Dear list,
sorry about one of the emails in which I responded to Rob Curedale's post
about the chasm. Our email system does not add the 'history' indent as do
others. The second post and reply, therefore had Rob's earlier text mixed
up in my feedback. Confusing to say the least.
To Ken's point concerning the fact that design is five centuries old - I
would argue that it might be considerably older - considering the caves at
Lascaux, France. The 'art' work there might have been somebody 'acting out'
the hunting management strategy for their next feast, and a function of
design not art.
Design as a 'professional activity' is surely considerably younger?
Many conference speakers and indeed Loewy himself would refer to this
'young profession'. It could be argued that places such as France and Italy
still do not fully regard design as a true profession, as they have a
complex interplay of Les Arts Decoratif and Architecture that either
overlays, or precludes design.
In fact calling oneself a 'designer' in France usually conjured up someone
at a drafting table - well it did in the Gers region anyway.
The point made here is that at best 'design' is a flaky profession, if it
really is one at all.
One does not require any higher education to practice it, and it sometimes
requires working for free.
Other professions must look on us in disdain.
I suppose at least we don't have casting couches (muffled cough).
Best regards,
Glenn Johnson
Automatic digest
processor To: Recipients of PHD-DESIGN digests <[log in to unmask]>
<LISTSERV@JISCMAI cc:
L.AC.UK> Subject: PHD-DESIGN Digest - 10 Jul 2003 to 11 Jul 2003 (#2003-144)
Sent by:
PhD-Design - This
list is for
discussion of
PhDs in Design
<PHD-DESIGN@JISCM
AIL.AC.UK>
07/11/2003 07:02
PM
Please respond to
PhD-Design - This
list is for
discussion of
PhDs in Design
There are 5 messages totalling 884 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Design Chasm (3)
2. Humble Designers
3. Design, designing, commercial art: a note on terminology
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:58:14 +0800
From: Karen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Design Chasm
Hi all,
this is my first post to the list after a lengthy hibernation on this list.
The post
by Glenn Johnson really sparked some thoughts in me with regards to design
quality coming from different designers of various backgrounds and
personality.
Designers may not come from people with the typical design background. And
certainly anyone with a creative mind and knowledge could be
designers if they come out from a genuine interest in solving human
problems.
I would like to know how would people rank
Asian design with the rest of the world
in terms of Fashion, Interior and Product ?
Do you think Asian Designs have come to a maturity stage
where design identity is established ? For one I have some doubts in
certain
areas,
but I just want to hear some feedback how foreigners would see us in Asia.
Samsung, LG, Sony, JVC etc, are by far belonging to the top cohort when it
comes
to Industrial design. I am wondering how one would see others in countries
like Taiwan,
Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore ?
Another curious point I would like to know is which
countries would you respect design to be the best in Asia ? And why ?
Last year, I participated in a forum on creativity in the arts, science and
technology, which
was held in Singapore. It made me think hard. If Creativity was something
like what Trevor Baylis
has done. (The British inventor of the clockwork radio
set up a company and use that to employ the underprileged people as
workers,
and he designed
something that was genuinely a need. A genuine problem solver and humanist)
Trevor Baylis was in no way bearing any form of arrogance.
Similarly compared was another speaker, Sim Wong Hoo, an outspoken but very
fast thinking
Singaporean CEO for Creative Technology who created the sound blaster.
No way can one say that a genuinely successful designer, innovator or
inventor
is a proud person. At least at that forum, there was already 2 persons who
are well known
to have very kind hearts with no pretences at all. Quite conversely, these
creative poeple
were not egoistic at all despite the money and fame that they have.
I have been looking closely at these 2 speakers when I asked them
questions;
and I am very proud to say these are the people whom we should be grooming.
They may have a large pride in them in their work but they take pride in
the
work they do.
With no airs of any sort to distinguish them from the common people, these
people usually
win hearts and respect of many people and also very good designs coming out
from them.
Besides, how could one designer be thinking clear if his/her mind is filled
with nothing but
ego, fame and a lot of 'hot air'..... ?
Best wishes,
Karen Fu
----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 2:56 AM
Subject: Re: Design Chasm
.....
> The design hero ranges of Target products to me lack a sensitivity to
> scale, function and human interaction....They are using designers as a
form
> of co-branding because they feel that their own brand is not as strong as
> it could be.
>
....
> Designers like Stark and Newson follow more of a renaissance model but
> most products are designed by anonymous designers working internally at
> companies like Motorola or Samsung. I think that the removal of fame and
> ego from the equation results in a better design. Manufacturing companies
> tend to spend more time and money and follow a more rigorous process
> internally than they do when they use famous external renaissance type
> designers.
>
> The total of a team of good specialists is better than the efforts of one
> good generalist.
>
> Don't agree with the premise that inhouse designers are best. They are
> often swamped with the knowledge of why things cannot be done.
>
> We have just finished working with Newson on the new seat for Qantas.
> http://www.qantas.com.au/info/flying/travelClasses/businessSeat
>
> His attention to detail and perfection are astounding (he's a jeweller by
> training), streets ahead of standard inhouse competency,
>
> (yep - people like me).
>
> (PS. p135 of this month's ID is what we do in-house)
>
>
> Glenn Johnson
>
>
> Industrial Design Manager
>
>
>
>
>
> Industrial Design Studio, B/E Aerospace Inc.
>
>
> 1455 Fairchild Rd. Winston-Salem NC 27105-4588 USA
>
>
> Tel. (1) 336 744 3143 Fax. (1) 336 744 3207
>
>
> B/E Industrial Design Studio
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:17:25 -0400
From: Rob Curedale <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Design Chasm
I agree that Mark is very talented but I think that his skills lie more in
=
applied style and non-verbal visual and cultural communication than in =
mechanical function. I do not see a lot of mechanical innovation in Mark's
=
work. His concept for Ford could not have been manufactured though that =
was probably not it's intention. I am not suggesting that his work does =
not have value. I wish that there were more designers like Mark in the =
world. Loewy did human factors studies for the interior of Sklab which is =
less demanding than designing the hardware.
