 So you've got yourself into a webinar on systemic design. It's going to be fun. You're going to mostly see Arash and I'll be on the background. Arash, maybe we can do a short intro for the people who haven't seen your face and don't know who you are, which I'd be very curious about because otherwise why are they here but anyway could you give a brief intro? Yeah, I'm Arash Goldnam. I'm originally from Iran. I've been in Switzerland for the past 13 years. Originally I had a background in industrial engineering, so I'm an industrial engineer by training. Then I went to technology management systems modeling. And then later on did some mathematical simulation of complex and adaptive systems, a field which is called system dynamics. For the past three, three and a half years I've been training as a psychoanalyst in Jung Institute here in Switzerland near Zurich. And I am a big fan of anything which is multidisciplinary. So I like connecting different disciplines. And I think design, designing is one of those fields of inquiry in which connections across disciplines is in particular very important. So today what we'll be talking about is actually a multidisciplinary take on design and going over some ideas. I would like to save some time for questions definitely so I will not take a lot of time presenting so that we can have a lively dialogue hopefully amongst ourselves. Awesome. And for the people who want to know more about you, you also did an intro in our episode on the service design show. And that's where I'm from so if you haven't seen my face yet, I'm Mark. Hello. I run a thing called the service design show amongst a few other things. The service design show is basically a platform for service designers want to take the next step in their career who really want to go beyond the superficial layers of service design beyond the things you read and textbooks and find in training some courses and really mostly only can learn through experience so making services and the world a better place one service at a time so that's what we try to do at the service design show. And as it happens, Arash and I got into a conversation on the service design show. I think it was episode 123 or 24 something like that 24. There you go. About a month ago. And we talked about systemic design and I found that such a fascinating topic that after an hour I felt that we sort of just began talking about the topic and then for the first time actually we came up with the idea to do a follow up conversation webinar, whatever you want to call it. And here we are so my role is very limited today I'll try to collect your questions because that's why we're also here and forward them to Arash and try to navigate and guide this conversation in a meaningful way so the agenda is pretty simple. By the way, one question who has seen the episode with Arash, type a yes, if you have seen it in the chat. Good. A few people have so that means they have some background knowledge Arash, they're prepared. Okay. So, I hope you also have some questions ready, which would be awesome. I don't have a lot to add to this anymore I think Arash you want to start by sharing a few things and then we'll basically go into a Q&A right. All right, yeah, let's do it. Okay. Thanks Mark. Here we go. Let's get started. And let's hope for a lively conversation and a flow of ideas and meaning between us today. Instead of asking the question what is systemic design would like to ask the question when is systemic design so I will answer to this question in three chapters today but before that, a bit about my background like I said, I was an industrial engineer. So design means something different in the field of industrial engineering. And then I went into the field of systems thinking system dynamics which is the mathematics of systems thinking the quantitative approach to systems thinking. And I worked as a system dynamic assist basically working with the simulation models of complex and adaptive systems. And I was working on a project which was building a model of city of London so that the city simulator where I realized that not all dimensions of a city can be rendered mathematically there are important dimensions that are really tacit that are basically soft like the coolness of a city, you know. So, I was a little bit, let's say, the satisfied with the limitations of mathematics and science so I went to a different path, which is depth psychology so I started training as a psychoanalyst understanding nature of meaning and thinking for individuals, basic worldviews that we have some assumptions that we have where do they come from, how do they shape our thoughts and our actions. So, that was an alternative view on basically systems thinking because that's still systems thinking that's still seeking meaningful connections and interrelationships. I've been a lecturer at universities in Switzerland for for the past 12 years. I lecture in different MBA programs, and the courses that I'm interested in is basically multi disciplinary courses courses that connect so systems thinking design thinking and so on and so forth. Recently, I started with Peter my friend and initiative which is called design dissolve, in which we are having a multi disciplinary take on basically understanding and approaching design. At the end of this presentation I'll briefly talk about what we offer as, let's say, set of trading courses in the frame of design design programs. To answer the question. When is systemic design design we first need to understand a bit about systems, what is systems, you know, if you place it on a conceptual for semantic map, you know, we have systems we have synthesis we have synergy we have symbols. On the other side we have analysis energy inside. If you look at the left hand side is always about breaking things down into constituent elements. It's about elements rather than relationships, but on the right hand side, we talk about some collective characteristics of elements that cannot be attributed to any of the elements individually. So, a number of things come together, and then they create a whole. And this whole, we cannot actually attribute it