RECALIBRATING HOLISM
- Admin
- a few seconds ago
- 39 min read
MAKING SENSE OF INTEGRATED SYSTEMIC THINING
In taking on the sensemaking for this non-linear book, we wanted to zero-in on sharing the key factors in motion that would be of most value to practice leaders seeking to make the transition to Arenas 3 and 4, in meaningful ways. One of the most difficult shifts to unpack in the swamp of this moving target subject is the trajectory of holism in the context of design. What happened to it? Where is it?
Some seasoned veterans of design practice would no doubt suggest that holism has been in the mix of design for many decades, but this fact, this consideration has somehow largely been lost along the way in the avalanche of cross-tribal competitive social media posts. Looking at the present public perception of where holism, holistic thinking resides, it's easy to get the wrong impression as other louder, more constantly posting parties/tribes are aggressively parked in this terrain.
Once we acknowledge that the management/engineering oriented Soft Systems Thinking that arrived circa 1980s, does not own holism, once we acknowledge that human-centered designer folks tend to view holism differently from engineers, then we begin to see that the strategic design community, including the graduate academic design institutions have not done a great job explaining what happened to holism and where holism is evolving to, has evolved to, today. This subject in itself, could fill an entire book. Here for our readers we will share our short overview perspective of the largely missing methodology-related holism story as it relates to Design for Complexity.
A good place to start: *Aimi Winkler: “Holism is best understood as a worldview, orientation, or philosophical stance about how reality is structured and therefore how thinking should approach it…Holism is not a methodology because it does not prescribe steps, tools, or procedures….Holism asserts that reality is interconnected…Holism is the view that systems, phenomena, or realities must be understood as integrated wholes, not merely as collections of separate parts, because the whole has properties that cannot be fully explained by analyzing the parts in isolation…Holism is a worldview and guiding principle that frames inquiry and action.”
On its own holism is a relatively non-political notion, adaptive to many contexts. A fact that might be surprising to some readers; holism can be found in all of the 4 anchor approaches identified as foundational in this book; Action Research, Creative Problem Solving, Design and Soft Systems Thinking. Essentially holism is operationalized, built upon and recast in various ways by these quite different anchor methodologies.
[ Image Credit: Humantific / Advancing Design for Complexity, 2026 ]
The roots of holism are a little bumpy. Common to each of the anchor approaches is recognition regarding the influence of early 20th-century *Gestalt Psychology with its theory of perception that emphasised the processing of entire patterns and configurations, rather than merely individual components. Founded in 1912, Gestalt Psychology is often associated with the adopted-by-many adage “The whole is different from the sum of its parts”. …and “The whole is more than the sum of its parts”.
In Gestalt logic a person is to be understood as a complete, unified whole, not just the sum of its individual parts (mind, body, spirit, environment). In this sense the Gestalt version of holism was/is human.
Across the 4 anchor approaches seen in this book, the degree to which the orientation towards social and or cognitive psychology, including Gestalt, was questioned or embraced differs so it's a complex picture. Even more broadly the embrace of cross-community *think-blending differs significantly across the 4 anchor approaches, with some communities being early adopters and others being late arrivals.
FEW WRINKLES
In any complex story, including this one, there are going to be a few wrinkles. Some of our readers might point out that holism existed long before Gestalt arrived. It is true that versions of holism have ancient roots. Forms of holism can be found in the time of Aristotle and Plato.
“The whole is something besides the parts.” Aristotle (4th century BCE)
It is also true that within this story there are instances where holism can be seen appearing in design long before Gestalt arrives. Holistic-picture-making in very early information design is an example. (See Design Holism, Wave 1 below.)
Gestalt did not originate holism but rather made holism explicit, testable, and disciplinary.
Greek philosophy = implicit, metaphysical holism
Gestalt psychology = explicit, scientific holism
To be fair, we do want to acknowledge the preGestalt holistic thinking/doing contributions from the period prior to Gestalt’s arrival in 1912. That body of visualizing complexity work, not well understood even in the mainstream design community, is a wild card outlier that proved to be important as holism rolled forward.
When and how the “whole picture” orientation manifested and rolled forward in various eras and approaches is a significant part of the Design for Complexity story.
ADDITIONAL LUGGAGE
It is when the weighting of additional luggage related to underlying orientations of various tribes is added to holism that the notion of different versions, different flavors of holism, and different options becomes clearer.
Since there are numerous disciplines involved in the 4 anchor approaches central to Design for Complexity; (Action Research, Creative Problem Solving, Design and Systems Thinking), it’s inevitable that differences in approaches to holism do appear and not without some friction. Some approaches to holism are multi-directional. Others less so. Like design itself, what holism is and does has evolved, is evolving.
How did all of that differencing and overlap occur? Of course it is no secret that prior to the global network era the various knowledge communities/disciplines were relatively isolated from each other. This is often reflected in historical tribal literature where one community is talking to itself, making assumptions, and sometimes bold statements in its literature, with no visibility into the parallel universes of other disciplines operating in the same terrain.
This lack of cross-community visibility/recognition remains embedded in the methods literature related to holistic thinking which is now being rolled out across the universe via the seemingly unstoppable train of web scraping Ai. Today, for our particular readers we can make only a tiny dent in some of that lack of cross-community visibility.
INNOVATION METHODOLGY / CALIBRATING HOLISM
To help our readers make timely sense of this rather complex cross-community picture we share Humantific’s *OUTBOUND/INBOUND Lens that was referenced in our last book Rethinking Design Thinking. In that framework a distinction is made between externally directed OUTBOUND thinking, considerations, focus, tools, etc and those internally directed INBOUND. Depending on which of the 4 anchor approaches looked at in this book the emphasis is, consciously or unconsciously on one, the other or both.
Utilizing this sensemaking lens it becomes more clear that some approaches to holism presently reflect OUTBOUND/INBOUND integration, while others are in half-baked mode, primarily OUTBOUND. That's a picture that often evolves over time. There is typically a toolbox for each.
What gets a little tricky is that the dynamics of *encouraging creativity are situated INBOUND. The absence of and or tilting of INBOUND dynamics contrary to stated intentions tends to have enormous implications.
[ Image Credit: Humantific / Advancing Design for Complexity, 2026 ]
Even before we get to what came-from-where in holism the utilization of this OUTBOUND/INBOUND lens can help us decipher the holism-in-practice picture presently, as well as the direction its heading in. .
THE OVERVIEWS
All 4 anchor approaches in this book contain learning-based methodologies. In a nutshell holism is the stance; Action Research, Creative Problem Solving, Design and Soft Systems Thinking are the anchor practices. Each has a series of lenses.
