Better late than never, I hope; I'd like to comment on Paul's message 
about designers' engaging in change.

I agree with Paul that there are many non-designers who are essential to 
actually bringing about the change that designers 'design'.

A very crisp distinction exists in engineering, where the engineering 
designer often works with manufacturing experts to come up with 
products.  The designer addresses function, form, usability, etc, and 
the manufacturer figures out how to actually made the thing.

In some (many?) design disciplines, there is no clearcut division 
between design and -- let's call it 'implementation'.  But I do believe 
that even if one person does both design and implementation, there are 
two quite distinct roles that the one person assumes.

Of course, there's others too, as Paul notes, but they *influence* the 
design and implementation rather than being 
directly/completely/essentially involved in it.

As such, designers are "visionaries" and "planners" in that they have to 
envision an appropriate solution and then contribute significantly to 
devising the means of bringing that vision about.

Because of this role, designers in engineering have often been seen as 
essentially a "hidden cost" of product development.  There's this crisp, 
boxed up flowchart for the product development process -- in the middle 
of which is this fluffy cloud called 'design'.  Ick.

The engagement that Paul and Rosan write about is important, imho, 
because no matter how good a designer may be at communicating his/her 
vision, the communication is always somewhat imperfect.  But by engaging 
-- which I take to mean getting involved in the implementation -- the 
designer can provide nearly constant feedback about how the 
implementation compares to the vision.

As an added bonus, the involvement in implementation can impart very 
important experiences to the designer that will feed forward into future 
design work.

Cheers.
Fil

Rodgers, Paul wrote:
> Rosan,
> 
> I agree with your comment: "...Finally, there are design students and
> designers ENGAGING in social change in various forms, in various places
> with different degrees of success." Engaging being the crucial word. 
> 
> My point was not intended to be neither Aristotlean nor Papanekan. What
> I was trying to state was that "real change" is not within the power of
> the designer. Designers rely on manufacturers, clients, patrons,
> sponsors, policy makers and regulators to realise their dreams which may
> or may not affect real change. It is the latter that have the real
> power. Things might be changing, and the role of the designer might have
> to change also.
> 
> I think your question: "how can designers really affect change" is a
> good one.
> 
> Paul 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rosan Chow [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> Sent: 11 November 2005 06:40
> To: Rodgers, Paul
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: BSc ChangeRe: PHD-DESIGN Digest - 7 Nov 2005 to 8 Nov 2005
> (#2005-249)
> 
> Dear Paul and all
> 
> I think we all live in a hybrid tension between tradition and (random)
> change. If BA/BFA could be changed to BDes, and if Polytech could be
> changed to University; then there
> is always a possibility, under some cirucmstances, that BDes be changed
> to something else  (if not BSc Change)
> 
> .... When I talked about 'Change', I was thinking more of the type of
> Aristotle but I guess you were thinking more about the Papanek type. For
> the Papanekan change, if we look
> to the tradition of Bauhaus, Ulm, New Bauhaus; we would find some
> serious social change agenda. Never mind if we agree with them and what
> we think of them now;  how the
> tradition of concern for social change has disappeared in art and design
> education in some (or many) places  but survived or even thrived in
> others is something we must take
> note of.
> 
> ...Finally, there are design students and designers engaging in social
> change in various forms, in various places with different degrees of
> success. For me and for quite a
> number of people I know, it is no longer a question of 'can designers
> really affect change', but how. We have moved forward ... or backward to
> our tradition that is worthy to
> maintain.
> 
> Rosan
> 
> 
> 
> "Rodgers, Paul" wrote:
> 
> 
>>Dear All,
>>
>>Why BA or BSc at all when we have BDes? Design is big enough now to
> 
> have
> 
>>its own Bachelors and Masters and Doctorates of Design.
>>
>>But, can designers really affect change? Real change is in the hands
> 
> of
> 
>>those with power surely?! Designers don't have that power. Do they?
>>
>>BA in politics, philosophy or economics might be better if you want to
>>get involved in "real change".
> 
> 
> This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read, copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the permission of the sender.
> It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. Napier University does not accept liability for any loss
> or damage which may result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the 
> University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the University. 

-- 
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University                         Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St.                           Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON                                email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3  Canada                            http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/