Re Design Chasm



Hi all,

Summertime is a good time for reflections! I appreciate the last days’

partly opposing reflections (Ken, Glenn, Rob, Karen) on the contributing

role of designers to organizations – in particular the ones with nuance

informed by concrete observations, which may inform also further empirical

research and theorizing.

- Even though it is difficult to avoid unreflective biases it seems wise

for current design-oriented research to take the various opposing views

into account and not make any prejudgments regarding individual talents vs.

collective efforts in designing.

- And yet we have the challenge of interpreting what may be observed (just

read Rob's latest response, which came after I'd finished this... try to

edit in also some of his concerns.)



Design research is young and what we mean by 'design' and design talent we

all agree are highly ambiguous. In research I've learnt that there are no

right or wrong definitions per se, rather more or less useful ones because

what we need is a working definition to enable zooming in on whatever the

research question and the phenomena of interest are. Given this, I guess

too broad or alternatively too narrow definitions are often not so useful

because the broad ones may water out the phenomenon of interest and the

narrow ones may make too early closure of what might be unfolding in

practice.

- I have been thinking - in line with e.g. Henry Dreyfuss - that one

valuable competence in human designing is the use of visual-expressive or

related aesthetic-expressive approaches to "draw" or model (in 2d, 3d or

digital form) something new or partly new, which help to conceive, project

and communicate this "something" that is not yet fully grasped. This

visual-expressive competence and fundamental design activity may

distinguish design from the related but broader concept 'planning'.

Furthermore, what I found essential are design expertise and

design-creative processes including collaborative work with other

specialists but fueled by the designers' way of knowing and creating that I

know many of you are engaged in. Would be interesting to here some more

reflections re this.



- Based on fieldwork from various types of manufacturing organizations,

design consultancies (see e.g. 'Management of Design Alliances', co-edited

with M. Bruce, Wiley 1998) and some other kinds of design-intensive

organizing (e.g. Olympic Winter Games) I agree with Glenn that the

aesthetic-expressive abilities including creation of meaning and evoking

emotions and not to forget human-centered fit for purpose are something

highly interesting e.g. from a value creation point of view, although I

respect that there is more to be said about design (cf. Rob) depending on

what the focus of interest is in design research. Indeed the

transdisciplinary challenge of industrial design including all the

technicalities and e.g. safety concerns in some industries/product

categories I guess are what Bob is reminding us of and which we also need

to attend to when appropriate.



Re The long list of designers that are "non-designers" (ref to debate

between Glenn and Ken): this reminds me of Angela Dumas and coauthors'

research in the UK. By zooming in on who actually took design decisions in

various organizations they captured the non-designers' significant impact

on design outcomes and grounded in this they coined 'silent design' in

addition to the possible 'seen design' by professional designers (see for

example Gorb and Dumas' article on this in 1987, Design Studies 8, 3,

150-156.)

- However, how may we interpret this finding...? An important implication

is, no doubt, to include non-designers when researching design processes &

outcomes. Yet it does not follow that 'silent design' processes - dominated

by non-designers - often without being concious of these being

design-related - represent the most dynamic-competent ones that may

contribute to superior or at least improved value-creation... although I am

aware that 'good designs' sometimes are actually made by

non-(professional)designers. This categorizing of silent and seen design

can raise our consiousness but do not seem to fully capture the more

productive dynamics and creative tensions in collaborative work between

designers and non-designers, which I have found very triggering in the

cases I've studied (...Would be interesting to hear other opinions on this

silent-design/seen-design reflection!)



Glenn Wrote: "Try as we might, there is a fundamental chasm between those

that create in

this aesthetic and FFP fashion, and those that create to fulfill a need, a

specification or a requirement."



Insofar as talented designers work with others – for example working

repeatedly in some client organizations (cf. Rob's argument on

industry-specific knowledge) but also collaborating with others across a

variety of contexts – their work would probably rarely adhere to idealized

paradigms of the individual designer-creator on the one hand, or the

anonymous ‘cog in the wheel’ working of inside design-and-development staff

on the other. In short, we need to open up for multiple ways of

designmaking and designerly working in order to understand the unfolding of

design practices. In fact, the triggering discussion between Rob and Glenn

and their examples validate this point, I would argue.



However, opening up for “design work with others” does not mean that we do

not acknowledge the potentially highly creative work of “renaissance”

designers... or what is actually meant today I propose is rather the multi-

and meta-skilled designer persona. I would welcome more reflections on

this, which is something I am trying to sort of in current paper-writings.



Glenn wrote:

"Design education has helped many (including myself) live an impossible

dream - until their final year."

- Here seems to be lot more to be said. Can you elaborate more on this

Glenn or others?



Again, Glenn and Rob, and also Karen, thanks for good reflections.

Birgit





Birgit H Jevnaker

Associate professor

BI Norwegian School of Management, Department of Innovation and Economic

organization.

Also teaching at Industrial Design/Oslo School of Architecture and

collaborating in research with NTNU (technical univ. Trondheim).

[log in to unmask]