Dear Ben and Chris,
First, thanks for your note. I'm interested in some of the issues
that Simon's definition opens because I am curious about questions of
design as distinct from the specific target field of design practice.
While I don't disagree with your view of seeking knowledge that
emerges from the embodied field of practice, each form of that
knowledge is always by necessity a _specific_ form of design: graphic
design, textile design, software design, service design .... and on
through the long list of specific domains. I'm always puzzled at the
reluctance to accept the use of the adjectives that would allow us to
distinguish forms of design or specific areas of design practice (or
research) from design. Whatever design may be, it is clear that
whatever we learn from industrial design or organization design
cannot apply to all design. Perhaps that doesn't interest you. Fair
enough. But the distinction may be of value even if the larger
abstract field doesn't interest you.
Now I find Rittel's work as valuable as Simon's, though different to
it and for different purposes. But here, Chris seems to be saying
that Rittel's definition of wicked problems is actually a definition
of design. That is simply not so. There are millions of simple,
tractable design problems we solve every day using algorithmic
methods. Now here, I am not talking about tying shoelaces. I am
talking about cases where the senior designer hands off a page of
type (or a diskette) and says to a junior designer, "format this
limited placement offering for Chris Rust & Co. Merchant Banking
using the design manual specifications for this kind of document" or
when an engineer says to her assistant, "I've got to find a grade of
steel for this widget that has these properties [x, y, z] at a cost
of [p] if we manufacture 125,000 units." There are simple, tractable
problems of this nature in every design field. They are not wicked
problems because the issues that make a wicked problem wicked have
been removed through agreement when Chris and his partners at the
bank approved the design program or by stipulation when the engineer
established criteria.
Despite the fact that these design problems are essentially
algorithmic, they require judgement, skill, and negotiation. A human
designer must make a design decision at some point -- a planning
decision -- but these are not wicked problems and they do not inhabit
the zone that Rittel defines in his criteria.
The very fact that we still seem to have difficulty sorting these
issues out is why I find these kinds of inquiry useful. Some people
say that we go around in circles when we examine these kinds of
questions. I do not. I propose that we are climbing a knowledge
spiral, learning something as we make the turns while studying the
issues from a variety of angles and a higher level.
Yours,
Ken
--
Ken Friedman
Professor
Institute for Communication, Culture, and Language
Norwegian School of Management
Oslo
Center for Design Research
Denmark's Design School
Copenhagen
+47 46.41.06.76 Tlf NSM
+47 33.40.10.95 Tlf Privat
email: [log in to unmask]
|