Dear Lars,
Been traveling and thinking about some of the posts of the past few
weeks before I went on the road. Then this appeared when I got back
...
A bit rushed, but I suggest you check the knowledge management
literature -- many knowledge management themes and communities of
practice issues map over onto the role of designer as facilitator.
Christopher Alexander's approach in his pattern language books tell
the same kind of story.
IMHO, much of the conversation on design process in a networked
social context is about this issue. If we look at this from the
viewpoint of design as a human process or a field in which many
actors can play a role, we then find ourselves looking at designer as
facilitator. The key difference between designer as facilitator and
others acting in design is that we expect the designer to have
specific professional skills and expert knowledge that enable him or
her to serve others in specific ways. The others are responsible for
participation in the problem finding and problem solving process, as
well as sharing decision responsibility. We expect the designer to
have expert skills in methods.
I enjoyed your post on Machiavelli's attention to choice and future
preferences for the untested. I'm not sure it was the first, though.
Read the Chinese classics -- Sun Tzu, Guan Zhong, Lao Tze. Many
address the art of persuasion for choice or preference toward the
unknown.
Footnote to Klaus: I'm not sure that you were right to say that the
definitions you dislike exclude the political economics of design:
Simon addresses the issue of preference, but his definition does not
say how we reach preference. Neither does Machiavelli for that
matter. He merely acknowledges it in the passage you quote. It is
nevertheless present in Simon's definition, and as a political
economist, Simon addresses questions of choice and preference
elsewhere. So does Machiavelli.
Buckminister Fuller's rubric of teleology -- goals -- is the same.
Quite clearly, the issue of preference is crucial ... where you place
it in a picture or model of design depends more on where you draw a
very fuzzy boundary line. It is there either way. Some definitions
state it without describing it. And when Machiavelli described it, as
good as his description was, he didn't call it design ... one can't
criticize him for that any more than one can criticize Simon or
Fuller for ignoring the political economics of design. It's there
with a place holder in the definition and they discuss the process
elsewhere.
Anyhow, I shall keep my eye out for materials on the designer's new
role and send them to you. Why not ask for people to send references
directly to you and then post the compilation to the list as some
have done with other topics?
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]
|