IJAT Vol.17 No.2 pp. 183-193
doi: 10.20965/ijat.2023.p0183

Research Paper:

Utilization Method and Effect Evaluation of Systems Thinking in Future Design: Comparative Analysis of Policy-Making Workshops in Local Governments

Yutaka Nomaguchi*,† ORCID Icon, Ryotaro Senoo*, Shinya Fukutomi**, Keishiro Hara*** ORCID Icon, and Kikuo Fujita* ORCID Icon

*Department of Mechanical Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka University
2-1 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan

Corresponding author

**Division of Mechanical, Materials and Manufacturing Science, School of Engineering, Osaka University
Suita, Japan

***Center for Future Innovation, Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka University
Suita, Japan

May 31, 2022
December 12, 2022
March 5, 2023
future design, policymaking, carbon neutral, causal loop diagram, text mining

The Future Design (FD) workshop (FDWS) is a discussion framework based on FD. The aim of FD is to activate a human trait called futurability, considering the preferences of future generations. Previous FD practices with the theme of policy-making in local governments have demonstrated this possibility. However, creating concrete proposals might depend on workshop participants’ abilities and emotions to perceive future society. By comparing two case studies, this study examines the effects of a method for utilizing a causal loop diagram (CLD), a tool for systems thinking, in FDWS to systematically draw the future society and activate discussions among the participants. CLD is a qualitative system model that helps identify the factors that lead to systemic problems and analyze the guidelines for solving them. Its effects on the performance of the FDWS discussion activity are evaluated. They are quantified by text mining analysis using participants’ remark records. Two case studies conducted at policy-making workshops in the local governments of Japan are examined. One is the FDWS in Kyoto City which adopted the proposed CLD utilization method, and the other is the FDWS in Suita City without CLD. The comparative analysis demonstrates that the proposed method makes the discussion livelier, less divergent, and more developed in the FDWS.

