Innovation in Complex Systems: Identifying Opportunities with Systems Thinking and Powering Change through Design Thinking

Abstract

This chapter delves into the dynamic relationship between Systems Thinking and Design Thinking, two influential methodologies reshaping the landscape of innovation. Beginning with an introduction to both approaches, the chapter explores their historical contexts, diverse applications across industries, and prominent models. Design Thinking is elucidated first, highlighting its emphasis on empathetic problem-solving, ideation, and prototyping through tools such as user personas and journey mapping. Meanwhile, systems thinking is characterized by its holistic perspective, focusing on comprehending complex interrelationships and patterns within systems, utilizing tools like causal loop diagrams and system maps for analysis. The chapter proceeds to compare and contrast these two methodologies, ultimately revealing a compelling fusion of their principles. It demonstrates how systems thinking adeptly identifies opportunities within intricate systems, which seamlessly transitions into the realm of Design Thinking for implementing transformative changes and creating ventures. This integrated approach provides a comprehensive framework—leveraging systems thinking for opportunity identification and Design Thinking for impactful implementation—offering a holistic guide for navigating and innovating within complex systems.

1. Introduction

Amid an era marked by incessant change and an ever-growing complexity of challenges, the need for innovative problem-solving methodologies has never been more pronounced. As we navigate a landscape characterized by multifaceted issues that resist simplistic, one-dimensional solutions, the intersection of Systems Thinking and Design Thinking emerges as a compelling paradigm for addressing the intricacies of our contemporary world.

The imperative to move beyond solutions that are facile and easily implemented into a more nuanced understanding of complex problems finds resonance in the works of Rittel and Webber [1], who introduced the concept of “wicked problems.” These are challenges that defy straightforward solutions due to their interconnected nature and the multitude of stakeholders involved.

Recognizing the interdisciplinary nature of contemporary problems, Buchanan [2] advocates for a design practice that goes beyond esthetics, emphasizing its role as a problem-solving tool that engages with complex systems. This perspective aligns with the ethos of systems thinking, which, as discussed by Checkland [3], seeks to understand the interrelated components of a system and their dynamic interactions.

Design Thinking, as popularized by Tim Brown and IDEO, focuses on human-centered problem-solving, emphasizing empathy and iterative prototyping. On the other hand, systems thinking, rooted in the works of Ackoff [4] and Forrester [5], offers a holistic approach to understanding and addressing complex issues by examining the relationships and feedback loops within a system.

The tension between specialization and integration in problem-solving approaches is discussed by Cross [6], who emphasizes the need for both depth and breadth in thinking processes. This tension is particularly evident in the dichotomy between Design and Systems Thinking, where the specialization of tools has been a response to perceived separateness.

Recent market trends also demonstrate this shift in the market and design industry. The design giant, IDEO has strategically laid off roughly 25% of its staff and closed many operations and offices in various locations [7]. This highlights the limitations in some areas of design thinking when addressing complex issues and suggests that systems thinking could be a complementary approach [8].

The role of entrepreneurship in navigating complexity is highlighted by Schumpeter [9], who explains that entrepreneurs are the drivers of disruptive innovation, challenging the status quo. The effectiveness of entrepreneurial thinking in addressing complex problems is further explored by Sarasvathy [10] through the concept of effectuation, highlighting the dynamic and adaptable nature of entrepreneurial decision-making.

As we embark on this exploration, we delve into the historical underpinnings and fundamental principles that define both Design and Systems Thinking. Drawing on the insights of seminal thinkers in these domains, we aim to elucidate the distinct stages and common tools employed by these methodologies, laying the groundwork for a nuanced understanding of their individual contributions to problem-solving.

Building upon this scholarly foundation, we propose an integrative approach—melding the realms of Systems and Design Thinking into a harmonious model. This synthesis aims not to dilute the individual efficacy of these thinking styles but rather to leverage their complementary strengths. Our objective is to present a best-practice model that draws on the scholarly works mentioned, equipping problem solvers with the ability to identify opportunities within complex systems and subsequently execute meaningful, transformative change.

