I can't resist the temptation to put also my spoon in the soup (a 
finnish expression?)...

The importance of pointing out that all people are designers, and 
that design is essential in all areas of life, is in that our times 
require much better design than currently is being practiced, in all 
areas of life.

If design professionals (or whoever) study how designs come about, 
what practices make them better, and how existing practices can be 
enhanced to come up with better ones. It is a pity if this is only 
constrained to the traditional design fields. If design is understood 
narrowly, it will have narrow opportunities. But with a wider 
understanhding comes a wider responsibility, and will designers take 
up the challenge remains to be seen...

And while engineers of mayors may not (want to) recognize it, many of 
the worst and hardest problems in their fields result from the bad 
design understandings and practices. This is clear for example in the 
design of new technology. New design competences and collaborations 
are (in my opinion) the only way forward there.

If taking into account stakeholders are considered important in some 
areas of design, why wouldn't it be important in others? Etc. A lot 
of the best design understanding is unknown to most of worlds 
(implicit) designers. And vice versa, many fields have great design 
understanding and practices that (explicit) designers should know 
about.

best, kh


At 15:31 -0700 20.7.2003, Harold Nelson wrote:
>Dear Klaus et al
>
>There are a couple of thoughts that emerge for me given your 
>response to Erik. The first is that there may be those who say they 
>design and do, those who say they design and don't, those who say 
>they don't design and do and those who say they don't design and 
>don't. Saying so doesn't make it so which means the dialogue is 
>essential.
>
>The second thought is that designing is not something that defines a 
>person in an exclusive way. Everyone can and does utilize design as 
>an approach to some aspects of their lives. Design in this way is 
>not an exclusive or elitist activity. It is also an essential 
>element in leadership, governance and other activities not formally 
>defined as design activities. This means that everyone needs to know 
>more about design inquiry and action much the same as we believe 
>people need to know about scientific thinking and artistic 
>expression. It is important to help a design culture emerge that 
>understands and champions designing when and where it is 
>appropriate.  I don't believe that design is an activity that is 
>confined to an individual or class of individuals. Design is a 
>systemic activity involving the interaction of different people in 
>different roles aligned with the intention of bringing a new design 
>into existence. Those who act as designers need the context of a 
>design culture to become "good" at what they are doing. They need to 
>be in relationship with all the 'different'  others who are equally 
>part of any design process.
>
>Designing includes rational thinking, judgment, creativity, 
>intuition, feeling, technical skill etc. The proportion, measure and 
>timing of each determines whether the process is design, art or 
>science. It seems to me that the important thing to keep in mind is 
>for the scientist, in your example, to understand and appreciate why 
>design is used in a scientific process and why science is not 
>exclusively an objective enterprise. There is a difficulty if 
>someone engages in design (in what ever measure) and does not 
>acknowledge it. In the same way there is a difficulty if someone 
>says they are designing but actually are engaged in an artistic 
>endeavor etc.
>
>Harold
>
>On Saturday, July 19, 2003, at 10:51 PM, klaus krippendorff wrote:
>
>>i agree with erik on the generality of design as a process that is
>>characteristic of being humans -- ranging from the earliest shaping of tools
>>to government ire international development.
>>it is not useful to say that because design is part of human nature,
>>everyone is a designer.  this would be the claim of an abstract rationalist
>>outside observer, not of the professional and insider of the practice.
>>most professions contain a design component but they may not want to call
>>themselves designers and might even be offended being labeled in ways they
>>do not wish to.
>>the scientist, while designing an experiment, would probably say this to be
>>a subordinate activity and prefer to be a scientist.
>>the mayor of a city, while designing and managing civic structures, may want
>>to be called mayor
>>the engineer, while designing say a bridge, may prefer to be called engineer
>>and so on.
>>i think those who call themselves designers know quite well how to
>>distinguish between designers and non-designers.  one may want to ask them
>>what they mean, not consult an abstract definition of design and then decide
>>who by that definition is or is not a designer
>>klaus
>>
>>klaus krippendorff
>>gregory bateson term professor for cybernetics, language, and culture
>>the annenberg school for communication
>>university of pennsylvania
>>3620 walnut street
>>philadelphia, pa 19104.6220
>>phone: 215.898.7051 (O); 215.545.9356 (H)
>>fax: 215.898.2024 (O); 215.545.9357 (H)
>>usa
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhDs in Design
>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Erik Stolterman
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 6:18 AM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Design Chasm
>>
>>
>>This remark is not necessarily in opposition to anything already
>>written, since I believe some of it is already said ;-)
>>
>>To me, it is not interesting to understand design as a "profession" or
>>"field", but as one of several basic ways humans can approach their
>>world. And as such, design is more or less counsiously part of all
>>professions and fields. To design means to approach the world in a
>>specific way, different from other basic approaches, such as science,
>>art, religion etc. But we all know that we usually need more than one
>>of these words to describe the actual activity within a specific
>>profession or field, since the complexity demands for knowledge from
>>more than one approach. For instance, (hopefully) any scientist know
>>that there are design aspects, and also artistic, in her work, not to
>>mention how other approaches, such as philosophical, ideological,
>>economical play a role in the field of science. The same is probably
>>true for any human enterprise.
>>
>>This leads me to belive that there is no point in trying to define
>>design by single out professions or fields. Instead different fields
>>and professions (or organizations, teams, or individuals) might be
>>described as to what degree they usually work in a designerly way, or
>>are design competent. Understood in this way, design is given its
>>rightful place and importance in relation to the other approaches
>>(science, religion, art, etc). This also means that we can find
>>excellent examples of good design work almost anywhere, but also of
>>terrible designs.
>>
>>Summer greetings
>>Erik
>>
>>
>>--------------------
>>Erik Stolterman
>>Informatics
>>Umeå University
>>S-901 87 Umeå
>>Sweden
>>
>>Phone: +46 (0)90-7865531
>>Email: [log in to unmask]
>>Homepage: http://www.informatik.umu.se/~erik
>>Advanced Design Institute: http://www.advanceddesign.org
>>
>Harold G. Nelson, Ph.D., M. Arch.
>President; Advanced Design Institute
>www.advanceddesign.org
>Past-President; International Society for Systems Science
>www.isss.org
>Affiliated faculty, Engineering, U. Wash.