Keeping it brief: What follows is:
HOLISM IN ACTION RESEARCH: Holistic Thinking Flavor A:
HOLISM IN CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING: Holistic Thinking Flavor B:
HOLISM IN SOFT SYSTEMS THINKING: Holistic Thinking Flavor C:
HOLISM IN DESIGN: Holistic Thinking Flavor D: (Explained in Waves 1-10)
HOLISM IN ACTION RESEARCH (arrival 1940s)
Holistic Thinking Flavor A:
Holistic thinking was embedded in Action Research from its founding in the 1940s. It was/is central to the work of social psychologist Kurt Lewin, who understood human behavior as part of a whole field of interacting forces, his so-called Field Theory. Lewin’s inbound “whole-person” was understood to exist in an outbound field of many other considerations. Its outbound was expressed as Action Research methodology. Central to Action Research is the idea that the researchers participate in the changemaking action. In terms of the method itself there was not much there-there in the flying at 50,000 feet “Unfreeze/Change/Refreeze”. In terms of Inbound dynamics, Action Research seems to assume that collaborators will operate on best behavior without power dynamics. This is questioned later by other arriving approaches working in real-world contexts. This is social dialogue, human-centered holism. Action Research inclusive of holism was/is a mixture of “guide-on-the-side” and “sage in the stage” models of engagement. There is no distinction being made between content knowledge mastery and process knowledge mastery. Many practitioners have contributed to the evolution of Action Research beyond what Kurt Lewin tabled before passing in 1947.
Arena Context: This is holism intended for Arena 4, Societal ChangeMaking.
Most significant attributes: Geared for the upstream terrain of complex fuzzy societal situations where, what the challenges are unknown at the outset. Connected to and extrapolated from, the deep thoughtful work of Kurt Lewin. Places the “whole human” at the center of understanding complex situations. Process lite. High embrace of prolonged conversations. Action Research was depicted as “learning via action”, something that is common to all four of the anchor approaches but thought to be unique at that time. Advocates reframe it as more than methodology. It has a strong community and its evolution is ongoing.
Holism Time-Line: In the Holism time line Lewin and Field Theory appeared prior to the arrival of the *“Guilford Turn”, cognition milestone. Cognitive psychologist JP Guilford later deepened Field Theory.
Notable Quote: “To understand or to predict behavior, the person and his environment have to be considered as one constellation of interdependent factors.” Kurt Lewin, Principles of Topological Psychology (1936)
(See “RETHINKING BEHAVIORS; Making Sense of Lewin & Guilford Today” in this book.)
HOLISM IN CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING: (arrival 1940s-50s)
Holistic Thinking Flavor B:
Holistic thinking first appeared in Creative Problem Solving (CPS) in the late 1940s, 50s and early 1960s, when Sidney Parnes and others in that community began shaping CPS into a whole-person, whole-process, integrative model, moving beyond Alex Osborn’s original starting point. The inbound holistic notion that everyone has the capacity to participate in applied creativity originates in the war-time logic of inclusion that was cascaded forward across many decades and remains a central CPS logic. CPS pioneered the embrace of small simple interaction rules of engagement.
Aligned with this everyday holism orientation was, from the get-go, plain language use. In CPS there has never been any assumption that there is a single ‘problem’ to be found. In CPS there is no baked in assumption that what the challenges actually are is known or can be presumed at the outset. This differs significantly from design methods. It is inside CPS that systemic challenge framing first appeared in the 1950s.
In this form of framing holistic constellations of challenges are cocreated by multiples of participants. Systemic challenge framing is a process for exploring wholes defined by participants. Relationships between the challenges are made visible for the first time. CPS acknowledges that systemic challenge maps are situational and time-bound/temporary. CPS methods make no distinction between a problem and an opportunity. CPS does make a distinction between looking at visible systems and deciphering fuzzy problematic situations.
In CPS logic, conducting analysis of visible objects and their interconnections is considered to be very different from deciphering complex fuzzy situations. CPS pioneered the understanding that complex fuzzy situations cannot be understood by looking only at physicality. It was CPS that began systemically linking together OUTBOUND and INBOUND holistic considerations. CPS pioneer Ruth Noller saw applied creativity as a dynamic cognitive cycle in which individuals continually learn, reframe, and adapt. The embrace of the *Guilford Turn provided the basic mechanism to take on the often hidden in plain sight power dynamics of groups more directly.
That mechanism provided transparency into situational conditions being dominated by convergent or divergent power dynamics even if/when that asymmetrical weighting is taught as best practice in some management related disciplines. CPS pioneered the powerful notion of holistically enabling cross-disciplinary innovation being different from management dynamics.
That bumped directly up against the priorities and rules of engagement taught in several graduate management schools so it’s considered to be not for the faint of heart. The CPS formation of what constitutes holistic inclusion sprung from the adopted Guilford Turn reflected both OUTBOUND and INBOUND. Many practitioners have contributed to the evolution of CPS.
Arena Context: CPS is taught as proactive adaptive, participatory outbound/inbound holism intended for Arena 3 Organizational ChangeMaking and Arena 4, Societal ChangeMaking. Significant emphasis on enabling holistic team dynamics and holistic inclusive culture construction.
Most significant attributes: Early recognition that society is dynamically in motion. Contains the deepest, highest degree of cocreation facilitation leadership know-how of the 4 anchor approaches. Geared for the upstream terrain of complex fuzzy organizational and societal situations where the challenges are unknown at the outset. Brings the unique firepower of cocreated systemic challenge framing. Human-centered. Whole-process, whole team, whole viewing range oriented. Links Inbound and outbound systemic considerations. Starting point is fuzzy situations, not problem definitions.
Contains frames and logics to enable cognitive inclusion. Significantly advances applications of the Guilford Turn to aid understanding of strategies, methods, team dynamics, organizational emphasis, conversations, documents, etc. Embraces and champions both divergence and convergence. The idea that CPS capacity advances proactive adaptive capacity appears as early as the 1950s. It has a strong community and its evolution is ongoing.
Holism Time-Line: The CPS community had its first public, holistic methods oriented conference in 1955. That was 10 years before the arrival of the “Design Methods Movement”. The CPS language was being created around the time when the Guilford Turn appeared. In evolving waves, since the 1950s CPS has been a multidimensional mechanism for realizing holism, incorporating Guilford Turn.
Notable Quote: “Obviously there is urgency for developing in people the ability to live with constant change in a dynamic society”, Sidney Parnes, 1967
(See “RETHINKING FRAMING; Making Sense of Open Systemic Challenge Constellations” in this book.)
HOLISM IN SOFT SYSTEMS THINKING: (arrival 1980s)
Holistic Thinking Flavor C:
Systems thinking has its own somewhat bumpy evolving holism story. It’s an evolution that maps to the change journey of its methodologies within the engineering discipline and profession. Perhaps best understood as two waves; The early so-called “hard” version of systems thinking was set in motion in the 1940s but eventually criticized within its tribe as being mechanistic and not holistic. In the logic of hard systems, problems can be defined upfront with optimization as the goal. This became known as “goal-directed methodology”.
Peter Checkland: “Hard systems thinking is goal-directed, in the sense that a particular study begins with the definition of the desirable goal to be achieved.”
