Daniel et al,

It's that time or year again, when we have a discussion about what design is.
Not that I mind, of course.

In this message, I comment on a number of different posts all at once, rather 
than replying to each msg individually.  No slight is intended to those who I 
don't mention here.  There's just so much time I can spend on this at any one 
time.

My definition is based largely on Simon's definition, with sprinkles of sundry
other sources:

> Designing is a process of developing implementable proposals to change a 
> current situation that is perceived to be unbalanced to a preferred situation 
> that is perceived to be more balanced.

And "design" is the discipline (body of knowledge) explaining how to do designing.

"Balance" is, for me, very close to Chris Alexander's notion of 'harmony' - a 
situation in which all the interacting elements benefit from those 
interactions in a way that maintains the stability of the overall system.

I wrote a paper in DPP that considered the boundaries between designing and
other things, like problem solving.
F.A. Salustri and N.L. Eng. Design as...: Thinking of what design might be,
Journal of Design Principles and Practices, 1:1(19-28), 2007.
Real web site: http://ijg.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.154/prod.14
Unofficial draft: http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/I/Papers/NleFasDpp07Preprint.pdf

I'm one of those people who think design can be distinguished from other
undertakings.  That's what I don't like about Daniel's definition - it can
apply to other things that we've already named.  I'm not saying design doesn't
happen in marketing, etc.  And I'm not saying design *actually* happens 
conflated with other activities.  I am saying there's merit in distinguishing 
design from other activities that require/use it.

Gunnar suggested it's flawed to think that design is distinct from other
activities.  I don't think so.  Granite is only granite if there's quartz in
it.  Take away the quartz and it's not granite, but that doesn't mean quartz
isn't distinct in itself.  That's how I think about design(ing).

We shouldn't "impose" (per Gunnar) a definition of design, but having a
"reference definition" as a touchstone to ground discussion - even though we
might all admit it's 'wrong' in one way or another - would be, I think, very
beneficial.

As I suggest (and I'm not the only one), it's not a matter of saying
everything is design.  Perhaps we need to consider: (nearly) every activity
/has some design in it/.  Again, it's not a matter of claiming territory, but 
of partitioning knowledge into manageable interrelated chunks.

Anthony Cahalan suggested two definitions.

The first - "Design is the research, analysis and creation of innovative
products and services which shape the human experience" - has a could of
little problems, I think.  Parsing it, I get "Design is the research...of
innovative products...."  How can you research something you haven't designed
yet?  Also, I'm not sure all design must be innovative.  And anyways,
innovation is a relative term.  What's innovative in one product may be
mundane in another.

The second - "Design bridges the gap between the present and the future as a
catalyst for improvement of the human condition" - isn't operational enough
for me - but that's just me.  I like that it explicitly mentions the future,
for nearly everything we design will be used /later/, and we're never really
sure what /later/ will be like.  I also like the notion of catalysis: the
design or its implementation won't improve human condition per se.  But it can
provide the means for that improvement.

Alun Price contributed a definition attributed to Richard Buchanan.  I agree
with the 1st paragraph.  It's not immediately clear that the second paragraph
is part of the same excerpt.  I think it's a little too specific ("artefacts
of visual and tactile communication"), but I like the connection it makes to
communication, and to specific receivers of that communication.

Karen wrote that design is "thoughtful living."  Personally, I see it the
other way around: living thoughtfully has driven me to want to design.  Again,
that may just be me. :-)

Johann van der Merwe wrote from a design theory perspective.  Insofar as I
consider this kind of work as /design research/ rather than design, I'd say 
that his interpretation of Daniel's definition is pretty good.  However, if 
this perspective is applied to doing research on the subject(s) for which 
design will be done, I worry: I believe the difference between creativity (in 
the sense of creating something) in design and in the arts is distinguished by 
the object.  IMHO, artists create primarily, though not only, to express 
themselves; conversely, designers create primarily, though not only, to 
express others.  If this is what Johann meant, then I'm concerned about the 
designer-centricity that I read (perhaps mis-read) there.  However, Johann's 
last paragraph, about taking the other into account, makes me think my first 
interpretation is the right one.

That's what I've got so far.  Hope I haven't bored or annoyed anyone.
Cheers.
Fil



Daniel Chambers wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> I'm sure we have all wrestled with definitions at some point or another.  I
> have been pondering if there is a simple, all-encompassing definition of
> 'Design' that works in all contexts.  I would like to offer the following
> for your critical analysis, discussion and thoughts:
> 
> 'Seeking differentiation through insight'
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Daniel

-- 
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University                         Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St.                           Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON                                email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3  Canada                            http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/