On 29 January 2014 14:49, Don Norman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Moreover, Chuck's article had no overlap with the one my colleague
> was suggesting. Three very different views of the same topic.
>
Don, perhaps you and your colleague and Chuck need to write a paper
together, setting the three views side by side and discussing their scopes,
etc. I'd love to read it!
Also:
On 29 January 2014 14:49, Don Norman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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.
This sent a shiver up my spine because it is virtually word-for-word how I
try to explain "problem analysis" to my students (that being the first real
step of the process as I teach it to the engineering students).
/fas
\V/_
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|