Design chasm incl. engineering design



Terry wrote (12/07/03 and resent question today 15/07)

“Just wondering how exactly you feel the discussion applies to engineering

designers?

My interest is because engineering designers (the several hundred varieties

of) dominate the design field in many ways (Financially, size of projects,

volume of design literature, longest history of design study, largest

number of methods, largest amount of design research undertaken etc)(…).”



Sorry not to respond before, Terry, I was in the mountains not aware of

this nagging question! I also must admit I find this a difficult question

to respond to in this general way. My research focus is more on specific

settings for understanding and eventually middle ground theorizing – but

since you asked I’d give some highly preliminary thoughts… because I feel

it applies in many ways that are perhaps as yet not fully understood. So

take it for what it is – preliminary thinking - and I would like to here

your own reflections regarding this! And hopefully Glenn (you’ve asked him

as well) or others can respond better and more fully.



I give just three lines of preliminary thoughts below (excuse if I become

somewhat self-referential but I feel grounding is a necessary but not

sufficient anchoring to try to respond to your broad question).



1.    Based on the product design cases I’ve studied, or otherwise gained

insight into through research colleagues and wise practitioners (e.g.

Robert Blaich’s reflective book 1993), I feel that both the “design chasm”

phenomenon AND also the creative tensions among specialists with diverse

perspectives/skills/tools are relevant in many ways.

      For example, it can be relevant to understanding the variety of ways

    product creation processes are organized, the actual unfolding of

    collaborative design (how are the various specialists involved in

    design processes) and its outcomes. Here I agree with others (e.g.

    Lubomir, Glenn) about the importance of studying talented professional

    design experts but in line with design historians I also argue for

    studying design developments ‘in context’ (e.g.Penny Sparke) including

    interaction with the clients’ various specialist groups calling

    themselves designers or not. By the way, there is a designer without or

    beyond the clients – just think of design entrepreneurs as Dyson who

    had to create his own company to get his designs realized (someone

    stated ‘no designer without client’… disagree, but not enough

    time/space to go into that). Moreover, the dominance of engineers in

    several corporate product development departments can make them

    interesting to study. Speaking from my own research experience I’ve

    found it interesting to zoom in on established organizations that are

    kind of ‘outliers’ in their industrial contexts, e.g. working with

    industrial designers more closely and/or collaborating in new ways,

    innovating etc.(See papers in the Design Studies, Design Management

    Journal and previous ref. given). However, others may find OTHER

    interests more triggering such as studying the everyday design and

    development work in e.g. various engineering teams, investigating the

    various perspectives and tools in use, researching the language and

    terms in use (agree with Tim’s arguments here), investigating new forms

    of networking etc.(cf. the variety of design research currently

    emerging). In short, I see many kinds of relevance in the interface

    between design and engineering as well as other specialism

    incl.economics - whatever these specialist orientations mean in local

    practices (that is something we need to shed light on). And we should

    not necessarily do or argue in the same way but rather follow a variety

    of research interests in order to build improved as well as new

    understanding of design in various contexts. However, what we should

    more commonly do is, as Victor Margolin has recently pointed out, to

    really read each other’s work to build on the somewhat fragmented

    knowledge in design. Victor Margolin said this in a recent (2001)

    key-note speech to European Academy of Design in Aveiro, Portugal (I

    think his paper is printed in the Design Journal, UK). And this list

    also can help for that purpose and I find some of the various streams

    highly interesting to read too!



2.    My second point concerns the need to understand design terms and

design issues dynamically. Learning from real collaborations how many kinds

of designers are working closely with other specialists in and around

organizations I feel, I guess in line with many on this list, that these

phenomena - design chasm, what constitutes design, professional or

competently made design etc. - are dynamic rather than static. So we need

to explore the constructing dynamics and thus move beyond too simplified

opposing views e.g. the traditional two cultures debate between natural

sciences and humanities, or more precise, for our design research-oriented

purpose we need to move beyond the mere (re-)discovery of the gulf or

‘chasm’ among specialists as engineers and industrial designers but saying

this I mean that it is worth while to reflect on this chasm as Glenn did

well. Also I do find it valuable with rich descriptions as a first step in

this sparsely researched area.



Terry wrote:

“Much of the design expertise in engineering design is more closely linked

to mathematical modes of representation than drawing (even when undertaking

drawing) and I wonder about laying so much emphasis on visual aesthetic

skill, particularly in relation to defining a core term.”



3. Re skills and mediation: I do not pretend to have the final or right

response here but may give just a preliminary reflection I have been

thinking about when attempting to identify some of the core benefits of

design including its processual aspects. Because more complex and

non-routine design advances in organizations involve multiple specialist

concerns and approaches (e.g. Terry’s ref. to mathematical calculations)

but also novice as well as novel reasoning into the as yet unknown, it

seems that human-centered mediating in general and visual-expressive

mediation in particular can be fundamental. What and how something is

mediated by designers and their collaborators may vary but seems to include

both matter and body, language and not least particular ways of “talking”

through sketching etc. (architecture and design studies exist on sketching

for example). Engineers and managers in the settings I’ve studied

especially appreciated physical models that they could touch and inspect,

“be in” or “stand over” while talking about them and what these not-yet-new

products could mean. Although based in design collaboration from

Scandinavia this seems to resonate with international design experiences

(e.g. IDEO’s experiences) and may thus have wider interest.



However, my project hitherto has not been to investigate engineering or

design in a very broad meaning of the term - although I will read with

interest what you are doing here! So looking forward to your reflections on

this Terry!

Best regards,

Birgit