My notion of design covers both areas. I think that internal designers are
=
weaker on applied style and stronger on function and market knowledge. =
They usually have a lot more in depth knowlege about the industry. A =
knowlege of what has succeeded and failed in the past. I think that the =
best result comes from a creative tension between external and internal =
designers. I like the competitive model for external designers developed =
by Castelli which I used at Haworth where a company hires three or four =
different designers in different parts of the world to submit initial =
concepts and then develops one concept with input from internal designers =
and some features of the two unsuccessful external designers blended into =
the final product, while making sure that everyone is adequately
compensate=
I taught at the institution that Mark studied at in Australia and bought =
some of his studio equipment from him when he left Australia. There are =
good reasons why Mark, Stark and frog don't do Medical devices. Danny, =
Mark's ex-partner designed my studio interior in Sydney. and (as an aside)
=
I also worked with your company BEAROSPACE San Diego a couple of years =
ago on the iRadio vehicle web browser for Motorola while at I was at =
frog.=20
Companies with strong engineering and less internal commitment to id do =
tend to work with Iconic designers like Mark. Companies which have been =
working with id for a long period of time do not. His designs are =
beautiful objects but not always big sellers. Stark's range for Target I =
believe has been withdrawn form the US market because of poor sales. =
Companies like Philips with a big and long term internal id commitment =
tend to produce products where the id, marketing and engineering are more =
tightly integrated. They usually do not hire designers like Mark. =
Development cyles are longer and more discussion takes place. I think that
=
the Castelli model is more successful at producing products which last in =
the market. If a designers work has a thematic style then it is a signal =
to me that the designer is not really listening to their client's needs =
because different clients have different needs and this should result in a
=
diversity in their work. One designer has a relatively narrow outlook no =
matter how talented he or she may be which will not suite every product =
purchaser in the world.=20
______________________________
R o b C u r e d a l e
Chair Product Design
College for Creative Studies Detroit
201 East Kirby
Detroit MI 48202-4034
Phone: 313 664 7625
Fax: 313 664 7620
email: [log in to unmask]
http://www.ccscad.edu
______________________________
>>> <[log in to unmask]> 07/10/03 02:56PM >>>
Rob,
Sorry - do not agree for the most part with your post.
This is an old discussion. Loewy etc lived in an age when the complexity =
of
the products they were designing was often far less than it is today.
Saturn V (Loewy worked on Skylab) is supposedly still the most complex and
powerful product ever produced by man. Old discussions are invariably the
ones still not resolved and the ones often of most value.
The design hero ranges of Target products to me lack a sensitivity to
scale, function and human interaction....They are using designers as a =
form
of co-branding because they feel that their own brand is not as strong as
it could be.
Design has not hurt Target's bottom line:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=3DTGT&d=3Dc&k=3Dc1&a=3Dv&p=3Ds&t=3D6m&l=3Don&z=
=3Dm&q=3Dl Would
your successful commercial alternative be Walmart? (which is World No.1)
Designers like Stark and Newson follow more of a renaissance model but
most products are designed by anonymous designers working internally at
companies like Motorola or Samsung. I think that the removal of fame and
ego from the equation results in a better design. Manufacturing companies
tend to spend more time and money and follow a more rigorous process
internally than they do when they use famous external renaissance type
designers.
The total of a team of good specialists is better than the efforts of one
good generalist.
Don't agree with the premise that inhouse designers are best. They are
often swamped with the knowledge of why things cannot be done.
We have just finished working with Newson on the new seat for Qantas.
http://www.qantas.com.au/info/flying/travelClasses/businessSeat=20
His attention to detail and perfection are astounding (he's a jeweller by
training), streets ahead of standard inhouse competency,
(yep - people like me).
(PS. p135 of this month's ID is what we do in-house)
Glenn Johnson
Industrial Design Manager
Industrial Design Studio, B/E Aerospace Inc.
1455 Fairchild Rd. Winston-Salem NC 27105-4588 USA
Tel. (1) 336 744 3143 Fax. (1) 336 744 3207
B/E Industrial Design Studio
"Rob Curedale"
<rcuredale@ccscad To:
<Glenn_Johnson@BEA=
.edu> cc:
Subject: Re: Design Chasm
07/10/2003 10:25
AM
"Glenn Johnson wrote:"
Mark Breitenberg of Art Center, USA in his most recent ICSID publication
(June 2003?) relates to the holistic way in which early designers worked -
particularly referencing Loewy, Dreyfus, Teague, etc. and how design and
technology should be merged. He even goes as far to say that this is how =
he
thinks design should be taught - not the specialisations that we have
today.
______________________________
R o b C u r e d a l e
Chair Product Design
College for Creative Studies Detroit
201 East Kirby
Detroit MI 48202-4034
Phone: 313 664 7625
Fax: 313 664 7620
email: [log in to unmask]
http://www.ccscad.edu=20
______________________________
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:40:18 -0700
From: Monica E Cardella <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Humble Designers
What Karen has described in the expert designers she observed-- their
humility and lack of egotism-- reminds me of a concept of "designing from
first principles" presented in a paper by Nigel Cross and Anita Clayburn
Cross. In this paper the authors describe expert designers who are able to
keep all of their previous experiences in the back of their minds and
instead approach the design problem by going back to the very basics. The
impression I've gotten is that the designers must have some amount of
humility to be able to be able to not re-apply designs that they know are
good and have worked in the past. Also, it seems to take humility to be
willing to start from the first principles-- to not think that you should
be able to jump ahead because you have a proven record of success. The
paper's authors suggest that this practice of designing from first
principles enables the expert designers to engage in innovative design
rather than routine design.
