Dear Ken
I think that you misunderstand the statement "Action" before "Analysis".
This represents a mindset problem in my view of the present scientific
management community that runs most of our governments and our industrial
and economic activities. This mindset comes from the other side of the
"River". There is a deep held belief that for any serious "policy" issue the
immediate response must be to invest in more research of the analysis kind
and that happens all the time here in india and I am sure this is the case
in many parts of the world since the analytical science community draws out
much of the available resources towards such research that is grounded in a
deep belief in analysis as a way out of the difficult and complex problems
that we face today, and here we do need more investment in design research
that is not of the analysis kind but that is projective and one that looks
for and seeks out new and imaginative scenarios that the managers can
seriously look at as possible policy shifts.
Design operates at many levels and in my classification of these levels, the
three orders of design apply to all design problems and opportunities but
the focus could shift from one level to the next depending on what the
designer or the design student is addressing at the time. We have been
training our students to be sensitive to all three levels even at the
undergraduate level and in my course that I created for the NID's Fundation
programme this has been the fundaments assumption that informed the content
and treatment for the course. I started teaching this course as a
traditional introduction to design methods in 1988, what you would call a
typical course in an Art and Design school curriculum but ten year down the
line with many iterations and insights from our engagement with students as
well as our professional contacts in the complex issues from the field in
India we had modified and changed the course from being focused on
individual brilliance to that of team work and visualisation of complex
issues faced by our society in India and these included poverty,
malnutrition, hunger, water, education, health, employment and many many
other pressing issues where our policy makers have failed miserably to
address and we did believe (and still do) that the use of design could bring
significant break through in the quality and content of the policy offerings
that could be made. The course is now called Design Concepts and Concerns
and deals with Design Thinking and Action that is laced with feeling and
deep empathy with the reality on the ground.
The action that is proposed could start with projected concepts as well as
mapping of the context, however imperfect, since we act on the basis of our
current understanding and belief. However projected actions in the form of
scenarios and models of the situation as understood by the team gives them a
visualisation and an external model from which they can bring in additional
stakeholders who may be able to add value to the understanding of that
situation. Having done this we also find that there is a need to bring a
sense of openness and suspension of ego as the team moves towards shared
perspectives that becomes the foundation for the next round of scenario
visualisations that would follow. These are iterative and synthesis is
followed by periods of analysis and these processes are what I think are at
the heart of design thought and action. In 2001-2002 I was invited by a
visiting scholar to write a paper on my course to be published as one of the
contributions from a collection from India on a special issue on India of
Design Issues that was then proposed. I did write and submit that paper and
I titled it "The Avalanche Effect: Institutional frameworks and Design as a
development resource in India". I think that the claims that I made in that
paper was unacceptable for the peer group at the Design Issues editorial
team and it was rejected and there fore not included in the published
version of the India focussed issue. I got the message about its rejection
when I was working in the field at Agartala at the new design school that we
had set up to help bring design focus to the bamboo sector in India. Since I
was a member on the PhD-Design list at that time I posted the full paper
immediately on that day in 2003 on to the list and many interesting
discussions followed from this lost. It is obvious to me that the claims
that I was making on behalf of design action first was found lacking in
credibility in the peer review space of the esteemed Design Issues journal.
Download paper here in pdf 55kb <https://files.me.com/ranjanmp/00lybg>
Link to the PhD-Design post on 1 December 2003 is here below
<
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind03&L=PHD-DESIGN&P=R180559&1=PHD-DESIGN&9=A&J=on&d=No+Match%3BMatch%3BMatches&z=4
>
I quote from my post on PhD-Design from December 2003
"I am sharing a recent (unpublished) paper that I have prepared for a design
journal which may give the list an insight into the perspectives for design
in India (not generally available) and some of the processes that we have
followed in our own education programmes at NID as well as my own
interpretation of systems thinking as it could be applied to complex and
non-traditional design tasks, that is other than the design of artefacts,
communications, software and spaces. In this case study reproduced below,
the design tasks that were assigned to Foundation students at NID dealt with
the conception and articulation of new institutional frameworks for design,
each focussed on one selected sector of the Indian economy in critical need
of design action (in our opinion – there was no client). The intention is to
show that application of design at the strategic level can be a very
powerful tool for the solving of very complex problems, involving many
disciplines and spheres of knowledge, that goes well beyond the usual scope
of design tasks as traditionally defined and taught in design curricula.
Perhaps, speculatively attempting to articulate a kind of design for
future generations
of designers in India."
