Dear Ken,
It's been a couple of days now since your ad hominem post criticising me. I
was very much surprised by it and thought I would wait a while before
replying. Your post was odd, additionally because of your previous
criticisms of such posts. Its also odd because it doesn't match with the
reality or your knowledge of reality. You know how much I've read across the
different design fields over the last 40 years and that it include hundreds
of papers in the research and practice literature material in the areas
that you accuses me of not having read. Your comments seem weird. You also
know that I've worked in many different design fields rather than a single
field. Its odd because we have discussed many issues on and offline, on the
phone, at meetings and at many conferences for what is now over 15 years.
I'm puzzled at your comments. For others wanting to check Ken's claims, the
breadth of my reading across design fields can be seen in the reference
lists of the papers on my website at www.love.com.au please check for
yourself.
You mentioned Anders Skoe's work at La Clusaz. I very much enjoyed meeting
Anders and hearing him at La Clusaz and hold Anders and his work in high
regard. His manual for creating customer care was new, innovative and
powerful in design research at that time, drawing as it did on business
innovation practices. It was also interesting at the time because the
methods he described in the Creating Customer Care manual , although new in
the Art and Design fields of the time (around 2000), were well
-established knowledge and widely taught to other designers two decades
earlier at least in design realms in which group work and group dynamics
were stock in trade. Which in part may be the foundation that made Anders
work so well developed. For example, in the UK, the JNC Youth and Community
Work Module 1 course from the early 1980s (for those designing innovative
youth and community programs) covered much the same territory as Anders'
manual , additionally with Kelly's construct theory and the theories of
Green of Ohio (though that bit I can't remember beyond the name!).
Regardless, Anders manual was, and remains, a useful contribution in many
Art and Design design fields. You, and David, and Martin seem to be arguing
that I'm acting against Art and Design by my comments that focus on
exploring better ways than current practices. What to do? When there are
issues in Art and Design that seem problematic or traditions that seem stuck
and unhelpful, someone has to say these things.
Enough on that, your comments on solution space and choice made me also
wonder where you were coming from. There are a number of ways the solutions
space and choice issues can be viewed from superficial to highly
complicated. I'll try to describe them and my view on where I see your
perspective is, and how this might illustrate differences of position.
From what you have written in the past about different aspects of design
(in which solution space issues are tacitly implied) and in your emails, and
with reference to Anders' manual, I suspect we have a very different
understanding of solution space. Here goes. . .
There are several ways to see solution space and the act of choosing the
elements of design from solution space. For this I'm including all realms
of design not just those in Art and Design. The discussions about theories
of solution space exist at several very different levels of understanding
and theory.
The simplest, most superficial and smallest understanding of solution space
(and smallest size and complicatedness of bounds on solution space) is the
solution space of a situation defined by those involved in creating a
design. This mini-solution space is the solution space that which designers
can visualise or brainstorm and from which they choose design solutions or
assemble parts of design solutions. It is the most common version of what
people mean by solution space in much of the design literature. And yes, I
have read hundreds of papers and books in design pushing this version of
solution space. It is also the limited view of solution space that Rittel
was railing against in RittelThink (1971) . It is the mini-version of
solution space used in what Rittel called the 1st generation model of
design, which remains the most common approach in design in small design
firms.
Rittel's description in RittleThink was of a 2nd Generation model of
design that had a larger version of solution space that was increased by
including in the design process the users, stakeholders and the
constituencies whose lives would be influenced by the designed outcomes. By
including stakeholders and constituencies in a discussion process (an
argument in Rittels terms - which primarily was done to avoid designers
dominating and overruling others), the regions of design solution space
that could be visualised in the design process increased compared to those
visualised by designers alone. What Rittel described was not a new idea. In
the US it was driven by the approaches of the earlier community
participation in planning movements form the 50s and 60s that many planners
first avoided and then tried to include. You can see it for example in Jane
Jacobs (1961) and others writings of the period. It is also seen in
Jeffrey's book 'CPTED' (1971) and Newman's book 'Defensible Space' (1971)
Like Rittel all three described 2nd generation design processes for planning
and urban design.
There is a yet larger version of solution space that emerged in Architecture
in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s based on product and attribute grammars,
morphological analysis and related ways of abstracting generic solution and
problem attributes and the causal, set and mereological relationships
between them. Perhaps the most famous in this area of design research is
Alexander with his Notes on the Synthesis of Form in 1964. Incidentally,
Alexander described a program that created the decompositions across
solution space. It doesn't work. I created the software myself following
Alexander's description and tested it. A few years ago I had dinner with a
senior staff member from the Institute of Design in Chicago. He had also
created the software and also found it failed. Apparently it was only
through correspondence with Chris Alexander the issues were resolved. Others
such as the design research team under John Gero at Sydney University,
design researchers at Cambridge University and the Morphological Analysis
Group in Sweden building on the work of Zwicky in solving wicked problems,
and sundry engineering teams in NASA and various militaries were all
extending the volume of solution space well beyond those of 1st Generation
and 2nd Generation design approaches. These mainly followed either a set
theory/mereological approach that could be analysed in n dimensional
attribute spaces or used a language-based approach of solution attribute
grammars. For references see, e.g http://www.swemorph.com/ ;
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-011-2787-5_15 ; and a
good list of shape grammar papers at
http://www.shapegrammar.org/refs-text.html . A lot of this work is
mathematically-based. It is perhaps worth noting that Horst Rittel, like
Chris Alexander, Klaus Krippendorff, Don Norman, Nam Suh and many others
who are considered key originators of research and theories about Design
started with strong scientific, mathematical and engineering backgrounds and
in some cases maintain them today as part of their theorising about design.
