Read your research request with interest.
Been meaning to gather some references for you.
Also forwarded the request to colleagues involved
in philosophy, art, and design.
I'm sending an old version of a paper that you may
find useful. This includes a reference list that may
guide you to some other good thinkers. I am still
struggling to get a better version done.
I'm traveling too much these days. In a week or
so, I will sent you a bibliography of useful sources.
Others also write about some of the topics considered
here. John Broadbent, Terry Love, Harold Nelson,
and Erik Stolterman describe design from a systems
standpoint. Many of us frame design in the context
of complexity thinking and complex adaptive systems,
but no one seems to have done enough to apply the
mathematical models of complexity studies to design
process. Judith Gregory, Lily Diaz, and Pelle Ehn work
from a position that embeds design activity in social
process, and their work addresses significant philosophical
Among philosophers whose work is valuable, I can
point to John Searle, Steve Fuller, Albert Borgmann,
and Joseph Dunner. Some other scholars also address
specific philosophical problems that apply to design,
such as Robert Sternberg's work on wisdom, or
Michael Polanyi's work on knowledge.
Several people specialize in philosophy and design. Per
Galle and Peter Kroese have done a great deal of work
to build this field, as has Louis Bucciarelli. Richard
Buchanan has been a central figure, and a number of
people in Australia have worked on these issues from
different positions, including Keith Russell, Cameron
Tonkinwise, and Tony Fry.
In Europe, Michael Biggs, Robin Durie, and Mark
Palmer are particularly notable as philosophers
who also work with art and design, and Jan Verwijnen
is a designer and architect who has been approaching
these issues from the other side.
There are also theologians who work with philosophical
issues that apply to design. I don't mean the notion of
a "designer," but the concept that human beings must
design their relationship to the world because they have
no predetermined role in nature. According the Walter
Kasper, for example, reality in its an entirety is the natural
human environment. Because of this, human beings must
create our environment and orient ourselves within it as
social beings. This view is remarkably consistent with
Herbert Blumer's view of the way that human beings
develop, and it fits nicely within the Berger and Luckmann
approach to the social construction of reality. Many of
the philosophical conclusions that follow from this are
useful in design, whether or not we believe in a specific
religious or theological doctrine as Kasper does. Kasper's
views as a Roman Catholic theologian and cardinal
can be distinguished from the philosophical issues
that apply to design. There are other theologians
whose work can be used in the same way, including
Martin Buber, Soren Kierkegaard, and Paul Tillich.
Applying the work carefully is difficult because it
requires close reading to build distinct bridges, but
the specific interest of these theologians in the nature
of human responsibility in a social world is what makes
many of them philösophers whose work can be useful
It will take me a while to gather these items up
for you. I'll send them when I can.
Good luck with your research request.
Design knowledge: context, content and continuity
Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Knowledge Management
Norwegian School of Management
This is the extended version of a paper published as:
Friedman, Ken. 2000. "Design knowledge: context,
content and continuity." In Doctoral Education in
Design. Foundations for the Future. David Durling
and Ken Friedman, editors. Proceedings of the La
Clusaz Conference, July 8-12, 2000.
Staffordshire, United Kingdom: Staffordshire
University Press, 5-16.
Copyright © 2000 by Ken Friedman. All rights
reserved. This text may be quoted and printed
freely with proper acknowledgment.
1. Ten challenges to design
2. From prehistoric making to postindustrial complexity
3. The making disciplines in a complex world
4. Thinking in a complex world
5. Design knowledge and systems thinking
6. An end-user's tale
7. A model of design
8. Kinds of knowledge
9. Philosophy and design
10. The challenge of continuity
1. Ten challenges to design
Design is a broad field of making and planning
disciplines. These include industrial design,
graphic design, textile design, furniture design,
information design, process design, product
design, interface design, transportation design,
systems design, urban design, design leadership
and design management and well as architecture,
engineering, information technology, and computer
Around the world, conferences, colloquia,
seminars, and discussions now focus on design
research and on the kinds of design theory that
support fruitful research. One purpose of these
conferences and meetings is to analyze the field.
Another is to generate, develop, and articulate
streams of research and theory construction.
This definition of design covers a broad spectrum
of fields. In many ways, they overlap in thought
and practice. Barriers divide them even so.
These fields focus on different subjects and
objects. They have distinct traditions, methods,
and vocabularies. They involve distinct and often
different professional groups. The traditions
dividing these groups are also distinct. Common
boundaries often form a border where common
concerns should build a bridge.
Despite differences, ten challenges face all the
making disciplines. These are three common
performance challenges, four substantive
challenges, and three contextual challenges.
These challenges bind the making disciplines
together as a common research field.
The three performance challenges held in common
by all the making disciplines are that they:
1. Act on the physical world.
2. Address human needs.
3. Generate the built environment.
In the past, these common attributes weren't
sufficient to transcend the boundaries of
tradition. Today, objective changes in the larger
world cause scholars, practitioners, and students
to converge on common challenges. These
challenges require frameworks of theory and
research to address contemporary problem areas
and solve individual cases.
These problem areas involve four substantive
challenges. These substantive challenges are:
1. Increasingly ambiguous boundaries between artifact, structure, and process.
2. Increasingly large-scale social, economic, and industrial frames.
3. An increasingly complex environment of needs, requirements, and constraints.
4. Information content that often exceeds the value of physical substance.
They also involve three contextual challenges. These are:
1. A complex environment in which many projects
or products cross the boundaries of several
organizations, stakeholder, producer, and user
2. Projects or products that must meet the
expectations of many organizations, stakeholders,
producers, and users.
3. Demands at every level of production, distribution, reception, and control.
These ten challenges require a qualitatively
different approach to professional practice than
was the case in earlier times. Past environments
were simpler. They made simpler demands.
Individual experience and personal development
were sufficient for depth and substance in
professional practice. While experience and
development are still necessary, they are no
longer sufficient. Most of today's design
challenges require analytic and synthetic
planning skills that can't be developed through
Professional design practice today involves
advanced knowledge. This knowledge isn't a higher
level of professional practice. It is a
qualitatively different form of professional
practice. It is emerging in response to the
demands of the information society and the
knowledge economy to which it gives rise.
Research is vital if we are to meet these
challenges. Consequently, design research has
become a central framework for inquiry in design
over the past decade.
2. From prehistoric making to postindustrial complexity
Acting on the physical world, addressing human
needs and generating the built environment have
defined the making disciplines for thousands of
Homo habilis manufactured the first tools over
two and a half million years ago. That is when
toolmakers and builders consciously began to act
on the physical world to address human needs.
They generated the built environment thereby.
Over the millennia that followed, makers
diversified from generalized tool making into
such specialties as architecture, textiles, or
pottery. As they did, they continued to perform
the three essential functions. The making
professions have been with us ever since.
Not all of the making professions have been with
us for an equally long time. Some of today's
challenges have brought about significantly new
Computer design is one example of a significantly
new profession. Examining this profession will
reveal some of the issues inherent in the
challenges we all face.
Over the past two centuries, scholars,
scientists, inventors, and engineers have made
major contributions to the birth of the computer.
