Dear Klaus, Terry , Richard and all,



When the production of "Gone with the Wind" ended, David O. Selznik created 
the title of “Production Designer” for William Cameron Menzies. As you 
probably know, GWTW had four different directors and Selznick credited 
Menzies for his previous work in collaboration with the art director  Lyle 
Wheeler that assured the consistency of the film. Menzies' work was 
constituted by 1500 sketch water colours that "tamed" the following 
directors towards the final master's piece despite of all wicked situations 
in between.

I've been following this thread very scarcely, so please apologise some 
distraction in this comment.

While designing most of the problems are both wicked and tamed (which 
probably means that all are wicked) but it is useful to analytically 
distinguish one from the other.

I think that the difference from your approach and Terry’s is that you are 
classifying problems and Terry is qualifying definitions of problems. Trying 
to put this more clear: You are (further) developing a description of a type 
of problems from the point of view of a design philosopher and Terry is 
assessing problems as tools for design actions.

So, Why Menzies?

Because he was the first to be called “Production Designer”, not in the 
sense that he planned how much should the production pay to Vivian Leigh or 
which company should be the caterers but because he used watercolours to 
anticipate a product to come!

Like Klaus, I would like to see more about what is there in common between 
the disciplines that use design in their title. So, here is my contribution: 
A Production Designer is, sometimes, also called Art Director.

Cheers,



Eduardo


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Klaus Krippendorff" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: History - design research and the minor role of the wicked idea


thanks,
richard,
for your note online.  it is telling about our discussion group that i had
numerous offline responses expressing the same sentiment.
klaus

p.s., i got the book on possibility you recommended from the library.  it
seems a bit long winding.  i  now have to find the time to go through it.

-----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 Richard
Buchanan
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: History - design research and the minor role of the wicked idea

Klaus,

I don't know how you find the patience to deal with this kind of thing, but
I am glad that you spoke up. Someone has to do this from time to time or
else the point of this list will be totally lost. Shooting from the hip
belongs on Bruce Nussbaum's blog.

I, too, was annoyed by the continued poor argumentation. This is more than a
testing of ideas. It was yet another example of sly advocacy rather than
significant engagement. It distracts attention from the interesting and
serious posts made by others.

Perhaps you would agree that when someone feels as strongly as this person
seems to, he ought to be prepared to commit himself or herself in print for
review in the editorial process of a journal and for the historical record.
Where is the paper that tries to argue this view? Bloging like this is a
poor substitute for a serious paper.

Again, Klaus, thanks.

