Dear Don,

Thank for your message. I understand what you are saying. I see things
differently and you seem to be misunderstanding what I'm suggesting. 

I understand the position you presented in your email below. The picture you
described of  the relative relationships of  creativity and the use of
information in design was potentially true in the mid-60s when it was first
widely disseminated in the design literature. Things have changed since then
although that position has become increasingly entrenched. As an
epistemological and ontological foundation it  underpins much of the way
design theory has been and is developed, how currently design curricula are
designed and delivered, and how design research is currently conceived and
undertaken.

I'm suggesting that perspective of a balance between creativity/intuition
and what you called ' systematic application of knowledge and principles
within design' was based on idealised and often romantic speculaitons about
design and   is no longer the best way of seeing things. I suggested that it
can be more usefully replaced by a perspective grounded in a reality that
includes all design activity across all design fields. Contrary to your
email, the ideas I suggested apply as much if not more to radical innovation
as  incremental  design. I'm suggesting that  the intuition/creativity based
model  as you referred to is increasingly less relevant and less
representative of best real-world design practices, particularly in
difficult areas of design. 

To put it directly, I'm suggesting it is now obvious the information-based
view of design is more appropriate than the creativity-based view of design
overall, and especially in the design areas that were previously regarded as
the main province of creativity such as radical innovation and  design in
which art-training has been dominant.  

In short, I'm suggesting: 

1)  the world has changed fundamentally  in design terms since the 60s, and
the increased use of information in design requires a different
understanding in which the role of creativity is less emphasised. ; 
2) , that the previous perspective on information vs creativity you
described  is  no longer helpful (or  valid); and 
3) that a different perspective   is more useful that takes into account the
way the world has changed in design-related areas. This different
perspective emphasises the skills of  information use (including skills in
social and natural  sciences) as more important for good design than the
skills in 'creativity' that are currently privileged.  That this refocusing
on information-use  rather than creativity is especially important in
radical innovation, human-focused design, collaboration/participatory
design, and visual design involving communication and aesthetics. 

The evidence and justification for this position seems straightforward
although currently overlooked in the design literature:

*  The world has changed: There has been a massive increase in formal
validated knowledge. Many are not yet aware of the scale of this  recent
change in knowledge and technology. Example: more than 75% of all the
scientists that have ever lived are alive today. Example 2: there are enough
transistors made each year to attach individual devices to every grain of
rice that is grown this year to map their whole life span. Example 3: most
(99%?) of the design work and design decisions on products  such as the
iPhone/iPad  are primarily scientific and those design aspects  currently
viewed as primarily due to human creativity(e.g.Jobs'  input)  are not
obviously purely dependent on being undertaken by a human designer .
Designers previously operated in a world in which it was difficult or
impossible to devise designs on the basis of well-tested knowledge. Instead,
the only possibility was to create designs using personal experience,
creative speculation and trial and error. I'm suggesting that even if it is
not clear to many designers,  most of what was previous  possible only via
creativity and guesswork, can, and often is, better done via design activity
based on research-derived knowledge. There are around four decades of
extensive real world evidence that  this is so - including the changes in
design practices of designers.

*       Human skills in creativity are no longer the primary basis  for
design decisions in almost all areas of design; regardless of designers and
design academics opinions otherwise. Designers are often deluded that they
are using 'creativity' when in fact they are badly replicating information
processing activities that can be better done by formal methods. I'm
suggesting this applies particularly  in areas that previously have been the
province of 'art#-based education such as children's book illustration where
large amounts of useful design information are available across multiple
(non-design)  domains such as child psychology, ethology and child
development;  and in design relating to new radical innovation especially
for disruptive design technologies. For incremental design, the benefits of
the use of information-based design approaches  rather than dependence on
human creative skills have been  obvious for decades.

*   The field of options for creating a successful design is limited. This
obviously true as some designs are better than others. It is now easy to
find information that, if the designer can select and  understand it, will
provide the means to bound the field of options sufficient in many cases to
almost completely optimally specify the details of design solutions -
including those regarded as most firmly in the terrain of 'creativity
methods'.  Practical experience with these approaches show a) they
consistently produce  successful designs; b) they require skill and
knowledge and time; and c) the training to acquire these kinds of design
skills and knowledge  is different from that  of the skills of using
creativity intended to be used with minimal out access to relevant
information.

 This seems to align strongly with your earlier suggestions for an increase
in 'scientific' knowledge by designers in for example psychology , and
Derek's comments on the need for designers and design researchers sound
reasoning skills.

 I welcome your comments.