The engineering design process of computer design
began long before the first computer was realized
as a working instrument. Charles Babbage
conceived the first version of his difference
engine in the 1820s. While he began designing the
mechanism of the machine in 1834, Babbage never
finished his machine. He moved from one stage of
his device to the next before completing a
Some say that Babbage never finished because his
work because it would have been impossible to do
so using 19th century technology. This is not so.
A project at the Science Museum in London
recently built a working difference engine using
only the technology available to Charles Babbage.
This demonstrates that Babbage's project was
feasible using the machine technology of the
1800s. Whatever the real reasons for Babbage's
failure, the computer as we know it only took
shape in the 20th century.
When Vannevar Bush created an early electronic
computer in 1930, the field took an important
leap forward. Bush (1945) also entered Internet
history by proposing a conceptual model of the
World Wide Web is his 1945 article, "As We May
Computer design made another leap in 1937 when
Alan Turing created the hypothetical "Turing
Computer design as a distinct profession began to
take form in the 1950s. This is when computers
began to be manufactured for regular use in
business and industry. The computer design
profession grew as the computer developed an
increasingly important role in the contemporary
The first civilian computers resembled their
early military research counterparts. These were
huge, mechanical-electric computers built by
engineers. As they diversified into different
specialized information tools, they developed
powerful specialized components. As this
transformation took place and gradually ramified
into multiple branches, the computer design
profession branched off into specialized
subfields. Each has its own specific requirements
and skills. The general profession of computer
design as we know it today is now half a century
old. Some subfields of computer design are as
recent as the past year or two.
Software design is far older than the computer.
As a branch of mathematics, some aspects of
software design date back hundreds of years.
The conceptual Turing Machine of 1937 can perform
any computation possible on the most advanced
supercomputer available today. While processing
speed is inevitably slow, a Turing Machine can
perform any computation that a massive parallel
processor array can perform -- give or take a few
Much of the computation in early computers took
place on a physical level. Some of it was
hard-wired into the machinery. Performing
computations or processes of certain kinds
required physical manipulation of the equipment.
Other forms of computing relied on punch cards
that were physically manipulated by the computer,
a method of programming that goes back to the
1801 invention of the Jacquard Loom for weaving
It was not until the creation of the digital
computer that computer programming truly came
into its own. The birth of programmed digital
computing on multi-purpose computers created the
profession of software design. Over the past two
decades, this field, too, has branched out,
specialized, and developed its own subfields.
This has been the pattern for the vast majority
of the world's professions and trades. A few
millennia ago, there were only a few hundred
kinds of jobs. Many jobs had a wide, ambiguous
range of responsibilities. The development of
advanced civilizations created an ever-increasing
division of labor.
By 1776, when Adam Smith (1976) wrote The Wealth
of Nations, the principle of specialized skill
and division of labor was recognized as a key to
the coming industrial economy. At that time,
there were probably a few thousand kinds of jobs.
Now, at the beginning of the twenty-first
century, kinds of jobs and the kinds of work
associated with them have exploded in variety,
nature, and skill requirements. At the same time,
increasing numbers of jobs have moved from the
direct manipulation of physical material to the
kinds of work that Reich (1992) summed up under
the rubric of symbolic analysis.
Grocery clerks now operate advanced
computer-based information systems to answer
customer questions about available products and
product-related services. They check the produce
for freshness and serve coffee at the same time
that they load dough into an on-premises,
automated, computer-driven mini-bakery.
Deliverymen manage sophisticated
inventory-control systems that use shipping and
restocking labels to instruct an array of
computerized information systems. These systems
link factories to distributors and retailers on
the downstream side. They help to control the
delivery of raw materials and just in time
subcontracted parts on the upstream end.
Information technology has transformed routine
manual labor into jobs associated with advanced
knowledge and skill. Information technology also
adds a dimension of manual labor to jobs
associated with advanced skills and knowledge.
Research scholars and scientists take part in
skilled manual labor nearly every day. Scholars
now perform tasks once associated with
secretaries and unionized printing press
When we write research reports, we type the
manuscripts and do the proofreading once
associated with secretaries. The same act
prepares the typesetting once handled in a
letterpress shop. When we use copiers with
advanced collating and binding functions, we
manage the print production once undertaken by
the journeyman printer.
Many jobs are increasingly informated in the
industrial democracies. Nearly all jobs in the
complex information landscape are changing in
response to the multiple stimuli of the demanding
environments within which work is performed. This
has three results.
1. Formerly distinct job categories tend to blur and mix.
2. There are now more kinds of jobs than ever
before, with several hundred thousand distinct
3. The built environment takes on a complex new
relationship to those who live and work in it.
Traditional service jobs of the old kind will
continue to exist in a social economy that values
a diversity of goods and services. Bakers will
bake, chefs will cook, taxi drivers will
transport passengers, and bartenders will serve
drinks. Each of these service professionals also
uses informated technology in some way. They all
use informated technology when they move from
their seemingly old-fashioned work to their home
life as the consumers and end-users of goods and
services produced by others. Even Old Order Amish
now use advanced information technology
(Rheingold 1999), though they control its use far
more consciously than the rest of us and are
therefore influenced by it in less complex ways.
3. The making disciplines in a complex world
The making disciplines are only now recognizing
the challenges that this kind of change imposes
on the built environment. Some designers have yet
Professional adaptation by rethinking the nature
of design is essential to the demands of
contemporary work. Design professionals develop
the artifacts, structures, and processes that
hundreds of thousands of other kinds of workers
use. The rate of change and the nature of change
in other fields inevitably affect design. This,
in turn, affects how designers must think.
Depending on our analytic frame, we are living in
a postindustrial society, an information society,
or a knowledge economy. If Charlie Chaplin were
to shale hands with Jacques Derrida, they might
describe the present moment as "Postmodern Times."
The modern era had many birthdays. Some place the
pivotal point with the beginning of First
Industrial Revolution and the publication of The
Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. For others, the
modern era was born in the same year - 1776 -
while the triggering event was the American
The French Revolution of 1789 gave birth to the
concept of a revolutionary population organized
as what Marx would come to call the masses and
the minor revolutions that swept Europe in 1848
paved the way for the middle class.
The American Civil War that began in 1861 saw the
development of the first industrialized society.
The Civil War also marks a turning point in the
use of railroads and telecommunication.
These moments, together with the advent of
mass-produced motor cars and the widespread use
of the electric light at the beginning of the
20th century, denote a nascent economy different
than any that came before. Revolutions in
material production, electrical production,
chemical engineering, material science,
communications, information technology and now
biotechnology have each been a step moving
civilization from the distant world of
agricultural production to the world we inhabit
These transitions have not been easy. When the
century began, the vast majority of the world's
people were engaged in agriculture. They were
busy from first light until dusk, working to feed
each other. Since the dawn of time, agriculture
also created the surplus that made possible the
growth of cities, modern economies, and a larger
industry. This has now changed. Other sectors
shape the surplus that fuels growth. In today's
advanced societies, two or three farmers per
hundred citizens feed all the rest.