Long story short: In operation for numerous years, led by the engineering community, hard systems thinking eventually faced it’s day-of-reckoning when Lancaster University-based Checkland undertook a series of studies in the UK in the 1980s focused on the application of hard systems thinking to complex problematic situations in the real-world. That academic research was positioned by Checkland as unusual in the sense that it took place in the real world. As that research cycled through, Checkland bravely recognized a disconnect and determined that hard systems thinking was not a workable methodology for application to what he described in engineering lingo as “human-activity systems”. Translation: complex human situations.
Peter Checkland: “It became clear that structured problems are what hard systems thinking and most operational research are concerned with.”
That remarkable breach, that reckoning, that wakening did not occur until 1980ish. In the context of the cross community methods evolution timeline that we outlined in our first book “Innovation Methods Mapping” (Pages 22-23) that engineering community earthquake occurred in Era 7 of that timeline.
In his 1981 book Systems Thinking/Systems Practice book Checkland described the goal of that research: “A main outcome of the work is a way of using systems ideas in problem-solving which is very different from goal-oriented methodology.”
Noticeable in the literature is that in the quest to create a new approach via his real-world experiments Checkland did not go round up existing real-world methods already human centered focused and aimed at complex fuzzy situations as would be a typical move for a design person. Instead he looked at the short-comings of Action Research.
That surprising, not holistic approach cascaded into a lot of presumption appearing around 1980s soft systems thinking methodology. A truncation in that foundational research led to a truncation in its tribal literature that is now widespread (and being accelerated by Ai).
Today the opportunity facing the emerging practice community engaged in R&D formulations around Design for Complexity is to not repeat that truncated “discovery/fact-finding”.
What Checkland tabled as Soft Systems Methodology was a shift intended to make the “invented here” systems approach within his discipline of engineering less mechanistic, more human and more applicable to complex “human activity systems” contexts. The difficult time-delay community fracture, elephant in the living room thing, in part explains the relatively late arrival of the soft systems approach at the complex problematics party.
Aimi Winkler: “Holistic thinking first formally appeared inside Systems Thinking in the early 1970s, with Peter Checkland’s early publications that led to Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), and was fully articulated in his landmark book: Peter Checkland, Systems Thinking, Systems Practice (1981). But the conceptual seeds of holism appeared earlier (1966-1972) as Checkland began criticizing hard systems engineering for being non-holistic.” Peter Checkland: “The development of Soft Systems Methodology during its own history has shown a shift….from the world of engineering thinking to the world of management thinking…Its parent was systems engineering, and it moved experientially from an approach aimed at optimizing a system to an approach based on articulating and enacting a systemic process of learning.”
It was heroic of Checkland and others in that tribe to directly challenge the limitations of engineering-originated, so-called hard systems thinking in their community.
Journalistically speaking the shift from the deeply entrenched anti-holism stance of hard systems method, in operation for 30+ years, to the earthquake about-face to holistic soft systems method represents one of the most dramatic directional “reset” stories in innovation methodology history. There is no parallel in any of the other anchor approaches.
Both hard and soft systems thinking are primarily outbound in focus. Which frameworks came from the hard systems era and which are from the soft era is a puzzlement in the mix, not always clearly explained or acknowledged in that community approach.
Checkland literature suggests that he acknowledged Gestalt but seemed to be not a big fan of the field of psychology in general. A design person might look at that picture and suggest the evolution from hard systems thinking to so-called soft systems methodology was an engineering effort to be more human-centered.
We included Soft Systems Methodology in our earlier Innovation Methods Mapping book, noting that its architecture was not particularly unusual in the cross-community context of the day in the 1980s. Readers would not become aware of that by reading the Checkland soft systems thinking literature. Of the four anchor approaches, soft systems literature is by far the most self-congratulatory.
Today soft systems advocates often depict the holistic way of thinking as systems thinking when it is more accurately a version, a style of holistic thinking that tends to retain engineering values. Advocates of soft systems as a way of thinking depict it as containing a vast encyclopedic avalanche of methods, tools and frameworks. “There is much more to it” is an often heard refrain.
Soft systems advocates depict its version of holism as just one part of the approach. In his 1981 book Checkland refers to the whole picture version of holism as "vulgar" pointing out his interest in not just the whole picture but the interrelationships.
Peter Checkland: “The systems paradigm is concerned with wholes and their properties. It is holistic, but not in the usual (vulgar) sense of taking in the whole; systems concepts are concerned with wholes and their hierarchical arrangement rather than with the whole.”
Soft systems thinking actionizes its holism, primarily in outbound ways. High interest in the physicality, not of humans, but of systems. On the inbound side its self-described “management/engineering” legacy orientation tilts towards privileging decision-making. References to the inbound mechanics of *encouraging creativity among human participants, shaping such space, are few and far between in soft systems literature. This constitutes a significant difference from the underlying orientations of CPS and Design.
Soft Systems Thinking Methodology was and is primarily oriented to the expert “sage-on-the-stage” model of engagement. Plain language was not/is not present. The simple rules and simple procedures orientation to complexity is absent.
Much to the frustration of some orthodox soft systems experts, not all of the many tools and frameworks reflecting its engineering values and logics found in soft systems thinking are being adopted by others in the process of cross community think blending. Ironically it is the holism part that has become the primary aspect being adopted by other disciplines as part of ongoing think blending.
Since this rearrangement represents a curation, an editing, a simplifying of the engineering/management version of soft systems thinking this tends to not go over well with traditional systems thinking advocates calling it out as reductionsist. The dynamic of exhibiting primarily outbound holism while complaining about reductionism is not uncommon hyperbolic in this subject.
A case could be made that whether we all like it or not, a similar editing/curation has occurred in the context of Action Research, CPS and Design.
Arena Context: This is primarily outbound relational holism intended for Arenas 3 & 4. While the first hard systems thinking conference was held in 1946, the arrival of soft systems in conference form did not arrive until the 1980s.
Most significant attributes: Embodiment of how engineers think of big picture systems. Modeled brave shift away from hard mechanical view to more human view framed as “soft”. Tools encourage systemic considerations. Devoted to dogged pursuit of questions regarding inputs/outputs, system boundaries, mapping systems, leverage points, 1st order/2nd order decision-making and analysis. Extraordinary focus on ensuring everyone understands that everyone sees the system differently. Heavy emphasis on outbound engagement mechanics. Positions “rich picture making” as a big 1980s idea unique to systems thinking. Contains a boat-load of tools, frameworks and methods. OUTBOUND challenge framing Lite. INBOUND lite. Struggles to transcend hard systems engineering/mechanical notions of inputs-outputs in complex human contexts. No behaviors are visible in the 1981 version of Soft Systems Thinking Methodology. Advocates reframe it as more than methodology. Many practitioners have contributed to the evolution of Soft Systems Thinking. It has a strong community and its evolution is ongoing.
Holism Time-Line: In our first book Innovation Methods Mapping we pointed out that Soft Systems Methodology appeared in Era 7 of the Cross Community Innovation Era Timeline approximately 10 years after Rittel had tabled his “wicked problems” framing and 15+ years after “Guilford Turn” appeared.
