redström, 2009) This

.

.A fundamental understanding . of Critical Design sees its functions as a.

.

indicating that the practice is not objective or explanatory but .form of design research, . . .

.

.carefully crafted .questions to encourage debate, . not provide answers or create solutions.”.

instead focuses on intersubjectivity and proposition. (Malpass, 2017) The goal “is to raise (Johannessen, Keitsch & Pettersen, 2019) Critical Design is not a specific methodology

.

.but rather a position . the designer takes (Dunne . & Raby, 2013), typified by the dichotomy.

.

between mainstream design and Critical Design is essential to delineate the critical

.designer’s position. . (Fig. 1)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. Figure 1

.

.

.

.

.

Comparison between mainstream design and Critical Design (Johannessen et al., 2019)

.

.

.

.

.

Design, three distinct steps in universal Critical Design practice can be discerned. .Critical . . .

(Johannessen et al., 2019) Firstly, the critical designer must define a context to put into social

.

.

.Although Dunne and Raby suggest . no unique methodology for conducting.

.debate; a question . they want to raise to inspire . discourse. (Dunne & Raby, 2013) Secondly,. the critical designer must ideate using a series of ‘what if?’ questions to find problems. By

.

.defining problems, . the critical designers can. then construct scenarios of two types; the.

.

design of alternative presents or the speculation about possible futures. (Mitrovic, 2015)

.Thirdly, the critical. designer materialises the scenario . as narratives, objects, or both. (Auger,.

.

.by these proposals. . Because “whereas traditional . design often strives to make messages as.

.

.clear as possible.to enable users to think less,. [Critical Design] practice attempts to do the.

2013) This materialisation aims to provoke audience engagement with the problems raised

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 11 ] Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

.opposite.” (Johannessen . . et al., 2019) Critical Design and, subsequently, Speculative Design.

.

.

will be explored further in chapter 4.0; Design that projects.

.

.

.

.2.

.4.

.

.

.

.

.Systemics.& design

.

.

.

.Yet, most previous . attempts to integrate systemics . in design failed to reach widespread.

.

.put on equal integration . . . of the fields’ approaches. Like Christopher Alexander’s (1964) early

.

.work on systems,. initial attempts were mainly . one-way; it saw Systems Theory as the.

.

.attempts to merge . systemics with design,“the. designer was implicitly asked to forget his or.

.

.(Sevaldson, 2017).. Therefore, systems approaches . clashed with the already embedded and.

.

integrated processes and concepts of art and design. This made that art and science were

.seen as polar opposites, . . similarities, especially in the formulating of. overshadowing their

.

.diluted through the . unequal and invasive insertion . of systemics into design, which proved.

.

.counterproductive. . (Maeda, 2013)

.

.was one of the earliest . . . publications relating Systems Theory to the empirical world. He

.

.saw Systems Theory . as an inquisitive practice . that facilitated the understanding of the.

.

world which may ultimately lead to […] a general field of theory. .aspects of the empirical . .

Mergers between systemic perspectives and design practices are not new.

acceptance and implementability. (Sevaldson, 2017) Until recently, little attention has been

predominant body of theory from which design should learn from. In most of these early

her training in the core skills and concepts of design and instead focus on systems analysis”

hypotheses and their inquisitive nature. This apparent overlap between the practices was

.

.

General Systems Theory - The Skeleton of Science by Kenneth E. Boulding

empirical world. He suggested that various Systems Theory approaches “have various

of the dynamics of action and interactions.” (Boulding, 1956) This suggested a connection

.

.between Systems. Theory and design, but this . linkage was a long way ahead. Systemic.

.

approaches were seen as too alien to designerly ways. Because of this disconnect, initial

.applications of systemic . . field usually didn’t surpass the technical. perspectives in the design

.

.

.

.the Systemic Design . Association was established . in Oslo at the first Relating Systems.

.

and Design symposium in 2012. Here, ‘Systemic Design’ was agreed upon as a .Thinking . . . term used to identify a growing pluralistic field where systemics intertwine with design. As

.

.a result, Systems. Oriented Design (SOD) was. defined as an umbrella practice comprising.

.

.the designer to pick . and choose to form their. own interpretation and implementation of.

.

and theoretical thresholds.

.

.

In an attempt to seek new synergies between systemics and design,

an increasing number of emerging systemic approaches (Sevaldson, 2017) that encourage systemics in their work, therefore “producing multiple concurrent systems approaches that

.

.are adapted to different . . (Ryan, 2014) Despite this flexible approach. niche applications […].”

.

that SOD promotes, most applications explored Systems Thinking in relation to Design

.Thinking, which .are the two fields underpinning . Systemic Design. (Ryan, 2014)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.sense as “shifting. attention away from the .artefacts of design to the general process of.

.

(Ryan, 2014) Design Thinking was defined as a normative, user-centred, iterative .designing.” . . . approach to innovation. This understanding promoted a detachment between design and

.

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 12 ]

the Design Research Society, which introduced the term ‘Design Thinking’ in its modern

and inquisitive thinking. .its inherent imaginative . . As a consequence, extending a simplified. understanding of design to the advantage of strategic management and business

.

2017) In this interpretation, designerly skills are confined to. .development. (Sevaldson, . .

.

.to and reinforces.commercialism. As most applications . of SOD combine Systems Thinking.

.

.criticism, leading.to the question; can Systemic . Design go beyond affirmative design? This.

.

explores this possibility by intertwining Systems Theory (Systems Thinking) .dissertation . . . with Critical Design (Speculative Design). In contrast to Design Thinking, Critical Design

.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.The London Conference on .Design Methods in 1962 saw the founding of.

traditional commercial design, causing degradation of design as an agent that subjects with Design Thinking, this points to an aspect of Systemic Design that is receptive to

.focuses on the ‘why’ . of design, instead of the.‘how’, therefore going beyond normative and. user-centred practices native to Design Thinking. This undertaking may further equalise

.

.the merger between . systemics and design, by. exploiting Critical Design’s futuring agency.

.

to thrust Systemic Design beyond commodity into the realms of projective practices.

.

.

.

.

.3.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Forming systemic perspectives

After briefly introducing general Systems Theory in the background chapter, it’s time to

.zoom in and . identify specific. methods and theories from . the field. In a renewed attempt to explore. the synergies between systemics and design, Systems Thinking and its core methodologies and

.applications, . as introduced .by Barry Richmond, Joseph. Kasser and other systems thinkers, will be. presented in this chapter.

.

.

.

.

.

.3.

.1.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.The systems . approach

As previously discussed, “The systems approach is a technique for the

.

.application of a .scientific approach to complex . problems. It concentrates on the analysis.

.

.between its components. . . the systems approach to problem-solving.

(Ramo 1973) Thus

.

characteristically holistic and concurrently reductive, consisting of two integral parts; .isSystems . . .

Thinking and Critical Thinking. (Kasser, 2018)

.

.

.

2018) This semantic link points to the understanding and definition of two aspects of .(Kasser, . . .

Critical Thinking from a practical perspective. Firstly, Critical Thinking provides the rules for

. .

[…] of the whole” by comprehending the interdependencies and interrelationships

.The word ‘critical’ in Critical. Thinking comes from the Greek ‘criteria’..

.thinking about ideas, . communicating ideas and . evaluating ideas. Secondly, Critical Thinking. indicates the need for viewing an issue/situation/problem from multiple perspectives.

.(Malpass, 2017) Here . a clear connection can .be perceived between the systems approach.

.

.and Critical Design; . both domains engage .with critical discipline. Systems Thinking is,.

.

.to an area in the.systems approach that is prone . to improvement through Critical Design.

.

.supplementation. explored in chapter 5.0; A new . systems-based design paradigm.

.

.3.

.1.

.

.

.

.

.Systems Thinking.

.

.

.

.the same time, emergent practice. . .

It has been and still is being defined

.

.

discursive space. (Davidz, 2007) If you .by many in a dynamic non-central . .

.

.

.conflicting

.

.

.typified by “this essential lacuna . […] in the nature of the entire Systems.

.

Thinking literature.” (Shaked & Schechter, 2013)

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[ 13 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

therefore, inherently critical. Still, Critical Thinking remains highly theoretical, which points

.1.

Systems Thinking is an established and, at

ask different people to define Systems Thinking, differing and sometimes

.

.

definitions come forth. (Kasser, 2018) Arguably, Systems

Thinking’s ability to deal with ever more complex systemic challenges is

.

.

.

Joseph Kasser categorises the different

.

.

.definitions of Systems Thinking . into two types; 1) Systemics, thinking.

.

.

.step-by-step manner of thinking . about something. (2018) According to.

.

.

.emphasises the importance. of seeing these two types as supplements.

.

.

.to one another because “each . type of thinking seems to be a partial.

.

.

.Thinking can be understood. as a philosophy, a thinking tool (systemics).

of a system as a whole, and; 2) Systematics, employing a methodical

Kasser, many definitions only fall within one of the above categories; he

understanding of Systems Thinking.” (Kasser, 2018) Therefore, Systems coupled with methodologies (systematics); this combination varies in

.

.

.form depending on the systemic . challenge/situation at hand.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Figure 2 Steps in the Systems Thinking Method (Richmond, 1997)

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 14 ] Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

.

.

.Nevertheless,

.

.

.4-step process. (Fig.2) The process . starts with the specification of a problem.

.

.

.

.

issue to be explored or resolved. Then, in an attempt to explain the .or . . problem, hypotheses are built using models through which the hypotheses

.

.

.course, the systems thinkers’. processes vary in complexity and form, but.

.

.

.Arguably, model-building is. important, if not the most important part.

.

.

.Thinking perspective, models . are viewed as “assumptions and theory.

.

.

.

.

(Richmond, 1997) with the aim “to polarise thinking and to pose .testers” . . sharp questions”. (Weinberg, 1975) Critical discipline in Systems Thinking

.

.

.than others” in understanding. phenomena to formulate and communicate.

.

.

understanding. (Richmond, 1997)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. Figure 3

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Barry

Richmond

.

(1997)

managed to synthesise a universal Systems Thinking method, an iterative

.themselves are stringently .tested. When an entertainable hypothesis is. formulated, it can be communicated and begin to be implemented. Of

most Systems Thinking methodologies derive from this universal process. of Barry Richmond’s 4-step Systems Thinking method. From a Systems

.starts from a premise that “all . models are wrong because they represent. incomplete representations of reality […] some models are more useful

The Problem-solving Process as Casual Loops (Kasser, 2018)

.The

.

problem-solving process as a Casual

Loop (Fig.3) can vary in complexity; it bears similarity to Richmond’s

.

.

.4-step method but is more.limited. It was popularised by Peter Senge.

.

.

.Fifth Discipline. (1990) Casual . Loops are used for thinking about and.

.

.

.relationships between various . parts of a system or undesired situation/.

.

.

.problem. Casual Loops do .not describe processes; they only show the.

.

.

.Many systems thinkers like. to imply that Casual Loops represent the.

.

.

.this limited understanding .of the Systems Thinking can be linked to the.

.

commodification of Systems Thinking as a make-shift demi-discipline in

.

in the now-famous book in business and managerial sciences; The

communicating relationships; they show the functional and operational

relationships between the elements used in the process (Kasser, 2018).

entirety of the Systems Thinking methodology. (Kasser, 2018) Disputably,

.

.

.

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 15 ] Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

.

.the world of business development. .

Here, many crucial aspects of the.

.

.

.critical discipline is severed .from the systems approach. In reality, Casual.

.

.

.

.

are but one component in the systems thinker’s methodological .Loops . . toolbox, as will become apparent in the following section.

.

Systems Thinking methodology are deliberately left out; banally put,

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. Figure 4

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.3.

.2.

Traditional Thinking vs Systems Thinking (Richmond, 1997)

The streams of Systems Thinking

.

.

.

.the purpose, function . and physicality of a system. . (1968) In 1993, Barry Richmond expanded.

.

.Systems Thinking, . which include; 1) Dynamic. Thinking, observing and analysing patterns.

.

elements and interrelationships within a system/situation that. .for cause by identifying . .

.

.undesired situation; . 3) Forest Thinking, focusing . on the whole instead of the singular parts,.

.

.4) Operational Thinking, . . . tries to get at casualty by mapping out the interrelationships of

.

system by using Casual Loops; 5) Closed-Loop Thinking, seeing casualty as an ongoing .aprocess . . . of cause and effect; 6) Quantitative Thinking, identify key ‘soft’ variables given

.

.C. West Churchman introduced . three standardised views to think about.

on Churchman’s three viewpoints by introducing seven standardised viewpoints of

of behaviour over time to frame problems; 2) System-as-Cause-Thinking; looking inward are under the control of policy-setting actors capable and responsible of generating the

looking for similarities rather than differences to build an ‘on average’ picture of the system;

.the speed of change . in a system to be quantified . instead of measured; and 7) Scientific.

.

.Thinking, becoming . aware and discarding falsehoods . to resist the pressure to ‘validate’, this.

.

.goes on to compare . traditional thinking to Systems . .

Thinking to explain the seven streams

.

