26TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING AND PRODUCT DESIGN EDUCATION

5-6 SEPTEMBER 2024, ASTON UNIVERSITY, BIRMINGHAM, UNITED KINGDOM

SYSTEMS THINKING IN DESIGN EDUCATION – THE

CASE STUDY OF MOBILITY AS A SERVICE
Jisun KIM1, Lyndon BUCK1, James PICKERING1, Joy McKAY2 and John PRESTON2
1Aston University, United Kingdom
2University of Southampton, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT
Designers are faced with more complex, environmental and societal challenges than ever before. Those
challenges require the ability to see how things are interrelated in the bigger picture and to analyse
multiple causes and effects, rather than working from a siloed point of view. Systems thinking is a strong
tool to enable designers and engineers to understand how an entire system works and how elements in
the system are interconnected.
This paper demonstrates an approach to systems thinking and an analytical tool that could be applied to
teaching future designers and engineers. This approach was used in the final year Advanced Design
Management module during the 2023/2024 academic year at Aston University. This paper introduces a
real-world Mobility as a Service (MaaS) trial that is implemented in the UK as a case study. It involves
highly complex socio-technical systems whose investigation requires systems thinking. Cognitive Work
Analysis (CWA), a systems level approaches, has been applied as part of the User-Centred Ecological
Interface Design (UCEID) process.
Guidance will be provided to facilitate students’ learning of an analytical tool for comprehensive system
analysis and modelling. The benefits of applying systems thinking in the design and development
processes of products and services based on a holistic understanding of the systems in which they are
incorporated will also be explained.
The knowledge generated in this work is expected to inform design educators to recognise the
importance of systems thinking. Ultimately, this will help them consider and apply systems thinking
successfully in their teaching of relevant subjects with the enhanced knowledge of a systems level
approach. This will facilitate future designers’ problem solving of complex issues.

Keywords: Systems thinking, User-Centred Design, Mobility as a Service (MaaS)

1 INTRODUCTION
Contemporary societies are facing increasingly complex challenges and often they could have a ripple
effect globally. Such challenges are “engineering system problems” that require cross-disciplinary effort
and input [1]. They are often viewed as wicked problems as it is almost impossible to identify a specific
cause or solution because the system components are highly interconnected. Systems thinking enables
the complexity to be more fully recognised and embraced when addressing such problems [2].
Modern engineered systems tend to be combinations of social and technical elements [3]. Those systems
are created to serve the users, rather than the technology itself, the users being one of the most important
factors that constitute the system [4, 5]. Therefore, this study focuses on an approach to investigating
complex sociotechnical systems as part of user-centred design whose primary aim is to maximise
usability of the designed elements. Despite the well-known benefits of systems thinking, it is challenging
to teach systems thinking and how to apply it in students’ learning activities due to increasing complexity
inherent in systems.
This study demonstrates an approach to facilitate students’ understanding about systems thinking and
their competency to use suitable approaches to their own learning. A real-world example of Mobility as
a Service (MaaS) has been used as a case study for which a trial is currently being conducted in the
Solent region of the UK.
The results of the study can produce benefits in the following manner. Teaching the systematic approach
and relevant analytical methods could boost students’ competence and confidence in applying systems

EPDE2024/1306
thinking in their studies and solving of problems that are often required in the context of highly complex
sociocultural demands [6].