Notable Quotes: “A ‘system’ is a way of talking about purposeful human activity in the world with some perceived whole-ness.” Peter Checkland, Systems Thinking, Systems Practice (1981)
“In soft systems work there is no assumption that there is a single ‘the problem’ to be found; rather a problematic situation requiring learning about itself.” Peter Checkland, Systems Thinking, Systems Practice (1981)
“Holism in systems thinking involves not only analysis of parts but interpretation of relationships and purposes.” Peter Checkland, Systems Thinking, Systems Practice (1981)
HOLISM IN DESIGN (arrival 1600s-1700s-1920s-30s)
Holistic Thinking Flavor D:
This flavor of holism has the deepest history and perhaps contains the most complicated and nuanced series of embodiments. The design community sees itself as having a long tradition of using holistic thinking. Holism's evolution in design parallels the evolution of design methods. Not a one-time picture, the field of design has its own bumpy holistic time-line evolution spanning numerous waves that build forward. It’s a complex dance step so please be patient with this mini overview. Holistic thinking, in the sense of considering/understanding/ depicting the whole, the context, and the interdependencies, enters design through multiple streams and is aimed in different Arenas. Design contains numerous strong, often fractured communities and its evolution is diverse and ongoing.
Below are brief overviews of Holism in Design described as Waves 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10.
[Image Credit: Table of Universal History, 1858, Information Graphics, 2009, Sandra Rendgen, Julius Widemann.
DESIGN HOLISM WAVE 1:
Visualized Holism / Early Info Design (*1600s–1900s)
It might be a mind-bender for some readers to recognize that there was one particular designerly community that was already directing their work into Area 4 many decades prior to the arrival of Gestault. In Wave 1 we see very early macro depictions of systems, ecologies, etc. That early bird was the *information design community, (not called that until later) where holistic thinking and holistic picture-making appeared as early as the *1600-1700s. Much of that work was designed to appear in atlases and other publications geared for explanation to the public. In recent years numerous beautiful books have been created in the information design community documenting examples of this historical holistic picture-making work from that early period. This is an entire subject unto itself for those interested. A somewhat neglected part of design history, it is that neighborhood of design that morphed and evolved significantly going on to become a powerhouse and a relevant community, integral to most of the approaches included in this book. Here we are vastly compressing that history.
Arena Context: This was OUTBOUND holistic picture-making directed primarily at the scale of Arena 4.
Most significant attributes: Visualizing systems, ecologies, universes as fuel for public knowledge advancement. Most of the macro visualizations from Wave 1 were of past or present systems. The goal was making such systems understandable to everyday persons.
Holism Time-Line: In the Holism time line this was 100+ years prior to the arrival of Gestalt. Anyone looking for a PhD topic could certainly find several here.
Notable Quote: “One of the earliest visual representations of statistical data was drawn in 1644 by Michael Florent van Langgren, a Flemish astronomer to the Spanish court.” Edward Tufte, Visual Explanations, 1997.
[Image Credit: William Morris (1834-1896). Source: wikipedia]
DESIGN HOLISM WAVE 2:
Intuitive Holism: (1890s–1910s)
A different embodiment of holism can be seen emerging gradually in the Arts & Crafts movement with thought leaders such as William Morris who emphasized the unity of craft, society, labor, and environment. This is the outbound philosophical precursor to holistic design thinking. In this early version of holism Morris rejected the separation of art from everyday life. In his view art, work, environment, and social conditions form one coherent whole. This early holism was embodiment focused not observational analysis focused.
Arena Context: This was primarily outbound holism intended for Arena 1& 2 with philosophy that sought to extend into Arena 3, 4.
Most significant attributes: Began to connect the dots between product creation and wider context considerations.
Holism Time-Line: This version of holism was occurring decades prior to the arrival of Gestault.
Notable Quote: “Art is not a thing apart from life, but an integral part of it.”, William Morris, lectures on art and society, 1880s.
[Image Credit: Left to right: Wassily Kandinsky, Nina Kandinsky, Georg Muche, Paul Klee, Walter Gropius. From the inauguration of the new Bauhaus of the College of Design in Dessau 1926. Source internet]
DESIGN HOLISM WAVE 3:
Holistic Design Extrapolation / Bauhaus: (1920-1933)
The forward progression of holism in design is manifested in the realizations of the Bauhaus where dots were being connected between the unity of art, craft, materials, technology, and social purpose. Walter Gropius spoke of big ambition, big picture “total design” and the integration of disciplines. In that era the focus was primarily outbound, embodied in the belief that design must consider the whole [product] environment, the full system of use, context, and production. This was among the first major institutional appearances of holistic thinking in design. In today's logic we might point out that “considering the whole” is rather different from “questioning the whole”.
Thinking holistically in service of industry, not questioning industry, was a hallmark of ‘brief-oriented” Waves 2, 3 and 5 that was eventually challenged. Bauhaus inspired object-oriented holistic design logic stuck for decades and remains a central element in Arena 1 and Arena 2 today. Highly respected and even missed as a by-gone era, Bauhaus is like the woodstock of design. The short period of its somewhat glamorous existence has not limited its cascading impact.
Arena Context: This is primarily outbound holism intended for Arena 1& 2 with a philosophy that sought to extend into Arena 3, 4.
Most significant attributes: Revolutionized design education by bringing new modern era considerations regarding better understanding of the whole ecology. Advanced the idea that design could be more strategic beyond craft. Advocated the clarification that design is not art, not science. The model of designer as celebrity/hero emerges. Strong on design philosophy. Process lite. Introduced Big Design. Advocates begin reframing it as a way of being in the world.
Holism Time-Line: The Bauhaus and Isotype Institute existed in apparel universes, each with very different founders and focuses. Bauhaus was primarily brief-based at that time which tended to translate into numerous methodology implications on the front end.
Notable Quote: “Our guiding principle was that design is neither an intellectual nor a material affair, but simply an integral part of the stuff of life, necessary for everyone.” Walter Gropius
[Image Credit: Isotype Visual Language, Isotype Institute, Otto Neurath, Gerd Antz, Maria Neurath, 1939]
DESIGN HOLISM WAVE 4:
Visualized Holism / Neurath / Isotype: (1920s-1940s)
Acknowledging the existence of a mountain of visualized whole-picture making work in the 100+ year period prior to the arrival of Isotype it is the latter that is recognized as a turning point in the coherent evolution of holism in the context of making societal conditions more understandable with the newly conceived intent of informing change. The intention part was a huge shift, as was the notion that this part of the changemaking process was different from what followed and could be a stand-alone professional practice. The Isotype Institute model was one where the emphasis was on the front end of the changemaking cycle, the creating foundations of understanding part, in problematic societal contexts.
Isoptype was not utilizing holistic visualizations to sell cornflakes but rather was engaged in macro societal (Arena 4) changemaking. As a scholar Neurath took on the difficult stance of pointing out the dominance of the “word” over “pictorial images” in western societies. He called for and foresaw what he referred to as “the age of eye consciousness”.