As we delve into the exploration of this integrative model, we seek to bridge the gap between the perceived dichotomy of Design and Systems Thinking, offering a roadmap for practitioners and scholars alike to navigate the intricate terrain of contemporary problem-solving, guided by rigorous academic insights and frameworks.

2. Comparing design and systems thinking

2.1 History of design thinking

Design thinking has a rich and diverse history, with roots tracing back to Peter Rowe’s work in architecture at Harvard School of Design [11]. However, its contemporary prominence is largely associated with IDEO and its founder David Kelley, and current CEO Tim Brown [12]. IDEO, initially focused on product development, has expanded its scope to include services, strategies, and even social systems.

Brown advocates for design thinking as a human-centered approach to innovation, emphasizing the importance of understanding people’s needs through observation and designing solutions accordingly. He draws examples from innovators like Thomas Edison to illustrate how design thinking can lead to creative and practical solutions, emphasizing multidisciplinary teamwork and user-centered experiences [13].

Herbert Simon, in “The Sciences of the Artificial,” views design thinking as a problem-solving tool that engages with complex systems to create efficient and harmonious solutions. He aligns this perspective strongly with systems thinking, stressing the dynamic interactions within systems and their environment [14].

Richard Buchanan’s article “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking” further expands on this concept, presenting design thinking as essential for solving complex, ill-defined problems. This perspective has influenced designers, researchers, and specialists across various fields, fostering a multi-dimensional approach to problem-solving (Figure 1) [2].

Figure 1.

A visual of the progression of design thinking through time [15].

Design thinking was first written about by Peter Rowe, a professor of architecture at the Harvard School of Design. In its current usage, design thinking is more associated with the innovation consultancy firm IDEO, its founder David Kelley, and its current CEO Tim Brown. IDEO, initially focused on product development, has expanded its activities to include the design of services, strategies, and educational and social systems [12].

Brown introduces design thinking as a human-centered approach to the innovation process. This approach emphasizes a deep understanding of people’s needs and desires through direct observation and then designing products and services based on this understanding. Brown, using examples from the history of innovation—like the works of Thomas Edison—demonstrates how design thinking can lead to the creation of creative and practical solutions. Brown emphasizes that design thinking goes beyond the creation of physical products and speaks of the importance of multidisciplinary teams and user-centered experiences in the innovation process [13].

Herbert Simon, in his book ‘The Sciences of the Artificial,’ views design thinking as a tool for problem-solving that goes beyond traditional esthetics and engages with complex systems to create solutions that are efficient and in harmony with their environment. This perspective is strongly aligned with systems thinking and highlights dynamic interactions within a system and between the system and its environment. Also, in this book, Herbert Simon examines design thinking from the perspective of the artificial sciences. He emphasizes the importance of understanding both natural and artificial phenomena and defends a science that considers human goals and purposes in addition to natural laws. Simon explores the concept of “wicked problems” and the need for interdisciplinary approaches in design. Herbert Simon defined design as a science [16].

Richard Buchanan’s 1992 article ‘Wicked Problems in Design Thinking’ has helped to expand and deepen the concept of design thinking, introducing it as a key tool for understanding and solving complex problems that are often ill-defined and not easily solvable. This view has had a widespread impact on designers, researchers, and specialists in various fields, contributing to the formation of a new generation of designers who approach problems with a multi-dimensional and comprehensive perspective [2].

The first Design Thinking Research Symposium, founded by Nigel Cross and Norbert Roozenburg, was held in 1991 at Delft University of Technology. This workshop was organized as an international meeting to discuss emerging research in design thinking, focusing on design cognition and computational modeling of design processes [17].

2.2 Design thinking definition

Design Thinking is defined in various ways, depending on the field that is being studied. These definitions cover various aspects of design thinking, including product innovation, team processes, user focus, and an interactive and experimental approach. A series of significant definitions are described in the following section.