UnQuote
Three years later I wrote up another paper titled " Creating the Unknowable:
Designing the Future in Education" which was submitted for peer review to
the EAD 06 conference at Bremen, Germany where it was accepted and presented
in March 2006. Here too the claims were the same and the design world was
willing to look at these new claims in a more acceptable light. I have since
then started my blog called "Design for India" and another blog that dealt
with my course at the National Institute of Design called "Design Concepts
and Concerns. (DCC)
Download the EAD 06 paper as a pdf file here <
https://files.me.com/ranjanmp/s9mr9c>
Links to Design for India <http://www.design-for-india.blogspot.com/>
Link for DCC blog <http://www.design-concepts-and-concerns.blogspot.com/>
I offer these blog posts as my argument to support the claim that design can
address complex policy issue and that it can be taught in design schools
with great effect. I have found that the science and technology
establishment in India is interested in specifications that can be used to
inform policy that can address the critical problems that are faced here in
Indian. Many projects are funded to support the creation of these
specification and huge funds are expended to support the analytical
activities that lead to the drafting of these specifications. However very
little is done on the other hand to invest in design exploration to discover
new and innovative directions even in the form of visualisations that can
help policy makers to take forward looking decisions and not looking at past
successes as the only way forward.
Ken, I do agree with you that the traditional art and design school
curriculum cannot address the kind of policy issues that you are referring
to. This is why a group of designers from India made a concerted effort to
influence national design education policy earlier this year when the
Government of India announced a scheme to bring in public private
partnership to the setting up of the four new NID's that were proposed as
part of the design policy here in India. We set up a social network and a
group called "Vision First" and took our call to the Government and I must
report that we have had success in this initiative since the Governments
hasty actions have been stayed and we have been invited to the policy table
and the proposal is to have a series of round table discussions and
visuialiastion sessions that could map out the outlines of a new drive
forward which could be shown to the policy makers just as out classroom
assignments in visualising complex Indian design opportunities showed us
many insights for real action on the ground that was possible. We had
meetings with the Department of Industrial Policy and Projects (DIPP) which
is in charge of the new design schools and of design policy here in India as
well as meetings with the National Planning Commission to take our views
into account in a democratic manner. Our statement was taht the design
community in India must have a say in the matter of the future of Indian
design schools that would be set up by the use of public funds and we have
been successful in getting the Government to listen to us. You can se the
developments of this initiative on our website here at this link:
<http://visionfirst.in/>
Coming back to action vs analysis first, all I have to say is that the
"River" does exist and we sit on opposite banks with vastly different
beliefs in the theory of design and in the traditions that we have been
grounded in over years of experience. However, both sides have much to offer
and we will need to work together to bridge the gap in the years ahead. We
do believe in Vision First and action on the basis of convictions based on
these visions that are tested through the design processes of visualisation,
modeling and test prototyping etc. In May 2011 I delivered the opening
keynote lecture at the conference in Amsterdam titled "What Design Can Do."
you can download my lecture and slide show from the link provide below. In
this lecture I had called for a major change in Government policy as well as
the location of design within the structure of government here in India
which I believe must happen if design is to be used as a effective tool for
good governance here in India. Take a look at the models that I propose.
Amsterdam lecture (Zip pdf 2.3 MB) <https://files.me.com/ranjanmp/rlmjp1>
With warm regards
M P Ranjan
from my imac at home on the NID campus
13 July 2011 at 11.50 am IST
-------------------------------------------------------------
*Prof M P Ranjan*
*Design Thinker and author of blog -
www.Designforindia.com<http://design-for-india.blogspot.com/>
*
E8 Faculty Housing
National Institute of Design
Paldi
Ahmedabad 380 007 India
Tel: (res) 91 79 26610054
email: ranjanmp@g <[log in to unmask]>mail.com
<[log in to unmask]>web site: http://homepage.mac.com/ranjanmp
<http://homepage.mac.com/ranjanmp>web domain: http://www.ranjanmp.in
<http://www.ranjanmp.in/>blog: <http://www.design-for-india.blogspot.com>
education blog: <http://www.design-concepts-and-concerns.blogspot.com>
education blog: http://www.visible-information-india.blogspot.com
<http://www.visible-information-india.blogspot.com/>
------------------------------------------------------------
On 10 July 2011 07:04, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> Dear Ranjan, Johann, and Fil,
>
> This is a quick response to your posts on acting before analysis.
> Action may take place before analysis in design, but your examples are
> of a different kind than policy design, the subject of the thread.