The term Isotype was at first a process described by Neurath as “a consistent technique, a combination of informativeness and attractiveness.” The term later came to encompass all things Isotype. Much of that work was outbound for public consumption and often macro/systemic in terms of the pictorial views. On the inbound side, Neurath and his colleagues were already aware that some humans cognitively require information to be shaped in pictorial ways in order to be effective in a timely way. This insight became a recognizable seed for cognitive inclusion that was carried forward by others in subsequent waves.
The many shifts undertaken by isotype extended far beyond the creation of symbol-centered visual language. It’s not possible to express in this compressed format the impact of Isotype on the evolution of practice. What the arrival of the Beatles was to music is a not perfect parallel to what the arrival of Isotype Institute was to information design. That European band, consisting of Otto Neurath, Gerd Antz, Maria Neurath and others had profound, long lasting impact. Strong in Part 1 of the innovation cycle and relatively absent in Part 2 is how the Isoptype modeled itself as a reflection of the skills and personalities in that band. Otto Neurath was 100% focused in making the prewar-time issues of Arena 4, in Europe, more understandable to the public.
Isotype and later the Eames office became the poster firms exhibiting attributes not typically found in mainstream design practices. Still today those firms retain their significance. From a methods perspective separating the innovation cycle into two parts allowing for analysis of both had profound implications for methods minded colleagues. This lens provided a way to consider which part of the cycle was advancing to meet the scale of challenges being faced and which was not. This methods related construct which we refer to today as *Duality 1 Lens, chunks up "strategic understanding” and "strategic action”.
Arena Context: Relatively unsung still today this was primarily outbound holism intended for Arena 4 with some applications to Arena 3. In high contrast, much of the mainstream design community was focused in Arena 1 and 2 at that time.
Most significant attributes: Significantly advanced visual language as well as what visual thinking is and does. Capable of visualizing any complex situation with a particular emphasis on societal scale challenges. Modeled the emphasis of enabling understanding as a precursor to action. Pioneered cognitive consideration of the whole in information design. Modeled how holistically visualized information could act as fuel for idea making as well as decision making. Advocates reframe it as a way of being in the world.
Holism Time-Line: Both Isotype Institute and Bauhaus operated in Europe before the arrival of the second world war which disrupted their operations. Otto Neurath passed in 1945. Essentially the vast repertoire of picture thinking and picture making undertaken by Isotype was being done 50+ years before the much narrower so-called “rich-pictures” arrived (1983) in the context of soft-systems method literature and 90+ years before so-called “gigamapping” landed (2022) in the systemic design community.
Notable Quote: “I think the day of “eye-consciousness” is rapidly approaching.” Otto Neurath
“There are no absolute foundations for knowledge; all statements are tested within the system to which they belong.” Otto Neurath
“Words Divide, Pictures Unite”. Otto Neurath
[Image Credit: Designing for People, 1957, Henry Dreyfuss, depicts "Joe the average American Adult male” ]
DESIGN HOLISM WAVE 5:
Holistic Design Extrapolation / Practice/ Eames, Dreyfuss (1940s-1960s)
In holistic design practice logic of this era, influenced by Bauhaus, a chair is not only a tool for sitting, but can support better living and social justice. In writing this book we did not find an exact historical term for this logic. Perhaps holistic extrapolation might fit. In that logic the bicycle, the automobile, and the personal computer are all examples of products that have changed society and social norms. From a methods perspective, long-standing Arena 2 methods of product design were often being applied, coupled with broader idealistic philosophy. Leading practitioners included Dreyfuss and Eames. Dreyfuss published his “Designing for People” in 1957 introducing the dimensionalized human figures, "Joe and Josephine" taking stage for the first time.
That moment was about the external physicality of humans, ignoring all the outliers, and not about holistic cognitive considerations. “Design for” rather than “Design with” was a common focus in Wave 5. The Eames office created enormous exemplary output including numerous significant sensemaking films providing visibility into designerly ways of thinking and doing. The telescoping “Powers of Ten” was among the most famous and a conceptual embodiment of broad design thinking without the actual corresponding methodology. The “Powers of Ten” was a conceptual, fly-by version of what is now known as Systemic Challenge Framing that made altitude adjustments in framing look easy.
The design as “extrapolation model” was later questioned by other approaches, as in: Is it enough to approach changemaking assuming a chair or a toothbrush will change the world. Another difficult concept not to drive by here is that the consideration of the physicality of human forms exemplified by the Joe and Josephine Dreyfuss model was a primacy in “design for” Wave 5. As knowledge advanced in subsequent waves the aperture was widened more holistically to include “mental forms” in the context of “design with” cocreation activities of Arena 3 and 4 work. As cross-community knowledge progressed it became more clear that there was, there is, more to cross-disciplinary cocreation than consideration of human physicality.
Arena Context: This was primarily outbound holism intended for Arena 2 with a world-view philosophy that sought to extend idealistically into Arena 3, 4. Heavy emphasis on “design for” orientation. In this wave the focus was not on enabling INBOUND cross-disciplinary teams and cultures but rather on object oriented OUTBOUND outputs. In this wave of “design for” the designer was both the content and the process expert. Numerous designers as heroes emerged in this wave.
Most significant attributes: Advanced the public perception of what a design person is and does as different from art, from science, from engineering. Advanced the conceptual framework for human-centeredness.
Holism Time-Line: Early Wave 5 was emerging in a parallel universe to the arrival of holistic Gestalt. The implications and possibilities around Gestalt were not yet widely, fully understood.
Notable Quotes: “What are the boundaries of design? “What are the boundaries of problems? Charles Eames
”Eventually Everything Connects” Charles Eames
“Industrial design, if practiced to its fullest, is more than a profession; it is a public service.” Henry Dreyfuss
[Image Credit: Cover, Designing Designing, 1991, John Chris Jones ]
DESIGN HOLISM WAVE 6:
Holistic Meta Design 1 / Alexander, Rittel, Jones, Archer: (1970s-1980s)
Primarily OUTBOUND in focus, the later arriving big thinking design leaders; Christopher Alexander, Horst Rittel, John Chris Jones and Bruce Archer sought to transport design beyond indirect extrapolations (making a chair that impacts society) and into more direct changemaking trajectories within Arena 3 and 4. The outbound concept of wicked problems appeared but without corresponding methodology. In parallel to that ambition, there was growing realization among John Chris Jones and others in the so-called “design methods movement” regarding a need to recognize a gap between design as philosophy and actual methods suited to broader contexts.
At that time John Chris was a strong critic of traditional product-oriented design and a forceful advocate of exploring the idea of design as a response to the whole of life.The design methods movement of that era was not entirely successful. A large part of the design community was not ready to make the journey that John Chris Jones saw need for. John Chris later departed that movement. This wave grappled with the early vibes around shifting from the deeply embedded Arena 2 focus on “Design for” to the Arena 3 and 4 dynamics of “Design with”.
