Explore the vast range of titles available.

User experience doesn't happen on a screen; it happens in the mind, and the experience is multidimensional and multisensory. This practical book will help you uncover critical insights about how your customers think so you can create products or services with an exceptional experience. Corporate leaders, marketers, product owners, and designers will learn how cognitive processes from different brain regions form what we perceive as a singular experience. Author John Whalen shows you how anyone on your team can conduct \"contextual interviews\" to unlock insights. You'll then learn how to apply that knowledge to design brilliant experiences for your customers.

Traditionally, systems thinking support has relied on an ever-increasing plethora of systems tools, methods, and approaches. Arguably though, such support requires something different from, and more accessible than, detailed instruction on somewhat abstract laws and detailed principles and/or constitutive rules associated with conventional systems approaches or systems ‘tools of the trade’. For busy managers and decision makers working in often-stressful conditions, what is perhaps more valued are simple principles for enabling systems thinking in practice. Such principles should acknowledge and build on existing (multi)disciplinary skill sets and expertise, allowing for more meaningful interdisciplinary support amongst professions, as part of a nested transdisciplinary support for addressing wider social challenges. This monograph offers three principles of systems thinking in practice (STiP): relational STiP, perspective STiP, and adaptive STiP. They each have two sets of operational principles applicable to first-order and second-order practice, respectively. The three general principles are nested in an overriding principle of STiP as praxis (theory-informed action or thinking in practice) manifest in the need for being both systemic and systematic. The three principles represent a distilled expression of a systematic literacy of systems thinking, a literacy that speaks to the systemic sensibilities of Inter-relationships, Perspectives, and Boundaries (sometimes referred collectively as IPB), associated with any area of intervention. Drawing on metaphors of bricolage, conversation, and performance, and building on philosophical foundations of boundary critique, the three principles provide for a requisite systems literacy (as an emergent property of systemic sensibilities and systems thinking literacy) for enabling appropriate STiP capabilities to flourish when making a meaningful change.

This paper explores the question of what systems thinking adds to the field of global health. Observing that elements of systems thinking are already common in public health research, the article discusses which of the large body of theories, methods, and tools associated with systems thinking are more useful. The paper reviews the origins of systems thinking, describing a range of the theories, methods, and tools. A common thread is the idea that the behavior of systems is governed by common principles that can be discovered and expressed. They each address problems of complexity, which is a frequent challenge in global health. The different methods and tools are suited to different types of inquiry and involve both qualitative and quantitative techniques. The paper concludes by emphasizing that explicit models used in systems thinking provide new opportunities to understand and continuously test and revise our understanding of the nature of things, including how to intervene to improve people’s health.

Background Health systems science (HSS) education is an increasingly important component of undergraduate medical education. Despite curricular advances, the ways in which clinicians implement health systems science knowledge in everyday clinical practice, health systems thinking, remains understudied. A better understanding of how clinicians engage in health systems thinking to address everyday problems in clinical contexts is needed. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 expert clinicians experienced in undergraduate medical education, health systems science, and curriculum development to identify components of competent health systems thinking. Interview questions were informed by ecological systems theory and literature on learning professional competencies. Results Through interviews with experts, we have come to define health systems thinking (HST) as “an approach to solving problems in healthcare systems that utilizes a deeper understanding of interconnections and behavior of the entire system. As a skill, it coordinates the application of clinical and HSS knowledge and skills toward solving a contextual problem in the healthcare environment.” Clinician comments support the idea that HST is a metacognitive process rather than a specific subset of knowledge domains or affective attributes. This process requires that clinicians understand and navigate pressures on patient care originating from surrounding meso- and macro-systems. Conclusions Medical students require more explicit exposure to HSS knowledge being implemented in clinical environments, and varied examples highlighting how meso- and macro-system patterns can impact individual patient care. This metacognitive integration of HSS knowledge into everyday clinical practice is critical for preparing medical students to meet the requirements of the accreditation council for graduate medical education (ACGME) core competencies in residency programs. Health systems thinking requires a method of operational assessment to provide students feedback and highlight targeted interventions for further development.

