Klaus:

>not much more profound.  to say that everyone does all categories sometimes isn't helping to clarify their differences

My apologies for not being profound (although now that I think about it, I do not remember seeing anything really profound in this listserve in the last five or six years, so maybe I should not feel guilty).  The point is not that everyone does all categories, but that different design subcultures tend to focus more on one category than the other.  Perhaps a better way to set up the categories is:

I.  Design – solving problems

a.  Design problems and design solutions defined in terms of expected or known outcomes (known problems with iterative solutions).

b.  Design problems defined in terms of expected or known outcomes with design solutions that go beyond (or “improve on”) expected or known outcomes.  (Known problems with “improved” solutions)

c.  Design problems defined in terms of different outcomes than expected with design solutions that respond to these alternative problem definitions. (Creating new problems and solutions)

This puts the focus on the structure of the problem and its solution rather than on the mindset of the designer.  A mindset is hard to measure and has a tendency to change very quickly.

Also, you had said to Chuck:

>A is confined by problem solving and intentional stances prior to design.  in the reality of design, A is what most hired designers are being paid for, but true innovations do not spring from A

This statement may seem to be common sense, but I would take issue with the statement that most designers are being paid to do A.  While the total number of designers in the world doing A may be greater than the total number doing B or C (did you have data in mind when you made the statement?), this does not mean that every design subculture is primarily paid to do A.  That is why it would be helpful to qualify a statement like yours, such as by saying “most designers who design artifacts are paid to do A.”  Design is a pretty broad field.  Any discussion about design that ignores a big chunk of the design world is like a discussion that ignores non-western culture.

Additionally, saying that “true innovations do not spring from A” is not consistent with history.  It might make more sense to say that true innovations often occur when, in the course of doing A, it turns out that B or C happened.  I believe there has been quite a bit of work done on innovation in business, and this very issue has been examined there.  A famous example is the postit note, which was designed by someone while doing A, designing a better adhesive, who changed the design to a C when they redefined the meaning of a successful adhesive to include something that sticks part of the time.  Thomas Edison and Henry Ford would also take issue with this statement I believe.  Henry Ford designed innovative manufacturing methods, but he would probably just say that he saw a problem and came up with a solution.  The assembly line had already been developed in gun manufacturing as a way to manufacture guns more quickly (another A problem) rather than as a way to move populations from the farm into the city (which was something Stalin attempted with a different design approach).  The issue of intentional stance sounds good but becomes problematic when applied  to life.

MSC

-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus Krippendorff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 2:26 PM
To: 'MSC Nelson '; 'PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design '
Subject: RE: Let's try again: Chris' call for research approach (Re: It's still a research question)

the three categories are useful to distinguish different attitudes, motivations, and criteria that designbers may want to and often do employ.  not much more profound.  to say that everyone does all categories sometimes isn't helping to clarify their differences.

terry, you owe us support for your assertion that the distinctions have been discussed in the 60s.  they were not intended to say something revolutionary rather to point out there is not just one way, A, which was indeed the common and rational approach of the 60s, including herbert simons.

klaus

M.S.C. Nelson

Assistant Professor

Environment, Textiles and Design

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Room 235

1300 Linden Drive

Madison, WI 53706

608-261-1003

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 2006-02-09 12:49
Subject: Re: Let's try again: Chris' call for research approach (Re: It's still a research question)

Rosan is once again pointing out that there is a cultural bias in this
discussion related to the design subcultures of this group's
participants.
There are those who design artifacts, those who design systems, those
who
design meta-artifacts and those who design meta-systems.  (In reality,
most
designers do a combination of all four, but maximize certain areas more
than
others)  One concept it is important to teach students who want to be
designers is that we must all be careful not to fall into the habits of
non-designers and focus only on what we know about (a house painter
tends to
ignore faulty brickwork, while the mason tends to ignore the inside of a
building).

Perhaps Rosan is suggesting that the group focus on designing a
meta-system
for inquiry into the field of design and establish a framework that can
be
used to integrate the systems and artifacts generated by other aspects
of
the discussion.  This is what other disciplines have, and what design
lacks;
what I see is frameworks that work at the system level but do not make a
transition to the meta-system level because they break down when applied
beyond a narrow subculture of design.

