 |
 |
Hi Derek I wasn't picking a fight, just joining in on a very interesting conversation. My thoughts are only my own. For me the term 'practice' refers to what my colleagues have identified as 'routine expertise'. Additional competence in 'adaptive expertise' and 'design expertise' is what I would call 'praxis'. Roger Martin, the dean of the Rottman School of Business in Toronto, talks about the shift in thinking over the past years from algorithms (formula) back to heuristics back to mysteries (design approach). Prior to that it was thought that progress was made by driving mysteries into heuristics into algorithms. I agree that when things are designed and brought into the world there is a developmental process flowing along an arrow of time. The phases and stages are not necessarily the same in every case however. Things always change thus there is the need to be an adaptive expert as well as a routine expert. The direction of the developmental trajectory is not predetermined by process or outcome—that comes from the influence of design expertise. Design is a stance I believe, an approach to the human condition just as science, religion or politics are, and not a discipline. Design inquiry, as a part of this stance, is unique in that it is inquiry for action. It is a form of inquiry that 'sweeps in' (systemics) rather than 'parses out' (disciplinary inquiry). Regards Harold EMAIL ADDRESS FOR Harold Nelson: [log in to unmask] (secondary email: [log in to unmask]) On Mar 29, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Derek B. Miller wrote: > Dear Harold, > > When people tell me they are involved in a practice, it means to me that they are involved in an activity that has a beginning, middle and end (even if the end is a new beginning); and that the practice is distinguishable from other practices. > > The challenge I have with design taken to be "writ large" is that it becomes indistinguishable as practice. There are other words, for example, that also suggest processes of deliberate creation, and indeed the word "create" is one of them. As is formulate or craft. Surely, we all craft solutions. > > I understand you've been at this for decades, so I don't want to pick a fight, but coming in rather new to the field from a position outside it, I do see a few patterns: > > 1. That the field of design is struggling to estabilish itself as an academic discipline, but is ambivalent about the development of theory to explain and distinguish itself > > 2. That the everyday term "design" in English is regularly confused with the discipline of design, and the practice of design, whether by professional "designers" or people whom we impute to be designing. This intellectual confusion seems so native to the conversations that I fear people are becoming acculturated to it rather than aggrevated by it, and therefore endeavoring to offer a remedy (and it begs the question of how this addressed by scholars and practitioners working on design in languages that provide other forms of differentiation to be made) > > 3. That "design thinking" isn't making much of an inroad among people working on peace and security issues, because innovation and harnessing creativity just is not viewed as the issue. However, design processes, such as modeling, prototyping, simulating, co-designing and other practices are capturing the imaginations of some key people because they are very concerned indeed about A) how existing knowledge is not becoming manifest in project/programming solutions and B) how to form new cooperative opportunities that take us beyond debate or deliberation. > > I did not mean to suggest — if I did — that design is limited to a small set of activities. But to answer the question, "aren't we doing this already?" with a statement of potential value, one does need to propose (in my view) sets of actions that are accomplishable, distinguishable, and useful to existing social processes. > > derek > _________________ > Dr. Derek B. Miller > Director > > The Policy Lab > 321 Columbus Ave. > Seventh Floor of the Electric Carriage House > Boston, MA 02116 > United States of America > > Phone > +1 617 440 4409 > Twitter > @Policylabtweets > Web > www.thepolicylab.org > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Harold Nelson wrote: >> Dear Derek >> >> For me this is too narrow of a perspective on designing. The label 'designer' is being used to point out certain normative boundaries around traditional design fields. There is much more to designing than that. I have worked, researched and taught in the area of design 'programming' or brief development in the past. Designing includes work prior to the development of performance specs which are developed prior to prescriptive specs. etc. There are a vast host of people in a variety of roles that are