Dear Terry,
Thank you for your posts and comments. You have described interesting and useful issues in the posts titled "Re: Design Thinking and the insights Design History could have offered but hasn't yet.”
While I might have added some useful thoughts as Chuck did — or developed some of these issues in a different way — I don’t have any major disagreement on the specific issues as you state them here. I want to emphasise that last comment — as you state them here, I find these comments useful and generally agreeable. Your comments here are nuanced, and there are no massive or unsupportable claims.
While it is possible that these issues could fit under the rubric of design history, these kinds of questions also fit the subject fields of labor history, history of technology, organisation theory, organisation science, management, economics, and different kinds of studies in work. The kinds of issues you describe involve changes to engineering design, as well as changes to some other design fields. They also involved a wide range of fields where large-scale projects involve distributed work flow within teams and across team boundaries, within organisations and across organisational boundaries, and within and among large-scale distributed working groups.
There is nothing for me to add to your excellent descriptive comments.
The one issue that I will raise here is that you are using the term “design thinking” in in a different usage than Stephane Vial used in his first post to the earlier thread. Stephane wrote, “my main concern is about the origin of the so-called ‘Design Thinking’, as popularized in design profession by IDEO.”
You are using the term "design thinking" in a valid and useful way. Nevertheless, you are using it in a broader way that addresses design processes and methods. Stephane used the term “design thinking” to indicate a specific kind of process typified by and often identified with IDEO. The two usages differ significantly. Both are reasonable, valid, and correct — but they are not the same term. They are effectively homonymic terms — terms using words spelled and pronounced the same way, but with very different meanings.
Best regards,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in Cooperation with Tongji University Press | Launching in 2015
Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology ||| Adjunct Professor | School of Creative Arts | James Cook University | Townsville, Australia ||| Visiting Professor | UTS Business School | University of Technology Sydney University | Sydney, Australia
Email [log in to unmask] | Academia http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn
Telephone: International +46 727 003 218 — In Sweden (0) 727 003 218
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|