Thomas Lockwood perhaps offers the most accurate definition of design thinking: “A human-centered innovation process that focuses on observation, collaboration, rapid learning, visualization of ideas, rapid prototyping of concepts, and simultaneous business analysis” [18]. Design Thinking is referred to as a field that uses design methods to adapt the needs of people with what is technologically feasible, and a viable business strategy can convert into customer value [13]. Design thinking is therefore recognized as a method or a set of tools for achieving product or service innovation.

In the book ‘Change by Design’ by Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO, it is emphasized that the fundamental principle of design thinking is to create a deep and empathetic understanding of the challenges that people face. Brown explains that this approach includes understanding complex and mental concepts such as emotions and behavioral motivations, which is different from pure scientific methods that focus more on quantitative research. He introduces design thinking as a third approach, which is a problem-solving approach, rooted in the field of design and aims to create innovative solutions by combining user-focused views with logical analysis and research. (Change by Design).

Design thinking is also defined as a conscious process for obtaining new and relevant solutions that create a positive impact. Design thinking believes in creative abilities and is a process that turns challenges into opportunities [19]. Design thinking, according to Michlewski [20], is defined as a set of methods and tools for achieving product or service innovations. This approach is a conscious process for obtaining new and relevant solutions that create a positive impact, with an emphasis on belief in creative abilities and turning challenges into opportunities. Additionally, design thinking, as defined by Buchanan [2], and Tom Kelley [21], is defined as a specific method for solving complex problems and creating innovative solutions with a user-centric approach and the use of multidisciplinary teams.

Finally, design thinking can be described as a comprehensive approach that both pursues innovation in products and services and, through conscious and creative processes, transforms challenges into new opportunities. This approach, with an emphasis on multidisciplinary collaboration and focus on user needs, turns the complexities present in problems into innovative solutions. The concept of design thinking is proposed as a powerful and effective approach for innovation, generating innovations that go beyond incremental improvements [13] and, in general, a method that leads to better and more competitive business [22, 23, 24].

2.3 Industries in which design thinking is used

In an increasingly challenging world, companies require inventive and multifaceted approaches to confront their difficulties, thereby enabling them to achieve victory over their rivals. The implementation of design thinking affords competitive advantage, fosters team collaboration and innovation, enhances sales interactions, facilitates improved product launches, and effectively addresses the tangible requirements of the product [15].

Jeanne Liedtka emphasizes the significance of design thinking in fostering organizational innovation. She asserts that this approach facilitates the identification of new opportunities and enables creative responses to challenges [12]. Buchanan argues that design thinking extends beyond the creation of physical objects or visual representations and instead encompasses the shaping of human experiences and interactions. This broader perspective presents design as both an intellectual and practical endeavor that influences all facets of human life [2].

This approach is not only applicable in educational contexts but also in business and technology, aiding in the development of products and services that directly cater to the needs and desires of users [25]. The utilization of design thinking tools within organizations engenders an experiential learning process that ultimately supports the cultivation of organizational cultures centered on user-centricity, collaboration, risk-taking, and learning.

2.4 Design thinking stages

The field of design thinking has witnessed the contribution of numerous experts who have developed models, each with their distinct ways of enhancing the process’s efficacy and strength. These models generally include a range of four to seven stages, thereby reflecting the extensive diversity and profound nature of design thinking in various contexts. The three models discussed below address varying needs, enabling design teams to concentrate on specific project aspects and deliver more efficient solutions.

Liedtka has provided a comprehensive framework for applying design thinking, which includes the four stages. The first step “What is?” involves understanding the current state of the problem or the user’s experience. It requires empathizing with the users, defining the problem, and gaining a deep understanding of the challenges and opportunities. The next step, “What if?” is about exploring alternative solutions and generating ideas. It involves ideation and prototyping to create innovative solutions to the defined problem. Subsequently, “What wows?” relates to creating solutions that not only address the problem but also delight the users. It involves refining the ideas and prototypes to ensure that the solutions are compelling and user-friendly. Finally, “What works?” involves testing and implementing the solutions, gathering feedback, and iterating based on the results. It focuses on ensuring that the solutions are viable and effective in addressing the problem [26].