.of Systems Thinking . further. (Fig. 4)

.

.

.

.Richmond’s

.

.

.

.perspectives. (Kasser . and Mackley 2008) These . were later renamed; the Holistic Thinking.

.

situation at hand. (Kasser, 2018). .or in a random order . depending on the system/undesirable .

.3.

.3.

.

.

.

.The systems . thinker

.

.

.

.

.In the following sections, before . delving into the HTP parameter, the role.

.

.

.

.

.

.3.

.3.

.1.

.

.

.

.

.

.As

.

.

.be compared to the traditional . understanding of the anthropologist..

.

.

.systems of the social group. in order to become a ‘participant-observer’..

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[ 16 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

.

is an ittertaive process which helps to identify high-leverage intervention points. Richmond

. seven

In a more recent attempt to synthesise Systems Thinking’s methodology, streams were modified and adapted into nine Systems Thinking

Perspectives. (HTP) These are nine standardized viewpoints that can be used in sequence

of the systems thinker is considered as the generalist, the sense maker and the perspectivist.

The generalist

.

a generalist, the systems thinker can

When studying a social group, they get acquainted with the category

(Weinberg, 1975) By generalising, they can promptly assimilate and learn.

.

.It is practically impossible .for an anthropologist to adopt the totality.

.

.

of a social group’s category systems, so a generalist’s perspective is

.imperative. Boulding compared . the generalist to the tourist who, “when.

.

.

sees Bangkok, is reminded of Pittsburgh, because both are cities and .he . . have streets with people in them.” (1956) Like the tourist, the generalist

.

.

.systems thinker “relieves his. fear of strange places—strange paradigm.

.

.

.1975) through a global vision. . (Mele et al., 2010) To understand and deal.

systems—by moving to higher and higher levels of generality” (Weinberg, with ever-changing systems, the systems thinker must observe them from

.

.

.a higher level, adopting a holistic . perspective. (Von Bertalanffy, 1968) This.

.

.

.carrier of broad knowledge across . many domains and an expert in a few..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

3.

3.

makes the generalist system thinker, like the traditional anthropologist, a

.

2. .The sensemaker .

.

. .

.Philosopher John Dewey defines ‘inquiry’ as.

the process of transforming an indeterminate situation into one that is

.

.

.

.

.

.determinate. Building on this,. social scientist Donald Schön describes how.

.

.

.Therefore knowledge of a situation . . is always contextual and dependent

.

.

.

.

experience. (Lurås, 2016) Interpretive in nature, sensemaking is “always .on . . relying on pre-existing understanding, which is used to make sense

.

.

.by making sense. Therefore.the concept of sensemaking is relevant when.

.

.

.sense of a system to acquire . knowledge that enables them to develop.

.

.

.is in constant flux. (Lurås, 2016) . Therefore, interventions are informed both.

.

.

.

.

making sense of that which already exists and by making sense of and .by . . judging the intervention to the situation, as described by Schön’s concept

.3. [ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 17 ]

.of that which is experienced, . and it is updated based on that which is. experienced.” (Lurås, 2016) Thus, the systems thinker ‘frames a situation’ dealing with systems and their fluidity. Here, the systems thinker makes ‘adequate interventions’ while being aware that the intervened situation

.of ‘seeing-moving-seeing.’ .

.

.3.

.3.

.

.

.The perspectivist.

.

.

.

.

.The

.

.

.the importance of analysing. in context to synthesise information across.

.

.

and intervening in the world as if it is. .is “a way of looking at, modelling, .

.

.

composed of open, purposeful, complex wholes” (Ryan, 2014). A system’s

.internal interdependencies and . external interactions with its environment.

.

.

.chaos

.

.

.

.

parameters form a part of the systems thinker’s toolbox. .perspective . .

(Kasser, 2018) Because “the concept of a system is not connected with the

.

.

.space.” (Mele et al., 2010) In section . 3.4, the HTP parameter will be presented.

.

.

as the primary perspectival tool to be supplemented and expanded upon

.in this dissertation.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

3.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

the inquiry process occurs in dynamic rather than static situations (1991).

.

systems

approach

.

requires

perspectivation. The perspectivist in the systems thinker emphasises disciplines, scales, and perspectives. (Weinberg, 1975) Systems Thinking

give rise to emergence, self-organisation, learning, adaptation, evolution,

.

.

and complexity (Von Bertalanffy, 1968), which is why several

.notion of objectivity, but instead . refers to a specific point of view […] it. strictly depends on the contextualised system’s perception in time and

.

4. .The Holistic . Thinking Perspectives .

.

.

.

view and understand a problematic situation in order to shed light on the cause of the

.undesirability and. suggest a probable solution.. (Kasser, 2018) In other words, the HTP can be.

.

.

.

.The HTP are a systemic tool. that provides a set of nine perspectives to.

employed by the systems thinker to build systemic perspectives of the undesirable situation

.

.

.

.

.or system at hand. . As touched upon in section . 3.3.3; The perspectivist, viewing a situation.

.

.fable of the blind.men and the elephant, the blindness . . and locality of the men limited their

.

of the elephant. Because each man perceives a different part of the elephant, it .perceptions . . . takes a combination of the perceptions to build a complete picture of the elephant. Similarly,

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[ 18 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

from a singular perspective leads to errors in systemic understanding. Comparably, in the

and making sense of a system or. .diverse perspectives . are necessary when understanding . undesirable situation. The nine HTP (Fig. 5) are:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.3.4.2 The Operational . HTP - External

.

.

.

.3.4.3 The Functional . HTP - Internal

.

.

.

.3.4.4 The Structural . HTP - Internal

.

.

.

.3.4.5 The Generic. HTP - Progressive

.

.

.

.3.4.6 The Continuum . HTP - Progressive

.

.

.

.3.4.7 The Temporal . HTP - Progressive

.

.

.

.3.4.8 The Quantitative . HTP - Remaining

.

.

.

.3.4.9 The Scientific . HTP - Remaining

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

3.4.1 The Big Picture HTP - External

Figure 5 The Holistic Thinking Perspectives (Kasser, 2018)

.3.

.4.

.1.

.

.

.

.

.The

.

.

.environment, and assumptions. . The aim is to show the purpose of the.

.

.

.direct and indirect connections. . The system’s environment is analysed to.

.

.

.the system’s external boundaries . and the entities they interact with. (Fig..

.

.

.

6)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. Figure 6

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.3.

.4.

.2.

.

.

.

.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[ 19 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

.

.

.The Big Picture HTP .

. .

Big Picture perspective incorporates

Richmond’s Forest Thinking; it deals with the system’s context, system in a broader context by opting for a bird’s eye view to include

identify and map out systems of interest and adjacent systems that show

The Big Picture Perspective (Kasser, 2018)

.The Operational HTP .

.

The Operational perspective incorporates

.

.

.Richmond’s Operational Thinking; . it underpins what the system does and.

.

.

.provides a view of a system’s. normal and contingency functions, therefore.

.

.

the problematic or undesirable current system or situation. The .outlining . .

Operational perspective focuses on casualty by asking how behaviour

.

.

.is actually generated when. analysing the cause behind a situation or.

.

.

.enumerates the factors that. influence or correlate with a situation. But.

how it does it by opting for a black-box perspective, a ‘closed system’ view. It

behaviour. As opposed to Operational Thinking, Factors Thinking only

the Operational perspective, on the other hand, captures the nature of the

.

.

.situation by depicting it as a.process by describing its structure. (Fig. 7) .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 20 ] Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. Figure 7

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.3.

.4.

.3.

.

.

.

.

.The Functional HTP .

.

.

.Richmond’s System-as-Cause. and Closed-Loop Thinking; it underpins what.

.

.

system does and how it does it by opting for a white-box perspective, .the . . an ‘open system’ view. It provides an internal perspective, a view of the

.

.

.functions or activities performed . within the system, what is being done.

.

.

.

.

.

.3.

.4.

.4.

.

.

.

.

.

.The Structural perspective incorporates the.

.

.

.traditional physical, technical, . and architectural framework views of a.

.

.

.function and physicality of.a system. (1968) The structural perspective.

.

.

underpins how the system is constructed and its organised elements. This

.provides insights into the system’s . hierarchies, structural elaborations,.

.

.

.internal structure. This perspective . is also widely associated with Peter.

.

.

.Senge’s Casual Loops. (Fig. 3).

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Factors Thinking vs Operational Thinking (Richmond, 1997)

.

The Functional perspective incorporates

and how it is being done.

The Structural HTP

system, such as Churchman’s standardised views to think about the

internal subsystem boundaries and the effects on the system due to its

.3.

.4.

.5.

.

.

.The Generic HTP.

.

.

.

.

.The

.

.

.an instance of a class of similar . systems, which leads to the realisation.

.

.

This promotes an understanding of. .from the generic type of systems. .

.

.

.solutions previously explored. in similar systems.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.Figure 8

.

.

.

.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[ 21 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

.

Generic

perspective

deals

.

with

perceptions of similarities. By generalising, the system is considered as

that the system inherits desired and undesired functions and properties

analogies/parallelism between systems, thus providing insight into

The Continuum of Solutions (Kasser, 2018)

.

.

.

.3.

.4.

.6.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.perceptions

.

.

.

.

.and must be seen from different . and multiple viewpoints. This approach.

.

.

recognises that:

.

.

.

.3.

.4.

.6.

.1.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The Continuum HTP

The Continuum perspective deals with

of differences, seeing the system as but one of many

alternatives. This perspective promotes the realisation that things can

Altrnatives exist

To explore alternative solutions, one must

.

.

.

.articulate the right questions. For example,.

.

.

.

.produce X?” one can ask, “How can X be.

.

.

.

.makes for innovative change. This leads to.

.

.

.

.the realisation that things are not necessarily.

.

.

.

.problem

.

.

instead of asking, “What does it cost to

produced for Y?” Posing the right question

either-or. Redefining the nature of the

.

statement gives a very different

perspective to the traditional “either-or”, “one

.

.right way” perspective. Good questions have. the ability to redefine the problem altogether.

.

.

.

.Problem-solvers using the systems approach.

.

.

.

.

.

tend to think in terms of acceptable solutions

.

.

.

.and

.

.

.

.than one way to achieve an objective and.

.

.

.

.

.

.

one must consider the use of different .that . technologies, production or implementation

.3.

.4.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[ 22 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

.

.

optimal solutions. (Fig. 8) This leads

to the realisation that there may be more

.approaches.

.

.6.

.2.

.

.

.Any solution or issue is.

.

.

.

located on a continuum or .spectrum of some kind .

.

.

.

.Solutions or issues can be found on a wide.

.

.

.

.spectrum of synchronicity, there are several. possible variations between synchronous

range of spectrums. (Kasser, 2018) In the

.

.

.

.and

.

.

.

.

.a synchronous solution in the educational.

.

.

.

.domain,

.

.

.

.Similarly,

.

.

.

.the public-private spectrum, the continuum. of change spectrum, and the changing

asynchronous solutions. For example,

a traditional physical classroom represents

.

while an online self-paced study

represents

an

asynchronous

solution.

.

other continuums include; the

system solution implementation spectrum,

.

.

.

.conditions spectrum, to mention a few. This.

.

.

.

.solution’s situationality allows for planning.

.

.

.

.various versions of a solution. (Kasser, 2018) .

.3.

.4.

.6.

.3.

.

.

.

.

.

.

cause movement along a .continuum .

.

.

.

.This

.

.

.

.behaviour

.

.

.

.transition conditions causing that change in. behaviour may not be known. Furthermore,

type of thinking and the awareness of a

.

.Changing conditions may.

.

insight leads to the realisation that

systems can exhibit different types of in

various

situations

.

rather

than always behave in the same way. The

.

.

.

.when examining a situation, there still may.

.

.

.

.

be other unknown variables that may or may

.

.

.

.

.not affect the situation.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.as failing completely. Failure modes for the.

.

.

.

.system and each of its components must.

.

.

.

.the

.

.

.

.mitigate those failures.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

3.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[ 23 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

3.

4.

4.

6.

6.

4. .Systems sometimes. .fail partially as well as. completely

.This

perception

indicates

that

.

systems

sometimes fail partially or “fail soft” as well

be analysed. This leads to risk analysis of

.

probability and effect of internal and

externally induced failures and ways to

5. .There may be more than. one objective for a system For example, the objective of a bar as a

.

.

.

.system could be; a profit-making system from.

.

.

.

.system from the perspective of the (potential).

.

.

.

.perspective of the customers; a social system.

.

.

.

.from the perspective of the local residents;.

.

.

.

.perspective

.

.

.

.may have different objectives.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

3.

.

4.

.

6.

the owners’ perspective; an employment

employees; a recreational system from the

or a revenue-generating system from the

.

of the taxation authority. This

perspective shows that different stakeholders

6. .Different people see things. differently People can see different things in the same

.

.picture and draw different conclusions from. the same data depending on belief systems,

.

.

.

.worldviews,

.

.

.

.

.want different (and perhaps contradictory).

.

.

.

