Dear Ken,
Thanks for your reaction. Simon's definition is certainly the most
preferable at the moment. It states exactly what design is.
Fortunately, Simon states that medical practice is a design
profession. I agree. Every day of my working life, I have enjoyable
contacts with medical and pharmaceutical practitioners.
When I'm talking at medical and pharmaceutical conferences, such as:
http://www.iir-events.com/IIR-conf/LifeSciences/EventView.aspx?EventID=1150
or
http://www.visiongainconferences.com/conferenceInfo.aspx?confID=1079
, than most participants do not see themselves as 'designers'.
Although they are usually very bright people, they have only a
minimal - if any - notion of design as it is discussed on this list.
However, in their presentations, they show that their work exactly
follows Simon's definition.
Their work is guided by other principles. One of the main ones is 'do
no harm'. It is always essential to consider the possible harm that
any intervention might do.
When I'm introducing some design related issues to pharmacists or
doctors, such as ('Patient must be able to read the text on
leaflets', or 'packaging should be easily distinguishable so that
pharmacists are unlikely to be confused'), they want to know what the
benefits and the risks are. I've got to provide the arguments and
evidence to show that 'changing existing situations' does not do any
harm to:
- the commissioner,
- the designer,
- the patient,
- professionals (pharmacists, doctors, nurses),
- carers (family, neighbours),
- society,
- environment,
- ...
You state:
>The next question -- evaluating effects, results, consequences -- is
>not a matter of design, but analysis and axiology. Design is the
>doing of it. Analysis evaluates what we do. Axiology offers us a way
>to study the values and qualities we seek.
How can I provide the arguments that design 'does no harm', if you
position the evaluation and analysis outside the design area?
To stay in the medical area: if we only focus on the operation itself
(= changing existing situations into preferred ones), and choose to
position the diagnosis (= problem definition) and the effects
(patient experience, financial consequences, anxiety, ...) as
separate activities, then I'll have a very hard time explaining to
pharma/medics why Simon's definition is the best we have.
The medical/pharmaceutical profession is continuously moving towards
a more integrated approach to support patients in all possible
situations. To distinguish between 'analysis and axiology' and
'design' would be seen as separating the activity from the
risk/benefit decisions.
Can you tell me how we can combine 'consider the possible harm that
any intervention might do' with 'devise courses of action aimed at
changing existing situations into preferred ones' if 'evaluating
effects, results, consequences' is not a matter of design?
Kind regards,
Karel.
[log in to unmask]
|