An alternative model from Ambrose and Harris comprises of five sequential phases that can be advantageous to any team utilizing this concept in their process. These phases are as follows: Empathizing, Defining, Ideating, Prototyping, and Testing. In summary, these phases concentrate on comprehending user needs, nurturing creativity, and refining designs through iterative feedback and testing. The model was later matured into a seven-stage process which could be viewed as follows (Figure 2) [27].

Figure 2.

Seven-stage model of design thinking from Ambrose and Harris [27].

Another structure presented for applying the stages of design thinking is the “Double Diamond” model. The Diamond Model of Design Thinking is a structured, yet flexible framework that guides the design process across various industries and contexts. It consists of four distinct phases: Discovery, Definition, Development, and Delivery. Each phase plays a crucial role in ensuring that the final product or service is both innovative and aligned with user needs. This model is widely recognized and used by large companies, indicating its effectiveness in fostering creativity and practical implementation in the design process (Figure 3) [28].

Figure 3.

The double diamond model developed by Gustafsson.

All models prioritize understanding user needs and contexts while each involves ideation to generate solutions. Prototyping and testing are common, emphasizing practical evaluation. Each model provides a different approach tailored to project needs, team dynamics, and goals. While the fifth and seventh stages of design thinking provide a detailed framework for understanding user needs, generating ideas, and implementing solutions, the four-stage model proposed by Liedtka emphasizes a streamlined process that quickly moves from problem understanding to ideation, then focuses on the impact of ideas before testing their viability [26].

2.5 Design thinking tools

The first stage, Empathize, is all about gaining a deep understanding of the users and their needs. Designers employ tools such as observation, interviews, empathy mapping, and user journey mapping to directly observe users in their environment, conduct interviews, and create visual representations of their thoughts, feelings, actions, and needs.

In the Define stage, designers synthesize the information gathered in the empathy stage to define the problem or challenge at hand. Tools like problem framing, persona creation, and stakeholder mapping are used. By clearly defining the problem statement and creating fictional user personas, design teams can align their efforts and consider the perspectives and interests of various stakeholders involved.

The third stage, Ideate, is dedicated to generating a multitude of ideas and potential solutions. Brainstorming, mind mapping, SCAMPER, and “How Might We” statements are commonly employed tools. Through open and free-flowing discussions, visual diagrams, prompt-based idea generation, and reframing challenges into opportunities, designers can explore a wide range of creative possibilities.

Once a diverse set of ideas has been generated, the fourth stage, Prototype, involves bringing those ideas to life through tangible representations. Tools such as paper prototyping, wireframing, storyboarding, and digital prototyping platforms come into play. By creating low-fidelity mockups, skeletal structures, or interactive storyboards, designers can quickly explore and test different concepts, gathering valuable feedback for further refinement.

Finally, in the Test stage, designers gather feedback and insights from users to evaluate and refine their prototypes. Usability testing, interviews, surveys, and iterative feedback techniques are utilized. Through direct observation, user feedback, and quantitative data collection, designers can identify areas for improvement and make iterative adjustments to enhance the user experience [12].

3. Systems thinking

Due to the rapid expansion of technological and economic advancement, enterprises tend to restructure their business models. Consequently, they endeavor to discover novel tools and techniques to address the challenges encountered in large-scale intricate systems [29]. Apart from technical attributes, complex systems possess additional significant characteristics, including ambiguity, emergence, interconnectedness, and socio-economic influences such as employee dynamics, societal factors, and governmental policies. To effectively manage problem areas within complex systems, these features necessitate consideration and attention [30]. One approach toward resolving complex issues involves the utilization of systems thinking. Various perspectives on systems thinking aid in enhancing our comprehension of this methodology. The theory of systems thinking encompasses a collection of concepts, methodologies, and principles that enable us to comprehend phenomena and facilitate future actions [31].

