Dear Cindy, Carlos, and Eduardo,
Thanks for your posts. I should have answered
long ago.
My response to Eduardo's note involved only the
Engoish language etymology and history of the
word design. I did not offer a complete definition.
As has been noted here, I often use Herbert Simon's
definition. There is a reason for this. The reason
is that Simon's definition functions at a high enough
level to cover all instances of design process that I
have been able to identify, while other definitions
do not. Other definitions are often good, even excellent,
in terms of the fields or subfields that they cover,
but only Simon covers all known fields and subfields.
One need not accept Simon's position or views on design
to use his definitions. Simon's clarity and conceptual
power in this case is a valuable contribution to our
field. He was himself a practicing designer in two specific
design fields. While he won his Nobel Prize in economics,
I still like to think of him as our Nobel laureate.
I also draw on Buckminster Fuller's work is delineating
the steps of the design process.
If you -- or anyone -- would like a paper in which I
arriculate my full overview of the word design, defining
it and applying the definitions, just drop an email to
me at
<[log in to unmask]>
with the word
Definitions
in the Subject header.
Sorry to have taken so long to answer.
I appreciated the other distinctions and clarifications
in Eduardo's further notes. My earlier comments addressed
only the specific etymology and history of the word.
Best regards,
Ken Friedman
|