Rosan, Klaus, Terry et all,
Rosan, following Klaus suggested three ways in which designers work:
> A. engage in solving problems (problem defining implied).
> B. seek new opportunities (experiment with new technology, for
> example)
> C. create alternatives to what exists (quite restlessly, perhaps just
> for fun, not necessarily making something better)
I agree with Terry when he says:
> This is an issue that was identified a long time ago with a fair
> bit of
> writing about it in the design methodology (design philosophy)
> movements in
> the 60s - 80.
And I agree with Terry when he says:
> A key concern is that any of the activities A, B or C as you call
> them (and
> there are more) can be undertaken using the methods of any of the
> others.
But I start to lose interest when Terry says:
> This raises a bit of a conceptual problem if each is intended to be
> uniquely
> described by their method!
First and foremost I see this as a practical matter, not a conceptual
one. For me it is only conceptual after the fact. After that, Terry,
I start to fall asleep. (no offence intended, just my way of thinking)
But I do agree with you, Terry, about Constituent Orientation. Good
stuff, which we have found very useful for a long time and have been
able to apply it in a number of projects.
As to, the ABC thing. I tend to think of B and C as opportunities
that can arise at any stage in the process. I may have said something
about this in an earlier post in relation to Liz Sanders' work. But I
think it is part of a much broader 'state of readiness', being
prepared for the unexpected, etc. One of the routine things we do is
diagnostic testing of our designs—very much a formal, evaluative
(seemingly) non-creative activity. But when we get together after the
testing to look at the data, the first question that we ask ourselves
is 'what struck you?'. Often, when you least expect it something new
suggests itself and we go off and play with it. The practical reason
why I tend to see this from within working method A, Rosan, is that I
can get people to pay me for A, but it's very difficult to find
people willing to pay for B and C. So, we cross-subsidize (as it
were) from A to B and C.
But that is just an aside, as I asked in my last post: I'm curious to
know what other designers might do?
So far, the discussion has been about 'conceptual' matters. It's time
for my afternoon siesta.
David
--
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
Director • Communication Research Institute of Australia
• helping people communicate with people •
60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640
web: http://www.communication.org.au
|