Systemics—the Logics of Design

Systemics: the Logics of Design Harold G. Nelson

1

Systemics—the Logics of Design

We have inherited a new age—one that the geologists call the anthropocene (The

Economist, 2011). This new epoch, defined as the age of humans, should be and can

be considered as the age of design if the right decisions are made. The new age

received its designation because of the overwhelming accumulative consequences of

human actions and not merely because of their presence. Scientists nowadays

necessarily must behave more and more as design critics of a ‘man-‐made’ world—a

world that is predominantly shaped by human activity in two significant ways.

The first is that the natural world has become more unnatural, which in turn has

effected the courses taken by the natural evolutionary processes—the physical and

the biologic. The second is in the rapid change in human systems as a result of the

evolution of the mind and the concomitant evolution of social and cultural

systems—forms of evolution driven by human intension and purpose. Humans are

adapting more and more to their own designed consequences rather than to just the

natural consequences of physical or biological mutations interacting with

environmental constraints.

It can be postulated that there are four types of evolution that have carried humans

to where they are in this new epoch (see Fig. 1). In general, evolution is an unfolding

of systemic processes of causal entanglements. Physical evolution led to the


2

emergence of genetic evolution (mutation and adaption), which led to the

emergence of the evolution of consciousness—an unfolding of the mind. The

evolution the mind, of self awareness and abstract thinking, has led to the

emergence of a fourth kind of evolution which now modifies and directs the earlier

forms of evolution as well as its own—an evolution of and by human intention.

1st evolutionary unfolding: molecular compounds and life

2nd evolutionary unfolding: consciousness,

3rd evolutionary unfolding: mind

4th evolutionary unfolding: human intension

Fig. 1 Types of Evolution

The discourses in academic and public realms nowadays are primarily focused on

the consequences of biological evolution, which is leaned on to describe and explain

the entirety of the human condition including possibilities or restrictions such as the

impossibility of free will. Much less attention is being paid to the instrumental

effects of the evolution of the human mind—the third form of evolutionary

unfolding—on the world’s new character although it is very apparent that the

consequences of this form of evolution, in the emergence of the anthropocene age, is

immense.

Now that we have been thrown into this new age where there are no longer any

natural systems and all of nature reflects the consequences of human interventions,


3

whether intentional or accidental, we are faced with a seminal decision. Do we

embrace the fourth form of evolution, accepting responsibility and accountability

for the kind of world-‐creating agency it carries? Or do we continue to fall back on

the reactive stances of scientism’s indifference; denying human agency and free will

and merely reacting to the consequences of changes believed to be caused by chance

or necessity? Do we continue to defer responsibility and culpability for the

outcomes of change in social and economic systems to the mimicry of the bloody

biologic process of ‘survival of the fittest’ or economics invisible hand of aggregated

fate?

Or do we choose to accept the challenge of making this new age the age of design—

an age of human intension and purpose that is identified by humans stepping up to

be held responsible for choosing their actions and to be held accountable for those

actions? Humans accepting that they are steering all four forms of evolution would

mark the anthropocene as the age of design. From this mature stance humans would

learn to ask and try to answer such questions as: “what would be some ideal

directions to go in and what potential outcomes should be made real additions to

the world?”

As scientists or humanities scholars are looked to for advice on preferred actions in

response to large scale and complex issues they are essentially being asked to

become design consultants. Unfortunately descriptions and explanations—the role

of the sciences and the humanities—do not prescribe action. And predictions and


4

control—the contributions of technology and applied arts—do not justify action.

The formulation of intentional action and the concomitant justification for action

comes through designers creating good designs on behalf of others.

Design thinking is important now not just because the world is more complex,

or because problems seem larger in scale and more dangerous, nor because contexts

and environments are changing so quickly. Design inquiry and action is a big deal

because the world is vulnerably interconnected and more unnaturally entangled

giving rise more often than not to critically unsustainable and undesirable

situations. The dominating threat of undesirable situations overshadows or deflects

attempts to begin learning how to competently identify and achieve desirable

outcomes through the intentional actions of design.

Design inquiry, as presently engaged in, is a significant deal because the

consequences of design, through development and technology, are more intensely

impacting environments—physical and social—sometimes with desired outcomes

but too often not. Biological, technological and human systems are breaking down

because of the unintended consequences of poorly thought out yet executed

designs—i.e. unwise design actions. The natural world has become more

dangerously dysfunctional as it has become more compromised as a consequence of

ignored or mismanaged human agency.