Systems Thinking constitutes an approach to analyzing and addressing real-world predicaments grounded in the fundamental notion of a “system.” This discipline enables us to discern how to effectuate change in a manner that promotes the optimal functioning and harmonious integration of systems within the realms of nature and the economy [32]. An alternative viewpoint characterizes systems thinking as “a collection of learning objectives which embody one or more characteristics of systems that generally emanate from systems theory. A set of ‘cognitive skills’ clarifies that the emphasis lies in the application of systems concepts to problem-solving [33].” Systems Thinking serves as a conceptual framework for contemplating and acquiring knowledge about diverse systems, distinguishing between constituent parts, their interrelations, and the perspectives of different agents. In essence, system thinking encompasses a theory, belief system, and problem-solving approach [34].

3.1 History of systems thinking

Systems Thinking, in comparison to disciplines such as science, theology, education, languages, and history, is a relatively new field. From a more recent perspective, the origins of its various expressions can be traced back thousands of years [35]. In the modern era, the first documented usage of the term “systems thinking” in literature can be attributed to Philip Frank, who expressed a pessimistic view of non-traditional approaches to the study of science in his book Interpretations and Misinterpretations of Modern Physics in 1938 [34]. Von Bertalanffy [36] aimed to unify the sciences under a single framework to address complex systemic problems. In his view, instead of focusing on their differences, scientists from different fields should concentrate on the similarities and connections between them.

According to Arnold [35], Russell Ackoff [37] may have been the first to introduce systems thinking. However, this is not the case, as Ackoff acknowledged the work on systems thinking by Emery [38]. Forster [39], a student of systems thinking since the early 1960s, found that describing systems thinking is both the most challenging and the initial and crucial aspect of the field. Ackoff [37] conceptualized a system of systems, where organizations are considered systems that serve a purpose beyond mere existence or survival. In other words, an organization does not exist solely for the sake of existing, but rather to achieve something meaningful.

Bui conducted a review of Peter Senge’s work spanning thirty years [40]. The framework, including The Fifth Discipline [41, 42], and The Dance of Change [43], consists of elements such as personal mastery, mental models, team learning, shared perspectives, and systems thinking. Senge is not the first to discuss systems thinking, as others like [44, 45, 46] preceded him. However, Senge made the concept more applicable and accessible in the realms of physics, psychology, business, and management. The figure above, adapted from the article by [47], illustrates a timeline of systems thinking theorists (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Timeline of system thinking theorists [47].

3.2 Industries in which system thinking is used

Systems Thinking is used extensively in various industries such as engineering, business, management, and healthcare [48]. It is particularly prevalent in the fields of operations, management, and environmental sectors, where it helps in checking for interdependencies, interconnections, and coherence in all aspects of the elements inputted [49]. In healthcare, systems thinking is used to design systems that prevent, catch, or fix natural human slips to avoid errors [50]. It is also used to make healthcare safer by implementing tools like barcode scanning and enteral feeding connectors. In engineering [51], systems thinking enables the study and understanding of interactions between individuals, departments, and business units within an organization or overall system-of-systems design. Overall, systems thinking is a valuable approach used in various industries to analyze and improve complex systems.

3.3 The importance and application of systemic thinking

According to the scholarly work of [52] on the significance and application of system thinking, it can be contended that the utilization of systems thinking broadens our cognitive horizons and facilitates the articulation of problems in novel and distinct manners, thereby expanding the array of available alternatives for resolving a given issue. Concurrently, the principles underpinning systems thinking enlighten us on the absence of flawless solutions. The decisions we make inevitably exert an influence on other components within the system. By preemptively acknowledging the ramifications of each transaction, we can mitigate its severity or even employ it to our advantage. Ergo, systems thinking empowers us to make informed choices.

Moreover, systems thinking bestows immense value in constructing compelling narratives that elucidate the mechanics of a system. For instance, the exercise of causal loop diagramming compels a team to collectively generate shared visual representations or narratives that depict a particular scenario. These tools serve as efficacious means for identifying, elucidating, and effectively communicating our comprehension of systems, particularly in group settings.

Problems that are most amenable to systems thinking intervention possess the following distinctive attributes:

• The subject matter is of considerable import.

• The problem at hand is chronic in nature, rather than a one-off occurrence.

• The problem is familiar and possesses a documented history.

• Prior attempts at resolving this predicament have proven unsuccessful.

