Welcome back NextD Journal readers. Last week we noticed our friends over in the Systemic Design RSD Conference were referencing the existence of “Different Dialects” so we thought this might be a good moment to do a little more fleshing out on that topic for our NextD Journal / Design for Complexity readers.
Always happy to see and share progress in this subject terrain. It's true that the community often presents complex pictures, not easily deciphered.
Yes, it is an important aspect of the Design for Complexity movement that not one, but numerous streams exist, have existed for some time and are ongoing in forward motion.
It’s a sensemaking and changemaking story that originated in the activity of leading practices pointing to a particular type of complexity related change on the horizon beginning in 2005 that has fully arrived today.
Lots of work has gone into conveying the message that design needs a rethink, in order to be able to engage with the levels of complex challenges that now exist, beyond the assumptions of product, service, experience. In the beginning, the horizons signal work was tabled, not by institutions, but rather by a group of independent, not officially sanctioned outsider change activists.
In some design circles, particularly in graduate design education, the complexity approaching on the horizon signal story was not popular for numerous years, especially during the marketing of the design thinking solves world peace wave but “the worm has turned” as they say.
No longer deflectable on the horizon, but here amongst us, numerous streams and variables focused in the direction of Design For Complexity do exist. Is it now a tsunami? Not quite yet, but it’s building.
We did some reflecting on the various flavors, dialects and nuances that now exist in different combinations. Are flavors and nuances inside dialects? You decide. Happy to share that reflection.
50+ Flavors of Design for Complexity
How many flavors and which ones make the most sense for you?
Recognizing need for change related to rising complexity of challenges, some emergent streams arrived publically in 2005, others in 2010, 2012, 2019, 2023, 2024.
Some streams have been operational since 2001, others are now arriving.
Some streams originate in academic considerations, others have been informed by the needs of strategic practice.
Some streams originate in conceptualizing the perceived needs of a struggling planet, others less so.
Some streams have undertaken extensive methodology related research, others not so much.
Some streams contain detailed problem finding explanation materials, related to design, why change is needed, others do not.
Some streams have in mind a two-in-one combination model, adding one ingredient to design, while others are engaged in practice with x10+ cross community combinations.
Some streams are incorporating knowledge from outside systems thinking and design, others not so much.
Some streams have prioritized revisiting Russ Ackoff ‘s wish that systems thinking be reinvented, others are not on that mission.
Some streams have in mind positioning 1970s Berkeley as the stream source, others are oriented/anchored differently, elsewhere and earlier.
Some streams position systems thinking as already inside strategic design for decades, others position it as a new arrival to the party.
Some streams position systems thinking as a new body of knowledge, while others acknowledge it’s been around struggling for recognition since the 1940s.
Some streams are interpreting systems thinking as holism, others have a wider interpretation.
Some streams embrace the peculiarities of complexity and others not so much.
Some streams have design driving the train, others have systems thinking logic driving.
Some streams have systems thinking on the train but not driving the train.
Some streams have hybrid logic driving the train, neither design or systems thinking.
Some streams are most interested in Arena 3 / Organizational ChangeMaking, others in Arena 4 Societal ChangeMaking.
Some streams have long experience working the frontiers of facilitating complex multidisciplinary co-creation, others not so much.
Some streams have in mind becoming all-knowing content advisors, climate advisors (sage on the stage), others are more focused on the process side (guide on the side).
Some streams seek to hold onto and reposition assumption-boxed methods (product, service, experience) as meta, others have left those orientations behind.
Some streams have spiritual dimensions, others do not.
Some streams reflect advanced problem finding/evolving, others are anti-problem solving activists.
Some streams are geared for wading into known wicked problems, others for the terrain of the unknown.
Some streams are aligned with aspects of Don Norman's vision of Design's Future, others are not.
Some streams are heavy on philosphy, lite on actual methods, others are focused on methods.
Some streams are spanning multiple communities of practice, others one or two.
Some streams subscribe to the 1991, Magic Thinking / 4 Orders of Design, others to 2020, NextD Geographies / Skill-to-Scale.
Some streams include the skill of open systemic challenge framing, others engage with discipline-based challenge framing.
Some streams have in mind making the focus regeneration, while others less so.
Some streams have made the connection between regeneration and enabling cognitive inclusion, others have not.
Some streams acknowledge and incorporate practice-based scholorship regarding, visual sensemaking history knowledge, others do not.
Some streams reflect the word-centric Weick/Dervin Roots 1990-2024 of sensemaking [ Type1], others operate accross the broader Neurath/Wurman 1730-2024 + Weick/Dervin Roots [Type 3 ].
Some streams seek to reposition sensemaking as truth deciphering, others do not.
Some streams teach visual sensemaking attached to strategic cocreation, others teach meeting visualization.
Some streams create visual explanation tools based on understanding cognitive differences, others are creating decorative confusiongrams.
Some streams are connecting into team dynamics by enabling psychological safety, and cognitive inclusion, others do not.
Some streams help organizations define what inclusive innovation is, other streams contain no such definitions.
Some streams have inclusive culture building tools and others are not yet there.
Some streams have rolled out skill-building programs, others have programs on the way.
Some streams have skill-building programs operational for a decade+, others are launching new programs.
Some streams have skill-building programs geared to senior change driving organizational leaders, others are directed at graduate students.
Some streams have Skills Progression Ladders codified, to explain skills advance, others contain no such codifcation.
Some streams are creating materials for academic audiences, others for practitioner audiences.
Some streams have yearly conferences, others have on-line, sensemaking journals.
Some streams have published books, others have books in the works.
Some streams are onboarding Ai experiments, looking at what Ai can and cannot do presently, others not so much.
Some streams are anchored in academic institutions, others in practice.
Some streams are founded and lead by academic leaders, others by practice leaders.
Some have LinkedIn participatory discussion groups, some do not.
All streams are enaged in anticipating, digesting the arriving, emerging future as rapidly as possible.
Other flavors TBD!
What we have discovered/observed since 2005 is that with a few exceptions, most of the Design For Complexity streams subscribe to what we call the Authentic School of Design Journalism rather than the Avoidance School of Design Journalism which tends to still often be present in the broader design community…:-)
End.
Image Credits:
Images 1, 2, 3: From Rethinking Design Thinking, Making Sense of the Future that has Already Arrived, Humantific, 2020.
Image 3: Making Sense of SenseMaking, Humantific 2010-2024
Book Project: Seeking Design for Compexity Methods / Innovation Methods Mapping Book 2:
Comments