5

In order to rise with the occasion, serious designers in the anthropocene epoch—

aka the age of design—need to develop essential competencies and expertise.

Developing design competencies and expertise involves gaining:

• the ability to initiate and manage intentional action for desired outcomes.

-‐ expertise in systemic designing and implementation.

-‐ competencies in collaborative learning for intentional action.

-‐ competencies in individual learning for intentional action.

• the ability to make good systemic design judgments and decisions.

• the ability to take good—i.e. wise—design action through systemic

assessment, critique and intervention.

-‐ pre-‐action: making assessments of complex real world situations.

-‐ reaction and interaction: managing systemic milieu.

-‐ pro-‐action: creating desired systemic outcomes.

It is essential to initiate and support a serious ongoing dialogue concerning the full

potential and concomitant challenges of design, designing and designers rather than

allow the conversation to fade away or to be cut off with prescriptions and

descriptions of designing based on scientific rationalization or artistic sensibilities

or worse—the commodification of design method.

Designers co-‐create a world that people experience as the real world, a world that is

becoming ever more unnatural. The real or natural world was always complex and

unpredictable. Now people are beginning to understand, in pragmatic as well as


6

academic terms, that the unnatural world is as complexly interconnected and

unpredictable as the natural world was.

Such challenges to design agency evoke seminal questions for traditional designers,

which have yet to be seriously asked and addressed even though new generations of

designers are showing signs of wanting to expand design practice far beyond

traditional boundaries and professional categories. As traditional designers expand

beyond their self-‐defined boundaries of material, experiential and visual design, or

as newly minted professional fields, such as educational design, organizational

design, policy design et. al. look to the design traditions for strategies and tools the

unasked questions remain unasked. As traditional professional fields, such as

management and defense, begin to adopt design strategies, it becomes imperative to

more broadly and aggressively develop design scholarship and praxis. The

confluence of the expanding appreciation for the potential significance and influence

of design (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012) and the growing unnatural character of the

real world requires serious preparations on the part of designers, design educators

and design collaborators in order to gain competence in more advanced design

thinking approaches and praxis.

So what would qualify designers—traditional and newly formed—to assist at the

helm of human evolution if the decision is made to take on responsibility for the

processes of world creation given that the real world is an incomprehensible

entanglement of systemic links and connections that result in unpredictable states-‐


7

of-‐affairs? The answer lies with a better understanding of systemics in relation to

designing, designers and design stakeholders.

Systemics—a set of ordering and organizing logics and framing strategies—when

infused into design—i.e. advanced design—assures that design can be made

relevant and viable in today’s complex and demanding contexts of change. Systemics

provides the basis for the rigorous strategies and perspectives required for

designing at the levels and intensities required in a new age of design. Systemics are

the sources of the logics that form the armature for advanced design approaches.

They enable design to rise to the challenges of modern life, which are complex and

unpredictable in a world that continues changing dramatically and rapidly.

Every design is a system or part of a system. Every designer is a human system and

an element in other systems. Every designer works within and under the influences

of larger systems. Every process of designing is a systems approach to intentional

change. In the past designing has been dominated by artistic conjecture or scientific

reasoning but that has never been sufficient. The unintended consequences of

human activity are increasingly negative because of miscues concerning the

systemic nature of intentional change.

Designing is the process of defining relationships and making connections between

things, beings and ideas, so that they function or serve a purpose in systemic

combinations. It is a process that creates systemic constructs ranging from


8

functional assemblies to purposeful systems. The relationships result in patterns

and compositions while the connections result in assemblies that can be either

functional or purposeful and that can result in emergent qualities. Systems and

functional assemblies can be the outcomes of designing although most systems and

functional assemblies are not the outcome of design activity.

Design inquiry is a systemic approach to acquiring knowledge that is interrelating

and interconnecting. A systems perspective looks for existing relationships and

connections and the consequences of those interrelationships and interconnections

where design imagines possibilities and makes them real. Systemics is a broad and

diverse set of approaches to observing, understanding and interacting with the real

world. Systemics provides strategies of inquiry for describing and explaining

complexities and causal entanglements that make up the environments and contexts

of human activity. A systemic stance approaches the world in two ways

simultaneously:

• epistemologically i.e. thinking systemically—relating and connecting ideas.

