Design chasm incl. engineering design
Terry wrote (12/07/03 and resent question today 15/07)
“Just wondering how exactly you feel the discussion applies to engineering
designers?
My interest is because engineering designers (the several hundred varieties
of) dominate the design field in many ways (Financially, size of projects,
volume of design literature, longest history of design study, largest
number of methods, largest amount of design research undertaken etc)(…).”
Sorry not to respond before, Terry, I was in the mountains not aware of
this nagging question! I also must admit I find this a difficult question
to respond to in this general way. My research focus is more on specific
settings for understanding and eventually middle ground theorizing – but
since you asked I’d give some highly preliminary thoughts… because I feel
it applies in many ways that are perhaps as yet not fully understood. So
take it for what it is – preliminary thinking - and I would like to here
your own reflections regarding this! And hopefully Glenn (you’ve asked him
as well) or others can respond better and more fully.
I give just three lines of preliminary thoughts below (excuse if I become
somewhat self-referential but I feel grounding is a necessary but not
sufficient anchoring to try to respond to your broad question).
1. Based on the product design cases I’ve studied, or otherwise gained
insight into through research colleagues and wise practitioners (e.g.
Robert Blaich’s reflective book 1993), I feel that both the “design chasm”
phenomenon AND also the creative tensions among specialists with diverse
perspectives/skills/tools are relevant in many ways.
For example, it can be relevant to understanding the variety of ways
product creation processes are organized, the actual unfolding of
collaborative design (how are the various specialists involved in
design processes) and its outcomes. Here I agree with others (e.g.
Lubomir, Glenn) about the importance of studying talented professional
design experts but in line with design historians I also argue for
studying design developments ‘in context’ (e.g.Penny Sparke) including
interaction with the clients’ various specialist groups calling
themselves designers or not. By the way, there is a designer without or
beyond the clients – just think of design entrepreneurs as Dyson who
had to create his own company to get his designs realized (someone
stated ‘no designer without client’… disagree, but not enough
time/space to go into that). Moreover, the dominance of engineers in
several corporate product development departments can make them
interesting to study. Speaking from my own research experience I’ve
found it interesting to zoom in on established organizations that are
kind of ‘outliers’ in their industrial contexts, e.g. working with
industrial designers more closely and/or collaborating in new ways,
innovating etc.(See papers in the Design Studies, Design Management
Journal and previous ref. given). However, others may find OTHER
interests more triggering such as studying the everyday design and
development work in e.g. various engineering teams, investigating the
various perspectives and tools in use, researching the language and
terms in use (agree with Tim’s arguments here), investigating new forms
of networking etc.(cf. the variety of design research currently
emerging). In short, I see many kinds of relevance in the interface
between design and engineering as well as other specialism
incl.economics - whatever these specialist orientations mean in local
practices (that is something we need to shed light on). And we should
not necessarily do or argue in the same way but rather follow a variety
of research interests in order to build improved as well as new
understanding of design in various contexts. However, what we should
more commonly do is, as Victor Margolin has recently pointed out, to
really read each other’s work to build on the somewhat fragmented
knowledge in design. Victor Margolin said this in a recent (2001)
key-note speech to European Academy of Design in Aveiro, Portugal (I
think his paper is printed in the Design Journal, UK). And this list
also can help for that purpose and I find some of the various streams
highly interesting to read too!
2. My second point concerns the need to understand design terms and
design issues dynamically. Learning from real collaborations how many kinds
of designers are working closely with other specialists in and around
organizations I feel, I guess in line with many on this list, that these
phenomena - design chasm, what constitutes design, professional or
competently made design etc. - are dynamic rather than static. So we need
to explore the constructing dynamics and thus move beyond too simplified
opposing views e.g. the traditional two cultures debate between natural
sciences and humanities, or more precise, for our design research-oriented
purpose we need to move beyond the mere (re-)discovery of the gulf or
‘chasm’ among specialists as engineers and industrial designers but saying
this I mean that it is worth while to reflect on this chasm as Glenn did
well. Also I do find it valuable with rich descriptions as a first step in
this sparsely researched area.
Terry wrote:
“Much of the design expertise in engineering design is more closely linked
to mathematical modes of representation than drawing (even when undertaking
drawing) and I wonder about laying so much emphasis on visual aesthetic
skill, particularly in relation to defining a core term.”
3. Re skills and mediation: I do not pretend to have the final or right
response here but may give just a preliminary reflection I have been
thinking about when attempting to identify some of the core benefits of
design including its processual aspects. Because more complex and
non-routine design advances in organizations involve multiple specialist
concerns and approaches (e.g. Terry’s ref. to mathematical calculations)
but also novice as well as novel reasoning into the as yet unknown, it
seems that human-centered mediating in general and visual-expressive
mediation in particular can be fundamental. What and how something is
mediated by designers and their collaborators may vary but seems to include
both matter and body, language and not least particular ways of “talking”
through sketching etc. (architecture and design studies exist on sketching
for example). Engineers and managers in the settings I’ve studied
especially appreciated physical models that they could touch and inspect,
“be in” or “stand over” while talking about them and what these not-yet-new
products could mean. Although based in design collaboration from
Scandinavia this seems to resonate with international design experiences
(e.g. IDEO’s experiences) and may thus have wider interest.
However, my project hitherto has not been to investigate engineering or
design in a very broad meaning of the term - although I will read with
interest what you are doing here! So looking forward to your reflections on
this Terry!
Best regards,
Birgit
