Problem-Solving with Design in Complex Systems

This article showcases the importance of designers and stakeholders looking at problem-solving as the common goal, ideologies that can be used to gain a broader and deeper understanding of wicked problems and it elucidates how to solve these complex problems with solutions.

Design as Participation

Don Norman in Apple 1993, mentioned about User Centric Design

This introduced the term "users" and since 23 years the businesses are calculating their success in terms of users like MAU (Monthly Average Users), ARPU (Average Revenue Per User), etc. And hence, from these many years, designers are designing for the needs of the users. It changed the perspectives of the designers from the center of a system to an outsider, a user of the system. This shift is still in process and companies don't take it seriously. The designers work in complex adaptive systems which they are a part of. If they think of themselves as not the participants and instead think of the users as participants, there will always be friction in the design outcomes. An example to define this is Netflix's genius idea of "Skip Intro" CTA during the introduction of the show. Till the time designers were looking at the problem from outside, they designed the complex system for just some users who watch shows on Netflix. But when these designers saw themselves as the users and practically adapted the system, they realized that this could be a problem as they don't watch the introduction themselves, and researched more about the other users. If they had never imagined themselves as the part of the system, they would have never come across the problem and hence would have never thought about the solution that changed the experience hundredfold.

Design involves purposeful behavior that is targeted toward certain goals and the creation of solutions. The goal of design may be to solve a problem that affects one or many people. In the end, it is a process of problem-solving which requires the analytical side of the brain before the creative side steps in. And when it comes to solving the problem of huge complex systems, everyone should be involved. All the stakeholders should participate in the problem solving and consider it as their own job than leaving it as a designer's job. Business people need to equally participate to have broader possibilities to solve a solution.

DesignX — Designers and Complex Systems

DesignX is an approach explained by Don Norman and his co-advisors in College of Design and Innovation at Tongji University. (they simply called it X — as in the algebraic variable that can take on multiple values. Hence, DesignX). DesignX is an evidence-based approach which will help to solve human-societal problems that involve technology. It is a complex mix of natural and artificial systems. The problems could involve people, group, systems, etc.

To solve these complex problems, there is a lot of collaboration needed from the existing skillsets from people who usually work individually. To accomplish this, the team members need to work closely with people from multiple backgrounds, solving the problems in the most effective way. This would require them to work cohesively negotiating on the constraints and interests on the different perspectives of the teammates.

The designers that are working have no method to follow. Much of the design work is skill and intuitions based. Even the human-centered iterative methods corrected by critiquing the designs have minimal evidence on their effectiveness. We need approaches that can be tested. And quantifying the results may give some objective results. In short, this approach focuses on changing the system of education that exists in today's world. Don Norman suggests a problem-based style of learning as opposed to a stereotypical discipline-based approach that has proved to be ineffective in solving real-life complex problems. He concludes by saying "Graphic design, communication, interaction, industrial and product design all continue to require great skill and craft. But these superb, excellent skills are not powerful enough to provide solutions in the complex socio-technological systems that characterize the focal point for DesignX." This needs new training, new skills and new methods for solving complex problems.

Difference between "Design" and "Design-Thinking"

According to people "Design" is a physical manifestation of creativity that's appealing to users, a satisfying UX, that makes a business idea into a usable product. The very basic principle of problem-solving, reframing it into a more strategic form is "Design-Thinking". It is different than "creativity" as creativity is a skill to create something new. Whereas, "Design" is a process of making it. The companies need to understand the shift in the cultural mindset and methods of infusing design-thinking for the spirit of innovation.

There are different mindsets for people who design. The most common traits are open-minded collaboration, courage, and conviction. The "Open-up" attitude let people take any kind of challenge and are open to accepting everyone and everything to achieve something worthwhile. "Go out on a limb" is a trait to define a culture of courage where it is not just about making people brave enough to go out on a limb, it is about creating the right conditions in which brave and intelligent people can perform — conditions of integrity, trust, and tolerance for risk-taking. "Don't give up" attitude is for people who see "wicked problems" as a challenge than an excuse.

A shared understanding of "wicked problems"

CogNexus Institute founder Jeff Conklin explains why the Age of Design requires a new approach to problem-solving that is built on a foundation of shared understanding. In the "Age of Science", people follow a linear approach, work individually, gather information that might lead to a solution and deliver it for implementation. This is a very traditional approach and those days are gone. Neither the problems are the same as before, nor the approach. In the Age of Design, it is a shared understanding of the possible solution instead of finding the right answer, the facts are important but stories that relate to humans are more impactful which requires a social touch to our approach. The skills that were required during the Age of Science are still needed but are not sufficient.

A "wicked problem" is a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize. The use of the term "wicked" here has come to denote resistance to resolution, rather than evil. Problem understanding is the more evasive part of the process. Over time we realized that different stakeholders have different opinions about what the problem is. This was popularized in the 1970s when design theorists, Horst Rittel defined 10 traits of wicked problems that can be compressed down to 6 characteristics, that are mentioned below:

Coming from the industrial era, the businesses defined back then were manufacturing based, linear process-oriented approach and more traditional than start-ups emerging these days. They lack a bigger picture of the problem. That's when Jeff Conklin talks about the lack of innovation. If you are stuck in the same way of approaching the problems from the center then you'll miss out on the bigger picture from the outside. And the moment you stop and think about the fundamental problems of identity like "Who we are?", "What is our direction?", "What this company is about?", they lead to wicked problems that are tough to solve. It is always easy to jump to the direct immediate problem ignoring the wicked problems behind it.

When attempting to solve wicked problems, creative thinkers must design systems that influence people's behavior on a mass scale. There's no quick fix though. Too often, solutions for big problems are subdivided into component parts. When designing systems at scale, we must consider the whole ecosystem that needs to be engaged. IDEO's Ilya Prokopoff and Fred Dust talk about designing systems at scale to solve some of the world's big problems. When tackling major challenges, they mentioned 'systems at scale', which involves two distinct elements: designing systems that work and influencing people's thinking at mass scale. The best design solutions do both.

Conclusion

It is becoming evident that companies can no longer have quality, performance or price alone to sustain leadership in the global market. Design has emerged as the main driver for innovation. Giving the power to design throughout all the aspects of the business can give them an advantage over other businesses with a traditional mindset.