back to any of those elements there is something mystical happening here. For instance, a synergy, you know when a number of people come together and they can achieve results that cannot be achieved by those members individually. We talk about symbols symbols point to something some sort of the meaning, which is beyond that symbol, which is beyond that representation just as if they want to tell us about something which is mysterious. They can tell us what it is what they can tell us something about it. That's the nature of a symbol. But on the other hand we have signs, which are designed in a way that do not create that richness in interpretation, and meaning. If you look for instance at it's no smoking sign it's designed in a way that nowhere, no matter where in the world, no matter who is looking at it always gives the same meaning. So we are in the world of systems we are on the right hand side, it's about something mysterious is about something that we refer to as emergence. So, when elements come together and create something as a whole, and that whole takes on some collective characteristics that cannot be understood in terms of the elements then we have an emerging phenomenon. You have seen, for instance the flocking of the birds. It's emergent, like a molecular water is also emergent because hydrogen and nitrogen do not have any liquid properties to gases come together and out of the chemical reaction between them, suddenly we have something liquid. So, and we can see a lot of emergencies in nature around us anything that takes the shape of a spiral, for instance in nature is a result of an emergent process. Now we have emergencies also out of the natural world inside our, let's say human activity systems or human social systems. For instance, love is an emergent phenomenon. Life itself is an emergent phenomenon. Wisdom is emergent becoming a leader, you know having that those qualities of a leader is an emergent phenomenon you cannot go into a course, and then learn how to become a leader and get out of it it's something that emerges those qualities anything which is soft skill related is also at the level of emergence happening. So, you cannot break it down. Okay, how are you this charismatic as a leader or let me tell you how it is happening in a form of a couple of slides doesn't happen like this is something that you cannot put your finger on it. So, in the world of design, we also have emergencies, you know some designs create emergencies in the world of arts we have emergencies so here we have a number of emergent, let's say, phenomenon, one of them is a work of art with Jackson Pollock. So the one here is a Jackson Pollock's work of art. Anything else that you see here is a part of nature we have a bush we have the spider web we have trees branches. And what we can see here is that sometimes art becomes an extension of the nature by in embodying some sort of an emergence. So, the question is, there's a very interesting documentary on the fractal nature of Jackson Pollock's work so I would highly recommend that you look at it to see how actually fractals are at work there, and how these drawings or paintings of his are basically emergent. When it goes to design, how do we see emergence. What is about it that is a special why should we talk about emergencies. I give you some examples here from architecture, and then basically I will continue again with some other examples. So there's a book by Christopher Alexander called the time was way of building. So he talks about some patterns that are alive. These patterns of creating or differentiating space which are alive. They let our inner forces loose. They set us free. Otherwise, if they're not alive they keep us locked in inner conflict. And basically what you're saying is that an architectural space, a room, the design of the room can help us resolve our inner complexes, or inner conflicts that we have inside us, which is an emergent phenomenon. So, if you go into a room and then suddenly you feel at peace at one with yourself. That's an emergent phenomenon. Here's an example of two designs of two rooms, basically in comparison it says, here we have a room in which the windows are holes in the wall and then there is a sitting space which is far from the windows. There is another one in which there is there is light coming in and then there's sitting space is actually close to the light says if you if you're in this room. You want to be comfortable you want to sit down after a while, but then you want to be next to the light as well you want to be exposed to the lights. But this room doesn't allow for those forces coming into a resolution together. And this act of not being able to reach an outer resolution influences some sort of inner conflict within us create some sort of an inner conflict. He talks about the structure of the cities right now that we have some residential areas we have work area says this is also an act of fragmentation. When you work, you feel somehow in conflict with yourself because part of you is thinking about your family, and all those activities that are not work related. So, when it comes to designing a product or service. I would say, if you're exposed to a product and service, and you have you walk away with that from that experience with a feeling. Like you, what made you feel like that and you cannot put your finger on it can say okay you know it was this feature. It was actually that dimension of the service that resulted in this field. I don't know actually what it was, but it felt like homecoming for me. It brought back some of my childhood memories. So it somehow made me feel playful, but you still don't know what exactly it was that made you feel like this. The question that we have in systemic design is how can we create emergencies how can we design for emergencies that's an important question. This conflict and the forces and you can also see it in a lot of works of art basically that in which there is some you cannot see the forces very vividly, but these forces are in some sort of an equilibrium in some form of harmony. Therefore, when you look at this work of art those ratios and those