Hi Terry (again :-)
I suspect we use very different definitions of "complexity". To me the most
"simple" design say a pen, a desk, a small software application, etc, are
all examples of objects with infinite complexity, since they all encompass
all possible and existing ethical, aesthetical, and rational dimensions of
reality.
I am not sure what you mean by "simple situations" and "complex situations",
I can't even imagine a "simple situation" in design.
As an example, I recently listened to a presentation by IDEO where they had
been asked to design a airplane cockpit instrumentation and environment, the
whole thing. They of course were no expert on airplanes but are experts on
the design process. They came up with a cockpit design that has won prizes
for being a great airplane design. Of course they approached the situation
in a designerly way and with their design process they could reach new ideas
and a new design. I don't know if you would consider this as a complex
situation. For me it is, theoretically not more complex (or wicked) than a
design of a pen, but maybe that is what you mean.
best
Erik
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
>
>
> I’m suggesting this is a serious issue for design practice, design research
> and design educaiton.
>
>
>
> The most common view in the field has been as you say, that,
>
>
>
> “Designers use their developed judgement, their trained sensitivity to
> complexity, composition, and quality as their guiding tools.”
>
>
>
> I’m making the serious suggestion that this approach and the rest of the
> tools of design practice (of the kind of designers that Klaus refers) don’t
> work in anything other than simple situations.
>
>
>
> I’m suggesting that in complex situations, which is the new territory that
> designers and design educators are claiming to be skilled in, what is
> taught in design schools and is practiced by most designers doesn’t work.
> Also, that the design research that has assumed normal design practices is
> also likely to be faulty.
>
>
>
> I’d be very interested in any arguments that this isn’t necessarily so.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Terry
>
>
>
|