2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Systems thinking
Systems thinking has recently gained a significant attention in education research. A greater emphasis
has been placed on systems thinking since the publication of the Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy [7],
[8]. Understandably, it has also been incorporated in many curriculums globally [8].
Systems thinking is the cognitive ability to perceive wholeness rather than parts and pieces and to
recognise the interconnections between elements in the system. It is suggested as being the ability to see
how and why the system is organised and for whom [9]. Similarly, it is defined as the ability to
comprehend “how an entire system works, how an action, change, or malfunction in one part of the
system affects the rest of the system”. It involves “judgement and decision-making; system analysis;
and systems evaluation as well as abstract reasoning about how the different elements of work process
interact” [10, 8].
Teaching systems thinking is important because complex systems have ambiguous boundaries that need
to be judged from an appropriate understanding about how systems interact with their surroundings.
Furthermore, once learners have a sufficient understanding about systemness, they are more likely to
experience a distinct change in their ways of thinking about the world as well as their lives [9].
Modern engineered systems such as smart cities, automated vehicles and emerging systems enabled by
artificial intelligence involve highly complex interactions among social and technical factors [3]. Those
socio-technical systems involve complex interactions between humans, machines and the environmental
elements of the work system. All those aspects should be considered when designing such systems [11].
Amongst those requirements, users’ needs should be prioritised in the design of the systems to ensure
usability of the systems. It is because the ultimate purpose of those systems is to serve the user, not to
use the technology itself [4, 5].
Relevant principles have been suggested with the purpose to help inform the development of socio-
technical systems in which user-centred design is incorporated as a key part. The focus is on the
understanding of users, their tasks, the environments and specification of the context in which the system
will be utilised [11, 5].

2.2 User-Centred Design

User-centred design processes suggest all the stages involved in a design and development life cycle.
Each stage requires a deep understanding of the user who will be utilising the product [12]. It analyses
potential users’ preferences and needs in the initial stage in order to maximise usability of the product
or service. It involves users to specify problems, to identify potential solutions and to generate inputs to
refine the design outcome through iterative processes [13, 14]. However, how user-centred design is
accomplished is left fairly open [5].
User Centred Ecological Interface Design (UCEID) suggests a novel method combined between user-
centred and systems level approaches. It enables comprehensive analysis of a complex system with a
focus on users’ needs, capabilities and limitations. One of the human factors’ methods that, is
incorporated in the UCEID process is Cognitive Work Analysis [15, 16].

2.3 Cognitive Work Analysis (CWA)

Cognitive work analysis (CWA) is a methodology for the analysis, design and assessment of complex
socio-technical systems. It has been used for various purposes, such as designing interfaces, decision
support systems and analysing training needs [17, 15, 18]. CWA consists of five phases of analysis, but
Work Domain Analysis (WDA), the first phase has been most commonly used [17]. The results are
presented in the form of an Abstraction Hierarchy (AH). It helps examine system constraints such as
physical objects, their functions and values related to the overall purpose of the system [15]. AH consists
of five levels of abstraction from the most abstract level, 1) ‘functional purpose’ to 2) ‘values and priority
measures’, 3) ‘purpose-related functions’, 4) ‘object-related processes’, to the most concrete level, 5)
‘physical objects’. Each level includes elements (nodes) correspond to the characteristics of the levels.
Nodes at different levels are linked by means-end links that presents the relationships between them
[15]. Nodes linked at the adjacent level immediately above explain why the functions are needed. Nodes
connected at the adjacent level immediately below show how the functions can be accomplished [19].

EPDE2024/1306
3 CASE STUDY
3.1 Mobility as a Service (MaaS)
MaaS is a relatively new mobility solution that aims to provide seamless transport that incorporates a
range of transport modes and associated services that aims to meet users’ travel needs through a single
digital interface [20]. Its core elements include real-time information for all modes available in the area,
technological integration to plan, book and pay to suit mobility needs [21]. It encourages people to use
more sustainable travel methods and reorganises transport to respond to sustainability challenges by
offering alternative to private car usage [22]. More societal benefits are expected as a result of wider
acceptance.
However, there are various challenges in designing MaaS in order to ensure the potential benefits are
fully realised. Although there have been successful MaaS trials, it is not easy to define an optimal version
of MaaS for a specific region. One of the main reasons is MaaS is significantly dependent upon the
characteristics of the existing transport systems [23]. In addition, a high level of integration of those
systems makes it even harder to determine the scope of design tasks and areas to focus on than when
designing a single system. This indicates that the successful design and implementation of MaaS need
holistic understandings of the current transport systems that could generate more practical design
considerations. This can be achieved through a systems level approach, rather than investigations that
concentrate on isolated elements of the systems or independent observations of social and technical
systems [19].