harmonies create an inner harmony inside you. So, basically, the first take on the question when is systemic design is systemic design is when we design for emergence. And when we approach design design artifact from a phenomenological standpoint, what is phenomenology in design phenomenology is everything but the artifact itself. Is everything but the service or the product is basically the type of feelings effects type of let's say impressions, assumptions that people walk away with out of an experience or an encounter interaction between them and an artifact. So we have to focus those are worldviews in design should allow for understanding the richness of the emergencies that the product or the service is creating and somehow designed for those having those in mind. So design is not about the artifact from a phenomenological standpoint, it's about the impressions the assumptions, the feelings, the type of tensions or resolutions that we care in the world of the users or the designers as well when they interact with the design art. That is when we are designing systemically. That's the first chapter about systems and emergencies. Second one is about thinking. We need to understand the nature of thinking. I think it's super important when you talk about systemic design thinking, and its nature needs to be understood at a finer level of understanding. I highly recommend you to read read anything from David bone. It was a physicist that then started looking into some profundities of life, moved away from technicalities of physics to profundities of life in his second half of life, and he has a book called on dialogue. He says that. If I say I'm going to look into my mind, I do not consider my assumptions. Then the picture is wrong because the assumptions are looking assumptions are not looked at the assumptions are looking. When looking at society or looking at another person what you see depends on your assumptions, and you will get an emotional reaction from that person, which enters you and affects the way you see. This is so profound. What I was talking about is that, let's say, causal or feedback based view of thinking that our assumptions determine our emotions, because of the nature of the observations that occur, and those emotions will feedback into our assumptions again. So, any act of thinking should help us in revealing the fundamental worldviews or assumptions that we have. This is important. Otherwise, we are just looking through the lens of those assumptions. Another resource for for you is this book that I always refer to is Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance. I have learned so much from books that have not had that the word design or thinking in the title. If you move away from those usual suspects, then you find really good gems talks about the author talks about the fact that it's everything we see is a manifestation of a thought or a worldview way of looking. So he talks about a factory if you bring it down if you tear it apart, but the rationality that produced it is left standing that rationality which will produce another factory which is exactly the same. So that's basically those fundamental assumptions that David bone was talking about as well. In systemic design, we want to understand these patterns of thought that those rationalities those worldviews. And great with Bateson was the polymath is sociologist psychologist anthropologist and systems thinker says that the major problems in the world are the result of the difference between how nature works. And the way people think there's a fundamental mismatch here. Our thinking does not match the nuances in the nature. Now I want to give you an example. So imagine one day you you wake up and you feel happy. Next day you feel sad, again another you feel moody a little bit. Another day you feel enthusiastic so there is this one day good one day bad happening. You can see that if you are smart enough. We can see there's a pattern to this. So maybe the fact that I was super hyped up yesterday is somehow accounting for the fact that I'm now feeling a bit down so there is something here happening there's a trend, going down on the level of understanding, putting this into context. The way I'm looking at this is to understand what is it that is giving rise to those patterns that I see up there. Now, imagine I was not feeling very well. Then I decided to drink. So for for a couple of days I felt better but then after after that again I felt worse. So here we see basically there's some sort of a problem symptom not feeling well I'm sad I'm not happy whatever it is that is happening. I tried to suppress the symptom. So there is a symptomatic solution that is increasing here. And as the symptomatic solution is increasing. I'm building some resistance as well so the same level of symptomatic solution is not going to work in the next iteration, the next cycle cycle. But it's not all that is happening here. As I'm doing this. There's an unintended consequence, which will suppress the fundamental solution, because I will have some health problems I will not be able to do some inner work. I cannot go socialized understand the reasons for my sadness and so on and so forth. So, these unintended consequences will deter and impede the implementation of a fundamental solution. And therefore the problem symptoms stays strong. And therefore I'll try to basically apply more and more symptomatic solutions to it, and this is going to again, resulting strengthening the problem symptoms. Now, what, what, why is this happening, going one level down, because I feel a necessity of quick problem solving, because I just want to get rid of this feeling. I'm not well today. I'm not really in a good mood I cannot stand that fact I just want to do something about it. I'm probably very reactive to it. I cannot hold this tension between how I'm feeling right now I would like to feel basic. And then there is a reason here there is another thing here that there is an unintended consequence and that's nature how nature works is that there are no shortcuts anything important in life doesn't happen overnight. You have to spend time, you