Design Thinking

Keith,

in my understanding design thinking differs from systems thinking in several ways:

- DT is human centric, ST is more an engineering approach to a system
- DT includes looking at solutions being technical viable and economically realistic, ST does not have this limitation
- DT uses prototyping, ST may be not

Both share that there is a problem space and a solution space, but ST could start after the problem is laid out, DT not.

Keith,

in my understanding design thinking differs from systems thinking in several ways:

- DT is human centric, ST is more an engineering approach to a system
- DT includes looking at solutions being technical viable and economically realistic, ST does not have this limitation
- DT uses prototyping, ST may be not

Both share that there is a problem space and a solution space, but ST could start after the problem is laid out, DT not.

Thomas,
As a systems engineer myself, I see both as the same fundamental concepts. The difference is where we set the boundaries of "the system of interest". In traditional SE, I absolutely agree that it tends to focus on the thing being produced. When you consider systems architecture however, it includes how that system fits with the business. The people aspect are absolutely involved in whether the product level system fits the needs of all stakeholders including the performing organization.

This is where I see the basic principles of SE given different names for different applications. In my own mind PM is really SE but the system of interest is the performing organization itself rather than the product, which is left to the SE or BA.

For some time I have been considering writing an article describing how the basic principles and methods of SE are completely described by the PMBOK, using many of the same but some different (non-engineering) terms. One of these days when I get a bit of free time...

Keith

Thomas,
I see systems theory as the overarching concept that is applied in many ways. It is a logical approach focused on the interaction of diverse things so that the sum of the parts results in capabilities greater than from the individual parts alone.

The others are derivatives that have been given formal names. Systems Thinking (capitalized) is really someone's brand for applied ST. SE is the application to engineering sciences. DT considers more of the human element. In PM, the system is the organization and PM processes. All of those and some other spin-offs are applied ST, and there is a lot of overlap between the "brands" as I call them.

Where I see SE as central to all of them as well, is it provides the structure that goes from concept to method. When I read the PMBOK, the organization structure, diagramming methods, etc. come out of the engineering discipline. A good analogy in an engineering workplace is how the engineer may define the design, but the drafter or CAD operator applies the drawing standards for others to follow.

I don't think one is better than the other either. As I've studied SE over the years, it has become my Rosetta stone that I use to translate one to another. That is where I see many similarities to approaches, but they are viewed or described from another perspective.

In the aviation field I work, some people think the system is the airplane. Others see the pilot as critical to the operation. Others see the external environment such as the travel industry as why the system has any value to begin with. People often apply the same concepts, but where they draw the boundaries on the scope changes based on perspective.

Thanks for your insights, Keith.

I have another Rosetta Stone, in that I believe that the future is shaped by diversity of thinking, different perspectives, connecting dots and as a group of humans. Everything is flowing.

There is no pattern of thinking that should prevail, in my opinion, as this leads to a belief system (agilistas), suppression of other patterns and limits our options. If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail.

Thomas,
Suppression of other patterns does limit our options, but in the name of diversity, consider this...

How do you evaluate the options if you do not have a frame of reference to determine which option is better than the others? That is the keystone of systems theory and every derivative. You define the problem, define the qualities of a good solution, then fit the solution approach so that it fits the problem.

That is not saying that all you have is a hammer. That is saying that you have a very large assortment of tools at your disposal, and your job is to select the best tool for the job.

Thomas,
As a systems engineer myself, I see both as the same fundamental concepts. The difference is where we set the boundaries of "the system of interest". In traditional SE, I absolutely agree that it tends to focus on the thing being produced. When you consider systems architecture however, it includes how that system fits with the business. The people aspect are absolutely involved in whether the product level system fits the needs of all stakeholders including the performing organization.

This is where I see the basic principles of SE given different names for different applications. In my own mind PM is really SE but the system of interest is the performing organization itself rather than the product, which is left to the SE or BA.

For some time I have been considering writing an article describing how the basic principles and methods of SE are completely described by the PMBOK, using many of the same but some different (non-engineering) terms. One of these days when I get a bit of free time...

Keith

Keith,

like your idea to write an article, would volunteer to be involved if you like.

PM, SE and DT surely have some or many principles in common and may overlap.

Do you think ST and SE are the same? My understanding was so far that ST is a tool/way of thinking used in SE and other contexts.

My understanding is that there are different frames of being human centric (DT) vs. system centric (ST). Yes, users can be seen as parts of the system (mostly interjected at a later stage). The starting point of DT are humans and their perceptions/needs vs. an abstract problem. The usual description of the thinking styles is also different - emotional vs technical.

Same to PM: focus is on the work / how to get things done, not so much on the product (ST) and not on the human side per se (stakeholders were just elevated 2 PMBoK editions ago, change management is not yet part of it at all).

Not saying the one is better than the other, it is a good thing that we have different approaches to chose the best for a given situation/problem.

Thomas,
I see systems theory as the overarching concept that is applied in many ways. It is a logical approach focused on the interaction of diverse things so that the sum of the parts results in capabilities greater than from the individual parts alone.

The others are derivatives that have been given formal names. Systems Thinking (capitalized) is really someone's brand for applied ST. SE is the application to engineering sciences. DT considers more of the human element. In PM, the system is the organization and PM processes. All of those and some other spin-offs are applied ST, and there is a lot of overlap between the "brands" as I call them.

Where I see SE as central to all of them as well, is it provides the structure that goes from concept to method. When I read the PMBOK, the organization structure, diagramming methods, etc. come out of the engineering discipline. A good analogy in an engineering workplace is how the engineer may define the design, but the drafter or CAD operator applies the drawing standards for others to follow.

I don't think one is better than the other either. As I've studied SE over the years, it has become my Rosetta stone that I use to translate one to another. That is where I see many similarities to approaches, but they are viewed or described from another perspective.

In the aviation field I work, some people think the system is the airplane. Others see the pilot as critical to the operation. Others see the external environment such as the travel industry as why the system has any value to begin with. People often apply the same concepts, but where they draw the boundaries on the scope changes based on perspective.