Dear Tiiu,

Thanks for your message. Reading between the lines, in general I think we go along similar tracks about design and design theory except for differences  with rhetoric. 
It feels important to me to avoid the tautology of saying "Design is..." then "because this is so then....." and then "therefore this means that design is... (reinforcing the starting definition on the basis of tautological logic). I've found if 'dummy words' are substituted for things we haven't actually defined at the starting point then any mess starts to become apparent,  and it becomes obvious that we need to choose definitions of key terms (like 'design') as to whether they are well suited to making  good theory. 

For example. if your first sentence is changed in this way it still makes good unambigous sense - and without presuming a definition of design. I.e. 

'There is an interesting systematic means by which "SOME PROCESS" occurs that includes moving from what I would term the "known" ( planned elements, intent, knowledge, systems applications) into the "unknown" ( intuitive, artistic creativity, the <to-be-designed> aspects that we cannot "know") and back again...this is at once "systematic" but also requires a certain amount of suspension( of rational mind) during the process.

At that point, however,  it is not then obvious that your next sentence follows or is related in terms of any logical argument i.e

"...design , to provide the "making a plan" a solution), must also be evaluated( or judged) in its capacity to provide the "right" means to an end ( the outcome of the design problem or issue at hand), which we can try to predict but we cannot always know - witness the recent landing of the shuttle Discovery."

What happened in the original was that the word 'design' (with a very 'flexible' definition) is used as the rhetoric tool to elide or segue  between two relatively unrelated ideas where the underlying logic is unconnected.

I agree with you about the usefulness of using a process view on design activities. In doing this, I've found there are many advantages to separate the idea of design into two epistemologically distinct concepts:
* Design activity that happens inside someone via thoughts, feelings, emotions etc (can be very short time or over a  longer time) and
* Design processes external to individuals that contain all sorts of other activities alongside at least one incident of the internal human design activity (the marker that makes it useful to classify it as  _design_ process rather than some other kind of process)

If these internal and external aspects of design activity are both lumped together, then it seems to become very difficult in language (especially with the poor quality of definitions and concepts in the design field) to develop sensible coherent theory.

Best wishes,
Terry

-----Original Message-----
From: Tiiu Poldma
Sent: 9/08/2005 11:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design


 
 
Hi Fil, Jan and Terry,
There is an interesting systematic means by which design occurs that includes moving from what I would term the "known" ( planned elements, intent, knowledge, systems applications) into the "unknown" ( intuitive, artistic creativity, the <to-be-designed> aspects that we cannot "know") and back again...this is at once "systematic" but also requires a certain amount of suspension( of rational mind) during the process. I would include here that design , to provide the "making a plan" a solution), must also be evaluated( or judged) in its capacity to provide the "right" means to an end ( the outcome of the design problem or issue at hand), which we can try to predict but we cannot always know - witness the recent landing of the shuttle Discovery.
 
I am working on this aspect of design in my own work, and in more laymens' terms, if we consider design as a process rather than one or the other approach, meaning that the design process is iterative and contains both "known" and "unknown" aspects systematically studied, then it contains both intuition and intent.  
 
my two cents worth....
( not a scientist!!).
 
Regards,
Tiiu Poldma