Dear Colleagues,
I use the current subject heather because my post is in response to that thread. Otherwise I would have named it "programming before design."
In the 1960's it was believed that the awareness about a conscious and formalized programming/briefing phase is the biggest contribution of design research. Now, fifty years later, we hear arguments that action can go before analysis. Action has preceded analysis for centuries -- this is nothing new. Medieval master-builders were first erecting the structures. If the structure didn't fall, it was a success. Then they "map" the structure and the process so that they can replicated it next time.
One general and universal model of human problem solving is analysis-synthesis-evaluation. These three stages are further operationalized in different ways in different design and planning disciplines. When the process is modeled, each stage can be truncated or extended depending on the phenomenon that is designed, the field of design, and the paradigmatic research approach.
In graphic design briefs/programs may not provide enough insight for an exciting logo. When we have to design objects with very high symbolic and aesthetic weight, programming might direct us towards a field of possible solutions, but doesn't guarantee really great innovation. The problem is not in programming by itself. The problem is in the way programming is done. Another problem is that designers are not trained to use a really profound program. In such situations, brainstorming is most productive. Make ten designs, submit them for analysis and evaluation to the client or colleagues, select one of them for application. It is that simple. Crowdsourcing might work better than hiring a designer. I wish someone would work on how is it possible to program graphic design projects in such a way, that we can develop exciting and fascinating logos, that convey the right information to the majority of people.
Now let's go to urban planning. They have a long tradition of collecting and processing information with the purpose of making projections for the future states of affairs, developing requirements, and guidelines. In urban planning, it is more than obvious that without proper information collection and analysis, it is not possible to proceed. The projects are very complex and a single person cannot contemplate, incubate, and come with an insight. There are about 15 and up to 30 different disciplines working on a single project. They envisage the future, the next 20-30 years. Submitting an idea and then analyzing it is not an option. Everything proceeds very methodically, step by step, with consideration for all factors and proper justification.
Policy design requires a lot of research preparation. Careful information collection, organization, and analysis are even more important than in urban design. The product is predominantly in verbal format. Policies are most often presented in abstract terms. They take the forms of regulations, guidelines, and standards. While design evaluation can be done on the basis of personal experience (skid row people are asked to evaluate the public housing project), policy evaluation require very complex and abstract thinking. Professionals can assess a policy only if they have the context information and are able to understand it. They also should be able to predict how the policy will work/function and what will be the consequences for different interest groups.
The policy functional environment is so complex and so detached from the average person, that people cannot figure out how this policy will affect their interests. People rarely think about that, besides that the "laws are stupid." And they propose laws that are worse and would work against their own interests. Just because they cannot imagine the consequences. Consequences (or effects) is the key notion. When we design at material and visual level, it is much easier to imagine how the artifact will function. When we design those intangible policies, it is very difficult to assess them. So, we come to the adage "garbage in, garbage out." We will submit a garbage policy. People will see that it is not good. But because they don't have Information (that is important) and experience to process that information, their proposals would not be good too. And they can generate dozens of bad alternative proposals. That would not make one good policy.
Now a bit about the new rage on the block -- evidence-based design (architectural design). It is actually a new version of all previous initiatives about users and usability. However, the new trend is much more rigorous and demanding on architectural design firms. It originates in the health care industry and draws strength from the trillions of dollars spent there. Like it or not, we have to consider it, if we want to ride the train. There are billions of dollars there. I mean for design only. The spirit of evidence-based design is about basing design decisions on research. I hope that this new development will create unbelievable demand for design research at all levels. At the turn of the century, many large architectural design firms have hired researchers with doctoral training. I hope that in many design fields research will start before design and will continue during the design process. I will stop here. The utilization, application, and coordination of research in design is a different topic.
Best wishes,
Lubomir
|