Perhaps one of the authors themselves is reading this conversation too and
can either correct me if I've misinterpreted their paper or add to this
discussion!
The paper: Cross N and Clayburn Cross A. 1998. "Expertise in Engineering
Design" Research in Engineering Design 10: 141-149
Monica Cardella
Graduate Student
Industrial Engineering
Research Associate
Center for Engineering Learning and Teaching
University of Washington
Box 352180
Seattle, WA 98195-2180
USA
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Karen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is my first post to the list after a lengthy hibernation on this
list.
> The post
> by Glenn Johnson really sparked some thoughts in me with regards to
design
> quality coming from different designers of various backgrounds and
> personality.
> Designers may not come from people with the typical design background.
And
> certainly anyone with a creative mind and knowledge could be
> designers if they come out from a genuine interest in solving human
> problems.
>
> I would like to know how would people rank
> Asian design with the rest of the world
> in terms of Fashion, Interior and Product ?
> Do you think Asian Designs have come to a maturity stage
> where design identity is established ? For one I have some doubts in
certain
> areas,
> but I just want to hear some feedback how foreigners would see us in
Asia.
> Samsung, LG, Sony, JVC etc, are by far belonging to the top cohort when
it
> comes
> to Industrial design. I am wondering how one would see others in
countries
> like Taiwan,
> Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore ?
>
> Another curious point I would like to know is which
> countries would you respect design to be the best in Asia ? And why ?
>
> Last year, I participated in a forum on creativity in the arts, science
and
> technology, which
> was held in Singapore. It made me think hard. If Creativity was something
> like what Trevor Baylis
> has done. (The British inventor of the clockwork radio
> set up a company and use that to employ the underprileged people as
workers,
> and he designed
> something that was genuinely a need. A genuine problem solver and
humanist)
> Trevor Baylis was in no way bearing any form of arrogance.
> Similarly compared was another speaker, Sim Wong Hoo, an outspoken but
very
> fast thinking
> Singaporean CEO for Creative Technology who created the sound blaster.
> No way can one say that a genuinely successful designer, innovator or
> inventor
> is a proud person. At least at that forum, there was already 2 persons
who
> are well known
> to have very kind hearts with no pretences at all. Quite conversely,
these
> creative poeple
> were not egoistic at all despite the money and fame that they have.
> I have been looking closely at these 2 speakers when I asked them
questions;
> and I am very proud to say these are the people whom we should be
grooming.
> They may have a large pride in them in their work but they take pride in
the
> work they do.
> With no airs of any sort to distinguish them from the common people,
these
> people usually
> win hearts and respect of many people and also very good designs coming
out
> from them.
>
> Besides, how could one designer be thinking clear if his/her mind is
filled
> with nothing but
> ego, fame and a lot of 'hot air'..... ?
>
>
> Best wishes,
> Karen Fu
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 2:56 AM
> Subject: Re: Design Chasm
>
>
> .....
> > The design hero ranges of Target products to me lack a sensitivity to
> > scale, function and human interaction....They are using designers as a
> form
> > of co-branding because they feel that their own brand is not as strong
as
> > it could be.
> >
> ....
>
> > Designers like Stark and Newson follow more of a renaissance model but
> > most products are designed by anonymous designers working internally at
> > companies like Motorola or Samsung. I think that the removal of fame
and
> > ego from the equation results in a better design. Manufacturing
companies
> > tend to spend more time and money and follow a more rigorous process
> > internally than they do when they use famous external renaissance type
> > designers.
> >
> > The total of a team of good specialists is better than the efforts of
one
> > good generalist.
> >
> > Don't agree with the premise that inhouse designers are best. They are
> > often swamped with the knowledge of why things cannot be done.
> >
> > We have just finished working with Newson on the new seat for Qantas.
> > http://www.qantas.com.au/info/flying/travelClasses/businessSeat
> >
> > His attention to detail and perfection are astounding (he's a jeweller
by
> > training), streets ahead of standard inhouse competency,
> >
> > (yep - people like me).
> >
> > (PS. p135 of this month's ID is what we do in-house)
> >
> >
> > Glenn Johnson
> >
> >
> > Industrial Design Manager
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Industrial Design Studio, B/E Aerospace Inc.
> >
> >
> > 1455 Fairchild Rd. Winston-Salem NC 27105-4588 USA
> >
> >
> > Tel. (1) 336 744 3143 Fax. (1) 336 744 3207
> >
> >
> > B/E Industrial Design Studio
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 20:11:52 -0700
From: Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Design, designing, commercial art: a note on terminology
Dear Glenn,
Thanks, Glenn, for your response. I have been reading your
interesting exchange of ideas with Rob Curedale, and Karen Fu's
important contribution. Rather than enter that thread, I will respond
briefly to two issues in your initial response.
The list of kinds of designers who are not labeled as designers was a
series of selected examples. It was not exhaustive, though. The full
list of fields and subfields of design is long, and so is the list of
professional designations. Terry Love and I have been working on a
list of design domains, an inventory of the processes, activities,
systems, and networks of design activities, together with the
conceptual or professional locations within which these activities
take pace. It has been a while since I ran a count: my earlier note
gave a number too low by half. The list is now roughly 800 items.
Many different kinds of people practice in the professions of these
domains.
The perspective from which you state you view of designers is one
perspective among many. People use many different definitions for
design, and each of these reflects a perspective and a history of
usage. Each of these is valid within a clearly defined framework.
What I try to do in establishing definitions is to clarify how I use
a term, giving it context and meaning as I use it. Simon's (1982:
129, 1998: 112) definition and Fuller's Fuller (1969: 319) cover all
forms of design activity. The problem with most other definitions is
that they generally do not cover the many activities of design. These
definitions often fail to cover even the range activities described
by writers who use narrower definitions.