Best regards,
Terry

===
Dr Terence Love
[log in to unmask]   Mob: +61 434 975 848

Dept of Design, 
Researcher, Social Program Evaluation Research Unit
Dept of Psychology and Social Sciences
Edith Cowan University, Western Australia

Dept of Design
Curtin University, Western Australia

Honorary Visiting  Researcher, IEED
Management School, Lancaster University, UK
===



-----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 Don
Norman
Sent: 13 October 2011 20:34
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: When points of view conflict: creativity in design. PhDs versus
practioners.

I'm far behind the threads on intuition and the one on education, but let my
apply my standard rubric:

* When intelligent people disagree, it often turns out that all are correct
-- they are simply talking about different things, or perhaps the same thing
but viewed from a very different perspective.*

I think the argument about the role of intuition versus a systematic
application of knowledge and principles within design is a case in point.
Similarly for the argument about whether or not the PhD in design is harmful
to the field. Let me discuss these briefly.

Intuition versus Systematicity in Design

Some day Roberto Verganti and i will finish our paper in which these ideas
are better developed. Here is how roberto and I discuss this:
Incremental and radical innovation are very different activities.
Incremental is the home for the systematic application of known knowledge
and principles. Radical is the home for "intuition". (Both are creative.)

Aside: I dislike the word intuition. Intuition means that the person has no
idea where the thought or action has come from. Intuition requires years of
study and practice to acquire in any domain.
However, in this case, it does apply. When someone says "I want to design
this so that it is intuitive to use," I reply, "Oh, you mean you want the
person to spend years learning how to use it."


================
Radical innovation: rare. Where focussed "intuition" applies.

Radical innovation is the most popular and the most talked about, especially
when we talk of creativity. It is, however, the most rare.
Roberto and i contend that the number of radical innovations within any
field is very small. Each of us will only live through a small number of
radical innovations in our lifetime.  Radical innovation is where the kind
of intuition being discussed her shines. It does have several stages,  as
outlined by Birger:

* Preparation: deep thought about a problem coupled with a substantial
period attempting to find a solution. This stage provides the
internalization of much information, knowledge, and skills: this is called
preparation.
* Incubation and Illumination: A period of non-activity, letting the
sub-conscious part of the mind process the information. The subconscious is
a very powerful multi-processor that basically tries to find stable
equilibria (minimum energy configurations). When it finds one, it signals
the conscious mind.  The subconscious part is
called incubation and the signaling is illumination.   These
components were described a long time ago by the mathematician, Henri
Poincare.
* Verification: The subconscious is often wrong. As Poincare put it (in my
words), it can find great novelty, but it doesn't know how to do arithmetic.
Most of the time, these insights are false.That is why the stage of
verification is needed.

In the world of real design and products, most of these wonderfully
creative radical ideas go nowhere.   It takes more than a good idea to
be successful.

================
Incremental Innovation. The most common. Here is where systematic approaches
apply.

Almost everything we do as designers that have any real value in the world
is an incremental enhancement of what already exists. Here is where the
techniques called "Human-Centered Design" are relevant. here is where the
approach outlined by Terry applies. This is also a creative process, but
different than the radical one.

====
Both radical and incremental innovation can be creative. But they are two
very different activities.

We don't know how to teach radical innovation. Hence, emphasis on various
brainstorming methods (most of which either have no evidence to support them
or have evidence showing they do no good. But they are a lot of fun, which
is why we do them.)  The four stages of preparation, incubation, insight,
and verification have a solid set of experimental evidence behind them, but
they describe the process: they do not help us make sure it happens.

Although i am a friend and a fan of Cikszentmihailyi, there is no evidence
that his flow state actually leads to great creativity. The flow state
occurs in passive reading or observation of plays, listening to music,
movies, and active participation in computer games. it does occur in periods
of deep thought. It might be a necessary state for creativity, especially
preparation. But again, it is a description, not an explanation.

===
On a related question; is the PhD harmful to design education?  The answer
is Yes and No, depending upon what aspect of design education is being
considered. One could make a case that they (sometimes) can be harmful for
the training of practitioners. But No -- they are essential to advance the
underlying knowledge base and deep understanding of design.

Here is an example from my experience as an industry executive (I was a VP
at Apple). We hired PhDs in my research group, but we were very suspicious
of hiring PhDs in the product groups.  Practitioners are needed to train
practitioners. PhDs are need to help advance the scholarly base of the
filed, but most PhDs have very little practical
knowledge: they want to be creative, they want to do deep thinking about
principles and reasons. This is good for the field, but detrimental to the
development and shipping of products.

We need practioners to teach practice and PhDs to teach theory. Both are
needed. It is wrong to question whether one is detrimental to Design when
both are essential.

Don Norman