Following all this discussion on this list about 'wicked problems', let me
take for discussions sake the opposite point of view and posit that problems
are not really that necessary or important for design and in fact can
blinker design work.
For example, popular creativity seminar presenter Robert Fritz ('Path of
Least Resistance') rejects the term 'problems', and likes to recount a story
of interviewing an MBA graduate for a job with his organisation - and
rejecting him because the MBA graduate was so excited by the 'problems' he
could solve at the organisation. Fritz sees the world instead in terms of a
(top-down) creative vision, and creative work proceeding in terms of a
'creative tension' between the ideal end-state and current reality. Fritz
claims that activities from musical composition to film-making to growing an
organisation can be described using this model. All without mentioning let
alone considering 'problems'.
So, my question why do we all here consider wicked 'problems' so central to
defining what design is? Is there a problem with relying on 'problems' to
define design?
I think a couple of us have been hinting at these sortsof issues in this
discussion, but I'm interested in what is your explicit take on the
importance of 'problems'?
Regards
Lauchlan Mackinnon
