Introduction to Organisational Design
Simran Chadha, Programme Manager and Bernard Hay, Programme Head
Every few months, our Design Associates meet-up to explore emerging issues in design. Last time, we focussed on Organisational Design. With an insightful presentation from Frithjof Wegener, PhD candidate at Warwick University, and Design Council Expert Daniel Letts, the group was encouraged to consider what designers might learn about organisations to inform their own design practice and key concepts (such as re-framing and habits) through an examination the history of organisational design theory. Here’s what we found out.
Introduction to Organisational Design
Frithjof explained that a lot of design work is organisational. This is because organising is about enabling people to collaborate to achieve a goal, and design is an activity that involves finding the form or approach by which a goal can be achieved. Organising can be viewed as one form of design.
Earlier this year, Design Council published the Systemic Design Framework, building on the Framework for Innovation and Double Diamond model, to support ways of thinking around approaching major complex challenges and designing in a collaborative way for the world around us. What can a systemic design approach learn from theories of organisational design? If, as mentioned in the Systemic Design Framework, seeing work as ‘competitive rather than collaborative,’ stifles innovation and understanding, then looking more closely at organisational design theory might further support collaboration, break down divisions across sectors, and help to find innovative solutions to complex challenges.
Simple — Complex — Dynamic
There is already a significant body of work around understanding organisations, management, and design. But why should designers be interested in it? Frithjof’s argument is that consideration of some of the key concepts within these fields might empower designers to take more holistic approaches to ways of working and support deeper awareness of the context in which they are designing.
During the session, Frithjof presented the history of organisational design in three main strands, showing how concepts have changed dramatically over time. Frithjof’s current research practice is focused around building on this extensive body of work to better define organisation(al) design and to enhance understanding around how designers could take a design approach to organisational design.
- The 1940’s: Simple Organisational Design — ‘Organisational Design as Delegating Tasks’
Working in the United States in the 1940, the management theorist Francis Taylor adopted a scientific approach to understanding management. Best known for coming-up with the production line that underpinned Ford’s factories, Taylor saw the role of management as being to break down a project into discrete tasks, and then to delegate each individual task to distinct workers. Taylor’s approach saw the division of ‘thinking’ and ‘acting,’ with the manager coming-up with the plan, and the workers carrying out pre-defined tasks to achieve it.
The problem with this management approach is that this model assumes that all situations are simple and there is no variation between similar situations, leading to an assertion that only one method is needed to organise work processes. This ‘rational’ approach to dealing with situations claims that experimentation is not required.
2. The 1950’s: Complex Organisational Design — Organisational Design as Situated Problem-Solving’
Following the simple approach to organisational design, Frithjof introduced the complex approach, a ‘design science’ which builds on simple organisation design’s scientific or rational attributes. Hebert Simon (who won a Nobel Prize for his work in this field) shows that situations are indeed more complex than described in Taylor’s theory, and complexity is a reality that needs to be considered and managed. This approach resulted in a shift in the way people were viewed in organisations. In the context of complex organisational design, people are attributed with ‘bounded rationality,’ and are seen as being able to approach complex situations and find solutions, but with limitations and within certain boundaries. This approach results in ‘situated problem solving’ — the project goals are unmoving, defined from the offset and there is an attempt to work towards these goals throughout the duration of the design and implementation stages of a process. This linearity has the consequence of dividing implementation and design, creating a rigid process that does not allow for much experimentation or learning. The process looks at satisfying an unchanging goal.
3. The 1970’s: Dynamic Organisation Design — Organisational Design as Reflective Practice’
Looking at the more recent work of Donald Schön and John Dewey, we can consider a more dynamic perspective to organisational design. Schön developed the notion of ‘reflective practice,’ which focuses on the idea of ongoing learning and personal reflection, highlighting how people change across time and space, and drawing on the evolutionary nature of existence. This approach asserts that situations are ever- changing and complex. Schön’s work focused on juxtaposing mind and body, and placed importance on applying learning, reflection, and feedback loops to situations. Thinking around how to approach problems was now also at the forefront, as they were no longer regarded as simple, but as continually evolving. This approach is concerned with human behaviour, taking an epistemological approach to design thinking. Here, the design method must be flexible and that which is designed is seen as a direct output of the design process itself — it cannot be defined from the offset. Experimentation is key element to dynamic organisational design alongside an acknowledgement of the ways in which people can influence the design process, integrating concepts around co-design and social and cultural interactions. Frithjof explained that this process could be described as pragmatic, building on Simon’s work around ‘bounded rationality’ and synthesising it with intuition.
Key Concept 1: Re-framing
During the session, there was a rich discussion around the concept of ‘re-framing.’ Frithjof argued that in an organisation(al) design process, re-framing, attributed to the work developed by Schön, is imperative, and could help designers approach projects in a more impactful way from the offset. Frames encapsulate the way an individual (or an organisation) understands and organises the information around them, influenced by (often-invisible) factors, deeply embedded in the social fabric in which they navigate.
