Chris,
Let me toss another bit of chaos into the mix.
I am a classically trained mechanical engineer.
I consider myself a designer but different from the classical industrial
design.
I worked as a designer at IDEO product development, worked on the design of
systems ranging from vacuum cleaners to spy satellites, and taught design
in university mechanical engineering departments.
There is currently a large focus being put on Engineering Education in the
United States. In every discussion, Design is seen as the connector across
the discipline stovepipes. For them, they see design as the solving of
open ended problems. I take issue with that definition and instead propose
the following view.
Engineers create solutions.
Designers combine needs and solutions in a compelling fashion.
That is to say engineers tend to "design" by starting with a rather mature
problem statement (IDEO is one of many exceptions to this precept) and
then develop solutions based on that assessment. I feel that designers
begin further back in the process before the need or the solution are mature.
John Feland
Center for Design Research
Stanford University
At 11:00 PM 2/13/2003 +0000, Chris RUST(SCS) wrote:
>I have a small anecdotal contribution to make about the education of engineers
>and designers, and I would like to suggest that Lubomir is proposing a
>too-polarised view of the eng-des spectrum that is too-focused on traditional
>manufacturing. (I expect he is only doing it to provoke some debate)
>
>Firstly education. Along with one or two others who are on this list I took
>part in a planning conference for a new design school in a university
>which had
>no prior experience of design as a separate discipline in a country which has
>not made design a central priority in the past. (No I won't say where but I
>know of several countries where my story could have taken place)
>
>Several of the participants were local people with an engineering
>background. I
>found it fascinating that their model for learning was - understand the theory
>(Vincenti's operating principles?) then you can do the practice of designing.
>My model is start practicing and through your experience develop your
>understanding of the theory. Over two days we achieved an almost perfect
>state
>of mutual incomprehension.
>
>Secondly, Lubomir has suggested that we are talking about a contrast between
>functional engineering and styling and I don't suppose I am the only one here
>who is not happy about that. I'll leave engineers to say what they do but I
>feel that the common theme for "designers" who do not consider themselves
>to be
>also engineers is a focus on purpose and human experience rather than means of
>delivery.
>
>That might translate into styling for some people but I haven't met many of
>those, especially in recent years. Currently my interest is in how industrial
>designers deal with the "disappearing product" conundrum, where many of the
>most interesting problems are about systems and how we experience them.
>
>It was notable that, at the Common Ground conference last year, a number of
>people challenged, vigorously, the idea that as a community we were concerned
>with "material culture". I suggest that is a change of outlook from, say, 15
>years ago.
>
>Best wishes from Sheffield
>Chris Rust
>
>*******************************************
>Professor Chris Rust
>Art and Design Research Centre
>Sheffield Hallam University UK
>www.shu.ac.uk/design
>
>[log in to unmask]
>tel +44 114 225 2706
>fax +44 114 225 2603
>Psalter Lane, Sheffield S11 8UZ, UK
|