Dear Karel,
Thanks for your thoughtful and lucid reply. I agree with you. You
summarized the issue so well that I will repost your reply below.
You ask, "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?"
Evaluation is part of the design process.
In contrast with a position that would place something outside the
design process, I see this exchange as more a matter of trying to
clarify where in the process one might place a specific activity.
Part of the challenge of writing a post here is finding our way to a
vocabulary that describes what it should, either what we intend to
describe, or the case in a world external to ourselves, or both. I
failed to describe the issue as well as I might have done. Your post
does.
Buckminster Fuller (1969: 319) describes the design process as an
event flow. He divides the process into two steps. The first is a
subjective process of search and research. The second is a
generalizable process that moves from prototype to practice.
The subjective process of search and research, Fuller outlines a
series of steps:
Teleology -- >
Intuition -- >
Conception -- >
Apprehension -- >
Comprehension -- >
Experiment -- >
Feedback -- >
Under generalization and objective development leading to practice, he lists:
Prototyping #1 -- >
Prototyping #2 -- >
Prototyping #3 -- >
Production design -- >
Production modification -- >
Tooling -- >
Production -- >
Distribution -- >
Installation -- >
Maintenance -- >
Service -- >
Reinstallation -- >
Replacement -- >
Removal -- >
Scrapping -- >
Recirculation
Of course, experiment and feedback involve evaluating effects,
results, and consequences. This occurs in a large second cycle in the
iterative stages of prototyping, production design, and production
modification. In many effective organizations, this cycle occurs in
yet a third large cycle as service issues reveal flaws in the
designed product or service. In describing the design process
elsewhere, I have discussed Fuller's cycle (Friedman 2002, 2003). In
this thread, I placed evaluating effects, results, and consequences
outside the design act. I can only say that I should have been
clearer.
Thanks for catching this. We agree completely here.
Best regards,
Ken
--
References
Friedman, Ken. 2002. "Theory Construction in Design Research.
Criteria, Approaches, and Methods." In Common Ground. Proceedings of
the Design Research Society International Conference at Brunel
University, September 5-7, 2002. David Durling and John Shackleton,
Editors. Stoke on Trent, UK: Staffordshire University Press, 388-414.
Friedman, Ken. 2003. "Theory construction in design research:
criteria: approaches, and methods." Design Studies, 24 (2003),
507-522.
Fuller, Buckminster. 1969. Utopia or Oblivion. The Prospects for
Humanity. New York: Bantam Books.
--
Karel van der Waarde wrote:
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:
[KF excerpt starts]
"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."
[KF excerpt ends]
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]
--
Prof. Ken Friedman
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]
|