Re-framing then, is about stepping back to see the bigger picture, and moving outside of one’s usual frame of reference into another. Considering re-framing in light of a design process involves questioning not only what the challenge or brief is, but also the context in which the challenge has manifested itself within a particular space. Through re-framing the context within which a designer is operating and developing an even broader understanding of the challenge and its origins, the potential of a design process expands. By questioning frames more deeply, designers could be in a better position to effect long-lasting positive change and be empowered to shape the narrative through their practice. Re-framing could also help to cultivate empathy during a design process, bring in multiple perspectives and understanding around the different meanings a challenge might hold for various stakeholders.
Recognising that there is not only one frame but many that could make up the space in which a designer is working is important to address to ensure a more sustainable, accessible, and holistically beneficial outcome. In Design Council’s Systemic Design Framework, different types of working practices and principles are discussed, which can help to guide design processes. As systems are large and complex, acknowledging the nuances and subtleties that exist at different scales can be addressed through zooming-in-and-out, and considering the macro and micro concurrently will enhance a design process’ outputs and implementation of possible solutions.
Key Concept 2: Habits
A significant aspect of Organisation(al) Design is the consideration of habits. Habits are the things we do regularly, somewhat instinctively, and are often deeply engrained and embodied through experience — they can therefore be challenging to change. Frithjof argued that it is an individual’s (or an organisation’s) habits that can help to define the frame in which they operate, and through disrupting the habitual and better understanding existing habits, ‘re-framing’ and genuine change becomes possible. For Frithjof, it is a shift in habits which can truly affect change, not only the introduction of new ideas and strategy. Frithjof provided insights into how habits might be transformed into ones that are ‘fit for purpose,’ explaining that in order to prompt action and affect change, ‘designing habits, not procedures’ could be beneficial in when considering organisational strategy and change in light of a design process.
So, how might designers start to ‘re-frame’ a situation when working on a project, and support clients and organisations to design habits? Frithjof sees doubt and surprise as key instigators to disrupt usual frames of reference. As frames cannot be seen, they are often not acknowledged, and doubt or surprise helps to illuminate that the frame exists and instils a desire to gain knew knowledge, ask questions and traverse boundaries, leading to the development of new habits. Interrogating existing knowledge systems paves the way for new ways of thinking and helps to identify areas that may need to shift or be adapted to tackle a design challenge.
Application and Practical Steps
How might we apply new thinking from organisational design into design practice? Some of the points below were discussed during the session:
Rethinking our role and own design management: Think about the role of the designer and design as a vehicle to enable new experiences within a project. Designers are in a prime position to help instigate ‘re-framing,’ support collaboration and the development of new ideas and habits by drawing on their visual and reflective skills. Consider implementing time to discuss the intangible aspects of a design process with a client throughout the project — building in a ‘dark matter budget’ creates space, and time, to be reactive to the design process itself. Discussing these often-invisible elements with clients might help to formalise the ephemeral and could change the fundamentals of how a design process is understood.
Challenging our own design habits: Habits in relation to design practice might form over time (for example the use of certain design methods and tools). Challenge your own habits in light of your design practice and approach to design challenges — this could help to ensure the same processes and patterns are not unnecessarily repeated, supporting learning, innovation, and better collaboration.
Embedding re-framing in our own practice: It was noted that ‘re-framing’ can only every be ‘re-framing’ — designers, and clients, are always already working within a particular frame of reference when a project begins, shaped by their pre-existing knowledge (and habits) and embodied experiences. To embed re-framing, think about using tools that support imagining alternative realities as a to break away from the usual modes of thought. Adopt methods that generate experiences for clients and that bring in diverse and creative ideas to the design process, so that multiple perspectives can truly help shape outcomes. The LEGO SERIOUS PLAY methodology builds on this idea, looking at ways of learning and reflection through and action, and supporting collaborative thinking around new possibilities.
Embracing Learning by Doing: It was discussed that experiences of learning and making mistakes during a design process can be beneficial. Rather than seeing mistakes as a failure, view them a way to gain new experiences and develop understanding of different perspectives. This goes back to the idea around the importance of surprise and doubt — embracing action, valuing experiences, and learning by doing could help new ideas to flourish.
List of Further Reading/Resources
Ideas Arrangements Effects: Systems Design and Social Justice by Design Studio for Social Intervention
Frame Innovation, Create New Thinking by Design by Kees Dorst
Tricky Design, The Ethics of Things by Tom Fisher and Lorraine Gamman
van Hulst, M. & Yanow, D., 2015. From Policy “Frames” to ‘Framing.’ The American Review of Public Administration, 46(1), pp.92–112.
Yanow, D. & Tsoukas, H., 2009. What is Reflection‐In‐Action? A Phenomenological Account. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8), pp.1339–1364.
Thank you to Frithjof Wegener (PhD Candidate, Warwick Business School) and Daniel Letts (Design Council Expert) for delivering the session and reviewing earlier drafts of this blog.
