Helen Walters, talking about Jay Doblin’s Seven Levels of Design, muses that

... it means that 35 years ago, designers were thinking about increasing their scope from object to system, about how to elevate themselves from beyond providing the superficial aesthetic appeal of a product to considering its strategic consequences, even its point of existence. And honestly I think it’s telling and somewhat depressing that we’re still struggling with this whole discussion today.

I'm not sure that this is either telling or depressing.

Hypotheses: We're still talking about this because...

1. It's not formalized: Designers don't have a strong orientation towards theory in the same way that psychologists or social scientists do. (They don't have an academic press remotely comparable to the social sciences.) They don't have a sense of history beyond that of famous products, designers or design schools. So they treat each new cycle of systems thinking resurgence as a new phenomenon. See #3.

2. It's not taught: Creative / frame-shifting problem solving isn't broadly taught or encouraged, and share-price driven corporate life incentivises very narrow behavior. A regular corporate person isn't particularly going to need to (or be asked to) think in terms of several levels of systems of solutions; even if they do, strict hierarchies will disable them from following a multi-lateral solution.

3. It doesn't belong anywhere: We don't understand it, and we think this is a feature of design thinking. Or business thinking. Or systems thinking. Or...

{ The instance provided isn't generalizable (though I'm guessing that wasn't the intent). It's also not the oldest instance of thinking in terms of systems; Stafford Beer was thinking about *and doing* multiple levels of design in the early 1970s. He in turn built up his ideas based on cybernetics work in the 50's and 60's, ecological theory from the same period (e.g. Gregory Bateson) and so on. This is the same period the Gaia theory came into vogue, and the Council of Rome was modeling the limits to Earthsystem growth. It's also when the Creative Problem Solving body of work was established. }

This isn't the sole privilege of designers, and they're certainly not the first or only people to attempt this. That's also why it's hard to draw boundaries around thinking in levels and systems, and to situate it in a discipline. Thus, because it belongs everywhere, it belongs to no one and no one takes responsibility for thinking this way. And in the corporate space it becomes the domain of lone thinkers who may or may not be able to theorize this and publish about it broadly, and to move the conversation along.

4. This is the fastest we can move along: Our understanding of systems thinking progresses apace with our ability to construct systems. As we get better at producing systems (think of the shift from 'social network' to 'social layer', and the borrowing of terms like 'API' into service design), we also come up with concepts that fit our shifting practice. In one sense, we just don't possess the collective cognitive capacity to do sophisticated systems thinking just yet. It's just going to take time.

5. Corollary: We'll always be talking about this. It's possible that systems thinking is an emergent, shifting practice. Each era gets the systems thinking it deserves (or is capable of.) As systems become more complex and our ability to intentionally shape them evolves, it's possible that there will always be some kinds of systems or some aspects of system design that we won't have sufficiently powerful or descriptive concepts for at the time.

This suggests a different learning orientation than one that assumes that design thinking has basically got it; we may not be nearing (or even be heading towards) a pinnacle of design thinking knowledge, instead being part of a progression of understanding.

If you're a design professional with aspirations to fame, greatness, and massive impact, take a few doses of humility. There's a lot to learn here.