3.2 Implementation of Cognitive Work Analysis (CWA) – Work Domain Analysis

(WDA)
WDA was implemented to describe constraints in the MaaS system as part of the UCEID process.
Relevant constraints were identified from a user’s viewpoint and positioned at five different levels in
AH. For example, the system boundaries were defined with respect to the system as experienced by
users. For the development of the AH, information from various secondary and primary data were used.
They were sourced from government literature [24], academic literature [25], design workshop studies
[26, 27], participant observation studies and the Solent MaaS app usability testing studies [28] performed
for the project.
Nodes at each level were identified based on prompts as follows in the order of top to bottom levels.
They include: what are the fundamental goals of MaaS and why it exists (level 1); how well does the
system perform to accomplish the fundamental goals (level 2); what are the effects of affordances and
roles of physical objects in the system, and how do they have an impact on the user or how do they
benefit them (level 3); what are roles and functions of physical objects in the system (level 4); what are
any artificial, natural or physical components in the system that matter to the fundamental goals of MaaS
(level 5). An excerpt from the full AH developed for the project is given in Figure 1.
Insights are generated based on the interpretation of the AH as follows. The fundamental goals of MaaS
includes accessibility, sustainability, convenience and efficiency of transport (level 1). There are
multiple ways to achieve those goals, such as maximising financial and physical inclusivity, maximising
time efficiency of travel and increasing micromobility use as shown at level 2. However, due to space
constraint, this analysis will only focus on increase of public transport (PT) use as it is one of the most
sustainable methods of transport. PT use could be facilitated by all the nodes defined at level 3, that
include optimization of PT journey planning, ticketing and booking as well as travel cost. It could also
be encouraged by motivating people to help protect the environment and by recognizing the health
benefits of using PT. Nodes at level 4 and 5 represent how those purpose related functions identified at
level 3 could be attained. As shown in the AH, there are various physical objects that include payment
systems, mapping systems, traffic statistics and user analytics that enable those functions described at
the higher levels.
This analysis could be particularly useful for learners to understand the entire system that is under
analysis and to see how system elements are interconnected. It could also help them understand what
other elements that are linked directly or indirectly in the AH should be considered in their design in
order to maximise the desired impact of the products or services they are designing.

EPDE2024/1306
 1

Figure 1. Excerpt from Abstraction Hierarchy for MaaS for the Solent Mobility as a Service
Note: Means-end links connecting nodes at level 2 and 3 have been removed excluding those connecting
‘Increase of PT use’ marked in the red box and those at level 3 due to space constraint.

4 DISCUSSIONS
This section provides practical guidance on how to implement the systems level approach in teaching
that could support students’ learning about systems thinking. It also discusses how the application of
CWA techniques could facilitate students’ ability to practice systems thinking in their activities. This
method was applied in a small classroom environment for the final year Advanced Design Management
module during the 2023/2024 academic year. The students provided highly positive feedback. They
mentioned that the method helped them think about functions of the service elements being designed in
relation to the wider system. They also said that using the techniques enabled them to organise their
thoughts which can be beneficial to further develop their design ideas. They were surprised to see direct
and indirect relationships between elements discovered in the AH which they had not recognised before.
When applying the method, it is recommended to encourage students to apply a systems level approach
in their own projects by adopting the following steps. They were modified based on the Revell et al.’s
UCEID process [16]. These steps can be performed in one session or multiple session depending on how
familiarized students are with their own topic. First, once students have an initial idea on what products
or services they want to design (areas to focus), the context of design and aims of analysis need to be
defined. Second, a literature review on the topic can be conducted, including industry reports,
government reports, statistics and academic literature, depending on what is currently available in the
domain. Third, data collection can be performed through various methods that include technology
benchmarking, subject matter expert and user interviews as well as focus groups. Fourth, a systems-
level approach can be implemented, such as CWA–AH based on the secondary and primary data.
Explanations of the characteristics of each level in AH should be provided. It is recommended to
encourage students to generate prompts for each level that suit the context of their own topic. It is
because those prompts can inspire them to find relevant elements (such as physical elements, functions,
values) appropriate for each level more effectively from the collected data. It is easy to start from the