>
> The example of the cows involves a single individual designing a system
> to manage a problem under his own control on his own property. It does
> not entail systems of the kind one deals with in maritime security.
>
> Policy design typically involves large-scale systems with many actors.
> Problems arising in policy design generate the difficulties that Rittel
> and Weber identified in their work on wicked problems. Policy design
> involves goals, plans, and strategies together with enabling laws,
> treaties, and regulations, followed by programs and tactics to implement
> them. Policy design generally involves multiple actors, often from
> different stakeholder groups, sometimes from different organization and
> even different regulatory situations. The planning horizon is extensive,
> and you generally can’t try rapid prototypes in the field.
>
> While you can learn a great deal by observing students at work when
> they think and design, you can’t learn much about policy design. You
> learn about creative proposals and ways of working that you may later
> bring to bear on policy design.
>
> Whether a student develops a great proposal or a bad one in solving
> thorny problems for a course, nothing happens to real human beings.
> Imagined consequences affect imaginary people in the imagined situation
> whose problems we imagine trying to solve. Depending on the subject,
> design students create mental models that build cities, restructure the
> work-flow of a hospital, transform fuel efficiency, feed orphaned
> calves, or make new chairs. But nothing more than thinking and modeling
> happens until students take their mental models into the world, doing
> the hard work of bringing the idea from mental model into living
> application. This happens only rarely, in special programs such as the
> Aalto Design Factory or the WhizKid Games project we developed here at
> Swinburne to work with autistic children.
>
> Policy design is also different to the world of designing artifacts or
> small-scale systems accessible to control by a single individual. In the
> world of policy design, small changes that are nearly invisible to most
> of us can have major effect. Let me give you two cases of real-world
> policy design that are in the news with respect to social welfare in the
> United States. In social security planning, changes to the basis on
> which the government calculates cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) can
> improve the lives of retired people or tip them into poverty. One debate
> before the United States Congress involves such a change. Some people
> propose a new method called “chained CPI” to calculate adjustments
> (Let’s leave the technical details to the side. It’s a new way to
> calculate COLA that will save money by reducing payments to the
> retired.) The proponents of chained CPI represent it as a minor
> budget-saving proposal. It’s minor for them, but it would effectively
> end cost-of-living adjustments through a series of economic austerity
> tricks. Millions of Americans depend on social security for 90% of their
> income. This minor adjustment makes a huge difference to them. For some,
> it will mean living on a diet of bread or cat food. For many retirees
> with ongoing mortgage payments or those who live in rental properties,
> it will mean homelessness. A similar issue involves proposed changes to
> the US Medicare program. Over half of all Medicare beneficiaries have an
> income of less than $22,000. For many, some proposed changes mean no
> medical attention and no prescription drugs. This is a case of policy
> design. Seemingly minor figures buried in a large plan can mean reduced
> life quality for millions. Proposed changes in Medicare would likely be
> a death warrant for several hundred thousand whose coverage will change
> so drastically that they do not have access to the health support they
> require to live.
>
> This thread began in a response on policy design. This is a specific
> and limited instance of design. Student design activities or small-scale
> design projects are not cases of policy design. These require more than
> an art school perspective, particularly when policy covers such
> large-scale issues as public health systems, maritime security, or
> pension indexing, large-scale systems involving multiple actors and
> multiple overlapping legal or regulatory regimes.
>
> You and Jonas pointed to situations where we can act before analyzing.
> I agree. I’ve often taken action before undertaking a full analysis.
> This is entirely reasonable in situations where the stakes are moderate
> or low, especially when I can rapidly reverse the effects of a wrong
> decision, monitoring the effects of my decision to follow the
> consequences. This is often necessary when the effects of inaction are
> likely to be worse than the effects of a wrong decision. Designers do
> this all the time. Expert designers working in context have a background
> of mental models, heuristics, and experience – sometimes including
> research – to permit skilled judgment in practice.
>
> Policy design situations are generally too large and complex to permit
> action before analysis. Time horizons, budgets, and stakeholder
> constraints make consequences far more significant than any other kind
> of project we address.
>
> Action before analysis works most of the time for what most of us do.
> This is especially true for those who analyze and reflect on the their
> actions. Starting with analysis is important when people design policies
> affecting many people, especially when we design policies for other
> people that may not affect us.
>
> In this thread, I’m not describing all the kinds of design we
> consider on this list or in our work. I focus on policy design.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ken
>
> Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
> Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology
> | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61 3
> 9214 6078 | Faculty www.swinburne.edu.au/design
>
|
