THEORIES OF CHANGE: Dynamics of Social & Natural Systems
Discussion notes from the Transition Design Seminar conducted at Carnegie Mellon University’s School of Design, co-taught by Terry Irwin (terry irwin), Gideon Kossoff, and Cameron Tonkinwise. Compiled by Ming Xing & Lisa Otto.
For the lecture occurring on Wednesday, February 17, Terry and Gideon led a discussion revolving around the nature of change, the meaning of complexity, and their application to living systems. Following the lecture, Lisa and I led the class into an activity where groups of students are asked to come up with a concrete design example related to a living systems principle as outlined in Terry’s thesis.
An Introduction to Living Systems: Nested Systems and Permeable Boundaries
Living systems are autopoetic, self-organizing organisms and systems that interact with their environment and are in a constant state of flux. The term does not solely refer to those systems existing in the natural world — they are present wherever there is an exchange of energy and matter.
For example, Terry mentioned her experience of working with different companies is like meeting a different person each time, with each company exhibiting a distinct culture and personality.
By understanding the types of energies that flow through these systems, designers can find ways to leverage these energies and thereby enacting desired change. An important concept to take note of is the principle of designing for initial conditions. Manzini describes this property as designing with what is already present, and coaxing the latent/dormant energies forward into a desired state.
Margaret Wheatley, co-author of A Simpler Way, utilizes living systems principles in her writing on organizational behavior. Living systems principles re-frame the role of the designer from that of an expert who imposes a solution to that of a sheepdog or choreographer, leading the way and seeing what happens next.
The designer’s role in living systems is, therefore, not to impose solutions but rather to discover the dynamics well enough to coax the existing situation forward.
Why Do We Study Theories of Change?
We study Theories of Change in Transition Design to develop the mindset to navigate fluidly through chaos and complexity. Designers look for patterns and leverage points within the chaos, and make small interventions and observe subsequent changes.
Barriers to Change
An example of a barrier of change: When someone is brought in to an existing system and is asked to deliver change, they face resistance because essentially this person is asking those present to fall in line with his/her vision of change. Sometimes, the culture works itself out; at other times, barriers fall into place that leave the system in gridlock. Why are those already present resistant to change? A part of it has to do with ownership, and how the people present in the system were the very ones who set the system up. Change threatens their investment and ownership of the system.
Tolerance level for change refers to a person’s comfort level regarding magnitude and speed of change. Part of the job of a designer is to understand people’s differing tolerance levels for change, and how to mediate that in a design recommendation.
Complexity & Chaos
Dense. Scales (micro & macro). Grey area. Conditional. Non-linear. Diverse. Contextual. Intra-active. Unpredictable. Order. Self-organizing.
— some definitions/aspects of complexity
Systems are often at their most creative when they are most chaotic. Chaotic systems are full of potentialities, whereas systems at equilibrium are essentially dead. A living system is always out of equilibrium, trying to get back towards equilibrium but never fully resting in it.
Any living system is always straddling the line between order and complexity. If it strays for too long in complexity, it dies. If it strays for too long in order, it becomes too rigid. Take the heart, for example. A regular heart beat is a sign of an unhealthy heart — any unannounced stress may tip it over into complete chaos. A healthy heart straddles the line of irregularity, giving it the flexibility to quickly react to unanticipated stressors.
This principle of living systems goes squarely against our modern-day notion of machine conformity and constant regularity.
What is the Designer’s Role in Complex Systems?
Designers no longer impose solutions, but rather seed and foster change design for initial conditions. Designers look for places where there is a flow of energy already, and work off of the existing energies to guide the system towards a vision of where we want to end up.
Are we creating a world that is too rigid to foster the types of change we are envisioning? We create offices, buildings, and infrastructure that lag behind man’s visions of the future. The closed-off walls and structures stop us from being more creative because of this inflexibility. Donella Meadows mentioned that as soon as we materialize ideas and give them concrete form, that is the point at which they become hard to change.
Ahmed led an interesting aside where he spoke of Prometheus and the creation of man, and how in terms of our evolution man is still so very young to be wielding responsibly such tools of power like technology. Is technology pushing us forward at a non-biological rate?
In-Class Activity: Living Systems & Design Examples
We asked the class to break up into groups and for each group to address 2–3 living systems principles outlined in Terry’s thesis. For each principle, we asked the group members to come up with relevant examples for design. We gave the groups around 25 minutes to discuss, and brought everyone back as a large group to summarize their discussions for another 15 minutes. A brief overview of the examples groups talked about during the wrap-up:
Living systems…
- Have emergent properties: the development of social media and ways of virtual interactions
- Operate in a state far from equilibrium: Uber
- Are controlled / regulated through feedback: traffic lights that change by watching the flow of cars; web traffic search results based on user’s search history
- Whole and part relationships are non-hierarchical: the development of brand, and how the components create an entity larger than its constituents; for example, a single bad customer service experience taints the user’s perception of the entire brand
- Organizationally open, self-organizing and ‘autopoetic’: open-layout office systems vs. closed cubicle office systems, and how the different ways people organize themselves foster vs. detract from innovation and engagement
- Are full of interdependence and cooperation: service design vs. traditional forms of form-giving design; service design is much more dependent on different system as compared to discrete objects