While powerful changes have affected great parts
of the world, other parts of the world remain
much as they have been for millennia. When Jules
Verne wrote Around the World in Eighty Days in
1873, it was a novel set at the border of
adventure and science fiction. Traveling at that
speed was a remote possibility. It remained
beyond the practical reach of all but an elite
few until this past decade. Today, we can fly
around the world fast enough to see the sun rise
several times on the same day. At the same time,
vast portions of the world's population live in
the world we would have inhabited only a century
ago. Many people have never traveled farther than
a day's walk from the place where they were born.
Over three centuries have gone by since Robert
Hooke published the first technical description
of a telecommunication device (Flichy 1995: 7).
In 1684, Hooke described an early version of the
semaphore telegraph under the title, Method for
making your thoughts known far away. It was
nearly a century before the semaphore telegraph
became a reality. Over the century that followed,
semaphore telegraph gave way to the electric
telegraph and finally to the telephone. In this
century, the landline telephone gave birth to
extended telephone networks, radio, television,
mobile telephones, and wireless telephones linked
by satellite. Even so, most of the world's
messages travel no faster than a man or woman can
Each layer of advanced technology is built onto
the technology of the prior systems, and many of
these survive alongside recent developments. The
behaviors that enabled us to adapt to and use the
older technologies survive. We rely on them along
with behaviors that are more recent. Our cultures
and behaviors are folded around the past much as
the layers of the human brain are folded around
biological traces of the older primate brain and
still older sections of the brain that we hold in
common with distant reptile ancestors.
Someone said it well: "The future is already
here. It's just not evenly distributed." The
shifts from feudalism to modernism to the world
we live in today have left their mark in the
layers of our culture. During that long period,
the world has been transformed from a relatively
stable environment to multiple, unstable social,
economic and industrial systems. These systems
are increasingly described by the paradigm of
4. Thinking in a complex world
Complex systems can be mapped along a spectrum.
Static systems lie at one end. They are orderly.
Their behavior is predictable. Linear systems
come next in levels and kinds of complexity.
Although they are increasingly active, their
behavior is orderly and predictable. Non-linear
systems are more complex still. They are also
characterized by orderly behavior. While
non-linear systems exhibit behaviors that can
only be described by complex mathematics,
understanding them is a matter of computational
complexity rather than a fundamental lack of
order. Beyond them, we find systems that seem to
demonstrate little or no order. The behavior of
these systems can often seem random or
meaningless. The challenge we face is seeing
through the apparently meaningless to the subtle
forms of order to which we can fruitfully respond.
As an integrative discipline, design must address
problems across many ranges of complexity. All
designed artifacts and processes can be described
at some point on the spectrum of complexity. Some
artifacts may be found at several such points,
depending on the level of analysis. A steel
hammer, for example, is static. In manufacture
and use, however, a hammer undergoes rich and
complex forms of interaction with the surrounding
Design increasingly involves a full spectrum of
processes that lead to the development and use of
the designed artifact. Design also moves beyond
use to after-use, and recycling. The growing need
for full-spectrum product development and
concurrent design processes in industry point in
this direction. Such concepts as co-design and
user-centered design engage the designer in the
flow of a constantly changing, complex
Complex systems operate at what many describe as
the edge of chaos. Working at this edge requires
intellectually mature and behaviorally adaptive
skills. In this context, the nature of design
moves beyond the tacit craft practice of
manipulating material artifacts to the explicit
professional practice of systemic development and
adaptation. In industrial practice, these skills
can be summarized by what W. Edwards Deming
(1993: 94-118) 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" (Deming 1993: 96).
Complexity is a factor of interaction. Not all
complex systems are complicated systems.
Complexity often involves systems in which the
interaction of a few simple elements gives rise
to surprising results. In many kinds of complex
systems, one result of the interacting elements
is emergent order. While this orderly behavior
emerges from the interaction of the elements of
the system, the quality of complexity often makes
subtle interactions difficult to identify or
Complexity may also emerge from the interaction
of many complicated parts. It is the relationship
of these parts to one another and to the whole
system that defines complexity. This is a
contrast with large, complicated machines and
engineered systems that may be linear and
predictable despite the presence of thousands of
parts and subsystems.
Working in the context of complexity requires
more sophisticated ways of thought than were
needed in world of craft knowledge. The world of
craft knowledge moved slowly. The patterns of
craft skill were essentially reproductive. For
the most part, they involved tacit knowledge, and
they were effectively transmitted by
apprenticeship and guild transmission. Elsewhere
I analyze the distinctions between the learning
implicit in this kind of thinking and the
learning required for knowledge creation (see:
Adapting to the demands of a complex world
requires us to generate knowledge. This knowledge
must be created against the background of
existing events while looking forward to a world
that does not yet exist. Nonaka and Takeuchi
(1995) describe this frame in the knowledge
creation spiral. The crucial factor in the
knowledge creation spiral isn't management or
making so much as understanding the
epistemological and ontological dimensions of
managing and making (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995:
The epistemological dimension can be portrayed as
a spectrum running from explicit knowledge to
tacit knowledge. The ontological dimension
describes levels of knowledge moving from
individual knowledge through group knowledge,
organizational knowledge, and
inter-organizational knowledge. Human beings
shift knowledge from one frame to another. As
they do, they embrace knowledge, enlarging it,
internalizing it, transmitting it, shifting it,
giving it new context and transforming it. Humans
create new knowledge by acting on and working
with knowledge. Knowledge creation requires
social context and individual contribution. To do
this effectively requires effective thinking.
Here, we must address the intersection of design
and philosophy as the foundation for design
theory and design research.
5. Design knowledge and systems thinking
To understand the nature of design research, we
must define what we mean by the term design.
Then, we must distinguish among the kinds of
thinking that may be relevant to design.
Design is first of all a process. The verb design
describes a process of thought and planning. This
verb takes precedence over all other meanings.
The word "design" had a place 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." The definitions end with
a noun describing a process: "the creative art of
executing aesthetic or functional designs."
Although the word design refers to process rather
than product, it has become popular shorthand for
designed artifacts. This shorthand covers
meaningful artifacts as well as the merely
fashionable or trendy. I will not use the word
design to designate the outcome of the design
process. The outcome of the design process may be
a product or a service, it may be an artifact or
a structure, but the outcome of the design
process is not "design."
Using the term design as a verb or a process
description noun frames design as a dynamic
process (Friedman 1993). This makes clear the
ontological status of design as a subject of
Before asking how design can be the subject of
philosophical thinking, it is useful to identify
some of the salient features of the design
Fuller (1969: 319) describes the process in a
model of the design science event flow. He
divides the process into two steps. The first is
a subjective process of search and research. The
second is a generalizable process that moves from
prototype to practice.
The subjective process of search and research,
Fuller outlines a series of steps:
teleology -- > intuition -- > conception -- >
apprehension -- > comprehension -- >
experiment -- > feedback -- >
Under generalization and objective development leading to practices, he lists:
prototyping #1 -- > prototyping #2 -- > prototyping #3 -- >
production design -- > production modification -- > tooling -- >
production -- > distribution -- >
installation -- > maintenance -- > service -- >
reinstallation -- > replacement -- >
removal -- > scrapping -- > recirculation
For Fuller, the process is a comprehensive
process leading from teleology to practice and
finally to regeneration. This last step,
regeneration, creates a new stock of raw material
on which the designer may again act.
