alt Hacker News> 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.
So your argument is don't use an off the shelf tool (5 stages) that gets the job done, build your own tool (10 or 3 or none) every time which likely doesn't offer any advantage over the standard tool?
I don't think you really get either Design Thinking or Systems Thinking.
What you are talking about here is not Systems Thinking, which is a particular approach to understanding complex problems by viewing everything as systems of systems. Design Thinking is a methodology for approaching the design process, which is quite orthogonal to whether or not you employ Systems Thinking. The more general field of trying to understand how we determine whether something is true and what it means for it to be true is the field of epistemology; "epistemological based theory" is a meaningless description, like "philosophical based worldview".