My paper explores the potential of systemic design (SD) in technological governance. On the one hand, SD faces big shifts in the nature of competition, cost, costs, complexity, and consensus that are heightened in the technology domain. On the other, a latent embodiment, embeddedness, and entwinement in methodologies and methods of doing things. They challenge methodological aspects of systems thinking that are less relevant to today’s complex (ex-)changes.
The call for SD in technological governance could enrich its practice. This would mean a focus on boundary framing and new learnings from microservices. I outline core concepts and facts and how they provide new inroads into complexity. Real design is a set of inquiries that emerges from refreshed tensions between critique and maps in sensemaking, and structure and dispersion in orchestrating resources.
In the end, my focus shifts to SD and technology and why these matter. I hope my paper can be a starting point for more responses to Borras and Edler’s (2020) call. It is important that SD expand its transdisciplinary foundations and domains, dialogue with technology, move from technologies of past to present, and enable new modes of design through refreshed tensions.
Keywords: boundary framing, governance, microservices, systemic design, technology