• ontologically i.e. conceptualizing things as systems—interrelationships and

interconnections between components or elements.

The normative approach to inquiry—which is not systemic—focuses on looking ‘at’

things of interest—including attributing ‘thingness’ to assemblies or systems. The

intention is to discern the nature of something by observing it in a rational and


9

objective way revealing its ‘true’ nature. We may be interested in discovering its

essence—its quiddity— or its uniqueness—its haecceity (see Fig. 2) for example.

Figure 2. Looking ‘at’ for Essence and Uniqueness

Or we may, which is most often the case, simply want to describe and explain

something through the discernment of its seminal or essential properties (see Fig. 3)

by looking ‘at’ something using a rigorous form of disciplined inquiry as exemplified

by the scientific method or by using equally diligent forms of inquiry that are more

subjective.

Figure 3. Looking ‘at’ for Description and Explanation.


10

Natural things and designed artifacts of course reflect essences and properties

revealed by looking ‘at’ them that are vital for gaining an understanding and

appreciation of things as designed or already found to be in existence. Natural things

and designed artifacts are much more than undifferentiated appearance and

experience however. They are systems and systemic in their behavior.

When looking ‘at’ systems in order to understand them and to be able to make

purposeful interventions in them, a systemics perspective needs to be used. This

approach is an integrated framework of strategies for assessment, critique and

designed intervention (Nelson and Stolterman, 2012) (see Fig. 4).

Figure 4. Looking ‘at’ Systems for Understanding and Intervention


11

Strategies for looking ‘at’ systems are much better developed historically (Ackoff,

2003, 1971)—even though still not sufficiently developed—than are strategies for

systemically looking for what goes on ‘between’ things, particularly between

observers and the things or systems they observe. The challenge is to develop

approaches for looking ‘at’ the activities taking place ‘between’ things, especially

when looking at what goes on between observers as inquiring systems and the

things they are observing. This latter challenge is the focus of this chapter but that

does not mean the importance of being able to look ‘at’ systems themselves is

diminished. Both systemic challenges are essential to take on in the development of

the necessary perspectives and design competencies in the age of design.

While the focus of systemic inquiry is on what ‘is’ happening between things (see

Fig. 5), the focus of a systemic design inquiry is focused on imagining what ‘should’

or ‘ought’ to be going on between things and to make that the case in reality. The

reason it is important to look at what is going on between things is because every

thing is linked in someway to other things or systems and their environments. If

essential links are not seen they may become broken or they will not be protected

from harm. Then unintended consequences will occur—a process that is

fundamentally unsustainable. If desired outcomes are to be realized by design then

essential links must be identified and established between what is judged to be

necessary elements. The links cause new properties to emerge that transcend the


12

nature of the things themselves and the relationships or connections that link them.

These new properties are often what are most necessary or desired in life.

Figure 5. Looking ‘in-‐between’

The space in-‐between is mediated by relations and connections. A relation is an

influence or orientation. A connection is a cause or transfer of power. The

importance of these two concepts cannot be overemphasized in the context of

design, designers and designing. They define systemics thinking. Systemics thinking

is a stance, a way of approaching an inquiry into and about the real world. It is a

multidimensional and an integrating, holistic approach to gaining understanding of

the nature of relationships and connections between things and the consequences of

each of them.


13

Descriptively, Systemics thinking is a collective of approaches that are diverse and

multilayered. One schema for looking at the multilayered nature of the systemics

stance is through the presence of four orders of mediation in the space in-‐between.

1st order mediation is an epistemological framework for primarily, but not

exclusively, thinking and learning about specific relations and connections. The

ontology of systemics at this level focuses on real systems that exist abstractly,

conceptually or literally. The purpose of focusing on relations and connections is to

describe and explain concrete systems as particulars and ultimate particulars in the

real world.

The simplest form of systemic assembly consists of two ‘elements’ in some form of

relationship or connected in some way. A systemic inquiry focuses on the space in-‐

between these elements—the space of the relationships and connections—and the

emergent consequences of the relations and connections. The ‘space’ between

things contains the relationships and connections that determine the nature of the

assembly or system as it exists or that need to be present in order to cause the

desired assembly or system to come into existence—i.e. design (see Fig. 6). When

the focus of attentions is on what is happening between things, the things become

elements or components in an assembly or system of things rather than simply

isolated objects.