That shift was never completely resolved in Wave 6. We included the process models of Horst Rittel, John Chris Jones and Bruce Archer in our first book Innovation Methods Mapping. In the emerging practice community it is generally recognized that much closing the gap work remained at the end of that wave cascading into the rethinking of Waves 9 & 10.
Arena Context: This is primarily outbound holism intended for Arena 3 & 4. As far as we can tell none of those Wave 6 design thought leaders spent much time conjuring INBOUND considerations. In that era, to learn and master designerly ways you went to a recognized design academy that was like-wise focused on framing holistic thinking around OUTBOUND delivery.
Most significant attributes: Advanced the rethinking of design in the context of larger scale issues beyond product, service, experience. Challenged the industry including design education to fulfill the philosophical promise of design. Modeled what big picture systemic designers think about and introduced attempts at process that better synced with broad philosophy.
Holism Time-Line: Many of our readers today might have a difficult time imagining the world before the internet arrived but here it was. In its absence, big thinkers in wave 6 were still imagining design as a global force and numerous attempts were made to build global design practices before the arrival of the internet! Hard to believe now. The design methods movement was attempted at that time. John Chris Jones rounded up and wrote about the state of design methods in his 1970 book Design Methods. To get close to John Chris see NextD Journal: “Double Consciousness, Back to the Future with John Chris Jones” below.
Notable Quotes: “What are the new kinds of complexity outside the scope of the traditional design process..” John Chris Jones, Design Methods, 1970.
“Design is the humanisation of technology.” Bruce Archer, 1970.
“Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.” Rittel & Webber, 1973
“Design is not a branch of science, nor is it a branch of art; it is a discipline in its own right.” Bruce Archer, 1970.
[Image Credit: Covers, Information Anxiety 1989, Wurman, SenseMaking in Organizations, Weick, 1995]
DESIGN HOLISM WAVE 7:
Visualized Holism / Wurman / Weick
bones of the earlier Isotype sensemaking model and beyond. Three books in particular combined to create a significant storm shift for the design community in the direction of Arena 3 and 4. In 1989, long before the big data wave arrived, a prescient Richard Saul Wurman published Information Anxiety, talking up the tsunami of data that was already “crashing on our collective shores”. In 1995 Karl Weick published SenseMaking in Organizations, and Nonaka/Takeuchi published the Knowledge Creating Company. All were holistic in orientation and all were strong on problem finding within the typical business and organizational logics of that time. Much extrapolation occurred in the strategic design community informed by that material.
Facing the challenges of moving beyond product, service, experience assumptions and towards organizational and societal complexities the idea of think-blending began to accelerate in parts of the strategic design community at that time. While Wurman and Nonaka/Takeuchi were subscribers of plain language, Weick was not so much. Those 3 books became extremely important and essentially set the stage for what was on the horizon regarding the journey and possibilities for design to move into and become valuable to the Arena 3 and 4 transformation.
A visual sensemaker extraordinaire, Wurman was a strong advocate and fought numerous battles with the professional design associations that were inclined to not fully appreciate the stream of designerly activity that he described then as the understanding business. Since we once worked with Richard Wurman we certainly grew to appreciate that perspective. What it means to be such a person in the world was certainly informed by our years working with Richard.
Author of 70+ books and the inventor of the term Information Architecture, Wurman contributed much refinement to what Information Architecture was and did at that time. Among his numerous memorable quotes: “Understanding Precedes Action.” which signals the two parts as modeled by Isotype decades earlier.
In this Wave 7 we began in practice to figure how holistic visualization could be brought to bear strategically in the context of organizational and societal changemaking. Weick himself did not anticipate professional sensemakers. The model that Nonaka/Takeuchi had in mind mapped to the dynamics of creating knowledge rather than managing it which was the focus for many big consultancies at that time. Knowledge creation mapped to the innovation cycle. This wave was also heavily focused on the front end Part 1 of the changemaking cycle and outbound.
Wurman’s holism was/is about cognitive integration: turning information into understanding, reducing anxiety caused by fragmentation, revealing patterns so the whole becomes graspable. Wurman saw the role of the designer to place herself/himself in the position of not knowing. He believed that understanding requires seeing relationships and patterns, not just facts. As founder of TED, Wurman’s belief in the power of conversations paralleled Weick’s belief that in sensemaking the whole is continually formed through dialogue, action and interpretation.
Wurman moved the Isotype Institute model forward into major-league practice by advocating the difficult stance of not being the content expert on route to the creation of holistic pictures. This was a different orientation from the tell-tell oriented approaches including some traditional design methods. Wurman believed that forgetting what it feels like to not to understand is the root cause of bad information design. The term Information Architecture later got hijacked and rerouted during the dot-com era but that is a story for another day. The sensemaking and holistic picture-making focus of Wave 7 has stood the test of time.
As far as we know; Wurman, Weick and Nonaka/Takeuchi never met in person. Part of the effort underway in the practice community during Wave 7 involved developing ways to make use of, combine and build forward from the 3 provocative perspectives. Many other perspectives also surfaced in that era. Not all were created using plain language. Overcoming that gap in methods was to become a focus in the fledgling emerging practice community in Wave 9 and beyond.
Arena Context: This was holism directed into Arena 3 and Arena 4 with a particular emphasis on Part 1 of the changemaking cycle. This era represented a huge surge in the acceleration of Part 1 (strategic understanding) methods with Part 2 (strategic action) methods struggling to adapt to the now continuous change facing organizations and societies.
Most significant attributes: Raised awareness that sensemaking was a prelude to changemaking in complex situations. Modeled that information visualization was a form of professional sensemaking for strategic use in organizational and societal changemaking contexts. Reinforced the Isotype notion that sensemaking was a standalone/integrated aspect of the changemaking cycle with its own logic and procedures. Began differentiating the management of knowledge from the mechanics of knowledge creation, connected directly to innovation enabling in the context of organizations.
Holism Time-Line: Wave 7 arrived during what was known at the time as the knowledgement management / knowledge creation era juxtaposed with the dot-com era. Numerous new fangled consultancies sought to engage in organizational transformation looking for knowledge that could accelerate their ability to do so. Interest turned towards getting to the future rapidly, selling collaboration dynamics and culture building aligning with the evolution of inbound holism. It was this track that survived and superseded the dotcom era along with evolving sensemaking in the context of organizational change.
Notable Quotes: “Sensemaking is not about truth and getting it right, but about continued redrafting of an emerging story so that it becomes more comprehensive, incorporates more of the observed data, and is more resilient in the face of criticism.” Karl E. Weick, Sensemaking in Organizations (1995)
“Understanding is the ability to see patterns.” Richard Saul Wurman, Information Anxiety (1989)
“The key to making things understandable is to understand what it's like NOT to understand.” Richard Saul Wurman, Information Anxiety (1989)
“Knowledge creation is not simply a matter of processing objective information. It is a process of making sense of experience, integrating subjective insights, intuitions, and ideals.” Nonaka & Takeuchi, The Knowledge-Creating Company (1995)
[Image Credit: Cover Image, Design Thinking Comes of Age, Harvard Business Review, 2015]
DESIGN HOLISM WAVE 8:
Hiccup Era / Design Thinking Stalls (2005-2025)
Is it possible for a wave to be about lack of forward motion? It seems likely yes! Like a slow-motion bomb-shell, the rise in popularity of others seeking to use the onboarding of Arena 2 design methods (packaged as design thinking) as a driver of change in the business community, and the graduate business education community caused the reverse effect in the design community itself. In particular the graduate design education community orientation to rethinking design ground to a halt during the decades long Hiccup Era.