Richard

Richard Buchanan
Carnegie Mellon University


On 4/26/07 3:53 AM, "Klaus Krippendorff" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> terry,
>
> grumpy i am far from it, but i admit that i get annoyed when i see
> people dismissing the ideas of others by peddling in empty
> generalities.  you post was full of them.
>
> i didn't ask you to google "wicked problems" to evaluate the quality
> of various literatures using the term, but to become a little more
> humble and perhaps question your claim that rittel's contribution is
> overrated and outdated by better conceptions.  if someone is the
> origin of a term that now googles over two million hits, he couldn't
> have been that insignificant.  i am sure sigmund freud's creations
> yield far more hits than rittel's, who actually published very little.
> i invite you to take a word or phrase that you have contributed to the
literature and see how many hits you get for it.
>
> i wouldn't question you on the fact that many users of the term have
> not read rittel's definition much less other watered down versions,
> but this is not the point because in your post you do not exhibit
> specific knowledge of the concept nor do you intelligently interrogate
> its details.  you assert that a concept that has varied uses and takes
> too much effort to explain is somewhat worthless.  I'd say you had a
> chance to clarify your understanding but you didn't
>
> i tried to look into the reviews for which you provided links, could
> find your dissertation but the others could not be found.  your
> dissertation is primarily engineering oriented, stated already in its
> title, which is consistent with the contributions you typically make
> to this list.  you reduce the social factors you include in your
> discussion to objective, i.e., observer-independent engineering terms,
> not truly expanding design into the social dimensions.
>
> in your dissertation, you mention rittel quite a number of times but
> when it comes to wicked problems you associate wickedness with
> novelty/non-routine, ill-defined, ill-structured, lack of systematic
methods, and with intuition.
> associations explain little, but your use of the term ill-defined not
> well-defined reveal a concept that deviates from rittel from the start.
> rittel recognized that wicked problems are of a kind very different
> from tame problems.  you, however see wicked problems as deviant from
> the desirable form.  it is therefore understandable that you have
> difficulties with handling wicked problems as legitimate forms.  you
> apparently are considering tame problems as the legitimate kinds and
> wicked problem worth solving only if one can tame them.  your
> conceptual framework is apparently trapped in one preferred
> conception, unable to consider deviant kinds as legitimate design issues.
>
> to make my point even clearer, at one place you even assert that you
> consider wicked problems not appropriate for design. in effect, you
> define design so as not to have to deal with wicked problems.
> personally this would seriously impoverish design.  i would not accept
> such limitations
>
> klaus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----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 Terence Love
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:15 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: History - design research and the minor role of the
> wicked idea
>
> Dear Klaus,
>
> Thanks for your message. It made me think. You sound grumpy.
>
> I¹ve read Rittel¹s work and I think I understand it. It has
> significance alongside other similar concepts of that era but the ay
> it seems in the current writing much of its current use seems to be
> driven by populist opinion rather than research utility. Contrast for
> example 'morphological analysis' and 'solution set analysis' both of
> which predate Rittel's wickedness and which offer practical approaches
> to addressing similar difficult design issues.
>
> You asked me to Google 'wicked problem'. In any practical research
> domain there are typically three very distinct discourses. The first
> is the research discourse. This discourse aims at precision and
> focuses on reducing ambiguity (by carefully defining terms and
> concepts), careful reasoning, avoiding fallacies and sophism and making
reasoning transparent.
> The second discourse is  the consultant¹s or practitioner¹s
> (designer¹s) form of discourse that hopes to aspire to the aims of the
> research discourse whilst focusing on using terms and concepts that
> are common to all constituencies that are involved. Naturally, this
> discourse is typically epistemologically  compromised. The third form
> of discourse is the loose everyday talk in which precision of meaning
> is not expected beyond what is necessary to have an appropriately
> amiable social chat. I¹ve discussed this discourse issue and its
> implications for design research in more detail in Love, T. (2005).
> The Practical Implications of the Essentially Two-faced Nature of
> Design. In E. Corte-Real, C. A. M. Duarte & F. Carvalho Rodrigues
> (Eds.), Pride & Predesign The Cultural Heritage and the Science of
> Design
> 2005 (pp. 251-254). Lisbon: IADE/UNIDCOM A preprint is available at
> http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/2005/Two%20faces%20of%20
> discou
> rses%20of%20design.htm
>