Elsewhere (Friedman 1992, 1995a, 1999) I have
described the design process in a taxonomy of the
domains within which a designer must act.
In today's complex environment, a designer must
identify problems, select appropriate goals, and
realize solutions. A designer may also assemble
and lead a team to realize goals and solutions.
Today's designer works on several levels. She is
an analyst who discovers problems. She is a
synthesist who helps to solve problems. She is a
generalist who understands the range of talents
that must be engaged to realize solutions. She is
a leader who organizes teams when one range of
talents is not enough. She is a critic whose
post-solution analysis ensures that the right
problem has been solved.
A designer is a thinker whose job it is to move
from thought to action. The designer uses his
mind in an appropriate and empathic way to solve
problems for clients. Then, the designer works to
meet customer needs, to test the outcomes and to
follow through on solutions.
For my seminars on strategic design at Oslo
Business School (Friedman 1992), I developed a
taxonomy on the domains of design skill and
knowledge. The taxonomy identified four areas,
each quite large. The first area involves skills
for learning and leading [Domain 1]. The second
is the human world [Domain 2]. The third is the
artifact [Domain 3]. The fourth embraces the
environment [Domain 4].
Each of these areas requires a broad range of
skills, knowledge, and awareness. No one can know
all of these fields in depth. Few individuals can
work credibly in more than a few. One premise of
this paper is that no one individual can handle
most of today's design services. While these are
necessary domains of design knowledge, no one
designer can be expected to master all these
areas of knowledge and skill.
When design involves more skill and knowledge
than one designer can hope to provide, most
successful design solutions require several kinds
of expertise. It is necessary to use expertise
without being expert in each field. Organization
theory suggests building teams or networks to
engage the talent for each problem.
The taxonomy offers a broad overview of the
skills, knowledge, and domains of knowledge that
might be required for successful design practice.
The specific choice of skills needed in any
project depends on the problem to be solved.
A designer must therefore know something about
these areas. The central issue is understanding
the range of issues they involve and the
relationships between and among then. This isn't
a true taxonomy in the sense that the categories
are neither comprehensive nor mutually exclusive.
One field is a domain of skills and knowledges
while the others are domains of substantive
content. Nevertheless, the taxonomy offers a
useful framework for considering fields of design
knowledge now. It therefore helps to frame the
dimensions of design research.
[place figure 1 here]
To work consciously with the relationships among
the several domains and areas of design knowledge
requires systemic thinking. The designer is one
member of a team or network that generally
involves several elements described by the
matrices implicit in the taxonomy. Here arises a
Every professional sees the overall task from
within the frame of his or her responsibilities.
Individual psychology places each of us at the
center of our own world. To the industrial
designer, the flow of work in an
automobile-manufacturing firm has one appearance.
It has another to an engineer, a third to an
accountant, yet another to a marketing
specialist. Design is important to all of these
four. The importance and the nature of design
vary in relation to the position of each
individual in the matrix of activities that
engage the production of a car.
Systemic practices such as concurrent design and
lean manufacturing in successful automobile firms
create a qualitative change in the perspective of
every member of the firm. Line workers have
become increasingly conscious of factors such as
logistics and quality. Line workers in a
successful automobile factory don't see logistics
and quality as factors outside their realm of
action as they once did. Rather, they recognize
the intimate relationship between line production
and quality. They understand the ways in which
logistics affect the flow of work on the line,
particularly in relation to product quality. In
the same way, industrial designers are
increasingly conscious of engineering
requirements. Product design is no longer
styling. It is an integrated process that
contributes to the total customer experience. An
aesthetic design feature that reduces
functionality is detrimental to the total
customer experience. An engineering design
feature that makes the car ugly is detrimental to
the total customer experience. Logistical
problems that delay delivery or marketing
problems that misrepresent the product are
detrimental to the total customer experience.
When we speak of manufacturing today's complex
industrial products, we are not discussing a loaf
of bread or even a hand tool that could once have
been planned, manufactured, and sold in a single
place by one craftsman and his helpers. We are
not even discussing a slightly more advanced
artifact based on resources and parts brought
into a firm, manufactured, and sold through a
simple point-to-point distribution chain of
distributors, wholesalers, and retailers. We
necessarily involve a large network of
interacting systems. When the process works well,
nearly every part of the system in some way
affects every other part of the system. When
parts of the system affect each other adversely,
the entire system suffers.
The failure of systemic thinking in manufacturing
complex products leads to major problems across
entire industries. A good example of this is the
way in which the ascendancy of cost accounting in
the automobile industry distorted the entire
manufacturing process (Halberstam 1986: 201-221).
In contrast, consider W. Edwards Deming's
approach to management, and the ways in which a
systemic overview helped the Japanese automobile
industry to surpass its American and European
counterparts (Halberstam 1986: 301-320; Deming
1966, 1986, 1993; Walton 1989, 1990; Aguayo 1990;
Mann 1989; Scherkenbach 1991).
To make the point clear, I'm going to offer a
personal example of products and services that
can only be delivered by an entire system.
6. An end-user's tale
This is the tale of an end-user victimized by
artifacts only work within a system. When the
system is designed without systemic thinking, the
artifacts don't do what they should.
In 1998, I purchased a mobile telephone that was
supposed to permit me to access the Internet. It
was sold on the promise that using the telephone
with an infrared link to my laptop computer, I
would be able to perform any function that was
possible to me through an internal network or a
dialup connection together with a portable
Ericsson palmtop for email when traveling. By the
time I finished the process, I found that I was
required to work with three levels and four
separate divisions of the mobile telephone
manufacturer Ericsson, three separate divisions
of the Swedish telecom supplier Telia, and one
level each of Microsoft and IBM. The system works
smoothly for those who have advanced ICT support
staff if they are living in parts of Europe
served by robust mobile network coverage. My
experience was different.
The Ericsson retailer who sold me the mobile
phone was unable to install the software on my
IBM PC for proper interactive function using the
infrared remote. Neither Telia nor Microsoft was
able to make the connection to Telia's
much-advertised Department of the Future function
properly. Instead, each rearranged the software
in such a way that the next company felt obliged
to reinstall the software and set it up in
increasingly troublesome configurations.
During one attempt to get the mobile telephone
service working as a standalone function, I
discovered that the mobile net where I live is
not robust. A Telia service representative told
me that the company is aware of the problems in
my area. I was told that these would be fixed in
the future, probably within two to three years,
but that a low population makes it unprofitable
to improve the system now. To get a partially
reliable mobile connection, I must walk out to a
The walk is nice, but I discovered that it would
have been difficult to stand outside at night
with my mobile in one hand pointed so that the
infrared beam hits the back of my computer
balanced on the other hand while operating both
to download and manage my email.
