Dear Don
I much agree with your view on the term 'design thinking' which appears
too generic to cater for all needs in different contexts. I would like to
share a few thought on your discussion surrounding the word 'Gestaltung':
The competitive relationship between both terms, 'Gestaltung' and 'Design'
in Germany is decades old, as you probably know. Indeed the word design is
over-used in Germany as much as it is in the rest of the world (although
some languages such as English may lack a suitable synonym to replace it
with). The trouble in Germany from my point of view is the degree of
recognition amongst target audiences. At a design conference, the word
'Gestaltung' would resonate better with most delegates. Amongst
non-designers it raises questions, which, you may argue, is not
necessarily a bad thing. But it might spoil a sales pitch or two, because
some potential clients will be more easily drawn towards the service of a
designer rather than that of a Gestalter (plural of Gestalter is
Gestalter, by the way… Gestalterin is the female equivalent to the male
singular, if you do not mind me pointing that out). Your interest in the
term 'Gestalter' is intriguing. Indeed, will the substitution of a
commonly used term always encourage a reflection on the semantic
connotations. What strikes me, however, is the fact that the term
'designer' in a German context can be perceived as quite pretentious,
whereas the term 'Gestalter' would usually be perceived as comparatively
modest there. I presume that in an English-speaking context, it might be
the other way round. It took me quite a while to get used to the fact that
the term 'gestalt' has never been replaced in conjunction with
'gestalt-theory'. So 'Gestaltung' might work after all. You are the better
judge. I cannot wait to read your essay…
Matthias
> I have read both papers on Design Thinking posted by Chuck Burnette with
> considerable interest. I want to comment here not so much on Chuck's
> papers, but rather on the concept of Design Thinking.
>
>
>
> Cognitive Functions in A Theory of Design Thinking (55 pages)
>
> Designing With A Theory of Design Thinking (17 pages)
>
>
>
> Both papers available at:
>
> https://independent.academia.edu/CharlesBurnette
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Recently, the editor of the journal *Human-Computer Interaction *and I
> have
> been discussing how to get more papers focused upon design into the
> journal. I toyed with the idea of writing a paper on "Design Thinking." A
> colleague offered to co-write it with me. Alas, I soon discovered that
> what
> my colleague thought was design thinking and what I thought it was had
> nothing I common. There was nothing the matter with my colleague's ideas:
> I
> thought them interesting and important. It simply is not what I would have
> called Design Thinking.
>
>
>
> I had a similar reaction to Chuck's writing. His articles on Design
> Thinking has nothing to do with what I call design thinking: they are
> orthogonal approaches. This is not a value judgement: both approaches are
> sensible and useful, but they are quite different in intention and in
> scope. Moreover, Chuck's article had no overlap with the one my colleague
> was suggesting. Three very different views of the same topic.
>
>
>
> Chuck focused upon the creative act. Consider his shorter paper
> "Designing
> with a theory of design thinking." One of his first examples is the
> design
> of "an airbrush for an action painter." He proceeds to solve this problem
> using relational analysis. It is all very logical and sensible and
> probably
> leads to a great result (the final product is not shown: just an
> intermediate sketch). The same design approach was used for a children's
> camera.
>
>
>
> Chuck focused upon problem solving: given the problem, how can the
> designer
> reach a creative, imaginative solution that captures all the essential
> elements.
>
>
>
> My view of Design
>
> Thinking
> (DT)
> focuses upon several components absent from Chucks' analysis: finding the
> proper problem to solve, understanding the human need through observation.
> Continual interaction with the people for whom the item is designed
> through
> rapid iterations of rough prototypes, testing, and further observations.
> Before I try to solve the problem (perhaps using Chuck's methods), I want
> to ensure that we are solving the correct problem. Why an air brush? What
> does the artist wish to create? perhaps the artist asks for an airbrush
> simply because that is what is already known about. Perhaps some
> completely
> different solution would be more appropriate. Finally, after a solution
> is proposed, I need to know if it works. In Chick's airbrush example, how
> does one clean the brush between applications of different paint colors or
> at the end of the day. How easy is it to use? How to artists react to it?