.remedies

or paradigms. (Khun, 1970)

They may perceive problems differently, (solutions)

to

an

.

undesirable

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 24 ] Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

.

.

.situation or have different concepts of what.

.

.

.

.this, the systems thinker can put the solution.

.

.

.

.to the test in differing contexts.

.

.3.

.4.

.7.

.

.

.

.

.The Temporal HTP .

.

.

.Richmond’s Dynamic thinking; . it considers the system as it was in the.

.

.

.past, is in the present and will . be in the future. If the system exists, past.

.

.

.perspective includes considering . availability, maintenance, logistics and.

.

.

.reflecting on the past, which.provides lessons learned from the system. For.

.

.

past performance to be helpful as a predictor of future performance, one

.must understand the factors. contributing to past performance. Problems.

.

.

.emergence, must also be considered . . when applying the Temporal HTP.

.

.

.

.

systems thinker must also consider resistance to a paradigm change, .The . . learning curves and how systems may improve over time. The Temporal

.

.

.system. More importantly, one . must consider the evolution of adjacent.

.

.

systems so that the solution system being implemented will interface

.with the adjacent systems. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

8. .The Quantitative .HTP

.

.

.

.

.

.

Richmond’s Quantitative thinking; it perceives the numbers and

.measurements associated with . the system. In this perspective, relative.

.

.

.quantification

.

.

The Quantitative HTP can predict .that point to the values of parameters. . .

.

.

the total function points (FP) of an. .example, in software development, .

.

.

.modelling, the project owner. can determine how many FPs are required.

.

.

to complete the project on time and within budget and how the number

.of FPs can affect the project. . This can help when deciding whether to.

.

.

.

3.

4.

the situation is all about. By being aware of

The

.

Temporal

perspective

incorporates

behaviour patterns are examined, and future patterns are predicted. This obsolescence in a system. One must think about preventing problems by

that may only appear after some period of time, known as unanticipated

of the effects of ageing, the need for. .perspective promotes consideration . upgrades and replacement, and the technology’s state to be used in the

.

.The

. .

Quantitative perspective incorporates

comparisons are sometimes more useful than absolute comparisons, using

.

.

rather than measurement to understand relationships

and prevent problems by using historical data to make predictions. For

app determine the feasibility of the project, its longevity and cost. Through

cancel the project, lower the FPs for the purpose of completion, or adapt

.

.

.

.

.the budget and timeline of.the project according to the number of FPs..

.

.

.

(Fig. 9)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.3.

.4.

.9.

.

.

.

.

Richmond’s Scientific thinking, .the Scientific HTP is prescriptive; .Incorporating . it forms insights and inferences from

.

.

.generally contains a statement . of the findings from the information in the.

.

eight descriptive perspectives stated in a manner that can be tested. From

.the Scientific perspective, the. systems thinker infers something that is not.

.

.

there but should be there while also inferring that there is something that

.is there but should not be there, . therefore constituting a hypothesis to be.

.

.

.tested.

.

.

.3.

.4.

.10.

.

.

.

.

.Forming systemic. perspectives

.

.

.information about part of the. situation. Consider, for example, a car as the.

.

.

.

.

in the context of home family life. When the car is perceived by the .system . .

HTPs, the perceptions might include:

.

[ 25 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

Figure 9 Software Project Outcomes

.

.

(Kasser, 2018)

.

.

.

.

.The Scientific HTP .

.

.the perceptions of the other.HTPs, which lead to hypothesises about the. undesirable situation in the system. The output of the analysis process

Perceptions

from

each

.

HTP

provide

.Big picture: road network, cars . drive the economy, etc.

.

.

.Operational: going shopping,. taking children to school, etc.

.

.

.

.Functional: starting, stopping, . turning, accelerating, decelerating, etc. .

.

.

.Structural: car with doors, chassis, . wheels, and trunk, etc.

.

.

.

.Generic: (four-wheeled land.vehicle) trucks, vans, etc.

.

.

.

.Continuum: different types.of engines and vehicles (land and non-land),.

.

.

.

.

.

.hybrid cars, future electric cars, . etc.

.

.

.Quantitative: miles per hour. (mph), engine power, number of passengers,.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

etc.

.

.

Temporal: Stanley steamer, Ford Model T, internal combustion, Ford Edsel,

.

four doors, six wheels, cost, price, etc.

.

Scientific: depends on problem/issue.

.

.

.

The information needed will depend on the

.

.issue being examined, and.not all information may be relevant in any.

.

.

given situation.

.

.

.

.3.

.5.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Systems Thinking and beyond

At the beginning of this chapter, we went over the general systems

.

.approach consisting . of Systems Thinking and. Critical Thinking. The systems thinker and.

.

.the process of constructing . . was briefly outlined through the HTP. systemic perspectives

.

.attention to what. ought to be done once a systemic . . perspective is formed. As previously

.

.mentioned, systemic . approaches have rarely.surpassed the thresholds of theorisation into.

.

a supplement to this.gap will be explored. The question remains;. .In the coming chapter, .

their role were considered in tandem with the streams of Systems Thinking. Furthermore, as introduced by Joseph Kasser. Besides the Scientific HTP, Systems Thinking puts little

the thresholds of practical implementability when dealing with undesirable situations. can projective design and its futuring agency thrust Systems Thiking into new territories

.

.beyond that of traditional . . systems-oriented design?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

4. .Design. that projects .

.

Kuhn studies the way in which new. .In The Structure. of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas .

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[ 26 ]

paradigms are created and old ones destroyed (1970). He goes on by distinguishing between; ‘normal

within the. current paradigms, and; ‘scientific revolutions’ in which the paradigms. .science’, working . . themselves come under assault. (Weinberg, 1975) A similar comparison is made by Friederich von

.Borries between . subjective .and projective design. (2020). This chapter explores this dichotomy in the. .

context of Critical Design and, subsequently, Speculative Design.

.

.

.

.

.4.

.1.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

.Designing. .

“The world can be seen as a design […] a product of civilisation […] a

.

.

.

.

.world made and. organised by men.” (Aicher,. 2015) Thus, intentionality is a key concept.

.

.artefacts. (Ryan, .2014) “Every system on Earth. is entangled with intentional human action.

.

age of the Anthropocene.” (Ryan, 2014) Understanding design in this context implies .inthatthedesign . . . always has an object. The concept of design is generally associated with

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[ 27 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

of universal design, a process in which values and ideas are meaningfully embedded in

.something material, . the objecthood of that .which is designed. But design’s fundamental. object implies “something [that] confronts us, something we tackle, and toward which we

.

.adopt a definite .stance.” (Von Borries, 2020) To. design is to intend because “that which we.

.

.Thus, designing .requires perspectivation and. judgement to either prescribe subjugation.

.

.

produce exercises an influence on the conditions under which we live.” (Von Borries, 2020) (subjective design) or describe projection (projective design).

.

.

.

Subjugating design represents the materialisation of current social,

.

.economic, political, . and cultural conditions..This kind of design aims to solve problems.

.

.beyond the current . paradigm. (Von Borries, .2020) On the other hand, design can also be.

.

.perceived as “the. emergence of the human.being from subjection […] a fundamentally.

.

to explore alternative possibilities,. .to the status quo. by confronting existing conceptions .

.

.etymological terms, . the word ‘critic’ in Critical. Design comes from the Greek ‘kritikos’ ‘able.

.

.‘finding faults’. (Online . Etymology Dictionary,. n.d.) Disputably, design that does not ‘make.

.

.

judgements’ or does not ‘separate or decide’ is merely prescriptive and subjective.

.

.

.

.4.

.2.

.

.

.

.

and maintain the existing order through objects, spaces, and proposals that do not expand

emancipatory act.” (von Borries, 2020) In this understanding, design explores alternatives hence the coined term; projective design. Design, in this sense, is intrinsically critical. In

to make judgments,’ and ‘krinein’ ‘to separate, to decide’, and is often connoted with

obsolescence .Design’s impending . .

.

Design occupies an important place in history; it expresses in (in)material

.

.form the ideas that . shaped our trajectory as .a species. The act of designing, the process of.

.

.methods orientation . in recent design history onset . a “ trend to dissolve design as a complete.

.

.and unique discipline . […] co-opted by business . schools, being reduced to different toolsets,.

.

.in a state of crisis.subject to corporatist modernist . values which promote the scientification.

.

discipline (Sevaldson, .design as a freestanding . . 2017), making that design be seen and.

.

.some forms of design . practice, such as Speculative .

Design, as discussed in this chapter..

.

.summits, and other . creative design initiatives. . But design in this context is commonly.

.

life, limiting its transformative agency in broader society. .alienated from everyday . .

.

.

.

.

solving problems through divergent means, is intrinsically projective. But the increasing

heuristics and methods that can be applied by non-designers” (2017) Here, design finds itself of design and the separation of designerly ways from the practice. This is detrimental to

treated as a marketing device. (Thackara, 1988) Indeed, explorative design still exists in This kind of design is mainly found in student work, avant-garde agency projects, design

.

.

“Man takes his own development in hand.” Because “[…] for human

.

.beings, development . is no longer nature, but. self-development [through] design.” (Aicher,.

.

.building automation? . This line of question brings . to mind the ‘methods movement’ in recent.

.

history in which design and all its reasoning risk being reduced to “a sequence of .design . . . highly constrained procedures,” leaving out “unstructured space for exploration, iteration,

.

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 28 ]

.and divergence .for surprises to emerge and . be exploited.” (Ryan, 2014) As previously. discussed, in business, this is precisely how design is perceived and utilised, merely as a

.

.set of methods in. an arguable attempt to sever . the thinking and explorative designer from.

.

.machine displacement . . (such as designers) is the standardization. of human professionals

.

.ever

.

central to corporate profit-making” through the development of automation .become . . . systems. (Thackara, 1988) As Thackara warns, “separating theory and practice precludes

.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

2015) But what if design becomes overly prescriptive? Or taken over entirely by model-

their methods. (Malpass, 2017) As design theorist John Thackara puts it, “the first step in the of their methodology.” (1988) Especially in a highly technological world where automation

.

.

.

dominates decision processes, “the commodity production of knowledge has

.the exploitation .of intuition, subjective judgment . and tacit knowledge,” like many other. professions, designers are increasingly becoming data capturers and manipulators instead

.

generators. “For .so-called creative activities, the separation of. .of ideators and knowledge .

.

tasks imposes a crucial isolation on those involved.” (Thackara, 1988)

.

.

.

.

.4.

.3.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

clients’ needs.” (Mitrovic, .that primarily addresses . . 2015) In this understanding of design,.

.

stagnation is inescapable. As political theorist and activist Antonio Gramsci once put it, “the

.crisis consists precisely . in the fact that the old. is dying, and the new cannot be born; in this.

.

.polarization, systemic . racism, political instability, . and economic volatility are a few of the.

.

arising from a stagnant society relying on incremental innovation. (Papanek, .symptoms . . .

1972) In turn, incremental innovation relies on design that subjects. But increasingly, design

.

Discursive and Critical Design practice

In the modernist view, “design is widely viewed as a service industry

interregnum, a great variety of morbid symptoms appear” (1971). Capital inequality, social

and social development. .of a critical nature. is becoming the norm in planning .

.

.

.

.

.(Mitrovic, 2015) It.removes “the constraints of.the commercial sector that define normative.

.

.Speculative Design . is a practice for “designers . interested in doing more than [designing.

.

.design, design that . affirms current conditions..In the context of this dissertation, commercial/.

.

.considered subjective . design, design that reinforces . . the status quo. Critical Design and

.

Design will be considered projective design, design that subverts the status .Speculative . . . quo.

.

.As a branch of Critical Design, . Speculative Design confronts commercial.

and traditional design practices with new ideas that question design’s modernist definition. design processes to create a space for thinking, questioning and dreaming.” (Auger, 2012)

things] easy to use, sexy and consumable.” (Dunne & Raby, 2013) Its opposite is affirmative

normative/traditional design, or as Dune and Raby call it, mainstream design, will be

.

.

.

.

.4.

.4.

.

.

.

.As a projective design practice, . Speculative Design promotes “designer-user.

.

.2019) This approach . democratises social dreaming . by shifting from the highly constrained.

.

.social debate. (Auger, . 2013)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. Figure 10 AB Manifesto .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.the designer takes, . which is characterised by.the dichotomy between mainstream design.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[ 29 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

.Speculative . Design

.

.

.

.

dialogue and public debate about preferable societal development.” (Johannessen et al., procedures in method-oriented design toward critical engagement in design that facilitates

(Dunne & Raby, 2013)

.

Dunne and Raby present Speculative Design as an attitude or position

(subjective design) and Critical Design (projective design) as outlined in the AB manifesto.

.

.(Fig. 10) This implies . the practice’s alienation . from method-centric approaches found.

.

in subjective design, bearing similarities with Khun’s notion of ‘scientific revolutions’.

.Although

.

characteristics of the approach outline a basic framework. (Mitrovic, 2015) .distinctive . . .

However, framing Speculative Design into a ‘loose’ methodology should be met with some

.

interacts with other related practices, .degree of scepticism . as it often and continuously . .

