Anticipatory Factors in Dialogic Design ISSS 2016

Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones
Anticipatory Factors in
Dialogic Design
Peter Jones, PhD
OCAD University, Toronto
ISSS 2016 Boulder
ARENA
Methodology
STUDIO
LAB AGORA
Application
Theory
Foundation

Translational Systems Science to Practice
• An explosion of design thinking methodologies has emerged
over 5-10 years.
• A messy array of design methods deployed in government,
social services, & policy without a basis in systemics .
• Systems & futures literacies are emerging concerns in planning.
• Without models for understanding “how and why” of methods,
we can’t evaluate causal outcomes or quality of futures.
We can’t just “throw methods at a problem.”
• Modeling relations demonstrates how anticipatory
understanding & commitment formed in group decision making

Warfield’s DoSM Model
• Normative, 3rd Phase Science
(and Descriptive)
• From Corpus > Arena
• Foundation > Theory > Methodology >
Applications
• A developmental approach, advanced
by Christakis in 2000’s
• And evolved to define dialogic
methodology in systemic design
Warfield, J. N. (1986). The domain of science model: evolution
and design. Proc. 30th Ann'l. Mtg., Society for General Systems
Research, Salinas: Intersystems, H46-H59.

“… the best way to validate a Science is to
manage the language through careful design
practices, and to incorporate the Theory of
Relations and its isomorphisms as part of the
Foundations of the Science.”
Dual-Basis Design & Conceptual Science
• Basis for Design – Built primarily from
Foundations and Theory of Design Science
• Dual-Basis – Developed from 2 distinctive
origins, top-down/conceptual & bottom-up
• Impact on Science – Warfield insisted that
“higher quality language” had more impact
on science than hypothesis testing.
• Universal Priors – Necessary to understand
the histories of language in science, & our
pre-understandings.
• Trans-disciplines – To avoid under-
conceptualization, require a science of the
human, not just selective incorporation.
ARENA
Methodology
STUDIO
LAB AGORA
Application
Theory
Foundation

Translational Science - DoSM for Systemic Design
ARENA
Methodology
STUDIO
LAB AGORA
Application
Theory
Foundation
• Lab – Building creative Foundations from
philosophy, social science, systemics
• Lab – Visualizing Theory &
building artefacts to test in Studio
• Studio – Design science, adapting
Theory > Methodology
• Studio – Building new methods
for application in Arena.
• Arena – Adapting & testing method
& evaluating in Arenas with stakeholders
• Agora – Releasing to public in new forms.

“Humanity’s biggest problem isn’t how to
imagine or design solutions for our
economic, environment, and social woes.
Our problem is that we can’t agree to
implement them.”
Karl Schroeder, Degrees of Freedom
6

Dialogic Design Science & Methodology
• Design Science
Supported by theoretical & empirical research
Science of dialogue to gain mutual understanding
• Employs ‘all’ Inquiring Systems
Churchman’s 5 systems of inquiry each have role
• Design Method
Validated over 40 years, 1000s applications
Method revisions are vetted in community
Evaluated by data collection, reporting, analysis
dialogicdesignscience.wikispaces.com

SDD + ISM Software
Interpretive Structural Modeling
• Multi-staged, progressive reasoning process
• Cogniscope III (Root Cause Mapping)
• Logosofia (Web-based)
• Multi-Facilitated
• Canonical, rigorous
• Guides dialogue
toward effective action

1
2
3
Deliberative co-created design of
an envisioned social system
Typical SDD Engagement Series
(Discovery has recently emerged as a essential stage)

SDD - Methods & Language Patterns
ARENA
Methodology
STUDIO
LAB AGORA
Application
Theory
Foundation

WORLD MODEL
decoding
Design
Practice
Entailed
in
Arena
Model
inference
SDD as Collective Anticipatory System
encoding

How to enable multiplicity of
stakeholders to reason about futures
together, experienced as dialogue?

Q "In the face of increasing urbanization worldwide,
what future challenges do we anticipate for Southern
Ontario, now through 2030?”

CLASSIFICATION
Amendment & Naming of Clusters

Voting on Relative Importance

STRUCTURING

INFLUENCE MAPPING

Imagining Canada’s Future
Social challenges structured by leverage, influence map
20 year horizon
INFLUENCE MAP ARTIFACTS

Conclusion
• SDD – Deeply reasoned, integrated methods known to
progressively lead to strong consensus on courses of action.
PROBLEMATIQUE > DESIGN/SCENARIOS > ACTIONS
• Relational modeling demonstrates how (high variety)
individual stakeholders come to consensus on action –
Within a consensual linguistic domain.
• Each method carefully elicits individual models, evaluates
error, constructs group models, & co-constructs inferential
model of future relations.
• Propose continuation of relational modeling process to
enhance design of SDD Discovery – Problem – Design – Action.