EPDE2024/1306
top level that explains the fundamental goals of the system, then to go to the bottom level that presents
physical objects in the system. Once the bottom level is completed, roles and affordances of those
physical objects can be identified and positioned at the adjacent level immediately above. Nodes at the
middle level could be established considering the impact of those roles and affordances on the user. The
second top level contains nodes that can explain how the ultimate goals of the system can be attained.
Fifth, once, elements (nodes) are appropriately positioned at each level, means-end links need to be
created between nodes at the adjacent level immediately above and below. It is important to guide
students to think about the interrelations of the elements they pay attention to (such as the product being
designed) with the elements that are directly or indirectly linked in the AH that can be done by reviewing
the nodes connected by means-end links. For instance, this activity could assist students to consider
alternative solutions, ripple effects or trade-offs between potential solutions. It is also advised to help
students identify how functions of the products and services being designed could be achieved by
reviewing nodes connected at the lower levels in the AH, and why those functions are needed to
accomplish the fundamental purpose of the system by analysing nodes connected at higher levels in the
AH.
These steps can be adopted in any stages of the design process, however it would be more beneficial to
apply in initial stages of design processes, such as the concept development stage. Holistic
understandings about the systems in which their product or services would operate will enable students
to consider a variety of possibilities in subsequent stages. In line with the principles of user-centred
design, this systematic approach can involve multiple iterations for optimisation of the design.

5 CONCLUSIONS
This study offers guidance in systems thinking and specific analytical techniques that could be applied
in design related learning activities. Such techniques are a systems level approach within the broader
context of user-centred design. A real-world case of MaaS was used as an example in which those
techniques (CWA–WDA in UCEID) were applied. The processes could minimise ambiguity related to
the identification of the system boundary and elements as well as their interconnections. Step-by-step
instructions have been provided that could be applied in teaching systems thinking and practical skills.
It is expected to facilitate students’ understanding the functions of the product or service they are
developing in relation to the entire systems.
Further work would involve teaching the approach detailed in this paper to an automotive specific
module. For this, the Multiphysics System Design module on the Future Vehicle Technologies MSc at
Aston University will be used during the 2024/2025 academic year. The teaching on the Multiphysics
System Design module currently involves the development of control algorithms for autonomous
vehicle operation, using the Roboworks Rosbot Plus TX robotic platform. Including the approach
detailed above will give the students a chance to design the Roboworks Rosbot Plus TX robotic platform
for a ‘real life’ operation/application.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was funded by the UK Department for Transport as part of the Solent Future Transport Zone
programme.

REFERENCES
[1] Dugan K. E., Mosyjowski E. A., Daly S.R. and Lattuca L. R. 2022. Systems thinking assessments
in engineering: A systematic literature review. Systems research and behavioural science, 39(4),
pp.840-866.
[2] Grewatsch S., Kennedy S. and Bansal P. 2023. Tackling wicked problems in strategic
management with systems thinking. Strategic Organisation, 21(3), pp.721-732.
[3] Heydari B., Szajnfarber Z., Panchal J., Cardin M. A., Holtta-Otto K., Kremer G. E. and Chen W.
eds., 2019. Analysis and design of sociotechnical systems.
[4] Norman D. A. 1986, Cognitive engineering. In D. A. Norman and S. W. Draper (eds) User
Centered Systems Design (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.).
[5] Gulliksen J., Göransson B., Boivie I., Blomkvist S., Persson J. and Cajander Å., 2003. Key
principles for user-centred systems design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(6), pp.397-409.
[6] Shanta S. and Wells J. G. (2022). T/E design-based learning: assessing student critical thinking
and problem-solving abilities. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(1),