have to spend time into a fundamental way of approaching things. So when these things these two things come together, they create a structure. The structure is symptomatic solution, unintended consequences of them. And this is a pattern of behavior that comes out of it. And this pattern of behavior can be viewed as one day I'm not feeling well the next day I'm feeling better, and so on and so forth. This pattern repeats itself again and again. So I can look at this in terms of an iceberg. So I can see that there is events up there. The events are somehow analogous with this structure of data information knowledge wisdom. In fact, if you come down this iceberg, you will basically have a more profound understanding of what is happening, you will have a better leverage. And in systemic design, what we want to do is to trace these emotions, feelings, reactions, as David Bowman was talking about them. Trace them into the thoughts, the patterns of thoughts that generate. The archetypal nature of basically our interactions with our environments, what are the imposing upon us. How do we think how this combination of how we think how the nature works results in a generation of a systemic structure, and how this systemic structure can manifest in patterns of behavior, and how these patterns can be experienced in form of disconnected data points. So many of the interventions that we have are here at this level. So this level, whatever you do, you're still impacted by that mode of thinking. So your interventions basically will aggravate the situation than improving it because you're still a prisoner of the way you think of those mental models or the world views that are flawed. And there's a reason why I put this arrow in dotted form. And basically that is this cycle of data information, knowledge and results, and you know measurement gives us data this does not connect back to data, in my opinion, in my opinion there isn't a better way of looking at this is that it starts the next cycle and wisdom is an emergence of repetitions and iterations of this basically pattern. We start with data, we analyze data, we get information. We then interpret information to get knowledge we act upon knowledge we get results we measure the results we get new data. So when, when we become wiser. The way we collect data the way we measure the way we analyze the way we interpret everything there's a qualitative shift in every step of this process. We're not coming back to the beginning point. This is basically a spiral form that out of which we can have the emergence of wisdom. So this is the second bit I wanted to share with you how to connect thoughts to basically emotions or what happens out there because there is this dissonance. Sometimes there is basically our decisions are actions and the results are distant in time and space. So we do not have the luxury of seeing the consequences of what we basically do one of the decisions that we take. But these patterns in systemic design would enable us to connect create these meaningful connections. So when is systemic design systemic design is when we move away from event level interventions to identifying trends and patterns of behavior over time, surfacing the underlying structures is when we inquire into assumptions and worldviews that form our thinking, and their sources, where do they come from. So there's a very big and profound human dimension, when it comes to systemic design going back to the pattern of thought, and their sources. Finally chapter three is about models. Why models are important. What type of models. Here is, send us from Carl why I forgot to put his name down here. Carl why talks about a concept which is called sense making says what is sense making sense making is substitution of a conceptual order for perceptual one. So there's this interactivity between concepts and perceptions ideas and experiences. We have this doubles doubles trend rope or this double helix of ideas and experiences and what can create a connection between them convergences between them is basically models, we need models. In order to be able to make sense of our experiences to convert our experiences into ideas, and these ideas will definitely shape the next experiences that will have. So there is some sort of mutually reinforcing relationship between experiences and ideas so we need models that can allow us conceptualize situations. Here's a key term conceptualization of a situation, not models that are already conceptualized. We need to step take a step back in order to relate our experiences and make some sense making out of them, we need to conceptualize our experiences, generate into form of ideas and concepts, and then these ideas and concepts will be our guiding platforms from the next round of experience that we want to do. So this is an important point models that allow us conceptualize Bertrand Russell has a great work called the conquest of happiness, or pursuit of happiness I think one of things conquest of happiness, he talks about two elements that result in satisfaction work, one is exercise of skills and the other one is construction. So, so you can construct something construction is delightful to contemplate and is never so fully completed that there is nothing further to do about it. What it means is that when you're working with a model the model should give you basically the richness of being able to iterate with that and all the time, you can work back at the situation and learn more about the situation. So the model is not a model that you fill it out and it's over. That's it. It's a model that allows you to iterate, which with each iteration, you refine your mental models. There's something you know about the way you think. There's some questions that you're asking that you could not ask beforehand. There are some dimensions that you're seeing that you could not see previously. In order for this to happen. We need to move towards models that are evocative as opposed to models that are analogous. What does this mean. So, we're familiar with maps, you know, different forms of drawings in drawings we try to in maps to try to build an analogous