Dear Gunnar,
Wow, what a delightful message and critique.
I suggest there are three things going on:
1. Computer-based automation of many design practices, skills, thinking,
creativity processes and activities previously the province of professional
human skills, thinking and emotions. In most cases, this results in outcomes
better than achieved by most designers (because it is based on distilling
best practices and thinking in design across large numbers of expert
designers).
2. Increased need for designers (I suspect this will apply to MOST
designers) to have deep levels of understanding of complex multi-loop
non-linear multidimensional feedback systems. Some of this knowledge will
need to be mathematically based at when is at present degree-level
mathematics. Knowledge of actual mathematical techniques for undertaking
this work will however be needed less and less as these processes are also
being automated and made available in simple form via computer. An example
is the way that say time series analysis (PhD level in the 70s) is now
available on school children's calculators and used widely by secondary
scholl children in simple design problems with changing inputs.
3. Radical changes in design fields in a highly dynamic with the relative
collapse and replacement of many fields as a result of increased complexity
of design problems being addressed and new knowledge that is resulting in a
shift from foundations in Psychology/Social Science/Humanities towards
foundations in new neurological research/Ethology/Complex Systems/Science.
These forces and factors apply to all design fields but are more significant
to the 'Art and Design' design fields than others. I'm using 'Art and
Design' design fields in the UK sense. They comprise around 40 design fields
and include Graphic Design, Industrial Design, Product Design, Fashion
Design, Textile Design, Architecture' (see for example
http://www.studyin-uk.com/e/studyuk-artdesign/ and
http://diplomaguide.com/article_directory/sh/page/Art%20and%20Design/sh/Job_
Titles_and_Careers_List.html)
One of the claims widely disseminated by academics, researchers and
designers in these 'Art and Design' fields is that they are professionally
qualified using the same methods to also competently design in other areas
that include e.g. design of complex business organisaitonal solutions,
social systems design, engineering systems design, socio-technical systems
design, educational systems design.
My recent posts have had two dimensions. Design as a professional activity
is changing and what is taught and practiced as 'good design professional
practice/education' is commonly badly out of date (although students like
enrolling in courses that teach the earlier stuff!). I'm also emphasizing
that when designers use simplistic design methods in situations that need
more complex design tools, they are open to litigation.
More obviously, I'm pointing to a simple measure that designer or lawyer can
test whether complex systems design tools are necessary. The measure is:
'Are there two or more feedback loops in this design situation?'
If there are 2 or more feedback loops then understanding the system
behaviour is beyond the unaided thinking of any designer or group of
designers. If, as Klaus commented, the situation can be divided into
orthogonal units, they you can address each of these separately (again
asking whether each unit has 2 or more feedback loops).
Best wishes,
Terry
===
Dr. Terence Love
Love Web Services
For friendly website design and high quality web hosting
For organisations, businesses, research centres, ePortfolios and conferences
Tel/Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629
Mobile: +61 (0)434975 848
[log in to unmask]
www.lovewebservices.com
===
Best
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Swanson,
Gunnar
Sent: Sunday, 25 October 2009 5:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)
Terry,
I have to agree with you that
> there are many design situations that are simply too
> complex for any designer to understand or think their way round.
And I'll agree that you are right that the
> behaviour of some design situations is beyond human thinking.
I'd be interested in the list of the many
> design fields (usually outside traditional 'Art and Design' fields)
[that]
> are dominated by these sorts of design situations.
but I suspect that you are right on practical and legal levels, especially
within engineering design. You say that the
> only option proven to work in these complex design situations is
> mathematically-based predictive modeling
and I know that there are many situations (especially in structural
engineering) where rapid prototyping is best done as a virtual model of some
sort. Are there no limits to that?
Your current "usually outside traditional 'Art and Design' fields"
disclaimer makes your comments a bit more reasonable but I have understood
recent posts to mean that you were claiming that mathematically-based
predictive modeling as a paradigm would dominate All design fields including
those inside "traditional 'Art and Design' fields." (I'm still not
completely clear on what "traditional 'Art and Design' fields" are but I
have a vague idea what the term is meant to mean.) Have I been
misunderstanding you? Are you just claiming that you think the situations
where mathematically-based predictive modeling works are the interesting
design problems?
Do you believe that design situations that are not simply too complex for
any designer to understand or think their way round are unworthy of anyone's
attention? You seemed to claim earlier that all aspects of design not so
complex would be completely automated, eliminating this sort of design as a
professional activity. Am I understanding that correctly?
Do you believe that there are no design situations of importance where
mathematically-based predictive modeling is unlikely to be fruitful?
Do you believe that there are no design situations that are really too
complex for any designer to understand or think their way round, thus making
the design of a mathematically-based predictive model unlikely? (If so, do
you care to comment on the current crisis in economics, where the tendency
to develop mathematical models of everything has appeared to show a gap
between the models and complex reality?)
I don't believe that anyone would make the case that there are no important
design problems (especially in engineering) where mathematically-based
predictive modeling is not vital. What I am unable to understand is what
seems to be a belief that all complex design (even where the complexity is
created by social and cultural issues) is subject to mathematically-based
predictive modeling.
Is your argument with Klaus over which design problems each of you finds
interesting or important? Is it a fight over what variety of design each of
you sees as most deserving of the honorific "design"?
Care to elaborate on what design fields are dominated by the sorts of design
situations subject to mathematically-based predictive modeling and which are
not?
Gunnar
----------
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville, North Carolina 27858
USA
[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258 7006
at East Carolina University:
+1 252 328 2839
[log in to unmask]
|