.

can be perceived as an array of. .generalist perspective, . Speculative Design’s methodology .

.

.

.

a specific methodology does not characterise Speculative Design, some

which prompts the use of any case-specific methodology that is appropriate. From a metarudiments which overlap Critical Design’s methodology, as outlined in section 2.3; Critical

.

.Design. In this sense, . Speculative Design supplements .

Critical Design’s three fundamental.

.

.

.

Framing

.In addition to identifying . . social debate, a design space is defined. a context to put into

.

.a combination and . interaction of input variables . (e.g., materials, media, etc.) and process.

.

.parameters (e.g.,.design methods, mediation.tools, etc.).

.

.In addition to scenario-building . . . through ‘what if’ questions, speculative concepts and ideas

.

.are generated and. further developed. Ideally,‘what . if’ scenarios thrust speculative designers.

steps:

.

.

.

through design research. (Mitrovic, 2015) The design space is project-specific and represents

.

Concepting

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 30 ] Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

.to not only engage . with “the desired future .but also with the future we fear might come.

.

.

.

.Besides the materialisation . . imperative to explore suitable articulation. of scenarios, it is

.

.articulation is as. important as the materialisation . . in facilitating suspension of disbelief

.

meaningful social discourse that “enables people to engage with .and, as a consequence, . . .

.

.

.

.be presented, and. some applied instances of.the practice will be outlined for the purpose.

.

.

.

.

.

.4.

.4.

.1.

.

.

.

.

.

.Speculative

.

.

.and Raby call them; ‘props’,. must achieve a certain degree of realness.

.

.

(Malpass, 2017) .and the contextual narrative/scenario. .

.

.

Design proposals to be communicated convincingly, the designer adopts

.the aesthetic and storytelling . techniques found in film, TV series, and.

.

.

.and findings that embody .divergent norms in a way that imagination.

.

.

grasp is one of the practices of Speculative Design that is the most .can . . challenging to master. (Margolin, 2007)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Design proposals risk being labelled as art or entertainment, .Speculative . . making them easier to deal with. However, if the proposals are perceived

.

.

.suspension of disbelief, the. designer must consider questions such as.

.

.

‘when is the problem positioned?’, ‘which rules apply in the scenario?’,

.‘would the scenario be more. effective as a utopia or a dystopia?’, ‘what.

.

.

.so on. (Johannessen et al.,. 2019) Achieving suspension of disbelief in.

.

.

Design proposals fosters productive discourse between the .Speculative . . audience and the speculative object/proposal. This interplay informs

.

.

.the speculation as much as. the design artefact itself. (Dunne & Raby,.

.

.

.and narratives are “intended. to appeal to a broad and diverse audience,.

.

from experts […] to consumers and users, […] critical responses are of

.

true.” (Mitrovic, 2015)

.

.

.

Materialisation

to communicate speculative concepts and ideas purposefully. (Mitrovic, 2015) Here, the

the ideas that are the foundation of divergent norms.” (Johannessen et al., 2019)

.In the remainder of this chapter, . other key tenets of Speculative Design will.

of comprehension.

Suspension of disbelief

.

Design objects, or as Dunne

through a sufficient level of detail in both the physicality of the object

.

For Speculative

literature. (Mitrovic, 2015) In this sense, the representation of data, ideas

.When there is a lack of suspension of disbelief,.

prompting interesting questions and. .as design, it is more disturbing, . discourse. (Tonkinwise, 2014) To provoke and engage an audience through

perceptual bridge(s) exists between the present and the scenario?’ and

2013) Discourse is key in Speculative Design, which is why its designs

.

.

.

.

.

.equal value to positive ones.” . (Auger, 2012) The discourse aroused by.

.

.

.is convinced through narratives . and contexts that they relate to and are.

.

.

.

.

about, encouraging them to contemplate a subjects they .knowledgeable . . had not purposely considered before. (Dunne & Raby, 2013)

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[ 31 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.4.

.4.

Speculative Design proposals are more meaningful when the audience

.

.2.

.

.

.

.

The act of speculation

.

.

.

.The act of speculation is a distinct activity.

.

.

.in Speculative Design’s ‘loose’ . methodology. Here conjecture is as good.

.

.

.iterative process where the.designer considers futuristic and alternative.

.

.

.‘mindless’ decisions for humanity. . (2013) This is a process that exploits “the.

.

.

potential to use the language of design to pose questions, provoke and

.inspire”, which is Speculative. Design’s “defining feature.” (Dunne & Raby,.

.

.

.political/economic/cultural/technological . . drivers engage with one another

.

.

.

.

a scenario matrix. (Fig. 11) In the below example, fluctuating wealth .ingaps . . as an economic driver is put into contrast with privacy as a socio-

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.Figure 11 The Scenario Matrix .

.

.

.

.

.4.

.4.

. .

as knowledge. Dunne and Raby introduce the act of speculation as an scenarios to convey ideas, with the aim to emphasise the implications of

2013) The designer speculates by letting two or more social/environmental/

.technological driver. The designer . can speculate by constructing scenarios. through the x y variables on the scenario matrix.

(van der Heijden, 2005)

.

.

.3.

.

.

.

.

.The

.

.Everything: Design, Fiction, .and Social Dreaming, arrives via the ‘Cone of.

The cone of futures

.

primary hypothesis in Speculative

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 32 ] Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

.

.Futures’. (Fig. 12) This is a common . diagram in foresight literature. In this.

.

.

.the present. The narrowest .cone represents the limited ‘probable’ futures.

.

.

.

.

are headed towards if there is no vision for or action towards alternate .we . . futures. The cone widens when we start to envision alternatives from the

.

.

.(Tonkinwise, 2014) Speculative . Design proposals usually tend to exist in.

.

.

.nature. (Malpass, 2017

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

diagram, the future is seen as a series of widening cones extending from

.‘plausible’ to ‘possible’ futures. . Despite Dunne and Raby indicating the. preferable space to be overlapping the ‘probable’ and ‘plausible’ cones, the cones of the ‘possible’ or even ‘impossible’ due to their highly reflexive )

Figure 12 The Cone of Futures

.

.

.

.

.

.

4.

(Hancock & Bezold, 1994)

.

5. .Applied projective . design .

.

.

.

.and, later on, Speculative . .

Design. In this performance, he burnt an archetypical chair.

.

.objects, thus depicting . an arguable metaphor. of design’s projective ability.

.

.

.Designed by Anthony Dunne,. The Pillow (Fig. 14) was a speculative object.

.

.

.

.

.Destruction of Lassù Chair.by Alessandro Mendini (Fig. 13) is a literal.

example of projective design that provided early momentum to the fields of Critical Design proclaiming a new age in design through the symbolic destruction of the most familiar of

.

that answered aesthetic needs within an everyday context. (Dunne, 2006)

. .

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 33 ] Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.robust elements,.such as the LCD screen into the . everyday pillow form, Dunne incorporated.

.

of detail and balance between several contexts to facilitate suspension of disbelief. .aThelevelglowing . . . patterns from the LCD screen denote electromagnetic radiation in the

.

Figure 13 Destruction of Lassù Chair (Mendini, 1975)

.Essentially it is an LCD screen . enclosed within a translucent plastic block,.

pierced by eight holes, and surrounded by a clear plastic inflatable pillow. By incorporating

.environment that. is emitted by electronic.devices, which makes the audience aware. of the invisible world of electromagnetic radiation. Dunne provoked the audience by

.

.combining this distant . notion with the pillow,. an object that most interact with on a daily.

.

basis, therefore inspiring meaningful discourse around the speculation and the themes

.engendered in the. design work.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Figure 14 The Pillow (Dunne, 1997)

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 34 ] Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.The Audio Tooth Implant (Fig. . 15) explores the notion of implantable.

.

.to think of it in .the realms of science fiction,. so it was important to mitigate embedded.

.

.a very important.aspect of informed Speculative . Design, it has to be projective to provoke,.

.

.but it also needs. grounding in context and .plausibility. (Dunne & Raby, 2013) To be able.

.

.must have in mind . the audience’s perception. throughout the design process. We see this.

technology for human enhancement. (Auger, 2013) The reception to the project led many

elements to the project to present a more plausible suggestion. This distinction highlights

to have a good balance between fiction and realism, the Speculative Design practitioner applied in the Audio Tooth Implant example. Firstly, it tapped into the lifestyle benefit

.

.and contemporary . aspirations by building .on to the cultural phenomenon; the mobile.

.

phone. Secondly, the psychological aspect of having a device in the body was addressed by

.deliberately choosing . a less invasive point of entry; . the tooth. Thirdly, general knowledge on.

.

.were elements included . . . in the design process to ensure believability and familiarity. All of

.

.which brought the . far ends of science fiction into . a personal space. This Speculative Design.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. Figure 15 Audio Tooth . Implant (Auger & Loizeau, 2001)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.a ‘loose’ methodology . as it engages with a .plethora of contexts. What might have been.

.

effective in facilitating suspension of disbelief and receptive discourse in Auger’s Audio

.Tooth Implant might . not be applicable in other . projects. For example, Sara Gold’s The.

.

.while Audio Tooth. Implant engages with cybernetics . and the body. Sara’s work emphasises.

.

Design practice as being affective rather than explanatory; in .a core tenet of Speculative . . .

miniaturisation of technology and urban myths that claim dental fillings give out signals

project highlights the importance of the discourse between the project and its audience.

As previously mentioned, Speculative Design can be understood as having

Alternet (Fig. 16) resonates with storytelling through object, service and systems design,

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 35 ] Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

.other words, Speculative . . inquiry as opposed to “providing answers or.

Design opens lines of

.

.the ways in which. we might understand design . problems and ideas.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

of an ‘alternative internet’ infrastructure that is community-owned. .through the proposition . . .

.

.Gold’s work facilitates . suspension of disbelief.by proposing the products, infrastructure, and.

.

the service system and ecosystem required for The Alternet to function. The design of the

.hardware, software, . and contextualising material . here draws attention to privacy issues by.

.

.focuses on the epistemic . . object(s), and how they “encourage us. qualities of the designed

.

think in tangible ways when we consider how they feature in everyday life.” (Malpass, .to . . .

2017) In this sense, the designed objects and the scenarios they exist in, are employed to

.

.inspire comprehension . of complex issues. This. approach makes the narrative surrounding.

.

2017) .and engaging. (Malpass, .

.

.

.

.

.

.

solutions to questions or design problems.” (Malpass, 2017) This enables diversification of

Figure 16 The Alternet

.

(Gold, 2014)

.The Alternet explores the .complex and pressing issue of data privacy.

In this speculative scenario, the retention of ownership of personal data is paramount.

means of familiarity with the form and expectations of use. (Malpass, 2017) This approach

the speculative object accessible and compelling, making the issue being raised tangible

.

5. design paradigm .A new .systems-based . .

.

.

about which new theory might be .Philosopher Thomas . Khun identified three phenomena . .

developed. (1970) The first type rarely provides either motive or point of departure for theory construction

.as existing.paradigms already . explain them. The second. type of phenomena, where research is most. frequently directed, is characterised by existing paradigms but requires further comprehension

.

.

.

.

.

.through supplementary . . articulation. When these.attempts at articulation fail, the third type of. theory phenomena is encountered, the anomalies that characteristically refuse to be assimilated into existing

.paradigms.. .

.

.

.

.In the context of. this dissertation, systemic. defects, as presented in section 5.6.1, are.

.synthesis of. a state-of-the-art. systems-based design practice; . Extra Systemic Design.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

two fronts. On one end, the ‘methods movement’ in recent design history promotes .on . . . the scientification of design. (Sevaldson, 2017) On the other end, projective design risks

.

.remaining highly. reflexive, being perceived .as art or entertainment. (Mazé & Redström,.

.

.face today. (Sevaldson, . 2017)

.

.

.

This theoretical analysis .as previously mentioned. . . and supplementation also represent a.

.

renewed attempt to intertwine design with systemics. The aim here is to centre design

.by balancing Systems . Thinking’s scientific approach . with Speculative Design’s futuring.

.

.anomalous ‘what’. that attempts to be understood . through this theoretical merger. Centring.

.

.design is the ‘how’ ..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

considered anomalies to be comprehended through the construction of a new theoretical edifice, the

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[ 36 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

5.

5.

.

1. .

Centring design

.As previously discussed, design . as a freestanding discipline faces threats.

2009) Both threats jeopardize the role design could play in addressing the challenges we

.

.

.As a response to these risks, . this dissertation makes an argument for.

supplementing two domains of practice, namely Speculative Design and Systems Thinking,

agency. (Fig. 17) Systemic defects (section 5.6.1) represent the object of this dissertation, the

Figure 17 Centring Design (Werleman, 2022)

.

2. .Domains intertwined .

.

.

.

.Thinking. (Ryan,.2014) In its modernist definition, . Design Thinking is a normative, user-.

.

centred and methods-oriented practice that promotes alienation from imaginative and

.inquisitive thinking. . (Malpass, 2017) This is.why the insertion of Design Thinking into.

.

.