14

Figure 6. 1st Order Mediation

2nd order mediation looks at the systems of relations and connections between or

among things. Relations are defined by ordering systems while connections are

made using organizing systems (see Fig. 7). Ordering and organizing systems are

schemas for ordering and organizing things in general. They form universally

related or connected assemblies of things.


15

Figure 7. 2nd Order Mediation Systems

Ordering and organizing systems mediate the space in-‐between. This results in

consequences that occurring because of the relationships and connections put in

place (See Fig. 9). Designers must make judgments about which ordering and

organizing systems to overlay onto a situation in order to give meaning to an

otherwise chaotic milieu and to guide intervention.


16

Figure 8. 2nd Order Mediation

Ordering systems define relationships. There are enumerable ordering systems that

have been developed to create some sense of order out of the chaos of reality. There

are ordering systems that decide what particular life form belongs to which species,

or to which architectural style a house belongs. Johannes Itten’s well known color

theory (Itten, 1970) is a good visual example of an ordering system. This is an

exemplar of how a theory of relationships between different sets of colors is used to

determine what colors ought to be put into relationships with one another to attain

desired effects. For instance colors are considered to be ‘complimentary’ when they

occupy opposite positions on this color wheel and therefore ought to be used

together for a pleasing effect.


17

The relations that are the center of attention in science are relations of similarities.

The designation and application of such relationships result in the creation of

categories, taxonomies and other methods of abstractly grouping things together or

making distinctions among them. Here you are admonished to not “mix apples and

oranges”. On the other hand the relations that are most interesting in design are

relationships of relative bearing, positioning, sequencing, timing and contrasting.

Relationship is a concept concerning proximities, influences, and communication.

These relations are how things are affected without being connected. In this case it

is permissible, even desirable, to mix apples and oranges.

Organizing systems identify the connections that are in place in observed assemblies

and systems or conceptualizes those needing to be put into place to make desired

functional assemblies or purposeful systems a reality. Connections between things,

organized in prescribed or desired ways, result in emergent properties that

transcend the properties of the elements themselves. For example, when two

different kinds of gas atoms—hydrogen and oxygen in this case—are put into a

prescriptive relationship and connected the property of ‘wetness’ emerges (see Fig.

9). When specific conditions are in place the property of wetness is revealed as

water, or ice, or snow (see Fig. 10). The same emergent processes can occur in a

variety of combinations of elements. For example a group of people in prescribed

relationships and connected with one another in certain combinations can result in

the emergent property of ‘community’.


18

hydrogen atom linked to oxygen atoms

Figure 9. Water Molecule: Emergent Property of ‘wetness’

Figure 10. Qualities of ‘wetness’: Water, Ice, Snow

3rd order mediation determines the rules of relationships and connections that

create ordering and organizing systems. The design of design activity using the

logics of systemics requires a ‘stepping back’ and a ‘stepping out’. Stepping back for


19

instance is observing the work of designers in order to critique and improve their

approaches to designing. Stepping out is a process of moving outside the given

boundaries and beyond the given rules governing protocols and assembly in

normative designing to redesign or design anew the rules for relationship building

and connection making. The spirit of this ‘game changing’ activity was captured in

part by Carse in the metaphor of finite and infinite games—playing ‘within’ the rules

and playing ‘with’ the rules (Carse, 1986). The 3rd order mediation resides in the

realm of Carse’s infinite games. Playing with the rules means playing with the

formation of protocols—forming the rules of relationship and connection.

Protocols form the essence and substance of the activity going on in the space ‘in-‐

between’ the elements of any systemic composition or assembly. Protocols are the

rules of relationship in prescriptive terms that control both structure and dynamic

processes. Very simple protocols can create very complex structures as well as

behaviors in systems. By focusing on the protocols and design of protocols, rather

than ondetailed relations or connections of a system, the designer can design for

extremely complex outcomes without needing to prescribe any dynamic complexity

in detail.

An example of extremely complex behavior emerging from simple protocols is the

flocking behavior of birds or schooling behavior of fish. These complex behaviors

have been simulated by computer models using very few protocol variables.


