Dear Ken

thanks for the post. i am interested in definition, although i am well
aware some don't see much of the value of it. Simon's definition of
design, one that is indeed very well cited and taken in, has never been
challenged much. and i see it as a problem.

as i am at this very moment pondering on St. Thomas' 'examplary cause'.
i find Kari-Hans recent comment on design not necessarily meaning
intention very thought provoking.  it opens up a space for thinking and
inquiry. at the end of day, Kari-Hans might well be completely mistaken.
but i don't think we should discourage anyone from re-defining design in
a 'general' way. after all, i have been told, phd is about examining
fundamental assumption.

the definition of marriage, probably older than five centuries, is under
reconstruction in many countries. time for a re-definition of design,
too?

all the best for the new year.
rosan

Ken Friedman wrote:

> If someone wishes to define the term "design" in
> a different way, I am willing to accept his or
> her definition for the purpose of a specific
> discourse or inquiry.
>
> If we are speaking English, the verb design has
> had a common and well established meaning for
> roughly five centuries. Subsidiary meanings fit
> this larger meaning, often taking on specific
> nuances and tones located in the field of use.
>
> For example, Herbert Simon's (1982: 129)
> well-known definition of the verb asserts that to
> design is to "[devise] courses of action aimed at
> changing existing situations into preferred
> ones." This clearly applies to the professions we
> identify by using the word "design," including
> graphic design, software design, information
> design, systems design, textile design,
> organization design, industrial design, and so
> on, along with design management, design policy
> planning, and others.
>
> The value and reasonable quality of Simon's
> definition becomes clear when we observe that
> many _agree with Simon's DEFINITION OF design
> even though they _disagree with his IDEAS ABOUT
> design or disagree with his APPROACH TO design.
>
> If we use the verb design in a different way or
> adopt a different usage, our position on such
> issues as "cause," "effect," or "intention" will
> possibly change in relation to the definition or
> usage we adopt.
>
> It is always possible to adopt a new definition
> or a new usage to see where it leads us. As Terry
> suggests, this even applies to our definitions of
> what we mean by such terms as "cause." or "causal
> explanation," or "causal theory." Using new terms
> or old, it often helps to state our definition or
> usage clearly.