gond

Sometimes, comments are so baffling, I couldn’t formulate an answer even if I tried, and that’s not due to the content.

This is Not Even Wrong.

One thing Haiku has is that it looks utterly coherent. Yeah, it looks 90s, but at least it looks like that everywhere you poke it. Every other OS out there became, in that regard, a mess.

Had a good laugh! That could be me.

Thank you for the Be-related posts. Maybe, one day, you could write a more detailed report of it in a format made for longer articles. I would read it.

> I am trying to help you

Quite the opposite. You are now trying to reframe your accusations as help.

1. I surely didn’t ask for accusations nor for help with this. If I need any, I will let you know.

2. Your assessment of my situation is incorrect and as such I'm removing myself from this conversation now. But I want you to have the last word, so, go ahead.

Let me summarize your chain of arguments up to this point:

“I don't think you really get either Design Thinking or Systems Thinking”

1. In the strict sense of science, Design Thinking is not a methodology, whether you like it or not. Look it up.

2. If you have no more arguments to offer besides falling back to accusations again and again, then I'm afraid I can't take you seriously.

> So what do you mean by "Design Thinking does with its sole existence what Systems Thinking tried to avoid"?

It’s its approach to Systems. Take the 5 stages. Why 5, not 10 or 3? Why stages at all? Who’s to say? Why not enable people to create stages themselves and run from there? Or whatever fits their business.

Why not teach methodology instead of method?

>I'm not sure why you think it's relevant here.

I can only repeat myself: The value is in the process of inquiry itself. Systems Theory is not a set of methods. It is an epistemological based theory and requires a shift in how a person perceives reality, the often cited worldview. How do you know what you know? By assuming 5 stages? Is that objectively induced? What happens to that if looking through the lens of radical constructivism? The theory requires to incorporate multiple worldviews and with that, negates the assumption of an objective truth.

Then we actually agree on parts? Well, excuse me if I interpreted you wrong.

>we have no idea if the purchaser or the seller gets more utility out of each dollar.

Assumption: the seller opened the auction with his actual hard lower limit, he should be happy with what he gets as soon as that limit gets hit.

The original poster said that he essentially altered the bid in favour of the seller. However, the exchange of subjective equal values is based on the balance between the two parties and now gets distorted in favour of the seller and in detriment of the buyer. This should result in win/lose if I am not mistaken.

So, maybe I get you wrong, I am not sure right now.

>If you think using Design Thinking goes against Systems Thinking

No, not against. One is a subset of the other. but you are free to prove me wrong.

> likely doesn't offer any advantage over the standard tool?

The process in itself has value. Are you sure about the meaning of epistemological?

Around ten years ago, I was a designer for some 20 years. A strange path led me to a different place which is intermixed or adjacent to the field of organisational theory.

At that time, I decomposed problems too, maybe a bit differently than a developer, I can’t really know. I still decompose, except that the difference to the past is that analysis only makes up one part of the larger whole. I knew many designers which never did either.

I agree with you that there are some areas which do not need theory. That depends on where you define the system boundaries. In the example of a carpenter: Yes, 30 years, the person indeed knows that stuff. One of first question of Systems Thinking, however, would be: What’s the reference system, is his company viable in the future? I very much believe that if you apply this to complex projects, to ‘communication and control’ of an enterprise, that one should know the backstory.

The reductionist approach got us to the problems, applying reductionism to a theory trying to solve reductionism is courageous. In my opinion, the method which is used to teach must incorporate the principle which it is trying to convey. An alternative worldview needs to have a starting point somewhere, and I like to think it starts with the education, which is not to say that I do not understand the urge to speed up absorption of the theory.

>I practiced Design Thinking at IDEO for 10 years

That may possibly explain your motivation but even ten years do not make it right, nor the speed of teaching.

You are saying it yourself: internalising the very abstract system for decomposing and adapting it has a value of its own you cannot replicate by pre-solving it. The spinning-off of Design Thinking only accomplished further segmentation of a space which was already too fractured and was a disservice to the field.

I don’t think we will approach a consensus here, and that’s fine.