> Your suggestion for me to Google ³wicked problem² to justify your
> position reveals that most of the items about 'wicked problems' are in
> the second and third forms of discourse. Similar findings emerge from
> Googling say ³quantum² or ³pornography². In the case of 'quantum' a
> small number of items are from physicists using the term quantum as
carefully defined in research.
> The remainder are in the other forms of discourse .
>
> A second and perhaps more visible concern is  - if the potential
> conceptual clarification and precision offered by Œwicked¹ and Œtame¹
> was so clear then it wouldn¹t need so much explanation. Some of the
> Google items on Œwicked problems¹ and some of the discussion on this
> list read like politicians trying to explain and justify a politically
> convenient soundbite. I¹m reminded of Clinton explaining his
> interpretation of ³I did not have sex with that woman" and Blair¹s
explanation of why Britain went to war in Iraq!
>
> If the concepts of 'wicked' and 'tame' were that useful and accurate
> and capable of clearly distinguishing one thing from another, they
> would be easier to explain. Contrast for example the concept of
> ³indeterminate problem² ­ a problem that has more degrees of freedom
> in its solution than the number of degrees of freedom constrained by
> the knowledge of the designer(s). That reminds me, Ranulph Glanville
> recently sent me a pointer to a great cybernetics paper which I can¹t
> put my hand to at this time of night.
>
> You asked me to provide more analysis, more justification and a full
> description of the concepts around in the early days of design
> research. I had thought that background reading of the origins of
> design research was the sort of thing that would be expected of
> everyone researching at doctoral level in design research. It would be in
many other disciplines.
> Its a tall order to knock off in an evening but ok. In this case, I¹ll
> provide a review from the point of view of engineering design
> research. In the early stages of the design research field this aligns
> fairly well because much of design research at that time was shaped by
> engineering design.
>
>
> I¹ve done a review of the literature from the 60s until recently and
> that can be found at
> http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/Pre2000/1998%20SEED
> <http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/Pre2000/1998%20SEED&DT_
> WP_App
> e> &DT_WP_Appe
> ndix%201.htm
>
> An annotated bibliography I wrote of the way the concept of Œdesign¹
> was coined in the literature during that time can be found at
> http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/Pre2000/1998%20SEED
> <http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/Pre2000/1998%20SEED&DT_
> WP_App
> e> &DT_WP_Appe
> ndix%202.htm
>
> There is an analysis (my PhD) of the underlying epistemological
> foundations of different design research and theory positions and
> concepts relating to social, environmental, ethical and technical
> aspects of design and the development of epistemologically coherent design
theory (Love, T. (1998).
> Social, environmental and ethical factors in engineering design
> theory: a post positivist approach. Unpublished PhD thesis, University
> of Western Australia, Perth.) It can be found at
> http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/Pre2000/PhD_TL.doc
>
> Anything else?
>
> All the best,
>
> Terry
>
> PS That reference to Rittel (Rittel, H. W. J. (1971). Some Principles
> for the Design of an Educational System For Design. Design Methods
> Group Newsletter, 4(4).) is one that often doesn't get a mention. It
> shows much of Rittel's work (as you would expect) was dependent on the
> already well established systems field. Perhaps the better advice
> would be for design researchers to read about systems thinking rather than
Rittel?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Klaus Krippendorff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 April 2007 3:39 PM
> To: 'Terence Love'; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: History - design research and the minor role of the
> wicked idea
>
> terry,
>
> i read your dismissal of rittel's distinction between tame and wicked
> problems as overblown in its significance.  i like to invite you to
> read his criteria for deciding which is which and the reasons for why
> this distinction is helpful methodologically. rittel did not write
> much, but he had a major impact on the literature (google wicket
> problems).  he deserves a fair interrogation of what he said.
>
> you are playing a version of the well known but cheap game of saying
> that someone else's idea is older than mine or has been overshadowed
> by more recent developments that i know of but wouldn't tell you; or
> that it derived from an area that is no longer of interest, without
> saying what it is that has outdated interest in the concept.
>
> i am genuinely opposed to defining design so narrowly that only one or
> a few preferred paradigms become admissible, like problem solving,
> which is only one way of designing.  any generalization should embrace
> a diversity of practices, it should build upon or add to past
> distinction, not reduce them to insignificance.  this is how theories
> in the sciences grow: embracing more and finer distinctions, not
> imposing increasingly narrow conception, here about design.
