Derek,
I agree with you; there are different perspectives on the Rubik's cube of
design - and they're all valid within one or more contexts. Language,
representing those perspectives, will change as a result.
But it's still a Rubik's cube. :)
I also am perfectly happy to accept as equally valid (at least for now) that
some of the items I noted might be thought of as non-design-y.
In my mind, this bears partly on the difference between how professional
designers and design researchers view design, as opposed to how
the-rest-of-the-world sees it. I know many very knowledgeable non-designers
who think design does right down to my step 4. This doesn't mean they're
right, but their perspective must be part of the conversation, I think.
As an example of just how gray this thing may really be, consider that while
Derek identified step 4 as possibly synonymous with 'planning,' I might
argue that planning occurs throughout the process, in that even the first
step lays out an understanding that must both be planned and is an essential
component of planning step 2.
I once wrote a paper that tried to define design by identifying what it's
*not.* (The premise being that everything that is not-design must be
design.) I still think it's a good idea. For those who are interested, you
can read it here:
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/I/Papers/NleFasDpp07Preprint.pdf
Cheers.
Fil
On 21 September 2011 05:11, Derek B. Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Fil.
>
> Your four points are spot on. I would say that — for some uses — there is
> other vocabulary that describes them, but doesn't challenge them.
>
> Some might argue that designing is only #1 and #2, whereas #3 is decision
> making, and #4 is planning.
>
> Another way to slice it is to conceptualize it as strategy — goal,
> resources, methods, with a theory on the employment of resources through
> methods to reach the goal. Hence "ends, ways and means".
>
> What is clear to us too is that you need to start with a mystery to solve
> or a solution to design. Then, we start to seek information, turn that into
> evidence for making claims, build theory for situated action, craft possible
> solutions that are reposed on that theory, and then select one of those
> solutions for actual employment.
>
> All starts, though, with what you want to get done.
>
> d.
>
> _________________
> Dr. Derek B. Miller
> Director
>
> The Policy Lab
> 321 Columbus Ave.
> Seventh Floor of the Electric Carriage House
> Boston, MA 02116
> United States of America
>
> Phone
> +1 617 440 4409
> Twitter
> @Policylabtweets
> Web
> www.thepolicylab.org
>
> This e-mail includes proprietary and confidential information belonging to
> The Policy Lab, Ltd. All rights reserved.
>
> [...]
>
>
--
\V/_
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|