 |
 |
Dear Glenn, Thank you for your response. Please permit a brief clarification. I did not "liken" or compare design with a process. I defined it as a process. I do not say that design is "like" a process. I state that design IS a process. It is the ABILITY to design that is a talent. That is like saying, "Painting is an activity. The ability to paint is a talent." It is like saying, "Mathematics is a subject field or discipline. Doing mathematics is a process. The ABILITY to do mathematics is a talent." Clear definitions improve our ability to work with constructs. Our activities and processes are distinct from our talent for performing them. Some definitions describe individual or social action. Others describe human attributes or qualities. The short definition you found for the term process is thin and flat. It loses the rich nuances of the term. No wonder you don't like the idea of design as a process! A process is far more than "prepar[ing] something using a process: to treat or prepare something in a series of steps or actions, for example, using chemicals or industrial machinery." If this were how I thought of process, I would roll over in my grave, too. The richer and relevant definitions of the term process as I use it for design are: "1 a : PROGRESS, ADVANCE <in the process of time> b : something going on : PROCEEDING2 a (1) : a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result <the process of growth> (2) : a natural continuing activity or function <such life processes as breathing> b : a series of actions or operations conducing to an end; especially : a continuous operation or treatment especially in manufacture" (Britannica Webster's 2001: unpaged). The Oxford English Dictionary (2002) offers, among other definitions, "1. a. The fact of going on or being carried on, as an action, or a series of actions or events; progress, course.. . . c. Used in Philos., esp. in and with reference to the work of A. N. Whitehead (1861-1947), to designate the course of becoming rather than being. . . . 5. a. Something that goes on or is carried on; a continuous action, or series of actions or events; a course or method of action, proceeding, procedure. . . . b. Social Sciences. The continuing interaction of human groups and institutions, esp. as observed and studied through its effects in social, political, cultural, etc., life, with the aim of finding underlying patterns of behaviour in the data available, freq. contrasted with the study of such aspects of society through its structures. . . . 6. A continuous and regular action or succession of actions, taking place or carried on in a definite manner, and leading to the accomplishment of some result; a continuous operation or series of operations. (The chief current sense.) a. A natural or involuntary operation; a series of changes or movements taking place. . . . b. An artificial or voluntary operation; a course or method of operation; a systematic series of actions, physical or mental, directed to some end." How do these descriptions conflict with the use of talent, imagination, art, and craft in the design process? Why does describing design as a process reduce design to nothing? I will welcome an explanation. Yours, Ken References Britannica Webster's. 2002. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Online edition. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. URL: http://www.britannica.com/. Date accessed: 2002 January 21. OED. 2002. OED Online. Oxford English Dictionary. Ed. J. A. Simpson and E. S. C. Weiner. 2nd ed, 1989. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Oxford University Press. URL: http://dictionary.oed.com/ Date accessed: 2002 January 18. -- Ken Friedman, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design Department of Leadership and Organization Norwegian School of Management Visiting Professor Advanced Research Institute School of Art and Design Staffordshire University