Design Demystified: The Practitioner’s Guide to Design Theory. Part 1: Boundary Judgements.

Exciting news! I'm launching a new long-form post series where every month I'll break down and summarize important scholarly articles on design, systems thinking, and related subject matter. My goal is to highlight key points and insights and translate academic language into more comprehensible dialogue for design practitioners of all experience levels.

?

This series aims to bridge the gap between academia and practical application, making research accessible and actionable for anyone who wants to use the design process to make positive change. Stay tuned for insights that can transform how we approach design and systems thinking in our daily lives!

?

INTRODUCTION

?

"Boundary judgements" are decisions we make, often without even realizing it, about what is important and relevant in any given situation.

?

These judgements determine which FACTS and VALUES we consider when we assess a problem or evaluate an outcome.

?

They help us set the boundaries of what we include in our thinking and what we leave out.

?

For example, imagine you are trying to solve a problem at a school, like reducing waste. Your boundary judgements might include:

?

1.??????? What you consider relevant facts: Do you focus only on the amount of waste in the cafeteria, or do you also consider waste from classrooms and sports events?

2.??????? What values you prioritize: Is your main concern saving money, protecting the environment, or educating students about recycling?

?

These boundary judgements shape how you see the problem and what solutions you come up with. If you change your boundary judgments, you might see the problem differently and come up with new solutions.

?

What facts you include or exclude and what values you prioritize can drastically change your evaluation or understanding of a problem or outcome.

?

?

CRITICAL SYSTEMS HEURISTICS

?

In his seminal work, “A Brief Introduction to Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH), Werner Ulrich (1983) and later elaborated upon (Ulrich, 1987, 1996, 2000) & in collaboration with Martin Reynolds (2010), Ulrich developed CSH to provoke thought and discussion around boundary judgements that determine how we frame problems, solutions, and outcomes.

?

He developed a toolbox of 12 “boundary questions”, where each question has two modes: a descriptive mode (what “is”) and an ideal mode (what “should be”). Each question must be answered in both modes. Differences between “is” and “should” answers point to boundary issues that need to be considered and explored.

?

He offers a table of 12 boundary categories – that directly motivate these 12 boundary questions –?that are derived from 4 key boundary issues that stem from the perspective of who is involved in these judgements and who is affected by these judgements (see image below).

Figure 1: The boundary categories of critical systems heuristics (Source: W.?Ulrich, 1983, p. 258; 1996, p.?43; and 2000, p.?256)

?

?

THE 12 QUESTIONS

Sources of Motivation

1. Who is (ought to be) the?client? That is, whose interests are (should be) served?
2. What is (ought to be) the?purpose? That is, what are (should be) the consequences?
3. What is (ought to be) the?measure of improvement? That is, how can (should) we determine that the consequences, taken together, constitute an improvement?

Sources of Power

1. Who is (ought to be) the?decision-maker? That is, who is (should be) in a position to change the measure of improvement?
2. What?resources?are (ought to be) controlled by the decision-maker? That is, what conditions of success can (should) those involved control?
3. What conditions are (ought to be) part of the?decision environment? That is, what conditions can (should) the decision-maker?not?control (e.g. from the viewpoint of those not involved)?

Sources of Knowledge

1. Who is (ought to be) considered a?professional? That is, who is (should be) involved as an expert, e.g. as a researcher, planner or consultant?
2. What?expertise?is (ought to be) consulted? That is, what counts (should count) as relevant knowledge?
3. What or who is (ought to be) assumed to be the?guarantor of success? That is, where do (should) those involved seek some guarantee that improvement will be achieved - for example, consensus among experts, the involvement of stakeholders, the experience and intuition of those involved, political support?

Sources of Legitimation

1. Who is (ought to be)?witness?to the interests of those affected but not involved? That is, who is (should be) treated as a legitimate stakeholder, and who argues (should argue) the case of those stakeholders who cannot speak for themselves, including future generations and non-human nature?
2. What secures (ought to secure) the?emancipation?of those affected from the premises and promises of those involved? That is, where does (should) legitimacy lie?
3. What?worldview?is (ought to be) determining? That is, what different visions of `improvement’ are (ought to be) considered, and how are they (should they be) reconciled?

(Ulrich, W., 2000)

It is important to note that CSH is not a prescribed methodology with a clear-cut set of instructions. How you ask these questions, their order, wording, and how these answers will be collected, consolidated, and explored, will vary by application, group, and purpose. Ulrich and Reynolds (2010) recommend a standard sequence for beginners, but the final form is open to critique and modification.

?

?

THE IMPORTANCE OF CSH

?

CSH can be used in three crucial ways:

1.?????? To identify boundary judgements systematically;

2.?????? To analyze and explore alternative perspectives for defining a problem or assessing a solution proposal; and

3.????? To challenge in a compelling way any claims to knowledge, rationality, or ‘improvement’ that rely on hidden boundary judgments or take them for granted.

The first two applications are basic for dealing with?multiple perspectives?in exploring complex problems. They can help people understand why their ideas of "fact" and "value" differ in the same situation. They can thus help to bridge such differences or at least, to promote mutual understanding and cooperation in handling them. By critically examining these judgements, you can understand why different people might see the same situation in different ways. This helps in finding common ground and working together more effectively when working with diverse perspectives and stakeholders.

In contrast, the third application offers both those involved in and those affected by systemic change an opportunity to develop?a new kind of critical competence. It offers the ability for ordinary citizens to question policy makers or other “experts” without depending on any special theoretical knowledge or expertise with respect to the problem or situation in question. By questioning the choices of which facts are included/excluded and which values are prioritized/minimized, citizens can challenge the assumptions of authority without being authorities on that particular subject matter. This becomes a powerful tool for oppressed or marginalized groups to challenge evaluations and solutions proposed by the dominant power structure.

?

SUMMARY

In summary, CSH is an incredibly useful framework that can be used in various ways when looking to make systemic change.

It can be used early on in engagements to bring diverse stakeholders together by building empathy between groups and uncovering points of tension.

It can also be used critically to model the current structures of power within a system by exposing the hidden judgments made at the boundary of a problem area, critique, or solution.

Or, CSH can be used to guide exploration of a problem by reframing in multiple ways the boundaries of the problem by including/excluding different sets of facts and prioritizing/minimizing different sets of values.

Personally, I use CSH throughout a systemic engagement in all these capacities to continually test and validate the work we do with ourselves and our stakeholders. I use it to reflect at various stages of an engagement to ensure we are including the right facts and prioritizing the right values that align with the core objectives of the engagement, participating stakeholders, and those who will be affected by the design interventions. It has become a key component of my design practice.

You can find links to all the original articles and other resources at Werner Ulrich’s website.

?