Dear Colleagues,

In my recent contributions to PhD-Design, I made two mistakes that
require correction.

The first occurs in my note of Wednesday 19 March 2003 titled
"Creativity research for improvements to design practice."

I incorrectly wrote that Michael Biggs argued that no one working
with creativity had yet developed new knowledge to improve design
practice.

Michael did not write this. He posted a note about David Sless's
CHARGE that "no-one has yet offered me new knowledge that will
improve my practice." Michael discussed the charge and the position
represented in David's statement without making the charge or
adopting the position.

Michael stated that the CHARGE is important because it clarifies a
basis for evaluating research. He argues that improvements to the
practice of design - improvements to production - are an important
criterion for evaluating research. This is distinct from those
schools of research that evaluate creativity in terms of reception.

Michael's post argues that improvements to production are one way to
evaluate research in contrast with evaluations based on reception.

The other mistake appears in my note in the early hours of Sunday 23
March 2003 titled "Wicked Problems and Other Problems -- Outline
Note."

I wrote, "Next, we see poorly defined problems. Here we move into
genuinely difficult territory. Heuristics, iteration, and different
forms of pluralistic tactics enable us to solve poorly defined
problems by restating and restating them. The most common range of
solutions to a poorly define problem is to transform the poorly
defined problem into a well-understood or well-defined problem. Here,
poorly developed formal language represents the true difficulty. The
expertise of the designer comes in redefining the problem in a way
that renders it tractable."

There are two mistakes here. The first is typographic. I intended to
write, "Heuristics, iteration, and different forms of pluralistic
tactics enable us to solve poorly defined problems by restating and
reframing them."

The second is conceptual. This is not a robust description of poorly
defined problems. Poorly defined problems ALSO have attributes that
will not yield to restatement or reframing. They may also represent
deeper difficulties. Some of these become clear in restatement and
reframing. Others do not. As I noted, I have been struggling with the
taxonomy of problems, so I will return later with a better
description.

Best regards,

--

Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Leadership and Organization
Norwegian School of Management

Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University