Everyone may use the definition he or she prefers. To clarify my
view, I want to examine an issue you raised where we partially agree.
I am also going to disagree with you on one historical point of
language.
You write,
"Many people create - they model, engineer, fabricate, compute,
program, construct, layout, draft, organize and a myriad of other
terms describing the traditional way in which things have been
created. Design as a word could be swapped out for any of these
activities and hence, to some extent, negate the list.
"However, not all of these folk have a developed sense of aesthetics
or fitness for purpose (FFP), which is why design came about in the
first place.
"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.
"Long live the 'commercial artists' of this world.
"Design originally had this awful label and it is an amazing fact
that technologically based fields now look to be classified as
'designers'.
"Would this still hold true if they were to be referred to as
'commercial artists'?"
The quality you describe as "aesthetics" or "fitness for purpose" is
an important attribute of good design.
Many people use the term "elegance" to identify the aesthetic
qualities of a good solution, that is, the degree to which it is well
fitted for a purpose. In many of the fields that Simon would label as
design sciences, the issue of aesthetics is becoming increasingly
identified as a key factor. In management studies, for example, the
field of management aesthetics has become the focus of an
international network of scholars and thinkers. Three current
examples are the international ACORN network, the forthcoming
European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management conference
titled: Workshop on Aesthetics, Art, and Management: Towards New
Fields of Flow, and an intense research program at Stockholm
University funded by the Swedish Riksbank Jubileumsfund.
Nevertheless, a definition describes something. In this case, the
term design describes a kind of process or activity. A definition
cannot cover only good or excellent examples of the process or
activity.
You and I agree on a significant principle. Aesthetics and fitness
for purpose are significant criteria in design. These qualities do
not distinguish designers from those who do not design or those who
are called designers from those who are not called designers. These
qualities distinguish good or excellent design processes from poor or
problematic process, and they distinguish good or excellent designers
from those of lesser skill. Designers in all domains meet these
criteria - and designers in all domains fail to do so.
One statement in your note calls for a clarification. You write that
design was originally designated as commercial art and designers were
originally designated as commercial artists. This is historically
inaccurate. The term design entered the English language five
centuries ago, long before the term commercial art came into being.
The word "design" appeared in the English language by the 1500s. The
first written citation of the verb "design" dates from the year 1548.
Merriam-Webster (1993: 343) defines the verb design as "to conceive
and plan out in the mind; to have as a specific purpose; to devise
for a specific function or end." Related to these is the act of
drawing, with an emphasis on the nature of the drawing as a plan or
map, as well as "to draw plans for; to create, fashion, execute or
construct according to plan."
Half a century later, the word began to be used as a noun. The first
cited use of the noun "design" occurs in 1588. Merriam-Webster (1993:
343) defines the noun, as "a particular purpose held in view by an
individual or group; deliberate, purposive planning; a mental project
or scheme in which means to an end are laid down." Here, too, purpose
and planning toward desired outcomes are central. Among these are "a
preliminary sketch or outline showing the main features of something
to be executed; an underlying scheme that governs functioning,
developing or unfolding; a plan or protocol for carrying out or
accomplishing something; the arrangement of elements or details in a
product or work of art." Only at the very end do we find "a
decorative pattern."
These definitions conform to the usage visible in the Simon and
Fuller definitions. The definitions end with a noun describing a
process: "the creative art of executing aesthetic or functional
designs."
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED Online 2002) provides a rich
overview with hundreds of usage examples. A more detailed discussion
of the etymology and meanings of the word design appear in Friedman
(2001, 2002).
Clear distinctions enable us to focus on appropriate objects of inquiry.
Many threads on this list and others that begin by enquiring into the
design process go astray because they confuse the general design
process with the activity sequence of one specific field or subfield
of design. To ask such questions as "what is design," or "what is the
design process," or even "what is designing," requires that we
distinguish the general process from its instantiation in applied
programs or clinical engagement.
Understanding the process is important, and underestimating design
process remains one of the serious and underdeveloped areas of design
research.
The field does somewhat better in analysis of design activities
within subfields. I suggested this distinction to Ben Matthews in
proposing that he enquire about symbolic interactionist accounts of
design processes rather than symbolic interactionist account of
designing. Some of these may also exist in the unpublished
literature, but a richer search will yield more.
All three levels of analysis are important. I do not suggest that
basic or high-level studies of design process are more important to
the field that studies of designing or design activity situated in
fields or subfields. Both kinds of inquiry and important and each
requires the other.
What I do suggest is that most design programs examine and teach
design on the level of applied theory and clinical practice. These
programs would be enriched by greater attention to design process
taking place in the networks, systems, and event flows in which
design is embedded in general industrial and managerial practice.
Recognizing the distinctions that Simon and Fuller address generates
an understanding of how human beings shape the world around them in a
web of linked systems. The past century has seen a shift from a
generally natural world to an increasingly human-created world. This
also involves - to borrow the title of Victor Margolin's excellent
new book - the politics of the artificial.
Until recently, human beings were a relatively small group of
creatures located on the surface of the planet. While humans were
numerous and powerful enough to reshape local ecosystems and dislodge
other species from habitat while restructuring environmental niches,
they were not significant enough to reshape the entire planet. That
is no longer the case. Thus, it is that understanding the sciences
and politics of the artificial makes design an increasingly central
theme of the new century.
To understand design, we must engage in all three levels of inquiry
and research, basic, applied, and clinical.
Thus, we must examine design in its large scale.
It is often said on this list and elsewhere that design has become a
primary intellectual concern of the twenty-first century. This is
true. It is true precisely because the design domain is extensive,
involving the many design fields and subfields that give rise to what
Fuller (1981: 229-231) labels class-two evolution.
To understand these issues requires understanding design process and
it requires inquiry into problem-finding, problem-solving,
heuristics, and such disciplines as the philosophy of science and
sociology of knowledge in which we consider the properties of
elegance (aesthetics, fitness for purpose).
