Design Ltd.: Renovated Myths for the Development of Socially Embedded Technologies

This paper argues that traditional and mainstream mythologies, which have been continually told within the Information Technology domain among designers and advocators of conceptual modelling since the 1960s in different fields of computing sciences, could now be renovated or substituted in the mould of more recent discourses about performativity, complexity and end-user creativity that have been constructed across different fields in the meanwhile. In the paper, it is submitted that these discourses could motivate IT professionals in undertaking alternative approaches toward the co-construction of socio-technical systems, i.e., social settings where humans cooperate to reach common goals by means of mediating computational tools. The authors advocate further discussion about and consolidation of some concepts in design research, design practice and more generally Information Technology (IT) development, like those of: task-artifact entanglement, universatility (sic) of End-User Development (EUD) environments, bricolant/bricoleur end-user, logic of bricolage, maieuta-designers (sic), and laissez-faire method to socio-technical construction. Points backing these and similar concepts are made to promote further discussion on the need to rethink the main assumptions underlying IT design and development some fifty years later the coming of age of software and modern IT in the organizational domain.

💡 Research Summary

The paper opens by diagnosing a long‑standing “myth” in information technology design: that designers are omniscient architects who fully control a system, while end‑users are passive recipients of pre‑specified functionality. This myth, rooted in the 1960s and reinforced by a linear “requirements → design → implementation” view, has shaped both academic discourse and industrial practice for half a century. The authors argue that contemporary discourses of performativity, complexity theory, and end‑user creativity provide a more adequate lens for understanding socio‑technical systems today.

Three core concepts are introduced to replace the traditional myth. First, “task‑artifact entanglement” emphasizes that tasks and the artifacts that support them co‑evolve; design decisions are not made in isolation from use, but emerge together with work practices. This challenges the static separation of analysis and synthesis and foregrounds a dynamic, co‑construction process. Second, the authors claim a “universatility” of End‑User Development (EUD), suggesting that the capacity for users to modify, extend, or repurpose tools is not limited to niche domains (e.g., spreadsheets) but can be a universal affordance across organizations. To illustrate this, they borrow the notion of “bricolage” – the creative recombination of limited resources – and label users who engage in such practices as “bricoleurs.” Third, they reconceptualize the designer’s role as a “maieuta‑designer,” a facilitator who, like a Socratic midwife, draws latent knowledge from users through questioning rather than imposing pre‑determined solutions.

Building on these ideas, the paper proposes a “laissez‑faire” methodological stance: designers provide an initial scaffold but deliberately refrain from prescribing detailed structures, allowing users to continuously adapt and reorganize the system. This aligns with complexity theory’s view of self‑organization and is presented as a way to accelerate innovation, reduce resistance to change, and better accommodate the unpredictable nature of real‑world work.

The authors acknowledge that their proposals are largely conceptual and call for empirical validation. They outline a research agenda that includes: (1) case studies that trace task‑artifact entanglement in practice; (2) the development of platform‑level EUD environments that support universal bricolage; (3) concrete design processes that operationalize the maieuta‑designer role; and (4) quantitative and qualitative assessments of laissez‑faire approaches on performance, user satisfaction, and organizational adaptability.

Critically, while the paper offers a rich vocabulary for re‑thinking design myths, it falls short on methodological rigor. The lack of concrete examples, metrics, or longitudinal data makes it difficult to gauge the feasibility of “universal” EUD or the limits of a laissez‑faire stance in highly regulated or safety‑critical domains. Moreover, the boundaries between “bricolage” and “ad‑hoc improvisation” remain blurred, potentially leading to ambiguity in practice.

Nevertheless, the work makes a valuable contribution by foregrounding the co‑construction of socio‑technical systems, challenging the designer‑centric myth, and linking design theory to broader philosophical currents in performativity and complexity. It invites scholars and practitioners to rethink entrenched assumptions, experiment with more participatory, fluid design processes, and ultimately move toward technology that is shaped as much by its users as by its architects.