 |
 |
Dear Klaus, Thanks for a good description that maps onto some of the useful models of what is sometimes called "design thinking.” As you note, “design thinking" is a problematic term. As several of us have said in different past threads, “design thinking” is a problematic term, but so far, we sometimes use it because it is a term that people will continue to use until a better term (or at least a better defined term) gains currency. You are quite right to say that we can’t see thinking. What is valuable is a range of practices and activities. The second range of challenges and issues involve practices, as contrasted with the comments in the first range of issues focusing on research. One can engage in research to understand them. Whatever the practices should actually be called, I appreciate your description of the activities and actions: You wrote, “there are several concepts of design activities worth refining, operationalizing, or theorizing, for example distinguishing design moves such as finding problems, making sense of complexities, framing and reframing conceptualizations; searching for generative metaphors, metonyms; contextualiziations, and systems (including ecological) perspectives; productive conversations; enrolling stakeholders, testing in human populations, playing with representations of ideas, combinatorial techniques; applying critical perspectives to oneself; etc. “surely, designers think but so does everyone else. the only access to anyone else's thinking goes through intelligible articulations, observable enactments of that thinking whether in the form of step-wise accounts, rationalizations, demonstrations, prototypes, or realizable plans of actions. “if design thinking cannot be enacted in collaborations in design teams, be communicated in the form of education, ways to enroll stakeholders in designers' projects, executable specifications, or demonstrated by concrete accomplishments, i suggest that we better drop that concept for its epistemological inaccessibility and to avoid future ridicule by competing approaches.” I haven’t worried too much about the use of the term “design thinking.” I see it as a label for a process. Relatively similar processes, have been labeled, “design-led innovation,” “integrative thinking,” and “design integration,” “strategic design,” “frame creation,” “interaction method,” and “design science event flow.” Many of the process steps and activities you describe fit nicely within Fuller’s “design science event flow” and Skoe’s, “interaction method.” Many of the useful models predate the current usage of the term “design thinking.” I’d be happy with a different term — I always used the term “strategic design,” but I also recognise that every label has both advantages and drawbacks. What matters is a model of effective design to serve human needs. We can observe what people do and listen to their descriptions of what they are doing and thinking. Your description states this in a useful way. Warm wishes, Ken Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in Cooperation with Tongji University | Launching in 2015 Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology ||| Adjunct Professor | School of Creative Arts | James Cook University | Townsville, Australia Email [log in to unmask] | Academia http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn Telephone: International +46 727 003 218 — In Sweden (0) 727 003 218 ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design -----------------------------------------------------------------