Hi Erik,

Remember the old days of graphic design? Remember Letraset and rubbing
scalpel-cut slivers of coloured sheets of transparency onto a backing paper?
Remember the kinds of designs that used to be produced that were based on
these tools? Remember when Adobe allowed one to use a transparent view of a
graphic within a letter outline and suddenly all web pages had letter
outlines that were windows into photographs... The type of creative design
output that designers produce is dominated by the technical tools of
designers  - far more than the illusion that designers are 'intrinsically
creative'.

You wrote:
"those tools have to be incorporated in a designerly process of design
inquiry and action as I described in an earlier post. It can not be the
other way around, that is, that the scientific tools and methods become
superior to the designerly process since then the process is by definition
not design anymore."

I'm suggesting the situation is different - that the use of new tools to
address complex design situations will radically transform current design
processes. I'm suggesting that design practices and design processes will
need to dramatically change from what is taught and practiced now if
designers are to design well in complex arenas. These radical changes in how
designing will be taught and practiced are a natural need and consequence of
using the new tools to understand complex situations.

For many designers this idea the design practice and process are dependent
on tools designers use is not a new idea. For example, for product designers
it is obvious that the availability of 3D drawing tools well adapted to
plastic molding techniques (in SolidWorks for e.g.) resulted in different
design processes from those that preceded.

The complex design issue is the same change on steroids because it also
addresses a deep-seated limitation in designers ability to think and at the
same time resolves a lot of the problems of collaborative design. It is also
a case of The future is already here - it is just unevenly distributed'
(Gibson). Designers and design researchers in other fields were seeing this
40 years or more ago. I've attached a short snippet from Forrester's writing
in the late 1960s  about design that involves people both as users and
collaborators in the design process in complex social design. He draws
attention to the design weakness caused by the inconsistencies,
incompleteness and transient nature of designers' mental models and the gap
between what designers think will happen and what does happen, and argues a
different form of design process is revealed by using complex system design
tools.  

Best wishes,
Terry

========== J. W. Forrester - based on testimony for the
Subcommittee on Urban Growth of the Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S.
House of
Representatives, on October 7, 1970.

Social systems are far more complex and harder to understand than
technological systems. Why then do we not use the same approach of making
models of social systems and conducting laboratory experiments before
adopting
new laws and government programs? The customary answer assumes that our
knowledge of social systems is not sufficient for constructing useful
models.

But what justification can there be for assuming that we do not know
enough to construct models of social systems but believe we do know enough
to
directly redesign social systems by passing laws and starting new programs?
I
suggest that we now do know enough to make useful models of social systems.

Conversely, we do not know enough to design the most effective social
policies
directly without first going through a model-building experimental phase.

Substantial supporting evidence is accumulating that proper use of models of
social systems can lead to far better systems, laws, and programs.
Realistic laboratory models of social systems can now be constructed. Such
models are simplifications of actual systems, but computer models can be far
more
comprehensive than the mental models that would otherwise be used.

Before going further, please realize that there is nothing new in the use of
models to represent social systems. Each of us uses models constantly. Every
person in private life and in business instinctively uses models for
decision
making. The mental images in one's head about one's surroundings are models.
One's head does not contain real families, businesses, cities, governments,
or
countries. One uses selected concepts and relationships to represent real
systems.
A mental image is a model. All decisions are taken on the basis of models.
All
laws are passed on the basis of models. All executive actions are taken on
the
basis of models. The question is not to use or ignore models. The question
is
only a choice among alternative models.

Mental models are fuzzy, incomplete, and imprecisely stated. Furthermore,
within a single individual, mental models change with time, even during the
flow
of a single conversation. The human mind assembles a few relationships to
fit the
context of a discussion. As debate shifts, so do the mental models. Even
when
only a single topic is being discussed, each participant in a conversation
employs a
different mental model to interpret the subject. Fundamental assumptions
differ
but are never brought into the open. Goals are different but left unstated.
It is little wonder that compromise takes so long. And even when consensus
is reached, the underlying assumptions may be fallacies that lead to laws
and
programs that fail. The human mind is not adapted to understanding correctly
the
consequences implied by a mental model. A mental model may be correct in
structure and assumptions but, even so, the human mind--either individually
or as
a group consensus--is apt to draw the wrong implications for the future.

Inability of the human mind to use its own mental models becomes clear
when a computer model is constructed to reproduce the assumptions contained
in a
person's mental model. The computer model is refined until it fully agrees
with
the perceptions of a particular person or group. Then, usually, the system
that has
been described does not act the way the people anticipated. There are
internal
contradictions in mental models between assumed structure and assumed future
consequences. Ordinarily assumptions about structure and internal governing
policies are more nearly correct than are the assumptions about implied
behavior.
By contrast to mental models, system dynamics simulation models are
explicit about assumptions and how they interrelate. Any concept that can be
clearly described in words can be incorporated in a computer model.
Constructing
a computer model forces clarification of ideas. Unclear and hidden
assumptions
are exposed so they may be examined and debated. 
The primary advantage of a computer simulation model over a mental
model lies in the way a computer model can reliably determine the future
dynamic
consequences of how the assumptions within the model interact with one
another.
==== Full text available
http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/Roadmaps/RM1/D-4468-2.pdf