Karen Fu's excellent post captured important concepts about the
design process and the activity of designing, as did Monica
Cardella's response.
Jens Bernsen (1986: 10) captured much of the same idea when he
described design as "translating a purpose into a physical form or
tool."
It seems to me that most of us agree that this counts for a great
deal in design, and that design - to serve a purpose - serves best
when solutions are elegant and well fitted to their purpose.
In asking for epistemological clarity, I point out that a large and
abundant group of professionals across many domains engage in the
design process, designing for an even larger group of stakeholders.
The scale and scope of the design process as a broad human activity
gives design the importance it has now acquired. It is important,
therefore, to study the design process and the networks of design
activity as well as the practice and profession of designing.
Best regards,
Ken
References
Bernsen, Jens. 1986. Design. The Problems Comes First. Copenhagen:
Danish Design Council.
Friedman, Ken. 2001. "Creating Design Knowledge: From Research into
Practice." In Design and Technology Educational Research and
Development: The Emerging International Research Agenda. E. W. L.
Norman and P. H. Roberts, eds. Loughborough, UK: Department of Design
and Technology, Loughborough University, 31-69.
Friedman, Ken. 2002. "Theory Construction in Design Research.
Criteria, Approaches, and Methods." In Common Ground. Proceedings of
the Design Research Society International Conference at Brunel
University, September 5-7, 2002. David Durling and John Shackleton,
Editors. Stoke on Trent, UK: Staffordshire University Press.
Fuller, Buckminster. 1969. Utopia or Oblivion. The Prospects for
Humanity. New York: Bantam Books.
Fuller, Buckminster. 1981. Critical Path. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Merriam-Webster, Inc. 1993. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.
Tenth edition. Springfield, Massachusetts.
OED. 2002. OED Online. Oxford English Dictionary. Ed. J. A. Simpson
and E. S. C. Weiner. 2nd ed, 1989. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Oxford
University Press. URL: http://dictionary.oed.com/. Date accessed:
2002 January 18.
Simon, Herbert. 1982. The Sciences of the Artificial. 2nd ed.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Simon, Herbert. 1998. The Sciences of the Artificial. 3rd ed.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
--
Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Leadership and Organization
Norwegian School of Management
Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:13:10 +0200
From: "Birgit H. Jevnaker" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Design Chasm
DQoNCg0KDQpSZSBEZXNpZ24gQ2hhc20NCg0KSGkgYWxsLA0KU3VtbWVydGltZSBpcyBhIGdvb2Qg
dGltZSBmb3IgcmVmbGVjdGlvbnMhIEkgYXBwcmVjaWF0ZSB0aGUgbGFzdCBkYXlz4oCZDQpwYXJ0
bHkgb3Bwb3NpbmcgcmVmbGVjdGlvbnMgKEtlbiwgR2xlbm4sIFJvYiwgS2FyZW4pIG9uIHRoZSBj