That was not all, however. Even standing in the
field, the signal sometimes goes dead. Connecting
the PC to the Internet by mobile telephone
requires a robust mobile connection with
uninterrupted service. This is impossible where I
live. Although Telia knew about these problems at
the billing address I was required to give when
ordering the telephone, the company nevertheless
sold me an expensive and useless telephone
subscription linked to low-cost telephone
advertised by Telia and Ericsson.
Telia sold me the telephone and adjunct services
based on its Internet management capacity. Telia
also sold me subscriptions to Telia's mobile
service and add-on mobile Internet service
knowing that this link would not work at my home,
where I need a separate subscription to a dialup
service provider to access the Internet.
A number of minor problems hampered the
interaction of different parts of the system.
While no problem was impossible to solve for a
single-device or a single service, every local
solution created systemic problems. None of the
companies involved was prepared to work
effectively with other companies to deliver a
comprehensive solution to a single customer. Some
of the companies weren't even prepared to work
across the division boundaries of their own firm.
This might have been different if I had been a
major corporation, but I wasn't. At the end of
the process, I simply gave up and went over to a
dialup modem connection.
One point was forcefully apparent. I wasn't
buying the Ericsson palmtop computer that came to
sit on my desk like a high-tech paperweight. I
don't need the unused service for which I pay
Telia every three months. I bought a series of
tools and a range of services from four companies
that can only work when all four companies make
the system work.
When the companies couldn't make these tools and
services work together in a total package, I was
lost. I'm not a hacker or a technical wizard. My
expertise lies elsewhere. When high tech tools
and services don't function, I count on the
companies that sell them to make things work. If
they can't do that because they can't work
together in a systemic network, it is detrimental
to my total experiences a customer. In this case,
I was able to identify failures of product
design, service design, technical engineering,
and interface design along with logistical
problems and a major marketing problem of
misrepresentation. Identifying problems is no
great challenge or anyone trained as a researcher
and analyst. Solving the problems is another
matter. It requires technical skills in the
specific systems where the problems reside. These
design problems could - and should - have been
solved before I bought these expensive and - for
Ericsson and Telia - profitable artifacts and
The design problems lie in several important
dimensions. To solve them, designers must think
systemically. These designers include the
managers responsible for service design and
interaction between different firms in the value
chain. To do this requires Deming's (1993: 96)
"appreciation for a system."
This is a totally different world than the world
in which products could be made to work alone. A
sword may be damaged, but it will serve. An
antique Ford Model T may now be an old rusting
hulk, but it can be made to run with a bit of
chicken wire and ingenuity. A line of missing
code in a telecommunication system may render a
million robust devices unworkable.
Systemic thinking gives perspective to the models
of design offered here. The designer is neither
the entry-point nor pivot of the design process.
Each designer is the psychological center of his
own perceptual process, not the center of the
design process itself. The design process has no
center. It is a network of linked events.
Systemic thinking makes the nature of networked
events clear. No designer succeeds unless an
entire team succeeds in meeting its goals.
Herbert Simon defines design in terms of goals.
To design, he writes, is to "[devise] courses of
action aimed at changing existing situations into
preferred ones" (Simon 1982: 129). Design,
properly defined, is the entire process across
the full range of domains required for any given
7. A model of design
The nature of design as an integrative discipline
places it at the intersection of several large
fields [Figure]. In one regard, design is a field
of thinking and pure research. In another, it is
a field of practice and applied research. When
these applications are directed to solving
specific problems in a specific setting, design
also involves the vital distinction that Richard
Buchanan has clarified as clinical research.
The model I propose for the field of design can
be envisioned as a circle of six fields. A
horizon bisects the circle into domains of
theoretical study and domains of practice and
The triangles represent six general domains of
design. Moving clockwise from the left-most
triangle, these domain are (1) natural sciences,
(2) humanities and liberal arts, (3) social and
behavioral sciences, [shifting below the horizon]
(4) human professions and services, (5) creative
and applied arts, and (6) technology and
Design is a field that may involve any or all of
these domains, in differing aspect and proportion
depending on the nature of the project at hand or
the problem to be solved.
The placement of domains across from each other
along the horizontal axis suggests dynamic
relationships among specific fields of theory and
application. The domain of the natural sciences
is closely linked in dynamic interaction with
technology and engineering, the domain of
humanities and the liberal arts with the creative
and applied arts, the domain of social and
behavioral sciences with human professions and
The model distinguishes between and among domains
for the purpose of explanation. The reality of
design places design practice and design theory
both at the center of the model. For any given
project, a differently shaped territory inscribed
on the model will represent design. This shape is
often fuzzy or ambiguous. This territory may
engage any or all of these domains in differing
degrees and proportions.
[place figure 2 here]
[The model I have proposed to represent the field
of design can be envisioned as a circle of
domains. Since a model can't be posted by email,
I will describe this model in geometric terms. It
should be easy to reproduce it with a quick
Draw a circle or pie chart. Bisect the circle
with a horizontal line. Draw six equal triangles
on the circle so that three triangle above the
horizontal line and three below.
Use a dotted line to extend the horizontal
bisecting line to the right and left of the
circles. Above the dotted line, inscribe a
caption to denote that the three triangles above
the horizontal line represent "domains of
theoretical study." Below the dotted line,
inscribe a caption to denote that the three
triangles below the horizontal line represent
"domains of practice and application."
The triangles represent six general domains of
design. Moving clockwise from the left-most
triangle above the horizontal line, these domain
are (1) natural sciences, (2) humanities and
liberal arts, (3) social and behavioral sciences,
[shifting below the line] (4) human professions
and services, (5) creative and applied arts, and
(6) technology and engineering.
The model described in this text is copyright ©
1999 by Ken Friedman. All rights reserved.
Permission to use and reproduce freely is granted
on condition of proper citation and reference.]
Given the taxonomy and the generic model of
design as premises, I will now consider some of
the implications they raise for design research.
Before doing so, I will discuss kinds of
knowledge and philosophy that form a foundation
for the research act.
8. Kinds of knowledge
Given the implications of this view on the nature
and purposes of design, it is useful to consider
how - and in what ways - design can be the object
of philosophical inquiry. Let us begin by
examining the kinds of knowledge to discover what
philosophical inquiry is.
Philosophy derives from the Greek term
"philosophia," love of wisdom. The word "philos"
also embraces such concepts as affect or desire,
and the term philosophia may refer to a desire
The Greeks distinguished between "sophia,"
wisdom, and "techne," skill. For the Greeks,
"sophia" involved what Socrates referred to in
Plato's Phaedo as "the explanation of everything,
why it comes to be, why it perishes, why it is."
This form of knowledge was speculative knowledge,
knowledge anchored in theory.
Our word for theory derived from the Greek word
"theoria," a term that means viewing,
speculation, or contemplation. It is akin to
meditation as the product of mental reflection
rather than practical engagement. It is related
to the Greek word "theorein," a term that deals
with the search for the highest and most eternal
principles. The verb "theorein" means to watch
with detachment, as the gods observed the
workings of the world from their Olympian
heights. A theorist, "theoretikos," was a person
who followed the contemplative life. This person
was a philosopher or a "scholarch," the term from
which our term scholar is derived. This was a
person who had time and leisure for
contemplation, a person generally unconcerned
with the practical matters of earning a living
and doing things.
