International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics

B. BANATHY proposes the following design methodology, in correspondance with his general systemic understanding of what design should be in order to be creative and adaptive, as well as better tailored to human needs (1988, p.32):

"The system creation is carried out in the design solution space, which is surrounded by the design genesis space, the design experimentation space, the space in which we organize knowledge that informs our design, and the space of the future system.

"In the contextual/design genesis space, the stage is set for design. In this space we reason for design, formulate organizing perspectives that shall guide design thinking and action, and develop a rich picture of the design problem situation".

Of course, in this statement, the most important word is "we". The identity of the designers, their stated or unstated goals, their prejudices, their mental frames of reference are of utmost importance. Here, systemic design parts company with classical design, which (in societal "engineering ") is generally authoritarian and speciality bound.

BANATHY proceeds: "In the organized knowledge space, information and knowledge, pertinent to design inquiry, are continuously infused and organized to inform design in a timely fashion and provide substance to the generation of alternatives.

"The experimentation space is created in order to allow for design experimentation and the testing of emerging design alternatives as well as the assessment of the on-going design itself.

"The space of the future system will contain the model of the system to be designed as well as the model of the systemic environment of the future system.

"It is the design solution space in which we formulate the image of the future system. In this space, design inquiry is carried out in a spiralic manner as we explore and re-explore the various spaces of design inquiry … and integrate information, knowledge and experience into the emerging image of the future system" (Ibid).

Thereafter, BANATHY enumerates the successive stages of the design inquiry:

"Stage one: front-end analysis/ diagnosis of the design problem situation: clarify organizational culture and reason for design…, formulate organizing perspectives that guide the design, explore barriers that prevent/hinder our continuing development…, develop a rich picture of the design problem situation…, display a systemic analysis and strutured description of the design problem situation.

"Stage two: the design of the ideal system: formulate expectations, purposes, and aspirations of the future system…, formulate a root-definition of the system…, select type of system we want to become (e.g. purpose-seeking)…, formulate desired system characteristics… , explore and evaluate alternative configurations of functions by which to attain stated purposes…, select and test and describe the ideal system.

"Stage three: the design of the enabling system: the design of the management system and the organizational design that enable us to move toward the realization of the ideal future state.

"Stage four: the implementation planning stage: planning the means and methods… and the strategies … by which we can implement the feasible and attainable representation of the ideal design and develop the enabling systems, and design the change delivery system."

There is of course a general caveat: BANATHY's approach is ethical and idealistic. It could however be distorted by ideological biases (conscious or unconscious), as well as by specific pressure groups interests.. This in turn offers curious implications: if all the participants in the design process share the same prejudices – even (in our own view) harmful ones – they would be in their right to proceed, as long as they do not provoke problems outside their own domain, …or are supposed not to.

Design "a la BANATHY" should always be as much co-participative as possible, precisely to obtain a maximum opening of the spaces and stages he describes, and a genuine (and adaptive) consensus.