The courageous problem finding of Era 4 by John Chris Jones and others was overrun and overshadowed by the selling of rapid turnaround, so-called design thinking workshops. That avalanche effectively sidelined the academic community's interest and appetite for rethinking design methods including redesign of holism for an extended period. It was an arrival to a false, perceived finish line, a perceived peak for design. That arrival was a mirage, a false narrative. In 2015 one key article entitled Design Thinking Comes of Age appeared in Harvard Business Review reinforcing the false arrival narrative. Parts of the community are still grappling with the impact of the big spin narrative.
It was in parallel to that Hiccup Era that the contrarian emerging practice community was informally actionized via NextD Journal 2005+ and other forward looking outsider publications such as Mike Monteiro’s Ruined by Design, 2019, Jesse Weaver’s, Design Won't Save the World, 2019. and Humantific’s ReThinking Design Thinking, 2020. Somewhat oddly the hiccup wave saw rising interest from the design community in inbound considerations, foundational exercises useful in workshop delivery, most of which were imported from the CPS community. Perhaps most notable is that the Hiccup Wave opened a great chasm between the folks in the design community selling existing capacity and those embracing recognition of need for methods-related change, working towards rethinking and reinvention including a rethink of holism. During the hiccup wave much of the R&D progress that was made in the direction of Design for Complexity including the evolution and recalibration of holism occurred in the emerging practice community.
Eventually the hiccup wave 8 subsided with the late arriving awareness of complexities rising. The stall of the Hiccup Wave led to the further decoupling of R&D related to the two tracks of sensemaking and changemaking. The "strategic understanding" Part 1 of the cycle roared ahead figuring out many new applications for sensemaking. The “strategic action” Part 2 encountered heavy resistance to change. It is this decoupling being cascaded forward is more or less where the design community is today. In the emerging practice community much of the work involves better synchronizing the forward motion of the two parts. We will write more about this in Part 2 of this chapter.
Arena Context: This was primarily outbound holism rolled back to Arena 2 (product, service, experience assumptions) with a philosophy that sought to extend into Arena 3,4.
Most significant attributes: In Wave 8 much of the mainstream design community primarily reverted to assumption-boxed Arena 2 process models attaching them to broad design philosophy. For a prolonged period “design thinking” was interpreted to be product, service and experience design. Large parts of the community heavily invested in Wave 8 logic and many remain there. It was a prolonged backward trajectory from the progress made early in WAVE 6: Holistic Meta Design, with Alexander, Rittel, Jones, Archer in the mix. Among other things the advancing and rethinking of holism in the context of design stalled. Its most significant attribute was that the business community lacked even basic design skills at that time and was looking for manageable ways to transform itself.
Holism Time-Line: Wave 8 was a stall in the onward R&D progress of methods to advance design beyond the assumptions of how design thinking was being narrowly framed. A giant hiatus occurred with the exception of the emerging practice community that did not embrace the logic of the Hiccup Wave 8 era.
Notable Quotes: “Today this job isn't about helping Nike sell shoes. It’s about making sure everyone has shoes.” Mike Monteiro, Ruined by Design, 2019
“Design can change the world. But the way we’re going about it right now isn’t cutting it. If we want to design our way out of the big issues, we need to take a critical look at our approach. We need to upgrade our operating system.” Jesse Weaver, Design Won't Save the World, 2019
“Philosophy is not Methodology.”, GK VanPatter
Today much of the design community including many of the graduate design education institutions continue to recover from the disorientations and distractions of Wave 8.
[ Image Credit: Humantific: What Designers Face is Changing, 2009 ]
DESIGN HOLISM WAVE 9:
Emerging Practice (2005-2025)
On a separate track, the emerging practice design community embraced the need for methods related change and restarted its engines, some as early as 2005, most much more recently. Considerable work was done in Wave 9 to advance holistic practices via openness to the orientation of cross-community think blending. It was during this period that various parties in the emerging practice community researched, sought out and began on boarding knowledge from the various approaches described as the anchor approaches in this book; Action Research, Creative Problem Solving, Soft Systems Thinking as well as from many additional sources described as “Wild Card Others” in this book.
A firehose of books and materials were published creatively suggesting serious consideration be given to philosophies from a number of communities; native cultures, eastern philosophies, psychology, sociology, science etc. etc. New versions of ethnographic, creative, holist, systemic, sensemaking, organizational and societal intervention have been formed. The way this onboarding was done has resulted in the diversity of hybrid approaches now coming into view. Each has its own value system, focus, way of operating. Some approaches bolted on orientations and know-how from one other community. Others have integrated many more additions. Some have rolled out skill-building programs while others have not.
Many lessons were learned in practice during that period. This emerging will remain a work in progress for at least another decade rolling over into Wave 10, the current state and beyond. How best to transform and hold onto not traditions but new forms of designerness was a core challenge in Wave 9 and remains so in Wave10.
Arena Context: The NOT officially sanctioned emerging practice community, such as it was, focused early on in the direction of Arena 3 organizational changemaking and Arena 4 societal changemaking. Key in the criteria for some was to construct methods that contain no baked-in assumptions regarding what the challenges and opportunities might be in fuzzy complex situations. For others the key criteria was to apply various forms of holistic and or systemic thinking.
Holism Time-Line: From the outset the Design for Complexity initiative was largely a contrarian exercise. For the first ten years; 2005 forward, few in the design community, including most of the graduate design school leaders could understand what the heck we were talking about, writing about in NextD journal, what our concerns were around the notion of complexity and the state of design leadership. It was not really until community folks started waking up to the shortcomings of so-called design thinking in Wave 8 that we began to see interest turn a corner in the direction of this subject.
Notable Quotes: “We are in the midst of a narrative collapse where many formerly stable systems and structures within our daily lives are morphing into something else, something emergent, the end form of which is not yet known. Sometimes it feels like we are living through a plot twist, the kind that many a great blockbuster film script has narrated. What is happening? What comes next?” Kathryn Best, Creative Strategist, Author, Educator, 2022, NextD Journal: What [ URGENT ] Matters / Round 2
[ Image Credit: Humantific / Advancing Design for Complexity, 2026 ]
At the end of the day it comes down to the realization that think-blending is creating hybrid approaches that may not align with and be agreeable to all the current disciplines and all the current graduate programs. Whether everyone likes it or not we are, by necessity, collectively in the hybrid mixed-innovation-methodology age.
