After the Chalmers workshop we had a discussion on the usefulness of systems concepts that were defined in other systems frameworks that are more on the hard side of systems thinking, like from systems dynamics and systems analyses
One of them is leverage points. Personally I find this term of Leverage Points very difficult to use and it is more fitted to a technical or systems analytical or systems dynamics way of thinking than Systems Oriented Design. I also find the causal model where everything is defined in variables and the relations are defined as negative or positive quite restricting and limited. We are working on a list of relations types which will be published when more mature. It shows that not all relations make sense to be represented with nodes and arrows.
I think the terms we used: points of potential, intervention, innovation, zoompoints etc are more explicit and easier to work with when "freestyling" GIGA-maps. But we should off course use it when we think it is useful.
We are in a mode of research to find a good framework for systems thinking in design.This framework is not fixed or finished and hopefully never will be. The framework of Systems Oriented Design needs to be different than the one engineers and technical systems analysts use, because this has been tried many times in design and it only works to a certain degree.
Maybe we are now seeing the contours of a concept for critical systems thinking in design. This approach will critically use different models in design but also add its own ways and perspectives and keep the focus and weight on the designerly approches to complexity and systems thinking.