研究旨在透過文獻分析，回顧過去國外科學教育領域中的系統思考能力相關研究，歸納其適用年級與學科、系統思考能力分析架構，以及評量與教學的趨勢並提出建議。研究者於SCOPUS與Web of Science資料庫搜尋2000年到2019年的英文期刊論文，經有系統篩選後，針對20篇文章進行分析。分析結果發現，系統思考的研究對象以國、高中生為主，有些研究以小學生為對象，其學習成效主要在基礎系統思考能力的獲得。涉及的學科領域則以生態、生物以及地科最為常見，所回顧的文獻中並沒有應用於物理領域，顯示系統思考並非適合融入所有自然科學領域。對於系統思考能力的分析架構，共可歸納出組件連結模式、階層發展模式、複雜系統模式及內容導向模式等四種類型。在系統思考量測方法上許多研究採多元評量，最常被採用的是開放性試題與晤談。至於教學策略，許多研究都採取了多元的教學活動，且多半包含知識統整活動，部分研究則採用電腦模擬進行教學。由於文獻中已有較為完整的系統思考能力分析架構，未來建議可以進行學習進程或是縱貫性研究，並將資訊科技應用於系統思考評量上。最後，我們對系統思考在教學與評量的實務建議包含有：教學上應優先嘗試初階的組件連結模式；教學方法則以明示教學法協助學生建立系統思考概念鷹架、嘗試採用多元的活動設計、引進科技輔助以及引導學生廣泛地將系統思考應用於各種生活情境中；評量方面則是建議以概念圖、概念繪圖及概念填空題進行，容易實施且能獲得較多訊息。 The aim of this research was to review past empirical studies about systems thinking in science education in order to understand the applied grade levels and subject areas, the analytical framework for systems thinking, and its trends in teaching and assessment. We searched for research articles published from 2000 to 2019 in the SCOPUS and Web of Science database and found 20 qualified studies. The results showed that most studies were conducted at junior high schools and senior high schools. Some studies were conducted at the elementary school level and found gains in fundamental competence of systems thinking. The most frequently applied subject areas were ecology, biology, and earth science. In this review, no studies applied systems thinking in physics. This indicates that systems thinking might not be suitable for all subject areas of science. In terms of the analytical framework for systems thinking, different studies invented different frameworks. The common features of the systems thinking framework include components recognition, as well as the mutual interactions and influence of different components. Regarding assessment for systems thinking, some studies used multiple assessments, and the most commonly used types of assessments were open-ended questions and interviews. Many studies adopted a variety of teaching activities and included knowledge integration activities. Some studies also used computer simulations to support learning. For future research, we suggest investigating the learning progression of systems thinking or conducting longitudinal studies by applying the available analytical framework of systems thinking. Future studies can also apply computer technology in the assessment of systems thinking. Finally, we offer some specific suggestions for teaching and assessments of systems thinking.

The first book to address the underlying premises of systems integration and how to exposit them into a practical and productive manner, this book prepares systems managers and systems engineers to consider their decisions in light of systems integration metrics. The book addresses two questions: Is there a way to express the interplay of human actions and the result of system interactions of a product with its environment, and are there methods that combine to improve the integration of systems? The systems integration theory and integration frameworks proposed in the book tie General Systems Theory with practice.

Concept map (CM) is introduced as a useful tool for studying students’ system thinking (ST). However, it is more known to represent students’ knowledge of system components and organization and less recognized as a tool to examine and enhance students’ understanding about the underlying causal mechanisms in complex systems. In this study, through a mixed method approach, we investigated the potential of CM in demonstrating undergraduate students’ (n = 173) ST. We also conducted a comparative analysis to examine the effects of different scaffolding on developing students’ ST skills. Through a theoretical framework of causal patterns, we present a new perspective on what CM reveals about students’ ST and what are its limitations in showing system complexities. The results indicated that CM can provide a platform for students to practice causal mechanisms such as domino, mutual, relational, and cyclic causalities, and accordingly, work as a tool for teachers to examine students’ knowledge of such mechanisms. The results also showed that students improved in demonstrating ST by CM when they were scaffolded for showing causal mechanisms and building CM. Eventually, this study concludes that the CM is a highly relevant tool to increase and examine students’ ST skills. To this end, we found it is important to explicitly teach students about causal patterns and guide them to construct CM with an emphasis on showing the interconnection among concepts.

This research aims to establish how systems thinking (ST) can be used to develop firm competitive capabilities (CC) and improve firm performance (FP). The focus is on ST applications in the South African information and communications technology (ICT) industry. The methodology includes Structural text condensation of relevant literature combined with interviews involving a selection of participants. From the analysis, some of the key findings are that ST enables the firm to contextualize itself in the wider systems environment, which results in improvements in FP. The research stream is specifically on soft ST and its contribution to improvements in firm CC and FP. This research creates an opportunity for further research into how soft ST can be leveraged in delivering firm CC and improvements in FP. The theoretical contribution made in this paper is exploring the relationship/linkage between the different concepts of soft ST, CC and FP.

DSRP Theory is now over 25 years old with more empirical evidence supporting it than any other systems thinking framework. Yet, it is often misunderstood and described in ways that are inaccurate. DSRP Theory describes four patterns and their underlying elements—identity (i) and other (o) for Distinctions (D), part (p) and whole (w) for Systems (S), action (a) and reaction (r) for Relationships (R), and point (ρ) and view (v) for Perspectives (P)—that are universal in both cognitive complexity (mind) and material complexity (nature). DSRP Theory provides a basis for systems thinking or cognitive complexity as well as material complexity (systems science). This paper, as a relatively short primer on the theory, provides clarity to those wanting to understand DSRP and its implications.

Since the approval of the Agenda 2030, researchers and policy makers have pointed out the need to understand interactions among the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—suggesting that progress or the lack of progress toward one goal will affect other goals through systemic interactions, producing synergies and trade-offs. However, most of the methods used to account for these interactions rely on hard systems thinking approaches, which are limited by the absence of needed data below national levels. Moreover, a general lack of data also constrains the scope of analysis to the 17 Goals, ignoring their 169 underlying targets. Given these challenges, we report on an experiment using an example of a soft systems thinking methodology: the SDG Synergies approach, which is based not only on available information but also on the elicitation of stakeholder and expert opinions. Thus, the approach allows for analysis of target-to-target interactions at subnational scales. The study, the first of its kind, assessed interactions at two scales: the national level in Colombia and the subnational level in the department of Antioquia. The results reveal profound differences between the two scales, suggesting that national-scale analysis of SDG interlinkages is not certain to capture local-level realities. The findings raise important issues for understanding and managing cross-scale interactions. Our work suggests that soft systems thinking is more appropriate for assessing SDG interactions because such an approach lends itself to conducting target-level analysis at various scales in the face of limited data availability.