 |
 |
Dear Rosan and all, Your "What If" is certainly not unique to design. It is used in any field to generate provocations (PO) for imagination and creativity - a thought experiment if you like - that can be tested out later using scientific methods for understanding, measuring and controlling the new that is generated. I actually thought that creativity is an integral part of the scientific process of knowledge production - also in the design field. Let me give you two well-known design examples. If you ask the question "What if you landed an aeroplane upside-down?" Now, the unimaginary people would concentrate on the disaster aspects, but if you focus on the advantages, and take care of the problems later, you may generate a lot of improvement ideas that can be tested: - The pilot gest a better view of the landing area (some planes later placed the pilot underneath or in the nose) - The up-draft of the wing becomes down-draft (led to ideas to reconfiguration of the wings for steep landings) - etc.... Ask the question: "What if the post stamp could take on any shape?". This "what-if" led to the development of - incorporating messages in the machine printed stamp - the idea to buy stamps by the meter, the value used depending on the length you rip off and place on the letter (unity stamp - you need to buy only a roll, not many different ones). - The stamp becomes the letter (the idea of the aerogram) - The stamp becomes the parcel box (the convenience parcels you can now buy in most countries) - etc.... One from my field: "What if you have an organization without a boss?" This one led to the development of team organization (See my paper for the La Cluzac conference). All of the ideas thus generated by lifting the conventional limitations built into grounded solutions have been developed and tested after their conceptions using well-known scientific methods, and have become generalizable knowledge. Even the "What-if" method itself has been a subject of considerable scintific testing and improvement over the years (ref. Edward de Bono and many other writers). Nothing mystical here as far as I am concerned. I actually think all of the doctoral works I have encountered have been in the "what-if" stage at least once. I went through a "what if one applies knowledge in the consumer buying field to organizational buying, and modify it by current knowledge of organization and management?" The result was my thesis on organizational buyer behavior - a first dissertation in a new field later to be termed Industrial buyer behavior, later refined by extension into fields of business-to-business marketing, relationship marketing and theories of network organization. So, use the "what-if" and keep your creativity in good shape. Brynjulf Brynjulf Tellefsen Associate Professor Institute of Knowledge Management Norwegian School of Management Rosan Chow <[log in to unmask]>@mailbase.ac.uk on 27.09.2000 22:30:32 Please respond to Rosan Chow <[log in to unmask]> Sent by: [log in to unmask] To: [log in to unmask] cc: Subject: Re: Design Knowledge (Disclaimer: all questions are asked to aid understanding and they are mainly a reflection of Rosan's cognitive disequilibrium). Hi Tim, Dick and all Thanks for your help. When I said 'design knowledge', I was aware of the distinctions among design, as a product, a cognitive process and a professional practice. However, the 'design knowledge' to which I was refering was none of these. It maybe close to what Bruce Archer called the design with the big "D", but I am not sure if it is that either. At this point, I resist to replace it with another word for fear that it may limit what it can be. In my mind I was imagining a particular type of knowledge that is not scientific (nor speculative like Philosophy) and I just convinently called it 'design knowledge'. We know that the aim of scientific knowledge is to explain, predict and hopefully control. But we know that being able to explain and predict doesn't necessarily lead to control. And incidentally design is about control (in its loosest sense). So I was thinking that if scientific knowledge is not 'enough' for control/manipulation/intervention/change/design, then we must need another way of obtaining knowledge to fill the gap to design the design in design. And I guess that designers have been filling the gap by using tacit knowledge/intuition/the black box. But I also guess that if knowledge gained by Ph.D. resesarch needs to be an original contribution, it has to be different from this type of knowledge as well. And I also related this 'no name' knowledge less to the questions of What, How and Why but more to the question of What If? In my mind, what and why are favourite questions of scientists and philosophers and how is a favourite of engineers, and what if is the favourite question of designers. On the one hand, if my future dissertation will result in knowledge that answers what, how and why, then I should be getting a Ph.D. in science, philosophy or engineering. On the other hand, if I can get a Ph.D. in design by using tacit knowledge (plus scientific knowledge even) to design something, then I believe that other professional designers should be getting an honorary Ph.D. if not a Ph.D. I have this strange notion that this 'no name' knowledge is not to be known but to be designed. I know that it sounds crazy for 'know'ledge is to be known, but ... has it to be? Rosan Rosan Chow Graduate Student College of Design North Carolina State Universityv %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%