 |
 |
Terry Love's recent post to the Design Research Society discussion list encourages design researchers to bring "other sides of design research back into the design debate." In essence, Terry is calling for a general theory of design, an area of inquiry that has languished in recent years. Lubomir Popov questions the possibility of such a theory. I do not. I believe it interesting, possible, and necessary. Many necessary and interesting possibilities are difficult. This is such a case. It's true, as Lubomir Popov writes, that "Design as a human activity requires object specific methodologies, performance patterns, and skills." What isn't clear is that design requires these "rather than abstract conceptualizations." Design also requires conceptualization, and in several forms. These include abstract conceptualization, systemic conceptualization, and grounded conceptualization. Grounded conceptualization is reflected in object-specific methodologies. Abstract conceptualization and systemic conceptualization both involve different aspects of theory, including general theory. Performance patterns, and skills involve tacit knowledge in the form of habit and situated behavior in contrast to conceptualization. To rely on performance patterns and skills alone is to be an artisan rather than a designer. This is what Terry refers to as the "art and design tradition" To rely on object-specific methods engages a field ranging from a pure craft orientation to the design tradition reflected in applied engineering and industrial design. In contrast, a general theory of design will support a rich, comprehensive understanding of the design process. It will also nourish the specific methods reflected in design practice. This is the distinction between design as a science and design as a craft. The distinction between a science and a craft is a structured body of knowledge and systematic thought organized in theory. Craft involves doing, perhaps even experimenting. The frame of theory allows us to organize our observations. Theory permits us to question what we seen and do, and it helps us to develop generalizable answers that can be put to use by other human beings in other times and places. Nobel laureate Herbert Simon defines design as the process by which we "[devise] courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones." This, in effect, is the central issue in design. To "[devise] courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones" on a predictable basis requires understanding "things: how they are and how they work," which is Simon's explanation of science. One form of design practice is allied to art and craft. It is intuitive. It sometimes produces desired results. On occasion, this practice of design produces desirable results that may have been unpredictable, but results than can nevertheless be seized retrospectively as the useable result of muddling through. The other face of design practice involves predictability. It is created by the effective response to problems, and it has similarities to science, engineering, and technology. This is the basis of design science, an applicable theory of how to devise courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones. Design is of necessity in transition from art and craft practice to a form technical and social science focused on how to do things to accomplish goals. To meet the challenges of the design process requires understanding the actions that lead from existing situations to preferred ones. This means understanding the principles of predicting and measuring outcomes based on what W. Edwards Deming terms profound knowledge. This knowledge is comprised of "four parts, all related to each other: appreciation for a system; knowledge about variation; theory of knowledge; psychology." According to Deming "Experience will answer a question, and a question comes from theory." Theory can be described in many ways. Some theories are complex and sophisticated. Others are simple. Mautner defines theory as "a set of propositions which provides principles of analysis or explanation of a subject matter. Even a single proposition can be called a theory." This often depends on the nature of the subject. Design seems to make use of theories at many levels. In many cases, activities that seem to be rooted in tacit knowledge are rooted in a grounded theory of action that simply hasn't been made explicit. Successful design methodologies that seem object-specific frequently reflection general knowledge on the part of people who have theorized deeply without explicitly articulating their theory. Much of this knowledge is based on the inductive development of general principles from which applications can be fashioned. Not all designers care to theorize. Many guard their professional knowledge in the form of a trade secret, managing their work and training their associates in the craft tradition of the guilds. Others want to understand and generalize this knowledge. While there are abstract theories to be built that address areas of the design task, some cases of generalizing knowledge simply involve rendering explicit generalized theories that already exist in tacit practice. Nonaka and Takeuchi describe the process of knowledge creation in terms of the cycle of transformation from explicit knowledge to implicit knowledge and back again. Knowing what to do and knowing how to do it increasingly involve knowing why things work in a larger and more general sense. This calls for theory. In its most basic form, a theory is a model. It is an illustration describing how something works by showing its elements in their dynamic relationship to one another. (The dynamic demonstration of working elements in action as part of a structure distinguishes a theory or a model from a taxonomy or catalogue.) The ability to theorize design enables the designer to move from an endless succession of unique cases to broad explanatory principles that can help to solve many kinds of problems. Warfield describes the generic aspect of design as "that part of the process of design that is indifferent to what is being designed, being applicable whatever the target may be." He contrasts this with the specific aspect of design, "that part of the design process that is particular to the target class." Warfield further identifies thirty-two basic postulates of the generic design process, which he groups under six categories: he human being, language, reasoning through relationships, archival representation, the design situation, and the design process. This generic design process is inevitably theory-rich. It is no more abstract than science is abstract. Quite the contrary. Theory relies on an engagement with empirical reality. It is my view that there is nothing as practical as a good theory. To theorize design in a rich and general way opens the field to new methods, new materials, new ideas in a way that case-by-case practice and object-based methods cannot do alone. Ken Friedman, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design Department of Knowledge Management Norwegian School of Management Box 4676 Sofienberg, N-0506 Oslo Norway +47 22.98.51.07 Direct line +47 22.98.51.11 Telefax email: [log in to unmask] Home and home office: Ken Friedman Byvagen 13 S-24012 Torna Hallestad Sweden +46 (46) 53.245 Telephone +46 (46) 53.345 Telefax email: [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%