representation, whatever in the map response to something in reality. This is a blueprint, you know, but these models work very well in the physical world in engineering and technical, let's say type of inquiry or problems that we have. Now, if we call one of the models that we use a service blueprint, it means we are using a metaphor of bringing something from the physical world, understanding at service by somehow breaking it down into its components, whereas service needs to be understood by a form of a model that allows for understanding of emergencies into that into that service that result result from that service, the connectivity between that service and other services, other dimensions of individuals the type of let's say inner patterns of thoughts or conflicts that can happen in the individuals when they are dealing with that service. So I want to one mapping between the physical dimensions of the service and what is being experienced needs to be in order to account for the human dimension in design. So this is a very important point. The metaphors we use are like those assumptions those fundamental assumptions they shape our actions. If you look for instance in the world of business. There's so much so many words like we have for instance headquarters we have chief operating officer penetrating the market gorilla marketing. So these terminologies they're all about language of war. The terminology is terminology of battlefield. So there is an underlying assumption that business is war. So our actions are formed by that, thereby. Let's talk about the world of design. If we use terminology that connects us back to the physical design industrial design paradigm, in which we were talking about physical objects robustness analysis reliability analysis of those, let's say products and what we were building is artifacts, then we will somehow destroy some richness here. What I would say is a model should be able to capture the dynamism of the situation where it needs to model so that we're familiar with the human yam but some people speculate that the beginning of it is back actually this dynamic nature of the movement of the earth around sun when there's shadows and there's lights and there's an interplane dance between the shadow and light that happens. It has to be multifaceted. We can't build models and we said, Okay, this is clearly clear cut stuff, clear cut categories of things we need to allow or basically some understanding, I would like to call it some connection to mystery, not nailing everything down as when we're dealing with a physical product, some sort of basically room to wiggle in the model in which there is coexistence of opposites. Somehow we can understand some dimensions of reality better. If this allows for that the models that we're using. And finally there has to be feedback Zen circle basically captures the feedback principle, whatever goes around comes around linear models that march from left to right or top to bottom or right to left are not models that can give us insight about the different types of feedback that we can experience because feedback this circularity of action somehow results in richer understanding of the connections between our mental model assumptions and their consequences. So finally, when is systemic design systemic design is when we accept and respect the uniqueness of design situations. Every design situation is unique. We need to accept it, we need to respect it, and we create our own learning devices along our sense making journey. So it's not about going there, grabbing something off the shelf applying it, and then you hit a limit with that and you leave it and you get another thing off the shelf and you apply the reason why probably we have these many templates and models right now, 100 or 150 of those templates around hundreds of them is basically because they do not allow us for capturing those rich dimensions that need to be captured. So this is basically my take on systemic design, I take a few more minutes to talk about what we do in design dissolve and then I'll be happy to answer your questions. So we have an advanced program in systemic design, which is done with the university here in Switzerland Franklin University. We have a number of assumptions here in our pedagogy and the design of our content. First of all, thinking is not synonymous with analysis. And analytical thinking is one form of thinking we situated along other forms of thinking which are synthetic thinking lateral thinking feedback thinking, creative thinking holistic thinking systems thinking. So we have to understand the nature of thinking better analytical thought is not sufficient and adequate for departing on the journey of sense making in a human activity system. This is what we what we believe. In the next part we believe that thinking is only one function of our consciousness. So we need to understand other function of our consciousness, intuition sensation feeling, which have been historically suppressed in our education in the way we relate to the world. So intuition and feeling in particular, we do not know how to connect our intuition, and we do not know how to tap into our feelings and tap into the feelings of others we're not taught those things we don't follow, let's say, structures that can allow us to come into contact with basically faculties. And finally, not everything in us as human beings is conscious, we have a multitude of unconscious processes that underlie our thinking our activities and our assumptions. Now, this gives us the structure for our program, which is organized in in three different sets of modules. The first one with refine our thinking to different types of systems thinking courses we have one which is more on the philosophical side, understanding the notions concepts of systems thinking and the attitude towards systems thinking. And let's say techniques. Next one we dive deep into the techniques for model building building maps of, let's say, systems that are in accordance with some theoretical insights that are rigorous and that can result in basically an understanding that cannot otherwise be achieved. And finally, in the in