How can we design better functioning organizations? From disciplines such as organizatinal behavior and organization design, the usual answer to this question is given in terms of formalizing a business strategy, defining the quality and process indicators of products and services, and then reverse engineer a set of tasks, processes and a division of labor to produce the organizations output.
Organization design methodologies are usually object oriented: focused on constructing the tangible outcomes. Less attention is given, broadly speaking, to the efficacy of the design methodologies themselves. This is surprising: if we structure and organize social systems in ways that value replication and repetition to arrive at good and stable production, why would we not take the same stance towards the design methodologies themselves?
From this idea, we pose the question how we can improve and accelerate organization design and make it more effective altogether (sustainable, resilient, future-proof, humanized, healthier, creating more positive impacts in its operating environment etc)?
In this article I explore the opportunities to do so through Patterns and Pattern Languages.
In his book A Pattern Language, Christopher Alexander presented a language for designing towns and buildings, consisting of "entities called patterns" (wikipedia 
).
Patterns should be looked at and realized in context of other patterns and is in some extent supported by other patterns (p.xiii). A pattern language "has the structure of a network", it can be best summarized as a sequence of patterns (p. xviii).
Alexander recommends a specific form and schema to write down a pattern. The patterns, formatted according to Alexander's formatting recommendations and listed in a sequence, are understood as a summary of the pattern language and simultaneously as an index.
Looking at Alexander's pattern language concept, we observe that the patterns and the pattern language are patterns formulated in written language as lists, themselves being composed of connected lists of problems and solutions. These lists are grouped into lists of lists (patterns of sub-patterns) up to the level of a building, or town.
Clearly, Alexander's pattern concept is holonic and considers patters as nested at various levels. It is also scalable. Alexander mentions the connectedness of patterns of individual people up to the level op society: "every society that is alive and whole, will have its own unique and patterns language; (...) every individual in such a society will have a unique language. (...) in a healthy society there will be as many pattern languages as there are people" (p. xvi).
Alexander's thought clearly is also systemic, recognizing mutual influences and interdependencies of patterns, linking patterns to sense-making and control of people involved regarding the patterns considered or used. Using the pattern language itself leads to taking control over people's environments and the built environment as one of their enablers for thriving and tools for realizing social and human functions: shelter, cooperation, movement, interaction, co-existence, play, etcetera,.
An other characteristic of Alexander's pattern languages is the pattern language's generative potential: a relatively small list of patterns can generate "millions of parks, parths, houses, workshops, or gardens".
Alexander connects design and realization of the built environment. He connects patterns of non-living and living patterns through gardens or through patterns that link urban areas with nature or agricultural areas. (cf p. xxxv).
Finally, Alexander's thought is developmental, encouraging that patterns are added or altered, according to people's needs. Alexander seems to propose that patterns are intended to solve problems, structure the built environment for people to thrive, and themselves are part of a process of sensing needs, developing views on the future, anticipate future problems and possible solutions, and navigate reality and options towards the future by finding new forms and spaces.
People and form and develop within the physical-spatial patterns as well. Or change shape and develop otherwise.
There is no fundamental reason why Pattern Languages could not be used to design cultural human artefact, language or solution beyond building neighborhoods and cities. In fact, I argue that they can be used to design, build and replicate anything that shapes and incentives social action and the systems of action that can result from it. Software development has worked intensively with pattern language-based solution development over the last decades. >> artefact
I am especially interested in social systems that function better than they are doing now or better in the sense of letting people thrive in the light of future challenges.
From this perspective, we arrive at the question of what design of social systems can potentially entail, and what the pattern languages for realizing effective organization, society and for any type of social action can be.
See Patterns.