20

‘Flocking’ protocols of ‘boids’ (virtual objects in a computer simulation) simulate the

complex flocking behavior of real birds or schooling behavior of real fish. A

minimum of three protocols can recreate the complexity of birds flying in groups

(Renolds, 2012):

• Separation: steer to avoid crowding local flockmates

• Alignment: steer towards the average heading of local flockmates

• Cohesion: steer to move toward the average position of local flockmates

The challenge of course is how to go about designing protocols in the beginning so

that desired outcomes are achieved. Protocols play a seminal role in the process of

designing (Nelson and Stolterman, 2012). As mentioned earlier, design teams and

project cohorts are complex social systems that have been intentionally formed—i.e.

designed. These social systems like all systems are held together through

relationships and by connections. The relationships between the roles played by

individuals in a design project can be represented at a very basic level as binary

sets—the designer and the client for instance. These binary relationships are

animated by protocols with specific qualities. A protocol defined as an I-‐it

relationship between the designer and the customer in an artifactual design

situation, for example, designates an objective, rationalized relationship. A protocol

defined as an I-‐thou relationship designates a relationship of deep feelings and

emotion—including love.


21

An exemplary set of protocols in designing include the protocols formed between

designers and any of the others in roles that constitute the whole of a design project

team and constituent others—i.e. a design cohort (see Fig. 11). Expanding on the

previous examples, a protocols in place between the designer and the client might

be in the form of an I-‐You relationship that is defined by the contractual conditions

of agency. The protocol between the designers and customers might be one of I-‐

Them signifying a relationship that is modulated by legal concerns and economic

responsibility.

Figure 11. Example of Design Cohort ‘role-‐relationships’

The challenge is in defining how the rules of relationship ought to be determined—

3rd order mediation. So in the above example of the I-‐You protocol the rules for

defining a contractual relationship need to be determined from which the actual


22

protocols can be defined in terms of ordering and organizing systems—2nd order

mediation.

4th Order mediation includes humans as at least one of the elements or components

in a system of relations and connections that enable inquiry and learning to take

place. The individual is a complex cognitive system—multifaceted and multilayered

(see Fig. 12) postulated to conform to distinct personality types but primarily a

distinctly formed character and persona of selfhood. There is no unified ‘I’ or

coherent ‘self’ that objectively interrogates a rational and ordered world or that

subjectively interprets appearances and experiences. There is only an assembly of

complex cognitive relations and connections that is somehow managed by the

executive function of the mind to bring coherence to the inquiring and learning

experience. The unique individual is at least as complex as the systems she is

embedded in or is interacting with. This is obviously a challenge for designers

because of their contractual relations with others who are equally complex and form

the design teams and project cohorts. It is also a challenge because design teams and

project cohorts, as complex socio-‐technical systems, are thrown into a complex and

rapidly changing real world at the start of each new project (Weick, 2012). The

teams and cohorts are embedded in larger social and organizational systems

through networks of complex interrelations and interconnections.


23

Figure 12. Looking at the ‘Self’

The relationships and connections ‘in-‐between’ observers and observed things

determine what is or can be seen. Observation is not a mechanistically rational

process of transferring sensate data from object to subject. It is not a matter of

carefully collecting and recording objective data. The subject determines what is

seen as much as the object determine what can be seen. A paraphrased statement

attributed to the Vedas that “we do not see things as they are, but as we are” speaks

to the mitigating influence of the space in-‐between subject and object.

Relationships and connections determine the quality of observations and

interactions of the subject with the objective world. This is not a deterministic

process obviously since relationships and connections can be created or destroyed

through design action or modified by happenstance. Design activity within the in-‐

between space consists of acting to relate or interrelate and connect or interconnect


24

things when and where possible. Some relations and connections are beyond human

agency to change or even manage very well but there are an infinite number of other

possibilities open to design interventions.

The senses—seeing, feeling, hearing, tasting, touch et al—are all that individuals

have for mediating between them and the real world. The experience of the real

world—e.g. Umwelt (Gr): the world as it is experienced by a particular organism—is a

complex cognitive process (see Figures. 13, 14) and not the straightforward objective

process so often naively assumed to be the case. Never-the-less individuals are able to

‘learn’ about the real world—with the aid of methods, tools and instruments—to a level

that is sufficient to advance human understanding, technologic development and of

course design.

