"perhaps with the provision that this relationship is conducive to change
something in the
world.  think about it: there are all kinds of unsatisfactory interpersonal
relationships that people try to improve.  i am not so sure if you want to
include those working out their relationships with loved ones as designers."

Definately Klaus... Design would be a rather specific subset of
'relationships' (rather than the other way around). One that produces some
form of artifact that is the embodiment of that relationship.

However i would hasten to add that many of the techniques and attitudes
essential to the healthy functioning of a personal relationship are equally
as applicable to 'design' relationships... understanding, empathy,
communication, clarification, respect, playfulness etc.

The artifact, being frozen in time at the moment when the relationship
between the designer and the stakeholder was forged, is relevant only as
long as that specific and limited relationship remains relevant (assuming
the relationship was healthy enough to be relevant in the first place).

Cheers,
greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus Krippendorff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 2:37 PM
To: Gregory Fowler; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Four issues -- [was] Re: Problem, purpose, teleology --
reply to David Sless


this clarifies a lot,

gregory.

i may add that people struggle hard to "define the problem."  what this
usually means it to define it so that "they" not others can solve it.  one
often observes a lot of institutional dances around who can come up with the
correct definition of the problem, (and sometimes with the aim of not
getting involved), meaning nothing more simple than who gets or should get
the job.

i think characterization:

The design process then becomes the search for an acceptable relationship
between designer and stakeholder(s).

is a valuable addition.  exactly.  relationships between designers and
stakeholders is the bottle neck of realizing a design.  perhaps with the
provision that this relationship is conducive to change something in the
world.  think about it: there are all kinds of unsatisfactory interpersonal
relationships that people try to improve.  i am not so sure if you want to
include those working out their relationships with loved ones as designers.
this is why i am talking about a specific relationship: enrolling
stakeholders into a designer's project, generating the required human
resources, stakeholders who see some benefit in contributing what they have
to get something done.

klaus



-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Gregory Fowler
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 12:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Four issues -- [was] Re: Problem, purpose, teleology --
reply to David Sless


David,

I found your ideas on problems very thought provoking. Thanks. Some musings
i had from your statements.

If solutions "subtly inflect" problems then i would agree with Klaus'
statement that the two are semantically linked.  This link implies that a
particular problem cannot actually exist without its solution. Which, in
turn, implies that the two (or the two parts of the one linkage) are
actually created simultaneously. The problem does not exist until the
solution exists. The solution is always implied in the framing of the
problem and vice versa. Forgive me if this seems obvious but i am just
working it out.

Up until the time that the solution exists there is no problem, there is
only a 'catalyst for action'. In your example one catalyst for action is the
psychological frustration caused by traffic jams.

Example: I am frustrated by traffic jams.

Solution#1: Change working hours so that traffic flow is dispersed over
time.
Therefore the problem has been framed as being the number of cars on the
road at a given time.

Solution#2: Take meditation classes to alleviate my frustration.
Therefore the problem has been framed as being a personal issue of allowing
traffic jams to frustrate me.

In both cases the problem is caused by the solution as much as the opposite.

This leads me to think that what designers really do is not so much 'solve
problems' or even 'define problems' (since the two are actually the same
thing) but rather 'act on catalysts'.

Since acceptable problem/solution couplings differ according to the
stakeholders involved (e.g. many stakeholders would not find state sponsored
meditation classes and acceptable solution to traffic jams) the 'product' of
a designer's action could be regarded not as a 'solution' per se but rather
a 'relationship' between the designer and the stakeholder... a
problem/solution coupling that exists in a realm common to the designer and
the stakeholder.

The design process then becomes the search for an acceptable relationship
between designer and stakeholder(s).

I'd be interested to know if this makes any sense to you...

Cheers,
Greg



-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Klaus Krippendorff
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 3:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Four issues -- [was] Re: Problem, purpose, teleology --
reply to David Sless


david and ken

david's example is very nice and helpful to point out the social
constructedness of problems.

i would add that linguistically, problems and solutions are a semantic pair,
an explanatory complex.
it follows that talking about one implies the other.
problems are always stated by imagining their solvability -- phenomena that
are considered unalterable are not interpreted as problematic --
and institutions and individuals alike tend to define a problem in ways that
they are specialized to solve, see david's example.
this makes it a myth of technological-centered designers to think that all
problems are solvable by technical means, by material artifacts.

problem solving is also a way to stay in the box of an existing definition
of a situation.  to think of rush hour traffic as a problem, easily prevents
one from thinking whether cars maybe a problem, or the need to be physically
present at a work place is a problem, etc.

i would be resistant to say that design is problem solving.  this would be
too confining.

in my book i suggested that designers, in contrast to scientists, are
motivated not by a quest for knowledge for its own sake, but by three
things:
(a) challenges, troublesome conditions, problems, or conflicts that have
escaped (re)solution.
(b) opportunities to change something for the better - not recognized by
others - to contribute to their own or other communities' lives.
(c) possibilities to introduce variations into the world that others may not
dare to consider, creating something new and exciting - just as poets,
painters, and composers do - aimlessly and for fun.

only (a) includes problem solving but it acknowledges also the possibilities
of wicked problems for which the solution is the problem (see h. rittel).
(b) is sensing an opportunity and going for it, without any problem at all.
i venture to suggest that many designers thrive on seeing opportunities that
escape others.  and (c) is just aimless fun, doing things differently for
its own sake. introducing variations that others did not try.  there is no
intention.  new fashions often are merely different.

i share your and jonas' view, if i understand you correctly, that it would
be a mistake to reduce design to problem solving as herbert simon did.

klaus



-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Ken Friedman
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 1:21 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Four issues -- [was] Re: Problem, purpose, teleology --
reply to David Sless


Dear David,

Thanks for your helpful comments.

