In Systems oriented design there are no fixed methods nor processes. Insted we provide tools and frameworks based on praxiology, the knowledge, experience, adaptability and comopetence to operate in real worls contexts.

In this section we will present the frameworks of SOD

(This section is under construction)



SOD Creative Prosess Framework

 SOD creative process framework

Each SOD process is somehow unique. It is therefore not possible to prescribe a method that will lead to creative and innovative solutions by just applying the method. Creative methods at large are limited. Creativity as such remains an enigmatic phenomenon. Most creativity researchers from cognitive psychology agree that it is a composite phenomenon only possible to describe by applying different models and approaches (Sternberg, 1999). 

Csikszentmihaly describes creativity as a systemic phenomenon comprised of three different levels:

The individual

The field

The domain.

Csikszentmihaly's model is a bit hard to understand when it comes to the definition of field and domain but translated to everyday sense-making, this means that you need a creative individual in a creative profession and a creative environment to produce creative output. In addition, the issue of field and domain indicate that one need to know what has been done before and build on that. The domain has its gatekeepers who will judge a solution as new or just a reinvention of something somebody else has invented before.

Creativity is a process of deep immersion into a problem or problematique of great complexity. 

Such processes are described by Csikszentmihalyi, (1996) and they describe the need of concentration and deep immersion into creative processes. These periods are followed by moments of realization. These are called illuminations according to a pretty old model of the creative process credited to several authors but assumedly Hadarmad was early. (1945)

This model consists of four phases:





These explanations of creativity indicate that being creative is a quite laborious and hard process and that time is needed and that only after a enduring effort something truly new will emerge. And then it needs to be checked with reality.

This process has come organically in SOD projects and there is now way around this. However there are many things that can be done in the surrounding of the core creative process. The SOD creative process framework intends to create a structure to use as a guide for this work.

The framework depicted above can be used from any entrance point and one can follow the arrows in a counter clockwise direction through several rounds or iterations. A central device is the gigamap depicted in the upper half of the diagram. Some of the activities are naturally carried out as part of the gigamapping while others are done outside of the gigamap.


(This article is under development)



Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity, Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: HarperCollins.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a Systems Perspective for the Study of Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Creativity Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hadamard, J. (1945). The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. Princeton University Press.

Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial (Vol. 136). Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T.

Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.




Multiple Perspectives

four perspectives web 

This page is under construction. Comments are well received. (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)


When trying to understand a system it is a good tacktics to apply different perspectives. This will shed light on the system from different standing points, from within different fields and though the eyes of a variety of stakeholders.


The perspectives can be grouped into three types:


Stakeholder and expert perspectives:

These include all users, operators, manufactorers, cleaners, directors, clients, experts, citizens, and others affected by the system or people with knowledge about the system. It is important ot include the affected bystanders and their perspectives.

In addition it should embrace others through representatives: These are children, elderlies who cannot speak for them selves, future generations, non- human beings and non-biotic issues.


Systems depth:

Vertical validity of the systems approach is established by examinating the system on the Micro, Meso and Macro-level. 


Systems width:

Horizontal validity of the systems approach is established by examinating foreground, middelground and background. 


The four perspectives model:

The four perspectives model (pictured above) is a aimple framwork to examine a system. It provides both system depth and system with.

Vertical reach is described with the frog and the bird persepctives

Horizontal reach is described  by the microscope and telescope metaphore.


Validating Gigamaps and SOD work

By Birger Sevaldson

October 2017

Updated December 2017

The methodology of Gigamapping and the supporting methods and techniques do have several ways of validating the work.

However, this is not enough to make sure the maps are valid. Additional attention needs to be paid to the information build-up in the project. How reliable is the information? Have we interpreted the interrelations in the best way possible?

The different modes are listed and described below.

Gathering information: Make sure you check and double-check information. Information given by singular informants should be triangulated by asking others or by using other types of data. 

Framing: The Gigamapping process is great for framing the project and research area because of its flexible boundary critique. The strategy of first mapping without filtering out seemingly irrelevant issues ensures you will cover a wider territory than what you assumed from the start. To withdraw from these territories after checking them, draw a relevant boundary in an informed way. Another effect is that during the process one becomes more knowledgeable about the bigger field at hand. This influences the conception of the systems boundaries. Reframing the boundaries, by enlarging or shrinking them during the process ensures a reflected development and boundary critique.

Coding of information value: We advise using colour or font coding or annotations to target, describe and rank information quality on the map. Such coding can distinguish among the a priori given, hard facts, well-triangulated qualitative data, common knowledge, interpretations, informed guestimations and sheer assumptions. Because the information is coded on the Gigamap it is contextualised and situated. Therefore, it is possible to analyse the importance of the information and if it needs improvement. The coding can then be used to refine and triangulate information that is crucial.

ZIP analysis: The zoom in the ZIP analysis helps to improve the resolution of information on the map and to distinguish between less important areas to zoom in on and those that are crucial. Additional information gathering and interpretation must be made.