.As previously mentioned in. section 2.4, the pluralist field of system-.

oriented design is underpinned by the synergies between Systems Thinking and Design

Systems Thinking can be perceived as a conventional and conforming move in the field

.

.

.

.

.of systems-oriented . design; it bolsters further . scientification of design and assimilates.

.

.fundamental receptiveness . . . to critical discipline stemming from the systems approach.

.

3.1) Both domains are unchallenged in this almost harmonious merger that typifies .(section . . . the current paradigm in Systemic Design. But “the current paradigm in any discipline is a

.

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 37 ]

.step in the staircase . of history.” (Kasser, 2018). Instead of normative design practices, what. if Systems Thinking could engage with projective design practices? In this dissertation, this

.

by the merger between .attempt is characterised . . Systems Thinking and Speculative Design,.

.

.design while at.the same time challenging. the scientification of design and Systems.

.

.of systems-oriented . design diversifies its dependency . . on methods-oriented design. Instead

.

used as a mere tool to reify systemic perspectives, design assumes an active .ofrolebeing . . . in challenging them, therefore thrusting the field of systems-oriented design beyond

.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

design into Systems Thinking’s pragmatism. This merger undermines Systems Thinking’s

as previously stated. This merger confronts the over reflexive tendencies of projective

Thinking’s deductive approach. Furthermore, inducting Speculative Design into the field

.subjective commodity . into the realms of projective . practices.

.

.

.

.

.the same time, points . of friction in each domain . which are receptive and simultaneously.

.

while also sharing points of overlap. .that are receptive. to criticism and supplementation .

.

.

.

.

.

.5.

.2.

.1.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.Analogies and dissimilarities. can be perceived between the domains of.

Systems Thinking and Speculative Design. This indicates points of compatibility and, at impervious to theoretical insertion and supplementation. Both domains have openings

where they deal with similar phenomena and categories, as laid out in the following section.

Openings and potentials

The first step in Barry Richmond’s 4-step

.

.Systems

.

.

(section 3.4.1) ‘Framing’, the first step in Speculative Design’s ‘loose’

.methodology (section 4.4) does . the same but takes it one step further by.

.

.

.Boulding’s indication of Systems . Theory’s relation to the empirical world.

.

.

.can be discerned. (1956) But. as previously discussed, Systems Thinking.

.

.

.complex problems, it puts little . attention to what ought to be done besides.

.

.

.problem

.

.

.

.

.

.

Thinking method (Fig. 2), focuses on specifying a problem.

defining the context around the problem to put into social debate. Here,

rarely crosses the theoretical threshold. While it helps with understanding constructing hypotheses and theory-testing models to understand the

.

.

supplement this gap by means of design materialisation.

.

at hand. Here, Speculative Design’s practical approach can

.

Accordingly, speculative Design proposals

.

.are meant to appeal to a broad . and diverse audience provoking social.

.

.

debate. (Auger, 2012) Dunne and Raby call it the process of fostering social

.dreaming, a process in which. the wider public is invited to have a say and.

.

.

.

.

.

contemplate social development and the future. (2013) But as previously

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 38 ] Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

.

.mentioned, Speculative Design . objects tend to be overly reflexive, being.

.

.

.contexts of use. (Mazé & Redström, . .

2009) Designers have had to deal with

.

.

.

.

perceptual barrier from the early days of the critical design movement .this . . in the 1960s. (Malpass, 2017) Here, a clear connection is perceived between

.

.

.4.4.1) is Speculative Design’s . remedy to this deeply-rooted struggle. It.

.

.

.of contextual narratives, materialisation . and aesthetics (Dunne & Raby,.

.

.

.arts, film, computer graphics. and architecture, especially in their avant-.

.

.

.

.

forms.” (Mitrovic, 2015) But this approach falls short in entrenching .garde . . suspension of disbelief on a more practical and utilitarian level as it tends

.

.

.industry helps the audience. to consider Speculative Design proposals.

.

.

through storytelling, which has been historically effective in stimulating

.discussions but falls short in. provoking critical thinking. This is because.

.

.

.and fluctuating systems of.belief and norms (Lund, 2012), resulting in.

.

.

biased perspectives that do not necessarily reflect the issue being .highly . . raised objectively. This customary approach to suspending disbelief is very

.

.

.susceptible to the audience’s. perceptions; while one person might discern.

.

.

“open-ended and offer the audience. .Design proposals are intentionally .

.

.

the possibility of personal interpretation”(Mitrovic, 2015), which correlates

.with art’s intent, therefore.remaining highly reflexive. Here, there is a.

.

.

.commanding, and specific, .shocking as design should be, as opposed to.

.

.

.art, which is easier to deal with. . (Tonkinwise, 2014)

.

.

.ambiguous open-ended ways . of presentation, facilitation and narration.

.

.

.

.

Design proposals antagonise the projective designer’s aim .ofto Speculative . . be intentional in bringing a specific context or issue into social debate.

.

.

to be more deliberate and intentional. .proposals. This would help designers .

.

.

with perceptions associated with their proposals and, therefore, their

.ability to direct discourse. .

.

.

.

.

“imaginary” worlds through design fiction in order to “question the

.

perceived as art or entertainment and remaining outside of everyday

.contemporary

.

.

Speculative Design and the widely omitted history of

Critical Design’s antecedents. (section 2.3) Suspension of disbelief (section

prompts designers to consider contexts of use through the construction

2013), drawing inspiration from the “poetics of literature, music, visual

and rife of preexisting connotations.. .to be highly stylised, conditioned .

(Lund, 2012) This tendency to rely on tactics inherent to the entertainment

this approach derives from a conductive device that is based on subjective

one thing, the other might perceive another. In this sense, Speculative

distinct potential to be exploited in projective design proposals to be more

.

Arguably, perceptual gaps resulting from

.By means of the Continuum.HTP (section 3.4.6), Systems Thinking shows. much promise in tackling this perceptual bridge in projective design

.

.Speculative .

.

Design

proposals

.

construct

.

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 39 ] Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

.

.world we live in – its values, . functions, its metabolism, as well as the.

.

.

.Speuclative Design’s plausible . relation and link to systemics which aims.

.

.

.

.

facilitate the understanding of “values, functions, [and] metabolism” of .to . . the world we live in. But as discussed above, this is a commonly unfulfilled

.

.

.verbalising its concepts akin. to science fiction narratives. For example,.

.

.

.perceived in wider society .as a medium interacted with within highly.

.

.

.objects ‘props’, which arguably . further disassociates the practice from.

.

.

.

.

consideration, placing the practice in a far fetched context the .critical . . majority of people can’t relate to. In deliberately aiming to “not provide

.

.

its agency as a credible agent of. .4.4.2), the field actively undermines .

.

.

change and social development. The argument here is that despite how

.detrimental reflexiveness is .to the field, many core concepts and methods.

.

.

.3.4.9), could augment projective . design proposals by making them more.

.

.

through scientific hypotheses, providing a more compelling .graspable . . means of informing and framing the speculation in projective design.

.

.

.

expectations of its inhabitants.” (Mitrovic, 2015) This passage suggests the

.intent of Speculative Desing. due to the practice’s reflexive tendencies,. which is also reflected in its literature characterised by a distinct way of

the term ‘imaginary’ in the above passage is telling of the field as it is specialised and curated contexts. Dunne and Raby call Speculative Design

.answers or create solutions”. and asserting that “conjecture is as good as. knowledge” (Johannessen et al., 2019) in the act of speculation (section

in Speculative Design tend to lean towards it. The Scientific HTP (section

.

.

The remainder of this chapter will see

.

.

.the construction of Extra Systemic .

Design as a new theoretical edifice,.

.

.

.systems-oriented design and. the over reflexiveness of Speculative Design.

.

.

.while at the same time thrusting . systemics beyond theorization toward.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.5.

.3.

which represents an attempt to contend with design’s scientification in

implementability and application.

Extra Systemic Design

.

.

.Our ancestors learned how. to shape the environment by taming wild.

.

.plants and animals . and cultivating the land.. This period in our shared history marks the.

.

2013) Çatalhöyük, one .human activity. (Turpin, . . of the first cities, was erected about 9.000.

onset of the Anthropocene, a new geological era for Earth’s lithosphere prompted by years ago in what is now Turkey. (Druyan & Sagan, 2020) “For human beings, development

.

.[was] no longer .nature, but self-development.” . (Aicher, 2015) Our main concern ever since.

.

has been to convert our environment to meet our needs, creating “a world made and

.organised by men.” . (Aicher, 2015) ‘Men’ became . the singular authority in form-giving and.

.

.

.

.

.

meaning-making. This human centricity has been a central driving force in the way we

.

.design. (Faste, 2015) .

.

.by way of their needs? . . .

And what about plants, and other bio-diverse ecosystems, like the

.

network? Could being receptive to new sources of design instructions finally help .mycelium . . . us expand beyond human centricity?

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[ 40 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

.

.

While this approach makes life easier for humans, it fails to consider

the limits of our planet and the livelihood of other species. What if animals could design

.

.As a consequence of a long tradition . . of human-centred design, the systems

.

life are widely governed by and tailored to human needs, which .that determine everyday . . .

.

.that expand beyond . the scope of human exigency. . Accordingly, post-humanist holism is a.

is why Extra Systemic Design proposals are informed by divergent systemic perspectives

defining concept of Extra Systemic Design. To design extra systemically, the designer must

.

.outstrip human .centricity in the design process. . A new paradigm in the field of systems-.

.

oriented design would need to expand beyond the constricts of human centricity by

.adopting a holistic . approach where repercussions . of that which is designed are considered.

.

.systemic perspectives, . namely artefacts that .belong to systems that do not exist today. .

.

.

.

.predictive powers. of science as a potential to tackle . unpredictability in agriculture.Previously,.

.

.farmers could not. foretell which traits in their . crops would dominate or which would be.

.

.same functions in. different species of plants. because they share a common ancestor. By.

and mitigated through the materialisation of (in)tangible objects that stem from extra

.Another core tenet of Extra.Systemic Design is exemplified in the work.

of Nikolai Vavilov, a geneticist who identified the origin of cultivated plants. He saw the

recessive; the farmer played roulette. Vavilov learned that the same genes perform the

finding the earliest living specimen of a plant, he could know how it changed over time.

.

.This decryption would . make it possible to write . new genetic messages, resulting in more.

.

resilient crops. (Druyan & Sagan, 2020)

.

.

.

.

Like crops, systems have dominant and recessive traits, namely emergent

.

.and extinctive properties. . . to foretell dominant traits in a crop is.

The farmer’s inability

.

.systems. Assuming . that systems share common . origins, better systems could be built by.

.

how they changed over time. Instead of playing roulette, knowing the odds .understanding . . . through the decryption of systems would lead to the conscious formation of new systems,

.

informing the perceptions and discourse around Extra Systemic .and as a consequence, . . .

.

.

.

.develop as a species, . as previously touched .upon, which is why Extra Systemic Design is.

.

.Design, Dunne .emphasised “design as having . value outside the marketplace” (2006),.

.

akin to product designers in the early days of Critical Design who sought to “disassociate

.themselves from.the interests of monetary gain . [to embrace] broader political goals” with.

.

.our validation mechanisms . . have been dominated by capitalistic metrics weighing in on.

.

.what is considered . a ‘success’ or a ‘failure’. As . Friederich von Borries puts it, “under the.

comparable to our inability to understand the emergent and extinctive properties of our

Design proposals.

.Observantly, commercialism. has put a strain on how we design and.

characterised by its alienation from commercialism. As one of the main voices in Speculative

the aim to spark critical discourse in capitalist consumer society. (Malpass, 2017) Arguably,

.

.capitalistic relations . of production, the human . being herself becomes an object: through.

.

.her labour.” (von. Borries, 2020) That which .has been created through design under the.

.

system, “from coal-fired power stations [to] herbicides to jet-skis […] to cluster .capitalistic . . . bombs, all combined […] take the future away.” (Fry, Dilnot & Stewart, 2015) Arguably

.

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 41 ]

defuture as they promote stagnation. .designs that are .entrenched by capitalistic validators . and conformity that subjects us to conditions under a capitalistic system. As designers that

.

.perpetuate such.a system, “we find ourselves.at the currently comfortable epicentre of the.

.

.

condition of unsustainability that defuturing animates.” (Fry, Dilnot & Stewart, 2015)

.

.

.

Commercial alienation, post-humanist holism, the decryption of systems,

.

.and the process of. constructing extra systemic. perspectives and artefacts are key concepts.

.

of Extra Systemic Design which are prevalent in the practice’s methods, as presented in

.section 5.4; Designing . extra systemically. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.and methodology. The method . stratum represents a toolbox, a set of.

.

.

.(Section 5.4) The methodology . stratum represents the logic for combining.

.

.

and reconstruct systemic perspectives .methods with the aim to construct . .

.

.

.represents the values and tenets . that define the role of the extra systemic.

5.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

the purchase of her labour-power, her knowledge, her creativity [and] the products of

. .

3.

.

.

1. .The strata of Extra . Systemic Design

.

.

.The conceived framework of Extra Systemic.

