Dear Chris and Dick,
The richness of a comprehensive body of knowledge is different to a
definition. That doesn't make the definition sterile.
A definition is purposely terse. Compare the difference between the
richness of a chess game and the simple definition of chess or even
the short list of rules that allows us to generate infinite chess
games. And then compare a description of a single chess game with the
body of knowledge accumulated over centuries of chess playing.
On this contrast, I'd say Chris is comparing apples and oranges.
But I'll be a bit provocative here with two further thoughts.
The first is that Simon's definition allows another kind of rich
conversation that is different to the earlier kinds of conversation.
Research -- and Chris is chairman of the Design *Research* Society --
is, in part, a matter of rendering tacit knowledge explicit. I didn't
show a lack of respect to the body of knowledge or the tacit crafts.
I said that Simon's work enabled a new approach.
The second thought may be even more provocative. Herbert Simon was a
designer. He designed software for some of the earliest experiments
in artificial intelligence, and he designed other things as well. I
hope we're not going to say that winning the Nobel Prize in Economic
Sciences means that we refuse to acknowledge his work as a designer.
Simon designed computer programs to simulate human behavior,
including programs that learned from examples, a program that used
visual imagery in reasoning called CaMeRa, a program that simulated
perception and memory called EPAM, and a series of programs that
simulated the psychology of scientific discovery, including BACON.
(As in Francis, not as in Six Degrees of Kevin.) He also worked
extensively on visual representation and problem representations. He
also worked in human-computer interaction and allied fields off
research and application.
I'm not arguing that Chris should find Simon's elegant definition
useful. I argue that it serves the field and that some of us DO find
it useful.
I'm also arguing against a tendency to reject key contributions to
design discourse by starting from the assumption that these designers
-- working designers! -- are somehow coming from outside design.
Simon wrote Sciences of the Artificial because he understood and
celebrated the value of design, and because he wished to examine the
nature of design thinking, design process, and their application
across a wide range of design fields.
Last week, it was Don Norman who was outside design. This week it's
Herbert Simon. While Norman is responsible for a lot more products
than Simon, I'd be willing to bet that Simon's software and its
descendents were as widely used as the artifacts designed by most of
us on this list. If we consider still-surviving fragments and
algorithmic solutions that others adapted for continuing use, Simon's
products are probably quite durable and sustainable.
I know about the tradition of half-models in naval architecture, and
I agree with you that these combined and represented. Simon's
computer models fulfilled some of the same representational functions.
Dick is right that I used the word "era" casually. But I do say that
the broad general view of design in the early years of the century
through the post-war years was quite different to the broad general
view in years following. At the same time, some designers --
Buckminster Fuller, for example -- pursued a concept of design
science long ago, adopting the term even earlier than Simon did.
Despite the fact that there were some articulate designers analyzing
and discussing design, this was uncommon. I won't go into the long
story, but anyone who visited North American art and design schools
or university-based design programs even as last as the 1980s knows
the difference between what was common then and what is common now.
This situation remained common in Scandinavia until the 1990s, and I
can say from first-hand experience that many designers and even
design professors explicitly stated that research is what scientists
or design historians do while "designers think with their hands."
That's an exaggeration, to be sure, because many used different terms
or made the argument far longer -- but that was a commonplace
describing their views. It's probably a mistake to describe this as
an "era," not simply the time before the first publication of
Sciences of the Artificial, but the time before it and other
important contributions began to influence discourse in the design
field. It wasn't an era, but the notion represents a situation that
once existed. The situation has changed for the better, partly
because of Simon's contribution.
To genuinely sort out the historical flow requires a careful
discussion with subtle distinctions and a good chronology. Perhaps
it's something to consider when the inventory and taxonomy are done.
Or perhaps someone else will do it.
Can we use Simon's definition for everything in design discourse? No.
Have people applied Simon's definition of design to different
purposes than those he intended for his idea design science? Yes.
Even so, Simon was more than a scholar and scientist thinking about
design. He was also a working designer who thought about design and
design science. I don't want to push this too far -- Simon was far
more deeply engaged in economics, psychology, and organization theory
than in design practice. But he did design and he used design skills
to shape computer programs, models, and simulations that he then used
for his work.
It seems to me he spoke legitimately from a designer's perspective.
Yours,
Ken
Chris Rust wrote:
--snip--
long established disciplines such as boat and shipbuilding have,
over centuries, developed and refined complex techniques and bodies
of knowledge, both explicitly through industrial ventures and tacitly
through craft making (1). They may conform to Simon's definition but
their richness illustrates the definition's sterility.
--snip--
Dick Buchanan wrote:
--snip--
I find that his definition is quite often cited for purposes that are
not at all consistent with Simon's approach to "design science."
Again, we need a richer framework for exploring this, else we simply
go around on the same wheel.
--snip--
--
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]
"Everything has been done a million times.
Sometimes you use it and it's yours;
another time you do it and it's still theirs."
-- Elizabeth Murray
|
