dear rosan and others interested in the specification/proposal thread.

yes, specifications in design are a good contrast to generalizations in
science, as i have argued for some time.  they are specific and detailed.
they also define the criteria against which the success of its
implementations is to be measured and there is an analogy to testing
hypothesis in science:  scientists would ask whether an observed incidence
supports a generalization or not, designers would ask whether a design works
as anticipated or promised by what the designer said it would.

the difference between a specification and a generalization reveals the
fundamental difference between design and science.

you say, if i understand you correctly, that a context is required for
specifications to take effect.  i agree again, but what is that context.

in engineering, there must be the possibility of testing the results of
implementing a specification.  most engineering specifications spell out the
measures an engineering design has to satisfy to be acceptable (including
tolerances for variations).  there have to be the materials and
manufacturing processes available for realizing a specification or the
specification becomes void.  jules verne did not write specifications for
building a space ship to visit the moon, he left this for future engineers
to work out.  his was a novel that nevertheless fuelled the imagination of
many.  and in this regard the relationship to design begins.

as you know i have been promoting human-centered design.  in my opinion,
engineers have it relatively easy to work in more or less institutionalized
environments where specifications can be written and an authority tells
someone to implement them.  terry talks in terns of contractual relations,
and he is right.  in design, there is more of a need to convince, to make
something attractive, to show the benefits of a design, or what i have been
saying to enroll stakeholders into the project of a design.  ask yourself
why designers use colors, their artistic flair, fascinating presentations,
cultural sensitivities, etc in contrast to the black and white technical
drawings of engineers (who have to convince only fellow engineers).  the
context of design is primarily a human one.  if a design does not grab
anyone's attention, if it does not create supporters, resources, enthusiasm,
it is lost, buried in the trash of unrealized ideas.  good ideas (and i am
not sure what these are independent of the fact that they must) catch on.
to highlight this difference, i have chosen to call the product of
designers: "proposals." (and i have written a book about it, currently in
press).

i would define a proposal as a specification that
(1) attracts the attention other stakeholders in what it says,
(2) enrolls them into the project that a designer outlined, makes them
supporters, mobilizes their resources, which requires
(3) that the proposal leaves enough room for other stakeholders to add their
creativity toward its realization, and
(4) comes to some realization, which may not be the end of it as any good
design also tends to be improvable.

there is more to it, of course.  let me say that while jules verne was not a
designer, he made a small step towards realization of space travel:  he
created the imagination of that possibility, directing the activity of
numerous and several generations of people (engineers, politicians, artists)
to realize that possibility.

incidentally, i am sure jules verne did intend create nasa and the space
shuttle that we now have and that he had any clue as to how things would
develop due to millions of creative people contributing to what we have now.
i also do not want to overplay his role.  there were others before him.  and
he never claimed to be a designer.  but without enrolling the creative minds
of stakeholders, any design dies.  the notion of a proposal highlights this
necessary dimension of design.

having said this, focusing on specifications is far more productive that
focusing on intentions.  we do not know jules verne's intentions but we can
trace the effects of his novel.

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 Rosan Chow
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 8:15 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: a specific proposal that fits?


Dear Klaus, Terry and others,

A small elaboration/clarification and a comment/question:

I use 'specification' to describe the aim/objective of design  in my
dissertation where I contrast it with that of modern science.In other words,
'specification' is contrasted with 'generalization'.  I am toying this pair
of
concepts with others that are often used to describe designing:
determined|undetermined, actual|potential, existent|non-existent and
concrete|abstract. The more specific, the more determined, actual, existent
and
concrete. In the sense that I use 'specification', a proposal is a (type of)
specification.

But a specific proposal must FIT to a specific/proposed CONTEXT to be called
a
design? Having suggested that, i believe there is not necessarily a fix
temporal order between a specific proposal and a specific context for them
to
appear. In other words, a context doesn't necessarily exist before a
proposal.
By implication, purpose or having a sense of purpose (intention) doesn't
necessarily come before a design.

Best regards,
Rosan


Klaus Krippendorff wrote:

> dear terry,
> i realize the overlap of the terms proposal, specifications, plans, and
one
> might also add models.  the issue of encouraging others to accept a
design,
> implied in proposal but absent in specifications and plans, as you point
> out, is my reason for this word choice.  i would say whatever designers
do,
> it will never come to fruition unless it grabs others, clients, engineers,
> business people, sales persons, users and more.  specifications arise in
> contractual relationships, as you say, and take for granted that they are
> meant to be implemented.  they work well when in technical settings, but
> they fail when politics, tastes, emotions are involved and need to be
> considered.  i would say that these political issues, as you call them are
> always involved.  this is why designers make attractive renderings in
> addition to technical drawings
> klaus