Design consists of three mutually reinforcing levels: mindset, method,

procedures and devices that can be employed to design extra systemically.

in order to conceive Extra Systemic Design proposals. The mindset stratum

designer, as presented in section 5.3.2. Accordingly, the extra systemic

.

.designer’s role is characterised . by the following essential presuppositions.

.

of Extra Systemic Design:

.

.

Design that reifies current conditions is incremental.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.Systems are perpetually changing. .

.

.

.

.Change is unpredictably capable . of emergent novelty.

.

.

.

.All systems have faults. .

.

.

.

.Systems are constructed and . can be reconstructed.

.

.

.

.Extra systemic proposals are . provisional and open to modification. .

.

.

.

Design must challenge systemic limitations.

Existing systems and the designs that perpetuate them must be defied.

.

.

.5.

.3.

.2.

.

.

.

.

.Systems vary in form and can be perceived in.

.

.

.as both (in)tangible parts of. the world that can be re-designed but also.

.

.

.must be aware of the way. in which they engage with systems, as an.

.

.

.fluidity, the design process of. an extra systemic designer must be adaptive.

.

.

.Arguably, committing to a single . variant of systems understanding and.

.

.

.designing would be restrictive . when dealing with the rich and varied.

.

.

.is to be perceived as a dynamic . process to be useful beyond single niche.

.

.

.Design’s

.

.

wayfinder and the discloser.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.The wayfinder

.

.

.

.holds onto disharmonies in order to learn.

.

.

.

.

.

.

become an expert. Economist Joseph .and .

Schumpeter saw entrepreneurship as the act

.

.

.

.as a projective designer, seeks to step outside. of reactive innovation, leading towards

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[ 42 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

5.

.

3.

.

.The extra systemic . designer

.

various ways. (section 2.1) The extra systemic designer may see systems as a way of organising thinking. Therefore, the extra systemic designer

object, in relation to the design process. Similarly, in dealing with systems

and iterative, comparable to Speculative Design’s ‘loose’ methodology.

demands of practice. Accordingly, Extra Systemic Design’s methodology

applications. In the following sections, before delving into Extra Systemic

2.

.

.

methods, the extra systemic designer is considered as the

1.

.As a wayfinder, the extra systemic designer. can be compared to the entrepreneur that

.of creatively responding to change rather than. adapting to it. (1947) Similarly, the wayfinder,

.

.

.

.unknown territory. Author and design activist.

.

.

.

.process of building systemic understanding.

.

.

.

straying to explore other routes. (2019) In .and . doing so, the wayfinder becomes conscious

.

.

.

.of

.

.

.

.system’s efficiencies with the aim to break.

.

.

Kate Fletcher refers to this as path-making, the

.

systemic anomalies and disharmonies,

identifying places to intervene in a complex new paths through the construction of

.

.extra systemic perspectives. This process is. explained in methodological terms in section

.

.

.

.5.4; Designing extra systemically.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.5.

.3.

.2.

.2.

.The discloser

.

.

.

.

.The

.

.

.

.

.&

.

.

.

.change have increasingly politicised science.

.

.

.

.design

.

.

.

.extra

.

.

.

.of the discloser. They must consider how to.

.

.

.

.to an audience in a way that is believable.

.

.

.

.dependence

(Susanka & Kramer, 2021), Extra Systemic

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[ 43 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

.

.

. importance of scientific insights has

increasingly been underscored. (Susanka Kramer,

2021)

The

struggles

.

with

disinformation around COVID-19 and climate

(Stjernquist, 2020), which is why knowledge

.

is more important than ever. In

exploring the premise of new systems, the

.

systemic designer assumes the role

best disclose extra systemic perspectives and

understandable.

Like

science’s

.

on effective communication

.

.

.

.Design

.

.

.

.making. The extra systemic designer must.

.

.

.

.

.

.

how design strategies achieve .consider . immediate insight and understanding by

.

.

.

.and

techniques of communication persuade the

proposals

depend

on

.

effective

mediation to play a role in societal decision-

.raising questions such as ‘how can design. render extra systemic perspectives clear

.

comprehensible?’, ‘which devices and

.

.

.

.addressee?’, ‘how can the insights from the.

.

.

.

.verbalised in a convincing way?’,‘in what way.

.

.

.

design perpetuate or undermine extra .does . systemic perspectives?’ and so on. Because

.

.

.

.extra systemic artefacts pertain to unexisting.

.

.

.

.the

references to base their understanding on.

decryption of systems be materialised and

systems, the designer must assume that

.

audience does not possess perceptual

.

.

.

.This is why the way Extra Systemic Design.

.

.

.

.must

.

.

.

exists only within the confines of .“knowledge . its semiotic representation […] design creates

.

.

.

.meaning as much as it communicates it.”.

.

.

.

.

proposals are presented and communicated be

critically

.

considered. Because

(Susanka & Kramer, 2021)

.

.5.

.4.

.

.

.

.The process of designing extra . systemically, as visualised in figure 18, is.

.

.futural. The present . dimension, as presented. in section 5.5, is concerned with the current.

.

.present dimension . consists of five steps, which. include; 1) identifying a problem, a systemic.

.

.factors that perpetuate . . mapping out the system that surrounds the. the systemic defect; 3)

.

.functions and origins; . and 5) constructing a .systemic model that outlines the system, the.

.

.drivers behind the. current situation and the cause . behind the systemic defect.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[ 44 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

.

.

.Designing.extra systemically .

.

characterised by the engagement with two fundamental dimensions, the present and the

state of things and represents the point of departure for the extra systemic designer. The defect that could be improved; 2) conducting an analysis to consider the (im)material

systemic defect; 4) considering the system as it was in the past to understand its elemental

PRESENT .DIMENSION

.

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 45 ] Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

in section 5.6, is concerned with the. .The futural dimension, as presented .

.

prospective future through the construction of extra systemic models and artefacts. The

.futural dimension . consists of four steps, which . include; 6) constructing extra systemic.

.

.step five in the present . . an analysis to consider the possible (im). dimension; 7) conducting

.

factors that embolden the extra systemic model; 8) considering how the different .material . . . elements of the extra systemic model may develop over time through their interaction; and

.

.9) verbalising and. materialising extra systemic . proposals.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

models by arranging and rearranging the elements of the modular systemic model of

FUTURAL DIMENSION

Figure 18 The Process of Designing Extra Systemically

.

(Werleman, 2022)

.

.5.

.5.

.

.

.

.The present . dimension

.

.

.

.

.The

.

.

.

in the coming sections. .will be further unfolded . .

.

.5.

.5.

.1.

.

.

.

.

.

.The

.

.

.characterised by a certain degree . of stubbornness. These are issues that.

.

.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[ 46 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

present dimension represents the first phase in the process of

designing extra systemically. As previously mentioned, it consists of a series of steps, which

.

.The systemic defect .

. .

extra systemic designer starts by

identifying a systemic defect they want to address. Systemic defects are persist just because ‘that is how it is and always has been’. Commonly

.

.raised

.

.

scepticism because nobody really understands why this is the way it is.

.Therefore, the designer must. adopt an uninhibited approach to problem.

.

.

.a big role. (2014) In contrast. to the scientification of methods-oriented.

.

.

.design, common sense is central . to identifying systemic defects. Similar to.

.

.

.dimensions. (Kasser & Zhao,.2016) An example of a systemic defect could.

.

.

.can a person afford 2.000 euros . in rent but can’t get approved for a 2.000.

.

.

euro a month mortgage?’, ’why do governments still invest in fossil fuels

.when globally 9 million people . die prematurely due to air pollution?’ or.

.

.

.to be sold in Denmark?’ Faced . with these type of questions, many could.

.

.

.argue that ‘that is the way it. is - it’s how things work’. These are arguably.

.

.

.extra

.

.

.be comprehended within the. current paradigm.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

2. .Factors of systemic . perpetuity

.

.

.

5.

.

5.

.

.

in informal settings, systemic defects are generally met with

framing where tacit knowledge and “gut feeling”, as Senge calls it, play

Wicked Problems (Shum 1996), systemic defects often have strong moral be the issue of ownership in real estate. Here, the designer may ask, ‘why

‘why do pears need to be grown in Argentina to be packed in Thailand

assertions that are constricted by the systemic limitations of today. An

.

.

systemic designer, on the other hand, ignores these systemic

limitations on the premise that a systemic defect is an anomaly that can’t

.

.“Everything

. .

within this world has been

created by design”. (Fry, Dilnot & Steward, 2015) All things we interact with

.

.daily, designed to one extent. or the other, shape our humane condition.

.

.

and existence. (von Borries, 2020) Design, therefore, reifies conditions,

.as discussed in chapter 4.0;. Design that projects. By incorporating the.

.

.

.

.

.

Operational HTP (section 3.4.2), the extra systemic designer considers

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 47 ] Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

.

.the (im)material designs and . factors that reify the systemic defect by.

.

.

.Ishikawa, is an effective way . to determine the relationships between.

.

.

.

.

and effects. (Kasser, 2018) Adapted to Extra Systemic Design, the .causes . . chart outlines the (im)material factors that cause the systemic defect in

.

.

.clothes that end up dumped . in Chile’s Atamaca Dessert. (Glover, 2021).

.

.

.that perpetuate this specific. systemic defect in order to grasp reciprocal.

.

.

.

influences that reify the current conditions. (Fig. 19)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.Figure 19 Cause and Effect Diagram .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.5.

.5.

.3.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.defect have been identified,. a wider systemic purview is necessary to.

.

.

identify where the systemic defect and its causes are situated within the

.context of the wider system.This . step in the present dimension incorporates.

.

.

.Here, the designer analyses .how the different causes behind the systemic.

.

.

are interrelated. In the fast-fashion example, the designer may .defect . . relate a fast-paced business model with consumer behaviour as a driver.

.

.

lead to an overview of how the fast-. .Tracing these types of connections .

.

.

.of what is being done and .how it is being done. Based on this analysis,.

.

the designer is able to map out the system as it is constructed through

.

focusing on casualty. The Cause and Effect chart, as developed by Kaoru

parameters. For example, a systemic. .order to determine the associated . defect in fast-fashion could be the 39.000 tonnes of unused and unwanted The extra systemic designer would then outline the (im)material factors

(Kasser, 2018)

The systemic purview

Now that the causes behind the systemic

the Functional HTP (section 3.4.3) and the Structural HTP (section 3.4.4).

fashion system functions in this case, which provides an understanding

.

.

.

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 48 ] Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

.

.its organised elements. For.example, a fast-paced business model relies.

.

.

.etc., and for unused and unwanted . . clothes to reach Chile, they need to be

.

.

.

.

this also relies on some sort of governmental approaval, and so .shipped, . . on. This provides a physical, technical and architectural view of the system

.5.

on a streamlined supply chain consisting of production sites, shipping,

.surrounding the systemic defect. .

.

.5.

.4.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.systemic defect, the designer. incorporates some aspects of the Temporal.

.

.

HTP (section 3.4.7) to consider the system as it has been in the past in order

.to outline how it has evolved . over time. As explained through Vavilov’s.

.

.

.to foretell their dominant and . recessive traits, the extra systemic designer.

.

.

the earlier versions of systems to identify their emergent and .considers . . extinctive properties over time. Here the designer considers “lessons to

.

.

and improvements for future. .be learned from system implementation .

.

.

.systemic defect has always .been present in the system makes it possible.

.

.

to determine when it appeared, which would provide clues as to how the

.system may have operated without . the undesired systemic defect.

.

.

.

.

.

world and other human beings is identified as a systemic defect of social

.media, previous iterations of. social media platforms and the ways they.

.

.

.questions such as, ‘what was. the original intent of social media?’, ‘has this.

.

.

.

.

changed over time?’, ‘is the systemic defect also present in earlier .intend . . social media systems?’, ‘if so, what triggered the systemic defect?’, ‘if not,

.

.

.helps them to fundamentally. understand how the different components.

.

.

of a system prompt emergent and extinctive properties over time, resulting

.in an overview of system iterations . and evolution. (Fig. 20)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The decryption of systems

After outlining the system surrounding the

work in section 5.3, similar to finding the earliest living specimen of plants

iterations of the system.” (Kasser, 2018) Identifying whether or not the

.

.For example, if dissociation from the physical.

operated would be considered. This would prompt research through

.what did the earlier social media . systems do differently?’, and so on. This. decryption of systems builds systems intelligence in the designer, which

Figure 20 The Decryption of Systems (Werleman, 2022)

.5.

.5.

.5.

.

model .The modular systemic .

.

.

.

.

.This

.

.

.

.HTP (section 3.4.9). The modular . systemic model is an adaptation of the.

.

.

.former steps in the present.dimension and provides an overview of the.

.

.

.purview (section 5.5.3), the .modular systemic model moves to a higher.

.

.

.the problem at hand. While. the systemic purview is mainly an internal.

.

.

the modular systemic model is both .tool for the extra systemic designer, . .

.

.

system and lessons learned from the. .relation to its causes, the surrounding .

.

.

.or collaborators. It is crucial .to keep the systemic model modular, making.

.