>
> you are making references to many design theorists of rittel's time
> and of more before and after him.  you gave only one pair of names,
> the editors of the 1963 design research conference, jones & thornley.
> i invite you to put some substance to your generalizations.  by that i
> do not mean giving us a list of references to literature or the list
> of the many names of design theorists you claim to have made contributions
to understanding design.
> please tell us what these theorists actually did, how they defined the
> empirical domain of their theory, and what the theory actually
> suggested, predicted or explained.  you owe us the details that your
> generalizations left uncomfortably empty.
>
> you speak of the rich literature in many design disciplines.  i know
> of your admirable effort to catalogue such design disciplines.  it
> would be interesting to go beyond this list and hear what they have in
> common (other than the name design), what methods they follow, what we
> can learn from this supposedly rich literature.  since i am not
> acquainted with the literature of these many design disciplines, it
> does not exist for me unless you prove otherwise.  this is what good
scholars do.
>
> in much of our discussions, you have been notably uncomfortable with
> the concept of wicked problems and disagreed with the notion of
stakeholders.
> your discomfort or perhaps lack of understanding is no justification
> to consider the concept of Œwicked¹ problems a "furphy" (not in my
> dictionary), a Œsound bite¹ for design educators or design proponents
> bidding for funding.  your claim that there are better concepts needs
> to be demonstrated, not merely declared.
>
> let me add that yes, every author writes in his or her time and
> cultural milieu.  also, no author can be an expert on everything.
> this applies to rittel as well.  he never claimed to be a design
> theorist.  he just conceptualized what he was confronted with and left
> us with much to talk about and digest.  to me this is enough not to
dismiss his ideas.
>
> klaus
>
>
> -----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 Terence Love
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:08 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: History - design research and the minor role of the wicked
> idea
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I think it is helpful to remember that there are many other concepts
> that predate and in many ways more powerful than Rittel¹s idea of
Œwickedness¹.
> Historically, Rittel's 'wicked' problem idea has a minor role in the
> overall development of concepts in design theory that has become
> conceptually overblown.
>
>
>
> Rittel¹s idea of a Œwicked¹ problem is historically located in the
> development of the fields of town planning, urban planning and urban
design.
> Somehow, people seem to have forgotten that its primary reason for
> existence was in education development in these areas (see, Rittel, 1971).
>
>
>
> In the late 60s and early 70s, theory was relatively undeveloped in
> urban planning fields in spite of their long history as a practical
> discipline. In many ways, theory of planning at that point was
> primarily defined by three geometric topoi: tessellation (laying out
> of shapes/tiles), reticulation and graph theory (connecting shapes
> with each other/ passing things down a channel), and the four and five
> colour pencil constraint (to cover a 2D surface without ever having
> two similar regions together you need 4 different types of
> entities/colours. Until relatively recently, it was believed that you
> needed five colours). Allocation of land uses and the documentation of
decisions were strongly shaped by these.
>
>
>
> As a result, urban planning theory was in character rather more
> functionalist in theory terms than many other design disciplines at
> that time.
>
>
>
> In parallel, during the 60s and early 70s was the development of the
> foundations of what is now Œthe design research movement¹. Many credit
> a key point in its origins the 1963 conference organised by Jones &
> Thornley (Jones & Thornley, 1963) and the work of the contemporaneous
> Design Methods Group in the US. In general, the primary hope and
> direction of design research at this time was to identify a universal
> design process to automate the identification of the Œbest¹ design
> outcomes. Many of these approaches in the fledgling Œdesign research
> society¹ focused on developing design methods to systematically
> automate design. To some extent, Rittel¹s early Œwicked¹ thinking
triangulates into this discourse.
>
>
>
> In many design disciplines, however, there were already rich
> well-established literatures about design activity that predated the
> efforts of these new 60s mini groups of theorists on design research
> by decades or in some cases hundreds of years.
>
>
>
> The new groups that would become the design research society and the
> design methods movement were tiny and their research relatively naïve
> and insignificant relative to these established discourses. What the
> new design research groups offered, however, was a new and tight focus
> on the specifics of the design process itself ­ in particular, the
> development of new methods for designers to use. (This is reflected in
> the fact that design research was known as Œdesign methods¹ or Œdesign
> meth