The Greeks distinguished between knowledge,
understanding, and the ability to do something.
Knowledge, wisdom - sophia - involved theory,
understanding something from general principles.
While it may have involved the ability to apply
general principles, knowledge did not mean the
ability to do something. That is usefulness,
utility, and that was skill. The Greek term for
skill was "techne."
"Techne," skill, is related to practical matters.
It is from this that such words as technology and
technician derive. The Greeks did not hold skill
in contempt. Neither did medieval society. When
European societies distinguished between the
theory-driven knowledge of scholars and the
skill-driven knowledge of the guild masters,
often the master had greater respect and higher
The distinction between theory-driven knowledge
and skill-driven practice was simply a
distinction between kinds of activity.
Skill-driven practice was rooted and situated.
While it may have been possible to explain some
aspects of skill, skill essentially involved what
we term tacit knowledge. Drucker (1993: 24) notes
that techne, for the Greeks, "was not knowledge.
It was confined to one specific application and
had no general principles. What the shipmaster
knew about navigating from Greece to Sicily could
not be applied to anything else. Furthermore, the
only way to learn a techne was through
apprenticeship and experience. A techne could not
be explained in words, whether spoken or written.
It could only be demonstrated. As late as 1700,
or even later, the English did not speak of
'crafts.' They spoke of 'mysteries' - and not
only because the possessor of a craft skill was
sworn to secrecy, but also because a craft, by
definition, was inaccessible to anyone who had
not been apprenticed to a master and had thus
been taught by example." It is in the world of
"techne" that we find the challenge of skill.
The term practice derives from the Greek word
"praktikos," pertaining to action. That which is
practical is that which relates to action. The
practical was distinct from the theoretical. The
practical pertained to action. The theoretical
pertained to thought. Related words and concepts
included "praxis," "poiesis," and "phronesis."
"Praxis" referred to doing, performing, and
accomplishing, that is, to practical knowledge
and to applied expertise. "Poiesis," was the
knowledge needed to make something, in contrast
with a praxis, a doing. "Phronesis," meant the
practical knowledge needed to address political
or ethical issues.
Mautner (1996) defines philosophy in several
ways, each reflecting one of the senses of the
word. First comes the sense of rational inquiry.
In earlier times, writes Mautner (1996: 320),
"inquiry guided by canons of rationality was
called philosophy independent of subject matter.
For instance, physics or indeed natural science
generally, was called natural philosophy:
Newton's major work of 1687 concerns the
'mathematical principles of natural philosophy.'
Gradually with increasing specialization, various
kinds of inquiry have received their own names,
and are no longer called philosophy. Mental
philosophy, for instance, has become psychology.
But the most fundamental principles of thought,
action and reality remain among the subject
matters proper to philosophy."
A program of rational inquiry and generalizable
principles defines philosophy. This sense is the
sense in which the term philosophy entered the
world of the universities. When the English word
philosophy was first used in the 1300s, it
referred to "all learning exclusive of technical
precepts and practical arts"(Merriam-Webster's
1990: 883). In the universities, this came to
mean the sciences and liberal arts but not the
professions. When the degree doctor of philosophy
emerged, it was awarded for the study,
understanding, and development of theory in
sciences and liberal arts, but not in medicine,
law, or theology. These disciplines had their own
doctoral programs and degrees.
The liberal arts did not include the fine arts or
the applied arts. The fine arts and the applied
arts were taught through the tradition of studio
apprenticeship or guild apprenticeship. This was
the domain of design until recently.
At first glance, one might imagine design an
unsuitable forum for philosophical inquiry. In
its older incarnation as craft, this would
certainly be so. Craft is techne. Philosophy is
sophia. Techne is tacit. Sophia is explicit. The
world depends on both, but the kind of thinking
represented by each is foreign to the other.
Precisely because the mysteries of the craft
can't be put into words, one cannot imagine a
philosophy of craft. If design is craft, there
can, by definition, be no philosophy of design,
and there need not be. This may change in the
future with the development of craft-based
industries. While inspired by and rooted in
craft, these forms of design develop into
knowledge-intensive configurations of
professional practice. The tacit knowledge of the
inarticulate craft tradition needs no philosophy.
As we have seen, however, design has taken a new form in the current era.
If we consider design in its larger frame of
thinking and planning, however, there are several
senses in which philosophy may be applied to
With the development of design as a branch of
knowledge, the activity of design must be
understood as praxis, a practice. Praxis, doing,
requires virtue. Making, poiesis requires techne,
skill. The praxis of design is a virtuous praxis,
akin in some ways to the praxis of statecraft.
The philosophy appropriate to design may also be
a new kind of philosophy that blurs prior
distinctions. The knowledge economy is blurring
the boundaries between product and service,
material and immaterial, hardware, and software.
In this context, nearly every design practice has
immaterial dimensions along with the material. In
a new way, therefore, design links techne with
Sophia itself is no stranger to the physical
world. While Plato considered our physical world
a shadow of the ideal world of Forms, he
nevertheless considered governing the state as a
suitable task for philosophy. In many senses,
design as defined here is an act of
conceptualization linked to the concept of
governance or to the industrial concept of
I raise the idea as a useful step toward richer
thinking. What is clear is that design is a
mental process linked to physical outputs in a
world where the mental and the material are
increasingly interdependent (Friedman 1998).
9. Philosophy and design
How shall we link philosophy and design? On what
basis can design be the subject or the object of
One aspect of design is the technology of design.
This is a question of engineering, and a question
of design science.
The issue of how design relates to the larger
bodies of knowledge within which it is placed is
a philosophical question. Questions of how design
affects the larger worlds and how the larger
world affects design are, in a sense,
Some specific questions on design affect design
from the level of meta-inquiry. Issues involving
the philosophy of science in relation to design
and the broader question of theory are
Writing in another context, Georg Simmel (1964:
23) summarized the problem we raise when we
consider philosophy and design. "The modern
scientific attitude toward facts," he wrote,
"finally suggests a third complex of questions
Insofar as these questions are adjacent to the
upper and lower limits of this fact, they are
[empirical] only in a broad sense of the term;
more properly, they are philosophical. Their
content is constituted by this fact itself.
Similarly, nature and art, out of which we
develop their immediate sciences, also supply us
with the subject matters of their philosophies,
whose interests and methods lie on a different
level. It is the level on which factual details
are investigated concerning their significance
for the totality of mind, life, and being in
general, and concerning their significance in
terms of such a totality.
"Thus, like every other exact science which aims
at the immediate understanding of the given,
[design] science, too, is surrounded by two
philosophical areas. One of these covers the
conditions, fundamental concepts, and
presuppositions of concrete research, which
cannot be taken care of by research itself since
it is based on them. In the other area, this
research is carried toward completions,
connections, questions, and concepts that have no
place in experience and in immediately objective
knowledge. The first area is epistemology, the
second, the metaphysics of a particular
The ideas I examine here began in a debate on
design theory. Last summer, a thread on design
theory developed in the online forum of the
Design Research Society. In considering the issue
of design theory, it became necessary to address
the broader questions within which design theory
and design research are framed.