b250cmlidXRpbmcNCnJvbGUgb2YgZGVzaWduZXJzIHRvIG9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbnMg4oCTIGluIHBh
cnRpY3VsYXIgdGhlIG9uZXMgd2l0aCBudWFuY2UNCmluZm9ybWVkIGJ5IGNvbmNyZXRlIG9ic2Vy
dmF0aW9ucywgd2hpY2ggbWF5IGluZm9ybSBhbHNvIGZ1cnRoZXIgZW1waXJpY2FsDQpyZXNlYXJj
aCBhbmQgdGhlb3JpemluZy4NCi0gRXZlbiB0aG91Z2ggaXQgaXMgZGlmZmljdWx0IHRvIGF2b2lk
IHVucmVmbGVjdGl2ZSBiaWFzZXMgaXQgc2VlbXMgd2lzZQ0KZm9yIGN1cnJlbnQgZGVzaWduLW9y
aWVudGVkIHJlc2VhcmNoIHRvIHRha2UgdGhlIHZhcmlvdXMgb3Bwb3Npbmcgdmlld3MNCmludG8g
YWNjb3VudCBhbmQgbm90IG1ha2UgYW55IHByZWp1ZGdtZW50cyByZWdhcmRpbmcgaW5kaXZpZHVh
bCB0YWxlbnRzIHZzLg0KY29sbGVjdGl2ZSBlZmZvcnRzIGluIGRlc2lnbmluZy4NCi0gQW5kIHll
dCB3ZSBoYXZlIHRoZSBjaGFsbGVuZ2Ugb2YgaW50ZXJwcmV0aW5nIHdoYXQgbWF5IGJlIG9ic2Vy
dmVkIChqdXN0DQpyZWFkIFJvYidzIGxhdGVzdCByZXNwb25zZSwgd2hpY2ggY2FtZSBhZnRlciBJ
J2QgZmluaXNoZWQgdGhpcy4uLiB0cnkgdG8NCmVkaXQgaW4gYWxzbyBzb21lIG9mIGhpcyBjb25j
ZXJucy4pDQoNCkRlc2lnbiByZXNlYXJjaCBpcyB5b3VuZyBhbmQgd2hhdCB3ZSBtZWFuIGJ5ICdk
ZXNpZ24nIGFuZCBkZXNpZ24gdGFsZW50IHdlDQphbGwgYWdyZWUgYXJlIGhpZ2hseSBhbWJpZ3Vv
dXMuIEluIHJlc2VhcmNoIEkndmUgbGVhcm50IHRoYXQgdGhlcmUgYXJlIG5vDQpyaWdodCBvciB3
cm9uZyBkZWZpbml0aW9ucyBwZXIgc2UsIHJhdGhlciBtb3JlIG9yIGxlc3MgdXNlZnVsIG9uZXMg
YmVjYXVzZQ0Kd2hhdCB3ZSBuZWVkIGlzIGEgd29ya2luZyBkZWZpbml0aW9uIHRvIGVuYWJsZSB6
b29taW5nIGluIG9uIHdoYXRldmVyIHRoZQ0KcmVzZWFyY2ggcXVlc3Rpb24gYW5kIHRoZSBwaGVu
b21lbmEgb2YgaW50ZXJlc3QgYXJlLiBHaXZlbiB0aGlzLCBJIGd1ZXNzDQp0b28gYnJvYWQgb3Ig
YWx0ZXJuYXRpdmVseSB0b28gbmFycm93IGRlZmluaXRpb25zIGFyZSBvZnRlbiBub3Qgc28gdXNl
ZnVsDQpiZWNhdXNlIHRoZSBicm9hZCBvbmVzIG1heSB3YXRlciBvdXQgdGhlIHBoZW5vbWVub24g
b2YgaW50ZXJlc3QgYW5kIHRoZQ0KbmFycm93IG9uZXMgbWF5IG1ha2UgdG9vIGVhcmx5IGNsb3N1
cmUgb2Ygd2hhdCBtaWdodCBiZSB1bmZvbGRpbmcgaW4NCnByYWN0aWNlLg0KLSBJIGhhdmUgYmVl
biB0aGlua2luZyAtIGluIGxpbmUgd2l0aCBlLmcuIEhlbnJ5IERyZXlmdXNzIC0gdGhhdCBvbmUN
CnZhbHVhYmxlIGNvbXBldGVuY2UgaW4gaHVtYW4gZGVzaWduaW5nIGlzIHRoZSB1c2Ugb2Ygdmlz
dWFsLWV4cHJlc3NpdmUgb3INCnJlbGF0ZWQgYWVzdGhldGljLWV4cHJlc3NpdmUgYXBwcm9hY2hl
cyB0byAiZHJhdyIgb3IgbW9kZWwgKGluIDJkLCAzZCBvcg0KZGlnaXRhbCBmb3JtKSBzb21ldGhp
bmcgbmV3IG9yIHBhcnRseSBuZXcsIHdoaWNoIGhlbHAgdG8gY29uY2VpdmUsIHByb2plY3QNCmFu
ZCBjb21tdW5pY2F0ZSB0aGlzICJzb21ldGhpbmciIHRoYXQgaXMgbm90IHlldCBmdWxseSBncmFz
cGVkLiBUaGlzDQp2aXN1YWwtZXhwcmVzc2l2ZSBjb21wZXRlbmNlIGFuZCBmdW5kYW1lbnRhbCBk
ZXNpZ24gYWN0aXZpdHkgbWF5DQpkaXN0aW5ndWlzaCBkZXNpZ24gZnJvbSB0aGUgcmVsYXRlZCBi
dXQgYnJvYWRlciBjb25jZXB0ICdwbGFubmluZycuDQpGdXJ0aGVybW9yZSwgd2hhdCBJIGZvdW5k
IGVzc2VudGlhbCBhcmUgZGVzaWduIGV4cGVydGlzZSBhbmQNCmRlc2lnbi1jcmVhdGl2ZSBwcm9j
ZXNzZXMgaW5jbHVkaW5nIGNvbGxhYm9yYXRpdmUgd29yayB3aXRoIG90aGVyDQpzcGVjaWFsaXN0
cyBidXQgZnVlbGVkIGJ5IHRoZSBkZXNpZ25lcnMnIHdheSBvZiBrbm93aW5nIGFuZCBjcmVhdGlu
ZyB0aGF0IEkNCmtub3cgbWFueSBvZiB5b3UgYXJlIGVuZ2FnZWQgaW4uIFdvdWxkIGJlIGludGVy
ZXN0aW5nIHRvIGhlcmUgc29tZSBtb3JlDQpyZWZsZWN0aW9ucyByZSB0aGlzLg0KDQotIEJhc2Vk
IG9uIGZpZWxkd29yayBmcm9tIHZhcmlvdXMgdHlwZXMgb2YgbWFudWZhY3R1cmluZyBvcmdhbml6
