Dear Terry,
Since you have addressed your note to me, I will return with four short comments.
1) Your analysis of the “discourse path” is selective and inaccurate. Perhaps someone in the communication design field could persuade a few students to analyse this thread. It would be interesting to see a narrative analysis accompanied by a visual representation.
2) Many design briefs do specify outcomes. They simply don’t specify the outcomes that you prefer.
3) You still don't understand understand transaction cost economics. For designers to do the work you now propose, they would need larger design firms with economists, strategists, and analysts working on the design side. This means larger staff and increased overhead. If they could hire people with the necessary talent, they would likely price themselves out of business.
4) Rather than build larger design firms, transaction cost economics points to a trend that is actually taking place today. As businesses in many fields come to recognise the value of design, they are building their own design units — or acquiring them — for in-house design capacity. Those who attend the European Academy of Design conference next week will hear an excellent analysis of these issues in Gjoko Muratovski’s keynote.
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | 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 | Melbourne, Australia
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|