the next module we look at design beyond thinking as play with words that we have with design thinking we need to. We believe we need to go beyond thinking once we explore thinking it's full capacity next step is to go beyond thinking, and to explore the connection to the other functions of consciousness. Finally we have a module on discipline the imagination, which is touch facing with those unconscious processes within us and understanding ourselves. And finally those unconscious forces within us that are great sources of creativity and intuition for us and if we tap into those, we can be creative, and we can be imaginative, and that's something which is required in design, and in systemic design. So with that, I'll end my presentation here I'll be very happy to answer your questions I hope you found these ideas useful. Thanks for me and the rest who's here super interesting. Thank you for sort of reiterating what we also covered on the show. A lot of questions came up for me some are already being added by the participants. We have about 20 minutes so let's make the best use of our time. I have two questions here. First one is by Anna and she asked, are there any examples of models for service design that you consider good. So I think this has to do with the contrast to a service blueprint, which isn't ideal. And if I misunderstood your question and please sort of correct me but models within service design for service design that you consider good. That's a very good question. Well, I will somehow elaborate on this question a little bit before answering it. To me, service design is not a discipline. It's the way I look at it service design is basically an intersection between disciplines. It's not a discipline on its own. We call something a discipline when it has theoretical underpinnings there's a paradigm behind those. There is methodology. There is methods. There is tools, and there is templates to use. So you have a full range of things that need to be there before we go into a template. Right. In service design. Most of the stuff I've seen are templates at the template level that whenever we talk about a theory those theories come from the outer fields somewhere somewhere else. I mean, looking at service design as a discipline is very reductive. It's reductive we create a discipline which will be a shallow discipline, because it is not. It doesn't have the depth that we have for instance, in discipline such as psychology, right has been studied has been there has been some theoretical in that field. It doesn't have the richness of disciplines in which there is strong theories like systems inquiry systems, system dynamics. So I would say, no, from my where I come from, for me, those models do not take the basic, let's say properties to be called a model, you know, to allow for you to conceptualize a situation and model is something that allows for you to conceptualize a situation to turn basically a circumstance that you experienced into a conceptual situation that you can understand, and then you can iterate on that. So they do not match that those criteria in my view, but there is ways you can augment those those models. So it's not that you should discard them completely. So with one of the things that we do in our courses that after students go through the plethora of the techniques and the theory that we introduced. Okay, now go back and have a look a fresh look at the models that you worked with. So, how would you be able to improve those from which standpoint so the final assignment of the students can be basically something around this topic. How would I be able to add to add some depth and dimension to those tools that are existing. So, it's possible to bring them to a level of usefulness that can generate insight, but at the level where they are right now I would say no. Here. I have a lot of follow up questions on that but let's, you know, some really interesting questions from the rest of the audience. So, here's a question from Vincent, and I think he addresses topic that probably a lot of people feel. So, what should we change in our day to day service design practice to incorporate more of systemic thinking because it seems like a very holistic and conceptual approach. How do you translate this into day to day behavior habits activities beliefs. Yeah, great question. It also reminds me of our experience with our courses because after a couple of sessions, the participants come back and say, Hey, I never expected to be able. I came here for professional training course something that I could use at work. Well, it's giving me insight about my life my relationship to my partner to myself and so on and so forth. So, the beauty of systems thinking, or the systemic paradigm is that it's context neutral. It cannot be contained in a context once you once you're in touch with that, let's say richness, then it permeates your life. It cannot stop at the boundaries okay this is work related, and I'm going to do completely something else elsewhere. So, the thing is, what we do in our in our course. We do a number of mental exercises. So okay, in one course, students learn about seven different type of mental exercises and activities that they should. I call them some sensors systems sensors that they need to activate. And these will influence their observations the way they see things. Right. And the thing is that it's more like an attitude systems thinking than a set of tools or techniques. So, it's, it's an attitude in which, for instance, you should look for instance for meaningful similarities across seemingly different on a constant basis. So, okay, these two things are very different. But is there a thing that connects them, for instance, looking for emergencies in our daily lives and activities. That's another way of looking at it. Do I experience these emergence, do I create these emergencies in any shape or format. So, basically, there are these activities and these, let's say, exercises, they do not work in a short period of time. They're not short term, you have to engage with them over a long period. And then, little by little, there will be some emergencies. Oh, the