(0) Short review

My earlier two notes and this last addressed (1) purpose as a
stimulus to design, (2) the role of problems in the design process,
and (3) the dialectic of problem finding and problem solving, and 4)
reflection and inquiry.

You seem to have noticed that I never attempted to define the nature
of a problem or to say what a "problem" is.

You take two useful approaches to illuminate the nature of problems.
Both are rooted in the idea of social construction.

(1) Pragmatic approach -- problems belong to people

The first approach is practical. We agree completely that a "problem"
belongs to someone or to some group. That's what I mean in my
discussion of stakeholders. Anders Skoe sometimes uses a phrase in
which he refers to the person or group that "owns" the problem.

All of the models of design process agree with you on this, Fuller's,
Skoe's, and mine, and all the comments I quoted from earlier list
contributions do, too. You summarized it well.

A problem -- whatever it is -- is defined by and arises in the world
of the problem owner or the person or group that defines a condition
as a "problem."

I speak of a "problem -- whatever it is --" since I did not attempt
to define the qualities of nature of the term "problem." Since you
don't attempt to define " what a problem 'is' " either, I'm happy to
use a working term-in-use.

(2) Philosophical approach -- the nature of a problem in a social
construction perspective

The second approach deals with more than the nature of problems. It
deals with the nature of how we understand anything. This, too, is
based on social construction.

Like you, I began to work with this idea in the 1960s. For my
master's and doctoral research and in much work since, I build my
method around issues developed in Berger and Luckmann's (1967)
classic, The Social Construction of Reality. I also made good use of
Berger's less known but vitally useful contribution to the sociology
of religion published in the same year, The Sacred Canopy. Elements
of a Sociological Theory of Religion. Berger (1967) extends on his
work with Luckmann, deepening some of the issues, stating others from
slightly different perspectives.

We basically agree on the value of this perspective.

The list has occasionally discussed different approaches to social
construction in several flavors. Within the larger frame of a key
understanding, there are multiple positions. The distinctions among
these positions have useful and important implications. I'd argue
that one could hardly do better for an introduction than by reading
Berger and Luckmann (1967) and Berger (1967). For those who wish to
dig deep, there an excellent book by philosopher Ian Hacking (1999)
reviews the multiple histories and lines of inquiry within social
construction.

To say that something is "socially constructed" entails many issues.
Developing those issues is a major thread -- or a seminar or book.
Since the book is in print, I'll suggest that those who wish to
explore read further.

(3) No gap

The only mild disagreement I want to make is that there was no gap
between my notes and Jonas's concerns.

When Jonas restated my carefully written first note, he proposed an
idea for which I have no responsibility. Perhaps I seem grumpy on
this point, but "the gap between Ken is saying and what concerns
Jonas" is an artifact of the restatement. The inaccurate restatement
stripped the meaning out my note by removing most of the verbs and
nouns in Fuller's 24-step model.

If I were to take most of the carefully developed ideas out of your
recent post, that would leave a gap. The gap would be my fault and
not yours.

I don't want to argue with Jonas here. I agree with him on most key
points, and especially on the importance of three key issues. Without
holding Jonas responsible for the way I state those issues, the
issues are:

1) There is no perfect model of the design process. 2) The idea that
a problem leads directly to a solution without intervening steps is
not merely simplistic -- it leads to new problems. 3) Robust design
process involves -- and requires -- inquiry, exploration, knowledge
production.

I agree with Jonas that the "problem -> solution view of designing"
is problematic. It's not a gap between what I said and Jonas's
concerns, though. I never said it.

Best wishes,

Ken


p.s. I may not be responding to comments for the next two days. I
will be in Aarhus for the defense of Bo Christensen's doctoral thesis
-- in psychology -- on issues of analogy and incubation.
Christensen's work is generating a lot of excitement in the design
research area here. Those who live in Scandinavia or find themselves
close by may wish to attend the defense. It takes place tomorrow,
Friday 19. August, at 14:00 in the auditoirum of the Psykologisk
Institut.



References

Berger, Peter. 1967. The Sacred Canopy. Elements of a Sociological
Theory of Religion. New York: Doubleday and Company.

Berger, Peter, and Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction of
Reality: a Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, New
York: Anchor Books.

Hacking, Ian. 1999. The Social Construction of What?  Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.



erhaps, this little anecdote goes some way to bridging


--

Ken Friedman
Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Communication, Culture, and Language
Norwegian School of Management

Design Research Center
Denmark's Design School

email: [log in to unmask]