An automobile tire or perhaps even a transmission might be examples of
artifacts.  The automobile itself, as well as a building, might by
considered meta-artifacts (and sometimes urban design fits this category
as
well).  Ergonomic designers often engage in design at the system level.
Process designs would be examples of meta-systems, and to a certain
extent
an urban design can be a pure meta-system.

The traditions of academic discourse tend to use the design
characteristics
of meta-systems, where ideas from many different thinkers
(universalizing
"designers" to include all those in academia) are synthesized into a
meta-system of thought.  However, most of this discussion seems to focus
on
the smaller elements of the meta-system of design research, without
having a
larger meta-system to plug into.

<<A. engage in solving problems (problem defining implied).
<<B. seek new opportunities (experiment with new technology, for
example) C.
<<create alternatives to what exists (quite restlessly, perhaps just for
<<fun, not necessarily making something better)

In terms of the "Rosan" categories, those who design artifacts are often
paid to do "A", as are designers in the other three categories I have
listed
above.  However, especially in design subcultures that work at the
meta-level, a great deal of time is actually spent on "B" and "C". 

For instance, to use a real world example where designers are getting
paid
to do B and C, large building projects are often designed very quickly
from
top to bottom, in order to begin the process of construction, which may
take
several years.  However, a final design may take years to complete.  If
the
design were finished before the construction began, the time frame might
be
doubled.  What is done is that the entire building is designed quickly,
and
then the design for the utility and foundation work is completed as soon
as
possible and construction is started.  The rest of the building above
the
foundations will change completely, but had to be designed the first
time in
order to begin the foundation construction.  Then the next few years are
spent looking for alternatives to the original design, often going
through
numerous alternatives that will never be built.  In the meantime,
construction progresses and a final building  gradually takes shape.
The
building is a meta-artifact, and the process used to design the building
is
a meta-system that is itself constantly being redesigned.

The academic world is the ideal place to actively pursue B and C,
because
the traditions of academia focus on developing systems of ideas rather
than
artifacts.

Mark

M.S.C. Nelson
Assistant Professor
Environment, Textiles and Design
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Room 235
1300 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
608-261-1003

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rosan
Chow
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 5:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Let's try again: Chris' call for research approach (Re:
It's
still a research question)

David and others

I agree with you and I understand the relations among A, B, C. They are
different "foci in a field". I said that at the beginning, my proposal
was

not unfamiliar but desperately needing promotion. I want to give voice
to
B and C because there are, as you point out, very good practical reasons
why B and C are on the back burners....and because B and C really should
be on the front burners, especially, I believe, for doctoral research.

You asked what other designers do. I worked for Philips for a while some
time ago. Perhaps things have changed now, I don't know. Then, we spent
half of the time doing B and C.

We have heard comments about the inertia of the car industry, how about
our own design research enterprise? Will financial and other constraints
prevent us from taking B and C as foci of research? This, I leave you
all
to reflect and here I end my contribution to this thread.

Best Regards. Rosan.

David Sless wrote:

> As to, the ABC thing. I tend to think of B and C as opportunities
> that can arise at any stage in the process. I may have said something
> about this in an earlier post in relation to Liz Sanders' work. But I
> think it is part of a much broader 'state of readiness', being
> prepared for the unexpected, etc. One of the routine things we do is
> diagnostic testing of our designs-very much a formal, evaluative
> (seemingly) non-creative activity. But when we get together after the
> testing to look at the data, the first question that we ask ourselves
> is 'what struck you?'. Often, when you least expect it something new
> suggests itself and we go off and play with it. The practical reason
> why I tend to see this from within working method A, Rosan, is that I
> can get people to pay me for A, but it's very difficult to find
> people willing to pay for B and C. So, we cross-subsidize (as it
> were) from A to B and C.
>
> But that is just an aside, as I asked in my last post: I'm curious to
> know what other designers might do?