YXRpb25zLA0KZGVzaWduIGNvbnN1bHRhbmNpZXMgKHNlZSBlLmcuICdNYW5hZ2VtZW50IG9mIERl
c2lnbiBBbGxpYW5jZXMnLCBjby1lZGl0ZWQNCndpdGggTS4gQnJ1Y2UsIFdpbGV5IDE5OTgpIGFu
ZCBzb21lIG90aGVyIGtpbmRzIG9mIGRlc2lnbi1pbnRlbnNpdmUNCm9yZ2FuaXppbmcgKGUuZy4g
T2x5bXBpYyBXaW50ZXIgR2FtZXMpIEkgYWdyZWUgd2l0aCBHbGVubiB0aGF0IHRoZQ0KYWVzdGhl
dGljLWV4cHJlc3NpdmUgYWJpbGl0aWVzIGluY2x1ZGluZyBjcmVhdGlvbiBvZiBtZWFuaW5nIGFu
ZCBldm9raW5nDQplbW90aW9ucyBhbmQgbm90IHRvIGZvcmdldCBodW1hbi1jZW50ZXJlZCBmaXQg
Zm9yIHB1cnBvc2UgYXJlIHNvbWV0aGluZw0KaGlnaGx5IGludGVyZXN0aW5nIGUuZy4gZnJvbSBh
IHZhbHVlIGNyZWF0aW9uIHBvaW50IG9mIHZpZXcsIGFsdGhvdWdoIEkNCnJlc3BlY3QgdGhhdCB0
aGVyZSBpcyBtb3JlIHRvIGJlIHNhaWQgYWJvdXQgZGVzaWduIChjZi4gUm9iKSBkZXBlbmRpbmcg
b24NCndoYXQgdGhlIGZvY3VzIG9mIGludGVyZXN0IGlzIGluIGRlc2lnbiByZXNlYXJjaC4gSW5k
ZWVkIHRoZQ0KdHJhbnNkaXNjaXBsaW5hcnkgY2hhbGxlbmdlIG9mIGluZHVzdHJpYWwgZGVzaWdu
IGluY2x1ZGluZyBhbGwgdGhlDQp0ZWNobmljYWxpdGllcyBhbmQgZS5nLiBzYWZldHkgY29uY2Vy
bnMgaW4gc29tZSBpbmR1c3RyaWVzL3Byb2R1Y3QNCmNhdGVnb3JpZXMgSSBndWVzcyBhcmUgd2hh
dCBCb2IgaXMgcmVtaW5kaW5nIHVzIG9mIGFuZCB3aGljaCB3ZSBhbHNvIG5lZWQNCnRvIGF0dGVu
ZCB0byB3aGVuIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlLg0KDQpSZSBUaGUgbG9uZyBsaXN0IG9mIGRlc2lnbmVycyB0
aGF0IGFyZSAibm9uLWRlc2lnbmVycyIgKHJlZiB0byBkZWJhdGUNCmJldHdlZW4gR2xlbm4gYW5k
IEtlbik6IHRoaXMgcmVtaW5kcyBtZSBvZiBBbmdlbGEgRHVtYXMgYW5kIGNvYXV0aG9ycycNCnJl
c2VhcmNoIGluIHRoZSBVSy4gQnkgem9vbWluZyBpbiBvbiB3aG8gYWN0dWFsbHkgdG9vayBkZXNp
Z24gZGVjaXNpb25zIGluDQp2YXJpb3VzIG9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbnMgdGhleSBjYXB0dXJlZCB0aGUg
bm9uLWRlc2lnbmVycycgc2lnbmlmaWNhbnQgaW1wYWN0DQpvbiBkZXNpZ24gb3V0Y29tZXMgYW5k
IGdyb3VuZGVkIGluIHRoaXMgdGhleSBjb2luZWQgJ3NpbGVudCBkZXNpZ24nIGluDQphZGRpdGlv
biB0byB0aGUgcG9zc2libGUgJ3NlZW4gZGVzaWduJyBieSBwcm9mZXNzaW9uYWwgZGVzaWduZXJz
IChzZWUgZm9yDQpleGFtcGxlIEdvcmIgYW5kIER1bWFzJyBhcnRpY2xlIG9uIHRoaXMgaW4gMTk4
NywgRGVzaWduIFN0dWRpZXMgOCwgMywNCjE1MC0xNTYuKQ0KLSBIb3dldmVyLCBob3cgbWF5IHdl
IGludGVycHJldCB0aGlzIGZpbmRpbmcuLi4/IEFuIGltcG9ydGFudCBpbXBsaWNhdGlvbg0KaXMs
IG5vIGRvdWJ0LCB0byBpbmNsdWRlIG5vbi1kZXNpZ25lcnMgd2hlbiByZXNlYXJjaGluZyBkZXNp
Z24gcHJvY2Vzc2VzICYNCm91dGNvbWVzLiBZZXQgaXQgZG9lcyBub3QgZm9sbG93IHRoYXQgJ3Np
bGVudCBkZXNpZ24nIHByb2Nlc3NlcyAtIGRvbWluYXRlZA0KYnkgbm9uLWRlc2lnbmVycyAtIG9m
dGVuIHdpdGhvdXQgYmVpbmcgY29uY2lvdXMgb2YgdGhlc2UgYmVpbmcNCmRlc2lnbi1yZWxhdGVk
IC0gcmVwcmVzZW50IHRoZSBtb3N0IGR5bmFtaWMtY29tcGV0ZW50IG9uZXMgdGhhdCBtYXkNCmNv
bnRyaWJ1dGUgdG8gc3VwZXJpb3Igb3IgYXQgbGVhc3QgaW1wcm92ZWQgdmFsdWUtY3JlYXRpb24u
Li4gYWx0aG91Z2ggSSBhbQ0KYXdhcmUgdGhhdCAnZ29vZCBkZXNpZ25zJyBzb21ldGltZXMgYXJl
IGFjdHVhbGx5IG1hZGUgYnkNCm5vbi0ocHJvZmVzc2lvbmFsKWRlc2lnbmVycy4gVGhpcyBjYXRl
Z29yaXppbmcgb2Ygc2lsZW50IGFuZCBzZWVuIGRlc2lnbg0KY2FuIHJhaXNlIG91ciBjb25zaW91
c25lc3MgYnV0IGRvIG5vdCBzZWVtIHRvIGZ1bGx5IGNhcHR1cmUgdGhlIG1vcmUNCnByb2R1Y3Rp
dmUgZHluYW1pY3MgYW5kIGNyZWF0aXZlIHRlbnNpb25zIGluIGNvbGxhYm9yYXRpdmUgd29yayBi
ZXR3ZWVuDQpkZXNpZ25lcnMgYW5kIG5vbi1kZXNpZ25lcnMsIHdoaWNoIEkgaGF2ZSBmb3VuZCB2
ZXJ5IHRyaWdnZXJpbmcgaW4gdGhlDQpjYXNlcyBJJ3ZlIHN0dWRpZWQgKC4uLldvdWxkIGJlIGlu