I'm following that tradition being originally an engineering and product
designer who transitioned into Art and Design and Services Design, then
other kinds of design, with design research following the same path. Hardly
odd and unique.
Ken, I value your writing. I have got the impression, however, from your
publications or your discussions with me over the last 20 years or on this
phd-design list, that when you are discussing solution space this latter is
not the kind of solution space you are thinking about?
Now, the above three types of design solutions space, are the most
restrictive and partial of the realms of solution space in the design
literature. Others have found this also. The solution space literature has
also extended to focus beyond the solution spaces that could be envisaged
by the designers (1st generation design); the designers, stakeholders and
affected constituencies (2nd generation design); or both those and the
characteristics of the products and design problems (morphologies,
attribute grammars and shape grammars).
Other design literatures on solution space focus on the use mathematics and
computerised software to identify extensive areas of design solution space
not typically directly identified by humans. Identifying these larger
unknown realms of solution space is typically undertaken by focusing on the
characteristics of the abstractions of what designers and others identify
in solution space. Then using these characteristics to open up other
dimensions of solution space to identify solutions that humans would
typically never explore regardless of the quality of their brainstorming, or
regions of solution space that are so extensive that finding solutions by
human design processes would take too long. In this realm, the above three
positions on solution space analysis are extended through the application
of neural networks, artificial intelligence analyses, back casting bayesian
analyses, Kohonen self organising or learning nets (brilliant stuff by
Teuvo Kohonen) and genetic algorithms with simulated annealing. All of these
extend the bounds of solution space by inferring and eliciting larger realms
of solution space than the limited picture available to human actors in
design processes. Examples of papers include
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2339460 ;
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00038628.1997.9697382?journalCode
=tasr20#preview ; http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/ucacpjb/BEWAJ2.pdf ;
http://sclab.yonsei.ac.kr/publications/Papers/EAAI2000-2.pdf ;
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.18.7009&rep=rep1&ty
pe=pdf ; http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2145685
Again, Ken, I feel from talking with you and reading your writings that
this fourth realm of solution space is different to what you regard as
solution space. It is, however, connected with what Rittel was inferring.
Beyond this fourth realm of solution space, there are several more
extensions of solution space thinking since the 1990s that I'll omit for
brevity except two.
In parallel to the above is an extension of solution space revealed by Jay
Forrester and others at MIT and elsewhere involving feedback loops and
which focus on dynamic behaviours of design solutions that are beyond what
individuals and groups can mentally conceive or that can be mentally or
intuitively predicted their behaviours off the physical attributes of
designs, contexts and briefs. As you know I've been banging on about this
aspect of solution space that is outside what designers can think for some
time, in part because it appears to resolve many of the issues Rittel
identified in RittleThink and his work on 'wicked problems'.
Finally, in the absolute limit, solution space is much bigger than all of
the above. It has a large number of physical and abstract dimensions, but in
the limit the bounds of solution space have nothing to do with designers and
others' ideas for designs, or the properties of designs themselves or
projections on any of these or abstractions about them. Rather, solution
space is bounded only by physical attributes of the universe unconnected
with solutions, and this includes attributes of individuals and groups
mental 'solution spaces'. This is a universe-centred understanding, To agree
with Klaus, however, understanding how we formulate our understanding of
this larger solution space and identify solutions within it, will require a
human-centred perspective, but one that is sophisticated rather than
simplistic.
If you get this far, then seeing design as a 'process of choice' from
solution space of what is included in the specification for something to be
made or done (i.e. the design) , is rather different from how you (and
Anders) describe it. There is then no specific requirement that the design
choices are made by humans. This is supported by what is demonstrated daily
in most designers lives: many and increasingly most design choices are now
made by computers, especially in design realms that involve
graphically-designed solutions.
I suggest that in light of the above, ANY and EVERY perspective on design
that focuses on design as choosing selections from within a solution space
must naturally assume that design is not a purely human activity, and
instead can be computerised and automated. Do you agree?
