Complexity and System Thinking

Complexity is considered one of the most challenging issues in grasping reality and overcoming real-world problems in design thinking. The idea of complexity, however, is not new but it has a long history in scientific and engineering theories, particularly system theory. According to Simon (1996), system theory activities concern “mechanisms that create and sustain complexity and […] tools for describing and analyzing it” (p. 170) ‒ or, more concretely, for “synthesizing and analyzing” it. Simon further proposes the “development of a body of knowledge and techniques for dealing with complexity” (p. 216).

In the design field, however, this concept first emerged in the 1960s against the philosophy of simplicity and reductionism, as stated in Design Dictionary:

More recently, the principles of complexity have been integral to the conceptualization and production of integrative designs. […] With the advent of globalization, the continued migration to urban centers and growing concerns with sustainability, accessibility, and safety, designers today are increasingly required to respond to complex issues that lie beyond the capacity of a single discipline […] to address comprehensively. (Hunt 2008, pp. 71-72)

In this context, Vester (2007) calls for avoiding the linear approach in solving complex problems saying that:

In an age of highly complex structures and processes it is absolutely crucial that we transcend the simple linear approach and that in our thinking, planning, and acting we not only become aware of the complexity […] but learn to exploit [it] in order to be able to act in a sustainable manner. (pp. 19-20)

And he draws on a systemic approach in outlining “a new way of looking at reality” explaining that:

We must first "invert" our way of seeing things. […] Normally, you are inside the particular system, looking outwards. You take your bearings from what is happening outside [see Fig. 5-1] […] However; with a systemic way of looking you step outside the system, look in from that viewpoint, and mainly examine your own system and how it behaves [see Fig. 5-2]. As a result, you ask quite different questions. (p. 98)

According to Jonas (2003), “system-thinking describes the attempt to make the complexity of problem fields and contexts manageable without destroying their systemic character” (p. 3). Simon (1996) introduces the concept of “inner and outer environment”. “The "inner environment" of the design problem is represented by a set of given alternatives of action. […] The "outer environment" is represented by a set of parameters, which may be known with certainty or only in terms of a probability distribution. The goals for adaptation of inner to outer environment are defined by a utility function” (Simon 1996, p. 116).

As regards recognizing complexity, “pattern recognition” is an initial step suggested by Vester (2007) to grasp reality through systemic planning and action processes. Vester illustrates “pattern recognition” with a computer image of a human head that contains a low numbers of pixels (see ibid, p. 54) to articulate that perceiving reality depends not only on reducing the system to its essential parts: the relation between these parts is also very important to maintain a recognizable picture of the system (ibid, p. 148).

106

Figure 5- 1: Usual, non- systemic approach (Source: Vester 2007, p. 99)

Figure 5- 2: New, systemic approach (Source: Vester 2007, p. 101)

107 to grasp reality as a whole it is not sufficient to perceive only details, […] we shall learn a great deal about the details, […] connect the details together. […] Once the picture becomes blurred, the details become less prominent and the relations between them emerge more strongly. […]

For pattern-recognition in planning practice, two things are necessary: data must be stripped down to key components, and those components must be interconnected. (Vester 2007, pp.

54-55)

The art of interconnected thinking offered by Vester (2007) is based on capturing a wide range of problem-related considerations ‒ questions, wishes, desires, obstacles and arguments ‒ in an objective way, then incorporating them in a network of connections to be examined within an open system. This will help one avoid the trap described by Goethe in 1817 "One faces the danger of seeing and yet of not seeing" (qtd. in Findeli 2001, p. 11).

5.3.1 Vester’s Sensitivity Model

Vester’s “sensitivity model” software is an operational tool for applying interconnected thinking that helps individuals, facing complex problems to think, plan and act in an interactive and systemic way.

In his book The Art of Interconnected Thinking, he explained the theoretical background and the processual tools of his software in detail. A short summary of the application will be given here followed by presenting an outline of the whole processes in Table (5-5).

Starting with “system description”, we collect key variables and give broad descriptions to each variable in a flexible way, because this software provides the ability to modify and update the data at any time. Then in a “criteria matrix”, we check and scan the set of variables according to 18 criteria based on the ecological principles of living systems, which are subdivided into (see Vester 2007, pp.

210-214):

 seven spheres of life: people, economy, realm of space, human ecology, energy and waste, laws and culture, and infrastructure

 three levels of consideration: matter, energy and information

 four aspects of system dynamics: flow size, structure size, temporal and spatial dynamics

 four types of variable relation to the system: opening the system by input/output, controllable from inside/outside.

At this point, it is important to consider that system description depends on putting these variables together in a proper way, examining the relation between the system and its environment. With the

“impact matrix” tool, we start the second level of processing the information: “pattern recognition”.

While we study the interactions and examine the effect of each variable upon other variables, each variable will be allocated a specific position in the “systemic role” between two axes “active-reactive”

and “critical-buffering”. This position will determine its cybernetic role: “This may be as a lever (active), a risk factor (critical), a measuring sensor (reactive), an inert element (buffering) or any position in between” (Malik Management Zentrum St. Gallen, p. 6). This will give us the first strategic indications for a successful intervention, whereas, the “effect system” is another tool that visualizes the system in a dynamic way and allows feedback analysis by the system itself (p. 7).The third level of this model is about interpretation and assessment of information through three different steps:

“partial scenarios”, “simulation” and “system evaluation”.

108

Table 5- 5: Created by the author (adapted from Frederic Vester 2007 pp. 179 - 230)

First level description of the system

Phase Objectives Activities

1- System Description Designing a usable ‘systemic picture’

results are entered in ‘the matrix of criteria’ (p. 211)

1. Examining the effect of all actuating variables using a matrix of influences

‘cross-impact matrix’

2. Conduct an estimate of the strength of the effect of each individual variable

2. build up partial scenarios based on expected interesting parts of the effect

109