How systems thinking can supercharge service design

As a service designer I’m excited by systems thinking because it helps us have big ideas and work more efficiently.

First, though, let’s define what systems thinking is not.

Systems thinking, or systemic thinking, is not the same as systematic thinking, although both words are derived from the same Greek word for ‘a setting or placing together’.

‘Systematic’ means having a plan or method, while ‘systemic’ means “Relating to a system as a whole; inherent in the system” (Oxford English Dictionary).

Another related word is ‘holistic’. Now, I know this has become a business buzzword, used in all sorts of meaningless ways. But in my world, in service design, it does have meaning.

It’s about considering the interconnection between the different parts of a system or service and addressing the whole system or service when trying to solve problems.

You can think about anything holistically. But when you apply holistic thinking to systems or big complex problems, you find that some ideas and techniques are particularly useful.

These ideas and techniques constitute systems thinking.

The systems thinking mindset

Here’s what characterises a systems thinking mindset in my opinion:

1. Adopting a holistic perspective – seeing systems as interconnected wholes, considering relationships and feedback loops.
2. Understanding dynamics – recognising evolving system behaviour, analysing patterns over time.
3. Feedback loops – identifying impacts on system stability.
4. Embracing complexity – navigating system complexity, acknowledging emergent properties.
5. Promoting collaboration – encouraging interdisciplinary problem-solving.

It can feel overwhelming when you start to unpack a system.

But there are a range of tools we can use to make systems thinking feel less abstract, by using diagrams to analyse system structures and behaviours.

To get started, let’s look at a small subset of system thinking tools.

The system or cluster map

System maps come in various flavours and are intended to build an understanding of how a system works.

A good way to approach this is by looking at the various clusters that exist within a system.

This is especially useful when pairing with the ‘5 Whys’ exercise (NHS.UK, PDF) to understand root causes.

Start by writing a description of your topic in the centre of the map.

Next, have a short brainstorming exercise, either by yourself or with a team, to map out connections, causes, and consequences surrounding the topic.

This helps you identify areas within the system you might need to focus on further.

The interconnected circle

This simple system thinking tool is great for illustrating complexity and for sharing ideas about the changing behaviours within a system.

You pick the most significant elements in light of those changes and trace the cause–and-effect relationships with dynamic arrows.

This way, we preserve the complex nature of the system – that is, everything outside of the circle.

But we can also see and manage a variety of interactions at once. That is, everything inside the circle.

The behaviour over time (BOT) graph

The BOT graph can be used to:

1. map aspects of system behaviour over time
2. map different stakeholders' perception of aspects of system behaviour
3. stimulate discussion of different viewpoints on events

It shows how an aspect of the system will perform in the long run, which helps to shift focus from moments or events in a system and get people thinking about trends over time.

It also helps shed light on possible variables in the system, right now or in the past, that may have caused a change in behaviour.

The causal loop

Variables are the fundamental building blocks of a system’s story, impacting each other, and changing over time.

Identifying variables, or elements, is critical in building a clear understanding of what has been happening, and why.

Causal loop diagrams have the advantage of being able to combine quantitative variables, like profit figures, with qualitative variables, like morale. 

There are two kinds of feedback loops:

• Reinforcing loops (R) – these positive feedback loops are amplifying and self-propagating, whether as a vicious or virtuous circle. They enhance whatever direction of change is imposed on them. This is why positive feedback loops are typically associated with unstable processes that are likely to crash at some time. When we're looking for places to intervene, we look for these loops. (see image above)
  
  
• Balancing loops (B) – these negative loops are stabilising, regulating and stability seeking. They oppose whatever direction of change is imposed on the system. To resolve negative externalities and create sustainable solutions we generally want to close a positive feedback loop and convert it into a negative loop which makes the system self-sustaining.

That said, both loops can bring along positive or negative consequences.

A balancing loop can cause stability or stagnation, while a reinforcing loop can be responsible for desired or undesired growth, or decay.

The iceberg

The iceberg is a visual framework that illustrates the hidden aspects, or levels, of a system.

It helps people understand how a whole system operates, acknowledging dynamic patterns, structures, and underlying mental models and beliefs.

It’s a powerful analogy that demonstrates how people tend to focus on what is most visible.

In the example above, what’s visible are events that have just happened, to which the response is a reaction. But beneath the surface, we’ve got:

• Longer-term patterns and trends which could be explored with BOT graphs
• Underlying structures which can be illustrated with causal loops, among other tools
• Mental models which can be broken down into action > belief > perception

So how does this relate to design?

The design thinking mindset is fundamental to the way designers, regardless of their specialism, approach design challenges. It includes:

1. Empathy – understanding users' needs deeply through active listening and research
2. Human-centred – creating intuitive solutions that resonate emotionally and tackle real problems.
3. Creative ideation – generating innovative ideas by exploring many options.
4. Collaborative problem solving – working across disciplines to co-create solutions.
5. Iterative prototyping – rapidly testing and refining solutions based on user feedback.
6. Bias toward action – believing that progress trumps perfection.