Significantly, in design research terms, the next sensible research and
theory making step is to focus on working out the algorithms for automating
design choices and comparing them with how humans make such choices and,
especially, doing so by first identifying the weaknesses in how humans make
design choices. This is the most obvious pathway to improving design
outcomes via design research. There has been 50 years of focusing on
improving the human processes of design (individual creativity, teams,
stakeholder involvement, human communication practices etc.) and nothing has
improved much. In contrast, the benefits from the more formal explorations
of automating design activity have resulted in significant improvements in
quality, productivity, safety, and the ability to design more complex
products that better align with the complexity of human needs.
Again, Ken, reflecting on things you have said and written, this doesn't
seem to align with what you regard as the issue of choice from solution
space, although it is implicit in the writings of Rittel, Alexander, Jones
and others.
I welcome your comments.
Best regards ,
Terry
---
Dr Terence Love
PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, MISI
Honorary Fellow
IEED, Management School
Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
ORCID 0000-0002-2436-7566
Director,
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]
--
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Friedman
Sent: Tuesday, 13 May 2014 6:49 PM
To: PHD-DESIGN PHD-DESIGN
Subject: Re: Request 'Son of Rittel Think'
Dear Ranjan and Terry,
Wow! Terry's comments certainly surprised me. The idea of "seeing design as
finding the best solution in solution space, and thus seeing design activity
primarily as one of choosing" is indeed important - but it is not new to
design.
The problem is that Terry apparently doesn't know the design field. Or else
he does not have an idea of what most of us do as designers or as
researchers.
As David Sless wrote earlier, the first thing Terry might need to do is to
drop his habit of disdain for design fields other than his own.
Now let's get to the concepts of solution space and choice.
That is EXACTLY the concept that we worked with in strategic design at the
Oslo Business School, the Norwegian School of Marketing, and the Norwegian
School Management from the early 1990s.
Our key teaching documents still exist, and I will share them with the list.
(Information below.)
These are the publications of Anders Skoe. Anders was a guest lecturer in my
courses at all these institutions, and a regular teacher of professional
development to Norwegian design firms as well as to firms in the technology
industries in Norway and around the world.
The general problem solving method appears in Anders's (1992) publication
from Teknologisk Institutet. A more specific version appears in the manual
for Anders's (Skoe 1997) program on Creating Customer Care for SITA, the
global aeronautical telecommunications association. Anders worked with SITA
firms and agencies in over 200 different nations. While the manual is
focused on customer care, it demonstrates the general problem-solving method
including the pedagogical and designerly aspects of the method. (This draws
on some of my work as well.)
Terry should remember Anders Skoe. Anders worked with us at La Clusaz, and
we made copies of the SITA manual available.
If any subscribers to the list wish either document, I've placed both in the
"teaching documents" section of my Academia page. They will be available
through this Friday, May 16 at 11:59 pm GMT. Available at URL:
http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman
If Terry were to read more work by designers, he'd find that many of us have
indeed been talking about "seeing design as finding the best solution in
solution space, and thus seeing design activity primarily as one of
choosing."
The vocabulary differs slightly from author to author, but many of the key
authors who take this positions are listed in the bibliographies of my
papers (f.ex., Friedman 1997, 2000).
Buckminster Fuller, Jens Bernsen, Harold Nelson, Erik Stolterman, Per
Mollerup, Dick Buchanan . these are just a few who come to mind.
It must seem immodest of me to keep popping up with references to material
published twenty and thirty years ago, but I'm posting this note much as
Rajan did: to point to a rich literature that Terry doesn't seem to read.
Terry regularly announces to the list that the rest of us in design and
design research do not know this or that - according to Terry, we aren't
aware of these issues, and we have not written on them. The problem is that
Terry hasn't read what we've written.
In this case, Terry did not even need to read. This information was live in
the room at La Clusaz, speaking wit us all on a daily basis. Terry had the
same opportunity to listen and learn as the rest of us.
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor |
Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia |
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Mobile +61 404 830
462 | Home Page
http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/people/Professor-Ken-Friedman-ID22.html<h
ttp://www.swinburne.edu.au/design> Academia Page
http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman About Me Page
http://about.me/ken_friedman
Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University |
Shanghai, China
--
References
Skoe, Anders. 1992. Fra problem til loesning. Hvordan lede grupper i
planlegging og problemloesning. [From Problem to Solution. How to Lead
Groups in Planning and Problem Solving.] Oslo: TI Forlaget. Available at
URL: http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman
Skoe, Anders. 1997. Creating Customer Care. Sophia Antipolis: SITA Training
and Documentation Department. Available at URL:
http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman
Friedman, Ken. 1997. "Design Science and Design Education." In The Challenge
of Complexity. Peter McGrory, ed. Helsinki: University of Art and Design
Helsinki, 54-72. Available at URL: http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman
Friedman, Ken. 2000. "Creating Design Knowledge: From Research into
Practice." In IDATER 2000: International Conference on Design and Technology
Educational Research and Development. P. H. Roberts and E. W. L. Norman,
eds. Loughborough, UK: Department of Design and Technology, Loughborough
University, 5-32. Available at URL:
http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