.

it possible to arrange and rearrange its components when constructing

.the extra systemic model. (section . 5.6.1) As systemic defects and systems.

.

.

.this. But as a rule of thumb,. keeping it simple is important. According to.

.

.

.

.

rule (Miller, 1956), the human brain cannot comprehend more than .Miller’s . .

7±2 items at a time. (Kasser, 2018) Therefore, ideally, the modular systemic

.

.

specific framing perspective, insights. .21) But depending on a designer’s .

.

.

and inferences from the previous steps in the present dimension, they

.may choose to emphasise other . aspects.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[ 49 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

.

. final step in the present dimension

incorporates aspects of the Generic HTP (section 3.4.5) and the Scientific problem-solving process as a Casual Loop. (Fig.3) It is informed by all the

current situation and related factors.While it appears similar to the systemic

level of generality, providing a specific perspective and understanding of

an internal and external tool. It is a brief to illustrate the systemic defect in

decryption of systems in a way that is graspable to all kinds of stakeholders

vary in complexity and form, there is no one right way of approaching

.model comprises a maximum . of 9 main components. In the social media. example, the modular systemic model may look something like this. (Fig.

Figure 21 The Modular Systemic Model (Werleman, 2022)

.5.

.6.

.

.

.

.The futural. dimension

.

.

.

.

the second phase in the process of .The futural dimension represents . .

.

in the coming sections. .will be further unfolded . .

.

.5.

.6.

.1.

.

.

.

.

.

.The first step in the futural dimension bears.

.

.

.Design’s ‘loose’ methodology .

.

.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[ 50 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

designing extra systemically. As previously mentioned, it consists of a series of steps, which

.

.The extra systemic . model

.

similarities with the act of speculation (section 4.4.2) in Speculative

.

and incorporates some aspects of the

Continuum HTP. (section 3.4.6) Here, the designer considers diverse ways

.

.the modular systemic model. can be organised and reorganised through.

.

.

its elemental parts to construct extra systemic models. This process is

.typified by the extra systemic . designer’s role as the wayfinder. (section.

.

.

.elemental combinations to.construct an array of extra systemic models.

.

.

.ranging from more pragmatic . to more imaginative models. This requires.

.

.

model represents the context from. .crucial because the extra systemic .

.

.

.the designer is working with . a modular systemic model depicting the.

.

.

current system of American politics, they would consider questions such

.as ‘what if there were more.than two political parties?’, ‘what if political.

.

.

.be other endorsing factors in. political nominations?’, ‘what if members of.

.

.

for life?’ and so on. Therefore, extra .congress didn’t keep their positions . .

.

.

.considering divergent ways they . could be functioning in order to construct.

.

.

.

.

.

.process of zooming out from . the systemic defect toward the modular.

5.3.2.1) Here, iteration is important in order to consider all the possible

perspectivation and judgement. This step in the futural dimension is very

which the Extra Systemic Design proposal derives from. For example, if

nomination didn’t rely so much on financial endorsements?’, ‘what could

systemic designers fundamentally question how systems function while extra systemic models on which to base their proposals.

.

.

While the present dimension requires a

systemic model, the futural dimension process requires zooming in from

.

.

.the extra systemic model toward . the extra systemic artefact. Accordingly,.

.

.

.of adaptation, as discussed. in this section, focuses on adjusting and.

.

.

.second level of adaptation (section . .

5.6.2) considers the factors that may

.

.

.perpetuate the extra systemic . model. And the third level of adaptation.

.

.

.model and its perpetuating.factors may develop over time through their.

extra systemic models undergo three levels of adaptation. The first level reorganising the elemental parts of the modular systemic model. The

(section 5.6.3) considers how the different elements of the extra systemic

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 51 ] Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

.

.interaction. Throughout these . adaptations, the designer must opt for a.

.

.

.centricity and commerciality..Thus, an extra systemic model never revolves.

.

.

.

.

around human-centred exigencies, nor does it have to conform .exclusively . . to capitalistic validators. In the social media example, the first level extra

.

holistic approach to consider the extra systemic model beyond human

like this. (Fig. 22) .systemic model may look something .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.Figure 22 The First Level Extra Systemic . Model

.

.

.

.5.

.6.

.2.

.

(Werleman, 2022)

.

.

.

.

.

.

perpetuity .Factors of extra systemic .

.

.

.

.of disbelief (section 4.4.1), the . designer now considers the (im)material.

.

.

.

.

and factors that may perpetuate the extra systemic model. .designs . .

Additionally, the designer incorporates some aspects of the act of

.

.

.model. Potential scenarios that . may perpetuate the extra systemic model.

.

.

are explored by letting two or more of these drivers engage with one

.another in the scenario matrix. . (Fig. 11) These steps represent the second.

.

.

.example, the designer may. identify specific factors that may reify the.

.

.

extra systemic model, such as a new social media platform, new .proposed . . policies, new technological gadgets, etc. While also considering scenarios

.

.

.such as an increase or decrease . of privacy concerns or a change in the.

.

.

.look something like this. (Fig.. 23)

.

.

.

.

.

By incorporating some aspects of suspension

.speculation

.

.

(section 4.4.2) to consider social/environmental/political/

economic/cultural/technological drivers surrounding the extra systemic

level of adaptation of the extra systemic model. In the social media

societal zeitgeist. In this case, the second level extra systemic model may

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.5.

.6.

.3.

.

.

models .Evolving extra systemic .

.

.

.

.

.By

.

.

.

.different elements of the .extra systemic model and its perpetuating.

.

.

.designer incorporates some.aspects of the Temporal HTP (section 3.4.7) to.

.

.

consider how the extra systemic model may develop and evolve over time

.by focusing on futural casualty. . These steps represent the third level of.

.

.

.couples trend research with. speculation. In the social media example,.

.

.

.the designer may, for instance, . deduce that as a consequence of moral.

.

.

.being treated as a research.resource rather than a commodity, may lead.

.

.

.more verbal mediums may .lead to less misinterpretations. (Fig. 24)

.

.

.

[ 52 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

Figure 23 The Second Level Extra Systemic Model

.

(Werleman, 2022)

incorporating some aspects of the

Operational HTP (section 3.4.2), the designer now considers how the factors may develop over time through their interaction. Additionally, the

adaptation of the extra systemic model. Here, the extra systemic designer

privacy policies, targetted insights, instead of targetted ads and data

to more meaningful content. Another deduction may be that opting for

.

.After three levels of adaptations, the extra.

systemic model should represent a complete picture of the futural

.

.

.conditions from which the .extra systemic artefact derives from. Similar.

.

.

.internal and external tool. It. is a sort of brief that illustrates the context.

.

.

.all kinds of stakeholders, collaborators . and ultimately an audience.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

to the modular systemic model, the final extra systemic model is both an which surrounds the extra systemic artefact in a way that is graspable to

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.5.

.6.

.4.

.

.

proposals .Extra Systemic Design .

.

.

.

.

.In

.

.

.

.concepts

.

.

.Differing from this approach, . Extra Systemic Design proposals exploit.

.

.

critical discipline more fundamentally through the formation of systemic

.and extra systemic models.. This is important because, as mentioned.

.

.

.reflexive and introverted, sustained, . . practised, and exchanged in a closed

.

.

.community.” (Malpass, 2017).Accordingly, Extra Systemic Design proposals.

.

.

.and proposals which are often . “open-ended, unclear […] complicated,”.

.

.

.2007) As most of Dunne and. Raby’s proposals are not meant to “actually.

.

.

function” (Tonkinwise, 2014), they have remained largely untested in ‘real-

.world’ contexts. (Parsons, 2007) . Here, there’s an opportunity to situate.

.

.

.through Extra Systemic Design . practice.

.

.

.

.

.

.5.3.2.2) by interpreting extra. systemic models, using them as a new way.

.

.

.of informing their speculation. . Here, Extra Systemic Design proposals.

.

.

.audience in mind which, in turn, . dictates the proposal’s functionality and.

[ 53 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

Figure 24 The Third Level Extra Systemic Model

.

(Werleman, 2022)

Critical Design and Speculative Design

proposals, critical theory is “applied strategically and sporadically, using

.

.

for inspiration and explanation rather than attempting to

construct a complete and internally consistent argument.” (Malpass, 2017)

heretofore, critical practice increasingly risks becoming “overly self-

are meant to surpass beyond the functions of Speculative Desing’s ‘props’

(Johannessen et al., 2019) and rarely meant to be consumed. (Parsons,

the potential and premise of projective design practices in wider society

.

.In this final step of the futural dimension,.

the extra systemic designer assumes the role of the discloser (section

must be intentionally verbalised and materialised with a specific

.

.

.implementability. Besides the . general public and other designers, extra.

.

.

.philanthropists, and facilitators . in education and business innovation. An.

.

.

.

.

Systemic Design proposal consists of two fundamental components; .Extra . . an artefact and a brief.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[ 54 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.5.

.6.

systemic proposals are characteristically directed towards policymakers,

.

.4.

.

.

.1.

.

The artefact

.

.

.

.Extra systemic artefacts may take material.

.

.

.

.or immaterial forms. A specific approach to.

.

.

.

.impossible to outline because of the rich and.

.

.

.

.conceiving the artefact, the designer must. consider the extra systemic model in tandem

the designing of extra systemic artefacts is varied demands of practice. Nevertheless, in

.

.

.

.with some approaches, as touched upon in.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.cultures in Andean South America to record.

.

.

.

.(National Geographic, 2017) Similar to how.

.

.

.

.this artefact gives insight into ancient ways.

.

.

.

.give

.

.

this section.

.

The quipu was a device used by several

both statistical and narrative information.

of living and being, extra systemic artefacts

.

insight into futural systems. In this

sense, designing extra systemically can be

.

.understood as a form of reversed archaeology,. disclosing artefacts that pertain to a probable

.

.

.

.future.

.

.

.

.

.Informed

.

.

.

.“imagine the object in their lives” (Malpass,.

.

.

.

.will the artefact be used?’, ‘how does the.

.

.

.

.artefact

.

.

.

.the artefact and its functions?’, ‘who or what.

.

by the extra systemic model,

the designer considers contexts of use to

2017) by posing questions such as ‘how

.

perpetuate the futural system?’,

‘what mediums or materials are fitting for will make use of the artefact - and for what

.

.

.

.purpose?’ and so on.

.

.

.

.‘User-unfriendliness’

is a “form of gentle

.

provocation”

deliberately

.

.

.

to

. .

alienate

.

.

.

.

.users

.

.

.

.vein, in extending beyond human exigency,.

.

.

.

.

.

.

systemic artefacts embody some .extra . degree of user-hostility to de-centre humans

.5.

.6.

.

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 55 ]

interpretation. (Dunne, 2006) In the same

.in the design process.

.

.4.

.2.

.

.The brief

.

.

.

.The

.

.

.

.

.suspend disbelief to reify the validity of the.

.

.

.

.form of a report, a video, a website, etc. It is a. graspable depiction of the futural system that

.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

from objects to prompt conscious

.

.

brief represents an extension of the

extra systemic model. Its main function is to

extra systemic artefact. The brief may take the

.

.

.

.the artefact pertains to. The content and aim.

.

.

.

.For example, if an extra systemic proposal is.

.

.

.

.meant to reach policymakers, the brief may.

.

.

.

.that

.

.

.

.making the proposal’s relevancy evident in.

.

relation to legislative agendas.

. .

. .

vary depending on the intended audience.

be an empirical report consisting of insights

.

link the modular systemic model to

the extra systemic model, as a consequence

.

.

Combined, extra systemic artefacts and briefs

.

.bring to life objects, processes and strategies. that pertain to systems that do not exist

.

.

.

.today with the aim to provoke discussion,.

.

.

.

.prompts design and innovation that further.

.

.

.

.explores the premise of futural systems.

.

.6.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.Discussion .

ideation and eventually implementation that

This chapter briefly discusses Extra Systemic Design applications and further pursuits in

.the further.establishment of.the practice.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.6.

.1.

.

.

.

instances of Extra Systemic Design .As an emergent practice, applied . .

.

as a systemic defect in the social. .various contexts..For instance, to address disassociation .

.

.a manifesto (the.artefact) and a video (the brief) . with the aim to entice the international.

.

.as an experiment. to test out an extra systemic. model that proposes a future without social.

.

.incorporating aspects . of the decryption of .systems to learn from the phylogenetics of.

.

on which to base Extra Systemic Design proposals. Besides these .the mycelium network . . .

.

.may hint toward.the potential and applicability . of the practice.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. Figure 25 Phoneblocks .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

a modular phone (Fig. 25), imagines a. .Phonebloks, a concept that presents .

.

compartmentalised phone with the aim to promote a longer device lifespan. The concept’s

.antipathy to the. industry’s ‘short-lifespan’ design . standards is engraved in the design,.

.

.system it pertains. to. The Handmaid’s Tale (Fig. . 26), a TV series that envisions a fictional.

.

ruled by Gilead, a totalitarian patriarchal theocracy, depicts an alternate reality .country . . . based on divergent systems of politics, values, beliefs and norms. The series is, therefore, a

.

