Hi all,
One of the points that intrigues me in this discussion of design
thinking/philosophy/practice is that no-one (yet) seems to have explicitly
brought creativity / the creative process into the discussion.
To my way of thinking the design process and the creative process are quite
tightly linked, and the (1926) Wallas Stage Model and the (1945) Wertheimer
Productive Thinking model are as good a model to start from as any (see my
blog article
http://lauchlanmackinnon.blogspot.com/2007/01/wallas-and-wertheimer-models-o
f.html for a short description if interested)
For example (if it is not too long to quote this here) an architect talks
about his design process in these terms, incorporating key aspects of both
the Wallas and the Wertheimer models:
<<
I used to say that I was creating organic architecture, but I realized that
I was misleading quite a few people. My forms do not necessarily emulate
nature; my buildings do not look like mushrooms, seashells, or snails. It is
my method that is organic . . .
To simplify, let me say that there are certain forces working on the
architectural form. There are inner pressures that give spatial or
volumetric expression, and there are outside pressures such as the context
of the region, the terrain, vegetation, climate, and orientation in terms of
heat gain and light direction. Budget is a big factor along with the
availability of various technologies. And to the list must be added the
clients' needs and what they feel the building ought to express . . .
The architectural mind synthesizes all of these ingredients into a building
concept. That is why the background of the synthesizer is so important. The
architect's ethnic, educational, and genetic background always enter into
the organic synthesis.
Once you are totally aware of all the factors, it's as if you can draw a
line between the pressures that come from inside and those that come from
the outside. Suddenly a line forms that is doing something very interesting.
It is the outline of the building form.
So that is how my organic architecture grows. Even our own physical and
psychological development is based on organic growth principles. I believe
that we are going from the past, through the present, into the future. We
learn, develop, adapt, and create as we progress through life. Although
there are many different definitions of organic, for me, the process is
organic . . .
I discovered quite late in life that the creative act is not a conscious
one. Our conscious and subconscious minds only make contact with each other
at short intervals . . .
In the early stages of their careers, architects work analytically,
including a lot of known good ingredients in a building. If you put in
enough good ingredients, you end up with a good building. But at a certain
point, analysis gives way to intuition. The creative leap becomes more
frequent with maturity because you have collected a base of information to
draw upon . . .
>>
Rgds,
Lauchlan Mackinnon
************************
Hello everyone,
Design philosophy and design thinking are not the same thing and "lumping
them together " only complicates the discussion.The concept you describe,
Laughlan, is very specific and does not capture other ways that designers
explore the design process and how they design. Design thinking is not
necessarily limited to object-oriented goals, nor are the steps necessarily
as you describe, in particular when you say "customer". In the design work I
do, for example, I do not have a "customer" in the sense that you mean, nor
do I do "product development" or production (unless I am designing a
product).
One of the problems of describing design thinking is how you decide to
represent it in the first place. Design thinking is subjective and I
consider it more as a "design process" because it captures both objective
and subjective acts. The issue with "design process" is that in trying to
"show it" explicitly as a series of steps ( or asking for a perscriptive way
to "do it") we can never quite grasp how designers think, what they do and
and how they do it. We can certainly try and I do believe that visual
representations are more "holistic" than words ( Fuller' s concept; Chris'
sketches and posts); the problem is that these can then become "models". It
is the process of discovery that one cannot capture easily.
I wholeheartedly support Ken's last two posts....I like Buckminster Fuller's
concept because it suggests that the design process incorporates both
conceptual and experimental processes and goes beyond analysis and synthesis
alone ( this analysis - synthesis model is the one privileged in interior
architectural programs, where I teach; see Poldma, 1999). In my field of
design and architecture, when conceiving interior space the process I use
incorporates Buckminister Fuller's steps, but is situated within different
contexts, analytic and conceptual tools and visual representation modes.
I support a design process idea that considers the design process as a
complex mulit-layered series of analytic, conceptual, decisive and
action-oriented processes that are not limited to linear nor iterative
concepts. For me the design process has a certain approach and logic, such
as Ken's concept or "search and research" ( but not in the linear way that
it is often represented) but also has several places where a designer
ventures from the "known" ( analysis, research, comprehension) to the
"unknown", ideas I developed in my masters and doctoral work and which I
explored at EAD 2005 in Bremen ( conceptual, intuitive, messy ideas).The
process and thinking are tied into the designer's acts.
(I have referenced these thoughts from my own work and Ken's last two
posts.....)
This also brings up the idea that the design process is situated in inquiry,
which I consider fundamental to the process and which Ken clarifies well in
his article "Design Science and Design Education" (Friedman, 1997).
Best regards,
Tiiu
References
Buchanan, R. (2000) Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. In Margolin, V &
Buchanan, R. (Eds.) The Idea of Design. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT
Press.
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.
Jonas, W. & Meyer-Veden, J. (2004). Mind the gap! On knowing and not-knowing
in design. Bremen: Hauschild Verlag.
Poldma, T.(2005). Integrating Theory and Practice in an Interdisciplinary
Design Studio Class Through the Exploration of Phenomenological Lived
Experience, EAD06 : European Academy of Art and Design Conference, Bremen,
Germany.
Vaikla-Poldma, T. (1999). Gender, Design and Education: The Politics of
Voice. Unpublished Masters' Thesis. Montreal: McGill University.
Vaikla-Poldma, T. (2003). An Investigation of Learning and Teaching
practices in an Interior Design Class: An Interpretive and Contextual
Inquiry. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Montreal: McGill University.
Tiiu Poldma, Ph.D.
Associate professor, School of Industrial Design
Director, GRID - Research Group on Illumination and Design
Form-Colour-Light LAB/Studio LAB+lumiere
Regular researcher, CRIR
(Center for Interdisciplinary Research of Rehabilitation for Montreal)
Vice Dean of Graduate Studies and Research
Faculty of Environmental Design
University of Montreal
C.P. 6128 succursale Centre-ville
Montréal QC Canada H3C 3J7
[log in to unmask]
(514) 343 - 6111, ext. 5077
> -----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 Dr.
> Lauchlan A. K. Mackinnon
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 March 2007 4:59 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Design philosophy / design thinking
>
> Hi all,
>
> can anyone sum up for me what is generally accepted to be the core of
> design
> philosophy / design thinking?
>
> I take the core of design thinking to be (in 4 dot points)
>
> 1. engage with a customer or context to understand and define the design
> problem
> 2. approach the problem from a variety of angles, get lots of inputs,
> think
> creatively (brainstorm etc) about the design issue
> 3. put the ideas in front of the customer and test them iteratively to
> improve / test the idea before going to production
> 4. finalise the design and move into other product development stages such
> as production
>
> So for me design thinking is fundamentally customer-centric and iterative.
>
> I'd be interested to get some feedback on this take on it and see if I've
> missed out anything important.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Lauchlan Mackinnon
|