dGVyZXN0aW5nIHRvIGhlYXIgb3RoZXIgb3BpbmlvbnMgb24gdGhpcw0Kc2lsZW50LWRlc2lnbi9z
ZWVuLWRlc2lnbiByZWZsZWN0aW9uISkNCg0KR2xlbm4gV3JvdGU6ICJUcnkgYXMgd2UgbWlnaHQs
IHRoZXJlIGlzIGEgZnVuZGFtZW50YWwgY2hhc20gYmV0d2VlbiB0aG9zZQ0KdGhhdCBjcmVhdGUg
aW4NCnRoaXMgYWVzdGhldGljIGFuZCBGRlAgZmFzaGlvbiwgYW5kIHRob3NlIHRoYXQgY3JlYXRl
IHRvIGZ1bGZpbGwgYSBuZWVkLCBhDQpzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIG9yIGEgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnQuIg0K
DQpJbnNvZmFyIGFzIHRhbGVudGVkIGRlc2lnbmVycyB3b3JrIHdpdGggb3RoZXJzIOKAkyBmb3Ig
ZXhhbXBsZSB3b3JraW5nDQpyZXBlYXRlZGx5IGluIHNvbWUgY2xpZW50IG9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbnMg
KGNmLiBSb2IncyBhcmd1bWVudCBvbg0KaW5kdXN0cnktc3BlY2lmaWMga25vd2xlZGdlKSBidXQg
YWxzbyBjb2xsYWJvcmF0aW5nIHdpdGggb3RoZXJzIGFjcm9zcyBhDQp2YXJpZXR5IG9mIGNvbnRl
eHRzIOKAkyB0aGVpciB3b3JrIHdvdWxkIHByb2JhYmx5IHJhcmVseSBhZGhlcmUgdG8gaWRlYWxp
emVkDQpwYXJhZGlnbXMgb2YgdGhlIGluZGl2aWR1YWwgZGVzaWduZXItY3JlYXRvciBvbiB0aGUg
b25lIGhhbmQsIG9yIHRoZQ0KYW5vbnltb3VzIOKAmGNvZyBpbiB0aGUgd2hlZWzigJkgd29ya2lu
ZyBvZiBpbnNpZGUgZGVzaWduLWFuZC1kZXZlbG9wbWVudCBzdGFmZg0Kb24gdGhlIG90aGVyLiBJ
biBzaG9ydCwgd2UgbmVlZCB0byBvcGVuIHVwIGZvciBtdWx0aXBsZSB3YXlzIG9mDQpkZXNpZ25t
YWtpbmcgYW5kIGRlc2lnbmVybHkgd29ya2luZyBpbiBvcmRlciB0byB1bmRlcnN0YW5kIHRoZSB1
bmZvbGRpbmcgb2YNCmRlc2lnbiBwcmFjdGljZXMuIEluIGZhY3QsIHRoZSB0cmlnZ2VyaW5nIGRp
c2N1c3Npb24gYmV0d2VlbiBSb2IgYW5kIEdsZW5uDQphbmQgdGhlaXIgZXhhbXBsZXMgdmFsaWRh
dGUgdGhpcyBwb2ludCwgSSB3b3VsZCBhcmd1ZS4NCg0KSG93ZXZlciwgb3BlbmluZyB1cCBmb3Ig
4oCcZGVzaWduIHdvcmsgd2l0aCBvdGhlcnPigJ0gZG9lcyBub3QgbWVhbiB0aGF0IHdlIGRvDQpu
b3QgYWNrbm93bGVkZ2UgdGhlIHBvdGVudGlhbGx5IGhpZ2hseSBjcmVhdGl2ZSB3b3JrIG9mIOKA
nHJlbmFpc3NhbmNl4oCdDQpkZXNpZ25lcnMuLi4gb3Igd2hhdCBpcyBhY3R1YWxseSBtZWFudCB0
b2RheSBJIHByb3Bvc2UgaXMgcmF0aGVyIHRoZSBtdWx0aS0NCmFuZCBtZXRhLXNraWxsZWQgZGVz
aWduZXIgcGVyc29uYS4gSSB3b3VsZCB3ZWxjb21lIG1vcmUgcmVmbGVjdGlvbnMgb24NCnRoaXMs
IHdoaWNoIGlzIHNvbWV0aGluZyBJIGFtIHRyeWluZyB0byBzb3J0IG9mIGluIGN1cnJlbnQgcGFw
ZXItd3JpdGluZ3MuDQoNCkdsZW5uIHdyb3RlOg0KIkRlc2lnbiBlZHVjYXRpb24gaGFzIGhlbHBl
ZCBtYW55IChpbmNsdWRpbmcgbXlzZWxmKSBsaXZlIGFuIGltcG9zc2libGUNCmRyZWFtIC0gdW50
aWwgdGhlaXIgZmluYWwgeWVhci4iDQotIEhlcmUgc2VlbXMgdG8gYmUgbG90IG1vcmUgdG8gYmUg
c2FpZC4gQ2FuIHlvdSBlbGFib3JhdGUgbW9yZSBvbiB0aGlzDQpHbGVubiBvciBvdGhlcnM/DQoN
CkFnYWluLCBHbGVubiBhbmQgUm9iLCBhbmQgYWxzbyBLYXJlbiwgdGhhbmtzIGZvciBnb29kIHJl
ZmxlY3Rpb25zLg0KQmlyZ2l0DQoNCg0KQmlyZ2l0IEggSmV2bmFrZXINCkFzc29jaWF0ZSBwcm9m
ZXNzb3INCkJJIE5vcndlZ2lhbiBTY2hvb2wgb2YgTWFuYWdlbWVudCwgRGVwYXJ0bWVudCBvZiBJ
bm5vdmF0aW9uIGFuZCBFY29ub21pYw0Kb3JnYW5pemF0aW9uLg0KQWxzbyB0ZWFjaGluZyBhdCBJ
bmR1c3RyaWFsIERlc2lnbi9Pc2xvIFNjaG9vbCBvZiBBcmNoaXRlY3R1cmUgYW5kDQpjb2xsYWJv
cmF0aW5nIGluIHJlc2VhcmNoIHdpdGggTlROVSAodGVjaG5pY2FsIHVuaXYuIFRyb25kaGVpbSku
DQpiaXJnaXQuaC5qZXZuYWtlckBiaS5ubw==
------------------------------
End of PHD-DESIGN Digest - 10 Jul 2003 to 11 Jul 2003 (#2003-144)
*****************************************************************
|
