Dear List and Klaus, Charles and Harold,

It was my "Intention" to post to the list my message quoted below but 
it seems that my reply to Tracee Wolf was only to her address through 
an oversight in my mail settings. So here is my post as a forwarded 
message with additions, a copy of what I had sent Tracee Wolf last 
night. It seems that I failed to understand the send  "Specifications" 
in my Mail software on my Mac or in the auto-reply settings, or some 
such thing.

I now have the benefit of having read the posts from Harrold Nelson, 
Klaus Krippendorff and Charles Burnette on the topic of "Intention vs 
Specification" and now we have the term "Proposal" to deal with as 
well. My take on this is as follows.

We came from different spheres of learning having followed different 
reading and learning routes and therefore exhibit a particular 
preference for terminology for which each of us has a slightly 
different meaning and it may not be possible to reduce the gap entirely 
in this matter. I remember having posted on this matter some time ago 
when I commented on the missing names in Fritjof Capra's bibliography 
in his book "The Hidden Connections" where Bucky Fuller, Christopher 
Alexander, Stafford Beer and Teilhard de Chardin (to name only a few _ 
I would include Claude Levi Strauss and others to this long list of 
missing thinkers who have helped shape my thoughts on science and 
design) are missing amongst his thought leaders while I would not think 
of excluding them from any such venture that his book deals with. 
Obviously we come from very different knowledge spheres, science and 
design, and we therefore hold a different vocabulary for the very same 
areas of concern and concept, perhaps processed through different 
secondary and tertiary routes of delivery. I access economics from 
popular writing and cannot access the originals since they sound 
"Greek" or even "Gobble de Gook" to me, my shortcomings, not the 
sources.

Today a news item in our local Times of India tells us that the Oxford 
English Dictionary has included a few nasty India words and some 
horrible American words to their lexicon, the citadel is tumbling, 
therefore I suggest that we can accomodate different meanings and still 
get along very well together if we have tollerence for each others 
definition and take care as all three of our members have done to 
explain their position in crisp and clear articulation, still not 
necessarily agreeing to each other, wise, we agree to disagree. But can 
we let it rest there? The show must go on, one asks for "certainty" the 
other for "possibility", science and design will coexist, can we 
collaborate?

With warm regards

Prof M P Ranjan
from my office at NID
11 August 2005 at 10.10 am IST

Begin forwarded message:

> From: M P Ranjan <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 10 August 2005 11:59:35 PM GMT+05:30
> To: Tracee Wolf <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: M P Ranjan <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PHD-DESIGN] Design ... design process + design 
> sensibility
>
> Dear Tracee Wolf
>
> I missed the coffee break, but thank you for a very sensible and 
> stimulating post. My experience in designing and in design education 
> corresponds with what you have shared here but I missed the picture 
> that you shared with the list since this list does not permit these it 
> seems. Could you send me the paper cutting image off-list as an 
> attachment. Thanks
>
> Design assignments (basic design ones in particular are 
> non-prescriptive) and they have a quality of their own. The other day 
> I was walking through our wood studio and saw a group of foundation 
> students cutting identical pieces of wood in into identical 
> configurations provided by the instructors in order to inset another 
> piece to obtain a perfect fit,  to learn precision, I was told. I 
> spoke to the instructors (by drawing them aside) and tried to 
> understand their logic. The answer was – learning to understand 
> specifications and quality, how "un-designerly". I spoke to them about 
> another way to instill a sense quality, that elusive ability, that 
> designers have to learn in the foundation programmes at the 
> undergraduate level and I recalled the masterful theses on 
> workmanship, design and quality from David Pye in his books "The 
> Nature of Design", Studio Vista, 1964; "The Nature and Art of 
> Workmanship", Studio Vista, 1968; and "The Nature and Aesthetics of 
> Design", The Herbert Press, 1978, all of which deal with this elusive 
> art of understanding with our senses rather than our intellect alone, 
> a "designerly way" I think. I suggested another assignment that could 
> be non-prescriptive but challenging, take a predetermined piece of 
> wood for all students and one simple instruction, carefully and 
> soulfully remove 50 percent of the material using a set of tools 
> provided, and when the 50 percent reduction is arrived the result must 
> be "interesting", "pleasing", "satisfying" or any such qualifying 
> state. The learning is enormous and life-long in depth and 
> understanding. Try it it works wonders to the spirit, and this is "The 
> Design Way". The word specification to me evokes the cold logic of our 
> test-based science-driven approaches followed by the 500 year (or 
> older) scientific traditions which I am not very sure works for design 
> thinking, which is why so few seem to understand what we are talking 
> about and it somehow misses the aesthetic experience, almost spiritual 
> (irrational?) sense that  that you get when the "Composition" is 
> right, it is balanced and tranquil, and "un-measurable" quality in my 
> view.
>
> Today I spoke, (delivered a rambling sort of lecture, 10 am to 1 pm) 
> to our new batch of students in the "Strategic Design Management" 
> course (a new PG programme started this year) and I chose to use "The 
> Design Way" (Nelson and Stalterman, 2003) as a peg to build my talk to 
> the students, a sort of book review and it was followed by sharing my 
> presentation at the EAD06 conference at Bremen in March 2005, which is 
> about my course in "Design Concepts and Concerns" as it has developed 
> at NID over the past twenty years or so. The terminology in my 
> lecture, which I called "Appreciating Design: Intentions, Values & 
> Judgment", was a review lecture that introduced the book and our own 
> approaches at NID, which have striking similarities, and now this 
> discussion thread has once again touched a chord on the whole and 
> elusive question of "What is Design?" I spoke from notes and jottings 
> on one page, and used a pdf file with a few "word maps" to support my 
> talk. This file is posted to my web archive today and is called "The 
> Design Way_Review Lecture.pdf" in case anyone is interested to 
> download the same.
> <http://tinyurl.com/78247> This is not a paper but a "visual prop" 
> that I used  to support my lecture and discussion today.
> "Intention, Composition, Judgment, Action and Caring" are key terms 
> used by Harold Nelson and Erik Stolterman to explain the flow of 
> design thought and action in one of the finest pieces of design 
> writing that I have come across in recent times. The difference 
> between science, religion and design are also articulated, as "True, 
> Ideal and Real", very appropriate, science deals with finding "Truths" 
> and as far as I know, and it is corroborated by "The Design Way" that 
> designers and (others using design as a way –  pun intended) are not 
> so concerned with "truth' as much as they are with "the fit with the 
> real world", nor are they concerned with the "ideal" since it must 
> work in the real world......wonderful. Do read the book. most of my 
> students are, we now have 5 copies in or Library, nay the KMC ( the 
> new-fangled name coined by our present administration which stands for 
> Knowledge Management Centre), and I understand it is in great demand.
>
> With warm regards
>
> Prof M P Ranjan
> from my office at NID
> 10 August 2005 at 11.50 pm (looks like I've missed dinner as well!!)
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Prof M P Ranjan
> Faculty of Design
> Head, NID Centre for Bamboo Initiatives
> Faculty Member on NID Governing Council (2003 -2005)
> National Institute of Design
> Paldi
> Ahmedabad 380 007 INDIA
>
> Tel: 91+79+26610054 (Res)
> Tel: 91+79+26639692 ext 1090 (Off)
> Tel: 91+79+26639692 ext 4095 (Off)
> Fax: 91+79+26605242
>
> email: <[log in to unmask]
> web archive: <http://homepage.mac.com/ranjanmp/>
> __________________________________________________________________
>
>
> On 10-Aug-05, at 9:32 PM, Tracee Wolf wrote:
>
>>
>> Warning: long post! Get some coffee!
>
>>  (Truncated in places)
>
>>
>> I’ve been part of this listserve for about 4+ years now and through 
>> this time the same discussion about ‘what is design’ has come up as a 
>> substantial thread at least a few times. It’s a fantastic discussion 
>> and actually quite inspiring. I’d like to take the opportunity to try 
>> to knit together the various themes that are intricately entwined 
>> with ‘design’.
>>
>
>> SNIP SNIP
>
>
>> Here’s my latest explanation – I welcome feedback and insights.
>>
>> I. Process: Paper folding & cutting exercise
>>
>> When I was in grad school getting my masters in architecture, we did 
>> an exercise developed by a professor there (Gunter Dittmar). The 
>> exercise effectly demonstrates design process and inquiry in an 
>> understandable way; it represents an abstract example of design 
>> process that others can understand, particularly if they actually do 
>> the exercise. Briefly, this is how it works:
>>
>> There are a few ‘rules’ established at the onset. You will need six 
>> pieces of square cardstock paper and a scissors:
>> -        you get six ‘moves’ (six opportunities to make a decision 
>> and execute and action); each ‘move’ must be preserved,
>> -        each move is comprised of three activities: 1 cut and 2 folds
>>
>> For example: after you perform your first ‘move’ of 1 cut and 2 
>> folds, you take the second sheet of paper, repeat the first move and 
>> exectute your second move on that paper. On the third sheet of paper, 
>> you repeat the first two moves and execute the third move. In the 
>> end, you’ll have a series of six forms, each showing an incremental 
>> decision within the inquiry process. Here’s a picture of the end 
>> sequence:
>>
>> <unknown.gif>
>>
>> So what’s the big deal? If you do this exercise, you’ll quickly 
>> become engrossed in a dialog with the paper and your own set of
>
>
>> SNIP SNIP
>
>> Regards,
>> Tracee
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>  Tracee Vetting Wolf
>>  Design Researcher
>>  IBM T.J. Watson Research
>>  19 Skyline Drive
>>  Hawthorne, NY 10532
>>  914 784-7413
>>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>  "You may not need the fame, but the next generation needs your 
>> example"
>>  [AIGA]
>