3.4 Systems thinking stages

There exist varied methodologies concerning the phases of systems thinking. In the subsequent discourse, we shall expound upon several of these methods, and subsequently, we shall acquaint ourselves with the cycle that we aim to employ in this scholarly article. According to [53], the stages of system dynamics can be delineated by the subsequent cycle (Figure 5).

Figure 5.

Stages of system dynamics.

Michael Goodman presents a framework consisting of six sequential steps that can be employed when addressing intricate problems utilizing systems thinking principles [54]. These steps encompass the following elements: storytelling, visual representation of behavior over time through graphs, formulation of a concise and targeted statement, recognition and analysis of underlying structures, identification of the forces that impact the ecosystem and its various functions, and the development of a comprehensive problem-solving plan.

Barry Richmond asserts that the process of system thinking encompasses a sequence of four distinct stages [55]. During the execution of this process, a total of seven skills associated with systems thinking are effectively employed, as demonstrated (Figure 6).

Figure 6.

Process of system thinking.

In the subsequent section, the model outlined beneath pertains to [56, 57] and this methodology is employed in this scholarly piece for the phases of systemic thinking (Figure 7).

Figure 7.

Convergence between the system thinking and design thinking approach.

Based on the model, to implement the principles of system thinking in a systematic manner, it is necessary to proceed as follows.

During the first phase, a comprehensive analysis of the current situation must be conducted. This entails examining novel ideas or emerging technologies and their potential impact on the capabilities, opportunities, and needs of the organization and its stakeholders. In this initial stage, fundamental concepts are explored through the evaluation of technological risks and the readiness levels of the technology. The focus lies on the problem at hand, as well as the potential solutions, what is feasible, and what is not.

The second phase entails the identification and definition of the desired objective. Systems thinking places great importance on the identification of business or mission requirements, as well as the needs of the stakeholders. Additionally, careful consideration must be given to estimating the costs and planning for the development process.

The third phase involves the development of various types of positions or concepts. Systems Thinking suggests the identification of multiple candidates for a given concept that could potentially offer new capabilities, enhance overall performance, or reduce costs for stakeholders. During this stage, the use of mockups can prove valuable in comprehending and preparing for the subsequent testing phase.

Finally, the fourth phase revolves around the evaluation and selection of candidate concepts. Systems Thinking emphasizes the necessity of testing and assessing potential concepts. Models and prototypes are considered indispensable in conducting feasibility studies, as well as gaining a deeper understanding of stakeholder needs, making architectural trade-offs, and identifying risks and opportunities. The output of the conceptual phase in systems thinking is a clearer comprehension of the business or mission requirements and stakeholder needs and aligning these needs with the expectations of the stakeholders.

Considering the slight differences that exist in different approaches to the stages of system thinking, however, in all cases, the main goal is to know the components of the system, connect the components with each other, and then try to find the problem and take steps to solve the problem.

3.5 Systems thinking tools

System thinking tools are used to understand complex systems and their dynamics, and they enhance problem-solving processes. These tools include causal loop diagrams, behavior over time graphs, stock-flow diagrams, and computer models. They are used at different stages of problem-solving depending on the complexity of the problem. For example, in a case study on emergency medical services, a causal loop diagram was used to understand the causes and effects of rising EMS demand [58]. This tool helped decision-makers identify the most relevant interventions and prioritize potential interventions based on predicted implementation difficulty and effect [59]. Another example is the use of system diagnostic processes to build understanding of a system. This process involves traditional data analysis, systems thinking methodologies, and frameworks to analyze the system and identify key issues and interventions [60] the article by [61] presents a compiled classification of systems thinking tools. This classification encompasses various use cases of these tools.

Most systems thinking tools mentioned in the literature primarily aim to facilitate the comprehension of a system and the co-designing of solutions. However, there is a noticeable dearth of tools that foster dialog, collaboration, and the assessment of progress, including implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Among the publications reviewed, 19 discussed a general system thinking approach without specifying any tools, while 54 articles provided insights into one or more tools. The subsequent section provides a detailed description of the tools that were reported.

