In regard to intention or as Ken says teleology I think a related question might be the conception of intention in terms of what? Is it the set of principles which an end state must meet to be acceptable, for in stance ecological balance in some defined way or is it the design brief statement which might be prescriptive pre-empting creative solutions such as the classic example of mouse trap (prescriptive) as opposed to rid an area of mice (less prescriptive). 

Further I would avoide saying that design begins with a plan even though Fuller may have said that, primarily because that again depends on one's definition of plan. Design may begin in a number of places. It may begin with a problem - which then needs to be further identified. It may begin with an attraction to a particular form which may then be developed in a number of directions. It may begin with a time based need which may have to be quickly fleshed out with an understanding of available resources (such as the Apollo crisis). It may begin with playing around and the serendipity of accidental discovery. It may begin with a desire to make more money and knowledge of available resources. It may begin with a functional problem. It may begin in a multiplicity of ways, ad infinitum. What may be true is that in any design event, many design processes are available for use in prescriptive or non prescriptive ways. In my opinion there is no Right Way to do design. What works may differ with the problem, the designer(s), the application, the context. What makes a lasting design which addresses issues of function, aesthetics, and social significance in a interwoven articulate way may have very common elements but still lack a consistent order of approach. 

It may be that one has to avoid developing a plan early because the complexity of the problem is such that a early plan my not address secondary problems created out of the application of the very plan that is seen to address the problem (chaos theory of connectivity, and complexity). Plan development may need to be delayed as long as possible until a comprehensive analysis can be made. It may be in some conditions that processes which are wholly unscientific and rely on seeming mysticism work really well and we may need to wait until further study can identify the "science" behind it, and it may be that in some conditions processes which are highly structured and quantifiable able are excellent tools for a particular problem. 

I think it would be wise to look at specific instances of success and identify those processes involved in a specific case but not generalise then as something because it worked there, is THE PROCESS or THE CORRECT METHOD or METHODOLOGY, but rather see it as one form.

Regards,
Jan

Jan Coker
C3-10 Underdale
University of South Australia
+61 8 8302 6919
fax +61 8 8302 6239
Relativity teaches us the connection between the different descriptions of one and the same reality
Albert Einstein

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Friedman
Sent: Friday, 7 January 2005 4:21 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Cause, effect, intention

Friends,

The thread on cause, effect, and intention 
puzzles me. At least it puzzles me in relation to 
design and design research. While there are many 
ways to approach cause, effect, and intention in 
physics, philosophy, or theology, the situation 
seems less problematic in design.

To design is to plan, that is, to intend. 
Merriam-Webster's (1993: 343) defines the verb 
design as: "1 a: to conceive and plan out in the 
mind <he ~ed a perfect crime> b: to have as a 
purpose: intend <he ~ed to excel in his studies> 
c: to devise for a specific function or end <a 
book ~ed primarily as a college textbook>." The 
subordinate meanings of the verb design involve 
representing the plan or intention: "3 a: to make 
a drawing, pattern or sketch of b: to draw the 
plans for c: to create, fashion, execute or 
construct according to plan: devise, contriveŠ" 
Most other major dictionaries from the Oxford 
English Dictionary on echo these definitions.

Intention - teleology or a planned end state - is 
the first step in most descriptions of design 
activity or design process. Everything else flows 
from this. Buckminster Fuller's (1969: 319) nice 
articulation of the design process begins with 
teleology - a desired outcome - that launches a 
process of search and research.

teleology -- > intuition -- > conception -- >
apprehension -- > comprehension -- >
experiment -- > feedback -- >

Next come the development processes leading to 
practical application from prototyping and 
production design through production, 
distribution and so on through recycling.

As I understand it,

1) Design involves intention,
2) The design process begins with a plan or 
series of activities leading to a plan to realize 
an intention,
3) Professional design activity involves acting 
(causing) to realize intentions (effects),
4) Actions cause effects,

WARNING!

5) Actions may fail to cause intended effects,
6) Effects may result from unintended causes,
7) Intended causes may yield unintended effects,
8) Events occur in ways that do not fit standard descriptive models,

NEVERTHELESS

9) Effects - intended and unintended - take place 
in a real world of human beings. When we use the 
verb "design" in the English language, most of us 
use this word with the sense that we act or 
attempt to act as agents of change.

While evolution produces effects or results, 
these occur without intention. Many designers and 
design researchers study evolution or other 
systems (including complex adaptive systems) to 
learn how to design better by adapting and 
developing a repertoire of new design techniques 
based on what they learn from these systems.

The word "design" entered the English language by 
the 1500s. The first written citation of the verb 
"design" dates from 1548. If we redefine the verb 
"design" to give it a different meaning than it 
has had for the past five centuries, then the 
issues and attributes we load into the word must 
change in relation to our new definition.

In using the verb design, I accept the standard 
English usage. I am willing to postulate that the 
verb design has the attributes of intention, 
planned cause, and desired effect. I acknowledge 
that design activity often fails to achieve 
intended results. I acknowledge that causes often 
fail to bring about intended effects. I 
acknowledge that effects often arise without 
intention, including effects that are undesirable 
and unwanted.

If someone wishes to define the term "design" in 
a different way, I am willing to accept his or 
her definition for the purpose of a specific 
discourse or inquiry.

If we are speaking English, the verb design has 
had a common and well established meaning for 
roughly five centuries. Subsidiary meanings fit 
this larger meaning, often taking on specific 
nuances and tones located in the field of use.

For example, Herbert Simon's (1982: 129) 
well-known definition of the verb asserts that to 
design is to "[devise] courses of action aimed at 
changing existing situations into preferred 
ones." This clearly applies to the professions we 
identify by using the word "design," including 
graphic design, software design, information 
design, systems design, textile design, 
organization design, industrial design, and so 
on, along with design management, design policy 
planning, and others.

The value and reasonable quality of Simon's 
definition becomes clear when we observe that 
many _agree with Simon's DEFINITION OF design 
even though they _disagree with his IDEAS ABOUT 
design or disagree with his APPROACH TO design.

If we use the verb design in a different way or 
adopt a different usage, our position on such 
issues as "cause," "effect," or "intention" will 
possibly change in relation to the definition or 
usage we adopt.

It is always possible to adopt a new definition 
or a new usage to see where it leads us. As Terry 
suggests, this even applies to our definitions of 
what we mean by such terms as "cause." or "causal 
explanation," or "causal theory." Using new terms 
or old, it often helps to state our definition or 
usage clearly.

Am I missing something here?

Best wishes for the New Year from

Ken


References

Fuller, Buckminster. 1969. Utopia or Oblivion. 
The Prospects for Humanity. New York: Bantam 
Books.

Merriam-Webster, Inc. 1993. Merriam-Webster's 
Collegiate Dictionary. Tenth edition. 
Springfield, Massachusetts.

Simon, Herbert. 1982. The sciences of the 
artificial., 2nd ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: 
MIT Press.