Mike: Regarding your second question: Which ³design² are you referring to?
Klaus might be talking about one ³design² while you might be talking about
another. Design is an amorphous time warp that exists in multiple states and
across multiple domains simultaneously. Without some kind of sense-making
framework it is difficult to talk about ³design² and whether it is or is not
³an ill-structured activity². In some parts of the time warp it is and in
other parts not. If by ³structured² you mean not just intuitive Design 1.0
³activity² tends to be relatively unstructured in comparison to Design 3.0
activity². The proportional activity emphasis between SenseMaking and
StrangeMaking is also often quite different from one to the other. I believe
you will find that lots of thinking from various directions has been done on
this subject.
In any case you might find these docs useful in your quest.
The first one contains numerous visual models.
NextD Futures
Visual Models as Innovation Accelerators
http://nextd.org/pdf_download/NextDFutures.pdf
Rethinking Wicked Problems
Unpacking Paradigms, Bridging Universes
http://nextd.org/02/10/1/index.html
Revolution in Motion
That ³design thinking² thing might not be exactly what you expected!
http://nextd.org/pdf_download/RevolutionMotion.pdf
Towards Adaptable Inquiry
Transforming That Sustainability Thing
Part 1 of this text was originally posted to the Transforming Transformation
discussion list on April 14, 2008.
If anyone would like a copy send an email to [log in to unmask] with
Adaptable Inquiry as the subject.
PS: The term ³problem solving² is as loaded as the word ³design². Most use
that term in argument construction without acknowledging that like the
universe of design, the universe of ³problem solving² has not been standing
still for thirty years but rather is itself in motion. The truth is that
universe contains many framing tools that are extremely useful in the
context of Design 3.0 as that ³problem solving² universe long ago evolved
towards multiple stakeholder involvement more recently being heralded in
design circles as participatory design. I will leave that one for another
day.
Spring has arrived in New York!
Regards to all.
gk
...
Co-Founder
NextDesign Leadership Institute
New York
NextD
DEFUZZ THE FUTURE!
http://nextd.org
...
Co-Founder, Director Global Ventures Development
Humantific
StrategyLab | UnderstandingLab | InnovationLab
New York / Madrid
http://www.humantific.com
> From: Mike McAuley <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Mike McAuley <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:34:47 +1200
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: well-structured and ill-structured activity in designing
>
> Dear list members,
> I am nearing the end of a study which incorporated two separate
> learning strategies designed to assist novice students interpret
> written text into illustrations. The first strategy involved
> comprehension and the second was based on analogical reasoning.
> Without going into details, one of the conclusions I am formulating
> is that designing is far from being an exclusively ill-structured
> activity. Within the process model of problem-analysis-synthesis-
> execution-production-evaluation, I have found that, at the early
> stage of problem definition and analysis students can benefit from a
> well-structured approach to certain aspects of the problem. In my
> enquiry this related to determining macrostructures (the gist) within
> the text (Louwerse and Graesser, 2006). Can anyone tell me who
> originated the terms ill-structured and well-structured? Has anyone
> else come to the conclusion that designing isn't exclusively an ill-
> structured activity?
>
> Mike McAuley
> PhD candidate
|