.materialisation of. a futural system, which in.turn provokes discourse and thought on how.

.

.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[ 56 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

.Applications .

.

.

.

.

are non-existent. As previously explored, topics and objectives vary and can be applied in

media example in the previous chapter, an Extra Systemic Design proposal may consist of hacktivist collective anonymous to disable all social media platforms for a period of time media. Deforestation as a systemic defect of palm oil production could be addressed by

hypothetical applied instances of Extra Systemic Design, some examples of the ‘real world’

(One Army, 2013)

which can be perceived as an artefact that serves as a manifestation of the envisioned

such a system could actually work.

.

.

.

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 57 ] Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(Hulu, 2017)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.6.

.2.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.practice, an expedition . with many avenues for. further expansion. Besides providing a new.

.

way of informing speculation, centring design (section 5.1) through the process of designing

.extra systemically. may prove to be a valuable.asset as a mediating tool in multidisciplinary.

.

.and teachers along . with stakeholders as the .majority of projective design practice is found.

.

work. Further attention to this aspect of Extra Systemic Design may lead to .inan student . . . overall framework that bolsters interdisciplinarity. Furthermore, exploring and defining

.

Figure 26 The Handsmaid’s Tale

Further pursuits

This dissertation represents the outset of the Extra Systemic Design

settings, serving as a bridge between scientific fields and design but also between students

to define and assess .new validation mechanisms . . Extra Systemic Design proposals could. reinforce the practice’s coherence. There is also a lot of potential in exploring the linguistics

.

Defining a sort of glossary of practice-. .that befits the process . of designing extra systemically. .

.

specific terms would facilitate better communication and dispersion of Extra Systemic

.Desing

.

.unanticipated emergence .

(Kasser, 2018) and.resistance to change (Khun, 1970) could also.

.

the work of the extra systemic designer. Ultimately, putting the Extra Systemic .reassure . . .

Design edifice and practice to the test through case studies would further solidify it as an

.

.emergent practice. in the field of systems-oriented . design.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

proposals amongst designers, stakeholders and audiences, as a consequence

extending the agency and premise of Extra Systemic Design proposals. Considering

.7.

.

.Conclusion .

.

.

.

.

.

.

The overall inquiry running throughout this dissertation is typified by the merger between

.the domains. of Systems Thinking . and Speculative Design,. which led to the formation of Extra Systemic.

Design, a new design practice within the pluralist field of systems-oriented design. This endeavour

.was prompted . as a response. to three main challenges,.namely; 1) the scientification of design that. the recent methods-orientation in design history and the field of systems-oriented design; .inhibits . . . .

2) the tendency of projective design practice to remain highly reflexive; and 3) Systems Thinking’s

.inability to.surpass theoretical . thresholds.

.

.

it was hypothesised that these challenges could be addressed by centring .design (section .Subsequently, . . .

5.1), which involved; 1) exploiting System’s Thinking’s scientific approach to counter

.Speculative. Design’s reflexive . tendencies while at the same . time thrusting Systems Thinking beyond. theorisation; and 2) employing Speculative Design’s futuring agency to combat the scientification of

.design. As a.result, outlining a. new way to inform speculation . through the introduction of Extra Systemic.

Desing (section 5.3) as a means to tackle challenges that characteristically refuse to be assimilated into

.existing paradigms . . to go beyond today’s systemic . limitations.

- a vehicle

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

[ 58 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

.

.Extra Systemic Design . symbolises a symbiosis . similar to that found in pioneering sci-fi of.

the 1970s, which are characterised by their optimistic vision of the future; a convergence of science and

.imagination. . With escapism. (Dickinson, 2021) and disbelief . in science (Stjernquist, 2020) on the rise,. perhaps an extended purpose of Extra Systemic Design is to reignite social dreaming, which was more

.common before. . (Dunne & .Raby, 2013) In a society where . the majority is “not used to encountering. objects” (Tonkinwise, 2014), and projective designs are often seen as ‘just ideas’, it is providential .design . . . . to propel divergent concepts because “new ideas are exactly what we need today.” (Dunne & Raby,

.2013) Arguably, . projective design . proposals are not only. ideas but also ideals, as moral philosopher.

Susan Neiman once said, “ideals are not measured by whether they conform to reality; reality is judged

.by whether.it lives up to ideals.” . (Black, 2009)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 59 ] Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.References .

.

.

.Aicher, O. (2015). . The World as . Design (2nd ed.). Wiley. Retrieved .

5 April 2022, from https://www. .

perlego.com/book/995012/the-world-as-design-pdf.

.

.

.

Why Robot? Speculative Design, Domestication of Technology and the .Auger, J. (2012). .Considered . .

Future [Ebook] (pp. 130-136 153 164). Royal College of Art.

. . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Auger, J., 2013. Speculative design: crafting the speculation. Digital Creativity, 24(1), pp.11-35.

Barnett, G. (1997). Organizational Communication Systems: The Traditional Perspective. In G.A. Barnett (Ed.), Organization Communication ⟷ Emerging Perspectives, (pp. 1-46). Ablex Publishing Corporation.

.

.

.

.

.

.Von Bertalanffy, . L. (1956). General . System Theory, in Emery, . F.E. (Eds.). General System, Yearbook of . .

of General Systems Theory. .Society for the Advancement . .

.

Developments, Applications. New .Von Bertalanffy, . L. (1968). General . Systems theory: Foundations, . .

[ 60 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

York: George Braziller.

.

.

Black, T. (2009). ‘We want to determine the world, not be determined by it’. Spiked. Retrieved 15

.

.

.May 2022, from https://www.spiked-online.com/2009/07/31/we-want-to-determine-the. .

.

.

.

world-not-be-determined-by-it/.

.

.

.

F. (2020). The World as Project: A Political Theory of Design. University of Fine Arts .von Borries,.Hamburg. . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Boulding, K. (1956). General systems theory-The skeleton of science. Management Science, 2, 197-208.

Cabrera, D. (2006). Systems Thinking (Doctoral). Cornell University.

.

.

.

.

Davidz, H. (2007). Enabling Systems Thinking To Accelerate the Development of Senior Systems

.

.Engineers (Doctoral). . Massachusetts Institute. of Technology.

. .

.Dickinson, .C. (2021). Lifestyle.Trend: The Rise of Personal.Expression. WGSN. Retrieved 13 May 2022, . .

.from https://www.wgsn.com/interiors/p/article/90750?lang=en&_fsi=HlqIpCTh. . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Druyan, A., & Sagan, C. (2020). Cosmos: Possible Worlds. National Geographic.

.

Dunne, A. (2006). Hertzian tales. MIT Press.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

.

.

.

Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. MIT Press.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Faste, H. (2015). Stanford Seminar - Post Human-Centered Design [Video]. Retrieved 30 March 2022,

.from https://youtu.be/HYLvVdfNlKk. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.Fry, T., Dilnot, . C., & Stewart, S.. (2015). Design and the Question . of History. Bloomsbury Academic.

.

.G. & C. Merriam . Company. (1959). . System. Webster’s New. International Dictionary (2nd ed.).

.

.Glover, E. (2021). . Chile’s Atacama . desert becomes dumping . ground for fast fashion leftovers..

.

.

.Retrieved 21 April. 2022, from https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/fast. .

.

.

fashion-atacama-desert-chile-b1953722.html.

.

.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Hoare, Q. and Nowell

.

.Smith, G. (Eds) Lawrence . and Wishart.

.

. .

.Herrington,.G. (2020). Update. to limits to growth: Comparing . the World3 model with empirical data. . .

.Journal Of Industrial . Ecology, 25(3).

.

.Johannessen, . L., Keitsch, M.,.& Pettersen, I. (2019). Speculative . and Critical Design — Features,

.

.

.

Methods, and Practices. Proceedings Of The Design Society: International Conference On

.Engineering Design, . 1(1), 1623-1632.

.

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.Jordan, N. (1968). . Themes in.Speculative Psychology (1st.ed., pp. 44-65). Tavistock Publications

[ 61 ]

.

.

Limited.

.

.

.

. .

.Julier, G. (2006). . From Visual.Culture to Design Culture. Design . Issues, 22(1), 64-76.

.

.Kasser, J. E.,. and T. Mackley. (2008). . Applying Systems Thinking . and Aligning It to Systems

.

.

.

Engineering. In the 18th INCOSE International Symposium, at Utrecht, Holland.

.

.

.

Kasser, J. (2018). Systems thinker’s toolbox: tools for managing complexity (1st ed.). CRC Press/Taylor

.

.Khun, T. (1970). . The Structure. of Scientific Revolutions (2nd . ed.). The University of Chicago Press.

.

.

.& Francis Group..

.

.Lund, N. (2012). . The application . of the Hollywood storytelling . formula to destination marketing. In . .

.The Destination .Branding & Marketing IV. Cardiff. .

.

A Systemic View on. the Design Situation. Design Issues, 32(3), . .Lurås, s. (2016). . Systems Intertwined: .

.

30-41.

.

.

.

.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

Maeda, J. (2013). Artists and Scientists: More Alike Than Different. Scientific American Blog Network.

.

.Retrieved 24 March . 2022, from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/artists-and. .

.

.

.

scientists-more-alike-than-different/.

.

.

.Malpass, M.. (2017). Critical Design . in Context: History, Theory, . and Practice. Bloomsbury.

.

.Margolin, V.. (2007). Design, the . Future and the Human Spirit. . Design Issues, 23(3), pp.4-15.

.

.Mazé, R., &.Redström, J. (2009). . Difficult Forms: Critical practices . of design and research.

.

.McDonald,.J. K. (2016). Embracing . the Danger: Accepting.the Implications of Innovation. Educational . .

.Technology, 56(6),. 14–17.

.

.

.Mele, C., Pels, . J., & Polese, F. .(2010). A Brief Review of Systems . Theories and Their Managerial

.

.

.

Applications. Service Science, 2(1-2), 126-135.

.

.

.

Mitrovic, I. (2015). Introduction to Speculative Design Practice – Eutropia, a Case Study (1st ed.).

.

.National Geographic. . . .

(2017). Threads That Speak: How The Inca Used Strings to Communicate

.

.

.

.

.Croatian Designers . Association.

.

.[Video]. Retrieved. 4 May 2022, from https://youtu.be/AmPyz1kCbOw. .

Books. .Papanek, V..(1972). Design for. the Real World [Ebook]. Pantheon .

.

.Ramo, S. (1973). . The Systems. Approach. In R. F. Miles Jr (Ed.), . Systems Concepts, (pp. 13-32). John Wiley.

[ 62 ]

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today.

.

& Sons, Inc.

.

.

.

Richmond, B. (1994). Systems thinking/system dynamics: let’s just get on with it. System Dynamics

.

.Review, 10(2), 135-157. .

.

.

.Richmond,.B. (1997). The “thinking” . . . in systems thinking: How can we make it easier to master?. The .

.Systems Thinker,.8(2). Retrieved 12 November. 2021, from https://thesystemsthinker.com/ .

.

.

the-thinking-in-systems-thinking-how-can-we-make-it-easier-to-master/

.

.

.

Ryan, A. (2014). A Framework for Systemic Design. Formakademisk - Relating Systems Thinking And

.

.

.Schon, D. (1991). . The reflective . practitioner. Ashgate.

.

.

.

.Design II, 7(4), 1-14. .

.Schumpeter,. J. A. (1947). The.Creative Response in Economic . History. The Journal of Economic History,. .

.7(2), 149–159. .

.

.

for a Better World” - Aalto .Senge, P. (2014). . “Systems Thinking . . Systems Forum 2014 [Video]. Retrieved .

.

6 November 2021, from https://youtu.be/0QtQqZ6Q5-o

.

.

.

Sevaldson, B. (2017). Redesigning Systems Thinking. Formakademisk, 10(1), 1-23.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.implementation.in school leadership. International . Review Of Education, 59(6), 774-778. .

.

2021, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24636801. .Retrieved 18 November . .

.

.

.

.

Shaked, H., & Schechter, C. (2013). Seeing wholes: The concept of systems thinking and its

.

.

.Stjernquist,.A. (2020). Trust in. science becomes a political.issue. How did that happen?. Boston .

University News Service. Retrieved 4 April 2022, from https://bunewsservice.com/trust-in-

.science-becomes-a-political-issue-how-did-that-happen/. . .

.Susanka, T.,. & Kramer, O. (2021). . Introduction: Knowledge. Design – Visual Rhetoric in Science .

.Communication..Design Issues, 37(4), 4-8. .

. . . .

.Thackara, J.. (1988). Beyond the . object in design, in Thackara, . J. (Eds.). Design after modernism. 1-34 . .Tonkinwise,. C. (2014). How We . Intend to Future: Review of. Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby, .

Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. Design Philosophy Papers,

.12(2).

.

.

.Turpin, E. (2013). . Architecture. in the Anthropocene. Ann Arbor: . Open Humanities Press.

[ Designing things for systems that do not exist today. [ 63 ]

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Weinberg, G. (1975). An introduction to general systems thinking. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hildward JJ Werleman ]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.