 |
 |
Some writers like West Churchman argues that there are no objective methods to measure if a problem is well or ill-structured. For some people or from a certain perspective a problem may be wicked and for others it may be really simple. Some writers like Donald Schön and Russel Ackoff argue that framing the situation and formulating the mess, is a key part of design. Klaus Krippendorff have of course also written on these issues. (There are of course those how appears to claim that they found such measurements of problems, for instance Michel Jackson.) 1. Churchman, C.W., The systems approach. 1968, New York,: Delacorte Press. 2. Schön, D.A., The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action. 1983, New York: Basic Books. 3. Ackoff, R.L., J. Magidson, and H.J. Addison, Idealized design : how to dissolve tomorrow's crisis...today. 2006, Upper Saddle River: Wharton School Pub 4. Jackson, M.C., Systems thinking : creative holism for managers. 2003: Chichester, West Sussex : John Wiley & Sons, c2003 2004 Best Regards, Lars Ps remember the old story of Michelangelo and that statue of David: "Q: How could you make such a living sculpture just from a rock? A: It was easy, I just removed everything that wasn't David" ************************************** Lars Albinsson [log in to unmask] + 46 (0) 70 592 70 45 Affiliations: Maestro Management AB www.maestro.se Calistoga Springs Research Institute www.calistoga.se School of Business and Informatics University College of Borås www.hb.se Linköping University www.liu.se ************************************** -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] För Mike McAuley Skickat: den 22 april 2008 06:15 Till: [log in to unmask] Ämne: Re: well-structured and ill-structured activity in designing Dear Lily and other colleagues, I would lie to thank everyone who posted responses to my question re the source of ill-structured and well-structured activity. I have found every response helpful, or at least interesting. It is interesting that in other areas of enquiry where a definitive source is often easy to determine and agree upon, this one is still a little slippery, although Rittel and Webber (1971-73?) seems the best bet. As regards your post Lily, I suppose my question was a very pragmatic one and your reply enlarged it to encompass definitions of design, which by inference relate to well and ill-structured activity. However, I very much appreciate you taking the time to reply. Regards Mike On Apr 22, 2008, at 3:47 PM, Lily Diaz wrote: > Dear Mike and colleagues, > > Yesterday I sent a very brief response regarding your query. In my > note, that was brief and perhaps not as well developed as the ones > that are usually posted in this list, called your attention to > Design Activity as something distinct from design problem space/ > context/situation. Nevertheless it was totally ignored. > > I understand that we are all really busy and cannot always pay > attention to etiquette. However it is this sort of situation that > might lead others to question the spirit of inclusiveness of the list. > > With best regards, > > Lily Díaz > > > > > On 22.4.2008, at 1.45, Mike McAuley wrote: > >> Hi GK, >> >> You ask 'which design are you referring to?' >> >> I am referring to design in the context of it being an activity >> which brings change to a situation. In reference to my study, the >> situation requiring change is written text. What is required is to >> interpret it into a visual text. The activities required are both >> cognitive and applied, tacit and explicit, intuitive and >> systematic, ill-structured and well-structured. I agree, that >> design is, as you say "an amorphous time warp that exists in >> multiple states and across multiple domains simultaneously". >> Nevertheless, there are times of focus, when we are able to >> develop at least some level of metacognitive awareness of what our >> focus is at a given moment. In an educational setting I think the >> objective is to move beyond a total reliance on intuition as if >> the activity of design is still one totally embroiled in mystique. >> I believe Oxman talks of "learning increments" when students can >> trace design activity to their thinking processes. When it comes >> down to determining the structure of a written text and getting to >> its essence, there are a limited number of right answers. This is >> when one can determine one's activity as being ill-structured. >> >> Regards >> Mike >> >> On Apr 22, 2008, at 9:52 AM, GK VanPatter | NextD wrote: >> >>> Mike: Regarding your second question: Which “design” are you >>> referring to? >>> >>> Klaus might be talking about one “design” while you might be >>> talking about another. Design is an amorphous time warp that >>> exists in multiple states and across multiple domains >>> simultaneously. Without some kind of sense-making framework it is >>> difficult to talk about “design” and whether it is or is not “an >>> ill-structured activity”. In some parts of the time warp it is >>> and in other parts not. If by “structured” you mean not just >>> intuitive Design 1.0 “activity” tends to be relatively >>> unstructured in comparison to Design 3.0 activity”. The >>> proportional activity emphasis between SenseMaking and >>> StrangeMaking is also often quite different from one to the >>> other. I believe you will find that lots of thinking from various >>> directions has been done on this subject. >>> >>> In any case you might find these docs useful in your quest. >>> The first one contains numerous visual models. >>> >>> NextD Futures >>> Visual Models as Innovation Accelerators >>> http://nextd.org/pdf_download/NextDFutures.pdf >>> >>> Rethinking Wicked Problems >>> Unpacking Paradigms, Bridging Universes >>> http://nextd.org/02/10/1/index.html >>> >>> Revolution in Motion >>> That “design thinking” thing might not be exactly what you expected! >>> http://nextd.org/pdf_download/RevolutionMotion.pdf >>> >>> Towards Adaptable Inquiry >>> Transforming That Sustainability Thing >>> >>> Part 1 of this text was originally posted to the Transforming >>> Transformation discussion list on April 14, 2008. >>> If anyone would like a copy send an email to >>> [log in to unmask] with Adaptable Inquiry as the subject. >>> >>> PS: The term “problem solving” is as loaded as the word “design”. >>> Most use that term in argument construction without acknowledging >>> that like the universe of design, the universe of “problem >>> solving” has not been standing still for thirty years but rather >>> is itself in motion. The truth is that universe contains many >>> framing tools that are extremely useful in the context of Design >>> 3.0 as that “problem solving” universe long ago evolved towards >>> multiple stakeholder involvement more recently being heralded in >>> design circles as participatory design. I will leave that one >>> for another day. >>> >>> Spring has arrived in New York! >>> Regards to all. >>> >>> gk >>> ... >>> >>> Co-Founder >>> NextDesign Leadership Institute >>> New York >>> >>> NextD >>> DEFUZZ THE FUTURE! >>> http://nextd.org >>> ... >>> >>> >>> Co-Founder, Director Global Ventures Development >>> >>> Humantific >>> StrategyLab | UnderstandingLab | InnovationLab >>> >>> New York / Madrid >>> >>> http://www.humantific.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > From: Mike McAuley <[log in to unmask]> >>> > Reply-To: Mike McAuley <[log in to unmask]> >>> > Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:34:47 +1200 >>> > To: <[log in to unmask]> >>> > Subject: well-structured and ill-structured activity in designing >>> > >>> > Dear list members, >>> > I am nearing the end of a study which incorporated two separate >>> > learning strategies designed to assist novice students interpret >>> > written text into illustrations. The first strategy involved >>> > comprehension and the second was based on analogical reasoning. >>> > Without going into details, one of the conclusions I am >>> formulating >>> > is that designing is far from being an exclusively ill-structured >>> > activity. Within the process model of problem-analysis-synthesis- >>> > execution-production-evaluation, I have found that, at the early >>> > stage of problem definition and analysis students can benefit >>> from a >>> > well-structured approach to certain aspects of the problem. In my >>> > enquiry this related to determining macrostructures (the gist) >>> within >>> > the text (Louwerse and Graesser, 2006). Can anyone tell me who >>> > originated the terms ill-structured and well-structured? Has >>> anyone >>> > else come to the conclusion that designing isn't exclusively an >>> ill- >>> > structured activity? >>> > >>> > Mike McAuley >>> > PhD candidate >> >