>If you think using Design Thinking goes against Systems Thinking

No, not against. One is a subset of the other. but you are free to prove me wrong.

> likely doesn't offer any advantage over the standard tool?

The process in itself has value. Are you sure about the meaning of epistemological?

> No, not against. One is a subset of the other. but you are free to prove me wrong.

So what do you mean by "Design Thinking does with its sole existence what Systems Thinking tried to avoid"?

> Are you sure about the meaning of epistemological?

Yes, but I'm not sure why you think it's relevant here.

	▲	gond an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> So what do you mean by "Design Thinking does with its sole existence what Systems Thinking tried to avoid"? It’s its approach to Systems. Take the 5 stages. Why 5, not 10 or 3? Why stages at all? Who’s to say? Why not enable people to create stages themselves and run from there? Or whatever fits their business. Why not teach methodology instead of method? >I'm not sure why you think it's relevant here. I can only repeat myself: The value is in the process of inquiry itself. Systems Theory is not a set of methods. It is an epistemological based theory and requires a shift in how a person perceives reality, the often cited worldview. How do you know what you know? By assuming 5 stages? Is that objectively induced? What happens to that if looking through the lens of radical constructivism? The theory requires to incorporate multiple worldviews and with that, negates the assumption of an objective truth.