> In the case of the toy, if the camera's display screen is so close to the
> person's mouth (an inch or two), how can the person see it? (The child
> takes a photo by blowing on the whistle end of the camera). Once again,
> where di
> d
> the idea of combining a whistle and a camera come from? Why is that the
> problem being solved: what is the real problem? And, afterwards, was it
> tested?
>
>
>
> Let me be very clear here: I am not stating that my (
> h
> uman-centered design) interpretation of DT is right or wrong. I am not
> saying that Chuck's suggestion is right or wrong. And I am not saying that
> one is better than the other. In fact, as I illustrated, I could combine
> the two methods. What I am saying is that the phrase DT no longer has any
> meaning. (Witness Ken's huge collection of readings on the topic. Far too
> many for most of us to digest, and covering such a wide range of
> interests,
> disciplines, and topics, that I fear for its coherence.)
>
>
>
>
> So this note is to suggest that the term has perhaps lost all utility,
> except as a useful political label to try to convince folks that design is
> more than making things look pretty.
>
>
>
> DT means different things to different people and to different
> professions. Each of the different things it means is a valid approach.
> The problem
>
> is the term "Design
> T
> hinking." Actually, maybe the problem is the word "Design." Design means
> so many different things to the various disciplines that use it, that the
> word, by itself, is not useful. Once again, this is not to contest the
> legitimacy of anyone's usage: all seem legitimate, just as each different
> interpretation of design thinking is legitimate and useful.
>
>
>
> So we need different words.
> DT has lost its utility, except perhaps as a useful political label to
> try to convince folks that design has more to offer than styling, then
> making thing look nice. And while we are at it, let's get rid of the word
> "design."
>
>
>
>
>
> Speaking of
> the word "design,"
> here is an essay I am struggling to write. I give you the first few
> paragraphs. Someday I will finish it.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> I ended the year 2013 at a fascinating, wild dinner party hosted by Fritz
> Frenkler in Munich. I was seated next to Dieter Rams and across from
> Thomas
> Herzog (if you don't know who these people are, you should. A few seconds
> searching their names in your favorite search engine will enlighten you).
>
>
>
> "The word design is worthless," said Dieter. It means everything - in
> Germany it even means hair design. In other words, it means nothing.
> "
> After a long discussion on the ailments that occur from infusing one
> simple
> noun with far too many meanings (many, I hasten to add, being completely
> legitimate), Dieter suggested we retreat back to German. He proposed
> *Gestaltung* as the proper term for the act of design.
>
>
>
> "Gestaltung"? What does that mean? It turns out that opinions vary. But
> there are precedents for the use of Gestaltung: The German name for the
> Ulm
> School of Design (now deceased) was "Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm."
>
>
>
> Suppose we started over, A new name: *Gestaltung* And a new label for
> those of us who practice Gestaltung: We are *Gestalters*. (In German, the
> plural of Gestalter is Gestalterin, but we, after all, are starting
> fresh.)
> The fact that people do not know the meaning of either Gestaltung or
> Gestalter is a virtue: we can decide to make it mean whatever we wish. It
> is a chance to start over.
>
>
>
> *The Munich Manifesto*
>
>
>
> By the time we reached the third bottle of wine, we were ready for a
> manifesto
>
>
>
> .... to be continued.
>
>
>
>
>
> Don Norman
> Nielsen Norman Group, IDEO Fellow
> [log in to unmask] www.jnd.org http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/
> Book: "Design of Everyday Things: Revised and
> Expanded<http://amzn.to/ZOMyys>"
> (DOET2).
> Course: Udacity On-Line course based on
> DOET2<https://www.udacity.com/course/design101>
> (free).
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