Figure 13. Mediation Between ‘Self’ and ‘Object’


25

Figure 14. Mediation Between ‘Self’ and ‘Other’

The real challenge of course is when the ‘other’ is ‘yourself’. Learning about ones self

is as difficult as any the 4th order mediations mentioned. It is necessary however

because one of the singularly most important design projects a designer ever faces

is the design of the designer—the design of a life.

Delimitating the constituent elements of any particular system is an act that

requires competence and courage in the same way as the determination of rules of

relationship and connections requires. It is an example of making up the rules of the

game as a matter of competent judgment rather than skillfully playing within a

prescribed set of rules (3rd order mediation). Such judgment making is not a matter


26

of doing what ever you want but is based on a highly developed level of competence

to make good judgments for the right purposes. Good design judgments are made

based on the logics of systemics as well as the generative insights of the design

imagination.

Learning is the outcome of a dialogue among the complex entities making up the

‘self’. The dialogue takes place whether it is a case of learning about oneself or about

ones understanding of reality. The dialogue is objective and subjective—both

rational and affective. During design learning, the dialogue—in the form of

imagination—takes place ‘between’ the selves and the ideal—i.e. the-‐not-‐yet-‐real

(see Figure. 15)

Figure 15. Mediation Between ‘Self’ and ‘Ideal’


27

Design is an approach that is driven by desiderata, capacitated by intension and

realized through intention (see Fig. 16). Design is a systemic stance assumed for pro-‐

action despite the constant misalignment of design with problem solving, which

misdirects and distorts the propitious impulses of designing. The systemic nature of

good design practice can assure that complexity, unpredictability and reactive

habits do not thwart the positive motivations of designing.

Figure 16. Systemic Design Stance

Those who are grounded in the scientific tradition of inquiry—i.e. the quest for

trustworthy truths and right answers—may be a bit impatient with a dialogue about

systemic design inquiry a crucial dialogue that explores the metaphysical,


28

interconnected and relational dimensions of a systemic approach to designing. A

systemic design dialogue carefully explores the nature of intensions, purposes and

outcomes of design inquiry—an outcome that is not rationally predetermined or

defined by prescriptive methods as embedded in panaceas. This dialogue looks into

systemic designing as inquiry for action. The logics of design are grounded in

systemics—the approach that is both pragmatic and reflective. Some of the reasons

for why such a dialogue is essential are:

• The world is becoming more complexly interconnected resulting in

increased global consequences for delimited design actions.

• There is a need for newer, more fully developed forms of design expertise

and competencies in order to meet surging complex global challenges and

entangling local expectations.

• There are no panaceas for dealing with unpredictable complex events.

Every design challenge is unique and systemic.

• The emerging expectations for design leadership require new perspectives

and approaches.

• Businesses, nonprofits, governmental agencies, institutions, military

organizations, civil society and communities are influencing and influenced

by one another which is redefining the boundaries of design roles.

• Designers are professionally and ethically responsible for defining actions

to create desired states of human affairs within complex environments in the

face of unpredictable events.


29

The decision needs to be made that designers will step up to the challenges of the

new anthropocene epoch transforming it into the ‘age of design’. Serious dialogue

needs to be initiated at every level of society with particular attention paid to design

education, scholarship and praxis. Design and systemics are inseparably entangled;

inextricably one and the same. Understanding systemics and its inseparability from

designing prepares us for design action in a complexly interconnected and

unpredictable world. It is the means and reason for making the decision to step up

with confidence.


30

References Ackoff, Russell. Towards a System of Systems. Management Science. Vol. 17, No. 11. July, 1971 Ackoff, Russell. Systems Thinking Graduate Course 2003 http://www.organizationaldynamics.upenn.edu/node/1825 Last accessed May 27, 2012 Carse, James P. Finite and Infinite Games: a Vision of Life as Play and Possibility. Ballantine Books, New York, NY, 1986 The Economist. The Anthropocene; A Man-made World. May 26, 2011 http://www.economist.com/node/18741749 Last accessed May 28, 2012 Itten, Johannes. The Art of Color: the Subjective Experience and the Objective Rationale of Color. Wily & Sons, 1970 Nelson, Harold G. and Erik Stolterman, The Design Way 2nd Ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2012 Reynolds, Craig. Boids. http://www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/ Last accessed May 27, 2012 Weik, Karl, Design for Throwness, Managing as Designing Ed. Richard J. Boland and Fred Collopy, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 2004

Documents

Systemics—the Logics of Design