Expert co-designing: Building expert networks is central in SOD. The experts should be knowledgeable about different types of information. For example, experts from health care should be interpolated with expert patients.

Back-checking: The information gathered is always situated on the Gigamap. When starting to work with design resolutions and interventions, you can back check in detail how the suggestion fits the research and where it leaves uncertainties that require additional investigations.

Together, these different modes, if conducted in a good manner, construct the evidence found on the Gigamaps.

‘Gigamaps send our eyes into places where our eyes can’t go’.



Very Rapid Learning Processes

By Birger Sevaldson


mapping-Erik-Lorang-Lindberg web


Very rapid learning processes (VRLP) are conducted by designers who use SOD to deal with complexity. It is a technique to learn a new field very fast so that one is informed sufficiently to know how and when to depend on experts and what limitations are in one’s current positions and knowledge bases. It is a technique to very quickly achieve an information advantage while remaining humble about your knowledge. The methods that make VRLP possible are a design oriented approach to learning, GIGA-mapping, collaborative GIGA-mapping, co-creation, building expert networks and other dialogue-based approaches. The rich design space allows for the immediate access and socialisation of large amounts of information. Redesigning information in the GIGA-maps allows for the internalisation of this information.

VRLP has been proven to work in many cases, and its relevance has been confirmed by a long list of partners conducting SOD research. Among them, we find the SAC at the emergency hospital in Oslo (LegevaktenTPGAttendoMedemaBeyond Risør and others

Read more about this in the article below.

Can Designers Design Anything?

About Very Rapid Learning Processes

Birger Sevaldson

This is a version of a short article that was originally featured in the 2012 AHO yearbook.

Lately, there has been a double movement in the field of design. On the one side, design has diverged into new areas and specialties, but on the other hand, design has converged into a generic field where special subdomains of design blend into each other and the boundaries blur. This double action is best seen in the expansion of design. Designers are moving into more and more new areas. This happens both as more or less defined models from specific traditional design fields such as product design or graphic design are blended and adapted into new fields. Models and perspectives are migrating to other professions  because designers tend to take on almost any challenge. Think of it this way: design thinking has long made its way into management and planning, and designers are moving into new fields such as policy and organisation design. Though these fields are not new by themselves, they have not been an arena for design thinking or designing to a large degree yet.

This thriving of the design field has unsurprisingly provoked some people. Both design thinking and its simplified and branded version have been heavily attacked. Also, there is a growing irritation about the willingness and confidence of designers who are moving into new fields and claiming they can design anything. Some of this criticism comes from design scholars, most of whom do not have a background in design. Design theory and research is peculiar in the sense that it is densely populated with non-designers who make careers in the academic area of design. Some of them are integrating well and bring valuable perspectives to design research while others never understand the features of design and use the field to establish themselves as authorities in design theory and defend their territory. It is from the latter side that the criticism has been the loudest. 

On the other side some professors and professionals with a design background claim that designers can design anything. Design has general features that are successfully applicable to any case, issue or field. This claim has not really been argued for very convincingly yet.

With the debate still raging, the question of if designers can design anything is not easily answered. It has many aspects to it, and this essay will only polemically scratch its surface.

Let us first look at the claim by applying the same question to other research-based professions.

Can doctors heal anything? The question is absurd. We all know they cannot.

But designers are not doctors. The fields are very different: doctors are reactive, reacting to health problems, while designers are proactive and generative, creating new things. So designers, to a much greater degree, create their own criteria and conditions. At the same time, they need to involve in an ever-greater number of given dynamic parameters that inform the design. For the doctor, the criteria for success are quite clear. For designers, the criteria are relative and debatable.

But what if we put a little twist in the question: Can doctors heal anything better than non-doctors? The question is yes. Though many people would claim that there are others who also heal, there is next to no scientific evidence that they are better than doctors or that they actually can heal anything at all.

What about designers? Can they design anything better than non-designers? This is much harder to answer. We have neighbouring professions such as engineers or stylists who also seem to design. The term design is used by many fields and in many ways. We do not need to bring in these definitions for the moment; we only need to state what we mean by designers. For the moment, let’s explore the issue by simply talking about those designers who graduated at a design school.

This leads to another difference between doctors and designers. Doctors have a knowledge fundament that they share, and then they become specialists in clearly defined areas or develop into generalists, which also is a well-defined role. Designers have far less well-defined fundaments, structures and specialisations than doctors, and as mentioned before, the specialisations are eroding and transforming.

Despite this convergence that indicates that many designers are moving between design domains, are these designers so homogeneous that they actually can jump between all the design specialties and design anything? Maybe they could but obviously not with great success. I know an architect who entered the field of software design, but this was based on personal interest and developing skills outside of the specialty of architecture; this resulted in a quite long learning curve.