involved in designing from the beginning. Most major design decision are made prior to and during the development of a brief. For example leadership is a form of designing that goes beyond the typical positional claim on leadership and the boundaries of established design fields. The most successful CEOs for are designers whether they use the language of design or not. >> >> Also designing is a systemic relationship among people playing out their diverse roles in a social system. It is not a process of one individual or group (e.g. clients) handing directions off to another (e.g. instrumental designers). The activity of designing goes far beyond the traditional fields taught in universities. Democracies are designed, policies are designed, organizations are designed etc. >> >> Regards >> >> Harold >> >> >> EMAIL ADDRESS FOR Harold Nelson: >> >> >> >> [log in to unmask] >> >> (secondary email: [log in to unmask]) >> >> On Mar 29, 2011, at 4:55 AM, Derek B. Miller wrote: >> >>> I think that coming up with the brief is part of what designers want designing to be (for reasonable reasons), but this inclination will soon have to appreciate that "coming up with the brief" is the traditional function of debate in democracy. >>> >>> There is therefore a challenging space to be negotiated between democracy and design. >>> >>> The question is where design fits into democratic processes, keeping in mind that democracy itself was not designed to be efficient or effective, but rather to divide power to guard against tyranny. >>> >>> A lecture I gave to the London College of Communication at an event called "The Limits of Design" can be seen here as a video (Thanks to Lucy Kimbell). >>> >>> http://vimeo.com/21368920 >>> >>> And this is why The Policy Lab was founded. Our website will be up in a week or two. >>> >>> Derek >>> >>> _________________ >>> Dr. Derek B. Miller >>> Director >>> >>> The Policy Lab >>> 321 Columbus Ave. >>> Seventh Floor of the Electric Carriage House >>> Boston, MA 02116 >>> United States of America >>> >>> Phone >>> +1 617 440 4409 >>> Twitter >>> @Policylabtweets >>> Web >>> www.thepolicylab.org >>> >>> On Monday, March 28, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Filippo A. Salustri wrote: >>>> Okay, I'll buy that Derek. >>>> But, personally, I think coming up with the design brief is part of >>>> designing. That's why I wrote what I did. I didn't mean to cause any >>>> fuss. I appreciate your clarification. >>>> Cheers. >>>> Fil >>>> >>>> On 28 March 2011 03:44, Derek B. Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>> Filippo, >>>>> >>>>> The mistake here is in thinking this is a design exercise. It's not. It's a special investigation (through a contract to U. Indiana) by the government to learn the range of options available to fulfill a policy obligation. >>>>> >>>>> In our work — at The Policy Lab, and at UNIDIR — to bridge design and public policy, this is one of the lessons that designers interested in this work need to contend with. Namely, how to identify, build and utilize design space in the public sector. It is a very tricky world, and there is a reason for this. I'm currently writing an article on that subject. >>>>> >>>>> The Seboek study (which I've now read), states on page 1: >>>>> >>>>>> One mechanism to decrease the likelihood of human interference is a requirement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in its regulation, 10 CFR 60 (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1983), which requires permanent markers and records for waste repositories to warn potential intruders o f what is there. The U.S. Department of Energy, anticipating the final closure of a completed repository, and recognizing the requirement for a warning system, has set up the Human Interference Task Force through the Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation. This paper is part of the study of the Task Force. It deals with semiotic techniques designed to restrict, if not altogether prevent, access to thematerial. >>>>> >>>>> As nuclear waste has a 10,000 (half) life span, that was the interpretation given to the regulation, and therefore Policy + interpretation = design brief. >>>>> >>>>> Derek >>>>> _________________ >>>>> Dr. Derek B. Miller >>>>> Director >>>>> >>>>> The Policy Lab >>>>> 321 Columbus Ave. >>>>> Seventh Floor of the Electric Carriage House >>>>> Boston, MA 02116 >>>>> United States of America >>>>> >>>>> Phone >>>>> +1 617 440 4409 >>>>> Twitter >>>>> @Policylabtweets >>>>> Web >>>>> www.thepolicylab.org >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2011 at 1:05 AM, Filippo A. Salustri wrote: >>>>>> *sigh* While that competition is a fascinating design exercise, it's >>>>>> rather pointless for 2 reasons: >>>>>> 1. nothing is "leak-proof" (or fool-proof, or anything-else-proof) >>>>>> 2. the chances of any government approving the siting of such a >>>>>> facility in such a location is about the same as those of my winning >>>>>> the a national lottery 5 times in a row (at most). >>>>>> >>>>>> Wouldn't it have been more fruitful to use whatever resources were >>>>>> expended on that competition to do something a little more feasible? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers. >>>>>> Fil >>>>>> >>>>>> On 27 March 2011 16:10, Ann Thorpe <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>>>> Derek, >>>>>>> I also heard about this project from a public artist who may have been >>>>>>> involved, Mierle Laderman Ukeles. She described it as a Department of Energy >>>>>>> project regarding how we should mark nuclear waste storage facilities so >>>>>>> people would understand them as 'harzardous' thousands of years into the >>>>>>> future. Sorry I don't have any more of a source than that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In a related project, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists held a >>>>>>> 'Plutonium Memorial Competition' soliciting hypothetical proposals for a >>>>>>> leak-proof and securable but highly visible dump for the world's growing >>>>>>> stockpile of plutonium. This article in ID profiles the winning proposal--to >>>>>>> site the thing on the mall in Washington DC because, 'It could be easily >>>>>>> policed there, while silently reproaching lawmakers for their shortsighted >>>>>>> nuclear policies.' >>>>>>> http://www.id-mag.com/article/2003_Annual_Design_Review_Concepts_Best_of_Cat >>>>>>> egory/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Ann >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dr Ann Thorpe >>>>>>> ..................................... >>>>>>> Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London >>>>>>> Wates House, 22 Gordon Street London WC1H 0QB, United Kingdom >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +44 (0)77 1747 1606 >>>>>>> ..................................... >>>>>>> book: The Designer's Atlas of Sustainability (www.designers-atlas.net) >>>>>>> blog: http://designactivism.net >>>>>>> twitter: @atlasann >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 22:15:16 +0100 >>>>>>>> From: Derek Miller <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>>> Subject: Does anyone remember: NASA, 1980s, Hazmat, the future Š >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've looked. I can't find it. My compound question is: Does anyone remember >>>>>>>> what this was, and if so, can you point me to a primary source: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sometime in the 1980s I read a piece about how NASA had commissioned artists >>>>>>>> (designers?) to try and imagine a future some 10,000 years ahead. Their job >>>>>>>> was to find a means of communicating that the ground "here" was hazardous and >>>>>>>> people shouldn't go here. They shouldn't even visit let alone stay, grow >>>>>>>> crops, etc. The artists were to take almost nothing for granted. Languages may >>>>>>>> have evolved. Libraries destroyed. Our physical appearances may have changed >>>>>>>> somewhat. The basic brief was to try and communicate to such people. It may >>>>>>>> have been Discover magazine (U.S.) and they printed the paintings and ideas >>>>>>>> and analyzed them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Won't get into a discussion on this until my memory is refreshed. But if >>>>>>>> anyone remembers this, I would be grateful. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Derek >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _________________ >>>>>>>> Dr. Derek B. Miller >>>>>>>> Director >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Policy Lab >>>>>>>> 321 Columbus Ave. >>>>>>>> Seventh Floor of the Electric Carriage House >>>>>>>> Boston, MA 02116 >>>>>>>> United States of America >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Phone >>>>>>>> +1 617 440 4409 >>>>>>>> Twitter >>>>>>>> @Policylabtweets >>>>>>>> Web >>>>>>>> www.thepolicylab.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng. >>>>>> Mechanical and Industrial Engineering >>>>>> Ryerson University >>>>>> 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON >>>>>> M5B 2K3, Canada >>>>>> Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749 >>>>>> Fax: 416/979-5265 >>>>>> Email: [log in to unmask] >>>>>> http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng. >>>> Mechanical and Industrial Engineering >>>> Ryerson University >>>> 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON >>>> M5B 2K3, Canada >>>> Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749 >>>> Fax: 416/979-5265 >>>> Email: [log in to unmask] >>>> http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/