Tools for understanding the system encompass several distinct categories. These include tools for visualizing situations, such as causal loop diagrams (CLD), system mapping, concept maps, system archetypes, rich images, Bayesian belief networks, social network analysis, influence diagrams, and Sankey diagrams. Additionally, tools for strategic thinking involve system archetypes, soft systems methodology, scenario and vision development, social network analysis, and PQR (what, how, why) statements.

In terms of facilitating dialog and collaboration, there are specific tools that aid in stakeholder analysis, multi-stakeholder dialog, and interactive management.

Lastly, collaborative design tools for generating solutions encompass collaborative modeling, group model building, and stock and flow diagrams.

4. Comparing design and systems thinking

In a broad sense, when it comes to examining and contrasting the origins and foundations of each of these respective disciplines, it is conceivable to assert that if we are to undertake a comparative analysis, a fundamental observation can be made: The origins of design thinking can be traced back to the mid-twentieth century, specifically the 1950s and 1960s when it first started gaining prominence in the fields of architecture and engineering. Since then, design thinking has evolved and established itself as a dominant methodology for fostering innovation. This approach seamlessly integrates various aspects, including human factors, technology, and strategic considerations, to effectively address complex challenges that have developed over the course of several decades. On the other hand, systems thinking takes a different approach by emphasizing an understanding of entire systems rather than focusing solely on individual components. This holistic perspective makes it particularly well-suited for tackling intricate and multifaceted systems that have been purposefully designed, such as the healthcare system or urban environments. By considering the interconnectedness and interdependencies within these systems, systems thinking offers a comprehensive framework for analysis and problem-solving.

If we desire to further investigate and analyze these two distinct forms of cognition with regards to the objectives, they each strive to achieve, it becomes evident that a deeper comprehension will be gained design thinking, as a problem-solving approach, aims to create innovative and human-centered solutions to specific challenges. Design thinking recognizes the need for creative and multifaceted solutions to navigate complex and uncertain challenges. It encourages designers to understand the problem, and think outside the box, fostering the generation of new and innovative ideas to address specific problems. Also, design thinking places a strong emphasis on understanding and empathizing with users’ needs and desires. By adopting a human-centered perspective, design thinkers aim to develop solutions that enhance user experiences and meet their specific requirements. Furthermore, design thinking is recognized as a powerful approach for encouraging innovation within organizations. It helps managers and practitioners develop innovative strategies and find new opportunities for growth by challenging existing assumptions and exploring novel possibilities.

The goals of design thinking and systems thinking differ in their emphasis and objectives. Systems Thinking aims to understand and address complex problems by adopting a holistic perspective, expanding thinking, anticipating impacts, and making informed choices. On the other hand, design thinking focuses on creative problem-solving, user-centricity, innovation, and considering the fit of solutions within the larger system. These complementary approaches offer unique benefits and can be effectively combined to address complex challenges in various domains. Understanding their distinct goals enhances the problem-solving toolkit and enables more comprehensive and effective solutions.

If we want to compare the applications of system thinking and design thinking in different industries, we must say that, design thinking is frequently utilized in various domains such as product development, service provision, and user experience (UX) design. These applications highlight the versatility and applicability of design thinking as a problem-solving approach. Additionally, design thinking is instrumental in addressing challenges that are inherently tackled by designers. By embracing systems principles, design thinking has consistently fostered the creation of sustainable designs. Conversely, systems thinking is highly regarded both internally within organizations and externally across various sectors. This approach is essential for comprehending and designing intricate, multifaceted, and dynamic systems that are tailored toward specific purposes, such as healthcare and social issues. The complexity associated with problem identification in these domains necessitates a system thinking perspective. Systems Thinking proves to be invaluable in the planning and execution of portfolio strategies within large-scale product organizations. This approach aids in unraveling the intricacies and interdependencies that exist within the system, thereby facilitating effective decision-making and implementation.