So even within the boundaries of what can be regarded as the professional area of design, a designer can only design anything in this field with limited success. But can she or he do it better than non-designers? There are truly some basic skills and approaches that are applicable across the whole design field: visualisation skills and an ability to integrate and synthesise solutions from tasks where there is no wrong or right answer. The doctors can be measured far easier. Either the patient gets better or not. There are grey- zones in between there too, but the goal is defined. Ideally, the patient returns to a totally healed state. In design, there often are no such ideals or given goals, only better or worse resolutions of ‘wicked problems’. The designers generally have developed a skill to reach such resolutions based on complex and fuzzy inputs. Also, the current fluidity of the design fields has led to the development of adaptive skills. Designers learn the software needed to resolve a task on the fly. They acquire the needed knowledge for solving a new problem. The answer here, then, is yes, a designer can design better than a non-designer in any given situation within the domain of design, even when crossing the fields of specialties.

Finally, returning to the principal question reformulated:

Can designers take on any task and design for any situation with relative success compared to non-designers?

This can be addressed in two ways: Because designers are the ones who design, they can design for any situation in the same way as doctors can attempt to heal any illness. Can designers design successfully for any situation? Obviously not, and this is exactly the same as doctors often being unsuccessful.

So the final answer to the question is something like the following:

Designers are fully justified, and even to a certain degree qualified, to design for any situation. Are they successful in this? Sometimes, but often not.

The issue designers should really be criticised for is not the self-confidence to design for anything, but rather the nonchalance they tend to show when designing for new fields. While design has migrated into new areas, design education has been sleeping. We have underestimated the processes designers have to go through when moving into new fields and establishing new specialties in those fields. We also have underestimated the need for learning to cope with very rapid learning processes when designing for singular new challenges where establishing a specialty is not feasible. Designing for any new field requires an intensive learning process and the development of adaptive expertise. The new phenomena where designers teach themselves new software when needed or dive into unknown knowledge fields are not taken up by the design schools as a new pedagogical perspective. This is not new but resembles the concept of the adaptive expert very much. We need to take on this challenge and change design education so that designers can adapt quickly and design anything in a more connected and informed manner.

Designers need to be both self-confident and humble when entering new fields. They should be self-confident because designers indeed can do great things in areas where they traditionally have not been. But without being humble about these fields, their inherent knowledge and skills and the need to learn rapidly and depend on insider knowledge and expertise, these designers run the risk of having their results be hilariously superficial. And this lack of humility and willingness to empathise and respect knowledge has rightfully been criticised.

Systems-oriented design is a framework to make designers better at designing for complexity and to make them able to learn very quickly, becoming adaptive experts in the field of design. This has resulted in many exciting outputs where master’s level students have demonstrated very rapid learning processes that allowed to jump into new design fields.

The problem with designing anything is the lack of information, knowledge and skills that are specific to the area. To address this problem, we have developed a very fast learning process which is conducted in a designer-oriented way through what we call GIGA-mapping. These learning processes help designers achieve an overview and define insufficient knowledge where support from insiders and experts would be needed. To illustrate this, we will shortly present two cases, one where the designer crosses between design fields and one where the designer opens up a new area and organisation to design.

The first case is a product design master’s student collaborating with a newly graduated student with the same background; here, they migrated into the field of ceramics. Their goal was to design a porcelain lamp. In the case of the lamp’s design, the problem was the material: the porcelain. The designers had no prior experience with the material, and the ambition was to finish the lamp within a time frame of three months. This was an impossible task said the expert. Porcelain is a very difficult material that takes years to learn. With the rapid learning process and the expert network in place, the designers succeeded within the time frame. This is an example of a designer who is under certain circumstances and with a targeted process and suitable approach crossing specialties in design.


bilde stort map story-small web


GIGA-map of the very rapid learning process (VRLP) conducted in the process of making a finalised prototype for a porcelain lamp within three months (Student: Ida Naomi Vidal 2010)


Story lamp small SkarVidal 1 Photo Kaja Bruskeland web

Final Porcelain Lamp

When entering totally new fields where the designer, and sometimes even the design field at large, would not have any prior expertise, patterns or best practices to rely on, the task is even more challenging. In the project Design for Dignity in a Sexual Violence Response System (Ulluoa & Strømsnes, 2012), the students approached an emergency hospital for sexual assault victims and wanted to investigate what designers could contribute to this organisation; previously, designers were limited to design the facilities and artefacts and never had a role directly involved with the organisation. It took a whole process to convince the people at the hospital to let them in. The project was started with a very intensive inquiry that included GIGA-mapping, conversations, field work and workshops for co-designing and information mapping. The results were three systemic interventions on different scales. The response was very positive and showed that designers can enter a new area, gain the needed knowledge and overview, as well as the needed interaction with experts, to produce innovative design interventions and open up an organisation or field to design.


Giga Map-01 web

GIGA-map of the landscape of sexual assault.

Rather than quarrelling about the question, we intend to demonstrate an approach and practice that makes the designer able to enter new areas for design in both a humble and courageous way. If we manage to develop this expertise further and our processes become sufficiently good and flexible, we might reach a point where we truly can claim that:

Yes, designers can design anything.