quality of my observations are changing. My reactions are changing that day. I heard something normally I would have been angry but I'm not today. You know, so there is then these emergencies that happen thanks to those things it's not something off the shelf you go you take it and this okay now I can apply it and then it has an expiration day. It's an continuous engagement with this world around us and the world within us, basically. So this is what I would say systems thinking isn't that's how I saw a lot of systems thinking in analytical psychology. It's systems thinking. If you look at architecture, there's a lot of systems thinking. So it's not a discipline systems thinking in itself is not a discipline either. It's the approach to understanding systems thinking should be transdisciplinary as well. Got it. Let's move on into a question that I feel is related to this. This is a question from Joey. So, his basic question is, how do you apply this idea of systems thinking in business concepts context where a lot of people a lot of stakeholders might consider it to be too complex and they're looking for simple solutions. So I recognize this challenge like there is a there is a need for short term tangible outcomes. And in our episodes we talked about maybe you need to rethink the educational system to come up with to dissolve some challenges. That's a hard that I can imagine that that's a hard sell in many business context. So what is your take on that. I would say, once you learn it, you know, once you embody systems thinking, then your approach to structuring the problem to handling a meeting will be very different. This thought that is too complex. I'm not going to pursue it. It's I think is is flawed. It is complex, but you don't have to face that complexity and you don't have to communicate that complexity. You can start with, with very small exercises, like for instance, what we talked about today is iceberg view that I elaborated on that systemic. That's a beginning point into understanding systems, right. But it's, it's a good work. It's a good opening to this world is a good initiation into this world so there could be tools that are not as elaborate or fully researched as basically a lot of methodologies that are out there like for instance in the system dynamics world we use stocks and flows. We spend, we spend seven weeks of our course to understand stocks and flows as a method. Only after that, the participants have a feeling that yeah I now know what this thing is, and I can start working with this. And for that to to emerge, but then there is, there is a smaller, let's say portions or bits that you could use in a systemic way that renders some effect, they, they help those participants those business participants see some other dimensions, for instance, we are we are familiar with these canvases one good question to ask is that, what about the relationships between these elements. Are these elements mutually exclusive collectively exhausted means is there's everything covered by them. Right, or is there something that can fit into two boxes of this. These are some simple questions to ask one simple thing I used to do is in the meetings. You're going to a meeting and you want to talk about a certain situation, you translate that situation into a key variable, what is this variable that we're looking at what's the problem is that the cells as it is the user base, that is somehow declining or the speed in the growth of the business is not accelerating whatever. Can you be draw a behavior over time graph for this variable from ask 15 people around the table to graph it for you. How do they think this variable has been behaving over time, five years ago. Now, how do they think is going to behave into into future, just one simple, you know, time graph can can surface a lot of the assumptions of the participants in that meeting. So, oh wow. And then you see the similarities across the graphs that they have generated. What is what is similar about this, you know, what is different about why did they graph it like this so that provides some dialogue opportunities that didn't exist before doing this exercise, which for example, takes five minutes, but then there is important insights that come out of it. So don't be scared by the by the vision of where you want to the desk, don't let the destination to scare you away from taking the journey basically There are there are things you can do once you understand systems thinking as an attitude, not as a set of tools, then you can it can somehow permeate all the activities that you're doing on a daily basis your your approach to organizing a meeting to somehow drawing conclusions to summarizing things with synthesizing things will be different. It helps you to ask different questions. That's, yeah, absolutely. And here's a question a classic question. I think you've heard often. It's one from a till then she says, she asks, how do you define where the system starts and mostly ends. That's a very good question. In systems. Let's say the design systems models, we always have this boundary conditions. Right. So what is exogenous to the model we are creating what is in darkness to the model. Right. It means what do we wish to influence by this, let's say, by this initiative, or what is influencing our initiative. Basically, so these are the things that we can, we have to accept that we cannot change the things that we can change, and we should attempt changing them it reminds me of this serenity prayer. It reminds us the serenity to accept what we can change, and the courage to change what we can, and the wisdom to distinguish between the two. So this is the endogenous exogenous variables in the model. So, this take, you know, systems thinking and systems modeling is more like a craft. It's not clear cut ways and procedures for building a model, you really have to engage in the act of model building, and then you learn where you need to stop where this is basically meeting the boundary condition. But what I'm saying, for instance, if you're modeling a bank services of a bank exchange rate is an exogenous variable is nothing you could