If we desire to engage in a comprehensive analysis of the processes involved in utilizing the tools of design thinking in a comparative manner with the concept of systems thinking, we should know that both system thinking and design thinking emphasize understanding the problem context, stakeholder needs, and project objectives. Systems Thinking emphasizes analyzing technology and risks, while design thinking focuses on user needs and creative problem-solving. Design thinking places a strong emphasis on creative ideation and generating multiple options to solve the problem. Both approaches recognize the importance of prototyping and testing ideas. Design thinking emphasizes iterative prototyping and gathering user feedback, while systems thinking uses prototypes for feasibility studies and risk identification. Systems Thinking considers stakeholder needs and aligns them with project goals. Design thinking involves collaboration with multidisciplinary experts and user involvement throughout the process. System thinking can be iterative but is often seen as a more linear process with distinct stages. Design thinking is often described as a cyclical and iterative process, where steps may occur simultaneously or with varying depth.

In summary, both system thinking and design thinking share common elements such as problem understanding, prototyping, and stakeholder engagement. However, design thinking emphasizes creative ideation, user-centricity, and iterative prototyping, while systems thinking focuses on analyzing technology and aligning stakeholder needs with project objectives. The two approaches can be complementary and used together to address complex challenges effectively.

Both systems thinking and design thinking employ a variety of tools that aid in understanding complex systems and generating innovative solutions. However, the focus and application of the tools are different. Systems Thinking tools primarily focus on understanding the system itself, its components, and their relationships. They help identify patterns, analyze causality, and visualize the structure and dynamics of the system. Design thinking tools are more customer-centric and focus on understanding user needs, improving the customer experience, and generating creative ideas for solutions. They emphasize visualization, empathy, and rapid prototyping. While some tools may overlap between the two approaches, the overall emphasis and objectives of the tools differ. System thinking tools aim to analyze and understand complex systems, while design thinking tools aim to empathize with users, generate ideas, and prototype solutions to improve the customer experience. Both approaches can be complementary, and the tools from each can be used interchangeably depending on the context and problem at hand.

5. An alternative framework

In navigating the complex terrain of organizational change, it is imperative to recognize that effective transformation requires more than just addressing the surface-level symptoms. As highlighted by John Sterman in “Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World” [62], altering a complex system often introduces unforeseen challenges. In fact, Sterman advocates for a cautious approach, emphasizing that the best solution may be to delay making changes due to the potential for worsening consequences.

A comprehensive understanding of the intricacies of a system and the users within it is fundamental for creating meaningful change, whether in a simple or highly complex organization. The complexity of a system necessitates an approach that goes beyond merely fixing the immediate issue at hand. Rather, it demands an exploration of the interconnectedness and root causes within the system.

Enter systems thinking—an approach that enables us to delve into the depths of a challenge, understand its facets, and unravel the intricate web of relationships within the system. Yet, understanding the problem in its entirety is only one side of the coin. The ideal solution not only comprehends all aspects of the issue but also considers how it impacts the diverse stakeholders involved. This is where design thinking comes into play, tailoring solutions to align with the unique circumstances and needs of the users.

Having identified the problem and crafted a customized solution, the critical phase of implementation awaits. The efficacy of a solution is only as good as its integration into the system and the value it brings. It is at this juncture that we revisit system thinking, implementing the changes into the system while meticulously mapping and analyzing the consequences of each modification.

This cyclical and iterative process forms the basis of our proposed model—an interplay between Systems Thinking and Design Thinking, operating as a feedback loop. Each iteration refines the solution, considering the dynamic nature of complex systems. Illustrated in Figure 8, the proposed model emphasizes the ongoing dialog between these two methodologies, recognizing that stability is achieved through a series of iterations and refinements.

Figure 8.

A proposed methodology for an iterative process between systems and design thinking for complex problem-solving and change implementation.

In conclusion, the fusion of Systems Thinking and Design Thinking offers a holistic and adaptable approach to organizational change. By embracing the feedback loop model, organizations can navigate the complexities of their systems, understand the nuanced needs of users, and iteratively refine solutions until stability is achieved. This integrative model stands as a testament to the dynamic and interconnected nature of problem-solving, providing a robust framework for creating sustained and effective change within complex organizational ecosystems.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude for the invaluable guidance and supervision provided by esteemed supervisors, including Dr. Kambiz Talebi.