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