One reason the challenge is so appealing is the
general absence of a robust body of philosophical
inquiry for the making disciplines. I don't mean
personal philosophies, for we have those in
abundance. Rather, I refer to a broad, general,
systematic consideration of how we can theorize
and understand design. In a sense, we have
reached the point that information science
reached in the 1970s as a robust, significant
discipline that seeks a foundation in robust
Again, paraphrasing a comment from a parallel
discipline describes our situation: "Theoretical
[design] hardly yet exists. I discern scattered
bits of theory, some neat in themselves but which
resist integration into coherence. So there are
no common assumptions, implicit or explicit,
which can be regarded as its theoretical
foundations. Information science operates busily
on an ocean of common-sense practical
applications, which increasingly involve the
computer ... and on commonsense views of
language, of communication, of knowledge and
information" (Brookes 1980).
We also lack a rich body of technical philosophy
applied to design. Here, too, there is much work
to be done. All that exists takes place in time
and space. The physical world in which we live
and the flow of time that transforms our physical
world are the basis of life experience. They are
therefore a central basis of philosophy. Design
acts in and on the physical world. One realm of
philosophy should therefore address questions
that involve design. While philosophers address
the challenges of time and space, few
philosophers have ventured into the domains for
which the making disciplines are responsible. The
lacuna leaves interesting work for philosophers -
and for design scholars whose interests bring
them into the frame of philosophy proper. Here,
however, I use the term philosophy in its larger
I have been focusing on philosophy in the other
sense, the sense that Hamilton defined
philosophy: '-- the science of things divine and
human, and the causes in which they are
contained; -- the science of effects by their
causes; -- the science of sufficient reasons; --
the science of things possible, inasmuch as they
are possible; -- the science of things evidently
deduced from first principles; -- the science of
truths sensible and abstract; -- the application
of reason to its legitimate objects; -- the
science of the relations of all knowledge to the
necessary ends of human reason; -- the science of
the original form of the ego, or mental self; --
the science of science...' (ARTFL Webster's 1913:
This inquiry links challenges which are provoking
debate around the world. Design research and
design theory are linked in the issue of design
philosophy. It is worth noting that Terence Love
and Keith Russell both address these issues in
their research, and we have among us skilled
specialists in philosophy such as Wittgenstein
expert Michael Biggs. Other scholars are also
considering the questions of how philosophy
affects design research. There will be several
papers from this perspective presented at the La
Clusaz conference, including papers by Richard
Buchanan and Charles Owen.
Here, I raise these issues as a background to the
central point of this paper, the nature of design
research. In specific, I am concerned with the
nature of design research in a global knowledge
The common challenges that face the making
disciplines form the context of design and design
research. The taxonomy and generic model of
design describe their content. Now, I will
address the issue of continuity, and the specific
issue of how design is to grow in the light of
design research, or, how design research must
grow to serve the changing needs and focus of
10. The challenge of continuity
Last summer, the University of Art and Design
hosted a conference titled Useful and Critical:
Research in Design. One of the most memorable
moments in the conference came during a keynote
speech by Tore Kristensen (1999: unpaged).
Kristensen raised a question of stunning
importance for design research, the notion of a
progressive research program. This question is
implicit in the work that several of us have
done. It is implicit in Victor Margolin's (2000)
comments on building a research community. It is
implicit in Klaus Krippendorff's discussion of
"growing the field." David Durling and I have
this in mind in terms of the mechanisms we are
building to generate durable conversation in the
wake of the La Clusaz conference. But no one had
yet proposed the explicit concept Kristensen
brought forward in Helsinki, the need to generate
a progressive research program rather than a
series of useful but often scattered and
What constitutes a progressive research program?
Drawing on Kristensen's (1999: unpaged)
presentation, I have reorganized his comments
into eight characteristics of a progressive
research program. These are:
1. building a body of generalized knowledge,
2. improving problem solving capacity,
3. generalizing knowledge into new areas,
4. identifying value creation and cost effects,
5. explaining differences in design strategies and their risks or benefits,
6. learning on the individual level,
7. collective learning,
Because this model was first created with regard
to design research on business issues in the
industrial context, it is likely that will be
able to develop a richer and more inclusive model
in the future. Even so, this is an important
What issues must we consider in creating a
foundation of continuity that will yield
progressive research programs within and across
the fields of design? I feel there are four areas
for development, four areas that must be linked
in a virtuous circle.
These four areas of design research are
1. Philosophy and theory of design
2. Research methods and research practices
3. Design education
4. Design practice.
Each of these fields of concern involves a range
of concerns and programmatic development. These
Philosophy and theory of design
--Philosophy of design
----Ontology of design
----Epistemology of design
----Philosophy of design science
Research methods and research practices
--Research issues exploration
--Progressive research programs
--Development from research to practice
--Philosophy of design education
----Education based on research
----Education oriented to practice
--Rethinking undergraduate education
----Undergraduate focus on intellectual skills for knowledge economy
----Undergraduate focus on practice skills for professional training
----Undergraduate focus on foundations for professional development
--Rethinking professional degrees
---- Professional degrees oriented around intellectual skills
---- Professional degrees oriented around practical skills
---- Professional degrees oriented around professional development
----Undergraduate and professional background for research education
----Research master's degrees
----Partnership with design firms
----Partnership with professional associations
----Partnership with industry
----Partnership with government
--Practice linked to solid foundations in education and research
This seems a particularly vital moment in the
growth of design research. The last few years
have seen a major growth in quality of research,
and a massive shift in support for design
The challenge that the field of design research
must now meet is the challenge of continuity,
with development across the field, across the
boundaries of professional specialties, across
the boundaries of educational departments, across
the boundaries of nation and language.
It seems to me that our field is now at the point
where physics stood in 1895. Because we are a
different kind of field, we can't hope to make
the fundamental progress that physics has made
over the past 100 years. Even so, we can hope to
grow if we keep in mind the vital urgency of a
progressive research program.
Most of us know the broad outlines of progress in
physics during the past century. A better
comparison might be the programmatic development
of mathematics. In 1900, David Hilbert gave a
famous speech in which he outlined a series of
important challenges for the growth of
mathematics. He proposed a program of inquiry and
research that he hoped would place mathematical
knowledge on solid footing for the centuries to
The successes and failures of Hilbert's program offer us three lessons.
The first lesson is that great aspirations lead
to significant progress, as Hilbert's program did.
The second lesson is that absolute progress is
never possible. Despite all the progress of
mathematics in the decades following Hilbert's
challenge, Goedel's theorem destroyed any
ultimate hope of placing mathematics on
completely solid, consistent ground.
The third lesson lies in another branch of
philosophy, and it is the lesson of human
achievement in the face of our ultimate inability
to achieve absolute knowledge. The years and
decades since Goedel rendered Hilbert's hopes
impossible have seen some of the best and boldest
progress in mathematics since Euclid the theorist
and Archimedes the designer practiced their art.