ONE LAST WRINKLE
Wrapping up Part 1 of this chapter we will point out one other wrinkle in the story; however you slice and dice it, holistic thinking is widespread across the 4 anchor approaches but the kicker that we would not want readers to miss is that holistic thinking and complexity thinking are two different things with the former sometime/often currently being confused with the latter.
Holistic thinking emphasizes:
Whole
Unity
Integration
Context
Interdependence
Coherence
Synthesis
Holistic language emphasizes seeing everything together and avoiding fragmentation.
Holism implies/assumes a relatively stable whole that can be understood once sufficiently integrated.
Key words: Stable, Balanced, Integrated, Harmonized, Aligned.
Complexity thinking emphasizes:
Interaction
Feedback
Adaptation
Emergence
Sensitivity
Path-dependence
Nonlinearity
Complexity language emphasizes how wholes behave and change over time. Complexity assumes continuous change, instability, and surprise as normal.
Key words: Evolving, Becoming, Adaptive, Unstable, Chaotic.
We will write more about this in Part 2 of this chapter.
CLOSING
Pulling the various flavors, waves, similarities and differences together it all starts to become more clear. For sure there is not one Design for Complexity.
In Part 2 of this chapter we will return to write more about how the 4 anchor approaches; Action Research, Creative Problem Solving, Design and Soft Systems Thinking have served/acted as the foundational knowledge accelerators to the 10 hybrid approaches seen in the book and what that probably means.
A central oddity in this subject that might take a long time to land for some readers is that of the 4 anchor approaches described in this book, it is only design that has a history of not being fully, methodologically geared to Arena 3 and 4. (Having Visual SenseMaking onboard is not enough.) It is the design community that is on the methodology journey to Arena 3 and 4, not Action Research, not CPS and not Systems Thinking. No one said this was going to be an easy story.
Considering the recalibration underway, the analogy that comes to mind is that of standing on the shoulders of numerous giants, while scratching your head, while rubbing your tummy, while chewing gum, while drinking a brew, while building a jet in flight, while learning how to fly it while flying it, while adjusting to its self-flying capacity!
Stay tuned!
HOLISMS RECALIBRATION
Wave 10: Design for Complexity
Integrated Systemic Thinking
Coming in Part 2
End.
*NOTES TO READERS:
*Guilford Turn is a terminology created by Humantific to denote the arrival and embrace of cognitive psychologist JP Guilford’s tabling of his divergent/convergent production model that appeared in his “The Structure of Intellect” in 1955 and “The Nature of Human Intelligence" in 1967. We consider Guilford Turn to be a significant fork in the evolution road of intervention methodology architectures that cascades forward and has multiple spin-off implications that are now part of numerous everyday changemaking practices. Among other things Guilford Turn became central to consideration of weighting/proportionality in methods design and thinking. This consideration was referred to as Think/Balance in our first and second books, Innovation Methods Mapping and Rethinking Design Thinking. The consideration of proportionality is also central to this book. Without the insights of Guilford Turn present, an often unacknowledged inherited imbalance and unfairness tends to dominate the power dynamics of cross-disciplinary human collaborations. There is a direct line of connection between awareness of Guilford Turn and the enabling of holistic psychological safety. See also Encouraging Creativity below.
(See “RETHINKING BEHAVIORS: Making Sense of Lewin & Guilford Today” in this book.)
*INBOUND/OUTBOUND is a practice-based lens created by Humantific and shared, with a brief explanation, here in this book. It is a conversational sensemaking lens.
*1600s–1900s: the history of holistic information suggests that such picture making occurred even earlier but we chose this as a nice round relatable number. Humantific Journal contains numerous posts on the subject of Information Design history. Also highly recommended below is the book “Hieroglyphics to Isotype: A Visual Autobiography” by Otto Neurath.
*Information design community: Always somewhat of an outlier from mainstream design, as Humantific has pointed out in numerpous posts related to the history of Visual SenseMaking what the activity has been focused on and called has evolved and evolved over many decades, from Statistic Graphics to Information Design to Information Architecture to Data Visualization and beyond. Today many readers will recognize the profession as Information Design. More expansive versions are depicted and explained as Visual SenseMaking. See Rethinking SenseMaking chapter in this book.
*Encouraging Creativity: Not all forms being presented as holistic encourage creativity. Some encourage the tradition of looking and valuing from one part of the Guilford Turn while referring to themselves as holistic. Without the presence of the Guilford Turn lens that tilting is not seen or acknowledged. The complexity is that some forms can be holistic in OUTBOUND form and not holistic in INBOUND form where the dynamics of creativity typically are environmentally situated. See Half-Baked in DUALITY 1 Lens diagram.
*Think-blending is also known in some disciplines as pluralism, joined-up thinking and or mixed methods.
*Ami Winkler: As explained in the first chapter of this book our authorship team incorporated input from Ami Winkler, aka ChatGPT. Eventually we figured out that Ami is more like a group of 5-10 hard working graduate/Phd students rather than an individual. With caution we welcomed and deciphered that not always perfect input.
*The DUALITY 2 Lens / Strategic Understanding/Strategic Action that depicts the innovation cycle in two parts was created by Humantific and shared for conversational purposes here in this book. In practice we make use of numerous duality sensemaking lenses including: DUALITY 1 Lens: Inbound/Outboud, DUALITY 3 Lens: Divergence/Convergence. DUALITY 4 Lens: Pattern Creating/Pattern Optimizing, DUALITY 5 Lens: Physical/Mental. DUALITY 6 Lens: Design For/ Design With. DUALITY 7 Lens: Today/Tomorrow.
References:
Brinton, W.C, (1917), Graphic Methods for Presenting Facts.
Checkland, P. (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice.
Checkland, P. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice: Includes a 30-Year Retrospective.
Guilford, JP. (1955). The Structure of Intellect.
Guilford, JP. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence
Humantific Journal: ReAppreciating Isotype
Jones, J.C. (1970), Design Methods
Jones, J.C. (1991), Designing Design
Lewin, K. Resolving Social Conflicts: And, Field Theory in Social Science
Neuhart, J. Neuhart, M. Eames, R.,(1989). Eames Design, Work of Eames Office 1941-1979
Neurath, O. (2010). From Hieroglyphics to Isotype: A Visual Autobiography. University of Reading. Originally written by Otto Neurath in 1943-1945.
Neurath, O. Modern Man in the Making, (1939), Otto Neurath
NextD Journal: Double Consciousness: Back to the Future with John Chris Jones In Conversation GK VanPatter & John Chris Jones. (20??) NextD Journal
OUTSIDE/INSIDE: Unpacking the Ackoff/Vergara “Creativity” Review, (2024) NextD Journal.
OUTSIDE/INSIDE: Making Sense of Near-in-Time Context, (2024) NextD Journal.
Pastor, E. VanPatter, GK. (2016). Innovation Methods Mapping, De-Mystifying 80+ Years of Innovation Process Design.
Pastor, E. VanPatter, GK. (2020). Rethinking Design Thinking: Making Sense of the Future that has Already Arrived.
Tufte, E.R. (1997.) Visual Explanations