It’s highly compatible with systems thinking, and using both together helps us work at multiple scales, and look through multiple lenses, to:

• Zoom in and out, and toggle back and forth, between a system and human perspective.
• Gain a deeper, more holistic and human understanding of the system and its stakeholders.
• Develop empathy for both the people and the system itself.
• Understand what drives human behaviour and system behaviour.
• Influence the system to produce better outcomes by designing and implementing interventions that drive positive change within the system.

Human-centred systems thinking... or service design

Systems thinking in design is realised most effectively in the role of the service designer.

Service design acts as the bridge between strategy and implementation.

Often, we shape that strategy too, as well as feeding into research planning, content and practical design work.

Service designers are partly concerned with designing the desired or optimum user experience.

That means the end-to-end user journey, from when the customer develops a need, to them getting the thing they need via the service, and beyond.

Understanding the current user journey, and designing the ideal journey, is often our starting point.

The link between systems thinking and service design is how service designers use the above systems thinking tools to:

1. understand the wider service ecosystem
2. design services that are well integrated and address the full scope of user needs and expectations

Service designers do a few things here:

• Ensure the company's strategy is carried out through the service experience.
• Propose what that experience should be like and how best to deliver it.
• Stitch different touchpoints into a coherent, cohesive service experience.

One of our superpowers as service designers is the ability to work at the macro and micro levels, zooming frequently between them depending upon what is needed.

Output 1: service blueprints

Service blueprints are detailed visuals that capture the whole service delivery process across touch points, including the backstage and frontstage.

The customer or user undertakes their service journey to achieve their goal. This unfolds over time across a variety of touchpoints and with varying degrees of success.

This single goal is often serviced by more than one part of an organisation, and that’s definitely the case with large organisations.

Those business units may or may not be joined up and may or may not have clear lines of responsibility and communication.

A service blueprint shows how the end-to-end service journey is supported by interlinked service components, both internal and external.

This is a powerful tool for:

• understanding cross-functional relationships
• identifying weaknesses
• identifying opportunities for optimisation
• defining the way things should be

Output 2: service maps

A service map is another flavour of a systems map and visualises the key relationships between major stakeholders (people and organisations) that are involved in enabling, delivering or experiencing the service.

They show your service in the wider context, including human-to-machine and machine-to-machine interactions, and external factors that impact or constrain your service in some way.

They provide insight into how you might leverage new and existing assets to achieve the organisation's goals.

And they help identify which key parts of the ecosystem should be given strategic priority, and which therefore probably need to be mapped and blueprinted in detail.

To create a service map:

1. define the challenges
2. carry out stakeholder mapping
3. add in other elements
4. map value exchanges to evolve your system map
5. identify areas you control, areas you influence, and what lies beyond

And one final tip: use the service map to find gaps in the network that need to be filled, and connections that can be leveraged to improve services.

Service designers work at ever greater scale

It used to be about service users.

Then it grew to include users and staff involved in delivering services.

Next, it came to encompass stakeholders.

Now, service design often covers humans, non-human actors, and the environment – because these are all parts of, or influence, the system.

Another way of looking at it is to consider three groups:

1. Beneficiaries – those being designed for who experience positive consequences.
2. Malficiaries – those who experience negative consequences.
3. Anyficiaries – individuals, groups (or even things) that may not be directly targeted as beneficiaries but are affected by the service or product in various ways.

The latter is a portmanteau word coined by Gilbert Cockton in a 2017 paper called ‘New Process, New Vocabulary: Axiofact = A_tefact + Memoranda’.

Beneficiaries are those the service is designed for. A beneficiary is not necessarily a person. It could be a community at large, or a company providing a service, or part of the value chain.

Anyficiaries are those outside the group being deliberately designed for. Their experiences can be neutral, positive, or negative, and they might have indirect interactions with the system.

It includes those who might be inadvertently harmed by the way a service is run, such as people with health conditions or impairments, or are part of marginalised communities.

For example, consider face-tracking software that only works with white faces. You might also include animals, the environment, and the planet in this category.

But with great scope comes great responsibility and the traditional 5 whys aren’t going to cut it.

Nor are the famous 3 lenses of viability, feasibility and desirability.

If we are to innovate responsibly, we must necessarily consider our work through 6 lenses throughout each phase as outlined in our responsible innovation framework.

The responsible innovation framework

Co-design, co-creation, and co-production are at the heart of our responsible innovation approach.

Pushing beyond the standard desirable, feasible, viable, we strive for just, inclusive, and sustainable design.

• Desirable – a solution that your customer really needs.
• Feasible – building on the strengths of your current operational capabilities.
• Viable – a profitable solution, with a sustainable business model.
• Sustainable – reducing adverse environmental impact or making positive impact over the longer term.
• Inclusive – diversity used as a resource for better design, opening up research to more citizens with a wider range of abilities. Designs reflect our diversity.
• Just – being ethical: doing good not harm.

Considerations for each lens are applied consistently to research and design activities.

Systems thinking is a lever for change

Including systems thinking tools in our service design work means we are able to expand its scope and effectiveness.

Deeper analysis and understanding of the larger systems in which our work sits opens opportunities to pull bigger levers of positive change.

For example, from shaping and testing policy to changing the structure and goals of the system as a whole.

It’s an ongoing evolution and I’m excited to see where it takes us.