Translation from Arena back to Lab
What have we learned in a DoSM cycle that requires
methodological revision to adapt SDD as a design practice?
• Long duration, continuous engagements (12-18 months) require
consultative model, not interventional.
• At same time, stakeholders often require shorter, focused sessions as
required by accessibility.
• Significant methodical work in framing (question) & stakeholder discovery
• Develop & evaluate Discovery methods from design & foresight
• Observations and recording of SDD sessions yield data.
Discover where / how consensual linguistic domain formed
• New software enables collocated/remote sessions, & for method design
to be trialed & measured

Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones 23
• Design proceeds as action-on-objects in iterate-learn cycles.
Warfield called this literative, relevant to science.
• Without theory for direction, method fails to address
unknowns, complexity, or discounted stakeholders.
• Systemics precedes design with 2nd-order loops between
systems & design, theories / praxis.
• A dilemma revealed in “systemics in practice.” We structure
agreements (e.g. governance) that suggest we design systems.
• But we almost never design systems (e.g. Lasswell’s Triad).
Social systems do not yield directly to design methods.
Can the Design Dialectic guide Futuring?

1. The Complexity Axiom: Observational variety must be respected when
engaging stakeholders, while making sure that cognitive limitations are
not violated in our aim for comprehensiveness (Warfield).
2. The Engagement Axiom: Designing social systems without the authentic
engagement of stakeholders is unethical, and results in inferior plans that
are not implementable (Özbekhan).
3. The Investment Axiom: Stakeholders designing their social systems must
make personal investments of trust to be effective in discovering shared
understanding & collaborative solutions (Flanagan).
4. The Logic Axiom: Appreciation of distinctions and complementarities
among inductive, deductive and retroductive logics essential for a
futures-creative understanding of the human being. (Romm)
DoSM – Foundation of Postulates (abbreviated)

5. The Epistemological Axiom: A comprehensive science of human beings
should inquire about human life in totality of thinking, wanting, telling,
and feeling - it should not be dominated by Western epistemology
reducing science to only intellectual dimensions (Harris and Trevino).
6. The Boundary-Spanning Axiom: Empowers stakeholders to act beyond
borders in designing symbiotic social systems that enable people from
all walks of life to bond across cultural, religious, racialized, &
disciplinary boundaries, enriching their repertoires for seeing, feeling
and acting (Tsivacou and Romm).
7. The Reconciliation of Power Axiom: Social systems design aims to
reconcile individual & institutional power relations embedded in every
group of stakeholders & their concerns, by honoring Requisite Variety of
distinctions and perspectives as manifested in the Arena (Jones).
Axiomatic Principles of Dialogic Design

1. Requisite Variety An appreciation of the diversity of perspectives and
stakeholders is essential in managing complex situations. (Ashby)
2. Requisite Parsimony Structured dialogue is needed to avoid the
cognitive overload of stakeholder/designers. (Warfield)
3. Requisite Saliency Observations can only be understood by
comparisons in an organized set of observations. (Boulding)
4. Requisite Meaning Wisdom are produced in a dialogue only when
observers search for relationships of similarity, priority, influence, etc,
within a set of observations. (Peirce)
5. Requisite Autonomy & Authenticity … Protect the autonomy and
authenticity of each observer in drawing distinctions. (Tsivacou)
6. Requisite Evolution of Observations … Learning occurs in dialogue as
people search for relationships in a set of observations. (Dye)
7. Requisite Action … Action plans must be designed in authentic
engagement of those whose futures influenced by the change (Laouris)
DoSM – Structure of “Laws”

1. Requisite Variety > Stakeholder Discovery
Theory of Stakeholders, Ontological Variety (Latour)
2. Requisite Parsimony > Macrocognitive Homeostasis
Navigating Situational Complexity,
Cognitive capacitation of the group (G. Klein)
3. Requisite Saliency > Boundary Framing
Saliency discovered within a problematique (K. Dorst)
Locates a position to reframe the problem.
4. Requisite Meaning > Sensemaking of knowledge/values
Structuration for emergence of wisdom (Giddens)
Transforming Dialogic Laws > Systemic Design Methods

5. Requisite Autonomy & Authenticity > Democratic Dissent
Conserving Agency, What’s At-Stake for Individuals (Dervin)
6. Requisite Evolution of Observations > Incremental Reflexion
Social Learning & Evolution (Argyris & Schön)
7. Requisite Action > Social Construction of Intent
Enaction across Social Systems (Luhmann)
8. Requisite Power > Entailment of Authorities
Capacity to influence & decide across
hierarchies (Jacques)
Transforming Dialogic Laws > Systemic Design Functions
ARENA
Methodology
STUDIO
LAB AGORA
Application
Theory
Foundation

Anticipatory Factors in Dialogic Design ISSS 2016

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Anticipatory Factors in Dialogic Design ISSS 2016

More from Peter Jones

Recently uploaded

Anticipatory Factors in Dialogic Design ISSS 2016