Cite this article as:
Y. Nomaguchi, R. Senoo, S. Fukutomi, K. Hara, and K. Fujita, “Utilization Method and Effect Evaluation of Systems Thinking in Future Design: Comparative Analysis of Policy-Making Workshops in Local Governments,” Int. J. Automation Technol., Vol.17 No.2, pp. 183-193, 2023.
Data files:
  1. [1] T. Saijo, “Future design – Bequeathing sustainable natural environments and sustainable societies to future generations,” Sustainability, Vol.12, No.16, 6467, 2020.
  2. [2] K. Hara, Y. Kitakaji, H. Sugino, R. Yoshioka, H. Takeda, Y. Hizen, and T. Saijo, “Effects of experiencing the role of imaginary future generations in decision-making: a case study of participatory deliberation in a Japanese town,” Sustainability Science, Vol.16, No.3, pp. 1001-1016, 2021.
  3. [3] J. D. Sterman, “Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World,” The McGraw-Hill, 2000.
  4. [4] K. Hara, Y. Nomaguchi, S. Fukutomi, M. Kuroda, K. Fujita, Y. Kawai, M. Fujita, and T. Kobashi, “Policy Design by ‘Imaginary Future Generations’ with Systems Thinking – A Practice by Kyoto City towards Decarbonization in 2050,” 2022.
  5. [5] K. Hara, M. Naya, Y. Kitakaji, M. Kuroda, and Y. Nomaguchi, “Changes in Perception and the Effects of Personal Attributes on Decision-making as Imaginary Future Generations – Evidence from Participatory Environmental Planning,” RIETI Discussion Paper Series, 2022.
  6. [6] Y. Nakagawa, K. Hara, and T. Saijo, “Becoming Sympathetic to the Needs of Future Generations – A Phenomenological Study of Participation in Future Design Workshops,” Working Papers SDES-2017-4, School of Economics and Management, Kochi University of Technology, 2017.
  7. [7] Y. Nakagawa, K. Kotani, M. Matsumoto, and T. Saijo, “Intergenerational retrospective viewpoints and individual policy preferences for future: A deliberative experiment for forest management,” Futures, Vol.105, pp. 40-53, 2019.
  8. [8] Y. Nakagawa, R. Arai, K. Kotani, M. Nagano, and T. Saijo, “Intergenerational retrospective viewpoint promotes financially sustainable attitude,” Futures, Vol.114, 102454, 2019.
  9. [9] N. Videira, F. Schneider, F. Sekulova, and G. Kallis, “Improving understanding on degrowth pathways: An exploratory study using collaborative causal models,” Futures, Vol.55, pp. 58-77, 2014.
  10. [10] V. Coletta, A. Pagano, I. Pluchinotta, U. Fratino, A. Scrieciu, F. Nanu, and R. Giordano, “Causal Loop Diagrams for supporting Nature Based Solutions participatory design and performance assessment,” J. of Environmental Management, Vol.280, 111668, 2021.
  11. [11] A. Carlsson-Kanyama, K. H. Dreborg, H. Moll, and D. Padovan, “Participative backcasting: A tool for involving stakeholders in local sustainability planning,” Futures, Vol.40, No.1, pp. 34-46, 2008.
  12. [12] J. Holmberg and K.-H. Robert, “Backcasting – a framework for strategic planning,” Int. J. of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, Vol.7, No.4, pp. 291-308, 2000.
  13. [13] Y. Okada, Y. Kishita, Y. Nomaguchi, T. Yano, and K. Ohtomi, “Backcasting-Based Method for Designing Roadmaps to Achieve a Sustainable Future,” IEEE Trans. on Engineering Management, Vol.69, No.1, pp. 168-178, 2022.
  14. [14] R. Phaal, “Technology roadmapping – A planning framework for evolution and revolution,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol.71, Nos.1-2, pp. 5-26, 2004.
  15. [15] M. Hussain, E. Tapinos, and L. Knight, “Scenario-driven roadmapping for technology foresight,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol.124, pp. 160-177, 2017.
  16. [16] D. Renmans, N. Holvoet, and B. Criel, “Combining theory-driven evaluation and causal loop diagramming for opening the ‘black box’ of an intervention in the health sector: A case of performance-based financing in Western Uganda,” Int. J. of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol.14, No.9, 1007, 2017.
  17. [17] C. Guo, P. Shea, and X. Chen, “Investigation on graduate students’ social presence and social knowledge construction in two online discussion settings,” Education and Information Technologies, Vol.27, No.2, pp. 2751-2769, 2022.
  18. [18] E. Mizukami, I. Morimoto, K. Suzuki, H. Ootsuka, K. Takeuchi, J. Toshin, M. Okumura, and H. Kashioka, “Evaluation method of communication processes in discussions,” Proc. of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Association for Natural Language Processing, pp. 181-184, 2008 (in Japanese).
  19. [19] G. Pahl, W. Beitz, J. Feldhusen, and K. H. Grote, “Engineering Design – A Systematic Approach, 3rd Ed.,” Springer, London, 2007.
  20. [20] T. Brown, “Change by Design – How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation,” Harper Business, 2009.
  21. [21] R. Feldman and J. Sanger, “The Text Mining Handbook,” Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  22. [22] E. Segev, “Textual network analysis: Detecting prevailing themes and biases in international news and social media,” Sociology Compass, Vol.14, No.4, e12779, 2020.
  23. [23] M. Fukui and H. Abe, “The graphic interpretation of the co-occurrence network diagram in a different writing style,” J. of Graphic Science of Japan, Vol.47, No.4, pp. 3-9, 2013 (in Japanese).
  24. [24] Y. Ohmoto, Y. Toda, K. Ueda, and T. Nishida, “Analyses of the facilitating behavior by using participant’s agreement and nonverbal behavior,” J. of Information Processing, Vol.52, No.12, pp. 3659-3670, 2011 (in Japanese).
  25. [25] User Local, “AI Text Mining.” [Accessed April 20, 2022]

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Jul. 12, 2024