EPDE2024/1306
 pp.267-285.
[7] American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
[8] Gilissen M. G., Knippels M. C. P. and van Joolingen W. R. 2020. Bringing systems thinking into
the classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 42(8), pp.1253-1280.
[9] Mobus G. E. 2018. Teaching systems thinking to general education students. Ecological
Modelling, 373, pp.13-21.
[10] National Research Council (NRC). (2010). Standards for K-12 engineering education? National
Academies Press.
[11] Baxter G. and Sommerville I. 2011. Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems
engineering. Interacting with computers, 23(1), pp.4-17.
[12] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006. User-Centred Design Basics. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington.
[13] Ortiz-Crespo B., Steinke J., Quirós C. F., van de Gevel J., Daudi H., Gaspar Mgimiloko M. and
van Etten J. 2021. User-centred design of a digital advisory service: enhancing public agricultural
extension for sustainable intensification in Tanzania. International Journal of Agricultural
Sustainability, 19(5-6), pp.566-582.
[14] Karat J. 1996. User centred design: quality or quackery? interactions, 3(4), pp.18-20.
[15] Vicente K. J. 1999. Cognitive work analysis: Toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-
based work. CRC press.
[16] Revell K. M., Langdon P., Bradley M., Politis I., Brown J. W., Thompson S., Skrypchuk L.,
Mouzakitis A. and Stanton N. A. 2021. UCEID–The Best of Both Worlds: Combining Ecological
Interface Design with User-Centred Design in a Novel Human Factors Method Applied to
Automated Driving. In Designing Interaction and Interfaces for Automated Vehicles (pp. 3-12).
CRC Press.
[17] Naikar N., Moylan A. and Pearce B. 2006. Analysing activity in complex systems with cognitive
work analysis: concepts, guidelines and case study for control task analysis. Theoretical Issues in
Ergonomics Science, 7(4), pp.371-394.
[18] Kim J., Madeira-Revell K. and Preston J. 2022. Promoting passenger behaviour change with
provision of occupancy information to help moderate train overcrowding: A cognitive work
analysis approach. Applied ergonomics, 104, p.103801.
[19] Stanton N. A., McIlroy R. C., Harvey C., Blainey S., Hickford A., Preston J. M. and Ryan B.
2013. Following the cognitive work analysis train of thought: exploring the constraints of modal
shift to rail transport. Ergonomics, 56(3), pp.522-540.
[20] Heikkilä S. 2014. Mobility as a service-a proposal for action for the public administration, case
Helsinki (master’s thesis).
[21] Arias-Molinares D. and García-Palomares J. C. 2020. The Ws of MaaS: Understanding mobility
as a service from a literature review. IATSS research, 44(3), pp.253-263.
[22] Pangbourne K., Stead D., Mladenović M. and Milakis D. 2018. The case of mobility as a service:
A critical reflection on challenges for urban transport and mobility governance. In Governance of
the smart mobility transition (pp. 33-48). Emerald Publishing Limited.
[23] Papaioannou G., Polydoropoulou A., Tsirimpa A. and Pagoni I. 2022. Assessing the Potential of
“Mobility as a Service” in Passenger Maritime Transport. Frontiers in Future Transportation, 2, p.710311.
[24] Department for Transport 2022. Consultation on mobility as a service code of practice.
[25] Pritchard J. 2022. MaaS to pull us out of a car-centric orbit: Principles for sustainable Mobility-
as-a-Service in the context of unsustainable car dependency. Case Studies on Transport Policy,
10(3), pp.1483-1493.
[26] Kim J., Howarth H., Richardson J. and Preston J. 2023. User-Centred Generation of Early-
Concept Mobility-as-a-Service Interface Designs Aimed at Promoting Greener Travel. Intelligent
Human Systems Integration (IHSI 2023): Integrating People and Intelligent Systems, 69(69).
[27] Richardson J., Kim J., Howarth H. and Preston J. 2023. The Iconography of Mobility as a Service
(MaaS)-A Focus Group Study. Intelligent Human Systems Integration (IHSI 2023): Integrating
People and Intelligent Systems, 69(69).
[28] Howarth H., Richardson J., Kim J. and Preston J. 2022. Interface usability evaluation of mobility
apps aimed at inclusive design. Chartered Institute of Ergonomics & Human Factors, 11(04),
pp.23-12.

EPDE2024/1306