influence. Right. But the number of users you're getting, or number of new accounts that is being opened. That is an indigenously determined variable what you do can influence that basically and what that does influences what you do as well so there is a feedback dynamic over there. So what I would say to respond to that question yes. The second thing is that it's not clear cut. They can say this is where you experience shows. Second thing that can help is that we never model the system. We model a problematic situation that helps us draw a boundary around this. So one of the challenges we met in the city simulator we were building for London was that we were modeling London as a system of systems. And that is huge. After thousands of variables, you're still not capturing some important dimensions of it. So we never model a system, we always model a problematic situation and that can give us some ideas where to draw the boundaries around what we are trying to include in the model. And I think Pareto optimality, 80% 20% or 20% of the variables can capture 80% of the situation could be useful. You have to stop. If you have an adequate representation of the situation that can exactly help you in asking questions that you would not ask beforehand. So that's a good place for you to stop, I would say. And I would summarize your answer as just take a very pragmatic approach, if it, if it works for you. If it has the elements that you need to answer your questions, then you've probably, you don't need to go beyond that. We have three minutes left. There are more questions that we can handle today. Let's do one more. And maybe you follow up in a different way for the other questions. So I'm going to pick a question by Tim because a few people have referenced something similar. And Tim comes back to your evocative models versus analogous models. And he asked, could you give an example of the former and its use case, each store board to explain the emotional impact of a servers to align people on abstract elements of a server. So the distinction between the two models and use case of analogous models. I would say, when we talk about evocative models is that, for instance, seeing patterns of causality, seeing feedback, this is not something you could, you could observe directly into, let's say, in a situation. It's something that basically has to be discerned. That's why I'm calling it not analogous analogous is something you see one element their customer move from this point to the other point. Okay. In the model, the customer also moves from this point to the other point. So in evocative models, we look into patterns of relationships that are not readily observable out there in the universal discourse that we're observing. So that is why I say is evocative. And then that inquiry into the nature of those patterns will evoke questions, thoughts, right, in our mind, that's why I call it evocative models. So that's the distinction that needs to be made for physical for technical engineering systems, this one to one mapping is isomorphism is absolutely necessary. When you're doing, for instance, you're building a blueprint of a chip to be produced, it needs to match to the last decimal place the dimensions that are needed for that chip to be produced. When it comes to human activity systems, we need to think out of those observable physical dimensions. And this is not enough time to talk about this hopefully we'll be able to do some sort of a workshop in in future in which we can look at a situation and then try to translate that into a model so there's not it's not a type of question I can tackle in a few minutes just for now I think I hope that distinction that I made between evocative and analogous models would be would be enough. Awesome for the, maybe for the people who are still here which are a lot which is great means that we've been enjoying the content if they want to continue the conversation or dive deeper into this topic. What are some final recommendations you can give. Yeah, I recommend them to take our courses designed is all, you know, so there's all that design, go to our website, take our look at the program that we have designed, and we have, we have been having an overwhelming response by the participants there. And it's a place for dialogue amongst participants and learning so there's emergencies that we have experienced their patterns of friendships between people that emerge out of those basically meetings so I would highly recommend you to do that. Next thing I would recommend you if you don't want to take the courses. Look into content that is profound. Look into things that are not labeled for systems thinkers for designers and stuff, read philosophy, read fiction, read novels. Look at, look at poetry, be inspired by a wide variety of fields, this diversity will create emergencies inside you as as as designers as individuals, look into as many disconnected fields as possible and try to connect them. So it's more like an attitude towards learning that needs to be shifted I would recommend you to learn for learning for the sake of learning, not learning that is geared towards some sort of practically driven type of stuff. Expand your horizon of learning. And this is what I can say again in a minute or two if you want more of this design dissolve, we are doing extensive deep dives into the world of thought into the world of feelings into the world of models, and we would like to have you with us in our journeys. Awesome. I've shared the link in the chat. Yeah, I hope many people join. And who knows maybe we'll do a follow up webinar workshop. It seems that it resonates with people. Arash, thanks for coming on doing a follow up to the episode of the service design show conversation. For everybody who was here, thank you for spending the time with us, we really really appreciate you. If you're on LinkedIn or something like that if you enjoyed the webinar will post a recording within a few days on YouTube. So you'll be able to watch everything we said, once again. Thank you for being here. Thank you Arash, and have awesome Tuesday. Yeah, take care and keep safe everyone. See you later. Bye.