During these years, mathematicians have solved
fundamental theoretical and philosophical
problems, contributed to rich developments in
physics and the natural sciences, and they have
even shaped applications that make it possible
for all of us to live a better daily life.
That is what I hope to see coming out of design
research. If design research can make that kind
of progress, it will be a very good century
Aguayo, Rafael. 1990. Dr. Deming: the man who
taught the Japanese about quality. London:
Arkitekthøgskolen I Oslo. 1999.
Doktorgradsprogrammet. September 1999. Oslo:
Arkitekthøgskolen I Oslo.
ARTFL Webster's. 1913. Webster's Revised
Unabridged Dictionary (G & C. Merriam Co., 1913,
edited by Noah Porter). ARTFL (Project for
American and French Research on the Treasury of
the French Language). Chicago: Divisions of the
Humanities, University of Chicago. URL:
Date accessed: 1999 November 21.
Britannica Webster's. 1999. Enclyclopedia
Britannica Online. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary. Chicago: Encyclopedia Briatnnica,
Inc. URL: http://search.eb.com/. Date accessed:
1999 November 21.
Brookes, B. C. 1980. "The foundations of
information science: Part 1: Philosophical
aspects," Journal of Information Science, 2,
Bush, Vannevar. 1945. "As We May Think." The Atlantic Monthly, (July).
Cambridge. 1999. Cambridge dictionaries online.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Date accessed: 1999 November 21.
Clarke, Mik. 1999. "Re: complexity as a science."
NECSI Digest - 20 Nov 1999 to 21 Nov 1999
(#1999-229). Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 06:14:39
Deming, William Edwards. 1966. Some Theory of
Sampling. New York: Dover Publications.
Deming, W. Edwards. 1986. Out of the Crisis.
Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deming, W. Edwards. 1993. The New Economics for
Industry, Government, Education. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
Drucker, Peter F. 1993. Post Capitalist Society.
Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd.
Flichy, Patrice. 1995. Dynamics of Modern
Communication. The Shaping and Impact of New
Communication Technologies. London: Sage
Freud, Sigmund. 1991. Orientering av psykoanalys. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
Friedman, Ken. 1992. Strategic Design Taxonomy. Oslo: Oslo Business School.
Friedman, Ken. Introducing Strategic Design.
Oslo, Norway: Oslo Marketing Symposium, 1993.
Friedman, Ken. 1995a. "A Taxonomy of Design
Domains." Oslo Marketing Symposium 1995.
Symposium Proceedings. Oslo, Norway: Norwegian
School of Management School of Marketing.
Friedman, Ken. 1995b. "Thought Experiments in Art
and Design." First Nordic Conference in Interarts
Studies. University of Lund. Lund, Sweden.
Friedman, Ken. 1997. "Design Science and Design
Education." In The Challenge of Complexity. Peter
McGrory, ed. Helsinki: University of Art and
Design Helsinki UIAH, 54-72.
Friedman, Ken. 1998. "Information, Place and
Policy." Built Environment. 24: 2/3, 83-103.
Friedman, Ken. 1999. Philosophies of design.
Ämneskonferens projekteringsmetodik. NorFA
research symposium on design methodology.
LTH - Lund Technical Institute. 1999 November 25-26.
Fuller, Buckminster. 1964. World Design Science
Decade 1965-1975. Phase I (1964) Document 2: The
Design Initiative. Carbondale, Illinois: World
Resource Inventory, Southern Illinois University.
Fuller, Buckminster. 1965. World Design Science
Decade 1965-1975. Phase I (1965) Document 3:
Comprehensive Thinking. Carbondale, Illinois:
World Resource Inventory, Southern Illinois
Fuller, Buckminster. 1967. World Design Science
Decade 1965-1975. Document 5: Comprehensive
Design Strategy. Carbondale, Illinois: World
Resource Inventory, Southern Illinois University.
Fuller, Buckminster. 1969. Utopia or oblivion:
the prospects for humanity. New York: Bantam
Fuller, R. Buckminster. 1981. Critical path. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Halberstam, David. 1986. The Reckoning. New York: Avon Books.
Hubka, Vladimir and W. Ernst Eder. 1996. Dsign Science. London: Springer.
Huston, John. 1995. The Maltese Falcon. New
Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Ingwersen, Peter. (1993). Information And
Information Science In Context. Paper read at the
Nordic Conference on Information Authority and
User Knowledge, University of Borås, Sweden,
April 1993. Reprinted in Johan Olaisen, Patrick
Wilson and Erland Munch-Pedersen, editors.
Information Science: From the Development of the
Discipline to Social Interaction. Oslo:
Scandinavian University Press, 69-111.
Kristensen, Tore. 1999. "Research on design in
business." (Slides from conference keynote
presentation.) Useful and Critical: Research in
Design. University of Art and Design, Helsinki.
Mann, James. 1998. Tidsbegraänsad psykoterapi.
Stockholm: Wahlström och Widstrand.
Mann, Nancy R. 1989. The keys to excellence: the
Deming philosophy. London: Mercury Books.
Margolin, Victor. 2000. "Buiulding a design
research community." DRS. Date: Wed, 3 May 2000
20:47:30 +0200 [From: Conall O Cathain
<[log in to unmask]>]
Mautner, Thomas. 1996. A dictionary of philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.
Merriam-Webster, Inc. 1990. Webster's ninth new
collegiate dictionary. Springfield, Massachusetts.
Merriam-Webster, Inc. 1993. Merriam-Webster's
Collegiate Dictionary. Tenth edition.
Nonaka, Ikujiro and Hirotaka Takeuchi. 1995. The
knowledge-creating company: how Japanese
companies create the dynamics of innovation. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Reich, Robert B. 1992. The work of nations. New York: Vintage Books.
Rheingold, Howard. "Look Who's Talking." Wired.
7.01. January 1999. URL:
Date accessed: 1999 November 24.
Scherkenbach, William W. 1991. The Deming Route
to Quality and Productivity. Washington, DC:
Continuing Engineering Education Program, George
Simmel, Georg. 1964. The sociology of Georg
Simmel. Translated, edited and with an
introduction by Kurt H. Wolff. New York and
London: The Free Press.
Simon, Herbert. 1982. The sciences of the
artificial., 2nd ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts :
Smith, Adam. 1976 (1776). An Inquiry into the
Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Vakkari, Pertti. 1996 "Library and Information
Science: Content and Scope," in Information
Science: From the Development of the Discipline
to Social Interaction. Johan Olaisen, Erland
Munch-Pedersen and Patrick Wilson, editors. Oslo:
Scandinavian University Press, pp. 169-231.
Walton, Mary. 1989. The Deming Management Method. London: Mercury Books.
Walton, Mary. 1991. Deming Management at Work. London: Mercury Books.
Wordsmyth. 1999. Wordsmyth. The educational
dictionary. Wordsmyth collaboratory. Robert
Parks, ed. ARTFL (Project for American and French
Research on the Treasury of the French Language).
Chicago: Divisions of the Humanities, University
of Chicago. URL: http://www.wordsmyth.net/. Date
accesseded: 1999 November 21.